1: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}}
5: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.~}}
6: \newcommand{\Om}{{$\Omega_{\rm matter}$}}
7: \newcommand{\arcm}{{$^\prime\,$}}
8: \newcommand{\arcs}{{$^{\prime\prime}\,$}}
9: \newcommand{\z}{{z^\prime}}
10:
11:
12:
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \title{Spurious Shear from the Atmosphere in Ground-Based Weak Lensing
16: Observations}
17:
18: \shorttitle{Spurious Shear from the Atmosphere}
19:
20: \author{D. Wittman\altaffilmark{1}}
21:
22: \altaffiltext{1}{Physics Department, University of California, Davis,
23: CA 95616; dwittman@physics.ucdavis.edu}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: Weak lensing observations have the potential to be even more powerful
27: than cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations in constraining
28: cosmological parameters. However, the practical limits to weak
29: lensing observations are not known. Most theoretical studies of weak
30: lensing constraints on cosmology assume that the only limits are shot
31: noise on small scales, and cosmic variance on large scales. For
32: future large surveys, shot noise will be so low that other, systematic
33: errors will likely dominate. Here we examine a potential source of
34: additive systematic error for ground-based observations: spurious
35: power induced by the atmosphere. We show that this limit will not be
36: a significant factor even in future massive surveys such as LSST.
37: \end{abstract}
38: \keywords{gravitational lensing --- atmospheric effects --- surveys}
39:
40: \section{Introduction}
41:
42: Weak lensing by large-scale structure imprints correlated
43: ellipticities onto images of distant galaxies. This cosmic shear
44: effect was predicted in the 1960's (Kristian \& Sachs 1966), but not
45: detected until 2000 (Wittman \etal\ 2000; van Waerbeke \etal\ 2000;
46: Bacon \etal\ 2000; Kaiser, Wilson \& Luppino 2000). Cosmic shear can
47: provide a relatively clean probe of cosmological parameters because it
48: depends only on the mass distribution and not on detailed astrophysics
49: such as galaxy bias or gas heating and cooling. The observational
50: state of the art has rapidly progressed to quantitative constraints on
51: dark energy ({\it e.g.} Jarvis \etal\ 2005). Future large surveys
52: such as LSST (Tyson \etal\ 2003) and SNAP (Refregier \etal\ 2004) are
53: intended to make these constraints precise.
54:
55: However, the practical limits to weak lensing accuracy are not well
56: known. The limits which are well known are shot noise on small
57: scales, and cosmic variance on large scales. However, shot noise is
58: so low for future large surveys that other, systematic errors will
59: likely dominate. Likely sources of systematics include shear
60: calibration, photometric redshift errors, spurious power from
61: instrumental and atmospheric effects, and perhaps intrinsic
62: alignments. Some of these have already been addressed in the
63: literature. Shear calibration, probably the most important
64: multiplicative effect, includes a correction for the dilution of shear
65: by the isotropic smearing of the point-spread function (PSF) by the
66: atmosphere. Heymans \etal\ (2005) examined these errors empirically,
67: by conducting blind analyses of a synthetic dataset, using various
68: shear calibration methods. The accuracy of the best current methods
69: was good to $\sim$1\%. Guzik \& Bernstein (2005) examined the effect
70: of spatially varying calibration errors and concluded that limiting
71: spatial variations in calibration to 3\% rms would be sufficient to
72: keep systematic errors below statistical errors in future surveys like
73: LSST. Ma \etal\ (2005) explored the mitigation of photometric
74: redshift errors in tomography, and King (2005) did the same for
75: intrinsic alignments, but neither tried to predict the actual level of
76: error.
77:
78: Here we quantify the likely level of an additive systematic in
79: ground-based observations: spurious power from the atmosphere. A
80: fixed realization of atmospheric turbulence imparts position-dependent
81: ellipticity variations onto the PSF. If not
82: removed, this will result in additive spurious power. With
83: $\sim$1 PSF star arcmin$^{-2}$ available to diagnose the PSF, and
84: atmospheric power predicted on smaller scales, this effect surely
85: cannot be removed completely. Of course, long exposure times average
86: over many different realizations of atmospheric turbulence which
87: should converge to an isotropic PSF (apart from instrumental
88: aberrations, which can be significant). One of the goals of this
89: paper is to measure the potential atmospheric contribution as a
90: function of exposure time, to aid in the design of future
91: high-precision surveys.
92:
93: Every weak lensing analysis has a PSF anisotropy correction.
94: Therefore the relevant question is not how much spurious ellipticity
95: is induced by the atmosphere; it is how much remains after the PSF
96: anisotropy correction. For that reason, we conduct a mock lensing
97: analysis of a dense star field rather than rely on atmospheric
98: modeling.
99:
100: \section{Dataset}
101:
102: We take the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST, Tyson \etal\ 2003)
103: as a fiducial survey. The LSST calls for an 8.4 m telescope with a 10
104: deg$^2$ field of view, repeatedly surveying $\sim$20,000 deg$^2$ of
105: sky in multiple optical bandpasses ($grizy$). Each field will be
106: imaged hundreds of times in some filters, with rather short exposure
107: times ($\sim$15 seconds). The motivation for this is two-fold: to
108: provide time sampling for scientific goals other than weak lensing,
109: and to provide the ability to ``chop'' the dataset against any desired
110: variable to identify and remove weak lensing systematics.
111:
112: We have identified a real dataset which has many of the parameters
113: required to explore spurious shear in such a survey: A set of 10- and
114: 30-second exposures of a dense star field taken by the Subaru 8-m
115: telescope with its prime-focus camera SuprimeCam. A dense star field
116: is required to assess the variation of the PSF on small angular
117: scales; the short exposures and $\sim$0.7\arcs\ FWHM seeing are
118: typical of LSST; SuprimeCam has the widest field of any 8 m class
119: telescope/imager; and the 8 m aperture is a good match. Technically,
120: this last match may or may not be important. The expected scaling of
121: atmosphere-induced ellipticity with aperture size cancels the expected
122: scaling with exposure time, so that all observations of a given depth
123: should have a similar level. However, in practice other factors may
124: come into play. For example, if the outer scale of atmospheric
125: turbulence is not much larger than the telescope aperture, the scaling
126: arguments are invalid. For this dataset we do not have independent
127: measurements of the outer scale or any other atmospheric parameters,
128: but the 8 m aperture will minimize the risk of mismatches with the
129: LSST dataset.
130:
131: The exposures were taken on 7 May 2002 through the $i^\prime$ filter,
132: at airmasses very near unity (1.003---1.012), with seeing slightly
133: better than 0.7\arcs. The field was centered at
134: 18:25:59.955 +21:42:19.06, with no dithering.
135:
136: \section{Analysis}
137:
138: An anisotropic PSF leads directly to an additive systematic in the
139: galaxy shape measurements, and thus to spurious shear. Initial PSF
140: anisotropy in ground-based images is typically $\sim$5\%. This
141: represents a huge ``foreground'' which must be removed to reveal the
142: $\sim$1\% or smaller cosmic shear signal. The steps in the PSF
143: anisotropy correction are: identification of PSF stars; interpolation
144: of the spatially varying PSF to the position of the galaxy in
145: question; and correction of the galaxy shape.
146:
147: The initial density of stars in these observations is $\sim$8
148: arcmin$^{-2}$. We choose a random subset of density 0.9 arcmin$^{-2}$,
149: typical of current high-latitude surveys, to act as the stars
150: available for the PSF correction. The remainder are designated as
151: test particles to measure the residuals. These subsets are hereafter
152: referred to as PSF stars and test stars respectively. Future surveys
153: such as LSST may have somewhat more PSF stars available for several
154: reasons. First, the angular resolution of ground-based observations
155: has improved with time, as dome seeing has been minimized and better
156: sites have been identified at great expense.
157: %Some imagers now
158: %routinely deliver $\sim$0.5\arcs\ FWHM image quality, but these have
159: %not been used for current weak lensing surveys due to small field of
160: %view.
161: It is a near certainty that LSST seeing will be better than in current
162: wide-field surveys on older facilities; the LSST plan calls for a
163: threshold of 0.7\arcs\ for data to be used in the weak lensing
164: analysis. This better angular resolution will allow better
165: star/galaxy separation and a higher density of usable PSF stars.
166: Second, a large survey can work very hard to identify more stars. The
167: survey can perform star-galaxy separation on the best-seeing images
168: and compile a database of PSF star positions usable in all seeing
169: conditions, and it can use color information, not just size, to
170: identify stars. Neither of these techniques is currently employed.
171: The following results improve by 20---25\% if the PSF star density is
172: doubled to 1.8 arcmin$^{-2}$.
173:
174: The next step is interpolating the PSF to the position of each galaxy
175: or test star. Clearly the final results will depend on the
176: effectiveness of the interpolation scheme. Typically a polynomial of
177: order $\sim$3 is fit to each CCD in each exposure. More sophisticated
178: schemes have been used to reach smaller scales for fixed patterns
179: persisting throughout multiple exposures (Jarvis \& Jain 2004), but
180: the atmosphere is stochastic and is unlikely to be more accurately
181: diagnosed by such a scheme. Therefore we use a simple third-order
182: polynomial. We also tried nearest neighbor and bicubic spline
183: interpolation, which fared slightly worse and are not presented here.
184: The resulting limit on spurious shear is conservative because a better
185: interpolation scheme may be found.
186:
187: Figure~\ref{fig-psf} illustrates the interpolation input and output.
188: The left panel shows the spatial variation of all the measured
189: ellipticities in one of the ten SuprimeCam CCDs, and the center panel
190: shows the interpolated ellipticities. At each point where the PSF is
191: measured or interpolated, we plot a line segment at the PSF position
192: angle, with length proportional to the PSF ellipticity. The
193: atmosphere is not necessarily responsible for all the variation shown.
194: However, contributions from the optics are likely to be on angular
195: scales easily modeled by this interpolation process. Therefore we are
196: most interested in what remains after removing this pattern.
197:
198: \begin{figure}
199: \centerline{\resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f1.eps}}}
200: \caption{Left: PSF ellipticity map of one of the ten SuprimeCam CCDs
201: in one 10 s exposure, using test stars ($\sim$7
202: arcmin$^{-2}$). Center: polynomial model based on disjoint sample of
203: $\sim$1 PSF star arcmin$^{-2}$. Right: test star residuals after
204: model subtraction. Apart from blends and other corrupted shape
205: measurements, the mean scalar ellipticity before subtraction is 0.07
206: and the maximum is 0.12, in the upper left corner. After
207: subtraction, these numbers drop to 0.02 and 0.06.
208: \label{fig-psf}}
209: \end{figure}
210:
211: The final step, galaxy shape correction, also has been implemented in
212: various ways. The simplest conceptually is to measure the galaxy
213: shape after convolving the image with a spatially varying kernel such
214: that the final PSF is isotropic (Fischer \& Tyson 1997; Kaiser 2000;
215: Bernstein \& Jarvis 2002). Here we will assume that the result of the
216: convolution is as good as the PSF interpolation allows. This is a
217: good assumption in practice; and in principle, if the convolution is
218: imperfect it can be iterated until it is limited only by the PSF
219: interpolation. Therefore we subtracted the interpolated ellipticities
220: componentwise from the measured ellipticities of the test stars,
221: mimicking a perfectly effective convolution step. This is illustrated
222: by the right panel of Figure~\ref{fig-psf}. Blends and other
223: corrupted shape measurements now stand out quite clearly. Because
224: these have no preferred orientation, they add noise but not bias to
225: the following measurement.
226:
227: Finally, we convert the residual ellipticities to shears with the
228: standard factor of two and compute the shear correlation functions of
229: the corrected test stars. In reality, the conversion of PSF
230: ellipticity to inferred spurious shear depends on the size of the
231: galaxy relative to the PSF. If an initially circular source is
232: resolved, its measured ellipticity will always be less than the PSF
233: ellipticity. But for barely-resolved galaxies, the spurious
234: ellipticity will be amplified by the subsequent correction for
235: dilution due to the isotropic part of the PSF (variously called seeing
236: correction, dilution correction, or shear calibration). These effects
237: combine to make the inferred pre-seeing ellipticity equal to the PSF
238: ellipticity for galaxies with pre-seeing size equal to the PSF size;
239: less for larger galaxies, and more for smaller galaxies. This
240: transition size is not atypical for galaxies used in a ground-based
241: lensing analysis, so we apply no correction factor here, with the
242: caveat that the impact on a real lensing survey could vary by up to a
243: factor of $\sim$2, depending on how aggressively the analysis uses
244: barely-resolved galaxies.
245:
246: The final result may be an overestimate of the atmospheric
247: contribution, as there may be remaining unmodelled instrumental
248: effects. In a real survey, such effects could be identified in any of
249: several ways (principal component analysis as in Jarvis \& Jain 2004,
250: detailed optomechanical modeling of the camera, or measured on the fly
251: with wavefront sensors) and then removed.
252:
253:
254: \section{Results}
255:
256: As an estimate of the spurious power induced by the atmosphere, we
257: plot the shear correlations of the corrected test stars in
258: Figure~\ref{fig-ocfsingle}, for both 10-second (black) and 30-second
259: (red) exposures. In each case, only one shear component is plotted
260: because the two components were indistinguishable. At each angular
261: separation, the points and error bars plotted reflect the mean and rms
262: variation across the five exposures of each duration. Note that
263: neighboring points are highly correlated.
264:
265: \begin{figure}
266: \centerline{\resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f2.eps}}}
267: \caption{Residual shear correlations after PSF correction for
268: 10-second (red) and 30-second (black) exposures on the Subaru
269: telescope. In each case, only one shear component is plotted for
270: clarity; the two components are nearly indistinguishable in their
271: behavior. The ringing at large angular separation is an artifact of
272: the interpolation scheme.
273: \label{fig-ocfsingle}}
274: \end{figure}
275:
276: For vanishing angular separation, the quantity plotted in
277: Figure~\ref{fig-ocfsingle} is equivalent to the mean-square value of
278: the residual atmospheric shear. For $n$ independent realizations of
279: atmospheric turbulence, we expect this to go as $n^{-1}$, {\it i.e.},
280: the rms goes as $n^{-1/2}$. The improvement from 10-s to 30-s
281: exposure time is more modest (a factor of 2.4 rather than 3), probably
282: because the atmosphere has not completely decorrelated in 30 seconds.
283: Perhaps it would be better to accumulate a longer exposure time by
284: taking multiple short exposures, alternating fields so that the
285: atmosphere is completely decorrelated by the time a field is
286: revisited. To investigate this possibility, we examined a set of five
287: consecutive 10-second exposures. The SuprimeCam read time is long
288: enough ($\sim$120 seconds) that it is a fair comparison to LSST, with
289: its fast read time and point/settle time, doing several fields and
290: coming back for a revisit. For any reasonable atmosphere, it should
291: provide complete decorrelation. For each test star, we took the mean
292: of the five corrected shapes as its final shape estimate. The result
293: is shown in Figure~\ref{fig-ocfmulti}, now zoomed in to small
294: separations where the correlations are detectable. The improvement is
295: indeed a factor of five at the smallest angular scales, but less at
296: 2\arcmin\ scales. One possible explanation is unmodelled instrumental
297: effects. CCD height variations, for example, are expected at scales
298: some fraction of a CCD size (7\arcm\ in this case), but not at very
299: small scales, where the atmosphere should dominate. The effects of
300: CCD height variations would not average down at all with multiple
301: undithered exposures, but with sufficient effort they could be calibrated
302: and removed from a large survey.
303:
304: \begin{figure}
305: \centerline{\resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f3.eps}}}
306: \caption{Decrease of residual shear correlations from a single 10 s
307: exposure (black) to a coadd of five 10 s exposures (gray, and slightly
308: offset horizontally for clarity). The expected fivefold decrease is
309: realized at some, but not all, angular scales, possibly due to
310: unmodelled instrumental effects. LSST plans to take 200 exposures in
311: each filter for each field. The expected lensing signal is shown for
312: an effective source redshift of unity and a $\Lambda$CDM universe
313: (Jain \& Seljak 1997).\label{fig-ocfmulti}}
314: \end{figure}
315:
316: The LSST dataset will contain hundreds of visits to each field in each
317: of two bandpasses which will be observed only in good seeing ($r$ and
318: $i$). Therefore the spurious shear correlation from the atmosphere
319: will be on the order of $10^{-7}$ at 1\arcm\ scales. This is 3---4
320: orders of magnitude below the expected lensing shear correlation per
321: component, which is 4$\times 10^{-4}$ for an effective source redshift of 1.0
322: in a $\Lambda$CDM universe (Jain \& Seljak 1997). This is the angular
323: scale at which the spurious shear is at a maximum relative to the
324: expected lensing signal, at least in the range of scales measured
325: here. The expected shear correlation from lensing does not decline
326: any more rapidly with angular scale than do these measurements, so
327: there is little reason to think that spurious shear from the atmosphere
328: will become a significant factor at any angular scale. The projected
329: spurious shear from the atmosphere is also much smaller than the
330: expected LSST statistical errors, which are as good as $\sim$1\% in
331: any one redshift bin and angular scale.
332:
333: \section{Summary and Discussion}
334:
335: We have measured residual shear correlations in LSST-like short
336: exposures, after PSF anisotropy correction using current algorithms
337: and a conservative density of PSF stars. To the extent that the
338: standard PSF anisotropy correction models away instrumental effects,
339: the residual correlations can be interpreted as coming from
340: atmospheric turbulence. Because it is unlikely that all instrumental
341: effects have been modeled perfectly, this can be taken as a
342: conservative upper estimate of spurious shear from the atmosphere at
343: unity airmass. For a real LSST-like survey, airmass effects would
344: increase the spurious shear by less than a factor of two. Also,
345: depending on how aggressively future surveys attempt to use barely
346: resolved galaxies, the following results could go up or down by a
347: factor of two.
348:
349: At 1\arcm\ scales, where the spurious shear is at its maximum relative
350: to the expected lensing signal, a single 10 s exposure exhibits
351: residual correlations a factor of $\sim$20 smaller than the lensing
352: signal. For longer single exposures up to 30 s, the spurious shear
353: correlations decrease somewhat more slowly than the inverse of the
354: exposure time. For coadds of multiple independent exposures separated
355: by $\sim$120 s, the correlations at scales $<$1\arcm\ decrease
356: linearly with the number of exposures, {\it i.e.} the rms spurious
357: shear goes as $n^{-1/2}$. At larger scales, the observed decrease is
358: smaller. However, with no reason to believe that the temporal nature
359: of the atmosphere is a function of angular scale, unmodelled
360: instrumental artifacts at a fixed angular scale must be responsible
361: for this behavior. In a real survey, such artifacts could be
362: diagnosed and modeled out. In fact, a strategy as simple as dithering
363: could change this systematic into a random error which would average
364: down. With hundreds of independent exposures, the residual
365: correlations in the coadded LSST dataset will be 3---4 orders of
366: magnitude less than the signal and comfortably less than the shot
367: noise.
368:
369: Spurious shear from the atmosphere will not be a major systematic in
370: ground-based lensing surveys. Shear calibration, photometric redshift
371: errors, and their spatial variations are likely to be more important
372: sources of systematics. Heymans \etal\ (2005) showed that the best
373: current shear calibrations are good to $\sim$1\%. Overall shear
374: calibration could be treated as a nuisance parameter in the analysis
375: with a significant penalty, about a factor of two degradation in the
376: resulting cosmological parameter errors (Huterer \etal\ 2005).
377: Spatial variations in the calibration cannot be treated this way even
378: in principle, and will have to be controlled to $\sim$3\% (Guzik \&
379: Bernstein 2005), which is probably achievable in future ground-based
380: surveys. For photometric redshifts, Ma \etal\ (2005) found that the
381: bias and scatter in each redshift bin of width 0.1 must be known to
382: better than about 0.003-0.01 to avoid more than a 50\% increase in
383: dark energy parameter errors. This will be a challenge for deep
384: surveys whose imaging goes beyond the capabilities of other facilities
385: to provide supporting spectroscopy. Finally, at small scales
386: ($l>1000$), theoretical uncertainty in predicting the shear power
387: spectrum due to baryonic effects may be a source of uncertainty at the
388: $\sim$1\% level (Zhan \& Knox 2004).
389:
390: Another potentially important systematic is spurious shear due to the
391: telescope and camera. Comparisons to current instruments are likely
392: to be misleading because future surveys will be the first ones built
393: from the ground up to minimize lensing systematics. The LSST camera,
394: for example, will have wavefront sensors throughout the focal plane so
395: that the exact state of the optics will be known as a function of
396: time. Both the pupil and the camera will rotate with respect to the
397: sky, providing another important way to diagnose and reduce
398: systematics. We cannot yet estimate the level of spurious shear due
399: to the telescope and camera, but because these items are testable in
400: situ, it seems likely that they will be controlled at least as well as
401: shear and photometric calibration, which depend on observing
402: conditions which are not under direct control. The dataset of
403: hundreds of exposures of each field will be critical for analyzing the
404: effects of observing conditions and thus improving the limits on
405: spatial variations of shear calibration and photometric calibration.
406:
407:
408: \acknowledgments We thank Vera Margoniner, Garrett Jernigan, Tony
409: Tyson, Steve Kahn, and John Peterson for valuable discussions. Based
410: on data collected at Subaru Telescope and obtained from the SMOKA
411: science archive at Astronomical Data Analysis Center, which is
412: operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.
413:
414: \begin{thebibliography}{}
415:
416: \bibitem[Bacon et al.(2000)]{2000MNRAS.318..625B} Bacon, D.~J., Refregier,
417: A.~R., \& Ellis, R.~S.\ 2000, \mnras, 318, 625
418:
419: \bibitem[Bernstein \& Jarvis(2002)]{2002AJ....123..583B} Bernstein, G.~M.,
420: \& Jarvis, M.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 583
421:
422: \bibitem[Fischer \& Tyson(1997)]{1997AJ....114...14F} Fischer, P., \&
423: Tyson, J.~A.\ 1997, \aj, 114, 14
424:
425: \bibitem[Guzik \& Bernstein(2005)]{2005astro.ph..7546G} Guzik, J., \&
426: Bernstein, G.\ 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0507546
427:
428: \bibitem[Huterer et al.(2005)]{2005astro.ph..6030H} Huterer, D., Takada,
429: M., Bernstein, G., \& Jain, B.\ 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints,
430: arXiv:astro-ph/0506030
431:
432: \bibitem[Kristian \& Sachs(1966)]{1966ApJ...143..379K} Kristian, J., \&
433: Sachs, R.~K.\ 1966, \apj, 143, 379
434:
435: \bibitem[Kristian(1967)]{1967ApJ...147..864K} Kristian, J.\ 1967, \apj,
436: 147, 864
437:
438: \bibitem[Heymans et al.(2005)]{2005astro.ph..6112H} Heymans, C., et al.\
439: 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0506112
440:
441: \bibitem[Jain \& Seljak(1997)]{1997ApJ...484..560J} Jain, B., \& Seljak,
442: U.\ 1997, \apj, 484, 560
443:
444: \bibitem[Jarvis \& Jain(2004)]{2004astro.ph.12234J} Jarvis, M., \& Jain,
445: B.\ 2004, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0412234
446:
447: \bibitem[Jarvis et al.(2005)]{2005astro.ph..2243J} Jarvis, M., Jain, B.,
448: Bernstein, G., \& Dolney, D.\ 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints,
449: arXiv:astro-ph/0502243
450:
451: \bibitem[KWL]{KWL} Kaiser, N., Wilson, G. \& Luppino, G. 2000, ArXiv
452: Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0003338
453:
454: \bibitem[Kaiser(2000)]{2000ApJ...537..555K} Kaiser, N.\ 2000, \apj, 537,
455: 555
456:
457: \bibitem[King(2005)]{2005astro.ph..6441K} King, L.\ 2005, ArXiv
458: Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0506441
459:
460: \bibitem[Ma et al.(2005)]{2005astro.ph..6614M} Ma, Z., Hu, W., \& Huterer,
461: D.\ 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0506614
462:
463: %\bibitem[Margoniner et al.(2004)]{2004AAS...20514803M} Margoniner, V.,
464: %Wittman, D., Tyson, T., \& Deep Lens Survey 2004, American Astronomical
465: %Society Meeting Abstracts, 205, 14803
466:
467: \bibitem[Refregier et al.(2004)]{2004AJ....127.3102R} Refregier, A., et
468: al.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 3102
469:
470: \bibitem[Tyson et al.(2003)]{2003NuPhS.124...21T} Tyson, J.~A., Wittman,
471: D.~M., Hennawi, J.~F., \& Spergel, D.~N.\ 2003, Nuclear Physics B
472: Proceedings Supplements, 124, 21
473:
474: \bibitem[Van Waerbeke et al.(2000)]{2000A&A...358...30V} Van Waerbeke, L.,
475: et al.\ 2000, \aap, 358, 30
476:
477: \bibitem[Wittman et al.(2000)]{2000Natur.405..143W} Wittman, D.~M., Tyson,
478: J.~A., Kirkman, D., Dell'Antonio, I., \& Bernstein, G.\ 2000, \nat, 405,
479: 143
480:
481: \bibitem[Zhan \& Knox(2004)]{2004ApJ...616L..75Z} Zhan, H., \& Knox, L.\
482: 2004, \apjl, 616, L75
483:
484:
485: \end{thebibliography}
486:
487: \end{document}
488: