text:
# The 2dF QSO Redshift Survey - IV. The QSO Power Spectrum from the 10k Catalogue

## 1 Introduction

Galaxy surveys have allowed us to study the large scale structure in the local Universe. Large clusters of galaxies and voids have been detected in these surveys and they have placed constraints on cosmological parameters and models of structure formation. However, large area ($`>100`$ deg2), galaxy redshift surveys have so far only probed clustering out to $`z<0.1`$. Even the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey (Colless 1998) and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (Gunn & Weinberg 1999) will only observe galaxies with redshifts $`<0.3`$. Surveys such as the Canada-France Redshift Survey (Crampton et al. 1995) and the CNOC Survey (Yee et al. 2000) have probed galaxy clustering out past $`z=0.5`$ and, in the future, the DEEP (Davis & Faber 1998) and VIRMOS (Le Fèvre et al. 1998) Surveys will probe galaxy clustering out past $`z1`$. Steidel and collaborators have even developed techniques from which galaxies can be selected at higher redshifts by looking for the Lyman break (Steidel et al. 1995, 1999). However these deep surveys currently only cover a small area of sky and the resulting ‘pencil beams’ are unsuitable for direct power spectrum measurements. If we wish to measure the power spectrum of clustering out to high redshifts over a wide area in a reasonably short time period, then different techniques or a different class of object are required.

Since the work of Osmer (1981), redshift surveys of Quasi-Stellar Objects (QSOs) have been used to probe clustering at high redshifts. The initial attempts to measure QSO clustering proved inconclusive, due to the low number density of QSOs and the inhomogeneous nature of the surveys. However, it was demonstrated in the mid-1980’s that QSOs are clustered, at least on small $`r<10h^1`$Mpc scales, and that the amplitude of QSO clustering is similar to that of present day, optically selected galaxies (Shaver 1984, Shanks et al. 1986, 1987). More recently, several groups have looked at the evolution of QSO clustering. Croom & Shanks (1996) found that the amplitude of QSO clustering remains approximately constant with redshift, whereas La Franca, Andreani & Cristiani (1998) found that the clustering amplitude of optically bright QSOs evolves slowly with redshift, such that the clustering amplitude of high redshift QSOs is 2$`\sigma `$ higher than that of low redshift QSOs. However, existing surveys of QSOs are still fairly small, for example, the Durham/AAT Survey (Boyle 1986) contains $`400`$ QSOs and Large Bright QSO Survey (Hewitt, Foltz & Chaffee 1995) contains 1,053 QSOs. Measurements of some clustering statistics have been hampered by the small number of objects contained in the survey or the limited sky coverage of the surveys.

Our knowledge of the structure of the Universe at high redshifts will be drastically improved once the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey (2QZ, Croom et al. 1998; Boyle et al. 2000; Croom et al. 2001) and the QSO part of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (Gunn & Weinberg 1995) are finished. These surveys will contain at least a factor of 25 more QSOs and cover a larger area of sky than existing QSO surveys. One of the key aims of both surveys is to measure the clustering of QSOs out to $`1000h^1`$Mpc with greater accuracy than is possible with existing surveys. For example, the increased number of QSOs in the 2dF QSO survey should reduce the errors on the measured correlation function by at least a factor of 5 on scales $`>10h^1`$Mpc (Croom et al. 2001)

The power spectrum is now established as one of the favoured methods of quantifying clustering. (Baugh & Efstathiou 1994; Tadros & Efstathiou 1996; Lin et al. 1996; Hoyle et al. 1999). One advantage of the power spectrum over the two-point correlation function is that the two-point correlation function is affected by uncertainties in the mean density on all scales, whereas the power spectrum is only affected by these uncertainties on the largest scales (Cole, Fisher & Weinberg 1995). Ideally, we would like to measure the power spectrum of the mass density field, as this is the statistic predicted by models of structure formation. However, we are only able to observe the light in the Universe. Therefore, we generally measure the power spectrum of objects such as galaxies, clusters and QSOs, although there are promising methods for measuring the mass power spectrum from Lyman alpha forest systems (Croft et al. 1998) and from weak lensing (Wilson, Kaiser & Luppino 2001).

However, if the bias is scale independent, then although the amplitude of the QSO power spectrum may be different to that of the mass, the form of the QSO power spectrum will directly probe the shape of the mass power spectrum; the assumption of scale independent bias may be more appropriate at large scales (Coles 1993; Mann, Peacock & Heavens 1998).

The power spectrum has never before been measured from optically selected QSOs. QSOs are detected out to high redshifts and so QSO surveys have a large volume. However, existing surveys only cover small areas of sky and contain only a small number of QSOs. The survey geometry and low QSO number density within the surveys would have severely restricted the range of scales over which the power spectrum could have been reliably measured.

In this paper, we apply a power spectrum analysis to the 10k release catalogue. A correlation function analysis of the identical sample has been performed by Croom et al. (2000). We describe the current data set in Section 2 and look at the angular distribution of the QSOs in order to create the random catalogues needed in the power spectrum analysis. In Section 3 we briefly describe the method of power spectrum analysis and in Section 4 we test the measurement of the power spectrum from the current survey window using mock catalogues drawn from the Virgo consortiums Hubble Volume lightcone simulation (Frenk et al. 2000). In Section 5 we compare the QSO power spectrum to power spectra of present day galaxies and clusters and we see how the QSO power spectrum evolves with redshift. In Section 6 we compare the QSO power spectrum with power spectra of models of large scale structure and in Section 7 we draw our conclusions.

## 2 The 10k Catalogue

In this paper, we analyse QSOs that will be contained in the first public release of the 2QZ, known as the 10k Catalogue. The catalogue will contain 10681 QSOs and will be released to the community in the first half of 2001. This catalogue will contain the most spectroscopically complete fields (i.e. fields in which more than 85 per cent of objects have been identified) that were observed prior to November 2000. It will eventually be available from www.2dfquasar.org.

QSO candidates are identified from broad band ubJr colours from Automatic Plate Measuring (APM) facility measurements of UK Schmidt Telescope (UKST) photographic plates. This colour selection gives a photometric completeness of better that 90 per cent up to $`z2.2`$ (Boyle et al. 2000). The spectra of the objects are obtained using the 2dF instrument on the AAT. The spectra are reduced using the 2dF pipeline reduction system (Bailey & Glazebrook 1999) and objects are identified as QSOs by an automated procedure known as AUTOZ (Miller et al. 2001). AUTOZ also identifies the QSO redshifts; these have also been visually checked by two independent observers.

Observations have been made over two 5$`\times `$75 deg2 strips in the North and South Galactic Cap regions. The North Galactic Cap strip is centred at $`\delta =0^{}`$ with 09h50m $`<\alpha <`$ 14h50m, while the South Galactic Cap strip is centred at $`\delta =30^{}`$, with 21h40m $`<\alpha <`$ 03h15m. We will refer to these regions as the NGC and SGC respectively. The finished survey will cover an area of 740 deg2. See Croom (1997), Smith (1998) and Smith et al. (2001) for further details of the photometric catalogue.

For each QSO, we have an angular position and a redshift. In order to convert from a redshift into a comoving distance, we need to adopt a cosmology. We consider an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$=1.0, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=0.0 cosmology (EdS hereafter) and an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$=0.3, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=0.7 cosmology (referred to as the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology hereafter). Other cosmologies, such as open cosmologies, could also be considered but here we restrict our analysis to flat cosmologies, consistent with the recent results from balloon experiments such as Boomerang (de Bernardis et al. 2000) and Maxima (Balbi et al. 2000).

### 2.1 Constructing the Random Catalogue

#### 2.1.1 The Radial Selection Function

The power spectrum measured directly from a QSO redshift survey is a convolution of the power spectrum of QSO clustering with the power spectrum of the survey geometry. In order to estimate the power spectrum of the survey geometry, or window function, we generate a catalogue of random points which have the same angular and radial selection function as the QSOs but otherwise are unclustered.

Redshifts are drawn at random according to a 6th order polynomial $`N(z)`$ fit over the range of redshift and geometry of the sample under consideration. Using an approximation to the true $`N(z)`$ distribution can remove some of the large scale power. We test this by creating a 10th order polynomial $`N(z)`$ fit and remeasure the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology power spectrum. Out to scales of 200$`h^1`$Mpc (log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)>1.5`$) the two power spectra are virtually indistinguishable. At 400$`h^1`$Mpc (log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)>1.8`$), the power spectra agree in amplitude to within 15%. The fractional error at this scale is 40% so the difference is negligible compared to the errors. The Survey geometry is also limiting how accurately the power spectrum can be measured on these scales too. (See Section 4 for details of the window function tests.)

Figure 1 shows the radial selection function of QSOs in the SGC (solid line) and in the random catalogue (dashed line) assuming EdS (a) and assuming the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology (b). Over a wide range of redshift the selection function of the random catalogue accurately reproduces that of the QSOs. The radial selection function of the QSOs only varies slowly as a function of scale over the range of redshifts $`0.3<z<2.2`$, indicated by the arrows. The value of $`n(r)`$ changes by only a factor of $``$3 over the range of scales corresponding to $`0.3<z<2.2`$, whereas the value of $`n(r)`$ for galaxies changes by a far greater factor over a far smaller range of scales (for example see Figure 2 in Hoyle et al. 1999). This is because the luminosity evolution approximately cancels the effect of luminosity distance so we are always surveying the luminosity function to approximately the same absolute magnitude, relative to the break, $`M_B^{}`$, almost independent of redshift. As it is desirable to have a constant number density when measuring clustering statistics to remove the need for a weighting scheme (other than giving all QSOs equal weight), we restrict the QSOs in our sample to have redshifts in the range $`0.3<z<2.2`$. This gives us a sample of 8935 QSOs.

#### 2.1.2 The Angular Selection Function

Observations have been made across both the NGC and SGC strips. An optimal tiling algorithm for the 2dF Galaxy Redshift survey was developed by the 2dF Consortium to allow as many galaxies and QSOs as possible to be observed in each pointing. Pointings also overlap in high density regions to maximise the coverage in all areas of the survey. Therefore, the 10k catalogue has a patchy angular selection function, as can be seen in Figure 1. of Croom et al. (2001), which has to be matched by the random catalogue.

To match the angular selection function of the QSOs, we construct a completeness map. In each region defined by the intersection of 2dF pointings we calculate the number of objects observed and divide this by the number of candidates within that region to define the fractional observational completeness. This allows us to estimate the completeness in areas where two or more 2dF fields overlap. The completeness map is then rebinned to 1’x1’ bins and the number of random points in each bin is weighted by this fractional completeness.

We also account for the extinction due to galactic dust as this changes the effective magnitude limit of the survey as a function of position. We use the estimate of the dust reddening, E(B-V), as a function of position given by Schlegel, Finkbeiner & Davis (1998) and weight the random distribution by

$$W_{\mathrm{ext}}(\alpha ,\delta )=10^{\beta \mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{b}_\mathrm{J}}}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{b}_\mathrm{j}}`$ = 4.035E(B-V) and $`\beta =0.3`$, the slope of the QSO number counts at the magnitude limit of the survey, bj=20.85. We have measured the power spectrum using random catalogues that were constructed with or without taking into account the effect of dust. We find that dust has a less than 5% effect on the power spectrum amplitude out to scales of 300$`h^1`$Mpc (log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)>1.7`$) for the EdS cosmology, 400$`h^1`$Mpc (log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)>1.8`$) for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology.

One further effect that could influence the shape of the power spectrum on large scales is due to possible errors in the zero-point calibration of the UKST plates. A conservative estimate of the current uncertainty is $``$0.2 mag (Smith et al. 2001), although further CCD photometry is currently being obtained and we expect that the uncertainty in the zero-point calibration will be considerably lower in the final catalogue.

With a QSO number count slope of $`\beta `$=0.3, a 0.2 mag change in the zero-point calibration would change the expected QSO number density by $``$15 per cent. To estimate the effect this has on the QSO power spectrum, we generate different realisations of the random catalogues including plate-to-plate variations in the zero-point calibration. These are introduced by randomly varying the number density of points in the random catalogue on each UKST plate by r.m.s. 15 per cent. The uncertainty this introduces into the QSO power spectrum estimate is then given by the dispersion in the power spectra obtained from each realisation. We find that the fractional error introduced by this uncertainty varies between 1 and 5 per cent up to scales of 300$`h^1`$Mpc or log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)>1.7`$ (400$`h^1`$Mpc or log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)>1.8`$ in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ case), where the QSO power spectrum can be robustly measured. On these scales the fractional FKP errors (discussed below) are $``$30 per cent, and therefore the total error is increased by $`<1\%`$, less than the potential systematic error.

In Figure 2 we show the window function of the current 2QZ in the SGC (solid line) compared to the expected window function of a finished 5$`\times 75`$ deg2 strip (dashed line) calculated assuming EdS (a) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (b). The window function of the NGC is very similar in slope and amplitude as although more QSOs have been observed on the SGC strip, the QSOs in the NGC are evenly distributed across the $`5\times 75`$ deg2 strip (see Figure 1 Croom et. al 2001b). Both window functions are steep power laws, proportional to $`k^4`$ out to scales of $`300h^1`$Mpc (log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)>1.7`$) EdS or $`400h^1`$Mpc (log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)>1.8`$) for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology. When the survey is finished, the power laws will extend to $`500h^1`$Mpc (log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)>1.9`$) EdS, 600$`h^1`$Mpc (log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)>1.98`$) for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology (see Hoyle 2000). We conclude that geometric effects (dust, plate-to-plate variations in the zero points, window function of the survey) do not effect the shape of the QSO power spectrum on scales $`<300h^1`$Mpc (log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)>1.7`$) assuming the EdS cosmology $`<400h^1`$Mpc (log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)>1.8`$ ) for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology.

## 3 Measuring the QSO Power Spectrum

### 3.1 Power Spectrum Estimation

The power spectrum estimator that we adopt is similar to that given Tadros & Efstathiou (1996) and the same as that given in Hoyle et al. (1999). We outline the details below.

The Fourier transform of the observed QSO density field, within a periodic volume $`V`$, is given by

$$\widehat{n}_{}(𝐤)=\frac{1}{V}\underset{i}{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\text{k.x}\text{i}\text{(r)}}.$$
(2)
where the $`𝐱_𝐢(𝐫)`$ refer to the spatial positions of the QSOs. The Fourier transform of the survey window function is approximated by:

$$\widehat{W}_e(𝐤)=\frac{1}{V}\underset{i}{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\text{k.x}\text{i}\text{(r)}},$$
(3)
where this time the $`𝐱_𝐢(𝐫)`$ refer to the spatial positions of the random points (cf equations 7, 8 and 9 of Tadros & Efstathiou 1996 and equations 3 and 4 in Hoyle et al. 1999). Due to the large number of unclustered random points used, shot noise makes a negligible contribution to this estimate. The power spectra of the survey window function, shown in Figure 2, are much steeper than the expected QSO power spectrum, falling off as $`k^4`$ for wavenumbers log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)>1.7`$ or scales of 300$`h^1`$Mpc in the EdS case (log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)>1.8`$ or scales of 400$`h^1`$Mpc in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ case). Therefore the main effect of the convolution with the survey window function is to alter the shape of the power spectrum only on scales larger than 300$`h^1`$Mpc, log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)>1.7`$, (400 $`h^1`$Mpc, log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)>1.8`$ assuming the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology).

Following Tadros & Efstathiou, we define a quantity with a mean value of zero:

$$\delta (𝐤)=\widehat{n}_{}(𝐤)\alpha \widehat{W}_e(𝐤),$$
(4)
where $`\alpha `$ is the ratio of the number of QSOs to random points in samples with constant number density. The power spectrum of QSO clustering is then estimated using:

$`P_e(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{ran}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}\left(V^2\left|W_e(k^{})\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{ran}}}}\right)\right]^1`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^2|\delta (k)|^2}{N_{\mathrm{QSO}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{QSO}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{ran}}}}\right).`$
We use a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to compute the power spectrum and bin the Fourier modes up logarithmically to reduce the covariance between each bin.

The limit beyond which a power spectrum cannot be measured using a FFT is known as the Nyquist frequency. This is the frequency at which the grid samples the wave exactly twice per cycle:

$$k_{\mathrm{Nyq}}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(6)
where, for a 2563 FFT and a box of size 5000$`h^1`$Mpc, the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=5000/256 $`h^1`$Mpc. The limit out to which the power spectrum measurement is reliable depends on the grid assignment scheme, and is a fraction of kNyq. Using the nearest grid point assignment scheme, $`k_{\mathrm{lim}}1/2`$ $`k_{\mathrm{Nyq}}`$ (Hatton 1999), which, for the above box size, corresponds to a value of log$`(k_{\mathrm{lim}})1`$ or a scale of $`60h^1`$Mpc.

To enable measurements of the power spectrum on smaller scales, we use a direct method of computing the Fourier transform. This method is time intensive and can only be applied to a small number of particles (so cannot be applied to the random catalogue). For the direct method, we make the assumption that equation 4 can be rewritten as $`\delta (𝐤)=\widehat{n}(𝐤)`$, which is only valid on small scales where the window function has a small amplitude (Figure 2). Using mock catalogues drawn from the Hubble Volume simulation (see Section 4), we find that on scales smaller than $`100h^1`$Mpc (log$`(k)1.2`$) this approximation is accurate.

### 3.2 Error Determination

The errors on the power spectrum are estimated using the method of Feldman, Kaiser & Peacock (1994), equation 2.3.2, assuming that all QSOs carry equal weight when estimating the QSO power spectrum. The error is given by

$$\frac{\sigma ^2(k)}{P^2(k)}=\frac{(2\pi )^3[1+\frac{1}{n(r)P(k)}]^2}{V_kV_s}$$
(7)
where $`V_k`$ is the volume of each bin in $`k`$-space, estimated by $`V_k=N_k(\mathrm{\Delta }k)^3`$ with $`N_k`$ the number of independent modes in the $`k`$-shell and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }k)^3`$ the volume of one $`k`$-mode. $`V_s`$ is the volume of the survey. Over a wide range of scales these errors are found to be in reasonable agreement with errors estimated from the dispersion over power spectrum estimates from the Hubble Volume mock catalogues (see Section 4 and Hoyle 2000). On the smallest scales, the FKP errors appear smaller than those from the mock catalogues. FKP errors are only valid in the fully linear regime and non-linearities on small scales may mean they underestimate the true error on these scales Meiksin & White (1999).

To obtain a single 2QZ power spectrum for each assumed cosmology, we average the power spectrum of the QSOs in the NGC and SGC together, weighting by the inverse of the variance on each scale.

## 4 Testing P(k) estimators using the Hubble Volume

To test the estimator of the power spectrum and the effect of the window function on the recovered power spectrum, we have constructed mock catalogues that approximately match the clustering and geometry expected from the final QSO sample. Full details of the mock catalogues can be found in Hoyle (2000). We review the features most pertinent to the analysis here.

The mock catalogues are constructed from the Virgo consortium’s Hubble Volume simulation (see Frenk et al. 2000). The simulation has a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$=0.3, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$=0.04 and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=0.7, $`h`$=0.7 and normalised to $`\sigma _8`$=0.9 at present day and with shape parameter of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.17`$. The simulation has a lightcone output such that the evolution of the dark matter is fully accounted for. It extends to redshift $`4`$, and covers an area of 15$`\times `$75deg2, which we split into three 5$`\times `$75deg2 strips to match the geometry of the 2QZ strips. The three strips are not entirely independent so when we imprint the NGC and SGC completeness maps (see later in this section) on the simulations, we just consider the outer slices.

The simulation has a lightcone output such that the evolution of the dark matter is fully accounted for. However, in Figure 3 we show that evolution has little effect on the shape of the mass power spectrum on the scales where it can be robustly measured. The solid line is the input power spectrum to the Hubble Volume simulation. The dashed lines show the power spectra of the mass in the simulation in bins of 0.5 in redshift centred on (reading down) 0.25, 0.75, 1.25, 1.75 and 2.25. The points show the power spectrum of the mass over the light cone out to $`z<2.5`$, the average redshift of the mass is $`z1.4`$. This power spectrum does indeed lie between the power spectra centred on $`z=1.25`$ and $`z=1.75`$ and all three power spectra have very similar shapes.

We bias the dark matter particles to approximately match the clustering expected from 2QZ. Initial measurements of the correlation function suggested that the correlation length of the 2QZ QSOs would be $`6h^1`$Mpc, assuming the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology, and that the comoving correlation length would be roughly constant with redshift. See Croom et al. (2001) for the latest measurements of the correlation function.

The biasing prescription is described in full detail in Hoyle (2000). We provide a brief summary here. We split the simulation into slices of 0.2 in redshift. Within each slice, we bin the redshift space density field onto a grid of cell size 20$`h^1`$Mpc and calculate the mean density and standard deviation for each cell. Following Cole et al. (1998), the bias probability is given by

$$P(\nu )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(\alpha \nu +\beta \nu ^{3/2})\hfill & \text{if }\nu 0\hfill \\ \mathrm{exp}(\alpha \nu )\hfill & \text{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
where $`\nu `$ is the number of standard deviations of the cell density away from the mean cell density. We fix $`\alpha `$ to be 0.15, similar to the value given in Cole et al. such that the real space clustering at present day in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM simulation with parameters similar to those of the Hubble Volume approximately matches that of the APM galaxy survey (Baugh & Efstathiou 1993). We vary $`\beta `$ until the correlation length of biased particles in each redshift slice is consistent with 6$`h^1`$Mpc over the range $`5<r<30h^1`$Mpc, assuming that the correlation function has the form $`\xi (r)=(r/r_{})^{1.7}`$.

As the clustering amplitude of the dark matter decreases with redshift proportional to the square of the linear growth factor, the bias factor required to keep the clustering amplitude constant with redshift must correspondingly increase with redshift, proportional to the growth factor. At the average redshift of the survey, the bias factor, $`b`$, is approximately $`\sqrt{4.7}`$. We then imprint the radial selection function of the QSOs onto the mock catalogues as described in Section 2.1.

The net result is shown in Figure 4. The points show P(k) for the biased particles, the solid line shows P(k) of the mass and the dashed line shows $`b^2`$P(k)mass. In both cases, the QSO selection function has been applied to the catalogues and the redshift space distortions included in the particle positions. By design, over a wide range of scales, there is just a linear bias between the mass and the biased particles.

In Figure 5, we test the method of estimating the power spectrum on the mock catalogues of the finished 2QZ. The solid line shows the input power spectrum to the Hubble Volume simulation. The power spectra from 2QZ and the mock catalogues are measured in redshift space, whereas the input power spectra is calculated in real space. Small scale peculiar velocities affect the shape of the redshift power spectrum on small scales. However, they should have little effect on the shape of the power spectrum on scales $`>5h^1`$Mpc (see Hoyle 2000), which is below the scale where we can measure QSO power spectra.

On large scales, the effect of redshift space distortions is to boost the amplitude of the power spectrum according to

$$P_s(k)=P_r(k)\left(1+\frac{2}{3}\beta +\frac{1}{5}\beta ^2\right),$$
(9)
(Kaiser 1987) with $`\beta =\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{0.6}/b`$ and $`r`$ and $`s`$ indicating the real space and redshift space power spectra. The redshift space distortions are caused by bulk motions of QSOs. If the bias is scale independent the redshift space power spectrum just has a higher amplitude than the real space power spectrum but the shapes should be consistent. Therefore we test our method of recovering the power spectrum by comparing to the shape of the input power spectrum.

The circles in the left plot show the power spectrum from the mock catalogues, averaged over the three realisations, estimated using a FFT. On intermediate to large scales, (60-400$`h^1`$ Mpc or $`1.8<\mathrm{log}(k)<1`$) the power spectrum from the mock catalogues using the FFT reproduces the shape of the input power spectrum very well. On the very largest scales, the points are systematically below the line due to the effects of the window function. A convolution of the input power spectrum with the window function power spectrum reveals a very similar decrease in power on these large scales (Hoyle 2000). It is very difficult to deconvolve fully the window function from the true power spectrum. Instead of attempting this, we estimate the scale on which the window function affects the shape of the power spectrum through comparisons with the input power spectrum. Assuming the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology, the power spectrum will be free from any effects of the window function on scale less than 400$`h^1`$Mpc (log($`k/h`$Mpc-1)=$`1.8`$). On small scales, the circles lie below the input power spectrum. These scales are below the limit of the FFT and the power spectrum cannot be robustly measured.

Instead, on small scales we use a direct Fourier transform to calculate the power spectrum. This is shown by the triangles in the middle plot. The solid triangles reproduce the input power spectrum well on scales smaller than $``$100$`h^1`$Mpc (log($`k/h`$Mpc-1)=$`1.2`$) where the window function has little effect on the amplitude of the power spectrum. On larger scales, the effect of not subtracting off the window function in the estimation of the power spectrum can clearly be seen.

In the right hand plot, we show a combination of the two methods. On scales larger than the arrow, we use the FFT method and on scales smaller than the arrow, we use the direct method. This enables a robust measurement of the power spectrum over a wide range of scales. The scale at which we swap the method of estimating the power spectrum is the central point at which the two methods of estimating the power spectrum agree within the 1$`\sigma `$ errors.

The 2QZ is, however, not yet finished and currently has a patchy angular selection function, as discussed in section 2.1.2. To test the effect of this on the power spectrum, we imprint the angular selection function of the NGC and SGC onto the two outer mock catalogues, as described in Section 2.1.2. Figure 6(a) shows the average power spectrum after the angular selection function of the NGC (filled circles) and the SGC (open circles) has been imprinted onto the mock catalogues.

In Figure 6(b), we combine the power spectrum of the NGC and SGC together, weighted by the inverse of the variance, to create one single mock 2QZ power spectrum. The same combination of FFT and direct Fourier Transform, as described above, was used in the calculation of the power spectrum.

Over the range of values $`1.8<\mathrm{log}(k)<1`$ (60-400$`h^1`$Mpc), the power spectrum from the NGC and SGC mock catalogues and the combined power spectrum match the input power spectrum reasonably well although there is, perhaps, a slight steepening of the power spectrum. On larger and smaller scales, the agreement between the mock power spectra and the input power spectrum worsens compared to the agreement between the mock, finished power spectrum and the input power spectrum. This is due to the smaller volume of the incomplete survey, the smaller number of QSOs currently observed and errors that, through tests on the Hubble Volume (see Section 3.2 and Hoyle 2000), are perhaps underestimated using the FKP method.

The tests show that even with the incomplete 2QZ, accurate measurements of the power spectrum can be made, although over a slightly limited range of scales as compared to the power spectrum predicted from the final survey, with errors that are larger (by a factor of $`1.5`$) than the finished survey will have.

## 5 Results

### 5.1 The QSO Power Spectra

In this Section, we present QSO power spectra measured from the NGC, SGC as well as the combined power spectra for the two choices of cosmology. We measure the power spectrum from QSOs with redshifts in the range $`0.3<z<2.2`$ where the photometric completeness is higher than $``$90 per cent Boyle (2000) and the number density remains approximately constant.

In Figure 7 we compare the NGC and SGC power spectra measured from QSOs with redshift in the range $`0.3<z<2.2`$ assuming the EdS cosmology (a) and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology (b). The combined power spectra are shown in (c, EdS cosmology) and (d, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology). There is good agreement between the power spectrum measured from the NGC and the SGC strips over a wide range of scales. The errors we show here and through out are 1$`\sigma `$ errors.

The power spectra have a power-law form with $`P_{\mathrm{QSO}}(k)k^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha 1.3`$ for both choices of cosmology (-1.26$`\pm 0.15`$ EdS and -1.31$`\pm 0.16`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) over the range $`1.7<\mathrm{log}(k)<1`$ (60-300$`h^1`$Mpc).

CDM models predict that the power spectrum should turn over at a scale which depends on the shape parameter, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, of the power spectrum. In pure CDM models with a scale-invariant spectrum of initial fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}h`$. This relation becomes more complicated, however, with the addition of baryons, hot dark matter, or a tilted initial fluctuations spectrum, and so a measurement of Gamma cannot be reliably inverted to imply a measurement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}h`$ (Sugiyama 1995, Peacock 2000). If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>0.25`$ then the turnover should occur on scales less than 300$`h^1`$Mpc. The fact that we do not see a turnover puts constraints on the range of acceptable $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ values. In Section 6, we compare the data to models to constrain the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ further.

We tentatively identify a ‘spike’ feature at log($`k/h`$Mpc-1) $`1.16`$ (90 $`h^1`$Mpc) assuming the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology and at log($`k/h`$Mpc-1) $`1.01`$ (65 $`h^1`$Mpc) assuming the EdS. Figures 7(a,b) show that the feature seems to reproduce in the NGC and SGC strips. We shall see in Figure 9(a,b) that this feature also appears to reproduce in the two independent redshift bins in both cosmologies. In both cases, the spike feature lies about 2$`\sigma `$ above the powerlaw fit to the power spectrum. (slightly higher in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ case, slightly lower in the EdS case), corresponding to a probability of 1/20 that a point deviates from the fit, neglecting the fact that the points may not be completely independent. With 17 data points, we should expect one point to deviate by this amount so the spike feature is marginal. However, if real, such a feature might be caused by acoustic oscillations in the baryon-radiation fluid prior to decoupling. If this power spectrum spike is confirmed in the analysis of the full 2QZ, it would also provide a powerful measure of the world model. Such features do not evolve in scale as a function of redshift and a comparison between the 2QZ P(k), measured at a mean redshift of 1.4 and the galaxy P(k) measured at z$``$0 may allow constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ via the requirement to maintain the feature at the same scale in both power spectra. For example, preliminary reports of results from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey power spectrum (Peacock et al. 2001) show some possible indications of a spike detected in their data at log($`k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$) $``$ -1.12 (85$`h^1`$Mpc), assuming the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology, although the 2dFGRS team do not claim that any single isolated feature in their data is significant. In an EdS cosmology this feature would lie at log($`k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$) $``$ -1.08 (75$`h^1`$Mpc). The low redshift galaxy result may therefore be somewhat more consistent with the high redshift QSO result assuming the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology but more QSO and galaxy data will clearly be needed at both high and low redshift before a final conclusion can be drawn.

We have used the CMBFAST programme (Seljak & Zaldarriaga 1996) to see how close the feature might be in scale and amplitude to the second baryon-radiation acoustic peak. Generally, for a wide range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ and $`h`$ in both the EdS and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology, the peak scale appears at $`>`$25 per cent smaller wavenumber than the predicted second peak. Also the amplitude of the peak appears to demand a higher value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ than used in e.g. the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM Hubble Volume model ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=0.7, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$=0.3 $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$=0.04, $`h`$=0.7). To illustrate this, the Hubble Volume input spectrum is shown in Figure 7(d) together with a CMBFAST prediction with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=0.7, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$=0.3, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$=0.1, $`h`$=0.5. This model gives as good a fit as any to the observed spike feature but, although having a reasonable amplitude, it lies at log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$)=-1.05 rather than the observed log$`(k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$)=-1.16. Figure 7(c) shows a CMBFAST model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$=1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.3,h`$=0.3 again as an example of a model which gets as close as any to matching the observed feature. However, again the predicted spike lies at too large a wavenumber, log($`k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$)=-0.82, compared to the observed spike scale of log($`k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$)=-1.02. We also note that Meiksin, White & Peacock (1999) have suggested that quasi-linear evolution may reduce the predicted amplitude of the second acoustic peak. We postpone further discussion of the theoretical implications of the spike feature until we see if it reproduces in our full 25k 2QZ sample.

### 5.2 Comparison with P(k) from Galaxy and Cluster Surveys

The power spectrum of optically selected galaxies has been measured from several different galaxy surveys but so far only out to $`100h^1`$Mpc scales. In Figure 8, we compare the power spectrum estimated from the QSOs currently observed in 2QZ, assuming two different cosmologies, with a power spectrum from the Durham/UKST survey (Hoyle et al. 1999). The lines show the QSO power spectrum, estimated assuming the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology (solid line) and the EdS cosmology (dashed line). The filled circles show a flux limited galaxy power spectrum with P=8000$`h^3`$Mpc3 fixed in the weighting scheme of Feldman, Kaiser & Peacock (1994).

Figure 8 shows that the form of the QSO and galaxy redshift space power spectra are similar, although the range of overlap where the two power spectra are robustly measured is small. The slopes are statistically consistent whether the QSO power spectrum is computed in the EdS or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology. In the final sample there may be a possible cosmological test afforded by comparing the slopes of QSO power spectra with power spectra obtained at lower redshift, if the bias can be assumed to be scale independent. The QSO power spectrum in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ case has a amplitude slightly lower than that of the galaxy power spectra. If an EdS cosmology is assumed, the amplitude of the QSO power spectrum (dashed line) is approximately a factor of $``$3 lower than the galaxy power spectra. Croom et al. (2001) found very similar results in the comparison of galaxy and QSO clustering amplitudes in their correlation function analysis of the 2QZ data.

We compare the QSO power spectra to the PSCz Survey power spectrum (Sutherland et al. 1999) in Figure 8. The PSCz Survey is an Infra-Red selected redshift survey. Comparisons between optically and IR selected surveys reveal that there is typically an offset between clustering statistics between the two surveys with P$`{}_{\mathrm{Opt}}{}^{}=1.3^2`$ PIR (Hoyle et al. 1999) which explains why the PSCz P(k) has an amplitude that is in closer agreement with the EdS QSO P(k) than the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ P(k), contrary to the optical comparison.

We also compare the QSO power spectra to the real space APM galaxy power spectrum of Baugh & Efstathiou (1994), inferred from measurements of the angular correlation function, $`w(\theta )`$. The real space APM galaxy power spectrum has a lower amplitude than the Durham/UKST redshift space power spectrum as bulk motions of galaxies increase amplitude of the redshift space power spectrum (Kaiser 1987). There is also some uncertainty in the normalisation of the APM power spectrum due to the inversion technique of estimating the power spectrum (Carlton Baugh, private communication). On scales out to 100 $`h^1`$Mpc (log($`k/h`$Mpc-1)=$`1.2`$), there is reasonable agreement between the amplitudes of the different power spectra. On scales larger than 100$`h^1`$Mpc, the APM power spectrum flattens off, whereas the QSO power spectra continue to rise. We believe that the QSO power spectra measurements are robust to 300$`h^1`$Mpc assuming the EdS cosmology (400$`h^1`$Mpc assuming the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology). Therefore we find even more large scale power than in the APM power spectrum and possibly even more power than the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models (see Section 6).

A final comparison is made between the QSO power spectra and the power spectra of rich clusters of galaxies. In Figure 8, the triangles show the APM Cluster Survey power spectra taken from Tadros, Efstathiou & Dalton (1998). The cluster power spectra are found assuming $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$=1 (filled triangles) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$=0.2, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=0.8 (open triangles). As the clusters are only observed out to a redshift of $``$0.2, the effects of cosmology on the clustering amplitude are small so the two cluster power spectra have a similar amplitude and shape. The slopes of the QSO power spectra are similar to those for the clusters for both models, within the overlapping range of scales. As can clearly be seen in Figure 8, the QSOs have a lower clustering amplitude than the present day rich clusters. We shall see below that the QSO power spectrum amplitude only evolves slowly with redshift and so it is meaningful to compare the QSO and cluster power spectra. The relative bias between the two types of power spectra is $`b_{\mathrm{rel}}\sqrt{5}`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology and $`b_{\mathrm{rel}}\sqrt{10}`$ for the EdS cosmology.

### 5.3 The Evolution of QSO Clustering

To determine how QSO clustering evolves as a function of redshift, we split the QSOs in each strip of the survey into two redshift bins containing roughly equal numbers of QSOs, one with QSOs in the range $`0.3<z<1.4`$ ($`\overline{z}=1.0`$) and the other with $`1.4<z<2.4`$ ($`\overline{z}=1.8`$). The power spectrum is then measured from each subsample on each strip, assuming the two cosmologies discussed in Section 2. The results from the NGC and SGC for each redshift bin and for each cosmology are averaged together as before. All the power spectra in Figure 9(a) are estimated assuming the EdS cosmology, whilst in panel (b), the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology is assumed. In both panels, the solid line shows the power spectrum of all the QSOs, the open circles show the power spectrum of the low redshift QSOs and the filled circles show the power spectrum of the high redshift QSOs.

When the QSOs are split up into the two samples, the errors on the measured power spectra are increased. However, on scales around 100-200$`h^1`$Mpc (-1.2 $`>`$ log($`k/h`$Mpc-1) $`>1.5`$) the power spectrum can still be fairly well measured, the fractional errors are around 40 per cent. There is reasonable agreement between the power spectra measured from the two redshift bins over a wide range of scales. In order to compare the amplitudes of high and low redshift power spectra, we assume that they are both power laws of the form log(P$`/h^3`$Mpc3) = $`\alpha `$log($`k/h`$Mpc-1) + A. We fix $`\alpha `$ to be -1.3 and find the best fitting value of the amplitude, A, over the range -1.6$`<`$log($`k/h`$Mpc$`{}_{}{}^{1})<`$-1.2 in the case of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology and -1.5$`<`$log($`k/h`$Mpc$`{}_{}{}^{1})<`$1.1 for the EdS case (corresponding to scales of 100-250$`h^1`$Mpc for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ case and 75-200$`h^1`$Mpc in the EdS case). In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology, the high redshift bin has an amplitude of 2.58$`\pm 0.09`$ and the low redshift bin has an amplitude of 2.63$`\pm 0.08`$. In the EdS case, the high redshift bin has an amplitude of 2.31$`\pm 0.09`$ and the low amplitude bin has an amplitude of 2.29$`\pm 0.10`$. This shows that QSO clustering does not evolve strongly with redshift as the low and high redshift bins have power law fits that are consistent in amplitude.

This result is consistent with the work of Croom et al. (2001) who have measured the clustering from the 10k QSO catalogue in five bins of redshift. If the EdS cosmology is assumed then little evolution is seen in the clustering amplitude of QSOs, consistent with Croom & Shanks (1996). If the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology is assumed, slow evolution is seen in the clustering amplitude of QSOs, with QSOs at high redshift having a slightly higher clustering amplitude than QSOs at low redshift.

The slow evolution in QSO clustering was interpreted previously in terms of cosmology and the effects of QSO bias (see, for example, Croom & Shanks 1996). The slow evolution either suggests that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ is low, less than 0.1, so that the dark matter clustering does not evolve strongly with redshift, or if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ is fairly high, $`>0.1`$, then bias evolves as a function of redshift to counteract the decrease in amplitude of the dark matter clustering. Croom et al. (2001) make a detailed comparison between the evolution of QSO clustering and various models for the QSO-mass bias. Determining cosmology from the evolution of QSO clustering alone is not possible due to the degeneracy between cosmology and bias.

Since the QSO power spectra have comparable amplitudes to local galaxy power spectra and since the slow QSO clustering evolution implies that the QSO amplitude does not increase markedly at low redshift, this suggests that QSOs are not highly biased objects with respect to present day optically selected galaxies.

## 6 Comparison with Models of Large Scale Structure

As discussed previously, it is the power spectrum of the mass density field that is predicted by models of large scale structure. If the bias between the dark matter and QSOs can be written as P(k)QSO = $`b^2`$P(k)mass, with $`b`$ a constant, which could be the case on large scales (Coles 1993; Cole et al 1998; Mann, Peacock & Heavens 1998), it is meaningful to compare the shapes of mass and QSO power spectra.

However, we find that the current incompleteness may be introducing a slight bias into the shape of the QSO power spectrum. The shape of the power spectrum from the mock catalogues with the incompleteness imprinted on them is slightly steeper than the input power spectrum to the simulation. This is shown in Figure 10. The solid line shows the input power spectrum, the long dashed line shows the power spectrum from the mock catalogues with the current angular selection function imprinted on them (as seen in Figure 6(b), the short dashed lines are the 1$`\sigma `$ errors). The points show the QSO power spectrum calculated assuming the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology. On the smallest scales, the dashed line is inconsistent with the solid line at the 1$`\sigma `$ level, although on these small scales the FKP errors may underestimate the true error. Therefore, we fit the model power spectra to the QSO power spectrum, assuming the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology, down to 60$`h^1`$Mpc (log($`k/h`$Mpc-1)=$`1.`$) only. We have no mock catalogues with the EdS cosmology to test if incompleteness affects the shape of the QSO power spectrum from the 10k QSO catalogue, assuming the EdS cosmology. However, we wish to fit the models to the data over the same range of log($`k/h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$) so we fix the lower limit for the EdS case to be log($`k/h`$Mpc-1)=$`0.9`$ (50$`h^1`$Mpc). We set the limit on large scales to be the scale where the geometry of the survey affects the shape of the power spectrum. This corresponds to 300$`h^1`$Mpc (log($`k/h`$Mpc-1)=$`1.7`$) in the EdS cosmology and 400$`h^1`$Mpc (log($`k/h`$Mpc-1)=$`1.8`$) in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology.

We compare the QSO power spectra to model CDM power spectra with different values of the shape parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, introduced in Section 5.1. We assume the fit to the CDM transfer function given by Bardeen et al. (1986). The power spectrum is calculated at $`z=1.4`$ rather than at $`z=0`$ to approximate the dark matter power spectrum averaged over the lightcone. We assume a value of $`\sigma _8`$ that matches the cluster normalisation for each cosmology given by Eke, Cole & Frenk (1996). For each cosmology, the model power spectra are $`\chi ^2`$ fitted to the QSO power spectrum to find the factor, $`b_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, required to match the two as well as possible.

We choose values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the range $`0.05<\mathrm{\Gamma }<0.5`$ which more than covers the range of values that fit current galaxy power spectra, such as the APM real space power spectrum (Eisenstein & Zaldarriaga 2001). We note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>`$0.3 are not physically motivated but we are just comparing a range of models with different shapes to the QSO power spectrum and we do indeed find that models with values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>0.3`$ give a poor fit to the QSO power spectrum with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology assumed.

In Figure 11, we show the QSO power spectrum with the EdS cosmology (open circles, a) and with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology (solid circles, b). The lines have different values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0.5 (solid), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0.4 (short - long dashed), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0.3 (short dashed), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0.2 (long dashed) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0.1 (dotted). Models with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0.5 are ruled out at more than 3$`\sigma `$ assuming either cosmology. This is in agreement with results from galaxy surveys. More large scale power was found in the galaxy correlation function from the APM Survey than expected from the standard CDM $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0.5 model (Efstathiou, Sutherland & Maddox 1990). This led to variants of the CDM model, such as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and $`\tau `$CDM to be developed.

In both cases, the best agreement between the models and the QSO power spectra is found with a model with low values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Models with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0.12$`\pm `$0.10 best fit the shape of the QSO power spectrum assuming the EdS cosmology and models with lower values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.11\pm 0.1`$ best fit the QSO power spectrum assuming the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology. The input power spectrum to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM Hubble Volume has a shape of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0.17. This model is therefore consistent with the data at the 1$`\sigma `$ level.

The results found here are in reasonable agreement with those of Croom et al. (2001). They find that models with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0.5 do not provide a good fit to the correlation function measured from the 10k QSO catalogue assuming the EdS and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology. Models with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0.1-0.2 are required to fit the correlation function with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology assumed. However, models with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0.2-0.4 best fit the correlation function if the EdS cosmology is assumed.

This test is quite simplistic as possible effects of the incompleteness have not been included in the shape of the model power spectrum, although by fitting to a limited range of scales we should have reduced the effect that this can have on the models that fit the power spectrum. When 2QZ is finished, we will be able to compare the models over a wider range of scales and produce stronger constraints on the range of acceptable $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ parameters.

In order to thoroughly test models of structure formation, full N-body simulations, such as the Hubble Volume are required. However, due to the large volume of 2QZ, large amounts of super-computing time are required to carry out such simulations so it is currently not possible to run them for a wide range of cosmological models. Physically motivated models for selecting QSOs within the simulation are also required as a linear bias between the mass and the QSOs may be an over simplification, even on these large scales.

## 7 Discussion and Conclusions

We have presented the first QSO power spectrum analysis using the 10k catalogue from the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey. The QSO power spectrum has a power law form with P$`{}_{\mathrm{QSO}}{}^{}(k)k^{1.3\pm 0.15}`$ which appears to extend to large scales. More large scale power is seen in the QSO power spectra than in the APM power galaxy spectrum even.

The clustering environment observed for radio-quiet QSOs in CCD imaging experiments is close to that of optically selected galaxies, (Ellingson, Yee & Green 1991; Smith, Boyle & Maddox 1995, 1999; Croom & Shanks 1999) suggesting that the biasing of QSOs may be no stronger than it is for galaxies; at the r$`>`$50h-1Mpc scales considered here the assumption that the QSO-mass bias is scale independent may therefore be reasonable. Therefore, the fact that we do not see a turnover on scales up to 300$`h^1`$Mpc places a strong constraint on the value of the shape parameter, requiring $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<0.25`$. We find that the large scale power seen in the QSO power spectrum is best fit by CDM models with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as low as $`0.1\pm 0.1`$.

A power spectrum analysis of mock QSO catalogues, created from the Virgo Consortium’s Hubble Volume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM simulation, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.17`$ as input, produces a result which is statistically consistent with the data. The analysis of the mock catalogues indicates that we are able to produce a first robust measurement of the QSO power spectrum over a wide range of scales and thus the above results for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are unlikely to be dominated by systematic effects due to the current incompleteness of the 2QZ catalogue.

We note that the low $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ values measured here from the shapes of the QSO power spectra are in some disagreement with the best fit parameters as measured from the Boomerang and MAXIMA CMB power spectra (Balbi 2000, de Bernadis 2000). Bond et al. (2000) measures $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$=0.03 and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CDM}}h^2`$=0.17 for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}h^2`$=0.2 in a spatially flat model. For h=0.65 this implies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}h=0.3`$ which is rejected at 2$`\sigma `$ in Figures 11(a, b). It will be interesting to see if this discrepancy persists as more CMB and 2QZ data accumulate.

We measure the QSO power spectrum in two bins of redshift and find that the clustering can only evolve slowly as a function of redshift as QSOs with a median redshift of $`\overline{z}`$=1.0 have a clustering amplitude consistent with that of QSOs with a median redshift of $`\overline{z}`$=1.8. This is consistent with the results of Croom et al. (2001), who find little evolution in the amplitude of QSO clustering as a function of redshift if the EdS cosmology is assumed and only slow evolution if a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology is assumed.

The QSO power spectrum, which is therefore broadly independent of redshift, lies close in amplitude to the power-spectrum of local, optically selected galaxies. The range of scales where the two overlap is limited, but once the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey is finished, an interesting comparison between power spectra of optically selected QSOs and galaxies over a wide range of scales will be possible. The power spectrum of rich galaxy clusters measured by Tadros, Efstathiou & Dalton (1998) has a far higher clustering amplitude than the QSO power spectrum, again suggesting that the QSO-mass bias is much closer to galaxies than galaxy clusters.

We tentatively detect a ‘spike’ feature at $`90h^1`$Mpc assuming the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology or $`65h^1`$Mpc assuming the EdS cosmology. This feature appears to reproduce in both the NGC and SGC strips and in independent redshift bins but its statistical significance is still marginal. An investigation using CMBFAST indicates that the spike is seen at a $`>`$25 per cent smaller wavenumber than the second peak caused by acoustic oscillation in the pre-recombination baryon-radiation fluid. Somewhat higher values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ than usually assumed in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models may also be needed to fit the amplitude of the feature. It will be interesting to see if this feature persists in the final 25k 2QZ survey P(k). Since it lies well into the linear regime where it will evolve little with redshift under the correct assumed cosmology it could therefore act as an important probe of world models.

The QSO power spectrum is currently measured to an accuracy of $`<30`$% over the range of scales 60$`<r<200h^1`$Mpc for either the EdS or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology adopted here. On these scales, we predict the errors will be approximately 1.5 times smaller in the completed 2QZ catalogue. The power spectrum from the 25k catalogue will also be measurable out to scales of $`<600h^1`$Mpc. Thus, when these data become available, there is the promise of placing even stronger constraints on the large scale structure of the Universe and hence on the underlying cosmological model.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to recognise the considerable efforts of all the AAT staff responsible for the operation of the 2dF instrument which has made this survey possible. We would also thank our colleagues on the 2dF galaxy redshift survey team, in particular Gavin Dalton and Steve Maddox, for facilitating many of the survey observations and John Peacock and Shaun Cole for useful comments. We also thank the Virgo Consortium, especially Adrian Jenkins and Gus Evrard, for providing the Hubble Volume simulations. FH and NL acknowledge the receipt of a PPARC studentship.


format: text

text:
# Quantum symmetry groups of noncommutative spheres

## 1 Introduction

Noncommutative geometry  has established itself as a theory which goes beyond the realm of differentiable manifolds and deals in a unified fashion with many singular geometric spaces, too. A fundamental feature of NCG is that it fully incorporates all compact, boundaryless spin manifolds under the heading of “noncommutative spin geometries”: see  and Chapter 11 of .

Outstanding examples of singular geometric spaces are the noncommutative tori , orbit spaces of discrete group actions, and leaf spaces of foliations. Recently, a new class of examples has appeared, the “noncommutative spheres” of Connes and Landi , from a purely cohomological construction.

The Moyal-like nature of the twisted products introduced in  suggests that the underlying noncommutative spaces of these spin geometries may be obtained, as $`C^{}`$-algebras, by the general deformation construction of Rieffel . The question arises as to whether these are in fact noncommutative homogeneous spaces, that is, subalgebras of invariants of certain Hopf algebras which may be regarded as “quantized symmetry groups”. This question is more delicate than it might seem, because it must be answered at the $`C^{}`$-algebra level: these “symmetry groups” must be found in the category of “compact quantum groups” in the sense of Woronowicz  or perhaps in the wider category of “locally compact quantum groups” . As it happens, the compact noncommutative spaces which we discuss below have compact (quantum) symmetry groups, so we shall restrict ourselves here to Woronowicz’ version.

In Sections 2 and 3 we review the construction of noncommutative spheres and Rieffel’s $`C^{}`$-deformation theory. Section 4 treats compact quantum groups built by such deformations. In Section 5, we explain how both constructions mesh to yield the desired quantum homogeneous spaces. In the final section, we briefly discuss noncommutative spin geometries on these homogeneous spaces.

## 2 Quantized 4-spheres

The construction of noncommutative spin geometries by Connes and Landi proceeds in two stages. First, the data $`(𝒜,,D,C,\chi )`$ of an even real spectral triple  are sought as possible solutions to a system of equations for the Chern character in cyclic homology:

$`\mathrm{ch}_k(p)(p\frac{1}{2})dp^{2k}`$ $`=0\text{for}k=0,1,\mathrm{},m1,`$ (1a)
$`\pi _D(\mathrm{ch}_m(p))`$ $`=\chi ,`$ (1b)
where $`p=p^2=p^{}`$ is an orthogonal projector in a matrix algebra $`M_r(𝒜)`$, $``$ denotes the conditional expectation (or partial trace) onto $`𝒜`$, $`\chi `$ is the grading operator on the $`_2`$-graded Hilbert space $``$, and $`\pi _D(a_0da_1\mathrm{}da_n):=a_0[D,a_1]\mathrm{}[D,a_n]`$ represents elements of the universal graded differential algebra over $`𝒜`$ as operators on $``$.

These equations impose restrictions, first of all, on the algebra $`𝒜`$ itself. In dimension two, i.e., when $`m=1`$ and $`r=2`$, only commutative solutions are found; in fact, Connes showed by an elementary argument  —see also \[17, Sect. 11.A\] and — that (1a) alone forces $`𝒜`$ to be a commutative algebra whose Gelfand spectrum is a closed subset of the 2-sphere $`𝕊^2`$. This equation also makes $`\mathrm{ch}_1(p)`$ a Hochschild $`2`$-cycle, whose associated volume form is the standard volume form on the sphere, so the Gelfand spectrum must be the whole $`𝕊^2`$, and thus $`𝒜C^{\mathrm{}}(𝕊^2)`$ on the basis of (1) alone!

Even in commutative cases such as this, where $`D`$ may be taken as the Dirac operator given by some metric and spin structure on the spectrum of $`𝒜`$, the final condition (1b) does not determine the metric, but only its volume form; thus the cohomological conditions (1) allow for volume-preserving variations of the metric, as befits a theory which aspires to incorporate gravity.

In dimension four, with $`m=2`$ and $`r=4`$, there is also a commutative solution given in , namely the smooth function algebra $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝕊^4)`$. Later, Connes and Landi  found a family of noncommutative solutions, parametrized by a complex number of modulus one $`\lambda =e^{2\pi i\theta }`$: these are the algebras $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝕊_\theta ^4)`$ (together with their corresponding Dirac operators), which may be called “smooth function algebras for noncommutative $`4`$-spheres $`𝕊_\theta ^4`$”, in the standard parlance of quantum group theorists. Their representations are uniformly bounded and in each case a $`C^{}`$-norm is quickly found, allowing to complete them to “continuous function algebras”, denoted $`C(𝕊_\theta ^4)`$.

This procedure extends directly to higher dimensions, yielding noncommutative spheres in any even dimension greater than $`2`$ from the corresponding “instanton algebras” (so called because the finite projective modules $`p𝒜^r`$ may be regarded as vector bundles over $`𝒜`$). Starting from the odd Chern character in cyclic homology, one can also search for odd-dimensional noncommutative spaces with this method (in the odd case, $``$ is ungraded and $`\chi `$ in (1b) is replaced by $`1`$).

A striking feature of this construction is that these noncommutative manifolds are parametrized by numbers of modulus one, in contrast to the real numbers $`q\pm 1`$ which label the well-known $`2`$-spheres $`𝕊_{qc}^2`$ of Podleś , which were originally constructed as homogeneous spaces of the compact quantum groups $`SU_q(2)`$. By combining features of both constructions, Da̧browski, Landi and Masuda  built a family of quantized $`4`$-spheres $`𝕊_q^4`$; on computing the Chern characters of the instantons, they found that (1a) is violated, inasmuch as $`\mathrm{ch}_1(p)=(1q^2)`$ times a nonvanishing term.

In any case, it is clear that the Connes–Landi spheres $`𝕊_\theta ^4`$ lie outside the realm of $`q`$-spheres of the Podleś type. Indeed, several other variants on the $`𝕊_q^4`$ spheres have since appeared , which, however, do not incorporate the $`𝕊_\theta ^4`$ family . Of particular note is the construction by Hong and Szymański  of a large family of quantized $`n`$-spheres $`𝕊_q^n`$, for $`n2`$ and $`q>0`$, by deforming $`C(𝕊^n)`$ to Cuntz–Krieger $`C^{}`$-algebras based on certain directed graphs; but again, the $`𝕊_\theta ^4`$ family is not included. Therefore, it behoves us to ask whether that family may be realized as “quantum homogeneous spaces”.

## 3 Deformations of homogeneous spaces

The second stage of the Connes–Landi construction is the provision of spin geometries on the spheres $`𝕊_\theta ^4`$. This is accomplished by a deformation of the commutative spectral triple $`(C^{\mathrm{}}(𝕊^4),,D/)`$, where $`D/`$ denotes a Dirac operator on the Hilbert space $``$ of square-integrable spinors over $`𝕊^4`$. In the deformation, $`D/`$ is kept fixed, so that all spectral data, including the classical dimension (four!) of the geometry are unchanged: only the algebra and its representation on $``$ are modified.

One declares a kind of Moyal product on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝕊^4)`$ by the following recipe: first, note that there is an isometric action of the $`2`$-torus $`𝕋^2`$ on $`𝕊^4`$, allowing us to decompose any smooth function on $`𝕊^4`$ as a series $`f=_rf_r`$ indexed by $`r^2`$, where $`f_r`$ lies in the $`r^{\mathrm{th}}`$ spectral subspace:

$$(e^{2\pi i\varphi _1},e^{2\pi i\varphi _2})f_r=e^{2\pi i(r_1\varphi _1+r_2\varphi _2)}f_r.$$

The series converges rapidly in the Fréchet topology of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝕊^4)`$. By introducing the following star-product of homogeneous elements:

$$f_r\times g_s:=e^{2\pi i\theta r_1s_2}f_rg_s,$$
(2)
Connes and Landi constructed a representation of $`C(𝕊_\theta ^4)`$ on the spinor space $``$ (having bounded commutators with $`D/`$); in essence, the representation is explicit only on the smooth subalgebra, which is just the vector space $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝕊^4)`$ with the commutative product replaced by the star-product (2).

More generally, if $`M`$ is a compact Riemannian manifold admitting a Lie group of isometries of rank $`l2`$, so that $`M`$ carries an isometric action of the torus $`𝕋^l`$, one can decompose $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ into spectral subspaces indexed by $`^l`$. The Moyal product of two homogeneous functions $`f_r`$ and $`g_s`$ is then given by

$$f_r\times g_s:=\rho (r,s)f_rg_s,$$
(3)
where $`\rho :^l\times ^l𝕋`$ is a $`2`$-cocycle on the additive group $`^l`$. The cocycle relation

$$\rho (r,s+t)\rho (s,t)=\rho (r,s)\rho (r+s,t)$$

guarantees associativity of the new product. For instance , one may take

$$\rho (r,s):=\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\pi i\mathrm{}_{j<k}r_j\theta _{jk}s_k\right\},$$

where $`\theta =[\theta _{jk}]`$ is a real $`l\times l`$ matrix. Complex conjugation of functions remains an involution for the new product provided that the matrix $`\theta `$ is skewsymmetric.

The relation (3) is easily recognized as the product rule for the twisted group $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C^{}(^l,\rho )`$. We may replace $`\rho `$ by its skewsymmetrized version

$$\sigma (r,s):=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\pi i\mathrm{}_{j,k=1}^lr_j\theta _{jk}s_k\right\},$$
(4)
because $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ are cohomologous , and we obtain $`C^{}(^l,\sigma )=C(𝕋_\theta ^l)`$, which is precisely the $`C^{}`$-algebra of the noncommutative $`l`$-torus with parameter matrix $`\theta `$.

The relation (3) is clearly, then, a discretized version of the usual Moyal product, due to the periodicity of the $`𝕋^l`$-action. Recall that the standard Moyal product on the phase space $`^{2m}`$ may be expressed either by the familiar series in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$ whose first nontrivial term gives the Poisson bracket, or alternatively in the integral form :

$$(f\times _Jg)(x):=(2\pi \mathrm{})^nf(x+s)g(x+t)e^{isJt/\mathrm{}}𝑑s𝑑t,$$

where $`J`$ is the skewsymmetric matrix giving the standard symplectic structure on $`^{2m}`$ (and the dot is the usual scalar product on $`^{2m}`$). This may be interpreted as an oscillatory integral for suitable classes of functions and distributions on $`^{2m}`$, and yields the familiar series as an asymptotic expansion in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$ . It is, therefore, a better starting point than that series for a $`C^{}`$-algebraic theory of deformations. Indeed, this was the form of the Moyal product used by Rieffel in his general deformation theory . He found, in fact, an improvement over the board by rewriting it as

$$(f\times _Jg)(x):=f(x+Js)g(x+t)e^{2\pi ist}𝑑s𝑑t.$$

He then generalized this to

$$a\times _Jb:=_{V\times V}\alpha _{Js}(a)\alpha _t(b)e^{2\pi ist}𝑑s𝑑t,$$
(5)
where $`a,b`$ belong to a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$, $`\alpha :V\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ is a (strongly continuous) action of a vector group $`V^l`$ on $`A`$, and $`J`$ is a skewsymmetric real $`l\times l`$ matrix. The oscillatory integral (5) makes sense, a priori, only for elements $`a,b`$ of the smooth subalgebra $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`A`$ (under the action $`\alpha `$), which is a Fréchet pre-$`C^{}`$-algebra.

This problem of good definition is overcome  by introducing a suitable $`C^{}`$-norm on $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$ for which the $`\times _J`$ product is continuous, and then completing it in this norm to obtain the deformed $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A_J`$. The construction is functorial in that morphisms of $`A`$ restrict to $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$ and then extend uniquely to morphisms of $`A_J`$. In more detail: if $`(A,\alpha (V))`$ and $`(B,\beta (V))`$ are two $`C^{}`$-algebras carrying actions of $`V`$, and if $`\varphi :AB`$ is a $``$-homomorphism intertwining the actions $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, then $`\varphi (A^{\mathrm{}})B^{\mathrm{}}`$ and the restriction of $`\varphi `$ to $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$ extends uniquely to a $``$-homomorphism $`\varphi _J:A_JB_J`$. Moreover, if the original map $`\varphi `$ is injective, then $`\varphi _J`$ is injective, too; and $`\varphi _J`$ is surjective whenever $`\varphi `$ is surjective.

In particular, when $`B=A`$ and $`\beta =\alpha `$, each $`\alpha _x`$ intertwines $`\alpha `$ with itself since $`V`$ is an abelian group, and this gives an action $`\alpha _J:V\mathrm{Aut}(A_J)`$ whose restriction to $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$ coincides with $`\alpha `$. Then $`(A_J,\alpha _J)`$ can be deformed in turn, using a new skewsymmetric matrix $`K`$, say; and the result turns out to be isomorphic to $`A_{J+K}`$. By taking $`K=J`$, we see that the change $`AA_J`$ is reversible. It is therefore unsurprising, but still a deep and important result, that the smooth subalgebra remains unchanged during this mutation: $`(A_J)^{\mathrm{}}=A^{\mathrm{}}`$ as vector spaces, although they have different multiplications \[27, Thm. 7.1\].

The case of particular interest to us occurs when the action $`\alpha `$ of $`V`$ is periodic, so that $`\alpha _x=\mathrm{id}_A`$ for $`xL`$, a cocompact lattice in $`V`$; in which case, $`\alpha `$ is effectively an action of the compact abelian group $`H=V/L`$. Then $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$ decomposes into spectral subspaces labelled by elements of $`L`$ (or characters of $`H`$) and one can check \[27, Prop. 2.21\] that if $`\alpha _s(a_p)=e^{2\pi ips}a_p`$ and $`\alpha _t(b_q)=e^{2\pi iqt}b_q`$ with $`p,qL`$, then

$$a_p\times _Jb_q=e^{2\pi ipJq}a_pb_q.$$

On comparing this with (3) (with the cocycle $`\rho `$ replaced there by $`\sigma `$), we see that it suffices to take $`A:=C(𝕋^l)`$ and $`J:=\frac{1}{2}\theta `$ in order to obtain any noncommutative torus $`C(𝕋_\theta ^l)A_J`$ by this algorithm.

In fine, the isospectral deformation procedure of , based on the star-product (2), is, as far as the algebra is concerned, a special case of Rieffel’s $`C^{}`$-deformation theory. (This same point is made by Sitarz in a recent announcement .)

Moreover, if the isometric action of $`𝕋^l`$ on $`M`$ alluded to above is free on some orbit, so that $`M`$ contains an embedded $`l`$-torus, then the restriction map $`\pi :C(M)C(𝕋^l)`$ induces a surjective $``$-homomorphism $`\pi _{2J}:C(M)_{2J}C(𝕋_\theta ^l)`$, so that the noncommutative torus appears as a quotient of the deformed $`C(M)`$. In particular, if $`\theta `$ is irrational, then the noncommutative sphere $`C(𝕊_\theta ^4)`$ is not a type I $`C^{}`$-algebra.

## 4 Compact quantum groups from deformations

It stands to reason, then, that this $`C^{}`$-deformation process should yield compact quantum groups when applied to the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C(G)`$ of continuous functions on a compact Lie group. This proves to be the case, by a further construction of Rieffel. There are two issues to address here: first, which vector group actions on $`C(G)`$ are admissible and useful, and second, how to deal with the coproduct, counit and antipode which define the Hopf algebra structure of $`C(G)`$ (or rather, of its dense subalgebra of representative functions).

The solution to the second problem could not be simpler: the coalgebra structure and antipode can be left completely untouched, and only the algebra structure need be deformed! The matter is not quite trivial, as one must ensure that the coproduct is still an algebra homomorphism for the new product. This possibility was pointed out by Dubois-Violette , who noticed that Woronowicz’ matrix corepresentations for $`C(SU_q(N))`$ and similar bialgebras could be seen as different star-products on the same coalgebra.

Now suppose that $`H`$ is a closed connected abelian subgroup of $`G`$ (usually we may take $`H`$ to be a maximal torus, but it is not really necessary that it be maximal); following Rieffel , we consider the action of $`H\times H`$ on $`G`$ given by $`(h,k)x:=hxk^1`$, and the corresponding action on $`C(G)`$:

$$[(h,k)f](x):=f(h^1xk).$$
(6)
We may regard this as a periodic action of the Lie algebra $`𝔥𝔥`$, with the following notation. Choose and fix a basis for the vector space $`𝔥^l`$, so that the exponential mapping from $`𝔥`$ onto $`H`$ may be expressed as a homomorphism $`e:^lH`$ whose kernel is the integer lattice $`^l`$; by taking $`\lambda :=e(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$ we may write $`\lambda ^s:=e(s)`$ for $`s^l`$ with a multiindex notation; the action of $`V:=𝔥𝔥`$ on $`C(G)`$ is then written as

$$[\alpha (s,t)f](x):=f(\lambda ^sx\lambda ^t).$$
(7)
(In the sequel, we shall refer to this as an action of $`𝔥𝔥`$ or of $`H\times H`$, interchangeably.) If $`J`$ is now any skewsymmetric matrix in $`M_{2l}()`$, then (5) now defines a Moyal product on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$, and the procedure of Sect. 3 extends this to a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C(G)_J`$, which yields a quantization of $`G`$ as a noncommutative space.

The remaining difficulty is that an arbitrary choice of $`J`$ will not mesh well with the coalgebra structure of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$, so we shall not always get a quantization of the group structure of $`G`$. For that, one may follow the approach of Drinfeld by first equipping $`G`$ with a compatible Poisson bracket (i.e., the product map $`G\times GG`$ must be a Poisson map). By a well-known procedure  this can be done at the infinitesimal level by equipping its Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ with a cocycle $`\varphi :𝔤\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝔤`$ whose dual defines a Lie bracket on $`𝔤^{}`$. For instance, one may take $`\varphi (X)=\mathrm{ad}_X(r)`$, where $`r𝔤𝔤`$ is a skewsymmetric solution of the classical Yang–Baxter equation $`[r_{12},r_{13}]+[r_{12},r_{23}]+[r_{13},r_{23}]=0`$. If $`r=_kX_kY_k`$, then since $`[r_{12},r_{13}]=_{jk}[X_j,X_k]Y_jY_k`$ and similarly for the other terms, this equation is satisfied when $`r𝔥𝔥`$ for an abelian Lie subalgebra $`𝔥`$ of $`𝔤`$. Although there are other solutions (see  for an exhaustive treatment of Poisson Lie group structures on simple compact Lie groups and the several algebraic quantizations of the Hopf algebra of representative functions), we shall focus on the case $`r𝔥𝔥`$. On using our previous identification of $`𝔥`$ with $`^l`$, we can write $`r`$ as a skewsymmetric $`l\times l`$ matrix $`Q`$. The corresponding Poisson structure on $`G`$ is given by the bivector field $`W`$, where $`W_x:=\lambda _x(r)\rho _x(r)`$ is the difference of the left and right translates of $`r`$ from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝔤`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T_xG`$. Therefore , at the infinitesimal level we should take

$$J:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Q& 0\\ 0& Q\end{array}\right)$$

as the $`2l\times 2l`$ matrix of deformation parameters for the action of $`𝔥𝔥`$.

We can now write the twisted product on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ as

$$(f\times _Jg)(x):=_{𝔥^4}f(\lambda ^{Qs}x\lambda ^{Qt})g(\lambda ^ux\lambda ^v)e^{2\pi i(su+tv)}𝑑s𝑑t𝑑u𝑑v.$$
(8)
The coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the counit $`\epsilon `$ and the antipode $`S`$, which are defined on the Hopf algebra of representative functions of $`G`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f(x,y):=f(xy),\epsilon (f):=f(1),Sf(x):=f(x^1),$$
(9)
whereby $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\epsilon `$ are algebra homomorphisms and $`S`$ is an antiisomorphism, obviously extend to algebra maps of $`C(G)`$ with the same properties. It is shown in  that they also satisfy the same algebraic relations for the twisted product. The formulas (9) make sense for $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ or even $`fC(G)`$, although the usual requirement $`\mathrm{\Delta }(C^{\mathrm{}}(G))C^{\mathrm{}}(G)C^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ holds only if the algebraic tensor product is replaced by the completed tensor product, which we denote by $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)\widehat{}C^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ and identify with $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G\times G)`$. We can make a formal check of these homomorphism properties for smooth functions:

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }f\times _J\mathrm{\Delta }g)(x,y)`$
$`={\displaystyle _{𝔥^8}}f(\lambda ^{Qs}x\lambda ^{QtQs^{}}y\lambda ^{Qt^{}})g(\lambda ^ux\lambda ^{vu^{}}y\lambda ^v^{})e^{2\pi i(su+tv+s^{}u^{}+t^{}v^{})}𝑑s\mathrm{}𝑑v^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle _{𝔥^8}}f(\lambda ^{Qs}x\lambda ^{Qt^{\prime \prime }}y\lambda ^{Qt^{}})g(\lambda ^ux\lambda ^{u^{\prime \prime }}y\lambda ^v^{})e^{2\pi i(su+t^{\prime \prime }v+s^{}u^{\prime \prime }+t^{}v^{})}𝑑s\mathrm{}𝑑v^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle _{𝔥^6}}f(\lambda ^{Qs}x\lambda ^{Qt^{\prime \prime }}y\lambda ^{Qt^{}})g(\lambda ^ux\lambda ^{u^{\prime \prime }}y\lambda ^v^{})e^{2\pi i(su+t^{}v^{})}\delta (t^{\prime \prime })\delta (u^{\prime \prime })𝑑s\mathrm{}𝑑v^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle _{𝔥^4}}f(\lambda ^{Qs}xy\lambda ^{Qt^{}})g(\lambda ^uxy\lambda ^v^{})e^{2\pi i(su+t^{}v^{})}𝑑s𝑑t^{}𝑑u𝑑v^{}`$
$`=(f\times _Jg)(xy)=\mathrm{\Delta }(f\times _Jg)(x,y).`$
Similarly,

$`(f\times _Jg)(1)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{𝔥^4}}f(\lambda ^{Q(s+t)})g(\lambda ^{vu})e^{2\pi i(su+tv)}𝑑s𝑑t𝑑u𝑑v`$
$`={\displaystyle _{𝔥^4}}f(\lambda ^{Q(s^{})})g(\lambda ^v^{})e^{2\pi i(s^{}u+tv^{})}𝑑s^{}𝑑t𝑑u𝑑v^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle _{𝔥^2}}f(\lambda ^{Q(s^{})})g(\lambda ^v^{})\delta (s^{})\delta (v^{})𝑑s^{}𝑑v^{}=f(1)g(1),`$
so $`\epsilon (f\times _Jg)=\epsilon (f)\epsilon (g)`$. Next, if $`Q`$ is invertible, then

$`(Sf\times _JSg)(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{𝔥^4}}f(\lambda ^{Qt}x^1\lambda ^{Qs})g(\lambda ^vx^1\lambda ^u)e^{2\pi i(su+tv)}𝑑s𝑑t𝑑u𝑑v`$
$`=(detQ)^2{\displaystyle _{𝔥^4}}f(\lambda ^t^{}x^1\lambda ^s^{})g(\lambda ^vx^1\lambda ^u)e^{2\pi i(Q^1t^{}v+Q^1s^{}u)}𝑑s^{}𝑑t^{}𝑑u𝑑v`$
$`={\displaystyle _{𝔥^4}}f(\lambda ^t^{}x^1\lambda ^s^{})g(\lambda ^{Qv^{}}x^1\lambda ^{Qu^{}})e^{2\pi i(t^{}v^{}+s^{}u^{})}𝑑s^{}𝑑t^{}𝑑u^{}𝑑v^{}`$
$`=(g\times _Jf)(x^1)=S(g\times _Jf)(x),`$
using the skewsymmetry of $`Q`$ in the third step; on the other hand, if $`Q=0`$, then $`f\times _Jg=fg`$ and the calculation reduces to $`(Sf\times _JSg)(x)=f(x^1)g(x^1)=S(g\times _Jf)(x)`$; since we may integrate separately over the nullspace of $`Q`$ and its orthogonal complement, we conclude that $`Sf\times _JSg=S(g\times _Jf)`$ in all cases.

The defining property of the antipode may also be checked in this manner: indeed, if $`m(fg):=f\times _Jg`$ for $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$, similar formal calculations quickly establish that

$$m(\mathrm{id}S)(\mathrm{\Delta }f)=\epsilon (f)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}=m(S\mathrm{id})(\mathrm{\Delta }f)$$
(10)
whenever $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$. However, it should be pointed out that the previous calculations in fact involve oscillatory integrals of functions of $`s,t,u,v^l`$ which have neither compact support nor fast decrease; but with some additional careful analysis, it is shown in  that they remain valid for smooth functions which have all derivatives bounded on $`^l`$, as is always the case when $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$.

In summary, the product (8) on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ is fully compatible with its original coalgebra structure and antipode. The functoriality of the $`A_J`$ construction then lifts $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`S`$ as algebra (anti)homomorphisms to the $`C^{}`$-level. (Some bookkeeping is necessary because the source and target algebras carry different actions of $`𝔥𝔥`$ in each case.) With $`A=C(G)`$ and $`J=Q(Q)`$ as before, we then obtain a continuous $``$-homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Delta }_J:A_JA_JA_J`$ (with the minimal $`C^{}`$-tensor product) and a continuous $``$-antihomomorphism $`S_J:A_JA_J`$. The counit $`\epsilon `$ on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ also extends to a character of $`A_J`$.

Note, however, that the twisted product on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ generally does not extend to a continuous linear map from $`A_JA_J`$ to $`A_J`$. (For one thing, $`m`$ is not an algebra homomorphism unless $`G`$ is abelian.) Thus, the relation (10) is not helpful at the $`C^{}`$-level. This is an old problem, and for unital $`C^{}`$-algebras there is a well-known solution, described in the fundamental paper of Woronowicz . Given a unital $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ and a unital $``$-homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Delta }:AAA`$ which is coassociative, define linear maps $`W`$, $`W^{}`$ on the algebraic tensor product of $`A`$ with itself by

$$W(ab):=(\mathrm{\Delta }a)(1b)\text{and}W^{}(ab):=(a1)(\mathrm{\Delta }b).$$

(These are the Kac–Takesaki or “fundamental unitary” operators.) Woronowicz’ postulate is that the maps $`W`$, $`W^{}`$ have dense range. Then $`(A,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is called a compact quantum group. The counit and antipode are automatically defined on a dense $``$-subalgebra, and $`A`$ has a unique state (the “Haar state”) which is both left and right invariant . For $`A=C(G)`$, these maps are

$$W(fg)(x,y):=f(xy)g(y),W^{}(fg):=f(x)g(xy),$$

which have dense range in $`C(G\times G)`$. After deformation, these become

$$W(fg):=(\mathrm{\Delta }f)\times _J(1g),W^{}(fg):=(f1)\times _J(\mathrm{\Delta }g),$$

for $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$, and these extend to invertible maps on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G\times G)`$. Concretely, for $`hC^{\mathrm{}}(G\times G)`$,

$`Wh(x,y)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{𝔥^4}}h(x\lambda ^{Qs}y\lambda ^{Qt},\lambda ^uy\lambda ^v)e^{2\pi i(su+tv)}𝑑s𝑑t𝑑u𝑑v,`$
$`W^1h(x,y)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{𝔥^4}}h(x\lambda ^{Qt}y^1\lambda ^{Qs},\lambda ^uy\lambda ^v)e^{2\pi i(su+tv)}𝑑s𝑑t𝑑u𝑑v,`$
as may be verified directly. It follows that $`W`$ and likewise $`W^{}`$ have dense range in $`C(G\times G)`$.

## 5 Noncommutative spheres as homogeneous spaces

The standard $`4`$-sphere is a homogeneous space of the $`5`$-dimensional rotation group: $`𝕊^4SO(5)/SO(4)`$. Note that $`SO(5)`$ is a compact simple Lie group of rank two. More generally, we may consider homogeneous spaces of the form $`M=G/K`$, where $`G`$ is a compact Lie group (which need not be semisimple) and $`K`$ is a closed subgroup. Let $`H`$ be a closed abelian subgroup of $`K`$; then we can deform both $`C(G)`$ and $`C(K)`$ by the same action (7) of $`H\times H`$. Note in passing that a maximal torus in $`SO(2l)`$ is carried onto a maximal torus of $`SO(2l+1)`$ by the standard inclusion $`SO(2l)SO(2l+1)`$, so that even-dimensional spheres $`𝕊^{2l}=SO(2l+1)/SO(2l)`$ fall under this heading.

The left action of $`G`$ on $`G/K`$ yields a $``$-homomorphism $`\rho :C(G/K)C(G)C(G/K)`$ by $`\rho f(x,yK):=f(xyK)`$. Restricted to smooth functions, this can be viewed as a left coaction of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G/K)`$. Let $`C(G)^K`$ denote the subalgebra of $`C(G)`$ consisting of right-invariant functions under the action of $`K`$, so $`fC(G)^K`$ if $`f(xw)=f(x)`$ whenever $`wK`$, $`xG`$; and let $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)^K:=C(G)^KC^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$. There is an obvious $``$-isomorphism $`\zeta :C(G)^KC(G/K)`$ given by $`\zeta f(xK):=f(x)`$, and $`\zeta (C^{\mathrm{}}(G)^K)=C^{\mathrm{}}(G/K)`$. The coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ maps $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)^K`$ into $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)\widehat{}C^{\mathrm{}}(G)^K`$, the space of smooth functions $`h`$ on $`G\times G`$ for which $`h(x,yw)h(x,y)`$ when $`wK`$. Moreover, if $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(G)^K`$, then

$$[\rho \zeta f](x,yK)=\zeta f(xyK)=f(xy)=\mathrm{\Delta }f(x,y)=[(\mathrm{id}\zeta )\mathrm{\Delta }f](x,yK),$$

so $`\zeta `$ intertwines the coactions $`\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In short, the algebra $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G/K)`$, together with its isomorphism onto $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)^K`$, is an embedded homogeneous space in the Hopf algebra $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$.

Now we come to the main point. Since $`HK`$, the left-right action (6) of $`H\times H`$ on both $`G`$ and $`K`$ induces a left action of $`H`$ on $`G/K`$, since the right action of $`H`$ is absorbed in the right $`K`$-cosets. If we deform $`C(G)`$ and $`C(K)`$ via the $`H\times H`$ action along the direction $`J=Q(Q)`$, the corresponding effect on $`C(G/K)`$ should be a deformation under an $`H`$-action along the direction $`Q`$. And so it proves.

To see that, we first notice that for $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(G)^K`$, (5) yields

$`(f\times _Jg)(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{𝔥^4}}f(\lambda ^{Qs}x\lambda ^{Qt})g(\lambda ^ux\lambda ^v)e^{2\pi i(su+tv)}𝑑s𝑑t𝑑u𝑑v`$
$`={\displaystyle _{𝔥^4}}f(\lambda ^{Qs}x)g(\lambda ^ux)e^{2\pi i(su+tv)}𝑑s𝑑t𝑑u𝑑v`$
$`={\displaystyle _{𝔥^2}}f(\lambda ^{Qs}x)g(\lambda ^ux)e^{2\pi isu}𝑑s𝑑u,`$
or

$$f\times _Jg=_{𝔥^2}\gamma _{Qs}(f)\gamma _u(g)e^{2\pi isu}𝑑s𝑑u$$
(11)
where $`(\gamma _tf)(x):=f(\lambda ^tx)`$ for $`fC(G)^K`$. The action of $`𝔥`$ on $`C(G/K)`$ may be defined as $`(\beta _th)(xK):=h(\lambda ^txK)`$, so that $`\zeta `$ intertwines the actions $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ of $`H`$. Then (11) becomes simply

$$\zeta f\times _Q\zeta g=\zeta (f\times _Jg)\text{for all}f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(G/K).$$

Finally, we can lift this isomorphism to the $`C^{}`$-level, using the functoriality of $`C^{}`$-deformations. First, since $`\zeta :C(G/K)C(G)^K`$ is a $``$-isomorphism intertwining $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$, its restriction to $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G/K)`$ extends to a $``$-isomorphism of $`C(G/K)_Q`$ to $`C(G)_Q^K`$, where the latter comes from the action of $`\gamma `$ on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)^K`$. Of course, $`\gamma `$ can be regarded as an action of $`H\times H`$ where the second factor acts trivially; since elements of $`C(G)^K`$ are right-invariant under $`H`$, $`\gamma `$ is just the restriction of the action $`\alpha `$ to $`C(G)^K`$. This means that the inclusion $`C(G)^KC(G)`$ is equivariant for the actions $`\gamma `$ and $`\alpha `$, and so its restriction to $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)^K`$ extends to a $``$-homomorphism from $`C(G)_Q^K`$ to $`C(G)_J`$; by Proposition 5.8 of , this is still injective. In summary,

$$C(G/K)C(G)^KC(G)\text{leads to}C(G/K)_QC(G)_Q^KC(G)_J.$$

If the subgroup $`H`$ is not a maximal torus in either $`K`$ or $`G`$, the space of smooth elements for the action of $`H\times H`$ will be strictly larger than $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ (for instance, if the action is trivial, all continuous functions are smooth in this sense); however, as clarified in Sect. 1 of , we may continue to use $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ instead, because it will be dense in the Fréchet topology of the space of all smooth elements, and therefore will remain dense in the deformed $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C(G)_J`$. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G/K)`$ and $`C(G/K)_Q`$.

We have thus proved the following result.

###### Theorem.

The deformed $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C(G/K)_Q`$ is an embedded homogeneous space for the compact quantum group $`C(G)_J`$. ∎

###### Example 1.

The even-dimensional noncommutative spheres $`𝕊_\theta ^{2l}`$ of Connes and Landi come directly from this framework, for $`l2`$. Just take $`G=SO(2l+1)`$, $`K=SO(2l)`$ and let $`H𝕋^l`$ be a maximal torus for $`K`$; then let $`Q=\frac{1}{2}\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is a skewsymmetric $`l\times l`$ matrix.

The odd-dimensional spheres $`𝕊^{2l+1}=SO(2l+2)/SO(2l+1)`$ have somewhat different deformations, since the $`l`$-dimensional maximal torus of $`SO(2l+1)`$ is not maximal in $`SO(2l+2)`$, so the twisted product reduces to the ordinary commutative product along some directions.

###### Example 2.

Our construction yields several new examples of homogeneous spaces. For instance, if $`T`$ is a maximal torus of $`G`$, the flag manifold $`G/T`$ may be deformed in any direction $`Q=Q^t`$ in $`M_l()`$ provided $`l=dimT2`$. In particular, it yields a family of $`6`$-dimensional quantized manifolds $`C(SU(3)/𝕋^2)_Q`$. It would be of interest to classify these up to isomorphism or Morita equivalence.

At the algebraic level, there are other deformations of flag manifolds  which go beyond those considered here, in that more general solutions of the classical Yang–Baxter equation are used for the deformation directions. These could yield further examples of quantum homogeneous spaces.

## 6 Homogeneous noncommutative spin geometries

These new homogeneous spaces give rise to spectral triples, by the isospectral deformation procedure of . We may start from the manifold $`G/K`$ with, say, the normalized $`G`$-invariant metric. Suppose that $`G/K`$ also has a homogeneous spin structure (if not, a homogeneous spin<sup>c</sup> structure will do). Let $`D`$ be the corresponding Dirac operator, let $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_l`$ be the chosen basis of $`𝔥`$, and let $`p_j`$ be the selfadjoint operator representing $`X_j`$ on the spinor space $``$, for $`j=1,\mathrm{},l`$. Since the action of $`𝔥`$ integrates to a representation of $`H`$ on spinors, the operators $`p_j`$ have integer or half-odd-integer spectra, and for each $`r^l`$, there is a unitary operator $`\sigma (p,r):=\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\pi i\mathrm{}_{j,k}p_jQ_{jk}r_k\right\}`$, using the notation of (4); its inverse is $`\sigma (r,p)`$. These operators commute with each other and also with $`D`$, although not with the representation of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G/K)`$ on $``$. Any bounded operator $`T`$ in the common smooth domain of the transformations $`T\sigma (p,r)T\sigma (r,p)`$ has a decomposition $`T=_{r^l}T_r`$, where $`\sigma (p,r)T_s=T_s\sigma (p+s,r)`$ for $`r,s^l`$; define

$$L(T):=\underset{r^l}{}T_r\sigma (p,r).$$

The cocycle property of $`\sigma `$ immediately gives $`L(f)L(g)=L(f\times _Qg)`$, so that $`L`$ yields a representation of $`(C^{\mathrm{}}(G/K),\times _Q)`$ on $``$, while $`[D,L(f)]=_r[D,f_r]\sigma (p,r)=L([D,f])`$ is a bounded operator for all $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(G/K)`$. The charge conjugation operator $`C`$ on spinors \[17, Chap. 9\] commutes with all $`\sigma (p,r)`$ and therefore $`Cp_jC^1=p_j`$ for each $`j`$. It follows that $`R(T):=CL(T)^{}C^1`$ is given by

$$R(T)=\underset{r^l}{}\sigma (r,p)CT_r^{}C^1=\underset{r^l}{}CT_r^{}C^1\sigma (r,p).$$

Since $`Cf^{}C^1=f`$ for $`f`$ in the commutative algebra $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G/K)`$, this reduces to $`R(f)=_{r^l}f_r\sigma (r,p)`$, and therefore $`R(f)R(g)=R(f\times _Qg)`$. (Our use of the skewsymmetrized cocycle $`\sigma `$ obviates the need to twist the conjugation as in .) It is easy to see —compare — that $`R`$ gives an antirepresentation of $`(C^{\mathrm{}}(G/K),\times _Q)`$ on $``$, which commutes with $`L`$ because

$`L(f)R(g)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{r,s}{}}f_r\sigma (p,r)g_s\sigma (s,p)={\displaystyle \underset{r,s}{}}f_rg_s\sigma (p+s,r)\sigma (s,p)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{r,s}{}}g_sf_r\sigma (s,p+r)\sigma (p,r)={\displaystyle \underset{r,s}{}}g_s\sigma (s,p)f_r\sigma (p,r)=R(g)L(f).`$
This verifies the reality property of the spin geometry. It is readily checked that

$$[[D,L(f)],R(g)]=\underset{r,s^l}{}\sigma (p,r)[[D,f_r],g_s]\sigma (s,p)=0,$$

so the first-order property of the spin geometry holds, too.

Such spin geometries $`(L(C^{\mathrm{}}(G/K)),,D,C,\chi )`$ has maximal symmetry; we may indeed refer to the quantum group $`C(G)_J`$ as its “noncommutative symmetry group”. They provide examples of spectral triples with noncommutative symmetries as discussed, for instance, in . However, only the invariance of $`D`$ under the abelian subgroup $`H`$ is actually used, so we are free to build other spin geometries by deforming the commutative ones obtained from any $`H`$-invariant metric on $`G/K`$.

More elaborate examples of deformed geometries can also be built, starting from commutative spin geometries wherein the spin connection is replaced by a Clifford superconnection (as in , for instance), provided the latter is also $`H`$-invariant.

Finally, we consider whether the noncommutative homogeneous spaces constructed here may play the same role as noncommutative tori in quantum field theory. Recall that Seiberg and Witten  and Konechny and Schwarz  have extensively explored noncommutative gauge theories based on tori. In general, the divergent ultraviolet behaviour for field theories based on noncommutative tori  is no better than in the commutative case. This divergence holds also for field theories obtained by second-quantizing the spin geometries constructed here.

Without going into the detailed analysis, the matter may be summed up as follows. The action of a $`G`$-invariant Dirac operator over $`G/K`$ decomposes into matrix actions on finite-dimensional subspaces of smooth spinors, for which explicit formulas are available . The sign operator $`F:=D|D|^1`$ preserves these subspaces, which are permuted by the representation of the algebra $`(C^{\mathrm{}}(G/K),\times _Q)`$. For any unitary $`u`$ in this algebra, we can decompose the operator $`[F,u]`$ as in  or \[17, Sect. 13.A\] and estimate its Schatten class, which measures the degree of ultraviolet divergence of the theory. The norms $`[F,u]_p`$ turn out to be independent of the cocycle $`\sigma `$ defining the product, provided $`\sigma (r,r+s)=\sigma (r,s)`$; in view of (4), this is immediate from the skewsymmetry of the parameter matrix $`Q`$. Therefore, the overall UV behaviour remains the same as in the commutative case when $`Q=0`$: our deformations never soften the ultraviolet divergence.

The ubiquity of the Moyal product in noncommutative field theory is already familiar. While the present work cannot pretend to explain its pervasiveness, we have at any rate shown that noncommutative geometries with a high degree of symmetry are easy to deform along (at least two) commuting directions, leading always to Moyal products with a few parameters; thus the emphasis on noncommutative tori is by no means misplaced. Whether this is in the nature of things remains to be seen.

###### Acknowledgments.

We thank A. Connes, L. Da̧browski, H. Figueroa, J. M. Gracia-Bondía, P. M. Hajac and M. Paschke for helpful discussions on several matters. Support from the Vicerrectoría de Investigación of the University of Costa Rica and the Abdus Salam ICTP, Trieste, is gratefully acknowledged.