text:
# Track Timing at 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻ Linear Colliders with a Silicon Drift Detector Main Tracker

## 1 Introduction

Projects for future $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders (LC) operating at $`\sqrt{S}`$ = 0.5–1 TeV  consider a number of detector layouts . For example, the NLC proposal  includes two options for the high-energy interaction region (IR) which are called Large, L; Silicon Detector, SD; and one for a low energy second IR called Precise, P. The tracking systems in all three layouts include a high-resolution pixel vertex detector (VXD), but differ significantly in the technology choices for the main tracker (MT). The central MTs for the L\- and P-configurations are based on large-volume time projection chambers (TPC). In the SD-version, the central MT consists of few tracking layers of either silicon drift (SDD), or silicon strip detectors.

In all three detector layouts, drift detectors with three-dimensional space point measurements along charged particle trajectories are considered as either the only (TPC), or one of few alternative solutions (SDD) for the central MT. Drifting of generated electron clouds in the TPC and SDD is rather slow. This leads to their long sensitivity to ionization which ranges from a few to a few tens of microseconds. Therefore, tracks from the event of interest will coexist in the raw data with tracks from events which occurred at some time before and after the trigger. These tracks need to be recognized and separated from the triggered event.

The time structures of collisions at the various proposed high energy LCs are expected to be similar, but differ in detail. All three projects feature trains (Rf-pulses) of $`e^{}`$ and $`e^+`$ bunches. At NLC/JLC, each train will consist of 190 bunches, separated by 1.4 $`ns`$, resulting in a train duration of $``$265 $`ns`$. TESLA features 950 $`\mu s`$ long trains of $``$2800 bunches separated by 337 $`ns`$. The projected Rf-pulse repetition rates at NLC, JLC and TESLA are 120, 100 and 5 $`Hz`$, respectively. The design luminosities in all three proposals are on the order of $``$(2–3)$``$1034 $`cm^2s^1`$.

According to the estimates of Ref.  for the design luminosity, $``$2.2 hadronic $`\gamma \gamma `$ events/train, on average, will occur at the NLC/JLC in addition to the trigger. The average number of tracks is $``$17 with $``$100 $`GeV`$ deposit in the calorimeter per such an event. All tracks from these events, along with the trigger, will be present in a TPC or SDD based MT simultaneously during an ionization drift, which is considerably longer than the NLC/JLC train time-length111Due to the low Rf-pulse repetition rates, there will be no more than one train per SDD or TPC drift cycle, though.. At TESLA, there will be $``$0.02 hadronic $`\gamma \gamma `$ events per bunch crossing , and ionization from only a fraction of a single train will be present simultaneously in the SDD or TPC. These transfer into $``$0.5 background events occurring during the SDD drift of 7–8 $`\mu s`$, and $``$3–5 events during the 50–60 $`\mu s`$ long TPC drift in L\- and P-versions of the detector. In all cases, the beamstrahlung background from $`e^+e^{}`$ bunch crossings will also be present in the trackers. It is recognized  that, if the time stamping for the tracks in the TPC or SDD is not done, it could seriously impact the detector performance, particularly its missing mass resolution.

Matching tracks in the TPC or SDD to the collision region and/or the VXD provides some time stamping. However, this does not work for secondary tracks from decays of long lived particles. Also the VXD, located at a small distance to the collision region, has a much higher occupancy of hits from low-$`P_T`$ tracks produced by beamstrahlung, making matching more difficult. Therefore, it is more desirable to find a solution that uses information from only the MT. In the case of a TPC, it was suggested to place at some TPC depth a fast intermediate tracker, constructed from scintillating fibers, and alternatively or in addition, a silicon intermediate tracking detector just inside the TPC inner radius . A similar solution may also be possible for a SDD based tracker. However, due to the finer segmentation of the SDDs and more flexibility in the choices for SDD drift axes in MT layers, such special time-stamping layer(s) will not be necessary if a silicon drift detector is chosen as the technology for the central MT.

In this note, we present the estimates for the “self-timing” capabilities of the SDD based MT with various choices for drift axes in its layers. A similar approach was suggested for use in the STAR experiment at RHIC to resolve the high-luminosity $`pp`$ event pile-up .

## 2 SD main tracker layout and simulation model

### 2.1 SDD based main tracker

The tracking system of the proposed SD option  with the 5 $`T`$ strong magnetic field is schematically shown in Fig. 1, left. Its central and forward MTs consist of a 5-layer silicon barrel, made of either silicon drift or micro-strip detectors, and five layers of double-sided silicon micro-strip forward disks, respectively. The layers of the central MT barrel are located at radii from 20 to 125 $`cm`$. The 5-layer CCD vertex detector is located closer to the collision region at radii from 1.2 to 6 $`cm`$.

The SDD based version of the central MT will be comprised of $``$6000 SDDs of 10$`\times `$10 $`cm^2`$ area and thickness 150–200 $`\mu m`$ each. A two-dimensional position of a particle hit in the SDD wafer is measured as follows  (see SDD schematic view in Fig. 1, right). After passage of an ionizing particle through the SDD, the created electron cloud is within $``$5–10 $`ns`$ confined to a $``$10–20 $`\mu m`$ thick “pancake” around the SDD middle plane. At the same time, the cloud starts drifting along the $`x`$-axis222The reference frame of Fig. 1, right, is used here and to the end of Sec. 2.1. in the uniform electric field $`E_x`$ 40-50 $`V/mm`$, applied to the SDD, with a constant velocity $`V_{drift}`$ 6-7 $`\mu m/ns`$. The electron cloud eventually drifts to the anodes, located at the SDD edge. The SDD anodes are spaced every 100–300 $`\mu m`$ (for the LC detector, the exact spacing is still to be optimized). The $`x`$-position of a particle crossing is determined by measuring the time delay between the trigger and anode signals, and the $`z`$-position is determined from the signal distribution over hit anodes. An estimate for the practically achievable spatial resolution of the SDD based tracker along the anodes ($`z`$-axis) is $``$5–7 $`\mu m`$. The resolution in the drift direction ($`x`$-axis) is expected to be somewhat worse, at about 8–10 $`\mu m`$, due to drift nonlinearities caused by defects in material, environmental effects and calibration uncertainties.

In order to reduce the maximum voltage on a wafer, previous designs  feature a “double-SDD”, i.e. wafers consisting of two SDDs, drifting along the same axis but in opposite directions. The SDD anodes are located at the two opposite edges of the wafer, and high voltage, creating the drift field, is applied in the middle of the wafer at $`x=const`$. The alteration of the drift direction within such small MT pieces, as each single SDD wafer, represents a powerful tool to discriminate tracks by their generation time. The other handle for doing this is the alteration of the drift axes in the MT layers, which is also evaluated in this paper.

### 2.2 Simulation model

For the studies presented here, a simplified model of the SD tracking system has been used. In this model, five parallel SDD layers of a thickness, equal to 0.5% of radiation length each were located at distances of 20, 46.25, 72.5, 98.75 and 125 $`cm`$ from the beam-line. The SDD drift velocity, $`V_{drift}`$, has been assumed to be 6.75 $`mm/\mu s`$, which corresponds to a drift electric field of 50 $`V/mm`$. Five layers of the CCD based VXD of a thickness, equal to 0.12% of radiation length each were placed at distances of 1.2, 2.4, 3.6, 4.8 and 6 $`cm`$. For more SD setup details see Ref. .

Particle trajectories in the SD uniform, 5 $`T`$ strong magnetic field have been generated, taking into account small angle multiple scattering in the detector material, including the beam pipe, VXD cryostat, air, etc. Ionization and radiative energy losses have been ignored. The positions of the track crossing points in each VXD and MT layer have been randomly Gaussian smeared with the expected position resolutions: 5 $`\mu m`$ for the VXD along the both axes; 7 $`\mu m`$ for the SDDs along anodes; and 10 $`\mu m`$ for the SDDs along ionization drift. Tracks were generated within the kinematics region of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta <`$ 0.8, where $`\theta `$ is the polar angle. The event vertex position, if used, has been assumed to be known to $`\sigma _{vtx}=`$ 2 $`\mu m`$ for both, transverse and longitudinal, directions.

In the least squares method of the helical trajectory reconstruction, the full initial covariance matrix has been used, taking into account the cross-correlations of the track crossing points in the VXD and MT layers due to multiple scattering.

## 3 Simulation results

### 3.1 Discrimination of tracks from event pile-up

In these simulations, we assume that, for the charged particles produced in the triggered event, the event time and positions of track crossing points in the MT layers were measured correctly. Then, at the track reconstruction stage, the hit set, created by each single

particle, will match to a single track, yielding a good fit with $`\chi ^2`$ within an expected range. For a track emerging before or after the trigger by the time shift of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, the assumption of its belonging to the triggered event will lead to a misplacement of its layer crossing points by $`\pm V_{drift}\times \mathrm{\Delta }t`$ along the drift axis. In the cases of at least one hit in some layer drifting in the opposite direction compared to the others, the hit set will not match to a single track and, thus the hypothesis that this potential track belongs to the triggered event would be rejected. As an illustration, in Fig. 2 the simulated $`\chi ^2`$-distributions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=`$ 10 $`ns`$ are compared to the ones with correct track timing for some combination of drift directions in the SDD layers, all drifting along $`z`$-axis333i.e. along detector magnetic field; here we switched to the detector global coordinate system as shown on the left side of Fig. 1..

In the 5-layer MT with all SDDs drifting along the same axis, a particle may encounter 16, roughly equally probable, distinct combinations of the relative drift directions in the MT layers. In 15 of these combinations, at least one hit drifts in the opposite direction than the others. This means that, in $``$15/16 = 93.75% cases, the selection procedure above will work. Only the relatively small fraction, $``$1/16 = 6.25% of tracks will cross the SDDs, drifting in the same direction, and the respective out-of-time hits will still match to a single track, but shifted as a whole from the true particle trajectory by $`\pm V_{drift}\times \mathrm{\Delta }t`$. In many cases, this shift can be detected by matching the track to the VXD and/or the collision region, and we can decide if the track should be associated with the triggered event (see right column of Fig. 2).

A way to avoid the necessity of using measurements beyond the MT for sorting out all tracks in the pile-up is to let SDDs in different layers drift along different axes: some drifting along the

detector magnetic field ($`z`$-axis) as in AGS E896 , but others drifting along the azimuth as in STAR at RHIC , i.e. along $`\phi `$-axis. In Fig. 3, some choices for the drift axes in MT layers are compared to each other. Apparently, the best track discrimination by their generation time is achieved by alternating drift axes from layer to layer, like $`z\phi z\phi z`$ (or $`\phi z\phi z\phi `$, which is similar but is not shown in Fig 3). But even the options with only one layer drifting perpendicularly to the other four provide much better results, particularly for the “MT only”, compared to the case of all layers drifting along the same axis444We do not consider here another possible solution with all SDDs drifting along the same axis, but with significantly different drift velocities in different layers..

The advantages of choosing some MT layers to drift along the azimuth should be weighted against a potential worsening of the momentum resolution due to the expected differences in the SDD spatial resolutions along anode and drift axes. In Fig. 4, the various choices for the drift axes in the MT layers are compared with respect to the momentum resolution. For the most important cases of “MT+VXD+Vertex” and “MT+VXD”, the best drift combination for the track discrimination, $`z\phi z\phi z`$, would lead to a loss in $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_T/P_T`$ at the highest momenta by $``$10% compared to the best achievable resolution with $`zzzzz`$-drift. However, the combinations $`\phi zzzz`$ and $`zzz\phi z`$ affect the momentum resolution by less than $``$2%, if at all. For the “MT only”, the choice of $`zzz\phi z`$ would also be one of the two best. The other combination is $`z\phi zzz`$, but it is not among the best for the momentum resolution, using the VXD and/or vertex. As a result, at least two choices for the drift axes in the MT layers, $`zzz\phi z`$ and $`\phi zzzz`$, should seriously be evaluated as a good compromise between momentum resolution and track time stamping.

### 3.2 Track timing

An additional parameter, track generation time, can be introduced in the track fits. With this parameter derived from the fit, each track could be assigned to an appropriate event with the well known generation time, which has been accurately measured, using the dedicated fast sub-detector(s). Fig. 5 shows the simulated distributions for the differences of the reconstructed, $`t_{rec}`$, and actual track generation time, $`t_0`$, for three choices of drift axes in the MT layers. One observes that the widths of the distributions (RMS) are on the nanosecond scale, but for high-$`P_T`$ tracks, time resolution in the sub-nanosecond range seems to be achievable.

The most promising choices for the drift axes in the layers are compared in Fig. 6. Apparently, the combination $`z\phi z\phi z`$ is always the best. However, the choice $`zzz\phi z`$ with the only one layer, drifting along the

azimuth, is hardly distinguishable from $`z\phi z\phi z`$, if the VXD is used, and just slightly worse for the MT only case. Combined with the earlier observation of virtually no negative impact of the $`zzz\phi z`$ combination on the momentum resolution, this option should be very seriously considered for the design of the SDD based central MT.

## 4 Conclusion

We have shown that, with an SDD based central MT for the detector at the $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider, the track selection and timing is possible at the nanosecond and even sub-nanosecond level. This means that, even at the NLC and/or JLC with the bunch spacing at 1.4 $`ns`$, each high-$`P_T`$ track can be assigned to a particular bunch crossing at a confidence level of up to two standard deviations.

In order to achieve a good track timing and a minimal effect on the momentum resolution in the proposed 5-layer central MT, we suggest a design with four layers drifting along the magnetic field ($`z`$-axis), and one layer drifting along the azimuth ($`\phi `$-axis) with virtually no negative impact of such a choice on the detector momentum resolution.

It is worth underlining that with the SDD based MT, the track timing capabilities on the sub-nanosecond scale are built into the technology choice at no additional cost or effort.

## 5 Acknowledgments

It is our pleasure to thank K. Riles and B. Schumm for the useful communications on the $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider tracking system characteristics and design, and J. Balewski, G. Bunce and A. I. Pavlinov for the inspiring discussions. This work has been supported in part by the DoE and NSF.


format: text

text:
# Simulation of the AGILE Gamma-Ray Imaging Detector Performance: Part II

## 1 Introduction

The use of solid state physics instruments for cosmic gamma-ray detection in space will substantially improve the scientific performance of high-energy astrophysics missions. AGILE  is a Small Scientific Mission supported by the Italian Space Agency planned to be operational in 2003. AGILE is a relatively light instrument ($`80`$ kg) based on state-of-the-art Silicon detector technology with excellent imaging capabilities in the gamma-ray (30 MeV–50GeV) and hard X-ray (10–40 keV) energy ranges. The Gamma-Ray Imaging Detector (GRID) is devoted to optimal detection and imaging of cosmic gamma-rays. It is basically made of a Silicon Tracker and a Mini-Calorimeter as described in Ref. . The Silicon Tracker has 14 planes of Si microstrip detectors (121 $`\mu `$m pitch) with floating strip readout (readout pitch of 242 $`\mu `$m) for a total on-axis radiation length of 1 $`X_0`$. The Mini-Calorimeter, with a total on-axis radiation length of 1.5 $`X_0`$, supports the event energy determination and topological reconstruction of gamma-ray events.

In this paper we complete our analysis of the on-board data processing of cosmic photon and charged particle background events by what we define “Level-2/Step-1 data processing”. We refer to a companion paper (Paper I, Longo, Cocco & Tavani, 2001) for details on the AGILE-GRID model and assumptions about the background and detector performance capabilities.

### 1.1 Summary of the GRID Level-1 data processing

As shown in Paper I the best Level-1 trigger strategy (required to be fast within a few tens of microseconds) is given by a combination of what we defined as the R11G and the DIS options. The R11G option is based on the combined use of signals from the anticoincidence (AC) panels and of the quantity $`R`$, defined as the ratio between the total number of hit TAA1 chips and the total number of fired X and Y views. The DIS option is a simplified track reconstruction based on computing the distance $`D`$ of the fired TAA1s from the fired AC lateral panels.

From our simulations we showed that the R11G+DIS Level-1 trigger is quite efficient in rejecting $`96\%`$ of background charged particles without affecting significantly the cosmic gamma-ray detection . Taking into account also the Earth albedo-photons, we expect a total (background plus cosmic photons) rate of $`\stackrel{<}{}100`$ Hz after the hardware-implemented Level-1 trigger (see Paper I). This rate is consistent with the AGILE Data Handling (DH) processing requirements.

### 1.2 GRID Level-2 data processing

The two types of background events passing the Level-1 data processing are:

* charged particle events due to primary and albedo protons, electrons and positrons (average rate $`70\mathrm{s}^1`$);
* Earth albedo-photon events (average rate $`2040\mathrm{s}^1`$, depending on the instrument inclination with respect to the Earth surface).

After the Level-1 data processing, an additional event reduction is necessary on board to satisfy the GRID telemetry conditions. The goal is to achieve an event rate (comprehensive of cosmic gamma-rays and background events) of $`\stackrel{<}{}30s^1`$. This Level-2 data processing and its implications are the main subjects of the current paper.

We distinguish two steps of Level-2 processing:

* Step-1: simple algorithms using cluster identification, analog information, and topology of events in the GRID Silicon Tracker (crucial for particle background rejection);
* Step-2: 3D-reconstruction algorithms aimed at determining the incoming photon directions (crucial for rejecting Earth albedo-photons).

In the following, we present the main results of the simulated charged particle background processing (Level-2/Step-1), and the requirements for the on-board Level-2 software to be applied to albedo-photons.

## 2 Level-2 Processing: Step-1

The Level-2 processing logic is applied after the Level-1 and Level-1.5 steps, and after the GRID data pre-processing, consisting in cluster identification and temporary storage in a GRID memory buffer. The Level-2 processing is asynchronous with respect to the real GRID data acquisition, and is typically limited to be completed within 1-2 milliseconds given the GRID background requirements. We assume R11G and DIS respectively as the Level-1 and Level-1.5 trigger steps; we define as “cluster” every group of consecutive fired Silicon strips with energy deposition larger than 27 keV (corresponding to 1/4 MIP111MIP means Minimum Ionizing Particle energy release), and for every cluster we assume to have available from the on-board data processing the centroid (charge-barycentric) positions, cluster widths, and cluster total charges. An important factor to consider is the saturation of the GRID Silicon strip channels. When the energy release is larger than 5 MIP, the charge information saturates to its maximum value. Complete analog energy information is then available only for non-saturated strips, and we correctly simulate this hardware behavior.

Before discussing some Level-2 processing procedures, we recall the meaning of some quantities and Level-1 trigger steps defined in Paper I:

* TRA = number of events characterized by primary particles or photons reaching the Tracker volume, a box of $`38.06\times 38.06\times 21.078`$ $`\mathrm{cm}^3`$ which includes the Tracker planes from the top sheet of the first tungsten layer to the bottom sheet of the last Silicon-y plane;
* PLA = events which give hits in at least 3 out of 4 consecutive planes (X OR Y view);
* LAT = events passing the top-AC veto, with signals in 0 or 1 lateral AC panels, in 2 consecutive AC panels or in 2 AC panels on the same side;
* R11G = LAT events with signals in 0 lateral AC panels, and LAT events with signals in 1 or 2 AC panels and $`R>1.1`$;
* DIS = simplified track reconstruction based on computing the distance $`D`$ of the fired TAA1s from the fired AC lateral panel. The parameter DIS is defined as: $`DIS=D_{fp}D_{lp}`$ where $`D_{fp}`$ is the distance of the closest fired TAA1 to the fired AC lateral panel in the first plane, while $`D_{lp}`$ is the distance of the closest fired TAA1 to the fired AC lateral panel in the last plane. We require $`DIS0`$ for good events. This option is applied only if there are fired AC lateral panels.

We discuss here four Level-2 processing procedures, some of them inspired by the corresponding Level-1 or Level-1.5 trigger options that successfully reject background particles without loosing too many cosmic gamma-ray photons:

* 3PL:
is a condition more stringent than the PLA defined in Paper I; it requires hits on 3 consecutive planes (X AND Y views).
* CDIS:
is the application of the DIS algorithm to clusters instead of TAA1 chips. It is based on computing the distance $`CD`$ of the clusters from the single fired AC panel. The parameter $`CDIS`$ is defined as $`CDIS=CD_{firstplane}CD_{lastplane}`$ in order to have $`CDIS0`$ for good events (in case of a plane with more than one cluster, it is considered only the nearest cluster to the fired AC panel). This option is applied only if there are fired AC lateral panels.
* FCN3MIP:
this procedure is based on the use of the parameter $`FCN=N_c(E>3MIP)/N_{ctot}`$ which is the fractional number of clusters with total energy larger than 3 MIPs ($`N_c`$), with $`N_{ctot}`$ the total cluster number for the whole event; all events with $`FCN>0.6`$ are rejected.
* M15:
The multiplicity M is the analogous of the ratio R, computed for clusters:
M=(total number of clusters)/(total number of interested x/y views)
The ”M15 procedure” consists in rejecting all events with fired AC panels and with $`M<1.5`$.

### 2.1 Simulation results and discussion

Tabs. 1, 2, 3 and Fig. 1 show the simulation results obtained applying the 3PL, CDIS, FCN3MIP and M15 procedures as Level-2 data processing steps applied in sequence. The particle and photon classes used in the simulations are the same used in Paper I. The suffix “TC” means “Tracker converted”: only photons converted in the Tracker volume are “good photons”, those for which there is good probability to reconstruct the incident direction.

We note that the 3PL procedure rejects events which are difficult to interpret, because of their ”sparse” topology. This kind of events are typically produced by background electrons or positrons rather than by cosmic photons. The CDIS and M15 procedures follow the same philosophy of the Level-1.5 DIS option and of the Level-1 R11G option. The main difference is that they are applied to clusters instead of TAA1 chips, and therefore the spatial resolution is clearly better. The FCN3MIP procedure uses in a crucial way the GRID cluster analog information, and is very efficient in rejecting low-energy protons stopping in the Tracker volume. From Fig. 1 (upper panel, points marked with crosses) we note that the FCN3MIP procedure rejects low-energy protons by almost an order of magnitude, and has a very small effect on the rejection of cosmic off-axis gamma-rays (Fig. 1, lower panel). This is one of the most important results of our paper. Ionization losses of protons (or heavier nuclei) decelerating within the Tracker and eventually stopping inside it leave an unambiguous signature in terms of deposited charge in the Silicon microstrips. Our results on the proton background rejection are also clearly shown in Fig. 4, indicating a suppression by nearly one order of magnitude of the surviving flux from Level-1 to Level-2/Step-1 near kinetic energies of 100 MeV. At these energies, the total proton background suppression obtained on-board is by three orders of magnitude, by far the best results obtained by our background subtraction procedures. Our understanding of the particle background for an equatorial orbit of height near 550 km indicates that protons (and heavier nuclei) contribute about 10–20% of the total background rate of incident particles. An efficient rejection of this component is therefore very important.

We can conclude that simple Level-2 processing strategies can succeed in lowering the particle background rate from $`70s^1`$ to $`30s^1`$ without affecting significantly the cosmic gamma-ray detection.

### 2.2 Spectral and angular selection of background components

We extensively studied how the different trigger cuts modify the energy spectra and the angular distributions of the different background components. Figs. 2, 3 and 4 show the modifications of the charged particle background spectra and angular distributions due to Level-1, Level-1.5 and Level-2 data processing. Note that low-energy protons are rejected especially by the Level-2/Step-1 trigger selection and that most “surviving” particles are characterized by large values of the incidence angle ($`\theta >60^{}`$). This important qualitative feature of the surviving particle background applies also to electrons and positrons that constitute the majority of particles passing the Level-2/Step-1 processing. From Figs. 2 and 3 (lower panels) it is evident that particles penetrating in the GRID from below (with respect to the detector’s Z-axis pointed in a direction opposite to that of the spacecraft) have a larger probability of passing the Level-2/Step-1 data processing. This conclusion is not surprising considering the shallowness of the Mini-Calorimeter and the existence of lateral GRID regions not covered by the Anticoincidence panels (Paper I). It is important to note that the AGILE-GRID will be an imaging gamma-ray instrument quite different from EGRET  that could discriminate against particles impinging on the detector from below because of a Time-of-Flight veto system. Background reduction for particles penetrating Silicon detectors similar to AGILE from below is a delicate matter, and needs to be addressed with great care.

Figs. 5 and 6 show the event selection and cuts for the albedo-photon spectra and their angular distributions for different GRID-Earth geometries. We base our analysis of Earth albedo photons on the simplified model described in Paper I. Fig. 5 refers to the case of the GRID pointing an unocculted portion of the sky with the Earth ”below the GRID” and the direction towards the Earth center corresponding to the colatitude angle $`\theta =180^{}`$. Fig. 6 refers to the case of the Earth occulting approximately half of the GRID field of view. The most relevant feature of these albedo gamma-ray events is their large contribution to the total GRID background after the Level-2/Step-1 processing. Their differential spectra peak slightly below $`10^3\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{GeV}^1`$ at photon energies near 10 MeV, and their total rate integrated over the whole spectrum is relatively high, of the same order as the surviving lepton rate (see Table 2). This result indicates the necessity of implementing on board an additional data processing for rejecting efficiently Earth albedo photons based on their incoming directions. This analysis goes beyond the scope of this paper and will be presented elsewhere.

### 2.3 Spectral and angular selection of cosmic gamma-ray photons

In order to analyze the effect of the trigger selection on the cosmic gamma-ray photon spectrum and angular distribution we considered extragalactic cosmic gamma-rays with a power-law energy spectrum of index n=-2.1 and flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{E}>100\mathrm{MeV})10^5\mathrm{ph}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$ from Ref. , energies in the range 1 MeV $`÷`$ 100 GeV and directions in the ranges $`\theta =0^{}180^{}`$, $`\varphi =0^{}360^{}`$. Fig. 7 shows the effects of trigger and processing cuts on the cosmic gamma-ray spectrum and angular distribution. We notice the excellent trigger performance of the GRID in terms of both spectral and angular responses. Trigger efficiency for photon detection and Level-2 successful processing varies between 15% and $``$ 40% depending on photon energy and direction.

## 3 Level-2 Processing: Step-2 and software requirements

The Earth albedo-photon component of the background is of great relevance. After the simplified processing of Level-1 and Level-2/Step-1, we can state the following:

* the albedo photon background after Level-2/Step-1 is dominated by low-energy photons in the range $`5\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}<E<30`$ MeV, peaking at $`10`$ MeV.
* the Level-2/Step-1 albedo photon event rate is near 20–30 $`s^1`$ and, when summed with the charged particle net rate, is too large to be sustained by the AGILE telemetry.

Therefore, the on-board background suppression requires further software data processing after the ”simplified” Step-1 analysis presented in the previous section. We call this processing ”Level-2/Step-2”, aimed at an approximate but effective photon direction reconstruction. A detailed description of this Level-2 processing is beyond the scope of this paper, and it will be presented elsewhere.

## 4 GRID Telemetry

We summarize in this Section the main characteristics of the GRID scientific telemetry. Based on the selection cuts operated at Level-1 and Level-2 processing stages, we are in a position to assess the contribution to the scientific telemetry for both the particle and albedo-photon background and the cosmic gamma-ray signal.

It is crucial to realize that the number of bits $`N_{bits}`$ generated by a typical ”GRID event” is variable, depending on the number of Tracker clusters ($`N_{clus}`$), fired Mini-Calorimeter bars ($`N_{bars}`$) and other quantities (e.g.: $`N_{tplus}`$, the number of TAA1 chips exceeding the limit of 8 TAA1 for every 2 consecutive views). In the Montecarlo simulations we used the formula: $`N_{bits}176+29\times N_{bars}+57\times N_{clus}+9\times N_{tplus}`$, defining a “cluster” as a group of consecutive hit readout-strips with deposited charge $`E>1/4MIP`$, and a “hit bar” every CsI bar with an energy release larger than $`E=0.7`$ MeV. The considered formula represents the typical telemetry for GRID events. It takes into account the event header information and the main contributions of variable length. We emphasize that the assumed number of bits per cluster ($`n=57`$) includes the total cluster width and deposited charge and all the analog information (position and deposited charge) that can be stored for 5 readout strips per cluster.

### 4.1 Telemetry event classes

The relevant components of the expected event rate after the Level-1 and the Level-2 trigger stages were simulated using the following event classes:

* Electrons and positrons (isotropic distributions), this class includes electron and positron classes described in Paper I;
* Protons (including primary and secondary components with proper angular distributions, AGILE pointing assumed to be with zenith angle $`\theta =0^{}`$), this class includes low-energy proton and high-energy proton classes described in Paper I;
* Earth albedo photons  (case ALB-1, unocculted AGILE’s FOV, Earth below the Tracker), this class is the same considered in Paper I;
* Cosmic gamma-rays (extragalactic diffuse emission), this class was described in Sect. 2.3 of this paper.

Since the average number of bits per GRID event strongly depends on the particle/photon energy and inclination and since gamma-rays above hundreds of MeV constitute a very important component of the scientific data, we considered also the high-energy and very high-energy photon classes summarized in Tab. 5.

### 4.2 Simulation results

Simulation results are summarized in Tab. 6. We find that the lepton component of the background is expected to dominate the GRID scientific telemetry. We note that the lepton surviving the current Level-2 cuts are dominated by low-energy events ($`E2030`$ MeV) with characteristics similar to those of cosmic low-energy gamma-rays. The typical telemetry load for these low-energy leptons is below 1.5 kbit/event. Low-energy protons are efficiently rejected by the Level-1 and Level-2/Step-1 logic. Note that the telemetry distributions of photon classes are biased towards the low-energy photons. The average number of bits per GRID event strongly depends on the photon energy and inclination.

In principle, each particle and photon event is characterized by different GRID topologies, and therefore different telemetry loads. However, in practice all particle/photon components passing the Level-2 processing have quite similar $`N_{bits}`$ distributions, as shown by Fig. 8. All distributions peak near or below 1 kbit/event with average numbers given in Tab. 6.

## 5 GRID Effective Area

The effective area is, by definition, $`A_{eff}=ϵA_{}`$, where $`A_{}`$ is the detector “geometrical area” (equivalent area perpendicular to the incident flux direction) and $`ϵ`$ is the detector efficiency. The detector efficiency is given by the photon interaction probability ($`ϵ_i`$) times the trigger efficiency ($`ϵ_t`$) times the track reconstruction efficiency ($`ϵ_r`$): $`ϵ=ϵ_iϵ_tϵ_r`$.

Track reconstruction (implying a reliable vertex identification and direction reconstruction) is strongly influenced by the event topologies. Taking into account average properties of the events, we assumed in Fig. 10 the following values: $`ϵ_r=1`$ for $`E>25`$ MeV and $`ϵ_r=0.75`$ for $`E=25`$ MeV.

The value of $`ϵ_iϵ_t`$ is given by the following ratio: $`ϵ_iϵ_t=\text{N(M15\_TC)}/\text{N(TRA\_TH)}`$ since “good photons” are only the ones that pass the Level-2 trigger (R11G+DIS +M15) having converted in the tracker volume, and they must be compared with the total number of photons that would geometrically enter the tracker volume. N(TRA\_TH) can be evaluated theoretically as $`\text{N(TRA\_TH)}=FA_{}`$, where F is the photon incident flux, which is related to the total number of events generated on the spherical surface around the detector by the relation $`F=N_{TOT}/(\pi r^2)`$, where $`r`$ is the sphere radius (we generally use $`r`$=89 cm and $`N_{TOT}=50000`$).

In order to study the GRID effective area we considered on-axis photons ($`\theta =0^{}`$, $`\varphi =0^{}`$) and photons with $`\theta =50^{}`$ and $`\varphi =0^{}`$, with the following energies: E= 25 MeV, 100 MeV, 1 GeV, 10 GeV, 50 GeV. Fig. 9 provide information on how the event cuts adopted in this document affect the GRID gamma-ray detection. The processing steps adopted by Level-1.5 and Level-2/Step-1 are crucial in lowering the particle background rate from $`120\mathrm{s}^1`$ (after R11G) to $`30\mathrm{s}^1`$ (after Level-2/Step-1). However, these event cuts also cause a decrease of the effective area, especially for off-axis photons. Fig. 10 shows the comparison among AGILE, EGRET and COMPTEL effective areas, for fixed directions, as a function of photon energy.

## 6 Conclusions

The trigger and processing strategy presented in this paper to filter and select particle and photon GRID events can be summarized as follows.

Events induced by electrons and positrons constitute the main background component and dominate the scientific telemetry of the AGILE-GRID. The total lepton event rate obtained for the trigger and processing strategy presented in this paper (Level-2/Step-1 processing) is $`R_{e^+/e^{}}30\mathrm{s}^1`$. A goal of the Level-2/Step-2 processing through a three-dimensional photon direction reconstruction is to further reduce this background component by almost a factor of 2, reaching $`R_{e^+/e^{}}(\mathrm{required}\mathrm{rate})15\mathrm{s}^1`$.

Earth albedo gamma-ray photons after the Level-2/Step-1 processing produce an event rate $`R_{albedo\gamma }2030\mathrm{s}^1`$ , depending on the geometry and comparable to that of leptons. This event rate is too large to be acceptable by the AGILE telemetry, and further reduction of this component is necessary. A 3D-direction reconstruction algorithm to be implemented by the Level-2/Step-2 processing is required to reduce this rate at least by a factor of 10, reaching the telemetry rate requirement: $`R_{albedo\gamma }(\mathrm{required}\mathrm{rate})3\mathrm{s}^1`$.

Low-energy proton events ($`E_{kin}<400`$ MeV) are efficiently decreased by the on-board Level-1 and Level-2 logic, especially because of the available Si strip analog information. High energy protons (of energy near or larger than 1 GeV) tend to dominate the telemetry of proton events. The simulated Level-2/Step-1 processing of protons produce an event rate near the required value, $`R_{protons}(\mathrm{required}\mathrm{rate})1\mathrm{s}^1`$.

At the end, the event rate for cosmic gamma-ray events, the scientific signal of the AGILE-GRID, turns out to be $`100`$ times smaller than the (lepton, proton, albedo-photon) background after the Level-2/Step-1 processing. As required by our strategy, cosmic gamma-rays are quite efficiently detected and filtered by the on-board GRID data processing, reaching optimal detection efficiency near 100 MeV.

We notice that a substantial number of cosmic photon events passing the Level-2 processing have energies between 10 MeV and 30 MeV, as it can be deduced from Fig. 7. Table 7 summarizes our conclusions.

## 7 Acknowledgments

Results presented in this paper are based on joint work with members of the AGILE Team. In particular, we thank G. Barbiellini, P. Picozza, A. Morselli and the AGILE Simulation and Theory Group for many discussions and support.

The current work was carried out at the University of Rome ”Tor Vergata”, University of Ferrara and CNR and INFN laboratories under the auspices and partial support of the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana.

FIGURE CAPTIONS:
Fig.1: Efficiency of the GRID Level-2/Step-1 data processing in rejecting particle background events (upper panel) and in detecting photons (lower panel). The suffix “TC” means “Tracker converted” (only photons converted in the Tracker volume have been considered) and “FCN\_TC” means “FCN3MIP\_TC” (see text).
Fig.2: Simulated differential energy (upper panel) and angle (lower panel) distributions resulting from the processing of the electron background by the AGILE-GRID on-board Data Handling. The upper solid curve represents the particles above 10 MeV penetrating into the Tracker volume (TRA). The long-dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curve and the dot-dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curves refer to the Level-1 processing (PLA and R11G), respectively. The short dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curve refers to the Level-1.5 processing (DIS). The thick solid curve represents the particle flux passing the sequence of Level-2/Step-1 data processing (indicated with M15).
Fig.3: Simulated differential energy (upper panel) and angle (lower panel) distributions resulting from the processing of the positron background by the AGILE-GRID on-board Data Handling. The upper solid curve represents the particles above 10 MeV penetrating into the Tracker volume (TRA). The long-dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curve and the dot-dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curves refer to the Level-1 processing (PLA and R11G), respectively. The short dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curve refers to the Level-1.5 processing (DIS). The thick solid curve represents the particle flux passing the sequence of Level-2/Step-1 data processing (indicated with M15).
Fig.4: Simulated differential energy (upper panel) and angle (lower panel) distributions resulting from the processing of the proton background by the AGILE-GRID on-board Data Handling. The upper solid curve represents the particles above 10 MeV penetrating into the Tracker volume (TRA). The long-dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curve and the dot-dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curves refer to the Level-1 processing (PLA and R11G), respectively. The short dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curve refers to the Level-1.5 processing (DIS). The thick solid curve represents the particle flux passing the sequence of Level-2/Step-1 data processing (indicated with M15).
Fig.5: Simulated differential energy (upper panel) and angle (lower panel) distributions resulting from the processing of the Earth albedo-photon (ALB-1, see text for definition) background by the AGILE-GRID. The upper solid curve represents the photons above 1 MeV penetrating into the Tracker volume (TRA). The long-dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curve and the dot-dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curves refer to the Level-1 processing (PLA and R11G), respectively. The short dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curve refers to the Level-1.5 processing (DIS). The thick solid curve represents the photon flux passing the sequence of Level-2/Step-1 data processing (indicated with M15).
Fig.6: Simulated differential energy (upper panel) and angle (lower panel) distributions resulting from the processing of the Earth albedo photon (ALB-2, see text for definition) background by the AGILE-GRID. The upper solid curve represents the photons above 1 MeV penetrating into the Tracker volume (TRA). The long-dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curve and the dot-dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curves refer to the Level-1 processing (PLA and R11G), respectively. The short dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curve refers to the Level-1.5 processing (DIS). The thick solid curve represents the photon flux passing the sequence of Level-2/Step-1 data processing (indicated with M15).
Fog.7: Simulated differential energy (upper panel) and angle (lower panel) distributions from the processing of cosmic extragalactic gamma-rays by the AGILE-GRID. The upper solid curve represents the photons above 1 MeV penetrating into the Tracker volume (TRA). The long-dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curve and the dot-dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curves refer to the Level-1 processing (PLA and R11G), respectively. The short dash$`\mathrm{ed}`$ curve refers to the Level-1.5 processing (DIS). The thick solid curve represents the photon flux passing the sequence of Level-2/Step-1 data processing (indicated with M15).
Fig.8: Telemetry distributions ($`N_{bits}`$/event) normalized to unity. Continuous line: electron-positron component; Dashed line: proton component; Dotted line: albedo gamma-ray component; Dashed-dotted line: extragalactic diffuse gamma-rays.
Fig.9: Comparison between the AGILE-tracker effective area obtained applying only R11G Level-1 Trigger and the AGILE-tracker effective area obtained applying M15 Level-2 Trigger (after R11G+DIS).
Fig.10: AGILE, EGRET and COMPTEL effective areas after track reconstruction. Figure adapted from Refs.. EGRET and COMPTEL data are from Refs..


text:
# Studying Structure Formation with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey

## 1. The SDSS: Goals and Status

The observational goals of the SDSS have remained stable since its early days: (1) $`u`$,$`g`$,$`r`$,$`i`$,$`z`$ CCD imaging of $`10^4\mathrm{deg}^2`$ in the North Galactic Cap, to a depth $`23`$mag in the most sensitive bands, (2) a spectroscopic survey in this area of $`10^6`$ galaxies, $`10^5`$ quasars, and an assortment of stars and other targets, and (3) imaging of three $`2.5^{}\times 90^{}`$ stripes in the South Galactic Cap, with the equatorial stripe scanned repeatedly to allow variability studies and co-added imaging that goes $`2`$mag deeper than a single scan. The normal spectroscopic program is carried out on all three stripes in the south, and additional spectroscopy in the equatorial stripe will provide deeper samples of quasars and galaxies and more comprehensive coverage of stellar targets. The survey is carried out using a dedicated 2.5-m telescope on Apache Point, New Mexico, equipped with a mosaic CCD camera (Gunn et al. 1998) and two fiber-fed double spectrographs that can obtain 640 spectra simultaneously (Uomoto et al., in preparation). A technical overview of the survey appears in York et al. (2000), and an updated but more focused technical summary appears in the paper by Stoughton et al. (2002) that describes the Early Data Release. The quasar survey is reviewed by Schneider et al. (these proceedings), and the quasar target selection is described by Richards et al. (2002). There are two samples in the galaxy redshift survey, a magnitude limited sample to $`r=17.77`$ comprising 90% of the galaxy targets (Strauss et al. 2002), and a sparser, deeper sample of luminous red galaxies (Eisenstein et al. 2001).

After a decade of preparatory work, the SDSS formally began operations on the auspicious date of April 1, 2000. It is planned to run until summer, 2005. The total area covered will depend on the weather between now and then, especially the amount of weather that satisfies the seeing and photometric requirements of the imaging survey. A reasonable guess is that the northern survey will cover $`70\%`$ of the original $`10^4\mathrm{deg}^2`$ goal by summer, 2005. As of January, 2002, the SDSS had obtained $`3200`$ square degrees of imaging and $`230,000`$ spectra (of which about 80% are galaxies), including both northern and southern observations. The quality of the spectra, which cover the wavelength range 3800Å to 9200Å at resolution $`R1800`$, is spectacular. Redshift completeness for spectroscopically observed galaxies is over 99%, and for most galaxies the spectra yield stellar velocity dispersions and valuable diagnostics of the stellar populations. The scientific analyses to date are only scratching the surface of what the spectroscopic data allow.

In June, 2001, the SDSS released $`462\mathrm{deg}^2`$ of imaging data ($`14`$ million detected objects) and $`54,000`$ follow-up spectra obtained during commissioning observations and the first phases of the survey proper, as documented by Stoughton et al. (2002). In addition to providing data for the larger community, the Early Data Release is a training exercise for the SDSS collaboration. One lesson is that releasing data as complex as that in the SDSS (e.g., radial profiles plus over 80 measured parameters for each photometric object, some of which are deblended, some imaged on more than one scan, some observed spectroscopically) in a useful way is very challenging, even within the collaboration itself. The First Data Release will take place in January, 2003, and subsequent releases will take place on a roughly annual basis (see http://www.sdss.org/science/index.html).

This paper is based on two talks that I gave at the New Era in Cosmology conference. Section 2 reviews some of the recent SDSS results on galaxies and large scale structure; the topics mentioned are some of the ones that I have found interesting myself, and they by no means constitute a comprehensive list. All of these results are published or available on astro-ph, so my summaries are brief and do not include figures. In Section 3, I discuss what we can hope to learn from studying galaxy clustering in the SDSS and the 2dFGRS, with focus on the Halo Occupation Distribution as a way of thinking about the relation between galaxies and dark matter. This discussion is based on collaborative work with Andreas Berlind, Zheng Zheng, Jeremy Tinker, and others.

## 2. A Review of Recent Results

### 2.1. Substructure in the Milky Way

The first science results from the SDSS that really surprised me were the discoveries, made independently by Yanny et al. (2000) using A-colored stars and by Ivezić et al. (2000) using RR Lyrae candidates, of coherent, unbound structures in the Milky Way’s stellar halo, stretching across tens of degrees. The idea that the stellar halo might be built by mergers of dwarf galaxies is an old one (Searle & Zinn 1978), and much of the recent theoretical modeling has focused on detecting fossil substructure through phase space studies of the local stellar distribution (e.g., Johnston et al. 1995; Helmi & White 1999; Helmi & de Zeeuw 2000). Even in the absence of kinematic data, the SDSS is a powerful tool for detecting substructure in the outer halo because multi-color imaging allows the definition of samples of stars that are approximately standard candles. The two structures found by Yanny et al. (2000), in an area $`1\%`$ of the sky, may both be associated with the tidal stream of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy (Ibata et al. 2001). However, a recent study using F-stars (Newberg et al. 2001) appears to show several more substructures, and no clear indication that there is a smooth underlying halo at all. Extending a model originally developed to investigate the dwarf satellite problem, Bullock, Kravtsov, & Weinberg (2001) showed that the population of disrupted dwarfs expected in the CDM cosmological scenario could naturally account for the entire stellar halo. If this model is right, then the SDSS should reveal ubiquitous substructure in the outer halo, where orbital times are long and the number of discrete streams is relatively small. In any event, the SDSS imaging survey will answer fundamental questions about the origin of the Milky Way’s stellar halo, and perhaps about the amount of power on sub-galactic scales in the primordial fluctuation spectrum.

### 2.2. Milky Way Satellites

With multi-color data, one can define optimal filters to maximize the contrast between an object in the Milky Way or Local Group and the foreground and background stellar distributions. Odenkirchen et al. (2001ab) have developed this technique and applied it to great effect in studies of the globular cluster Pal 5 and the dwarf spheroidal Draco. Pal 5 shows two well defined tidal tails that contain $`1/3`$ of the cluster’s stars, demonstrating that the cluster is subject to heavy mass loss. The orientation of the tails reveals the projected direction of the cluster’s orbit, and peaks within the tails may be a signature of disk shocking events. Draco, on the other hand, shows no sign of tidal extensions even at surface densities $`10^3`$ of the central value, demonstrating that it is a bound, equilibrium system, and justifying standard kinematic estimates that yield a high mass-to-light ratio, $`M/L_i100150`$. As the SDSS covers more sky, we will get a more complete census of which objects are being tidally destroyed and which are still holding themselves together. Tidal tails and tidal streams may also provide valuable constraints on the radial profile, shape, and clumpiness of the Milky Way’s dark halo potential (see, e.g., Johnston et al. 1999).

### 2.3. The Galaxy Luminosity Function

Blanton et al. (2001) measured the galaxy luminosity function in $`u`$, $`g`$, $`r`$, $`i`$, and $`z`$ using a sample of 11,275 galaxies observed during SDSS commissioning observations. The large sample size, accurate photometry, and use of the Petrosian (1976) system for defining galaxy magnitudes yield small statistical errors and excellent control of systematic effects. This analysis confirms and quantifies previous indications that the galaxy luminosity function varies systematically with surface brightness, color, and morphology; the first correlation implies that low surface brightness galaxies make only a small contribution to the mean luminosity density of the universe. The measured luminosity density exceeds the $`R`$-band estimate from the Las Campanas Redshift Survey (Lin et al. 1996) by a factor of two, and Blanton et al. show that this difference arises from the isophotal magnitude definition adopted by the LCRS, which misses light in the outer parts of galaxies that have intrinsically low or cosmologically dimmed surface brightness.

Norberg et al. (2001b) demonstrate convincingly that the high-precision measurement of the $`b_J`$-band luminosity function from the 2dFGRS is in good agreement with the luminosity function measured by the SDSS. Two main factors caused Blanton et al. (2001) to reach a contrary conclusion: they used an inaccurate conversion from SDSS bands to $`b_J`$, and their maximum likelihood method effectively estimates the luminosity function at a redshift $`z0.10.15`$, while the method used by Norberg et al. (2001b) implicitly corrects for evolution to derive the $`z=0`$ luminosity function. Using the SDSS early release data, Norberg et al. (2001b) demonstrate excellent agreement in the mean between SDSS and 2dFGRS galaxy magnitudes and redshifts, and they confirm earlier estimates of the completeness and stellar contamination of the 2dFGRS input catalog. While the optical luminosity function estimates are now in good agreement, there remains a puzzling discrepancy pointed out by Wright (2001) between the luminosity density found in the optical bands by the SDSS and the estimates of the $`K_s`$-band luminosity density from the 2dFGRS and 2MASS data (Cole et al. 2001; see also Kochanek et al. 2001). Norberg et al. (2001b) argue that the discrepancy is probably dominated by large scale structure fluctuations in the area used to normalize the $`K_s`$-band luminosity function.

### 2.4. Properties of Early Type Galaxies

The SDSS data are ideal for studying the correlations of galaxy properties, since the photometric and spectroscopic reduction pipelines measure many quantities automatically and one can create large samples with well understood selection effects. The main effort to date in this area is the comprehensive study of a sample of 9000 early type galaxies by Bernardi et al. (2001). They determine the fundamental plane in the $`g`$, $`r`$, $`i`$, and $`z`$ bands, and they measure bivariate correlations among luminosity, size, velocity dispersion, color, mass-to-light ratios, and spectral indices. The large sample size and high precision allow examination of relatively subtle effects, such as a slight difference in the fundamental plane of “field” and “cluster” galaxies. The evolution of the fundamental plane over the redshift range of the sample (which extends to $`z0.2`$) is consistent with passive evolution of old stellar populations.

### 2.5. Galaxy-Galaxy Lensing

One of the most dramatic breakthroughs from the SDSS has been the measurement of galaxy mass profiles and the galaxy-mass correlation function via galaxy-galaxy weak lensing. Systematic effects are much easier to control for galaxy-galaxy lensing than for cosmic shear measurements because image distortion is measured perpendicular to the radial separation vector, which has a different orientation for each foreground-background pair. The large area gives the SDSS great statistical power despite its rather shallow imaging (by weak lensing standards).

Fischer et al.’s (2000) analysis of two nights of SDSS imaging data (225 deg2) was at the time the clearest detection of a galaxy-galaxy lensing signal, with extended shear profiles (to $`r>250h^1`$kpc) offering direct evidence for the extended dark matter halos expected in standard models of galaxy formation. McKay et al. (2001) have since analyzed a sample of $`3,600,000`$ source galaxies around $`35,000`$ foreground galaxies in the spectroscopic sample, measuring the galaxy-mass correlation function and its dependence on galaxy luminosity, morphology, and environment. They find that the mass within an aperture of $`260h^1`$kpc scales linearly with galaxy luminosity, that the excess mass density around galaxies in high density regions remains positive to $`r1h^1`$Mpc while that around isolated galaxies is undetectable beyond $`300h^1`$kpc, and that early type galaxies have a higher amplitude galaxy-mass correlation function, in part because of their preferential location in group environments. Guzik & Seljak (2002) have modeled the McKay et al. results to infer that $`L_{}`$ galaxies have virial masses $`M(510)\times 10^{11}h^1M_{}`$, implying that a large fraction of the baryons within the virial radius of an $`L_{}`$ galaxy halo end up as stars in the central galaxy. By comparing to the Tully-Fisher relation, Seljak (2002) concludes that circular velocities at the halo virial radius are typically a factor $`1.71.8`$ below the values measured at the galaxy optical radius, and in reasonably good agreement with predictions based on CDM halo profiles.

### 2.6. Angular Galaxy Clustering

Early efforts to study galaxy clustering with the SDSS have focused on the analysis of a $`2.5^{}\times 90^{}`$ stripe of imaging data that has been closely examined and reduced multiple times. Scranton et al. (2001) carried out an exhaustive analysis of possible systematic effects associated with seeing variations, stellar density, Galactic reddening, galaxy deblending, variations across the imaging camera, and so forth, showing that they have no significant impact on measurements of the angular correlation function at the obtainable level of statistical precision. These experiments demonstrate that star-galaxy separation in the SDSS imaging works extremely well to $`r22`$. Dodelson et al. (2001) modeled the measurements of the angular correlation function (Connolly et al. 2001) and the angular power spectrum (Tegmark et al. 2001), to infer the 3-dimensional clustering of galaxies. Their results, $`\sigma _80.80.9`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0.15`$, are consistent with those obtained by Szalay et al. (2001) applying a different method, Karhunen-Loeve parameter estimation, to the same galaxy catalog. The statistical error bars from these analyses are not yet competitive with the highest precision analyses of the galaxy power spectrum (e.g., Percival et al. 2001), but they provide reassuring evidence that any systematic biases in the SDSS imaging data, and thus in the input to the redshift survey, are well controlled. Recently Szapudi et al. (2001) have analyzed the higher order angular moments of this data set, finding agreement with the hierarchical scalings and values of skewness and kurtosis parameters predicted by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models that incorporate mild suppression of galaxies in high mass halos. With the analysis tools now developed and tested and the systematic issues apparently well understood, the analyses of larger sky areas should soon yield precise measurements of angular clustering over a wide dynamic range.

### 2.7. Clustering in the Redshift Survey

Zehavi et al. (2001) carried out the first analysis of clustering in the SDSS redshift survey, focusing on the real space correlation function $`\xi (r)`$ and the pairwise velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{12}(r)`$ for different classes of galaxies, with a sample similar in size and geometry to the LCRS. Galaxies in absolute magnitude bins centered on $`M_{}1.5`$, $`M_{}`$, and $`M_{}+1.5`$ have parallel power-law correlation functions with slopes $`\gamma 1.8`$, but their amplitudes are significantly different, with $`r_04.7`$, 6.3, and 7.4$`h^1`$Mpc, respectively. The correlation function of red galaxies is both steeper and higher amplitude than that of blue galaxies. The pairwise dispersion for the full sample is $`\sigma _{12}600\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at $`r1h^1`$Mpc, but red galaxies have $`\sigma _{12}700\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and blue galaxies only $`\sigma _{12}400\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The dependence of $`\xi (r)`$ on galaxy properties resembles that found by Norberg et al. (2001ac) in the 2dFGRS (and in earlier studies such as Guzzo et al. 1997), but there are significant differences of detail. The SDSS data show a steady trend of correlation strength with luminosity, while Norberg et al. (2001a) find a transition from weak dependence below $`L_{}`$ to strong dependence above $`L_{}`$. Norberg et al. (2001c) find similar $`\xi (r)`$ slopes for galaxies of different spectral types, while the correlation function of blue galaxies in the SDSS is clearly shallower than that of red galaxies. Analysis of larger SDSS samples should clarify the significance of these differences; the first could reflect the difference between $`r`$-band and $`b_J`$-band selection, and the second could represent a difference between color and spectral type as a basis for galaxy classification. A consequence of the SDSS observing strategy (dictated largely by the instruments themselves) is that the early redshift data had a 2-dimensional slice geometry, making it difficult to study the large scale power spectrum and statistics that require contiguous 3-d volumes, like void probabilities and topology. That situation is changing as the survey progresses, and first results on these topics should emerge over the next several months.

### 2.8. Random Optimistic Remarks

The SDSS collaboration involves hundreds of scientists, with eleven participating institutions on three continents. With such a large and far-flung collaboration, we spend a lot of energy just keeping ourselves organized. I have just finished my term as the SDSS Scientific Publications Coordinator, a position with one chief benefit: I was forced to pay attention as the scientific output of the SDSS grew from a trickle to a flood, spreading rivulets into many different areas of astronomy. This development has been exciting to watch, and I have learned a lot of astronomy just by following it. While there are certainly challenges of communication in a collaboration this large, the process of going from data to science has worked, in my opinion, remarkably well. The ideal scenario is that each scientific analysis draws on the collective expertise of a very broad spectrum of astronomers; I have been delighted to see how often we approach this ideal in practice. The richness of the SDSS data is more than enough to keep us busy. Indeed, while I am sure that we look enormous from the outside, it is constantly evident from the inside that we don’t have enough people to do all the science we would like to be doing. That, of course, is one of many good reasons for publishing the data.

Before completely shifting gears, let me pause to congratulate the members of the 2dF galaxy and quasar redshift surveys for (a) obtaining more than 200,000 spectra, (b) publishing more than 100,000 spectra, and (c) writing a number of beautiful papers analyzing the results and implications. All three of these are great achievements. While the SDSS and 2dF teams cannot help but see themselves in competition every now and then, the benefits to astronomy of having these independent data sets and independent analyses are already very clear.

## 3. What Can We Learn From Galaxy Clustering?

The above question is one has been pondered by many people over several decades. Two developments that color recent considerations of this subject are the extraordinary improvements in the quantity and quality of the redshift survey data and the convergence of the cosmological community on a “standard” model, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM, that is supported by an impressive base of observational evidence. A third development that has deeply affected my own thinking is the emergence of a new way of describing galaxy bias, the Halo Occupation Distribution (HOD). The HOD characterizes the statistical relation between galaxies and mass in terms of the probability distribution $`P(N|M)`$ that a halo of virial mass $`M`$ contains $`N`$ galaxies, together with prescriptions that specify the relative spatial and velocity distributions of galaxies and dark matter within these halos. Note that “halo” here refers to a structure of typical overdensity $`\rho /\overline{\rho }200`$, in approximate dynamical equilibrium; higher density cores within a group or cluster are, in this description, treated as substructure, and characterized only in a statistical sense. Since different types of galaxies have different space densities and different clustering properties, a given HOD applies to a specific class of galaxies, e.g., red galaxies brighter than $`L_{}`$, or late-type spirals with $`r`$ magnitudes $`17`$ to $`19`$. The HOD framework has roots in early analytic models that described galaxy clustering as a superposition of randomly distributed clusters with specified profiles and a range of masses (Neyman & Scott 1952; Peebles 1974; McClelland & Silk 1977). A bevy of recent papers have shown that, when combined with numerical or analytic models of the clustering of the halos themselves, the HOD is a powerful tool for analytic and numerical calculations of clustering statistics, for modeling observed clustering, and for characterizing the results of semi-analytic or numerical studies of galaxy formation (e.g., Jing, Mo, & Börner 1998; Benson et al. 2000; Ma & Fry 2000; Peacock & Smith 2000; Seljak 2000; Berlind & Weinberg 2001; Marinoni & Hudson 2001; Scoccimarro et al. 2001; Yoshikawa et al. 2001; White, Hernquist, & Springel 2001; Bullock, Wechsler, & Somerville 2002).

My own interest in this approach was spurred largely by the paper of Benson et al. (2000), who discussed the clustering predictions of their semi-analytic model of galaxy formation in these terms. A forthcoming paper by Berlind et al. (in preparation; see also Berlind 2001) compares the predictions of the Benson et al. semi-analytic formalism to those of a large, smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) simulation (Murali et al. 2001; Davé et al., in preparation), for the same cosmological model. The agreement between the two approaches is remarkably good. If we select galaxies above a specified baryon mass threshold, chosen separately in the two calculations so that the space densities of the populations are equal, then the mean occupation $`N_{\mathrm{avg}}(M)`$ is a non-linear function of mass with three basic features: a cutoff mass below which halos are not massive enough to host a galaxy above the threshold, a low occupancy regime ($`N_{\mathrm{avg}}<2`$) in which the mean occupation grows slowly with increasing halo mass but the average galaxy mass itself increases, and a high occupancy regime in which $`N_{\mathrm{avg}}(M)`$ grows more steeply with mass, though the growth is still sub-linear because larger, hotter halos convert a smaller fraction of their baryons into galaxies. In the low occupancy regime, the fluctuations about the mean are well below those of a Poisson distribution — a halo that is supposed to host one galaxy very rarely hosts two — and the sub-Poisson nature of these fluctuations has a crucial impact on some clustering statistics. The HOD is strongly dependent on the age of the galaxies’ stellar populations; old galaxies like to live together in massive, high occupancy halos, while young galaxies studiously avoid them. The SPH simulations further show that the oldest, most massive galaxy in a halo usually resides near the halo center and moves at close to the center-of-mass velocity, while the remaining galaxies approximately trace the spatial and velocity distribution of the halo’s dark matter. The agreement between the semi-analytic and SPH calculations, despite some clear differences in the way that they treat radiative cooling and feedback from star formation, suggests that the HOD emerges from fairly robust physics that both methods do right, given their common assumptions. Whether these assumptions hold in the real universe is, of course, one of the things we hope to learn.

Figure 1 sketches the interplay between the “Cosmological Model” and the “Galaxy Formation Theory” in determining galaxy clustering (which I take to include the galaxy-mass correlations measured by weak lensing). The HOD approach suggests a nice division of labor between these two theoretical inputs. The cosmological model, which specifies the initial conditions (e.g., scale-invariant fluctuations from inflation) and the matter and energy contents (e.g., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), determines the mass function, spatial correlations, and velocity correlations of the dark halo population. At our adopted overdensity threshold $`\rho /\overline{\rho }200`$, these properties of the halo population are determined almost entirely by gravity, with no influence of complex gas physics. I have inserted a box in the path between cosmological model and dark halo population to indicate that the only features of the cosmological model that really matter in this context are $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, the fluctuation amplitude (represented here by $`\sigma _8`$), and the power spectrum shape (represented here by $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, though it could, of course, be more interesting). Other features of the cosmological model, such as the energy density and equation of state of the vacuum component, may have an important impact on other observables or on the history of matter clustering, but they have virtually no effect on the halo population at $`z=0`$, if the shape of $`P(k)`$ and the present day value of $`\sigma _8`$ are held fixed. The galaxy formation theory incorporates the additional physical processes — such as shock heating, radiative cooling, conversion of cold gas into stars, and feedback of star formation on the surrounding gas — that are essential to producing distinct, dense, bound clumps of stars and cold gas. It further specifies what aspects of a galaxy’s formation history determine its final mass, luminosity, diameter, color, morphology, and so forth. These physical processes operate in the background provided by the evolving halo population, so the predicted HOD depends on both the theory of galaxy formation and the assumed cosmological model.

As a description of bias, the crowning virtue of the HOD is its completeness: given a dark halo population and a fully specified HOD, one can predict the value of any galaxy clustering statistic, on any scale, using analytic approximations and/or numerical simulations.111There is one caveat here, namely the implicit assumption that a halo’s galaxy content depends, on average, only on its mass, and has no statistical correlation with the halo’s large scale environment. This assumption is adopted in “merger tree” formulations of the semi-analytic method, and it is supported by the N-body experiments of Kauffmann & Lemson (1999) and by the results of the SPH simulation mentioned above, but it is not logically incontrovertible. Berlind & Weinberg (2001) examined the influence of the HOD on galaxy clustering and galaxy-mass correlations, for the halo population of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM N-body simulation. We found that different clustering statistics, or even the same statistic at different scales, are sensitive to different aspects of the HOD. For example, at large scales $`\xi _{\mathrm{gg}}(r)`$ is proportional to the mass correlation function $`\xi _{\mathrm{mm}}(r)`$, with a bias factor equal to the average of the halo bias factor $`b_h(M)`$ weighted by the halo number density and the mean occupation $`N_{\mathrm{avg}}(M)`$. On small scales, however, the explicit dependence on $`\xi _{\mathrm{mm}}(r)`$ disappears, and $`\xi _{\mathrm{gg}}(r)`$ depends on the halo mass function, on the mean number of pairs $`N(N1)`$ as a function of halo mass and virial radius, and (to a lesser extent) on the internal bias between galaxy profiles and mass profiles. Connecting these pieces into a power-law galaxy correlation function is a rather delicate balancing act, and the success of SPH simulations and semi-analytic models in reproducing the observed form of $`\xi _{\mathrm{gg}}(r)`$ given a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology is entirely non-trivial; the reduced efficiency of galaxy formation in high mass halos and the sub-Poisson fluctuations in low mass halos are both crucial to this success. Higher order correlation functions place greater weight on the high mass end of the halo population and on higher moments of $`P(N|M)`$. The void probability function, on the other hand, depends mainly on the low mass cutoff of the HOD, which determines the probability of finding galaxies in the low mass halos that populate large scale underdensities. The pairwise velocity dispersion has distinct regimes much like $`\xi _{\mathrm{gg}}(r)`$, but it depends little on the low mass cutoff and strongly on the relative occupation of high and low mass halos, and the sub-Poisson fluctuations that depress $`\xi _{\mathrm{gg}}(r)`$ at small scales boost the pairwise dispersion by forcing those pairs that do exist at these separations to come from higher mass halos. The pairwise dispersion can also be influenced by velocity bias of galaxies within halos. The group multiplicity function bears a quite direct relation to the HOD, to such an extent that one can “read off” $`N_{\mathrm{avg}}(M)`$ if $`P(N|M)`$ is reasonably narrow and one assumes an underlying halo mass function $`n(M)`$. Peacock & Smith (2000) and Marinoni & Hudson (2001) have applied variants of this approach to observational data and obtained results that agree rather well with the SPH and semi-analytic predictions, assuming a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM halo mass function.

Berlind and I concluded that an empirical determination of the HOD should be possible given high precision clustering measurements and the halo population of an assumed cosmological model. This, at a minimum, is what we can expect to learn from galaxy clustering: the halo occupation distributions of many different classes of galaxies, given a cosmological model motivated by independent observations. Because the HOD description of bias is complete, these HODs encode everything that galaxy clustering has to teach us about galaxy formation. They encode it, moreover, in a physically informative way, allowing detailed tests of theoretical predictions and providing rather specific guidance when these predictions fail. If your theory of galaxy formation does almost everything right but puts too many blue-ish S0 galaxies in $`10^{13}10^{14}M_{}`$ halos, then you might have some ideas on how to fix it.

Can we have our cake and eat it too? In more precise words, if we find a combination of cosmological model and HOD that matches all the galaxy clustering data, can we conclude that both are correct, or might there be other combinations that are equally successful?

To decide whether cosmology and bias are degenerate with respect to galaxy clustering, we must first know how changing the cosmology alters the halo population. This issue is the subject of a forthcoming paper by Zheng et al., where we investigate the effect of changing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ on its own, of changing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\sigma _8`$ simultaneously while maintaining “cluster normalization” ($`\sigma _8\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.5}=`$constant), and of changing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\sigma _8`$ in concert with $`n`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The impact of a pure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ change is simple: the halo mass scale $`M_{}`$ shifts in proportion to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, pairwise velocities (at fixed $`M/M_{}`$) are proportional to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.6}`$, and halo clustering at fixed $`M/M_{}`$ is unchanged. Cluster normalized changes to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\sigma _8`$ keep the space density of halos approximately constant near $`M5\times 10^{14}h^1M_{}`$, and halo clustering and pairwise velocities remain similar at fixed $`M`$. However, the shape of the halo mass function changes, with a decrease of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ from 0.3 to 0.2 producing a $`30\%`$ drop in the number of low mass halos. One can preserve the shape of the mass function over a large dynamic range by changing $`n`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, but the required changes are substantial — e.g., masking a decrease of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ from 0.3 to 0.2 requires $`\mathrm{\Delta }n0.3`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }0.15`$. These changes to the power spectrum significantly alter the halo clustering and halo velocities.

The sensitivity of the halo population to the cosmological model parameters is encouraging, because these changes cannot easily be masked by changing the HOD. For a pure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ shift, one could keep the spatial clustering of galaxies the same by using the same HOD as a function of $`M/M_{}`$, but the change would be detected by any dynamically sensitive clustering statistic, like large scale redshift-space distortions, the pairwise velocity dispersion, the galaxy-mass correlation function, or direct measurements of group and cluster masses. Even velocity bias within halos could not hide all of these changes. A cluster-normalized change to $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ would require a change in galaxy occupation as a function of $`M/M_{}`$ in order to maintain the galaxy space density and group multiplicity function, and this change would affect other measures of galaxy clustering. A simultaneous change to the power spectrum shape that preserved the halo mass function would change galaxy clustering by changing the clustering of the halos themselves.

It remains to be seen just how well one can do quantitatively from realistic observations. The proof, ultimately, must await the pudding, but Zheng has begun to investigate the question in a somewhat idealized context. As a starting point, he takes clustering measures predicted by a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology with the HOD derived from the SPH simulations, calculated by a variety of analytic approximations. He then changes the assumed cosmology, thus changing the halo mass function and halo clustering, and he allows the HOD to change as well, using a parametrized form that gives flexibility in all of the essential features. He finds the HOD that gives minimum $`\chi ^2`$ for the original clustering “measurements,” which are assumed to have 10% fractional uncertainties, and the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ for the best-fit HOD indicates the acceptability of the cosmological model. The preliminary results from this exercise are encouraging. For example, in the case of pure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ changes, the galaxy correlation function and group multiplicity function constrain the HOD tightly enough that measurements of $`\beta =\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.6}/b`$ or the pairwise velocity dispersion impose useful constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. As the SDSS and 2dFGRS measurements take shape, we can imagine taking a similar approach to the real data, albeit with careful attention to the accuracy of the clustering approximations. In terms of Figure 1, the surveys provide us with the entries in the lowest box, and using them, we search for maximum likelihood solutions for the parameters in the second boxes on the left and right hand sides. Despite what might at first appear to be a lot of freedom, the degeneracies appear to be limited, and we can hope to do rather well.

Here, then, is my conjectural answer to the question posed in the section title: we can learn the HOD of different classes of galaxies, gaining physical insight into their origin, and we can separately determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and the amplitude and shape of the linear theory power spectrum, from the largest scales probed by the surveys (where perturbation theory describes the dark matter and the HOD fixes the “bias factors” needed to connect galaxies to mass) down to moderately non-linear scales (below which information about the linear power spectrum may be effectively erased, at least as far as the halo mass function and halo clustering are concerned). We can also test for any departures from Gaussian primordial fluctuations. We get these cosmological constraints without relying on a detailed theory of galaxy formation, only on the basic tenet that the HOD formulation itself is valid. While we might be wary of relying on conclusions that involve complicated corrections for galaxy bias, the observed dependence of clustering on galaxy type allows powerful cross-checks. When we analyze different classes of galaxies, we should derive different HODs, but we should always reach the same conclusions about the underlying cosmological model. If we do, then we have good reason to think that we are doing things right.

Given all the other methods that can constrain cosmology with tracers that are less physically complicated, one might wonder what galaxy clustering and galaxy-mass correlations have to contribute to cosmological tests, beyond a reassuring consistency check. After all, how important is the second decimal place on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$? While I hear variants of this question often, I think it is a red herring, and that we should be relentless in our efforts to squeeze as much cosmological information as possible out of galaxy redshift surveys. Even if we assume that there will be no major conceptual adjustments to the current leading model, there are at least two fundamental issues on which precision measurements from galaxy clustering can play a critical role: the contribution (if any) of gravity waves to CMB anisotropy, and the equation of state of dark energy. The first can be addressed by a precise comparison between the CMB fluctuation amplitude and the present day amplitude of matter fluctuations. Evidence for or against gravity waves would take us much further in understanding the origin of density fluctuations, and perhaps even to understanding the mechanism (inflation, colliding branes, …) that accounts for the size and homogeneity of the universe. Galaxy clustering has no sensitivity to the equation of state on its own, but the sensitivity of other tests depends crucially on precise knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, where the combination of galaxy clustering and galaxy-galaxy lensing may ultimately provide the best constraints. Precise knowledge of today’s fluctuation amplitude is also essential to some tests for the equation of state and its time dependence (see, e.g., the discussion of Kujat et al. 2001).

Constraining gravity waves, the dark energy equation of state, and neutrino masses are concrete goals that we can set for cosmological applications of galaxy clustering. But we should not assume that the simplest model consistent with the current data (which already contains at least one very surprising element) will remain consistent with improving observations. A break in the inflationary fluctuation spectrum, a relativistic background inconsistent with standard neutrino physics, a baryon density inconsistent with big bang nucleosynthesis, a small admixture of non-Gaussian or isocurvature fluctuations — all of these are departures from the standard model whose quantitative impact would be subtle but whose physical implications would be profound. What we will learn from the 2dF and SDSS galaxy surveys depends in large part on what the universe has to teach us, and that is something we cannot yet know. Finding out is an exciting task for the New Era in Cosmology.

I am grateful to my numerous colleagues in the SDSS for producing the exciting results that I have recapitulated in §2, and for their efforts and progress in producing a data set that warrants the theoretical musings in §3. I thank my collaborators on the work discussed in §3, especially Andreas Berlind, Zheng Zheng, and Jeremy Tinker, whose contributions to the ideas and to the results have been central. I thank the NSF for its support of this research program and the Institute for Advanced Study and the Ambrose Monell Foundation for hospitality and support during the recent phases of this work. More details about the SDSS, including links to the Early Data Release, an ever-growing list of scientific publications based on the SDSS data, and a list of the many participating institutions and funding agencies that have made the survey possible, can be found at the official SDSS web site, http://www.sdss.org.

## References

Benson, A. J., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., Baugh, C. M., & Lacey, C. G. 2000, MNRAS, 311, 793

Berlind, A. A. 2001, Ph.D. Thesis, Ohio State University

Berlind, A. A., & Weinberg, D. H. 2001, ApJ, submitted, astro-ph/0109001

Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., Annis, J., Burles, S., Eisenstein, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P. et al. 2001, AJ, submitted, astro-ph/0110344

Blanton, M. R., Dalcanton, J., Eisenstein, D., Loveday, J., Strauss, M. A., SubbaRao, M. et al. 2001, AJ, 121, 2358

Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V. & Weinberg, D. H. 2001, ApJ, 548, 33

Bullock, J. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Somerville, R. S. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 246

Cole, S., Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., Frenk, C. S., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Bridges, T. et al. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 255

Connolly, A., Scranton, R., Johnston, D., Dodselson, S., Eisenstein, D., Frieman, J. A. et al. 2001, ApJ, submitted, astro-ph/0107417

Dodelson, S., Narayanan, V. K., Tegmark, M., Scranton, R., Budavari, T., Connolly, A. et al. 2001, ApJ, submitted, astro-ph/0107421

Eisenstein, D. J., Annis, J., Gunn, J. E., Szalay, A. S., Connolly, A. J., Nichol, R. C. et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2267nn

Fischer, P., McKay, T. A., Sheldon, E., Connolly, A., Stebbins, A., Frieman, J. A. et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1198

Gunn, J. E., Carr, M., Rockosi, C., Sekiguchi, M., Berry, K., Elms, B. et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 3040

Guzik, J., & Seljak, U. 2002, MNRAS, submitted, astro-ph/0201448

Guzzo, L., Strauss, M. A., Fisher, K. B., Giovanelli, R., & Haynes, M. P. 1997, ApJ, 489, 37

Helmi, A. & de Zeeuw, P. T. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 657

Helmi, A. & White, S. D. M. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 495

Ibata, R., Irwin, M., Lewis, G. F., & Stolte, A. 2001, ApJ, 547, L133

Ivezić, Ž., Goldston, J., Finlator, K., Knapp, G. R., Yanny, B., McKay, T. A. et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 963

Jing, Y. P., Mo, H. J., & Börner, G. 1998, ApJ, 494, 1

Johnston, K. V., Spergel, D. N., & Hernquist, L. 1995, ApJ, 451, 598

Johnston, K. V., Zhao, H., Spergel, D. N., & Hernquist, L. 1999, ApJ, 512, L109

Kauffmann, G., & Lemson, G. 1999, MNRAS, 302, 111

Kochanek, C. S., Pahre, M., Falco, E. E., Huchra, J. P., Mader, J., Jarrett, T. H. et al. 2001, ApJ, 560, 566

Kujat, J., Linn, A. M., Scherrer, R. J., & Weinberg, D. H. 2001, ApJ, submitted, astro-ph/0112221

Lin, H., Kirshner, R. P., Shectman, S. A., Landy, S. D., Oemler, A., Tucker, D. L., & Schechter, P. L. 1996, ApJ, 464, 60

Ma, C., & Fry, J. N. 2000, ApJ, 543, 503

Marinoni, C., & Hudson, M. J. 2001, ApJ, submitted, astro-ph/0109134

McClelland, J. & Silk, J. 1977, ApJ, 217, 331

McKay, T. A., Sheldon, E. S., Racusin, J., Fischer, P., Seljak, U., Stebbins, A. et al. 2001, ApJ, submitted, astro-ph/0108013

Murali, C., Katz, N., Hernquist, L., Weinberg, D. H., & Davé, R. 2001, ApJ, in press, astro-ph/0106282

Newberg, H. J., Yanny, B., Rockosi, C. M., Grebel, E. K., Rix, H.-W., Brinkmann, J. et al. 2001, ApJ, in press, astro-ph/0111095

Neyman, J. & Scott, E. L. 1952, ApJ, 116, 144

Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., Hawkins, E., Maddox, S., Peacock, J. A., Cole, S. et al. 2001a, MNRAS, 328, 64

Norberg, P., Cole, S., Baugh, C. M., Frenk, C. S., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Bridges, T. et al. 2001b, MNRAS, submitted, astro-ph/0111011

Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., Hawkins, E., Maddox, S., Madgwick, D., Lahav, O. et al. 2001c, MNRAS, in press, astro-ph/0112043

Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E. K., Rockosi, C. M., Dehnen, W., Ibata, R., Rix, H.-W. et al. 2001a, ApJ, 548, L165

Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E. K., Harbeck, D., Dehnen, W., Rix, H.-W., Newberg, H. J. et al. 2001b, AJ, 122, 2538

Peacock, J. A., & Smith, R. E. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 1144

Peebles, P. J. E. 1974, A&A, 32, 197

Percival, W. J., Baugh, C. M., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Bridges, T., Cannon, R., Cole, S. et al. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 129

Petrosian, V. 1976, ApJ, 209, L1

Richards, G. T., Fan, X., Newberg, H. J., Strauss, M. A., Vanden Berk, D., Schneider, D. P. et al. 2002, AJ, submitted

Scranton, R., Johnston, D., Dodelson, S., Frieman, J. A., Connolly, A., Eisenstein, D. J. et al. 2001, ApJ, submitted, astro-ph/0107416

Scoccimarro, R. Sheth, R. K., Hui, L., & Jain, B. 2001, ApJ, 546, 20

Searle, L. & Zinn, R., 1978, ApJ, 225, 357

Seljak, U. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 203

Seljak, U. 2002, MNRAS, submitted, astro-ph/0201450

Strauss, M. A., Weinberg, D. H., Lupton, R. H., Narayanan, V. K., Annis, J., Bernardi, M. et al. 2002, AJ, submitted

Stoughton, C., Lupton, R. H., Bernardi, M., Blanton, M. R., Burles, S., Castander, F. J. et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 485

Szalay, A. S., Jain, B., Matsubara, T., Scranton, R., Vogeley, M. S., Connolly, A. et al. 2001, ApJ, submitted, astro-ph/0107419

Szapudi, I., Frieman, J. A., Scoccimarro, R., Szalay, A. S., Connolly, A. J., Dodelson, S. et al. 2001, ApJ, in press, astro-ph/0111058

Tegmark, M., Dodelson, S., Eisenstein, D., Narayanan, V., Scoccimarro, R., Scranton, R. et al. 2001, ApJ, in press, astro-ph/0107418

White, M., Hernquist, L., & Springel, V. 2001, ApJ, 550, L129

Wright, E. L. 2001, ApJ, 556, L17

Yanny, B., Newberg, H. J., Kent, S., Laurent-Muehleisen, S. A., Pier, J. R., Richards, G. T. et al. 2000, ApJ, 540, 825

York, D. G., Anderson, J. E., Anderson, S. F., Annis, J., Bahcall, N. A., Bakken, J. A. et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579

Yoshikawa, K., Taruya, A., Jing, Y. P., Suto, Y. 2001, ApJ, 558, 520

Zehavi, I., Blanton, M. R., Frieman, J. A., Weinberg, D. H., Mo, H. J., Strauss, M. A. et al. 2001, ApJ, in press, astro-ph/0106476