Astron. Astrophys. 335, 1-11 (1998)
Appendix A: notation
We collect here the main symbols used in this paper.
Superscript s identifies source
(unlensed) quantities.
Subscripts refer to the complex
representation, e.g. or, when indicated, to
the vector representation, e.g. .
, Unlensed and
observed position of a point source.
Critical density.
Projected mass distribution of the lens.
Dimensionless mass distribution:
.
, Q Unlensed and observed quadrupole
moment of an extended image.
, Unlensed and
observed (complex) ellipticity of an extended image:
, and similarly for .
Complex shear.
- g Complex reduced shear:
.
- c Covariance of the source ellipticity for an isotropic
distribution:
.
- Id,
Identity matrix.
Appendix B: the shear
In this Appendix we derive Eq. (23) and Eq. (25) of
Sect. 3. We assume that the reduced shear g has been
measured through Eq. (5). Calculations based on Eq. (6) are
very similar. As explained in Appendix A of Paper I, the
mean value of g obeys the relation
![[EQUATION]](img188.gif)
Here is the mean value of
in and thus depends on
. We now assume that
does not change significantly on the angular scale of
. This implies that we can expand the previous
equation to first order in . We choose, as
starting point, the value given by
![[EQUATION]](img193.gif)
Then we find easily
![[EQUATION]](img194.gif)
![[EQUATION]](img195.gif)
![[EQUATION]](img196.gif)
where is the expected value of the
ellipticity when the reduced shear is equal to
. Eq. (B3) has the obvious solution
, because the first term,
, vanishes by definition and the second
vanishes due to the choice of (notice that the
partial derivatives in the latter do not depend on
). When moving to a continuous description, we
have to calculate the average expected value of g over all
possible positions of the source galaxies
![[EQUATION]](img202.gif)
The weight function depends on all
because of the adopted normalization. However,
in the limit , the weight function
can be considered to depend only on
alone, so that the above integral can be
approximated by
![[EQUATION]](img207.gif)
This proves Eq. (23). Our result simply states that the use of
the first order expansion in g reduces every mean to a weighted
arithmetic mean.
Calculations for the covariance of g are much more difficult
but basically repeat those given for the unweighted situation in
App. A.1 of Paper I. In particular, if we call
the function defined in the l.h.s. of
Eq. (5), we have
![[EQUATION]](img209.gif)
![[EQUATION]](img210.gif)
where
![[EQUATION]](img211.gif)
All functions have to be calculated in the mean value of their
arguments. Some calculations then lead to
![[EQUATION]](img212.gif)
The term in brackets in Eq. (B6) can be written in the
form
![[EQUATION]](img213.gif)
![[EQUATION]](img214.gif)
Here "linear terms" means additional terms linear with respect to
the quantity , based on the same expansion
defined by (B2).
By averaging over the source positions and by moving to a
continuous description (basically following the same steps indicated
in (B4) and (B5)), we thus obtain Eq. (25). Notice that the
"linear terms" in Eq. (B10) do not give any contribution when
averaged over the source positions. We stress that the results stated
here are valid only if the weight function is even (property 1 of
Sect. 2.1).
Finally, we point out that the approximation that takes us from
(B4) to (B5) is precisely associated with neglecting the Poisson
noise.
Appendix C: the lens mass distribution
In this Appendix we will derive Eq. (7) and the results stated
in Sect. 4, assuming a weight function invariant upon
translations (case 2 of Sect. 2.1).
C.1. Weak lensing limit
Calculations in the weak lensing limit are not difficult. As
explained in Sect. 2.2, we can use either Eq. (8) or
Eqs. (11) and (12) to convert the reduced shear into the mass
distribution.
In the case of Eq. (8) we can write
![[EQUATION]](img216.gif)
Here the star denotes convolution, while is
the component i of the true shear map .
The second step is justified by Eq. (23) applied in the weak
lensing limit. By using the associative and commutative properties of
the convolution and by noting that , we can
write
![[EQUATION]](img220.gif)
This proves Eq. (7).
About the covariance of we can write
![[EQUATION]](img221.gif)
As and are even
functions, this is simply a double convolution, and thus the result
depends only on the difference between and
. Therefore we can write for
the expression
![[EQUATION]](img225.gif)
i.e. Eq. (31). Here we have used again the commutative
property of convolutions and the relation
given by Eqs. (8) and (10). [Hereafter
means the Dirac delta distribution.]
The results are the same if we use Eqs. (11) and (12). In fact
we can write Eq. (11) as a convolution between
and the operator
![[EQUATION]](img229.gif)
where . Thus we are allowed to use the
properties of convolutions. It is obvious then that the convolution
with the weight function W in can be
moved to the true lens distribution , and we
find again the result of Eq. (C2). The covariance matrix of
can be calculated using the operator (C5). As a
result, we find
![[EQUATION]](img232.gif)
We then have
![[EQUATION]](img233.gif)
A simple calculation shows that . This leads
again to Eq. (31).
Now let us prove Eq. (32). From Eq. (C4) and
Eq. (26) we find
![[EQUATION]](img235.gif)
In the limit explained in Sect. 4.1,
the main contribution to the variance of M derives from a
double integration of . A simple change of
variables gives
![[EQUATION]](img238.gif)
Here is the Fourier transform of W
and the last equality holds because of the normalization (22) of the
weight function.
C.2. The general case
In the general case we restrict ourselves to estimating the mean
value of the lens distribution because calculations for the covariance
are too difficult. Under the hypothesis that the angular scale of
W is much smaller than the angular scale of
(or g), the situation is much like that
of the weak lensing limit. As shown in Appendix B, this basically
implies that all averages are weighted arithmetic averages. Simple
calculations show that we have , and hence
. As usual the assumed ordering of scale
lengths leads again to Eq. (C2).
C.3. Edge effects
For simplicity we refer to . We rewrite
Eqs (17), (11) and (10) with a different notation
![[EQUATION]](img243.gif)
Here is the characteristic operator for the
set :
![[EQUATION]](img245.gif)
Eq. (C10) is equivalent to Eq. (17) with
if we redefine the kernel
for every and
so that if either
or . With this simple
definition we can extend the integration domain (usually
) to the whole plane. Notice that while
and are used in
convolutions, is a generic linear operator.
From these equations we have
![[EQUATION]](img251.gif)
and thus we find the identity
![[EQUATION]](img252.gif)
Eq. (12) with the new notation is
![[EQUATION]](img253.gif)
This, together with Eqs. (C11) and (C12), gives us another
identity:
![[EQUATION]](img254.gif)
Using Eqs. (C10), (C12), and the relation
, we can easily obtain the mean value for
measures of :
![[EQUATION]](img256.gif)
As usual, subscript 0 indicates the true value of a quantity. This
equation, rewritten in the more standard notation, is Eq. (7) for
.
Let us calculate the covariance of . First of
all note that, while Eq. (C14) implies Eq. (C15), from
Eq. (C17) we cannot deduce that is the
identity. This happens because the two components of
are not functionally independent, as one can
see from the relation . In fact, using Fourier
transforms it is easy to prove that the operator
selects the curl-free component of a vector
field. Its Fourier transform is
![[EQUATION]](img261.gif)
From (C10) we have
![[EQUATION]](img262.gif)
Every vector field can be written as the sum of two vector fields,
of which one is curl-free and the other is divergence-free. Hence, if
we consider a vector field with respect to
, we can write
![[EQUATION]](img263.gif)
where
![[EQUATION]](img264.gif)
Thus and can be
written as the gradient and the "curl" of two scalar fields:
![[EQUATION]](img265.gif)
There is some freedom in the choice of and
(or equivalently of
and ). However, it is always possible to choose
and so that they
vanish for . With the decomposition (C21) we
have and thus
![[EQUATION]](img271.gif)
Recalling now the definition of and using
Eq. (C15) we find
![[EQUATION]](img273.gif)
If the kernel has vanishing curl, then
and we find the final result
![[EQUATION]](img275.gif)
![[EQUATION]](img276.gif)
In general however we must evaluate three additional terms. Two of
them are of the form
![[EQUATION]](img277.gif)
where we have used Eq. (C24). By the change of variable
and after integrating by parts we find
![[EQUATION]](img279.gif)
where the last relation holds in virtue of Eq. (C23). We
finally rewrite Eq. (C27) in a simplified form:
![[EQUATION]](img280.gif)
Here the first term is independent of the specific kernel
used, while the second term depends only on
. As, by definition, is
positive definite, the last term in Eq. (C31) is also positive
definite. In other words if the error on
will increase.
Appendix D: power spectrum
The power spectrum reported in Eq. (47) can be deduced from
the expression of the mean and covariance of the measured mass
distribution. In particular we have
![[EQUATION]](img283.gif)
![[EQUATION]](img284.gif)
The subscripts in the exponentials denote real
( ) and imaginary ( )
parts. The power spectrum is directly related
to the covariance of . In fact, we have
![[EQUATION]](img288.gif)
with summation implied on i and mean over all directions of
. For a large set we can
perform integrations over the whole plane. Thus we find
![[EQUATION]](img289.gif)
Here, as usual, hats indicate Fourier transform. In the weak
lensing limit the second term of this expression can be dropped.
Hence, if W is a Gaussian of the form of Eq. (3) we find
Eq. (47). [Note that no averaging over the direction of
is needed in the weak lensing limit if the
weight function has the form (3).]
© European Southern Observatory (ESO) 1998
Online publication: June 12, 1998
helpdesk.link@springer.de  |