Astron. Astrophys. 342, 15-33 (1999)
Appendix A: second order Lagrangian dynamics
In order to investigate the statistical properties of the
reconstructed mass field that contains a significant amount of
non-linearities, a non-linear evolution model of large-scale
structures is required. Second order Lagrangian perturbation theory
has the advantage to be extremely fast to compute, and rather accurate
compared to N-body simulations. It gives correct values for the
skewness and we expect it to gives
correct estimation of the cosmic variance (see Munshi et al. 1994,
Bernardeau et al. 1994, Bouchet et al. 1995).
Actually we do not even need to do 3D simulations. At the level of
perturbation theory it is equivalent to perform 2D second order
Lagrangian evolutions of the structures on an initial linear map of
the projected mass fluctuations.
A.1. Construction of the initial linear map
The local convergence map is given by
![[EQUATION]](img273.gif)
where is the horizon distance,
the density parameter, a the
expansion factor and the number
density of sources as a function of the distance
. For clarity we introduce the lens
efficiency function
![[EQUATION]](img276.gif)
so that the local convergence is simply given by the integral over
the line of sight of,
![[EQUATION]](img277.gif)
The projected density contrast would be,
![[EQUATION]](img278.gif)
It is important to keep in mind that the local convergence is
related to the actual density contrast with a constant that depends on
the cosmological parameters. In the following we will assume that all
sources are at the same redshift (it is not realistic but of no
consequences on our results here).
In the linear approximation the
field is expected to be a 2D Gaussian field, characterized by a power
spectrum, . with (see Kaiser 1992,
1996, and
SvWJK) 11,
![[EQUATION]](img281.gif)
as a result of the relation between
and the 3D density contrasts. The
initial conditions for are therefore
generated by a 2D Gaussian field in Fourier space where the complex
random variables verify
![[EQUATION]](img282.gif)
A.2. The 2D second order Lagrangian dynamics
In order to introduce a significant amount of nonlinearities in the
maps, we apply the 2D second order Lagrangian dynamics to the
projected density, . Following the
notations of Bouchet et al. (1992), transposed in the 2D case, let us
write the 2D Eulerian coordinates
as a perturbation series over the 2D displacement field
,
![[EQUATION]](img286.gif)
where is the angular Lagrangian
coordinate and a small
dimension-less parameter. The first order term reduces to the
Zel'dovich (Zel'dovich 1970) approximation. The divergence of the
second order displacement field can be written in terms of the first
order solutions,
![[EQUATION]](img288.gif)
This result is exact for an Einstein-de Sitter Universe. The values
of the coefficient is only slightly
altered (about 1%) for other cosmological models (Bouchet et al. 1992,
Bernardeau 1994) and in the following we did not take into account
this dependence. Once the second order displacement field has been
computed, the local 2D density contrast can then be written in terms
of the Jacobian of the transform between the Lagrangian coordinates
and the Eulerian coordinates,
![[EQUATION]](img290.gif)
where . The local convergence is
then given by
![[EQUATION]](img292.gif)
The linear density maps are built on a regular grid from random
modes following a given power spectrum. The different quantities up to
the Jacobian are generated on this same grid by successive Fast
Fourier Transforms. There is then a technical difficulty to solve in
order to get the resulting values of
on a regular grid. This is done via a local triangulation and an
interpolation of the values (from standard IDL packages). Note that
the continuity equation provides us with
and not with the projected
potentiel. The latter will have to be computed from a subsequent
Fourier transform (see Appendix B). The amplitude of the fluctuations
is such that the displacement field does not induce shell
crossings 12.
Finally, bands of sufficient width along the edges were cut out to
avoid edge effects induced by the displacement filed.
A.3. The skewness with this approximate dynamics
The skewness of the projected density is given by the skewness of
the 2D dynamics (Munshi et al. 1997), that is,
![[EQUATION]](img293.gif)
The skewness for the convergence would then simply be
![[EQUATION]](img294.gif)
This result has to be compared with the results obtained in BvWM.
Their general formula (67) contains some extra geometrical factors of
order unity (coming from a different averaging procedure along the
line of sight). Eq. (A12) actually corresponds to the approximate form
of Eq. (75) of BvWM.
A.4. Shapes and normalizations of the power spectra
The 3D power spectrum given by Baugh & Gaztañaga (1996)
(BG spectrum) is used in most of our simulations,
![[EQUATION]](img295.gif)
where . In a series of
simulations we compared this model also with the standard CDM
spectrum.
In most cases the fluctuations are normalized according to the
convergence field . The value of
that has been chosen thus depends on
in such a way that it is equal to 0.6
for a flat Universe (following the normalization inferred from galaxy
cluster counts (Eke et al. 1996, Oukbir & Blanchard 1997). As a
result we take,
![[EQUATION]](img298.gif)
It implies that the value of
grows for low values of . Note that
since , this growth is only slightly
more important in our case than for the galaxy cluster counts (the
exponent would be about 0.5 to 0.6).
Appendix B:
This appendix gives the details of the reconstruction algorithm,
how the g map is generated from an initial
map, and the noise model.
B.1. Reconstruction algorithm
The lensing quantities of interest are defined in the Eqs. (6), and
the observable is the reduced shear .
The reconstruction problem is how to infer the
map from an observed ellipticity
field , knowing that
is an unbiased estimate of the
reduced shear? Note that this problem is under-constrained since a
change in the potential of the
form,
![[EQUATION]](img302.gif)
where is a constant, leaves the
reduced shear g invariant, but will transform the convergence
as (see Seitz et al. 1998). This is
the so called mass-sheet degeneracy. Thus in order to get a realistic
convergence map, has to be
determined by forcing at the survey
scale. The estimate of is obtain by
a non-parametric least method
(Bartelmann et al. 1995). The image is sampled on a
grid, and the potential on a
grid. Starting from a guess on
, a guess on the reduced shear is
obtained and the following function is minimized with respect to
,
![[EQUATION]](img307.gif)
The finite difference schemes which are used in order to calculate
the second derivatives of the potential at pixel
are,
![[EQUATION]](img309.gif)
where is the pixel size. We
found that these schemes give the best regularization at small scales
and avoid the usual high frequency oscillations in crude
reconstruction schemes. At the edges of the field the shift of 2
pixels in Eqs. (B.3) must be only one pixel in the direction
perpendicular to the border since the potential is sampled on a
grid only. This has the consequence
to slightly increase the noise at the boundaries but does not produce
any bias. Once Eq. (B.2) is minimized, the
map is found, and then the condition
is imposed on it.
B.2. Construction of the initial g map
A problem that we have to solve in this work is how to get the
shear pattern of a projected mass distribution? Namely from the
simulated we want to get the
corresponding distortion map, put a noise on it, and reconstruct
. The construction of a distortion
map from a convergence map is unfortunately an under-constrained
problem again. For example any transformation of the potential
with
leaves the convergence unchanged,
but may change the shear (such a solution is for example
). A peculiar solution for the
potential can be obtained by
minimizing the function:
![[EQUATION]](img315.gif)
The resulting reduced shear is then
, where
is the unphysical solution given by
, but it is possible to reconstruct
the convergence using Eq. (B.2), since
is unchanged by the presence of the
term . Unfortunately it is no longer
the case when the noise is included via Eq. (10), because
explicitly comes in the
denominator. Fortunately, the role of the denominator in Eq. (10) is
weak (this is a one percent effect on each galaxy if we take
and
), this is in particular one of the
reasons why the weak lensing approximation works so well. We thus did
not try to correct for the presence of a spurious contribution
in all the calculations, since it
gives a negligible contribution to the signal (in terms of power
spectrum and moments).
B.3. Noise generation
Once the true g maps are obtained the noise is introduced in
a realistic way, using Eq. 10: a sample of background galaxies with
random intrinsic orientations is sheared, from which the
map is reconstructed. The galaxies
are observed in a grid of superpixels of 2.5 arcmin size (the
minimum size of the map
simulations), in which the number of galaxies
per superpixel i is known.
In principle this number suffers of the amplification bias (depending
on the line of sight matter quantity), but this effect is neglected
here. follows a Gaussian
distribution of mean and variance
. Each pixel i of the image
gives a local estimate of the reduced shear from the
galaxies, each of them having an
intrinsic ellipticity which
contributes as a source of noise for the shear signal. The
distribution of is a truncated
normalized Gaussian defined over the range
,
![[EQUATION]](img325.gif)
where we choose . (which
corresponds to a typical axis ratio of 0.8).
From Eq. (10), the observed mean ellipticity
of a number
of galaxies in the image plane is
given by
![[EQUATION]](img328.gif)
Where is an unbiased estimate of
the reduced shear g in the superpixel i (Schramm &
Kayser 1995, Schneider & Seitz 1995). A realistic estimate of
depends on the observational
context, the telescope used, the optical filter, the atmospheric
conditions. By choosing
gal/arcmin2 or
gal/arcmin2 we adopted a
conservative and reasonable assumption about the telescope time: the
former is accessible in the I-band with 1.5 hour integration at CFHT,
while the later is accessible for 4 hours in the same conditions.
© European Southern Observatory (ESO) 1999
Online publication: December 22, 1998
helpdesk.link@springer.de  |