text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is well-known that the entropy of a ($`1+1)`$-dimensional conformal field theory (CFT) can be given by the Cardy formula

$$S=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{c}{6}\left(L_0\frac{c}{24}\right)},$$
(1.1)
where $`c`$ is the central charge, $`L_0`$ denotes the product $`ER`$ of the total energy and radius of system, and the shift of $`c/24`$ is caused by the Casimir effect, which is a finite volume effect.

In a recent paper by Erik Verlinde , it has been proposed that the Cardy formula (1.1) can be generalized to the case in arbitrary dimensions. Consider a conformal field theory living in $`(1+n)`$-dimensional spacetime described by the metric

$$ds^2=dt^2+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2,$$
(1.2)
where $`R`$ is the radius of a $`n`$-dimensional sphere. The entropy of the CFT can be given by the generalized Cardy formula (hereafter we refer to this as the Cardy-Verlinde formula),

$$S=\frac{2\pi R}{\sqrt{ab}}\sqrt{E_c(2EE_c)},$$
(1.3)
where $`E_c`$ represents the Casimir energy, $`a`$ and $`b`$ are two positive coefficients which are independent of $`R`$ and $`S`$. For strong coupled CFT’s with AdS duals, the value of product $`ab`$ is fixed to $`n^2`$ exactly. The above Cardy-Verlinde formula is then reduced to

$$S=\frac{2\pi R}{n}\sqrt{E_c(2EE_c)}.$$
(1.4)
With given the total energy $`E`$ and the radius $`R`$, the Cardy-Verlinde formula (1.4) gives the maximal entropy

$$SS_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{2\pi RE}{n},$$
(1.5)
when $`E_c=E`$. This is just the Bekenstein entropy bound 111 The Bekenstein entropy bound states that the ratio of the entropy $`S`$ to the total energy $`E`$ of a closed physical system with limited self-gravity, which fits in a sphere with radius $`R`$ in three spatial dimensions, obeys $`S2\pi RE`$. In fact, the Bekenstein entropy bound is independent of the spatial dimension. For a derivation of the Bekenstein bound in arbitrary dimensions see ..

In the spirit of AdS/CFT correspondence , It was convincingly argued by Witten  that the thermodynamics of a certain CFT at high temperature can be identified with the thermodynamics of black holes in anti-de Sitter space (AdS). With this correspondence, Verlinde checked the formula (1.4) using the thermodynamics of AdS Schwarzschild black holes in arbitrary dimensions and found it holds exactly . Furthermore the Cardy-Verlinde formula has been checked more recently for the AdS Kerr black holes in , which corresponds to a CFT residing in a rotating Einstein universe. Once again, this formula has been found to hold exactly. Some of recent works related to the entropy bound and the Cardy-Verlinde formula are .

No doubt, it is of great interest to prove the validity of the Cardy-Verlinde formula for all CFT’s. Of course, it might be a quite difficult task. Having considered the absence of such a proof so far, it is worthwhile to do some further check for the Cardy-Verlinde formula in a larger extent than that in  and , in order to see to what extent this formula is valid. This is just the aim of this paper.

In this paper we choose some typical examples of black holes with AdS asymptotics to check the Cardy-Verlinde formula. In a $`(n+2)`$-dimensional AdS, except for the spherically symmetric AdS Schwarzschild black holes whose horizon is a $`n`$-dimensional sphere surface with positive constant curvature, There exist the so-called hyperbolic AdS black holes whose horizon is a negative constant curvature hypersurface. The thermodynamics of the latter is different from that of the former. It would be interesting to see if the Cardy-Verlinde formula holds in this case. This will be done in the next section.

The gauged supergravity can also be realized as a self-consistent truncation of superstring or M theory compactified on a compact manifold. The gauge group is the isometry group of the compact manifold. In the course of AdS/CFT correspondence, the gauge group is identified with the R-symmetry group of boundary CFT’s. In this sense the thermodynamics of AdS charged black holes can be viewed as that of a certain CFT with a chemical potential. So we will check the Cardy-Verlinde formula in section 3 with AdS Reissner-Nordström black holes. There we will also discuss the charged black holes in D=5, D=4 and D=7 maximally supersymmetric gauged supergravities. These theories can be regarded as the self-consistent truncations of IIB supergravity on the $`S^5`$, 11-dimensional supergravity on the $`S^7`$ and $`S^4`$, respectively.

In supergravity theories, higher derivative curvature terms occur as the corrections of the massive string states and string loop corrections in superstring theories. In the AdS/CFT correspondence, these corrections correspond to those of large $`N`$ expansion of boundary CFT’s in the strong coupling limit. So it is also interesting to see if the Cardy-Verlinde formula still remains valid after including some of those corrections. However, it is in general quite difficult to find exact nontrivial black hole solutions in higher derivative gravity theories, which are required for exactly checking the Cardy-Verlinde formula. In section 4 we will consider a special kind of Lovelock gravity theories, in which by choosing some special coefficients for each term in the action, a simple, but exact black hole solution can be found. Using this black hole solution, we examine the thermodynamics of corresponding CFT’s. We summarize our results in section 5 with brief discussions.

## 2 Hyperbolic AdS black holes in arbitrary dimensions

In four dimensional spacetimes, it is believed generally that the horizon of a black hole must be a sphere $`S^2`$, up to diffeomorphisms. However, it can be violated if the theory includes a negative cosmological constant. It was already found that except for the sphere case, namely, the horizon is a positive constant curvature hypersurface, black holes are allowed to exist with horizon which are zero or negative constant curvature hypersurface. In higher dimensional ($`D4`$) spaces, it is true as well. For those so-called topological black hole solutions in arbitrary dimensions see .

For a $`(D=n+2)`$-dimensional spherically symmetric black hole in AdS spacetime, its thermodynamics corresponds to the one of a CFT living in $`(n+1)`$-dimensional spacetime with topology $`R\times S^n`$. This case has been already checked in . For black holes with zero curvature horizon, its thermodynamics is conformal invariant and the Casimir energy vanishes. So the Cardy-Verlinde formula (1.4) is not applicable in this case. As a result, in this section we discuss the AdS black holes with negative constant curvature horizon. In this case, its thermodynamics corresponds to the one of a CFT residing in a spacetime $`R\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_g^n`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^n`$ denotes a $`n`$-dimensional negative constant curvature space, which can be a closed hypersurface with arbitrary high genus under appropriate identification.

The metric for a hyperbolic AdS black hole in a $`(n+2)`$-dimensional spacetime can be written down as

$$ds^2=f(r)dt^2+f(r)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^2,$$
(2.1)
where

$$f(r)=1\frac{\omega _nM}{r^{n1}}+\frac{r^2}{l^2},\omega _n=\frac{16\pi G}{nVol(\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)},$$
(2.2)
$`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^2`$ denotes the line element of a $`n`$-dimensional hypersurface with constant curvature $`n(n+1)`$, $`Vol(\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)`$ stands for the volume of the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$, and $`G`$ is the Newtonian gravity constant. This is a solution of Einstein equations with a negative cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=n(n+1)/2l^2`$.

The solution (2.1) has some peculiar properties in the sense: (1) When the integration constant $`M=0`$, even though the solution is locally an anti-de Sitter space, it has a black hole horizon $`r_+=l`$ with Hawking temperature $`T_{\mathrm{HK}}`$ and Bekenstein-Hawking entropy $`S`$,

$$T_{\mathrm{HK}}=\frac{1}{2\pi l},S=\frac{l^nVol(\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)}{4G}.$$
(2.3)
This is the so-called “massless” black hole; (2) When $`M>0`$, the solution (2.1) has only a black hole horizon satisfying

$$M=\frac{r_+^{n1}}{\omega _n}\left(\frac{r_+^2}{l^2}1\right),$$
(2.4)
which implies that $`r_+>l`$. When $`M<0`$, however, it can have two black hole horizons, which coincide as

$$M=M_{\mathrm{ext}}=\left(\frac{2}{n+1}\right)\left(\frac{n1}{n+1}\right)^{(n1)/2}\frac{l^{n1}}{\omega _n}.$$
(2.5)
In this case, the coincident horizon $`r_+^2=l^2(n1)/(n+1)`$, the Hawking temperature vanishes, the black hole becomes an extremal one. It is the peculiar property which causes the difficulty to choose an appropriate reference background in order to determine the mass of hyperbolic black holes . In other words, there are some debates about the ground state of the hyperbolic AdS black holes.

Let us first suppose the “massless” black hole (2.3) as the ground state of the hyperbolic AdS black holes (2.1). In this case, the constant $`M`$ is the mass of black holes, the temperature and entropy of black holes are

$`T_{\mathrm{HK}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi r_+}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)r_+^2}{l^2}}(n1)\right),`$
$`S={\displaystyle \frac{r_+^nVol(\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)}{4G}}.`$ (2.6)
According to the prescription of AdS/CFT correspondence , the boundary spacetime in which the boundary CFT resides can be determined using the bulk metric, up to a conformal factor. It is due to the conformal factor that one can arbitrary rescale the boundary metric as one wishes. In this paper, we rescale the boundary metric so that the finite volume has a radius $`R`$ (this implies that $`T>1/R`$ is assumed for the temperature $`T`$ of corresponding CFT’s) 222 In  the radius is taken to be the horizon radius of black holes.. That is, the boundary metric has the following form

$$ds_b^2=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{R^2}{r^2}ds^2=\frac{R^2}{l^2}dt^2+R^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^2.$$
(2.7)
Thus the system has the finite volume $`V=R^nVol(\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)`$. The $`(n+1)`$-dimensional CFT corresponding to the hyperbolic black holes has the energy $`E`$, temperature $`T`$ and entropy $`S`$ in the metric (1.2),

$`E={\displaystyle \frac{nlVol(\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)r_+^{n1}}{16\pi GR}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2}{l^2}}1\right),`$
$`T={\displaystyle \frac{l}{4\pi Rr_+}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)r_+^2}{l^2}}(n1)\right),`$
$`S={\displaystyle \frac{r_+^nVol(\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)}{4G}}.`$ (2.8)
Following , let us define the Casimir energy $`E_c`$ as

$$E_c=n(E+pVTS),$$
(2.9)
where $`p`$ represents the pressure of CFT defined as $`p=\left(\frac{E}{V}\right)_S`$. With the help of (2), we obtain

$$E_c=2\frac{nlr_+^{n1}Vol(\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)}{16\pi GR}.$$
(2.10)
Furthermore we have the extensive energy

$$2EE_c=2\frac{nr_+^{n+1}Vol(\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)}{16\pi GRl}.$$
(2.11)
With these quantities, we find that the entropy $`S`$ of CFT in (2) can be rewritten as

$$S=\frac{2\pi R}{n}\sqrt{|E_c|(2EE_c)}.$$
(2.12)
Comparing with the Cardy-Verlinde formula (1.4), we find that indeed the entropy of a CFT residing in a finite hyperbolic space can also be expressed in a form of the Cardy-Verlinde formula. But, we find the Casimir energy is negative in this case! This feature can be traced back to the peculiar properties of hyperbolic AdS black holes discussed above. In other words, it is related to the existence of the “massless” black holes and “negative mass” black holes.

One may wonder if the difficulty of negative Casimir energy can be circumvented through choosing the extremal black hole (2.5) as the ground state of black holes. In that case, the thermodynamics of black holes is still given by (2), but the mass of black holes becomes $`MM_{\mathrm{ext}}`$. After a simple repeat as the above, one has to be led to the conclusion that the entropy cannot be expressed in terms of the Cardy-Verlinde formula in this case.

## 3 Charged AdS black holes

### 3.1 AdS Reissner-Nordström black holes in arbitrary dimensions

The metric of a $`(n+2)`$-dimensional AdS Reissner-Nordström black hole is

$$ds^2=f(r)dt^2+f(r)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2,$$
(3.1)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2`$ denotes the line element of a unit $`n`$-dimensional sphere and the function $`f`$ is given by

$$f(r)=1\frac{m}{r^{n1}}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}{r^{2n2}}+\frac{r^2}{l^2}.$$
(3.2)
When $`m/2=|\stackrel{~}{q}|`$, this solution is supersymmetric and the function $`f`$ has the form

$$f(r)=\left(1\frac{m}{2r^{n1}}\right)^2+\frac{r^2}{l^2}.$$
(3.3)
Obviously, in this case, this solution does not represent a black hole and the singularity at $`r=0`$ becomes naked.

For the convenience of discussions below, let us rewrite the solution (3.1) in terms of “isotropic” coordinates. Defining

$$m=\mu +2q,\stackrel{~}{q}^2=q(\mu +q),r^{n1}r^{n1}+q,$$
(3.4)
we can change (3.1) to the following form

$$ds^2=H^2f(r)dt^2+H^{2/(n1)}(f(r)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2),$$
(3.5)
where

$$f(r)=1\frac{\mu }{r^{n1}}+\frac{r^2}{l^2}H^{2n/(n1)},H=1+\frac{q}{r^{n1}}.$$
(3.6)
In this coordinates, the supersymmetric solution corresponds to the case when $`\mu =0`$. The horizon $`r_+`$ of black hole is determined by the equation

$$\mu =r_+^{n1}+\frac{\rho ^{2n/(n1)}}{l^2r_+^{n1}},\rho =r_+^{n1}+q.$$
(3.7)
To find the thermodynamic quantities of black hole is straightforward. The mass $`M`$, entropy $`S`$ and Hawking temperature $`T_{\mathrm{HK}}`$ are

$`M={\displaystyle \frac{nVol(S^n)}{16\pi G}}\left(\mu +2q\right),`$
$`S={\displaystyle \frac{Vol(S^n)}{4G}}\rho ^{n/(n1)},`$
$`T_{\mathrm{HK}}={\displaystyle \frac{r_+^{n1}}{4\pi \rho ^{n/(n1)}}}\left((n1)+{\displaystyle \frac{2n\rho ^{2n/(n1)}}{l^2r_+^{n1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)\rho ^{2n/(n1)}}{l^2r_+^{2n2}}}\right),`$ (3.8)
respectively, where $`Vol(S^n)`$ stands for the volume of the unit $`n`$-dimensional sphere. The chemical potential $`\varphi `$ associated with the physical electric charge $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ is

$$\varphi =\frac{nVol(S^n)}{16\pi G}\frac{2\stackrel{~}{q}}{\rho }.$$
(3.9)
As expected, these thermodynamic quantities satisfy the first law of black hole thermodynamics

$$dM=T_{\mathrm{HK}}dS+\varphi d\stackrel{~}{q}.$$
(3.10)
Rescaling the boundary metric so that the $`n`$-dimensional sphere has the radius $`R`$ and the volume $`V=R^nVol(S^n)`$, in the spirit of AdS/CFT correspondence, we have the energy, temperature, and chemical potential of the corresponding CFT in the metric (1.2),

$`E={\displaystyle \frac{l}{R}}M,T={\displaystyle \frac{l}{R}}T_{\mathrm{HK}},\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{l}{R}}\varphi ,`$ (3.11)
respectively. The entropy and electric charge of CFT are still given by $`S`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$. From (3.1), we can see that the energy of CFT can be separated to two parts: one of them is proportional to $`q`$, which is the contribution of supersymmetric background; the other is proportional to $`\mu `$, which corresponds to the contribution of thermodynamic excitations. Let us define

$$E_q=\frac{nlVol(S^n)}{16\pi GR}2q.$$
(3.12)
Reasonably, we can view the proper internal energy $`E_q`$ as the zero temperature energy of CFT, which makes the contribution to the free energy, but not to the entropy. Following , we define the Casimir energy in this case as

$$E_c=n(E+pVTS\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{~}{q}),$$
(3.13)
where the pressure $`p`$ is defined as $`p=\left(\frac{E}{V}\right)_{S,\stackrel{~}{q}}`$. Here it is worth stressing that when the electric charge vanishes, we have the pressure $`p=E/nV`$ because we are considering CFT’s. When the electric charge does not vanish, however, the proper internal energy (zero temperature energy) $`E_q`$ does not make its contribution to the pressure. Therefore the pressure should have the following form

$$p=\frac{EE_q}{nV}.$$
(3.14)
With this relation, substituting those quantities in (3.11) into (3.13) yields

$$E_c=2\frac{nlVol(S^n)r_+^{n1}}{16\pi GR}.$$
(3.15)
Using this Casimir energy, it is easy to find that the entropy of corresponding CFT’s for the AdS Reissner-Nordström black holes can be expressed as

$$S=\frac{2\pi R}{n}\sqrt{E_c(2(EE_q)E_c)},$$
(3.16)
where $`E_q`$ is the proper internal energy, given by (3.12). Here the difference from the standard Cardy-Verlinde formula (1.4) is the emergence of the proper internal energy $`E_q`$, which must be subtracted from the total energy. This result is reasonable because the proper internal energy (zero temperature energy) does not make its contribution to the entropy of CFT. In fact, following , we can also “derive” the formula (3.16) after considering there is an additional zero temperature energy in a certain thermodynamic system. The formula (3.16) is encouraging and the observation (3.14) is also interesting. To see whether it is universal, in the following subsections we will check the formula (3.16) with the charged black holes in the maximally supersymmetric gauged supergravities, in which some scalar fields are present.

### 3.2 Charged black holes in D=5 gauged supergravity

In this subsection we discuss the case of black holes in D=5, N=8 gauged supergravity. This solution has been found in  (also see ) as a special case (STU model) in the D=5, N=2 gauged supergravity.

The black hole solution has the metric

$$ds^2=(H_1H_2H_3)^{2/3}fdt^2+(H_1H_2H_3)^{1/3}(f^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2),$$
(3.17)
where

$$f=1\frac{\mu }{r^2}+r^2l^2H_1H_2H_3,H_i=1+\frac{q_i}{r^2},i=1,2,3.$$
(3.18)
There are three real scalar fields $`X^i`$ and three gauge potentials $`A^i`$

$$X^i=H_i^1(H_1H_2H_3)^{1/3},A_t^i=\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}{r^2+q_i},i=1,2,3.$$
(3.19)
Here the charges $`q_i`$ are related to the physical electric charges $`\stackrel{~}{q}_i`$ via

$$q_i=\mu \mathrm{sinh}^2\beta _i,\stackrel{~}{q}_i=\mu \mathrm{sinh}\beta _i\mathrm{cosh}\beta _i.$$
(3.20)
The solution (3.17) has black hole horizon $`r_+`$ obeying the following equation

$$\mu =r_+^2\left(1+\frac{1}{l^2r_+^4}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\rho _i\right),\rho _i=r_+^2+q_i.$$
(3.21)
The mass, Hawking temperature and entropy of black holes are

$`M={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4G}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mu +{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}q_i\right),`$
$`T_{\mathrm{HK}}={\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2}{2\pi \sqrt{_i\rho _i}}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{_i\rho _i}{l^2r_+^4}}\left(1r_+^2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _i}}\right)\right],`$
$`S={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2G}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\rho _i}.`$ (3.22)
The associated chemical potentials with the electric charges $`\stackrel{~}{q}_i`$ are

$$\varphi _i=\frac{\pi }{4G}\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}{\rho _i}.$$
(3.23)
As required, the first law of black hole thermodynamics is satisfied:

$$dM=T_{\mathrm{HK}}dS+\underset{i}{}\varphi _id\stackrel{~}{q}_i.$$
(3.24)
Rescaling the boundary metric so that the three-dimensional sphere has the radius $`R`$, and using the relations (3.13) and (3.14) we obtain the Casimir energy

$$E_c=\frac{\pi l}{4GR}(\underset{i}{}\rho _i\underset{i}{}q_i)=\frac{3\pi lr_+^2}{4GR}.$$
(3.25)
With this Casimir energy, the entropy of corresponding CFT can be written in the following form

$$S=\frac{2\pi R}{3}\sqrt{E_c(2(EE_q)E_c)},$$
(3.26)
where the proper internal energy $`E_q`$ and the thermal excitation energy are

$$E_q=\frac{\pi l}{4GR}\underset{i}{}q_i,EE_q=\frac{3\pi l}{8GR}\left(r_+^2+\frac{1}{l^2r_+^2}\underset{i}{}\rho _i\right).$$
(3.27)
Clearly, the expression (3.26) is a special case of (3.16) when $`n=3`$, although the thermodynamics of the black hole solutions (3.17) is different from that of D=5 AdS Reissner-Nordström black holes because of the presence of three real scalar fields. Of course, the former degenerates to the latter when three charges are equal to each other. This can be seen from the solution (3.17).

### 3.3 Charged black holes in D=4 gauged supergravity

The black hole solution in D=4, N=8 gauged supergravity has been found in . The metric has the form

$$ds^2=(H_1H_2H_3H_4)^{1/2}fdt^2+(H_1H_2H_3H_4)^{1/2}(f^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2),$$
(3.28)
where

$$f=1\frac{\mu }{r}+l^2r^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}H_i,H_i=1+\frac{q_i}{r},i=1,2,3,4.$$
(3.29)
The four electric potentials are

$$A_t^i=\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}{r+q_i},i=1,2,3,4.$$
(3.30)
The physical charges $`\stackrel{~}{q}_i`$ are related to the charges $`q_i`$ as the form (3.20). For the black hole solution (3.28), one has the horizon $`r_+`$ which satisfies the following equation,

$$\mu =r_+\left(1+\frac{1}{l^2r_+^2}\underset{i}{}\rho _i\right),\rho _i=r_++q_i,i=1,2,3,4.$$
(3.31)
The thermodynamics associated with black hole horizon can be easily found. The mass, Hawking temperature and entropy are

$`M={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4G}}(2\mu +{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}q_i),`$
$`T_{\mathrm{HK}}={\displaystyle \frac{r_+}{4\pi \sqrt{_i\rho _i}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{_i\rho _i}{l^2r_+^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{_i\rho _i}{l^2r_+}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _i}}\right),`$
$`S={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{G}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\rho _i},`$ (3.32)
respectively. The chemical potentials $`\varphi _i`$ conjugating to the charges $`\stackrel{~}{q}_i`$ are

$$\varphi _i=\frac{1}{4G}\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}{\rho _i},i=1,2,3,4.$$
(3.33)
Once again, rescaling the boundary metric so that the two-dimensional sphere has the radius $`R`$, and repeating the calculations as the previous subsection, one has the Casimir energy

$$E_c=\frac{l}{4GR}(\underset{i}{}\rho _i\underset{i}{}q_i)=\frac{lr_+}{GR}.$$
(3.34)
And the entropy can be rewritten as

$$S=\frac{2\pi R}{2}\sqrt{E_c(2(EE_q)E_c)},$$
(3.35)
where the proper internal energy and the thermal excitation energy are

$$E_q=\frac{l}{4GR}\underset{i}{}q_i,EE_q=\frac{l}{2GR}\left(r_++\frac{1}{l^2r_+}\underset{i}{}\rho _i\right).$$
(3.36)
The expression of entropy is the case of D=4 AdS Reissner-Nordström black holes. Although the thermodynamics of the solution (3.28) is also different from the one of D=4 AdS Reissner-Nordström black holes, the entropy of corresponding CFT’s falls into the Cardy-Verlinde formula, which indicates the universality of the Cardy-Verlinde formula.

### 3.4 Charged black holes in D=7 gauged supergravity

The black hole solution in the D=7, N=4 gauged supergravity has the form

$$ds^2=(H_1H_2)^{4/5}fdt^2+(H_1H_2)^{1/5}(f^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2),$$
(3.37)
where

$$f(r)=1\frac{\mu }{r^4}+r^2l^2H_1H_2,H_i=1+\frac{q_i}{r^4},i=1,2.$$
(3.38)
The two gauge potentials in the solution (3.37) are

$$A_t^i=\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}{r^4+q_i},i=1,2.$$
(3.39)
As the case of D=5 or D=4, the physical charges $`\stackrel{~}{q}_i`$ are also related to the charges $`q_i`$ via the relation (3.20). A standard calculation gives the thermodynamics of black hole solution (3.37):

$`M={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4G}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}\mu +{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}q_i\right),`$
$`T_{\mathrm{HK}}={\displaystyle \frac{r_+^3}{\pi \sqrt{_i\rho _i}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{_i\rho _i}{2r_+^6l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{_i\rho _i}{r_+^2l^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _i}}\right),`$
$`S={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3r_+}{4G}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\rho _i},`$
$`\varphi _i={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4G}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}{\rho _i}},`$ (3.40)
where the constant $`\mu `$ is related to the black hole horizon $`r_+`$ as

$$\mu =r_+^4+\frac{1}{r_+^2l^2}\underset{i}{}\rho _i,\rho _i=r_+^4+q_i,i=1,2.$$
(3.41)
The first law here $`dM=T_{\mathrm{HK}}dS+_i\varphi _id\stackrel{~}{q}_i`$ can be easily checked.

With the relations (3.13) and (3.14), we find the Casimir energy in this case is

$$E_c=\frac{5\pi ^2lr_+^4}{8GR},$$
(3.42)
and the entropy of corresponding CFT has the form

$$S=\frac{2\pi R}{5}\sqrt{E_c(2(EE_q)E_c)},$$
(3.43)
where the proper internal energy and the thermal excitation energy are

$$E_q=\frac{\pi ^2l}{4GR}\underset{i}{}q_i,EE_q=\frac{5\pi ^2l}{16GR}\left(r_+^4+\frac{1}{r_+^2l^2}\underset{i}{}\rho _i\right).$$
(3.44)
Once again, the entropy of corresponding CFT’s to the charged black holes in D=7 gauged supergravity has the form of Cardy-Verlinde formula. Note that the solution (3.37) does not go to the one for a D=7 AdS Reissner-Nordström black hole even when two charges are equal, $`q_1=q_2`$. This example further manifests that the Cardy-Verlinde formula (3.16) and the observation (3.14) on the pressure are universally valid for charged AdS black holes.

## 4 AdS black holes in higher derivative gravity

In this section we consider the AdS black holes in a special class of Lovelock gravity, which may be regarded as the most general generalization to higher dimensions of Einstein gravity. The Lovelock action is a sum of the dimensionally continued Euler charactertics of all dimensions below the spacetime dimension ($`D`$) under consideration. The Lovelock action has an advantage that the resulting equations of motion contain no more than second derivatives of metric, as the pure Einstein-Hilbert action, but it includes $`[D/2]`$ arbitrary coefficients, which make it difficult to extract physical information from the solutions of equations of motion. It is possible to reduce those coefficients to two ones: a cosmological constant and a gravitational constant. By embedding the Lorentz group $`SO(D1,1)`$ into a larger group, the anti-de Sitter group $`SO(D1,2)`$, the Lovelock theory is divided into two different branches according to the spacetime dimension: odd dimensions and even dimensions. In odd dimensions, the action is the Chern-Simons form for the anti-de Sitter group; in even dimensions, it is the Euler density constructed with the Lorentz part of the anti-de Sitter curvature tensor. For details see .

The metric of a $`(D=n+2)`$-dimensional AdS black holes in the dimensionally continued gravity theory is

$$ds^2=f(r)dt^2+f(r)^1dr^2+r^2d\sigma _n^2,$$
(4.1)
where

$$f(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}k\left(\frac{2M}{r}\right)^{\frac{1}{m1}}+\frac{r^2}{l^2}\hfill & \mathrm{for}D=2m,\hfill \\ kM^{\frac{1}{m1}}+\frac{r^2}{l^2}\hfill & \mathrm{for}D=2m1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.2)
where $`M`$ is an integration constant and can be explained as the mass of black holes, in this case, it is implied that the anti-de Sitter space is viewed as the ground state of black holes . $`d\sigma _n^2=\gamma _{ij}(x)dx^idx^j`$ denotes the line element of a $`n`$-dimensional hypersurface with constant curvature $`n(n1)k`$. Without loss of generality, one may take $`k=1`$, $`0`$ and $`1`$, respectively. When $`k=1`$ the hypersurface $`\sigma _n`$ is a positive constant curvature space, a simple case is just $`n`$-dimensional unit sphere $`S^n`$, as discussed in the above. When $`k=1`$, the hypersurface is a negative constant curvature space. In this case, one can construct a closed hypersurface with arbitrary high genus via appropriate identification. When $`k=0`$, the hypersurface is a zero curvature space, because of the reason explained in Section 2, we will not discuss this case.

In the solution (4.1), the horizon $`r_+`$ is determined by the equation

$$M=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{r_+}{2}\left(k+\frac{r_+^2}{l^2}\right)^{m1}\hfill & \mathrm{for}D=2m,\hfill \\ \left(k+\frac{r_+^2}{l^2}\right)^{m1}\hfill & \mathrm{for}D=2m1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.3)
The Hawking temperature of black holes can be easily calculated, which is

$$T_{\mathrm{HK}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{4\pi (m1)r_+}\left(k+\frac{(2m1)r_+^2}{l^2}\right)\hfill & \mathrm{for}D=2m,\hfill \\ \frac{r_+}{2\pi l^2}\hfill & \mathrm{for}D=2m1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.4)
For the black holes in higher derivative gravity theories, the entropy is not simply one quarter of horizon area. In  we have presented a method to obtain the entropy of black holes in higher derivative gravity theories. That method is based on the fact that all black holes must obey the first law of thermodynamics $`dM=T_{\mathrm{HK}}dS+\mathrm{}`$. Integrating the first law, we have

$$S=T_{\mathrm{HK}}^1𝑑M=_0^{r_+}T_{\mathrm{HK}}^1\left(\frac{M}{r_+}\right)𝑑r_+,$$
(4.5)
where we have imposed the physical assumption that the entropy vanishes when the horizon of black holes shrinks to zero. Evidently the entropy gained in this way is independent of the choice of ground state of black holes. With this formula, we can obtain easily the entropy of black holes in (4.1)

$$S=\{\begin{array}{cc}\pi l^2\left(\left(k+\frac{r_+^2}{l^2}\right)^{m1}k\right)\hfill & \mathrm{for}D=2m,\hfill \\ 4\pi (n1)l_{i=0}^{m2}\left(\begin{array}{c}m2\\ i\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{2i+1}\left(\frac{r_+}{l}\right)^{2i+1}k^{m2i}\hfill & \mathrm{for}D=2m1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.6)
Now we are ready to check the Cardy-Verlinde formula with the AdS black holes in higher derivative gravity. Rescaling the metric so that the constant curvature hypersurface has the radius $`R`$, we then have the energy $`E`$ and temperature $`T`$ of the corresponding CFT’s

$$E=\frac{l}{R}M,T=\frac{l}{R}T_{\mathrm{HK}},$$
(4.7)
and the entropy $`S`$ of the CFT’s is still given by the entropy $`(\text{4.6})`$ of black holes.

In the case for the even dimensional black holes, namely, $`D=2m`$, we find the Casimir energy is

$$E_c=\frac{kr_+l}{2R}\left[2m1\frac{l^2}{r_+^2}\left(\left(k+\frac{r_+^2}{l^2}\right)^{m1}k\right)\right],$$
(4.8)
and furthermore we have

$$2EE_c=\frac{r_+l}{2R}\left[\left(2\frac{l^2}{r_+^2}k\right)\left(k+\frac{r_+^2}{l^2}\right)^{m1}(2m+1)k+\frac{l^2}{r_+^2}k^2\right].$$
(4.9)
So for both cases $`k=\pm 1`$, we cannot put the entropy in (4.6) into the form of Cardy-Verlinde formula.

In the case for odd dimensions ($`D=2m1`$), the Casimir energy is

$$E_c=\frac{2(m1)l}{R}\left(k+\frac{r_+^2}{l^2}\right)^{m1}\frac{2(m1)(2m3)r_+}{R}\underset{i=0}{\overset{m2}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}m2\\ i\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{2i+1}\left(\frac{r_+}{l}\right)^{2i+1}k^{m2i}.$$
(4.10)
Again, we cannot put the entropy in (4.6) into the form of the Cardy-Verlinde formula. To clearly see this, let us consider a special dimension $`D=5`$. In this case, the action of the gravity theory is the Einstein-Hilbert action plus a Gauss-Bonnet term. For such a black hole, the entropy is

$$S=8\pi r_+\left(k+\frac{r_+^2}{3l^2}\right).$$
(4.11)
And the Casimir energy for the corresponding CFT is found to be

$$E_c=\frac{4kl}{R}\left(k\frac{r_+^2}{l^2}\right),$$
(4.12)
and the extensive energy is

$$2EE_c=\frac{2l}{R}\left(\left(2k+\frac{r_+^2}{l^2}\right)^25k^2\right).$$
(4.13)
This special example clearly indicates that the entropy (4.11) does not fall into the form of Cardy-Verlinde formula (1.4).

## 5 Conclusions

The Cardy-Verlinde formula recently proposed by E. Verlinde , relates the entropy of a certain CFT to its total energy and Casimir energy in arbitrary dimensions. In the spirit of AdS/CFT correspondence, this formula has been shown to hold exactly for the cases of AdS Schwarzschild black holes and AdS Kerr black holes.

In this paper we have further checked the Cardy-Verlinde formula with some typical examples of black holes with AdS asymptotics. They are hyperbolic AdS black holes, AdS Reissner-Nordström black holes, charged black holes in D=5, D=4, and D=7 maximally supersymmetric gauged supergravities, and AdS black holes in higher derivative gravity. For the hyperbolic AdS black holes, the formula holds if we choose the “massless” black hole as the ground state of black holes (otherwise, this formula will no longer hold), but in this case, the Casimir energy is found to be negative \[see (2.10)\]! Obviously, further investigations are needed for the hyperbolic AdS black holes. In fact, the understanding of the AdS/CFT correspondence is poor for the thermodynamics of the hyperbolic black holes so far .

For the AdS Reissner-Nordström black holes in arbitrary dimensions and charged black holes in D=5, D=4 and D=7 maximally supersymmetric gauged supergravities, the Cardy-Verlinde formula can also hold by subtracting the proper internal energy from the total energy \[see (3.16)\]. The proper internal energy corresponds to the contribution of supersymmetric backgrounds. In the thermodynamics of corresponding CFT’s, we can view the proper internal energy as the zero temperature energy, which has the contribution to the free energy, but not to the entropy of thermodynamic system. Therefore our result (3.16) is reasonable and can be viewed as an extension of Cardy-Verlinde formula (1.4). In addition, it might be worth mentioning that for the corresponding CFT to the charged AdS black holes, its pressure is given by (3.14), namely $`p=(EE_q)/nV`$. The quantity $`EE_q`$ has an interpretation as the thermal excitation energy of CFT’s.

We have also considered the AdS black holes in the Lovelock gravity and found that the entropy of corresponding CFT’s cannot be put into the Cardy-Verlinde formula. This seems reasonable since the Cardy-Verlinde formula (1.3) was derived through the assumption that the first subleading correction to the extensive part of the energy scales like $`E_c(\lambda S,\lambda V)=\lambda ^{12/n}E_c(S,V)`$. The corrections from higher derivative terms are beyond the scope of the scaling.

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank N. Ohta for discussions. The work was supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research Nos. 99020, 12640270 and in part by Grant-in-Aid on the Priority Area: Supersymmetry and Unified Theory of Elementary particles.


format: text

text:
# Casimir Torques between Anisotropic Boundaries in Nematic Liquid Crystals

## Abstract

Fluctuation-induced interactions between anisotropic objects immersed in a nematic liquid crystal are shown to depend on the relative orientation of these objects. The resulting long-range “Casimir” torques are explicitely calculated for a simple geometry where elastic effects are absent. Our study generalizes previous discussions restricted to the case of isotropic walls, and leads to new proposals for experimental tests of Casimir forces and torques in nematics.

Pacs numbers: 68.60.Bs, 61.30.Hn, 61.30.Dk

In the last decade, much theoretical attention has been paid to “Casimir” forces in structured complex fluids . The pioneering work of Casimir showed that two uncharged conducting plates attract each other in vacuum, due to the modification of the electromagnetic fluctuations imposed by the plates . In complex fluids, similar interactions should exist between embedded objects, as the thermal fluctuations of the medium’s elastic distortions are restrained by the boundary conditions imposed by the objects. These interactions are believed to act between bounding surfaces or immersed inclusions in critical fluids or superfluids , in liquid crystals , in bilayer membranes , and also between rodlike polyelectrolytes . Nematic liquid crystals are anisotropic fluids with a quadrupolar long-range order. They are considered as good candidates for the direct observation of “Casimir” interactions in complex fluids. However, clear experimental evidences have to date been scarce . This is probably due to the weakness of fluctuation-induced effects when compared to that of permanent elastic distortions, which are often present.

Although nematic liquid crystals are well-known to display orientational effects , no “Casimir” interaction directly connected to these orientational properties of nematics have so far been discussed. Here, we demonstrate that thermal fluctuations in nematic liquid crystals can induce torques between bounding surfaces . The existence of “Casimir” torques between objects embedded in complex fluids is usually caused by the anisotropy in the shape of the objects ; here we report on a more subtle effect occurring between infinite plates with translational symmetry. To emphasize the “Casimir” effect, we focus on a situation in which no average elastic distortion is present: two parallel plates with a surface energy favoring an orientation of the local average molecular alignment (director) perpendicular to the surfaces. The ground state is therefore the distorsionless state in which the director is everywhere perpendicular to the boundaries. A “Casimir” torque can arise due to the anisotropy in the rigidity of the surface energy: we assume that deviations from the preferred normal surface orientation is easier in one direction than in the orthogonal one. (This property can be experimentally obtained from a grating surface treated for homeotropic anchoring , or by depositing on top of a substrate which is conventionally treated to give planar anchoring a very thin layer of a material promoting homeotropic anchoring .) In this geometry, we calculate the “Casimir” interaction, and show that it depends not only on the distance between the two plates, but also on their relative orientation. At the end of the paper, we argue that this leads to effects easier to measure than the direct force between the plates.

Nematic liquid crystals are liquids of rodlike molecules displaying a long-range orientational order. The local average molecular axis is represented by a unit vector $`\pm 𝐧`$, called the “director”. The bulk ground state corresponds to a uniform director field and the Frank elasticity describes the free energy associated with gradients of the director . Bounding plates often favor some orientation of the director: this phenomenon is known as anchoring . The simplest situations correspond to a preferred orientation normal to the plates (homeotropic anchoring) or parallel to the plates (planar anchoring). Here we employ a path integral method to study the “Casimir” energy of a nematic liquid crystal confined between two parallel plates at a separation $`d`$, at which we assume an homeotropic anchoring with anisotropic strength as described above. We calculate the fluctuation-induced interaction between the two plates when the axes of weakest anchoring strength are placed at a relative angle $`\theta `$ (see Fig. 1), and find

$$(\theta ,d)=\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{8\pi d^2}\times \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^k2\theta }{k^3},$$
(1)
per unit area of the plates. The angle dependence in this interaction shows that the plates experience a long-range fluctuation-induced torque, that decays algebraically as $`1/d^2`$, and tends to align the directions of weakest rigidity.

We start with the broken symmetry configuration of lowest energy, in which the director field is aligned along the $`z`$-axis, and restrict ourselves to small fluctuations $`\delta 𝐧=𝐧\widehat{𝐳}`$ of the director around this ground state (see Fig. 1). The bulk cost of such a fluctuation can be described by an effective Hamiltonian

$$=\frac{K}{2}d^3𝐫\left[\delta 𝐧(𝐫)\right]^2,$$
(2)
which corresponds to the usual one-constant ($`K`$) approximation of the Frank elasticity . The anisotropic homeotropic anchoring surface energy is accounted for by the surface Hamiltonian

$$_s=\frac{1}{2}d^2𝐫_{}\left(\delta 𝐧^{}𝖶^{}\delta 𝐧^{}+\delta 𝐧^+𝖶^+\delta 𝐧^+\right),$$
(3)
where $`\delta 𝐧^{}(𝐫_{})=\delta 𝐧(𝐫_{},0)`$ and $`\delta 𝐧^+(𝐫_{})=\delta 𝐧(𝐫_{},d)`$, and $`𝖶^{}`$ and $`𝖶^+`$ are positive definite constant tensors that entail the anisotropy of the surfaces and their relative orientation. We assume that the two surfaces are identical in nature and we define $`𝖶^{}=W_{\mathrm{max}}\widehat{𝐱}^{}\widehat{𝐱}^{}+W_{\mathrm{min}}\widehat{𝐲}^{}\widehat{𝐲}^{}`$ and $`𝖶^+=W_{\mathrm{max}}\widehat{𝐱}^+\widehat{𝐱}^++W_{\mathrm{min}}\widehat{𝐲}^+\widehat{𝐲}^+`$, where $`\widehat{𝐱}^\pm `$ and $`\widehat{𝐲}^\pm `$ denote the hard and weak axis on plate $`\pm `$, respectively (see Fig. 1). The eigenvalues $`W_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`W_{\mathrm{min}}`$ naturally define two extrapolation lengths $`\lambda _{\mathrm{min}}=K/W_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}=K/W_{\mathrm{min}}`$ . We assume extreme anisotropy, namely $`\lambda _{\mathrm{min}}\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$.

“Casimir” effects arise from the quantization of the fluctuation modes by the boundaries (essentially from the suppression of modes of wavevector smaller than $`2\pi /d`$). The actual effect of the boundaries on a fluctuation mode of wavevector $`q2\pi /d`$ is a function of the product $`q\lambda `$, where $`\lambda `$ is the extrapolation length corresponding to the considered polarization of the fluctuation. Depending on the relative values of $`\lambda _{\mathrm{min}}`$, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`d`$, three different regimes occur: (i) For $`\lambda _{\mathrm{min}}\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}d`$ the constraints are effectively hard in both directions and the anisotropy is washed out at leading order. (ii) For $`\lambda _{\mathrm{min}}d\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$ the director field is subject to a hard constraint in the $`x`$ direction while it is virtually free in the (perpendicular) $`y`$ direction. (iii) Finally, for $`d\lambda _{\mathrm{min}}\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$ both directions allows almost free fluctuations and the anisotropy is lost again at leading order. To emphasize the effect of the anisotropy, we thus focus on the case where $`\lambda _{\mathrm{min}}d\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$.

Following Ref. , we now proceed to calculate the partition function for the director fluctuations, using $`+_s`$ as the total Hamiltonian. The quantum mechanical description of the partition function , which treats $`z`$ as an imaginary time variable, helps us gain a useful insight into the meaning of the boundary conditions. From the “imaginary time action” $``$, one can define the “momentum” conjugate to a component of $`\delta 𝐧`$ as $`P_{\delta n}=K_z\delta n`$. Then, one can go from coordinate space to momentum space. In particular, at the boundaries one finds out that $`P_{\delta n}`$ is quadratically confined by the tensor $`𝖶^1`$ and thus acts opposite as compared to $`\delta n`$. In other words, there is an uncertainty principle relating the fluctuations of $`\delta n`$ and $`_z\delta n`$ as $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\delta n)\mathrm{\Delta }(_z\delta n)k_\mathrm{B}T/K`$. In light of this, one can argue that the boundary condition of nearly free fluctuations in the soft direction is asymptotically equivalent to setting $`_z\delta n=0`$. Note that this is equivalent to assuming that the directors cannot bear torques due to the freedom of rotation in the soft direction.

With the above justification, we can employ a somewhat less involved path integral formulation  using the following boundary conditions: $`\delta 𝐧^\pm \widehat{𝐱}^\pm =0`$, $`_z\delta 𝐧^\pm \widehat{𝐲}^\pm =0`$. The partition function of the fluctuating director field subject to the above constraints can be written as

$`𝒵`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\delta 𝐧(𝐫)\delta \{\delta 𝐧^{}\widehat{𝐱}^{}\}\delta \{_z\delta 𝐧^{}\widehat{𝐲}^{}\}}`$ (5)
$`\times \delta \{\delta 𝐧^+\widehat{𝐱}^+\}\delta \{_z\delta 𝐧^+\widehat{𝐱}^+\}e^{/k_\mathrm{B}T}.`$
The functional delta functions can be written as integral representations by introducing four Lagrange multiplier surface fields:

$`𝒵`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }𝒟\delta 𝐧(𝐫)𝒟l_1(𝐫_{})𝒟l_2(𝐫_{})𝒟l_3(𝐫_{})𝒟l_4(𝐫_{})\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }d^3𝐫[\delta 𝐧(𝐫)]^2`$ (7)
$`+i{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }d^2𝐫_{}[l_1(𝐫_{})\delta 𝐧^{}(𝐫_{})\widehat{𝐱}^{}+l_2(𝐫_{})_z\delta 𝐧^{}(𝐫_{})\widehat{𝐲}^{}+l_3(𝐫_{})\delta 𝐧^+(𝐫_{})\widehat{𝐱}^++l_4(𝐫_{})_z\delta 𝐧^+(𝐫_{})\widehat{𝐲}^+]\},`$
where $`\kappa =K/k_\mathrm{B}T`$. The integration over the director field is now Gaussian and can be easily performed. It yields

$$𝒵=𝒟l_1(𝐪_{})𝒟l_2(𝐪_{})𝒟l_3(𝐪_{})𝒟l_4(𝐪_{})\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{4\kappa }\underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{d^2𝐪_{}}{(2\pi )^2}l_\alpha (𝐪_{})M_{\alpha \beta }(𝐪_{})l_\beta (𝐪_{})\right\},$$
(8)
in which

$$𝖬(q)=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1}{q}& 0& \frac{e^{qd}}{q}\mathrm{cos}\theta & e^{qd}\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ & & & \\ 0& q& e^{qd}\mathrm{sin}\theta & qe^{qd}\mathrm{cos}\theta \\ & & & \\ \frac{e^{qd}}{q}\mathrm{cos}\theta & e^{qd}\mathrm{sin}\theta & \frac{1}{q}& 0\\ & & & \\ e^{qd}\mathrm{sin}\theta & qe^{qd}\mathrm{cos}\theta & 0& q\end{array}\right],$$
(9)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the corresponding soft axes of the two plates (see Fig. 1). The remaining integration over the Lagrange multiplier fields can be performed to give $`\mathrm{ln}𝒵=\frac{1}{2}_𝐪_{}\mathrm{ln}\left(det𝖬(𝐪_{})\right)`$, which leads to a simple expression for the free energy per unit area:

$$(\theta ,d)=\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2\pi d^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑uu\mathrm{ln}\left[1e^{2u}\mathrm{cos}2\theta \right].$$
(10)
Integration over $`u`$ then gives the final result Eq. (1) above. The function $`f(\theta )=_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cos}^k(2\theta )/k^3`$ which describes the orientational dependence of the interaction has the structure of a zeta function that is commonly present in “Casimir” interactions.

It is instructive to examine the limiting cases of plates in which the corresponding hard and soft axes are parallel or perpendicular to each other. For $`\theta =0`$ the boundary conditions corresponds to a hard-hard configuration for one component of $`\delta 𝐧`$ and a soft-soft one for the other. One can check that $`f(0)=\zeta (3)1.20206`$ ($`\zeta `$ is the zeta function), thus we obtain exactly the same expression for the “Casimir” energy as in Ref.  for “alike” boundary conditions. On the other hand $`f(\frac{\pi }{2})=\frac{3}{4}\zeta (3)`$, which gives the same result as in Ref.  for “unlike” boundary conditions ($`\theta =\pi /2`$ corresponds to a soft-hard configuration for both components of $`\delta 𝐧`$).

Our calculation suggests two kind of experiments: (i) a direct measure of the torque exerted between two plates at a fixed separation, and (ii) a measure of force as a function of separation for plates at various angles.

A possible experimental setup for the direct observation of the fluctuation-induced torque could be a torsion pendulum similar to the one discussed in Ref. . Our results imply that the torsion coefficient of the pendulum $`k`$ (defined as the ratio between the torque $`\tau `$ and the angular rotation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$) is corrected at $`\theta =0`$ by an amount

$$\mathrm{\Delta }k=\frac{\pi ^2}{12}\times \frac{k_\mathrm{B}TR^2}{d^2},$$
(11)
due to the “Casimir” effect. Here $`R`$ is the radius of the plates of area $`\pi R^2`$. Using the typical values $`k_\mathrm{B}T=4.1\times 10^{14}`$ dyn cm, $`R=1.5`$ cm, $`d=10^4`$ cm, one obtains $`\mathrm{\Delta }k10^5`$ dyn cm. This accuracy may be reachable using modern micro-manipulation techniques.

A measure of the force-distance relation for various angles $`\theta `$ could also be performed. An advantage of this procedure, as compared to measurement of the “simpler” effect corresponding to isotropic anchoring, is that relative effects are more easily detectable. Indeed, while the weak signal of the “Casimir” force can be swamped by stronger effects (Van der Waals, etc.), the difference between measurements performed at $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =90^{}`$ should provide a differential evidence of the Casimir scaling.

We are grateful to R. Barberi, I. Dozov, P. Galatola and L. Peliti for invaluable discussions and comments. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMR-98-05833, and by ESPCI through a Joliot visiting chair for one of us (RG).


text:
# Measuring the galaxy power spectrum with multiresolution decomposition – II. diagonal and off-diagonal power spectra of the LCRS galaxies

## 1 Introduction

The power spectrum is one of most important statistical measure to quantify the clustering features of large scale mass density distribution traced by galaxies. It directly reflects the physical scales of the processes that affect structure formation.

In paper I (Fang & Feng 2000), the method of measuring galaxy power spectrum with the multiresolution analysis of discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) is developed. It has been shown that the DWT analysis provides a lossless estimation of the power spectrum. The DWT power spectrum estimator is optimized in the sense that the spatial resolution automatically adapts to the perturbation wavelength under consideration. Since the DWT analysis has strong capability of suppressing the off-diagonal components of the covariance of density fluctuations, the DWT estimator is convenient to deal with data sets with a large volume and complex geometry. Moreover, the DWT estimator can fully avoid the alias effect which appears in usual binning schemes. Because Poisson process possesses diagonal covariance in the DWT representation, the Poisson sampling and selection effects on the power spectrum are suppressed to a minimum.

Besides these technical advantages of the computation of power spectrum, the DWT space-scale decomposition provides a physical insight into the clustering behavior in phase space, i.e. scale plus physical position. Even for second order statistics, i.e. the covariance of density fluctuations, the space-scale decomposition can reveal some clustering behaviors, such as two-point correlation in phase space, which can not be measured by decomposition with modes non-localized in phase space. Moreover, the covariance in DWT representation can avoid the difficulty caused by the central limit theorem (Fan & Bardeen 1995.)

The algorithm developed in Paper I is mainly for 1-D sample. Many algorithms for 1-D sample can directly be generalized into 3-D. A problem especially for 3-D DWT power spectrum estimator is on rotational invariance. 3-D DWT modes is given by the direct product of 1-D DWT modes, and therefore, each of the 3-D DWT modes is described by three positive integers $`(j_1,j_2,j_3)`$ corresponding to the scales of the mode in $`x_1`$, $`x_2`$ and $`x_3`$ directions, respectively. Thus, there are two types of modes: diagonal mode with $`j_1=j_2=j_3`$; off-diagonal mode for which the three numbers $`(j_1,j_2,j_3)`$ are not the same. The DWT estimator can provide two types of power spectra: 1. diagonal power spectrum given by the powers on diagonal modes, 2. off-diagonal power spectrum given by the powers on off-diagonal modes.

Because the two types of modes have different spatial invariance, the diagonal and off-diagonal DWT power spectra are very flexible to deal with configuration-related problems in the power spectrum detection. In this paper, we will study both diagonal and off-diagonal power spectra with the Las Campanas redshift survey galaxies, and relevant simulation samples and mock catalogues. The purpose is to demonstrate how the two types of power spectra are applied to estimate the uncertainties of power spectrum measurement caused by various anisotropies of the sample. It includes, for instance, the irregular geometry of the survey with very low filling factor, the scale-dependence of redshift distortion, and the inhomogeneity caused by the selection function. These results insure that the DWT estimator is capable of providing a stable measurement of the LCRS galaxy power spectrum and the best-fitting parameters of bias and velocity dispersion.

The paper is organized as follows. In §2, the DWT power spectrum estimator is briefly introduced with the emphasis on the property and algorithm for the off-diagonal DWT power spectrum. §3 describes the real and mock samples of galaxies. The applications of the diagonal and off-diagonal power spectra to the configuration-related problems are presented in §4. The results of the DWT power spectra of the LCRS, both diagonal and off-diagonal, and their error estimation are given in §5. The best-fitting values of the bias parameters and velocity dispersion are given in §5 as well. Finally, conclusions are stated in §6.

## 2 DWT power spectrum estimator

### 2.1 The DWT decomposition of galaxy distributions

If the position measurement is perfectly precise, the observed galaxy number density distribution can be written as

$$n_g(𝐱)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{N_g}{}}w_m\delta ^D(𝐱𝐱_m)$$
(1)
where coordinate $`𝐱=(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$, $`N_g`$ is the total number of galaxies, $`𝐱_m`$ is the position of the $`m`$th galaxy, $`w_m`$ is its weight, and $`\delta ^D`$ the 3-D Dirac $`\delta `$ function. Without loss of generality, we consider the sample which is contained in a spatial box with spatial ranges of $`x_1=0L_1`$, $`x_2=0L_2`$ and $`x_3=0L_3`$. It is not necessary that the box $`L_1L_2L_3`$ is fully filled by sample, i.e., allows $`n_g(𝐱)=0`$ within some areas inside the box.

The observed galaxy number density distribution is considered to be a realization of a Poisson point process with an intensity $`n(𝐱)=\overline{n}_g(𝐱)[1+\delta (𝐱)]`$, where $`\overline{n}_g(𝐱)`$ is selection function, and $`\delta (𝐱)`$ the density contrast fluctuation on the underlying matter field. The goal of power spectrum measurement is to estimate the power spectrum of the density fluctuations $`\delta (𝐱)=[n(𝐱)/\overline{n}(𝐱)]1`$ from the observed realization $`\delta _g(𝐱)=[n_g(𝐱)/\overline{n}_g(𝐱)]1`$.

Different power spectrum estimators adopt different decomposition of $`\delta _g(𝐱)`$. The DWT decomposition is based on the orthogonal and complete set of 3-D wavelet basis $`\{\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}(𝐱)\}`$, which can be constructed by a direct product of 1-D wavelet basis as

$$\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}(𝐱)=\psi _{j_1,l_1}(x_1)\psi _{j_2,l_2}(x_2)\psi _{j_3,l_3}(x_3),$$
(2)
where $`j_i=0,1,2..`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) and $`l_i=0\mathrm{}2^{j_i1}`$. The wavelet $`\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}(𝐱)`$ is localized in phase (scale and physical position) space, i.e. it is non-zero mainly in a volume $`L_1/2^{j_1}\times L_2/2^{j_2}\times L_3/2^{j_3}`$, and around the position $`(x_1=l_1L_1/2^{j_1},x_2=l_2L_2/2^{j_2},x_3=l_3L_3/2^{j_3})`$ (Fang & Thews 1998.) The bases eq.(2) are orthonormal with respect both $`𝐣`$ and $`𝐥`$, i.e.

$$\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}(𝐱)\psi _{𝐣^{},𝐥^{}}(𝐱)𝑑𝐱=\delta _{𝐣,𝐣^{}}^K\delta _{𝐥,𝐥^{}}^K,$$

where $`\delta ^K`$ is the Kronecker Delta function.

The DWT decomposition of $`[n_g(𝐱)/\overline{n}_g(𝐱)]1`$ is then given by

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_𝐣^𝐥=\left[\frac{n_g(𝐱)}{\overline{n}_g(𝐱)}1\right]\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}(𝐱)𝑑𝐱,$$
(3)
Since wavelets are admissible, i.e. $`\psi _{j,l}(x)𝑑x=0`$, eq.(3) becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_𝐣^𝐥=\frac{n_g(𝐱)}{\overline{n}_g(𝐱)}\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}(𝐱)𝑑𝐱.$$
(4)
Thus the fluctuations in galaxy number density can be described by the wavelet function coefficients (WFC) $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_𝐣^𝐥`$, which is the density fluctuation on scale $`𝐣=\{j_1,j_2,j_3\}`$ localized at the position $`𝐥=\{l_1,l_2,l_3\}`$.

### 2.2 DWT power spectrum estimator

For a given scale $`𝐣`$, there are totally $`2^{j_1+j_2+j_3}`$ WFC variables. All second order statistics on the scale $`𝐣`$ can be drawn from the covariance of these WFCs

$$C_𝐣^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐥}^{}}=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_𝐣^𝐥\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_𝐣^𝐥^{}.$$
(5)
It has been shown in Paper I that the power of the fluctuations on the modes with the scale index $`𝐣`$ can be estimated by

$$P_𝐣=I_𝐣^2N_𝐣.$$
(6)
where

$$I_𝐣^2=\frac{1}{2^{j_1+j_2+j_3}}\text{tr}𝐂_𝐣^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐥}^{}}=\frac{1}{2^{j_1+j_2+j_3}}\underset{l_1=0}{\overset{2^{j_1}1}{}}\underset{l_2=0}{\overset{2^{j_2}1}{}}\underset{l_3=0}{\overset{2^{j_3}1}{}}[\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_𝐣^𝐥]^2,$$
(7)
and

$$N_𝐣=\frac{1}{2^{j_1+j_2+j_3}}\underset{l_1=0}{\overset{2^{j_1}1}{}}\underset{l_2=0}{\overset{2^{j_2}1}{}}\underset{l_3=0}{\overset{2^{j_3}1}{}}\frac{\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}^2(𝐱)}{\overline{n}_g(𝐱)}𝑑𝐱.$$
(8)
The physical meaning of eq.(6) is clear. The term $`I_𝐣^2`$ is the mean power of $`𝐣`$ modes measured from the observed realization $`n_g(𝐱)`$, and the term $`N_𝐣`$ is the power on $`𝐣`$ modes due to the Poisson noise. For a volume-limited survey, the mean galaxy density $`\overline{n}_g`$ is independent of the redshift. The Poisson noise power is thus simply $`1/\overline{n}_g`$. $`P_𝐣`$ is usually referred to as the DWT power spectrum.

Paper I showed that for 1-D sample in space $`L`$ the DWT power spectrum $`P_j`$ is a band averaged Fourier spectrum given by

$$P_j=\frac{1}{2^j}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\widehat{\psi }(n/2^j)|^2P(n),$$
(9)
where $`P(n)`$ is the Fourier power spectrum with wavenumber $`k=2\pi n/L`$ (for simplicity, we refer to $`n`$ as the wavenumber below), and $`\widehat{\psi }(n)`$ is the Fourier transform of the basic wavelet $`\psi (\eta )`$

$$\widehat{\psi }(n)=_0^L\psi (\eta )e^{i2\pi n\eta }𝑑\eta .$$
(10)
which is orthogonal to the monopole, i.e. $`\widehat{\psi }(0)=0`$ and localized in wavenumber space. For the Daubechies 4 wavelet (Daubechies 1992), $`|\widehat{\psi }(n)|^2`$ has symmetrically distributed peaks with respect to $`n=0`$. The first highest peaks are non-zero in two narrow ranges centered at $`n=\pm n_p`$ with width $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_p`$ (see Fig. 1). Besides the first peak, there are “side lobes” in $`|\widehat{\psi }(n)|^2`$ (see also Fig. 1). However, for the Daubechies 4 the area under the “side lobes” is not more than 2% of the first peak. Therefore $`P_j`$ is good estimation of the band-averaged Fourier power spectrum centered at wavenumber

$$n_j=n_p2^j,$$
(11)
with the band width as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n=2^j\mathrm{\Delta }n_p.$$
(12)
For 1-D sample of Ly$`\alpha `$ forests, the DWT power spectrum is found to be smoothly related to the Fourier power spectrum by eqs.(11) and (12) (Feng & Fang 2000.)

### 2.3 Diagonal and off-diagonal modes

It is straightforward to generalize eq.(9) to 3-D. We have

$$P_𝐣=\frac{1}{2^{j_1+j_2+j_3}}\underset{n_1=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n_2=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n_3=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\widehat{\psi }(n_1/2^{j_1})\widehat{\psi }(n_2/2^{j_2})\widehat{\psi }(n_3/2^{j_3})|^2P(n_1,n_2,n_3).$$
(13)
Because the cosmic density field is isotropic, the Fourier power spectrum $`P(n_1,n_2,n_3)`$ is dependent only on

$$n=\sqrt{n_1^2+n_2^2+n_3^2}.$$
(14)
Obviously, the DWT power spectrum is invariant with respect to the cyclic permutation of index as

$$P_{j_1,j_2,j_3}=P_{j_3,j_1,j_2}=P_{j_2,j_3,j_1}$$
(15)
Considering eq.(11) and (14), we can formally define a band center wavenumber $`n_j`$ corresponding to the 3-D mode $`𝐣`$ as

$$n_𝐣=n_p\sqrt{(2^{j_1})^2+(2^{j_2})^2+(2^{j_3})^2}.$$
(16)
For an isotropic random field, the Fourier modes with the same $`n`$ \[eq.(14)\] are statistically equivalent. However, the DWT modes with the same $`n_j`$ \[eq.(16)\] are not statistically equivalent, because the DWT modes are not rotationally invariant. A Fourier mode $`e^{i(2\pi /L)(n_1x_1+n_2x_2+n_3x_3)}`$ can be obtained by a rotation of mode $`e^{i(2\pi /L)(n_1^{}x_1+n_2^{}x_2+n_3^{}x_3)}`$ as long as $`n_1^2+n_2^2+n_3^2=n_1^2+n_2^2+n_3^2`$. However, the DWT modes don’t have the same property. Generally, one cannot transform a mode $`(j_1,j_2,j_3)`$ to $`(j_1^{},j_2^{},j_3^{})`$ by a rotation, even when $`n_jn_j^{}`$. Because of different configurations \[eq.(2)\] between them, the condition $`n_j=n_j^{}`$ generally does not imply

$$P_𝐣=P_𝐣^{}.$$
(17)
This invariance holds only when $`(j_1,j_2,j_3)`$ is a cyclic permutation of $`(j_1^{},j_2^{},j_3^{})`$.

With this property, one can define two types of the DWT power spectra: 1. the diagonal power spectrum given by $`P_𝐣`$ on diagonal modes $`j_1=j_2=j_3=j`$, and 2. off-diagonal power spectrum given by other modes.

From eq.(13), the diagonal power spectrum $`P_jP_{j,j,j}`$ is related to the Fourier power spectrum by

$$P_j=\underset{n_1=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n_2=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n_3=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}W_j(n_1,n_2,n_3)P(n_1,n_2,n_3),$$
(18)
where the window function $`W_j`$ is

$$W_j(n_1,n_2,n_3)=\frac{1}{2^{3j}}|\widehat{\psi }(n_1/2^j)\widehat{\psi }(n_2/2^j)\widehat{\psi }(n_3/2^j)|^2.$$
(19)
with the normalization

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}W_j(n_1,n_2,n_3)𝑑n_1𝑑n_2𝑑n_3=1$$
(20)
It should be emphasized that the window function $`W_j`$ does not contain any free parameters, and is completely determined by the basis used for the DWT decomposition. Therefore, it is different from the ordinary convolution with filter containing adjustable parameters.

Eq.(11) shows that in the scale space the window function $`W_j`$ is localized around $`n_1=n_2=n_3=n_p2^j`$. Therefore, the diagonal power spectrum $`P_j`$ is a band-average of the isotropic Fourier power spectrum $`P(n)`$ with the central frequency $`n=\sqrt{3}n_g2^j`$. As an example, Fig. 1 demonstrates the linear diagonal DWT power spectra in three typical cosmological models, i.e. the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cold dark matter, ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM), $`\tau `$CDM, and the standard CDM (SCDM). They are calculated by eq.(18), in which the $`P(n)`$ are taken to be the correspondingly linear isotropic Fourier power spectra (Bardeen et al. 1986). The wavelet filter $`|\widehat{\psi }(n)|^2`$ \[eq.(10)\] is displayed in a small frame box.

For off-diagonal modes, one can also calculate the linear non-diagonal DWT power spectrum $`P_{j_1,j_2,j_3}`$ via eq.(13.) However, in this case, $`P_{j_1,j_2,j_3}`$ cannot simply be identified as a band average of the isotropic Fourier power spectrum $`P(n)`$ centered at $`n=n_j`$.

Nevertheless, $`n_j`$ is useful to calibrate the physical scale of a given $`𝐣`$. Since we use the DWT decomposition, it is convenient to label the spatial scale in figures by $`j`$. However, the spatial scale for a given $`𝐣`$ actually is dependent on the size of the sample $`L`$, i.e. $`L/2^j`$. Therefore, for samples with different $`L`$, the same $`j`$ do not have the same physical scale. To avoid the possible confusion caused by this, we label the figures on the top with the wavenumber $`k=2\pi n_j/L`$.

## 3 Samples

### 3.1 The LCRS galaxies

We use the Las Campanas redshift survey (Shectman et al. 1996) to demonstrate the DWT power spectrum estimator, including both diagonal and off-diagonal modes. The LCRS consists of 26418 redshifts of galaxies, covering over 720 square degree in six $`1.5^{}\times 80^{}`$ strips. Three each of the strips are in the north and south galactic caps, respectively. The galaxies in the LCRS are selected from a CCD catalog obtained in R-band. The luminosity function has been shown to be best-fitted by a Schechter function with $`M^{}=20.29\pm 0.02+5\mathrm{log}\mathrm{h}`$, $`\alpha =0.70\pm 0.05`$ and $`\varphi ^{}=0.019\pm 0.001`$ h3Mpc-3 for the absolute magnitude of $`23.0M5\mathrm{log}\mathrm{h}17.5`$(Lin et al. 1996.)

We first convert the heliocentric redshifts of galaxies to comoving distances $`r`$ in a Einstein-de Sitter universe. As the survey depth is not very large, the differences among the distances given different models are less than 2%. This correction has been taken into account in our calculation. Analysis is carried out for the sample with upper cut-off of the recession velocity 51000kms-1, which is approximately the survey depth $``$ 450 h-1 Mpc. To perform DWT power spectrum analysis, we further enclose each strip into a cubic box with size of 500 h-1 Mpc. Accordingly, the spatial size resolved by one-dimensional mode on a scale $`j`$ is $`500/2^j`$ h-1 Mpc.

A slice-like geometry of the strips fills only a very small fraction of the cubic volume. We define a filling factor by

$$f_s=\frac{V_s}{L_{box}^3}$$
(21)
where $`V_s`$ is the volume occupied by the survey sample, and $`L_{box}`$ is the length of the box. For a given scale $`𝐣=(j_1,j_2,j_3)`$, there are totally $`N_𝐣=2^{j_1+j_2+j_3}`$ DWT modes. Since the wavelet $`\psi _{j,l}`$ is localized in physical space, the WFCs of modes located in the empty regions will be zero. Consequently, for the scale $`𝐣=(j_1,j_2,j_3)`$, only $`f_sN_𝐣`$ modes contribute to the DWT power spectrum. In this case, the summations overing $`l_1`$, $`l_2`$ and $`l_3`$ in eqs.(7) and (8) run only for the $`f_sN_𝐣`$ modes, and the normalization factor $`1/2^{j_1+j_2+j_3}`$ is replaced by $`f_sN_𝐣`$.

The effect of the boundary can be estimated with the so-called “influence” cone (Pando & Fang 1998.) That is, if the base $`\psi _{j,l}(x)`$ is well localized in the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$, then the WFCs $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{jl}`$ corresponding to position $`x_0`$ will only measure fluctuations in the interval $`[(x_0\mathrm{\Delta }x)/2^j+1,(x_0+\mathrm{\Delta }x)/2^{j+1}]`$. If $`x_0`$ is at the boundary, the WFCs $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{jl}`$ measures the difference between the density contrasts inside and outside the boundary. Thus, for a zero padding of the empty regions, the power on the boundary mode would be statistically overestimated. Hence, the uncertainty (most likely overestimation) of the power spectrum caused by the boundary modes would be of the order of $`N_𝐣^b/f_sN_𝐣`$, where $`N_𝐣^b`$ is the number of boundary modes on scale $`𝐣`$. One can also pad the empty regions with galaxies created by a Poisson sampling according to the same radial selection function as the LCRS. In this case, the difference between the density contrasts inside and outside the boundary is erased, so contribute little to the DWT power spectrum and will cause small underestimation. For small scales $`N_𝐣^bf_sN_𝐣`$, the boundary effect is negligible for both zero padding and Poisson sampling.

### 3.2 N-body simulation and mock LCRS catalogues

To access the accuracy of recovering power spectrum with the DWT, we construct mock LCRS samples. First we produce ten realizations of the N-body simulation for each model of the standard cold dark matter model (SCDM), low density flat model ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM), and a variant of SCDM model ($`\tau `$CDM). The parameters $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Gamma },\sigma _8)`$ are taken to be (1.0,0.0,0.5,0.55) for SCDM, (0.3,0.7,0.21,0.85) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM, and (1.0,0.0,0.25,0.55) for $`\tau `$CDM. The linear power spectrum is taken from the fitting formula given in Bardeen et al. (1986). We use modified AP3M code (Couchman, 1991) to evolve $`128^3`$ cold dark matter particles in a periodic cube of length 256h-1Mpc. For the SCDM model, the starting redshift is taken to be $`z_i=15`$, and for LCDM and $`\tau `$CDM, $`z_i=25`$, respectively. The force softening parameter $`\eta `$ in the comoving system decreases with time as $`\eta 1/a(t)`$. Its initial value is taken to be $`\eta =384`$ h-1 kpc, and the minimum value to be $`\eta _{\mathrm{min}}=128`$ h-1 kpc, corresponding to 15% and 5%, respectively, of the grid size. For the single-step integration of time evolution, we use the “leap-frog” scheme, the total number of integration steps down to $`z=0`$ is 600.

We first assume an unbiased galaxy distribution relative to underlying dark matter. The mock catalogues are then constructed proceeding in the following steps. 1. We locate the observer randomly in the simulation box. 2. Since the survey depth and width of the LCRS are larger than our simulations, we replicate the slice sample periodically be extending to redshift $`z0.2`$. 3. From the space coordinate of the galaxy, work out its redshift and galactic coordinates, for which the angular mask of the LCRS is further applied. 4. According to R-band luminosity function and the average sampling rates respectively for 50-fiber and 112-fiber subset of the observation data, we determine whether the galaxy is admitted into the mock sample using Poisson sampling. Similar to the estimation of Fourier power spectrum in the LCRS catalogue (Lin et.al., 1996), the uneven sampling rate has little effect on measurements of the DWT Power spectrum. Finally in step 5, the photometric catalog is then generated by assigning each galaxy a specific absolute magnitude.

## 4 Estimating uncertainties with the DWT power spectrum

### 4.1 Diagonal power spectrum

In order to demonstrate the reliability of the DWT power spectrum estimator, we first calculate the diagonal DWT power spectrum for the simulation ensembles in the SCDM, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM, and $`\tau `$CDM models. The sample is in a $`256^3`$ h-3 Mpc3 box. The results are displayed in Fig. 2. For comparison, Fig. 2 also plots the non-linear DWT power spectrum calculated by Eq.(18), in which the Fourier power spectrum is taken from the Peacock & Dodds’s fitting formulae (1996.) Obviously, the DWT power spectrum estimator is excellent to recover the analytic models over a wide wavenumber range resolved by our simulations, i.e. $`0.1<k<3`$ h Mpc-1.

For the magnitude-limited mock samples of the LCRS in real space with size $`500^3`$ h-3 Mpc3, the estimated diagonal DWT power spectrum are shown by solid squares in Fig. 3. The error bars are given by standard 1-$`\sigma `$ deviations taken over 10 realizations. Comparing with the power spectrum calculated by Eq.(18), one finds that the DWT power spectrum estimator can successfully recover the non-linear spectra of the mass fields on scales $`j>3`$, i.e., $`k>0.1`$ h Mpc-1, while the power is systematically underestimated for $`k<0.1`$ h Mpc-1

Recall that the Fourier power spectrum also shows a suppression of power spectrum on large scales. It is generally believed that the suppression of the Fourier spectrum is due to the following two reasons: 1. the uncertainty in determination of mean density (Peacock & Nicholson 1991; Tadros & Efstathiou, 1996); 2. the finite volume of the survey.

The large scale suppression of the DWT power spectrum have different reasons. For the DWT power spectrum estimator, the overall mean density is not needed. The uncertainty of the mean density doesn’t affect the DWT power spectrum. As a numerical test, we computed the DWT power spectrum in an arbitrary selected thin slab in the simulation box with the same filling factor as that of the LCRS. We found that the scatter of the DWT power spectra from different slabs is much less than the suppression shown in Fig. 2. Accordingly, the uncertainty of the overall mean density is not responsible for the suppression of the DWT power spectrum on large scales.

The suppression of the DWT power spectrum on large scales is because the diagonal mode $`(j,j,j)`$ cannot match with the slice-like geometry of the survey. For the LCRS, the average thickness in declination is estimated to be $`15`$ h-1 Mpc, i.e. only $``$ 3% of the side lengths in the other two dimensions. Therefore, the perturbations on scales $`k<0.2`$ h Mpc-1, or $`j3`$, in the dimension of declination are poorly sampled. This leads to an underestimation of power spectrum with $`j3`$ in the direction of declination (§3.1). Based on above discussions, for mock samples with the LCRS survey geometry, the diagonal power spectrum $`j_1=j_2=j_3=j`$ are capable of recovering the non-linear power spectrum on scales $`j3`$, but suffers an underestimation on scales $`j3`$. This geometric effect could also be fixed by the off-diagonal power spectrum as demonstrated in next subsection.

### 4.2 Slice-like geometry and off-diagonal power spectrum

Assuming that $`j_1`$ points along the direction of declination, $`j_2`$ the R.A. and $`j_3`$ the radial or redshift direction, the modes $`(j_1,j_2,j_3)`$ which can fit with the LCRS’ slice-like geometry are $`2j_2,j_37`$ and $`4j_17`$. We use the off-diagonal power spectrum $`P_{j_1,j,j}`$ with a fixed $`j_14`$.

Figure 4 illustrates the off-diagonal DWT spectrum $`P_{5,j,j}`$ measured from subsets of the sample in a $`0.1L\times L\times L`$ slab for SCDM and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models respectively, in which redshift distortion and selection effect have not been taken into account. Clearly, it shows that the off-diagonal DWT power spectrum $`P_{5,j,j}`$ estimator is capable of reproducing the non-linear power spectrum on large scales. This power spectrum is in good agreement with the theoretical curves on large scales as $`k0.5`$ h Mpc-1.

Figure 5 plots the off-diagonal DWT spectra $`P_{4,j,j}`$ and $`P_{5,j,j}`$ in real space measured for the mock LCRS samples in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. It again shows that the systematical underestimation of the powers on large scales is significantly erased. The off-diagonal DWT spectra $`P_{5,j,j}`$ and $`P_{4,j,j}`$ can be used for recovering the non-linear power spectrum of the mass field on scales as large as $`k0.15`$ h Mpc-1.

### 4.3 Inhomogeneous effect of selection function

The purpose of introducing selection function $`\overline{n}_g(r)`$ is to eliminate the inhomogeneity and anisotropy of mean number density of galaxies caused by the sampling of the survey. That is, the distribution with uniformly mean number density of galaxies can be recovered by weighting a galaxy at radial coordinate $`x_3=r`$ by factor $`1/\overline{n}_g(r)`$.

However, the effects of selection function actually are two-fold. On the one hand, it is to eliminate the inhomogeneity of the mean number density of the galaxy distribution. On the other hand, it causes an inhomogeneity in the correlations of the power spectrum. The later can be seen from the band-band correlation in the Paper I, which showed that, if the selection function is slowly varying, the observed auto-correlation of power $`P_𝐣`$ is

$$P_𝐣P_𝐣=P_𝐣P_𝐣_I+\frac{1}{2^{2(j_1+j_2+j_3)}}\underset{l_1=0}{\overset{2^{j_1}1}{}}\underset{l_2=0}{\overset{2^{j_2}1}{}}\underset{l_3=0}{\overset{2^{j_3}1}{}}\left[\frac{1}{\overline{\overline{n}_g^2(x_3)}}+\frac{\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}^4(𝐱)}{\overline{n}_g^3(x_3)}𝑑𝐱\right],$$
(22)
where $`P_𝐣P_𝐣_I`$ is the power-power correlation before the Poisson sampling, and therefore, cyclic invariant with respect to $`(j_1,j_2,j_3)`$, i.e.

$$P_{j_1,j_2,j_3}P_{j_1,j_2,j_3}_I=P_{j_2,j_3,j_1}P_{j_2,j_3,j_1}_I=P_{j_3,j_1,j_2}P_{j_3,j_1,j_2}_I.$$
(23)
The number $`\overline{\overline{n}_g(x_3)}`$ in eq.(22) is the mean of $`\overline{n}_g(x_3)`$ in cell $`(l_1,l_2,l_3)`$. Since $`\overline{n}_g(x_3)`$ depends only on $`x_3`$, the last term in the r.h.s. of eq.(22) violates the permutation invariance. That is, the correlations $`P_{j_1,j_2,j_3}P_{j_1,j_2,j_3}`$ are on longer cyclic invariant. In other words, the probability distribution function (PDF) of $`P_𝐣`$ is anisotropic.

To estimate this effect, we calculate the off-diagonal power spectra $`P_{4j4}`$ and $`P_{44j}`$ vs. $`j`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM simulation sample in real space, and the selection function is taken to be that for the LCRS galaxies, but in plane parallel approximation. The result is shown in Fig. 6. The two spectra $`P_{4j4}`$ and $`P_{44j}`$ show some difference, which is not significant on all scales $`2j7`$ within 1-$`\sigma `$. Therefore, with the DWT estimator, the effect of the anisotropy given by the LCRS selection function can be ignored at least for the power measurement on scales similar to $`P_{4j4}`$ and $`P_{44j}`$.

### 4.4 Redshift distortion and random velocity field of galaxies

Usually, the redshift distortion is considered to have two effects on the power spectrum measurement: 1. the enhancing of power on large scales due to the linear effect of redshift distortion; 2. the suppressing of power on small scales due to the random motions of galaxies inside virialized groups and clusters of galaxies. The general theory of the two effects on the DWT power spectrum is given in Appendix. An interesting result is that the effect of the galaxy random velocity field $`𝐯(𝐱)`$ upon the power on mode $`𝐣`$ is mainly given by the power of the pairwise velocity dispersion of the same mode. Therefore, the DWT power spectrum can be employed for extracting information of the scale dependence of galaxy velocity fluctuations.

Recall that in the recovery of the real space Fourier power spectrum from redshift distorted measurement, it is usually assumed that the peculiar velocity dispersion is scale-independent. However, theory and measurement of galaxy pairwise velocity dispersion do not indicate a scale-independent, but weakly scale-dependent velocity field. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate the uncertainty caused by the assumption of the scale-independence of the velocity fluctuations.

Let’s use the plane parallel approximation. In this case, the redshift distortion is determined by the $`x_3`$-component of the galaxy velocity field, i.e. $`v_3(𝐱)`$. Subjecting $`v_3(𝐱)`$ to a DWT decomposition, we have

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{𝐣,𝐥}^V=v_3(𝐱)\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}(𝐱)𝑑𝐱.$$
(24)
The WFCs of the velocity field, $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{𝐣,𝐥}^V`$, describes the radial velocity difference with spatial separation on scale $`𝐣`$ at position $`𝐥`$. Therefore, it is the pairwise velocity on scale $`𝐣`$ at position $`𝐥`$. The redshift distorted DWT power spectrum $`P_𝐣^S`$ is approximately given by (see Appendix §A.2)

$$P_𝐣^S\frac{1}{1+S_𝐣^{}P_𝐣^V/H_0^2}P_𝐣,$$
(25)
where $`S_𝐣^{}`$ is determined by the geometry of the mode $`𝐣`$

$$S_𝐣^{}=\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}^2\left(\frac{\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}}{x_3}\right)^2𝑑𝐱,$$
(26)
and $`P_𝐣^V`$ is the power of the pairwise velocity dispersion on scale $`𝐣`$, i.e.

$$P_𝐣^V=|\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{𝐣,𝐥}^V|^2_v.$$
(27)
Therefore, comparing $`P_𝐣^S`$ with $`P_𝐣`$, we are able to determine $`P_𝐣^V`$.

As an example, we study the assumption of the scale-independence of galaxy velocity fluctuations. One can show that, if the power of pairwise velocity is scale-independent, we have

$$S_{j_1,j_2,j_3}^{}P_{j_1,j_2,j_3}^V\mathrm{const},\mathrm{for}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{fixed}j_3$$
(28)
Therefore, the scale-dependence of the velocity fluctuations can be detected by off-diagonal DWT power spectrum with a fixed $`j_3`$ (redshift direction). Figure 7 plots $`P_{4,j,4}`$ vs. $`j`$ in redshift space for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM simulation samples. It can be seen clearly from Fig. 7 that the DWT power spectrum $`P_{4,j,4}`$ in redshift space is almost parallel to the theoretical non-linear spectrum in real space. The difference between the redshift distortion suppressions of mode $`(4,2,4)`$ and $`(4,7,4)`$ is no more than a factor of 2. That is, the suppressing factor $`1/(1+S_𝐣^{})`$ const, and therefore eq.(28) approximately hold in the scale range of spectrum $`P_{4,j,4}`$. Similar results are obtained for models SCDM and $`\tau `$CDM models. The assumption of a scale independent power of the pairwise velocity seems to be reasonable at least for the DWT power spectrum of the LCRS sample.

Figure 7 also presents the off-diagonal power spectra $`P_{4,4,j}`$. Obviously, $`P_{4,4,j}`$ significantly differs from $`P_{4,j,4}`$ in both shape and amplitude of the power. Comparing to $`P_{4,j,4}`$, the amplitude of $`P_{4,4,j}`$ is enhanced on large scales and suppressed on small scales.

The difference between the spectra $`P_{4,j,4}`$ and $`P_{4,4,j}`$ in redshift space is worth while to look at. For an isotropic velocity field, $`P_{j_1,j_2,j_3}^V`$ is cyclically invariant with respect to the index $`(j_1,j_2,j_3)`$, i.e.,

$$P_{4,4,j}^V=P_{4,j,4}^V.$$
(29)
The difference between $`P_{4,4,j}`$ and $`P_{4,j,4}`$ is simply given by the geometric factors $`S_𝐣^{}`$, which are not cyclically invariant

$`S_{4,4,j}^{}`$ $`>`$ $`S_{4,j,4}^{}j>4;`$ (30)
$`S_{4,4,j}^{}`$ $`<`$ $`S_{4,j,4}^{}j<4`$
Therefore, using the difference between $`P_{4,4,j}`$ and $`P_{4,j,4}`$ in redshift space we are able to directly measure the power spectrum of galaxy velocity field, $`P_{4,4,j}^V`$ or $`P_{4,j,4}^V`$.

## 5 The DWT power spectrum of LCRS galaxies

### 5.1 The diagonal DWT power spectrum

With the preparations given in last sections, we can measure the DWT power spectrum of the LCRS galaxies. As discussed in §4.1, the diagonal power spectrum could provide a robust measurement of the non-linear power spectrum on scales of $`k>0.1`$ h Mpc-1. In Fig. 8, we present the results for the LCRS, where the diagonal DWT power spectra measured in the six slices are plotted by scatter symbols as indicated in the figure. The average value over the six strips, and over the three north as well as three south strips are also displayed by the connected lines, respectively.

Although the geometry of the six strips are actually quite different, and the filling factor is only about 0.9%, Fig. 8 indicates that the scatter of the power on scales of $`0.1<k<2`$ h Mpc-1 is rather small. Comparing with Fig. 3, we find that the scatter of the power in Fig. 8 is within the range of 1-$`\sigma `$ deviations given by the mock LCRS samples. Therefore, most of the scatters in Fig. 8 are probably from the cosmic variance. This result implies that the DWT power spectrum estimator is insensitive to the geometry of survey and filling factor. This feature allows us to directly compare the DWT power spectrum measurements from different surveys, or different region in a survey.

As indicated in Fig. 8, the DWT power spectrum is capable of probing the fluctuation power on scales as small as $`k=2`$ h Mpc-1 ($`j=7`$). This is partially because the DWT decomposition is free from the “aliasing effect” which may lead to underestimation of power on the scale of grid size (Jing 1992, Baugh & Efstathiou, 1994). At the scale $`j=6`$, the number of effective modes is $`f_sN_j2500`$ comparable to galaxy number in each slice, and thus the error bars for $`j6`$ are mainly from the Poisson noise. Even on the smallest scale $`j=7`$ the Poisson correction is still much smaller than the detected power. Therefore, the diagonal DWT power spectrum from $`k0.1`$ to 2 h Mpc-1 is qualified for model discrimination.

### 5.2 Fitting values of the bias parameter and velocity dispersion

In order to find the best values of the bias parameter and velocity dispersion, we compare the detected LCRS diagonal DWT power spectrum (Fig. 8) with the fitting spectrum in redshift space, $`P_𝐣^S`$, given by eq.(13), i.e.

$$P_𝐣^S=\frac{1}{2^{j_1+j_2+j_3}}\underset{n_1=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n_2=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n_3=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\widehat{\psi }(n_1/2^{j_1})\widehat{\psi }(n_2/2^{j_2})\widehat{\psi }(n_3/2^{j_3})|^2P^S(n_1,n_2,n_3),$$
(31)
where $`P^S(n_1,n_2,n_3)`$ is the Fourier power spectrum in redshift space. For typical CDM models, $`P^S(n_1,n_2,n_3)`$ can be taken from the fitting formula given by Peacock and Dodds (1994). It is

$$P^S(k)=b^2P_m(k)G(\beta ,k\sigma _v)$$
(32)
where $`P_m(k)`$ is the non-linear mass power spectrum in real space, $`\beta =\mathrm{\Omega }^{0.6}/b`$ is redshift distortion parameter, $`b`$ the scale-independent linear biasing parameter, $`\sigma _v`$ is 1-D peculiar velocity dispersion. $`G(\beta ,k\sigma _v)`$ describes the suppression of redshift distortion.

Exactly speaking, one cannot simply generalize eq.(13) to eq.(31), because the redshift distortion of the DWT power spectrum is different from the Fourier power spectrum. The pairwise velocity suppression of the DWT modes should be calculated based on eq.(25), rather than via the Fourier modes. Moreover, eq.(32) is given by averaging over the directions of Fourier modes, and therefore, it doesn’t match the anisotropic mode $`(j_1,j_2,j_3)`$ of eq.(31). Nevertheless, the fitting of eq.(31) will provide worth information for diagonal modes, as the power of the galaxy random velocity field is approximately scale-independent (§4.4).

We treat $`b`$ and $`\sigma _v`$ in eq.(31) as free parameters, and fit the power spectrum eq.(31) to the detected DWT power spectrum of LCRS. The result is shown in Fig. 9, in which the 1-$`\sigma `$ error bars of the observed DWT power spectrum are given by the scatter over the observed 6 slices themselves. As have been discussed in §4.1, the DWT power spectrum at large scales ($`j3`$) are underestimated due to the slice-like geometric effect. We approximately compensate this effect in the observed DWT power spectrum by using the fractional damping of amplitude calculated from the mock samples in redshift space relative to the expected values from the non-linear fitting formula (Eq.(32)) in each model respectively. The least square best fitting parameters $`b`$ and $`\sigma _v`$ for each of models are presented in Table 1.

The SCDM and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM parameter $`\beta `$ given in the Table 1 is about the same as other measurements, such as $`\beta =0.52\pm 0.13`$ for the 1.2Jy IRAS survey (Cole et al. 1995); $`\beta =0.47\pm 0.16`$ (Tadros et al. 1999) and $`\beta =0.41_{0.12}^{+0.13}`$ (Hamilton et al. 2000) for IRAS Point Source Catalog Redshift Survey (PSCz). Actually, our estimated $`\beta `$ in each CDM model is very close to the linear value $`\sigma _8\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{0.6}`$. This result is consistent with the theory of redshift distortion in the DWT presentation, which shows that the linear effect on the diagonal DWT power spectrum is about the same as that given by eq.(32) (see, Appendix §A.1.)

The 1-D velocity dispersions given in Table 1 look lower than other measurements in the LCRS galaxies. They are $`v_{12}=570\pm 80`$kms-1 (Jing et al. 1998), and $`363\pm 13`$ km s-1 (Landy, Szaley and Broadhurst 1998). Yet, the first measurement is based on a priori infall model of galaxies. In the second measurement $`v_{12}`$ is given by the width of an exponential distribution, or a Lorentzian distribution in $`k`$ space. On the other hand, $`\sigma _v`$ in eq.(31) is assumed to be the variance of a Gaussian distribution of pairwise velocity. To fit a given power suppression by Lorentzian and Gaussian distributions, $`v_{12}`$ will always be larger than $`\sigma _v`$. For instance, if the suppression factor is equal to about 3 as shown by the spectra of Fig. 7. $`v_{12}/\sigma _v`$ will be $`1.4`$. Therefore, the values of $`\sigma _v`$ given by the fitting of the SCDM and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM basically are consistent with the second measurement.

### 5.3 Off-diagonal DWT power spectrum

As an example we detected the off-diagonal spectrum $`P_{5jj}`$ of the LCRS galaxies. The result is presented in Fig. 10.

As mentioned in last section, eq.(31) cannot be used to fit with off-diagonal DWT power spectrum, as $`P^S(k)`$ is isotropic. One can expect that the fitting parameters of the spectrum eqs.(31) and (32) with an off-diagonal power spectrum would be systematically different from those of the diagonal power spectrum. This systematic difference actually contains valuable information. The best fitted spectra of $`P_{5jj}`$ for models SCDM, $`\tau `$CDM and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM are also shown in Fig. 10. The best-fitting parameters are given in Table 1, which clearly show the difference between the parameters of diagonal and off-diagonal spectrum. Now we analyze the physical meaning of the difference.

From Appendix A.1, the linear redshift distortion of spectrum $`P_𝐣`$ is determined by the factor $`\beta S_𝐣`$, where $`S_𝐣`$ is a geometric factor given by eq.(A4). The linear redshift distortion is significant on large scale. Moreover, the geometric factor satisfies

$$S_{5jj}<S_{jjj}\mathrm{for}j<5.$$
(33)
Therefore the spectrum $`P_{5jj}`$ is less affected by the linear redshift distortion than $`P_{jjj}`$. Thus, if fitting both $`P_{jjj}`$ and $`P_{5jj}`$ with the same fitting formula eq.(31), the best-fitting $`\beta `$ for $`P_{5jj}`$ will be lower than those of $`P_{jjj}`$. Table 1 shows the systematic lowering of $`\beta (P_{5jj})`$ than $`\beta (P_{jjj})`$.

The effect of galaxy pairwise velocity on spectrum $`P_𝐣`$ is determined by the power $`P_𝐣^VS_𝐣^{}`$ (Appendix A.2). If the power of pairwise velocity is approximately scale-independent, we have

$$P_{5jj}^VS_{5jj}^{}>P_{jjj}^VS_{jjj}^{}.$$
(34)
That is, the spectrum $`P_{5jj}`$ is strongly affected by the random velocity field than $`P_{jjj}`$. Thus, if fitting both $`P_{jjj}`$ and $`P_{5jj}`$ with the same fitting formula eq.(31), the best-fitting $`\sigma _v`$ for $`P_{5jj}`$ will be larger than those of $`P_{jjj}`$. This is shown in Table 1. The significant difference between the best-fitting results of $`P_{jjj}`$ and $`P_{5jj}`$ shows that the off-diagonal power spectrum has the capability of measuring the galaxy velocity field from the observational data.

## 6 Conclusions

The DWT power spectrum estimator is studied with the galaxy distributions of the Las Campanas redshift survey, and the relevant mock and simulation samples in models of the SCDM, $`\tau `$CDM and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM.

The DWT estimator for 3-D samples provide two types of spectra with respect to diagonal and off-diagonal modes, respectively. The two types of the DWT local modes have different configuration and invariance, and therefore, the diagonal and off-diagonal DWT power spectra are flexible for studying direction-dependent properties.

Using mock and simulation samples, we studied the effect of the irregular geometry of the survey, the inhomogeneity caused by the selection function, the scale-dependence of the redshift distortion due to the random velocity field of galaxies etc. To estimate the uncertainty and errors caused by these effects, the localization of the DWT modes in phase space are essential. For instance, the off-diagonal power spectra are capable of measuring the statistical features of the random velocity field of galaxies on mode $`𝐣`$, because the DWT power on mode $`𝐣`$ is mainly affected by the power of the velocity fluctuations on mode $`𝐣`$.

The DWT power spectrum from the six slices of the LCRS galaxies are very stable over the scale range $`0.06k2.0`$h Mpc-1, in spite of the fact that the filling factor of the LCRS galaxies is only about 0.9% (in comparison, SDSS’s filling factor is about 17%.) To fit the LCRS DWT power spectrum with CDM models, we find that the redshift distortion parameter $`\beta `$ and the 1-D velocity dispersion $`\sigma _v`$ are consistent with results of the Fourier power spectrum. Therefore, the DWT estimator can give a robust measurement of the banded Fourier power spectrum.

More interesting, the differences between the best-fitting parameters of LCRS’ diagonal and off-diagonal DWT power spectra are found to be significant. This shows that the redshift space behaviors of the diagonal and off-diagonal DWT power spectra are different. With the diagonal and off-diagonal DWT power spectra, we would be able to compare the pairwise velocity dispersion on different modes. Therefore, the difference between diagonal and off-diagonal power spectra would be valuable to constrain models.

LLF and YQC acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and National Key Basic Research Science Foundation. We thank anonymous referee for helpful comments.

## Appendix A Redshift distortion in the DWT representation

### A.1 Linear redshift distortion

If the density field is viewed in redshift space, the observed radial position is given by the radial velocity consisting of the uniform Hubble flow and the peculiar motion $`𝐯(𝐱)`$. In the linear regime of clustering, the effect of redshift distortion can be described by a linear mapping from density contrast $`\delta (𝐱)`$ in real space to redshift space

$$\delta ^S(𝐱)=𝐒\delta (𝐱),$$
(A1)
where $`𝐒`$ is the linear redshift distortion operator. In plane-parallel approximation, it is

$$𝐒=1+\beta \frac{^2}{x_3^2}^2,$$
(A2)
where $`\beta `$ is the redshift distortion parameter, and $`x_3`$ is on the direction of redshift.

The differential operator in eq.(A2) is quasi-diagonal when decomposed into the DWT basis (Farge et al. 1996.) Thus, similar to eqs.(2) and (3), $`\delta ^S(𝐱)`$ can be decomposed into

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_𝐣^{S,𝐥}(1+\beta S_𝐣)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_𝐣^𝐥,$$
(A3)
where the coefficient $`S_𝐣`$ is given by

$$S_𝐣=\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}(𝐱)\frac{^2}{x_3^2}^2\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}(𝐱)𝑑𝐱.$$
(A4)
This integral is independent of $`𝐥`$. For diagonal modes $`𝐣=(j,j,j)`$, we have

$$S_{jjj}=1/3.$$
(A5)
Using eqs.(5) and (6), the relation between the DWT power spectra in redshift space, $`P_𝐣^S`$ and real space $`P_𝐣`$ is given by

$$P_𝐣^S=(1+\beta S_𝐣)^2P_𝐣.$$
(A6)
For diagonal DWT power spectrum, we have

$$P_{jjj}^S=(1+\frac{1}{3}\beta )^2P_{jjj}.$$
(A7)
The redshift distortion of the Poisson correction are not considered in eqs.(6) and (7). The presice theory of the redshift distortion of the Poisson correction requires to calculate the selection function by the DWT decomposition. We will not give it here. In a rough approximation, the effect of the Poisson correction can be estimated by

$$P_𝐣^S=(1+\beta S_𝐣)^2I_𝐣^2N_𝐣=(1+\beta S_𝐣)^2(P_𝐣+N_𝐣)N_𝐣.$$
(A8)
### A.2 Effect of random velocity field

In non-linear regime of clustering, the redshift distortion generally is estimated by assuming a random velocity field $`𝐯(𝐱)`$, which describe the velocity dispersion of galaxies. The average of $`𝐯(𝐱)`$ is zero, $`𝐯(𝐱)_v=0`$, where $`\mathrm{}_v`$ is for the average over ensemble of velocity fields. The covariance of the density contrast in redshift space is then given by

$$\delta (x_1,x_2,x_3+v_3(𝐱)/H_0)\delta (x_1^{},x_2^{},x_3^{}+v_3(𝐱^{})/H_0)_v,$$
(A9)
Thus, the DWT power spectrum in redshift space is

$$P_𝐣^S=[\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_𝐣^{S,𝐥}]^2_vN_𝐣,$$
(A10)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_𝐣^{S,𝐥}=\delta (x_1,x_2,x_3+v_3(𝐱)/H_0)\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}(𝐱)𝑑𝐱.$$
(A11)
Using an auxiliary variable $`J`$, eq.(A10) can be rewritten as

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_𝐣^{S,𝐥}=𝑑𝐱\delta (x_1,x_2,x_3i\frac{\delta }{\delta J})e^{iJv_3(𝐱)/H_0}\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}(𝐱)|_{J=0}.$$
(A12)
Thus, we have

$`[\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_𝐣^{S,𝐥}]^2_v=`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱𝑑𝐱^{}\delta (x_1,x_2,x_3i\frac{\delta }{\delta J})\delta (x_1^{},x_2^{},x_3^{}i\frac{\delta }{\delta J^{}})}`$
$`e^{iJv_3(𝐱)/H_0+iJ^{}v_3(𝐱^{})/H_0}_v\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}(𝐱)\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}(𝐱^{})|_{J,J^{}=0}`$
In the lowest order of non-zero correction, we have

$`e^{iJv_3(𝐱)/H_0+J^{}v_3(𝐱^{})/H_0}_v`$
$`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2H_0^2}}[J^2v_3^2(𝐱)_v+J^{}_{}{}^{}2v_3^2(𝐱^{})_v+2JJ^{}v_3(𝐱)v_3(𝐱^{})_v]`$
In this case, the redshift distorted power spectrum is

$$P_𝐣^S=\left(1\frac{1}{H_0^2}S_𝐣^{}|\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{𝐣,𝐥}^V|^2_v\right)P_𝐣,$$
(A15)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{𝐣,𝐥}^V`$ is the WFCs of velocity field, i.e.

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{𝐣,𝐥}^V=v_3(𝐱)\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}(𝐱)𝑑𝐱.$$
(A16)
The geometry factor $`S_𝐣^{}`$ is positive, and is given by

$$S_𝐣^{}=\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}^2\left(\frac{\psi _{𝐣,𝐥}}{x_3}\right)^2𝑑𝐱$$
(A17)
When the correction term is large, we have an approximation as

$$P_𝐣^S\frac{1}{1+S_𝐣^{}|\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{𝐣,𝐥}^V|^2_v/H_0^2}P_𝐣,$$
(A18)
If the velocity field is homogeneous and isotropic, $`|\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{𝐣,𝐥}^V|^2_v`$ is $`𝐥`$-independent. It is the power of velocity fluctuations on scale $`𝐣`$, i.e.

$$P_𝐣^V=|\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{𝐣,𝐥}^V|^2_v.$$
(A19)
Thus, we have

$$P_𝐣^S\frac{1}{1+S_𝐣^{}P_𝐣^V/H_0^2}P_𝐣.$$
(A20)
Therefore, the effect of the galaxy random velocity field upon the power $`P_𝐣`$ on scales $`𝐣`$ is mainly given by the power of the $`v_3`$ fluctuations on the same scale.

Similar to eq.(A8), the redshift distortion of the Poisson correction can be estimated by

$$P_𝐣^S=\left(1\frac{1}{H_0^2}S_𝐣^{}|\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{𝐣,𝐥}^V|^2_v\right)(P_𝐣+N_𝐣)N_𝐣.$$
(A21)