1: \documentclass[aps,prd,twocolumn,superscriptaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: \usepackage{dcolumn}

4: \usepackage{bm}

5: \usepackage{natbib}

6: \usepackage{multirow}

7: \usepackage{epsfig}

8: \usepackage{amsmath}

9: 

10: %\topmargin+1cm

11: 

12: % Journals

13: \newcommand{\aaps}{{Astron.~Astrophys.~Supp.}}

14: \newcommand{\araa}{{Annu.~Rev.~Astron.~Astrophys.}}

15: \newcommand{\aap}{{Astron.~Astrophys.}}

16: \newcommand{\apjl}{{Astrophys.~J.~Lett.}}

17: \newcommand{\apjs}{{Astrophys.~J.~Supp.}}

18: \newcommand{\aj}{{Astron.~J.}}

19: \newcommand{\mnras}{{Mon.~Not.~R.~Astron.~Soc.}}

20: \newcommand{\physrep}{{Phys.~Rep.}}

21: 

22: % Making life easier

23: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

24: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

25: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}

26: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}

27: \newcommand{\bi}{\bf}

28: \newcommand{\lyaf}{Ly-$\alpha$ forest}

29: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

30: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

31: \newcommand{\ns}{n_{\rm s}}

32: \newcommand{\eV}{\rm eV}

33: \newcommand{\mpc}{\rm Mpc}

34: \newcommand{\rmd}{{\rm d}}

35: \renewcommand{\vec}[1]{{\bf #1}}

36: \def\affilmrk#1{$^{#1}$}

37: \def\affilmk#1#2{$^{#1}$#2;}

38: 

39: \def\ptonp{1}

40: \def\ictp{2}

41: \def\cita{3}

42: \def\pton{4}

43: 

44: \newcommand{\fnl}{f_{\rm NL}}

45: 

46: \begin{document}

47: 

48: \title{Constraints on local primordial non-Gaussianity from large

49:     scale structure}

50: 

51: \author{An\v{z}e Slosar} \affiliation{Berkeley Center for Cosmological

52:   Physics, Physics Department and Lawrence Berkeley National

53:   Laboratory,University of California, Berkeley California 94720, USA}

54: 

55: \author{Christopher Hirata}

56: \affiliation{Caltech M/C 130-33, Pasadena, California 91125, USA}

57: 

58: \author{Uro\v{s} Seljak}

59: \affiliation{Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland}

60: \affiliation{Physics Department, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA}

61: 

62: \author{Shirley Ho}

63: \affiliation{Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Peyton Hall,

64: Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA}

65: 

66: \author{Nikhil Padmanabhan} 

67: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National

68:   Laboratory,University of California, Berkeley CA 94720, USA}

69: 

70: \date{\today}

71: 

72: \begin{abstract}

73:   Recent work has shown that the local non-Gaussianity parameter

74:   $\fnl$ induces a scale-dependent bias, whose amplitude is growing

75:   with scale. Here we first rederive this result within the context of

76:   peak-background split formalism and show that it only depends on the

77:   assumption of universality of mass function, assuming halo bias only

78:   depends on mass. We then use extended Press-Schechter formalism to

79:   argue that this assumption may be violated and the scale dependent

80:   bias will depend on other properties, such as merging history of

81:   halos. In particular, in the limit of recent mergers we find the

82:   effect is suppressed. Next we use these predictions in conjunction

83:   with a compendium of large scale data to put a limit on the value of

84:   $\fnl$. When combining all data assuming that halo occupation

85:   depends only on halo mass, we get a limit of $ -29 ~ (-65)< \fnl <

86:   +70 ~(+93)$ at 95\% (99.7\%) confidence.  While we use a wide range

87:   of datasets, our combined result is dominated by the signal from the

88:   SDSS photometric quasar sample.  If the latter are modelled as

89:   recent mergers then the limits weaken to $ -31 ~(-96) < \fnl < +70 ~

90:   (+96) $.  These limits are comparable to the strongest current

91:   limits from the WMAP 5 year analysis, with no evidence of a positive

92:   signal in $\fnl$.  While the method needs to be thoroughly tested

93:   against large scale structure simulations with realistic quasar and

94:   galaxy formation models, our results indicate that this is a

95:   competitive method relative to CMB and should be further pursued

96:   both observationally and theoretically.

97: \end{abstract}

98: 

99: \pacs{98.80.Jk, 98.80.Cq}

100: 

101: \maketitle

102: 

103: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

104: 

105: \section{Introduction}

106: 

107: The origin of structure formation in the universe is one of the most

108: hotly debated topics in current cosmology research.  The standard

109: paradigm is that of inflation

110: \cite{1979JETPL..30..682S,1981PhRvD..23..347G,1982PhLB..108..389L,1982PhRvL..48.1220A},

111: which has been tremendously successful in describing a very large

112: number of very distinct data-sets (see

113: e.g. \cite{2008arXiv0803.0547K}). Inflationary models generically

114: predict a flat universe and nearly scale-invariant spectrum of initial

115: fluctuations

116: \cite{1981JETPL..33..532M,1982PhLB..115..295H,1982PhRvL..49.1110G,1982PhLB..117..175S,1983PhRvD..28..679B},

117: both of which seem to be confirmed by observations. Consequently, a

118: lot of effort is being put into constraining observables that might

119: actually distinguish between different models of inflation. At the

120: moment, this is done as a multi-pronged effort: first, measurement of

121: the primordial power spectrum gives a direct measure of the

122: inflationary potential shape and inflationary models differ on the

123: actual slope, some predicting red and some blue spectrum. Moreover,

124: inflation predicts that the primordial slope should only be changing

125: with scale very slowly and any deviation from this prediction would be

126: a surprise in need of an explanation.  Second, a detection of $B$-mode

127: polarization in the cosmic microwave background, if interpreted as

128: gravitational waves from the early Universe, will effectively

129: determine the energy scale of inflation and rule out a major class of

130: inflationary models that predict inflation occurs at a low energy

131: scale \cite{2001PhRvD..64l3522K}.  Alternatives to inflation, such as

132: ekpyrotic models

133: \cite{2001PhRvD..64l3522K,2003PhRvL..91p1301K,2002Sci...296.1436S,2008PhRvL.100q1302B},

134: differ from inflationary predictions in that the expected

135: gravitational wave signal in CMB is always negligible. Thus, they can

136: be falsified if primordial gravitational waves are detected.  Third,

137: multifield models could generate isocurvature perturbations; while now

138: ruled out as the main mode of structure formation, these could be

139: present at a subdominant level and if detected would rule out the

140: simplest models of inflation

141: \cite{2000PhRvD..61l3507L,2004PhRvD..69f3513G,2006PhRvD..74f3503B,2008arXiv0804.1097B}.

142: 

143: A fourth direction, and the one we focus on in this paper, is

144: non-Gaussianity in initial conditions.  Standard single field

145: inflation predicts that the departures from Gaussianity are very small

146: and not accessible to the current observational constraints.  Most of

147: the models predict that non-Gaussianity is of the local type, meaning

148: that it depends on the local value of the potential only.  A standard

149: parameterization of the primordial non-Gaussianity is the so-called

150: scale-independent $\fnl$ parameterization, in which one includes a

151: quadratic correction to the potential \citep{1994ApJ...430..447G,2001PhRvD..63f3002K}:

152: \begin{equation}

153:   %\Phi = \phi + \fnl \left( \phi^2 - \left<\phi^2 \right> \right),

154:   \Phi = \phi + \fnl \phi^2,

155: \label{fnl}

156: \end{equation}

157: where $\phi$ is the primordial potential assumed to be a Gaussian

158: random field and $\fnl$ describes the amplitude of the correction. A

159: typical value of $\fnl$ for standard slow roll inflation is of the

160: order of slow roll parameter and thus of order $10^{-2}$

161: \cite{2003JHEP...05..013M}, but this is likely to be swamped by the

162: contribution from nonlinear transformation between the primordial

163: field fluctuation (assumed to be Gaussian if it started from the pure

164: Bunch-Davies vacuum) and the observable (such as CMB temperature

165: fluctuation), which generically gives $\fnl$ of order unity (see

166: e.g. \cite{2004PhR...402..103B}).  Models where $\fnl$ is

167: significantly higher include multi-field inflation

168: \cite{1997PhRvD..56..535L,2002PhRvD..66j3506B,2003PhRvD..67b3503L} as

169: well as models where non-Gaussianity arises during reheating

170: \cite{2004PhRvD..69b3505D,2008PhRvD..77b3505S} or preheating

171: \cite{2006JCAP...04..003J,2005PhRvL..94p1301E,2005hep.ph....1076E,2008PhRvL.100d1302C}. Non-slow

172: roll inflation models may also lead to a significant non-Gaussianity,

173: but are constrained because they may not lead to enough inflation in

174: the first place.  Note that since $\phi \sim 10^{-5}$ even $\fnl \sim

175: 100$, comparable to the present limits, generates non-Gaussian

176: signatures only at a $10^{-3}$ level, so the non-Gaussian signal one

177: is searching for is very small.  Overall, any detection of $\fnl$

178: above unity would be a major surprise in need of an explanation within

179: the inflationary paradigm.

180: 

181: Very recently, non-Gaussianity in ekpyrotic models has also

182: been studied with the results suggesting that non-Gaussianity in these

183: models is generically large \cite{2007JCAP...11..010C} and often 

184: correlated with the spectral slope

185: $n_s$ \cite{2008PhRvD..77f3533L,2008arXiv0804.1293L}, in the sense that the

186: redder the spectrum the higher non-Gaussianity one may expect. Thus,

187: non-Gaussianity is emerging as one of the strongest discriminators

188: among the models attempting to explain the origins of structure in the

189: universe.

190: 

191: Traditionally, the cleanest method for detecting the non-Gaussianity

192: has been to measure the bispectrum or 3-point function of the Cosmic

193: Microwave Background (CMB). The initial 3-year Wilkinson Anisotropy

194: Probe (WMAP) result gave a limit on $\fnl$ of $-54<\fnl<134$

195: \cite{2003ApJS..148..119K} (all limits reported at 95\% confidence

196: limit) from the bispectrum of the WMAP data at $\ell<400$.  This has

197: been improved subsequently to $-36<\fnl<100$ by the 3 year analysis

198: \cite{2007JCAP...03..005C}. However, Yadav \& Wandelt recently claimed

199: a detection of $\fnl>0$ at 99.5\% significance, with $2\sigma$ range

200: $27<\fnl<147$ \cite{2008PhRvL.100r1301Y}. This result is surprising

201: as, taken at its face value, it implies a very non-standard inflation

202: or something else all together. Interestingly, a similar result has

203: been obtained by Jeong \& Smoot using the one-point distribution

204: function of the CMB \cite{2007arXiv0710.2371J}. The WMAP 5-year

205: results also prefer positive $\fnl$ from their bispectrum analysis,

206: although zero $\fnl$ is within its 2-sigma significance

207: \cite{2008arXiv0803.0547K}, namely $-9 < \fnl < 111$.

208: 

209: An alternative method that has been applied to CMB are Minkowski

210: functionals \cite{2003ApJS..148..119K}.  WMAP 3-year analysis via this

211: technique puts the limit at $-70<\fnl<91$ \cite{2008arXiv0802.3677H},

212: while the recent WMAP 5-year analysis gives $-178 <\fnl< 64$ from

213: Minkowski functionals, which is about a factor of two larger error

214: than from bispectrum analysis \cite{2008arXiv0803.0547K}.

215: 

216: In the near future, the Planck satellite should improve these numbers

217: significantly and can in principle push to $\sigma(\fnl)\sim 7$

218: \cite{2008arXiv0803.4194C}, while more speculatively, the

219: pre-reionization H{\sc ~i} 21 cm transition may offer an unprecedented

220: access to the 3-dimensional distribution of linear modes at high

221: redshift and may bring us into regime $\sigma(\fnl) \ll 1$ where a

222: detection is expected \cite{2008PhRvD..77j3506C}.

223: 

224: A different direction to probe non-Gaussianity is to try and determine

225: what observational signatures it leaves in the large scale structure

226: (LSS) of the universe. The main problem is that non-linearities add

227: their own phase correlations between Fourier modes that can very

228: quickly swamp the primordial signal. Historically, the focus was on

229: the mass function of very massive virialised structures

230: \cite{2004PhRvD..69j3513S,1986A&A...162...13L,2000ApJ...541...10M,2000MNRAS.311..781R,2002MNRAS.331...71B}.

231: The motivation was the notion that very massive virialised objects

232: correspond to very rare peaks in the initial density field and

233: therefore their number density should be an exponentially sensitive

234: probe of those peaks at the high mass end, allowing a unique probe of

235: the primordial peak structure. While results generally agree with this

236: picture, the observational task is made very difficult by the low

237: number statistics of such objects, uncertainties in the

238: mass-observable relation and its scatter, and selection effects.

239: 

240: A different method has been recently proposed by Dalal et~al.

241: \cite{2008PhRvD..77l3514D}. By extending the classical calculation for

242: calculating the clustering of rare peaks in a Gaussian field

243: \cite{1986ApJ...304...15B} to the $\fnl$-type non-Gaussianity, they

244: have shown that clustering of rare peaks exhibits a very distinct

245: scale-dependent bias on the largest scales. The analytical result has

246: been tested using $N$-body simulations, which confirm this basic

247: picture. 

248: 

249: The purpose of this paper is two-fold, first to provide a better

250: theoretical understanding of the effect and the range of its

251: applicability, and second, to apply it to the real data. We begin in

252: Section \ref{sec:theory} by providing a new, more general, derivation

253: of the nonlinear bias induced by non-Gaussianity, highlighting more

254: clearly its underlying assumptions. We then extend the basic

255: derivation using the extended Press-Schechter formalism and show that

256: for certain classes of halos, such as those that have undergone a

257: recent merger, the results may be substantially modified.

258: 

259: We then use this formalism and apply

260: it to a wide selection of publicly available large scale structure

261: data.  In Sections \ref{sec:method-data}--\ref{sec:results} we

262: discuss the data, methodology, main results and systematic issues,

263: including application of Section \ref{sec:theory} to the derived

264: observational constraints. In Section \ref{sec:discussion} we discuss

265: the results and present some directions for the future.

266: 

267: \section{Theory}

268: \label{sec:theory}

269: 

270: In this section we provide theoretical derivations of the large scale

271: bias induced by non-Gaussianity of the local type.  We first derive an

272: expression that depends only on the halo mass function and halo bias,

273: using the fact that $\fnl$ causes a local re-scaling of the amplitude

274: $\sigma_8$.  This derivation is more general than that of Dalal

275: et~al. \cite{2008PhRvD..77l3514D}, since it is not tied to the

276: spherical collapse model. In particular, we show that any universal

277: mass function, such as the Sheth \& Tormen mass function

278: \cite{1999MNRAS.308..119S} or Press-Schechter mass function

279: \cite{1974ApJ...187..425P}, leads to the equation first derived in

280: Dalal et~al.  \cite{2008PhRvD..77l3514D}.  We then extend the

281: derivation to the extended Press-Schechter (ePS) type of analysis and

282: derive the effect of halo merger bias on $\Delta b$.  Finally we

283: comment on the accuracy of the ePS prediction and compare it to

284: previously published $N$-body results.

285: 

286: \subsection{Local non-Gaussianity in peak-background formalism}

287: 

288: Large-scale bias of haloes is usually treated in the context of the

289: peak-background split \cite{1989MNRAS.237.1127C}.  One can split the

290: density field into a long-wavelength piece $\delta_l$ and a

291: short-wavelength piece $\delta_s$ as in

292: \begin{equation}

293:   \rho(\vec{x}) = \bar{\rho} \left(1+\delta_l+\delta_s \right).

294: \end{equation}

295: 

296: The local Lagrangian number density of haloes $n({\bf x})$

297: (i.e. number density of haloes per unit halo mass)

298: at position ${\bf x}$ can then be written as a function of the local value of

299: the long-wavelength perturbation $\delta_l({\bf x})$ and the

300: statistics of the short-wavelength fluctuations $P_s(k_s)$.  The

301: sufficiently averaged local density of halos follows the large scale

302: matter perturbations

303: \begin{equation}

304:   n(\vec{x}) = \bar{n} \left(1+b_L\delta_l \right)

305: \end{equation}

306: and so  the Lagrangian bias is then

307: \begin{equation}

308: b_L = \bar{n}^{-1} \frac{\partial n}{\partial \delta_l}.

309: \label{bl}

310: \end{equation}

311: For Eulerian space bias

312: one needs to add the Eulerian space clustering, so

313: the total or Eulerian bias is $b=b_L+1$.

314: This argument leads to a generically scale-independent bias at sufficiently

315: large scales.  The specific function $b(M)$ is obtained by

316: constructing a specific function $n[\delta_l({\bf x}),P_s(k_s);M]$,

317: generally fit to simulations, and then differentiating it.

318: 

319: The non-Gaussian case is complicated by the fact that large and

320: small-scale density fluctuations are no longer independent.  Instead,

321: in the $\fnl$ prescription, one may separate long- and

322: short-wavelength Gaussian potential fluctuations,

323: \begin{equation}

324: \phi = \phi_l + \phi_s,

325: \end{equation}

326: which are independent.  Inserting into Equation (\ref{fnl}) we can

327: then re-map these into the non-Gaussian potential fluctuations,

328: \begin{equation}

329: \Phi = \phi_l + \fnl\phi_l^2 + (1+2\fnl\phi_l)\phi_s + \fnl\phi_s^2 + {\rm const}.

330: \label{eq:Phi}

331: \end{equation}

332: We can then convert this to a density field using the expression

333: $\delta_l(k) = \alpha(k)\Phi(k)$, with

334: \begin{equation}

335: \alpha(k) = \frac{2c^2k^2T(k)D(z)}{3\Omega_mH_0^2}.

336: \end{equation}

337: Here $T(k)$ is the transfer function, $c$ speed of light, $D(z)$ the

338: linear growth factor normalised to  be $(1+z)^{-1}$ in the matter domination, 

339: $\Omega_0$ the matter density today and $H_0$ the Hubble parameter today. 

340: The operator $\alpha(k)$ makes it  non-local on scales of $\sim 100$ Mpc, so 

341: this can also be thought of as a convolution operator in real space.

342: 

343: For long-wavelength modes of the density field, one may write

344: \begin{equation}

345: \delta_l(k) = \alpha(k) \phi_l(k);

346: \end{equation}

347: the remaining terms in Equation (\ref{eq:Phi}) are either much smaller

348: ($\fnl\phi_l^2$), have only short-wavelength pieces

349: [$(1+2\fnl\phi_l)\phi_s$], or simply add a small white noise

350: contribution on large scales ($\fnl\phi_s^2$).

351: 

352: Within a region of given large-scale over-density $\delta_l$ and

353: potential $\phi_l$, the short-wavelength modes of the density field

354: are:

355: \begin{equation}

356: \delta_s = \alpha \left[ (1+2\fnl\phi_l)\phi_s + \fnl\phi_s^2 \right].

357: \end{equation}

358: This is a special case of

359: \begin{equation}

360: \delta_s = \alpha \left[ X_1\phi_s + X_2\phi_s^2 \right], \label{eq:ds}

361: \end{equation}

362: where $X_1=1+2\fnl\phi_l$ and $X_2=\fnl$.

363: 

364: In the non-Gaussian case, the local number density of haloes of mass

365: $M$ is a function of not just $\delta_l$, but also $X_1$ and $X_2$:

366: $n[\delta_l,X_1,X_2;P_s(k_s);M]$.  The halo bias is then

367: \begin{equation}

368: b_L(M,k) = \bar n^{-1} \left[ \frac{\partial n}{\partial \delta_l({\bf x})}

369:   + 2\fnl\frac{\rmd\phi_l(k)}{\rmd\delta_l(k)} \frac{\partial n}{\partial X_1}

370:   \right],\label{eq:hb1}

371: \end{equation}

372: where the derivative is taken at the mean value $X_1=1$.

373: (There is no $X_2$ term since $X_2$ is not spatially variable.)  The

374: first term here is the usual Gaussian bias, which has no dependence on

375: $k$.  

376: 

377: Equation (\ref{eq:ds}) shows that the effect on non-Gaussianity is a

378: local rescaling of amplitude of (small scale) matter fluctuations. To

379: keep the cosmologist's intuition we write this in terms of $\sigma_8$:

380: \begin{equation}

381: \sigma_8^{\rm local}(\vec{x})=\sigma_8 X_1(\vec{x}),  

382: \end{equation}

383: so $\delta\sigma_8^{\rm local} = \sigma_8\delta X_1$. 

384: This allows us to rewrite Equation (\ref{eq:hb1}) as

385: \begin{equation}

386: b_L(M,k) = b_L^{\rm Gaussian}(M) +

387: 2\fnl\frac{\rmd\phi_l(k)}{\rmd\delta_l(k)}\frac{\partial\ln

388:   n}{\partial\ln\sigma_8^{\rm local}}.

389: \end{equation}

390: 

391: In principle there is an additional change in the bias because the

392: mean density $\bar n$ contains terms of order $\fnl$, which arise from

393: (i) the dependence of $n$ on $X_2$ and (ii) the cross-correlation of

394: $\delta_l$ and $X_1$.  This correction is scale-independent and so

395: cause no problem if one is fitting the bias to large-scale structure

396: data, as we do here.

397: 

398: Substituting in

399: $\rmd\phi_l(k)/\rmd\delta_l(k)=\alpha^{-1}(k)$ and dropping the

400: \textit{local} label, we find:

401: \begin{equation}

402: \Delta b(M,k) =

403: \frac{3\Omega_mH_0^2}{c^2k^2T(k)D(z)}

404: \fnl\frac{\partial\ln n}{\partial\ln\sigma_8}.

405: \label{eq:bias-general}

406: \end{equation}

407: This formula is extremely useful because it applies to the bias of any

408: type of object and is expressible entirely in terms of quantities in

409: Gaussian cosmologies, which have received enormous attention from

410: $N$-body simulators. Within the peak-background split model, the task

411: of performing non-Gaussian calculations is thus reduced to an ensemble

412: of Gaussian simulations with varying amplitude of matter fluctuations.

413: 

414: \subsection{Application to universal mass functions}

415: 

416: We now apply Equation (\ref{eq:bias-general}) to halo abundance models with

417: a universal mass function. Universal mass functions are those that

418: depend only significance $\nu(M)$, i.e.

419: \begin{equation}

420:   n(M) = n(M,\nu)= M^{-2} \nu f(\nu) \frac{\rmd\ln\nu}{\rmd\ln M},

421: \end{equation}

422: where we define $\nu = \delta_c^2/\sigma^2(M)$ and $f(\nu)$ is the

423: fraction of mass that collapses into haloes of significance between

424: $\nu$ and $\nu+d\nu$. Here $\delta_c=1.686$ denotes the spherical

425: collapse linear over-density and $\sigma(M)$ is the variance of the

426: density field smoothed with a top-hat filter on the scale enclosing

427: mass $M$.  Universality of the halo mass function has been tested in

428: numerous simulations, with results generally confirming the assumption

429: even if the specific functional forms for $f(\nu)$ may differ from one

430: another.

431: 

432: The significance of a halo of mass $M$ depends on the background

433: density field $\delta_l$, so one can compute $\partial n / \partial

434: \delta_l(\vec{x})$ and insert it into Equation (\ref{bl}) \cite{1989MNRAS.237.1127C},

435: \begin{equation}

436: b = 1 - \frac2{\delta_c}\nu\frac \rmd{\rmd\nu}\ln [\nu f(\nu)].

437: \label{eq:b-st}

438: \end{equation}

439: (This is $>1$ for massive haloes since the last derivative is negative

440: in this case.)

441: 

442: The derivative $\partial\ln n/\partial\ln\sigma_8$ appearing in

443: Equation (\ref{eq:bias-general}) can be obtained under the same

444: universality assumption.  In fact, the calculation is simpler.  The

445: definition of the significance implies $\nu\propto\sigma_8^{-2}$, so

446: that $d\ln\nu/d\ln M$ does not depend on $\sigma_8$ at fixed $M$.

447: Therefore $n\propto\nu f(\nu)$ and

448: \begin{equation}

449: \frac{\partial\ln n}{\partial\ln\sigma_8} = \frac{\partial\ln\nu}{\partial\ln\sigma_8}

450: \frac{\partial\ln [\nu f(\nu)]}{\partial\ln \nu}

451: = -2\nu\frac d{d\nu}\ln [\nu f(\nu)].

452: \label{eq:univ}

453: \end{equation}

454: Thus by comparison to Equation (\ref{eq:b-st}), we find:

455: \begin{equation}

456:   \Delta b (M,k) = 3 \fnl (b-1) \delta_c \frac{\Omega_m}{k^2T(k)D(z)} 

457: \left(\frac{H_0}{c}\right)^2

458: \label{eq:deltab-universal}

459: \end{equation}

460: This is equivalent to the previously derived expressions

461: \cite{2008PhRvD..77l3514D,2008ApJ...677L..77M}. However, it is more

462: general, because it is independent of the form of $f(\nu)$.  It is

463: therefore valid for the Press-Schechter mass function as well as for

464: the more accurate Sheth-Tormen function.  It is also valid for any

465: object that obeys a halo occupation distribution (HOD) that depends

466: only on the halo mass, $\langle N\rangle(M)$, since in this case both

467: $b$ and $\Delta b$ are linearly averages of their values for

468: individual masses:

469: \begin{equation}

470: b = \frac{\int b(M)n(M) \langle N\rangle(M)\,\rmd M}{\int n(M) \langle

471:   N\rangle(M)\,\rmd M},

472: \end{equation}

473: and similarly for $\Delta b$.

474: 

475: \subsection{Halo merger bias}

476: \label{sec:halo-merger-bias}

477: 

478: The above statements apply to biasing of objects whose HOD depends

479: only on the mass of the halo.  However this may not be true for the

480: quasars; in particular there are many lines of evidence that suggests

481: that quasar activity is triggered by recent mergers

482: \cite{2003MNRAS.343..692H,2008ApJS..175..356H,2008ApJ...674...80U}.  Therefore

483: we should consider the standard bias $b$ and large-scale bias $\Delta

484: b$ for recent mergers, which is in general not the same as the bias of

485: all haloes of the final mass \cite{2006MNRAS.366..529F,2007ApJ...656..139W}.

486: 

487: This section considers the simplified case in which quasars are

488: triggered by a merger between a halo of mass $M_1$ and one of mass

489: $M_2$, after which the quasar lives for a time $t_Q\ll H^{-1}$ in the

490: new halo of mass $M_0=M_1+M_2$.  This requires us to understand the

491: dependence of the number of recent mergers on amplitude, which we will

492: again express as $\sigma_8$.  Unlike the case of the mass function

493: there are no accurate fitting formulae to the merger rate that have

494: been tested against $N$-body simulations for a variety of cosmologies.

495: Therefore we will take two approaches here.  The first will be to

496: consider the recent merger probabilities from the extended

497: Press-Schechter (ePS) formalism.  With ePS, we will find that for

498: haloes of a given mass the probability of being a recent merger is

499: proportional to $\sigma_8^{-1}$.  In this picture, the bias of the

500: quasars in this case is the same as the halo bias $b(M_0)$, but the

501: $\fnl$-induced bias $\Delta b$ is less for recent mergers than for all

502: haloes of mass $M_0$.  However there is no rigorous error bound on ePS

503: calculations, so it is desirable to have an independent way to get the

504: dependence of merger histories on $\sigma_8$.  We therefore consider a

505: second method of getting the recent merger probability during the

506: matter-dominated era by using redshift scaling relations from $N$-body

507: simulation results.  The latter method confirms the ePS

508: $\sigma_8^{-1}$ relation.

509: 

510: \subsubsection{Extended Press-Schechter calculation}

511: \label{sec:extend-press-schecht}

512: 

513: We will work in the ePS formalism in which the merger history seen by

514: a given dark matter particle is controlled by the linear density field

515: $\delta(M)$ measured today, spherically smoothed on a mass scale $M$

516: in Lagrangian space \cite{1993MNRAS.262..627L}.  At time $t$ a

517: particle is inside a halo of mass $\ge M$ if $\delta(M')>\omega(t)$

518: for any $M'>M$, where $\omega(t)=\delta_cD(t_0)/D(t)$ is the ratio of

519: the threshold over-density for collapse $\delta_c$ to the growth

520: function $D(t)$.  In this picture it is convenient to replace the

521: smoothing scale $M$ with the variance of the density field on that

522: scale, $S(M)=\langle\delta(M)^2\rangle$.  The smoothed density field

523: $\delta(S)$ then follows a random walk as a function of $S$; this

524: random walk is usually assumed to be Markovian because (i) each

525: Fourier mode is independent for Gaussian initial conditions, and (ii)

526: one neglects the difference between smoothing with a top-hat in

527: Fourier space (in which each mode is independent) and the physically

528: motivated top-hat in real space.

529: 

530: In this formalism we would like the probability that a halo of mass

531: $M_0$ at time $t$ was actually of mass $M_1$ at an earlier time

532: $t-t_Q$ and experienced a merger with a halo of mass $M_2=M_0-M_1$.

533: As argued by Lacey \& Cole \cite{1993MNRAS.262..627L}, the probability

534: for a particular dark matter particle in this halo to have been in an

535: object of mass $<M_1$ at time $t-t_Q$ is the probability that the

536: trajectory $\delta(S)$ does not exceed $\omega(t-t_Q)$ between

537: $S_0\equiv S(M_0)$ and $S_1=S(M_1)$.  This evaluates to

538: \begin{equation}

539: P_{\rm particle}(<M_1) = \,{\rm erfc}\, \frac{\omega(t-t_Q)-\omega(t)}{\sqrt{2(S_1-S_0)}},

540: \end{equation}

541: so the differential probability is:

542: \begin{eqnarray}

543: P_{\rm particle}(M_1)\,\rmd M_1 &=& \frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}}

544: \frac{\omega(t-t_Q)-\omega(t)}{(S_1-S_0)^{3/2}}

545: \nonumber \\ & & \times

546: \exp\left\{-\frac{[\omega(t-t_Q)-\omega(t)]^2}{2(S_1-S_0)}\right\}

547: \nonumber \\ & & \times

548: \left|\frac{dS_1}{\rmd M_1}\right|\,\rmd M_1

549: \nonumber \\

550: &\approx& 

551: \frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}}

552: \frac{t_Q|\dot\omega|}{(S_1-S_0)^{3/2}}

553: \left|\frac{dS_1}{\rmd M_1}\right|\,\rmd M_1,

554: \nonumber \\ &&

555: \end{eqnarray}

556: where in the last line we have assumed that $t_Q$ is short so that one

557: can do a Taylor expansion to lowest order in $t_Q$ and recalled that

558: $\dot\omega<0$.  The differential probability that the halo of mass

559: $M_0$ is a recent merger is simply this divided by the fraction of the

560: particles in the mass $M_1$ progenitor,

561: \begin{equation}

562: P(M_1|M_0)\,\rmd M_1 = \frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}}

563: \frac{t_Q|\dot\omega|}{(S_1-S_0)^{3/2}} \frac{M_0}{M_1}

564: \left|\frac{\rmd S_1}{\rmd M_1}\right|\, \rmd M_1.

565: \label{eq:prob-merger}

566: \end{equation}

567: This formula was first derived by Lacey \& Cole

568: \cite{1993MNRAS.262..627L}, albeit in a slightly different form [they

569: computed $P(M_0|M_1)$]. It has two well-known deficiencies.  One is

570: that it is not symmetric under exchange of $M_1$ and $M_2$, especially

571: for extreme mass ratios \cite{2002MNRAS.336.1082S,

572:   2005MNRAS.357..847B}.  Another is that it does not contain merger

573: bias in the Gaussian case, i.e. the bias of mergers is simply $b(M_0)$

574: \cite{2006MNRAS.366..529F}.  This is because of the assumption that

575: the trajectory $\delta(S)$ is a Markovian random walk, which is not

576: quite correct.  For example, the analytic explanations for merger bias

577: of high-mass haloes \cite{2008arXiv0803.3453D} are based on

578: non-Markovian behaviour due to the fact that the physically meaningful

579: smoothing in real space does not correspond to a sharp cutoff at some

580: $k_{\rm max}$. The corresponding merger history bias is based on the

581: correlation coefficient $\gamma$ between $\delta(S)$ and

582: $d\delta(S)/dS$; one would have $\gamma=0$ if one used the

583: Fourier-space rather than real-space top-hat filter.  This subtlety is

584: however not required to understand why the merger bias in $\fnl$

585: cosmologies is significant on large scales.

586: 

587: For our application we would also need to integrate over the range of 

588: masses $M_1$ that define a major merger, but since the result does not actually 

589: depend on this we will not explicitly write it. 

590: In order to apply Equation (\ref{eq:bias-general}) to recent mergers we

591: need only understand how the number density of recent mergers varies

592: with $\sigma_8$.  Since the number density of recent mergers is the

593: product of the number density of haloes of mass $M_0$ and the

594: probability of them being recent mergers, we may write

595: \begin{equation}

596: \frac{\partial\ln n_{\rm merger}}{\partial\ln\sigma_8} =

597: \frac{\partial\ln n(M_0)}{\partial\ln\sigma_8} +

598: \frac{\partial\ln P(M_1|M_0)}{\partial\ln\sigma_8}.

599: \label{eq:np1}

600: \end{equation}

601: From Equations (\ref{eq:b-st}) and (\ref{eq:univ}), the first term

602: evaluates to $\delta_c(b-1)$.  The second term contains the merger

603: tree-dependent contribution to the large-scale bias, and can be

604: evaluated from Equation (\ref{eq:prob-merger}).  If one varies $\sigma_8$,

605: the mass variances all scale as $S(M)\propto \sigma_8^2$, and hence

606: $P(M_1|M_0)\propto\sigma_8^{-1}$.  Thus we conclude that the second

607: term is equal to $-1$, so

608: \begin{equation}

609: \frac{\partial\ln n_{\rm merger}}{\partial\ln\sigma_8} = \delta_c(b-1-\delta_c^{-1}).

610: \end{equation}

611: This is identical to the extra large-scale bias for haloes of fixed

612:  mass, except that we have a factor of $b-1-\delta_c^{-1}$ instead of

613:  $b-1$, so 

614: the factor of $b-1$ is replaced by $b-1.6$.  

615: 

616: This formula is derived from ePS formalism and so it would seem to be on a

617: somewhat less certain footing, since the analytic formulas for merger

618: rates have not been tested in $N$-body simulations as extensively as

619: those for the halo mass function.  However, as we show in the following 

620: subsection, we do have some guidance from numerical simulations suggesting the 

621: scaling derived here is correct. 

622: 

623: \subsubsection{Scaling from $N$-body simulations}

624: 

625: The ePS formalism predicts that the probability of a halo of mass

626: $M_0$ being a recent merger, $P(M_1|M_0)\rmd M_1$, is proportional to

627: $\sigma_8^{-1}$.  While the qualitative result that massive haloes are

628: more likely to be recent mergers in low-$\sigma_8$ than

629: high-$\sigma_8$ cosmologies is supported by $N$-body simulations

630: \cite{2001MNRAS.325.1053C, 2005APh....24..316C}, the quantitative

631: validity of the $-1$ exponent does not appear to be well-tested.

632: Nevertheless, in the matter-dominated era it is possible to determine

633: the exponent from the redshift dependence of the merger rate.  

634: 

635: The key is that there is no preferred timescale in the Einstein-de

636: Sitter cosmology; scale factor and linear growth factor are both

637: proportional to $t^{2/3}$ and therefore the rescaling of initial

638: amplitude is mathematically identical to rescaling of time. Hence two

639: $N$-body simulations whose initial conditions differ only by the

640: normalization of the primordial perturbations will evolve through

641: exactly the same sequence of halo formation and mergers, except that

642: the scale factor of each merger is re-scaled according to $a_{\rm

643:   merger}\propto \sigma_8^{-1}$. 

644: 

645: Note that for $\Lambda$CDM cosmologies this correspondence between

646: scaling time and scaling normalisation breaks as the amplitude of

647: fluctuations at the onset of cosmic acceleration will be different for

648: different initial amplitudes.  Therefore results of this rescaling do

649: not apply to the lowest redshifts, where the dark energy becomes

650: important, but since in our analysis the only sample where recent mergers may be 

651: relevant is the quasar sample, which has a redshift distribution

652: peaking at $z\sim 1.7$, this is a minor deficiency.

653: 

654: 

655: We want to test this relation from the merger history statistics

656: \cite{2008MNRAS.386..577F} in the Millenium Simulation

657: \cite{2005Natur.435..629S}.

658: The recent merger probability, which we have denoted $P(M_1|M_0)\rmd M_1$,

659: is related to the merger rate $B/n$ defined by

660: Ref.~\cite{2008MNRAS.386..577F} by:

661: \begin{equation}

662: P(M_1|M_0)\rmd M_1 = t_Q\frac{B(M_0,\xi)}{n(M_0)}\frac{\rmd z}{\rmd t}\frac{\partial M_1}{\partial\xi}\rmd \xi,

663: \end{equation}

664: where $\xi>1$ is the mass ratio of the progenitors.  Here $B/n$ is the

665: merger rate per final halo of mass $M_0$ per unit redshift per unit

666: $\xi$.  The derivative with respect to $\sigma_8$ is straightforward

667: to express:

668: \begin{equation}

669: \frac{\partial\ln P(M_1|M_0)}{\partial\ln\sigma_8} = \frac{\partial\ln(B/n)}{\partial\ln\sigma_8},

670: \label{eq:prob}

671: \end{equation}

672: where the partial derivatives are all at constant $z$. 

673: 

674: In an Einstein-de Sitter universe, the rescaling of the amplitude

675: \begin{equation}

676: \sigma_8 \rightarrow (1+\epsilon)\sigma_8

677: \end{equation}

678: is equivalent to rescaling of the scale factor (or redshift):

679: \begin{equation}

680: 1+z \rightarrow  \frac{1+z}{1+\epsilon}.

681: \end{equation}

682: Equating the recent merger probabilities in these two cases gives

683: \begin{equation}

684: \frac Bn \left(1+z,\sigma_8(1+\epsilon) \right) \rmd z = \frac Bn

685: \left(\frac{1+z}{1+\epsilon},\sigma_8\right) \frac{\rmd z}{1+\epsilon}.

686: \end{equation}

687: [The denominator $1+\epsilon$ on the right-hand side comes from

688: rescaling of the redshift interval, $\rmd z\rightarrow \rmd z/(1+\epsilon)$.]

689: Taking the logarithm of both sides, and then differentiating with

690: respect to $\epsilon$ gives

691: \begin{equation}

692: \frac{\partial\ln(B/n)}{\partial\ln\sigma_8} = -1 - \frac{\partial\ln(B/n)}{\partial\ln(1+z)}.

693: \end{equation}

694: This means that Equation (\ref{eq:prob}) can be evaluated provided

695: the power-law exponent relating $B/n$ to $1+z$ is known.

696: 

697: The ePS prediction is $B/n\propto(1+z)^0$, i.e. constant

698: \cite{2008MNRAS.386..577F}.  Inspection of Figure 8 of

699: Ref.~\cite{2008MNRAS.386..577F} shows that for a wide range of halo

700: masses ($\ge 2\times 10^{12} M_\odot$) and progenitor mass ratios

701: (100:1 through 3:1), the exponent is indeed close to 0 during the

702: matter-dominated era $z>1$, although in some cases (galaxy mass

703: haloes, 3:1 mergers) the actual scaling is closer to

704: $B/n\propto(1+z)^{0.1}$.  These results suggest the scaling

705: $\partial\ln P(M_1|M_0)/\partial\ln\sigma_8$ is in the range of $-1$

706: (the ePS prediction) to $-1.1$.  If we plug this into Equation

707: (\ref{eq:np1}) then one derives $\partial\ln n_{\rm

708:   merger}/\partial\ln\sigma_8$ equal to $\delta_c(b-1.6)$ (for $-1$)

709: or $\delta_c(b-1.65)$ (for $-1.1$).

710: 

711: These results provide an independent calculation of $\partial\ln

712: P(M_1|M_0)/\partial\ln\sigma_8$ that is on a more solid footing than

713: ePS.  The agreement of the logarithmic derivatives at the $\sim 10$\%

714: level is remarkable, especially given that ePS does not do so well at

715: predicting the absolute merger rate.

716: 

717: \subsubsection{Summary}

718: 

719: We can write a generalised expression for the $\fnl$ induced

720: scale dependent bias as

721: \begin{equation}

722:   \Delta b (M,k) = 3 \fnl (b-p) \delta_c \frac{\Omega_m}{k^2T(k)D(z)} 

723: \left(\frac{H_0}{c}\right)^2,

724: \label{eq:deltab-universal-merger}

725: \end{equation}

726: where $1<p<1.6$, i.e. $p=1$ for objects populating a fair sample of

727: all the halos in a given mass range and $p=1+\delta_c^{-1}\sim 1.6$

728: for objects that populate only recently merged halos.  Below we

729: discuss plausible values of $p$ for the data samples used in this

730: paper.

731: 

732: To summarize, in non-Gaussian cosmologies, there are two types of

733: merger bias: both $b$ and $\Delta b$ can depend on the merger history

734: of a halo as well as its final mass.  The ePS prediction for recent

735: mergers is that for the bias $b=b(M_0)$, i.e. there is no

736: dependence on merger history; but that recent mergers with final mass

737: $M_0$ have a smaller $\Delta b$ than one would find considering all

738: haloes of mass $M_0$.  Under the specific assumptions of ePS, if one

739: makes the extreme assumption that all quasars are the result of recent

740: halo mergers, the correction can be implemented by replacing $b-1$ in

741: Equation (\ref{eq:deltab-universal}) with $b-1.6$.

742: 

743: The reliability of the ePS result can only be evaluated by comparison

744: to $N$-body simulations. In the matter dominated era, in the range of

745: masses and progenitor mass ratios covered by

746: Ref.~\cite{2008MNRAS.386..577F}, ePS appears to be a good description

747: for the merger bias of $\Delta b$.  

748: 

749: Since in practice one estimates $\Delta b$ from the observed

750: clustering rather than from the unobserved halo mass $M_0$, any

751: assembly bias effects in $b$ \cite{2005MNRAS.363L..66G} are also

752: important to our analysis.  This subject has received much attention

753: recently, with the general result being that for high-mass haloes

754: ($M\gg M_\star$), those haloes that exhibit substructure, have

755: lower concentration, or are younger have a slightly higher bias than

756: the mean $b(M)$. For example,  

757: in~\cite{2006ApJ...652...71W} it was found that the

758: lowest quartile of haloes in concentration has bias $\sim 10$--20\%

759: higher than the mean $b(M)$.  Ref.~\cite{2007ApJ...657..664J} found

760: that the lowest-concentration quintile was $\sim 10$\% more biased

761: than their highest-concentration quintile, and that this dependence

762: was even weaker if one split on formation redshift instead of

763: concentration.  Ref.~\cite{2007MNRAS.377L...5G} found almost no

764: dependence on formation redshift in the relevant range

765: $\delta_c/\sigma\ge 2$, but their lowest quintile of concentration is

766: $\sim 25$\% more biased than the mean $b(M)$ and even larger effects

767: are seen if one splits by substructure.

768: Ref.~\cite{2007ApJ...656..139W} found that the bias for recent major

769: mergers was enhanced by $\sim 5$\% relative to $b(M)$.  It is clear

770: that the strength of this effect depends strongly on the second

771: parameter used, but in the case of the definitions related to the

772: mergers, the deviation in $b(M)$ is significantly less than the

773: corrections to the $\Delta b$, which replaces $b-1$ with $b-1.6$.

774: We will therefore assume that the theoretical uncertainties are 

775: fully absorbed by the expression in Equation~(\ref{eq:deltab-universal-merger}).

776: 

777: Finally, while there is ample evidence that quasar activity is often

778: triggered by mergers, it is probably not the case that all quasars

779: live in recently merged halos. Therefore the true value of $p$ for

780: quasar population lies between $1$ and $1.6$, since the true

781: population of host halos lies somewhere between randomly selected

782: halos and recently merged halos. Therefore, our limits with $p\sim

783: 1.6$ should be viewed as a most conservative reasonable option.

784: 

785: 

786: 

787: 

788: \section{Method and data}

789: \label{sec:method-data}

790: 

791: After reviewing and extending the theoretical formalism we turn to its

792: application to the real data.  We would like to use Equation

793: (\ref{eq:deltab-universal-merger}) to put constraints on the value of the

794: $\fnl$ parameter. Since the effect is significant only on very large

795: scales we need to use the tracers of large scale structure at the

796: largest scales available. In addition, the effect scales as $b-p$, where

797: $p$ is typically 1 but can be as large as 1.6 in special cases, hence

798: we need very biased tracers of large scale structure to measure the

799: effect. We discuss below our choice of observational data. Finally,

800: the effect changes the power on large scales and in principle this can

801: also be achieved with a change in the primordial power spectrum,

802: although this degeneracy exists only in the presence of one tracer:

803: with two tracers with different biases one can separate $\fnl$ from

804: the changes in the initial power spectrum.  Here we assume that the

805: basic model is one predicted by the simplest models of structure

806: formation and we do not allow for sudden changes in the power spectrum

807: beyond what is allowed by the standard models, which assume 

808: the power spectrum slope $n_{\rm s}$ 

809: to be constant.  We use Markov Chain Monte Carlo method to

810: sample the available parameter space using a modified version of the

811: popular public package \texttt{cosmomc}\cite{2002PhRvD..66j3511L}. In

812: addition to $\fnl$, we fit for the standard parameters of the minimal

813: concordance cosmological model: $\omega_{\rm b}=\Omega_{\rm b} h^2$,

814: $\omega_{\rm CDM}=\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2$, $\theta$, $\tau$, $n_{\rm s}$

815: and $\log A$, where $\theta$ is the ratio of the sound horizon to the

816: angular diameter distance at decoupling (acting as a proxy for

817: Hubble's constant), $\tau$ is teh optical depth and $A$ is the primordial 

818: amplitude of the power spectrum. All

819: priors are wide enough so that they do not cut the posterior at any

820: plane in the parameter space.

821: 

822: We always use standard cosmological data as our baseline model. These

823: include the WMAP 5-year power-spectra \cite{2007ApJS..170..288H,

824:   2007ApJS..170..335P} and additional smaller-scale experiments (VSA,

825: CBI, ACBAR)

826: \cite{2003MNRAS.341L..23G,2007ApJ...664..687K,2004ApJ...609..498R}, as

827: well as the supernovae measurements of luminosity distance from the

828: Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS) \cite{2006A&A...447...31A}. For values

829: of $\fnl$ under consideration in this paper these data sets are not

830: directly sensitive to the $\fnl$ parameter.  However, they are needed

831: to constrain the basic cosmological model and thus the shape and

832: normalisation of the matter power spectrum. The large scale structure

833: data discussed bellow are thus simultaneously able to fit for $\fnl$

834: and other auxiliary parameters.

835: 

836: Most of our large-scale structure data is drawn from the Sloan Digital

837: Sky Survey (SDSS).  The SDSS drift-scans the sky in five bands

838: ($ugriz$) \cite{1996AJ....111.1748F} under photometric conditions

839: \cite{2000AJ....120.1579Y, 2001AJ....122.2129H} using a 2.5-meter

840: optical telescope \cite{2006AJ....131.2332G} with 3 degree field of

841: view camera \cite{1998AJ....116.3040G} located in New Mexico, USA

842: \cite{2000AJ....120.1579Y}. The photometric and astrometric

843: calibration of the SDSS and the quality assessment pipeline are

844: described by Refs.~\cite{2002AJ....123.2121S, 2006AN....327..821T,

845:   2008ApJ...674.1217P, 2003AJ....125.1559P,2004AN....325..583I}.

846: Bright galaxies \cite{2002AJ....124.1810S}, luminous red galaxies

847: (LRGs) \cite{2001AJ....122.2267E}, and quasar candidates

848: \cite{2002AJ....123.2945R} are selected from the SDSS imaging data for

849: spectroscopic follow-up \cite{2003AJ....125.2276B}.  This paper uses

850: imaging data through the summer of 2005, which was part of SDSS Data

851: Release 6 (DR6) \cite{2008ApJS..175..297A}, and spectroscopic data

852: through June 2004 (DR4) \cite{2006ApJS..162...38A}.

853: 

854: The requirement of large scales and highly biased tracers leads us to

855: explore several different large scale data sets, in particular SDSS

856: LRGs, both spectroscopic \cite{2006PhRvD..74l3507T} and photometric

857: \cite{2007MNRAS.378..852P} samples, and photometric quasars (QSOs)

858: from SDSS \cite{2008arXiv0801.0642H}. In all these cases we use

859: auto-correlation power spectrum, which is sensitive to $\fnl^2$.  

860: %% Added on refs request

861: These datasets can be assumed to be statistically independent. As

862: explained below, when spectroscopic and photometric LRGs are analysed

863: together, we take care exclude those photometric redshift bins that

864: have significant overlap with spectroscopic sample. Our quasars have

865: typical redshifts of $z \sim$ 1.5~--~2 and only 5\% overlap

866: with LRGs due to photoz errors.  Moreover, they are in the Poission

867: noise limited regime, so overlap in volume is less relevant. This is

868: discussed in more detail in \cite{2008arXiv0801.0642H}.

869: %%

870: In

871: addition, we also use cross-correlation of all these samples, as well

872: as nearby galaxies from the 2-micron All-Sky Survey (2MASS)

873: \cite{2000AJ....119.2498J} and radio sources from the NRAO VLA Sky

874: Survey (NVSS) \cite{1998AJ....115.1693C} with CMB, as analyzed in Ho

875: et~al. \cite{2008arXiv0801.0642H}. Since this is a cross-correlation

876: between the galaxies and matter (as traced by the ISW effect), the

877: dependence is linear in $\fnl$.

878: 

879: \subsection{Spectroscopic LRGs from SDSS}

880: 

881: We use the spectroscopic LRG power spectrum from Tegmark

882: et~al. \cite{2006PhRvD..74l3507T}, based on a galaxy sample that

883: covers 4000 square degrees of sky over the redshift range $0.16\le

884: z\le 0.47$.  We include only bins with $k\le 0.2 h/$Mpc. We model the

885: observed data as

886: \begin{equation}

887:   P_{\rm observed}(k) = \left[b+\Delta b (k,\fnl)\right]^2 P_{\rm lin}(k) \frac{1+Qk^2}{1+Ak},

888: \label{eq:qparam}

889: \end{equation}

890: where the last term describes small-scale non-linearities

891: \cite{2005MNRAS.362..505C}, with $Q$ treated here as a free parameter

892: (bound between zero and 40) and $A=1.4h^{-1}$ Mpc.  For realistic

893: values of $\fnl$ and $Q$, the non-Gaussian bias $\Delta b$ is present

894: only at large scales and the $Q$-term is present only at small scales;

895: there is no range of scales over which both are important. We

896: explicitly confirmed that there is no correlation between $Q$ and

897: $\fnl$ present in our MCMC chains and we let the data to determine the

898: two parameters.

899: 

900: As discussed above if the halos in which objects reside have undergone 

901: recent mergers and thus depend on

902: properties other than halo mass then the simple scaling with $(b-1)$

903: may not be valid.  This is unlikely to be relevant for LRGs, which are

904: old red galaxies sitting at the center of group and cluster sized

905: halos. Moreover, number density of LRGs is so high that it is

906: reasonable to assume that almost every group sized halo contains one,

907: since otherwise it is difficult to satisfy both the number density and high

908: bias at the same time \cite{2007JCAP...06..024M}.  For LRGs we thus do not expect there is a

909: second variable in addition to halo mass and halo occupation models

910: find that populating all halos with mass above $10^{13}M_{\odot}/h$

911: with an LRG is consistent with all the available data

912: \cite{2008arXiv0802.2105P}.  Hence we will only use $p=1$ in Equation

913: (\ref{eq:deltab-universal-merger}).  The same also holds for the

914: photometric LRGs discussed below.

915: 

916: \subsection{Photometric LRGs from SDSS}

917: 

918: We use data from Padmanabhan et~al. \cite{2007MNRAS.378..852P}, who

919: provide the LRG angular power spectrum measured in 8 redshift slices

920: (denoted 0--7) covering the range $0.2<z_{\rm photo}<0.6$ in slices of

921: width $\Delta z_{\rm photo}=0.05$.  The power spectrum is based on 3500 square degrees

922: of data.  We use only data-points that correspond to $k<0.1 h/$Mpc

923: at the mean redshift of each individual slice.  We use the full Bessel

924: integration to calculate the angular power spectrum on largest scales

925: and account for the redshift-distortion power as described in

926: Padmanabhan et~al. \cite{2007MNRAS.378..852P}:

927: \begin{equation}

928:   C_\ell = C^{gg}_\ell + C^{gv}_\ell +C^{vv}_\ell,

929: \end{equation}

930: where superscripts $g$ and $v$ denote galaxies over-density and

931: velocity terms respectively.  The bias and $\beta$ dependence has

932: been put back into the Bessel integral as it now depends on the value

933: of $k$.  The three terms are given by the integrals:

934: \begin{eqnarray}

935: C^{gg}_\ell &=& 4\pi\int \frac{\rmd k}k \,\Delta^2(k) |W_\ell(k)|^2,

936: \nonumber \\

937: C^{gv}_\ell &=& 8\pi\int \frac{\rmd k}k \,\Delta^2(k) \Re \left[ W_\ell^\ast(k) W_\ell^r(k) \right], {\rm ~~and}

938: \nonumber \\

939: C^{vv}_\ell &=& 4\pi\int \frac{\rmd k}k \,\Delta^2(k) |W_\ell^r(k)|^2,

940: \end{eqnarray}

941: where $\Delta^2(k)$ is the linear matter power spectrum today.

942: The window functions are given by

943: \begin{eqnarray}

944: W_\ell(k) &=& \int (b+\Delta b)\frac{D(r)}{D(0)}\frac{\rmd N}{\rmd r} j_\ell(kr)\,\rmd r {\rm ~~and}

945: \nonumber \\

946: W_\ell^r(k) &=& \int \Omega_m^{0.6}(r) \frac{D(r)}{D(0)}

947: \frac{\rmd N}{\rmd r}

948: \Bigl[ \frac{2\ell^2+2\ell-1}{(2\ell-1)(2\ell+3)} j_{\ell}(kr)

949: \nonumber \\ & &

950: - \frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{(2\ell-1)(2\ell+1)}j_{\ell-2}(kr)

951: \nonumber \\ & &

952: - \frac{(\ell+1)(\ell+2)}{(2\ell+1)(2\ell+3)}j_{\ell+2}(kr)

953: \Bigr]\,\rmd r,

954: \end{eqnarray}

955: where $\rm dN/\rm dr$ is the redshift distribution normalised to unity and

956: written in terms of comoving distance $r$, and $D$ is the growth

957: function.  The code automatically switches to the Limber approximation

958: when this becomes accurate.  Note that for the low multipoles, it is

959: essential to include the redshift-space distortion even for a

960: photometric survey because a significant amount of power comes from

961: Fourier modes that are not transverse to the line of sight.

962: 

963: We use an independent bias parameter for each redshift slice. 

964: In addition to the bias dependence, we also use the Equation

965: (\ref{eq:qparam}) to take into account non-linear corrections. While

966: strictly speaking the value of $Q$ should be different for each slice,

967: we use a single free parameter $Q$ for all slices. We have explicitly

968: checked that non-linear corrections are negligible for $k<0.1h$/Mpc

969: and therefore this is not a major issue.

970: Since there is a strong overlap between the spectroscopic and

971: photometric sample for $z<0.45$, we use only slices 5--7 when combining this data

972: with spectroscopic sample. 

973: 

974: \subsection{Photometric quasars from SDSS}

975: \label{sec:phot-quas-from}

976: 

977: We use the power spectrum of the high redshift quasar photometric

978: sample that has recently been constructed for ISW and CMB lensing

979: cross-correlation studies \cite{2008arXiv0801.0642H,2008arXiv0801.0644H}.  The sample

980: covers 5800 square degrees of sky and originally had two photometric redshift

981: ranges, $0.65<z_{\rm photo}<1.45$ (``QSO0'') and $1.45<z_{\rm

982: photo}<2.00$ (``QSO1'').  It consists of ultraviolet-excess (UVX;

983: $u-g<1.0$) point sources, classified photometrically as quasars

984: \cite{2004ApJS..155..257R}, and with photometric redshifts

985: \cite{2004ApJS..155..243W}.  The classification and photometric

986: redshifts were at the time of sample construction only available over

987: a subset of the survey region; they were extended to the remaining

988: region using a nearest-neighbor algorithm in color space

989: \cite{2008arXiv0801.0642H}.  As described below, we only used the QSO1 sample as

990: QSO0 appears to suffer from systematic errors on large scales.

991: 

992: The largest angular scales in the quasar data are subject to at least

993: three major sources of systematic error: stellar contamination, errors

994: in the Galactic extinction maps, and calibration errors.  All of these

995: are potentially much worse than for the LRGs: some stars (e.g. M

996: dwarf-white dwarf binaries) can masquerade as quasars, and we are

997: relying on the $u$ band where extinction is most severe and the

998: photometric calibration is least well understood.  These errors were

999: discussed in the context of ISW studies \cite{2008arXiv0801.0642H},

1000: but if one wishes to use the quasar auto-power spectrum on the largest

1001: angular scales the situation is more severe.

1002: 

1003: We investigated this subject by computing the cross-power spectrum of each 

1004: QSO sample with the SDSS $18.0<r<18.5$ star sample and with ``red'' stars 

1005: (which satisfy the additional cut $g-r>1.4$).  The cross-power should be 

1006: zero in the absence of systematics but it could be positive if there is 

1007: stellar contamination in the QSO sample.  Either positive or negative 

1008: correlation could result from photometric calibration errors which shift 

1009: the quasar and stellar locus in nontrivial ways.  The results of this 

1010: correlation are shown in Figure \ref{fig:sysplot}, with error bars estimated 

1011: from the usual harmonic space method,

1012: \begin{equation}

1013: \sigma(C_\ell^{qs}) = \frac{\sqrt{(C_\ell^{qq}+n_q^{-1})

1014: C_\ell^{ss}}}{

1015: [(\ell_{\rm max}+1)^2-\ell_{\rm min}^2]

1016: f_{\rm sky}},

1017: \end{equation}

1018: where $C_\ell^{qq}$ is the quasar autopower spectrum, $n_q$ is the number 

1019: of quasars per steradian, and $C_\ell^{ss}$ is the star autopower 

1020: spectrum; the $n_s^{-1}$ term is negligible.  (Aside from boundary 

1021: effects, this is the same error that one would obtain by correlating 

1022: random realizations of the quasar field with the actual star field.)

1023: From the figure, QSO1 appears clean, but QSO0 appears contaminated: the 

1024: first bin ($2\le\ell<12$) has a correlation of 

1025: $C_\ell^{qs}=-(2.9\pm1.0)\times 10^{-4}$ with the red 

1026: stars.  This is a $-2.9\sigma$ result and strongly suggests some type of 

1027: systematic in the QSO0 signal on the largest angular scales.  We are not 

1028: sure of the source of this systematic, but the amount of power in the 

1029: quasar map that is correlated with the red stars is

1030: \begin{equation}

1031: \frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{2\pi}C_\ell^{qq}({\rm corr}) =

1032: \frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{2\pi}\frac{C_\ell^{qs\,2}}{C_\ell^{ss}}

1033: \sim 2\times 10^{-4}.

1034: \end{equation}

1035: The variation in QSO0 density that is correlated with the red stars is

1036: thus at the $\sim 1.4$\% level. This is consistent with the excess

1037: auto-power in QSO0 in the largest scale bin, which is at the level of

1038: $[\ell(\ell+1)/2\pi]C_\ell^{qq} \sim 3\times 10^{-4}$ (see figure 10

1039: in \cite{2008arXiv0801.0642H}) and is comparable to what one might

1040: expect from the 1--2\% calibration errors in SDSS

1041: \cite{2008ApJ...674.1217P}, although other explanations such as the

1042: extinction map are also possible.  Because of this evidence for

1043: systematics, we have not used the QSO0 autopower spectrum in our

1044: analysis; in what follows we only use QSO1.  QSO0 may be added in a

1045: future analysis if our understanding of the systematics improves.

1046: 

1047: \begin{figure}

1048: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=3.2in]{sysplot}

1049: \caption{\label{fig:sysplot}The correlation of each quasar sample with

1050: stars and with the red stars.}

1051: \end{figure}

1052: 

1053: Because the redshift distribution is poorly known and needs to be determined 

1054: internally from the data sample itself the data is analyzed in a

1055: two step procedure:

1056: \begin{enumerate}

1057: 

1058: \item Power spectrum points with $\ell=30\ldots200$ are used to

1059:   constrain the product $(b\rmd n/\rmd z)(z)$, where $b$ is the linear

1060:   bias at redshift $z$ and $\rmd n/\rmd z$ is the normalised radial

1061:   window function. Although the $\fnl$ is taken into account at this

1062:   step, its effect is sub-dominant.

1063: 

1064: \item We then assume that the functional form for $b(z)$ is either 

1065:   \begin{equation}

1066:     b(z) \propto 1+\left(\frac{1+z}{2.5}\right)^5 

1067:     \label{eq:porci}

1068:   \end{equation}

1069:   as measured in \cite{2006MNRAS.371.1824P}, or that its form is given by

1070:   \begin{equation}

1071:     b(z) \propto 1/D(z),

1072:     \label{eq:noporci}

1073:   \end{equation}

1074: as would be valid if the clustering amplitude is not changing with redshift. 

1075:   In both cases the constant of proportionality is determined from the

1076:   normalisation condition

1077:   \begin{equation}

1078:     \int \frac{\rmd n}{\rmd z} \rmd z = \int \frac{b \rmd n}{\rmd{z}}

1079:     \frac{1}{b(z)} \rmd z = 1.

1080:   \end{equation}

1081: 

1082: 

1083: \item Once both $\rmd n/\rmd z$ and $b(z)$ are known we calculate the

1084:   theoretical angular power spectrum using the same code as for

1085:   photometric LRGs, taking into account all available $\ell$

1086:   points. This is the theoretical spectrum that is used to calculate

1087:   the $\chi^2$ that goes into the MCMC procedure. In principle, all

1088:   free parameters that determine the shape of $b\rmd n/\rmd z$ should

1089:   be varied through the MCMC, rather than being fixed at the best-fit

1090:   point. However, in the limit of Gaussian likelihood, the two

1091:   procedures are equivalent, while the latter offers significant speed

1092:   advantages.  

1093: 

1094:   

1095: 

1096: \item We calculate $\chi^2$ using two different methods. Our standard method is to

1097:   use all points and the full covariance matrix assuming a

1098:   Gaussian likelihood:

1099:   \begin{equation}

1100:     \label{eq:noqhit}

1101:     \chi^2 = (\vec{d}-\vec{t})\cdot {\bf C}^{-1} (\vec{d}-\vec{t}),

1102:   \end{equation}

1103:   where $\vec{d}$ and $\vec{t}$ are data and theory vectors of $C_{\ell}$'s, 

1104:   respectively. This is likely to be a good approximation except on the largest scales, where small 

1105: number of modes leads to corrections that may affect the outer limits (e.g. $3\sigma$). To test this

1106:  we model the first QSO bin with an inverse-$\chi^2$ distribution, 

1107:   but neglecting covariance

1108:   of this bin with higher $\ell$ bins:

1109:   \begin{multline}

1110:     \label{eq:qhit}

1111:     \chi^2 = N \left[ \ln \left(\frac{d_\ell+1/n}{t_\ell+1/n}\right)

1112:                    + \frac{t_\ell+1/n}{d_\ell+1/n} - 1 \right] +\\

1113:                  \mbox{Gaussian $\chi^2$ for other points},

1114:   \end{multline}

1115:   where $N\sim 21.5$ is the effective number of modes contributing to

1116:   the first bin and $n$ is the number of quasars per steradian.  (This

1117:   was called the ``equal variance'' case in

1118:   Ref.~\cite{2000ApJ...533...19B}, and is appropriate if there is

1119:   equal power in all modes; this is the case here to a first

1120:   approximation since we find that the Poisson noise $1/n$ dominates.)

1121: \end{enumerate}

1122: 

1123: Since the power rises dramatically at low $\ell$ in the $\fnl$ models,

1124: we have included the full window function in our calculation of the

1125: binned power spectrum, $C_{\rm bin}=\sum_\ell W_\ell C_\ell$.  The

1126: window functions for the lowest two QSO bins are shown in

1127: Figure~\ref{fig:win_qso1}, and the algorithm for their computation is

1128: presented in Appendix~\ref{app:win}.

1129: 

1130: \begin{figure}

1131: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=3.2in]{win_qso1}

1132: \caption{\label{fig:win_qso1}The window functions for the $\ell=6$ and

1133: $\ell=18$ bins of the quasar power spectrum.}

1134: \end{figure}

1135: 

1136: As shown in the Section \ref{sec:extend-press-schecht}, if halos have

1137: undergone recent mergers then we would expect $p \sim 1.6$ instead of

1138: $p \sim 1$ in Equation (\ref{eq:deltab-universal-merger}).  Recent

1139: mergers could be a plausible model for QSOs, whose activity could be

1140: triggered by a merger

1141: \cite{2003MNRAS.343..692H,2008ApJS..175..356H,2008ApJ...674...80U}. For

1142: QSOs used in this work we do not find that their number density places

1143: a significant constraint: at $z \sim 1.8$ the number density of halos

1144: with $b \sim 2.5-3$ is one to two orders of magnitude higher than the

1145: measured number density, hence we can easily pick and choose the halos

1146: with a recent merger and still satisfy the combined number density and

1147: bias constraint. This is in agreement with conclusions of

1148: \cite{2006MNRAS.371.1824P}, which looked at a similar QSO sample from

1149: 2dF.  Because of this uncertainty we therefore run another separate

1150: analysis for QSOs with $p=1.6$ (QSO merger case).

1151: 

1152: \subsection{Cross-correlation between galaxies and dark matter via Integrated Sach-Wolfe effect}

1153: 

1154: One can also look for the $\fnl$ using the cross-correlation between a

1155: tracer like galaxies or QSOs and dark matter. Since we do not have

1156: dark matter maps from large scales we can use cosmic microwave

1157: background (CMB) maps as a proxy. If the gravitational potential is

1158: time dependent, as is the case in a universe dominated by dark energy

1159: or curvature then this leads to a signature in CMB, the so-called

1160: integrated Sach-Wolfe (ISW) effect \cite{1967ApJ...147...73S}. This

1161: signature can easily be related to the dark matter distribution, but

1162: part of the signal is not coming from ISW but from the primary CMB

1163: anisotropies at the last scattering surface. These act as a noise and

1164: lead to a large sampling variance on large scales and as a result the

1165: statistical power of this technique is weakened.  At the moment ISW is

1166: only detected at $\sim 4\sigma$ level

1167: \cite{2008PhRvD..77l3520G}.  Our procedure closely

1168: follows that of \cite{2008arXiv0801.0642H} and is in many respects

1169: very similar to that of the Section \ref{sec:phot-quas-from}. We use

1170: all 9 samples present in Ho et al., although the discriminating power

1171: is mostly coming from the NVSS-CMB cross-correlation because NVSS

1172: sample is available over $27\,361$ deg$^2$ area and the tracers, radio

1173: galaxies, are biased with $ b \sim 2$. First, $b\rmd n/\rmd z$ and

1174: $b(z)$ are determined for each sample. Here we always use $b(z)\propto

1175: 1/D(z)$ for all samples except the quasar sample.  Then we calculate

1176: the ISW Limber integral:

1177: \begin{multline}

1178:   C_\ell^{gT} = \frac{3 \Omega_m H_0^2T_{\rm CMB}}{c^3(\ell+1/2)^2}

1179: \int \rmd z \left[b(z)+\Delta b(k(z),z)\right] \\

1180: \times \frac{\rmd n}{\rmd z} \frac{\rmd}{\rmd

1181:   z}\left[\frac{D(z)}{D(0)} (1+z) \right] D(z) P\left(k(z) \right),

1182: \end{multline}

1183: where $k(z)=(\ell+1/2)/\chi$.  Again, we used the full window function

1184: for the NVSS-CMB correlation to avoid an unnecessary bias and we assume $p=1$

1185: for all the samples. 

1186: 

1187: \begin{figure*}

1188:   \centering

1189:   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{mega}

1190:   \caption{This figure shows 6 datasets that are most relevant for our

1191:     constraints on the value of $\fnl$. In the left column show the

1192:     NVSSxCMB Integrate Sach Wolfe Cross correlation, the QSO1 power

1193:     spectrum, the spectroscopic LRG power spectrum, while the right

1194:     column shows the last three slices of the photometric LRG

1195:     sample. The lines show the best fit $\fnl=0$ model (black, solid)

1196:     and two non-Gaussian models: $\fnl=100$ (blue, dotted),

1197:     $\fnl=-100$ (red, dashed). The ISW panel additionally shows the

1198:     $\fnl=800$ model as green, dot-dashed line. While changing $\fnl$,

1199:     other cosmological parameters were kept fixed. See text for

1200:     further discussion.}

1201:   \label{fig:mega}

1202: \end{figure*}

1203: 

1204: 

1205: 

1206: \begin{figure*}

1207: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fnlplot.eps}}

1208: \caption{\label{fig:res} This figure shows the median value (red

1209:   points) and 1,2 and 3-sigma limits on $\fnl$ obtained from different

1210:   probes (vertical lines). The data set used are, from top to bottom:

1211:   Photometric LRGs, Photometric LRGs with only slices 0--4 used,

1212:   Spectroscopic LRGs, Integrated Sach Wolfe effect, photometric QSO,

1213:   photometric QSOs using $b(z) \propto 1/D(z)$ biasing scheme (see

1214:   Section \ref{sec:phot-quas-from}), photometric QSOs using

1215:   alternative $\chi^2$ calculation scheme (see Section

1216:   \ref{sec:phot-quas-from}), using a scale dependent bias formula

1217:   appropriate for recently merged halos (Section

1218:   \ref{sec:halo-merger-bias}), Combined sample, Combined sample using

1219:   a scale dependent bias formula appropriate for recently merged halos

1220:   (for QSO), the last two resoluts to which a statistically

1221:   independent WMAP 5 bispectrum $\fnl$ constraint was added. See text

1222:   for discussion.  }

1223: \end{figure*}

1224: 

1225: 

1226: \section{Results}

1227: \label{sec:results}

1228: 

1229: We begin by plotting data-points and theoretical predictions for six

1230: of the datasets and values of $\fnl$ in Figure \ref{fig:mega}. This

1231: plot deserves some discussion.  The easiest and most intuitive to

1232: understand is the case of spectroscopic LRGs.  We note that the

1233: inclusion of the $\fnl$ parameter modifies the behaviour of the power

1234: spectrum on the largest measured scales. Naively, one would expect

1235: LRGs to be very competitive at constraining $\fnl$. In practice,

1236: however, $\fnl$ is degenerate with matter density, which also affects

1237: the shape of the power spectrum and hence the constraints are somewhat

1238: weaker. Since the effect of $\fnl$ raises very strongly, just a couple

1239: of points on largest scales might break this degeneracy, improving

1240: constraints by a significant factor.  The effect in the photometric

1241: LRG samples is similar, although we are now looking the angular space,

1242: where the dependence has been smeared out.  The QSO plot again shows

1243: similar behaviour, with two caveats.  First, the changes in the

1244: predicted power spectrum on small scales are a result of the fact that

1245: $b\rmd n/\rmd z$ is perturbed with changing $\fnl$, although this is a

1246: minor effect. Second, the increase in the power at smallest $\ell$ for

1247: negative $\fnl$ is due to the fact that for sufficiently negative

1248: $\fnl$ (or sufficiently large scales), $\delta b<-2b$ and hence power

1249: spectrum rises again above what is expected in the Gaussian case.  The

1250: more unexpected is the NVSS-CMB cross-correlation. Naively, one would

1251: expect that the first point of that plot will produce a very strong

1252: $\fnl$ ``detection''. However, the CMB cross-correlation signal is

1253: only linearly dependent on $\fnl$, while cross-correlations of NVSS

1254: with other tracers of structure are quadratically dependent on $\fnl$.

1255: Large values of $\fnl$ produce anomalously large power in the angular

1256: power spectrum if $b\rmd n/\rmd z$ has significant contributution at

1257: high-$z$ tail, which probes large scales. Therefore, the

1258: $b\rm dn/\rm dz$ fitting procedure skews the distribution towards

1259: lower redshifts, leading to a lower bias overall. At very large

1260: values, e.g. $\fnl=800$, this effect is so severe that the $b\propto

1261: 1/D(z)$ scaling forces $b<1$ at the low-redshift end.  This implies

1262: $\Delta b<0$, and the large-scale ISW signal actually goes negative

1263: (see top-left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:mega}).  Therefore, the ISW is

1264: surprisingly bad at discriminating $\fnl$ and we were unable to fit

1265: the first NVSS ISW data point with a positive $\fnl$.  This behavior

1266: is however only of academic interest because the other data sets

1267: strongly rule out these extreme values of $\fnl$.

1268: 

1269: 

1270: We ran a series of MCMC chains with base cosmological data and one of

1271: the four data sets considered above, as well as a run in which all data

1272: were combined (with the exception of  slices 0--4 of photometric LRGs

1273: as described above).

1274: The results are summarized in Table \ref{tabl:res} and visualized in

1275: the Figure \ref{fig:res}.

1276: 

1277: \begin{table}

1278:   \centering

1279:   \begin{tabular}{cc}

1280:     Data set & $\fnl$ 

1281:     \\

1282:     \hline

1283:       & \\

1284: 

1285: \vspace*{0.3cm} Photometric LRG & $63^{+54+101+143}_{-85-331-388}$ \\

1286: \vspace*{0.3cm} Photometric LRG (0-4) & $-34^{+115+215+300}_{-194-375-444}$ \\

1287: \vspace*{0.3cm} Spectroscopic LRG & $70^{+74+139+202}_{-83-191-371}$ \\

1288: \vspace*{0.3cm} ISW & $105^{+647+755+933}_{-337-1157-1282}$ \\

1289: \vspace*{0.3cm} QSO & $ 8^{+26+47+65}_{-37-77-102}$ \\

1290: \vspace*{0.3cm} QSO (b=1/D) & $ 8^{+28+49+69}_{-38-81-111}$ \\

1291: \vspace*{0.3cm} QSO alternative $\chi^2$ & $10^{+27+52+72}_{-40-74-101}$ \\

1292: \vspace*{0.3cm} QSO merger & $12^{+30+58+102}_{-44-94-138}$ \\

1293: \vspace*{0.3cm} Combined & $28^{+23+42+65}_{-24-57-93}$ \\

1294: \vspace*{0.3cm} Comb. merger & $31^{+16+39+65}_{-27-62-127}$ \\

1295: \vspace*{0.3cm} Combined + WMAP5 bispectrum $\fnl$ & $36^{+18+33+52}_{-17-36-57}$ \\

1296: \vspace*{0.3cm} Combined merger + WMAP5 bispectrum $\fnl$& $36^{+13+29+53}_{-17-36-57}$ \\

1297: \end{tabular}

1298: \caption{\label{tabl:res} Marginalised  constraints on $\fnl$ with mean, 1$\sigma$

1299:   (68\% c.l.), 2$\sigma$ (95\% c.l.) and 3$\sigma$ (99.7\%)  errors. Ordering 

1300:   exactly matches that of the Figure \ref{fig:res}. See text for discussion.}

1301: \end{table}

1302: 

1303: We note several interesting observations. When only slices 0--4 of the

1304: photometric LRG sample are used, the results are weaker than those of

1305: the spectroscopic LRGs. The two trace comparable volume, but

1306: photometric sample does not use radial mode information and as a

1307: result its errors are expectedly larger. On the other hand, the

1308: overall photometric sample performs somewhat better than the

1309: spectroscopic LRG sample, due to its larger volume: it traces LRGs up

1310: to $ z\sim 0.6$ as opposed to $ z \sim 0.45$ for spectroscopic sample.

1311: 

1312: We find that the ISW is constraining the $\fnl$ parameter rather

1313: weakly. This is somewhat disappointing, but not surprising, since the

1314: cross-correlation between LSS and CMB is weak and has only been

1315: detected at a few sigma overall. In addition, as mentioned above,

1316: $\fnl$ enters only linearly (rather than quadratically) in the ISW

1317: expressions and is strongly degenerate with determination of $b\rmd

1318: n/\rmd z$. Given that ISW $S/N$ can only be improved by another factor

1319: of $\sim 2$ at most even with perfect data we do not expect that it

1320: will ever provide competitive constraints on $\fnl$.

1321: 

1322: We find that the quasar power spectra give the strongest constraints

1323: on $\fnl$. This is due to their large volume and high bias.  The

1324: lowest $\ell$ point in this data set at $\ell=6$ is a non-detection

1325: and therefore highly constrains $\fnl$ in both directions.  The second

1326: and third point have some excess power relative to the best fit

1327: $\fnl=0$ model and so give rise to a slightly positive value of $\fnl$

1328: in the final fits.  This is however not a statistically significant

1329: deviation from $\fnl=0$.

1330: 

1331: We also test the robustness of $\fnl$ constraints from the quasar

1332: sample power spectrum by performing the following tests. First we

1333: replace the form of evolution of bias from that in

1334: Eq.~(\ref{eq:porci}) to that in Eq.~(\ref{eq:noporci}). Second we

1335: replaced the details of the likelihood shape for the first points, we

1336: replace Eq.~(\ref{eq:noqhit}) with Eq.~(\ref{eq:qhit}). In both cases,

1337: the effect on the constraints was minimal, as shown in the Figure

1338: \ref{fig:res} and the Table \ref{tabl:res}.

1339: 

1340: 

1341: The large-scale quasar power spectrum could also be affected by

1342: spurious power (e.g. calibration fluctuations or errors in the

1343: Galactic extinction map) or 1-halo shot noise, either of which would

1344: dominate at large scales over the conventional $P(k)\propto k$

1345: autocorrelation.  At the level of the current data these are not

1346: affecting our results: uncorrelated power adds to the power spectrum

1347: $C_\ell$, and if present it would only would only tighten the upper

1348: limits on the power spectrum given by our $\ell=6$ and 18 points.  The

1349: 1-halo shot noise would contribute an added constant to $C_\ell$ since

1350: $z\sim 1.7$ haloes are unresolved across our entire range of $\ell$;

1351: the observed power at $\ell\sim 250$ constrains the 1-halo noise to be

1352: much less than the error bars at $\ell=6,18$.  Nevertheless, if we had

1353: detected excess power in the quasars at the largest scales, a much

1354: more detailed analysis would have been necessary to show that it was

1355: in fact due to $\fnl$ and not to systematics.

1356: 

1357: If quasars are triggered by mergers, then they do not reside in

1358: randomly picked halos and the use of the

1359: Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltab-universal}) may not be appropriate. As discussed

1360: in Section \ref{sec:halo-merger-bias}, one can replace the $(b-1)$

1361: factor in Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltab-universal}) with a modified factor

1362: $(b-1.6)$.  We quote the results in this case in the Table

1363: \ref{tabl:res} as ``QSO merger.'' The error bars have increased by

1364: about 40\%, which is somewhat less than naively expected from a

1365: population with an average bias of around 2.5. This is due to various

1366: feedback related to $b\rmd n/\rmd z$ fitting. Moreover, this is likely

1367: to be an extreme case since it assumes that all quasars live in

1368: recently merged halos with short lifetimes, so we would expect that

1369: the true answer is somewhere in between the two results.  On the other

1370: hand, it is also unclear how accurate extended Press-Schechter

1371: formalism is for this application, so there is some uncertainty

1372: associated with this procedure.  Recent progress in understanding

1373: quasar formation and its relation to the underlying halo population

1374: \cite{2008ApJS..175..356H} gives us hope that this can be solved in

1375: the future.

1376: 

1377: We also quote results for the combined analysis. In this case, the

1378: error on $\fnl$ shrinks somewhat more than one would expect assuming

1379: that error on $\fnl$ measurement from each individual dataset is

1380: independent. This is because other parameters, notably matter density

1381: and amplitude of fluctuations get better constrained when data are

1382: combined. Furthermore, we note that when quasars are assumed to be

1383: recent mergers the errors expand by an expected amount at the

1384: 3$\sigma$ level, but hardly at a 2$\sigma$ level. We have carefully

1385: investigated this anomaly and it seems to be due a peculiar shape of

1386: the likelihood surface and subtle interplay of degeneracies between

1387: $\fnl$, matter density and amplitude of fluctuations.

1388: 

1389: 

1390: 

1391: \section{Discussion}

1392: \label{sec:discussion}

1393: 

1394: The topic of this paper is signature of primordial non-Gaussianity of

1395: local type (the so called $\fnl$ model) in the large scale structure

1396: of the universe. Specifically, it was recently shown that this type of

1397: non-Gaussianity gives rise to the scale dependence of the highly

1398: biased tracers \cite{2008PhRvD..77l3514D}.  We extend this analysis by

1399: presenting a new derivation of the effect that elucidates the

1400: underlying assumptions and shows that in its simplest form it is based

1401: on the universality of the halo mass function only.  Our derivation

1402: also allows for possible extensions of the simplest model, in which

1403: tracers of large scale structure depend on properties other than the

1404: halo mass. One that we explore in some detail is the effect of recent

1405: mergers. By using extended Press-Schechter model we show that in this

1406: case the effect has the same functional form, but the predicted

1407: scaling with $\fnl$ for a given bias has a smaller amplitude than in

1408: the simplest model.

1409: 

1410: Second, we apply these results to constrain the value of $\fnl$ from

1411: the clustering of highly biased tracers of large scale structure at

1412: largest scales.  In our analysis we find that the best tracers are

1413: highly biased photometric quasars from SDSS at redshifts between 1.5

1414: and 2, followed by photometric and spectroscopic LRGs at redshift

1415: around 0.5.  Our final limits at 95\% (99.7\%)  confidence are

1416: \begin{equation}

1417:   -29 ~(-65) < \fnl < +70 ~(+93)

1418: \end{equation}

1419: if we assume halos in which tracers reside are a fair sample of all

1420: halos of a given bias.  If we assume instead that QSOs are triggered

1421: by recent mergers and have short lifetimes then we find

1422: \begin{equation}

1423:   -31 ~(-96)  < \fnl < +70 ~(+96),

1424: \end{equation}

1425: a somewhat weaker, but still competitive constraint. In both cases, we

1426: find no evidence for non-zero $\fnl$. These results shows that

1427: existing data can already put very strong limits on the value of

1428: $\fnl$, which are competitive with the best constraints from WMAP 5

1429: year analysis of CMB bispectrum\cite{2008arXiv0803.0547K}, which is

1430: statistically independent of the method used in this paper.  These

1431: give $-9 <\fnl<111$ at 95\% confidence. Assuming that WMAP5 constraint

1432: on $\fnl$ to independent of $n_s$ and well described by a Gaussian

1433: likelihood $\fnl = 51\pm31$\cite{2008arXiv0803.0547K}, we get the

1434: following combined constraint:

1435: \begin{equation}

1436:   0 ~(-21) < \fnl < +69 ~(+88).

1437: \end{equation}

1438: If we assume quasars to live in recently merged halos, we get

1439: essentially the same result with the upper limit relaxed to 89.

1440: 

1441: 

1442: In this combined result, $\fnl=0$ is at just around $2\sigma$, which

1443: taken at a face value suggests than the evidence for a significant

1444: non-Gaussianity found in 3 year WMAP data by \cite{2008PhRvL.100r1301Y} 

1445: may have been a statistical fluctuation rather than

1446: evidence of a real signal.

1447: 

1448: \begin{figure}

1449: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ekpkill}

1450: \caption{\label{fig:ekpkill} This figure shows 1 and 2$\sigma$

1451:   contours on the $n_s$-$\fnl$ plane for our best combined data set

1452:   with additional WMAP 5 year bispectrum constraint (assumed to be

1453:   independent of $n_s$). Red lines are predictions from the ekpyrotic

1454:   models and correspond to values of fixed $\gamma$ and varying

1455:   $\epsilon$.  Different line correspond to different values of

1456:   $\gamma$, which varies between $\gamma=-1$ (flat, constant, negative

1457:   $\fnl$) to $\gamma=-0.2$ in steps of $0.1$. The dashed green line

1458:   corresponds to the theoretically favored value of

1459:   $\gamma=-1/\sqrt{3}$ according to \cite{2008PhRvD..77b3516L}. }

1460: \end{figure}

1461: 

1462: The results are already sufficiently strong to constrain the ekpyrotic

1463: models of generating the primordial structure: these generically

1464: predict much higher non-Gaussianity than inflationary models

1465: \cite{2007JCAP...11..010C}. Following Ref.~\cite{2008arXiv0804.1293L},

1466: we parametrize the ekpyrotic model in terms of

1467: $\gamma=\dot{\phi}_2/\dot{\phi}_1$ during the phase of creation of

1468: entropic perturbations for minimally coupled fields $\phi_i$

1469: responsible for ekpyrosis and ekpyrotic parameter $\epsilon_{\rm

1470:   ek}\gg 1$, the ekpyrotic equivalent of the slow-roll parameter

1471: $\epsilon$.  In Figure \ref{fig:ekpkill} we show our ``Combined''

1472: constraints on the $n_s$~--~$\fnl$ plane together with approximate

1473: theoretical predictions \cite{2008arXiv0804.1293L}:

1474: \begin{eqnarray}

1475:   n_s \sim 1+\frac{2}{\epsilon_{\rm ek}}-\frac{1}{60}\frac{\log

1476:     \epsilon_{\rm ek}}{\log 60}, \label{eq:ekp1}\\

1477:   \fnl \sim \frac{4(\gamma^2-1)}{\gamma} \epsilon_{\rm ek} - 85. \label{eq:ekp2}

1478: \end{eqnarray}

1479: We note that large parts of parameter space are strongly

1480: constrained.  For the theoretically preferred value of

1481: $\gamma=-1/\sqrt{3}$ \cite{2008PhRvD..77b3516L}, $\epsilon_{\rm ek}$ is

1482: constrained to be between 100 and 10000. Higher values of

1483: $\epsilon_{\rm ek}$ require considerably lower values of $\gamma$ and

1484: $\gamma \gtrsim -0.3$ is disfavored at 2$\sigma$. 

1485: 

1486: 

1487: Our results are very promising and with this first analysis we already

1488: obtain constraints comparable to the best previous

1489: constraints. However, we should be cautious and emphasize that this is

1490: only the first application of this new method to the data and there

1491: are several issues that require further investigation.  While

1492: analytically the method is well motivated and can be derived on very

1493: general grounds, as shown in Section \ref{sec:extend-press-schecht},

1494: the method needs to be verified further in $N$-body simulations using

1495: large scale tracers comparable to these used in our analysis.

1496: Equation~(\ref{eq:deltab-universal}) has been calibrated with $N$-body

1497: simulations using matter-halo cross-correlation

1498: \cite{2008PhRvD..77l3514D}. Auto-correlation analysis of biased halos,

1499: which is the basis for the strongest constraints derived here, is

1500: typically noisier and has not been verified at the same level of

1501: accuracy, although there is no obvious reason why it should give any

1502: different results.  Still, it would be useful to have larger

1503: simulations where the scale dependent bias could be extracted with

1504: high significance from auto-correlation analysis. In addition, it

1505: would be useful to verify the scaling relations in simulations on

1506: samples defined as closely as possible to the real data should be

1507: selected, in our case by choosing halos with mean bias of 2 at

1508: $z=0.5$ for the LRG and $b=2.7$ at $z=1.7$ for QSO samples.

1509: 

1510: A second uncertainty has to do with the halo bias dependence on

1511: parameters other than halo mass.  We have shown that for QSOs we need

1512: to allow for the possibility that they are triggered by recent mergers

1513: and we have presented extended Press Schechter predictions for the

1514: amplitude of the effect in this case, which can affect the limits.  To

1515: some extent these predictions have been verified using 

1516: simulations \cite{2008MNRAS.386..577F}, but we do not have a reliable

1517: model of populating QSOs inside halos to predict which of the limits

1518: is more appropriate for our QSO sample.  Moreover, just as the overall

1519: halo bias has recently been shown to depend on variables other than

1520: the halo mass \cite{2005MNRAS.363L..66G}, it is possible that the

1521: large scale $\fnl$ correction also depends on variables other than the

1522: mass and merging history: while we have shown that extended

1523: Press-Schechter already predicts the dependence on the merging

1524: history, other dependences less amenable to analytic calculations may

1525: also exist.  It is clear that these issues deserve more attention and

1526: we plan to investigate them in more detail in the future using large

1527: scale simulations combined with realistic quasar formation models.

1528: 

1529: 

1530: On the observational side, there are many possible extensions of our

1531: analysis that can be pursued. In this paper we have pursued mostly

1532: quasars and luminous red galaxies (LRGs), two well studied and highly

1533: biased tracers of large scale structure.  On quasar side, we have only

1534: analyzed photometric QSO samples split by redshift, but we should be

1535: able to obtain better constraints if we also use the luminosity

1536: information, specially if brighter quasars are more strongly biased

1537: \cite{2006MNRAS.371.1824P}.  Moreover, it is worthwhile to apply this

1538: analysis also to $z>3$ spectroscopic quasar sample from SDSS

1539: \cite{2007AJ....133.2222S}, which is very highly biased. Its modelling

1540: appears to require almost every massive halo to host a quasar

1541: \cite{2007arXiv0711.4109W}, which would reduce the uncertainties

1542: related to secondary parameter halo bias dependence. An order of magnitude

1543: estimate shows that small values of $\fnl$ do not change mass function

1544: enough to affect this deduction. On the LRG side, the most obvious

1545: extension of our work would be to pursue the luminosity dependent

1546: clustering analysis of the spectroscopic sample. It is well known that

1547: LRG clustering amplitude is luminosity dependent

1548: \cite{2007ApJ...657..645P} and so selecting only brighter LRGs would

1549: lead to a higher bias sample and could improve our limits, but ideally

1550: one would want to perform the analysis with optimal weighting to

1551: minimize the large scale errors as in \cite{2006PhRvD..74l3507T}.

1552: Similar type of luminosity dependent analysis could also be done on

1553: the LRG photometric sample used here \cite{2007MNRAS.378..852P}.

1554: 

1555: Finally, with the future data sets from several planned or ongoing

1556: surveys, especially those related to the baryonic oscillations most of

1557: which use highly biased tracers of large scale structure, a further

1558: increase in sensitivity should be possible \cite{2008PhRvD..77l3514D}.

1559: The ultimate application of the large-scale clustering method would

1560: involve oversampling the 3-dimensional density field in several

1561: samples with a range of biases, so that excess clustering due to

1562: $\fnl$ can be cleanly separated from contamination due to errors in

1563: calibration or extinction correction, which are major challenges as

1564: one probes below the $1\%$ level.  The ultimate sensitivity of the

1565: method will likely depend on our ability to isolate these systematics

1566: and these should be the subject of future work.  

1567: 

1568: Overall, the remarkably tight constraints obtained from this first

1569: analysis on the real data, while still subject to certain assumptions,

1570: is a cause of optimism for the future and we expect that the large

1571: scale clustering of highly biased tracers will emerge as one of the

1572: best methods to search for non-Gaussianity in initial conditions of

1573: our universe.

1574: 

1575: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1576: 

1577: We acknowledge  useful discussions with Niayesh Afshordi and Dan Babich.

1578: 

1579: A.S. is supported by the inaugural BCCP Fellowship.  C.H. is supported

1580: by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-FG03-02-ER40701.

1581: N.P. is supported by a Hubble Fellowship HST.HF- 01200.01 awarded by

1582: the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the

1583: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA,

1584: under contract NAS 5-26555. Part of this work was supported by the

1585: Director, Office of Science, of the U.S. Department of Energy under

1586: Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.  U.S. is supported by the Packard

1587: Foundation and NSF CAREER-0132953 and by Swiss National Foundation

1588: under contract 200021-116696/1.

1589: 

1590: Funding for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and SDSS-II has been

1591: provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating

1592: Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of

1593: Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the

1594: Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society, and the Higher

1595: Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web site is

1596: http://www.sdss.org/.

1597: 

1598: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) for

1599: the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the

1600: American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,

1601: University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve

1602: University, The University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab,

1603: the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, The

1604: Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear

1605: Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and

1606: Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences

1607: (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for

1608: Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New

1609: Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University of

1610: Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United

1611: States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.

1612: 

1613: \appendix

1614: 

1615: 

1616: \section{Window functions}

1617: \label{app:win}

1618: 

1619: This appendix describes the computation of the window functions.  We begin with a brief revisit of the principles underlying the window function (see the

1620: references for more details) and then describe our computational method.

1621: 

1622: \subsection{Principles}

1623: 

1624: The power spectra in this paper were computed using the methodology of Padmanabhan et~al. \cite{2003NewA....8..581P}, implemented on the sphere as

1625: described in Refs.~\cite{2004PhRvD..70j3501H, 2007MNRAS.378..852P}. The power spectrum is estimated from a vector ${\bf x}$ of length $N_{\rm pix}$

1626: containing the galaxy overdensities in each of the $N_{\rm pix}$ pixels.  Following the notation of Ref.~\cite{2007MNRAS.378..852P}, we estimate the

1627: power spectrum in bins,

1628: \begin{equation}

1629: C_\ell = \sum_i p_i \tilde C_\ell^i,

1630: \label{eq:stepfunc}

1631: \end{equation}

1632: where $\tilde C_\ell^i$ is 1 if multipole $l$ is in the $i$th bin, and 0 otherwise, and $p_i$ are the parameters to be estimated.  We can then define the

1633: template matrices,

1634: ${\bf C}_i$, which are the partial derivatives of the covariance matrix of ${\bf x}$ with respect to $p_i$.

1635: The quadratic estimators are then defined:

1636: \begin{equation}

1637: q_i = \frac12{\bf x}^T{\bf C}^{-1}{\bf C}_i{\bf C}^{-1}{\bf x},

1638: \end{equation}

1639: where ${\bf C}$ is an estimate of the covariance matrix used to weight the data (our choice is described in Ho et~al. \cite{2008arXiv0801.0642H}).

1640: We also build a Fisher matrix,

1641: \begin{equation}

1642: F_{ij} = \frac12\,{\rm Tr}\,\left({\bf C}^{-1}{\bf C}_i{\bf C}^{-1}{\bf C}_j\right).

1643: \end{equation}

1644: The parameters are then estimated according to

1645: \begin{equation}

1646: p_i=(F^{-1})_{ij}(q_j-\langle q_j\rangle_{\rm noise}),

1647: \end{equation}

1648: where $\langle q_j\rangle_{\rm noise}$ is the expectation value of $q_j$ for Poisson noise.  This is equal to

1649: \begin{equation}

1650: \langle q_j\rangle_{\rm noise} = \frac12\,{\rm Tr}\,\left({\bf C}^{-1}{\bf C}_i{\bf C}^{-1}{\bf N}\right),

1651: \end{equation}

1652: where ${\bf N}$ is the Poission noise matrix (i.e. a diagonal matrix with entries equal to the reciprocal of the mean number of galaxies per pixel). This

1653: quantity can be computed using the same machinery as used to compute ${\bf F}$.

1654: 

1655: The actual expectation values of the binned power spectra $p_i$ for a

1656: general power spectrum [i.e. not necessarily Equation (\ref{eq:stepfunc})] are given by

1657: \begin{equation}

1658: \langle p_i\rangle = (F^{-1})_{ij}(\langle q_j\rangle_{\rm total}-\langle q_j\rangle_{\rm noise});

1659: \end{equation}

1660: since signal and noise are uncorrelated this reduces to:

1661: \begin{equation}

1662: \langle p_i\rangle = (F^{-1})_{ij}\langle q_j\rangle_{\rm signal}

1663: = \frac12(F^{-1})_{ij} \,{\rm Tr}\,\left({\bf C}^{-1}{\bf C}_i{\bf C}^{-1}{\bf S}\right),

1664: \end{equation}

1665: where ${\bf S}$ is the signal covariance matrix.  Its entries are

1666: \begin{equation}

1667: S_{\alpha\beta} = \sum_\ell C_\ell \sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell Y_{\ell m}(\alpha) Y_{\ell m}^\ast(\beta),

1668: \end{equation}

1669: where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are pixels: $1\le \alpha,\beta\le N_{\rm pix}$. It could also be written as

1670: \begin{equation}

1671: {\bf S} = \sum_\ell C_\ell \sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell {\bf Y}_{\ell m} {\bf Y}_{\ell m}^\dagger,

1672: \end{equation}

1673: where ${\bf Y}_{\ell m}$ is a vector of length $N_{\rm pix}$ containing the values of the spherical harmonic $Y_{\ell m}$ at each pixel.

1674: With some algebra the expectation value collapses down to:

1675: \begin{equation}

1676: \langle p_i\rangle

1677: = \sum_\ell W_{i\ell} C_\ell,

1678: \label{eq:windef}

1679: \end{equation}

1680: where the window function $W_{i\ell}$ is:

1681: \begin{equation}

1682: W_{i\ell} =

1683: \frac12(F^{-1})_{ij} \sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell

1684: {\bf Y}_{\ell m}^\dagger

1685: {\bf C}^{-1}{\bf C}_i{\bf C}^{-1}{\bf Y}_{\ell m}.

1686: \label{eq:winuse}

1687: \end{equation}

1688: 

1689: \subsection{Computation}

1690: 

1691: Like the other matrix operations with million-pixel maps, direct

1692: computation of $W_{i\ell}$ using Equation (\ref{eq:winuse}) is not feasible; it is $O(N_{\rm

1693: pix}^3)$.  We have therefore resorted to Monte Carlo methods, analogous to those used for trace estimation, to simultaneously solve for all of the $\ell$

1694: and $m$ terms in Equation (\ref{eq:winuse}).  Define a random vector ${\bf z}$ of length $N_{\rm pix}$ and with entries consisting of independent random

1695: numbers $\pm 1$ (i.e. probability 1/2 of being 1 and 1/2 of being $-1$).  Then $\langle {\bf zz}^T\rangle=1$, so we can write:

1696: \begin{equation}

1697: W_{i\ell} =

1698: \frac12(F^{-1})_{ij} \left\langle \sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell

1699: {\bf Y}_{\ell m}^\dagger

1700: {\bf C}^{-1}{\bf z}{\bf z}^T{\bf C}_i{\bf C}^{-1}{\bf Y}_{\ell m}\right\rangle,

1701: \end{equation}

1702: or

1703: \begin{equation}

1704: W_{i\ell} =

1705: \frac12(F^{-1})_{ij} \left\langle \sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell

1706: ({\bf Y}_{\ell m}^\dagger

1707: {\bf C}^{-1}{\bf z})

1708: ({\bf Y}_{\ell m}^\dagger{\bf C}^{-1}{\bf C}_i{\bf z})

1709: \right\rangle.

1710: \end{equation}

1711: To do a Monte Carlo evaluation of the average, we can take a random vector ${\bf z}$, compute the quantities ${\bf C}^{-1}{\bf z}$ and

1712: ${\bf C}^{-1}{\bf C}_i{\bf z}$.  The latter dominates the computation time, as it requires one expensive ${\bf C}^{-1}$ operation for each power spectrum

1713: bin, but it is also needed in the Monte Carlo evaluation of the Fisher matrix $F_{ij}$ and hence comes with no added cost.  The inner product ${\bf

1714: Y}_{\ell m}^\dagger{\bf u}$ for any pixel-space vector ${\bf u}$ {\em is} the spherical harmonic transform of ${\bf u}$, for which ``fast'' $O(N_{\rm

1715: pix}^{3/2})$ algorithms exist.  We use the implementation of the spherical harmonic transform of Hirata et~al.~\cite{2004PhRvD..70j3501H}.

1716: 

1717: \bibliographystyle{prsty}

1718: %\bibliography{cosmo,cosmo_preprints}

1719: \bibliography{fnl}

1720: 

1721: \end{document}

1722: 

1723: