1: \documentclass[11pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \newcommand{\simgt}{\hbox{\rlap{\raise 0.425ex\hbox{$>$}}\lower 0.65ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
4: \newcommand{\simlt}{\hbox{\rlap{\raise 0.425ex\hbox{$<$}}\lower 0.65ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
5: \newcommand{\vvskip}{\vskip0.05in}
6:
7: \shorttitle{Angular Distribution of GRBs}
8: \shortauthors{Williams}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \title{Angular Distribution of Gamma-ray Bursts and Weak Lensing}
13:
14: \author{Liliya L.R. Williams and Natalie Frey\altaffilmark{1}}
15: \affil{Astronomy Department, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455}
16: \email{llrw@astro.umn.edu, frey@astro.umn.edu}
17:
18: \altaffiltext{1}{Present address:
19: Physics Department, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816}
20:
21: \begin{abstract}
22: We investigate whether Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) from the Current BATSE Catalog have
23: been affected by weak lensing by the nearby large scale structure. The redshift
24: distribution of GRBs is believed to be broad, extending to $z\sim 5$, so most
25: events can be assumed to be at large redshifts, and hence subject to weak lensing,
26: which would betray itself as projected (anti-)correlations between GRB events
27: and galaxies or clusters that trace the intervening mass. Given the observed
28: distribution of GRBs in fluence $f$, and statistical positional error $e$, we
29: predict that most subsets drawn from BATSE Catalog will be anti-correlated with
30: the foreground structure due to weak lensing, i.e. will show negative magnification
31: bias. We find that GRBs are indeed anti-correlated with the APM galaxies
32: ($z\sim\,0.2-0.3$) in the sense that galaxy density in circles of radii
33: $1^\circ-1.5^\circ$ ($15-20 ~h^{-1}$Mpc at $z\sim 0.3$) centered on
34: $e\,\simlt\, 1^\circ$ GRBs is about 10\% lower than expected from a random
35: distribution; the significance of GRB-APM anti-correlations reaches 99.7\%.
36: Cross-correlation between GRBs and distant rich Abell-Corwin-Olowin clusters
37: is also negative. Standard cosmological models with $\Omega_m\sim 0.3$,
38: $\Omega_\Lambda\sim 0.7$, and matter distribution on large scales following
39: observed APM galaxy distribution with the biasing parameter of around 1 are not
40: able to reproduce our GRB-APM anti-correlations. We propose a speculative model
41: that does account for these anti-correlations as well as positive correlations
42: found previously, between QSOs and APM galaxies. We briefly discuss if the proposed
43: scheme is in conflict with observations of cosmic microwave background, galaxy
44: surveys, cosmic velocity flows, and weak shear lensing.
45: \end{abstract}
46:
47: \keywords{cosmology: large-scale structure of universe --- gamma rays: bursts
48: --- gravitational lensing}
49:
50: \newpage
51: \section{Introduction}\label{intro}
52:
53: Direct identification of X-ray, optical and radio counterparts of long duration,
54: $t>2$ sec, Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRB), and hence their host galaxies has recently
55: resolved the GRB distance scale controversy: the observed redshifts span a wide
56: range, from $z\sim 0.1$ to $z\sim 5$ \citep{rei01}. This suggests a number
57: of uses of GRBs as cosmologically distributed probes. Since they are believed
58: to be associated with compact remnants of massive stars,
59: it has been suggested they be used to trace star formation rate
60: obscured by dust \citep{tot99,djo01},
61: star formation rate at very high redshifts \citep{lam00},
62: as probes of the metal enrichment of the interstellar medium \citep{fio01},
63: intergalactic medium \citep{fio00}, and galactic and
64: intergalactic dust at high redshifts \citep{per00}.
65:
66: Here, we use GRBs as sources for weak lensing by the large scale structure;
67: our ultimate goal is to probe the mass distribution on $\simgt\, 10h^{-1}$ Mpc
68: scales, at a typical redshift of 0.3.
69:
70: Unlike weak shear lensing, which is detected through shape distortion of lensed
71: {\it resolved} galaxies \citep{mel99,bar01}, weak lensing of unresolved
72: {\it point sources}, like GRBs, would manifest itself through the angular
73: (anti-)correlation between sources and lenses, the latter being the intervening
74: clumpy mass distribution, which is assumed to be traced by visible galaxies
75: \citep{fug90,rod94,bar95}. The sign
76: of the correlations is determined by the slope of the source number counts
77: in the appropriate redshift interval. For example, bright QSOs have steep
78: number counts implying that positive correlations between these and intervening
79: galaxies should be expected.
80: In fact, optically selected LBQS QSOs, with $z\ge 1.0$, and radio selected 1Jy QSOs,
81: with $0.5\le z \,\simlt\, 2.5$, are independently correlated with faint APM galaxies
82: on angular scales of $\sim 1^\circ$ \citep{wil98,nor00}.
83: The linear extent of the structures is $\simgt\, 15h^{-1}$ Mpc at the redshift of
84: typical lenses, $z\sim 0.1-0.4$. Radio selected 1Jy sources are also correlated
85: with IRAS galaxies \citep{bar94,bar97}, and Zwicky clusters
86: \citep{sei95} on angular scales of $1-2^\circ$.
87:
88: In these studies,
89: the redshifts of the sources and probable redshift distribution of the galaxies
90: do not overlap, insuring that physical associations do not contaminate the lensing
91: signal. Qualitative signature of these correlations are those of lensing, however,
92: it is hard to explain the results quantitatively:
93: the observed correlations persist to scales of
94: $\simgt\, 1^\circ$ with amplitude of $\omega(1^\circ)\sim 0.02$, whereas
95: $\omega(1^\circ)\sim 0.002$ is expected if we live in a Universe with
96: $\Omega_m\sim 0.3$, and matter power spectrum not too different
97: from the observed galaxy power spectrum on large scales
98: \citep{dol97,san97,bar97}.
99: If lensing induced correlations were indeed as small as predicted, they could
100: not have been detected on $\sim 1^\circ$ scales given the available number
101: of sources \citep{bar93,bar97}.
102:
103: These results by themselves are puzzling. However, they become
104: problematic in view of the recent observations of cosmic {\it weak shear}
105: lensing, which agree well with the currently accepted cosmological model,
106: matter fluctuation spectrum, and biasing parameter close to unity.
107: There are now several independent determinations of
108: weak shear lensing in fields of up to $30^\prime$ diameter
109: \citep{bac00,hoe02,kai00,mao01,van00,wit00},
110: and the agreement between them is impressive. Furthermore, when cast in
111: terms of the best estimate for $\sigma_8 {\Omega_m}^{\sim 0.5}$, weak lensing
112: results agree remarkably well with cluster normalization constraints
113: \citep{mel01}.
114:
115: GRBs provide us with a different set of cosmologically distributed sources,
116: which should also be affected by weak lensing, just as QSOs are. However,
117: as we explain below, unlike QSOs, which are predicted and shown to exhibit
118: correlations with galaxies, GRBs, due to their distribution in fluence and
119: angular positional error, are predicted to be anti-correlated with the foreground
120: lensing mass distribution. Thus, GRBs should provide a new and interesting
121: test of weak lensing on large scales.
122:
123: There are two potential difficulties in using GRBs in a weak lensing study.
124:
125: First, GRB positions are not well localized, with errors ranging from a
126: fraction of a degree to as high as $\sim 30^\circ$ for some events with
127: low fluences. Obviously, correlation scales that can be reliably probed
128: are limited by the GRB position errors on the sky. To circumvent this problem
129: we use GRB subsets with upper limits on error.
130:
131: Second, since individual GRB redshifts are largely unknown,
132: some of the GRBs at low redshifts will be physically associated
133: with the galaxies which we use to trace the lensing mass, and will `contaminate'
134: the lensing induced signal.
135: Currently, only about 26 GRBs, i.e. a very small fraction of all events have
136: confirmed redshifts\footnote{{\url http://www.aip.de/\~\,jcg/grbgen.html},
137: site maintained by J. Greiner, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam.}.
138: Of these, about 3 are at $z< 0.4$.
139: Guided by the known redshifts, several workers have proposed empirical
140: relations connecting observable properties of GRBs, such as functions constructed
141: out of time information, to their luminosities \citep{ste99,nrr00,rii01}.
142: Redshift distribution implied by these indicate that the true redshift distribution
143: is very broad, extending to $z\sim 5-10$.
144: The fraction of low redshift events is expected to be small;
145: for example, using the model of \citet{rei01} and their Fig. 3
146: histogram, the fraction of events below $z_s=0.2\,(0.4)$ is roughly estimated
147: to be 6\% (13\%). As tracers of dark matter on large scales we use
148: APM galaxies and Abell-Corwin-Olowin (ACO) clusters, which peak at $z\sim 0.2$,
149: and extend to a maximum $z=0.4$. So the fraction of GRBs arising in these
150: structures should be small, $\simlt 10\%$. Furthermore, and more importantly, we
151: predict and find anti-correlations between GRBs and intervening
152: galaxies, and so physical associations, if any, would have diminished the amplitude
153: of lensing induced anti-correlations. Thus our observed signal (Section~\ref{APM})
154: is a lower limit. As we show in Section~\ref{can_we?}, the observed amplitude of
155: lensing induced anti-correlations is hard to explain within standard
156: cosmological models, so at this point there is no motivation to carefully
157: subtract the effect of physical associations from the observed anti-correlation
158: signal; we neglect the effect of physical associations in our analysis.
159:
160: The plan of the paper is as follows.
161: After describing the data in Section~\ref{data} we use the fluence and error
162: information of Current BATSE Catalog GRBs to predict the amplitude and sign of
163: GRB-galaxy correlations, i.e. compute magnification bias (Section~\ref{underden}).
164: In Sections~\ref{APM} and ~\ref{ACO} we estimate the strength of observed
165: correlations between GRBs and APM galaxies and ACO clusters, respectively.
166: Anti-correlations are found in both cases, as predicted, but the amplitude
167: of the effect is higher than expected. In Sections~\ref{we_can} we discuss the
168: various possibilities for reconciling observations with theory, and propose a
169: speculative scenario. We summarize and discuss our findings in
170: Section~\ref{sum+disc}.
171:
172:
173: \section{Data selection}\label{data}
174:
175: \subsection{Gamma-Ray Bursts}\label{GRBs}
176:
177: We use the Current BATSE GRB Catalog, ending with trigger number 8121, which
178: occurred on May 26, 2000. From these events we select those that were not
179: overwritten by a later more intense trigger,
180: and that have non-zero fluences in the 50-100 keV and 100-300 keV energy
181: channels. GRB fluxes and fluences are recorded in 4 channels, which cover energy
182: ranges 20-50 keV, 50-100 keV, 100-300 keV, and $> 300$ keV, respectively.
183: We use the fluences in the middle two channels %(Section~\ref{underden})
184: because the corresponding energy range has the peak flux, and coincides with
185: the energy range of the nominal BATSE on-board burst trigger
186: ({\url http://www.batse.msfc.nasa.gov/batse/grb/catalog/4b/4br\_flux.html}).
187: These cuts leave us with 2038 events.
188:
189: BATSE events are not well localized in the sky;
190: positional errors come in two flavors, statistical and systematic.
191: Statistical errors, $e$, are recorded in the BATSE Catalog, and range from a
192: fraction of a degree to $30^\circ$ degrees.
193: (All quoted errors are $\sqrt{e_x^2+e_y^2}$.)
194: The peak of the statistical error
195: distribution is at about $3^\circ$. Systematic errors, $e_{sys}$,
196: were analyzed for the revised 4B Catalog \citep{pac99}, and
197: were found to have a modified Gaussian distribution such that 78\% of
198: the events have errors of $\leq 1.85^\circ$. For our purposes an
199: approximation used for the 3B Catalog will suffice: we assume the systematic
200: error distribution to be a Gaussian such that 68\% of the events have
201: systematic errors of $\leq 1.6^\circ$.
202: Assuming that statistical and systematic errors are independent, the total
203: error is $e_{tot}=\sqrt{e_{sys}^2+e^2}$. The statistical errors and fluences
204: of the 2038 bursts are plotted in Fig.~\ref{ncounts}. Solid squares represent
205: 10 BATSE GRBs with known fluences and redshifts.
206:
207: BATSE Catalogs have a declination dependent completeness level on the sky,
208: with a 74\% difference between the most ($\delta=75^\circ$) and least
209: ($\delta=-10^\circ$) completely covered declinations \citep{pac99}.
210: This incompleteness will not matter for our analysis in Section~\ref{APM},
211: because we compare galaxy density around each GRB with the expected average
212: density on the same APM plate. This incompleteness
213: will be important in the cross-correlation with ACO galaxy clusters,
214: Section~\ref{ACO}, and will be accounted for.
215:
216: \subsection{APM Galaxy Catalog}\label{gal+clus}
217:
218: APM Galaxy Catalog \citep{irw94}
219: is digitized POSSI plate material, with magnitude limits
220: 20.0 and 21.5 on `red' and `blue' POSSI plates in the Northern Hemisphere, and
221: 21.0 and 22.5 on `red' and `blue' UKST plates in the Southern Hemisphere,
222: with internal accuracy of $\sim 0.1$ mag for all but the faintest objects,
223: and external, i.e. plate-to-plate accuracy of $\sim 0.3$ mag.
224: These are tolerable errors for our purposes: internal accuracy is sufficiently
225: good to trace the light fluctuations on each plate, and external accuracy is
226: less important to us because we confine analysis for each GRB
227: to a single APM plate. Similar to previous work \citep{wil98} we
228: select galaxies as objects that are classified as extended on the `red' plates
229: by the APM. The magnitude range is set to probe the most distant regions
230: reached by the APM:
231: on POSSI, $18.5 \leq m_R \leq 20.0$, and
232: on UKST, $19.5 \leq m_R \leq 21.0$.
233:
234: In the Northern Hemisphere APM plates do not cover a band between $-20^\circ$
235: and $+20^\circ$ Galactic Latitude, and in the Southern Hemisphere
236: the coverage is even less complete. Furthermore, even though each plate
237: is $5.8^\circ\times5.8^\circ$, because of plate vignetting
238: we do not use GRBs located beyond $2.5^\circ$ from the plate center.
239: Thus, we only use a subset of 732 GRBs in the APM analysis in Section~\ref{APM}.
240:
241:
242: \section{Predicting the effect of Weak Lensing on the GRBs}\label{underden}
243:
244: The intervening mass distribution between us and GRB events is an uneven
245: lens that stretches some areas of the background sky and shrinks others.
246: The redshift distribution of the observed APM galaxies is such that they trace
247: dark matter from $z_{min}\sim 0.1$ to a maximum of $z_{max}\sim 0.4$.
248: (see Fig. 1 of Williams \& Irwin 1998). Let the total average lensing optical depth
249: of this slab of matter be $\kappa_0$:
250: \begin{equation}
251: \kappa_0=\rho_{crit} \Omega_0
252: \int_{z_{min}}^{z_{max}} {{(c dt/dz) (1+z)^3}\over{\Sigma_{crit}(z,z_s)}}dz.
253: \label{tau}
254: \end{equation}
255: Here, $cdt$ is the thickness of the lensing slice at redshift $z$,
256: $\rho_{crit} \Omega_0 (1+z)^3$ is its mass density, and
257: $\Sigma_{crit}(z,z_s)$ is the critical lensing surface mass density
258: at $z$ for a source at $z_s$. Within this redshift range, the
259: fluctuations in the projected surface mass density are $\delta\sigma/\sigma$,
260: and are assumed to be small on large scales.
261: For a specified cosmology and source and lens redshifts, these fluctuations are
262: translated into (de-)magnifications on the sky, with respect to the
263: `smooth Universe' case:
264: $M=(1-\kappa)^{-2} \approx 1+2\kappa$, where
265: $\kappa=\kappa_0~(\delta\sigma/\sigma)$.
266:
267: For sources with exactly known positions, like QSOs, this magnification field
268: $M$, combined with the QSO number counts for the relevant range of redshifts,
269: can be translated into an observed distribution of number density on the sky
270: of sources down to some specified flux limit.
271: If $\alpha=d\,{\rm log}\,n_{QSO}(<m)/dm$ is the slope of the number counts near
272: the survey flux limit, then the number density of QSOs will be a factor of
273: $q=M^{2.5\alpha-1}$ different from the `smooth Universe' ($M=1$) case;
274: $q$ is called source over- or underdensity, depending on whether it is
275: greater or less than 1. The fact that it is different from 1 is called
276: the magnification bias. Bright QSOs, whose number counts are steep, would appear
277: to be $q$ times more abundant in the directions of mass concentrations,
278: i.e. they would appear to be correlated on the sky with the nearby structure.
279: Faint QSOs, on the other hand, have a shallow number counts slope,
280: and so will be anti-correlated with the foreground lenses.
281:
282: With GRBs, the calculation of $q$ is somewhat different, because in addition
283: to limiting these in fluence $f$, one also needs to place an upper limit
284: on GRB positional error $e$, so that the GRBs have a reasonable chance of
285: being within the specified area of correlations.
286: Even though positional errors are not
287: directly affected by lensing, the observed GRB errors are
288: well correlated with their fluences, therefore, as a GRB's fluence is
289: changed through magnification, so is its error. Thus,
290: in order to correctly predict $q$ one needs to consider
291: GRB distribution in $e$ and $f$, Fig.~\ref{ncounts}.
292:
293: Let $p(e|f)$ be the normalized probability distribution of GRB sources in
294: statistical positional error $e$ at a given fluence $f$. As $f$ we use the sum
295: of fluences in Channels 2 and 3.
296: Probability distribution $p(e|f)$ is estimated from the BATSE data itself,
297: by binning the distribution presented in Fig.~\ref{ncounts} by fluence and error,
298: and then normalizing distributions in $e$ for each fluence separately.
299: If the sources are limited in error by $e_1$ and
300: $e_2$ from below and above, and in fluence by $f_1$ from below, then the
301: number of such sources seen behind a smooth patch of lens with magnification
302: $M$ is given by,
303: \begin{equation}
304: n_{GRB}(e_1,e_2,f_1,M)
305: ={1\over M}\int_{f_1}^\infty \Big[ n_{GRB,0}({f^\prime/M})
306: ~\int_{e_1}^{e_2} p(e|f^\prime)~de\Big]~df^\prime,
307: \label{Nlensed}
308: \end{equation}
309: where $n_{GRB,0}(f)$ is the distribution of sources in fluence one would see in a
310: Universe with completely smooth mass distribution. This distribution is not
311: observable; however, given the small typical magnifications it is reasonable
312: to assume that the observed sources give a fair representation of $n_{GRB,0}(f)$.
313:
314: The ratio of the number of sources observed and the number
315: that would be seen if the mass were smoothly distributed everywhere,
316: is the over- or underdensity,
317: \begin{equation}
318: q(e_1,e_2,f_1,M)={{n_{GRB}(e_1,e_2,f_1,M)}\over{n_{GRB}(e_1,e_2,f_1,M=1)}}
319: \label{q_eqn}
320: \end{equation}
321:
322: Figure~\ref{overden} shows the result, for a few combinations of $e_1$,
323: $e_2$, and $f_1$. The upper two lines (cross and plus symbols) are for GRB
324: subsets limited in fluence only, with no restrictions imposed on error.
325: The lower three lines are for GRB subsets limited in error, with no limits
326: placed on fluence. We used all 2038 GRBs in the Current BATSE Catalog to
327: construct the $(M,q)$ relation in Fig.~\ref{overden}.
328: Had we used, say the 732 GRBs that are found on APM plates the shape of
329: the curves above would have been the same, within the noise. Similarly,
330: the plot is not very sensitive to the particular choice of fluence channel.
331: Note that all lines go through $(M,q)=(1,1)$, as they should.
332: Some of the $q(M)$ lines vary non-monotonically with magnification,
333: and most lines vary erratically. This is due to the noise associated with
334: the finite number of GRB points in Fig.~\ref{ncounts}. Shot noise is especially
335: pronounced when GRBs with small errors
336: and/or large fluences are considered, and when $M<1$: in that
337: case the $n_{GRB,0}$ term in eq.~\ref{Nlensed} refers to a very small number
338: of GRBs at highest fluences, and so shot noise fluctuations can make the
339: resulting $q$ vary a lot.
340:
341: Most of the subsets that can be constructed from the total GRB catalog using
342: different fluence/error cuts are predicted to be anti-correlated with lenses.
343: In general, overdensities would be expected only if there is a large `reservoir' of
344: sources just below the detection limit. The fact that the predicted GRB $q$'s tend
345: to be $<1$ can be seen directly from Fig.~\ref{ncounts}: for almost any $e$, $f$ cut
346: there is no large `reservoir' of sources just below the $e$, $f$ limits ready
347: to be magnified into the observed subset.
348: The only subsets of GRBs which are predicted to be correlated with lenses
349: are those with large fluences, $f_1\simgt 2.5\times 10^{-5}$ erg/cm$^2$.
350: However, these subsets contain very small numbers of GRBs,
351: so the uncertainties in the $(M,q)$ relation for these are probably large.
352:
353: Dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{overden} are fits to the
354: $(e_1,\,e_2,\,f_1)$=$(0.0^\circ, 1.0^\circ, 0.0)$ and $(0.5^\circ, 1.0^\circ, 0.0)$
355: GRB subsets, which we will be considering in some detail in the next Section.
356: We wanted fits of the form $q=M^{\beta}$, to mimic the QSO relation,
357: $q=M^{2.5\alpha-1}$. In the present case, $\beta=-0.62$ and $-0.45$ provide
358: adequate fits for the two subsets respectively; the corresponding $\alpha$'s
359: are $0.152$, and $0.22$. The fits are only rough,
360: but are completely adequate for our purposes.
361:
362: Having made predictions as to the amplitude and sign of the GRB correlations
363: with the foreground matter, we can now proceed to do the corresponding
364: `observations'.
365:
366: \section{GRB--APM galaxy correlations}\label{APM}
367:
368: In principle, we want to determine the number density of GRBs
369: as a function of projected mass excess, $\delta\sigma/\sigma$. However,
370: since GRBs are rare and galaxies are plentiful, we instead estimate galaxy
371: density in circles around GRBs. Our analysis later, Section~\ref{can_we?}
372: will take this difference into account.
373:
374: Let the number of galaxies within $\theta$ degrees of a GRB, and
375: in the magnitude ranges specified in Section~\ref{gal+clus}, be $n_{gal,D}$.
376: The latter should be normalized by average
377: expected galaxy count within similarly sized random $\theta$-patches on the sky.
378: In our analysis, because the APM plate-to-plate magnitude calibration can be
379: rather uncertain, about 0.3 mag, we select control areas for normalization
380: from the same plate as the corresponding GRB. Furthermore, because the
381: object density on plates varies as a function of distance from center, the
382: control patches are restricted to lie at the same distance from plate
383: center as the GRB, $d_{cen}$. Fig.~\ref{schematic} illustrates our selection
384: of control patches. For each GRB, $N$ such random positions are created. We
385: scale $N$ linearly with $d_{cen}$, such that at $d_{cen}=1^\circ$, $N=100$. (We
386: tried using same $N$ for all GRBs; the results below did not change substantially.)
387: The number of
388: galaxies in $\theta$ circles around these are also recorded, and the average
389: is calculated for every GRB, $\langle n_{gal,R}\rangle$.
390: The galaxy excess, $[n_{gal,D}/\langle n_{gal,R}\rangle]-1$, is then equal to
391: $b~(\delta\sigma/\sigma)$, where $b$ is the biasing parameter of APM galaxies
392: with respect to the underlying mass.
393:
394:
395: \subsection{Two GRB subsets most likely to show weak lensing effects}\label{one}
396:
397: Using Fig.~\ref{overden} we select GRB subsets that are most likely to show
398: weak lensing induced signature. We choose subsets with
399: $(e_1, e_2)=(0.5^\circ, 1.0^\circ)$ and $(0^\circ, 1.0^\circ)$.
400: How do we decide on the size of the $\theta$-patch around each GRB?
401: Obviously, each GRB should
402: have a good chance of actually being located within these circles.
403: The limiting factor here is the systematic positional error: even if
404: a GRB has zero statistical error there is only a 25\% chance that it will
405: be actually within a $0.5^\circ$ radius drawn around it.
406: On the other hand, the size of the APM plate limits the size of $\theta$ from
407: above; we settle on $\theta=1.5^\circ$.
408:
409: Given that the GRB and the $N$ control $\theta$-patches are equidistant from
410: plate center, to avoid significant overlap between these
411: we restrict our GRB subset further by selecting only those at $d_{cen}\geq\theta$.
412: Thus GRBs are limited to lie at $1.5^\circ\leq d_{cen}\leq 2.5^\circ$.
413: The $(e_1, e_2)=(0.5^\circ, 1.0^\circ)$ and $(0^\circ, 1.0^\circ)$ subsets
414: contain 46 GRBs and 74 GRBs respectively, and we will refer to them by quoting
415: these numbers.
416:
417: We now ask if the galaxy density around GRBs in the two subsets is
418: different from what one would expect if random points were used in
419: place of GRBs. Instead of generating a set of random points for this purpose, we
420: use the whole set of GRBs found at $1.5^\circ\leq d_{cen}\leq 2.5^\circ$,
421: regardless of positional error. There are 448 of these. Since most of these
422: have rather large errors, their real positions are quite far from BATSE
423: recorded positions, so in effect we have a set of randomly selected points.
424:
425:
426: In Fig.~\ref{subsample_hist} the heavy solid histogram is the distribution
427: of $n_{gal,D}/\langle n_{gal,R}\rangle$, or, equivalently,
428: $b~(\delta\sigma/\sigma)+1$ for the 448 `random' points.
429: The dashed and dotted histograms are the 46 and 74 GRB subsets respectively.
430: The averages of the three distributions are 0.998, 0.883, and 0.915,
431: so GRBs in the two subsets are found in the directions of
432: foreground regions that are, on average, 12\% and 8\% underdense in galaxies.
433: In other words, we detect anti-correlations between GRBs and intervening galaxies,
434: which is what was predicted in Section~\ref{underden} and Fig.~\ref{overden}.
435: We leave quantitative comparison with predictions until Section~\ref{can_we?}.
436:
437: Let us now evaluate the statistical significance of this result.
438: For each GRB we calculate $N_{>}/N$,
439: where $N_{>}$ is the number of random $\theta$-patches, out of total $N$,
440: that have less galaxies in them than the $\theta-$patch around the real GRB.
441: In other words,
442: $N_{>}/N$ is the rank of the real GRB patch among its `random peers';
443: $N_{>}/N=0.5$ if GRBs are randomly distributed with respect to
444: the foreground galaxies, but if GRBs have an excess of galaxies in their
445: foregrounds then $N_{>}/N>0.5$. If GRBs occupy
446: random positions with respect to the foreground galaxies, then the
447: {\it distribution} of $N_{>}/N$ values is known---the cumulative
448: distribution should be linear, and in fact for the whole set of 448 GRBs it is,
449: see solid line in Fig.~\ref{smkstest2_histo}. The dashed and dotted histograms
450: are for the 46 and 74 GRB subsets, respectively; their $N_{>}/N$ values are
451: 0.381 and 0.423, implying that GRBs have a deficit of galaxies in their
452: foregrounds. Using the Kolmogorov-Smirnof (KS) test these two distributions
453: differ from the
454: whole set of 448 GRBs at the 99.68\% and 97.62\% significance level.
455: Note that the 46 subset [$(e_1, e_2)=(0.5^\circ, 1.0^\circ)$] was predicted
456: to be more strongly anti-correlated with galaxies than the 74 subset
457: [$(e_1, e_2)=(0.5^\circ, 1.0^\circ)$], which is what is observed, in spite
458: of the 46 subset having less GRBs than the 74 subset.
459:
460: Since the 46 and 74 GRBs in the two subsets are a part of the 448 `random'
461: points, these results could be a conservative estimate of statistical
462: significance. However, if we use truly random points, the statistical
463: significance of the results is not much higher.
464:
465:
466: \subsection{Many GRB subsets}\label{many}
467:
468: A further test of the statistical significance of the results for the
469: two subsets in the last Section is provided by carrying out the same
470: analysis on many GRB subsets, selected using
471: a range of error and fluence criteria.
472: Subsets are defined by $\theta$, the size of the patch around GRBs,
473: statistical error range, $e_1\rightarrow e_2$, and the range of GRB's $d_{cen}$.
474: We use four different $\Delta e$ ranges:
475: $0.5^\circ$, $1.0^\circ$, $1.5^\circ$, and $2.0^\circ$, and include GRBs with
476: errors up to $10^\circ$.
477: For each of these we use five different $d_{cen}$ ranges:
478: $0.0^\circ-2.5^\circ$, $0.5^\circ-2.5^\circ$, ...., $2.0^\circ-2.5^\circ$.
479: We try three values of $\theta$: $0.5^\circ$, $1.0^\circ$, and $1.5^\circ$.
480: The total number of GRB subsets is 615; the
481: number of GRBs in these subsets varies from 1 to 269.
482:
483: Of the 615 total cases considered, Table 1 lists those that deviate from
484: the parent GRB set at more than 97\% confidence level, as judged by the KS test.
485: The two cases considered in Section~\ref{one} are marked with a star. Most of
486: the other cases in Table 1 are related to these two subsets. Even though the
487: subsets are not independent, one should still expect some small fraction of the
488: 615 subsets to be significant at $>97\%$, so it is not surprising that we have these.
489: It is interesting, however, that the subsets that do show significant deviations
490: form the parent GRB population
491: are the ones that we argued would be most likely to be affected by lensing.
492: Furthermore, all cases reported in Table 1 are {\it anti}-correlations, consistent
493: with weak lensing predictions of Section~\ref{underden}.
494:
495:
496: \subsection{Can we account for the GRB-galaxy anti-correlations?}\label{can_we?}
497:
498: Here we attempt to account for the amplitude of anti-correlations of two GRB
499: subsets considered in Section~\ref{one}.
500: As before, we assume that the whole set of 448 GRBs, found at distances
501: $1.5^\circ\leq d_{cen}\leq 2.5^\circ$ from plate centers is a collection of
502: random points on the sky, since most of them have very large position errors.
503: Hence, the solid line histogram of Fig.~\ref{subsample_hist} is a fair
504: representation of the distribution of average projected galaxy densities in
505: $\theta=1.5^\circ$ circles. This counts-in-cells distribution does not
506: include fluctuation power on scales larger than the size of an APM plate.
507: Because we are dealing with weak lensing regime, we can separate the effects of
508: density fluctuations on different projected scales; our `observations' and analysis
509: do not deal with scales larger than $2.5^\circ$. Fluctuation power below the
510: scale of correlations, $<\theta\sim 1^\circ-1.5^\circ$, for example due to galaxy
511: cluster cores, does not affect the correlations significantly. This is illustrated
512: by \citet{dol97} and \citet{men02}, who have shown that including the fluctuation
513: power on non-linear scales changes the amplitude of lensing-induced correlations
514: by $\sim 10\%$, for scales $\simgt 10^\prime$.
515:
516: We start with the assumption that without lensing GRBs and foreground APM galaxies
517: are randomly distributed with respect to one another, on the sky.
518: We now construct a {\it synthetic lensed} GRB subset. Suppose a large number
519: of GRBs with the BATSE-observed distribution of fluence and error properties go off
520: in the direction of a patch with some $[n_{gal,D}/\langle n_{gal,R}\rangle]$ value,
521: picked at random from the solid line distribution in Fig.~\ref{subsample_hist}.
522: Using the various relations in Section~\ref{underden} and the fit in
523: Fig.~\ref{overden}, we can predict the overdensity of GRBs in that direction:
524: \begin{equation}
525: q=
526: \Big(1-{\kappa_0\over b}
527: ~\Big[{{n_{gal,D}}\over{\langle n_{gal,R}\rangle}}-1\Big]\Big)^{-2\beta}
528: \approx
529: \Big(1+2\beta{\kappa_0\over b}
530: \Big[{{n_{gal,D}}\over{\langle n_{gal,R}\rangle}}-1\Big]\Big).
531: \label{q_full}
532: \end{equation}
533: The APM galaxies trace matter extending, at most, to $z=0.4$. The corresponding
534: optical depth in a flat $\Omega_m=0.3$ Universe is 0.025 for $z_s=1$, and 0.031 for
535: $z_s=3$; we take $\kappa_0=0.028$, as an average. We set $b=1$, as estimated on
536: large scales \citep{pea02}. We use $\beta=-0.62$ and $-0.45$, for the
537: 46 and 74 synthetic GRBs subsets, as determined in Section~\ref{underden}).
538: If the number of GRBs going off is 1, then $q$ is the probability that it will be
539: observed. Using the latter definition, a GRB is accepted into the synthetic
540: lensed subset with probability $q$; if $q>1$, the GRB is accepted into the
541: subset, and an additional one is accepted with probability $q-1$.
542: We repeat the process until we build up two separate subsets of 46 and 74 GRBs
543: each; we repeat the procedure a 1000 times.
544:
545: The average $[n_{gal,D}/\langle n_{gal,R}\rangle]$ in the 46 and 74 synthetic
546: subsets is close to 0.996, barely below what one expects for a randomly selected
547: set of points on the sky, and far from 0.883 and 0.915 which are found for the
548: real subsets. In fact, the fraction of synthetic subsets whose average
549: $[n_{gal,D}/\langle n_{gal,R}\rangle]$ is less than 0.883 and 0.915, is 0.3\% and
550: 0.75\% respectively. Hence, this model fails to reproduce observations.
551:
552: How much do we have to change the parameters in eq.~\ref{q_full} to reach
553: agreement with observations?
554: If $\kappa_0$ is increased by a factor of 10 (20), then the respective
555: percentages for the 46 and 74 subsets become about 2\% (8\%), and 3\% (10\%),
556: so, roughly speaking, the observed subsets can occur with $~\simlt\, 10\%$
557: probability.
558: We conclude that observations could be deemed to agree with expectations if
559: $\kappa_0\sim 0.4$. How realistic is this value? The optical depth of the entire
560: column of matter between the observer and a source at $z_s=1.0$ (3.0) is
561: $\kappa_0=0.065$ ($0.34$). It is very hard to imagine how APM galaxies,
562: with faint galaxy magnitudes of around 20-21 in typical optical bands can be
563: faithful tracers of matter fluctuations at redshifts 1-3. An alternative is to
564: keep $\kappa_0$ at 0.028, but require $b\sim 0.1$. This is inconsistent with
565: observations that estimate $b$ on large scales to be within $\sim 30\%$ of unity
566: \citep{pea94,gas01}. We will return to interpretation of our results in
567: Section~\ref{we_can}.
568:
569:
570: \section{GRB--ACO cluster correlations}\label{ACO}
571:
572: If nearby mass distribution is weakly lensing GRBs, then all tracers of the nearby
573: mass should be anti-correlated with GRB events. Here we carry out cross-correlations
574: between GRBs and galaxy clusters from the Abell-Colwin-Olowin Catalog
575: \citep{abe58}.
576:
577:
578: \subsection{Results from literature}\label{ACO_lit}
579:
580: The present work is not the first to consider GRB-ACO correlations.
581: Prior to 1997, before the first spectroscopic redshifts to GRBs were established,
582: several workers have looked for correlations between GRBs and ACO clusters.
583: Their motivation was that if GRBs are formed in galaxies, then the degree of their
584: association with known populations of galaxy clusters will place constraints on
585: their redshift distribution. All these studies tacitly assumed that weak lensing
586: effect was negligibly small. Based on the current cosmological models, and our
587: predictions in Section~\ref{can_we?}, their assumption was perfectly justified.
588:
589: Some studies detected correlations between subsets of clusters and
590: subsets of GRBs, others detected no correlations.
591: For example, \citet{kol96} claimed an association of 136
592: ~$e\leq 1.6^\circ$ GRBs from the 3B Catalog and 3616 ~$|b|\geq 30^\circ$ ACO
593: clusters at separations $\Theta\leq 4^\circ$, at a significance level of 95\%.
594: \citet{mar97} reported correlation of 71 ~$e\leq 1.685^\circ$ ~3B GRBs
595: with 185 nearby ACO
596: clusters with $R\geq 1$ and $D\leq 4$ at $2.9-3.5\sigma$ level. They found even
597: stronger correlations between 27 ~$e\,\simlt\, 0.35^\circ$ ~3B GRBs and all
598: 5250 ACO clusters, at $3.5-4\sigma$ level. Given these findings, they were
599: surprised that 40 very well localized Inter Planetary Network (IPN) GRBs were
600: not correlated with ACO clusters. \citet{hur99} also used IPN positions
601: but for a much larger sample, 157 GRBs from 4B Catalog. The average reduction
602: in error area is $\sim 50$ for IPN compared to BATSE positions. Despite the
603: accurate positions \citet{hur99} did not find any correlations, for assumed
604: ACO cluster radii of $0.2^\circ$ or $0.4^\circ$.
605:
606: When GRB redshifts became available a few years ago, GRB-cluster
607: cross-correlation work stopped. In view of our APM galaxy results in
608: Section~\ref{APM}, it becomes interesting to revisit GRB--ACO correlations,
609: especially since the Current BATSE Catalog contains about twice as many GRB events
610: as were used in earlier studies, and error estimates for some GRB events
611: have been recently revised \citep{pac99}.
612:
613: \subsection{Our results}\label{ACO_ours}
614:
615: Abell-Colwin-Olowin Catalog clusters are classified into distance
616: and richness classes according to the standard Abell criteria \citep{abe58}.
617: Since lensing should be sensitive to cluster distances we divide the clusters
618: into three distance ranges: nearby, D=1-4, which have an average redshift of 0.06,
619: medium distant, D=5, with an average $z$ of 0.11, and distant, D=6, with an
620: average $z=0.18$. Distance class 7 is very incomplete; it has 8 clusters vs.
621: about 2000 D=6 clusters, so we leave out D=7 clusters from the analysis.
622: We further divide the clusters into poor ones, R=0-2, and rich ones, R$\geq$3.
623: ACO catalog is incomplete close to the Galactic plane, so we mask out areas
624: at $|b|<30^\circ$. This leaves us with 3608 clusters and 1021 GRB events
625: which we use to compute cross-correlations on a range of angular scales.
626:
627: Fig.~\ref{ACO_corr_one} shows GRB-ACO correlation functions
628: between GRBs with $e\leq 1^\circ$ \footnote{This selection corresponds to the
629: 74 GRB subset of the APM analysis, however, the number of GRBs here is actually
630: 183. The difference arises mostly because in the APM analysis we did not use GRBs
631: that were too close or too far from the plate center, whereas here there are no
632: such constraints.} and six subsets of ACO
633: clusters.
634: We used \citet{landy93} estimator, which has improved variance compared to the
635: standard estimator. The two sets of solid lines in each panel are the 95\% and
636: 99\% confidence limits derived from cross-correlations using 300 random
637: realizations of the GRB catalog (compensated for the same declination dependent
638: sky coverage as the real BATSE catalog). The dotted lines are the same
639: correlations, but binned into narrower angular bins. (We do not plot confidence
640: limits for these).
641:
642: Out of sixty points plotted in six panels of Fig.~\ref{ACO_corr_one} only one
643: is significant at $\geq 99\%$: it states that GRBs with $e\leq 1^\circ$ are
644: anti-correlated with rich distant clusters on scales $\simlt 20^\circ$. Of the
645: six cluster subsets, the rich distant ones are most likely to act as weak lenses
646: for background GRB, so this result supports our earlier GRB-APM findings. Whereas
647: in the APM study the angular scales we could probe were limited by the plate size,
648: here we are not restricted in that regard. We find that the full scale of
649: anti-correlations corresponds to about 150$h^{-1}$Mpc at the redshift of the
650: clusters, which is the scale where cluster power spectrum is observed to peak:
651: \citet{ret98} find peak $k=2\pi/l\sim 0.05 h$~Mpc$^{-1}$ for ACO clusters, while
652: \citet{tad98} find peak $k\sim 0.03 h$~Mpc$^{-1}$ for APM clusters.
653:
654: Results with $0.5^\circ\leq e \leq 1^\circ$ (corresponding to the 46 GRB subset
655: of the APM analysis) are similar to the ones in Fig.~\ref{ACO_corr_one}, however,
656: the significance of anti-correlations with rich distant clusters drops to
657: $\sim 97\%$. Correlations with GRBs unrestricted in positional error show no
658: signal.
659:
660:
661: \section{Discussion}\label{we_can}
662:
663: Here we explore ways of accommodating GRB-APM anti-correlations, and earlier
664: reports of QSO-galaxy correlations \citep{wil98,nor00,bar97}.
665: There are three possible avenues towards a resolution of the
666: high amplitude of (anti-)correlations; these concern the sources (GRBs or QSOs),
667: the lensing process, and the lenses (the mass distribution), respectively.
668: We discuss these
669: in turn. We assume that in the weak lensing regime the effects of these three
670: sets of possibilities add up `linearly', and so they can be considered separately.
671:
672:
673: \subsection{Sources}\label{sources}
674:
675: Suppose our assumptions about GRB number distribution in fluence and error
676: (Fig.~\ref{ncounts}) are incorrect, i.e. our assumed conversion between $M$
677: and $q$---exponent $\beta$ in eq.~\ref{q_full}---is wrong.
678: This could arise, for example, due to shot noise given small number of GRBs.
679: The extreme value that $\beta$ can take is $-1$, which is when there are no
680: more sources beyond the limit of the survey, and area dilution of lensing
681: reduces the sky density of sources by $M$. Even this extreme case does not come
682: close to reproducing GRB-APM anti-correlations.
683:
684: A similar solution to the problem was considered in \citet{wil98},
685: who observed positive correlations between bright, optically selected QSOs
686: and APM galaxies. The QSO number counts in the relevant redshift range
687: gave $q=M^{1.75}$, whereas $q=M^{\sim 20}$ would be required to reproduce
688: observations. That explanation was ruled out as unlikely.
689:
690:
691: \subsection{Lensing process}\label{lensing_process}
692:
693: Is it possible that
694: propagation of light through an inhomogeneous Universe is not well
695: modeled by the standard lensing equation? In terms of eq.~\ref{q_full} that would
696: mean that the expression in round parentheses is incorrect.
697: This was considered in \citet{wil00}, who explored
698: the effect of the second order term in the lensing equation. Including
699: that term had interesting consequences: magnification was increased,
700: but only by 10\%, and {\it only} in the mass distribution scenarios which were
701: far from Gaussian random fields on large spatial scales. So this does not
702: appear to be a promising avenue for the resolution of the problem.
703: Furthermore, propagation of light through a numerically simulated Universe
704: of popular cosmological models was done using the full geodesic equation of motion
705: \citep{van01,tom99}, and the results were found to be
706: in good agreement with the predictions based on the standard lensing equation.
707:
708:
709: \subsection{Lenses---constant biasing}\label{lenses1}
710:
711: The last set of possibilities is that the mass fluctuations are quite different
712: from the observed projected galaxy density fluctuations. To reproduce the GRB-APM
713: anti-correlations, $\kappa_0/b$ in eq.~\ref{q_full}, would have to be increased
714: by a factor of 10-20. Increasing $\kappa_0$ by that large a factor is ruled out
715: (Section~\ref{can_we?}). On the other hand, a constant biasing of factor of 0.1-0.05
716: is ruled out by dynamical measurements on cluster and supercluster scales.
717:
718:
719: \subsection{Lenses---density dependent biasing}\label{lenses2}
720:
721: Here we propose another variant of the third set of possibilities; we relax the
722: requirement that $b$ is constant as a function of $\delta\sigma/\sigma$.
723: This is a toy model only. We keep $\kappa_0=0.028$, which is appropriate for
724: the average optical depth of the APM galaxies. Within this slab of
725: APM galaxies, the projected galaxy density is assumed to be a monotonic, but not
726: linear tracer of the projected mass density.
727:
728: The shape of the distribution of APM galaxy counts-in-cells on $\theta=1.5^\circ$
729: scales is fixed by observations. To maximize lensing effects we chose a skewed
730: shape for $p(\delta\sigma/\sigma)$:
731: let the distribution of projected mass densities averaged over circles of
732: $\theta=1.5^\circ$ have the shape of a half-Gaussian, with the sharp cut-off
733: coinciding with $\delta\sigma/\sigma=-1$, and the tail extending to positive
734: values of $\delta\sigma/\sigma$. In terms of the optical depth the cutoff
735: is at $-\kappa_0$ (see insert in Fig.~\ref{smmodel_histo}); the corresponding
736: lines of sight are `empty beams' and produce maximum possible demagnification of
737: the sources. The width of the half-Gaussian is adjusted such that the average
738: $\delta\sigma/\sigma$, and hence the average $\kappa$ are zero.
739:
740: Since $p(\delta\sigma/\sigma)$ is highly asymmetric, while
741: the observed $p([n_{gal,D}/\langle n_{gal,R}\rangle]-1)$ is symmetric,
742: we must adjust the biasing function to map the former distribution onto the latter.
743: Fig.~\ref{smmodel_bulk} plots one possible version of such a biasing function,
744: and the corresponding distribution of projected galaxy densities is shown as the
745: dashed line in Fig.~\ref{smmodel_histo}. It is symmetric, and nearly zero-centered,
746: i.e. similar to the observed APM distribution (the solid histogram in this figure is
747: the same as the solid histogram in Fig.~\ref{smkstest2_histo}).
748: In short, the biasing function takes the very skewed projected mass distribution
749: (insert in Fig.~\ref{smmodel_histo}) and maps it onto a symmetric projected galaxy
750: distribution (dashed histogram in Fig.~\ref{smmodel_histo}).
751:
752: Within this toy model,
753: the average galaxy density for the 46 and 74 synthetic GRB subsets is
754: about 0.97, and densities $\le 0.883$ ($\le 0.915$) for the 46 (74) subset
755: occur in 9\% (13\%) of the cases. Thus the model can account for the observations.
756: Furthermore, this model also reproduces the observed correlations reported
757: in \citet{wil98}:
758: if the slope of QSO number counts is $\alpha=1.1$ (as quoted in that study),
759: our model gives 1.018 for the average normalized galaxy foreground density in
760: circles $\theta=1.5^\circ$ around bright optically selected QSOs,
761: a value consistent with Fig. 6 of that study ($\sim 1.01$).
762:
763: Our model $p(\kappa)$ distribution and the resulting biasing function are very
764: different from what is expected in currently accepted Universe models, with initial
765: density perturbations specified by Harrison-Zel'dovich-type spectrum, and matter and
766: cosmological constant (or the like) contributing comparably to the net zero
767: curvature. In such models $p(\kappa)$ is Gaussian on large scales, and the
768: biasing factor is
769: close to unity for all values of density excess. For example, Fig. 13 of
770: \citet{jai00} show that the symmetric shape for $p(\kappa)$ is already attained at
771: smoothing scale of $8^\prime$, and is symmetric for all larger scales.
772:
773: Our model requires that there are lines of sight with projected radii
774: $\sim 20 h^{-1}$~Mpc and extending from $z\sim 0.1$ to $0.4$, or
775: $\sim 600h^{-1}$~Mpc in terms of proper length, that are nearly devoid of mass.
776: At the same time, these lines of sight are not nearly as empty in terms of galaxies.
777: Within standard theoretical framework, where primordial fluctuation
778: power spectrum and subsequent gravitational instability are solely responsible
779: for structure on large scales, a dramatic redistribution of baryonic and dark
780: matter, such as implied by our model, is not possible.
781: Note however, that even though our model is astrophysically implausible,
782: it does not violate the physical constraint that densities must remain
783: positive everywhere: the sharp cut-off in $p(\kappa)$
784: corresponds to $-\kappa_0$, the minimum possible lensing optical depth presented
785: by mass between $z=0.1$ and $0.4$ to sources at $z_s\approx 2.5$, in a
786: flat $\Omega=0.3$ universe model.
787:
788: Since baryonic and dark matter are unlikely to be distributed differently on
789: large scales, we propose an alternative, speculative scenario.
790: Suppose $\sim 70\%$ of the present day closure density is contributed by some
791: dark energy that, because of its equation of state became dynamically
792: important only recently, say $z\,\simlt\, 1$.
793: Until $z\sim 1$ structure formation proceeded
794: according to the standard picture, with galaxies tracing the total mass, and with
795: galaxy and mass distributions looking Gaussian on large scales.
796: Suppose also that the dark energy can cluster on sub-horizon scales,
797: or, more specifically, on scales as small as $\sim 100-200 h^{-1}$ Mpc.
798: Then at late epochs the dark energy will start contributing to the potential
799: fluctuations that are already defined by dark and baryonic matter, on those scales.
800: If these fluctuations develop quickly, then matter (light and dark),
801: hampered by inertia, would not be able to respond quickly. Thus, power spectra
802: obtained from galaxy surveys would not betray anything unusual.
803: On the other hand, light rays from distant sources will traverse the fluctuations at
804: $c$, thereby `capturing' the total amplitude of the fluctuations. So, lensing is
805: able to probe the full extent of gravitational potential wells, and if these are
806: deep, then significant source-lens (anti-)correlations would result.
807:
808: In this picture, $p(\kappa)$ distribution introduced earlier would refer not to
809: the dark matter, but mainly to the projected clumping of dark energy.
810: Assuming 3D clustering scale of $\sim 100-200 h^{-1}$ Mpc, lines of sight
811: $\sim 600h^{-1}$~Mpc long that are devoid of dark energy are possible.
812: Given the speculative
813: nature of the proposed scenario, we will not develop it any further. Instead,
814: we ask if the qualitative features of our model are compatible with
815: the existing observations. By qualitative features we mean the relation between
816: fractional galaxy excess and fractional dark energy excess
817: (Fig.~\ref{smmodel_bulk}), with biasing now redefined in terms of these two
818: quantities.
819: Specifically, do observations rule out strong anti-biasing
820: for regions with small ~$|\delta\sigma/\sigma|$, biasing for regions with
821: $\delta\sigma/\sigma\simgt\,$few, and moderate anti-biasing or $b\sim 1$ for all
822: other regions. In 3D, this general behavior of the biasing function will be same as
823: in projection.
824:
825: \vvskip
826: {\it Cosmic Microwave Background.}
827: According to the proposed scheme the dynamical evolution at very high redshifts
828: is same as in the standard cosmological scenarios, so the primary CMB fluctuations
829: would remain unaltered. The dark energy fluctuations grow at $z\,\simlt\, 1$,
830: and are
831: therefore expected to contribute to CMB as late integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, at
832: $\ell\approx 180^\circ/\theta\sim 100-200$. This location coincides with that of
833: the first acoustic peak, and so the ISW signature will be either masked by the peak,
834: or enhance the peak's amplitude compared to that of the secondary peak.
835: This is not ruled out by CMB observations.
836:
837: \vvskip
838: {\it Galaxy redshift surveys.}
839: Because of the late emergence of dark energy fluctuations, and galaxies'
840: sluggishness in responding to these, the observed galaxy distribution at
841: redshifts $\simlt\, 0.5-1$ should be similar to what one would expect in
842: standard cosmological models.
843:
844: \vvskip
845: {\it Cosmic velocity flows.}
846: Regions with $|\delta\sigma/\sigma|\,\simlt\,1$ would show significant
847: anti-biasing according to our model. Such regions within a few hundred Megaparsecs
848: around us are studied by cosmic velocity flows, and in the linear regime yield
849: values for $\Omega_m^{0.6}/b$ \citep{dek94}. There are three basic methods of
850: reconstructing 3D mass density fields from data: using density-density comparison,
851: velocity-velocity comparison, or redshift-space distortions. These methods often
852: produce discrepant results for $\Omega_m^{0.6}/b$, with density-density giving
853: consistently higher values than velocity-velocity comparison \citep{ber01}.
854: For example, IRAS 1.2Jy + Mark III data set yields
855: $\Omega_m^{0.6}/b=0.89\pm 0.12$ using density-density technique
856: \citep{sig98}, while $\Omega_m^{0.6}/b=0.50\pm 0.04$ is obtained
857: using velocity-velocity comparison \citep{wlk98}.
858: Other data sets produce similar results.
859: \citet{ber01} argue that no reasonable biasing scheme would generate
860: such different $\Omega_m^{0.6}/b$ emerging from different methods, and
861: ascribe the discrepancy to errors. This may well be the case,
862: however, the discrepancy could also arise if biasing is a strong function
863: of total density excess, as proposed by our toy model.
864: In that case, density-density comparison would yield most reliable results,
865: because the method makes no assumptions about the underlying mass density field,
866: but derives it from observed velocities.
867: Density-density comparisons currently yield $\Omega_m^{0.6}/b\sim 1$
868: \citep{sig98}; for $\Omega_m\sim 0.3$ this would imply $b\sim 0.5$, not too
869: different from the average biasing factor of our proposed model, which is 0.62.
870: Thus our model is not necessarily in conflict with observed cosmic velocity flows.
871:
872: \vvskip
873: {\it Cosmic weak shear lensing.}
874: Another important observational test of our model is provided by the recent
875: measurements of weak shear \citep{bac00,hoe02,kai00,mao01,van00,wit00},
876: which are consistent with $\Omega_m=0.3$ flat cosmological models,
877: $b\sim 1$\footnote{To be more precise, \citet{mel01} derive an empirical fit:
878: $\Omega_m^{0.47}\sigma_8\approx 0.59_{-0.03}^{+0.03}$.}, and Gaussian mass
879: distribution on large scales. Even though the total mass and dark energy
880: distribution in our model is far from Gaussian, our model and weak shear
881: observations may not be discrepant; we list three possibilities:
882: {\it (i)} The scales of weak shear and GRB-APM anti-correlations
883: are different by about a factor of 3: the former apply to $\Theta<30^\prime$,
884: while the latter are on scales $\simlt 1.5^\circ$, thus the two techniques
885: probe different physical scales.
886: {\it (ii)} Observational factors may play a role. The redshifts of individual
887: galaxies in the weak shear studies are not known, and so the lenses cannot be
888: cleanly separated from the sources. Because of that, weak shear method may
889: suffer from a `signal dilution' effect:
890: a foreground overdense patch will produce coherent shearing in background
891: galaxies, but will also dilute the shear signal because of the increased
892: number of foreground unsheared galaxies.
893: {\it (iii)} In models with Gaussian distributed matter rms values of convergence
894: and shear are the same. Suppose the distribution of dark energy trapped in potential
895: wells of large overdense regions is top-hat-like. In that case the rms of
896: convergence
897: can be a few times larger than rms of shear, when averaged over large portions of
898: the Universe. Thus the current weak shear observations may be underestimating the
899: total amplitude of fluctuations.
900:
901: We conclude that the qualitative features of our proposed model are not strongly
902: ruled out by observations.
903:
904:
905: \section{Summary and Discussion}\label{sum+disc}
906:
907: As discussed in the Introduction, bright optically-selected and radio-selected
908: QSOs are known to be correlated with foreground galaxies on
909: large angular scales. The statistical significance of any one of these
910: studies is generally $2-3\,\sigma$, and can be dismissed as a chance occurrence,
911: but collectively these studies imply that the correlations are real,
912: in which case the most likely explanation is weak magnification lensing.
913: The purpose of this work was to see if cosmologically distributed sources
914: other than QSOs are affected by weak lensing.
915:
916: We started by computing the expected magnification bias of GRB events due to
917: weak lensing, and found that most GRB subsets limited by statistical positional
918: error should show negative magnification bias, i.e. should be anti-correlated
919: with the foreground mass. Using APM galaxies to trace the mass we then
920: looked for any correlations on the sky between APM galaxies and GRBs. Because the
921: projected number density of GRBs is low, about 1 per APM plate, we did not use
922: cross-correlation analysis of counting pairs, but instead counted galaxies in
923: circles around individual GRBs. We found that GRBs with small positional errors
924: are preferentially located in the directions where APM galaxies show $\sim 10\%$
925: deficits on degree angular scales. In particular, a subset of 46 GRBs with
926: $0.5^\circ \le\,e\le\,1^\circ$ and a subset of 74 GRBs with
927: $0^\circ \le\,e\le\,1^\circ$ have 12\% and 8\% less galaxies in circles of
928: $1.5^\circ$ radii around them (or $\sim 20 h^{-1}$ Mpc at the redshift of the
929: typical lenses), than expected on average. These are significant at 99.7\% and
930: 97.6\% confidence levels. Whereas these significance levels are less than
931: overwhelming, what makes the finding especially interesting is that the GRBs are
932: {\it anti-correlated} with the APM galaxies, as expected from the magnification
933: bias (and opposite to what is expected if physical associations are significant).
934: This is the first reported case of weak lensing induced anti-correlations on degree
935: angular scales.
936:
937: To test the observed anti-correlation of GRBs with foreground mass, we carried
938: out a cross-correlation analysis between GRB subsets classed by positional error
939: and Abell-Corwin-Olowin galaxy clusters of three distance ranges, D=1-4, D=5, and D=6,
940: and two richness subsets, R=0-2, and R$\ge 3$.
941: Only one combination of GRBs and clusters showed significant results:
942: $0^\circ \le\,e\le\,1^\circ$ GRBs and rich distant ACO clusters are anti-correlated
943: on $\simlt 20^\circ$ scales, consistent with predictions in Section~\ref{underden},
944: and observed anti-correlations with APM galaxies.
945:
946: As was the case with earlier reports of QSO-galaxy correlations, present
947: anti-correlations with GRBs cannot be accounted for by weak lensing using a
948: standard model of mass distribution and moderate biasing on large scales;
949: the discrepancy is rather severe, one needs to increase the lensing optical
950: depth by 10, or reduce the biasing factor to $b\sim 0.1$, which is not a viable
951: option. Since both the GRB-APM and GRB-ACO anti-correlation signals are of 2-3
952: $\sigma$ significance, they could well be statistical flukes. However, if
953: they are not, and if the signal is due to weak lensing, then there are three
954: types of resolutions: those that have to do with sources, lensing process, or
955: lenses. We argue that the first two are inadequate, leaving us with the third.
956:
957: We propose a speculative scenario which assumes that $\sim 70\%$ of closure density
958: is contributed by dark energy that can clump on significantly sub-horizon scales,
959: $\sim\,100-200 h^{-1}$ Mpc, and that this clumping developed recently,
960: $z\,\simlt\, 1$. Then at present epochs there should be significant fluctuations in
961: the dark energy component. However, the amplitude of baryonic and
962: dark matter fluctuations would remain relatively unchanged, because it would take
963: time for matter to be accelerated and displaced by significant amounts on large
964: spatial scales. In this scenario, the galaxy distribution would trace the
965: underlying potential wells but would severely underestimate the amplitude of
966: fluctuations on $\simgt 100 h^{-1}$ Mpc scales. Dynamical measurements would do
967: better, since velocities `respond' quicker to acceleration than displacements.
968: Lensing, which relies on light traversing the fluctuations at $c$, is the best
969: tool to probe the full extent of these fluctuations. In this scheme, weak lensing
970: induced GRB-APM anti-correlations would be strong because the total amplitude of
971: gravitational potential fluctuations are substantially larger than
972: galaxies would have us believe.
973:
974: In principle, weak shear lensing should be able to detect the true extent of
975: these fluctuations as well. However, weak shear observations support the standard
976: cosmological model with cold dark matter and unclustered dark energy component,
977: and seem to be in conflict with our proposed scenario. Current observations of
978: microwave background anisotropy, galaxy redshift surveys and cosmic velocity flows
979: are not strongly incompatible with our hypothetical scenario.
980:
981:
982: \begin{thebibliography}{}
983: \bibitem[Abell(1958)]{abe58} Abell, G.O. 1958, \apjs, 3, 211
984: \bibitem[Abell et al.(1989)]{abe89}
985: Abell, G.O., Corwin, H.G. \& Olowin, R.P. 1989, \apjs, 70, 1
986: \bibitem[Bacon et al.(2000)]{bac00}
987: Bacon, D., Refregier, A. \& Ellis, R.S. 2000, \mnras, 318, 625
988: \bibitem[Bartelmann \& Schneider(2001)]{bar01}
989: Bartelmann, M. \& Schneider, P. 2001, Physics Reports, 340, 291
990: \bibitem[Bartelmann(1995)]{bar95} Bartelmann, M. 1995, A\&A, 298, 661
991: \bibitem[Bartelmann \& Schneider(1994)]{bar94}
992: Bartelmann, M. \& Schneider, P. 1994, A\&A, 284, 1
993: \bibitem[Bartelmann \& Schneider(1993)]{bar93}
994: Bartelmann, M. \& Schneider, P. 1993, A\&A, 268, 1
995: \bibitem[Bartsch et al.(1997)]{bar97}
996: Bartsch, A., Schneider, P. \& Bartelmann, M. 1997, A\&A, 319, 375
997: \bibitem[Berlind et al.(2001)]{ber01}
998: Berlind, A.A., Narayanan, V.K. \& Weinberg, D.H. 2001, ApJ, 549, 688
999: \bibitem[Bogart \& Wagoner(1973)]{bog73}
1000: Bogart, R. S. \& Wagoner, R. V. 1973, ApJ, 181, 609
1001: \bibitem[Dekel(1994)]{dek94} Dekel, A. 1994, ARA\&A, 32, 371
1002: \bibitem[Djorgovski et al.(2001)]{djo01}
1003: Djorgovski, S.G. et al. 2001, Preprint, astro-ph/0107535,
1004: To appear in proc. "Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Afterglow Era:
1005: 2nd Workshop", eds. N. Masetti et al., ESO Astrophysics
1006: Symposia, Berlin: Springer Verlag
1007: \bibitem[Dolag \& Bartelmann(1997)]{dol97}
1008: Dolag, K. \& Bartelmann, M. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 446
1009: \bibitem[Fiore(2001)]{fio01} Fiore, F. 2001, Preprint, astro-ph/0107276
1010: \bibitem[Fiore et al.(2000)]{fio00}
1011: Fiore, F., Nicastro, F., Savaglio, S., Stella, L. \& Vietri, M.
1012: 2000, ApJ, 544, L7
1013: \bibitem[Fugmann(1990)]{fug90} Fugmann, W. 1990, A\& A, 240, 11
1014: \bibitem[Gastanaga \& Juszkiewicz(2001)]{gas01}
1015: Gastanaga, E. \& Juszkiewicz, R. 2001, ApJL, 558, L1
1016: \bibitem[Hoekstra et al.(2002)]{hoe02}
1017: Hoekstra, H., Yee, H.K.C., Gladders, M.D., Barrientos, L.F.,
1018: Hall, P.B. \& Infante, L. 2002, Preprint, astro-ph/0202285
1019: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(1999)]{hur99}
1020: Hurley, K., Hartmann, D.H., Kouveliotou, C., Kippen, R. M.,
1021: Laros, J., Cline, T. \& Boer, M. 1999, ApJ, 515, 497
1022: \bibitem[Irwin et al.(1994)]{irw94}
1023: Irwin, M., Maddox, S.J. \& McMahon, R.G. 1994, Spectrum, 2, 14\\
1024: See also {\url http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/\~\,mike/apmcat/}
1025: \bibitem[Jain et al.(2000)]{jai00}Jain, B., Seljak, U. \& White, S.D.M.
1026: 2000, ApJ, 530, 547
1027: \bibitem[Kaiser et al.(2000)]{kai00}
1028: Kaiser, N., Wilson, G. \& Luppino, G. 2000, astro-ph/0003338
1029: \bibitem[Kolatt \& Piran(1996)]{kol96} Kolatt, T. \& Piran, T. 1996, ApJL, 467, L41
1030: \bibitem[Lamb \& Reichart(2000)]{lam00} Lamb, D. Q. \& Reichart, D. E.
1031: 2000, ApJ, 536, 1
1032: \bibitem[Landy \& Szalay(1993)]{landy93} Landy, S.D. \& Szalay, A.S.
1033: 1993, ApJ, 412, 64
1034: \bibitem[Maoli et al.(2001)]{mao01}
1035: Maoli, R., Van Waerbeke, Mellier, Y., Schneider, P., Jain, B.,
1036: Bernardeau, F., Erben, T. \& Fort, B. 2001, A\&A, 368, 766
1037: \bibitem[Marani et al.(1997)]{mar97}
1038: Marani, G.F., Nemiroff, R.J., Norris, J.P. \& Bonnell, J.T.
1039: 1997, ApJ, 474, 576
1040: \bibitem[Mellier(1999)]{mel99} Mellier, Y. 1999, ARA\&A, 37, 127
1041: \bibitem[Mellier et al.(2001)]{mel01}
1042: Mellier, Y. et al. 2001, in ESO Proceedings ``Deep Fields'',
1043: Garching Oct 9-12, 2000
1044: \bibitem[Menard \& Bartelmann(2002)]{men02}
1045: Menard, B. \& Bartelmann, M. 2002, A\&A, 386, 784
1046: \bibitem[Norman \& Williams(2000)]{nor00}
1047: Norman, D. \& Williams, L. L. R. 2000, AJ, 119, 2060
1048: \bibitem[Norris et al.(2000)]{nrr00}
1049: Norris, J. P., Marani, G. F. \& Bonnell, J. T. 2000, ApJ, 534, 248
1050: \bibitem[Paciesas et al.(1999)]{pac99} Paciesas, W.S. et al. 1999, ApJS, 122, 465
1051: \bibitem[Peacock(2002)]{pea02} Peacock, J.A. 2002, Preprint, astro-ph/0204239
1052: \bibitem[Peacock \& Dodds(1994)]{pea94} Peacock, J.A. \& Dodds, S.J.
1053: 1994, MNRAS, 267, 1020
1054: \bibitem[Perna \& Aguirre(2000)]{per00} Perna, R. \& Aguirre, A. 2000, ApJ, 543, 56
1055: \bibitem[Reichart \& Lamb(2001)]{rei01}
1056: Reichart, D.E. \& Lamb, D.Q. 2001, Preprint, astro-ph/0103255
1057: \bibitem[Reichart et al.(2001)]{rii01}
1058: Reichart, D.E. \& Lamb, D.Q, Fenimore, E. E., Ramirez-Ruiz, E.,
1059: Cline, T. L. \& Hurley, K. 2001, ApJ, 552, 57
1060: \bibitem[Retzlaff et al.(1998)]{ret98}
1061: Retzlaff, J., Borgani, S., Gottlober, S., Klypin, A. \& Muller, V.
1062: 1998, NewA, 3, 631
1063: \bibitem[Rodrigues-Williams \& Hogan(1994)]{rod94}
1064: Rodrigues-Williams, L.L. \& Hogan, C.J. 1994, AJ, 107, 451
1065: \bibitem[Sanz et al.(1997)]{san97}
1066: Sanz, J., Mart\'{\i}nez-Gonz\'{a}lez, E., \& Ben\'{\i}tez, N.
1067: 1997, MNRAS, 291, 418
1068: \bibitem[Seitz \& Schneider(1995)]{sei95} Seitz, S., \& Schneider, P.
1069: 1995, A \& A, 302, 9
1070: \bibitem[Sigad et al.(1998)]{sig98}
1071: Sigad, Y., Eldar, A., Dekel, A., Strauss, M. A. \& Yahil, A.
1072: 1998, ApJ, 495, 516
1073: \bibitem[Stern et al.(1999)]{ste99}
1074: Stern, B., Poutanen, J. \& Svensson, R. 1999, ApJ, 510, 312
1075: \bibitem[Tadros et al.(1998)]{tad98} Tadros, H., Efstathiou, G. \& Dalton, G.
1076: 1998, MNRAS, 296, 995
1077: \bibitem[Tomita et al.(1999)]{tom99} Tomita, K., Premadi, P., \& Nakamura, T. T.
1078: 1999, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 133, 85
1079: \bibitem[Totani(1999)]{tot99} Totani, T. 1999, Preprint, astro-ph/9805263
1080: \bibitem[Van Waerbeke et al.(2001)]{van01}
1081: Van Waerbeke, L., Hamana, T., Scoccimarro, R., Colombi, S. \&
1082: Bernardeau, F. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 918
1083: \bibitem[Van Waerbeke et al.(2000)]{van00} Van Waerbeke, L. et al.
1084: 2000, A\&A, 358, 30
1085: \bibitem[Williams(2000)]{wil00} Williams, L.L.R. 2000, ApJ, 535, 37
1086: \bibitem[Williams \& Irwin(1998)]{wil98}
1087: Williams, L.L.R. \& Irwin, M. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 378
1088: \bibitem[Willick \& Strauss(1998)]{wlk98} Willick, J.A. \& Strauss, M.A.
1089: 1998, ApJ, 507, 64
1090: \bibitem[Wittman et al.(2000)]{wit00}
1091: Wittman, D.M., Tyson, A.J., Kirkman, D., Dell'Antonio, I. \&
1092: Bernstein, G. 2000, Nature, 405, 143
1093: \end{thebibliography}
1094:
1095: %%\clearpage
1096:
1097: \begin{figure}
1098: \plotone{f1.eps}
1099: \caption{
1100: Distribution in fluence and statistical position error of 2038 GRBs from
1101: the Current BATSE Catalog. The fluence is the sum of Channels 2 and 3,
1102: corresponding to the $50-300$ KeV range. Filled squares represent 10 BATSE
1103: GRBs with known redshifts and fluences. The four dotted lines delineate the
1104: boundaries of the four GRB subsets considered in Section~\ref{underden}.
1105: \label{ncounts}}
1106: \end{figure}
1107:
1108: \begin{figure}
1109: \plotone{f2.eps}
1110: \caption{Computing magnification bias for BATSE GRBs from Fig.~\ref{ncounts}:
1111: $q$ is the predicted overdensity of GRBs in the direction of a
1112: patch of intervening matter with a constant magnification $M$.
1113: See Section~\ref{underden} for details.
1114: \label{overden}}
1115: \end{figure}
1116:
1117: \begin{figure}
1118: \epsscale{0.9}
1119: \vskip-2.25in
1120: \plotone{f3.eps}
1121: \vskip-1.5in
1122: \caption{
1123: Schematic of an APM plate that demonstrates how we choose control patches.
1124: $d_{cen}$ is the distance of GRB from plate center, and $\theta$ is the radius
1125: of the patch inside of which we count galaxies. $n_{gal,D}$ is the number of
1126: galaxies inside the GRB patch (dashed circle), while $\langle n_{gal,R}\rangle$
1127: is the average over random patches (dotted circles). The random patches
1128: are at the same distance away from the plate center as the GRB itself.
1129: This particular placement of random control patches is designed to take care
1130: of vignetting and radial object density variations on APM plates. GRBs that are
1131: not within $d_{cen}=2.5^\circ$ of any APM plate are not used.
1132: When $\theta$-patches run off the edge of the plate the areas that fall outside
1133: the plate are not used. So a $\theta=1.5^\circ$ circle around a GRB close to
1134: plate center will have a larger area than a $\theta=1.5^\circ$ circle around
1135: a GRB on the edge of a plate. This difference is accounted for by placing
1136: the random GRBs at the same plate-centric distance as the original GRB.
1137: \label{schematic}}
1138: \epsscale{1.0}
1139: \end{figure}
1140:
1141: \begin{figure}
1142: \plotone{f4.eps}
1143: \caption{Histograms of normalized projected galaxy number density,
1144: $n_{gal,D}/\langle n_{gal,R}\rangle$ in circles of radius $\theta=1.5^\circ$
1145: in the directions of GRBs. The dashed line is for 46 GRBs with
1146: $0.5^\circ\le\,e\le\,1.0^\circ$, while the dotted line is for 74 GRBs with
1147: $0^\circ\le\,e\le\,1.0^\circ$. These two histograms have been scaled to
1148: match the area under the curve of the solid line histogram, which
1149: represents 448 GRBs used as the control set. All GRBs are limited to
1150: $1.5^\circ\le\,d_{cen}\le\,2.5^\circ$ from APM plate center.
1151: The arrows indicate the averages for the three distributions.
1152: GRBs in the 46 and 74 subsets have a deficit of APM galaxies in front of them.
1153: \label{subsample_hist}}
1154: \end{figure}
1155:
1156: \begin{figure}
1157: \plotone{f5.eps}
1158: \caption{The cumulative distributions of $N_{>}/N$ for the control GRB
1159: subset of 448, and the 46 and 74 subsets. $N_{>}/N$ is the fraction of random
1160: $\theta-$patches that have less galaxies than the GRB-centered patch. In the case
1161: of no correlations the distribution should follow a diagonal line (dotted).
1162: According to the KS 2-sample test the 46 and 74 subsets could not have been drawn
1163: from the 448 set at 99.7\% and 97.6\% confidence levels, respectively. The whole set
1164: of 448 GRBs is not significantly different a random distribution of $N_{>}/N$ values.
1165: \label{smkstest2_histo}}
1166: \end{figure}
1167:
1168: \begin{figure}
1169: \plotone{f6.eps}
1170: \caption{Probability distribution of projected galaxy number density: solid
1171: line is the APM counts-in-cells using circular cells of radius $\theta=1.5^\circ$,
1172: while the dashed line is for the toy model proposed in Section~\ref{lenses2}.
1173: The model has projected mass distribution (expressed in terms of lensing optical
1174: depth $\kappa$) as shown in the inset, and biasing function as shown in
1175: Fig.~\ref{smmodel_bulk}. The model reproduces the overall shape of the APM
1176: counts-in-counts.
1177: \label{smmodel_histo}}
1178: \end{figure}
1179:
1180: \begin{figure}
1181: \plotone{f7.eps}
1182: \caption{
1183: The projected biasing function, on scales $\sim 1.5^\circ$, for the toy model
1184: proposed in Section~\ref{lenses2}.
1185: The main plot shows the relation between projected galaxy density excess and
1186: projected mass excess, for the slab of matter between $z\approx 0.1$ and
1187: $z\approx 0.4$; the inset shows the biasing factor as a function of
1188: projected mass excess. The straight line corresponds to $b=1$.
1189: \label{smmodel_bulk}}
1190: \end{figure}
1191:
1192:
1193: \begin{figure}
1194: \epsscale{0.95}
1195: \plotone{f8.eps}
1196: \caption{
1197: Angular cross-correlation between ACO clusters split up by distance and richness
1198: class, and well localized BATSE GRBs, in $18^\circ$ bins. Because ACO catalog
1199: is incomplete at low Galactic latitudes, clusters and GRBs are restricted to
1200: $|b|\geq 30^\circ$. The two sets of solid lines in each panel are the
1201: 95\% and 99\% confidence limits derived from 300 random realizations of
1202: GRB distributions (Section~\ref{ACO_ours}). The dotted lines are the same
1203: correlations, but binned into narrower angular bins. (No confidence limits are
1204: plotted for these). The only point significant at $\geq 99\%$ is the
1205: anti-correlation with rich distant clusters, i.e. the subset of clusters most
1206: likely to act as weak lenses for GRBs.
1207: \label{ACO_corr_one}}
1208: \epsscale{1.0}
1209: \end{figure}
1210:
1211: \clearpage
1212:
1213: \begin{deluxetable}{rccccc}
1214: \tablecolumns{6}
1215: \tablewidth{0pt}
1216: \tablecaption{GRB subsets that show significant
1217: anti-correlations with APM galaxies.}
1218: \tablehead{
1219: \colhead{$\theta$}& $d_{cen}$ & $e$ & \# GRBs in & total \# & Signif. \\
1220: \colhead{} & range & range & subset & of GRBs & \%
1221: }
1222: \startdata
1223: 0.5 & 1.5--2.5 & 0.5--1.0 & 46 & 448 & 98.01 \\
1224: 1.0 & 0.0--2.5 & 0.5--1.0 & 88 & 732 & 97.53 \\
1225: 1.0 & 0.5--2.5 & 0.5--1.0 & 81 & 689 & 97.15 \\
1226: 1.0 & 1.5--2.5 & 0.5--1.0 & 46 & 448 & 99.63 \\
1227: 1.0 & 1.5--2.5 & 9.5-10.0 & 6 & 448 & 97.44 \\
1228: $\star$ 1.5 & 1.5--2.5 & 0.5--1.0 & 46 & 448 & 99.69 \\
1229: $\star$ 1.5 & 1.5--2.5 & 0.0--1.0 & 74 & 448 & 97.62 \\
1230: \enddata
1231: \end{deluxetable}
1232:
1233:
1234:
1235: \end{document}
1236:
1237: