1:
2: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
3: \topmargin -.3in
4: \evensidemargin -.2in
5: \oddsidemargin -.2in
6: \textwidth 6.5in
7: \textheight 9in
8: \parskip 0.2cm
9: \usepackage{array,epsfig,amssymb}
10:
11: \newcommand{\kms}{\mathrm{\;km\;s^{-1}}}
12:
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \title{\large{\vskip -0.2 in Measuring the Growth of Structure with Spectroscopically
16: Identified Galaxy Groups and Clusters}}
17:
18: %\date{\today}
19: \author{\normalsize{Marc Davis, Brian F. Gerke, Alison L. Coil,
20: Michael C. Cooper,
21: Renbin Yan}\\
22: \emph{\normalsize{University of California--Berkeley}}\vspace{0.1in}\\
23: \normalsize{Jeffrey A. Newman}\\
24: \emph{\normalsize{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory}}\vspace{0.1in}\\
25: \normalsize{S. M. Faber, David Koo, Puragra Guhathakurta}\\
26: \emph{\normalsize{University of California--Santa Cruz}}}
27:
28: \begin{titlepage}
29: \maketitle
30:
31: \vskip -0.3in
32: Number counts of galaxy clusters offer a very promising
33: probe of the Dark Energy (DE) equation-of-state parameter, $w$. The
34: basic goal is to measure abundances of
35: these objects as a function of redshift, compare this to a
36: theoretical prediction, and infer the values of cosmological
37: parameters. Various teams have proposed such a measurement,
38: including the South Pole Telescope, the Dark Energy Survey and the
39: Red-Sequence Cluster Survey. The specific study discussed here detects
40: clusters and smaller galaxy groups in the
41: three-dimensional distribution of galaxies inferred from a large
42: spectroscopic redshift survey. This method allows the abundance, $N$,
43: of groups and clusters to be measured as a function of \emph{velocity
44: dispersion}, as well as of redshift, permitting a more sensitive test
45: of cosmology.
46:
47: %surveys of clusters detected in X-rays, in
48: %optical
49: %photometric surveys, and using the
50: %Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) effect {\bf (Citations for DES, RCS, SPT?)}.
51:
52:
53:
54: This test is one of the principal science goals of the
55: DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey, a spectroscopic survey of $\sim 50000$
56: galaxies
57: over a primary redshift range of $0.7\le z \le 1.4$, using the DEIMOS
58: spectrograph on the ten-meter Keck II telescope. The survey, which is
59: now nearly complete, has surveyed $\sim 3$ square degrees on the sky to
60: a limiting magnitude of $R_{AB}=24.1$, with a sampling rate of $\sim
61: 60\%$ in the targeted redshift range. The full survey required 80
62: nights of observation at Keck.
63:
64: In addition, a multiwavelength suite of observations
65: is ongoing in a subregion of the DEEP2 area, the Extended Groth
66: Strip (RA: 14 17, Dec: +52 30). Possible
67: systematic errors in both DEEP2 and other cluster samples could
68: be controlled by comparing to these data. Observations in this region with
69: potential application to clusters include \emph{Chandra}
70: X-ray observations, infrared photometry with \emph{Spitzer} and
71: ground-based telescopes for stellar masses, optical space-
72: (\emph{HST}) and ground-based (CFHT Legacy Survey) imaging for weak
73: lensing studies, many-band photometric redshifts, and SZ observations.
74:
75: We discuss here the DE
76: constraints expected from DEEP2, as well as the projected constraints
77: for a similar survey with $\sim 20$ times as much sky coverage. DEEP2
78: has the power to constrain $w$ to $20\%$ (1$\sigma$) without combining with other dark energy constraints; the larger
79: survey could constrain $w$ to $\sim 5\%$.
80:
81:
82:
83: \end{titlepage}
84:
85: \setcounter{page}{2}
86: \section{The Measurement}
87:
88:
89:
90: By counting the abundance $N$ of groups and clusters as a function of
91: their redshift $z$ and velocity dispersion $\sigma$, we can probe the
92: dark energy in two ways. The measured quantity in this test is
93: \[
94: \frac{dN}{d\sigma dz} = \frac{dV}{dz}\frac{dn}{d\sigma}(\sigma,z).
95: \]
96: The comoving volume element, $dV/dz$, has a strong
97: dependence on $w$, as does the comoving
98: number density of dark matter halos, $n(\sigma,z)$. The former
99: dependence can be written down in analytic terms, while the latter can be
100: computed via N-body simulations or by semi-analytic methods
101: \cite{NMCD} (since the velocity
102: dispersion of galaxies in a cluster reflects the cluster's potential
103: well depth, a directly predictable quantity in spherical-collapse models). Cluster
104: counts as a function of $\sigma$ and $z$ are a more sensitive
105: probe of DE than is the abundance as a function of $z$
106: alone.
107:
108: Groups and clusters of galaxies in the DEEP2 survey are detected with
109: an automated cluster-finding algorithm that searches for overdensities
110: of galaxies in redshift space \cite{Marinoni, Gerke}. Importantly,
111: this algorithm detects clusters regardless of the properties of their
112: member galaxies, so it does not require knowledge of the evolution of
113: those properties. We have already applied this algorithm to
114: the DEEP2 data; the positions of some DEEP2 groups and clusters are
115: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:clust_z}.
116:
117: Since this cosmological test relies on the \emph{evolution}
118: of cluster abundance, it is useful to have a local sample of groups and
119: clusters against which to compare the $z\sim 1$ sample detected in
120: DEEP2. Existing data from 2dF and SDSS should be sufficient for this
121: purpose.
122:
123: \section{Necessary Precursors}
124: \label{sec:precursors}
125:
126: The crucial DEEP2 and SDSS data for this test are already in hand; no further
127: observations are required. The developments needed now
128: lie in the realms of simulation and data analysis.
129:
130: First, it is
131: necessary that we understand how the velocity dispersion of \emph{galaxies},
132: which we can measure, relates to the velocity disperison of \emph{dark
133: matter}, which is what we can most easily predict. There is reason to
134: believe that the
135: two are not equal---i.e., that there is a so-called ``velocity
136: bias'' in galaxy clusters. Attempts are
137: underway to model this
138: using N-body and hydrodynamic simulations \cite{Colin, Diemand, Gao};
139: if it is not constrained,
140: the velocity bias could be a significant source of systematic error in
141: the DEEP2 cosmological constraints.
142:
143: Second, because constraints on $w$ are strongly degenerate with other
144: cosmological parameters that are measurable at low redshift, the
145: power of DEEP2 to constrain DE would be
146: greatly improved if these parameters could be fixed elsewhere. For
147: example, it is expected that the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) will
148: be able to constrain $\sigma_8$ independent of galaxy cluster
149: searches; great progress is now being made on techniques for this
150: \cite{Seljak, Abazajian}. Because the local cluster abundance
151: primarily depends on a degenerate combination of $\sigma_8$ and
152: $\Omega_m$, fixing $\sigma_8$ will then provide a tight constraint in
153: the $\Omega_m$ direction (with modest $w$ degeneracy) from SDSS
154: clusters. The high-redshift cluster abundance depends sensitively on
155: these two parameters; if they are poorly known, the constraints on DE
156: available from DEEP2 will be greatly degraded. In all parameter
157: constraint plots shown, we assume that $\sigma_8$ is known and that a
158: cluster sample has been obtained over the entire SDSS volume with
159: systematic errors equal to those in DEEP2; constraints would be
160: slightly different if both $\Omega_m$ and $\sigma_8$ were simply
161: fixed.
162:
163: Finally, looking to the future, we expect that a potential twentyfold
164: larger future survey modeled on DEEP2 would require a
165: preliminary deep, wide-field photometric survey, covering tens of
166: square degrees in at least three photometric bands, to allow selection
167: of spectroscopic targets at high redshift.
168:
169:
170: \section{Error Budget}
171:
172: \subsection{Statistical Errors}
173: There are two sources of statistical error in this
174: experiment---Poisson error and cosmic variance. The former is just
175: the $\sqrt{N}$ uncertainty expected in counting $N$ objects, while the
176: latter is the excess variance in $N$ that arises
177: because galaxy clusters are themselves clustered together, rather
178: than being randomly distributed in space, so that no finite volume of
179: space constitutes a completely fair sample. The fractional effect
180: of these two types of error on the measured cluster abundance is shown
181: by the
182: shaded region in Figure~\ref{fig:errs}.
183:
184: \subsection{Systematic Errors}
185:
186: In addition, there are three principal sources of systematic error.
187: The first
188: is a measurement bias in $dN/d\sigma dz$ due to errors in
189: cluster detection. Any automated cluster-finding algorithm in
190: redshift space is subject to some level of contamination from false
191: detections and incompleteness due to missed clusters.
192: Furthermore, the membership of individual clusters is often
193: imperfectly reconstructed, which leads to errors in measured velocity
194: dispersions. These errors can lead to systematically incorrect
195: measurements of $dN/d\sigma dz$.
196:
197: To guard against this source of
198: error, we have calibrated our cluster-finding algorithm for DEEP2
199: by applying it to a set of twelve mock galaxy catalogs~\cite{YW} with
200: the same geometry as the DEEP2 survey. These have been created by
201: populating dark-matter-only N-body simulations with galaxies according
202: to the so-called ``halo model.'' This model places galaxies in dark
203: matter halos according to a halo-occupation distribution (HOD), which
204: specifies the average number of galaxies occupying a halo of mass $M$.
205: As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:errs}, when the cluster finder has been
206: properly calibrated, measurement bias errors are substantially smaller
207: than the
208: expected statistical error in the DEEP2 sample for velocity
209: dispersions $\sigma \ge 350$ km/s.
210:
211: This calibration method leads to a second potential source of
212: systematic error, however. The HOD used to create the DEEP2 mock
213: catalogs is chosen to be consistent with the two-point correlation
214: function and number density of DEEP2 galaxies, but it is not uniquely
215: specified by these statistics. If the HOD we use for calibration does
216: not perfectly reflect the real universe, it is possible that our
217: cluster-finder will be mis-calibrated. We have explored the
218: systematic errors introduced by changing the HOD, and we find that,
219: for HODs that are consistent with DEEP2, such errors are substantially smaller than
220: the expected statistical error.
221:
222: The final major potential source of systematic error in this experiment is
223: the velocity bias discussed in Section~\ref{sec:precursors}. This
224: parameter is defined as the ratio of the velocity dispersion of
225: galaxies in clusters to the velocity dispersion of the dark matter
226: particles: $b_v=\sigma_{gal}/\sigma_{dm}$. There is evidence from
227: simulations \cite{Colin, Diemand, Gao} that $b_v$ differs from unity
228: by $\sim 10\%$, but so far there is debate about the
229: magnitude of this effect. Because $dN/d\sigma$ varies rapidly with
230: $\sigma$, a $10\%$ systematic error in $\sigma$ could translate to a
231: much larger ($\sim 40\%$) error in the abundance. Hence, unless the
232: value of $b_v$ can be better constrained by simulations, it will be a
233: dominant source of uncertainty in this experiment. Fortunately, as
234: N-body and hydrodynamical simulations improve, it
235: should be possible to determine the value of $b_v$ separately from measurements of $w$.
236:
237: Finally, it is important to note how the error budget would change in
238: the case of a significantly larger survey. If it were possible to
239: cover an area 20 times larger than DEEP2, the cosmic variance would be
240: reduced by a factor of $\sim \sqrt{20}$ (in the most pessimistic scenario in which a single large field is surveyed, cosmic variance errors will only will be reduced by $\sqrt{13}$). In such a scenario, the systematic errors discussed above would dominate the measurement. A large survey would therefore necessitate a more accurate cluster-finding method, as well as a more
241: well-constrained HOD and velocity bias parameter.
242:
243: \subsection{Assumed Priors}
244:
245: We assume two priors in parameter space when we estimate
246: parameter constraints that will be possible with DEEP2. We
247: first assume that the universe is flat, i.e., that
248: $\Omega_\Lambda=1-\Omega_M$ at late times. We further assume that
249: SDSS will fix the value of $\sigma_8$ to high precision (i.e., well
250: enough that
251: uncertainty in $\sigma_8$ is subdominant to the other uncertainties in
252: the measurement; roughly, a 5\% error in $\sigma_8$ leads to a 10\% error in $w$ in this method).
253: %(the optimistic
254: %scenario)
255: %, or that it will constrain the degenerate parameter
256: %combination $\sigma_8\Omega_M^\gamma$ (where $\gamma\approx 0.54$) to
257: %arbitrarily high precision (the conservative scenario).
258: %It is
259: %important to note that neither of these constraints will be sufficient
260: %for a survey 20 times larger than DEEP2. In that case, uncertainties
261: %in $\sigma_8$ will dominate the DE constraints unless $\sigma_8$ has
262: %been measured to at least {\bf 1\%????} precision.
263:
264:
265:
266: \section{Expected Constraints on Dark Energy}
267:
268: The constraints that will be possible by combining measurements of the cluster velocity function from DEEP2 and SDSS are shown in
269: Figure~\ref{fig:cont_minus1}. In this figure, we show the effect of various levels of systematic uncertainty on the strength of the test, based on the assumption that systematics are completely covariant amongst all redshift and velocity bins (i.e., the most pessimistic sort of systematic effect possible). As shown, if systematic errors can be
270: controlled well (to the $<10$ percent level), then DEEP2 can
271: constrain $w$ to $\sim 20\%$ ($1 \sigma$). For a survey covering $\sim 20$
272: times the area of DEEP2, these constraints can be improved by a factor
273: of {$>2$} \emph{if} systematic effects can be controlled well
274: enough that statistical errors dominate \emph{and} appropriate prior
275: constraints on $\sigma_8$ are available. As shown in
276: Figure~\ref{fig:cont_07}, DEEP2 will not be sufficient to
277: distinguish a cosmology with $w=-0.7$ from a $\Lambda$CDM model with
278: high conficence, but the larger survey would easily distinguish
279: the two. We have not projected constraints on models with varying $w$
280: here because the main subject of this paper, DEEP2, has no hope of
281: constraining such models. In these figures, we have used the absolute abundance of groups at low redshift and high redshift as separate constraints. If we instead use the \emph{ratio} of abundance at high $z$ to low $z$, along with the absolute abundance at low redshift, to measure cosmological parameters we get constraints of very similar strength, but slightly different orientation in the $\Omega_m -- w$ plane. This ratio method can potentially reduce the impact of systematics if they are similar at low and high redshift.
282:
283: \section{Risks and Strengths}
284:
285: The principal risks for the cluster-abundance method relate to the
286: improved theoretical understanding of galaxy formation in clusters
287: that is required. As mentioned above, uncertainty in the velocity
288: bias $b_v$ will be a dominant source of systematic error unless
289: simulations can constrain its value well. Furthermore, uncertainty in
290: the HOD may be a problem for a larger survey with smaller statistical
291: errors. Fortunately, both of these issues are areas of active
292: theoretical study and observational constraints on each are improving
293: quickly, so it is reasonable to suppose that the situation will
294: improve in the near future.
295:
296: The most obvious strength of the method proposed here is that the
297: necessary data are already in hand from the DEEP2 survey.
298: An additional manifest strength is the existence of supplementary data
299: that will allow cross-calibration of the DEEP2 data and other methods (e.g., by comparing
300: velocity dispersions to X-ray temperatures and S-Z decrements). More
301: generally, most algorithms for detecting groups and clusters in
302: spectroscopic surveys make
303: no assumptions about the properties of cluster galaxies.
304: Redshift-space cluster searches thereby
305: avoid a potential pitfall of some other optical cluster-finding
306: methods (e.g., the Red-Sequence
307: method \cite{Gladders}) that assume the properties of the cluster
308: galaxy population will remain stable over many gigayears of cosmic
309: time, to $z>1$.
310:
311: A final strength of this method is the fact that it comes as a free
312: byproduct of any large future spectroscopic galaxy survey at $z~1$,
313: provided that the survey has sufficiently high sampling density
314: ($\sim$ 25--50\% or better)
315: and spectral resolution ($R\sim 2000$ or higher),
316: and that its targeting strategy is uniform with regard to galaxy
317: type. For example, if the proposed KAOS spectrograph undertakes a
318: survey intended to constrain cosmology with baryon
319: oscillations in the matter power spectrum, it can simultaneously
320: measure cluster abundance evolution if the survey is properly
321: designed.
322:
323: \section{Future Needs}
324:
325: Apart from the theoretical advances discussed above, no further
326: developments are needed to carry out the proposed test with DEEP2
327: data; the survey is already nearing completion, and large amounts of
328: SDSS data are in hand. In order to expand this test to a larger
329: survey, it would be necessary to design and
330: build a new multi-object spectrograph to be placed on a new or
331: existing 8-meter (or larger) telescope. Moderate-to-high spectral
332: resolution ($R\ge 2000$) is required to resolve cluster velocity
333: structure, and the
334: ability to observe hundreds or thousands of galaxies simultaneously is also
335: necessary for efficiency. Finally, a significant
336: investment of telescope time would be required, with many hundreds of
337: nights' observation being necessary to complete such a survey.
338:
339: \section{Project Timeline}
340:
341: With data already in hand, initial constraints on $w$ are expected
342: from DEEP2 within a year. Expanding this project to a significantly
343: larger survey would require at least a decade of planning,
344: instrument-building, analysis and observation, but could be combined
345: with other projects.
346:
347:
348: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
349: \bibitem{NMCD}
350: Newman,~J.~A., Marinoni, C., Coil, A.~L., Davis, M. 2002, PASP, 114,
351: 29.
352:
353: \bibitem{Marinoni}
354: Marinoni,~C., Davis, M., Newman, J.~A., Coil, A.~L. 2002, ApJ, 580,
355: 122.
356:
357: \bibitem{Gerke}
358: Gerke,~B.~F. et al. 2005, ApJ, 625, 6.
359:
360: \bibitem{Colin}
361: Col\'{\i}n, P., Klypin,~A.~A., Kravtsov,~A.~V., 2000, ApJ, 539,
362: 561.
363:
364: \bibitem{Diemand}
365: Diemand,~J., Moore,~B., Stadel,~J. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 535.
366:
367: \bibitem{Gao}
368: Gao,~L., De Lucia,~G., White,~S.~D.~M., Jenkins,~A. 2004,
369: MNRAS, 352, 1.
370:
371: \bibitem{Seljak}
372: Seljak,~U. et al., 2004, PRD, 043511.
373:
374: \bibitem{Abazajian}
375: Abazajian, K. et al., 2005, ApJ, 625, 613.
376:
377: \bibitem{YW}
378: Yan, R., White, M. and Coil, A. C. 2003, ApJ, 607, 739.
379:
380: \bibitem{Gladders}
381: Gladders,~M.~D., Yee,~H.~K.~C., 2000, AJ, 120, 2148.
382:
383: \end{thebibliography}
384:
385: \newpage
386:
387: \begin{figure}
388: \centering
389: \epsfig{width=4in, angle=90, file=clust_z.eps}
390: \caption{Galaxies, groups and clusters in the DEEP2 Redshift
391: Survey. The positions of galaxies in redshift space are indicated by
392: points, while ellipses show the positions of groups and clusters. The
393: major axes of the ellipses are proportional to the group and cluster
394: velocity dispersions.}
395: \label{fig:clust_z}
396: \end{figure}
397:
398: \begin{figure}
399: \centering
400: \epsfig{width=5in, file=group_dist_errs.eps}
401: \caption{Fractional errors in measuring $dN/d\sigma)$ and $dN/dz$.
402: Upper panel: the data points show the fractional systematic error
403: $\langle\delta_N\rangle$
404: as a function of velocity dispersion,
405: estimated by running the DEEP2 cluster-finding algorithm on twelve
406: independent mock DEEP2 pointings. Error bars show the standard
407: deviation of
408: the mean $\sigma_{\langle\delta\rangle}$, while the shaded region
409: shows the fractional cosmic variance
410: (plus Poisson noise) $\sigma_{cos}$ for a single DEEP2 field
411: ($120\times 30$ arcmin---$30\%$ of the full area), in bins of
412: $50\kms$. For $\sigma \ge 350\kms$, the systematic errors are
413: dominated by cosmic variance.
414: Bottom panel: Fractional systematic error and
415: fractional cosmic variance as a function of redshift in bins of
416: 0.05 in $z$, after
417: groups with $\sigma < 350\kms$ have been discarded.
418: Systematic offsets are smaller than the cosmic variance.}
419: \label{fig:errs}
420: \end{figure}
421:
422: \begin{figure}
423: \centering
424: \epsfig{width=5.in, file=sysfix.eps}
425: \caption{Cosmological constraints expected from measuring the group
426: cluster abundance as a function of $\sigma$ and $z$ in the DEEP2
427: Galaxy Redshift Survey. Contours show projected $95\%$ ($2\sigma$)
428: confidence regions for a fiducial cosmology with $w=-1$ and
429: $\Omega_M=0.3$ (the ``vanilla'' $\Lambda$CDM model). Shown also are
430: projected contours including various levels of
431: systematic error in the measured abundance (fully covariant
432: amongst all redshifts and velocities). All contours assume that
433: the velocity function $dN/d\sigma$ can be accurately measured down to
434: $350 \kms$. As shown, DEEP2 will be
435: able to constrain $w$ to $\sim 20\%$ ($1 \sigma$) if systematic errors can be
436: controlled to better than the $10\%$ level.}
437: \label{fig:cont_minus1}
438: \end{figure}
439:
440: \begin{figure}
441: \centering
442: \epsfig{width=5.in, file=times20_7.eps}
443: \caption{Constraints expected from DEEP2 and from a proposed survey
444: covering 20 times as much area as DEEP2. As in
445: Fig.~\ref{fig:cont_minus1}, contours show $95\%$ confidence regions,
446: with various levels of systematic error, but in this case the fiducial
447: cosmology has a constant DE equation of state $w=-0.7$. In this scenario,
448: DEEP2 will only achieve a marginal rejection of the ``vanilla'' $w=-1$
449: case, whereas the larger survey will achieve a very significant
450: rejection, even without inclusion of complementary constraints from other methods. }
451: \label{fig:cont_07}
452: \end{figure}
453:
454: \end{document}
455:
456:
457:
458:
459: