format: text

text:
# On the compared accuracy and reliability of spectroscopic and photometric redshift measurements

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Measuring redshifts of extragalactic objects through spectroscopy is a hard task. This is particularly true in those extreme cases when the available technology is strained to its limits and applied to objects which are faint and consequently offer low signal-to-noise spectra. Even in cases where a good signal-to-noise ratio is achieved, the absence of clear and characteristic features in the observed spectral range can hamper the observer’s ability to determine a trustworthy redshift. Moreover, the process of line identification which is necessary in order to measure a redshift is very often too subjective, and hence likely to be biased. In order to avoid this problem, various techniques have been developed that try to automate the process, amongst them the application of spectral cross-correlation, principal component analysis, and combinations thereof—see for example Glazebrook, Offer, & Deeley (1998). However, these methods still suffer from numerous problems produced by low signal-to-noise spectra, instrument-related systematics, or inability to handle samples covering large redshift ranges.

A completely orthogonal approach consists in the use of purely photometric information on the objects under study. In this approach, the weight of the redshift identification is carried by the broad-band continuum shape and the presence/absence of spectral breaks, such as the one at 4000 Å, or the onset of the Lyman $`\alpha `$ forest and the Lyman limit at high redshifts, rather than by narrow-band emission/absorption features. Photometric redshift methods like these have been known and used for many years—for example by Butchins (1981), Loh & Spillar (1986), or Connolly et al. (1995)—but the interest in them has grown enormously since the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) produced the Hubble Deep Field (HDF) observations (Williams et al., 1996). The reason for this interest is that the HDF observations are ideally suited for the application of photometric redshift techniques: they include multi-band information spanning all of the visible and near-IR range and they are extremely deep \[reaching to AB(8140) $``$ 29\]. This second fact also implies that it is utterly impossible to obtain spectra of the bulk of the detected objects, and given the extremely high density of galaxies it is even difficult sometimes to measure the spectra of the (relatively) bright ones.

Since the data became available in December 1995, several papers have been published giving spectroscopic redshifts of over a hundred objects in the HDF \[see references in Cohen et al. (2000), hereafter C00\]. Several groups have also published the results of different photometric redshift techniques applied to the field, with catalogs of photometry and photometric redshifts: Lanzetta, Yahil, & Fernández-Soto (1996) (LYF96 hereafter), Gwyn & Hartwick (1996), Sawicki, Lin, & Yee (1997), Wang, Bahcall, & Turner (1998), Fernández-Soto, Lanzetta, & Yahil (1999) (FLY99 hereafter), Furusawa et al. (2000), Benítez (2000). At least one comparison of photometric and spectroscopic redshifts has been published (Hogg et al., 1998), with “photometrists” supplying answers to the questions of the “spectroscopists,” who compared the former’s results with the ones measured from their spectra. This comparison showed that photometric techniques, as a whole, can give relatively accurate measurements (to within $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)0.10`$ rms), and that they are very well suited for the analysis of large samples of deep, multi-color imaging data.

However, it is not so well known that photometric redshift techniques have also been instrumental in detecting some incorrect spectroscopic redshifts. Our group made public as early as 1997 a list of “successes” and “failures” of our photometric redshift technique, in which it was shown that many of the discordances observed in the HDF $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}`$ vs $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}`$ plots could actually be due to mistakes in the spectroscopic redshifts—and some of them certainly were, as acknowledged by the respective observers afterwards \[see Lanzetta, Fernández-Soto, & Yahil (1998) for details\]. Apparently, it has not been sufficiently remarked that detecting and identifying the narrow features which are necessary to unambiguously determine a spectroscopic redshift is a very hard task in the low S/N spectra we are confronting.

Another proof of the quality of the photometric redshifts is the fact that a number of objects for which our own group measured redshifts $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}>5`$ have been observed with the Keck telescope, and confirmed to be amongst the most distant objects ever observed. For example, Spinrad et al. (1998) measured $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=5.34`$ for object #3 in FLY99 ($`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=5.28`$), and Weymann et al. (1998) measured $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=5.60`$ for object #213 in the same catalog ($`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=5.64`$).

Recently, Cohen and collaborators have published a complete list of spectroscopic redshifts in the HDF and flanking fields (C00). They have compiled all the data published to date, eliminated and/or ammended the redshifts that have been shown to be in error, and added a number of observations of their own. Their final list includes 671 entries, 158 of which are within the HDF proper (we have moved nine objects which are located in the PC from their “flanking fields” table to the HDF table). After excluding 11 stars and 1 object (HDF36774\_1235) which does not lie inside the area we studied, we are left with 146 galaxies using which both methods are compared.

In this paper, the catalog of spectroscopic redshifts compiled by Cohen et al. (2000) is compared to the catalog of photometric redshifts obtained by our group. Cohen’s catalog is the deepest (reaching down to $`R=24`$ and beyond), most complete (92% complete to that limit) and cleanest (at least seven redshifts have been corrected from previously published values which were shown to be in error) ever published. By performing this comparison on a sample of bright objects—where the photometric uncertainties are small—we expect to obtain a complete characterization of the systematic errors associated with our technique, and hence to be able to measure accurate errors associated to any of our photometric redshift determinations. A first comparison shows that over 90% of the residuals are well represented by a gaussian distribution with an rms dispersion $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)}0.08`$ at all redshifts. Nine objects out of 146 have residuals which are more than $`4\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)}`$ away from the spectroscopic value. A very interesting result comes from the detailed analysis of these nine objects with discordant redshifts: we show in this paper that at least five of the discordant points can be due to errors in the spectroscopic values, with the proportion being possibly as high as 90% (eight out of nine). In the only case in which the photometric redshift technique is responsible for the discordance, we show that when the full redshift likelihood function and the systematic errors—as estimated from the whole sample—are taken into account, the spectroscopic redshift is in fact well within $`2\sigma `$ of the photometric redshift.

These results lead us to conclude that the spectroscopic redshift technique is plagued by unknown and uncharacterized errors, which become problematic, or even dominant, when low signal-to-noise spectra are analysed. These errors are then transmitted to those photometric redshift techniques that make use of spectroscopic redshifts as “calibrators.” On the other hand, the photometric redshift technique we have presented in FLY99 has as of today not been shown to be in error over the stated confidence limits in a single case, and has the advantage of including a full characterization of its errors, through the use of the redshift likelihood function.

Our experience shows that, as a general rule, the systematic errors dominate our technique for objects down to $`m=m_{\mathrm{lim}}2`$, where $`m_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ is the detection limit in the images. This means that, for HDF-style surveys, redshifts can be obtained with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)}0.08`$ for objects down to $`AB26`$, two magnitudes below the limits attainable by traditional spectroscopy with the largest telescopes. For magnitudes fainter than this limit, the photometric errors dominate over the systematic ones, and the errors associated with the photometric redshift become larger. In both cases the accuracy of the method should remain constant, as long as our set of template spectral energy distributions (SEDs) remains a fair representation of the observed galaxy population. This has been proven to be the case at all redshifts ($`0<z<6`$) and magnitudes ($`R<24`$) probed to date. This paper further proves that there is a strict upper limit (less than 5.4%, to $`2\sigma `$ confidence) to the possible percentage of galaxies whose SEDs differ significantly (within the available photometry) from our templates in a flux limited ($`R<24`$) sample.

The structure of this paper is as follows: In §2 we present the data. Section 3 introduces the comparison, and in §4 we fix our attention on the objects for which the spectroscopic and photometric redshifts disagree. Section 5 presents the data on one particular object which does not show up as “discordant” but for which we are led to believe the spectroscopic redshift is in error. In §6 we discuss our results and in §7 we enumerate our conclusions.

## 2 THE COMPARISON REDSHIFT CATALOG

In this Section we present the photometric and spectroscopic catalogs used in the comparison, and the process of cross-identification of the objects in both lists.

### 2.1 The Spectroscopic Redshift Catalog

The sample of spectroscopic redshifts is the one given in C00. It contains 671 entries and is, as stated by the authors, complete to over 92% for objects inside the HDF area to $`R=24`$, irrespective of morphology. Some fainter objects are also included. All spectroscopy involved was performed using LRIS on the Keck Telescopes. It is very important to note that this is the cleanest, deepest, most complete list of spectroscopic redshifts available for the HDF, which is to say, the cleanest, deepest, most complete sample of spectroscopic redshifts available to date.

The authors of C00 also remark that all redshifts listed have been carefully checked. In this process several values have been changed from previously published papers: six objects from Cohen et al. (1996), two objects from Steidel et al. (1996), two objects from Phillips et al. (1997), and an unspecified number of objects from Hogg et al. (1998) and the Hawaii web database111http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/$``$cowie/tts/tts.html. As explained in §1, some of these changes were actually induced by comparison of the original spectroscopic values and the photometric redshifts as supplied by ourselves and other groups. The final list includes 146 objects with reliable spectroscopic measurements: the 149 listed in Table 2b of C00, plus nine objets from their Table 2a—Flanking Fields—that lie within the PC and, hence, enter our analysis, minus 11 stars, and minus one object (HDF36377\_1235) which does not lie in the area studied by us (see footnote about this object in Section 2.3).

### 2.2 The Photometric Redshift Catalog

Our photometric redshift sample is basically the one published in FLY99. We used the photometric catalog as described in that paper, but we applied to it the more accurate photometric redshift technique described in Yahata et al. (2000) (Y00 hereafter). The main difference with respect to the FLY99 paper is the inclusion of two starburst spectrophotometric templates, which improves the behavior of our method in the redshift range $`z=2.04.0`$ (where our former method systematically underestimated the redshifts by $`\mathrm{\Delta }z0.5`$), as demonstrated by Benítez (2000). We have also decreased the calculation step from $`\delta z=0.04`$ to $`\delta z=0.01`$, to take full profit of the excellent quality of the measurements.

It must be remarked that the objective of our technique is not to fit the observed photometry, but to obtain a best-fit measurement of the redshift. It is important to notice that in the case of bright objects our fit will never be a “perfect fit” (the photometry being too accurate for our sample of SEDs to reproduce every possible spectrum) whereas, in the opposite end, for very faint objects any basically correct SED will represent an equally good fit to the observations. Hence, the particular value of the maximum likelihood (or the value of the minimum $`\chi ^2`$) cannot be taken as a measurement of the goodness of the estimated redshift.

The sample includes 1067 galaxies, with photometric redshifts spanning the range $`z06`$, and is complete to $`AB(8140)=26.0`$ over 5.2 square arcminutes and to $`AB(8140)=28.0`$ over 3.9 square arcminutes. The general properties of the redshift distribution as outlined in FLY99 do not change in any major way with the use of the new templates, but for the already mentioned correction of the systematic problem between $`z=2`$ and $`z=4`$. As a reference, it must be remarked that FLY99 was also a refinement of our previous work, LYF96, written at a time when the infrared images were not yet available.

### 2.3 Cross-Identification of Objects in Both Catalogs

To match objects in both catalogs, we cross-correlate the coordinates and compare apparent magnitudes, which proves to be sufficient to unequivocally pair 98% of the objects in the spectroscopic redshift catalog with objects in the photometric redshift catalog. Only in three cases was it necessary to use the redshift information, as two objects with different photometric redshifts were being associated to a single object in the C00 list. In these cases (see Table 1) the object whose photometric redshift was closer to the observed spectroscopic redshift was taken to be the counterpart. It may be claimed that this method will produce a slight bias favoring the goodness of the comparison. It must be remarked, though, that in these cases the position listed by C00 (and supposedly in that case, the position of the center of the slit when the observations were made) is actually half way in between the two objects in our catalog, which are in every case approximately equally bright. Under these circumstances, the decision as to which object is the one actually observed can only depend on extra information, the best available to us being precisely the one given by the photometric redshift. Table 2 lists the complete cross-identifications.

The two objects listed by C00 as coming from Stern & Spinrad (1999) have very clear counterparts in our catalog. In fact, both of them were actually passed by ourselves to the authors as objects with $`z5`$ to be observed with Keck. Their positions as listed by C00, though, differ from the positions in our catalog by more than 1 arcsecond, and needed to be matched individually after the original cross-identification.

For the sake of completeness, we also include in Table 3 the objects listed in Table 10 of C00. These are the only objects with $`R<24`$ for which the authors could not determine a redshift, although they have spectra of quality comparable to others in the sample. Their magnitudes range between $`R=23.2`$ and $`R=24.0`$. One of them (HDF36526\_1202) does not have a counterpart in our FLY99 catalog. After careful checking we have discovered that this object (for which we measured its photometry and redshift, see Table 4) did not enter the final published version of the catalog, although it fulfills all the positional and brightness criteria that we used. Another object listed in Table 10 of C00 (HDF36378\_1235) does not lie in the area we studied, so it is not included in our Table.222This object has—to less than 0.5 arcseconds and 0.1 magnitudes—the same position and brightness of the object mentioned in the previous subsection as the one whose coordinates put it out of the HDF as defined by us, which does have a redshift ($`z=0.485`$). It is one of the objects added as a “note added in proof” by Cohen and collaborators, which may explain this apparent mistake.

The final comparison catalog includes 146 objects with reliable spectroscopic and photometric redshifts.

## 3 COMPARISON OF PHOTOMETRIC AND SPECTROSCOPIC REDSHIFTS

In this section we present a direct comparison of redshift estimates based on spectroscopic and photometric methods for all 146 objects in the combined catalog. This is, to the best of our knowledge, the most accurate comparison ever performed of the two techniques for this kind of deep sample, because it includes all the spectroscopic redshifts available, as obtained by several groups of observers using the largest telescopes in operation, over a period of over four years, and with several values retracted and/or ammended when known to be in error. Moreover, as the authors of C00 remark, the redshifts given in their tables are not “preliminary values,” but “final redshifts.”

Table 2 and Figures 1 and 2 show the comparison of the redshifts assigned by the spectroscopic and photometric methods to 146 objects in the HDF.

We used a $`4\sigma `$-clipping algorithm to measure the dispersion between the redshift values measured with both techniques—with a sample of 146 objects, the probability of having one $`>4\sigma `$ discordant point by chance is less than 1% for a normal distribution. Our statistic of choice is $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)=(z_{\mathrm{phot}}z_{\mathrm{spec}})/(1+z_{\mathrm{spec}})`$. When the sample is taken as a whole (146 objects), the mean value is $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)=0.0035`$, with rms dispersion $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)}=0.065`$, and nine objects having discordant redshifts—over the four sigma level. When we break the sample into three subsamples (“low” redshift from 0.0 to 1.5 with 113 objects, “medium” redshift from 1.5 to 4.0 with 27 objects, and “high” redshift from 4.0 to 6.0 with 6 objects), the respective mean values are $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)=`$ 0.0010, 0.0160, and $`0.0045`$333Notice that there is an observational “void” in the spectroscopic redshift distribution with no objects with $`1.355<z_{\mathrm{spec}}<1.980`$. Objects at redshifts $`1.01.4`$ and $`2.02.5`$ are well represented in our sample, though. The rms dispersions are $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)}=`$ 0.063, 0.076, and 0.016, and the numbers of discordant points are, respectively, 7, 2, and 0. All these values are tabulated in Table 5. Figure 3 shows that the distribution of the residuals, except for the $`>4\sigma `$-discordant points mentioned above, is very well represented by a gaussian. It also supports the choice of a $`4\sigma `$ value for the clipping algorithm.

The first immediate result from this comparison confirms what was known previously: careful enough photometric redshift techniques, when applied to data of good enough quality (in terms of accurate photometry and realistic error estimates), are able to measure redshifts to an accuracy better than $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)}0.10`$, with less than 10% of the measurements being discordant. In fact, in a first assessment our particular application of these techniques reaches an accuracy better than $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)}0.08`$ over the whole observed range ($`z=0`$ to $`z=6`$), with less than 7% discordances. This result is in perfect agreement with our previously published estimates in FLY99 and Y00.

When assessing the errors associated to the photometric redshift measurements, we must take into account that they are twofold: on one side, the fact that we are using a discrete, finite, set of SEDs will produce a systematic error, as obviously not all galaxies (in fact, no galaxy) can be exactly represented by them. We refer to this source of systematic error as “cosmic variance”, and it is most important in the bright regime, when photometric errors are negligible. On the other hand, when very faint galaxies are studied, the cosmic variance becomes negligible and the errors in the photometric redshift induced by the uncertainties in the galaxy photometry dominate the error budget. The photometric component of the error can be assessed using the likelihood function, as the photometric uncertainties are included in its calculation. The assessment of the systematic errors, however, must be attained by the comparison of photometric and accurate, reliable, spectroscopic redshifts for a suitably large sample of bright galaxies—where the photometric errors will not dominate. In order to ensure that we have such a sample, we study in the next section the objects in our catalog that show discordances larger than $`4\sigma `$.

## 4 THE DISCORDANT 7%: A BLIND TEST OF SPECTROSCOPIC REDSHIFTS

In this section we present in detail the available data for the nine objects that show discordant redshifts in the photometric and spectroscopic catalogs. The photometric data include the fluxes in 7 bands (HST F300W, F450W, F606W, and F814W; and ground-based $`J`$, $`H`$, and $`K`$), from which our photometric redshift technique yields the estimated redshifts, best-fit galaxy types, and redshift likelihood functions. Regarding the spectroscopic data, we have looked at the original sources of publication whenever available, and studied carefully the spectra presented. Most of the objects scrutinized in this section, however, are new additions by Cohen and collaborators who do not present the spectra in their paper.

Together with a brief discussion on each object, we also present in Figure 4 the photometric data (filled points with vertical error bars indicating the 1-$`\sigma `$ errors and horizontal error bars showing each filter FWHM). The figure also shows in the central panel our best-fit spectrum obtained by taking the best-fit redshift and type, and applying the H I absorption as described in LYF96 and FLY99, the fluxes expected from our best-fit spectrum through all seven filters (empty circles), and the redshift likelihood function for each object. In the top panels we show the spectra of our six galaxy templates (corresponding from left to right and top to bottom to E/S0, Sbc, Scd, Irr, SB1 and SB2, see FLY99 and Y00) redshifted to the spectroscopic redshift and with the effect of intergalactic H I absorption added. In most cases, that is the best approximation to the “observed spectrum” we can get.

Thumbnail F814W images of the objects with discordant redshifts are presented in Figure 5. Table 6 presents all the relevant information about each of these objects.

Before entering the individual discussions, we would like to remark on two important facts regarding the expected nature of the errors in both methods. First, the spectroscopic redshifts must be extremely precise by their own nature—to within $`\sigma _z0.001`$ for low-medium resolution spectroscopy (C00 quote $`200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ as “typical uncertainty”). In case of error, it would be due to misidentification of absorption and/or emission features, and the redshift values should not show any particular regularity and/or concentration. On the other hand, photometric redshifts have a built-in lack of precision due to the broad-band nature of the features analysed. This leads to a rms dispersion of (in our case) $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)}0.08`$. In this case, however, the confusion between different redshifts is fully characterized by the known colors of the redshifted templates, and the likelihood of any redshift value will always be reflected in the likelihood function—as long as the collection of SEDs used in the analysis really covers all possible spectral types. These considerations lead us to the following assertions:

When the redshifts obtained by both techniques disagree, but the likelihood function shows a secondary peak at (or near) the value of $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}`$, then it is most likely that the spectroscopic redshift is correct. Detailed analysis of the likelihood function must be performed in these cases in order to obtain a “confidence interval” around the photometric redshift value and, if still necessary, discover the origin of the discordance.

When there is no secondary peak in the likelihood function at (or near) the value suggested by the spectroscopy, and there are spectral features that match the redshift measured by the photometric redshift technique, it is most likely that the photometric redshift is correct. In this case, the spectroscopic redshift may be wrong due to misidentification of spectral features.

When both techniques disagree and there is no hint either in the spectrum or in the likelihood function about which one is wrong, all the evidence must be produced and the possible causes for the disagreement analyzed. These include, but are not limited to: observational errors (like misassignment of spectra to objects), presence of nearby objects that may alter the accuracy of the photometry or send light into the slit during spectroscopy, and the possibility of the object belonging to a spectral class not included in the photometric templates (e.g. a QSO or a star).

With these ideas in mind, we start the individual study of all nine objects with discordant redshifts. Where no explicit information is given about the original source of the spectroscopic redshifts, they came from Cohen and collaborators’ new data. We follow here the naming convention that assigns the name HDFXXXXX\_YYYY to the object with coordinates (J2000) $`12^hXX^mXX\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}X`$, $`+62\mathrm{°}YY\mathrm{}YY\mathrm{}`$.

### 4.1 HDF36386\_1234

This is an object of magnitude $`R=24.04`$. The spectroscopic redshift is 0.904, and is listed as having quality class 9, which means it has been assigned a redshift based solely on a “single strong absorption feature, assumed to be 2800 Å because of the shape of the continuum” \[see Cohen et al. (1999) for a full description of the spectroscopic quality classes used by the authors\]. This means that a strong absorption at approximately 5330 Å must be the only clear spectroscopic feature of this object.

Our technique assigns to this object (number 727 in FLY99) a redshift of 0.15. It is clear from Figure 4 that the very low flux in the F300W band is very difficult to reconcile with the shape of the rest of the spectrum if the galaxy is at $`z0.9`$. This fact reduces the likelihood of $`z0.9`$ to negligible values. On the other hand, to explain the 5330 Å feature using our redshift we would have to identify it with the G band, which would assign to this object a redshift $`z0.24`$, or with H$`\beta `$ at $`z0.10`$. Both would be perfectly in line with our typical dispersion, but this identification is not at all definitive.

As can be observed in Figure 5, there is a nearby object in projection on the sky, less than three arcseconds away. The redshift of this object is (C00) $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=0.944`$. We cannot discard the possibility of confusion between both objects.

Summing up, we consider this object unlikely to be at the suggested $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=0.904`$ due to its SED, but cannot present evidence conclusive enough to definitively prove that the photometric value $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=0.15`$ is right.

### 4.2 HDF36396\_1230

This is a very interesting object. According to C00, it is a “broad-line AGN”, given that its brightness ($`R=24.4`$ at $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=0.943`$) corresponds to only a few times $`L^{}`$, too low to be a QSO. It is also identified as the brightest object in the peak (cluster?) of the redshift distribution at $`z0.96`$. It is assigned spectroscopic quality 7, which indicates “only one broad emission line, assumed to be 2800 Å” (which means it lies at $`5440`$ Å in the observer’s frame). In Figure 4 we show the spectrum of an average QSO template (Chen 2000, private communication) instead of all six galaxy templates at $`z=z_{\mathrm{spec}}`$, to take its claimed nature into account. Cohen et al. also mention in Section 3 of their paper that they did not include this object in their “blind check of photometric redshifts” because “none of the groups came close to predicting \[its\] redshift”.

As can be seen immediately, the SED of a QSO at $`z=0.943`$ looks absolutely different from what is observed in this case. This fact alone leads us to claim that the likelihood of this object being a $`z=0.943`$ QSO is negligible. The likelihood function shows that the case of either a normal or a starbursting galaxy at the same redshift can also be discarded with the same level of security—unless the spectrum is a pathological case, and cannot be represented by any “normal”, “starburst”, or QSO spectrum, the redshift is unlikely to be $`z0.94`$. Figure 5 shows that our photometry should not be contaminated by bright nearby neighbors.

If we study now our photometric redshift (object number 688 in FLY99), we find a perfect agreement for the SED with one corresponding to a Scd galaxy at redshift $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=3.40`$. At this redshift, the Lyman $`\alpha `$ line would be redshifted to 5350 Å.

Combining the width of the peak in our likelihood function with the detection (as indicated by C00) of a strong emission line at $`\lambda `$ 5440 Å, and the presence of a strong break in the flux of the object at approximately the same wavelength, we are led to interpret this object as being a normal galaxy at $`z3.475`$, in perfect agreement with our estimate. We cannot elaborate on the broad component of the emission line with the data available to us.

### 4.3 HDF36409\_1205

This is yet another object of spectral quality class 9, with spectroscopic redshift $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=0.882`$ and magnitude $`R=22.94`$. It is listed by C00 as having appeared for the first time in C96, but we have not been able to locate it in that reference. The absorption feature putatively identified by C00 as MgII 2800 must be at $`\lambda =5270`$ Å. Figure 4 shows a case very similar to that of HDF36386\_1234: there is an obvious lack of flux in the F300W filter, that renders unlikely—in our analysis—the $`z0.9`$ interpretation.

With our photometric redshift technique, we obtain an excellent fit to the SED of this object for a $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=0.00`$ Scd galaxy. The only tentative interpretation of the observed spectrum that is consistent with this is the observed absorption feature corresponding to Mg I absorption at $`z=0.02`$.

Once again in this case, we are forced to conclude that the spectroscopic suggested value $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=0.882`$ is unlikely to be the true redshift, but we have no other strong evidence to support our case for $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=0.00`$ either. Moreover, it can be seen in Figure 5 that this object lies in a particularly crowded region of the sky, which makes the case all the more difficult.

### 4.4 HDF36414\_1143

This object is listed in C00 as having magnitude $`R=23.52`$ and redshift $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=0.548`$. Quality class is 3, meaning “multiple features, faint, id uncertain”.

Looking at Figure 4 we see that the SED does not fit any type of galaxy at this redshift, and that our interpretation of it as a Scd galaxy at redshift $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=1.32`$ is, while better, not optimal. One possible reason for this is that this object (number 200 in FLY99, $`AB(8140)=23.19`$) actually overlaps in the sky with another brighter object (number 183 in FLY99, $`AB(8140)=22.42`$) with a spectroscopic redshift listed in C00 as $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=0.585`$. The distance between the centers of both objects is only 2 arcseconds.

If confusion caused by the proximity of the second object is not the issue here, then we should try to identify some of the features described by C00 with absorption features at approximately $`z=1.32`$. If, for example, Cohen and collaborators had identified an absorption feature as Ca II (H,K) at $`z=0.548`$ (which would put it at $`\lambda `$ 6120 Å), it could also be Mg II at $`z1.19`$. Mutatis mutandis, the G band at $`z=0.548`$ could also be identified as Mg II at $`z1.38`$.

As a resume, once again we have to admit that we have no clear explanation as to which is the reason for the discordance in this case, if not the possibility of confusion induced by the vicinity of another bright object.

### 4.5 HDF36441\_1410

This object was first presented in Lowenthal et al. (1997)(L97 hereafter). Its $`R`$ magnitude is 24.26, and the listed redshift is $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=2.267`$. C00 assesses it as a “secure” redshift, while Lowenthal and collaborators classify it as “definite.” The authors of L97 kindly published their spectra in Figure 2 of their paper, so we can assess by ourselves the quality of the spectrum.

Our analysis assigns to this object a redshift of 0.01. It can be seen in Figure 4 that the fit to the SED at the spectroscopic redshift is very good using a SB1 type, in fact (to the eye) comparable to the fit to the SED redshifted to our photometric value. The difference, though, is given by the F606W and F814W bands having tiny error bars, so the weight of the likelihood function is driven by them and their better fit to the photometric value. This can of course be appreciated from the fact that there is no secondary peak in the likelihood function near the spectroscopic value.

After a first look at Figures 4 and 5 nothing seems to be wrong with the spectroscopic value, and we actually counted this object as one of our failures in FLY99. Nevertheless, encouraged by the general success of our technique and piqued by the absence of a secondary peak at $`zz_{\mathrm{spec}}`$, we tried to find the expected features of a $`z0.01`$ galaxy in the observed spectrum as presented in L97.

We then found the following: the emission line identified in L97 as Lyman $`\alpha `$ can actually be identified with \[O II\] 3727 at $`z=0.065`$. In that case, the Calcium doublet should be observed at $`\lambda `$=4190,4228 Å, the G absorption band should be at $`\lambda =`$4580 Å, and the Na I absorption feature should be observed at $`\lambda =`$6278 Å. All these features can be observed in the spectrum with at least the same level of significance of most of the original identifications. Lowenthal and collaborators considered this identification as a possibility in their paper (see Appendix in L97), and decided from the implied luminosity and equivalent width of the putative \[O II\] line that it was “not implausible.”

It should also be noticed that the presence of a continuum break expected at the position of the Lyman $`\alpha `$ line as identified in L97 (which would be identified as the 4000 Å break according to the photometric redshift) cannot be checked in the spectrum, because it would lie at the very blue end of it. Also, the slope of the UV spectrum seems too steep for a typical $`z2`$ galaxy, as can be seen by comparing it with other spectra in the same figure in L97.

Our conclusion about this object is that the photometric value fits better all the available evidence, including the spectrum itself. The spectroscopic value is likely to be in error due to misidentification of features in a noisy spectrum.

### 4.6 HDF36478\_1256

This is another object described originally in L97. It has $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=2.931`$ and $`R=24.35`$. The spectroscopic quality is 2 (“good with multiple features”) in C00, and “definite” in the original reference. As can be seen in the top panels of Figure 4, its SED can be almost perfectly fitted by an Irr galaxy at the spectroscopic redshift, with the only slight caveat being the presence of detectable but faint ($`3\sigma `$) flux in the F300W filter.

In a very similar fashion to the previous case, our photometric method prefers a lower redshift solution at $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=0.26`$. As above, the break in the spectrum which corresponded to the onset of the Lyman $`\alpha `$ forest using the redshift value from L97 is then taken to be the 4000 Å break.

However, detailed observation of our likelihood function shows that there is a second peak at $`z3`$. The secondary peak actually reaches a maximum at $`z=3.13`$, with a value which is almost 20% of the maximum at $`z=0.26`$.

Following our previously stated considerations, we deem our technique gives us in this case an incorrect answer, as the spectroscopic evidence agrees within the errors with a secondary peak in the likelihood function. Nevertheless, when the likelihood function is used to perform a complete assessment of the errors in $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}`$, it shows the value $`z=2.931`$ to be “within the errors”: the $`1\sigma `$ interval around $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}`$ is 0.15–0.38, the $`2\sigma `$ interval is 0.06–0.52 plus 2.80–3.49.

### 4.7 HDF36494\_1317

This object is listed in C00 as having $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=0.271`$, with a magnitude $`R=23.63`$ and a quality assessment of 3.

Figure 4 shows that, while there is no way that a redshift 0.271 SED can fit the observed photometry, a perfect fit is achieved by using a Scd spectral template at $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=1.24`$.

A footnote in C00 refers to this object with the following text: “Definite emission line at 8340 Å, possible emission line at 6363 Å. If both are real, $`z=0.271`$. If only the stronger one is real, then $`z=1.238`$. Spectrum too red to reach 3727 Å if $`z=0.271`$.”

With this information in hand, we consider we can peacefully rest our case. The redshift of the galaxy is perfectly well measured to be $`z=1.238`$, in exact agreement with our technique.

### 4.8 HDF36561\_1330

An object with $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=0.271`$, $`R=23.80`$, and spectral quality 4. Figure 4 shows that a fit can be obtained at that redshift for the photometry, though the goodness-of-fit is not comparable with the one obtained using the photometric redshift technique.

The photometric redshift is $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=1.07`$, with the likelihood function excluding any other possibility for the redshift.

In this case, as in the previous one, a footnote in C00 adds more information: “Emission line at 8340 Å is interpreted as H$`\alpha `$. Spectrum too red to reach 3727 Å if $`z=0.271`$.”

As in the previous case, we think that the observed line must be identified as being O II 3727 at a redshift $`z=1.238`$, which will be in agreement with our photometric measurement to $``$ 8% error in $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)`$.

### 4.9 HDF36569\_1302

This object is listed in C00 as having magnitude $`R=23.84`$, redshift $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=0.474`$, and spectral quality 1 (“secure redshift, multiple features identified”). In Figure 4, though, we see that the spectrum is much too bright in the IR bands, and that none of the SEDs can actually fit the observations when redshifted to that value. Examination of Figure 5 allows us to discard the possibility of any nearby IR-bright object interfering with our measurements.

Our photometric redshift technique suggests a value of 1.27, with a spectral type Sbc. No secondary peaks are apparent in the likelihood function. However, we have tried to cross-identify the possible features that the observers may have identified to be at $`z=0.474`$, and found no way to position them on a $`z1.27`$ spectrum.

Careful observation of the circumstances is thus required. A look at Figure 5 shows that this object is close ($`<3.5\mathrm{}`$) to a very bright ($`R=21.07`$) galaxy, number 458 in FLY99, already observed with Keck by C96 and the Hawaii group. This bright galaxy has a spectroscopic redshift of 0.475, as listed in C00, and has an SED which is utterly different from the one of HDF36569\_1302. No sign of interaction or merging is visible, which could be used to explain the same redshift being assigned to both objects.

We are led to conclude in this case that the spectroscopic redshift is in error due to confusion with a nearby bright source. Given that the only evidence left is the photometry, and that our technique has shown to be right in over 95% of the cases, we conclude that the redshift of this object must be (within errors) $`z=1.27`$.

## 5 AN EXTRA POSSIBLY WRONG SPECTROSCOPIC REDSHIFT

We present in this Section the photometric and spectroscopic data for an extra object. Although in this case the redshift difference is not over $`4\sigma `$ (our stated criterium to define “discordance”), we have good reasons to believe the spectroscopic value may be in error.

The object in question is HDF36450\_1251. It is completely isolated (see Figure 5), and C00 lists for it a redshift $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=2.801`$ and a magnitude $`R=24.37`$. The authors of C00 assign to the spectrum a quality flag 3, which means there are multiple identified features, but their identification is uncertain.

One problem springs immediately into view when looking at Figure 4—the object has an $`11\sigma `$ detection in the F300W image, where zero flux would be expected from an object at such a high redshift. Our photometric technique suggests a lower redshift $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=2.23`$. The SED fits perfectly, and the likelihood function admits quite a wide range of values, essentially between $`z=2.1`$ and $`z=2.3`$. The F300W detection makes the likelihood of the object being at any $`z>2.6`$ completely negligible.

We conclude in this case that the redshift assigned by the spectroscopic method cannot be right due to serious discordance with the observations.

## 6 DISCUSSION

We have presented in this paper a detailed comparison of the cleanest, deepest and most complete catalog of spectroscopic redshifts available for the HDF with our catalog of photometric redshifts. The first result of the comparison is that the photometric redshifts are accurate to within $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)=0.08`$ (rms) at all redshifts explored between $`z=0`$ and $`z=6`$. The fraction of apparently discordant points is 6.2%. This fraction, when taken in separate redshift intervals, amounts to 6.2% at $`z=0.01.5`$ (7 objects out of 113), 7.4% at $`z=1.54.0`$ (2 objects out of 27), and 0% at $`z>4.0`$ (out of six objects).

We have performed a careful study of all the available evidence regarding the discordant redshifts. This analysis has resulted in the following:

* In five out of nine cases, we have evidence that indicates that the spectroscopic redshifts are in error. The causes for this range from misidentification of spectral features in noisy spectra to confusion with nearby objects.
* Only in one of the nine discordant cases we have concluded that the photometric value is not correct. A full study of the errors associated with the value $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}`$, though, shows that the spectroscopic and photometric values do agree to within a $`2\sigma `$ confidence level.
* In three cases the evidence we have gathered is not enough to decide which of the techniques is giving more accurate results. We kindly ask from these lines the authors of C00 to produce the evidence, to help in deciding on these cases.

Once this analysis is fully taken into account, the final figures for the accuracy of our redshift determination technique become the following: The rms dispersions in $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)`$ at low, medium, and high redshift are $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)}=`$ 0.063, 0.068, and 0.016, with mean values $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)=`$ 0.0003, 0.0186, and $`0.0045`$, and discordant fractions 0%, 0% (outside the quoted error bars), and 0%. The total number of points in each redshift bin are 109, 26, and 6, respectively. All these final values are also tabulated in Table 5, and presented in Figures 6 and 7.

This result shows that at most three out of 146 galaxies can have SEDs which are not well represented in our template set. Even in the case that in all three cases the photometric redshifts were shown to be in error, and that these errors were exclusively caused by the incompleteness of our SED sample (leaving aside other possible systematic effects induced by variance of HI absorption along different sightlines or other problems that may be inherent to our likelihood technique), this would set a stringent limit to the percentage of galaxies which are not well represented by our templates. Applying Poisson statistics to these figures, we get that such a percentage cannot be (to a $`2\sigma `$ confidence level) larger than 5.4%, and will be smaller (and possibly zero) if any or all of those three uncertain cases are shown to be caused by errors in the spectroscopic measurements. This result holds also when the putative presence of extra dust in the observed spectra is taken into account. We detect no evidence in our analysis for the presence of highly-reddened galaxies whose SEDs cannot be reproduced with our templates (which, being observational in origin, do contain some amount of dust).

We can use this sample of photometric and spectroscopic redshifts to characterize the errors associated with our technique. A full description of this procedure will be presented elsewhere, but we describe here the operational steps necessary to measure the confidence intervals for any particular object. As was stated in the Introduction, and also in Lanzetta, Fernández-Soto, & Yahil (1998) and Y00, the photometric redshift error has two components. The first one is induced by photometric uncertainty in the measurement of the fluxes, dominates at the faint end, and is fully taken into account by the use of the likelihood function. The second one is systematic, due to cosmic variance, and can be characterized by a typical dispersion measured from a sample of bright objects, where the photometric error is negligible. Using the sample we have just presented, we estimate (as a zero-th order approximation) this dispersion to be constant in $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)`$, and equal to $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)}=0.065`$.

In order to combine both error components, we can convolve the redshift likelihood function with a gaussian with a variable $`\sigma _G(z)=(1+z)\times \sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)}`$. In doing this we are assuming that the systematic error follows a normal distribution, which was tested in Section 3. The resulting function can be normalized to yield a redshift probability density, which can be used following the standard methods to calculate confidence intervals. In those cases where the probability density is multimodal—as is the case with HDF36478\_1256—the confidence intervals may also be multimodal, i.e. disjoint. This procedure, when applied to the particular case of HDF36478\_1256, yields the above stated confidence limits (0.15–0.38, $`1\sigma `$) (0.06–0.52 plus 2.80–3.49, $`2\sigma `$). In most bright objects, though, the redshift likelihood function shows a single, sharp peak. In these cases the convolution with the gaussian will obviously produce a curve that is very approximately gaussian, and the confidence limits will approximately coincide with those given by the value of $`\sigma _G(z)`$ used.

It is a very remarkable fact that our technique has an “error rate” of 0% (in number of confirmed wrong redshifts compared to total), which cannot be higher than 2% even if all three dubious cases prove to be wrong. In comparison, the spectroscopic technique error rate is at least 3.4% (even when only “definitive” redshifts, as published by C00, are taken into account, and assuming all three undefined discordant redshifts have correct values of $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}`$), and it can be as high as 14.3% or higher (when all the HDF spectroscopic values that have been published and then retracted are included, together with those objects which have been observed but for which a spectroscopic redshift has been impossible to measure).

## 7 CONCLUSIONS

We have shown that our photometric redshift technique produces accurate measurements to $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)0.07`$ (rms) at all redshifts $`0<z<6`$. We have also shown that in every case where there is a large difference between carefully measured spectroscopic redshifts and carefully measured photometric redshifts, and the systematic and photometric errors are included in the analysis, the spectroscopic redshift is the one in error (although in a few cases we have no evidence to prove either one to be right). In fact, the proportion of incorrect spectroscopic redshifts even after careful double-checking of all the data involved is $``$ 3% and, depending on how they are counted, it may be as high as 14%. On the other hand, in the single studied case where the photometric value seems to be incorrect, the analysis of the likelihood function shows that the real redshift value is indeed within the errors given by the photometric method.

One conclusion we extract from this result is that our set of spectral energy distribution templates is a fair, complete, dense representation of all the galaxy spectral distributions that have been observed to date. We can confirm that in the bright limit, where the photometric errors can be ignored—this applies in the case of the HDF to all galaxies for which spectroscopy is available—the errors in $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)`$ are dominated by the systematics and are at all redshifts $`0.07`$ (rms). This paper further proves that there is a strict upper limit (less than 5.4%, to $`2\sigma `$ confidence) to the possible percentage of galaxies whose SEDs differ significantly from our templates in a flux limited ($`R<24`$) sample. This limit is calculated by applying Poisson statistics to the fact that at most three galaxies out of 146 may have redshifts which disagree with our measurements to a significant (more than $`4\sigma `$) level.

In the limit of bright objects the likelihood function (which by its nature only includes the photometric information) has to be convolved with an (assumed) gaussian distribution with the above calculated $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }z/(1+z)}`$ in order to account for the systematic errors and to obtain realistic errors. In the faint limit, where the photometric errors dominate, the likelihood function by itself represents a good assessment of the errors—although, of course, it must also be convolved with the same gaussian in order to include the systematic component.

There is an important conclusion that can be extracted from this work that affects other photometric redshift techniques. Some of the methods that have been put forward \[e.g. Wang, Bahcall, & Turner (1998); Connolly et al. (1995); Csabai et al. (2000)\] are based on the use of a “calibrating sample” of redshifts, which are taken to be perfectly measured. Using this sample a set of parameters is determined that gives the most accurate possible reproduction of the observed spectroscopic redshifts, and then these parameters are used to calculate redshifts of objects which do not have spectroscopic values. One of the most popular versions of this method uses polynomial fits to define a “redshift vs observed colors” function \[like in Wang, Bahcall, & Turner (1998) and Connolly et al. (1995)\]. Another possibility is to iteratively “tune” or “improve” the galactic spectral templates to minimize the dispersion in the $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}`$ versus $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}`$ plane \[this is the method followed by Csabai et al. (2000)\]. Both these techniques, as well as any other using similar methods, are extremely sensitive to errors in the spectroscopic sample. By their own nature they will try to “absorb” any outlier point into the fit, hence improving the “formal” fit at the price of distorting the real underlying relation, and predicting wrong redshifts for any point with similar colors to the ones in error.

It is obvious that the spectroscopic redshift technique has limits in apparent magnitude and/or signal-to-noise ratio where problems arise. Our analysis shows that by magnitude $`AB(8140)24`$ even the best instruments available produce spectra that are susceptible to line misidentification, even when carefully analyzed by expert observers. Our photometric redshift technique, on the other hand, has proved its accuracy and reliability for all redshifts $`0<z<6`$ and magnitudes $`R<24`$ that have been observed. This allows us to obtain an accurate and detailed measurement of the systematic errors associated to it. Together with the likelihood function—which measures for each individual galaxy the errors induced by the photometric uncertainties—and assuming that our set of spectrophotometric templates is complete (which has been verified for all cases observed to date), our photometric redshift technique has the advantage over traditional spectroscopy of giving complete information on the measured redshift and its associated error.

We hence conclude that our photometric method is both accurate (within its stated errors) and reliable, and that it is in fact more accurate and reliable than the spectroscopic method when analyzing faint galaxy data.

We thank Judy Cohen and her collaborators, as well as all the other groups involved in spectroscopy of HDF objects, for making their results public. We also thank Bob Williams and his team at STScI for providing us with the HDF images, Mark Dickinson for making the IR Kitt Peak images available, and an anonymous referee for useful suggestions that have improved the paper. A.F.S. acknowledges support from a European Union Marie Curie Fellowship. K.M.L., S.M.P., and N.Y. were supported by NASA grant NAGW-4422 and NSF grant AST-9624216. During the preparation of this paper we have made extensive use of NASA’s ADS Abstract Service, the LANL archive, and the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with NASA.


text:
# PSCz Superclusters: Detection, Shapes & Cosmological Implications

## 1 Introduction

The study of the distribution of matter on large scales, based on redshift surveys of galaxies, provides important constraints on models of cosmic structure formation. It has been established that galaxy clusters are not randomly distributed but tend to aggregate in larger systems, the so called superclusters (cf. Bahcall 1988 and references therein). Superclusters are the largest, isolated and dynamically unrelaxed, due to their size, objects in the large scale distribution of matter and thus they are ideal probes of the initial conditions that gave rise to the distribution of matter on such large-scales. One’s hope is that they can be used for cosmological studies in order to test theories of structure formation (cf. West 1989).

Many authors have claimed that the large scale clustering pattern of galaxies is characterized by a filamentary and sheet-like distribution (cf. Zeldovich, Einasto, & Shandarin 1982; Broadhurst et al. 1990; de Lapparent, Geller & Huchra 1991). West (1989), Plionis, Valdarnini & Jing (1992) and Jaaniste et al (1997) studied the morphological properties (shape, size and orientation) of galaxy superclusters using Abell/ACO clusters and found, based on the simple principal axes method, that the vast majority of the superclusters are flattened triaxial objects, while Plionis et al. (1992) found a predominance of prolate (filament-like) superclusters. Further support to the filamentary case was presented recently by Sathyaprakash et al. (1998a), (1998b) analysing the shapes of the overdense regions using observational (IRAS 1.2Jy) and N-body simulation data.

Studies based on the traditional indicators of clustering, like the two point correlation function, do not deepen our knowledge regarding the morphology and physics of structures on large scales. Therefore, many authors have been using different approaches, based on the geometrical properties of the large scale structure, in order to investigate such features. Indeed different methods like minimal spanning trees, shape statistics (cf. Sahni & Coles 1995 and references therein), genus-percolation statistics (Zeldovich et al. 1982; Gott, Mellot & Dickinson 1986; Coles & Plionis 1991; Yess & Shandarin 1996; Sahni, Sathyaprakash & Shandarin 1997) and Minkowski functionals (cf. Mecke et al. 1994; Kerscher et al. 1997) have been used in order to describe the global geometrical and topological properties of the matter distribution utilising angular and redshift surveys of galaxies as well as N-body simulations.

In this paper we use the recently completed PSCz-IRAS redshift survey in order:

1. to investigate whether we can reliably identify superclusters and measure their shapes in flux-limited galaxy samples,
2. to measure the shape and size distribution of the PSCz superclusters and
3. to investigate whether these distributions can be used as a cosmological probe.

The plan of this paper is the following: In section 2 we describe the PSCz data that we used, in Section 3 we present the supercluster identification procedure, tests of systematic biases that enter in such a procedure and the detected PSCz superclusters while in section 4 we present the supercluster shape determination procedure, systematic effects that affect their shapes and the PSCz supercluster shapes. In section 5 we compare the PSCz results with the corresponding ones of three cosmological models and finally in section 6 we draw our conclusions.

## 2 The PSCz galaxy sample

We use in our analysis the recently completed IRAS flux-limited 60-$`\mu `$m redshift survey (PSCz) which is described in Saunders et al. (2000). It is based on the IRAS Point Source Catalogue and contains $`15500`$ galaxies with flux $`S_{lim}0.6`$ Jy covering the $`84\%`$ of the sky. The subsample we use, defined by a limiting galaxy distance of 240 $`h^1`$ Mpc, contains $`11823`$ galaxies.

### 2.1 PSCz selection function

Due to the fact that the PSCz catalogue is a flux-limited sample there is the well-known degradation of sampling as a function of distance from the observer (codified by the so called selection function). Unless one corrects for this effect the derived galaxy density field will have little to do with the true one. This is usually done by weighting each galaxy by the inverse selection function, $`\varphi ^1(r)`$, assuming that the unobserved galaxies are spatially correlated with the observed ones. Note that according to the above the selection function is defined as the fraction of the galaxy number density that is observed above the flux limit at some distance $`r`$. Therefore

$$\varphi (r)=\frac{1}{\rho _g}_{L_{min}(r)}^{L_{max}}\mathrm{\Phi }(L)𝑑L$$
(1)
where $`L_{min}(r)=4\pi r^2\nu S_{lim}`$ is the luminosity of a source at distance $`r`$ corresponding to the flux limit $`S_{lim}`$, $`\nu =`$ 60-$`\mu `$m and $`\rho _g`$ is the mean galaxy number density, given by integrating the luminosity function over the whole luminosity range, with $`L_{min}=10^8h^2L_{}`$ (since lower luminosity galaxies are not represented well in the available samples; cf. Rowan-Robinson et al 2000), and $`L_{max}=10^{13}h^2L_{}`$. Obviously, $`\varphi (r)`$ is a decreasing function of distance because a smaller fraction of the luminosity function falls above the flux limit at greater distances. In this work we used a luminosity function of the form assumed by Saunders et al. (1990) with $`L_{}=10^{8.45}h^2L_{}`$, $`\sigma =0.711`$, $`\alpha =1.09`$ and $`C=0.0308`$ (cf. Rowan-Robinson et al. 2000).

### 2.2 PSCz galaxy distances from redshifts

It is well known that the distribution of galaxies in redshift space is a distorted representation of that in real comoving space (Kaiser 1987). The redshift distance of each galaxy can by found from:

$$r=\frac{2c}{H_{}}\left(1(1+z\delta z)^{1/2}\right)(1+z\delta z)^{3/2}$$
(2)
where $`H_{}=100h`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`\delta z`$ is a non-linear term to correct the redshifts for the galaxy peculiar velocities:

$$\delta z=\frac{1}{c}(𝐮(r)𝐮(0))\widehat{r}$$
(3)
with $`𝐮(0)`$ the peculiar velocity of the Local Group and $`𝐮(r)`$ the galaxy peculiar velocity at position $`𝐫`$, which can be found in linear theory by:

$$𝐮(r)=\frac{H_{}\beta }{4\pi }\delta _\mathrm{g}(𝐫)\frac{𝐫𝐫^{^{}}}{𝐫𝐫^{^{}}}\mathrm{d}^3𝐫$$
(4)
where $`\beta =\mathrm{\Omega }^{0.6}b^1`$, assuming linear biasing between the background matter and the galaxy fluctuation field $`\delta _\mathrm{g}`$. Note that heliocentric redshifts are first transformed to the Local Group frame using $`czcz_{}+300\mathrm{sin}(l)\mathrm{cos}(b)`$ and then the distance to each galaxy is usually found by iteratively solving the above set of equations. Such a procedure was used by Branchini et al (1999) to recover the true density field of IRAS-PSCz galaxies in order to study the galaxy density and velocity fields. In our work we use their results (for $`\beta =1`$) which were kindly provided to us by Dr. Branchini.

### 2.3 Incomplete Sky Coverage

In order to produce a continuous and whole sky density field it is essential to treat the 16% of the sky which is devoided of data (galactic plane, high cirrus emission areas and unobserved regions). We use the PSCz data of Branchini et al. (1999), in which they followed the Yahil et al. (1991) method to fill the galactic plane region with synthetic objects that reproduce the mean density of galaxies in the regions residing nearby. At higher galactic latitudes they fill the masked regions again with synthetic objects so that they reproduce the overall mean number density of PSCz galaxies.

## 3 Identifying Superclusters in the smooth PSCz density field

### 3.1 Smoothing Procedure

For the purpose of this study we need to derive from the discrete distribution of PSCz galaxies a smooth continuous density field. To this end we use a Gaussian kernel on a $`N^3`$ grid:

$$𝒲(|𝐱_j𝐱_𝐠|)=\left(2\pi R_{\mathrm{sm}}^2\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{|𝐱_j𝐱_𝐠|^2}{2R_{\mathrm{sm}}^2}\right).$$
(5)
The smoothed density, at the grid–cell positions $`𝐱_𝐠`$, is then:

$$\rho (𝐱_𝐠)=\frac{_j\rho (𝐱_j)𝒲(|𝐱_j𝐱_𝐠|)}{𝒲(|𝐱_𝐣𝐱_𝐠|)\mathrm{d}^3x},$$
(6)
where the sum is over the distribution of galaxies with positions $`𝐱_j`$.

In our study we will use two smoothing radii, namely $`R_{\mathrm{sm}}=5h^1`$ Mpc and 10 $`h^1`$ Mpc, to probe essentially different supercluster sizes. We will extend our analysis out to $`r_{max}`$, where $`r_{max}=150`$ and 240 $`h^1`$ Mpc respectively for the two smoothing radii while the size of each cell is set equal to $`R_{\mathrm{sm}}`$. Therefore we use a grid of size of $`60^3`$ and $`48^3`$ respectively. Note also that $`|𝐱_j𝐱_𝐠|3R_{\mathrm{sm}}`$ and thus the integral in the denominator of eq. (6) has a value $`0.97`$.

In order to construct our supercluster candidates we select all cells with an overdensity above a chosen threshold and join together those having common boundaries. Due to the fact that superclusters should be identified as very high density peaks, the critical value of the overdensity threshold is defined directly from the probability density function as its the 97$`\%`$-quantile value (using lower values we tend to percolate structures through the whole volume).

### 3.2 Correcting Biases Introduced by Smoothing

Due to the drop of the selection function as a function of distance, shot-noise effects increase with distance. Although Gaztañaga & Yokoyama (1993) have shown that the smoothing process itself considerably suppresses such shot–noise effects, the coupling between the selection function and the constant radius smoothing will result in a distorted smoothed density distribution, especially at large distances. We expect that Gaussian spheres, centered on distant cells, will overestimate the true density in regions where galaxies are detected (due to the large $`\varphi (r)`$ weighting), while in underdense regions they will underestimate the true density.

The decrease of resolution, due to the drop of the selection function at large distances, can be dealt by increasing the smoothing radius as a function of distance. Using the mean inter-galaxy separation as the Gaussian smoothing radius is usually a good rule-of-thumb criterion to suppress such effects in velocity field studies (cf. Branchini et al. 1999). However, it cannot be used to identify and study supercluster shapes or in studies of the pdf and its moments, in which it is necessary to have a constant resolution element through out the studied volume.

#### 3.2.1 Quantification of the effect

We quantify this effect by using N-body simulations for which we have the overall 3D “galaxy” distribution as well as the corresponding PSCz look-alike distributions (a detail study of the effect and of the devised correction procedure on the corresponding pdf statistics will be presented in Plionis, Basilakos & Rowan-Robinson 2001). Here we just note that we use a CHDM ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{hot}}`$=0.3 and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}=0.1`$) simulation based on an optimize version of the Truncated Zeldovich Approximation, described in detail in Borgani et al. (1995; 1997). There are 2563 grid points and as many particles, while the simulation box has $`L=480h^1`$ Mpc and periodic boundaries. The choice of the CHDM model was based solely on the fact that the corresponding distribution of particles that we tag as ‘galaxies’ have a correlation length that resembles that of the IRAS galaxies ($`r_{}4`$ $`h^1`$ Mpc).

The main question that we want to answer now is: How the ‘PSCz’-based smoothed density field relates to the corresponding true underlying 3D density field? We answer this question by comparing the smoothed 3D distribution of the parent population of simulated “IRAS” galaxies with that of the corresponding PSCz look-alikes, generated from this distribution. We derive the statistical deviation of the smoothed ‘PSCz’-based distribution from the corresponding 3D one as a function of distance. Therefore, we evaluate the following quantity:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(r)=\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{PSCz}^{\prime \prime }}(r)\rho _{3\mathrm{d}}(r)}{\rho _{3\mathrm{d}}(r)}.$$
(7)
If the selection process does not affect the ‘PSCz’-based density field then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(r)`$ in the average should be negligible for all distances. Indeed we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(r)0`$ for all distances (broken line in figure 1 & 2). However, if we split the densities in two subsamples: one higher and one lower than $`\rho _g`$, then we find a strong distant dependent effect (see figures 1 & 2), where the coupling between the selection function and the constant radius smoothing results in an underestimation and overestimation of the low and high density regions respectively, especially at large distances.

We can attempt to fit $`\mathrm{\Delta }(r)`$ using a high-degree polynomial and then correct the raw smoothed PSCz densities by weighting them with the factor $`W(r)=(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{fit}}(r))^1`$. We have however to note that any such multiplicative correction procedure cannot correct (artificial) zero densities. To this end we use a six degree polynomial and a $`\chi ^2`$ minimization procedure to test the goodness-of-fit. The fit, presented in figure 1 & 2 as the continuous lines, has a reduced $`\chi ^2`$ value of $`<1`$ indicating that the fit is good although the scatter is probably underestimated. In Plionis, Basilakos & Rowan-Robinson (2001) we will present details on the correction procedure and the results in recovering the underlying pdf and its moments. Here we test our procedure in recovering the true number, size, multiplicity function and shapes of overdense regions (see below).

#### 3.2.2 Robustness of Supercluster Identification

The above mentioned systematic effect should also affect the connectedness of overdense regions and thus the detected supercluster number, size and shape. To this end we compare the number density of superclusters, found by our method in the smoothed 3D simulation distribution with the average found in 10 ‘PSCz’ realizations. As discussed before, we select cells that have an overdensity value above a specific quantile of the pdf. However, since we are interested in comparing the superclusters found in flux-limited samples with the true underlying superclusters we have to make sure that we are using equivalent thresholds. Such a choice is easy in the simulation test case, in which we know a priori the true 3D pdf. We have found that in general a specific quantile of the raw ‘PSCz’ look-alike pdf is significantly larger than the corresponding 3D pdf, an effect that our density correction procedure restores to a good degree, especially in the pdf high density tail (Plionis, Basilakos & Rowan-Robinson 2001; in preparation). Therefore, we use as our density threshold a specific pdf quantile.

In figure 3 we compare the supercluster number density in equal volume shells ($`\delta V1.16\times 10^7h^3`$ Mpc3 for the $`R_{sm}=10h^1`$ Mpc case and $`\delta V2.83\times 10^6h^3`$ Mpc3 for the $`R_{sm}=5h^1`$ Mpc case) as a function of distance for the 3D, raw-‘PSCz’ and corrected-‘PSCz’ distributions. For the $`R_{sm}=10`$ $`h^1`$ Mpc case we find that the mean supercluster number density per equal volume shell is 17$`\pm `$13, 10.9$`\pm `$3 and 9.3$`\pm `$3.3 for the ‘raw’, ‘corrected’ and true 3D density fields, while the corresponding densities for the $`R_{sm}=5`$ $`h^1`$ Mpc case are 30$`\pm `$13, 13$`\pm `$4 and 14$`\pm `$3.

It is evident that for the ‘raw-PSCz’ case the supercluster number density increases artificially with distance; at large distances the galaxy sampling rate is low and the smoothing procedure is unable to produce a continuous density field, producing a large number of artificially disjoint regions. This effect is efficiently suppressed once we correct the smoothed density distribution according to our correction procedure for both smoothing scales used.

In figure 4 we present the multiplicity function of the identified superclusters. Again we see that our correction procedure is effective in recovering the underlying multiplicity function.

We conclude that the connectedness of overdense regions in flux limited samples, with a selection function similar to that of IRAS 0.6 Jy galaxies, can be recovered once we correct the ‘raw’ smoothed density field according to our procedure. We have verified, however, that in order to restore such connectedness we need to correct the smoothed density field limiting ourselves within $`230`$ $`h^1`$ Mpc for the $`R_{sm}10`$ $`h^1`$ Mpc case and within $`150`$ $`h^1`$ Mpc for the $`R_{sm}5`$ $`h^1`$ Mpc case.

### 3.3 Space Density and Multiplicity of PSCz Superclusters

In figure 5 we present the space density of PSCz superclusters in equal volume shells, having size as that in the previous section, before and after correcting the density field according to our procedure. We have also verified that variations of $`\delta V`$ do not alter our results.

For the $`R_{sm}=10h^1`$ Mpc case, in which we are revealing relatively large structures, we find in the uncorrected density field that the first shell ($`<\text{ }130h^1`$ Mpc), contains no supercluster, which evidently is false since it is well known that within this distance there are several superclusters like the Great Attractor, Perseus-Pisces, Coma etc. We also observe the systematic increase of supercluster space density with distance in both $`R_{sm}`$ cases. However, once we correct the density field according to our procedure, discussed in 3.2, we recover a constant space density of superclusters in the different equal volume shells.

In figure 6, we present the PSCz supercluster multiplicity function, for the uncorrected (dashed line) and corrected density fields (continuous line), which will be used in the last section as a cosmological probe.

In table 1 and 2 we present for both smoothing scales, the detected PSCz superclusters, having a volume above the indicated threshold, as well as their shape parameters (see section 4). We have identified most of the known superclusters but also quite a few new ones. Many other known superclusters, not shown in the tables, have been found but fall below the specific volume threshold.

## 4 3d Supercluster Shapes

### 4.1 Shape Determination Method

The supercluster shapes are defined by fitting ellipsoids to the data. Shapes are estimated for those “superclusters” that consist of 8 or more cells. To this end we use the moments of inertia method (cf. Carter & Metcalfe 1980; Plionis, Barrow & Frenk 1991): $`I_{11}=w_ix_i^2`$, $`I_{22}=w_iy_i^2`$, $`I_{12}=I_{21}=w_ix_iy_i`$, $`I_{13}=I_{31}=w_ix_iz_i`$, $`I_{23}=I_{32}=w_iy_iz_i`$, with $`w_i`$ the statistical weight of each cell. This is defined as the density fluctuation:

$$w_i=\frac{\rho _i(x_{gr})\rho _g}{\rho _g}$$
(8)
where $`\rho _g`$ is the mean galaxy number density. Note that because of its symmetry we diagonalize the inertia tensor

$$\mathrm{det}(I_{ij}\lambda ^2M_3)=0(\mathrm{M}_3\mathrm{is}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}\times 3\mathrm{unit}\mathrm{matrix}),$$
(9)
obtaining the eigenvalues $`I_1`$, $`I_2`$, $`I_3`$ from which we define the shape of the configuration since the eigenvalues are directly related to the three principal axes of the fitted ellipsoid. The corresponding eigenvectors provide the direction of the principal axes.

### 4.2 Geometrical Shape Statistics

To identify the characteristic morphological features of superclusters and to investigate the geometrical properties of the large-scale structure, we will use the differential geometry approach, introduced by Sahni et al. (1998).

We remind the reader the basic elements of differential geometry theory (cf. Lipschutz 1969). Assuming a local coordinate system on a surface with the integrating class $`𝒞^2`$, it is well known that the geometrical features of the surface are described by the first and second fundamental forms:

$$𝐈=\mathrm{𝐝𝐫}\mathrm{𝐝𝐫}=E\mathrm{d}\theta ^2+2F\mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}\varphi +G\mathrm{d}\varphi ^2$$
(10)
$$\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}=\mathrm{𝐝𝐫}\mathrm{𝐝𝐧}=L\mathrm{d}\theta ^2+2M\mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}\varphi +N\mathrm{d}\varphi ^2$$
(11)
where $`E=𝐫_\theta 𝐫_\theta `$, $`G=𝐫_\varphi 𝐫_\varphi `$, $`F=𝐫_\theta 𝐫_\varphi `$, $`L=𝐫_{\theta \theta }𝐧`$, $`G=𝐫_{\varphi \varphi }𝐧`$ and $`M=𝐫_{\theta \varphi }𝐧`$ 111$`𝐫_\alpha =\frac{𝐫}{\alpha }`$ and $`𝐫_{\alpha \alpha }=\frac{^2𝐫}{\alpha ^2}`$ ($`𝐧`$ is the perpendicular vector $`𝐧=\frac{𝐫_\theta \times 𝐫_\varphi }{𝐫_\theta \times 𝐫_\varphi }`$). Thus, the surface area, integrated mean curvature and genus can be written:

$$S=\sqrt{EGF^2}d\theta d\varphi $$
(12)
$$C=\frac{k_1+k_2}{2}dS$$
(13)
$$𝒢=\frac{1}{4\pi }k_1k_2dS.$$
(14)
where

$$k_1+k_2=\frac{EN+GL2FM}{EGF^2}$$
(15)
and

$$k_1k_2=\frac{LNM^2}{EGF^2}.$$
(16)
The genus parameter characterises the surface topology; multiply connected surfaces have $`𝒢>0`$ while simply connected ones have $`𝒢<0`$.

Furthermore, we define the 3 dimensional shape of structures by fitting the best triaxial ellipsoid ($`M=0`$),

$$𝐫(\theta ,\varphi )=I_1\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \widehat{i}+I_2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \widehat{j}+I_3\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{k},$$

to the different isodensity contours having volume $`V=\frac{4\pi }{3}I_1I_2I_3`$ and $`0\varphi 2\pi `$, $`0\theta \pi `$.

Here we present the basic steps of the shape statistics that we will use, following the notation of Sahni et al. (1998). They introduced a set of three shapefinders $`_1=VS^1`$, $`_2=SC^1`$ and $`_3=C`$, having dimensions of length. In the same framework they defined two dimensional shapefinders $`K=(K_1,K_2)`$, where

$$K_1=\frac{_2_1}{_2+_1}$$
(17)
and

$$K_2=\frac{_3_2}{_3+_2},$$
(18)
normalized to give $`_i=R`$ ($`K_{1,2}=0`$) for a sphere of radius $`R`$. Therefore based on these shapefinders we can characterise the morphology of cosmic structures according to the following categories:

* Pancakes for $`K_1/K_2>1`$
* Filaments for $`K_1/K_2<1`$
* Ribbons for $`(K_1,K_2)=(\alpha ,\alpha )`$ with $`\alpha 1`$ and thus $`K_1/K_21`$.
* Sphere for $`I_1I_2I_3`$ and thus $`(K_1,K_2)(0,0)`$.
* Ideal filament (1-d objects) for $`_1_2<<_3`$ and thus $`(K_1,K_2)(0,1)`$.
* Ideal pancake (2-d object) for $`_1<<_2_3`$ and thus $`(K_1,K_2)(1,0)`$.

Finally, for the quasi-spherical objects the $`K_{1,2}`$ are small and therefore their ratio ($`K_1/K_2`$) measures the deviation from spherical shapes.

### 4.3 Robustness of Supercluster Shape Determination

Here we investigate how do the systematic effects, discussed in section 3.2, affect the determination of supercluster shapes. To this end we compare the shapes of the superclusters, found by our method in the smoothed 3D simulation distribution with those found in 10 ’PSCz’ realizations.

Performing many tests using different smoothing radii, we have found that the ratio of the dimensionless supercluster shapefinders (“shape spectrum”) is also affected from the bias discussed above. Note that we exclude the ideal spherical surfaces, $`I_1I_2I_3`$, because their ratio $`K_1/K_2`$ tends to infinity. In figure 9 we present the fluctuations of the shape spectrum between the 3D and raw-‘PSCz’ case and between the 3D and the corrected-‘PSCz’ case. Again it is evident that our correction procedure suppresses significantly the systematic effects introduced by the coupling between the selection function and the constant radius smoothing for both smoothing radii.

We conclude that in order to correctly identify superclusters and their connectedness, as well as their shapes from flux limited samples, it is necessary to take into account the bias of the smoothed density field, discussed in section 3.2, and correct accordingly the smoothed galaxy distribution.

### 4.4 The PSCz Supercluster Shape Spectrum

In figure 10 we present the uncorrected and corrected “shape spectrum” for both smoothing radii. It is obvious that the dominant feature of the PSCz supercluster shapes is filamentariness; ie., $`K_1/K_2<1`$ (in agreement with previous studies; see Sathyaprakash et al 1998).

Furthermore, although the fraction of filamentary superclusters ($`K_1/K_2<1`$) remain roughly the same before and after the correction, there is a slight change of the corrected ‘shape-spectrum’ towards less extreme filamentary superclusters.

Regarding extreme shaped superclusters (with $`N_{cell}8`$), we have found, in the $`R_{sm}=5h^1`$ Mpc smoothed field, 8 very filamentary superclusters with $`K_1/K_2<0.45`$ (among which the Near Shapley and Hercules superclusters), 6 spherical and only 2 extreme pancake-like structures with $`K_1/K_2>2`$ (one of which is the Perseus-Pegasus supercluster; see table 2). In the $`R_{sm}=10h^1`$ Mpc smoothed field we find only one such extreme filamentary supercluster.

## 5 Comparison with Cosmological Models

We use mock PSCz catalogues, generated from three large cosmological N-body simulations, in order to investigate whether supercluster properties (shapes and numbers) can discriminate between models. The cosmological simulations are based on an AP3M code and they are described in Cole et al. (1998). We consider three different cold dark matter models: (1) a flat low-density CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.3`$, (2) a critical density universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$ with power spectrum $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.25`$ ($`\tau `$CDM) and (3) a critical density universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$ with power spectrum $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.5`$ (SCDM). The first two models are normalized by the observed cluster abundance at zero redshift; having fluctuation amplitude in 8 $`h^1`$Mpc scale of $`\sigma _8=0.55\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.6}`$ (Eke, Cole, & Frenk 1996), while the third is COBE normalized with $`\sigma _8=1.35`$.

For each cosmological model we average results over 10 nearly independent mock PSCz catalogues extending out to a radius of 170 $`h^1`$Mpc (cf. Branchini et al. 1999). Good care has been taken to center the catalogues to suitable LG-like observers (having similar to the observed Local Group velocity, shear and overdensity).

We analyse the mock PSCz catalogues density fields (with $`R_{sm}=5`$ $`h^1`$ Mpc) in the same fashion as that of the observed PSCz catalogue and we compare the outcome of this procedure in figure 11, where we plot the detected supercluster shape-spectrum and multiplicity function for all three models and PSCz data. Evidently the SCDM model performs worst in the comparison. In order to quantify the differences between models and data we perform a standard $`\chi ^2`$ test and we present the $`𝒫_{>\chi ^2}`$ results in table 3. The only model that is excluded by the data at a relatively high significance level is the SCDM model, while the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model best reproduces the observed supercluster shape-spectrum and multiplicity function. The $`\tau `$CDM is marginally excluded by the multiplicity function comparison but only at a $``$ 94% level.

Comparing the models among themselves we see that the shape-spectrum is insensitive to the different cosmologies, probably because supercluster shapes reflect the Gaussian nature of the initial conditions which are common to all models. However, the supercluster multiplicity function is a strong discriminant between the models and therefore our results do show a preference of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model over the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$ models that we have studied.

## 6 Conclusions

We have studied the properties of superclusters detected in the smoothed PSCz galaxy density field as connected regions above some overdensity threshold. We have investigated, using simulations, the biases that enter in the detection and shape determination of superclusters which are identified in smoothed density fields of flux-limited galaxy samples.

We have devised a statistical approach to correct for such biases which we have verified that indeed it recovers the underlying 3D properties of superclusters. To determine supercluster shapes we use the differential geometry approach of Sahni et al. (1998) and find that the dominant supercluster morphological feature is filamentariness.

Finally, we have compared our PSCz supercluster results with the corresponding ones generated from the analysis of three cosmological models (SCDM, $`\tau `$-CDM and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM) and we find that the model that best reproduce the observational results is the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$).

## Acknowledgements

We thank Enzo Branchini for providing us with his reconstructed PSCz galaxy distribution and the PSCz mock catalogs and S. Coles for generating the simulations from which the mock catalogues have been extracted from. We also thank Andreas Efstathiou and Seb Oliver for their help in using IDL to produce the 3D PSCz supercluster maps. M. Plionis acknowledges the hospitality of the Astrophysics Group of Imperial College, where a major part of this work was done.