1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: \documentclass[]{aastex}

3: \usepackage{emulateapj5}

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: \citestyle{aa}

6: 

7: \newcommand{\kmsmpc}{{\rm\ km\ s^{-1}\ Mpc^{-1}}}

8: \newcommand{\LCDM}{$\Lambda$CDM}

9: \newcommand{\WMAP}{{\it WMAP}}

10: \newcommand{\SDSS}{{\it SDSS}}

11: \newcommand{\msun}{{M_{\odot}}}

12: \newcommand{\hmsun}{{{\rm h}^{-1}\msun}}

13: \newcommand{\hmpc}{{{\rm h}^{-1}\, {\rm Mpc}}}

14: \newcommand{\dd}{{\rm d}}

15: 

16: \newenvironment{inlinefigure}{

17: \def\@captype{figure}

18: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}

19: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}

20: 

21: %----------------------------------------------------

22: \begin{document}

23: \slugcomment{{\em submitted to Astrophysical Journal Letters}}

24: 

25: \shorttitle{Cosmic Variance in GOODS}

26: 

27: \shortauthors{Somerville et al.} 

28: 

29: \title{Cosmic Variance in the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey}

30: %\title{A Cosmic Variance Cheatsheet for the GOODS Survey}

31: 

32: %-------------------------------------------------------------

33: \author{Rachel S. Somerville\altaffilmark{1}, Kyoungsoo Lee\altaffilmark{2},

34: Henry C. Ferguson\altaffilmark{1}, 

35: Jonathan P. Gardner\altaffilmark{3}, Leonidas

36: A. Moustakas\altaffilmark{1}, Mauro Giavalisco\altaffilmark{1}}

37: 

38: \altaffiltext{1}{Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore MD 21218; 

39: somerville,ferguson,leonidas,mauro@stsci.edu}

40: 

41: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins

42: University, Baltimore, MD 21218; soolee@stsci.edu}

43: 

44: \altaffiltext{3}{Laboratory for Astronomy and Solar Physics, Code 681, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt MD 20771; jonathan.p.gardner@nasa.gov

45: }

46: 

47: \begin{abstract}

48: Cosmic variance is the uncertainty in observational estimates of the

49: volume density of extragalactic objects such as galaxies or quasars

50: arising from the underlying large-scale density fluctuations. This is

51: often a significant source of uncertainty, especially in deep galaxy

52: surveys, which tend to cover relatively small areas. We present

53: estimates of the relative cosmic variance for one-point statistics

54: (i.e. number densities) for typical scales and volumes sampled by the

55: Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS). We use two

56: approaches: for objects with a known two-point correlation function

57: that is well-approximated by a power law, one can use the standard

58: analytic formalism to calculate the cosmic variance (in excess of shot

59: noise). We use this approach to estimate the cosmic variance for

60: several populations that are being studied in the GOODS program:

61: Extremely Red Objects (ERO) at $z\sim1$, and Lyman Break Galaxies

62: (LBG) at $z\sim3$ and $z\sim4$, using clustering information for

63: similar populations in the literature. For populations with unknown

64: clustering, one can use predictions from Cold Dark Matter theory to

65: obtain a rough estimate of the variance as a function of number

66: density. We present a convenient plot which allows one to use this

67: approach to read off the cosmic variance for a population with a known

68: mean redshift and estimated number density. We conclude that for the

69: volumes sampled by GOODS, cosmic variance is a significant source of

70: uncertainty for strongly clustered objects ($\sim 40$-60\% for EROs)

71: and less serious for less clustered objects, $\sim 10$-20\% for LBGs.

72:  

73: \end{abstract}

74: 

75: \subjectheadings{galaxies: statistics --- large scale structure of universe}

76: 

77: %=======================

78: % 1

79: \section{Introduction}

80: \label{sec:intro}

81: %=======================

82: 

83: The number density of observed extragalactic populations in the

84: Universe is a fundamental property which may hold clues to the nature

85: of the objects. However, observational estimates of the number density

86: of any clustered population are plagued by uncertainty due to

87: \emph{cosmic variance}, the field-to-field variation (in excess of

88: Poisson shot noise) due to large scale structure. Clearly, if one can

89: sample a volume that is very large compared with the intrinsic

90: clustering scale of the objects in question, cosmic variance will be

91: insignificant. In practice, especially in high-redshift studies, the

92: volumes sampled are small enough that cosmic variance is often a

93: significant source of uncertainty. Perhaps the majority of published

94: cosmological number densities and related quantities (e.g. luminosity

95: functions, integrated luminosity densities, etc.) do not properly

96: account for cosmic variance in their quoted error budgets.

97: 

98: Cosmic variance has frequently been invoked as a motivation for

99: carrying out deep pencil-beam surveys along multiple sightlines.

100: While the term ``cosmic variance'' is generally understood, the effects

101: are of course dependent on the clustering properties of the sources of

102: interest, a fact that is often lost in discussions of deep survey

103: strategy. With the availability of the GOODS data, it seems

104: appropriate to cast this variance in practical terms, calculating

105: explicitly the expected uncertainties due to clustering for various

106: source populations under study.  A simple exposition of this cosmic

107: variance may be useful both to researchers using the GOODS data and to

108: those planning future studies.

109: 

110: The mean $\langle N\rangle$ and variance $\langle N^2\rangle$ are the

111: first and second moments of the probability distribution function

112: $P_N(V)$, which represents the probability of counting $N$ objects

113: within a volume $V$. We define the \emph{relative} cosmic variance:

114: \begin{equation}

115: \sigma^2_{v} \equiv \frac{\langle N^2\rangle -\langle

116: N\rangle^2}{\langle N \rangle^2} - \frac{1}{\langle N\rangle} \, .

117: \end{equation}

118: Note that the last term is the usual correction for Poisson shot

119: noise, which for the samples considered here will typically be

120: negligible.  In any case, it is relatively straightforward to perform

121: this correction, so we do not discuss this term further.  In the

122: general hierarchical scenario of structure formation, in which density

123: perturbations grow via gravitational instability, $P_N$ is expected to

124: have non-zero higher moments (e.g. skewness and kurtosis).  For a

125: detailed and general treatment of the cosmic error, see \citet{csjc},

126: \citet{szapudi:99,scjc}, and references therein.  Here, we concentrate

127: solely on one-point statistics (i.e. counts in cells) and do not

128: address the cosmic error with respect to two-point or higher order

129: statistics such as correlation functions. We defer treatment of these

130: issues to future works.

131: 

132: For a population with a known two-point correlation function $\xi(r)$,

133: it is straightforward to calculate the cosmic variance as a function

134: of cell radius $R$ or equivalently, cell volume $V$ \citep[see

135: e.g.][or Section~\protect\ref{sec:pl} below]{peebles:80}. There are,

136: however, several potential practical difficulties with this simple

137: approach. While the correlation function of galaxies is typically

138: well-approximated by a power law in the strongly non-linear regime ($r

139: \la 10$-15 Mpc), on larger scales, in the linear regime, the

140: correlation function is expected to deviate from the power-law slope

141: measured on smaller scales. Also, estimating the correlation function

142: (especially its slope) of an observed population is more difficult

143: than estimating the number density, so often the latter quantity is

144: known while the former is not. In this situation, we can use the

145: theory of clustering and bias in the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) paradigm

146: to estimate the cosmic variance for a population with a known mean

147: redshift and average comoving number density.

148: 

149: In this \emph{Letter}, we estimate the uncertainty due to cosmic

150: variance for several populations that have been identified in the

151: GOODS survey, and present general results based on CDM theory that can

152: be used to estimate the cosmic variance for populations at $z<6$.

153: Throughout, we assume cosmological parameters consistent with the

154: recent analysis of \WMAP\ data \citep{spergel:03}: matter density

155: $\Omega_m = 0.3$, baryon density $\Omega_b =0.044$, cosmological

156: constant $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.70$, Hubble parameter $H_0=70$ km/s/Mpc,

157: fluctuation amplitude $\sigma_8 = 0.9$, and a scale-free primordial

158: power spectrum $n_s=1$.

159: 

160: \section{The geometry of GOODS}

161: 

162: \begin{figure*} 

163: \epsscale{2.0}

164: %\clearpage

165: %\begin{figure} 

166: \plotone{f1.eps}

167: \caption{\small [left] The comoving volume per unit redshift spanned

168: by (from bottom to top), the original HDF, the UDF, the GOODS field

169: and the GEMS field. [right] The transverse comoving size of the HDF,

170: UDF, GOODS, and GEMS fields.

171: \label{fig:scale}}

172: \end{figure*}

173: %\end{figure}

174: %\clearpage

175: The Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS) covers two fields,

176: the Chandra Deep Field South (CDFS) and the Hubble Deep Field North

177: (HDFN). The CDFS field has dimensions 10'$\times$16', and the GOODS

178: HDFN field has similar dimensions. For more details and a general

179: overview of the GOODS program, see \citet{giavalisco:03}. Here, we

180: treat the case of a single CDFS-sized field.  For widely separated

181: fields, the cosmic variance goes as $1/N_{\rm field}$, so the variance

182: will decrease by a factor of two when the second field is included.

183: In Fig.~\ref{fig:scale}, we show the comoving volume per unit redshift

184: for several recent, ongoing, and planned deep HST surveys: the

185: original Hubble Deep Field North \citep{williams}, the GOODS CDFS

186: field, the GEMS (Galaxy Evolution from Morphology and SEDs; Rix et

187: al. in prep)

188: field\footnote{http://www.mpia.de/homes/barden/gems/gems.htm}, and the

189: planned Ultra Deep Field (UDF)

190: \footnote{http://www.stsci.edu/science/udf/}. For redshifts $z\ga1$

191: and $\Delta z \sim 0.5$--1, GOODS samples a volume of a few $\times

192: 10^5\, {\rm Mpc^3}$. Fig.~\ref{fig:scale} also shows the average

193: transverse size ($L = \sqrt{10'\times 16'} = 12.7'$) of the GOODS

194: field as a function of redshift, again compared with the original HDF

195: ($L = \sqrt{5.7 \rm arcmin^2} = 2.4'$). 

196: 

197: \section{The Power-Law Model}

198: \label{sec:pl}

199: 

200: The relative cosmic variance for a population with known two-point

201: correlation function $\xi(r)$ is given by:

202: \begin{equation}

203: \sigma^2_v = \frac{1}{V^2} \int^R_0 \xi(|{\bf r_1}- {\bf r_2}|)\, dV_1 dV_2

204: \end{equation}

205: \citep[see, e.g.][p. 234]{peebles:80}. If the correlation function can

206: be represented by a power-law $\xi(r) = (r_0/r)^\gamma$, then this

207: expression can be evaluated in closed form:

208: \begin{equation}

209: \sigma^2_v = J_2\, (r_0/r)^\gamma

210: \label{eqn:cv_pl}

211: \end{equation}

212: where $J_2 = 72.0/[(3-\gamma)(4-\gamma)(6-\gamma)2^\gamma]$

213: \citep[][p. 230]{peebles:80}. Assuming spherical cells, the variance

214: may be equivalently expressed in terms of the cell radius $R$ or the

215: cell volume $V\equiv 4 \pi R^3/3$. 

216: 

217: \begin{table*}

218: \begin{center}

219: \caption{Summary of parameters for representative populations

220: \label{tab:param}}

221: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}

222: \tableline

223: object & $\bar{z}$ & mag. limit &

224: $n$ (h$^3$ Mpc$^{-3}$) & $r_0$ (h$^{-1}$ Mpc) & $\gamma$ & Ref. \\ 

225: \tableline

226: ERO & 1.2 & $K_s<19.2$ & $\sim 10^{-3}$ & $12 \pm 3$ & [1.8] & D2001 \\

227: %\protect\citet{daddi:01} \\ 

228: ERO & 1.2 & $18 < H < 20.5$ & $(1.0 \pm 0.1) \times 10^{-3}$ & $9.5\pm5$ & [1.8] & M2001\\

229: %\protect\citet{mccarthy} \\ 

230: U-drop & 3 & $\mathcal{R}<25.5$ & $4.7 \times 10^{-3}$ & $3.96 \pm 0.29$ & $1.55 \pm 0.15$ & A2003 \\

231: %\protect\citet{adel:03}\\

232: B-drop & 4 & $i'<26$ & $1.78 \times 10^{-3}$ & $2.7^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$ & [1.8] & O2001\\

233: %\protect\citet{ouchi:01}\\

234: \tableline

235: \end{tabular}

236: \tablecomments{The mean redshift, magnitude limit, number density,

237: correlation length, and correlation function slope for the populations

238: shown in Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:var_pl}. References are as follows:

239: D2001 -- \protect\citet{daddi:01}; M2001 -- \protect\citet{mccarthy};

240: A2003 -- \protect\citet{adel:03}; O2001 -- \protect\citet{ouchi:01}.

241: Where the correlation function slope is in brackets, this indicates

242: that the value was assumed in, rather than derived from, the

243: analysis.}

244: \end{center}

245: \end{table*}

246: 

247: For objects with a known correlation function that is well represented

248: by a power-law, we can simply use Eqn.~\ref{eqn:cv_pl} to compute the

249: cosmic variance for a given effective volume, as illustrated in

250: Fig.~\ref{fig:var_pl}. We show $\sigma_v$ as a function of volume, for

251: three populations with correlation function estimates from the

252: literature: Extremely Red Objects (EROs) at mean redshift $\bar{z}\sim

253: 1.2$, U-band dropouts at $\bar{z}\sim 3$ (also known as Lyman break

254: galaxies (LBG)), and B-band dropouts at $\bar{z}\sim 4$.  The

255: magnitude limit and color selection used for each of these populations

256: selects objects in a given redshift range, resulting in an effective

257: volume $V_{\rm eff}$.  Characteristic number densities for each of

258: these populations, along with correlation function parameters and the

259: relevant references, are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:param}. For

260: example, for EROs in the GOODS field, $\sigma_v \sim 0.4-0.6$, while

261: for the less clustered LBGs, $\sigma_v \sim 0.15-0.2$. Note that we

262: have assumed here a spherical geometry for the cells, while in fact

263: for the GOODS survey the cells are very elongated, with the redshift

264: dimension being much longer (about a factor of ten) than the

265: transverse dimension in comoving distance units. We have also ignored

266: the evolution in clustering that occurs over the time interval between

267: the `back' and the `front' of the cell. It should be noted that, for

268: two fields with the same volume, the cosmic variance is \emph{smaller}

269: for an elongated (parallelepiped or cylindrical) field than for a

270: compact (cubical or spherical) field \citep[see

271: e.g.][]{newman:02}. This is because an elongated field samples more

272: independent (uncorrelated) regions. Therefore, the estimates given

273: here provide an upper bound on the cosmic variance.

274: 

275: %\clearpage

276: \begin{inlinefigure}

277: \begin{center}

278: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f2.eps}}

279: \end{center}

280: \figcaption{\small The square root of the cosmic variance, $\sigma_v$,

281: is plotted as a function of cell volume $V$. The middle set of lines

282: are for objects which are as clustered as the dark matter at

283: $z=0$. The slightly curved line shows $\sigma_{\rm DM}$ from linear

284: theory, while the straight line is a power law model with $r_0=5

285: \hmpc$ and $\gamma=1.8$. The topmost solid and dashed lines are for

286: objects as clustered as EROs at $z=1.2$ (with $r_0=9.0 \hmpc$ and

287: $r_0=12 \hmpc$, respectively). The second to the bottom line is for

288: objects that cluster like U-dropouts (LBGs) at $z=3$, and the

289: bottom-most line is for objects as clustered as B-dropouts at

290: $z\sim4$. The arrows show representative effective volumes for the

291: original HDF and GOODS, for EROs (top set) and LBGs (bottom set).

292: \label{fig:var_pl}}

293: \end{inlinefigure}

294: 

295: %\clearpage

296: 

297: \section{CDM models}

298: %\clearpage

299: \begin{figure*} 

300: %\begin{figure} 

301: %\epsscale{2.0}

302: \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}

303: \caption{\small [left] Bias as a function of comoving number density,

304: for dark matter halos at $z=6$, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, and $z=0$ (from top to

305: bottom). [right] Variance of dark matter from linear theory, for the

306: same redshifts ($z=0$--6 from top to bottom).

307: \label{fig:bias}}

308: \end{figure*}

309: %\clearpage

310: We now consider the situation in which we know only the number density

311: but not the correlation function of a population. In this situation,

312: we can use predictions from CDM to estimate the clustering strength of

313: a population with a given number density at a known average

314: redshift. In CDM models, both the number density and clustering

315: strength of dark matter halos are a strong function of halo

316: mass. Fig.~\ref{fig:bias} shows the average bias as a function of

317: number density, for dark matter halos at various redshifts (as

318: described in the figure caption), computed using the analytic model of

319: \citet{st:99}. The bias is defined as the ratio of the root variance

320: of the halos and the dark matter, $b \equiv

321: \sigma_{h}/\sigma_{DM}$. It is likely that this relationship is more

322: complicated for galaxies, since there is probably not a one-to-one

323: correspondence between galaxies and dark matter halos. Similar

324: relations for more general `occupation functions' (i.e., allowing

325: varying numbers of galaxies per halo) are given in

326: e.g. \citet{ms:02}. Fig.~\ref{fig:bias} also shows the variance of

327: dark matter $\sigma_{DM}$ as a function of cell volume for the same

328: redshifts, as predicted by linear theory ($\sigma(R, z) = \sigma(R, 0)

329: \, D_{\rm lin}$, where $D_{\rm lin}$ is the linear growth

330: function). We now have all the ingredients necessary to obtain a rough

331: estimate of the cosmic variance for any population associated with

332: dark matter halos with a known number density and mean redshift:

333: 

334: \begin{enumerate}

335: \item Read off the average bias $b$ for objects of a given number

336: density and mean redshift from the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:bias}.

337: \item Obtain the value of $\sigma_{DM}$ at the relevant scale $V$ and

338: redshift from the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:bias}.

339: \item The cosmic variance for the population is then given by $\sigma_v =

340: b\,\sigma_{DM}$.

341: \end{enumerate}

342: 

343: As a consistency check, we can use the values given in

344: Table~\ref{tab:param} to estimate the cosmic variance for the same

345: populations discussed in the previous section. For EROs, using the

346: number density $n=1.0\times10^{-3} {\rm h^3} {\rm Mpc^{-3}}$, we would

347: estimate a bias of $b\sim1.8$, resulting in $\sigma_v \sim 0.7$ at

348: $z=1$, in reasonable agreement with our earlier estimate of $\sigma_v

349: \sim 0.6$ at $z=1.2$. Similarly, for LBGs at $z=3$, we find

350: $b\sim2.5$, resulting in $\sigma_v \sim 0.25$, again in agreement with

351: the earlier estimate of $\sigma_v \sim 0.2$. One reason that these

352: estimates are not in precise agreement with the values obtained from

353: the calculation based on the actual correlation length is due to the

354: unknown halo occupation distribution (i.e., the number of galaxies per

355: halo as a function of halo mass). It has been shown previously that

356: one cannot simultaneously exactly reproduce both the number density

357: and observed correlation length of either of these populations under

358: the simple assumption of one galaxy per halo \citep{ms:02}, adopted

359: here.

360: 

361: \section{Conclusions}

362: 

363: Cosmic variance can be a significant source of uncertainty in

364: estimates of the number density or related quantities in deep

365: surveys. We have given empirical estimates of the uncertainty due to

366: cosmic variance for several populations that have been identified in

367: the GOODS survey: EROs at $z\sim1$, U-dropouts at $z\sim3$ and

368: B-dropouts at $z\sim4$. These empirical estimates were based on

369: correlation function measurements from the literature for similarly

370: defined populations, and may be refined once correlation function

371: estimates have been obtained for the actual populations identified in

372: GOODS. From this calculation, we saw that the cosmic variance is much

373: reduced in GOODS compared with the original HDF (40--60\% rather than

374: a factor of 2 for for very strongly clustered populations such as

375: EROs, 15--20\% rather than 40\% for less clustered populations such as

376: LBGs). We have also presented predictions from the theory of

377: clustering and bias in a \LCDM\ Universe, which allow one to estimate

378: the cosmic variance for a population of a known average redshift and

379: number density but unknown clustering strength. We emphasize that this

380: approach is intended to give only a simple first order estimate of the

381: cosmic variance. More detailed estimates, tailored to individual

382: populations and including treatments of e.g. a generalized halo

383: occupation distribution formalism, geometric effects, the

384: observational selection function, and clustering evolution and the

385: change in absolute magnitude limit over the redshift range of the

386: sample, will be addressed in future works.

387: 

388: %===================================

389: \section*{Acknowledgments}

390: \begin{small}

391: 

392: We thank Emanuele Daddi and Mike Fall for useful discussions and

393: comments. Support for this work was provided by NASA through grant

394: GO09583.01-96A from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is

395: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,

396: under NASA contract NAS5-26555.

397: 

398: \end{small}

399: %=====================================

400: 

401: \bibliographystyle{apj} 

402: \bibliography{apj-jour,cosvar}

403: 

404: %\clearpage

405: 

406: \end{document}

407: 

408: