1: \documentstyle{mn}
2: %\def\baselinestretch{2.0}
3: %\documentstyle[referee]{mn}
4:
5: % For correct printing on US Letter, while still working on A4
6: \topmargin-1cm
7:
8: \input epsf
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: %\journal{astro-ph/000}
13: \title[Redshift space bias and $\beta$ from the halo model]{Redshift space bias
14: and $\beta$ from the halo model}
15: \author[Uro\v s Seljak]{Uro\v s Seljak\\
16: Department of Physics, Jadwin Hall\\ Princeton University,
17: Princeton, NJ 08544
18: }
19: \date{August 2000}
20: \pubyear{2000}
21: \maketitle
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: We analyze scale dependence of redshift space bias $b$
25: and $\beta \equiv \Omega_m^{0.6}/b$ in the context of the
26: halo model.
27: We show that linear bias is a good approximation only on large scales,
28: for $k<0.1h$Mpc$^{-1}$.
29: On intermediate scales
30: the virial motions of galaxies
31: cause a suppression of the power spectrum relative to the linear one
32: and the suppression differs from the same effect in dark matter.
33: This can potentially mimic the effect
34: of massive neutrinos and the degeneracy can only be broken if power spectrum
35: is measured for $k \ll 0.1h$Mpc$^{-1}$.
36: Different methods to determine $\beta$
37: converge for $k<0.1h$Mpc$^{-1}$, but give drastically different results
38: on smaller scales, which explains some of the trends observed in the real
39: data. We also asses the level of stochasticity by calculating
40: the cross-correlation coefficient between the reconstructed
41: velocity field divergence and the galaxies and show that
42: the two fields decorrelate
43: for $k>0.1h$Mpc$^{-1}$.
44: Most problematic are galaxies predominantly found in groups
45: and clusters, such as bright, red or elliptical galaxies, where we find poor
46: convergence to a constant bias or $\beta$ even on large scales.
47:
48: \end{abstract}
49:
50: \section{Introduction}
51:
52: Determination of the power spectrum of mass fluctuations is one of the
53: main goals of existing and upcoming galaxy surveys. Current state of the
54: art is PSCz \cite{Sau}, which has a near spherical geometry and consists of
55: about 15000 measured galaxy redshifts. Upcoming surveys, such
56: as 2 degree Field survey (2dF)\footnote{http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/2dFGRS} and
57: Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)
58: \footnote{http://www.astro.princeton.edu/BBOOK},
59: will measure redshifts of up to a million galaxies.
60: 3-dimensional mass power spectrum is sensitive to a number of
61: cosmological parameters, such as the matter and baryon density, shape
62: and amplitude of initial fluctuations and the Hubble constant.
63: This sensitivity is further improved if
64: additional information from cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies
65: is included \cite{Eise}. Mass power spectrum is particulary important
66: for determination of neutrino mass. Massive neutrinos have only a
67: minor impact on the CMB, but they strongly suppress the level of
68: mass fluctuations on small scales because of the high neutrino momentum
69: before they become nonrelativistic.
70: In principle the sensitivity of upcoming surveys is such that it
71: will be possible to test neutrino masses below 0.1-1eV \cite{het98},
72: close to those
73: suggested by recent
74: Super-Kamiokande neutrino results \cite{kamio98}. A
75: possible
76: concern is that the effect of massive neutrinos becomes important on
77: small scales, where the assumption of galaxies tracing dark matter may
78: not hold. One of the purposes of this paper is to investigate how serious this
79: problem is and, more generally, what is the relation between the
80: observed redshift space galaxy power spectrum and the underlying linear
81: dark matter spectrum.
82:
83: The relation between the galaxies and the dark matter clustering has recently
84: been analyzed in the context of the halo model \cite{Sel,PeaSmi,Sco}.
85: In this model all the mass in the universe is divided up into halos
86: of different mass. These halos cluster
87: according to the linear theory, up to an overall amplitude which
88: depends on the halo mass (halo biasing). To these correlations
89: important on large scales one adds correlations on small scales,
90: which arise from within the same halos. For the latter one needs
91: to specify the radial halo profile, which can also be a function
92: of halo mass. This approach has been succesful in reproducing the
93: nonlinear dark matter power spectrum and its transition to the
94: linear regime \cite{Sel,Sco,MaFry}.
95:
96: Galaxies differ from the dark matter
97: in their galaxy multiplicity function, which parametrizes the
98: number of galaxies inside the
99: halo as a function of halo mass. For a magnitude limited sample
100: this function is zero for low mass
101: halos which cannot host bright $L_*$ galaxies, which already implies
102: that galaxies cannot trace dark matter exactly. Above the threshold the number
103: of galaxies increases with the halo mass, but
104: need not grow linearly, as suggested by the gas cooling arguments where
105: gas in more massive and thus hotter halos takes longer to cool and form
106: stars.
107: In addition to the multiplicity function there is another effect that
108: changes the galaxy clustering properties: one galaxy
109: is expected to form at the halo center, which enhances the correlations
110: on small scales. These features naturally explain many of the
111: observational properties of galaxy clustering in real space, such as the
112: power law growth on small scales and the delayed onset of
113: nonlinear clustering in the translinear regime \cite{Sel,Sco,PeaSmi}.
114:
115: Previous work in the halo model
116: has focused on the clustering in real space, while most
117: of existing and upcoming surveys operate in redshift space.
118: Redshift space distortions enhance the correlations on large
119: linear scales and suppress them on small scales. This changes
120: the clustering pattern in a nontrivial way and
121: it is therefore important to include these effects when
122: studying the relation between the galaxy and the dark matter
123: power spectrum. As an added bonus, redshift
124: distortions also allow one to determine $\beta=\Omega_m^{0.6}/b$,
125: where $\Omega_m$ is the mass density and $b$ the bias parameter
126: of the galaxies. There are several existing methods to determine
127: this parameter in the literature (see \cite{StraWill} for a review).
128: In this paper we address whether different methods
129: to determine $\beta$ converge and what is the survey size needed for this.
130:
131: \section{The halo model}
132:
133: The halo model uses the Press-Schechter \cite{PreSch} picture
134: for dark matter, which
135: assumes all the matter is in a
136: form of isolated halos with a well defined mass $M$ and halo profile
137: $\rho(r,M)$, which can be modelled as
138: \begin{equation}
139: \rho(r)={\rho_s \over (r/r_s)^{-\alpha}(1+r/r_s)^{3+\alpha}},
140: \label{rho}
141: \end{equation}
142: where N-body simulations give $1<\alpha<1.5$
143: \cite{NFW,Moore}.
144: For the power spectrum analysis adopted here
145: it is convenient to introduce the Fourier
146: transform of the halo profile, normalized to unity on large
147: scales,
148: \begin{equation}
149: y(k)={1 \over M} \int \rho(r) {\sin (kr) \over kr} d^3r.
150: \end{equation}
151: The mass is determined by the total mass within the virial
152: radius $r_v$,
153: defined to be the radius where the mean density within it is
154: $\delta_{\rm vir}=200$ times
155: the mean density of the universe. The concentration parameter $c=r_v/r_s$
156: in general depends on the halo mass. In this paper we will use
157: $\alpha=1.5$ and $c(M)=6(M/M_*)^{-0.15}$,
158: where $M_*$ is the nonlinear mass scale defined below.
159: This choice fits well the
160: results of N-body simulations \cite{Moore} and has been shown to
161: give good agreement with real space power spectra from
162: N-body simulations \cite{Sel}, but
163: we note that other fits with $\alpha=1$ and a different choice of
164: $c(M)$ can give equally good agreement with these.
165:
166: In the halo model the power spectrum consists of two terms.
167: The first is that due to a system of correlated halos,
168: with inter-halo correlations assumed to be a biased sampling of
169: $P_{\rm lin}(k)$.
170: Since the real space convolution is simply a Fourier space multiplication this
171: contribution is
172: \begin{equation}
173: P^{hh}(k) = P_{\rm lin}(k) \left[
174: \int f(\nu) d\nu\ b(\nu) y(k; M) \right]^2
175: \label{eqn:twohalo}
176: \end{equation}
177: where $b(\nu)$ is the (linear) bias of a halo of mass $M(\nu)$ and $f(\nu)$
178: is the multiplicity function. The peak height $\nu$ is related to the mass
179: of the halo through
180: \begin{equation}
181: \nu \equiv \left( {\delta_c\over \sigma(M)} \right)^2
182: \end{equation}
183: where $\delta_c=1.69$ and $\sigma(M)$ is the rms fluctuation in the matter
184: density smoothed with a top-hat filter on a scale $R=(3M/4\pi \bar{\rho})^{1/3}$.
185: We use \cite{SheTor}
186: \begin{equation}
187: b(\nu) = 1 + {\nu-1\over\delta_c} + {2p\over\delta_c(1+\nu'^{p})}
188: \end{equation}
189: and
190: \begin{equation}
191: \nu f(\nu) = A(1+\nu'^{-p}) \nu'^{1/2} e^{-\nu'/2}
192: \label{fnu}
193: \end{equation}
194: where $p=0.3$ and $\nu'=0.707\nu$. The normalization constant $A$ is fixed
195: by the requirement that all of the mass lie in a given halo
196: \begin{equation}
197: \int f(\nu) d\nu = 1.
198: \end{equation}
199:
200: On small scales pairs lying within a single halo become dominant
201: \begin{equation}
202: P^{P}(k) = {1\over (2\pi)^3} \int f(\nu) d\nu
203: \ {M(\nu)\over\bar{\rho}} |y(k)|^2.
204: \label{Poisson}
205: \end{equation}
206: The total power spectrum is the sum of the two contributions,
207: \begin{equation}
208: P_{\rm dm}(k)=P^{hh}_{\rm dm}(k)+P^P_{\rm dm}(k).
209: \end{equation}
210:
211: For galaxies the above model needs to be modified in several
212: aspects. Instead of the dark matter particles we are now counting
213: galaxies inside halos. Small halos cannot host very bright galaxies,
214: so there is a lower mass cutoff in the halo distribution at a given
215: luminosity cutoff.
216: In addition, number of galaxies inside halo need not grow
217: linearly as a function of halo mass. Both of these features can be accounted
218: for by introducing two galaxy multiplicity
219: functions, $\langle N \rangle(M)$ and
220: $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}(M)$, which count mean number of galaxies
221: inside the halo both linearly and pair weighted, respectively.
222: Second modification is that radial profile of galaxy distribution, $y_{\rm g}(k)$,
223: need not be the same as that of the dark matter $y(k)$. Both observations
224: \cite{Carl} and numerical simulations \cite{Dia} show that at least for
225: some types of galaxies the two functions must differ. Here we will
226: for the most part adopt the approach where the two are equal, but
227: we also discuss the modifications when this assumption is dropped. Finally,
228: one expects there will be one galaxy which forms at the center of the halo.
229: The correlations between this
230: galaxy and the rest of the galaxies inside the halo
231: will be sensitive only to a single convolution in the
232: radial profile. For large halos with $\langle N(N-1) \rangle^{1/2} \gg 1$
233: the presence of the central galaxy does not change significantly the
234: number of pairs or their statistics.
235: For small halos where $\langle N(N-1) \rangle^{1/2} \ll 1$
236: its existence changes the correlations significantly and is in fact
237: necessary to explain the steep power law in the galaxy correlation
238: function to small scales \cite{Sel,PeaSmi}.
239:
240: Putting the above together we have,
241: \begin{equation}
242: P^{hh}_{\rm gg}(k)=P_{\rm lin}(k) \left[{\bar{\rho}\over \bar{n}}\int
243: f(\nu)d\nu {\langle N \rangle \over M}b(\nu)y_g(k,M)\right]^2,
244: \label{ghh}
245: \end{equation}
246: where $\bar{n}$ is the mean density of galaxies in the sample,
247: \begin{equation}
248: \int {\langle N \rangle \over M} f(\nu)d\nu={\bar{n} \over \bar{\rho}}.
249: \label{ngal}
250: \end{equation}
251: The Poisson term is given by
252: \begin{equation}
253: P^P_{\rm dm}(k)= {1 \over (2\pi)^3 \bar{n}^2}
254: \int {M \over \bar{\rho}}f(\nu)d\nu {\langle N(N-1)\rangle \over M^2}
255: |y(k,M)|^p,
256: \label{gp}
257: \end{equation}
258: where we approximate the effect of the central galaxy by using
259: $p=1$ for $\langle N(N-1)\rangle < 1$ and $p=2$ otherwise.
260:
261: In redshift space there are two effects which modify the above expressions.
262: The first is a boost of power on large scales due to streaming
263: of matter into overdense regions \cite{Kai}.
264: The second is a reduction of power on small
265: scales due to virial motions within an object \cite{PD}.
266: In the halo model these
267: two effects can be separated into the halo-halo and one halo (Poisson)
268: contributions. In this model the
269: virial motion suppression becomes a function of scale, since larger
270: halos (with larger velocity dispersions) dominate at larger scales
271: than smaller halos. In contrast to the previous models \cite{Hat}
272: this model succesfully reproduces N-body simulation results \cite{White}.
273:
274: In linear theory a density perturbation $\delta_k$ generates a velocity
275: perturbation $\dot{\delta}=-ikv$ with $\vec{v}$ parallel to $\vec{k}$.
276: Using the plane-parallel approximation ($kr\gg 1$)
277: the redshift space galaxy density perturbation $\delta^{\rm rs}_{g}$
278: is given by
279: \begin{equation}
280: \delta^{\rm rs}_{\rm g} = \delta_{\rm g}+\delta_{\rm v}\mu^2,
281: \label{lsrd}
282: \end{equation}
283: where $\mu=\hat{r}\cdot\hat{k}$, $\delta_{\rm g}$ is the real space
284: galaxy density perturbation and $\delta_{\rm v}$ is the
285: velocity divergence. This can be related to the density perturbation
286: $\delta_{\rm dm}$ via $\delta_{\rm v}=f\delta_{\rm dm}$,
287: where $f(\Omega)\equiv d\log\delta/d\log a\simeq \Omega_m^{0.6}$ and $a$ is the
288: scale-factor.
289:
290: On small scales virial motions within collapsed objects act as a
291: gaussian convolution in
292: redshift space, which suppresses power. We will model this as
293: a gaussian filter with mass dependent 1-d velocity dispersion $\sigma$,
294: acting on the mode component along the line of sight.
295: Assuming that the halos are isothermal we may use the mass within the virial
296: radius to obtain the 1D velocity dispersion of a halo of mass $M$,
297: \begin{equation}
298: \sigma=[GM/2r_{\rm vir}]^{1/2} \sim 7 H_0r_{\rm vir},
299: \end{equation}
300: where $H_0$ is the Hubble constant and $r_{\rm vir}$ is the virial
301: radius, which can be related to the halo virial mass, $M_{\rm vir}=
302: 4 \pi \delta_{\rm vir}\bar{\rho}r_{\rm vir}^3/3$.The density contrast in
303: redshift space is
304: \begin{equation}
305: \delta^{\rm rs}_{\rm g} = \delta_{\rm g} e^{-(k\sigma\mu)^2/2}.
306: \label{dr1dmu}
307: \end{equation}
308:
309: Since the power spectrum is in general a function of both $k$ and $\mu$
310: we must decide which quantity we are interested in before proceeding.
311: The most common is
312: to average over $\mu$ to obtain the isotropized power spectrum.
313: On large scales this implies
314: averaging over $\mu$ the square of equation \ref{lsrd}.
315: This can be further improved by including
316: the small scale dispersion. A choice that seems to work well in
317: comparison to simulations is to add a term obtained by radially averaging
318: equation \ref{dr1dmu} (White 2000).
319: On small scales we only need to
320: average over the square of equation \ref{dr1dmu},
321: since there is no linear effect.
322:
323: Combining the above
324: the isotropized redshift space power spectrum in the halo model
325: becomes
326: \begin{eqnarray}
327: & &P_0(k) = \left( F_{\rm g}^2+{2\over 3}F_{\rm v}F_{\rm g} + {1\over 5}F_{\rm v}^2\right)P_{\rm lin}(k)
328: \\
329: & & +
330: {1 \over (2\pi)^3 \bar{n}^2}
331: \int {M \over \bar{\rho}}f(\nu)d\nu {\langle N(N-1)\rangle \over M^2}
332: {\cal R}_p(k\sigma) |y_{\rm g}(k,M)|^p,
333: \nonumber
334: \label{rs}
335: \end{eqnarray}
336: where
337: \begin{eqnarray}
338: F_{\rm v}&=&f\int f(\nu) d\nu\ b(\nu) {\cal R}_1(k\sigma) y(k; M)
339: \nonumber \\
340: F_{\rm g}&=&
341: {\bar{\rho}\over \bar{n}}\int
342: f(\nu)d\nu {\langle N \rangle(M) \over M}b(\nu){\cal R}_1(k\sigma)y_{\rm g}(k,M)
343: \label{p0}
344: \end{eqnarray}
345: and
346: \begin{equation}
347: {\cal R}_p(\alpha=k\sigma[p/2]^{1/2}) = {\sqrt{\pi}\over 2} { {\rm erf}(\alpha)\over \alpha},
348: \label{r2}
349: \end{equation}
350: for $p=1,2$.
351:
352: Figure \ref{fig1} shows various bias functions as a function of $k$,
353: defined as the square root of the
354: ratio of the galaxy to the linear dark matter power spectrum.
355: Throughout we use
356: $\Lambda CDM$ model
357: with $\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_{\lambda}=0.7$,
358: normalized to $\sigma_8=0.9$ today.
359: Linear dark matter power spectrum is used here, since this
360: is the quantity we wish to reproduce.
361: Also shown is the square root
362: ratio of the nonlinear redshift space dark matter spectrum to the linear
363: power spectrum. This quantity can be
364: compared directly to the N-body simulations. We verified it to be in a
365: remarkable agreement with those (see also White 2000).
366: On large scales it should correspond to $b=1.18$.
367: It is interesting to note that the redshift space dark matter
368: power spectrum agrees to within 20\% with the real space linear
369: power spectrum over the entire range of scale. This is
370: somewhat coincidental, since for the nonlinear redshift space
371: power spectrum the correlated halo-halo term is
372: suppressed on small scales because of virial motions $({\cal R}_1(k\sigma)<1$)
373: and because of halo profile ($y(k;M)<1$).
374: The difference is picked up
375: by the Poisson term, which does not depend on the linear power
376: spectrum, except through the mass dependence of the
377: concentration parameter.
378:
379: For galaxies we see that the linear bias, defined as the ratio
380: of the redshift space galaxy power spectrum to the linear dark matter
381: spectrum, typically
382: exceeds the redshift space dark matter bias on large scales.
383: This is of course not surprising and reflects the fact that
384: galaxies are a biased tracer of dark matter. For galaxies
385: found predominantly in groups and clusters the bias is larger
386: than for those which are also found in the field.
387: The choice of the galaxy multiplicity function used here is motivated by
388: the semi-analytic models of galaxy formation \cite{Ben,Kau}. Least biased
389: are regular galaxies selected only on the
390: basis of their luminosity (dashed line).
391: More biased are red galaxies with $M_B-M_V>0.8$ in semi-analytic
392: models of Kauffmann et al. (1999; dash-dotted), while most biased
393: are those with $M_B-M_V>2$ (dotted). It is important to emphasize
394: that these are just
395: plausible choices of the galaxy multiplicity function
396: as the data at
397: present do not allow one to determine these directly.
398: Theoretical models of galaxy multiplicity function
399: can vary at least at the level of 30\%, leading to
400: variations of up to 150 km/s in 1-d velocity dispersion.
401: For this reason we only emphasize the features of the model
402: which are generic and expected for any choice of the parameters,
403: even though the relative importance of different effects may vary
404: from model to model.
405: For example, in all cases the galaxy multiplicity function is
406: expected to increase
407: less rapidly with the halo mass than the mass itself, but may have a
408: different low mass cutoff and/or different shape.
409:
410: The bias is scale independent on large scales for the regular
411: galaxies. For these
412: bias becomes scale dependent above $k>0.1h$Mpc$^{-1}$, on scale
413: somewhat smaller than for the dark matter. This is because these galaxies
414: are preferentially found in smaller halos relative to the dark matter,
415: and are hence dominated by systems with smaller $\sigma$, thus
416: the virial motion suppression is smaller. Just as in the case of
417: the dark matter the galaxy linear bias first declines
418: with scale.
419: This is because correlations are suppressed both by the finite extent
420: of the halos and by the virial motions within them.
421: At even smaller scales, above $k>1h$Mpc$^{-1}$,
422: bias begins to rise again. This is caused by the nonlinear
423: Poisson term for the galaxies, not present in the linear power spectrum,
424: which enhances the correlations
425: on small scales. This is of course the term that gives rise to the
426: nonlinear clustering pattern and the familiar power law slope.
427: Just as in the real space in the redshift space
428: the enhancement is also more important for the galaxies
429: than for the dark matter.
430: One reason for this is that galaxies are
431: preferentially found in smaller systems relative to the dark matter,
432: so the suppression because of finite halo extent and virial motions
433: is less important than for the dark matter. Another is that on
434: smaller scales the correlations are dominated by
435: small halos with $\langle N \rangle <1$.
436: In these there is a central galaxy, which
437: does not contribute to the suppression because of halo profile and
438: virial motions, leading to an enhancement of the galaxy power spectrum
439: over that of the dark matter. Finally,
440: a more concentrated
441: distribution of galaxies relative to the dark matter, as suggested by
442: some observations \cite{Carl}, would also lead to an enhancement
443: of the galaxy power spectrum relative to that of the dark matter.
444:
445: The choices motivated by red or elliptical galaxies
446: in semi-analytic models \cite{Kau}
447: elliminate galaxies in less massive halos.
448: These are shown in figure \ref{fig1} as
449: the dash-dotted and dotted lines, for the case of red ($M_B-M_V>0.8$) and
450: very red ($M_B-M_V>2$) galaxies, respectively.
451: The bias in this case shows scale dependence even on very large scales,
452: $k<0.01h$Mpc$^{-1}$. This is because the Poisson term becomes
453: important again relative to the linear power spectrum on very large
454: scales, where the latter approaches slope $ n \sim 1$, while
455: the former remains at $n=0$. Galaxies that are only
456: found in rarer, more massive, systems have
457: the Poisson term that is larger, so this effect
458: is relatively more important for this type of galaxies as opposed to the
459: normal galaxies. As pointed out in Seljak (2000) this effect is not
460: present for dark matter because of mass and momentum conservation,
461: which requires the power spectrum of a local process to decline as
462: $P(k) \propto k^4$ on large scales. Since the Poisson term is constant
463: on large scales one can attempt to model it as such and remove it. Note
464: that its amplitude is larger than the usual Poisson term arising from
465: the discretness of galaxies, which depends on the total number of
466: galaxies. Here the amplitude of Poisson term is determined by the effective
467: number of halos, which is smaller than the number of galaxies.
468: If one removes this constant term then the remaining power spectrum
469: should trace dark matter, so bias should become scale independent again.
470:
471: For the same reason that these galaxies are in more
472: massive halos the virial motion and finite halo size suppression
473: become important on larger scales and the bias is already scale dependent
474: for $k \sim 0.1h$Mpc$^{-1}$. On smaller scales the bias dependence is also
475: sensitive to whether the galaxies are central inside the halo or not and
476: whether the radial distribution follows that of dark matter, both
477: of which can have important impact on the bias. For example,
478: if red galaxies avoid centers of halos (because the gas preferentially
479: cools to the halo center, where it can form new stars which are blue), then
480: the bias is a less rapidly rising function of $k$ on small scales than
481: that shown in figure
482: \ref{fig1}).
483:
484: \begin{figure}
485: \begin{center}
486: \leavevmode
487: \epsfxsize=8cm \epsfbox{fig1_rd.ps}
488: \end{center}
489: \caption{Bias $b(k)$ defined as the square root of
490: the ratio of redshift space nonlinear power spectrum to the
491: linear real space dark matter spectrum. From top to bottom are shown
492: very red galaxies ($M_B-M_V>2$, dotted), red galaxies ($M_B-M_V>0.8$,
493: long dash-sotted),
494: normal galaxies (short dashed) and dark matter (solid). The bottom two lines are
495: ratios between massive and massless neutrino
496: transfer functions, for $m_{\nu}=0.1eV$ (upper, short dash-dotted)
497: and $m_{\nu}=1eV$ (lower, long-dashed).
498: }
499: \label{fig1}
500: \end{figure}
501:
502: \section{{\bf $\beta$} from redshift distortions}
503:
504: Another application of the redshift distortion analysis is to
505: extract the parameter $\beta=f/b$. There are many different ways to do
506: this (see Strauss \& Willick 1995 for a review).
507: The two examples used here are by combining the
508: galaxy power spectrum $P_{\rm gg}$ with the velocity power spectrum
509: $P_{\rm vv}$ or their cross-spectrum $P_{\rm vg}$ and by using
510: Legendre expansion of redshift space power spectrum. If bias
511: is constant on large scales $\beta$ will also be a constant, but
512: in the more general case considered here it will be scale dependent.
513: Moreover, different methods may not even agree on a given scale, so
514: the meaning of $\beta$ itself becomes questionable.
515:
516: Given that in general the power spectrum is a function of both
517: $\mu$ and $k$ it is not possible to extract the three components
518: $P_{\rm gg}$, $P_{\rm vg}$ and $P_{\rm vv}$
519: from it uniquely, since it depends on the adopted procedure.
520: In fact, a clean separation into the three components is
521: only possible on large scales where only the linear compression redshift
522: distortion operates. To obtain an idea what happens when small scale effects
523: become important we perform angular averages assuming linear
524: theory model and reconstruct the 3 components from these.
525: As before we assume plane-parallel approximation.
526: For isotropic averaging in equation \ref{p0} this gives
527: \begin{equation}
528: P_0(k)=
529: {1\over 2}\int_{-1}^{+1}d\mu\ \left(\delta_g+ \mu^2\delta_v\right)^2 =
530: P_{\rm gg}+{2 \over 3}P_{\rm vg}+{1 \over 5}P_{\rm vv}.
531: \end{equation}
532:
533: Similarly we can also perform averaging
534: with $\mu^2$ and $\mu^4$
535: weights,
536: $$
537: P_2(k)=
538: {1\over 2}\int_{-1}^{+1}\mu^2d\mu\ \left(\delta_g+ \mu^2\delta_v\right)^2 =
539: {1 \over 3}P_{\rm gg}+{2 \over 5}P_{\rm vg}+{1 \over 7}P_{\rm vv}
540: $$
541: \begin{equation}
542: P_4(k)=
543: {1\over 2}\int_{-1}^{+1}\mu^4d\mu\ \left(\delta_g+ \mu^2\delta_v\right)^2 =
544: {1 \over 5}P_{\rm gg}+{2 \over 7}P_{\rm vg}+{1 \over 9}P_{\rm vv}.
545: \end{equation}
546: From $P_0$, $P_2$ and $P_4$ we can reconstruct uniquely $P_{\rm gg}$,
547: $P_{\rm vg}$ and $P_{\rm vv}$ using the above expressions.
548: At the same time the halo model also gives predictions for the
549: averaged spectra $P_2$ and $P_4$ just like for $P_0$ (equation \ref{p0}).
550: These are given by
551: \begin{eqnarray}
552: & &P_2(k) = \left( {1 \over 3}F_{\rm g}^2+{2\over 5}F_{\rm v}F_{\rm g} + {1\over 7}F_{\rm v}^2\right)P_{\rm lin}(k)
553: \nonumber \\
554: & &+
555: {1 \over (2\pi)^3 \bar{n}^2}
556: \int {M \over \bar{\rho}}f(\nu)d\nu {\langle N(N-1)\rangle \over M^2}
557: {\cal R}_{p+2}(k\sigma) |y_{\rm g}(k,M)|^p \nonumber \\
558: & &P_4(k) = \left( {1 \over 5}F_{\rm g}^2+{2\over 7}F_{\rm v}F_{\rm g} + {1\over 9}F_{\rm v}^2\right)P_{\rm lin}(k)
559: \nonumber \\
560: & & +
561: {1 \over (2\pi)^3 \bar{n}^2}
562: \int {M \over \bar{\rho}}f(\nu)d\nu {\langle N(N-1)\rangle \over M^2}
563: {\cal R}_{p+4}(k\sigma) |y_{\rm g}(k,M)|^p \nonumber, \\
564: \label{eqns}
565: \end{eqnarray}
566: where
567: \begin{equation}
568: {\cal R}_{p+q}(k\sigma)=\int_{0}^{1} \mu^q e^{-p(k\sigma\mu)^2/2} d\mu,
569: \end{equation}
570: which have simple analytic expressions similar to equation
571: \ref{r2},
572: \begin{equation}
573: {\cal R}_{p+2}(\alpha=k\sigma[p/2]^{1/2}) =
574: {\sqrt{\pi}\over 4}\left[ { {\rm erf}(\alpha)\over \alpha^3}-{e^{-\alpha^2} \over
575: 2\alpha^2} \right]\nonumber
576: \end{equation}
577: $$
578: {\cal R}_{p+4}(\alpha=k\sigma[p/2]^{1/2}) =
579: {3\sqrt{\pi}\over 8} \left[ { {\rm erf}(\alpha)\over \alpha^5}-{e^{-\alpha^2} \over
580: 2\alpha^2}\left(1+{3 \over 2 \alpha^2}\right)\right],
581: $$
582: for $p=1,2$.
583:
584: The procedure to extract $\beta$ is the following: first we
585: compute $P_0$, $P_2$ and $P_4$ from above expressions. Next
586: we assume they are determined by the
587: linear combinations of $P_{\rm gg}$, $P_{\rm vg}$ and $P_{\rm vv}$
588: as valid in linear theory, which allows one to determine
589: them uniquely.
590: We then take ratios $[P_{\rm vv}/P_{\rm gg}]^{1/2}$ and
591: $P_{\rm vg}/P_{\rm gg}$ to determine $\beta$.
592: These results
593: are shown in figure \ref{fig2} for normal (top) and
594: red ($M_B-M_V>0.8$; bottom) galaxy sample used in figure
595: \ref{fig1}. We see that for normal galaxies the two
596: reconstructed $\beta$ functions
597: are approximately constant and equal for $k<0.1h$Mpc$^{-1}$.
598: For $k>0.1h$Mpc$^{-1}$
599: the two $\beta$ functions diverge away from the large scale
600: value and away from
601: each other. This indicates that on scales below 50$h^{-1}$Mpc one
602: cannot extract the true value of $\beta$ and that different
603: methods of determining it can give rather different answers.
604: This is because on these scales virial motions within halos
605: become important and pure linear theory ansatz is no longer valid.
606: The scale dependence of the two $\beta$ reconstructions is in
607: qualitatively good agreement with the behaviour seen in real
608: data. For example, \cite{Ham} have decomposed the data in
609: a similar way to $P_{\rm gg}$, $P_{\rm vg}$ and $P_{\rm vv}$.
610: Their reconstructed scale dependence of
611: $\beta$ show a similar behaviour
612: as our model, where $\beta$ from $P_{\rm vg}/P_{\rm gg}$ declines
613: with $k$,
614: while that from $(P_{\rm vv}/P_{\rm gg})^{1/2}$ increases
615: with k (see their figure 4). We caution that this comparison is just
616: illustative, since the two methods of
617: analysis differ in details (such as the use of
618: plane-parallel approximation) and so cannot be directly compared.
619:
620: We can also extract the cross-correlation coefficient
621: $r=P_{\rm vg}/[P_{\rm vv}P_{\rm gg}]^{1/2}$ from this
622: analysis. For normal galaxies it is close to unity for
623: $k<0.1h$Mpc$^{-1}$ and rapidly declines above that.
624: This means that the galaxy density and velocity divergence
625: as reconstructed from this method
626: become poorly correlated on small scales. Given this
627: it is meaningless to
628: combine the different estimates of $\beta$ to enhance the
629: statistical significance, since they do not measure the
630: same parameter and the two fields are only poorly correlated
631: on small scales.
632:
633: For biased (red or elliptical)
634: galaxies found predominantly in
635: groups or clusters
636: the correlation is smaller than unity
637: even on large scales and the agreement between different
638: reconstructed $\beta$ is less good there. This is mostly caused by the
639: Poisson term, which is not negligible for galaxies
640: on large scales. Divergence between $\beta$ from different methods appears
641: already for $k \sim 0.04h$Mpc$^{-1}$, caused by the more significant
642: influence of massive halos with larger velocity dipersions.
643: One should therefore be specially careful when drawing conclusions
644: on cosmological parameters from this sample of galaxies, as for
645: example from the planned bright red galaxy sample (BRG) in SDSS.
646:
647: Another often used way to extract $\beta$ is to
648: determine the ratio of quadrupole to monopole terms \cite{Kai},
649: which in terms of the above quantities is given by
650: $P_{qm}=2.5(3P_2/P_0-1)$. In linear theory one
651: predicts it to be \cite{Cole}
652: \begin{equation}
653: P_{qm}={ 1+2\beta/3+ \beta^2/5\over 4 \beta/3+4\beta^2/7}.
654: \end{equation}
655: By solving the quadratic equation above one can determine
656: $\beta$ as a function of scale. This quantity is also
657: shown in figure \ref{fig2} and has a similar behaviour to
658: $\beta$ from $P_{\rm vg}/P_{\rm gg}$ ratio, although the
659: suppression on small scales is delayed relative to it.
660:
661: \begin{figure}
662: \begin{center}
663: \leavevmode
664: \epsfxsize=8cm \epsfbox{fig2_rd.ps}
665: \end{center}
666: \caption{The predictions of the halo model for $\beta$ using
667: a variety of methods discussed in the text and galaxy-velocity
668: cross-correlation coefficient. Top figure shows regular galaxies
669: found also in the field, bottom shows biased (red, elliptical etc.)
670: galaxies found predominantly in groups and clusters.}
671: \label{fig2}
672: \end{figure}
673:
674: \section{Conclusions}
675: We have analyzed the redshift distortion effects using the halo model,
676: which has proven to be remarkably succesful in explaining
677: nonlinear real space power
678: spectrum of both galaxies and dark matter \cite{MaFry,PeaSmi,Sco,Sel},
679: as well as redshift space power spectrum of the dark matter \cite{White}.
680: We have shown that redshift space
681: bias for regular galaxies is likely to be constant only for
682: $k<0.1h$Mpc$^{-1}$. Between $0.1h$Mpc$^{-1}<k<1h$Mpc$^{-1}$ the
683: bias declines by 10-20\% and rises again above that.
684: This may be important for attempts to extract the value of
685: cosmological parameters from such measurements \cite{Tegmark},
686: which typically assume nonlinear effects are negligible
687: up to $k \sim 0.2-0.3h$Mpc$^{-1}$.
688:
689: One parameter that is particularly sensitive to this effect is
690: neutrino mass, which
691: suppresses the power spectrum roughly in the same scale range where
692: bias also becomes scale dependent. Since it has the same effect the
693: two can be degenerate over the quasi-linear regime
694: and this would complicate the attempts of
695: accurately determining the neutrino mass from such galaxy
696: clustering measurements. Figure \ref{fig1} shows that the
697: effect of neutrino mass begins to affect the power spectrum already
698: on scales larger than where the bias is scale dependent. This is
699: good news for the efforts to extract the neutrino mass, but the
700: effect can only be measured if very large scale correlations can
701: be accurately measured. These are limited by finite volume sampling variance,
702: which can only be reduced by having a larger volume, so that the
703: amplitude of correlations can be reliably determined for
704: $k \ll 0.1h$Mpc$^{-1}$. If only the information around $k \sim 0.1h$Mpc$^{-1}$
705: is used then one {\it cannot} separate the scale dependent bias
706: effects from those of massive neutrinos. Current surveys such as PSCz
707: still have large errors for $k \ll 0.1h$Mpc$^{-1}$ and the new generation
708: of surveys, such as SDSS and 2dF, combined with a more detailed modelling,
709: will be needed to determine the neutrino mass from these measurements.
710:
711: Galaxies found in rare systems such as groups and clusters
712: suffer from another effect. For such galaxies the Poisson term
713: can be so strong that it can exceed the linear correlation term
714: not only on small scales, but also on very large scales. This effect is
715: not present for dark matter, which is protected from it by causality
716: and conservation of mass and momentum \cite{zeldovich}. Because of this
717: the bias can rise
718: again for $k<0.01h$Mpc$^{-1}$. Since on such large scales this is
719: a pure Poisson term with the slope exactly $n=0$ one can attempt to model it
720: as a sum of two contributions and its amplitude can be estimated from the
721: small scales. Equivalently, one can perform the correlation function analysis,
722: where this term is not present on large scales.
723:
724: Determination of parameter $\beta$ shows similarly a converegence
725: to a single value for $k<0.1 h$Mpc$^{-1}$, at least for normal galaxies
726: where the Poisson term does not become important on very large scales.
727: Around and above $k \sim 0.1 h$Mpc$^{-1}$ $\beta$ rapidly becomes
728: scale dependent. The actual behaviour depends on the specific analysis
729: and $\beta$ can either grow or decline with scale. This is caused by
730: the effect of
731: virial motions, which counter the linear compression effect and are
732: more important in more massive halos, which dominate the nonlinear clustering
733: on large scales. The model reproduces well the scale dependence of
734: $\beta$ seen in the analysis of the real data (Hamilton et al. 2000).
735: The cross-correlation coefficient between the galaxy and the velocity field
736: divergence
737: as obtained from the redshift space distortions is close to unity
738: below $k \sim 0.1 h$Mpc$^{-1}$ and rapidly declines above that.
739: Galaxies and velocities are singificantly less well correlated than
740: the dark matter and the galaxies in real space analysis, where the
741: cross-correlation coefficient is unity at least up to
742: $k \sim 1 h$Mpc$^{-1}$ \cite{Sel}. Our results are in broad agreement
743: with other recent analysis of nonlinear bias and its effect on
744: redshift space distortions and $\beta$ \cite{Hat,Wein}.
745: Together these results
746: argue for a need of a more refined analysis of redshift distortions
747: and redshift space power spectrum if the statistical
748: power of existing and upcoming redshift space surveys is to be
749: fully exploited. This is needed both
750: to reduce the systematic effects and to extend the analysis to smaller
751: scales. Since the halo approach used here reproduces well the results of
752: N-body simulations and semi-analytic models it can
753: serve as a useful framework within which one can extract the true underlying
754: cosmological model from the data.
755:
756: \section*{Acknowledgments}
757:
758: I acknowledge the support of NASA grant NAG5-8084 and Packard and Sloan
759: Fellowships. I thank SISSA, Trieste,
760: for hospitality during my visit and Ravi Sheth for
761: useful comments and questions which helped improve the manuscript.
762:
763: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
764: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Benson et al. }2000]{Ben}
765: Benson, A. J., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., Lacey, C. G. 2000, MNRAS,
766: 316, 107
767: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Berlind, Narayanan \& Weinberg }2000]{Wein}
768: Berlind, A. A., Narayanan, V. K., Weinberg, D. H. 2001, ApJ, 549, 688
769: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Carlberg et al. }2000]{Carl}
770: Carlberg, R. G., Yee, H. K. C., Morris, S. L., Lin, H., Hall, P. B.,
771: Patton, D. R., Sawicki, M., Shepherd, C. W. 2001, ApJ, 552, 427
772: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Cole, Fischer \& Weinberg }1994]{Cole}
773: Cole, S., Fischer, K. B., Weinberg, D. H. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 785
774: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Diaferio et al. }1999]{Dia}
775: Diaferio, A., Kauffmann, G., Colberg, G. M., White, S. D. M.
776: 1999, MNRAS, 307, 537
777: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Eisenstein, Hu \& Tegmark }1999]{Eise}
778: Eisenstein, D. J., Hu, W., Tegmark, M. 1999, ApJ, 518, 2
779: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Fukuda et al. }1998]{kamio98}
780: Fukuda Y. et al. 1998, PRL 113, 273
781: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Hamilton, Tegmark \& Padmanabhan }2000]{Ham}
782: Hamilton, A. J. S., Tegmark, M., Padmanabhan, N. 2000, MNRAS, 317, 23
783: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Hatton \& Cole }1999]{Hat}
784: Hatton, S. J., Cole, S. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 1137
785: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Hu, Eisenstein \& Tegmark }1998]{het98}
786: Hu, W., Eisenstein, D. J., Tegmark, M. 1998, PRL, 80, 5255
787: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Kaiser }1987]{Kai}
788: Kaiser N., 1987, MNRAS, 227, 1
789: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Kauffmann et al. }1999]{Kau}
790: Kauffmann, G., Colberg, J. M., Diaferio, A., White, S. D. M.
791: 1999, MNRAS, 303, 529; {\it ibid} 1999, MNRAS ,307, 529
792: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Ma \& Fry }2000]{MaFry}
793: Ma C.-P., Fry J.N., 2000, ApJ, 543, 503
794: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Moore et al. }1998]{Moore}
795: Moore, B., Governato, F., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., Lake, G. 1998,
796: ApJ, 499, L5
797: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Navarro, Frenk \& White }1996]{NFW}
798: Navarro J., Frenk C.S., White S.D.M., 1996, ApJ, 462, 563
799: %\bibitem[\protect\citename{Neyman, Scott \& Shane }1953]{NeyScoSha}
800: % Neyman J., Scott E.L., Shane C.D., 1953, ApJ, 117, 92
801: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Peacock \& Dodds }1994]{PD}
802: Peacock J.A., Dodds S.J., 1994, MNRAS, 267, 1020
803: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Peacock \& Smith }2000]{PeaSmi}
804: Peacock J.A., Smith R.E., 2000, MNRAS, 318, 1144
805: %\bibitem[\protect\citename{Peebles }1974]{Pee}
806: % Peebles P.J.E., 1974, A \& A, 32, 197
807: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Press \& Schechter }1974]{PreSch}
808: Press W., Schechter P., 1974, ApJ, 187, 425
809: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Saunders et al. } 2000]{Sau}
810: Saunders, W. et al. 2000, MNRAS, 317, 55
811: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Scoccimarro et al. } 2000]{Sco}
812: Scoccimarro, R., Sheth, R. K., Hui, L., Jain, B. 2001, ApJ, 546, 20
813: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Seljak }2000]{Sel}
814: Seljak U., 2000, MNRAS, 318, 203
815: %\bibitem[\protect\citename{Sheth }1996]{She}
816: % Sheth R., 1996, MNRAS, 279, 1310 (1996)
817: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Sheth \& Tormen }1999]{SheTor}
818: Sheth R., Tormen G., 1999, MNRAS, 308, 119 (1999)
819: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Strauss \& Willick }1995]{StraWill}
820: Strauss, M. A., Willick, J. A. 1995, PhR, 261, 271
821: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Tegmark, Zaldarriaga \& Hamilton }2000]{Tegmark}
822: Tegmark, M., Zaldarriaga, M., Hamilton, A. J. S. 2001, PRD, 63, 043007
823: \bibitem[\protect\citename{White }2000]{White}
824: White M. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 1
825: \bibitem[\protect\citename{Zeldovich }1970]{zeldovich}
826: Zeldovich Y. 1970, A \& A, 5, 84
827: \end{thebibliography}
828:
829: \end{document}
830: