1: \documentclass{article}
2: \usepackage{emulateapj,graphics,onecolfloat}
3: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.0}
4: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1.0}
5: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.00}
6: \raggedbottom
7: \baselineskip=16.0 truept
8: \parskip = 6.0 truept
9: \font\tfa=cmr10 at 8.00pt
10: \tfa
11:
12: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
13: %\shortauthors{Schulz \& White}
14: %\shorttitle{SZE Surveys}
15:
16: \begin{document}
17: \twocolumn[
18: \title {Surveys of Galaxy Clusters with the Sunyaev Zel'dovich Effect}
19: \author {A.E. Schulz$^{1}$, Martin White$^{2}$}
20: \affil{$^{1}$Department of Physics, Harvard University,
21: Cambridge, MA 02138}
22: \affil{$^{2}$Departments of Physics and Astronomy, University of California,
23: Berkeley, CA 94720}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: \noindent
27: \rightskip=0pt
28: We have created mock Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect (SZE) surveys of galaxy
29: clusters using high resolution N-body simulations. To the pure surveys
30: we add `noise' contributions appropriate to instrument and primary CMB
31: anisotropies.
32: Applying various cluster finding strategies to these mock surveys we generate
33: catalogues which can be compared to the known positions and masses of the
34: clusters in the simulations.
35: We thus show that the completeness and efficiency that can be achieved depend
36: strongly on the frequency coverage, noise and beam characteristics of the
37: instruments, as well as on the candidate threshold.
38: We study the effects of matched filtering techniques on completeness, and bias.
39: We suggest a gentler filtering method than matched filtering in single
40: frequency analyses. We summarize the complications that arise when analyzing
41: the SZE signal at a single frequency, and assess the limitations of such an
42: analysis. Our results suggest that some sophistication is required when
43: searching for `clusters' within an SZE map.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: \keywords{Galaxies-clusters, cosmology-theory}
47: ]
48:
49: \rightskip=0pt
50:
51: \section{Introduction}
52:
53: Observations of the number density of clusters of galaxies will play an
54: increasingly important role in determining the composition of the energy
55: density in the universe as data from the myriad of upcoming cluster surveys
56: accumulates. Cluster surveys result in constraints orthogonal in parameter
57: space to those obtained from other cosmological observations, such as the
58: Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies and supernova searches, because
59: the cluster abundance depends significantly on the linear growth function.
60: For this reason, clusters can also be used to probe the nature and evolution
61: of the dark energy in the universe.
62: Since clusters are the most recently formed gravitationally bound objects in
63: the universe, the evolution of their number density sensitively probes the
64: critical redshift range $0<z<2$, a range over over which the dark energy has
65: come to dominate the total energy density.
66: Clusters are convenient in that they are very bright, and rare enough to make
67: counting them tractable.
68:
69: A wide array of survey techniques is being used to conduct searches for
70: clusters, making use of optical and X-ray emissions from clusters, weak
71: lensing distortions, and the Sunyaev Zel'dovich effect
72: (SZE; see Table~\ref{tab:expts}).
73: The SZE is a particularly promising approach for finding galaxy clusters
74: because the signal is relatively independent of the cluster's distance from us.
75: This implies that, at least in principle, the selection function for such
76: surveys is very well known. This is crucial if we are to use the cluster
77: catalogues to measure the evolution of the number density of clusters.
78:
79: \begin{table*}
80: \begin{center}
81: \begin{tabular}{lcccl}
82: Name & Type & Freq (GHz) & Resoln & Web site \\ \hline
83: Acbar & Bolo & 150-270 & 4 &
84: http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/group/swlh/acbar/ \\
85: Bolocam & Bolo & 145 & 1 &
86: http://www.astro.caltech.edu/$\sim$lgg/bolocam\_front.htm \\
87: CBI & HEMT & 30 & 4.5 & http://www.astro.caltech.edu/$\sim$tjp/CBI/ \\
88: SZA & HEMT & 30 & $\sim 1$ & http://astro.uchicago.edu/SZE/ \\
89: AMI & HEMT & 15 & $\sim 1$ & http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/telescopes/ami/ \\
90: Amiba & HEMT & 30 & $\sim 1$ & http://www.asiaa.sinica.edu.tw/amiba/ \\
91: APEX & Bolo &150 & 0.75 & http://bolo.berkeley.edu/apexsz/ \\
92: SPT & Bolo &150 & 1 & http://astro.uchicago.edu/spt/ \\
93: Planck & Bolo &30-850&5 & http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Planck/
94: \end{tabular}
95: \end{center}
96: \caption{Some upcoming Sunyaev-Zel'dovich experiments. Type indicates the
97: nature of the receivers, HEMTs or Bolometers. The frequency is given in GHz.
98: The resolution is an estimate of the beam size, in arcminutes, and for the
99: interferometers this estimate is quite approximate.
100: The last 6 experiments intend to undertake blank field SZ surveys.
101: More information on these experiments can be found at the listed Web sites.}
102: \label{tab:expts}
103: \end{table*}
104:
105: Using the SZE does present certain difficulties. The energy lost
106: by the CMB photons on their journey from the last scattering surface is an
107: integrated effect. Hence the SZE signal suffers from projection effects from
108: other objects in the same line of sight as the cluster, and also yields no
109: information about the redshift of the cluster save its angular size on the sky.
110: Thus, to study evolution effects in the number density, a followup observation
111: is required to obtain the redshifts, and in rare cases distinguish between
112: two separate clusters that lie in the same line of sight. The primary CMB
113: anisotropies are also a problem, having significant power on cluster-sized
114: angular scales. Finally, since clusters of galaxies are not perfect, isolated
115: spheres of gas, the SZE signal obtained from a cluster of a given mass will
116: vary considerably depending on the particular line of sight through the
117: cluster.
118: These effects make it difficult to correlate the SZE signal with the actual
119: mass of the cluster causing it. In this paper we make a preliminary
120: investigation of the power of SZE surveys in finding clusters, taking these
121: effects into account, and present the results in terms of the completeness
122: and efficiency of mass limited samples achievable using the SZE.
123: % This builds upon the analytic work presented in Bartlett (\cite{Bar}).
124:
125: \section{Method}
126:
127: We construct maps of the SZE effect at various frequencies using as input
128: a high-resolution N-body simulation of structure formation in a
129: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. In this way our method is similar to that of
130: Kay, Liddle \& Thomas~(\cite{KayLidTho}).
131: We make mock observations of these maps by adding signal from the primary CMB
132: anisotropies to the SZE maps, convolving with a beam window function,
133: and adding Gaussian random noise such as might be produced by the electronics
134: in a real observation.
135: We identify every cluster candidate in these mock observations using
136: a specified method and check it against the true 3-D positions of the
137: clusters in the same simulation.
138:
139: We present our results in terms of the completeness and efficiency of the
140: method in finding clusters above a mass threshold.
141: Completeness is the ratio of the number of clusters we found using the mock
142: SZE observation to the total number of massive clusters in the field of view.
143: Out of the total number of cluster candidates that we identify in our SZE
144: maps, only some of them will actually be clusters with a mass above the
145: threshold of interest.
146: Efficiency will measure the ratio of clusters found to the total number of
147: candidates, and is a measure of the amount of contamination suffered when
148: using the SZE technique.
149: The survey efficiency will be important in planning follow-up observations
150: with other instruments.
151: Obviously an SZE survey will be useful for many things besides creating an
152: effectively mass selected sample, but it is such a sample which is the
153: easiest to compare with theories of structure formation.
154: It has also become commonplace to describe SZE surveys as ``effectively
155: mass limited'', and it is for these reasons that we focus on this metric here.
156:
157: \subsection{The N-body simulation}
158:
159: The starting point for constructing the maps is an accurate model of the
160: spatial distribution of mass along the past light-cone. We obtain this
161: {}from an N-body simulation of $512^3$ particles in a (periodic) cube of
162: side $300h^{-1}$Mpc run with a TreePM-SPH code (see the appendix of
163: White \cite{MassFn}).
164: Since on the scales of relevance to us baryonic pressure is sub-dominant,
165: only collisionless dark matter is modeled allowing us to achieve a higher
166: dynamic range in the simulation. This allows us to simulate a larger
167: volume, containing more of the rare rich clusters we are interested in,
168: at the expense of an ad hoc (but flexible) treatment of the baryonic physics.
169: The simulation is started at $z=60$ and evolved to the present with the full
170: phase space distribution dumped every $100h^{-1}$Mpc between redshifts $2>z>0$.
171: It is this range of redshifts which dominates the SZE signal on the angular
172: scales of interest to us, but by cutting off the integration at $z=2$ we will
173: underestimate the effect of confusion in our maps.
174: The gravitational softening used is of a spline form, with a
175: ``Plummer-equivalent'' (comoving) softening length of $20 h^{-1}$kpc.
176: We have used a flat cosmology compatible with a host of current
177: observations; $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$,
178: $\Omega_{\rm b}h^2=0.02$, $h=0.7$, $n=1$, and $\sigma_8=1$.
179: The transfer function was evaluated with the fitting function of
180: Eisenstein \& Hu \cite{EisHu}.
181: While a slightly lower $\sigma_8$ would better fit the inferred mass function
182: of rich clusters from X-ray surveys, the higher $\sigma_8$ provides an easier
183: match to the CBI deep field observations (Mason et al.~\cite{CBI}).
184: The mass resolution in the simulation is fine enough to identify galactic mass
185: halos, with non-interacting dark matter particles of mass
186: $1.7\times 10^{10} h^{-1} M_{\odot}$.
187: All of the relevant cluster-scale halos contain several thousand particles to
188: begin to resolve sub-structure.
189: The simulation was performed on 128 processors of the IBM-SP2 at NERSC,
190: took nearly 4000 time steps and approximately 100 wall clock hours
191: to complete.
192:
193: To construct the long thin line of sight used to compute the net SZE,
194: we have stacked the intermediate stages of the simulation between redshifts
195: $2>z>0$.
196: In order to avoid multiply sampling the same large scale structures, each
197: $300 h^{-1}$Mpc box has been randomly re-oriented in one of the six possible
198: orientations, and has furthermore been shifted by a random amount,
199: perpendicular to the line-of-sight, making use of the periodic boundary
200: conditions.
201: There are three time dumps per box length.
202: Each $300 h^{-1}$Mpc volume in the stack is made up of three segments, each
203: segment evolved to a later epoch than the previous one by the time it takes
204: light to travel $100h^{-1}$Mpc. We have chosen $100 h^{-1}$Mpc as the
205: sampling interval because it is large enough that edge effects are minimal,
206: yet fine enough that the line of sight integrals are well approximated by
207: sums of the (static) outputs.
208: Because of the periodicity, we are free to choose any of the thirds as the
209: oldest, cyclically permuting the other two.
210: This approach preserves the continuity of large-scale structure over distances
211: of $300 h^{-1}$Mpc without compromising the resolution in time evolution.
212:
213: \subsection{Cluster catalog}
214:
215: In order to compute the completeness and efficiency with which the mock SZE
216: survey can detect clusters, we need to know the true distribution of cluster
217: in the simulated fields. To this end we construct a catalog of the 3-D
218: position, redshift, mass, velocity dispersion, and other useful quantities of
219: each identified halo above $10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$.
220: Halos are identified using a friends-of-friends algorithm
221: (Davis et al.~\cite{DEFW})
222: on each of the time dumps used in the line of sight integral.
223: The FoF algorithm partitions the particles into equivalence classes by linking
224: together all particle pairs separated by less than a distance $b$.
225: We use a linking length of $b=0.15$ times the mean inter-particle spacing,
226: which is smaller than the typical value of $b=0.2$ because it reduces the
227: number of instances in which two separate halos, connected by a filament
228: of significant overdensity, get accidentally classified as a single object.
229: Such misclassifications were found to be a significant source of confusion
230: when computing completeness and efficiency
231: (see also White \& Kochanek~2002, Kochanek et al.~2003,
232: White, van Waerbeke \& Mackey~2002 for further discussion).
233: While the spherical overdensity algorithm, which is less susceptible to the
234: merging problem, could have been used, this algorithm identifies spherical
235: clusters which would introduce a different type of bias.
236: We use position of the potential minimum of the FoF group as the center of
237: the cluster because it is more robust than using the center of mass,
238: coinciding closely with the density maximum of the cluster for all but the
239: most anomalous clusters. Centering on the potential minimum we computed, for
240: each halo, the mass, $M_{200}$, enclosed within a radius, $r_{200}$, interior
241: to which the density contrast was 200 times the critical density.
242: There are 6887 halos in the $z=0$ 3D catalogue with
243: $M_{200}>10^{13}\,h^{-1}M_\odot$ of which 790 are more massive than
244: $10^{14}\,h^{-1}M_\odot$ and 9 have masses greater than
245: $10^{15}\,h^{-1}M_\odot$. A typical simulated field will contain
246: two or three hundred halos more massive than $10^{14}\,h^{-1}M_\odot$.
247:
248: \subsection{Compton-$y$ maps}
249:
250: \begin{figure}
251: \begin{center}
252: \resizebox{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{f1.eps}}
253: \end{center}
254: \caption{One SZE map, smoothed with a Gaussian of $1'\,$FWHM but with
255: {\it no noise added}.
256: The grey-scale is logarithmic, running from $10^{-5.5}$ to $10^{-3.5}$.
257: There are 14 halos more massive than $4\times 10^{14}h^{-1}M_\odot$ in
258: the $3^\circ\times 3^\circ$ field (solid circles), of which 12 are found.
259: There are 15 peaks above a threshold $y_{\rm cut}=5\times 10^{-5}$
260: (dashed circles).}
261: \label{fig:example}
262: \end{figure}
263:
264: Because the simulation contains no gas we use a semi-analytic model to include
265: the gas physics.
266: First we assume that the gas closely traces the dark matter.
267: This is likely a good approximation in all regions except the innermost
268: ${\cal O}(100)$kpc of the cluster, which for clusters at cosmological
269: distances will be unresolved by the experiments of interest.
270: (For an $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.3$ flat cosmology, $100$kpc subtends only $0.26'$
271: at $z=0.5$ while upcoming survey experiments have beams of $\sim 1'$.)
272: We ignore the presence of cold gas and stars in the ICM, assuming that the
273: mass in hot gas is $\Omega_{\rm b}/\Omega_{\rm m}$ of the total.
274: Second, each cluster is assumed isothermal.
275: Our assumptions so far are similar to those of
276: Cooray, Hu \& Tegmark (\cite{CooHuTeg}), but they additionally assumed that
277: all of the gas in the universe was at fixed temperature, independent of the
278: mass and virial temperature of the halo in which it resided. Instead we
279: assign to each particle in a group a temperature
280: \begin{equation}
281: {k_BT\over {\rm keV}} =
282: T_{*} \left( {M\over 10^{15}h^{-1}M_\odot}\right)^{2/3}
283: \left( \Delta_c E^2 \right)^{1/3}
284: \label{eqn:mt}
285: \end{equation}
286: where $E(z)\equiv H(z)/H_0$, $\Delta_c$ is the density threshold defining
287: the mass and $T_{*}$ gives the overall normalization of the relation.
288: In principle one could use a less steep function for lower masses, since
289: there is some evidence that the $T-M$ relation becomes shallower at low
290: mass (Finoguenov, Reiprich \& Bohringer~\cite{FRB}).
291: However we also expect the gas fraction to drop to lower masses, and
292: hydrodynamic simulations indicate that we can roughly mimic the effect of
293: this on our SZE maps by keeping the slope of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:mt}) fixed and
294: holding $f_{\rm gas}$ at its universal value.
295: Finally, we smoothly take $T\to 0$ for halo masses below
296: $10^{13}h^{-1}M_\odot$. How we do this does not influence the results.
297: Since most of the SZ emission comes from gas at significant overdensities
298: (da Silva et al.~\cite{dSBLT}; White, Hernquist \& Springel \cite{WHS})
299: considering only the particles in the halos when making the maps is a
300: good approximation.
301:
302: We use $T_{*}\sim 1$ throughout\footnote{For a power-law spectrum,
303: $P(k)\sim k^n$, the SZE angular power spectrum scales as
304: $T_{*}^2\sigma_8^{14/(3+n)}$. Matching the local temperature function
305: of rich clusters requires $\sigma_8\sim T_{*}^{-\gamma}$ with
306: $\gamma\simeq 0.7-0.9$. Thus increasing $T_{*}$ much above 1 drastically
307: lowers the predicted SZE fluctuations if one maintains agreement with
308: the observed XTF.}, which gives good agreement for the redshift evolution
309: of the mean mass weighted temperature and the angular power spectrum of
310: $y$ when compared to the results of hydrodynamic simulations
311: (White, Hernquist \& Springel~\cite{WHS}).
312: In particular this method provides a better fit to the shape of the simulation
313: based angular power spectrum, especially over the peak, than semi-analytic
314: methods (Komatsu \& Kitayama \cite{KomKit}; Cooray \cite{Coo};
315: Molnar \& Birkinshaw \cite{MolBir}; Holder \& Carlstrom \cite{HolCar};
316: Komatsu \& Seljak \cite{KomSel}).
317: As our approach has isothermal clusters, with a deterministic temperature
318: derived solely from the mass, this somewhat limits the possible sources of
319: discrepancy between the semi-analytic and hydrodynamic calculations.
320: There is a tendency for the N-body results to slightly underpredict (by tens
321: of percent) the low-$\ell$ tail and to have less low level unresolved emission
322: than the hydro based maps.
323: Since the low-$\ell$ tail is sensitive to the volume used in constructing the
324: maps, and the hydro simulations were run in smaller boxes, we do not regard
325: this disagreement as significant.
326:
327: We choose $T_*$ so that the power is close to the level seen by CBI in their
328: deep field (Mason et al.~\cite{CBI}). This is a factor of approximately 4
329: larger than would be predicted by the `concordance' cosmology.
330: Our results are relatively insensitive to the precise value of $T_{*}$ chosen
331: or to the treatment of `gas' outside of the virialized regions of halos.
332:
333: \begin{figure*}
334: \begin{center}
335: \resizebox{7in}{!}{\includegraphics{f2.eps}}
336: \end{center}
337: \caption{The 3 stages of our mock SZE survey.
338: (Left) the signal (middle) combined with the primary CMB anisotropies,
339: smoothed with a $2'\,$FWHM beam and with $5\mu$K per $2'$ pixel of gaussian
340: random `instrument' noise added (the absolute value is plotted);
341: (right) the middle map filtered with the matched filter algorithm described
342: in the text to increase the contrast of the clusters against the background
343: (the absolute value is plotted).
344: Each map is $3^\circ\times 3^\circ$ and contains $1024^2$ pixels, rebinned
345: to $256^2$ for plotting purposes. The greyscale in each case is logarithmic,
346: with black 2 orders of magnitude below the peak value (white).}
347: \label{fig:long}
348: \end{figure*}
349:
350: We generate Compton-$y$ maps by integrating for each pixel
351: \begin{equation}
352: y=\int \sigma_{\rm T} n_{e}{k_{\rm B}T_{e} \over m_{e} c^2} dl
353: \qquad .
354: \end{equation}
355: Here $\sigma_{\rm T}$ is the Thompson scattering cross section, and $n_e$,
356: $m_e$ and $T_e$ are the electron number density, mass and temperature
357: respectively. We assume that within the clusters the gas is fully ionized.
358: The contribution from each particle is distributed over the pixels with a
359: spline weighting and a (physical) size equal to the smoothing length of the
360: simulation. The temperature fluctuation at frequency $\nu$ is then obtained
361: {}from the $y$-maps by
362: \begin{eqnarray}
363: {\Delta T\over T} &=&
364: \phantom{-2}y \left( x{{\rm e}^x+1\over {\rm e}^x-1}-4 \right) \\
365: &\simeq& -2y\qquad \mbox{for }\ x\ll 1\, ,
366: \end{eqnarray}
367: where $x=h\nu/k_BT_{CMB}\simeq\nu/56.84$GHz is the dimensionless frequency
368: and the second expression is valid in the Rayleigh-Jeans limit. In what
369: follows we shall assume the low-frequency limit unless otherwise stated.
370:
371: While these assumptions are crude, comparison of the maps with those made
372: {}from the more sophisticated hydrodynamic simulations of
373: White, Hernquist \& Springel~(\cite{WHS}) show that they capture many
374: of the features of the more detailed modeling. The signals of interest are
375: dominated by group and cluster sized halos which are quite regular in their
376: gas properties, allowing a relatively simple minded treatment for our
377: purposes.
378: It is important to note that since we are trying to {\it test\/} rather than
379: {\it calibrate\/} our cluster extraction methods our requirements on the
380: simulated maps are not too stringent.
381:
382: We generate 10 random SZE maps, each $3^\circ\times 3^\circ$ with $1024^2$
383: pixels.
384: An example map produced in this manner is shown in Figure \ref{fig:example}.
385: The map is clearly dominated by discrete sources, the galaxy clusters and
386: rich groups, having a typical size of about $1'$ and a typical amplitude
387: on the order of mJy.
388:
389: \subsection{Primary CMB anisotropies}
390:
391: The primary CMB anisotropies contribute significantly to the SZE signal on
392: the scales of interest to us, and it is important to consider the effects
393: of contamination introduced by such fluctuations unless we can use
394: multi-frequency information to suppress the primary anisotropies.
395: To investigate this we generate a large CMB map from which we extract a
396: region of the same size as the SZE map, and add it in as `noise'.
397: We have used the CMBfast code to generate the CMB power spectrum for our
398: cosmology (Seljak \& Zaldarriaga~\cite{cmbfast}).
399: The CMB map is then a random realization of a Gaussian field with this power
400: spectrum. We generate random phases in momentum space, and assign amplitudes
401: to each of the $k$-modes using a distribution whose average value is the
402: amplitude in the CMB power spectrum. We have used the flat sky approximation,
403: in which the $k$-mode in momentum space corresponds to $\ell$ value in the CMB
404: power spectrum.
405: The probability distribution function for the amplitudes, $\rho$, of each
406: $k$-mode is given by
407: \begin{equation}
408: P(\rho^2)={1 \over C_{\ell}} e^{-\rho^2 / C_{\ell}}
409: \end{equation}
410: Thus if $\epsilon$ is a random number between 0 and 1, $\rho^2$ will be
411: given by
412: \begin{equation}
413: \rho^2=-C_{\ell}\,\ln(\epsilon)
414: \end{equation}
415:
416: \subsection{Matched filter}
417:
418: After adding the CMB into the map, we convolve with a Gaussian beam, which
419: smears the signal and obscures and information on scales much smaller than
420: the beam size. To complete the mock observation, we add a few $\mu K$ of
421: white noise to each pixel corresponding to expected levels of noise from the
422: electronics used in real observations.
423: This introduces fluctuations on scales much smaller than the size of the
424: features in the beam smeared map.
425:
426: In order to remove the CMB anisotropies, and smooth the small scale noise,
427: it is necessary to filter the map; we examine a matched filter algorithm to
428: optimize the contrast of signal to noise.
429: The specific filter is described in
430: (Tegmark \& de Oliviera-Costa~\cite{tegfilt}, Eq.~6;
431: see also Haehnelt \& Tegmark~\cite{HaeTeg}). It is azimuthally symmetric
432: and has a radial dependence in Fourier space of
433: \begin{equation}
434: W_{\ell} \propto {1 \over B_{\ell} C^{TOT}_{\ell}}
435: \qquad .
436: \label{eqn:filter}
437: \end{equation}
438: Here $B_{\ell}=e^{-\theta^2 \ell(\ell+1)/2}$ and $C^{TOT}_{\ell}$ refers to
439: the sum of the power spectra of elements to be removed from the map, in our
440: case the CMB and white noise.
441: The noise power spectrum is given by
442: $C^{N}_{\ell}=(\sigma_{\rm pix} \theta_{\rm pix})^{-2} B_{\ell}^{-2}$
443: (e.g.~Tegmark \& Efstathiou~\cite{TegEfs}).
444: For the normalization of the filter, we use the $1\sigma$ value of the noise
445: (only) map after it has been filtered with $W_{\ell}=1/B_{\ell}C^{TOT}_{\ell}$.
446: In this way, we can compare mock observations with different beam sizes and
447: levels of noise in terms of the statistical significance of the cluster SZE
448: signal above the white noise in the map.
449: Note that in some cases the instrumental noise level will be significantly
450: below the `noise' induced from CMB anisotropies, so amplitudes in these
451: maps can be many `noise sigma'.
452:
453: The matched filter formally maximizes the efficiency with which the SZE
454: survey will locate isolated clusters because it maximizes the contrast
455: between the signal and the background noise.
456: In a real cluster survey, however, the analysis team may wish to sacrifice
457: efficiency somewhat if in doing so it can provide a substantial gain in the
458: completeness of the survey.
459: In many cases, particularly when the beam size is large, the filter in
460: Fourier space is very narrow, and filters out much of the signal along
461: with the noise. In addition, a narrow filter in Fourier space develops
462: significant side lobes in real space.
463: When such a filter is convolved with the density spike at the location
464: of the cluster, it enhances both the central peak and an annular region
465: at the location of each side lobe.
466: In the most extreme cases, several concentric rings may appear around the
467: central maximum that marks the location of the cluster. These rings can
468: overlap with other rings from nearby structures in complicated ways.
469: If these rings are misidentified as separate clusters, they negatively
470: impact the efficiency\footnote{Such considerations will obviously apply
471: to any filtering technique with a compensated filter, such as for example
472: a wavelet based approach. The key parameter is the mean separation of bright
473: sources compared to the filtering scale. If the separation is smaller than
474: the filtering scale, the compensated filter needs to be used with caution.}.
475: Thus making the filter a little wider than the matched filter for experiments
476: with lower resolution helps by improving the completeness significantly while
477: it ameliorates the ringing.
478:
479: \subsection{Peak finding}
480:
481: Even a glance at Figures \ref{fig:example} and \ref{fig:long} is enough to
482: show that finding peaks in an SZE observation is fraught with difficulties.
483: The peaks are often irregularly shaped, contain significant substructure and
484: merge with neighboring peaks.
485: We spent considerable time trying different methods of detecting substructure,
486: merging peaks and imposing thresholds on either total flux or peak flux.
487: We found that exactly which peaks passed which cuts depended on how these
488: issues were handled, but were unable to find a strategy which worked in every
489: case.
490: Smoothing the maps with a resolution of $1'$ or more, matched to the angular
491: size of clusters at cosmological distances, mitigated some of the sensitivity
492: but did not entirely eliminate the dependence on peak finding properties.
493: In particular, which peaks are found in dense environments (which may for
494: example correspond to interacting halos) depends on ones choice for peak
495: edges and merger criteria. This is an analogue of the problem we found in
496: defining clusters in the 3D dataset under similar conditions.
497:
498: \begin{figure}
499: \begin{center}
500: \resizebox{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{f3.eps}}
501: \end{center}
502: \caption{The role of sensitivity and resolution in SZE surveys.
503: The three types of curves, from top to bottom at left of plot) are the
504: power spectra of the primary CMB anisotropies (thick solid),
505: the SZE signal (an average of the power spectra in our ten maps;
506: solid+dashed band),
507: and the instrument noise (dotted, dot-dashed and dashed).
508: The dotted curve has a $3'\,$FWHM Gaussian beam with $4\mu$K of noise
509: per $1'$. The dot-dashed curve has the same beam size, but $2\mu$K noise
510: per $1'$. The dashed curve has a $1'$ beam with $2 \mu K$ of noise.}
511: \label{fig:p1}
512: \end{figure}
513:
514: However we did notice that while the exact numbers were sensitive to the
515: peak finder, the general trends we find (below) were not very sensitive.
516: For this reason we chose the simplest peak finder, with the fewest adjustable
517: parameters, in order to present our results.
518: Specifically we used a simple algorithm, similar in nature to the one in
519: White, van Waerbeke \& Mackey~(\cite{WhivWaMac}).
520: We first record and number all the pixel locations of local maxima in the map.
521: We search around each local maximum and include in the extended peak all
522: pixels with a value greater than 25\% of the maximum value, out to a maximum
523: radius of 10 pixels.
524: All peaks are extended at the same rate, so that adjacent peaks do not merge
525: into one object. This has a tendency to split objects with significant
526: substructure into multiple peaks, but for smoothed maps such a situation is
527: reasonably rare.
528: The algorithm returns a peak number (or no peak) for every pixel in the map.
529: We have tested sensitivity to the 25\% criterion for associating a pixel with
530: a peak and find that, for the smoothed maps, completeness and efficiency are
531: unaffected by moderate changes in this parameter.
532: The `value' associated with a peak is the peak temperature fluctuation.
533: Since we are smoothing on scales comparable to the total size of a peak
534: it makes little difference whether we choose peak temperature or total
535: fluctuation.
536: The fraction of peaks in the mock observation that matched at least one halo
537: is the efficiency, and the fraction of halos that matched a peak is the
538: completeness.
539:
540: Certainly more complicated peak finding methods could be employed, a
541: different filter could be tried (e.g.~a wavelet based method such as
542: described in Cay\'on et al.~\cite{Cay} or Herranz et al.~\cite{HSHBDML},
543: which corresponds to bandpass filtering)
544: and more sophisticated modeling (e.g.~along the lines of the CLEAN
545: algorithm: H\"ogbom \cite{Hog}; Clark \cite{Cla}) could remove some of the
546: artifacts introduced by the filtering.
547: Because of this we feel that improved strategies for finding peaks in such
548: maps is an area worthy of more attention.
549:
550: \section{Results}
551:
552: We find that the number of clusters that can be recovered from the mock SZE
553: survey is a strong function of the beam size, the level of noise, and the
554: threshold at which we identify cluster candidates.
555: The level of contamination of the cluster candidates also depends strongly
556: on these quantities.
557: In general, decreasing the beam size, decreasing the noise, and decreasing
558: the threshold for identifying candidates in the SZE map will improve
559: completeness at the expense of efficiency.
560: Since efficiency is not the exact inverse of completeness, some combinations
561: of these three parameters will yield better results than others.
562: We also find that multi-frequency information can be extremely valuable in
563: finding clusters, by removing the dominant noise source at large angular
564: scales.
565:
566: Figure \ref{fig:example} shows a `perfect' observation by a multi-frequency
567: instrument. The Compton-$y$ map has been smoothed at $1'$, but no noise
568: or CMB has been added. The grey-scale has been selected to emphasize the
569: most prominent peaks. We have indicated the peaks corresponding to the
570: most massive clusters in the field by solid circles, and the biggest peaks
571: in the field by dashed circles. As one can see most of the massive clusters
572: are easily recovered with few false positives, but there is not a 1-1
573: correspondence even at these high thresholds.
574: The source of the disagreement can be traced to the large number of objects
575: in the maps (confusion) and a scatter in the relation between the mass and
576: the observable SZE (White, Hernquist \& Springel~\cite{WHS}).
577: The sources of this scatter are threefold:
578: First, there is a time evolution in the relation between the mass of a cluster
579: and its temperature, Eq.~(\ref{eqn:mt}).
580: Since the clusters are from a large range in redshifts, this causes some
581: scatter.
582: Secondly, projection effects are non-negligible.
583: In fact, clusters have a tendency to form in over-dense regions, often at the
584: intersection of a beaded filamentary structure, increasing the probability
585: of non-trivial line-of-sight projection.
586: Finally, clusters are not spherical and the signal strength depends on their
587: orientation.
588: Since the lower mass halos are intrinsically more numerous, even
589: misidentifying a small fraction of them can negatively impact the
590: survey efficiency.
591:
592: Of course the situation depicted in Figure \ref{fig:example} is highly
593: unrealistic. To truly asses how well a survey can find clusters we need
594: to include both astrophysical and instrument noise.
595: The images in Figure \ref{fig:long} display the various stages of our mock SZE
596: survey. The pure SZE map is shown in panel one.
597: Panel two shows how the SZE signal from clusters is clouded by adding the CMB,
598: convolving with a Gaussian beam of $1'$ angular extent, and further adding
599: Gaussian random noise. Panel 3 shows the map in panel two after it has been
600: filtered with the matched filter described above.
601:
602: Figure \ref{fig:p1} illustrates the role of the size of the beam and the
603: noise level in locating clusters with an SZE survey.
604: The three types of curves are the power spectra of the primary CMB
605: anisotropies, the SZE signal (an average of the power spectra in our ten maps),
606: and the instrument noise.
607: (In the case of multi-frequency observations the primary CMB signal could
608: be eliminated or at least strongly suppressed.)
609: The range of scales over which an experiment is sensitive to the SZE
610: are those scales for which the SZE signal is not overpowered by either the
611: CMB or the instrument noise.
612: The dashed lines above and below the SZE power spectrum are meant to remind
613: the reader that the normalization of the power spectrum depends non-trivially
614: on the cosmology we have simulated, particularly on the value of $\sigma_8$,
615: and could change by a factor of 2 or 3 with different initial assumptions.
616: In circumstances where the window of SZE sensitivity is narrow, such a change
617: profoundly affects the projected yield of an experiment.
618: The three noise curves are plots of $C_{\ell}^N$, which depends on the level
619: of noise and on the beam size. For clarity, all noise levels reported are
620: in $\mu K$ per $1'$ pixel, regardless of the beam size.
621: The dotted curve has a $3'$ Gaussian beam at full width half maximum,
622: with $4 \mu K$ of noise. The dot-dashed curve has the same beam size,
623: but the level of noise has been reduced to $2 \mu K$.
624: It is clear that reducing the level of noise has a relatively small impact
625: on the range of scales that can be probed. In contrast, the dashed curve
626: which has a beam size of $1'$ with $2 \mu K$ of noise, demonstrates that
627: decreasing the beam size has a dramatic effect on the range of sensitivity.
628: Alternatively, using multi-frequency observations to reduce the contribution
629: of the primary anisotropies can allow one to work at lower $\ell$.
630:
631: \begin{figure}
632: \begin{center}
633: \resizebox{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{f4.eps}}
634: \end{center}
635: \caption{Completeness in finding halos more massive than
636: $3\times 10^{14}\,h^{-1}M_\odot$ in maps with noise $5\mu$K per $1'$ pixel
637: with peaks selected as local maxima.}
638: \label{fig:p2}
639: \end{figure}
640:
641: \begin{figure}
642: \begin{center}
643: \resizebox{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{f5.eps}}
644: \end{center}
645: \caption{Efficiency at finding halos more massive than
646: $3\times 10^{14}\,h^{-1}M_\odot$ in maps with noise $5\mu$K per $1'$ pixel
647: with peaks selected as local maxima.}
648: \label{fig:p3}
649: \end{figure}
650:
651: \subsection{Multi-frequency observations}
652:
653: We begin by examining maps which do not include the contribution from the
654: CMB. Such maps could be obtained using multi-frequency observations (we will
655: not address here the methods by which component separation is done, for a
656: recent survey of the literature see e.g.~Vielva et al.~\cite{VBHMLST} or
657: Herranz et al.~\cite{HSHBDML}) of the same field.
658: This removes the largest source of confusion from the SZE maps.
659: To generate these maps we converted the Compton-$y$ maps to temperature
660: fluctuation maps, smoothed them with a Gaussian filter using an FFT, added
661: an appropriate level of pixel (white) noise and once again smoothed the maps.
662: This last stage of smoothing was necessary since our pixel scale is
663: significantly smaller than the beam, leading to a large per pixel noise.
664: Smoothing the maps reduces this noise with little effect on the signal.
665:
666: We find that for noise levels as low as $5\mu$K per $1'$ pixel both the
667: completeness and efficiency can be very good at high angular resolution.
668: For thresholds above $5\sigma$ more than 80\% of the peaks correspond
669: to rich clusters above $3\times 10^{14}h^{-1}M_\odot$, and for beams of
670: $1'\,$FWHM such a cut recovers 75\% of the existing clusters above this
671: mass threshold. As long as a cut of at least $4\sigma$ is applied the
672: efficiency is greater than 60\%. For a beam smaller than $2'\,$FWHM more than
673: half of the clusters can be recovered.
674: However such a low noise level may be optimistic for upcoming experiments.
675: If we increase the noise to $10\mu$K per $1'$ pixel the situation degrades.
676: The best completeness is now around 60\% and only at low thresholds, for
677: which the efficiencies are low. To avoid confusion the beam also needs to
678: be less than $1.5'\,$FWHM.
679:
680: As a concrete example we consider an idealization of the {\sl Planck\/}
681: satellite surveying $\sim 70\%$ of the sky.
682: In terms of cluster finding, {\sl Planck\/}'s capabilities are primarily
683: limited by its resolution, many distant clusters subtending a much smaller
684: angle that {\sl Planck\/}'s beam size.
685: As such, the sample found by {\sl Planck\/} will be biased in that it will
686: tend to identify the nearest clusters
687: (see Aghanim et al.~\cite{Aghanim} or Kay, Liddle \& Thomas \cite{KayLidTho}
688: for more details and Herranz et al.~\cite{HSHBDML} for a recent study of the
689: expected {\sl Planck\/} SZE catalog).
690: We assume that component separation has left no primary CMB signal in our
691: SZE map. In particular, we optimistically computed the completeness and
692: efficiency with equal parts noise from the 217 GHz (no SZE) and 353 GHz
693: channels, added in quadrature.
694: These channels both have an angular resolution of $5'$.
695: Within this (overly) simplistic approximation {\sl Planck\/} finds close to
696: half of the objects more massive than $3\times 10^{14}\,h^{-1}M_{\odot}$,
697: but with our simple peak finding algorithm the efficiency is below 20\%.
698: Over $70\%$ of the sky this is a very large sample, useful for many studies
699: of clusters. However a more sophisticated cluster finding algorithm would
700: need to be employed before this sample could be used as a cosmological probe.
701: Improved methods for finding massive clusters in low resolution but
702: multi-frequency data is a topic which we intend to pursue further in a
703: future publication.
704:
705: \begin{figure}
706: \begin{center}
707: \resizebox{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{f6.eps}}
708: \end{center}
709: \caption{The fraction of the total number of clusters in each mass bin of
710: width $1.75\times 10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ found in mock surveys of three
711: different beam sizes: $1'$, $2.5'$ and $4'$ (top to bottom).
712: The solid curves indicate the results when the matched filter is used,
713: the dashed curves show the improvement in completeness when a less severe
714: filter is employed. Slope in the curves indicates a selection bias.}
715: \label{fig:mhist}
716: \end{figure}
717:
718: \subsection{Spatial filtering}
719:
720: Let us now turn to the case of single frequency maps. In this situation we
721: must remove the large CMB contribution by using its spatial structure.
722: Figures \ref{fig:p2} and \ref{fig:p3} are contour plots of the completeness
723: and efficiency that can be achieved by a single frequency experiment, using
724: the optimal filter of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:filter}), for various beam sizes.
725: Again we consider all rich clusters above $3\times 10^{14}h^{-1}M_\odot$.
726: The contours are computed at a constant noise level of $5\mu$K per $1'$ pixel.
727: On the $y$ axis is the threshold used on the filtered plot to identify
728: cluster candidates. The threshold indicates the statistical significance
729: of the cluster candidate above the level of instrument noise.
730: The $1\sigma$ value is determined by filtering the noise map without the
731: SZE or CMB signal, and computing the resulting variance.
732: In Figure \ref{fig:p2} the completeness improves as the resolution gets
733: better (smaller beam), however some percentage of the clusters are
734: overlooked as the candidate threshold is raised.
735: Raising the threshold is useful however in terms of improving the efficiency
736: of the survey, as can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:p3}.
737: Because all of the candidates need to be followed up for redshift information
738: (and positive identification as a real cluster, since the contamination for
739: some experiments can be large), efficiency is a high priority.
740: Since the contours in Figures \ref{fig:p2} and \ref{fig:p3} are not
741: completely parallel, there is not a simple trade off between completeness
742: and efficiency, but rather there are regions that are clearly somewhat better
743: compromises than others.
744: %The corresponding contour plots showing the beam size against the noise level
745: %per $1'$ pixel are not as interesting as this cross section, because the
746: %contours for completeness and efficiency are more closely parallel.
747: %This indicates that, unlike the situation above, in order to improve
748: %efficiency there must be corresponding sacrifice in completeness,
749: %regardless of the precise beam size or noise value.
750:
751: \begin{figure}
752: \begin{center}
753: \resizebox{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{f7.eps}}
754: \end{center}
755: \caption{The fraction of the total number of clusters in each distance bin of
756: width $235h^{-1}$Mpc found in mock surveys of three different beam sizes:
757: $1'$, $2.5'$ and $4'$ (top to bottom).
758: The solid curves indicate the results when the matched filter is used,
759: the dashed curves show the improvement in completeness when a less severe
760: filter is employed. Slope in the curves indicates a selection bias.
761: In this cosmology $z=1$ is at (approximately) $2300\,h^{-1}$Mpc.
762: The distribution of halos more massive than $3\times 10^{14}\,h^{-1}M_\odot$
763: peaks at $z\sim 0.6$ or $1400\,h^{-1}$Mpc and falls by two orders of
764: magnitude by $z=2$ ($3600\,h^{-1}$Mpc).}
765: \label{fig:dhist}
766: \end{figure}
767:
768: The very low effiencies evident in the bottom left of Figure \ref{fig:p3}
769: should not be read as confusion by noise in the map.
770: There are no noise peaks of $10\sigma$ in these maps, even including the CMB!
771: Rather they come from lower mass halos which happen to give rise to peaks
772: which are many sigma above the noise when the beam is small. For a $1'\,$FWHM
773: beam at $5\mu$K even halos with $10^{14}\,h^{-1}M_\odot$ can give rise to an
774: $>5\sigma$ peak, and these outnumber the $M>3\times 10^{14}\,h^{-1}M_\odot$
775: halos 10:1.
776: Raising the threshold even further (off the top of the plot) removes the
777: lower mass peaks and improves efficiencies, but at the expense of completeness
778: as in the above examples.
779:
780: \subsection{Non-optimal filter}
781:
782: Another degree of freedom is to change the shape of the filter instead of
783: adjusting the threshold. As mentioned earlier, broadening the filter can
784: improve completeness without clobbering the efficiency because the increase
785: in noise confusion is moderately compensated by the decrease in ringing.
786: Broadening the filter can also decrease both the mass and distance biases
787: that occur in SZE surveys with limited angular resolution.
788: Figures \ref{fig:mhist} and \ref{fig:dhist} show the completeness for three
789: different beam sizes, binned in mass and distance bins respectively.
790: These plots demonstrate that while high resolution experiments are relatively
791: unbiased, surveys with a large beam size will tend to deselect distant or
792: less massive clusters because the angle they subtend is smaller than the
793: resolution of the experiment.
794: By broadening the filter
795: (dashed lines in Figs.~\ref{fig:mhist} and \ref{fig:dhist}),
796: the completeness of the sample improves, as does the bias in some cases.
797: Decreasing the bias, or at very least quantifying it, is critical if the
798: survey is to be used to constrain the cosmological parameters.
799:
800: We find that broadening the filter on the high $\ell$ side (noise side)
801: in Fourier space is ineffective because the increase in the noise confusion
802: is too great, completely destroying the efficiency.
803: Instead we have filtered less harshly on the low $\ell$ portion of the mock
804: survey, replacing the $1/C_{\ell}^{CMB}$ portion of the filter with a much
805: wider half Gaussian that peaks at the same value of $\ell$.
806: The improvement in the completeness is naturally accompanied by a corresponding
807: decrease in the efficiency.
808: The efficiencies for $4'$, $2.5'$,and $1'$ beam sizes in the matched filter
809: case were 93\%, 86\%, and 52\% respectively.
810: In the modified filters, the width of the Gaussian was chosen so that the
811: efficiency would be approximately 45\%.
812: These widths were 1600, 2500, and 2500 $\ell$ values respectively.
813: This method could be used to satisfy any efficiency requirement lower than
814: the efficiency of the matched filter, in order to improve completeness.
815: While we did not explicitly try it we expect that the mexican hat
816: wavelet, which corresponds to a filter $x^2e^{-x^2}$ with $x\propto\ell$,
817: would also work well.
818:
819: \section{Conclusions}
820:
821: The SZE offers a new and potentially very powerful method for finding high
822: redshift clusters of galaxies. Because the amplitude of the effect is
823: independent of the distance to the cluster, it appears to be one of the best
824: techniques for constructing a large sample of high-$z$ clusters.
825:
826: Finding clusters with an SZE survey is however fraught with complications,
827: some of which we have begun to address here using mock observations of
828: simulated maps. While there remains significant uncertainty in the overall
829: level of the SZE angular power spectrum and our modeling of the effect has
830: been somewhat crude, we already see that the requirements on frequency
831: coverage, angular resolution and noise are quite severe for experiments
832: hoping to find large samples of clusters through the SZE.
833: In single frequency maps, the primary CMB anisotropies prove to be a large
834: contaminant. Indeed for experiments with angular resolutions of $>1'$ there
835: is little spatial range where the SZE signal dominates.
836:
837: Many important effects must be balanced when designing the experiment and
838: analyzing the data. The angular resolution of the instrument used is of
839: paramount importance, a key element in determining the yield of the survey.
840: Decreasing the beam size improves the completeness, and more importantly
841: decreases the bias against distant and lower mass clusters.
842: For any given resolution, however, there are adjustable parameters in the
843: data analysis that can help reduce the bias and maximize completeness, at
844: the moderate expense of efficiency.
845: Efficiency is still a vital part of the survey design, however, because
846: each cluster candidate must be followed up for positive identification and
847: redshift information.
848: The intrinsic contamination that occurs as a result of projection effects
849: makes a follow up required, even if the precise redshift is not needed.
850: To obtain a high level of completeness with correspondingly high efficiency
851: requires a multi-frequency observation with angular resolution of $1'$ or
852: better, and noise at or below $10\mu$K per $1'$ pixel.
853:
854: We have found that aggressive spatial filtering, to enhance the clusters
855: against the background, can have the unwanted side effect of introducing
856: ringing into the maps. Given the large number of sources in a typical
857: simulated map, overlapping `rings' can produce significant false detections.
858: Multi-frequency information could help reduce some of the pitfalls inherent in
859: a single frequency analysis, and may provide a less severe alternative than
860: matched filtering to disentangle SZE clusters from primary CMB anisotropies.
861: For any of these approaches, more sophisticated methods of identifying peaks
862: in the SZE map (e.g.~matched filtering) need to be investigated.
863: Better data analysis offers the hope of increased completeness without a
864: sacrifice in efficiency.
865:
866: \bigskip
867: The authors would like to thank Nils Halverson, Erik Reese and Chris Vale
868: for many useful discussions on this work.
869: The simulations used here were performed on the IBM-SP2 at the National
870: Energy Research Scientific Computing Center.
871: This research was supported by the NSF and NASA. M.W. was supported by
872: a Sloan Foundation Fellowship.
873:
874: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
875: \bibitem[1997]{Aghanim}
876: Aghanim N., da Luca A., Bouchet F.R., Gispert R., Puget J.L., 1997,
877: A\&A, 325, 9
878: \bibitem[2000]{Cay}
879: Cay\'on L., et al., 2000, \mnras, 315, 757
880: \bibitem[1980]{Cla}
881: Clark B.G., 1980, A\&A, 89, 377
882: \bibitem[2000]{Coo}
883: Cooray A., 2000, Phys. Rev. D62, 103506
884: \bibitem[2000]{CooHuTeg}
885: Cooray A., Hu W., Tegmark M., 2000, \apj, 540, 1
886: \bibitem[1985]{DEFW}
887: Davis M., Efstathiou G., Frenk C.S., White S.D.M., 1985, \apj, 292, 371
888: %\bibitem[2001]{Gonzalez}
889: %Gonzalez A., Zaritsky D., Dalcanton J.J., Nelson A., 2001, \apjs, 137, 117
890: \bibitem[1999]{EisHu}
891: Eisenstein D., Hu W., 1999, \apj, 511, 5
892: \bibitem[2001]{FRB}
893: Finoguenov A., Reiprich T.H., Bohringer H., 2001, A\&A, 368, 749
894: \bibitem[1996]{HaeTeg}
895: Haehnelt M., Tegmark M., 1996, \mnras, 279, 545 [astro-ph/9507077]
896: \bibitem[2002]{HSHBDML}
897: Herranz D., et al., 2002, \mnras, 336, 1057 [astro-ph/0203486]
898: \bibitem[1974]{Hog}
899: H\"ogbom J., 1974, ApJS, 15, 417
900: \bibitem[2001]{HolCar}
901: Holder G., Carlstrom J., 2001, \apj, 558, 515
902: \bibitem[2001]{KayLidTho}
903: Kay S.T., Liddle A.R., Thomas P., 2001, \mnras, 325, 835 [astro-ph/0102352]
904: \bibitem[1999]{KomKit}
905: Komatsu E., Kitayama T., 1999, \apj, 526, L1
906: \bibitem[2002]{KomSel}
907: Komatsu E., Seljak U., 2002, \mnras, 336, 1256 [astro-ph/0205468]
908: \bibitem[2002]{CBI}
909: Mason B.S., et al., 2002, \apj, in press [astro-ph/0205384]
910: \bibitem[2000]{MolBir}
911: Molnar S.M., Birkinshaw M., 2000, \apj, 537, 542
912: \bibitem[1996]{cmbfast}
913: Seljak U., Zaldarriaga M., 1996, \apj, 469, 437 [astro-ph/9603033]
914: \bibitem[2001]{dSBLT}
915: da Silva A.C., Barbosa D., Liddle A.R., Thomas P.A., 2001, \mnras, 326, 155
916: \bibitem[1996]{TegEfs}
917: Tegmark M., Efstathiou, G., 1996, \mnras, 281, 1297 [astro-ph/9507009]
918: \bibitem[1998]{tegfilt}
919: Tegmark M., de Oliveira-Costa A., 1998, \apj, 500 L83 [astro-ph/9802123]
920: \bibitem[2001]{VBHMLST}
921: Vielva P., et al., 2001, \mnras, 328, 1 [astro-ph/0105387]
922: \bibitem[2002]{MassFn}
923: White M., 2002, \apjs, in press [astro-ph/0207185]
924: \bibitem[2002]{WhiKoc}
925: White M., Kochanek C., 2002, \apj, 574, 24 [astro-ph/0110307]
926: \bibitem[2002] {WhivWaMac}
927: White M., van Waerbeke L., \& Mackey J., 2002, \apj, 575, 640
928: [astro-ph/0111490].
929: \bibitem[2002]{WHS}
930: White M., Hernquist L., Springel V., 2002, \apj, 579, 16 [astro-ph/0205437]
931:
932: \end{thebibliography}
933:
934: \end{document}
935: