1: \documentclass[11pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: \usepackage{psfig}  %instead of plotone 

3: 

4: %\documentclass{aastex}

5: %\documentclass{emulateapj}

6: %\usepackage{psfig}

7: 

8: \slugcomment{Accepted by the Astrophysical Journal}

9: 

10: \shorttitle{Detecting the Cosmic Dipole in Radio Surveys}

11: 

12: \begin{document}

13: 

14: \title{Detecting the Cosmic Dipole Anisotropy in Large-Scale Radio Surveys}

15: 

16: \author{Fronefield Crawford\altaffilmark{1}} 

17: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Franklin \&

18: Marshall College, Lancaster, PA 17064; email: fcrawfor@fandm.edu}

19: 

20: \begin{abstract}

21: The detection of a dipole anisotropy in the sky distribution of

22: sources in large-scale radio surveys can be used to constrain the

23: magnitude and direction of our local motion with respect to an

24: isotropically distributed extragalactic radio source population. Such

25: a population is predicted to be present at cosmological redshifts in

26: an isotropically expanding universe.  The extragalactic radio source

27: population is observed to have a median redshift of $z \sim 1$, a much

28: later epoch than the cosmic microwave background ($z \sim 1100$).  I

29: consider the detectability of a velocity dipole anisotropy in radio

30: surveys having a finite number of source counts.  The statistical

31: significance of a velocity dipole detection from radio source counts

32: is also discussed in detail.  I find that existing large-scale radio

33: survey catalogs do not have a sufficient number of sources to detect

34: the expected velocity dipole with statistical significance, even if

35: survey masking and flux calibration complications can be completely

36: eliminated (i.e., if both the surveys and observing instruments are

37: perfect).  However, a dipole anisotropy should be easily detectable in

38: future radio surveys planned with next-generation radio facilities,

39: such as the Low Frequency Array and the Square Kilometer Array; tight

40: constraints on the dipole magnitude and direction should be possible

41: if flux calibration problems can be sufficiently minimized or

42: corrected and contamination from local sources eliminated.

43: \end{abstract}

44: 

45: \keywords{methods: analytical -- catalogs -- large-scale structure of

46: universe}

47: 

48: \section{Introduction and Motivation}

49: 

50: The measurement of a dipole anisotropy in large-scale surveys can be

51: used to probe the distribution of matter at different distances and

52: constrain our local motion with respect to large-scale mass

53: distributions in the universe. There have been a number of attempts to

54: measure the dipole anisotropy in different surveys.  The dipole

55: anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background at redshift $z \sim

56: 1100$, probed by the {\it Cosmic Background Explorer} \citep{sbk+92},

57: and more recently by the {\it Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe}

58: \citep{bhh+03}, was clearly detected, and tight constraints on our

59: local motion with respect to this background were made with these

60: measurements. Analysis of the X-ray background at intermediate

61: redshifts ($z \la 4$) \citep{bck02} and the matter distribution at

62: local distances (the Local Group), probed at infrared wavelengths

63: using data from the {\it Infrared Astronomical Satellite} (IRAS)

64: \citep{wlf97}, have resulted in dipole detections as well. A marginal

65: detection was also reported by \citet{bw02} using radio data from the

66: NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS) \citep{ccg+98}. In Section 4.2, I discuss

67: this radio survey specifically in the context of a dipole measurement.

68: \citet{bll+98} refer to a large number of previous dipole

69: investigations using infrared galaxy catalogs

70: \citep[e.g.,][]{md86,ywr86,vs87,hlm87}, optical catalogs

71: \citep[e.g.,][]{l87,lrl88,p88}, IRAS redshift surveys

72: \citep[e.g.,][]{rls+90,syd+92,wlf97}, and optical redshifts

73: \citep{llb89,h93}.  More details about inhomogeneities on large scales

74: in different kinds of surveys can be found in \citet{l00}, where an

75: extensive discussion is presented.

76: 

77: An isotropically distributed population of radio sources is predicted

78: to exist at cosmological redshifts in an isotropically expanding

79: universe. The extragalactic radio source population is observed to

80: have a median redshift of $z \sim 1$ \citep[e.g.,][]{lwl97}, 

81: a much later epoch than the cosmic microwave

82: background.  Assuming the radio source distribution is intrinsically

83: isotropic, our local motion with respect to the rest frame of this

84: population would produce a dipole anisotropy in the sky distribution

85: of radio sources.  Large-scale radio survey catalogs covering a large

86: fraction of the sky can in principle be used to detect this dipole

87: anisotropy and subsequently constrain the magnitude and direction of

88: our local motion with respect to this frame.

89: 

90: In this paper, I first describe the dipole anisotropy in the sky

91: distribution of radio sources that would be introduced by our motion

92: with respect to an isotropic radio source population. I then describe

93: the corresponding dipole signal that would be seen in the distribution

94: of discrete radio survey source counts. I describe a method to detect

95: this signal in radio survey catalogs, with particular attention to the

96: statistical significance of a possible detection.  Finally, I consider

97: both existing and proposed future radio surveys and whether a velocity

98: dipole signal would be detectable with statistical confidence using

99: this method given the number of discrete source counts present in

100: these surveys. In this analysis, I consider only the most optimistic

101: case in which there are no survey calibration problems, complications

102: from the masking of certain survey regions, or uneven survey coverage.

103: 

104: \section{The Effect of Motion on the Observed Radio Source Distribution}

105: 

106: Motion with respect to the rest frame of an isotropic distribution of

107: radio sources introduces two effects that change the observed source

108: number density on the sky as a function of sky position \citep{eb84,

109: c88}. The first effect is a boosting of the flux from sources located

110: toward the direction of motion. This depends on the observer speed and

111: the source spectral index. This Doppler effect changes the number of

112: detectable sources above a given flux threshold in a radio survey. The

113: second effect, relativistic beaming, changes the apparent solid angle

114: on the celestial sphere as seen by the moving observer. This in turn

115: alters the observed source number density as a function of sky

116: position.  For $N$ radio sources that are isotropically distributed

117: across the full $4\pi$ sr of sky, the source number density is

118: $\sigma_{0} = N/4\pi$, a constant. The density variation from the

119: observer's motion will depend on the angle $\theta$ measured from the

120: direction of motion (defined as $\theta = 0$) so that $\sigma(\theta)

121: = dN/d\Omega$.  Azimuthal symmetry in the situation removes any

122: dependence on the second angle $\phi$.

123: 

124: By combining the two effects described above, an expression for the

125: source number density of radio sources seen by the moving observer has

126: been presented by \citet{eb84}. For small observer speeds ($\beta

127: \equiv v/c \ll 1$) in which only first-order terms in $\beta$ are

128: retained, the source number density as a function of $\theta$ is shown

129: to be:

130: 

131: \begin{equation} 

132: \sigma(\theta) = \{1 + [ 2 + (\gamma-1)(1+\alpha)] \beta \cos \theta

133: \} \sigma_{0}

134: \label{eqn-neteffect}

135: \end{equation} 

136: 

137: which is a dipole anisotropy.  In this expression, $\gamma$ is the

138: power-law index for the number of extragalactic radio sources per flux

139: interval ($dN/dS \sim S^{-\gamma}$), and $\alpha$ is the mean radio

140: spectral index of the source population (defined here according to $S

141: \sim \nu^{-\alpha}$).  Following this, we can write:

142:  

143: \begin{equation} 

144: \sigma(\theta) = (1 + A \cos \theta) \sigma_{0},

145: \end{equation} 

146: 

147: where the amplitude $A = [2 + (\gamma-1)(1+\alpha)]\beta$. This

148: expression (with some variation in nomenclature convention) has been

149: used in the analysis of radio source counts by other authors

150: \citep[e.g.][]{c88, bll+98, bw02}. The mean values of the radio

151: spectral index and power-law index for the extragalactic radio source

152: population are estimated to be $\alpha \sim 0.75$, and $\gamma \sim

153: 2$, respectively (e.g. Blake \& Wall 2002)\nocite{bw02}, and I use

154: these values in the analysis throughout the rest of the paper.

155: 

156: \section{Detecting the Dipole Anisotropy in Radio Survey Catalogs}

157: 

158: In this section, I describe a method for detecting the dipole

159: anisotropy in radio survey catalogs, and I calculate the minimum

160: number of discrete catalog sources required to detect the anisotropy

161: with statistical significance.  For the calculation, I assume complete

162: sky coverage (4$\pi$ sr) in which the survey has no masked,

163: incomplete, or invalid regions.  Perfect survey flux calibration is

164: also assumed.  These conditions, of course, do not apply in real

165: surveys, and I briefly address (but do not solve) the complications

166: posed by the presence of these effects, which can be quite

167: significant. Since survey masking and flux thresholds will reduce the

168: number of usable source counts in a survey, I do consider the effect

169: that this reduction has on the dipole detectability in two of the

170: surveys that I discuss.

171: 

172: \subsection{A Method for Detecting the Dipole Anisotropy}

173: 

174: A dipole vector $\vec{D}$ can be measured for a distribution of

175: discrete sources by computing an evenly weighted sum over all $N$

176: source counts, where each source contributes a three-dimensional unit

177: vector $\hat{r}$ to the sum (e.g., Baleisis et

178: al.~1998\nocite{bll+98}).\footnote{There is abundant previous

179: literature on the use of directional statistics and spherical data and

180: coordinates (like those employed here) as applied across a number of

181: scientific disciplines. Extensive discussions can be found in books by

182: \cite{b81}, \citet{fle93}, and \citet{mj99} in which applications of

183: directional statistics in a diverse range of subjects (e.g., biology,

184: meteorology, psychology, earth sciences) are presented.}  The

185: direction of $\hat{r}$ is determined by the position of the source on

186: the sky as seen by the observer at the center of the celestial

187: sphere. The sum is then:

188: 

189: \begin{equation}

190: \vec{D} = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \hat{r}_{i} 

191: \end{equation} 

192: 

193: In the case of an ideal survey with perfect flux calibration, complete

194: sky coverage, and in the limit of large $N$, all components of the

195: vector sum would cancel except for a component along the direction of

196: motion ($\theta=0$), corresponding to the $\hat{z}$-axis.

197: 

198: In this case, the sum can be written as the integral of the number

199: density over the celestial sphere:

200: 

201: \begin{equation}

202: \vec{D} = \hat{z} \int_{\phi = 0}^{\phi = 2\pi}

203: \int_{\theta=0}^{\theta=\pi} \sigma(\theta) \cos \theta \sin \theta

204: d\theta d\phi

205: \end{equation} 

206: 

207: The additional $\cos \theta$ term is present here since we are only

208: concerned with the $\hat{z}$-component of the integral. Replacing

209: $\sigma(\theta)$ in the expression with Equation 2 gives:

210: 

211: \begin{equation}

212: \vec{D} = \hat{z} \int_{\phi = 0}^{\phi = 2\pi} d\phi 

213: \int_{\theta=0}^{\theta=\pi} \sigma_{0} (1 + A \cos \theta) 

214: \cos \theta \sin \theta d\theta

215: \end{equation}

216: 

217: which, when evaluated, gives:

218: 

219: \begin{equation}

220: \vec{D} = \frac{4\pi}{3} A \sigma_{0} \hat{z} 

221: \end{equation} 

222: 

223: Using $\sigma_{0} = N/4\pi$ and $A = [2 + (\gamma-1)(1+\alpha)]\beta$,

224: the magnitude of the measured dipole can be written as:

225: 

226: \begin{equation} 

227: |\vec{D}| = D = \frac{1}{3} [2 + (\gamma-1)(1+\alpha)] \beta N

228: \end{equation} 

229: 

230: This is the dipole amplitude $D$ one would measure for an ideal survey

231: of $N$ radio sources with complete sky coverage if the observer were

232: moving with speed $v = \beta c$ (and $v \ll c$).

233: 

234: \subsection{The Statistical Significance of a Dipole Detection}

235: 

236: For a finite number of source counts $N$, there will be an uncertainty

237: in the measured dipole $\vec{D}$ arising from shot noise, and this

238: uncertainty determines the significance with which $\vec{D}$ can be

239: measured.  We can imagine the uncertainty as being represented by a

240: three-dimensional spherical probability cloud in direction space which

241: represents possible measured values of $\vec{D}$. This cloud will have

242: some characteristic radial size, and it will be centered on the tip of

243: the actual measured dipole $\vec{D}$.  The cloud is spherical since

244: there is an equal probability of the deviation occurring in any

245: three-dimensional direction.  This probability cloud can be used to

246: estimate the uncertainty in the measured speed of the observer

247: $\beta$, and exclude the zero-motion case ($\beta=0$) at some

248: confidence level (if an intrinsically isotropic distribution of radio

249: sources is assumed).  The direction of motion can also be determined,

250: with statistical uncertainties, by considering the direction of

251: $\vec{D}$ and the angular size that the probability cloud subtends as

252: seen from the origin (by the observer). For the test of whether the

253: zero-motion case is excluded with statistical significance, it is

254: functionally more useful to re-center the probability cloud at the

255: origin instead of centering it at the tip of $\vec{D}$. This is done

256: for the discussion below.

257: 

258: The characteristic size $\rho$ of the probability cloud is determined

259: by a random walk of $N$ steps in three dimensions (corresponding to

260: the $N$ sources in the vector sum that produces $\vec{D}$).  If the

261: magnitude of each step is 1 unit (corresponding to the size of the

262: unit vector), then we must consider the average magnitude of these

263: steps as projected onto an axis.  The actual step sizes along this

264: axis will range from $-1$ to $+1$ with a probability weighting that is

265: determined by the solid angle area from which the given projected

266: value comes.  The average projected step size $s$ on the axis is

267: computed from this to be $s = 1/\sqrt{3}$.

268: 

269: For large $N$, the probability distribution of the magnitude of the

270: final radial displacement is determined by the three one-dimensional

271: Gaussian distributions in Cartesian coordinates which represent the

272: three directional degrees of freedom.  The probability $p(r)$ that the

273: displacement occurs at a radial distance $r$ from the starting point

274: (the origin) is:

275: 

276: \begin{equation}

277: p(r) = \frac{1}{\rho^{3} (2 \pi)^{3/2}} 4 \pi r^{2} \exp(-r^{2} / 2 \rho^{2})

278: \end{equation} 

279: 

280: This is obtained by multiplying the three one-dimensional Gaussian

281: probability distributions and including an additional weighting factor

282: $4 \pi r^{2}$ to account for the increasing spherical volume element

283: as $r$ increases.

284: 

285: The characteristic size $\rho$ is determined by the random walk

286: according to:

287: 

288: \begin{equation}

289: \rho = s \sqrt{N} = \sqrt{ \frac{N}{3} } 

290: \end{equation} 

291: 

292: Using this, the probability $p(r)$ can be re-written in terms of $N$

293: as:\footnote{This result is not new, and the same expression can be

294: derived differently by computing the $\chi^{2}$ probability

295: distribution with three degrees of freedom,

296: $\chi_{3}^{2}(3r^{2}/N)$. Introducing a change in variables with a

297: Jacobian and employing a substitution eventually leads to a result

298: that is identical to Equation \ref{eqn-10}.}

299: 

300: \begin{equation}

301: p(r) = \left( \frac{54}{\pi N^{3}} \right)^{1/2} r^{2} \exp(-3r^{2}/2N)

302: \label{eqn-10}

303: \end{equation}

304: 

305: Figure \ref{fig-hist} shows the probability distribution $p(r)$ from

306: Equation \ref{eqn-10} plotted against a histogram of the magnitude of

307: the displacement vectors $D$ that were calculated from 10$^{5}$

308: simulated surveys. Each simulated survey had a random isotropic

309: distribution of $2.7 \times 10^{4}$ sources (which is the number of

310: sources selected for the analysis and discussion of the combined

311: 87GB/PMN survey below; see also Table \ref{tbl-1}).  One of the

312: simulated surveys is shown in Figure \ref{fig-simuplot2} and is

313: discussed in more detail below.  The histogram in Figure

314: \ref{fig-hist} was produced from the set of displacement vectors shown

315: in Figure \ref{fig-ball} (this is discussed below), and it has been

316: normalized in Figure \ref{fig-hist} to have a total area equal to one

317: for comparison with the probability curve. The match between the curve

318: and the histogram supports the use of this probability distribution in

319: the subsequent calculations and analysis.

320: 

321: We can use Equation \ref{eqn-10} to estimate the likelihood of

322: randomly measuring a dipole with a magnitude greater than or equal to

323: $D$ in the zero-motion, isotropic case. We integrate the probability

324: function $p(r)$ from $r = D$ to an upper limit of $r = N$ (which is

325: the maximum possible dipole value; in the limit of large $N$, the

326: value of this upper limit approaches infinity).  The integration is

327: purely radial since the angular dependence drops out for the spherical

328: cloud.  The result of the integration, $p(r > D)$, which ranges

329: between 0 and 1, is the probability-weighted volume outside of the

330: radius $D$.  This represents the likelihood of randomly measuring a

331: dipole of magnitude $D$ or greater from an isotropic source

332: distribution.  Conversely, we can use the measured dipole magnitude

333: $D$ to exclude the zero-motion case ($\beta=0$) at a confidence level

334: determined by $1 - p(r > D)$ (e.g., if $1-p$ = 68\%, then the

335: zero-motion case would be excluded at the 1$\sigma$ level).

336: 

337: We can also determine an uncertainty in the magnitude of the measured

338: dipole $D$ using similar reasoning. We surround the measured vector

339: $\vec{D}$ with the spherical probability cloud centered at its tip. We

340: pick the confidence level of interest (1$\sigma$, 2$\sigma$, etc.; let

341: us call it $n \sigma$) from the corresponding percentage level of

342: exclusion. Using this, we solve for the corresponding radial distance

343: $r_{n}$ in the probability cloud for which the probability-weighted

344: volume within $r_{n}$ is the aforementioned percentage of the total

345: probability-weighted volume. This is done by evaluating the integral

346: for $p(r)$ using a lower limit ($r_{n}$) which will give the

347: appropriate percentage level of exclusion.  Once $r_{n}$ has been

348: determined in this way, this defines an $n \sigma$ error sphere

349: centered on the tip of $\vec{D}$.  Since the uncertainty cloud is

350: spherical, the projection of the cloud onto the $\hat{D}$ axis gives

351: the magnitude $r_{n}$, which is the $n \sigma$ uncertainty in $D$.

352: The measured dipole magnitude is then $D \pm r_{n}$ (at the $n \sigma$

353: confidence level).  Figure \ref{fig-1} shows detection confidence

354: levels of dipole detections for calculations of $D$ and $r_{n}$ from

355: several idealized surveys with different numbers of source counts $N$

356: and different assumed values for the dipole velocity $\beta$.

357: 

358: This error sphere can also be used to determine an uncertainty in the

359: direction of $\vec{D}$. The projection of the error sphere onto the

360: celestial sphere as seen by the observer at the center defines a

361: circularly symmetric region on the sky centered on the dipole

362: direction $\hat{D}$. Sky directions lying outside the circular region

363: are statistically excluded at the $n\sigma$ level.  Let the dipole

364: direction $\hat{D}$ correspond to $\theta = 0$ again, and let the

365: $n\sigma$ angular uncertainty in the dipole direction be $\delta

366: \theta_{n}$ (this is the angular radius of the projected circular

367: region).  $\delta \theta_{n}$ is determined by the angle between

368: $\hat{D}$ and a vector which starts at the origin and is tangent to

369: the error sphere of radius $r_{n}$. This is calculated by:

370: 

371: \begin{equation}

372: \delta \theta_{n} = \arcsin (r_{n} / D)

373: \end{equation}

374: 

375: for $r_{n} < D$. No statistically significant direction constraint can

376: be made for the case $r_{n} \ge D$. This uncertainty angle $\delta

377: \theta_{n}$ is determined by the number of sources $N$ in the survey

378: and the measured value of $D$ (which in turn depends on $N$ and the

379: observer's velocity $\beta$). Figure \ref{fig-2} shows calculations of

380: $\delta \theta_{n}$ for an assumed dipole velocity of 370 km s$^{-1}$

381: as a function of the number of survey source counts $N$.

382: 

383: \subsection{Incomplete Survey Sky Coverage and Imperfect Flux Calibration}

384: 

385: For real radio surveys which do not have complete sky coverage, an

386: artificial dipole would be measured when the sum of the unit vectors

387: $\hat{r}$ is taken over the $N$ observed sources.  This dipole will be

388: biased toward directions which have more complete survey coverage.  To

389: deal with this incompleteness when analyzing real radio survey data,

390: one usually defines a mask of survey regions on the celestial sphere

391: to exclude in the analysis. The vector sum is then taken over the

392: distribution of sources in the unmasked, valid regions to obtain a

393: measured dipole $\vec{D}$. The center of the uncertainty probability

394: cloud (described above) will be offset from the origin (corresponding

395: to a magnitude and direction) by an amount determined by the geometry

396: of the unmasked region.  In principle, one can simply subtract this

397: offset vector from all other vectors in the analysis (such as the

398: measured $\vec{D}$) so that everything (including the distribution of

399: points in the probability cloud) is re-centered to the origin. One

400: would then proceed with the analysis as described above.

401: 

402: However, even without any problems introduced by the flux calibration,

403: the shapes of the regions to be masked in a real survey are generally

404: complicated. For example, sources in the Galactic plane and in certain

405: declination bands may not be appropriate to include in the analysis

406: (e.g., see the data masking used in the analysis of radio surveys by

407: \citet{lwl97}, \citet{bll+98}, and \citet{bw02}; see also Figure

408: \ref{fig-simuplot2}).  Also, the finite number of sources introduces a

409: shot noise uncertainty in the offset vector.  In the absence of

410: calibration issues, the most straightforward course of action would be

411: to simulate the survey by randomly assigning positions to $N$ sources

412: drawn from an isotropic distribution within the unmasked region of the

413: sky and compute the sum of source unit vectors for many of these

414: simulations.  Figure \ref{fig-simuplot2} shows an Aitoff projection in

415: equatorial coordinates of a single simulated survey of $2.7 \times

416: 10^{4}$ sources distributed isotropically over the unmasked regions of

417: the sky (cf. Figure 1 of \citet{bll+98} and their masked regions,

418: which were used as a guide here). The set of resulting vector

419: displacements from the survey simulations will produce a probability

420: cloud in which the mean position defines the vector to be

421: subtracted. Figure \ref{fig-ball} shows the vector displacements

422: produced from 10$^{5}$ simulated isotropic surveys like the one shown

423: in Figure \ref{fig-simuplot2}. In this plot, the mean vector has

424: already been subtracted so that the cloud is centered at the origin,

425: and the resulting displacements $\vec{D}$ have been projected onto a

426: two-dimensional plane.  This distribution of displacements in Figure

427: \ref{fig-ball} is the probability cloud that was used to produce the

428: histogram shown in Figure \ref{fig-hist}.

429: 

430: Source clustering at local distances can also affect the analysis of

431: radio surveys (e.g., the NVSS Survey; see discussions by Boughn \&

432: Crittenden 2002\nocite{bc02}, Blake and Wall 2002\nocite{bw02}, and

433: also below). In this paper I make the assumption that the intrinsic

434: distribution of sources is homogeneous and that there is no

435: significant clustering on large scales beyond the local mass

436: distribution. I assume that local sources would be excised prior to

437: analysis.

438: 

439: Also, real radio surveys do not have perfect flux calibration, and

440: this can bias the source count distribution in certain sky regions,

441: thereby producing an artificial dipole anisotropy.  The effects of

442: survey calibration errors in combination with the masking of survey

443: regions can be quite severe, and dealing with these complex effects

444: has been much discussed in the literature (e.g., \citet{hgn+02} for

445: the analysis of the cosmic microwave background, and \citet{ht04} and

446: \citet{sth+08} for large-scale galaxy catalogs, such as the Sloan

447: Digital Sky Survey \citep{yaa+00}). In the analysis presented here, I

448: ignore all such calibration effects and consider only the raw source

449: counts $N$ and whether a dipole would be detectable in the idealized

450: case where the surveys and instruments are perfect.

451: 

452: \section{Prospects for a Dipole Detection in Existing and Proposed Future 

453: Radio Surveys}

454: 

455: Large-scale radio surveys currently exist in which the method outlined

456: here for detecting the velocity dipole can be applied. However, the

457: statistical significance of such a detection depends on whether these

458: surveys have a sufficient number of sources, even if the flux

459: calibration were perfect. Next-generation radio instruments that are

460: in various stages of planning and development will also be used to

461: conduct large-scale radio surveys in the future.  Below I consider

462: existing and possible future radio surveys in the order of increasing

463: number of source counts, and I discuss the possibility of detecting

464: the dipole in each of the surveys in turn, assuming the most

465: optimistic scenario (i.e., perfect flux calibration).

466: 

467: \subsection{The 87 Green Bank and Parkes-MIT-NRAO Surveys} 

468: 

469: The 87 Green Bank (87GB) \citep{gc91} and Parkes-MIT-NRAO (PMN)

470: surveys \citep{gwb+94, wgb+94, wgh+96} were conducted at 4.85 GHz and

471: covered the northern and southern celestial sky, respectively.

472: \citet{bll+98} and \citet{lwl97} give concise descriptions and

473: summaries of these surveys in the context of large-scale structure and

474: the velocity dipole effect, and they refer to a number of previous

475: attempts to detect the velocity dipole (see also the references in

476: Section 1). \citet{bll+98} have conducted an analysis of whether the

477: 87GB and PMN surveys could be used for detecting the dipole using a

478: method similar to the one described here (in their case, they

479: considered the measured dipole magnitude relative to the shot noise

480: term but did not do a more extensive analysis of possible detection

481: significance).

482: 

483: In their analysis, \citet{bll+98} excised certain incomplete or

484: unreliable survey regions identified by \citet{lwl97}, including sky

485: regions within 10$^{\circ}$ of the Galactic plane, to eliminate

486: Galactic sources, and they imposed a minimum flux density cutoff of 50

487: mJy for sources to be considered. This latter selection reduced

488: declination-dependent number density variations.  After performing a

489: similar excision (but retaining only sources between 50 and 100 mJy),

490: I find that the selected sample consists of $\sim 2.7 \times 10^{4}$

491: sources covering $\sim 70$\% of the celestial sphere (see Table

492: \ref{tbl-1}).  Figure \ref{fig-simuplot2} shows similar masking used

493: in a simulated survey of $2.7 \times 10^{4}$ isotropically distributed

494: sources.  As was also found by \citet{bll+98}, I find that this is not

495: an adequate number of source counts for a statistically significant

496: dipole detection given the expected local velocity of $v \sim 370$ km

497: s$^{-1}$, even if these surveys had perfect flux calibration. As seen

498: in Figure \ref{fig-1}, an observer velocity that is an order of

499: magnitude greater than this would be required for even a 3$\sigma$

500: detection. Figure \ref{fig-2} shows that for the expected velocity, no

501: direction constraint could be made with this sample at any

502: significance level.  The shot noise analysis conducted by

503: \citet{bll+98} showed that at least $\sim 4 \times 10^{5}$ galaxies

504: over the sky would be needed to detect the velocity dipole at the same

505: level as the shot noise (i.e., a $1\sigma$ detection). Our results are

506: consistent with theirs and suggest a comparable number of sources

507: would be needed for a $1\sigma$ detection (see Figure \ref{fig-1} and

508: Table \ref{tbl-1}, particularly the NVSS select survey that has $\sim

509: 3.1 \times 10^{5}$ sources). This result does not account for the

510: dipole introduced from large-scale structure, which complicates the

511: analysis further. Thus, the 87GB and PMN surveys are not adequate for

512: detecting a velocity dipole anisotropy using this method, regardless

513: of whether slightly different flux density selection criteria are used

514: in the data selection.

515: 

516: \subsection{The NRAO VLA Sky Survey}

517: 

518: The NVSS is a large-scale radio survey that was conducted with the

519: Very Large Array at 1.4 GHz \citep{ccg+98}.  The total number of

520: sources in the NVSS is $\sim 1.8 \times 10^{6}$, and the survey is

521: estimated to be 99\% complete down to an integrated flux density of

522: 3.5 mJy.  The survey covers 82\% of the celestial sphere,

523: corresponding to a declination range $\delta > -40^{\circ}$, and the

524: majority of the sources in the survey are believed to be at

525: cosmological distances.

526: 

527: \citet{bw02} have searched the NVSS for a dipole anisotropy, and we

528: follow their work to determine which survey regions and flux ranges

529: could be considered reliable for the dipole search described

530: here. Regions within $15^{\circ}$ of the Galactic plane were masked by

531: \citet{bw02} to eliminate Galactic sources in their dipole analysis.

532: They also eliminated the ``clustering dipole'' (from the Local

533: Supercluster), which has its own dipole component, thereby ensuring

534: that only cosmological sources were used in the analysis. This was

535: done by eliminating radio sources within 30$''$ of nearby galaxies

536: known from several catalogs.  Although the claimed 99\% completeness

537: level of the NVSS is 3.5 mJy \citep{ccg+98}, there are significant

538: declination effects evident at this flux level in which the number

539: density fluctuates by a few percent from the mean. \citet{bw02} use a

540: minimum flux cutoff of 15 mJy for their analysis (see their Table 1),

541: which reduces the variations to less than 1\%. However, as described

542: above, these flux variations in combination with survey masking may

543: still introduce complications which can significantly contaminate a

544: dipole search.

545: 

546: After eliminating unreliable survey regions, \citet{bw02} retained a

547: selected sample of $\sim 3.1 \times 10^{5}$ sources above 15 mJy,

548: representing $\sim 20$\% of the initial sample (see Table

549: \ref{tbl-1}). This is not adequate for a statistically significant

550: dipole detection with the method presented here, even if flux

551: calibration were perfect in the survey. For an expected dipole

552: velocity of 370 km s$^{-1}$, the best possible dipole detection would

553: be slightly less than 1$\sigma$ (Figure \ref{fig-1}). The dipole

554: direction would also be unconstrained (Figure \ref{fig-2}). Given

555: these issues, I conclude that the NVSS cannot be used for detecting

556: the velocity dipole using this method. Including all of the sources in

557: the entire NVSS catalog ($N \sim 1.8 \times 10^{6}$) would yield a

558: marginal detection and constraint at best ($\sim 3\sigma$), but flux

559: calibration problems with the weakest sources in the survey prevent

560: this from being feasible.

561: 

562: \subsection{Next-generation Surveys with LOFAR and the SKA}

563: 

564: Future large-scale radio surveys will be conducted with

565: next-generation radio telescope facilities that are currently in

566: various stages of planning and development. Among these new

567: instruments are the Long Wavelength Array

568: (LWA)\footnote{http://lwa.unm.edu} \citep[e.g.,][]{t06}, the Murchison

569: Widefield Array (MWA)\footnote{http://www.haystack.mit.edu/mwa}

570: \citep[e.g.,][]{mbc+06}, and the Low Frequency Array

571: (LOFAR)\footnote{http://www.lofar.org}, all of which will observe the

572: sky at low radio frequencies (a few hundred MHz or less). Farther into

573: the future, an even more advanced radio facility, the Square Kilometer

574: Array (SKA)\footnote{http://www.skatelescope.org}, is being considered

575: for development.  Although the details of the surveys to be conducted

576: with these instruments are not yet firmly established, I focus on two

577: possible surveys that have been outlined for two of these instruments:

578: LOFAR and the SKA.

579: 

580: LOFAR is an advanced radio telescope array that is expected to operate

581: at low radio frequencies (30 to 240 MHz) and will have thousands of

582: antenna elements distributed over hundreds of kilometers

583: \citep[e.g.,][]{svk+07,fvd+07,fws+08}.  A survey using LOFAR to search

584: for gravitational lenses has been outlined by

585: Jackson\footnote{N. Jackson, LOFAR Memorandum Series \#4}.  In a

586: possible LOFAR survey, half of the celestial sky (2$\pi$ sr) would be

587: covered down to a limiting sensitivity of $\sim 0.7$ mJy at 151 MHz.

588: The total number of sources expected to be detected in such a survey

589: would be $\sim 3.5 \times 10^{8}$ (Table \ref{tbl-1}). Other recent

590: estimates of source counts from proposed LOFAR surveys at a variety of

591: wavelengths suggest a range of $\sim 10^{7}$ to $\sim 10^{9}$

592: detectable sources in $2 \pi$ sr of sky \citep[see, for example, the

593: presentation by][]{r07}. For the sake of simplicity, we use the survey

594: parameters outlined by Jackson for our analysis in which the expected

595: number of source counts falls near the middle of this range.

596: 

597: The SKA is a planned next-generation radio telescope facility which

598: will have vastly increased sensitivity for large-scale radio surveys.

599: Simulations of a large-scale 1.4 GHz radio survey with the SKA suggest

600: a limiting flux density of $\sim 0.1$ $\mu$Jy and a yield of $\sim

601: 10^{9}$ or more sources per sr \citep{hej+99, hwc+00}. This

602: corresponds to $\sim 10^{10}$ sources for the entire celestial sphere

603: (Table \ref{tbl-1}).

604: 

605: Even with large gaps in sky coverage, the sheer number of sources in a

606: survey conducted with either LOFAR or the SKA would far exceed the

607: requirements for a statistically significant dipole detection with

608: this method. If flux calibration problems can be sufficiently

609: minimized or properly corrected, and if local source contamination can

610: be removed, it should be easy to detect the dipole with large

611: statistical significance if the dipole velocity is near the expected

612: value of $v \sim 370$ km s$^{-1}$ (see Figure \ref{fig-1}).  The

613: constraint on the dipole direction should also be very precise (Figure

614: \ref{fig-2}), easily constrained to within a few degrees or less in

615: both cases.

616: 

617: \section{Conclusions} 

618: 

619: I have described a method for detecting a velocity dipole anisotropy

620: in large-scale radio surveys and considered the feasibility of

621: detecting this dipole with statistical significance in existing and

622: proposed future large-scale surveys. This analysis does not account in

623: any way for the severe complications that arise from imperfect flux

624: calibration and masking effects in surveys, and therefore corresponds

625: to the most optimistic detection case possible. Neither the combined

626: 87GB/PMN survey nor the NVSS has a sufficient number of sources to

627: detect the velocity dipole anisotropy with statistical significance

628: using this method, even if no calibration or sample bias effects were

629: present.  However, proposed large-scale radio surveys using

630: next-generation radio science instruments (e.g., LOFAR and the SKA)

631: are more promising: surveys with these instruments should easily have

632: enough source counts for a statistically significant dipole detection

633: and direction constraint if flux calibration problems and

634: contamination from local sources can be sufficiently reduced or

635: eliminated.

636: 

637: \acknowledgements 

638: 

639: I thank Elizabeth Praton for assistance with some of the derivations,

640: Nathan Keim for contributions to the simulation work, and Steve Boughn

641: and the referee John Ralston for helpful comments and insights which

642: have improved this work.

643: 

644: \begin{thebibliography}{}

645: 

646: \bibitem[Baleisis et al.(1998)]{bll+98} Baleisis, A., Lahav, O., Loan,

647: A.~J., \& Wall, J.~V.\ 1998, \mnras, 297, 545

648: 

649: \bibitem[Batschelet(1981)]{b81} Batschelet, E.\ 1981, 

650: Circular Statistics in Biology (London: Academic Press) 

651: 

652: \bibitem[Bennett et al.(2003)]{bhh+03} Bennett, C.~L., et al.\ 2003,

653: \apjs, 148, 1

654: 

655: \bibitem[Blake \& Wall(2002)]{bw02} Blake, C.~\& Wall, J.\ 2002, \nat,

656: 416, 150

657: 

658: \bibitem[Boughn \& Crittenden(2002)]{bc02} Boughn, S.~P., \&

659: Crittenden, R.~G.\ 2002, Physical Review Letters, 88, 021302

660: 

661: \bibitem[Boughn et al.(2002)]{bck02} Boughn, S.~P., Crittenden, R.~G.,

662: \& Koehrsen, G.~P.\ 2002, \apj, 580, 672

663: 

664: \bibitem[Condon(1988)]{c88} Condon, J.~J.\ 1988, Galactic and

665: Extragalactic Radio Astronomy, 641

666: 

667: \bibitem[Condon et al.(1998)]{ccg+98} Condon, J.~J., Cotton, W.~D.,

668: Greisen, E.~W., Yin, Q.~F., Perley, R.~A., Taylor, G.~B., \&

669: Broderick, J.~J.\ 1998, \aj, 115, 1693

670: 

671: \bibitem[Ellis \& Baldwin(1984)]{eb84} Ellis, G.~F.~R.~\& Baldwin,

672: J.~E.\ 1984, \mnras, 206, 377

673: 

674: \bibitem[Falcke et al.(2007)]{fvd+07} Falcke, H.~D., et al.\ 

675: 2007, Highlights of Astronomy, 14, 386 

676: 

677: \bibitem[Fender et al.(2008)]{fws+08} Fender, R. et al.\ 2008, in

678: Bursts, Pulses, and Flickering: Wide-field Monitoring of the Dynamic

679: Radio Sky, Proceedings of Science (arXiv:0805:4349)

680: 

681: \bibitem[Fisher et al.(1993)]{fle93} Fisher, N.~I., Lewis, 

682: T., \& Embleton, B.~J.~J.\ 1993, Statistical Analysis of Spherical Data 

683: (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press) 

684: 

685: \bibitem[Gregory \& Condon(1991)]{gc91} Gregory, P.~C.~\& Condon,

686: J.~J.\ 1991, \apjs, 75, 1011

687: 

688: \bibitem[Griffith et al.(1994)]{gwb+94} Griffith, M.~R., Wright,

689: A.~E., Burke, B.~F., \& Ekers, R.~D.\ 1994, \apjs, 90, 179

690: 

691: \bibitem[Hamilton \& Tegmark(2004)]{ht04} Hamilton, A.~J.~S., \&

692: Tegmark, M.\ 2004, \mnras, 349, 115

693: 

694: \bibitem[Harmon et al.(1987)]{hlm87} Harmon, R.~T., Lahav, O., \&

695: Meurs, E.~J.~A.\ 1987, \mnras, 228, 5P

696: 

697: \bibitem[Hivon et al.(2002)]{hgn+02} Hivon, E., G{\'o}rski, K.~M.,

698: Netterfield, C.~B., Crill, B.~P., Prunet, S., \& Hansen, F.\ 2002,

699: \apj, 567, 2

700: 

701: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(1999)]{hej+99} Hopkins, A., Ekers, R.,

702: Jackson, C., Cram, L., Green, A., Manchester, R., Staveley-Smith, L.,

703: \& Norris, R.\ 1999, Publications of the Astronomical Society of

704: Australia, 16, 152

705: 

706: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2000)]{hwc+00} Hopkins, A., Windhorst, R.,

707: Cram, L., \& Ekers, R.\ 2000, Experimental Astronomy, 10, 419

708: 

709: \bibitem[Hudson(1993)]{h93} Hudson, M.~J.\ 1993, \mnras, 265, 72

710: 

711: \bibitem[Lahav(1987)]{l87} Lahav, O.\ 1987, \mnras, 225, 213

712: 

713: \bibitem[Lahav(2000)]{l00} Lahav, O.\ 2000, Cosmic Flows Workshop,

714: 201, 377

715: 

716: \bibitem[Lahav et al.(1988)]{lrl88} Lahav, O., Rowan-Robinson, M., \&

717: Lynden-Bell, D.\ 1988, \mnras, 234, 677

718: 

719: \bibitem[Lineweaver et al.(1996)]{lts+96} Lineweaver, C.~H., Tenorio,

720: L., Smoot, G.~F., Keegstra, P., Banday, A.~J., \& Lubin, P.\ 1996,

721: \apj, 470, 38

722: 

723: \bibitem[Loan, Wall, \& Lahav(1997)]{lwl97} Loan, A.~J., Wall, J.~V.,

724: \& Lahav, O.\ 1997, \mnras, 286, 994

725: 

726: \bibitem[Lynden-Bell et al.(1989)]{llb89} Lynden-Bell, D., Lahav, O.,

727: \& Burstein, D.\ 1989, \mnras, 241, 325

728: 

729: \bibitem[Mardia \& Jupp(1999)]{mj99} Mardia, K. V. \& Jupp, P. E.\ 1999,

730: Directional Statistics (Chichester: Wiley) 

731: 

732: \bibitem[Meiksin \& Davis(1986)]{md86} Meiksin, A., \& Davis, M.\

733: 1986, \aj, 91, 191

734: 

735: \bibitem[Morales et al.(2006)]{mbc+06} Morales, M.~F., Bowman, 

736: J.~D., Cappallo, R., Hewitt, J.~N., 

737: \& Lonsdale, C.~J.\ 2006, New Astronomy Review, 50, 173 

738: 

739: \bibitem[Plionis(1988)]{p88} Plionis, M.\ 1988, \mnras, 234, 401

740: 

741: \bibitem[Rottgering(2007)]{r07} Rottgering, H. 2007, in Astrophysics

742: in the LOFAR Era, Emmen, Netherlands

743: 

744: \bibitem[Rowan-Robinson et al.(1990)]{rls+90} Rowan-Robinson, M., et

745: al.\ 1990, \mnras, 247, 1

746: 

747: \bibitem[Smoot et al.(1992)]{sbk+92} Smoot, G.~F., et al.\ 1992,

748: \apjl, 396, L1

749: 

750: \bibitem[Stappers et al.(2007)]{svk+07} Stappers, B. W., van Leeuwen,

751: A. G. J., Kramer, M., Stinebring, D., Hessels, J. 2007, in Proceedings of

752: the 363. WE-Heraeus Seminar on Neutron Stars and Pulsars, 100

753: 

754: \bibitem[Strauss et al.(1992)]{syd+92} Strauss, M.~A., Yahil, A.,

755: Davis, M., Huchra, J.~P., \& Fisher, K.\ 1992, \apj, 397, 395

756: 

757: \bibitem[Swanson et al.(2008)]{sth+08} Swanson, M.~E.~C., 

758: Tegmark, M., Hamilton, A.~J.~S., \& Hill, J.~C.\ 2008, \mnras, 387, 1391 

759: 

760: \bibitem[Taylor(2006)]{t06} Taylor, G.B. 2006, in Long Wavelength

761: Astrophysics, 26th Meeting of the IAU, Prague, Czech Republic, 12, 17

762: 

763: \bibitem[Villumsen \& Strauss(1987)]{vs87} Villumsen, J.~V., \&

764: Strauss, M.~A.\ 1987, \apj, 322, 37

765: 

766: \bibitem[Webster et al.(1997)]{wlf97} Webster, M., Lahav, O., \&

767: Fisher, K.\ 1997, \mnras, 287, 425

768: 

769: \bibitem[Wright et al.(1994)]{wgb+94} Wright, A.~E., Griffith, M.~R.,

770: Burke, B.~F., \& Ekers, R.~D.\ 1994, \apjs, 91, 111

771: 

772: \bibitem[Wright et al.(1996)]{wgh+96} Wright, A.~E., Griffith, M.~R.,

773: Hunt, A.~J., Troup, E., Burke, B.~F., \& Ekers, R.~D.\ 1996, \apjs,

774: 103, 145

775: 

776: \bibitem[Yahil et al.(1986)]{ywr86} Yahil, A., Walker, D., \&

777: Rowan-Robinson, M.\ 1986, \apjl, 301, L1

778: 

779: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{yaa+00} York, D.~G., et al.\ 2000, \aj,

780: 120, 1579

781: 

782: 

783: \end{thebibliography}

784: 

785: %\clearpage

786: 

787: \begin{figure}

788: \centerline{\psfig{figure=hist.ps,width=7in}}

789: \caption{Histogram of the magnitude of the displacement vectors $D$

790: calculated from 10$^{5}$ survey simulations, each of which had $2.7

791: \times 10^{4}$ sources isotropically distributed across the sky (see

792: also Figure \ref{fig-ball}, from which this histogram was

793: produced). Also plotted is the probability distribution $p(r)$ from

794: Equation \ref{eqn-10} as a function of radial displacement $r$, with

795: $N = 2.7 \times 10^{4}$ used in the probability expression. The

796: histogram has been normalized in the plot to have a total area equal

797: to one for comparison with $p(r)$. The match between the curve and the

798: histogram supports the use of this probability distribution in our

799: analysis.\label{fig-hist}}

800: \end{figure}

801: 

802: %\clearpage

803: 

804: \begin{figure}

805: \centerline{\psfig{figure=simuplot2.ps,width=7in,angle=90}}

806: \caption{Aitoff projection plot in equatorial coordinates of $2.7

807: \times 10^{4}$ simulated radio sources distributed isotropically

808: across the unmasked regions of the sky. The masked regions shown here

809: are very close to the ones used by \citet{lwl97} and \citet{bll+98} in

810: their analysis of the combined 87GB/PMN survey (see also the

811: discussion of these surveys in the text and Table \ref{tbl-1}).  The

812: $2.7 \times 10^{4}$ sources in this simulated survey correspond to the

813: number of sources in the 87GB/PMN survey in the unmasked regions which

814: have flux densities between 50 and 100 mJy. See Figure 1 of

815: \citet{bll+98} for a qualitative comparison of this simulated source

816: distribution with the actual source

817: distribution.\label{fig-simuplot2}}

818: \end{figure}

819: 

820: %\clearpage

821: 

822: \begin{figure}

823: \centerline{\psfig{figure=ball.ps,width=6.5in}}

824: \caption{Two dimensional projection plot of the set of displacement

825: vectors $\vec{D}$ in three dimensions that were produced from 10$^{5}$

826: simulations of isotropic surveys, each of which had $2.7 \times

827: 10^{4}$ sources. One of these simulated surveys is shown in Figure

828: \ref{fig-simuplot2}. The distribution shown here was produced after

829: the mean of the distribution was subtracted from each displacement

830: vector to correct for the vector offset introduced from survey masking

831: effects. This three-dimensional distribution was used to produce the

832: histogram of radial displacements shown in Figure

833: \ref{fig-hist}.\label{fig-ball}}

834: \end{figure}

835: 

836: %\clearpage

837: 

838: \begin{figure}

839: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f1.ps,width=7in}} 

840: \caption{Dipole detection confidence level vs. dipole velocity for

841: several existing and proposed future large-scale radio surveys. The

842: solid curves represent the various surveys with different numbers of

843: sources and are labeled (see the text and Table \ref{tbl-1} for survey

844: descriptions).  In this plot, each survey is assumed to have perfect

845: flux calibration and no contamination from local sources,

846: corresponding to the most optimistic detection case possible.  The

847: expected dipole velocity of 370 km s$^{-1}$ is indicated by the dashed

848: vertical line.  For this velocity, a minimum of $2.0 \times 10^{6}$,

849: $3.1 \times 10^{6}$, and $4.5 \times10^{6}$ survey sources would be

850: required for 3$\sigma$, 4$\sigma$, and 5$\sigma$ dipole detections,

851: respectively.\label{fig-1}}

852: \end{figure}

853: 

854: %\clearpage 

855: 

856: \begin{figure}

857: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f2.ps,width=7in}}

858: \caption{Uncertainty in the measured dipole direction ($\delta

859: \theta$) vs. number of survey source counts ($N$) for several existing

860: and proposed future large-scale radio surveys (see the text and Table

861: \ref{tbl-1}). In this plot, a dipole velocity of 370 km s$^{-1}$ is

862: assumed as is perfect flux calibration and no contamination from local

863: sources (corresponding to the most optimistic detection case

864: possible).  The dotted vertical lines represent the various surveys

865: with different numbers of sources and are labeled.  From left to

866: right, the solid curves represent 1$\sigma$, 3$\sigma$, 5$\sigma$, and

867: 8$\sigma$ constraints on the dipole direction uncertainty that are

868: possible with this detection method.\label{fig-2}}

869: \end{figure}

870: 

871: %\clearpage

872: 

873: \input{tab1} %TABLE 1: Survey Counts Information

874: 

875: \end{document}

876: