1: %\documentstyle [12pt,aaspp4]{article}

2: \documentstyle [12pt,aasms4]{article}

3: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

4: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

5: \def\bey{\begin{eqnarray}}

6: \def\eey{\end{eqnarray}}

7: \def\pppm{\rm P^3M}

8: \def\mpc{\,h^{-1}{\rm {Mpc}}}

9: \def\mpci{\,h {\rm {Mpc}}^{-1}}

10: \def\kms{\,{\rm {km\, s^{-1}}}}

11: \def\msun{{M_\odot}}

12: \def\br#1{{\bf r}_{#1}}

13: \def\bs#1{{\bf s}_{#1}}

14: \def\zetarr{\zeta(r_{12},r_{23},r_{31})}

15: \def\zetass{\zeta(s_{12},s_{23},s_{31})}

16: \def\scycl{(s_{12},s_{23},s_{31})}

17: \def\rpcycl{(r_{p12},r_{p23},r_{p31})}

18: \def\rppicycl{(r_{p12},r_{p23},r_{p31},\pi_{12},\pi_{13})}

19: \def\zetazrprp{\zeta_z(r_{p12},r_{p23},r_{p31},\pi_{12},\pi_{13})}

20: \def\zetaru{\zeta(r,u,v)}

21: \def\zetasu{\zeta(s,u,v)}

22: \def\zetazrpu{\zeta_z(r_{p12},u,v,\pi_{12},\pi_{13})}

23: \def\Qru{Q(r,u,v)}

24: \def\Qsu{Q_{red}(s,u,v)}

25: \def\Qzrpu{Q_z(r_{p12},u,v,\pi_{12},\pi_{13})}

26: \def\Qrpu{Q_{proj}(r_{p},u,v)}

27: \def\qtu{q(\theta,u,v)}

28: \def\Pirpu{\Pi(r_p,u,v)}

29: \def\nbar#1{{\bar n}({\bf r}_{#1})}

30: \def\nbas#1{{\bar n}({\bf s}_{#1})}

31: \def\xiz#1{\xi_z(r_{p#1},\pi_{#1})}

32: \def\xir#1{\xi(r_{#1})}

33: \def\xis#1{\xi(s_{#1})}

34: \def\wrp#1{w(r_{p#1})}

35: %

36: % JAP macros

37: %

38: \def\gs{\mathrel{\raise1.16pt\hbox{$>$}\kern-7.0pt

39: \lower3.06pt\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}}

40: \def\ls{\mathrel{\raise1.16pt\hbox{$<$}\kern-7.0pt

41: \lower3.06pt\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}}

42: % Symbols that drive mathematicians crazy: "greater than or on the order of"

43: % and its counterpart.

44: % To use, type "\simgt" or "\simlt".

45: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}

46: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}

47: \def\prosima{$\; \buildrel \propto \over \sim \;$}

48: \def\gsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}

49: \def\lsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}

50: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}

51: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}

52: \def\simpr{\lower.5ex\hbox{\prosima}}

53: \def\la{\lsim}

54: \def\ga{\gsim}

55: 

56: \begin{document}

57: \title {

58: The Scaling of the Redshift Power Spectrum: Observations from the Las Campanas

59: Redshift Survey}

60: \author {Y.P. Jing$^{1,2,3,4}$, G. B\"orner$^{1,4,5}$} 

61: \affil{$ ^1$

62: Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, the Partner Group of MPI f\"ur

63: Astrophysik, Nandan Road 80, Shanghai 200030, China}

64: \affil {$^2$ National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of

65: Sciences, Beijing 100012, China}

66: \affil{$ ^3$ National Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka,

67:  Tokyo 181-8588, Japan}

68: \affil{$ ^4$

69: Research Center for the Early Universe, School of Science, University

70: of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113, Japan}

71: \affil {$ ^5$

72: Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 1,

73: 85748 Garching, Germany}

74: \affil {e-mail: ypjing@center.shao.ac.cn, ~grb@mpa-garching.mpg.de}

75: \received{---------------}

76: \accepted{---------------}

77: 

78: \begin{abstract}

79: In a recent paper we have studied the redshift power spectrum

80: $P^S(k,\mu)$ in three CDM models with the help of high resolution

81: simulations. Here we apply the method to the largest available

82: redshift survey, the Las Campanas Redshift Survey (LCRS). The basic

83: model is to express $P^S(k,\mu)$ as a product of three factors

84: \beq

85: P^S(k,\mu)=P^R(k)(1+\beta\mu^2)^2 D(k,\mu)\,.

86: \eeq

87: Here $\mu$ is the cosine of the angle between the wave vector and the

88: line of sight.  The damping function $D$ for the range of scales

89: accessible to an accurate analysis of the LCRS is well approximated by

90: the Lorentz factor

91: \beq

92: D=[1+{1\over 2}(k\mu\sigma_{12})^2]^{-1}\,.

93: \eeq

94: We have investigated different values for $\beta$ ($\beta=0.4$, 0.5,

95: 0.6), and measured the real space power spectrum $P^R(k)$ and the

96: pairwise velocity dispersion $\sigma_{12}(k)$ from $P^S(k,\mu)$ for

97: different values of $\mu$. The velocity dispersion $\sigma_{12}(k)$ is

98: nearly a constant from $k=0.5$ to 3 $\mpci$. The average value for

99: this range is $510\pm 70 \kms$.  The power spectrum $P^R(k)$ decreases

100: with $k$ approximately with $k^{-1.7}$ for $k$ between 0.1 and 4

101: $\mpci$.

102: The statistical

103: significance of the results, and the error bars, are found with the

104: help of mock samples constructed from a large set of high resolution

105: simulations.  A flat, low-density ($\Omega_0=0.2$) CDM model can give

106: a good fit to the data, if a scale-dependent special bias scheme is

107: used which we have called the cluster-under-weighted bias (Jing et

108: al.). 

109: %The corresponding $\beta$ value of this model is 0.45.  Using

110: %the model of Eq.(1) it is not difficult to resolve the discrepancy in

111: %determining $\sigma_{12}$ between Landy et al and JMB98.

112: 

113: \end{abstract}

114: 

115: \keywords {galaxies: clustering - galaxies: distances and redshifts -

116: large-scale structure of Universe - cosmology: theory - dark matter}

117: 

118: \section {Introduction}

119: 

120: The spatial distribution of galaxies can be retrieved approximately,

121: when the redshift is used as a measure of the distance. It is not

122: exact, because the galaxies in general deviate from the linear Hubble

123: flow, but the redshift distortions can provide us with valuable

124: information about the dynamics of galaxies.  A traditional method for

125: studying the redshift distortion is the redshift two-point correlation

126: function (RTPCF) $\xiz{}$ (\cite{gp1973}, \cite{p1980},

127: \cite{beanetal1983}, \cite{dp1983} \cite{mjb1993},

128: \cite{marzkeetal1995}, \cite{fisheretal1994},

129: \cite{ratcliffeetal1998}, \cite{postmanetal1998}, \cite{gg1999},

130: \cite{smalletal1999}). Assuming certain functional forms for the

131: distribution function (DF) of the pairwise velocity (say, an

132: exponential form, \cite{p1976}) and for the average infall velocity

133: (say, the form of the self-similar solution, \cite{dp1983}), one can

134: construct a model for $\xiz{}$ which describes the real situation,

135: when the coupling between the peculiar velocity and the spatial

136: density of the galaxies is weak (\cite{p1980}). A comparison of the

137: model with observations for $\xiz{}$ provides a test for the validity

138: of the model assumptions (such as the DF of the pairwise velocity) and

139: a determination of the pairwise velocity dispersion

140: $\sigma_{12}(r)$. Early studies of small redshift samples

141: (\cite{p1976},\cite{p1979}) have shown that an exponential form for

142: the DF of the pairwise velocity is preferable to a Gaussian form. This

143: important conclusion has been confirmed by a number of later studies

144: based on much larger surveys ( \cite{dp1983}, \cite{marzkeetal1995},

145: \cite{fisheretal1994}).  The pairwise velocity dispersion was not easy

146: to pin down; the value sensitively depends on the presence or absence

147: of rare rich clusters in the redshift surveys which contained only a

148: few thousand galaxies (\cite{mjb1993}, \cite{zureketal1994},

149: \cite{marzkeetal1995}). Motivated by this fact, several authors have

150: since attempted (\cite{kss1997}, \cite{dmw1997}, \cite{soc1998},

151: \cite{bdl2000}) to find new statistics for the thermal motion of

152: galaxies which are less sensitive to the regions of rich clusters. The

153: new statistics, by their design, are more robust with respect to the

154: sampling of rich clusters than the pair-weighted $\sigma_{12}(r)$ and

155: have produced interesting constraints on models of galaxy formation,

156: but the results sometimes are more difficult to interpret in the

157: context of dynamical theories (e.g. the Cosmic Virial Theorem and the

158: Cosmic Energy Equation). Fortunately, the pair-weighting will no

159: longer be a problem for future large redshift surveys like 2dF and

160: SDSS which will contain hundreds to thousands of rich clusters in the

161: survey. In fact, the currently largest publicly available redshift

162: survey, the Las Campanas Redshift Survey (LCRS;

163: \cite{shectmanetal1996}) which contains about 30 rich clusters, is

164: already large enough to reduce the sampling error in $\sigma_{12}(r)$

165: to $15\%$ only (\cite{jmb1998}, hereafter JMB98).  Therefore the

166: pairwise velocity dispersion, which is a well-defined physical

167: quantity and has simple relations to the dynamical theories (the

168: Virial Theorem), will remain an important quantity to measure in

169: observations.

170: 

171: Although the pair-weighting is not a problem for the statistics of

172: $\sigma_{12}(r)$ with the largest redshift surveys or the next

173: generation of redshift surveys, the currently widely used method of

174: measuring $\sigma_{12}(r)$ (\cite{dp1983}) does have its limitations

175: (JMB98). Functional forms must be first assumed for the DF of the

176: pairwise velocity and the infall velocity, and it must be assumed that

177: the spatial density and peculiar velocity of galaxies are uncorrelated

178: so that the redshift two-point correlation function (model) can be

179: written as a convolution of the real-space correlation with the DF of

180: the pairwise velocity. Although the validity of the functional form

181: for the DF of the pairwise velocity can be checked by comparing the

182: model of the RTPCF to the observed one, the tests of different

183: functional forms are rather limited. The functional form may 

184: depend on the separation between the objects (\cite{jfs1998},

185: \cite{mjs2000}). The infall velocity also has a significant effect on the

186: determination of $\sigma_{12}(r)$, because the two quantities are

187: rather degenerate in modeling $\xiz{}$ (\cite{jb1998}). Moreover, the

188: density and velocity are strongly coupled at the small scales where previous

189: studies have measured $\sigma_{12}(r)$. These limitations can lead to

190: some systematic bias in the estimation of $\sigma_{12}(r)$ (JMB98; 

191: \cite{jb1998}). These systematic effects were not so

192: important in early statistical studies of $\sigma_{12}(r)$ since the

193: sampling errors in $\sigma_{12}(r)$ were dominant. Since the sampling

194: error is just 15\% for the LCRS (JMB98) and will be even

195: smaller for the upcoming surveys, it is important to consider

196: alternative methods to measure the

197: redshift distortion and $\sigma_{12}(r)$ which are less model dependent.

198: 

199: In a recent paper (\cite{jb2001}, hereafter JB2001), we have studied the

200: redshift power spectrum $P^S(k,\mu)$ in three typical CDM cosmological

201: models, where $\mu$ is the cosine of the angle between the wave

202: vector and the line-of-sight. Two distinctive biased tracers, the

203: primordial density peaks (\cite{bardeenetal1986}; \cite{davisetal1985}) and

204: the cluster-under-weighted population of particles (JMB98),

205: are considered in addition to the pure dark matter models.  Based on a large

206: set of high-resolution simulations, we have measured the redshift power

207: spectrum for these three tracers from the linear to the non-linear

208: regimes. For all the tracers and the three CDM models, the redshift

209: power spectrum $P^S(k,\mu)$ can be expressed by

210: \beq

211: P^S(k,\mu)=P^R(k) (1+\beta\mu^2)^2 D(k\mu \sigma_{12}(k))

212: \label{eq1}

213: \eeq

214: where $P^R(k)$ is the real space power spectrum, and $\beta =

215: \Omega^{0.6}/b$ ($\Omega$ is the density parameter and $b$ is the

216: linear bias parameter). The factor $(1+\beta\mu^2)^2$ accounts for the

217: linear compression of structures on large scales

218: (\cite{kaiser1987}). Although $\sigma_{12}(k)$ and the 3-D peculiar

219: velocity dispersion are not immediately comparable, it was pointed out

220: in JB2001 that their values are different only by 15\% in the

221: simulation, if $r=1/k$ is used in the comparison. So $\sigma_{12}(k)$

222: is a good indicator for the velocity dispersion. In Equation

223: (\ref{eq1}) the damping function $D$, which should generally depend on

224: $k$, $\mu$ and $\sigma_{12}(k)$, is a function of one variable $k\mu

225: \sigma_{12}(k)$ only. The functional form of $D(k\mu \sigma_{12}(k))$

226: was found to depend on the cosmological model and the bias recipes,

227: but for small $k$ (large scales) where $D>0.1$, $D(k\mu

228: \sigma_{12}(k))$ can be accurately expressed by the Lorentz form,

229: \beq

230: D(k\mu \sigma_{12}(k))={1\over 1+{1\over 2}k^2\mu^2\sigma^2_{12}(k)}\,.

231: \label{eq2}

232: \eeq

233: This implies that the exponential form is a good model for the

234: distribution function of the pairwise velocity at large separation.

235: Applying the model of Equation (\ref{eq1}) to an observation of

236: $P^S(k,\mu)$ therefore may yield a determination for the four

237: quantities: $P^R(k)$, $\beta$, $\sigma_{12}(k)$ and the functional

238: form of $D(y)$ all of which are useful observables for testing galaxy

239: formation models.  An additional advantage is that the infall

240: effect is accounted for by the single parameter $\beta$, compared with

241: a complicated form for the infall velocity used in the correlation

242: function method.

243: 

244: In this paper, we apply this method to the LCRS, the largest redshift

245: survey publicly available. The redshift power spectrum $P^S(k,\mu)$ is

246: measured from the RTPCF $\xiz{}$ of this survey (JMB98) using the

247: method outlined in Section 2. The result is presented in section

248: 3. The statistical significance of the measurement, and the error

249: bars, is tested using mock samples in section 4. The final section

250: (\S5) is devoted to discussion and conclusions.

251: 

252: \section{Method}

253: 

254: We convert the redshift two-point correlation function $\xi_z({\bf s})$ 

255: to the redshift power spectrum by the Fourier transformation:

256: \beq

257: P^S({\bf k})=\int \xi_z({\bf s}) e^{-i{\bf k}\cdot {\bf s}} d{\bf s}\,.

258: \label{eq3}

259: \eeq

260: In cylindrical polar coordinates ($r_p, \phi, \pi$) with the

261: $\pi$-axis parallel to the line-of-sight, $P^S({\bf k})$ depends on

262: $k_p$, the wavenumber perpendicular to the line-of-sight, and on

263: $k_\pi$, the wavenumber parallel to the line-of-sight. The power spectrum

264: can be written

265: \beq

266: P^S(k_p,k_{\pi})=\int \xiz{} e^{-i[k_p r_p\cos(\phi)+\pi k_\pi]}

267: r_p dr_p d\phi d\pi\,.

268: \label{eq4}

269: \eeq

270: With some elementary mathematical manipulation, we get the following

271: expression:

272: \beq

273: P^S(k_p,k_{\pi})=2\pi \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\pi \int_0^{\infty} r_p dr_p

274: \xiz{} \cos(k_\pi \pi) J_0(k_p r_p)

275: \label{eq5}

276: \eeq

277: where $J_0(k_p r_p)$ is the zeroth-order Bessel function.

278: 

279: We will use the redshift two-point correlation function $\xiz{}$

280: of the LCRS measured by JMB98. In their

281: paper, JMB98 analyzed the correlation function for the whole sample as

282: well as for the three southern slices and the three northern slices

283: separately. Moreover, they have generated a large sample of mock

284: surveys with different observational selection effects and measured

285: $\xiz{}$ for them. Their tests with the mock samples are very

286: important, as emphasized by JMB98 themselves, for checking the

287: statistical methods, correcting for the observational selection

288: effects, and estimating the statistical errors of the measurements. We

289: will also use their results of the mock samples in this paper for the

290: same purposes.

291: 

292: In their work, JMB98 measured $\xiz{}$ in equal logarithmic bins of

293: $r_p$ and in equal linear bins of $\pi$. The reason why different

294: types of bins are chosen for $r_p$ and $\pi$ is the fact that $\xiz{}$

295: decreases rapidly with $r_p$ but is flat with $\pi$ on small

296: scales. Thus this way of presenting $\xiz{}$ is better than using the

297: $\log$-$\log$ or the linear-linear bins for $r_p$ and $\pi$, and is

298: also suitable for the present work.  The peculiar velocity of a few

299: hundred $\kms$ should smoothen out structures on a few $\mpc$ in the

300: radial direction, and the linear bin of $\Delta \pi_{i}=1\mpc$ is

301: suitable for resolving the structures in the radial direction. With

302: logarithmic bins chosen for $r_p$, the $r_p$ dependence is resolved

303: well, because otherwise the small scale clustering on the projected

304: direction cannot be recovered.

305: With this bin method, we obtain the power spectrum:

306: \beq

307: P^S(k_p,k_{\pi})=2\pi \sum_{i,j} \Delta \pi_{i} r_{p,j}^2 \Delta \ln r_{p,j}

308: \xi_z(r_{p,j},\pi_i) \cos(k_\pi \pi_i) J_0(k_p r_{p,j})

309: \label{eq6}

310: \eeq where $\pi_{i}$ runs from $-50$ to $50\mpc$ with $\Delta

311: \pi_{i}=1\mpc$ and $r_{p,j}$ from $0.1$ to $31.6\mpc$ with $\Delta \ln

312: r_{p,j}=0.288$ (Be careful not to confuse two $\pi$s in

313: Eqs. (\ref{eq5}) and (\ref{eq6}): the first $\pi$ in the

314: right-hand-side has the conventional meaning, i.e. 3.14159..., and the

315: others are for the axis along the line-of-sight.). We use the

316: summation of Eq.(8) with rectangular boundaries in $\pi$ and

317: $r_p$. This gives good, unbiased results for both the velocity

318: dispersion and the power spectrum, as will be seen in \S 4. This works

319: also better than a spherical window of radially decreasing weighting

320: which tends to bias the power spectrum estimates. We have tested this

321: throughly comparing the results for mock samples with those for the

322: full simulation.

323: 

324: There are several sources which could introduce errors to our

325: measurement of the redshift power spectrum. One is the Poisson error

326: related to the discrete sampling of galaxies, and the other is the

327: cosmic variance related to the limited volume of the survey. Both

328: types of uncertainty are intrinsic for any redshift survey, and are

329: already factored into the measured $\xiz{}$. When converting the

330: correlation function to the power spectrum with Eq.(\ref{eq6}), the finite

331: bins and the cutoffs of $r_p$ and $\pi$ may cause additional errors.

332: To reduce the effect of the finite bins, we divide every $\pi$ and

333: $\ln r_{p}$ bin into $N$ sub-bins, and use the cubic spline method

334: to interpolate $\xiz{}$. We have run a number of

335: trials for different numbers of the sub-bins $N$, and found that the

336: final result is insensitive to $N$. For the results presented in the

337: following sections, $N=10$ is used. Since these different types of

338: errors are mixed in a complicated way in the measured power spectrum,

339: we will use the mock samples to quantify the errors.

340: 

341: \cite{landyetal1998} have also considered the Fourier transform of the

342: redshift two-point correlation function for the LCRS survey.  Although

343: the spirit of their work and ours is similar, there are some important

344: differences. We have included the infall effect in our statistics and

345: consider the full angular $\mu$-dependence of the redshift power

346: spectrum. Furthermore, we will use the two dimensional integral

347: (Eq.\ref{eq5}) to determine both the velocity dispersion and the power

348: spectrum.

349: % \cite{landyetal1998} considered a {\it two-dimensional

350: %Fourier transform} (\S 3.2 of their paper) of the integrated RTPCF and

351: %calculated a velocity dispersion from it. This is different from

352: %the 3-dimensional Fourier transformation used here (Eqs. \ref{eq3} \&

353: %\ref{eq5}).  

354: 

355: \section {The redshift power spectrum in the Las Campanas redshift survey}

356: 

357: Since the redshift distortion does not change the total number of the

358: galaxy pairs at a certain projected distance, it is not difficult to

359: prove from Eq.(3) that $P^S(k,0)=P^R(k)$. Thus the damping factor

360: $D(k,\mu)$ can be estimated by the following expression

361: \beq

362: D(k,\mu)\equiv

363: {P^S(k,\mu)\over P^S(k,0)(1+\beta \mu^2)^2}\,.

364: \label{eq7}

365: \eeq

366: The quantities on the right hand side can be measured through Eq.(\ref{eq6})

367: except for the parameter $\beta$. If the observational catalog is

368: large enough, one can simultaneously determine the damping factor and

369: $\beta$ as described by JB2001. However, the LCRS is too small

370: to measure this quantity because, as we can see in Figure 1, there is a large statistical

371: fluctuation on large scales ($k\sigma_v\mu\ls 1$). This is consistent

372: with the recent estimates of Matsubara et

373: al. (\cite{matsubaraetal2000}) based on an eigenmode method, who give

374: $\beta=0.30\pm 0.39$. Therefore, we will not attempt to determine the

375: value of $\beta$. Instead we will focus on measuring the damping

376: function.  Here we fix a value for $\beta$, $\beta=0.5$, which is

377: consistent with the observations of the cluster abundance

378: (e.g. \cite{ks1996}) as well as with the statistical result of Matsubara et

379: al (\cite{matsubaraetal2000}) for the LCRS. We have checked the

380: results for $\beta=0.4$ and $\beta=0.6$, and found that our

381: conclusions are little changed if $\beta$ varies within this range.

382: %(see also Figure 8).

383: 

384: Figure~1 shows the inverse of the damping function $D(k,\mu)$ we measured

385: for the Las Campanas redshift survey. Following JB2001, the damping

386: factor is expressed as a function of the scaling variable $k\mu

387: \sigma_v$. For this figure, $\sigma_v$ is fixed to be a constant

388: $ 500\kms$, and only the data points which have a relative

389: error smaller than $50\%$ are presented. The error of $D(k,\mu)$ is

390: estimated from the scatter of this quantity between the

391: cluster-weighted mock samples (see \S 4 about the mock samples).  From

392: the figure, it is easy to see that our measured result of $D(k,\mu)$

393: can be well described by a Lorentz form (the solid line). This result

394: is consistent with the model studies of JB2001 who have shown that the

395: damping factors of different bias models are all very close to the

396: Lorentz form when the damping factor $D(k,\mu)\gs 0.1$. The LCRS

397: is still not large enough to explore the highly non-linear regime

398: where $D(k,\mu)\ll 0.1$. This also means that an exponential

399: distribution function for the pairwise velocities is a good

400: approximation in this range. In addition, we note that there exists

401: significant scatter on large scales $k\mu\sigma_v<1$, thus it is very

402: difficult to measure the $\beta$ value accurately with this catalog

403: (cf. Matsubara et al. \cite{matsubaraetal2000}).

404: 

405: As Figure 1 shows, the damping function that the LCRS can explore is

406: in the interval $0.1\ls D(k,\mu)< 1$. The accuracy is limited by the

407: sample-to-sample error (the cosmic variance) on large scale

408: ($D(k,\mu)\approx 1$). Since the LCRS measured the redshift for each

409: $1.5\times 1.5 {\rm ~deg^2}$ field by one exposure, the dense regions

410: in the galaxy distribution (e.g. clusters) are under sampled, which

411: seriously limits the accuracy of our measurement for small

412: scales [$D(k,\mu)\ll 1$]. For the regime which the LCRS can

413: effectively explore, the Lorentz form is a good approximation for the

414: damping function, consistent with the model study of JB2001.

415: Thus, we can determine the real-space power spectrum $P^R(k)$

416: and the pairwise velocity dispersion $\sigma_v$ by a least-square

417: fitting to the observed redshift power spectrum, assuming the Lorentz

418: form for the damping factor. Although $P^R(k)\equiv P^S(k,0)$

419: mathematically, for a finite-sized survey like the LCRS, $P^S(k,0)$

420: fluctuates around the true value of $P^R(k)$ for the limited number of

421: the modes. We can better determine $P^R(k)$ if we combine $P^S(k,\mu)$

422: at different angles $\mu$, thus we treat $P^R(k)$ as a free parameter.

423: 

424: We show such best fitting curves (the solid lines) together with the

425: measured redshift power spectrum in Figure 2. For the curves from top

426: to bottom, the wavenumber $k$ is incremented by $\Delta \lg k=0.2$

427: from $0.25\mpci$ to $2.5\mpci$. As the figure shows, the model we use

428: for $P^S(k,\mu)$ (i.e. the Lorentz form for the damping function and

429: equation \ref{eq1}) succeeds in describing the result of the LCRS

430: data.  Our best fitting values for $\sigma_{12}(k)$ and $P^R(k)$ are

431: plotted in Figures 3 and 4 respectively.  Here we have corrected the

432: {\it fiber collision effect of the survey} (\cite{shectmanetal1996})

433: for both quantities following the procedure of JMB98. The error bars

434: shown in these figures are simply the standard deviations for

435: identical analyses of the 60 mock samples. We have also used the

436: bootstrap method to estimate the errors, and found that the bootstrap

437: errors are typically $30\sim 50 \%$ smaller than the errors determined

438: from the mock samples. We prefer to adopt the mock errors, because

439: they have adequately included the sample-to-sample variations

440: (i.e. cosmic variances). In addition, the mock errors are not

441: sensitive to the bias model used; the mock samples constructed from

442: the dark matter particles give similar error estimates (cf. JMB98).

443: The velocity dispersion $\sigma_{12}(k)$ is nearly a constant from

444: $0.5$ to $3\mpci$. The average of $\sigma_{12}(k)$ for this $k$ range

445: is $510\pm 70 \kms$. This error bar for the averaged $\sigma_{12}(k)$

446: is only slightly smaller than the typical error $\sim 90\kms $ of each

447: individual $k$ bin, since the errors of individual $k$ bins are

448: correlated. Our result for $\sigma_{12}(k)$ is in good agreement with

449: our previous determination $570\pm 80\kms$ at a separation of

450: $r=1\mpc$ based on a fit to the two-point correlation function

451: (JBM98). A reasonable change for the $\beta$ value from 0.4 to 0.6

452: based on the cluster abundance observations (e.g. \cite{ks1996}) leads

453: to a change of $5\sim 10\%$ in $\sigma_{12}(k)$. The south (dashed

454: lines) and north (dotted lines) subsamples give a result consistent

455: with the whole sample within the statistical uncertainty.

456: 

457: Our measurement for the power spectrum $P^R(k)$ is presented in Figure

458: 4. The spectrum is approximately a power law for the range of scales that

459: the LCRS can explore. It decreases with $k$ approximately as $\propto

460: k^{-1.7}$ for $0.1\ls k \ls 4 \mpci$.

461: %, $\propto k^{-1}$ for $0.4\ls k

462: %\ls 4 \mpci$, and $\propto k^{-1.7}$ for $4 \ls k \ls 10 \mpci$. An

463: %apparent shoulder can be easily seen at . 

464: We consider this result very reliable, because we have tested our

465: method of a direct Fourier transform extensively with mock samples. In

466: our tests we found that this method is superior to using other types

467: of window functions, e.g. spherical ones, especially when the aim is

468: to obtain unbiased estimates of $\sigma_{12}$ and $P(k)$. These

469: results are qualitatively in agreement with the real space power

470: spectrum of the APM survey (\cite{baugh1994}). The shoulder at

471: $k\approx 0.4 \mpci$ apparent in Figure 4 appeared also in the APM

472: results (their Figure 11) at exactly the same scale, though the error

473: bars of the LCRS are much larger. We also note that the power-law

474: index of $P(k)$ for $0.4\ls k \ls 4 \mpci$ is $\approx -1.2$ compared

475: with $\approx -1.3$ of the APM survey.

476: 

477: \section{Mock samples and test of the method}

478: As we discussed in Section 2, there are several possible sources which

479: could introduce errors to our measured redshift power spectrum and to

480: our fitted quantities. The use of the finite bins and the cutoffs in

481: the radial and projected separations may lead to a certain systematic

482: bias in the measured power spectrum. When we write down equation

483: (\ref{eq1}), we implicitly make the distant observer assumption. There

484: are also statistical uncertainties in the power spectrum which are

485: related to the cosmic variance and the Poisson error inherent to a

486: redshift survey. All these uncertainties, systematic or statistical,

487: are however difficult to model with an analytical method. Fortunately,

488: they can be easily quantified with the help of the mock samples.

489: 

490: We will use the mock samples of JMB98 which were produced from a set

491: of CDM N-body simulations of 2 million particles. Three flat CDM

492: models were considered: one is the once standard CDM model of the

493: density parameter $\Omega_0=1$ and the normalization $\sigma_8=0.62$,

494: and the other two are low-density flat CDM universes with

495: parameters $(\Omega_0,\sigma_8)=$ $(0.2,1)$ and $(0.3,1)$

496: respectively. The known selection effects of the survey,

497: including the sky boundaries, the limiting magnitudes and the redshift

498: selection function, the observed rate due to the limited number of

499: fibers, and the missing galaxies due to the fiber mechanical

500: collision, were properly simulated in the mock samples.

501: Because the CDM models were found to have too steep a two-point

502: correlation and too large a pairwise velocity dispersion compared to

503: the LCRS result, JMB98 have introduced a simple bias model which under 

504: weights the cluster regions in the dark matter models. The mock

505: samples based on this bias model yielded much better matches to the

506: LCRS observation, and the model of $(\Omega_0,\sigma_8)=(0.2,1)$ was

507: shown to be consistent with the observations.

508: 

509: To test our statistical method, we will use two types of mock samples

510: of the cluster weighted $\Omega=0.2$ sample.  To test if there is any

511: systematic bias with the method, we will use mock samples which

512: incorporate all selection effects except the fiber collision. The

513: reason why we exclude the fiber collision effect is because it is not

514: possible to include this effect in a 3-D simulation sample, as the results

515: of the 3-D sample must be compared with those of the mock samples in the

516: test. To quantify the statistical errors of our measured quantities,

517: we will use the mock samples based on the cluster-weighted

518: $\Omega_0=0.2$ sample with the fiber collision effect. For these mock

519: samples, we will include or exclude the fiber collision effect in

520: order to measure the systematic effect of the fiber collision.

521: 

522: Figure 5 presents our determination of the damping function in the

523: cluster-weighted mock samples of $\Omega_0=0.2$ according to Equation

524: (\ref{eq7}). The right panel shows the result for one mock sample

525: which is randomly chosen. The damping function can be approximated by

526: a Lorentz function (the solid line) within the scatter as in the LCRS

527: observation. If we increase the number of mock samples to 60 and thus

528: reduce the noise, the mean damping function decreases slightly faster

529: than the Lorentz form at $k\mu\sigma_v\gs 3 $ (left panel). This

530: behavior was also found by JB2001 for the same model who measured the

531: damping function by FFT for the full simulations (thus achieving

532: higher accuracy). In fact, the mean damping function is not only

533: qualitatively but also quantitatively in good agreement with the

534: results of JB2001. This test indicates that our determinations for the

535: damping function are not systematically biased, though there still

536: exist considerable scatter for the LCRS. With the upcoming large

537: surveys 2dF and SDSS, we expect that the uncertainties of the redshift

538: power spectrum will be considerably reduced and it will become

539: practical to measure a damping function which can be used to

540: discriminate between theoretical models. For the LCRS, however, the

541: Lorentz form is still sufficiently accurate for a description of the

542: damping function.

543: 

544: Using the Lorentz form for the damping function, we determine the

545: pairwise velocity dispersion $\sigma_{12}(k)$ and the real-space power

546: spectrum $P^R(k)$ for the mock samples of the $\Omega_0=0.2$ model in

547: the same way as for the real catalog LCRS. These two quantities are

548: measured for each of the 60 samples, and the mean values and the

549: expected $1\sigma$ errors of the mean values are plotted in Figure 6

550: (symbols with error bars). The agreement is quite satisfactory with

551: the same two quantities measured from the true particle velocity and

552: positions in the simulation (solid lines, $k=1/r$ for the pairwise

553: velocity dispersion). The plots in Figure 6 demonstrate that this

554: method to estimate $\sigma_{12}(k)$ and $P^R(k)$ works well, and does

555: not suffer from a strong bias. There does exist some small systematic

556: bias, as appeared in the estimated velocity dispersion

557: $\sigma_{12}(k)$ at $k\approx 0.3 \mpci$ and $k\approx 1.5\mpci$,

558: which is likely caused by the sharp cutoffs in the radial and

559: projected separations and can be removed by estimating RTPCF to larger

560: separations.

561: 

562: Next we compare our statistical results with the predictions of the

563: CDM models using the cluster-weighted bias. The results are shown in

564: Figure 7. For the model with $\Omega_0=1$, we have shifted the power

565: spectrum by the factor $1/\sigma_8^2$, assuming a linear bias of

566: $1/\sigma_8$.  The power spectra are consistent with the LCRS

567: observation for the range of scales explored by the survey, but the

568: velocity dispersions of the CDM models are still systematically higher

569: than the observation. Only the CDM model with the density parameter

570: $\Omega_0=0.2$ is consistent with the observations. Its $1\sigma$

571: lower limit actually coincides with the LCRS result. Just as in JMB98

572: we may conclude that the flat, low-density models give a better fit to

573: the data than high-density CDM models. The cluster-weighted bias

574: improves the agreement between models and data remarkably. From Fig.6

575: we can see that without the cluster-weighted bias (dotted lines) the

576: velocity dispersion would increase by roughly $100\kms$, and the power

577: spectrum in real space would be about 2 times higher. Similar changes

578: could be seen in Fig.7, if the cluster-weighted bias were removed from

579: the model calculations.

580: 

581: In a previous paper (JB2001) we have shown that the bias model using

582: primordial density peaks gives even higher values for $\sigma_{12}(k)$

583: and $P^R(k)$, since the clusters have more weight than the dark matter

584: particles in that scheme. These arguments carry over to the analysis

585: of the LCRS data. It seems that a preference for the cluster-weighted

586: bias emerges from our analysis.

587: 

588: \section{Discussions and conclusions}

589: 

590: Here we want to comment briefly on some previous work on the

591: determination of the pairwise velocity dispersion $\sigma_{12}$ for

592: the LCRS. In JMB98 $\sigma_{12}$ has been determined based on the

593: traditional method of fitting the RTPCF. A value of

594: $\sigma_{12}=570\pm 80 \kms$ at $r_p=1\mpc$ has been obtained, but

595: figure 1 of JMB98 shows that this quantity is slightly smaller (about

596: 450 to 500 $\kms$) at smaller ($r_p\ls 0.3\mpc$) or larger ($r_p\gs

597: 3\mpc$) separations. Since some difference between the quantities in

598: Fourier space and coordinate spaces is expected, we regard our result

599: in this paper, $\sigma_{12}=510\pm 70\kms$ around $k=1\mpci$, to be in

600: excellent agreement with the result of JMB98 as well as the recent

601: results of Ratcliffe et al. (1998). The value is larger than that

602: Landy et al (1998) obtained based on an power spectrum analysis of the

603: LCRS who ignored the infall effect and considered $P^s(k,\mu)$ at

604: $\mu=(0,1)$ only.  In addition, the estimate of the power spectrum

605: $P^R(k)$ for the LCRS as a direct derivation from the redshift power

606: spectrum seems a reliable result in the interval between $0.1\mpci$

607: and $3\mpci$. We suspect that guesses at $P^R(k)$ for larger scales

608: (smaller $k$) suffer from the sample variation of the LCRS.

609: 

610: %In another publication Landy et al (1998) obtained $\sigma_{12}$ from

611: %the two-dimensional Fourier transform of the RTPCF which was measured

612: %by them for the LCRS. They obtained $\sigma_{12}=363\pm 44 \kms$

613: %for the wavelength $\lambda \approx 2\mpc$, which is significantly

614: %smaller than the value of JMB98 at $r\approx 2\mpc$. The discrepancy

615: %between the two approaches was suspected to arise from the neglect of

616: %the infall velocity by Landy et al. (\cite{jb1998}), though Jing \&

617: %B\"orner (1998) stressed that a direct test of the Landy et al method

618: %is necessary to reach a conclusive answer.

619: 

620: %Part of the motivation for our work was our wish to investigate the

621: %cause of the difference between our result (JMB98) for the pairwise

622: %velocity dispersion, and the result of (Landy et al. 1998). They

623: %calculated an integrated 2D-Fourier transform of the RTPCF at $\mu=1$

624: %and $\mu=0$ to derive the velocity dispersion. Comparing Eq.(9) for

625: %$\beta=0$ to the function for $\beta=0.5$ at $\mu=1$, we find that

626: %there is a factor $(\beta+1)^2\approx 2$ between the damping function

627: %of Landy et al. (1998) and the one used here. For wavenumber

628: %$(k\sigma_{12})^2 \gg 1$ which the survey can effectively explore,

629: %this translates into a factor $\sqrt{(1+\beta)^2}=1.5$ difference for

630: %the velocity dispersions. Simply multiplying the Landy et al. result

631: %by $1.5$ brings it up to the value derived by us. We may add that we

632: %find as $\mu$ approaches 1 the error bars on $P(k,\mu)$ get very

633: %large, making the analysis unreliable for $\mu=1$ (cf. Fig. 2). It

634: %must be stressed again that the significance of such results must be

635: %assessed as we have done here with the help of mock samples.

636: 

637: 

638: We reach the following conclusions:

639: \begin{itemize}

640: 

641: \item The power spectrum $P^R(k)$, and the pairwise velocity

642: dispersion $\sigma_{12}(k)$ can be estimated reliably from the

643: redshift power spectrum of the LCRS. An assumed form for the

644: distribution function of the pairwise velocity is not needed, although

645: it turns out that the damping function fits reasonably well to the

646: Lorentz form, over an interval in $k$ from $0.1\mpci$ to $3\mpci$.

647: The Lorentz form for the damping function is the Fourier transform of

648: the exponential distribution of the pair velocities. The fact that

649: over a range of the scales the Lorentz form is a satisfactory

650: approximation shows that in a corresponding range of $r$-scales, the

651: exponential distribution is a good model. A value for $\beta$ must be

652: assumed, but it has been reasonably determined by other observations.

653: 

654: \item The last values are $\sigma_{12}(k)=510\pm70\kms$ from $k=0.5$ to 

655: $3\mpci$, in agreement with JMB98; $P^R(k)\propto k^{-1.7}$ for

656: $k=0.1$ to $4\mpci$.

657: %, except for a shoulder at $k\approx 0.4

658: %\mpci$ where $P^R(k)\propto k^{-1}$ for $k$ between 0.4 and $4\mpci$.

659: 

660: \item Very important is the extensive use of mock samples which are

661: constructed from a large set of high resolution simulations. They

662: allow us to estimate the errors and the statistical significance of

663: the results reliably, despite the intricate way which various error

664: producing effects interact.

665: 

666: \item We find reasonable fits to these measured quantities only in

667: flat, low-density CDM models with a cluster-weighted bias. This

668: antibias model--the number of galaxies per unit mass in a massive

669: cluster is proportional to $M^\alpha$ ($M$ is the cluster mass) --

670: suggested in JMB98 obviously deserves attention in future work. It

671: should be pointed out that the parameter $\alpha=-0.08$ used in this

672: paper corresponds to a particular selection of galaxies: the LCRS

673: galaxies. For other mix of galaxies (i.e., other observational

674: criteria), $\alpha$ could be different. In our recent work (in

675: preparation), we found the bias model of $\alpha=-0.25$ can

676: successfully account for the clustering of IRAS galaxies.

677: 

678: \item The method applied here would be more powerful in samples larger

679: than the LCRS. The power spectrum $P^R(k)$, the $\beta$-value,

680: pairwise velocity dispersion, and the damping function can all be

681: determined simultaneously, if the data are good enough.

682: 

683: \end{itemize}

684: 

685: \acknowledgments

686: 

687: We are grateful to Yasushi Suto for the hospitality extended to us at

688: the physics department of Tokyo university where most of the

689: computation was completed. J.Y.P. gratefully acknowledges the receipt

690: of a NAO COE foreign research fellowship. The work is supported in

691: part by the One-Hundred-Talent Program, by NKBRSF(G19990754) and by

692: NSFC to Y.P.J., and by SFB375 to G.B..

693: 

694: 

695: \begin{thebibliography}{}

696: \bibitem[Baker, Davis \& Lin 2000]{bdl2000} Baker, J. E., Davis, M. \& Lin, H. 2000, \apj, 536, 112 

697: \bibitem[Bardeen et al. 1986]{bardeenetal1986} Bardeen, J. M., Bond, J. R., Kaiser, N. \& Szalay, A. S. 1986, \apj, 304, 15 

698: \bibitem[Bean et al. 1983]{beanetal1983} Bean A.J., Efstathiou G., Ellis R.S., Peterson B.A., Shanks T., 1983, MNRAS, 205, 605

699: \bibitem[Baugh \& Efstathiou, 1994]{baugh1994} Baugh C.M., Efstathiou G., 1994, MNRAS, 267, 323

700: \bibitem[Carlberg et al. 1996]{carlbergetal1996} Carlberg, R. G., Yee, H. K. C., Ellingson, E., Abraham, R., Gravel, P., Morris, S. \& Pritchet, C. J. 1996, \apj, 462, 32 

701: \bibitem[Davis et al. 1985]{davisetal1985} Davis M., Efstathiou G., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M.,1985, ApJ, 292, 371

702: \bibitem[Davis, Miller \& White 1997]{dmw1997} Davis, M., Miller, A. \& White, S. D. M. 1997, \apj, 490, 63 

703: \bibitem[Davis \& Peebles 1983]{dp1983} Davis, M. \& Peebles, P. J. E. 1983, \apj, 267, 465 

704: \bibitem[Fisher, et al. 1994]{fisheretal1994} Fisher, K. B., Davis, M., Strauss, M. A., Yahil, A. \& Huchra, J. P. 1994, \mnras, 267, 927 

705: \bibitem[Geller \& Peebles 1973]{gp1973} Geller, M. J. \& Peebles, P. J. E. 1973, \apj, 184, 329

706: \bibitem[Grogin \& Geller 1999]{gg1999} Grogin, N. A. \& Geller, M. J. 1999, \aj, 118, 2561 

707: \bibitem[Jing \& B\"orner 1998]{jb1998} Jing, Y. P. \& B\"orner, G. 1998, \apj, 503, 37 

708: \bibitem[Jing \& B\"orner 2001]{jb2001}Jing, Y. P. \& B\"orner, G. 2001,\apj, 547, 545

709: \bibitem[Jing, Mo \& B\"orner 1998]{jmb1998} Jing, Y. P., Mo, H. J. \& B\"orner, G. 1998, \apj, 494, 1 

710: \bibitem[Juszkiewicz, Fisher \& Szapudi 1998]{jfs1998} Juszkiewicz, R. , Fisher, K. B. \& Szapudi, I.  1998, \apjl, 504, L1

711: \bibitem[Kaiser 1987]{kaiser1987} Kaiser, N.  1987, \mnras, 227, 1 

712: \bibitem[Kepner, Summers \& Strauss 1997]{kss1997} Kepner, J. V., Summers, F. J. \& Strauss, M. A. 1997, New Astronomy, 2, 165 

713: \bibitem[Kitayama \& Suto 1996]{ks1996} 

714:        Kitayama, T. \& Suto, Y. 1996, ApJ, 469, 480

715: \bibitem[Landy, Szalay \& Broadhurst (1998)]{landyetal1998} Landy, S. D., Szalay, A. S. \& Broadhurst, T. J. 1998, \apjl, 494, L133 

716: \bibitem[Magira, Jing \& Suto 2000]{mjs2000} Magira, H. , Jing, Y. P. \& Suto, Y.  2000, \apj, 528, 30 

717: \bibitem[Marzke et al. 1995]{marzkeetal1995} Marzke, R. O., Geller, M. J., da Costa, L. N. \& Huchra, J. P. 1995, \aj, 110, 477 

718: \bibitem[2000]{matsubaraetal2000} Matsubara, T., Szalay, A. S. \& Landy, S. D. 2000, \apjl, 535, L1

719: \bibitem[Mo, Jing \& B\"orner 1993]{mjb1993} Mo, H. J., Jing, Y. P. \& B\"orner, G. 1993, \mnras, 264, 825

720: %\bibitem[Mo, Jing, \& B\"orner 1996] {mjb1996} Mo H.J., Jing Y.P., B\"orner G., 1997, MNRAS, 286, 979

721: \bibitem[Peebles 1976]{p1976} Peebles, P. J. E. 1976, \apss, 45, 3 

722: \bibitem[Peebles 1979]{p1979} Peebles, P. J. E. 1979, \aj, 

723: 84, 730

724: \bibitem[Peebles 1980] {p1980} Peebles P.J.E., 1980, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, Princeton University Press, Princeton

725: \bibitem[Postman et al. 1998]{postmanetal1998} Postman, M., Lauer, T. R., Szapudi, I. ;. \& Oegerle, W. 1998, \apj, 506, 33 

726: \bibitem[Ratcliffe et al. 1998]{ratcliffeetal1998} Ratcliffe, A., Shanks, T., Parker, Q. A. \& Fong, R. 1998, \mnras, 296, 191 

727: \bibitem[Shectman et al. 1996] {shectmanetal1996} Shectman S. A., Landy, S.D.,Oemler A., Tucker D.L., Lin H., Kirshner R.P., Schechter P.L., 1996,ApJ, 470, 172

728: \bibitem[Small et al. 1999]{smalletal1999} Small, T. A., Ma, C. -P. , Sargent, W. L. W. \& Hamilton, D.  1999, \apj, 524,31

729: \bibitem[Strauss, Ostriker \& Cen 1998]{soc1998} Strauss, M. A., Ostriker, J. P. \& Cen, R. 1998, \apj, 494, 20 

730: \bibitem[Zurek et al 1994]{zureketal1994} Zurek, W. H., Quinn, P. J., Salmon, J. K. \& Warren, M. S. 1994, \apj, 431, 559

731: \end{thebibliography}

732: 

733: \begin{figure}

734: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig1.ps}

735: \caption{The inverse of the damping function $D(k,\mu)$ of the Las Campanas Redshift

736:   Survey, plotted as a function of $k\mu\sigma_v$. In this plot, we

737:   have taken $\beta=0.5$ and $\sigma_v=500 \kms$.

738: }\label{fig1}\end{figure}

739: 

740: \begin{figure}

741: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig2.cps}

742: \caption{The redshift power spectrum $P^S(k,\mu)$ of the Las Campanas

743:   Redshift Survey. The solid lines are the best-fit curves for free

744:   parameters $\sigma_v$ and $P^R(k)$, assuming the Lorentz form for

745:   the damping function. Different colors correspond to

746: different values of $k$. From top to bottom, $k= 0.25$ to $2.5\mpci$

747: at $\Delta \lg k=0.2$.

748: }\label{fig2}\end{figure}

749: 

750: \begin{figure}

751: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig3.ps}

752: \caption{The pairwise velocity dispersion determined from the redshift

753: power spectrum for the Las Campanas Redshift Survey. The whole

754: sample, the south subsample, and the north subsample are represented

755: by the triangles (with error bars), the dashed and the dotted lines

756: (without error bars) respectively.}\label{fig3}\end{figure}

757: 

758: \begin{figure}

759: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig4.ps}

760: \caption{The real space power spectrum determined from the redshift

761: power spectrum for the Las Campanas Redshift Survey. The whole

762: sample, the south subsample, and the north subsample are represented

763: by the triangles (with error bars), the dashed and the dotted lines

764: (without error bars) respectively. 

765: }\label{fig4}\end{figure}

766: 

767: \begin{figure}

768: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig5.ps}

769: \caption{The inverse of the damping function $D(k,\mu)$ of the cluster-weight biased mock

770:   samples with $\Omega_0=0.2$, plotted as a function of

771:   $k\mu\sigma_v$. In this plot, we have set $\sigma_v=600 \kms$.

772:   }\label{fig5}\end{figure}

773: 

774: \begin{figure}

775: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig6.ps}

776: 

777: \caption{The pairwise velocity dispersion and real-space power

778:   spectrum determined for the 60 mock samples. The error bar is the

779:   expected $1\sigma$ error of the mean value of the 60 samples. The solid

780:   lines are the pairwise velocity dispersion measured from the

781:   peculiar velocity (assuming $k=1/r$ for the plot) and the real-space

782:   power spectrum from the particle spatial coordinates. Similar to the 

783:   solid lines, the dashed ones are measured from the full simulations

784:   but without the cluster-weighted bias.

785: }\label{fig6}\end{figure}

786: 

787: \begin{figure}

788: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig7.ps}

789: \caption{The pairwise velocity dispersion and real-space power

790:   spectrum determined for the Las Campanas Redshift Survey, compared

791:   to three CDM models with the cluster-weighted bias. The

792:   triangles are the results of the LCRS, and the lines are the

793:   $1\sigma$ upper and lower limits of the CDM models. 

794: }\label{fig7}\end{figure}

795: 

796: \end{document}

797: 

798: 

799: 

800: 

801: 

802: 

803: 

804: 

805: 

806: 

807: 

808: 

809: 

810: 

811: 

812: