1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
3: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
4: \newcommand{\myemail}{bruno.milliard@oamp.fr}
5: \newcommand{\fuvcenter}{1530~\AA}
6: \newcommand{\nuvcenter}{2310~\AA}
7: \newcommand{\fuvband}{1350-1750\AA}
8: \newcommand{\nuvband}{1750-2750\AA}
9: \newcommand{\fuvwidth}{400\AA}
10: \newcommand{\nuvwidth}{1000\AA}
11:
12: \newcommand{\FUV}{{\it FUV }}
13: \newcommand{\NUV}{{\it NUV }}
14: %\slugcomment{To appear in ApJ Letters}
15: \newcommand{\galex}{\textit{GALEX }}
16: \newcommand{\type}{\texttt{type}}
17:
18:
19: \shorttitle{Clustering Properties of rest-frame UV selected galaxies. I}
20:
21:
22: \shortauthors{...}
23: \usepackage{natbib}
24: \bibpunct{(}{)}{;}{a}{}{,}
25: %\usepackage{epsfig}
26: %\usepackage{natbib}
27: %\usepackage{psfig}
28: \newdimen\hssize
29: \hssize=7truecm
30: \begin{document}
31:
32:
33: \title{Clustering Properties of restframe UV selected galaxies I:\\
34: the correlation length derived from GALEX data in the local Universe}
35:
36:
37:
38:
39: \author{
40: Bruno Milliard\altaffilmark{1},
41: S\'ebastien Heinis\altaffilmark{1,2},
42: J\'er\'emy Blaizot\altaffilmark{1,3},
43: St\'ephane Arnouts\altaffilmark{1},\\
44: David Schiminovich\altaffilmark{4},
45: Tam\'as Budav\'ari\altaffilmark{2},
46: Jos\'e Donas\altaffilmark{1},
47: Marie Treyer\altaffilmark{1},
48: Michel Laget\altaffilmark{1},
49: Maurice Viton\altaffilmark{1},
50: Ted K. Wyder\altaffilmark{5},
51: Alex S. Szalay\altaffilmark{2},
52: Tom A. Barlow\altaffilmark{5},
53: Karl Forster\altaffilmark{5},\\
54: Peter G. Friedman\altaffilmark{5},
55: D. Christopher Martin\altaffilmark{5},
56: Patrick Morrissey\altaffilmark{5},
57: Susan G. Neff\altaffilmark{6},\\
58: Mark Seibert\altaffilmark{5},
59: Todd Small\altaffilmark{5},
60: Luciana Bianchi\altaffilmark{7},
61: Timothy M. Heckman\altaffilmark{2},
62: Young-Wook Lee\altaffilmark{8},
63: Barry F. Madore\altaffilmark{9,10},
64: R. Michael Rich\altaffilmark{11},
65: Barry Y. Welsh\altaffilmark{12},
66: Sukyoung K. Yi\altaffilmark{8}
67: and C. K. Xu\altaffilmark{5}}
68:
69: \altaffiltext{1}{Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, BP 8, Traverse
70: du Siphon, 13376 Marseille Cedex 12, France}
71:
72: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins
73: University, Homewood Campus, Baltimore, MD 21218}
74:
75: \altaffiltext{3}{Max Planck Institut f\"ur astrophysik, D-85748
76: Garching, Germany}
77:
78: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Astronomy, Columbia University, New
79: York, NY 10027}
80:
81: \altaffiltext{5}{California Institute of Technology, MC 405-47, 1200 East
82: California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125}
83:
84: \altaffiltext{6}{Laboratory for Astronomy and Solar Physics, NASA Goddard
85: Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771}
86:
87: \altaffiltext{7}{Center for Astrophysical Sciences, The Johns Hopkins
88: University, 3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218}
89:
90: \altaffiltext{8}{Center for Space Astrophysics, Yonsei University, Seoul
91: 120-749, Korea}
92:
93: \altaffiltext{9}{Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington,
94: 813 Santa Barbara St., Pasadena, CA 91101}
95:
96: \altaffiltext{10}{NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, California Institute
97: of Technology, Mail Code 100-22, 770 S. Wilson Ave., Pasadena, CA 91125}
98:
99: \altaffiltext{11}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of
100: California, Los Angeles, CA 90095}
101:
102: \altaffiltext{12}{Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California at
103: Berkeley, 601 Campbell Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720}
104:
105:
106:
107: \begin{abstract}
108: We present the first measurements of the angular correlation
109: function of galaxies selected in the far (\fuvcenter) and near
110: (\nuvcenter) Ultraviolet from the \galex survey fields overlapping SDSS
111: DR5 in low galactic extinction regions. The area used covers $120$
112: sqdeg (\galex - MIS) down to magnitude AB $=22$, yielding a total of
113: 100,000 galaxies. The mean correlation length is $\sim3.7 \pm
114: 0.6$~Mpc and no significant trend is seen for this value as a
115: function of the limiting apparent magnitude or between the \galex
116: bands. This estimate is close to that found from samples of blue
117: galaxies in the local universe selected in the visible, and similar
118: to that derived at $z\simeq3$ for LBGs with similar rest frame
119: selection criteria. This result supports models that predict
120: anti-biasing of star forming galaxies at low redshift, and brings an
121: additional clue to the downsizing of star formation at $z<1$.
122: \end{abstract}
123:
124:
125:
126: \keywords{Galaxies: UV - Correlation Function Evolution - Star
127: Formation}
128:
129:
130: \section{Introduction}
131:
132:
133: In the current paradigm of structure formation, the bulk of the most
134: massive systems form in a cold dark matter-dominated universe by the
135: merging of less massive units formed earlier. In parallel to this
136: hierarchical evolution, recent observations point to the so-called
137: ``downsizing'', namely the fact that in galaxies having high baryonic
138: masses the bulk of stars formed at high redshift ($z \gtrsim 1$),
139: while in galaxies having low baryonic masses the bulk of stars formed
140: at lower redshift \citep[][and also \citet{DeLucia_2006} and
141: \citet{Neistein_2006} for results from simulations]{Cowie_1996,
142: Heavens_2004, Bundy_2006, Jimenez_2005}. The star formation efficiency
143: shows a strong decline at $0<z<1$, as measured by the evolution of the
144: star formation rate density \citep{Hopkins_2006, Lilly_1996,
145: Schiminovich_2005, Sullivan_2000, Wilson_2002}. These epochs also see
146: the bulk of the build-up of the bimodality in galaxy properties of the
147: local universe, which is apparent in their color distribution
148: \cite{Baldry_2004}, morphologies \citep{Kauffmann_2004}, spectral
149: class \citep{Madgwick_2002} and spatial distribution
150: \citep{Budavari_2003}. Understanding the full picture is complex as
151: this evolution is the result of the interplay of several physical
152: processes \citep{Faber_2005} and combine the effects of initial galaxy
153: formation conditions (``nature'') with galaxy evolution events
154: (``nurture'') \citep{Kauffmann_2004}. In this context, tracers that
155: measure over cosmic time galaxy populations selected with homogeneous
156: physical criteria are of primary interest. They help compare
157: observations to simulation predictions over a large range of redshifts
158: with reduced uncertainties, and allow a study of the redshift
159: evolution of galaxy properties derived from different surveys.
160:
161: The ultraviolet (UV) range of the spectrum meets these conditions: UV
162: luminosities provide a good measure of recent star formation within
163: galaxies \citep{Kennicutt_1998}, modulo attenuation by dust, and has
164: been widely used at high redshifts to study the properties of the
165: Lyman Break Galaxies (LBGs) \citep{Giavalisco_2001,
166: Shapley_2003,Steidel_1995}. As large amounts of data are now becoming
167: available at lower redshifts as part of the GALEX surveys
168: \citep{Martin_2005}, the restframe UV spectral domain is presently
169: well sampled over the full $0<z<6$ redshift range. Furthermore,
170: comparison of results from high and low $z$ UV-selected samples is
171: eased by the fact that the UV luminosity density fractions\footnote{We
172: define the UV luminosity density fraction of a given sample as the
173: ratio of the UV luminosity density encompassed by the sample over the
174: total UV luminosity density at the same redshift.} probed at high and
175: low $z$ are similar \citep[][hereafter Paper II]{Heinis_2007}, due to
176: the strong luminosity evolution of the UV luminosity function
177: \citep{Arnouts_2005}. Noticeably, during the epochs probed by GALEX
178: the properties of active star forming galaxies show a very fast
179: evolution.
180:
181: The wealth of UV-selected data now available at low redshifts enables
182: statistical studies in the context of the downsizing of star
183: formation, and in particular searches for links between the star
184: formation properties and galaxy environment in terms of galaxy or dark
185: matter density. Here we focus on the evolution with redshift of the
186: link of star formation with Dark Matter and particularly the evolution
187: of the class of Dark Matter halos hosting actively star forming
188: galaxies since $z\sim1$. This can be achieved by the study of the
189: clustering of galaxies: at high redshift, LBGs studies show that UV
190: selected galaxies inhabit high galaxy density regions
191: \citep{Steidel_1998}, and are strongly biased with respect to the
192: underlying Dark Matter, with more actively star forming galaxies being
193: more biased \citep[][see \citet{Giavalisco_2002} for a review on the
194: properties of LBGs]{Adelberger_2005, Giavalisco_2001,
195: Foucaud_2003}. We propose to extend such studies to low redshifts
196: using similar selection criteria. This paper is the first in a series
197: and presents the methods and first results of angular clustering
198: measurements from GALEX data. The following section presents the
199: datasets and the derivation of the redshift distributions. Section
200: \ref{sec_acf_methods} presents two methods to derive the angular
201: correlation function from a set of fields, and a discussion about the
202: behavior of these methods with respect to photometry inhomogeneity. In
203: section \ref{sec_acf} we present our results on the angular
204: correlation functions and correlation lengths. To provide the crucial
205: link to Dark Matter halos, we use the analytical \citet{Mo_2002}
206: formalism that we present in sec. \ref{sec_mo_white}. We end with a
207: short discussion in sec. \ref{sec_discussion}.
208:
209:
210:
211:
212: Throughout the paper a ${\Lambda}CDM$ cosmology is assumed with matter
213: density $\Omega_m = 0.3$, vacuum energy density $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$,
214: and a Hubble parameter $h=0.7$ where $H_0 = 70 $km s$^{-1}$
215: Mpc$^{-1}$. All correlation length values taken from the literature
216: have been converted accordingly using equation (4) in
217: \citet{Magliocchetti_2000}.
218:
219:
220:
221: \section{Primary fields selection}\label{sec_selection}
222: We use Medium Imaging Survey (MIS) fields from the \galex Release 2
223: (GR2), which allows us to probe the clustering of faint sources in
224: \FUV and \NUV at three limiting apparent AB magnitudes 22.0, 21.5 and
225: 21.0. The magnitudes we refer to are corrected for Galactic extinction
226: using Schlegel maps \citep{Schlegel_1998} and the
227: \citet{Cardelli_1989} extinction law, unless specified otherwise. The
228: average color excess in the fields, derived from the
229: \citeauthor{Schlegel_1998} maps, ranges from $0.08$ to $0.12$. The
230: extinction coefficients $A_{\FUV}/E(B-V)$ and $A_{\NUV}/E(B-V)$ are
231: respectively 8.29 and 8.61.
232:
233:
234: We start with 348 MIS \galex fields overlapping SDSS DR5 of which only
235: a subset will be kept because of galactic extinction (see
236: sec. \ref{sec_systematics}). We only include sources within 0.5 $\deg$
237: radius from the field center, since artifacts concentrate near the
238: periphery of the field of view \citep[see][]{Morrissey_2005} and
239: photometric accuracy decreases beyond this limit. We used only objects
240: within the \galex primary resolution. We used SDSS masks to mask out
241: holes, bright stars and trails; we used also \galex masks, as well as
242: additional ones to mask out resolved galaxies or artifacts not
243: predicted by the \galex pipeline. Only objects with an SDSS match
244: within $4\arcsec$ are kept, and the closest match is used. Galaxies
245: are assumed to be SDSS galaxies (\type~= 3 following the morphological
246: classification of \citet{Lupton_2001} and \citet{Stoughton_2002}). To
247: check the effects of possible residual QSOs in our sample, we removed
248: from our sample AGN-dominated objects as objects classified QSOs by a
249: template fitting procedure\footnote{Le Phare: available and documented
250: at this URL: {\tt http://www.oamp.fr/arnouts/LE\_PHARE.html}}. Impacts
251: on the results are found negligible, hence we do not remove QSOs
252: classified objects from the sample in the following.
253:
254:
255:
256:
257: \subsection{Redshifts distributions }\label{sec_zdist}
258: To get the redshift distributions of the samples for the different
259: magnitude cuts, we use the polynomial fit method described in
260: \citet{Connolly_1995, Connolly_1997}. This method requires first to be
261: trained with a spectroscopic sample. We train on 6 bands (\NUV from
262: \galex, as all objects do not have \FUV photometry, and the 5 SDSS
263: bands) with 17,843 objects from the sample described in
264: sec. \ref{sec_selection} having SDSS spectroscopic redshifts. We then
265: apply the coefficients derived from the training set to the whole
266: sample.
267:
268:
269: We performed a simple correction for the broadening due to photometric
270: redshifts errors by assuming that the photometric redshifts errors
271: follow a normal distribution independent of the object magnitudes and
272: redshifts, with the standard deviation $\sigma=0.03$ measured using
273: all the available spectroscopic redshifts from the SDSS. We check that
274: the standard deviation does not vary with apparent magnitude using our
275: photometric redshift estimation on \galex fields with SDSS overlap and
276: the independent and deeper spectroscopy from \citet{Papovich_2006}.
277:
278: %
279:
280: Following \citet{Efstathiou_1991}, the parent distribution of the true
281: redshifts is described by the following parametric shape:
282: \begin{equation}
283: \frac{dN}{dz} = A_z\left(\frac{z}{z_c}\right)^2
284: \exp\left[-\left(\frac{z}{z_c}\right)^n\right]
285: \end{equation}
286: We fit this shape convolved by a Gaussian with $\sigma=0.03$ to the
287: observed photometric redshift distribution. Fig.\ref{fig_z_dist} shows
288: the gaussian-convolved best estimate $N(z)$, along with the measured
289: distribution for the 174 least extinct fields (see
290: sec. \ref{sec_systematics}), and table~\ref{tab_Table1} lists the
291: parameters of the true distributions.
292:
293:
294:
295:
296: \begin{figure}
297: % \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig1.ps}
298: \plotone{f1.eps}
299: \caption{ \small Derived redshift distributions for the two
300: \galex bands using three magnitude cuts (histograms). The solid
301: curves show the best fitting $N(z)$ convolved by a Gaussian with
302: $\sigma=0.03$ (see text).\label{fig_z_dist} }
303: \end{figure}
304:
305:
306:
307:
308: \section{Choice of ACF estimation method}\label{sec_acf_methods}
309:
310: \subsection{Methods description}
311:
312: Given that the \galex data are extracted from relatively large numbers
313: of similar exposures, the question arises as to the most appropriate
314: method to retrieve the available information. A first, straightforward
315: approach to measure the ACF from a group of %nearby
316: non-overlapping
317: fields is to treat all of them as disjoint subfields of one large,
318: discontinuous field and to apply the \citet{Landy_1993} (hereafter
319: LS93) estimator on it:
320: \begin{equation}
321: w_{CF} = \frac{DD -2DR + RR}{RR}
322: \end {equation}
323: where DD (resp. DR, RR) is the number of data-data (resp. data-random,
324: random-random) pairs from all fields (including cross pairs from
325: different subfields), normalized by the suitable pair numbers. In the
326: case of this composite field method (hereafter CF), the number of
327: random points is fixed for the global field, and not for each
328: individual \galex field. This is the ideal method which in principle
329: allows one to extract all the available information. In particular,
330: this method reduces the integral constraint bias and the noise,
331: especially at large angular separations.
332:
333: Although best in the ideal case, the CF method requires precise
334: homogeneity of the data and may not be robust in practice. We
335: therefore introduce another estimator, which we define as the
336: following pair-weighted average (hereafter PW) of the ACF measured in
337: each field individually:
338:
339: \begin{equation}\label{wcf}
340: w_{PW}(\theta) = \frac{\sum_i \widetilde{RR_i}(\theta) w_i(\theta)}
341: {\sum_i \widetilde{RR_i}(\theta)}
342: \end{equation}
343: where $w_i$ is the ACF estimated from field $i$ alone computed with
344: the LS93 estimator, and $\widetilde{RR_i}$ the number of random-random
345: pairs in the random catalogue constructed for this field (see Appendix
346: \ref{app_pw} for a derivation of this formula (eq .\ref{wcf}) from
347: $w_{CF}$). The $\widetilde{RR_i}$ term involves pair numbers and field
348: geometry information. The PW method is by construction insensitive to
349: field-to-field fluctuations -- and thus best suited for the peculiar
350: MIS geometry. A drawback of the PW method is the increase of the
351: integral constraint (IC) bias because of the smaller angular extent of
352: the field\footnote{In the case of independent fields, the IC in the PW
353: method is typically higher than that of the CF method by a factor of
354: the number of fields.} as well as an increase in the noise. The
355: integral constraint can be relatively well corrected for using its
356: estimate given by LS93. To compute it, we assume that the real
357: correlation function is a power-law $A_w\theta^{-\delta}$ and we fit
358: $A_w\theta^{-\delta} - I(A_w,\delta)$ to the data, where
359: $I(A_w,\delta) = 1/\Omega^2 \int_{\Omega} A_w \theta^{-\delta}
360: d\Omega_1 d\Omega_2$, integrated over a \galex field. This method is
361: similar to that used by \citet{Roche_1999}, except that $\delta$ is
362: left as a free parameter. In the following, ``PW method'' will refer
363: to the IC-corrected technique. We have checked the accuracy of the
364: above correction of the IC bias using a $100 deg^2$ synthetic catalog
365: derived from \verb|GalICS| \citep{Hatton_2003, Blaizot_2005}. The ACF
366: has been computed with the CF and the PW methods from 50 randomly
367: positioned fields of radius $0.5^{\circ}$. The \verb|GalICS|-magnitude
368: cut was chosen to obtain approximately the same mean number of
369: galaxies as found using the \NUV$<22$ cut. The results of the CF and
370: PW methods have been found undistinguishable for the model catalogs
371: (fig \ref{fig_IC}).
372: \begin{figure}
373: %\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{integral_constraint_correction_english.ps}
374: \plotone{f2.eps}
375: \caption{\small Validation of the method used to correct for the
376: Integral Constraint bias. The ACF is computed from 50 randomly chosen
377: fields in a synthetic catalog with the CF (filled squares) and the
378: PW (filled circles) methods. The dashed (resp. solid) line shows
379: the best-fit of the PW result uncorrected (resp. corrected) for
380: the Integral Constraint bias (see text for details).
381: \label{fig_IC} }
382: \end{figure}
383:
384:
385:
386: \subsection{Systematic effects}\label{sec_systematics}
387:
388: \begin{figure*}
389: \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{f3.eps}
390: %\epsscale{2.165}
391: %\plotone{f3.eps}
392: \caption{ \small Angular correlation function for the CF (left) and
393: PW (right) methods (see text). Upper panels show $\FUV <21.5$
394: selection and lower panels $\NUV <21.5$. The solid line shows the
395: ACF for the whole sample; the other curves represent the ACF of
396: the fields according to the probability that their magnitude
397: distribution is drawn from the sample distribution than the whole
398: sample ($p<0.01$, dot-dashed; $p<0.05$, dashed; $p>0.05$, dotted.)
399: \label{fig_dust_extinction} }
400: \end{figure*}
401:
402: To test the sensitivity of the CF and PW methods to systematics, we
403: used a statistical approach to decide whether the photometry of a
404: given field is drawn from the same distribution than the photometry of
405: the whole sample. To this aim, we used the Mann-Whitney test, which is
406: independent of the size of the input samples; we use only objects with
407: \type = 3 during this process to avoid strong star contamination. For
408: each field, we create a test sample built from the magnitudes of the
409: objects in this field, and a control sample from the magnitudes of the
410: objects that belong to all other fields. The Mann-Whitney test
411: provides as output the probability that these two distributions are
412: the same.
413: We show figure \ref{fig_dust_extinction} the ACFs of fields
414: grouped according to their value of this probability, using the CF
415: method (left), or the PW method (right), for $\FUV <21.5$ (top) or
416: $\NUV <21.5$ (bottom). The results obtained from the CF and PW methods
417: show significant differences. The CF method results show an excess of
418: power especially at large scales; the amplitude of this excess
419: increases as the probability that the field photometry is the same
420: than the overall sample photometry decreases. Conversely the results
421: of the PW method are fairly insensitive to photometry inhomogeneities;
422: there is an overall power excess at $\FUV <21.5$ for the fields with a
423: probability lower than 0.01, but the ACF of the whole sample is very
424: similar to the ACF of the best fields ($p>0.05$).
425:
426:
427: There are several sources of systematic errors, which, although their
428: individual effects are weak, may, combined with each other, yield the
429: trends observed. Similar trends are observed when the fields are
430: binned according to the mean Galactic extinction. However, the
431: cross-correlation between galaxies and dust maps using both CF and PW
432: methods is found at least 5 times lower than the autocorrelation at
433: scales where the latter is positive ($\theta\lesssim 0.2\deg$), and no
434: obvious trend was found between the amplitudes of this
435: cross-correlation and the Galactic extinction. On the other hand, the
436: amplitude of the cross-correlation function between galaxies and
437: background maps is higher in fields with higher mean Galactic
438: extinction. Inhomogeneities may also arise from photometry drift with
439: time, but sources drifted less than 0.1 magnitude
440: \citep{Morrissey_2007} over the whole GALEX mission; a drift of this
441: amplitude has a small effect on the CF method, as expected from tests
442: on mock catalogs. Studying sources observed several times in
443: overlapping regions shows that field-to-field fluctuations are less
444: than 10 \% beyond what is expected from Poisson statistics. Note
445: however that this result is based on a few sources per field located
446: at the edges of the field, where photometry accuracy decreases. Star
447: contamination can lower the amplitude of the PW method, as an addition
448: of an uncorrelated population, while it may contribute to the effects
449: observed with the CF method, given the variations of star counts with
450: Galactic latitude. According to template-fitting based classification,
451: the fraction of stars in SDSS objects with \type~= 3 is 2 \% in NUV
452: and 8 \% in FUV; we checked that this has small effect on the PW
453: method.
454:
455: All these tests suggest that there is some source of field-to-field
456: variations in our data, likely due to a combination of zero-point
457: calibrations, background fluctuations (correlated with Galactic
458: extinction), etc ... The PW method is fairly insensitive to any
459: systematics, as expected, and we are thus confident that it is a
460: robust estimator. It is this method we chose to use in the rest of the
461: paper.
462:
463:
464:
465:
466:
467:
468:
469:
470: Conservatively, for the remainder of the paper, we restrict the
471: analysis to the 174 fields with the lowest Galactic extinction
472: ($\langle E(B-V) \le 0.04 \rangle$). The number of galaxies at the
473: different limiting magnitude cuts are given in table~\ref{tab_Table1}.
474:
475:
476:
477: The characteristics of the UV dust attenuation in galaxies are not
478: known to be correlated with the large scale structure or the galaxy
479: density \citep[even in the extreme cases of clusters, see
480: e.g.][]{Boselli_2006}; the effect of internal dust has thus been taken
481: as an uncorrelated noise source on the UV fluxes and its effect on the
482: ACF neglected. This allows direct comparison with clustering studies
483: of high redshift restframe UV-selected galaxies.
484:
485: %Table 1
486: \input{tab1}
487:
488:
489: \section{Angular correlation function and correlation length}\label{sec_acf}
490:
491: \subsection{Measurements}
492:
493: We use the PW method described in sec. \ref{sec_acf_methods} to
494: measure $\omega(\theta)$ from the 174 fields with the lowest Galactic
495: extinction, using logarithmic-width bins of $\Delta\log\theta = 0.27$,
496: and $\theta_{min}=0.005\degr$ and $\theta_{max}=0.4\degr$, which
497: probes scales in the range 0.05 to 4 comoving Mpc at the median
498: redshift ($z=0.15$) of the samples considered here. The results are
499: plotted in fig.~\ref{fig_ACF}; the $1\sigma$ errorbars represent
500: internal scatter derived from jackknife resampling of the 174 \galex
501: fields used for the ACF. In order to check for any instrumental
502: contribution to the ACF such as residual non uniformities of the
503: sensitivity across the field of view, the PW method has been applied
504: to stars, selected as objects whose SDSS counterparts with \type~=
505: 6. For stars we find no significant deviation from a null correlation
506: function.
507:
508:
509:
510:
511: \begin{figure*}[t]
512: \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{f4.eps}
513: %\epsscale{2.165}
514: %\plotone{f4.eps}
515: \caption{ \small Angular correlation function measured in the 174
516: \galex fields with the lowest Galactic extinction, for the
517: \FUV (left) and \NUV (right) \galex bands at three magnitude cuts:
518: circles, $m_{UV}<22$; squares, $m_{UV}<21.5$ and triangles,
519: $m_{UV}<21$. Dashed lines show the power law best-fit uncorrected
520: for Integral Constraint. The upper axis shows the comoving
521: distances corresponding to the angular scales at $z=0.15$. No
522: attempt to remove residual active nuclei by photometric redshift
523: template fitting has been made beyond the SDSS
524: classification. \label{fig_ACF} }
525: \end{figure*}
526:
527:
528:
529:
530:
531: We fit the results using the method described
532: in sec. \ref{sec_acf_methods}. Our best fits for the different samples
533: are given in table \ref{tab_Table1}, where $\theta$ is expressed in
534: degrees. The error bars on $A_w$ and $\delta$ are the projected
535: $(\chi^2_{min}+1)$ contour.
536:
537:
538:
539:
540: \begin{figure}[t]
541: % \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{chi2_nuv_22_bis.ps}
542: \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{f5.eps}
543: %\plotone{f5.eps}
544: \caption{ \small $\chi^2$ contours and derivations of errors bars on
545: $A_w$, $\delta$ and $r_0$ for the \NUV$<22$ result. \textit{Top
546: left}: contours of constant $\chi^2$ in the $(A_w,\delta)$
547: plane. The inner (resp. outer) solid line corresponds to the 68.3\%
548: (resp. 95.4\%) confidence level. The dashed line shows the
549: $\chi_{min}^2+1$ contour; its projections on the axes give the error
550: bars on $A_w$ and $\delta$. \textit{Top right}: comoving $r_0$ as a function
551: of $\delta$ given $A_w$ using the values of $A_w$ and $\delta$
552: included in the 68.3\% confidence level. \textit{Bottom left}: comoving $r_0$
553: as a function of $A_w$ given $\delta$ using the same values. The
554: errors bars on $r_0$ are the extrema of this distribution. The solid
555: line intersections show the location of the best fit in each panel.
556: \label{fig_chi2}}
557: \end{figure}
558:
559:
560: To derive the comoving correlation length, $r_0$, we used the Limber
561: equation \citep{Peebles_1980} with the true deconvolved redshift distributions
562: (see in sec. \ref{sec_zdist}). The results are given in table
563: \ref{tab_Table1}. The uncertainties on $r_0$ have been assumed to be
564: the extreme excursions of $r_0$ in the projection in the
565: ($r_0,\delta$) and ($r_0,A_w$) planes of the $\chi^2$ contour at the
566: $68\%$ probability in the ($A_w,\delta$) plane (see fig
567: \ref{fig_chi2}).
568:
569:
570: \subsection{Comparison with previous studies}
571: Given the error bars, the slopes $\delta$ found for the different
572: magnitude cuts in the two bands are compatible with a constant value
573: $\delta\simeq0.81\pm0.07$. This is steeper than reported in several
574: studies based on blue galaxies at low $z$ \citep{Budavari_2003,
575: Zehavi_2002, Madgwick_2003}, and restframe UV-selected galaxies at
576: higher redshifts \citep{Adelberger_2005, Porciani_2002}, all of them
577: consistent with a value of $\delta\simeq0.6$. However our measurement
578: is in agreement with \citet{Giavalisco_1998, Giavalisco_2001,
579: Foucaud_2003}. Moreover, \citet{Coil_2004} noticed a steepening of the
580: slope not only for the reddest but also for the bluest galaxies of
581: their samples. We discuss in Paper II the dependence of $\delta$ on UV
582: luminosity.
583:
584: With an average comoving correlation length $3.7\pm0.6$ Mpc at $z \sim
585: 0.2$, the present \galex data sets confirm the low clustering of the
586: rest-UV selected galaxies in the local universe observed by
587: \citet{Heinis_2004}. The new mean value is 25\% lower, though
588: both measurements agree within error bars. Assuming the average values
589: of $r_0$ and $\delta$ quoted above, the corresponding bias defined at
590: 8 Mpc by ${b_8}=\sigma_{8,g}/\sigma_{8,m}$
591: \citep[e.g.][]{Magliocchetti_2000} is $0.61 \pm 0.09$ at $z=0.2$, a
592: significant anti-bias.
593:
594:
595: It is well-known that blue galaxies are less strongly correlated than
596: red ones, and not surprisingly the small correlation length found in
597: this study is comparable to that measured for blue galaxies in the
598: local universe: \citet{Coil_2004} report a comoving $r_0$ of
599: $2.54\pm0.37$~Mpc for the class of blue galaxies defined by ($0.2 <
600: R-I< 0.4$) in their visible-selected sample, which spans the redshift
601: range $0.3-0.6$, with the lowest correlation length among all of their
602: galaxy subsamples. The \galex restframe UV selected galaxies are
603: nevertheless even less correlated than the galaxy class T4 (bluest of
604: 4 classes) from \citet{Budavari_2003} for which they derive a $r_0$ of
605: $6.44\pm0.27$~Mpc. \citet{Hawkins_2001} computed the redshift-space
606: correlation function from far-infrared selected galaxies in the local
607: Universe ($z \sim 0.03$). Converted to real-space, their estimate of
608: the correlation length ($r_0 = 5 \pm 0.33$ Mpc) of the hotter
609: galaxies, i.e. the most star-forming, is higher than ours from
610: UV-selected galaxies.
611:
612:
613: Low-redshift restframe UV-selected galaxies possess correlation
614: lengths slightly lower than those derived from high-$z$ restframe
615: UV-selected samples (see fig. \ref{fig_ro_halos_z}). Note that the
616: comparison with results from higher $z$ samples is not straightforward
617: because of the UV luminosity segregation \citep{Giavalisco_2001,
618: Adelberger_2005, Zehavi_2005, Norberg_2002}: brighter objects are more
619: clustered than fainter ones. The \galex samples are the faintest of
620: the restframe UV-selected samples considered here: the mean absolute
621: magnitudes of the \FUV~and \NUV~samples are $M_{\FUV}=-18.3$ and
622: $M_{\NUV}=-18.8$, while the Lyman break galaxies samples of
623: \citet{Adelberger_2005, Arnouts_2002, Foucaud_2003, Giavalisco_2001}
624: are all brighter than $M_{UV}=-20$. We study in details the luminosity
625: dependence of clustering within the \galex samples in Paper II.
626:
627:
628: \subsection{Comparison with Dark Matter Halo clustering predictions}\label{sec_mo_white}
629:
630: \begin{figure}[t]
631: %\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{ro_halos_galex_z_MIS_only.ps}
632: \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{f6.eps}
633: %\plotone{f6.eps}
634: \caption{ \small Comparison of the evolution with redshift of the
635: correlation lengths obtained from restframe UV selected samples with
636: the correlation lengths of Dark Matter Halos more massive than
637: $M_{min}$ (color-coded). The inset shows the low $z$ points.
638: \label{fig_ro_halos_z}}
639: \end{figure}
640:
641:
642: In this section we use the formalism described by \citet{Mo_2002} to
643: compute the correlation length of Dark Matter Halos (DMHs) above a
644: given mass as a function of redshift. We assume that the spatial
645: correlation function of DMHs with masses greater than $M_{min}$ at a
646: redshift $z$ is well approximated by a power-law:
647: \begin{equation}
648: \xi(r,M_{min},z) = \left(\frac{r}{r_{0_h}(M_{min},z)}\right)^{-\gamma_h}
649: \end{equation}
650: where $r_{0_h}(M_{min},z)$ is the correlation length of such
651: halos. The \citet{Mo_2002} formalism provides analytical equations for the
652: abundance and the bias factor of the halos, $n(M,z)$ and $b(M,z)$,
653: given their mass and redshift. The effective bias of the halos more massive
654: than a minimum mass $M_{min}$ at a redshift $z$ is then given by:
655: \begin{equation}
656: b_{eff}(M_{min},z) = \frac{\int_{M_{min}}^{\infty}
657: b(M,z)n(M,z)dM}{\int_{M_{min}}^{\infty}n(M,z)dM}
658: \end{equation}
659: The rms density fluctuations of the halos is linked to the rms density
660: fluctuations of the underlying mass at 8 $h^{-1}$Mpc by:
661:
662:
663: $\sigma_{8,h}(M_{min},z) = b_{eff}(M_{min},z) \sigma(z)_{8,m}$
664:
665:
666: where the subscripts $h$ and $m$ denote respectively halos and underlying mass,
667: and $\sigma(z)_{8,m} = \sigma(0)_{8,m}D(z)$
668: \citep[see][]{Mo_2002} with $\sigma(0)_{8,m} = 0.9$. The correlation
669: length of the DMHs with masses $M>M_{Min}$ at $z$ is then obtained
670: using \citep[e.g.][]{Magliocchetti_2000}:
671: \begin{equation}
672: \sigma_{8,h}(M_{min},z) = \sqrt{C_{\gamma_h}\left(
673: \frac{r_{0_h}(M_{min},z)}{8}\right)^{\gamma_h}}
674: \end{equation}
675: where $C_{\gamma} = 72/[(3-\gamma)(4-\gamma)(6-\gamma)2^{\gamma}]$. We
676: assumed that the slope of the spatial correlation function of the
677: halos is $\gamma_h = 1.8$, after having checked that the results are
678: rather insensitive to the adopted value if $1.5<\gamma_h<2.5$. Fig.~
679: \ref{fig_ro_halos_z} shows the redshift evolution of the correlation
680: length of DMH with masses $10^7<M_{min}<10^{15} M_{\odot}$.
681:
682:
683: In the framework of Halo Occupation Distribution (HOD) models
684: \citep[e.g.][]{Berlind_2002, Cooray_2002}, recent studies have pointed
685: out that the galaxy correlation function is likely to be the sum of
686: two components. The first component dominates at small scales,
687: describing the correlation of galaxies that are in the same halo, and
688: the second component accounts for galaxies in different halos,
689: dominating at large scales. The present sample however does not
690: provide sufficient constraint to fit HOD models to our results---we
691: plan to perform this in future papers. Assuming that the correlation
692: function of DMHs is a power-law at all scales and that each halo hosts
693: at most one galaxy, a direct comparison of the \galex results with the
694: correlation lengths of dark matter halos (fig~\ref{fig_ro_halos_z})
695: shows that the UV selected galaxies in our samples have the same
696: correlation lengths as halos with masses lower than $M_{min} =
697: 10^{11}M_{\odot}$. At $z>2$, clustering measurements from LBGs samples
698: show that halos with comparable clustering strengths have $M_{min}
699: \gtrsim 10^{12}M_{\odot}$, as already mentioned by
700: \citet{Adelberger_2005} and \citet{Giavalisco_2001}. These results
701: suggest that the characteristic mass of halos hosting active star
702: formation has decreased from $z = 3$. Note that taking luminosity
703: evolution into account does not weaken this result, since at low
704: redshifts UV-selected samples actually probe the same UV LD fraction
705: as their high redshift counterparts (see Paper II). This mass
706: evolution, as well as the bias evolution can be interpreted as
707: additional evidence for the ``downsizing'' scenario of star formation,
708: though it applies here to the mass of the underlying halo rather than
709: to the baryonic mass. Note that these is a correlation between halo
710: and galaxy mass \citep{Shankar_2006}, though its scatter is expected
711: to be stronger for star forming galaxies \citep[see
712: e.g.][]{Yoshikawa_2001}. Theoretical studies also predict that the SFR
713: increases with halo mass \citep[e.g. at $z = 3$,][]{Bouche_2005};
714: however, in presence of AGN feedback\citep[e.g.][]{DiMatteo_2005,
715: Croton_2006}, or when taking into account gravitational heating
716: \citep{Khochfar_2007}, this trend reverses at lower redshift.
717:
718:
719: The conclusions of this work are developed in Paper II.
720:
721: \section{Conclusions}\label{sec_discussion}
722:
723: We presented here the first clustering measurements from the \galex
724: data. These data provide a unique basis to statistical studies of star
725: formation in galaxies at low redshift from their UV continuum. The
726: same tracer can now be used in an homogeneous way over a large
727: redshift range ($0<z<4$) to investigate the processes driving star
728: formation evolution. We discussed the impact of the Galactic
729: extinction on the clustering measurements and used a method
730: insensitive to the color excess. We measured the clustering by the
731: angular correlation function, and fitted our results with a power law
732: parametrisation: $w(\theta) = A_w \theta^{-\delta}$. We derive steep
733: slopes, $\delta \simeq 0.81 \pm 0.07$. Assuming photometric redshift
734: estimation, we compute the correlation length, $r_0$. The results
735: confirm the low clustering of UV-selected galaxies at low redshift
736: ($r_0 = 3.7 \pm 0.6$ Mpc). Comparison with analytical modeling shows that
737: active star forming at $z<0.4$ present the same correlation lengths
738: than DMHs with $M_{min} < 10^{11} M_{\odot}$. This result is in
739: agreement with the ``downsizing'' scenario.
740:
741: \acknowledgments It is with great pleasure that we thank Jean-Michel
742: Deharveng for support and discussions. \galex (Galaxy Evolution
743: Explorer) is a NASA Small Explorer, launched in April 2003. We
744: gratefully acknowledge NASA's support for construction, operation, and
745: science analysis for the \galex mission, developed in cooperation with
746: the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales of France and the Korean
747: Ministry of Science and Technology.
748:
749:
750:
751:
752:
753:
754:
755:
756: \begin{thebibliography}{}
757:
758:
759: % #########
760: % ### A ###
761: % #########
762:
763:
764: \bibitem[Adelberger et al.(2005)]{Adelberger_2005} Adelberger, K.~L.,
765: Steidel, C.~C., Pettini, M., Shapley, A.~E., Reddy, N.~A., \& Erb, D.~K.\
766: 2005, \apj, 619, 697
767:
768:
769: \bibitem[Arnouts et al.(1999)]{Arnouts_1999} Arnouts, S., Cristiani,
770: S., Moscardini, L., Matarrese, S., Lucchin, F., Fontana, A., \& Giallongo,
771: E.\ 1999, \mnras, 310, 540
772:
773:
774: \bibitem[Arnouts et al.(2002)]{Arnouts_2002} Arnouts, S., et al.\
775: 2002, \mnras, 329, 355
776:
777:
778: \bibitem[Arnouts et al.(2005)]{Arnouts_2005} Arnouts, S., et al.\
779: 2005, \apjl, 619, L43
780:
781:
782: \bibitem[Arnouts \& Ilbert (in prep)]{Arnouts_2077} Arnouts, S.,
783: Ilbert, O., in preparation
784:
785:
786: % #########
787: % ### B ###
788: % #########
789: \bibitem[Baldry et al.(2004)]{Baldry_2004} Baldry, I.~K.,
790: Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., Ivezi{\'c}, {\v Z}., Lupton, R.~H., Nichol,
791: R.~C., \& Szalay, A.~S.\ 2004, \apj, 600, 681
792:
793:
794: \bibitem[Berlind \& Weinberg(2002)]{Berlind_2002} Berlind, A.~A., \&
795: Weinberg, D.~H.\ 2002, \apj, 575, 587
796:
797:
798: \bibitem[Blaizot et al.(2005)]{Blaizot_2005} Blaizot, J., Wadadekar,
799: Y., Guiderdoni, B., Colombi, S.~T., Bertin, E., Bouchet, F.~R., Devriendt,
800: J.~E.~G., \& Hatton, S.\ 2005, \mnras, 360, 159
801:
802:
803: %\bibitem[Blanton et al.(2000)]{Blanton_2000} Blanton, M., Cen, R.,
804: %Ostriker, J.~P., Strauss, M.~A., \& Tegmark, M.\ 2000, \apj, 531, 1
805:
806: \bibitem[Boselli \& Gavazzi(2006)]{Boselli_2006} Boselli, A., \&
807: Gavazzi, G.\ 2006, \pasp, 118, 517
808:
809: \bibitem[Bouch{\'e} et al.(2005)]{Bouche_2005} Bouch{\'e}, N.,
810: Gardner, J.~P., Katz, N., Weinberg, D.~H., Dav{\'e}, R., \& Lowenthal,
811: J.~D.\ 2005, \apj, 628, 89
812:
813: \bibitem[Budav{\' a}ri et al.(2003)]{Budavari_2003} Budav{\' a}ri,
814: T., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 595, 59
815:
816:
817: %\bibitem[Bundy et al.(2005)]{Bundy_2005} Bundy, K., et al.\ 2005,
818: %ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0512465
819: \bibitem[Bundy et al.(2006)]{Bundy_2006} Bundy, K., et al.\ 2006,
820: \apj, 651, 120
821:
822: % #########
823: % ### C ###
824: % #########
825: \bibitem[Cardelli et al.(1989)]{Cardelli_1989} Cardelli, J.~A.,
826: Clayton, G.~C., \& Mathis, J.~S.\ 1989, \apj, 345, 245
827:
828:
829: \bibitem[Coil et al.(2004)]{Coil_2004} Coil, A.~L., Newman,
830: J.~A., Kaiser, N., Davis, M., Ma, C., Kocevski, D.~D., \& Koo, D.~C.\ 2004,
831: \apj, 617, 765
832:
833:
834: \bibitem[Connolly et al.(1995)]{Connolly_1995} Connolly, A.~J.,
835: Csabai, I., Szalay, A.~S., Koo, D.~C., Kron, R.~G., \& Munn, J.~A.\ 1995,
836: \aj, 110, 2655
837:
838:
839: \bibitem[Connolly et al.(1997)]{Connolly_1997} Connolly, A.~J.,
840: Szalay, A.~S., Dickinson, M., Subbarao, M.~U., \& Brunner, R.~J.\ 1997,
841: \apjl, 486, L11
842:
843:
844: \bibitem[Cooray \& Sheth(2002)]{Cooray_2002} Cooray, A., \& Sheth,
845: R.\ 2002, \physrep, 372, 1
846:
847:
848: \bibitem[Cowie et al.(1996)]{Cowie_1996} Cowie, L.~L.,
849: Songaila, A., Hu, E.~M., \& Cohen, J.~G.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 839
850:
851:
852: \bibitem[Croton et al.(2006)]{Croton_2006} Croton, D.~J., et al.\
853: 2006, \mnras, 365, 11
854:
855: % #########
856: % ### D ###
857: % #########
858: \bibitem[De Lucia et al.(2006)]{DeLucia_2006} De Lucia, G.,
859: Springel, V., White, S.~D.~M., Croton, D., \& Kauffmann, G.\ 2006, \mnras,
860: 366, 499
861:
862: \bibitem[Di Matteo et al.(2005)]{DiMatteo_2005} Di Matteo, T.,
863: Springel, V., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2005, \nat, 433, 604
864:
865: % #########
866: % ### E ###
867: % #########
868:
869:
870: \bibitem[Efstathiou et al.(1991)]{Efstathiou_1991} Efstathiou, G.,
871: Bernstein, G., Tyson, J.~A., Katz, N., \& Guhathakurta, P.\ 1991, \apjl,
872: 380, L47
873:
874:
875:
876:
877: % #########
878: % ### F ###
879: % #########
880:
881:
882: \bibitem[Faber et al.(2005)]{Faber_2005} Faber, S.~M., et al.\
883: 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0506044
884:
885:
886:
887: \bibitem[Foucaud et al.(2003)]{Foucaud_2003} Foucaud, S., McCracken,
888: H.~J., Le F{\` e}vre, O., Arnouts, S., Brodwin, M., Lilly, S.~J., Crampton,
889: D., \& Mellier, Y.\ 2003, \aap, 409, 835
890:
891:
892: % #########
893: % ### G ###
894: % #########
895:
896:
897:
898: \bibitem[Giavalisco et al.(1998)]{Giavalisco_1998} Giavalisco, M.,
899: Steidel, C.~C., Adelberger, K.~L., Dickinson, M.~E., Pettini, M., \&
900: Kellogg, M.\ 1998, \apj, 503, 543
901:
902:
903: \bibitem[Giavalisco \& Dickinson(2001)]{Giavalisco_2001} Giavalisco,
904: M., \& Dickinson, M.\ 2001, \apj, 550, 177
905:
906: \bibitem[Giavalisco(2002)]{Giavalisco_2002} Giavalisco, M.\ 2002,
907: \araa, 40, 579
908:
909: % #########
910: % ### H ###
911: % #########
912:
913:
914: \bibitem[Hatton et al.(2003)]{Hatton_2003} Hatton, S., Devriendt,
915: J.~E.~G., Ninin, S., Bouchet, F.~R., Guiderdoni, B., \& Vibert, D.\ 2003,
916: \mnras, 343, 75
917:
918:
919: \bibitem[Hawkins et al.(2001)]{Hawkins_2001} Hawkins, E., Maddox,
920: S., Branchini, E., \& Saunders, W.\ 2001, \mnras, 325, 589
921:
922:
923: \bibitem[Heavens et al.(2004)]{Heavens_2004} Heavens, A., Panter,
924: B., Jimenez, R., \& Dunlop, J.\ 2004, \nat, 428, 625
925:
926:
927: \bibitem[Heinis et al.(2004)]{Heinis_2004} Heinis, S., Treyer, M.,
928: Arnouts, S., Milliard, B., Donas, J., Gal, R., Martin, D.~C., \& Viton, M.\
929: 2004, \aap, 424, L9
930:
931: \bibitem[Heinis et al.(2007)]{Heinis_2007} Heinis, S., et al.\
932: 2007, \apjs, accepted, ArXiv e-prints, 706, arXiv:0706.1076 (Paper II)
933:
934:
935: %\bibitem[Hopkins(2004)]{Hopkins_2004} Hopkins, A.~M.\ 2004, \apj,
936: %615, 209
937: \bibitem[Hopkins \& Beacom(2006)]{Hopkins_2006} Hopkins, A.~M., \&
938: Beacom, J.~F.\ 2006, \apj, 651, 142
939:
940: %\bibitem[Hurwitz et al.(1991)]{Hurwitz_1991} Hurwitz, M., Bowyer,
941: %S., \& Martin, C.\ 1991, \apj, 372, 167
942:
943: % #########
944: % ### J ###
945: % #########
946: \bibitem[Jimenez et al.(2005)]{Jimenez_2005} Jimenez, R., Panter,
947: B., Heavens, A.~F., \& Verde, L.\ 2005, \mnras, 356, 495
948:
949: %\bibitem[Joubert et al.(1983)]{Joubert_1983} Joubert, M., Deharveng,
950: %J.~M., Cruvellier, P., Masnou, J.~L., \& Lequeux, J.\ 1983, \aap, 128, 114
951:
952:
953: % #########
954: % ### K ###
955: % #########
956:
957:
958: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(2004)]{Kauffmann_2004} Kauffmann, G., White,
959: S.~D.~M., Heckman, T.~M., M{\'e}nard, B., Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S.,
960: Tremonti, C., \& Brinkmann, J.\ 2004, \mnras, 353, 713
961:
962: \bibitem[Kennicutt(1998)]{Kennicutt_1998} Kennicutt, R.~C.\ 1998,
963: \araa, 36, 189
964:
965: \bibitem[Khochfar \& Ostriker(2007)]{Khochfar_2007} Khochfar, S., \&
966: Ostriker, J.~P.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 704, arXiv:0704.2418
967:
968: \bibitem[Kiss et al.(2003)]{Kiss_2003} Kiss, C., {\'A}brah{\'a}m,
969: P., Klaas, U., Lemke, D., H{\'e}raudeau, P., del Burgo, C., \& Herbstmeier,
970: U.\ 2003, \aap, 399, 177
971:
972:
973:
974:
975:
976: % #########
977: % ### L ###
978: % #########
979:
980:
981: \bibitem[Landy \& Szalay(1993)]{Landy_1993} Landy, S.~D., \&
982: Szalay, A.~S.\ 1993, \apj, 412, 64
983:
984:
985: \bibitem[Lilly et al.(1996)]{Lilly_1996} Lilly, S.~J., Le Fevre,
986: O., Hammer, F., \& Crampton, D.\ 1996, \apjl, 460, L1
987:
988:
989:
990: \bibitem[Lupton et al.(2001)]{Lupton_2001} Lupton, R.~H., Gunn,
991: J.~E., Ivezi{\' c}, Z., Knapp, G.~R., Kent, S., \& Yasuda, N.\ 2001, ASP
992: Conf.~Ser.~238: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems X, 238, 269
993:
994:
995:
996: % #########
997: % ### M ###
998: % #########
999:
1000:
1001: \bibitem[Madgwick et al.(2002)]{Madgwick_2002} Madgwick, D.~S., et
1002: al.\ 2002, \mnras, 333, 133
1003:
1004:
1005: \bibitem[Madgwick et al.(2003)]{Madgwick_2003} Madgwick, D.~S., et
1006: al.\ 2003, \mnras, 344, 847
1007:
1008:
1009: \bibitem[Magliocchetti et al.(2000)]{Magliocchetti_2000} Magliocchetti,
1010: M., Bagla, J.~S., Maddox, S.~J., \& Lahav, O.\ 2000, \mnras, 314, 546
1011: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2005)]{Martin_2005} Martin, D.~C., et al.\
1012: 2005, \apjl, 619, L1
1013:
1014:
1015: \bibitem[Miller et al.(2005)]{Miller_2005} Miller, C.~J., et al.\
1016: 2005, \aj, 130, 968
1017:
1018:
1019: \bibitem[Mo \& White(2002)]{Mo_2002} Mo, H.~J., \& White,
1020: S.~D.~M.\ 2002, \mnras, 336, 112
1021:
1022:
1023: \bibitem[Morrissey et al.(2005)]{Morrissey_2005} Morrissey, P., et
1024: al.\ 2005, \apjl, 619, L7
1025:
1026: \bibitem[Morrissey et al.(2007)]{Morrissey_2007} Morrissey, P., et
1027: al.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 706, arXiv:0706.0755
1028:
1029:
1030: % #########
1031: % ### N ###
1032: % #########
1033:
1034: \bibitem[Neistein et al.(2006)]{Neistein_2006} Neistein, E., van den
1035: Bosch, F.~C., \& Dekel, A.\ 2006, \mnras, 372, 933
1036:
1037: \bibitem[Norberg et al.(2002)]{Norberg_2002} Norberg, P., et al.\
1038: 2002, \mnras, 332, 827
1039:
1040:
1041: % #########
1042: % ### P ###
1043: % #########
1044:
1045: \bibitem[Papovich et al.(2006)]{Papovich_2006} Papovich, C., et al.\
1046: 2006, \aj, 132, 231
1047:
1048: \bibitem[Peebles(1980)]{Peebles_1980} Peebles, P.~J.~E.\ 1980,
1049: Princeton University Press, 1980
1050:
1051:
1052: \bibitem[Porciani \& Giavalisco(2002)]{Porciani_2002} Porciani, C.,
1053: \& Giavalisco, M.\ 2002, \apj, 565, 24
1054: % #########
1055: % ### R ###
1056: % #########
1057:
1058:
1059: \bibitem[Roche \& Eales(1999)]{Roche_1999} Roche, N., \& Eales,
1060: S.~A.\ 1999, \mnras, 307, 703
1061:
1062:
1063:
1064: % #########
1065: % ### S ###
1066: % #########
1067:
1068:
1069: \bibitem[Schiminovich et al.(2005)]{Schiminovich_2005} Schiminovich, D.,
1070: et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 619, L47
1071:
1072:
1073: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{Schlegel_1998} Schlegel, D.~J.,
1074: Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1075:
1076:
1077: \bibitem[Shapley et al.(2003)]{Shapley_2003} Shapley, A.~E.,
1078: Steidel, C.~C., Pettini, M., \& Adelberger, K.~L.\ 2003, \apj, 588, 65
1079:
1080:
1081: \bibitem[Shankar et al.(2006)]{Shankar_2006} Shankar, F., Lapi, A.,
1082: Salucci, P., De Zotti, G., \& Danese, L.\ 2006, \apj, 643, 14
1083:
1084: \bibitem[Steidel et al.(1995)]{Steidel_1995} Steidel, C.~C., Pettini,
1085: M., \& Hamilton, D.\ 1995, \aj, 110, 2519
1086:
1087:
1088: \bibitem[Steidel et al.(1998)]{Steidel_1998} Steidel, C.~C.,
1089: Adelberger, K.~L., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., Pettini, M., \&
1090: Kellogg, M.\ 1998, \apj, 492, 428
1091:
1092:
1093: \bibitem[Stoughton et al.(2002)]{Stoughton_2002} Stoughton, C., et
1094: al.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 485
1095:
1096:
1097: \bibitem[Sullivan et al.(2000)]{Sullivan_2000} Sullivan, M., Treyer,
1098: M.~A., Ellis, R.~S., Bridges, T.~J., Milliard, B., \& Donas, J.\ 2000,
1099: \mnras, 312, 442
1100:
1101:
1102:
1103: % #########
1104: % ### W ###
1105: % #########
1106: \bibitem[Wilson et al.(2002)]{Wilson_2002} Wilson, G., Cowie, L.~L.,
1107: Barger, A.~J., \& Burke, D.~J.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 1258
1108:
1109: %\bibitem[Witt et al.(1997)]{Witt_1997} Witt, A.~N., Friedmann,
1110: %B.~C., \& Sasseen, T.~P.\ 1997, \apj, 481, 809
1111:
1112: \bibitem[Wright(1998)]{Wright_1998} Wright, E.~L.\ 1998, \apj, 496, 1
1113:
1114:
1115: % #########
1116: % ### Y ###
1117: % #########
1118:
1119: \bibitem[Yoshikawa et al.(2001)]{Yoshikawa_2001} Yoshikawa, K.,
1120: Taruya, A., Jing, Y.~P., \& Suto, Y.\ 2001, \apj, 558, 520
1121:
1122: % #########
1123: % ### Z ###
1124: % #########
1125:
1126:
1127: \bibitem[Zehavi et al.(2002)]{Zehavi_2002} Zehavi, I., et al.\
1128: 2002, \apj, 571, 172
1129:
1130:
1131: \bibitem[Zehavi et al.(2005)]{Zehavi_2005} Zehavi, I., et al.\
1132: 2005, \apj, 630, 1
1133:
1134:
1135: \end{thebibliography}
1136:
1137:
1138: \appendix
1139: \section*{Pair-Weighted Average estimator for the Angular Correlation Function }\label{app_pw}
1140: In this section we discuss the weighted estimator presented in sec.
1141: \ref{sec_acf_methods}. The expression can be derived directly from the
1142: definition of the LS93 estimator with some assumptions. The LS93 estimator
1143: is:
1144: \begin{equation}
1145: w_{LS}(\theta) = \frac{DD(\theta) -2DR(\theta) + RR(\theta)}{RR(\theta)}
1146: \end{equation}
1147:
1148:
1149: where $DD$, $DR$ and $RR$ are normalized by the suitable pairs number :
1150: \begin{eqnarray}
1151: DD & = & \frac{2\widetilde{DD}}{n_g(n_g-1)}\\
1152: DR & = & \frac{\widetilde{DR}}{n_g n_r}\\
1153: RR & = & \frac{2\widetilde{RR}}{n_r(n_r-1)}
1154: \end{eqnarray}
1155:
1156:
1157: where $n_g$ is the number of galaxies in the sample and $n_r$ is the
1158: number of random objects in the random sample. In the following we do
1159: not recall the $\theta$ dependence of the different quantities.
1160:
1161:
1162: Let us consider the case of the CF method (see
1163: sec. \ref{sec_acf_methods}) applied on $N$ fields positioned on the sky
1164: in such a way that no cross pair between objects from different fields
1165: has to be accounted for in the computation of $w(\theta)$. The total
1166: number of pairs over all the fields in each angular bin can then be
1167: expressed using the number of pairs in each field:
1168:
1169:
1170: \begin{equation}
1171: \widetilde{DD} = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \widetilde{DD_i} = \sum_{i=1}^{N}
1172: \frac{n_{g_i}(n_{g_i}-1)}{2} DD_i
1173: \end{equation}
1174: where $\widetilde{DD_i}$ is the number of data-data pairs and
1175: $n_{g_i}$ the number of galaxies in the $i$th field. The same equations
1176: hold for $\widetilde{DR}$ and $\widetilde{RR}$.
1177:
1178:
1179: When computing the ACF of one field individually, we consider 100
1180: random samples with the same number of random points that galaxies in
1181: this field\footnote{In the case of the CF method, the total number of
1182: random points would also be fixed to $n_g$, but the number of random
1183: points in each field is allowed to be different of $n_{g_i}$.}. $RR_i$
1184: is then the average of the 100 computations. So $n_{g_i} = n_{r_i} =
1185: n_i$ and $n_g = n_r = n$. Then the LS93 estimator can be written:
1186:
1187:
1188: \begin{equation}\label{eq_start}
1189: w = \frac{1}{\frac{2\widetilde{RR}} {n(n-1)}} \left[ \frac{2}
1190: {n(n-1)} (\widetilde{DD} + \widetilde{RR}) -\frac{2}{n^2}
1191: \widetilde{DR} \right]
1192: \end{equation}
1193:
1194:
1195: Let us consider the term in brackets; with our assumptions it yields:
1196: \begin{equation}
1197: \frac{2} {n(n-1)}\sum_i \frac{n_i(n_i-1)}{2} \left(DD_i + RR_i\right) -
1198: \frac{2}{n^2} \sum_i n_{i}^{2} DR_i
1199: \end{equation}
1200:
1201:
1202: then introduce the term $RR_i/RR_i$ in both sums:
1203: \begin{equation}\label{eq_interm1}
1204: \frac{2} {n(n-1)}\sum_i \frac{n_i(n_i-1)}{2} \left(DD_i +
1205: RR_i\right) \frac{RR_i}{RR_i} - \frac{2}{n^2} \sum_i n_{i}^{2} DR_i
1206: \frac{RR_i}{RR_i}
1207: \end{equation}
1208:
1209:
1210: The ACF of the ith field can be written as:
1211: \begin{eqnarray*}
1212: w_{i} & = & w_{1_i} + w_{2_i} + w_{3_i} \textrm{ with} \\
1213: w_{1_i} & = & \frac{DD_i}{RR_i}\\
1214: w_{2_i} & = & -2\frac{DR_i}{RR_i}\\
1215: w_{3_i} & = & \frac{RR_i}{RR_i}
1216: \end{eqnarray*}
1217:
1218:
1219:
1220: Hence \ref{eq_interm1} becomes
1221: \begin{equation}\label{eq_interm2} \frac{2} {n(n-1)}\sum_i \frac{n_i(n_i-1)}{2} RR_i\left( w_{1_i} +
1222: w_{3_i} \right) + \frac{1}{n^2} \sum_i n_{i}^{2} RR_i w_{2_i}
1223: \end{equation}
1224:
1225:
1226: At this stage we also assume that $n_i \gg 1$ so that $n_i(n_i-1)
1227: \simeq n_{i}^{2}$, and hence $n(n-1) \simeq n^{2}$; \ref{eq_interm2}
1228: yields
1229:
1230:
1231: \begin{equation}\label{eq_interm3}
1232: \frac{2} {n^2}\sum_i \widetilde{RR_i}w_i
1233: \end{equation}
1234:
1235:
1236: Coming back to eq. \ref{eq_start} we finally get
1237:
1238:
1239:
1240: \begin{equation}\label{eq_end}
1241: w_{PW}(\theta) = \frac{\sum_i \widetilde{RR_i}(\theta)w_i} {\sum_i
1242: \widetilde{RR_i}(\theta)}
1243: \end{equation}
1244:
1245:
1246:
1247: \end{document}
1248: