# Lensing Induced Cluster Signatures in Cosmic Microwave Background

## 1. Introduction

Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) are believed to originate from the era of hydrogen recombination at a redshift of $`z1100`$. Before recombination photons and electrons were tightly coupled via the process of Thompson scattering, while afterwards electrons were bound to protons in hydrogen and photons were allowed to propagate freely through the universe. Already before and specially during recombination the coupling was not perfect, leading to erasure of fluctuations in the CMB on small scales. As a result these primary fluctuations are expected to be very smooth on scales below 10’.

On very small scales the CMB can be considered as a simple gradient. A mass concentration in front of such a gradient gravitationally deflects the light. This deflection causes a fluctuation in the CMB temperature, which is determined by the mapping between unperturbed and perturbed photon position (see also Kosowsky et al. 1999). This small scale power is preferentially generated in the regions of high gradient of primary CMB anisotropies. The effect can be generated by any mass concentrations along the line of sight, such as galaxy halos, clusters and superclusters. In this paper we concentrate on clusters, which being massive and big may generate a particularly strong effect. They are thus the primary candidates for detection of this effect on individual objects, as opposed to the statistical detection discussed in Zaldarriaga and Seljak (1999a,b). The purpose of this paper is to analyze their imprint on the microwave sky by analyzing a number of simple cluster profiles and discuss its detectability for realistic observational scenarios.

It should be stressed that this gravitational lensing effect is different from the lensing effect of a cluster discussed in Zaldarriaga and Seljak (1999a). There CMB was viewed as a collection of peaks, with a well determined distribution of shapes and sizes in Gaussian models. These will be distorted as they pass by a large massive object, generating a coherent ellipticity or size distortion which can be identified by averaging over sufficient number of independent patches. By averaging over the CMB the lensing effect can be isolated and a cluster density profile can be reconstructed Zaldarriaga and Seljak (1999a). In practice this requires the presence of small scale CMB fluctuations at detectable levels and these are not likely to originate from primary anisotropies. Secondary processes and foregrounds reviewed in this paper could provide the small scale power required, although the level of these small scale fluctuations is still uncertain at the present. In principle this would provide an alternative method to reconstruct the cluster density profile in addition to the one discussed here. Given the uncertain level of secondary anisotropies we will in the remainder of this paper ignore this possibility, adopting a conservative position that secondary anisotropies are only a source of confusion to the signal one is trying to isolate.

## 2. Lensing effect of cluster on CMB

The measured temperature field $`T(𝜽)`$ at observed position $`𝜽`$ originates from some unlensed position $`𝜽^{}`$ of the CMB field at the last scattering surface $`\stackrel{~}{T}(𝜽^{})`$. The relation between the two is given through the deflection angle of the CMB photons $`\delta 𝜽`$,

$`T(𝜽)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}(𝜽^{})=\stackrel{~}{T}(𝜽\delta 𝜽)`$ (1)   
$``$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}(𝜽)\delta 𝜽\stackrel{~}{T}(𝜽).`$   
In the second line we expanded the temperature using a linear expansion valid on scale below the coherence length of the CMB gradient, which is of the order of 15’ for typical models in a flat universe. On scales below that, the primary anisotropies are expected to have negligible power. In this case we can treat the unlensed temperature field as a pure gradient. We are ignoring all the secondary anisotropies and foregrounds generated along the line of sight that will contribute to fluctuations on these small scales. These act as a source of noise and are discussed later in the paper.

We choose $`𝜽=(\theta _x,\theta _y)=(\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi _\theta ,\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi _\theta )`$ to be the observed position in the sky with origin at the cluster center. The derivative of deflection angle with respect to $`𝜽`$ is the shear tensor, which can be decomposed into its trace part, $`2\kappa `$, and two shear components $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$. The convergence $`\kappa `$ is dimensionless and can be expressed in terms of projected density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as $`\kappa =\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma }_{cr}`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{cr}=\frac{c^2D_{OS}}{4\pi GD_{OL}D_{LS}}.$$

Here $`D_{LS}`$ is the angular diameter distance from the lens to the source, $`D_{OS}`$ that between the observer and the source and $`D_{OL}`$ between observer and lens. We may parameterize the density profile of the cluster in units of a characteristic length scale $`r_s`$ as $`\rho (x)`$, where where $`x=r/r_s`$ and $`r`$ is the radius. When we measure angles in units of $`\theta _s=r_s/D_{Ol}`$, so that $`x=r/r_s=\theta /\theta _s`$, the deflection angle scales as $`\delta \theta m(x)/x`$, where $`m(x)`$ is the mass enclosed within the projected radius $`x`$.

Without a loss of generality we may take the gradient to be along the $`y`$ axis with an amplitude $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{y0}`$. The observed temperature becomes,

$$T(𝜽)=\stackrel{~}{T}_{y0}(\theta _y\delta \theta _y).$$
(2)   
In the absence of deflection $`\delta \theta _y`$ one would measure a pure gradient. Any small scale deviation from it is a signature of the deflection $`\delta \theta _y`$. If we measure the value of the large scale gradient by filtering out small scales contaminated by the cluster lensing we would know where a certain value of the CMB anisotropy should have come from in the absence of deflection. The difference between the expected and measured position is a direct measurement of $`\delta \theta _y`$ and so of the gravitational effect of the cluster. The effect of lensing by a cluster on the CMB can be understood with the help of figure 1. In the absence of lensing we would observe just the gradient. Because of the lensing effect by the cluster, the light rays will be deflected radially so that for $`\theta _y>0`$ the rays are coming from a lower value of $`\theta _y`$ at the last scattering surface. If the gradient is positive this implies that for $`\theta _y>0`$ in the presence of the cluster we would observe a lower temperature than what would be observed if the cluster was not there. The opposite is true for $`\theta _y<0`$. Far away from the cluster the lensed temperature should coincide again with the gradient. Thus the cluster creates a wiggle on top of the large scale gradient.

It is important to stress that the method proposed here is sensitive to one component of the deflection angle and not the shear or magnification as is the case for the usual weak lensing reconstruction from background galaxy ellipticities or magnitudes. It is sometimes argued that we can never measure the deflection angle in a lensing system because we do not know the original position of the background image. In this case we can get around this argument because we know that the background image is a gradient which we can measure on scales larger than the cluster. Although both shear and deflection angle are sensitive to the cluster mass profile the latter involves one derivative of gravitational potential less than the former. As such it is less sensitive to small scale fluctuations in the cluster profile and more sensitive to outer parts of the cluster, as discussed below.

Another important point is that the effect discussed here is proportional to the gradient $`T_{y0}`$. This provides a unique signature which we may use to separate it from other sources of anisotropies. It also implies that one should select the clusters on which to look for this effect not only on the basis of the strength of the gravitational lensing signal, but also on the basis of the amplitude of CMB gradient at that position. MAP or some other CMB experiment with 15’ resolution could provide such information.

### 2.1. Singular isothermal sphere

For a singular isothermal sphere the density scales as $`\rho r^2`$. In this case the deflection angle is constant,

$$\delta \theta _y=b\frac{\theta _y}{\theta },$$
(3)   
where $`b=4\pi (\sigma _v/c)^2D_{LS}/D_{OS}1^{}(\sigma _v/1400km/s)^2D_{LS}/D_{OS}`$, where $`\sigma _v`$ the cluster velocity dispersion. With the source at $`z1100`$ we may assume $`D_{OS}D_{LS}`$, which in an Einstein De-Sitter universe gives $`D_{LS}/D_{OS}1/\sqrt{1+z_L}`$.

The mass for a singular isothermal profile grows linearly with radius so at outer parts the profile must turn over to a steeper slope. We will adopt the profile

$$\rho (x)[x^2(1+x)]^1,$$
(4)   
where the slope in the outer parts of the cluster has been matched to the NFW profile discussed below. We have numerically integrated the equations above to compute the mass within a given radius and the deflection angle. These are shown together with the surface density $`\kappa `$ in figure 2, where it can be seen that $`\kappa `$ is dropping with radius much more rapidly than $`\delta \theta `$ is.

In figure 3 we show the signature of the effect on the CMB itself. We have subtracted out the gradient term. We focus on the temperature as a function of $`\theta _y`$ for a fixed $`\theta _x`$. We adopted $`\sigma _v=1400km/s`$ and $`\theta _s=r_s/D_{OL}1.4^{}`$ (corresponding to A370, see Williams, Navarro and Bartelmann 1999). The amplitude of the wiggle is $`T_{y0}\delta \theta `$, proportional to the amplitude of the gradient and the deflection angle. For $`\theta _x=0`$ the distortion caused by SIS cluster would be constant and negative for $`\theta _y>0`$ and constant and positive for $`\theta _y<0`$, with a step function at $`\theta _y=0`$, reflecting the absence of a core in this model. The change in slope in outer parts alters this prediction, so that only for $`\theta <\theta _s`$ is the deflection angle approximately constant (figure 2). For $`\theta _x0`$ the temperature profile is smooth, but the functional dependence still has odd symmetry with respect to the transformation across the $`y`$axis, as shown in figure 3a. The value for the distortion depends on the amplitude of the large scale gradient which has an rms value $`\sigma _T=<T_x^2+T_y^2>^{1/2}`$ of the order 13$`\mu K\mathrm{arcmin}^1`$ for standard CDM. Other models that fit the current observations give similar values for $`\sigma _T`$. We have adopted this value of the gradient for our calculation which gives a distortion $`\mathrm{\Delta }Tb\sigma _T13\mu K(\sigma _v/1400km/s)^2D_{LS}/D_{OS}`$. Note that $`\mu K`$ signals can be obtained well beyond the virial radius and that by averaging over the entire profile of the signal, one can significantly reduce the level of contamination from other contributions. This is discussed in more detail in §4, where we address more generally the observability of this signal.

### 2.2. NFW profile

Navarro, Frenk and White (NFW; 1997) proposed a universal mass profile that was shown to fit most of the halos in cosmological N-body simulations. Its 3-d form is particularly simple and is given by

$$\rho (x)=\frac{\rho _s}{x(1+x)^2},$$
(5)   
The transition between $`r^1`$ scaling in the center and $`r^3`$ outside is governed by the scale radius $`r_s`$. Typical numbers for a cluster halo are of the order of $`250h^1`$kpc for $`r_s`$, which is about 15-20% of the virial radius $`r_{200}`$, defined as the radius where the mean overdensity inside it is 200.

We numerically calculated the expected temperature profile for the parameters of A370, shown in figure 3b. We normalized both SIS and NFW profiles to have the same total mass at large radii. Because of our choice of normalization, we see that the largest difference between the NFW and SIS profiles occurs near the core of the cluster, in the inner $`2^{}`$. The NFW profile has much less mass near the center and thus has a much smaller deflection angle. Arcminute or better resolution is needed to distinguish these two profiles with this method. We will show below that other contributions such as instrument noise, infrared (IR) or radio point sources as well as SZ emission further complicate this separation.

### 2.3. Non-axisymmetric profile

Let us now introduce a quadrupole deviation from axial symmetry in the form of external shear. This can be parameterized with 2 components, distortion along the $`x,y`$-axis parameterized with $`\gamma _1`$ and distortion along the diagonals parameterized with $`\gamma _2`$. Fermat’s gravitational potential can be parameterized in the following form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{𝜹\theta 𝜹\theta }{2}f(\theta )\frac{1}{2}\theta ^2[\gamma _1\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _\theta +\gamma _2\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _\theta ],$$
(6)   
where $`f(\theta )`$ is a general function describing the axi-symmetric radial profile of the projected cluster potential. This can be expanded into a series $`f(\theta )=f_1\theta +f_2\theta ^2/2+\mathrm{}`$.

From Fermat’s principle we obtain,

$`\delta \theta _y=\theta _y\left(\gamma _1{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(\theta )}{\theta }}\right)\gamma _2\theta _x.`$ (7)   
Inserting the expansion of $`f`$ above we find that $`\gamma _1`$ and $`f_2`$ are degenerate, since $`\delta \theta _y`$ has the same dependence on $`𝜽`$ for both parameters. This degeneracy is similar to the mass sheet degeneracy that exists in the case of cluster reconstruction from the shear. In that case a constant mass sheet cannot be detected using the shear information alone. Similarly here we cannot separate between a constant mass sheet and an external shear component $`\gamma _1`$. A more general form of this degeneracy is derived in the next section.

External shear distortion that is not perpendicular or parallel to the $`y`$ axis can be measured from the profile. The case of $`\gamma _2=0.3`$ and an NFW profile is shown in figure 3c. Non-axial symmetry breaks the odd parity symmetry across y-axis for $`\theta _x0`$. At a given $`\theta _x`$ the whole wiggle is moved up or down depending on $`\gamma _2`$ (of course far away from the shear source it is restored back to the unperturbed value). This is not the only effect that can break this symmetry. As discussed in more detail in §4 kinetic and thermal SZ effects also imprint a signal in the CMB. Kinetic SZ in particular cannot be distinguished from lensing or primary CMB on the basis of frequency dependence. For an axial-symmetric cluster it produces a profile with even parity across y axis. This effect combined with the lensing effect also breaks the symmetry as shown in figure 3d. It is much more centrally concentrated than the effect of external shear, so that the two can be separated.

## 3. Reconstruction of projected density

Rather than parameterizing the surface density of the cluster one may also attempt to reconstruct it directly. To do this we first subtract from the CMB anisotropies the pure gradient term and divide the temperature by $`T_{y0}`$. This gives an estimate of $`\delta \theta _y(𝜽)`$. We then Fourier transform it $`\delta \theta _y(𝒍)=d^2le^{i𝒍𝜽}\delta \theta _y(𝜽)`$. The dimensionless surface density $`\kappa (𝜽)`$ is given by inverse Fourier transform of

$$\kappa (𝒍)=\frac{il^2\delta \theta _y(𝒍)}{l_y}.$$
(8)   
This inversion is possible for all modes except $`l_y=0`$. These are long wavelength modes in the $`y`$ direction that cannot be distinguished from the CMB gradient itself. Hence the inversion is not unique, although the number of modes for which the inversion fails is small compared to their total number (and becomes a set of measure 0 in the limit of perfect resolution). This degeneracy is similar to the mass-sheet degeneracy, which prevents one from reconstructing $`\kappa `$ from ellipticity data for $`𝒍=0`$ mode. It is more severe here, because there is a whole vector of modes for which the inversion fails, rather than just a single mode. In the previous section we discussed a particular example of this degeneracy which prevents one from distinguishing external shear in the direction parallel or perpendicular to the CMB gradient from a constant surface density term. Furthermore, even if $`l_y0`$, for modes with small $`l_y`$ and large $`l_x`$ this reconstruction amplifies any noise contribution present in the data, so the final map no longer has uniform noise properties.

## 4. Sources of noise

To analyze whether the theoretical predictions above can be detected we need to compare them to various sources of noise. These sources can be divided into instrumental and astrophysical. Astrophysical sources can arise from earth atmosphere, our galaxy, various cosmological sources along the line of sight and from the cluster itself. They can also arise from gravitational lensing by other objects along the line of sight. Another source of noise is the CMB itself, in the form of its deviation from a pure gradient form assumed in the reconstruction. We may parameterize these sources of noise with their power spectrum, which will characterize the level of fluctuations as a function of scale. This does not contain all the information for a non Gaussian process, but most of the noise sources that are accumulated along the line of sight will be well approximated as Gaussian because of the projection. Others, such as primary CMB, are believed to be Gaussian already. The most important source of noise which cannot be described with power spectrum information is emission from the cluster itself, specially SZ and dust. We will discuss these sources of noise in more detail below.

### 4.1. Signal to noise analysis

The total CMB anisotropy can be modeled as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T(𝜽)=Ag(𝜽)+n(𝜽)$$
(9)   
where $`g(𝜽)`$ is the angular profile of the deflection angle normalized to unity at $`\theta =\theta _s`$. For axi-symmetric clusters its form can be simplified to $`g(\theta )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _\theta )`$, where $`\varphi _\theta `$ is the azimuthal angle of $`𝜽`$. $`A`$ is a constant that includes both the strength of the cluster and the magnitude of CMB gradient, while the noise term $`n(𝜽)`$ denotes all the other contributions to the measurement. They can be parameterized with the power spectrum

$$n(𝒍)n(𝒍^{})=C(l)\delta (𝒍+𝒍^{}).$$
(10)   
If we have some knowledge on the profile of the cluster deflection angle $`g(𝜽)`$ we can average the temperature over this profile, thus reducing the noise contribution from other sources that do not correlate with the expected profile. We wish to derive the filtering function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝜽)`$ with which we process the data to obtain an estimate of $`A`$,

$$\widehat{A}=\mathrm{\Psi }(𝜽)\mathrm{\Delta }T(𝜽)d^2\theta .$$
(11)   
We can vary the filtering function with respect to signal to noise estimate $`A/\sigma `$, where

$$\sigma ^2=(A\widehat{A})^2=|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒍)|^2C(l)d^2l.$$
(12)   
It can be easily shown that the optimal filter is $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒍)g(𝒍)/C(l)`$ and that the variance for this filter is given by (Haehnelt & Tegmark 1996)

$$\sigma =\left[\frac{|g(𝒍)|^2}{C(l)}d^2l\right]^{1/2}.$$
(13)   
If the noise spectrum is white then the profile of the filter is simply the profile of the deflection angle. This is what one expects, since in that case one is obtaining a positive value. If however the noise power spectrum has more power on large (small) scales then those large (small) modes are more important to suppress than the small (large) scale modes. To suppress large scale modes one has to design a filter that is oscillating, so that its shape cancels the slowly changing mode, while still maximizing the information from the cluster profile. This is what is achieved with the optimal filter above.

For an axi-symmetric cluster the Fourier transform simplifies to

$$g(𝒍)=g(l)\mathrm{cos}\varphi _lg(l)=2\pi \theta g(\theta )J_1(l\theta )𝑑\theta $$
(14)   
where $`J_1(x)`$ is the Bessel function of first order and $`\varphi _l`$ is the azimuthal angle of $`𝒍`$. The variance becomes

$$\sigma =\left[\pi \frac{g(l)^2}{C(l)}l𝑑l\right]^{1/2}.$$
(15)   
In the examples below we will use NFW profile for the cluster, observed out to a given radius $`\theta _0`$. We will use $`\theta _s=1.4^{}`$ and use various sources of confusion to estimate $`\sigma `$. This can be compared to the expected $`A`$ for large clusters, of the order of 5-10$`\mu K`$, to identify the main sources of noise and the range over which this method could be used to study the clusters.

### 4.2. Instrument degradation

The detector adds noise to the signal. This can be parameterized by its power spectrum, which for many instruments can be approximated as a constant, $`C_n(l)=\sigma _n^2\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, where $`\sigma _n`$ is the rms noise at each pixel and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ is its solid angle. Current observations of SZ at 30GHz are reaching noise levels of order of $`\sigma _n=15\mu K`$ at 1-2’ resolution (Carlstrom et al. 1999). This is approaching the level of the signal predicted here, although at these frequencies the dominant signal in the center is coming from the SZ effect. Interferometers are not sensitive to low spatial frequency modes, so one cannot obtain the direction of the gradient from the experiment itself. This must be obtained from a lower resolution experiment such as MAP. It is possible that the characteristic signature generated by the lensing effect could be observed at larger radii even at these low frequencies and it would certainly be worthwhile to integrate a few of the clusters down to 5$`\mu K`$ in search of this effect, specially once the direction and the amplitude of the gradient of CMB is better known. At 217 GHz, which is the zero crossing frequency for thermal SZ, current observations only reach 100 $`\mu K`$ noise per pixel at a similar resolution (Church et al. 1997), dominated by atmosphere noise discussed below. The next generation of small scale experiments with larger arrays and longer observation times such as MINT or ACBAR will have the sensitivity reaching 5 $`\mu K`$ per arcminute size pixel in a 100 pixel array over a month of observation and will be more suitable to detect this effect.

Because of the finite angular resolution of the instrument the predicted $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$ has to be convolved with the window function of the beam. This dilutes sharp features around the center of the cluster, such as those produced by SIS in figure 3a. For this case arcminute resolution would be desirable. For less steep profiles such as NFW this is less important. Since the actual signal extends quite far away from the center even a modest resolution of several arcminutes would still be useful, assuming that other sources of noise discussed below do not dominate the signal. To incorporate the beam dilution into the formalism above we may replace $`C_n(l)`$ with $`C_n(l)\mathrm{exp}[\theta _b^2l(l+1)]`$, where $`\theta _b`$ is the Gaussian width of the beam. Note that beam dilution does not affect the signal to noise if noise is not dominated by instrument noise.

Applying the noise power spectrum to the equation (15) we find that a 10’$`\times `$10’ array with 100 pixels, each with $`5\mu K`$ noise gives rms noise $`\sigma =1.6\mu K`$ if the effect of the beam is negligible. For beam with 1’ FWHM this number increases to 3$`\mu K`$. Doubling the size of the array or halving the noise per pixel both reduce this number by roughly one half. These levels of noise are therefore necessary for a positive detection of the effect. Note that doubling the size of array and keeping the noise per solid angle fixed (equivalent to keeping the observing time fixed) does not change significantly the rms variance. This is because the signal is only slowly dropping off with distance from the center. In this case changing FWHM from 1’ to 2’ makes almost no difference. For Planck 217GHz channel with 12 $`\mu K`$ sensitivity per pixel and 5’ FWHM the noise level is of the order of 10 $`\mu K`$, which is at the detection limits for large clusters. Except for a few exceptional cases Planck will therefore not be able to detect this effect.

### 4.3. Intrinsic CMB fluctuations

We have assumed throughout that the CMB can be approximated as a pure gradient. Typical coherence length for CMB gradient is 15’ and since the lensing effect extends well beyond this scale this approximation breaks down at large separations from the cluster center. To estimate the level of this contribution we can use the CMB power spectrum as a source of noise in equation (15). Because the large scale CMB is approximated as a gradient and removed we exclude the modes larger than the size of the observed field. The modes smaller than the size of the box cannot be approximated as a gradient and they contribute noise, which needs to be distinguished from the cluster signal. Without removing the long wavelength modes with the optimal filter the rms contribution from CMB is of the order of 15 $`\mu K`$ for a survey of $`10^{}\times 10^{}`$ increasing to 100 $`\mu K`$ for $`1^{}\times 1^{}`$. For such large fields long wavelength modes of CMB are a significant source of confusion. This reflects the strongly correlated nature of CMB on large scales. The optimal filter suppresses the influence of long wavelength modes by employing alternative positive and negative radial weights. This significantly reduces the long wavelength modes, while still preserving to a large extent the information about the cluster profile. In this case the variance decreases significantly to 4-5$`\mu K`$. For Planck 217 GHz channel the total variance remains 10 $`\mu K`$, dominated by the detector noise rather than CMB. The dominant contribution to the CMB gradient comes from $`l>500`$ with 50% contribution coming from $`l>1000`$. Degree size fields may thus have a significantly lower rms CMB gradient than 10’ size fields. For large areas the best strategy is to select fields with a smooth and large gradient across the entire field, thus enhancing the signal and reducing the level of CMB noise.

### 4.4. SZ effect from the cluster

SZ effect is the dominant signal from clusters in the low frequency range. It is caused by scattering of photons by hot electrons in the cluster. The net effect is to increase the energy of photons and since their number is conserved this causes their redistribution from the low frequency Rayleigh-Jeans regime into the high frequency Wiener regime. This creates a deficit of photons and therefore a CMB decrement at low frequencies and an increment at high frequencies, with zero crossing at 217 GHz. The amplitude of the effect is proportional to the temperature of the cluster and its optical depth. Typical numbers are $`10^8K`$ for temperature and 0.01 for optical depth. Positive detections in the RJ-tail have by now been achieved for more than 30 clusters with central decrements exceeding $`500\mu K`$ (Carlstrom et al. 1999). This is a huge signal that can easily swamp the lensing signal. Convolving with the optimal filter reduces the level of fluctuations and even eliminates them for axi-symmetric profiles. However most of the clusters are not axi-symmetric and for reasonable ellipticities the remaining contamination could still be above the expected signal in the center. One may further reduce this contamination by eliminating the central region of the cluster in the analysis. Most of the SZ signal is coming from the inner 1-2’ radius, while the lensing signal extends well beyond that. To model the importance of the inner part of the cluster we repeated the noise analysis excluding the lensing information from the inner 4’ region. This increased the variance by 40% and so does not significantly reduce the sensitivity, while reducing the level of SZ signal by a factor of a few.

Further reduction of this contamination is achieved by observing at 217 GHz. Although this frequency is a zero crossing for thermal SZ in the non relativistic limit, for most of the clusters with large signal relativistic effects are not negligible. This causes the zero crossing to scale linearly with the gas temperature (Rephaeli 1995). If the cluster is isothermal and its temperature can be measured from X-ray measurements then one can correct for this effect. If the cluster is not isothermal as suggested by recent ASCA measurements (Markevitch et al. 1996) then this will induce further fluctuations in the map which can be at a 10$`\mu K`$ level. These fluctuations can be reduced using lensing filter combined with exclusion of the center and so do not appear to be a major source of confusion.

### 4.5. Kinetic SZ effect from the cluster

Even if SZ effect from hot electrons vanishes at 217 GHz there is another imprint of the CMB photons scattering off cluster electrons, caused by electron bulk motion. This is caused by the Doppler effect and its magnitude is given by the product of optical depth, typically around $`\tau =0.01`$ in the center and radial velocity of electrons in the cluster. The latter is dominated by the bulk motion of cluster $`v_r`$ with a typical value of $`v_r=300km/s`$. This gives the typical magnitude of the effect in the center around 30 $`\mu K`$, somewhat larger than the lensing signal. Note that the two have the same frequency dependence and cannot be distinguished using this information. However, just like in the case of thermal SZ kinetic SZ is much more centrally concentrated than the lensing effect. The temperature profile in the presence of both effects is shown in figure 3d for the case of the NFW profile (we are assuming that gas traces dark matter outside the cluster core). At larger separations from the center kinetic SZ becomes negligible, while lensing effect remains strong, so the two effects can be separated. Excluding the central portion of the cluster and using the optimal filter we find confusion levels of a few $`\mu K`$.

Another potential source of contamination are the bulk motions within the cluster. If the cluster is not relaxed due to a recent merger this can produce significant internal motions of the gas (of the order of 500 km/s, Haehnelt and Tegmark 1996). The corresponding Doppler effect on the CMB can act as an additional source of fluctuations. Filtering reduces the noise level when the large scale CMB gradient is known, with the residual contamination at the $`\mu K`$ level.

### 4.6. SZ and OV along the line of sight

In addition to the thermal and kinetic SZ effect from the cluster itself there is also the contribution from other objects along the line of sight. Kinetic SZ is sometimes divided into a contribution from quasi-linear structures called Ostriker-Vishniac (OV) effect and a contribution from nonlinear structures (kinetic SZ). All these will be a source of noise uncorrelated with the cluster itself. The magnitude of these contributions is somewhat model dependent. Both of them can be at a level of few $`\mu K`$ on arcminute scales, with thermal SZ being typically a few times stronger. However, since thermal SZ vanishes at 217 GHz (relativistic corrections are likely to be negligible for smaller halos contributing to the line of sight SZ), OV and kinetic SZ may be more important as a source of confusion at this frequency. To estimate their effect we have used the power spectra of thermal SZ as given in Persi et al. (1995) and OV given in Hu (1999). Thermal SZ power spectrum grows roughly proportional to $`l`$ and exceeds CMB around $`l2000`$ at low frequencies. Kinetic SZ is somewhat lower, but also grows at high $`l`$ in a similar fashion. Only on intermediate scales do the two exceed the combined CMB and instrument noise power spectrum. Their individual contribution to the lens filter variance varies as a function of angular scale. For the 5’ beam with 12 $`\mu K`$ noise per pixel the contribution from thermal SZ can double the variance from CMB and noise making the total 20 $`\mu K`$. At this angular resolution it is necessary to work at 217 GHz frequencies to reduce thermal SZ contamination, although kinetic SZ/OV still increases the variance somewhat. For a 1’ beam with 5 $`\mu K`$ noise per pixel the contributions from SZ and OV are lower and do not significantly change the rms noise. This is because instrument noise dominates the confusion. Only with a more sensitive detector would these contributions become important on these scales.

### 4.7. Dust emission

Dust emission can arise from three separate sources. First there is the emission from our own galaxy. This contribution is fairly smooth, scaling as $`C_ll^3`$, and does not add significant power on small scales. A reasonable estimate for noise variance is 10$`\mu K`$ at $`l=10`$ for 217 GHz channel (Tegmark et al. 1999), dropping significantly at lower frequencies. Even at 217 GHz its power spectrum is below the CMB power spectrum everywhere except at very low $`l`$. This foreground is therefore less problematic than the primary CMB and its inclusion does not change significantly the conclusions above. As a caution we should note that this conclusion is based only on the power spectrum analysis, while dust emission can be strongly non Gaussian. There are regions where dust emission can be significantly larger than the above analysis would suggest. An example discussed below is in the field of A2163.

Another source of dust emission are the infrared sources along the line of sight. These have been modeled by Toffolatti et al. (1998) and Guiderdoni et al. (1999). The overall contribution from the point sources to the power spectrum depends on the flux limit of the resolved sources. Strong point-like sources can be removed from the data as outliers, leaving the fluctuations produced by the unresolved sources. These Poisson fluctuations give a white noise power spectrum with rms fluctuations of the order of the flux limit converted to $`\mu K`$ in a beam area times square root of number of removed sources per beam area. Adopting conservative modeling as in Tegmark et al. (1999) we find that at 217 GHz the rms variance including point sources can reach 25 $`\mu K`$ for 1’ beam. This is reduced somewhat at larger angular scales, but there thermal SZ and CMB combined prevent one from reducing the noise below 10 $`\mu K`$. These results indicate that more sophisticated modeling of point sources will be necessary to reduce their contribution to acceptable levels. This can be achieved by using either higher frequencies or higher angular resolution to identify these sources.

Finally there is also the possibility of the dust emission from the cluster itself. Such emission could explain recent recent sub-mm observation of A2163 by Pronaos (Lamarre et al. 1998) and may extend into the 200GHz range, although alternative explanation with galactic dust is just as likely. This would complicate the assertion that the 217 GHz frequency is the optimal one for identifying this effect. If the cluster dust emission at this frequency is still strong it may exceed the lensing signal at least in the center. It seems however unlikely that a strong dust component would also be present at larger separations from the center.

### 4.8. Radio point sources

At low frequencies the main source of confusion are radio point sources (we ignore here free-free and synchrotron which typically do not exceed the CMB power spectrum and so are subdominant in contamination). Their modeling has also been presented in Toffolatti et al. (1998). At 30 GHz their contribution to the power spectrum using only internal identification (based on their identification as outliers in the flux distribution) is about 100 times larger than the point source contribution from IR sources at 217 GHz. The variance on the filtered profile is around 100 $`\mu K`$ for 5’ beam and twice that for 1’ beam. This is of course well known to observers operating in this frequency range, who routinely employ higher sensitivity multi frequency observations in the same region to eliminate point source contamination. This can reduce the variance from point sources below the instrument noise, 15-40 $`\mu K`$ for currently most sensitive experiments (Carlstrom et al. 1999). It remains to be seen however whether using this additional information can reduce the contamination to the required level of a few $`\mu K`$.

### 4.9. Gravitational lensing

Distortion of the background CMB is caused by all the matter distribution along the line of sight, so there will be additional fluctuations added on top of the effect from the cluster. The effect can be partially modeled by using the lensed instead of unlensed power spectrum in the estimate of confusion from primary anisotropies discussed above. This gives additional noise contribution at the level below 1 $`\mu K`$ and so would appear not to significantly contaminate the signal. This approach however underestimates this contribution, because the generated CMB power is also correlated with the CMB gradient and the lens filter does not eliminate it as efficiently as the power spectrum analysis would indicate. As shown in Zaldarriaga and Seljak (1999b) lensing along the line of sight primarily generates power on scales smaller than the cluster, with rms amplitude of a few $`\mu K`$. Averaging over the expected cluster profile reduces this noise to negligible levels compared to other sources.

### 4.10. Atmosphere noise

In addition to the sources of noise described above for ground experiments there is also the atmosphere noise arising from atmosphere temperature (around 15K) and atmosphere fluctuations. The first can be modeled as a white noise and has similar properties to the instrument noise. For bolometer arrays it dominates the noise at small scales, so sufficient long integrations are needed to reduce it to acceptable levels. Atmospheric fluctuations are more correlated and their precise estimate depends on the specifics of the detector, site, weather etc. They can be reduced significantly using interferometric techniques and it is expected that they can be reduced to a few $`\mu K`$ levels required.

## 5. Conclusions

The characteristic signature of a cluster gravitationally lensing a smooth CMB gradient allows one to search and identify this effect among many other possible sources of fluctuations at small scales. The signal is small, at the level around 10 $`\mu K`$ in the center of the most promising clusters and a fraction of that away from it. Other sources of anisotropies almost certainly exceed this signal in the absence of filtering. Noise filtering over the expected profile can reduce the noise contamination to acceptable levels if the initial guess about the cluster profile is sufficiently close to the real one. The final signal to noise depends sensitively on the amplitude of various sources of fluctuations including instrument noise, all of which are still rather uncertain at present. The most promising among the existing or planned experiments are small scale interferometers with arcminute resolution and a few $`\mu K`$ noise per pixel sensitivity operating at frequencies close to 217 GHz. Planck experiment with 5’ beam at 217 GHz could also provide detection in some cases.

Despite the signal being weak, this method of detecting cluster signature has some advantages over the current methods. First, like for the SZ effect the strength does not drop significantly with redshift, except for the slow decrease from the $`D_{LS}/D_{OS}`$ ratio. In addition, the signal depends on the deflection angle, which is more sensitive to the outer parts of the cluster as those probes that depend on the projected density. For the NFW profile the signal drops by about a factor of 2 between $`\theta _s`$ and $`10\theta _s`$ (which is beyond the virial radius), while the projected surface density drops by almost two orders of magnitude (see figure 2). Given that this is one of the few probes sensitive to the outer parts of the cluster it seems worth pursuing it with the next generation of CMB experiments.

We thank L. Page for useful discussions. M.Z. is supported by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HF-01116.01-98A from STScI, operated by AURA, Inc. under NASA contract NAS5-26555. U.S. is supported by NASA grant NAG5-8084.