1: \documentclass{aastex}
2: \usepackage{emulateapj5}
3: \usepackage{apjfonts,pstricks,amsmath,epsfig,pst-node}
4:
5: \makeatletter
6: \newenvironment{inlinetable}{%
7: \def\@captype{table}%
8: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}
9: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}
10:
11: \newenvironment{inlinefigure}{%
12: \def\@captype{inlinefigure}%
13: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}
14: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}
15: \makeatother
16:
17: \newcommand\Acon{A_{\rm contamination}}
18:
19: \slugcomment{Submitted to {\it{The Astrophysical Journal}}}
20: \shortauthors{Gonzalez et al.}
21: \shorttitle{The LCDCS Correlation Function}
22:
23: \begin{document}
24: \title{The Las Campanas Distant Cluster Survey - The Correlation Function}
25:
26: \author{Anthony H. Gonzalez\altaffilmark{1}}
27: \affil{ Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street,
28: Cambridge, MA 02138}
29: \altaffiltext{1}{Present Address: Department of Astronomy, University of
30: Florida, P.O. Box 112055, Gainesville, FL 32611}
31:
32: \author{Dennis Zaritsky}
33: \affil{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933
34: North Cherry Avenue, Tuscon, AZ 85721}
35:
36: \author{Risa H. Wechsler\altaffilmark{2}}
37: \affil{Department of Physics, University
38: of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064}
39: \altaffiltext{2}{Present Address: Physics Department, University of Michigan,
40: Ann Arbor, MI 48109. }
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43:
44: We present the first non-local ($z>$0.2) measurement of the
45: cluster-cluster spatial correlation length, using data from the Las
46: Campanas Distant Cluster Survey (LCDCS). We measure the angular
47: correlation function for velocity-dispersion limited subsamples of the
48: catalog at estimated redshifts of $0.35\le z_{est}<0.575$, and derive
49: spatial correlation lengths for these clusters via the cosmological
50: Limber equation. The correlation lengths that we measure for
51: clusters in the LCDCS are consistent both with local results for the
52: APM cluster catalog and with theoretical expectations based upon the
53: Virgo Consortium Hubble Volume simulations and the analytic
54: predictions. Despite samples containing over 100 clusters, our ability
55: to discriminate between cosmological models
56: is limited because of statistical uncertainty.
57:
58: \end{abstract}
59:
60: \section{Introduction}
61:
62: The spatial correlation function of galaxy clusters provides an
63: important cosmological test, as both the amplitude of the correlation
64: function and its dependence upon mean intercluster separation are
65: determined by the underlying cosmological model. In hierarchical
66: models of structure formation, the spatial correlation length, $r_0$,
67: is predicted to be an increasing function of cluster mass, with the
68: exact dependence
69: %of $r_0$ as a function of mass
70: determined by $\sigma_8$
71: (or equivalently $\Omega_0$, using the constraint on
72: $\sigma_8-\Omega_0$ from the local cluster mass function) and the
73: power spectrum shape parameter, $\Gamma$. Low density and low $\Gamma$ models
74: generally predict stronger clustering for a given mass and a greater
75: dependence of the correlation length upon cluster mass.
76:
77: The three-space correlation function of clusters was first measured for
78: subsamples of the Abell catalog by \citet{bah83} and \citet{kly83}.
79: Both groups found that the correlation function is well-described by a power
80: law, $\xi(r)=(r/r_0)^{-\gamma}$, and obtained
81: a correlation length
82: $r_0\simeq 25 h^{-1}$ Mpc with $\gamma$$\simeq$2. \citet{bah83} also
83: observed a strong dependence of correlation strength upon cluster richness,
84: which was later quantified by \citet{bah88} and \citet{bah92w} as a roughly
85: linear dependence of $r_0$ upon $d_c$, the mean intercluster separation.
86: \citet{pos92} and \citet{pea92} confirmed the form of the correlation function
87: for the Abell catalog in their larger spectroscopic samples, with
88: both studies obtaining $r_0$$\simeq$20$h^{-1}$ Mpc for clusters with richness
89: class R$\ge$1.
90:
91: While these correlation lengths have strong implications for cosmological
92: models, a key problem with interpretation of the Abell results
93: is concern
94: that the observed correlation lengths are positively skewed by
95: projection effects and sample inhomogeneities
96: \citep[see][]{sut88,dek89,efs92,pea92}.
97: Several analyses find that $\xi(\sigma,\pi)$ is strongly anisotropic,
98: evidence that these effects are significant \citep{sut88,efs92,pea92}.
99: Still, the net impact of these factors is unclear. Contrary to the
100: concerns raised by these studies,
101: \citet{mil99} use an expanded
102: sample of Abell clusters to derive correlation lengths that are
103: consistent with earlier analyses and robust to projection effects, and
104: \citet{van97} argue
105: that projections are insufficient to account for the stronger correlation
106: observed in the Abell catalog as compared to the APM catalog \citep{dal92}.
107:
108:
109: Fortunately, independent
110: constraints on the correlation function have arisen as new catalogs with
111: automated, uniform selection criteria have become available
112: \citep[e.g.,][]{dal92,nic92,dal94,nic94,rom94,cro97,collins2000,mos2000}.
113: Some of the recent optical catalogs, such as the APM \citep{dal92}, also
114: probe to lower $d_c$ than the Abell samples, while the X-ray samples provide
115: greatly improved leverage for the most massive (highest $d_c$) clusters.
116: While
117: systematic variations persist between samples, the existing data are generally
118: consistent with $r_0$ slowly increasing with $d_c$
119: \citep[however, see][]{collins2000}.
120:
121: To exploit the growth of observational data, there has been a corresponding
122: theoretical effort to predict the cluster spatial correlation function as
123: a function of mass and epoch. Driven by
124: cosmological volume N-body
125: simulations \citep[e.g.,][]{gov99,col2000,mos2000} and the development of a
126: well-tested analytic formalism \citep{mo96,she99,smt1999},
127: a theoretical framework has been established that enables derivation
128: of quantitative cosmological constraints from the observational data.
129: The mass dependence can be studied using existing data sets and is typically
130: best matched by
131: low-density models \citep[see][]{cro97,bor99b,collins2000}, although systematic uncertainties
132: and observational scatter have precluded precision cosmological constraints.
133: In contrast, the redshift dependence remains unconstrained because the data have not
134: existed to test the evolutionary predictions of these models.
135:
136: In this paper we utilize the Las Campanas Distant Cluster Survey (LCDCS) to
137: determine the spatial correlation length at $z$$\simeq$0.45.
138: We first measure the angular correlation function for a series of
139: subsamples at this epoch and then derive the corresponding $r_0$ values via
140: the cosmological Limber inversion \citep{peebles80,efs91,hud96}. The resulting
141: $r_0$ values
142: constitute the first
143: measurement at this epoch of the dependence of the cluster correlation
144: length upon $d_c$, probing mean separations similar to previous local optical
145: catalogs.
146: Popular structure formation models predict only a small
147: amount of evolution from z=0.45 to the present, as illustrated in section 5. We
148: test this prediction by comparing our results with the local observations.
149:
150: \section{The Las Campanas Distant Cluster Survey}
151: \label{sec-lcdcs}
152:
153: The recently completed Las Campanas Distant Cluster Survey, which
154: contains 1073 candidates, is the largest published catalog of galaxy
155: clusters at $z\ga0.3$ \citep{gon2001}. Clusters are detected in the
156: LCDCS as regions of excess surface brightness relative to the mean sky
157: level, a technique that permits wide-area coverage with a minimal
158: investment of telescope time. The final statistical catalog covers an
159: effective area of 69 square degrees within a $78\degr\times1.6\degr$
160: strip of the southern sky ($860\times24.5$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc at $z$=0.5 for
161: $\Omega_0$=0.3 $\Lambda$CDM). \citet{gon2001} also provide estimated
162: redshifts, $z_{est}$, based upon the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG)
163: magnitude-redshift relation that are accurate to $\sim$15\% at
164: $z_{est}=0.5$, and demonstrate the existence of a correlation between
165: the peak surface brightness, $\Sigma$, and velocity dispersion,
166: $\sigma$. Together these two properties enable construction of
167: well-defined subsamples that can be compared directly with simulations
168: and observations of the local universe.
169:
170:
171: \section{The LCDCS Angular Correlation Function}
172: \label{sec-angular}
173: We wish to measure the two-point angular correlation function
174: for both the full LCDCS catalog and for well-defined
175: subsamples at $z$$\simeq$0.45 that we shall use to constrain the mass dependence of
176: the correlation length. \citet{gon2001} find that the velocity
177: dispersion is related to the peak surface brightness of the cluster
178: detection via
179: $\log\sigma\propto\log \Sigma(1+z)^{5.1}$, and so we employ this
180: relation to define subsamples that are roughly velocity dispersion
181: limited (see Figure \ref{fig:sbthreshold}).
182: Error in the redshift dependence of this relation can induce a systematic
183: bias in construction of our subsamples; however, this uncertainty is
184: sufficiently small as to have negligible impact for the LCDCS data within
185: the redshift range of the subsamples. We restrict all subsamples to $z$$>$0.35
186: to avoid sample incompleteness at lower redshift, while the maximum
187: redshift ($z$=0.575) is set by sample size. Subsamples with larger
188: redshift limits (and hence higher surface brightness limits) result
189: in smaller samples ($N$$<$100) and correspondingly larger statistical
190: uncertainties.
191:
192: To compute the two-point angular correlation function, we use the
193: estimator of \citet{lan93},
194: \begin{equation}
195: \omega(\theta)=\frac{n_r(n_r-1)}{n(n-1)}\frac{DD}{RR}-\frac{n_r-1}{n}\frac{DR}{RR}+1,
196: \label{eqn:lscor}
197: \end{equation}
198: which \citet{ker2000} have demonstrated is more robust than other
199: algorithms. In Equation \ref{eqn:lscor}, $n$ is the number of
200: clusters, $n_r$ is the number of random points, DD is the number of
201: cluster pairs with angular separation $\theta\pm\delta\theta/2$, RR is
202: the number of random pairs with the same separation, and DR is the
203: number of cluster-random pairs. To construct
204: \begin{inlinefigure}
205: \plotone{f1.eps} \figcaption[sbthreshold.eps]{Extinction-corrected
206: surface brightness distribution of the LCDCS clusters used to
207: construct subsamples. The solid lines denote the redshift and
208: $\Sigma(1+z)^{5.1}$ thresholds of the subsamples. The dotted curve is
209: the surface brightness threshold of the full LCDCS catalog for
210: E($\bv$)=0.05. Candidates at the detection threshold in lower
211: extinction regions will lie slightly below this curve. Errors in the
212: estimated redshifts move individual data points along tracks similar
213: to this curve.
214: \label{fig:sbthreshold}}
215: \end{inlinefigure}
216: \vskip 0.1cm
217: \noindent the random sample, we
218: first generate a list of 44,000 random, unmasked locations within the
219: survey region (2000 locations in each of the 22 scan sets that
220: comprise the LCDCS survey). Next, we reject locations that fail any
221: of the automated cluster selection criteria described in
222: \citet{gon2001}, yielding a final random sample of 33,886 positions.
223:
224: Modelling the correlation function as a power law,
225: \begin{equation}
226: \omega(\theta)=A_\omega \theta^{1-\gamma}=
227: \left(\frac{\theta}{\theta_0}\right)^{1-\gamma},
228: \end{equation}
229: we use a maximum likelihood approach to determine the best-fit values
230: for $A_\omega$ and $\gamma$. Similar to \citet{cro97} and \citet{bor99b}, we
231: maximize the likelihood function for an assumed Poisson probability distribution,
232: \begin{equation}
233: {\cal{L}}=\prod_{i}^{N} p_i =\prod_{i}^{N} \frac{\mu_i^{n_i}
234: \exp(-\mu_i)}{n_i!},
235: \end{equation}
236: where $n_i$ and $\mu_i\equiv<DD>$ are the observed and expected number
237: of pairs
238: in the interval d$\theta$. The final results from the maximum likelihood
239: analysis are not dependent upon the exact choice of d$\theta$, which can be
240: made almost arbitrarily small.
241: To determine the best-fit model parameters we use pairs with separations
242: of 2$\arcmin$ -- 5$\degr$, and Monte Carlo simulations are utilized to determine
243: the associated 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties.
244: Specifically, we use the best-fit parameters as initial values, generate
245: 1000 random realizations of the cluster-cluster pair distribution, and then
246: use the distribution of recovered parameter values to quantify the
247: observational uncertainties.
248: The angular correlation function for the entire LCDCS catalog and for our
249: lowest redshift subsample are shown in Figure \ref{fig:angcf}, overlaid
250: with best-fit power law models. For the full LCDCS catalog,
251: we obtain $\gamma$=$-1.78\pm0.10$ and
252: $A_\omega$=$-1.44\pm0.04$ ($\theta_0$=51$\pm$22$\arcsec$).
253:
254: \begin{table*}
255: \begin{center}
256: \caption{Angular Correlation Lengths}\label{tab:cf}
257: \begin{tabular}{clllllll}
258: \hline\hline
259: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$z$} &
260: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$<$$z$$>$} &
261: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$N$} &
262: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\log A_\omega$} &
263: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\gamma$} &
264: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f$} &
265: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\log A_{\omega,cor}$} \\
266: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(1)} &
267: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(2)} &
268: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(3)} &
269: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(4)} &
270: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(5)} &
271: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(6)} &
272: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(7)} \\
273: \hline
274: All & 0.56 &1073 & $-1.44\pm$0.04 & 1.78$\pm$0.10 & 0.29 & $-1.18\pm$0.04 \\
275: 0.35-0.475 & 0.42 & 178 & $-1.26\pm$0.17 & 2.15$\pm$0.19 & 0.14 & $-1.13\pm$0.19 \\
276: 0.35-0.525 & 0.46 & 158 & $-1.35\pm$0.33 & 2.30$\pm$0.33 & 0.16 & $-1.20\pm$0.33 \\
277: 0.35-0.575 & 0.50 & 115 & $-1.42\pm$0.47 & 2.51$\pm$0.45 & 0.19 & $-1.24\pm$0.45 \\
278: \\
279: All & 0.56 &1073 & $-1.73\pm$0.05 & 2.15 & 0.29 & $-1.47\pm$0.05 \\
280: 0.35-0.475 & 0.42 & 178 & $-1.26\pm$0.13 & 2.15 & 0.14 & $-1.13\pm$0.13 \\
281: 0.35-0.525 & 0.46 & 158 & $-1.25\pm$0.14 & 2.15 & 0.16 & $-1.10\pm$0.14 \\
282: 0.35-0.575 & 0.50 & 115 & $-1.14\pm$0.18 & 2.15 & 0.19 & $-0.96\pm$0.18 \\
283: \hline
284: \end{tabular}
285:
286: \medskip
287: \begin{minipage}{0.60\linewidth}
288: {\small
289: Note --- (1) Redshift range used to measure the angular correlation. (2) Number of
290: clusters. (3) Values
291: of $\log A_\omega$ are for $\theta$ in degrees.
292: (7) Contamination-corrected amplitude of the angular
293: correlation function.
294: The second set of parameters in the table is for fixed values of the slope $\gamma$.
295: }
296: \end{minipage}
297: \end{center}
298: \end{table*}
299:
300: Table \ref{tab:cf} lists information for the full LCDCS catalog and
301: the three subsamples at $z$$\simeq$0.45, including the redshift range
302: spanned by each subsample, the mean redshift of the subsample, the best-fit values of $A_\omega$ and
303: $\gamma$, and the estimated fractional contamination. We also
304: present best-fit values for $A_\omega$ fixing
305: $\gamma$=2.15 --- equivalent to the best-fit value for the lowest
306: redshift subsample and similar to the best fit value for the ROSAT
307: All-Sky Survey 1 Bright Sample \citep[][$\gamma$=2.11$^{+0.53}_{-0.56}$]{mos2000}.
308:
309: Because the LCDCS candidates are not spectroscopically confirmed,
310: we must correct the correlation amplitude $A_\omega$ for the impact
311: of contamination before this data can be used to derive the spatial
312: correlation length $r_0$.
313: If we assume that the contamination is spatially correlated
314: and can be described by a power law with the same slope as the cluster
315: angular correlation function (a reasonable approximation because for
316: galaxies, which are likely the primary contaminant,
317: $\gamma$$\simeq$1.8-1.9 \citep[e.g.][]{roc99,cab2000}), then the
318: observed angular correlation function is
319: \begin{equation}
320: \omega(\theta) = A_\omega \theta^{1-\gamma} =
321: \left(A_{\rm cluster} (1-f)^2+\Acon f^2\right) \theta^{1-\gamma},
322: \end{equation}
323: where $f$ is the fractional contamination. For detections induced by
324: isolated galaxies of the same magnitude as BCG's at $z\simeq0.35$ (and
325: identified as galaxies by the automated identification criteria
326: described in \citealt{gon2001}), we measure that $A_{\rm gal}$ is
327: comparable to $A_{\omega_A}$, the net clustering amplitude for all
328: LCDCS candidates at 0.3$<$$z$$<$0.8. For detections identified as low
329: surface brightness galaxies (including some nearby dwarf galaxies) we
330: measure $A_{\rm LSB}\simeq10A_{\omega_A}$. While these systems are
331: strongly clustered, we expect that they comprise less than half of the
332: contamination in the LCDCS. For multiple sources of contamination the
333: effective clustering amplitude $\Acon=\sum A_i f_i^2/(\sum f_i)^2$, so
334: the effective clustering strength of the contamination is $\Acon\la
335: 2.5 A_{\omega_A}$ even including the LSB's.
336:
337: The last column in Table \ref{tab:cf} gives the
338: contamination-corrected value of $A_\omega$, under the assumption that
339: $\Acon=A_{\omega_A}$. If the effective correlation amplitude of the
340: contamination is in the range $\Acon=(0-2.5) A_{\omega_A}$ (which
341: corresponds to uncorrelated contamination for the lower limit), then
342: the systematic uncertainties in $A_\omega$ and the corresponding uncertainties
343: in the $r_0$ values derived
344: in \S\ref{subsec-cfres} are $\la1$\%. These uncertainties, which are
345: small because the contamination only contributes to the observed correlation
346: function with weight $f^2$, are far less than
347: the statistical uncertainties in all cases. Uncertainty in the
348: fractional contamination of the catalog yields a larger 6\% systematic
349: uncertainty in $r_0$, which is also less than the typical statistical
350: uncertainty.
351: \begin{table*}[t]
352: \begin{center}
353: \caption{Spatial Correlation Lengths}\label{tab:rodc}
354: \begin{tabular}{lllllll}
355: \hline\hline
356: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$z$} &
357: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\Lambda$CDM ($\Omega_0=0.3$) } &
358: \multicolumn{2}{c}{OCDM ($\Omega_0=0.3$)} &
359: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\tau$CDM($\Gamma$=0.2)} \\
360: \multicolumn{1}{c}{range} &
361: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$d_c$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_0$} &
362: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$d_c$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_0$} &
363: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$d_c$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_0$} \\
364: \hline
365: 0.35-0.475 & 38.4 & 14.7$^{+2.0}_{-2.2}$ & 33.8 & 12.9$^{+1.7}_{-2.0}$ & 30.9 & 11.8$^{+1.5}_{-1.8}$ \\
366: 0.35-0.525 & 46.3 & 16.2$^{+2.7}_{-3.3}$ & 40.6 & 14.2$^{+2.3}_{-2.8}$ & 36.9 & 12.9$^{+2.1}_{-2.5}$ \\
367: 0.35-0.575 & 58.1 & 18.2$^{+4.0}_{-4.9}$ & 50.8 & 15.8$^{+3.4}_{-3.9}$ & 46.0 & 14.4$^{+3.1}_{-3.8}$ \\
368: \\ \hline
369: \end{tabular}
370: \medskip
371: \begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
372: {\small
373: Note --- The units for $d_c$ and $r_0$ are $h^{-1}$ Mpc. Listed uncertainties are statistical.
374: }
375: \end{minipage}
376: \end{center}
377: \end{table*}
378:
379:
380: \section{The Spatial Correlation Length}
381: \label{subsec-limber}
382:
383: The observed angular correlation function can be used to determine the
384: three-space correlation length if the redshift distribution of the
385: sample is known. This is accomplished via the cosmological Limber
386: inversion \citep{peebles80,efs91,hud96}. For a power-law correlation
387: function with redshift dependence $f(z)$,
388: \begin{equation}
389: \xi(r)=\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^{-\gamma}\times f(z).
390: \end{equation}
391: The corresponding comoving spatial correlation length is $r_0(z)=r_0
392: f(z)^{1/\gamma}$, and the Limber equation is
393: \begin{eqnarray}
394: r_o^\gamma & = & A_\omega\frac{c}{H_0}\frac{\Gamma(\gamma/2)}{\Gamma(1/2)\Gamma[(\gamma-1)/2]} \times \\
395: & & \left[
396: \frac{\int_{z1}^{z2} (dN/dz)^2 E(z) D_{A}(z)^{1-\gamma}
397: f(z) (1+z) dz}
398: {\left(\int_{z1}^{z2} (dN/dz) dz\right)^2}\right]^{-1},
399: \end{eqnarray}
400: where $dN/dz$ is the redshift distribution of objects in the sample,
401: $D_{A}(z,\Omega_0, \Omega_\Lambda)$ is the angular diameter distance,
402: and
403: \begin{equation}
404: E(z)=[\Omega(1+z)^{3} + \Omega_R(1+z)^{-2} +\Omega_\Lambda]^{1/2},
405: \end{equation}
406: as defined in \citet{peebles93}. Because little evolution in the
407: clustering is expected over the redshift intervals spanned by our
408: subsamples (see the Appendix and Figure \ref{fig:cfvslocal}), $f(z)$
409: can safely be pulled out of the integral.
410:
411: We estimate the true redshift distribution of clusters in each LCDCS
412: subsample, $dN/dz$,
413: based upon the observed distribution of estimated redshifts, $dN_{obs}/dz$.
414: Because the redshift distribution of the full LCDCS catalog is slowly varying
415: over the redshift interval probed by our subsamples,
416: we are able to derive approximate models for the $dN/dz$ of the
417: subsamples by \\
418: \begin{inlinefigure}
419: \plotone{f2.eps} \figcaption[angcf.eps]{ Angular correlation functions
420: for the entire LCDCS catalog and for a volume-limited subsample with
421: $0.35\le z<0.475$. The solid lines are best-fit power law models,
422: with the best-fit parameters given in Table \ref{tab:cf}. The data shown
423: are plotted with bins of width $\Delta\log \theta$=0.2; for the actual
424: maximum likelihood analysis of the
425: subsamples we use $\Delta\log \theta$=0.005.
426: \label{fig:angcf}}
427: \end{inlinefigure}
428:
429: \vskip 0.35cm
430: \noindent convolving the $dN_{obs}/dz$ with Gaussian scatter
431: \citep[$\sigma_z/z$$\approx$0.14 at $z$=0.5;][]{gon2001}, which eliminates
432: the sharp redshift limits imposed on $z_{est}$ in construction of the
433: subsamples.
434: The rigorously correct method for obtaining the $dN/dz$ is to
435: {\it de}convolve the scatter; however, our approximation is sufficiently
436: accurate for use in the Limber inversion because of both the slow
437: variation of the LCDCS redshift distribution at this epoch
438: and the weak dependence of the Limber inversion upon $dN/dz$.
439: To test the validity
440: of this approach, we also try modeling the $dN/dz$ using the theoretical
441: mass function of \citet{she99} convolved with redshift uncertainty.
442: Comparing these two methods we find that the derived spatial
443: correlation lengths agree to better than 3\% for all
444: subsamples. This result is insensitive to the exact mass
445: threshold assumed for the theoretical mass function, again due to the weak
446: dependence of the Limber inversion upon $dN/dz$.
447:
448:
449:
450:
451: \section{Results and Comparison with Local Data}
452: \label{subsec-cfres}
453:
454: Table \ref{tab:rodc} lists the correlation lengths ($r_0$) and mean
455: separations ($d_c$) that we derive for each of the three subsamples,
456: \begin{inlinefigure}
457: \plotone{f3.eps}
458: \figcaption[fiducial] {Comparison of the LCDCS data with
459: local samples for a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $\Omega_0$=0.3.
460: The error bars on the LCDCS data correspond to the 1-$\sigma$
461: statistical uncertainty. Overlaid are the results from the Virgo
462: Consortium Hubble Volume simulations \citep{col2000} and analytic
463: predictions ($\Gamma$=0.2) for $z$=0 and $z$=0.45. These fiducial
464: curves do not account for the impact of uncertainty in cluster
465: masses (see Figure \ref{fig:apmcomp}).
466: \label{fig:cfvslocal}}
467: \end{inlinefigure}
468: \\
469: treating both $\gamma$ and $A_\omega$ as free parameters.
470: Both the $r_0$ and $d_c$ values are
471: cosmology-dependent, and so we list the derived values for
472: $\Lambda$CDM ($\Omega_0$=0.3), OCDM ($\Omega_0$=0.3), and $\tau$CDM
473: cosmologies.
474: Values of $d_c$ in Table \ref{tab:rodc} are computed as $d_c\equiv
475: n^{-1/3}=[N(1-f)/V]^{-1/3}$, where $N$ is the number of clusters, $f$
476: is the contamination rate, and V is the effective comoving volume for
477: a given subsample. Including the impact of Gaussian scatter upon the
478: redshift distribution, the effective comoving volume for a subsample
479: with redshift bounds $z_1$ and $z_2$ is
480: \begin{equation}
481: V=\delta\Omega\times\int_{z_1}^{z_2}{dz\;p\frac{dV}{d\Omega dz}}
482: \end{equation}
483: The effect of the redshift uncertainty is contained in $p$, which is
484: the probability that a cluster at redshift $z$ will be observed to \\
485: \noindent have an estimated redshift within the redshift range spanned by the
486: subsample. For Gaussian redshift scatter,
487: \begin{equation}
488: p(z)=\frac{\int_{z_1}^{z_2}{dz'\;e^{-(z'-z)^2/2\sigma_z^2}}}{
489: \int_{0}^{\infty}{dz'\;e^{-(z'-z)^2/2\sigma_z^2}}}.
490: \end{equation}
491: Inclusion of $p$ increases the computed values of $d_c$ by $\sim$3\%.
492:
493:
494: We compare the LCDCS results with several local studies to assess the degree of
495: evolution between $z$=0.5 and the present epoch. We find that the
496: LCDCS $r_0$ values are
497: statistically consistent with results from
498: the Edinburgh-Durham Galaxy Catalogue
499: \citep{nic92}, APM survey \citep{cro97}, and the MX Survey
500: \citep[northern sample,][]{mil99}, but smaller than the correlation lengths
501: found by
502: \citet{pea92} for their subsample of the Abell catalog.
503: The correlation lengths from these studies are plotted in Figure
504: \ref{fig:cfvslocal}, where the LCDCS data points are shown for an assumed
505: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology ($\Omega_0$=0.3).
506: The lowest $d_c$ data points for the XBAC catalog from \citet{aba98}, which probe
507: higher masses than our study, are also plotted. We also include fiducial
508: theoretical curves to illustrate the predicted degree of evolution
509: between these epochs. The thick solid curve shows the $z$=0 results from
510: the Virgo Consortium Hubble Volume simulations ($\Omega_0 = 0.3$,
511: $\Omega_\Lambda= 0.7$, $\sigma_8=0.9$,$\Gamma$=0.17). The other
512: two curves correspond to analytic predictions for the dependence of $r_0$
513: on $d_c$ (or equivalently, on number density) at the two epochs, using the analytic model
514: of \citet{she99} with $\Gamma$=0.2.
515:
516: \begin{figure*}
517: \epsscale{0.65}
518: \plotone{f4a.eps}
519: \plotone{f4b.eps}
520: \plotone{f4c.eps}
521: \figcaption[apmcomp] {Comparison of the LCDCS and APM data sets
522: with analytic predictions. Different panels correspond to the
523: different cosmologies assumed in deriving the LCDCS correlation
524: lengths (see Table \ref{tab:rodc}). The analytic models include
525: the impact of uncertainty in clusters masses for the two data sets,
526: which causes these curves to be slightly shallower than the fiducial
527: models in Figure \ref{fig:cfvslocal}.
528: \label{fig:apmcomp}}
529: \end{figure*}
530:
531: It is evident in Figure \ref{fig:cfvslocal} that the weak evolution in the
532: correlation length predicted
533: for this $\Lambda$CDM model
534: is consistent with the observations; however, for
535: a more accurate comparison we should incorporate into the models the impact
536: of observational scatter in the subsample mass thresholds for the different
537: data sets. We restrict our attention to the APM and
538: LCDCS catalogs in this analysis.
539: For the APM catalog, we use the correlation lengths from \citet{cro97}, taking
540: the velocity dispersion scatter about the sample thresholds
541: to be d$\log \sigma$=0.13 \citep[based upon the data set of][]{alo99}. We estimate
542: the mean redshift of the APM samples to be $<$$z$$>$$\simeq$0.1.
543: For the LCDCS catalog we use the
544: surface brightness-velocity dispersion relation and surface brightness scatter
545: from \citet{gon2001}. The data and resulting models that include
546: this
547: scatter are shown in Figure \ref{fig:apmcomp}$a$-$c$ for the three cosmologies
548: discussed in this paper. Both the APM and LCDCS data are consistent with the
549: low-density models. For the plotted curves, the combined
550: data sets yield reduced $\chi^2$ values $\chi_\nu^2$=0.7 and $\chi_\nu^2$=0.6 for the $\Lambda$CDM and OCDM
551: models, respectively.\footnote{The bulk of the weight in computing
552: these $\chi_\nu^2$ values comes from the APM data set. The LCDCS provides only
553: slight additional leverage due to the large statistical uncertainties associated
554: with these measurements.}
555: In contrast, the plotted $\tau$CDM model systematically
556: underpredicted the $r_0$ values for both data sets ($\chi^2$=4.1 for $\Gamma$=0.2).
557: $\tau$CDM can be made to better match the data by decreasing $\Gamma$;
558: however, it is not possible to make $\tau$CDM simultaneously
559: consistent with the cluster correlation length data and the galaxy
560: power spectrum (e.g. \citealt{eis2000}).
561:
562:
563: \section{Systematic Uncertainties}
564:
565: It is important to consider whether any systematic biases have the
566: potential to qualitatively alter our results. Table
567: \ref{tab:systematics} summarizes the systematic effects discussed thus far
568: in the text, as well as several additional potentially important factors.
569: The most significant potential systematic bias is attributable to the
570: impact of large scale structure. The LCDCS serendipitously includes
571: the most X-ray luminous cluster known
572: \citep[RX J1347.5$-$1145 at $z$=0.45;][]{sch95}.
573: Three of the ten
574: most massive LCDCS candidates with estimated redshifts $z_{est}$$\le$0.58 have
575: projected separations of less than 50 $h^{-1}$ Mpc relative to RX
576: J1347.5$-$1145, indicating that this region likely contains a massive
577: supercluster.
578: To estimate the sensitivity of our results to
579: the presence of this region within the survey, we recompute the
580: correlation lengths excluding candidates within 100$h^{-1}$ Mpc of
581: RX J1347.5$-$1145. For all three subsamples the results change by less than 15\%
582: (i.e. less than $1-\sigma$), and for the lowest redshift subsample the correlation length actually
583: increases slightly when this region is excluded. We thus conclude it likely that
584: no individual supercluster should systematically alter our results by more
585: that 15\%.
586:
587: \begin{inlinetable}
588: \begin{center}
589: \caption{Systematic uncertainties} \label{tab:systematics}
590: \begin{tabular}{lr}
591: \hline\hline
592: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Issue} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Impact} \\
593: \hline
594: \multicolumn{2}{r}{\underline{$r_0$}}\\
595: \\
596: Large scale structure & $\la$15\% \\
597: Fractional contamination & 6\% \\
598: Clustering strength of contamination & $\la$10\% \\
599: Model for $dN/dz$ in Limber equation & 3\% \\
600: Extinction-dependent selection effects & 1\% \\
601: Redshift dependence of $\Sigma$ & $<$1\% \\
602: Fixing $\gamma$. Would increase $r_0$ for subsamples & 0-10\% \\
603: $\;\;\;$ (larger change for higher $d_c$ bins)&\\
604: \\
605: \multicolumn{2}{r}{\underline{$d_c$}}\\
606: \\
607: Uncertainty in effective comoving volume & $<$3\%\\
608: \hline
609: \end{tabular}
610: \end{center}
611: \begin{minipage}{0.60\linewidth}
612: \end{minipage}
613: \end{inlinetable}
614:
615: A second key concern, due to the cluster detection method, is whether
616: there exist extinction-dependent selection effects that impact the
617: derived correlation lengths. As a test we recompute $r_0$ for the lowest
618: redshift subsample using only regions with E($\bv$)$\le$0.06, which
619: reduces the sample from 178 to 89 clusters. The recovered correlation length for
620: these low-extinction regions is 13.2 (vs. 14.7 for all 178 clusters). This 10\%
621: change is less than the statistical uncertainty,
622: indicating that our results are not strongly sensitive to variations in the
623: galactic extinction within the survey region.
624:
625: Of the factors previously discussed in the text, the greatest potential
626: impact upon our results can be achieved if the {\it a priori} assumption
627: is made that all subsamples have the same power law slope, $\gamma$.
628: By making this assumption we test whether our results are robust to any
629: factor that may be artificially enhancing the best-fit values of $\gamma$.
630: If we fix $\gamma$=2.15, % rather than allowing it to vary as a free parameter,
631: then the derived $r_0$ values for three subsamples increase by 0\%, 6\%,
632: and 15\% (in order of increasing maximum redshift for the subsamples). While
633: these changes are less than the statistical uncertainties, they do act to
634: steepen the slope of the observed $r_0$-$d_c$ relation and thus slightly
635: degrade the agreement with low-density models.
636:
637:
638: We next consider two additional issues that might qualitatively change
639: the results of this paper. First, what if the redshift uncertainty is
640: significantly larger than indicated by \citet{gon2001}? In this case
641: the redshift ranges spanned by our
642: subsamples are larger --- and more similar to one another --- than our
643: current best assessment. If true, then we are currently
644: underestimating $r_0$. Quantitatively, if $\sigma_z/z$=0.25 instead of
645: 0.14, then the actual values of $r_0$ would be $\sim$2 $h^{-1}$ Mpc
646: larger. On the other hand, neither the mean separation $d_c$ for a
647: given sample or the steepness of the relation between $r_0$ and $d_c$
648: changes perceptibly. Second, what if the contamination fraction is
649: uniform in all the subsamples rather than being an increasing function
650: of redshift? Qualitatively, this would imply that part of the observed
651: weak dependence of $r_0$ upon $d_c$ is simply due to our contamination
652: correction. Quantitatively, if we take the mean contamination rate to
653: be 16\% for all three subsamples, then the $r_0$ values($\Lambda$CDM)
654: change from
655: (14.7,16.2,18.2) to (15.0,16.2,17.7) $h^{-1}$ Mpc -- a minor effect
656: compared with other uncertainties.
657:
658: From our analysis of the above systematics, we conclude that the two
659: largest systematic uncertainties in this work arise from large scale
660: structure and potential underestimation of the redshift uncertainty.
661: Large scale structure can impact the derived values of $r_0$ at the
662: $1-\sigma$, while underestimation of the redshift uncertainty could
663: yield correlation lengths that are systematically too small (by up to $\sim$2
664: $h^{-1}$ Mpc if $\sigma_z/z$=0.25).
665:
666: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
667: \label{sec-cosmodiscussion}
668:
669: The Las Campanas Distant Cluster Survey is the largest existing
670: catalog of clusters at $z$$>$0.3, providing a unique sample with which
671: to study the properties of the cluster population. We have used the
672: LCDCS to constrain the cluster-cluster angular correlation function,
673: providing the first measurements for a sample with a mean redshift
674: $z$$\ga$0.2. From the observed angular correlation function, we
675: derive the spatial correlation length, $r_0$, as a function of mean
676: separation, $d_c$.
677: We find that the LCDCS correlation
678: lengths are in agreement with results from local samples, and observe
679: a dependence of $r_0$ upon $d_c$ that is comparable to the results of
680: \citet{cro97} for the APM catalog. This clustering strength, its
681: dependence on number density, and its minimal redshift evolution are
682: consistent with analytic expectations for low density models, and with
683: results from the $\Lambda$CDM Hubble Volume simulations.
684: Consequently, while statistical uncertainty limits our ability to
685: discriminate between cosmological models, our results are in
686: concordance with the flat $\Lambda$CDM model favored by recent
687: supernovae and cosmic microwave background observations
688: \citep[e.g.,][]{riess01,pryke01,boom01}.
689:
690:
691:
692:
693: \section{Acknowledgments}
694: The authors thank the anonymous referee for a thorough report that
695: significantly improved this paper.
696: AHG acknowledges support from the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship
697: Program, the ARCS Foundation, and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
698: Astrophysics. DZ acknowledges financial support from NSF CAREER grant
699: AST-9733111, and fellowships from the David and Lucile Packard
700: Foundation and Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. RHW was supported by a
701: GAANN fellowship at UCSC.
702:
703: \begin{thebibliography}{}
704: \bibitem[Abadi, Lambas, \& Muriel(1998)]{aba98} Abadi, M. G., Lambas, D. G., \& Muriel, H. 1998, \apj, 507, 526
705: \bibitem[Alonso et al.(1999)]{alo99} Alonso, M. V., Valotto, C., Lambas, D. G., \& Muriel, H. 1999, \mnras, 308, 618
706: \bibitem[Bahcall(1988)]{bah88} Bahcall, N. A. 1988, \araa, 26, 631
707: \bibitem[Bahcall \& Soneira(1983)]{bah83} Bahcall, N. A., \& Soneira, R. M. 1983, \apj, 270, 20
708: \bibitem[Bahcall \& West(1992)]{bah92w} Bahcall, N. A., \& West, M. J. 1992, \apj, 392, 419
709: \bibitem[Baugh, Cole, \& Frenk(1998)]{bau98} Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., \& Frenk, C. S. 1998, \apj, 498, 504
710: \bibitem[Borgani et al.(1999$a$)]{bor99a} Borgani, S., Girardi, M., Yee, H. K. C., \& Ellingson, E. 1999, \apj, 527, 561
711: \bibitem[Borgani, Plionis, \& Kolokotronis(1999$b$)]{bor99b} Borgani, S.,
712: Plionis, M., \& Kolokotronis, V. 1999, \mnras, 305, 866
713: \bibitem[Cabanac, de Lapparent, \& Hickson(2000)]{cab2000} Cabanac, R. A., de Lapparent, V., \& Hickson, P. 2000, \aap, 364, 349
714: \bibitem[Colberg et al.(2000)]{col2000} Colberg et al. 2000, \mnras, 319, 209 %astro-ph/0005259
715: \bibitem[Collins et al.(2000)]{collins2000} Collins et al. 2000, \mnras, 319, 939
716: \bibitem[Croft et al.(1997)]{cro97} Croft, R. A. C., Dalton, G. B., Efstathiou, G., Sutherland, W. J., \& Maddox, S. J. 1997, \mnras, 291, 305
717: \bibitem[Dalton et al.(1994)]{dal94} Dalton, G. B., Croft, R. A. C., Efstathiou, G., Sutherland, W. J., Maddox, S. J., \& Davis, M. 1994, \mnras, 271, L47
718: \bibitem[Dalton et al.(1992)]{dal92} Dalton, G. B., Efstathiou, G., Maddox, S. J., \& Sutherland, W. J. 1992, \apj, 390, L1
719: \bibitem[de Bernardis et al.(2001)]{boom01} de Bernardis, P. et al. 2001, astro-ph/0105296
720: \bibitem[Dekel et al.(1989)]{dek89} Dekel, A., Blumenthal, G. R., Primack, J. R., \& Olivier, S. 1989, \apj, 338, L5
721: \bibitem[Efstathiou et al.(1991)]{efs91} Efstathiou, G., Bernstein, G., Katz, N., Tyson, A. J., \& Guhathakurta, P. 1991, \apjl, 380, 47
722: \bibitem[Efstathiou et al.(1992)]{efs92} Efstathiou, G., Dalton, G. B., Sutherland, W. J., Maddox, S. J., 1992, \mnras, 257, 125
723: \bibitem[Eisenstein \& Zaldarriaga(2000)]{eis2000} Eisenstein, D. J. \& Zaldarriaga, M. 2000, \apj, 546, 2001
724: \bibitem[Gonzalez(2000)]{gon2000thesis} Gonzalez, A. H. 2000, Ph.D. Thesis
725: \bibitem[Gonzalez et al.(2001)]{gon2001} Gonzalez, A. H., Zaritsky, D., Dalcanton, J. J., \& Nelson, A. E. 2001, \apjs, ????
726: \bibitem[Governato et al.(1999)]{gov99} Governato, F., Babul, A., Quinn, T., Tozzi, P., Baugh, C. M., Katz, N., \& Lake, G. 1999, \mnras, 307, 949
727: \bibitem[Hudon \& Lilly(1996)]{hud96} Hudon, J. D., \& Lilly, S. J. 1996, \apj, 469, 519
728: \bibitem[Kerscher, Szapudi, \& Szalay(2000)]{ker2000} Kerscher, M., Szapudi, I., \& Szalay, A. S., \apjl, 535, 13
729: \bibitem[Klypin \& Kopylov(1983)]{kly83} Kylpin, A. A., \& Kopylov, A. I. 1983, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 9, 41
730: \bibitem[Landy \& Szalay(1993)]{lan93} Landy, S. D., \& Szalay, A. S. 1993, \apj, 412, 64
731: \bibitem[Matarrese et al.(1997)]{mat97} Matarrese, S., Coles, P., Lucchin, F., \& Moscardini, L. 1997, \mnras, 286, 115
732: \bibitem[Miller et al.(1999)]{mil99} Miller, C. J., Batuski, D. J., Slinglend, K. A., Hill, J. M. 1999, \apj, 523, 492
733: \bibitem[Mo \& White(1996)]{mo96} Mo, H. J., \& White, S. D. M. 1996, \mnras, 280, L19
734: \bibitem[Moscardini et al.(2000)]{mos2000} Moscardini, L., Matarrese, S., De Grandi, S., \& Lucchin, F. 2000, \mnras, 314, 647
735: \bibitem[Nichol, Briel, \& Henry(1994)]{nic94} Nichol, R. C., Briel, O. G.,
736: Henry, P. J. 1994, \apj, 267, 771
737: \bibitem[Nichol et al.(1992)]{nic92} Nichol, R. C., Collins, C. A., Guzzo, L., Lumsden, S. L. 1992, \mnras, 255, 21
738: \bibitem[Peacock \& West(1992)]{pea92} Peacock, J. A. \& West, M. J. 1992, \mnras, 259, 494
739: \bibitem[Peebles(1980)]{peebles80} Peebles, P. J. E. 1980, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
740: \bibitem[Peebles(1993)]{peebles93} Peebles, P. J. E. 1993, Physical Cosmology (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
741: \bibitem[Postman, Huchra, \& Geller(1992)]{pos92} Postman, M., Huchra, J. P., \&
742: Geller, M. J. 1992, \apj, 384, 404
743: \bibitem[Press \& Schechter(1974)]{pre74} Press, W. H. \& Schechter, P. 1974, \apj, 187, 425
744: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{pre92} Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numerical Recipes, (2nd ed.; New York: Cambridge University Press)
745: \bibitem[Pryke et al.(2001)]{pryke01} Pryke, C. et al. 2001, astro-ph/0104490
746: \bibitem[Roche \& Eales(1999)]{roc99} Roche, N., \& Eales, S. A. 1999, \mnras, 307, 703
747: \bibitem[Riess et al.(2001)]{riess01} Riess, A. G. et al. 2001, astro-ph/0104455
748: \bibitem[Romer et al.(1994)]{rom94} Romer, A. K., Collins, C. A.,
749: B\"{o}ehringer, H., Cruddace, R. G., Ebeling, H., MacGillivray, H. T., Voges,
750: W., 1994, \nat, 372, 75
751: \bibitem[Sadat, Blanchard, \& Oukbir(1998)]{sad98} Sadat, R., Blanchard, A., \& Oukbir, J. 1998, \aap, 329, 21
752: \bibitem[Schindler et al.(1995)]{sch95} Schindler, S., et al. 1995, \aap, 299, 9
753: \bibitem[Sheth, Mo, \& Tormen(1999)]{smt1999} Sheth, R. K., Mo, H. J., \& Tormen, G. 2001, \mnras, 323, 1 %astro-ph/9907024
754: \bibitem[Sheth \& Tormen(1999)]{she99} Sheth, R. K. \& Tormen, G. 1999, \mnras, 308, 119
755: \bibitem[Sutherland(1988)]{sut88} Sutherland, W. 1988, \mnras, 234, 159
756: \bibitem[van Haarlem, Frenk, \& White(1997)]{van97} van Haarlem, M. P., Frenk, C. S., \& White, S. D. M. 1997, \mnras, 287, 817
757:
758: \end{thebibliography}
759:
760:
761: \appendix
762: \section{Analytic Models for the Spatial Correlation Function}
763:
764: Analytic models for the spatial correlation function are based upon
765: the Press-Schechter formalism \citep[PS;][]{pre74} formalism.
766: \citet{mo96} were the first to use this formalism to derive the
767: expected correlation for mass-dependent bias, finding that if
768: the observed correlation function is defined as
769: \begin{equation}
770: \xi(r,z,M)=b^2(z,M) \xi_{m}(r,z),
771: \end{equation}
772: where $\xi_{m}$ is the average mass correlation function,
773: \begin{equation}
774: \xi_{m}(r,z)=D_+^2(z)\int_0^\infty P(k) \frac{\sin kr}{kr} d^3 k,
775: \end{equation}
776: then the bias, $b(z,M)$, is given by the equation
777: \begin{equation}
778: b(z,M)=1+\frac{\delta_c(z)}{\sigma^2(M)} - \frac{1}{\delta_c(z)} .
779: \label{eqn:bias}
780: \end{equation}
781: Modeling of observed correlation functions requires calculation of
782: the effective bias, $b_{eff}(z,M)$, which is the average of $b(z,M)$
783: weighted by the mass function of the clusters used to compute the
784: correlation function \citep{mo96,mat97,bau98},
785: \begin{equation}
786: b_{eff}=\frac{\int_m^\infty b(M)n(M)dM}{\int_m^\infty n(M)dM},
787: \end{equation}
788: where $m$ is the mass limit of the cluster sample.
789:
790: This prescription can also be easily extended to incorporate the
791: \citeauthor{she99} modifications to PS by replacing equation
792: (\ref{eqn:bias}) with
793: \begin{equation}
794: b(z,M)=1+\frac{1}{\delta_c(0)}\left[\frac{a\delta^2_c(z)}{\sigma^2}-1\right] +
795: \frac{2p}{\delta_c(0)}\left[1+\left(\frac{\sqrt{a}\delta_c}{\sigma}\right)^{2p}\right]^{-1}
796: \end{equation}
797: where $a$=0.707 and $p$=0.3 \citep{mos2000}. This is the analytic
798: model used in \S\ref{subsec-cfres}. For comparison, we also overlay
799: results from the Virgo Consortium Hubble Volume simulations
800: \citep{col2000} in Figure \ref{fig:cfvslocal}$a$.
801:
802:
803: \end{document}
804: