1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % An ideal mass assignment scheme for measuring the Power Spectrum with FFTs
4: %
5: % Weiguang Cui, Lei Liu, Xiaohu Yang, Yu Wang, Longlong Feng, Volker Springel
6: %
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: %\documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
9: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
10:
11:
12: \def\vec{\mathbf}
13: \def\ra{\rangle}
14: \def\la{\langle}
15: \def\kalias{\vec k+2k_N\vec n}
16: \def\rr{\rho ({\vec r})}
17: \def\dr{\delta ({\vec r})}
18: \def\mpc{\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}}
19: \def\kmpc{\,h{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}
20:
21: \shorttitle{Power Spectrum}
22:
23: \shortauthors{Cui et al.}
24:
25:
26: \begin{document}
27:
28: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
29:
30: \title{An ideal mass assignment scheme for measuring the Power Spectrum with FFTs}
31:
32: \author{Weiguang Cui\altaffilmark{1,4}, Lei Liu\altaffilmark{1,4},
33: Xiaohu Yang\altaffilmark{1,4}, Yu Wang\altaffilmark{1,4},
34: Longlong Feng\altaffilmark{2}, Volker Springel\altaffilmark{3}}
35: \altaffiltext{1}{Shanghai Astronomical Observatory,
36: the Partner Group of MPA, Nandan Road 80, Shanghai 200030, China;
37: E-mail: wgcui@shao.ac.cn}
38: \altaffiltext{2}{Purple Mountain Observatory, Nanjing 210008, China}
39: \altaffiltext{3}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astrophysik,
40: Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 1, 85748 Garching, Germany}
41: \altaffiltext{4}{Joint Institute for Galaxy and Cosmology (JOINGC) of
42: Shanghai Astronomical Observatory and University of Science and
43: Technology of China}
44:
45:
46: \begin{abstract} In measuring the power spectrum of the distribution of large
47: numbers of dark matter particles in simulations, or galaxies in observations,
48: one has to use Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT) for calculational
49: efficiency. However, because of the required mass assignment onto grid points
50: in this method, the measured power spectrum $\la |\delta^f(k)|^2\ra$ obtained
51: with an FFT is not the true power spectrum $P(k)$ but instead one that is
52: convolved with a window function $|W(\vec k)|^2$ in Fourier space. In a recent
53: paper, Jing (2005) proposed an elegant algorithm to deconvolve the sampling
54: effects of the window function and to extract the true power spectrum, and
55: tests using N-body simulations show that this algorithm works very well for
56: the three most commonly used mass assignment functions, i.e., the Nearest Grid
57: Point (NGP), the Cloud In Cell (CIC) and the Triangular Shaped Cloud (TSC)
58: methods. In this paper, rather than trying to deconvolve the sampling effects
59: of the window function, we propose to select a particular function in
60: performing the mass assignment that can minimize these effects. An ideal
61: window function should fulfill the following criteria: (i) compact top-hat
62: like support in Fourier space to minimize the sampling effects; (ii) compact
63: support in real space to allow a fast and computationally feasible mass
64: assignment onto grids. We find that the scale functions of Daubechies wavelet
65: transformations are good candidates for such a purpose. Our tests using data
66: from the Millennium Simulation show that the true power spectrum of dark
67: matter can be accurately measured at a level better than 2\% up to $k=0.7k_N$,
68: without applying any deconvolution processes. The new scheme is especially
69: valuable for measurements of higher order statistics, e.g.~the bi-spectrum,
70: where it can render the mass assignment effects negligible up to
71: comparatively high $k$.
72: \end{abstract}
73:
74: \keywords {(cosmology:) large-scale structure of universe - cosmology: theory
75: - methods: numerical - methods: data analysis }
76:
77: \section{INTRODUCTION}\label{sec_intro}
78:
79: In studies of the cosmic large-scale structure, a number of different
80: statistical methods are routinely used to extract various information of
81: interest (e.g., regarding the cosmology, the initial perturbation, etc) that
82: is embedded in the distribution of the dark matter particles (in the case of
83: simulations) or the galaxies (in observations). The power spectrum $P(k)$ is
84: one of the most powerful and basic statistical measures that describes the
85: distribution of mass and light in the Universe, and one of the most throughly
86: investigated quantities in modelling the structure formation process. The
87: initial primordial power spectrum of the mass fluctuations is usually assumed
88: to follow a power law, $P_0(k)=Ak^n$. The linearly processed power spectrum
89: $P_{\rm lin}(k)$ can be well predicted by codes such as {\small CMBFAST}
90: (Seljak \& Zaldarriaga 1996), or approximated by various fitting formula
91: (e.g. Bardeen et al. 1986; Efstathiou, Bond \& White 1992; Eisenstein \& Hu
92: 1998) for different matter and energy content. Using N-body simulations, the
93: non-linear power spectrum $P_{\rm NL}(k)$ has been modelled by various authors
94: (e.g. Peacock \& Dodds 1996; Ma \& Fry 2000; Smith et al. 2003). Apart from
95: these theoretical models, direct measurement of the power spectrum from
96: observations plays an extremely important role both in cosmology and galaxy
97: formation theories. Although there are different biases relative to the mass
98: power spectrum, one can roughly say that $P(k)$ on very large scales measures
99: the primordial density fluctuations, which is closely connected with the
100: cosmology models (e.g., Spergel et al. 2007), while $P(k)$ on small scales
101: characterizes the later non-linear evolution (e.g., Peacock \& Dodds 1996).
102:
103: As an essential statistical measure for the distribution of galaxies, the
104: power spectrum $P(k)$ has been estimated and modeled from most of the redshift
105: surveys. Recent investigations along this direction include the CfA and
106: Perseus-Pisces redshift surveys (Baumgart \& Fry 1991), the radio galaxy
107: survey (Peacock \& Nicholson 1991), the IRAS QDOT survey (Kaiser 1991), the
108: 2Jy IRAS survey (Jing \& Valdarnini 1993), the 1.2Jy IRAS survey (Fisher et
109: al. 1993), the Las Campanas Redshift Survey (Lin et al. 1996; Yang et
110: al. 2001), the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey (Percival et al., 2001; Tegmark,
111: Hamilton \& Xu 2002; S\'anchez et al. 2006) and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
112: (Tegmark et al. 2004; Percival et al., 2007). Among these works, the galaxy
113: power spectra are measured either using the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)
114: technique or direct summation, or other advanced techniques (e.g., Yang et
115: al. 2001; Tegmark et al. 2004).
116:
117: Apart from these observational probes, the power spectrum is also widely
118: measured from N-body simulations (e.g. Davis et al. 1985). For these
119: measurements, one has to use FFTs since there are too many particles in the
120: simulations to apply direct summation. Before performing the FFT, one
121: therefore needs to assign the particle distribution $\rho(\vec r)$ onto grids
122: $\rho(\vec r_g)$ (usually onto $2^{3i}$ grid cells, where $i$ is an
123: integer). As pointed out in a recent paper by Jing (2005), such an assignment
124: process is equivalent to a convolution of the real density field with a given
125: assignment window function $W(\vec r)$, and sampling the convolved density
126: field at the $2^{3i}$ grid points. Thus the power spectrum based on the FFT of
127: $\rho(\vec r_g)$ is not equal to that based on the Fourier transform (FT) of
128: $\rho(\vec r)$. In order to obtain the true power spectrum to an accuracy of a
129: few percent, the sampling effects should be carefully corrected (Jing 2005;
130: and references therein).
131:
132: To this end, Jing (2005) proposed an elegant algorithm to iteratively
133: deconvolve the power spectrum measurement for the impact of the mass
134: assignment and to extract the true power spectrum. Tests using N-body
135: simulations show that their algorithm works extremely well for the three
136: commonly used mass assignment functions, i.e., the Nearest Grid Point (NGP),
137: the Cloud In Cell (CIC) and the Triangular Shaped Cloud (TSC) methods.
138:
139: In this paper, rather than trying to correct for the influence of the window
140: function, we seek to minimize the effects of the mass assignment by selecting
141: special window functions. An ideal window function should fulfill the
142: following criteria: (i) compact top-hat like support in Fourier space to avoid
143: the sampling effects; (ii) compact support in real space to allow
144: computationally efficient mass assignment onto grids. We find that the scale
145: functions of the Daubechies wavelet transformations are good candidates for
146: simultaneously matching both requirements. In fact, as we will demonstrate
147: they allow an accurate measurement of the power spectrum with FFTs without the
148: need for a deconvolution procedure. This is of great help especially for
149: accurate measurements of higher order spectra, like the bi-spectrum, where
150: FFTs are needed but the de-aliasing methods are not available yet. We will
151: discuss this application to accurate measurements and modelling of the
152: bi-spectrum in a subsequent paper.
153:
154:
155: This paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec_form} we give a brief
156: description of the methodology for measuring the power spectrum from the
157: discrete distribution of dark matter particles. In Section~\ref{sec_window}
158: we first present the commonly used window functions in both real and Fourier
159: spaces, and then and introduce our new mass assignment scheme. In
160: Section~\ref{sec_test} we compare the power spectra extracted from the
161: Millennium Run using different methods. Finally, we summarize our results in
162: Section~\ref{sec_summ}.
163:
164:
165: \section{Measuring the power spectrum}\label{sec_form}
166:
167: In this section we outline the methods used to measure the power spectrum from
168: the distribution of dark matter particles (Peebles 1980). Unless stated
169: otherwise we shall follow Jing (2005), and we refer readers who are interested
170: in a more detailed and complete set of formulae to this paper and references
171: therein. We start from the definition of the power spectrum. Let $\rr$ be the
172: cosmic density field and $\overline\rho$ the mean density. Then the density
173: contrast $\dr$ can be expressed as,
174: \begin{equation}
175: \dr={\rr-\overline\rho \over \overline\rho}.
176: \end{equation} Based on the cosmological principle, we assume that $\rho(\vec
177: r)$ in a very large volume $V_\mu$ fairly represents the overall cosmic
178: density field, and that it can be taken to be periodic. The FT of $\delta(\vec
179: r)$ can be defined as:
180: \begin{equation}
181: \delta ({\vec k})={1\over V_\mu}\int_{V_\mu}\dr e^{i{\vec r}\cdot{\vec
182: k}}{\rm d}{\vec r}\,.
183: \end{equation}
184: And by definition, its power spectrum $P(k)$ is simply related to ${\delta
185: ({\vec k})}$ as
186: \begin{equation}
187: P(k)\equiv \la\mid{\delta ({\vec k})}\mid^2\ra \,,
188: \end{equation}
189: where $\la\cdot\cdot\cdot\ra $ means the ensemble average.
190:
191:
192:
193: However, in practice, the cosmic density field is usually traced by the
194: distribution of galaxies or dark matter particles. In these cases, the
195: density field $\rr$ is replaced by the number density distribution of objects
196: $n(\vec r) =\sum_j \delta^D(\vec r -\vec r_j)$, where $\vec r_j$ is the
197: coordinate of object $j$ and $\delta^D(\vec r)$ is the Dirac-$\delta$
198: function. And the FT of the related number density contrast $\delta(\vec r)$
199: can be expressed as,
200: \begin{equation}
201: {\delta^d ({\vec k})}
202: ={1\over V_\mu\overline n}\int_{V_\mu} n(\vec r)
203: e^{i{\vec r}\cdot{\vec k}}{\rm d}{\vec r}-\delta^K_{{\vec k},{\vec 0}}\,,
204: \end{equation} where $\overline n$ is the mean number density, the superscript
205: $d$ represents the {\it discrete} case of $\rr$, and $\delta^K$ is the
206: Kronecker delta. If we divide the volume $V_\mu$ into infinitesimal elements
207: $\{{\rm d}V_i\}$ within which there are either 0 or 1 objects, then the above
208: equation can be written as:
209: \begin{equation}\label{eq:deltak_d}
210: {\delta^d ({\vec k})}={1\over N}\sum_i n_i
211: e^{i{\vec r}_i\cdot{\vec k}}-\delta^K_{{\vec k},{\vec 0}}\,,
212: \end{equation} where $N$ is the total number of objects in $V_\mu$ and $n_i$
213: is either 0 or 1. After a bit of algebra, it is seen that the true power
214: spectrum can be measured via
215: \begin{equation}\label{eq:p_d}
216: P(k)\equiv \la\mid{\delta ({\vec k})}\mid^2\ra \
217: =\la \mid{\delta^d ({\vec k})}\mid^2\ra -{1\over N}\,.
218: \end{equation} Obviously, when the FT is directly applied to the distribution
219: of the galaxies or dark matter particles, one needs to correct for the
220: discreteness (or shot noise) effect, which introduces an additional term $1/N$
221: to the power spectrum $\la \mid{\delta^d ({\vec k})}\mid^2\ra$.
222:
223: The above method of using a direct summation in the FT can be used to measure
224: the power spectrum from the distribution of galaxies, when the number of
225: objects is not very large. However, because of the huge number of particles
226: involved in N-body simulations, it is almost impossible to be applied to the
227: dark matter particles of cosmological density fields. Instead, a
228: computationally attractive approach is to use an FFT. The density contrast in
229: Fourier space using a FFT is,
230: \begin{equation}\label{eq:deltak_f}
231: \delta^{f} ({\vec k})={1\over N}\sum_{\vec g} n^f({\vec r}_g)
232: e^{i{\vec r}_g\cdot{\vec k}}-\delta^K_{{\vec k},{\vec 0}}\,,
233: \end{equation}
234: where the superscript $f$ represents the FFT. $n^f({\vec
235: r}_g)$ is the convolved density value on the $\vec g$-th grid point $\vec r_g
236: =\vec g H$ (where $\vec g$ is an integer vector; $H$ is the grid spacing),
237: \begin{equation}
238: n^f({\vec r}_g)=\int n({\vec r})W(\vec r-{\vec r}_g) \, {\rm d}{\vec r}\,,
239: \end{equation}
240: where $W(\vec r)$ is the mass assignment function. Note that
241: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:deltak_d}) and (\ref{eq:deltak_f}) are different in that the
242: summations carried out in the former equation is over the objects and the
243: latter over space (the grid points). After several steps (see also Hockney and
244: Eastwood 1981), Jing (2005) derived the following power spectrum estimator,
245: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:p_f}
246: \la |\delta^{f} ({\vec k})|^2\ra &=&
247: \sum_{\vec n} |W(\kalias)|^2P(\kalias) \nonumber \\
248: &+& {1\over N}\sum_{\vec n}|W(\kalias)|^2\,,
249: \end{eqnarray}
250: where $W(\vec k)$ is the FT of the window function $W(\vec r)$,
251: $k_N=\pi/H$ is the Nyquist wavenumber, and the summation is over all 3D
252: integer vectors $\vec n$. According to equation~(\ref{eq:p_f}), one can easily
253: identify the impact of the mass assignment onto the measured power
254: spectrum. First, the mass assignment introduces the factor $W^2(\vec k)$ to
255: both the true power spectrum and the shot noise ($1/N$) terms. Second, the
256: quantity $\la |\delta^{f} ({\vec k})|^2\ra$ is a measure for a {\it convolved}
257: power spectrum (i.e., the sums over $\vec n$) which suffers from {\it
258: sampling} effects. As pointed out in Jing (2005) and will be shown in Section
259: \ref{sec_window}, the sampling effects are significant near the Nyquist
260: wavenumber $k_N$ and should be carefully corrected in an accurate measure of
261: the power spectrum.
262:
263:
264: \section {The role of the mass assignment function }\label{sec_window}
265:
266: As shown by equation (\ref{eq:p_f}), the mass assignment window function plays
267: an important role in measuring the power spectrum using an FFT. We separate
268: its impact into two parts: one on the shot noise term (second term of the
269: r.h.s. of Eq. \ref{eq:p_f}) and the other on the true power spectrum term
270: (first term of the r.h.s. of Eq. \ref{eq:p_f}). Hereafter we refer to the
271: impact on the true power spectrum term as the {\it sampling effects}.
272: Usually, the impact on the shot noise term can be handled analytical according
273: to the FT of the window function. However, because of the convolution with
274: the true power spectrum, the sampling effects can not be corrected easily.
275:
276: There are basically two strategies for handling the sampling effects. One can
277: either try to correct for them by deconvolving the impact of the window
278: function (which is carried out in Jing 2005) or try to use an optimal window
279: function that minimizes the sampling effects from the outset (the purpose of
280: this work). Below we discuss a few commonly used window functions as well as
281: the particular mass assignment proposed here both in real and Fourier spaces,
282: and then discuss their impact on measuring the true power spectrum with an FFT
283: in detail.
284:
285: \begin{figure*}
286: \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{f1.eps}
287: \caption[the mass assignment]{Left panel: the three commonly used mass
288: assignment window functions, NGP, CIC, and TSC, as indicated. Right panel: the
289: square of the window functions in Fourier space. }
290: \label{fig:assign_1}
291: \end{figure*}
292:
293:
294: \subsection{Traditional mass assignment functions}\label{sec:win1}
295:
296: The most popular mass assignment functions used in measuring the power
297: spectrum are the NGP, CIC and TSC methods. Their forms in real space can be
298: described by $W(\vec x)= \Pi_{i}W(x_i)$, with
299: \begin{equation}
300: W(x_i)= \cases {1 &{$|x_i|<0.5$}\cr
301: 0 &{else}\cr} ~~~~~~~
302: {\rm NGP,}
303: \end{equation}
304: %
305: \begin{equation}
306: W(x_i)= \cases {1-|x_i| &{$|x_i|<1$}\cr
307: 0 &{else}\cr}~~~~~
308: {\rm CIC,}
309: \end{equation}
310: and
311: \begin{equation}
312: W(x_i)= \cases {0.75-x_i^2 &{$|x_i|<0.5$}\cr
313: (1.5-|x_i|)^2\over 2 &{$0.5<|x_i|<1.5$}\cr
314: 0 &{else}\cr}~~~~~
315: {\rm TSC,}
316: \end{equation}
317: %
318: where $x_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) is the $i$-th component of $\vec x$. In the left panel
319: of Fig.~\ref{fig:assign_1}, we show these window functions in real space, with
320: solid, dotted and dashed lines corresponding to the NGP, CIC and TSC methods,
321: respectively. Their impact on the measurement of the power spectrum using an
322: FFT (Eq. \ref{eq:p_f}) can be understood most easily based on their Fourier
323: space behavior. According to Hockney \& Eastwood (1981), these three mass
324: assignment window functions can be described in Fourier space by $W(\vec k) =
325: \Pi_{i}W(k_i)$, with
326: \begin{equation}
327: W(k_i)=\Bigl[{\sin({\pi k_i\over 2k_N}) \over ({\pi k_i\over 2k_N})}
328: \Bigr]^p\,,
329: \end{equation}
330: %
331: where $k_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) is the $i$-th component of $\vec k$, and $p=1$ for
332: NGP, $p=2$ for CIC, and $p=3$ for TSC. We show in the right panel of
333: Fig.~\ref{fig:assign_1} (the square of) the related window functions in
334: Fourier space. These window functions peak at $k=0$ with $W^2(k)=1$ and
335: decrease sharply with $k\ga 0$, especially for the CIC and TSC
336: kernels. According to Eq.~(\ref{eq:p_f}), the impact of the window functions
337: can be separated into two parts, one on the shot noise and one on the true
338: power spectrum.
339:
340: It is quite easy to model and correct the impact on the shot noise term,
341: \begin{equation}
342: D^2(\vec k)\equiv {1\over N}\sum_{\vec n}W^2(\kalias)\,.
343: \end{equation}
344: %
345: For the NGP, CIC, and TSC assignments, the shot noise term can be expressed
346: as,
347: %
348: \begin{equation}
349: D^2(\vec k)= {1\over N} \cases {1, &NGP, \cr
350: \Pi_{i}[1-{2\over 3}\sin^2({\pi k_i\over 2k_N})], &CIC, \cr
351: \Pi_{i}[1-\sin^2({\pi k_i\over 2k_N})+
352: {2\over 15}\sin^4({\pi k_i\over 2k_N})].
353: &TSC.\cr}
354: \end{equation}
355: %
356: In practice, for the latter two cases, one often uses the following isotropic
357: approximation to model the shot noise term,
358: %
359: \begin{equation}
360: D^2(\vec k)\approx {1\over N} \cases {[1-{2\over 3}\sin^2({\pi k\over 2k_N})],
361: &CIC, \cr
362: [1-\sin^2({\pi k\over 2k_N})+{2\over 15}\sin^4({\pi k\over 2k_N})],
363: &TSC,\cr}
364: \end{equation}
365: %
366: where $k=|\vec k|$. As has been shown in Jing (2005), this approximation
367: works very well for $k \le 0.7 k_N$, however, it can underestimate the true
368: value by about 40\% at $k\sim k_N$. Nevertheless, compared to the power
369: spectrum term we are trying to measure in a CDM cosmology, this error in the
370: shot noise term is usually negligible.
371:
372: Now we turn to the impact of the window functions on the first term of the
373: r.h.s of Eq.~(\ref{eq:p_f}), the sampling effects. There are three aspects
374: that need to be taken into account in measuring the true power spectrum if an
375: accuracy of a few {\it percent} is required.
376: \begin{itemize}
377: \item Smearing effect
378:
379: In the summation of the true power spectrum over $\vec n$, only the term
380: $\vec n =0$ is what we intend to measure. However, according to the results
381: shown in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:assign_1}, the $W^2(k)$ term
382: decreases sharply from $W^2(0)=1$ at $k\ga 0$, especially for the CIC and TSC
383: methods. Thus the contribution from the {\it related} true power spectrum
384: $P(\vec k)$ is greatly suppressed. This effect is the so-called smearing or
385: smoothing effect, which has been discussed in the literature (e.g., Baumgart
386: \& Fry 1991; Jing \& Valdarnini 1993; Scoccimarro et al. 1998)
387:
388: \item Anisotropy effect
389:
390: In pratice, one may use the average of the $\la |\delta^{f} ({\vec
391: k})|^2\ra$ over different directions for a given $k$ to estimate the power
392: spectrum $P(k)$. However, the window function $W^2(\vec k)$ is not isotropic
393: for different directions for a given $k$, that is, $W^2(\vec k)$ is different,
394: e.g., for $\vec k=k(1/\sqrt{3},1/\sqrt{3},1/\sqrt{3})$, $\vec
395: k=k(1/\sqrt{2},1/\sqrt{2},0)$, $\vec k=k(1,0,0)$, etc. This effect is small
396: for the NGP method, but quite significant for the CIC and TSC methods,
397: especially at $k\sim k_N$ (eg. Baumgart \& Fry 1991, Jing 2005).
398:
399: \item Aliasing effect
400:
401: The power spectrum estimator $\la |\delta^{f} ({\vec k})|^2\ra$ contains not
402: only the contribution from $P(\vec k)$ where $\vec n =0$ but also from
403: $P(2k_N\vec n +\vec k)$ where $\vec n\neq 0$. The latter contribution, which
404: is called the alias effect, prevents us from obtaining the true power spectrum
405: $P(\vec k)$ straightforwardly. This effect, which is prominent near the
406: Nyquist wavenumber $k_N=0.5 \times (2\pi/H)$ (significant for NGP method and
407: less significant for TSC method), has been discussed and handled using an
408: iterative correction method in Jing (2005).
409:
410:
411: \end{itemize}
412:
413: The smearing and anisotropy effects are easy to be corrected. For instance,
414: one can directly normalize the density contrast in Fourier space,
415: $\delta^f({\vec k})$, with the window function $W({\vec k})$ (e.g., Baumgart
416: \& Fry 1991). Thus, the corrected density contrast $\delta^f({\vec
417: k})/W({\vec k})$ obviously no longer suffer from these two effects at $k\le
418: k_N$, however at the price of a much enhanced aliasing effect (i.e., the
419: ${\vec n}\ne 0$ terms in Eq. \ref{eq:p_f}). Because of the aliasing effect
420: the power spectrum measured at $k=k_N$ can become a factor of 2 larger than
421: the true value. Such kind of aliasing effects also exist in radio imaging
422: analyses based on FFTs, and various perticular mass assignment schemes have
423: been discussed in order to minimize their impact (e.g. Briggs et al. 1999).
424:
425:
426: Using an elegant iterative correction methods, Jing (2005) has properly
427: corrected the impact of the aliasing effect, and illustrated its success in
428: obtaining the true power spectrum. On the other hand, his method can only be
429: applied to the estimation of the power spectrum. For measurements of higher
430: order spectra, e.g. the bi-spectrum, there is so far no straightforward method
431: that can correct the aliasing effect. In what follows, rather than trying to
432: correct the above three kinds of effects, we attemp to find a mass assignment
433: window function that does not or only to very small degree suffer from these
434: effects.
435:
436:
437:
438: \begin{figure*}
439: \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{f2.eps}
440: \caption[the assignment of Daub]{Left panel: the scaling functions 12 (D12)
441: and 20 (D20) of Daubechies, used here as mass assignment window functions.
442: Right panel: the square of these two scaling functions in Fourier space. For
443: comparison, we also show a top hat window function in Fourier space, which
444: corresponds to $W(x)=\sin(\pi x)/(\pi x)$ in real space. }
445: \label{fig:assign_2}
446: \end{figure*}
447:
448:
449:
450: \subsection{Daubechies window functions}\label{sec:win2}
451:
452: An ideal window function that does not suffer from the sampling effects
453: mentioned above is obviously a top-hat in Fourier space. Using such a window
454: function, the power spectrum measurement Eq.~(\ref{eq:p_f}) can be reduced to
455: Eq.~(\ref{eq:p_d}). However such a mass assignment function, $W(x)=\sin(\pi
456: x)/(\pi x)$, is not a compact localized function in real space. In the mass
457: assignment onto the grid, one may then have to distribute each particle's mass
458: to too many grid cells. In fact, if we want to maintain an accuracy of 1\% in
459: the mass assignment, the mass of each particle should be distributed to $60^3$
460: grid cells! Such an assignment scheme may eliminate most if not all of the
461: computational advantage that an FFT can bring us.
462:
463: Thus, a suitable mass assignment window function should be localized both in
464: real and Fourier space. A good candidate that features these properties is the
465: scale function of the wavelet transformation. The wavelet transformation has
466: been previously introduced to astrophysical studies and has been applied
467: successfully in the analysis of various astrophysical observations (c.f., Fang
468: \& Thews 1998), e.g., on the distributions of galaxies (e.g. Martinez et
469: al. 1993; Fang \& Feng 2000; Yang et al., 2001; 2002a,b; Feng \& Fang 2004),
470: on the properties of Ly$\alpha$ absorption lines (e.g. Pando \& Fang 1997;
471: Meiksin 2000), on the galaxy clusters (e.g., Slezak et al. 1994; Grebenev et
472: al. 1995; Gambera et al. 1997; Sch\"afer et al. 2005), etc. Here, we
473: introduce the scale function $\phi(x)$ of the Daubechies wavelet
474: transformation for use in power spectrum measurements, which has the following
475: properties (e.g., Daubechies 1992),
476: \begin{equation}
477: \int \phi(x) ~{\rm d} x \equiv 1 \,,
478: \end{equation}
479: \begin{equation}\label{eq:D_1}
480: \sum_{n}\phi(x+n) \equiv 1\,,
481: \end{equation}
482: and its Fourier transform, $\phi(k)$, satisfies
483: \begin{equation}
484: \int \phi^2(k) ~{\rm d} k \equiv 1 \,,
485: \end{equation}
486: \begin{equation}\label{eq:D_k1}
487: \sum_{n}\phi^2(k+2\pi n) \equiv 1\,.
488: \end{equation}
489: %
490: In this paper, we use the Daubechies D12 and D20 scale functions
491: (Daubechies 1988, 1992) as our new mass assignment window functions,
492: $W(x)=\phi(x)$, which are shown in the left panel of
493: Fig.~\ref{fig:assign_2}. In the right panel of
494: Fig.~\ref{fig:assign_2}, the squares of these two window functions in
495: Fourier space are shown as dotted and dashed lines, as indicated. For
496: comparison, we also show in the right panel the ideal case of a
497: top-hat Fourier window function as the solid line. The D12 and D20
498: window functions in Fourier space $W^2(k)$ resemble the ideal case
499: very well, especially in the D20 case whose deviation from the ideal
500: case at $k=0.35$ (i.e., $0.7k_N$) is smaller than 2\%. Note that these
501: particular mass assignment window functions are different from the
502: traditional schemes, e.g. NGP, CIC and TSC in that: (1) they are not
503: symmetric; (2) they are not positive definite. However these two
504: features will not induce any undesirable consequences in our
505: application. First, since the overall shifting of the window function
506: will not impact the amplitude of $\delta(k)$, the window function
507: $\phi(x)$ shown in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:assign_2} can be
508: treated as symmetric components centered at $x\sim 1.75$ and $x\sim
509: 2.5$, respectively, with additional fluctuations at nearby grid
510: cells. Second, the window function needs not necessarily be positive
511: definite, as we are measuring the density contrast $\delta(x)$, and
512: even the ideal window function $W(x)=\sin(\pi x)/(\pi x)$ is not
513: positive definite.
514:
515: Before we turn to a discussion of their impact on measuring the true power
516: spectrum, let us consider the computational cost for the mass assignment using
517: the D12 and D20 scale functions. According to their real space behavior, at
518: much better than 0.5\% accuracy, each mass particle should be distributed onto
519: $6^3$ (D12) or $8^3$ (D20) grid cells, respectively, which is a factor of 10
520: or 20 times more than the TSC method with $3^3$ grid cells. However, we argue
521: that this cost is worthwhile given the following positive features of the
522: Daubechies assignment.
523:
524: First, according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:D_k1}), the shot noise term in
525: Eq.~(\ref{eq:p_f}) for these mass assignment algorithms is,
526: \begin{equation}
527: D^2(k)\equiv 1/N \,.
528: \end{equation}
529:
530: Second, by comparing the Fourier-space behaviors of the D12 and D20 functions
531: with those of the traditional mass assignment methods, NGP, CIC and TSC, it
532: becomes clear that the three sampling effects of smearing, alias and
533: anisotropy are greatly suppressed. Moreover, for the D20 window function, if
534: we only measure the power spectrum up to $k=0.7k_N$, we do not need to take
535: into account any of those three kinds of effects explicitly, because the true
536: power spectrum is recovered with better than 2\% accuracy!
537:
538: Another very important aspect is that such a mass assignment scheme can be
539: fruitfully applied to the measurement of the higher-order spectra using an
540: FFT. For instance, in measuring the bi-spectrum using an FFT with the D20 mass
541: assignment, we do not need to consider the sampling effects up to $k=0.7k_N$
542: at all, since here the bi-spectrum can be measured directly with an accuracy
543: level better than 3\%. Note that so far there is no other approach known to
544: accurately correct for the sampling effects in measuring the bi-spectrum with
545: an FFT. We defer an application of our new technique and a theoretical
546: modeling of the higher order spectra to a forthcoming paper.
547:
548:
549: \begin{figure*}
550: \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{f3.eps}
551: \caption[the power spectrum]{Upper-Left panel: the FFT power spectra measured
552: using the commonly employed mass assignment functions: NGP, CIC and TSC, as
553: indicated. In this panel, only the shot noise term has been corrected.
554: Lower-left panel: the same measurements as shown in the upper-left panel, but
555: now corrected for the sampling effects using the iterative correcting method
556: proposed by Jing (2005). Upper-right panel: the FFT power spectra measured
557: using the Daubechies scale functions D12 and D20 as mass assignment
558: functions. Only the short noise term $1/N$ has been corrected. In these three
559: panels, for reference we also plot the power spectrum prediction by Smith et
560: al. (2003) using the Millennium Run's cosmological parameters. Lower-right
561: panel: a comparison of the ratios between the measured power spectra and the
562: `halofit' prediction by Smith et al. (2003), for the NGP, CIC, TSC, D12 and
563: D20 mass assignment window functions. The vertical lines mark the locations
564: of $k=k_N$ and $k=0.7k_N$, respectively. }
565: \label{fig:PS}
566: \end{figure*}
567:
568:
569:
570: \section {Tests using N-body simulations}\label{sec_test}
571:
572: Having discussed the impact of the mass assignment window functions on the
573: measurement of the true power spectrum using an FFT, and having introduced the
574: D12 and D20 scale functions, we proceed to demonstrate their performance when
575: applied to the measurement of the mass power spectrum of a large N-body
576: simulation. Here we briefly describe the simulation, the Millennium Run, used
577: for this project. The Millennium Run is a very large dark matter simulation of
578: the concordance $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $2160^3\simeq 1.0078\times
579: 10^{10}$ particles in a periodic box of $500\,h^{-1}$Mpc on a side (Springel
580: et al. 2005). The simulation was carried out by the Virgo Consortium using a
581: customized version of the {\small GADGET2} code. The cosmological parameters
582: used in this simulation are $\Omega_{\rm m}= \Omega_{\rm dm}+\Omega_{\rm
583: b}=0.25$, $\Omega_{\rm b}=0.045$, $h=0.73$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.75$, $n=1$, and
584: $\sigma_8=0.9$. For our test investigation, we randomly select 10\% of the
585: dark matter particles (because of practical limits in computer memory) and
586: measure their power spectra using the different window functions we described
587: in the previous section.
588:
589: To measure the power spectrum, we employ an FFT of the density distribution of
590: dark matter particles assigned to a grid with $1024^3$ cells using the mass
591: assignment algorithms discussed in Section~\ref{sec_window}. Thus the
592: corresponding Nyquist wavenumber is $k_N=1024\pi/500\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. In
593: the upper-left panel of Fig~\ref{fig:PS}, we show the FFT power spectra
594: measured using the traditional mass assignment functions, NGP, CIC and TSC,
595: where only the shot noise term has been subtracted. In this figure, the power
596: spectrum is presented in terms of $\Delta^2(k)\equiv 2\pi k^3 P(k)$. For
597: comparison, we show the theoretical prediction of the non-linear power
598: spectrum by Smith et al. (2003) as the solid line, based on the Millennium
599: Run's cosmological parameters. Obviously, because of the sampling effects we
600: discussed in Section~\ref{sec:win1}, the power spectra are quite different at
601: $k\ga 1\kmpc$ ($\sim 0.2 k_N$). The power spectra measured without correcting
602: the sampling effects, especially for the TSC method, significantly
603: under-predict the true power spectrum. Using the methods proposed by Jing
604: (2005), we can iteratively correct for the sampling effects and extract
605: estimates of the true power spectrum. The corrected power spectra for the NGP,
606: CIC and TSC mass assignment methods are shown in the lower-left panel of
607: Fig.~\ref{fig:PS}. Comparing these power spectra among themselves and with the
608: `halofit' prediction of Smith et al. (2003), we are convinced that the true
609: power spectrum is well recovered at all scales $k\le k_N$, and is roughly
610: consistent with the prediction by Smith et al.
611:
612: Now we turn to use the Daubechies scale functions D12 and D20 as our mass
613: assignment window functions. The resulting power spectra after correcting for
614: the shot noise term $1/N$ are shown in the upper-right panel of
615: Fig.~\ref{fig:PS}, as indicated. Without any correction for the sampling
616: effects, the measured power spectra look very nice and match the theoretical
617: predictions by Smith et al. (2003) on all scales up to $k\le k_N$. This is
618: very different from the results shown in the upper-left panel of
619: Fig.~\ref{fig:PS} for the classical assignment functions. In fact, at a low
620: resolution view, there is no visible difference between these results and the
621: corrected measurements shown in the lower-left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:PS}.
622:
623:
624: Finally, we take more accurate comparisons between the power spectra measured
625: with these different methods by showing their ratios with respect to the
626: `halofit' prediction of Smith et al. (2003). The de-convolved power spectra
627: based on the NGP, CIC and TSC mass assignments, the directly measured power
628: spectra using D12 and D20 mass assignments are ploted together for comparison
629: in the bottom right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:PS}. Here are a few observations
630: that can be made: (1) the three de-convolved power spectra are very well
631: consistent with each other at a level better than 2\% at $k\le 0.7k_N$, and at
632: a level of about 5\% at $k\sim 1.0k_N$; (2) the directly measured power
633: spectra based on the D12 and D20 (the latter slightly better) functions have
634: an accuracy of better than 2\% at $k\le 0.7k_N$ and at a level of about 10\%
635: at $k\sim 1.0k_N$; (3) there is about 20\% under-prediction on large scales
636: (with $k < 1~h{\rm Mpc^{-1}}$) and 5\% over-prediction on small scales by
637: Smith et al. (2003) for the power spectrum of the Millennium Simulation.
638: According to these findings, we may conclude that both the deconvolution
639: method and the direct measurement based on the Daubechies scale functions,
640: especially for D20, can recover the {\it true} power spectrum with better than
641: 2\% accuracy at $k\le 0.7 k_N$. Moreover, as a conservative prediction, the
642: bi-spectrum can be measured at a level better than 3\% at $k\le 0.7 k_N$ if
643: the D20 window function is used in the mass assignment for the FFT. This
644: should be very useful for accurate studies of the bi-spectrum.
645:
646:
647: \section{SUMMARY}\label{sec_summ}
648:
649: To quantify the large-scale structure in the distributions of a large
650: population of dark matter particles or galaxies, one may measure their power
651: (or higher order) spectra using a FFT. However, the required mass assignment
652: onto the points of the FFT-grid can introduce sampling effects in the measured
653: power spectra. Most of these effects have been noticed and discussed in the
654: literature before (e.g., Baumgart \& Fry 1991; Jing \& Valdarnini 1993; Jing
655: 2005). Among these, Jing (2005) was the first to use an iterative correction
656: method to compensate for all of these sampling effects, especially the alias
657: effect.
658:
659: In this paper, we follow Jing (2005) and discuss the impact of the mass
660: assignment on measuring the power spectrum with an FFT. There are two
661: components that the employed window function can impact: one is the shot noise
662: term and the other is the term involving the true power spectrum. With respect
663: to the influence on the true power spectrum term, there are three different
664: sampling effects that need to be considered: the smearing effect, the aliasing
665: effect and the anisotropy effect.
666:
667: Rather than trying to deconvolve for the sampling effects, we propose to use a
668: special window function: the Daubechies wavelet scale function that can
669: minimize these sampling effects. In particular, the D12 and D20 scale
670: functions considered here are compact in real space, which allows a fast mass
671: assignment onto the grid cells, while at the same time their top-hat like
672: shape in Fourier space leads only to very small sampling effects.
673:
674: According to the Fourier transform $W^2(k)$ of the D20 function, at $k\le
675: 0.7k_N$, all the sampling effects induced by the mass assignment can only
676: affect the measured power spectrum at less than a level of 2\%. This is
677: confirmed by the tests we carried out with the Millennium Run simulation. More
678: importantly, as a conservative prediction, the new method proposed here can
679: measure the bi-spectrum of dark matter particles at better than 3\% accuracy
680: for $k\le 0.7k_N$, without the need to apply any correction for the sampling
681: effects, apart from a simple substraction of the shot noise term.
682:
683:
684:
685:
686: \acknowledgements
687:
688: We thank Yipeng Jing for helpful discussions, Olaf Wucknitz and the anonymous
689: referee for helpful comments that greatly improved the presentation of this
690: paper. This work is supported by the {\it One Hundred Talents} project,
691: Shanghai Pujiang Program (No. 07pj14102), 973 Program (No. 2007CB815402),
692: 863 program (No. 2006AA01A125), the CAS Knowledge Innovation Program (Grant
693: No. KJCX2-YW-T05) and grants from NSFC (Nos. 10533030, 10673023, 10373012,
694: 10633049).
695:
696:
697: \begin{thebibliography}{}
698:
699: \bibitem{BBKS} Bardeen J.M., Bond J.R., Kaiser N., Szalay A.S., 1986, ApJ,
700: 304, 15 (BBKS).
701:
702: \bibitem{BF} Baumgart, D.J. \& Fry, J.N. 1991, ApJ, 375, 25
703:
704: \bibitem{BSS} Briggs D.S., Schwab F.R., Sramek R.A., 1999, ASPC, 180, 127
705:
706: \bibitem{daub88} Daubechies I., 1988, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 41 (7), 909
707:
708: \bibitem{daub} Daubechies I., Ten Lectures on Wavelets, SIAM, 1992.
709:
710: \bibitem{DEFW} Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C.S., \& White, S.D.M.
711: 1985, ApJ, 292, 371
712:
713: \bibitem{EBW92} Efstathiou G., Bond J.R., White S.D.M., 1992, MNRAS, 258, 1
714: (EBW)
715:
716: \bibitem{EH98} Eisenstein D.J., Hu W., 1998, \apj, 496, 605
717:
718: \bibitem{FT98} Fang, L. Z., \& Thews, R. 1998, Wavelet in Physics (Singapore :
719: World Scientifc)
720:
721:
722: \bibitem{FF00} Fang, L.Z., \& Feng, L.L., 2000, \apj, 539, 5
723:
724: \bibitem{FF04} Feng, L.L. \& Fang, L.Z., 2004, \apj, 601, 54
725:
726: \bibitem{Fisher} Fisher, K., Davis, M., Strauss, M.A., Yahil, A., \& Huchra, J.P.
727: 1993, ApJ, 402, 42
728:
729: \bibitem{Gambera} Gambera, M., Pagliaro, A., Antonuccio-Delogu, V., Becciani,
730: U., 1997, ApJ, 488, 136
731:
732: \bibitem{GFJM} Grebenev, S. A., Forman, W., Jones, C., Murray, S., 1995, ApJ,
733: 445, 607
734:
735: \bibitem{HE} Hockney, R.W. \& Eastwood, J.W. 1981, Computer simulations
736: using particles. Mc Graw-Hill
737:
738: \bibitem{Jing} Jing, Y.P. 2005, ApJ, 620, 559
739:
740: \bibitem{JV} Jing, Y.P. \& Valdarnini, R. 1993, ApJ, 406, 6
741:
742: \bibitem{Kaiser} Kaiser, N. 1991, in Texas/ESO-CERN Symposium on Relativistic
743: Astrophysics, eds. J. Barrow et al. (New York: New York Academic
744: Science), 295
745:
746: \bibitem{L94} Lin H., Kirshner R.P., Shectman S.A., Landy S.D., Oemler A.,
747: Tucker D.L., Schechter P.L., 1996, \apj, 471, 671
748:
749: \bibitem{MF00} Ma C.P, Fry J.N., \apj, 543, 503
750:
751: \bibitem{Martinez} Martinez, V.J., Paredes, S., Saar, E., 1993, MNRAS, 260, 365
752:
753: \bibitem{meik} Meiksin, A., 2000, MNRAS, 314, 566
754:
755: \bibitem{pando} Pando, J., Fang, L.Z., 1996, ApJ, 459, 1
756:
757: \bibitem{PD96} Peacock J.A., Dodds S.J., 1996, \mnras, 280, 19
758:
759: \bibitem{PeaN} Peacock, J.A. \& Nicholson, D. 1991, MNRAS, 253, 307
760:
761: \bibitem{Peebles} Peebles, P.J.E. 1980, The large scale structure of the
762: universe. (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
763:
764: \bibitem{Per01} Percival W.J., et al., 2001, \mnras, 327, 1297
765:
766: \bibitem{Per07} Percival W.J., et al., 2007, \apj, 657, 645
767:
768: \bibitem{Sanch05} S\'anchez A.G., Baugh C.M., Percival W.J., Peacock J.A.,
769: Padilla N.D., Cole S., Frenk C.S., Norberg P., 2006, \mnras, 366, 189
770:
771: \bibitem{schafer} Sch\"afer, B. M., Pfrommer, C., Zaroubi, S., 2005, MNRAS,
772: 362, 1418
773:
774: \bibitem[Scoccimarro et al.(1998)]{1998ApJ...496..586S} Scoccimarro, R.,
775: Colombi, S., Fry, J.~N., Frieman, J.~A., Hivon, E., \& Melott, A.\ 1998,
776: \apj, 496, 586
777:
778: \bibitem{CMBFAST} Seljak U., Zaldarriaga M., 1996, \apj, 469, 437
779:
780: \bibitem{slezak} Slezak, E, Durret, F., Gerbal, D., 1994, AJ,
781: 108, 1996
782:
783: \bibitem{Sm03P_NL} Smith R.E., et al., 2003, \mnras, 341, 1311
784:
785: \bibitem{Spe07} Spergel D.N., et al., 2007, ApJS, 170, 377
786:
787: \bibitem{Spr05} Springel V. et al., 2005, Nature, 435, 629
788:
789: \bibitem{Teg02} Tegmark M., Hamilton A.J.S., Xu Y., 2002, \mnras, 335, 887
790:
791: \bibitem{Teg04} Tegmark M., et al., 2004, \apj, 606, 702
792:
793: \bibitem{yang01} Yang X., Feng L.L., Chu Y.Q., Fang L.Z., 2001, \apj, 553, 1
794:
795: \bibitem{yang02a} Yang X., Feng L.L., Chu Y.Q., Fang L.Z., 2002a, \apj, 560, 549
796:
797: \bibitem{yang02b} Yang X., Feng L.L., Chu Y.Q., Fang L.Z., 2002b, \apj, 566, 630
798:
799: \end{thebibliography}
800:
801:
802: \end{document}
803:
804:
805:
806:
807: