1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % Primordial Non-Gaussian Effect on Minkowski Functionals
4: % of Large-Scale Structure
5: %
6: %
7: % Time-stamp: <08/01/10 20:24:40 ppzch>
8: % Hikage, Coles, Grossi, Moscardini.
9: % Dolag, Branchini, Matarrese
10: %
11: % 1st draft: 5th Oct. 2007 CH
12: % modified by PC, 8th January 2008
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: \documentclass[usegraphicx,usenatbib]{mn2e}
15: %\documentclass[usegraphicx]{mn2e}
16: %\documentclass[usegraphicx,onecolumn]{mn2e}
17:
18: \begin{document}
19: \title[Primordial Non--Gaussianity and Large-Scale
20: Structure]{The Effect of Primordial Non--Gaussianity on the Topology
21: of Large-Scale Structure}
22: \author[Hikage et al.]{
23: C.~Hikage$^{1,2}$\thanks{E-mail: chiaki.hikage@nottingham.ac.uk},
24: P.~Coles$^2$, M.~Grossi$^{3}$, L.~Moscardini$^{4,5}$, K.~Dolag$^3$,
25: E.~Branchini$^6$,
26: \newauthor S.~Matarrese$^{7,8}$ \\
27: $^1$
28: School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham,
29: University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD \\
30: $^2$
31: School of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University,
32: 5, The Parade, Cardiff, CF24 3AA \\
33: $^3$
34: Max-Planck Institut f\"ur Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild Strasse 1,
35: D-85748 Garching, Germany \\
36: $^4$
37: Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universit$\grave{\rm a}$ di Bologna,
38: via Ranzani 1, I-40127 Bologna, Italy \\
39: $^5$
40: INFN, Sezione di Bologna, viale Berti Pichat 6/2, I-40127 Bologna, Italy \\
41: $^6$
42: Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit$\grave{\rm a}$ di Roma TRE,
43: via della Vasca Navale 84, I-40127 Bologna, Italy \\
44: $^7$
45: Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit$\grave{\rm a}$ degli Studi di Padova,
46: via Marzolo 8, I-35131, Padova, Italy \\
47: $^8$
48: INFN, Sezione di Padova, via Marzolo 8, I-35131, Padova, Italy
49: }
50: %\date{\today}
51: \date{Accepted 2008 January 10. Submitted 2007 November 19.}
52: \maketitle
53: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
54: \begin{abstract}
55: We study the effect of primordial non--Gaussianity on the development
56: of large-scale cosmic structure using high-resolution $N$-body
57: simulations. In particular, we focus on the topological properties of
58: the ``cosmic web'', quantitatively characterized by the Minkowski
59: Functionals, for models with quadratic non-linearities with different
60: values of the usual non--Gaussianity parameter $f_{\rm NL}$. In the
61: weakly non-linear regime (the amplitude of mass density fluctuations
62: $\sigma_0<0.1$), we find that analytic formulae derived from
63: perturbation theory agree with the numerical results within a few
64: percent of the amplitude of each MF when $|f_{\rm NL}|<1000$. In the
65: non-linear regime, the detailed behavior of the MFs as functions of
66: threshold density deviates more strongly from the analytical curves,
67: while the overall amplitude of the primordial non--Gaussian effect
68: remains comparable to the perturbative prediction. When smaller-scale
69: information is included, the influence of primordial non--Gaussianity
70: becomes increasingly significant statistically due to decreasing
71: sample variance. We find that the effect of the primordial
72: non-Gaussianity with $|f_{\rm NL}|=50$ is comparable to the sample
73: variance of mass density fields with a volume of $0.125(h^{-1}{\rm
74: Gpc})^3$ when they are smoothed by Gaussian filter at a scale of
75: $5h^{-1}$Mpc. The detectability of this effect in actual galaxy
76: surveys will strongly depend upon residual uncertainties in
77: cosmological parameters and galaxy biasing.
78: \end{abstract}
79: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
80: \begin{keywords}
81: Cosmology: early Universe -- large-scale structure of Universe
82: -- methods: N-body simulations -- analytical -- statistical
83: \end{keywords}
84: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
85:
86: \section{Introduction}
87:
88: According to the standard scenarios for the formation of
89: large-structure in the Universe, the present-day cosmic density
90: field evolves from small-amplitude initial fluctuations which are
91: described by Gaussian statistics. The hypothesis of primordial
92: Gaussianity is supported by present observations of the Cosmic
93: Microwave Background (CMB), particularly those from the Wilkinson
94: Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) \citep{Komatsu2003,Spergel2007}.
95: These results are consistent with an inflationary origin
96: for the primordial perturbations, since the simplest forms of cosmic
97: inflation produce nearly Gaussian fluctuations.
98:
99: In order to understand the early Universe in more detail, however, it
100: is necessary to measure (or at least constrain) the departures from
101: non--Gaussianity that inevitably arise at some level during the
102: inflationary epoch. For example, the simplest slowly-rolling single
103: field inflation model predicts very small levels of primordial
104: non--Gaussianity, while multi-field inflation models and models with a
105: non-standard kinetic term for the inflation may yield larger effects
106: which could be detected in ongoing or next-generation observations
107: \citep[e.g.][]{BMR2002,BU2002,lyth2003,dvali2004,ACMZ2004,AST2004,BKMR2004,Chen2007,BB2007}.
108: Only when such phenomena are detected will it be possible to
109: distinguish between the hundreds of currently viable variations on the
110: theme of inflation by understanding the dynamical behavior of the
111: inflation field.
112:
113: In order to model the primordial non--Gaussianity that might arise
114: during inflation, the following simple form including quadratic
115: corrections to the curvature perturbation $\Phi$ \citep{B1980} during
116: the matter era has been often adopted
117: \citep{Gangui1994,Verde2000,KS2001}:
118: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
119: \begin{equation}
120: \label{eq:ngpotential2}
121: \Phi=\phi+f_{\rm NL}(\phi^2-\langle\phi^2\rangle),
122: \end{equation}
123: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
124: where $\phi$ represents an auxiliary random-Gaussian field and $f_{\rm
125: NL}$ characterizes the amplitude of a quadratic correction to the
126: curvature perturbations in a dimensionless way. In principle, $f_{\rm
127: NL}$ could be scale-dependent, but current observations are not
128: sufficiently sensitive to detect any such variation, so a constant
129: $f_{\rm NL}$ remains a useful parametrization of the level of
130: non--Gaussianity. Recent analyses of the angular bispectrum for WMAP
131: provides strong constraints on $f_{\rm NL}$ to lie in the range from
132: $-54$ to $114$ at the 95 percent confidence level
133: \citep{Komatsu2003,Spergel2007,Creminelli2006}.
134:
135: The Large-Scale Structure (LSS) of the distribution of galaxies in the
136: Universe provides another potentially powerful probe of primordial
137: non--Gaussianity
138: \citep{FS1994,CB1996,Verde2000,Scocci2004,HKM2006,SK2007}. The
139: three-dimensional spatial information arising from LSS is potentially
140: a richer source information about primordial non--Gaussianity than the
141: two-dimensional information arising from the CMB. For example,
142: constraints from upcoming cluster surveys should be comparable with
143: current CMB limits and those from galaxy surveys, which could be as
144: tight as $|f_{\rm NL}|\sim 10$ for the planned surveys and $|f_{\rm
145: NL}|\sim 0.2$ for an all-sky survey of galaxies up to redshift $z=5$
146: \citep{SK2007,Dalal2007}. A variety of large-scale projects of LSS
147: observation covering Gpc$^3$ volumes are being proposed, such as an
148: extension of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey; APO-LSS survey; The
149: Hobby-Eberly Dark Energy Experiment (HETDEX) \citep{Hill2004};
150: Wide-Field Multi-Object Spectrograph (WFMOS) \citep{Glazebrook2005};
151: and the Cosmic Inflation Probe (CIP) mission \citep{Melnick2004}. It
152: is consequently important to study the optimal way to extract
153: information about primordial non--Gaussianity from such surveys.
154:
155: The statistical analysis of non--Gaussianity has been mainly performed
156: through the calculation of the bispectrum
157: \citep{Verde2000,Scocci2004,SK2007}. Strong motivation for this is
158: that the bispectrum is the simplest statistical function that can
159: measure quadratic non-linearity \citep[e.g.][]{WC2003}. Although
160: the quadratic model provides an extremely useful benchmark for
161: statistical analysis techniques, one must always bear in mind that
162: there are many different ways for a random field to be
163: non--Gaussian. In general, there is no one statistic that completely
164: characterizes the statistical nature of a non--Gaussian random field,
165: so a battery of higher-order statistics must be deployed. In
166: particular, when the full nature of non--Gaussianity is virtually
167: unknown, such as is really the case for primordial perturbations, the
168: theoretical model assumed should be validated before its parameters
169: are constrained. Different statistics reflect different aspects of
170: non--Gaussianity so the use of different statistics plays a vital role
171: in this kind of consistency check.
172:
173: In this paper we use a set of invariant characteristics of the
174: topology of the cosmic web, known as the Minkowski Functionals
175: (MFs). These have already been used to describe the morphological
176: properties of cosmic density fields in a variety of contexts
177: \citep{MBW1994,SB1997,SG1998,Hikage2003}. Four MFs are defined in
178: three-dimensional density fields such as LSS: the volume
179: fraction ($V_0$); surface area ($V_1$); mean curvature ($V_2$);
180: and Euler characteristic ($V_3$).
181:
182: Using a perturbative approach, \citet{HKM2006} derived analytical
183: formulae for the behavior of the MFs for LSS including primordial
184: non--Gaussianity (as a function of $f_{\rm NL}$ as given in equation
185: [\ref{eq:ngpotential2}]), in addition to the non--Gaussianity due to
186: non-linear gravity and galaxy biasing. The validity of the
187: perturbative analysis is, however, limited to the weakly non-linear
188: regime. Smaller-scale modes also contain rich information about the
189: primordial density fields, and this could help place more stringent
190: constraints on primordial non--Gaussianity. In this paper, we use
191: high-resolution $N$-body simulations to study the effect of primordial
192: non--Gaussianity on the MFs from the mildly to strongly non-linear
193: regime. There are two reasons for using the full numerical analysis:
194: one is to see how well the perturbative formulae describe the
195: simulated MFs to check their applicability; the other is to study how
196: the primordial non--Gaussian effect behaves in the strongly non-linear
197: regime and thus to estimate the significance of the effect on the MFs.
198:
199: The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:pb}, we
200: review the perturbative formulae for the MFs. The details of the
201: $N$-body simulations and the computing method of the MFs are
202: summarized in Section \ref{sec:sim}. In Section \ref{sec:results},
203: we compare the perturbative formulae of MFs with simulated results to
204: study the primordial non--Gaussian effect in non-linear regime.
205: Section \ref{sec:summary} is devoted to the summary and conclusions.
206:
207: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
208: \section{Perturbation Theory}
209: \label{sec:pb}
210:
211: We define the MFs of density fields for a given threshold $\nu\equiv
212: \delta/\sigma_0$, where $\delta$ is the density fluctuation, which
213: has zero mean, and $\sigma_0\equiv \langle\delta^2\rangle^{1/2}$ is
214: its standard deviation. The $k$-th MF $V_k(\nu)$ can be written
215: separately with the amplitude $A_k$ and the function of $\nu$,
216: $v_k(\nu)$, as
217: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
218: \begin{equation}
219: \label{eq:MFs}
220: V_k(\nu) = A_kv_k(\nu).
221: \end{equation}
222: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
223: The amplitude part $A_k$, which depends only on the power spectrum $P(k,z)$
224: of the 3-dimensional fluctuation field $\delta$ at redshift $z$, is given by
225: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
226: \begin{equation}
227: \label{eq:mfamp}
228: A_k = \frac1{(2\pi)^{(k+1)/2}}\frac{\omega_3}{\omega_{3-k}\omega_k}
229: \left(\frac{\sigma_1(z)}{\sqrt{3}\sigma_0(z)}\right)^k,
230: \end{equation}
231: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
232: where $\omega_k\equiv\pi^{k/2}/{\Gamma(k/2+1)}$ gives $\omega_0=1$,
233: $\omega_1=2$, $\omega_2=\pi$, and $\omega_3=4\pi/3$. The quantity
234: $\sigma_i^2$ characterizes the variance of fluctuating fields for
235: $i=0$ and that of their derivatives for $i=1$ given by
236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
237: \begin{equation}
238: \sigma_i^2(z)\equiv \int_0^\infty\frac{k^2dk}{2\pi^2}k^{2i}P(k,z)W^2(kR),
239: \end{equation}
240: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
241: where $W$ represents a smoothing kernel. Throughout the paper, we
242: adopt a Gaussian kernel $W^2=\exp[-(kR)^2]$ where $R$ represents the
243: smoothing scale.
244:
245: \citet{Matsubara2003} derives the second-order perturbative formulae
246: of the MFs using the multivariate Edgeworth expansion. According
247: to the formulae, the function $v_k(\nu)$ is written with the Gaussian
248: part $v_k^{\rm (G)}$ and the leading part of the non--Gaussian term
249: $\Delta v_k$ as
250: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
251: \begin{eqnarray}
252: v_k(\nu) & = & v_k^{\rm (G)}(\nu) + \Delta v_k(\nu), \\
253: v_k^{\rm (G)}(\nu) & = & e^{-\nu^2/2}H_{k-1}(\nu), \\
254: \label{eq:MFs_perturb}
255: \Delta v_k(\nu) & = & e^{-\nu^2/2}
256: \left[\frac16S^{(0)}H_{k+2}(\nu)
257: +\frac{k}3S^{(1)}H_k(\nu)\right. \nonumber \\
258: &+&\left.\frac{k(k-1)}6S^{(2)}H_{k-2}(\nu)\right]\sigma_0,
259: \end{eqnarray}
260: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
261: where $H_n(\nu)$ denote the Hermite polynomials. The leading-order
262: non--Gaussian term $\Delta v_k(\nu)$ is calculated when the three
263: ``skewness parameters'' $S^{(i)}$ are given.
264:
265: The three skewness parameters $S^{(i)} (i=0,1$ and 2) are computed by
266: integrating the bispectrum $B(k_1,k_2,k_3,z)$ over $k_1$,
267: $k_2$, and $\mu\equiv({\mathbf k_1}\cdot{\mathbf k_2})/(k_1k_2)$ with
268: appropriate weights as
269: \citep{HKM2006}
270: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
271: \begin{eqnarray}
272: \label{eq:s0_lss}
273: S^{(0)}(z)&=&\frac{1}{8\pi^4\sigma_0^4(z)}
274: \int^\infty_0 dk_1 \int^\infty_0 dk_2 \int^1_{-1} d\mu
275: k_1^2k_2^2 \\ \nonumber
276: & &B(k_1,k_2,k_{12},z)W(k_1R)W(k_2R)W(k_{12}R),\\
277: \nonumber
278: S^{(1)}(z)&=&
279: \frac{1}{16\pi^4\sigma_0^2(z)\sigma_1^2(z)}
280: \int^\infty_0 dk_1 \int^\infty_0 dk_2 \int^1_{-1} d\mu \\ \nonumber
281: & &k_1^2k_2^2(k_1^2+k_2^2+\mu k_1k_2)
282: B(k_1,k_2,k_{12},z)\\
283: \label{eq:s1_lss}
284: & &\times W(k_1R)W(k_2R)W(k_{12}R),\\
285: \nonumber
286: S^{(2)}(z)&=&\frac{3}{16\pi^4\sigma_1^4(z)}
287: \int^\infty_0 dk_1 \int^\infty_0 dk_2 \int^1_{-1} d\mu \\ \nonumber
288: & &k_1^4k_2^4(1-\mu^2)B(k_1,k_2,k_{12},z)\\
289: \label{eq:s2_lss}
290: & &\times W(k_1R)W(k_2R)W(k_{12}R),
291: \end{eqnarray}
292: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
293: where $k_{12}\equiv|{\mathbf k_1}+{\mathbf k_2}|=(k_1^2 +k_2^2+2\mu
294: k_1k_2)^{1/2}$.
295:
296: Throughout this paper, we neglect the non--Gaussianity arising from
297: the non-linearity in relationship between galaxy counts
298: and mass (i.e. galaxy biasing)
299: so as to keep the analysis as simple as possible.
300: The bispectrum $B$ for the matter density fluctuation is then given by
301: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
302: \begin{equation}
303: B(k_1,k_2,k_3,z)= B_{\rm pri}(k_1,k_2,k_3,z)
304: +B_{\rm gr}(k_1,k_2,k_3,z),
305: \end{equation}
306: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
307: where $B_{\rm pri}$ and $B_{\rm gr}$ represent the
308: contributions from primordial non--Gaussianity and non-linearity in
309: gravitational clustering respectively:
310: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
311: \begin{eqnarray}
312: B_{\rm pri}(k_1,k_2,k_3,z)
313: &\equiv&
314: \frac{2f_{\rm NL}}{D(z)}
315: \left[\frac{P(k_1,z)P(k_2,z)M(k_3)}{M(k_1)M(k_2)}\right.
316: \nonumber \\
317: &+&\left.(\mbox{cyc.})\right],\\
318: B_{\rm gr}(k_1,k_2,k_3,z)
319: &\equiv&
320: 2\left[F_2({\mathbf k}_1,{\mathbf k}_2)P(k_1,z)
321: P(k_2,z)\right. \nonumber \\
322: &+&\left.(\mbox{cyc.})\right],
323: \end{eqnarray}
324: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
325: where $D(z)$ is the growth rate of linear density fluctuations
326: normalized such that $D(z)\rightarrow 1/(1+z)$ during the matter
327: era. The function $M(k)$ and $F_2({\mathbf k}_1,{\mathbf k}_2)$ are
328: time-independent kernels describing mode-coupling due to
329: non-linear clustering of matter density fluctuations in the weakly
330: non-linear regime. These are given by
331: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
332: \begin{equation}
333: M(k)\equiv \frac23\frac{k^2T(k)}{\Omega_{\rm m}H_0^2},
334: \label{eq:Mk}
335: \end{equation}
336: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
337: \begin{equation}
338: \label{eq:f2}
339: F_2({\mathbf k}_1,{\mathbf k}_2)=\frac{5}{7}
340: +\frac{{\mathbf k}_1\cdot{\mathbf k}_2}{
341: 2k_1k_2}\left(\frac{k_1}{k_2}+\frac{k_2}{k_1}\right)+\frac{2}{7}
342: \frac{({\mathbf k}_1\cdot{\mathbf k}_2)^2}{k_1^2k_2^2}.
343: \end{equation}
344: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
345: We adopt the linear transfer function $T(k)$ by \citet{EH1999}.
346: In comparison with numerical simulations, we use the power spectrum of
347: the simulations (the details are explained in the next section) at
348: $z^\ast=76.97$ for a theoretical input of the power spectrum
349: $P(k,z^\ast)$ and then give the power spectrum at $z$ as
350: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
351: \begin{equation}
352: P(k,z)=\frac{D^2(z)}{D^2(z^\ast)}P(k,z^\ast).
353: \end{equation}
354: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
355:
356:
357: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
358: \section{Methodology}
359: \label{sec:sim}
360: \subsection{Numerical Simulations with Primordial Non--Gaussianity}
361:
362: The $N$-body simulations with primordial non--Gaussianity that we use
363: for this analysis are those described in \citet{Grossi2007}. These
364: simulations employ $800^3$ dark matter particles in a periodic cubic
365: box with a side length of 0.5$h^{-1}$Gpc. The cosmology of our
366: simulations is a flat $\Lambda$CDM model with mass density parameter
367: $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.3$, baryon density parameter $\Omega_{\rm b}=0.04$,
368: Hubble parameter $h=0.7$, primordial power-law index $n_{\rm s}=1$, and
369: $\sigma_8=0.9$.
370:
371: The initial particles are perturbed from an initially homogeneous
372: ``glass-like'' distribution. The primordial non--Gaussianity is
373: incorporated into a Gaussian-random field with the above cosmology
374: in the form of equation (\ref{eq:ngpotential2}). \citet{Grossi2007}
375: explored 7 different scenarios with $f_{\rm NL}=0,\pm 100, \pm 500 \
376: {\rm and} \pm 1000$. We have analyzed all of these simulations, but
377: for brevity in this paper we only present results for the Gaussian
378: simulation with $f_{\rm NL}=0$ and the two extreme non--Gaussian
379: cases $f_{\rm NL}=\pm 1000$; results for the other simulations with
380: $f_{\rm NL}=\pm 100$ are intermediate, as expected.
381:
382: After Fourier-transforming the primordial non--Gaussian field, the
383: dark matter particles are displaced on the initial grid assuming the
384: Zel'dovich approximation. The simulations are started at $z\approx
385: 100$ and the subsequent gravitational evolution is simulated with the
386: GADGET-2 code \citep{Springel2005}. The Triangular-Shaped Cloud method
387: is used to assign densities onto $512^3$ grids. After
388: Fourier-transforming the grid data, we multiply by the Gaussian kernel
389: $\exp[-(kR)^2]$, and then transform them back to real space.
390:
391: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
392: \begin{figure*}
393: \begin{center}
394: \includegraphics[width=18cm]{f1a.eps}
395: \includegraphics[width=18cm]{f1b.eps}
396: \includegraphics[width=18cm]{f1c.eps}
397: \caption{Slice maps of simulated mass density fields at $z=5.15$
398: ({\it top}), $z=2.13$ ({\it middle}) and $z=0$ ({\it bottom}). The
399: number of pixels at a side length is $512$ ($500h^{-1}$Mpc) and that
400: of the thickness is $32$ ($31.25h^{-1}$Mpc). The panels in the
401: middle row show the log of the projected density smoothed with a
402: Gaussian filter of 10 pixels width, corresponding to $9.8h^{-1}$Mpc.
403: The left and right panels are the relative residuals for the $f_{\rm
404: NL}$=$\pm 1000$ runs (equation [\ref{eq:nresidual}]). Each panel
405: has the corresponding color bar and the range considered are
406: different from panel to panel.}
407: \label{fig:1}
408: \end{center}
409: \end{figure*}
410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
411:
412: It is instructive first to examine the visual morphology of the
413: clustering pattern. Fig. \ref{fig:1} shows maps of slices of the
414: mass density field with $f_{\rm NL}=0$ (middle-row panels) and the
415: relative residuals between $f_{\rm NL}=\pm 1000$ and $f_{\rm NL}=0$
416: (left and right panels). The residual for the map with $f_{\rm
417: NL}=x$, $\Delta \rho_x$, is calculated at each pixel as
418: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
419: \begin{equation}
420: \Delta \rho_x = (\rho_x-\rho_0)/\rho_0
421: \label{eq:nresidual}
422: \end{equation}
423: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
424: where $\rho_x$ is the number density of mass particles for the map
425: with $f_{\rm NL}=x$. The field is smoothed with a Gaussian filter
426: 10 pixels wide (i.e. $9.8h^{-1}$Mpc). The redshifts of the maps
427: are $5.15, 2.13$ and $0$ from top to bottom respectively. Similar
428: density structures in the mass distribution appear in the residual
429: maps with their contrast at same (inverse) sign for positive
430: (negative) values of $f_{\rm NL}$. For example, a large void
431: structure at the right-center in the density map also appears in the
432: residual maps. This is because the higher density region is
433: initially more (less) enhanced in the positive (negative) $f_{\rm
434: NL}$, as predicted by the local model of primordial
435: non--Gaussianity in equation (\ref{eq:ngpotential2}).
436:
437: \subsection{Computation of Minkowski Functionals}
438:
439: The computational method we use for calculating MFs of data defined on
440: a grid is based on ideas from integral geometry, rather than the
441: alternative more cumbersome approach of using the differential
442: properties of bounding surfaces. In our case the calculation reduces
443: to counting the numbers of vertices, edges and sides of the elementary
444: cells covering the structure \citep{CDP1996,SB1997}. The range of
445: $\nu$ is from $-3.6$ to $3.6$ with an equal binning width of
446: $0.2$. The MFs measured from numerical simulations often deviate from
447: analytical predictions even for Gaussian realizations due to subtle
448: pixelization effects. However, as pointed out by \citet{HKM2006},
449: pixelization effects become negligible when computing the difference
450: between Gaussian and non--Gaussian MFs. Therefore we focus on $\Delta
451: v_k(\nu_i)$ ($i$ denoting the binning number of $\nu$) that we compute
452: as follows:
453: \begin{enumerate}
454:
455: \item We compute the MFs for non--Gaussian simulation data $V_k$ and
456: then divide them by their amplitudes $A_k$ (equation
457: [\ref{eq:mfamp}]) to obtain normalized MFs $v_k$. The $\sigma_0$ and
458: $\sigma_1$ in $A_k$ are computed from the density fields of the
459: simulations. \\
460:
461: \item The MFs for Gaussian fields are computed
462: in the same way and then divided by their amplitudes $A_k$ where the
463: values of $\sigma_0$ and $\sigma_1$ are computed from each
464: realization. The same cosmological parameters as the $N$-body
465: simulations are adopted. The normalized MFs $v_k^{\rm (G)}$ are estimated
466: by averaging MFs over 10 Gaussian realizations. \\
467:
468: \item The difference ratio $\Delta v_k$ is computed by
469: \begin{equation}
470: \Delta v_k=v_k-v_k^{\rm (G)}.
471: \end{equation}
472:
473: \end{enumerate}
474:
475: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
476: \section{Results}
477: \label{sec:results}
478:
479: In this section we explore two different but related issues. The
480: first is whether the non-linear behaviour seen in numerical
481: simulations matches the predictions of analytical approaches. The
482: second is whether it is possible to separate the effects of
483: non-linear evolution from primordial non-Gaussianity to a sufficient
484: extent for this method to be useful in practice.
485: \subsection{Agreement with perturbative formulae
486: in the weakly non-linear regime}
487:
488: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
489: \begin{figure*}
490: \begin{center}
491: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f2a.eps}
492: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f2b.eps}
493: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f2c.eps}
494: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f2d.eps}
495: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f2e.eps}
496: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f2f.eps}
497: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f2g.eps}
498: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f2h.eps}
499: \caption{Four Minkowski Functionals $V_k$ ({\it left}) and their
500: difference ratios $\Delta v_k$ ({\it right}) for the simulated mass
501: density fields at $z=3.96$, with $f_{\rm NL}=0$ (filled circles), 1000
502: (open triangles) and $-1000$ (crosses). The simulated fields are
503: smoothed with a Gaussian window function at the scale $R=$
504: 10$h^{-1}$Mpc. The error-bars denote the sample variance estimated
505: from 1000 Gaussian realizations with same $z, R$ and box-size as the
506: simulations. For comparison, the theoretical expectations from
507: perturbation theory (equations [\ref{eq:MFs}] and
508: [\ref{eq:MFs_perturb}]) are plotted with lines.} \label{fig:2}
509: \end{center}
510: \end{figure*}
511: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
512:
513: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
514: \begin{table*}
515: \centering
516: %\begin{minipage}{150mm}
517: \caption{Root-mean-square differences
518: between simulated MFs and perturbative formulae at different $z$ and
519: $f_{\rm NL}$ with the corresponding $\sigma_0$. The smoothing scale
520: is fixed at $R=10h^{-1}$Mpc.}
521: \label{tab:dif}
522: \begin{tabular}{cccccccccccc}
523: \hline
524: & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$\sqrt{\langle(\Delta v_k^{(\rm SIM)}
525: -\Delta v_k^{(\rm PT)})^2\rangle}$} &
526: & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$\sqrt{\langle(\Delta v_k^{(\rm SIM)}-\Delta
527: v_k^{(\rm PT)})^2\rangle/\langle(\Delta v_k^{(\rm
528: SIM)})^2\rangle}$} \\
529: \cline{4-7}
530: \cline{9-12}
531: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$z$} &
532: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$f_{\rm NL}$} & \raisebox{1.5ex}{$\sigma_0$} &
533: \raisebox{-0.5ex}{$V_0$} & \raisebox{-0.5ex}{$V_1$} &
534: \raisebox{-0.5ex}{$V_2$} & \raisebox{-0.5ex}{$V_3$} & &
535: \raisebox{-0.5ex}{~~~$V_0$~~~} & \raisebox{-0.5ex}{~~~$V_1$~~~} &
536: \raisebox{-0.5ex}{~~~$V_2$~~~} & \raisebox{-0.5ex}{~~~$V_3$~~~} \\
537: \hline
538: 5.15 & 0 & 0.080 & 0.003 & 0.006 & 0.009 & 0.024 & &
539: 0.15 & 0.27 & 0.24 & 0.41 \\
540: 5.15 & 1000 & 0.080 & 0.005 & 0.008 & 0.013 & 0.029 & &
541: 0.17 & 0.27 & 0.24 & 0.38 \\
542: 5.15 & $-1000$ & 0.080 & 0.003 & 0.006 & 0.012 & 0.024 & &
543: 0.33 & 0.44 & 0.40 & 0.54 \\
544: 3.96 & 0 & 0.099 & 0.003 & 0.006 & 0.009 & 0.023 & &
545: 0.14 & 0.24 & 0.20 & 0.37 \\
546: 3.96 & 1000 & 0.099 & 0.006 & 0.010 & 0.014 & 0.031 & &
547: 0.20 & 0.34 & 0.26 & 0.41 \\
548: 3.96 & $-1000$ & 0.099 & 0.003 & 0.004 & 0.008 & 0.020 & &
549: 0.14 & 0.20 & 0.23 & 0.41 \\
550: 2.13 & 0 & 0.16 & 0.007 & 0.014 & 0.021 & 0.044 & &
551: 0.18 & 0.34 & 0.29 & 0.44 \\
552: 2.13 & 1000 & 0.16 & 0.011 & 0.021 & 0.029 & 0.057 & &
553: 0.23 & 0.40 & 0.34 & 0.48 \\
554: 2.13 & $-1000$ & 0.16 & 0.004 & 0.010 & 0.017 & 0.034 & &
555: 0.15 & 0.31 & 0.27 & 0.40 \\
556: 0.96 & 0 & 0.24 & 0.015 & 0.030 & 0.043 & 0.081 & &
557: 0.26 & 0.48 & 0.41 & 0.58 \\
558: 0.96 & 1000 & 0.24 & 0.020 & 0.039 & 0.055 & 0.10 & &
559: 0.31 & 0.54 & 0.48 & 0.65 \\
560: 0.96 & $-1000$ & 0.24 & 0.010 & 0.023 & 0.034 & 0.065 & &
561: 0.22 & 0.43 & 0.36 & 0.51 \\
562: 0 & 0 & 0.38 & 0.035 & 0.067 & 0.095 & 0.17 & &
563: 0.40 & 0.68 & 0.63 & 0.86 \\
564: 0 & 1000 & 0.38 & 0.042 & 0.078 & 0.11 & 0.19 & &
565: 0.44 & 0.73 & 0.69 & 0.93 \\
566: 0 & $-1000$ & 0.38 & 0.028 & 0.058 & 0.083 & 0.15 & &
567: 0.36 & 0.64 & 0.58 & 0.80 \\
568: \hline
569: \end{tabular}
570: %\end{minipage}
571: \end{table*}
572: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
573:
574: Fig. \ref{fig:2} shows examples of MFs $V_k$ (left panels) and the
575: difference ratio $\Delta v_k$ (right panels) for simulated mass
576: distributions in the weakly non-linear regime. We smooth on a scale
577: $R=10h^{-1}$Mpc which, at $z=3.96$, marks the transition to the
578: non-linear regime since the variance of the smoothed density
579: fluctuation $\sigma_0\simeq 0.1$. The different symbols show the
580: different $f_{\rm NL}$ of $0$ and $\pm 1000$. The error-bars
581: represent the sample variance estimated from 1000 Gaussian
582: realizations with the same $R$, $z$ and box-size as the simulations.
583: The perturbative formulae discussed above are plotted with lines for
584: comparison. Results for the simulations with $f_{\rm NL}=\pm 100$
585: and $\pm 500$ are found to be linearly scaled between those with
586: $f_{\rm NL}=0$ and $\pm 1000$.
587:
588: The theoretical curves reproduce the features of the simulated MFs
589: very well. We quantitatively estimate the agreement between the
590: simulation results $\Delta v_k^{\rm (SIM)}(\nu_i)$ and the
591: perturbative formulae $\Delta v_k^{\rm (PT)}(\nu_i)$ by calculating
592: the root-mean-square (rms) differences averaged over $i$. Table
593: $\ref{tab:dif}$ lists the differences for each MF at different
594: redshifts $z$ (but $R$ is fixed to be $10h^{-1}$Mpc). The
595: differences are less than a few percent relative to the amplitude of
596: each MF (equation [\ref{eq:mfamp}]) when $\sigma_0<0.1$ and remains
597: at the $10$-percent level when $\sigma_0\sim 0.2$. We also estimate
598: the rms differences divided by the rms of $\Delta v_k^{\rm
599: (SIM)}(\nu_i)$ averaged over $i$. These quantities represent the
600: extent to which the theoretical predictions improve going from
601: linear theory to (2nd-order) perturbation theory. The differences
602: between the 2nd-order perturbative predictions and the numerical
603: simulations is $0.15\sim 0.41$ times smaller than those
604: corresponding to linear theory at $\sigma_0 < 0.1$. These results
605: are consistent with the previous analysis by \citet{Nakagami2004}.
606:
607: The differences between theory and simulations are quite small
608: compared to the sample variance. However, there is a systematic
609: feature, seen in the asymmetry of $V_0$ and $V_2$ with respect to
610: $\nu=0$; the perturbative predictions are symmetric. There are three
611: possible explanations for this effect. One is that higher-order
612: contributions - i.e. beyond 2nd-order - are significant. Another
613: possibility arises from the use of the Zel'dovich approximation to
614: set the initial conditions of the simulations, which may be
615: responsible for an extra contribution to higher-order statistical
616: properties of clustering arising from transients \citep{Crocce2006}.
617: The other reason is the fact that the multivariate Edgeworth
618: expansion which is the basis of perturbation formulae has a limited
619: range of validity, especially at values of $\nu$ larger than unity
620: \citep{BK1995}. These effects must be considered carefully when
621: comparing with real survey results.
622:
623: \subsection{Non-linear evolution and primordial non--Gaussianity}
624:
625: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
626: \begin{figure*}
627: \begin{center}
628: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{f3a.eps}
629: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{f3b.eps}
630: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{f3c.eps}
631: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{f3d.eps}
632: \caption{The difference of $\Delta v_k$ with $f_{\rm NL}=1000$ from
633: those obtained with Gaussian initial conditions $\Delta v_k(f_{\rm
634: NL}=0)$ at $z=0$ for different smoothing scales $R=20h^{-1}$Mpc
635: $(\sigma_0=0.17)$, $10h^{-1}$Mpc $(\sigma_0=0.38)$, and $5h^{-1}$Mpc
636: $(\sigma_0=0.74)$. Simulated results averaged over three bins are
637: plotted with symbols and the perturbative formulae are also plotted
638: with lines.}
639: \label{fig:3}
640: \end{center}
641: \end{figure*}
642: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
643:
644: In Fig. \ref{fig:3}, we focus on the differences between $\Delta
645: v_k$ with $f_{\rm NL}=1000$ and that with $f_{\rm NL}=0$ at $z=0$. The
646: perturbative predictions are also plotted for comparison. The
647: deviation from the perturbative predictions becomes significant as the
648: smoothing scale $R$ is smaller ($\sigma_0$ increases) due to the
649: primordial non-Gaussian effect coupled with non-linear gravity. The
650: increase of deviations at larger $\sigma_0$ are also seen quantitatively
651: in Table $\ref{tab:dif}$. The shape of the deviation is skewed to the
652: positive side of $\nu$ with a higher peak at $\nu=-1/\sigma_0$ (the
653: number density is zero) while the overall amplitude of the deviation
654: $\Delta v_k$ is roughly the same as that from the perturbative
655: predictions.
656:
657: It is interesting to estimate the sensitivity of the MFs to
658: primordial non-Gaussianity in the non-linear regime, because the
659: effect of primordial non--Gaussianity on the MFs should become
660: increasingly significant as the sample variance decreases, i.e. at
661: smaller smoothing scales. The MFs are, however, strongly correlated
662: with each other among different bins of the threshold $\nu$ and it
663: is therefore necessary to take into account their covariance when
664: estimating the significance of the primordial non-Gaussian effect
665: with, e.g., chi-squared statistics. If the covariances among
666: different bins were not considered, one would overestimate the value
667: of chi-square as the total number of bins increases. When the field
668: follows nearly Gaussian statistics, the covariance matrix is well
669: approximated with the one numerically estimated from a large number
670: of Gaussian realizations. \citep{Komatsu2003,HKM2006}. When the
671: field is non-linearly evolved, it is an exceptionally time-consuming
672: process to generate enough number of realizations to compute the
673: inverse matrix of the covariance (the number of realizations must be
674: larger than the degree-of-freedom at least).
675:
676: Instead of calculating the covariance matrix directly, therefore, we
677: instead estimate the amount of information contained in each MF as a
678: function of $\nu$. For this purpose, we calculate the effective
679: number of bins $N_{\rm eff}$ for each MF and for all MFs combined as
680: follows:
681: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
682: \begin{equation}
683: \label{eq:neff}
684: N_{\rm eff}=N_{\rm bin}\frac{\sum_{i,j}^{N_{\rm bin}}\Delta v_i^{\rm
685: (PT)}(C^{-1})_{ij}\Delta v_j^{\rm (PT)}}{\sum_{i}^{N_{\rm bin}}
686: \Delta v_i^{\rm (PT)}C_{ii}^{-1}\Delta v_i^{\rm (PT)}}
687: \end{equation}
688: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
689: where $i$ and $j$ denote the binning number of different $\nu$ and
690: different kinds of MFs and $N_{\rm bin}$ denotes the total number of
691: bins. The covariance matrix $C_{ij}=\langle\Delta v_i \Delta
692: v_j\rangle$ is computed from 1000 Gaussian realizations with the same
693: cosmological parameters and the same box-size as those of the $N$-body
694: simulations. As $N_{\rm bin}$ is increased in a fixed range of $\nu$
695: from $-3.6$ to $3.6$, the values of $N_{\rm eff}$ converges to 2, 6,
696: 8, and 12 for each MF from $k=0$ to 3 and then 12 for all MFs
697: combined. The results indicate that the correlations among different
698: bins of $\nu$ is very strong for $V_0$ and that higher $k$-th MFs have
699: more independent information as a function of $\nu$.
700:
701: Applying the value of $N_{\rm eff}$ for non-linearly evolved
702: simulations, we calculate the chi-square values of the primordial
703: non-Gaussian effect on MFs as a function of $f_{\rm NL}$ as
704: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
705: \begin{equation}
706: \label{eq:chisq}
707: \chi^2(f_{\rm NL})=\frac{N_{\rm eff}}{N_{\rm bin}}\sum_i^{N_{\rm bin}}
708: \frac{(\Delta v_i^{\rm (SIM)}(f_{\rm NL})
709: -\Delta v_i^{\rm (SIM)}(f_{\rm NL}=0))^2}{\langle\Delta
710: v_i^{\rm (SIM)}(f_{\rm NL}=0)^2\rangle}
711: \end{equation}
712: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
713: The variance $\langle \Delta v_i^{\rm (SIM)}(f_{\rm NL}=0)^2\rangle$
714: is estimated from $10$ realizations of $N$-body simulations with
715: Gaussian initial conditions (the cosmological parameters and
716: simulation box-size are the same as for the $N$-body simulations). The
717: normalized MFs $\Delta v_k(f_{\rm NL})$ at arbitrary $f_{\rm
718: NL}$ is linearly interpolated using the simulation results
719: with $f_{\rm NL}=0$ and $1000$.
720: We confirm that the linear interpolation works well using
721: simulations with $|f_{\rm NL}|=100$ and 500.
722:
723: Table \ref{tab:fnl} lists the value of $f_{\rm NL}$ at different $R$
724: when the effect of the primordial non-Gaussianity is comparable to the
725: sample variance, that is $\chi^2=1$. The volume of the simulation
726: box-size is $0.125(h^{-1}{\rm Gpc})^3$, which is less than half the
727: volume of the SDSS main galaxy sample $0.3(h^{-1}{\rm Gpc})^3$. As the
728: smoothing scale decreases, the primordial non-Gaussianity becomes
729: significant. At $R=5h^{-1}$Mpc, the primordial non-Gaussianity with
730: $f_{\rm NL}=50$ is comparable to the sample variance and then
731: corresponds to the current observational constraints from WMAP. Note
732: that the detectability of primordial non--Gaussianity from actual
733: observations is, however, strongly dependent on the uncertainty of the
734: cosmological parameters and the galaxy biasing, which we have not
735: attempted to model in detail.
736:
737: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
738: \begin{table}
739: \centering
740: \caption{The values of $f_{\rm NL}$ at $\chi^2=1$ when the
741: effect of the primordial non-Gaussianity is comparable to the sample
742: variance of mass density field for different smoothing scale $R$
743: (equation [\ref{eq:chisq}]). The values of $N_{\rm eff}$ for each MF
744: $V_k$ are 2, 6, 8, and 12 from $k=0$ to 3 and 12 for all MFs
745: combined. The volume of the density field is a cube at a length
746: $0.5h^{-1}$Gpc and the redshift is $0$. The other cosmological
747: parameters are fixed to be fiducial values. The effective number of
748: bins $N_{\rm eff}$ (equation [\ref{eq:neff}]) is also listed in last
749: line.}
750: \label{tab:fnl}
751: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
752: \hline
753: & \multicolumn{5}{c}{$f_{\rm NL}$ at $\chi^2=1$} \\
754: \cline{2-6}
755: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$R[h^{-1}$Mpc]}
756: & $V_0$ & $V_1$ & $V_2$ & $V_3$ & All MFs \\
757: \hline
758: 30 & 770 & 480 & 520 & 370 & 350 \\
759: 20 & 420 & 300 & 310 & 210 & 210 \\
760: 10 & 190 & 180 & 140 & 150 & 110 \\
761: 5 & 90 & 80 & 90 & 60 & 50 \\
762: \hline
763: \end{tabular}
764: \end{table}
765: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
766:
767: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
768: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
769: \label{sec:summary}
770:
771: We have studied the imprint of primordial non--Gaussianity on the
772: topological properties of LSS using the MFs. Characterizing primordial
773: non--Gaussianity as a quadratic correction to the primordial potential
774: fluctuation with constant amplitude $f_{\rm NL}$, we compare the MFs
775: with different values of $f_{\rm NL}$ from the mildly to the strongly
776: non-linear regime using high-resolution $N$-body
777: simulations. Perturbative formulae of the MFs based on the
778: multivariate Edgeworth expansion well reproduce the MFs of simulated
779: mass density fields in the weakly non-linear regime. When the
780: amplitude of the density fluctuation $\sigma_0<0.1$ and $|f_{\rm
781: NL}|<1000$, the deviations of the perturbative formulae from
782: simulations are less than a few percent of the amplitude of each MF.
783: They are also $10\sim 40$ percent in respect to the non-Gaussian
784: contributions alone.
785:
786: As the fluctuations become more strongly non-linear, the simulated
787: MFs begin to deviate significantly from the perturbative predictions
788: owing to non-linear gravitational evolution. In order to include
789: small-scale information in realistic cosmological data sets,
790: detailed numerical analysis is therefore essential.
791:
792: When we include information from smaller scale fluctuations, the
793: effects of primordial non--Gaussianity are indeed significant. Using
794: $\chi^2$ statistics, we find that the primordial non-Gaussianity
795: with $f_{\rm NL}=50$ has a significance level corresponding to
796: $1\sigma$, considering the sample variance of mass density fields at
797: $R=5h^{-1}$Mpc with a volume of $0.125(h^{-1}{\rm Gpc})^3$. This
798: implies that measuring the MFs in a SDSS-like survey could constrain
799: $f_{\rm NL}$ at a level comparable with current CMB limits. This is
800: an interesting result, since other observations, like the cluster
801: abundance, that can effectively constrain $f_{\rm NL}$ at high
802: redshifts, become useless at $z=0$ when non--Gaussian features
803: generated by non-linear dynamics completely obliterate primordial
804: ones \citep{Grossi2007,Kang2007}.
805:
806: The actual detectability of the primordial non--Gaussianity is,
807: however, strongly dependent on the degeneracy between the cosmological
808: parameters and the primordial non--Gaussian effect. Understanding the
809: properties of the galaxy biasing is also very important in determining
810: the primordial non--Gaussianity accurately. We will consider this
811: issue in a forthcoming paper.
812:
813: \section*{Acknowledgments}
814:
815: We thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments. We thank
816: Takahiko Matsubara for useful discussions. C.H. acknowledges support
817: from the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council grant
818: number PP/C501692/1. Computations have been performed on the IBM-SP5
819: at CINECA (Consorzio Interuniversitario del Nord-Est per il Calcolo
820: Automatico), Bologna, with CPU time assigned under an INAF-CINECA
821: grant and on the IBM-SP4 machine at the ``Rechenzentrum der
822: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft'' at the Max-Planck Institut f\"ur
823: Plasmaphysik with CPU time assigned to the MPA. We acknowledge
824: financial contribution from contracts ASI-INAF I/023/05/0, ASI-INAF
825: I/088/06/0 and INFN PD51.
826:
827: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
828: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
829: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Alishahiha et al.}{2004}]{AST2004}
830: Alishahiha M., Silverstein E., Tong D., 2004,
831: Phys. Rev. D., 70, 123505
832: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Arkami-Hamed et al.}{2004}]{ACMZ2004}
833: Arkani-Hamed N., Creminelli P., Mukohyama S., Zaldarriaga M., 2004,
834: JCAP, 4, 1
835: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bardeen}{1980}]{B1980}
836: Bardeen J. M., 1980, Phys. Rev. D., 22, 1882
837: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bartolo et al.}{2004}]{BKMR2004}
838: Bartolo N., Komatsu E., Matarrese S., Riotto A., 2004,
839: Phys. Rept., 402, 103
840: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bartolo et al.}{2002}]{BMR2002}
841: Bartolo N., Matarrese S., Riotto, A., 2002
842: Phys. Rev. D 65, 103505
843: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Battefeld \& Battefeld}{2007}]{BB2007}
844: Battefeld D., Battefeld T., 2007, JCAP, 5, 1
845: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bernardeau \& Kofman}{1995}]{BK1995}
846: Bernardeau F., Kofman L., 1995, ApJ, 443, 479
847: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bernardeau \& Uzan}{2002}]{BU2002}
848: Bernardeau F., Uzan, J.-P., 2002, Phys. Rev. D., 66, 103506
849: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chen et al.}{2007}]{Chen2007}
850: Chen X., Richard E, Eugene A. L., 2007, JCAP, 6, 23
851: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chodorowski \& Bouchet}{1996}]{CB1996}
852: Chodorowski M. J., Bouchet F. R., 1996, MNRAS, 279, 557
853: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Coles et al.}{1996}]{CDP1996}
854: Coles P., Davies A. G., Pearson R. C., 1996, MNRAS, 281, 1375
855: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Creminelli et al.}{2006}]{Creminelli2006}
856: Creminelli P., Nicolis A., Senatore L., Tegmark M.,
857: Zaldarriaga M., 2006, JCAP, 0605, 004
858: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Crocce et al.}{2006}]{Crocce2006}
859: Crocce, M., Sebasti${\rm \acute{a}}$n, P., Scoccimarro, R., 2006,
860: MNRAS, 373, 369
861: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dalal et al.}{2007}]{Dalal2007}
862: Dalal N., Dor$\acute{\rm e}$ O., Huterer D., Shirokov, A., 2007,
863: preprint (astro-ph/0710.4560)
864: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dvali et al.}{2004}]{dvali2004}
865: Dvali G., Gruzinov A., Zaldarriaga M., 2004,
866: Phys. Rev. D., 69, 083505
867: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Eisenstein \& Hu}{1999}]{EH1999}
868: Eisenstein, D. J., Hu, W., 1999, ApJ, 511, 5
869: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fry \& Scherrerd}{1994}]{FS1994}
870: Fry J.N., Scherrer R.J., 1994, ApJ, 429, 36
871: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gangui et al.}{1994}]{Gangui1994}
872: Gangui A., Lucchin F., Matarrese S., Mollerach S., 1994,
873: ApJ, 430, 447
874: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Glazebrook et al.}{2005}]{Glazebrook2005}
875: Glazebrook K., Eisenstein D., Dey A., Nichol R., \& The WFMOS
876: Feasibility Study Dark Energy Team, 2005, preprint (astro-ph/0507457)
877: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Grossi et al.}{2007}]{Grossi2007}
878: Grossi M., Dolag K., Branchini E., Matarrese S., Moscardini L., 2007,
879: preprint (astro-ph/0707.2516)
880: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hikage et al.}{2003}]{Hikage2003}
881: Hikage C., Schmalzing J., Buchert T., Suto Y., Kayo I.,
882: Taruya A., Vogeley M.S., Hoyle F., Gott J.R. III, Brinkmann J.,
883: 2003, PASJ, 55, 911
884: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hikage et al.}{2006}]{HKM2006}
885: Hikage C., Komatsu E., Matsubara T., 2006, ApJ, 653, 11
886: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hill et al.}{2004}]{Hill2004}
887: Hill G.J., Gebhardt K., Komatsu E., MacQueen, P.J., 2004,
888: in AIP Conf. Proc. 743: The New Cosmology:
889: Conference on Strings and Cosmology,
890: ed. R.~E.~Allen, D.~V.~Nanopoulos, \& C.~N.~Pope, 224-233
891: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kang et al.}{2007}]{Kang2007}
892: Kang X., Norberg P., Silk J., 2007, MNRAS, 376, 343
893: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Komatsu \& Spergel}{2001}]{KS2001}
894: Komatsu E., Spergel D.N., 2001, Phys. Rev. D, 63, 63002
895: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Komatsu et al.}{2003}]{Komatsu2003}
896: Komatsu E. et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 119
897: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lyth et al.}{2003}]{lyth2003}
898: Lyth D.H., Ungarelli C., Wands D., 2003,
899: Phys. Rev. D., 67, 23503
900: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Matsubara}{2003}]{Matsubara2003}
901: Matsubara T., 2003, ApJ, 584, 1
902: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mecke et al.}{1994}]{MBW1994}
903: Mecke K.R., Buchert T., Wagner H., 1994,
904: A\&A, 288, 697
905: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Melnick et al.}{2004}]{Melnick2004}
906: Melnick G.J., Fazio G.G., Tolls V., Jaffe D.T., Gebhardt K.,
907: Bromm V., Komatsu E., Woodruff R.~A., 2004, Bulletin of the American
908: Astronomical Society, 1509
909: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Nakagami et al.}{2004}]{Nakagami2004}
910: Nakagami~T., Matsubara~T., Schmalzing~J., Jing~Y., 2004,
911: preprint (astro-ph/0408248)
912: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schmalzing \& Buchert}{1997}]{SB1997}
913: Schmalzing J., Buchert T., 1997, ApJ, 482, L1
914: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schmalzing \& G$\acute{\rm o}$rski}{1998}]{SG1998}
915: Schmalzing J., G$\acute{\rm o}$rski K.M., 1998, MNRAS, 297, 355
916: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Scoccimarro et al.}{2004}]{Scocci2004}
917: Scoccimarro R., Sefusatti E., Zaldarriaga M., 2004,
918: Phys. Rev. D., 69, 103513
919: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sefusatti \& Komatsu}{2007}]{SK2007}
920: Sefusatti E., Komatsu E., 2007, Phys. Rev. D., 76, 083004
921: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Spergel et al.}{2007}]{Spergel2007}
922: Spergel D.N. et al., 2007, ApJS, 170, 377
923: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Springel et al.}{2005}]{Springel2005}
924: Springel V., 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105
925: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Verde et al.}{2000}]{Verde2000}
926: Verde L., Wand L., Heavens A.F., Kamionkowski M., 2000,
927: MNRAS, 313, 141
928: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Watts \& Coles}{2003}]{WC2003}
929: Watts P.I.R., Coles P., 2003, MNRAS, 338, 806
930: \end{thebibliography}
931:
932: \end{document}
933: