1: %%\documentstyle[11pt,aaspp,epsf,rotate]{article}
2: \documentclass[12pt, preprint]{aastex}
3: %\usepackage[twocolumn]{emulateapj5}
4: %\usepackage[]{aasms4}
5: %\documentstyle[11pt,aaspp4,epsf,rotate]{article}
6: %\documentstyle[12pt,aaspp4]{article}
7: %\input{psfig}
8: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
9: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
10: \def\simge{\mathrel{%
11: \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$>$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}
12: \def\simle{\mathrel{
13: \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$<$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}
14: \def\lta{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
15: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}
16: \def\gta{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
17: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}
18: \def\gs{\mathrel{\lower0.6ex\hbox{$\buildrel {\textstyle >}
19: \over {\scriptstyle \sim}$}}}
20: \def\ls{\mathrel{\lower0.6ex\hbox{$\buildrel {\textstyle <}
21: \over {\scriptstyle \sim}$}}}
22:
23: %\sec produces arcsec symbol so that 3\sec5 produces 3."5 with the second
24: %symbol and the period aligned.
25: %\def\sec{\hbox{"\hskip-3pt .}}
26: \def\simgt{\gta}
27: \def\simlt{\lta}
28: \eqsecnum
29:
30: \newcommand{\keV}{{\rm\,keV}}
31:
32: %\lefthead{Boughn \& Crittenden}
33: %\righthead{Large-Scale Bias of X-ray Background}
34:
35: %\received{2004 March 17}
36: \begin{document}
37: \title{The Large-Scale Bias of the Hard X-ray Background}
38: \author{S.P. Boughn}
39: \affil{Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 and}
40: \affil{Department of Astronomy, Haverford College, Haverford, PA 19041
41: sboughn@haverford.edu}
42: \author{R.G. Crittenden}
43: \affil{Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth
44: PO1 2EG UK robert.crittenden@port.ac.uk}
45:
46: \begin{abstract}
47:
48: Recent deep X-ray surveys combined with spectroscopic identification of the sources
49: have allowed the determination of the rest-frame $2-8~keV$ luminosity as a function
50: of redshift. In addition, an analysis of the $HEAO1~A2~2-10~keV$ full-sky
51: map of the X-ray background (XRB) reveals clustering on the scale of several degrees.
52: Combining these two results in the context of the currently favored $\Lambda CDM$
53: cosmological model implies an average X-ray bias factor, $b_x$, of
54: $b_x^2 = 1.12 \pm 0.33$, i.e., $b_x = 1.06 \pm 0.16$. These error estimates include
55: only statistical error; the systematic error sources, while comparable,
56: appear to be sub-dominant.
57: This result is in contrast to the large biases of some previous
58: estimates and is more in line with current estimates of the optical bias of $L_*$ galaxies.
59:
60: \end{abstract}
61:
62: \keywords{large-scale structure of
63: the universe $-$ X-rays: galaxies $-$ X-rays: general}
64:
65: \section{Introduction}
66:
67: An important test of any cosmological model is that it be consistent with
68: the observed distribution of matter in the universe. Since our primary knowledge
69: of this distribution comes from observations of galaxies, it is
70: essential to understand the extent to which galaxies trace the matter density.
71: This relationship is usually quantified by a bias factor which relates fluctuations in
72: the galaxies to those in the dark matter. It
73: is complicated by the fact that the relation between the luminosity of a galaxy
74: or groups of galaxies and the underlying distribution of matter can depend on the
75: type of galaxy, the spectral band of the observation, the redshift $z$, and the scale
76: length on which the comparison is made. However, such complications are also
77: opportunities in that models of galaxy formation must successfully reproduce these
78: differences.
79:
80: The standard definition of the bias factor, $b$, is the ratio of the fractional galaxy
81: density fluctuations to the fractional matter density fluctuations, i.e.,
82: \begin{equation}
83: b = {\delta \rho_g / \rho_g \over \delta \rho / \rho}
84: \end{equation}
85: where $\rho_g$ is the mean density of galaxies, $\rho$ is the mean density
86: of matter and $\delta$ indicates the $rms$ fluctuations of the densities about
87: these means.
88: If galaxies formed early ($z > 1$), as appears to be the case
89: (e.g., Ellis 1997), then there are
90: good reasons to expect that, for linear density perturbations
91: (i.e., $\delta \rho / \rho \ll 1$) on large scales in the nearby ($z \ls 1$)
92: universe, galaxies should be relatively unbiased ($b \rightarrow 1$) tracers of the density field
93: (Fry 1996, Tegmark \& Peebles 1998); however, this assertion must be tested.
94:
95: Here we focus on determining the bias of the hard X-ray background (XRB),
96: which is
97: known to be dominated by distant ($z \ls 2$) active extragalactic galaxies and
98: so provides a probe of the bias on large scales.
99: The observed clustering of the XRB, when combined with what is
100: known about the level of perturbations and the cosmological model from CMB
101: observations, allows us to place relatively strong constraints on the
102: X-ray bias.
103:
104: Previous determinations of X-ray bias have resulted in a wide range of values,
105: $1 < b_x < 7$ (see Barcons et al. 2000 and references therein). Some
106: spread in the estimates is to be expected; e.g., at lower energies
107: X-ray emission is dominated by clusters of galaxies, and so are expected to be as
108: highly biased as clusters themselves (Bahcall \& Soneira 1983).
109: However, another major contribution to the uncertainty in the bias estimates is
110: the lack of accurate determinations of the clustering of various X-ray sources.
111: Two of the lower estimates of
112: X-ray bias are from Treyer et al. (1998) who found that $b_x \sim 1$ to $2$ from a
113: low order multipole analysis of the HEAO1 A2 data set and Carrera et al. (1998)
114: who found that the ratio of the X-ray bias of AGN to that of IRAS galaxies to be
115: $0.8 \ls b_x/b_I \ls 1.7$ from ROSAT observations. The remaining uncertainty
116: in these determinations arose from uncertainties in both the
117: X-ray luminosity function (LF) and in the cosmological model. Knowledge of both of these
118: has improved dramatically in the last year and this is largely
119: responsible for the improved accuracy of the estimate of $b_x$ in this paper.
120:
121: \section{Clustering in the HEAO1 A2 $2-10~keV$ X-ray Map}
122:
123: We recently presented evidence of large-scale clustering in the HEAO1 A2 $2-10~keV$
124: full-sky map of the hard XRB on angular scales of $\ls 10^{\circ}$
125: (Boughn, Crittenden, \& Koehrsen 2002).
126: Before computing the correlations, local sources of the X-ray background were
127: removed from the map.
128: The map was masked so as to eliminate strong, nearby X-ray sources with fluxes
129: exceeding $3 \times 10^{-11}erg~s^{-1}cm^{-2}$. In addition, all regions within $20^{\circ}$
130: of the Galactic plane or within $30^{\circ}$ of the Galactic center were masked. The
131: map was also corrected for a linear time drift of the detectors, high Galactic latitude
132: diffuse emission, emission from the local supercluster, and the Compton-Getting dipole.
133: The latter components were fit to and then removed from the map.
134: Without these cuts and corrections, the correlations are dominated by a
135: few strong point sources and large-scale diffuse structures in the map.
136:
137: \clearpage
138:
139: \begin{figure}
140: \centerline{
141: \plotone{f1.eps}}
142: \caption{The auto-correlation function of the HEAO1 A2 map
143: with bright sources and the Galactic plane removed. The dashed
144: curve is the form expected from beam smearing due to the PSF
145: of the map while the solid curve includes a contribution due to
146: clustering in the XRB.}
147: \label{fig:acf}
148: \end{figure}
149:
150: \clearpage
151:
152: Figure 1 is a plot of the intensity angular
153: correlation function (ACF) given by
154: \begin{equation}
155: ACF(\theta) = {1 \over {\bar{I}^2 N_{\theta}}} \sum_{i,j} (I_i -\bar{I})
156: (I_j -\bar{I})
157: \end{equation}
158: where the sum is over all pairs of map pixels, $i,j$, separated by an angle
159: $\theta$, $I_i$ is the intensity of the $ith$ pixel,
160: $\bar{I}$ is the mean intensity, and $N_{\theta}$ is the number of
161: pairs of pixels separated by $\theta$. Photon shot noise only appears
162: in the $\theta = 0^\circ$ bin and has been removed. The highly correlated error bars
163: were determined from 1000 Monte Carlo trials in which the pixel intensity distribution was
164: assumed to be Gaussian with the same ACF as in the figure. The dashed curve represents
165: the expected functional form of the contribution to the ACF due to telescope beam smearing
166: of a random distribution of uncorrelated sources normalized to the ACF(0) point. It
167: represents the profile that is expected if there were no intrinsic correlations in
168: the XRB. The point spread function (PSF) of the map is due to pixelization
169: and to the finite telescope beam and was accurately determined from the profiles of
170: 60 bright, nearby point sources.
171: It is clear from Figure 1 that the XRB possesses intrinsic (i.e., not due to beam smearing)
172: correlated structure out to angular scales of $\sim 10^{\circ}$.
173: Full details of the analysis are discussed in Boughn, Crittenden, \& Koehrsen (2002).
174:
175: \section{The $2-10~keV$ X-ray Luminosity Function}
176:
177: In order to determine the X-ray bias factor $b_x$ from the measured ACF, it is essential
178: to know from which redshifts the X-ray fluctuations originate; the underlying
179: density fluctuations grow quickly, so it is important that they be compared to the
180: X-ray fluctuations at the same redshifts.
181: This requires understanding the contribution to the $2-10~keV$ X-ray LF
182: as a function of redshift.
183: However, the HEAO1 A2 observations are total intensity
184: measurements of the hard XRB with no information as to
185: the fluxes or redshifts of individual sources, so we must infer the LF by other means.
186: Recently the
187: $Chandra$ satellite has made possible large, faint hard X-ray
188: surveys with measured redshifts. Cowie et al. (2003) and Steffen et al. (2003) have
189: combined $Chandra$ sources with brighter sources from $ASCA$ (Akiyama et al.
190: 2000) and $ROSAT$ (Lehmann et al. 2001) to determine the redshift evolution of the
191: $2-8~keV$ LF with few assumptions about the character of the sources.
192: The incompleteness uncertainty in the redshift dependence of the volume X-ray emissivity
193: is estimated to be a factor $\ls 2$ at any redshift.
194: The spectroscopically identified sources comprise $75\%$
195: of the total $2-8~keV$ X-ray intensity; the dominant uncertainties result from
196: the unknown redshift distribution of the unidentified sources.
197:
198: \clearpage
199:
200: \begin{figure}
201: \centerline{
202: \plotone{f2.eps}}
203: \caption{The volume emissivity as a function of redshift. The local value ($z=0$) is the measurement
204: of Miyaji et al. (1994). The low redshift points are derived from the data of Steffen et al. (2003)
205: while the high redshift ($z>1$) come from Cowie et al. (2003).
206: }
207: \label{fig:emiss}
208: \end{figure}
209:
210: \clearpage
211:
212: Emissivity as a function of redshift, $\lambda_x(z)$,
213: is plotted in Figure 2.
214: The $2-8~keV$ emissivity in the redshift range $1 < z < 4$ is taken to be that estimated
215: by Cowie et al. (2003) using ROSAT data. In the range $0.1 < z < 1.0$, we use the
216: emissivity implied from the luminosity function of Steffen et al. (2003).
217: Finally, for $z = 0$, we use the value of the local emissivity from Miyaji et al. (1994).
218: The models discussed below are based on a polynomial fit which passes through the data points;
219: however, the results are largely independent of the
220: details of the fitted function.
221:
222: \clearpage
223:
224: \begin{table*}[ht]
225: \begin{center}
226: \begin{tabular}{c||c|cccc}
227: \multicolumn{1}{l}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Observed} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{Best}
228: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{Low $z$} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{High $z$}
229: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{Ueda {\it et al.}}\\
230: \cline{1-6}
231: & & & & & \\
232: f($z<1$) & 54\%/58\% & 57 \% & 67 \% & 48 \% & 52 \% \\
233: %$\bar{\Gamma}$ & 1.40 & 1.40 & 1.37 & 1.43 & 1.4 \\
234: $b_x$ & - & 1.06 & 0.86 & 1.36 & 1.12 \\
235:
236: \end{tabular}
237: \caption{Properties of four models of X-ray emissivity: fraction of the intensity
238: arising from $z < 1$, $f(z < 1)$) and implied bias, $b_x$. See text for details.
239: }
240: \end{center}
241: \label{tab:dipole}
242: \end{table*}
243:
244: \clearpage
245:
246: The HEAO data is band limited and the X-rays detected at high redshifts have
247: larger rest frame energies than they do locally. Therefore,
248: in order to apply K-corrections to the observed intensities and to transform
249: from $2-8~keV$ emissivities to the $2-10~keV$ values appropriate for the HEAO map,
250: we must make an assumption about the frequency and redshift dependence of the XRB.
251: If the ISM column density in front of an AGN is large enough
252: ($N_H \gs 10^{21} cm^2$) the observed spectrum will be hardened by
253: photo-electric absortion. At high redshifts, the rest frame
254: energies of the detected X-rays are relatively large and the effect of
255: photo-electric absorption is less. Therefore, for a given column density,
256: sources at high redshift will appear softer than their low redshift
257: counterparts.
258: As a crude approximation of this affect
259: we assumed a photon spectral index $\Gamma(z) = 1.2+0.2z$ where $dN/dE \propto E^{-\Gamma}$
260: is the number spectrum of the photons of energy $E$. This roughly describes
261: the redshift dependence of sources with an intrinsic spectral index of $\Gamma = 1.8$
262: subject to photoelectric absorption by column densities of $N_H \sim 10^{22} - 10^{23}~cm^{-2}$.
263: Furthermore, the flux weighted average spectral index is $\Gamma = 1.4$ as is observed.
264: The difference between this model and one that assumes a constant
265: spectral index of
266: $\Gamma(z) = 1.4$ is not large in the sense that the intensity
267: distributions, $dI/dz$, of the two models fall well within the range of the extreme models of
268: Figure 3.
269: It is also possible that higher redshift AGN are more heavily absorbed (e.g. Worsley et al. 2004);
270: however, such effects are not included in some models of the XRB (e.g., Ueda et al. 2003).
271: If the absorption levels were higher at higher redshifts, this would reduce the evolution
272: of the spectral index, i.e., lessen it's dependence on redshift. The fact that we
273: observe more energetic rest frame photons is balanced by the fact that
274: the sources are more absorbed. While neither of the
275: models (constant $\Gamma(z) = 1.4$ or $\Gamma(z) = 1.2+0.2z$) is likely
276: to accurately describe the actual spectrum, the fact that the biases
277: of these models are within a few percent of each other indicates that uncertainty in
278: the redshift dependence of the spectral index of the XRB is not an important source
279: of systematic error.
280:
281:
282: \clearpage
283:
284: \begin{figure}
285: \centerline{
286: \plotone{f3.eps}}
287: \caption{ Four different models for the contribution to the
288: x-ray luminosity as a function of redshift. The solid line is our best estimate given the
289: volume emissivity. The long (short) dashed model results from pushing the emissivity
290: distribution to lower (higher) redshifts. Finally, the dotted line represents the model of
291: Ueda et al. (2003), which is not constrained below $z = 0.1$.
292: }
293: \label{fig:dfdz}
294: \end{figure}
295:
296: \clearpage
297:
298: It is straightforward to compute the intensity distribution, $dI/dz$,
299: from $\lambda_x(z)$ in the context of the $\Lambda CDM$ cosmological model used
300: by Cowie et al (2003) ($\Omega_m = 1/3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 2/3$, and
301: $H_0 = 65~km~s^{-1}Mpc^{-1}$). While this model is somewhat different from that
302: currently favored by the $WMAP$ satellite data (Spergel et al. 2003), $dI/dz$ is a
303: directly observable quantity that is independent of the cosmological model.
304: The $dI/dz$ resulting from our canonical emissivity model is given by
305: the middle solid curve in Figure 3 where the normalization is fixed by the LF of Cowie
306: et al. (2003) and Steffen et al. (2003).
307:
308: This profile implies that the bulk of the XRB
309: arises at much lower redshifts than previously thought (e.g., Comastri et al. 1996) as was
310: first pointed out by Barger et al. (2001). For this particular model, $57\%$ of the
311: $2-10~keV$ background
312: arises from redshifts less than 1. This is in agreement with the recent
313: observations of Barger et al. (2003) that indicate $54\%$ of the spectroscopically
314: identified $2-8~keV$ intensity arises at $z < 1$. This increases to $58\%$ when photometric
315: redshifts are included (Barger et al. 2002; Barger et al. 2003).
316: The total integrated intensity of our canonical model,
317: $5.6 \times 10^{-8}erg~s^{-1}cm^{-2}sr^{-1}$, lies between and is consistent with both the $HEAO$
318: estimate of $5.3 \times 10^{-8}erg~s^{-1}cm^{-2}sr^{-1}$ (Marshall et al. 1980; Gruber et al. 1999)
319: and that estimated from $ASCA$ satellite data (Gendreau et al. 1995; Kushino et al. 2002),
320: $6.4 \times 10^{-8}erg~s^{-1}cm^{-2}sr^{-1}$. In any case, the current
321: analysis only requires the functional form of $dI/dz$ and not the overall normalization.
322: Finally, the intensity weighted spectral index of the model, $\bar{\Gamma} = 1.40$, is the same as that
323: observed for the hard XRB (Marshall et al. 1980; Gendreau et al. 1995).
324:
325: In order to test the sensitivity of the implied X-ray bias to the LF,
326: we consider three alternative models of $dI/dz$. The upper dashed curve
327: in Figure 3 has been weighted to low $z$ by squeezing (in redshift) the canonical
328: emissivity by a factor of $0.8$ while fixing the local emissivity to be the
329: $1~\sigma$ upper limit of Miyaji et al. (1994).
330: This model is fairly extreme, as it overestimates the intensity coming from low redshifts.
331: (See Table 1 for a summary of the properties of the various X-ray models).
332: The lower dashed curve in Figure 3 was weighted to high $z$ by stretching the
333: canonical emissivity by a factor of $1.3$ while fixing the local emissivity to be the
334: $1 \sigma$ lower limit of Miyaji et al. (1994). This model significantly underestimates the
335: intensity coming from $z<1$.
336: Finally, the dotted curve in Figure 3 is from the recent AGN synthesis model of
337: Ueda et al. (2003). Unfortunately, their model
338: of $dI/dz$ did not extend below $z = 0.1$ and
339: our results below depend somewhat on the behaviour assumed for low redshifts.
340:
341:
342: \section{Matter Fluctuations in a $\Lambda CDM$ Universe and X-ray Bias}
343:
344: Given the X-ray luminosity function,
345: the linear bias factor can be inferred from the cosmological
346: model, but only if the time dependence and scale dependence of the bias
347: are known.
348: In our analysis we will assume both redshift and scale
349: independence of the X-ray bias.
350: Given our nominal intensity distribution,
351: and assuming the standard $\Lambda CDM$
352: cosmology, the dominant contribution to the ACF on angular scales of a few
353: degrees comes from structures with redshifts, $0.03 < z < 0.5$, which
354: correspond to linear scales of from approximately $10~Mpc$ to $200~Mpc$.
355: This is a strong indication that we are observing clustering in the linear
356: regime and so can use the straightforward analysis of the growth of linear
357: structures in a $\Lambda CDM$ universe.
358:
359: %On the scales of interest, there are good reasons to believe that the bias
360: %is both independent of scale and approaches $b \sim 1$ for small redshifts
361: %(Benson et al. 2000; Tegmark \& Peebles 1998). In fact, analyses of the 2dF
362: %%galaxy redshift survey ($z \sim 0.2$) indicate an average bias of $\sim L_*$ galaxies
363: %of $b \sim 1$ (Lahav et al. 2002; Verde et al. 2002) on scales of
364: %$20$ to $150~Mpc$.
365:
366: Using the current $WMAP$ $\Lambda CDM$ parameters (Spergel et al. 2003),
367: i.e., $\Omega_m = 0.27$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.73$, and
368: $H_0 = 71~km~s^{-1}Mpc^{-1}$, it is straightforward to compute a projected
369: matter ACF with the same redshift distribution as for the canonical model
370: (e.g., Boughn, Crittenden, \& Turok 1998). If our assumptions about
371: the bias are correct, the intrinsic X-ray ACF should have the same shape as
372: the normalized matter ACF, with a relative amplitude given by the
373: square of $b_x$, the X-ray bias factor.
374:
375: The observed ACF also contains
376: components due to beam smearing of uncorrelated X-ray sources and photon
377: shot noise, the latter of which is uncorrelated and, therefore, only
378: contributes to the ACF at $\theta = 0$. Therefore, any fit to the full data set
379: must include these three components. At $\theta = 0^{\circ}$ the ACF
380: is dominated by beam smearing and photon shot noise while above
381: $\theta = 12^{\circ}$ the signal to noise is small. The solid curve
382: in Figure 1 is the two parameter, maximum likelihood fit to the data in
383: the range $2.5^{\circ} < \theta < 12^{\circ}$. The implied X-ray bias is
384: ${b_x}^2 = 1.12 \pm 0.33$ ($1~\sigma$ error) or $b_x = 1.06 \pm 0.16$
385: with a $\chi^2$ of 4.6 for 6 degrees of freedom. Since the distribution of
386: errors in the ACF is to a good approximation Gaussian, the statistical error
387: attached to ${b_x}^2$ as well as the $\chi^2$ of the fit have the usual
388: interpretations. The error indicated for $b_x$ represents the $68\%$
389: confidence interval; however, this error is not Gaussian.
390: The signal to noise of the data point at $5.2^{\circ}$
391: is $4~\sigma$ and a variety of fits (see below) of ${b_x}^2$ to the ACF
392: indicate statistical significances between $3$ and $4~\sigma$.
393:
394: We performed a variety of other fits to the data to check the robustness of
395: our estimate of ${b_x}^2$. A three parameter fit to the data in the full interval
396: ($0^{\circ} < \theta < 12^{\circ}$) gives $b_x = 0.96 \pm 0.16$. A one parameter
397: fit for the large angle correlations ($5.2^{\circ} < \theta < 12^{\circ}$), where
398: the beam smearing component is nearly negligible, gives $b_x = 1.20 \pm 0.14$;
399: even a fit to the single datum at $5.2^{\circ}$ yields a
400: consistent value of $b_x = 1.25 \pm 0.16$, though it is probably mildly
401: contaminated by the beam smearing component. Following our previous
402: work (Boughn, Crittenden, \& Koehrsen 2002), we also modeled the clustering term
403: as a power law, $\propto 1/\theta^{\alpha}$, with $0.8 < \alpha < 1.6$. These fits
404: varied in amplitude; however, at $\theta = 4.5^{\circ}$ all of the fits agreed
405: to within a few percent. Normalizing the model clustering ACF to this level
406: implies a bias of $b_x = 1.06 \pm 0.17$, also consistent with our canonical
407: fit. The reduced $\chi_{\nu}^2$'s for these fits are all $\sim 1$ and
408: the fits are all consistent with each other.
409:
410: The process of fitting for large-scale, diffuse components and then removing them
411: from the $HEAO$ map, results in some attenuation of the ACF on angular scales
412: $\gs 10^{\circ}$. These factors were determined from the same Monte Carlo
413: trials that were used to determine the statistical errors and the fits were adjusted
414: accordingly. Even if these factors are ignored, the fit value of $b_x$ changes by
415: only $3\%$.
416:
417: To evaluate the level of uncertainty due a systematic error
418: in the intensity distribution of the XRB, the two ``extreme''
419: models of Figure 3 were also fit to the data in the
420: $2.5^{\circ} < \theta < 12^{\circ}$ interval. The biases resulting from these
421: two fits are $b_x = 0.85 \pm 0.13$ for the low z model and $b_x = 1.36 \pm 0.21$
422: for the high z model. Since these models are somewhat exaggerated, we conclude that
423: they represent lower and upper limits of systematic errors due to uncertainty
424: in $dI/dz$. A fit to the Ueda et al. (2003) model indicated in Figure 3
425: results in a similar value of the bias, though the precise results depend on how the
426: model is extended to low redshifts ($0 < z < 0.1$).
427: If this model is extended so that the low z behavior is not
428: allowed to fall below that implied by Miyaji et al. (1994),
429: $dI/dz = 2.7 \times 10^{-8} erg~s^{-1}cm^{-2}sr^{-1}$, then the fit value of $b_x$ becomes
430: $1.12 \pm 0.17$, which is consistent with that implied by our canonical model.
431: If instead, we use a linear extrapolation to low redshifts, the bias can be
432: somewhat ($\sim 15 \%$) higher, but the local emissivity of this model
433: would be nearly $2\sigma$ below that implied by Miyaji et al. (1994).
434:
435: The ACF on large angular scales is quite sensitive to the contribution of low $z$
436: sources (roughly half the ACF at $\theta = 4.5^{\circ}$ is due to sources with
437: $z \ls 0.1$),
438: so any error in estimating the low redshift cutoff in $dI/dz$ could affect the results
439: dramatically. By masking sources stronger than
440: $3 \times 10^{-11}erg~s^{-1}cm^{-2}$ we effectively
441: truncate the intensity distribution at low redshifts. The truncated
442: profiles were determined from the flux cut and the local luminosity function
443: of Steffen et al. (2003). If the value of the flux cut is in error due to,
444: for example, a difference in normalizations of the source catalog used to make the cuts
445: (Piccinotti et al. 1982) and the Steffen et al. luminosity function, then this
446: would affect the cutoff redshift and would be
447: translated to an error in the predicted ACF.
448: In the extreme limit of no flux cut, i.e., no truncation of the $dI/dz$
449: profile, the implied X-ray bias is $b_x = 0.90$. In the other extreme, i.e.,
450: a flux cutoff of $1 \times 10^{-11}erg~s^{-1}cm^{-2}$, the implied bias is $b_x = 1.13$.
451: Therefore, it is unlikely that inaccuracy in characterizing the flux
452: cut is the source of significant systematic error.
453:
454: Potentially more problematic is the redshift distribution of the unresolved component of the
455: XRB. Worsley et al. (2004) found that above $7~keV$ only $\sim 50\%$ of the XRB is resolved;
456: although, this conclusion must be tempered somewhat by the fact that the brightest sources
457: they considered (in the Lockman Hole) have fluxes of $\sim 10^{-13}~erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}$.
458: Sources brighter than this contribute to the whole-sky XRB and
459: they conclude that the true resolved fraction may be 10 to 20\% higher.
460: Even though only $\sim 20\%$ of the counts in the HEAO passband comes from photons with energies
461: above $7~keV$, an unresolved component can still significantly affect the estimate of the bias.
462: As a pessimistic case, we ignore the bright source correction and assume a $30\%$ unresolved
463: component below $5~keV$. In this case roughly $1/3$ of the 2-10 $keV$ XRB is unresolved. If
464: this unresolved component is distributed in redshift like the resolved component, then there is
465: no change in the implied bias. On the other hand, if the unresolved component is entirely due
466: to sources at high redshift where it does not contribute to the ACF signal, then the implied
467: bias will be $50\%$ higher than our canonical value. If instead the unresolved
468: component is due to sources at low redshift, $z < 1$, then the implied bias will be
469: $20\%$ lower than our canonical value. These fall somewhat outside our two ``extreme'' values
470: in Table 1 and so provide a caveat to those estimates of the limits of systematic error.
471: However, if only half of the unresolved component is located at high (low) redshifts and the
472: other half is distributed like the resolved component, then the implied bias is only $20\%$
473: ($11\%$) higher (lower) than our canonical value, well within the limits of Table 1.
474:
475: It is difficult to quantify all possible systematic errors; however, considering that
476: the above ``extremes'' result in errors of the same order as the statistical error in the
477: fit, we conclude that the total systematic error is no larger than the statistical error
478: quoted.
479:
480: \section{Discussion}
481:
482: We have determined the X-ray bias of the hard XRB
483: assuming it is time
484: (i.e., redshift) and scale independent. These
485: assumptions are probably quite reasonable since the mean redshift weighting
486: of the X-ray ACF is quite low, $z \sim 0.1$, and the linear scales probed
487: by the ACF are quite large ($10~Mpc$ to $200~Mpc$). Even if these assumptions
488: are violated to some extent, $b_x$ can still
489: be interpreted as an `average' X-ray bias. There are
490: several types of sources that contribute to the XRB, including quasars, Seyfert
491: galaxies, LINERS, and clusters of galaxies, and the implied value of the bias
492: must be considered to be an average over all these sources. However,
493: the dominant contribution to the XRB is most likely to be moderately
494: active AGN (Cowie et al. 2003), so $b_x$ should be
495: representative of the bulk of the sources of the XRB.
496:
497: With these caveats in mind, we find an X-ray bias of
498: $b_x^2 = 1.12 \pm 0.33$, i.e., $b_x = 1.06 \pm 0.16$ (statistical error only).
499: This error includes photon shot noise, fluctuations in the XRB from
500: beam smearing, and the clustering of the XRB itself. The fits of $b_x$ for two extreme
501: models of $dI/dz$ indicate that the uncertainty due to our ignorance of the X-ray
502: luminosity function is likely less than the statistical error. Other possible sources of
503: systematic error also seem small.
504: We conclude that the hard XRB is a largely
505: unbiased tracer of the matter distribution on
506: large scales. This is consistent with current models of large-scale,
507: late time galaxy biasing (Benson et al. 2000; Tegmark \& Peebles 1998).
508: In addition, the latest studies of the
509: clustering of $\sim L_*$ galaxies on $\sim 100~Mpc$ scales indicates that these
510: objects are also unbiased tracers of matter. Verde et al. (2002) found that,
511: on scales of $\sim 7$ to $\sim 40~Mpc$,
512: $b = 1.04 \pm 0.11$ for $1.9~L_*$ galaxies in the $2dF$ survey with a mean
513: redshift of $z = 0.17$. Using a different analysis of the same data,
514: Lahav et al. (2002) found that $b = 1.20 \pm 0.11$ on scales of
515: $\sim 20$ to $\sim 150~Mpc$. Both of these results are consistent with early findings
516: from the SDSS and 2MASS surveys that imply linear bias factors on the order of unity
517: (Tegmark et al. 2002; Miller et al. 2003). It should not be surprising that
518: the XRB and galaxy biases are similar since $L_*$ galaxies
519: are closely associated with the moderately active AGN that comprise the bulk of the
520: hard XRB (e.g., Barger et al. 2003; Miller et al. 2003).
521:
522: If these estimates are accurate, then the X-ray bias factor in the linear regime
523: is now much better determined.
524: The hard XRB background appears to be an excellent tracer of the large-scale
525: distribution of matter, making it a useful tool for understanding
526: the evolution of structure in the universe.
527: One example of the importance of determining galaxy biases (and indeed the
528: driving motivation for this work) is to aid in the interpretation of recent
529: detections of correlations of galaxies with the cosmic microwave
530: background (CMB).
531: We (Boughn \& Crittenden 2004)
532: have detected a correlation of the $2-10~keV$ XRB with
533: $WMAP$ satellite map of the cosmic microwave background (Bennett et al. 2003),
534: and there have been correlations observed with a number of other galaxy surveys
535: (Nolta et al. 2003; Scranton et al. 2003; Fosalba, Gaztanaga,\&
536: Castander 2003; Afshordi, Loh, \& Strauss 2003). These correlations have been
537: interpreted as the detection of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe ($ISW$) effect
538: (Sachs \& Wolfe 1967). If confirmed, they would constitute
539: an important test of the $\Lambda CDM$ cosmological model and provide further evidence
540: of the existence of a substantial amount of ``dark energy'' in the universe
541: (Crittenden \& Turok 1996).
542:
543: \begin{acknowledgments}
544:
545: We would like to acknowledge Keith Jahoda who is responsible for constructing
546: the HEAO1 A2 X-ray map and who provided us with several data-handling
547: programs. We also thank Greg Koehrsen for noise analysis programs.
548: RC acknowledges financial support from a PPARC AF fellowship.
549:
550: \end{acknowledgments}
551:
552: \begin{references}
553: \reference{} Afshordi,N., Loh. Y.S.,\& Strauss, M. A. 2003, astro-ph/0308260
554: \reference{} Akiyama, M. et al. 2000, ApJ, 532, 700.
555: \reference{} Bahcall, N. A., \& Soneira, R. M. 1983, ApJ, 270, 20.
556: \reference{} Barcons, X., Carrera, F.J., Ceballos, M.T. \& Mateos, S. 2000,
557: Invited review presented at the Workshop X-ray Astronomy'99: Stellar
558: Endpoints, AGN and the Diffuse X-ray Background (also astro-ph/0001182).
559: \reference{} Barger, A. J. et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2177.
560: \reference{} Barger, A. J. et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 1839.
561: \reference{} Barger, A. J. et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 632.
562: \reference{} Bennett, C. L et al. 2003 ApJS, 148, 1.
563: \reference{} Benson, A. J., Cole, S., Frenk, C.S., Baugh, C. M., \& Lacey, C. G.
564: 2000, MNRAS 311, 793.
565: \reference{} Boldt, E. 1987, Phys. Rep., 146, 215
566: \reference{} Boughn, S. 1999, ApJ, 526, 14
567: \reference{} Boughn, S. \& Crittenden, R. 2003, Nature, 427, 45.
568: \reference{} Boughn, S., Crittenden, R., \& Koehrsen G. 2002, ApJ, 580, 672.
569: \reference{} Boughn, S., Crittenden, R. \& Turok, N. 1998, New Astron., 3,
570: 275
571: \reference{} Carrera, F. et al. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 229.
572: \reference{} Comastri, A., Setti, G., Zamorani, G. \& Hasinger, G.
573: 1995, A \& A, 296, 1
574: \reference {} Cowie, L. L., Barger, A. J., Bautz, M. W., Brandt, W. N., Garmire, G. P.
575: 2003, ApJ, 584, L57.
576: \reference{} Crittenden, R. \& Turok, N. 1996, PRL 76, 575
577: \reference{} Ellis, R. S. 1997, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 35, 389.
578: \reference{} Fosalba, P., Gaztanaga, E., \& Castander, F. 2003, astro-ph/0307249
579: \reference{} Fry, J. N., 1996, ApJ, 461, L65.
580: \reference{} Gendreau, K. C. et al. 1995, PASJ, 47, L5
581: \reference{} Gruber, D. E., Matteson, J. L., Peterson, L. E.,\& Jung, G. V. 1999,
582: ApJ, 520, 124.
583: \reference{} Kushino, A. et al. 2002, PASJ, 54, 327.
584: \reference{} Lahav, O. et al. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 961.
585: \reference{} Lehmann, I. et al. 2001, A\&A,371, 833.
586: \reference{} Maller, A. H., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., \& Weinberg, M. D. 2003,
587: ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0304005).
588: \reference{} Marshall, R. E. et al. 1980, ApJ, 235,4.
589: \reference{} Miller, C. J., Nichol, R. C., Gomez, P., \& Hopkins, A. 2003,
590: ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0307124).
591: \reference{} Miyaji, T., Lahav, O., Jahoda, K., \& Boldt, E. 1994, ApJ 434, 424.
592: \reference{} Nolta, M.R. et al. 2003, ApJ, in press
593: Boldt, E. \& Piran, T. 2000, ApJ, 544, 49
594: \reference{} Piccinotti, G., Mushotzky, R. F., Boldt, E. A.,
595: Holt, S. S., Marshall, F. E., Serlemitsos, P. J. \&
596: Shafer, R. A. 1982, ApJ, 253, 485
597: \reference{} Sachs, R. K. \& Wolfe, A. M. 1967, Ap J, 147, 73.
598: \reference{} Scranton, R. et al. 2003, astro-ph/0307335
599: \reference{} Spergel, D. N. et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175.
600: \reference{} Steffen, A.T., Barger,A.J., Cowie, L.L., Mushotzky, R.F., Yang, Y.
601: 2003, ApJ, 596, L23.
602: \reference{} Tegmark, M. \& Peebles, P. J. E. 1998, ApJ, 500, L79
603: \reference{} Tegmark, M. et al. 2002, ApJ, 571, 191.
604: \reference{} Treyer, M. A., Scharf, C. A., Lahav, O., Jahoda, K.,
605: Boldt, E. \& Piran, T. 1998, ApJ, 509, 531
606: \reference{} Ueda, Y., Akiyama, M., Ohta, K., \& Miyaji, T. 2003, ApJ, 598, 886.
607: \reference{} Verde, L. et al. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 432.
608: \reference{} Worsley, M. A. et al. 2004, astro-ph/0404273.
609: \end{references}
610:
611: \end{document}
612:
613: