1: %\documentstyle[12pt,aaspp4]{article}

2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

3: 

4: %\input epsf

5: %\tighten

6: %\received{2003 December 12}

7: 

8: \begin{document}

9: 

10: %\def\plotone#1{\centering \leavevmode

11: %\epsfxsize=\columnwidth \epsfbox{#1}}

12: 

13: \def\wisk#1{\ifmmode{#1}\else{$#1$}\fi}

14: 

15: \def\lt     {\wisk{<}}

16: \def\gt     {\wisk{>}}

17: \def\le     {\wisk{_<\atop^=}}

18: \def\ge     {\wisk{_>\atop^=}}

19: \def\lsim   {\wisk{_<\atop^{\sim}}}

20: \def\gsim   {\wisk{_>\atop^{\sim}}}

21: \def\kms    {\wisk{{\rm ~km~s^{-1}}}}

22: \def\Lsun   {\wisk{{\rm L_\odot}}}

23: \def\Zsun   {\wisk{{\rm Z_\odot}}}

24: \def\Msun   {\wisk{{\rm M_\odot}}}

25: \def\um     {$\mu$m}

26: \def\mic     {\mu{\rm m}}

27: \def\sig    {\wisk{\sigma}}

28: \def\etal   {{\sl et~al.\ }}

29: \def\eg     {{\it e.g.\ }}

30:  \def\ie     {{\it i.e.\ }}

31: \def\bsl    {\wisk{\backslash}}

32: \def\by     {\wisk{\times}}

33: \def\half {\wisk{\frac{1}{2}}}

34: \def\third {\wisk{\frac{1}{3}}}

35: \def\nwm2sr {\wisk{\rm nW/m^2/sr\ }}

36: \def\nw2m4sr {\wisk{\rm nW^2/m^4/sr\ }}

37: 

38: \title{Correcting the analysis of ``IR ANISOTROPIES IN SPITZER GOODS IMAGES..." by Cooray et al (2006)}

39: 

40: \author{

41: A. Kashlinsky\altaffilmark{1,2} } \altaffiltext{1}{Observational

42: Cosmology Laboratory, Code 665, Goddard Space Flight Center,

43: Greenbelt MD 20771 and SSAI} \altaffiltext{2}{e--mail:

44: kashlinsky@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov}

45: 

46: 

47: \begin{abstract}

48: We point out that in their analysis of the deep Spitzer images,

49: Cooray et al (2006) perform Fourier transform on maps which have

50: very few pixels left (only 20 to 30 percent). For such deeply cut

51: maps one cannot reliably compute large-scale map properties using

52: Fourier transforms. Instead the maps must be analyzed via the

53: correlation function, $C(\theta)$, which is immune to mask

54: effects. We find, when computing $C(\theta)$ for their maps, that

55: removing ACS/HST galaxies does not lead to appreciable change in

56: the correlation properties of the remaining diffuse emission. We

57: then demonstrate with simulations that the power spectrum of CIB

58: fluctuations {\it prior} to removal of the ACS galaxies reproduces

59: $C(\theta)$ in the maps from which the ACS galaxies have been

60: removed. This implies that these galaxies cannot be responsible

61: for the CIB fluctuations detected in Kashlinsky et al (2005,

62: 2007), contrary to the claims of Cooray et al (2006).

63: \end{abstract}

64: 

65: \keywords{cosmology: observations - diffuse radiation - early

66: Universe}

67: 

68: Cosmic infrared background (CIB) anisotropies from early epochs

69: should contain also the contribution from the first stars and

70: galaxies (see Kashlinsky 2005 for review). In several attempts to

71: uncover this component, we have analyzed deep Spitzer exposures

72: identifying CIB fluctuations remaining after removal of galaxies

73: to fairly faint levels (Kashlinsky, Arendt, Mather \& Moseley

74: 2005, 2007a,b). The initial findings were recently confirmed by

75: our analysis of the newly available Spitzer GOODS data

76: (Kashlinsky, Arendt, Mather \& Moseley 2007b), where we could

77: remove intervening galaxies to still fainter levels than in the

78: earlier study. The analyzed fields were clipped of sources so that

79: a reasonable fraction of pixels remained to allow a robust Fourier

80: analysis. This fraction must in practice be fairly high; e.g. even

81: when $\gsim 60\%$ of the original pixels are kept and the power

82: spectrum has a simple power-law behaviour, computations of the

83: power spectrum from Fourier transform may be misleading (Gorski

84: 1994). Thus, for maps where fewer than $\sim 60 \%$ of the pixels

85: remained, Kashlinsky et al (2005) instead computed the diffuse

86: light correlation function, showing that its value decreases

87: little as the maps are clipped progressively deeper. Also note

88: that the CIB fluctuations signal was found to be present at all

89: four IRAC wavelengths with fairly high signal-to-noise

90: measurements at 3.6 and 4.5 micron, so that any interpretation of

91: the origin of that signal must explain all the wavelengths

92: simultaneously (Kashlinsky, Arendt, Mather \& Moseley 2007a) - not

93: just results derived from the 3.6 micron data.

94: 

95: Recently, Cooray et al (2006) have presented their own analysis of

96: the GOODS data at only 3.6 micron. In it they removed galaxies

97: identified at shorter wavelengths from the HST ACS observations

98: and claimed that the CIB fluctuations signal, whose power spectrum

99: was evaluated via Fourier transforming the maps, is significantly

100: diminished when this is done. {\it Note that in their Fourier

101: analysis they were left with only 30 \% (their map C) to 20 \%

102: (their map D) of the map pixels}. As is commonly known applying

103: Fourier analysis to such deeply cut maps would lead to spurious

104: results.

105: 

106: Indeed, Fourier analysis, which is meaningful only when the

107: masking effects leave the basis functions at least approximately

108: orthogonal, can lead to wrong results for the power spectrum,

109: $P(q)$, computed using it in such deeply cut maps. For such deeply

110: cut maps, one must use a complementary to $P(q)$ statistic, the

111: correlation function $C(\theta)=\langle \delta F(\vec{x}) \cdot

112: \delta F(\vec{x}+\vec{\theta})\rangle$ (e.g. Kashlinsky \&

113: Odenwald 2000, Matsumoto et al 2005) which is immune to masking

114: effects. This is why we presented this quantity in the

115: Supplementary Information to Kashlinsky et al (2005) for maps cut

116: at deeper levels leaving fewer than $\sim 65 \%$ of the map pixels

117: (see Fig. SI-4).

118: 

119: This quantity, $C(\theta)$, and not the Fourier transformed maps,

120: should also have been used by Cooray et al (2006) when analyzing

121: their maps in which fewer than $30\%$ of the pixels have remained.

122: Note that in this representation, the contributions of any white

123: noise (such as shot noise and/or instrument noise) component to

124: $C(\theta)$ drop off very rapidly outside the beam  (e.g. Smoot et

125: al 1992) and for the IRAC 3.6 \um\ channel contribute negligibly

126: to the correlation function at $\theta \gsim$ a few arcsec. Thus

127: $C(\theta)$ at these scales would reflect the clustering

128: component.

129: 

130: To see if the final maps of Cooray et al, when analyzed correctly,

131: indeed show less large scale CIB fluctuations, we have downloaded

132: their maps C and D from www.cooray.org where they are advertised

133: as publicly available. The CDF-S field does not have map C

134: available there and so we could not compare the large scale

135: correlations of the C and D maps. But we did that for the HDF-N

136: field. Fig. 1 shows the resultant $C(\theta)$ for their maps C

137: (when ACS galaxies are not removed) and D (when ACS galaxies are

138: removed). It shows that there is little difference between the two

139: maps in terms of the large-scale correlations and that, in fact,

140: map D has higher amplitude correlations (it also has a larger

141: variance than C).

142: 

143: For comparison, we also show the correlation function from Fig.

144: SI-4 of Kashlinsky et al (2005), which is essentially the same as

145: in the Cooray et al GOODS maps. This would suggest that the ACS

146: detected galaxies are not major contributors to the CIB

147: fluctuations contrary to the suggestions by Cooray et al (2006).

148: 

149: Indeed, one can verify with simulations that the correlation

150: function values in Fig.1 are consistent with the amount of large

151: scale power detected in KAMM1,2. In order to do this, we have

152: constructed ten realizations (computation of $C(\theta)$ is a very

153: CPU intensive procedure) of the CIB field with the power spectrum

154: corresponding to Map C (which includes the ACS galaxies) from Fig.

155: 2 of Cooray et al., which as they note are consistent with the

156: measurements of KAMM1. We selected their central values; allowing

157: for the errors on power will make our conclusions stronger. Of the

158: ten computed $C(\theta)$, we show in Fig. 2 the realization with

159: the {\it second} smallest zero crossing and one with the {\it

160: second} largest, such that the frequency of any of these

161: realizations is $\sim 20\%$. The figure shows that the power

162: spectrum of diffuse light prior to removal of ACS galaxies

163: reproduces the correlation function after their removal within the

164: uncertainties determined by the field geometry and statistics.

165: 

166: I thank my collaborators Rick Arendt, John Mather and Harvey

167: Moseley for many useful discussions. This work is supported by NSF

168: AST-0406587 and NASA Spitzer NM0710076 grants.

169: 

170: %\texttt{\{thebibliography\}}%

171: \begin{thebibliography}{3}

172: \bibitem [Cooray et al 2006]{cooray}{Cooray, A. et al 2006, Ap.J.,

173: submitted. astro-ph/0612609}

174: \bibitem [Gorski 1994]{gorski}{Gorski, K. 1994, Ap.J., 430, L85}

175: \bibitem [Kashlinsky 2005a]{review}{Kashlinsky, A. 2005, Phys. Rep., 409,

176: 361-438}

177: %\bibitem [Kashlinsky et al 2004]{kagmm}{Kashlinsky, A., Arendt, R., Gardner, J.P., Mather, J.C., \& Moseley, S.H. 2004, Ap.J., 608, 1 }

178: \bibitem [KAMM1]{kamm1}{Kashlinsky, A., Arendt,

179: R., Mather, J.C. \& Moseley, S.H. 2005, Nature, 438, 45. (KAMM1)}

180: \bibitem [KAMM2]{kamm2}{Kashlinsky, A., Arendt,

181: R., Mather, J.C. \& Moseley, S.H. 2007a, Ap.J., 654, L1. (KAMM2)}

182: \bibitem [KAMM2]{kamm2}{Kashlinsky, A., Arendt,

183: R., Mather, J.C. \& Moseley, S.H. 2007b, Ap.J., 654, L5. (KAMM3)}

184: \bibitem [Kashlinsky \& Odenwald 2000]{ko}{Kashlinsky \& Odenwald

185: 2000, Ap.J., 528, 74}

186: \bibitem [Matsumoto et al 2005]{irts}{Matsumoto, M. et al 2005, Ap.J., 626, 31}

187: \bibitem [Smoot, G. et al 1992]{smoot}{Smoot, G. et al 1992,

188: Ap.J., 396, L1}

189: \end{thebibliography}

190: 

191: %\clearpage

192: 

193: \begin{figure}

194: \plotone{f1.eps} \caption{Solid lines correspond to

195: $\sqrt{C(\theta)}$ for $C>0$ and dotted lines to

196: $\sqrt{-C(\theta)}$ for $C<0$. Left: correlation function for the

197: deeply cut maps C (with ACS galaxies in) and D (with ACS galaxies

198: removed) from Cooray et al. (2006). Map C has only $\sim 30\%$

199: pixels left, while map D has even fewer pixels left of $\sim

200: 20\%$. Right: For comparison, we show the correlation functions

201: from deeply cut maps for the QSO 1700 field from Kashlinsky et al

202: (2005). These maps are shown in the Supplementary Information

203: there and have between $\sim 10$ and $80\%$ pixels left, which

204: corresponds to the clipping parameters in the Kashlinsky et al

205: (2005) procedure of $N_{\rm cut}=2-4$ and $N_{\rm mask}=3-7$. As

206: one can see removing ACS galaxies by Cooray et al leaves

207: approximately the same correlation function as when keeping them

208: in.} \label{fig:shot-noise}

209: \end{figure}

210: 

211: \begin{figure}

212: \plotone{f2.eps} \caption{Results of simulations with 10

213: realizations of the CIB with the power spectrum given by the {\it

214: central} points of Map C from Fig. 2 of Cooray et al. The mask was

215: then applied and the correlation function evaluated. Of these ten

216: realizations we plot two: the realization with the {\it second}

217: smallest zero crossing and one with the {\it second} largest

218: zero-crossing. As in Fig. 1, the solid lines denote $C>0$ and

219: dotted correspond to the region of negative $C$. The figure shows

220: that it is very common to have large scatter in the values of

221: $C(\theta)$ at scales $>0.5-1$ arcmin for the geometries

222: corresponding to the clipped maps used in Cooray et al, but that

223: on smaller scales the correlation function reflects the power

224: correctly.} \label{fig:sims}

225: \end{figure}

226: 

227: 

228: \end{document}

229: