1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ, 30 November 2007}
4:
5: \shorttitle{Discreteness Effects in $\Lambda$CDM Simulations}
6:
7: \shortauthors{A. B. Romeo et al.}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: \title{Discreteness Effects in Lambda Cold Dark Matter Simulations:\\
12: A Wavelet-Statistical View}
13:
14: \author{Alessandro B. Romeo}
15:
16: \affil{Onsala Space Observatory,
17: Chalmers University of Technology,
18: SE-43992 Onsala, Sweden}
19:
20: \email{romeo@chalmers.se}
21:
22: \and
23:
24: \author{Oscar Agertz, Ben Moore and Joachim Stadel}
25:
26: \affil{Institute for Theoretical Physics,
27: University of Z\"{u}rich,
28: CH-8057 Z\"{u}rich, Switzerland}
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31:
32: The effects of particle discreteness in $N$-body simulations of
33: Lambda Cold Dark Matter ($\Lambda$CDM) are still an intensively
34: debated issue. In this paper we explore such effects, taking into
35: account the scatter caused by the randomness of the initial
36: conditions, and focusing on the statistical properties of the
37: cosmological density field. For this purpose, we run large sets of
38: $\Lambda$CDM simulations and analyse them using a large variety of
39: diagnostics, including new and powerful wavelet statistics. Among
40: other facts, we point out (1) that dynamical evolution does not
41: propagate discreteness noise up from the small scales at which it is
42: introduced, and (2) that one should aim to satisfy the condition
43: $\epsilon\sim2d$, where $\epsilon$ is the force resolution and $d$ is
44: the interparticle distance. We clarify what such a condition means,
45: and how to implement it in modern cosmological codes.
46:
47: \end{abstract}
48:
49: \keywords{cosmology: miscellaneous ---
50: dark matter ---
51: large-scale structure of Universe ---
52: methods: $N$-body simulations ---
53: methods: numerical ---
54: methods: statistical}
55:
56: \section{INTRODUCTION}
57:
58: $N$-body simulations are becoming a more and more powerful tool for
59: investigating the formation of structure in the Universe. Since this
60: is a grand-challenge problem with a huge dynamic range, it is of basic
61: importance to understand how significant numerical effects are in
62: cosmological simulations. This is becoming even more important now,
63: with the advent of precision cosmology, which aims at breaking the
64: degeneracy of cosmological models and providing accurate determination
65: of the cosmological parameters at the percent level. The difficult
66: task of simulations will then be to determine error bars in the output
67: data, taking into account not only the uncertainty of the measurements
68: themselves but also numerical effects, which enter the simulation
69: model and propagate during its evolution.
70:
71: Many recent investigations have focused on the effects of particle
72: discreteness in Lambda Cold Dark Matter ($\Lambda$CDM) simulations.
73: In fact, the number of particles $N$ determines two important
74: quantities: the mass resolution, and the wavelength of the
75: highest-frequency mode included in the initial conditions. Such
76: quantities, together with the force resolution and other more
77: technical factors, affect the halo mass function and the statistical
78: properties of the cosmological density field (e.g., Splinter et al.\
79: 1998; Knebe et al.\ 2000; Hamana et al.\ 2002; Smith et al.\ 2003;
80: Teodoro \& Warren 2004; Warren et al.\ 2006; Hansen et al.\ 2007;
81: Joyce \& Marcos 2007a; Baertschiger et al.\ 2008; Bagla \& Prasad
82: 2008; Tinker et al.\ 2008), as well as the halo density profile and
83: the dynamics of structure formation (e.g., Knebe et al.\ 2000; Binney
84: \& Knebe 2002; Power et al.\ 2003; Binney 2004; Diemand et al.\ 2004;
85: Heitmann et al.\ 2005; Zhan 2006; Joyce \& Marcos 2007b; Vogelsberger
86: et al.\ 2008). Wang \& White (2007) have shown that discreteness
87: effects are even more important in simulations of hot/warm dark
88: matter, where the initial power spectrum has a natural high-frequency
89: cut-off at a relatively long wavelength. So why another contribution
90: concerning $\Lambda$CDM simulations? Because the topic is still hot
91: (Melott 2007; Joyce et al.\ 2008; and references therein), and there
92: is more to learn:
93: \begin{itemize}
94: \item \emph{Actual significance of discreteness effects.} As a
95: cosmological simulation can only give one view of the local
96: Universe, it is important to run an ensemble of simulations,
97: varying the random realization of the initial conditions or, in
98: other words, varying the phase and amplitude of the initial
99: random fluctuations for a given power spectrum (Knebe \&
100: Dom\'{\i}nguez 2003; Sirko 2005). The randomness of the initial
101: conditions causes statistical scatter in the diagnostics, which
102: competes against the systematic effects of discreteness and
103: should therefore be evaluated. This requires running large
104: ensembles of simulations.
105: \item \emph{Deeper and wider view of such effects.} Wavelets are a
106: state-of-the-art numerical technique used for extracting
107: multiscale information from scientific data (see, e.g., Fang \&
108: Thews 1998; Vidakovic 1999; Press et al.\ 2007, chap.\ 13.10).
109: Despite their numerous applications in cosmology (e.g., Fang \&
110: Feng 2000; He et al.\ 2005; Mart\'{\i}nez et al.\ 2005; Feng
111: 2007; Saar et al.\ 2007), they have not yet been used in the
112: context of discreteness effects. Wavelets provide a
113: multiresolution view of the data, which in our case represent
114: the density field. The field is analysed first at the finest
115: resolution consistent with the sampling, and then at coarser and
116: coarser resolution levels. Doing so, wavelets probe the
117: structure of the field and the contributions from the various
118: scales. Besides, wavelets are sensitive to both the amplitude
119: and the phase of the density fluctuations. Thus wavelet-based
120: statistics can offer a deeper and wider view of discreteness
121: effects than traditional diagnostics.
122: \item \emph{Particular aspects of the problem.} There are several
123: aspects of the problem that deserve particular attention: (1)
124: What is the range of scales affected by discreteness? (2) As
125: already mentioned, discreteness imposes two limitations: a
126: finite mass resolution, and a lack of initial fluctuation power
127: on small scales. It would be interesting to study their
128: statistical effects separately. Binney (2004) himself concluded
129: that ``it would be interesting to have a series of simulations
130: in which the power spectrum is truncated at large wavenumbers,
131: with the result that any increases in the particle number lead
132: to the same structures being more and more densely populated,
133: rather than to ever smaller-scale structures being simulated''.
134: Although Moore et al.\ (1999) did not see a significant
135: difference in the density profile of a halo simulated with a
136: truncated power spectrum, Col\'{\i}n et al.\ (2008) found
137: steeper central density profiles in a larger sample of haloes
138: that formed with masses close to the free-streaming cutoff
139: scale. Here instead we study in detail how a truncated power
140: spectrum affects the statistics of the density field. (3)
141: Discreteness effects also arise from the grid-like particle
142: distribution used in the initial conditions (e.g., Hansen et
143: al.\ 2007). It would be worthwhile to check whether the initial
144: grid leaves any statistical trace at low redshifts. (4) A
145: further aspect of the problem concerns the probability
146: distribution of the initial fluctuations, and its evolution with
147: redshift.
148: \end{itemize}
149:
150: For this purpose, we run two large sets of simulations. In one we
151: vary $N$ and the random realization of the initial conditions, while
152: in the other we truncate the initial power spectrum and vary $N$
153: through different sampling techniques so as to further probe
154: discreteness effects and the transfer of power from large to small
155: scales. In both sets we keep the force resolution fixed, so as to
156: decouple the effects of discreteness from those of force resolution
157: (cf.\ Binney 2004). Our simulations span scales from
158: $80h^{-1}\mathrm{kpc}$ to $20h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$. We analyse the
159: statistical properties of the cosmological density field using a large
160: variety of diagnostics, including new and powerful wavelet statistics.
161: We compute all the diagnostics consistent with the force resolution,
162: so as to probe effects that are fully resolved dynamically.
163:
164: The rest of our paper is organized as follows. The first set of
165: simulations is described in Sect.\ 2. The actual significance of
166: discreteness effects against statistical scatter is assessed in Sect.\
167: 3, where we also inquire into the nature of such scatter. In Sect.\
168: 4, we introduce the wavelet statistics and analyse discreteness
169: effects. The second set of simulations is described in Sect.\ 5, and
170: particular aspects of the problem are probed in Sect.\ 6. We draw the
171: conclusions in Sect.\ 7.
172:
173: \section{SIMULATIONS}
174:
175: Our cosmological $N$-body simulations use the particle-mesh code by
176: Klypin \& Holtzman (1997), and are based on one of their runs. We
177: have adopted the same code and basic run in an introductory study
178: (Agertz 2004).
179:
180: A particle-mesh code is appropriate for our purpose because it
181: computes all the dynamical quantities, from the density field
182: $\delta(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})=[\rho(\mbox{\boldmath
183: $x$})-\bar{\rho}]/\bar{\rho}$ to the forces, with given spatial
184: resolution. The code by Klypin \& Holtzman (1997) is publicly
185: available and well described. It can also be used for generating the
186: initial conditions and analysing the output data. The initial
187: conditions are set up by using the Zeldovich approximation to displace
188: particles from a regular grid. The power spectrum $P(k)$, correlation
189: function $\xi(r)$ and mass variance $\sigma_{M}^{2}(r)$ of the output
190: density field are computed consistent with the spatial resolution of
191: the code, which is twice the cell size $\Delta_{\mathrm{c}}$.
192:
193: The basic run is a $\Lambda$CDM simulation. The cosmological
194: parameters are: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, $\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}=0.3$,
195: $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}=0.026$, $h=0.7$, $\sigma_{8}=1$ and $n=1$. The
196: simulation has $N=32^{3}$ particles, $N_{\mathrm{c}}=128^{3}$ cells
197: and a box of $L=20h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$. It runs from redshift $z=15$
198: ($a=0.0625$) to $z=0$ ($a=1$) in 469 steps ($\Delta a=0.002$). This
199: simulation is simple and realistic enough for our purpose.
200:
201: The simulations of this paper have the same input parameters as the
202: basic run, except $N$ and the random number seed for generating the
203: initial conditions. We use five values of $N$:
204: $N=16^{3},32^{3},\ldots,256^{3}$. In other words, the number of
205: particles per cell ranges from $\frac{1}{512}$ to 8, and the spatial
206: resolution ranges from $\frac{1}{4}$ to 4 times the average
207: interparticle distance. For each $N$, we generate ten random
208: realizations of the initial conditions. Such a set of 50 simulations
209: is appropriate for exploring how their outcome depends on $N$, and for
210: evaluating the statistical scatter of the measurements. Additional
211: simulations are discussed in Sect.\ 5.
212:
213: \section{DISCRETENESS EFFECTS VS.\ STATISTICAL SCATTER}
214:
215: \subsection{$P(k)$, $\xi(r)$ and $\sigma_{M}^{2}(r)$ Are
216: Scatter-Dominated}
217:
218: Three popular statistical diagnostics used in cosmology are the
219: power spectrum $P(k)$, the correlation function $\xi(r)$ and the mass
220: variance $\sigma_{M}^{2}(r)$ (see, e.g., Peebles 1980; Coles \&
221: Lucchin 2002). $P(k)$ is the average square amplitude of density
222: fluctuations on scale $2\pi/k$, with proper normalization. In the
223: code by Klypin \& Holtzman (1997), $P(k)$ is computed as:
224: \begin{equation}
225: P(k)=\frac{1}{L^{3}}\,\frac{\sum|\hat{\delta}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})|^
226: {2}}{\Delta N_{k}}\,,
227: \end{equation}
228: where $\hat{\delta}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$ is the fast Fourier
229: transform of the density field $\delta(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$
230: tabulated in the mesh of the code, the sum is over all wavenumbers
231: spanning a spherical shell of radius $k$ and thickness $\Delta
232: k=2\pi/L$, $\Delta N_{k}$ is the number of harmonics in the shell, and
233: $L$ is the box size. $\xi(r)$ is the real-space equivalent of $P(k)$
234: and measures the correlation strength of structures on scale $r$. In
235: the code by Klypin \& Holtzman (1997), $\xi(r)$ is computed by
236: discretizing the relation:
237: \begin{equation}
238: \xi(r)=\frac{1}{2\pi^{2}}\int_{0}^{\infty}P(k)\frac{\sin(kr)}{kr}k^{2}
239: \mathrm{d}k\,.
240: \end{equation}
241: The algorithm consists of several steps, which cannot be translated
242: into a single formula [cf.\ routine FCORR(R) in PMpower.f].
243: Similarly, we compute $\sigma_{M}^{2}(r)$ by discretizing the
244: relation:
245: \begin{equation}
246: \sigma_{M}^{2}(r)=\frac{1}{2\pi^{2}}\int_{0}^{\infty}P(k)W^{2}(kr)k^{2
247: }\mathrm{d}k\,,
248: \end{equation}
249: where $W(kr)$ is the spherical top-hat window function:
250: \begin{equation}
251: W(x)=\frac{3}{x^{3}}(\sin x-x\cos x)\,.
252: \end{equation}
253: Note that the only difference between $\xi(r)$ and $\sigma_{M}^{2}(r)$
254: is the replacement of $\sin(kr)/kr$ with $W^2(kr)$.
255:
256: Another way to compute $\xi(r)$ and $\sigma_{M}^{2}(r)$ is by using
257: particle-based estimators (e.g., Knebe \& Dom\'{\i}nguez 2003), rather
258: than the mesh-based estimators above. However, the computation takes
259: an order of magnitude longer time than the simulations themselves.
260: Besides, it is more difficult to compute $\xi(r)$ and
261: $\sigma_{M}^{2}(r)$ consistent with the spatial resolution of the
262: code. This results in extra spikes, which are nothing but noise of
263: the particle-based estimation. Apart from that, the results are
264: similar. So in the following we go on discussing the mesh-based case.
265:
266: Another short digression. In our simulations there are two Nyquist
267: frequencies involved. One is the `particle Nyquist frequency'
268: \begin{equation}
269: k_{\mathrm{N}}=\pi N^{1/3}/L\,,
270: \end{equation}
271: which is associated with the grid-like particle distribution used in
272: the initial conditions. This is the wavenumber at which the initial
273: power spectrum is truncated. Therefore $k_{\mathrm{N}}$ determines
274: the initial number of modes. The other Nyquist frequency, $\pi
275: N_{\mathrm{c}}^{1/3}/L$, is associated with the mesh of the code
276: ($N_{\mathrm{c}}$ is the number of cells). This is the largest
277: $|k_{i}|\ (i=1,2,3)$ that can be resolved in the mesh. Harmonics with
278: $|k_{i}|>\pi N_{\mathrm{c}}^{1/3}/L$ are aliased into the principal
279: zone $|k_{i}|\leq\pi N_{\mathrm{c}}^{1/3}/L$, but they are greatly
280: attenuated if the mass-assignment scheme is TSC or CIC, as is used in
281: the code (see Hockney \& Eastwood 1988). Among the two Nyquist
282: frequencies, only $k_{\mathrm{N}}$ varies in our set of simulations
283: and enters the following discussion.
284:
285: Let us then study how the number of particles affects the standard
286: diagnostics described above. Fig.\ 1 shows $P(k)$, $\xi(r)$ and
287: $\sigma_{M}^{2}(r)$ in the range of scales spanned by the simulations,
288: that is approximately from the cell size
289: $\Delta_{\mathrm{c}}=L/N_{\mathrm{c}}^{1/3}$ to the box size $L$. At
290: $z=15$, all the diagnostics manifest the peculiarity of the initial
291: conditions for $N<N_{\mathrm{c}}$. Such discreteness effects appear
292: if initially the particles are distributed over a grid coarser than
293: the dynamical mesh. At $z=0$, discreteness effects are hardly
294: detectable. All the diagnostics show large statistical scatter
295: instead. The initial and final redshifts are discussed in detail
296: below.
297: \begin{itemize}
298: \item \emph{Redshift $z=15$.} For $N<N_{\mathrm{c}}$, we observe
299: fluctuations in $P(k)$ beyond the particle Nyquist frequency
300: $k_{\mathrm{N}}$. As $k_{\mathrm{N}}$ increases with $N$, when
301: there are one or more particles per cell we can no longer detect
302: the peculiar imprint of the initial conditions on $P(k)$.
303: Discreteness effects can also be observed in the other
304: diagnostics for $N<N_{\mathrm{c}}$. $\xi(r)$ fluctuates on
305: scales smaller than a few times the average interparticle
306: distance $L/N^{1/3}$. $\sigma_{M}^{2}(r)$ changes slope on
307: scales below $L/N^{1/3}$, and approaches the $r^{-4}$ behaviour
308: expected for a grid-like distribution (e.g., Hansen et al.\
309: 2007).
310: \item \emph{Redshift $z=0$.} The diagnostics are unaffected by the
311: number of particles. The only clear exception is $P(k)$ for
312: $N\leq32^{3}$, which differs significantly from the other power
313: spectra at wavenumbers larger than about five times its particle
314: Nyquist frequency (its tail has a positive vertical offset with
315: respect to the other tails). The other power spectra are
316: similar, considering their scatter, and so are all the
317: correlation functions and mass variances. On the other hand,
318: the random realization of the initial conditions seems to have
319: an important influence on all the diagnostics: their
320: root-mean-square scatter is as large as a factor of two or more.
321: In $P(k)$ and $\xi(r)$ the scatter is more important on large
322: scales, while in $\sigma_{M}^{2}(r)$ it is quite uniform. This
323: difference between $\sigma_{M}^{2}(r)$ and $\xi(r)$ is a
324: consequence of the large-scale behaviour of $W^{2}(kr)$, which
325: decays faster than $\sin(kr)/kr$ and hence damps large-scale
326: scatter more effectively. Our findings reinforce those by Knebe
327: \& Dom\'{\i}nguez (2003) and Sirko (2005), who observed large
328: scatter in the standard diagnostics for a typical number of
329: particles.
330: \end{itemize}
331:
332: The results of this analysis can be summarized as follows. At low
333: redshifts the power spectrum, correlation function and mass variance
334: are dominated by statistical scatter, rather than by the systematic
335: effects of discreteness. Discreteness effects are only detectable in
336: $P(k)$, far beyond the particle Nyquist frequency
337: ($k\ga5\,k_{\mathrm{N}}$) and if there is much less than one particle
338: per cell ($N\leq32^{3}$ for $N_{\mathrm{c}}=128^{3}$). In the other
339: diagnostics there is no clear dependence on the number of particles,
340: even if $N$ varies by three and a half orders of magnitude. This is
341: in contrast to the clear dependence on $N$ and the small scatter at
342: high redshifts.
343:
344: \subsection{$\delta(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$ Is Discreteness-Dominated}
345:
346: Fig.\ 2 shows the density field $\delta(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$
347: tabulated in the mesh of the code. So the spatial resolution is the
348: same as for $P(k)$, $\xi(r)$ and $\sigma_{M}^{2}(r)$. Here the effect
349: of varying $N$ is mainly a change in granularity:
350: $\delta(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$ becomes much less granular as $N$
351: increases from $16^{3}$ to $64^{3}$ or $128^{3}$. In contrast, the
352: random realization of the initial conditions turns out to influence
353: only the spatial pattern.%
354: %
355: \footnote{In Fig.\ 2, the random number seed for generating the
356: initial conditions does not vary. The density field shows
357: different patterns because, as a consequence of increasing
358: $N$, the realization of the fluctuations is different. In
359: fact, the code by Klypin \& Holtzman (1997) does not keep
360: the same realization of long waves while adding more and
361: more short waves. But this phase difference does not change
362: the granularity of the density field.}
363: %
364: Thus the results of Sect.\ 3.1 are at odds with the visual outcome of
365: the simulations. At low as well as at high redshifts the density
366: field is dominated by the systematic effects of discreteness. It is
367: peculiar, if not surprising, that standard statistics such as the
368: power spectrum, correlation function and mass variance are insensitive
369: to the granularity of the density field, even when this property
370: changes as much as in Fig.\ 2, whereas they are sensitive to its
371: random realization.
372:
373: \subsection{The Scatter Can Be Regarded as Spurious and Be Reduced}
374:
375: In order to gain insight, we consider simpler statistics of the
376: density field, namely its standard deviation $\sigma$, skewness $S$
377: and kurtosis $K$ (the mean is zero). $S$ and $K$ are useful for
378: measuring departures from Gaussianity (see, e.g., Press et al.\ 2007),
379: which are significant at low redshifts. Using Numerical Recipes, we
380: compute $\sigma$, $S$ and $K$ from the density field
381: $\delta(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$ tabulated in the mesh of the code. The
382: analysis of these statistics shows that $\sigma$, $S$ and $K$ are also
383: scatter-dominated (see Fig.\ 3).
384:
385: Where does the degeneracy come from? Fig.\ 4 illustrates what the
386: histogram of the density field looks like at redshift $z=0$. In
387: particular, the top panel shows the histogram for the range of values
388: spanned by the density contrast, while the bottom panel shows a zoom
389: of the histogram (see figure caption).%
390: %
391: \footnote{We do not scale the $y$-axis logarithmically because it is
392: the probability distribution, and not its logarithm, what
393: enters into the definition of the statistics.}
394: %
395: The simplicity of this figure points out two remarkable peculiarities
396: of the $\delta$ distribution: (1) a huge spike at $\delta=-1$, and (2)
397: an extremely long tail for $\delta>0$. In computing the statistics,
398: the tail of high density peaks has much more weight than the frequent
399: deep under-densities. This makes the statistics very sensitive to
400: rare events, and hence scatter-dominated. But how genuine is such
401: scatter? We know that it is difficult to extract robust statistical
402: information from data characterized by a long-tailed probability
403: distribution (see, e.g., Press et al.\ 2007). Robust estimation
404: requires defining appropriate statistics (see Press et al.\ 2007), or
405: even transforming the data (see Stuart \& Ord 1991). Thus the
406: sensitivity pointed out above means that standard statistics of the
407: density field are not so well defined, and that their scatter can be
408: regarded as spurious.
409:
410: Considering deep under-densities and high density peaks separately,
411: in view of their distinct cosmological meaning (voids and dark matter
412: haloes), still yields a strongly unbalanced $\delta$ distribution:
413: clustered below $\delta\sim0$ and dispersing up to $\delta\sim200$.
414: What about a statistical transformation of the density field? Let us
415: consider the $\ln(1+\delta)$ distribution, for $\delta\neq-1$. This
416: transformation shortens the over-density tail, and it even makes the
417: distribution roughly normal (cf.\ Fig.\ 5). In addition, this
418: transformation is appealing because $1+\delta$ is a basic cosmological
419: quantity and the $\ln(1+\delta)$ distribution matches the $\delta$
420: distribution in the linear regime. Lognormal models have been
421: discussed by Coles \& Jones (1991) and Kayo et al.\ (2001) among
422: others. One may find better transformations considering the class of
423: $\frac{1}{\alpha}\,[(1+\delta)^{\alpha}-1]$ distributions, for
424: $\delta\neq-1$ and $0<\alpha<\frac{1}{2}$, but at the cost of a free
425: parameter to fine-tune. We do not follow that approach.
426:
427: Encapsulating the singularity of the $\delta$ distribution
428: ($\delta=-1$) in one statistic, the fraction of void cells or void
429: probability $\nu$, we can define statistics of the transformed density
430: field such as its mean $\mu$, standard deviation $\sigma$, skewness
431: $S$ and kurtosis $K$ (we reuse old symbols for denoting the new
432: quantities). Note that $\nu$ is not meant to describe the
433: distribution of voids as cosmological structures, which would require
434: a topological approach. Note also that now $\mu\neq0$, since the
435: transformation has a bias (see Stuart \& Ord 1991), and $S$ and $K$
436: measure departures from lognormality. Such statistics are
437: discreteness-dominated, as is the density field itself: a sharp trend
438: with $N$ emerges and the scatter is mostly unnoticeable, at low as
439: well as at high redshifts (cf.\ Fig.\ 6). In particular, the fact
440: that the fraction of void cells decreases with the number of particles
441: for a given cell size is in natural agreement with the visual outcome
442: of the runs.
443:
444: Summarizing, in this section we have learned that the statistical
445: scatter can be regarded as spurious and be strongly reduced. The
446: consideration of scale-dependent statistics adds complexity but does
447: not change the message. In Sect.\ 4, we will see that the method of
448: scatter reduction can be extended to wavelet statistics, which is
449: fundamental for an appropriate multiscale analysis.
450:
451: \section{WAVELET-STATISTICAL ANALYSIS}
452:
453: \subsection{The Fast Wavelet Transform}
454:
455: Data such as the cosmological density field enclose information on
456: various scales. In order to extract such information, we should be
457: able to separate small-scale features from large-scale features and to
458: understand their contributions to the overall structure of the data.
459: In this section we describe a technique that can be used for the
460: purpose above: the fast wavelet transform. For further reading see
461: Romeo et al.\ (2003), hereafter Paper I, and Romeo et al.\ (2004),
462: hereafter Paper II. In particular, Paper II provides a
463: reader-friendly and self-contained discussion of wavelets, from the
464: basics to advanced aspects of the technique.
465:
466: The fast wavelet transform involves localized wave-like functions,
467: which are dilated over the relevant range of scales and translated
468: across the data. The contributions of small-scale and large-scale
469: features are singled out with an iterative procedure. The first step
470: consists of separating the smallest-scale features from the others.
471: It is done by passing the data through a high-pass filter and a
472: complementary low-pass filter. These filters are the discrete
473: counterparts of the analysing functions of the transform, the wavelet
474: $\psi(x)$ and the scaling function $\phi(x)$, respectively, and are
475: constructed with a mathematical technique known as multiresolution
476: analysis. Filtering produces redundant information, since each set of
477: filtered data has the same size as the original data. Redundancy is
478: avoided by rejecting every other point of the filtered data. It is
479: well known that down-sampling produces aliasing in the context of the
480: Fourier transform, but the filters of the wavelet transform are
481: constructed in such a way as to eliminate it. The second step
482: consists of separating the features that appear on a scale twice as
483: large as in the first step. It is done by regarding the low-pass
484: filtered and down-sampled data as new input data, and by analysing
485: them as in the first step. The procedure continues until all features
486: below a given `upper scale' are separated. In summary, the 1D fast
487: wavelet transform decomposes the original data into a coarse
488: `approximation' and a sequence of finer and finer `details', keeping
489: the total size of the data constant (cf.\ Paper I, fig.\ 2). The 2D
490: or 3D fast wavelet transform is similar to the 1D case, except for the
491: more complicated structure of the transformed data (cf.\ Paper II,
492: fig.\ 6). In general, given $n$D data of size $N_{\mathrm{d}}^{n}$,
493: the first step of the transform decomposes them into $2^{n}$ parts of
494: size $(N_{\mathrm{d}}/2)^{n}$: 1 approximation and $2^{n}-1$ details,
495: one for each axis and each diagonal. This is done by 1D transforming
496: the data along each index, for all values of the other indices,
497: consecutively. The second step decomposes the approximation into
498: $2^{n}$ parts of size $(N_{\mathrm{d}}/4)^{n}$, and so on.
499:
500: \emph{Note} that there is an important difference between the
501: approximation and each of the details produced by the fast wavelet
502: transform. Independent of the number of dimensions, each detail is a
503: compact piece of information concerning a single scale. In contrast,
504: the approximation encloses (unprocessed) information on various
505: scales; it can be viewed as a smoothed miniature of the data. Note,
506: however, that there is a non-standard version of the multidimensional
507: discrete wavelet transform where the details have mixed scale content.
508: That is the one described in Numerical Recipes [see in particular
509: fig.\ 13.10.4\,(b) of the third edition (2007)].
510:
511: \subsection{Transforming the Density Field and Computing Its
512: Statistics}
513:
514: We compute the fast wavelet transform of the output density field
515: in each simulation by using the Code JOFILUREN (Papers I and II), and
516: refer to Paper II for a thorough discussion of the method. To do the
517: computation, we must specify the analysing function and the upper
518: scale of the fast wavelet transform. We choose the `bior\,4.4'
519: wavelet (see Paper II, fig.\ 1), which is the one suggested in Paper
520: II for cold dark matter simulations. The upper scale is specified in
521: terms of the scale parameter $N_{\mathrm{t\,min}}$: an upper scale of
522: $2^{n}$ cell sizes corresponds to
523: $N_{\mathrm{t\,min}}=N_{\mathrm{c}}^{1/3}/2^{n}$, where
524: $N_{\mathrm{c}}$ is the number of cells. We set
525: $N_{\mathrm{t\,min}}=16$, which is the lower bound suggested in Paper
526: II for the `bior\,4.4' wavelet. Hence the density field is
527: wavelet-analysed at spatial scales $2^{s-1}\Delta_{\mathrm{c}}\
528: (s=1,\ldots,4)$, where $\Delta_{\mathrm{c}}$ is the cell size. The
529: corresponding details $\mathcal{D}_{s}$ are sets of
530: $7N_{\mathrm{c}}/8^{s}$ data $D_{s}(i,j,k)$,%
531: %
532: \footnote{We are neglecting the 3D substructure of the details, here
533: irrelevant. Hence, at a given $s$, the spatial indices
534: $(i,j,k)$ span the cube $\mathcal{C}_{s-1}=\{1\leq i,j,k\leq
535: N_{\mathrm{c}}^{1/3}/2^{s-1}\}$ minus its subset
536: $\mathcal{C}_{s}$.}
537: %
538: which can be used for probing the statistical properties of the
539: density field at such spatial scales. The approximation is less
540: useful for this purpose because of its mixed scale content, as noted
541: in Sect.\ 4.1.
542:
543: Wavelet statistics of the density field should not be computed
544: directly from $\mathcal{D}_{s}$. In fact, the distribution of $D_{s}$
545: values at redshift $z=0$ shows a central singularity and a very long
546: tail on both sides. Such features are similar to those discussed in
547: Sect.\ 3.3, and have similar consequences. Therefore we extend the
548: procedure followed in that case. Using $\ln[1+\delta(\mbox{\boldmath
549: $x$})]$, rather than $\delta(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$, does not solve
550: the problem here because this field diverges in a significant fraction
551: of the mesh (the void cells) and hence its fast wavelet transform is
552: not defined. Our solution is to consider the subsets
553: $\mathcal{D}_{s}^{0}=\{D_{s}(i,j,k)=0\}$ and $\{D_{s}(i,j,k)\neq0\}$
554: separately, and transform the latter:
555: $\mathcal{D}_{s}^{\mathrm{T}}=\{\ln|D_{s}(i,j,k)|\}$. We then define
556: the void probability $\nu_{s}$ as the fraction of vanishing detail
557: coefficients at spatial scale $s$. We compute $\nu_{s}$ by counting
558: the number of data contained in $\mathcal{D}_{s}^{0}$, and recalling
559: that there are $7N_{\mathrm{c}}/8^{s}$ detail coefficients in total
560: (at scale $s$). We also compute the mean $\mu_{s}$, standard
561: deviation $\sigma_{s}$, skewness $S_{s}$ and kurtosis $K_{s}$ of the
562: data contained in $\mathcal{D}_{s}^{\mathrm{T}}$. Such wavelet
563: statistics are a scale-dependent generalization of the statistics
564: discussed in Sect.\ 3.3. A generic member of this family is denoted
565: by $f_{s}$. Hereafter, the subscript `$s$' is added only when needed.
566:
567: \subsection{A First View of Discreteness Effects}
568:
569: Fig.\ 7 shows the wavelet statistics as functions of the number of
570: particles at various spatial scales. Note at once that the large
571: scatter of $S_{4}(N)$ and $K_{4}(N)$ is not a failure of our
572: statistical transformation. It appears because the skewness and the
573: kurtosis are high-order statistics, and at that spatial scale there
574: are relatively few detail coefficients. By analysing the behaviour of
575: $f_{s}(N)$ at $z=15$, we learn that the imprint of the initial
576: conditions on the wavelet statistics is twofold. First, there is a
577: strong correlation between the number of particles and the spatial
578: scale: $f_{s}(N\,8^{n})$ behaves approximately as $f_{s+n}(N)$. In
579: fact, the red curves shifted by one step to the left match the green
580: curves, which in turn match the blue ones, and so on. This
581: correlation appears because the effect of varying $N$ is, to
582: zeroth-order approximation, a simple change of scale in the particle
583: distribution. Second, at a given spatial scale $s\leq3$, there is a
584: number of particles $N=64^{3}/8^{s-1}$ that minimizes $\sigma$ and
585: $S$, and maximizes $K$. This follows from the fact that the $\delta$
586: distribution has a transition for $N=64^{3}$ (see Sect.\ 6.2). The
587: behaviour of $f_{s}(N)$ at $z=0$ is more difficult to understand in
588: detail. Nevertheless, we can deduce two basic facts:
589: \begin{enumerate}
590: \item There is a weak trace of the initial $N$--$s$ correlation, while
591: there is no critical $N$. This suggests that the average
592: interparticle distance is still a significant scale when the
593: particle distribution is hierarchically clustered.
594: \item Independent of redshift, the behaviour of $f_{s}(N)$ simplifies
595: at $s\geq3$: all the wavelet statistics converge for large $N$,
596: and are possibly constant at $s>4$. In other words, increasing
597: $N$ affects smaller and smaller spatial scales; scales larger
598: than $s=4$ (the average interparticle distance for $N=16^{3}$)
599: are possibly unaffected. This suggests that discreteness
600: effects are confined to scales smaller than about twice the
601: average interparticle distance, and do not propagate bottom-up
602: while cosmological structures form. If confirmed, this is one
603: important aspect of the robustness of cosmological $N$-body
604: simulations.
605: \end{enumerate}
606:
607: \section{ADDITIONAL SIMULATIONS}
608:
609: To understand more, we carry out three additional sets of
610: simulations, which are intermediate between those with $N=16^{3}$ and
611: $N=256^{3}$. Each set is a statistical ensemble of ten simulations
612: produced by varying the random realization of the initial conditions,
613: as before. The number of particles and the other input parameters are
614: the same as in the original $N=256^{3}$ simulations. What differs in
615: each set is discussed below.
616:
617: In the first set, the initial power spectrum $P_{\mathrm{i}}(k)$ is
618: truncated at wavenumber $k=k_{\mathrm{max}}=16\pi/L$, where $L$ is the
619: box size. One simulation is shown in Fig.\ 8 (top). Recall that the
620: natural truncation wavenumber is the particle Nyquist frequency
621: $k_{\mathrm{N}}=\pi N^{1/3}/L$, which determines the initial number of
622: modes $N_{\mathrm{m}}\approx(k_{\mathrm{N}}L/\pi)^{3}\approx N$.
623: Hence $k_{\mathrm{max}}$ can be regarded as an effective particle
624: Nyquist frequency that sets the initial number of modes to
625: $N_{\mathrm{m}}\approx(k_{\mathrm{max}}L/\pi)^{3}\approx16^{3}$, while
626: the number of particles is $N=256^{3}$. Comparing this set with the
627: $N=16^{3}$ and $N=256^{3}$ simulations, we can then study the
628: behaviour of the statistics as the mass resolution and the initial
629: number of modes vary independently.
630:
631: In the second set, the output density field is computed by
632: sub-sampling the particle distribution regularly, selecting $16^{3}$
633: particles (loop over particle index and choose every 16th particle).
634: One simulation is shown in Fig.\ 8 (middle). Sub-sampling means loss
635: of information at scales smaller than about twice the new average
636: interparticle distance (sampling theorem). In addition, regular
637: sub-sampling leaves the initial particle distribution grid-like. So,
638: if this set turns out to be similar to the $N=16^{3}$ simulations, it
639: means that discreteness effects imply a loss of information similar to
640: sub-sampling, and hence that their spatial range is about twice the
641: average interparticle distance.
642:
643: In the third set, the output density field is computed by
644: sub-sampling the particle distribution randomly, selecting $16^{3}$
645: particles (see the selection sampling technique by Knuth 1998). One
646: simulation is shown in Fig.\ 8 (bottom). Random sub-sampling makes
647: the initial particle distribution Poisson-like. Comparing this set
648: with the regularly sub-sampled simulations, we can then check whether
649: the initial grid leaves any statistical trace at low redshifts.
650:
651: \section{PROBING DISCRETENESS EFFECTS}
652:
653: \subsection{Spatial Range and Complexity}
654:
655: Fig.\ 9 shows the wavelet statistics as functions of the spatial
656: scale for five sets of simulations: the original $N=16^{3}$ and
657: $N=256^{3}$ simulations; and the additional simulations with
658: power-spectrum truncation, regular and random sub-sampling. Recall
659: that $N=16^{3}$ / $N=256^{3}$ represents the case in which the spatial
660: resolution scale ($s=2$) is much smaller/larger than the average
661: interparticle distance ($s=4$ / $s=0$). Our deductions are the
662: following:
663: \begin{enumerate}
664: \item The $N=256^{3}$ simulations are more basic than the others. The
665: wavelet statistics have featureless behaviour at high redshifts.
666: The behaviour at low redshifts is also featureless, except that
667: the standard deviation and the kurtosis depart from monotonicity
668: below the spatial resolution scale. Another interesting aspect
669: of the evolution with redshift is that the skewness and the
670: kurtosis approach zero, which means that the density field
671: becomes approximately lognormal.
672: \item A comparison between the simulations with power-spectrum
673: truncation and the $N=256^{3}$ simulations illustrates how
674: complexity arises if the effective particle Nyquist scale is
675: spatially resolved ($s=5$): at high redshifts the standard
676: deviation, the skewness and the kurtosis oscillate; at low
677: redshifts they all depart from monotonicity below the spatial
678: resolution scale. Decreasing the number of modes also yields a
679: systematic decrease or increase in the wavelet statistics, with
680: one exception. A further interesting aspect of the evolution
681: with redshift is that the simulations with power-spectrum
682: truncation become more similar to the $N=256^{3}$ simulations.
683: This means that there is transfer of statistical information
684: from the modes initially excited to those initially suppressed,
685: but the loss of information is still significant at $z=0$. If
686: not only the effective particle Nyquist scale but also the
687: average interparticle distance is spatially resolved, then
688: further complexity arises ($N=16^{3}$ simulations vs.\
689: simulations with power-spectrum truncation). The peculiarities
690: of the wavelet statistics are pointed out in Sect.\ 4.3.
691: \item The regularly sub-sampled simulations agree rather well with the
692: $N=16^{3}$ simulations. This confirms that discreteness effects
693: are insignificant beyond a scale of about twice the average
694: interparticle distance.
695: \item At $z=15$, random sub-sampling differs significantly from
696: regular sub-sampling. It suppresses the minimum of the standard
697: deviation and of the skewness, and the maximum of the kurtosis
698: and of the mean at a scale of half the effective average
699: interparticle distance ($s=3$). It also increases the void
700: probability at the cell-size scale by more than a factor of
701: three. At $z=0$, random sub-sampling is equivalent to regular
702: sub-sampling. Therefore the initial grid has a strong imprint
703: on the wavelet statistics at high redshifts, whereas there is no
704: memory of the initial grid at low redshifts.
705: \end{enumerate}
706:
707: \subsection{Initial Non-Gaussianity from Gaussian Initial Conditions}
708:
709: In cosmological $N$-body simulations, the initial conditions are
710: generated assuming that the random density field is Gaussian.
711: Gaussianity is one of the basic cosmological assumptions. It implies
712: that the density field is entirely characterized by its power spectrum
713: or correlation function. (See, e.g., Peacock 1999.)
714:
715: But is the density field resulting from the initial conditions
716: really Gaussian? Fig.\ 10 illustrates what the histogram looks like
717: when we vary the number of particles. Each histogram is shown for the
718: range of values spanned by the density contrast, and for the subrange
719: $-1\leq\delta\leq1$. Apart from the peculiarities pointed out in
720: Sect.\ 3.3, note that the $\delta$ distribution has a transition for
721: $N=64^{3}$: it is one-sided for $N\leq64^{3}$ and two-sided for
722: $N>64^{3}$. This means that, if the spatial resolution scale is
723: smaller than twice the average interparticle distance, as usual, then
724: the initial density field estimated by the code is markedly
725: non-Gaussian (though the field that the point particles are sampling
726: is Gaussian). The same is true even when we start the simulations as
727: early as at $z=100$ (cf.\ Fig.\ 11). Such inconsistency arises
728: because, at that high force resolution, the mass distribution looks
729: granular: there is an excess of both high density peaks and deep
730: under-densities. Such initial non-Gaussianity is what this or other
731: codes actually `see' at that high force resolution; and its effects
732: will propagate dynamically. At lower resolution, the departure from
733: Gaussianity is moderate at $z=15$ and small at $z=100$ (cf.\ Figs 10
734: and 11). Technical issues are discussed in Sect.\ 7.
735:
736: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
737:
738: The significance of discreteness effects in $\Lambda$CDM
739: simulations depends on two comoving spatial scales: the force
740: resolution $\epsilon$, and the average interparticle distance $d$.
741: Here $\epsilon$ is also the resolution scale for density and
742: statistical estimation. Our wavelet analysis shows that discreteness
743: has a strong impact if $\epsilon\ll2d$:
744: \begin{itemize}
745: \item The simulations are inconsistent with one of the basic
746: cosmological assumptions. In fact, the initial random density
747: field is markedly non-Gaussian, even though is assumed to be
748: Gaussian in the initial conditions (Sect.\ 6.2).
749: \item At low redshifts the density field departs significantly from
750: lognormality and further complexity arises (Sect.\ 6.1).
751: \item The comoving spatial scales $s$ affected by discreteness span
752: the wide range $\epsilon\la s\la2d$ (Sect.\ 6.1; see also Sect.\
753: 4.3).
754: \end{itemize}
755: Discreteness effects become insignificant if $\epsilon\sim2d$. This
756: condition guarantees that the statistical properties of the
757: cosmological density field are modelled accurately throughout the
758: range of scales spanned by the simulation. In particular, this is
759: fundamental for probing the imprints of primordial non-Gaussianities
760: on large-scale structure, which is a topic of current interest (e.g.,
761: Dalal et al.\ 2007; Grossi et al.\ 2008; Hikage et al.\ 2008). These
762: results have two implications. One is that $2d$, and not $\epsilon$,
763: is the minimum scale for extracting robust statistical information
764: from the simulation data. The other concerns the trade-off between
765: force and mass resolution in modern cosmological codes, which is
766: discussed below.
767:
768: Let us consider Particle-Mesh (PM) codes using Adaptive Mesh
769: Refinement (AMR), such as ART (Kravtsov et al.\ 1997), MLAPM (Knebe et
770: al.\ 2001), RAMSES (Teyssier 2002), and others. The condition
771: $\epsilon\sim2d$ can be implemented adaptively by requiring that there
772: are no less than $n$ particles per cell, where $n$ depends on the
773: mass-assignment/force-interpolation scheme. In fact,
774: $\epsilon\sim\Delta_{\mathrm{c}}$ for NGP,
775: $\epsilon\sim2\Delta_{\mathrm{c}}$ for CIC and
776: $\epsilon\sim3\Delta_{\mathrm{c}}$ for TSC, where
777: $\Delta_{\mathrm{c}}$ is the cell size (for a description of these
778: schemes see Hockney \& Eastwood 1988). In addition,
779: $n\sim(\Delta_{\mathrm{c}}/d)^{3}$. Hence $n\sim8$ for NGP, $n\sim1$
780: for CIC and $n\sim\frac{1}{3}$ for TSC. Such values are comparable to
781: those currently used. This means that our condition is easy to
782: fulfil, and hence discreteness effects can be kept under control in
783: AMR codes.
784:
785: In tree-based codes such as GADGET-2 (Springel 2005) and PKDGRAV
786: (Stadel 2001), the force resolution is equal everywhere. The
787: criterion for resolving the small-scale dynamics of structure
788: formation is then more demanding and imposes $\epsilon\ll2d$, as is
789: currently used. This means that it may not be easy to enforce such a
790: criterion and our condition together, although their domains of
791: applicability are complementary. An interesting possibility would be
792: to let the force resolution vary with redshift so as to enforce such
793: requirements in distinct regimes of clustering, following the transfer
794: of power from large to small scales. A more radical alternative is to
795: have adaptive force resolution, as in the case of AMR codes. A
796: variable softening length can now be implemented in a form that
797: conserves momentum and energy exactly (Price \& Monaghan 2007), and
798: its use has also been suggested in other contexts (e.g., Bate \&
799: Burkert 1997; Dehnen 2001; Nelson 2006; Price \& Monaghan 2007;
800: Wetzstein et al.\ 2008).
801:
802: \acknowledgments
803:
804: We are very grateful to Anatoly Klypin for making his particle-mesh
805: code publicly available and for help; and to Elena D'Onghia, Michael
806: Joyce, Alexander Knebe, Lucio Mayer, Francesco Miniati, Andrew Nelson
807: and Volker Springel for valuable discussions. We are also grateful to
808: an anonymous referee for constructive comments and suggestions, and
809: for encouraging future work on the discreteness topic. The first
810: author thanks the wonderful hospitality and strong encouragement of
811: the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of Z\"{u}rich.
812: He also acknowledges the financial support of the Swedish Research
813: Council, and the ASTROSIM short-visit grant 1815 by the European
814: Science Foundation.
815:
816: \begin{thebibliography}{}
817: \bibitem{} Agertz, O. 2004,
818: M\,Sc thesis (Chalmers University of Technology)
819: \bibitem{} Baertschiger, T., Joyce, M., Sylos Labini, F., \& Marcos,
820: B. 2008,
821: Phys. Rev. E, 77, 051114
822: \bibitem{} Bagla, J. S., \& Prasad, J. 2008,
823: preprint (arXiv:0802.2796)
824: \bibitem{} Bate, M. R., \& Burkert, A. 1997,
825: MNRAS, 288, 1060
826: \bibitem{} Binney, J. 2004,
827: MNRAS, 350, 939
828: \bibitem{} Binney, J., \& Knebe, A. 2002,
829: MNRAS, 333, 378
830: \bibitem{} Coles, P., \& Jones, B. 1991,
831: MNRAS, 248, 1
832: \bibitem{} Coles, P., \& Lucchin, F. 2002,
833: Cosmology: The Origin and Evolution of Cosmic Structure
834: (Chichester: Wiley)
835: \bibitem{} Col\'{\i}n, P., Valenzuela, O., \& Avila-Reese, V. 2008,
836: ApJ, 673, 203
837: \bibitem{} Dalal, N., Dor\'{e}, O., Huterer, D., \& Shirokov, A. 2007,
838: preprint (arXiv:0710.4560)
839: \bibitem{} Dehnen, W. 2001,
840: MNRAS, 324, 273
841: \bibitem{} Diemand, J., Moore, B., Stadel, J., \& Kazantzidis, S.
842: 2004,
843: MNRAS, 348, 977
844: \bibitem{} Fang, L.-Z., \& Feng, L.-L. 2000,
845: ApJ, 539, 5
846: \bibitem{} Fang, L.-Z., \& Thews, R. L. 1998,
847: Wavelets in Physics (Singapore: World Scientific)
848: \bibitem{} Feng, L.-L. 2007,
849: ApJ, 658, 25
850: \bibitem{} Grossi, M., Branchini, E., Dolag, K., Matarrese, S., \&
851: Moscardini, L. 2008,
852: preprint (arXiv:0805.0276)
853: \bibitem{} Hamana, T., Yoshida, N., \& Suto, Y. 2002,
854: ApJ, 568, 455
855: \bibitem{} Hansen, S. H., Agertz, O., Joyce, M., Stadel, J., Moore,
856: B., \& Potter, D. 2007,
857: ApJ, 656, 631
858: \bibitem{} He, P., Feng, L.-L., \& Fang, L.-Z. 2005,
859: ApJ, 628, 14
860: \bibitem{} Heitmann, K., Ricker, P. M., Warren, M. S., \& Habib, S.
861: 2005,
862: ApJS, 160, 28
863: \bibitem{} Hikage, C., Coles, P., Grossi, M., Moscardini, L., Dolag,
864: K., Branchini, E., \& Matarrese, S. 2008,
865: MNRAS, 385, 1613
866: \bibitem{} Hockney, R. W., \& Eastwood, J. W. 1988,
867: Computer Simulation Using Particles (Bristol: Institute of
868: Physics Publishing)
869: \bibitem{} Joyce, M., \& Marcos, B. 2007a,
870: Phys. Rev. D, 75, 063516
871: \bibitem{} Joyce, M., \& Marcos, B. 2007b,
872: Phys. Rev. D, 76, 103505
873: \bibitem{} Joyce, M., Marcos, B., \& Baertschiger, T. 2008,
874: preprint (arXiv:0805.1357)
875: \bibitem{} Kayo, I., Taruya, A., \& Suto, Y. 2001,
876: ApJ, 561, 22
877: \bibitem{} Klypin, A., \& Holtzman, J. 1997,
878: arXiv:astro-ph/9712217
879: \bibitem{} Knebe, A., \& Dom\'{\i}nguez, A. 2003,
880: Publ. Astron. Soc. Australia, 20, 173
881: \bibitem{} Knebe, A., Green, A., \& Binney, J. 2001,
882: MNRAS, 325, 845
883: \bibitem{} Knebe, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Gottl\"{o}ber, S., \& Klypin,
884: A. A. 2000,
885: MNRAS, 317, 630
886: \bibitem{} Knuth, D. E. 1998,
887: The Art of Computer Programming -- Vol. 2: Seminumerical
888: Algorithms (Boston: Addison-Wesley)
889: \bibitem{} Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A. A., \& Khokhlov, A. M. 1997,
890: ApJS, 111, 73
891: \bibitem{} Mart\'{\i}nez, V. J., Starck, J.-L., Saar, E., Donoho, D.
892: L., Reynolds, S. C., de la Cruz, P., \& Paredes, S. 2005,
893: ApJ, 634, 744
894: \bibitem{} Melott, A. L. 2007,
895: preprint (arXiv:0709.0745)
896: \bibitem{} Moore, B., Quinn, T., Governato, F., Stadel, J., \& Lake,
897: G. 1999,
898: MNRAS, 310, 1147
899: \bibitem{} Nelson, A. F. 2006,
900: MNRAS, 373, 1039
901: \bibitem{} Peacock, J. A. 1999,
902: Cosmological Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge University
903: Press)
904: \bibitem{} Peebles, P. J. E. 1980,
905: The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (Princeton:
906: Princeton University Press)
907: \bibitem{} Power, C., Navarro, J. F., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C. S.,
908: White, S. D. M., Springel, V., Stadel, J., \& Quinn, T.
909: 2003,
910: MNRAS, 338, 14
911: \bibitem{} Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., \&
912: Flannery, B. P. 2007,
913: Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing, Third
914: Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
915: \bibitem{} Price, D. J., \& Monaghan, J. J. 2007,
916: MNRAS, 374, 1347
917: \bibitem{} Romeo, A. B., Horellou, C., \& Bergh, J. 2003,
918: MNRAS, 342, 337 (Paper I)
919: \bibitem{} Romeo, A. B., Horellou, C., \& Bergh, J. 2004,
920: MNRAS, 354, 1208 (Paper II)
921: \bibitem{} Saar, E., Mart\'{\i}nez, V. J., Starck, J.-L., \& Donoho,
922: D. L. 2007,
923: MNRAS, 374, 1030
924: \bibitem{} Sirko, E. 2005,
925: ApJ, 634, 728
926: \bibitem{} Smith, R. E., et al. 2003,
927: MNRAS, 341, 1311
928: \bibitem{} Splinter, R. J., Melott, A. L., Shandarin, S. F., \& Suto,
929: Y. 1998,
930: ApJ, 497, 38
931: \bibitem{} Springel, V. 2005,
932: MNRAS, 364, 1105
933: \bibitem{} Stadel, J. G. 2001,
934: PhD thesis (University of Washington)
935: \bibitem{} Stuart, A., \& Ord, J. K. 1991,
936: Kendall's Advanced Theory of Statistics -- Vol. 2:
937: Classical Inference and Relationship (London: Hodder \&
938: Stoughton -- Arnold)
939: \bibitem{} Teodoro, L., \& Warren, M. S. 2004,
940: arXiv:astro-ph/0406174
941: \bibitem{} Teyssier, R. 2002,
942: A\&A, 385, 337
943: \bibitem{} Tinker, J., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A., Abazajian, K.,
944: Warren, M., Yepes, G., Gottl\"{o}ber, S., \& Holz, D. E.
945: 2008,
946: preprint (arXiv:0803.2706)
947: \bibitem{} Vidakovic, B. 1999,
948: Statistical Modeling by Wavelets (New York: Wiley)
949: \bibitem{} Vogelsberger, M., White, S. D. M., Helmi, A., \& Springel,
950: V. 2008,
951: MNRAS, 385, 236
952: \bibitem{} Wang, J., \& White, S. D. M. 2007,
953: MNRAS, 380, 93
954: \bibitem{} Warren, M. S., Abazajian, K., Holz, D. E., \& Teodoro, L.
955: 2006,
956: ApJ, 646, 881
957: \bibitem{} Wetzstein, M., Nelson, A. F., Naab, T., \& Burkert, A.
958: 2008,
959: preprint (arXiv:0802.4245)
960: \bibitem{} Zhan, H. 2006,
961: ApJ, 639, 617
962: \end{thebibliography}
963:
964: \clearpage
965:
966: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
967: \begin{figure}
968: \epsscale{.84}
969: \plotone{f1.eps}
970: \caption{The power spectrum $P(k)$, correlation function $\xi(r)$ and
971: mass variance $\sigma_{M}^{2}(r)$ for various $N$. Each
972: panel shows the statistical scatter of the diagnostic at
973: redshifts $z=15$ (lower set of curves) and $z=0$ (upper set
974: of curves). The black line, dark and light grey regions
975: represent the average, root-mean-square deviation and range
976: of the diagnostic, respectively.}
977: \end{figure}
978: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
979:
980: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
981: \begin{figure}
982: \epsscale{1.}
983: \plotone{f2.eps}
984: \caption{Logarithmic grey-scale map of the projected density field for
985: various $N$ at redshifts $z=0$ (top) and $z=15$ (bottom).}
986: \end{figure}
987: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
988:
989: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
990: \begin{figure}
991: \epsscale{.54}
992: \plotone{f3.eps}
993: \caption{Statistics of the density field as functions of $N$: the
994: standard deviation $\sigma$, skewness $S$ and kurtosis $K$.
995: The redshifts shown are $z=0$ (black) and $z=15$ (grey). The
996: scatter of the diagnostics is shown by plotting their average
997: (circles), root-mean-square deviation (thick error bars) and
998: range (thin error bars).}
999: \end{figure}
1000: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1001:
1002: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1003: \begin{figure}
1004: \epsscale{.47}
1005: \plotone{f4.eps}
1006: \caption{Histogram of the density field at redshift $z=0$ for a
1007: representative simulation. The histogram is shown for the
1008: range of values spanned by $\delta$ (top), and for the
1009: subrange $-1\leq\delta\leq1$ (bottom). In the bottom panel,
1010: the upper limit of the $y$-axis is set to 1/50 the maximum
1011: height of the histogram.}
1012: \end{figure}
1013: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1014:
1015: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1016: \begin{figure}
1017: \epsscale{.47}
1018: \plotone{f5.eps}
1019: \caption{Histogram of the transformed density field at redshift $z=0$
1020: for the same representative simulation as in Fig.\ 4.}
1021: \end{figure}
1022: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1023:
1024: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1025: \begin{figure}
1026: \epsscale{.33}
1027: \plotone{f6.eps}
1028: \caption{Statistics of the transformed density field as functions of
1029: $N$: the fraction of void cells $\nu$, mean $\mu$, standard
1030: deviation $\sigma$, skewness $S$ and kurtosis $K$. The
1031: redshifts shown are $z=0$ (black) and $z=15$ (grey). The
1032: scatter of the diagnostics is shown by plotting their average
1033: (circles), root-mean-square deviation (thick error bars) and
1034: range (thin error bars).}
1035: \end{figure}
1036: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1037:
1038: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1039: \begin{figure}
1040: \epsscale{.66}
1041: \plotone{f7.eps}
1042: \caption{Wavelet statistics of the density field as functions of $N$
1043: at redshifts $z=0$ (left) and $z=15$ (right): the void
1044: probability $\nu$, mean $\mu$, standard deviation $\sigma$,
1045: skewness $S$ and kurtosis $K$. The spatial scales shown are
1046: $s=1$ (red), $s=2$ (green), $s=3$ (blue) and $s=4$ (grey).
1047: The scatter of the diagnostics is shown by plotting their
1048: average (lines), root-mean-square deviation (dark regions)
1049: and range (light regions).}
1050: \end{figure}
1051: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1052:
1053: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1054: \begin{figure}
1055: \epsscale{.72}
1056: \plotone{f8.eps}
1057: \caption{Logarithmic grey-scale map of the projected density field at
1058: redshifts $z=0$ (left) and $z=15$ (right) for the additional
1059: simulations with power-spectrum truncation (top), regular
1060: sub-sampling (middle) and random sub-sampling (bottom).}
1061: \end{figure}
1062: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1063:
1064: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1065: \begin{figure}
1066: \epsscale{.6}
1067: \plotone{f9.eps}
1068: \caption{Wavelet statistics of the density field as functions of the
1069: spatial scale $s$ at redshifts $z=0$ (left) and $z=15$
1070: (right): the void probability $\nu$, mean $\mu$, standard
1071: deviation $\sigma$, skewness $S$ and kurtosis $K$. The sets
1072: of simulations shown are the original simulations with
1073: $N=16^{3}$ (grey curves) and $N=256^{3}$ (red curves), and
1074: the additional simulations with power-spectrum truncation
1075: (green symbols), regular sub-sampling (blue symbols) and
1076: random sub-sampling (cyan symbols). The scatter of the
1077: diagnostics for the original/additional simulations is shown
1078: by plotting their average (lines/circles), root-mean-square
1079: deviation (dark regions / thick error bars) and range (light
1080: regions / thin error bars).}
1081: \end{figure}
1082: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1083:
1084: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1085: \begin{figure}
1086: \epsscale{1.}
1087: \plotone{f10.eps}
1088: \caption{Histogram of the initial density field at redshift $z=15$ for
1089: $N=16^{3}$ (left), $N=64^{3}$ (middle) and $N=256^{3}$
1090: (right). Each histogram is shown for the range of values
1091: spanned by $\delta$ (top), and for the subrange
1092: $-1\leq\delta\leq1$ (bottom).}
1093: \end{figure}
1094: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1095:
1096: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1097: \begin{figure}
1098: \epsscale{1.}
1099: \plotone{f11.eps}
1100: \caption{Same as Fig.\ 10, but at redshift $z=100$.}
1101: \end{figure}
1102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1103:
1104: \end{document}
1105: