1: %\documentclass[referee]{aa}
2: \documentclass{aa}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \begin{document}
5: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
6: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
7: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\bef}{\begin{figue}}
10: \newcommand{\eef}{\end{figure}}
11: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}
12: \newcommand{\kms}{\,{\rm km}\;{\rm s}^{-1}}
13: \newcommand{\hubunits}{\,\kms\;{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}
14: \newcommand{\hmpc}{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}
15: \newcommand{\hkpc}{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm kpc}}
16: \newcommand{\msun}{M_\odot}
17: \newcommand{\K}{\,{\rm K}}
18: \newcommand{\cm}{{\rm cm}}
19: \newcommand{\cd}{{\langle n(r) \rangle_p}}
20: \newcommand{\Mpc}{{\rm Mpc}}
21: \newcommand{\kpc}{{\rm kpc}}
22: \newcommand{\xir}{{\xi(r)}}
23: \newcommand{\xrp}{{\xi(r_p,\pi)}}
24: \newcommand{\xsirpi}{{\xi(r_p,\pi)}}
25: \newcommand{\wrp}{{w_p(r_p)}}
26: %\newcommand{\gr}{{^{0.1}g-r}}
27: \newcommand{\gr}{{g-r}}
28: \newcommand{\Navg}{N_{\rm avg}}
29: \newcommand{\Mmin}{M_{\rm min}}
30: \newcommand{\fiso}{f_{\rm iso}}
31: \newcommand{\Mr}{M_r}
32: \newcommand{\rp}{r_p}
33: \newcommand{\zmax}{z_{\rm max}}
34: \newcommand{\zmin}{z_{\rm min}}
35:
36: \def\eg{{e.g.}}
37: \def\ie{{i.e.}}
38: \def\spose#1{\hbox to 0pt{#1\hss}}
39: \def\ltapprox{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
40: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}
41: \def\gtapprox{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
42: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}
43: \def\inapprox{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
44: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"232$}}}
45:
46: \title{Power law correlations in galaxy distribution
47: and finite volume effects from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release
48: Four}
49:
50: \subtitle{}
51:
52: \author{Francesco
53: Sylos Labini \inst{1,2}, Nickolay L. Vasilyev \inst{3} and Yurij V. Baryshev \inst{3}
54: }
55:
56: \titlerunning{Galaxy correlations from the DR4 of SDSS}
57: \authorrunning{Sylos Labini, Vasilyev, Baryshev}
58:
59: \institute{``Enrico Fermi Center'', Via Panisperna 89 A,
60: Compendio del Viminale, 00184 Rome, Italy
61: %
62: \and``Istituto dei Sistemi Complessi'' CNR,
63: Via dei Taurini 19, 00185 Rome, Italy
64: \and
65: Institute of Astronomy, St.Petersburg
66: State University, Staryj Peterhoff, 198504, St.Petersburg, Russia}
67:
68:
69: \date{Received / Accepted}
70:
71: \abstract{
72: We discuss the estimation of galaxy correlation properties in several
73: volume limited samples, in different sky regions, obtained from the
74: Fourth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The small scale
75: properties are characterized through the determination of the nearest
76: neighbor probability distribution. By using a very conservative
77: statistical analysis, in the range of scales [0.5,$\sim$ 30] Mpc/h we
78: detect power-law correlations in the conditional density in redshift
79: space, with an exponent $\gamma=1.0 \pm 0.1$. This behavior is stable
80: in all different samples we considered thus it does not depend on
81: galaxy luminosity. In the range of scales [$\sim$ 30,$\sim$ 100] Mpc/h
82: we find evidences for systematic unaveraged fluctuations and we
83: discuss in detail the problems induced by finite volume effects on the
84: determination of the conditional density. We conclude that in such
85: range of scales there is an evidence for a smaller power-law index of
86: the conditional density. However we cannot distinguish between two
87: possibilities: (i) that a crossover to homogeneity (corresponding to
88: $\gamma=0$ in the conditional density) occurs before 100 Mpc/h, (ii)
89: that correlations extend to scales of order 100 Mpc/h (with a smaller
90: exponent $0 < \gamma <1$). We emphasize that galaxy distributions in
91: these samples present large fluctuations at the largest scales probed,
92: corresponding to the presence of large scale structures extending up
93: to the boundaries of the present survey. Finally we discuss several
94: differences between the behavior of the conditional density in mock
95: galaxy catalogs built from cosmological N-body simulations and real
96: data. We discuss some theoretical implications of such a fact
97: considering also the super-homogeneous features of primordial density
98: fields.
99: \keywords{Cosmology: observations;
100: large-scale structure of Universe; }}
101: \maketitle
102:
103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
104:
105: \section{Introduction}
106:
107: One of the main open problems in modern cosmology is represented by
108: the statistical characterization and the physical understanding of
109: large scale galaxy structures. The first question in this context
110: concerns the studies of galaxy correlation properties. Particularly
111: two-point properties are useful to determine correlations
112: and their spatial extension. There are different ways of measuring
113: two-point properties and, in general, the most suitable method depends
114: on the type of correlations, strong or weak, characterizing a given
115: point distribution in a certain sample.
116:
117: For example, Hogg et al. (2005) have recently measured the conditional
118: average density in a sample of Luminous Red Galaxies (LRG) from a
119: data release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). Such a
120: statistics is very useful to determine correlation properties in the
121: regime of strong clustering and the spatial extension of strong
122: fluctuations in a given sample. This was firstly introduced by
123: Pietronero (1987) and then measured in many samples by Sylos Labini et
124: al. (1998). We refer the reader to Baryshev \& Teerikorpi (2005) for a
125: review of the measurements of the reduced and complete
126: correlation functions by different authors in the various angular and
127: three-dimensional samples.
128:
129:
130: The conditional density gives the average density of points in a
131: spherical volume (or a spherical shell) centered around a galaxy (see
132: Gabrielli et al. 2004 for a discussion about this method). The
133: results obtained by Hogg et al. (2005) can be summarized as follows:
134:
135: (i) A simple power-law scaling corresponding to a correlation exponent
136: $\gamma \approx 1$ gives a very good fit to the data up to at least
137: $20$ Mpc/h, over approximately a decade in scale. We note
138: that these results are in good agreement with those obtained
139: by Sylos Labini et al. (1998) through the analyses of many smaller
140: samples and more recently by Vasilyev, Baryshev and Sylos Labini
141: (2006) in the 2dFGRS.
142:
143: (ii) The second important result of Hogg et al. (2005) is that at
144: larger scales (i.e. $r >30$ Mpc/h) the conditional density continues
145: to decrease, but less rapidly, until about $\sim 70$ Mpc/h, above
146: which it seems to flatten up to the largest scale probed by the sample
147: ($100$ Mpc/h). The transition between the two regimes is slow, in the
148: sense that the conditional density at $\sim 20$ Mpc/h is about twice
149: the asymptotic mean density. Joyce et al. (2005) have discussed the
150: basic implications of these results noticing, for example, that the
151: possible convergence to a well defined homogeneity in a volume
152: equivalent to that of a sphere of radius 70 Mpc/h, place in doubt
153: previous detections of ``luminosity bias'' from measures of the
154: amplitude of the reduced correlation function $\xi(r)$. They
155: emphasized that the way to resolve these issues is to first use, in
156: volume limited (VL) samples corresponding to different ranges of
157: luminosity, the conditional density to establish the features of
158: galaxy space correlations. Note that Sylos Labini et al. (1998) found
159: evidences for a continuation of the small scale power-law to distances
160: of order hundreds of Mpc/h, although with a weaker statistics, which
161: seems to be not confirmed by Hogg et al. (2005).
162:
163: In this paper we continue the analysis of galaxy distributions
164: previously applied to the 2dFGRS data (Vasilyev et al. 2006) to the
165: so-called ``main galaxy sample'' of SDSS Data Release (DR4), in
166: the spirit of the tests discussed above. In a companion paper we will
167: discuss the properties of the LRG sample of the SDSS DR4, which can be
168: directly compared with the results of Hogg et al. (2005) and
169: Eiseinstein et al. (2005).
170:
171:
172:
173: The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we describe the data
174: and the way we have constructed the VL samples. We also discuss the
175: determination of the nearest neighbor (NN) distribution, and of the
176: average distance between nearest galaxies, which allows us to define
177: the lower cut-off for the studies of correlations. In addition we
178: discuss the determination of the radial counts in different VL
179: samples, emphasizing that large variations for this quantity are found
180: in the different samples. Such fluctuations, which seem to be
181: persistent up to the sample boundaries, correspond to the large scales
182: structures observed in these catalogs. The quantitative
183: characterization of the correlation properties of these fluctuations
184: is presented in Section 3, where we discuss the determination of the
185: conditional average density in the different VL samples. In particular
186: we present several tests useful to clarify the effect of systematic
187: fluctuations at scales of order of the samples size.
188:
189: In Section 4 we discuss the differences between the galaxy conditional
190: density, measured in these samples and the conditional density of
191: point-particles in cosmological N-body simulations. We show that by
192: using this statistics, together with a study of the NN probability
193: distribution, two-point properties of observed galaxies of different
194: luminosity and mock galaxy catalogs constructed using particles
195: lying in region with different local density in cosmological N-body
196: simulations, present different behaviors. Finally in Section 5 we
197: draw our main conclusions.
198:
199:
200:
201:
202: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
203:
204: \section{The data}
205:
206: The SDSS (http://www.sdss.org) is currently the largest spectroscopic
207: survey of the extragalactic objects and one of the most ambitious
208: observational programs ever undertaken in astronomy. It will measure
209: about 1 million redshifts, giving a complete mapping of the local
210: universe up to a depth of several hundreds of Mpc. In this paper we
211: consider the data from the latest public data release (SDSS DR4) which
212: is accessible at http://www.sdss.org/dr4 (Adelman-McCarthy et
213: al. 2005) containing redshifts for more than 565 thousands of galaxies
214: and 67 thousands of quasars. There are two independent parts of the
215: galaxy survey in the SDSS: the main galaxy sample and the LRG
216: sample. Here we discuss the former only. The spectroscopic survey
217: covers an area of 4783 square degrees of the celestial sphere. The
218: apparent magnitude limit for the galaxies is 17.77 in the $r$-filter
219: and photometry for each galaxy is available in five different bands,
220: of which we consider the ones in the $r$ and $g$ filters.
221:
222:
223:
224:
225: \subsection{Definition of the samples}
226:
227: We have used the following criteria to query the SDSS DR4
228: database. First of all we constrain the flags indicating the type of
229: object so that we select only the objects from the main galaxy sample.
230: We then consider galaxies in the redshift interval $10^{-4} \leq z
231: \leq 0.3$ and with the redshift confidence parameter larger than
232: $0.95$. In addition we apply the filtering condition $r < 17.77$,
233: thus taking into account the target magnitude limit for the main
234: galaxy sample in the SDSS DR4. With the respect to the listed
235: conditions we have selected 321516 objects totally.
236:
237: The angular coverage of the survey is not uniform but observations
238: have been done in different sky regions. For this reason we have
239: considered three rectangular angular fields (named R1, R2 and R3) in
240: the SDSS internal angular coordinates $(\eta,\lambda)$: in such a way we
241: do not have to consider the irregular boundaries of the survey mask,
242: as we have cut such boundaries to avoid uneven edges of observed
243: regions. In Tab.\ref{tbl_VLSamplesProperties2} we report the
244: parameters of the three angular regions we have considered. In
245: addition we do not use corrections neither for the redshift
246: completeness mask nor for the fiber collision effects. Completeness
247: varies mostly nearby the current survey edges which are excluded in our
248: samples. Fiber collisions in general do not represent a problem for
249: measurements of galaxy correlations (see discussion in, e.g., Strauss
250: et al., 2002).
251:
252:
253: \begin{table}
254: \begin{center}
255: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
256: \hline
257: Region name & $\eta_1$ & $\eta_2$ & $\lambda_1$ & $\lambda_2$ & $\Omega$ \\
258: \hline
259: R1 & 9.0 & 36.0 & -47.0& 8.0 & 0.41 \\
260: R2 & -33.5 & -16.5 &-54.0 & -24.0& 0.12 \\
261: R3 & -36.0 & -26.5 & 2.5 & 43.0& 0.11 \\
262: \hline
263: \end{tabular}
264: \end{center}
265: \caption{Main properties of the angular regions considered:
266: The limits in degrees of the cuts are chosen using the intrinsic
267: coordinates of the survey $\eta$ and $\lambda$ (in degrees). The last column
268: $\Omega$ gives the solid angle of three angular regions in
269: steradians.}
270: \label{tbl_VLSamplesProperties2}
271: \end{table}
272:
273: \subsection{Construction of VL samples}
274:
275: To construct VL samples which are unbiased for the selection effect
276: related to the cut in the apparent magnitude, we have applied a
277: standard procedure (see e.g. Zehavi et al., 2004): First of all we
278: compute metric distances as
279: \begin{equation}
280: \label{MetricDistance}
281: r(z) = \frac{c}{H_0}
282: \int_{\frac{1}{1+z}}^{1} {\frac{dy}{y \cdot
283: \left(\Omega_M/y+\Omega_\Lambda \cdot y^2 \right)^{1/2}}} \; ,
284: \end{equation}
285: where we have used the standard cosmological parameters
286: $\Omega_M=0.3$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$ with $H_0=100 h$ km/sec/Mpc.
287:
288: We use Petrosian apparent magnitudes in the $r$ filter $m_r$ which are
289: corrected for galactic absorption. The absolute magnitudes can be
290: computed as
291: \begin{equation}
292: \label{AbsoluteMagnitude}
293: M_r = m_r - 5 \cdot \log_{10}\left[r(z) \cdot (1+z)\right] - K_r(z) - 25.
294: \end{equation}
295: where $K_r(z)$ is the K-correction. As the redshift range considered
296: is small from a cosmological point of view (i.e. $z \leq 0.3$), to
297: estimate the K-corrections $K_r(z)$ (linearly proportional to $z$ and
298: thus small in this context) we have used the simple interpolating
299: formula
300: \begin{equation}
301: \label{K-CorrDef}
302: K_r(z) = (2.61 \cdot (m_g-m_r)-0.64) \cdot z \;,
303: \end{equation}
304: where $m_g$ is the apparent magnitude in the $g$ filter. This
305: corresponds to the calculated K-corrections in Blanton et al. (2001
306: --- see their Fig.4). By knowing the intrinsic $g-r$ color and the
307: redshift one may directly estimate the K-correction term.
308:
309: We have considered 4 different VL samples (named VL1, VL2, VL3 and
310: VL4) defined by two chosen limits in absolute magnitude and metric
311: distance, whose parameters are reported in
312: Tab.\ref{tbl_VLSamplesProperties1}. While VL1 and VL2 actually contain
313: relatively faint galaxies in the local universe, VL3 sample covers a
314: wide range of distances, and VL4 consists of bright galaxies at
315: distances up to 600 Mpc/h. Considering the three different rectangular
316: areas (described above), in summary we have $4 \times 3 = 12$ VL
317: subsamples whose characteristics are reported in
318: Tab.\ref{tbl_VLSamplesProperties3}. The comparison between VL samples
319: with the same magnitude and distance cuts, in different sky regions,
320: will allow us to test the statistical stationarity of galaxy distributions
321: in these samples and to estimate sample-to-sample fluctuations.
322:
323: %
324: \begin{table}
325: \begin{center}
326: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
327: \hline
328: VL sample & $r_{min}$ & $r_{max}$ & $M_{min}$
329: & $M_{max}$ & $\langle \Lambda \rangle$\\
330: \hline
331: VL1 & 50 & 135 & -19.0 & -18.0 & 1.7 \\
332: VL2 & 50 & 200 & -21.0 & -19.0 & 1.3 \\
333: VL3 & 100 & 500 & -23.0 & -21.0 & 2.9 \\
334: VL4 & 150 & 600 & -23.0 & -22.0 & 6 \\
335: \hline
336: \end{tabular}
337: \end{center}
338: \caption{Main properties of the obtained VL samples:
339: $r_{min}$, $r_{max}$ (in Mpc/h) are the chosen limits for the metric
340: distance; ${M_{min}, \,M_{max}}$ define the interval for the absolute
341: magnitude in each sample. The quantity $\langle \Lambda \rangle$ (in
342: Mpc/h) is the average distance between nearest-neighbor galaxies.}
343: \label{tbl_VLSamplesProperties1}
344: \end{table}
345: %
346: \begin{table}
347: \begin{center}
348: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|}
349: \hline
350: VL Sample & N & $R_c$ \\
351: \hline
352: R1VL1 & 3130 &15 \\
353: R1VL2 & 15181&21 \\
354: R1VL3 & 27975&54 \\
355: R1VL4 & 6742 &65 \\
356: R2VL1 & 790 &10 \\
357: R2VL2 & 3912 &15 \\
358: R2VL3 & 8586 &38 \\
359: R2VL4 & 1923 &42 \\
360: R3VL1 & 790 &9 \\
361: R3VL2 & 2895 &12 \\
362: R3VL3 & 7584 &30 \\
363: R3VL4 & 1503 &36 \\
364: \hline
365: \end{tabular}
366: \end{center}
367: \caption{Number of galaxies in each of the VL sample.
368: Names are given according to the discussion in the text. The scale
369: $R_c$ (in Mpc/h) is discussed in Sect.\ref{rc} below.}
370: \label{tbl_VLSamplesProperties3}
371: \end{table}
372: %
373:
374:
375:
376: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
377:
378:
379: \subsection{Nearest neighbor distribution}
380:
381: The NN distance probability distribution depends on the cut
382: in absolute magnitude of a given VL sample. We expect this function
383: not to be dependent on the angular sky cuts if the distribution is
384: statistically stationary in the different VL samples. As discussed in
385: Vasilyev, Baryshev \& Sylos Labini (2006) space correlations introduce
386: a deviation from the case of a pure Poisson distribution: particularly
387: the average distance $\langle
388: \Lambda \rangle$ between NN is expected to be smaller than for the
389: Poisson case in the same sample and with the same number of
390: points. The measurements in the data, obtained by simple
391: pair-counting, are shown in Figs.\ref{FIGnn1}-\ref{FIGnn4}. When a VL
392: sample includes fainter galaxies (e.g. VL1,VL2) $\langle \Lambda
393: \rangle$ is smaller
394: (see Tab.\ref{tbl_VLSamplesProperties1}) than for the case when only
395: brighter galaxies are inside (e.g. VL3,VL4). This is because brighter
396: galaxies are sparser than fainter ones. This corresponds to the
397: exponential decay of the galaxy luminosity function at the bright end
398: (see discussion in Gabrielli et al., 2004)
399: %
400: \begin{figure}
401: \begin{center}
402: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG1.eps}
403: \end{center}
404: \caption{Nearest Neighbor distribution in VL1 sample: different symbols
405: correspond to different angular regions. The average distance between
406: nearest galaxies is $\langle \Lambda \rangle = 1.7$ Mpc/h.
407: For reference the solid line represents the NN distribution for a
408: Poisson configuration with the {\it same} $\langle \Lambda \rangle$:
409: one may notice that the tails of this function decay more rapidly.}
410: \label{FIGnn1}
411: \end{figure}
412: %
413: \begin{figure}
414: \begin{center}
415: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG2.eps}
416: \end{center}
417: \caption{As Fig.\ref{FIGnn1} but for the
418: VL2 samples. The average distance between galaxies is $\langle \Lambda
419: \rangle = 1.3$ Mpc/h.
420: }
421: \label{FIGnn2}
422: \end{figure}
423: %
424: \begin{figure}
425: \begin{center}
426: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG3.eps}
427: \end{center}
428: \caption{As Fig.\ref{FIGnn1} but for the
429: VL3 samples. The average distance between nearest galaxies is
430: $\langle \Lambda \rangle = 2.9$ Mpc/h.}
431: \label{FIGnn3}
432: \end{figure}
433: %
434: \begin{figure}
435: \begin{center}
436: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG4.eps}
437: \end{center}
438: \caption{
439: As Fig.\ref{FIGnn1} but for the VL4 samples.The average distance
440: between nearest galaxies is $\langle \Lambda \rangle = 6$ Mpc/h.
441: }
442: \label{FIGnn4}
443: \end{figure}
444:
445:
446: Note that Zehavi et al. (2004) have estimated that at scale of order
447: $1 \div 2$ Mpc/h there is a departure from a power law behavior in the
448: reduced correlation function. At the light of the discussion above we
449: stress that this change occurs in a range of scales where NN
450: correlations are dominant in all samples considered. For the
451: interpretation of this behavior one may consider the relation between
452: the conditional density, or the reduced correlation function, and the
453: NN probability distribution (see Baertschiger \& Sylos Labini 2004 for
454: a discussion of this point). In this respect, in the comparison of
455: galaxy data with N-body simulations, one has to be careful in that
456: these small-scale properties can be determined by sampling, sparseness
457: and other more subtle finite size effects related to the precision of
458: a given N-body simulation (Baertschiger \& Sylos Labini 2004).
459:
460: We have then studied the effect of the fiber collisions on the NN
461: statistic: about $6\%$ of galaxies that satisfy the selection criteria
462: of the main galaxy sample are not observed because they have a
463: companion closer than the 55 arc-sec minimum separation of
464: spectroscopic fibers (Strauss et al., 2002). However not all
465: 55-arc-sec pairs are affected by fiber collisions, because some of the
466: SDSS were observed spectroscopically more than once. We have
467: identified all $<=55$ arc-sec pairs for which both galaxies have
468: redshifts, and we have randomly removed one of those redshifts in each
469: case to make a new sample with an even more severe fiber collision
470: problem than the existing sample. Because of the very small number of
471: galaxy pairs with angular separation $<= 55$ arc-sec (of order of few
472: percent in all the volume limited samples we have considered) there is
473: no sensible effect of the results. In fact, for galaxies in the main
474: sample the average redshift $z \sim 0.1$, and hence the angular
475: distance 55 arc-sec corresponds to the linear separation $r \sim 0.1$
476: Mpc/h which is marginally outside the scales interval we have studied
477: the NN distribution, i.e. $r>0.2$ Mpc/h. Hence we expect that the
478: fiber collision effect does not influence our results as indeed we
479: find.
480:
481: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
482:
483: \subsection{Number counts in VL samples}
484:
485: A simple statistics which can be easily computed in VL samples is
486: represented by the differential number counts. This gives us a first
487: indication about (i) the slope of the counts and (ii) the nature of
488: fluctuations (see e.g. Gabrielli et al. 2004). In general we
489: may write that the number of points counted from a given point chosen
490: as origin (in this case the Earth) grows as
491: \be
492: N(r) \sim r^D \;.
493: \ee
494: This represents the radial counts in a spherical volume of radius $r$
495: around the observer (or in a portion of a sphere). In the case $D=3$ the
496: distribution is uniform and $D<3$ if it is, for example, fractal or if
497: there is a systematic effect of depletion of points as a function of
498: distance. In this situation we neglect relativistic effects, which are
499: anyway small in the range of redshift considered. However as noticed by
500: Gabrielli et al. (2004) these corrections may change the
501: slope of the counts but not the intrinsic fluctuations.
502:
503: Given that a VL sample is defined by two cuts in distance we compute
504: \be
505: \label{e2}
506: n(r) = \frac{d N(r)}{dr} \sim r^{D-1} \;,
507: \ee
508: i.e. the differential number counts in shells. Simply stated we expect
509: the exponent in Eq.\ref{e2} to be 2 when the distribution is uniform;
510: in this case we also expect to see small (normalized) fluctuations
511: generally decaying as the volume or faster for the case of
512: super-homogeneous case (i.e. for standard cosmological density fields
513: --- see discussion in Gabrielli et al., 2004)
514:
515:
516: Results in the samples considered are shown in
517: Figs.\ref{FIGnc1}-\ref{FIGnc4}, where for each sample we have
518: normalized the counts to the solid angle of the corresponding angular
519: region. One may note that the best fit exponent (reported in the
520: figures) fluctuates, and in several case it is larger than 2. This
521: means that there are large fluctuations as evidenced by the non-smooth
522: behaviors of $n(r)$ in the different samples. A similar evidence of
523: the effect of large scale structures in these samples on other
524: statistical quantities has been recently pointed out by Nichol et
525: al. (2006).
526:
527: This is a first rough indication that the question of uniformity at
528: scales of order 100 Mpc/h is not simple to be sorted out in these
529: samples. These large fluctuations in slope and amplitude correspond to
530: the presence of large scale galaxy structures extending up to the
531: boundaries of the various samples considered. We do not present a more
532: quantitative discussion of these behaviors as the statistics is rather
533: weak.
534: %
535: \begin{figure}
536: \begin{center}
537: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG5.eps}
538: \end{center}
539: \caption{Differential number counts as a function of distance
540: in the VL1 sample in different angular regions normalized to their own
541: solid angle}
542: \label{FIGnc1}
543: \end{figure}
544: %
545: \begin{figure}
546: \begin{center}
547: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG6.eps}
548: \end{center}
549: \caption{
550: The same as Fig.\ref{FIGnc1} but for the
551: VL2 samples}
552: \label{FIGnc2}
553: \end{figure}
554: %
555: \begin{figure}
556: \begin{center}
557: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG7.eps}
558: \end{center}
559: \caption{The same as Fig.\ref{FIGnc1} but for the
560: VL3 samples}
561: \label{FIGnc3}
562: \end{figure}
563: %
564: \begin{figure}
565: \begin{center}
566: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG8.eps}
567: \end{center}
568: \caption{The same as Fig.\ref{FIGnc1} but for the
569: VL4 samples}
570: \label{FIGnc4}
571: \end{figure}
572:
573: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
574: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
575: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
576:
577:
578:
579: \section{Correlation properties of galaxy distributions}
580:
581: We study now the behavior of the conditional average density in the
582: various VL samples discussed in the previous section. We use the
583: full-shell estimator, discussed extensively in Gabrielli et al. (2004)
584: and recently in Vasilyev, Baryshev \& Sylos Labini (2006). This
585: estimator has the advantage of making no assumption in the treatment
586: of boundary conditions and it is the more conservative one among
587: estimators of two-pint correlations (see discussion in
588: Kerscher,1999). Briefly the conditional density in spheres
589: $\langle n(r)^*\rangle_p$ is defined for an ensemble of realizations
590: of a given point process, as
591: %
592: \begin{equation}\label{Gamma*-r}
593: \langle n(r)^*\rangle_p
594: = \frac{\langle{N(r)}\rangle_{p}}{V(r)}.
595: \end{equation}
596: %
597: This quantity measures the average number of points
598: $\langle{N(r)}\rangle_{p}$ contained in a sphere of volume
599: $V(r)=\frac{4}{3}\pi{r}^{3}$ with the condition that the center of the
600: sphere lies on an occupied point of the distribution (and
601: $\langle{...}\rangle_{p}$ denotes the conditional ensemble average).
602: Such a quantity can be estimated\footnote{For simplicity we use the
603: same symbol for the ensemble average and for the estimator of all
604: statistical quantities defined in this section} in a finite sample by
605: a volume average (supposing ergodicity of the point distribution)
606: %
607: \begin{equation}
608: \label{Gamma*E-r}
609: \langle n(r)^*\rangle_p
610: = \frac{1}{N_c(r)} \sum_{i=1}^{N_c(r)}{\frac{N_i(r)}{V(r)}},
611: \end{equation}
612: %
613: where $N_c(r)$ --- the number of points for which, when chosen
614: as centers of a sphere of radius $r$, this is fully
615: contained in the sample volume --- averaging by the sample
616: points. (The estimation of the conditional density in shells $\langle
617: n(r)\rangle_p$ proceeds in the same way, except for the fact of
618: considering spherical shells instead of spheres centered on the points
619: --- see e.g. Vasilyev, Baryshev \& Sylos Labini 2006).
620:
621: Therefore this full-shell estimator has an important constraint: it is
622: measured only in spherical volumes fully included in the sample
623: volume. In this situation the number of centers $N_c(r)$ over which
624: the average Eq.\ref{Gamma*E-r} is performed, becomes strongly
625: dependent on the scale $r$ when $r \rightarrow R_s$, being $R_s$ the
626: sample size. In this context such a length scale can be defined as the
627: radius of the largest sphere fully included in the sample volume: the
628: center of such a sphere lies in the middle of the sample volume.
629:
630:
631: Thus, when approaching the scale $R_s$ there are two sources of
632: fluctuations which increase the variance of the measurements. From the
633: one hand the number of points over which the average is performed
634: decreases very rapidly and from the other hand the remaining points
635: are concentrated toward the center of the sample. In such a way
636: systematic fluctuations may affect the estimation, given that these
637: are not averaged out by the volume average. An estimation of the scale
638: beyond which systematic effects become strong and thus important.
639:
640: The following subsection is focused to the discussion of the
641: measurements of $\langle n(r)^* \rangle_p$ in the different VL samples,
642: while Sect.\ref{rc} is devoted to the problem of the determination of
643: the maximum scale up to which the volume average is properly
644: performed, and thus beyond which systematic unaveraged fluctuations
645: may affect the behavior of the conditional density.
646:
647:
648: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
649:
650: \subsection{Estimation of the conditional density}
651: \label{egamma}
652:
653:
654: The results of the measurements in redshift space of the conditional
655: density by the full-shell estimator, in VL samples with the same cuts
656: in absolute magnitude and distance but in different angular regions,
657: are reported in Figs.\ref{FIGgamma1}-\ref{FIGgamma4}. The formal
658: statistical error, reported in the figures, for the determination of
659: $\langle n(r)^*\rangle_p$ at each scale, can be simply derived from the
660: dispersion of the average
661: \be
662: \label{errgamma}
663: \Sigma^2(r) = \frac{1}{N_c(r)} \sum_{i=1}^{N_c(r)-1}
664: \frac{\left( n(r)_i^* - \langle n(r)^*\rangle_p \right)^2}
665: {N_c(r)-1} \;,
666: \ee
667: where $n(r)_i^*$ represents the determination from the $i^{th}$
668: point. One may see that such an error is very small, except for the
669: last few points. However, as discussed below, when $r \rightarrow R_s$
670: systematic fluctuations can be more important than statistical
671: ones.
672:
673: One may note the following behaviors:
674: %
675: \begin{itemize}
676: \item
677: In the three VL1 samples the signal is approximately the same up to 10
678: Mpc/h, where the conditional density has a power-law behavior
679: \be
680: \langle n(r)^*\rangle_p \sim r^{-\gamma}
681: \ee
682: with exponent $\gamma = 1.0 \pm 0.1$. The sample R3VL1 has an $R_s$ of
683: order 10 Mpc/h, while the sample R1VL1 about 25 Mpc/h and R2VL1 about
684: 15 Mpc/h. In these two former samples the signal is different in the
685: range of scale 10-20 Mpc/h and clearly affected by large systematic
686: fluctuations.
687:
688: \item For the three VL2 samples the situation
689: is similar to the previous one. There is a difference in the
690: amplitude of R1VL2 and R2VL2 of about a factor 2. Nevertheless the
691: power-index is very similar in all the three samples and
692: $\gamma=1.0\pm0.1$. All samples present a deviation from a power-law
693: at their respective $R_s= 35, \; 20, \; 15$ Mpc/h. These deviations
694: are again a sign of finite size effects, reflecting systematic
695: unaveraged fluctuations, as they occur at different scales in the
696: three samples, but always at scales comparable to the samples size.
697:
698: \item
699: For the case of VL3 samples the behavior of the conditional density is
700: smoother at small scales: up to 30 Mpc/h all the three samples present
701: the same power-law correlation with an index $\gamma = 1.0 \pm
702: 0.1$. Thus the exponent is the same as in VL1 and VL2, but, given that
703: $R_s$ for these samples is larger than for VL1 and VL2, it extends to
704: larger scales. The amplitude of the conditional density is almost the
705: same in the there samples up to $\sim \;$30$\div\;$40 Mpc/h. Beyond such a
706: scale we note that R1VL3 shows a flatten behavior, similar to the case
707: R2VL3 although in this case there is a deviation at large scales (from
708: about 40 Mpc/h). Finally the sample size for R3VL3 is about 30 Mpc/h
709: and thus does not give any information on the larger scales. We may
710: anticipate that in the following section we are going to present
711: several tests to clarify whether the crossover to homogeneity which
712: seems to be clear in the sample R1VL3 is stable in different samples
713: and whether systematic fluctuations are negligible.
714:
715: \item The sample VL4 is the deepest one
716: and the behavior measured is similar to VL3 although there is a clear
717: difference at large scales and fluctuations are more evident. Up to
718: 30 Mpc/h the exponent is again $
719: \gamma = 1.0 \pm 0.1$, i.e. like VL1 and VL2 at smaller scales, and VL3 at
720: the same scales.
721: \end{itemize}
722: Note that the different in amplitude of the conditional density in the
723: different samples VL1, VL2 and VL3 is simply explained by considering
724: the effect of the luminosity function in the selection of the galaxies
725: (see Gabrielli et al., 2004 for a detailed treatment of this point).
726:
727:
728: From this discussion we may draw our main conclusion: the correlation
729: properties are independent on galaxy luminosity and they are
730: characterized by a power-law index in the behavior of the conditional
731: density $\gamma = 1.0 \pm 0.1$ up to 30 Mpc/h. At larger scales, as
732: shown for example in the two samples R1VL4 and R2VL4 the situation is
733: less clear: fluctuations are more important because they are not
734: smoothed out by the volume average. In the next subsection we define
735: the range where the volume average is properly performed.
736:
737: %
738: \begin{figure}
739: \begin{center}
740: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG9.eps}
741: \end{center}
742: \caption{Conditional density in spheres in the VL1 sample
743: in the angular region R1, R2, R3. Here and in
744: Figs.\ref{FIGgamma2}-\ref{FIGgamma4} we report, for each sample, a
745: vertical line corresponding to the distance scale $R_c$ discussed in
746: Sect.\ref{rc} and shown in Tab.\ref{tbl_VLSamplesProperties4}
747: (solid-line for R1, dotted-line for R2 and dashed-line for R3)}
748: \label{FIGgamma1}
749: \end{figure}
750:
751: %
752: \begin{figure}
753: \begin{center}
754: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG10.eps}
755: \end{center}
756: \caption{As for Fig.\ref{FIGgamma1} but for VL2 sample}
757: \label{FIGgamma2}
758: \end{figure}
759:
760: %
761: \begin{figure}
762: \begin{center}
763: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG11.eps}
764: \end{center}
765: \caption{As for Fig.\ref{FIGgamma1} but for VL3 sample}
766: \label{FIGgamma3}
767: \end{figure}
768:
769: %
770: \begin{figure}
771: \begin{center}
772: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG12.eps}
773: \end{center}
774: \caption{As for Fig.\ref{FIGgamma1} but for VL4 sample}
775: \label{FIGgamma4}
776: \end{figure}
777:
778:
779:
780: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
781: %
782: \subsection{Finite volume effects}
783: \label{rc} %
784:
785: In order to quantify the finite volume effects previously mentioned,
786: we have divided each of the VL samples of the R1 field into two
787: non-overlapping contiguous angular regions, and we have recomputed the
788: conditional density in each of the $2 \times 4$ samples. The
789: properties of these subsamples are listed in
790: Tab.\ref{tbl_VLSamplesProperties4}. In
791: Figs.\ref{FIGgammaR1-1}-\ref{FIGgammaR1-4} we show the results.
792: %
793: \begin{table}
794: \begin{center}
795: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
796: \hline
797: Region name & $\eta_1$ & $\eta_2$ & $\lambda_1$ & $\lambda_2$ & $N$ \\
798: \hline
799: R1$\_$1VL1 & 9.0 & 22.5 & -47.0 & 8.0 & 1585 \\
800: R1$\_$2VL1 & 22.5 & 36.0 & -47.0 & 8.0 & 1545 \\
801: R1$\_$1VL2 & 9.0 & 22.5 & -47.0 & 8.0 & 7684 \\
802: R1$\_$2VL2 & 22.5 & 36.0 & -47.0 & 8.0 & 7497 \\
803: R1$\_$1VL3 & 9.0 & 22.5 & -47.0 & 8.0 & 13982 \\
804: R1$\_$2VL3 & 22.5 & 36.0 & -47.0 & 8.0 & 13993 \\
805: R1$\_$1VL4 & 9.0 & 22.5 & -47.0 & 8.0 & 3343 \\
806: R1$\_$2VL4 & 22.5 & 36.0 & -47.0 & 8.00& 3399 \\
807: \hline
808: \end{tabular}
809: \end{center}
810: \caption{Main
811: properties of the different subsamples considered in the R1 region.
812: The angular limits of the cuts in the intrinsic coordinates of the
813: survey $\eta$ and $\lambda$ (in degrees). The last column gives the
814: number of points in the sample.}
815: \label{tbl_VLSamplesProperties4}
816: \end{table}
817: %
818: \begin{figure}
819: \begin{center}
820: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG13.eps}
821: \end{center}
822: \caption{Conditional density in spheres in the R1VL1 sample
823: and in the 2 subsamples defined by the angular cut performed as
824: discussed in the text. The lines labeled with $N_c$ represent the
825: behavior of the number of centers used in the average
826: (Eq.\ref{Gamma*E-r}) arbitrarily normalized. }
827: \label{FIGgammaR1-1}
828: \end{figure}
829: %
830: \begin{figure}
831: \begin{center}
832: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG14.eps}
833: \end{center}
834: \caption{As Fig.\ref{FIGgammaR1-1} but for the R1VL2 sample}
835: \label{FIGgammaR1-2}
836: \end{figure}
837: %
838: \begin{figure}
839: \begin{center}
840: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG15.eps}
841: \end{center}
842: \caption{As Fig.\ref{FIGgammaR1-1} but for the R1VL3 sample}
843: \label{FIGgammaR1-3}
844: \end{figure}
845: %
846: \begin{figure}
847: \begin{center}
848: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG16.eps}
849: \end{center}
850: \caption{As Fig.\ref{FIGgammaR1-1} but for the R1VL4 sample}
851: \label{FIGgammaR1-4}
852: \end{figure}
853:
854:
855: Let us now discuss the situation in some details. As already mentioned
856: the average computed by Eq.\ref{Gamma*E-r} is made by changing, at
857: each scale $r$ the number $N_c(r)$ of points which do contribute. This
858: scale-dependency follows from the requirement that only those points
859: for which, when chosen as centers of a sphere of radius $r$, the
860: volume does not overlap or intersect the boundaries of the sample. In
861: this way, in a sample of size $R_s$, when $r\ll R_s$ almost all points
862: will contribute to the average, while when $r\rightarrow R_s$ only
863: those points lying close to the center of the volume will be taken
864: into account in the average. Hence at large scales the average is
865: performed on a number of points which exponentially decays when
866: $r\rightarrow R_s$. In Figs.\ref{FIGgammaR1-1}-\ref{FIGgammaR1-4} we
867: show the behavior of the number of centers $N_c(r)$ as function of
868: scale, normalized to an arbitrary factor for seek of clarity. The
869: normalization is simple because at small scales $N_c(r) = N$ where $N$
870: is the number of points contained in a given VL sample: in fact at
871: such small scales all points contribute to the statistics. One may
872: note at a scale comparable but smaller than the sample size there is
873: an abrupt decay of this quantity: this means that only few points
874: contribute to the average at large scales.
875:
876: That systematic fluctuations are more important than statistical ones,
877: can be noticed from the behavior of the conditional density in
878: Figs.\ref{FIGgammaR1-1}-\ref{FIGgammaR1-4} by comparing the behaviors
879: in the original sample (e.g. R1VL1) and in the two separate subsamples
880: (e.g. R1$\_$1VL1 and R1$\_$2VL1). When the distance scale approaches
881: the boundaries of the samples one may note that there are systematic
882: variations which are larger than the (small) error bars derived from
883: Eq.\ref{errgamma}. As already mentioned, in some cases there is an
884: evidence for a more flatter behavior while in other cases instead the
885: conditional density show a decay up to the sample boundaries which is
886: slower than at smaller scales. This situation puts a serious warning
887: for the interpretation of the large scale tail of the conditional
888: density. The question is how to quantify the regime where systematic
889: fluctuations are important and may affect the behavior of the
890: conditional density.
891:
892:
893:
894: One may define a criterion for the statistical robustness of the
895: volume average, by imposing for example $N_c(r)$ to be larger than a
896: certain value. While this can certainly give an useful indication, the
897: problem of the volume average is more subtle. In fact when
898: $r\rightarrow R_s$ there can be sufficiently enough points for
899: $N_c(r)$ to be larger than a given pre-defined value: however it may
900: happen that all these points lie, for example, in a cluster located
901: close to the sample center. In this situation the volume average is
902: not properly performed, in the sense that all points ``see'' almost
903: the same volume.
904:
905: A possibility to clarify such a situation has been proposed by
906: Joyce et al. (1999). One may compute the average distance between the
907: $N_c(r)$ centers at the scale $r$:
908: \be
909: R_c(r) = \frac{1}{N_c(r)(N_c(r)-1)} \sum_{i,j=1}^{N_c(r)} |\vec{r}_i -
910: \vec{r}_j|
911: \ee
912: where $\vec{r}_i$ and $\vec{r}_j$ are two of the $N_c(r)$ points. A
913: criterion for statistical validity of the volume average is then
914: \be
915: R_c\ge2\times r
916: \ee
917: which implies that the average distance between sphere centers if
918: larger than twice the scale at which the conditional density is
919: computed, assuring in this way the independence of the different terms
920: in the average. The values of $R_c$ for the different samples is
921: reported in Tab.\ref{tbl_VLSamplesProperties3} and this length-scale
922: is indicated as a vertical line in
923: Figs.\ref{FIGgamma1}-\ref{FIGgamma4}. In practice all samples show an
924: $R_c$ smaller than 40 Mpc/h with the exception of R1VL3 and R1VL4 for
925: which $R_c=54,\ 65;$ Mpc/h respectively. Hoverer in these two samples
926: the conditional density does behave differently at large scales (see
927: Fig.\ref{gammavl3vl4}), in the sense that the change of slope
928: occurs at different scales and thus at a different value average density.
929: %
930: \begin{figure}
931: \begin{center}
932: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG17.eps}
933: \end{center}
934: \caption{Conditional density in spheres in
935: the R1VL3 and R1VL4 samples, normalized to have the same amplitude at
936: 1 Mpc/h. One may see that the large scale behavior ($r> $30 Mpc/h) is
937: different due to the effect of systematic fluctuations.}
938: \label{gammavl3vl4}
939: \end{figure}
940: %
941: Thus it is very hard to conclude about the correlation properties at
942: such large scales.
943:
944: However we note that there is enough evidence that the signal is
945: smoother on scales $>$ 40 Mpc/h and that sample-to-sample fluctuations
946: or the variations in radial counts (discussed in Section 2) are
947: smaller, thus indicating a tendency toward a more uniform
948: distribution. However these data do not support unambiguously a clear
949: evidence in favor of homogeneity at scales of order $70$ Mpc/h, as
950: Hogg et al. (2005) found by analyzing the LRG sample, because the change
951: in correlation properties occurs at scales comparable to the scales
952: $R_s$ and $R_c$. We conclude that these data support an evidence for a
953: change of slope, with a clear tendency for $\gamma <1$, but with
954: undefined value.
955:
956: These tests indicate that the availability of larger samples,
957: provided, for example, by DR5, will allow one to understand these
958: systematic variations. Particularly we may see that to study scales of
959: order 100 Mpc/h, samples with $R_s
960: \approx$ 300 Mpc/h are needed. However the full SDSS data will provide
961: us with such large and complete catalogs.
962:
963:
964:
965:
966: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
967:
968:
969: \section{Correlation properties of cosmological N-body simulations}
970:
971: Gravitational clustering in the regime of strong fluctuations is
972: usually studied through gravitational N-body simulations. The
973: particles are not meant to describe galaxies but collision-less
974: dark-matter mass tracers. During gravitational evolution complex
975: non-linear dynamics make non-linear structures at small scales, while
976: at large scales it occurs a linear amplification according to linear
977: perturbation theory. Thus, while on large scales correlation
978: properties do not change from the beginning --- a part a simple linear
979: scaling of amplitudes --- at small scales non-linear correlations are
980: built. Typically in these simulations non-linear clustering is formed
981: up to scales of order of few Mpc.
982:
983:
984: At late times one can identify subsamples of points which trace the
985: high density regions, and these would represent the
986: sites for galaxy formation,
987: whose statistical properties are ultimately compared with
988: the ones found in galaxy samples.
989:
990: In order to study this problem we consider the GIF galaxy catalog
991: (\cite{gif}) constructed from a $\Lambda$CDM simulation run by the
992: Virgo consortium (\cite{virgo}). The way in which this is done is to
993: firstly identify the halos, which represent almost spherical
994: structures with a power-law density profile from their center. The
995: number of galaxies belonging to each halo is set proportional to the
996: total number of points belonging to the halo to a certain power. This
997: procedure identifies points lying in high density regions of the
998: dark-matter particles. One may assign to each point a luminosity and
999: a color on the basis of a certain criterion which is not relevant for
1000: what follows (see
1001: \cite{sheth} and reference therein).
1002: The resulting catalog is divided into two subsamples based on
1003: ``galaxy'' color B-I as in Sheth et al. (2001): (brighter) red
1004: galaxies (for which B-I is redder than 1.8) and (fainter) blue
1005: galaxies (B-I bluer than 1.8).
1006:
1007:
1008: In summary four samples of points may be considered: (i) the original
1009: dark matter particles with $N$=$256^3$ particles (ii) all galaxies with
1010: $N$=15445 (iii) blue galaxies with $N$=11023 and (iv) red galaxies with
1011: $N$=4422.
1012:
1013: In order to understand the correlation properties in the sampled point
1014: distributions it is useful to study the behavior of the conditional
1015: density which, as already discussed, has a straightforward
1016: interpretation in terms of correlations: results are shown in
1017: Fig.\ref{gammasimu}.
1018: %
1019: \begin{figure}
1020: \begin{center}
1021: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG18.eps}
1022: \end{center}
1023: \caption{Conditional density for the four samples of
1024: points selected in the simulation: the original dark matter (DM)
1025: field, all ``galaxies'' (ALL), blue galaxies (BLUE) and red galaxies
1026: (RED). The conditional density for dark matter particles (DM) has been
1027: normalized arbitrarily. The reference dashed-dotted line has a slope
1028: $\gamma=1.7$. The dashed line with $\gamma=1$, corresponding to the
1029: slope measured in the galaxy samples is also reported.}
1030: \label{gammasimu}
1031: \end{figure}
1032: %
1033: The red galaxies are responsible for the strong correlations observed
1034: in the full sample as the conditional density is almost the same as
1035: for all galaxies at small scales. At large scales there is instead a
1036: fast decrease as the sample average of red galaxies is smaller than
1037: the one of all galaxies (there are less objects). For red galaxies the
1038: sampling is local, i.e. their conditional density is (almost)
1039: invariant at small scales. Clearly, as there are globally less
1040: objects, the sample density of red galaxies is smaller than that of
1041: all galaxies. On the other hand blue galaxies present only some
1042: residual correlations at small scales, and they are more numerous than
1043: red galaxies.
1044:
1045: The small scale properties of these distributions can be studied
1046: by analyzing the NN probability distribution (see Fig.\ref{FIGnnnbs}).
1047: \begin{figure}
1048: \begin{center}
1049: \includegraphics*[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG19.eps}
1050: \end{center}
1051: \caption{Nearest neighbors probability distribution for three
1052: point sets selected in the simulation (see discussion in the text):
1053: all ``galaxies'' (ALL), blue galaxies (BLUE) and red galaxies (RED).}
1054: \label{FIGnnnbs}
1055: \end{figure}
1056: One may note that blue galaxies have a bell-shaped distribution,
1057: typical of the case where correlation are very weak. Instead red
1058: and all galaxies present almost the same function, with a long
1059: small-scale tail, which is the typical feature indicating the presence
1060: of strong two-point correlations (see discussion in Baertschiger and
1061: Sylos Labini, 2002). This situation is different from the one detected
1062: in the samples of DR4 as shown in Figs.\ref{FIGnn1}-\ref{FIGnn4},
1063: where the NN probability distribution has the same shape
1064: for all different samples considered.
1065:
1066:
1067: The main points we stress are the following:
1068:
1069: \begin{itemize}
1070:
1071: \item The slope of the conditional density in all the
1072: artificial samples considered here is different from $\gamma=1.0 \pm
1073: 0.1$ measured in the real galaxy data. In particular for those mock
1074: samples (red galaxies, all galaxies and dark matter particles)
1075: where correlations are power-law, the slope is $\gamma=1.7\pm 0.1$ in
1076: the range [0.01,5] Mpc/h while a clear transition toward homogeneity
1077: occurs at scales of order 10 Mpc/h. These different slopes
1078: can be originated by the fact that we compare a measure in redshift space, in
1079: the case of real data, which can be affected by redshift distortions, with
1080: the mock catalogs where the conditional density has been measured in
1081: real space. We will examine this point in more detail in a forthcoming paper.
1082:
1083:
1084: \item Small scales properties, as
1085: detected by the NN probability distribution, are different in the real
1086: and artificial samples.
1087:
1088: \item
1089: The conditional densities of mock blue and red galaxies are different
1090: at all scales and blue galaxies show almost no correlations.
1091:
1092: \item
1093: Both mock red and blue galaxies show a well-defined transition to
1094: homogeneity at a scale of oder 10 Mpc/h. As we have already mentioned,
1095: this is not the behavior observed in the data. Particularly the range
1096: of non-linear structures seem to be much larger in the real data than in
1097: the simulations.
1098: \end{itemize}
1099:
1100: In conclusion, while the comparison between correlation properties of
1101: real galaxies and mock galaxy catalogs constructed from points
1102: selected in N-body simulations is usually performed by the analysis of
1103: the reduced two-point correlation function, here we have presented the
1104: comparison of the conditional density and of the NN probability
1105: distributions. We find that some important disagreement between data
1106: and simulations are evident when the behavior of these statistical
1107: quantities are considered. This is not the same conclusion that one
1108: may reach by analyzing the reduced correlation function $\xi(r)$: the
1109: reason is that in the estimation of $\xi(r)$ one uses the estimation
1110: of the sample average which introduces a finite-size effect which may
1111: affect both the amplitude and slope of this function (see
1112: e.g. Gabrielli et al., 2004 for a detailed discussion of this
1113: point). The estimation of the conditional density is less affected by
1114: finite-volume effects and the comparison between different sample is
1115: straightforward.
1116:
1117:
1118: Note that the data are analyzed in redshift space and the simulations
1119: in real space. However given that velocities are typically smaller
1120: than $500$ km/s the difference between real and redshift space cannot
1121: be accounted by the effects of peculiar velocities on scales larger
1122: than 5 Mpc/h. The problem of the relation between real and redshift
1123: space, considering the finite size effects present when strong
1124: correlation characterize the data, has been discussed in Vasilyev,
1125: Baryshev \& Sylos Labini (2006).
1126:
1127:
1128:
1129:
1130: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1131:
1132:
1133: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
1134:
1135:
1136: Our main results are the following:
1137:
1138:
1139: (i) In all VL samples we find that in the range of scales $0.5 \le r
1140: \ltapprox 30$ Mpc/h the conditional density shows power-law
1141: correlation with a power-law index $\gamma =1.0\pm 0.1$. This result
1142: is in good agreement with the behavior found in other smaller samples
1143: by Sylos Labini et al. (1998), Joyce et al. (1999) and in the SDSS LRG
1144: sample by Hogg et al. (2005), and with the correlation properties
1145: measured by Vasilyev, Baryhsev \& Sylos Labini (2006) in the
1146: 2dFGRS.
1147:
1148: Note that we do not confirm the results of Zehavi et al. (2004) who
1149: found a departure from a power-law in the galaxy correlation function
1150: at a scale of order 1 Mpc/h: their analysis has been performed in real
1151: space while ours is in redshift space. In this range of scales
1152: nearest-neighbor correlation dominate the behavior of the conditional
1153: density and thus also of the reduced correlation function and for a
1154: detailed understanding of this regime a study of the nearest-neighbor
1155: is shown to be necessary.
1156:
1157: In addition we do not find either a luminosity or color dependence of
1158: the galaxy the conditional density in the regime where the statistics
1159: is robust. In this respect Zehavi et al. (2005) have considered the
1160: behavior of the reduced two-point correlation function, and concluded
1161: that there is a color (luminosity) dependence of galaxy
1162: correlations. This apparent disagreement can be understood by
1163: considering that the reduced two-point correlation function can be
1164: strongly affected by finite-size effects in the regime where the
1165: conditional density presents power-law correlations (see discussion,
1166: e.g. in Joyce et al., 2005). Moreover results by Zehavi et al. (2005)
1167: have been obtained in real space: in Vasilyev, Baryhsev
1168: \& Sylos Labini (2006) we discussed the kind of finite size effects
1169: which perturb the estimation of $\xi(r)$ when the conditional density
1170: has power-law correlations.
1171:
1172:
1173: (ii) In the range $30 \ltapprox r \ltapprox 100$ Mpc/h the situation
1174: is less clear: as we discussed finite volume effects are important in
1175: this range of scales and systematic unaveraged fluctuations may affect
1176: the results. We have presented several tests to show the role of
1177: finite volume effects and to determine the range of scales where they
1178: perturb the estimation of the conditional density, finding that in all
1179: but two samples the volume average is properly performed up to $R_c
1180: \approx 40$ Mpc/h. In the remaining two samples we have shown that
1181: systematic fluctuations persist up to their boundaries $R_s$.
1182:
1183: Thus in the range $30 \ltapprox r \ltapprox 100$ Mpc/h we find
1184: evidences for more uniform distribution and hence a smaller power law
1185: index ($\gamma <1$) in the conditional density. This is a stable
1186: result in all samples considered. However a detailed analysis of the
1187: behavior of the conditional density in all samples does not allow us
1188: to conclude neither that there is definitive crossover to homogeneity
1189: at a scales of order 70 Mpc/h as Hogg et al. (2005) have concluded by
1190: considering the LRG sample, nor that there is a change of power-law
1191: index beyond 30 Mpc/h which remain stable up to samples limit, i.e. up
1192: to 100 Mpc/h. Both possibilities are still open and will be clarified
1193: by forthcoming data releases of SDSS as the solid angle is going to
1194: sensibly grow.
1195:
1196: (iii) The comparison of mock galaxy catalogs constructed from
1197: particle distributions extracted from cosmological N-body simulations
1198: with real galaxy data outlines a problematic situation. From the one
1199: hand we have discussed the fact that the slope of the conditional
1200: density in latter case is different from the one measured in real
1201: catalogs. On the other hand we have also stressed that when
1202: constructing artificial galaxy samples from dark matter particles in
1203: N-body simulations, there are different behaviors in the conditional
1204: density according to the different selection criteria used, and thus
1205: on the different way to assign ``luminosity'' and ``color'' to the
1206: artificial galaxies. In any case, this behavior is not in agreement
1207: with the data, as in all samples here analyzed, the same slope in the
1208: conditional density is measured. The same situation is present when
1209: the NN probability distribution is considered. Then in N-body
1210: simulations structures are sensibly smaller than in real data, as
1211: shown by the definitive crossover to homogeneity at about 10 Mpc/h
1212: found in N-body particle distribution, contrary to the galaxy case
1213: where the crossover may happen on much larger scales of order 100
1214: Mpc/h.
1215:
1216:
1217: It is worth noticing that we have used a very conservative statistical
1218: analysis which introduces an important constraints on the way we treat
1219: the data. For example if the distribution would have been uniform on
1220: scales smaller than the actual sample sizes, the conditional density
1221: estimation can be done for all points in the sample, even on large
1222: scales, not just the points near the center of the sample, because it
1223: can be assumed that volume outside the survey region is statistically
1224: similar to volume inside. This is the standard approach with
1225: conventional two-point statistics in the literature. On the other hand
1226: we have used, for example, periodic boundary conditions in the
1227: analysis of artificial simulations, as in this case the distribution
1228: is periodic, beyond the simulation box, by construction. However, as
1229: we do not know whether this is case for galaxy distribution, and
1230: actually we would like to test this point, we have used more
1231: conservative statistics to analyze the real data. This, instead of
1232: being a limitation, allow us to derive results about galaxy
1233: correlation properties which are unbiased by finite size effects.
1234: Indeed, when using less conservative methods, one is implicitly making
1235: the assumption that finite size effects, induced by long range
1236: correlations in the galaxy distribution, are negligible. Here we
1237: instead test that this is the case in the data we consider and
1238: actually we find evidence that, because of the long range nature of
1239: galaxy correlations, there are subtle finite size effects which should
1240: then put a serious warning on the use of less conservative statistical
1241: methods. Having used a more conservative statistics we are able to
1242: obtain results which are less biased by finite size effects (which
1243: ultimately appear from the presence of large fluctuations represented
1244: by large scale structures) with respect to the ones derived by a
1245: statistical analysis which makes use of some untested assumptions to
1246: derive its results. For example we get that the exponent of the
1247: conditional density is -1 instead of -1.7 as derived through a more
1248: ``relaxed'' analysis, at the same scales. The measurements of the
1249: conditional density has been performed in real space in the mock
1250: catalogs and in redshift space in the real samples, and this can be
1251: the origin of the different values of the correlation exponents.
1252: Whether this is case, or a finite size effect is playing a crucial role
1253: will be studied in a forthcoming paper.
1254:
1255:
1256:
1257:
1258: Finally we would like to briefly discuss our results in relation to
1259: theoretical models of fluctuations in standard cosmologies. It has
1260: been shown (see e.g. Gabrielli et al. 2004) that the only feature of
1261: the primordial correlations, defined in theoretical models like the
1262: cold dark matter (CDM) one, which can be detected in galaxy data is
1263: represented by the large scale tail of the reduced correlation
1264: function. In fact, in terms of correlation function $\xi(r)$ CDM
1265: models presents the following behavior: it is positive at small
1266: scales, it crosses zero at a certain scale and then it is negative
1267: approaching zero with a tail which goes as $r^{-4}$ in the region
1268: corresponding to $P(k) \sim k$ (see e.g. Gabrielli et al. 2004). The
1269: super-homogeneity (or Harrison-Zeldovich) condition says that the
1270: volume integral over all space of the correlation function is zero
1271: %
1272: \be
1273: \int_0^{\infty} d^3r \xi(r) = 0 \;.
1274: \ee
1275: %
1276: This means that there is a fine tuned balance between small-scale
1277: positive correlations and large-scale negative anti-correlations. This
1278: is the behavior that one would like to detect in the data in order to
1279: confirm inflationary models. Up to now this search has been done
1280: through the analysis of the galaxy power spectrum (PS) which should
1281: scale as $P(k) \sim k$ at small $k$ (large scales). No observational
1282: test of this behavior has been provided yet. However for this case
1283: one should consider an additional complication.
1284:
1285: In standard models of structure formation galaxies result from a {\it
1286: sampling} of the underlying CDM density field: for instance one
1287: selects only the highest fluctuations of the field which would
1288: represent the locations where galaxy will eventually form. It has been
1289: shown that sampling a super-homogeneous fluctuation field changes the
1290: nature of correlations (Durrer et al., 2003). The reason for this can
1291: be found in the property of super-homogeneity of such a distribution:
1292: the sampling necessarily destroys the surface nature of the
1293: fluctuations, as it introduces a volume (Poisson-like) term in the
1294: mass fluctuations, giving rise to a Poisson-like PS on large scales
1295: $P(k)\sim$ constant. The ``primordial'' form of the PS is thus not
1296: apparent in that which one would expect to measure from objects
1297: selected in this way. This conclusion should hold for any generic
1298: model of bias and its quantitative importance has to be established in
1299: any given model (Durrer et al., 2003).
1300:
1301:
1302: On the other hand one may show (Durrer et al., 2003) that the negative
1303: $r^{-4}$ tail in the correlation function does not change under
1304: sampling: on large enough scales, where in these models (anti)
1305: correlations are small enough, the biased fluctuation field has a
1306: correlation function which is linearly amplified with respect to the
1307: underlying dark matter correlation function. For this reason the
1308: detection of such a negative tail would be the main confirmation of
1309: models of primordial density field. This will be possible if firstly a
1310: clear determination of the homogeneity scale will be obtained, and
1311: then if the data will be statistically robust enough to allow the
1312: determination of the correlation when it is $\xi(r) \ll 1$. While
1313: Eiseinstein et al. (2005) claimed to have measured that $\xi(r)
1314: \approx 0.01$ at scales of order 100 Mpc/h in a sample of SDSS LRG
1315: galaxies, here we cannot confirm these results as our analysis does
1316: not extend to such large scales with a robust statistics. However
1317: from the large fluctuations observed, for example in the behavior of
1318: the radial counts and in sample-to-sample variations of the
1319: conditional density at such large scales, we conclude that this result
1320: deserves more studies, and perhaps much larger samples, to be
1321: confirmed.
1322:
1323:
1324:
1325: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1326:
1327: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1328:
1329: We thank Andrea Gabrielli, Michael Joyce and Luciano Pietronero for
1330: useful discussions and comments. Yu.V.B. and N.L.V. thank the
1331: ``Istituto dei Sistemi Complessi'' (CNR, Rome, Italy) for the kind
1332: hospitality during the writing of this paper. FSL acknowledge the
1333: financial support of the EC grant No. 517588 ``Statistical Physics for
1334: Cosmic Structures" and the MIUR-PRIN05 project on ``Dynamics and
1335: Thermodynamics of systems with long range interactions" for financial
1336: supports. Yu.B and N.V thanks the partial financial support by Russian
1337: Federation grants NSh-8542.2006.2 and RNP.2.1.1.2852.
1338:
1339: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1340:
1341: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1342:
1343: \bibitem{sdssdata05} Adelman-McCarthy J.K. et al. {\tt astro-ph/0507711}
1344:
1345: \bibitem{bt05}
1346: Baryshev, Yu., Teerikorpi P., 2005, Bull. Special Astrophys. Obs in
1347: print {\tt astro-ph/0505185}
1348:
1349:
1350: \bibitem[Baertschiger \& Sylos Labini 2004]{grav1}
1351: Baertschiger T. \& Sylos Labini F., 2004,
1352: Phys.Rev.D, 69, 123001-1
1353:
1354: \bibitem{blanton03} Blanton, M.R., et al.,
1355: 2001, AJ 121 2358
1356:
1357:
1358: \bibitem[Durrer et al. 2003]{dgjsl03} Durrer, R., Gabrielli, A.,
1359: Joyce, M., Sylos Labini, F., 2003, ApJ 585, L1
1360:
1361:
1362: \bibitem[Eisenstein et al. 2005]{Eisenstein2005} Eisenstein, D.J., et
1363: al., 2005, ApJ 633, 560
1364:
1365:
1366: \bibitem{book}
1367: Gabrielli A., Sylos Labini F., Joyce M., Pietronero L., {\it
1368: Statistical physics for cosmic structures}, Springer Verlag (2004)
1369:
1370: \bibitem{Kerscher-geometry}
1371: Kerscher, M.,
1372: A\&A, 1999, 343, 333,
1373:
1374: \bibitem{hoggetal2004}
1375: Hogg, D.W., Eistenstein, D.J., Blanton M.R., Bahcall N.A, Brinkmann,
1376: J., Gunn J.E., Schneider D.P. 2005 ApJ, 624, 54
1377:
1378: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al. 1999]{gif}
1379: Kauffmann G., Colberg J., Diaferio A., White S.D.M., 1999, MNARS, 303,
1380: 188
1381:
1382: \bibitem[Jenkins et al. 1998]{virgo} Jenkins, A., et al., 1998,
1383: ApJ, 499, 20
1384:
1385: \bibitem{jmsl99} Joyce, M., Montuori, M., Sylos Labini, F.,
1386: 1999, ApJ, 514, L5
1387:
1388:
1389: \bibitem{joyceetal2005} Joyce, M., Sylos Labini, F., Gabrielli, A.,
1390: Montuori, M., Pietronero, L., 2005
1391: A\&A 443, 11
1392:
1393: \bibitem{nichol06} Nichol, R.C., et al. {\tt astro-ph/0602548}
1394:
1395: \bibitem[Pietronero 1987]{pie87} Pietronero, L., 1987, Physica A, 144,
1396: 257
1397:
1398: \bibitem[Sheth et al. 2001]{sheth}
1399: Sheth, R.K., Diaferio, A., Hui, L., Scoccimarro, R., 2001
1400: MNRAS, 326, 463
1401:
1402: \bibitem{strauss2002} Strauss, M.A. et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 1810
1403:
1404: \bibitem[Sylos Labini, Montuori \& Pietronero 1998]{slmp98} Sylos
1405: Labini, F., Montuori, M. \& Pietronero, L., 1998, Phys.Rep.,293, 66
1406:
1407:
1408: \bibitem{vbsl06} Vasilyev, N.L.,
1409: Baryshev, Yu. V., Sylos Labini, F., 2006
1410: A\&A 447, 431
1411:
1412:
1413: \bibitem[Zehavi et al. 2004]{zehavi04} Zehavi, I., et al.
1414: 2004 ApJ, 608, 16
1415:
1416: \bibitem[Zehavi et al. 2005]{zehavietal2004B} Zehavi, I., et al.
1417: 2005 ApJ, 630, 1
1418:
1419:
1420: \end{thebibliography}{}
1421:
1422: \end{document}
1423:
1424:
1425: