1: % Template article for New Astronomy

2: 

3: \documentclass{elsart}

4: 

5: \usepackage{natbib}

6: \usepackage{graphicx}

7: 

8: \usepackage{amssymb}

9: \usepackage{amsmath}

10: \usepackage{bm}

11: 

12: % definitions for astronomical objects, hyperlinks and ADS bibcodes

13: \def\astrobj#1{#1}

14: \def\url#1{{\ttfamily\def\/{/\discretionary{}{}{}}#1}}

15: \def\bibcode#1{}

16: \def\ellb{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}

17: \def\thetab{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}

18: \begin{document}

19: 

20: \begin{frontmatter}

21: \title{Reducing the shear}

22: \author[address1,address2]{Martin White\thanksref{mwemail}},

23: \address[address1]{Department of Astronomy, University of California,

24: Berkeley, CA, 94720}

25: \address[address2]{Department of Physics, University of California,

26: Berkeley, CA, 94720}

27: \thanks[mwemail]{E-mail: mwhite@berkeley.edu}

28: 

29: \begin{abstract}

30: As gravitational lensing measurements become increasingly precise, it

31: becomes necessary to include ever higher order effects in the theoretical

32: calculations.  Here we show how the difference between the shear and

33: the reduced shear manifest themselves in a number of commonly used measures

34: of shear power.

35: If we are to reap the science rewards of future, high precision measurements

36: of cosmic shear we will need to include this effect in our theoretical

37: predictions.

38: \end{abstract}

39: 

40: \begin{keyword}

41: Cosmology \sep Lensing \sep Large-Scale structures

42: \PACS 98.65.Dx \sep 98.80.Es \sep 98.70.Vc

43: \end{keyword}

44: \end{frontmatter}

45: 

46: \section{Introduction}

47: 

48: Weak gravitational lensing by large-scale structure

49: \citep{LensReview1,LensReview2}

50: is becoming a central means of constraining our cosmological model

51: \citep[see e.g.][for the current status]{HoeYeeGla,WaeMelHoe}.

52: Continuing effort has yielded increasingly stringent control of

53: systematic errors and ever larger surveys are decreasing the

54: statistical errors rapidly.

55: As the precision with which the measurements are made increases,

56: one demands ever higher fidelity in the data-analysis, modeling and

57: theoretical interpretation.

58: 

59: One such area is the computation of the theoretical predictions for

60: various statistics involving the measurable `reduced shear'

61: \citep{LensReview1,LensReview2}

62: \begin{equation}

63:   g \equiv \frac{\gamma}{1-\kappa}\ {\rm for}\ |g|<1

64: \label{eqn:red}

65: \end{equation}

66: where $\gamma$ is the `plain' shear and $\kappa$ is the convergence

67: which is related to the projected mass along the line of sight.

68: Both $\kappa$ and $\gamma$ are defined through the Jacobian of the

69: mapping between the source and image planes.

70: If the lensing is weak then $|\kappa|\ll 1$, and to lowest order

71: $g=\gamma$ and the power spectra of the shear and convergence are

72: equal: $C_\ell^\gamma=C_\ell^\kappa$.

73: Thus measurements are usually compared to predictions of $C_\ell^\kappa$

74: derived from models of the non-linear clustering of matter.

75: This relation has corrections however, which need to be taken into

76: account if precise comparisons with data are to be made in the future.

77: While there has been previous analytic work on this subject

78: \citep{Map,DodZha}

79: and some numerical work on magnification statistics

80: \citep{TakHam,BarTay,MHBY},

81: there has been no comprehensive investigation of this effect in simulations.

82: In this short paper we present some results, derived from simulations

83: similar to those described in \citep{LensGrid}, on the size of the

84: corrections for a variety of commonly used statistics on the angular scales

85: where most current lensing work has focused.

86: 

87: \section{Simulation}

88: 

89: The results are derived from 7 N-body simulations of a $\Lambda$CDM

90: cosmology run with the TreePM code \citep{TreePM}.  Each simulation

91: employed $384^3$ equal mass dark matter particles in a periodic

92: cubical box of side $200\,h^{-1}$Mpc run to $z=0$ with phase space

93: data dumped every $50\,h^{-1}$Mpc starting at $z=4$.  The cosmology

94: was the same for each simulation ($\Omega_{\rm mat}=0.28$,

95: $\Omega_Bh^2=0.024$, $h=0.7$, $n=1$ and $\sigma_8=0.9$) but different

96: random number seeds were used to generate the initial conditions.

97: The purpose of these runs was to allow a study of the statistical

98: distributions of lensing observables.

99: Each box was used to generate 16 approximately independent lensing maps,

100: each $3^\circ\times 3^\circ$, using the multi-plane ray-tracing code

101: described in \citep{ValWhi}.  Each map was produced with $2048^2$ pixels

102: and then downsampled to $1024^2$ pixels\footnote{Tests with maps downsampled

103: to $512^2$ pixels indicate that our results are converged at the several

104: percent level in the ratios that we quote, with better agreement at larger

105: scales as expected.}.

106: Thus a total of 112 maps or $1008$ square degrees were simulated, all with

107: the same cosmology.

108: We report on the results for sources at $z\simeq 1$ (specifically all at

109: a comoving distance of $2400\,h^{-1}$Mpc) here.

110: Other data can be obtained from http://mwhite.berkeley.edu/Lensing.

111: 

112: \section{Results}

113: 

114: \subsection{Two point statistics}

115: 

116: The lowest order information on large-scale structure comes from studying

117: the 2-point statistics of the shear field.  A number of different 2-point

118: statistics have been used in the literature, each with their own strengths

119: and weaknesses.  We survey the most commonly used statistics here.

120: 

121: \begin{figure}

122: \begin{center}

123: \resizebox{5.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{svar.ps}}

124: \end{center}

125: \caption{(Left) The smoothed shear variance, Var$[|g|_R]$, as a function

126: of smoothing scale $R$.

127: (Right) The relative difference of the smoothed shear variance computed

128: for plain shear and reduced shear, as a function of smoothing scale $R$.

129: The points show the mean difference, averaged over 112 maps, each

130: $3^\circ\times 3^\circ$, while the error bars indicate the standard deviation.}

131: \label{fig:svar}

132: \end{figure}

133: 

134: We first show the results on the variance of the shear, smoothed on

135: a range of angular scales.  Though it has numerous drawbacks in

136: interpretation, this was one of the first statistics computed from

137: shear maps due to its ease of computation.  The left panel of

138: Figure \ref{fig:svar} shows the (reduced) shear variance as a function

139: of smoothing scale.  For each point we compute a map of the amplitude of

140: the reduced shear, smooth the map with a 2D boxcar of side length $R$ and

141: then compute the variance of the resulting map.

142: The points are highly correlated.

143: Since we have full information about the shear and convergence from the

144: simulation we are able to compare this with the plain shear results which

145: are usually computed.

146: The right panel of Figure \ref{fig:svar} shows the difference of this

147: statistic computed for the reduced shear ($g$) to that for plain shear

148: ($\gamma$).

149: We see that the reduced shear variance is larger than the usually predicted

150: shear variance by a non-trivial amount.  The bias very gradually drops as we

151: go to larger scales (not shown here) but we are unable to follow it to

152: convergence due to the finite size of the fields simulated.

153: 

154: Naively one might imagine that the corrections would be smaller than shown

155: in Figure \ref{fig:svar} because $\kappa$ is small `on large scales'.

156: However $\kappa$ is only small when averaged over a sizeable region of sky,

157: and this smoothing does not commute with the division in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:red}).

158: This fact also means that perturbative calculations must be used with care,

159: because the convergence or shear amplitude can be quite large on small

160: scales leading to a break down of the approximation.

161: 

162: Though the smoothed shear variance has the worst behavior of the two point

163: functions we consider, we will see qualitatively similar behavior below.

164: In general this tendency for the small-scale power to be increased over the

165: theoretical prediction for plain shear needs to be considered before

166: attributing ``excess small-scale power'' to additional physical effects

167: e.g.~intrinsic galaxy alignments.  A signature of the effect might be the

168: difference in the sensitivity of the various statistics that we compute here.

169: 

170: Another popular measure of the power is the aperture mass \citep{Map}.

171: This is a scalar quantity which can be derived from an integral over the shear

172: \begin{equation}

173:   M_{\rm ap}(\theta_0;R) \equiv

174:   \int d^2\theta\ Q(|\vec{\theta}|;R)\gamma_T(\vec{\theta}+\vec{\theta}_0)

175: \end{equation}

176: where $\gamma_T$ is the tangential shear as measured from $\theta_0$ and

177: $Q$ is a kernel.

178: We have chosen the $\ell=1$ form for definiteness, so

179: \begin{equation}

180:   Q(r=x/R;R) = \frac{6}{\pi R^2}\ r^2(1-r^2)\ {\rm for}\ r\le 1

181: \end{equation}

182: and $Q$ vanishes for $r>1$.

183: The results for the aperture mass variance are shown in

184: Figure \ref{fig:mapvar}.  Note that the correction is quite large on

185: small scales, but drops rapidly on scales above a few arcminutes.

186: 

187: \begin{figure}

188: \begin{center}

189: \resizebox{5.0in}{!}{\includegraphics{M_ap_reduced.ps}}

190: \end{center}

191: \caption{The relative difference of the $M_{\rm ap}$ variance computed for

192: plain shear and reduced shear.  The points show the mean difference, averaged

193: over 112 maps, each $3^\circ\times 3^\circ$, while the error bars indicate

194: the standard deviation of the ratio.}

195: \label{fig:mapvar}

196: \end{figure}

197: 

198: \begin{figure}

199: \begin{center}

200: \resizebox{5.0in}{!}{\includegraphics{xi_reduced.ps}}

201: \end{center}

202: \caption{The relative difference of $\xi(r)$ computed for plain shear and

203: reduced shear.  The points show the mean difference, averaged over 112 maps,

204: each $3^\circ\times 3^\circ$, while the error bars indicate the standard

205: deviation of the difference.  The effect on

206: $\langle\gamma_\times\gamma_\times\rangle$ is smaller and is omitted.}

207: \label{fig:xip}

208: \end{figure}

209: 

210: Finally we show results for the 2-point correlation function of the shear

211: in Figure \ref{fig:xip}.  This is the best behaved 2-point statistic that

212: we consider, since it explicitly eliminates the contribution from small

213: angular scales\footnote{For this reason the 2-point correlation function is

214: less sensitive to small-scale observational systematics than other

215: quantities such as Var$[M_{\rm ap}]$.}.

216: We define $\xi=\langle\gamma_+\gamma_+\rangle$ where $\gamma_+$ is (minus)

217: the component $\gamma_1$ of the shear in the rotated frame whose

218: $\hat{x}$-axis is the separation vector between the two points being

219: correlated.  The component at $45^\circ$ is called $\gamma_\times$.

220: We find that the correction to the correlation function is quite small on

221: the scales shown here.  The correction to the other correlation function,

222: $\langle\gamma_\times\gamma_\times\rangle$, is even smaller than for $\xi$.

223: 

224: \begin{figure}

225: \begin{center}

226: \resizebox{5.0in}{!}{\includegraphics{equ_reduced.ps}}

227: \end{center}

228: \caption{The relative difference of the 3-point correlation function,

229: $\zeta_{+++}$, for equilateral triangle configurations computed for plain

230: shear and reduced shear.  The points show the mean difference, averaged

231: over 32 maps, each $3^\circ\times 3^\circ$, while the error bars indicate

232: the standard deviation.}

233: \label{fig:equ}

234: \end{figure}

235: 

236: It is not too surprising that $\xi$ receives smaller corrections than

237: Var$[M_{\rm ap}]$ when we recall that $M_{\rm ap}$ probes smaller scales

238: than $R$ by a factor of roughly $3$ \citep{Map}.

239: A smaller piece of the difference is that $M_{\rm ap}$ can be expressed

240: as an integral over $\xi$ extending all the way to zero lag\footnote{The

241: variance of any convolution of $\kappa$ must have weight at zero lag.},

242: making $M_{\rm ap}$ slightly more sensitive to the difference between $g$

243: and $\gamma$ on small scales.

244: A similar argument holds for Var$[|g|_R]$, with the effect being more

245: pronounced.

246: A reduction in the sensitivity to small scale power and to shot-noise

247: could be obtained from differencing these measures between scales, with

248: an associated loss of power.

249: 

250: These are all of the 2-point functions commonly derived from shear

251: data -- the power spectrum has only been derived by two groups

252: \citep{descart,combo17} despite being almost ubiquitous in forecasts

253: of the potential of future lensing experiments

254: \citep[e.g.][]{Hui99,Hut01,BenBer,Hu01,WeiKam,MunWan,WL3,TakWhi,HutTak}.

255: 

256: \subsection{Three point statistics}

257: 

258: Since the lensing maps are non-Gaussian there is information

259: beyond\footnote{This information is not, however, independent.  We find a

260: strong correlation between the amplitude of the 2- and 3-point functions

261: on scales of several arcminutes in our maps.} the 2-point statistics.

262: We show in Figure \ref{fig:equ} the dominant 3-point function for equilateral

263: triangles as a function of scale.  The 3-point function is

264: $\langle\gamma_+\gamma_+\gamma_+\rangle$ with $\gamma_+$

265: defined with respect to a line joining the triangle center to each vertex

266: \citep{TakJai,ZalSco,SchLom}.

267: In the weakly non-Gaussian limit one can argue that the corrections to the

268: 3-point function from considering reduced shear could be very large.

269: Counting powers of our small parameter, $\kappa$ or $\gamma$, the lowest

270: order contribution vanishes in the Gaussian limit.  Thus the first

271: non-vanishing term is of order $\kappa^4$ \citep{Map,DodZha}.

272: The first correction from the reduced shear also comes in at order

273: $\kappa^4$.  However we see that the difference is not significantly larger

274: than in the case of the 2-point functions on the scales shown here.

275: 

276: \begin{figure}

277: \begin{center}

278: \resizebox{5.0in}{!}{\includegraphics{tpt_reduced.ps}}

279: \end{center}

280: \caption{The relative difference of the 3-point correlation function for

281: one triangle size, $\zeta_{+++}(\theta_1=2', \theta_2=3')$, computed for

282: plain shear and reduced shear.  The points show the mean difference,

283: averaged over 32 maps, each $3^\circ\times 3^\circ$, while the error bars

284: indicate the standard deviation.}

285: \label{fig:tpt}

286: \end{figure}

287: 

288: We also show, in Figure \ref{fig:tpt}, how the configuration dependence

289: of the 3-point function is modified.  The 3-point function for triangles

290: with sides $\theta_1=2'$ and $\theta_2=3'$ is plotted as a function of

291: the cosine of the included angle.

292: We have chosen here a triangle with no special symmetries in order to

293: illustrate a ``typical'' case.

294: Note that the correction is dependent on angle, showing that the shear

295: and reduced shear have different shape dependence which should be

296: taken into account in cosmological inferences

297: \citep[e.g.][]{HoWhi,DolJaiTak}.

298: 

299: \section{Conclusions}

300: 

301: Deflection of light rays by gravitational potentials along the line of

302: sight introduces a mapping between the source and image plane.  The

303: Jacobian of this mapping defines the shear and convergence as a function

304: of position on the sky.  In the absence of size or magnification information

305: neither the shear nor the convergence is observable, rather the combination

306: $g=\gamma/(1-\kappa)$ is.  Since on small scales $\kappa$ can be

307: non-negligible this introduces complications in predicting the observables

308: of weak lensing.

309: We have illustrated specifically the effect of using $g$ rather than

310: $\gamma$ on a number of commonly used statistics of weak lensing.  We

311: found that the correlation function is least affected, as expected since

312: it specifically eliminates small-scale information.  The variance of the

313: shear amplitude, smoothed on a scale $R$, is the most dramatically

314: affected, and the amplitude of the effect declines very slowly with

315: increasing smoothing scale.

316: 

317: Existing lensing experiments derive most of their cosmological constraints

318: {}from angular scales of a few arcminutes to a few tens of arcminutes.

319: The corrections described here are below the current statistical errors,

320: and so should not affect existing constraints.  The next generation of

321: experiments may have sufficient control of systematic errors, and sufficient

322: statistics, that this effect will need to be included in the analysis.

323: Note that even for the correlation function the difference between the

324: commonly predicted plain shear result and the reduced shear value is

325: comparable to the level of systematic control that we need to achieve to

326: study dark energy!

327: If we are to reap the science rewards of future, high precision measurements

328: of cosmic shear we will need to be able to include this effect in our

329: theoretical predictions.

330: 

331: M.W. thanks M.~Takada for comparison of results on the shear 2-point

332: function and D.~Huterer, B.~Jain and P.~Zhang for helpful comments.

333: The simulations used here were performed on the IBM-SP at NERSC.

334: This research was supported by the NSF and NASA.

335: 

336: \begin{thebibliography}{} 

337: \harvarditem{Barber \& Taylor}{2003}{BarTay}

338:  Barber A.J., Taylor A.N., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 789

339: \harvarditem{Bartelmann \& Schneider}{2001}{LensReview2}

340:  Bartelmann M., Schneider P., 2001, Phys. Rep., 340, 291 

341: \harvarditem{Benabed \& Bernardeau}{2001}{BenBer}

342:  Benabed K., Bernardeau F., 2001, Phys. Rev., D64, 083501

343: \harvarditem{Brown et al.}{2003}{combo17}

344:  Brown M.L., et al., 2003, MNRAS, 341, 100

345: \harvarditem{Dodelson \& Zhang}{2005}{DodZha}

346:  Dodelson S., Zhang P., 2005, preprint [astro-ph/0501063]

347: \harvarditem{Dolney, Jain \& Takada}{2004}{DolJaiTak}

348:  Dolney D., Jain B., Takada M., 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1019

349: \harvarditem{Ho \& White}{2004}{HoWhi}

350:  Ho S., White M., 2004, Astrophys. J., 607, 40

351: \harvarditem{Hoekstra, Yee, \& Gladders}{2002}{HoeYeeGla}

352:  Hoekstra H., Yee H.K.C., Gladders M.D., 2002, 

353:    New Astron. Rev., 46, 767

354: \harvarditem{Hu}{2001}{Hu01}

355:  Hu W., 2001, 2001, Phys. Rev., D66, 3515

356: \harvarditem{Hui}{1999}{Hui99}

357:  Hui L., 1999, Astrophys. J., 519, 9

358: \harvarditem{Huterer}{2001}{Hut01}

359:  Huterer D., 2001, Phys. Rev., D65, 063001

360: \harvarditem{Huterer \& Takada}{2005}{HutTak}

361:  Huterer D., Takada M., 2005, preprint [astro-ph/0412142]

362: \harvarditem{Mellier}{1999}{LensReview1}

363:  Mellier Y., 1999, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 37, 127

364: \harvarditem{Menard et al.}{2003}{MHBY}

365:  Menard B., Hamana T., Bartelmann M., Yoshida N., 2003, A\&A, 403, 817

366: \harvarditem{Munshi \& Wang}{2003}{MunWan}

367:  Munshi D., Wang Y., 2003, Astrophys. J., 583, 566

368: \harvarditem{Pen et al.}{2003}{descart}

369:  Pen U.-L., et al., 2003, MNRAS, 346, 994

370: \harvarditem{Refregier et al.}{2004}{WL3}

371:  Refregier A. et al., 2004, Astron. J., 127, 3102

372: \harvarditem{Schneider \& Lombardi}{2003}{SchLom}

373:  Schneider P., Lombardi M., 2003, A\&A, 397, 809

374: \harvarditem{Schneider et al.}{1998}{Map}

375:  Schneider P., van Waerbeke L., Jain B., Kruse G., 1998, MNRAS, 296, 873

376: \harvarditem{Takada \& Hamana}{2003}{TakHam}

377:  Takada M., Hamana T., 2003, MNRAS, 346, 949

378: \harvarditem{Takada \& Jain}{2002}{TakJai}

379:  Takada M., Jain B., MNRAS, 344, 857

380: \harvarditem{Takada \& White}{2004}{TakWhi}

381:  Takada M., White M., 2004, Astrophys. J., 601, L1

382: \harvarditem{Vale \& White}{2003}{ValWhi}

383:  Vale C., White M., 2003, Astrophys. J., 592, 699

384: %\harvarditem{van Waerbeke \& Mellier}{2003}{WaeMel}

385: % van Waerbeke L., Mellier Y., 2003, preprint [astro-ph/0305089]

386: \harvarditem{van Waerbeke, Mellier \& Hoekstra}{2005}{WaeMelHoe}

387:  van Waerbeke L., Mellier Y., Hoekstra H., 2005, A\&A, 429, 75

388: \harvarditem{Weinberg \& Kamionkowski}{2002}{WeiKam}

389:  Weinberg N., Kamionkowski M., 2002, preprint [astro-ph/0210134]

390: \harvarditem{White}{2002}{TreePM}

391:  White M., 2002, Astrophys. J. Supp., 143, 241

392: \harvarditem{White \& Vale}{2004}{LensGrid}

393:  White M., Vale C., 2004, Astroparticle Physics, 22, 19

394: \harvarditem{Zaldarriaga \& Scoccimarro}{2003}{ZalSco}

395:  Zaldarriaga M., Scoccimarro R., 2003, Astrophys. J., 584, 559

396: \end{thebibliography}

397: \end{document}

398: