SpringerLink
Forum Springer Astron. Astrophys.
Forum Whats New Search Orders


Astron. Astrophys. 343, 713-719 (1999)

Previous Section Next Section Title Page Table of Contents

3. "Unbiased plateau" for the inverse relation

The plateau in the [FORMULA] vs. [FORMULA] diagram is not an unbiased plateau; it still gives too large a value of [FORMULA], because of a residual effect of the [FORMULA]-limit. The bias can be reduced by applying an upper cutoff to the cluster sample in [FORMULA], as illustrated by the dashed vertical line in Fig. 1. The galaxies between the upper and lower [FORMULA] cutoffs now provide the best iTF distance estimate.

The position of the critical righthand side vertical line in Fig. 1, which cuts away the "bad" [FORMULA] interval, depends on the distance of the cluster (compare the cluster and the calibrators). However, its position is practically constant on the linear size scale , independently of the cluster distance. This is clearly seen if one shifts in Fig. 1 the cluster galaxies to the right, i.e. decreases their distance until it coincides with the distance of the calibrator cluster. Because the TF relations are essentially the same, the critical vertical lines will almost coincide. Hence, in the general case of a field galaxy sample, one may shift all galaxies independent of their distances, to one diagram of [FORMULA] vs. [FORMULA], where the abscissa is up to an unknown constant (as far as [FORMULA] is unknown) the same as linear diameter, [FORMULA]. If one now accepts galaxies left of the (common) critical line only, an unbiased average distance is derived.

One might term [FORMULA] (or [FORMULA]) the normalized distance, analogously to the case of the direct TF normalized distance introduced in T84. Then in the [FORMULA] vs. [FORMULA] diagram, using the correct slope [FORMULA], there is at small normalized distances an unbiased plateau, after which [FORMULA] starts to grow.

The resulting unbiased plateau should be horizontal, if the slope [FORMULA] is correct. ET97 pointed out a simple device of deciding which is the correct inverse slope: in the [FORMULA] vs. [FORMULA] diagram the run of points should be horizontal. This was, however, made under the premise of no p-selection. Now we understand that instead of [FORMULA] one should use [FORMULA] on the abscissa, in order to identify the cutoff [FORMULA]. Only galaxies below this cutoff are expected to show a horizontal run on the [FORMULA] vs. [FORMULA] diagram, if [FORMULA] is correct. Fig. 2 shows how in the more general case, the lower cutoff causes too small [FORMULA] below the unbiased plateau. Ekholm et al. (1999) will discuss the evidence for upper and lower cutoffs in [FORMULA] in the KLUN sample and how the described method can in practice be implemented.

[FIGURE] Fig. 2. Effect of the p-cutoffs on the value of [FORMULA] at different [FORMULA]. The normalized distance [FORMULA] is defined as [FORMULA].

Though in this manner one may detect sharp cutoffs in [FORMULA] and derive an unbiased value of [FORMULA] without detailed modelling, it is important to know how large an influence the cutoffs would have on [FORMULA], if their presence were ignored. We discuss this in Sects. 4-6.

Previous Section Next Section Title Page Table of Contents

© European Southern Observatory (ESO) 1999

Online publication: March 1, 1999
helpdesk.link@springer.de