1: %\documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\usepackage{emulateapj}
4: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
5: %\usepackage{timesfonts}
6: %\usepackage{psfig}
7: %\documentclass{aastex}
8:
9:
10: \newcommand{\ml}{$M/L$}
11: \newcommand{\msun}{M$_\sun$}
12: \newcommand{\lsun}{L$_\sun$}
13: \newcommand{\hinv}{$h^{-1}\ $}
14: \newcommand{\om}{$\Omega_m$}
15: \newcommand{\ol}{$\Omega_{\Lambda}$}
16: \newcommand{\sigv}{$\sigma_{v}$}
17: \newcommand{\sige}{$\sigma_{8}$}
18: \newcommand{\ngal}{$N_{gal}$}
19:
20: \slugcomment{Last modified \today}
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \title{The Richness-Dependent Cluster Correlation Function: \\
25: Early SDSS Data}
26:
27: \author{
28: Neta A. Bahcall\altaffilmark{1},
29: Feng Dong\altaffilmark{1},
30: Lei Hao\altaffilmark{1},
31: Paul Bode\altaffilmark{1},
32: Jim Annis\altaffilmark{2},
33: James E. Gunn\altaffilmark{1},
34: Donald P. Schneider\altaffilmark{3}
35: }
36:
37: \altaffiltext{1}{Princeton University Observatory, Princeton, NJ 08544}
38: \altaffiltext{2}{Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510}
39: \altaffiltext{3}{Dept. of Astronomy and Astrophysics, The Pennsylvania State University, University
40: Park, PA 16802}
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43:
44: The cluster correlation function and its richness dependence are determined
45: from 1108 clusters of galaxies -- the largest sample of clusters studied
46: so far -- found in 379 deg$^2$ of Sloan Digital Sky Survey early data. The results
47: are compared with previous samples of optically and X-ray selected clusters.
48: The richness-dependent correlation function increases monotonically
49: from an average correlation scale of $\sim$ 12 $h^{-1}$ Mpc for poor clusters
50: to $\sim$25 $h^{-1}$ Mpc for the richer, more massive clusters with
51: a mean separation of $\sim$90 $h^{-1}$ Mpc. X-ray selected clusters
52: suggest slightly stronger correlations than optically selected clusters ($\sim$ 2-$\sigma$).
53: The results are compared with large-scale
54: cosmological simulations. The observed richness-dependent cluster correlation
55: function is well represented by the standard flat LCDM model (\om $\simeq$0.3, $h$
56: $\simeq$0.7), and is inconsistent with the considerably weaker correlations
57: predicted by \om = 1 models. An analytic relation for the correlation
58: scale versus cluster mean separation, $r_0 - d$, that best describes the observations and the LCDM
59: prediction is $r_0 \simeq 2.6 \sqrt{d}$ (for $d \simeq$ 20 - 90 $h^{-1}$ Mpc). Data from
60: the complete Sloan Digital Sky Survey, when available, will greatly enhance the
61: accuracy of the results and allow a more precise determination of cosmological
62: parameters.
63:
64:
65:
66: \end{abstract}
67:
68: \keywords{
69: cosmology:observations--cosmology:theory--cosmological parameters--dark matter--galaxies:clusters:
70: general--large-scale structure of universe
71: }
72:
73: \section{Introduction} \label{introduction}
74:
75: The spatial correlation function of clusters of galaxies and its richness dependence
76: provide powerful tests of cosmological models: both the amplitude of the correlation
77: function and its dependence on cluster mass/richness are determined by the underlying
78: cosmology. It has long been shown that clusters are more strongly correlated in space
79: than galaxies, by an order-of-magnitude: the typical galaxy correlation
80: scale, $\sim$ 5 $h^{-1}$ Mpc, increases to $\sim$ 20 - 25 $h^{-1}$ Mpc for the
81: richest clusters (\citealt{bah83, kly83}; see also \citealt{bah88, huc90, pos92, bah92, pea92,
82: dal94, cro97, aba98, lee99, bor99, col00, gon02}; and references therein).
83: \citet{bah83} showed that the cluster correlation function is richness dependent: the
84: correlation strength increases with cluster richness, or mass. Many observations have since confirmed
85: these results (references above), and theory has nicely explained them \citep{kai84,
86: bah92a, moh96, gov99, colb00, mos00, she01}. But the uncertainties
87: in the observed cluster correlation function as manifested by the scatter among different measurements remained large.
88:
89: In this paper we use the largest sample of clusters yet investigated, 1108 clusters selected
90: from 379 deg$^2$ of early Sloan Digital Sky Survey data (see the SDSS cluster catalog: \citealt{bah03}),
91: to determine the cluster correlation function. This large, complete sample of objectively selected clusters,
92: ranging from poor to moderately rich systems in the redshift range $z$ = 0.1 - 0.3,
93: allows a new determination of the cluster correlation function and its richness dependence.
94: We compare the SDSS cluster correlation function with results of
95: previous optically and X-ray selected clusters (\S \ref{correlation}). We use large-scale cosmological
96: simulations to compare the observational results with cosmological models (\S \ref{comparison}). The data are
97: consistent with predictions from the standard flat LCDM model (\om $\sim$0.3, $h\sim$0.7),
98: which best fits numerous other observations (e.g., \citealt{bah99, ben03, spe03}).
99:
100:
101: \section{SDSS Cluster Selection} \label{clusterselection}
102:
103: The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; \citealt{yor00}) will provide a comprehensive digital
104: imaging survey of 10$^4$ deg$^2$ of the North Galactic Cap (and a smaller, deeper area in
105: the South) in five bands ($u$, $g$, $r$, $i$, $z$) to a limiting magnitude of $r<$23, followed
106: by a spectroscopic multi-fiber survey of the brightest one million galaxies, to $r<$17.7,
107: with a median redshift of $z \sim$0.1 \citep{fuk96, gun98, lup01, hog01, str02}. For more
108: details of the SDSS see \citet{smi02}; \citet{sto02};
109: and \citet{pie03}.
110:
111: Cluster selection was performed on 379 deg$^2$ of SDSS commissioning data, covering the area
112: $\alpha$(2000) = 355\degr\ to 56\degr\ and 145.3\degr\ to 236.0\degr\ at $\delta$(2000)= -1.25\degr\ to 1.25\degr\
113: (runs 94/125 and 752/756). The clusters studied here were selected from these imaging
114: data using a color-magnitude maximum-likelihood Brightest Cluster Galaxy method (maxBCG;
115: \citealt{ann03}). The clusters are described in the SDSS cluster catalog of \citet{bah03}.
116: The maxBCG method selects clusters based on the well-known color-luminosity relation of
117: the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) and the E/S0 red ridgeline.
118: The method provides a cluster richness estimate, \ngal\ (the number of E/S0 galaxies
119: within 1 $h^{-1}$ Mpc of the BCG that are fainter than the BCG and brighter than
120: $M_i$(lim) = -20.25), and a cluster redshift estimate that maximizes the cluster likelihood (with 1-$\sigma$
121: uncertainty of $\sigma_z$ = 0.014 for \ngal $\geq$10 and
122: $\sigma_z$ = 0.01 for \ngal $\geq$20 clusters). We use all maxBCG clusters in the
123: estimated redshift range $z_{est}$ = 0.1 - 0.3 that are above a
124: richness threshold of \ngal $\geq$ 10 (corresponding to velocity dispersion $\ga$350 km s$^{-1}$);
125: the sample contains 1108 clusters. The selection function and false-positive detection rate
126: for these clusters have been estimated from simulations and from visual
127: inspection to be $\la10\%$ \citep{bah03}.
128:
129: \section{The Cluster Correlation Function} \label{correlation}
130:
131: The two-point spatial correlation function is determined by comparing the
132: observed distribution of cluster pairs as a function of pair separation with the distribution
133: of random catalogs in the same volume. The correlation function is estimated from the
134: relation $\xi_{cc}(r) = F_{DD}(r)/F_{RR}(r) - 1$, where $F_{DD}$($r$) and $F_{RR}$($r$) are the
135: frequencies of cluster-cluster pairs as a
136: function of pair separation $r$ in the data and in random catalogs,
137: respectively. The random catalogs contain $\sim 10^3$ times the number of clusters
138: in each data sample; the clusters are
139: randomly positioned on the sky within the surveyed area.
140: The redshifts of the random clusters follow the redshifts
141: of the observed clusters in order to minimize possible selection effects with redshift.
142: Comoving coordinates in a flat LCDM
143: cosmology with \om = 0.3 and a Hubble constant of $H_0$ = 100 $h$ km s$^{-1}$
144: Mpc$^{-1}$ are used throughtout.
145:
146: The uncertainty in the estimated cluster redshifts ($\sigma_z$ = 0.01 for
147: \ngal $\geq$20 clusters and $\sigma_z$ = 0.014 for \ngal $\geq$10 to $\geq$15 clusters;
148: \S \ref{clusterselection}) causes a small smearing effect in the cluster correlations.
149: We use Monte Carlo simulations to correct for this effect.
150: We use simulations with a realistic cluster distribution with redshift and richness,
151: convolve the clusters with the observed Gaussian scatter in redshift as given above,
152: and determine the new convolved cluster correlation function. As expected, the redshift
153: uncertainty causes a slight weakening of the true correlation
154: function, especially at small separations, due to the smearing effect of the redshift
155: uncertainty. We determine the correction factor for this effect as a function of scale
156: $r$ from 10$^2$ Monte Carlo simulations for each sample. The correction factor (typically
157: $\la 20\%$) is then applied to the correlation function.
158: An additional small correction factor due to false-positive detections is also determined
159: from Monte Carlo simulations using the estimated false-positive detection rate of
160: $10\% \pm5\%$ for \ngal $\geq$10 clusters, $5\% \pm5\%$ for \ngal $\geq$13, and $< 5\%$ for
161: the richest clusters with \ngal $\geq$15. The correlation function uncertainties are determined
162: from the Monte Carlo simulations. Each simulation contains the same number of clusters
163: as the relevant data sample. The final uncertainties include the statistical uncertainties
164: and the uncertainties due to the small correction factors in the
165: redshift and false-positive corrections.
166:
167: The correlation function is determined for clusters with richness thresholds of \ngal
168: $\geq$10, $\geq$13, $\geq$15, and $\geq$20. The space densities of these clusters,
169: corrected for selection function and redshift uncertainty \citep{bah03a}, are
170: $5.3\times10^{-5}$, $2.2\times10^{-5}$, $1.4\times10^{-5}$, and $0.5\times10^{-5} \ h^3$
171: Mpc$^{-3}$ ($z_{est}$ = 0.1 - 0.3). The correlation function of the four
172: samples are presented in Figure 1 and Table 1. The best-fit
173: power-law relation, $\xi$($r$) = ($\frac{r}{r_{0}}$)$^{-\gamma}$, derived for $r$ $\la$ 50 $h^{-1}$ Mpc,
174: is shown for each sample. The power-law slope $\gamma$ has been treated both as a free parameter and as a fixed
175: value ($\gamma$ = 2). The difference in the correlation scale $r_0$
176: for these different slopes is small ($\la 2\%$), well within the measured uncertainty.
177:
178: The richness dependence of the cluster correlation function is shown in Figure 2; it is
179: presented as the dependence of the correlation scale $r_0$ on the cluster mean separation $d$
180: \citep{bah83, sza85, bah88, cro97, gov99, colb00}.
181: Samples with intrinsically larger mean separations correspond to lower intrinsic cluster
182: abundances ($n_{cl}$ = $d^{-3}$) and thus to higher cluster richness and mass (for complete samples).
183: We compare our results with those of previous optically
184: and X-ray selected cluster samples (Figure 2). These include the correlation function of Abell clusters (\citealt{bah83,
185: pea92}; Richness class $\geq$1; Richness = 0 clusters are an incomplete sample and should
186: not be included); APM clusters \citep{cro97}; Edinburgh-Durham clusters (EDCC;
187: \citealt{nic92}); Las-Campanas Distant Cluster Survey (LCDCS; \citealt{gon02}); galaxy groups (2dF;
188: \citealt{zan03}); and X-ray selected clusters (REFLEX: \citealt{col00}; and XBACS:
189: \citealt{aba98, lee99}). A summary of the results is presented in Table 1.
190: For proper comparison of different samples, we will use the same set of standard parameters in the
191: relative $r_0$ - $d$ plot: redshift $z \sim$0, correlation
192: power-law slope $\gamma = 2$, and all scales are in comoving units in the LCDM cosmology.
193: We discuss these below.
194:
195: Most of the cluster samples are at small redshifts, $z \la$ 0.1 (Table 1). The only exceptions
196: are the SDSS clusters ($z \simeq$ 0.1 - 0.3), and the LCDCS ($z \simeq$ 0.35
197: - 0.575). To convert the results to $z \sim$ 0 we use large-scale cosmological simulations of
198: an LCDM model and determine the cluster correlation
199: function and the $r_0$ - $d$ relation at different redshifts.
200: Details of the simulations and cluster selection are given in \citet{bod01} (see also \S \ref{comparison}).
201: The correlation function is determined following the same
202: method used for the data. We find that while both $r_0$ and $d$ increase with
203: redshift for the same mass clusters, as expected, there
204: is no significant change ($\la 3\%$) in the $r_0$ - $d$ relation as the redshift changes from $z$ = 0 to $\sim$
205: 0.5 (for $d \sim 20 - 90 \ h^{-1}$ Mpc). In Figure 2
206: we plot the individual parameters $r_0$ and $d$ at the sample's
207: measured redshift as listed in Table 1; the relative $r_0$ - $d$
208: relation remains essentially unchanged to $z\simeq$ 0.
209:
210: Most of the cluster correlation functions (Table 1) have a power-law
211: slope in the range of $\sim2\pm0.2$. The APM highest richness
212: subsamples report steeper slopes (3.2, 2.8, 2.3); they also have the
213: smallest number of clusters (17, 29, 58). The correlation scale $r_0$ is inversely correlated
214: with the power-law slope; a steeper slope typically yields a smaller correlation scale.
215: We use the APM best $\chi^2$ fit for $r_0$ at $\gamma$ = 2 \citep{cro97} for these
216: richest subsamples. Using cosmological simulations, we investigate the dependence of $r_0$
217: on the slope within the more typical observed range of $2\pm0.2$. For the current range of mean
218: separations $d$ we find only a small change in $r_0$ ($\la 5\%$) when the slope changes within
219: this observed range. The X-ray cluster sample XBACS yields similar correlation scales for slopes
220: ranging from $\sim$ 1.8 to 2.5 (\citealt{aba98} and \citealt{lee99}).
221: Similarly, the SDSS correlation scales are essentially the same when using a free slope fit (typically
222: 1.7 to 2.1) or a fixed slope of 2. Since most of the observations are reported with a slope
223: of 2, we adopt the latter as the standard slope for the results presented in Figure 2. The only
224: correction applied is to the three highest richness APM subsamples;
225: these are shown both with and without the correction. We also varify using cosmological
226: simulations that the LCDCS sample at $z \sim$ 0.35 - 0.575, with a slope of 2.15, has an $r_0$ - $d$
227: relation consistent with the standard set of parameters used in Figure 2
228: ($z \simeq$ 0, $\gamma \simeq$ 2).
229:
230: Finally, we convert all scales ($r_0$ and $d$ from Table 1) to the same \om =0.3 cosmology (LCDM).
231: The effect of the cosmology on the observed $r_0$ - $d$ relation is small ($\la 3\%$),
232: partly due to the small redshifts, where the effect
233: is small, but also because the cosmology affects both $r_0$ and $d$ in the same way, thus minimizing the
234: relative change in the $r_0$ - $d$ relation.
235:
236: A comparison of all the results, including the minor corrections discussed above, is shown
237: in Figure 2. Figure 2a presents both optically and X-ray selected clusters;
238: Figure 2b includes only the optical samples. The richness-dependence of the cluster
239: correlation function is apparent in Figure 2. The X-ray clusters
240: suggest somewhat stronger correlations than the optical clusters, at a $\sim$2-$\sigma$ level.
241: Improved optical and X-ray samples should reduce the scatter
242: and help address this important comparison.
243:
244: \section{Comparison with Cosmological Simulations} \label{comparison}
245:
246: We compare the results with large-scale cosmological simulations of a standard LCDM model
247: (\om = 0.3, $h$ = 0.67, $\sigma_8$ = 0.9), and a tilted SCDM model, TSCDM (\om = 1, $h$ = 0.5,
248: $n$ = 0.625, $\sigma_8$ = 0.5). The TPM high-resolution large-volume simulations \citep{bod01}
249: used $1.34\times10^8$ particles with an individual particle
250: mass of $6.2\times10^{11} h^{-1}$ \msun; the periodic box size is 1000 $h^{-1}$ Mpc for LCDM and
251: 669 $h^{-1}$ Mpc for TSCDM. The simulated clusters are ordered by their abundance based on cluster mass
252: within 1.5 $h^{-1}$ Mpc. The results of the cosmological simulations for the
253: $r_0$ - $d$ relation of $z$ = 0 clusters are presented by the two bands in Figure 2 (1-$\sigma$ range).
254: A correlation function slope of 2 was used in the analysis.
255: We also show the simulations results of \citet{colb00} for
256: LCDM, and \citet{gov99} for a standard untilted SCDM (\om = 1, $h$ = 0.5, $n$ = 1,
257: $\sigma_8$ = 0.7). The agreement among the simulations is excellent. As expected,
258: the untilted SCDM model yields smaller $r_0$'s than the strongly tilted model;
259: LCDM yields the strongest correlations.
260:
261: We determine an analytic relation that approximates the observed and the LCDM $r_0$ - $d$ relation:
262: $r_0 \simeq 2.6 \sqrt{d}$ (for $20 \la d \la 90$; all scales are in $h^{-1}$ Mpc).
263: The observed richness-dependent cluster correlation function agrees well with the standard LCDM model.
264: The correlation scales, and the $r_0$
265: - $d$ relation, increase as \om$h$ decreases and the spectrum shifts to larger scales. The \om = 1
266: models yield considerably weaker correlations than observed.
267: This fact has of course been demonstrated earlier; in fact, the strength of the cluster correlation
268: function and its richness dependence were among the first indications against the standard \om = 1
269: SCDM model (\citealt{bah92, cro97, bor99, gov99, colb00}; and references therein).
270:
271: The scatter in the observed $r_0$ - $d$ relation among different samples is still large, especially
272: when both the optical and X-ray selected samples are included. A high-precision
273: determination of the cosmological parameters cannot therefore be achieved at this point.
274:
275:
276: \section{Conclusions}
277:
278: We determine the cluster correlation function and its richness dependence using 1108
279: clusters of galaxies found in 379 deg$^2$ of early SDSS data.
280: The cluster correlation function shows a clear richness dependence, with increasing correlation
281: strength with cluster richness/mass. The results are combined with previous samples of
282: optical and X-ray clusters, and compared with cosmological simulations. We find
283: that the richness-dependent cluster correlation function is consistent with predictions from
284: the standard flat LCDM model (\om = 0.3, $h$ = 0.7), and, as expected, inconsistent with the
285: weaker correlations predicted by \om = 1 models.
286: We derive an analytic relation for the correlation scale versus cluster mean separation relation
287: that best describes the observations and the LCDM expectations: $r_0 \simeq 2.6 \sqrt{d}$.
288: X-ray selected clusters suggest somewhat stronger correlations than the optically selected
289: clusters, at a $\sim$2-$\sigma$ level.
290:
291: Funding for the creation and distribution of the SDSS Archive has been provided by the
292: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, NASA, the NSF, the U.S. Department
293: of Energy, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society. The SDSS Web site is http://www.sdss.org/.
294: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) for the Participating
295: Institutions. The Participating Institutions are The University of Chicago, Fermilab, the
296: Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, The Johns Hopkins University, Los
297: Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute
298: for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, University of Pittsburgh, Princeton University,
299: the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
300:
301:
302: \begin{thebibliography}{}
303:
304: \bibitem[Abadi, Lambas, \& Muriel(1998)]{aba98} Abadi, M., Lambas, D., \& Muriel, H. 1998, \apj, 507, 526
305: \bibitem[Annis et al.(2003)]{ann03} Annis, J., et al.\ 2003, in preparation.
306: \bibitem[Bahcall \& Soneira(1983)]{bah83} Bahcall, N.~A.~\& Soneira, R.~M. 1983, \apj, 270, 20
307: \bibitem[Bahcall(1988)]{bah88} Bahcall, N.~A. 1988, ARA\&A, 26, 631
308: \bibitem[Bahcall \& West(1992)]{bah92} Bahcall, N.~A.~\& West, M.~J. 1992, \apj, 392, 419
309: \bibitem[Bahcall \& Cen(1992)]{bah92a} Bahcall, N.~A.~\& Cen, R. 1992, \apj, 398, L81
310: \bibitem[Bahcall, Ostriker, Perlmutter, \& Steinhardt(1999)]{bah99} Bahcall, N.~A., Ostriker, J.~P.,
311: Perlmutter, S., \& Steinhardt, P.~J.\ 1999, Science, 284, 1481
312: \bibitem[Bahcall et al.(2003a)]{bah03a} Bahcall, N.~A., Dong, F., Bode, P. et al. 2003a, \apj, 585, 182
313: \bibitem[Bahcall et al.(2003b)]{bah03} Bahcall, N.~A. et al. 2003b, ApJS, vol.148 (October 2003), astro-ph/0305202
314: \bibitem[Bennett et al.(2003)]{ben03} Bennett, C.~L. et al. 2003, ApJ, in press
315: \bibitem[Bode et al.(2001)]{bod01} Bode, P., Bahcall, N.~A., Ford, E.~B., \& Ostriker, J.~P., 2001, ApJ, 551, 15
316: \bibitem[Borgani, Plionis, \& Kolokotronis(1999)]{bor99} Borgani, S., Plionis, M., \& Kolokotronis, V. 1999,
317: MNRAS, 305, 866
318: \bibitem[Colberg et al.(2000)]{colb00} Colberg, J. M. et al. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 209
319: \bibitem[Collins et al.(2000)]{col00} Collins, C. et al. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 939
320: \bibitem[Croft et al.(1997)]{cro97} Croft, R.~A.~C. et al. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 305
321: \bibitem[Dalton et al.(1994)]{dal94} Dalton, G.~B. et al. 1994, MNRAS, 271, L47
322: \bibitem[Fukugita et al.(1996)]{fuk96} Fukugita, M. et al. 1996, \aj, 111, 1748
323: %\bibitem[Gladders \& Yee(2000)]{gla00} Gladders, M.~D.~\& Yee, H.~K.~C.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 2148
324: \bibitem[Gonzalez, Zaritsky, \& Wechsler(2002)]{gon02} Gonzalez, A.~H., Zaritsky, D., Wechsler, R.~H. 2002,
325: \apj, 571, 129
326: \bibitem[Governato et al.(1999)]{gov99} Governato, F. et al. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 949
327: \bibitem[Gunn et al.(1998)]{gun98} Gunn, J.~E.~et al.\ 1998, \aj, 116, 3040
328: %\bibitem[Hoessel \& Schneider(1985)]{hoe85}Hoessel, J.~G., \& Schneider, D.~P. 1985, AJ, 90, 1648
329: \bibitem[Hogg et al.(2001)]{hog01} Hogg, D.~W.~et al.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 2129
330: \bibitem[Huchra et al.(1990)]{huc90} Huchra, J., Henry, J.~P., Postman, M., \& Geller, M. 1990, \apj, 365, 66
331: \bibitem[Kaiser(1984)]{kai84} Kaiser, N. 1984, \apj, 284, L9
332: \bibitem[Klypin \& Kopylov (1983)]{kly83} Klypin, A.~A.~\& Kopylov, A.~I. 1983, Soviet Astron. Lett. 9, 41
333: \bibitem[Lee \& Park (1999)]{lee99} Lee, S., Park, C. 1999, JKAS, 32, 1
334: \bibitem[Lupton et al.(2001)]{lup01} Lupton, R., et al.\ 2001, ASP Conf. Ser.238, vol.10, 269
335: \bibitem[Mo \& White(1996)]{moh96} Mo, H.~J. \& White, S.~D.~M. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 347
336: \bibitem[Moscardini et al.(2000)]{mos00} Moscardini, L., Matarrese, S., Lucchin, F., Rosati, P. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 283
337: \bibitem[Nichol et al.(1992)]{nic92} Nichol, R.~C., Collins, C.~A., Guzzo, L., \& Lumsden, S.~L. 1992, MNRAS, 255, 21
338: \bibitem[Peacock \& West(1992)]{pea92} Peacock, J.~A. ~\& West, M.~J. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 494
339: \bibitem[Pier et al.(2003)]{pie03} Pier, J.~R. et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1559
340: \bibitem[Postman, Huchra, \& Geller(1992)]{pos92} Postman, M., Huchra, J., \& Geller, M. 1992, \apj, 384, 404
341: \bibitem[Sheth, Mo, \& Tormen(2001)]{she01} Sheth, R.~K., Mo, H.~J., Tormen, G. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 1
342: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2002)]{smi02} Smith, J.~A. et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 2121
343: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2003)]{spe03} Spergel, D.~N. et al. 2003, ApJ, in press
344: \bibitem[Stoughton et al.(2002)]{sto02} Stoughton, C., et al.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 485
345: \bibitem[Strauss, et al.(2002)]{str02} Strauss, M., et al.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 1810
346: \bibitem[Szalay \& Schramm(1985)]{sza85} Szalay, A.~S. \& Schramm, D.~N. 1985, Nature, 314, 718
347: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{yor00} York, D.~G.~et al.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
348: \bibitem[Zandivarez, Merchan, \& Padilla(2003)]{zan03} Zandivarez, A., Merchan, M.~E., \& Padilla,
349: N.~D. 2003, astro-ph/0303450
350:
351:
352: \end{thebibliography}
353:
354:
355: \clearpage
356:
357: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
358: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
359:
360: \epsscale{0.92}
361: \begin{figure}
362: \plotone{f1.eps}
363: \caption{The SDSS cluster correlation function for four richness thresholds
364: (\ngal $\geq$10, $\geq$13, $\geq$15, $\geq$20). Best-fit functions with slope 2 and
365: correlation-scale $r_0$ are shown by
366: the dashed lines (1-$\sigma$ uncertainties).
367: \label{f1}}
368: \end{figure}
369:
370: \epsscale{0.92}
371: \begin{figure}
372: \plotone{f2.eps}
373: \caption{Correlation-scale $r_0$ versus mean
374: cluster separation $d$ for all samples (Fig.2a) and for optical samples (Fig.2b) (1-$\sigma$
375: uncertainties). A slope $\gamma$= 2 and LCDM comoving
376: scales are used (due to conversion to the standard LCDM cosmology, some values differ slightly from
377: Table 1; see \S \ref{correlation}). Cosmological simulations
378: are presented by the two bands (LCDM and Tilted-SCDM). Previous
379: simulations of LCDM (dot-dash) and untilted SCDM (dotted
380: curve) are also shown (\S \ref{comparison}). The solid curve represents
381: $r_0 = 2.6 \sqrt{d}$ (\S \ref{comparison}).
382: \label{f2}}
383: \end{figure}
384:
385:
386: \clearpage
387:
388:
389:
390: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrrr}
391: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
392: \tablecolumns{6}
393: \tablewidth{0pc}
394: \tablecaption{The Cluster Correlation Function}
395: \tablehead{
396: \colhead{Sample\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{\ $N_{cl}$} &
397: \colhead{$z$} & \colhead{$\gamma$} & \colhead{$r_0$} &
398: \colhead{$d$} \\
399: \colhead{} & \colhead{} &
400: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(Mpc)} &
401: \colhead{(Mpc)}
402: }
403: \startdata
404: SDSS \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & & & & & \\
405: \ \ N$_{gal}\geq$10 & 1108 & 0.1-0.3 \ & 2 \ \ & $12.7\pm0.6$ & 26.6 \\
406: \ \ N$_{gal}\geq$13 & 472 & 0.1-0.3 \ & 2 \ \ & $15.1\pm0.9$ & 35.6 \\
407: \ \ N$_{gal}\geq$15 & 300 & 0.1-0.3 \ & 2 \ \ & $17.3\pm1.3$ & 41.5 \\
408: \ \ N$_{gal}\geq$20 & 110 & 0.1-0.3 \ & 2 \ \ & $21.2\pm2.8$ & 58.1 \\
409: \hline \\
410: Abell (1,2) \ \ & & & & & \\
411: \ \ Rich $\geq$1 \ & 195 & $\la$0.08 \ \ & 2 \ \ & $21.1\pm1.3$ & 52 \ \\
412: \hline \\
413: APM (3) \ \ \ \ & & & & & \\
414: \ \ R$\geq$50 \ \ & 364 & $\sim<$0.1$>$ & 2.1 \ & $14.2 \ \pm^{0.4}_{0.6}$ & 30 \ \\
415: \ \ R$\geq$70 \ \ & 114 & $<$0.1$>$ \ & 2.1 \ & $16.6\pm1.3$ & 48 \ \\
416: \ \ R$\geq$80 \ \ & 110 & $<$0.1$>$ \ & 1.7 \ & $18.4 \ \pm^{2.2}_{2.4}$ & 57 \ \\
417: \ \ R$\geq$90 \ \ & 58 & $<$0.1$>$ \ & 2.3 \ & $22.2\pm2.8$ & 69 \ \\
418: & & & $[$ 2 $]$ \ & $[ 23.0\pm2.9 ]$\tablenotemark{b} & \\
419: \ \ R$\geq$100 \ & 29 & $<$0.1$>$ \ & 2.8 \ & $18.4\pm4.8$ & 79 \ \\
420: & & & $[$ 2 $]$ \ & $[22.6\pm6.0 ]$\tablenotemark{b} & \\
421: \ \ R$\geq$110 \ & 17 & $<$0.1$>$ \ & 3.2 \ & $21.3\pm5.3$ & 86 \ \\
422: & & & $[$ 2 $]$ \ & $[ 27.0\pm6.7 ]$\tablenotemark{b} & \\
423: \hline \\
424: EDCC (4) \ \ & 79 & $\la$0.13 \ \ & 2 \ \ \ & $16.2\pm2.3$ & 41 \ \\
425: \hline \\
426: LCDCS (5) \ & 178 & 0.35-0.475 & 2.15 \ & $14.7 \ \pm^{2.0}_{2.2}$ & 38.4 \\
427: & 158 & 0.35-0.525 & 2.15 \ & $17.2 \ \pm^{2.9}_{3.5}$ & 46.3 \\
428: & 115 & 0.35-0.575 & 2.15 \ & $20.9 \ \pm^{4.6}_{5.6}$ & 58.1 \\
429: \hline \\
430: \ REFLEX (6) & & & & & \\
431: \ \ L$_{X}\geq$0.08 & 39 & $\la$0.05 \ \ & 2 \ \ & $24.8\pm2.5$ & 48 \ \\
432: \ \ L$_{X}\geq$0.18 & 84 & $\la$0.075 \ & 2 \ \ & $25.8 \ \pm^{1.9}_{2.0}$ & 61 \ \\
433: L$_{X}\geq$0.3 \ & 108 & $\la$0.10 \ \ & 2 \ \ & $31.3 \ \pm^{2.0}_{2.1}$ & 72 \ \\
434: L$_{X}\geq$0.5 \ & 101 & $\la$0.125 \ & 2 \ \ & $25.8 \ \pm^{3.2}_{3.3}$ & 88 \ \\
435: \hline \\
436: \ XBACS (7,8) & & & & & \\
437: \ \ L$_{X}\geq$0.24 & 49 & $\la$0.07 \ \ & 1.8-2.5 & $25.7\pm3.7$ & 66 \ \\
438: \ \ L$_{X}\geq$0.48 & 67 & $\la$0.09 \ \ & 1.8-2.5 & $25.2\pm4.1$ & 82 \ \\
439: \ \ L$_{X}\geq$0.65 & 59 & $\la$0.11 \ \ & 1.6-2.2 & $30.3 \ \pm^{8.2}_{6.5}$ & 98 \ \\
440: \hline \\
441: Groups (9) \ \ & & & & & \\
442: \ \ M$_{v}\geq$5e13 & 920 & $<$0.12$>$ & 2 \ \ & $11.7\pm0.6$ & 20.9 \\
443: \ \ M$_{v}\geq$1e14 & 540 & $<$0.13$>$ & 2 \ \ & $13.4\pm0.9$ & 28.9 \\
444: \hline
445: \enddata
446: \tablenotetext{a}{Sample (with reference), and subsample threshold in richness, X-ray luminosity
447: (10$^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$), or M$_{vir}$ (\msun). References: 1.\citealt{bah83};
448: 2.\citealt{pea92}; 3.\citealt{cro97};
449: [larger $r_0$'s are obtained for APM by \citealt{lee99}];
450: 4.\citealt{nic92}; 5.\citealt{gon02}; 6.\citealt{col00};
451: 7.\citealt{lee99}; see also 8.\citealt{aba98}; 9.\citealt{zan03}.
452: The SDSS, LCDCS, and Groups use LCDM cosmology
453: for their $r_0$ and $d$; all others use \om=1. All scales are for $h$ = 1.}
454: \tablenotetext{b}{Correlation-scale r$_0$ using a slope of 2 (see \S \ref{correlation})}.
455:
456: \end{deluxetable}
457:
458:
459:
460: %% The following command ends your manuscript. LaTeX will ignore any text
461: %% that appears after it.
462:
463: \end{document}
464:
465: %%
466: %% End of file
467:
468: \end{document}
469:
470:
471:
472:
473:
474:
475:
476:
477:
478: