1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2004 January 9
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: %%
19:
20: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
21:
22:
23: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
24:
25: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
26:
27: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
28:
29: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
30:
31: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
32: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
33: %% use the longabstract style option.
34:
35: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
36:
37: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
38: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
39: %% the \begin{document} command.
40: %%
41: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
42: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
43: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
44: %% for information.
45:
46: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
47: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
48:
49: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
50:
51: %\slugcomment{Submitted Version}
52:
53: \shorttitle{Angular Clustering of SWIRE Galaxies}
54: \shortauthors{Oliver et al.}
55:
56: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
57: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
58:
59: %\received{2004 March 27}
60: \begin{document}
61:
62: \title{Angular Clustering of Galaxies at 3.6~\micron\ from the SWIRE survey}
63:
64: \author{Seb Oliver and Ian Waddington}
65: \affil{Astronomy Centre, Department of Physics \& Astronomy,
66: University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK}
67: \email{S.Oliver@Sussex.ac.uk}
68:
69: \author{Eduardo Gonzalez-Solares\altaffilmark{1}}
70: \affil{University of Cambridge, Institute of Astronomy, The
71: Observatories, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, UK}
72:
73: \author{Jason Surace\altaffilmark{2}, Fan Fang\altaffilmark{2}, Dave
74: Shupe\altaffilmark{2}, Tom Jarrett, Carol Lonsdale, Cong (Kevin)
75: Xu and Duncan Farrah}
76: \affil{Infrared Processing \& Analysis Center, California Institute of
77: Technology, MS 100-22, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA}
78:
79: \author{Malcolm Salaman}
80: \affil{Astronomy Centre, Department of Physics \& Astronomy,
81: University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK}
82:
83: \author{Michael Rowan-Robinson}
84: \affil{Astrophysics Group, Blackett Loboratory, Imperial College,
85: Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2BW, UK}
86:
87: \and
88:
89: \author{Brian Siana and H. E. (Gene) Smith, }
90: \affil{Center for Astrophysics \& Space Sciences, University of
91: California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0424, USA}
92:
93: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
94: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
95: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
96: %% affiliation.
97:
98: \altaffiltext{1}{Formerly at University of Sussex}
99: \altaffiltext{2}{Spitzer Science Center, California Institute of
100: Technology, MS 220-6, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA}
101:
102:
103:
104:
105:
106: \begin{abstract}
107: We present the first analysis of large-scale clustering from the
108: Spitzer Wide-area InfraRed Extragalactic legacy survey: SWIRE. We
109: compute the angular correlation function of galaxies selected to have
110: 3.6~\micron\ fluxes brighter than 32~$\mu$Jy in three fields totaling
111: two square degrees in area. In each field we detect clustering with a
112: high level of significance. The amplitude and slope of the correlation
113: function is consistent between the three fields and is modeled as
114: $w(\theta)=A\theta^{1-\gamma}$ with
115: $A=(0.6\pm0.3)\times10^{-3},\gamma=2.03\pm0.10$. With a fixed slope
116: of $\gamma=1.8$, we obtain an amplitude of
117: $A=(1.7\pm0.1)\times10^{-3}$. Assuming an equivalent depth of
118: $K\approx18.7$~mag we find our errors are smaller but our results are
119: consistent with existing clustering measurements in $K$-band surveys
120: and with stable clustering models. We estimate our median redshift
121: $z\simeq 0.75$ and this allows us to obtain an estimate of the
122: three-dimensional correlation function $\xi(r)$, for which we find
123: $r_0=4.4\pm0.1 h^{-1}$~Mpc.
124:
125: \end{abstract}
126:
127: \keywords{large-scale structure of universe --- infrared: galaxies ---
128: galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: statistics}
129:
130:
131: \section{Introduction}
132:
133: The Spitzer Wide-area InfraRed Extragalactic legacy survey, SWIRE
134: \citep{lonsdale2003,lonsdale2004}, has recently begun observations.
135: The survey was designed to dramatically enhance our understanding of
136: galaxy evolution. We will study the history of star-formation, the
137: assembly of stellar mass, the nature and impact of accretion processes
138: in active nuclei, and the influence of environment on these processes
139: at all scales. The survey will detect around two million galaxies at
140: infrared wavelengths ranging from 3.6~\micron\ to 160~\micron, over
141: 50~square degrees.
142:
143: The analysis of the clustering of galaxies has been an important tool
144: in cosmology for many years \citep[e.g.,][]{peebles80}. Originally
145: galaxies were assumed to trace the mass density field (modulo some
146: ``bias'' factor) and their clustering was used to constrain
147: cosmological models. For example, the angular correlation function of
148: the APM galaxy survey was able to rule out the once standard cold dark
149: matter model \citep{maddox90}. Today the cosmological models are
150: usually constrained by observations of the cosmic microwave background
151: (e.g. \citealt{wmap}) and conventional models of the evolution of
152: structure under gravity can then provide us with estimates of the
153: statistical properties of the mass density field. Hence studies of
154: galaxy clustering can now be used to understand the relationship
155: between galaxy formation and the mass field, i.e.\ the galaxy bias
156: (e.g. \citealt{benson}).
157:
158:
159: In this paper we take the first step towards an understanding of the
160: clustering of the SWIRE sources, by measuring the angular correlation
161: function of those galaxies that are detected at 3.6~\micron\ ($L$
162: band) with the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC). For galaxies at
163: $z\approx 0.6-0.7$ the 3.6~\micron\ band probes the rest-frame
164: $K$-band and so their clustering can be compared directly with that
165: from local $K$-band surveys such as the Two Micron All Sky Survey
166: \citep[2MASS;][]{maller03}. At this wavelength, the emission is
167: dominated by older stellar populations so these galaxies are tracing
168: the sites of star-formation in the distant past and we are probing the
169: bias at even earlier epochs.
170:
171:
172:
173: \section{Catalogs and Sample Selection}
174: \subsection{Catalogs}
175:
176: The catalogs that we are using are all the ones that were available in
177: March 2004, i.e.\ our validation ``tile'' in the Lockman hole region
178: (0.4~deg$^2$) and two tiles in the ELAIS N1 region (each 0.8~deg$^2$).
179: The data are available from the Spitzer Science Archive as programs
180: PROGID=142 and PROGID=185 respectively. The data processing will be
181: described in detail in a future paper \citep{swiredata}. The
182: 5$\sigma$ limit of the 3.6 $\mu$m catalogs is $S_{3.6}=3.7$~$\mu$Jy
183: \citep{lonsdale2004}; in the analysis that follows we consider only
184: those galaxies that have $S_{3.6}\ge 32$~$\mu$Jy, a flux-limited
185: sample with typically very high signal-to-noise ratio ($>40$).
186:
187:
188: \subsection{Star/galaxy Separation}\label{sec:stargal}
189:
190: Contaminating stars will reduce the galaxy clustering signal, and so
191: we have investigated two procedures for separating stars and galaxies.
192: The first method uses our supporting optical data in the central
193: 0.3~square degrees of the Lockman tile. We select objects with
194: optical counterparts and detections in at least four bands (U,
195: $g^\prime$, $r^\prime$, $i^\prime$, 3.6~\micron, 4.5~\micron). From
196: these, we reject objects that are morphologically classified as
197: stellar and are brighter than $r^\prime<23$~mag (below this limit, the
198: star/galaxy separation becomes unreliable). We also reject those
199: objects which have good optical/infrared data, but for which no galaxy
200: or AGN template spectrum provides a good fit \citep{mrr04}. This
201: method provided us with 872 stars and 2115 galaxies, with 727 IRAC
202: sources rejected. The stellar number count models of \citet{jarrett}
203: predict 620 sources, therefore we expect the stellar contamination in
204: our catalog to be small.
205:
206: In the second method we use the IRAC color from 3.6 to 4.5~\micron:
207: $C_{12}=\log (S_{3.6}/S_{4.5})$. We model this color above
208: $S_{3.6}>500$~$\mu$Jy as a Gaussian (assuming these to be stars, but
209: fitting only to the positive half of the distribution to avoid
210: residual contamination from galaxies). We find a mean
211: $\bar{C}_{12}=0.235$ and $\sigma_{c_{12}}=0.014$. We then apply a
212: three-sigma cut and reject stars with $0.194\le C_{12}\le0.276$. With
213: this color criterion and the 3.6~\micron\ flux limit, the
214: 4.5~\micron\ completeness limit of $S_{4.5}\ge 18$~$\mu$Jy has no
215: impact on the identification of the stars. In addition, we exclude
216: all objects associated with stars from the 2MASS catalog
217: \citep{2mass}. The number of star rejected is shown in
218: Table~\ref{tab:wtheta}. The stellar count model \citep{jarrett}
219: predicts 2074 stars per square degree, thus this method also excludes
220: around 2000 galaxies per square degree with stellar colors. These are
221: a minor fraction of our sample ($<20$ per cent) and this will not bias
222: our results, so long as the excluded galaxies do not cluster
223: differently to the remaining sample. Since we include galaxies with
224: both redder and bluer colors, this seems a reasonable assumption.
225:
226: We compared the two different methods of star/galaxy separation in the
227: 0.3~square degrees of the Lockman field where both methods could be
228: applied. In this region, the optical selection yielded 872 stars and
229: the infrared selection method yielded 1100 stars. Of these, 450
230: sources are common to both lists, making them the most reliable
231: stellar identifications. However, these common sources are not a
232: complete list of the stars -- the stellar count model \citep{jarrett}
233: predicts 620 sources in this field, leaving around 170 stars (27 per
234: cent) that were not selected by both methods concurrently. Further,
235: if we consider the 2MASS point source catalog to be a second reliable
236: list of stellar identifications, then we find that 96 of these 2MASS
237: stars (23~per cent) were not identified as such using the optical
238: selection method. Combining these statistics gives an estimate of the
239: stellar contamination in the galaxy catalogs of $<5$--8~per cent for
240: the Lockman optical/IRAC catalog, and $<3$~per cent for the three
241: IRAC-only catalogs.
242:
243:
244: \subsection{Selection function}
245:
246: We have adopted a simple but conservative selection function. Our high
247: flux limit ($S_{32\mu{\rm m}} \ge 32$~$\mu$Jy, typically
248: signal-to-noise $>40$) means that even in regions of higher than
249: average noise (low coverage) we will still have reasonable
250: signal-to-noise and be well above the completeness level, thus our
251: selection function is uniform. A bright star can cause artifacts that
252: will affect our source detection, however, so we excluded regions
253: around bright 2MASS stars, and also regions near the boundaries of the
254: survey fields.
255:
256:
257:
258: \section{The angular correlation function}
259:
260: We calculated the angular correlation function
261: $w(\theta)=A\theta^{1-\gamma}$ following the same techniques as
262: \citet{eduardolss}, using the \citet{landyszalay} estimator. We
263: applied corrections for the finite survey area (the integral
264: constraint) and the stellar contamination, following the method of,
265: for example, \citet{roche99}.
266:
267: We calculated $w(\theta)$ for each of our three independent fields:
268: Lockman, ELAIS N1 tile 2\_2 and ELAIS N1 tile 3\_2. We have made a
269: seperate measurement in the center of the Lockman field with deep
270: optical coverage, using a different star/galaxy classification as
271: described in Section \ref{sec:stargal}. Each of these correlation
272: functions are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:wtheta} and tabulated in
273: Table~\ref{tab:wtheta}. We note that, as with any angular correlation
274: analysis, the data points are not independent. We fit the model to
275: the data over $\theta>0.003$~deg (11\arcsec) -- on smaller scales the
276: correlation function clearly departs from a power law, indicating an
277: excess of close pairs relative to the clustering on larger scales.
278: This excess is most-likely due to interacting/merging galaxies
279: \citep{roche99}, but our large source detection aperture (6\arcsec)
280: limits our ability to investigate this so we will explore this in more
281: detail in a future paper. The strength of clustering in the Lockman
282: optical field appears to higher than the other fields; this might be
283: because the additional optical selection criteria reduce the effective
284: depth of the field and shallower surveys will always have stronger
285: angular clustering. The best-fitting parameters to the three combined
286: samples (excluding the Lockman optical dataset) are:
287: $A=(1.7\pm0.1)\times10^{-3}$ for a fixed $\gamma=1.8$; and
288: $A=(0.6\pm0.3)\times10^{-3}$ with $\gamma=2.03\pm0.10$ for a free fit.
289:
290:
291:
292:
293:
294:
295: \subsection{Comparison with $K$-band surveys}
296:
297: The sources detected in the 3.6~\micron\ band will be similar in
298: nature to sources detected in a $K$-band survey, as both sample the
299: old stellar populations. In the absence of $K$-band data in our
300: fields, we used simulated catalogs from \citet{xu2003} to estimate the
301: effective $K$-band limit in three different ways, giving answers
302: ranging from $K\le18.1$~mag to $K\le19.3$~mag. Although this model
303: over-predicts the 3.6~\micron\ number counts \citep{lonsdale2004} we
304: only need the colours and not the overall normalisation to be correct.
305:
306: Firstly we determined the median $L-K$ color of galaxies with
307: $S_{3.6}\ge32$~$\mu$Jy to be 1.1; our limiting flux thus translates to
308: $K\le18.6$~mag. Secondly we examined the $K$-band counts of a
309: $S_{3.6}\ge32$~$\mu$Jy simulated catalog and estimated a completeness
310: limit of $K\le18.1$~mag (N.B. the overall normalisation of the count
311: model does not affect this result). The parameter of interest is not
312: really the $K$ magnitude but redshift; so for our third method we
313: constructed $K$ magnitude limited samples with varied limits and found
314: that a magnitude limit of $K\le19.3$ gives the same median redshift as
315: we predict for our sample ($z=0.75$, see Section \ref{sec:nz} below).
316: Thus we define our effective $K$-band limit to be $K=18.7$~mag,
317: recognizing that there is some uncertainty in this value by up to
318: $\pm0.6$~mag.
319:
320: In Figure~\ref{fig:comp} we compare our amplitude with that from
321: various $K$-band surveys. Our errors are much smaller than existing
322: measurements in these range but there is a very good agreement, the
323: main issue is the uncertainty in how to compare the $K$- and $L$-band
324: limits.
325:
326: \citet{roche03} have modeled the clustering of $K$-band sources with
327: the auto-correlation function evolving as
328: $$\xi(r,z)=\left(r/r_0\right)^{-\gamma}\left(1+z\right)^{-(3+\epsilon)}$$
329: Setting the local $r_0=5.85h^{-1}$~Mpc \citep{cabanac} and using their
330: own model for the redshift distribution, they estimate the angular
331: correlation function as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:comp}. We find good
332: agreement with their stable clustering, $\epsilon=0$, model.
333: Interestingly their model appears to over-predict the strength of the
334: 2MASS clustering \citep{maller03}, though these data have been plotted
335: with the slightly shallower best-fit slopes $\gamma\approx1.76$.
336:
337: %\input{table2.tex}
338:
339:
340:
341:
342:
343: \subsection{Estimation of 3D clustering}\label{sec:nz}
344:
345:
346: We can use our two-dimensional clustering measurement to infer
347: the three-dimensional clustering statistics. To do this we need
348: to know the shape of the redshift distribution $dN/dz(z)$. In the
349: absence of spectroscopic redshifts or photometric redshifts for all
350: our sources we use the model of \citet{xu2003} to estimate the
351: redshift distribution.
352:
353: We know that this model over predicts the 3.6~\micron\ number counts
354: \citep{lonsdale2004}, so it is important to demonstrate that this model
355: can nevertheless predict the shape of the redshift distribution. In
356: Figure~\ref{fig:nz} we compare the model with the observed redshift
357: distribution from the K20 sample \citep{cimatti2000}. The shape is a
358: reasonable fit. The median redshift of the K20 sample is $z_{\rm
359: med}=0.74$; for our model starbursts and spirals we find $z_{\rm
360: med}=0.92$, while for the spheroids $z_{\rm med}=0.86$, and the
361: model as a whole has $z_{\rm med}=0.91$. The median redshift of the
362: K20 sample is biased by a sharp peak at $z\simeq0.74$, which is
363: presumably an artifact of clustering. So although the K20 sample has
364: a slightly lower median $z$ than our model, we regard the approximate
365: agreement between the redshift distributions in Figure~\ref{fig:nz} as
366: reasonable confirmation of the model.
367:
368: Using this model we estimate that our $S_{3.6}\ge32$~$\mu$Jy sample
369: has a median redshift of $z_{\rm med}\approx 0.75$. If the median
370: redshift is lower than this, say by a factor of 0.8 as in the K20
371: comparison above then the median redshift might be $z_{\rm med}\approx
372: 0.6$.
373:
374: Using the Limber's equation \citep{limber53} inversion technique
375: adopted by \citet{eduardolss}, which uses a redshift distribution
376: parameterized by the median redshift, we estimate the real-space
377: correlation function $\xi(r)=(r/r_0)^{1.8}$ for our combined sample
378: and find $r_0=4.4\pm0.1h^{-1}$~Mpc. The results for individual fields
379: are shown in Table~\ref{tab:wtheta}. Adopting the lower redshift,
380: $z_{\rm med}=0.6$, this drops to $r_0=3.3\pm0.1h^{-1}$~Mpc. For
381: comparison the correlation function of quasars in the range
382: $0.3<z<2.9$ has $r_0=3.99^{+0.34}_{-0.28}h^{-1}$~Mpc, with
383: $\gamma=1.58^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$ \citep{croom01} and hyper-luminous
384: infrared galaxies also have a clustering strength similar to AGN at
385: $z\sim0.7$ \citep{farrah04}. The uncertainty in our correlation
386: function is clearly dominated by our uncertainties in the redshift
387: distribution and emphasizes the need to establish the redshift
388: distribution of the SWIRE galaxies.
389:
390:
391: %Evolving this forward to $z=0$ using a
392: %stable clustering $\epsilon=0$ model would give a high
393: %$r_0(z=0)\approx11h^{-1}$~Mpc.
394: %$r_0(z=0)\approx7.3h^{-1}$~Mpc for $\epsilon=0, z=0.6$.
395:
396:
397:
398: \subsection{Conclusions and future work}
399:
400: We have performed the first clustering analysis on the SWIRE
401: survey. We have a very strong detection of clustering with amplitude
402: similar to $K$-band surveys but with smaller errors. We are thus
403: consistent with an existing phenomenological model of $K$-band
404: selected galaxies
405: $\xi(r,z)=\left(r/r_0\right)^{-\gamma}\left(1+z\right)^{-3}$.
406: Physically this model could be interpreted as stable clustering,
407: i.e.\ that galaxies have broken free from the Hubble expansion, though
408: this seems implausible on large scales. However, since $K$-band
409: surveys sample different galaxies at different redshifts the
410: interpretation of the phenomenological model is not this
411: straightforward. Now that we have high quality data in the rest-frame
412: $K$ at high redshift we need phenomenological models specifically
413: designed to interpret these.
414:
415: When we have a larger survey area available, and detailed selection
416: functions, we will be able to extend the analysis to our completeness
417: limit, which is fainter by a factor of nearly 10 in flux (or 2.5
418: magnitudes). We will then be able to subdivide our sample by flux and
419: explore the evolution of clustering in much more detail. We will
420: investigate the excess clustering seen on smaller angular scales, and
421: we will also explore the clustering in the longer wavelength IRAC
422: bands and the relative clustering of star-forming galaxies and
423: passively evolving systems, thus gaining insights into the nature of
424: galaxy bias.
425:
426:
427:
428: \acknowledgments
429:
430:
431: We are indebted to Nathan Roche for supplying us with machine readable
432: versions of his clustering models. We would like to thank the
433: referee, Dr.\ Ari Maller, for very useful and constructive comments.
434: This work was supported by PPARC grant PPA/G/S/2000/00508 (SJO, IW,
435: EGS). Support for this work, part of the Spitzer Space Telescope
436: Legacy Science Program, was provided by NASA through an award issued
437: by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
438: under NASA contract 1407. This publication makes use of data products
439: from the Two Micron All Sky Survey
440: (\url{http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/}), which is a joint project
441: of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and
442: Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the
443: National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science
444: Foundation.
445:
446: Facilities: \facility{Spitzer Space Telescope}.
447:
448:
449: % Datasets used in this analysis:
450: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0007770880]{Link to datasets used in this analysis.}
451: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0007771136]{}
452: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0005876480]{}
453: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0005876736]{}
454: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0005876992]{}
455: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0005877760]{}
456: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0005878016]{}
457: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0005878272]{}
458: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0005878528]{}
459: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0005879552]{}
460: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0005879808]{}
461: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0005880064]{}
462: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0008760576]{}
463: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0008760832]{}
464: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0008761856]{}
465: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0008762112]{}
466: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0008762368]{}
467: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0008762880]{}
468: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0008764416]{}
469: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0008764672]{}
470: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0008764928]{}
471: \dataset[ads.sa.spitzer#0008765184]{}
472:
473:
474:
475:
476: \begin{thebibliography}{}
477:
478: \bibitem[Baugh et al.\ (1996)]{baugh96} Baugh C. M., Gardner J. P.,
479: Frenk C. S., Sharples R.M ., 1996, \mnras, 283, L15.
480:
481: \bibitem[Bennett et al.\ (2003)]{wmap} Bennett, C.~L., et al.\
482: 2003, \apjs, 148, 1
483:
484:
485: \bibitem[Benson et al.\ (2001)]{benson} Benson A.~J.,
486: Frenk C.~S., Baugh C.~M., Cole S., Lacey C.~G., 2001, \mnras, 327, 1041
487:
488: \bibitem[Cabanac, de Lapparent and Hickson \ (2000)]{cabanac}
489: Cabanac A., de Lapparent V., Hickson P., 2000, \aap, 364, 349.
490:
491:
492: \bibitem[Cimatti et al.\ (2002)]{cimatti2000} Cimatti A., et al. 2002,
493: \aap, 391, L1
494:
495: \bibitem[Croom et al.\ (2001)]{croom01} Croom S.M, Shanks T.,
496: Boyle B.J., Smith R.J., Miller L., Loaring N.S., Hoyle F. 2001,
497: \mnras, 325, 483
498:
499: \bibitem[Cutri et al.\ (2003)]{2mass} Cutri, R. M., et al., 2003,
500: Explanatory Supplement to the 2MASS All Sky Data Release,
501: \url{http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/doc/explsup.html}
502:
503: \bibitem[Daddi et al.\ (2000)]{daddi00} Daddi E., Cimatti A., Pozzetti
504: L., Hoekstra H., R\"{o}ttgering, H., Renzini A., Zamorani G.,
505: Mannucci F, 2000, A\&A, 361, 535.
506:
507: \bibitem[Farrah et al.\ (2004)]{farrah04} Farrah et al., 2004, \mnras, 349, 518
508:
509: \bibitem[Gonzalez-Solares et al.\ (2004)]{eduardolss}
510: Gonzalez-Solares et al., 2004, \mnras, (in press) astro-ph/0312451
511:
512:
513: \bibitem[Jarrett et al.\ (1994)]{jarrett} Jarrett,
514: Jarrett, T. H., Dickman, R. L., \& Herbst, W. 1994, \apj, 424, 852
515:
516: \bibitem[K\"{u}mmel and Wagner (2000)]{kummel00} K\"{u}mmel M. W., and
517: Wagner S. J. 2000, \aap, 353, 867
518:
519: \bibitem[Landy and Szalay (1993)]{landyszalay} Landy S. D., and Szalay
520: A. S., 1993, \apj, 412, 64
521:
522:
523: \bibitem[Limber(1953)]{limber53} Limber, D.~N.\ 1953, \apj, 117,
524: 134
525:
526: \bibitem[Lonsdale et al.\ (2004)]{lonsdale2004} Lonsdale C., et
527: al. 2004, \apjs, (this issue)
528:
529: \bibitem[Lonsdale et al.\ (2003)]{lonsdale2003} Lonsdale C., et
530: al. 2003, \pasp, 115, 897
531:
532:
533: \bibitem[Maddox et al.\ (1990)]{maddox90}
534: Maddox, S.~J., Efstathiou, G., Sutherland, W.~J., \& Loveday,
535: J.\ 1990, \mnras, 242, 43P
536:
537:
538: \bibitem[Maller et al.\ (2003)]{maller03} Maller A. H., McIntosh D. H.,
539: Katz N., and Wessinberg M. D., 2003, astro-ph/0304005
540:
541: \bibitem[McCraken et al.\ (2000)]{mccraken00} McCracken H., Shanks T.,
542: Metcalfe N., Fong R., Campos A., 2000, \mnras, 318, 913.
543:
544:
545: \bibitem[Peebles \ (1980)]{peebles80} Peebles P.J.E., 1980,
546: The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, Princeton University Press.
547:
548: \bibitem[Roche et al.\ (2002)]{roche02} Roche N., Almaini O., Dunlop
549: J., Ivison R. J., Willott C. J., 2002, \mnras, 337, 1282.
550:
551: \bibitem[Roche et al.\ (2003)]{roche03} Roche, N., Dunlop, J., Almaini,
552: O., 2003, \mnras, 346, 803
553:
554: \bibitem[Roche et al.\ (1999)]{roche99} Roche, N., Eales, S.,
555: Hippelein, H., Willott, C. J., 1999, \mnras, 306, 538.
556:
557: \bibitem[Roche et al.\ (1998)]{roche98} Roche, N., Eales, S.,
558: Hippelein, H., 1998, \mnras, 295, 946.
559:
560: \bibitem[Rowan-Robinson et al.\ (2004)]{mrr04} Rowan-Robinson, M., et
561: al., 2004, \apjs, (this issue)
562:
563: %\bibitem[Strutskie et al.\ (1997)]{2mass} Skrutskie, M. F., et al.,
564: % 1997, in The Impact of Large Scale Near-IR Sky Surveys,
565: % ed.\ F. Garzon et al.\ (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 25
566:
567:
568: %\bibitem[Surace et al.\ (2004a)]{iraccounts} Surace, J., et al., 2004a,
569: % in preparation
570:
571: \bibitem[Surace et al.\ (2004)]{swiredata} Surace, J., et al., 2004,
572: in preparation
573:
574: \bibitem[Xu et al.\ (2003)]{xu2003} Xu, C. K., Lonsdale, C. J., Shupe,
575: D. L., Franceschini, A., Martin, C., and Schiminovich, D., 2003,
576: \apj, 587, 90
577:
578: \end{thebibliography}
579:
580: \clearpage
581:
582: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
583: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
584: %\rotate
585: \tablecaption{Parameterized $w(\theta)$
586: estimated from each of our sub samples.
587: }
588: \tablewidth{0pt}
589: \tablehead{
590: \colhead{Sample} &
591: \colhead{Area} &
592: \colhead{$N_{\rm gals}$} &
593: \colhead{$N_{\rm stars}$} &
594: \colhead{$A (\gamma=1.8)$} &
595: \colhead{$A$} &
596: \colhead{$\gamma$} &
597: \colhead{$r_0 (z_{\rm med}=0.75)$} &
598: \colhead{$r_0 (z_{\rm med}=0.6)$} \\
599: %
600: \colhead{} &
601: \colhead{[sq.\ deg.]} &
602: \colhead{} &
603: \colhead{} &
604: \colhead{$[10 ^{-3}]$} &
605: \colhead{$[10 ^{-3}]$} &
606: \colhead{} &
607: \colhead{$[h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}]$} &
608: \colhead{$[h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}]$} \\
609: }
610: \startdata
611: Lockman (optical) &0.3& 2115 & 872 &$2.7\pm0.5$ & $1.2\pm1.3$ & $1.97\pm0.25$ & $5.5\pm0.5$ & $ 4.3\pm0.5$ \\
612: Lockman full tile &0.4& 3685 & 1551 &$2.0\pm0.3$ & $1.0\pm1.0$ & $1.95\pm0.23$ & $4.6\pm0.4$ & $ 3.7\pm0.3$ \\
613: ELAIS N1 tile\_2\_2&0.8& 8677 & 4163 &$1.7\pm0.2$ & $0.5\pm0.3$ & $2.06\pm0.14$ & $4.2\pm0.3$ & $ 3.3\pm0.3$ \\
614: ELAIS N1 tile\_3\_2&0.8& 8472 & 4272 &$1.7\pm0.2$ & $0.9\pm0.6$ & $1.95\pm0.16$ & $4.2\pm0.3$ & $ 3.3\pm0.3$ \\
615: Combined sample &2.0& 20834 & 9986 &$1.7\pm0.1$ & $0.6\pm0.3$ & $2.03\pm0.10$ & $4.4\pm0.1$ & $3.3\pm0.1$ \\
616: \enddata
617: \medskip
618:
619: Column 3 is the number of galaxies included in each sample, and column
620: 4 is the number of stars that were rejected. $w(\theta)$ is modeled
621: as $w(\theta)=A\theta^{1-\gamma}$, with $\theta$ measured in degrees.
622: Column 5 has $\gamma=1.8$ fixed, while columns 6 and 7 are the results
623: for a free fit. Columns 8 and 9 are estimates of the strength of the
624: correlation function $\xi(r)=(r/r_0)^{1.8}$ assuming a median redshift
625: of $z=0.75$ and $z=0.6$ respectively. The Lockman (optical) sample is
626: a subset of the Lockman full tile and is not included in the combined
627: sample.
628: \label{tab:wtheta}
629: \end{deluxetable}
630:
631: \clearpage
632:
633: \begin{figure}
634: \epsscale{1.}
635: \plotone{f1.eps}
636: \epsscale{1.}
637: \caption{The angular correlation function $w(\theta)$ in each of our
638: fields. The best-fitting power law with fixed slope is shown as a
639: solid line. This power law is the same for both ELAIS N1 tiles,
640: $w(\theta)=0.0017\, (\theta/{\rm deg})^{-0.8}$, and this is plotted
641: as a dotted line in the other panels for reference.
642: }\label{fig:wtheta}
643: \end{figure}
644:
645:
646:
647: \begin{figure}
648: \epsscale{0.8}
649:
650: \plotone{f2.eps}
651: \epsscale{1.}
652:
653: \caption{Amplitude $A$ of the angular correlation function $w(\theta)$
654: as a function of $K$-band magnitude. We have plotted our survey at
655: an effective $K=18.7$ mag. Existing data comes from
656: \protect\citet{baugh96,roche98,roche99,daddi00,
657: mccraken00,kummel00,roche02,roche03,maller03}. All data have fixed
658: $\gamma=1.8$ except for those of \protect\citet{maller03} who found
659: $\gamma\approx1.76$, depending on scale. The lines are the evolving
660: models of \protect\citet{roche03}, with stable ($\epsilon=0$),
661: co-moving $\epsilon=-1.2$ and intermediate $\epsilon=-0.4$
662: clustering. An expanded view of our new measurement is shown in the
663: inset.}\label{fig:comp}
664:
665: \end{figure}
666:
667: \clearpage
668:
669:
670: \begin{figure}
671: \plotone{f3.eps}
672: \caption{The redshift distribution from the K20 sample
673: \protect\citep{cimatti2000} compared with the model of
674: \protect\citet{xu2003}. The model starbursts are shown in blue
675: (middle curve), spheroids in red (lower curve) and total counts in
676: green (upper curve). We have normalized the total counts in the
677: model to the total number of sources in the K20 sample (dividing by
678: a factor of two). }\label{fig:nz}
679: \end{figure}
680:
681: \clearpage
682:
683:
684:
685: \end{document}
686:
687: %%
688: