1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: \bibliographystyle{mn2e}

4: %%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN MACROS HERE %%%%%

5: %Reference list commands

6: \def\aj{AJ}

7: \def\araa{Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.}

8: \def\apj{ApJ}

9: \def\apjl{Astrophys. J. Lett.}

10: \def\apjs{ApJS}

11: \def\ao{{Appl.~Opt.}}

12: \def\aap{A\&A}

13: \def\aapr{{A\&A~Rev.}}

14: \def\aaps{{A\&AS}}

15: \def\azh{{AZh}}

16: \def\baas{{BAAS}}

17: \def\jrasc{{JRASC}}

18: \def\memras{{MmRAS}}

19: \def\mnras{MNRAS}

20: \def\pra{{Phys.~Rev.~A}}

21: \def\prb{{Phys.~Rev.~B}}

22: \def\prc{{Phys.~Rev.~C}}

23: \def\prd{{Phys.~Rev.~D}}

24: \def\pre{{Phys.~Rev.~E}}

25: \def\rmp{{Rev.~Mod.~Phys.}}

26: \def\prl{{Phys.~Rev.~Lett.}}

27: \def\pasp{{Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific}}

28: \def\pasj{{Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan}}

29: \def\qjras{{QJRAS}}

30: \def\skytel{{S\&T}}

31: \def\solphys{{Sol.~Phys.}}

32: \def\sovast{{Soviet~Ast.}}

33: \def\ssr{{Space~Sci.~Rev.}}

34: \def\zap{{ZAp}}

35: \def\nat{{Nat}}

36: \def\iaucirc{{IAU~Circ.}}

37: \def\aplett{{Astrophys.~Lett.}}

38: \def\apspr{{Astrophys.~Space~Phys.~Res.}}

39: \def\bain{{Bull.~Astron.~Inst.~Netherlands}}

40: \def\fcp{{Fund.~Cosmic~Phys.}}

41: \def\gca{{Geochim.~Cosmochim.~Acta}}

42: \def\grl{{Geophys.~Res.~Lett.}}

43: \def\jcp{{J.~Chem.~Phys.}}

44: \def\jsp{{J.~Statrecent study.~Phys.}}

45: \def\jgr{{J.~Geophys.~Res.}}

46: \def\jqsrt{{J.~Quant.~Spec.~Radiat.~Transf.}}

47: \def\memsai{{Mem.~Soc.~Astron.~Italiana}}

48: \def\nphysa{{Nucl.~Phys.~A}}

49: \def\physrep{Phys.~Rep.}

50: \def\physscr{{Phys.~Scr}}

51: \def\planss{{Planet.~Space~Sci.}}

52: \def\procspie{{Proc.~SPIE}}

53: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

54: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

55: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

56: 

57: 

58: \title[ ]{Multi-scale morphology of the galaxy distribution}

59: \author[ ]{Enn Saar$^{1}$, Vicent J. Mart\'{\i}nez$^{2}$,

60: Jean-Luc Starck$^{3}$ and David  L. Donoho$^{4}$\\

61: $^{1}$Tartu Observatoorium, T\~oravere, 61602, Estonia\\

62: $^{2}$ Observatori Astron\`omic, Universitat de Val\`encia, Apartat

63: de Correus 22085, E-46071 Val\`encia, Spain \\

64: $^{3}$ CEA-Saclay, DAPNIA/SEDI-SAP, Service d'Astrophysique, F-91191 Gif

65: sur Yvette, France \\

66: $^{4}$ Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Sequoia Hall,

67: Stanford, CA 94305, USA}

68: \begin{document}

69: %\date{Accepted 1988 December 15. Received 1988 December 14; in original form 1988 October 11}

70: 

71: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2002}

72: 

73: \maketitle

74: 

75: \label{firstpage}

76: 

77: \begin{abstract}

78: Many statistical methods have been proposed in the last years for

79: analyzing the spatial distribution of galaxies. Very few of them,

80: however, can handle properly the border effects of complex

81: observational sample volumes. In this paper, we first show how to

82: calculate the Minkowski Functionals (MF) taking into account these

83: border effects. Then we present a multiscale extension of the MF

84: which gives us more information about how the galaxies are spatially

85: distributed. A range of examples using Gaussian random fields

86: illustrate the results. Finally we have applied the Multiscale

87: Minkowski Functionals (MMF) to the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey data.

88: The MMF clearly indicates an evolution of morphology with scale. We

89: also compare the 2dF real catalog with mock catalogs and found that

90: $\Lambda$CDM simulations roughly fit the data, except at the finest

91: scale.

92: \end{abstract}

93: 

94: \begin{keywords}

95: methods: data analysis -- methods: statistical -- large-scale structure of universe

96: \end{keywords}

97: \section{Introduction\label{sec:intro}}

98: 

99: One of the main tenets of the present inflationary paradigm is the

100: assumption of Gaussianity for the primordial density perturbations.

101: This postulate forms the basis of present theories of formation and

102: evolution of large-scale structure in the universe, and of its

103: subsequent analysis. But it remains a hypothesis that needs to be

104: checked.

105: 

106: The most straightforward way to do that would be to follow the

107: definition of Gaussian random fields (see, e.g, \citet{adler}) --

108: their one-point probability distribution and all many-point joint

109: probability distributions of field amplitudes have to be Gaussian.

110: This is clearly a too formidable task. Another way is to check the

111: relationships between the correlation functions and power spectra of

112: different orders, which are well-defined for Gaussian random fields.

113: This approach is frequently used (see, e.g., a review in

114: \citet{martinezsaar}). A third method is to study the morphology of

115: the cosmological (density) fields. One approach to the morphological

116: description relies on the so-called Minkowski functionals and is

117: complementary to the moment-based methods because these functionals depend

118: on moments of all orders. This procedure has been usually referred to

119: as topological analysis. It has a quite long history

120: already, starting with the seminal paper by \citet{gott86}, that

121: deals with the genus, a quantity closely related to one of the four

122: Minkowski functionals. The approach in the present paper lies within

123: this latter framework; we describe it in detail in

124: Sec.~\ref{sec:morph}.

125: 

126: There are two different possibilities to develop a morphological

127: analysis of galaxy catalogues based on Minkowski functionals. First,

128: we can dress all points (galaxies) with spheres of a given radius,

129: and study the morphology of the surface that is generated by the

130: convex union of these spheres, as a function of the radius, which

131: acts here as the diagnostic parameter. An appropriate theoretical

132: model to compare with in this case is a Poisson point process. On

133: the other hand, if we wish to study the morphology of the underlying

134: realization of a random field, we have to restore the (density)

135: field first, to choose an isodensity surface corresponding to a

136: given density threshold and to calculate its morphological

137: descriptors. In this approach the density threshold (or a related

138: quantity) acts as the diagnostic parameter. The theoretical

139: reference model is that of a Gaussian random field, and the crucial

140: point here is to properly choose a restoration method that

141: provides a smoothed underlying density field that should be fairly

142: sampled by the observed discrete point distribution.

143: 

144: Starting from the original paper on topology by \citet{gott86}, this

145: task has been typically done by smoothing the point distribution with a

146: Gaussian kernel. The choice of the optimal width of this kernel has

147: been widely discussed; it is usually taken close to the correlation

148: length of the point distribution. However, Gaussian smoothing is not

149: the best choice for morphological studies. As we have shown recently

150: \citep{mart05}, it tends to introduce additional Gaussian features

151: even for manifestly non-Gaussian density distributions. Minkowski

152: functionals are very sensitive to small density variations, and the

153: wings of Gaussian kernels could be wide enough to generate a

154: small-amplitude Gaussian ripple that is added to the true density

155: distribution. Such effect could be alleviated by using compact

156: adaptive smoothing kernels, as we show below.

157: 

158: It is well known that large-scale cosmological fields have a

159: multi-scale structure. A good example is the density field; it

160: includes components that vary on widely different sales. The

161: amplitudes of these components can be characterized by the power

162: spectrum; the present determinations encompass the frequency

163: interval 0.01--0.8 $h$/Mpc,\footnote{As usual, $h$ is the present

164: Hubble parameter, measured in units of 100 km/sec/Mpc.} which

165: corresponds to the scale range from 8 to over 600 Mpc/$h$.

166: Fig.~\ref{fig:2dfpk} shows the power spectrum for the  2dF galaxy

167: redshift survey (2dFGRS).

168: 

169: 

170: 

171: As cosmological densities have many scales and widely varying

172: amplitudes, density restoration should be adaptive. Different

173: methods exist to adaptively smooth point distributions to estimate

174: from them the underlying density field. \citet{schaap00} have

175: introduced the Delaunay Tessellation Field Estimator (DTFS) which

176: adapts itself to the point configuration even when anisotropies are

177: present. The method starts by considering the Delaunay tessellation

178: of the point process, then we can estimate the density at those 

179: points using the contiguous Voronoi cells, and finally, we should

180: interpolate to obtain the density in the whole volume. Intricate 

181: point patterns have been successfully smoothed using this method 

182: and applications to particle

183: hydrodynamics provide good performance \citep{pelupessy03}.

184: \citet{ascasibar05} have recently introduced a novel technique based

185: on a different partition of the embedding space. These authors use

186: multidimensional binary trees to make the partition and latter 

187: apply adaptive kernels within the resulting cells. 

188: Finally, it is well known that wavelets provide a

189: localized (compact-kernel) adaptive restoration method

190: \citep{starck:book02}. We have applied, in a previous paper

191: \citep{mart05}, a wavelet based denoising technique to the 2dFGRS. 

192: As a result we found that the morphology

193: of the galaxy density distribution in the survey volume does not

194: follow a Gaussian pattern, in contrast to the usual results in which

195: deviations of Gaussianity are not clearly detected (see,

196: e.g., \citet{hoyle02} for the 2dFGRS and \citet{park05} for the

197: Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)).

198: 

199: \begin{figure}

200: \centering

201: \resizebox{.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{2dfpk.eps}}

202: \caption{The matter density power spectrum for the 2dF

203: GRS. Data courtesy of W.~Percival and the 2dF GRS team.

204: \label{fig:2dfpk}}

205: \end{figure}

206: 

207: By the way, adaptive density restoration methods are probably the

208: best for calculating partial Minkowski functionals, to describe the

209: morphology of single large-scale density enhancements (superclusters;

210: see, e.g., \cite{shandarin04}). Partial functionals can be used to characterize

211: the inner structure (clumpiness) and shapes (via shapefinders

212: \citep{sahni98}) of superclusters. As Minkowski functionals are

213: additive, partial functionals can be, in principle, combined to

214: obtain global Miknkowski functionals for the whole catalogue volume.

215: But if we want to check for non-Gaussianity, direct calculation of

216: global Minkowski functionals is more simple and straightforward.

217: When combining partial functionals, estimating the mean densities

218: and volume distributions for the full sample is a  difficult

219: problem.

220: 

221: Now, although a single adaptively found density distribution

222: represents the cosmological density field better, it could not be

223: the best tool for comparing theories with observations. Theories of

224: evolution of structure predict that Gaussianity of the original

225: density distribution is distorted during evolution, and this

226: distortion is scale-dependent. According to the present paradigm,

227: evolution of structure should proceed with different pace at

228: different scales. At smaller scales signatures of gravitational

229: dynamics should be seen, and traces of initial conditions could be

230: discovered at larger scales. In a single density field, containing

231: contributions from all scales, these effects are mixed. Thus, a

232: natural way to study cosmological density fields is the multi-scale

233: approach, scale by scale. This has been done in the past by using a

234: series of kernels of different width \citep{park05}, but this method

235: retains considerable low-frequency overlap. A better way is to

236: decompose the density field into different frequency (scale)

237: subbands, and to study each subband separately.

238: 

239: The simplest idea of separation of scales by using different Fourier

240: modes does not work well, at least for morphological studies

241: (studies of shapes and texture). Describing texture requires

242: knowledge of positions, but Fourier modes do not have positions,

243: their position is the whole sample space. A similar weakness, to a

244: smaller extent, is shared by discrete orthogonal wavelet expansions

245: -- their localisation properties are better, but vary with scale,

246: and large-scale modes remain badly localised.

247: 

248: This leads to the conclusion that the natural candidates for scale

249: separation are shift-invariant wavelet systems, where wavelet amplitudes

250: of all scales are calculated for each point of the coordinate grid. These wavelet

251: decompositions are redundant -- each subband has the same data

252: volume as the original data. 

253: 

254: For such a scheme, direct calculation of

255: low-frequency subbands would require convolution with wide wavelet

256: profiles, that could be numerically expensive. A way out is the

257: \emph{\`a trous} (with holes) trick, where convolution kernels for

258: the next dyadic scale are obtained by inserting zeros between the

259: elements of the original kernel. In this way, the total number of

260: non-zero elements is the same for all kernels, and all wavelet

261: transforms are equally fast.

262: 

263: Now, as usual with wavelets, there is considerable freedom in

264: choosing the wavelet kernel. A particularly useful choise is the

265: wavelet based on a $B_3$ spline scaling function (see Appendix~A).

266: In this case, the original data can be reconstructed as a simnple

267: sum of subbands, without extra weights, so the subband decomposition

268: is the most natural.

269: 

270: In the present paper we combine the \`a trous representation of

271: density fields with a grid-based algorithm to calculate the

272: Minkowski functionals (MF for short), and apply it to the

273: \mbox{2dFGRS} data.

274: 

275: 

276: Section~\ref{sec:morph} describes how to compute the MF for complex

277: data volumes and how to extend such an approach in a multiscale

278: framework using the wavelet transform. Section~\ref{sec:data}

279: describes our observational data while section~\ref{sec:gauss}

280: evaluates the multiscale MF on Gaussian random field realizations

281: for which the analytical results are known.

282: Section~\ref{sec:datamorph}

283: presents our results for the 2dFGRS data. These results are compared

284: with the multiscale MF calculated for 22 mock surveys and about 100

285: Monte-Carlo simulations of Gaussian random fields. We list the

286: conclusions in section~\ref{sec:concl}.

287: 

288: \section{Morphological analysis}

289: \label{sec:morph}

290: 

291: \subsection{Definition}

292: An elegant description of morphological characteristics of density

293: fields is given by Minkowski functionals \citep{cf:mecke94}. These

294: functionals provide a complete family of morphological measures. In

295: fact all additive, motion invariant and conditionally continuous

296: \footnote{The functionals are required to be continuous only for

297: compact convex sets; we can always represent any hypersurface as

298: unions of such sets.} functionals defined for any hypersurface are

299: linear combinations of its Minkowski functionals.

300: 

301: The Minkowski functionals describe the morphology of iso-density

302: surfaces \citep{minkowski,tomita}, and depend thus on the specific

303: density level (see \citet{sheth05} for a recent review). Of course,

304: when the original data are galaxy positions, the procedure chosen to

305: calculate densities (smoothing) will also determine the result

306: \citep{mart05}. Generally, convolution of the data with a Gaussian

307: kernel is applied to obtain a continuous density field from the

308: point distribution. An alternative approach starts from the point

309: field, decorating the points with spheres of the same radius, and

310: studying the morphology of the resulting surface

311: \citep{ker96var,ker2}. This approach does not refer to a density; we

312: cannot use that for the present study.

313: 

314: The Minkowski functionals are defined as follows. Consider an

315: excursion set $F_{\phi_0}$ of a field $\phi(\mathbf{x})$ in 3-D (the

316: set of all points where $\phi(\mathbf{x}\ge\phi_0$). Then, the first

317: Minkowski functional (the volume functional) is the volume of the

318: excursion set:

319: \[

320: V_0(\phi_0)=\int_{F_{\phi_0}}d^3x.

321: \]

322: The second MF is proportional to the surface area

323: of the boundary $\delta F_\phi$ of the excursion set:

324: \[

325: V_1(\phi_0)=\frac16\int_{\delta F_{\phi_0}}dS(\mathbf{x}).

326: \]

327: The third MF is proportional to the integrated mean curvature

328: of the boundary:

329: \[

330: V_2(\phi_0)=\frac1{6\pi}\int_{\delta F_{\phi_0}}

331:     \left(\frac1{R_1(\mathbf{x})}+\frac1{R_2(\mathbf{x})}\right)dS(\mathbf{x}),

332: \]

333: where $R_1$ and $R_2$ are the principal curvatures of the boundary.

334: The fourth Minkowski functional is proportional to the integrated

335: Gaussian curvature (the Euler characteristic) of the boundary:

336: \[

337: V_3(\phi_0)=\frac1{4\pi}\int_{\delta F_{\phi_0}}

338:     \frac1{R_1(\mathbf{x})R_2(\mathbf{x})}dS(\mathbf{x}).

339: \]

340: The last MF is simply related to other known morphological

341: quantities

342: \[

343: V_3=\chi=\frac12(1-G),

344: \]

345: where $\chi$ is the Euler characteristic and $G$ is the

346: topological genus, widely used in the past study of cosmological

347: density distributions. The

348: functional $V_3$ is a bit more comfortable to use -- it is additive,

349: while $G$ is not, and it gives just twice the number of isolated

350: balls (or holes).

351: Instead of the functionals, their spatial densities $V_i$ are

352: frequently used:

353: \[

354: v_i(f)=V_i(f)/V, \quad i=0,\dots,3,

355: \]

356: where $V$ is the total sample volume. The densities allow us to

357: compare the morphology of different data samples.

358: 

359: The original argument of the functionals, the density level

360: $\rho_0$, can have different amplitudes for different fields, and

361: the functionals are difficult to compare. Because of that,

362: normalised arguments are usually used; the simplest one is the

363: volume fraction $f_v$, the ratio of the volume of the excursion set

364: to the total volume of the region where the density is defined.

365: Another, similar argument is the mass ratio $f_m$, which is very

366: useful for real, positive density fields, but is cumbersome to apply

367: for realizations of Gaussian fields, where the density may be

368: negative. The most widely used argument is the Gaussianized volume

369: fraction $\nu$, defined as \beq \label{nu}

370: f_v=\frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_\nu^\infty\exp(-t^2/2)\,dt. \eeq For a

371: Gaussian random field, $\nu$ is the density deviation from the mean,

372: divided by the standard deviation. This argument was introduced

373: already by \citet{gott86}), in order to eliminate the first trivial

374: effect of gravitational clustering, the deviation of the 1-point pdf

375: from the (supposedly) Gaussian initial pdf. Notice that using this

376: argument, the first Minkowski functional is trivially Gaussian by

377: definition.

378: 

379: All the Minkowski functionals have analytic expressions for

380: iso-density slices of realizations of Gaussian random fields.

381: For three-dimensional space they are \citep{tomita}:

382: \begin{eqnarray}

383: \label{gaussv}

384: v_0&=&\frac12-\frac12\Phi\left(\frac{\nu}{\sqrt2}\right),\\

385: v_1&=&\frac23\frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp\left(-\frac{\nu^2}2\right),\\

386: v_2&=&\frac23\frac{\lambda^2}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\nu\exp\left(-\frac{\nu^2}2\right),\\

387: v_3&=&\frac{\lambda^3}{\sqrt{2\pi}}(\nu^2-1)\exp\left(-\frac{\nu^2}2\right),

388: \end{eqnarray}

389: where $\Phi(\cdot)$ is the Gaussian error integral, and $\lambda$

390: is determined by the correlation function $\xi(r)$ of the field:

391: \beq

392: \label{lambda}

393: \lambda^2=\frac1{2\pi}\frac{\displaystyle\xi''(0)}{\displaystyle\xi(0)}.

394: \eeq

395: 

396: 

397: \subsection{Numerical algorithms}

398: 

399: Several algorithms are used to calculate the Minkowski functionals

400: for a given density field and a given density threshold.  We can

401: either try to follow exactly the geometry of the iso-density

402: surface, e.g., using triangulation \citep{surfgen}, or to

403: approximate the excursion set on a simple cubic lattice. The

404: algorithm that was proposed first by \citet{gott86}, uses a

405: decomposition of the field into filled and empty cells, and another

406: popular algorithm \citep{coles96} uses a grid-valued density

407: distribution. The lattice-based algorithms are simpler and faster,

408: but not as accurate as the triangulation codes.

409: 

410: We use a simple grid-based algorithm, that makes use of integral

411: geometry (Crofton's intersection formula, see \citet{jens97}). We

412: find the density thresholds for given filling fractions by sorting

413: the grid densities, first. Vertices with higher densities than the

414: threshold form the excursion set. This set is characterised by its

415: basic sets of different dimensions -- points (vertices), edges

416: formed by two neighbouring points, squares (faces) formed by four

417: edges, and cubes formed by six faces. The algorithm counts the

418: numbers of elements of all basic sets, and finds the values of the

419: Minkowski functionals as

420: \begin{eqnarray}

421: \label{crofton}

422: V_0(f)&=&a^3N_3,\nonumber\\

423: V_1(f)&=&a^2\left(\frac29N_2(f)-\frac23N_3(f)\right),\nonumber\\

424: V_2(f)&=&a\left(\frac29N_1(f)-\frac49N_2(f)+\frac23N_3(f)\right),\nonumber\\

425: V_3(f)&=&N_0(f)-N_1(f)+N_2(f)-N_3(f),

426: \end{eqnarray}

427: where $a$ is the grid step, $f$ is the filling factor, $N_0$ is the

428: number of vertices, $N_1$ is the number of edges, $N_2$ is the

429: number of squares (faces), and $N_3$ is the number of basic cubes in

430: the excursion set for a given filling factor (density threshold).

431: The formula (\ref{crofton}) was first used in

432: cosmological studies by \citet{coles96}.

433: 

434: \subsection{Biases}

435: The algorithm described above is simple to program, and is very fast,

436: allowing the use of Monte-Carlo simulations for error estimation.

437: 

438: However, it suffers from discreteness errors, which are not large,

439: but annoying, nevertheless. An example of that is given in

440: Fig.~\ref{fig:v1shift}, where we show the $V_1$ functional,

441: calculated by the above recipes for a periodic realization of a

442: Gaussian field (the dashed line).  As we see, it has a constant

443: shift in $\nu$ over the whole range. This shift is due to the fact

444: that when we approximate iso-density surfaces by a discrete grid,

445: the vertices that compose the surface lie in a range of densities

446: starting from the nominal one. This effect can easily be calculated

447: because this bias will show up as a constant shift in $\nu$ for a

448: Gaussian density field, as observed. Other functionals ($V_2$ and

449: $V_3$) suffer similar shifts, with smaller amplitudes, and these are

450: not easy to explain.

451: 

452: \begin{figure}

453: \centering

454: \resizebox{.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{v1shift.eps}}

455: \caption{The $V_1$ functional for a realization of a Gaussian

456: random density field in a periodic $256^3$ cube (upper panel).

457: Full line shows the theoretical prediction for this realization,

458: dotted line -- the standard one-excursion-set estimate,

459: and dashed line -- the average of the functional over two excursion sets,

460: The lower panel shows the difference between the estimates and

461: the theoretical prediction; the lines encode the estimates as above.

462: \label{fig:v1shift}}

463: \end{figure}

464: 

465: There is, fortunately, another and simple possibility to fight these

466: errors. The standard way is to approximate an iso-density surface by

467: the collection of vertices that have densities $\rho\ge\rho_l$,

468: where $\rho_l$ is the threshold density. But another surface, formed

469: by the vertices with $\rho<\rho_l$, is as good an approximation to

470: the iso-density surface as the first one. Thus, the natural way to

471: calculate the Minkowski functionals is to run the algorithm twice,

472: swapping the marks for the excursion set, and averaging the values

473: of the functionals obtained. The last step is justified, as the

474: Minkowski functionals are additive. The averaging rules are:

475: \begin{eqnarray*}

476: V_0&=&\left(V_0^{(1)}+V_{\mbox{\scriptsize tot}}-V_0^{(2)}\right)/2,\\

477: V_1&=&\left(V_1^{(1)}+V_1^{(2)}\right)/2,\\

478: V_2&=&\left(V_2^{(1)}-V_2^{(2)}\right)/2,\\

479: V_3&=&\left(V_3^{(1)}+V_3^{(2)}\right)/2,\\

480: \end{eqnarray*}

481: Here the upper indices $(1)$ and $(2)$ denote the original and

482: complementary excursion sets, respectively, and

483: $V_{\mbox{\scriptsize tot}}$ is the total number of grid cubes in

484: the data brick. The minus sign in the formula for the third

485: functional ($V_2$) accounts for the fact that the curvature of the

486: second surface is opposite to that of the first one.

487: 

488: The $V_1$ functional calculated this way is shown in

489: Fig.~\ref{fig:v1shift} by the full line; we can compare it with the

490: theoretical prediction for Gaussian fields ((\ref{gaussv}), the

491: dotted line). The coincidence of the two curves is very good; the

492: only slight deviation is at $\nu\approx0$, where the Gaussian

493: surface is more complex. We have to stress that the Gaussian curve

494: is not a fit; the parameter $\lambda$ that determines the amplitude

495: of the curve was found directly from the data, using the relations

496: $\xi(0)=\langle\rho^2\rangle$ and

497: $\xi''(0)=\langle\rho_{,i}^2\rangle$, where $\xi(r)$ is the

498: correlation function and $\rho_{,i}$ is the derivative of density at

499: a grid vertex in one of the coordinate directions. The good match of

500: these curves shows also that the Gaussian realization is good, which

501: is not simple to model. The averaging works as well for the two

502: other functionals; this is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:v23shift}. There

503: are slight deviations from the theoretical curve for $V_2$ around

504: $\nu\approx1$ and for $V_3$ at $\nu\approx0$; these may be intrinsic

505: to the particular realization, as the number of 'resolution details'

506: diminishes when the order of the functional increases.

507: 

508: \begin{figure}

509: \centering

510: \resizebox{.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{v2shift.eps}}\\

511: \resizebox{.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{v3shift.eps}}\\

512: \caption{The $V_2$ (upper panels) and $V_3$ (lower panels)

513: functionals for a realization of a Gaussian

514: random density field in a periodic $256^3$ cube.

515: In the larger panels

516: full lines show the theoretical predictions for this realization,

517: dotted lines -- the standard one-excursion-set estimates,

518: and dashed lines -- the averages of the functionals over two excursion sets,

519: The smaller panels show the differences between the estimates and

520: the theoretical predictions; the lines encode the estimates as above.

521: \label{fig:v23shift}}

522: \end{figure}

523: 

524: We also see that the higher the order, the closer are the

525: one- and two- excursion set estimates. So, even if we are interested

526: only in the topology of the density iso-surfaces, we should

527: correct for the border effects, all Minkowski functionals are used,

528: and it is important that they were unbiased.

529: 

530: There is a natural restriction on the grid steps  -- the grid has to

531: be fine enough to resolve the details of the density field. The

532: previous figures (Figs.~\ref{fig:v1shift}, \ref{fig:v23shift}) show

533: the Minkowski functionals obtained for the case of the Gaussian

534: field smoothed by a Gaussian filter with $\sigma=3$ grid steps,

535: being the smoothing radius $R\approx2\sigma=6$.

536: 

537: \subsection{Border corrections\label{subsec:bound}}

538: As we have seen above, we can obtain good estimates of the Minkowski

539: functionals for periodic fields. The real data, however, is always

540: spatially limited, and the limiting surfaces cut the iso-density

541: surface. An extremely valuable property of Minkowski functionals is

542: that such cuts can be corrected for. Let us assume that the data

543: region (window or mask) is big enough relative to the typical size

544: of details, so that one can consider the field inside the mask

545: homogeneous and isotropic. For this case, \citet{ker96var} show that

546: the observed Minkowski functionals for the masked iso-surface

547: $M_i(D\cap W)$ can be expressed as a combination of the true

548: functionals $M_i(D)$ and those of the mask $M_i(W)$: \beq

549: \label{kinform} M_i(D\cap W)=\frac1{\cal V}\sum_{j=0}^i

550:      \left(\begin{array}{c}i\\j\end{array}\right)

551:      M_j(D)M_{i-j}(W),

552: \eeq where $\cal V$ is the total volume inside the mask. Note that

553: the functionals $M_i$ differ from the usual $V_i$ by normalisation.

554: \citet{ker96var} derive the relation (\ref{kinform}) for a

555: collection of balls. Here we have applied it to iso-density surfaces

556: and for the true values of the functionals, we get \beq

557: \label{mcorr} \frac{M_i(D)}{\cal V}=\frac{M_i(D\cap W)}{M_0(W)}-

558:     \sum_{j=0}^{i-1}\left(\begin{array}{c}i\\j\end{array}\right)

559:     \frac{M_j(D)}{\cal V}\frac{M_{i-j}(W)}{M_0(W)}.

560: \eeq

561: 

562: The relation between $M_i$-s and the usual $V_i$-s is

563: \[

564: M_i=\frac{\omega_{d-i}}{\omega_d}V_i,

565: \]

566: where $\omega_j$ is the volume of a $j$-dimensional unit ball,

567: and $d$ is the dimension of the space.

568: For Minkowski functionals in three-dimensional space,

569: the explicit  relations are:

570: \[

571: M_0=V_0;\quad M_1=\frac34 V_1;\quad M_2=\frac3{2\pi}V_2;\quad M_3=\frac3{4\pi}V_3.

572: \]

573: Using (\ref{mcorr}) and replacing $M_i$-s by $V_i$, we arrive

574: at the following correction chain:

575: \begin{eqnarray}

576: \label{corrchain}

577: v_0(\nu)&=&\frac{V_0(\nu)}{V_0(W)}, \nonumber \\

578: v_1(\nu)&=&\frac{V_1(\nu)}{V_0(W)}-v_0(\nu)\frac{V_1(W)}{V_0(W)},\nonumber \\

579: v_2(\nu)&=&\frac{V_2(\nu)}{V_0(W)}-v_0(\nu)\frac{V_2(W)}{V_0(W)}

580:             -\frac{3\pi}{4}v_1(\nu)\frac{V_1(W)}{V_0(W)},\nonumber \\

581: v_3(\nu)&=&\frac{V_3(\nu)}{V_0(W)}-v_0(\nu)\frac{V_3(W)}{V_0(W)}

582:             -\frac92 v_1(\nu)\frac{V_2(W)}{V_0(W)} \nonumber \\

583:  & &

584:             -\frac92 v_2(\nu)\frac{V_1(W)}{V_0(W)}.\nonumber\\

585: \end{eqnarray}

586: Here $V_i(\nu)$ denote the observed (raw) values of Minkowski

587: functionals, and $v_i(\nu)$ denote the corrected densities.

588: \begin{figure*}

589: \centering

590: \resizebox{.32\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{Ngsv1.eps}}

591: \resizebox{.32\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{Ngsv2.eps}}

592: \resizebox{.32\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{Ngsv3.eps}}

593: \caption{Demonstration of border corrections for complex

594: borders. The raw densities

595: of Minkowski functionals for the 2dFGRS NGP sample volume $252^3$,

596: cut from a  periodic $256^2\times64$ realization of a Gaussian

597: random field (dotted lines)

598: are shown together with the border-corrected estimates (dashed lines)

599: and the estimates for the original brick (full lines).

600: Upper panels show the densities, and smaller lower panels

601: show the differences between the densities for the sample volume

602: and those for the brick (for both the raw and corrected cases,

603: and the same line types are used as in the upper

604: panels).

605: The densities of the second MF $v_1$ are shown in the left panels, the

606: densities of the third MF $v_2$ -- in the middle panels, and the

607: densities of the fourth MF $v_3$ -- in the right panels.

608: \label{fig:Nmaskv123}}

609: \end{figure*}

610: 

611:     We tested these corrections with our original Gaussian realization,

612: masked at all faces. The correction for the second Minkowski

613: functional $v_1$ is practically perfect. The corrected version of

614: $v_2$ is also close to the original for all the argument range, and

615: only a little higher than the original. The higher the order of the

616: functional, the more difficult it is to correct for the borders, as

617: small errors from the lower orders accumulate. The discrepancy with

618: the corrected version of $v_3$ and the original estimates is the

619: largest amongst the three densities, but it balances well the

620: amplitudes of the maxima, and is only a little lower than the

621: original for low densities ($\nu\approx1.5$). There are practically

622: no differences from the original at the high-density end.

623: 

624: A note on the use of masks in practice: we ensure that there is at

625: least one-vertex thick mask layer around our data brick. This allows

626: us to assume periodic borders for the brick itself.

627: And there is also another way to use the mask, ignoring the vertices in

628: the mask, not building any elements from the vertices in the data

629: region to the mask vertices. Then we do not have to apply the

630: correction chain (\ref{corrchain}) and do not have to build the

631: basic sets in the mask region. The latter fact makes the

632: algorithm about twice as fast for the 2dF data (the data region

633: occupies only a fraction of the encompassing brick). We compared this

634: version with the border-corrected algorithm described above

635: (see Appendix~B)

636: and found that it gives slightly worse results for Gaussian

637: realizations, so we dropped it. The present algorithm is fast

638: enough, taking 12 seconds for a iso-level for a $256^3$ grid

639: on a laptop with the Intel Celeron 1500 MHz processor.

640: 

641: As the data masks are complex (see Fig.~\ref{fig:masks}), we should

642: test the border corrections for real masks, too.

643: Fig.~\ref{fig:Nmaskv123} shows the effect of border corrections as

644: used with the data mask for the 2dF NGC sample volume (see

645: section~\ref{sec:data}). As the corrections give densities of

646: functionals, we will show the densities from this point on. The

647: density field in this volume was generated by simulating a Gaussian

648: random field for a $256\times256\times64$ periodic brick, combining

649: these bricks to cover the sample extent, and masking this

650: realization with the Northern data mask. Smaller bricks were

651: combined because the spatial extent of the data was too large for

652: the available core memory to generate a single FFT brick to cover

653: it; as the brick is periodic, the realization remains Gaussian. We

654: show the raw densities of the Minkowski functionals as dashed lines,

655: the corrected versions with full lines, and the densities for the

656: original brick with dotted lines.

657: 

658: 

659: We see that the density $v_1$ of the $V_1$ functional is restored

660: well, apart from a slight deviation near $\nu=0$. The density $v_2$

661: is also corrected well, only its maximum amplitude is slightly

662: smaller than that for the original brick. The restoration is almost

663: perfect for $v_3$, with the same small amplitude problem than for

664: the two other densities. The fact that the restoration works so well

665: is really surprising -- first, our mask is extremely complex, and,

666: secondly, our realization of the Gaussian random field is certainly

667: not exactly homogeneous and isotropic inside the sample volume. We

668: generate realizations of random fields in this work by the FFT

669: technique; these fields are homogeneous, but isotropic only for

670: small scales, not for scales comparable to the brick size.

671: 

672: The importance of the good restoration of the Minkowski functional

673: means that when checking theoretical predictions, we can

674: directly compare observational results with the predictions,

675: and do not have to use costly Monte-Carlo simulations.

676: 

677: \subsection{Multiscale Minkowski Functionals}

678: 

679: A natural way to study cosmological fields is the multi-scale

680: approach, scale by scale. According to the present paradigm,

681: evolution of structure should proceed with different pace at

682: different scales. At smaller scales signatures of gravitational

683: dynamics should be seen, and traces of initial conditions could be

684: discovered at larger scales.

685: 

686: The matter density in the universe is formed by perturbations at all

687: scales. In the beginning they all grow at a similar rate, but soon

688: this rate becomes scale-dependent, the smaller the scale, the faster

689: it will go nonlinear and non-Gaussian. Thus it is interesting to

690: decompose the density (and gravitational potential, and velocity)

691: field into different scales and check their Gaussianity (and other

692: interesting characteristics).

693: 

694: Using the wavelet transform as it is described in Appendix~A, we

695: obtain a set of wavelet scales ${\cal W} = {w_0, ..., w_J,

696: c_{J+1}}$, and each scale $w_j(x,y,z)$ corresponds to the

697: convolution product of the observed galaxies with a wavelet function

698: $\psi_j$, where $\psi_j(x,y,z) = \psi(

699: \frac{x}{2^j},\frac{y}{2^j},\frac{z}{2^j})$ and $\psi$ is the

700: analyzing wavelet function described in Appendix~A. Now, we can

701: apply the MF calculation at each scale independently, and we get

702: four MF values per scale using Eq.~\ref{crofton}. The set $(V_{j,0},

703: V_{j,1}, V_{j,2}, V_{j,3})$ will denote the MF at scale $j$. Note

704: that in this framework, we do not have to convolve the data anymore

705: with a Gaussian kernel, avoiding the delicate choice of the size of

706: the kernel bandwidth.

707: 

708: 

709: \section{The data}

710: \label{sec:data} There exist two large-volume galaxy redshift

711: surveys at the moment, the Two Degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey

712: (2dFGRS) \citep{2df} and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)

713: \citep{sdss}. The 2dFGRS is completed; although the SDSS is not, its

714: data volume has already surpassed that of the 2dFGRS. We shall use

715: in our paper the 2dFGRS dataset; it is easier to handle, and we make

716: use of the mock catalogues created to estimate the cosmic variance

717: of the data.

718: 

719: The galaxies of the 2dFGRS have been selected from an earlier

720: photometric APM survey \citep{maddox96} and its extensions. The

721: survey covers about 2000 deg$^2$ in the sky and consists of two

722: separate regions, one in the North Galactic Cap (NGC) and the other

723: in the South Galactic Cap (SGC), plus a number of small randomly

724: located fields; we do not use the latter. The total number of

725: galaxies in the survey is about 250,000. The depth of the survey is

726: determined by its limiting apparent magnitude, which was chosen to

727: be \mbox{$b_J=19.45$}. Caused by varying observing conditions,

728: however, this limit depends on the sky coordinates, varying almost

729: the full magnitude. Another cause of non-uniformity of the catalogue

730: is its spectroscopic incompleteness -- as the fibres used to direct

731: the light from a galaxy image in the focal plane to the spectrograph

732: have a finite size, a number of galaxies in close pairs were not

733: observed for redshifts. However, these corrections can be estimated;

734: the 2dFGRS team has made public the programs that calculate the

735: completeness factors and magnitude limit, given a line-of-sight

736: direction.

737: 

738:     The 2dFGRS survey, as all redshift surveys, is magnitude-limited.

739: This means that the density of observed galaxies decreases with

740: distance; at large distances only intrinsically brighter galaxies

741: can be seen. For certain statistical studies (luminosity functions,

742: correlation functions, power spectra) this decrease can be corrected

743: for. For texture studies there are yet no appropriate correction

744: methods, and maybe, these do not exist, as the scales of the details

745: that can be resolved are inevitably different, and small-scale

746: information is certainly lost at large distances. The usual approach

747: is to use volume-limited subsamples extracted from the survey. In

748: order to create such a sample, one chooses absolute magnitude

749: limits, and retains only the galaxies with absolute magnitudes

750: between these limits. This discards most of the data, but assures

751: that the spatial resolution is the same throughout the survey volume

752: (taking also account of the possible luminosity evolution and

753: K-correction).

754: 

755:     The 2dFGRS team has created such catalogues and used them to

756: study higher-order correlation functions

757: \citep{norberg02,croton1,croton2}. They kindly made these catalogues

758: available to us, and these constitute our main data. These

759: catalogues span one magnitude each, from $M= -17+5\log10(h)$ until

760: $M= -21+5\log10(h)$. The catalogues for least bright galaxies span

761: small spatial volumes, and those for the brightest galaxies are

762: sparsely populated. Thus we chose for our work the catalogue

763: spanning the magnitude range $-20\le M-5\log10(h)\le-19$, this is

764: the most informative. This has been also the conclusion of

765: \citet{croton2}. We shall call this sample 2dF19. This sample, as

766: all 2dF volume-limited samples, consists of two spatially distinct

767: subsamples, one in the North Galactic Cap region (2df19N) and

768: another in the South Galactic Cap region (2df19S). The sample lies

769: between 61.1~Mpc/$h$ and 375.6~Mpc/$h$; the general features of the

770: subsamples are listed in Table~\ref{tab:cats}.

771: 

772: \begin{table*}

773: \centering \caption{The 2dF volume-limited catalogues used.

774: \label{tab:cats}}

775: \medskip

776: 

777: \begin{tabular}{|c|r|rr|rr|r|r|}\hline

778: sample&galaxies&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{ra limits (deg)}&

779: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{dec limits}& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Vol ($10^6$}&

780: \multicolumn{1}{c|}{dmean}\\

781: &&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{(deg)}& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{(deg)}&

782: \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Mpc$^3h^{-3}$)}&

783: \multicolumn{1}{c|}{(Mpc/$h$)}\\

784: \hline

785: 2dF19N&19080&147.0&223.0&$-$6.4&2.6&2.75&5.24\\

786: 2dF19S&25633&$-$35.5&55.2&$-$37.6&$-$22.4&4.43&5.57\\

787: \hline

788: \end{tabular}

789: \end{table*}

790: 

791: In a previous paper on the morphology of the 2dFGRS \citep{mart05}

792: we extracted bricks from the data to avoid the influence of border

793: effects. This forced us to use only a fraction of the volume-limited

794: samples. This time we tried to use all the available data, and

795: succeeded with that.

796: \begin{figure}

797: \centering

798: \resizebox{.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{uno.ps}}\\

799: \resizebox{.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{dos.ps}}\\

800: \caption{Survey masks for the 2dFGRS volume-limited sample 2dF19.

801: Upper panel -- the Northern subsample, lower panel -- the Southern

802: subsample. Spatial orientations are chosen to better visualise the

803: volumes.\label{fig:masks}}

804: \end{figure}

805: 

806: The 2dFGRS catalogue is composed of measurements in a large number

807: of circular patches in the sky, and its footprint in the sky is

808: relatively complex (see the survey web-page

809: \texttt{http://www.mso.anu.au/2dFGRS}). Furthermore, due to the

810: variations in the final magnitude limit used, the catalogue depth is

811: also a function of the direction. In order to use all the data for

812: wavelet and morphological analysis, we had to create a spatial mask,

813: separating the sample volume from regions outside. We did it by

814: creating first a spatial grid for a brick that surrounded the

815: observed catalogue volume, calculated the sky coordinates for all

816: vertices of the brick, and used then the software provided by the

817: 2dFGRS team to find the correction factors for these directions. The

818: completeness factor told us if the direction was inside the sample

819: footpath. If it was, we found the apparent magnitude of the

820: brightest galaxies (with $M=M_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}$) of our

821: sample for that distance and checked, if it was lower than the

822: sample limit. If it was, the grid point was included in the mask.

823: For the last comparison we had to change from the comoving grid

824: distance to the luminosity distance. We assumed the $\Omega_M=0.3$,

825: $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$ cosmology for that and interpolated a tabulated

826: relation between the two distances. As explained in

827: \citet{norberg02}, the 2dF volume-limited samples were built using

828: the $k+e$-correction as dependent on the spectral type of a galaxy.

829: We do not have such a quantity for the mask, so we tuned a little

830: the bright absolute magnitude limit, checking that the mask should

831: extend as far as the galaxy sample. For that, we had to increase the

832: effective bright absolute magnitude limit by $\Delta M= 0.25$. The

833: nearby regions of the mask were cut off at the nearest distance

834: limit for the observational sample.

835: 

836: The original survey mask in the sky includes holes around bright

837: stars; these holes generate narrow tunnels through our spatial mask.

838: As the masks have a complex geometry, we did not want to add

839: discreteness effects due to resolving such tunnels. We filled them

840: in by counting the number of neighbours in a $3^3$ cube around

841: non-mask points and, if the neighbour number was larger than a

842: chosen limit, assigning the points to the mask. We chose the

843: required number $n$ of neighbours to avoid filling in at flat mask

844: borders ($n=9$ is enough for that) and iterated the procedure until

845: the tunnels disappeared. This was determined by visual checks (using

846: the 'ds9' fits file viewer \citep{ds9}).

847: 

848:     We show the 3-D views of our masks in Fig.~\ref{fig:masks}. The

849: mask volumes are, in general, relatively thin curved slices with

850: heavily corrugated outer walls. These corrugations are caused by the

851: unobserved survey fields. Also, the outer edges of the mask are

852: uneven, due to the variations in the survey magnitude limit. One 3-D

853: view does not give a good impression of the mask; the slices we

854: shall show below will complement these.

855: 

856: 

857: As mentioned in Appendix~A, in order to apply the wavelet

858: convolution cascade, the initial density on the grid should be

859: extirpolated by the chosen scaling function. We chose our initial

860: grid step as 1~Mpc/$h$, and used the $B^{(3)}_3$ kernel for

861: extirpolation. In order to have a better scale coverage, we repeated

862: the analysis, using the grid step $\sqrt2$~Mpc/$h$. The smoothing

863: scale (the spatial extent of the kernel) is 4 grid units, the

864: smoothing radius corresponds to 2 units. When calculating the

865: densities, we used the spectroscopic completeness corrections

866: $c_{\mbox{i\scriptsize sp}}$, included in the 2dFGRS volume-limited

867: catalogues, and weighted the galaxies by the factor

868: $w=1/c_{\mbox{i\scriptsize sp}}$. Most of the weights are close to

869: unity, but a few of them are large. In order not to 'overweight'

870: these galaxies, we fixed the maximum weight level as $w=2$. The same

871: procedure was chosen by \citet{croton1}.

872: 

873: 

874: 

875: 

876: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

877: 

878: 

879: \section{Gaussian fields}

880: \label{sec:gauss}

881: 

882: The filters used to perform wavelet expansion

883: are linear, and thus should keep the morphological

884: structure of Gaussian fields; the Minkowski functionals

885: should be Gaussian for any wavelet order.

886: This is certainly true for periodic densities,

887: but for densities restricted to finite volumes

888: the boundary conditions can introduce correlations.

889: The most popular boundary condition -- reflection at

890: the boundary -- will keep the density field mostly

891: Gaussian for brick masks. Our adopted zero boundary condition

892: will certainly work destroying Gaussianity, as the

893: random field which is zero outside a given

894: volume and has finite values inside is certainly not Gaussian.

895: 

896: \begin{figure*}

897: \centering

898: \resizebox{0.32\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{mf1comp.eps}}

899: \resizebox{0.32\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{mf2comp.eps}}

900: \resizebox{0.32\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{mf3comp.eps}}

901: \caption{Densities of the Minkowski functionals (from the second

902: at the left until the fourth at the right)

903: for the same Gaussian realization for

904: the wavelet orders 3 and 4 (lower wavelet orders give higher

905: amplitudes). The case for the wavelets generated using the mirror

906: boundary conditions is shown by full lines, for zero boundary

907: conditions dotted lines are used. The amplitudes of the functionals

908: for the wavelet order 4 are rescaled by 2 for $v_2$ and by 4 for $v_3$

909: to show more details.

910: \label{fig:mfcomp}}

911: \end{figure*}

912: 

913: 

914: 

915: \begin{figure*}

916: \centering

917: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{MNG2.ps}}}~

918: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{MNG1.ps}}}~

919: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{NG.ps}}}\\[4pt]

920: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{WNG2.ps}}}~

921: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{WNG1.ps}}}~

922: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{WNG0.ps}}}\\

923: \caption{Multi-scale decomposition of a realization of a Gaussian

924: random field in the 2df19N volume mask, for the $z=34$~Mpc/$h$

925: slice (the data and the first orders). The upper panel column shows

926: the scaling orders, with the original density at the right.

927: The lower panel shows the wavelet orders, with the lowest

928: order at the right.

929: \label{fig:Ngsbunch1}}

930: \end{figure*}

931: 

932: \begin{figure*}

933: \centering

934: \newlength{\pushlen}

935: \setlength{\pushlen}{0.25\textwidth}

936: \addtolength{\pushlen}{2\fboxsep}

937: \addtolength{\pushlen}{2\fboxrule}

938: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{MNG5.ps}}}~

939: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{MNG4.ps}}}~

940: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{MNG3.ps}}}\\[4pt]

941: \parbox{\pushlen}{\hfill}~

942: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{WNG4.ps}}}~

943: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{WNG3.ps}}}\\

944: %\fbox{\resizebox{0.32\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{WNG2.ps}}}\\

945: \caption{Multi-scale decomposition of of a Gaussian

946: random field in the 2df19N volume mask (continued).

947: Upper panel -- scaling orders, lower panel -- wavelet orders,

948: the highest orders at the left.

949: The last scaling solution shows

950: already strong effects of the boundary conditions.

951: \label{fig:Ngsbunch2}}

952: \end{figure*}

953: 

954: We compare the effect of the mirror

955: and zero boundary conditions in Fig.~\ref{fig:mfcomp},

956: for high wavelet orders that are yet not dominated by noise,

957: calculated for a Gaussian realization in a $256^3$ cube

958: with the $\sigma=3$ Gaussian smoothing described above, and

959: masked at all borders by a layer two vertices thick

960: (thus the effective volume of the data cube is $252^3$)

961: 

962: Fig.~\ref{fig:mfcomp} shows that the second Minkowski functional

963: is certainly better restored by the wavelets obtained by using

964: mirror boundary conditions.

965: These conditions lead to the functionals that

966: are symmetric about $\nu=0$, as it should be, while the functionals

967: obtained by applying zero boundary conditions display a shift towards smaller

968: values of $\nu$.

969: However, although our brick data

970: should prefer mirror boundary conditions, it is not easy to say which

971: boundary conditions give better estimates for the remaining two functionals.

972: Both cases have comparable errors (look at the amplitudes at extrema,

973: which should be equal). Hence, other considerations have to be used.

974: As our data mask is complex, with corrugated planes and sharp corners,

975: the mirror boundary conditions will amplify the corner densities and

976: propagate them inside, while the zero boundary conditions will

977: gradually remove the influence of the boundary data. Thus we have

978: selected zero boundary conditions for the present study; these are

979: probably natural for all observational samples.

980: 

981: 

982: \begin{figure}

983: \centering

984: \resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{mf3wng.eps}}

985: \caption{The density $v_3$ of the fourth MF

986: for the wavelet decomposition of a realization of a Gaussian

987: random field in the 2dfN19 mask. The legends in the figure show

988: the wavelet order and the scaling factor (2W1 denotes the

989: functional for the wavelet order 1, multiplied by 2). The

990: legend NG denotes the original realization.

991: \label{fig:mf3wng}}

992: \end{figure}

993: 

994: \begin{figure*}

995: \centering

996: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{smWN2.ps}}}~

997: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{smWN1.ps}}}~

998: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{2dfNsm.ps}}}\\[4pt]

999: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{smMN4.ps}}}~

1000: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{smWN4.ps}}}~

1001: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{smWN3.ps}}}\\

1002: \caption{Multi-scale decomposition of the 2df19N volume-limited sample,

1003: for the $z=39$~Mpc/$h$ slice, and for the grid step $\sqrt2$~Mpc/$h$.

1004: The original density is shown at top right,

1005: the last scaling order at bottom left, the wavelet orders in between.

1006: The wavelet orders increase from right to left and from top to bottom.

1007: The weakest gray level shows the sample mask.

1008: \label{fig:2df19Nbunch2}}

1009: \end{figure*}

1010: 

1011: 

1012: \begin{figure*}

1013: \centering

1014: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{smWS2.ps}}}~

1015: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{smWS1.ps}}}~

1016: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{2dfSsm.ps}}}\\[4pt]

1017: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{smMS4.ps}}}~

1018: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{smWS4.ps}}}~

1019: \fbox{\resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{smWS3.ps}}}\\

1020: \caption{Multi-scale decomposition of the 2df19S volume-limited sample,

1021: for the $z=97$~Mpc/$h$ slice, and for the grid step $\sqrt2$~Mpc/$h$.

1022: The original density is shown at top right,

1023: the last scaling order at bottom left, the wavelet orders in between.

1024: The wavelet orders increase from right to left and from top to bottom.

1025: The weakest gray level shows the sample mask (in most cases; sometimes

1026: the mask is missing and sometimes the gray level is wider than the

1027: mask).

1028: \label{fig:2df19Sbunch2}}

1029: \end{figure*}

1030: 

1031: 

1032: We have seen that the wavelet components of the multi-scale

1033: decomposition of a realization of a Gaussian random field remain

1034: practically Gaussian for simple sample boundaries. This means that

1035: testing for Gaussianity is straightforward. However, we have to

1036: assess the boundary effect for our application, where the boundaries

1037: are extremely complex. We shall demonstrate it on the example of

1038: the Northern mask. For that, we generated a realization of a

1039: Gaussian random field for a volume encompassing the mask, as

1040: described in section~\ref{sec:data}, and masked out the region outside

1041: the NGP data volume. As we want to see the effects that could show

1042: up in the data, we used the standard dark matter power spectrum for

1043: the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology \citep{klypin97}, for the cosmological

1044: parameters $\Omega_0=0.3, \Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7,

1045: \Omega_{\mbox{\scriptsize bar}}=0.026, h=0.7$ (this is pretty close

1046: to the standard 'concordance' power spectrum), generated the

1047: realization on a grid with the step of 1~Mpc/$h$, and smoothed the

1048: field with a Gaussian of $\sigma=2$~Mpc/$h$. The original density

1049: distribution, the scaling distributions and the wavelets are shown

1050: in Figs.~\ref{fig:Ngsbunch1} and \ref{fig:Ngsbunch2} for a slice at

1051: $z=34$~Mpc/$h$, at about the middle of the sample volume.

1052: 

1053: 

1054: The Minkowski functional $V_3$ for the wavelets is shown in

1055: Fig.~\ref{fig:mf3wng}. In order not to overcrowd the figure, we do

1056: not show the theoretical predictions. The functional has been

1057: rescaled to show all functionals together in a single diagram and

1058: scaling factors are shown in the labels.

1059: 

1060: As we see, the lower the wavelet order, the larger values of $V_3$

1061: are obtained (this is also true for the other functionals);

1062: this is expected, as higher orders represent

1063: increasingly smoother details of the field.

1064: The values of the functionals for the zero-order wavelet are

1065: always higher than those for the full field, as it includes

1066: only the high-resolution details that the iso-levels have

1067: to follow.

1068: Also, we have seen that the lower the order of the functional,

1069: the smaller are the distortions from Gaussianity.

1070: 

1071: The distortions of the third Minkowski functional are the largest.

1072: The functional for the zeroth-order wavelet (curve W0 in

1073: Fig.~\ref{fig:mf3wng}) shows argument compression, the result of

1074: insufficient spatial resolution of the smallest details of the

1075: field. The functional for the first-order wavelet is close to

1076: Gaussian, as is the functional for the total realization, but the

1077: second-order curve 8W2 shows strong distortions, due to a small

1078: number of independent resolution elements in the volume, and to the

1079: small height of the slice. The characteristic volume of these

1080: elements is $(4 \times 2^2)^3=4096$~Mpc$^3/h^3$, and their number is

1081: about 670. The functional for the third wavelet order is already

1082: completely dominated by noise.

1083: 

1084: So, we can estimate Minkowski functionals with a high precision, and

1085: the border corrections work well. The most difficult part at the

1086: moment is the scale separation in observed samples. The sample

1087: geometries are yet slice-like, limiting the range of useful scales

1088: by the mean thickness of the slice. Complex sample borders are also

1089: a nuisance when applying the wavelet cascade.  In order to take

1090: account of these difficulties, we have yet to resort to running

1091: Monte-Carlo simulations of Gaussian realizations of a right power

1092: spectrum, and to compare the obtained distributions of the

1093: functionals with the functionals for the galaxy data. We hope that

1094: for the future surveys (e.g., the full SDSS), the data volume will

1095: be large enough to do without Monte-Carlo runs.

1096: 

1097: 

1098: 

1099: \section{Morphology of the 2dF19 sample}

1100: \label{sec:datamorph}

1101: 

1102: Having developed all necessary tools, we apply them to the 2dF19

1103: volume-limited sample, separately for the NGC and SGC regions.

1104: 

1105: We show selected slices for the two subsamples, first

1106: (Figs.~\ref{fig:2df19Nbunch2}--\ref{fig:2df19Sbunch2}). The Northern

1107: slice was chosen to show the richest super-cluster in the 2dfGRS

1108: NGC, super-cluster 126 (middle and low, \citep{maret97}). The

1109: Southern slice has the maximum area in the $z=\mbox{const}$ slices

1110: of this sample. We choose the gray levels to show also the mask

1111: area.

1112: 

1113: \begin{figure*}

1114: \centering

1115: \resizebox{.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{2dfNmf3.eps}}

1116: \resizebox{.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{2dfSmf3.eps}}

1117: \caption{Summary of the densities of the fourth MF $v_3$ for the

1118: data and all wavelet orders for the 2dFN19 sample (left) and

1119: 2dFS19 sample (right), in the logn

1120: mapping -- the higher the wavelet order (indicated by labels), the lower the density

1121: amplitude. Thick lines show reference Gaussian predictions. Thin

1122: lines stand for the $\sqrt2$~Mpc/$h$ grid. \label{fig:2dfNmf3}}

1123: \end{figure*}

1124: Figs.~\ref{fig:2dfNmf3}--\ref{fig:NSw1mf3} show the 

1125: results -- the Minkowski functionals for

1126: the wavelet decompositions of the 2dFN19 and 2dFS19

1127: subsamples.

1128: 

1129: First, we show the summary figures: the density $v_3$ for the

1130: original data and for wavelet orders from 0 to 3, and for grid unit

1131: of $\sqrt{2}$~Mpc/$h$. Higher wavelet orders are not usable -- there

1132: the boundary rules used for the wavelet cascade influence strongly

1133: the results, and the number of independent resolution elements

1134: becomes very small, letting the functionals to be dominated by

1135: noise. The wavelet orders used span the scale range 2--22.6~Mpc/$h$.

1136: In order to show all the densities in the same plot, we use the

1137: mapping

1138: \[

1139: \mbox{logn}(v_3)=\mbox{sgn}(v_3)\log(1+|v_3|).

1140: \]

1141: It is almost linear for $|v_3|<1$,

1142: logarithmic for $|v_3|>1$, and can be applied to negative

1143: arguments, also. The density in Fig.~\ref{fig:2dfNmf3} is shown with

1144: dotted lines. For reference, the two thick lines show the Gaussian

1145: predictions for small and large functional density amplitudes for

1146: the logn($v_3$) mapping. The first glance at the figures of the

1147: fourth Minkowski functional reveals that none of the wavelet scales

1148: shows Gaussian behavior.

1149: 

1150: 

1151: 

1152: 

1153: In order to estimate the spread in the values of the functionals, we

1154: ran about 100 Gaussian realizations for every sample and grid,

1155: generated wavelets and found the Minkowski functionals. The power

1156: spectrum for these realizations was chosen as described in

1157: Sec.~\ref{sec:gauss} above (see \citet{klypin97}), and smoothed by a

1158: Gaussian of $\sigma=1$ (in grid units). This is practically

1159: equivalent to the $B_3$ extirpolation used to generate the observed

1160: density on the grid. Now, if the observational MF-s lie outside the

1161: limiting values of these realizations, we can say that the Gaussian

1162: hypothesis is rejected with the $p$-value less than 1\%. We also

1163: calculated the multiscale functionals for a set of 22 mock samples,

1164: specially created for the 2dFGRS \cite{norberg02}. The mock catalogs

1165: were extracted from the Virgo Consortium $\Lambda$CDM Hubble volume

1166: simulation, and a biasing scheme described in \citet{cole98} was

1167: used to populate the dark matter distribution with galaxies.

1168: 

1169: Fig.~\ref{fig:Nw2mf3} and ~\ref{fig:Sqw2mf3}  show  respectively the

1170: densities of the fourth Minkowski functional for the Northern  and the Southern

1171: Galactic caps. The MF density $v_3$ corresponding to the data is

1172: plotted with  a continuous line while error bars correspond to the

1173: total variation for mocks. The minimum and maximum limits for

1174: Gaussian realizations are plotted with dotted lines.

1175: 

1176: The Gaussian realizations show very small spread, and are clearly

1177: different from the $v_3$ Minkowski Functional of  the observational

1178: samples. Results from mocks are much closer to the data.

1179: 

1180: Fig.~\ref{fig:Nw2mf3} shows clear non-Gaussianity for the north

1181: galactic cap  at a high confidence level. Gaussian realizations are

1182: not much deformed by the combination of boundary conditions

1183: (wavelets) and border corrections (functionals) effects. In this

1184: figure we can appreciate that with respect to this MF, mocks follow

1185: data well for smaller density iso-levels, but deviate around

1186: $\nu=1$; we have seen similar effects before \citep{mart05}. An

1187: interesting detail is the knee around $\nu=0.5$, seen both in the

1188: data and in the mocks, but not for Gaussian realizations. The latter

1189: fact tells us that it is not caused by the specific geometry of the

1190: data sample. The grid step was 1Mpc/$h$.

1191: 

1192: 

1193: \begin{figure}

1194: \centering

1195: %\resizebox{.4\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{mf/Nw2mf3.eps}}

1196: \resizebox{.4\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{Nw2mf3.eps}}

1197: \caption{The density of the fourth MF $v_3$ for

1198: the wavelet order 2 for the 2dFN19 sample (full line).

1199: Dotted lines show the minima and maxima of 102

1200: Gaussian realizations, and bars show the full variation in a

1201: sample of 22 mock catalogues.

1202: \label{fig:Nw2mf3}}

1203: \end{figure}

1204: 

1205: \begin{figure}

1206: \centering

1207: %\resizebox{.4\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{mf/Sqw2mf3.eps}}

1208: \resizebox{.4\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{Sqw2mf3.eps}}

1209: \caption{The density of the fourth MF $v_3$ for

1210: the wavelet order 2 (grid $\sqrt2$) for the 2dFS19 sample (full line).

1211: Dotted lines show the minima and maxima of 108

1212: Gaussian realizations, and bars show the full variation in a

1213: sample of 22 mock catalogues.

1214: \label{fig:Sqw2mf3}}

1215: \end{figure}

1216: 

1217: 

1218: \begin{figure}

1219: \centering

1220: %\resizebox{.4\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{mf/NSw1mf3.eps}}

1221: \resizebox{.4\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{NSw1mf3.eps}}

1222: \caption{The densities of the fourth MF $v_3$ for

1223: the wavelet order 1 for the 2dFS19 and 2dFN19 samples (full lines).

1224: Bars show the full variation in two

1225: samples of 22 mock catalogues.

1226: \label{fig:NSw1mf3}}

1227: \end{figure}

1228: 

1229: Fig.~\ref{fig:Sqw2mf3}  for the Southern data shows also clear

1230: non-Gaussianity, but no  strong features like the northern one (it

1231: describes larger scales, as this wavelet is based on the $\sqrt{2}$

1232: Mpc/$h$ step grid). An interesting point is that mocks follow the

1233: data curve almost perfectly here, much better than for the Northern

1234: sample.

1235: 

1236: Fig.~\ref{fig:NSw1mf3} shows the $v_3$ MF density at the first

1237: wavelet scale for both north and south slices. Again, it is clearly

1238: non-Gaussian. However, it is remarkable how well the functionals for

1239: both volumes coincide. This shows that the border and boundary

1240: effects are small, and we are seeing real features in the density

1241: distribution that we have to explain. Also, the mocks follow the

1242: data rather well. This means that the structure (and galaxy) formation

1243: recipes used to build the mocks already implicitly

1244: include mechanisms responsible for these features.

1245: 

1246: It is useful to compare our results with the recent careful analysis of

1247: the topology of the SDSS galaxy distribution by \citet{park05}.

1248: They used Gaussian kernels to find the density distribution, and as a result,

1249: their genus curves (see, e.g., their Figs.~6 and 8) are close to those of

1250: Gaussian fields. They describe deviations from Gaussianity by moments of

1251: the genus curve, taken in carefully chosen $\nu$ intervals, and normalized

1252: by corresponding Gaussian values. Our Minkowski functionals differ so much

1253: from Gaussian templates (see Fig.~\ref{fig:2dfNmf3}) that we cannot fit a reference

1254: Gaussian curve. The only analogue we can find is the shift of the genus curve $\Delta\nu$,

1255: that we estimate by fitting an expression 

1256: $v_3(\nu)=A\left((\nu-\Delta\nu)^2-1\right)\exp\left(-(\nu-\Delta\nu)^2/2\right)$

1257: to our results. The values of the shift corroborate the visual impression of

1258: strong differences between our results and those of \cite{park05}. While they find

1259: that $\Delta\nu$ lies in the interval $[-0.1,0.26]$ (for the scale range 

1260: $R_G\in[4.5,11.0]$~Mpc/$h$, their table 2), our $\Delta\nu$ assumes values between

1261: $-1.3$ and $-0.2$, for approximately the same scale interval 

1262: ($\lambda\in[4,22.6]$~Mpc/$h$).

1263: As the morphology of the 2dFGRS and the SDSS should not differ much, the difference

1264: is clearly caused by different kernels, Gaussians compared to compact wavelets. 

1265: Dropping the conventional Gaussian

1266: kernels makes the discriminative force of the morphological tests 

1267: considerably stronger.

1268:  

1269: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1270: 

1271: \section{Conclusions}

1272: \label{sec:concl}

1273: 

1274: The main results of this paper are:

1275: \begin{enumerate}

1276: \item We have shown how to compute the MF, taking into account

1277: both the biases due to the discrete

1278: grid from the Crofton method and the border effects related to

1279: complex observational sample volumes.

1280: 

1281: \item Our experiments have shown that the multiscale MF functionals of

1282: a Gaussian Random Field have always a Gaussian behavior, even  in

1283: case where the field lies within complex boundaries.

1284:  Therefore,  we have established a solid base for calculating the Minkowski functionals

1285: for real data sets and their multi-scale decompositions.

1286: 

1287: \item We found that both the observed galaxy density fields and mocks 

1288: show clear non-Gaussian features of the morphological descriptors

1289: over the whole scale range we have considered. For smaller scales,

1290: this non-Gaussianity

1291: of the present cosmological fields should be expected, 

1292: but it has been an elusive quality,

1293: not detected in most of previous papers (see, e.g., \citet{hoyle02},

1294: \citet{park05}). But even for the largest scales that the data allows us to study

1295: (about 20 Mpc/$h$),

1296: the density fields are yet not Gaussian. We believe that

1297: the Gaussianity reported in the papers cited above could be just a consequence of

1298: oversmoothing the data. This effect was clearly described in

1299: \citet{mart05}.

1300: 

1301: \item The mocks that are generated from initial

1302: Gaussian density perturbations by gravitational evolution and by

1303: applying semi-analytic galaxy formation recipes, are pretty

1304: close to the data. However, as in a previous study \citep{mart05},

1305: we confirm a discrepancy around $\nu=1$ between the mocks and the

1306: data. This analysis clearly shows that there are more

1307: faint structures in the data than in the mocks,

1308: and clusters in the mocks have a  larger intensity

1309: than in the real data.

1310: 

1311: \end{enumerate}

1312: 

1313: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1314: 

1315: We thank Darren Croton for providing us with the 2dF volume-limited

1316: data and explanations and suggestions on the manuscript, and Peter

1317: Coles for discussions. We thank the anonymous referee for constructive

1318: comments. This work has been supported by the University of Valencia

1319: through a visiting professorship for Enn Saar, by the Spanish MCyT

1320: project AYA2003-08739-C02-01 (including FEDER), by the National

1321: Science Foundation  grant DMS-01-40587 (FRG), and by the Estonian

1322: Science Foundation grant 6104.

1323: 

1324: %\bibliography{multires}

1325: 

1326: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1327: \bibitem[Adler(1981)]{adler} Adler, R.~J. 1981,

1328: The Geometry of Random Fields, (New York: John Wiley \& Sons)

1329: \bibitem[Ascasibar \& Binney(2005)]{ascasibar05}

1330: Ascasibar, Y., \& Binney, J., 2005, \mnras, 356, 872

1331: \bibitem[Cole et al.(1998)]{cole98}

1332: Cole, S., Hatton, S., Weinberg, D. H., \& Frenk, C. S.,

1333: 1998, \mnras, 300, 945.

1334: \bibitem[Coles et al.(1996)]{coles96}

1335: Coles, P., Davies, A. G., \& Pearson, R. C. 1996, \mnras, 281, 1375.

1336: \bibitem[Colless et al.(2003)]{2df} Colless, M., et al. 2003,

1337: astro-ph/0306581.

1338: \bibitem[Croton et al.(2004a)]{croton1} Croton, D.~J., et al.\

1339: 2004, \mnras, 352, 828

1340: \bibitem[Croton et al.(2004b)]{croton2} Croton, D.~J., et al.\

1341: 2004, \mnras, 352, 1232

1342: \bibitem[Donoho(1988)]{donoho88} Donoho, D. L., 1988,

1343: Ann. Statist., 16, 1390

1344: \bibitem[Einasto et al.(1997)]{maret97} Einasto, M., et al.\

1345: 1997, \aaps, 123, 119

1346: \bibitem[Gott et al.(1986)]{gott86}

1347: Gott, J.~R., Dickinson, M., \& Melott, A.~L. 1986, \apj, 306, 341

1348: \bibitem[Hamilton et al.(1986)]{ham86}

1349: Hamilton, A.~J.~S., Gott, J.~R.~I., Weinberg, D. 1996, \apj, 309, 1

1350: \bibitem[Hoyle et al. (2002)]{hoyle02}

1351: Hoyle, F., et al. 2002, \apj, 580, 663

1352: \bibitem[Joye \& Mandel(2003)]{ds9} Joye, W. A., \& Mandel, E.,\

1353: 2003, ADASS XII ASP Conf. Ser.. 295, 489

1354: \bibitem[Kerscher et al.(1997)]{ker2}

1355: Kerscher, M., et al. 1997, \mnras, 284, 73

1356: \bibitem[Klypin \& Holtzman(1997)]{klypin97}

1357: Klypin, A., \& Holtzman J. 1997,

1358: astro-ph/9712217

1359: \bibitem[Maddox et al.(1996)]{maddox96} Maddox, S.~J., Efstathiou, G.,

1360: \& Sutherland, W.~J. 1996, \mnras, 283, 1227

1361: \bibitem[Mallat(1999)]{mallat:book99}Mallat, S., 1999, A wavelet tour

1362: of signal processing (San Diego: Academic Press)

1363: \bibitem[Mart\'{\i}nez et al.(1993)]{martinez93}

1364: Mart\'{\i}nez, V.~J., Paredes, S., \& Saar, E. 1993, \mnras, 260,

1365: 365

1366: \bibitem[Mart{\'{\i}}nez \& Saar(2002)]{martinezsaar}

1367: Mart{\'{\i}}nez, V.~J., \& Saar, E. 2002,

1368: Statistics of the Galaxy Distribution, (Boca-Raton:

1369: Chapman \& Hall/CRC press)

1370: \bibitem[Mart{\'\i}nez et al.(2005)]{mart05} Mart{\'\i}nez, V.~J., et al.\

1371: 2005, \apj, 634, 744

1372: \bibitem[Mecke et al.(1994)]{cf:mecke94}

1373: Mecke K.~R., Buchert, T., \& Wagner, H. 1994, \aap, 288, 697

1374: \bibitem[Minkowski(1903)]{minkowski}

1375: Minkowski, H., 1903, Mathematische Annalen 57, 447

1376: \bibitem[Norberg et al.(2002)]{norberg02} Norberg, P., et al.\

1377: 2002, \mnras, 336, 907

1378: \bibitem[Park et al.(2005)]{park05}

1379: Park, C., et al. 2005, \apj, 633, 11

1380: \bibitem[Pelupessy et al.(2003)]{pelupessy03} Pelupessy, F.~I.,

1381: Schaap, W.~E., \& van de Weygaert, R.\ 2003, \aap, 403, 389

1382: \bibitem[Sahni et al.(1998)]{sahni98}

1383: Sahni, V.,  Sathyaprakash, B. S., \& Shandarin, S. F.,\

1384: 1998, \apj, 495, L5

1385: \bibitem[Schaap \& van de Weygaert(2000)]{schaap00}

1386: Schaap, W. E., \& van de Weygaert, R., 2000, \aap, 363, L29

1387: \bibitem[Schmalzing \& Buchert(1997)]{jens97}

1388: Schmalzing J., \& Buchert, T. 1997, \apj, 482, L1

1389: \bibitem[Schmalzing et al.(1996)]{ker96var}

1390: Schmalzing J., Kerscher M. and Buchert T. (1996),

1391: in Dark Matter in the Universe, eds. S.~Bonometto, J.R.

1392: Primack \& A.~Provenzale, (Amsterdam: IOS Press), 281

1393: \bibitem[Shandarin et al.(2004)]{shandarin04}

1394: Shandarin, S. F., Sheth, J. V., \& Sahni, V., 2004, \mnras,

1395: 353, 162

1396: \bibitem[Sheth \& Sahni(2005)]{sheth05} Sheth, J.~V., \& Sahni,

1397: V.\ 2005, Current Science, 88, 1101

1398: \bibitem[Sheth et al.(2003)]{surfgen}

1399: Sheth, J. V., Sahni, V., Shandarin, S. F., \& Sathyaprakash, B. S.,

1400: 2003, \mnras, 343, 22

1401: \bibitem[Shensa(1992)]{shensa92} Shensa,M.~J., 1992, IEEE Trans. Signal

1402: Proc., 40, 2464

1403: \bibitem[Starck \& Murtagh(2002)]{starck:book02}

1404: Starck, J.-L., \& Murtagh, F. 2002,

1405: Astronomical Image and Data Analysis, (Berlin: Springer-Verlag)

1406: \bibitem[Starck et al.(1998)]{starck:book98}

1407: Starck, J.-L., Murtagh, F. \& Bijaoui, A. 1998,

1408: Image Processing and Data Analysis: The Multiscale Approach,

1409: (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

1410: \bibitem[Starck \& Pierre(1998)]{stapie} Starck, J.-L.,

1411: Pierre, M.\ 1998, \aaps, 128, 397

1412: \bibitem[Starck et al.(1995)]{sta95_1}

1413: Starck J.-L., Bijaoui, A., Murtagh, F., 1995,

1414: CVGIP: Graphical Models and Image Processing, 57, 420.

1415: \bibitem[Starck et al.(2005)]{sta05_3}

1416: Starck, J.-L., Mart\'{\i}nez, V.~J., Donoho, D.~L., Levi, O.,

1417: Querre, P. \& Saar, E. 2005, Eurasip Journal of Signal Processing,

1418: 2005-15, 2455.

1419: \bibitem[Tomita(1990)]{tomita}

1420: Tomita, H., 1990, in Formation, Dynamics and Statistics of Patterns

1421: eds. K. Kawasaki, et al., Vol. 1, (World Scientific), 113

1422: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{sdss} York, D.~G., et al.\ 2000, \aj,

1423: 120, 1579

1424: \end{thebibliography}

1425: 

1426: 

1427: 

1428: \section*{Appendix A: The \`a trous algorithm and galaxy catalogues}

1429: \label{sec:atrous}

1430: 

1431: A good description of the \`a trous algorithm and of

1432: its applications to image processing in astronomy can

1433: be found in \citet{starck:book02}. Readers interested in the mathematical

1434: basis of the algorithm can consult \citet{mallat:book99} and

1435: \citet{shensa92}. We give below a short summary of the algorithm

1436: and describe the additional intricacies that arise when the

1437: algorithm is applied to galaxy catalogues (point data).

1438: 

1439: We start with forming the initial density distribution $d_0$ on a

1440: grid. In order to form the discrete distribution, we have to

1441: weight the point data (extirpolate), using the scaling kernel

1442: for the wavelet \citep{mallat:book99}.

1443: As we shall use the $B_3$ box spline as the

1444: scaling kernel, the extirpolation step is:

1445: \beq

1446: \label{eq:extirp}

1447: d^{(0)}(\mathbf{n}_i)=\int\rho(\mathbf{x})B_3^{(3)}(\mathbf{x-n}_i)d^3x,

1448: \eeq

1449: where $\mathbf{n}_i\equiv(n)_i=(x_i,y_i,z_i)$ is a grid vertex,

1450: $\rho(\mathbf{x})$ is the original density, delta-valued at

1451: galaxy positions, and $B_3^{(3)}(\mathbf{x})$ is the direct

1452: product of three $B_3$ splines:

1453: \[

1454: B_3^{(3)}(\mathbf{x})=B_3(x)B_3(y)B_3(z),

1455: \]

1456: where $\mathbf(x)=(x,y,z)$.

1457: The $B_3$ spline is given by

1458: \[

1459: B_3(x)=\frac1{12}\left[|x-2|^3-4|x-1|^3+6|x|^3-4|x+1|^3+|x+2|^3\right].

1460: \]

1461: As this function is zero outside the cube $[-2,2]^3$, every data

1462: point contributes only to its immediate grid neighbourhood, and

1463: extirpolation is fast.

1464: 

1465: The main computation cycle starts now by convoluting the data

1466: $d$ with a specially chosen discrete filter $h_{(k)}$:

1467: \beq

1468: \label{conv}

1469: d^{(I+1)}_{(n)}=\sum_{(k)}h_{(k)}d^{(I)}_{(n)+2^I(k)}.

1470: \eeq

1471: Here $I$ stands for the convolution order (octave),

1472: the 3-dimensional filter $h_{(k)}=h_lh_mh_n$,

1473: $(k)=(l,m,n)$

1474: is the direct product

1475: of three one-dimensional filters $h_i=\{1/16, 1/4,$

1476: $3/8, 1/4, 1/16\}$,

1477: for $i\in [-2,2]$. Two points should be noted:

1478: \begin{itemize}

1479: \item As the filter is the direct product of the one-dimensional

1480: filters, the convolution can be applied consecutively for each

1481: coordinate, and can be done in place, with extra

1482: memory only for a data line.

1483: \item The data index $(n)+2^I(k)$ in the convolution shows that the

1484: data is assessed from consecutively larger regions for further

1485: octaves, leaving intermediate grid vertices unused. This is

1486: equivalent to inserting zeroes in the filter for these points,

1487: and this is where the name of the method comes from (\`a trous is

1488: ``with holes'' in French). This makes the convolution very fast,

1489: as the number of operations does not increase when the filter

1490: width increases.

1491: \end{itemize}

1492: 

1493: The filter $h_i$ is satisfies the dilation equation

1494: \[

1495: \frac12B_3\left(\frac{x}2\right)=\sum_k h_k B_3(x-k).

1496: \]

1497: 

1498: After we have performed the convolution (\ref{conv}), we

1499: find the wavelet coefficients $w^{(J)}$ for the octave $J$ by

1500: simple substraction:

1501: \beq

1502: \label{wave}

1503: w^{(J)}_{(n)}=d^{(J)}_{(n)}-d^{(J+1)}_{(n)}.

1504: \eeq

1505: The combination of steps (\ref{conv},\ref{wave}) is

1506: equivalent to convolution of the data with the associated

1507: wavelet $\psi^{(3)}(x)$, where

1508: \beq

1509: \psi(x)=2B_3(2x)-B_3(x).

1510: \eeq

1511: Repeating the sequence (\ref{conv},\ref{wave}) we find

1512: wavelet coefficients for a sequence of octaves. The number

1513: of octaves is, evidently, limited by the grid size, and in real

1514: applications by the geometry of the sample.

1515: 

1516: We have illustrated the wavelet cascade in the main text by application to

1517: real galaxy samples. As our wavelet amplitudes were

1518: obtained by subtraction, we can easily reconstruct the initial density:

1519: \beq

1520: \label{reconst}

1521: d^{(0)}_{(n)}=d^{(J+1)}_{(n)}+\sum_{j=0}^{j=J} w^{(j)}_{(n)}.

1522: \eeq

1523: Here the upper indices show the octave, the lower indices denote grid

1524: vertices, and $d^{(J+1)}$ is the result of the last convolution.

1525: This formula can also be interpreted as the decomposition of

1526: the original data (density field) into contributions from

1527: different scales -- the wavelet octaves describe contributions

1528: from a limited (dyadic) range of scales.

1529: 

1530: Here we have to note that while the scaling kernel

1531: \[

1532: \Phi(x,y,z)=B_3(x)B_3(y)B_3(z)

1533: \]

1534: is a direct

1535: product of three one-dimensional functions, it is surprisingly

1536: almost isotropic. Its innermost iso-levels are slightly

1537: concave, and outer iso-levels tend to be cubic, but this

1538: happens at very low function values.

1539: In order to characterise the deviation from anisotropy, let us

1540: first define the angle-averaged scaling kernel

1541: \[

1542: \bar{\Phi}(r)=\frac1{4\pi}\int_S(r)\Phi(r,\theta,\phi)dS,

1543: \]

1544: where $S(r)$ is a spherical surface of a radius $r$.

1545: The anisotropy can now be calculated as the

1546: integral of the absolute value of the difference between the

1547: kernel and its angle-averaged value:

1548: \[

1549: \int_2^2\int_2^2\int_2^2\left|\Phi(x,y,z)

1550:     -\bar{\Phi}(\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2})\right|\,dx\,dy\,dz=0.030.

1551: \]

1552: As the integral of the kernel itself is unity, the deviation is

1553: only a couple of per cent.

1554: 

1555: 

1556: 

1557: A similar integral over the wavelet profile gives the value

1558: 0.052. Here the natural scale, the integral of the square of the wavelet

1559: profile, is also unity, so the deviation from isotropy

1560: is small.

1561: 

1562: Isotropy of the wavelet is essential, if we want to be sure that our results

1563: do not depend on the orientation of the grid. This is usually

1564: assumed, but with a different choice of the scaling kernel

1565: this could easily happen.

1566: 

1567: As our wavelet transform is not orthogonal, there remain correlations

1568: between wavelet amplitudes of different octaves. The Fourier transform

1569: of the $B_3$ scaling function is

1570: \[

1571: \hat{B}_3(\omega)=\left(\frac{\sin(\omega/2)}{\omega/2}\right)^4

1572: \]

1573: The Fourier transform of the associated wavelet (\ref{wave}) is

1574: \[

1575: \hat{w}(\omega)=\hat{B}_3(\omega/2)-\hat{B}_3(\omega).

1576: \]

1577: 

1578: 

1579: \begin{figure}

1580: \centering

1581: \resizebox{0.4\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{b3four.eps}}

1582: \caption{The square of the Fourier transform of the wavelet for

1583: two neighbouring octaves.

1584: \label{fig:wavefour}}

1585: \end{figure}

1586: We show the square of the Fourier transform of the wavelet for

1587: two neighbouring octaves in Fig.~\ref{fig:wavefour}. As we see,

1588: the overlap between the octaves is not large, but substantial.

1589: This is the price we pay for keeping the wavelet transform shift

1590: invariant. We can now compare wavelet amplitudes for different

1591: octaves (scale ranges) at any grid vertex, but we have to

1592: keep in mind that the separation of scales is not complete.

1593: It may seem an unpleasant restriction that the wavelet scales have

1594: to increase in dyadic steps. It is not, in fact, as one can choose

1595: the starting scale (the step of the grid) at will.

1596: 

1597: Before applying the wavelet transform to the data, we have to

1598: decide how to calculate the convolution (\ref{conv}) near the

1599: spatial boundaries of the sample. Exact convolution can be carried

1600: out only for periodic test data, and spatially limited data need

1601: special consideration. For density estimation, a useful method to

1602: deal with boundaries is to renormalise the kernel. This cannot be

1603: done here, as renormalisation would destroy the wavelet nature

1604: of our convolution cascade. The only assumptions that can be used

1605: are those about the behaviour of the density outside the boundaries

1606: of the sample. Let us consider, for example, the one-dimensional case

1607: and the data $d(i)$ known only for the grid indices $i>0$. The possible

1608: boundary conditions are, then:

1609: \[

1610: d(i;i<0)=\left\{ \begin{array}{r@{\quad:\quad}l}

1611:     0&\mbox{zero boundary}\\

1612:     d(0)&\mbox{constant boundary}\\

1613:     d(-i)&\mbox{reflecting boundary}.

1614:     \end{array}\right.

1615: \]

1616: The constant boundary condition is rarely used; the most popular

1617: case seems to be the reflecting boundary. For brick-type sample

1618: geometries, where the coordinate lines are perpendicular to the

1619: sample boundary, this condition gives good results. However, in our

1620: case the sample boundary has a complex geometry, and reflections from

1621: nearby boundary surface details would soon interfere with each other.

1622: 

1623: 

1624: 

1625: \section*{Appendix B. Comparing border corrections}

1626: \label{app:boundcorr}

1627: \begin{figure}

1628: \centering

1629: \resizebox{0.4\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{cmdiffv1.eps}}

1630: \caption{Relative errors of border-corrected densities of the

1631: second MF $v_1$ for a realization of a Gaussian

1632: random field in the 2df19N sample mask. The case of the border

1633: correction chain is shown by solid line, the 'raw' correction case --

1634: by dotted line.

1635: \label{fig:cmdiffv1}}

1636: \end{figure}

1637: 

1638: 

1639: We noted above (Sec.~\ref{subsec:bound}) that alongside with

1640: the border correction chain (\ref{corrchain}) there is

1641: another possibility to correct for borders.

1642: In this case we ignore the vertices in

1643: the mask and do not build any basic elements if one of the vertices

1644: belong to the mask. This also means that we do not have to

1645: build the basic elements in the mask region. The latter fact makes the

1646: algorithm faster (about twice faster for the 2dF data), as

1647: the data region occupies usually only a fraction of the encompassing brick).

1648: 

1649: \begin{figure}

1650: \centering

1651: \resizebox{0.4\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{cmdiffv2.eps}}

1652: \caption{Relative errors of border-corrected densities of the

1653: third MF $v_2$ for a realization of a Gaussian

1654: random field in the 2df19N sample mask. The case of the border

1655: correction chain is shown by solid line, the 'raw' correction case --

1656: by dotted line.

1657: \label{fig:cmdiffv2}}

1658: \end{figure}

1659: 

1660: We call this method the 'raw' border correction and compare

1661: it with the border-correction algorithm (\ref{corrchain})

1662: on the example of the realization of a Gaussian random field

1663: for the 2dF NGC region, smoothed by a Gaussian of $\sigma=3$~Mpc/$h$

1664: to ensure that we resolve the density distribution. (We used the same

1665: realization to compare the border-corrected and uncorrected case,

1666: in Sec.~\ref{subsec:bound}.) We combine the encompassing Gaussian brick

1667: with the 2dFN19 mask, calculate the Minkowski functionals for both

1668: border correction methods, and compare them with the functionals

1669: found for the periodic brick. We show below the relative errors

1670: of the functionals, defined as

1671: \[

1672: \varepsilon(v_i(\nu))=\frac{v_i(\nu)-v^b_i(\nu)}{\max_\nu|v^b_i(\nu)|},

1673: \]

1674: where $v^b_i(\nu)$ are the densities of the functionals for the brick.

1675: We cannot use $v^b_i(\nu)$ themselves to normalise the errors, as

1676: their values pass through zero, so we use their maximum absolute

1677: values.

1678: 

1679: \begin{figure}

1680: \centering

1681: \resizebox{0.4\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*{cmdiffv3.eps}}

1682: \caption{Relative errors of border-corrected densities of the

1683: fourth MF $v_3$ for a realization of a Gaussian

1684: random field in the 2df19N sample mask. The case of the border

1685: correction chain is shown by solid line, the 'raw' correction case --

1686: by dotted line.

1687: \label{fig:cmdiffv3}}

1688: \end{figure}

1689: 

1690: The relative differences are shown in

1691: Figs.~\ref{fig:cmdiffv1}-\ref{fig:cmdiffv3}. We see that both

1692: correcting methods give the results that do not differ from the true

1693: densities more than 10\% (12\% for $v_3$). We see also that the

1694: border correction chain (\ref{corrchain}) gives always better estimates of the

1695: functionals; the maximum error is 3--4\%, and the error is about three times

1696: smaller than that for the 'raw' border correction. Thus we use

1697: this chain throughout the paper.

1698: 

1699: It is useful to recall, though, that the border corrections

1700: (\ref{corrchain}) are based on the assumption of homogeneity and

1701: isotropy of the data, which may not always be the case. The 'raw'

1702: border corrections do not rely on any assumptions, and are therefore

1703: useful for verifying the results obtained by the correction chain.

1704: \label{lastpage}

1705: 

1706: \end{document}

1707: \endinput

1708: