Non-Gaussian signatures in cosmic shear fields Masahiro Takada (Tohoku U., Japan) July 6 th IAP Based on collaboration with Bhuvnesh Jain (Penn) (MT.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CMB and cluster lensing Antony Lewis Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge Lewis & Challinor, Phys. Rept : astro-ph/
Advertisements

Lagrangian Perturbation Theory : 3 rd order solutions for general dark energy models Seokcheon Lee ( ) Korea Institute for Advanced Study ( ) Feb. 12 th.
Weighing Neutrinos including the Largest Photometric Galaxy Survey: MegaZ DR7 Moriond 2010Shaun Thomas: UCL “A combined constraint on the Neutrinos” Arxiv:
Dark Energy with Clusters with LSST Steve Allen Ian Dell’Antonio.
Tidal Alignments & Large Scale Structure Christopher Hirata Edinburgh, 22 Jul 2010 C.H., MNRAS 399:1074 (2009) – Redshift space distortions Elisabeth Krause.
Weak Lensing Tomography Sarah Bridle University College London.
Current Observational Constraints on Dark Energy Chicago, December 2001 Wendy Freedman Carnegie Observatories, Pasadena CA.
Galaxy and Mass Power Spectra Shaun Cole ICC, University of Durham Main Contributors: Ariel Sanchez (Cordoba) Steve Wilkins (Cambridge) Imperial College.
Non-linear matter power spectrum to 1% accuracy between dynamical dark energy models Matt Francis University of Sydney Geraint Lewis (University of Sydney)
Christian Wagner - September Potsdam Nonlinear Power Spectrum Emulator Christian Wagner in collaboration with Katrin Heitmann, Salman Habib,
Å rhus, 4 September 2007 Julien Lesgourgues (LAPTH, Annecy, France)
Constraints on primordial non- Gaussianity from LSS-CMB cross-correlations Yoshitaka Takeuchi (Nagoya Univ.) Collaboration with T.Matsubara and K.Ichiki.
The National Science Foundation The Dark Energy Survey J. Frieman, M. Becker, J. Carlstrom, M. Gladders, W. Hu, R. Kessler, B. Koester, A. Kravtsov, for.
1 ACT  Atacama Cosmology Telescope  Funded by NSF  Will measure CMB fluctuations on small angular scales  Probe the primordial power spectrum and the.
Cosmology Zhaoming Ma July 25, The standard model - not the one you’re thinking  Smooth, expanding universe (big bang).  General relativity controls.
July 7, 2008SLAC Annual Program ReviewPage 1 Future Dark Energy Surveys R. Wechsler Assistant Professor KIPAC.
Complementary Probes ofDark Energy Complementary Probes of Dark Energy Eric Linder Berkeley Lab.
Tracing Dark and Luminous Matter in COSMOS: Key Astrophysics and Practical Restrictions James Taylor (Caltech) -- Cosmos meeting -- Kyoto, Japan -- May.
The Structure Formation Cookbook 1. Initial Conditions: A Theory for the Origin of Density Perturbations in the Early Universe Primordial Inflation: initial.
Statistics of the Weak-lensing Convergence Field Sheng Wang Brookhaven National Laboratory Columbia University Collaborators: Zoltán Haiman, Morgan May,
Weak Gravitational Lensing by Large-Scale Structure Alexandre Refregier (Cambridge) Collaborators: Richard Ellis (Caltech) David Bacon (Cambridge) Richard.
Non-Gaussian signatures in cosmic shear fields
Impact of intrinsic alignments on cosmic shear Shearing by elliptical galaxy halos –SB + Filipe Abdalla astro-ph/ Intrinsic alignments and photozs.
Weak Lensing 3 Tom Kitching. Introduction Scope of the lecture Power Spectra of weak lensing Statistics.
The Science Case for the Dark Energy Survey James Annis For the DES Collaboration.
Henk Hoekstra Ludo van Waerbeke Catherine Heymans Mike Hudson Laura Parker Yannick Mellier Liping Fu Elisabetta Semboloni Martin Kilbinger Andisheh Mahdavi.
Polarization-assisted WMAP-NVSS Cross Correlation Collaborators: K-W Ng(IoP, AS) Ue-Li Pen (CITA) Guo Chin Liu (ASIAA)
Galaxy bias with Gaussian/non- Gaussian initial condition: a pedagogical introduction Donghui Jeong Texas Cosmology Center The University of Texas at Austin.
Constraints on Dark Energy from CMB Eiichiro Komatsu University of Texas at Austin Dark Energy February 27, 2006.
Cosmological studies with Weak Lensing Peak statistics Zuhui Fan Dept. of Astronomy, Peking University.
Testing the Shear Ratio Test: (More) Cosmology from Lensing in the COSMOS Field James Taylor University of Waterloo (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) DUEL Edinburgh,
Cosmological Constraints from the maxBCG Cluster Sample Eduardo Rozo October 12, 2006 In collaboration with: Risa Wechsler, Benjamin Koester, Timothy McKay,
Yanchuan Cai ( 蔡彦川 ) Shaun Cole, Adrian Jenkins, Carlos Frenk Institute for Computational Cosmology Durham University May 31, 2008, NDHU, Taiwan ISW Cross-Correlation.
The Structure Formation Cookbook 1. Initial Conditions: A Theory for the Origin of Density Perturbations in the Early Universe Primordial Inflation: initial.
Cosmology with Gravitaional Lensing
Observational constraints and cosmological parameters Antony Lewis Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge
Subaru Galaxy Surveys: Hyper-Suprime Cam & WFMOS (As an introduction of next talk by Shun Saito) Masahiro Takada (Tohoku Univ., Sendai, Japan) Sep
Refining Photometric Redshift Distributions with Cross-Correlations Alexia Schulz Institute for Advanced Study Collaborators: Martin White.
Scalar field quintessence by cosmic shear constraints from VIRMOS-Descart and CFHTLS and future prospects July 2006, Barcelona IRGAC 2006 In collaboration.
 Acceleration of Universe  Background level  Evolution of expansion: H(a), w(a)  degeneracy: DE & MG  Perturbation level  Evolution of inhomogeneity:
On ‘cosmology-cluster physics’ degeneracies and cluster surveys (Applications of self-calibration) Subha Majumdar Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics.
HST ACS data LSST: ~40 galaxies per sq.arcmin. LSST CD-1 Review SLAC, Menlo Park, CA November 1 - 3, LSST will achieve percent level statistical.
The Pursuit of primordial non-Gaussianity in the galaxy bispectrum and galaxy-galaxy, galaxy CMB weak lensing Donghui Jeong Texas Cosmology Center and.
Cosmic shear and intrinsic alignments Rachel Mandelbaum April 2, 2007 Collaborators: Christopher Hirata (IAS), Mustapha Ishak (UT Dallas), Uros Seljak.
6dF Workshop April Sydney Cosmological Parameters from 6dF and 2MRS Anaïs Rassat (University College London) 6dF workshop, AAO/Sydney,
The Feasibility of Constraining Dark Energy Using LAMOST Redshift Survey L.Sun.
3rd International Workshop on Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry NTHU & NTU, Dec 27—31, 2012 Likelihood of the Matter Power Spectrum.
Weak Lensing Alexandre Refregier (CEA/Saclay) Collaborators: Richard Massey (Cambridge), Tzu-Ching Chang (Columbia), David Bacon (Edinburgh), Jason Rhodes.
Cosmology with Large Optical Cluster Surveys Eduardo Rozo Einstein Fellow University of Chicago Rencontres de Moriond March 14, 2010.
Complementary Probes of Dark Energy Josh Frieman Snowmass 2001.
Probing Cosmology with Weak Lensing Effects Zuhui Fan Dept. of Astronomy, Peking University.
Dark Energy and baryon oscillations Domenico Sapone Université de Genève, Département de Physique théorique In collaboration with: Luca Amendola (INAF,
Gravitational Lensing
Cosmological Weak Lensing With SKA in the Planck era Y. Mellier SKA, IAP, October 27, 2006.
CMB, lensing, and non-Gaussianities
Feasibility of detecting dark energy using bispectrum Yipeng Jing Shanghai Astronomical Observatory Hong Guo and YPJ, in preparation.
Initial conditions for N-body simulations Hans A. Winther ITA, University of Oslo.
Carlos Hernández-Monteagudo CE F CA 1 CENTRO DE ESTUDIOS DE FÍSICA DEL COSMOS DE ARAGÓN (CE F CA) J-PAS 10th Collaboration Meeting March 11th 2015 Cosmology.
CTIO Camera Mtg - Dec ‘03 Studies of Dark Energy with Galaxy Clusters Joe Mohr Department of Astronomy Department of Physics University of Illinois.
Cheng Zhao Supervisor: Charling Tao
Jochen Weller Decrypting the Universe Edinburgh, October, 2007 未来 の 暗 黒 エネルギー 実 験 の 相補性.
Sam Young University of Sussex arXiv: , SY, Christian Byrnes Texas Symposium, 16 th December 2015 CONDITIONS FOR THE FORMATION OF PRIMORDIAL BLACK.
Some bonus cosmological applications of BigBOSS ZHANG, Pengjie Shanghai Astronomical Observatory BigBOSS collaboration meeting, Paris, 2012 Refer to related.
Subaru Weak Lensing Survey: Hyper Suprime-Cam
Complementarity of Dark Energy Probes
Some issues in cluster cosmology
Intrinsic Alignment of Galaxies and Weak Lensing Cluster Surveys Zuhui Fan Dept. of Astronomy, Peking University.
The impact of non-linear evolution of the cosmological matter power spectrum on the measurement of neutrino masses ROE-JSPS workshop Edinburgh.
6-band Survey: ugrizy 320–1050 nm
Cosmology with Galaxy Correlations from Photometric Redshift Surveys
Presentation transcript:

Non-Gaussian signatures in cosmic shear fields Masahiro Takada (Tohoku U., Japan) July 6 th IAP Based on collaboration with Bhuvnesh Jain (Penn) (MT & Jain 04, MT & Jain 07 in prep.) Sarah Bridle (UCL) (MT & Bridle 07, astro-ph/ ) Also see the poster of Nobuhiro Okabe (Tohoku) for the observational results for cluster lensing using Subaru data

Outline of this talk What is cosmic shear tomography? Non-Gaussian errors of cosmic shear fields and the higher-order moments Parameter forecast including non-Gaussian errors Combining WLT and cluster counts Summary

Cosmological weak lensing – cosmic shear present z=z s z=z l z= 0 past Large-scale structure observables Arises from total matter clustering –Not affected by galaxy bias uncertainty –well modeled based on simulations (current accuracy, <10% White & Vale 04) A % level effect; needs numerous (~10 8 ) galaxies for the precise measurements

Weak Lensing Tomography Subdivide source galaxies into several bins based on photo- z derived from multi-colors (e.g., Massey etal07) in each bin needs accuracy of ~0.1% Adds some ``depth’’ information to lensing – improve cosmological paras (including DE) +  m (z) (e.g., Hu 99, 02, Huterer 01, MT & Jain 04)

Tomographic Lensing Power Spectrum Tomography allows to extract redshift evolution of the lensing power spectrum. A maximum multipole used should be like l_max<3,000

Tomographic Lensing Power Spectrum (contd.) Lensing PS has a less feature shape, not like CMB –Can’t better constrain inflation parameters (n_s and alpha_s) than CMB –Need to use the lensing power spectrum amplitudes to do cosmology: the amplitude is sensitive to A_s,  de0 (or  m0 ), w(z).

Lenisng tomography (condt.) WLT can be a powerful probe of DE energy density and its redshift evolution. Need 3 z-bins at least, if we want to constrain DE model with 3 parameters (  _de,w0, wa) Less improvement using more than 4 z-bins, for the 3 parameter DE model

Non-linear clustering Most of WL signal is from small angular scales, where the non-linear clustering boosts the lensing signals by an order of magnitude (Jain & Seljak97). Large-scale structures in the non-linear stage are non-Gaussian by nature. 2pt information is not sufficient; higher-order correlations need to be included to extract all the cosmological information Baryonic physics: l>10^3 Non-linear clustering l_max~3000

Non-Gaussianity induced by structure formation Linear regime O(  )<<1; all the Fourier modes of the perturbations grow at the same rate; the growth rate D(z) –The linear theory, based on FRW + GR, gives robust, secure predictions Mildly non-linear regime O(  )~1; a mode coupling between different Fourier modes is induced –The perturbation theory gives the specific predictions for a CDM model Highly non-linear regime; a more complicated mode coupling –N-body simulation based predictions are needed (e.g., halo model) Correlations btw density perturbations of different scales arise as a consequence of non-linear structure formation, originating from the initial Gaussian fieldsCorrelations btw density perturbations of different scales arise as a consequence of non-linear structure formation, originating from the initial Gaussian fields However, the non-Gaussianity is fairly accurately predictable based on the CDM modelHowever, the non-Gaussianity is fairly accurately predictable based on the CDM model

Aspects of non-Gaussianity in cosmic shear Errors in cosmic shear are non-Gaussian –Including non-Gaussian errors degrade the cosmological constraints? –Realize more realistic ability to constrain cosmological parameters –The dependences for survey parameters (e.g., shallow survey vs. deep survey) Yet, adding the NG information, e.g. carried by the bispectrum, is useful?

Covariance matrix of PS measurement Most of lensing signals are from non-linear scales: the errors are non-Gaussian PS covariance describes correlation between the two spectra of multipoles l 1 and l 2 (Cooray & Hu 01), providing a more realistic estimate of the measurement errors The non-Gaussian errors for PS arise from the 4-pt function of mass fluctuations in LSS l1l1 l2l2 l1l1 l2l2 l2l2 l1l1 l1l1 l2l2 Gaussian errors  Non-Gaussian errors  (MT & Jain 07 in prep.)

Correlation coefficients of PS cov. matrix Diagonal: Gaussian Off-diagonal: NG, 4- pt function 30 bins: 50<l<3000 If significant correlations, r_ij  1 The NG is stronger at smaller angular scales The shot noise only contributes to the Gaussian (diagonal) terms, suppressing significance of the NG errors w/o shot noise with shot noise

Correlations btw Cl’s at different l’s Principal component decomposition of the PS covariance matrix

Power spectrum with NG errors The band powers btw different ells are highly correlated (also see Kilbinger & Schneider 05) NG increases the errors by up to a factor of 2 over a range of l~1000 ell 10^4, the errors are close to the Gaussian cases (in z-space as well for WLT)

Signal-to-noise ratio: SNR Data vector: power spectra binned in multipole range, l_min<l<l_max, (and redshifts) In the presence of the non-Gaussian errors, the signal-to- noise ratio for a power spectrum measurement is For a larger area survey (f_sky ) or a deeper survey (n_g ), the covariance matrix gets smaller, so the signal-to-noise ratio gets increased; S/N

Signal-to-ratio: SNR(contd.) Multipole range: 50<l<l_max Non-gaussian errors degrade S/N by a factor of 2 This means that the cosmic shear fields are highly non-Gaussian (Cooray & Hu 01; Kilbinger & Schneider 05) Gaussian Non-Gaussian 50<l<l_max

The impact on cosmo para errors  _de w_0 w_a n_s ….  _mh^2  _bh^2 We are working in a multi-dimensional parameter space (e.g. 7D) error ellipse  _de w_0 w_a n_s ….  _mh^2  _bh^2 Non-Gaussian Error Volume of the ellipse: V NG  2V G Marginalized error on each parameter  length of the principal axis:  NG ~ 2^(1/N p )  G (reduced by the dim. of para space) –Each para is degraded by slightly different amounts –Degeneracy direction is slightly changed

An even more direct use of NG: bispectrum An even more direct use of NG: bispectrum given as a function of triangles given as a function of separation l Bernardeau+97, 02, Schneider & Lombardi03, Zaldarriaga & Scoccimarro 03, MT & Jain 04, 07, Kilbinger & Schneider 05

A more realistic parameter forecast MT & Jain in prep. 07 WLT (3 z-bins) + CMB Parameter errors: PS, Bisp, PS+Bisp –G:  (  _de)=0.015, 0.014,  NG: 0.016(7%), 0.022(57), 0.013(30) –  (w0)= 0.18, 0.20, 0.13  0.19(6%), 0.29(45), 0.15(15) –  (wa)= 0.50, 0.57, 0.38  0.52(4%), 0.78(73), 0.41(8) The errors from Bisp are more degraded than PS –Need not go to 4-pt! In the presence of systematics, PS+Bisp would be very powerful to discriminate the cosmological signals (Huterer, MT+ 05)

WLT + Cluster Counts Clusters are easy to find from WL survey itself: mass peaks (Miyazaki etal.03; see Hamana san’s talk for the details) Synergy with other wavelength surveys (SZ, X-ray…) –Combining WL signal and other data is very useful to discriminate real clusters from contaminations Combing WL with cluster counts is useful for cosmology? –Yes, would improve parameter constraints, but how complementary? Cluster counts is a powerful probe of cosmology, established method (Kitayama & Suto 97; Meneghetti+05) MT & S. Bridle astro-ph/ Angular number counts: w0=-1  w0=-0.9

Mass-limited cluster counts vs. lensing-selected counts Mass-selected sample (SZ) vs lensing-based sample Halo distributionConvergence map Hamana, MT, Yoshida 04 2 degrees

Redshift distribution of cluster samples

Cross-correlation between CC and WL If the two observables are drawn from the same survey region, the two probe the same cosmic mass density field in LSS Around each cluster, stronger shear signal is expected: up to ~10% in induced ellipticities, compared to a few % for typical cosmic shear A positive cross-correlation is expected: Clusters happen to be less/more populated in a given survey region than expected, the amplitudes of are most likely to be smaller/greater A patch of the observed sky Cluster Shearing effect of background galaxies

Cross-correlation btw CC and WL (contd.) Shown is the halo model prediction for the lensing power spectrum A correlation between the number of clusters and the ps amplitude at l~10^3 is expected. 10^14<M/M_s<10^15

Cross-covariance between CC + WL Cross-covariance between PS binned in l and z and the cluster counts binned in z The cross-correlation arises from the 3-pt function of the cluster distribution and the two lensing fields of background galaxies –The cross-covariance is from the non-Gaussianity of LSS The structure formation model gives specific predictions for the cross-covariance

SNR for CC+WL The cross- covariance leads to degradation and improvement in S/N up to ~  20%, compared to the case that the two are independent

Parameter forecasts for CC+WL Lensing-selected sample with detection threshold S/N~10 contains clusters with >10^15Msun Lensing-selected sample is more complementary to WLT, than a mass-selected one? Needs to be more carefully addressed lensing-selected sample mass-selected sample WL CC+WL CC+WL with Cov

HSCWLS performance (WLT+CC+CMB ) Combining WLT and CC does tighten the DE constraints, due to their different cosmological dependences Cross-correlation between WLT and CC is negligible; the two are considered independent approximately

Issues on systematics: self-calibration If several observables (O 1,O 2,…) are drawn from the same survey region: e.g., WLPS, WLBisp, CC,… –Each observable contains two contributions (C: cosmological signal and S: systematics) Covariances (or correlation) between the different obs. –If the systematics in different obs are uncorrelated –The cosmological covariances are fairly accurately predictable Taking into account the covariances in the analysis could allow to discriminate the cosmological signals from the systemacs – self-calibration –Working in progress

Summary The non-Gaussian errors in cosmic shear fields arise from non-linear clustering in structure formation –The CDM model provides the specific predictions, so the NG errors are in some sense accurately predictable Bad news: the NG errors are very important to be included for current and, definitely, future surveys –The NG degrades the S/N for the lensing power spectrum measurement up to a factor of 2 Good news: the NG impact on cosmo para errors are less significant if working in a multi-dimensional parameter space –~10% for 7-D parameter space WLT and cluster counts, both available from the same imaging survey, can be used to tighten the cosmological constraints