Arxiv:1705.00743V1 [Astro-Ph.CO] 2 May 2017

Preprint typeset using LATEX style emulateapj v. 12/16/11

A 2500 deg2 CMB LENSING MAP FROM COMBINED SOUTH POLE TELESCOPE AND PLANCK DATA

Y. Omori1, R. Chown1, G. Simard1, K. T. Story2,3,4,5, K. Aylor6, E. J. Baxter7,8,2 B. A. Benson9,2,8, L. E. Bleem10,2, J. E. Carlstrom2,3,10,8,11, C. L. Chang10,2,8, H-M. Cho12, T. M. Crawford2,8, A. T. Crites2,8,13, T. de Haan1,14, M. A. Dobbs1,18, W. B. Everett15, E. M. George14,16, N. W. Halverson15,17, N. L. Harrington14, G. P. Holder1,18,19,20, Z. Hou2,8, W. L. Holzapfel14, J. D. Hrubes21, L. Knox6, A. T. Lee14,22, E. M. Leitch2,8, D. Luong-Van21, A. Manzotti2,8, D. P. Marrone23, J. J. McMahon24, S. S. Meyer2,8,11,3, L. M. Mocanu2,8, J. J. Mohr25,26,27, T. Natoli2,3,28, S. Padin2,8, C. Pryke29, C. L. Reichardt14,30, J. E. Ruhl31, J. T. Sayre31,15, K. K. Schaffer2,11,32, E. Shirokoff14,2,8, Z. Staniszewski31,33, A. A. Stark34, K. Vanderlinde28,35, J. D. Vieira19,20, R. Williamson2,8, and O. Zahn36

ABSTRACT We present a cosmic microwave background (CMB) lensing map produced from a linear combination of South Pole Telescope (SPT) and Planck temperature data. The 150 GHz temperature data from the 2500 deg2 SPT-SZ survey is combined with the Planck 143 GHz data in harmonic space, to obtain a temperature map that has a broader ` coverage and less noise than either individual map. Using a quadratic estimator technique on this combined temperature map, we produce a map of the gravitational lensing potential projected along the line of sight. We measure the auto-spectrum φφ of the lensing potential CL , and compare it to the theoretical prediction for a ΛCDM cosmology +0.06 +0.01 consistent with the Planck 2015 data set, finding a best-fit amplitude of 0.95−0.06(Stat.)−0.01(Sys.). The null hypothesis of no lensing is rejected at a significance of 24 σ. One important use of such a lensing potential map is in cross-correlations with other dark matter tracers. We demonstrate φG this cross-correlation in practice by calculating the cross-spectrum, CL , between the SPT+Planck φG lensing map and Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) galaxies. We fit CL to a power law −b −8 φG +0.04 of the form pL = a(L/L0) with a = 2.15 10 , b = 1.35, L0 = 490, and find η = 0.94−0.04, × φG +0.02 which is marginally lower, but in good agreement with η = 1.00−0.01, the best-fit amplitude for the cross-correlation of Planck-2015 CMB lensing and WISE galaxies over 67% of the sky. The lensing potential map presented here will be used for cross-correlation studies∼ with the Dark Energy Survey (DES), whose footprint nearly completely covers the SPT 2500 deg2 field. Subject headings: Gravitational lensing : general —

1 Department of Physics and McGill Space Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T8, Canada Straße 2, 85748 Garching, Germany 2 Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, University of 17 Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA 60637 CO, 80309 3 Department of Physics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 18 Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, CIFAR Pro- USA 60637 gram in Cosmology and Gravity, Toronto, ON, M5G 1Z8, 4 Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Canada Stanford University, 452 Lomita Mall, Stanford, CA 94305 19 Astronomy Department, University of Illinois at Urbana- 5 Dept. of Physics, Stanford University, 382 Via Pueblo Mall, Champaign, 1002 W. Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA Stanford, CA 94305 20 Department of Physics, University of Illinois Urbana- 6 Department of Physics, University of California, Davis, CA, Champaign, 1110 W. Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA USA 95616 21 University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA 60637 7 Center for Particle Cosmology, Department of Physics and 22 Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Berkeley, CA, USA 94720 23

arXiv:1705.00743v1 [astro-ph.CO] 2 May 2017 19104 Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 North 8 Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721 Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA 60637 24 Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 9 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, MS209, P.O. Box MI, USA 48109 500, Batavia, IL 60510 25 Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität,81679 10 High Energy Physics Division, Argonne National Labora- München, Germany tory, Argonne, IL, USA 60439 26 Excellence Cluster Universe, 85748 Garching, Germany 11 Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 27 Max-Planck-Institut fürextraterrestrische Physik, 85748 USA 60637 Garching, Germany 12 SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, 2575 Sand Hill 28 Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics, University Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 of Toronto, 50 St George St, Toronto, ON, M5S 3H4, Canada 13 California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA 29 Department of Physics, University of Minnesota, Min- 91125 neapolis, MN, USA 55455 14 Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, 30 School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC CA, USA 94720 3010, Australia 15 Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, Department 31 Physics Department, Center for Education and Research of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences, University of Colorado, in Cosmology and Astrophysics, Case Western Reserve Univer- Boulder, CO, 80309 sity,Cleveland, OH, USA 44106 16 European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild- 32 Liberal Arts Department, School of the Art Institute of 2 SPT Collaboration 2016

1. INTRODUCTION CMB has some key advantages over cosmic shear and Mapping the distribution of matter in the Universe is other lensing probes, in that the CMB is a single well- one of the primary goals of modern cosmology. In the localized source at a precisely known redshift, and the currently favored cosmological paradigm, quantum fluc- underlying statistics of the CMB are well characterized tuations in the extremely early Universe were stretched and known to be very close to Gaussian. These charac- to macroscopic wavelengths during the epoch of infla- teristics make reconstructing maps of the mass or grav- tion and subsequently grew under the influence of gravitational potential responsible for CMB lensing a com- ity, eventually creating all the structure we observe in paratively straightforward process. the Universe today. Observations of the distribution of CMB lensing encodes the effect of all matter fluctu- matter in the local and distant Universe can thus in- ations along the line of sight between the observer and the CMB last-scattering surface at z 1100, though the form our understanding of the origin of fluctuations and ∼ how they grew as a function of time. The fluctuation CMB is most efficiently lensed by matter at 0.5 . z . 3 amplitude at redshift z 1000 (roughly 400,000 years (e.g., Zaldarriaga & Seljak 1999). This wide and well- after inflation) is already∼ well constrained by measure- estimated redshift kernel makes CMB lensing an ideal ments of the primary CMB temperature and polariza- probe to investigate phenomena such as massive neutri- tion anisotropy power spectra (e.g Planck Collaboration nos that affect the shape of the matter power spectrum. et al. 2015d). Measurements of structure from z 1000 Although there is no information about the redshift to today primarily constrain the efficiency with∼ which dependence of growth inherent to CMB lensing maps, fluctuations have grown as a function of wavelength and correlating CMB lensing maps with other tracers of redshift, i.e., the cosmic growth function (e.g. Huterer large-scale structure that do have redshift information— et al. 2015). Among the most interesting and impor- optical galaxy surveys in particular—can provide inter- tant applications of measuring the growth function are esting constraints on dark energy and modified gravity measuring the masses of the neutrinos by detecting their (e.g., Giannantonio et al. 2016; Kirk et al. 2016). influence on growth as a function of physical wavelength The ideal CMB lensing map for cross-correlation stud- (e.g. Abazajian et al. 2015), and distinguishing between ies would thus have high signal-to-noise (S/N) on all dark energy and modified gravity as the cause of cosmic angular modes of interest, large sky coverage, and sig- acceleration (e.g. Weinberg et al. 2013; Huterer et al. nificant overlap with galaxy surveys. The highest total 2015). S/N of any measurement of CMB lensing comes from the Traditionally, measurements of cosmic structure have lensing map produced by the Planck collaboration, which used light (or its absence) as a proxy for matter. Galaxy covers nearly the full sky but with low S/N per mode, and and quasar surveys, measurements of the Lyman-α for- only at scales below tens of degrees. Data from ground- est, and optical, X-ray, and Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect based telescopes such as the South Pole Telescope (SPT), surveys for clusters of galaxies all fundamentally rely on the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT), and POLAR- radiation emitted, absorbed, or distorted by collapsed BEAR have been used to produce lensing maps with objects as a tracer of the underlying matter field. Anal- improved S/N on smaller scales over much smaller sky yses of the statistics of these tracers assume a relation fractions (Das et al. 2011; van Engelen et al. 2012; PO- between the observed property of the collapsed objects LARBEAR Collaboration et al. 2013; Story et al. 2015; and the mass of those objects, and between the statistics Sherwin et al. 2016). of the collapsed objects and those of the underlying mat- In this work, we present a CMB lensing map over 2500 ter field. These assumptions are a source of systematic square degrees—the largest lensing map yet produced uncertainty in analyses of tracer populations. using a high-resolution ground-based experiment—and A new frontier in the measurement of cosmic structure with nearly 100% overlap with the Dark Energy Survey (DES)37 optical galaxy survey. This map is derived from is the use of gravitational lensing to measure the matter 2 distribution directly. While strong gravitational lensing the optimal combination of SPT data from the 2500 deg is useful for studying individual distant objects and small SPT-SZ survey (Story et al. 2013) with Planck tempera- regions of sky in detail, weak lensing is a very promis- ture data covering the same patch of sky. We expect this ing avenue for measuring the large-scale distribution of map to be particularly useful for cross-correlation analy- matter. Weak lensing measurements of the matter distri- ses, particularly with DES, and the optimal combination bution can be made using the coherent distortions of the of SPT and Planck data should allow nearly maximal shapes of galaxies measured at optical wavelengths, often exploitation of these three powerful data sets. The map referred to as cosmic shear (e.g., Kaiser 1992; Bernardeau will be made publicly available in an upcoming SPT data et al. 1997; Kilbinger 2015), and using the weak grav- release. itational lensing of the cosmic microwave background As validations and consistency checks, we calculate (CMB, e.g., Lewis & Challinor 2006). Lensing of the the power spectrum of this map and its cross-correlation with infrared-selected galaxies from the Wide-field In- frared Survey Explorer (WISE) survey. This paper has Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA 60603 33 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technol- an accompanying paper (Simard et al., in preparation), ogy, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA which analyzes the best-fit cosmological parameters and 34 Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, explores the physical implications, using the CMB lens- MA, USA 02138 35 Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics, University of ing map presented in this paper. Toronto, 50 St George St, Toronto, ON, M5S 3H4, Canada This paper is laid out as follows: we first provide an 36 Berkeley Center for Cosmological Physics, Department overview of the method for reconstruction of the CMB of Physics, University of California, and Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, Berkeley, CA, USA 94720 37 http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/ SPT+Planck 2500 deg2 lensing 3 weak gravitational lensing potential in Section2; SPT et al. 2005) that will generate such a mode, the ampli- and P lanck data are described in Section3; sky simu- tude is expected to be comparatively small and can be lations used for generating mock reconstructed lensing neglected. Therefore, the presence of curl modes most potentials are described in Section4; the process of com- likely signifies systematic errors introduced in the lens- bining SPT and P lanck temperature maps is outlined ing reconstruction process, and curl modes can be used in Section5; the resulting gravitational lensing map and as a null test. angular power spectra are presented in Section6; system- For a fixed lensing potential φ and multiple realiza- atic checks and potential sources of errors are described tions of the unlensed CMB, the observed temperature in Section7; implications and discussions of the results fluctuations will have a Gaussian distribution. Lens- are given in Section8. ing introduces correlations between previously uncorre- Throughout this paper, we assume a spatially flat lated modes, which introduces off-diagonal terms into the ΛCDM Planck 2015 cosmology38 (Planck Collaboration harmonic-space covariance of the CMB. Expanding the 2 2 et al. 2015c) with parameters Ωbh = 0.022, Ωch = temperature field in spherical harmonics, at first order −1 −1 in the lensing potential, the total contribution to the off- 0.12, Ωm = 0.31, H0 = 100 hkm s Mpc with h = 0.68, power spectrum of primordial curvature perturba- diagonal terms is (Okamoto & Hu 2003): −1 tions with an amplitude (at k = 0.05 Mpc ) As = 2.1 ∆ T` ,m T` ,m −9 × 1 1 2 2 10 and spectral index ns = 0.97, amplitude of the (lin- h i −1 X M `1 `2 L φ ear) power spectrum on the scale of 8 h Mpc σ8 = 0.82, = ( 1) W φLM , − m1 m2 M `1`2L optical depth to reionization τ = 0.067, and we assume LM − one massive neutrino with a 0.06 eV mass. We use the (4) subscript “fid” to denote a quantity calculated from the best-fit Planck cosmology. where T`m are the spherical harmonic expansion coeffi- In discussing angular multipole moments, we use `, m cients of the temperature field, the term in the bracket is to denote CMB temperature and for multipole mo- the Wigner 3- symbol, and the weight function φ L, M j W`1`2L ments of the lensing field. Furthermore, we will denote is given by: ¯ the filtered lensing potentials as φ, the estimated lensing r potential as ˆ, the masked estimated lensing potential as φ (2`1 + 1)(2`2 + 1)(2L + 1) φ W = φ˜, and the true lensing potential as ordinary φ. `1`2L − 4π `1+`2+L 1 + ( 1) `1 `2 L 2. THEORY CTT − `1 2 1 0 1 × − As photons traverse the Universe from the last scat- p tering surface, their paths are altered by the gravita- L(L + 1)`1(`1 + 1) + (`1 `2), (5) × ↔ tional fields induced by large-scale structure, in a pro- TT cess known as gravitational lensing. The observed lensed where C` is the power spectrum of the lensed CMB and temperature field T len(ˆn) can be expressed in terms of denotes an additional term that is a replication of the first↔ term, but with and switched. Estimating this the original unlensed temperature field unl(ˆn)(Lewis & `1 `2 T covariance makes it possible to reconstruct the lensing Challinor 2006) as: potential. A formally optimal estimator at first order T len(ˆn) = T unl(ˆn + ~α), (1) can be written as (Okamoto & Hu 2003): M where ˆn is the directional vector and α~ is the deflection ¯ ( 1) X `1 `2 L φLM = − field. For small scalar perturbations, assuming the Born 2 m1 m2 M approximation, the deflection field can be described as `1m1`2m2 − φ φ, where φ is the projected gravitational potential: W T¯` m T¯` m . (6) ∇ `1`2L 1 1 2 2 Z χCMB 2 fK (χCMB χ) The overbar on T`m denotes that the temperature fields φ(ˆn) = dχ − Ψ(χˆn; η0 χ), −c2 f (χ )f (χ) − have been filtered, which we discuss in Section 5.2.1. To 0 K CMB K ¯ (2) account for this filtering, φLM is normalized using a re- where is the comoving distance, is the comoving φ¯φ¯ χ fK sponse function LM : angular-diameter distance and Ψ is the 3D gravitational R potential at conformal distance χ along the direction ˆn, ˆ 1 ¯ ¯MF φLM = ¯¯ (φLM φLM ), (7) and η0 χ is the conformal time (Lewis & Challinor φφ − 2006). The− deflection field is defined as φ(ˆn), and the RLM divergence of this field gives the convergence∇ κ: where φ¯MF is the “mean-field” bias, which origi- 1 nates from any analysis steps that introduce statistical κ = 2φ. (3) anisotropy (such as inhomogeneous noise and mode cou- −2∇ pling induced when a mask of complex geometry is ap- In general, the deflection component additionally could plied). We calculate the mean-field as the average recon- contain a curl term ψ; to first order, this term is structed φ¯ from 198 simulations. not expected (Namikawa∇ × et al. 2012). Although there We utilize the full-sky routines implemented in the exist mechanisms such as gravitational waves (Cooray quicklens39 package to compute the quadratic building

38 base plikHM TT lowTEB lensing 39 https://github.com/dhanson/quicklens 4 SPT Collaboration 2016 blocks. The package takes advantage of the separability was used to observe the millimeter sky in nine frequency of the weight functions which leads to estimators that bands ranging from 30 to 857 GHz. It achieved better can be evaluated efficiently (Planck Collaboration et al. resolution, higher sensitivity, and a wider range of fre- 2015c). quencies than its predecessor, the Wilkinson Microwave 3. DATA Anisotropy Probe (WMAP, Bennett et al. 2003). In this work, we use the publicly available Planck 143 GHz 3.1. SPT Data map41 and beam42 provided in the 2015 data release The South Pole Telescope (SPT) (Carlstrom et al. (Planck Collaboration et al. 2016), as the 143 GHz fre- 2011) is a 10-meter telescope located at the National Sci- quency band is closest to the SPT-SZ 150 GHz band. The ence Foundation Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station in 143 GHz beam can be approximated by an azimuthally Antarctica. From 2008-2011, the telescope was used to symmetric Gaussian beam with a FWHM of 7 arcmin, conduct the SPT-SZ survey, a survey spanning a con- and the instrument noise is approximately white∼ with an tiguous area of approximately 2500 deg2 (Story et al. RMS of 30 µK-arcmin (Planck Collaboration et al. ∼ 2013). The survey footprint extends from 20h to 7h in 2016). right ascension (R.A.) and from 65◦ to 40◦ in decli- nation. The total area is divided− into 19 different− fields, 4. SIMULATIONS with roughly 1 degree of overlapping coverage at the Simulations of the temperature and noise maps are field boundaries. These fields were observed at three fre- used to obtain key building blocks of this analysis in- quency bands centered at roughly 95, 150, and 220 GHz. cluding the SPT transfer function and the average noise 2 For this analysis, we will exclusively work with the 150 n`m , which are used to define the weights used in the GHz data. The 150 GHz beam has a shape similar to a combiningh| | i process (described in Section5). Gaussian with a full-width at half maximum (FWHM) of Simulated temperature maps consist of 3 components: 1.20. The typical noise level of SPT-SZ maps at 150 GHz is 18 µK-arcmin, with small variations across the dif- (i) Lensed CMB, ferent fields. For each field, maps of individual observations were made by combining a large number of scans (ii) Gaussian foregrounds: thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich performed along azimuth, with small steps in elevation effect (tSZ), kinetic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect in between scans. These observations are then co-added (kSZ), cosmic infrared background (CIB), and un- into a single map of each field. resolved background of faint radio sources (F150 < Due to the geographic location of the telescope, scans 6.4 mJy), in azimuth correspond to scans along lines of fixed dec- (iii) Individually detected point sources: radio and lination in equatorial coordinates. Any low-frequency dusty star forming galaxies. noise uncorrelated between detectors results in elevated noise levels along the scan direction, which for this ob- For (i), lensed CMB maps are produced by running serving strategy maps directly into noise at low m, inde- LensPix (Lewis 2005) with CTT calculated using CAMB pendent of `. Meanwhile, correlated low-frequency noise `,unl (such as from long-wavelength atmospheric fluctuations) (Lewis et al. 2000) with cosmological parameters defined results in isotropic large-angular-scale noise, or noise at in Section1 as input. We produce maps in HEALPix for- low `, independent of m. SPT data are filtered in the mat with Nside = 8192 and apply a cut-off in the input time domain before being projected onto maps, signif- spectrum at `max = 9500. The resulting lensed maps are icantly suppressing these low-m and low-` modes (see consistent with the theoretically calculated lensed spectrum CTT up to ` 7000. For each realization of the Schaffer et al. 2011 for details). These low-m and low-` `,len ∼ modes are poorly characterized in SPT data alone, mo- lensing potential, we lens two background CMB maps, tivating us to incorporate information from Planck (see which yields two sets of lensed CMB maps. The pur- Figure1). The SPT data map and the noise maps are pose of this second set will be explained in Section 5.3. calibrated to match the Planck 143 GHz data using the For (ii), we add simulated Gaussian foreground compo- cross-spectrum between the two data sets (Hou et al. nents. The shapes of the tSZ and kSZ spectrum are 2017). We evaluate the sensitivity of the lensing map to taken from Shaw et al.(2010) and Shaw et al.(2012) the exact value of this calibration factor in Section 7.2.6. models respectively, with the amplitudes calibrated to Maps for each of the fields are produced at a native match with George et al.(2015). A similar procedure resolution of 1 arcminute in the zenithal equal-area pro- is followed for the CIB component using templates from jection and are projected onto a single HEALPix40(Górski George et al.(2015). For the clustered CIB component, 0.8 et al. 2005) map of Nside = 8192. Pixels near the field the spectrum is set to follow D` ` with an ampli- c 2 ∝ boundaries that are included in multiple fields are com- tude D3000 = 3.46 µK . The shot-noise or “Poisson” bined using inverse variance weights. At this resolution, CIB power from galaxies dimmer than 6.4mJy is taken P 2 if present, pixelization and projection artifacts will affect to be D3000 = 9.16 µK . For the unresolved faint radio ` > 10000, which is far beyond the `max = 3000 that we sources, we generate random realizations using dN/dS consider in the baseline lensing analysis here. taken from De Zotti et al.(2005), and calibrate the am- 3.2. Planck Data plitude using SPT 150 GHz observations. The Planck satellite, launched in 2009 by the Euro- 41 http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/Planck/release_2/ pean Space Agency (Planck Collaboration et al. 2015a), all-sky-maps/maps/HFI_SkyMap_143_2048_R2.02_full.fits 42 http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/Planck/release_2/ 40 http://healpix.sourceforge.net ancillary-data/HFI_RIMO_Beams-100pc_R2.00.fits SPT+Planck 2500 deg2 lensing 5

2 2 log10([µK ]) log10([µK ]) −4.8 −1.7 −4.8 −1.7 SPT PLANCK

SPT PLANCK SPT+PLANCK 2500 NOISE 2 NOISE 2 WEIGHT RATIO | | | |

m 1500

500

500 1500 2500 500 1500 2500 500 1500 2500 ` ` `

Fig. 1.— Noise characteristics of SPT and Planck data and the ratio of weights used in combining the data, all shown on (`, m) grids. Left: Transfer-function-deconvolved SPT noise. The noisy low m stripe is due to the scanning strategy of SPT. Center: Beam-deconvolved Planck noise. Right: Ratio of weights for SPT and Planck on a linear scale ranging from light yellow (all Planck) to dark blue (all SPT). In all the panels, high m modes (m > 0.75`) where the values are small due to the mask, have been zeroed out to retain the scale.

We place point sources at the observed locations with expect the SPT 150 GHz and Planck 143 GHz to have their measured fluxes for point sources in the flux range a similar response to foreground signal, we do not intro- 6.4 mJy < F150 < 50 mJy listed in the SPT point source duce additional free parameters correcting for this small catalog (Everett et al., in preparation). Similarly, we add difference. clusters with significance ξ > 4.5 listed in Bleem et al. (2015) and model the profile using a projected isothermal 5. METHODS β model (Cavaliere & Fusco-Femiano 1976) with β = 1. This section is divided into three parts: the combin- From these inputs, we produce the simulated SPT and ing of SPT and Planck temperature maps, the φˆ map Planck maps separately. reconstruction procedures, and the auto-spectrum calcu- For the SPT simulations, the input HEALPix maps are lation. Steps taken in the two sections are presented as passed through a mock observing pipeline, which creates sequential sub-sections to illustrate the work flow. mock time-ordered data from these maps for each SPT detector, filters those data in the same manner as the real 5.1. Combining the SPT and Planck maps data, and creates maps using the inverse-noise weights from the real data. The observation runs for each of We form a nearly optimal combination of SPT and the fields are co-added and the beams are deconvolved Planck data by taking the inverse-variance-weighted sum using the beam models associated with those fields. All of the two data sets in harmonic space, after deconvolv- the fields are then re-convolved with a FWHM= 1.750 ing the beam and any filtering from each data set. The Gaussian beam, projected onto a single HEALPix map of procedure used in this work is similar to that in Craw- N = 8192, and then stitched to produce a conjoint ford et al.(2016), with certain key differences, includ- side ing the use of curved-sky maps and spherical harmonic 2500 deg2 map. transforms instead of flat-sky projections and fast Fourier From the noise-free mock maps, we calculate the filter transforms. To avoid real-space artifacts, we apodize the transfer function data and mask bright sources and galaxy clusters before out in,∗ transforming to harmonic space. We also mask certain T`m T`m `m = h i, (8) noisy `, m modes before transforming the combination Y T in T in,∗ h `m `m i back to real space. Each of these steps is described in more detail below. where the T`m are computed from the boundary masked (defined in Section5) temperature maps, and the super- 5.1.1. Boundary Mask scripts “out” and “in” refer to the outputs and inputs of the mock observing pipeline. Noise maps are produced A binary mask (with values=1 for unmasked and 0 separately by taking the differences of various SPT obser- for masked pixels) defined by the nominal SPT region vations, which effectively removes the signal, and leaves (20h < R.A. < 7h and 65◦ < decl. < 40◦) is first noise behind. We add noise maps obtained in this way produced. The process−mask routine in− the HEALPix to the noise-free outputs to produce realistic data-like package is then used to calculate the distance from the maps. nearest masked pixel, and this distance map is smoothed To produce simulated Planck maps, we simply con- using a Gaussian beam of FWHM= 150. This smoothing volve the input signal maps by the Planck 143 GHz beam is applied to soften the corners of the mask. The distance and add noise from the 8th Full Focal Plane simulation map is then used to apodize the binary mask with a set (FFP8) (Planck Collaboration et al. 2015b). Since we Gaussian beam of FWHM= 300. This results in a mask 6 SPT Collaboration 2016 with an effective area of 2350 deg2 which we apply to map also contains point sources with fluxes between ∼ both SPT and Planck maps. 6.4 < F150 < 50 mJy. These point sources are painted over in the combined map using the constrained Gaussian 5.1.2. Masking Bright Point Source and Clusters inpainting method (Hoffman & Ribak 1991; Benoit-Lévy The brightest point sources are masked prior to the et al. 2013). The correlation function used to reconstruct combining procedure to avoid artifacts that result from the masked region is estimated from surrounding regions: applying spherical harmonic transforms on band-limited obs sim −1 obs sim 0 0 T = T + ΞijΞ (T T ), (12) maps. Apertures of radius R = 6 and R = 9 are i i jj j − j placed at the locations of point sources with 50 < F150 < where the matrices Ξij and Ξjj represent the cross- 500 mJy, and F150 > 500 mJy respectively. In addition, correlation between the region inside (denoted by sub- clusters above ξ > 6 (where ξ is the detection signifi- script i) and outside the masked region (denoted by sub- cance, as defined in Bleem et al. 2015) are masked with script ), and the auto-correlation of the outer region, 0 j an aperture of R = 6 . This cluster masking threshold respectively. The elements of these matrices are esti- balances minimizing both the tSZ contamination and the mated using the correlation function calculated from a masked sky area. fiducial lensed CMB spectrum, using:

5.1.3. Forming a Combined Map TT 2` + 1 X TT w (θ) = C P`(cos(θ)). (13) We combine the SPT and Planck maps to yield a map 4π `,fid ` with lower noise at all scales. This is achieved by con- structing a simple linear combination of the SPT and We have evaluated the validity of this method by ap- Planck maps in spherical harmonic space, weighted by plying this procedure on a simulated map without point their relative noise variance for each mode (`, m): sources, and obtained a difference of 1% in power relative to the the map without inpainting. Finally, the Gaussian beam convolved in Section 5.1.3 is deconvolved 1 wSPT = (9) from the maps. `m nSPT 2 h| `m | i 1 5.2. Reconstructing Lensing φ from the Combined Map wP lanck = (10) `m nP lanck 2 We reconstruct the CMB lensing potential φ from the h| `m | i combined map using the methods laid out in Section2. SPT P lanck Each step is detailed below, including the extra complex- X w`m SPT w`m P lanck T`m = T`m + T`m , ity required to treat the anisotropic noise in the SPT data wSPT + wP lanck wSPT + wP lanck `m `m `m `m properly. (11) SPT P lanck SPT 5.2.1. Filtering where n`m , n`m are the noise estimates and w`m , P lanck X w`m are the normalized weights, and T`m are the The combined and inpainted T`m are filtered to max- combined SPT + Planck spherical harmonic coefficients. imize the extracted lensing signal. We choose the filter Prior to combining, we deconvolve the 2D filter trans- to be the sum of the lensed CMB spectrum, foreground fer function obtained using equation8, and the effec- components and noise: tive beam from SPT data and estimated noise. We also 1 deconvolve the Planck beam from the Planck data and F`m = 2 2 2 , noise estimates prior to combining. T`m,fid + T`m,foregrounds + T`m,noise | | h| | i h| | i After combining, a Gaussian beam of FWHM=1.750 is (14) 2 applied to mitigate ringing features in the resulting map where T`m,fid is an expansion of the fiducial CMB input | | 2 for the same reasons as mentioned in Section 5.1.2. spectrum, T`m,foregrounds is the average foreground h| | i 2 5.1.4. Masking Poorly Constrained Modes power measured from simulations and T`m,noise is the average noise power. The purpose of thish| filtering| processi We choose to mask the modes that are poorly con- is to down-weight the contribution from noisy modes. strained by both SPT and Planck. Due to the SPT scanning strategy, SPT’s 1/f noise shows up in low-m modes. 5.2.2. Mean-Field and Response Function At low-`, this simply means that more weight is given We produce the mean-field for a specific realization by to the comparatively low noise Planck measurements of first splitting the set of simulations into two halves, and these low-`, low-m modes However, neither experiment omitting the realization that we are trying to calculate measures high-`, low-m modes well. The features these the mean-field for: ill-constrained modes produce when transformed back ¯MF,(1) ¯ φ = φLM,i6=j , (15) from spherical harmonic space to real space are difficult LM,i h ij=0→Nsim/2 to treat in map space, so we mask especially noisy modes. ¯MF,(2) ¯ φ = φLM,i6=j . (16) In our baseline analysis, we set all modes ` > 2000 and LM,i h ij=Nsim/2→Nsim m < 250 to zero (shown as the area enclosed the orange The motivation for splitting the set of simulations is to dashed lines in Figure1). The effect of varying these cuts ensure that the auto power of the mean-field is omitted is discussed in Section 7.2.2. in the lensing auto-spectrum calculation. Normally the response function (Equation7) is as- 5.1.5. Faint Point Source Inpainting sumed to be azimuthally symmetric and is only calcu- In addition to the bright sources and galaxy clus- lated as a function of L. In the presence of strong m- ters masked in Section 5.1.2, the combined SPT-Planck dependence in the noise, as is the case for SPT, it is SPT+Planck 2500 deg2 lensing 7

φeφe CL calculated directly using equation 19 is not equiva- . ˆφφ 1 2 lent to the true lensing spectrum CL since it will contain λ = L/20 bias terms arising from correlations between the CMB and the lensing potentials. These are known as the N (0)

2500 (1) 1.0 bias and N biases (Hu & Okamoto 2002; Kesden et al. 2003; Hanson et al. 2011):

0.8 φeφe φφ (0) (1) M = ˆ + + + (20)

1500 C C N N , L L L L ···

and the relative amplitudes are shown in Figure3. 0.6 Higher-order terms in the equation above can be ne-

500 glected under the assumption that the CMB and the lensing potential follow Gaussian statistics (Kesden et al. 0.4 2002). 500 1500 2500 The N (0) bias arises from chance correlations in the L Gaussian CMB, foreground and noise, and can be written as: Fig. 2.— The ratio of smoothed 2D response function with λ = L/20 against M-averaged response function φφ / φφ presented RLM RL on a (L, M) grid. (0) φeφe (1) ¯φ1 ¯φ2 (2) ¯φ1 ¯φ2 NL = CL [φe (Si Sj )φe (Si Sj )]+ necessary to obtain the response function as a function φφ φeφe (1) ¯φ1 ¯φ2 (2) ¯φ2 ¯φ1 of L and M (i.e. LM ). We compute this using simula- CL [φe (Si Sj )φe (Sj Si )] , (21) tions, taking theR ratio of the average cross-spectrum of i,j ¯ output (φLM ) and input (φLM ) lensing potentials to the average auto-spectrum of the input potentials: ¯φa where Si is the i-th simulated temperature T`m lensed ¯∗ φ¯φ¯ φLM φLM with the potential φa and filtered using equation 14. i, j LM = h ∗ i. (17) imply different simulation realizations. Cross-correlation R φLM φLM h i of two φeLM calculated using different mean-fields and However, the response function obtained this way is response functions (denoted by the superscripts (1), (2)) rather noisy. Therefore, we apply a scale dependent are used to ensure that the auto-spectra of these compo- Gaussian smoothing in M, with smoothing scale λ = nents do not affect the resulting spectrum. The N (0) bias L/20. The ratio of the smoothed and an M-independent is calculated from 198 mock observed simulations that response function on a (L, M) grid is shown in Figure contain all the foreground components (point sources, 2. Similar to the mean-field calculation, we split the Gaussian foregrounds and clusters). The estimation of response function into two halves, where the average is this bias term in the data measurement can be im- taken over the first half simulation set for (1), and over proved by replacing one of the simulated temperature the second half for (2) in equation 17. Finally, we normal- ¯ (0) ¯ field with data D to form a “realization dependent N ” ize φ using equation7, convert to convergence, produce (Namikawa et al. 2013): maps, and apply the final analysis mask:

Z " # −1 ∗ X ˆ (0),RD φeφe (1) ¯ ¯φ1 (2) ¯ ¯φ1 φeLM = K YLM (ˆn)M(ˆn) YL0M 0 (ˆn)KφL0M 0 NL = CL [φe (DSi )φe (DSi )] L0M 0 (18) φeφe (1) ¯φ1 ¯ (2) ¯φ1 ¯ 1 +CL [φe (Si D)φe (Si D)] where K = 2 L(L + 1), and M(ˆn) is the final analy- φeφe (1) ¯φ1 ¯ (2) ¯ ¯φ1 sis mask. For our baseline analysis, the final mask re- +CL [φe (Si D)φe (DSi )] moves circular patches of R = 20 at the locations of point 0 φeφe (1) ¯ ¯φ1 (2) ¯φ1 ¯ sources with flux 6.4 < F150 < 50 mJy, and R = 5 at +CL [φe (DSi )φe (Si D)] the locations of clusters between 4 5 6 in addition . < ξ < φeφe (1) ¯φ1 ¯φ2 (2) ¯φ1 ¯φ2 to the mask defined in Section 5.1.2. CL [φe (Si Sj )φe (Si Sj )] − φφ φ φ φ φ φφ C ee[φe(1)(S¯ 1 S¯ 2 )φe(2)(S¯ 2 S¯ 1 )] . (22) 5.3. Calculation of the Auto-spectrum CL L i j j i − i,j In this section, we will employ the notation:

φeφe ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ (1) CL [φe(T T )φe(T T )] (19) The N bias arises from the coupling between the CMB and the lensing potential and can be obtained nu- to explicitly show the particular φe used to calculate the merically by using combinations of simulation maps with spectrum. the same lensing potential but diﬀerent CMB realiza- 8 SPT Collaboration 2016

one with SPT data only. We also plot the ˆˆ power 1 φφ 10 spectrum from Planck 2015 (Planck Collaboration et al. 2015c). The auto-spectra for SPT+Planck and SPT-only data in the range 50 < L < 3000 are binned logarithmi- 7 0 cally using 20 bins, and the variance is calculated using 10 10 the 198 simulation realizations. It should be noted that × this is a slightly diﬀerent binning scheme than employed φφ L in Planck 2015 and Simard et al. (in preparation), and C

π −1 that the points above L > 2000 are likely to be aﬀected

2 10

/ by non-Gaussian foreground sources such as the CIB and 2 tSZ from galaxies and low-mass galaxy clusters. The full

1)] L range up to L = 3000 is shown here for completeness to +

L −2 illustrate the raw spectrum from the lensing map itself.

( 10 ˜ ˜ L (0) φφ The ratio of the mean-field power and input spectrum [ N C L L is approximately unity at L = 50. To ensure that the N(1) ˆφφ L CL,fid mean-field is not affecting our analyses, no modes below 10−3 L = 50 are considered. 102 103 We assign the name “baseline” to the sample with L `max = 3000, `min = 100, (`, m) cut = [2000, 250], clusters with ξ > 6 masked, and point sources with F150 > 6.4 mJy masked. The “SPT-only” sample is sim- φˆφˆ (0) (1) ilar, but constructed bypassing the combining step and Fig. 3.— The amplitudes of CL (blue), NL and NL biases (green and gold) relative to the fiducial input Cˆφφ (black). using `min = 550. L,fid We compare the SPT+Planck, SPT-only and Planck lensing auto-spectrum amplitudes relative to our fidu- tions: cial model assuming diagonal covariance over the range 50 < L < 3000. For the baseline sample of SPT+Planck, (1) φeφe (1) ¯φ1 ¯φ1 (2) ¯φ1 ¯φ1 NL = CL [φe (Si Sj )φe (Si Sj )] φφ ˆφφ ˆφφ we obtain a best-fit amplitude of η = CL /CL,fid = +0.06 2 φeφe (1) ¯φ1 ¯φ1 (2) ¯φ1 ¯φ1 0.92−0.06 with χ /ν = 12.2/19. After removing the +CL [φe (Si Sj )φe (Sj Si )] fractional lensing biases from foregrounds, we obtain φφ φφ φφ +0.06 +0.01 φeφe (1) ¯φ1 ¯φ2 (2) ¯φ1 ¯φ2 η = Cˆ /Cˆ = 0.95 (Stat.) (Sys.) with CL [φe (Si Sj )φe (Si Sj )] L L,fid −0.06 −0.01 − χ2/ν = 12.1/19, where the goodness-of-fit is calculated φeφe (1) ¯φ1 ¯φ2 (2) ¯φ2 ¯φ1 using the statistical uncertainty only. Using the variance CL [φe (Si Sj )φe (Sj Si )] . (23) − i,j of unlensed simulations, we reject the null hypothesis of (1) no lensing at 24σ. To accelerate the calculation for the N bias, we use For SPT-only,∼ we obtain ηφφ = 0.91+0.06 with χ2/ν = simulations that contain the lensed CMB only. −0.06 16.3/19 when foreground biases are ignored and ηφφ = +0.06 +0.01 2 5.3.1. Foreground Biases 0.94−0.06(Stat.)−0.01(Sys.) with χ /ν of 16.2/19, when foreground biases are considered. In comparison, we ob- Temperature-based lensing reconstruction is fraction- φφ +0.02 2 ally biased due to correlations with foreground compo- tain a best fit amplitude of η = 0.98−0.02 with χ /ν of nents. We therefore consider the fractional lensing biases 25.1/18 when Planck band powers over 67% of the sky ∼ due to tSZ-4 point, CIB-4 point, tSZ2-φ and CIB2-φ cor- (Planck Collaboration et al. 2015c) are fit to our fiducial relations as shown. We interpolate the results presented model. The Planck lensing map is less affected by fore- in van Engelen et al. 2014 using the four components as ground biases since it utilizes polarization in addition to a function of L, and apply it to the fiducial model when temperature in the lensing reconstruction. calculating the best-fit amplitude. We find that the SPT+Planck and SPT-only measurements are consistent with each other and with Planck 6. RESULTS over 67% of the sky to within 0.5σ. All the results ∼ The SPT+Planck φˆ map reconstructed using the pro- reported here are summarized in Table2. cedures outlined in Section5 is shown in Figure4 using 6.2. ˆφG Cross-spectrum a zenithal equal-area projection. As shown in Figure7, CL this map has nearly full overlap with the final DES foot- An important purpose of this lensing map is for print. In this section, we validate the map with three cross-correlation with external data sets. We calculate 43 calculations: the auto-spectrum of the reconstructed φˆ the cross-spectrum with the publicly available all-sky WISE catalogue (Wright et al. 2010). This WISE sur- map and the cross-spectrum between the ˆ map and two φ vey mapped the sky at four wavelengths 3.4, 4.6, 12, and tracers of density fluctuations: WISE galaxies and an 22 ( 1 2 3 4) with an angular resolution of estimate of the CIB from Planck data. µm W ,W ,W ,W 6.1, 6.4, 6.5, and 12.0 arcseconds, respectively. We make 6.1. Cˆφφ Auto-spectrum one single cut in magnitude 15 < W 1 < 17 and remove L all the flagged sources. The sample contains 2 108 In Figure5, we show the auto-spectrum of two versions × of the reconstructed φˆ map: one using SPT+Planck and 43 http://wise2.ipac.caltech.edu/docs/release/allsky/ SPT+Planck 2500 deg2 lensing 9

4h 2h 0h 0.032 0.024 0.016 Convergence 6h 0.008 0.000 0.008

− κ −0.016 −0.024 −0.032

−40◦ −65◦

Fig. 4.— The reconstructed lensing map on a zenithal equal-area projection. The map has been smoothed with a Gaussian kernel with FWHM = 2 degrees. sources in total using the mask employed in the P lanck sky. We additionally sketch a power-law of the form 7 −b −8 lensing analysis, and 2 10 in sources in the nominal pL = a(L/L0) , with parameters a = 2.15 10 , × × SPT region. We make no attempt in estimating the red- b = 1.35, L0 = 490, which are obtained by performing shift distribution of the galaxies, and hence cannot make a least-squares fit to the cross-spectrum between full- a theoretical prediction of the cross-correlation ampli- sky Planck and WISE in the range 50 < L < 1864. tude. Instead, the lensing maps reconstructed using var- We then fit this power-law with an amplitude parame- ious ` ,(`, m) cuts, masking, and calibrations are φG φG min,max ter η = CL /pL to other cross-spectra. We obtain cross-correlated with the galaxies to probe the sensitivity φG +0.04 best-fit amplitudes of η = 0.94−0.04 for SPT+P lanck, of the reconstructed lensing map to these variations. φG +0.04 φG +0.02 Starting with the WISE galaxy catalogue, we first η = 0.93−0.04 for SPT-only, η = 1.00−0.01 for φG +0.08 project all the galaxies onto a HEALPix map of Nside = P lanck-only over 67% of the sky, and η = 1.02−0.08 2048, apply a simple binary mask (value=1 if there is ∼ 2 ˆφφ for P lanck-only over 2500 deg . Similar to the CL auto- at least one galaxy in the pixel, otherwise 0), and com- spectrum, instead of focusing the discussion on the phys- pute the mean number of galaxies n . Using this, the h i ical interpretations of the amplitude, which is dependent overdensity map is calculated: on factors such a photometric redshift uncertainties, type n n of galaxies considered, and the cosmological model used, δ = − h i, (24) we focus on the sensitivity of the cross-spectrum to small n h i variations in the reconstruction pipeline. and the cross-spectrum is obtained by correlating this map with the lensing map using PolSpice44(Szapudi 6.3. Cross-Correlation with CIB et al. 2001; Chon et al. 2004). We also calculate the cross-correlation between the We derive the uncertainties by cross-correlating the SPT+Planck lensing map and the 545 GHz channel from WISE galaxy density map with all the 198 simulated Planck 45, which traces fluctuations in the CIB. The re- φˆ maps and computing the variance for each bin. This sult is shown in Figure8, and the same measurement method neglects the common sample variance between made by Planck (Planck Collaboration et al. 2014) is also φ and the galaxies G. To assess the importance of this presented as a reference. We observe a strong correlation term, we compare this with errors obtained using the between φˆ and the 545 GHz map that is consistent with “block jackknife” method (where the variance is com- a theoretical model constructed using a modified black puted by masking various “blocks” of the sky area used body and employing a single spectral energy distribution in the analysis) with 128 equal area patches. We acquire model as demonstrated in (Planck Collaboration et al. similar results from this method and conclude that the 2015c). original estimate is adequate. The SPT 150 GHz map and the Planck 143 GHz map Cross-spectra between WISE galaxy density and var- contain some emission from the CIB, and leakage of this ious CMB-derived φˆ are shown in Figure6. The CMB signal into the lensing map will bias the cross-correlation lensing maps used are: SPT+P lanck, SPT-only, Planck- with the 545 GHz map. To estimate the level of this bias, 2 ˆ only over 2500 deg , and Planck-only over 67% of the we calculate the φ(T545,T545) T545 bispectrum and scale × 44 http://www2.iap.fr/users/hivon/software/PolSpice 45 HFI_SkyMap_545_2048_R2.02_full.fits 10 SPT Collaboration 2016 2.5 CURL 0.8 0.4 2.0 0.0 7

10 1.5 −0.4

× 2 3 10 10 L-R 0.8 φφ L

ˆ 1.0 10 C × 0.4 π 2

/ 0.0 2 0.5

1)] −0.4 + L

( 0.0 UNLENSED 0.8 L [ 0.4 −0.5 PLANCK 2015 MASK 67 SPT+PLANCK 2500 DEG2 0.0 `min,max = [50,3000] SPT ONLY 2500 DEG2 Lmin,max = [50,3000] −0.4 −1.0 102 103 102 103 L L

Fig. 5.— Plot showing the consistency between the measured lensing auto-spectrum and the fiducial spectrum without the fractional lensing bias applied (discussed in Section 6.1), as well as the consistency of the curl, unlensed and L-R spectrum with respect to null ˆφφ (discussed in Section 7.1). Left: CL auto-spectrum for SPT+Planck (violet), SPT-only (blue), and Planck only using 67% of the φφ ∼ sky (gray boxes). The solid line is the fiducial CL spectrum using a spatially flat ΛCDM Planck 2015 cosmology. A zoom-in of the high-L region is presented to highlight the consistency between our measurement with our fiducial theory for L < 2000 as well as the ˆψψ rise at L > 2000, which is a possible indication of foreground contamination. Upper right: The curl spectrum CL calculated from the map. The solid violet line represents the mean of the simulation realizations, which is used to calculate the χ2 and PTE. Center right: ˆφφ ˆφφ CL spectrum from one L-R realization with the amplitude multiplied by a factor of 10. Lower right: CL spectrum for one unlensed realization. In each of the right panels, the fiducial result is shown in gray, and theory curve in black.

30 CURL PLANCK 2015 WISE MASK67 × 20 SPT+PLANCK WISE 2500 DEG2 25 × SPT ONLY WISE 2500 DEG2 × PLANCK ONLY WISE 2500 DEG2 0

6 20 × 10

× 15 L-R G φ L 5 20 ˆ

C ×

2 10 / 0 1)]

+ 5 L ( 2 UNLENSED L [ 0 20

−5 `min,max = [50,3000] 0 Lmin,max = [50,3000] −10 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 1000 2000 3000 L L

Fig. 6.— A plot showing the consistency between SPT+Planck and Planck-only lensing, using the cross-correlation with WISE galaxies (discussed in Section 6.2). Also shown are the cross-correlations between WISE and curl, unlensed and L-R maps (discussed in Section 7.1). Left: Cross-correlation between WISE and: SPT+Planck lensing map over 2500 deg2 (violet), SPT only over 2500 deg2 (blue), Planck 2015 over the 2500 deg2 (gold), and Planck 2015 over the full sky (gray boxes). Right: Cross-correlation of the galaxy sample with: upper right: the data curl-mode map, center right: a single realization of a noise-only reconstructed map, lower right: a single realization of an unlensed map. In each of the panels, a power-law ﬁt to the Planck result is shown as a solid line, and the ﬁducial result is shown as gray points in the three panels on the right. SPT+Planck 2500 deg2 lensing 11

2h 0h 22h 20 h 4 HALLETAL. 2010 WUETAL. 2016 ˆ 15 φ (T545,T545) I545 5 h × ˆ × 20 sr] SPT+PLANCK φ I545

h / × 6 PLANCK φˆ I MV × 545 [Jy

I 10 φ L C 2 /

1) 5 + L ( 2

L 0

DES-Y5 NOMINALSPT 2500 DEG2 −5 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Fig. 7.— Blue: SPT nominal 2500 deg2 footprint, Orange: L DES-Y5 footprint, the expected coverage of DES after 5-years (2013-2018) of the survey. The Planck galactic emission mask with 70% coverage, based on 353 GHz emission is shown in light gray. Fig. 8.— Cross-correlation between Planck 545 GHz channel and SPT+Planck (violet), and results from Planck Collaboration et al. 2014 (gold). The solid violet line corresponds to the φˆ(T545,T545) I545 bispectrum calculated using the GNILC 545 GHz and Planck× 545 GHz maps, which contributes to the bias which affects the TABLE 1 auto-spectrum. The amplitude of this spectrum is multiplied by a Table summarizing the fits to fiducial theory without factor of 5 to highlight the characteristics as a function of L. The foreground biases considered theoretical prediction by Wu et al. was obtained through private communications. Results ηφφ χ2 (PTE) ηφG χ2 (PTE) +0.06 +0.04 Baseline 0.92−0.06 12.2 (0.88) 0.94−0.04 12.0 (0.45) +0.06 +0.04 SPT-only 0.91−0.06 16.3 (0.63) 0.93−0.04 9.6 (0.65) +0.02 +0.02 TABLE 2 Planck-full 0.98−0.02 25.1 (0.12) 1.00−0.01 6.1 (0.53) Table summarizing the fits to fiducial theory with +0.08 (spt patch) 1.02−0.08 3.8 (0.80) foreground biases considered Curl 23.4 (0.22) 15.6 (0.27) φφ 2 L-R 28.6 (0.10) 11.1 (0.60) Results η χ (PTE) Unlensed 18.9 (0.53) 10.3 (0.67) +0.06 +0.01 Baseline 0.95−0.06(stat.)−0.01(sys.) 12.1 (0.88) SPT-only 0 94+0.06(stat )+0.01(sys ) 16.2 (0.64) ˆ . −0.06 . −0.01 . the result to approximate φ(T150,CIB,T150,CIB) T545. Specifically, we use the GNILC component-separated× CIB at 545 GHz46, with the scaling to 150 GHz deter- cross-correlation for the angular bin 2762 < L < 3000 is reduced by a factor of 2. Characterizing the lens- mined by taking the cross-correlation between 150 and ∼ ˆ ing map at high L is important, especially for cross- 545 GHz maps. The φ component is calculated using correlation studies, since we could potentially probe as- the same masking and filtering as done in the making trophysical effects at these scales. The improvement is ˆ of φ(T150,T150), and this is cross-correlated with the 545 the result of additional mode pairs in the φˆ reconstruc- GHz channel. The bispectrum measured here is a result tion process; for a particular lensing mode of interest of CIB leaking into the 150 GHz channel. We find the L, the temperature mode pairs ` , ` that are relevant bias from the CIB in the 150 GHz / 143 GHz maps to 1 2 satisfy the relationship L = `1 + `2. Therefore, by intro- be negative for angular multipoles L < 2000 and positive ducing low-` modes, the number of high-`+low-` mode for L > 2000, with a fractional amplitude ranging from pairs increase, and the variance of a particular L mode 2% to 10% in the range 50 < L < 3000. is reduced.

7. VALIDATIONS 6.3.1. Gains from Adding Planck The reconstructed φˆ estimate from a map that contains As shown in Figures5 and6, the signal in the com- no lensed CMB signal should be consistent with ηφφ = 0. bined 2500 deg2 map comes mostly from the SPT data. This could potentially fail if the reconstruction process Nonetheless, the addition of Planck reduces the scatter creates spurious temperature correlations that lead to for modes L > 1500. In particular, the scatter in the false lensing signal. We therefore reconstruct maps that we expect to have no signal (curl, unlensed, and L-R 46 COM_CompMap_CIB-GNILC-F545_2048_R2.00.fits, publicly maps) using the same pipeline and check that they are available at the Planck legacy archive consistent with the null hypothesis. 12 SPT Collaboration 2016

Additionally, we also probe the robustness of the map with zero-signal. We simply test this by (i) replacing by varying `, m cuts, masking, calibration, beams and the lensed CMB with an unlensed CMB, (ii) producing normalization method to verify that the map is insensi- both SPT and Planck simulated skies, (iii) combining tive to particular processing choices that we make. SPT and Planck, (iv) running the lensing estimator in the same manner as a lensed realization, (v) and finally 7.1. Null Tests using the response function for the lensed case to pro- 7.1.1. Curl duce a map. Since this makes use of simulations only, this is purely a test of the reconstruction pipeline. We In estimating the lensing potential φ, we have used compute both the auto and cross-spectrum with WISE the gradient component of the temperature field. It is using this map, and we see no evidence of inconsistency instead possible to construct the curl-mode lensing field with respect to null. Measuring the χ2/ν, we obtain ψ, by replacing the weight function with: 18.9/20 for auto, and 10.33/13 for the cross-spectrum r giving a PTE of 0.53 and 0.67 respectively. Maps recon- ψ (2`1 + 1)(2`2 + 1)(2L + 1) W` ` L = structed this way are used to calculate the significance 1 2 − 4π of the no-lensing hypothesis, as well as estimating the 1 ( 1)`1+`2+L ` ` L lensing reconstruction noise, which is used for forecast- CTT − − 1 2 `1 2 1 0 1 ing and covariance estimation. The results are shown in × − p the lower right panel of Figures5 and6. L(L + 1)`1(`1 + 1) + (`1 `2). (25) × ↔ Sources of systematic contamination introduce non- 7.2. Systematic Tests Gaussianities in the reconstructed maps, which get de- In this section, we modify certain aspects of the lensing composed into gradient and curl components. Since we reconstruction pipeline to test for systematic effects. We expect that physical phenomena produce negligible curl, quantify the effect by quoting the maximum deviation a measurement of it is an indication of potential system- defined as max (CˆL,modified CˆL,baseline)/σ(CˆL,baseline) atic bias in the gradient mode. We reconstruct the ψˆ map across all the bins{ in each systematics− test relative to the} (0),RD statistical uncertainty. For auto-spectra, we addition- in an identical manner subtracting off the NL from (0) ally quantify the deviation of the systematically modi- the data and NL from the simulated realizations, but re- fied results from the baseline results by calculating the placing the response function with that calculated for the 2 and corresponding PTE relative to zero, which are ˆ χ φ. As noted in Planck Collaboration et al.(2015c); Kes- summarized in Table3. The same measurement is not den et al.(2003); van Engelen et al.(2012); Benoit-Lévy carried out for cross-spectra since our method of cross- (1) et al.(2013), the curl mode also includes a N type bias. correlating the galaxy map with different φˆ realizations However, in our analysis, instead of removing this term, φG φG under-estimates the variance in (Cˆ Cˆ ), we compare with the mean curl mode spectrum from the L,sim− L,sim, modified simulations, for which we obtain χ2/ν = 23.4/19, giving which are the errorbars shown in Figure 10. Nonetheless, a PTE of 0.22 for the null hypothesis of no contamina- the goal of this section is to illustrate that systematic ˆ variations lead to small changes in the resulting map, in tion. From correlating the ψ map with the WISE galaxy comparison to the statistical uncertainty. sample, we obtain a correlation that is consistent with 2 respect to null with χ = 15.6 for 13 degrees of freedom 7.2.1. ` , ` Cut giving a PTE of 0.27. The results are shown in the upper max min right panel of Figures5 and6. Contamination from point sources and the tSZ effect is stronger at high `. Although including modes out to 7.1.2. L-R Reconstruction higher ` increases the number of modes one can use in the Many potential sources of systematic instrumental con- lensing reconstruction, bias due to the aforementioned tamination are coupled to the telescope scanning strat- contaminants also increases. We therefore apply a cut- egy. We perform a null test for any contamination from off in the maximum ` used to minimize the bias. We set systematic differences between opposite scan directions `max for the baseline sample to 3000, and make two alter- by reconstructing φ from null maps formed by differenc- natives cuts at `max = 2500, and `max = 3500, to verify ing left-going (L) from right-going (R) scans. We first that the maps we obtain are not highly contaminated combine the SPT L-R map with a noise realization of by foregrounds. As shown in Figure9, we observe that Planck (since no L-R map exist for Planck). We then changing `max does effect the scatter, and the biggest pass this combined map through the lensing pipeline us- change in any bin is seen when `max is reduced to 2500 ing the same filtering and response function as the regu- (maximum deviation of 1.4σ for the auto and 2.1σ for lar case. From this, we obtain a χ2/ν = 28.6/20 for the the cross). When we vary `min from 100 to 50, we see auto, and 11.1/13 for the cross-spectrum giving a PTE negligible difference (maximum deviation of 0.027σ for ˆφφ ˆφG of 0.10 and 0.60 respectively. The results are shown in CL and 0.10σ for CL ). The results are shown in the the center right panel of Figures5 and6. first panel of Figures9 and 10.

7.1.3. Unlensed Maps 7.2.2. `, m Cuts Lensing reconstruction relies on the non-Gaussian sta- High `, low m modes of the combined map are domi- tistical properties that lensing imprints in the observed nated by noise since both SPT and Planck are noisy for CMB. In the absence of lensing, the reconstructed φ map those modes. To remove the high noise modes, we ap- will be purely noise, and therefore, should be consistent ply cuts on the (`, m) grid, and we test the sensitivity SPT+Planck 2500 deg2 lensing 13 of the reconstructed φ map to this adopted cut. In cal- φφ TABLE 3 ˆ φφ culating CL , we calculate all the bias terms including Table summarizing Cˆ systematic test fits (1) L NL , using the same cuts, and obtain the response function in an identical fashion. We test three cuts which Systematic change χ2/ν PTE remove: (i) ` > 2000 and m < 350, (ii) ` > 1200 and `max = 3500 15.3/20 0.76 m < 350 and (iii) ` > 2200 and m < 150. The compar- `max = 2500 10.5/19 0.94 ison between the baseline sample and (i) demonstrates `min = 50 14.6/20 0.80 whether we are including excessive noise from SPT at Cut=[2000,350] 15.6/20 0.74 low m. (ii) is a conservative cut in `, m, effectively re- Cut=[1200,250] 19.6/20 0.48 moving noisy modes from both SPT and Planck. (iii) Cut=[2200,150] 31.5/20 0.05 is the least conservative cut extending to higher ` and 0 0 Rclus = [10 , 5 ] 27.8/20 0.11 0 0 lower m. It should be noted that including slightly nois- Rclus = [15 , 10 ] 12.3/20 0.90 ier temperature modes does not necessarily translate to ξ > 10 16.1/20 0.71 noise bias since the filtering downweights these modes. ξ > 20 22.8/20 0.30 Sample (ii) shows the biggest deviation from the base- ˆφφ ˆφG λ = L/10 15.0/20 0.77 line sample with 0.82σ in CL and 0.83σ in CL . The λ = L/40 14.1/20 0.82 results are shown in the second panel of Figures9 and λ = (1D) 11.5/20 0.93 10. ∞ Note.— χ2 and corresponding PTE relative to zero for the ˆφφ 7.2.3. Cluster Masking deviation of the systematically modified CL from the baseline ˆφφ. One of the main concerns of temperature-based single- CL frequency lensing reconstruction is the contamination in Figure2 and the results of varying the smoothing from the tSZ effect produced by clusters and galaxies. length is shown in the fifth panel of Figures9 and 10. In φˆ maps reconstructed using temperature maps that con- both auto and cross-spectra, the variations show negligi- ˆφφ ble differences, with maximum discrepancy of 0.3σ when tain tSZ power will be biased. The resulting bias in CL will include terms proportional to the tSZ 4-point func- using a 1D response function. The results are shown in the fifth panel of Figures9 and 10. tion φ(TtSZTtSZ) φ(TtSZTtSZ) and the φ-tSZ correlation × φ(TCMBTCMB) φ(TtSZTtSZ)(van Engelen et al. 2014). × 7.2.5. Beam Error This bias will also result in a φ(TtSZTtSZ) G bispectrum when calculating cross-spectra with galaxies.× The The various SPT fields were observed in different years most dominant source of these biases are massive clus- (2008–2011), and instrumental changes to the receiver ters, which we mask in our analysis. We vary the mask- between observing years result in a slightly different ing radii and cluster selection to investigate the optimal beam for each year and, hence, each field. In the base- masking to mitigate the contamination, while minimizing line analysis, we deconvolve each field with a specific year the sky area lost by the masking. beam, and convolve with a common Gaussian beam of We make variations in the radius used to mask the FWHM=1.750. We also test the lensing reconstruction locations of clusters in the reconstructed φ map. This using (i) the four single year beams for all the fields and is shown in the third panel of Figures9 and 10. We (ii) the average of the year beams for all the fields. This tested using masks of larger radii for clusters with signif- effectively probes the sensitivity of the resulting map to 0 0 icance ξ > 6 and 4.5 < ξ < 6, using Rξ>6 = 10 , 15 and the uncertainty of the beam. = 50 100. We found a maximum difference of ˆφG R4.6<ξ<6 , The effect of the beam is most prominently seen in CL only 0.5 and 0.7σ discrepancies between our base- with a maximum deviation of 0.41σ when assuming a line auto∼ and cross-spectrum∼ respectively. The results 2008 beam. Deconvolving all the fields with a mean beam are shown in the third panel of Figures9 and 10. produces a maximum deviation of 0.021σ and 0.029σ for Additionally, we mask clusters listed in Bleem et al. ˆφφ ˆφG CL and CL respectively, suggesting that it is a good (2015) with ξ > 6 prior to running the quadratic esti- approximation of the baseline method. The results are mator, and mask down further to ξ > 4.5 when calcu- shown in the sixth panel of Figures9 and 10. ˆφφ ˆφG lating CL and CL . Tests in reconstructing φ maps with less strict cuts using ξ = 10, 20 are also made, and 7.2.6. Calibration Error ˆφφ the results show that the CL amplitude for both cases The CMB power as measured by SPT is calibrated to are consistent with the ξ > 6 cut sample with a maxi- align with the measurements made by Planck in the same ˆφφ ˆφG mum difference of 0.56σ for CL and 0.56σ for CL . In patch of sky to an accuracy better than 1% (Hou et al. calculating these spectra, a common mask that removes 2017). The results of varying this calibration parameter clusters above ξ > 4.5 is applied to all maps. This test by 1% is shown in the bottom panel of Figures9 and illustrates the amount of tSZ leakage during the recon- ± ˆφφ ˆφG 10. The resulting CL and CL vary by at most 0.20σ and struction process. The results are shown in the fourth 0.16σ respectively through this variation. The results are panel of Figures9 and 10. shown in the seventh panel of Figures9 and 10.

7.2.4. Response Function Smoothing 8. DISCUSSIONS Due to the large scatter at high L, the response func- This paper presents a map of the CMB lensing poten- tion is smoothed to prevent the scatter appearing in tial over 2500 square degrees of the sky, constructed ˆφφ ˆφG ∼ CL and CL . The smoothed response function is shown from the optimally combined SPT 150 GHz + Planck 14 SPT Collaboration 2016

143 GHz temperature map. The cosmological constraints tributions from various foreground components without from this data set will be published in a companion paper using data from multiple frequencies. In this analysis, (Simard et al, in preparation). the noise levels of the 95 and 220 GHz channels of the The lensing map has an improved signal-to-noise ratio SPT-SZ survey (40 µK-arcmin and 70 µK-arcmin respec- at all scales relative to Planck-only over the 2500 deg2 tively), prohibit us from removing foregrounds cleanly at patch, and it overlaps almost completely with the DES the level required for lensing analysis. We look forward to galaxy survey, making it a potentially powerful data set do multi-frequency lensing analysis using SPT-3G (Ben- for cross-correlation studies. The power of this lensing son et al. 2014), which will have multiple channels at map comes primarily from the 2500-square-degree SPT- lower noise levels than the SPT-SZ survey. Furthermore, SZ survey data, with typical map noise of 18 µK-arcmin, since extra-galactic foreground contamination is a much but adding Planck 143 GHz data results in noticeable smaller effect in polarization maps, we will be able to uti- improvement in S/N, especially at high lensing multi- lize information at higher ` compared to the temperature pole L. As shown in Figures5 and6, by filling in the data(Osborne et al. 2014). SPT modes with low-` modes from Planck, moderate 9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS improvements can be observed at intermediate to high L (1500 < L < 3000), which is due to the increased We thank Hao-Yi Wu and Olivier Doréfor the theoret- number of mode pairs that enter the reconstruction. We ical prediction for the cross-correlation between CIB and compare the measured lensing amplitude with the ampli- CMB lensing. The South Pole Telescope program is sup- tude expected from a fiducial ΛCDM Planck 2015 best fit ported by the National Science Foundation through grant cosmology and obtain ηφφ = 0.95+0.06(Stat.)+0.01(Sys.). PLR-1248097. Partial support is also provided by the −0.06 −0.01 NSF Physics Frontier Center grant PHY-0114422 to the The total lensing S/N in the combined map is approxi- Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University mately 14σ, and this measurement rejects the no-lensing of Chicago, the Kavli Foundation, and the Gordon and hypothesis at 24σ. ∼ Betty Moore Foundation through Grant GBMF#947 to We perform several consistency checks, null tests, and the University of Chicago. The McGill authors acknowl- systematic tests on the SPT + Planck lensing map. We edge funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineer- measure the auto-spectrum of the lensing map and the ing Research Council of Canada, Canadian Institute for cross-spectrum of the lensing map with WISE galaxy Advanced Research, and Canada Research Chairs pro- positions, and we find both results to be consistent with gram. CR acknowledges support from a Australian Re- expectations from the fiducial cosmology, with Planck search Council Future Fellowship (FT150100074) BB is full-sky results, and with SPT-only or Planck-only re- supported by the Fermi Research Alliance, LLC un- sults over the 2500-square-degree SPT-SZ region. We der Contract No. De-AC02-07CH11359 with the United perform null tests using the curl lensing estimator on the States Department of Energy. This publication makes combined temperature map and by replacing the tem- use of data products from the Wide-field Infrared Sur- perature map by unlensed CMB or L-R difference map, vey Explorer, which is a joint project of the Univer- and we find these results to be consistent with noise. Fi- sity of California, Los Angeles, and the Jet Propulsion nally, we investigate potential systematics by recalculat- Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, funded ing the lensing auto-spectrum and lensing-WISE cross- by the National Aeronautics and Space Administra- spectrum with certain parameters shifted and comparing tion. Argonne National Laboratorys work was supported to our baseline result. We vary several sets of parame- under U.S. Department of Energy contract DE-AC02- ters, including the (`, m) range used in the lensing recon- 06CH11357. Computations were made on the supercom- struction, the way in which emissive sources and galaxy puter Guillimin from McGill University, managed by Cal- clusters are masked, and the way beam and calibration cul Québec and Compute Canada. The operation of this errors are treated. We find no evidence of systematic supercomputer is funded by the Canada Foundation for contamination from these tests. ´ With the SPT 2500 deg2 field almost fully overlap- Innovation (CFI), the ministèrede l’Economie, de la sci- ping with DES, it is possible to perform cross-correlations ence et de l’innovation du Québec (MESI) and the Fonds with various mass tracers. A number of cross-correlations de recherche du Québec - Nature et technologies (FRQ- between a lensing map produced from a small SPT patch NT). This research is part of the Blue Waters sustained- petascale computing project, which is supported by the and DES SV data, which covered 140 deg2 have been National Science Foundation (awards OCI-0725070 and measured to date: cross-correlation∼ with galaxy density ACI-1238993) and the state of Illinois. Blue Waters is (Giannantonio et al. 2016), galaxy shear (Kirk et al. a joint effort of the University of Illinois at Urbana- 2015), and the ratio between galaxy-galaxy lensing and Champaign and its National Center for Supercomput- galaxy CMB lensing (Baxter et al. 2016). With future 2 ing Applications. This work used resources made avail- DES releases, which will have more than 2000 deg over- able on the Jupiter cluster, a joint data-intensive com- lap, these measurements are expected to improve signif- puting project between the High Energy Physics Divi- icantly, allowing us to place tighter cosmological param- sion and the Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences eter constraints. (CELS) Directorate at Argonne National Laboratory. In this work, we only use temperature data to a max- The results in this paper have been derived using the imum multipole of ` = 3000 due to concerns of fore- following packages: Astropy, a community-developed ground contamination. Obtaining a reliable lensing map core Python package for Astronomy (Astropy Collab- at high ` requires precise knowledge of the foreground oration et al. 2013), CAMB (Lewis et al. 2000; Howlett components that contribute to the small scale power. et al. 2012), HEALPix (Górskiet al. 2005), IPython (Prez It is, however, a challenging task to separate the con- & Granger 2007), LensPix (Lewis 2005), Matplotlib SPT+Planck 2500 deg2 lensing 15

(Hunter 2007), NumPy & SciPy (van der Walt et al. 2011), PolSpice (Chon et al. 2004) and quicklens (Planck Col- laboration et al. 2015c).

REFERENCES Abazajian, K. N., et al. 2015, Astroparticle Physics, 63, 66 Kirk, B., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4010 Astropy Collaboration, et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Kirk, D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 21 Baxter, E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 4099 Lewis, A. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 083008 Bennett, C. L., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 1 Lewis, A., & Challinor, A. 2006, Phys. Rep., 429, 1 Benoit-Lévy,A., Déchelette, T., Benabed, K., Cardoso, J.-F., Lewis, A., Challinor, A., & Lasenby, A. 2000, ApJ, 538, 473 Hanson, D., & Prunet, S. 2013, A&A, 555, A37 Namikawa, T., Hanson, D., & Takahashi, R. 2013, MNRAS, 431, Benson, B. A., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical 609 Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9153, Namikawa, T., Yamauchi, D., & Taruya, A. 2012, JCAP, 1, 007 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Okamoto, T., & Hu, W. 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 083002 Conference Series Osborne, S. J., Hanson, D., & Doré,O. 2014, JCAP, 3, 024 Bernardeau, F., van Waerbeke, L., & Mellier, Y. 1997, A&A, 322, Planck Collaboration, et al. 2015a, ArXiv e-prints, 1502.01582 1 ——. 2016, A&A, 594, A8 Bleem, L. E., et al. 2015, ApJS, 216, 27 ——. 2014, A&A, 571, A18 Carlstrom, J. E., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 568 ——. 2015b, ArXiv e-prints, 1509.06348 Cavaliere, A., & Fusco-Femiano, R. 1976, A&A, 49, 137 ——. 2015c, ArXiv e-prints, 1502.01591 Chon, G., Challinor, A., Prunet, S., Hivon, E., & Szapudi, I. ——. 2015d, ArXiv e-prints, 1507.02704 2004, MNRAS, 350, 914 POLARBEAR Collaboration, et al. 2013, ArXiv e-prints, Cooray, A., Kamionkowski, M., & Caldwell, R. R. 2005, 1312.6646 Phys. Rev. D, 71, 123527 Prez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science & Crawford, T. M., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 23 Engineering, 9, 21 Das, S., et al. 2011, Physical Review Letters, 107, 021301 Schaffer, K. K., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 90 De Zotti, G., Ricci, R., Mesa, D., Silva, L., Mazzotta, P., Shaw, L. D., Nagai, D., Bhattacharya, S., & Lau, E. T. 2010, Toffolatti, L., & González-Nuevo, J. 2005, A&A, 431, 893 ApJ, 725, 1452 George, E. M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 177 Shaw, L. D., Rudd, D. H., & Nagai, D. 2012, ApJ, 756, 15 Giannantonio, T., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3213 Sherwin, B. D., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, 1611.09753 Górski,K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., Wandelt, B. D., Hansen, Story, K. T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 50 F. K., Reinecke, M., & Bartelmann, M. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759 ——. 2013, ApJ, 779, 86 Hanson, D., Challinor, A., Efstathiou, G., & Bielewicz, P. 2011, Szapudi, I., Prunet, S., Pogosyan, D., Szalay, A. S., & Bond, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 043005 J. R. 2001, ApJ, 548, L115 Hoffman, Y., & Ribak, E. 1991, ApJ, 380, L5 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Hou, Z., et al. 2017, ArXiv e-prints, 1704.00884 Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22 Howlett, C., Lewis, A., Hall, A., & Challinor, A. 2012, JCAP, 4, van Engelen, A., Bhattacharya, S., Sehgal, N., Holder, G. P., 027 Zahn, O., & Nagai, D. 2014, ApJ, 786, 13 Hu, W., & Okamoto, T. 2002, ApJ, 574, 566 van Engelen, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 142 Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90 Weinberg, D. H., Mortonson, M. J., Eisenstein, D. J., Hirata, C., Huterer, D., et al. 2015, Astroparticle Physics, 63, 23 Riess, A. G., & Rozo, E. 2013, Phys. Rep., 530, 87 Kaiser, N. 1992, ApJ, 388, 272 Wright, E. L., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868 Kesden, M., Cooray, A., & Kamionkowski, M. 2002, Physical Zaldarriaga, M., & Seljak, U. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 123507 Review Letters, 89, 011304 (4 pages) ——. 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 123507 Kilbinger, M. 2015, Reports on Progress in Physics, 78, 086901

10. APPENDIX 16 SPT Collaboration 2016

4 `min,`max 2 `max = 3500 0 `max = 2500 `min = 50 −2 −4

2 `,m MASK [` > `cut,m < mcut] 1 Cut = [2000,350] 0 Cut = [1200,250] −1 Cut = [2200,150] −2

2 CLUSTERMASKINGRADII [Rξ>6,R4.5<ξ<6] 1 R = [10 ,5 ] 0 clus 0 0 Rclus = [150,100] −1 −2

baseline 2 LUSTERMASKING σ C ξ

/ 1 ) 0 ξ > 10 ξ > 20 −1 baseline , −2 φφ L ˆ C 2

− 2D RESPONSESMOOTHING 1 φφ

L λ = L/10 ˆ

C 0 λ = L/40 ( λ = (1D) −1 ∞ −2

2 BEAM VARIATIONS 1 2008 2009 0 2010 −1 2011 Mean −2

2 SPT CALIBRATION VARIATIONS 1 0 −1% +1% −1 −2 50 100 1000 3000

ˆφφ ˆφφ ˆφφ Fig. 9.— Systematic tests for the lensing power spectrum CL . Ratio of measured CL with variations made against input baseline CL , ˆφφ 0 0 where baseline CL is calculated using `min = 100, `max = 3000, (`, m) cut at [2000, 250], Rclus = [5 , 5 ], σ = L/20 and beams appropriate ˆφφ for each SPT ﬁeld (gray band). The error bars shown are the standard deviations of the change in CL over a set of simulations. SPT+Planck 2500 deg2 lensing 17

3 `min,`max 2 1 `max = 3500 0 `max = 2500 −1 `min = 50 −2 −3

2 `,m MASK [` > `cut,m < mcut] 1 Cut = [2000,350] 0 Cut = [1200,250] , −1 Cut = [2200 150] −2

2 CLUSTERMASKINGRADII [Rξ>6,R4.5<ξ<6] 1 0 Rclus = [100,50] Rclus = [150,100] −1 −2

baseline 2 LUSTERMASKING ξ σ C

/ 1 ) 0 ξ > 10 ξ > 20 −1 baseline G , −2 φ L ˆ C 2

− 2D RESPONSESMOOTHING

G 1 λ L/

φ = 10 L

ˆ 0 C λ = L/40 ( λ = (1D) −1 ∞ −2

2 BEAM VARIATION 1 2008 2009 0 2010 −1 2011 Mean −2

2 SPT CALIBRATION 1 0 −1% +1% −1 −2 0 1000 2000 3000 L ˆφG ˆφG Fig. 10.— Systematic tests for the lensing-galaxy cross-spectrum CL . Ratio of measured CL with variations made against baseline ˆφG CL .