1: % file skewg.tex
2: % last revised Jan 17, 2003 by Ue-Li Pen
3: % written Jan. 2003
4: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5: \begin{document}
6: \newcommand{\calu}{{\cal U}}
7: \newcommand{\calq}{{\cal Q}}
8: \newcommand{\bx}{{\rm \bf x}}
9: \newcommand{\bk}{{\bar{\kappa}}}
10: \title{Optimal Weak Lensing Skewness Measurements}
11: \author{Tong-Jie Zhang}
12: \affil{Department of Astronomy, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875,
13: P.R.China;
14: tjzhang@bnu.edu.cn; and
15: Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Toronto,M5S
16: 3H8,Canada;
17: tzhang@cita.utoronto.ca}
18: \author{Ue-Li Pen}
19: \affil{Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of
20: Toronto, M5S 3H8, Canada; pen@cita.utoronto.ca}
21: \author{Pengjie Zhang}
22: \affil{NASA/Fermilab Astrophysics Group,
23: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
24: Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510-0500; zhangpj@fnal.gov }
25: \author{John Dubinski}
26: \affil{Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of
27: Toronto, M5S 3H8, Canada, dubinski@cita.utoronto.ca}
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30:
31: Weak lensing measurements are starting to provide
32: statistical maps of the distribution of matter in the universe
33: that are increasingly precise and complementary to cosmic microwave
34: background maps.
35: %Weak lensing measurements are entering a precision era to
36: %statistically map the distribution of matter in the universe.
37: The most common measurement is the correlation in alignments of
38: background galaxies which can be used to infer the variance
39: of the projected surface density of matter. This measurement of
40: the fluctuations is insensitive to the total mass content and is
41: analogous to using waves on the ocean to measure its depths.
42: However, when the depth is shallow as happens near a beach waves
43: become skewed. Similarly, a measurement of skewness in the projected matter
44: distribution directly measures the total matter content of the universe.
45: While skewness has
46: already been convincingly detected, its constraint on cosmology is
47: still weak. We address optimal analyses for the CFHT Legacy Survey in
48: the presence of noise. We show that a compensated Gaussian filter
49: with a width of 2.5 arc minutes optimizes the cosmological
50: constraint, yielding $\Delta \Omega_m/\Omega_m\sim 10\%$. This is
51: significantly better than other filters which have been considered in
52: the literature. This can be further improved with tomography and other
53: sophisticated analyses.
54:
55: \end{abstract}
56:
57: \keywords{Cosmology-theory-simulation-observation: gravitational
58: lensing, dark matter, large scale structure, window function}
59:
60: \section{Introduction}
61:
62: Mapping the mass distribution of matter in the Universe has
63: been a major challenge and focus of modern observational
64: cosmology. The only direct procedure to weigh the matter
65: in the universe is by using the deflection of light by gravity.
66: While this effect is very small, a large statistical sample can provide a
67: precise measurement of averaged quantities.
68:
69: There are very few direct ways to weigh the universe. The most
70: accurate measurement by combining CMB data with large scale
71: structure \citep{2003astro.ph..2209S,2003astro.ph..2435C} results
72: in $\Omega_m\sim 0.27$ with zero geometric curvature implying
73: a cosmological constant $\Omega_\Lambda \sim 0.73$. This
74: type of inference requires combining data measured at
75: different times and on different length scales.
76: \citet{2003astro.ph..4237B} have shown that the same data can be
77: consistent with $\Omega_m=1$ if one gives up perfect scale
78: invariance for the primordial perturbations and allows for a
79: neutrino mass of 1eV. The physical constraint arises since
80: the CMB measures the fluctuations on large scales $L\sim $Gpc at
81: high redshift $z \sim 1100$. The large-scale structure measures
82: scales of $L\sim 1-100$ Mpc and a low redshift of $z\sim 0$. The
83: scales only have a small overlap \citep{2002PhRvD..66j3508T}. If
84: one requires perfect scale invariance of the fluctuations, one is
85: forced into a low matter density with a cosmological constant. It
86: is perhaps an aesthetic choice to trade scale invariance in time
87: to scale invariance in space.
88:
89: Weak gravitational lensing provides a direct statistical
90: measure of the dark matter distribution regardless of the nature and
91: dynamics of both the dark and luminous matter intervening between the
92: distant sources and observer. Weak lensing by
93: large-scale structure can lead to the shear and magnification of the
94: images of distant faint galaxies. Based on the theoretical work done
95: by \cite{1967ApJ...147...61G}, \cite{1991MNRAS.251..600B},
96: \cite{1991ApJ...380....1M} and \cite{1992ApJ...388..272K} performed
97: the first calculation of weak lensing by large-scale structure, the
98: result of which showed the expected distortion amplitude of weak
99: lensing effect is at a level of roughly a few percent in adiabatic
100: cold dark matter models. \cite{1992ApJ...388..272K} also made early
101: predictions for the power spectrum of the shear and convergence using
102: linear perturbation theory. Due to the weakness of the effect, all
103: detections have been statistical in nature, primarily in regimes where
104: the signal-to-noise is less than unity. Fortunately, several groups
105: have been able to measure this weak gravitational lensing effect
106: \citep{2000MNRAS.318..625B,2002ApJ...572L.131R,2002ApJ...572...55H,
107: 2002A&A...393..369V,2002astro.ph.10604J,2002astro.ph.10213B,
108: 2002astro.ph.10450H}recently.
109:
110: In the standard model of cosmology, fluctuations start off small,
111: symmetric and Gaussian. Even in some non-Gaussian models like
112: topological defects, initial fluctuations are still symmetric:
113: positive and negative fluctuations occur with equal probability
114: \citep{1994PhRvD..49..692P}. As fluctuations grow by gravitational
115: instability, this symmetry can no longer be maintained - over densities
116: can be arbitrarily large, while under dense regions can never have
117: less than zero mass. This leads to a skewness in the distribution of
118: matter fluctuations. While skewness has already been measured at very
119: high statistical significance \citep{2003astro.ph..2031P}, the
120: measurement has not resulted in a strong constraint on the total
121: matter density $\Omega_m$. The data has so far been limited by sample
122: variance and analysis techniques. Currently ongoing surveys, such as
123: the Canada-France-Hawaii-Telescope(hereafter CFHT) Legacy Survey,
124: will provide more
125: than an order of magnitude improvement in the statistics. In this
126: paper, we address the optimal analysis of the new data sets and
127: examine the likely plausible accuracies on the direct measurements of
128: matter density that they can achieve. The calculations rely only on
129: sub-horizon Newtonian physics.
130:
131: Several studies have addressed the feasibility of the skewness
132: measurements \citep{2000ApJ...530..547J,2000ApJ...537....1W}. These
133: pioneering contributions provided the first estimates of the
134: expected strengths of the skewness $S_3$. A real measurement is
135: limited by the sample variance in $S_3$ and noise properties.
136: Furthermore, the density field is always smoothed by some filters.
137: Since gravitational lensing can only measure differences in mass,
138: all such filters must have zero area. In this paper we study a
139: range of filters that have been suggested in the literature. Our
140: goal is to find the optimal scale for each filter, i.e. the scale
141: that maximizes the dependence on $\Omega_m$. We study the
142: filters that have been mainly employed in the literature: top-hat,
143: Gaussian, Wiener, aperture and compensated Gaussian. Only the last
144: three have zero area, and can be applied to real data. For
145: completeness, we also compare the first two filters, on which much
146: of the literature is based.
147:
148: In second order perturbation theory, one finds that the skewness
149: scales as the square of the variance and inversely to density. In
150: terms of the dimensionless surface density $\kappa$, one can
151: express the square of the variance and the skewness as
152: respectively $\langle \bk^2\rangle^{1/2} \propto
153: \sigma_8\Omega_m^{-0.75}$ and $S_3 \equiv \frac{\langle
154: \bk^3\rangle}{\langle \bk^2\rangle^2} \propto \Omega_m^{-0.8}$.
155: Therefore, one can break the degeneracy between $\sigma_8$ and
156: $\Omega_m$ if only both the variance and the skewness of the
157: convergence are measured. The skewness of the convergence field
158: has been studied in perturbation theory
159: \citep{1997A&A...322....1B,1999ApJ...519L...9H} and initial detections have
160: been reported \citep{2002A&A...389L..28B}. \cite{2000ApJ...530..547J}
161: investigate weak lensing by large-scale structure using ray
162: tracing in N-body simulations. By smoothing the convergence field using a
163: top-hat window function, they compute $S_3$ under two conditions -
164: one with noise and one without noise added in the convergence fields
165: by the third moment for all varieties of cosmological models.
166: Moments are linear in the PDF: one can combine the moments of different
167: maps, which gives the same answer as combining maps first. Non-linear
168: methods have also been proposed.
169: One can
170: measure $S_3$ is using the conditional
171: second moment of the $\kappa$ field, specifically, the second moment of
172: positive $\kappa$ and negative $\kappa$, which is related to $S_3$ in
173: perturbation theory
174: \citep{1993ApJ...405..437N,1995ApJ...442...39J}.
175:
176: %This quadratic statistics is
177: %more robust than higher order statistics. \citet{2000ApJ...530..547J} compared
178: %the $S_3$ obtained by these two methods.
179: %(JJD: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS SENTENCE).
180: %Both the third moment and all other
181: %three cases reveal the clear signature of a non-Gaussian signal
182: %even in the presence of noise. ({\bf ZPJ: I do not understand this sentence. Do
183: %you mean the two methods (third moment method and conditional second moment
184: %method?})
185:
186: %The third moment is most sensitive has the advantage that it
187: %is unbiased even in the presence of noise even though
188: %noise introduce significant scatter and statistic bias.
189:
190: %{\bf ZPJ: It seems to
191: %be wrong in gramma. Also, kind of contradictive (unbiased or biased?, or
192: %statistically unbiased but systematically biased?)}
193:
194: Moments are also additive in the presence of noise, such that skewness-free
195: noise (which realistic symmetric noise sources often have) does not bias
196: the measurement of moments.
197:
198: \cite{2000ApJ...537....1W} presented a calculation for
199: the skewness $S_3$ and its standard deviation of weak lensing by
200: large scale-scale structure based on N-body simulations. By
201: smoothing the $\kappa$ field using a top-hat filter, they show
202: that the standard deviation of the skewness after adding simulated
203: shot noise to the $\kappa$ field are only slightly increased by about
204: 16 per cent compared with the case of pure $\kappa$ field.
205:
206: In this paper, we present the first extended comparison of
207: skewness for simulated weak lensing using different kinds of
208: window functions to isolate the filter that is optimal for
209: distinguishing cosmological models. We highlight some candidate
210: window functions that have been used separately in the
211: literature. The outline of the paper is as follows. In \S 2, we
212: introduce the strategy of map construction of weak
213: lensing from simulations. In \S 3, we describe the detail of window functions employed
214: and present the results and summarize our conclusions
215: in Section 4.
216:
217: \section{Simulations and map construction of weak lensing }
218: \subsection{N-body simulation}
219:
220: We ran a series of N-body simulations with different values of
221: $\Omega_m$ to generate convergence maps and make simulated catalogs to
222: calibrate the observational data and estimate errors in the analysis.
223: The power spectra for given parameters were generated using CMBFAST
224: \citep{1996ApJ...469..437S} and these tabulated functions were used to
225: generate initial conditions. The power spectra were normalized to be
226: consistent with the earlier two point analysis from this data set
227: \citep{2002A&A...393..369V}. We ran all of the simulations using a
228: parallel, Particle-mesh N-body code (Dubinski, J., Kim, J., Park, C.
229: 2003) at $1024^3$ mesh resolution using $512^3$
230: particles on an 8 node quad processor Itanium Beowulf cluster at CITA.
231: Output times were determined by the appropriate tiling of the light
232: cone volume with joined co-moving boxes from $z \approx 6$ to $z=0$.
233: We output periodic surface density maps at $2048^2$ resolution along
234: the 3 independent directions of the cube at each output interval.
235: These maps represent the raw output for the run and are used to
236: generate convergence maps in the thin lens and Born approximations by
237: stacking the images with the appropriate weights through the comoving
238: volume contained in the past light cone.
239:
240: All simulations started at an initial redshift $z_i=50$, and ran for
241: 1000 steps in equal expansion factor ratios with box size $L=200
242: h^{-1}$ Mpc comoving. We adopted a Hubble constant $h=0.7$ and a
243: scale invariant $n=1$ initial power spectrum. A flat cosmological
244: model with $\Omega_m + \Lambda = 1$ was used. Four models were run,
245: with $\Omega_m$ of 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 1. The power spectrum
246: normalization $\sigma_8$ was chosen as 1.16, 0.90, 0.82 and 0.57
247: respectively.
248:
249: \subsection{Simulated Convergence Maps}
250: The convergence $\kappa$ is the projection of the matter over-density $\delta$
251: along the line of sight $\theta$ weighted by the lensing
252: geometry and source galaxy distribution. It can be expressed as
253: \begin{equation}
254: \kappa(\theta,\chi_s)=\int_0^{\chi_s} W(\chi) \delta(\chi,r(\chi)\theta))d\chi,
255: \end{equation}
256: where, $\chi$
257: is the comoving distance in unit of $c/H_0$, and $H_0=100\ h
258: \ {\rm km/s/Mpc}$. The weight
259: function $W(\chi)$ is\
260: \begin{equation}
261: W(\chi)=\frac{3}{2}\Omega_{m}g(\chi)(1+z)
262: \end{equation}
263: determined by the source galaxy distribution function
264: $n(z)$ and the lensing geometry.
265: \begin{equation}
266: g(\chi)=r(\chi) \int_{\chi}^{\infty} d\chi' n(\chi')\frac{r(\chi'-\chi)}{r(\chi')}.
267: \label{eqn:gx}
268: \end{equation}
269: $r(\chi)$ is the radial coordinate. $r(\chi)=\sinh(\chi)$ for open,
270: $r(\chi)=\chi$ for flat and $r(\chi)=\sin(\chi)$ for closed geometry of
271: Universe. $n(z)=n(\chi)d\chi/dz$ is normalized such that $\int_0^{\infty} n(z)dz=1$.
272: For the CFHT Legacy Survey, we adopt
273: $n(z)=\frac{\beta}{z_0\Gamma(\frac{1+\alpha}{\beta})}(\frac{z}{z_0})^
274: \alpha\exp(-(\frac{z}{z_0})^\beta)$ with $\alpha=2$ and $\beta=1.2$ and
275: the source redshift parameter $z_0=0.44$, which peaks at $z_p=1.58z_0$, respectively.
276: The mean redshift is $\bar{z}=2.1z_0$ and the median redshift is
277: $z_h=1.9z_0$\citep{2002A&A...393..369V}. The source redshift distribution $n(z)$
278: adopted here is the same as that for VIRMOS.
279:
280: During each simulation we store 2D projections of $\delta$ through
281: the 3D box at every light crossing time through the box along all
282: x, y and z directions. Our 2D surface density sectional maps are
283: stored on $2048^2$ grids. After the simulation, we stack sectional
284: maps separated by a width of the simulation box, randomly choosing
285: the center of each section and randomly rotating and flipping each
286: section. The periodic boundary condition guarantees that there is
287: no discontinuities between any two adjacent boxes. We then add
288: these sections with the weights given by $W(z)$ onto a map of
289: constant angular size, which is generally determined by the
290: maximum projection redshift. To minimize the repetition of the
291: same structures in the projection, we alternatively choose the
292: sectional maps of x, y, z directions during the stacking. Using
293: different random seeds for the alignments and rotations, we make
294: $40$ maps for each cosmological model. Since the galaxy
295: distribution peaks at $z\sim 1$, the peak contribution of lensing
296: comes from $z\sim 0.5$ due to the lensing geometry term. Thus the
297: maximum projection redshift $z\sim 2$ is sufficient for the
298: lensing analysis. So we project the $\Omega_0=1,0.4,0.3$
299: simulations to $z=2$ and obtain $40$ maps each with angular width
300: $\theta_\kappa=4.09, 3.18$ and $3.02$ degrees, respectively. To
301: make sufficiently large maps, for $\Omega_0=0.2$, we project up to
302: $z=1.8$ and obtain maps with angular width $\theta_\kappa=2.86$
303: degrees. One $\kappa$ map created from a cosmological simulation
304: of $\Omega_m=$0.3 is shown in Fig.\ref{fig:kmap03}. The skewness
305: is quite apparent at this resolution of the simulation. Decreasing the
306: cosmological density while maintaining the same variance of
307: convergence $\kappa$ forces structures to be more non-linear, and
308: thus more skewed. Our challenge is to extract this behavior
309: accurately from realistic data.
310:
311: \begin{figure}
312: \plotone{f1.eps}
313: \caption{An initial noise-free $\kappa$ map in the
314: N-body simulation of a $\Omega_m=$0.3 $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with
315: a map width of 3.02 degrees
316: and $2048^2$ pixels, and the scale is in units of $\kappa$.
317: %Only the central 2.86 degrees were used in the analysis.
318: }
319: \label{fig:kmap03}
320: \end{figure}
321:
322: We then simulate the CFHT Legacy Survey by adding noise to these clean maps.
323: %We omit the noise introduced by the point spread function and only model
324: %the Gaussian noise introduced by the intrinsic ellipticity of galaxies.
325: The noise $\kappa$ maps have a pixel-pixel variance
326: $\sigma_N^2=\langle e^2\rangle/2/\langle N_{\rm pixel} \rangle$.
327: Here $\langle e^2\rangle=0.47^2$ is the total noise estimated in
328: the VIRMOS-DESCART survey and here we take it as what would be
329: expected by the CFHT Legacy Survey. It includes the dispersion of
330: the galaxy intrinsic ellipticity, PSF correction noise and photon
331: shot noise. $\langle N_{\rm pixel} \rangle$ is the mean number of
332: galaxies in each pixel. For VIRMOS, the number density of observed
333: galaxies $n_g\simeq 26/{\rm arc min}^2$, then $\langle N_{\rm
334: pixel} \rangle=n_g[(\theta_\kappa/1^{'})/N]^2$, where $N=2048$ is
335: the number of grids by which we store 2D maps and the field of
336: view $\theta_\kappa$ is in units of arc min. The factor of 2
337: arises from the fact that the shear field has two degrees of
338: freedom ($\gamma_1,\gamma_2$), where the definition of $\langle
339: e^2\rangle$ sums over both. We use this as our best guess for the
340: CFHT Legacy Survey noise. The maps we obtained through the method
341: described above are non-periodic after the projection. In order to
342: eliminate edge effects, we crop each smoothed map by a factor of
343: $10\%$ in the margins of each $\kappa$ map for model with
344: $\Omega_m=0.2$. For comparison, the size of maps for other models
345: is the same as that of $\Omega_m=0.2$.
346: %Therefore, all smoothed maps
347: %we used for our analysis hereafter have the same size of $\theta_\kappa=2.3$ degrees to
348: %calibrate the cosmic variance.
349:
350: \section{The optimal filter}
351:
352: Our goal is to find the optimal filter for constraining $\Omega_m$ by
353: the non-Gaussianity of weak lensing. The non-Gaussianity of weak
354: lensing for a clean map is quantified by the skewness $S_3$
355: \begin{equation}
356: \label{eqn:cleans3}
357: S_3(\theta_f)=\frac{\langle \kappa^3 \rangle}{\langle \kappa^2\rangle^2},
358: \end{equation}
359: where $\theta_f$ is the characteristic radius of the filter
360: function.
361: When noise is present, the definition of skewness can be
362: modified to be (\cite{2000ApJ...537....1W})
363: \begin{equation}
364: \label{eqn:dirtys3}
365: S_3(\theta_f)=\frac{\langle \kappa_{\rm S+N}^3 \rangle}
366: {[\langle \kappa_{\rm S+N}^2\rangle^2-\kappa_N^2]^2}.
367: \end{equation}
368: The subscript $S$ indicates a weak lensing signal while $N$ denotes random
369: noise. Since $\langle \kappa_{\rm S+N}^3 \rangle=\langle \kappa_{\rm S}^3
370: \rangle$, $\langle \kappa_{\rm S+N}^2 \rangle-\langle \kappa_{\rm N}^2
371: \rangle=\langle \kappa_{\rm S}^2 \rangle$, thus $S_3$ defined by
372: Eq.\ref{eqn:dirtys3}
373: is statistically equivalent to the one defined by Eq.\ref{eqn:cleans3},
374: and the presence of noise has only residual effects on the dispersion of $S_3$.
375:
376: The skewness $S_3$ is a function of cosmological density
377: parameters $\Omega_m$ and the filter function. The noise
378: introduces a large dispersion in $S_3$ and also smears its
379: intrinsic dependence on cosmological parameters. Filtering on a
380: large scale reduces this noise, but also reduces the intrinsic
381: skewness, and increases sample variance. Our goal is to find the
382: optimal smoothing scale. Different filters also have different
383: scale dependence,. The general form of this filter is hard to
384: find, so we will employ five parametrized classes of filters in
385: this paper. They are the top-hat (hereafter,TH), Gaussian (GS),
386: aperture (AP), compensated Gaussian (CG) and Wiener (WN) filters,
387: respectively. TH is normalized to have a sum unity in the 2D
388: window function map, and GS is defined as $W(\theta)=(1/2\pi
389: \theta_f^2)\exp{(-\frac{\theta^2}{2\theta_f^2})}$ which is
390: normalized by the same as TH. AP is defined as
391: $W(\theta)=\frac{9}{\pi}(\frac{1}{\theta_f})^2[1-(\frac{\theta}{\theta_f})^2]
392: [1/3-(\frac{\theta}{\theta_f})^2]$ and zero for $\theta>\theta_f$,
393: which has zero mean. The CG filter is written as
394: $W(\theta)=\frac{1}{2\pi
395: \theta_f^2}\left(1-\frac{\theta^2}{2\theta_f^2}\right)
396: \exp\left(\frac{-\theta^2}{2 \theta_f^2}+1\right)$, which holds
397: zero area, and is normalized to have a peak amplitude of unity in
398: Fourier space. This has the feature that it will only damp modes,
399: and never amplify. Many analytic integrals for CG can be evaluated
400: analytically \citep{2002ApJ...568...20C}. WN is defined in Fourier
401: space by $W(l)=\frac{C_s(l)}{C_s(l)+C_n}$, where $C_s(l)$ is the
402: angular power spectrum of the signal $\kappa$,
403: while $C_n=\frac{4\pi\sigma_N^2f_{sky}}{N^2}$ is that for noise power,
404: and $f_{sky}=\pi(\frac{\theta_\kappa}{360})^2$
405: is the fractional sky coverage of each map.
406:
407: Given these filters, one can measure $S_3$ and its dispersion
408: $\Delta S_3$, which are all functions of $\Omega_m$. $\Delta S_3$
409: causes the inferred $\Omega_m$ to differ from its true value by a
410: change of $\Delta \Omega_m$. For each class of filter, there
411: exists an optimal filter radius $\theta_f$ to minimize $\Delta
412: \Omega_m$. Comparing the minimum $\Delta \Omega_m$ of each class
413: of filter, one can then find the optimal one.
414:
415: From simulated maps, we first calculate the skewness $S_3$ and its
416: standard deviation $\Delta S_3$ with different filter radius for
417: all kinds of cosmological models. The CFHT Legacy Survey will
418: observe 160 square degrees, which is about 24 times larger than
419: the simulated area. We conservatively decreased the error we
420: obtained in the field-to-field variations by a factor of about 4
421: to estimate the sensitivity for the Legacy Survey. Therefore, the
422: standard deviation of $S_3$ throughout this paper is taken to be
423: one fourth of original predicted value from simulation. The
424: skewness $S_3$ and its standard deviation $\Delta S_3$ of TH, GS,
425: AP and CG window functions are shown in Fig.\ref{fig:s34} and
426: \ref{fig:dts34}, while that of WN filter are plotted in
427: Fig.\ref{fig:dts3wn}. From Fig.\ref{fig:s34} and \ref{fig:dts3wn},
428: it is shown that the expected $S_3$ decrease with the cosmological
429: density parameter $\Omega_m$ for all of filters, which is in
430: consistent with that predicted by perturbation theory at large $\theta_f$
431: \citep{1998A&A...331..829G} and non-linear
432: perturbation theory \citep{1999ApJ...519L...9H,2001MNRAS.322..918V}. A fixed
433: fluctuation amplitude measured by weak lensing is a smaller
434: fractional fluctuation in a higher $\Omega_m$ universe, and thus
435: less non-linear and less non-Gaussian. $S_3$ also decreases with
436: filter scale $\theta_f$, as one would expect from the central
437: limit theorem when smoothing over more independent patches to
438: converge to a Gaussian distribution. Our dependence of $S_3$
439: agrees qualitatively with \citet{2001MNRAS.322..918V}, where
440: the detailed normalization depends on details of the redshift
441: distribution. Estimates of $S_3$ are possible analytically.
442: To optimize its measurement, we also need its standard deviation,
443: which is related to a six point function. This is difficult
444: to compute analytically.
445:
446: The fit for
447: $S_3$ in Fig.\ref{fig:s34} fails badly on not only small scale but
448: large scales of more than 10 arc minutes. This is due to larger
449: standard deviation of $S_3$ as shown in Fig.\ref{fig:dts34} on
450: both of the two scales. It is also apparent from
451: Fig.\ref{fig:dts34} that there exists an optimal filtering scale
452: $\theta_f$ corresponding which minimizes $\Delta S_3$ (except for
453: the WN filter that does not depend on filter radius). This is due
454: to the trade-off between noise on small scales and sample variance
455: on large scales. $S_3$ as a function of filter radius $\theta_f$
456: for the TH filter in Fig.\ref{fig:s34} is in rough agreement with
457: that of \cite{2000ApJ...537....1W} where cosmological model is
458: specified to $\Omega_m=0.3$, but it differs from
459: \cite{2000ApJ...530..547J}. We do not understand the behaviour
460: of the Gaussian window for large $\Omega$ at small angular scale, where
461: a smoothing scale smaller than our resolution seems to be prefered.
462: But we do not dwell on this since the Gaussian window is not observable
463: on a shear map.
464:
465: \begin{figure}
466: \epsscale{1.}
467: \plotone{f2.eps}
468: \caption{Skewness $S_3$ as a function of a smoothing scale $\theta_f$ for all window functions
469: except for Wiener with cosmological models $\Omega_m=0.2$ (black line), $\Omega_m=0.3$
470: (red line), $\Omega_m=0.4$(green line) and $\Omega_m=1$ (blue
471: line) respectively. The standard deviation of $S_3$ is taken to be
472: one fourth of original predicted value from simulation, because
473: the CFHT Legacy Survey will observe 160 square degrees, which is
474: about 24 times larger than the simulated area. The smoother lines
475: correspond to the best fit to $S_3$ for each model. For the
476: purpose of discerning the error bars of different models, the
477: plots of all models except for $\Omega_m=0.2$ are shifted in the
478: direction of right. The simulated convergence $\kappa$ has added
479: random noise.} \label{fig:s34}
480: \end{figure}
481:
482: \begin{figure}
483: \epsscale{1.}
484: \plotone{f3.eps}
485: \caption{$\Delta S_3$ as a function of a smoothing scale $\theta_f$ for all window functions
486: except for Wiener with cosmological models $\Omega_m=0.2$ (solid line), $\Omega_m=0.3$
487: (dashed line), $\Omega_m=0.4$(dash-dotted line) and $\Omega_m=1$ (dotted line) respectively.
488: The smoother lines correspond to the best fit to $\Delta S_3$ for each model.}
489: \label{fig:dts34}
490: \end{figure}
491:
492: \begin{figure}
493: \epsscale{1.}
494: \plotone{f4.eps}
495: \caption{Skewness $S_3$ (left panel) and standard deviation $\Delta S_3$ (right panel)
496: as a function of cosmological parameter $\Omega_m$ for Wiener window function.
497: The dashed lines indicate the best fit to $S_3$ and $\Delta S_3$ respectively.
498: The error bars represent the same significance as Fig.\ref{fig:s34}.
499: The random noise is added to the simulated convergence $\kappa$.}
500: \label{fig:dts3wn}
501: \end{figure}
502:
503: From the above analyses, it is clear that $S_3$ and $\Delta S_3$
504: depend not only on the smoothing scale $\theta_f$ but also the
505: cosmological parameter $\Omega_m$ for all window functions except
506: for the WN filter. In real observations of weak lensing, one must
507: evaluate the uncertainty in $\Omega_m$ for a given observed $S_3$
508: and $\Delta S_3$ to discriminate between cosmological models. One
509: needs to invert the relation $S_3=S_3(\Omega_m,\theta_f)$ to
510: obtain $\Omega_m=\Omega_m(S_3,\theta_f)$ and estimate the
511: uncertainty of inferred $\Omega_m$ by
512: \begin{equation}
513: \label{eqn:deltom}
514: \Delta \Omega_m(S_3(\Omega_m,\theta_f),\theta_f)=
515: \Omega_m(S_3(\Omega_m,\theta_f),\theta_f)-\Omega_m(S_3(\Omega_m,\theta_f)+
516: \Delta S_3(\Omega_m,\theta_f),\theta_f).
517: \end{equation}
518: Because of the irregularity of the data points, the inversion is noisy
519: and may introduce unrealistic artifacts. To overcome this problem, we
520: first fit $S_3$ and $\Delta S_3$ by a combination of power laws of $\Omega_m$
521: and $\theta_f$ in the presence of noise, respectively
522: \begin{equation}
523: \label{eqn:s3omth}
524: S_3(\Omega_m,\theta_f)=A(\Omega_m)\theta_f^{B(\Omega_m)},
525: \end{equation}
526: and
527: \begin{equation}
528: \label{eqn:delts3omth}
529: \Delta S_3(\Omega_m,\theta_f)=A_S(\Omega_m)\theta_f^{B_S(\Omega_m)}+
530: A_N(\Omega_m)\theta_f^{B_N(\Omega_m)},
531: \end{equation}
532: where $A(\Omega_m)=A_1\Omega_m^{B_1}$,
533: $B(\Omega_m)=A_2\Omega_m^{B_2}$,
534: $A_S(\Omega_m)=A_{S1}\Omega_m^{B_{S1}}$,
535: $B_S(\Omega_m)=A_{S2}\Omega_m^{B_{S2}}$,
536: $A_N(\Omega_m)=A_{N1}\Omega_m^{B_{N1}}$ and
537: $B_N(\Omega_m)=A_{N2}\Omega_m^{B_{N2}}$ respectively. The two
538: terms of $\Delta S_3(\Omega_m,\theta_f)$ represent two sources of
539: the dispersion of $S_3$: the intrinsic dispersion of signal and
540: that caused by noise. Noise dominates at small smoothing scale, so
541: we expect that $B_N(\Omega_m)<0$, while we expect
542: $B_S(\Omega_m)>0$ because of the large smoothing behavior of
543: $\Delta S_3$ from signal(Fig.\ref{fig:dts34}). For the Wiener
544: function, we can just parameterize the dependence of skewness
545: $S_3$ and its standard deviation $\Delta S_3$ on $\Omega_m$ as
546: $S_3(\Omega_m)=A_1\Omega_m^{B_1}$ and $\Delta
547: S_3(\Omega_m)=A_2\Omega_m^{B_2}$ respectively, because it is due
548: to its independence of smoothing radius.
549:
550: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrr}
551: \tablecolumns{6}
552: \tablewidth{0pc}
553: \tablecaption{Best Fit to $S_3$ and $\Delta S_3$ by Eq.(\ref{eqn:s3omth}) and
554: Eq.(\ref{eqn:delts3omth})}
555: \tablehead{
556: \colhead{} & \colhead{Top-hat} & \colhead{Gaussian} & \colhead{Aperture} &
557: \colhead{Compensated Gaussian}}
558: \startdata
559: $A_1$ & 62.16$\pm$1.21 & 65.79$\pm$1.11 & 252.74$\pm$4.01 & 90.33$\pm$0.69\\
560: $B_1$ & -0.75$\pm$0.02 & -0.64$\pm$0.01 & -0.94$\pm$0.02 & -0.81$\pm$0.01\\
561: $A_2$ & -0.16$\pm$0.03 & -0.17$\pm$0.02 & -0.24$\pm$0.01 & -0.18$\pm$0.01\\
562: $B_2$ & -0.13$\pm$0.11 & -0.07$\pm$0.09 & -0.42$\pm$0.02 & -0.43$\pm$0.03\\
563: $A_{S1}$ & 3.47$\pm$0.04 & 5.43$\pm$0.08 & 2.20$\pm$0.17 & 1.47$\pm$0.07\\
564: $B_{S1}$ & -0.25$\pm$0.02 & -0.07$\pm$0.03 & -0.79$\pm$0.10 & -0.71$\pm$0.05\\
565: $A_{S2}$ & 0.79$\pm$0.01 & 0.84$\pm$0.01 & 0.73$\pm$0.03 & 0.98$\pm$0.02\\
566: $B_{S2}$ & 0.10$\pm$0.02 & -0.002$\pm$0.02 & -0.06$\pm$0.04 & 0.23$\pm$0.03\\
567: $A_{N1}$ & 12.18$\pm$1.75 & 7.02$\pm$0.86 & 380.75$\pm$108.86 & 8.11$\pm$1.60\\
568: $B_{N1}$ & -0.79$\pm$0.13 & -0.62$\pm$0.12 & -1.05$\pm$0.23 & -0.98$\pm$0.17\\
569: $A_{N2}$ & -0.42$\pm$0.09 & -0.05$\pm$0.05 & -1.90$\pm$0.15 & -0.87$\pm$0.17\\
570: $B_{N2}$ & -0.43$\pm$0.18 & -1.78$\pm$0.45 & -0.14$ \pm$0.07 & -0.35$\pm$0.14\\
571: \label{table:fit}
572: \enddata
573: \end{deluxetable}
574:
575: We fit the relation of $S_3$ and $\Delta S_3$ with a function of
576: $\Omega_m,\theta_f$ by Eqs.(\ref{eqn:s3omth}) and
577: (\ref{eqn:delts3omth}) for all filters except for WN. Their best
578: fit coefficients $A_{S1},B_{S1},A_{S2},B_{S2},A_{N1},B_{N1}$,
579: $A_{N2},B_{N2}$ are listed in Table \ref{table:fit} respectively,
580: the best fit relations of which are also plotted with smoother
581: lines in Fig.\ref{fig:s34} and \ref{fig:dts34}. For the WN filter, the
582: best fit coefficients $A_1=68.03\pm2.37$, $B_1=-0.67\pm0.03$,
583: $A_2=18.17\pm6.13$ and $B_2=-0.35\pm0.26$, and the dashed lines in
584: Fig.\ref{fig:dts3wn} show the best fit to $S_3$ and $\Delta S_3$.
585: In the fit of skewness $S_3$, we weighted using the standard
586: deviation of the skewness. Using these best fit coefficients, we
587: can calculate the $\Delta \Omega_m$ with the function of
588: $\Omega_m$ and $\theta_f$, which are shown in
589: Fig.\ref{fig:deltom4} and \ref{fig:deltom5}. As expected, we find
590: in Fig.\ref{fig:deltom4} that there does exist an optimal
591: smoothing scale for each class of filter (except for the WN filter) that
592: has a minimum error for the inferred $\Omega_m$. This optimal
593: smoothing scale has only a weak dependence on cosmology except for
594: GS filter. The minimum $\Delta \Omega_m$ decreases toward lower
595: $\Omega_m$. Due to the $S_3\propto \Omega_m^{\sim -0.8}$ behavior
596: (Table \ref{table:fit}), at low $\Omega_m$, a small change of
597: $\Omega_m$ results in a large change of $S_3$. But $\Delta S_3$
598: does not have such strong $\Omega_m$ dependence, thus the
599: resulting error in $\Omega_m$ decreases toward lower $\Omega_m$.
600: %, which is also apparent for WN filter in Fig.\ref{fig:deltom5}.
601: In addition, we show in Fig.\ref{fig:deltom5} the relative
602: uncertainty $\Delta \Omega_m/\Omega_m$ as a function of $\Omega_m$
603: smoothed at the optimal filter radius for all of filters
604: respectively. It is shown that the relative uncertainty $\Delta
605: \Omega_m/\Omega_m$ for the Compensated Gaussian filter almost stays
606: constant with $\Omega_m=0.1$, and takes the smallest value
607: in the range from $\Omega_m=0.2$ to 0.6 of interest compared with
608: that of other filters. By comparing the minimum of $\Delta
609: \Omega_m$ for each filter class, we then conclude that the
610: compensated Gaussian filter to be the optimal filter for all
611: cosmologies. The relative uncertainty $\Delta \Omega_m/\Omega_m$
612: at the optimal filter scale for this filter is nearly independent
613: of $\Omega_m$, and the
614: corresponding optimal filter scale is about 2.5 arc minutes.
615:
616: \begin{figure}
617: \epsscale{1.}
618: \plotone{f5.eps}
619: \caption{
620: $\Delta \Omega_m$ as a function of a smoothing scale $\theta_f$ for all except for Wiener
621: window function with cosmological models $\Omega_m=0.2$ (solid line), $\Omega_m=0.3$
622: (dashed line), $\Omega_m=0.4$(dash-dotted line) and
623: $\Omega_m=1$ (dotted line) respectively. The simulated convergence $\kappa$ is
624: added with random noise.}
625: \label{fig:deltom4}
626: \end{figure}
627:
628: \begin{figure}
629: \epsscale{1.}
630: \plotone{f6.eps}
631: \caption{The relative uncertainty $\Delta \Omega_m/\Omega_m$ as
632: a function of $\Omega_m$ smoothed at the optimal filter radius for Top-hat(solid line),
633: Gaussian(dashed line), Aperture(dash-dotted line),
634: Compensated Gaussian(dotted line) and Wiener(dash-tridotted line) filters
635: respectively.}
636: \label{fig:deltom5}
637: \end{figure}
638:
639: \section{Conclusions}
640:
641: We have studied the power of weak lensing surveys to measure the matter density
642: of the universe without relying on any exterior data sets. We found
643: that the CFHT Legacy Survey can measure a fractional accuracy in $\Omega_m$ of
644: 10\%, which is competitive with global joint analyses, but bypasses
645: a large number of cross calibration uncertainties.
646:
647: We ran a series of high resolution N-body simulation to study
648: statistical skewness properties of weak lensing by large-scale
649: structure in the universe with a range of cosmological matter
650: density parameters. We added noise due to intrinsic ellipticity of
651: background faint galaxies to the simulated $\kappa$ fields and
652: smoothed it using different filters with a range of smoothing
653: radii. We calculated the skewness $S_3$ of the smoothed $\kappa$
654: field with added Gaussian noise and predicted the uncertainty
655: $\Delta \Omega_m$ for the cosmological mass density parameter for
656: a given $S_3$ and smoothing radius $\theta_f$. We examined the
657: relative discriminating power of different window functions for
658: distinguishing cosmological models in the upcoming CFHT Legacy
659: Survey. Except for the Wiener filter, we found the optimal
660: smoothing radius for all of four window functions that minimizes
661: $\Delta \Omega_m$. This optimal smoothing scale has only a weak
662: dependence on cosmology. The compensated Gaussian function was
663: the optimal filter for measuring $\Omega_m$ from skewness. The
664: relative uncertainty $\Delta \Omega_m/\Omega_m$ smoothed at the
665: optimal filter radius for Compensated Gaussian filter is about
666: 10\%.
667:
668: To overcome the irregularity of the simulated $S_3$ and $\Delta
669: S_3$, we have fitted their smoothing scale and cosmology
670: dependence with some phenomenological power laws. One could derive
671: these relations analytically using perturbation theory following
672: the theoretical work of \citet{1997A&A...322....1B}. But since
673: skewness is intrinsically non-linear, such a perturbation approach
674: has to be tested against simulations. In fact, in our work based
675: on simulations, the optimal filter radius is a few arc minutes or
676: $\sim 1$ Mpc/h, which lies in strongly non-linear regime, where
677: perturbation theory breaks down \citep{1998A&A...331..829G}. In
678: the non-linear regime, a semi analytical model,
679: hyperextended perturbation theory (hereafter HEPT)
680: \citep{1999ApJ...520...35S}, which applies at the highly non-linear regime, and
681: a fitting formula to interpolate between the quasi-linear and highly non-linear
682: regime \citep{2001MNRAS.325.1312S}, have been applied to predict $S_3$
683: \citep{1999ApJ...519L...9H,2001MNRAS.322..918V}. Since these models reply on
684: simulations for calibration, they by no means can produce better
685: result than simulations. Furthermore, to calculate the lensing
686: $\Delta S_3$ analytically, one has to know the $S_6$ of the
687: density field, which can be predicted by HEPT but has not been
688: tested against simulations \citep{1999ApJ...520...35S}. So we'd
689: rather using our fitting formula approach instead of adopting
690: these analytical results.
691:
692: We thank an anonymous referee for several helpful suggestions on
693: the manuscript. T.J.Zhang would like to thank CITA for its
694: hospitality during his visit. The research was supported in part
695: by NSERC and computational resources of the CFI funded
696: infrastructure. P.J.Zhang thanks the department of astronomy \&
697: astrophysics and CITA of University of Toronto where part of the work was done.
698: P.J.Zhang is supported by the DOE and the NASA grant NAG 5-10842
699: at Fermilab.
700:
701: \bibliography{penbib}
702: \bibliographystyle{apj}
703:
704: \appendix
705:
706: \end{document}
707: