You are on page 1of 12

Estimating the weak lensing

power spectrum
Michael Schneider
UC Davis

In collaboration with Lloyd Knox
Goal: constrain cosmological parameters with
weak lensing data

Question: How should we compare the data with theory?

Observe:
- Shear field is stochastic and non-Gaussian
- Theory predictions can be given as N-point
correlation functions
Frequent solution: compute 2-point correlation function
- doesn’t contain all information about non-Gaussian
field, but it’s a place to start
- we want to adapt CMB methods to compute the weak
lensing power spectrum
Recent analyses
Survey Analysis tools
correlation function,
COSMOS
tomography, “3D cosmic shear*”

CFHTLS (deep) correlation function

GaBoDS correlation function

power spectrum (2003),
COMBO-17 “3D cosmic shear*”

The aperture mass and top-hat variance are often computed
analytically from the correlation function and shown as well
*Heavens et al., MNRAS 373 (2006)
Requirements: Fourier vs. real space

Real Fourier

E/B separation ? ?
(ring statistics1) (ML estimator2)
simple error
no maybe?
structure
computational
complexity moderate low?
(for Monte Carlo)
1. Schneider & Kilbinger, A&A 462, 841 (2007)
2. Hu & White, ApJ 554,67 (2001), Brown et al., MNRAS, 341,1 (2003)
Pseudo PS estimator
(a la CMB (Hivon et al., ApJ 567, 2002))
We need to apply a window to the data in order to
apply masks and apodize for the Fourier transform

χ̃(x) ≡ W (x)χ(x)
The binned pseudo-power spectrum estimator is:
! !
1
C̃α ≡ d" w" dφ" χ̃∗ (%")χ̃(%")
2πBα Bα

This has expectation value:
! "
C̃α = Kαα! (Sα! + Nα! )
Pseudo PS estimator has large E/B mixing
10-2
input
10-3 E - noise bias
B - noise bias
noise
10-4 noise/sqrt(Nmodes)
((+1)/(2))C 

10-5

10-6

10-7

10-8

10-9

10-10
102 103

Separating E and B
(Smith & Zaldarriaga (2006))

Naive computation of C E , C!B on a finite
!
patch of sky introduces mixing between true
E and B modes from ambiguous modes.

Instead, compute power spectra of (spin-0)
“potentials”:
1 !¯ ¯ "
χE ≡ "∂ "∂ (γ1 + iγ2 ) + "∂ "∂ (γ1 − iγ2 )
2
i !¯ ¯ "
χB ≡ "∂ "∂ (γ1 + iγ2 ) − "∂ "∂ (γ1 − iγ2 )
2
“Pure” modes from counterterms
Expressed another way:
!
1 " #
χE (") ≡ − 2 d x γ #∂¯ #∂¯ + γ #∂ #∂ W (x)e−i!·x
2 ∗
2"
This is the “naive” result with counter terms added
to remove the ambiguous modes.

Note that all the extra terms arise because of
the weight function

In zero noise, unity window limit this is the FT
of the convergence
“pure” B modes
10-2
input
10-3 B - noise bias
pure B - noise bias
noise
10-4
noise/sqrt(Nmodes)
((+1)/(2))C 

10-5

10-6

10-7

10-8

10-9

10-10
102 103

Stellar masks
Choosing a window function
Want to find window function that minimizes error bars
while preserving E/B separation

Window will depend on models of the signal and noise
covariance

Counterterms for “pure” E/B separation depend on first and
second derivatives of window function

these terms can be complicated for the stellar masks

We have not yet solved this problem!
Summary
Advantages of shear power spectrum for constraining
cosmological parameters:

possibly simpler error structure
E/B separation possible over finite dynamic range
Easy to compute from data and compare to theory
Faster for Monte Carlo to learn about errors
Status

Implemented flat-sky version of Smith & Zaldarriaga method

Pure pseudo-PS successfully applied to simulated data with
simple mask structures

Stellar masks are more challenging - success requires an
effective method to optimize window function