1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
4: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
5:
6: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
7: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
8: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
9: \usepackage{epsfig}
10: \usepackage{amsmath}
11: \usepackage{color}
12: \usepackage{longtable}
13: \usepackage[OT2,T1]{fontenc}
14: \newcommand{\physrep}{Phys. Rep.}
15: \newcommand{\apjs}{Astrophys. J Supp.}
16: \newcommand{\ApJL}{Astrophys. J Lett.}
17: \newcommand{\apjl}{Astrophys. J Lett.}
18: \newcommand{\ApJ}{Astrophys. J}
19: \newcommand{\PRL}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
20: \newcommand{\PRD}{Phys. Rev. D}
21: \newcommand{\MNRAS}{Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.}
22: \newcommand{\ARAA}{Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.}
23: \newcommand{\araa}{Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.}
24: \newcommand{\AsAs}{Astron. Astrophys.}
25: \newcommand{\AJ}{Astron. J.}
26: \newcommand{\aj}{Astron. J.}
27: \newcommand{\amp}{\& }
28:
29:
30: \newcommand{\mnras}{Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.}
31: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
32: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
33: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
34: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
35: \newcommand\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
36: \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}
37: \newcommand\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
38: \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}
39: \def\thetaB{\mbox{\boldmath$\hat\theta$}}
40:
41: \newcommand{\white}[1]{{\textcolor{white}#1}}
42: \newcommand{\nhat}{\hat{\bf n}}
43:
44: %\nofiles
45:
46: \begin{document}
47:
48: %\preprint{astro-ph/}
49:
50: %\topmargin=16pt
51: \title{Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure: I. ISW Tomography and Cosmological Implications}% Force line breaks with \\
52:
53: \author{Shirley Ho}
54: \email{shirley@astro.princeton.edu}
55: \affiliation{Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, NJ 08544, USA}
56: \author{Christopher Hirata}
57: \affiliation{Caltech M/C 130-33, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA}
58: \author{Nikhil Padmanabhan}
59: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
60: \author{Uros Seljak}
61: \affiliation{Institute for Theoretical Physics, Zurich University, Zurich 8057, Switzerland}
62: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of California at
63: Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA}
64: \author{Neta Bahcall}
65: \affiliation{Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, NJ 08544, USA}
66:
67: \date{January 3, 2008}
68:
69: \begin{abstract}
70: We cross-correlate large scale structure (LSS) observations from a number of surveys
71: with cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)
72: to investigate the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect as a function of redshift,
73: covering $z \sim 0.1 - 2.5$.
74: Our main goal is to go beyond reporting detections towards developing a reliable
75: likelihood analysis that allows one to determine cosmological constraints from ISW
76: observations. With this in mind
77: we spend a considerable amount of effort in determining
78: the redshift-dependent bias and redshift distribution ($b(z)\times dN/dz$) of these samples
79: by matching with spectroscopic observations where available, and analyzing
80: auto-power spectra and cross-power spectra between the samples.
81: Due to wide redshift distributions of some of the data sets
82: we do not assume a constant bias model, in contrast to previous work on this subject.
83: We only use the LSS data sets for which we can extract such information reliably
84: and as a result the data sets we use are
85: 2-Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) samples, Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) photometric
86: Luminous Red Galaxies, SDSS photometric quasars and NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS) radio
87: sources.
88: We make a joint
89: analysis of all samples constructing a full covariance matrix, which we subsequently use
90: for cosmological parameter fitting.
91: We report a 3.7$\sigma$ detection of ISW combining all the datasets.
92: We do not find significant evidence for an ISW signal at $z>1$, in agreement with theoretical
93: expectation in $\Lambda$CDM model.
94: We combine the ISW likelihood function with weak lensing of CMB (hereafter Paper II \cite{paperII}) and CMB power spectrum
95: to constrain the equation of state of dark energy and the curvature of the Universe.
96: While ISW does not significantly improve the constraints in the simplest 6-parameter flat $\Lambda$CDM model,
97: it improves constraints on 7-parameter models with curvature by a factor of 3.2 (relative to WMAP alone)
98: to $\Omega_K=-0.004^{+0.014}_{-0.020}$,
99: and with dark energy equation of state by 15\% to $w=-1.01^{+0.30}_{-0.40}$
100: [posterior median with ``$1\sigma$'' (16th--84th percentile) range].
101: A software package for calculating the ISW likelihood function
102: can be downloaded at
103: {\tt http://www.astro.princeton.edu/\~{}shirley/ISW\_WL.html}.
104:
105: \end{abstract}
106:
107: \pacs{98.80.Es, 95.36.+x, 98.65.Dx.}
108:
109: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword
110: %display desired
111: \maketitle
112:
113: \section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction}
114:
115: The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has provided us with a wealth of cosmological information.
116: The large-scale anisotropies were first discovered by the Differential Microwave Radiometer (DMR)
117: on Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite \cite{smoot92},
118: and the smaller-scale CMB anisotropies were subsequently measured by various
119: ground-based/balloon-borne experiments.
120: More recently, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
121: (WMAP) satellite \cite{bennett03, jarosik07} produced a cosmic variance limited
122: map of CMB anisotropies down to $l\sim 400$.
123: %The positions of the acoustic oscillations in the angular power spectrum
124: %of temperature fluctuations at the last surface of scattering measures
125: %the curvature of the Universe to unprecedented accuracy.
126: The structure of the angular power spectrum when combined with other
127: cosmological probes (such as Sloan Digital Sky Survey,
128: \cite{tegmark06}, Hubble Key Project \cite{freedman94} and 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey \cite{cole05}), allows
129: extremely precise measurements
130: of the cosmological parameters of the $\Lambda$CDM model.
131: While most of the fluctuations seen by WMAP and other CMB experiments were generated
132: at the last surface of scattering, structures formed at low redshift also
133: leave imprints on the CMB. These anisotropies, such as the thermal
134: Sunyaev-Zeldovich (tSZ) \cite{sunyaev80a} and kinetic Sunyaev Zeldovich effects (kSZ)
135: \cite{sunyaev80b}, the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect \cite{sachs67}, and gravitational
136: lensing, contribute only slightly to the CMB power spectrum on scales measured by WMAP, but they can be detected
137: by cross-correlating the CMB with suitable tracers of the large scale structure.
138:
139: This is the first of two papers that measure the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect and
140: gravitational lensing (Paper II) in cross-correlation.
141: %\citep{paperII}
142: In this paper, we focus on large scale galaxy-temperature correlations and their
143: large scale cosmological source, the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect. The
144: ISW effect results from the red- or blue-shifting of the CMB photons as they
145: propagate through gravitational potential wells. As the potential wells of the
146: Universe (i.e., the spatial metric) evolve, the energy gained by photons falling into the potential well
147: does not cancel out the energy loss as photons climb out of the well. This is
148: important at late times when the Universe is not matter dominated and the
149: gravitational potential is time dependent. It is only
150: significant on large scales, since
151: on small scales the amount of time spent
152: by the photon in each coherence region of the gravitational
153: potential is small and any small scale fluctuations will be
154: smoothed out as the photon go through numerous potential wells along the line
155: of sight.
156:
157: %[HERE!!][MUST DESCRIBE THE LARGE SCALE STRUCTURE DATA SETS SOMEWHERE IN INTRO???]
158: To measure the above effect, we cross-correlate the CMB temperature anisotropies
159: with maps of galaxies from the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS), luminous red
160: galaxies (LRGs) and quasars from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, and radio sources
161: from the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS). This incorporates most of the LSS tracers used by
162: previous efforts \cite{boughn98,fosalba03,scranton03,afshordi04,boughn04,fosalba04,nolta04,padmanabhan05ISW,gaztanaga05,cabre06,giannantonio06,vielva06, pietrobon06,mcewen07,rassat07}
163: to detect the ISW effect. Our goal in this work
164: extends this previous literature by going beyond detecting the ISW effect to
165: measuring its redshift evolution and using that to constrain different cosmological
166: models (e.g. the ISW effect due to spatial curvature occurs at significantly higher
167: redshifts than that due to a cosmological constant).
168: We therefore require a large redshift range ($z \sim 0$ to $2.5$) but with sufficient redshift
169: resolution to unambiguously discern any redshift evolution of the signal.
170: In addition, to draw robust cosmological conclusions from an observed redshift evolution,
171: we must constrain both the redshift distribution and evolution of the bias with redshift
172: for each of the samples; the simple assumption of constant bias is in most cases no longer sufficient.
173: These considerations drive our survey selections; we discuss these in more
174: detail in Sec.~\ref{sec:discussion}.
175: Our final product is a likelihood code that can be applied to any cosmological
176: model. In addition to providing complementary constraints on standard cosmological parameters,
177: we expect it can be a strong discriminator of the modified
178: gravity models, which have very distinctive ISW predictions \cite{song07}.
179:
180: %In order to extract the large scale effects due to the photons going through
181: %gravitational potential wells, we utilize the wide sky coverage of galaxies from
182: %several surveys. We use
183: %2MASS (Two
184: %Micron All Sky Survey), LRGs and Quasars from SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey)
185: %and objects from NVSS (NRAO VLA Sky Survey).
186: %These surveys are chosen to ensure a large redshift coverage,
187: %ranging from local Universe to redshift $\sim 2.7$. For reasons that will
188: %become clear in the paper we do not include
189: %some of the other surveys available that also cover this range of redshifts:
190: %we discuss this in detail in the discussion section.
191: %
192: %ISW effect is an important probe of the Universe and a significant
193: %number of previous investigations of the effect exists in the
194: %literature \cite{fosalba03,padmanabhan05,afshordi04,gaztanaga05,vielva06, pietrobon06,boughn07}.
195: %Our goal is both to encompass a
196: %large redshift range, going from the local Universe to
197: %$z\sim 2.7$, and to develop the likelihood code with which the cosmological
198: %models can be compared to these data.
199: %The latter requires not just analysis of the CMB-LSS cross-correlation and
200: %reliable determination of its covariance matrix, but also a reliable
201: %prediction of the ISW signal for a given cosmological model, for
202: %which redshift distribution and bias is required. It is important to emphasize that
203: %for several of the LSS data sets the redshift distribution is so broad that
204: %it is not reasonable to assume the sources have a constant bias. In contrast to
205: %previous work on this subject we do not make this assumption in this paper.
206: %Our final product is a likelihood code that can be applied to any cosmological
207: %model. We expect it can be a strong disciminator of the modified
208: %gravity models, which have very distinctive ISW predictions \cite{hu07}.
209: %
210:
211:
212: %We discuss the theory behind ISW effect in Sec.~\ref{sec:theory}.
213: %We then discuss the CMB and large-scale structure data sets in Sec.~\ref{sec:data},
214: %the cross-power spectra in Sec.~\ref{sec:cross}, the
215: %redshift distributions in Sec.~\ref{sec:dndz},
216: %systematic tests of these cross-correlations in Sec.~\ref{sec:sys},
217: %the cosmological implications in Sec.~\ref{sec:cosmo} and
218: %final discussion in Sec.~\ref{sec:discussion}.
219: %This is the first paper of the two.
220: %The companion paper uses the same data sets to search for weak lensing
221: %effect on CMB.
222: %All of the theoretical predictions are made with WMAP 3 year parameters
223: %unless otherwise stated.
224:
225:
226: We review the theory behind the ISW effect in Sec.~\ref{sec:theory}.
227: The CMB and LSS data sets used are described in Sec.~\ref{sec:data};
228: the results of cross-correlating the two are in Sec.~\ref{sec:cross}.
229: Sec.~\ref{sec:dndz} and ~\ref{sec:sys} constrain the redshift distributions of the samples,
230: and possible systematic contamination of the cross-correlations.
231: Sec.~\ref{sec:cosmo} presents the cosmological implications of these results,
232: and Sec.~\ref{sec:discussion} summarizes our conclusions.
233: The companion paper (Paper II) uses the same data sets to detect the weak lensing
234: of the CMB.
235: All of the theoretical predictions are made with WMAP 3 year parameters
236: ($\Omega_b h^2$=$0.0223$,
237: $\Omega_c h^2$ = $0.128$, $\Omega_K=0$, $h=0.732$, $\sigma_8 =0.761$)
238: except in Section~\ref{sec:dndz} or otherwise stated.
239:
240:
241: %[MUST DESCRIBE THE LARGE SCALE STRUCTURE DATA SETS SOMEWHERE IN INTRO???]
242:
243: \section{\label{sec:theory} Theory}
244:
245: We briefly review the ISW effect and its cross-correlation
246: with the galaxy density
247: (see also Refs.~\citep{peiris00,cooray02,
248: afshordi04}).
249: %The linear functions of the density field projected
250: %onto the sky, specializing to the cases of the ISW temperature perturbations
251: %and the galaxy overdensity field.
252: %
253: The temperature anisotropy due to the ISW effect is expressed as an integral of the
254: time derivative of the gravitational potential $\phi$ over conformal time $\eta$,
255: %from $0$ to today $\eta_0$ \cite{isw67}
256: \begin{equation}
257: \Delta T_{\rm ISW} (\thetaB)=2\int^{\eta_0}_{\eta_r}\!\!\!d\eta\, \frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\eta},
258: \label{deltaTisw}
259: \end{equation}
260: where $\eta_r$ and $\eta_0$ are the conformal time at recombination and today, respectively,
261: and we ignored the effect of Thomson scattering suppression,
262: which is negligible for the redshift range of interest here.
263: For scales sufficiently within the horizon, the gravitational potential $\phi$
264: is related to the mass fluctuation $\delta = \delta\rho/\bar\rho$ in Fourier space by the Poisson equation:
265: \begin{equation}
266: \phi({\bf k},z)=-\frac{3}{2}\frac{H_0^2}{c^2}\Omega_m (1+z)\frac{\delta({\bf k},z)}{k^2},
267: \end{equation}
268: where $\Omega_m$ is the ratio of the matter density to the critical density today,
269: $H_0$ is the Hubble constant today, $c$ is the speed of light, $z$ is
270: the redshift, and $k$ is the comoving wave number.
271: %The mass fluctuation $\delta$ on sufficiently large scales grows according to linear theory:
272: %$\delta \propto D(z)$, where $D(z)$ is the growth factor.
273: On large scales where the mass fluctuation $\delta \ll 1$, the
274: perturbations grow according to linear theory
275: $\delta(k, z)$ = $\delta(k,0) D(z)/D(0)$.
276:
277: We are interested in cross--correlating the temperature anisotropies, $\delta_T$, with the observed projected galaxy overdensity $g$.
278: The intrinsic angular galaxy fluctuations are given by:
279: \begin{equation}
280: g(\thetaB)= \int dz \,b(z)\Pi(z) \delta(\chi(z)\thetaB,z),
281: \label{dg}
282: \end{equation}
283: where $b(z)$ is an assumed scale-independent bias factor relating the galaxy overdensity to
284: the mass overdensity, i.e. $\delta_g =b\,\delta$,
285: $\Pi(z)$ is the normalized selection function, and $\chi(z)$ is the comoving distance to redshift $z$.
286: We focus on the cross-spectrum of the galaxies with the CMB temperature fluctuation:
287: \begin{equation}
288: \label{cc1}
289: C^{gT}_\ell=\frac{2}{\pi} \int k^2 dk P(k) [g]_\ell (k) [T]_\ell(k)
290: \end{equation}
291: where $P(k)$ is the matter power spectrum today as a function of the wave number $k$,
292: and the functions $[g]_\ell$ and $[T]_\ell$ are
293: \begin{equation}
294: \label{cc2}
295: \left[g\right]_\ell(k)=\int dz \, b_i(z) \Pi(z) D(z)j_\ell(k\chi(z))
296: \end{equation}
297: and
298: \begin{eqnarray}
299: \left[T \right]_\ell(k)&=&3\frac{H_0^2}{c^2}\Omega_mT_{\rm CMB} \nonumber \\
300: &&\times\int dz \frac{d}{dz}\left[D(z)(1+z)\right]\frac{j_\ell(k\chi(z))}{k^2}.
301: \label{cc4}
302: \end{eqnarray}
303: The Limber approximation, which is quite accurate when $\ell$ is not
304: too small ($\ell \gsim 10$),
305: can be obtained from Eq.~(\ref{cc1}) by setting $P(k) = P(k=(\ell+1/2)/\chi(z))$ and using the
306: asymptotic formula that $(2/\pi)\int k^2 dk j_\ell (k\chi) j_\ell (k\chi') = (1/\chi^2) \delta (\chi-\chi')$ (when $\ell \gg 1$). We find that the
307: substitution
308: $k=(\ell+1/2)/\chi(z)$ is a better approximation to the exact expressions than $k=\ell/\chi(z)$.
309: This gives
310: \begin{eqnarray}
311: C_\ell^{gT} &=& {3\Omega_m H_0^2 T_{\rm CMB}\over c^2} {1\over ( \ell+1/2)^2} \nonumber \\
312: &&\times \int dz b(z) \Pi(z) {H(z) \over c} D(z){d\over dz}[D(z)(1+z)]
313: \nonumber \\
314: &&\times P\left(\frac{\ell+1/2}\chi\right).
315: \end{eqnarray}
316:
317: %[HERE!!][DISCUSS MAGNIFICATION BIAS???]
318: %As galaxies will be lensed by the large scale structure between the observer and
319: %the sources, the distribution of the galaxies will be changed by the
320: %gravitation lensing. This is done mainly via an effect called magnification,
321: %which consists of two effects: first, it will lower the effective flux limit of
322: %our flux limited sample; second, it will change the angular distances between
323: %the galaxies, thus changing the galaxy density.
324: %This effect will be
325: %discussed in more detail in Sec.~\ref{sec:dndz}.
326: %
327:
328: The above discussion ignores the effects of gravitational lensing, which alters
329: the expected signal through two competing effects -- changing the flux limit of
330: the survey as well as the observed galaxy density. Both of these effects can
331: be thought of as altering the redshift distribution of the tracers, and so
332: we defer the discussion to Sec.~\ref{sec:dndz}.
333:
334:
335:
336: \section{Data}
337: \label{sec:data}
338:
339: We describe the CMB and galaxy data sets used in our analysis below; these are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:lss}.
340: The data sets not used in this paper are discussed further in the Sec.~\ref{sec:discussion},
341: where we provide detailed explanations for the choices made. All large scale structure data were pixelized in the HEALPix system with the resolution
342: and sky coverage shown in Table~\ref{tab:lss}.
343:
344: \begin{table*}
345: \caption{\label{tab:lss}The large-scale structure data sets used. The effective bias $b_{\rm eff}$ and bias-weighted redshift $\langle z\rangle_b$
346: are given here for the purpose of qualitatively illustrating which redshift ranges are probed by each sample.
347: They are computed for the fiducial WMAP cosmology as $b_{\rm eff}=\int f(z)\,dz$ and $\langle z\rangle_b=\int zf(z)\,dz/b_{\rm eff}$, respectively; the
348: redshift distributions $f(z)$ will be computed in Sec.~\ref{sec:dndz}.
349: The data are pixelized using HEALPix \cite{gorski05} at the resolutions listed in the table.
350: }
351: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccccccccccc}
352: \hline\hline
353: Sample (its notation in paper) & & Area & & Density & & Number of & & HEALPix & &Number of & & $b_{\rm eff}$ & & $\langle z\rangle_b$ \\
354: & & deg$^2$ & & deg$^{-2}$ & & galaxies & & resolution & &HEALPix Pixels & & & & \\
355: \hline
356: 2MASS, $12.0<K_s<12.5$ (2MASS0) & & 27$\,$191 & & \white{0}1.84 & & \white{0}$\,$\white{0}50$\,$096 & & \white{0}9 & & $2\,$073$\,$457 & & 1.63 & & 0.06 \\
357: 2MASS, $12.5<K_s<13.0$ (2MASS1) & & 27$\,$191 & & \white{0}3.79 & & \white{0}$\,$103$\,$060 & & \white{0}9 & & $2\,$073$\,$457 & & 1.52 & & 0.07 \\
358: 2MASS, $13.0<K_s<13.5$ (2MASS2) & & 27$\,$191 & & \white{0}7.85 & & \white{0}$\,$213$\,$516 & & \white{0}9 & & $2\,$073$\,$457 & &1.54 & & 0.10 \\
359: 2MASS, $13.5<K_s<14.0$ (2MASS3) & & 27$\,$191 & & 16.0\white{0} & & \white{0}$\,$435$\,$570 & & \white{0}9 & & $2\,$073$\,$457 & &1.65 & & 0.12 \\
360: SDSS, LRG, low-$z$ (LRG0)& & \white{0}6$\,$641 & & 35.1\white{0} & & \white{0}$\,$232$\,$888 & & 10 & & $2\,$025$\,$731 & &1.97 & & 0.31 \\
361: SDSS, LRG, high-$z$ (LRG1)& & \white{0}6$\,$641 & & 93.8\white{0} & & \white{0}$\,$622$\,$646 & & 10 & & $2\,$025$\,$731 & &1.98 & & 0.53 \\
362: SDSS, QSO, low-$z$ (QSO0)& & \white{0}6$\,$039 & & 20.8\white{0} & & \white{0}$\,$125$\,$407 & & 10 & & $1\,$842$\,$044 & &2.36 & & 1.29 \\
363: SDSS, QSO, high-$z$ (QSO1)& & \white{0}6$\,$039 & & 18.3\white{0} & & \white{0}$\,$110$\,$528 & & 10 & & $1\,$842$\,$044 & &2.75 & & 1.67 \\
364: NVSS point sources (NVSS)& & 27$\,$361 & & 40.3\white{0} & & 1$\,$104$\,$983 & & \white{0}8 & & \white{0}521$\,$594 & & 1.98 & & 1.43 \\
365: \hline\hline
366: \end{tabular}
367: \end{table*}
368:
369: \subsection{\label{sec:cmb}CMB temperature from WMAP}
370:
371: The WMAP mission \cite{bennett03, jarosik07} measured the all-sky maps of the
372: CMB at multipoles up to $\ell \sim $ several
373: hundred. We use the second public
374: data release of the WMAP data with the first
375: three years of observations.
376: %On board of the WMAP
377: %satellite, ten differencing assemblies (DAs) measures the difference in intensity
378: %of the CMB at two points in the sky.
379: The all-sky CMB maps are constructed
380: in the following bands: K (23 GHz), Ka (33 GHz), Q (41 GHz), V (61 GHz)
381: and W (94 GHz).
382: These maps are pixelized in the HEALPix \cite{gorski05}
383: resolution 9 format with $3\,145\,728$ pixels, each 47.2 sq. arcmin in area.
384: These maps are not beam-deconvolved and this, with the scan strategy of WMAP,
385: results in nearly uncorrelated Gaussian uncertainties on the temperature in
386: each pixel \cite{jarosik07}.
387: %As the K-band is heavily contaminated by the Galactic emission, in order to decrease
388: %number of possible systematic effects and making our error analysis more reliable,
389: We limit our analysis to Ka through W band as the K-band is heavily contaminated
390: by the Galactic emission.
391: %We apply the Kp0 mask provided by the WMAP team to mask out regions where the Galactic
392: %foregrounds dominate
393: %to the Ka through W bands.
394: We trim all masks with the
395: WMAP Kp0 mask and point source mask to remove regions contaminated by
396: Galactic emission and point sources, leaving 76.8\% ($2\,414\,613$ resolution 9 HEALPix pixels)
397: of the sky for the ISW analysis.
398: We choose not to use either the WMAP ``Internal Linear Combination'' (ILC) map or the
399: foreground cleaned map to avoid a number of practical difficulties as these
400: maps lose frequency dependence of the original maps and have complicated pixel-pixel
401: noise correlations.
402: %When we perform the analysis of cross-correlations, we do take into account of the
403: %pixel window function and the beam transfer function.
404:
405: %\section{Tracer samples: Selection Criteria}\label{sec:select}
406:
407: \subsection{Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS)}
408: \label{ss:2mass}
409:
410: We use galaxies from the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) Extended Source Catalog (XSC)
411: \cite{skrutskie97, jarrett00, skrutskie06} as mass tracers of the low redshift Universe. The median redshift
412: of these objects is $\sim 0.1$.
413: %The $K_s$-band isophotal magnitude, $K_{20}$ is the
414: %default flux measure we use to select galaxies for our analysis. $K_{20}$ is the measured
415: %flux inside a circular isophote with surface brightness of 20 mag arcsec$^{-2}$.
416: We use $K_{20}$, the $K_s$-band isophotal magnitude measured inside a circular isophote
417: with surface brightness of 20 mag arcsec$^{-2}$, as our default flux measure.
418: We extinction correct the magnitudes from the catalog using the reddening maps \cite{schlegel98}:
419: \begin{equation}
420: K_{20} = K_{20,raw}-A_K,
421: \end{equation}
422: where $A_K = 0.367 E(B-V)$ \citep{afshordi04}.
423: %Note that this is not a perfect correction for extinction because
424: %extinction also changes the isophotal radius, however this is the best we can do without re-measuring the radial profile.
425: Note that we ignore changes to
426: the isophotal radius due to extinction.
427: We remove regions with $A_K > 0.05$ in the dataset as the galaxy density starts to drop drastically.
428: We visually inspects how the galaxy density changes with $A_K$ and decide to cut
429: with $A_K> 0.05$ as there is a drastic drop.
430: %[HERE!] [WHY 0.05???]
431: There are $1\,586\,854$ galaxies in the 2MASS XSC after removing
432: known artifacts and sources in close proximity to a large galaxy ($cc\_flag\neq$'a' and 'z')
433: and requiring $use\_src=1$ (which rejects duplicate observations of the same part of the sky).
434: The 2MASS XSC can miss objects near bright stars or overlapping artifacts, and so we used the
435: XSC coverage map \cite{jarrett00} and masked out pixels with $< 98\%$ coverage, thus $\sim8\%$ of the sky.
436:
437: We divided the 2MASS sample into 4 flux bins:
438: $12.0<K_{20}<12.5$, $12.5<K_{20}<13.0$, $13.0<K_{20}<13.5$, $13.5<K_{20}<14.0$.
439: Note that the
440: redshift distribution of these 4 bins actually overlap significantly.
441: Our sample selection for 2MASS is similar to \citet{afshordi04} except
442: the pixelization.
443:
444: \subsection{Data from Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)}
445:
446: The Sloan Digital Sky Survey has taken $ugriz$ CCD images of $10^4$ deg$^2$ of the high-latitude sky \citep{york00}. A dedicated 2.5m telescope
447: \citep{gunn98,gunn06} at Apache Point Observatory images the sky in photometric conditions \citep{hogg01} in five bands ($ugriz$)
448: \citep{fukugita96,smith02} using a drift-scanning, mosaic CCD camera \citep{gunn98}. All the data processing are done by completely automated
449: pipelines, including astrometry, source identification, photometry \citep{lupton01,pier03}, calibration \citep{tucker06,padmanabhan07a}, spectroscopic
450: target selection \citep{eisenstein01,strauss02,richards02}, and spectroscopic fiber placement \citep{blanton03}. The SDSS is well underway, and has
451: produced seven major releases \citep{stoughton02,abazajian03,abazajian04,abazajian05,adel06,adel07a,adel07b}.
452:
453: In addition to constructing LRG and quasar maps, we constructed three additional maps that we use to reject region sheavily affected by poor seeing or
454: stellar contamination. These include (i) a map of the full width at half-maximum (FWHM) of the point-spread
455: function (PSF) in $r$ band; (ii) a map of stellar density ($18.0<r<18.5$ stars, smoothed with a 2 degree FMHM Gaussian); and (iii) a similar map using
456: only the red stars ($g-r>1.4$).
457:
458: All SDSS magnitudes used here are extinction-corrected using the maps of Ref.~\cite{schlegel98}. We use SDSS model magnitudes for the LRGs, and PSF
459: magnitudes for the quasars and stars.
460:
461: %\cite{Stou}, Abazajian et al. \cite{Aba03}, \cite{Aba04}, \cite{Aba05}; Finkbeiner
462: %et al. \cite{Fink02}, Adelman-McCarthy et al. \cite{Adel06}Adel07}.
463: %[MORE REFS???]
464:
465: %The Sloan Digital Sky Survey has taken $ugriz$ CCD images of $10^4$ $deg^2$ of the high-latitude
466: %sky.
467: %A dedicated $2.5m$ telescope at Apache Point Observatory images the sky in 5 bands between
468: %$3000\AA$ and $10000\AA$ (see Fukugita et al. 1996 \cite{Fuku})
469: %using a drift-scanning, mosaic CCD camera (Gunn et al. 1998 \cite{Gunn}), detecting
470: %objects to a flux limit of $r\sim 22.5$ mag.
471: %The survey selects $10^6$ targets for spectroscopy, most of them galaxies with
472: %$r < 17.77$ mag (Gunn et al. (1998)\cite{gunn}, York et al. (2000)
473: %\cite{York}, Stoughton et al. (2002) \cite{Stou}). This spectroscopic
474: %follow-up uses two digital spectrographs on the same telescope as the imaging camera.
475: %Details of the galaxy survey are described in the galaxy target selection paper by
476: %Strauss et al. 2002 \cite{Strauss02}, other aspects of the survey are mainly described
477: %in the Early Data Release paper by Stoughton et al. 2002 \cite{Stou}.
478: %All the data processing, including astrometry (Pier et al. 2003 \cite{Pier}), source
479: %identification and photometry (Lupton et al. 2001 \cite{Lupton}), calibration (Fukugita et al.
480: %1996 \cite{Fukugita96}; Smith et al. 2002 \cite{Smith02}), spectroscopic target selection
481: %(Eisenstein et al. 2001 \cite{Eisen01}; Strauss et al. 2002 \cite{Strauss02},
482: %Richards et al. 2002 \cite{Richards02}), and spectroscopic fiber placement (Blanton et al. 2003
483: %\cite{Blanton03} are done automatically via SDSS software.
484: %
485: %The SDSS is well-underway, and has had six major releases (Stoughton et al. 2002
486: %\cite{Stou}, Abazajian et al. \cite{Aba03}, \cite{Aba04}, \cite{Aba05}; Finkbeiner
487: %et al. \cite{Fink02}, Adelman-McCarthy et al. \cite{Adel06}).
488:
489: \subsubsection{Luminous Red Galaxies}
490:
491: We use the photometric Luminous Red Galaxies (LRGs) from Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)
492: constructed as described in \cite{padmanabhan05}.
493: The LRGs have been very useful as a cosmological probe since they are typically the most luminous
494: galaxies in the Universe, thus probing a larger volume than most other tracers. On top of this,
495: they also have very regular spectral energy distributions and a prominent 4000\AA\ break, making photo-$z$ acquisition much
496: easier than the other galaxies.
497: We will not be repeat our selection criteria here as it is thoroughly described in \cite{padmanabhan05}.
498: We only accept sky regions with $E(B-V) \le 0.08$ (almost identical to $A_r\le 0.2$ as in \cite{padmanabhan05})
499: and an $r$ band FWHM$<2.0$ arcsec.
500:
501: Furthermore, there are a few regions in SDSS that have $\ge$60\% more red stars than typical for their galactic latitude; we suspect photometric
502: problems and rejected these regions. The red star cut removed $427$ deg$^2$ in
503: assorted parts of the sky.
504:
505: We slice our LRG sample into two redshift bins for the ISW analysis: $0.2\le z_{\rm photo}\le 0.4$ and $0.4\le z_{\rm photo}\le 0.6$.
506: %For our low-$z$ sample, we have $232\,888$ galaxies, and for the high-$z$ sample $622\,646$ galaxies; the mask accepts $2\,025\,731$ resolution 10
507: %HEALPix pixels.
508:
509: % covering 2025731 resolution 10 HEALpix pixels, giving
510: %0.114965 gal/pix, shown in \ref{fig:mollew};
511: %for our high-z sample, we have 622646 galaxies, covering 2025731 resolution 10 HEALpix pixels, giving
512: %0.307369 gal/pix, shown in \ref{fig:mollew}.
513:
514: \begin{figure*}
515: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{ISW_mollewide.eps}
516: \caption{The overdensity maps of various tracer samples in Galactic coordinates. The scale runs from $g=-1$ (black, no galaxies) to $g=-0.25$ (blue),
517: $g=0$ (green), $g=+0.25$ (red), and $g=+1$ (white, $\ge 2\times$ mean density).}
518: \label{fig:mollew}
519: \end{figure*}
520:
521: \subsubsection{Photometric quasars}
522:
523: We select quasars photometrically from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey by first generating a candidate
524: quasar catalog consisting of UVX objects \cite{richards04}. These are
525: point sources with excess UV flux (i.e. $u-g < 1.0$)
526: observed $g$ magnitudes fainter than 14.5 (to avoid saturation problems), extinction corrected $g$ magnitudes brighter than $21.0$, and
527: u-band error less than $0.5$ mag ($\ge 2\sigma$ detection in $u$).
528: We call this the ALL-UVX catalog.
529: We also have the public catalog of photometric quasars from Data Release 3 (DR3)
530: generated by Ref.~\cite{richards06}, which we will call DR3-QSO objects.
531: We also construct a UVX object list from only DR3 data, denoted DR3-UVX.
532: This catalog is used to extend the selection and photometric redshifts from the DR3 region
533: to the ALL region. Ideally the catalog would have been based on running the algorithm of Ref.~\cite{richards06} on the ALL region but this option was
534: not available at the time we constructed the quasar catalog.
535:
536: We first match the DR3-UVX objects to the DR3-QSO objects and then assign the photometric redshifts
537: from the DR3-QSO objects to the matched DR3-UVX object.
538: For objects that are in DR3-UVX catalog, but not in the DR3-QSO catalog, we
539: mark them as rejects.
540: We now have a DR3-UVX catalog with every object either assigned a redshift or marked as a reject.
541: The reject rate for DR3-UVX (ALL-UVX) is $89\%$ ($93\%$).
542: Then, we lay down the DR3-UVX catalog in color$^4$ ($u-g$,$g-r$,$r-i$,$i-z$) space, and
543: then for each ALL-UVX object, we find its nearest neighbor in this color$^4$ space, then
544: assigning it the same ``redshift'' as its matched DR3-UVX neighbor.
545: If the DR3-UVX object has a redshift (not a reject), then the ALL-UVX object is classified as a
546: quasar with the same redshift (photo-$z$ only), otherwise it is rejected.
547: This procedure generates a photometric catalog of quasars in the full survey area, based on the matching against DR3
548: quasars in color$^4$ space.
549: However, this catalog only has the photometric redshifts, but not the actual redshift
550: distribution. The actual redshift distribution will be discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:sys}.
551: %[HERE!][GIVE STATS ON NEAREST NEIGHBOR PERFORMANCE???]
552: The average color offsets of the quasar candidate to its match for $u-g$, $g-r$, $r-i$ and $i-z$ are
553: $0.0018$, $0.0056$, $0.0075$ and $0.0045$, while
554: the typical errors on the colors of the candidates are $0.11$ ($u-g$), $0.13$ ($g-r$), $0.14$ ($r-i$) and
555: $0.17$ ($i-z$). As the color differences between the match and the candidate are well within the
556: error of the colors, we conclude that the quasar candidates are matched with
557: high accuracy.
558:
559: We then cut the catalog according to $E(B-V) <0.05$ and FWHM$< 2.0$ arcsec. These cuts are determined when we look at the variation of the quasar
560: number overdensity over a range of extinction and seeing. Also, since quasars are more sensitive than LRGs to extinction (as a result of the importance
561: of the $u$ filter in selecting quasars), we cut the catalog at a lower $E(B-V)$. We also imposed a cut rejecting regions with more than twice average
562: stellar density, i.e. we require $n_{\rm star}<564$ stars/deg$^2$.
563:
564: We further divide the sample into two redshift (photo-z) bins: $0.65<z_{\rm photo}<1.45$ (low-$z$) and
565: $1.45<z_{\rm photo}<2.0$ (high-$z$).
566: This division of sample is due to the fact that there are strong emission lines (e.g. Mg$\,${\sc ii}) that redshift from one filter into the next
567: around the redshifts of
568: $0.65$, $1.45$ and $2.0$, causing these two redshift bins to be relatively free of cross-contamination.
569: However, as we will see, they do contain significant
570: contamination from redshifts below $0.65$ and above $2.0$.
571: We therefore constrain their redshift distribution by cross-correlating these with
572: auxiliary data sets; we discuss this further in Sec.~\ref{sec:dndz}.
573: %Therefore, we need to
574: %constrain their redshift distribution by looking at the cross correlations with other
575: %samples in our project. This will be further discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:sys}.
576:
577: %After applying sky cuts such as the ones mentioned earlier and the extra few runs in SDSS
578: %that causes excess in red objects and deficit in blue objects, we haveo
579: %for low redshift sample:
580: %156802 quasars in 2328578 HEALpix resolution 10 pixels, giving 0.067338 quasars/pix, overdensity shown
581: %in Fig.~\ref{fig:mollew};
582: %for high redshift sample:
583: %139031 quasars in
584: %2328578 HEALpix resolution 10 pixels, giving 0.0597 quasars/pix, overdensity shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mollew}.
585:
586: The construction of the full sample using the DR3 catalog as described above introduces one potentially worrying systematic, namely the possibility that
587: regions of the sky observed after DR3 would have a different density of sources than DR3 regions as a result of the nearest-neighbor method misbehaving
588: in low-density regions of color$^4$ space. This would provide a spurious feature in the quasar maps that resembles the DR3 coverage map.
589: In order to check for this problem, we look for correlations between
590: observing dates (if the ALL sample is misbehaving, it will be different from DR3 sample)
591: with galaxy overdensity, and we do not find any significant correlations (Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}).
592: We also look at the correlation between quasar overdensity and the stellar number density
593: to see if there is significant stellar contamination, we do not find any either (Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}).
594:
595: \begin{figure*}
596: \begin{center}
597: \includegraphics[angle=-90.0,width=6.2in]{sdss-sys.eps}
598: \end{center}
599: \caption{LRG and QSO overdensity vs various quantities such as reddening, PSF FWHM ($r$ band), observing time (MJD),
600: red star density, and star density. In each panel the circles show the low-redshift sample and the squares show the high-redshift sample. The
601: Modified Julian Date (MJD) of the DR3 ending date is 52821. Note that there are very few accepted pixels at the extremes of reddening, PSF FWHM, and
602: stellar density, resulting in the large fluctuations seen in the figure.}
603: \label{fig:syst}
604: \end{figure*}
605:
606: \subsection{NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS)}
607: \label{sec:nvss_data}
608: The NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS) is a 1.4 GHz continuum survey covering the entire sky north of
609: $-40^\circ$ declination using the compact D and DnC configurations of the Very Large Array (VLA) \cite{condon98}.
610: The images all have 45 arcsec FWHM resolution and nearly uniform sensitivity and yield
611: a catalog of almost $2\times 10^6$ discrete sources stronger than $\sim 2$ mJy.
612:
613: This survey has several potentially major artifacts:
614: Galactic synchrotron emission, spurious power from bright sources and
615: a declination-dependent striping problem.
616: All of these have to be treated properly before one can claim that the power coming from
617: the cross-/auto-correlation is not due to some spurious issues.
618: The Galactic synchrotron emission can in principle be an issue because it contributes significantly to the noise temperature of the VLA, and for
619: realistic number counts, increased
620: noise temperature could change the number of sources with measured flux above some threshold. (As an interferometer the VLA is not directly sensitive
621: to the diffuse synchrotron foreground.)
622: This issue is treated by incorporating a template -- the Haslam map \cite{haslam81} -- in
623: the cross-correlation analysis and projecting out the power that are correlated to
624: this template. Even though
625: the Haslam map is at 408 MHz, the frequency dependence of the galactic synchrotron emission
626: is fairly flat, allowing us to use it as a template of the Galactic synchroton radiation.
627: The bright sources are problematic since the VLA has a finite dynamic range ($\sim 1000$ in snapshot mode with limited $uv$-plane coverage) and thus
628: the identification of faint sources in fields with a bright source is unreliable.
629: This issue is mitigated by masking out all the bright sources.
630: Striping is a known systematic effect in NVSS \citep{blake02}: the galaxy density has a systematic
631: dependence on declination, which can mimic long-wavelength modes in the galaxy field.
632: To deal with the above potential problems, we first impose a flux limit of 2.5 mJy (where NVSS is 50\% complete), mask out a 0.6 degree radius around
633: all the bright sources ($>2.5$ Jy). Then to reduce striping, we also include templates to project out the synchrotron and declination-striping modes.
634: The implementation of this projection of spurious power will be further discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:cross}.
635:
636: %The striping problem is an issue possibly due to the scanning strategy of the sky,
637: %as the telescope scans different parts of the sky (especially in declination),
638: %the length of the baseline changes and thus the signal.
639:
640: %\section{\label{sec:auto} Auto-correlation power spectrum analysis}
641: %To generate the priors for the cross-correlation power spectrum analysis, we need to
642: %first generate the auto-correlation power spectrum for each of the mass tracer sample
643: %that are described above.
644: %The auto-correlation is done using the same methodology as in the cross-correlation
645: %analysis, except that we are just "cross-correlating" the same dataset.
646: %The methodology of the cross-correlation power spectrum analysis will be discussed in details
647: %in \S\ref{sec:cross}.
648: %
649: %Here, we will present the auto-power spectrum of each of the sample.
650: %Fig \ref{fig:2massauto} gives the auto-power spectra of 2MASS samples,
651: %all 4 samples give similar correlation function. This is not surprising,
652: %since these samples are defined by their K-band magnitude, so the
653: %populations are not different from each other in any significant way,
654: %except their redshift distribution is slightly different from each other.
655: %
656: %\begin{figure}
657: %\begin{center}
658: %\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{2mass_auto_04_06.ps}
659: %\end{center}
660: %\caption{2MASS auto-power spectra for all 4 samples.}
661: %\label{fig:2massauto}
662: %\end{figure}
663: %
664: %Fig \ref{fig:lrgauto} gives the auto-power spectra of the DR5 LRG samples,
665: %we also see the slightly lower correlation amplitude as we go to higher
666: %redshift.
667: %
668: %\begin{figure}
669: %\begin{center}
670: %\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{all_lrg_auto.ps}
671: %\end{center}
672: %\caption{SDSS photometric Luminous Red Galaxies' auto-power spectra for low and high redshift samples.}
673: %\label{fig:lrgauto}
674: %\end{figure}
675: %
676: %Fig \ref{fig:qsoauto} gives the auto-power spectra of the DR5 photometric
677: %quasar samples, and since these samples are statistics limited, their
678: %errorbars are larger than the LRG case.
679: %
680: %\begin{figure}
681: %\begin{center}
682: %\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{qso_all_auto_0918.ps}
683: %\end{center}
684: %\caption{SDSS photometric quasars' auto-power spectra for both redshift samples.}
685: %\label{fig:qsoauto}
686: %\end{figure}
687: %
688: %Fig \ref{fig:nvssauto} gives the auto-power spectrum of the NVSS sample,
689: %The auto-power spectrum of the NVSS sample is generated from the
690: %cross-correlation code (will be discussed in \ref{sec:cross})
691: %that takes care of the stripping issue and the galactic extinction issue.
692: %
693: %\begin{figure}
694: %\begin{center}
695: %\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{nvss_auto.ps}
696: %\end{center}
697: %\caption{NRAO VLA Sky Survey 1.4 GHz auto-power spectra}
698: %\label{fig:nvssauto}
699: %\end{figure}
700: %
701: %We fit these auto-power specta to the predicted matter-power spectra
702: %using limber-approximation, and the results are in table \ref{tab:bias}
703: %for 2MASS and LRG samples.
704: %For the photometric QSO and NVSS sample, we will defer this discussion
705: %of their bias alongside with their redshift distributions in future paper.
706: %
707: %%\begin{table}
708: %%\caption{Linear Bias fit from galaxy-galaxy power spectrum to the matter power
709: %%spectrum. !!??? I think the error is too small?? -s}
710: %%\begin{tabular}{ccc}
711: %%Sample&Linear Bias& Erorr in Linear bias \\
712: %%\hline
713: %%2MASS: $12.0<K_{20}<12.5$ & 1.1502839 &0.01827302 \\
714: %%2MASS: $12.5<K_{20}<13.0$ & 1.1770773 &0.01748450 \\
715: %%2MASS: $13.0<K_{20}<13.5$ & 1.1995865 &0.01689434 \\
716: %%2MASS: $13.5<K_{20}<14.0$ & 1.2160290 &0.01642423 \\
717: %%LRG : $0.2<z<0.4$ & 1.9164350 &0.00273201\\
718: %%LRG : $0.4<z<0.6$ & 1.8584501 &0.00420660
719: %%\end{tabular}
720: %%\label{tab:bias}
721: %%\end{table}
722: %
723: %
724:
725: \section{\label{sec:cross} Cross-correlation power spectrum analysis}
726:
727: \subsection{Methodology}
728: \label{ss:method}
729:
730: We start by organizing the temperature fluctuations
731: and the galaxy overdensities into a single data vector,
732: \begin{equation}
733: \mathbf{x} = (\mathbf{x}_{B,T},\mathbf{x}_{g}) \,\,,
734: \end{equation}
735: where $\mathbf{x}_{B,T}$ is a vector with the measured
736: CMB temperature (with the monopole and dipole subtracted)
737: in band $B$ at every HEALPix pixel;
738: analogously, $\mathbf{x}_{g}$ is the tracer number overdensity. The vector $\mathbf{x}$ has a total length $N_{\rm pix,CMB}+N_{\rm pix,LSS}$ where
739: $N_{\rm pix,CMB}$ and $N_{\rm pix,LSS}$ are the number of accepted pixels for the CMB and LSS maps respectively.
740: We suppress the band
741: subscript for simplicity, with the implicit understanding
742: that we always refer to the cross correlation of
743: a single WMAP band with the tracer overdensity.
744: The covariance matrix of $\mathbf{x}$ is,
745: \begin{equation}
746: \mathbf{C} = \mathbf{C}_{diag} + \left(
747: \begin{array}{cc} {\bf 0} & {\bf C}^{gT\dagger} \\ {\bf C}^{gT} & {\bf 0} \end{array}\right) \,\,,
748: \label{eq:cdef}
749: \end{equation}
750: where $\mathbf{C}_{diag}$ is given by,
751: \begin{equation}
752: \mathbf{C}_{diag} = \left(\begin{array}{cc} {\bf C}^{TT}+{\bf N}^{TT} & {\bf 0} \\ {\bf 0} & {\bf C}^{gg} + {\bf N}^{gg}
753: \end{array}\right) \,\,,
754: \label{eq:cdiagdef}
755: \end{equation}
756: where ${\bf N}^{xx}$ is the noise matrix.
757: The submatrices ${\bf C}^{TT}$, ${\bf C}^{gg}$ and ${\bf C}^{gT}$ are defined by
758: \begin{equation}
759: C^{ab}_{ij} = \sum_{lm} C^{ab}_{l}
760: Y_{lm}^{*}(\hat{n}_{i}^{a}) Y_{lm}(\hat{n}_{j}^{b}) \,\,,
761: \end{equation}
762: where $\hat{n}_{i}^{a}$ is the position (on the sky) of the
763: $i^{th}$ point of the vector $\mathbf{x}_{a}$. The temperature-temperature,
764: galaxy-galaxy and galaxy-temperature angular power spectra are denoted
765: by $C^{TT}_{l}, C^{gg}_{l}$ and $C^{gT}_{l}$ respectively.
766:
767: The galaxy power spectrum is first estimated using a pseudo-$C_{l}$
768: estimator \cite{efstathiou04}, and fit by the non-linear power spectrum of
769: \cite{smith03}, multiplied by a constant linear bias. We project out
770: the monopole and dipole of both these power spectra by setting the power in
771: the $l=0,1$ modes to a value ($10^{-1}$) much greater than the true
772: power spectrum.
773:
774: We parametrize $C^{gT}_{l}$ as a sum of bandpowers,
775: $\tilde{P}_{i,l}$, with amplitudes $c_{i}$ to be estimated,
776: \begin{equation}
777: C^{gT}_{l} = \sum_{i} c_{i} \tilde{P}_{i,l} \,\,.
778: \end{equation}
779: %We consider two bandpowers in this paper. The first are
780: We consider
781: ``flat'' bandpowers given by
782: \begin{equation}
783: \tilde{P}_{i,l} = \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
784: B(l) & & l_{i,min} \leq l < l_{i,max} \\
785: 0 & & \rm{otherwise}, \end{array}\right.
786: \label{eq:bandpowers}
787: \end{equation}
788: where $B(l)$ is the product of the beam transfer function
789: \cite{page03}, and the HEALPix pixel transfer functions at WMAP and LSS resolution. This parametrizes the power
790: spectrum
791: as a sum of step functions and is useful
792: when the shape of the power spectrum is unknown.
793:
794: We estimate the $c_{i}$ by forming quadratic combinations of the data
795: \cite{tegmark97, seljak98},
796: \begin{equation}
797: q_{i} = \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{x}^{t} \mathbf{C}_{diag}^{-1}
798: \frac{\partial \mathbf{C}}{\partial c_{i}} \mathbf{C}_{diag}^{-1} \mathbf{x} \,\,.
799: \label{eq:qi}
800: \end{equation}
801: These are related to the estimated $\hat{c}_{i}$ by the response matrix $\mathbf{F}$,
802: \begin{equation}
803: \hat{c}_{i} = \sum_{j} (\mathbf{F}^{-1})_{ij} q_{j} \,\,,
804: \label{eq:ci}
805: \end{equation}
806: where
807: \begin{equation}
808: \mathbf{F}_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} \rm{tr}\left[
809: \mathbf{C}_{diag}^{-1} \frac{\partial \mathbf{C}}{\partial c_{i}}
810: \mathbf{C}_{diag}^{-1} \frac{\partial \mathbf{C}}{\partial c_{j}} \right] \,\,.
811: \end{equation}
812: If $C^{gT}_{l} \ll \sqrt{C^{gg}_{l} C^{TT}_{l}}$, then the $\hat{c}_{i}$ are
813: good approximations to the maximum likelihood estimates of the $c_{i}$.
814: The covariance matrix of the $\hat{c}_{i}$ is
815: the inverse of the response matrix, if the
816: fiducial power spectra and noise used to compute $\mathbf{C}_{diag}^{-1}$ correctly
817: describe the data (in this case $\mathbf{F}$ is the Fisher matrix, hence the notation).
818: The matrix $\mathbf{C}_{diag}$ determines the weighting and is often called a ``prior'' in quadratic estimation theory. Note that this usage has
819: nothing to do with Bayesian priors -- in particular, Eq.~(\ref{eq:ci}) is unbiased regardless of the choice of prior (though for bad choices the
820: estimator is not minimum variance).
821: Implementing the above algorithm is complicated by the sizes of the datasets;
822: the implementation we use is in \citep{padmanabhan03, hirata04, padmanabhan05ISW},
823: and we refer to the reader to the discussion there.
824:
825: [In addition to the cross-power spectra in Eq.~(\ref{eq:bandpowers}), in quadratic estimator theory one usually tries to estimate the CMB and galaxy
826: auto-power spectra as well. Because our prior is diagonal, however, these decouple, i.e. the entries in $F_{ij}$ that couple the auto-powers and
827: cross-powers are zero. For this reason we can leave the auto-powers out of the quadratic estimator.]
828:
829: As mentioned earlier, the NVSS dataset has issues that require additional processing.
830: Assume a systematic $E$ that we characterize as follows:
831: \begin{equation}
832: \mathbf{x^{obs}} = \mathbf{x^{true}} + \lambda E \,\,.
833: \end{equation}
834: If estimate $\hat{c}_{i}$, even if $\mathbf{C}$ is the true covariance,
835: we will still have a biased answer.
836: However, the substitution
837: \begin{equation}
838: \mathbf{C} = \mathbf{C^{true}} + \zeta E E^{t}
839: \end{equation}
840: yields an unbiased estimate of $\hat{c}_{i}$ when $\zeta \rightarrow \infty$.
841: One can add as many systematic templates $E$ (i.e. modes to project out of the map) as desired.
842: To immunize the NVSS correlations from possible systematics, we break the NVSS map into 74 declination rings, and for each ring include a
843: template map $E$ consisting of either $+1$ (for
844: pixels within the declination ring) or $0$ (for all other pixels).
845: This removes the declination-dependent stripes.
846: We also put in the 408 MHz Haslam map \cite{haslam81} (technically $T_{\rm Haslam}-20\,$K) as a template for the
847: Galactic synchrotron radiation. We experimented with the values of $\zeta$ and found that the cross-spectra are converged with the choice $\zeta=1$
848: for the declination rings and $\zeta=10^{-3}\,$K$^{-2}$ for the synchrotron map.
849:
850: \subsection{Priors}
851:
852: To generate the priors $\mathbf{C}_{diag}$ for the cross-correlation power spectrum analysis, we need the approximate autopower spectrum of the
853: galaxies. The auto-correlation is done using the same methodology as described in Sec.~\ref{ss:method}.
854: The resulting autopower spectra must be smoothed, before being used as priors.
855: This avoids statistical fluctuations in $C_{\ell}$ over- or under-weighting the corresponding monopoles in the cross-correlation, which could result in
856: underestimation of $C_\ell^{gT}$ signal since we would artifically down-weight multipoles that had accidentally high power in galaxies and place more
857: weight on multipoles that had little power.
858: We did the smoothing in two different ways. For the cases where the redshift distribution was available early enough in
859: the analysis (2MASS or LRG), we fit the auto-power spectrum
860: to the non-linear matter power spectrum \cite{smith03} to get the linear bias.
861: In other cases (quasars, NVSS) we did not have the redshift distribution at the time the priors
862: were created; we created the priors by using a smoothed,
863: splined auto-power spectrum of the sample as the prior.
864:
865: %The autopower spectra are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:loz}, Fig.~\ref{fig:fqso} and Fig.~\ref{fig:xnvss}.
866: % -- journal rules forbid forward-referencing of figures. CH
867:
868: In the cases where we did a fit using the nonlinear matter power spectrum, the fit biases are
869: 1.15, 1.18, 1.20, and 1.22 (2MASS, brightest to faintest); 1.92 (LRG low-$z$); and 1.86 (LRG high-$z$). After generating the priors, we made several
870: modifications to the analysis, including the inclusion of redshift-dependent bias in 2MASS. Thus while the priors were not updated since they give a
871: good fit to the observed autopower spectrum, it should be noted that these bias values are {\em not} used in the cosmological analysis (i.e. for ISW
872: prediction purposes).
873:
874: %\begin{figure}
875: %\includegraphics[width=2in]{2mass_auto_04_06.ps}
876: %\includegraphics[width=2in]{all_lrg_auto.ps}
877: %\includegraphics[width=2in]{qso_all_auto_0918.ps}
878: %\includegraphics[width=2in]{nvss_auto.ps}
879: %\caption{\label{fig:auto}The autopower spectra $C_l^{gg}$ used as priors in Eq.~(\ref{eq:qi}). [MAKE SINGLE FIGURE OUT OF THIS???]}
880: %\end{figure}
881:
882: To generate priors for the CMB, we generate the priors using the theoretical $C_{\ell}$s from WMAP and take into the account of the
883: effect of pixelization and beams by convolving with the pixel and beam window functions.
884:
885: \subsection{Results of cross-correlation}
886:
887: %The cross correlation of the faintest
888: % sample of 2MASS galaxies with the CMB temperature from all bands in WMAP is shown in
889: %Fig.~\ref{fig:cross_2mass}.
890: %This can be used as a systematic check that will show any effect
891: %that is frequency dependent.
892: %We also show the cross correlation of the W-band of WMAP with all of the
893: %2MASS samples in Fig.~\ref{fig:cross_2mass}. These
894: %cross-correlations differ due to different redshift distribution
895: %and bias of the sample.
896: %
897:
898: \begin{figure*}
899: \begin{center}
900:
901: \includegraphics[width=6.5in]{2mass_cross_ISW_bw7_3yr.ps}
902: \end{center}
903: \caption{Galaxy density correlations with WMAP temperatures (4 bands: Ka (crosses), Q (triangles), V (squares), W (empty triangles), error bars are from the correlations with V-band.
904: This contains 2MASS galaxy density correlations with WMAP,
905: starting from (from left to right, top to bottom) the brightest sample, to the bottom the dimmest sample.
906: We shift the points on x-axis for clarity. The dotted line shows the
907: predicted signal for the sample with WMAP 3-year parameters and $b dN/dz$ estimated in Sec.~\ref{sec:dndz}.}
908: \label{fig:cross_2mass}
909: \end{figure*}
910:
911: \begin{figure*}
912: \begin{center}
913: \includegraphics[width=6.5in]{ISW_cross_sdss4_3yr.ps}
914: %\includegraphics[width=7.0in]{full_plot_8.ps}
915: \end{center}
916: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:cross_2mass} except for the SDSS density maps from (from left to right, top to bottom): low-z LRG, high-z LRG, low-z QSO, high-z QSO.
917: }
918: %Galaxy density correlations with WMAP temperatures (4 bands:Ka (crosses), Q (triangles), V (squares), W (empty triangles) , error bars are from the correlations with V-band. This contains WMAP correlations with galaxy density maps from (clockwise): low-z LRG, high-z LRG, low-z QSO, high-z QSO.
919: %We shift the points on x-axis for clarity. The dotted line shows the
920: %predicted signal for the sample with WMAP 3-year parameters.}
921: \label{fig:cross_sdss}
922: \end{figure*}
923:
924: Figs.~\ref{fig:cross_2mass}, \ref{fig:cross_sdss}, and \ref{fig:nvsscross} plot the
925: cross-correlation between WMAP and the 2MASS, SDSS and NVSS samples respectively; the
926: four different symbols in each of these plots correspond to the four WMAP bands we use.
927: The observed achromatic nature of the signal is consistent with it being ISW, and is an
928: important check for frequency dependent systematics.
929: The two quasar samples are at the highest redshifts we can probe,
930: so if there is an ISW cross-correlation at $z\sim 1$--2, it
931: would mean that there is significant gravitational potential
932: change at these redshifts. This is not expected in simplest
933: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, but could be present either in models
934: where dark energy equation of state is rapidly changing with redshift
935: or in models where curvature plays a role.
936: The observed lack of a signal for these redshifts therefore strongly constrains
937: such models.
938: Note however that the NVSS cross-correlation
939: cannot be automatically interpreted as a detection of high redshift ISW, as (see below)
940: it covers a wide redshift range.
941:
942: %The cross correlation of the photometric SDSS LRGs are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cross_sdss}.
943: %The cross correlation of the photometric SDSS QSOs are also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cross_sdss}.
944: %These two samples are at the highest redshift we can probe,
945: %so if there is an ISW cross-correlation at the redshifts 1.5-2 it
946: %would mean that there is significant gravitational potential
947: %change at these redshifts. This is not expected in simplest
948: %$\Lambda$CDM cosmology, but could be present either in models
949: %where dark energy equation of state is rapidly changing with redshift
950: %or in models where other parameters such as curvature play a role.
951: %FInally, the cross correlation of the NVSS with WMAP is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nvsscross}.
952: %As we discuss below it covers a wide range of redshifts and evidence of a signal
953: %cannot automatically be interpreted as a detection of high redshift ISW.
954: %
955:
956: \begin{figure}
957: \begin{center}
958: \includegraphics[width=3.3in]{nvss_cross_plot8.ps}
959: \end{center}
960: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:cross_2mass} except for the NVSS cross-correlation.
961: %The correlation between the CMB temperature from WMAP with
962: %NVSS sample.These are correlations with WMAP temperatures (4 bands:Ka (crosses), Q (triangles), V (squares), W (empty triangles) with their x-axis shifted for clarity. The dotted line shows the
963: %predicted signal for the sample with WMAP 3-year parameters.
964: }
965: \label{fig:nvsscross}
966: \end{figure}
967:
968:
969: %\section{\label{sec:sys} Snstematics}
970: \section{Redshift Distributions}
971: \label{sec:dndz}
972:
973: The basic problem is to determine for each galaxy sample $i$ and each cosmological model the function $f_i(z)$ that relates the matter density
974: $\delta({\bf r})$ to the two-dimensional galaxy overdensity $g_i$:
975: \beq
976: g_i(\nhat) = \int_0^\infty f_i(z) \delta[\nhat,\chi(z)] dz.
977: \label{eq:gi}
978: \eeq
979: Eq.~(\ref{eq:gi}) is understood to be valid on scales where the galaxies trace the matter distribution. In the absence of magnification bias, the function $f_i(z)$ is simply the product of the bias and the redshift distribution: $f_i(z) = b_i(z)\Pi_i(z)$, where $\Pi_i(z)$ is the probability distribution for the galaxy redshift. In the presence of magnification bias, which is important for the SDSS quasars and possibly the NVSS radio sources, $f_i(z)$ takes on the more complicated form
980: \beq
981: f_i(z) = b_i(z)\Pi_i(z) + \int_z^\infty W(z,z')[\alpha(z')-1] \Pi_i(z')dz',
982: \label{eq:fi}
983: \eeq
984: where $\alpha(z')$ is the slope of the number counts of the galaxy density as a function of flux: $N(>F)\propto F^{-\alpha}$.
985: Here $W(z,z')$ is the lensing window function:
986: \beqa
987: W(z,z') &=& \frac32\Omega_mH_0^2\frac{1+z}{cH(z)}\sin_K^2\chi(z)
988: \nonumber \\ && \times [\cot_K\chi(z)-\cot_K\chi(z')],
989: \eeqa
990: where $\chi(z)=\int_0^z dz''/H(z'')$ is the radial comoving distance, $\sin_K\chi$ is the sine like function (equal to $\chi$ in a flat Universe), and $\cot_K\chi=d(\ln\sin_K\chi)/d\chi$ is the cotangent like function (equal to $1/\chi$ in a flat Universe).
991:
992: It is in fact the function $f_i(z)$ that is required if one is to predict the ISW effect in a given cosmology. It is this same function that is required to predict the linear-regime angular power spectrum of the galaxies. This section describes the method by which $f_i(z)$ is obtained for each of the samples. The methods are quite different due to the different types of information available for each sample. In particular there are very few spectroscopic redshifts available for NVSS. Note however that all methods include galaxy clustering data, as this is needed to determine the bias even if the redshift probability distribution $\Pi_i(z)$ is known perfectly.
993:
994: All of the numbers and plots {\em in this section only} that depend on cosmology are computed using the {\em original} WMAP third-year flat 6-parameter
995: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology ($\Omega_bh^2=0.0222$, $\Omega_mh^2=0.1275$, $h=0.727$, $\sigma_8=0.743$, and $n_s=0.948$), i.e. from the first release of
996: Ref.~\cite{spergel07}. However in the Markov chain, the functon $f_i(z)$ is re-computed for each cosmological model and used to predict the ISW signal.
997:
998: \subsection{2MASS}
999:
1000: The 2MASS samples go down to a limiting magnitude of $K_{20}=14$. At this relatively bright magnitude, almost all objects (97.9\%, after correcting
1001: for the fiber collisions) have SDSS spectra,
1002: provided of course that they lie within the spectroscopic mask. In practice there are two subtleties that can occur. One is that the bias
1003: $b_{\rm 2MASS}$ cannot be obtained to high accuracy from linear theory because even the moderate multipoles ($l\sim 20$) are nonlinear, especially for
1004: the nearest 2MASS slice, and the lowest multipoles suffer from cosmic variance. The other is that the bias varies with redshift: even though the 2MASS
1005: galaxies cover a narrow range in redshift during which the Universe expands by only $\sim 30$\%, the use of apparent magnitude to define the samples
1006: means that the typical luminosity of a galaxy varies by several magnitudes across the redshift range of interest.
1007: more biased, this effect shifts the peak of the effective redshift distribution $f(z)$ to higher redshifts than the actual distribution $\Pi(z)$.
1008:
1009: %(DISCUSSION on MATCHING 2MASS to SDSS and 2MASS DNDZ binning)
1010:
1011: We match the 2MASS galaxies with the SDSS MAIN galaxy sample by first defining the 2MASS sample as discussed in \ref{ss:2mass}, then
1012: we select 2MASS galaxies only within mask that is more than 90\% complete.
1013: We then try to match all the 2MASS galaxies with the SDSS MAIN galaxies that are within $3''$ and found that almost all of the objects
1014: from 2MASS sample have SDSS spectra.
1015: We thus use the spectroscopic redshifts of the matched SDSS galaxies to identify the redshifts of the 2MASS galaxies.
1016: The redshift distribution is binned with $\delta_z = 0.01$.
1017: The redshift distribution for each of the four slices is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2mass-dndz}.
1018:
1019: \begin{figure}
1020: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=3.2in]{2mass-dndz}
1021: \caption{\label{fig:2mass-dndz}The 2MASS redshift distribution, binned in units of $\Delta z=0.01$. The top panel shows the raw measured distribution,
1022: $\Pi(z)$, and the bottom panel is corrected for relative bias $b_{\rm rel}(z)\Pi(z)$.}
1023: \end{figure}
1024:
1025: The problem of nonlinear evolution is generally very complicated, however for ISW work we only need a solution accurate to a few tens of percent.
1026: Therefore we have used the $Q$-model \cite{cole05}, which relates the galaxy power spectrum to the linear power spectrum via
1027: \beq
1028: P_{\rm gal}(k) = b^2\frac{1+Qk^2}{1+Ak} P_{\rm lin}(k),
1029: \label{eq:Q}
1030: \eeq
1031: where $b$ is the linear bias appearing in Eq.~(\ref{eq:fi}). Cole et~al. \cite{cole05} found in simulations that this function fits the
1032: galaxy power spectrum in simulations for $A=1.7h^{-1}\,$Mpc, while the required value of $Q$ varies depending on the sample. Our method is to compute
1033: the theoretical angular galaxy power spectrum $C_\ell^{gg}({\rm th)}$ via the Limber integral, and fit this to the measured $C_\ell^{gg}$ treating $b$
1034: and
1035: $Q$ as free parameters. This procedure can be done either assuming $b$ is constant with redshift, or (better) taking into account the
1036: redshift-dependent bias,
1037: \beq
1038: P_{\rm gal}(k,z) = b_\star^2b_{\rm rel}^2(z)\frac{1+Qk^2}{1+Ak} P_{\rm lin}(k,z),
1039: \label{eq:QQ}
1040: \eeq
1041: where $b_{\rm rel}(z)$ is known and $b_\star$ is a free parameter. While there is very little evolution in the 2MASS redshift range, the nearby and
1042: distant galaxies can have very different biases because they correspond to different luminosity ranges.
1043: The results for each are shown in Table~\ref{tab:2mass-bias}.
1044: $b_{\rm rel}(z)$ is based on taking the r-band luminosities of the galaxies and
1045: using $b_{\rm rel}(L)$ from \citet{tegmark06}.
1046: Note that the prominent peak of redshift distribution at $z\sim 0.08$ is a supercluster known
1047: as the Sloan Great Wall.
1048: (In principle $Q$ can depend on redshift as well, so one should be careful about
1049: interpreting the fit value and indeed one can see from Table~\ref{tab:2mass-bias} that $Q$ fit in this way is not stable. However the $\lsim 1\sigma$
1050: changes in $\langle b\rangle$ seen in the table when we restrict to much lower
1051: $l_{\rm max}$ suggest that this is not a large effect on the bias.)
1052:
1053: \begin{table*}
1054: \caption{\label{tab:2mass-bias}The bias of the 2MASS galaxies as determined using the $Q$-model parametrization.
1055: The second column in each line shows the maximum value of $\ell$ used in the main fits (varying or constant $b$). The first fit (``varying $b$'')
1056: uses Eq.~(\ref{eq:QQ}) and should be viewed as the main result. For this fit we show the mean bias, i.e. $\langle b\rangle = \int b(z)\Pi(z)\,dz$, as
1057: this is easier to compare with other results than $b_\star$. The second fit (``constant $b$'') has the bias fixed to a constant value. The third fit
1058: ($l_{\rm max}=24$) has a bias varying according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:QQ}) but the fit is restricted to the region $l<25$ in order to reduce the effect of
1059: nonlinearities. Note that the biases obtained from the varying-$b$ fits are consistent with each other, while the constant-bias fit finds a lower
1060: value of $b$ by up to $\sim 6$\% depending on the sample.}
1061: \begin{tabular}{ccccrccrccr}
1062: \hline\hline
1063: $K_{20}$ range & $l_{\rm max}$
1064: & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Varying $b$ fit} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Constant $b$ fit} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$l_{\rm max}=24$ fit} \\
1065: & & & $\langle b\rangle$ & $Q\;\;\;$ & & $b$ & $Q\;\;\;$ & & $\langle b\rangle$ & $Q\;\;\;\;$ \\
1066: \hline
1067: 12.0--12.5 & 49 & & $1.62\pm 0.08$ & $12\pm 3$ & & $1.54\pm 0.08$ & $12\pm 3$ & & $1.60\pm 0.13$ & $ 12\pm 10$ \\
1068: 12.5--13.0 & 61 & & $1.52\pm 0.07$ & $17\pm 3$ & & $1.44\pm 0.06$ & $17\pm 3$ & & $1.57\pm 0.13$ & $ 9\pm 15$ \\
1069: 13.0--13.5 & 74 & & $1.54\pm 0.05$ & $14\pm 2$ & & $1.45\pm 0.05$ & $14\pm 2$ & & $1.67\pm 0.12$ & $-12\pm 16$ \\
1070: 13.5--14.0 & 99 & & $1.65\pm 0.04$ & $ 8\pm 1$ & & $1.55\pm 0.04$ & $8\pm 1$ & & $1.74\pm 0.10$ & $-32\pm 19$ \\
1071: \hline\hline
1072: \end{tabular}
1073: \end{table*}
1074:
1075: The $Q$-model fits for the 2MASS sample (and the LRGs) are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:loz}.
1076:
1077: %(STILL?? since we are doing b*dndz anyway, we are not relying on whether the bias is z-dependent or not....RUN PREDICTION CODE WITH BOTH Z-DEPENDENT
1078: %AND Z-INDEPENDENT BIAS???)
1079:
1080: \begin{figure}
1081: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=3.2in]{loz}
1082: \caption{\label{fig:loz}The galaxy power spectra for the four 2MASS and two SDSS LRG samples, and the $Q$-model fits. The solid lines show the range
1083: of multipoles used in the fit, the dashed lines are extrapolations. Note that at very small scales the $Q$-model is not a good description of the
1084: power spectrum.}
1085: \end{figure}
1086:
1087: \subsection{SDSS LRGs}
1088:
1089: Next we consider the photometric LRG sample from SDSS. The sample is faint enough that spectroscopic redshifts are unavailable for most of the
1090: objects. Fortunately, precise photometric redshifts are available for LRGs since they have very uniform spectra whose main broadband feature is a
1091: break at 400$\,$nm. This break passes through the SDSS $g$ and $r$ filters in the interesting redshift range, so the $g-r$ and $r-i$ colors of an LRG
1092: correlate very strongly with its redshift \cite{padmanabhan05}. The error distribution of the photometric redshifts has been calibrated using
1093: spectro-$z$s from the 2SLAQ survey\cite{cannon06}; this procedure, and an inversion method used to determine the actual redshift distribution given the photo-$z$
1094: distribution, are described in Padmanabhan et~al. \cite{padmanabhan05}. These methods were applied to determine the redshift probability distribution
1095: $\Pi_i(z)$ for the LRGs used in this sample. The redshift distributions so obtained are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lrg-dndz}.
1096:
1097: \begin{figure}
1098: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=3.2in]{lrg-dndz}
1099: \caption{\label{fig:lrg-dndz}The redshift distributions of the two LRG samples. The dashed lines show the probability distribution for the photo-$z$s, where as the solid (``deconvolved'') lines show the smoothed true redshift distribution based on the reconstruction method of Padmanabhan et~al. \cite{padmanabhan05}.}
1100: \end{figure}
1101:
1102: The bias is determined by the same $Q$-model fitting procedure as we used for 2MASS. The maximum values of $\ell$ considered are 240 for the low-$z$
1103: slice and 400 for the high-$z$ slice, which correspond to roughly $k\approx 0.3h\,$Mpc$^{-1}$ at the typical redshifts of these samples. For the
1104: fiduciual cosmology, the low-$z$ LRG slice gives a bias of $b=1.97\pm 0.05$ and $Q=21.7\pm 2.6$; the high-$z$ slice gives $b=1.98\pm 0.03$ and
1105: $Q=17.1\pm 1.5$. In order to reduce the possible impact of the nonlinear regime on our results, we also did fits where the maximum value of $\ell$ was
1106: reduced by a factor of 2 or 4. The results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:lrgbias} and the bias estimates are seen to be consistent with each other. In
1107: what follows we have used the original ($l_{\rm max}=240,400$) fits for the LRG bias, noting that the remaining uncertainty in $b$ is small compared
1108: to the uncertainty (change in number of sigma detection is: 0.0043 (0.0388) for low-z LRG (high-z LRG)) resulting from statistical error in the ISW signal. However we note that it is not clear how well the $Q$-model works for
1109: LRGs at small scales, and we recommend more detailed analysis before taking the very small statistical error in $b$ at face value. The $Q$-model fits
1110: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:loz}.
1111:
1112: \begin{table}
1113: \caption{\label{tab:lrgbias}The LRG bias and $Q$-parameter determined using several ranges of $\ell$. The ``original'' value $l_{\rm orig}$ is 240 for
1114: the low-$z$ slice and 400 for the high-$z$ slice. The $Q$-values are reported in units of $h^{-2}\,$Mpc$^2$.}
1115: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
1116: \hline\hline
1117: Value of & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Low-$z$ slice} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{High-$z$ slice} \\
1118: $l_{\rm max}$ & $b$ & $Q$ & $b$ & $Q$ \\
1119: \hline
1120: $l_{\rm orig}$ & $1.97\pm 0.05$ & $21.7\pm 2.6$ & $1.98\pm 0.03$ & $17.1\pm 1.5$ \\
1121: $l_{\rm orig}/2$ & $2.03\pm 0.07$ & $16\pm 8$ & $1.96\pm 0.04$ & $21\pm 5$ \\
1122: $l_{\rm orig}/4$ & $1.99\pm 0.12$ & $33\pm 45$ & $2.00\pm 0.07$ & $-12\pm 24$ \\
1123: \hline\hline
1124: \end{tabular}
1125: \end{table}
1126:
1127: For the LRGs -- unlike the 2MASS galaxies -- each of the two photo-$z$ slices covers a narrow redshift range and the threshold luminosity varies slowly
1128: across that range, so we expect the bias to not vary significantly across the redshift range. This expectation has been confirmed in previous angular
1129: clustering studies which found $\sim 15$\% variation from $z=0.2$ to $z=0.6$ \cite{padmanabhan07}, and also by our own bias analysis which finds
1130: no significant difference between the two bins.
1131: Thus we conclude that for the purposes of ISW work (where we have a $\sim 1.3 (2.7)$ sigma signal for low-z LRG (high-z LRG) correlation),
1132: variation of the LRG bias within an individual photo-$z$ bin (0.2--0.4 or 0.4--0.6) can be neglected.
1133:
1134: %(COMMENT ON MAGNIFICATION BIAS ISSUE.)
1135: We calculate the possible contribution from magnification bias given the redshift distribution of the LRGs and
1136: also an assumed cosmology. We find that the possible contribution from magnification bias is $100-1000$ times
1137: (depending on the scale)
1138: smaller than the actual signal. Therefore magnification bias is not contributing significantly to
1139: our signal.
1140:
1141: \subsection{SDSS quasars}
1142:
1143: The function $f_i(z)$ for the quasars is more uncertain than for the LRGs. This is in part due to the limited spectroscopic coverage available, but also the difficulty of constructing quasar photo-$z$s and the lower clustering amplitude, which leads to noisier estimates of bias parameters. The basic procedure for obtaining $f_i(z)$ is thus to find a region of sky with as high spectroscopic completeness as possible while still retaining a large area; use this to obtain a preliminary estimate $\Pi(z)$; and then fit for the bias parameters using clustering data, of which several are needed if $\Pi(z)$ is multimodal. The remainder of this section describes the details of the $f_i(z)$ determination and what possible errors can be introduced by spectroscopic incompleteness, stellar contamination, redshift-dependent bias, and cosmic magnification.
1144:
1145: In order to determine the redshift probability distribution, we began by constructing a set of five rectangles that lie within the coverage area of the
1146: SDSS, 2QZ \cite{croom04}, 6QZ \cite{croom04}, and 2SLAQ \cite{richards05} surveys. These rectangles lie along the equator (the declination range is
1147: $-01^\circ00'36''$ to $+00^\circ35'24''$) and cover the five RA ranges 137--143$^\circ$, 150--168$^\circ$, 185--193$^\circ$, 197--214$^\circ$, and
1148: 218--230$^\circ$. There is a significant amount of area with coverage from all surveys that is rejected as it was found to have lower completeness in
1149: 2SLAQ because there is less plate overlap. Spectra in SDSS were required to have high confidence (\verb"zConf"$>0.95$) \cite{stoughton02} and those in
1150: 2QZ, 6QZ, and 2SLAQ were required to be of high quality (\verb"quality"$==11$) \cite{croom04}.
1151:
1152: Our coverage rectangles contained a total of 1410 low-redshift and 1269 high-redshift photo-$z$ quasars; these numbers are lower than the product of the spectroscopic coverage area and the number density of photo-$z$ quasars because some parts of the latter catalogue were rejected by our stellar density cuts. Of the low-redshift photo-$z$ quasars, we found that 257 (18\%) had no spectroscopic redshift determination or low quality ones, 58 (4\%) were identified as stars, and the remaining 1095 (78\%) are extragalactic. For the high-redshift sample these numbers are 208 (16\%), 13 (1\%), and 1048 (83\%) respectively. From this data we construct a preliminary redshift probability distribution $\Pi_{\rm prelim}(z)$ for each of the photo-$z$ slices using a kernel density estimator,
1153: \beq
1154: \Pi_{\rm prelim}(z) = \frac1{N_{\rm ex}}\sum_{k=1}^{N_{\rm ex}} \frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}\,\sigma}e^{-(z-z_k)^2/2\sigma^2},
1155: \label{eq:prelim}
1156: \eeq
1157: where $N_{\rm ex}$ is the number of matches to extragalactic objects, $z_k$ is the redshift of the $k$th object, and $\sigma$ is the kernel width. The
1158: estimator is consistent in the limit that the number of objects $N_{\rm ex}\rightarrow\infty$ and $\sigma\rightarrow 0$ at fixed $N_{\rm ex}\sigma$.
1159: In practice, $\sigma$ must
1160: be chosen to be small compared to the width of any real features in the redshift distribution (otherwise these are artificially smoothed out), and
1161: large enough to smooth out shot noise (and redshift-clustering noise, if significant). We have used $\sigma=0.04$ (using $\sigma = 0.02$ changes the
1162: fit bias by only 5\%). This
1163: preliminary distribution is shown in the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:qso-dndz}.
1164: The redshift distributions in the two photo-$z$ quasar slices are multimodal due to the nature of the photo-$z$ error distribution: the quasar spectra redward of Lyman-$\alpha$ are usually characterized by a roughly power-law continuum with superposed emission lines. This means that quasar colors oscillate as emission lines redshift into and out of the SDSS filters, resulting in an (approximately) self-intersecting locus in color space and many degeneracies in the photo-$z$ solution.
1165:
1166: \begin{figure}
1167: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=3.2in]{qso-dndz}
1168: \caption{\label{fig:qso-dndz}(a) The preliminary quasar redshift distribution, constructed from the successful matches to spectroscopic data. (b) The
1169: best-fit $f(z)$ for the two quasar samples as described in the text for the WMAP cosmology.}
1170: \end{figure}
1171:
1172: If the quasar bias were constant and magnification bias negligible, then we would have simply $f_i(z)=c\Pi_{\rm prelim}(z)$, with the proportionality
1173: constant $c$ being the product of the bias and the probability for a photo-$z$ quasar to actually be extragalactic. This constant could then be
1174: determined by fitting the amplitude of the quasar autocorrelation function, as has been done in most past ISW studies. However, in the real Universe
1175: quasars are known to have an evolving bias, which is potentially significant across the redshift range considered, and at redshifts $z\sim O(1)$
1176: lensing magnification can become significant. The magnification can be calculated from the slope $\alpha$ of the quasar counts near the $g=21$
1177: magnitude limit, which gives $\alpha=0.82$ for the low-$z$ sample and $\alpha=0.90$ for the high-$z$ sample.
1178: In principle the cut on the $u$-band magnitude error ($\sigma_u<0.5$)
1179: could have an additional effect since magnification will reduce
1180: $\sigma_u$; however this is not an issue for us since at the $g=21$
1181: threshold, for UVX objects we will have $u<22$ where the typical magnitude
1182: error is $<0.5$ even accounting for extinction ($A_{u,\,\rm max}=0.26$).
1183: Since for these
1184: samples $\alpha-1$ is small, we compute the magnification bias using $\Pi_{\rm prelim}(z)$ in place of the true distribution $\Pi(z)$. That is, we
1185: replace Eq.~(\ref{eq:fi}) with
1186: \beqa
1187: f_i(z)\!\!&\approx&\!\! b_i(z)\Pi_i(z)
1188: \nonumber \\ &&\!\! + \int_z^\infty W(z,z')[\alpha(z')-1] \Pi_{i,\,\rm prelim}(z')dz'.
1189: \eeqa
1190: This leaves only the problem of constraining the product $b_i(z)\Pi_i(z)$ using the clustering data, i.e. the quasar power spectrum and quasar-LRG
1191: cross-power. Unfortunately the data is not capable of constraining a full model-independent distribution, so instead we write
1192: \beq
1193: b_i(z)\Pi_i(z)D(z) = A(z)\Pi_{i,\rm prelim}(z),
1194: \eeq
1195: where $D(z)$ is the growth factor, and $A(z)$ is a piecewise constant function of $z$. This is equivalent to assuming that the clustering amplitude
1196: (divided by spectroscopic completeness) of the quasars is constant in redshift slices, which has been found to be a better approximation than constant
1197: bias in most quasar surveys \cite{myers06}. For comparison, the empirical ``Model 3'' of Ref.~\cite{2001MNRAS.325..483C} predicts $b(z)D(z)$ to
1198: change by only 5\% from $z=0.65$ to 1.45, and by 13\% from $z=1.45$ to 2.00. For the more recent model, Eq.~(15) of Ref.~\cite{2005MNRAS.356..415C},
1199: these numbers are 24\% and 15\% respectively. At higher redshifts ($z\ge 3$) there is a sharp increase in $b(z)D(z)$ \cite{2007AJ....133.2222S} but
1200: UVX-selected samples do not contain objects from this redshift range.
1201:
1202: We constrain $A(z)$ in as many redshift slices as can be constrained using the data. In particular since
1203: the quasar redshift distributions are multimodal, we would like to be able to fit a different clustering amplitude in each peak. The treatment of the
1204: two quasar samples is slightly different due to the availability of different information in their redshift ranges, so we now discuss their redshift
1205: distributions separately. In each case, the autopower spectra were fit to linear theory up to $l=160$ ($k=0.1h\,$Mpc$^{-1}$ at $z=0.6$) and the
1206: quasar-LRG cross-spectra were fit up to $l=140$ ($k=0.1h\,$Mpc$^{-1}$ at $z=0.5$).
1207:
1208: \subsubsection{Low-$z$ sample: $0.65<z_{\rm photo}<1.45$}
1209:
1210: For the low-$z$ quasar sample, we can only constrain one redshift slice. An examination of Fig.~\ref{fig:qso-dndz} shows that the distribution is
1211: actually trimodal, with peaks at $z=0.32$, $1.24$, and $2.20$. A fit assuming a constant $A$ yields $A=1.36\pm 0.10$, with $\chi^2/$dof$=36.32/27$
1212: ($p=0.11$). Almost all of the weight for this comes from the central ($z=1.24$) peak. We also ran two-slice fits to determine
1213: whether the clustering data constrain the amplitudes of the low- and high-redshift peaks. The first such fit is of the form
1214: \beq
1215: A(z) = \left\{\begin{array}{lcl} A_1 & & z<0.52 \\ A_2 & & z\ge 0.52 \end{array}\right.,
1216: \eeq
1217: which allows the low-redshift slice to vary ($z=0.52$ is the local minimum of $\Pi_{i,\rm prelim}$). This fit gives $A_1=4.74\pm 2.12$ and
1218: $A_2=1.35\pm 0.10$, with $\chi^2/$dof$=33.77/26$. We also tried a two-parameter fit in which the high-redshift slice is allowed to vary:
1219: \beq
1220: A(z) = \left\{\begin{array}{lcl} A'_1 & & z<1.83 \\ A'_2 & & z\ge 1.83 \end{array}\right.
1221: \eeq
1222: (the local minimum of $\Pi_{i,\rm prelim}$ between the main and high-redshift peaks is at $z=1.83$). This fit gives $A'_1=1.37^{+0.09}_{-0.19}$ and
1223: $A'_2=0.0\pm 8.7$ ($1\sigma$), with $\chi^2/$dof$=36.31/27$. The errors on $A'_1$ are highly asymmetric in this case because the constraint comes
1224: mainly from the quasar autopower; $A'_1$ and $A'_2$ are then degenerate because one only knows the total power, not how much comes from each redshift
1225: slice. The shape of the power spectrum breaks this degeneracy in principle, however in practice it is far too noisy. The fact that the high-redshift
1226: slice cannot give negative power accounts for the ``hard'' upper limit on $A'_1$.
1227:
1228: From this exercise we conclude that the clustering data cannot independently measure the bias in either the low- or high-redshift peak. The reasons
1229: are different in each case. The low-redshift peak contained only 1.7\% of the spectroscopic identifications, and thus almost certainly contains only a
1230: very small fraction of our quasars. This peak lies at the same redshift as the low-$z$ SDSS LRGs, and the quasar-LRG cross-correlation is the major
1231: constraint on $A_1$. Unfortunately this cross-correlation is drowned out by the enormous Poisson noise contributed by the quasars in the other two
1232: peaks, and is detected at only $2.2\sigma$. On the other hand, the LRGs oversample the cosmic density field on linear scales and cover the same region
1233: of sky as the quasars. One would thus expect that since the LRG-quasar correlation is only seen at this low significance, and the ISW effect from this
1234: redshift range contributes only a small fraction of the power in the CMB, the contribution of the low-redshift peak to the quasar-ISW correlation would
1235: be statistically insignificant.
1236: %(CONFIRM THIS WITH PREDICTION CODE???)
1237: We find that the predicted peak of the quasar-ISW $l(l+1)C_\ell/2\pi$ for only the low-redshift peak quasars is
1238: lower than the entire sample (high-z QSO)
1239: by $0.015\mu K$, which is significantly smaller than the error on the cross correlation.
1240: This is run using a WMAP-3yr parameters.
1241:
1242: The high-redshift peak contains 10\% of the quasars. Its amplitude must be measured in autocorrelation due to the lack of other samples at that
1243: redshift, which is a serious drawback since only 1\% of quasar pairs come from the high-redshift peak. An alternative approach to constraining its
1244: amplitude would be cross-correlation against the spectroscopic quasar sample at $2.0<z<2.5$,
1245: but we did not pursue this approach here.
1246:
1247: \subsubsection{High-$z$ sample: $1.45<z_{\rm photo}<2.00$}
1248:
1249: The high-$z$ photometric quasar sample also has a trimodal distribution: there is one peak at $z=0.22$, a second at $z=0.58$, and a third at $z=1.80$.
1250: In this case however, it is the highest-redshift peak that contains most of the objects, with the middle peak in second place and only a few objects in
1251: the lowest-redshift peak. This situation makes it both possible and necessary to fit separate amplitudes for the peaks; in this case we will find that
1252: two amplitudes can be constrained, one for the two low-redshift peaks and one for the main (high-redshift) peak.
1253:
1254: As a first step, we attempt to fit all three of the peaks with separate amplitudes,
1255: \beq
1256: A(z) = \left\{\begin{array}{lcl} A_1 & & z<0.33 \\ A_2 & & 0.33\le z<1.18 \\ A_3 & & z\ge 1.18 \end{array}\right..
1257: \eeq
1258: This leads to the results $A_1=8.2\pm 4.5$, $A_2=1.34^{+0.68}_{-0.78}$, and $A_3=1.38^{+0.06}_{-0.14}$ (1$\sigma$), with $\chi^2/$dof$=23.58/25$. The
1259: large error bar on $A_1$ indicates that this parameter cannot be constrained from the data, so we instead try a two-slice fit in which we fix
1260: $A_1=A_2$. This fit gives the tighter constraints $A_1=A_2=1.59\pm 0.61$ and
1261: $A_3=1.35\pm 0.10$, with $\chi^2/$dof$=25.75/26$, and it is what we use for the rest of the paper.
1262:
1263: \subsubsection{Redshift Distribution Summary}
1264:
1265: %(INTRO; COMMENT ON WHETHER CONSTANT A IS A GOOD ENOUGH ASSUMPTION???)
1266: The quasar autopower spectra and quasar-LRG cross-spectra, along with the model fits, are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fqso}.
1267: For the QSO0 sample, there is excess power ($\sim 3\sigma$ above the
1268: prediction) in the lowest-$l$ bin, corresponding to a $\sim 2$\% RMS
1269: fluctuation in the number density on scales of $\sim 30$ degrees. The two
1270: most obvious sources of such power are stellar contamination and
1271: photometric calibration errors. Given that $\sim 5$\% of the photometric
1272: ``quasars'' are actually stars \cite{richards04} and that the
1273: relative photometric calibration across the sky in SDSS is estimated to be
1274: $\sim 2$\% in the $u$ band (the worst band, but one very important for
1275: quasar work) \cite{padmanabhan07}, either of these seems plausible.
1276: In any case, these very low multipoles were not used in fitting the
1277: redshift distribution in either auto- or cross-power.
1278:
1279: \begin{figure*}
1280: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=6.5in]{fqso}
1281: \caption{\label{fig:fqso}The model fits to the power spectra of the quasars and their cross-correlation with the LRGs. The low- and high-$z$ quasar
1282: slices are denoted ``QSO0'' and ``QSO1'' respectively, and a similar nomenclature is used for the LRGs. The model fits using linear theory are shown
1283: with the solid lines over the range of multipoles used in the fit. The dashed lines show the extension of the model across the remaining range of
1284: multipoles. Note that for the highest multipoles the linear theory is expected to break down.}
1285: \end{figure*}
1286:
1287: It is essential to test the robustness of the quasar fits, in particular against the possibility of nonlinear clustering affecting the range of
1288: multipoles used in the fits. The first way we do this is by repeating our analysis using the nonlinear matter power spectrum of Smith et~al.
1289: \cite{smith03} in place of the linear power spectrum. In the analysis with the nonlinear spectrum, the amplitude $A$ for the low-$z$
1290: quasar slice increases by $+0.02$, and the amplitudes for the $z<1.18$ and $z\ge 1.18$ parts of the high-$z$ quasar slice increase by $+0.08$ and
1291: $+0.02$, respectively. If we restrict our attention to the lowest multipoles $l<100$ (instead of cutting at 140 or 160), these changes are $+0.02$,
1292: $-0.14$, and $+0.03$. In each case the change is very small compared with the error bars. Thus we do not believe that nonlinear clustering is
1293: affecting our $f_{\rm QSO}(z)$ estimates.
1294:
1295: %(RUN PREDICTION CODE WITH DIFFERENT MODELS???)
1296: \subsection{NVSS}
1297:
1298: The function $f(z)$ for NVSS is the hardest to obtain because there are no spectroscopic samples of NVSS objects that have sufficiently high
1299: completeness to obtain the redshift distribution. Past ISW analyses \cite{boughn04, nolta04} with the NVSS have been based on
1300: the radio luminosity function $\Phi(L,z)$ of Dunlop \& Peacock \cite{dunlop90}, which itself was fit to a combination of source counts,
1301: redshifts for some of the brightest sources, and the local luminosity function. A constant bias was then assumed. The redshift distribution so
1302: obtained is reasonable, however it has three major drawbacks: (i) the redshift probability distribution $\Pi(z)$ for the faint sources (which make up
1303: most of the sample) is constrained only by the functional form used for the luminosity function and not by the data; (ii) it does not give the redshift
1304: dependence of the bias, which could be very important since the redshift range is broad, and the typical luminosity of the sources varies with
1305: redshift; and (iii) the absolute bias $b$ is constrained using the NVSS autopower spectrum, which is known to contain power of instrumental origin
1306: and hence is probably a less reliable constraint than the cross-correlation against other surveys. The alternative method to measure $f(z)$ is by
1307: cross-correlation against the other samples whose redshift distributions are known. This method is adopted here, since it does not have any of the
1308: aforementioned problems. Its main drawback is that the other samples only probe the range out to $z\sim 2.6$, and little data is available to
1309: constrain $f(z)$ above that.
1310:
1311: \subsubsection{Procedure}
1312:
1313: In order to measure the effective redshift distribution of NVSS, we must first obtain the cross-correlation of NVSS with each of the eight other
1314: samples (the four 2MASS samples, and two samples each of LRGs and quasars). This is done by using the same angular cross-spectrum estimation method as
1315: was used for the ISW analysis, and the cross-spectra are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:xnvss}. The main subtlety that arises is that the cross-spectrum
1316: $C_\ell^{ij}$ (where
1317: $i$ and $j$ are LSS samples) can actually contain Poisson noise if there are objects that are in both samples. The Poisson noise term is of the form
1318: \beq
1319: C_\ell^{ij} = C_\ell^{ij}({\rm LSS}) + \frac{\bar n_{ij}}{\bar n_i\bar n_j},
1320: \label{eq:poisson}
1321: \eeq
1322: where $\bar n_i$ is the number of sources per steradian in catalog $i$, and $\bar n_{ij}$ is the number of sources per steradian that appear in both
1323: catalogs. In order to measure $\bar n_{ij}$ we must match the NVSS to each of the other samples. Note that the
1324: positional errors in NVSS are typically several arc seconds, and consequently there will always be some false matches. Therefore we estimate the
1325: fraction of matches as
1326: \beq
1327: \frac{\bar n_{i,\rm NVSS}}{\bar n_i}
1328: = \frac{N_{\rm match}}{N_i}-\pi\theta_{\rm max}^2\bar n_{\rm NVSS},
1329: \eeq
1330: where $N_{\rm match}$ is the number of matches within some radius $\theta_{\rm max}$, and $N_i$ is the number of sources in catalog $i$ in the NVSS
1331: mask. This was estimated for radii $\theta_{\rm max}$ of 40 and 20 arcsec, and the results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:clmatch}.
1332:
1333: \begin{table}
1334: \caption{\label{tab:clmatch}Details of the cross-correlation of NVSS with the eight other samples.
1335: The second and third columns show the fraction of objects in each of the samples that match to the NVSS, i.e. $\bar n_{i,\rm NVSS}/\bar n_i$. Results
1336: are presented for two matching radii, 40 and 20 arcsec. The final two columns show the range of multipoles used in the cross-correlation.}
1337: \begin{tabular}{ccccccrr}
1338: \hline\hline
1339: Sample & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\bar n_{i,\rm NVSS}/\bar n_i$} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Multipoles used} \\
1340: & & $40''$ & & $20''$ & & $l_{\rm min}$ & $l_{\rm max}$ \\
1341: \hline
1342: 2MASS $12.0<K_{20}<12.5$ & & $0.1317$ & & $0.1302$ & & 10 & 14 \\
1343: 2MASS $12.5<K_{20}<13.0$ & & $0.0802$ & & $0.0787$ & & 10 & 14 \\
1344: 2MASS $13.0<K_{20}<13.5$ & & $0.0473$ & & $0.0455$ & & 10 & 24 \\
1345: 2MASS $13.5<K_{20}<14.0$ & & $0.0292$ & & $0.0280$ & & 10 & 36 \\
1346: SDSS LRG low-$z$ & & $0.0450$ & & $0.0425$ & & 10 & 87 \\
1347: SDSS LRG high-$z$ & & $0.0263$ & & $0.0249$ & & 10 & 139 \\
1348: SDSS QSO low-$z$ & & $0.0180$ & & $0.0192$ & & 10 & 239 \\
1349: SDSS QSO high-$z$ & & $0.0189$ & & $0.0207$ & & 10 & 159 \\
1350: \hline\hline
1351: \end{tabular}
1352: \end{table}
1353:
1354: We next computed the cross-power spectra between NVSS and each of the other samples. These spectra (after subtraction of the Poisson term) are shown
1355: in Fig.~\ref{fig:xnvss}. The redshift distribution was then fit to the cross-power spectra. In this fit the minimum multipole used is $l_{\rm
1356: min}=10$ (below which there is a large amount of spurious power in the NVSS map) and the highest-$l$ bin used was determined by the formula $l_{\rm
1357: max}=k_{\rm max}D_{A,20}$, where $k_{\rm max}=0.1h\,$Mpc$^{-1}$ is the smallest scale to be fit and $D_{A,20}$ is the distance corresponding to the
1358: 20th percentile of the window function for that sample as defined in Appendix~\ref{app:nvsswin}. We have fit $f_{\rm NVSS}(z)$ with a
1359: $\Gamma$-distribution,
1360: \beq
1361: f_{\rm NVSS}(z) = \frac{\alpha^{\alpha+1}}{z_\star^{\alpha+1}\Gamma(\alpha)} b_{\rm eff}z^{\alpha}e^{-\alpha z/z_\star}.
1362: \eeq
1363: This function has three free parameters, $b_{\rm eff}$, $z_\star$, and $\alpha$.
1364: Of these the normalization $b_{\rm eff}$ may be viewed as an effective bias in the sense that $\int f_{\rm NVSS}(z)\,dz=b_{\rm eff}$; in the absence of
1365: cosmic magnification this would be the bias averaged over the redshift distribution. The peak of the distribution is at $z_\star$, and $\alpha$
1366: controls the width of the distribution. The parameter fit gives $b_{\rm eff}=1.98$, $z_\star=0.79$, and $\alpha=1.18$.
1367:
1368: %(GET ERROR BARS??? NOTE
1369: %FITTING PROCEDURE DIDN'T INCLUDE CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SAMPLES YET.)
1370:
1371: \begin{figure*}
1372: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=6.5in]{xnvss}
1373: \caption{\label{fig:xnvss}The cross-spectra of NVSS with the other samples. The solid lines show the linear theory predictions in the region used for
1374: the fits, and the dashed lines show the extension to higher or lower multipoles. Note that for the highest multipoles linear theory is not valid.}
1375: \end{figure*}
1376:
1377: \subsubsection{High-redshift tail}
1378:
1379: The above analysis of the NVSS distribution involved cross-correlations against
1380: several samples at $0<z<2$. (The QSO0 sample has a small number of
1381: objects at $2.0<z<2.6$, however they have no significant impact on the fitting of
1382: the QSO0$\times$NVSS cross-spectrum.) Thus it leaves open the issue
1383: of whether there is a tail of objects at high redshift, $z>2$. Since $f(z)$ is a
1384: product of bias times redshift probability distribution, it need not
1385: be normalized -- $\int f(z)\,dz$ can have any value -- so there is no way to tell
1386: from the cross-correlation analysis alone whether a portion of the
1387: sample is missing. If we also use the NVSS autopower spectrum then in principle
1388: one can determine whether an additional source of angular fluctuations
1389: is necessary. However the angular clustering at fixed angular scale $l$ is much
1390: stronger at low than high redshift, and the NVSS autopower spectrum is
1391: of low signal-to-noise ratio and possibly contaminated by systematics, so we have
1392: not chosen this strategy.
1393:
1394: An alternative approach to the high-$z$ tail is to directly match against optical/
1395: NIR catalogs. One can then use the $m_K-z$ relation or (if multiband
1396: imaging is available) photometric redshifts. There are always some radio sources
1397: without optical identifications, however this method enables one to
1398: set an upper limit to the number of NVSS sources that can be at high redshift.
1399: For our analysis, we have matched against the COSMOS field, which has a
1400: modest solid angle (2 deg$^2$), multiband imaging allowing good photometric redshifts,
1401: and deep high-resolution coverage with the VLA. Area is
1402: required due to the low density of NVSS sources (40 deg$^{-2}$), and high-resolution
1403: radio images are required to uniquely identify an NVSS source with
1404: an optical counterpart due to the large positional uncertainty in the NVSS ($\sim
1405: 7$ arcsec for faint sources) \citep{condon98}.
1406:
1407: The COSMOS field contains 87 NVSS sources that pass our cuts. We began by matching
1408: these to the VLA-COSMOS observations, which are much deeper and
1409: have typical positional uncertainties of $\sim 0.2$ arcsec \cite{Schinnerer07}.
1410: Of the NVSS sources, 79 have a match within 30 arcsec (we take
1411: the nearest source in the event of multiple matches). The 79 VLA-COSMOS sources
1412: that match to NVSS are then matched to the optical catalog
1413: \cite{capak07}; there are 64 successful matches within 1 arcsec. This
1414: represents 74\% of the original NVSS catalog. It is of course
1415: possible that there are some false matches. By adding up $\bar n\pi\theta^2$ for
1416: each NVSS source, where $\bar n$ is the density of VLA-COSMOS sources
1417: and $\theta$ is the distance to the nearest VLA-COSMOS source (or 30 arcsec if the
1418: NVSS source had no match), we estimate that there are $\sim 5$ false
1419: NVSS/VLA-COSMOS matches. A similar argument suggests that $\sim 0.5$ false matches of VLA-COSMOS to the COSMOS optical/NIR catalog. Thus we expect
1420: that 58.5 of the matches are correct, corresponding to 67\% of the initial NVSS catalog.
1421:
1422: We show the photometric redshift distribution of the matches (according to Mobasher et~al. \cite{mobasher07}) in Fig.~\ref{fig:nvss-hist}.
1423: Our best-fit $f_{\rm NVSS}(z)$ (with the $\Gamma$ distribution) has 24\% of the bias-weighted source distribution at $z>2$ and 8\% at $z>3$; if the
1424: source bias increases with redshift, as usually found for optical quasars, this number would be lower. From Fig.~\ref{fig:nvss-hist} we see that only
1425: 2 out of 64 matches fall at $z>2$, i.e. the high-redshift tail of the $\Gamma$ distribution can only exist in reality if (i) most of the 26\% of the
1426: sources with failed matches to COSMOS optical/NIR data are actually at $z>2$, or (ii) the sources at $z>2$ have a large bias. Both (i) and (ii) are
1427: physically plausible but we have no direct evidence for them.
1428:
1429: The conservative solution in this case is to consider two limiting cases for the redshift distribution of the sources at $z>2$. One case, which gives
1430: the minimal lensing signal for all cosmologies, and the minimal (maximal) ISW signal for $\Lambda$CDM (closed) cosmologies, is to set $f_{\rm NVSS}=0$
1431: at $z>2$. In the opposite limiting case, we have assumed that all failed and incorrect NVSS matches, and all sources with $z_{\rm photo}>2$ (i.e. a
1432: total of 35\%) are at $z>2$, and have four times the clustering amplitude measured for the optical quasars (QSO1 sample), e.g. $b(z)=4\times 1.35/D(z)$
1433: (where $D$ is the growth factor) for the fiducial cosmology; the shape of $f_{\rm NVSS}(z)$ at $z>2$ was left unchanged from the $\Gamma$-distribution
1434: fit.
1435: %[HERE!!]
1436: %[DISCUSS CHANGE IN ISW, LENSING SIGNALS???]
1437: In order to understand the change of ISW and CMB-lensing signals due to changes of our assumption
1438: of the high-z end of the redshift distribution of NVSS, we look at two different redshift distributions,
1439: one with nothing at $z>2$ (minimal model) and the other with a ''maximal'' number of sources (assuming
1440: clustering strength 4 times of the optical quasars and all the failed optical IDs are at $z>2$).
1441: We find that the signals for both ISW (average: $7.8\%$) and CMB-Lensing change by less than 10\%, therefore,
1442: one won't expect the unidentified high-z tail of the NVSS sources be a problem in our analysis.
1443: \begin{figure}
1444: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=3.3in]{nvss-hist}
1445: \caption{\label{fig:nvss-hist}The redshift histogram of NVSS sources matched to COSMOS using the Mobasher et~al. \cite{mobasher07} photometric
1446: redshifts. The dashed line is the fit three-parameter $f_{\rm NVSS}(z)$, normalized to unity (i.e. the redshift distribution assuming constant bias
1447: and negligible effect from magnification).}
1448: \end{figure}
1449:
1450: \subsubsection{Constraints, robustness, and alternatives}
1451: \label{sss:cra}
1452:
1453: While the fit parameters are formally determined by the $\chi^2$, it is useful to graphically display the constraints in order to show what parts of
1454: the distribution are constrained by which data. This we have done in Fig.~\ref{fig:fnvss}. For each of the eight samples, we have plotted on the
1455: vertical axis the constant $f_{\rm NVSS}$ value that provides the best fit to cross-correlation with that sample and its $1\sigma$ error bar. The
1456: horizontal position is determined by the following procedure. We show in Appendix~\ref{app:nvsswin} that the estimated constant $\hat f_{\rm NVSS}$ is
1457: actually given by an integral over some window function,
1458: \beq
1459: \langle \hat f_{\rm NVSS} \rangle = \int_0^\infty {\cal W}(z) f_{\rm NVSS}(z)\,dz,
1460: \label{eq:fhat}
1461: \eeq
1462: where the window function ${\cal W}(z)$ integrates to unity. The horizontal position of the data points in Fig.~\ref{fig:fnvss} is the median of the
1463: window function, i.e. the redshift $z$ where $\int_0^z{\cal W}(z')\,dz'=1/2$. The error bars extend from the 20th to the 80th percentile of the window
1464: function.
1465: \begin{figure}
1466: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=3.2in]{fnvss}
1467: \caption{\label{fig:fnvss}The constraints on the NVSS redshift distribution from the cross-correlations with the other eight samples. The horizontal
1468: error bars show the redshift window functions as described in the text.
1469: The dashed line shows the result of using the redshift distribution based on the Dunlop \& Peacock \cite{dunlop90} luminosity function
1470: assuming constant bias and neglecting magnification, as has been done in most ISW studies.}
1471: \end{figure}
1472:
1473: Finally we wish to compare the redshift distribution we have obtained to that used in previous ISW studies. The previous results were based on the
1474: radio luminosity function of Dunlop \& Peacock \cite{dunlop90}. In each case, it appears that the authors used the luminosity function and
1475: $k$-correction based on the spectral index to infer the redshift distribution, assumed constant bias and negligible magnification, and determined the
1476: one free parameter (the bias) by fitting to the autopower spectrum. If we do this using the fiducial WMAP cosmology and our autopower spectrum we find
1477: $b=1.7$, and the function $f_{\rm NVSS}(z)=b\Pi(z)$ obtained is shown as the dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:fnvss}. This curve, while roughly consistent
1478: with the NVSS-quasar and NVSS-LRG correlations, badly overpredicts the NVSS-2MASS correlation. Note that the problem cannot be fixed by changing the
1479: single bias parameter: if $b$ were reduced by a factor of $\sim 3$ to fit the 2MASS data, then the LRG and quasar data would be discrepant.
1480: %(QUANTIFY THIS???)
1481: %There are several possible explanations for this:
1482: %\newcounter{dp90q}
1483: %\begin{list}{\arabic{dp90q}. }{\usecounter{dp90q}}
1484: %\item It is possible that the Dunlop \& Peacock redshift distribution accurately describes the NVSS sources, but the bias increases with redshift so as
1485: %to produce the shape seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:fnvss}.
1486: %\item The shape of $f_{\rm NVSS}(z)$ is being modified by magnification bias.
1487: %\item The cut imposed by us (and by other ISW groups) that requires NVSS sources to be unresolved is selecting against nearby objects, and hence
1488: %pulling down the low-$z$ part of the $f_{\rm NVSS}(z)$ curve.
1489: %\item There could be an error in the Dunlop \& Peacock luminosity function.
1490: %\end{list}
1491: %(DO WE KNOW WHICH IF ANY OF THESE ARE CORRECT???)
1492:
1493: There are several possible explanations for this:
1494: \newcounter{dp90}
1495: \begin{list}{\arabic{dp90}. }{\usecounter{dp90}}
1496: \item\label{it:2mag} The shape of $f_{\rm NVSS}(z)$ is being modified by
1497: magnification bias.
1498: \item\label{it:2err} The extrapolation of the luminosity function to faint
1499: sources at high redshift by Dunlop \& Peacock is in error.
1500: \item\label{it:2bias} It is possible that the Dunlop \& Peacock redshift
1501: distribution accurately describes the NVSS sources, but the bias increases
1502: with
1503: redshift so as to produce the shape seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:fnvss}.
1504: \item\label{it:2ext} The cut imposed by us (and by other ISW groups) that
1505: requires NVSS sources to be unresolved is selecting against nearby
1506: objects, and
1507: hence pulling down the low-$z$ part of the $f_{\rm NVSS}(z)$ curve.
1508: \end{list}
1509:
1510: Of these, possibility number \ref{it:2mag} is easy to rule out. Application of
1511: Eq.~(\ref{eq:fi}) implies that $f_{\rm NVSS}(z)$ has a maximum change due
1512: to
1513: magnification bias of $0.09|\alpha-1|$ ($z=0.55$), and a smaller change at
1514: lower redshift ($0.03|\alpha-1|$ at $z=0.1$), where $\alpha=-d\log N/d\log
1515: F$ is
1516: the source count slope. The NVSS point source counts suggest a slope of
1517: $0.99$ between 2.5 and 5.0 mJy, and $0.95$ between 5 and 10 mJy, which
1518: suggests that
1519: the effect of magnification bias on $\Delta f_{\rm NVSS}(z)$ is at most of
1520: order $0.01$. In order to accommodate the discrepancy of $\Delta f_{\rm
1521: NVSS}(z)$
1522: between our result and the Dunlop \& Peacock distribution of $\sim 0.6$ at
1523: $z<0.1$, we would need an absurd slope, $\alpha\approx-20$.
1524:
1525: Distinguishing among the remaining three possibilities is harder. We
1526: believe possibility number \ref{it:2err} is unlikely because the discrepancy
1527: between Dunlop
1528: \& Peacock and our work occurs at low redshift where their luminosity
1529: function should be most reliable: this regime is constrained by the local
1530: source counts
1531: rather than by extrapolation. Redshift-dependent bias (possibility
1532: number \ref{it:2bias}) exists for most samples of objects and there is no reason
1533: to expect it
1534: to be absent for NVSS. However, based on the Dunlop \& Peacock $dN/dz$
1535: and our $f_{\rm NVSS}(z)$, the bias would have to change from $\sim 0.4$
1536: at $z=0.1$
1537: to $\sim 2$ at $z=0.5$. Such a large variation, combined with the
1538: unusually low value of the bias at $z=0.1$, suggests that this is not the
1539: full
1540: explanation. The final possibility (\ref{it:2ext}) is the removal of
1541: extended sources. This is hard to assess because of the low density of
1542: extended NVSS
1543: sources above our flux cut ($\sim 8\,$deg$^{-2}$). Of the 20 such sources
1544: in the COSMOS field, 19 match to VLA-COSMOS and 13 of these matches are
1545: found in
1546: the COSMOS optical/NIR catalog. It is worth noting that 8 of these (62\%)
1547: have $z_{\rm photo}<0.5$, versus 30/64 (30\%) for the unresolved NVSS
1548: sources.
1549: This appears to go in the right direction, however it is difficult to make
1550: quantitative statements about whether the extended sources actually
1551: resolve the
1552: discrepant redshift distributions because of the unknown (but probably
1553: large, especially for the low-$z$ part of the distribution) sampling
1554: variance error
1555: bars.
1556:
1557: In summary, while the full explanation for the difference between our
1558: $f_{\rm NVSS}(z)$ and that of Dunlop \& Peacock remains unknown, it seems
1559: likely (based
1560: on process of elimination) that a combination of redshift-dependent bias
1561: and our rejection of the unresolved NVSS sources plays a role.
1562: Magnification bias
1563: is ruled out as the explanation, and the discrepancy occurs in a regime
1564: where the extrapolations used in Dunlop \& Peacock probably do not matter.
1565:
1566:
1567:
1568: \section{\label{sec:sys} Systematics}
1569:
1570: We investigate various systematic effects in our correlations utilizing
1571: a specific multipole range. We choose these multipole bins based on two
1572: criteria. First, they should not be affected by non-linearities. Second, they should
1573: not be affected by any of the systematic effects in a significant way. We therefore
1574: only utilize the multipoles corresponding to $k\le 0.05h\,$Mpc$^{-1}$ and we also discard the first $\ell$-bin for all samples since it is affected by
1575: the
1576: galactic foreground contamination. The
1577: specific $l$-bins that are utilized are tabulated in Table~\ref{tab:szcontam}.
1578:
1579: \subsection{Dust Extinction}
1580:
1581: Since it is possible that incorrect dust extinction systematically adds signals to our
1582: ISW cross correlation,
1583: we cross correlate the reddening maps \cite{schlegel98} in the same
1584: manner as we cross correlate each of our sample to the cosmic microwave background.
1585: If there is a systematic effect contributed via dust extinction, it will
1586: show up as a correlation, we can then estimate the effect and correct it from
1587: our tracer-cmb correlation.
1588: %[RESULTS of these correlation!!]
1589: %[HERE]!
1590:
1591: In order to the verify that dust extinction does not
1592: affect our results, we constructed a vector ${\bf f}$ of the estimated spurious cross-spectra $\Delta C_\ell^{gT}$. The spurious cross-spectra were
1593: computed by taking the cross-power spectrum of the CMB with the reddening map and multiplying by an estimate of $d\delta_g/dE(B-V)$. Note that ${\bf
1594: f}$ has an entry for each $\ell$-bin for each sample, so it has a total length of 42. We then compute the quantity
1595: (the derivation of this quantity and its relevance to understand
1596: contamination from extinction is detailed in Appendix~\ref{app:foreg}):
1597: \begin{equation}
1598: E_{ext} = {\bf f}^T C^{-1} {\bf f}.
1599: \label{eq:fgderiv}
1600: \end{equation}
1601: Here ${\bf C}$ is the total $42\times 42$ covariance matrix that is generated using looking
1602: at the covariances of the correlation with each tracer sample and the
1603: Monte-Carloed CMB temperature map (the MC1 procedure in the terminology of Cabr\'e et~al. \cite{cabre07}; see Sec.~\ref{ss:isw-likelihood} for
1604: details).
1605:
1606: Here $\sqrt{E_{ext}}$ is the maximum number of sigmas at which the effects of dust extinction could be detected if we knew all cosmological and
1607: redshift distributions
1608: perfectly; if $E_{ext}\ll 1$ then the dust extinction cannot have any statistically significant effect on any quantity derived from the cross-power
1609: spectrum, including cosmological parameter estimates.
1610: We estimate that $d\delta_g/dE(B-V)$ = $-0.1$ (all 2MASS samples). For the SDSS samples we did a Poisson-weighted fit to the LRG and quasar
1611: overdensities versus $E(B-V)$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}); this gives
1612: $-0.76$ (low-z LRGs), $-0.18$ (high-z LRGs), $-1.06$ (low-z QSOs),
1613: and $-0.26$ (high-z QSOs). (The Poisson error bars are all within $2\sigma$ of zero so there is no evidence that any of these derivatives is nonzero.)
1614: We ignore extinction for NVSS since it is at radio frequencies.
1615: This gives $\sqrt{E_{ext}} = 0.23$, so the dust extinction is not having a significant effect.
1616:
1617: \subsection{Galactic foregrounds}
1618:
1619: To test whether galactic foreground contamination is important in our analysis,
1620: we cross correlate the templates of Galactic emission with the tracer overdensity maps.
1621: The galactic foregrounds that must be considered in
1622: producing a template at higher frequencies are
1623: free-free and thermal dust emission; at lower frequencies
1624: an additional component is present
1625: whose physical origin remains uncertain but which may
1626: include hard synchrotron emission \citep{bennett03} or spinning or
1627: magnetic dust \citep{oliveira-costa04,finkbeiner03}. We have used Model 8 of
1628: \citet{schlegel98,finkbeiner99} for thermal dust and the H$\alpha$ line radiation
1629: template of \citet{finkbeiner03} rescaled using the conversions of
1630: \citet{bennett03} for free-free radiation (see \cite{hirata04} for further
1631: details).
1632: We then construct these maps in the same way as in WMAP temperature maps.
1633: Cross correlations between these templates with each of the tracer overdensity maps
1634: are then performed.
1635:
1636: To understand the foreground contamination to our result we compute as above
1637: \begin{equation}
1638: E_{fg}= {\bf f}_{fg}^{T} {\bf C}^{-1} {\bf f}_{fg}
1639: \end{equation}
1640: where ${\bf f}_{fg}$ is the vector of cross-power spectra of the LSS and foreground maps, and
1641: ${\bf C}$ is the Monte Carlo covariance matrix.
1642: %The results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:contam}.
1643: Calculating the $\sqrt{E_{fg}}$ we find that the low multipoles of
1644: some of the low redshift samples correlates with the galactic foreground.
1645: We investigate this further and realize that there is incidentally a
1646: low redshift cluster at low latitude, thus correlating with the foreground
1647: map. We therefore restrict our l-range that contributes to our signal
1648: by leaving out the first multipole bins for all sample. For the remainder we
1649: get $\sqrt{E_{fg}}= 0.66$.
1650:
1651: \subsection{Thermal SZ effect}
1652:
1653: The thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich (tSZ) effect has a relatively weak frequency dependence compared to the Galactic foregrounds, so we constrain it from
1654: theoretical models. We look at the tSZ signal using the
1655: halo model, separating the effect of the tSZ signal into 1-halo term
1656: and 2-halo terms.
1657:
1658: The 1-halo term stands for the situation when the flux added towards
1659: the CMB map via tSZ effect comes from the same halo as the one that
1660: hosts the galaxies that we are correlating them with.
1661: The theoretical prediction for the 1-halo term is:
1662: \begin{equation}
1663: \label{eq:1haloa}
1664: C^{tSZ}_{\ell}(1h) = \sum_N \int dF\, \frac{NF}{\bar{n_g}} n_{2D}(N,F)
1665: \end{equation}
1666: where $N$ is the number of galaxies in that halo, $F$ is the flux
1667: from the halo, $\bar{n_g}$ is the average number of galaxies,
1668: $n_{2D}(N,F)$ is the number of halos with $N$ galaxies and flux between $F$ and $F+dF$.
1669: We then turn Eq.~(\ref{eq:1haloa}) into integrals over halo mass and comoving distance:
1670: \begin{equation}
1671: C^{tSZ}_{\ell}(1h) = \int \frac{d\chi}{r^2} \int dM \frac{M}{\rho_0} \phi(M) \frac{N(M)}{\bar{n_g}} F(M,\chi),
1672: \end{equation}
1673: where $\phi(M)$ is the fraction of the mass in haloes between $M$ and $M+dM$, $N(M)$ is the mean number of galaxies in a halo of mass $M$, and $F$ is
1674: the flux from a halo of mass $M$ at comoving distance $\chi$.
1675:
1676: The 2-halo term stands for situation when the flux (from tSZ) comes
1677: from a different halo which hosts galaxies that cross-correlate with
1678: the flux. It is
1679: \begin{equation}
1680: \label{eq:2haloa}
1681: C^{tSZ}_{\ell}(2h) = \sum_N \int dF \frac{NF}{\bar{n_g}} n_{2D}(N) n_{2D}(F) C_\ell(N;F),
1682: \end{equation}
1683: where $n_{2D}(N)$ is the number of halos with $N$ galaxies
1684: per steradian, $n_{2D}(F)$ is the number of halos with flux between $F$ and $F+dF$
1685: per steradian and $C_\ell(N;F)$ is the cross-power spectrum between halos
1686: with $N$ galaxies and those with flux $F$.
1687: We then turn the Eq.~(\ref{eq:2haloa}) into integrals over the mass functions and
1688: cosmological distances:
1689: \begin{eqnarray}
1690: C^{tSZ}_{\ell}(2h) &=& \int \frac{d\chi}{r^2} \int dM \frac{M}{\rho_0} \phi(M) b(M)
1691: \nonumber \\ && \times f(\chi) P_{lin}(k) F(M,\chi),
1692: \end{eqnarray}
1693: where $P_{lin}(k)$ is the 3-D linear matter power spectrum.
1694:
1695: Now, what is left for us to do is to figure out what the flux $F$ is for
1696: tSZ effect. One should note that this method is not limited to
1697: the tSZ effect prediction, but any kind of correlations between galaxy number
1698: overdensity and flux of any kind associated with the halos.
1699: For tSZ effect, the flux is
1700: \begin{equation}
1701: F = 2\bar{\tau'} T_{\rm CMB} \frac{f_{\rm ICM}}{f_b} \frac{k_B T_e(M)}{m_e c^2},
1702: \end{equation}
1703: where $\bar{\tau'}$ is the mean Thomson optical depth per unit comoving distance,
1704: $T_{\rm CMB}$ is the observed averaged CMB temperature,
1705: $f_{\rm ICM}$ is the baryon fraction in the intracluster medium,
1706: $f_{b}$ is the cosmic baryon fraction,
1707: $k_B$ is the Boltzmann coefficient,
1708: $T_e(M)$ is the average temperature of electrons inside halos of mass M,
1709: $m_e$ is the mass of electrons, $c$ is the speed of light.
1710:
1711: In order to assess the effect of tSZ on the ISW correlation, we
1712: calculate the $C^{tSZ}_{\ell}(1h)$ and $C^{tSZ}_{\ell}(2h)$
1713: with a high $\sigma_8$ (0.92) in order to give a conservative estimate.
1714: We must also estimate $N(M)$.
1715: For the 2MASS samples, we use $N(M)$ of the satellites and the conditional luminosity
1716: function from \cite{lin04} while assuming that there
1717: is 1 BCG per cluster. This is a conservative estimate as some of the
1718: BCGs may fall out of the flux limit.
1719: For the LRGs, we use $N(M)$ from \cite{ho07} for our calculation without modification,
1720: as we use the same galaxy sample.
1721: The quasars and NVSS are both examples of active galactic nuclei, and are generally found in haloes of some mass range with a small probability [i.e.
1722: $\langle N\rangle(M)<1$] usually interpreted as the duty cycle.
1723: For these cases, we first obtain the redshift distribution ($dN/dz$) and bias.
1724: For NVSS, we assume that bias $\propto 1/D(a)$ where $D(a)$ is the growth
1725: factor of scale factor $a$, as there is no better available information (our determination of $f(z)$ is not capable of separately distinguishing the
1726: bias from the redshift distribution).
1727: From the bias, we constrain the minimum halo mass that will host a QSO or NVSS object,
1728: and then obtain the duty cycle based on $dN/dz$.
1729: Duty cycles cannot exceed unity, so we cap $f_{duty}$ at 1 and above this use $dN/dz$ to get minimum halo mass. Then, $N(M) = f_{duty}$ if $M>
1730: M_{min}$ and
1731: 0 otherwise.
1732:
1733: We assess the level of contaminations by calculating
1734: \begin{equation}
1735: E_{tSZ} = C^{tSZ}_{\ell}(1h+2h) {\bf C}^{-1} C^{tSZ}_{\ell}(1h+2h),
1736: \end{equation}
1737: which is the tSZ analogue to Eq.~(\ref{eq:fgderiv}).
1738: We find that $\sqrt{E_{tSZ}} = 0.109$ using the $\ell$-bins that are tabulated in Table~\ref{tab:szcontam} and thus thermal SZ effect is not a
1739: significant
1740: contamination for the ISW effect.
1741:
1742: We present our results for the tSZ contamination for the $l$-bins that
1743: we use in our analysis the cosmological parameter estimation in
1744: Table~\ref{tab:szcontam}.
1745:
1746: \begin{table}
1747: \caption{\label{tab:szcontam}The tSZ and point source contamination for each of the samples we used in the analysis. For tSZ the 1 halo and 2 halo
1748: terms are shown separately and combined.}
1749: \begin{tabular}{clrlrlrlrlr}
1750: \hline\hline
1751: Sample & & $\ell$ & & \multicolumn{7}{c}{\mbox{$[l(l+1)/2\pi]C_\ell^{gT}$ ($\mu$K)}} \\
1752: & & & & tSZ 1h & & tSZ 2h & & tSZ 1+2h & & pt src \\
1753: \hline
1754: 2MASS0 & & 6 & & $ -0.0085 $ & & $ -0.0458 $ & & $ -0.0543 $ & & $ -0.4056 $ \\
1755: 2MASS1 & & 6 & & $ -0.0048 $ & & $ -0.0324 $ & & $ -0.0372 $ & & $ -0.0743 $ \\
1756: 2MASS1 & & 11 & & $ -0.0151 $ & & $ -0.0574 $ & & $ -0.0725 $ & & $ 0.0070 $ \\
1757: 2MASS2 & & 6 & & $ -0.0027 $ & & $ -0.0241 $ & & $ -0.0268 $ & & $ -0.0875 $ \\
1758: 2MASS2 & & 11 & & $ -0.0086 $ & & $ -0.0458 $ & & $ -0.0544 $ & & $ 0.0216 $ \\
1759: 2MASS3 & & 6 & & $ -0.0016 $ & & $ -0.0182 $ & & $ -0.0198 $ & & $ -0.1717 $ \\
1760: 2MASS3 & & 11 & & $ -0.0050 $ & & $ -0.0375 $ & & $ -0.0425 $ & & $ 0.0089 $ \\
1761: LRG0 & & 18 & & $ -0.0045 $ & & $ -0.0196 $ & & $ -0.0241 $ & & $ 0.0020 $ \\
1762: LRG0 & & 31 & & $ -0.0132 $ & & $ -0.0394 $ & & $ -0.0526 $ & & $ 0.0261 $ \\
1763: LRG0 & & 43 & & $ -0.0251 $ & & $ -0.0574 $ & & $ -0.0826 $ & & $ 0.0123 $ \\
1764: LRG1 & & 18 & & $ -0.0017 $ & & $ -0.0064 $ & & $ -0.0081 $ & & $ 0.0018 $ \\
1765: LRG1 & & 31 & & $ -0.0049 $ & & $ -0.0173 $ & & $ -0.0222 $ & & $ -0.0379 $ \\
1766: LRG1 & & 43 & & $ -0.0094 $ & & $ -0.0269 $ & & $ -0.0363 $ & & $ 0.0109 $ \\
1767: LRG1 & & 56 & & $ -0.0159 $ & & $ -0.0361 $ & & $ -0.0520 $ & & $ -0.0028 $ \\
1768: LRG1 & & 68 & & $ -0.0240 $ & & $ -0.0460 $ & & $ -0.0700 $ & & $ -0.0332 $ \\
1769: QSO0 & & 18 & & $ -0.0003 $ & & $ -0.0012 $ & & $ -0.0015 $ & & $ -0.0039 $ \\
1770: QSO0 & & 31 & & $ -0.0010 $ & & $ -0.0036 $ & & $ -0.0046 $ & & $ 0.0058 $ \\
1771: QSO0 & & 43 & & $ -0.0018 $ & & $ -0.0067 $ & & $ -0.0085 $ & & $ -0.0254 $ \\
1772: QSO0 & & 56 & & $ -0.0031 $ & & $ -0.0102 $ & & $ -0.0133 $ & & $ 0.0097 $ \\
1773: QSO0 & & 68 & & $ -0.0047 $ & & $ -0.0135 $ & & $ -0.0182 $ & & $ -0.0509 $ \\
1774: QSO0 & & 81 & & $ -0.0064 $ & & $ -0.0164 $ & & $ -0.0228 $ & & $ 0.0660 $ \\
1775: QSO0 & & 94 & & $ -0.0086 $ & & $ -0.0193 $ & & $ -0.0279 $ & & $ 0.0169 $ \\
1776: QSO0 & & 110 & & $ -0.0118 $ & & $ -0.0230 $ & & $ -0.0347 $ & & $ 0.0626 $ \\
1777: QSO0 & & 130 & & $ -0.0164 $ & & $ -0.0278 $ & & $ -0.0442 $ & & $ 0.1854 $ \\
1778: QSO1 & & 18 & & $ -0.0006 $ & & $ -0.0010 $ & & $ -0.0017 $ & & $ 0.0000 $ \\
1779: QSO1 & & 31 & & $ -0.0018 $ & & $ -0.0027 $ & & $ -0.0045 $ & & $ -0.0169 $ \\
1780: QSO1 & & 43 & & $ -0.0035 $ & & $ -0.0046 $ & & $ -0.0081 $ & & $ -0.0131 $ \\
1781: QSO1 & & 56 & & $ -0.0058 $ & & $ -0.0068 $ & & $ -0.0126 $ & & $ 0.0030 $ \\
1782: QSO1 & & 68 & & $ -0.0088 $ & & $ -0.0091 $ & & $ -0.0179 $ & & $ -0.0073 $ \\
1783: QSO1 & & 81 & & $ -0.0121 $ & & $ -0.0112 $ & & $ -0.0233 $ & & $ 0.0332 $ \\
1784: QSO1 & & 94 & & $ -0.0163 $ & & $ -0.0134 $ & & $ -0.0297 $ & & $ 0.0627 $ \\
1785: QSO1 & & 110 & & $ -0.0223 $ & & $ -0.0158 $ & & $ -0.0381 $ & & $ 0.0801 $ \\
1786: QSO1 & & 130 & & $ -0.0311 $ & & $ -0.0184 $ & & $ -0.0494 $ & & $ 0.0794 $ \\
1787: QSO1 & & 150 & & $ -0.0413 $ & & $ -0.0207 $ & & $ -0.0620 $ & & $ 0.0924 $ \\
1788: QSO1 & & 170 & & $ -0.0530 $ & & $ -0.0232 $ & & $ -0.0763 $ & & $ 0.0223 $ \\
1789: NVSS & & 6 & & $ -0.0001 $ & & $ -0.0007 $ & & $ -0.0008 $ & & $ -0.0398 $ \\
1790: NVSS & & 11 & & $ -0.0003 $ & & $ -0.0020 $ & & $ -0.0023 $ & & $ -0.0124 $ \\
1791: NVSS & & 20 & & $ -0.0010 $ & & $ -0.0050 $ & & $ -0.0059 $ & & $ -0.0111 $ \\
1792: NVSS & & 31 & & $ -0.0023 $ & & $ -0.0091 $ & & $ -0.0113 $ & & $ 0.0014 $ \\
1793: NVSS & & 43 & & $ -0.0043 $ & & $ -0.0135 $ & & $ -0.0178 $ & & $ 0.0103 $ \\
1794: NVSS & & 56 & & $ -0.0073 $ & & $ -0.0179 $ & & $ -0.0252 $ & & $ 0.0025 $ \\
1795: NVSS & & 68 & & $ -0.0107 $ & & $ -0.0217 $ & & $ -0.0324 $ & & $ -0.0141 $ \\
1796: \hline\hline
1797: \end{tabular}
1798: \end{table}
1799:
1800: \subsection{Point source contamination}
1801:
1802: Point source contamination is one of the main concerns that we have for
1803: analysis for cross correlation of CMB with large scale structure,
1804: as point sources add to the CMB, while they are probably
1805: correlated with the tracers of large scale matter density field.
1806: Therefore,
1807: we estimate the contamination from the point sources by estimating $C^{ps}_{\ell}(\nu)$
1808: by looking at the differences of cross correlation of the tracer samples with different
1809: frequency maps of WMAP.
1810: We estimate $C^{ps}_{\ell}$ at 61 GHz (V band):
1811: \begin{equation}
1812: C^{ps}_{\ell}(V) = \frac{C_{\ell}(Ka)- C_{\ell}(V)}{r_{Ka}\nu^{-2}_{Ka} - r_{V}\nu^{-2}_{V}} (r_{V}\nu^{-2}_{V}).
1813: \end{equation}
1814: where $r_{X}$ is the ratio of thermodynamic temperature to the antenna temperature of band $X$ and
1815: we assume that $T(\nu)$ is proportional to $\nu^{-2}$.
1816: We assess the level of contaminations by calculating (similarly as above mentioned foreground analysis):
1817: \begin{equation}
1818: E_{ps} = C^{ps}_{\ell}(\nu) {\bf C}^{-1} C^{ps}_{\ell}(\nu)
1819: \label{eq:eps}
1820: \end{equation}
1821: We find that $\sqrt{E_{ps}} = 0.495$ using the $\ell$-bins that are tabulated in Table~\ref{tab:szcontam} and thus point sources is not a significant
1822: contamination for the ISW effect.
1823: Note that this includes some effect from Galactic foregrounds (which probably dominate the low $\ell$'s), since
1824: any foreground effects that have frequency dependence will show up
1825: in $C^{ps}_{\ell}(V)$. In particular one would be double-counting the Galactic foreground if one added $E_{ps}$ and $E_{fg}$.
1826:
1827: We present the point sources contamination for $\ell$-bins we use for our analysis in the last column of Table~\ref{tab:szcontam}.
1828:
1829: \section{Cosmological Implications}
1830: \label{sec:cosmo}
1831:
1832: \subsection{Significance of ISW detection after rejecting contaminating bins}
1833:
1834: After investigating all the listed systematics and taking into account
1835: of the non-linearities,
1836: we decide to only take the $\ell$-bins as
1837: are listed in Table~\ref{tab:szcontam}.
1838: The high-$\ell$ bins are cut off due to the non-linearities;
1839: we cut off all the bins that at the median redshift for the fiducial cosmology correspond to $k\ge 0.05h\,$Mpc$^{-1}$ using $k=(\ell+1/2)/r$. This
1840: is a more conservative cut than the usual $k=0.1h\,$Mpc$^{-1}$ but it must be remembered that in linear theory the ISW effect is sensitive to
1841: the derivative of $D(a)/a$ which contains a cancellation from the growth of structure in the numerator and the scale factor in the denominator.
1842: Therefore nonlinear effects could be larger than one naively expects. We cut off the first $\ell$-bin for all samples as these are most affected by
1843: Galactic foregrounds.
1844:
1845: We calculate the significance of each of the sample by the standard method.
1846: First, we compute the amplitude of the signal (Appendix~\ref{app:foreg}, in our case,
1847: fiducial model is based on the WMAP 3-year parameters):
1848: \begin{equation}
1849: A=\frac{C^{data}_{\ell}\cdot {\bf C}^{-1} C^{theory}_{\ell}}{C^{theory}_{\ell}\cdot {\bf C}^{-1} C^{theory}_{\ell}},
1850: \label{eq:ath}
1851: \end{equation}
1852: where $C^{theory}_\ell$ is the vector of predicted cross-power spectra for the fiducial cosmology, $C^{data}_\ell$ is the vector of observed
1853: cross-spectra, and ${\bf C}^{-1}$ is the inverse-covariance matrix. We obtain ${\bf C}^{-1}$ by Monte Carlo simulation as described in the next
1854: section.
1855:
1856: The error is similarly computed with:
1857: \begin{equation}
1858: {\rm \sigma}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{C^{theory}_{\ell}\cdot {\bf C}^{-1} C^{theory}_{\ell}}},
1859: \label{eq:sth}
1860: \end{equation}
1861: and the significance in sigmas is obtained by the usual calculation, $A/\sigma$.
1862: The result is shown in Table~\ref{tab:significance}.
1863:
1864: In Fig.~\ref{fig:constrain} we plot the amplitude ($A$) and its error using
1865: covariance matrices and fisher matrices from the correlation of the tracer sample with WMAP V-band, computed with angular and redshift weighting
1866: optimized for WMAP3 model, together with theoretical predictions
1867: for three cosmological models
1868: (open, closed and flat)
1869: to illustrate
1870: the constraining power on $\Omega_K$ from ISW effect.
1871: Flat model is WMAP3 model and by definition
1872: its theoretical prediction is $A=1$ (see Eq.~\ref{eq:ath}).
1873: The other two models were chosen to lie
1874: along the WMAP degeneracy curve (which essentially keeps fixed $\Omega_mh^2$,
1875: $\Omega_bh^2$ and $\theta$, defined to be 100 times the ratio of the sound horizon to the
1876: angular diameter distance to recombination), although this does not
1877: imply they are
1878: necessarily good fits to the WMAP data: the ISW signal in the CMB power spectrum itself can break the
1879: degeneracy between the parameters that keep the angular diameter fixed,
1880: but because ISW is a subdominant contribution to
1881: primary CMB even on the largest scales its power to discriminate among models is limited.
1882: We can see that the predicted amplitude of ISW signal for $\Lambda$CDM is positive (using
1883: the standard sign convention)
1884: because at late time when cosmological constant becomes important
1885: growth of structure is decreasing in time relative to Einstein-de Sitter (EdS)
1886: model
1887: and the associated gravitational potential, constant at high redshift when the Universe
1888: is effectively EdS, begins to decay. The decay is larger if we decrease
1889: $\Omega_m$ (for which we need to go to a slightly
1890: open universe to preserve angular diameter distance), which in turn increases ISW.
1891: On the other hand, a closed universe with $\Omega_m>1$ accelerates the growth of structure
1892: relative to EdS, so potential is growing and this model
1893: predicts ISW signal with opposite sign.
1894: While the sign is essentially
1895: determined by the growth rate, its amplitude and scale dependence depend on
1896: other cosmological parameters as well and vary as a function of redshift,
1897: as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:constrain}.
1898:
1899: As can be seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:constrain} and Table~\ref{tab:significance} we
1900: have a detection of ISW signal in a number of data sets. Most convincing are
1901: SDSS LRG1 and NVSS, both at about $3\sigma$, followed by LRG0, QSO1 and 2MASS3
1902: at 1.2--1.5$\sigma$ evidence. Remaining data sets have significance below 1$\sigma$,
1903: although only one among them has negative signal, opposite to $\Lambda$CDM model
1904: predictions. The overall significance of detection with $\Lambda$CDM weighting
1905: is 3.7$\sigma$. We emphasize that while we use optimal weighting of data
1906: to maximize the signal by downweighting the scales and redshifts where we
1907: do not expect the signal, this depends somewhat on the assumed model, so
1908: the significance of detection can be somewhat affected by this. For example,
1909: we could instead of $\Lambda$CDM have used a model that predicts an upward feature at $l=30$ that only
1910: occurs at redshift around 0.5, therefore taking advantage of the 3 sigma excess power
1911: seen in LRG1 at that scale (Fig~\ref{fig:cross_sdss}). Using this model would give high weight to that
1912: feature and would lead to a higher significance of the overall detection.
1913: Of course such aposteriori procedure is not really waranted, but it does
1914: highlight the difficulty of comparing
1915: the significance of detection among different analyses, which may have used
1916: different priors. This problem is exacerbated if cross-correlation function analysis
1917: is used, as in most of the previous work, because in that case
1918: a narrow feature in Fourier space
1919: would spread out to a broader feature in correlation function.
1920:
1921: While we find a 3.7$\sigma$ detection we also note that
1922: the observed ISW signal exceeds the predictions of WMAP3 $\Lambda$CDM model by about
1923: 2$\sigma$, since the fit gives $A=2.23 \pm 0.60$ relative to model prediction
1924: $A=1$. The discrepancy is reduced if we change cosmological parameters somewhat and this is
1925: explored further in the next subsection using MCMC analysis.
1926:
1927: \begin{figure}
1928: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{lcdm_open_closed_comparison_A3.ps}
1929: %\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{ISW_prediction_lowz_LRG1.ps}
1930: \caption{The ISW amplitude (A) and errorbars $\sigma(A)$ for all samples plotted along
1931: the redshifts compared with predictions of WMAP-3 year parameters.
1932: The fitting and errors for this figure used the Fisher
1933: matrices from the correlation of the tracer samples with the various WMAP maps.
1934: We also show the expected amplitude for 3 model Universes
1935: %reproduces the CMB (are along the degeneracy curve of WMAP).
1936: along the angular diameter distance degeneracy curve.
1937: We calculate the expected amplitude by substituting our observed
1938: correlations with predicted correlations for each of the model
1939: Universe and proceed in the same manner as described in Eq.\ref{eq:ath}.
1940: The three model Universes are:
1941: $\Lambda$CDM model with the WMAP-3 year parameters
1942: (open triangle with dotted line);
1943: closed Universe (open pentagons with short dashed line) $\Omega_b$=$0.215$,
1944: $\Omega_m$ = $1.25$, $\Omega_K$ = $-0.29$, $h=0.32$, $\sigma_8 =0.61$; and
1945: Open Universe (open squares with long dashed line) $\Omega_b$=$0.015$,
1946: $\Omega_m$ = $0.089$, $\Omega_K$ = $0.03$, $h=1.20$, $\sigma_8 =0.73$.
1947: Note that the redshift distribution is very broad for NVSS, giving rise to the
1948: jump in the open model prediction, even though the effective
1949: redshift of the sample is nearly the same as for low redshift QSO sample.}
1950: \label{fig:constrain}
1951: \end{figure}
1952:
1953: \begin{table}
1954: \caption{\label{tab:significance}Amplitude of ISW signal and the associate one sigma error
1955: relative to WMAP3 model and significance of detection for each of the sample and when we combine all samples.
1956: These are calculated using the covariance matrix that are derived from the correlations with the Monte Carlo
1957: CMB maps (as described in Eq~\ref{eq:cov_mcmc}.The overall signal is 2 sigma higher than WMAP3 model prediction.}
1958: \begin{tabular}{ccccr}
1959: \hline\hline
1960: Sample & & Amplitude ($A\pm\sigma$) & & \# sigmas \\
1961: \hline
1962: 2MASS0& & $-2.01 \pm 11.41$ & & $-0.18$ \\
1963: 2MASS1& & $+3.44 \pm 4.47$ & & 0.77 \\
1964: 2MASS2& & $+2.86 \pm 2.87$ & & 1.00 \\
1965: 2MASS3& & $+2.44 \pm 1.73$ & & 1.41 \\
1966: LRG0& & $+1.82 \pm 1.46$ & & 1.25 \\
1967: LRG1& & $+2.79 \pm 1.14$ & & 2.46 \\
1968: QSO0& & $+0.26 \pm 1.69$ & & 0.16 \\
1969: QSO1& & $+2.59 \pm 1.87$ & & 1.38 \\
1970: NVSS& & $+2.92 \pm 1.02$ & & 2.86\\
1971: \hline
1972: All Samples & & $+2.23\pm 0.60$ & & 3.69 \\
1973: \hline\hline
1974: \end{tabular}
1975: \end{table}
1976:
1977: To show that our results are consistent throughout different bands in WMAP, thus there is no significant
1978: contamination from frequency dependent systematics, we show the amplitude of ISW signal and associate
1979: one sigma error relative to the WMAP3 model for each of the sample for all of the WMAP bands (except K band)
1980: in Table~\ref{tab:A_band}.
1981: The differences in frequency $A$(Q)-$A$(V) and $A$(W)-$A$(V) are all $<0.25\sigma$ and most are $<0.15\sigma$,
1982: and there is no consistent sign. This reassures us that the frequency-dependent foregrounds are subdominant to the statistical
1983: errors in these higher-frequency bands.
1984: The comparison with Ka band, i.e. $A$(Ka)-$A$(V), is worse
1985: especially for 2MASS0 (the difference is $<0.5\sigma$ for the other samples), probably due to Galactic emission.
1986:
1987: \begin{table*}
1988: \caption{\label{tab:A_band}Amplitude of ISW signal and the associated $1\sigma$ error
1989: relative to WMAP3 model for each of the sample for the WMAP bands (i.e. Ka, Q, V, W).
1990: The fitting and errors for this table used the Fisher
1991: matrices from the correlation of the tracer samples with the various WMAP maps.}
1992: \begin{tabular}{ccrrrrrrr}
1993: \hline\hline
1994: Sample & & \multicolumn{7}{c}{\mbox{Amplitude $A$}} \\
1995: & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\mbox{Ka}} & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\mbox{Q}} & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\mbox{V}} & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\mbox{W}} \\
1996: \hline
1997: 2MASS0& & $-9.04 \pm 8.21$ & &$-3.54 \pm 8.19$ & & $-2.01 \pm 8.11$ & & $-3.38 \pm 7.79$\\
1998: 2MASS1& & $1.80 \pm 3.97$ & &$2.73 \pm 3.94$ & & $2.17 \pm 3.93$ & & $1.64 \pm 3.86$\\
1999: 2MASS2& & $2.16 \pm 2.66$ & & $2.95 \pm 2.65$ & & $2.42 \pm 2.63$ & & $2.04 \pm 2.61$ \\
2000: 2MASS3& & $1.74 \pm 1.72$ & & $2.56 \pm 1.72$ & & $2.58 \pm 1.72$ & & $2.39 \pm 1.69$\\
2001: LRG0& & $2.00 \pm 1.44$ & & $2.05 \pm 1.44$ & & $1.86 \pm 1.45$ & & $1.92 \pm 1.46$\\
2002: LRG1& & $2.67 \pm 1.04$ & & $2.59 \pm 1.04$ & & $2.85 \pm 1.05$ & & $2.92 \pm 1.06$ \\
2003: QSO0& & $0.62 \pm 1.90$ & & $0.39 \pm 1.92$ & & $0.61 \pm 1.89$ & & $0.63 \pm 1.94$\\
2004: QSO1& & $2.41 \pm 1.90$ & & $2.17 \pm 1.92$ & & $2.36 \pm 1.90$ & & $1.93 \pm 1.90$\\
2005: NVSS& & $2.56 \pm 1.01$ & & $2.80 \pm 1.01$ & & $3.04 \pm 1.02$ & & $2.88 \pm 1.02$\\
2006: \hline\hline
2007: \end{tabular}
2008: \end{table*}
2009:
2010: \subsection{MCMC methodology and Likelihood function}
2011:
2012: \subsubsection{MCMC methodology}
2013:
2014: A major goal of this paper is to provide a full likelihood function with which
2015: cosmological models can be compared to each other. Here we describe
2016: the details of the likelihood function construction
2017: and apply it to some simple cosmological model parametrizations.
2018: Our goal is not to give an exhaustive parameter estimation analysis, but just to provide
2019: some characteristic examples of possible applications. We include both ISW
2020: analysis of this paper and the lensing analysis of Paper II. However, the latter
2021: effect has small statistical significance and does not contribute significantly to
2022: the likelihood analysis.
2023: We decided to test the following cosmological models:
2024: flat $\Lambda$CDM model ($\Omega_m h^2$, $\Omega_b h^2$, $\theta$, $\tau$, $n_s$, $A_s$),
2025: $\Lambda$CDM + $\Omega_K$ (not assuming flatness),
2026: flat $\Lambda$CDM + $w$ (assuming flatness, but allowing
2027: dark energy to evolve). Here $\Omega_m$ is the matter density, $\Omega_b$ is the
2028: baryon density in units of critical density, $\Omega_K=-K/H_0^2$ is the curvature
2029: $K$ expressed in terms of critical density, $h=H_0/{\rm 100km/s/Mpc}$ is the Hubble parameter,
2030: $\theta$ is 100 times the ratio of sound horizon to angular diameter distance at recombination,
2031: $\tau$ reionization optical depth and $n_s$ and $A_s$ are the slope and
2032: amplitude (at $k=0.05/{\rm Mpc}$) of primordial power spectrum.
2033: We also refit for the bias with the redshift distributions for each of the dataset used
2034: for each of the cosmological parameter sets which we calculate the $\chi^2$ for.
2035: There is a detailed description of the determination of bias and redshift distribution
2036: in Section~\ref{sec:dndz}.
2037: We limit our search to models with scalar fluctuations only with no running of
2038: spectral index, no tensors, and no neutrino masses.
2039: We assume flat priors on all of the parameters defined above.
2040: The priors we use are shown at Table \ref{tab:priors}.
2041: In addition we impose $40{\rm km/s/Mpc} < H_0 < 100{\rm km/s/Mpc}$ and
2042: that age of the Universe has to be at least $10$ Gyr and at most $20$ Gyr.
2043: These priors are applied to all the chains that we show in the paper (including
2044: those with WMAP alone).
2045:
2046: \begin{table}
2047: \caption{\label{tab:priors}The priors applied to the 3 different chains. Note that
2048: all priors are flat.}
2049: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
2050: \hline\hline
2051: Parameter & & minimum & & maximum \\
2052: \hline
2053: \multicolumn{5}{c}{\mbox{for all models, 6 parameters}} \\
2054: \hline
2055: $\Omega_bh^2$ & & $0.005$ & & $0.1$ \\
2056: $\Omega_ch^2$ & & $0.01$ & & $0.99$ \\
2057: $\theta$ & & $0.5$ & & $10$ \\
2058: $\tau$ & & $0.01$ & & $0.8$ \\
2059: $n_s$ & & $0.5$ & & $1.5$ \\
2060: $log_e(10^{10}A_s)$ & & $2.7$ & & $4.0$ \\
2061: \hline
2062: \multicolumn{5}{c}{\mbox{for $\Lambda$CDM + $\Omega_K$ only}} \\
2063: \hline
2064: $\Omega_K$ & & $-0.3$ & & $0.3$ \\
2065: \hline
2066: \multicolumn{5}{c}{\mbox{for $\Lambda$CDM + $w$ only}} \\
2067: \hline
2068: $w$ & & $-2.1$ & & $-0.1$ \\
2069: \hline
2070: \end{tabular}
2071: \end{table}
2072:
2073: In most cases the intervals are sufficiently broad that the boundaries do not
2074: matter, with exception of WMAP only case with curvature or dark energy, where
2075: we apply additional prior with $H_0>40{\rm km/s/Mpc}$.
2076: We search the parameter space using COSMOMC \citep{lewis02} with likelihood function from WMAP 3 year analysis \citep{spergel07}.
2077: We discuss the Integrated Sachs Wolfe likelihood function in the following
2078: section, and leave the discussion of the Weak Lensing of CMB likelihood
2079: function to Paper II.
2080: We test the convergence of our Markov chains following Dunkley et~al. \cite{dunkley05}.
2081:
2082: \subsubsection{Integrated Sachs Wolfe likelihood function}
2083: \label{ss:isw-likelihood}
2084:
2085: This section describes the ISW likelihood function.
2086: We utilize the amplitude from the galaxy-temperature cross-spectrum $C_\ell^{gT}$
2087: from
2088: cross correlating the CMB sky (V-band) with the following samples:
2089: 2MASS (0-3), SDSS-LRG (low-$z$ and high-$z$), SDSS-QSO (low-$z$ and high-$z$), NVSS.
2090: When we construct the likelihood function, we need three items: (i) the ``data'', which is $C_\ell^{gT}$ for
2091: each of the sample for each $\ell$-bin (ii) the theoretical prediction; and (iii) the covariance matrix of the $\{C_\ell^{gT}\}$.
2092:
2093: The data vector consists of the measured $C_\ell^{gT}$ in each $\ell$-bin and for each LSS sample used. After our cuts there are 42 such bins
2094: remaining, when combining all samples, thus the data vector has length 42.
2095:
2096: We calculate this covariance matrix by first generating 1000 simulated CMB skies of
2097: WMAP resolution and then cross-correlate each of the samples with these simulated
2098: CMB sky. We call these $C_\ell^{gT_{sim},\mu}$. We then calculate the covariance among
2099: the samples by first calculating the $\langle C_\ell^{gT_{sim},\mu} \rangle$ by averaging
2100: over all the correlations with all the simulated maps, then we find:
2101: \begin{eqnarray}
2102: \label{eq:cov_mcmc}
2103: [{\bf C}]_{\mu\nu} &=& \langle (C_\ell^{gT,\mu} - \langle C_\ell^{gT_{sim},\mu} \rangle) \nonumber \\ && \times
2104: (C_\ell^{gT,\nu} - \langle C_\ell^{gT_{sim},\nu} \rangle) \rangle.
2105: \end{eqnarray}
2106: Note that this is a $42\times 42$ covariance matrix, and that it is {\em not} block-diagonal in the LSS samples because there is some overlap in sample
2107: volume. The Monte Carlo procedure, by considering many realizations of the CMB but the actual realization of the galaxies, includes the implied
2108: correlations between different LSS samples.
2109:
2110: The issue of how to construct error bars on estimates of the galaxy-temperature cross-spectrum $C_\ell^{gT}$, or its real-space equivalent
2111: $w_{gT}(\theta)$, has been a contentious issue ever since the first claimed ISW detections were announced. The methods used have ranged from Gaussian
2112: error estimates based entirely on the theoretical galaxy and CMB spectra, to jack-knife methods that are based entirely on the data. Among the
2113: intermediate options are the Monte Carlo approach used here (MC1 in the terminology of Cabr\'e et~al. \cite{cabre07}) in which the real
2114: galaxy field is cross-correlated against many random realizations of the CMB.
2115:
2116: If we knew the CMB and galaxy power spectra perfectly from theory or observation, we would like to use analytic Gaussian error estimates for
2117: $C_\ell^{gT}$ or do Monte Carlo simulations of random CMB and galaxy fields. Unfortunately, the galaxy maps, particularly QSO0 and NVSS, are subject to
2118: spurious power at large angular scales for which we have no good theory, and for which we cannot measure the power spectrum accurately due to sampling
2119: variance. However we do know the theoretical CMB power spectrum so we can implement MC1. It would also have been possible (but
2120: computationally expensive) to implement a jack-knife;
2121: we chose not to do so because of concerns that at low multipoles the jack-knife regions would not be independent \cite{afshordi04} although we
2122: note that the Cabr\'e et~al. simulations \cite{cabre07} suggest that at least in some cases this is not a significant problem. The MC1
2123: method is however subject to two biases that could understimate the errors: a ``correlation bias'' due to neglect of the galaxy-temperature correlation
2124: when determining the error bars, and a ``realization bias'' due to the fact that only one realization of the galaxy field is used. These biases are
2125: discussed in Appendix~\ref{app:errors}, where we find them to be negligible.
2126:
2127: % This is redundant with the power spectrum estimation -- CH
2128: %Since we measured $C_\ell^{gT}$
2129: %in bins of $\ell$, the predicted $C_\ell^{gT}$ has to be weighted by the same window function too.
2130: %Therefore, we weigh the predicted $C_\ell^{gT}$ with the window function as in the data.
2131: %The window function is a product of
2132: %pixel window function (from the pixelization of both galaxy density maps and CMB maps) and the beam transfer function (from the CMB).
2133:
2134: We construct the likelihood function as the following:
2135: \beq
2136: \chi^2 =
2137: [x^{\mu}({\rm obs})-\langle x^{\mu}\rangle_{({\bf p})}]
2138: [{\bf C}^{-1}]_{\mu\nu}
2139: [x^{\nu}({\rm obs})-\langle x^{\nu}\rangle_{({\bf p})}],
2140: \eeq
2141: where $x^{\mu}$ is simply $C_\ell^{gT}$; the index $\mu$ encodes both the $\ell$-bin and the sample used.
2142: We denote by $x^{\mu}(\rm {obs})$ the observed correlations
2143: $C_\ell^{gT}$, and $\langle x^{\nu}\rangle_{({\bf p})}$ denotes the mean value predicted for cosmological parameters ${\bf p}$.
2144: Note that the vector $x^{\mu}$ is of length 42 and that all LSS samples are included in a single $\chi^2$; we do {\em not} add
2145: the $\chi^2$ values of different samples separately since they are correlated and such an addition would be invalid.
2146: Among the three components of the likelihood function, only the predicted $C_\ell^{gT}$
2147: needs to be re-calculated for each cosmological model.
2148:
2149: \subsection{Parameter fits}
2150:
2151: \begin{figure}
2152: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{diffUniv_lrg0.ps}
2153: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{diffUniv_nvss.ps}
2154: %\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{ISW_prediction_lowz_LRG1.ps}
2155: \caption{The predicted ISW signal for the low-z LRGs (above) and high-z QSOs (below) sample
2156: for sample open, closed, and flat $\Lambda$CDM models. Parameters are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:constrain}.}
2157: \label{fig:prediction}
2158: \end{figure}
2159:
2160: We investigate the following cosmological models:
2161: (i) $\Lambda$CDM model ($\Omega_b h^{2}$, $\Omega_{c} h^{2}$, $\theta$, $\tau$, $n_s$, $A_s$);
2162: (ii) $\Lambda$CDM model + $\Omega_K$; and
2163: (iii) $\Lambda$CDM model + $w$.
2164: Note that $\theta$ is the ratio of the sound horizon to the angular
2165: diameter distance,
2166: while $A_s$ is the the primordial superhorizon power in the curvature perturbation on $0.05/{\rm Mpc}$ scale.
2167: The numerical results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:paramm} for both the full likelihood (CMB+ISW+WL) and CMB alone.
2168: We also looked at the effect of WL (or ISW) separately
2169: in constraining cosmological parameters
2170: by analyzing a cosmological model ($\Lambda$CDM + $\Omega_K$)
2171: using only CMB+ISW (without lensing). We find the constraints to be similar to the
2172: full case (CMB+ISW+WL), but with slightly larger errorbars
2173: (see table~\ref{tab:compare}).
2174: Note that for the CMB-only model including $\Omega_K$, the Markov chain ran up against the $H_0>40$ km/s/Mpc boundary, thus
2175: artificially tightening the constraints; this did not occur for the full CMB+ISW+WL chains.
2176:
2177: For the $\Lambda$CDM model, the combined constraints from WMAP+ISW+WL is only slightly improved over using WMAP alone, but does lead to a decrease in $\Omega_m$ as expected,
2178: because this is the direction of increase in ISW, which is needed given that
2179: we find the measured ISW exceeds WMAP3 prediction. The effect is smaller than expected
2180: because moving along the WMAP degeneracy line in the direction of decrease in $\Omega_m$
2181: also requires an increase in $h$ and decrease in $\sigma_8$, both of
2182: which reduce ISW (see also Fig.~\ref{fig:prediction}).
2183:
2184: For $\Lambda$CDM + $\Omega_K$ model, we improve significantly over what using CMB alone can do.
2185: In Fig.~\ref{fig:ini2_lam}
2186: we compare 1-D distributions of the $\Omega_\Lambda$ and $\Omega_{m}$
2187: when we use WMAP+ISW+WL versus using WMAP alone.
2188: The ISW effect, as discussed above, can constrain
2189: the change of
2190: gravitational potential of the Universe as it depends linearly
2191: on the change of
2192: growth factor of the potential ($D(a)/a$).
2193: For example, in the closed Universe model we plotted in Fig~\ref{fig:prediction}, $D(a)/a$ increases as redshift decreases,
2194: while in the other two models, $D(a)/a$ would decrease as redshift decreases.
2195: As $\partial\phi/\partial\eta$ has a different sign for the
2196: closed Universe model on WMAP degeneracy curve
2197: as compared to the open and the flat universe model on the same curve,
2198: the sign of the ISW effect changes too.
2199: In Fig.~\ref{fig:prediction} we plot the predicted ISW signal using the low-redshift
2200: LRG and the high-redshift quasar distribution for 3 different Universes along
2201: the WMAP degeneracy curve.
2202: As expected closed model differs drastically from open and flat models.
2203: We also see that for LRG there is not much difference between
2204: flat and open models even though the latter has $\Omega_m=0.088$ compared to
2205: $\Omega_m=0.24$, but the
2206: increase in ISW induced by $D(a)/a$ is compensated by the reduction caused by
2207: other parameters such as $h$ and $\sigma_8$. The differences between the two
2208: are more significant for the high-$z$ quasar redshift distribution.
2209: ISW effect breaks the WMAP degneracies between
2210: $\Omega_K$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$ (or $\Omega_m$).
2211: In Fig.~\ref{fig:ini2_lambda_K}
2212: we show the 2-D contour plots of this set of parameters
2213: to demonstrate how our analysis improves
2214: the constraints on these parameters.
2215:
2216: \begin{figure}
2217: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ini2_tot_lambda.ps}
2218: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ini2_tot_m.ps}
2219: \caption{\label{fig:ini2_lam}$\Lambda$CDM + $\Omega_K$ model: the 1-D distributions of $\Omega_\Lambda$ and $\Omega_m$. The solid (dashed)
2220: line represents constraints from
2221: using WMAP+ISW+WL (WMAP alone).}
2222: \end{figure}
2223:
2224:
2225: %\begin{figure}
2226: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ini2_k.ps}
2227: %\caption{$\Lambda$CDM + $\Omega_K$ model: the 1-D distribution of $\Omega_K$. The solid (dashed) line represents constraints from
2228: %using WMAP+ISW+WL (WMAP alone).}
2229: %\label{fig:ini2_k}
2230: %\end{figure}
2231: %
2232: %\begin{figure}
2233: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ini2_m.ps}
2234: %\caption{$\Lambda$CDM + $\Omega_K$ model: the 1-D distribution of $\Omega_m$. The solid (dashed) line represents constraints from
2235: %using WMAP+ISW+WL (WMAP alone).}
2236: %\label{fig:ini2_m}
2237: %\end{figure}
2238:
2239:
2240: \begin{figure}
2241: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ini2_tot_k.ps}
2242: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ini2_tot_lambda_k.ps}
2243: \caption{\label{fig:ini2_lambda_K}$\Lambda$CDM + $\Omega_K$ model: the 1-D distribution of $\Omega_K$ and the 2-D distribution of $\Omega_\Lambda$ and
2244: $\Omega_K$ (68\% and 95\% confidence contours shown). The solid (dot-dashed) line represents constraints from
2245: using WMAP+ISW+WL (WMAP alone).}
2246: \end{figure}
2247:
2248: %\begin{figure}
2249: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ini2_m_lambda.ps}
2250: %\caption{$\Lambda$CDM + $\Omega_K$ model: the 2-D distribution of $\Omega_\Lambda$-$\Omega_m$ (68\% and 95\% confidence contours shown).
2251: %The solid (dot-dashed) line
2252: %represents constraints from
2253: %using WMAP+ISW+WL (WMAP alone).}
2254: %\label{fig:ini2_m_lambda}
2255: %\end{figure}
2256:
2257: %\begin{figure}
2258: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ini2_m_k.ps}
2259: %\caption{$\Lambda$CDM + $\Omega_K$ model: the 2-D contours of the likelihood plane of $\Omega_m$-$\Omega_K$. The solid (dot-dashed) line represents
2260: %constraints from
2261: %using WMAP+ISW+WL (WMAP alone).}
2262: %\label{fig:ini2_m_k}
2263: %\end{figure}
2264:
2265: Finally, we look at the $\Lambda$CDM + $w$ model where we look for better constraints on dark energy equation of state ($w$). The constraint on $w$ is
2266: modestly improved,
2267: since the dark energy equation of state changes the growth factor along the WMAP
2268: degeneracy curve, thus the evolution of the gravitational potential.
2269: We also see that there is a tilt of
2270: $\Omega_\Lambda$ towards lower value when we combine WMAP with ISW and WL effects.
2271: We also plot the 2-D contours for the $\Omega_\Lambda$ and $w$ in Fig~\ref{fig:ini6_lambda_w}.
2272:
2273: As mentioned above, WMAP 3-year model predicts ISW amplitude that is about
2274: two sigma below our constraints and this is also the case for the best fit
2275: $\Lambda$CDM model (which is almost the same as WMAP 3-year).
2276: Adding curvature or dark energy equation of state
2277: does not reduce this discrepancy either and in both cases these two parameters are not
2278: needed to improve the fit. While reducing matter
2279: density goes in the desired direction of increasing ISW in cross-correlations,
2280: such models also increase
2281: the CMB power at large scales through the ISW auto-correlation power,
2282: which is in disagreement with the
2283: low power observed on large scales in WMAP. For example, we find that there are models
2284: with $\Omega_m=0.18$ which
2285: improve the $\chi^2$ fit to ISW data by 13 relative to the best fit
2286: $\Lambda$CDM + $\Omega_K$ model, but at the same time
2287: make the WMAP $\chi^2$ fit worse by 15. There is thus some mild tension
2288: between low power in WMAP at low $l$ and the high ISW power we measure, but
2289: it is a tension that cannot be removed by
2290: simple extensions of parameter space explored here.
2291: As this is only a two sigma effect there is a considerable probability that it
2292: is just a statistical fluctuation.
2293:
2294: %%% !! CHANGED !!
2295: \begin{table}
2296: \caption{\label{tab:compare}Comparing the constraints for several
2297: parameters with and without Weak Lensing
2298: of CMB in $\Lambda$CDM + $\Omega_K$ cosmological model.
2299: The limits shown are mean and standard deviation for each of the parameter.}
2300: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
2301: \hline\hline
2302: Parameter & Limits (CMB+ISW+WL) & Limits (CMB+ISW) \\
2303: \hline
2304: $\Omega_K$ & $-0.068\pm 0.019$ & $-0.0073\pm 0.020$ \\
2305: $\Omega_\Lambda$ & $0.746\pm0.059 $ & $0.745\pm 0.065$ \\
2306: $\Omega_m$ & $ 0.261\pm0.075 $ & $0.263\pm 0.083$ \\
2307: \hline\hline
2308: \end{tabular}
2309: \end{table}
2310:
2311: %\begin{figure}
2312: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ini6_tot_w.ps}
2313: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ini6_tot_lambda.ps}
2314: %\caption{$\Lambda$CDM + $w$ model: the 1-D distribution of $w$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$. The solid (dashed) line represents constraints from
2315: %using WMAP+ISW+WL (WMAP alone).}
2316: %\label{fig:ini6_w}
2317: %\end{figure}
2318:
2319: %\begin{figure}
2320: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ini6_lambda.ps}
2321: %\caption{$\Lambda$CDM + $w$ model: the 1-D distribution of $\Omega_\Lambda$. The solid (dashed) line represents constraints from
2322: %using WMAP+ISW+WL (WMAP alone).}
2323: %\label{fig:ini6_lambda}
2324: %\end{figure}
2325:
2326: \begin{figure}
2327: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ini6_tot_lambda_w.ps}
2328: \caption{$\Lambda$CDM + $w$ model: the 2-D distribution of $\Omega_\Lambda$ and $w$ (68\% and 95\% confidence contours shown).
2329: The solid (dashed) line represents constraints from
2330: using WMAP+ISW+WL (WMAP alone).}
2331: \label{fig:ini6_lambda_w}
2332: \end{figure}
2333:
2334: %\begin{table}
2335: %\caption{\label{tab:param}The constraints on cosmological parameters for each model with the CMB only, and also including the ISW and weak lensing
2336: %likelihood functions. The values are weighted means and the
2337: %error bars are $\pm 1\sigma$, and $H_0$ is in km$\,$s$^{-1}\,$Mpc$^{-1}$. Note that for the 7-parameter chains with CMB only
2338: %there are significant prior effects in the CMB degeneracy direction.
2339: %}
2340: %\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
2341: %\hline\hline
2342: %Parameter & & CMB (mean $\pm \sigma$) & & CMB+ISW+WL (mean $\pm \sigma$) \\
2343: %\hline
2344: %\multicolumn{5}{c}{\mbox{$\Lambda$CDM, 6 parameters}} \\
2345: %\hline
2346: %$\Omega_bh^2$ & & $0.0222\pm 0.0007$ & & $0.0222\pm 0.0007$ \\
2347: %$\Omega_ch^2$ & & $0.105\pm 0.008$ & & $0.104\pm 0.008$ \\
2348: %$\tau$ & & $0.091\pm 0.030$ & & $0.095\pm 0.030$ \\
2349: %$n_s$ & & $0.959\pm 0.016$ & & $0.960\pm 0.016$ \\
2350: %$\Omega_\Lambda$ & & $0.758\pm 0.035$ & & $0.764\pm 0.033$ \\
2351: %$\Omega_m$ & & $0.241\pm 0.035$ & & $0.236\pm 0.033$ \\
2352: %$\sigma_8$ & & $0.767\pm 0.049$ & & $0.763\pm 0.048$ \\
2353: %$H_0$ & & $73.1\pm 3.2$ & & $73.6\pm 3.1$ \\
2354: %\hline
2355: %\multicolumn{5}{c}{\mbox{$\Lambda$CDM + $\Omega_K$, 7 parameters}} \\
2356: %\hline
2357: %$\Omega_bh^2$ & & $0.0218\pm 0.0007$ & & $0.0221\pm 0.0008$ \\
2358: %$\Omega_ch^2$ & & $0.106\pm 0.008$ & & $0.105\pm 0.008$ \\
2359: %$\tau$ & & $0.084\pm 0.029$ & & $0.092\pm 0.030$ \\
2360: %$\Omega_K$ & & $-0.057\pm 0.048$ & & $-0.012\pm 0.026$ \\
2361: %$n_s$ & & $0.948\pm 0.017$ & & $0.957\pm 0.018$ \\
2362: %$\Omega_\Lambda$ & & $0.59\pm 0.14$ & & $0.73\pm 0.08$ \\
2363: %$\Omega_m$ & & $0.46\pm 0.18$ & & $0.28\pm 0.10$ \\
2364: %$\sigma_8$ & & $0.74\pm 0.049$ & & $0.756\pm 0.050$ \\
2365: %$H_0$ & & $56\pm 13$ & & $70\pm 12$ \\
2366: %\hline
2367: %\multicolumn{5}{c}{\mbox{$\Lambda$CDM + $w$, 7 parameters}} \\
2368: %\hline
2369: %$\Omega_bh^2$ & & $0.0223\pm 0.0008$ & & $0.0222\pm 0.0008$ \\
2370: %$\Omega_ch^2$ & & $0.106\pm 0.008$ & & $0.105\pm 0.008$ \\
2371: %$\tau$ & & $0.090\pm 0.030$ & & $0.093\pm 0.030$ \\
2372: %$w$ & & $-1.02\pm 0.41$ & & $-1.02\pm 0.35$ \\
2373: %$n_s$ & & $0.962\pm 0.021$ & & $0.962\pm 0.019$ \\
2374: %$\Omega_\Lambda$ & & $0.73\pm 0.11$ & & $0.75\pm 0.09$ \\
2375: %$\Omega_m$ & & $0.27\pm 0.11$ & & $0.25\pm 0.09$ \\
2376: %$\sigma_8$ & & $0.77\pm 0.15$ & & $0.76\pm 0.12$ \\
2377: %$H_0$ & & $74\pm 14$ & & $74\pm 13$ \\
2378: %\hline\hline
2379: %\end{tabular}
2380: %\end{table}
2381:
2382: \begin{table*}
2383: \caption{\label{tab:paramm}The percentiles of the posterior distribution (2.5\%, 16\%, 50\%, 84\% and 97.5\%)
2384: on cosmological parameter for each model with the CMB only (``C'') and also including the ISW and weak
2385: lensing
2386: likelihood functions (``I''). $H_0$ is in km$\,$s$^{-1}\,$Mpc$^{-1}$. For a Gaussian distribution these percentiles correspond approximately to
2387: $-2\sigma$, $-1\sigma$, central, $+1\sigma$, and $+2\sigma$ values.
2388: Note that for the 7-parameter chains
2389: with CMB only there are significant prior effects in the CMB degeneracy direction.
2390: }
2391: \begin{tabular}{cccccccccccc}
2392: \hline\hline
2393: Parameter & C($2.5\%$) & C($16\%$) & C($50\%$) & C($84\%$) &C($97.5\%$)& & I($2.5\%$)& I($16\%$) &I($50\%$) & I($84\%$) & I($97.5\%$) \\
2394: \hline
2395: \multicolumn{12}{c}{\mbox{$\Lambda$CDM, 6 parameters}} \\
2396: \hline
2397: $\Omega_bh^2$ & 0.0208& 0.0214 & 0.0222 & 0.0229 & 0.0236 & & 0.0208 & 0.0215 &0.0222 & 0.0229 & 0.0236\\
2398: $\Omega_ch^2$ & 0.0901 & 0.0976& 0.105 & 0.113 & 0.121 & & 0.0901 & 0.0970 & 0.104 & 0.111 & 0.119 \\
2399: $\tau$ & 0.0312 & 0.0612 & 0.0911 & 0.121 & 0.151 & & 0.0359 & 0.0662 & 0.0956 & 0.125 & 0.154\\
2400: $n_s$ & 0.929 & 0.943 & 0.959 & 0.976 & 0.993& & 0.929 & 0.944 & 0.960 & 0.977 & 0.994 \\
2401: $\Omega_\Lambda$ & 0.684 & 0.724 & 0.760 & 0.793 & 0.822& &0.698 & 0.734 & 0.766 & 0.796 & 0.822 \\
2402: $\Omega_m$ & 0.178 & 0.207& 0.240 & 0.276 & 0.316& &0.178 & 0.204 & 0.234 & 0.266 & 0.302 \\
2403: $\sigma_8$ & 0.670 & 0.717& 0.767 & 0.816 & 0.863 & & 0.671 & 0.715 & 0.763 & 0.810 & 0.855 \\
2404: $H_0$ & 67.0 & 69.9 & 72.9 & 76.3 & 79.7 & & 67.9 & 70.6& 73.5 & 76.6 & 79.8 \\
2405: \hline
2406: \multicolumn{12}{c}{\mbox{$\Lambda$CDM + $\Omega_K$, 7 parameters}} \\
2407: \hline
2408: $\Omega_bh^2$ & 0.0203 & 0.0211 & 0.0218& 0.0226 & 0.0233 & &0.0206 & 0.0213 & 0.0221 & 0.0229 & 0.0236\\
2409: $\Omega_ch^2$ & 0.0916 & 0.0990 & 0.107 & 0.115 & 0.123& & 0.0900 & 0.0968& 0.104 & 0.112 & 0.120 \\
2410: $\tau$ & 0.0269& 0.0546 & 0.0836 & 0.113 & 0.142 & & 0.0330& 0.0637& 0.0934& 0.123 & 0.152 \\
2411: $\Omega_K$ & -0.147 & -0.115 & -0.0499 & -0.00574&0.0150& & -0.0515 & -0.0235 & -0.00395 & 0.0103& 0.0201 \\
2412: $n_s$ & 0.917 & 0.932 & 0.948 & 0.966 & 0.984 & & 0.925 & 0.941 & 0.958 & 0.976 & 0.993 \\
2413: $\Omega_\Lambda$ & 0.332 & 0.437 & 0.606 & 0.745 & 0.821 & & 0.610 & 0.691 & 0.754 & 0.802 & 0.837\\
2414: $\Omega_m$ &0.166 & 0.262 & 0.445& 0.678 & 0.804& & 0.148 & 0.190& 0.250 & 0.330 & 0.436 \\
2415: $\sigma_8$ & 0.648& 0.690 & 0.738 & 0.788 & 0.839 & & 0.663 & 0.709 & 0.758 & 0.807 & 0.857 \\
2416: $H_0$ & 40.5 & 43.6 & 53.8 & 69.5 & 86.6 & & 54.0 & 62.1 & 71.0& 81.3 & 92.0 \\
2417: \hline
2418: \multicolumn{12}{c}{\mbox{$\Lambda$CDM + $w$, 7 parameters}} \\
2419: \hline
2420: $\Omega_bh^2$ & 0.0208 & 0.0215 & 0.0222 & 0.0231 & 0.0239 & & 0.0207 & 0.0214 & 0.0222 & 0.0230 & 0.237\\
2421: $\Omega_ch^2$ & 0.0900 & 0.0981 & 0.106 & 0.114 & 0.122 & & 0.0906 & 0.0975 & 0.105 & 0.112 & 0.120 \\
2422: $\tau$ & 0.0294& 0.0600& 0.0894 & 0.119 & 0.149 & & 0.0347 & 0.0647 & 0.0940 & 0.123 & 0.153 \\
2423: $w$ & -1.731& -1.457 & -1.031 & -0.573& -0.240 & & -1.646 & -1.401 & -1.006& -0.704 & -0.425 \\
2424: $n_s$ & 0.927 & 0.943& 0.960 & 0.981 & 1.010 & & 0.928 & 0.943 & 0.960& 0.978 & 0.998 \\
2425: $\Omega_\Lambda$ & 0.457 & 0.617 & 0.764 & 0.844 & 0.870& & 0.546 & 0.672 & 0.778 & 0.845 & 0.871 \\
2426: $\Omega_m$ & 0.130 & 0.156 & 0.235 & 0.383 & 0.543 & & 0.128 & 0.155 & 0.220 & 0.328 & 0.454 \\
2427: $\sigma_8$ & 0.437 & 0.613 & 0.776 & 0.919 & 1.032 & & 0.540& 0.659 & 0.781& 0.898 & 1.00 \\
2428: $H_0$ & 47.8 & 57.9 & 73.8 & 90.7 & 98.5 & & 53.2& 62.4 & 75.6 & 90.2& 98.2 \\
2429: \hline\hline
2430: \end{tabular}
2431: \end{table*}
2432:
2433: %\subsection{Significance of $\Omega_\Lambda$ $\geq 0$}
2434: %
2435: %We investiage the significance of $\Omega_\Lambda$ $\geq 0$ by creating a
2436: %\subsection{Significance of $\Omega_\Lambda$ $\geq 0$}
2437: %
2438: %We investiage the significance of $\Omega_\Lambda$ $\geq 0$ by creating a
2439: %markov-chain which allows curvature ($\Lambda$CDM + $\Omega_K$ model)
2440: %but explore only in space where $|\Omega_\Lambda| < 0.01$.
2441: %We find that the difference in mean of $\chi^2$ between chains which allows
2442: %only $|\Omega_\Lambda| < 0.01$ and $|\Omega_\Lambda| < 1.0$ are
2443: %drastically different (see Fig.~\ref{fig:compare_ol}). We thus conclude
2444: %with our WMAP+ISW+WL analysis that $\Omega_\Lambda$ is a necessary component in
2445: %our Universe.
2446: %
2447: %
2448: %\begin{figure}
2449: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ini2_oln.ps}
2450: %\caption{The crosses (squares) show the mean $\chi^2$ of sets of cosmological parameters that allows (does not allow)
2451: %$\Omega_\Lambda \geq 0.01$. }
2452: %\label{fig:compare_ol}
2453: %\end{figure}
2454: %
2455:
2456: \section{Discussion}
2457: \label{sec:discussion}
2458:
2459: The main goal of this paper is to perform a full analysis of the integrated
2460: Sachs-Wolfe effect using the cross-correlations
2461: between WMAP CMB maps and maps of large scale structure. In contrast to
2462: previous work on this subject we place less emphasis on establishing a detection
2463: of ISW and more emphasis on developing a tool with which
2464: cosmological models can be compared to the data in a close to optimal fashion.
2465: For this reason we only select the data sets that can be reliably used towards
2466: this goal, as discussed in more detail below. The redshift range of the datasets we use is between
2467: 0 and 2.5.
2468: We use optimal weighting of the data both in angular space and in redshift space
2469: to extract the maximum amount of information, taking into account properly
2470: the correlations between them.
2471: Our final product is the likelihood function with which different cosmological
2472: models can be compared to each other.
2473:
2474: As the ISW effect is both a probe of cosmological parameters and a consistency test of the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology,
2475: there have been significant previous
2476: efforts made to detect it. A number of different
2477: analysis methods have been used and the WMAP data have
2478: been cross-correlated with several samples. These include the 2MASS XSC; several SDSS samples including magnitude-limited galaxy samples, LRGs, and
2479: quasars; the NVSS; and the HEAO hard X-ray map. Most of these samples (or samples with similar spatial
2480: coverage and redshift range) are included in the present work, but not all.
2481: Here we compare our analysis with the previous work and comment on the
2482: reasons for our choice of data sets.
2483:
2484: \newcounter{oisw}
2485: \begin{list}{\arabic{oisw}. }{\usecounter{oisw}}
2486: \item {\em Near-infrared galaxies (2MASS).} The 2MASS galaxies are useful for ISW due to high sky coverage and the ability to see closer to the
2487: Galactic plane in the near-IR than in the optical. However they can only probe the lowest redshifts ($z<0.2$).
2488: Afshordi et~al. \cite{afshordi04} and Rassat et~al. \cite{rassat07} have measured the ISW signal using the 2MASS sample and we deliberately
2489: cut our 2MASS sample into brightness bins
2490: such as theirs so that we can compare the results. We find that our measured signal from 2MASS is very similar.
2491: We do however derive cosmological
2492: constraints using a Markov chain (which fits all the cosmological parameters instead of just $\Omega_\Lambda$) from these samples.
2493: We also take into account (albeit in a crude way) the redshift dependence of the bias resulting from seeing all nearby galaxies but
2494: only the brightest and most biased galaxies at $z\ge 0.1$.
2495: % Overall statistical significance of ISW signal from 2MASS is about $2\sigma$.
2496:
2497: \item {\em Optical galaxies (SDSS, APM).} Wide-angle multicolor galaxy surveys such as SDSS open almost limitless possibilities for constructing galaxy
2498: samples, and many of these samples have been used in previous ISW work. Most work so far has been on either flux-limited samples \cite{fosalba03,
2499: cabre06}, which have a broad redshift distribution, or photometric LRGs \cite{fosalba03, scranton03, padmanabhan05ISW,
2500: cabre06}, which can be seen
2501: to larger distances and for which it is easier to construct reliable photo-$z$ cuts. In SDSS, photometric LRG samples oversample the linear
2502: density field in the redshift range $0.2<z<0.6$ and the lower redshifts are covered by 2MASS, so the flux-limited galaxy samples would be redundant in
2503: terms of volume for our study; we therefore did not include them. Our LRG samples cover the largest solid angle to date of any SDSS ISW analysis (6641
2504: deg$^2$) and for the purposes of cosmological analysis are split into two photo-$z$ slices.
2505: Fosalba \& Gazta\~naga \cite{fosalba04} have also used galaxies from the Automated Plate Measuring (APM) survey \cite{maddox90},
2506: which adds $\sim 4300$
2507: deg$^2$ in the Southern Hemisphere inaccessible to SDSS. Their APM sample has a typical redshift $\bar z\approx 0.15$ and thus would add some
2508: information beyond the most distant of our 2MASS samples. Considering that APM area is
2509: only 16\% of 2MASS and that it only marginally
2510: extends the redshift range we have not used APM in our analysis.
2511: However adding a deeper galaxy survey in the South, comparable to or
2512: deeper than SDSS, would be valuable for improving ISW
2513: constraints. Overall signal to noise from SDSS LRG galaxies is about 3$\sigma$, most
2514: of which comes from the higher redshift sample around $z \sim 0.5$.
2515:
2516: \item {\em Optical quasars (SDSS).} Photometrically selected quasars can probe large-scale structure at much higher redshifts than ``normal'' galaxies
2517: because they are bright enough to be seen in wide-angle surveys (such as SDSS) even at $z\sim 2$.
2518: The only ISW analysis with quasars so far has been that of Giannantonio et~al. \cite{giannantonio06}, who cross-correlated WMAP with a sample of
2519: photometric quasars from the SDSS. Our analysis uses similar selection criteria, but we have used photo-$z$ cuts to eliminate most of the
2520: lower-redshift objects, and used a combination of spectroscopic data and angular clustering to constrain $b*dN/dz$ taking into account the multimodal
2521: nature of the photo-$z$ failures. We also slice our quasars into two photo-$z$ bins.
2522: Despite these improvements we find that the significance is only 1.3$\sigma$ (1.24$\sigma$
2523: for the high redshift sample with $z>1$), and we therefore
2524: do not confirm that the 2.1$\sigma$ signal seen in \cite{giannantonio06} comes from $z>1$.
2525:
2526: \item {\em Radio sources (NVSS).} There have been several past WMAP$\times$NVSS ISW analyses \cite{boughn04, nolta04, pietrobon06,
2527: mcewen07},
2528: taking advantage of the high redshift (compared to most optical samples) and wide sky coverage of the NVSS.
2529: We have used the angular power spectrum whereas the previous works have used correlation functions or wavelet coefficients.
2530: However, the most important difference between our analysis and the previous result is that we fit $b*dN/dz$ from cross-correlations rather than
2531: using the
2532: Dunlop \& Peacock model \cite{dunlop90} for the redshift distribution and assuming constant bias. This is important as we find the fit $b*dN/dz$ looks
2533: very different (see Fig.~\ref{fig:fnvss}). All of these studies, including ours,
2534: have found positive cross correlations at the $\sim 3\sigma$ level. However, the
2535: interpretation of this result depends sensitively on one's ability to measure $b*dN/dz$
2536: and this is where we believe our analysis is an improvement upon previous efforts.
2537:
2538: \item {\em Hard X-ray background (HEAO).} Boughn \& Crittenden \cite{boughn04}
2539: % and
2540: %Boughn \& Partridge \cite{boughn07}
2541: have used the HEAO hard X-ray map \cite{boldt87} for ISW
2542: cross-correlation. The
2543: background is due mainly to unresolved (by HEAO) active galactic nuclei and hence traces large scale structure at redshifts of order unity. This,
2544: combined with the all-sky nature of HEAO, is beneficial for ISW projects.
2545: However, we decided not to add in HEAO sample to our analysis for several
2546: reasons. First is the difficulty
2547: in understanding the $b(z)*dN/dz$ of the sample (we use the general notation $dN/dz$ here even though for unresolved X-ray flux it would be
2548: more accurate to write $dF/dz$).
2549: Only $\sim 75$\% of the background is resolved by
2550: Chandra into sources with measured redshifts \cite{cowie03, boughn04b}, and we have little guidance on where to place the other
2551: 25\%. Even if we knew $dN/dz$
2552: perfectly, this does not tell us $b*dN/dz$: the modeled $dN/dz$ spans the range $0<z<3$ and it is unlikely that the bias would be even
2553: approximately constant over this range.
2554: An alternative is to fit for their bias and redshift distributions
2555: up to high $z$ using a cross-correlation method similar to that done for NVSS in Sec.~\ref{sec:dndz}.
2556: Unfortunately HEAO has FWHM of $\sim 2^\circ$ and does not resolve individual sources, so we would have to fit
2557: the data to the model without small-scale information, which loses signal-to-noise
2558: on the cross-correlation very rapidly.
2559: A secondary reason is that there is considerable overlap between HEAO and NVSS, so it is
2560: likely that the two trace partly the same structure, and thus the improvement in ISW
2561: constraint is not as large as adding two independent data sets.
2562: We note that it may make sense to include the hard X-ray maps in parameter estimation
2563: in the future if a robust determination of
2564: $b*dN/dz$ becomes available.
2565: \end{list}
2566:
2567: In summary, we believe we used most of the available large scale structure
2568: data useful for ISW analysis. This not only updates previous work on
2569: ISW effect \cite{boughn98,fosalba03,scranton03,afshordi04,boughn04,fosalba04,nolta04,padmanabhan05ISW,gaztanaga05,cabre06,giannantonio06,vielva06,
2570: pietrobon06,mcewen07,rassat07}, but is also the first one that attempts to do the tomography of ISW, in the sense of
2571: encompassing a wide redshift range via our mass tracers going from the local Universe to
2572: $z\sim 2.5$, while reducing the amount of overlap in area and redshift as much as
2573: possible. We have argued that many of the previous measurements have a considerable
2574: overlap in redshift and area, which means that they cannot be combined independently
2575: and that the effective redshift of the sample is not necessarily the redshift from
2576: where most of the ISW signal is coming from.
2577: Our analysis, while attempting to minimize the overlap in the first place,
2578: takes the residual correlations into account explicitly via the construction of the
2579: full covariance matrix. We note that Giannantonio et~al. \footnote{T. Giannantonio et~al., in preparation.} are also pursuing an ISW tomography
2580: analysis, with somewhat different choices of LSS samples and cross-correlation methodologies.
2581:
2582: We spend a significant fraction of our analysis obtaining the correct
2583: redshift distributions for all of the samples. To be more accurate,
2584: it is the $b*dN/dz$ that we constrain for all samples.
2585: The signature of ISW effect is highly affected by the redshift distribution
2586: of the tracer, and thus one would need to have an accurate idea of
2587: what the redshift distribution is in order to interpret the correlation.
2588: Apart from employing spectroscopic datasets that overlap in magnitude range
2589: and sky coverage, we correlate the tracer samples with one another so
2590: as to obtain the $b*dN/dz$ for some of the samples.
2591: This is mainly possible because LRGs have relatively good photometric redshifts
2592: and so we correlate the LRGs with other overlapping datasets to determine
2593: what are the $b*dN/dz$ at the redshift range that LRGs cover.
2594: In addition, we account for redshift-dependent bias in 2MASS and for
2595: the multimodal error distributions for the quasars.
2596: We also made the first determination of $b*dN/dz$ for NVSS sample which is
2597: not based simply on a theoretical model fitting the luminosity function.
2598:
2599: Correlations of mass tracers with the CMB sky can be caused not
2600: only by the ISW effect, but also by other cosmological effect such as thermal SZ,
2601: Galactic foregrounds and extinction, and extragalactic point sources.
2602: We provide an estimate for all these effects and only include the scales
2603: deemed reliable, where the contamination is subdominant or negligible.
2604:
2605: We report a detection of $3.7\sigma$
2606: of the ISW effect combining 2MASS, SDSS, and NVSS with WMAP data.
2607: We make a joint analysis of all samples by constructing a reliable covariance matrix
2608: including cross-correlations of different samples, which is
2609: needed for cosmological parameter fitting.
2610: We combine our ISW correlation functions with weak lensing of the CMB (Paper II) to derive cosmological constraints on three different
2611: cosmological
2612: models: (i) the ``vanilla'' $\Lambda$CDM model, (ii) $\Lambda$CDM+$\Omega_K$, and (iii) $\Lambda$CDM+$w$.
2613: We find a slight improvement of our measurement of $w$ in model (iii)
2614: over the measurement made by CMB alone: $w=-1.01^{+0.30}_{-0.40}$
2615: instead of $-1.03^{+0.46}_{-0.43}$.
2616: The constraining power of our analysis is however most prominent in
2617: determining that curvature of the Universe: for CMB+ISW+WL we find
2618: $\Omega_K=-0.004^{+0.014}_{-0.020}$ instead of $-0.050^{+0.044}_{-0.065}$ for CMB alone.
2619: These constraints are
2620: not as tight as that obtained by some other methods, such as combining the CMB with baryonic
2621: oscillations or with supernovae \cite{eisenstein05,seljak06,spergel07}, but it is
2622: subject to very different systematics. It is thus reassuring that all of them are consistent with each other. Even more importantly, there are other
2623: models where ISW
2624: can be crucial in distinguishing them from standard $\Lambda$CDM, such as $f(R)$
2625: models in which the growth of structure is not fixed by the background geometry \cite{song07}.
2626: Some of these models may already be inconsistent with our ISW signal;
2627: we plan to present such constraints in a future paper.
2628: These constraints should improve further in the
2629: future with deeper galaxy surveys that should reach the cosmic variance limit out to $z\sim 1-2$, and
2630: future CMB data that enables lower-noise lensing reconstruction.
2631:
2632: % Not sure we can say this yet until 2SLAQ issues resolved.
2633: %1) Would like to re-insert before posting to arXiv.
2634: %we plan to present such constraints in a future paper.
2635: Finally, we would like to note that we plan to release a package for calculating ISW likelihood function given the datasets and cosmological
2636: parameters. This will be described further in the documentation for the package.
2637:
2638: \begin{acknowledgments}
2639: We would like to thank Joanna Dunkley for her extensive help on the discussion of chain convergences,
2640: and Lucas Lombriser and An\v{z}e Slosar for bringing an error in an earlier version of this paper to our attention.
2641: We would also like to thank David Spergel, Kendrick Smith and Jim Gunn for helpful conversations.
2642: C.H. was a John Bahcall fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study during most of the preparation of this paper.
2643: N.P. is supported by a Hubble Fellowship
2644: HST.HF-01200.01 awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute,
2645: which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in
2646: Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS 5-26555. Part of this work was supported by the
2647: Director, Office of Science, of the U.S.
2648: Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
2649: U.S. is supported by the Packard Foundation and NSF
2650: CAREER-0132953.
2651:
2652: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation,
2653: the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher
2654: Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
2655:
2656: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum
2657: of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University, University of
2658: Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute
2659: for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences
2660: (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico
2661: State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory,
2662: and the University of Washington.
2663:
2664: The 2dF QSO Redshift Survey (2QZ) was compiled by the 2QZ survey team
2665: from observations made with the 2-degree Field on the Anglo-Australian
2666: Telescope.
2667: The 2dF-SDSS LRG and QSO (2SLAQ) Survey was compiled by the 2SLAQ team
2668: from SDSS data and observations made with the 2-degree Field on the
2669: Anglo-Australian Telescope.
2670: This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the
2671: Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the
2672: National Science Foundation.
2673:
2674: \end{acknowledgments}
2675:
2676: \appendix
2677:
2678: \section{NVSS redshift window functions}
2679: \label{app:nvsswin}
2680:
2681: In Sec.~\ref{sss:cra}, we fit a constant $f_{\rm NVSS}$ to the cross-spectra of NVSS and the other LSS samples. We argued that this procedure gave an
2682: estimator $\hat f_{\rm NVSS}$ whose expectation value was given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:fhat}). The purpose of this appendix is to prove this equation and
2683: construct the functional form ${\cal W}(z)$.
2684:
2685: We begin by noting that we have measured cross-spectra $C_\ell^{i,\rm NVSS}$ and their covariance matrix $\Sigma^i_{ll'}$. The theoretical
2686: cross-spectrum
2687: is on the other hand simply the Limber result,
2688: \beqa
2689: C_\ell^{i,\rm NVSS}({\rm th}) &=& \int_0^\infty f_{\rm NVSS}(z) f_i(z)
2690: \nonumber \\ && \times
2691: P\left(k=\frac{\ell+1/2}r\right) \frac{dz}{[r(z)]^2H(z)}
2692: \nonumber \\ &\equiv& \int_0^\infty f_{\rm NVSS}(z) \kappa^i_\ell(z)\,dz,
2693: \label{eq:cli}
2694: \eeqa
2695: where $r(z)$ is the comoving angular diameter distance and $\kappa^i_\ell(z)$ is defined by the equivalence in the second line.
2696: The $\chi^2$ fitting procedure for the constant $f_{\rm NVSS}$ is to minimize
2697: \beqa
2698: \chi^2 &=& \sum_{\ell\ell'} [\Sigma^{i\,-1}]_{\ell\ell'}
2699: (\hat C_\ell^{i,\rm NVSS} - f_{\rm NVSS}K^i_\ell)
2700: \nonumber \\ && \times
2701: (\hat C_{\ell'}^{i,\rm NVSS} - f_{\rm NVSS}K^i_{\ell\ell'}),
2702: \eeqa
2703: where $K_\ell=\int_0^\infty\kappa^i_\ell(z)\,dz$ and $\hat C_\ell^{i,\rm NVSS}$ are the measured cross-spectra. The minimum value of $\chi^2$ is
2704: obtained
2705: for
2706: \beq
2707: \hat f_{\rm NVSS} = \frac{
2708: \sum_{\ell\ell'} [\Sigma^{i\,-1}]_{\ell\ell'}\hat C_\ell^{i,\rm NVSS}K^i_{\ell'}
2709: }{
2710: \sum_{\ell\ell'} [\Sigma^{i\,-1}]_{\ell\ell'}K^i_\ell K^i_{\ell'}
2711: }.
2712: \eeq
2713: Since the $\hat C_l^{i,\rm NVSS}$ have expectation value given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:cli}), we have
2714: \beq
2715: \langle \hat f_{\rm NVSS} \rangle = \frac{
2716: \sum_{\ell\ell'} [\Sigma^{i\,-1}]_{\ell\ell'} K^i_{\ell'} \int_0^\infty f_{\rm NVSS}(z) \kappa^i_\ell(z)\,dz
2717: }{
2718: \sum_{\ell\ell'} [\Sigma^{i\,-1}]_{\ell\ell'}K^i_\ell K^i_{\ell'}
2719: }.
2720: \eeq
2721: This proves Eq.~(\ref{eq:fhat}) and shows that the window function is
2722: \beq
2723: {\cal W}(z) = \frac{
2724: \sum_{\ell\ell'} [\Sigma^{i\,-1}]_{\ell\ell'} K^i_{\ell'} \kappa^i_\ell(z)
2725: }{
2726: \sum_{\ell\ell'} [\Sigma^{i\,-1}]_{\ell\ell'}K^i_\ell K^i_{\ell'}
2727: }.
2728: \eeq
2729:
2730: \section{Error bars on galaxy-CMB correlations}
2731: \label{app:errors}
2732:
2733: The purpose of this appendix is to discuss our choice of the Monte Carlo (``MC1'') estimator for the error bars on the $C_\ell^{gT}$ estimator, and
2734: then give a crude estimate for the possible biases that are induced by its use. As mentioned in the main text there are two biases: the correlation
2735: bias (because the galaxies and CMB are correlated and MC1 does not take this into account) and a realization bias (since we have only one realization
2736: of the galaxies). The correlation bias is deterministic in the sense that the error bar is always underestimated in every $l$-bin. The realization
2737: bias is more subtle: if $C_\ell^{gT}=0$, then the MC1 estimator returns an unbiased estimate of $\sigma^2(C_\ell^{gT})$. However the $\ell$-bins where
2738: the error is underestimated are weighted more heavily than those where it is overestimated, resulting in a final error bar on cosmological parameters
2739: that is biased low.
2740:
2741: We consider each of these issues separately in a toy model. The toy model has the following assumptions:
2742: \newcounter{assumptions}
2743: \begin{list}{\arabic{assumptions}. }{\usecounter{assumptions}}
2744: \item We are computing cross-spectra $C_\ell^{gT}$ in $M$ $\ell$-bins (call these cross-spectra $x_1...x_N$).
2745: \item The galaxies and CMB temperature are Gaussian random fields. (We are at linear scales where large scale structure is Gaussian; the systematics
2746: may not be.)
2747: \item In the $i$th $\ell$-bin, there are $N_i$ galaxy modes, and all of the CMB modes in this region are observed. (This is true except that NVSS goes
2748: slightly closer to the Galactic plane than WMAP.) We ignore mode coupling at the boundaries, i.e. each mode is ascribed to a single $\ell$-bin.
2749: \item We are fitting the cross-correlation data to some parameter, say an amplitude $A$ of some template $t_i$. More generally, when the ISW effect is
2750: essentially constraining one direction in parameter space with all others constrained by the CMB alone (the case with $\Lambda$CDM+$\Omega_K$ and
2751: $\Lambda$CDM+$w$ models here) the template would be $dx_i/dp$ where $p$ parameterizes the CMB-degenerate direction. The fit is done using the Monte
2752: Carlo covariance matrix.
2753: \item The objective is to determine what is the ratio of the ``true'' error bar on $A$ to that derived from the fitting procedure.
2754: \end{list}
2755:
2756: Within these assumptions, we evaluate the correlation bias $R_1$ and realization bias $R_2$, which we define to be the ratio of true to estimated
2757: variance. We find, using correlation coefficients and numbers of modes for the worst-case bins, that $R_1\approx 1.02$ and $\langle R_2\rangle=1.11$.
2758: This corresponds to $\sim 6$\% underestimation of the error bars in the worst case,
2759: which is negligible.
2760:
2761: \subsection{Correlation bias}
2762:
2763: We will introduce the notation $\tilde C_\ell^{gg}=C_\ell^{gg}+\bar n^{-1}$ for the galaxy power spectrum including Poisson noise, and for a
2764: matrix Cov we will write Cov$^{-1}_{ij}$ to mean the $ij$ element of Cov$^{-1}$ rather than the reciprocal of Cov$_{ij}$. (In the
2765: cases considered in this appendix the covariance matrices are diagonal so this distinction will not matter.) We will also use the shorthand $C_i^{gT}$
2766: for the galaxy-temperature cross-spectrum in the $i$th bin.
2767:
2768: The estimator for the cross correlation is
2769: \begin{equation}
2770: x_i \equiv \hat C_{\ell_i}^{gT} = \frac 1{N_i}\sum_\alpha g_\alpha T_\alpha,
2771: \label{eq:est}
2772: \end{equation}
2773: where $\alpha = 1...N_i$ is a mode index.
2774:
2775: The true uncertainty in Gaussian theory, using independence of modes, is
2776: \begin{equation}
2777: {\rm Cov}_{ij}\equiv {\rm Cov}(x_i, x_j) = \frac {\delta_{ij}}{N_i} [\tilde C_i^{gg} C_i^{TT} + (C_i^{gT})^2].
2778: \end{equation}
2779: However the MC1 procedure gives
2780: \begin{equation}
2781: \widehat{\rm Cov}_{ij} = \frac 1{N_iN_j}\sum_{\alpha,\beta} g_\alpha g_\beta
2782: \langle T_\alpha T_\beta\rangle_{\rm Monte Carlo},
2783: \end{equation}
2784: where the $\alpha$ modes are in bin $i$, the beta modes are in bin $j$, and $g$ is the actual realization of the galaxies. Simplifying with CMB
2785: covariance matrix gives
2786: \begin{equation}
2787: \widehat{\rm Cov}_{ij} = \frac{\delta_{ij}}{N_i^2} \sum_\alpha g_\alpha^2 C_i^{TT}.
2788: \label{eq:covij-act}
2789: \end{equation}
2790: Note that this is diagonal, even though we have only Monte-Carloed one of the data sets.
2791:
2792: In the presence of a nonzero cross-correlation, the MC1 covariance matrix is biased:
2793: \begin{equation}
2794: R_1 \equiv \frac{{\rm Cov}_{ij}}{\widehat{\rm Cov}_{ij}} = 1 + \rho_i^2,
2795: \end{equation}
2796: where the correlation coefficient is
2797: \begin{equation}
2798: \rho_i = \frac{C_i^{gT}}{\sqrt{\tilde C_i^{gg} C_i^{TT}}}.
2799: \end{equation}
2800: For the fiducial cosmology and the bins that we used, the maximum predicted correlation coefficient is 0.067 (LRG1, $\ell=18$). This would suggest an
2801: underestimate of the error bar by a factor of $R_1 = 1.0044$. For some cosmological models, such as those with lower $\Omega_m$ or higher
2802: $\sigma_8$, the correlation coefficient could be larger. Indeed there is some evidence for this: we observe an overall ISW amplitude of $2.2\pm 0.6$
2803: times the prediction. If we multiply the correlation coefficient $\rho$ by 2.2 then the underestimate of the error bar grows to $R_1=1.02$; even this
2804: is negligible.
2805:
2806: \subsection{Realization bias}
2807:
2808: Having taken into account the correlation bias, we now consider the case where the cross-correlation coefficient is small ($\rho\ll 1$). In this case,
2809: the covariance matrix of the $C_\ell^{gT}$ that we obtain from the CMB Monte Carlos is unbiased. The realization bias comes from the fact that we
2810: invert the covariance matrix, and unbiased Cov does not imply unbiased Cov$^-1$.
2811:
2812: The true covariance matrix of the estimator Eq.~(\ref{eq:est}) for $x_i$ is
2813: \begin{equation}
2814: {\rm Cov}_{ij} = {\rm Cov}(x_i,x_j) = \frac{\delta_{ij}}{N_i} \tilde C_i^{gg} C_i^{TT},
2815: \end{equation}
2816: where $\tilde C_i^{gg}$ and $C_i^{TT}$ are the {\em true} (ensemble-averaged) galaxy and CMB power spectra, including Poisson noise for the galaxies.
2817: The estimated covariance matrix is instead given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:covij-act}). Now define the number
2818: \begin{equation}
2819: y_i \equiv \frac { \widehat{\rm Cov}_{ii} }{ {\rm Cov}_{ii} },
2820: \end{equation}
2821: which is the ratio of the estimated to true variance in a given bin. This simplifies to
2822: \begin{equation}
2823: y_i = \frac{\sum_\alpha g_\alpha^2}{\tilde C_i^{gg}N_i},
2824: \end{equation}
2825: i.e. it is a $\chi^2$ distribution with $N_i$ degrees of freedom, divided by the number of degrees of freedom. In particular $\langle y_i\rangle=1$:
2826: the covariance matrix is
2827: unbiased, but we have from $\chi^2$ distribution theory $\langle y_i^{-1}\rangle=(1-2/N)^{-1}$ and $\langle y_i^{-2}\rangle =(1-2/N)^{-1}(1-4/N)^{-1}$.
2828:
2829: However what we really want to compare are the true and estimated errors on the parameter $A$. The estimate $\hat A$ of the amplitude $A$ is
2830: \begin{equation}
2831: \hat A = \frac{ \widehat{\rm Cov}^{-1}_{ij}t_ix_j }{ \widehat{\rm Cov}^{-1}_{ij}t_it_j }.
2832: \end{equation}
2833: Its estimated variance is
2834: \begin{equation}
2835: \widehat{\rm Var}(\hat A) = \frac 1{ \widehat{\rm Cov}^{-1}_{ij}t_it_j }.
2836: \end{equation}
2837: Its true variance is
2838: \begin{equation}
2839: {\rm Var}(\hat A) = \frac{ t_h \widehat{\rm Cov}^{-1}_{hi} {\rm Cov}_{ij} \widehat{\rm Cov}^{-1}_{jk} t_k }
2840: {\left(\widehat{\rm Cov}^{-1}_{ij}t_it_j\right)^2}.
2841: \end{equation}
2842: (Note that $x_i$ and $\widehat{\rm Cov}_{ij}$ are uncorrelated because the probability distribution is symmetric in $T_\alpha\rightarrow -T_\alpha$,
2843: under which $x_i$ changes sign but $\widehat{\rm Cov}_{ij}$ does not.) The ratio is
2844: \begin{equation}
2845: R_2 \equiv \frac{{\rm Var}(\hat A)}{\widehat{\rm Var}(\hat A)}
2846: = \frac{ t_h \widehat{\rm Cov}^{-1}_{hi} {\rm Cov}_{ij} \widehat{\rm Cov}^{-1}_{jk} t_k }
2847: {\widehat{\rm Cov}^{-1}_{ij}t_it_j}.
2848: \end{equation}
2849: Using the definition of $y_i$ and diagonality of the matrices Cov and $\widehat{\rm Cov}$,
2850: \begin{equation}
2851: R_2 = \frac{ \sum_i t_i^2 {\rm Cov}^{-1}_{ii} y_i^{-2} }
2852: { \sum_i t_i^2 {\rm Cov}^{-1}_{ii} y_i^{-1} }.
2853: \end{equation}
2854: We now consider two limiting cases. If we have a single $\ell$-bin, then the ratio is $R=y_1^{-1}$ and
2855: \begin{equation}
2856: \langle R_2\rangle = \frac1{1-2/N_i}.
2857: \label{eq:onebin}
2858: \end{equation}
2859: If we have many $\ell$-bins contributing then the sums go to their mean values and we get
2860: \begin{equation}
2861: \langle R_2\rangle = \frac1{1-4/N_i},
2862: \label{eq:manybins}
2863: \end{equation}
2864: if there were the same number of modes in each $\ell$-bin. This is larger than Eq.~(\ref{eq:onebin}) because with only a single bin there is then no
2865: possibility for the amplitude estimator to re-weight the bins to take advantage of the ones with smaller estimated variance.
2866:
2867: The number of modes per bin is, in the limit of negligible mode coupling,
2868: \begin{equation}
2869: N_i = [(\ell_{\rm max}+1)^2-\ell_{\rm min}^2]f_{\rm sky}.
2870: \end{equation}
2871: This is 40 for the lowest-$\ell$ 2MASS bin that we use in parameter fits, 77 for the lowest-$\ell$ LRGs, 70
2872: for the quasars, and 40 for NVSS. To be pessimistic, if we take Eq.~(\ref{eq:manybins}) for all these cases the worst number we get is $\langle
2873: R_2\rangle=1.11$, which means that in this
2874: pessimistic case we have underestimated the error bar ($\sigma$) on the cross-correlation by 5\%. In reality much of the constraint comes from
2875: higher-$\ell$ bins where $N_i$ is greater, so this should be taken as an upper limit.
2876:
2877: \section{Signal to noise estimate and upper limit on foreground contamination}
2878: \label{app:foreg}
2879:
2880: To assess the statistical signal to noise we
2881: look at correlation between the galaxy overdensity and the temperature
2882: of the CMB ($C^{gT}_{\ell,obs}$), which is the data vector called $\vec{d}$. We also
2883: need its
2884: inverse covariance matrix ($C^{-1}$) and the theoretical prediction, which we
2885: can model as amplitude $A$ times a fiducial model $\vec{t}$.
2886: To assess the possible contamination from foregrounds, tSZ, point sources etc.
2887: to our signal we need to estimate the associated cross-correlation
2888: contamination $(\vec{f})$.
2889: For example,
2890: for foregrounds we look at the correlation between the galaxy overdensity
2891: and the foreground temperature $C^{g(fg)}_{\ell}$ (which is what we calculated
2892: using models such as described by Eq.~\ref{eq:eps}).
2893:
2894: Consider the usual $\chi^2$ analysis, where we are trying to fit for $A$ given
2895: $\vec{d}$, $\vec{t}$ and ${\bf C}^{-1}$:
2896: \begin{equation}
2897: \chi^2 = (\vec{d} - A\vec{t})\cdot {\bf C}^{-1}(\vec{d} - A\vec{t}).
2898: \end{equation}
2899: We minimize $\chi^2$ and get
2900: \begin{equation}
2901: A = \frac{\vec{d}\cdot{\bf C}^{-1}\vec{t}}{\vec{t}\cdot {\bf C}^{-1} \vec{t}}.
2902: \end{equation}
2903: This is Eq.~(\ref{eq:ath}) and the associated variance is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:sth}).
2904: The ratio of estimated amplitude to its variance is the estimated signal to noise.
2905:
2906: Since the total signal is a sum of the true signal and contamination such as
2907: foreground, tSZ or point sources, the latter contribute to the
2908: signal to noise,
2909: \begin{equation}
2910: \frac{\Delta A}{\sigma(A)}
2911: = \frac{\vec{f}\cdot{\bf C}^{-1}\vec{t}}{\sqrt{\vec{t}\cdot{\bf C}^{-1} \vec{t}}}
2912: = \frac{\vec{f}\cdot{\bf C}^{-1}\vec{t}}{\sqrt{\vec{t}\cdot{\bf C}^{-1} \vec{t}}} \times
2913: \frac{\sqrt{\vec{f}\cdot{\bf C}^{-1}\vec{f}}}{\sqrt{\vec{f}\cdot{\bf C}^{-1}\vec{f}}}.
2914: \label{eq:cont}
2915: \end{equation}
2916: While we could use this expression to estimate the possible contamination we
2917: can make it less dependent on the weighting by theoretical model by using
2918: the Cauchy inequality, here written in the (primed) diagonal basis with eigenvectors
2919: normalized to eigenvalue,
2920: $\vec{f'}\cdot \vec{t'} < \sqrt{\vec{t'}\cdot \vec{t'}}\sqrt{\vec{f'}\cdot \vec{f'}}$,
2921: to derive from Eq.~(\ref{eq:cont}):
2922: \begin{equation}
2923: \frac{\Delta A}{\sigma(A)} \le
2924: \sqrt{E_{\rm cont}}\equiv \sqrt{\vec{f}\cdot{\bf C}^{-1}\vec{f}}.
2925: \end{equation}
2926: We use this expression in our estimates of contamination; it represents an upper limit on the number of sigmas of contamination introduced by the
2927: foreground $\vec{f}$.
2928:
2929: \bibliography{ISWI}% Produces the bibliography via BibTeX.
2930:
2931: \end{document}
2932: %
2933: % ****** End of file apssamp.tex ******
2934: