text:
# Lensing Reconstruction with CMB Temperature and Polarization

## I Introduction

The primordial cosmic microwave background (CMB) was generated when photons first decoupled from the baryonic fluid when the universe was only 400,000 years old. The vast majority of these photons travel unperturbed to the present day, and features of their angular power spectrum such as acoustic peaks and the damping tail  record valuable information about cosmological parameters . Baryons and dark matter evolve from small inhomogeneities at decoupling into increasingly complicated large-scale structure which can subtly perturb the observed pattern of CMB anisotropies. Assuming that the primordial CMB is Gaussian, non-Gaussian correlations in the observed map can be used to reconstruct the intervening large-scale structure . In addition to the importance of learning about the large-scale structure itself, reconstruction of the weak-lensing potential generated by structure is essential to constraining tensor perturbations. Weak lensing converts a fraction of the E-mode polarization generated by scalar perturbations at the last-scattering surface into B-mode polarization in the observed map. Only by subtracting this B-mode polarization can one conclusively detect the primordial B-modes which serve as a model-independent signal of tensor perturbations . Understanding lensing reconstruction requires a more detailed discussion of how weak lensing affects the CMB.

Weak gravitational lensing deflects the paths of CMB photons as they travel from the last-scattering surface to the observer. This deflection is accomplished by a projected lensing potential which is a weighted line-of-sight integral of the gravitational potential between the observer and the surface of last-scattering. At each point on the sky, lensing remaps the temperature and polarization to that of a nearby point at the last-scattering surface, the deflection angle being the gradient of the aforementioned projected lensing potential. Assuming that this deflection angle is small, the temperature at any point can be expanded in a Taylor series in the gradient of the lensing potential. In Fourier space, this expansion appears as a series of convolutions of individual temperature and projected potential modes. The observed temperature-squared map in Fourier space also appears as a convolution of individual Fourier modes. Subject to an overall normalization dependent on the scale of the Fourier mode, these convolutions cancel in such a manner that each Fourier mode of the temperature-squared map acts as an estimator for the same Fourier mode of the projected lensing potential.

Lensing reconstruction as outlined above has been considered previously . In these works, two sources of noise were identified, and a filter of the temperature-squared map in Fourier space was chosen to minimize the variance associated with lensing reconstruction subject to these noise sources. The first source is intrinsic signal variance; the observed large-scale structure is one arbitrary member of an ensemble of realizations allowed by theory. The second source of noise, endemic to this method of lensing reconstruction, is a consequence of the nature of the primordial CMB. Like the large-scale structure itself, the pattern of CMB anisotropies at the last-scattering surface is only one of many possible realizations allowed by theory. We do not know a priori which of these realizations nature has provided us, and this uncertainty hinders our ability to deconvolve the effects of lensing from true anisotropies at the last-scattering surface. Even if the true pattern of anisotropies at the last-scattering surface was known, the finite amount of power in the CMB at small scales would still constrain lensing reconstruction. Silk damping at the last-scattering surface suppresses CMB power at small scales, while the finite resolution of any real experiment would limit the detection of any signal that is present at small scales. Lensing reconstruction fails below scales at which there is sufficient power, for the same reason that any remapping is indistinguishable given a uniform background.

Here, we consider a third source of noise neglected in previous studies. The filtered temperature-squared map is an unbiased estimator for the lensing potential in the approximation that a correlation between two given temperature modes is induced only by the single lensing mode whose wavevector is the sum of that of the two temperature modes. In actuality, any combination of two or more lensing modes whose wavevectors sum to this total induce correlations between the two temperature modes. There are many such combinations, but since these correlations add incoherently we do not expect a systematic bias. Nonetheless, for estimators of each individual lensing mode we must use our knowledge of other lensing modes to subtract off this unwanted bias. This is an iterative process, and since our knowledge of the lensing map is imperfect it induces noise in lensing reconstruction. We calculate this additional variance for various estimators constructed from CMB temperature and polarization maps, and show how it compares to the dominant noise sources for an all-sky CMB experiment with a noise-equivalent temperature of 1 $`\mu `$K $`\sqrt{\mathrm{sec}}`$. Since the lensing-potential power spectrum is a measure of the theoretical uncertainty with which we can predict the value of a given lensing mode, this noise associated with lensing reconstruction causes a systematic overestimation of the lensing-potential power spectrum. This systematic bias must be accounted for in order to compare observations with theoretical predictions.

This paper is organized as follows. In § II, we define the formalism we will use to explore the effects of weak lensing on the CMB. The Taylor expansion of the lensed CMB map in gradients of the lensing potential is given in both real and Fourier space, and the power spectra and trispectra of various components of the CMB temperature map are listed for later use. In § III, we show that the Fourier modes of the temperature-squared map when properly filtered can serve as estimators for the Fourier modes of the displacement map with the same wave vector. Using the power spectrum and trispectrum given in the preceding Section, we calculate the variance associated with this estimator including a new component neglected in previous studies. This variance is evaluated numerically using the currently favored $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmological model with baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.05`$, matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.35`$, cosmological constant density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.65`$, Hubble parameter $`h`$=0.65, and power-spectrum amplitude $`\sigma _8=0.9`$. We then use the displacement estimator for individual Fourier modes to construct an unbiased estimator for the lensing-potential power spectrum in § IV, and calculate the variance and covariance associated with this estimator. A few concluding remarks about the implications of our work for future studies are given in § V. The Appendix contains useful formulae related to additional estimators of lensing based on polarization and a combination of temperature and polarization.

## II Weak Lensing of the CMB

We consider weak lensing under the flat-sky approximation following Refs. . As discussed before , weak lensing deflects the path of CMB photons resulting in a remapping of the observed temperature pattern on the sky,

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\widehat{𝐧})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }[\widehat{𝐧}+\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})]`$ (1)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{𝐧})+_i\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})^i\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{𝐧})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})_j\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})^i^j\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{𝐧})+\mathrm{}`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{𝐧})`$ is the unlensed primary component of the CMB in a direction $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ at the last scattering surface. The observed, gravitationally-lensed temperature map $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\widehat{𝐧})`$ in direction $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ is that of the unlensed map in direction $`\widehat{𝐧}+\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})`$ where $`\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})`$ represents the lensing deflection angle or displacement map. Although a real CMB map will include secondary contributions such as the SZ effect , we assume that such effects can be distinguished by their frequency dependence . They will not be further considered in this paper. A noise component denoted by $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{n}(\widehat{𝐧})`$ due to finite experimental sensitivity must be included as well. Thus the total observed CMB anisotropy will be $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(\widehat{𝐧})=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\widehat{𝐧})+\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{n}(\widehat{𝐧})`$.

Taking the Fourier transform of the lensed map $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\widehat{𝐧})`$ under the flat-sky approximation, we write

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{𝐧}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\widehat{𝐧})e^{i𝐥\widehat{𝐧}}}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(𝐥){\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥^{}}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{\Theta }(𝐥^{})L(𝐥,𝐥^{})},`$ (4)
where

$`L(𝐥,𝐥^{})`$ $``$ $`\varphi (𝐥𝐥^{})\left[(𝐥𝐥^{})𝐥^{}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥^{\prime \prime }}{(2\pi )^2}\varphi (𝐥^{\prime \prime })}`$ (6)
$`\times \varphi (𝐥𝐥^{}𝐥^{\prime \prime })(𝐥^{\prime \prime }𝐥^{})\left[(𝐥^{\prime \prime }+𝐥^{}𝐥)𝐥^{}\right]+\mathrm{}.`$
CMB correlations in Fourier space can be described in terms of a power spectrum and trispectrum as defined in the usual manner,

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^i(𝐥_1)\mathrm{\Theta }^i(𝐥_2)`$ $``$ $`(2\pi )^2\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐥_1+𝐥_2)C_l^i,`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }^i(𝐥_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }^i(𝐥_4)_c`$ $``$ $`(2\pi )^2\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐥_1+𝐥_2+𝐥_3+𝐥_4)T^i(𝐥_1,𝐥_2,𝐥_3,𝐥_4),`$ (8)
where the angle brackets denote ensemble averages over possible realizations of the primordial CMB, large-scale structure between the observer and the surface of last-scattering, and instrumental noise. The subscript $`c`$ denotes the connected part of the four-point function and the superscript $`i`$ denotes the temperature map being considered ($`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }},`$ or $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{n}`$). The lensing-potential power spectrum can be defined analogously,

$$\varphi (𝐥)\varphi (𝐥^{})_{\mathrm{LSS}}=(2\pi )^2\delta _D(𝐥+𝐥^{})C_l^{\varphi \varphi },$$
(10)
where here the angle brackets denote an average over all realizations of the large-scale structure. We make the assumption that primordial fluctuations at the last-scattering surface are Gaussian. Gaussian statistics are fully described by a power spectrum; the Gaussian four-point correlator, $`\mathrm{\Theta }(𝐥_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }(𝐥_4)_c`$ is zero. The instrumental noise $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{n}`$ is also assumed to be Gaussian, as is the lensing potential $`\varphi `$. This second assumption is justified because the dominant contributions to the lensing potential come from intermediate redshifts $`1z3`$ at which linear theory holds.

Using these definitions, we can calculate the anticipated power spectrum and trispectrum of the observed CMB map. Because the instrumental noise is uncorrelated with the signal, the power spectrum of the observed map is the sum of signal and noise power spectra,

$$C_l^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{t}}=\stackrel{~}{C}_l^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}+C_l^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{n}}.$$
(11)
The power spectrum of the noise component is given by:

$`C_l^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{n}}=f_{\mathrm{sky}}w^1e^{l^2\sigma _b^2},`$ (12)
where $`f_{\mathrm{sky}}`$ is the fraction of the sky surveyed, $`w^1`$ is the variance per unit area on the sky, and $`\sigma _b=\theta /\sqrt{8\mathrm{ln}2}`$ is the effective beamwidth of the instrument expressed in terms of its full-width half-maximum resolution $`\theta `$. A CMB experiment that spends a time $`t_{\mathrm{pix}}`$ examining each of $`N_{\mathrm{pix}}`$ pixels with detectors of sensitivity $`s`$ will have a variance per unit area $`w^1=4\pi (s/T_{\mathrm{CMB}})^2/(t_{\mathrm{pix}}N_{\mathrm{pix}})`$ . The power spectrum of the lensed CMB can be determined by inserting Eq. (4) into Eq. (7) as discussed in ,

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_l^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}C_{l_1}^{\varphi \varphi }\left(𝐥_1𝐥\right)^2}\right]C_l^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}C_{|𝐥𝐥_1|}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}C_{l_1}^{\varphi \varphi }[(𝐥𝐥_1)𝐥_1]^2}.`$ (13)
This result is given to linear order in the lensing-potential power spectrum $`C_l^{\varphi \varphi }`$. Lensing neither creates nor destroys power in the CMB, but merely shifts the scales on which it occurs as seen by the fact that

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^2=\frac{d^2𝐥}{(2\pi )^2}\stackrel{~}{C}_l^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}=\frac{d^2𝐥}{(2\pi )^2}C_l^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}=\sigma ^2.$$
(14)
The observed CMB trispectrum can be calculated in a similar manner; under our assumptions of Gaussian instrumental noise and no secondary anisotropies the trispectrum of the lensed component $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ is the sole contribution to the total observed trispectrum,

$`T^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2,𝐥_3,𝐥_4)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}^\mathrm{\Theta }(𝐥_1,𝐥_2,𝐥_3,𝐥_4)`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`C_{l_3}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}C_{l_4}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}\left[C_{|𝐥_1+𝐥_3|}^{\varphi \varphi }[(𝐥_1+𝐥_3)𝐥_3][(𝐥_1+𝐥_3)𝐥_4]+C_{|𝐥_2+𝐥_3|}^{\varphi \varphi }[(𝐥_2+𝐥_3)𝐥_3][(𝐥_2+𝐥_3)𝐥_4]\right]+\mathrm{Perm}..`$ (16)
The term shown above is manifestly symmetric under the interchange $`𝐥_1𝐥_2`$, while the “+ Perm.” represents five additional terms identical in form but with the replacement of $`(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)`$ and $`(𝐥_3,𝐥_4)`$ with the other five combinations of pairs. The total trispectrum is symmetric under the interchange of any given pair as one would expect. Having established a formalism within which to analyze weak lensing, we now consider the problem of reconstructing the lensing potential from an observed CMB temperature map.

## III Lensing-Potential Estimators

In this Section, we examine lensing reconstruction following the approach of Ref. , largely adopting their notation as well. The only important difference in notation is that we use $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ to denote the lensed temperature field and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ for the unlensed field following Ref.  and most recent papers. Ref.  uses the opposite convention. For $`𝐥𝐥^{}`$ and to linear order in $`\varphi `$,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}=f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥,𝐥^{})\varphi (𝐋),$$
(18)
where

$$f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥,𝐥^{})C_l^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋𝐥)+C_l^{}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋𝐥^{}),$$
(19)
and $`𝐋=𝐥+𝐥^{}`$. Note that $`_{\mathrm{CMB}}`$ differs from the unmarked $``$ that first appeared in Eq. (7) in that it denotes an ensemble average only over different Gaussian realizations of the primordial CMB and instrument noise; a fixed realization of the large-scale structure is assumed. For the purposes of estimating the large-scale structure actually realized in our observable universe, this is the appropriate average to take to ensure that our estimators are truly unbiased for a typical realization of the primordial CMB. When calculating the noise associated with lensing-potential estimators and again for power spectrum estimation in § IV, we will return to the full unmarked ensemble average. Eq. (18), an immediate consquence of Eq. (4), suggests that a temperature-squared map appropriately filtered in Fourier space can serve as an estimator for the deflection field $`𝐝(𝐋)i𝐋\varphi (𝐋)`$. Hu and Okamoto define five different estimators for the deflection field constructed from various combinations of the temperature and polarization; we discuss the temperature-squared estimator in this Section and relegate the analogous formulae for polarization estimators to the Appendix. The minimum-variance temperature-squared estimator derived in Ref.  is

$$𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋)\frac{i𝐋A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(L)}{L^2}\frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_2)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2),$$
(20)
where

$$F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)\frac{f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)}{2C_{l_1}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{t}}C_{l_2}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{t}}},$$
(21)
$$A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(L)L^2\left[\frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)\right]^1,$$
(22)
and $`𝐥_2=𝐋𝐥_1`$. Substitution of Eqs. (18), (19), (21), and (22) into Eq. (20) shows the desired result,

$$𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋)_{\mathrm{CMB}}=𝐝(𝐋),$$
(23)
namely that $`𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋)`$ is indeed an unbiased estimator for the deflection field in Fourier space. We now proceed to calculate the variance of this estimator. At first, we assume a complete knowledge of all lensing modes not examined by this estimator. In that case, we find

$`𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(𝐋)𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(𝐋)_{\mathrm{CMB}}𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}=(𝐋𝐋^{}){\displaystyle \frac{A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(L)}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(L^{})}{L^2}}`$ (24)
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_2)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})𝐝^{}(𝐋)𝐝(𝐋^{}),`$ (25)
where $`𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=𝐋^{}𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$. Evaluating the four-point function in the integrand of Eq. (24) to second order in the lensing field, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_2)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}=`$ (27)
$`[(C_{l_1}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}+C_{l_1}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{n}})(2\pi )^2\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐋)+\varphi (𝐋)f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2){\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}C_l^{}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}\varphi (𝐥_1𝐥^{})\varphi (𝐥_2+𝐥^{})[𝐥^{}(𝐥_1+𝐥^{})]`$ (28)
$`\times [𝐥^{}(𝐥_2𝐥^{})]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}\varphi (𝐥^{})\varphi (𝐋𝐥^{})\{C_{l_1}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1𝐥^{})[𝐥_1(𝐋+𝐥^{})]+C_{l_2}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_2𝐥^{})[𝐥_2(𝐋+𝐥^{})]\}]`$ (29)
$`\times [(C_{l_1^{}}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}+C_{l_1^{}}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{n}})(2\pi )^2\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐋^{})+\varphi (𝐋^{})f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}){\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}C_l^{}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}\varphi (𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐥^{})\varphi (𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝐥^{})[𝐥^{}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐥^{})]`$ (30)
$`\times [𝐥^{}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝐥^{})]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}\varphi (𝐥^{})\varphi (𝐋^{}𝐥^{})\{C_{l_1^{}}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐥^{})[𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(𝐥^{}𝐋^{})]+C_{l_2^{}}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐥^{})[𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(𝐥^{}𝐋^{})]\}]+\mathrm{Perm}.`$ (31)
The terms given explicitly in Eq. (27) correspond to the correlations between $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_2)`$ and those between $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$. The “+ Perm.” stands for two additional terms, identical in form, arising from the pairings $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_2)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_2)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}`$. This expression indicates how uncertainty in the CMB at the last-scattering surface propagates into uncertainty in lensing reconstruction for a particular realization $`\varphi (𝐋)`$ of the large-scale structure. To linear order in Eq. (27), correlations between the modes $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1),\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_2),\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}),`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ are induced by those lensing modes whose wavevectors are the sums of any pair of wavevectors of these four modes. These lensing modes are precisely those forming the diagonals of the quadrilaterals depicted in Fig. 1.

In practice, we do not know the large-scale structure between us and the last-scattering surface, so we assume a variance given by Eq. (10) with a model-dependent power spectrum $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$. We must average Eq. (24) over different realizations of the large-scale structure (denoted by $`_{\mathrm{LSS}}`$) to obtain the total expected variance of our estimator,

$`𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(𝐋)𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(𝐋)_{\mathrm{CMB}}𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}_{\mathrm{LSS}}=(𝐋𝐋^{}){\displaystyle \frac{A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(L)}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(L^{})}{L^2}}`$ (34)
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_2)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})(2\pi )^2\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐋𝐋^{})C_L^{dd},`$
where

$$𝐝^{}(𝐋)𝐝(𝐋^{})=(2\pi )^2\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐋𝐋^{})C_L^{dd}=(2\pi )^2\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐋𝐋^{})L^2C_L^{\varphi \varphi }.$$
(36)
The assumption that the lensing potential is Gaussian imposes the constraint $`𝐋𝐋^{}=𝐥_1+𝐥_2𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=0`$ which closes the quadrilaterals of Fig. 1. The average of the four-point correlation function in Eq. (34) can be calculated by further averaging Eq. (27) over the large-scale structure. Terms linear in the lensing field vanish when averaged over different realizations of the large-scale structure. Quadratic terms in the lensing field arise as products either of two linear terms or of a zeroth and second-order term. Averages over the product of two linear terms produce the connected part of the four-point correlation function, the trispectrum defined in Eq. (7). Averages over the product of a zeroth and second-order term have no connected portion, but instead furnish an implicit dependence on $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$ in the total observed power spectrum of Eq. (11). The final result of averaging over the large-scale structure can be expressed in terms of the observed power spectrum and trispectrum,

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_2)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^4[C_{l_1}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{t}}C_{l_1^{}}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{t}}\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐋)\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐋^{})+C_{l_1}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{t}}C_{l_2}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{t}}\{\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐥_1)\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐥_2)`$ (38)
$`+\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐥_1)\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐥_2)\}+(2\pi )^2T^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐋𝐋^{})],`$
where the trispectrum can written in terms of $`f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)`$ as

$$T^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2,𝐥_3,𝐥_4)=C_{|𝐥_1+𝐥_2|}^{\varphi \varphi }f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_3,𝐥_4)+C_{|𝐥_1+𝐥_3|}^{\varphi \varphi }f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_3)f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_2,𝐥_4)+C_{|𝐥_1+𝐥_4|}^{\varphi \varphi }f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_4)f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_2,𝐥_3).$$
(40)
This form of the trispectrum is consistent with that of Eq. (LABEL:E:trilens) given directly in terms of power spectra. Since $`𝐋0`$, $`\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐋)=0`$ and the first term of Eq. (38) vanishes. The remaining two terms containing pairs of delta functions, inserted into Eq. (34), yield the dominant contribution to the variance,

$$𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(𝐋)𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(𝐋)_{\mathrm{CMB}}𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}_{\mathrm{LSS}}=(2\pi )^2\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐋𝐋^{})[N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L)+\mathrm{}],$$
(41)
where $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L)=A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(L)`$. Notice that $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L)`$ is zeroth order in the lensing potential $`\varphi `$; it depends on the lensing potential power spectrum $`C_l^{\varphi \varphi }`$ only implicitly though the total observed power spectrum $`C_l^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{t}}`$. The ellipsis represents terms of higher order in $`C_l^{\varphi \varphi }`$ that we now proceed to calculate. These terms arise from the trispectrum term of Eq. (38) after $`𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(𝐋)_{\mathrm{CMB}}𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}_{\mathrm{LSS}}=(2\pi )^2\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐋𝐋^{})C_L^{dd}`$ is removed. Substituting these results into Eq. (34), we find that to first order in $`C_l^{\varphi \varphi }`$,

$$𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(𝐋)𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(𝐋)_{\mathrm{CMB}}𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}_{\mathrm{LSS}}=(2\pi )^2\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐋𝐋^{})[N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L)+N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)],$$
(42)
where $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)`$ is given by,

$`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)={\displaystyle \frac{A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^2(L)}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2𝐥_1^{}}{(2\pi )^2}F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})}`$ (43)
$`\times \left\{C_{|𝐥_1𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}|}^{\varphi \varphi }f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_2,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})+C_{|𝐥_1𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}|}^{\varphi \varphi }f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_2,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\right\}.`$ (44)
The first-order contribution to the noise $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)`$ involves integrals over the lensing-potential power spectrum, and thus probes lensing modes with wave vectors different from that of the estimator $`𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋)`$. It can be interpreted physically as interference from these other modes in the determination of the mode $`𝐝(𝐋)`$ being estimated. The filter $`F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)`$ was chosen to optimize the signal-to-noise ratio in the absence of the first-order contribution $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)`$; it is no longer an optimal filter once this additional noise is taken into account. As long as $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L)`$, the noise reduction that can be attained by re-optimizing our filter will not be significant. Formulas analagous to those presented here relevant to the construction of estimators using polarization data are given in the Appendix.

The significance of $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)`$ for two different experiments is shown in Fig. 2 using the currently favored $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmological model with baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.05`$, matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.35`$, cosmological constant density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.65`$, Hubble parameter $`h`$=0.65, and power-spectrum amplitude $`\sigma _8=0.9`$. The Planck experiment is equivalent to a one-year, full-sky survey with temperature and polarization sensitivities of 12.42 and 26.02 $`\mu \mathrm{K}\sqrt{\mathrm{sec}}`$ respectively and resolution $`\theta =7.0`$ arcminutes as described in § II. The reference experiment has the same resolution but superior sensitivities of 0.46 and 0.65 $`\mu \mathrm{K}\sqrt{\mathrm{sec}}`$ for temperature and polarization. These estimates of experimental parameters are identical to those given for the Planck and reference experiments of Ref. . The $`\mathrm{\Theta }E`$ and $`EE`$ estimators have noise power spectra intermediate to those of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`EB`$ estimators, while the $`\mathrm{\Theta }B`$ estimator has substantially higher noise because the primordial CMB lacks true B-modes in the absence of inflationary gravitational waves. We see that for Planck, with its comparatively inferior polarization sensitivity, the $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }`$ estimator will be best although it will be unable to detect individual Fourier modes of the deflection field at the $`1\sigma `$ level. The reference experiment, and further experiments with similar sensitivity and even higher resolution, should be able to push $`1\sigma `$ detection of individual $`𝐝(𝐋)`$ modes to $`L1000`$ by primarily relying on the $`EB`$ estimator. In these cases the secondary noise $`N_{EB,EB}^{(1)}(L)`$ is only smaller than the dominant noise $`N_{EB,EB}^{(0)}(L)`$ by a factor of a few, whereas for higher sensitivity (noisier) experiments like Planck it is smaller by at least an order-of-magnitude. This illustrates an interesting point, apparent from Fig. 2, that the zeroth-order noise $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L)`$ declines dramatically with decreasing sensitivity until it becomes dominated by cosmic variance while the $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)`$ is largely unaffected by instrument sensitivity. The reasons for this trend are that instrument noise appears in $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L)=A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(L)`$ through its contribution to the denominator of $`F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)`$ as shown by Eqs. (21) and (22). Decreasing instrument noise raises the value of $`F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)`$ thereby lowering $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L)`$. By contrast instrument noise is reflected in $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)`$ through its effects on both $`A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(L)`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)`$ as shown in Eq. (43). Smaller instrument noise raises $`F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)`$ as before, driving $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)`$ up in this case, but this is compensated by a decrease in $`A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(L)`$ which appears as a prefactor outside the integrals. These two effects largely cancel each other out, rendering $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)`$ remarkably insensitive to instrument noise.

## IV Power Spectrum Estimation

Although complete reconstruction of the deflection field $`𝐝(𝐋)`$ can be an enormously powerful tool, such as for B-mode subtraction , for some purposes estimates of the lensing-potential power spectrum $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$ are sufficient. This power spectrum is a model-dependent prediction of theories of large-scale structure formation, and therefore estimates of the power spectrum from real data could be used to test these theories as well as the consistency of other determinations of cosmological parameters. Furthermore, since estimates of all the modes $`𝐝(𝐋)`$ with $`|𝐋|=L`$ can be combined to estimate $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$, $`1\sigma `$ detection of the power spectrum can be pushed to much higher $`L`$ than can that of individual modes. The deflection-field estimator $`𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋)`$ derived in the preceding Section can be used to construct an estimator for $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$. Our first guess for an appropriate lensing-potential power spectrum estimator is

$$D_L\frac{(2\pi )^2}{AL^2}\frac{1}{2\pi L\mathrm{\Delta }L}_{a_L}\frac{d^2𝐥}{(2\pi )^2}𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥)𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥),$$
(46)
where $`A`$ is the area of the sky surveyed and $`a_L`$ is an annulus of radius $`L`$ and width $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$. We ensemble average our estimator over different realizations of the CMB and large-scale structure using Eq. (42) by bringing $`𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(𝐋)_{\mathrm{CMB}}𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}_{\mathrm{LSS}}`$ from the left to the right-hand side. This yields

$$D_L=\frac{(2\pi )^2}{AL^2}\frac{1}{2\pi L\mathrm{\Delta }L}\delta _\mathrm{D}(0)_{a_L}d^2𝐥\left[l^2C_l^{\varphi \varphi }+N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(l)+N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(l)\right].$$
(47)
The definition of the Dirac delta function,

$$(2\pi )^2\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐥)_A𝑑\widehat{𝐧}e^{i𝐥\widehat{𝐧}},$$
(48)
implies that $`\delta _\mathrm{D}(0)=A/(2\pi )^2`$. Furthermore, in the limit that $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ is small compared to the scales on which $`l^2C_l^{\varphi \varphi }+N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(l)+N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(l)`$ is varying, we can evaluate the integrand of Eq. (47) at its central value $`l=L`$ and extract it from the integral. The integral over the annulus $`a_L`$ cancels the factor $`2\pi L\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ in the denominator, reducing Eq. (47) to

$$D_L=C_L^{\varphi \varphi }+L^2\left[N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L)+N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)\right].$$
(49)
$`D_L`$ is indeed an estimator for the lensing-potential power spectrum $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$, albeit a biaed one. Note that the bias in the power-spectrum estimator $`D_L`$ is precisely the same as the variance shown in Eq. (42) with which we were able to determine each individual lensing mode. This is no coincidence; it reflects the fact that there are no grounds a priori on which to differentiate the variance with which we can reconstruct individual modes $`𝐝(𝐋)`$ from the intrinsic variance $`C_L^{dd}`$ of the underlying distribution from which they are drawn. To obtain an unbiased estimator to compare with theoretical predictions, we subtract off this unwanted reconstruction variance,

$$\widehat{C}_L^{\varphi \varphi }D_LL^2\left[N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L)+N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)\right].$$
(50)
Since $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)`$ as defined in Eq. (43) itself depends on $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$, this subtraction and evaluation must be performed iteratively until a self-consistent solution is obtained. The variance of our estimator $`\widehat{C}_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$ can be calculated in the usual manner,

$$\sigma _{\widehat{C}_L^{\varphi \varphi }}^2(\widehat{C}_L^{\varphi \varphi })^2\widehat{C}_L^{\varphi \varphi }^2=(D_L)^2D_L^2.$$
(51)
Evaluating this expression requires us to calculate

$$(D_L)^2=\frac{(2\pi )^4}{A^2L^4}\frac{1}{(2\pi L\mathrm{\Delta }L)^2}_{a_L}\frac{d^2𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{(2\pi )^2}_{a_L}\frac{d^2𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{(2\pi )^2}\left[𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\right]\left[𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\right].$$
(52)
Since $`𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋)`$ is a quadratic estimator in the temperature map, Eq. (52) includes the following integral over the eight-point correlation function in Fourier space,

$`\left[𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\right]\left[𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\right]={\displaystyle \frac{A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^2(l_1^{})A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^2(l_2^{})}{(l_1^{})^2(l_2^{})^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2𝐤_3}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2𝐤_5}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2𝐤_7}{(2\pi )^2}}`$ (53)
$`\times \left\{F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_3,𝐤_4)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_5,𝐤_6)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_7,𝐤_8)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐤_1)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐤_2)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐤_3)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐤_4)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐤_5)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐤_6)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐤_7)\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{t}(𝐤_8)\right\},`$ (54)
where $`𝐤_2=𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐤_1`$, $`𝐤_4=𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐤_3`$, $`𝐤_6=𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐤_5`$, and $`𝐤_8=𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐤_7`$. A fully general eight-point correlation function consists of a connected part, as well as terms proportional to the product of lower-order correlation functions. Under the assumption that both the primordial CMB and the lensing potential are governed by Gaussian statistics, all correlation functions higher than the four-point have vanishing connected parts . The temperature eight-point correlation function will therefore be composed of three groups of terms; membership in a group being determined by whether the term contains zero, one, or two factors of the trispectrum. Since the trispectrum given in Eq. (LABEL:E:trilens) is first order in the lensing-potential power spectrum $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$, terms of these three groups are zeroth, first, and second order respectively in $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$. Combinatorics determines the number of terms in each group. There are: $`\frac{1}{4!}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{8}{2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{6}{2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{4}{2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2}{2}}\right)=105`$ different ways of dividing $`(𝐤_1,\mathrm{},𝐤_8)`$ into four pairs, and hence there will be 105 terms in the group containing no trispectra. Similar calculations reveal that there are $`\frac{1}{2!}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{8}{4}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{4}{2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2}{2}}\right)=210`$ terms in the second group and $`\frac{1}{2!}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{8}{4}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{4}{4}}\right)=35`$ terms in the third group. Many terms in all three groups will vanish for the same reason that the first term vanished in the four-point correlation function of Eq. (38); these terms are proportional to a Dirac delta function evaluated at nonzero argument. Consider now the first group of terms, those that are zeroth order in $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$. The 60 nonvanishing terms in this group each contain four Dirac delta functions; they can be further segregated into the 12 terms that allow two of the integrals over $`𝐤_i`$ appearing in Eq. (53) to be immediately evaluated via Dirac delta functions, and the 48 terms that allow evaluation of three $`𝐤_i`$ integrals. The first 12 terms, inserted into Eq. (53) and appropriately evaluated using the normalization of Eq. (22), yield

$$(D_L)^2=\left(\frac{N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L)}{L^2}\right)^2\left[1+2\frac{(2\pi )^2}{A}\frac{1}{2\pi L\mathrm{\Delta }L}\right]+\mathrm{},$$
(56)
while the remaining 48 terms give the final result to zeroth order in $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$,

$`(D_L)^2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L)}{L^2}}\right)^2\left[1+2{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi L\mathrm{\Delta }L}}\right]`$ (57)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2}{AL^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(2\pi L\mathrm{\Delta }L)^2}}{\displaystyle _{a_L}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _{a_L}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^2(l_1^{})A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^2(l_2^{})}{(l_1^{})^2(l_2^{})^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤_1}{(2\pi )^2}f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2)P(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})},`$ (58)
where

$`P(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐤_1,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐤_2)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_1,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝐤_1)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_2,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝐤_2)`$ (65)
$`+f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐤_1,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐤_2)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_1,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝐤_1)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_2,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝐤_2)`$
$`+f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐤_1,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐤_2)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_1,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝐤_1)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_2,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝐤_2)`$
$`+f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐤_1,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐤_2)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_1,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝐤_1)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_2,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝐤_2)`$
$`+f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐤_1,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐤_2)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_1,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝐤_1)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_2,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝐤_2)`$
$`+f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐤_1,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐤_2)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_1,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝐤_1)F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_2,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝐤_2).`$
When $`D_L^2`$ is subtracted from $`(D_L)^2`$ in Eq. (51), the first term in the square brackets of Eq. (57) will be eliminated. Minimizing the variance associated with this estimator then consists of making an optimal choice of $`\mathrm{\Delta }L(L)`$. The first noise term is proportional to $`\frac{(2\pi )^2/A}{2\pi L\mathrm{\Delta }L}`$. For a survey of area $`A`$, $`(2\pi )^2/A`$ is the specific area of an individual mode in $`𝐋`$ space and $`2\pi L\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ is the area in $`𝐋`$ space over which the power-spectrum estimator takes an average. This ratio is therefore the inverse of the number of individual $`𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐋)`$ modes whose inverse variances are added to determine the inverse variance of $`\widehat{C}_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$. It is obviously minimized by choosing $`(2\pi )^2/A2\pi L\mathrm{\Delta }L(L)`$. The second term, that involving $`P(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$, differs from the first noise term in that a Dirac delta function has been used to evaluate an additional $`𝐤_i`$ integral rather than an annulus integral. Since the integrands are of the same order, we expect the second noise term to be suppressed relative to the first by a factor $`2\pi L\mathrm{\Delta }L(L)/\pi l_{\mathrm{max}}^2`$ where $`l_{\mathrm{max}}\pi /\theta `$ is set by the resolution $`\theta `$ of the survey. Under the conservative assumption $`L\mathrm{\Delta }L(L)1/\theta ^2`$, namely that we are probing scales well above our resolution, this term is assured to be small. We neglect such terms for the remainder of this paper. If we insert the portions of the eight-point correlation function that are first and second order in $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$ into Eq. (53) and evaluate using Eq. (43), we find

$$(D_L)^2=L^4\left(C_L^{dd}+N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L)+N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)\right)^2\left[1+2\frac{(2\pi )^2}{A}\frac{1}{2\pi L\mathrm{\Delta }L}\right],$$
(67)
and

$$\sigma _{\widehat{C}_L^{\varphi \varphi }}^2=2\frac{(2\pi )^2}{A}\frac{1}{2\pi L\mathrm{\Delta }L}L^4\left(C_L^{dd}+N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L)+N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)\right)^2.$$
(68)
This result agrees with that given in Ref.  after subtracting our newly derived term $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)`$.

The term $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)`$ and corresponding terms for polarization-based estimators have two principal effects on power spectrum estimation. As shown in Eq. (68), they provide a fractional contribution to the variance of roughly $`2N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)/C_L^{dd}`$ when $`C_L^{dd}`$ dominates the variance as in the reference experiment in the right-hand panel of Fig. 2. For the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmological model considered here this represents an increase of $`515\%`$ in the variance of the $`EB`$ estimator for $`L1000`$. More importantly, $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)`$ acts as a bias for the naive estimator $`D_L`$ as shown by Eq. (49). If this bias is not calculated and subtracted iteratively to form the unbiased estimator $`\widehat{C}_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$ as in Eq. (50), $`C_L^{dd}`$ will be systematically overestimated by $`510\%`$ at low $`L`$ and by increasingly larger amounts at $`L100`$ as the signal $`L(L+1)C_L^{dd}/2\pi `$ begins to plummet while $`N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(1)}(L)`$ remains comparatively flat.

Having evaluated the variance of our estimator $`\widehat{C}_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$, we consider whether this estimator has a substantial covariance

$$\sigma _{\widehat{C}_L^{\varphi \varphi }\widehat{C}_L^{}^{\varphi \varphi }}(\widehat{C}_L^{\varphi \varphi }C_L^{\varphi \varphi })(\widehat{C}_L^{}^{\varphi \varphi }C_L^{}^{\varphi \varphi })=D_LD_L^{}D_LD_L^{}.$$
(69)
The estimator $`D_L`$ as defined in Eq. (46) implies that:

$$D_LD_L^{}=\left(\frac{2\pi }{ALL^{}}\right)^2\frac{1}{L\mathrm{\Delta }LL^{}\mathrm{\Delta }L^{}}_{a_L}\frac{d^2𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{(2\pi )^2}_{a_L^{}}\frac{d^2𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{(2\pi )^2}\left[𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\right]\left[𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})𝐝_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\right],$$
(70)
which can be evaluated using the same integral over the eight-point correlation function described in Eq. (53). Whereas 60 of the 105 zeroth-order terms in $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$ coming from this equation were nonvanishing for the variance, for the covariance only 52 terms are nonzero provided that the widths $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }L^{}`$ are chosen so that the annuli $`a_L`$ and $`a_L^{}`$ do not overlap. This leads to a result analogous to Eq. (57),

$`D_LD_L^{}={\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L)}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L^{})}{L^2}}+`$ (71)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{AL^3\mathrm{\Delta }LL^3\mathrm{\Delta }L^{}}}{\displaystyle _{a_L}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _{a_L^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^2(l_1^{})A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^2(l_2^{})}{(l_1^{})^2(l_2^{})^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤_1}{(2\pi )^2}f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2)P(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})}.`$ (72)
Note that the eight terms missing from the covariance when compared to the variance have altered the first term of Eq. (71), and that it was precisely these terms that provided the dominant contribution to the variance of Eq. (68) when $`\mathrm{\Delta }L(L)`$ was chosen appropriately. We therefore find that to zeroth order in $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$, the covariance is given by

$$\sigma _{\widehat{C}_L^{\varphi \varphi }\widehat{C}_L^{}^{\varphi \varphi }}=\frac{2}{AL\mathrm{\Delta }LL^{}\mathrm{\Delta }L^{}}\left(\frac{N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L)}{L^2}\frac{N_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^{(0)}(L^{})}{L^2}\right)^2_{a_L}\frac{d^2𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{(2\pi )^2}_{a_L^{}}\frac{d^2𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2𝐤_1}{(2\pi )^2}f_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2)P(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}),$$
(74)
where we have extracted the $`A_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(l_i^{})`$ from the annular integrals since they are slowly varying over the widths $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }L^{}`$. For the same reasons that terms of this form were a subdominant contribution to the variance as discussed previously, we expect the covariance to be suppressed as well. If we define the ratio

$$R_{LL^{}}\frac{\sigma _{\widehat{C}_L^{\varphi \varphi }\widehat{C}_L^{}^{\varphi \varphi }}}{\sqrt{\sigma _{\widehat{C}_L^{\varphi \varphi }}^2\sigma _{\widehat{C}_L^{}^{\varphi \varphi }}^2}},$$
(75)
we can quantify this suppression. The triple integral of Eq. (74), appearing in the numerator of $`R_{LL^{}}`$, involves integration over annuli with radii $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ and one integration over all Fourier space. The triple integrals in the variances $`\sigma _{\widehat{C}_L^{\varphi \varphi }}^2`$ and $`\sigma _{\widehat{C}_L^{}^{\varphi \varphi }}^2`$ appearing in the denominator of $`R_{LL^{}}`$ each consist of a single integration over an annulus of radius $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ respectively and two integrations over all Fourier space. If we make the crude assumption that the integrand is constant, the ratio $`R_{LL^{}}`$ will simply be the ratio of these areas,

$$R_{LL^{}}\sqrt{(2\pi L\mathrm{\Delta }L)(2\pi L^{}\mathrm{\Delta }L^{})}/\pi l_{\mathrm{max}}^2.$$
(76)
The ratio $`R_{LL^{}}`$ is evaluated numerically for Planck in Fig. 3 as a function of $`L`$ for various fixed values of $`L^{}`$. The estimators $`\widehat{C}_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$ and $`\widehat{C}_L^{}^{\varphi \varphi }`$ were chosen such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=\mathrm{\Delta }L^{}=1`$, while integrals over Fourier space were cut off at $`l_{\mathrm{max}}=5000`$. Substituting these values into Eq. (76), we expect $`R_{LL^{}}8.0\times 10^8\sqrt{LL^{}}`$. This crude estimate is surprisingly close to the numerically obtained results of Fig. 3; in particular the slope of the curves is approximately 1/2 on this log-log plot. Even at $`L1000`$, $`R_{LL^{}}4.0\times 10^4`$ suggesting that covariance in power-spectrum estimation can safely be neglected for Planck. The estimate of Eq. (76) implicitly depends on the experimental resolution $`\theta `$ because the integrand appearing in expressions for the variance and covariance decreases rapidly for $`Ll_{\mathrm{max}}\pi /\theta `$. For future experiments with better resolution than Planck, $`l_{\mathrm{max}}`$ will be higher implying by Eq. (76) that covariance will be even more negligible.

## V Discussion

Weak gravitational lensing induces non-Gaussian correlations between modes of the observed CMB temperature map as shown in Eq. (18). These correlations, and assumptions about the Gaussian nature of the primordial CMB, can be used to construct several temperature and polarization-based estimators of the Fourier modes $`𝐝(𝐋)`$ of the deflection field. This procedure was outlined in Ref. , however in calculating the noise associated with this reconstruction, an assumption was made that the observed temperature map was Gaussian. In the presence of lensing this assumption is invalid; when calculating the variance of quadratic estimators all permutations of the observed trispectrum must be taken into account. One such permutation reflects the desired correlation making our estimator sensitive to $`𝐝(𝐋)`$, but the remaining two permutations induce additional variance proportional to the lensing-potential power spectrum $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$. While subdominant, this variance will become increasing significant for future experiments as shown in the right-hand panel of Fig. 2. Since the power spectrum $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$ is itself a measure of uncertainty in the deflection field, this additional variance in lensing reconstruction acts as a bias during power-spectrum estimation because there is no a priori way to distinguish it from the intrinsic variance of the underlying distribution. Our calculation of the dependence of this variance on $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$ allows it in principle to be subtracted iteratively, which will prevent a systematic $`510\%`$ overestimate of $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$ at low $`L`$.

We close by considering several possible observational obstacles to the scheme for lensing reconstruction and power-spectrum estimation presented above. One hindrance is secondary contributions to the CMB such as the SZ and ISW effects. These effects increase the total temperature power spectrum appearing in the denominator of the optimum filter $`F_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)`$ of Eq. (21) as would additional instrumental noise. They also correlate with the large-scale structure at low redshifts inducing further non-Gaussian couplings and additional variance to lensing reconstruction. Fortunately for our purposes the frequency dependence of the thermal SZ effect differs from that of a blackbody. It can therefore be separated in principle from the lensed primordial CMB by an experiment with several frequency channels . The ISW effect cannot be removed in this manner, but is too small to significantly inhibit lensing reconstruction. Polarization-dependent secondary effects are expected to appear at higher orders in the density contrast , and we therefore anticipate that they will not make a contribution at the levels considered here. A potentially more serious problem is that of galactic foregrounds, which though uncorrelated with the lensing signal may be substantial at certain frequencies. Significant polarization has also been observed in some of these sources . We hope to understand and minimize the effects of galactic foregrounds in future work, and to pursue further refinements of lensing reconstruction.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Wayne Hu for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by NASA NAG5-11985 and DoE DE-FG03-92-ER40701. Kesden acknowledges the support of an NSF Graduate Fellowship and AC acknowledges support from the Sherman Fairchild Foundation.

## A Polarization-based Estimators

Here we provide the appropriate formulas for deriving the variance associated with polarization-based estimators of the deflection field $`𝐝(𝐋)`$. The CMB polarization can be decomposed into E and B-modes . These modes are mixed by weak lensing such that to linear order in $`\varphi (𝐋)`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐥)`$ $`=`$ $`E(𝐥){\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}\left[E(𝐥_1)\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{𝐥_1}\phi _𝐥)B(𝐥_1)\mathrm{sin}2(\phi _{𝐥_1}\phi _𝐥)\right]\varphi (𝐥𝐥_1)\left[(𝐥𝐥_1)𝐥_1\right]},`$ (A1)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}(𝐥)`$ $`=`$ $`B(𝐥){\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}\left[E(𝐥_1)\mathrm{sin}2(\phi _{𝐥_1}\phi _𝐥)+B(𝐥_1)\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{𝐥_1}\phi _𝐥)\right]\varphi (𝐥𝐥_1)\left[(𝐥𝐥_1)𝐥_1\right]}.`$ (A2)
We can exploit the sensitivity of the polarization modes to the lensing potential to construct lensing estimators from quadratic combinations of polarization modes. We generalize Eq. (18) to arbitrary combinations $`\{X,X^{}\}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, E, and B-modes as first derived in Ref. ,

$$X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥)X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}=f_{XX^{}}(𝐥,𝐥^{})\varphi (𝐋),$$
(A3)
where

$`f_{\mathrm{\Theta }E}(𝐥,𝐥^{})`$ $`=`$ $`C_l^{\mathrm{\Theta }E}\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _𝐥^{})(𝐋𝐥)+C_l^{}^{\mathrm{\Theta }E}(𝐋𝐥^{})=f_{E\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥^{},𝐥),`$ (A4)
$`f_{\mathrm{\Theta }B}(𝐥,𝐥^{})`$ $`=`$ $`C_l^{\mathrm{\Theta }E}\mathrm{sin}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _𝐥^{})(𝐋𝐥)=f_{B\mathrm{\Theta }}(𝐥^{},𝐥),`$ (A5)
$`f_{EE}(𝐥,𝐥^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[C_l^{EE}(𝐋𝐥)+C_l^{}^{EE}(𝐋𝐥^{})\right]\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _𝐥^{}),`$ (A6)
$`f_{EB}(𝐥,𝐥^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[C_l^{EE}(𝐋𝐥)+C_l^{}^{BB}(𝐋𝐥^{})\right]\mathrm{sin}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _𝐥^{})=f_{BE}(𝐥^{},𝐥),`$ (A7)
$`f_{BB}(𝐥,𝐥^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[C_l^{BB}(𝐋𝐥)+C_l^{}^{BB}(𝐋𝐥^{})\right]\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _𝐥^{}).`$ (A8)
In deriving these results we used parity considerations to demand $`C_l^{\mathrm{\Theta }B}=C_l^{EB}=0`$. Using these relations, we follow the approach of Ref.  to derive symmetric lensing estimators

$$𝐝_{XX}(𝐋)\frac{i𝐋A_{XX}(L)}{L^2}\frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1)X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_2)F_{XX}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2),$$
(A10)
and

$$𝐝_{XX^{}}(𝐋)\frac{i𝐋A_{XX^{}}(L)}{L^2}\frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{2}\left[X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1)X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_2)+X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1)X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_2)\right]F_{XX^{}}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2).$$
(A11)
We have explicitly symmetrized our estimators for $`XX^{}`$ to simplify the form of the optimal filter. The normalization bias of the estimators is removed by choosing

$$A_{XX}(L)L^2\left[\frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}f_{XX}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)F_{XX}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)\right]^1,$$
(A12)
and

$$A_{XX^{}}(L)L^2\left[\frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{2}\left[f_{XX^{}}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)+f_{XX^{}}(𝐥_2,𝐥_1)\right]F_{XX^{}}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)\right]^1.$$
(A13)
The minimum-variance filters $`F_{XX^{}}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)`$ for the various cases $`\{X,X^{}\}`$ are given by

$`F_{\mathrm{\Theta }E}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\mathrm{\Theta }E}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)+f_{\mathrm{\Theta }E}(𝐥_2,𝐥_1)}{C_{l_1}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{t}}C_{l_2}^{EE\mathrm{t}}+2C_{l_1}^{\mathrm{\Theta }E\mathrm{t}}C_{l_2}^{\mathrm{\Theta }E\mathrm{t}}+C_{l_1}^{EE\mathrm{t}}C_{l_2}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{t}}}},`$ (A14)
$`F_{\mathrm{\Theta }B}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\mathrm{\Theta }B}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)+f_{\mathrm{\Theta }B}(𝐥_2,𝐥_1)}{C_{l_1}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{t}}C_{l_2}^{EE\mathrm{t}}+C_{l_1}^{EE\mathrm{t}}C_{l_2}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{t}}}},`$ (A15)
$`F_{EE}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{EE}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)}{2C_{l_1}^{EE\mathrm{t}}C_{l_2}^{EE\mathrm{t}}}},`$ (A16)
$`F_{EB}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{EB}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)+f_{EB}(𝐥_2,𝐥_1)}{C_{l_1}^{EE\mathrm{t}}C_{l_2}^{BB\mathrm{t}}+C_{l_1}^{BB\mathrm{t}}C_{l_2}^{EE\mathrm{t}}}},`$ (A17)
$`F_{BB}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{BB}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)}{2C_{l_1}^{BB\mathrm{t}}C_{l_2}^{BB\mathrm{t}}}}.`$ (A18)
Using these optimal filters for the estimators defined in Eqs. (A10) and (A11), we can calculate the variances for these estimators in a fashion entirely analogoug to Eq. (34),

$`𝐝_{XX}^{}(𝐋)𝐝_{XX}(𝐋^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}𝐝_{XX}^{}(𝐋)_{\mathrm{CMB}}𝐝_{XX}(𝐋^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}_{\mathrm{LSS}}={\displaystyle \frac{A_{XX}(L)}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_{XX}(L^{})}{L^{}}}`$ (A20)
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1)X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_2)X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})F_{XX}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)F_{XX}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})(2\pi )^2\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐋𝐋^{})C_L^{dd},`$ (A21)
$`𝐝_{XX^{}}^{}(𝐋)𝐝_{XX^{}}(𝐋^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}𝐝_{XX^{}}^{}(𝐋)_{\mathrm{CMB}}𝐝_{XX^{}}(𝐋^{})_{\mathrm{CMB}}_{\mathrm{LSS}}={\displaystyle \frac{A_{XX^{}}(L)}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_{XX^{}}(L^{})}{L^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2𝐥_1^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}`$ (A23)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1)X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_2)+X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_1)X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_2)\right]\left[X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})+X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})X^\mathrm{t}(𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\right]F_{XX^{}}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)F_{XX^{}}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ (A24)
$`(2\pi )^2\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐋𝐋^{})C_L^{dd}.`$ (A25)
As for that of the temperature estimator, these variance will consist of zeroth-order terms in $`C_L^{\varphi \varphi }`$, $`N_{XX,XX}^{(0)}(L)=A_{XX}(L)`$ and $`N_{XX^{},XX^{}}^{(0)}(L)=A_{XX^{}}(L)`$, and first-order terms,

$`N_{XX,XX}^{(1)}(L)={\displaystyle \frac{A_{XX}^2(L)}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2𝐥_1^{}}{(2\pi )^2}F_{XX}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)F_{XX}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})}`$ (A27)
$`\times \left\{C_{|𝐥_1𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}|}^{\varphi \varphi }f_{XX}(𝐥_1,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})f_{XX}(𝐥_2,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})+C_{|𝐥_1𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}|}^{\varphi \varphi }f_{XX}(𝐥_1,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})f_{XX}(𝐥_2,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\right\},`$ (A28)
$`N_{XX^{},XX^{}}^{(1)}(L)={\displaystyle \frac{A_{XX^{}}^2(L)}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2𝐥_1^{}}{(2\pi )^2}F_{XX^{}}(𝐥_1,𝐥_2)F_{XX^{}}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})}`$ (A30)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\{C_{|𝐥_1𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}|}^{\varphi \varphi }[f_{XX}(𝐥_1,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})f_{X^{}X^{}}(𝐥_2,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})+f_{XX^{}}(𝐥_1,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})f_{X^{}X}(𝐥_2,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ (A31)
$`+f_{X^{}X}(𝐥_1,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})f_{XX^{}}(𝐥_2,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})+f_{X^{}X^{}}(𝐥_1,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})f_{XX}(𝐥_2,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})]`$ (A32)
$`+C_{|𝐥_1𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}|}^{\varphi \varphi }[f_{XX^{}}(𝐥_1,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})f_{X^{}X}(𝐥_2,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})+f_{XX}(𝐥_1,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})f_{X^{}X^{}}(𝐥_2,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ (A33)
$`+f_{X^{}X^{}}(𝐥_1,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})f_{XX}(𝐥_2,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})+f_{X^{}X}(𝐥_1,𝐥_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})f_{XX^{}}(𝐥_2,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\left]\right\},`$ (A34)
The filters given in Eq. (A14) are no longer optimal in the presence of this additional noise, but the difference between these filters and the optimal filters should be negligible provided that $`N_{XX,XX}^{(1)}(L)N_{XX,XX}^{(0)}(L)`$, $`N_{XX^{},XX^{}}^{(1)}(L)N_{XX^{},XX^{}}^{(0)}(L)`$. For the purposes of power-spectrum estimation, the terms $`N_{XX,XX}^{(1)}(L)`$ and $`N_{XX^{},XX^{}}^{(1)}(L)`$ are not only an additional contribution to the variance, but are also a systematic bias if not subtracted iteratively following Eq. (49).

A final point to consider is that the six different estimators $`𝐝_{XX^{}}(𝐋)`$ defined in this paper are not independent, as they are constructed from only three distinct maps. The covariance matrix for the six estimators will therefore not be diagonal, and this needs to be taken into account if the estimators are to be linearly combined to produce a single minimum-variance estimator. The off-diagonal elements of the covariance matrix can be evaluated in a straightforward manner involving pairs of double integrals similar to those of Eqs. (A20) and (A23).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recent topics of the theories in higher dimensions give us a lot of interesting phenomenological pictures. One of the most attractive motivations of extension of dimensions is that the variety of particles in Nature can be understood by means of a geometrical language. For example, gauge fields with the extra dimensional components behave as scalar fields in 4 dimension. Since masses of the gauge bosons are prohibited by gauge invariance, the scalar field originated from the gauge bosons can be a good candidate for the low energy Higgs fields which break electroweak symmetry. That leads to the idea of the gauge-Higgs unification in the higher dimensional theories .

We consider that the extra dimensions are compactified in an orbifold. In an orbifold space, we can impose transformation properties to the fields and the symmetries can be broken . Recently, a great deal of works has been done on the gauge symmetry breaking using the orbifold compactification, and these lead to many attractive features of the unified gauge theories in higher dimensions . Using the orbifold transformation properties, we can project out unwanted fields such as colored Higgs triplets in the grand unified theories . In such a progress of the higher dimensional unified theories, many people have revisited the idea of gauge-Higgs unification . In the higher dimensional supersymmetric theories, the gauge multiplet contains both vector multiplet and chiral supermultiplets in 4D. Assigning the different transformation property between vector multiplet and chiral supermultiplets, we can make vector multiplet massless but chiral supermultiplets heavy, which means the supersymmetry is broken. If we break gauge symmetry through boundary condition simultaneously, a part of the chiral supermultiplets can have a zero mode which remains massless in the low energy. Then, we can identify such a supermultiplet with the low energy Higgs field. This idea is featured in the 6D $`N=2`$ supersymmetric theories , and more recently in the 5D $`N=1`$ supersymmetric theories . The Ref. emphasizes an interesting possibility that the gauge and Yukawa coupling constants have the same origin. Since the Yukawa interactions arise from the gauge interaction in the 5D lagrangian, those two coupling constants are “unified” in the 5D theory. In the Ref., the authors considered the theory of $`SU(3)_w`$ and $`SU(6)`$ as an example of this scenario. The gauge-Higgs unification in larger gauge group such as $`E_6`$, $`E_7`$ and $`E_8`$ has also been studied  In Ref., the authors consider the gauge-Higgs unification in the $`SU(4)_w`$ and $`SO(12)`$, and suggest that the left-right symmetric breaking of the gauge symmetry gives an economical realization to the representation of the quarks and leptons.

Another interesting possibility of unified model in higher dimensions is that quarks and leptons can be unified in the gauge multiplet. Three families of quarks and leptons can be contained in the adjoint representations in large gauge groups, such as $`E_7`$ and $`E_8`$. The matters in the adjoint representation are always vector-like, but one can project out the vector-like partner by $`Z_3`$ transformation properties . This encourages us to consider that the gauge and matter (quarks and leptons) unification in higher dimensional models. In other context, we can consider the origin of the three families as chiral superfields in gauge multiplet  since the gauge multiplet in the 6D $`N=2`$ supersymmetry contains three $`N=1`$ chiral superfields in 4D.

In this paper, we consider the possibility of unifying gauge, matter and Higgs fields in one supersymmetric gauge multiplet in higher dimensions, as well as the unification of the gauge and Yukawa couplings. As a simple example, we construct a 6D $`N=2`$ supersymmetric $`SU(8)`$ unified model where such an unification is achieved. The gauge symmetry $`SU(8)`$ is broken down to $`SU(4)\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)^2`$ in 4D through $`T^2/Z_6`$ orbifold compactification, and the theory is reduced to 4D $`N=1`$ supersymmetric Pati-Salam model . The electroweak Higgs fields and standard model fermions for the 3rd family can be unified with the gauge bosons in the 6D gauge multiplets. The 6D bulk gauge interaction produces Yukawa interactions, which give masses to the quarks and leptons by Higgs mechanism, and gives gauge-Yukawa unification. The numerical agreement of this gauge-Yukawa unification prediction for all the gauge and the third family Yukawa couplings is good.

Our paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we construct our supersymmetric $`SU(8)`$ model in 6D with gauge, Higgs and matter unification and show how orbifold compactification leads to Pati-Salam model in 4D. Numerical results for gauge and Yukawa coupling unification are shown in section 3. Section 4 contains our conclusions and discussions.

## 2 The Model

We consider the 6D gauge theory with $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. The two extra dimensions are compactified by the orbifold $`T^2/Z_n`$ . The $`N=2`$ supersymmetry in 6D corresponds to $`N=4`$ supersymmetry in 4D, thus only the gauge multiplet can be introduced in the bulk. In terms of 4D $`N=1`$ language, the gauge multiplet contains vector multiplet $`V(A_\mu ,\lambda )`$ and three chiral multiplets $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. The fifth and sixth components of the gauge fields, $`A_5`$ and $`A_6`$, are contained in the lowest component of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }|_{\theta =\overline{\theta }=0}=(A_6+iA_5)/\sqrt{2}`$.

The bulk action, written in the 4D $`N=1`$ language and in the Wess-Zumino gauge, is given by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^6x\{\mathrm{Tr}[{\displaystyle }d^2\theta ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4kg^2}}W^\alpha W_\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{kg^2}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^c\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^c]))+h.c.]`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle d^4\theta \frac{1}{kg^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left[(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})e^{2V}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\mathrm{\Sigma })e^{2V}+\frac{1}{4}^{}e^{2V}e^{2V}\right]}`$
$`+{\displaystyle }d^4\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{kg^2}}\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Phi }^{}e^{2V}\mathrm{\Phi }e^{2V}+\mathrm{\Phi }^ce^{2V}\mathrm{\Phi }^ce^{2V}]\},`$
where $`k`$ is the normalization of the group generator, $`\mathrm{Tr}T^aT^b=k\delta ^{ab}`$ (we take $`k=1/2`$), $``$ is defined as $`=_5i_6`$, and $`W_\alpha `$ is defined as $`W_\alpha =\frac{1}{8}\overline{D}^2(e^{2V}D_\alpha e^{2V})`$. The 6D gauge transformations are

$`e^{2V}`$ $``$ $`e^\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{2V}e^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},\mathrm{\Sigma }e^\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}})e^\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $``$ $`e^\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }e^\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Phi }^ce^\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }^ce^\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ (3)
The $`T^2/Z_n`$ orbifold is constructed by identifying the complex coordinate $`z`$ of the extra dimensions under $`Z_n:z\omega z`$, where $`\omega ^n=1`$. The number $`n`$ is restricted to be $`n=2,3,4,6`$. We can impose the transformation property of the gauge multiplet as

$`V(x^\mu ,\omega z,\overline{\omega }\overline{z})`$ $`=`$ $`RV(x^\mu ,z,\overline{z})R^1,`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x^\mu ,\omega z,\overline{\omega }\overline{z})`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\omega }R\mathrm{\Sigma }(x^\mu ,z,\overline{z})R^1,`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,\omega z,\overline{\omega }\overline{z})`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^lR\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,z,\overline{z})R^1,`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^c(x^\mu ,\omega z,\overline{\omega }\overline{z})`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^mR\mathrm{\Phi }^c(x^\mu ,z,\overline{z})R^1,`$ (7)
where $`R`$ is a unitary matrix and satisfies that $`R^n`$ is the identity matrix. Non-trivial $`R`$ breaks the gauge symmetry. Because of the lagrangian invariance in Eq.(1) under the transformations (4-7), we have a relation $`l+m1`$ (mod $`n`$). In the case $`n>2`$, this transformation property breaks $`N=4`$ supersymmetry down to $`N=1`$ in 4D.

Now we consider the $`SU(8)`$ gauge symmetry and $`T^2/Z_6`$ orbifold. We choose the $`8\times 8`$ matrix $`R`$ as

$$R=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1,\omega ^5,\omega ^5,\omega ^2,\omega ^2).$$
(8)
With this choice, $`SU(8)`$ breaks down to $`SU(4)\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)^2`$, and the theory is reduced to 4D $`N=1`$ supersymmetric Pati-Salam model with two extra $`U(1)`$ symmetry. The $`SU(8)`$ adjoint representation $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟑}`$ is decomposed under $`SU(4)\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)^2`$ representations as

$$\mathrm{𝟔𝟑}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(\mathrm{𝟏𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_{0,0}& (\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2,0}& (\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{2,4}\\ (\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2,0}& (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_{0,0}& (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})_{0,4}\\ (\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{2,4}& (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})_{0,4}& (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_{0,0}\end{array}\right)+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_{0,0}+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_{0,0},$$
(9)
where the subscripts denote the charges under the $`U(1)_1\times U(1)_2`$ symmetry. The $`Z_6`$ transformation property for these respective decomposed representations of the vector multiplet $`V`$ and chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is

$$V:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \omega & \omega ^4\\ \omega ^5& 1& \omega ^3\\ \omega ^2& \omega ^3& 1\end{array}\right)+(1)+(1),\mathrm{\Sigma }:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\omega ^5& 1& \omega ^3\\ \omega ^4& \omega ^5& \omega ^2\\ \omega & \omega ^2& \omega ^5\end{array}\right)+(\omega ^5)+(\omega ^5).$$
(10)
We see from (10) that the gauge fields for the unbroken symmetry group have massless modes in $`V`$, and $`(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2,0}`$ component in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has massless mode. Choosing $`l=4`$ and $`m=3`$, we obtain the transformation property for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\omega ^4& \omega ^5& \omega ^2\\ \omega ^3& \omega ^4& \omega \\ 1& \omega & \omega ^4\end{array}\right)+(\omega ^4)+(\omega ^4),\mathrm{\Phi }^c:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\omega ^3& \omega ^4& \omega \\ \omega ^2& \omega ^3& 1\\ \omega ^5& 1& \omega ^3\end{array}\right)+(\omega ^3)+(\omega ^3),$$
(11)
and thus $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{2,4}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})_{0,4}`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})_{0,4}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ have massless modes in 4D. We identify $`(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ and $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ as left- and right-handed quarks and leptons respectively in one family, and two bidoublets $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ as Higgs fields which break electroweak symmetry. Then Higgs fields and one family of matter fields are unified with the gauge fields in the 6D $`N=2`$ gauge multiplet. We denote those fields as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_L:(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2,0},\mathrm{\Psi }_R:(\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{2,4}H_1:(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})_{0,4},H_2:(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})_{0,4}.$$
(12)
We note briefly the other choices of $`l`$, $`m`$ and unitary matrix $`R`$. We may have three solutions of $`l+m1`$ (mod $`6`$), $`(l,m)(0,1),(5,2),(4,3)`$ without loss of generality. (Exchanging of $`l`$ and $`m`$ gives identical sets of zero-modes.) Only the choice of $`(l,m)=(4,3)`$ leads to one family of matter as the zero-modes. With the different choice of $`R`$ from Eq.(8), contents of zero-modes will be different. We have chosen the unitary matrix $`R`$ so that both left- and right-handed matters are chiral, and at that time, we get two Higgs bidoublets as zero-modes. We have also chosen the left-handed matter is in the chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Since the three $`N=1`$ chiral multiplets $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ are in the gauge multiplets, those fields have gauge interactions with each other in 6D. This interaction term from Eq.(1) is

$$S=d^6x[d^2\theta \frac{1}{kg^2}\mathrm{Tr}(\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^c])+h.c.],$$
(13)
includes Yukawa interaction

$$S=d^6xd^2\theta y_6\mathrm{\Psi }_LH_1\mathrm{\Psi }_R+h.c.$$
(14)
Taking into account the normalization factor of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$ and $`H_1`$ in the kinetic term, we find that the six dimensional Yukawa coupling is equal to six dimensional gauge coupling, $`y_6=g_6`$. The corresponding four dimensional couplings are derived as the coordinates of extra dimensions are integrated out in the action. In the ideal situation, the four dimensional Yukawa and gauge coupling can be the same dimensionless number. The ideal situation is the following: 1) The brane-localized gauge and Yukawa interactions can be negligible. 2) The zero modes of fermions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$ are not localized at different points on the orbifold. 3) The four dimensional fields are not largely mixed with other brane-localized fields.

As for the first situation, the 4D gauge couplings can receive contributions from brane-localized gauge kinetic terms, such as $`\delta (z)F_{\mu \nu }^2`$. However, such contributions can be expected negligible if the volume of extra dimensions is large. Since the left-handed fermions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which includes the gauge fields with fifth and sixth coordinates, the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ transforms non-linearly under gauge transformation in Eq.(2). Thus, we cannot write the brane-localized Yukawa interaction. If we consider Wilson-line operator, we may write a gauge invariant 4D interaction, but again the contribution can be negligible if the volume of the extra dimensions is large. Next, we consider second ideal situation. If the zero modes of fermions are localized at different points, the 4D Yukawa couplings become proportional to the overlap of the zero modes wave functions. In general, vacuum expectation values of the singlet in the three chiral multiplets gives bulk masses of the fermions, and then the zero modes might be localized around the 3-brane. But if the vacuum expectation values are smaller than $`1/R`$ ($`R`$ is a radius of the extra dimensions), the contribution can be negligible. The situation 3) is just the usual things of the four dimensional model building. If the fields mix with some other fields and the mass eigenvalues are the linear combination of the mixed fields, the coupling for the mass eigenstates is the original couplings multiplied with the mixing angle. Thus, the mixing angle is small, the Yukawa coupling is almost same as the gauge couplings.

We identify the one family originating from gauge multiplet with the 3rd family, and 1st and 2nd family are brane-localized fields at 3-brane fixed point. Then the Yukawa couplings for 3rd family, $`y_t`$, $`y_b`$ and $`y_\tau `$, are unified to the gauge couplings at grand unified scale. We will see the numerical studies in Section 4. The Yukawa couplings of 1st and 2nd family are naturally smaller than the 3rd family couplings, since their values are suppressed by volume factor of the extra dimensions.

Since we project out the vector-like partners, the remaining fermion components Eq.(12) give gauge anomaly for the extra two $`U(1)`$ symmetry. Both two linear combinations of $`U(1)`$ symmetry have gauge anomaly, and Green-Schwarz mechanism  can cancel out only one linear combination. Thus we have to introduce other brane fields to cancel the anomaly. For example, if we introduce brane fields with appropriate $`U(1)`$ charge such as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_L^{}:(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2,0},\mathrm{\Psi }_R^{}:(\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{2,4}$$
(15)
all gauge anomaly is cancelled out. This can be an origin of other families. Since one linear combination of $`U(1)`$ can be anomalous by using Green-Schwarz mechanism, we can make hierarchical structure in the quark and lepton mass matrices by Froggatt-Nielsen like mechanism .

We have made a choice the left-handed matter is in the chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and right-handed one is in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Since the gauge transformations of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in Eqs.(2-3) are different, brane-localized 4D lagrangian is not left-right symmetric. The right-handed quark and lepton and Higgs fields are in the chiral multiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ and their gauge transformations are linear, and thus we can introduce the brane-localized Yukawa coupling terms which give the CKM mixing angles. We can also introduce the brane-localized right-handed neutrino mass terms with the fields $`(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ and/or $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ in the chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$, and the neutrino masses become small through the seesaw mechanism. The vacuum expectation values of $`(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ and/or $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ give right-handed Majorana neutrino masses and also break the Pati-Salam gauge symmetry down to the standard model gauge symmetry. We may also use the brane Higgs field $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ to give the right-handed neutrinos masses and to break the Pati-Salam gauge symmetry.

In the Pati-Salam model, we need at least two Higgs multiplets, otherwise the down-type quark mass matrix is proportional to up-type quark mass matrix. In our model, we have two Higgs bidoublets. Requiring the Goergi-Jarskog relation  for 2nd family, we need another Higgs field such as $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟓},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$. For the gauge coupling unification, only one linear combination of Higgs bidoublet fields should remain at low energy. The mixing parameter can be controlled by using the extra $`U(1)`$ symmetries.

We comment that we can consider three family and Higgs unification in $`T^2/Z^3`$ orbifold if we take $`l=m=2`$ in Eqs.(6-7) and

$$R=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1,\omega ^2,\omega ^2,\omega ,\omega ).$$
(16)
In this case, the origin of the number of family is the number of chiral multiplets in the $`N=4`$ gauge multiplet. In our model building, the Yukawa couplings arise from gauge interaction in Eq.(13). It is easy to see that the mass matrices for the quarks and leptons are anti-symmetric, and then one of the family is massless and other two families have same mass. We can modify this results by adding the brane-localized interactions, but it is difficult to split masses of 2nd and 3rd families while preserving gauge and Yukawa coupling unification. Of course, we have to care about the $`U(1)`$ gauge anomaly and we have to introduce other fields to cancel the anomaly.

## 3 Numerical Results of Gauge and Yukawa Unification

As was mentioned in the previous section this model can realize gauge-Yukawa unification for third family quarks and lepton444The numerical calculation of gauge-Yukawa unification in a 4D model is demonstrated in the Ref... For realization of this possibility we assume that the compactification scale $`(M_U)`$ from 6D to 4D is the same scale where $`SU(4)\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)^2`$ gauge symmetry are broken to Standard Model one, choosing appropriate Higgs superfields, which are localized in 4D. So below $`M_U`$ scale we have usual MSSM particle content with gauge-Yukawa unification condition for particles from third family

$$\alpha _1=\alpha _2=\alpha _3=\alpha _t=\alpha _b=\alpha _\tau $$
(17)
where $`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$ and $`\alpha _3`$ corresponds hypercharge (with proper normalization), weak and strong interaction couplings. $`\alpha _t`$, $`\alpha _b`$, $`\alpha _\tau `$ are the top, bottom and tau Yukawa coupling respectively. We use the notation $`y_{t,b,\tau }^2/4\pi \alpha _{t,b,\tau }`$. Note that we neglect brane localized gauge kinetic term.

For numerical calculation of gauge and Yukawa coupling evolution we are using two-loop RG analysis , with conversion from $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme to dimensional reduction $`(\overline{DR})`$ one. We include the standard supersymmetric threshold correction at low energies, taken at a single scale $`M_{SUSY}=M_Z`$ .

Due to a crucial reduction of the number of the fundamental parameters from the gauge-Yukawa coupling unification, we are lead immediately to a series of the very distinctive predictions (in absence of any large supersymmetric threshold corrections). Using the values of the electroweak parameters $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w=0.2311\pm 0.0001`$ and $`\alpha _{EM}=127.92\pm 0.02`$ at $`M_Z`$ scale , we can determine the unification scale and unified coupling constant. Then, evolving the remaining couplings from the unification scale to the low energy, we predict

$`\alpha _3(M_Z)=0.123,m_t=178\mathrm{GeV},{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_\tau }}(M_Z)=1.77,\mathrm{tan}\beta =51.`$ (18)
These are in good agreement with experimental data . The small discrepancy for $`\alpha _3`$ (world average value is $`\alpha _3=0.117\pm 0.002`$ ) can be easily improved if we consider unification scale threshold of Higgs in the $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ representation, which is brane localized field. After Pati-Salam symmetry is broken to Standard Model by $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ in the particle spectrum we have $`SU(3)_c`$ color sextet $`(\mathrm{𝟔}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}})`$ Higgs field. Arranging for this fragment mass at the scale $`10^{16}`$ GeV we can avoid discrepancy of $`\alpha _3`$ and we have $`\alpha _3=0.117`$. This threshold gives the correction to the top quark mass to the right direction as unification constant increase from this correction and $`m_t=177\mathrm{GeV}`$. In Figure 1, unification of the gauge-Yukawa coupling is demonstrated.

## 4 Conclusion and Discussion

The idea that the Higgs and/or the matter are unified in the higher dimensional supersymmetric gauge multiplet leads us naturally to the world in which the standard gauge group in 4D is unified in grand unified gauge group in higher dimensions.

We have considered the 6D $`N=2`$ supersymmetric $`SU(8)`$ gauge theory in the orbifold $`T^2/Z_6`$. The gauge group $`SU(8)`$ is broken down by $`Z_6`$ transformation property, and the model is reduced to $`N=1`$ supersymmetric Pati-Salam model $`SU(4)\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ with two extra $`U(1)`$ symmetries in 4D. In this model, two bidoublet Higgs fields and one family of quarks and leptons are unified in the gauge sector in the 6D $`N=2`$ gauge supermultiplet. The vector-like partners of the quarks and leptons are projected out by $`Z_6`$ transformation property. The explicit mass terms of the Higgs fields are prohibited by the gauge invariance, and the $`N=1`$ supersymmetry preserve the masses of the Higgs fields to the electroweak scale. Furthermore, because of the unification of Higgs and matter in gauge multiplet, the 4D Yukawa interactions, which we need in order to give masses to the fermions by Higgs mechanism, arise from gauge interaction in 6D lagrangian. This is the most interesting feature of this model. The one family of quarks and leptons in the gauge multiplet can be identified to the 3rd family, and then we meet an attractive possibility that 3rd family Yukawa couplings can be unified to the gauge coupling at grand unified scale. The numerical results of the renormalization group flow of the Yukawa couplings have a good agreement with low energy data of the top quark mass and bottom-tau mass ratio with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

Since one cannot put the additional bulk fields in 6D $`N=2`$ supersymmetric theory, 1st and 2nd families must be brane-localized fields, and the Yukawa interactions for 1st and 2nd families are introduced at the 3-brane. Thus, the smallness of the masses of the 1st and 2nd families can be understood as the volume suppression of the Yukawa couplings. Since both extra $`U(1)`$ symmetries give gauge anomalies, we have to introduce additional fields to cancel them. The additional fields can be identified to another family. The extra $`U(1)`$ symmetry can be used to construct a hierarchical structure of the mass matrices.

It is interesting that the Yukawa interaction for 3rd family originates from 6D gauge interaction, whereas we cannot predict the Yukawa couplings for 1st and 2nd families which are brane fields. It is well-known that bottom-tau ratio is successful in the usual $`SU(5)`$ relation. In order to realize $`m_s/m_\mu `$, however, we have to introduce $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟓},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ Higgs, which is included in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}`$ or $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟎}`$ in $`SO(10)`$ language. Then, a question arises: Why 3rd family doesn’t have Yukawa couplings with such $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟓},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ Higgs field? We can answer the question in the context of our gauge-Higgs unification scenario. That is because $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟓},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ Higgs is not included in the gauge multiplet and this Higgs must be brane-localized fields. The 3rd family Yukawa interactions with $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟓},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ Higgs are suppressed by volume factor of extra dimensions. Thus, we can realize the unification of the bottom-tau Yukawa couplings.

We have used torus $`T^2`$ as the extra space manifold in this paper. Zero-modes of matter can be chiral through the $`Z_6`$ projection. At the same time, we can have two Higgs bidoublets as zero-modes. One can consider other manifolds, such as disc $`D^2`$ or annulus $`A^2`$. In that case, we can take $`Z_n`$ transformation with arbitrary number of $`n`$. For example, we can consider $`D^2/Z_9`$ orbifold and zero-modes of matter can be chiral through $`Z_9`$ projection. In this case, we can have one family and only one bidoublet of the Higgs.

We can also consider other unified gauge groups. It seems that $`SO(12)`$ is the smallest rank gauge group to unify the Higgs and the matter in gauge multiplet. The $`SO(12)`$ can be broken down to $`SU(5)\times U(1)^2`$ by $`T^2/Z_6`$ orbifold compactification. We can choose the $`Z_6`$ projection so that $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{2,0}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{2,2}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟓}_{0,2}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{0,2}`$ have zero modes. Thus the gauge multiplet contains Higgs fields and one family of matter. However, 6D gauge interaction in Eq.(13) doesn’t include the top quark Yukawa interaction. Actually, the $`U(1)`$ symmetry doesn’t match in the interaction term $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝟓}`$. Another example of gauge group is $`E_7`$. $`E_7`$ can be broken down to $`E_7SO(10)\times U(1)^2`$ by orbifold compactification. Since $`SU(8)`$ is one of the regular maximal subgroup of $`E_7`$, our model which we suggest in this paper can be one of the breaking pattern of the $`E_7`$.

Finally the idea of gauge, Higgs and matter unification is very novel. The fact that this can be semirealistically achieved in higher dimensional supersymmetric theories is very intriguing, and leads to yet another motivation for supersymmetry.

## Acknowledgments

We thank K.S. Babu, C. Macesanu, J. Lykken and S. Raby for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by US DOE Grants # DE-FG030-98ER-41076 and DE-FG-02-01ER-45684.