# Analytical Modeling of the Weak Lensing of Standard Candles I. Empirical Fitting of Numerical Simulation Results

## 1 Introduction

The use of standard candles is fundamental in observational cosmology. The distance-redshift relations for standard candles enable us to determine the basic cosmological parameters $`H_0`$ (the Hubble constant), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ (the matter density of the Universe in units of the critical density $`\rho _c=3H_0^2/(8\pi G)`$), and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (the density contribution from the cosmological constant in units of $`\rho _c`$).

At present, the best candidates for standard candles are Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia), because they can be calibrated to have very small intrinsic dispersions at cosmological distances (Phillips (1993); Riess, Press, & Kirshner (1995)). Two independent groups of observers (Perlmutter et al. (1998); Riess et al. (1998)) have demonstrated that SNe Ia can be potentially powerful tools for cosmology. Their current results (Perlmutter et al. (1999); Schmidt et al. (1998)) seem to indicate a low matter density universe, possibly with a sizable cosmological constant. It is clear that the observation of SNe Ia can potentially become a reliable probe of cosmology. However, there are important systematic uncertainties of SNe Ia as standard candles, in particular, evolution and gravitational lensing. The two groups have either assumed a smooth universe in their data analysis, or included lensing effects in rudimentary ways. Since we live in a clumpy universe, the effect of gravitational lensing must be taken into account adequately for the proper interpretation of SN data.

A number of authors have considered various aspects of the gravitational lensing of SNe Ia (Frieman (1997); Wambsganss et al. (1997); Kantowski (1998); Holz (1998); Holz & Wald (1998); Metcalf (1998); Porciani & Madau (1998)). A realistic calculation of the weak lensing effect of standard candles was conducted by Wambsganss et al. (1997), who computed the magnification distributions of standard candles using a N-body simulation which has a resolution on small scales that is of the order the size of a halo. However, since the magnification distributions depend on the cosmological model and redshift, the numerical results can not be directly used to compute the effect of weak lensing for an observed SN Ia at arbitrary redshift.

In this paper we derive accurate empirical fitting formulae of the weak lensing numerical simulation results for the distribution of the magnification of standard candles due to weak lensing; these simple formulae can be used to account for the effect of weak lensing in the analysis of SN Ia data. In §2, we give analytical formulae for the angular diameter distance of a standard candle in terms of the smoothness parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and constants which depend on redshift and the cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In §3, we generalize the interpretation of the angular diameter distance obtained in §2 by allowing the smoothness parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ to be a direction dependent variable, the direction dependent smoothness parameter; we extract the distributions of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ from the magnification distributions found by numerical simulations. In §4, we give analytical formulae for computing the magnification distributions at arbitrary redshifts. §5 contains a summary and discussions.

## 2 Angular diameter distance as function of the smoothness parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$

In a Hubble diagram of standard candles, one must use distance-redshift relations to make theoretical interpretations. The distance-redshift relations depend on the distribution of matter in the universe. In this section, we express the angular diameter distance to a standard candle in terms of the smoothness parameter, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, which is the mass-fraction of the matter in the universe smoothly distributed (Dyer & Roeder (1973)).

In a smooth Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=1`$ in all beams; the metric is given by $`ds^2=dt^2a^2(t)[dr^2/(1kr^2)+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)]`$, where $`a(t)`$ is the cosmic scale factor, and $`k`$ is the global curvature parameter ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=1\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=k/H_0^2`$). The comoving distance $`r`$ is given by (Weinberg (1972))

$$r(z)=\frac{cH_0^1}{|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|^{1/2}}\text{sinn}\left\{|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|^{1/2}_0^z𝑑z^{}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z^{})^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_k(1+z^{})^2\right]^{1/2}\right\},$$
(1)   
where “sinn” is defined as sinh if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k>0`$, and sin if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k<0`$. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0`$, the sinn and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$’s disappear from Eq.(1), leaving only the integral. The angular diameter distance is given by $`d_A(z)=r(z)/(1+z)`$, and the luminosity distance is given by $`d_L(z)=(1+z)^2d_A(z)`$.

However, our universe is clumpy rather than smooth. According to the focusing theorem in gravitational lens theory, if there is any shear or matter along a beam connecting a source to an observer, the angular diameter distance of the source from the observer is smaller than that which would occur if the source were seen through an empty, shear-free cone, provided the affine parameter distance (defined such that its element equals the proper distance element at the observer) is the same and the beam has not gone through a caustic. An increase of shear or matter density along the beam decreases the angular diameter distance and consequently increases the observable flux for given $`z`$. (Schneider, Ehlers, & Falco 1992)

For given redshift $`z`$, if a mass-fraction $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ of the matter in the universe is smoothly distributed, the largest possible distance for light bundles which have not passed through a caustic is given by the solution to the following equation:

$`g(z){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}\left[g(z){\displaystyle \frac{dD_A}{dz}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^5D_A=0,`$   
$`D_A(z=0)=0,{\displaystyle \frac{dD_A}{dz}}|_{z=0}={\displaystyle \frac{c}{H_0}},`$ (2)   
where $`g(z)(1+z)^3\sqrt{1+\mathrm{\Omega }_mz+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }[(1+z)^21]}`$ (Kantowski (1998)). The $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ form of Eq.(2) has been known as the Dyer-Roeder equation (Dyer & Roeder (1973); Schneider et al. (1992)).

The angular diameter distance for given smoothness parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and redshift $`z`$, $`D_A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha },z)`$, can be obtained via the proper integration of Eq.(2). However, for our purposes, it is useful to fit the angular diameter distance at given redshift, $`D_A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)`$, to a polynomial in $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, with the coefficients dependent on $`z`$ and cosmological parameters. For the ranges of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and $`z`$ of interest, the angular diameter distance given by Eq.(2) can be approximated as

$$D_A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)cH_0^1\left[d_0(z)+a(z)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^3+b(z)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2+c(z)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\right],$$
(3)   
where $`d_0=D_A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=0)`$, and

$`a(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left(d_0+3d_{0.5}3d_1+d_{1.5}\right),`$   
$`b(z)`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(d_02d_{0.5}+d_1{\displaystyle \frac{3a}{4}}\right),`$   
$`c(z)`$ $`=`$ $`d_0+d_1ab,`$ (4)   
with $`d_{0.5}=D_A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=0.5)`$, $`d_1=D_A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=1)`$, and $`d_{1.5}=D_A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=1.5)`$. Fig.1 shows that the difference between Eq.(3) and the solution to Eq.(2) is much smaller than 0.1 % for the ranges of interest (see Fig.3).

The constants $`d_0`$, $`d_{0.5}`$, $`d_1`$, and $`d_{1.5}`$ depend on the redshift $`z`$ and the cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; they are easily computed by integrating Eq.(2). Table 1 lists $`d_0`$, $`d_{0.5}`$, $`d_1`$, and $`d_{1.5}`$ for various cosmological models at various redshifts.

Note that Eq.(2) is usually used to describe a universe with a global smoothness parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, with $`0\stackrel{~}{\alpha }1`$, since $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is the fraction of matter in the universe which is smoothly distributed. However, Eq.(2) is well defined for all positive values of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ essentially represents the amount of matter that causes weak lensing of a given source, and matter distribution in our universe is inhomogeneous, we can think of our universe as a mosaic of cones centered on the observer, each with a different value of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$. This reinterpretation of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ implies that we have $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }>1`$ in regions of the universe in which there are above average amounts of matter which can cause magnification of a source (see §3).

## 3 The distribution of the direction dependent smoothness parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$

In the previous section, we showed that we can separate the dependence of the angular diameter distance on the mass-fraction of matter smoothly distributed ($`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$) from its dependence on the redshift and cosmological parameters (see Eq.(3)). Unlike angular separations and flux densities, distances are not directly measurable. Let us generalize the angular diameter distance obtained in §2 by allowing the smoothness parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ to be direction dependent, i.e., a property of the beam connecting the observer and the standard candle. In order to derive a unique mapping between the distribution in distances and the distribution in the direction dependent smoothness parameter for given redshift $`z`$, we define the direction dependent smoothness parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ to be the solution of Eq.(2) (or Eq.(3)) for given distance $`D_A(z)`$.

Note that in numerical simulations, as in the real universe, we can have two lines of sight with the same fraction of smoothly distributed matter, but different distances to a given redshift $`z`$, because weak lensing depends on where the matter is, as well as what fraction of the matter is smoothly distributed. Our definition of the direction dependent smoothness parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ implies that it is no longer simply the fraction of matter smoothly distributed, it also contains information on where matter is distributed. We can interpretate $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ as the ratio of the effective density of matter smoothly distributed in the beam connecting the observer and the standard candle and the average matter density in the universe, with the effective matter density corresponding to a given amount of magnification. Two lines of sight with the same fraction of smoothly distributed matter but different distances would have different effective densities of smoothly distributed matter, thus different values of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$.

For given redshift $`z`$, we expect a distribution in the angular diameter distance $`D_A(z)`$ because the distribution of matter between redshift zero and redshift $`z`$ is inhomogeneous. We have parametrized matter distribution with $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, the direction dependent smoothness parameter; Eq.(3) then tells us how the angular diameter distance depends on the matter distribution for given redshift $`z`$.

Since the direction dependent smoothness parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ describes the distribution of matter in an arbitrary beam, it is a random variable for given redshift. The direction dependent smoothness parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ depends on the matter density in the beam connecting the observer and the source, as well as how the matter is distributed in the beam; for matter smoothly distributed throughout the beam, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }<1`$ in underdense beams, while $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }>1`$ in overdense beams. Note that here we do not consider the possibility that a significant fraction of matter can be in point masses in some beams.

The matter density field is Gaussian on large scales and non-Gaussian on small scales, thus we parametrize the probability distribution of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ in a form resembling the Gaussian distribution (see Eq.(5)).

Wambsganss et al. have found numerically the distributions of the magnifications of standard candles at various redshifts, $`p(\mu |z)`$, with $`z=`$0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 5, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.4`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.6`$ (Wambsganss et al. (1997); Wambsganss (1999)). To extract the distribution of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, we use $`\mu =\left[D_A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=1)/D_A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha })\right]^2`$ (see Eq.(8)), where $`D_A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha })`$ is given by Eq.(2) or Eq.(3). We find that the distribution of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ at given redshift $`z`$ is well described by

$$p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)=C_{norm}\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{peak}}{w\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^q}\right)^2\right],$$
(5)   
where $`C_{norm}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{peak}`$, $`w`$, and $`q`$ depend on $`z`$ and are independent of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$. Fig.2 shows $`C_{norm}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{peak}`$, $`w`$, and $`q`$ as functions of $`z`$; the points are extracted from the numerical $`p(\mu |z)`$, the solid curves are analytical fits given by

$`C_{norm}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`10^2\left[0.53239+2.79165\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{5}}\right)2.42315\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{5}}\right)^2+1.13844\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{5}}\right)^3\right],`$   
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{peak}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`1.013501.07857\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{5z}}\right)+2.05019\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{5z}}\right)^22.14520\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{5z}}\right)^3,`$   
$`w(z)`$ $`=`$ $`0.06375+1.75355\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{5z}}\right)4.99383\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{5z}}\right)^2+5.95852\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{5z}}\right)^3,`$   
$`q(z)`$ $`=`$ $`0.75045+1.85924\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{5}}\right)2.91830\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{5}}\right)^2+1.59266\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{5}}\right)^3.`$ (6)   
$`C_{norm}(z)`$ is the normalization constant for given $`z`$. The parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{peak}(z)`$ indicates the average smoothness of the universe at redshift $`z`$, it increases with $`z`$ and approaches $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{peak}(z)=1`$ at $`z=5`$; the parameter $`w(z)`$ indicates the width of the distribution in the direction dependent smoothness parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, it decreases with $`z`$. The $`z`$ dependences of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{peak}(z)`$ and $`w(z)`$ are as expected because as we look back to earlier times, lines of sight become more filled in with matter, and the universe becomes smoother on the average. The parameter $`q(z)`$ indicates the deviation of $`p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)`$ from Gaussianity (which corresponds to $`q=0`$).

Fig.3 shows $`p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)`$ for $`z=0.5`$, 2, and 5. The solid line is derived from $`p(\mu |z)`$ found numerically by Wambsganss et al. (1997); the dotted line is given by Eq.(5), with coefficients from Eq.(3); the dot-dash line shows the difference between the solid curve and the dotted curve; the dashed line shows the Gaussian distribution related to Eq.(5),

$$p^G(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)=C_{norm}\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{peak}}{w\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{peak}^q}\right)^2\right].$$
(7)   
Note that it is difficult to see the dotted lines (our empirical fitting formulae), because they are so close to the solid lines (the numerical results). This is not surprising since we have a 4-parameter fit to a smooth bell-like curve. Comparisons with Eq.(7) show how much $`p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)`$ deviates from the Gaussian distribution.

For the same matter distribution, i.e., the same $`p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)`$, different values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can lead to very different magnification distributions (see §4).

## 4 The magnification distribution due to weak lensing

At given redshift $`z`$, the magnification of a source can be expressed in terms of the apparent brightness of the source $`(\stackrel{~}{\alpha })`$, or in terms of the angular diameter distance to the source $`D_A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha })`$:

$$\mu =\frac{(\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}{(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=1)}=\left[\frac{D_A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=1)}{D_A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}\right]^2,$$
(8)   
where $`(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=1)`$ and $`D_A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=1)`$ are the flux of the source and angular diameter distance to the source in a completely smooth universe, and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is the direction dependent smoothness parameter (see Eq.(3) and §3). Since distances are not directly measurable, we should interpret Eq.(8) as defining a unique mapping between the magnification of a standard candle at redshift $`z`$ and the direction dependent smoothness parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ at $`z`$; $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ parametrizes the direction dependent matter distribution in a well-defined manner.

The distribution in the magnification of standard candles placed at redshift $`z`$ is

$`p(\mu |z)`$ $`=`$ $`p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z){\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}{d\mu }}=p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z){\displaystyle \frac{D_A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=1)}{2\mu ^{3/2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{D_A}{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}}\right)^1`$ (9)   
$``$ $`p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z){\displaystyle \frac{D_A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=1)}{2\mu ^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3a\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2+2b\stackrel{~}{\alpha }+c}},`$   
where the parameters $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ are given by Eq.(2); they depend on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`z`$.

Fig.4 shows $`p(\mu |z)`$ at $`z=0.5`$, 2, and 5 for the cosmological model $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.6`$. The solid line is the $`p(\mu |z)`$ found numerically by Wambsganss et al. (1997); the dotted line is given by Eq.(9), with $`p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)`$ given by Eq.(5). Note the excellent agreement between our empirical fitting formulae and the numerical results.

Fig.5 shows $`p(\mu |z)`$ for three cosmological models at three different redshifts: (a) $`z=0.5`$, (b) $`z=2`$, and (c) $`z=5`$. The three cosmological models are: (1) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$; (2) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$; (3) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.8`$. We have computed $`p(\mu |z)`$ using Eq.(9), with $`p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)`$ given by Eq.(5). Note that Fig.5 and Fig.4 have the same matter distribution (the same $`p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)`$), but different cosmological parameters.

Models with different cosmological parameters should lead to somewhat different matter distributions $`p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)`$. It would be interesting to compare numerical predictions for $`p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)`$ from N-body simulations for different cosmological models. In the context of weak lensing of standard candles, we expect the cosmological parameter dependence to enter primarily through the magnification $`\mu `$ to direction dependent smoothness parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ mapping at given $`z`$ (the same $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ corresponds to very different $`\mu `$ in different cosmologies).

## 5 Summary and discussions

We have derived accurate and simple empirical fitting formulae to the weak lensing numerical simulation results of Wambsganss et al. (1997). These empirical formulae can be conveniently used to compute the weak lensing effect of standard candles for various cosmological models. Our formulation is based on the unique mapping between the magnification of a source and the direction dependent smoothness parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$; $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is the ratio of the effective density of matter smoothly distributed in the beam connecting the observer and the source and the average density of the universe, with the effective matter density corresponding to a given amount of magnification. We find that the distribution of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is well described by a modified Gaussian distribution; this is interesting since the matter density field is Gaussian on large scale and non-Gaussian on small scales.

We have derived empirical fitting formulae for $`p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)`$ (see §3) from the numerical magnification distributions, $`p(\mu |z)`$, found by Wambganss et al. (1997) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.4`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.6`$. For the same matter distribution, i.e., the same $`p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)`$, different values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can lead to very different magnification distributions (see §4). It would be interesting to see how $`p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)`$ depends on the cosmological model (Wang (1999)).

Our empirical formulae can be used to calculate the weak lensing effects for observed Type Ia supernovae in general cosmologies and at arbitrary redshifts. At redshifts of a few, the dispersion in SN Ia luminosities due to weak lensing will become comparable or exceed the intrinsic dispersion of SNe Ia (Wang (1998)). The Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST) can detect SNe Ia at as high redshifts as they possibly exist; while there are theoretical uncertainties on the estimated SN Ia rate at high $`z`$, it is likely that the NGST will see quite a few SNe Ia at redshifts of a few (Stockman et al. (1998)). Complementing the NGST search, possible new ground based supernova pencil beam surveys can yield between dozens to hundreds of SNe Ia per 0.1 redshift interval up to at least $`z=1.5`$ (Wang (1998)). The systematic uncertainties of SNe Ia as standard candles will likely be well understood within the next decade.

We have used the numerical results by Wambsganss et al. (1997) in deriving our analytical formulae, which accurately describe the non-Gaussian magnification distributions of standard candles due to weak lensing. We note that Frieman (1997) gave analytical estimates of the magnification dispersions due to weak lensing which are of the same order of magnitude as the numerical results of Wambsganss et al. (1997), even though he did not consider the non-Gaussian nature of the magnification distribution. It would be useful to have numerical results for cosmologies other than the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.4`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=0.6 model studied by Wambsganss et al. (1997). Holz & Wald (1998) studied a few cosmological models, including $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=0; they computed their magnification distributions assuming that the mass in the universe is distributed in unclustered isothermal spheres. It would be interesting to compare how different assumptions affect the numerical results.

Note that we have used the magnification distributions calculated by Wambsganss et al. (1997) using a N-body simulation which has a resolution on small scales that is of the order the size of a halo. These magnification distributions contain the information on how matter is distributed, including the clustering of galaxies. By generalizing the smoothness parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ to a direction dependent variable, we have been able to describe the weak lensing of standard candles in a simple manner, leading to accurate empirical formulae which can be easily used to calculate the weak lensing effect of type Ia supernovae. The distributions of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ also contain the information on how matter is distributed. The derivation of the distribution of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ from the matter power spectrum should reveal how the measurement of $`p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)`$ (via $`p(\mu |z)`$) can probe the clustering of matter and structure formation in the universe (Wang (1999)).

Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure for me to thank Joachim Wambsganss for generously providing the magnification distributions used to fit $`p(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|z)`$, and for helpful suggestions; and Liliya Williams for very useful comments.