1: \documentclass[printer]{aa}

2: \usepackage{epsfig}

3: \begin{document}

4: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}    

5: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}      

6: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

7: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

8: \newcommand{\bef}{\begin{figue}}

9: \newcommand{\eef}{\end{figure}}

10: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}

11: \newcommand{\kms}{\,{\rm km}\;{\rm s}^{-1}}

12: \newcommand{\hubunits}{\,\kms\;{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}

13: \newcommand{\hmpc}{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}

14: \newcommand{\hkpc}{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm kpc}}

15: \newcommand{\msun}{M_\odot}

16: \newcommand{\K}{\,{\rm K}}

17: \newcommand{\cm}{{\rm cm}}

18: \newcommand{\cd}{{\langle n(r) \rangle_p}}

19: \newcommand{\Mpc}{{\rm Mpc}}

20: \newcommand{\kpc}{{\rm kpc}}

21: \newcommand{\xir}{{\xi(r)}}

22: \newcommand{\xrp}{{\xi(r_p,\pi)}}

23: \newcommand{\xsirpi}{{\xi(r_p,\pi)}}

24: \newcommand{\wrp}{{w_p(r_p)}}

25: %\newcommand{\gr}{{^{0.1}g-r}}

26: \newcommand{\gr}{{g-r}}

27: \newcommand{\Navg}{N_{\rm avg}}

28: \newcommand{\Mmin}{M_{\rm min}}

29: \newcommand{\fiso}{f_{\rm iso}}

30: \newcommand{\Mr}{M_r}

31: \newcommand{\rp}{r_p}

32: \newcommand{\zmax}{z_{\rm max}}

33: \newcommand{\zmin}{z_{\rm min}}

34: \newcommand{\ve}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathbf{#1}}}

35: \newcommand{\D}[1][ ]{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}^{#1} }}

36: \newcommand{\tdyn}{\ensuremath{\tau_\text{dyn}}}

37: \newcommand{\tve}[1]{\tilde{\boldsymbol{#1}}}

38:  

39: 

40: \def\eg{{e.g.}}

41: \def\ie{{i.e.}}

42: \def\spose#1{\hbox to 0pt{#1\hss}}

43: \def\ltapprox{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}

44: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}

45: \def\gtapprox{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}

46: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}

47: \def\inapprox{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}

48: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"232$}}}

49: 

50: \title{Extension and estimation of correlations in  Cold Dark Matter models}

51: 

52: \subtitle{}

53: 

54: \author{Francesco  Sylos Labini \inst{1,2} and  Nickolay L. Vasilyev \inst{3} } 

55: 

56: \titlerunning{Correlations in  CDM models}

57: 

58: \authorrunning{Sylos Labini \& Vasilyev } 

59: 

60: \institute{``Enrico Fermi Center'', Via Panisperna 89 A, 

61: Compendio del Viminale, 00184 Rome, Italy

62: %

63: \and``Istituto dei Sistemi Complessi'' CNR, 

64: Via dei Taurini 19, 00185 Rome, Italy

65: \and

66: Sobolev Astronomical Institute, St.Petersburg 

67: State University, Staryj Peterhoff, 198504,

68: St.Petersburg, Russia

69: }

70: 

71: \date{Received / Accepted}

72: 

73: \abstract{

74: We discuss the large scale properties of standard cold dark matter

75: cosmological models characterizing the main features of the

76: power-spectrum, of the two-point correlation function and of the mass

77: variance.  Both the real-space statistics have a very well defined

78: behavior on large enough scales, where their amplitudes become smaller

79: than unity.  The correlation function, in the range $0<\xi(r)<1$, is

80: characterized by a typical length-scale $r_c$, at which $\xi(r_c)=0$,

81: which is fixed by the physics of the early universe: beyond this scale

82: it becomes negative, going to zero with a tail proportional to

83: $-(r^{-4})$.  These anti-correlations represent thus an important

84: observational challenge to verify models in real space.  The same

85: length scale $r_c$ characterizes the behavior of the mass variance

86: which decays, for $r>r_c$, as $r^{-4}$, the fastest decay for any mass

87: distribution. The length-scale $r_c$ defines the maximum extension of

88: (positively correlated) structures in these models.  These are the

89: features expected for the dark matter field: galaxies, which represent

90: a biased field, however may have differences with respect to these

91: behaviors, which we analyze.  We then discuss the detectability of

92: these real space features by considering several estimators of the

93: two-point correlation function. By making tests on numerical

94: simulations we emphasize the important role of finite size effects

95: which should always be controlled for careful measurements.

96: \keywords{Cosmology: observations; 

97: large-scale structure of Universe; }

98: }

99: \maketitle

100: 

101: 

102: 

103: \section{Introduction}

104: 

105: 

106: In contemporary cosmological models the structures observed today at

107: large scales in the distribution of galaxies in the universe are

108: explained by the dynamical evolution of purely self-gravitating matter

109: (dark matter) from an initial state with low amplitude density

110: fluctuations, the latter strongly constrained by satellite

111: observations of the fluctuations in the temperature of the cosmic

112: microwave background radiation.  The other main observational elements

113: for the understanding of the large scale structure of the universe is

114: represented by the studies of galaxy correlations. Any theoretical

115: model aiming to explain the formation of structures must be tested

116: against the data provided by galaxy surveys which give the important

117: bridge between the regimes characterized by large and small

118: fluctuations.

119: 

120: Models of the early universe (see e.g.  Padmanabhan, 1993 and

121: references therein) predict certain primordial fluctuations in the

122: matter density field, defining the correlations of the initial

123: conditions, i.e. at the time of decoupling between matter and

124: radiation.  In the regime where density fluctuations are small enough,

125: the correlation function of the present matter density field is simply

126: related to one describing the initial conditions. In fact, according

127: to the growth of gravitational instabilities in an expanding universe

128: in the linear regime perturbations are simply amplified (see e.g.,

129: Peebles, 1980 and references therein).  Thus today at some large

130: scales where the correlation function is still positive but with

131: $\xi(r)<1$ the imprint of primordial fluctuations should be

132: preserved. In the region of strong non-linear fluctuations an

133: analytical treatment to predict the behavior of the two-point

134: correlation function has not been developed yet and, in general, one

135: makes use of numerical simulations which provide a rich, but

136: phenomenological, description of structure in the non-linear

137: regime. It is in this regime, at small enough scales, where most

138: observations have been performed until now.

139: 

140: 

141: 

142: 

143: We focus here on the type of correlations predicted in the linear

144: regime by models of the early universe. While the characterization of

145: correlations is usually done in terms of the power-spectrum of the

146: density fluctuations a real space analysis turns out to be useful to

147: point out some relevant features from an observational point of view

148: (see, e.g., the discussion in Gabrielli et al., 2004).

149: 

150: 

151: Theoretical models of primordial matter density fields in the

152: expanding universe are characterized by a single well-defined length

153: scale, which is an imprint of the physics of the early universe at the

154: time of the decoupling between matter and radiation (see

155: e.g. Bond and Efstathiou 1984, and Padmanabhan 1993 for a general 

156: introduction to the problem). The redshift characterizing the

157: decoupling is directly related to the scale at which the change of

158: slope of the power-spectrum of matter density fluctuations $P(k)$

159: occurs, i.e. it defines the wavenumber $k_c$ at which there is the

160: turnover of the power-spectrum between a regime, at large enough $k$,

161: where it behaves as a negative power-law of the wave number $P(k) \sim

162: k^{m}$ with $-1<m\le-3$, and a regime at small $k$ where $P(k)\sim k$

163: as predicted by inflationary theories. Given the generality of this

164: prediction, it is clearly extremely important to look for this scale

165: in the data.

166: 

167: 

168: 

169: The exact location of this scale is related to several parameters,

170: including the cosmological ones which describe the geometry of the

171: universe at large scales (see e.g. Padmanabhan 1993, Tegmark et

172: al. 2004 and Spergel et al. 2007 for a recent determination). We

173: discuss in what follows that the scale $r_c$ corresponding to the

174: wave-number $k_c$, in a particular variant of Cold Dark Matter (CDM)

175: models --- the so-called $\Lambda$CDM vanilla model --- is predicted

176: to be $r_c

177: \approx 124$ Mpc/h\footnote{For

178: seek of clarity we have chosen the scale of distances normalized to

179: the adimensional Hubble parameter $h$, which is defined from the

180: Hubble's constant $H_0 = 100 h$ km/sec/Mpc.}. At this scale the real

181: space correlation function crosses zero, becoming negative at larger

182: scales. In particular the correlation function presents a positive

183: power-law behavior at scales $r \ll r_c$ and a negative power-law

184: behavior at scales $r \gg r_c$. Positive and negative correlations are

185: exactly balanced in way such that the integral over the whole space of

186: the correlation function is equal to zero. This is a global condition

187: on the system fluctuations which corresponds to the fact that the

188: distribution is super-homogeneous (or hyper-uniform),

189: i.e. characterized by a sort of stochastic order and by fluctuations

190: which are depressed with respect to, for example, a purely

191: uncorrelated distribution of matter (Gabrielli, Joyce and Sylos

192: Labini, 2002 --- see discussion below).

193: 

194: Note that the scale $r_c$ marks the maximum extension of

195: positively correlated structures: beyond $r_c$ the distribution must

196: be anti-correlated since the beginning, as the evolution time was not

197: sufficient for the positive correlations to be developed. Thus this

198: scale can be regarded as an upper limit to the maximum size of

199: structures (with large of weak correlations) in the present

200: universe. The possible discoveries of structures of larger size is

201: still a challenging task for observational cosmology.

202: 

203: 

204: A relevant problem for the measurements of small amplitude values of

205: the correlation function, i.e. when $\xi(r) <1$, is represented by the

206: characterization and the understanding of both the systematic biases

207: which may affect the estimators of $\xi(r)$ and the stochastic noise

208: which perturbs any real determination. A study of this problems can be

209: found, for example, in Kerscher (1999) and Kerscher et

210: al. (2000) where it is shown that in general the biases in several

211: estimators of the two-point correlation function are not

212: negligible. In particular when there are structures of large spatial

213: extension inside a given sample there can be non negligible biases

214: affecting the determination of two-point properties.  We focus here on

215: the systematic bias related to the effect of the so-called integral

216: constraint, which distorts any estimator of the correlation function

217: at large scales in any given sample. The integral-constraint

218: represents an overall condition on any estimator of the correlation

219: function which is due to the fact that the average density, estimated

220: in any given sample, is in general different from its ensemble average

221: value. 

222: 

223: Here we treat explicitly the case for the simplest estimator of the

224: two-point correlation function, {the so-called full-shell or minus

225: estimator and and we illustrate the situation for the other

226: estimatorsby studying artificial distributions. In particular we

227: devote most attention to the estimator introduced by Davis and Peebles

228: (1983), which is still very used in the literature, and to the

229: estimator introduced by Landy and Szalay (1993), which is the most

230: popular one. Kerscher et al. (2000) considered also other estimators,

231: like the Hewett estimator (Hewett, 1982) and the Hamilton estimator

232: (Hamilton, 1993) and have shown that the results obtained with he

233: Landy and Szalay estimator are almost indistinguishable from the

234: Hamilton estimator.

235: 

236: In this way we will be able to identify the problems related to the

237: identification of correlations above the mentioned scale $r_c$:

238: we will then propose several tests to be applied to the galaxy data,

239: in order to define the strategy to study the correlation function at

240: small amplitudes and larger distances in order to eventually

241: detect the length scale $r_c$.

242: 

243: 

244: Up to now studies of the correlation function $\xi(r)$ in galaxy

245: samples have been limited to small scales, i.e. $0.1 < r \ltapprox 30$

246: Mpc/h (i.e. Totsuji \& Kihara, 1969, Davis and Peebles, 1983,

247: Davis et al., 1988, Benoist et al., 1996 Park et al., 1994, Scranton

248: et al., 2002}, Zehavi et al., 2002, Zehavi et al., 2004,  Ross et

249: al., 2007) and only recently the volume covered by galaxy redshift

250: samples is approaching a size which is large enough to make a robust

251: estimation of the correlation function at scales of order 100 Mpc/h.

252: When the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) (York et al., 2000) will be

253: completed by filling up the gap between the two main angular regions

254: of observations, which are nowadays disjointed, the volume of the

255: survey and the statistics of the number of objects in the samples

256: would be large enough to test space correlations on scales of order

257: $r_c$ or more. An exception to this situation is represented by the

258: paper by Eisenstein, et al., (2005), who, by studying a sample of

259: Luminous Red Galaxies (LRG) of the SDSS, have estimated the

260: correlation function on scales of order 100 Mpc/h. These authors have

261: however focused their attention to another real space feature of

262: theoretical models: the so-called ``bump'' of the correlation function

263: which corresponds in real space to the so-called Doppler peaks in the

264: matter power-spectrum generated by the baryonic acoustic oscillations

265: in the early universe. As we discuss below this bump, corresponding to

266: a singular point of the correlation function (Gabrielli et al., 2004),

267: is localized at scales of order of 100 Mpc/h and characterized by a

268: small amplitude. This is a second important real-space scale of the

269: theoretical correlation function which is localized at a scale

270: slightly smaller than $r_c$. The detection of the baryonic bump is

271: thus related to the detection of the scale $r_c$ as any finite-size

272: effect perturbing the determination of the scale $r_c$ will,

273: inevitably, also affect the determination of the baryonic bump.  In

274: fact the baryonic bump can be seen as a small modification to the

275: overall shape of the correlation function at scales of order $r_c$, to

276: which we focus our attention here.

277: 

278: 

279: 

280: 

281: Note that, because of the very large scales, the acoustic signature

282: and the zero point scale remain in the linear regime even today and

283: they are weakly affected by non-linear effects (see Eisenstein et al.,

284: 2006). Thus real space and redshift space properties, at such large

285: scales, should not differ substantially.

286: 

287: 

288: In Section 2 we introduce the basic definitions of the statistical

289: quantities usually employed to characterize two-point properties in 

290: real and Fourier space. In Section 3 we discuss a simple functional

291: behavior of the power-spectrum of matter density fluctuations which

292: captures the main elements of a more realistic CDM power-spectrum. We

293: discuss the real-space properties as represented by the two-point

294: correlation function and we consider the problem of selection or

295: biasing in the simplest theoretical scheme of biasing a correlated

296: Gaussian field. In Section 4 we treat explicitly the case of a

297: $\Lambda$CDM matter density field characterizing in detail real space

298: properties.  The main estimators of the two-point correlation function

299: are discussed in Section 5 and in Section 6 we test these estimators

300: in artificial distributions.  Finally in Section 7 we draw our main

301: conclusions discussing the problems related to the estimations of

302: two-point correlations in real galaxy samples.

303: 

304: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

305: \section{Basic definitions} 

306: 

307: The microscopic number density function for any particle\footnote{We

308: make explicit the fact that we consider particle

309: distributions. However most of the definitions given hereafter can be

310: easily extended to the of a continuous matter density field. We refer

311: to Gabrielli et al.,  (2004) for more

312: details.}  distribution is given by

313: \begin{equation}

314: n(\ve x) = \sum_{i=1}^N \delta_D\left(\ve x- \ve x_i \right) \;,

315: \end{equation}

316: where $\ve x_i$ is the position of the $i$-th particle, 

317: $\delta_D$ is the Dirac delta function and the sum 

318: is over the $N$ particles of the system.

319: 

320: For a system in which the mean density $n_0$ is well defined and

321: positive, it is convenient to define the density contrast:

322: %

323: \begin{equation}

324: \delta(\ve x) = \frac{n(\ve x) - n_0}{n_0} \;.

325: \end{equation}

326: %

327: In order to characterize the two-point correlation properties of the

328: density fluctuations, one can then use the reduced two-point 

329: correlation function (hereafter simply  two-point 

330: correlation function):

331: %

332: \begin{equation} 

333: \tilde \xi(\ve r)= \langle \delta(\ve x+\ve r)\delta(\ve x)\rangle

334:  \;,

335: \end{equation}

336: %

337: where $\langle ... \rangle$ is the ensemble average, i.e., an average

338: over all possible realizations of the system. In a distribution of

339: discrete particles $\tilde{\xi}(\ve r)$ always has a Dirac delta

340: function singularity at $\ve r= \ve 0$, which it is convenient to

341: separate by defining $\xi(\ve r)$ for $\ve r \neq \ve 0$ (the

342: ``off-diagonal'' part --- see e.g. Peebles 1980) 

343: %

344: \begin{equation}

345: \tilde{\xi}(\ve r) = \frac{1}{n_0} \delta_D(\ve r) + \xi(\ve r) \ . 

346: \label{eq:xigeneral}

347: \end{equation}

348: 

349: 

350: 

351: The normalized variance of particle number (or mass) is an integrated

352: quantity defined as :

353: %

354: \begin{equation}

355: \label{eq:variance} 

356: \sigma^2(r) = \frac{\langle N^2(r)\rangle - \langle N(r)\rangle^2

357: }{\langle N(r) \rangle^2} 

358: \end{equation}

359: %

360: where $N(r)$ is the number of particles inside, for example, a sphere

361: of radius $r$.  Then $\sigma^2(r)$ can be used, in a manner similar to

362: $\tilde \xi(\ve r)$, to distinguish a regime of large fluctuations

363: ($\sigma^2 >1$) from a regime of small fluctuations where $\sigma^2

364: <1$. It is simple to find the explicit expression for the normalized

365: variance of particle number in terms of a double integral of $\tilde

366: \xi(\ve r)$ (see,  e.g., Peebles, 1980)

367: \be

368: \label{toy6}

369: \sigma^2(V)  = \frac{1}{V^2} \int_V\int_V \tilde \xi(|\vec{r_1}-\vec{r_2}|) d

370: ^3r_1 d^3r_2 \;.

371: \ee

372: 

373: 

374: 

375: 

376: If we consider distributions which are periodic in a cube of side $L$,

377: we can write the density contrast as a Fourier series:

378: %

379: \begin{equation}

380: \delta(\ve x) = \frac{1}{L^3}\sum_{\ve k} \exp(i\ve k\cdot \ve x)

381: \,\tilde\delta(\ve k)

382: \label{eq:fourierdelta}

383: \end{equation}

384: %

385: with $\ve k \in \left\{ (2\pi/L) \ve n \, |\, \ve n \in

386: Z^3\right\}$.  The coefficients 

387: $\tilde\delta(\ve k)$ are given by

388: %

389: \begin{equation}

390: \tilde\delta(\ve k) =\int_{L^3} \delta(\ve x)

391: \exp(-i\ve k\cdot \ve x) \ \D[3] \ve x \ . 

392: \end{equation}

393: %

394: The power-spectrum  of a particle distribution is then defined (see

395: e.g., Peebles, 1980) as

396: %

397: \begin{equation}

398: P(\ve k) = \frac{1}{L^3}\langle | \tilde\delta(\ve k) |^2 \rangle \;.

399: \label{eq:pktheo}

400: \end{equation}

401: %

402: In point distributions which are statistically homogeneous, the

403: power-spectrum and the non-diagonal part of the  two-point

404: correlation function $\xi (\ve r)$ are a Fourier conjugate pair:

405: \be

406: \label{toy2}

407: \xi(\ve r) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}\int d^3k P(\ve k) \exp(-i\ve k \ve r)

408: \ee

409: and 

410: \be

411: \label{pkinv}

412: P(\ve k)= \int d^3r  \xi(\ve r ) \exp(i\ve k \ve r ) \;.

413: \ee

414: Since for both $\xi(\ve {r})$ and $P(\ve {k}) $ we consider only the

415: dependence on the modulus of their arguments, we will denote them from

416: now on as $\xi(r)$ and $P(k) $ to mean that they are obtained by

417: performing an average over the directions of $\ve {r}$ and $\ve {k}$

418: respectively.

419: 

420: 

421: \section{A toy model and the problem of sampling}

422: 

423: In order to illustrate some key features of standard cosmological

424: models, let us consider a simple matter density field power-spectrum

425: of the type:

426: \be

427: \label{toy1}

428: P(k)=A k \exp(-k/k_c) \;.

429: \ee

430: This is characterized by an amplitude $A$ which fixes the small $k$ behavior

431: and by the turnover scale $k_c$ (see Fig.\ref{figps1}). 

432: \begin{figure}

433: \begin{center}

434: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{pk_exp.eps}

435: \end{center}

436: \caption{Power-spectrum given by Eq.\ref{toy1}.  

437: The linear behavior at small $k$ is reported as a reference. The

438: amplitude at small $k$ and the scale $k_c=0.014$ h/Mpc are chosen to

439: be the same of the $\Lambda$CDM models discussed in what follows. The

440: vertical lines indicates the wave-length $k_c$.}

441: \label{figps1}

442: \end{figure}

443: 

444: As already mentioned, the two-point correlation function is simply the

445: Fourier transformation (FT) of the power-spectrum: for Eq.\ref{toy1}

446: by using Eq.\ref{toy6} we find

447: \be

448: \label{toy3}

449: \xi(r)= \frac{A}{\pi^2} \frac{\left( \frac{3}{k_c^2} - r^2\right)}

450: {\left( \frac{1}{k_c^2}+r^2\right)^3}  \;.

451: \ee

452: This correlation function presents the zero point at the intrinsic 

453: characteristic scale 

454: \be

455: \label{toy4} 

456: r_{c} = \sqrt{3}/k_c \;.

457: \ee

458: At small scales $r\ll r_c$ Eq.\ref{toy3} gives $\xi(r) \approx$

459: const. $> 0 $; while at large scales $r\gg r_c$ the amplitude of $\xi(r)$ becomes

460: negative, going to zero for $r\rightarrow \infty$ with a power-law tail

461: of the type $\xi(r) \approx -r^{-4}$ (see Fig.\ref{figxi1}).

462: %

463: \begin{figure}

464: \begin{center}

465: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{xi_exp.eps}

466: \end{center}

467: \caption{Absolute value of the two-point correlation 

468: function given by Eq.\ref{toy3} divided by $\xi(0)$.  The (negative)

469: power-law $r^{-4}$ is shown as a reference. The vertical lines indicates the scale $r_c$.}

470: \label{figxi1}

471: \end{figure}

472: %

473: 

474: 

475: 

476: The region of positive correlation is thus followed by an (infinite)

477: region where there are anti-correlations. Positive and negative

478: correlations are exactly balanced so that 

479: \be

480: \label{toy4b}

481: \int_0^{\infty} \xi(r) r^2 dr = 0 \;.

482: \ee

483: This is equivalent to the condition that $P(k) \rightarrow 0$ for

484: $k\rightarrow 0$.  As discussed in Gabrielli, Joyce, Sylos Labini 

485: (2002) (see also Gabrielli et al., 2004) this corresponds to the

486: fact that the distribution is globally super-homogeneous, i.e. more

487: ordered than an uncorrelated distribution (i.e. a Poisson). This

488: subtle property can be clarified by computing the mass variance.

489: 

490: 

491: To evaluate the mass variance (Eq.\ref{toy6}) one may choose as the

492: volume of integration $V$ a sphere in real space of radius $R$.  In

493: this case, going into Fourier space, Eq.\ref{toy6} becomes (see

494: e.g., Peebles, 1980)

495: \be

496: \label{toy7}

497: \sigma^2(R)  = \frac{9}{2\pi^2} 

498: \int_0^{\infty} dk  k^2 P(k) 

499: \frac{\left( \sin(kR) + (kR)\cos(kR)\right)^2}{(kR)^6} \;. 

500: \ee

501: By considering the power-spectrum given by Eq.\ref{toy1} one finds

502: that $\sigma^2(R) \approx$ const. for $R <r_c$ and $\sigma^2(R) \sim

503: R^{-4}$ for $R > r_c$ (see Fig.\ref{figvar1}). This fast decay of the

504: mass variance is the distinctive feature of super-homogeneous mass

505: distributions and it is strictly related to the condition $P(0)=0$.

506: This is the fastest decay possible for {\it any} isotropic

507: translationally invariant distribution of points (see discussion in

508: Gabrielli, Joyce and Sylos Labini, 2002).

509: 

510: 

511: For a Poisson distribution one finds that the mass variance decays

512: slower than for a super-homogeneous distribution, i.e. $\sigma^2(R)

513: \sim R^{-3}$, and that the power-spectrum obeys to

514: \be

515: \lim_{k\rightarrow 0} P(k)= \mbox{const.} >0 \;. 

516: \ee

517: A similar situation occurs in the case the distribution has positive

518: correlations at small scales and no correlations at large scales --- a

519: substantially Poisson distribution.  On the other hand, in the

520: presence of long-range positive correlations, as for example a power

521: law correlation function $\xi(r) \sim r^{-\gamma}$, with $0<\gamma<3$,

522: the mass variance decays slower than the Poisson case,

523: i.e. $\sigma^2(R)

524: \sim R^{(\gamma-3)}$, and the power-spectrum satisfies the condition 

525: \be

526: \lim_{k\rightarrow 0} P(k)= \infty  \;.

527: \ee

528: %

529: \begin{figure}

530: \begin{center}

531: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{var_exp.eps}

532: \end{center}

533: \caption{Variance in real space spheres 

534: for Eq.\ref{toy1}. It is reported a line with slope $r^{-4}$ as

535: reference. The vertical lines indicates the scale $r_c$. }

536: \label{figvar1}

537: \end{figure}

538: 

539: 

540: 

541: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5

542: \subsection{Sampling a density field} 

543: \label{sec_sampling}

544: 

545: What we have just described is a simple toy model power-spectrum which

546: captures some essential features of the theoretical correlation

547: properties of the matter density field. In the discussion of real

548: galaxy samples, one has to consider that luminous objects trace the

549: underlying dark matter density field and that they can be regarded as

550: a sampling of it: for example they can be supposed to lie in the

551: highest peaks of the fluctuations field, because only there

552: gravitational clustering has been efficient enough to form

553: self-gravitating objects.  The problem of sampling is thus a central

554: one in studies of cosmological density fields and, particularly, of

555: galaxy structures. More precisely by sampling we mean the operation

556: performed when one extracts, from a given distribution, a subsample of

557: it by using a selection criteria based on a certain parameter

558: characterizing the distribution. For example, one can make such type

559: of selection by extracting from the whole population of galaxies of

560: all luminosity, only those objects whose luminosity is brighter than a

561: given threshold; alternatively a similar selection can be done by

562: considering galaxy color. In the case the fluctuation field is a

563: stochastic variable of position (for example a Gaussian fluctuation

564: field) one may sample the distribution by selecting only fluctuations

565: larger than a given threshold in the density fluctuation field.

566: 

567: 

568: In general the problem consists in the understanding of the relations

569: between the statistical properties of the sampled, or biased,

570: distribution with those of the original one. A particular interest

571: lies in the relation between the two-point correlation function of the

572: sampled field with the original $\xi(r)$. This is so because, for

573: instance, in the studies of galaxy samples, one naturally has to

574: perform a sampling when measuring the two-point correlation function

575: of galaxies of a certain luminosity. In the comparison of observations

576: with theoretical models the sampling procedure is strictly related to

577: the physics of the system. In fact, in the analysis of cosmological

578: N-body simulations one also needs to extract subsamples of points

579: which, according to some models, would represent galaxies instead of

580: dark matter particles. In these contexts, the simplest theoretical

581: model describing biasing (introduced by Kaiser, 1984) was developed

582: for a continuous Gaussian field, and thus it does not represent an

583: useful analytical treatment of the problem of strong clustering, which

584: is instead the relevant one for galaxy structures.

585: 

586: 

587: However it is very difficult to treat the problem of sampling for a

588: generic case unless one may specify in detail the correlation

589: properties of the original distribution and the specific procedure

590: used to make the sampling.  This is a task which is out of current

591: knowledge even for the case of artificial distributions generated by

592: gravitational N-body simulations where one can make a phenomenological

593: approach.  For this reason, we limit the discussion to the threshold

594: sampling of the Gaussian random fields, because this allows us to

595: point out some key-features which characterize the case in which the

596: underlying density field has super-homogeneous type correlations and

597: the sampling is local (i.e.  related to local features of the

598: distribution).  This cannot be regarded as a realistic example for the

599: reasons discussed above, but one may identify several key problems

600: which should be addressed in detail by means of studies of artificial

601: distributions generated, for example, by N-body simulations for the

602: understanding of a more realistic case.

603: 

604: 

605: 

606: \subsection{Sampling a Gaussian random field} 

607: \label{sec_bias}

608: 

609: 

610: Let us now discuss the simplest biasing scheme of a continuous and

611: correlated Gaussian field (hereafter we follow Durrer et al., 2003).

612: Suppose to have a Gaussian random field with two-point correlation

613: $\xi(r)$ and such that the variance is $\langle \mu^2 \rangle =

614: \sigma^2$ (where $\mu$ is the mean density normalized 

615: fluctuation). One can identify fluctuations of the field such that

616: they are larger than $\nu$ times the variance. This selection defines

617: a biased field with the weight equal to zero if the fluctuations of

618: the original field are smaller than $\tilde \mu\equiv \nu\sigma$ and equal to

619: one if they are equal or larger than $\tilde \mu$. When one changes the

620: threshold $\nu$ one selects different regions of the underlying

621: Gaussian random field, corresponding to fluctuations of differing

622: amplitudes. The two-point correlation function of the selected

623: objects is then that of the peaks $ \xi_{\tilde \mu}(r)$.

624: 

625: We define the two-point correlation function of the normalized field

626: \be

627: \hat \xi(r) = \frac{\xi(r)}{\xi(0)} \,, 

628: \ee 

629: where $\xi(0)$ is the variance of the field so that $\hat \xi(r) \le 1

630: \;\; \forall r$. It is possible to compute the following first-order

631: approximation (Durrer et al., 2003)

632: \be

633: \xi_{\tilde \mu} (r)\approx 

634: \sqrt{\frac{1+\hat \xi(r)}{1-\hat \xi(r)}}\exp\left(\nu^2

635: \frac{\hat \xi(r)}{1+\hat\xi(r)}\right)-1

636: \label{approx-xinu} \;, 

637: \ee

638: which reduces to $\xi_{\tilde \mu} (r) \simeq \nu^2 \hat \xi(r)$ when $\nu^2

639: \hat |\xi(r)| \ll 1$.   Thus, if present in the underlying distribution,

640:  the characteristic length scale of the zero point $r_{c}$ is not

641:  changed under this selection procedure, i.e.

642: \be

643: \label{zpk}

644: \xi_{\tilde \mu} (r_{c})  = \hat \xi(r_{c})=0  \;\; \forall \tilde \mu \;.

645: \ee

646: On the other hand for $\xi_{\tilde \mu} (r) >1$ the amplification is non-linear

647: as a function of scale: this means that the functional behavior of

648: $\xi_{\tilde \mu}(r)$ is different from the one of $\hat \xi(r)$ in the regime

649: where $\xi_{\tilde \mu} (r) >1$.  Fig.\ref{xi.exp.bias} shows the situation when

650: one takes the correlation function of the toy model discussed in the

651: previous section (see Eq.\ref{toy3}) as the $\xi(r)$ of the underlying

652: Gaussian field.

653: 

654: \begin{figure}

655: \begin{center}

656: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{xi_exp_bias.eps}

657: \end{center}

658: \caption{Absolute value of the 

659: correlation function of the toy model described by Eq.\ref{toy1} 

660: (solid line) and of the ones corresponding to different values of the

661: threshold parameter $\nu$ calculated by applying

662: Eq.\ref{approx-xinu}. The amplification is non-linear at small scales,

663: where $\xi_{\tilde \mu}(r)  >1$, linear at large scales, and the

664: zero-crossing scale is invariant under biasing.}

665: \label{xi.exp.bias}

666: \end{figure}

667: Given the asymmetrical amplification at small and at large scales the

668: condition of super-homogeneity is broken, i.e.

669: \be

670: \int_0^{\infty} \xi_{\tilde \mu}(r) r^2 dr >0 \;, 

671: \ee

672: and thus the power-spectrum does not show anymore the tail $P(k)

673: \sim k$ (see Fig.\ref{pk.exp.bias}).

674: \begin{figure}

675: \begin{center}

676: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{pk_exp_bias.eps}

677: \end{center}

678: \caption{ Power-spectrum of the toy model described by Eq.\ref{toy1} 

679: (solid line) and of the ones corresponding to different values of the

680: threshold parameter $\nu$ calculated by applying Eq.\ref{approx-xinu}

681: and then by making the Fourier Transformation. Because of the

682: asymmetrical amplification of the correlation function at small and at

683: large scale the condition of super-homogeneity is broken,  i.e. the

684: power-spectrum does not show anymore the tail $P(k) \sim k$. }

685: \label{pk.exp.bias}

686: \end{figure}

687: Correspondingly the mass variance shows the typical features of a

688: substantially Poisson system beyond the scale $r_c$, i.e. it decays as

689: $r^{-3}$.

690: 

691: 

692: Summarizing the behaviors for the toy model described by Eq.\ref{toy1} 

693: we obtain that:

694: \begin{itemize} 

695: \item  (i)

696: the correlation function of the biased field still presents some key

697: features of the original correlation function, namely the same

698: characteristic scale $r_c$ and the same negative tail $\xi(r) \sim

699: -r^{-4}$ at large scales. 

700: \item (ii) The power-spectrum is  distorted in a non-linear way at all scales by

701: biasing; in particular at large scales this is characterized by the

702: typical behavior of a Poisson distribution.  The same situation

703: occurs for the mass variance.

704: \end{itemize} 

705:  

706: We expect these to be general features of the biased fields when the

707: underlying density field has super-homogeneous type correlations

708: (Durrer et al. 2003, Gabrielli, et al., 2004). The cancellation of the

709: super-homogeneous features is due to the fact that the operation of

710: selection introduces a noise, due to the sampling itself, which

711: dominates the intrinsic fluctuations of the system.

712: 

713: 

714: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

715: \section{Real space correlations in CDM-type models}

716: 

717: In this section we consider the case of a distribution with

718: correlation properties of CDM type. In particular we study the case of

719: the so-called $\Lambda$CDM ``vanilla'' model. The functional behavior

720: and the parameters defining this model are discussed in Tegmark et

721: al. (2004) and Spergel et al., (2007).  Without entering into the

722: details of the model here we note that while the different

723: cosmological parameters may change the behavior of the power-spectrum

724: in a non-linear way, it is generally assumed that the bias factor $b$

725: (we now indicate by $b$ what in the previous section we have called

726: $\nu$ in order to make clear that the latter symbol refers only to the

727: case of a correlated Gaussian field) corresponds to an overall rescale

728: of its amplitude:

729: \be

730: \label{psbias} 

731: P(k)=b^2 P_{dm} (k)

732: \ee

733: where $P_{dm} (k)$ represents the power-spectrum of the underlying

734: dark matter field and $P(k)$ is the ``biased'' power-spectrum,

735: corresponding to the power-spectrum of a field selected by following a certain

736: prescription. As discussed above Eq.\ref{psbias} does not have any

737: theoretical justification in the framework of Gaussian fields neither

738: at small $k$ nor at large $k$. Rather in numerical simulations it has

739: been phenomenologically found that this is a good working hypothesis

740: in the regime of strong clustering (Springel et al., 2005).

741: 

742: 

743: In order to compute the real space properties it is useful to find an

744: analytical approximation to the theoretical power-spectrum which can

745: be found numerically (we use hereafter the data from Tegmark et al.,

746: 2004). We have found that the following expression provides us with a

747: good fitting formula 

748: \be

749: \label{k1} 

750: P(k)=\frac{A k}{(1+B(k/k_1)^{\nu_1}+(k/k_2)^{\nu_2})} 

751: \ee

752: where $A =5 \cdot 10^6$, $B=10^3, k_1=0.35$ h/Mpc, $ \nu_1=2.3$,

753: $k_2=0.05$ h/Mpc, $\nu_2=3.5$. This power-spectrum is characterized by

754: a turnover scale $k_c\approx 0.014$ h/Mpc which separates the large

755: scales behavior $P(k) \sim k$ from the small scales one $P(k) \sim

756: k^{-2}$. 

757: 

758: %

759: \begin{figure}

760: \begin{center}

761: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{ps_vanilla.eps}

762: \end{center}

763: \caption{Power-spectrum for the  $\Lambda$CDM  model (Eq.\ref{k1}). The two

764: power-laws $P(k) \sim k$ and $P(k) \sim k^{-2}$ are shown as a

765: reference.}

766: \label{figps}

767: \end{figure}

768: %

769: 

770: 

771: In this case it is not possible to calculate analytically the real

772: space correlation function, but it can be obtained from the numerical

773: computation of the Fourier transform of the power-spectrum by using

774: Eq.\ref{toy2}.  The result is shown in Fig.\ref{figxi}. As for the

775: case of the toy model discussed in the previous section, this

776: correlation function is characterized by a positive region at small

777: scales, where in this case it decays roughly as $r^{-1.5}$, and by a

778: large scale negative tail $\xi(r) \sim -r^{-4}$. The length scale

779: which separates these two regimes is the zero-point $r_c$ which

780: represents the unique characteristic length scale of this model: for

781: the parameters chosen in Eq.\ref{k1} we find $r_c=124$Mpc/h.

782: 

783: A reasonable fit to the correlation function obtained by making the FT

784: is (see Fig.\ref{figxi4})

785: \be

786: \label{xi2}

787: \xi(r)= \frac{A}{\pi^2} \frac{\left( \frac{3}{k_c^2} - r^2\right)}

788: {\left( \frac{1}{k_c^2}+r^2\right)^3} \cdot

789: \left( \frac{r^\beta+\frac{3^{(\beta-2)/2}}{k_c^\beta} } {r^\beta} \right)  \;

790: \ee

791: where $A=5 \cdot 10^6$ and $k_c=0.014$h/Mpc and $\beta=1.4$. 

792: 

793: 

794: \begin{figure}

795: \begin{center}

796: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{xi_vanilla.eps}

797: \end{center}

798: \caption{Absolute value 

799: of the two-point correlation function for the $\Lambda$CDM  model

800: (Eq.\ref{k1}). The two power-laws $r^{-1.5}$ and $r^{-4}$ are shown as

801: a reference.}

802: \label{figxi}

803: \end{figure}

804: %

805: \begin{figure}

806: \begin{center}

807: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{xi_vanilla4.eps}

808: \end{center}

809: \caption{Correlation function for the $\Lambda$CDM model (Eq.\ref{k1}) and 

810: the approximation given by Eq.\ref{xi2}}

811: \label{figxi4}

812: \end{figure}

813: %

814: 

815: It is interesting to note that if we compute the power-spectrum 

816: calculating the FT of the correlation function by using the analytical

817: approximation given by Eq.\ref{xi2}, although the fit is very good

818: over the all range of scales considered, we do not get the correct

819: behavior at small wave-modes, i.e. that $P(k) \sim k$ for $k < k_c$:

820: instead we get $P(k)\sim$ const. for $k<k_c$ (see Fig.\ref{figps2}).

821: \begin{figure}

822: \begin{center}

823: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{psfxi.eps}

824: \end{center}

825: \caption{Power-spectrum for the  $\Lambda$CDM model and the approximation 

826: obtained from Eq.\ref{pkinv}

827: by using Eq.\ref{xi2}.}

828: \label{figps2}

829: \end{figure}

830: This is because the small approximation introduced 

831: in Eq.\ref{xi2} is such that the integral

832: \be

833: \int_0^{\infty} \xi(r) r^2 dr > 0

834: \ee

835: and thus there is no the perfect cancellation between the positive and

836: negative parts, i.e. the typical feature of super-homogeneous

837: distributions, characterized by an extremely fine-tuning of the

838: correlations. This simple example shows how sensible is the condition

839: of super-homogeneity and gives a feeling of the kind of problems which

840: can arise in the framework of sampling. In general, the amplification

841: of the correlation function due to selection (or bias) is not linear

842: and gives rise to a behavior like one just described, i.e. to the

843: radical change of the super-homogeneous properties. That is, the

844: distribution becomes substantially Poisson on scales larger than $r_c$

845: because of the noise introduced by sampling, although the negative

846: $-r^{-4}$ tail in the correlation function is still present.

847: 

848: 

849: \subsection{Main features of the  real space two-point correlation function}

850: 

851: 

852: As discussed above, the regime of large fluctuations \mbox{$\xi(r)>1$}  is not

853: predictable by a theoretical approach, and thus both the amplitude and

854: the shape of the correlation function have to be constrained by

855: observations.  Any specific model of matter density field 

856: however predicts the behavior of the correlation function in the

857: regime $|\xi(r)|<1$. We discuss, as an interesting example, the case

858: of the  $\Lambda$CDM model mentioned above.

859: 

860: 

861: In general, it is possible to characterize the approach of the

862: correlation function to the zero point, in a range of scales such that

863: $0<\xi(r) $. For the case of the  $\Lambda$CDM model we get that in this

864: range of scales a good and useful approximation is given by

865: %

866: \be

867: \label{xiapprox}

868: \xi(r)\approx A \left(\frac{\lambda}{r}\right)^\gamma \exp(-r/\lambda) 

869: \ee

870: where $A=3 \cdot 10^{-1}$,  $\lambda=25$Mpc/h and $\gamma=1$, while $A=3

871: (0.03)$ when the amplitude of Eq.\ref{k1} is multiplied by a factor 10

872: (1/10).  The result is shown in Fig.\ref{figxi3}. The exponential

873: cut-off, independent on bias, is related to the fact that

874: $\xi(r)$ crosses zero at $r_c=124$ Mpc/h.

875: \begin{figure}

876: \begin{center}

877: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{xi_vanilla3.eps}

878: \end{center}

879: \caption{Plot of the function $\xi(r) \times r$ 

880: for the  $\Lambda$CDM model (Eq.\ref{k1}) and, for comparison for the case

881: in which the amplitude of Eq.\ref{k1} as been multiplied by a factor

882: 10 and a factor 1/10. The dashed lines correspond to the thresholds 

883: such that $\xi(r)=0.01,0.001$.}

884: \label{figxi3}

885: \end{figure}

886: Thus while the direct identification of the zero-point scale is

887: clearly very difficult in a finite sample (see discussion below), for

888: the effect of stochastic and systematic noise in the estimators, the

889: approach to the zero point, in this model, is very well defined. In

890: particular, the correlation function presents an exponential decay in

891: the range of scales [10,100] Mpc/h. Depending on the value of the

892: amplitude of $\xi(r)$, this range of scales is extended enough in the

893: region where $\xi(r) > a$ with $a>10^{-2}$, thus a region where maybe

894: observations will be provide with statistically robust samples, for a

895: bias factor of order one for the parameters considered here.

896: 

897: 

898: \subsection{The Baryonic Bump} 

899: 

900: As mentioned in the introduction, according to the physics of the

901: early universe sound waves propagating in the first $\sim$ 400,000

902: years after the Big Bang produce an additional characteristic length

903: scale in the matter and radiation density fields. With galaxy surveys

904: it would be possible to detect this acoustic feature as a bump in the

905: correlation function at $\sim$ 100 Mpc/h. The amplitude of this bump

906: is controlled by the baryon density, the matter density and the Hubble

907: constant (see Eisenstein et al., 2005 for a detailed discussion). It

908: is interesting to note that this bump corresponds to a non-analytical

909: point of the correlation function which gives rise to a co-sinusoidal

910: modulation for the power-spectrum (see Gabrielli et al., 2004).

911: 

912: 

913: 

914: In Fig.\ref{figbb} we show  a typical example. (In this the case

915: the matter density is $\Omega_m=0.12 h^{-2}$ and the baryon density is

916: $\Omega_b=0.024 h^{-2}$.)

917: \begin{figure}

918: \begin{center}

919: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{xi_vanilla+bp.eps} 

920: \end{center}

921: \caption{Absolute value 

922: of the two-point correlation function for the $\Lambda$CDM model

923: (Eq.\ref{k1}) and for the same model with the baryonic bump (BB) at $\sim $ 100 Mpc/h. }

924: \label{figbb}

925: \end{figure}

926: As one may notice from this  figure the bump appears as a very

927: small amplitude feature of the two-point correlation function

928: localized at about $\sim 100$ Mpc/h, i.e. when the correlation

929: function shows the sharp break corresponding to the approaching to the

930: zero point, which fixes the global shape of the correlation function

931: at those scales.  As we discuss below, one of the main problems in the

932: estimation of the correlation function at such scales in a given

933: finite sample is to establish whether the break of the power-law

934: behavior, that is the overall shape corresponding to the presence of

935: the zero-point scale, is biased or not by a finite size effect. Once

936: one can be sure enough that the shape is not affected by systematic

937: effects, then one may try to characterize the presence of the baryonic

938: feature.

939: 

940: 

941: 

942: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5

943: 

944: \section{Estimation of the correlation function}

945: 

946: Different estimators of the two-point correlation function have been

947: introduced and discussed in the literature. The difference between

948: them lies in their respective method of edge corrections (Kerscher,

949: Szapudi and Szalay, 2000) which gives rise to different variance and

950: systematic effects or biases. We discuss three of them (i) the

951: full-shell (FS) estimator (Gabrielli et al., 2004), (ii) the Landy and

952: Szalay (LS) estimator (Landy and Szalay, 1993) and (iii) the Davis and

953: Peebles (DP) estimator (Davis and Peebles, 1983).  The first one has the

954: advantage that all biases can be carefully understood and possibly

955: taken under control.  The second is very popular because it has the

956: minimal variance for the case of a Poisson distribution, although it

957: has not been demonstrated that the same minimal variance applies in

958: case of correlated distributions (see e.g. Kerscher, Szapudi and

959: Szalay, 2000).  However it has the disadvantage that the biases are

960: very poorly understood in the general case as in the case of the DP

961: estimator. Although there have been several studies of these

962: estimators (see e.g. Kerscher, 1999 and Kerscher, Szapudi and Szalay, 

963: 2000) systematic tests for biases are still not completely developed.

964: Here we give an introduction to the problem and analyze the case of

965: the FS estimator while in the next section we try to quantify the

966: problem by studying numerical simulations.

967: 

968: Note that there are, at least, other three estimators known in

969: the literature, the natural estimator, the Hewett estimator and the

970: Hamilton estimator which are generally biased as the LS and DP

971: estimators. In a detailed comparison between these estimators

972: performed by Kerscher et al. (2000) it is reported that the

973: performance of the LS estimator is almost indistinguishable from the

974: Hamilton estimator. In addition Kerscher et al. (2000), after a

975: careful study, have stressed that LS estimator is the recommended

976: one. For this reason we decide to focus our studies on the LS while we

977: have chosen the DP for the reason that it is commonly used in the

978: literature.

979: 

980: 

981: \subsection{Bias in the estimators} 

982: 

983: Let us call $\overline {X(V)}$ the statistical estimator of an average

984: quantity $\langle X \rangle $ in a volume $V$ (where $\langle X \rangle

985: $ denotes the ensemble average and $\overline {X}$ the sample

986: average). In order to be a valid estimator $\overline {X(V)}$ must

987: satisfy (Gabrielli, et al., 2004)

988: \be

989: \label{bias1}

990: \lim_{V\rightarrow \infty} \overline{X(V)}  = \langle X \rangle \;. 

991: \ee

992: A stronger condition is that the ensemble average of the estimator, in

993: a finite volume $V$, is equal to the ensemble average $\langle X

994: \rangle$:

995: \be

996: \label{bias2} 

997: \langle \overline {X(V)} \rangle = \langle X \rangle \;. 

998: \ee

999: An estimator is called unbiased if this condition is satisfied,

1000: otherwise there is a systematic bias in the finite volume relative to

1001: the ensemble average.  Any estimator $\overline{ \xi(r)}$ of the

1002: correlation function $\xi(r)$, is generally biased. This is because of

1003: the fact that the estimation of the sample mean density is biased when

1004: correlations extend over the sample size and beyond. In fact the most

1005: common estimator of the average density is

1006: \be

1007: \label{sd} 

1008: \overline n = \frac{N}{V} \;, 

1009: \ee

1010: where $N$ is the number of points in a sample of volume $V$.

1011: It is simple to show that (see, e.g., Gabrielli et al., 2004)

1012: \be

1013: \label{biasave}

1014: \langle \overline n \rangle = \langle n \rangle \left( 1 +

1015: \frac{1}{V} \int_V d^3 r \xi(r) \right) \;. 

1016: \ee

1017: Therefore only in case when $\xi(r) =0$ (i.e. for a Poisson

1018: distribution) Eq.\ref{sd} is an unbiased estimator of the ensemble

1019: average density.

1020: 

1021: In Kerscher (1999) one may find a detailed treatment of estimators of

1022: the two-point correlation function: it has been shown that in a given

1023: sample, on large scales, the biases in the above mentioned estimators

1024: are not negligible especially when there are structures of large

1025: spatial extension inside a given sample. In a $\Lambda$CDM models

1026: there are structures of large amplitude at small scales, i.e. up to

1027: $\sim 10$ Mpc/h, and structures of large spatial extension and low

1028: amplitude up to $\sim$ 120 Mpc/h. Beyond such a scale there will be no

1029: structures anymore as the distribution becomes anti-correlated. Thus it

1030: is important to understand the problem of biases in relation to real

1031: sample estimations, which may cover a distance scale of only several

1032: hundreds Mpc/h, i.e. up to about five times the regime of positive

1033: correlations.

1034: 

1035: An analytical treatment of the problem, for the general case, is

1036: unfeasible and thus the most direct way to study biases in the

1037: estimators is by performing tests on artificial distributions, which

1038: we discuss in the next section. In what follows we present several

1039: examples which show the importance of the systematic effect related to

1040: Eq.\ref{biasave}, i.e. the fact that the estimators do not satisfy, in

1041: general, Eq.\ref{bias2} but only Eq.\ref{bias1}.

1042: 

1043: 

1044: 

1045: 

1046: \subsection{The full shell estimator}

1047: 

1048: The correlation function can be written as 

1049: \be

1050: \xi(r) \equiv \frac{\langle n(r)n(0)\rangle} {n_0^2} -1 \equiv \frac{\cd}{n_0}-1 \;, 

1051: \ee

1052: where the conditional density $\cd = \langle n(r)n(0)\rangle/n_0$ gives the average number of

1053: points in a shell of radius $r$ and thickness $dr$ from an occupied

1054: point of the distribution. Thus FS estimator (Gabrielli et al., 2004)

1055: can be simply written as

1056: \be

1057: \label{xifs1}

1058: \overline{ \xi(r)}  = \frac{\overline{ (n(r))_p}}{\overline n} -1 \,, 

1059: \ee

1060: where $\overline n$ is the estimated number density in the sample and

1061: $\overline{ (n(r))_p}$ is the estimator of the conditional

1062: density. The latter can be written as

1063: \be

1064: \label{cond}

1065: \overline{ (n(r))_p}= 

1066: \frac{1}{N_c(r)} \sum_{i=1}^{N_c(r)} \frac{\Delta N_i (r, \Delta r) }{\Delta V} \;, 

1067: \ee

1068: where $\Delta N_i(r, \Delta r)$ is the number of points in the shell of radius $r$,

1069: thickness $\Delta r$ and volume $\Delta V = 4 \pi r^2 \Delta r$

1070: centered on the $i^{th}$ point of the distribution. Note that the

1071: number of points $N_c(r)$ contributing to the average in Eq.\ref{cond}

1072: is scale dependent, as there are considered only those points such that

1073: when chosen as a center of the sphere of radius $r$, this is fully

1074: included in the sample volume (see Gabrielli, et al., 2004, Vasilyev,

1075: Baryshev, Sylos Labini 2006, for more details). 

1076: 

1077: The sample density can be estimated in various ways. Suppose that the

1078: sample geometry is simply a sphere of radius $R_s$. The most

1079: convenient in this context is to choose

1080: \be

1081: \label{ne1}

1082: \overline n= \frac{3}{4\pi R_s^3} \int_0^{R_s}  \overline{ (n(r))_p} 4\pi r^2 dr \;,

1083: \ee

1084: as in this case the following integral constraint is satisfied 

1085: \be

1086: \label{xifs}

1087: \int_0^{R_s} \overline{ \xi(r)} r^2 dr = 0 \;.

1088: \ee

1089: This condition is {\it satisfied independently on the functional shape

1090: of the underlying correlation function $\xi(r)$.}

1091: 

1092: The scale $R_s$, for a sample of arbitrary geometry, is given by the

1093: radius of the maximum sphere fully contained in the sample volume for

1094: the reasons explained above. Other choices for the estimation of the

1095: sample density are possible and give rise to a condition of the type

1096: Eq.\ref{xifs}, even if not precisely the same.  This condition

1097: introduces a systematic distortion in the measured shape of $

1098: \overline{ \xi(r)}$ and the advantage in choosing Eq.\ref{ne1} lies in

1099: the fact that one has a certain control on the scale $r_*$ defined to

1100: be the scale beyond which the distortion becomes important. The scale

1101: $r_*$ must be evaluated given a specific model for $\xi(r)$, but it is

1102: in general a fraction of $R_s$.

1103: 

1104: Thus the integral constraint for the FS estimator, Eq.\ref{xifs}, does

1105: not simply introduce an offset, but a change in the functional

1106: behavior of the estimated correlation function. Other choices

1107: introduce distortions at a scale which is difficult to be evaluated

1108: especially in the case the sample does not have a simple spherical

1109: geometry. In general any estimator is distorted at some scales by a

1110: condition of the type given by Eq.\ref{xifs}, which basically reflects

1111: our ignorance on the value of the ensemble average density.

1112:  

1113:  In order to study the effect of the integral

1114: constraint for the FS estimator, let us rewrite the estimation of the

1115: correlation in terms of the theoretical correlation function

1116: \be

1117: \label{estth}

1118:  \overline{ \xi(r)} = \frac{1+\xi(r)}{1+\frac{3}{R_s^3}\int_0^{R_s}

1119:  \xi(r) r^2 dr} -1 \;. 

1120: \ee

1121: By writing Eq.\ref{estth} we assume that the stochastic noise is

1122: negligible, which of course is not a good approximation at any

1123: scale. However in this way we may be able to understand the effect of

1124: the integral constraint for the FS estimator. From Eq.\ref{estth} it

1125: is clear that this estimator is biased, as it does not satisfy

1126: Eq.\ref{bias2} but only Eq.\ref{bias1}. 

1127: 

1128: 

1129: Let us consider two useful examples for the theoretical correlation

1130: function (i) $\xi(r) \sim r^{-\gamma}$ and in (ii) $\Lambda$CDM model

1131: of Eq.\ref{xi2}. The distortion due to the integral constraint in the

1132: FS estimator in the case the theoretical correlation function has a

1133: power-law behavior with exponent $\gamma=2$ is illustrated in

1134: Fig.\ref{figicpl2}. One may see that at $r \approx R_s/3$ the

1135: estimation is already distorted and when $r\approx R_s/2$ the function 

1136: $\overline{ \xi(r)} $ crosses zero and becomes negative in order to

1137: satisfy Eq.\ref{xifs}.

1138: \begin{figure}

1139: \begin{center}

1140: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{ic.pl2.eps} 

1141: \end{center}

1142: \caption{Absolute value of the estimation of the correlation

1143:  function $\xi(r)\sim r^{-\gamma}$, with $\gamma=2$, by the FS

1144:  estimator. The tick solid line represents the theoretical model. 

1145: The condition given by the integral constraint described

1146:  by Eq.\ref{estth} is taken into account: beyond the scale at which

1147:  there is the break of the power-law behavior the correlation function

1148:  crosses zero and becomes negative.}

1149: \label{figicpl2}

1150: \end{figure}

1151: 

1152: 

1153: 

1154: The case of the $\Lambda$CDM model is shown in Fig.\ref{figicvanilla}.

1155: The situation is similar to the power-law case as long as one

1156: considers $R_s$ smaller than the zero point scale $r_c$.  For larger

1157: $R_s$ one may see that zero point is not changed anymore, while the

1158: negative tail continues to be amplified in a non-linear way even at

1159: scales $r<R_s$. For example with a sample of size $R_s\approx 600$

1160: Mpc/h the distortion of the power-law tail does not allow to detect

1161: the $\xi(r)

1162: \sim - r^{-4}$ behavior which is marginally visible only when $R_s >

1163: 1000$ Mpc/h.

1164: \begin{figure}

1165: \begin{center}

1166: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{ic.vanilla.eps} 

1167: \end{center}

1168: \caption{Absolute value of the estimation of the correlation function  of the  $\Lambda$CDM  model 

1169: with the integral constraint described by Eq.\ref{estth}. The tick

1170: solid line represents the theoretical model.}

1171: \label{figicvanilla}

1172: \end{figure}

1173: 

1174: 

1175: 

1176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5

1177: 

1178: \subsection{Pairwise estimators}

1179: 

1180: To determine a pairwise estimator we define the following

1181: quantities. The number of data-data pairs

1182: \be

1183: \label{pw1}

1184: DD(r) = \sum_{i}^{N_d} dd_i(r,\Delta r) \;,

1185: \ee

1186: the number of data-random pairs

1187: \be

1188: \label{pw2}

1189: DR(r) = \sum_{i}^{N_d} dr_i(r,\Delta r) \;,

1190: \ee

1191: the number of random-random pairs

1192: \be

1193: \label{pw3}

1194: RR(r) = \sum_{i}^{N_r} rr_i(r,\Delta r) \;.

1195: \ee

1196: where $N_d$ is the number of data points, $N_r$ is the number of

1197: random points, which are Poisson distributed, $dd_i(r,\Delta r)$,

1198: $dr_i(r,\Delta r)$ and $rr_i(r,\Delta r)$ are respectively the numbers

1199: of data-data, data-random and random-random pairs in the shell of

1200: radius $r$ and thickness $\Delta r$ around the $i^{th}$ center.

1201: 

1202: 

1203: The DP estimator is defined as (Davis and Peebles, 1983) 

1204: \footnote{For seek of clarity hereafter we denote the {\it estimator} 

1205: as $\xi_{XX}$ where XX can be FS for the full-shell case, 

1206: DP for the Davis and Peebles case and LS for the Landy and Szalay case.

1207: We omit the $\overline{X}$ symbol which was previously 

1208: introduce to mean that this is an estimator of the 

1209: statistical quantity X.} 

1210: \be

1211: \label{dp}

1212: \xi_{DP} (r) = \frac{N_r}{N_d-1} \frac{DD(r)}{DR(r)} -1 \;.

1213: \ee

1214: 

1215: The LS estimator is defined as (Landy and Szalay, 1993) 

1216: \be

1217: \label{ls}

1218: \xi_{LS} (r) = \frac{N_r(N_r-1)}{N_d(N_d-1)} \frac{DD(r)}{RR(r)} - 

1219: 2\frac{N_r-1}{N_d} \frac{DR(r)}{RR(r)} +1  \;. 

1220: \ee

1221: 

1222: 

1223: Finally the Hamilton estimator is defined as (Hamilton, 1993)

1224: \be

1225: \label{hamilton}

1226: \xi_{H} (r) = \frac{N_rN_d}{(N_r-1)(N_d-1)} \frac{DD(r)RR(r)}{DR^2(r)} -1  

1227: \;. 

1228: \ee

1229: 

1230: 

1231: \subsection{Errors}

1232: The determination of measurement errors of the correlation

1233: function can be performed in various ways.  This first is a

1234: calculation of the error on $\overline{ \xi(r)} $ in a given sample using

1235: the Poisson estimate (Ross et al., 2007)

1236: \be

1237: \label{err_poiss}

1238: \sigma^2_P (r) = \frac{1+ \overline{ \xi(r)} }{\sqrt{DD(r)}} \;. 

1239: \ee

1240: The second error estimation method is the field-to-field error, which 

1241: is obtained by divining the whole sample into $N$ subsamples and by computing

1242: in each of these the correlation function $\overline{ \xi_i(r)} $ for $i=1...N$

1243: \be

1244: \label{err_ftf}

1245: \sigma^2_{FtF} (r)= \frac{1}{N-1} \sum_{i=1}^{N} 

1246: \frac{DR_i(r)}{DR(r)} \left( \overline{ \xi_i(r)}  - \overline{ \xi(r)} \right)^2 \;,

1247: \ee

1248: and $\overline{ \xi(r)} $ is the estimation of the correlation function

1249: in the whole sample.  The third method is called jackknife estimate

1250: (Scranton et al., 2002, Zehavi et al., 2004) and the variance is

1251: estimated by

1252: \be

1253: \label{jackerrors}

1254: \sigma^2_{Jack} (r)= \sum_{i'=1}^{N} \frac{DR_{i'}(r)}

1255: {DR(r)} \left( \overline{ \xi_{i'}(r)} - \overline{ \xi(r)} \right)^2

1256: \ee

1257: where the index $i'$ is used to signify that each time the value of

1258: the correlation function $\overline{ \xi_{i'}(r)} $ is computed in all

1259: subsamples but one (the $i^{th}$). Finally another possibility is to

1260: divide the sample into $N$ subfields, to compute the average

1261: \be

1262: \label{xiave}

1263: \overline{ \xi(r)}  = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \xi_i(r)

1264: \ee

1265: and then the variance on the average 

1266: \be

1267: \label{xisigma} 

1268: \sigma_{a}^2 (r) = 

1269: \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \frac{(\xi_i(r) - \overline{ \xi(r)} )^2}{N-1} \;.

1270: \ee

1271: We show in what follows that Eq.\ref{xisigma} is equivalent

1272: to Eq.\ref{jackerrors} at all but the largest scales of a the sample

1273: where it gives a more conservative estimation of the errors. 

1274: In what follows we will make use of the errors estimated by Eq.\ref{xisigma}

1275: which are similar to the jackknife ones (Eq.\ref{jackerrors}). Below

1276: we discuss in details the determination of the errors in 

1277: artificial distributions and a comparison between the different

1278: methods to define them. 

1279: 

1280: 

1281: \section{Test on artificial distributions}

1282: 

1283: We consider a distribution of points extracted from a cosmological

1284: N-body simulation generated in framework of the Millennium project

1285: (Springel, et al. 2005), which consists of $N=6,528,040$ particles in

1286: a cubic box of nominal side $L=1$ and which is one of the

1287: semi-analytic catalogs (Croton et al., 2006) constructed to produce

1288: mock galaxy samples. This distribution presents strong clustering up

1289: to a scale of $r_0 \approx 0.01$ and then it presents weak power-law

1290: correlations up to the sample size. We compare the results of each

1291: estimator in the sub-boxes of varying size with the determination of

1292: the FS estimator in the box of side $L=1$ which we take as a

1293: reference.  In principle, one would like to have a theoretical

1294: prediction to compare with: however due to the effect of the formation

1295: of non-linearities and to the sampling used to produce these

1296: distributions, one does not have a simple way to compute the

1297: theoretical correlation function. This is the reason why we have

1298: chosen the correlation function computed in the entire box as a

1299: reference. In addition, for all statistical quantities considered, we

1300: limit our analysis to the scale $R_s=0.2$ in order to minimize finite

1301: size effects. In what follows we report the results by using the

1302: field-to-field average quantities and variance (i.e.  Eq.\ref{xiave}

1303: and Eq.\ref{xisigma}) which we find to be the most conservative error

1304: determinations.  Below we also present a discussion of the different

1305: determinations of the errors.

1306: 

1307: 

1308: 

1309: \subsection{Cubic Samples} 

1310: 

1311: We have divided the box of side $L=1$ into $N_f$ non overlapping

1312: sub-boxes of side $\ell =0.05,0.1,0.15,0.2,0.25$ and we have computed

1313: the correlation function in each of the sub-boxes. Note that the

1314: number sub-boxes over which the calculations are performed is taken to

1315: be constant independently on their size and $N_f=16$.  The

1316: determination of the correlation function by using the FS estimator is

1317: shown in Fig.\ref{figxifs}.  The main difference between the estimated

1318: correlation function and the ``true'' one is due to the integral

1319: constraint. This can be shown by the comparison of the estimated

1320: correlation function with that computed by using Eq.\ref{estth} which

1321: describes the effect of the integral constraint.

1322: \begin{figure}

1323: \begin{center}

1324: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{XIBOXFS2.eps} 

1325: \end{center}

1326: \caption{Average 

1327: correlation function computed by using the FS estimator in independent

1328: sub-boxes of side $\ell=0.15$ together with the prediction of

1329: Eq.\ref{estth}. The solid line represents the correlation function

1330: computed by using the FS estimator in independent sub-boxes of side

1331: $\ell=0.5$ while the dotted line (IC) represents the 

1332: analytical computation of the estimated correlation 

1333: with the integral constraint (i.e. Eq.\ref{estth}). }

1334: \label{figxifs}

1335: \end{figure}

1336: 

1337: 

1338: 

1339: In Fig.\ref{figxifs3} we compare the determinations of the correlation

1340: function by the FS estimator in sub-boxes of different sizes.

1341: \begin{figure}

1342: \begin{center}

1343: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{XIBOXFS.eps} 

1344: \end{center}

1345: \caption{Average 

1346: correlation function computed by using the FS estimator in independent

1347: sub-boxes of side $\ell=0.05,0.1,0.15,0.2,0.25$ respectively. The

1348: solid line represents the correlation function computed by using the

1349: FS estimator in independent sub-boxes of side $\ell=0.5$.}

1350: \label{figxifs3}

1351: \end{figure}

1352: One may note that the effect of the integral constraint, for what

1353: concerns the amplitude of the estimated correlation function, is

1354: important for the subsamples with $\ell \le 0.1$ as in this case the

1355: distribution is strongly non-linear inside the sample thus the

1356: determination of the sample density strongly depends on the sample

1357: size. This is shown by both a smaller amplitude and a smaller range of

1358: distance scales over which the correlation function is positive. The

1359: break in the positive behavior occurs at a distance scale of order

1360: $\ell$ independently on the amplitude of the correlation

1361: function. This is again a finite-size effect which can be easily

1362: understood as due to the integral constraint.

1363: 

1364: To summarize there are two distinct effects: (i) the amplitude of the

1365: estimated correlation function strongly depends on the sample size

1366: when the distribution exhibits strong clustering and (ii) the

1367: artificial break of the positive correlations is sample-size dependent.

1368: 

1369: 

1370: 

1371: 

1372: In Figs.\ref{xifs5}-\ref{xifs9} we compare the FS, DP and LS

1373: estimators. One may note that the DP and LS estimators are biased by a

1374: similar effect as the FS estimator, due to the integral constraint,

1375: although the break in the power-law behavior seems to occur at

1376: slightly larger scales than for the FS estimator. This difference can

1377: be attributed to the fact that the LS and DP estimators implicitly use

1378: the estimations of the average density at scale $\ell$ instead of at

1379: the scale $\ell/2$ as the FS estimator.  To clarify this point in the

1380: next section we present some other tests which have been tuned to

1381: explore this effect. 

1382: 

1383: \begin{figure}

1384: \begin{center}

1385: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{XIBOX005.eps}

1386: \end{center}

1387: \caption{Average 

1388: correlation function by using the FS, LS and DP estimator respectively

1389: in independent sub-boxes of side $\ell=0.05$.  The solid line represents the correlation function

1390: computed by using the FS estimator in independent sub-boxes of side

1391: $\ell=0.5$.}

1392: \label{xifs5}

1393: \end{figure}

1394: 

1395: 

1396: \begin{figure}

1397: \begin{center}

1398: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{XIBOX025.eps}

1399: \end{center}

1400: \caption{Average 

1401: correlation function computed by using the FS, LS and DP estimator respectively

1402: in independent sub-boxes of side $\ell=0.25$. The solid line represents the correlation function

1403: computed by using the FS estimator in independent sub-boxes of side

1404: $\ell=0.5$.}

1405: \label{xifs9}

1406: \end{figure}

1407: 

1408: 

1409: 

1410: In Fig.\ref{xifs5b} we compare the LS and Hamilton

1411: estimators. We confirm the results of Kerscher et al. (2000) that the

1412: Hamilton and LS estimators give indistinguishable results, inside the

1413: error bars, and thus we will focus on the former hereafter.

1414: \begin{figure}

1415: \begin{center}

1416: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{XIBOX005+H.eps}

1417: \end{center}

1418: \caption{

1419: Average 

1420: correlation function by using the LS and Hamilton estimator

1421: respectively in independent sub-boxes of side $\ell=0.05$.}

1422: \label{xifs5b}

1423: \end{figure}

1424: 

1425: 

1426: 

1427: 

1428: In Figs.\ref{xifs10}-\ref{xifs11} we show the determinations of the

1429: average correlation function computed by using the LS and DP

1430: estimators in independent sub-boxes of side $\ell=$0.05, 0.1, 0.15,

1431: 0.2, 0.25 respectively: the finite size dependencies of the amplitude

1432: and of the break are still present as for the FS estimator, and

1433: analogously to this former case, they can be understood as an effect

1434: of the integral constraint.

1435: 

1436: 

1437: \begin{figure}

1438: \begin{center}

1439: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{XIBOXLS.eps}

1440: \end{center}

1441: \caption{

1442: Average 

1443: correlation function computed by using the LS estimator 

1444: in independent sub-boxes of side $\ell=0.05,0.1,0.15,0.2,0.25$ respectively. The solid line represents the correlation function

1445: computed by using the FS estimator in independent sub-boxes of side

1446: $\ell=0.5$.}

1447: \label{xifs10}

1448: \end{figure}

1449: \begin{figure}

1450: \begin{center}

1451: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{XIBOXDP.eps}

1452: \end{center}

1453: \caption{Average 

1454: correlation function computed by using the DP estimator 

1455: in independent sub-boxes of side $\ell=0.05,0.1,0.15,0.2,0.25$ respectively.  The solid line represents the correlation function

1456: computed by using the FS estimator in independent sub-boxes of side

1457: $\ell=0.5$.}

1458: \label{xifs11}

1459: \end{figure}

1460: 

1461: 

1462: 

1463: %--------------------------------------

1464: 

1465: 

1466: 

1467: 

1468: 

1469: 

1470: 

1471: 

1472: 

1473: \subsection{Slices}

1474:  

1475: We have seen that the estimation of the correlation function is

1476: affected by a finite size effect which depends on the sample size,

1477: which up to now has been considered to be a simple geometrical shape

1478: as a sphere or a cubic box. In order to investigate a situation closer

1479: to real observations we have constructed several subsamples of the

1480: original distribution in the following way. We have considered the

1481: observer placed in the center of the box (0.5,0.5,0.5) and we have

1482: identified a sphere of radius $0.5$ centered on that point. We have

1483: considered the spherical coordinates $\alpha,\delta,r$ of the

1484: distribution points with respect to such center,  where $0 \le \alpha

1485: \le 2 \pi$, $-\pi/2 \le \delta \le \pi/2$ and $0 \le r \le \le 0.5$. It is now 

1486: possible to construct several subsample which have a certain depth

1487: $R_{depth} \le 0.5$ and specific cuts in $\alpha$ and $\delta$. In general

1488: the solid angle of a portion of a sphere is

1489: \be

1490: \Omega = \Delta \alpha \times \Delta \mu \;, 

1491: \ee

1492: where $ \Delta \alpha = \alpha_2 -\alpha_1$ with $\alpha_1,\alpha_2$

1493: the limits in right ascension delimiting the angular region and

1494: $\Delta \mu = \sin(\delta_2) - \sin(\delta_1)$, with

1495: $\delta_1,\delta_2$ the limits is declination delimiting the angular

1496: region. We have chosen $\Delta \mu =2$, i.e. $\delta_1 = -\pi/2$ and

1497: $\delta_2 = \pi/2$ and $\Delta \alpha =$const. In such a way we have

1498: constructed $N_f$ independent spherical slices with constant solid

1499: angle and same geometry. The number of slices is thus $N_f =

1500: 2\pi/\Delta\alpha$: we have taken $N_f \le 30$.  We have then computed

1501: the LS and DP estimators and their field-to-field variance

1502: (Eq.\ref{xisigma}).

1503: 

1504: 

1505: 

1506: In Figs.\ref{xislice1}-\ref{xislice3} we show the average correlation

1507: function computed by using the LS and DP estimators respectively in

1508: $N_f=30$ angular slices with $\Delta \alpha = 0.0063,0.013,0.063$

1509: respectively. One may note that the LS and DP estimator are very

1510: similar although the LS estimator extends to slightly large

1511: scales. The amplitude in this case corresponds to the expectation

1512: value for the FS estimator in a box of side $R_{depth} =0.05$ which is about

1513: ten times larger than the radius of the maximum sphere fully included

1514: in the sample volume.

1515: 

1516: 

1517: \begin{figure}

1518: \begin{center}

1519: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{XISLICE0063.eps} 

1520: \end{center}

1521: \caption{Average 

1522: correlation function computed by using the FS, LS and DP estimator

1523: respectively in $N_f=30$ angular slices with $\Delta \alpha = 0.0063$. 

1524: The solid line represents the correlation function

1525: computed by using the FS estimator in independent sub-boxes of side

1526: $\ell=0.5$. }

1527: \label{xislice1}

1528: \end{figure}

1529: 

1530: \begin{figure}

1531: \begin{center}

1532: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{XISLICE013.eps}

1533: \end{center}

1534: \caption{Average 

1535: correlation function computed by using the FS, LS and DP estimator

1536: respectively in $N_f=30$ angular slices with $\Delta \alpha = 0.013$. The solid line represents the correlation function

1537: computed by using the FS estimator in independent sub-boxes of side

1538: $\ell=0.5$. }

1539: \label{xislice2}

1540: \end{figure}

1541: 

1542: \begin{figure}

1543: \begin{center}

1544: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{XISLICE063.eps}

1545: \end{center}

1546: \caption{Average 

1547: correlation function computed by using the FS, LS and DP estimator

1548: respectively in $N_f=30$ angular slices with $\Delta \alpha = 0.063$. 

1549: The solid line represents the correlation function

1550: computed by using the FS estimator in independent sub-boxes of side

1551: $\ell=0.5$. }

1552: \label{xislice3}

1553: \end{figure}

1554: 

1555: 

1556: 

1557: By comparing (see Figs.\ref{xislice3b}-\ref{xislice3c}) the FS, LS and DP

1558: estimators computed in angular slices with $\Delta \alpha = 0.0063,

1559: 0.013, 0.063$ one may note that the amplitude slightly increases by

1560: choosing a larger solid angle and the range of scales where one may

1561: estimate the correlation function also increases when $\Delta \alpha$

1562: increases. The exact location of the break of the power-law behavior

1563: and the value of the amplitude are in agreement with a value of $R_{depth}$

1564: in integral constraint of the order of the sample depth $\ell$ and not

1565: of the radius of the maximum sphere fully enclosed as for the case of

1566: the FS estimator.

1567: 

1568: \begin{figure}

1569: \begin{center}

1570: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{XISLICELS.eps} 

1571: \end{center}

1572: \caption{Average 

1573: correlation function computed by using the LS estimator in $N_f=30$

1574: angular slices with $\Delta \alpha = 0.0063, 0.013, 0.063$. The solid

1575: line represents the correlation function computed by using the FS

1576: estimator in independent sub-boxes of side $\ell=0.5$. }

1577: \label{xislice3b}

1578: \end{figure}

1579: \begin{figure}

1580: \begin{center}

1581: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{XISLICEDP.eps} 

1582: \end{center}

1583: \caption{Average 

1584: correlation function computed by using the DP estimator in $N_f=30$

1585: angular slices with $\Delta \alpha = 0.0063, 0.013, 0.063$. The solid

1586: line represents the correlation function computed by using the FS

1587: estimator in independent sub-boxes of side $\ell=0.5$.}

1588: \label{xislice3c}

1589: \end{figure}

1590: 

1591: 

1592: 

1593: 

1594: In Fig.\ref{xislice4} we finally show the average behavior of the LS

1595: estimator in $N_f=30$ angular slices with $\Delta \alpha = 0.063$ and

1596: with a varying depth of the sample $R_{depth}=0.1,0.2,0.5$. The finite size

1597: dependence of the amplitude and of the scale at which the break in the

1598: power-law behavior occurs is clear. This represents an interesting test 

1599: to be performed in the galaxy data as we discuss below. 

1600: 

1601: \begin{figure}

1602: \begin{center}

1603: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{XISLICE063RS.eps} 

1604: \end{center}

1605: \caption{Average 

1606: correlation function computed by using the LS estimator in $N_f=30$

1607: angular slices with $\Delta \alpha = 0.063$ and with a varying depth

1608: of the sample $R_{depth}=0.1,0.2,0.5$. The solid line represents the

1609: correlation function computed by using the FS estimator in independent

1610: sub-boxes of side $\ell=0.5$.}

1611: \label{xislice4}

1612: \end{figure}

1613: 

1614: \subsection{Determination of the errors}

1615: 

1616: In Fig.\ref{fig_errors} we show the behavior of the errors computed by

1617: Eq.\ref{err_poiss}, Eq.\ref{err_ftf}, Eq.\ref{jackerrors} and

1618: Eq.\ref{xisigma}. One may note that errors determined by the jackknife

1619: method Eq.\ref{jackerrors} are approximatively the same as the ones computed by the

1620: field-to-field fluctuations Eq.\ref{xisigma}, except at small scales

1621: where the jackknife method is more efficient giving smaller

1622: fluctuations (see discussion in Scranton et al., 2002 and Zehavi et

1623: al., 2002). On the other hand the jackknife error is greater than  the

1624: two other estimators Eq.\ref{err_poiss} and Eq.\ref{err_ftf} (see also

1625: Ross et al., 2006).  Apart the small difference at small scales

1626: between Eq.\ref{jackerrors} and Eq.\ref{xisigma} the former are larger

1627: at scales comparable with the sample size and give a more

1628: conservative estimation of the fluctuations.

1629: \begin{figure}

1630: \begin{center}

1631: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{error.eps} 

1632: \end{center}

1633: \caption{Errors in the estimation of the correlation function

1634: determined by Eq.\ref{err_poiss} (Poisson), Eq.\ref{err_ftf} (FTF),

1635: Eq.\ref{jackerrors} (J) and Eq.\ref{xisigma} (a).}

1636: \label{fig_errors}

1637: \end{figure}

1638: 

1639: 

1640: \subsection{Summary and discussion}

1641: 

1642: 

1643: We have studied the finite size dependence of the estimated two-point

1644: correlation function by considering three different estimators the FS,

1645: the DP and the LS. We considered the case of a point distribution

1646: presenting, on large enough scale in the sample, weak ($\xi(r)<1$)

1647: power-law correlations. We have performed a series of tests to

1648: establish the role of the biases due to the integral constraint. This

1649: is the principal systematic effect which affects the behavior of the

1650: estimated correlation function at large scales, independently on the

1651: particular estimator considered. Let us briefly discuss our main

1652: results.

1653: 

1654: We have first considered the determination of the correlation function

1655: in the cubic subsample of size $\ell < L=1$, where $L$ is the whole box

1656: size.  We have constructed our estimation as an average over $N_f$

1657: disjointed sub-boxes. We have studied the behavior of the FS estimator

1658: as a function of the size $\ell$ of the sub-boxes, finding a clear

1659: finite size dependence of both the amplitude (for small $\ell$) and of

1660: the length scale $r^*$ characterizing the break of the power-law

1661: behavior, beyond which the correlation function becomes negative. In

1662: agreement with a simple analytical study of the problem discussed

1663: in the previous section we found that $r^* \sim \ell/2$.  A similar

1664: situation occurs for the LS and DP estimators even though in this case

1665: $r^* \sim \ell$. We note that the LS and DP estimators give very

1666: similar results over the whole range of scales.

1667: 

1668: In order to understand in more detail the spatial extension of the

1669: reliable measurements of two-point correlations provided by different

1670: estimators we have considered samples with a geometry more similar to

1671: the case of real galaxy samples. Namely we have considered a sphere

1672: around the central point in the box of size $L$ and divided it in

1673: $N_f$ sub-samples with same solid angle $\Omega$. We also considered

1674: subsequent cuts in the depth $\ell<L$. We found that the length-scale

1675: $r^*$ shows a dependence on $\Omega$ and it typically reaches a value

1676: of order of a fraction of $\ell$ which is larger than the scale $R_s$,

1677: up to which the FS estimator can be applied and which is of the

1678: order of the radius of the maximum sphere fully enclosed in the sample

1679: volume.  We have then measured that the scale $r^*$ has a strong

1680: dependence on the value of $\ell$ as for the case of the simple cubic

1681: volumes considered in the previous test.

1682: 

1683: It is important to note that the tests discussed here have been

1684: performed on a distribution which becomes uniform well inside the

1685: sample size. The above considerations on the performance of the

1686: various estimators can be easily verified for other distributions

1687: which satisfy the property of becoming uniform well inside a given

1688: sample and which show different correlation properties on large

1689: scales.  However the situation is rather different for the case in

1690: which a distribution exhibits strong clustering inside a given sample

1691: without a clear crossover toward a uniform distribution. In this case

1692: the best estimator is the most conservative one, i.e. the FS estimator

1693: as the estimation of the sample density is certainly biased at any

1694: scale as long as the distribution is characterized by strong

1695: non-linear clustering (see discussion in, e.g. Gabrielli et al., 2004

1696: for the treatment of the strongly correlated case).

1697: 

1698: 

1699: 

1700: 

1701: This situation puts a serious warning on the determination of the

1702: correlation at large scales in a given sample. If an estimator

1703: correlation function presents a break of, for example, the power-law

1704: behavior at a certain scale, the crucial test to be performed is to

1705: check whether this is a finite size or whether it is a true

1706: break. This situation is especially relevant for CDM-type correlations,

1707: for which the correlation function, according to theoretical models,

1708: should present a break from the small-scale power-law correlation at a

1709: scale of order 124 Mpc/h. We will come back on this point in the

1710: conclusion.

1711: 

1712: 

1713: 

1714: 

1715: Finally we have considered different determinations of the errors of

1716: the estimators of the two-point correlation function. The more

1717: conservative way to estimate errors consists in the computation of the

1718: correlation function in disjointed regions and then to compute the

1719: average and the variance on the average: this method is less efficient

1720: than the jackknife method at small scales but gives similar results to

1721: that at large scales.

1722:  

1723: 

1724: 

1725: 

1726: 

1727: 

1728: \section{Conclusions} 

1729: 

1730: 

1731: We have considered the real-space properties of CDM density fields,

1732: focusing in detail in a particular variant known as $\Lambda$CDM

1733: (vanilla) model. It is well known that the power-spectrum has

1734: typically a behavior $P(k) \sim k^{m}$ with $-1<m\le-3$ for large

1735: wavelengths $k > k_c$, and $P(k)\sim k$ at smaller wavelengths $k

1736: <k_c$. We discussed that, correspondingly, the two-point correlation

1737: function shows approximatively a positive power-law behavior $\xi(r)

1738: \sim r^{-2}$ at small scales $r < r_c \approx k_c^{-1}$ and a negative

1739: power-law behavior $\xi(r) \propto - r^{-4}$ at large scales $r>r_c$,

1740: where the zero-crossing occurs at about $r_c \approx 124$ Mpc/h in the

1741: model considered. We discussed the fact that, globally, a system with

1742: this type of correlations belong to the category of super-homogeneous

1743: distributions, which are configurations of points more ordered than a

1744: purely uncorrelated (Poisson) distribution.  Correspondingly

1745: fluctuations are depressed with respect to the Poisson case, and the

1746: normalized mass variance, for instance, decay faster ($\sigma^2(r)

1747: \sim r^{-4}$) than for the Poisson case ($\sigma^2(r) \sim

1748: r^{-3}$). The condition of super-homogeneity is expressed by the

1749: condition that $P(k) \rightarrow 0$ for $k \rightarrow 0$, or

1750: alternatively that

1751: \[

1752: \int_0^{\infty}  \xi(r) r^2 dr = 0 \;.

1753: \] 

1754: 

1755: Following the work of Durrer et al. (2003) we have pointed out that

1756: the above condition is broken when one samples the distribution, as

1757: for example when the simplest biasing scheme of correlated Gaussian

1758: fields (introduced by Kaiser, 1984) is applied. This is particularly

1759: important for the behavior of the power-spectrum for $k<k_c$, which,

1760: under biasing, remains constant instead of going as $P(k) \sim k$. The

1761: correlation function at large scales $r>r_c$ is instead expected to be

1762: linearly amplified with respect to the original one of the whole

1763: matter field. Thus the large scale negative tail $\xi(r) \sim -r

1764: ^{-4}$ is the main feature which one would like to detect in order to

1765: test theoretical models.

1766: 

1767: Given the fact that when $\xi(r)$ becomes negative, it is

1768: characterized by a very small amplitude, the determination of the

1769: negative power-law tail represents a very challenging problem. We have

1770: discussed the fact that, at first approximation in a real measurement,

1771: one may treat the system as having positive correlations at small

1772: scales with an exponential cut-off at the scale $r_c$ and then it

1773: becomes uncorrelated (a situation which can be regarded as upper limit

1774: to the presence of anti-correlations). This implies that for $r_c >

1775: 124$ Mpc/h galaxy distribution should not present any positive

1776: correlation. Whether this behavior is compatible with the existences

1777: of structures of order 200 Mpc/h or more is an open problem which has

1778: to be addressed in the studies of forthcoming galaxy catalogs.

1779: 

1780: More in detail, one of the most basic results (see e.g., Peebles

1781: 1980) about self-gravitating systems, treated using perturbative

1782: approaches to the problem (i.e. the fluid limit), is that the

1783: amplitude of small fluctuations grows monotonically in time, in a way

1784: which is independent of the scale.  This linearized treatment breaks

1785: down at any given scale when the relative fluctuation at the same

1786: scale becomes of order unity, signaling the onset of the

1787: ``non-linear'' phase of gravitational collapse of the mass in regions

1788: of the corresponding size.  If the initial velocity dispersion of

1789: particles is small, non-linear structures start to develop at small

1790: scales first and then the evolution becomes ``hierarchical'', i.e.,

1791: structures build up at successively larger scales. Given the finite

1792: time from the initial conditions to the present day, the development

1793: of non-linear structures is limited in space, i.e., they can not be

1794: more extended than the scale at which the linear approach predicts

1795: that the density contrast becomes of order unity at the present

1796: time. This scale is fixed by the initial amplitude of fluctuations,

1797: constrained by the cosmic microwave background anisotropies (Spergel et

1798: al., 2007), by the hypothesized nature of the dominating dark matter

1799: component and its correlation properties.  According to current models

1800: of CDM-type the scales at which non-linear clustering occurs at the

1801: present time (of order 10 Mpc) are much smaller than the scale $r_c

1802: \approx 124$ Mpc/h (see e.g. Springel et al., 2005). 

1803: Thus the region where the super-homogeneous

1804: features should still be in the linear regime, allowing a direct test

1805: of the initial conditions predicted by early universe models. The

1806: scale $r_c$ marks the maximum extension of positively correlated

1807: structures: beyond $r_c$ the distribution must be anti-correlated

1808: since the beginning, as there was no time to develop other

1809: correlations.  The possible presence of structures, which mark

1810: long-range correlations, whether or not of large amplitude, reported

1811: both by observations of galaxy distributions (like the Sloan Great

1812: Wall --- see Gott et al., 2005), by the detection of dark matter

1813: distributions (see e.g. Massey et al., 2007) and by the large void of 

1814: radius $\sim 140$ Mpc identified by Rudnick et al. (2007), is

1815: maybe indicating that positive correlations extend well beyond $r_c$.

1816: 

1817: 

1818: 

1819: We have discussed that an important finite size effect must be

1820: considered when estimating the correlation function, and which may

1821: mimic a break of the power-law behavior similar to the ones of CDM

1822: models at a scale of order $r_c$. This is related to the effect 

1823: of the integral constraint in the estimators, namely the fact that 

1824: the sample average, estimated in a finite sample, differs

1825: from the ensemble average, and can be finite-size dependent.

1826: This situation occurs when correlations (weak or strong) extend  

1827: to scales larger than the sample size. 

1828: 

1829: 

1830: 

1831: For these reasons, in order to study the two-point correlation

1832: function in real galaxy samples when its amplitude becomes smaller

1833: than unity, it is crucial to check whether the break of the power-law

1834: behavior has a finite size dependence or not, by choosing samples with

1835: different depth. In this perspective the assessment of the reality of

1836: the break of the two-point correlation function is the main

1837: observational point to be considered.  Once this will be clarified

1838: other features should be considered, as for the example the so-called

1839: baryonic bump, which is a very small perturbation to the overall shape

1840: of the correlation function at scales of order of the zero-point

1841: $r_c$. We will present a detailed analysis of the correlation

1842: properties of galaxy distribution in the SDSS catalog, considering

1843: specific tests for finite-size effects in the determination of the

1844: correlation function, in a forthcoming paper.

1845: 

1846: 

1847: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1848: We are grateful to Y. Baryshev, A. Gabrielli, M. Joyce, B. Marcos and

1849: L. Pietronero for useful discussions and comments. FSL thanks the

1850: MIUR-PRIN05 project on ``Dynamics and thermodynamics of systems with

1851: long range interactions" for financial support.

1852: 

1853: 

1854: 

1855: 

1856: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5

1857: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1858: 

1859: 

1860: \bibitem{benoist} Benoist, C., et al., Astrophys.J., {\bf 472}, 452,

1861: (1996)

1862: 

1863: \bibitem{bond84} Bond, J. R., and  Efstathiou, G.   Astrophys.J., {\bf 285}, 45, (1984)

1864: 

1865: \bibitem{cronton} Croton, D.J., et al., Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. {\bf 365},  11, (2006)

1866:  

1867:   

1868: \bibitem{dp83}  Davis, M., and Peebles, P.J.E.,  

1869: Astrophys. J., {\bf 267}, 46, (1983)

1870: 

1871: 

1872: \bibitem[Davis et al. 1988]

1873: {davis88} Davis, M. et al.,  Astrophys.J.Lett., {\bf 333},  L9, (1988)

1874:   

1875: \bibitem{bias2} Durrer, R., Gabrielli, A.,

1876: Joyce, M., Sylos Labini, F.,  Astrophys.J.,  {\bf 585},  L1, (2003)

1877:  

1878: 

1879: 

1880: \bibitem{eisenstein05} 

1881:  Eisenstein, D.J., et al.,  Astrophys.J., {\bf 633}, 560, (2005)

1882: 

1883: \bibitem{eisenstein06} 

1884: Eisenstein, D.J., Seo, H.-J., Sirko, E., Spergel, D.N., 

1885: astro-ph/0604362

1886: 

1887: \bibitem {glass}

1888: Gabrielli, A., Joyce, M., Sylos Labini, F., Phys. Rev., {\bf D65},

1889: 083523 (2002)

1890: 

1891: \bibitem{book}

1892: Gabrielli A., Sylos Labini F., Joyce M., Pietronero L., {\it

1893: Statistical physics for cosmic structures}, Springer Verlag  (2004) 

1894: 

1895: 

1896: \bibitem{gott}  Gott, J.R. III, et al., 

1897: Ap.J., {\bf 624},

1898: 463 (2005)

1899: 

1900: 

1901: \bibitem[Kaiser 1984]{kaiser84} Kaiser, N., Astrophys.J.Lett.,  

1902: 284, L9, (1984) 

1903: 

1904: \bibitem{kss} Kerscher, M., 

1905: Szapudi, I., Szalay, A.S.  Astrophys.J. {\bf 535}, 13, (2000)

1906: 

1907: \bibitem{Kerscher-geometry} 

1908: Kerscher, M., Astron.Astrophys., {\bf 343}, 333, (1999)

1909: 

1910: \bibitem{hamilton}  Hamilton, A. J. S.,   Astrophys.J., {\bf 417}, 19, (1993)

1911: 

1912: \bibitem{hewett} Hewett, P. C.,   Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc., {\bf 201}, 867, (1982)

1913: 

1914: \bibitem{landy93}

1915: Landy S. D., Szalay A., Astrophys.J., 412, 64 (1993)

1916: 

1917: \bibitem{lens} Massey, R.,  et al., Nature, {\bf 445}, 286, (2007)

1918: 

1919: \bibitem{padm}

1920: Padmanabhan, T.  

1921: {\it Structure formation in the universe},

1922: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge  (1993)

1923: 

1924: \bibitem {park} Park, C., Vogeley, M.S., Geller, M.,

1925: Huchra, J., Astrophys. J., {\bf 431}, 569, (1994)

1926: 

1927: 

1928: \bibitem{pee_80}

1929:  Peebles, P. J. E., {\it The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe}

1930:  Princeton University Press (1980)

1931: 

1932: \bibitem{ross} Ross, N.P. et al., astro-ph/0612400

1933: 

1934: 

1935: \bibitem{rudnik} Rudnick, L., Brown, S., Williams, L.R.,  Astrophys.J. in the press 

1936: (2007) {\tt arXiv:0704.0908v2}

1937: 

1938: \bibitem{scranton}  Scranton,  E., et al.,  Astrophys.J. {\bf 579}, 48, (2002) 

1939: 

1940: \bibitem{spergel} Spergel, D.N., et al.,  Astrophys.J.Suppl., {\bf 170}, 377 (2007)

1941: 

1942: \bibitem{springel} Springel, V., et al.,   Nature, {\bf 435}, 629 (2005)

1943: 

1944: \bibitem{dr4}  Sylos Labini, F.,     Vasilyev, N.L.  

1945:  Baryshev, Yu.V.,  Astron.Astrophys., {\bf 465}, 23, (2007)

1946: 

1947: 

1948: \bibitem{tgk} Tegmark, M., et al., Astrophys.J., {\bf 606}  702 (2004)

1949: 

1950: \bibitem {tk69} Totsuji, H. \& Kihara, T.,

1951: Publ.Astron.Soc.Jpn, {\bf 21}, 221, (1969)

1952: 

1953: \bibitem{nicko05}  Vasilyev, N.L.,

1954: Baryshev, Yu. V., Sylos Labini, F., Astron.Astrophys., {\bf 447}, 431 (2006)

1955: 

1956: \bibitem{sdss}  York, D., et al., Astron.J., {\bf 120}, 1579 (2000)

1957: 

1958: \bibitem[Zehavi et al. (2004)]{zehavietal04} Zehavi, I., et al.,  

1959:  Astrophys.J., {\bf 608}, 16 (2004)

1960: 

1961: \bibitem[Zehavi et al. (2002)]{zehavietal02} Zehavi, I., et al.,  

1962: Astrophys.J., {\bf 571} 172 (2002)

1963: 

1964: 

1965: \end{thebibliography}{}

1966: 

1967: 

1968: 

1969: 

1970: \end{document}

1971: