1: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \newcommand{\myNote}[1]{{\bf Please Note:} {\em #1}}
4:
5: \newcommand{\ie}{{\em i.e.\ }}
6: \newcommand{\eg}{{\em e.g.},}
7: \newcommand{\etal}{{\em et al.\ }}
8: \newcommand{\cf}{{\em cf.\ }}
9:
10: % Astronomy specific commands
11:
12: \newcommand{\UBRI}{{$U, B, R, \&\ I $}}
13: \newcommand{\UBR}{{$U, B, \&\ R $}}
14: \newcommand{\ubri}{{\em U B R I\ }}
15: \newcommand{\ubr}{{\em U B R\ }}
16: \newcommand{\bri}{{\em B R I\ }}
17:
18: \newcommand{\U}{{\em U\ }}
19: \newcommand{\B}{{\em B\ }}
20: \newcommand{\R}{{\em R\ }}
21: \newcommand{\I}{{\em I\ }}
22:
23: \newcommand{\SqDegree}{\sq \arcdeg}
24: \newcommand{\SqArcminute}{\ \hbox{\sq \arcmin}}
25: \newcommand{\SqArcsecond}{\ \hbox{\sq \arcsec}}
26:
27: \newcommand{\HST}{{\it HST\ }}
28:
29: %\slugcomment{DRAFT: \today}
30: \slugcomment{}
31:
32: \shorttitle{Clustering Evolution}
33: \shortauthors{Brunner \etal}
34:
35: \begin{document}
36:
37: \title{Evolution in the Clustering of Galaxies for $z < 1.0$}
38:
39: \author{Robert J. Brunner\altaffilmark{1}}
40: \affil{Department of Astronomy, The California Institute of Technology,
41: Pasadena, CA 91125}
42: \email{rb@astro.caltech.edu}
43:
44: \author{Alex S. Szalay\altaffilmark{1}}
45: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University,
46: Baltimore, MD 21218}
47: \email{szalay@pha.jhu.edu}
48:
49: \author{Andrew J. Connolly\altaffilmark{1}}
50: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh,
51: Pittsburgh, PA, 15260}
52: \email{ajc@phyast.pitt.edu}
53:
54: \altaffiltext{1}{Visiting Astronomer, Kitt Peak National Observatory, National
55: Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is operated by the
56: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. (AURA)
57: under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.}
58:
59: \begin{abstract}
60:
61:
62: Measuring the evolution in the clustering of galaxies over a large
63: redshift range is a challenging problem.
64: %Previous approaches have been
65: %limited by either small sample size, or projection effects.
66: We have developed a new technique which uses photometric redshifts to
67: measure the angular correlation function in redshift shells. This
68: novel approach minimizes the galaxy projection effect inherent in
69: standard angular correlation measurements, and allows for a
70: measurement of the evolution in the galaxy correlation strength with
71: redshift. In this paper, we present new results which utilize more
72: accurate photometric redshifts, which are derived from a multi-band
73: dataset ($U$,$B$,$R$, and $I$) covering almost two hundred square
74: arcminutes to $B_{AB} \sim 26.5^m$, to quantify the evolution in the
75: clustering of galaxies for $z < 1$. We also extend our technique to
76: incorporate absolute magnitudes, which provides a simultaneous
77: measurement of the evolution of clustering with both redshift and
78: intrinsic luminosity. Specifically, we find a gradual decline in the
79: strength of clustering with redshift out to $z \sim 1$, as predicted
80: by semi-analytic models of structure formation. Furthermore, we find
81: that $r_0(z=0) \approx 4.0 h^{-1}$ Mpc for the predictions of linear
82: theory in an $\Omega_0 = 0.1$ universe.
83:
84: \end{abstract}
85:
86: \keywords{cosmology: observations--- galaxies: evolution---galaxies: photometry}
87:
88: \section{Introduction}
89:
90: One of the key problems in modern astronomy is understanding how
91: galaxies form and evolve. Although this problem might seem rather
92: straightforward, a considerable amount of uncertainty remains,
93: primarily because of the difficulty in separating out the competing
94: effects of density evolution, \ie variation in the number of galaxies
95: with redshift due to clustering or mergers, from luminosity evolution,
96: \ie the intrinsic evolution in an individual galaxy's spectral energy
97: distribution.
98:
99: Historically, two principle techniques have been used to quantify
100: evolution in the clustering of galaxies. The first technique is to
101: invert the angular correlation function ($w(\theta)$) using the Limber
102: equation~\citep{limber54,peebles80} and an observed or model redshift
103: distribution to estimate the expected change in the amplitude of the
104: angular correlation function for different magnitude intervals and/or
105: cosmologies(\eg\
106: ~\citealt{koo84,efstathiou91,roche93,ip95,brainerd96}). The
107: alternative approach is to compute the spatial correlation function
108: ($\xi(r)$) for different epochs directly using spectroscopic
109: redshifts~\citep{leFevre96,carlberg97,carlberg99,small99}. These
110: two techniques, however, suffer from different limitations that have
111: restricted their utility.
112:
113: Studies which utilize different magnitude intervals are limited in
114: that an apparent magnitude selection samples galaxies of different
115: intrinsic luminosities at different redshifts, complicating the
116: analysis considerably. Furthermore, the clustering of galaxies on
117: small scales is the result of a highly non-linear, complex process;
118: and, therefore, the actual validity of the power law model for the
119: evolution of the spatial clustering function is not guaranteed,
120: although it is at least a useful diagnostic. Finally, this approach is
121: also limited by the applicability of the assumed redshift
122: distribution, which can heavily influence the theoretical conversion
123: from angular coordinates to spatial coordinates.
124:
125: The spectroscopic approach, on the other hand, is hindered either by
126: the size of the available samples, especially when the data is binned
127: into distinct redshift intervals, or by the depth or width of the
128: survey (which implies either a redshift variable, intrinsic luminosity
129: selection effect or possible contamination from strong
130: clustering). For example,~\citet{leFevre96} analyze the spatial
131: clustering for 591 galaxies in the CFRS with $I < 22.5$,
132: ~\citet{small99} analyze the spatial clustering of 831 galaxies with
133: $r \leq 21^m$ to measure the evolution in the correlation length for
134: $0.2 \leq z \leq 0.5$, and ~\citet{carlberg97} use a sample of 248
135: galaxies with $K < 21.5$ while ~\citet{carlberg99} use 2300 high
136: intrinsic luminosity galaxies distributed over a wide area, to
137: determine the spatial correlation function for different epochs.
138: %These studies are also affected (up to a factor of two) by the redshift
139: %space distortions due to density inhomogeneities~\citep{kaiser87}.
140:
141: In this paper, we continue our development of a new technique which
142: uses photometric redshifts to measure the angular correlation function
143: in redshift shells~\citep{myThesis,connolly98,brunner99c}. This novel
144: approach minimizes the galaxy projection effect inherent in standard
145: angular correlation measurements, while utilizing a significantly
146: large sample that minimizes the effects of shot noise in our
147: analysis. By adopting an ensemble approach, we are able to measure the
148: evolution of clustering with both redshift and intrinsic
149: luminosity. Unless otherwise noted, we assume $h = 1.0$, $\Omega_M =
150: 0.3$, and $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$, throughout this paper.
151:
152: \section{Data}
153:
154: The observations and reduction of the data used in this analysis have
155: been extensively detailed
156: elsewhere~\citep{myThesis,brunner97,brunner99}. In this section, we
157: discuss the important points which impact the rest of our discussion.
158:
159: \subsection{Observations}
160:
161: The photometric data analyzed in this paper are located at 14:20,
162: +52:30 covering approximately 0.054 square degrees. All of the
163: photometric data were obtained using the Prime Focus CCD (PFCCD)
164: camera on the Mayall 4 meter telescope at Kitt Peak National
165: Observatory (KPNO). The observations were performed on the nights of
166: March 31 -- April 3, 1995, March 18 -- 20, 1996, and May 14 -- 16,
167: 1996. The PFCCD uses the T2KB CCD, a $2048^2$ Tektronix CCD with $24
168: \micron$ pixel scale, which at $f/2.8$ in the 4 meter results in a
169: scale of $0.47 \arcsec/$pixel and a field of view of $\approx
170: 16.0\arcmin \times 16.0\arcmin$. All observations were made through
171: the broadband filters: \UBRI.
172:
173: \subsection{Data Reduction}
174:
175: The photometric data were reduced in the standard fashion. The data
176: were photometrically calibrated to the published ~\citet{landolt92}
177: standard star fields using a curve of growth analysis. A linear
178: regression on the published stellar magnitude, the instrumental
179: magnitude, the airmass, and a color term was performed, and the result
180: translated to a one second standard exposure. We transformed our
181: magnitude system to the AB system~\citep{okeGunn83} using published
182: transformations~\citep{fukugita95}.
183:
184: Source detection and photometry were performed using SExtractor
185: version 2.0.8~\citep{bertin96} with the appropriate correction for the
186: background estimation bug applied~\citep{bertin98}. SExtractor was
187: chosen for its ability to perform matched aperture photometry, using
188: the same detection image for each program image. Our detection image
189: was constructed from the \UBRI\ images using an optimal $\chi^2$
190: process~\citep{szalay98}.
191:
192: The astrometric solution for our data was determined by matching
193: against a pre-release version of the \HST Guide Star Catalog
194: II~\citep{lasker96}. The residuals of the final geometric
195: transformation to the GSCII for the reference stars were all less than
196: $0.15$ pixels, or equivalently, less than $0.07\arcsec$.
197:
198: Our completeness limits were calculated by adding artificially
199: generated galaxies to the final stacked image. The iterative,
200: Monte-Carlo approach we used produced a completeness curve, from which
201: both a $90\%$ and $50\%$ completeness limits in all four bands were
202: extracted. The $2\%$ and $10\%$ photometric error magnitude limits
203: were calculated as the mean of all valid detections in the master
204: catalog which had a measured photometric error that was approximately
205: the same as the target photometric error ($0.1$ magnitudes for $10\%$
206: photometry and $0.02$ magnitudes for $2\%$ photometry).
207:
208: We empirically determined the stellar locus in each band separately
209: using several complementary techniques: the ratio of a core to total
210: magnitude, objects which were classified as stars on overlapping \HST
211: images, and objects which were spectroscopically identified as stars. In
212: addition, all objects with $I < 20^m$ were visually inspected
213: and classified as stellar or non-stellar. The final classification
214: was constructed by taking the union of the four separate
215: classifications in each band, resulting in 505 stellar objects. The
216: number-magnitude distribution of stellar objects agrees with model
217: predictions~\citep{bahcall80}. The spatial distribution of the stellar
218: objects is fairly random, with the possible minor exception of the
219: image corners where the PSF increases due to focal degradations. As a
220: result, these areas were not utilized during the actual correlation
221: analysis.
222:
223: \subsection{Photometric Redshifts}
224:
225: Many cosmological tests are more sensitive to the sample size (\ie
226: Poisson Noise) than small errors in distance, which makes them perfect
227: candidates for utilizing a photometric redshift catalog, including
228: quantifying the evolution of galaxy clustering. As a result, we have
229: developed an empirical photometric redshift
230: technique~\citep{connolly95,brunner97,myThesis,brunner99}, which is
231: not designed to accurately predict the redshift for a given
232: galaxy~\citep{baum62} or locate high redshift
233: objects~\citep{steidel96}. Instead, it is designed to provide distance
234: indicators which are statistically accurate for the entire sample,
235: along with corresponding redshift error estimates.
236:
237: The calibration data for implementing this technique was taken from
238: overlapping spectroscopic surveys including data from both the Canada
239: France Redshift survey~\citep{lilly95}, and the Deep Extragalactic
240: Evolutionary Probe survey~\citep{mould93}. The accuracy of any
241: empirically derived relationship is predominantly dependent on the
242: quality of the data used in the analysis --- photometric redshifts
243: being no exception. As a result, we imposed several restrictions on
244: the calibrating data in order to minimize the intrinsic dispersion
245: within the photometric redshift relationship. After imposing our
246: quality assurance conditions, we were left with 190 galaxies which
247: formed our calibration sample.
248:
249: The 190 calibrating redshifts were, therefore, used to derive an
250: iterative piecewise polynomial fit to the galaxy distribution in the
251: \UBRI\ flux space. This iterative approach utilizes a global fit to
252: determine a rough estimate of the galaxy's redshift, after which a
253: more accurate local polynomial fit, corresponding to the appropriate
254: redshift interval, was applied~\citep{brunner99}. For each derived
255: polynomial fit, the degrees of freedom remained a substantial fraction
256: of the original data (a second order fit in four variables requires 15
257: parameters while a third order fit in four variables requires 35
258: parameters).
259:
260: To estimate the error in a photometric redshift for the full
261: photometric sample, we adopt a bootstrap with replacement algorithm,
262: in which galaxies are randomly selected from the calibration sample
263: and, once selected, are not removed from the set of calibrating
264: galaxies. Thus, at the extremes, one galaxy could be selected 190
265: consecutive times or, alternatively, each redshift could be selected
266: exactly once (each of these realizations has the same
267: probability). This approach is designed to emphasize any
268: incompleteness in the sampling of the true distribution of galaxies in
269: the four dimensional space \UBRI\ by the calibration redshifts. In
270: order to fully account for potential sources of error in the redshift
271: estimation, the magnitudes of the calibrating sample were drawn from a
272: Gaussian probability distribution function with mean given by the
273: measured magnitude and sigma by the magnitude error.
274:
275: The actual photometric redshift error was calculated from 100
276: different realizations using this algorithm. For each different
277: realization, a photometric redshift was calculated for every galaxy in
278: the photometric redshift catalog. The actual error was optimally
279: determined to be given by the normalized difference between the fifth
280: and second quantiles of the estimated redshift distribution for each
281: individual galaxy~\citep{brunner99}. As expected the average
282: estimated error is the largest at the upper and lower redshift limits
283: where the incompleteness in the calibrating sample is most
284: evident. The majority of the rest of the objects with extremely large
285: redshift errors are blended in one or more bands, which causes these
286: objects to be isolated from the high density surface delineated by the
287: majority of galaxies in the four flux space \UBRI. The effect these
288: objects impart on any subsequent analysis, however, is minimized by
289: the inclusion of their photometric error, which causes them to be
290: non-localized in redshift space. As a result, these objects provide a
291: minimal contribution to many ``redshift bins'' rather than strongly
292: biasing only a few bins.
293:
294: A subtle, and often overlooked, effect in any photometric redshift
295: analysis is the requirement for reliable photometry in all program
296: filters. Ideally we would obtain accurate redshift estimates for all
297: galaxies; however, since we need accurate, multi-band photometry in
298: order to reliably estimate redshifts, we must place restrictions on
299: the photometric catalog used in the analysis. In particular, we
300: restrict the full sample of detected sources to those objects which
301: have both $I_{AB} < 24.0$ and measured magnitude errors $< 0.25$ in
302: \UBR. This minimizes any selection bias to only faint early-type
303: galaxies at high redshifts, or very high redshift drop-out objects
304: (see~\citealt{brunner99} for more discussion), neither of which
305: significantly affect the rest of our analysis.
306:
307: \section{Ensemble Approach}
308:
309: Due to the lower precision of photometric redshift determination as
310: compared to spectroscopic redshifts (roughly a factor of 20), we have
311: developed a new, statistical approach to quantifying the evolution of
312: galaxies~\citep{myThesis,connolly98,brunner99}. This approach
313: capitalizes on our ability to reliably generate not only a redshift
314: estimate for a galaxy using broadband photometry, but also a reliable
315: redshift error estimate. As a result, we define the probability
316: density function, $P(z)$, for an individual galaxy's redshift to be a
317: Gaussian probability distribution function with mean ($\mu$) given by
318: the estimated photometric redshift and standard deviation ($\sigma$)
319: defined by the estimated error in the photometric redshift.
320:
321: \[
322: P(z) = \frac{1}{\sigma \sqrt{2\pi}} e^{\left(-\frac{(z -
323: \mu)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)}
324: \]
325:
326: In order to measure an interesting cosmological quantity, we generate
327: multiple ensembles (or realizations) of the relevant properties of the
328: galaxy distribution using the statistical redshift and redshift error
329: estimates (see~\citealt{brunner99} for an application of this
330: technique to the number-redshift distribution). The quantity of
331: interest is determined as the mean of the multiple realizations, and
332: the associated error is given by the corresponding standard deviation.
333:
334: In order to divide our sample by intrinsic luminosity, we determined
335: the absolute magnitude distribution of the galaxies in our catalog in
336: an ensemble approach. First, we created different realizations of our
337: galaxy catalog. In order to minimize any systematic errors, we
338: selected the apparent magnitude of each galaxy from a Gaussian
339: probability distribution function with mean and sigma given from the
340: original photometric catalog measurements. Similarly, the redshift of
341: each galaxy was drawn from a separate Gaussian probability
342: distribution function with mean and sigma given from the photometric
343: redshift and corresponding redshift error estimate. The $k-$correction
344: was determined using the spectral classification which was part of the
345: original redshift estimation procedure. For galaxies with large
346: photometric redshifts, occasional discordant redshifts were calculated
347: (\ie outside the range of our calibration sample --- $z < 0$, or $z >
348: 1.2$) in which case the galaxy was dropped from that particular
349: realization.
350:
351: Together, these quantities were used to determine the absolute
352: magnitude for each galaxy in 100 different ensemble distributions. The
353: absolute magnitude for each galaxy was calculated as the mean over the
354: different realizations, appropriately normalized to account for
355: possible discordant redshifts as discussed above. The resultant
356: distributions for the $U$ and $B$ bands are displayed in
357: Figure~\ref{abs-mag}.
358:
359: \section{Analysis}
360:
361:
362: Before computing the angular correlation function, we quantified our
363: efficiency in detecting galaxies as a function of pixel location. The
364: primary areas where this effect is important are around bright stars,
365: in charge transfer trails, and near the edge of the frame due to edge
366: effects or focus degradations. We, therefore, defined bounding boxes,
367: for each of the four stacked images, which contained all of the
368: observable flux for the saturated stars within the image. In the end,
369: a total of 15 regions were masked out in the \U frame, 17 regions were
370: masked out in the \B frame, 45 regions were masked out in the \R
371: frame, and 36 regions were masked out in the \I frame. We also masked
372: both the edge and corners of each frame in order to reduce the effects
373: of PSF variations on our object detection efficiency. These four mask
374: files were concatenated to produce a total mask file which was used
375: for the calculation of the angular correlation function in different
376: redshift or absolute magnitude intervals.
377:
378: We used the optimal estimator~\citet{landy93} $(DD - 2DR + RR)/RR$,
379: where $D$ stands for data and $R$ stands for random, to determine the
380: angular correlation function. This required counting the number of
381: observed pairs (that were not within masked areas), which was done in
382: 10 bins of constant width $\Delta\lg(\theta) = 0.25$, centered at
383: $\theta = 4.3\arcsec$, to $\theta = 759.6\arcsec$. One thousand
384: objects were randomly placed in the non masked areas within the image,
385: and the data-random (DR) and random-random (RR) correlation functions
386: were calculated for the same angular bins used for the data-data (DD)
387: auto-correlation function. Before applying the estimator, each of the
388: correlation measurements were scaled by the appropriate number of
389: pairs. This process was repeated ten separate times, and the results
390: averaged to minimize any systematic effects.
391:
392: This estimator uses the calculated number density of galaxies within
393: the CCD frame to estimate the true mean density of galaxies. The small
394: angular area of our images introduces a bias in the estimate, commonly
395: referred to as the ``Integral Constraint''~\citep{peebles80}. We
396: estimated a correction for this bias following the prescription
397: of~\citet{landy93}, which is subtracted from the estimated value.
398:
399: The error in the estimation of the angular correlation function was
400: assumed to be Poisson in nature. As a result, we calculated the error
401: in the angular correlation estimation as the square root of the number
402: of random-random pairs in each angular bin, scaled by the relevant
403: number of data points.
404:
405: The angular correlation function is generally parameterized in the following fashion:
406: \[w(\theta) = A_w \theta^{-\delta}\]
407: where the exponent has previously been shown to be $\delta = 0.8$. In
408: general, the amplitude of the correlation function ($A_w$) is
409: calculated (assuming the previous value for $\delta$) by minimizing
410: the $\chi^2$ with respect to $A_{w}$~\citep{press92}:
411:
412: \[
413: A_{w} = \left(\sum_{i = 1}^{N} \lg(w(\theta)_i) + 0.8 \sum_{i = 1}^{N}
414: \lg(\theta_i) \right) / N
415: \]
416: This calculation can be significantly affected by outliers; and, as a
417: result, we adopt the more robust technique of minimization of the
418: absolute deviations to determine the angular correlation
419: amplitude. For our simple case, this technique reduces to finding the
420: median of the amplitudes at each angle~\citep{press92}.
421:
422:
423: \subsection{The Angular Correlation Function: $w(\theta)$}
424:
425: Although not the primary aim of this paper, we measured the angular
426: correlation function in different apparent magnitude intervals to
427: compare with previous work. For each program filter, the absolute
428: upper magnitude limit for the data used in the estimation of the
429: angular correlation function was set at the $90\%$ catalog
430: completeness limit and the lower magnitude limit was always set to
431: $15^m$. The angular correlation function was then determined in four
432: different magnitude ranges (each offset from the next by $0.5^m$). The
433: upper magnitude limits, and the corresponding number of objects are
434: listed in Table~\ref{angCorSample}. Each estimation was repeated 100
435: times.
436:
437: The amplitude of the different correlation functions for each band at
438: $\theta = 1.0\arcsec$ are listed in Table~\ref{angCorAmp}. For
439: brevity, we only display the results for the B band. Thus, in
440: Figure~\ref{bAngCor} the actual correlation measurements for the
441: different magnitude bins are displayed, while in Figure~\ref{awb} the
442: measured correlation amplitudes are compared to comparable published
443: results (\eg\ ~\citealt{koo84,roche93,ip95}), showing remarkably good
444: agreement. The error bars were calculated from the one sigma upper and
445: lower measurements of the amplitude of the angular correlation
446: function.
447:
448: \subsection{The Multi-Variate Angular Correlation Function: $w(\theta, z)$}
449:
450: Using the 3052 objects in the photometric redshift--template SED
451: catalog, the multivariate angular correlation function $w(\theta,
452: z_{P})$ was determined for four different redshifts by binning the
453: data in non-overlapping redshift bins of width $\Delta z_{P} = 0.2$
454: centered at $z_{P} = 0.4$ to $z_{P} = 1.0$. The four different
455: functions were calculated for the 445, 573, 946, and 582 objects in
456: the different respective redshift bins. We display, in
457: Figure~\ref{awz}, the measured change in the amplitude of the angular
458: correlation function with redshift (\ie $A_{w}$), and hence the
459: strength of the angular correlation function at a fixed angular
460: separation. The error in $A_{w}(z)$ was calculated by estimating the
461: amplitude in each redshift interval for the one sigma upper and lower
462: values.
463:
464: In order to compare this result with theoretical expectations (\eg\
465: semi-analytic theory), which are determined in spatial coordinates, it
466: is necessary to convert between angular correlation measurements and
467: spatial correlation quantities. The standard technique for determining
468: this transformation is to assume a power law model for the spatial
469: clustering~\citep{peebles80,leFevre96},
470: \[
471: \xi(r,z)
472: = \left( \frac{r}{r_{0}(z)} \right )^{-\gamma}
473: = \left( \frac{r}{r_{0}(0)} \right )^{-\gamma} (1 + z)^{-(3 + \epsilon)}
474: \]
475: where $\epsilon$ represents a parameterization of the evolution of the
476: spatial correlation function, and the correlation length is measured
477: in physical units. The conversion, for small angular separations,
478: between angular and spatial coordinates is accomplished via the
479: relativistic form of Limber's
480: equation~\citep{limber54,peebles80}. Specifically, this results in the
481: following conversion for the amplitude of the angular correlation
482: function within the redshift region of interest:
483: \begin{equation}
484: A_w
485: = \left(
486: \frac {\int_0^{\infty} G(z) B(\gamma) (\frac{dN}{dz})^2 dz}
487: {\left[ \int_0^{\infty} \frac{dN}{dz} dz \right]^2}
488: \right) r_0^\gamma
489: \label{limberE}
490: \end{equation}
491: where,
492: \[
493: G(z) = (1 + z)^{-(3 + \epsilon)} \sqrt{1 + \Omega_0\ z}\ x(z)^{(1-\gamma)},
494: \]
495: \[
496: B(\gamma)
497: = \left(\frac{3600.0 * 180.0}{\pi}\right)^{(\gamma - 1)}
498: \left(\frac{H_0}{c}\right)^\gamma
499: \frac{\Gamma(\frac{1}{2}) \Gamma(\frac{(\gamma - 1)}{2})}
500: {\Gamma({\frac{\gamma}{2}})}
501: \]
502: is a constant quantity,
503: \[
504: x(z)
505: = 2 \frac{((\Omega_0 - 2) (\sqrt{1 + \Omega_0 z} + 2 - \Omega_0 + \Omega_0 z)}
506: {\Omega_0^2 (1 + z)^2},
507: \]
508: is the angular diameter distance~\citep{weinberg72}, and $dN/dz$ is
509: the number of galaxies per unit redshift. Local spectroscopic surveys
510: have determined that $\gamma \approx 1.8$ and $r_{0} \sim 5.0$ Mpc
511: in co-moving coordinates~\citep{carlberg99}.
512:
513: By assuming a uniform redshift distribution, we have calculated the
514: tracks of different evolutionary models for $\Omega_0 = 1.0$ and
515: $\Omega_0 = 0.1$, which are displayed, along with the measured values
516: of the amplitude of the angular correlation function in
517: Figure~\ref{awz}. Of the three different scenarios, fixed clustering
518: in co-moving coordinates ($\epsilon = -1.2$) are the least consistent
519: with our data, independent of the value of $\Omega_0$. The results for
520: clustering fixed in proper coordinates ($\epsilon = 0.0$) are good,
521: independent of the value of $\Omega_0$, while the predictions of
522: linear theory ($\epsilon = 0.8$) are in agreement for higher values of
523: $\Omega_0$.
524:
525: While this result is interesting, we can take an additional step in
526: order to directly compare our measurements with published results from
527: spectroscopic surveys. Using Equation~\ref{limberE} and an ensemble
528: averaged empirical redshift distribution, we can actually transform
529: our measurement of the angular correlation amplitude into a
530: determination of the spatial correlation scale length within a given
531: redshift interval, since we are able to empirically compute our
532: observed redshift distribution (see~\citealt{brunner99} for more
533: details). Essentially, this only involves adding a top-hat window
534: function (corresponding to the appropriate redshift interval) to the
535: integrands in Equation~\ref{limberE}, since the transformation will be
536: applied individually to each redshift bin in which we calculated the
537: angular correlation amplitude.
538:
539: The process is complicated, however, by the fact that our $dN/dz$ is
540: determined using photometric redshifts, while the transformation
541: assumes a spectroscopic redshift interval. From Figure~\ref{zs-zp},
542: although small, the dispersion between spectroscopic redshifts and
543: photometric redshifts is not zero. The conversion between a
544: spectroscopic interval and a photometric redshift interval accounts to
545: a broadening of the top-hat function, which we accomplish using two
546: Gaussians centered on the endpoints of the redshift interval, so that
547: the new window function is given by
548: \[
549: W(z) =
550: \left\{
551: \begin{array}{ll}
552: e^{\frac{-(z - z_1)^2}{\sigma^2}} & 0 \leq z < z_1 \\
553: 1 & z_1 \leq z \leq z_2 \\
554: e^{\frac{-(z - z_2)^2}{\sigma^2}} & z_1 < z < \infty
555: \end{array}
556: \right.,
557: \]
558: where the desired redshift interval is given by $z \in [z_1,z_2]$, and
559: $\sigma = 0.061$ is the measured dispersion in the photometric
560: redshift relation.
561:
562: The results of the transformation determine the correlation length
563: within the given redshift bin (\ie $r_0(z)$), and are displayed in
564: Figure~\ref{roz} and also tabulated in Table~\ref{r0zt} for $\Omega_0
565: = 0.1$, and the three canonical values of $\epsilon$. In addition,
566: the values of the correlation length extrapolated to $z = 0$ (\ie
567: $r_0(0)$) are tabulated in Table~\ref{r0} for three different values
568: of $\Omega_0$. The strong dependence of the correlation scale length
569: on the value of the evolutionary parameter ($\epsilon$) is a direct
570: result of the Cosmological term ($G(z)$) in
571: Equation~\ref{limberE}. Relative to the predictions of linear theory
572: ($\epsilon = 0.8$), the results for fixed clustering in co-moving
573: coordinates ($\epsilon = -1.2$), are suppressed by an additional
574: factor of $\sim (1 + z)$, or roughly a factor of $1.5$--$2$ at the
575: redshifts of interest (recall that $r_0(z) \propto G(z)^{-\gamma}$).
576:
577: When comparing our results to previous spectroscopic results, we
578: clearly show excellent agreement with recent
579: measurements~\citep{carlberg99,small99} when the predictions of linear
580: theory are used to quantify the evolution of clustering. This is
581: extremely encouraging for our technique, as we uniformly sample a
582: larger redshift range, showing, for the first time within the same
583: dataset, the slight decrease in the correlation strength for $z < 1$,
584: as predicted by semi-analytic models of galaxy
585: formation~\citep{baugh99}. On the other hand, the measurement of the
586: correlation scale length from the CFRS data~\citep{leFevre96} are only
587: in agreement with our results for fixed clustering in co-moving
588: coordinates, which disagrees with the hierarchical growth of dark
589: matter halos~\citep{baugh99}. The discrepancy between the CFRS and
590: other measurements is most likely due to their relatively small sample
591: size, their small fields, and their neglect of the redshift evolution
592: of the Luminosity function~\citep{carlberg99}.
593:
594: \subsection{The Multi-Variate Angular Correlation Function: $w(\theta, z, M)$}
595:
596: While important, the evolution of the angular correlation function
597: with redshift smoothes over the galaxy luminosity function, ignoring
598: variations in clustering between galaxies of different intrinsic
599: luminosity. As a result, we subdivided our sample into three redshift
600: intervals ($0.2 \leq z \leq 0.6$, $0.4 \leq z \leq 0.8$, $0.6 \leq z
601: \leq 1.0$), and measured the angular correlation function as a
602: function of both $U$ and $B$ absolute magnitude in intervals of
603: $2.0^m$, from $22^m$ to $12^m$. In order to improve the number of
604: galaxies in the faint end of our analysis, we rebinned the data so
605: that the faint bin was four magnitudes wide (\ie $16^m$--$12^m$). In
606: the end, we obtained twelve different measurements of the multivariate
607: angular correlation function ($w(\theta, z, M)$) as a function of both
608: $U$ and $B$ absolute magnitudes.
609:
610: The number of subdivisions used in this particular analysis
611: reintroduced one of the problems our new technique was designed to
612: avoid, namely the effects of small sample size. We, therefore, only
613: used a joint redshift-absolute magnitude bin when the number of
614: objects in the bin exceeded one hundred galaxies. From
615: Figures~\ref{umz},~\ref{bmz} ($U$ and $B$ respectively), it is clear
616: that there is no obvious evolution within a given redshift interval
617: with intrinsic luminosity (although this could be a result of too few
618: galaxies). Between redshift intervals, however, there is strong
619: evolution in the amplitude of the angular correlation function
620: ($A_w$), which, given the wider redshift bins, is completely
621: consistent with the results of the previous section.
622:
623: In order to quantify this evolution, we fit a line of zero slope to
624: the points (\ie a mean value for each redshift interval). Between the
625: first two redshift bins (roughly $z \approx 0.4$ and $z \approx 0.6$),
626: $A_w$ drops by approximately a factor of two. For the $U$ band
627: measurement, the drop between the second and third redshift intervals
628: (roughly $z \approx 0.6$ and $z \approx 0.8$) is approximately $20\%$,
629: while the $B$ band shows another factor of approximately two
630: decline. This result is not surprising in the context of hierarchical
631: structure formation where one expects objects to be more strongly
632: cluster with decreasing redshift for $z < 1$ (\eg
633: ~\citealt{kauffmann99}).
634:
635: Unfortunately, we do not have enough galaxies to definitely test for
636: clustering evolution with redshift for a given population with a fixed
637: intrinsic luminosity. On the other hand, our results do seem to
638: indicate that the evolution is not strongly dependent on intrinsic
639: luminosity as there appears to be no clear evidence for variation in
640: the clustering amplitude within a given redshift interval. The
641: difference in the drop in the amplitude between the middle and high
642: redshift intervals is most likely due to the lower, average intrinsic
643: luminosity of the galaxies in the $B$ band as compared to the $U$
644: band. These points will need to be addressed with future datasets.
645:
646: \section{Conclusions}
647:
648: In this paper, we have presented several calculations of the angular
649: correlation function, as a function of different apparent magnitude
650: intervals, as a function of redshift, and as a function of both
651: redshift and absolute magnitude. The technique we have demonstrated is
652: less sensitive to redshift distortions than the spatial correlation
653: approach due to the width of our redshift bins. Furthermore, our
654: technique does not require model predictions for the redshift
655: distribution of galaxies as does the apparent magnitude interval
656: approach. Future work in this area will incorporate spectroscopic
657: redshifts into the calculation in order to provide limited distance
658: information (\cf~\citealt{phillipps85}), as well as witness the
659: application of these techniques to larger surveys.
660:
661:
662:
663: While not the main point of this paper, the variation of the amplitude
664: of the angular correlation with apparent magnitude is in good
665: agreement with previously published results, which strengthens the
666: rest of our analysis. Furthermore, we demonstrated, for the first time
667: from within a single dataset, the slight evolution in both the
668: amplitude of the angular correlation function, and the spatial
669: correlation scale length with redshift for $z < 1$, as predicted by
670: semi-analytic models of structure
671: formation~\citep{baugh99,kauffmann99}. These results suggest low
672: values for $\Omega_0$, and allow either fixed clustering in proper
673: coordinates, or the predictions of linear theory.
674:
675: Finally, we measured the evolution of the amplitude of the angular
676: correlation function with both redshift and intrinsic luminosity. The
677: amplitude of the angular correlation function drops dramatically with
678: redshift. Interestingly enough, however, we do not see significant
679: variation in the strength of clustering within a given redshift
680: interval as a function of intrinsic luminosity. This type of evolution
681: might be naively expected if the luminosity of a galaxy uniquely
682: mapped to the mass of the dark matter halo at the given redshift in
683: which it resides (\ie more luminous galaxies cluster more strongly
684: within a given redshift interval). Most likely, either we have too
685: small of a sample to place significant limits on the variation of
686: clustering with luminosity, or else the relatively constant clustering
687: amplitude as a function of luminosity is indicative of luminosity
688: evolution complicating the analysis.
689:
690: Future surveys, both photometric and spectroscopic (\eg\ SDSS) will
691: provide extremely useful datasets with which we can explore these
692: ideas in greater detail. In the near future, this area will witness a
693: merging of observations, semi-analytic theory, and N-body simulations,
694: finally providing hope that we will be able to unambiguously quantify
695: the clustering evolution of galaxies.
696:
697: \acknowledgments
698:
699: First we wish to acknowledge Gyula Szokoly for assistance in obtaining
700: the data. We also would like to thank Barry Lasker, Gretchen Greene,
701: and Brian McLean for allowing us access to an early version of the GSC
702: II. We also wish to acknowledge useful discussions with Pat Cote, Rich
703: Kron, Lori Lubin, and Ray Weymann. We thank the anonymous referee for
704: valuable suggestions on improving this work. This research has made
705: use of NASA's Astrophysical Data System Abstract Service. AS
706: acknowledges support from NASA LTSA (NAG53503) and \HST Grant
707: (GO-07817-04-96A), AJC acknowledges partial support from \HST
708: (GO-07817-02-96A) and LTSA (NRA-98-03-LTSA-039).
709:
710: \begin{thebibliography}{}
711:
712: \bibitem[Bahcall and Soneira (1980)]{bahcall80} Bahcall, J.N., \& Soneira, R.M.
713: 1980, \apjs, 44, 73.
714:
715: \bibitem[Baugh et al. (1999)]{baugh99} Baugh, C. M., Benson, A.
716: J., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S. \& Lacey, C. G. 1999, \mnras, 305, L21.
717:
718: \bibitem[Baum (1962)]{baum62} Baum, W.A. 1962, Problems of Extragalactic
719: Research, IAU Symposium No. 15., 390.
720:
721: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts (1996)]{bertin96} Bertin, E., \& Arnout, S.
722: 1996, \aaps, 117, 393.
723:
724: \bibitem[Bertin (1998)]{bertin98} Bertin, E. 1998, Private Communication.
725:
726: \bibitem[Brainerd \etal (1996)]{brainerd96} Brainerd, T.G., Blandford, R.D.
727: \& Smail, I. 1996, ApJ, 466, 623.
728:
729: \bibitem[Brunner (1997)]{myThesis} Brunner, R.J, 1997, PhD. Thesis, The Johns
730: Hopkins University.
731:
732: \bibitem[Brunner \etal (1997)]{brunner97} Brunner, R.J, Connolly, A.J.,
733: Szalay, A.S., \& Bershady, M.A. 1997, \apjl, 482, L21.
734:
735: \bibitem[Brunner \etal (1999a)]{brunner99} Brunner, R.J, Connolly, A.J.,
736: \& Szalay, A.S. 1999, \apj, 516, 563.
737:
738: \bibitem[Brunner \etal (1999b)]{brunner99c} Brunner, R.J, Connolly, A.J.,
739: \& Szalay, A.S. 1999, In R. Weymann, L. Storrie-Lombardi, M.Sawicki, \&
740: R. Brunner, editors, {\em Photometric Redshifts and High-Redshift
741: Galaxies}, number 191 in ASP Conference Series.
742:
743: \bibitem[Carlberg \etal (1997)]{carlberg97} Carlberg, R.G., Cowie, L.L.,
744: Songalia, A., Hu \& E.M. 1997, ApJ, 484, 538.
745:
746: \bibitem[Carlberg \etal (1999)]{carlberg99} Carlberg, R.G., Yee, H.K.C.,
747: Morris, S.L., Lin, H., Hall, P.B., Patton, D., Sawicki, M., \&
748: Shepherd, C.W. 1999, \apj, submitted.
749:
750: \bibitem[Cole \etal (1994)]{cole94} Cole, S., Ellis, R. S., Broadhurst, T. J.
751: \& Colless, M. M. 1994, \mnras, 267, 541.
752:
753: \bibitem[Connolly \etal (1995)]{connolly95} Connolly, A.J., Csabai,
754: I., Szalay, A.S., Koo, D.C., Kron, R.G., and Munn, J.A. 1995, \aj,
755: 110, 6.
756:
757: \bibitem[Connolly \etal (1998)]{connolly98} Connolly, A.J., Szalay, A.S.,
758: and Brunner, R.J. 1998, \apj, 499, L125.
759:
760: \bibitem[Efstathiou \etal (1991)]{efstathiou91} Efstathiou, G., Bernstein, G.,
761: Tyson, J. A., Katz, N. \& Guhathakurta, P. 1991, \apjl, 380, L47.
762:
763: \bibitem[Fukugita \etal (1995)]{fukugita95} Fukugita, M., Shimasaku,
764: K., Ichikawa, T. 1995, \pasp, 107, 945.
765:
766: \bibitem[Infante \& Pritchet (1995)]{ip95} Infante, L. \& Pritchet,
767: C. J. 1995, \apj, 439, 565.
768:
769: \bibitem[Kaiser (1987)]{kaiser87} Kasier, N. 1987, \mnras, 227, 1.
770:
771: \bibitem[Kauffmann \etal (1999)]{kauffmann99} Kauffmann, G. , Colberg, J. M.,
772: Diaferio, A. \& White, S. D. M. 1999, \mnras, 307, 529.
773:
774: \bibitem[Koo \& Szalay (1984)]{koo84} Koo, D.C., \& Szalay, A.S. 1984, \apj, 282, 390.
775:
776: \bibitem[Landolt (1992)]{landolt92} Landolt, A.U. 1992, \aj, 104, 340.
777:
778: \bibitem[Landy \& Szalay (1993)]{landy93} Landy, S.D. \& Szalay, A.S.
779: 1993, ApJ, 412, 64.
780:
781: \bibitem[Lasker (1996)]{lasker96} Lasker, B. 1996, Private Communication.
782:
783: \bibitem[Le F\`{e}vre \etal (1996)]{leFevre96} Le F\`{e}vre, O., Hudon, D.,
784: Lilly, S.J., Crampton. D., Hammer, F. 1996, ApJ, 461, 534.
785:
786: \bibitem[Lilly \etal (1995)]{lilly95} Lilly, S.J., Hammer, F., Crampton, D.,
787: \& Le Fevre, O. 1995, \apj, 455, 75.
788:
789: \bibitem[Limber (1954)]{limber54} Limber, D.N. 1954, ApJ, 119, 655.
790:
791: \bibitem[Mould (1993)]{mould93} Mould, J.R. 1993,
792: In B.T. Soifer, editor, {\em Sky Surveys: Protostars to Protogalaxies},
793: number 43 in ASP Conference Series.
794:
795: \bibitem[Oke \& Gunn (1983)]{okeGunn83} Oke, J.B., \& Gunn, J.E.
796: 1983, \apj, 266, 713.
797:
798: \bibitem[Peebles (1980)]{peebles80} Peebles, P.J.E. 1980, {\em The
799: Large-Scale Structure of the Universe}, Princeton University Press.
800:
801: \bibitem[Phillipps (1985)]{phillipps85} Phillipps, S. 1985, \mnras,
802: 212, 657
803:
804: \bibitem[Press \etal (1992)]{press92} Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T.,
805: \& Flannery, B.P. 1992, {\em Numerical Recipes in C}, Cambridge University Press,
806: Second Edition.
807:
808: \bibitem[Roche \etal (1993)]{roche93} Roche, N., Shanks, T., Metcalfe, N.
809: \& Fong, R. 1993, \mnras, 263, 360.
810:
811: \bibitem[Small \etal (1999)]{small99} Small, T.
812: A., Ma, C. -P. , Sargent, W. L. W. \& Hamilton, D. 1999, \apj, 524,
813: 31.
814:
815: \bibitem[Steidel \etal (1996)]{steidel96} Steidel, C.C., Giavalisco, M.,
816: Pettini, M., Dickinson, M., \& Adelberger, K.L. 1996, \apj, 462, L17.
817:
818: \bibitem[Szalay \etal (1998)]{szalay98} Szalay, A.S., Connolly, A.J.,
819: \& Szokoly, G.P. 1998, \aj, 117, 68..
820:
821: \bibitem[Weinberg (1972)]{weinberg72} Weinberg, S. 1972, {\em Gravitation
822: and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of
823: Relativity}, John Wiley \& Sons.
824:
825: \end{thebibliography}
826:
827: \newpage
828:
829: \figcaption[f1.eps]{The dispersion in the empirical photometric redshift relation
830: used in the analysis ($\sigma = 0.061$). The short solid and dashed
831: lines are used to compare the transformation between spectroscopic
832: redshift intervals and photometric redshift intervals.
833: \label{zs-zp}}
834:
835: \figcaption[f2.eps]{The absolute magnitude distribution of the photometric galaxy
836: sample in the U (top) and B (bottom) bands. The determination of the
837: distributions used the ensemble approach (see text for more details).
838: \label{abs-mag}}
839:
840: \figcaption[f3.eps]{The \B band angular correlation function for all spectral
841: types. The solid line is a fit to the data of a line with fixed slope
842: $\delta = -0.8$ using the method of minimization of the absolute
843: deviations~\cite{press92}.
844: \label{bAngCor}}
845:
846: \figcaption[f4.eps]{The variation in the amplitude of the \B band angular
847: correlation function for the data presented in this paper, as well as
848: other similar published results. The dashed line is a least squares
849: fit to our data points, and is included merely as a visual aid. This
850: demonstrates the excellent agreement between both our data and
851: technique with previous results.
852: \label{awb}}
853:
854: \figcaption[f5.eps]{The evolution in the amplitude of the angular correlation
855: function with redshift. The two lines are predictions for $\Omega_0 =
856: 0.1$ (dotted line) and $\Omega_0 = 1.0$ (dashed line) using Limber's
857: equation~\citep{peebles80}. The top panel assumes the evolution
858: parameter derived from linear theory ($\epsilon\ = 0.8$), the middle
859: panel assumes fixed clustering in proper coordinates ($\epsilon\ =
860: 0.0$), and the bottom panel assumes fixed clustering in co-moving
861: coordinates ($\epsilon\ = -1.2$).
862: \label{awz}}
863:
864: \figcaption[f6.eps]{The evolution in the spatial correlation scale length ($r_0$)
865: with redshift, assuming $\Omega_0 = 0.1$ The data presented in this
866: paper are indicated by open squares ($\square$). The different panels
867: correspond to the three different canonical values for the
868: parameterization of the evolution in the spatial correlation function:
869: upper panel, predictions of linear theory ($\epsilon = 0.8$), middle
870: panel, clustering fixed in proper coordinates ($\epsilon = 0.0$),
871: bottom panel, clustering fixed in co-moving coordinates ($\epsilon =
872: -1.2$). Overplotted are spectroscopic survey measurements with error
873: bars (transformed to our Cosmology using the prescription
874: of~\citealt{leFevre96}) of the correlation scale length:
875: ($\times$)~\citealt{small99}, ($\bigtriangleup$)~\citealt{carlberg99},
876: and ($\blacksquare$)~\citealt{leFevre96}. Although not shown (in order
877: to improve the clarity of the figure), each of our data points has an
878: uncertainty in the horizontal direction of $\pm 0.1$.
879: \label{roz}}
880:
881: \figcaption[f7.eps]{The evolution in the correlation scale length with
882: both redshift and absolute $U$ magnitude. The three panels correspond
883: to the three different redshift intervals utilized: $0.2 \leq z \leq
884: 0.6$ (top panel), $0.4 \leq z \leq 0.8$ (middle panel), and $0.6 \leq
885: z \leq 1.0$ (bottom panel). The absolute magnitude ordinal is assigned
886: as the median of the appropriate absolute magnitude bin. As a result,
887: the error in absolute magnitude is $\pm 1.0^m$ for the first three
888: magnitude bins, and $\pm 2.0^m$ for the last magnitude bin. In each
889: bin, we determine the mean value for the correlation amplitude, which
890: declines with decreasing redshift.
891: \label{umz}}
892:
893: \newpage
894:
895: \figcaption[f8.eps]{The evolution in the correlation scale length with
896: both redshift and absolute $B$ magnitude. The three panels correspond
897: to the three different redshift intervals utilized: $0.2 \leq z \leq
898: 0.6$ (top panel), $0.4 \leq z \leq 0.8$ (middle panel), and $0.6 \leq
899: z \leq 1.0$ (bottom panel). The absolute magnitude ordinal is assigned
900: as the median of the appropriate absolute magnitude bin. As a result,
901: the error in absolute magnitude is $\pm 1.0^m$ for the first three
902: magnitude bins, and $\pm 2.0^m$ for the last magnitude bin. In each
903: bin, we determine the mean value for the correlation amplitude, which
904: declines with decreasing redshift.
905: \label{bmz}}
906:
907: \newpage
908:
909: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
910: \tablecaption{The upper magnitude limit and corresponding number of objects
911: used in the estimation of the angular correlation function for each
912: band.
913: \label{angCorSample}}
914: \tablewidth{0pt}
915: \tablehead{
916: \colhead{Band}
917: &\colhead{$M_{1}$}
918: &\colhead{$M_{2}$}
919: &\colhead{$M_{3}$}
920: &\colhead{$M_{4}$}
921: }
922: \startdata
923: U & 24.44 (1266) & 24.94 (2257) & 25.44 (3802) & 25.94 (5668) \\
924: B & 23.76 (812) & 24.26 (1524) & 24.76 (2685) & 25.26 (4365) \\
925: R & 22.95 (1003) & 23.45 (1647) & 23.95 (2673) & 24.45 (4035) \\
926: I & 22.47 (1002) & 22.97 (1579) & 23.47 (2429) & 23.97 (3602) \\
927: \enddata
928: \end{deluxetable}
929:
930: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
931: \tablecaption{The amplitude $A_{w}$ of the angular correlation
932: function at $\theta = 1.0\arcsec$ assuming a relation $w(\theta) =
933: A_{w}\theta^{-0.8}$ for the different magnitude intervals.
934: \label{angCorAmp}}
935: \tablewidth{0pt}
936: \tablehead{
937: \colhead{Band}
938: &\colhead{$M_{1}$}
939: &\colhead{$M_{2}$}
940: &\colhead{$M_{3}$}
941: &\colhead{$M_{4}$}
942: }
943: \startdata
944: U &0.81 &0.70 &0.69 &0.60 \\
945: B &1.23 &0.87 &0.84 &0.73 \\
946: R &1.80 &1.26 &1.03 &0.94 \\
947: I &1.87 &1.42 &1.08 &0.94 \\
948: \enddata
949: \end{deluxetable}
950:
951:
952: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
953: \tablecaption{The measured correlation scale length and corresponding
954: error at different redshifts for $\Omega_0 = 0.1$ and different values
955: of the evolutionary parameters ($\epsilon$).
956: \label{r0zt}}
957: \tablewidth{0pt}
958: \tablehead{
959: \colhead{} &
960: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$r_0(z)$}
961: \\
962: \cline{2-4}
963: \colhead{$z$} &
964: \colhead{$\epsilon = 0.8$} &
965: \colhead{$\epsilon = 0.0$} &
966: \colhead{$\epsilon = -1.2$}
967: }
968: \startdata
969: 0.4 & 4.03 (+1.01/-1.41) & 3.47 (+0.87/-1.21) & 2.76 (+0.69/-0.96) \\
970: 0.6 & 3.71 (+0.67/-0.78) & 2.99 (+0.54/-0.63) & 2.16 (+0.39/-0.46) \\
971: 0.8 & 4.23 (+0.85/-1.32) & 3.26 (+0.65/-1.02) & 2.20 (+0.44/-0.69) \\
972: 1.0 & 3.83 (+1.22/-1.31) & 2.86 (+0.91/-0.98) & 1.85 (+0.59/-0.63) \\
973: \enddata
974: \end{deluxetable}
975:
976: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
977: \tablecaption{The correlation scale length and associated errors extrapolated to
978: $z = 0.0$ for different values of Cosmological and Evolutionary
979: parameters.
980: \label{r0}}
981: \tablewidth{0pt}
982: \tablehead{
983: \colhead{} &
984: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$r_0(z = 0)$}
985: \\
986: \cline{2-4}
987: \colhead{$\Omega_0$} &
988: \colhead{$\epsilon = 0.8$} &
989: \colhead{$\epsilon = 0.0$} &
990: \colhead{$\epsilon = -1.2$}
991: }
992: \startdata
993: 0.1 &3.98 (+0.65/-1.12)&3.69 (+0.65/-1.07)&3.19 (+0.61/-0.95)\\
994: 0.3 &3.94 (+0.66/-1.11)&3.63 (+0.66/-1.05)&3.12 (+0.68/-0.93)\\
995: 1.0 &3.76 (+0.66/-1.09)&3.43 (+0.64/-1.01)&2.91 (+0.58/-0.88)\\
996: \enddata
997: \end{deluxetable}
998:
999: \begin{figure}[bth]
1000: \plotone{f1.eps}
1001: \end{figure}
1002:
1003: \begin{figure}[bth]
1004: \plotone{f2.eps}
1005: \end{figure}
1006:
1007: \begin{figure}[bth]
1008: \plotone{f3.eps}
1009: \end{figure}
1010:
1011: \begin{figure}[bth]
1012: \plotone{f4.eps}
1013: \end{figure}
1014:
1015: \begin{figure}[bth]
1016: \plotone{f5.eps}
1017: \end{figure}
1018:
1019: \begin{figure}[bth]
1020: \plotone{f6.eps}
1021: \end{figure}
1022:
1023: \begin{figure}[bth]
1024: \plotone{f7.eps}
1025: \end{figure}
1026:
1027: \begin{figure}[bth]
1028: \plotone{f8.eps}
1029: \end{figure}
1030:
1031:
1032: \end{document}
1033: