 |  |
Astron. Astrophys. 317, 670-675 (1997)
3. Substructures
Ideally, substructure tests should be applied to galaxy samples
which are complete in magnitude. Here, we will use all the available
data without regard to the magnitudes, for different reasons. First,
the small sample size makes any further restriction unreasonable. In
addition, complete magnitude information is not available for all
cluster fields. Nevertheless, in those fields where magnitudes were
available from COSMOS, redshift completeness amounts to ca. 75% of the
galaxies down to . Given the small field of view
and the extensive redshift coverage, we will concentrate on
substructure analysis methods which make use of the velocity
information. We chose the test of Dressler & Shectman (1988,
hereafter DS-test), the Lee test (Fitchett 1988), and several tests
that check for departures from normality of the galaxy velocity
distribution. Note that:
a) For the DS-test we followed the same procedure as Bird (1994),
using galaxies to define the neighbourhood of
each galaxy, where N is the total number of galaxies involved
in the analysis.
b) To assess the significance of substructure detections for the Lee
test we performed the same test on 100 cluster simulations. Modelling
of the simulated clusters was done with an 1/r galaxy density profile
(Fitchett & Webster 1987) and with the same velocity dispersion as
in Table 2. Steps of 4 degrees have been used for the orientation
of the projection axis in the X-Y-cz plane. Note that the simulations
for field 9b were done with an offset of 0.05 h-1 Mpc
between the peak of the 1/r density distribution and the center of the
circular selection region. A higher likelihood for the presence of
substructure would result if the offset was not accounted for (92%
instead of 87%).
c) Three different tests for normality have been employed, i.e. the
U2, W2 and A2 tests taken from the
ROSTAT package (Beers et al. 1990), the resulting significance being
the mean from these three tests, which agree very well.
Each of these substructure tests has its strengths and weaknesses. For
example, the DS-test measures the deviation of the local from the
global kinematics, allowing to detect efficiently small offcenter
groups, but sometimes failing in cases where two clumps of equal size
and different mean velocities overlap in projection. On the other
side, the Lee test is designed to be a very general maximum-likelihood
method, but computational constraints confine its use to detecting
bimodal structures of comparable size, thus being unable to state
about the presence or absence of multimodal structures. It is also
trivial that testing the gaussianity of a velocity sample alone cannot
give clues about substructures which have same means and dispersions
but differing locations in the plane of the sky. We see that all of
these tests are bound to miss some manifestations of substructure,
each one being sensitive to some particular configuration. For these
reasons, a combination of all methods should allow a better judgement
to be made. Our statement about the existence of substructure relies
upon the fact that at least one of the three detection methods could
find significant signs for it. Results are shown in Table 3,
which gives field number (column 1), name of the cluster (2),
significance level for the tests mentioned above (3-5), and total
significance level for substructure (6), which is the highest value of
columns 3, 4, and 5. As can be seen from the analysis results, 50% of
the clusters show clear signs of substructure (5% significance level).
This frequency of substructure in cluster cores has to be considered a
lower level because of the intrinsic property of individual tests to
miss some manifestations of substructure. It should be noted that the
same order of magnitude for substructure frequency has been found by
other authors (e.g. Escalera et al. 1994; West 1994), in particular
also involving comparable spatial resolution but without redshift
information (Salvador-Solé et al. 1993).
![[TABLE]](img16.gif)
Table 3. Substructure analysis. Column 6 is the highest value of columns 3,4,5 and gives the final likelihood for the presence of substructure
© European Southern Observatory (ESO) 1997
Online publication: July 8, 1998
helpdesk.link@springer.de  |