1: % mn2esample.tex
2: %
3: % v2.1 released 22nd May 2002 (G. Hutton)
4: %
5: % The mnsample.tex file has been amended to highlight
6: % the proper use of LaTeX2e code with the class file
7: % and using natbib cross-referencing. These changes
8: % do not reflect the original paper by A. V. Raveendran.
9: %
10: % Previous versions of this sample document were
11: % compatible with the LaTeX 2.09 style file mn.sty
12: % v1.2 released 5th September 1994 (M. Reed)
13: % v1.1 released 18th July 1994
14: % v1.0 released 28th January 1994
15:
16: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
17:
18: \usepackage{graphicx,amssymb,verbatim,times}
19: %\bibpunct{(}{)}{;}{a}{}{,}
20:
21: \newcommand\hmpc{$h^{-1}$ Mpc}
22: \newcommand\hi{\hbox{H$\rm I$~}}
23: \newcommand\hii{\hbox{H$\rm II$~}}
24: \newcommand\oii{\hbox{O$\rm II$~}}
25: \newcommand\cii{\hbox{C$\rm II$~}}
26: \newcommand\oisiii{\hbox{O$\rm I$/Si$\rm II$~}}
27: \newcommand\se{Sect.~}
28: \newcommand\lya{Ly$\alpha$}
29: %\newcommand\gp{$g^\prime$}
30: %\newcommand\rp{$r^\prime$}
31: %\newcommand\ip{$i^\prime$}
32: %\newcommand\zp{$z^\prime$}
33: \newcommand\gp{$g_{475}$}
34: \newcommand\wt{$w(\theta)$}
35: \newcommand\rp{$r_{625}$}
36: \newcommand\ip{$i_{775}$}
37: \newcommand\inp{$I_{814}$}
38: \newcommand\zp{$z_{850}$}
39: \newcommand\bp{$B_{435}$}
40: \newcommand\up{$U_{300}$}
41: \newcommand\vp{$V_{606}$}
42: \newcommand\ks{$K_{S}$}
43: \newcommand\kp{$K_{S}$}
44: \newcommand\nicmosj{$J_{110}$}
45: \newcommand\nicmosh{$H_{160}$}
46: \newcommand\h{$h^{-1}$}
47: \newcommand\idrops{$i$-dropouts}
48: \newcommand\apj{ApJ}
49: \newcommand\aj{AJ}
50: \newcommand\apjl{ApJL}
51: \newcommand\apjs{ApJS}
52: \newcommand\aap{A\&A}
53: \newcommand\mnras{MNRAS}
54: \newcommand\pasp{PASP}
55: \newcommand\pasj{PASJ}
56: \newcommand\nat{Nature}
57:
58:
59: % If your system does not have the AMS fonts version 2.0 installed, then
60: % remove the useAMS option.
61: %
62: % useAMS allows you to obtain upright Greek characters.
63: % e.g. \umu, \upi etc. See the section on "Upright Greek characters" in
64: % this guide for further information.
65: %
66: % If you are using AMS 2.0 fonts, bold math letters/symbols are available
67: % at a larger range of sizes for NFSS release 1 and 2 (using \boldmath or
68: % preferably \bmath).
69: %
70: % The usenatbib command allows the use of Patrick Daly's natbib.sty for
71: % cross-referencing.
72: %
73: % If you wish to typeset the paper in Times font (if you do not have the
74: % PostScript Type 1 Computer Modern fonts you will need to do this to get
75: % smoother fonts in a PDF file) then uncomment the next line
76: % \usepackage{Times}
77:
78: %%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN MACROS HERE %%%%%
79:
80:
81: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
82:
83: \title[Galaxies, protoclusters and quasars at $z\sim6$]{$\Lambda$CDM
84: predictions for galaxy protoclusters I: The relation between
85: galaxies, protoclusters and quasars at $z\sim6$}
86: \author[R. A. Overzier et al.]{Roderik. A. Overzier$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail:overzier@mpa-garching.mpg.de (RAO)}, Qi Guo$^{1}$, Guinevere Kauffmann$^{1}$, Gabriella De Lucia$^{1}$,\and Rychard Bouwens$^{2}$, Gerard Lemson$^{3,4}$\\
87: $^{1}$Max-Planck-Instit\"ut f\"ur Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, D-85748, Garching, Germany\\
88: $^{2}$Astronomy Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA\\
89: $^{3}$Astronomisches Rechen-Institut, Zentrum f\"ur Astronomie der Universit\"at Heidelberg, Moenchhofstr. 12-14, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany\\
90: $^{4}$Max-Planck Institut f\"ur extraterrestrische Physik, Giessenbach Str., 85748 Garching, Germany}
91:
92: \begin{document}
93:
94: \date{}
95:
96: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2008}
97:
98: \maketitle
99:
100: \label{firstpage}
101:
102: \begin{abstract}
103: Motivated by recent observational studies of the environment of
104: $z\sim6$ QSOs, we have used the Millennium Run (MR) simulations to
105: construct a very large ($\sim4\degr\times4\degr$) mock redshift
106: survey of star-forming galaxies at $z\sim6$. We use this simulated
107: survey to study the relation between density enhancements in the
108: distribution of \ip-dropouts and \lya\ emitters, and their relation
109: to the most massive halos and protocluster regions at $z\sim6$. Our
110: simulation predicts significant variations in surface density across
111: the sky with some voids and filaments extending over scales of
112: 1$\degr$, much larger than probed by current surveys. Approximately
113: one third of all $z\sim6$ halos hosting $i$-dropouts brighter than
114: $z$=26.5 mag ($\approx M^*_{UV,z=6}$) become part of $z=0$ galaxy
115: clusters. $i$-dropouts associated with protocluster regions are
116: found in regions where the surface density is enhanced on scales
117: ranging from a few to several tens of arcminutes on the sky. We
118: analyze two structures of $i$-dropouts and \lya\ emitters observed
119: with the Subaru Telescope and show that these structures must be the
120: seeds of massive clusters-in-formation. In striking contrast, six
121: $z\sim6$ QSO fields observed with HST show no significant
122: enhancements in their \ip-dropout number counts. With the present
123: data, we cannot rule out the QSOs being hosted by the most massive
124: halos. However, neither can we confirm this widely used assumption.
125: We conclude by giving detailed recommendations for the
126: interpretation and planning of observations by current and future
127: ground- and space based instruments that will shed new light on
128: questions related to the large-scale structure at $z\sim6$.
129: \end{abstract}
130:
131: %Motivated by recent observational studies of the environment of z~6 QSOs, we have used the Millennium Run (MR) simulations to construct a very large (~4 deg by 4 deg) mock redshift survey of star-forming galaxies at z~6. We use this simulated survey to study the relation between density enhancements in the distribution of i-dropouts and Lya-emitters, and their relation to the most massive halos and protocluster regions at z~6. Our simulation predicts significant variations in surface density across the sky with some voids and filaments extending over scales of 1 degree, much larger than probed by current surveys. Approximately one third of all z~6 halos hosting i-dropouts brighter than z=26.5 mag (~M*(UV,z=6)) become part of z=0 galaxy clusters. i-dropouts associated with protocluster regions are found in regions where the surface density is enhanced on scales ranging from a few to several tens of arcminutes on the sky. We analyze two structures of i-dropouts and Lya-emitters observed with the Subaru Telescope and show that these structures must be the seeds of massive clusters-in-formation. In striking contrast, six z~6 QSO fields observed with HST show no significant enhancements in their i-dropout number counts. With the present data, we cannot rule out the QSOs being hosted by the most massive halos. However, neither can we confirm this widely used assumption. We conclude by giving detailed recommendations for the interpretation and planning of observations by current and future ground- and space based instruments that will shed new light on questions related to the large-scale structure at z~6.
132:
133: \begin{keywords}
134: cosmology: observations -- early universe -- large-scale
135: structure of universe -- theory -- galaxies: high-redshift -- galaxies:
136: clusters: general -- galaxies: starburst.
137: \end{keywords}
138:
139: \section{Introduction}
140:
141: \label{sec:intro}
142:
143: \noindent
144: During the first decade of the third Millennium we have begun to put
145: observational constraints on the status quo of galaxy formation at
146: roughly one billion years after the Big Bang
147: \citep[e.g.][]{stanway03,yan04a,bouwens03,bouwens04a,bouwens06,dickinson04,malhotra05,shimasaku05,ouchi05,overzier06}.
148: Statistical samples of star-forming galaxies at $z=6$ -- either
149: selected on the basis of their large ({\it i}--{\it z}) color due to
150: the Lyman break redshifted to $z\sim6$ ({\it i-dropouts}), or on the
151: basis of the large equivalent width of Ly$\alpha$ emission
152: (\lya\ emitters) -- suggest that they are analogous to the population
153: of Lyman break galaxies (LBGs) found at $z\sim3-5$
154: \citep[e.g.][]{bouwens07}. A small subset of the \ip-dropouts
155: has been found to be surprisingly massive or old
156: \citep{dow05,yan06,eyles07}. The slope of the UV luminosity function
157: at $z=6$ is very steep and implies that low luminosity objects
158: contributed significantly to reionizing the Universe
159: \citep{yan04b,bouwens07,khochfar07,overzier08a}. Cosmological
160: hydrodynamic simulations are being used to reproduce the abundances as
161: well as the spectral energy distributions of $z=6$ galaxies. Exactly
162: how these objects are connected to local galaxies
163: remains a highly active area of research
164: \citep[e.g.][]{dave06,harford06,nagamine06,nagamine08,night06,finlator07,robertson07}.
165:
166: The discovery of highly luminous quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) at
167: $z\sim6$ \citep[e.g.][]{fan01,fan03,fan04,fan06a,goto06,venemans07a}
168: is of equal importance in our understanding of the formation of the first massive black
169: holes and galaxies. \citet{gunn65} absorption troughs in their spectra
170: demarcate the end of the epoch of reionization
171: \citep[e.g.][]{fan01,white03,walter04,fan06b}. Assuming that high
172: redshift QSOs are radiating near the Eddington limit, they contain
173: supermassive black holes (SMBHs) of mass $\sim10^9$ $M_\odot$
174: \citep[e.g.][]{willott03,barth03,vestergaard04,jiang07,kurk07}.
175: The spectral properties of most $z\sim6$ QSOs in the rest-frame UV, optical, IR and
176: X-ray are similar to those at low redshift, suggesting that massive,
177: and highly chemically enriched galaxies were vigorously forming stars
178: and SMBHs less than one billion years after the Big Bang
179: \citep[e.g.][]{bertoldi03,maiolino05,jiang06,wang07}.
180:
181: Hierarchical formation models and simulations can reproduce the
182: existence of such massive objects at early times
183: \citep[e.g.][]{haiman01,springel05a,begelman06,volonteri06,li07,narayan07},
184: provided however that they are situated in extremely massive halos.
185: Large-scale gravitational clustering is a powerful method for
186: estimating halo masses of quasars at low redshifts, but cannot
187: be applied to $z\sim6$ QSOs because there are too few systems known. Their
188: extremely low space density determined from the Sloan Digital Sky
189: Survey (SDSS) of $\sim$1 Gpc$^{-3}$ (comoving) implies a (maximum)
190: halo mass of $\cal{M}$$_{halo}\sim10^{13}$ $M_\odot$ \citep{fan01,li07}. A
191: similar halo mass is obtained when extrapolating from the ($z=0$)
192: relationship between black hole mass and bulge mass of
193: \citet{magorrian98}, and using $\Omega_M/\Omega_{bar}\gtrsim10$
194: \citep{fan01}.
195: Because the descendants of the most massive
196: halos at $z\sim6$ may evolve into halos of $>10^{15}$ $M_\odot$ at
197: $z=0$ in a $\Lambda$CDM model,
198: \citep[e.g.][but see \citet{delucia07}, \citet{trenti08} and
199: Sect. \ref{sec:qso} of this paper]{springel05a,suwa06,li07}, it is
200: believed that the QSOs trace highly biased regions that may give birth to the most
201: massive present-day galaxy clusters. If this is true, the small-scale
202: environment of $z\sim6$ QSOs may be expected to show a significant
203: enhancement in the number of small, faint galaxies. These galaxies may
204: either merge with the QSO host galaxy, or may form the first stars and
205: black holes of other (proto-)cluster galaxies.
206:
207: Observations carried out with the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) on
208: the {\it Hubble Space Telescope} (HST), allowed a rough measurement of
209: the two-dimensional overdensities of faint \ip-dopouts detected towards the QSOs
210: J0836+0054 at $z=5.8$ \citep{zheng06} and J1030+0524 at $z=6.28$
211: \citep{stiavelli05}. Recently \citet{kim08} presented results from a
212: sample of 5 QSO fields, finding some to be overdense and some to be
213: underdense with respect to the HST/ACS Great Observatories Origins
214: Deep Survey (GOODS).
215: \citet{priddey07} find enhancements in the number counts of sub-mm
216: galaxies. Substantial overdensities of \idrops\ and \lya\ emitters
217: have also been found in non-QSO fields
218: \citep[e.g.][]{shimasaku03,ouchi05,ota08}, suggesting that massive
219: structures do not always harbour a QSO, which may be explained by
220: invoking a QSO duty-cycle. At $z\sim2-5$, significant excesses of
221: star-forming galaxies have been found near QSOs
222: \citep[e.g.][]{djorgovski03,kashikawa07}, radio galaxies
223: \citep[e.g.][]{miley04,venemans07b,overzier08b}, and in random fields
224: \citep{steidel98,steidel05}. Although the physical interpretation of
225: the measurements is uncertain, these structures are believed to be
226: associated with the formation of clusters of galaxies.
227:
228: The idea of verifying the presence of massive structures
229: at high redshift through the clustering of small galaxies around them
230: has recently been explored by, e.g., \citet{munoz08a} using the
231: excursion set formalism of halo growth \citep{zentner07}. However,
232: the direct comparison between models or simulations and observations
233: remains difficult, mainly because of complicated observational
234: selection effects. This is especially true at high redshift.
235: In order to investigate how a wide variety of galaxy overdensities
236: found in surveys at $z\simeq2-6$ are related to cluster formation, we
237: have carried out an analysis of the progenitors of galaxy clusters in
238: a set of cosmological $N$-body simulations. Our results will be
239: presented in a series of papers. In Paper I, we use the Milennium Run Simulations
240: \citep{springel05a} to simulate a large mock survey of galaxies at
241: $z\sim6$ to derive predictions for the properties of the progenitors
242: of massive galaxy clusters, paying particular attention to the details
243: of observational selection effects. We will try to answer the following
244: questions:\\
245:
246: (i) Where do we find the present-day descendants of the {\it i}-dropouts?
247:
248: (ii) What are the typical structures traced by {\it i}-dropouts and
249: \lya\ emitters in current surveys, and how do they relate to protoclusters?
250:
251: (iii) How do we unify the (lack of excess) number counts observed in
252: QSO fields with the notion that QSOs are hosted by the most massive halos at $z\sim6$?\\
253:
254: The structure of the present paper is as follows. We describe the
255: simulations, and construction of our mock {\it i-dropout} survey in
256: Section 2. Using these simulations, we proceed to address the main
257: questions outlined above in Sections 3--5. We conclude the paper
258: with a discussion (Section 6), an overview of recommendations for future
259: observations (Section 7), and a short summary (Section 8) of the main results.
260:
261: \section{Simulations}
262:
263: \subsection{Simulation description}
264:
265: \noindent
266: We use the semi-analytic galaxy catalogues that are based on the
267: Millennium Run (MR) dark matter simulation of \citet{springel05a}.
268: Detailed descriptions of the simulations and the semi-analytic
269: modeling have been covered extensively elsewhere, and we kindly refer
270: the reader to those works for more information \citep[e.g.][and references
271: therein]{kauffmann99,springel05a,croton06,lemson06a,delucia04,delucia07}.
272:
273: The dark matter simulation was performed with the
274: cosmological simulation code GADGET--2 \citep{springel05b}, and
275: consisted of $2160^3$ particles of mass $8.6\times10^8$ $h^{-1}$
276: $M_\odot$ in a periodic box of 500 $h^{-1}$ Mpc on a side. The
277: simulations followed the gravitational growth as traced by these
278: particles from $z=127$ to $z=0$ in a $\Lambda$CDM
279: cosmology ($\Omega_m=0.25$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.75$, $h=0.73$, $n=1$,
280: $\sigma_8=0.9$) consistent with the WMAP year 1 data
281: \citep{spergel03}. The results were stored at 64
282: epochs (``snapshots''), which were used to construct a detailed halo
283: merger tree during postprocessing, by identifying all resolved dark
284: matter halos and subhalos, and linking all progenitors and descendants
285: of each halo.
286: \begin{figure}%[t]
287: \begin{center}
288: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig1.ps}
289: \end{center}
290: \caption{\label{fig:zx} Redshift versus the (co-moving) $X$-coordinate
291: for all objects within a slice of width $\Delta Y=250$ $h^{-1}$
292: Mpc along the $Y$-axis.}
293: \end{figure}
294:
295: Galaxies were modeled by applying semi-analytic prescriptions of
296: galaxy formation to the stored halo merger trees. The techniques and
297: recipes include gas cooling, star formation, reionizaton heating,
298: supernova feedback, black hole growth, and ``radio-mode'' feedback
299: from galaxies with a static hot gas atmosphere, and are described in
300: \citet{croton06}. The photometric properties of galaxies are then
301: modeled using stellar population synthesis models, including a simple
302: dust model. Here we use the updated models `delucia2006a' of
303: \citet{delucia07} that have been made publicly available through an
304: advanced database structure on the MR
305: website\footnote{http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/millennium/} \citep{lemson06b}.
306:
307:
308:
309: \begin{figure}%[h]
310: \begin{center}
311: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig2.ps}
312: \end{center}
313: \caption{\label{fig:xy} The simulation box showing the positions in
314: co-moving coordinates of all objects identified as \ip-dropout
315: galaxies to \zp$=$27.0 mag.}
316: \end{figure}
317:
318:
319:
320:
321: \subsection{Construction of a large mock survey at $z\sim6$}
322: \label{sec:makemock}
323:
324: \noindent
325: We used the discrete MR snapshots to create a large, continous mock
326: survey of \ip-dropout galaxies at $z\sim6$. The general principle of
327: transforming a series of discrete snapshots into a
328: mock pencil beam survey entails placing a virtual observer
329: somewhere in the simulation box at $z=0$ and carving out all galaxies
330: as they would be observed in a pencil beam survey along that
331: observer's line of sight. This technique has been described in great
332: detail in \citet{blaizot05} and \citet{kitzbichler07}. In general, one
333: starts with the snapshot $i=63$ at $z=0$ and records the positions,
334: velocities and physical properties of all galaxies within the cone out
335: to a comoving distance corresponding to that of the next snapshot. For
336: the next segment of the cone, one then use the properties as recorded in
337: snapshot $i=62$, and so on. The procedure relies on the reasonable assumption
338: that the large-scale structure (positions and velocities of galaxies)
339: evolves relatively slowly between snapshots. By replicating the simulation
340: box along the lightcone and limiting the opening angle of the cone,
341: one can in principle construct unique lightcones out to very high
342: redshift without crossing any region in the simulation box more than
343: once. The method is
344: straightforward when done in comoving coordinates in a flat cosmology
345: using simple Euclidean geometry \citep{kitzbichler07}.
346:
347: Because the comoving distances or redshifts of galaxies recorded at a
348: particular snapshot do not correspond exactly to their effective
349: position along the lightcone, we need to correct their magnitudes by
350: interpolating over redshift as follows:
351: \begin{equation}
352: M_{cor}[z(d)]=M(z_i)+\frac{dM}{dz}[z(d)-z_i)],
353: \end{equation}
354: where $M_{cor}[z(d)]$ is the observer-frame absolute magnitude at the
355: observed redshift, $z(d)$ (including peculiar velocities along the
356: line of sight), $M(z_i)$ is the magnitude at redshift $z_i$
357: corresponding to the $i$th snapshot, and $dM/dz$ is
358: the first order derivative of the observer-frame absolute
359: magnitude. The latter quantity is calculated for each galaxy by
360: placing it at neighbouring snapshots, and ensures that the
361: $K$-correction is taken into account \citep{blaizot05}. Finally, we apply
362: the mean attenuation of the intergalactic medium using \citet{madau95}
363: and calculate the observer-frame apparent magnitudes in each filter.
364:
365: In this paper, we use the fact that the selection of $z\sim6$
366: galaxies through the {\it i-dropout} technique is largely free of contamination
367: from objects at lower (and higher) redshift \citep[][]{bouwens06}
368: provided that the observations are deep enough. % and carried out in
369: Because the transverse size of the MR simulation box (500 \h\ Mpc)
370: corresponds to a comoving volume between $z\approx5.6$ and
371: $z\approx7.3$ (the typical redshift range of \idrops\ surveys) we can
372: use the three simulation
373: snapshots centered at $z=5.7$, $z=6.2$ and $z=6.7$ to create a
374: mock survey spanning this volume, while safely
375: neglecting objects at other redshifts.
376: \begin{figure*}%[t]
377: %\begin{center}
378: %\mbox{
379: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig3a.ps}
380: \hspace{1cm}
381: %\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{col2.ps}
382: \includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{fig3b.ps}
383: %}
384: %\end{center}
385: \caption{\label{fig:color}Colour-colour diagrams of the MR mock
386: \ip-dropout survey. To guide the eye we have indicated tracks
387: showing the colours of a 100 Myr old continuous starburst model from
388: \citet{bc03} for different amounts of reddening in $E(B-V)$ of 0.0
389: (blue), 0.2 (green), and 0.4 (red). Redshifts are indicated along the
390: zero-reddening track. Only objects at $z>5.6$ are included in the
391: simulations, as \ip-dropouts surveys have been demonstrated to have
392: very little contamination (see text for details).}
393: \end{figure*}
394:
395: We extracted galaxies from the MR database by selecting the
396: $Z-$axis of the simulation box to lie along the line-of-sight of our mock
397: field. In order to compare with the deepest
398: current surveys, we calculated the apparent magnitudes in the HST/ACS
399: \vp, \ip\ and \zp\ filters and the 2MASS $J$, $H$ and $K_S$
400: filters. We derived observed redshifts from the comoving distance
401: along the line of sight (including the effect of peculiar velocities),
402: applied the $K$-corrections and IGM absorption, and calculated the
403: apparent magnitudes in each band. Fig. \ref{fig:zx} shows the spatial
404: $X$-coordinate versus the redshift of objects in the simulated
405: lightcone. Fig. \ref{fig:xy} shows the entire simulated volume
406: projected along the $Z$- or redshift axis. These figures show that
407: there exists significant filamentary and strongly clustered
408: substructure at $z\approx6$, both parallel and perpendicular to the
409: line-of-sight.
410:
411: Our final mock survey has a comoving volume of $\sim0.3$ Gpc$^3$, and
412: spans an area of $4.4\degr\times4.4\degr$ when projected onto the
413: sky. It contains $\sim1.6\times10^5$ galaxies at $z=5.6-7.3$ with
414: $z\le27.5$ mag (corresponding to an absolute magnitude\footnote{The
415: rest-frame absolute magnitude at 1350\AA\ is defined as
416: $M_{1350\AA}\simeq m_z - 5\log_{10}(d_L/\mathrm{10pc}) + 2.5\log_{10}(1+z)$}
417: of $M_{UV,AB}\simeq-19.2$ mag, about one mag
418: below $M^*_{UV,z=6}$). For comparison and future reference, we list
419: the main $i$-dropout surveys together with their areal coverage and
420: detection limit in Table \ref{tab:surveys}.
421:
422:
423:
424:
425: \subsection{Colour-colour selection}
426:
427: \noindent
428: In the left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:color} we show the
429: $V_{606}-z_{850}$ vs. $i_{775}-z_{850}$ colour-colour diagram for all
430: objects satisfying $z\le27.0$. The $i$-dropouts populate a region in
431: colour-colour space that is effectively isolated from lower redshift
432: objects using a simple colour cut of
433: $i_{775}-z_{850}\gtrsim1.3-1.5$. Note that although our simulated
434: survey only contains objects at $z>5.6$, it has been shown
435: \citep{stanway03,dickinson04,bouwens04a,bouwens06} that this colour
436: cut is an efficient selection criterion for isolating starburst
437: galaxies at $z\sim6$ with blue \zp$-J$ colours (see right panel of
438: Fig. \ref{fig:color}). For reference, we have overplotted colour
439: tracks for a 100 Myr old, continuous star formation model as a
440: function of redshift; different colour curves show results for
441: different amounts of reddening by
442: dust. As can be seen, these simple models span the region of
443: colour-colour space occupied by the MR galaxies. At $z<6$, galaxies
444: occupy a tight sequence in the plane. At $z>6$, objects fan out
445: because the $V_{606}-z_{850}$ colour changes strongly as a function
446: of redshift, while the $i_{775}-z_{850}$ colour is more sensitive to
447: both age and dust reddening.
448: %Although the range of star formation histories, ages, and dust
449: %properties of the MR galaxies is of course much larger, the direction
450: %of the reddening vector due to redshift and dust/age is very similar
451: %at least up to $z\sim6$, as evidenced by the tight sequence formed by
452: %their colours. At $z\gtrsim6$ objects fan out in $V_{606}-z_{850}$
453: %vs. $i_{775}-z_{850}$ as redshift dominates the $V_{606}-z_{850}$
454: %colour while dust or aging dominates $i_{775}-z_{850}$.
455: Because of the possibility of intrinsically red interlopers at $z\sim1-3$, the
456: additional requirement of a non-detection in $V_{606}$, or a very red
457: $V_{606}-z_{850}\gtrsim3$ colour, if available, is often included in
458: the selection\footnote{The current paper uses magnitudes and colours
459: defined in the HST/ACS \vp\ip\zp\ filter system in order to compare
460: with the deepest surveys available in literature. Other works based
461: on groundbased data commonly use the SDSS-based $r^\prime i^\prime
462: z^\prime$ filterset, but the differences in colours are minimal.}.
463: Because the selection based on $i_{775}-z_{850}\gtrsim1.3$ introduces
464: a small bias against objects having strong \lya\ emission at
465: $z\lesssim6$ \citep{malhotra05,stanway07}, we have statistically
466: included the effect of \lya\ on our sample selection by randomly
467: assigning \lya\ with a rest-frame equivalent width of 30\AA\ to 25\%
468: of the galaxies in our volume, and recalculating the $i_{775}-z_{850}$
469: colours. The inclusion of \lya\ leads to a reduction in the number of
470: objects selected of $\sim3$\% \citep[see also][]{bouwens06}.
471:
472: \subsection{$i$-dropout number densities}
473:
474: \noindent
475: In Table \ref{tab:surfdens} we list the surface densities of
476: \ip-dropouts selected in the MR mock survey as a function of limiting
477: \zp-magnitude and field size.
478: For comparison, we calculated the surface densities for regions having
479: areas comparable to some of the main \ip-dropout surveys: the SDF (876
480: arcmin$^2$), two GOODS fields (320 arcmin$^2$), a single GOODS field
481: (160 arcmin$^2$), and a HUDF-sized field (11.2 arcmin$^2$). The errors
482: in Table \ref{tab:surfdens} indicate the $\pm1\sigma$ deviation
483: measured among a large number of similarly sized fields selected from
484: the mock survey, and can be taken as an estimate of the influence of
485: (projected) large-scale structure on the number counts (usually
486: referred to as ``cosmic variance'' or ``field-to-field variations'').
487: At faint magnitudes, the strongest observational constraints on the
488: \ip-dropout density come from the HST surveys. Our values for a GOODS-sized
489: survey are 105, 55 and 82\% of the values given by the most recent
490: estimates by B07 for limiting \zp\ magnitudes of 27.5, 26.5 and 26.0 mag, respectively, and
491: consistent within the expected cosmic variance allowed by our mock
492: survey. Because the total area surveyed by B06 is about
493: 200$\times$\ smaller than our mock survey, we also compare our results
494: to the much larger SDF from \citet{ota08}. At $z=26.5$ mag the
495: number densities of $\sim$0.18 arcmin$^{-2}$ derived from both the
496: real and mock surveys are perfectly consistent.
497:
498: Last, we note that in order to achieve agreement between the observed
499: and simulated number counts at $z\sim6$, we did not require any tweaks
500: to either the cosmology \citep[e.g., see][for the effect of different
501: WMAP cosmologies]{wang08}, or the dust model used \citep[see][for
502: alternative dust models better tuned to high redshift
503: galaxies]{kitzbichler07,guo08}. This issue may be further
504: investigated in a future paper.
505:
506: \subsection{Redshift distribution}
507:
508: \begin{figure}%[t]
509: \begin{center}
510: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig4.ps}
511: \end{center}
512: \caption{\label{fig:nz2}Redshift histograms derived from the MR mock
513: $i$-dropout survey at the depth of \zp=27.5 mag using the selection
514: criteria \ip--\zp$>1.3$ (thick solid line, error bars indicate the
515: 1$\sigma$ scatter expected among GOODS-sized fields), \ip--\zp$>1.5$
516: (dashed line), \ip--\zp$<2.0$ (blue line), and \ip--\zp$>2.0$ (red
517: line). The thin solid line indicates the model redshift
518: distribution from B06 based on the HUDF.}
519: \end{figure}
520:
521: \noindent
522: In Fig. \ref{fig:nz2} we show the redshift distribution of the full
523: mock survey (thick solid line), along with various subsamples selected
524: according to different \ip--\zp\ colour cuts that we will refer to
525: later on in this paper. The standard selection of \ip--\zp$>$1.3
526: results in a distribution that peaks at $z\approx5.8$. We have also
527: indicated the expected scatter resulting from cosmic variance on the
528: scale of GOODS-sized fields (error bars are 1$\sigma$). Some, mostly
529: groundbased, studies make use of a more stringent cut of
530: \ip--\zp$>1.5$ to reduce the chance of foreground interlopers (dashed
531: histogram). Other works have used colour cuts of \ip--\zp$\lesssim2$
532: (blue histogram) and \ip--\zp$\gtrsim2$ (red histogram) in order to
533: try to extract subsamples at $z\lesssim6$ and $z\gtrsim6$,
534: respectively. As can be seen in Fig. \ref{fig:nz2}, such cuts are
535: indeed successful at broadly separating sources from the two redshift
536: ranges, although the separation is not perfectly clean due to the
537: mixed effects of age, dust and redshift on the \ip--\zp\ colour. For
538: reference, we have also indicated the model redshift distribution from
539: B06 (thin solid line). This redshift distribution was derived for a
540: much fainter sample of \zp$\lesssim$29 mag, which explains in part the
541: discrepancy in the counts at $z\gtrsim6.2$. Evolution across the
542: redshift range will furthermore skew the actual redshift distribution
543: toward lower values \citep[see discussion in][]{munoz08b}. This is not
544: included in the B06 model, and its effect is only marginally taken
545: into account in the MR mock survey due to the relatively sparse
546: snapshot sampling across the redshift range. Unfortunately, the exact
547: shape of the redshift distribution is currently not very well
548: constrained by spectroscopic samples \citep{malhotra05}. A more
549: detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this paper, and we conclude
550: by noting that the results presented below are largely independent of
551: the exact shape of the distribution.
552:
553: \subsection{Physical properties of $i$-dropouts}
554:
555: \begin{figure}%[t]
556: \begin{center}
557: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig5.ps}
558: \end{center}
559: \caption{\label{fig:z6props}Physical properties of $i$-dropouts in the
560: MR mock survey satisfying $z\le26.5$ mag. We plot the cumulative
561: fractions of galaxies with stellar masses, star formation rates,
562: stellar ages and halo masses greater than a given value. {\it Top left:}
563: Distribution of stellar masses. The median stellar mass is
564: $\sim4\times10^{9}$ $M_\odot$ h$^{-1}$ (dotted line). {\it Top
565: right:} Distribution of SFRs. The median SFR is $\sim30$ $M_\odot$
566: yr$^{-1}$ (dotted line). {\it Bottom left:} Distribution of
567: mass-weighted ages. The median age is $\sim$160 Myr (dotted
568: line). {\it Bottom right:} Distribution of halo masses. The median
569: halo mass is $\sim2\times10^{11}$ $M_\odot$ h$^{-1}$ (dotted line).}
570: \end{figure}
571:
572: \noindent
573: Although a detailed study of the successes and failures in the
574: semi-analytic modeling of galaxies at $z\sim6$ is not the purpose of
575: our investigation, we believe it will be instructive for the reader if
576: we at least summarize the main physical properties of the model
577: galaxies in our mock survey.
578: Unless stated otherwise, throughout this paper we will limit our
579: investigations to $i$-dropout samples having a limiting magnitude of
580: \zp=26.5 mag\footnote{For reference: a \zp\ magnitude of $\simeq$26.5
581: mag for an unattenuated galaxy at $z\simeq6$ would correspond to a SFR
582: of $\simeq$7 $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, under the widely used assumption of a
583: 0.1--125$M_\odot$ Salpeter initial mass function
584: and the conversion factor between SFR and the
585: rest-frame 1500\AA\ UV luminosity of $8.0\times10^{27}$ erg s$^{-1}$
586: Hz$^{-1}$ / $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ as given by \citet{madau98}.}, comparable to $M^*_{UV}$ at $z=6$
587: \citep[see][]{bouwens07}. This magnitude typically corresponds to
588: model galaxies situated in dark matter halos of at least 100 dark
589: matter particles ($\sim10^{11}$ M$_\odot$ h$^{-1}$). This ensures that
590: the evolution of those halos and their galaxies has been traced for
591: some time prior to the snapshot from which
592: the galaxy was selected. In this way, we ensure that the physical quantities derived from
593: the semi-analytic model are relatively stable against
594: snapshot-to-snapshot fluctuations. A magnitude limit of \zp=26.5 mag
595: also conveniently corresponds to the typical depth that can be
596: achieved in deep groundbased surveys or relatively shallow HST-based
597: surveys.
598:
599:
600: \begin{figure}%[t]
601: \begin{center}
602: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig6.ps}
603: \end{center}
604: \caption{\label{fig:z0halos}Number density versus halo mass of the
605: $z=0$ dark matter halos hosting descendants of $i$-dropouts at
606: $z\sim6$ to a limiting depth of \zp$\le$26.5 mag. The median
607: $i$-dropout descendant halo mass is a few times $10^{13}$ $M_\odot$
608: (dotted line). The halo mass function of all MR halos at $z=0$ is
609: indicated by the dashed line. The mass range occupied by the halos
610: associated with galaxy clusters is indicated by the hatched region.}
611: \end{figure}
612:
613: In Fig. \ref{fig:z6props} we plot the cumulative distributions of the
614: stellar mass (top left), SFR (top right), and stellar age (bottom
615: left) of the \ip-dropouts in the mock survey. The median stellar mass is
616: $\sim5\times10^{9}$ $M_\odot$ h$^{-1}$, and about 30\% of galaxies
617: have a stellar mass greater than $10^{10}$ $M_\odot$. The median SFR
618: and age are $\sim30$ $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ and $\sim$160 Myr,
619: respectively, with extrema of $\sim500$ $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ and
620: $\sim$400 Myr. These results are in general agreement with several
621: studies based on modeling the stellar populations of limited samples
622: of \ip-dropouts and \lya\ emitters for which deep observations
623: with {\it HST} and {\it Spitzer} exist. \citet{yan06} have analyzed
624: a statistically robust sample and find stellar masses
625: ranging from $\sim1\times10^8$ $M_\odot$ for IRAC-undetected sources
626: to $\sim7\times10^{10}$ $M_\odot$ for the brightest 3.6$\mu$m sources,
627: and ages ranging from $<$40 to 400 Myr \citep[see also][for
628: additional comparison data]{dow05,eyles07,lai07}. We also point out
629: that the maximum stellar mass of $\sim7\times10^{10}$ $M_\odot$ found
630: in our mock survey (see top left panel) is comparable to the most
631: massive $i$-dropouts found, and that ``supermassive'' galaxies having
632: masses in excess of $\gtrsim10^{11}$ $M_\odot$ are absent in both the
633: simulations and observations \citep{mclure06}. Last, in the bottom
634: right panel we show the distribution of the masses of the halos
635: hosting the model $i$-dropouts. The median halo mass is
636: $\sim3\times10^{11}$ $M_\odot$. Our results are in the range of
637: values reported by \citet{overzier06} and \citet{mclure08} based on
638: the angular correlation function of large \ip-dropout samples, but we
639: note that halo masses are currently not very well constrained by
640: the observations.
641:
642:
643:
644:
645:
646: \begin{figure}%[t]
647: \begin{center}
648: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig7.ps}
649: \end{center}
650: \caption{\label{fig:z0galaxies}Number density versus stellar mass of
651: the galaxies at $z=0$ that have at least one $i$-dropout progenitor
652: at $z\sim6$. The median descendant mass is $\sim10^{11}$ $M_\odot$
653: (dotted line). The distribution of stellar mass of all MR $z=0$
654: galaxies is indicated for comparison (dashed line).}
655: \end{figure}
656:
657: \section{The relation between $i$-dropouts and (proto-)clusters}
658:
659: \noindent
660: In this Section we study the relation between local overdensities in
661: the $i$-dropout distribution at $z\sim6$ and the sites of cluster
662: formation.
663: Throughout this paper, a galaxy cluster is defined as being all
664: galaxies belonging to a bound dark matter halo having a dark matter
665: mass\footnote{The `tophat' mass, $\cal{M}$$_{tophat}$, is the mass
666: within the radius at which
667: the halo has an overdensity corresponding to the value at
668: virialisation in the top-hat collapse model \citep[see][]{white01}.} of
669: $\cal{M}$$_{tophat}\ge10^{14}$ h$^{-1}$ $M_\odot$ at $z=0$. In the MR we find
670: 2,832 unique halos, or galaxy clusters, fulfilling this condition, 21
671: of which can be considered supermassive ($\cal{M}$$_{tophat}\ge10^{15}$
672: h$^{-1}$ $M_\odot$). Furthermore, a proto-cluster galaxy is defined as
673: being a galaxy at $\sim6$ that will end up in a galaxy cluster at
674: $z=0$. Note that these are trivial definitions given the database
675: structure of the Millennium Run simulations, in which galaxies and
676: halos at any given redshift can be related to their progenitors and descendants at
677: another redshift \citep{lemson06b}.
678:
679: \begin{figure*}%[t]
680: \begin{center}
681: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig8.ps}
682: %\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig8.ps}
683: \end{center}
684: \caption{\label{fig:field}Projected distribution on the sky of the
685: $z\sim6$ $i$-dropouts selected from the MR mock survey according to
686: the criteria \ip--\zp$>$1.3 and $z\le26.5$ mag (small and large
687: points). Contours indicate regions of equal density, defined as
688: $\delta\Sigma_{5\arcmin}\equiv(\Sigma_{5\arcmin}-\bar{\Sigma}_{5\arcmin})/\bar{\Sigma}_{5\arcmin}$,
689: $\Sigma_{5\arcmin}$ and $\bar{\Sigma}_{5\arcmin}$ being the
690: local and mean surface density measured in circular cells of
691: 5\arcmin\ radius. Over- and underdense regions of
692: $\delta\Sigma_{5\arcmin}=\pm[0.25,0.5,1.0]$ are shown in red and
693: blue contours, respectively. The mean density
694: ($\delta\Sigma_{5\arcmin}=0$) is indicated by the green dashed
695: contour. Large black points mark proto-cluster galaxies that end up in
696: galaxy clusters at $z=0$.}
697: \end{figure*}
698:
699:
700:
701: \subsection{Properties of the $z=0$ descendants of $i$-dropouts}
702:
703: \noindent
704: In Fig. \ref{fig:z0halos} we plot the distribution of number densities of the central
705: halos that host the $z=0$ descendants of the $i$-dropouts in our mock
706: survey as a function of the halo mass. The median halo mass hosting
707: the $i$-dropout descendants at $z=0$ is $3\times10^{13}$ $M_\odot$
708: h$^{-1}$ (dotted line). For comparison we indicate the mass
709: distribution of all halos at $z=0$ (dashed line). The plot shows that
710: the fraction of halos that can be traced back to a halo hosting an
711: $i$-dropout at $z\sim6$ is a strong function of the halo mass at
712: $z=0$. 45\% of all cluster-sized halos at $z=0$ (indicated by the
713: hatched region) are related to the descendants of halos hosting
714: $i$-dropouts in our mock survey, and 77\% of all clusters at $z=0$
715: having a mass of $\cal{M}$$>7\times10^{14}$ $M_\odot$ h$^{-1}$ can be traced
716: back to at least one progenitor halo at $z\sim6$ hosting an
717: $i$-dropout. This implies that the first seeds of galaxy clusters are
718: already present at $z\sim6$. In addition, many $i$-dropout galaxies
719: and their halos may merge and end up in the same descendant structures
720: at $z=0$, which was not accounted for in our calculation above where we
721: only counted unique halos at $z=0$. In fact, about $\sim$34\%
722: ($\sim$2\%) of all $i$-dropouts (\zp$\le$26.5) in the mock survey will
723: end up in clusters of mass $>1\times10^{14}$ ($>7\times10^{14}$)
724: $M_\odot$ h$^{-1}$ at $z=0$. This implies that roughly one third of
725: all galaxies one observes in a typical $i$-dropout survey can be
726: considered ``proto-cluster'' galaxies. The plot further shows that the
727: majority of halos hosting $i$-dropouts at $z\sim6$ will evolve into
728: halos that are more typical of the group environment. This is similar
729: to the situation found for Lyman break or dropout galaxies at lower
730: redshifts \citep{ouchi04}.
731:
732: In Fig. \ref{fig:z0galaxies} we plot the stellar mass distribution of
733: those $z=0$ galaxies that host the descendants of the
734: $i$-dropouts. The present-day descendants are found in galaxies
735: having a wide range of stellar masses ($\cal{M}$$_*\simeq10^{9-12}$ $M_\odot$),
736: but the distribution is skewed towards the most massive galaxies in
737: the MR simulations. The median stellar mass of the descendants
738: is $\sim10^{11}$ $M_\odot$ (dotted line in Fig. \ref{fig:z0galaxies}).
739:
740:
741: \subsection{Detecting proto-clusters at $z\sim6$}
742: \label{sec:detclus}
743:
744: \noindent
745: We will now focus on to what extent local overdensities in the
746: $i$-dropout distribution at $z\approx6$ may trace the progenitor seeds of
747: the richest clusters of galaxies in the present-day Universe.
748: In Fig. \ref{fig:field} we plot the sky distribution of the
749: $i$-dropouts in our $4.4\degr\times4.4\degr$ MR mock survey (large and
750: small circles). Large circles indicate those $i$-dropouts
751: identified as proto-cluster galaxies. We have plotted
752: contours of $i$-dropout surface density,
753: $\delta_{\Sigma,5^\prime}\equiv(\Sigma_{5^\prime}-\bar{\Sigma}_{5^\prime})/\bar{\Sigma}_{5^\prime}$,
754: $\Sigma_{5\arcmin}$ and $\bar{\Sigma}_{5\arcmin}$ being the local and
755: mean surface density measured in circular cells of 5\arcmin\ radius.
756: Negative contours representing underdense regions are indicated by
757: blue lines, while positive contours representing overdense regions are
758: indicated by red lines. The green dashed lines indicate the mean
759: density. The distribution of proto-cluster galaxies (large circles)
760: correlates strongly with positive enhancements in the local
761: $i$-dropout density distribution, indicating that these are the sites
762: of formation of some of the first clusters.
763: In Fig. \ref{fig:npointing} we plot the frequency distribution of the
764: $i$-dropouts shown in Fig. \ref{fig:field}, based on a counts-in-cells
765: analysis of 20,000 randomly placed ACS-sized fields of
766: $3.4\arcmin\times3.4\arcmin$ (solid histograms). On average, one
767: expects to find about 2 $i$-dropouts in a random ACS pointing down to
768: a depth of \zp$=$26.5, but the distribution is skewed with respect to
769: a pure Poissonian distribution as expected due to the effects of
770: gravitational clustering. The Poissonian expectation for a mean of 2
771: $i$-dropouts is indicated by a thin line for comparison. The panel on
772: the right shows a zoomed-in view to give a better sense of the small
773: fraction of pointings having large numbers of $i$-dropouts. Also in
774: Fig. \ref{fig:npointing} we have indicated the counts histogram
775: derived from a similar analysis performed on $i$-dropouts extracted
776: from the GOODS survey using the samples of B06. The GOODS result is
777: indicated by the dotted histogram, showing that it lies much closer to
778: the Poisson expectation than the MR mock survey. This is of course
779: expected as our mock survey covers an area over 200$\times$\ larger than
780: GOODS and includes a much wider range of environments. To illustrate
781: that the (small) fraction of pointings with the largest number of
782: objects is largely due to the presence of regions associated with
783: proto-clusters, we effectively ``disrupt'' all protoclusters by
784: randomizing the positions of all protocluster galaxies and repeat the
785: counts-in-cells calculation. The result is shown by the dashed histograms in
786: Fig. \ref{fig:npointing}. The excess counts have largely disappeared,
787: indicating that they were indeed due to the proto-clusters. The counts
788: still show a small excess over the Poissonian distribution due to the
789: overall angular clustering of the $i$-dropout population.
790:
791: \begin{figure}%[t]
792: \begin{center}
793: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig9.ps}
794: \end{center}
795: \caption{\label{fig:npointing}Counts-in-cells frequency distribution
796: of the $i$-dropouts shown in Fig. \ref{fig:field}, based on 20,000
797: randomly placed ACS-sized fields of $3.4\arcmin\times3.4\arcmin$.
798: The panel on the right shows a zoomed-in view to give a better sense
799: of the small fraction of pointings having large numbers of
800: $i$-dropouts. In both panels, the thick solid line indicates the
801: frequency distribution of the full MR mock survey. The dashed line
802: indicates how the distribution changes if we ``disrupt'' all
803: protocluster regions of Fig. \ref{fig:field} by randomizing the
804: positions of the galaxies marked as proto-cluster galaxy. The dotted
805: line indicates the frequency distribution of a large sample of
806: $i$-dropouts selected from the GOODS survey by B06 using identical
807: selection criteria. Thin solid lines indicate the Poisson distribution
808: for a mean of 2 $i$-dropouts per pointing.}
809: \end{figure}
810: \begin{figure}%[t]
811: \begin{center}
812: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig10.ps}
813: \end{center}
814: \caption{\label{fig:pcumul}Panels show the cumulative probability
815: distributions of finding regions having a surface overdensity
816: $>\delta_{\Sigma,ACS}$ of $i$-dropouts for the four samples extracted
817: from the MR mock survey based on colour cuts of \ip--\zp$>1.3$
818: (top-left), \ip--\zp$>1.5$ (top-right), $1.3<$\ip--\zp$<2.0$
819: (bottom-left), and \ip--\zp$>2.0$ (bottom-right). The inset plots
820: show the full probability distributions. Dashed, coloured lines
821: indicate the joint probability of finding cells having an
822: overdensity $>\delta_{\Sigma,ACS}$ and those cells consisting of at
823: least 25\% (blue), 50\% (green) and 75\% proto-cluster galaxies.}
824: \end{figure}
825:
826: We can use our counts-in-cells analysis to predict the cumulative
827: probability, $P_{>\delta}$, of randomly finding an $i$-dropout
828: overdensity equal or larger than $\delta_{\Sigma,ACS}$. The resuls are
829: shown in Fig. \ref{fig:pcumul}. The four panels correspond to the
830: subsamples defined using the four different \ip--\zp\ colour cuts (see
831: \S2.5 and Fig. \ref{fig:nz2}). Panel insets show the full probability
832: range for reference. The figure shows that the probability of finding,
833: for example, cells having a surface overdensity of $i$-dropouts of
834: $\gtrsim$3 is about half a percent for the \ip--\zp$>$1.3 samples (top
835: left panel, solid line). The other panels show the dependence of
836: $P_{>\delta}$ on $i$-dropout samples selected using different colour
837: cuts. As the relative contribution from for- and background galaxies
838: changes, the density contrast between real, physical overdensities on
839: small scales and the ``field'' is increased.
840:
841: \begin{figure}%[t]
842: \begin{center}
843: \includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{fig11.ps}
844: \end{center}
845: \caption{\label{fig:deltaclusfrac}The average fraction of
846: $i$-dropouts marked as proto-cluster galaxies contained in ACS-sized
847: cells as a function of cell overdensity. Error bars are
848: $1\sigma$. There is a clear trend showing that larger surface overdensities
849: are associated with a larger contribution from galaxies in
850: proto-clusters, albeit with significant scatter.}
851: \end{figure}
852:
853: The results presented in
854: Fig. \ref{fig:pcumul} provide us with a powerful way to interpret
855: many observational findings. Specifically, overdensities of
856: $i$-dropouts have been interpreted as evidence for large-scale
857: structure associated with proto-clusters, at least qualitatively.
858: Although Fig. \ref{fig:pcumul} tells us the likelihood of finding a
859: given overdensity, this is not sufficient by itself to answer the
860: question whether that overdensity is related to a proto-cluster due to
861: a combination of several effects. First, because we are mainly working
862: with photometrically selected samples consisting of galaxies spanning
863: about one unit redshift, projection effects are bound to give rise to
864: a range of surface densities. Second, the number counts may show
865: significant variations as a function of position and environment
866: resulting from the large-scale structure. The uncertainties in the cosmic variance can be reduced
867: by observing fields that are larger than the typical scale length of
868: the large-scale structures, but this is often not achieved in typical
869: observations at $z\sim6$. Third, surface overdensities that are
870: related to genuine overdensities in physical coordinates are not
871: necessarily due to proto-clusters, as we have shown that the
872: descendents of $i$-dropouts can be found in a wide range of
873: environments at $z=0$, galaxy groups being the most common (see
874: Fig. \ref{fig:z0halos}). We have separated the contribution of these
875: effects to $P_{>\delta}$ from that due to proto-clusters by
876: calculating the fraction of actual proto-cluster $i$-dropouts in each
877: cell of given overdensity $\delta$. The results are also shown in
878: Fig. \ref{fig:pcumul}, where dashed histograms indicate the combined
879: probability of finding a cell of overdensity $\ge\delta$ consisting of
880: more than 25 (blue lines), 50 (green lines) and 75\% (red lines)
881: protocluster galaxies. The results show that while, for example, the
882: chance of $P(\delta\ge2.5)$ is about 1\%, the chance that at least
883: 50\% of the galaxies in such cells are proto-cluster galaxies is only
884: half that, about 0.5\% (see top left panel in
885: Fig. \ref{fig:pcumul}). The figure goes on to show that the fractions
886: of protocluster galaxies increases significantly as the overdensity
887: increases, indicating that the largest (and rarest) overdensities in
888: the $i$-dropout distribution are related to the richest proto-cluster
889: regions. This is further illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:deltaclusfrac} in which
890: we plot the average and scatter of the fraction of proto-cluster
891: galaxies as a function of $\delta$. Although the fraction rises as the
892: overdensity increases, there is a very large scatter. At
893: $\delta\approx4$ the average fraction of protocluster galaxies is
894: about 0.5, but varies significantly between 0.25 and 0.75 (1$\sigma$).
895: \begin{figure*}%[t]
896: \begin{center}
897: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig12.ps}
898: \end{center}
899: \caption{\label{fig:topclusters_radec}Panels show the angular
900: distribution of \ip-dropouts in 30\arcmin$\times$30\arcmin\ areas
901: centered on each of 16 protoclusters associated with overdensities
902: $\delta_{\Sigma,ACS}\gtrsim3$. Field galaxies are drawn as open
903: circles, and cluster galaxies as filled circles that are colour
904: coded according to their cluster membership. The ACS field-of-view
905: is indicated by a red square. Numbers near the top of each panel
906: indicate the ID, redshift, overdensity and cluster mass (at $z=0$)
907: of the protoclusters in the center of each panel.}
908: \end{figure*}
909:
910: It will be virtually impossible to estimate an accurate cluster mass at $z=0$ from
911: a measured surface overdensity at $z\sim6$. Although there
912: is a correlation between cluster mass at $z=0$ and $i$-dropout
913: overdensity at $z\sim6$, the scatter is significant. Many of the most
914: massive ($\cal{M}$$>$$10^{15}$ $M_\odot$) clusters have very small
915: associated overdensities, while the progenitors of fairly low mass
916: clusters ($\cal{M}$$\sim$$10^{14}$ $M_\odot$) can be found associated
917: with regions of relatively large overdensities. However, the
918: largest overdensities are consistently associated with the progenitors
919: of $\cal{M}$$\sim5\times10^{14}-1\times10^{15}$ $M_\odot$ clusters.
920:
921:
922: \begin{figure}%[t]
923: \begin{center}
924: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig13.ps}
925: \end{center}
926: \caption{\label{fig:topclusters_radius}Lines show overdensity
927: as a function of radius for each of the protocluster
928: regions shown in Fig. \ref{fig:topclusters_radec}.}
929: \end{figure}
930:
931: \subsection{Some examples}
932:
933: \begin{figure*}%[t]
934: \begin{center}
935: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig14.ps}
936: \end{center}
937: \caption{\label{fig:topclusters_z}Panels show redshift versus one of
938: the
939: angular coordinates of \ip-dropouts for each of the protocluster
940: regions shown in Fig. \ref{fig:topclusters_radec}. Field galaxies
941: are drawn as open circles, and cluster galaxies as filled circles
942: that are colour coded according to their cluster membership as in
943: Fig. \ref{fig:topclusters_radec}. Red dashed lines mark $z=5.9$,
944: which roughly corresponds to, respectively, the upper and lower
945: redshift of samples selected by placing a cut at \ip--\zp$\lesssim$2
946: and \ip--\zp$\gtrsim$2. Blue dotted lines mark the redshift range ($\Delta
947: z\approx0.1$) probed by narrowband \lya\ filters.}
948: \end{figure*}
949:
950: \noindent
951: Although the above sections yield useful statistical results, it is
952: interesting to look at the detailed angular and redshift distributions of the
953: \ip-dropouts in a few of the overdense regions. In
954: Fig. \ref{fig:topclusters_radec} we show 16 30\arcmin$\times$30\arcmin\
955: regions having overdensities ranging from $\delta_{\Sigma,ACS}\sim8$ (bottom left
956: panel) to $\sim3$ (top right panel). In each panel we indicate the
957: relative size of an ACS pointing (red square), and the redshift,
958: overdensity and present-day mass of the most massive protoclusters
959: are given in the
960: top left and right corners. Field galaxies are drawn as open circles,
961: while protocluster galaxies are drawn as filled circles. Galaxies
962: belonging to the same proto-cluster are drawn in the same
963: colour. While some regions contain relatively compact protoclusters
964: with numerous members inside the 3.4\arcmin$\times$3.4\arcmin\ ACS
965: field-of-view (e.g. panels \#0, 1 and 8), other regions may contain
966: very few or highly dispersed galaxies. Also, many regions contain
967: several overlapping protoclusters as the selection function is
968: sensitive to structures from a relatively wide range in redshift
969: inside the 30\arcmin$\times$30\arcmin\ regions plotted. Although the
970: angular separation between galaxies belonging to the same protocluster
971: is typically smaller than $\sim$10\arcmin\ or 25 Mpc (comoving),
972: Fig. \ref{fig:topclusters_radius} shows that the overdensities of
973: regions centered on the protoclusters are significantly positive out
974: to much larger radii of between 10 to 30\arcmin, indicating that the
975: protoclusters form inside very large filaments of up to 100 Mpc in
976: size that contribute significantly to the overall (field) number
977: counts in the protocluster regions. In Fig. \ref{fig:topclusters_z} we
978: plot the redshift coordinate against one of the angular coordinates
979: using the same regions and colour codings as in
980: Fig. \ref{fig:topclusters_radec}. Protoclusters are significantly more
981: clumped in redshift space compared to field galaxies, due to
982: flattening of the velocity field associated with the collapse of large
983: structures. In each panel, a red dashed line marks $z=5.9$, which
984: roughly corresponds to, respectively, the upper and lower redshift of
985: samples selected by placing a cut at \ip--\zp$\lesssim$2 and
986: \ip--\zp$\gtrsim$2 (see the redshift selection functions in
987: Fig. \ref{fig:nz2}). Such colour cuts may help reduce the contribution
988: from field galaxies by about 50\%, depending on the redshift one is
989: interested in. We also mark the typical redshift range of $\Delta
990: z\approx0.1$ probed by narrowband filters centered on the redshift of
991: each protocluster using blue dotted lines. As we will show in more detail
992: in \S\ref{sec:ouchi} below, such narrowband selections
993: offer one of the most promising methods for finding and studying the
994: earliest collapsing structures at high redshift, because of the
995: significant increase in
996: contrast between cluster and field regions. However, such surveys
997: are time-consuming and only probe the part of the galaxy population that
998: is bright in the \lya\ line.
999:
1000:
1001:
1002: \section{Comparison with observations from the literature}
1003:
1004: \noindent
1005: Our mock survey of $i$-dropouts constructed from the MR, due to its
1006: large effective volume, spans a wide range of environments and is
1007: therefore ideal for making detailed comparisons with observational
1008: studies of the large-scale structure at $z\sim6$. In the following
1009: subsections, we will make such comparisons with two studies of
1010: candidate proto-clusters of $i$-dropouts
1011: and \lya\ emitters found in the SDF and SXDF.
1012:
1013:
1014:
1015: \subsection{The candidate proto-cluster of \citet{ota08}}
1016:
1017: \noindent
1018: When analysing the sky distribution of $i$-dropouts in the 876
1019: arcmin$^2$ Subaru Deep Field, \citet{ota08} (henceforward O08) discovered a large
1020: surface overdensity, presumed to be a proto-cluster at $z\sim6$. The
1021: magnitude of the overdensity was quantified as the excess of
1022: $i$-dropouts in a circle of 20 Mpc comoving radius. The
1023: region had $\delta_{\Sigma,20\mathrm{Mpc}}=0.63$ with $3\sigma$
1024: significance. Furthermore, this region also contained the highest
1025: density contrast measured in a 8 Mpc comoving radius
1026: $\delta_{\Sigma,8\mathrm{Mpc}}=3.6$ ($5\sigma$) compared to other
1027: regions of the SDF. By relating the total overdensity in dark matter
1028: to the measured overdensity in galaxies through an estimate of the
1029: galaxy bias parameter, the authors estimated a mass for the
1030: proto-cluster region of $\sim1\times10^{15}$ $M_\odot$.
1031:
1032: We use our mock survey to select $i$-dropouts with \ip--\zp$>1.5$ and
1033: \zp$<26.5$, similar to O08. The resulting surface density was 0.16
1034: arcmin$^{-2}$ in very good agreement with the value of 0.18
1035: arcmin$^{-2}$ found by O08. In Fig. \ref{fig:ota} we plot the sky
1036: distribution of our sample, and connect regions of constant (positive)
1037: density $\delta_{\Sigma,20\mathrm{Mpc}}$. Next we selected all
1038: regions that had $\delta_{\Sigma,20\mathrm{Mpc}}\ge0.63$. These
1039: regions are indicated by the large red circles in
1040: Fig. \ref{fig:ota}. We find $\sim$30 (non-overlapping) regions in our
1041: entire mock survey having $\delta_{\Sigma,20\mathrm{Mpc}}=0.6-2.0$ at
1042: $2-7\sigma$ significance, relative to the mean dropout density of
1043: $\bar{\Sigma}_{20\mathrm{Mpc}}\approx32$. Analogous to
1044: Fig. \ref{fig:field}, we have marked all $i$-dropouts associated with
1045: proto-clusters with large symbols. It can be seen clearly that the
1046: proto-cluster galaxies are found almost exclusively inside the regions
1047: of enhanced local surface density indicated by the contour lines,
1048: while the large void regions are virtually depleted of proto-cluster
1049: galaxies. Although the 30 regions of highest overdensity selected to
1050: be similar to the region found by O08 coincide with the highest peaks
1051: in the global density distribution across the field, it is interesting
1052: to point out that in some cases the regions contain very few actual
1053: proto-cluster galaxies, e.g., the regions at (RA,DEC)=(10,150) and (80,220) in
1054: Fig. \ref{fig:ota}. We therefore introduce a proto-cluster ``purity''
1055: parameter, $\cal{R}_{\mathrm{pc}}$, defined as the ratio of galaxies
1056: in a (projected) region that belong to protoclusters to the total
1057: number of galaxies in that region. We find
1058: $\cal{R}_{\mathrm{pc,20Mpc}}\approx$16--50\%. The purest or richest
1059: proto-clusters are found in regions having a wide range in
1060: overdensities, e.g., the region at (175,225) with
1061: $\delta_{\Sigma,20\mathrm{Mpc}}=2.2$,
1062: $\cal{R}_{\mathrm{pc,20Mpc}}=$50\%), and the region at (200,40) with
1063: $\delta_{\Sigma,20\mathrm{Mpc}}=0.9$,
1064: $\cal{R}_{\mathrm{pc,20Mpc}}=$40\%. Following O08 we also calculate
1065: the maximum overdensity in each region using cells of 8 Mpc radius. We
1066: find $\delta_{\Sigma,8\mathrm{Mpc}}=1.1-3.5$ with $2-6\sigma$
1067: significance. These sub-regions are indicated in Fig. \ref{fig:ota}
1068: using smaller circles. Interestingly, there is a very wide range in
1069: proto-cluster purity of
1070: $\cal{R}_{\mathrm{pc,8Mpc}}\approx$0--80\%. The largest overdensity in
1071: Fig. \ref{fig:ota} at (175,225) corresponds to the region giving birth
1072: to the most massive cluster. By $z=0$, this region has grown into a
1073: ``supercluster'' region containing numerous clusters, two of which have
1074: $M>10^{15}$ $M_\odot$.
1075:
1076: We conclude that local overdensities in the distribution of
1077: $i$-dropouts on scales of $\sim$10-50 comoving Mpc similar to the one
1078: found by O08 indeed trace the seeds of massive clusters. Because our mock
1079: survey is about 80$\times$\ larger than the SDF, we expect that one
1080: would encounter such proto-cluster regions in about one in three (2.7)
1081: SDF-sized fields on average. However, the fraction of actual
1082: proto-cluster galaxies is in the range 16--50\% (0--80\% for 8 Mpc
1083: radius regions). This implies that while one can indeed find the
1084: overdense regions where clusters are likely to form, there is no way
1085: of verifying which galaxies are part of the proto-cluster and which
1086: are not, at least not when using photometrically selected samples.
1087: These results are consistent with our earlier finding that there is a
1088: large scatter in the relation between the measured surface overdensity
1089: and both cluster ``purity'' and the mass of its descendant cluster at $z=0$ (Sect. \ref{sec:detclus}).
1090: \begin{figure}%[t]
1091: \begin{center}
1092: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig15.ps}
1093: \end{center}
1094: \caption{\label{fig:ota}The sky distribution of $i$-dropouts selected
1095: using criteria matched to those of \citet{ota08}. Grey solid lines
1096: are surface density contours of
1097: $\delta_{\Sigma,20\mathrm{Mpc}}=0,+0.2,+0.4,+0.6,+0.8$ and
1098: $+1.0$. Large red dashed circles mark overdense regions of
1099: $\delta_{\Sigma,20\mathrm{Mpc}}>0.63$, corresponding to similar
1100: overdensities as that associated with the candidate $z\sim6$
1101: proto-cluster region found by \citet{ota08} in the Subaru Deep
1102: Field. Small red circles inside each region mark a subregion having
1103: the largest overdensity $\delta_{\Sigma,8\mathrm{Mpc}}$ measured in
1104: a 8 Mpc co-moving radius (projected) cell (see text for further details).}
1105: \end{figure}
1106:
1107:
1108: \subsection{The \lya-selected proto-cluster of \citet{ouchi05}}
1109: \label{sec:ouchi}
1110:
1111: \begin{figure}%[t]
1112: \begin{center}
1113: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig16.ps}
1114: \end{center}
1115: \caption{\label{fig:ouchi}Mock \lya\ survey at $\simeq5.8\pm0.05$
1116: constructed from the MR mock \ip-dropout sample. Grey solid lines
1117: are surface density contours of
1118: $\delta_{\Sigma,20\mathrm{Mpc}}=-0.25$ to 3.25 with a step increase
1119: of 0.5 as in Fig. 2 of \citet{ouchi05}. The black dashed line marks
1120: the average field density. Small circles indicate field
1121: galaxies. Large circles indicate protocluster galaxies.}
1122: \end{figure}
1123:
1124: \noindent
1125: The addition of velocity information gives studies of \lya\ samples a
1126: powerful edge over purely photometrically selected \ip-dropout
1127: samples. As explained by \citet[][and references therein]{monaco05},
1128: peculiar velocity fields are influenced by the large-scale structure:
1129: streaming motions can shift the overall distribution in redshift,
1130: while the dispersion can both increase and decrease as a result of
1131: velocity gradients. Galaxies located in different structures that are
1132: not physically bound will have higher velocity dispersions, while
1133: galaxies that are in the process of falling together to form
1134: non-linear structures such as a filaments, sheets (or ``pancakes'')
1135: and proto-clusters will have lower velocity dispersions.
1136:
1137: Using deep narrow-band imaging observations of the SXDF,
1138: \citet{ouchi05} (O05) were able to select \lya\ candidate galaxies at
1139: $z\simeq5.7\pm0.05$. Follow-up spectroscopy of the candidates in one
1140: region that was found to be significantly overdense ($\delta\gtrsim3$)
1141: on a scale of 8 Mpc (comoving) radius resulted in the discovery of two
1142: groups ('A' and 'B') of \lya\ emitting galaxies each having a very
1143: narrow velocity dispersion of $\lesssim200$ km s$^{-1}$. The
1144: three-dimensional density contrast is on the order of $\sim100$,
1145: comparable to that of present-day clusters, and the space density of
1146: such proto-cluster regions is roughly consistent with that of massive
1147: clusters (see O05).
1148:
1149: In order to study the velocity fields of collapsing structures and
1150: carry out a direct comparison with O05, we construct a simple
1151: \lya\ survey from our mock sample as follows. First, we construct a
1152: (Gaussian) redshift selection function centred on $z=5.8$ with a
1153: standard deviation of 0.04. As it is not known what causes some
1154: galaxies to be bright in \lya\ and others not, our simulations do
1155: not include a physical prescription for \lya\ as such. However,
1156: empirical results suggest that \lya\ emitters are mostly young,
1157: relatively dust-free objects and a subset of the \ip-dropout
1158: population. The fraction of galaxies with high equivalent width
1159: \lya\ is about 40\%, and this fraction is found to be roughly constant
1160: as a function of the rest-frame UV continuum magnitude. Therefore, we
1161: scale our selection function so that it has a peak selection
1162: efficiency of 40\%. Next, we apply this selection function to the
1163: \ip-dropouts from the mock survey to create a sample with a
1164: redshift distribution similar to that expected from a narrowband
1165: \lya\ survey. Finally, we tune the limiting \zp\ magnitude until we
1166: find a number density that is similar to that reported by O05. By
1167: setting \zp$<$26.9 mag we get the desired number density of $\sim$0.1
1168: arcmin$^{-2}$. The mock \lya\ field is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:ouchi}.
1169:
1170: \begin{figure}%[t]
1171: \begin{center}
1172: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig17.ps}
1173: \end{center}
1174: \caption{\label{fig:ouchiresults}The correlations between surface
1175: overdensity, cluster purity and velocity dispersion for
1176: \lya\ galaxies selected from the mock \lya\ survey shown in
1177: Fig. \ref{fig:ouchi} using randomly drawn cells of 8 Mpc (comoving)
1178: radius. Dashed lines indicate the median trends. Red points
1179: highlight regions of purity $\cal{R}>$0.5. Blue points highlight
1180: regions of $\cal{R}>$0.5 and $\delta_\Sigma>3$. Shaded areas mark the
1181: values obtained by \citet{ouchi05} for a protocluster of
1182: \lya\ galaxies in the SDF. See text for details. }
1183: \end{figure}
1184:
1185: In the top left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:ouchiresults} we plot the
1186: overdensities measured in randomly drawn regions of 8 Mpc (comoving)
1187: radius against the protocluster purity parameter, analogous to
1188: Fig. \ref{fig:deltaclusfrac}. Although the median purity of a sample
1189: increases with overdensity (dashed line), the scatter indicated by the
1190: points is very large even for overdensities as large as
1191: $\delta\approx3$ found by O05 (marked by the shaded region in the top
1192: panel of Fig. \ref{fig:ouchiresults}). To guide the eye, we have
1193: plotted regions of purity $>$0.5 as red points, and regions having
1194: purity $>$0.5 and $\delta>3$ as blue points in all panels of
1195: Fig. \ref{fig:ouchiresults}. Next, we calculate the velocity
1196: dispersion, $\sigma_{v,bi}$, from the peculiar velocities of the
1197: galaxies in each region using the bi-weight estimator of
1198: \citet{beers90} that is robust for relatively small numbers of objects
1199: ($N\simeq10-50$), and plot the result against $\delta$ and cluster
1200: purity in the top right and bottom left panels of
1201: Fig. \ref{fig:ouchiresults}, respectively.
1202:
1203: Although gravitational clumping of galaxies in redshift space causes
1204: the velocity dispersions to be considerably lower than the velocity
1205: width allowed by the bandpass of the narrowband filter
1206: ($\langle\sigma_{v,bi}\rangle\simeq1000$ km $s^{-1}$ compared to
1207: $\sigma_{NB}\approx1800$ km $s^{-1}$ for $\sigma_{NB,z}=0.04$), the
1208: velocity dispersion is not a decreasing function of the overdensity
1209: (at least not up to $\delta\approx3-4$) and the scatter is
1210: significant. This can be explained by the fact that proto-clusters
1211: regions are rare, and even regions that are relatively overdense in
1212: angular space still contain many galaxies that are not contained
1213: within a single bound structure. A
1214: much stronger correlation is found between dispersion and cluster
1215: purity (see bottom left panel of
1216: Fig. \ref{fig:ouchiresults}). Although the scatter in dispersion is
1217: large for regions with a purity of $\lesssim0.5$, the smallest
1218: dispersions are associated with some of the richest protocluster
1219: regions. This can be understood because the ``purest'' structures
1220: represent the bound inner cores of future clusters at $z=0$. The
1221: velocity dispersions are low because these systems do not contain many
1222: field galaxies that act to inflate the velocity dispersion
1223: measurements.
1224: Therefore, the velocity dispersion correlates much more
1225: strongly with the protocluster purity than with the surface
1226: overdensity. The overdensity parameter helps, however, in reducing
1227: some of the ambiguity in the cluster richness at small dispersions
1228: (compare black and blue points at small $\sigma_{v,bi}$ in the bottom
1229: left panel). The shaded regions in Fig. \ref{fig:ouchiresults}
1230: indicate the range of measurements of O05, implying that their structure has
1231: the characteristics of \lya\ galaxies falling into a protocluster at
1232: $z\sim6$.
1233:
1234:
1235: \section{Where is the large-scale structure associated with $z\sim6$ QSOs?}
1236: \label{sec:qso}
1237:
1238: \noindent
1239: For reasons explained in the Introduction, it is generally assumed
1240: that the luminous QSOs at $z\sim6$ inhabit the most
1241: massive dark matter in the early Universe. The HST/ACS, with its deep and
1242: wide-field imaging capabilities in the \ip\ and \zp\ bands, has made
1243: it possible to test one possible implication of this by searching for
1244: small neighbouring galaxies tracing these massive halos. In this Section, we will first
1245: investigate what new constraint we can put on the masses of the host
1246: halos based on the observed neighbour
1247: statistics. \citet{munoz08a} have addressed the same problem based on
1248: the excursion set formalism. Our analysis
1249: is based on semi-analytic models incorporated in the MR simulation,
1250: which we believe is likely to provide a more realistic description of
1251: galaxy properties at $z\sim6$.
1252: We will use the simulations to evaluate what we can say about the most likely
1253: environment of the QSOs and whether they are associated with
1254: proto-clusters. We finish the Section by presenting some clear
1255: examples from the simulations that would signal a massive overdensity
1256: in future observations.
1257:
1258: Several searches for companion galaxies in the vicinity of $z\sim6$
1259: QSOs have been carried out to date. In Table \ref{tab:surveys} we list
1260: the main surveys, covering in total 6 QSOs spanning the redshift range
1261: $5.8<z<6.4$.
1262: %Our results presented in the previous section allow us to test, for
1263: %the first time, the outcome of these studies.
1264: %\footnote{We remark that
1265: % although an exact one-to-one matching of the observed quantities
1266: % with the MR mock survey would probably require the costly process of
1267: % generating synthetic images from the simulations and performing
1268: % photometry using an automated source detection and extraction
1269: % routine in a similar manner to that performed in the QSO fields, it
1270: % is expected that by focusing on the overdensity parameter rather
1271: % than on the absolute number counts we can at least make a fair,
1272: % global comparison between the QSOs and our statistics based on the
1273: % mock survey.}.
1274: We have used the results given in \citet{stiavelli05}, \citet{zheng06}
1275: and \citet{kim08} to calculate the surface overdensities associated
1276: with each of the QSO fields listed in Table \ref{tab:surveys}. Only
1277: two QSOs were found to be associated with positive overdensities to a
1278: limiting magnitude of \zp$=$26.5: J0836+0054\footnote{The significance
1279: of the overdensity in this field is less than originally stated by
1280: \citet{zheng06} as a result of underestimating the contamination
1281: rate when a \vp\ image is not available to reject lower redshift
1282: interlopers.} ($z=5.82$) and J1030+0524 ($z=6.28$) both had
1283: $\delta_{\Sigma,\mathrm{ACS}}\approx1$, although evidence suggests
1284: that the overdensity could be as high as $\approx2-3$ when taking into
1285: account subclustering within the ACS field or sources selected using
1286: different $S/N$ or colour cuts \citep[see][for
1287: details]{stiavelli05,zheng06,ajiki06,kim08}. The remaining four QSO
1288: fields (J1306+0356 at $z=5.99$, J1630+4012 at $z=6.05$, J1048+4637 at
1289: $z=6.23$, and J1148+5251 at $z=6.43$) were all consistent with having
1290: no excess counts with $\delta_{\Sigma,\mathrm{ACS}}$ spanning the
1291: range from about $-$1 to $+$0.5 relatively independent of the method
1292: of selection \citep{kim08}. Focusing on the two overdense QSO fields,
1293: Fig. \ref{fig:pcumul} tells us that overdensities of
1294: $\delta_{\Sigma,\mathrm{ACS}}\gtrsim1$ are fairly common, occurring at
1295: a rate of about 17\% in our $4\degr\times4\degr$ simulation.
1296: The probability of finding a random field with
1297: $\delta_{\Sigma}\gtrsim2-3$ is about 5 to 1\%. It is evident that none of the six quasar fields have
1298: highly significant overdensities. The case for overdensities near the
1299: QSOs would strengthen if all fields showed a systematically higher,
1300: even if moderate, surface density. However, when considering the
1301: sample as a whole the surface densities of $i$-dropouts near $z\sim6$
1302: QSOs are fairly average, given that four of the QSO fields have lower
1303: or similar number counts compared to the field. With the exception
1304: perhaps of the field towards the highest redshift QSO J1148+5251,
1305: which lies at a redshift where the $i$-dropout selection is
1306: particularly inefficient (see Fig. \ref{fig:nz2}), the lack of
1307: evidence for substantial (surface) overdensities in the QSO fields is
1308: puzzling.
1309:
1310:
1311:
1312: \begin{figure}%[t]
1313: \begin{center}
1314: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig18.ps}
1315: \end{center}
1316: \caption{\label{fig:boxtest}Panels show the number of neighbours
1317: (\ip-dropouts) in cubic regions of $(20~h^{-1})^3$ Mpc$^3$ versus
1318: the mass of the most massive halo found in each of those
1319: regions. Top and bottom panels are for snapshots at $z=5.7$ and
1320: $z=6.2$, respectively. Left and right panels are for neighbour
1321: counts down to limiting magnitudes of \zp=27.5 (left) and \zp$=26.5$
1322: mag, respectively. There is a wide dispersion in the number of
1323: neighbours, even for the most massive halos at $z\sim6$. The highest
1324: numbers of neighbours are exclusively associated with the massive
1325: end of the halo mass function, allowing one to derive a lower limit
1326: for the mass of the most massive halo for a given number of
1327: neighbour counts. The scatter in the number of neighbours versus
1328: the mass of the most massive halo reduces signficantly when going to
1329: fainter magnitudes. The small squares in the panels on the right
1330: correspond to the three richest regions (in terms of \zp$<$26.5 mag
1331: dropouts) that are shown in close-up in Fig. \ref{fig:z6panels}.}
1332: \end{figure}
1333:
1334: In Fig. \ref{fig:boxtest} we have plotted the number of \ip-dropouts
1335: encountered in cubic regions of $20\times20\times20$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc
1336: against the mass of the most massive dark matter halo found in each
1337: region. Panels on the left and on the right are for limiting
1338: magnitudes of \zp=27.5 and 26.5 mag, respectively. Because the most
1339: massive halos are so rare, here we have used the full MR snapshots at
1340: $z=5.7$ (top panels) and $z=6.2$ (bottom panels) rather than the
1341: lightcone in order to improve the statistics. There is a systematic
1342: increase in the number of neighbours with increasing maximum halo
1343: mass. However, the scatter is very large: for example, focusing on the
1344: neighbour count prediction for $z=5.7$ and \zp$<$26.5 (top right
1345: panel) we see that the number of neighbours of a halo of $10^{12}$
1346: $h^{-1}$ $M_\odot$ can be anywhere between 0 and 20, and some of the
1347: most massive halos of $10^{13}$ $h^{-1}$ $M_\odot$ have a relatively
1348: low number of counts compared to some of the halos of significant
1349: lower mass that are far more numerous. However, for a given
1350: \zp$<$26.5 neighbour count (in a $20\times20\times20$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc
1351: region) of $\gtrsim5$, the halo mass is {\it always} above
1352: $\sim10^{11.5}$ $h^{-1}$ $M_\odot$, and if one would observe
1353: $\gtrsim25$ \ip-dropout counts one could conclude that that field must
1354: contain a supermassive halo of $\gtrsim10^{12.5}$ $h^{-1}$
1355: $M_\odot$. Thus, in principle, one can only estimate a lower limit on
1356: the maximum halo mass as a function of the neighbour counts. The
1357: left panel shows that the scatter is
1358: much reduced if we are able to count galaxies to a limiting \zp-band
1359: magnitude of 27.5 instead of 26.5, simply because the Poisson noise is
1360: greatly reduced.
1361:
1362: \begin{figure*}%[t]
1363: \begin{center}
1364: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig19a.ps}
1365: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig19b.ps}
1366: \end{center}
1367: \caption{\label{fig:z6panels}Close-up views of three $(20~h^{-1})^3$
1368: Mpc$^3$ regions that were found to be highly overdense in \zp$<$26.5
1369: mag \ip-dropouts as marked by the squares in
1370: Fig. \ref{fig:boxtest}. The top row of panels correspond to the
1371: three richest regions found at $z=5.7$, while the bottom row
1372: corresponds to those at $z=6.2$. The position of the most massive
1373: halo in each region is indicated by a green square. Large and small
1374: dots correspond to dropout galaxies having \zp$<$26.5 and $<$27.5
1375: mag, respectively. Galaxies that have been identified as part of a
1376: protocluster structure are indicated by blue circles. The scale bar
1377: at the top left in each panel corresponds to the size of an ACS/WFC
1378: pointing used to observe $z\sim6$ QSO fields. Note that the galaxy
1379: corresponding to the most massive halo as indicated by the green
1380: square is not always detected in our \ip-dropout survey due to dust
1381: obscuration associated with very high star formation rates.}
1382: \end{figure*}
1383:
1384: We can therefore conclude that the relatively average number of counts
1385: observed in the QSO fields is not inconsistent with the QSOs being
1386: hosted by very massive halos. However, one could make an equally
1387: strong case that they are, in fact, not. If we translate our results
1388: of Fig. \ref{fig:boxtest} to the QSO fields that cover a smaller
1389: projected area of $(\sim5~h^{-1})^2$ Mpc$^2$, and we add back in the
1390: average counts from the fore- and background provided by our lightcone
1391: data, we estimate that for QSOs at $z\approx5.7$ we require an
1392: overdensity of $\delta_{\Sigma,ACS}\sim4$ in order to be able to put a
1393: lower limit on the QSO host mass of $\sim10^{12}$ $M_\odot$, while a
1394: $\delta_{\Sigma,ACS}\sim1$ is consistent with $\sim10^{11}$
1395: $M_\odot$. At $z=6.2$, we would require $\delta_{\Sigma,ACS}\gtrsim2$
1396: for $M\gtrsim10^{12}$ $M_\odot$ and $\delta_{\Sigma,ACS}\gtrsim1$ for
1397: $M\gtrsim10^{11.5}$ $M_\odot$. Comparison with the relatively low
1398: surface overdensities observed thus suggests that the halo mass is
1399: uncontrained by the current data. Nonetheless, we can at least
1400: conclude quite firmly that the QSOs are in far less rich environments
1401: (in terms of galaxy neigbours) compared to many rich regions found
1402: both in the simulations and in some of the deep field surveys
1403: described in the previous Section. In order to get a feel for what
1404: the QSO fields might have looked like if they were in highly overdense
1405: regions, we present some close-up views in Fig. \ref{fig:z6panels} of
1406: the three richest regions of \zp$<$26.5 mag \ip-dropouts as marked by
1407: the small squares in Fig. \ref{fig:boxtest}. The central position
1408: corresponding to that of the most massive halo in each region is
1409: indicated by the green square. Large and small dots correspond to
1410: dropout galaxies having \zp$<$26.5 and $<$27.5 mag, respectively. For
1411: reference, we use blue circles to indicate galaxies that have been
1412: identified as part of a protocluster structure. The scale bar at the
1413: top left in each panel corresponds to the size of an ACS/WFC pointing
1414: used to observe $z\sim6$ QSO fields. We make a number of interesting
1415: observations. First, using the current observational limits on depth
1416: (\zp=26.5 mag) and field size (3.4\arcmin, see scale bar) imposed by
1417: the ACS observations of QSOs, it would actually be quite easy to miss
1418: some of these structures as they typically span a larger region of
1419: 2--3 ACS fields in diameter. Going too much fainter magnitudes would
1420: help considerably, but this is at present unfeasible. Note, also, that
1421: in three of the panels presented here, the galaxy associated with the
1422: massive central halo does not pass our magnitude limits. It is missed
1423: due to dust obscuration associated with very high star formation rates
1424: inside these halos, implying that they will be missed by large-area UV
1425: searches as well (unless, of course, they also host a luminous,
1426: unobscured QSO).
1427:
1428: \begin{figure*}%[t]
1429: \begin{center}
1430: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig20.ps}
1431: \end{center}
1432: \caption{\label{fig:hh}The correspondence between the most massive
1433: halos selected at $z=0$ and $z=6$ \citep[see also][]{trenti08}. In
1434: the top row of panels we plot the mass of the most massive
1435: progrenitor of halos selected at $z=0$ for snapshots at $z=5.7$
1436: (left), $z=6.2$ (middle) and $z=6.7$ (right). In the bottom row of
1437: panels we plot the mass of the most massive $z=0$ descendant for
1438: halos selected at $z=5.7$ (left), $z=6.2$ (middle) and $z=6.7$
1439: (right). In all panels the dotted line indicates the mass
1440: corresponding to the threshold we use to define clusters at $z=0$
1441: ($M\ge10^{14}$ $h^{-1}$ $M_\odot$ Mpc). The dispersion in the mass
1442: of the most massive $z\sim6$ progenitors of $z=0$ clusters is over
1443: an order of magnitude. Conversely, the most massive halos present at
1444: $z\sim6$ are not necessarily the most massive halos at $z=0$, and a
1445: minority does not even pass the threshold imposed for qualifying as
1446: a $z=0$ cluster.}
1447: \end{figure*}
1448:
1449: Finally, we investigate the level of mutual correspondence between the
1450: most massive halos selected at $z=6$ and $z=0$. In
1451: Fig. \ref{fig:z6panels} we already saw that the richest regions are
1452: associated with a very large number of galaxies that will become part
1453: of a cluster when evolved to $z=0$. In the top row of
1454: Fig. \ref{fig:hh} we show the mass of the most massive progenitors at
1455: $z=5.7$ (left), $z=6.2$ (middle) ad $z=6.7$ (right) of halos selected
1456: at $z=0$ \citep[see also][]{trenti08}. The dotted line indicates the
1457: threshold corresponding to massive galaxy clusters at $z=0$. Although
1458: the progenitor mass increases systematically with increasing local
1459: mass, the dispersion in the mass of the most massive $z\sim6$
1460: progenitors is about or over one order of magnitude, and this is true
1461: even for the most massive clusters. As explained in detail by
1462: \citet{trenti08} this observation leads to an interesting complication
1463: when using the refinement technique often used to simulate the most
1464: massive regions in the early Universe by resimulating at high redshift
1465: the most massive region identified at $z=0$ in a coarse grid
1466: simulation. In the bottom panels of Fig. \ref{fig:hh} we show the
1467: inverse relation between the most massive halos selected at $z\sim6$
1468: and their most massive descendant at $z=0$. From this it becomes clear
1469: that eventhough the most massive $z\sim6$ halos (e.g. those associated
1470: with QSOs) are most likely to end up in present-day clusters, some
1471: evolve into only modest local structures more compatible with, e.g.,
1472: galaxy groups. This implies that the present-day descendants of some
1473: of the first, massive galaxies and supermassive black holes must be
1474: sought in sub-cluster environments.
1475:
1476: \section{Discussion}
1477:
1478: Although our findings of the previous Section show that the apparent
1479: lack of excess neighbour counts near $z\sim6$ QSOs is not inconsistent
1480: with them being hosted by supermassive dark matter halos as suggested
1481: by their low co-moving abundance and large inferred black hole mass,
1482: it is interesting to note that none of the QSO fields have densities
1483: that would place them amongst the richest structures in the $z\sim6$
1484: Universe. This leads to an intriguing question: where is the
1485: large-scale structure associated with QSOs?
1486:
1487: One possibility that has been discussed \citep[e.g.][]{kim08} is that
1488: while the dark matter density near the QSOs is significantly higher
1489: compared to other fields, the strong ionizing radiation from the QSO
1490: may prohibit the condensation of gas thereby suppressing galaxy
1491: formation. Although it is not clear how important such feedback
1492: processes are exactly, we have found that proto-clusters in the MR
1493: form inside density enhancements that can extend up to many tens of
1494: Mpc in size. Although we do not currently know whether the $z\sim6$
1495: QSOs might be associated with overdensities on scales larger than a
1496: few arcminutes as probed by the ACS, it is unlikely that the QSO
1497: ionization field will suppress the formation of galaxies on such large
1498: scales \citep{wyithe05}. An alternative, perhaps more likely,
1499: explanation for the deficit of \ip-dropouts near QSOs, is that the
1500: dark matter halo mass of the QSOs is being greatly
1501: overestimated. \citet{willott05} suggest that the combination of the
1502: steepness of the halo mass function for rare high redshift halos on
1503: one hand, combined with the sizeable intrinsic scatter in the
1504: correlation between black hole mass and stellar velocity dispersion or
1505: halo mass at low redshift on the other hand, makes it much more
1506: probable that a $10^9$ $M_\odot$ black hole is found in relatively low
1507: mass halos than in a very rare halo of extremely high mass.
1508: Depending on the exact value of the scatter, the typical mass of a
1509: halo hosting a $z\sim6$ QSO may be reduced by $\sim0.5-1.5$ in log
1510: $\cal{M}$$_{halo}$ without breaking the low redshift
1511: $\cal{M}$--$\sigma_v$ relation. The net result is that QSOs occur in
1512: some subset of halos found in substantially less dense environments,
1513: which may explain the observations. This notion seems to be confirmed
1514: by the low dynamical mass of $\sim5\times10^{10}$ $M_\odot$ estimated
1515: for the inner few kpc region of SDSS J1148+5251 at $z=6.43$ based on
1516: the CO line emission \citep{walter04}. This is in complete
1517: contradiction to the $\sim10^{12}$ $M_\odot$ stellar mass bulges and
1518: $\sim10^{13}$ $M_\odot$ mass halos derived based on other arguments. If
1519: true, models should then explain why the number density of such QSOs
1520: is as observed. On the other hand, recent theoretical work by
1521: \citet{dijkstra08} suggests that in order to facilitate the formation
1522: of a supermassive ($\sim10^9$ $M_\odot$) by $z\sim6$ in the first
1523: place, it may be required to have a rare pair of dark matter halos
1524: ($\sim10^{13}$ $M_\odot$) in which the intense UV radiation from one
1525: halo prevents fragmentation of the other so that the gas collapses
1526: directly into a supermassive blackhole. This would constrain the QSOs
1527: to lie in even richer environments.
1528:
1529: \section{Recommendations for future observations}
1530:
1531: The predicted large-scale distributions of \ip-dropouts and
1532: \lya\ emitters as shown in, e.g., Figs. \ref{fig:field}, \ref{fig:ota} and
1533: \ref{fig:ouchi} show evidence for variations in the large-scale
1534: structure on scales of up to $\sim$1-2\degr, far larger than currently
1535: probed by deep HST or large-area ground-based surveys. A full
1536: appreciation of such structures could be important for a range of
1537: topics, including studies of the luminosity function at $z\sim6$ and
1538: studies of the comparison between $\Lambda$CDM predictions and
1539: gravitational clustering on very large scales. The total area probed by our
1540: simulation is a good match to a survey of $\simeq20$ degree$^2$
1541: targeting \ip-dropouts and \lya\ emitters at $z\sim6$ planned with the
1542: forthcoming Subaru/HyperSurpimeCam (first light expected 2013;
1543: M. Ouchi, private communications, 2008).
1544:
1545: We found that the \ip-dropouts associated with proto-clusters are
1546: almost exclusively found in regions with positive density
1547: enhancements. A proper understanding of such dense regions may also be
1548: very important for studies of the epoch of reionization. Simulations
1549: suggest that even though the total number of ionizing photons is much
1550: larger in very large proto-cluster regions covering several tens of
1551: comoving Mpc as compared to the field \citep[e.g.][but see
1552: \citet{iliev06}]{ciardi03}, they may still be the last to fully
1553: re-inionize, because the recombination rates are also much higher.
1554: If regions associated with QSOs or other structures were to contain significant
1555: patches of neutral hydrogen, this may affect both the observed number
1556: densities and clustering of LBGs or \lya\ emitters relative to our
1557: assumed mean attenuation \citep{mcquinn07}. However, since our work
1558: mostly focuses on $z\approx6$ when reionization is believed to be
1559: largely completed, this may not be such an issue compared to surveys
1560: that probe earlier times at $z\gtrsim7$ \citep[e.g.][]{kashikawa06,mcquinn07}.
1561:
1562: Our evaluation of the possible structures associated with QSOs leads
1563: to several suggestions for future observations. While it is unlikely
1564: that the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) to be installed onboard HST in
1565: early 2009 will provide better contraints than HST/ACS due to its
1566: relatively small field-of-view, we have shown that either by surveying
1567: a larger area of $\sim$10\arcmin$\times$10\arcmin\ or by going deeper
1568: by $\sim$1 mag in \zp, one significantly reduces the shot noise in the
1569: neighbour counts allowing more reliable overdensities and (lower)
1570: limits on the halo masses to be estimated. A single pointing with ACS
1571: would require $\sim15-20$ orbits in \zp\ to reach a point source
1572: sensitivity of 5$\sigma$ for a \zp=27.5 mag object at $z\sim6$. Given
1573: the typical structure sizes of the overdense regions shown in
1574: Fig. \ref{fig:z6panels}, a better approach would perhaps be to expand
1575: the area of the current QSO fields by several more ACS pointings at
1576: their present depth of \zp=26.5 mag for about an equal amount of
1577: time. However, this may be achieved from the ground as well using the
1578: much more efficient wide-field detector systems. Although this has
1579: been attempted by \citet{willott05} targeting three of the QSO fields,
1580: we note that their achieved depth of \zp=25.5 was probably much too
1581: shallow to find any overdensities even if they are there. We would
1582: like to stress that it is extremely important that foreground
1583: contamination is reduced as much as possible, for example by combining
1584: the observations with a deep exposure in the \vp\ band. This is
1585: currently not available for the QSO fields, making it very hard to
1586: calculate the exact magnitude of any excess counts present. While a
1587: depth of \zp=27.5 mag seems out of reach for a statistical sample with
1588: HST, narrow-band \lya\ surveys targeting the typically UV-faint \lya\
1589: emitters from the ground would be a very efficient
1590: alternative. Although a significant fraction of sources lacking \lya\
1591: may be lost compared to dropout surveys, they have the clear
1592: additional advantage of redshift information. Most \lya\ surveys are
1593: carried out in the atmospheric transmission windows that correspond to
1594: redshifted \lya\ either at $z\approx5.7$ or $z\approx6.6$ for which
1595: efficient narrow-band filters exist. We therefore suggest that the
1596: experiment is most likely to succeed around QSOs at $z\approx5.7$
1597: rather than the QSOs at $z\simeq5.8-6.4$ looked at so far. It is,
1598: however, possible to use combinations of, e.g., the $z\approx5.7$
1599: narrow-band filter with medium or broad band filters at $\sim$9000\AA\
1600: to place stronger constaints on the photometric redshifts of
1601: \ip-dropouts in QSO fields \citep[e.g., see][]{ajiki06}.
1602:
1603: In the next decade, {\it JWST} will allow for some intriguing further
1604: possibilities that may provide some definite answers: Using the target
1605: 0.7--0.9$\mu$m sensitivity of the Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) on
1606: {\it JWST} we could reach point sources at 10$\sigma$ as faint as
1607: \zp=28.5 mag in a 10,000 s exposure, or we could map a large
1608: $\sim$10\arcmin$\times$10\arcmin\ region around QSOs to a depth of
1609: \zp=27.5 mag within a few hours. The Near Infrared Spectrograph
1610: (NIRSpec) will allow $>$100 simultaneous spectra to confirm the
1611: redshifts of very faint line or continuum objects over a $>$9 arcmin$^2$
1612: field of view.
1613:
1614:
1615: \section{Summary}
1616: \label{sec:discussion}
1617:
1618: \noindent
1619: The main findings of our investigation can be summarized as follows.
1620:
1621: \noindent
1622: $\bullet$ We have used the $N$-body plus semi-analytic modeling of
1623: \citet{delucia07} to construct the largest (4$\degr\times4\degr$) mock
1624: galaxy redshift survey of star-forming galaxies at $z\sim6$ to
1625: date. We extracted large samples of \ip-dropouts and \lya\ emitters
1626: from the simulated survey, and showed that the main observational
1627: (colours, number densities, redshift distribution) and physical
1628: properties ($M_*$, SFR, age, $M_{halo}$) are in fair agreement with
1629: the data as far as they are constrained by various surveys.
1630:
1631: \noindent
1632: $\bullet$ The present-day descendants of \ip-dropouts (brighter than
1633: $M^*_{UV,z=6}$) are typically found in group environments at $z=0$
1634: (halo masses of a few times $10^{13}$ $M_\odot$). About one third of
1635: all \ip-dropouts end up in halos corresponding to clusters, implying
1636: that the contribution of ``proto-cluster galaxies'' in typical
1637: \ip-dropout surveys is significant.
1638: %About 75\% of very massive clusters of
1639: %$\cal{M}$$>7\times10^{14}$ $M_\odot$ have at least one progenitor halo
1640: %at $z\sim6$ hosting a bright \ip-dropout, consistent with the early
1641: %formation of the most massive regions in the present-day universe.
1642: %The
1643: %distribution of stellar masses for the $z=0$ descendants of
1644: %\ip-dropouts lies in the range $10^{9-12}$ $M_\odot$, but is
1645: %significantly skewed towards the most massive present-day galaxies
1646: %with a median mass of $\sim10^{11}$ $M_\odot$
1647: %(Fig. \ref{fig:z0galaxies}).
1648:
1649: \noindent
1650: $\bullet$ The projected sky distribution shows significant variations
1651: in the local surface density on scales of up to 1$\degr$, indicating
1652: that the largest surveys to date do not yet probe the full range of
1653: scales predicted by our $\Lambda$CDM models. This may be important for
1654: studies of the luminosity function, galaxy clustering, and the epoch
1655: of reionization.
1656:
1657: \noindent
1658: $\bullet$ We present counts-in-cells frequency distributions of the
1659: number of objects expected per 3.4\arcmin$\times$3.4\arcmin\ HST/ACS
1660: field of view, finding good agreement with the GOODS field
1661: statistics. The largest positive deviations are due to structures
1662: associated with the seeds of massive clusters of galaxies
1663: (``protoclusters''). To guide the interpretation of current and future
1664: HST/ACS observations, we give the probabilities of randomly finding
1665: regions of a given surface overdensity depending on the presence or
1666: absence of a protocluster.
1667:
1668: \noindent
1669: $\bullet$ We give detailed examples of the structure of proto-cluster
1670: regions. Although the typical separation between protocluster galaxies
1671: does not reach beyond $\sim$10\arcmin\ (25 Mpc comoving), they sit in
1672: overdensities that extend up to 30\arcmin\ radius, indicating that the
1673: proto-clusters predominantly form deep inside the largest filamentary
1674: structures. These regions are very similar to two proto-clusters of
1675: \ip-dropouts or \lya\ emitters found in the SDF \citep{ota08} and SXDF
1676: \citep{ouchi05} fields.
1677:
1678: \noindent
1679: $\bullet$ We have made a detailed comparison between the number counts
1680: predicted by our simulation and those measured in fields observed with
1681: HST/ACS towards luminous $z\sim6$ QSOs from SDSS, concluding that the
1682: observed fields are not particularly overdense in neighbour counts. We
1683: demonstrate that this does not rule out that the QSOs are in the most
1684: massive halos at $z\sim6$, although we can also not confirm it.
1685: We discuss the possible reasons and implications of this intriguing
1686: result (see the Discussion in Section 6).
1687:
1688: \noindent
1689: $\bullet$ We give detailed recommendations for follow-up observations
1690: using current and future instruments that can be used to better
1691: constrain the halo masses of $z\sim6$ QSOs and the variations in the
1692: large-scale structure as probed by \ip-dropouts and \lya\ emitters (see Section 7).
1693:
1694: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1695:
1696: Many colleagues have contributed to this work. We thank Tom Abel,
1697: J\'er\'emy Blaizot, Bernadetta Ciardi, Soyoung Kim, Sangeeta Malhotra, James Rhoads,
1698: Massimo Stiavelli, and Bram Venemans for their time and
1699: suggestions. We are grateful to Masami Ouchi for a careful reading
1700: of our manuscript and insightful comments. We owe great gratitude to
1701: Volker Springel and Simon White and their colleagues at MPA
1702: responsible for the Millennium Run Project. The Millennium
1703: Simulation databases used in this paper and the web application
1704: providing online access to them were constructed as part of the
1705: activities of the German Astrophysical Virtual Observatory. RAO
1706: acknowledges the support and hospitality of the Aspen Center for
1707: Physics where part of this research was carried out.
1708:
1709: \begin{thebibliography}{0}
1710:
1711: \bibitem[Ajiki et al.(2006)]{ajiki06} Ajiki, M., et al.\ 2006, PASJ, 58, 113
1712: \bibitem[Barth et al.(2003)]{barth03} Barth, A.~J., Martini, P., Nelson, C.~H., \& Ho, L.~C.\ 2003, ApJL, 594, L95
1713: \bibitem[Beers et al.(1990)]{beers90} Beers, T.~C., Flynn, K., \& Gebhardt, K.\ 1990, \aj, 100, 32
1714: \bibitem[Bertoldi et al.(2003)]{bertoldi03} Bertoldi, F., et al.\ 2003, \aap, 409, L47
1715: \bibitem[Begelman et al.(2006)]{begelman06} Begelman, M.~C., Volonteri, M., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 2006, \mnras, 370, 289
1716: \bibitem[Blaizot et al.(2005)]{blaizot05} Blaizot, J., Wadadekar, Y., Guiderdoni, B., Colombi, S.~T., Bertin, E., Bouchet, F.~R., Devriendt, J.~E.~G., \& Hatton, S.\ 2005, \mnras, 360, 159
1717: \bibitem[Bouwens et al.(2003)]{bouwens03} Bouwens, R.~J., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 595, 589
1718: \bibitem[Bouwens et al.(2004a)]{bouwens04a} Bouwens, R.~J., et al.\ 2004a, ApJL, 606, L25
1719: \bibitem[Bouwens et al.(2006)]{bouwens06} Bouwens, R.~J., Illingworth, G.~D., Blakeslee, J.~P., \& Franx, M.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 53
1720: \bibitem[Bouwens et al.(2007)]{bouwens07} Bouwens, R.~J., Illingworth, G.~D., Franx, M., \& Ford, H.\ 2007, ApJ, 670, 928
1721: \bibitem[Bouwens et al.(2004b)]{bouwens04b} Bouwens, R.~J., Illingworth, G.~D., Blakeslee, J.~P., Broadhurst, T.~J., \& Franx, M.\ 2004b, \apjl, 611, L1
1722: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{bc03} Bruzual, G., \& Charlot, S.\ 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000
1723: \bibitem[Calzetti(2001)]{calzetti01} Calzetti, D.\ 2001, \pasp, 113, 1449
1724: \bibitem[Ciardi et al.(2003)]{ciardi03} Ciardi, B., Stoehr, F.,
1725: \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 2003, \mnras, 343, 1101
1726: \bibitem[Croton et al.(2006)]{croton06} Croton, D.~J., et al.\ 2006, \mnras, 365, 11
1727: \bibitem[Dav{\'e} et al.(2006)]{dave06} Dav{\'e}, R., Finlator, K., \& Oppenheimer, B.~D.\ 2006, \mnras, 370, 273
1728: \bibitem[De Lucia et al.(2004)]{delucia04} De Lucia, G., Kauffmann, G., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 2004, \mnras, 349, 1101
1729: \bibitem[De Lucia \& Blaizot(2007)]{delucia07} De Lucia, G., \& Blaizot, J.\ 2007, \mnras, 375, 2
1730: \bibitem[{{Dickinson} {et~al.}(2004){Dickinson}, {Stern}, {Giavalisco}, {Ferguson}, {Tsvetanov}, {Chornock}, {Cristiani}, {Dawson}, {Dey}, {Filippenko}, {Moustakas}, {Nonino}, {Papovich}, {Ravindranath}, {Riess}, {Rosati}, {Spinrad}, \& {Vanzella}}]{dickinson04}{Dickinson}, M. {et~al.} 2004, \apjl, 600, L99
1731: \bibitem[Djorgovski et al.(2003)]{djorgovski03} Djorgovski, S.~G., Stern, D., Mahabal, A.~A., \& Brunner, R.\ 2003, \apj, 596, 67
1732: \bibitem[Dow-Hygelund et al.(2005)]{dow05} Dow-Hygelund, C.~C., et al.\ 2005, ApJL, 630, L137
1733: \bibitem[Dijkstra et al. (2008)]{dijkstra08} Dijkstra, M., et al. 2008, MNRAS, submitted (arXiv:0810.0014)
1734: \bibitem[Eyles et al.(2007)]{eyles07} Eyles, L.~P., Bunker, A.~J., Ellis, R.~S., Lacy, M., Stanway, E.~R., Stark, D.~P., \& Chiu, K.\ 2007, \mnras, 374, 910
1735: \bibitem[Fan et al.(2003)]{fan03} Fan, X., et al.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 1649
1736: \bibitem[Fan et al.(2006b)]{fan06b} Fan, X., et al.\ 2006b, \aj, 132, 117
1737: \bibitem[Fan et al.(2006a)]{fan06a} Fan, X., et al.\ 2006a, \aj, 131, 1203
1738: \bibitem[Fan et al.(2004)]{fan04} Fan, X., et al.\ 2004, \aj, 128, 515
1739: \bibitem[Fan et al.(2001)]{fan01} Fan, X., et al.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 2833
1740: \bibitem[Finlator et al.(2007)]{finlator07} Finlator, K., Dav{\'e}, R., \& Oppenheimer, B.~D.\ 2007, \mnras, 376, 1861
1741: \bibitem[Gayler Harford \& Gnedin(2006)]{harford06} Gayler Harford, A., \& Gnedin, N.~Y.\ 2006, Submitted to ApJ (astro-ph/0610057)
1742: \bibitem[Goto(2006)]{goto06} Goto, T.\ 2006, \mnras, 371, 769
1743: \bibitem[Gunn \& Peterson(1965)]{gunn65} Gunn, J.~E., \& Peterson, B.~A.\ 1965, \apj, 142, 1633
1744: \bibitem[Guo \& White(2008)]{guo08} Guo, Q., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 2008, arXiv:0809.4259
1745: \bibitem[Haiman \& Loeb(2001)]{haiman01} Haiman, Z., \& Loeb, A.\ 2001, \apj, 552, 459
1746: \bibitem[Iliev et al.(2006)]{iliev06} Iliev, I.~T., Mellema, G., Pen, U.-L., Merz, H., Shapiro, P.~R., \& Alvarez, M.~A.\ 2006, \mnras, 369, 1625
1747: \bibitem[Jiang et al.(2007)]{jiang07} Jiang, L., Fan, X., Vestergaard, M., Kurk, J.~D., Walter, F., Kelly, B.~C., \& Strauss, M.~A.\ 2007, \aj, 134, 1150
1748: \bibitem[Jiang et al.(2006)]{jiang06} Jiang, L., et al.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 2127
1749: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(1999)]{kauffmann99} Kauffmann, G., Colberg, J.~M., Diaferio, A., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 1999, \mnras, 303, 188
1750: \bibitem[Kashikawa et al.(2004)]{kashikawa04} Kashikawa, N., et al.\ 2004, \pasj, 56, 1011
1751: \bibitem[Kashikawa et al.(2006)]{kashikawa06} Kashikawa, N., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 648, 7
1752: \bibitem[Kashikawa et al.(2007)]{kashikawa07} Kashikawa, N., Kitayama, T., Doi, M., Misawa, T., Komiyama, Y., \& Ota, K.\ 2007, \apj, 663, 765
1753: \bibitem[Khochfar et al.(2007)]{khochfar07} Khochfar, S., Silk, J., Windhorst, R.~A., \& Ryan, R.~E., Jr.\ 2007, \apjl, 668, L115
1754: \bibitem[Kitzbichler \& White(2007)]{kitzbichler07} Kitzbichler, M.~G., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 2007, \mnras, 376, 2
1755: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2008)]{kim08} Kim, S., et al.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 805, arXiv:0805.1412
1756: \bibitem[Kurk et al.(2007)]{kurk07} Kurk, J.~D., et al.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 707, arXiv:0707.1662
1757: \bibitem[Lai et al.(2007)]{lai07} Lai, K., Huang, J.-S., Fazio, G., Cowie, L.~L., Hu, E.~M., \& Kakazu, Y.\ 2007, \apj, 655, 704
1758: \bibitem[Lemson \& Virgo Consortium(2006)]{lemson06b} Lemson, G., \& Virgo Consortium, t.\ 2006, e-print (arXiv:astro-ph/0608019)
1759: \bibitem[Lemson \& Springel(2006)]{lemson06a} Lemson, G., \& Springel, V.\ 2006, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, 351, 212
1760: \bibitem[Li et al.(2007)]{li07} Li, Y., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 665, 187
1761: \bibitem[Madau(1995)]{madau95} Madau, P.\ 1995, \apj, 441, 18
1762: \bibitem[Madau et al.(1998)]{madau98} Madau, P., Pozzetti, L., \& Dickinson, M.\ 1998, \apj, 498, 106
1763: \bibitem[Malhotra et al.(2005)]{malhotra05} Malhotra, S., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 626, 666
1764: \bibitem[Maiolino et al.(2005)]{maiolino05} Maiolino, R., et al.\ 2005, \aap, 440, L51
1765: \bibitem[Magorrian et al.(1998)]{magorrian98} Magorrian, J., et al.\ 1998, \aj, 115, 2285
1766: \bibitem[McLure et al.(2008)]{mclure08} McLure, R.~J., Cirasuolo, M., Dunlop, J.~S., Foucaud, S., \& Almaini, O.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 805, arXiv:0805.1335
1767: \bibitem[McLure et al.(2006)]{mclure06} McLure, R.~J., et al.\ 2006, \mnras, 372, 357
1768: \bibitem[McQuinn et al.(2007)]{mcquinn07} McQuinn, M., Hernquist, L., Zaldarriaga, M., \& Dutta, S.\ 2007, \mnras, 381, 75
1769: \bibitem[Miley et al.(2004)]{miley04} Miley, G.~K., et al.\ 2004, \nat, 427, 47
1770: \bibitem[Monaco et al.(2005)]{monaco05} Monaco, P., M{\o}ller, P., Fynbo, J.~P.~U., Weidinger, M., Ledoux, C., \& Theuns, T.\ 2005, \aap, 440, 799
1771: \bibitem[Mu{\~n}oz \& Loeb(2008a)]{munoz08a} Mu{\~n}oz, J.~A., \& Loeb, A.\ 2008a, \mnras, 385, 2175
1772: \bibitem[Mu{\~n}oz \& Loeb(2008b)]{munoz08b} Mu{\~n}oz, J.~A., \& Loeb, A.\ 2008b, \mnras, 386, 2323
1773: \bibitem[Narayanan et al.(2007)]{narayan07} Narayanan, D., et al.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 707, arXiv:0707.3141
1774: \bibitem[Nagamine et al.(2006)]{nagamine06} Nagamine, K., Cen, R., Furlanetto, S.~R., Hernquist, L., Night, C., Ostriker, J.~P., \& Ouchi, M.\ 2006, New Astronomy Review, 50, 29
1775: \bibitem[Nagamine et al.(2008)]{nagamine08} Nagamine, K., Ouchi, M.,
1776: Springel, V., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2008, ApJ, submitted (arXiv:0802.0228)
1777: \bibitem[Night et al.(2006)]{night06} Night, C., Nagamine, K., Springel, V., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, 705
1778: \bibitem[Oesch et al.(2007)]{oesch07} Oesch, P.~A., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 671, 1212
1779: \bibitem[Ota et al.(2008)]{ota08} Ota, K., Kashikawa, N., Malkan, M.~A., Iye, M., Nakajima, T., Nagao, T., Shimasaku, K., \& Gandhi, P.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 804, arXiv:0804.3448
1780: \bibitem[Ota et al.(2005)]{ota05} Ota, K., Kashikawa, N., Nakajima, T., \& Iye, M.\ 2005, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 38, 179
1781: \bibitem[Ouchi et al.(2004)]{ouchi04} Ouchi, M., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 611, 685
1782: \bibitem[Ouchi et al.(2005)]{ouchi05} Ouchi, M., et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 620, L1
1783: \bibitem[Overzier et al.(2006)]{overzier06} Overzier, R.~A., Bouwens, R.~J., Illingworth, G.~D., \& Franx, M.\ 2006, \apjl, 648, L5
1784: \bibitem[Overzier et al.(2008a)]{overzier08a} Overzier, R.~A., et al.\ 2008a, \apj, 677, 37
1785: \bibitem[Overzier et al.(2008b)]{overzier08b} Overzier, R.~A., et al.\ 2008b, \apj, 673, 143
1786: \bibitem[Priddey et al.(2007)]{priddey07} Priddey, R.~S., Ivison, R.~J., \& Isaak, K.~G.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 709, arXiv:0709.0610
1787: \bibitem[Robertson et al.(2007)]{robertson07} Robertson, B., Li, Y., Cox, T.~J., Hernquist, L., \& Hopkins, P.~F.\ 2007, \apj, 667, 60
1788: \bibitem[Shimasaku et al.(2003)]{shimasaku03} Shimasaku, K., et al.\ 2003, \apjl, 586, L111
1789: \bibitem[{{Shimasaku} {et~al.}(2005){Shimasaku}, {Ouchi}, {Furusawa}, {Yoshida}, {Kashikawa}, \& {Okamura}}]{shimasaku05}{Shimasaku}, K., {Ouchi}, M., {Furusawa}, H., {Yoshida}, M., {Kashikawa}, N., \& {Okamura}, S. 2005, \pasj, 57, 447
1790: \bibitem[Springel(2005b)]{springel05b} Springel, V.\ 2005b, \mnras, 364, 1105
1791: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2003)]{spergel03} Spergel, D.~N., et al.\ 2003, \apjs, 148, 175
1792: \bibitem[Springel et al.(2005a)]{springel05a} Springel, V., et al.\ 2005a, \nat, 435, 629
1793: \bibitem[{{Stanway} {et~al.}(2003){Stanway}, {Bunker}, \& {McMahon}}]{stanway03}{Stanway}, E.~R., {Bunker}, A.~J., \& {McMahon}, R.~G. 2003, \mnras, 342, 439
1794: \bibitem[Stiavelli et al.(2005)]{stiavelli05} Stiavelli, M., et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 622, L1
1795: \bibitem[Steidel et al.(2005)]{steidel05} Steidel, C.~C., Adelberger, K.~L., Shapley, A.~E., Erb, D.~K., Reddy, N.~A., \& Pettini, M.\ 2005, \apj, 626, 44
1796: \bibitem[Steidel et al.(1998)]{steidel98} Steidel, C.~C., Adelberger, K.~L., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., Pettini, M., \& Kellogg, M.\ 1998, \apj, 492, 428
1797: \bibitem[Stanway et al.(2007)]{stanway07} Stanway, E.~R., et al.\ 2007, \mnras, 376, 727
1798: \bibitem[Suwa et al.(2006)]{suwa06} Suwa, T., Habe, A., \& Yoshikawa, K.\ 2006, \apjl, 646, L5
1799: \bibitem[Trenti et al.(2008)]{trenti08} Trenti, M., Santos, M.~R., \& Stiavelli, M.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 807, arXiv:0807.3352
1800: \bibitem[Venemans et al.(2007)]{venemans07a} Venemans, B.~P., McMahon, R.~G., Warren, S.~J., Gonzalez-Solares, E.~A., Hewett, P.~C., Mortlock, D.~J., Dye, S., \& Sharp, R.~G.\ 2007, \mnras, 376, L76
1801: \bibitem[Vestergaard(2004)]{vestergaard04} Vestergaard, M.\ 2004, \apj, 601, 676
1802: \bibitem[Venemans et al.(2007)]{venemans07b} Venemans, B.~P., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 461, 823
1803: \bibitem[Volonteri \& Rees(2006)]{volonteri06} Volonteri, M., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 2006, \apj, 650, 669
1804: \bibitem[Walter et al.(2004)]{walter04} Walter, F., Carilli, C., Bertoldi, F., Menten, K., Cox, P., Lo, K.~Y., Fan, X., \& Strauss, M.~A.\ 2004, \apjl, 615, L17
1805: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2007)]{wang07} Wang, R., et al.\ 2007, \aj, 134, 617
1806: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2008)]{wang08} Wang, J., De Lucia, G., Kitzbichler, M.~G., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 2008, \mnras, 384, 1301
1807: \bibitem[White(2001)]{white01} White, M.\ 2001, \aap, 367, 27
1808: \bibitem[White et al.(2003)]{white03} White, R.~L., Becker, R.~H., Fan, X., \& Strauss, M.~A.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 1
1809: \bibitem[Willott et al.(2005)]{willott05} Willott, C.~J., Percival, W.~J., McLure, R.~J., Crampton, D., Hutchings, J.~B., Jarvis, M.~J., Sawicki, M., \& Simard, L.\ 2005, \apj, 626, 657
1810: \bibitem[Willott et al.(2003)]{willott03} Willott, C.~J., McLure, R.~J., \& Jarvis, M.~J.\ 2003, \apjl, 587, L15
1811: \bibitem[Wyithe et al.(2005)]{wyithe05} Wyithe, J.~S.~B., Loeb, A., \& Carilli, C.\ 2005, \apj, 628, 575
1812: \bibitem[Yan et al.(2006)]{yan06} Yan, H., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., Stern, D., Eisenhardt, P.~R.~M., \& Ferguson, H.~C.\ 2006, \apj, 651, 24
1813: \bibitem[Yan \& Windhorst(2004a)]{yan04a} Yan, H., \& Windhorst, R.~A.\ 2004a, \apjl, 612, L93
1814: \bibitem[Yan \& Windhorst(2004b)]{yan04b} Yan, H., \& Windhorst, R.~A.\ 2004b, \apjl, 600, L1
1815: \bibitem[Zentner(2007)]{zentner07} Zentner, A.~R.\ 2007, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 16, 763
1816: \bibitem[Zheng et al.(2006)]{zheng06} Zheng, W., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 640, 574
1817:
1818: \end{thebibliography}
1819:
1820:
1821:
1822: %\begin{deluxetable*}{lccl}[t]
1823: \begin{table*}
1824: \begin{center}
1825: %\tablewidth{0.5\textwidth}
1826: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1827: \caption{\label{tab:surveys}Overview of $i$-dropout surveys.}
1828: %\tablehead{
1829: \begin{tabular}{lccl}
1830: \hline
1831: Field Name & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Survey Area} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$z$-band detection limit$^a$} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{Reference}\\
1832: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(arcmin$^{2}$)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(AB mag)} & \\
1833: %\startdata
1834: MR mock & 70,000 & $\sim$27.5 & This paper\\
1835: \hline
1836: HUDF & 11.2 & $\sim$29.2 ($10\sigma$,$0\farcs2$) & \citet{bouwens06}\\
1837: HUDF05 & 20.2 & $\sim$28.9 ($5\sigma$,$0\farcs2$) & \citet{bouwens07,oesch07}\\
1838: HUDF-Ps & 17.0 & $\sim$28.5 ($10\sigma$,$0\farcs2$) & \citet{bouwens06}\\
1839: GOODS & 316 & $\sim$27.5 ($10\sigma$,$0\farcs2$) & \citet{bouwens06}\\
1840: ACS/GTO & 46 & $\sim$27.3 ($6\sigma$,$1\farcs5$) & \citet{bouwens03}\\
1841: SDF & 876 & $\sim$26.6 ($3\sigma$,$2\farcs0$) & \citet{kashikawa04}\\
1842: SXDF & $\sim$4,680 & $\sim$25.9 ($5\sigma$,$2\farcs0$) & \citet{ota05}\\
1843: UKIDSS UDS + SXDF & $\sim$2,160 & $\sim$25.0 ($5\sigma$,$2\farcs0$) & \citet{mclure06}\\
1844: \hline
1845: QSO SDSSJ0836+0054 ($z=5.82$) & 11.5 & $\sim$26.5 ($5\sigma$,$0\farcs2$) & \citet{zheng06,ajiki06}\\
1846: QSO SDSSJ1306+0356 ($z=5.99$) & $\sim$11.5 & $\sim$26.5 ($5\sigma$,$0\farcs2$) & \citet{kim08}\\
1847: QSO SDSSJ1630+4012 ($z=6.05$) & $\sim$11.5 & $\sim$26.5 ($5\sigma$,$0\farcs2$) & \citet{kim08}\\
1848: QSO SDSSJ1048+4637 ($z=6.23$) & $\sim$30 & $\sim$26.2 ($3\sigma$,$1\farcs5$) & \citet{willott05}\\
1849: & $\sim$11.5 & $\sim$26.5 ($5\sigma$,$0\farcs2$) & \citet{kim08}\\
1850: QSO SDSSJ1030+0524 ($z=6.28$) & $\sim$30 & $\sim$26.2 ($3\sigma$,$1\farcs5$) & \citet{willott05}\\
1851: & 11.5 & $\sim$26.5 ($5\sigma$,$0\farcs2$) & \citet{stiavelli05,kim08}\\
1852: QSO SDSSJ1148+5251 ($z=6.43$) & $\sim$30 & $\sim$26.2 ($3\sigma$,$1\farcs5$) & \citet{willott05}\\
1853: & $\sim$11.5 & $\sim$26.5 ($5\sigma$,$0\farcs2$) & \citet{kim08}\\
1854: %\enddata
1855: \hline
1856: \end{tabular}
1857: \end{center}
1858: $^a$ The numbers between parentheses correspond to the significance and the diameter of a circular aperture.
1859: %\tablenotetext{a}{$10\sigma$ in a $0\farcs2$ diameter circular aperture.}
1860: %\tablenotetext{b}{$6\sigma$ in a $1\farcs5$ diameter circular aperture.}
1861: %\tablenotetext{c}{$3\sigma$ in a $2\farcs0$ diameter circular aperture.}
1862: %\tablenotetext{d}{$5\sigma$ in a $2\farcs0$ diameter circular aperture.}
1863: %\tablenotetext{e}{$5\sigma$ in a $0\farcs2$ diameter circular aperture.}
1864: %\tablenotetext{f}{$3\sigma$ in a $1\farcs5$ diameter circular aperture.}
1865: %\end{deluxetable*}
1866: \end{table*}
1867:
1868: %\begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccc}[t]
1869: \begin{table*}
1870: %\tablewidth{0.5\textwidth}
1871: \begin{center}
1872: \caption{\label{tab:surfdens}$i$-dropout surface densities in the MR mock survey and observations.}
1873: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
1874: %\tabletypesize{\small}
1875: %for \ip--\zp$>$1.3, compared with estimates
1876: % from the HUDF, HUDF-Ps and GOODS fields (corrected up to the HUDF
1877: % completeness levels, B06), and the Subaru Deep Field
1878: % \citep[][O08]{ota08}.}
1879: %\tablehead{
1880: \hline
1881: & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Surface Density (arcmin$^{-2}$)}\\
1882: Magnitude & MR & MR & MR & MR & MR & B07$^a$ & O08$^a$\\
1883: & (total area) & (876 arcmin$^{2}$) & (320 arcmin$^{2}$) & (160 arcmin$^{2}$) & (11.5 arcmin$^{2}$)& &\\
1884: %\startdata
1885: \hline
1886: $z^\prime<27.50$ & 2.31 & $2.36\pm0.31$ & $2.31\pm0.45$ & $2.31\pm0.52$ & $2.28\pm0.98$ &$2.18\pm0.23$ &\\
1887: $z^\prime<27.00$ & 0.64 & $0.62\pm0.11$ & $0.63\pm0.15$ & $0.64\pm0.17$ & $0.63\pm0.38$ &$0.83\pm0.09$ &\\
1888: $z^\prime<26.50$ & 0.18 & $0.17\pm0.03$ & $0.18\pm0.04$ & $0.16\pm0.06$ & $0.18\pm0.15$ &$0.33\pm0.04$ & $\sim$0.18\\
1889: $z^\prime<26.00$ & 0.08 & $0.08\pm0.01$ & $0.08\pm0.02$ & $0.08\pm0.03$ & $0.08\pm0.09$ &$0.10\pm0.02$ & $\sim$0.11\\
1890: $z^\prime<25.50$ & 0.04 & $0.04\pm0.01$ & $0.05\pm0.01$ & $0.04\pm0.02$ & $0.04\pm0.06$ &$0.03\pm0.01$ & $\sim$0.04\\
1891: $z^\prime<25.00$ & 0.03 & $0.03\pm0.01$ & $0.03\pm0.01$ & $0.03\pm0.01$ & $0.03\pm0.05$ &$0.003\pm0.003$ & $\sim$0.01\\
1892: %\enddata
1893: \hline
1894: \end{tabular}
1895: \end{center}
1896: $^a$Observed surface densities from \citet{bouwens07} and \citet{ota08}.
1897: \end{table*}
1898:
1899: \begin{comment}
1900: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccc}[t]
1901: %\tablewidth{0.5\textwidth}
1902: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1903: \tablecaption{\label{udf}$i$-dropouts surface densities in the MR mock field, compared with
1904: the best estimates for surface densities, transfer functions and contamination from \citet{bouwens06}.}
1905: \tablehead{
1906: \colhead{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Surface Density (arcmin$^{-2}$)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Transfer Functions\tablenotemark{b}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Total Contamination\tablenotemark{c} (arcmin$^{-2}$)}\\
1907: \colhead{Magnitude\tablenotemark{a}} & MR & HUDF+HUDF-Ps+GOODS & HUDF
1908: to GOODS & HUDF to HUDF-Ps & HUDF & HUDF-Ps & GOODS}
1909: \startdata
1910: $24.50<z<25.00$ & $0.010$ & $0.004\pm0.004$ & 0.817 & 0.922 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\
1911: $25.00<z<25.50$ & $0.016$ & $0.028\pm0.014$ & 0.711 & 0.862 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.003 \\
1912: $25.50<z<26.00$ & $0.031$ & $0.066\pm0.022$ & 0.658 & 0.800 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.010 \\
1913: $26.00<z<26.50$ & $0.087$ & $0.201\pm0.039$ & 0.600 & 0.755 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.015 \\
1914: $26.50<z<27.00$ & $0.442$ & $0.664\pm0.085$ & 0.415 & 0.644 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.010 \\
1915: $27.00<z<27.50$ & $1.617$ & $1.416\pm0.320$ & 0.241 & 0.633 & 0.000 & 0.009 & 0.022 \\
1916: $27.50<z<28.00$ & $TBD$ & $3.119\pm0.575$ & 0.030 & 0.408 & 0.000 & 0.198 & 0.016 \\
1917: $28.00<z<28.50$ & $TBD$ & $1.980\pm0.549$ & 0.000 & 0.223 & 0.147 & 0.310 & -- \\
1918: $28.50<z<29.00$ & $TBD$ & $5.701\pm0.960$ & 0.000 & 0.014 & 0.467 & 0.094 & -- \\
1919: $29.00<z<29.50$ & $TBD$ & $2.100\pm0.580$ & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.177 & -- & --
1920: \enddata
1921: \tablenotetext{a}{The magnitude refers to HST/ACS $z_{850}$ instead of SDSS $z$ for the work of \citet{bouwens06}.}
1922: \tablenotetext{b}{The surface densities at the depth of GOODS and the UDF-Ps are obtained by multiplying the
1923: surface densities listed in column (3) with the multiplicative factors given here as taken from \citet{bouwens06}.}
1924: \tablenotetext{c}{The total contamination rate from intrinsically red objects, photometric scatter and red stars, taken from \citet{bouwens06}.}
1925: \end{deluxetable*}
1926: \end{comment}
1927:
1928: \end{document}
1929: