Accurate Measurement of the Lensing Magnification by BOSS CMASS Galaxies and Its Implications for Cosmology and Dark Matter

Assuming that gravitational lensing alters the source position from $\bm{\theta}^{S}$ to $\bm{\theta}^{I}$, this transformation can be expressed by the following matrix:

where $\kappa$ represents the convergence, and $\gamma_{1}$ and $\gamma_{2}$ denote the two components of the shear, with ${\bm{\gamma}}=\gamma_{1}+i\gamma_{2}$. Magnification characterizes the amplification of the surface area:

As lensing conserves the apparent surface brightness, the total flux of the background sources is magnified by $\mu$.

The lensing parameters are linked to the matter distribution in the lens plane. The convergence $\kappa$ is linked to the matter surface density $\Sigma$ through the critical surface density $\Sigma_{\rm{crit}}$:

where $D_{\rm{A}}^{\rm{l}}$, $D_{\rm{A}}^{\rm{s}}$, and $D_{\rm{A}}^{\rm{ls}}$ are the angular diameter distances from the observer to the lens, the observer to the source, and from the lens to the source. For a lens with an axially symmetric mass distribution, the shear amplitude $\gamma$ can be computed as:

where $\bar{\Sigma}(\theta)$ represents the mean matter surface density enclosed within $\theta$:

In the weak lensing regime ($\kappa\ll 1$), magnification can be approximated as:

Thus,

However, in regions of high density where the nonlinear contribution cannot be ignored, $\delta\mu$ may significantly deviate from the approximation in Equation 7. Therefore, we define:

and $\Sigma_{\mu}\approx\Sigma$ in the weak lensing regime. $\Sigma_{\mu}$ is defined to extract the redshift dependence and facilitate the comparison of magnification measurements across different source samples. For source samples with different redshift distributions, $\Sigma_{\mu}$ is theoretically different due to its remaining dependence on source redshifts. However, for source samples with similar redshifts, as used in this study, the difference is negligible since the redshift dependence of $\Sigma_{\mu}$ is very weak.

In this study, we investigate lensing magnification in the vicinity of massive galaxies, where the matter density can be notably high and asymmetric. Consequently, we opt for direct ray-tracing in cosmological simulations to compare with observations (Jain et al., 2000; Petri, 2016; Xu & Jing, 2021), rather than relying on analytical models with assumptions. After solving for the deflection angle $\bm{\alpha}$ in the lens plane, the lensing parameters can be derived by:

In galaxy surveys, magnification can be quantified by observing variations in the number density or flux of the background sources. There are three effects that magnification induces on a background galaxy sample. Firstly, the flux of galaxies is magnified by $\mu$. Secondly, the number density of galaxies decreases by a factor of $\mu$, as the area is amplified by $\mu$. Finally, the intrinsic magnitude limit of the galaxy sample shifts towards fainter values, resulting in more galaxies being brought above the magnitude limit.

In prior research, changes in the number density $\delta n/n$ or the mean magnitude $\delta m$ of the background sources have typically been employed as observables for magnification. The relationships between $\delta n/n$, $\delta m$, and $\delta\mu$ in the weak lensing regime ($\delta\mu\ll 1$) have been extensively formulated in the literature for magnitude-limited samples (Scranton et al., 2005; Ménard et al., 2010; Bauer et al., 2014):

and

where $m_{\rm{lim}}$ represents the magnitude limit of the galaxy sample, $n(<m)$ is the total number density of galaxies brighter than $m$, and $\bar{m}(<m)$ is the mean brightness of galaxies brighter than $m$.

In this study, however, we opt to measure the change in the total flux density $F$ of source galaxies around the lens to explore magnification. This choice avoids the need to measure the number density of galaxies required for computing $\delta n/n$ and $\delta m$. In crowded regions, the extraction of sources in the images may be impacted by the imperfect deblending problem. Wang et al. (2021) discovered that deblending mistakes can significantly influence the count of galaxies around central bright galaxies at scales where $r_{\rm{p}}<0.1R_{200}$¹¹1$R_{200}$ is defined as the radius within which the average matter density is 200 times the mean critical density of the universe. in the Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) survey (Aihara et al., 2018). Although our source sample is from a survey shallower than HSC, this issue remains a concern. Hence, we opt to measure the total flux density $F$, which may be the most robust against the imperfect deblending issue. For instance, in crowded regions where a source might fragment into several components due to a higher image background, the number density could change substantially while the total flux density $F$ remains constant. In practice, we indeed find that the magnification results from $F$ are more accurate than those from $\delta n/n$ and $\delta m$.

The total flux density of a magnitude-limited sample can be expressed as:

where $f_{\rm{lim}}=10^{-m_{\rm{lim}}/2.5}$. When magnified by a lens, the first and second effects cancel out, as the flux of each source increases by $\mu$, while the number density decreases by $\mu$. The change in $F$ is solely induced by alterations in the magnitude limit of the sample:

Expressing this in the convention of magnitude, we have

Where $M(m)$ is the total magnitude of galaxies brighter than $m$. In the weak lensing region where $\delta\mu\ll 1$, $\delta M$ can be approximated by

In regions where $\delta\mu$ becomes significant, Equation 15 becomes inaccurate for describing the $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relation. Fortunately, modern cosmological photometric surveys typically conduct small-area deep field surveys, which are much deeper than the wide surveys used for lensing studies. The $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relation can be empirically derived from a deeper sample by selecting various $\mu$ values and computing $M(m_{\rm{lim}}+2.5\log_{10}\mu)$ for the respective magnitude limits.

Moreover, in a more complex scenario where the source sample is already incomplete at the magnitude limit chosen for measuring magnification, the $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relation can still be derived from a deeper sample. For instance, in this study, the completeness of our source samples ranges from $90\%$ to $95\%$ at the chosen fiducial magnitude limits. In this case, $M(m_{\rm{lim}})$ in the source sample can be different from that in the deeper sample. Hence, we account for a more realistic $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relation by considering this incompleteness. The completeness, represented as a function of flux $C(f)$ or magnitude $C(m)$, can be determined by comparing the galaxy number density in the source sample to that in the deeper sample. Subsequently, the total flux density can be re-write as

Assuming that magnification does not affect the incompleteness for a fixed magnitude, as the survey depth remains unaffected by magnification, the magnified total flux density can be obtained from the deeper sample:

Then, $\delta M$ for a specific $\mu$ can be obtained by comparing $M(m_{\rm{lim}})$ obtained from the source sample with $M_{\mu}(m_{\rm{lim}},\mu)$ derived from the deeper sample. It is also worth noting that if $C(f)$ varies quite slowly across the magnitude ranges we are interested in, such that $dC/df\approx 0$, the $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relation approaches one that does not account for incompleteness.

For the lens sample, we utilize the CMASS spectroscopic sample from SDSS-III BOSS DR12 (Alam et al., 2015; Reid et al., 2016). The CMASS sample employs target selections similar to those of the SDSS-I/II Cut II Large Red Galaxy (LRG) sample but is bluer and fainter to increase the galaxy number density in the redshift range of $0.43<z<0.75$. Galaxies in the CMASS sample are selected using a combination of magnitude and color cuts to achieve an approximately constant stellar mass. The magnitude limits for the cmodel magnitudes in the CMASS sample are $17.6<i<19.9$, and the full selection criteria can be found in Reid et al. (2016). We utilize the ”CMASS” LSS catalog²²2https://data.sdss.org/sas/dr12/boss/lss/ from BOSS DR12 for the CMASS sample, which covers $9376\ \rm{deg}^{2}$ of the sky, with $6851\ \rm{deg}^{2}$ in the NGC and $2525\ \rm{deg}^{2}$ in the SGC. To match the footprint of the source sample described in Section 3.2, we adopt an angular cut of $\rm{decl.}\leq 32^{\circ}$, resulting in an effective area of approximately $6600\ \rm{deg}^{2}$. To ensure a sufficient redshift gap between the lens and source samples while including as many lens galaxies as possible, we apply a redshift cut of $0.5<z<0.65$. This results in a final sample of 348,938 LRGs in our lens sample.

For the source sample, we utilize the DECaLS photometric catalog³³3https://www.legacysurvey.org/dr9/catalogs/ from the DR9 of the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys (Legacy Surveys; Dey et al., 2019). Covering approximately $9000\ {\rm{deg}}^{2}$ in both the Northern and Southern Galactic caps (NGC and SGC) at $\rm{decl.}\leq 32^{\circ}$, DECaLS provides imaging data in $g$, $r$, and $z$ bands, with median $5\sigma$ point source depths of $24.9$, $24.2$, and $23.3$ respectively. Additionally, DECaLS incorporates data from the deeper Dark Energy Survey (DES; Dark Energy Survey Collaboration et al. 2016), extending coverage by an additional $5000\ {\rm{deg}}^{2}$ in the SGC. Image processing is conducted using Tractor (Lang et al., 2016) for source extraction, employing parametric profiles convolved with specific point spread functions (PSFs), including a delta function for point sources, exponential and de Vaucouleurs laws, as well as Sérsic profiles. The images from DES have been reprocessed using the same pipeline to ensure consistency. Throughout the analysis, we utilize the best-fit model magnitudes provided by Tractor. We restrict our analysis to footprints observed at least once in all three bands and apply a bright star mask and bad pixel mask using the MASKBITS⁴⁴4https://www.legacysurvey.org/dr9/bitmasks/ provided by the Legacy Surveys. Additional masks are employed to match the geometry of the lens sample described in Section 3.1. The final footprint covers approximately $6600\ \rm{deg}^{2}$. Galactic extinction correction is applied to all sources using the maps of Schlegel et al. (1998). To exclude stars, sources with point source (PSF) morphologies are removed from the sample.

To construct a background source sample, our goal is to select sources with redshifts higher than $0.85$ to ensure an adequate redshift separation from the lens sample. Rather than relying on photometric redshifts (photoz), we employ a simple color cut to avoid potential complications associated with unknown and complex selection criteria inherent in photoz. We employ the spectroscopic galaxy catalog from the final public release (PDR-2) of the VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS; Scodeggio et al., 2018) to define the color cut. VIPERS is a magnitude-limited spectroscopic survey spanning approximately 24 ${\rm{deg}}^{2}$, targeting galaxies with $i<22.5$ and incorporating an extra color criterion to eliminate low-redshift galaxies ($z<0.5$). We match the VIPERS sample with DECaLS to get the same $grz$ band flux measurements. In Figure 1, we plot the VIPERS galaxies with $z<0.85$ and $z>0.85$ in the $g-r$ vs. $r-z$ diagram and find that the following color cut can effectively reject galaxies with $z<0.85$:

After extracting high-redshift sources using the color cut described in Equation 18, we select three source samples from DECaLS based on magnitude cuts in the $grz$ bands. These samples are utilized to measure dust attenuation and correct it for magnification results, as outlined in Section 5.1. Our fiducial choose of the magnitude cuts are $g<23.3$, $r<22.6$ and $z<21.4$ according to the survey depths of DECaLS. We compare the fiducial results with those obtained using different magnitude cuts in Section 5.5 and verify that our results remain consistent regardless of the choice of magnitude cuts. In Figure 2, we present the redshift distribution of the CMASS lens sample and three DECaLS source samples. The CMASS sample is represented with spectroscopic redshifts, whereas the DECaLS samples are depicted using photoz from Zhou et al. (2021). The lens sample has a mean redshift of $\bar{z}_{\rm{l}}=0.56$, while the source samples have mean redshifts of $\bar{z}_{\rm{s}}^{g}=0.98$, $\bar{z}_{\rm{s}}^{r}=0.93$, and $\bar{z}_{\rm{s}}^{z}=0.92$. The redshift distributions demonstrate the success of the color cut developed in Equation 18 in selecting background samples.

To begin, we estimate the radial distribution of the flux excess $F_{\mu}/F$ of the sources around lenses using a generalized Landy–Szalay estimator (Landy & Szalay, 1993):

where $\bar{f}$ represents the mean flux of the source sample, $D_{1}$ and $R_{1}$ denote the number counts of the lens sample and its random sample respectively, and $F_{2}$ and $R_{2}$ stand for the fluxes of the source sample and the number counts of its random sample. For each lens galaxy, we employ $\theta=\arcsin{(r_{\rm{p}}/D_{\rm{A}}^{l}})$ to summarize the flux for the corresponding $r_{\rm{p}}$, where $D_{\rm{A}}^{l}$ represents the angular diameter distance to the lens galaxy and $r_{\rm{p}}$ is represented in the physical coordinate system.

Then, the distribution of $\delta M$ can be calculated from $F_{\mu}/F$ by

For estimating the covariance matrix for $\delta M$, we employ the jackknife resampling method. The footprint of both NGC and SGC is partitioned into $N_{\rm{JK}}$ jackknife sub-samples. Subsequently, $\delta M$ is measured within each sub-sample. The final results of the $i$th sub-sample are obtained by combining measurements from the $i$th NGC sub-sample and the $i$th SGC sub-sample, weighted by the respective areas of NGC and SGC. The mean value and covariance matrix of $\delta M$ are then derived by

where $a$ and $b$ denotes the $a$th and $b$th radial bins.

We measure the distributions of $\delta M$ around CMASS lens galaxies across three bands within the physical scales of $0.016\,h^{-1}{\rm{Mpc}}<r_{\rm{p}}<10\,h^{-1}{\rm{Mpc}}$, utilizing three magnitude-limited source samples. We set $N_{\rm{JK}}=200$ in our study. The results are depicted in the left panel of Figure 3. We observe an increase in the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of $\delta M$ with decreasing $r_{\rm{p}}$, achieving highly accurate measurements down to $20\,h^{-1}{\rm{kpc}}$, underscoring the potential of magnification for exploring matter distribution within the inner regions of dark matter halos.

After obtaining measurements of $\delta M$, establishing the $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relation becomes necessary to convert the observed quantities into physical quantities, facilitating easier comparisons with models. As delineated in Section 2.2, obtaining a deeper sample is crucial for deriving the $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relation, particularly as we delve into the non-linear region. Fortunately, DECaLS incorporates data from DES, which extends survey depths by at least 0.5 magnitude across all three bands. Consequently, we choose the deepest regions within the DES area to investigate the $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relations, with $5\sigma$ PSF depths exceeding 25.0, 24.7, and 23.4 for the $g$, $r$, and $z$ bands, respectively. The areas covered by these deeper samples are 371 deg², 649 deg², and 1249 deg², respectively, which are large enough to obtain accurate measurements of the total flux density.

As demonstrated by Equation 14, the $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relation is determined by the distribution of the total magnitude $M$. In Figure 4, we depict the distributions of $M$ for the three bands, encompassing both the DECaLS sample and deeper samples. For better representation, we align the zero points of $M$ with the values of the DECaLS sample at the fiducial magnitude cuts, as only the relative changes of $M$ matter. It is clear that the values of $M$ for the deeper samples decrease in comparison to DECaLS as we move towards fainter magnitudes. This suggests that the DECaLS sample becomes increasingly incomplete for fainter magnitude limits. From Figure 4, we observe that the DECaLS sample is already slightly incomplete at the fiducial magnitude limits. This could potentially affect the $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relation, as explored in Section 2.2, and should be duly considered.

Using the distributions of $M$ for DECaLS and deeper samples, we establish the $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relations for $g<23.3$, $r<22.6$, and $z<21.4$. In Figure 5, we present the $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relations for the three magnitude-limited samples. For each sample, we derive three distinct $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relations: a linear relation (Equation 15), a non-linear relation (Equation 14), and a non-linear relation accounting for incompleteness (Equation 17). We observe that non-linear effects become prominent when $\delta\mu$ reaches $0.1$. Furthermore, we find minimal alteration in the relations after accounting for incompleteness, suggesting that the slight incompleteness in our fiducial samples has negligible impact on the $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relations.

Using the $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relationships, we can translate the measured $\delta M$ into the more physical quantities $\delta\mu$ and $\Sigma_{\mu}$. The non-linear relations accounting for incompleteness are used in this study. We employ a similar approach as for $\delta M$ to determine the mean value and covariance matrix of $\delta\mu$. Initially, we convert $\delta M_{i}$ in each jackknife sub-sample into $\delta\mu_{i}$, and then calculate:

Subsequently, we determine the mean value and covariance matrix of $\Sigma_{\mu}$ by dividing those of $\delta\mu$ by $\Sigma_{\rm{crit}}/2$, where $\Sigma_{\rm{crit}}$ is calculated using the mean redshifts of the lens and source samples.

The distributions of $\delta\mu$ and $\Sigma_{\mu}$ around the CMASS lens sample for our fiducial source samples in three bands are depicted in the middle and right panels of Figure 3. Ideally, $\Sigma_{\mu}$ should remain consistent across the three bands. However, we observe that longer-wavelength bands exhibit higher $\Sigma_{\mu}$, suggesting the potential presence of dust in the CGM of the massive CMASS galaxies. Dust attenuation can be corrected by comparing the measured $\Sigma_{\mu}$ in three bands, which will be investigated in next section.

When light from background sources passes through lens galaxies, it can be not only magnified but also absorbed by the dust within the lenses (Ménard et al., 2010). These two effects become degenerate when measuring $\delta M$:

where $A_{\lambda}$ denotes the magnitude change at wavelength $\lambda$ due to dust attenuation.

Fortunately, $A_{\lambda}$ changes with wavelength, as described by the dust attenuation curve (Calzetti et al., 2000; Charlot & Fall, 2000), while $\mu$ remains constant for the same sample across all wavelengths. Leveraging this distinction, dust attenuation can be measured by comparing magnification results across different observed bands, allowing extraction of the true magnification signal after correcting for dust attenuation.

However, measuring dust attenuation from the same sample may be challenging since only one band is magnitude limited, while others can be subject to complicated selection criteria, making it difficult to establish the $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relation for those bands. Instead, in this study, as show in Section 3.2, we select a magnitude-limited source sample in each band to measure dust attenuation. In this scenario, $\mu$ begins to vary for different samples as they may have different redshift distributions. In this case, the quantity that remains unchanged is the matter surface density $\Sigma$ of the lenses.

Let us denote the $\delta\mu-\delta M$ relation shown in Figure 5 as $\delta M=G_{\lambda}(\delta\mu)$ for better representation. In the weak lensing regime ($\delta\mu\ll 1$), the observed magnitude change of sources around lenses for the sample in each band is given by:

With a parameterized dust attenuation law, we can fit $\delta M_{\lambda}^{\rm{obs}}$ in different bands and constrain the matter surface density and dust attenuation simultaneously.

In the non-linear regime, we replace $\Sigma$ in Equation 26 by $\Sigma_{\mu}$:

As mentioned in Section 2.1, $\Sigma_{\mu}$ is theoretically different for samples selected in different bands since it still weakly depends on the source redshift distribution. However, for our fiducial source samples with very close mean redshifts, we find that the remaining redshift dependence is negligible ($<3\%$), as demonstrated in Section 7.3.

In the ideal scenario where we possess complete knowledge of the dust attenuation curve, it would be straightforward to fit the measurements directly using Equation 27 to simultaneously constrain the true $\Sigma_{\mu}$ and dust attenuation curve $A_{\lambda}$. However, the dust attenuation curve can vary significantly in different environments and lacks a universal parameterization. Therefore, for a more realistic approach, we first measure the reddening $E[g_{0.56}-r_{0.56}]$ and $E[r_{0.56}-z_{0.56}]$ to obtain the approximate shape of the dust attenuation curve, where the subscription 0.56 indicates the mean redshifts of the lenses.

To obtain $E[g_{0.56}-r_{0.56}]$, we compute the values of $\delta M_{g}$ required for the $g$-band to achieve the $\Sigma_{\mu,r}^{\rm{obs}}$ measured in the $r$-band and compare them with the observed values $\delta M_{g}^{\rm{obs}}$:

Similarly, we can obtain $E[r_{0.56}-z_{0.56}]$:

Here, $\Sigma_{{\rm{crit}},g}$ and $\Sigma_{{\rm{crit}},r}$ are the $\Sigma_{{\rm{crit}}}$ for $g$ and $r$ band source samples, and $G_{g}(\delta\mu)$ and $G_{r}(\delta\mu)$ are represented in Figure 5. Note that this method only provides a leading-order approximation of reddening rather than the exact true values. However, we believe this should be sufficient to investigate the form of the attenuation curve. After determining the form of the attenuation curve, we will derive the exact dust attenuation according to Equation 27.