1: %\documentstyle[twocolumn,epsfig]{article}

2: \documentstyle[11pt,epsfig,a4wide]{article}

3: %\documentstyle[twocolumn,epsfig]{mn}

4: %\documentstyle[a4paper,useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}

5: %\documentstyle[referee]{mn}

6:  \topmargin -0.9 true in

7: \oddsidemargin=0pt

8: \evensidemargin=0pt

9: \textwidth=6.5truein

10: \newcommand{\mincir}{\raise

11: -2.truept\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{$\sim$}}\raise5.truept

12: \hbox{$<$}\ }}

13: \newcommand{\magcir}{\raise

14: -2.truept\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{$\sim$}}\raise5.truept

15: \hbox{$>$}\ }}

16: \newcommand{\minmag}{\raise-2.truept\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{$<$}}\raise

17: 6.truept\hbox{$>$}\ }}

18: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

19: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

20: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}

21: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}

22: \newcommand{\brr}{\begin{array}}

23: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber \\}

24: \newcommand{\err}{\end{array}}

25: \newcommand{\bc}{\begin{center}}

26: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{center}}

27: \newcommand{\br}{\mbox{\bf r}}

28: \newcommand{\bv}{\mbox{\bf v}}

29: \newcommand{\bs}{\mbox{\bf s}}

30: \newcommand{\bq}{\mbox{\bf q}}

31: \newcommand{\bx}{\mbox{\bf x}}

32: \newcommand{\by}{\mbox{\bf y}}

33: \newcommand{\bk}{\mbox{\bf k}}

34: \newcommand{\tR}{\mbox{\tiny R}}

35: \newcommand{\tM}{\mbox{\tiny M}}

36: \newcommand{\tN}{\mbox{\tiny N}}

37: \newcommand{\tL}{\mbox{\tiny L}}

38: \newcommand{\lb}{{\left<\right.}}

39: \newcommand{\rb}{{\left.\right>}}

40: \newcommand{\hm}{\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}}

41: \title{Reconstruction of large-scale peculiar velocity fields}

42: \author{Roya Mohayaee$^1$, R.\ Brent Tully$^{1,2}$ and Uriel Frisch$^1$

43: \\

44: $^1$Observatoire 

45: de la C\^ote d'Azur, B.P.4229, F-06304 Nice Cedex 4, France\\

46: $^2$ Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA\\

47: \\

48: {\sf Invited contribution to Colloquium, Cosmology: facts and Problems,}\\

49: {\sf Coll\`ege de France, Paris 8-11, June 2004}\\

50: {\sf Eds. J.V. Narlikar \& J-.C. Pecker}

51: }

52: %\date{Accepted 2000 ???? ???; Received 2000???? ???;

53: %in original form 2000???? ??}

54: 

55: \begin{document}

56: 

57: \maketitle

58: 

59: 

60: \begin{abstract}

61: A reconstruction method for recovering the initial conditions of the 

62: Universe starting from the present

63: galaxy distribution is presented which guarantees uniqueness of solutions. 

64: We show how our method can be used to obtain 

65: the peculiar velocities of a large number of galaxies,

66: hence trace galaxies orbits back in time and obtain the entire past dynamical

67: history of the Universe above scales where multi-streaming has not occurred.

68: When tested against a $128^3$ $\Lambda$CDM simulation in a box 

69: of $200$h$^{-1}$ Mpc length, we obtain $60\%$ exact reconstruction on

70: scales above $6$ h$^{-1}$Mpc. We apply our method 

71: to a real galaxy redshift catalogue, the updated NBG (Nearby Galaxies), containing 1483

72: galaxies, groups and clusters in a radius of $30$ Mpc/h, and reconstruct the

73: peculiar velocity fields in the local neighbourhood. Our reconstructed

74: distances are well-matched to the observed values outside the collapsed

75: regions if $\Omega_m(t)= 0.20\, \exp(-0.26 (t-13))$ where 

76: $t$ is the age of the Universe in Gyrs.

77: 

78: \end{abstract}

79: 

80: 

81: \section{Introduction}

82: 

83: Reconstruction of the initial condition of the Universe from the present distribution

84: of the galaxies, brought to us by ever-more sophisticated 

85: redshift surveys, is  

86: an instance of the general class of {\it inverse problems} in physics. 

87: In cosmology this problem is frequently tackled in an

88: empirical way by a {\it forward approach}. 

89: A {\it statistical} comparison between the outcome 

90: of an N-body simulation 

91: and the observational data is made, assuming that a suitable {\it bias} 

92: relation exists between the distribution of galaxies and that of dark 

93: matter. If the statistical test is satisfactory then the

94: implication is that the initial condition assumed by the simulation 

95: is a viable one for our Universe, otherwise one changes 

96: the cosmological parameters 

97: until a statistical convergence between the observed 

98: and the simulated present Universe  is achieved.

99: 

100: Since Newtonian gravity is time-reversible, one could integrate the equations of motions

101: back in time and solve the reconstruction problem trivially, if in 

102: addition to their positions, the present velocities of the 

103: galaxies were also known.

104: However, the peculiar velocities of only a 

105: few thousands of galaxies are known out of thousands whose 

106: redshifts have been measured. Thus, a second boundary condition, in addition

107: to the present redshifts of the galaxies, has to be provided :

108: as we go back in time the peculiar velocities of the galaxies vanish.

109: Contrary to the forward approach where one solves an {\it initial-value

110: problem}, in the reconstruction approach one is dealing 

111: with a {\it two-point boundary value problem} (In this case, only the

112: functional dependence of one of the boundary conditions is given, namely:

113: ${\rm time}\rightarrow 0$ then ${\rm peculiar\,\, velocities}\rightarrow 0$). 

114: In the former, one has a {\it

115: unique} solution but in the latter this is not always the case. 

116: 

117: The question remains whether unique reconstruction 

118: can be achieved.

119: In this work, we report on a new method of reconstruction (Frisch et al. 2002,

120: Mohayaee et al. 2003, Brenier et al. 2003) which

121: guarantees uniqueness.

122: 

123: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

124: \section{A brief review of previous approaches to reconstruction}

125: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

126: 

127: The history of reconstruction goes back to the work of Peebles who

128: traced the orbits of the members of the Local Group back in time (Peebles

129: 1989). In his approach, reconstruction was solved as a variational

130: problem. Instead of solving Newton's equations of motion, one searches

131: for the stationary points of the corresponding Euler-Lagrange action.

132: In his first work (Peebles 1989) only the 

133: minimum of the action was considered.

134: Later on, it was found that when the trajectories corresponding to the

135: saddle-point of the action were taken, a better 

136: agreement between predicted

137: and observed velocities could be obtained for the galaxies 

138: in the Local Group (peebles 1995). 

139: Thus, by adjusting the orbits until the 

140: predicted and observed velocities agreed, reasonable bounds on cosmological 

141: parameters were found (Peebles 1989) consistently favouring a low

142: density Universe ($\Omega_m=0.1-0.2$; noteworthy at a time when there was a

143: common preference for $\Omega_m=1$). 

144: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

145: 

146: Although rather successful (Shaya et al. 1995, Peebles et al. 2001) when applied to catalogues such as NBG

147: (Tully 1988) and also to mock catalogues (Branchini, Eldar\& Nusser 2002), 

148: reconstruction with such an aim, namely establishing

149: bounds on cosmological parameters using measured peculiar velocities, cannot be

150: applied to larger galaxy redshift surveys which contain

151: hundreds of thousands of galaxies for the majority of which the peculiar

152: velocities are unknown. For large

153: catalogues, the number of solutions become very large and not only

154: uniqueness is completely lost but also one is never sure that the full solution

155: space has been explored. In addition, numerical action-based 

156: codes are needed to solve the problem that challenges current computer capacities

157: 

158: A physical reason for multiple solutions is the

159: collisionless nature of cold dark matter. Collisionless fluid elements can undergo

160: multistreaming. Regions of multistream are bounded by {\it caustics} where the density is

161: formally infinite and inside which the velocity field can have more than one value.

162: This is a major obstacle to a unique reconstruction.

163: 

164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

165: \section{Monge--Amp\`ere--Kantorovich (MAK) reconstruction}

166: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

167: 

168: Reconstruction can be a well-posed problem for as long as we avoid

169: multistream regions. The mathematical formulation of this problem is as

170: follows (see Frisch et al. 2002, Mohayaee et al. 2003 and Brenier et al. 2003). 

171: Unlike most of the previous works on reconstruction where one studies the

172: Euler-Lagrange action, we start from a constraint equation, namely the mass

173: conservation,

174: \be

175: \rho({\bf x})d{\bf x}=\rho_0({\bf q}) d{\bf q} \;,

176: \qquad

177: \ee

178: where  $\rho_0({\bf q})$ is the 

179: density at the initial position, ${\bf q}$, and 

180: $\rho({\bf x})$ is the density at the present position, ${\bf x}$, of the fluid

181: element. The above mass conservation equation can be rearranged in the

182: following form

183: \be

184: {\rm det}\left[{\partial q_i\over \partial x_j}\right]=

185: {\rho({\bf x})\over \rho_0({\bf q})}\;,

186: \label{det}

187: \ee

188: where ${\rm det}$ stands for determinant and $\rho_0({\bf q})$ 

189: is constant. The right-hand-side of the above

190: expression is basically given by our boundary conditions: 

191: the final positions of the particles are known

192: and the initial distribution is homogeneous, $\rho_0({\bf q}) ={\rm const}$. 

193: To solve the equation, we make the following hypotheses:

194: the Lagrangian map (${\bf q}\rightarrow{\bf x}$), is 

195: the {\it gradient} of a {\it convex}

196: potential $\Phi$. That is

197: \be

198: {\bf x}({\bf q},t)=\nabla_q\Phi({\bf q},t)\;.

199: \ee

200: The convexity guarantees that a single Lagrangian position corresponds to a 

201: single Eulerian position, {\it i.e.}, there has

202: been no multistreaming\footnote{ The gradient condition has been made in previous works

203:  (Bertschinger and Dekel 1989) on the reconstruction of the peculiar

204:  velocities of the galaxies using linear Lagrangian theory.}.

205: These assumptions imply that the inverse map ${\bf

206:  x}\rightarrow {\bf q}$ also has a potential representation

207: \be

208: {\bf q}={\bf \nabla}_{\bf x}\Theta ({\bf x},t)\;,

209: \ee

210: where the potential $\Theta({\bf x})$ is also a convex function

211: and is related to $\Phi({\bf x})$ by the Legendre--Fenchel transform

212: (e.g. Arnold 1978)

213: \ba

214: \Theta({\bf x})=\max_{\bf q}\left[

215: {\bf q}\cdot{\bf x}-\Phi({\bf q})\right]\,&;&\,

216: \Phi({\bf q})=

217: \max_{\bf x}\left[{\bf x}\cdot{\bf q}-\Theta ({\bf x})\right]\;.

218: \nonumber\\

219: \ea

220: The inverse map is now substituted in (\ref{det}) yielding

221: \be

222: {\rm det}\left[{\partial^2 \Theta({\bf x},t)

223: \over \partial x_i\partial x_j}\right]=

224: {\rho({\bf x})\over \rho_0({\bf q})}\;,

225: \label{ma}

226: \ee

227: which is the well-known Monge--Amp\`ere equation (Monge 1781, Amp\`ere 1820) 

228: The solution to this

229: 222 years old problem has recently been discovered

230: (Brenier 1987, Benamou and Brenier 2000) when

231: it was realized that the map generated by the solution to the Monge--Amp\`ere

232: equation is the unique solution to an optimisation problem.

233: This is the Monge--Kantorovich mass transportation problem (Kantorovich 1942), in which one

234: seeks the map ${\bf x}\rightarrow {\bf q}$ which minimises the quadratic 

235: {\it cost} function

236: \be

237: I=\int_{\bf q} \rho_0({\bf q})\vert{\bf x}-{\bf q}\vert^2 d^3q=

238: \int_{\bf x} \rho({\bf x})\vert{\bf x}-{\bf q}\vert^2 d^3x \;. 

239: \label{cost}

240: \ee

241: A sketch of the proof is as follows. A small variation in 

242: the cost function yields

243: \be

244: \delta I=\int_{\bf x} \left[2\rho({\bf x})({\bf x}-{\bf q})

245: \cdot \delta {\bf x}\right] d^3x\;,

246: \ee

247: which must be supplemented by the condition

248: \be

249: {\bf\nabla}_{\bf x}\cdot\left(\rho({\bf x})\delta{\bf x}\right)=0\;,

250: \ee

251: which expresses the constraint that the Eulerian density remains unchanged. 

252: The vanishing of $\delta I$ should then hold for all ${\bf x}-{\bf q}$

253: which are orthogonal (in $L^2$) to functions of zero divergence. These are

254: clearly gradients. Hence ${\bf x}-{\bf q}({\bf x})$ and thus ${\bf q}(\bf x)$

255: is a gradient of a function of ${\bf x}$.

256: 

257: Discretising the cost (\ref{cost}) into equal mass units yields

258: \be

259: I=\min_{j(\cdot)}\left(\sum_{i=1}^N\left({\bf q}_{j(i)}-

260: {\bf x}_i\right)^2\right)\;.

261: \label{assign}

262: \ee

263: The formulation presented in (\ref{assign}) 

264: is known as the {\it assignment problem}: given $N$ initial and $N$ final

265: entries one has to find the permutation which minimizes the quadratic

266: cost function. The cost

267: function is indeed the minimum of an Euler-Lagrange 

268: action for inertial particles formulated in suitable space and time

269: coordinates (Croft \& Gazta\~naga 1997).

270: If one were to solve the assignment problem (\ref{assign}) for $N$ particles directly, 

271: one would need to search among $N!$ possible permutations, for the one which

272: would have the minimum cost. However, advanced assignment algorithms exist which

273: reduce the complexity of the problem from factorial to polynomial 

274: (e.g. see H\'enon 1995 and Bertsekas 1998. Furthermore H\'enon's adaptation of

275: sparse and dense algorithm suitable for cosmological problems has a complexity

276: of less than $N^{2.5}$ and has been used

277: extensively in Mathis, Mohayaee \& Silk 2004.)

278: 

279: 

280: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

281: \section{Test against numerical simulation}

282: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

283: 

284: We have tested our reconstruction against numerical N-body simulation. We ran

285: a $\Lambda$CDM simulation of $128^3$ dark matter particles, using the

286: adaptive P$^3$M code HYDRA (Couchman et al. 1995). Our cosmological 

287: parameters are $\Omega_m=0.3,

288: \Omega_\Lambda=0.7, h=0.65, \sigma_8=0.9$ and a box size of

289: $200$Mpc/h. The simulations started at high redshift, in this case at $z=70$. 

290: The results of our full box 

291: reconstruction are shown in Fig.\ \ref{scattplushisto}. 

292: Once the assignment problem is solved the peculiar velocities can be simply

293: evaluated using the zel'dovich approximation

294: $\dot{\bf x} = f(\Omega) H(t)\times({\bf x} - {\bf q})$

295: where $f(\Omega)=d{\rm ln}D/d{\rm ln} a$ is dimensionless linear growth rate,

296: $D(t)$ is the amplitude of the growing mode today, $a$ is the cosmic scale

297: factor and $H(t)$ is the value of the Hubble parameter (Zel'dovich 1970). The peculiar

298: velocities can then  be used to reconstruct the positions ${\bf x}$ of the

299: particles at any desired redshift back in time : ${\bf x}(z)={\bf

300:   q}+(D(z)/D_0)({\bf x}_0-{\bf q})$ where ${\bf x}_0$ is their present

301: positions, given by the simulation and  $D_0$ is the present value of $D$.

302: The lower-inset of Fig.\ \ref{scattplushisto} shows the exact rate of

303: reconstruction (when the separation between reconstructed and simulated

304: positions of the particles is less than one mesh at $z=70$) to be more or less

305: the same as that as the top left inset. The reason is that particles move very

306: little from the grid positions at high redshifts. However, a comparison

307: between the two histograms demonstrates that yet another Zel'dovich

308: approximation which is involved in getting from grid

309: positions to positions at $z=70$ does not

310: decrease the success of

311: our reconstruction. (For detailed tests against simulations and reconstruction of

312: statistics of the primordial density field, e.g. works on issues such as

313: non-Gaussianity, see Mathis, Mohayaee \& Silk 2004). For scales below $2$

314: Mpc corresponding to smallest scale probed by reconstruction whose results are

315: given in Fig.\ \ref{scattplushisto}, the exact reconstruction rate is about 18\%

316: due to severe multistreaming at these scales. On larger scales of about $5\%$

317: this rate increases to about 60\%. 

318: 

319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

320: %   FIGURE ONE

321: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

322: \begin{figure}

323: \centerline{

324:         \epsfxsize=0.4\textwidth

325:         \epsfbox{scatter+histo.ps}}

326: \vspace{0.05cm}

327: \caption

328: {

329: \small 

330: In the scatter plot, the dots near the diagonal

331: are a scatter plot of reconstructed initial points versus simulation initial

332: points for a grid of size $1.5$ Mpc/h with more than 2 million points. The scatter

333: diagram uses a {\it quasi-periodic projection} coordinate

334: ${\tilde {\bf q}}\equiv (q_x+\sqrt 2 q_y+{\sqrt 3} q_z)/(1+

335: \sqrt 2+\sqrt 3)$ which guarantees a one-to-one correspondence between $\tilde

336: {\bf q}$ values and points on the regular Lagrangian grid. The upper left

337: inset is a histogram (by percentage) of distances in reconstruction mesh 

338: units between such points; the first bin corresponds to perfect

339: reconstruction;

340: the lower-inset is a similar histogram for reconstructed points at $z=70$.

341: The points at $z=70$ are obtained by using Zel'dovich approximation to push

342: particles back in time once their grid position has been reconstructed. 

343: Perfect reconstruction of about 18\% is achieved in both histograms

344: on scales of about $2$ Mpc.  On mesh sizes of about $6$

345: Mpc/h this rate increases to about 60\%.

346: }

347: \label{scattplushisto}

348: \end{figure}

349: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

350: 

351: Outside collapsed regions the reconstructed peculiar velocities match well

352: those simulated as shown in Fig. \ref{velocities}. The primordial density

353: field evaluated using these velocities also matches extremely well the

354: simulated one as demonstrated in the 

355: lower panel of Fig.\ \ref{velocities} (we thank S. Colombi for

356: providing us with the lower panel of Fig.\ \ref{velocities}).

357: 

358: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

359: %   FIGURE ONE

360: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

361: \begin{figure}

362:         \epsfxsize=0.9\textwidth

363:       {\epsfbox{velocities.eps}}

364: \ba

365:     \hspace*{-1.2cm}   \epsfxsize=0.39\textwidth \epsfbox{qplusdis0sim-gauss.g64NGP.divergence.ps}

366: &&

367:        \epsfxsize=0.39\textwidth \epsfbox{qplusdis0recon-gauss.g64NGP.divergence.ps}

368: \nonumber

369: \ea

370: \vspace{-0.2cm}           

371: \caption

372: {

373: Top panel:

374: simulated (left panel) and the reconstructed (right panel)

375: velocity field are shown for a thin 6 Mpc/h slice in $x$ and $y$ direction and

376: full-box projection in the $z$ direction of the simulation box. The

377: reconstruction works extremely well outside dense/collapsed regions.

378: bottom panel:

379: Simulated density field (left panel)

380: and the reconstructed (right panel) are shown for a thin slice cut of the

381: simulation box. Red colour corresponds

382: to denser regions and dark blue (lighter) are the 

383: void regions (cloud-in-cell interpolation is used). (Upper and lower

384: panels do not correspond to the same slices of the simulation box.)

385: }

386: \label{velocities}

387: \end{figure}

388: 

389: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

390: \section{Application to real galaxy catalogues}

391: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

392: 

393: We have applied our MAK method to the 

394: updated NBG catalogue (Tully 1988), now including 3300 galaxies within

395: 3,000~km~s$^{-1}$.   Other more extensive catalogues are available but

396: this catalogue provides good completion within the specified volume,

397: which is sufficient in depth for present purposes.  The NBG has the

398: important value added feature of the detailed assignment of all

399: objects to homogeneously identified groups and filamentary structures.

400: The zone of Milky Way avoidance is shrinking as new surveys are integrated

401: but before a dynamical model can be computed something must be

402: done to account for galaxies lost due to obscuration.  In this work,

403: fake galaxies were created by reflection of objects at nearby higher

404: latitudes in sufficient numbers to achieve the average density for the

405: volume.  Another correction to the catalogue is one that accounts for

406: incompleteness with distance.  The correlation with mass is with the

407: quantity of blue light.  Light is lost from the catalogue as galaxies

408: become increasingly excluded with distance.  Fortunately the problem

409: is not extreme over the limited range of this study.  Selection

410: function corrections to luminosity range from unity at less than 10

411: Mpc (inside which there is completion because a

412: low luminosity clip is imposed at $M_B=-16$) to only a factor 2.4 at

413: 3000 km/s.

414: The second observational component is a catalogue of galaxy distances.

415: In all, there are over 1400 galaxies with

416: distance measures within the 3,000~km~s$^{-1}$ volume.  

417: In the present study, distances are averaged over groups

418: because orbits cannot meaningfully be recovered on sub-group scales. 

419: The present NBG catalogue is assembled into 1234 groups (including groups

420: of one) of which 633 have measured distances.

421: 

422: This catalogue of galaxy positions, luminosities, and distances

423: provides the basis for orbit reconstructions using MAK procedures.  

424: The distances, $d$, permit an extraction of

425: peculiar velocities $V_{pec} = V_{gsr} - d {\rm H}_{0}$ where $V_{gsr}$ is

426: the observed velocity of an object in the galactic standard of rest.

427: 

428: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

429: %   FIGURE ONE

430: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

431: \begin{figure}

432: \ba

433: \epsfxsize=0.4\textwidth\epsfbox{velocities.ps}

434: &&

435: \epsfxsize=0.4\textwidth\epsfbox{ModulusMAK.eps}

436: \nonumber

437: \ea

438: \vspace{0.1cm}

439: \caption

440: {

441: Left plot: Velocity field of objects in NBG catalogue obtained by MAK reconstruction is

442: shown. Large-scale flow towards the great attractor is visible, which overshadows infall

443: into the Virgo cluster. The supergalactic coordinates $x$ and $y$ are

444: used. Right panel: is the scatter plot between MAK

445: reconstructed distance modulus and that given by observations for the $663$

446: objects with measured distances in this catalogue.

447: }

448: \label{nbgvelocity}

449: \end{figure}

450: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

451: 

452: For MAK reconstruction the particles must all have the same mass since all

453: the particles on the initial grid must be equal and each orbit

454: reconstruction has equal weight.  Consequently the endpoint elements

455: must be broken up by different amounts depending on their supposed

456: relative masses.  In the first approximation of constant mass-to-light ratio $M/L$ then

457: the elements are simply broken into a number of particles that depends

458: on $L_i$.  The unit size is chosen to correspond to $10^9 L_{\odot}$,

459: the faint end cutoff of the catalogue.

460: The elements are all located in redshift space ({\it i.e.}, at their positions

461: on the sky and at a distance inferred from their velocities).  However

462: the breakup into particles for the MAK reconstruction does not

463: preserve the velocity distortion from real positions within elements;

464: {\it i. e.}, on sub-group scales.  As we have demonstrated in the previous section, 

465: the MAK reconstructions of N-body simulations

466: demonstrates good recovery of orbits on scales greater than

467: $5h^{-1}$ Mpc but clearly orbits cannot be 

468: recovered in shell-crossing regions.  

469: 

470: The orbit of an element is

471: defined by the center of mass of all the constituent particles as a

472: function of time.  The relationship between redshift and real space is

473: estimated using the Zel'dovich approximation 

474: ${\bf v} = f(\Omega)({\bf x} - {\bf q})$ where ${\bf v}$ is the peculiar

475: velocity vector, ${\bf x}$ is the current Eulerian position, ${\bf q}$

476: is the initial Lagrangian position, and $f(\Omega) \sim 1+b/\Omega_{m,0}^{4/7}

477: +(1+\Omega_{m,0}/2)\Omega_{\Lambda,0}/70$ and $b$ is the bias factor which

478: we take equal to $1$. In principle with our methodology, a variable bias can

479: be obtained by varying $M/L$ with location. In this discussion, the same $M/L$

480: is assigned to all objects.

481: 

482: Once the particles are reconstituted into the catalogue

483: elements, a specific model defines positions that can be tested against

484: observed positions. In Figures \ref{nbgvelocity}, we show two MAK results. The

485: left panel is the peculiar velocity field reconstructed by MAK of all the

486: entries in the NBG catalog. There is a clear flow towards the great attractor

487: as expected. The right panel shows a scatter plot of reconstructed versus

488: observed distance moduli,

489: $

490: \mu_i = 5{\rm log}d_i+25

491: $.

492: The scatter is mainly due to poor reconstructions near big clusters

493: such as Virgo. In the infall region of Virgo, one is in the highly non-linear

494: regime and moreover in a triple-valued region due to redshift space

495: distortion. In this region, velocities deviate significantly from Hubble flow

496: and MAK reconstruction does not necessarily find the right solution. (For

497: reconstruction in the infall region, used for determination of mass of Virgo

498: cluster, see Tully \& Mohayaee 2004.) 

499: 

500: The overall MAK reconstruction can be evaluated by a $\chi^2$ estimator.

501: We evaluate the median value for the $\chi_i^2$; between measured and observed

502: distance moduli

503: \be

504: \chi^2_i=(\mu_{observed}- \mu_{MAK})^2/\epsilon_i

505: \label{chisquared}

506: \ee

507: where $\epsilon_i$ is the error assigned to $\mu_{observed}$ which is the observed

508: distance modulus of galaxy (or group or cluster) $i$ in the catalogue.

509: Values of $\chi_i^2$ can be determined for the 633 objects in the catalogue with

510: distance measures for a given choice of density parameter $\Omega_m$ and age $t$.  

511: 

512: In this study we have only considered flat topologies.  We assume that

513: $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 1 - \Omega_m$ where $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ is a measure of the

514: energy density of the Universe.  With this constraint, there is a fixed

515: relation between $\Omega_m$, H$_0$, and the age of the Universe, $t$, such that if

516: two of these parameters are specified then the third is defined:

517: $h=(1/{\rm t})(2/3)

518: (1/\sqrt{(1-\Omega_m)}){\rm

519:   log}((1+\sqrt{(1-\Omega_m)})/\sqrt{(\Omega_m)})9.78$

520: where $h=H/100$.

521: 

522: 

523: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

524: %   FIGURE ONE

525: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

526: \begin{figure}

527: \begin{center}

528: {

529:  \epsfxsize=0.6\textwidth  \epsfbox{omegam-age.eps}

530: }

531: \end{center}

532: \vspace{-0.1cm}

533: \caption

534: {

535: Constraints on the parameters $\Omega_m$ and age of the Universe given by MAK,

536: WMAP, and SDSS.   

537: The $2 \sigma$ constraints from WMAP and SDSS are given as

538: shaded bands.  The minimum of the $\chi^2$ trough with the MAK reconstruction

539: is given as the heavy solid line.   Hubble constant contours are superposed as

540: light lines.  The two side panels illustrate aspects of $\chi^2$ with the MAK

541: reconstruction.  In the top panel, the minimum value of $\chi^2$ is shown at

542: each age (ie, at the location of the heavy solid line).  In the right side

543: panel, the values of $\chi^2$ are shown for the range of $\Omega_m$ considered

544: for the specific age $t=13.5$ Gyr (ie, the trace indicated by the vertical

545: dotted line).  It is seen that there is reasonable agreement between the

546: three methodologies in the vicinity of $t=12-14$ Gyrs, $h=0.8$ and

547: $\Omega_m=0.2-0.3$. 

548: }

549: \label{parameters}

550: \end{figure}

551: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

552: 

553: Constraints on the parameter space ($\Omega_m, t$) are summarized in

554: Fig. \ref{parameters}.

555: The two broad bands locate the 95\% confidence limits provided by WMAP spatial

556: fluctuation and SDSS power spectrum studies (Spergel et al. 2003; Tegmark et

557: al. 2004).  The heavy solid line indicates the locus of $\chi^2$ minima as a

558: function of age from the MAK reconstructions.  This line is described by the

559: equation $\Omega_m(t)= 0.20\, \exp(-0.26 (t-13))$ with age $t$ in Gyr.

560: The right panel illustrates the

561: dependence of $\chi^2$ values on $\Omega_m$ at the fixed age of $t=13.5$ Gyr.

562: The top panel shows the weak dependence of $\chi^2$ on age at the

563: $\chi^2$-minimum trough defined by the heavy solid line.  The overall minimum

564: along this trough is reached at 17 Gyr.  Overall with Fig. \ref{parameters}

565: two important

566: points are to be noted.  First, the uncertainties resulting from the MAK

567: analysis are almost orthogonal to the WMAP and (especially) the SDSS

568: constraints.  Second, the three results intersect, resulting in concordance

569: with the cosmological parameters $ t=13.2 \pm 0.8$ Gyr, $\Omega_m = 0.25 \pm

570: 0.05$, and H$_0 = 77 \pm 5$.

571: 

572: In conclusion, we have demonstrated that our MAK reconstruction scheme

573: guarantees uniqueness on large scales and can be applied to large datasets

574: containing millions of objects. It is now being used with real data for the

575: reconstruction of 

576: large-scale velocity fields.  The method has been tested against numerical

577: simulations and been shown to recover the peculiar velocities of a large number

578: of galaxies with a high success rate (taking the simulation dark matter

579: particles to trace galaxies). 

580: We have also shown that MAK can be

581: applied to real data and reconstructed peculiar velocity fields in the Local

582: Supercluster.  The best reconstruction fits obey the relationship

583: $\Omega_m(t)= 0.20 \exp (-0.26 (t-13))$, where $t$ is the age of the Universe

584: in Gyrs. This fit intersects the {\it WMAP} and SDSS results within

585: their $2\sigma$ uncertainties in the range $t$: 13-13.5 Gyrs, 

586: whence $\Omega_m=0.2-0.3$.

587: 

588: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

589: 

590: Materials presented in Section 4, are parts of an ongoing collaboration with 

591: M.\ H\'enon, S.\ Colombi and H.\ Mathis. 

592: Materials presented in Section 5 are parts of

593: collaborations with

594: J.\ Peebles, S.\ Phleps and E.\ Shaya. We also thank J.\ Colin, S.\ Matarrese and 

595: A.\ Sobolevskii for discussions and comments.

596: R.M.\ is supported by a European Marie Curie fellowship HPMF-CT2002-01532.

597: B.T.\ is partially supported by the BQR program 

598: of the Observatoire de la C\^ote d'Azur.

599: 

600: 

601: 

602: \begin{thebibliography}{}

603: 

604: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

605: \bibitem{ampere20} 

606: Amp\`ere A.-M. 1820, M\'emoire concernant \ldots l'int\'egration 

607: des \'equations aux diff\'erentielles partielles du 

608: premier et du second ordre,

609: {\it Journal de L'\'Ecole Royale Polytechnique} {\bf 11}, 1 

610: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

611: \bibitem{arnold}

612: Arnold V.I. 1978, {\it Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics}

613: (Springer, Berlin)

614: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

615: \bibitem{BB00} 

616: Benamou J.-D. \& Brenier Y. 2000, The optimal time-continuous

617: mass transport problem and its augmented Lagrangian numerical

618: resolution, {\it Numer. Math.} {\bf 84}, 375\\

619: (www.inria.fr/rrrt/rr-3356.html)                  

620: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

621: \bibitem{BD89}

622: Bertschinger E. \& Dekel A. 1989,

623: Recovering the full velocity and density fields from large-scale

624: redshift-distance samples, {\it Astrophys.\ J.}\  {\bf 336}, L5

625: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

626: \bibitem{bertsekas1990} 

627: Bertsekas D.P. 1998,

628: {\it Network Optimisation: Continuous and Discrete Models} 

629: (Athena Scientific)

630: $\{$Auction algorithm also available at

631: http://web.mit.edu/dimitrib/www/auction.txt$\}$

632: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

633: \bibitem{BEN01}

634: Branchini E., Eldar A. \& Nusser A. 2002,

635: Peculiar velocity reconstruction with fast action method: tests on mock  

636: redshift surveys, {\it Mon.\ Not.\ R.\ Astron.\ Soc.} {\bf 335}, 53

637: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

638: \bibitem{brenier87}

639: Brenier Y. 1987, D\'ecomposition polaire et r\'earrangement

640: monotone des champs de vecteurs,

641: {\it C.\ R.\ Acad.\ Sci.\ Paris} {\bf 305}, 805

642: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

643: \bibitem{hydra}

644: Couchman H.M.P., Thomas P.A. \& Pearce F.R. 1995, 

645: Hydra: an Adaptive-Mesh Implementation of P$^3$M-SPH,

646: {\it Astrophys.\ J.} {\bf 452}, 797 

647: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

648: \bibitem{CG97}

649: Croft R.A. \& Gazta\~naga E. 1997,

650: Reconstruction of cosmological density and velocity

651: fields in the Lagrangian Zel'dovich approximation, 

652: {\it Mon.\ Not.\ R.\ Astron.\ Soc.}\ {\bf 285}, 793

653: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

654: \bibitem{fmms02} 

655: Frisch U., Matarrese S., Mohayaee R. and Sobolevskii A. 2002,

656: A reconstruction of the initial conditions 

657: of the Universe by optimal mass transportation, {\it Nature} {\bf 417}, 260

658: 

659: \noindent

660: Mohayaee R., Frisch U., Matarrese S. \& Sobolevskii A. 2003, 

661: Reconstruction of the primordial Universe by a Monge--Ampere--Kantorovich optimisation scheme,

662:  {\it Astron. \& Astrophys.} {\bf 406}, 393 

663: 

664: \noindent

665: Brenier Y., Frisch, U., H\'enon M., Loeper, G. Matarrese, S. Mohayaee,

666: R. \& Sobolevskii A. 2003, Reconstruction of the early Universe as a

667:   convex optimization problem, {\it Mon.\ Not.\ R.\ Astron.\ Soc.} {\bf 346}, 501

668: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

669: \bibitem{Henon95}

670: H\'enon M. 1995, A mechanical model for the transportation problem, 

671: in {\it Compte Rendu de l'Academie des Sciences} {\bf 321}, 741, 

672: A detailed version including an optimization

673: algorithm is available at http://arXive.org/abs/math.OC/0209047

674: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

675: \bibitem{kantorovich42}

676: Kantorovich L. 1942, On the translocation of masses, {\it C.R.\ (Doklady) Acad.\

677: Sci.\ URSS (N.S.)} {\bf 37}, 199

678: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

679: \bibitem{mms2004} 

680: Mathis H., Mohayaee R. \& Silk J. 2004, Reconstructions of primordial CDM

681:   density fields, to be submitted to {\it Mon.\ Not.\ R.\ Astron.\ Soc.}

682: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

683: \bibitem{monge} 

684: Monge G. 1781, M\'emoire sur la th\'eorie des d\'eblais et remblais,

685: {\it Hist.\ Acad.\ R.\ Sci.\ Paris}, 666

686: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

687: \bibitem{peebles89}

688: Peebles P.J.E. 1989, Tracing galaxy orbits back in time, {\it Astrophys.\ J.}\  

689: {\bf 344}, L53

690: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

691: \bibitem{peeble89}

692: Peebles P.J.E. 1995, Mass of the Milky Way and Redshifts of the Nearby

693: Galaxies, {\it Astrophys.\ J.}\  

694: {\bf 449}, 52

695: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

696: \bibitem{spt95} 

697: Shaya E.J., Peebles P.J.E. and Tully R.B. 1995,

698: Action Principle Solutions For Galaxy Motions 

699: Within 3000 Km/s, {\it Astrophys.\ J.}\ {\bf 454}, 15\\ 

700: Peebles P.J.E, Phelps S.D., Shaya E.J. \& R.B. Tully 2001

701:  , Radial and Transverse Velocities of Nearby 

702: Galaxies,  {\it Astrophys.\ J.}\ {\bf 554}, 104

703: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

704: \bibitem{spergel2003}

705: Spergel D.N. et al. 2003, First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe

706: ({\it WMAP}) Observations: Implications For Inflation, 

707: {\it Astrophys.\ J.\ S.}\ {\bf 148}, 175

708:  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

709: \bibitem{tegmark2004}

710: Tegmark et al.  2004, Cosmological parameters from SDSS and {\it WMAP},

711: {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 607}, 655

712: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

713: \bibitem{tully88}

714: Tully R. R.B. 1988, {\it Nearby Galaxies Catalog}, Cambridge University Press

715: (Cambridge, UK)

716: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

717: \bibitem{tm2004} 

718: Tully R.B. \& Mohayaee Roya 2004, Action Model of Infall 

719: into the Virgo Cluster, astro-ph/0404006, 

720: in "Outskirt of Galaxy Clusters", the proceedings of IAU Colloquim No.\ 195,2004

721: 

722: \noindent

723: Mohayaee Roya \& Tully R.B. 2004, The mass of the virgo cluster and

724:   surrounding supercluster, work in progress

725: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

726: \bibitem{zeldovich70}

727: Zel'dovich Ya.B. 1970, Gravitational instability: an approximate theory 

728: for large density perturbations, {\it Astron.\ \& Astrophys.} {\bf 5}, 84

729: 

730: 

731: \end{thebibliography}

732: 

733: 

734: 

735: 

736: 

737: 

738: 

739: \end{document}

740: 

741: 

742: 

743: 

744: