1: \documentclass{aa}
2: %\documentclass{aa501} % for astro-ph
3: %\voffset=-1cm % also noeeded for astro-ph
4: %\documentclass[referee]{aa} % for submission
5: \usepackage{psfig}
6: %\usepackage{graphicx}
7: %\documentstyle[12pt]{l-aa}
8: %\documentstyle[11pt]{aa}
9: %\documentstyle[psfig]{mn}
10: %\input{psfig}
11: %\usepackage{epsfig}
12: %\input{epsfig}
13:
14: \newcommand{\flux}{erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$}
15: \newcommand{\tcdm}{$\tau$CDM\ }
16: \newcommand{\lcdm}{$\Lambda$CDM\ }
17: \newcommand{\ocdm}{OCDM\ }
18: \newcommand{\logns}{$\log N - \log S$}
19:
20: % Histoire
21: % redaction AR
22: % Modif IV 3/8/01
23: % Modif MP 5/8/01
24: % Modif IV 07/09/01
25: % Modif MP 12/09/01
26: % Modif AF 15/09/01
27: % Modif IV 17/09/01
28:
29: %\voffset=-1cm
30:
31: \begin{document}
32:
33:
34: \title{Cosmology with Galaxy Clusters in the XMM Large-Scale Structure
35: Survey}
36:
37: \author{Alexandre Refregier$^{1}$, Ivan Valtchanov$^{2}$,
38: %\thanks{ivaltchanov@cea.fr},
39: \& Marguerite Pierre$^{2}$}
40: \institute{$^{1}$ Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge
41: CB3 OHA, UK; ar@ast.cam.ac.uk\\
42: $^{2}$ Service d'Astrophysique, Bat. 709, CEA Saclay, F-91191,
43: Gif-sur-Yvette, France; ivaltchanov, mpierre@cea.fr}
44:
45: \titlerunning{Clusters in the XMM-LSS}
46: \authorrunning{Refregier et al}
47:
48: \date{Received, ~~~, Accepted, ~~~}
49:
50:
51: \markboth{Clusters in the XMM-LSS}{Refregier et al.}
52:
53: \abstract{The upcoming XMM Large Scale Structure Survey (XMM-LSS) will
54: ultimately provide a unique mapping of the distribution of X-ray
55: sources in a contiguous 64 deg$^{2}$ region. In particular, it will
56: provide the 3-dimensional location of about 900 galaxy clusters out to
57: a redshift of about 1. We study the prospects that this cluster
58: catalogue offers for measuring cosmological parameters. We use the
59: Press-Schechter formalism to predict the counts of clusters and their
60: X-ray properties in several CDM models. We compute the detection
61: efficiency of clusters, using realistic simulations of XMM X-ray
62: images, and study how it differs from a conventional flux limit. We
63: compute the expected correlation function of clusters using the
64: extended halo model, and show that it is expected to evolve very
65: little out to $z\simeq 2$, once the selection function of the survey
66: is taken into account. The shape and the amplitude of the correlation
67: function can be used to brake degeneracies present when cluster counts
68: alone are considered. Ignoring systematic uncertainties, the
69: combination of cluster counts evolution and of the correlation
70: function yields measurements of $\Omega_{m}$, $\sigma_{8}$ and
71: $\Gamma$ with a precision of about 15\%, 10\% and 35\%, respectively,
72: in a \lcdm model. This combination will also provide a consistency
73: check for the \lcdm model, and a discrimination between this model and
74: the \ocdm model. The XMM-LSS will therefore provide important
75: constraints on cosmological parameters, complementing that from other
76: methods such as the Cosmic Microwave Background. We discuss how
77: these constraints are affected by instrumental systematics and by the
78: uncertainties in the scaling relations of clusters.
79: \keywords{X-rays: galaxies: clusters; Galaxies: clusters: general; Cosmology:
80: cosmological parameters; Cosmology: large-scale structure of Universe;
81: Surveys} }
82:
83: \maketitle
84:
85: \section{Introduction}
86: Clusters of galaxies are the most massive bound objects in the
87: Universe and provide a powerful cosmological probe (see e.g. Borgani
88: \& Guzzo \cite{bor01b} for a review). In particular, the number counts
89: of clusters and its evolution yield a robust measure of both the
90: amplitude of the matter power spectrum and of the geometry of the
91: universe (e.g. Oukbir \& Blanchard \cite{ouk97}; Eke et al.
92: \cite{eke98}; Viana \& Liddle \cite{via99}; Kitiyama \& Suto
93: \cite{kit97}). The spatial correlation function of clusters
94: quantifies the clustering of these objects and yields complementary
95: constraints on cosmology (e.g. Mo, Jing \& White \cite{mo96b}; Suto et
96: al. \cite{sut00}; Robinson \cite{rob00}; Moscardini et
97: al. \cite{mos00}; Collins et al. \cite{coll00}).
98:
99: In this paper, we explore the prospects of measuring cosmological
100: parameters with the upcoming XMM Large Scale Structure Survey
101: (XMM-LSS; Pierre \cite{mp00}). This survey consists of 10 ksec
102: exposures of an $8\times 8$ deg$^{2}$ region with the XMM-Newton
103: observatory, along with an extensive follow-up programme in the
104: optical, IR and radio bands. In particular, it will provide the
105: 3-dimensional location of about 900 clusters out to a redshift of
106: about 1. Thanks to its uniform sensitivity across a contiguous
107: region, this survey thus provides a unique database to measure the
108: evolution of both the number counts and the correlation function of
109: clusters.
110:
111: To study how the clusters found in XMM-LSS can constrain cosmological
112: models, we use the Press \& Schechter (\cite{ps74}) formalism to
113: predict the expected cluster counts in the survey. This is done using
114: the selection function of the survey derived from detailed simulations
115: of cluster detections in XMM-Newton images (see Valtchanov, Pierre \&
116: Gastaud \cite{val01}, VPG). Using the Mo \& White (\cite{mo96a})
117: formalism, we compute the expected spatial correlation function for
118: the detected clusters. We then study how the cluster counts and
119: correlation function, taken together, constrain cosmological
120: parameters.
121:
122: Our analysis extends the work of Moscardini et al.
123: (\cite{mos00}) who considered the expected cluster counts and
124: correlation function for XMM-LSS. They however assumed a simple flux
125: limit, rather than the more realistic selection function which we
126: consider. In addition, they did not compute the cosmological
127: constraints from a joint measurement of the cluster counts and
128: correlation function with XMM-LSS. Our results also complement the
129: analysis of Romer et al. (\cite{rom01}) who studied the cosmological
130: dependence of cluster counts in the planned Serendipitous XMM Cluster
131: Survey. They are also related to the work of Haiman al. (\cite{hai01})
132: and Holder et al. (\cite{hol01}) who studied the cosmological
133: constraints which can be derived from the evolution of cluster counts
134: with a dedicated wide-angle X-ray mission.
135:
136: The paper is organized as follows. In \S\ref{XMM-LSS} we summarize the
137: characteristics of the XMM-LSS. In \S\ref{simulations}, we describe
138: the simulations for cluster detection and derive the cluster selection
139: function. In \S\ref{counts} we compute the expected cluster counts
140: using the selection function combined with the Press-Schechter
141: formalism. In \S\ref{correlation} we compute the correlation function
142: for this cluster sample and show how it constrains cosmological
143: parameters. The effects of systematic uncertainties on these
144: constraints are discussed in \S\ref{systematics}. Our conclusions are
145: summarized in \S\ref{conclusion}.
146:
147: \section{The XMM Large Scale Structure Survey}
148: \label{XMM-LSS} The XMM-LSS Survey is a unique medium-deep cluster
149: survey combining X-ray observations with an extensive optical, IR, and
150: radio follow-up programme (Pierre \cite{mp00}). The survey geometry -
151: coverage and depth - was chosen to allow the measurement of the
152: cluster two-point correlation function, with better than 15\% error on
153: the correlation length, in two redshift intervals between $z=0$ and
154: $1$.
155:
156: The position of the $8\times 8$ deg$^{2}$ surveyed area on the sky
157: ($\alpha = 2^{h}20^{m}$, $\delta = -5^{o}$) is at a sufficiently high
158: galactic latitude ($\approx -60^{o}$) in a region of moderate galactic
159: absorption and without known bright X-ray sources. It will be covered
160: by $24 \times 24$ partially overlapping XMM pointings with individual
161: exposure times of 10 ks, reaching a sensitivity of $3 \times 10^{-15}$
162: \flux\ in the $[0.5-2]$ keV band for point sources, or of about $5
163: \times 10^{-15}$ \flux\ for cluster-like extended sources. Down to
164: this limit, some 300 objects (mainly QSOs) per deg$^{2}$ are expected
165: according to the latest deep surveys (e.g. Hasinger et al.
166: \cite{has01}, Giacconi et al. \cite{gia01}), and a total of about
167: 10-15 clusters per deg$^{2}$ out to $z \simeq 1$. The survey is also
168: well suited to probe the existence of massive clusters within the
169: important $1 < z < 2$ redshift range. At the time of writing, 6
170: deg$^{2}$ with XMM have been allocated in guaranteed time and guest
171: observer time. The rest of the survey is subject to an ongoing
172: application and reviewing process.
173:
174: An extensive multi-wavelength follow-up programme has been undertaken
175: by the XMM-LSS consortium\footnote{Official web page of the
176: consortium: \\http://vela.astro.ulg.ac.be/themes/spatial/xmm/LSS/}.
177: Special care is given to the optical identification of the X-ray
178: sources: deep multi-color imaging of the entire region will be
179: performed by the Canada-France-Hawaii Legacy Survey\footnote{
180: http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr:2001/Instruments/Imaging/ Megacam} and
181: subsequent redshift measurements by the VIRMOS/VLT instrument and
182: other large telescopes to which the consortium has access. The main
183: priorities are: (1) identification and redshift measurement of all
184: X-ray clusters between $ 0 < z < 1 $, (2) NIR observations of distant
185: ($ z > 1 $) cluster candidates and, subsequently, determination of
186: their redshift, (3) serendipitous spectroscopic observations of the
187: X-ray QSOs, in order to study their clustering properties within the deep
188: potential-well network traced by the clusters.
189:
190: \section{Simulations}
191: \label{simulations}
192: In order to estimate the detection probability of clusters in the
193: survey, we performed a series of X-ray image simulations. While a
194: detailed description can be found in VPG, we first review here the
195: main features of the simulations. We then show how they can be used to
196: derive the selection function for the survey.
197:
198: \subsection{Cluster Detection in Simulated Images}
199:
200: The simulations reproduce the main characteristics of the XMM-EPIC
201: instruments, such as the Point-Spread Function (assuming circular
202: symmetry for the PSF shape; see VPG) and vignetting as a function of
203: energy and off-axis angle. These were parametrized using the latest
204: available on-flight calibrations. For the diffuse and particle
205: background, we have used the data from Watson et al. (\cite{wat01}).
206:
207: The point-like sources were laid at random inside the field-of-view.
208: Their fluxes were drawn from the $\log N - \log S$ data in Lockman
209: Hole (Hasinger et al. \cite{has01}) and Chandra deep field south
210: (Giacconi et al. \cite{gia01}). Their spectrum was taken to be a
211: power law with photon index 2.
212:
213: Clusters of galaxies were modeled as spherically symmetric objects
214: assuming a $\beta$-profile (e.g. Cavaliere \& Fusco-Femiano
215: \cite{cff76}) with fixed core radius $r_c=125\,h^{-1}$ kpc and slope
216: $\beta=0.75$ (see \S\ref{systematics} for a discussion of the
217: effect of a varying core radius on our predictions). A thermal plasma
218: spectrum (Raymond \& Smith \cite{rs77}) was assumed. The spectrum was
219: normalized using the non-evolving luminosity-temperature ($L-T$)
220: relation of Arnaud \& Evrard (\cite{arn99}). When generalized to
221: arbitrary cosmological model, it is given by
222: \begin{equation}
223: \label{eq:l_t}
224: L = 2.87 \times 10^{44}\left(\frac{T}{6{\rm keV}} \right)^{2.88}
225: \left( \frac{D_{L}}{D_{L,{\rm EdS}}} \right)^{2} h^{-2}
226: {\rm erg}~{\rm s}^{-1},
227: \end{equation}
228: where $L$ is the bolometric luminosity, $T$ is the X-ray temperature,
229: and $D_{L}$ and $D_{L,{\rm EdS}}$ are the luminosity distances in the
230: desired and Einstein-de Sitter cosmological models, respectively.
231:
232: We took the neutral hydrogen column density to be $N_H=5\times
233: 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ and element abundances $Z=0.3Z_{\odot}$. Using
234: XSPEC (Arnaud \cite{xspec}), we calculated the total expected count
235: rates for the extended and point-like sources for the three XMM EPIC
236: instruments\footnote{See e.g. the XMM-Newton User's Handbook:\\
237: http://xmm.vilspa.esa.es/user/uhb/xmm\_uhb.html} with thin filters
238: in [0.5-2] keV energy band, for an integration time of 10 ks.
239:
240: For a given temperature and redshift, we placed 13 clusters with
241: centers on a grid inside the inner $10\arcmin$ radius of the
242: field-of-view. This number was chosen to maximally fill this region
243: while avoiding overlaps. The grid pattern can be seen in the
244: right-hand panel of Figure~\ref{fig:sim1}. The detection was
245: performed in the same way as in VPG, i.e. using multi-scale (wavelet)
246: filtering assuming Poisson noise statistics (Starck \& Pierre
247: \cite{sp98}), followed by {\tt SExtractor} (Bertin \& Arnouts
248: \cite{sex}) detection and classification. As was pointed out in VPG,
249: this is currently the most suitable method to detect, characterize and
250: classify extended sources in XMM images. The raw photon and wavelet
251: filtered images for clusters with $T = 3$ keV at a redshifts of $z=1$
252: and 1.5 are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:sim1} and \ref{fig:sim2}.
253:
254: To cross-identify the detected objects with the input clusters we have
255: used a searching radius of $12\arcsec$. If a correspondence is found,
256: we perform a classification based on the half-light radius and the
257: stellarity index, to determine whether the object is extended. (For
258: the choice of the searching radius and the classification criteria,
259: see VPG). A cluster is finally considered to be detected if the
260: positional {\em and} the classification criteria are obeyed. This
261: procedure is close to the planned analysis of the incoming XMM data,
262: which will make use of the multi-color optical data to confirm
263: the existence of the X-ray cluster candidates.
264:
265: \begin{figure*}
266: \centerline{
267: \psfig{figure=fig1a.eps,width=8cm} \hfill
268: \psfig{figure=fig1b.eps,width=8cm}}
269: \caption{Simulated extragalactic XMM-LSS raw image (left) and the
270: corresponding wavelet filtered image with Poisson noise model and
271: $10^{-4}$ ($\sim 4\sigma$) significance (Starck \& Pierre 1998).
272: The energy band is $[0.5-2]$ keV, the exposure time 10ks, and the
273: three XMM instruments are added together (MOS1, MOS2 and pn).
274: Point-like sources follow the observed \logns\ relation and the
275: extended sources (clearly visible on the wavelet filtered image)
276: are clusters of galaxies with $T_X = 3$ keV at $z=1$ (see text for
277: details).}
278: \label{fig:sim1}
279: \end{figure*}
280:
281: \begin{figure*}
282: \centerline{
283: \psfig{figure=fig2a.eps,width=8cm} \hfill
284: \psfig{figure=fig2b.eps,width=8cm} }
285: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:sim1} but with clusters at $z=1.5$.}
286: \label{fig:sim2}
287: \end{figure*}
288:
289: \subsection{Selection Function}
290: \label{selection_function}
291: The selection function is a convenient way of quantifying the
292: detection sensitivity of a survey. It was computed for a number of
293: existing and future cluster surveys (eg. Romer et al. \cite{rom01}
294: for the XMM serendipitous Cluster Survey; Henry et
295: al. \cite{hen01} for the NEP ROSAT survey; Adami et al. \cite{ada00}
296: for the SHARC survey) using both analytical estimates and image
297: simulations.
298:
299: Here, we estimate the selection function of the XMM-LSS, by performing
300: a set of 10 simulations for a set of temperatures ($T=3,4,5,6,7,8,9$
301: keV) and redshifts ($z=0.6,1.0,1.5,1.8,2.0$). For each value of $T$
302: and $z$, the selection $\phi(T,z)$ of clusters for the survey was then
303: calculated by comparing the number of detections (and correct
304: classifications) $N_{\rm det}(T,z)$ to the number of input clusters
305: $N_{\rm in}(T,z)$, so that
306: \begin{equation}
307: \label{eq:phi}
308: \phi(T,z) = N_{\rm det}(T,z)/N_{\rm in}(T,z).
309: \end{equation}
310: Fig.~\ref{fig:phi_tz} shows the resulting selection function, which
311: gives the probability for a cluster with temperature $T$ and redshift
312: $z$ to be detected and classified as an extended object in the survey
313: catalogue. Approximately, 90\% of all clusters with $T > 3$ keV are
314: detectable out to $z \sim 0.6$. The selection function is close to
315: about 1 for $T>2$ keV and $z<0.5$ (not shown). Since we are only
316: interested in clusters (and groups), we set the selection function to
317: 0 for $T<2$ keV at all redshifts. This corresponds to a minimum
318: bolometric luminosity of about $1.2\times 10^{43}$ $h^{-2}$ erg
319: s$^{-1}$ (see Eq.~[\ref{eq:l_t}]) and can thus be easily implemented
320: in practice. As can be seen on the figure, low temperature clusters
321: become progressively harder to detect as the redshift increases
322: (compare Figs. \ref{fig:sim1} and \ref{fig:sim2}). For example, at
323: $z=2$ only clusters with $T>6$ keV yield a completeness better than
324: 90\%.
325:
326: Our results are consistent with that of Romer et
327: al. (\cite{rom01}; figure~5) who found that essentially all clusters
328: with with $T>2$ keV ($T>4$ keV) and $z \la 0.6$ ($z \la 1.0$) can be
329: detected in a survey with a sensitivity comparable to that of
330: XMM-LSS. Note that our selection function corresponds to the average
331: sensitivity over the inner 13 arcmin of a single XMM-EPIC
332: pointing. The effects of sensitivity variations produced by vignetting
333: and overlapping pointings are discussed in \S\ref{systematics}.
334:
335: It is instructive to compare our selection function to that
336: corresponding to a constant flux limit, as assumed in many previous
337: studies. The flux $S_{[0.5-2]}$ of a cluster in the $[0.5-2]$ keV band
338: at redshift $z$ can be derived from its temperature using the $L-T$
339: relation (Eq.~[\ref{eq:l_t}]), the Raymond-Smith spectrum and the
340: luminosity-distance relation. Using this correspondence, we can
341: express the selection function in terms of the flux rather than
342: temperature. The resulting selection function $\phi(S_{[0.5-2]},z)$ is
343: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phi_sz}. Our selection function clearly
344: does not exactly correspond to a sharp flux limit, but is instead a
345: smooth function of the flux. For latter comparison, we note that
346: a detection probability of 50\% corresponds approximately to a flux
347: limit of $S_{[0.5-2]} = 10^{-14}$ \flux\ at the redshifts of
348: interest.
349:
350: In the following, we will use our selection function which includes
351: most of the relevant instrumental and observational limitations. For
352: comparison, we will also consider the selection function corresponding
353: to the above flux limit, along with that corresponding to temperature
354: limit $T>2$ keV. The latter selection is useful to study the effect of
355: the removal of small clusters on our predictions.
356:
357: \begin{figure}
358: \centerline{
359: \psfig{figure=fig3.eps,width=8cm}}
360: \caption{\label{fig:phi_tz}Selection function $\phi(T,z)$ for
361: \lcdm model derived from the simulations. This function is
362: the probability that a cluster with temperature $T$ and redshift $z$
363: is detected and classified as an extended object in the survey
364: catalogue.}
365: \end{figure}
366:
367: \begin{figure}
368: \centerline{
369: \psfig{figure=fig4.eps,width=8cm}}
370: \caption{\label{fig:phi_sz}Selection function $\phi(S,z)$ expressed in
371: terms of the flux $S$ in the [0.5-2] keV band for the \lcdm model.
372: Only fluxes corresponding to temperatures above our 2 keV limit
373: are displayed. The vertical line shows a flux limit of
374: $10^{-14}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$; it illustrates deviations from a
375: strict flux limit when realistic observing conditions are taken into
376: account (esp. source confusion).}
377: \end{figure}
378:
379: \section{Cluster Counts}
380: \label{counts} We first compute the expected cluster number counts
381: in the survey. This is done using the cluster selection function
382: derived in the previous section combined with the Press-Schechter
383: formalism. We first briefly review the main assumptions involved in
384: our calculation of the mass function and of the temperature function
385: of clusters. We then compute the expected projected number of clusters
386: on the sky, as function of redshift. Finally, we show how the
387: resulting redshift distribution constrains cosmological parameters
388: within CDM models.
389:
390: \subsection{Mass Function}
391: \label{mass_function}
392: The Press-Schechter formalism provides an analytic expression for the
393: abundance of dark matter halos (Press \& Schechter \cite{ps74}). At a
394: given redshift $z$, the differential number of dark matter halos of
395: mass $M$ per unit comoving volume is
396: \begin{equation}
397: \label{eq:dndm}
398: \frac{dn}{dM} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \frac{\overline{\rho}}{M}
399: \frac{d\nu}{dM} e^{-\frac{\nu^2}{2}}
400: \end{equation}
401: where $\overline{\rho}$ is the present mean matter density. The peak
402: height is defined as $\nu(M)=\delta_{c}/\sigma(M)$, where $\sigma(M)$
403: is the linear rms fluctuation in a sphere containing a mean mass $M$.
404: We compute $\sigma(M)$ for an arbitrary cosmological model by
405: integrating the linear power spectrum $P_{\rm lin}(k)$ derived from
406: the BBKS transfer function (Bardeen et al. \cite{bar86}; with the
407: conventions of Peacock \cite{pea97}), evolved with the linear growth
408: factor $D(z)$. The density threshold $\delta_{c}$ depends weakly on
409: cosmology (i.e. on $\Omega_{m}$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$) and was
410: computed using the fitting formulae of Kitiyama \& Suto
411: (\cite{kit96}).
412:
413: \subsection{Temperature Function}
414: \label{t_function}
415: The X-ray temperature of a cluster at redshift $z$ is taken to be the
416: virial temperature which is given by (see e.g. Eke, Cole \& Frenk
417: \cite{eke96})
418: \begin{equation}
419: \label{eq:t_vir}
420: kT \simeq \frac{7.75}{\beta_{v}} (1+z) \Omega_{m}^{\frac{1}{3}}
421: \left( \frac{M}{M_{15}} \right)^{\frac{2}{3}}
422: \left( \frac{\mu}{0.59} \right)
423: \left( \frac{\Delta_{c}}{178} \right)^{\frac{1}{3}}
424: {\rm keV},
425: \end{equation}
426: where the average virial overdensity
427: $\Delta_{c}(z,\Omega_{m},\Omega_{\Lambda})$ can be evaluated using the
428: fitting formulae of Kitiyama \& Suto (\cite{kit96}), $M_{15} = 10^{15}
429: h^{-1} M_{\odot}$ and the value $\mu=0.59$ for the number of particles
430: per proton mass corresponds to a hydrogen mass fraction of 76\%. The
431: factor $\beta_{v}$ is equal to about 1 for a truncated singular
432: isothermal sphere. We adopt this value as it provides a good fit to
433: numerical simulations (Eke, Cole \& Frenk \cite{eke96}; Bryan \&
434: Norman \cite{bry97}).
435:
436: Combining Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dndm}) and (\ref{eq:t_vir}) we can derive the
437: differential temperature function
438: \begin{equation}
439: \label{eq:dndt}
440: \frac{dn}{dT}=\frac{dn}{dM}\frac{dM}{dT}.
441: \end{equation}
442: It is often more convenient to consider the number density of clusters
443: with temperatures above a given minimum, $n(>T) = \int_{T}^{\infty}
444: dT'~\frac{dn(T')}{dT}$.
445:
446: To illustrate the dependence of our prediction on cosmological
447: parameters, we consider the three cosmological models listed in
448: Tab.~\ref{tab:models}, i.e a tilted ($\tau$) CDM, \lcdm and
449: \ocdm. The normalization of these models is determined by $\sigma_{8}$,
450: the amplitude of mass fluctuations on $8 h^{-1}$ Mpc scale. Our chosen
451: numerical values correspond to the constraints derived from current
452: cluster surveys, namely $\sigma_{8} \simeq 0.52
453: \Omega_{m}^{-0.52+0.13\Omega_{m}}$ for the flat case and $\sigma_{8}
454: \simeq 0.52 \Omega_{m}^{-0.46+0.10\Omega_{m}}$ for the for the open
455: case (Eke et al. \cite{eke96}). The shape of the matter power spectrum
456: is controlled by the shape parameter $\Gamma$ which, unless otherwise
457: specified, we fix at 0.23, as indicated by galaxy clustering surveys
458: (see Viana \& Liddle \cite{via96} and reference therein).
459:
460: \begin{table}
461: \caption{Cosmological Models}
462: \label{tab:models}
463: %\begin{center}
464: \begin{tabular}{llllll}
465: \hline
466: Model & h & $\Omega_{m}$ & $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ & $\sigma_{8}$ & $\Gamma$ \\
467: \hline
468: \tcdm & 0.5 & 1 & 0 & 0.52 & 0.23 \\
469: \lcdm & 0.7 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.93 & 0.23 \\
470: \ocdm & 0.7 & 0.3 & 0 & 0.87 & 0.23 \\
471: \hline
472: \end{tabular}
473: %\end{center}
474: \end{table}
475:
476: %\begin{figure}
477: %\centerline{
478: %\psfig{figure=nt.ps,width=7cm}}
479: %\caption{\label{fig:nt}Integrated temperature functions $n(>kT)$ for
480: %the different cosmological models. For each model, the curves
481: %correspond, from top to bottom on the right hand side, to z=0, 0.5, 1
482: %and 2.}
483: %\end{figure}
484:
485: \subsection{Projected Cluster Counts}
486: From the temperature function $\frac{dn}{dT}$ (Eq.~[\ref{eq:dndt}]),
487: we can compute the projected surface density of clusters on the sky.
488: Noting that the comoving volume element is $dV=R^2d\chi d\Omega$,
489: where $d\Omega$ is the infinitesimal solid angle, $\chi$ is the
490: comoving radius and $R(\chi)$ is the comoving angular-diameter radius,
491: we find that the number of clusters per unit solid angle, temperature
492: and redshift interval is
493: \begin{equation}
494: \frac{dN}{dT dz} = R^{2} \frac{d\chi}{dz} \frac{dn}{dT},
495: \end{equation}
496: where $\frac{d\chi}{dz}=-\frac{c}{H_{0}} \left[ (1-\Omega) a^{-2}
497: +\Omega_{m} a^{-3} +\Omega_{\Lambda} \right]^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ as
498: derived from the Friedmann equations. As a result the observed surface
499: density of clusters per unit redshift
500: \begin{equation}
501: \label{eq:dnobsdz}
502: \frac{dN_{\rm obs}}{dz} = \int dT \frac{dN}{dT dz} \phi(T,z)
503: \end{equation}
504: where $\phi(T,z)$ is the survey selection function
505: (Eq.~[\ref{eq:phi}]).
506:
507: \subsection{Predictions}
508: The predicted projected counts as a function of redshift are shown on
509: Fig.~\ref{fig:nz64} for the three cosmological models whose parameters
510: are listed in Tab.~\ref{tab:models}. The counts correspond to the full
511: 64 deg$^{2}$ of the completed XMM-LSS survey. The counts from the
512: three models agree at low redshifts ($z<0.2$), as expected since the
513: three models were normalized with the number of clusters in the local
514: universe. On the other hand, the number counts differ greatly at
515: larger redshifts. The \tcdm model predicts much smaller number of
516: clusters at $z>0.2$, while the \lcdm and \ocdm models differ for
517: $z>0.6$. The predicted counts at $z>1$ are larger in the \ocdm model
518: compared to that in the \lcdm case, due to the somewhat slower
519: evolution of the growth factor in the open model. These differences
520: illustrate the well known fact that the evolution of cluster counts is
521: a powerful probe of $\Omega_{m}$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$. Note
522: that our predictions implicitly rely on the $L-T$ relation of
523: Eq.~(\ref{eq:l_t}), which was used to derive the selection function
524: $\phi(T,z)$ from the simulations (see \S\ref{simulations}).
525:
526: In the 64 deg$^{2}$ of the survey, the expected number of detected
527: clusters with $0<z<1$ (and $T>2$ keV) is about 900, 1000 and 175
528: for the \lcdm, \ocdm and \tcdm model, respectively. For $1<z<2$, the
529: expected counts are about 400, 900 and $<10$, for each model
530: respectively. Our total number of clusters for $0<z<2$ of about 1300
531: in the former model, is in approximate agreement with the predictions
532: of Moscardini et al. (\cite{mos00}) who predict about 1100 clusters in
533: the XMM-LSS for a \lcdm model with slightly different flux and
534: temperature thresholds.
535:
536: Fig.~\ref{fig:n_sigma8} shows how these predictions for the \lcdm
537: model depend on $\sigma_{8}$ and $\Omega_{m}$. Clearly, the number
538: counts are very sensitive on these two parameters. Taking
539: $\sigma_{8}=0.93 \pm 0.07$ for $\Omega_m=0.3$ (Eke et al.
540: \cite{eke96}), the expected number of clusters in this model is
541: between 600-1200 for $0<z<1$ and 200-700 for $1<z<2$.
542:
543: The effect of the selection function on these predictions are shown in
544: Fig.~\ref{fig:nz64_lcdm}. The number counts for the \lcdm model are
545: shown as a function of redshift, for our selection function
546: $\phi(T,z)$ (as in Fig.~\ref{fig:nz64}), for the flux limited case and
547: for the temperature limited case. For $z \ga 0.9$, the counts with the
548: selection function are larger than the flux limited counts. This is
549: expected, since a large number of clusters fainter than the flux limit
550: contribute to the $\phi(T,z)$ counts because of the tail of the
551: selection function (see Fig.~\ref{fig:phi_sz}). This demonstrates the
552: importance of considering all the observational details when making
553: such predictions, especially confusion by point-like sources, an
554: unavoidable drawback for a highly sensitive instrument. Notice that
555: the temperature limited counts agree with the other two for $z<0.4$.
556: This shows that our counts are limited mainly by the temperature at
557: low redshifts. Not surprisingly, the $T$-limited counts overpredict
558: the abundances for $z>0.4$. As a check, we have compared our
559: predictions with that of Romer et al. (\cite{rom01}). For their
560: effective flux limit of $S_{[0.5-2]}>1.5\times 10^{-14}$ erg s$^{-1}$
561: cm$^{-2}$ and $kT>2$ keV, we find that our predictions agree very well
562: with the counts shown in their Figure~6c.
563:
564: Note that the fluxes of the clusters measured in XMM-LSS will be
565: rather uncertain (see VPG). This will prevent us from making accurate
566: determinations of the luminosity, and therefore of the temperature and
567: of the mass, of each cluster. In this paper, we therefore
568: consider statistical quantities (such as the counts and the
569: correlation function) which are averaged over the population of
570: clusters detectable in the survey, and therefore do not require this
571: information. A study of the further constraints which can be derived
572: from the (uncertain) flux measurements is left to future work.
573:
574: \begin{figure}
575: \centerline{
576: \psfig{figure=fig5.eps,width=8cm}}
577: \caption{Projected number counts of clusters as a function of
578: redshift in the three cosmological models. The selection function
579: $\phi(T,z)$ for the XMM-LSS derived from image simulations was used
580: for each model. The redshift bins have a width of $\Delta z=0.05$.
581: \label{fig:nz64}}
582: \end{figure}
583:
584: \begin{figure}
585: \centerline{
586: \psfig{figure=fig6.eps,width=8.0cm}}
587: \caption{Projected number counts of clusters for the \lcdm model with
588: different selection criteria: with the selection function $\phi(T,z)$
589: (as in figure~\ref{fig:nz64}), with a temperature limit only ($kT>2$
590: keV), and with a flux limit ($S_{[0.5-2]}> 10^{-14}$ erg
591: s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$). Again, the redshift bins have a width of $\Delta
592: z=0.05$.
593: \label{fig:nz64_lcdm}}
594: \end{figure}
595:
596: \begin{figure}
597: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig7.eps,width=8cm}} \caption{Cluster
598: counts expected for the XMM-LSS as a function of $\sigma_{8}$ and
599: $\Omega_{m}$ in the \lcdm model. The XMM-LSS simulated selection
600: function was used in all cases. Counts for the $0<z<1$ and $1<z<2$
601: redshift intervals are shown as the solid and dashed lines,
602: respectively. In each case, models with $\Omega_{m}=0.4$, 0.3 and
603: 0.2, are shown from top to bottom, respectively.
604: \label{fig:n_sigma8}}
605: \end{figure}
606:
607:
608: \subsection{Cosmological Constraints from Cluster Counts}
609: \label{nz:constraints}
610:
611: We now wish to study how the cluster counts can be used to constrain
612: cosmological parameters. For this purpose, we generated cluster counts
613: from the predicted counts from Eq.~(\ref{eq:dnobsdz}) in \lcdm model
614: for several redshift bins (as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nz64} for
615: different models). We used the XLSS selection function $\phi(T,z)$ and
616: survey area, and considered redshift bins of width $\Delta z=0.1$ from
617: $z=0$ to $z=1$ assuming Poissonian errors for the number counts in
618: each bin. Note that the Poisson errors neglect the uncertainty arising
619: from cosmic variance; this is a good approximation since this latter
620: uncertainty is small for a survey area as large as that of the XLSS
621: (compare the correlation length $\sim 20 h^{-1}$ Mpc to the survey
622: size, $\sim 200 h^{-1}$ Mpc at $z \simeq 0.5$). We then calculated the
623: $\chi^{2}$-difference between the simulated counts and that expected
624: in a \lcdm model for a range of values for $\sigma_{8}$ and
625: $\Omega_{m}$. This approach is rather computer intensive, but it is
626: more accurate than the faster Fisher matrix method, which approximates
627: the confidence regions as ellipses and can be incorrect when the
628: parameter space is non-Gaussian (Holder et al. \cite{hol01}).
629: Note that our $\chi^{2}$ fitting method is only strictly valid for
630: gaussian errors. This is however a good approximation in our
631: case, given the large number of clusters in the redshift bins shown in
632: Figure~\ref{fig:nz64}, further enhanced by our use of $\Delta z=0.1$
633: bins rather than $0.05$ in the Figure.
634:
635: %In what follows, we assume that we have determined the cluster count
636: %distribution $n(z)$ from observations (and later, also calculated the
637: %correlation function $\xi(r)$) but that no prior information on the
638: %cosmology, i.e. $\Omega_m$, $\sigma_{8}$, $\Gamma$ is available. We
639: %want to investigate if the XMM-LSS data set alone allows the direct
640: %discrimination between \lcdm and \ocdm models, or if ``priors'' (like
641: %the value of $\Omega_m$ or the fact that we live in flat universe with
642: %a cosmological constant) are required to determine the value of the
643: %cosmological parameters. For the sake of the discussion, we model the
644: %``observed'' $n(z)$ and $\xi(r)$ according to the predictions of a
645: %\lcdm cosmology. We then calculate the $\chi^2$ probabilities that the
646: %``observed'' distributions come from a \lcdm or \ocdm cosmology. (We
647: %also calculated the cosmological constraints assuming the observations
648: %come from \ocdm model and checked that the conclusions are the same).
649: %In all what follows, we assume that only redshifts for the complete
650: %sample of clusters detected between $ 0 < z < 1$ are available
651: %(ultimately, however, all clusters out to $ z \sim 2$ should have
652: %their redshift measured, c.f. \S 2).
653:
654: %%In what follows, we shall assume that the observations are from a
655: %%\lcdm model (see Tab.~\ref{tab:models}). We discuss how can we tell
656: %%the cosmological model without any assumption about the cosmological
657: %%parameters and if we constrain $\Omega_m$ to its current most favoured
658: %%value of 0.3. Then we discuss the uncertainties for the cosmological
659: %%parameters we can obtain in the frame of \lcdm model. .
660:
661: %Practically, we use the XMM-LSS selection function $\phi(T,z)$ and
662: %survey area, and consider a binwidth $\Delta z=0.1$ from $z=0$ to
663: %$z=1$. We calculate the $\chi^{2}$ of the cluster counts to that
664: %expected in \lcdm and \ocdm models for a range of values for
665: %$\sigma_{8}$ and $\Omega_{m}$.
666:
667: The resulting constraints on these cosmological parameters are shown
668: as the solid lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:om_s8_lcdm}. The input \lcdm model
669: is that of Tab.~\ref{tab:models} and is shown with a cross. The 90\%
670: and 95\% confidence regions are shown as solid lines. The cluster
671: counts alone will provide tight constraints on both parameters, with
672: 95\% uncertainties of about 0.06 and 0.05 for $\sigma_{8}$ and
673: $\Omega_{m}$, respectively. As can be seen from the elongation of the
674: contours, the two parameters are however somewhat degenerate. Any
675: additional information on either parameters, can thus be used to
676: reduce their respective uncertainty. Note that these constraints
677: only reflect statistical errors, and neglect potentially important
678: systematic uncertainties in the scaling laws of clusters. A discussion
679: of the limitations imposed by systematics on our predictions is
680: presented in \S\ref{systematics}.
681:
682: %The resulting constraints on $\Omega_m$ and $\sigma_8$ given by the
683: %cluster number counts are shown as solid lines in
684: %Figs.~\ref{fig:om_s8_lcdm} and \ref{fig:om_s8_lcdm} for \lcdm and
685: %\ocdm fits correspondingly and can be summarized as follows: (i)
686: %Without any knowledge of the cosmology, the minimum of
687: %$\Omega_m-\sigma_8$ in \ocdm deviates at 90-95\% from Eke et al.
688: %(\cite{eke96}) relation for open cosmology, while it is consistent for
689: %\lcdm. Adding the condition that $\Omega_m=0.3$, the \ocdm model is
690: %excluded with more than 95\% confidence. (2) Assuming now that we live
691: %in a flat \lcdm model, the cluster counts alone will provide tight
692: %constraints on both parameters with uncertainties of about 0.06 and
693: %0.05 at the 95\% confidence level for $\sigma_{8}$ and $\Omega_{m}$,
694: %respectively. As can be seen from the elongation of the contours, the
695: %two parameters are however somewhat degenerate.
696:
697: \begin{figure}
698: \centerline{ \psfig{figure=fig8.eps,width=8.0cm}}
699: \caption{Constraints on the cosmological parameters $\Omega_m$ and
700: $\sigma_8$ for the \lcdm model, from the cluster counts
701: (solid lines) and from the correlation function (dashed lines).
702: In each case, the 68\%, 90\% and 95\% confidence level contours are
703: shown along with the assumed model (cross).
704: \label{fig:om_s8_lcdm}}
705: \end{figure}
706:
707: It is also interesting to investigate how cluster counts can constrain
708: $\Gamma$, the shape parameter of the matter power spectrum. For this
709: purpose, we follow the same $\chi^2$ procedure, this time varying
710: $\Gamma$ and $\Omega_{m}$, while $\sigma_{8}$ follows the Eke et
711: al. (\cite{eke96}) relation (see \S\ref{t_function}). The resulting
712: confidence contours for the \lcdm model are shown as the solid lines
713: in Fig.~\ref{fig:gamma_omega}. Clearly, these two parameters are quite
714: degenerate with counts alone, hampering the determination of
715: $\Omega_{m}$, which can only be determined with an accuracy of about
716: 40\% (95\% CL). More information is therefore required to alleviate
717: these limitations. One obvious possibility is to use other measures
718: of large-scale structure such as galaxy catalogues to constrain
719: $\Gamma$. This has the disadvantage of relying on assumptions about
720: the bias of galaxies and on an external data set. In the next section,
721: we show how the degeneracy can be broken by measuring the correlation
722: function of the galaxy cluster population.
723:
724: \begin{figure}
725: \centerline{ \psfig{figure=fig9.eps,width=8cm}}
726: \caption{Constraints on $\Gamma$ and $\Omega_m$ for the \lcdm,
727: from the cluster counts (solid lines) and from the
728: correlation function (dashed lines). As before, the 68\%, 90\%
729: and 95\% confidence level contours are shown (solid lines) along
730: with the assumed model (cross).
731: \label{fig:gamma_omega}}
732: \end{figure}
733:
734: \section{Cluster Correlation function}
735: \label{correlation}
736: We now turn to the cluster correlation function which quantifies the
737: spatial clustering of clusters in the survey. We first use the
738: extended halo model of Mo \& White (\cite{mo96a}) to predict the
739: observed cluster correlation function at a given redshift. We then
740: consider the average correlation function in a finite redshift range,
741: compute its uncertainties, and study the constraints its measurement
742: can place on cosmological parameters.
743:
744: \subsection{Observed Correlation Function : at a single redshift}
745: According to the Mo \& White (\cite{mo96a}) halo formalism, the
746: correlation function of two sets of clusters with masses $M$ and $M'$
747: and with comoving separation $r$ is given by
748: \begin{equation}
749: \xi(r,M,M',z) \simeq b(M,z) b(M',z) \xi_{\rm lin}(r,z),
750: \end{equation}
751: where $\xi_{\rm lin}(r,z)=\xi_{\rm lin}(r,0)D^{2}(z)$ is the linear
752: correlation function which is the Fourier Transform of the linear
753: power spectrum $P_{\rm lin}(k,z)$. The mass dependent bias parameter
754: of the halos is given $b(M,z)=1+(\nu^2-1)/\delta_c$, with the
755: conventions of \S\ref{mass_function}. Note that the separation of the
756: clusters is assumed to be small compared to the scale in which any
757: evolution takes place.
758:
759: %In the XMM-LSS, the temperatures of clusters will not be
760: %available. We will therefore measure the average correlation
761: %function of all clusters with detectable masses at a given
762: %redshift.
763: It is easy to show that the resulting observed correlation function in
764: a narrow redshift interval is given by (Suto et al. \cite{sut00};
765: Moscardini et al. \cite{mos00} and reference therein)
766: \begin{equation}
767: \xi_{\rm obs}(r,z)=b_{\rm eff}^{2}(z) \xi_{\rm lin}(r,z),
768: \end{equation}
769: where the effective bias is
770: \begin{equation}
771: b_{\rm eff}(z)= \int dM \frac{dn_{\rm obs}}{dM} b(M) \left/
772: \int dM \frac{dn_{\rm obs}}{dM} \right. ,
773: \end{equation}
774: and where the observed differential number counts are given by
775: $\frac{dn_{\rm obs}}{dM}=\frac{dn}{dT}\frac{dT}{dM}\phi(T,z)$. Note
776: that, in our analysis, we neglect redshift-space distortions which
777: were shown to yield only about 10\% corrections on the amplitude of
778: the correlation function (Suto et al. \cite{sut00}; Moscardini et al.
779: \cite{mos00})
780:
781: In general, the evolution of $\xi_{\rm obs}(r,z)$ is determined by two
782: competing effects. First, the growth of structures induces the linear
783: correlation function $\xi_{\rm lin}(r,z)$ to decrease as the redshift
784: increases. On the other hand, the clusters which are detectable at large
785: redshifts are more massive and therefore more strongly biased. The
786: effective bias $b_{\rm eff}(z)$ thus tends to be larger at high
787: redshift. To study the interplay between these two effects it is
788: convenient to define
789: \begin{equation}
790: b_{\rm eff,0}(z) \equiv \left[ \frac{\xi_{\rm obs}(r,z)}
791: {\xi_{\rm lin}(r,0)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}
792: = b_{\rm eff}(z) D(z).
793: \end{equation}
794: This quantity provides the bias of the observed cluster correlation
795: with respect to the linear correlation function at $z=0$, and
796: therefore quantifies the evolution of the correlation function.
797:
798: The behaviour of $b_{\rm eff,0}(z)$ is shown on Fig.~\ref{fig:beff0}
799: for the three cosmological models and for the XMM-LSS selection
800: function. The curves are remarkably flat for all models, showing that
801: the cluster correlation function evolves only very weakly from $z=0$
802: to $z=2$. It is interesting to study whether this lack of evolution
803: depends on the selection function. Fig.~\ref{fig:beff0_lcdm} shows
804: $b_{\rm eff,0}(z)$ for each selection scheme for the \lcdm model. The
805: evolution is also very weak for the temperature limited case. For
806: the flux-limited sample, the evolution is stronger for $z>1$. This
807: evolution is lost when the full selection function $\phi(T,z)$ is
808: used. In all cases, there is effectively no evolution for $0<z<1$. We
809: shall thus, in the following, derive the constraints on cosmology
810: integrating the correlation function over the $0<z<1$ range.
811:
812: \begin{figure}
813: \centerline{ \psfig{figure=fig10.eps,width=8cm}} \caption{Evolution
814: of $b_{\rm eff,0}(z)$, the effective bias of the cluster
815: correlation function $\xi_{\rm obs}(r,z)$ with respect to the
816: linear mass correlation function $\xi_{\rm lin}(r,0)$ at $z=0$.
817: This quantifies the evolution of the cluster correlation function.
818: It is shown for the three cosmological models as a function of
819: redshift. \label{fig:beff0} }
820: \end{figure}
821:
822: \begin{figure}
823: \centerline{ \psfig{figure=fig11.eps,width=8cm}}
824: \caption{Evolution of $b_{\rm eff,0}(z)$ in the \lcdm
825: model for different selection
826: schemes: the XMM-LSS selection function, a
827: temperature limited survey, and a flux limited survey.
828: \label{fig:beff0_lcdm} }
829: \end{figure}
830:
831: \subsection{Observed Correlation Function: Redshift Average}
832: To maximize the sensitivity, it is useful to measure the correlation
833: function over a wide redshift range. In this case, we must take into
834: account the pair-weighted evolution of the correlation function
835: $\overline{\xi}(r,z)$ within the light-cone section of interest. The
836: average correlation function in the redshift interval $z_{\rm
837: min}<z<z_{\rm max}$ is thus given by (Suto et al. \cite{sut00};
838: Moscardini et al. \cite{mos00} and reference therein)
839: \begin{equation}
840: \overline{\xi}_{\rm obs}(r) = \frac{
841: \int_{z_{\rm min}}^{z_{\rm max}}
842: dz~\frac{d\chi}{dz} R^{2} n_{\rm obs}^{2}(z)
843: \xi_{\rm obs}(r,z)}
844: {\int_{z_{\rm min}}^{z_{\rm max}} dz~\frac{d\chi}{dz} R^{2}
845: n_{\rm obs}^{2}(z)},
846: \end{equation}
847: where the observed number density of clusters is $n_{\rm obs}(z) =
848: \int~dT \frac{dn}{dT} \phi(T,z)$.
849:
850: The resulting correlation functions for the three cosmological models
851: are shown on Fig.~\ref{fig:xiobs}. The XMM-LSS selection function
852: was used in all cases, along with a redshift range of $0<z<1$. The
853: correlation functions for the 3 models have very similar shape, as
854: expected since the same value for $\Gamma$ was assumed in all cases.
855: Notice that the \tcdm correlation function has a lower amplitude
856: than that for the other two models. This is expected since the former
857: model has a lower value for $\sigma_{8}$ (see Tab.~\ref{tab:models}).
858: The \lcdm and \ocdm models have very similar values of
859: $\sigma_{8}$ and thus yield correlation functions with very similar
860: amplitudes.
861:
862: Our predictions are in good agreement with the results of
863: Moscardini et al. \cite{mos00}. In particular, for our \lcdm model,
864: these authors find a correlation length $r_{0}$ (defined by
865: $\overline{\xi}_{\rm obs}(r_{0})\equiv 1$) of about 13 and 15 h$^{-1}$
866: Mpc for $z<0.3$ and $z>0.3$, respectively. This is to be compared with
867: our value of $r_{0} \simeq 17$ h$^{-1}$ Mpc for $z<1$. We also
868: verified that the evolution of the correlation function is weak if we
869: adopt their assumed strict flux limit of $S_{[0.5-2]} = 5 \times
870: 10^{-15}$ \flux\ .
871:
872: \begin{figure}
873: \centerline{ \psfig{figure=fig12.eps,width=8cm}}
874: \caption{Prediction for the cluster correlation function averaged
875: in redshift interval $0<z<1$. The three cosmological models are
876: shown. For clarity, the expected measurement error bars for the
877: full 64 deg$^{2}$ of the XMM-LSS are shown only for the
878: \lcdm model.
879: \label{fig:xiobs}. }
880: \end{figure}
881:
882: \subsection{Uncertainties}
883: We now wish to estimate the uncertainty involved in measuring the
884: cluster correlation function. The simplest way to measure the
885: correlation function is to count the number of pairs in excess of
886: random in the survey volume. (This is sometimes taken as the
887: definition of the correlation function). An estimator for
888: $\overline{\xi}_{\rm obs}(r)$ in a bin of radii between $r$ and
889: $r+\Delta r$ is thus
890: \begin{equation}
891: \hat{\overline{\xi}}_{\rm obs}(r,\Delta r) \equiv
892: \frac{N_{\rm pairs}^{\rm obs}(r,\Delta r)}
893: {N_{\rm pairs}^{\rm ran}(r,\Delta r)} - 1,
894: \end{equation}
895: where $N_{\rm pairs}^{\rm obs}$ and $N_{\rm pairs}^{\rm ran}$ are the
896: number of pairs (i.e. with clustering) and for a random distribution
897: (i.e. without clustering), respectively, in the observed radius
898: interval. Ignoring boundary effects, the random number of pairs is
899: given by
900: \begin{equation}
901: N_{\rm pairs}^{\rm ran}(r,\Delta r) \simeq
902: 2\pi A r^{2} \Delta r \int_{z_{\rm min}}^{z_{\rm max}}
903: dz \frac{d\chi}{dz} R^{2} n_{\rm obs}^{2}(z),
904: \end{equation}
905: where $A$ is the solid angle of the survey.
906:
907: For weak signals, the error in measuring $\hat{\overline{\xi}}_{\rm
908: obs}(r,\Delta r)$ will be dominated by Poisson statistics, and will
909: thus be given by (see e.g. Peebles \cite{pee80})
910: \begin{equation}
911: \label{eq:xihat_error}
912: \sigma[\hat{\overline{\xi}}_{\rm obs}(r,\Delta r)]
913: \simeq \frac{1 + \xi(r)}{\sqrt{ N_{\rm pairs}^{\rm obs}(r,\Delta r)}}
914: = \sqrt{ \frac{1 + \xi(r)}{N_{\rm pairs}^{\rm ran}(r,\Delta r)}}.
915: \end{equation}
916: This provides us with an expression for the error in the correlation
917: function for a finite survey. The resulting errors for the \lcdm model
918: and for the full 64 deg$^{2}$ of the XMM-LSS are shown in
919: Fig.~\ref{fig:xiobs}. Again, these errors only reflect
920: statistical errors and neglect uncertainties in the cluster scaling
921: relations. A discussion of the impact of systematics, including that
922: arising from spatial variations of the survey sensitivity, is
923: presented in \S\ref{systematics}.
924:
925: %Another potential source of error is the uncertainty inherent to the
926: %measurement of the clusters fluxes on the XMM images, which may yield
927: %to incorrect temperature and mass derivations. However, in the cases
928: %discussed here, this question is irrelevant since the only two
929: %functions used are the number of detected clusters as function of
930: %redshift and the correlation function of the entire sample of detected
931: %clusters. This would not have been the case, though, if we had also
932: %considered the evolution of the correlation function for a given range
933: %of cluster masses or of the cluster luminosity function.
934:
935: \subsection{Combined Cosmological Constraints}
936: \label{cosmo_counts}
937: We now study how the measurement of the cluster correlation function
938: constrains cosmological parameters. As for the cluster counts
939: (\S\ref{cosmo_counts}), we use a $\chi^{2}$-fit to simulated
940: measurements of the correlation function to derive confidence regions
941: in parameter space. We considered a redshift interval of $0<z<1$ and
942: computed the errors using Eq.~(\ref{eq:xihat_error}).
943:
944: The resulting confidence contours for a joint fit of $\Omega_{m}$ and
945: $\sigma_{8}$ are shown as the dashed lines in
946: Fig.~\ref{fig:om_s8_lcdm}, for the \lcdm model. The constraints from
947: the correlation function are rather weak on this plane alone, with
948: little dependence on $\sigma_{8}$. These constraints are however
949: somewhat orthogonal to that from cluster counts and are thus
950: complementary.
951:
952: The constraints from the correlation function on $\Gamma$ and
953: $\Omega_{m}$ are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:gamma_omega}. The shape
954: of the resulting confidence contours agrees qualitatively with the
955: predictions of Moscardini et al. (\cite{mos00}) for the shallower
956: REFLEX survey. The contours show little dependence on
957: $\Omega_{m}$ and are therefore nearly orthogonal to that from cluster
958: counts alone. With the combined counts and correlation function
959: constraints, $\Omega_{m}$, $\sigma_{8}$ and $\Gamma$ can be measured
960: with a precision of about 15\%, 10\%, and 35\%, respectively at the
961: 95\% confidence level. The cluster correlation function thus provides
962: the required information to break the degeneracy present when cluster
963: counts alone are considered. The impact of systematics on these
964: constraints is discussed in \S\ref{systematics}.
965:
966: Until now, we have focused on the \lcdm model, thus implicitely
967: assuming prior knowledge that the universe is flat. While flatness is
968: strongly indicated by measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background
969: anisotropies (e.g. Jaffe et al.~\cite{jaf01}), it is interesting to
970: establish whether our predictions depend on this assumption. To study
971: this, we fitted an \ocdm model to the \lcdm predictions for both the
972: cluster counts and the correlation function. The resulting constraints
973: on $\sigma_{8}$ and $\Omega_{m}$ are shown in
974: Fig.~\ref{fig:om_s8_ocdm}. For the cluster counts, the best fit values
975: for both of these parameters are now biased (compare the best fit,
976: cross, to the input values, triangle). This bias again hampers the
977: determination of $\Omega_{m}$ using cluster counts alone. Thankfully,
978: the correlation function can again help overcome this limitation.
979: Indeed, the contours for $\xi(r)$ are now somewhat incompatible with
980: that from the counts (compare to Fig.~\ref{fig:om_s8_lcdm}). The
981: consistency between the counts and correlation function constraints
982: can thus be used as a diagnostic and as a discriminant between the
983: \lcdm and the \ocdm model.
984:
985: \begin{figure}
986: \centerline{ \psfig{figure=fig13.eps,width=8.0cm}}
987: \caption{Constraints on $\Omega_m$ and $\sigma_8$ resulting
988: from a fit of the \ocdm model to the \lcdm predictions. Both the
989: cluster counts (solid lines) and the correlation function
990: (dashed lines) are shown. In each case, the 68\%, 90\% and 95\%
991: confidence level contours are shown, along with the $\chi^2$
992: minimum (cross) and the input values for the \lcdm model (filled
993: triangle).
994: \label{fig:om_s8_ocdm} }
995: \end{figure}
996:
997: \section{Systematic Uncertainties}
998: \label{systematics}
999: So far in our analysis, we have neglected systematic
1000: uncertainties. Here we review the major source of systematics and
1001: discuss their impact on our predictions.\footnote{We thank Kathy
1002: Romer, the referee, for her many suggestions which are included in this
1003: section.}
1004:
1005: First, we have assumed that the $L-T$ and $M-T$ relations were
1006: perfectly known. Physical processes such as feedback from star
1007: formation and reionization, can modify these relationships and
1008: therefore yield detectable changes in the cluster counts and
1009: correlation function (see e.g. Muanwong et al. \cite{mua01} and
1010: reference therein). These could perhaps explain the discrepancy which
1011: has recently been found between the observed $M-T$ relation and that
1012: derived from numerical simulations (see Finoguenov, Reiprich, \&
1013: B\"{o}hringer \cite{fin01}; Allen, Schmidt, \& Fabian \cite{all01} and
1014: reference therein). Cluster mergers have also been shown to produce
1015: sharp temperature and luminosity jumps, thus likely affecting the
1016: $L-T$ relation (Ricker \& Sarazin \cite{ric01}). Another important
1017: issue is the existence of high redshift cooling flows which may affect
1018: the detectability of distant clusters and their $L-T$ relation
1019: (e.g. Henry \cite{hen00}).
1020:
1021: By the time the XMM-LSS is completed, better insights will be gained
1022: about these various physical effects, thanks to deep pointed
1023: observations of clusters with XMM and Chandra. An interesting way of
1024: parameterizing the residual uncertainties has been proposed by Diego
1025: et al. (\cite{dieg01}). These authors kept the normalisation and
1026: evolution of the different cluster scaling relations as free
1027: parameters, and studied the resulting degeneracies with cosmological
1028: parameters. It would be interesting to extend their approach to
1029: include constraints from the cluster correlation function. The study
1030: of these pending theoretical questions is left for future work.
1031:
1032: In our simulation, we have also assumed that the core radius $r_{c}$
1033: is fixed. More realistically, the core radius could vary with mass and
1034: redshift. For instance, Jones et al. (\cite{jon99}) found a
1035: correlation between core radii and temperatures in a cluster sample
1036: from the {\it Einstein} mission. Our detection sensitivity depends
1037: most strongly on the cluster flux, which is independent of the core
1038: radius in our simulations. A varying $r_{c}$ is therefore unlikely to
1039: affect our selection function very much, except perhaps in our ability
1040: to separate clusters from point sources.
1041:
1042: Another systematic effect arises from our assumption of a sharp
1043: temperature cutoff ($kT>2$ keV) for our cluster selection. Since
1044: temperatures will not be available with XMM-LSS, this will be enforced
1045: in practice by setting a luminosity cutoff, derived from the observed
1046: fluxes and redshifts. Because the luminosity function is very steep, the
1047: errors in the observed fluxes will lead to a bias tending to include
1048: low mass clusters in the counts. This effect can be corrected for by
1049: running simulations similar to ours, but which would include objects
1050: with $kT<2$ keV.
1051:
1052: Another complication is induced by variations in the detection
1053: sensitivity over the survey area. Figure~\ref{fig:texp} shows the
1054: effective exposure time for the XMM-LSS tiling strategy, in which the
1055: 10 ksec exposures are separated by 20 arcmin. As is apparent in the
1056: figure, vignetting causes variations in the exposure time of about
1057: 50\%, corresponding to flux sensitivity variations of about 25\%. This
1058: will affect both the uniformity of the cluster counts and the
1059: observed cluster correlation function. Since the vignetting function
1060: is well calibrated, the sensitivity variations can however be
1061: accurately predicted and corrected for. This can be done by using
1062: further image simulations to compute the selection function as
1063: a function of position. Note that, in the simulations we have presented
1064: in \S\ref{simulations}, we have only computed the average selection
1065: function by placing clusters throughout the inner 13' of a single
1066: XMM-EPIC pointing. Our detection limits are thus conservative, as they
1067: do not include the increased sensitivity afforded in the regions of
1068: overlap of two XMM fields.
1069:
1070: \begin{figure}
1071: \centerline{
1072: \psfig{figure=fig14.eps,width=8cm}}
1073: \caption{\label{fig:texp}Exposure time map for the XMM-LSS tiling
1074: pattern. Four XMM fields are displayed out to a maximum radius of 13'.
1075: The fields are separated by 20 arcmins from each other.}
1076: \end{figure}
1077:
1078: \section{Conclusions}
1079: \label{conclusion}
1080: Following the REFLEX survey (Guzzo et al. \cite{guz99}, B\"ohringer et
1081: al. \cite{boh01}) based on the ROSAT All-Sky-Survey and the NEP ROSAT
1082: survey (Henry et al. \cite{hen01}), the XMM-LSS survey will be about
1083: 1000 and 10 times deeper, respectively, and thus opens wide prospects
1084: for cosmology. Indeed, it will provide an independent measurement of
1085: cosmological parameter and thus complements Cosmic Microwave
1086: Background and Supernova experiments. It will also provide a test of
1087: important ingredients of the standard cosmological model, such as the
1088: gravitational instability paradigm and the gaussianity of initial
1089: fluctuations.
1090:
1091: To study the constraints XMM-LSS will set on cosmological parameters,
1092: we first derived the selection function for the survey using detailed
1093: simulations of cluster detection in XMM-Newton images. We found that
1094: our selection function differs significantly from a simple flux-limit
1095: selection. We then computed the expected number counts of clusters in
1096: several CDM models. We found that, for the currently favoured \lcdm
1097: model, we expect about 600-1200 clusters to be detectable in XMM-LSS
1098: at $0<z<1$ and about 200-700 at $1<z<2$, the uncertainty being
1099: dominated by the current errors on $\sigma_{8}$ and $\Omega_{m}$.
1100:
1101: Clusters counts beyond $z>0.5$ depend on cosmological parameters and
1102: can thus be used to constrain models. Within a \lcdm model, we found
1103: that the redshift dependence of the XMM-LSS cluster counts will allow
1104: us to measure $\sigma_{8}$ and $\Omega_{m}$ with a precision of about
1105: 6\% and 18\% (95\% CL), respectively, if the shape parameter $\Gamma$
1106: is known. In the absence of prior knowledge on $\Gamma$, the precision
1107: on these parameters degrades considerably, if only cluster counts are
1108: considered.
1109:
1110: %On this basis, considering
1111: %the $\Omega_m-\sigma_8$ plane, we have shown that the XMM-LSS data set
1112: %can discriminate between an \ocdm and a \lcdm model with more than
1113: %95\% confidence (assuming the $\Omega_m-\sigma_8$ relationship from
1114: %local abundance measurements, Eke et al. \cite{eke96}). This can be
1115: %strengthened if an additional information is available, for example
1116: %the value of $\Omega_m$. However, constraints on cosmology are weaker
1117: %in the $\Omega_m - \Gamma$ plane even with a priori knowledge on
1118: %$\Omega_m$.
1119:
1120: This limitation can be circumvented by considering the cluster
1121: correlation function. One of the strength of XMM-LSS is indeed to
1122: offer a uniform coverage over a wide contiguous area (64 deg$^{2}$),
1123: with an extensive spectroscopic follow-up. This will allow us to
1124: measure the correlation function in several redshift bins out to
1125: $z=1$. Using the extended halo formalism of Mo \& White
1126: (\cite{mo96a}), we computed the correlation function of clusters
1127: detectable in XMM-LSS. We find that, for the selection function of
1128: XMM-LSS, the correlation function is not expected to evolve
1129: significantly from $z=0$ to 2. This results from the competing effects
1130: of the growth of mass perturbations and the stronger bias of the
1131: detectable massive clusters at large redshifts. It will thus be
1132: important to compare the correlation function measured in two redshift
1133: bins between $z=0$ and $z=1$: the verification of the lack of
1134: evolution provides a test of the bias model for haloes and of the
1135: gravitational instability paradigm.
1136:
1137: The amplitude and shape of the cluster correlation function can be
1138: used to lift the degeneracies present when cluster counts alone are
1139: considered. Within a \lcdm model, the correlation function function
1140: measured in XMM-LSS at $0<z<1$, combined with the cluster counts, will
1141: constrain $\Omega_{m}$, $\sigma_{8}$ and $\Gamma$ with a precision of
1142: about 15\%, 10\% and 35\%, respectively (95\% CL). Moreover, the
1143: combination of the counts and the correlation function will provide a
1144: consistency check for the \lcdm model, and a discrimation between this
1145: model and the \ocdm model. The XMM-LSS therefore has great
1146: potentials for the measurement of cosmological parameters. Note
1147: however that the above constraints only reflect statistical errors and
1148: ignore the limitations arising from systematic
1149: uncertainties. Instrumental systematics, such as sensitivity
1150: variations, could be important but can be accurately corrected using
1151: further image simulations. Systematic uncertainties in the cluster
1152: scaling relations may also contribute significantly to the error
1153: budget. By the time the XMM-LSS is completed, better knowledge of
1154: these scaling relations will have been derived from deeper pointed
1155: observations with XMM and Chandra. The study of the impact of potential
1156: residual uncertainties on cosmological constraints with
1157: XMM-LSS is left for future work.
1158:
1159: \section*{Acknowledgements}
1160: We thank Kathy Romer, the referee, for her useful comments and
1161: criticisms, and for her numerous suggestions regarding systematic
1162: effects. AR was supported by a TMR postdoctoral fellowship from the
1163: EEC Lensing Network, and by a Wolfson College Research Fellowship.
1164:
1165: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1166: \bibitem[2000]{ada00}
1167: Adami, C., Ulmer, M.P., Romer, A.K., Nichol, R.C., Holden, B.P.,
1168: Pildis, R.A., 2000, ApJS, 131, 391
1169: \bibitem[2001]{all01}
1170: Allen, S.W., Schmidt, R.W., \& Fabian, A.C., 2001, MNRAS, 328, 37
1171: \bibitem[1996]{xspec}
1172: Arnaud, K.A., 1996, in ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 101, Astronomical Data
1173: Analysis Software and Systems V,eds. Jacoby G.H. \& Barnes J. (San
1174: Francisco: ASP), 17 (XSPEC)
1175: \bibitem[1999]{arn99}
1176: Arnaud, M. \& Evrard, A., 1999, MNRAS, 305, 631
1177: \bibitem[1986]{bar86}
1178: Bardeen, J.M., Bond, J.R., Kaiser, N., \& Szalay, A.S., 1986, ApJ,
1179: 304, 15
1180: \bibitem[1996]{sex}
1181: Bertin, E., Arnouts, S., 1996, A\&AS, 117, 393
1182: %\bibitem[2001]{bor01}
1183: % Borgani, S. 2001, Summary Talk at the XXI
1184: % Moriond Astrophysics Meeting: "Galaxy Clusters and the High Redshift
1185: % Universe Observed in X-rays", Eds. D.Neumann, F.Durret \& J. Tran
1186: % Thanh Van, preprint astro-ph/0106471
1187: \bibitem[2001]{bor01b}
1188: Borgani, S., \& Guzzo, L. 2001, Nature, 409, 39
1189: \bibitem[2001]{boh01}
1190: B\"ohringer, H., Schueker, P., Guzzo, L. et al., 2001, A\&A, 369,
1191: 826
1192: \bibitem[1997]{bry97}
1193: Bryan, G.L., \& Norman, L., 1997, ASP Conf Ser. 123:
1194: Computational Astrophysics; 12th Kingston Meeting on Theoretical
1195: Astrophysics, 363
1196: \bibitem[1976]{cff76}
1197: Cavaliere, A., Fusco-Femiano, R., 1976, A\&A, 49, 137
1198: \bibitem[2000]{coll00}
1199: Collins, C. A., Guzzo, L., B\"ohringer, H.,
1200: Schuecker, P., Chincarini, G.,
1201: Cruddace, R., De Grandi, S.,
1202: MacGillivray, H. T., Neumann, D. M.,
1203: Schindler S., Shaver P., Voges W., 2000, MNRAS, 319, 939
1204: \bibitem[2001]{dieg01}
1205: Diego, J.M., Mart\'inez-Gonz\'ales, E., Sanz, J.L.,
1206: Cay\'on, L., \& Silk, J., 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1533
1207: \bibitem[1996]{eke96}
1208: Eke, V.R., Cole, S., \& Frenk, C.S., 1996, MNRAS, 282, 263
1209: \bibitem[1998]{eke98}
1210: Eke, V.R., Navarro, J.F., \& Frenk, C.S., 1998, ApJ, 503, 569
1211: \bibitem[2001]{fin01}
1212: Finoguenov, A., Reiprich, T.H., \& B\"{o}hringer, H., A\&A, 368, 749
1213: \bibitem[2001]{gia01}
1214: Giacconi, R., Rosati, P., Tozzi, P. et al., 2001, ApJ, 551, 624
1215: \bibitem[1999]{guz99}
1216: Guzzo, L., B\"ohringer, H., Schuecker, P. et al., 1999, ESO
1217: Messenger, 95, 27
1218: \bibitem[2001]{hai01}
1219: Haiman, Z., Mohr, J.J., \& Holder, G., 2001, ApJ, 553, 545
1220: \bibitem[2001]{has01}
1221: Hasinger, G., Altieri, B., Arnaud, M., et al. 2001, A\&A, 365, L45
1222: \bibitem[2000]{hen00}
1223: Henry, J.P., 2000, ApJ, 534, 565
1224: \bibitem[2001]{hen01}
1225: Henry, J.P., et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, L109
1226: \bibitem[2001]{hol01}
1227: Holder, G., Haiman, Z., Mohr, J.J., 2001, ApJL, submitted
1228: (astro-ph/0105396)
1229: \bibitem[2001]{jaf01} Jaffe, A., et al. 2001, Phys.Rev.Lett. 86, 3475
1230: \bibitem[1999]{jon99}
1231: Jones, C., \& Forman, W., 1999, ApJ, 511, 65
1232: \bibitem[1996]{kit96}
1233: Kitiyama, T., \& Suto, Y., 1996, ApJ, 469, 480
1234: \bibitem[1997]{kit97}
1235: Kitayama, T., \& Suto, Y., 1997, ApJ, 490, 557
1236: \bibitem[1996]{mo96a}
1237: Mo, H.J. \& White, S.D.M., 1996, MNRAS, 282, 347
1238: \bibitem[1996]{mo96b}
1239: Mo, H.J., Jing, Y.P. \& White, S.D.M., 1996, MNRAS, 282, 1096
1240: \bibitem[2000]{mos00}
1241: Moscardini, L., Matarrese, S., \& Mo, H.J., 2000, astro-ph/0009006
1242: \bibitem[2001]{mua01}
1243: Muanwong, O., Thomas, P.A., Kay, S.T., Pearce, F.R., Couchman,
1244: H.M.P., ApJ, 552, L27
1245: \bibitem[1997]{ouk97}
1246: Oukbir, J., \& Blanchard, A. 1997, A\&A, 317, 1
1247: \bibitem[1997]{pea97}
1248: Peacock, J.A., 1997, MNRAS, 284, 885
1249: \bibitem[1980]{pee80}
1250: Peebles, P.J.E. 1980, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe
1251: (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press)
1252: \bibitem[2000]{mp00}
1253: Pierre, M., 2000, Procs. of ``Mining the sky'',
1254: Joint MPA/ESO/MPE conference, preprint astro-ph/0011166
1255: \bibitem[1974]{ps74}
1256: Press, W.H., \& Schechter, P., 1974, ApJ, 187, 425
1257: \bibitem[1977]{rs77}
1258: Raymond, J.C., Smith, B.W., 1977, ApJS, 35, 419
1259: \bibitem[2001]{ric01}
1260: Ricker, P.M., \& Sarazin, C.L., 2001, ApJ, 561, 621
1261: \bibitem[2000]{rob00}
1262: Robinson, J. 2000, submitted to MNRAS, astro-ph/0004023
1263: \bibitem[2001]{rom01}
1264: Romer, A.K., Viana, P.T.P., Liddle, A.R., \& Mann, R.G.,
1265: ApJ, 547, 594
1266: \bibitem[1998]{sad98}
1267: Sadat, R., Blanchard, A., \& Oukbir, J., 1998, A\&A, 329, 21
1268: \bibitem[1998]{sp98}
1269: Starck, J.-L., Pierre, M., 1998, A\&AS 128, 397
1270: \bibitem[2000]{sut00}
1271: Suto, Y., Yamamoto, K., Kityama, T., \& Jing, Y.P., 2000, ApJ, 534,
1272: 551
1273: \bibitem[2001]{val01}
1274: Valtchanov, I., Pierre, M. \& Gastaud, R., 2001, A\&A, 370, 689 (VPG)
1275: \bibitem[1996]{via96}
1276: Viana, P.T.P \& Liddle, A.R., 1996, MNRAS, 281, 323
1277: \bibitem[1999]{via99}
1278: Viana, P.T.P \& Liddle, A.R., 1999, MNRAS, 303, 535
1279: \bibitem[2001]{wat01}
1280: Watson, M.G., Augu\`eres, J.-L., Ballet, J., et al. 2001, A\&A, 365,
1281: L51
1282:
1283: \end{thebibliography}
1284:
1285: \end{document}
1286: