Draft version March 6, 2018
Preprint typeset using LATEX style emulateapj v. 5/2/11

LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION OF COSMIC VOIDS IN SIMULATIONS AND MOCKS
E. Russell
Division of Science and Mathematics, New York University Abu Dhabi, PO Box 129188, Abu Dhabi, UAE

arXiv:1612.03180v1 [astro-ph.CO] 9 Dec 2016

and
J-R Pycke
Division of Science and Mathematics, New York University Abu Dhabi, PO Box 129188, Abu Dhabi, UAE and
Laboratoire de Mathématiques et Modélisation d’Évry, Université d’Évry , PO Box 91037, Évry Cedex, France
Draft version March 6, 2018

ABSTRACT
Following up on previous studies, we here complete a full analysis of the void size distributions
of the Cosmic Void Catalog (CVC) based on three different simulation and mock catalogs; dark
matter, haloes and galaxies. Based on this analysis, we attempt to answer two questions: Is a 3parameter log-normal distribution a good candidate to satisfy the void size distributions obtained
from different types of environments? Is there a direct relation between the shape parameters of the
void size distribution and the environmental effects? In an attempt to answer these questions, we
here find that all void size distributions of these data samples satisfy the 3-parameter log-normal
distribution whether the environment is dominated by dark matter, haloes or galaxies. In addition,
the shape parameters of the 3-parameter log-normal void size distribution seem highly affected by
environment, particularly existing substructures. Therefore, we show two quantitative relations given
by linear equations between the skewness and the maximum tree depth, and variance of the void size
distribution and the maximum tree depth directly from the simulated data. In addition to this, we find
that the percentage of the voids with nonzero central density in the data sets has a critical importance.
If the number of voids with nonzero central densities reaches ≥ %3.84 in a simulation/mock sample,
then a second population is observed in the void size distributions. This second population emerges
as a second peak in the log-normal void size distribution at larger radius.
Subject headings: astronomical databases: catalogs—cosmology: large-scale structure—galaxies: clusters: intra cluster medium—methods: numerical, statistical
1. INTRODUCTION

The intricate formation of the large scale structure of
the present-day Universe is formed by an interplay between random Gaussian fluctuations and gravitational
instability. When gravitational instabilities start dominating the dynamical evolution of the matter content of
the Universe, the structure formation evolves from a linear to a highly nonlinear regime. In this framework, voids
are formed in minima and haloes are formed in maxima
of the same primordial Gaussian field, and later on these
features present different type dynamical evolutions due
to their initial conditions in the nonlinear regime. This
fact has been known since early studies that showed voids
are integral features of the Universe (Chincarini & Rood
1975; Gregory & Thompson 1978; Einasto et al 1980;
Weygaert & Platen 2011). Sheth & van de Weygaert
(2004); Russell (2013, 2014) show that the distribution
of voids can be affected by their environments. As
a result, the void size distribution may play a crucial
role to understand the dynamical processes affecting the
structure formation of the Universe (Croton et al. 2005;
Goldberg & Vogeley 2004; Hoyle et al. 2005).
The early statistical models of void probability functions (VPFs) (Fry 1986; Elizalde & Gaztanaga 1992) are
based on the counts in randomly placed cells following
the prescription of White (1979). Apart from VPFs, the
number density of voids is another key statistic to ober111@nyu.edu
jrp15@nyu.edu

tain the void distribution. Recently Pycke & Russell
(2016) show that void size distributions obtained from
the Cosmic Void Catalog (CVC) satisfy a 3-parameter
log-normal probability function. This is particularly interesting, because observations and theoretical models
based on numerical simulations of galaxy distributions
(Hamilton 1985; Coles & Jones 1991; Bernardeau 1992;
Bouchet et al. 1993; Bernardeau 1994; Kofman et al.
1994; Taylor & Watts 2000; Kayo et al. 2001) show that
the galaxy mass distribution satisfies a log-normal function rather than a Gaussian. Taking into account that
voids are integral features of the Universe, it may be expected to obtain a similar distribution profile for voids.
Apart from this, Pycke & Russell (2016) discuss a possible quantitative relation between the shape parameters
of the void size distribution and the environmental affects.
Following up on the study of Pycke & Russell (2016),
we here extend their analysis of void size distributions to
all simulated and mock samples of CVC of Sutter et al.
(2012). The three main catalogs under study are dark
matter, halo and galaxy catalogs. Therefore, we confirm that the system of 3-parameter log-normal distribution obtained by Pycke & Russell (2016) provides a
fairly satisfactory model of the size distribution of voids.
In addition to this, we obtain equations which satisfy linear relations between maximum tree depth and the shape
parameters of the void size distribution as proposed by
Pycke & Russell (2016).

2

Pycke and Russell
2. VOID CATALOG: SIMULATIONS AND MOCK DATA

Extending the study by Pycke & Russell (2016), we
here fully investigate the void size distribution function statistically in simulations and mocks catalogs of
the Public CVC of Sutter et al. (2012). It is useful to
note that all the data of CVC are used here generated
from a Λ cold dark matter (ΛCDM) N-body simulation by using an adaptive treecode 2HOT (Sutter et al.
2014a,b). In addition, in all data sets voids are identified with the modified version of the parameter-free void
finder ZOBOV (Neyrick 2008; Lavaux & Wandelt 2012;
Sutter et al. 2012). The data sets of CVC, we used here,
can be categorized into three main groups;
• Dark matter (DM) simulations are DM Full, DM
Dense and DM Sparse. Although these dark matter simulations have the same cosmological parameters from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) seven year data release (DR7)
(Komatsu et al. 2011) as well as the same snapshot at z=0, they have different tracer densities of
10−2 , 4×10−3, and 3×10−4 particles per (M pc/h)3
which are respectively DM Full, DM Dense, and
DM Sparse. Also the minimum effective void radii
Ref f,min = 5, 7 and 14 Mpc/h are obtained from
the simulations for DM Full, DM Dense and DM
Sparse respectively.
• Halo catalog in which two halo populations are generated; Haloes Dense and Haloes Sparse. In the
halo catalog the halo positions are used as tracers
to find voids. The minimum resolvable halo mass
of Haloes Dense is 1.47×1012 M⊙ /h while the minimum resolvable halo mass of Haloes Sparse data
set is 1.2 × 1013 M⊙ /h. In addition, the minimum
effective void radii of Haloes Dense and Sparse are
Ref f,min = 7, 14 Mpc/h respectively. The main
reason to construct these halo populations with different minimum resolvable halo masses is to compare the voids in halos to voids in relatively dense
galaxy environments, see Sutter et al. (2014a) for
more details.
• Galaxy catalogues; there are two galaxy mock catalogues which are produced from the above halo
catalog by using the Halo Occupation Distribution (HOD) code of Tinker et al. (2006) and the
HOD model by Zheng et al. (2007). These galaxy
mock catalogs are called HOD Dense and HOD
Sparse (Sutter et al. 2014a). The HOD Dense catalog has 9503 voids with effective minimum radii
Ref f,min = 7 Mpc/h and includes relatively highresolution galaxy samples with density 4 × 10−3
dark matter particles per cubic Mpc/h matching
the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) DR7 main
sample (Strauss et al. 2002) using one set of parameters found by Zehavi et al. (2011) (σlogM =
0.21, M0 = 6.7 × 1011 h−1 M⊙ , M1′ = 2.8 ×
1013 h−1 M⊙ , α = 1.12). The HOD Sparse mock
catalog consists of 1422 voids with 14 M pc/h effective minimum radii (Ref f,min = 14 M pc/h)
and this void catalog represents a relatively low
resolution galaxy sample with density 3 × 10−4
particles per cubic M pc/h matching the number

density and clustering of the SDSS DR9 galaxy
sample (Dawson et al. 2013) using the parameters
found by Manera et al. (2013) (σlog M = 0.596,
M0 = 1.2 × 1013 h−1 M⊙ , M1′ = 1014 h−1 M⊙ ,
α = 1.0127, and Mmin chosen to fit the mean
number density). In addition to this another mock
galaxy catalog is used here; N-body Mock catalog which is a single HOD Mock galaxy catalog
in real space at z = 0.53, generated by a dark
matter simulation of 40963 particles (with a particle mass resolution 7.36 × 1010 h−1 M⊙ ) in a 4
Gpc/h box and is tuned to SDSS DR9 in full cubic volume by using the HOD parameters found
in Manera et al. (2013) and it consists of 155, 196
voids (Sutter et al. 2014b). Although the N-body
Mock catalog is processed slightly differently than
HOD Sparse and HOD Dense, it is a HOD mock
catalog and it uses Planck first- year cosmological
parameters (Planck Collaboration 2014).
In the following section, we examine the above data sets
from a statistical perspective such as histograms, parameters of location (range, mean, median), mode or dispersion (standard deviation) and shape (skewness, kurtosis) by following the previous study of Pycke & Russell
(2016). From a statistical perspective, we also investigate the connection between the distribution and the
environment of void populations.
3. STATISTICAL PROPERTIES OF VOID DISTRIBUTIONS

As a first step, the raw data plots of void size distributions are obtained for DM Full, DM Dense, DM
Sparse, Haloes Dense and Haloes Sparse. Note that the
void size distributions for HOD Dense, HOD Sparse and
N-body mock data sets are discussed in great detail in
Pycke & Russell (2016). In the raw void size distributions, an unexpected local peak is observed around the
value 20 Mpc/h in the DM Full sample and in the DM
Dense sample around 27 Mpc/h, see Fig 1 Upper Left
and Lower Left Panels. A similar behavior is observed
by Pycke & Russell (2016) in the N-body Mock sample
around the value 50 Mpc/h.
It is crucial to mention that the samples, DM Full and
DM Dense, are high resolution data sets compare to the
samples we investigate here; DM Sparse, Haloes Dense,
Haloes Sparse. We find that the low resolution samples;
DM Sparse, Haloes Dense show single populations (see
Fig 2).
In the previous study, Pycke & Russell (2016) show
that HOD Sparse and HOD Dense samples also present
single population void size distributions. Note that our
goal is not to compare the invariant distributions in Fig 2,
but to find the reason of the emergence of the second population (Fig 1) versus single population in the void size
distributions of CVC. After analyzing the components of
the data sets, we realize that the second peak occurs due
to a second void population in the samples. We find that
in both cases, the second void population has a higher
central density than the dominant voids of the distributions which have zero central densities. Following the
same strategy of Pycke & Russell (2016) to investigate
these samples in terms of statistical properties, the second peaks in DM Full and DM Dense are excluded by
excluding the voids with nonzero central densities from

800
600
200
0
10

20

30

40

50

5

10

15

20

25

30

600
400
200
0

0

200

400

Void Frequency

600

800

Radius [Mpc/h]

800

Radius [Mpc/h]

Void Frequency

3

400

Void Frequency

600
400
0

200

Void Frequency

800

Lognormal Distribution of Cosmic Voids

10

20

30

40

50

R [Mpc/h]

10

20

30

40

Radius [Mpc/h]

Fig. 1.— Void size distributions of DM Full (Upper Panels) and DM Dense (Lower Panels) data sets. While Upper and Lower Left
panels present the peak formations due to the presence of the second void population, the Right panels show their sub-samples respectively
consisting of the void populations with only zero central density.

the data sets. Following this procedure, the new sub
samples of DM Full and DM Dense are obtained. As is
seen in Fig 1 Upper and Lower Right Panels, the data
samples present void size distributions obtained by single
void populations. Although we eliminate the second peak
to investigate these data sets in a statistical frame work,
there are two questions left to answer to understand the
occurrence of more than one void population in the void
size distributions; Why cannot we observe a second peak
in the rest of the data sets, DM Sparse, Haloes Dense,
Haloes Sparse (see, Fig 2) although all samples include
some fraction of voids with nonzero central densities?
Is it possible to find a criterion of observing two different void populations in the void size distributions due to
their central densities, particularly in the simulation and
mock data?
Here we attempt to address these questions. Taking

into account that N-body Mock, DM Full and DM Dense
are high resolution data sets, it is expected to observe
more substructures in the simulations, which leads to
the formation of two different void populations particularly in terms of central densities indicating two different void environments. We find that emerging of multiple populations in the void size distributions is directly
correlated with the number of voids with nonzero central densities, especially with the highest cental densities,
ρcent ∈ [0.2, 0.09]. Table 1 presents the total number of
voids of the samples and the percentage of voids with
nonzero central densities in the range of [0.2-0.09] which
includes the densest voids in each sample.
As is seen from Table 1 the contribution of the denser
central densities are low compared to voids with zero
central densities < 3.84% in all samples that present a
single population. What we observe is that the second

Pycke and Russell

60
0

0

20

40

Void Frequency

400
200

Void Frequency

600

80

800

4

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30

40

50

60

70

80

Radius [Mpc/h]

30
20
0

10

Void Frequency

40

50

60

R [Mpc/h]

20

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Radius [Mpc/h]

Fig. 2.— Void size distributions of Haloes Dense, Haloes Sparse and DM Sparse from Upper Right to Lower Left, respectively.

TABLE 1
Percentages of number of voids with non zero central densities ρcent in the interval [0.2, 0.09] and the total number of
voids, NT ot−voids , in each sample.
Sample
Percentages of Nvoids (ρcent ∈ [0.2, 0.09]) NTot-voids
HOD Dense
2.66
9, 503
HOD Sparse
2.65
1, 422
DM Full
5.32
42, 948
DM Dense
3.84
21, 865
DM Sparse
≈ 0.54
2, 611
Haloes Dense
3.03
11, 384
Haloes Sparse
2.65
2, 073
N-body Mock
≈5
155, 196

Lognormal Distribution of Cosmic Voids
population forms a peak in the void size distribution as
long as the percentage of voids with nonzero density ≥
3.84% in the overall data set (see Table 1). It seems
that the contribution of voids with dense central densities
to the overall void population holds an answer to the
questions of the formation of the second or even more
populations occurring in the void size distributions.
After reducing the DM Full and DM Dense samples to
a single population, we can now investigate the statistical
properties of the void size distributions;
• Mean (r):
N
1 X
ri
r=
N i=1

(1)

where N is the total number of voids and ri the
radius/size of each void in a given sample.

mk =

1
N

i=1

b1 = 0.210408(±0.03236)M T D + 0.473522(±0.1881),
(5)
2

(ri − r)k , k = 2, 3, ...

(2)

For instance m3 and m4 are related to skewness
and kurtosis, respectively but they are influenced
by the unit of measure.
• Variance m2 ; measurement of the dispersion of the
data. Using variance and the higher moments m3
and m4 , the skewness and kurtosis are formulated,
– skewness b1 ; measurement of the degree to
which a distribution is asymmetrical.
b1 =

(2016) and using the maximum tree depth values from
Sutter et al. (2014a), we here provide a simple linear relation indicating that the shape of the void size distribution is strongly correlated with the maximum tree depth
of the simulated void catalogs. Table 2 also presents
the maximum tree depth as well as the void size distribution parameters of the samples; HOD Dense, HOD
Sparse, Haloes Dense, Haloes Sparse, DM Dense and DM
Sparse. As is seen, in our computations the samples, Nbody Mock and DM Full are not taken into account since
the shape parameters of their void size distributions are
obtained after excluding the second populations in the
samples in order to provide the correlations without any
interference. Based on the maximum tree depth and the
skewness parameters of the samples from Table 2 we obtain a linear function,

R2 = 0.9337,

• Centered Moments:
N
X

5

m23
m32

(3)

– kurtosis b2 is a measurement of the degree of
the peakedness.
m4
b2 = 2
(4)
m2
(see in Johnson et al. (1994) formulas (1.235) − (1.236)
p. 51 and in Kendall & Stuart (1977) (3.85) − (3.86) p.
85). The shape parameters of the void size distributions
for each sample are presented in Table 2.
According to Table 2, all the void size distributions share the property of being significantly positively
skewed (m3 > 0) while the values of the kurtosis indicate a leptokurtic (b2 > 3) behavior. Note that a
leptokurtic type distribution is characterized by a high
degree of peakedness (see Sheskin (2011) p. 16-30 for
more details). The same result of positively skewed and
leptokurtic void size distributions is also pointed out by
Pycke & Russell (2016) for three samples of CVC.
We would like to extend and modify here the discussion from Pycke & Russell (2016) in which they propose
the maximum tree depth as an environmental indicator.
Note that Sutter et al. (2014a) define the maximum tree
depth as the length from root to tip of the tallest tree
in the hierarchy, and it indicates the amount of substructures in the most complex void in the sample. Taking one step further from the point of Pycke & Russell

here MTD refers to the maximum tree depth and R =
0.9337 is the regression of the data. According to equation 5, when the amount of substructures is high (high
MTD value), the void size distributions tend to be more
positively skewed. Also, if one obtains the maximum
tree depth of a sample, then it is possible to have a fairly
good estimation of the amount of skewness of the void
size distribution. As is seen in Fig 3, the higher the
value of MTD, the more skewed the distribution is. This
may lead to the fact that the skewness of a void size
distribution can be a good indicator of the amount of
substructures in a sample.
On the other hand, we must take into account a crucial
parameter that can affect skewness-MTD relation. This
parameter is the minimum radius-cut in the data sets.
Basically there two main density-based criteria which
are imposed at different stages of the data production
of CVC; the first threshold cut comes from ZOBOV in
which voids only include as members Voronoi cells with
density < 0.2 the mean particle density (Sutter et al.
2014a). In the second density criterion voids with mean
central densities < 0.2 the mean particle density are
included only. This is particularly an important criterion since it gives an insight about the radius cut.
Sutter et al. (2014a) gives the central density within a
sphere with radius,
1
Ref f ,
(6)
4
in which the effective radius Ref f is obtained by the following equation (Sutter et al. 2014a),
R=

Ref f =



3
4π

1/3

.

(7)

Here V stands for total void volume. Sutter et al.
(2014a) points out that they ignore voids with Ref f below the mean particle spacing of the tracer population.
As a result, this minimum radius cut constraint by the
density criteria can affect the skewness-MTD relation.
Apart from the skewness-MTD linear relation, we investigate the correlation between variance/dispersion and

6

Pycke and Russell

TABLE 2
First moments, skewness b1 , kurtosis b2 and maximum tree depth (from Sutter et al. (2014a)) of the sample distributions.
Note that the moments of the N-body Mock, DM Full and DM Dense distributions are computed for a single population.
Sample
HOD Sparse HOD Dense N-body Mock Haloes Dense
r
40.4
16.7
32.0
18.3
m2
236
40.1
96.0
52.5
m3
4, 420
386
899
567
m4
307, 000
11, 100
38, 100
19, 400
b1
1.49
2.32
0.912
2.23
b2
5.52
6.93
4.13
7.07
Merging Tree Depth
4
10
−
7
Sample
DM Dense
DM Full
Haloes Sparse DM Sparse
r
16.3
12.2
36.4
34.4
m2
24.5
24.5
178
102
m3
73.3
32.5
2, 190
596
m4
1, 970
736
127, 000
34, 600
b1
0.365
0.434
0.841
0.328
b2
3.29
3.49
3.96
3.28
Merging Tree Depth
3
−
2
0

3

DM Sparse
Halos Sparse
HOD Sparse
Halos Dense
HOD Dense

2.5

Skewness

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

2

4
6
Merging Tree Depth

8

10

Fig. 3.— Relation between skewness and maximum tree depth for DM Sparse, Haloes Dense, Haloes Sparse and HOD Sparse and HOD
Dense.

MTD. Hence, It is found that the correlation between
MTD and variance shows a distinction between Sparse
and Dense samples; see Fig 4. Because sparse data show
high dispersion by its nature, converse to the dense data,
it is an expected result to observe two main dispersions.
As is seen in Fig 4, while sparse data show a fairly good
(with high regression, R2 = 0.9938) linear relation between MTD and variance (black line Fig 4),
var(m2 )Sparse = 33.438(±2.634)M T D + 105.041(±6.801),
R2 = 0.9938,

(8)

the variance of the dense data sets do not give enough
information about the relation between MTD and dispersion (red line in Fig 4) although fitting to the dense
data points give a linear line without an error.

values as it is stated by equation (9). It seems that we
need more data points to show a direct relation between
MTD and the variance. Therefore we here cannot conclude that there is a direct relation between the variance
and the MTD of the dense data sets.
We also extend the data points in the skewness and
kurtosis plane (b1 , b2 ) given by Pycke & Russell (2016)
shown as the log-normal line observed in Fig 5. Fig 5
shows the void size distributions generated from the simulations and mock samples of CVC and these distributions can be considered to behave as log-normal distributions with respect to their skewness and kurtosis.
Extending the data sets from the previous paper of
Pycke & Russell (2016), we confirm here that the 3parameter log-normal distribution with random variable
R = LN(θ, ζ, σ),
{log(R−θ)−ζ} 2

2

var(m2 )Dense = −4.134M T D + 81.392, R = 1. (9)

This result is mathematically inconsistent since the variance of a distribution is always a positive number by its
definition. That is why variance cannot accept negative

2σ2
e−
√ ,
pθ,ζ,σ (R) =
(R − θ)σ 2π

R > θ,

(10)

fits the void size distributions obtained from the simulated and mock data sets of CVC. It is important to note

Lognormal Distribution of Cosmic Voids
300

7

DM Sparse
Halos Sparse
HOD Sparse
Halos Dense
HOD Dense

250

Variance

200
150
100
50
0
0

2

4

6

8

10

Merging Tree Depth
Fig. 4.— Relation between MTD and variance of the sparse and dense data sets.

that in this study, following up on previous paper by
Pycke & Russell (2016), we use the moment method to
obtain the fit. This method is one of the standard methods in the field of estimation. We prefer this method
to the maximum likelihood method due to the technical uncertainties and difficulties related to the maximum
likelihood method by following Johnson et al. (1994), see
page 228. In addition to this, we here do not provide the
standard goodness of fit tests, such as Anderson-Darling,
Cramér-von Mises or Kolmogorov to the data samples
of CVC for the following reasons. Sheskin (2011) cites
the study of Conover (1980, 1999) which point out that
if one employs a large enough sample size, almost any
goodness-of-fit test will result in rejection of the null hypothesis. Conover (1980, 1999) also states that if the
sample data are reasonably close to the hypothesized distribution, one can probably operate on the assumption
that the sample data provide an adequate fit for the hypothesized distribution. Taking into account the size of
the simulated and mock samples as well as the uncertainties of the construction of CVC (for example, minimumradius cuts), the moment method provides a straightforward tool to obtain the parameters of the distribution
(see the formulas of the first three sample moments in
Johnson et al. (1994), page 228).
In above distribution formula 10, a random variable R
is defined by LN(θ, ζ, σ) if log(R − θ) follows a Gaussian distribution with mean ζ and variance σ 2 given by
Johnson et al. (1994). Johnson et al. (1994) describe the
characteristics of a random variable LN(θ, ζ, σ) as,
1. range: (θ, ∞),
2

2. mode: θ + eζ−σ ,
3. median: θ + eζ ,
4. mean: θ + eζ+σ

2

/2

.

Some characteristics of a log-normal random variable as
well the relations between the shape parameters and estimators to fit the data samples are discussed in great
detail by Johnson et al. (1994). Using the above characteristics with the shape parameters as indicated by

Johnson et al. (1994), one can obtain the estimators. We
here also provide the estimators of the log-normal void
size distributions of Haloes Dense, DM Dense and DM
Full data sets in Table 3.
The estimates of the 3-parameter log-normal void size
distributions of HOD Dense, HOD Sparse and N-body
Full are given by Pycke & Russell (2016). As aforementioned, Haloes Sparse and DM Sparse samples are not
taken into account in the further analysis due to their
highly fluctuating distributions, see Fig 2. As is seen in
Table 3, θ parameters of DM Dense and DM Full samples accept negative values. On the other hand, these
negative θ values do not cause any inconsistency in the
distributions as long as R > θ. Therefore log(R − θ)
is always defined for the samples even with negative θ
values.
It seems that the 3-parameter log-normal distribution
is a natural candidate to fit the size distributions of the
void samples. Pycke & Russell (2016) already show that
HOD Dense, HOD Sparse and N-body Mock also satisfy
this 3-parameter log-normal void size distribution. The
goodness-of-fit of our model is illustrated by Fig 6 which
displays the sample histograms with the curves of the
log-normal densities whose parameters are the estimates
computed from the samples.
4. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

Here,
extending
our
previous
study
of
(Pycke & Russell 2016) to attempt to find a universal
void size distribution, we investigate the statistical
properties of the void size distribution such as the shape
parameters and their relations to the void environment
of CVC by using the moment method by following
Johnson et al. (1994). As aforementioned, the moment
method is easy to apply. Therefore, we here confirm our
previous result on the size distributions of voids which
states that the 3-parameter log-normal distribution gives
a satisfactory model of the size distribution of voids,
which is obtained from simulation and mock catalogs of
CVC; N-body Mock, DM Full, DM Dense, DM Sparse,
Haloes Dense, Haloes Sparse, HOD Sparse and HOD
Dense (see Fig 6, also Fig 3 in Pycke & Russell (2016)).
On the other hand, we should keep in mind that all the

8

Pycke and Russell

b2
8

△Halos Dense
• HOD Dense

7

6
• HOD Sparse

5

N-body •
△Halos Sparse

4

◦ DM Full
DM Sparse •⋆ DM Dense

0

1

2

3

4

b1

Fig. 5.— Kurtosis b2 versus skewness b1 parameters of the sample data in which solid red line represents the standard 3-parameter
log-normal distribution. Note that here the parameters of the N-body (Pycke & Russell 2016), DM Full and DM Dense samples are
obtained after excluding the second populations to obtain statistical properties.
TABLE 3
Estimates of the 3-parameter log-normal distributions for Haloes Dense, DM Dense and DM Full samples.
Sample HaloesDense DM Dense DM F ull (single population)
θ̂
2.67
−8.61
−5.43
ζ̂
2.65
3.20
2.85
σ̂
0.441
0.196
0.213

data sets of CVC are generated by a single N-body simulation that operates counting scales as NlogN. Therefore
the nature of these data sets may enforce us to obtain
such a unique void size distribution. At this point being critical is essential before stating that there is a universal void size distribution satisfying the 3-parameter
log-normal. As a result, a thorough investigation of the
void size distribution by using other voids catalogs to
unveil the truth beyond the relation between the shape
of the void size distribution and the void environment
has a key importance. Especially, taking into account
that Nadathur & Hotchkiss (2014) point out some prob-

lems and inconsistencies in CVC such as the identification of some overdense regions as voids in the galaxy data
of the SDSS DR7 (Abazajian et al. 2009). Processing
from the problems of the CVC, Nadathur & Hotchkiss
(2014) provide an alternative public catalogue of voids,
obtained from using an improved version of the same
watershed transform algorithm. Therefore, it is essential
to extend our analysis of void size distributions to the
catalog given by Nadathur & Hotchkiss (2014). Again,
this is particularly important to confirm whether the 3parameter log-normal void size distribution is valid in a
different void catalog. If the 3-parameter log-normal dis-

Lognormal Distribution of Cosmic Voids

Void Frequency

9

Void Frequency

3500

7000

3000

6000

2500

5000

2000

4000

1500

3000

1000

2000

500

1000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

R [Mpc/h]

30

R [Mpc/h]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

R [Mpc/h]

Void Frequency

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

5

10

15

20

25

Fig. 6.— The 3-parameter log-normal void size distributions of Haloes Dense (Upper Left Panel), DM Dense (Upper Right Panel) and
DM Full (Lower Right).

10

Pycke and Russell

tribution fits another simulated/mock void catalogues,
then this may indicate that voids have universal (redshift
independent) size distributions given by the log-normal
probability function.
Apart from this, Hamaus et al. (2014) show that void
average density profile can be represented by an empirical
function in ΛCDM N-body simulations by using ZOBOV.
This function is universal across void size and redshift.
Following this, Nadathur et al. (2015) investigate the
density profiles of voids which are identified by again using the ZOBOV in mock luminous red galaxy catalogues
from the Jubilee simulation, and in void catalogues constructed from the SDSS LRG and Main Galaxy samples.
As a result, Nadathur et al. (2015) show that the scaled
density profiles of real voids show a universal behavior
over a wide range of galaxy luminosities, number densities and redshifts. Processing from these results, there
is a possibility that the 3-parameter log-normal void size
distribution may be a universal distribution for voids in
simulated as well as real data samples. That is why, it is
critical to extend our analysis to other simulated as well
as real data sets.
We also observe that the number of nonzero and zero
void central densities in the samples have important effects on the shape of the 3-parameter log-normal void size
distributions. As is seen in Table 1 and Fig 1, if the percentage of number of nonzero central densities reaches
3.84% in a simulated or mock sample in CVC, then a
second population emerges in the void size distribution.
This second population presents itself as a second peak
in the log-normal size distribution, at larger radius.
Also, we here obtain a linear relation between the maximum tree depth and the skewness of the samples, and
this relation is given by equation 5 (see Fig 3). This
linear relation indicates that if there is a void in a simulated/mock sample with a high maximum tree depth,
then we expect more skewed log-normal distribution.
Therefore, there is a direct correlation between the void
substructure and the skewness of the void size distribution. The possibility of this relation is mentioned by
Pycke & Russell (2016). Therefore, we here confirm
that the skewness of a void size distribution is a good
indicator of void substructures in a simulated/mock sample. Aforementioned, the minimum radius cut of CVC

samples defined by two density-based criterion as given
by Sutter et al. (2014a) can affect the relation skewnessMTD. The minimum radius cut of CVC is particularly
important because it may not only affect the resulting
skewness of the data sets but also other shape parameters of the void size distributions, which can violate the
confirmation of the log-normal distribution of the samples. That is why, it is important to study raw samples
to understand the effect of the minimum radius-cut.
In addition to skewness-MTD linear relation, another
linear correlation is obtained between the maximum tree
depth and the variance of the sparse samples of CVC
(see equation 8). As is seen from Fig 4, sparse samples
with high maximum tree depth tend to be more dispersed
than a sparse sample with lower maximum tree depth.
On the other hand, although we obtain a linear relation
between the maximum tree depth and the variance of the
dense samples (see equation 9), due to the lack of dense
samples with merging tree depth, this relation does not
provide enough information to define a relation between
these parameters (see Fig 4, red dotted line). But it is obvious that the relation between maximum tree depth and
variance shows two different behaviors for the sparse and
the dense samples. This is an expected result since variance is the indicator of dispersion by definition. While
sparse samples are highly dispersed with high variance
values, the dense samples are expected to show lower
variance/dispersion than the sparse samples. These relations indicate that there is a direct correlation between
the shape parameters of the void size distribution such as
skewness, variance and the void substructures. Our next
goal is to address the following questions: Is it possible to
relate the shape parameters of the void size distribution
to the environment in real data samples? Do the shape
parameters change in time, indicating the dynamical evolution of the void size distribution? Is the 3-parameter
log-normal void size distribution universal?

The authors would like to thank Paul Sutter and his
team for constructing and sharing the Cosmic Void Catalog. All void samples used here can be found in folder
void catalog: 2014.06.08 at http://www.cosmicvoids.net.

REFERENCES
Abazajian, K. N. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543
Bernardeau, F. 1992, ApJ, 392, 1
Bernardeau, F. 1994, A&A, 291, 697
Bouchet, F. R., Strauss, M. A., & Davis, M. et al. 1993, ApJ, 417,
36
Chincarini G., & Rood H. J. 1975, Nature, 257, 294
Coles, P., & Jones, B. 1991, MNRAS, 248, 1
Conover, W. J. 1980, Practical nonparametric statistics, 2nd Ed.,
New York, NY., John Wiley & Sons
Conover, W. J. 1980, Practical nonparametric statistics, 3rd Ed.,
New York, NY., John Wiley & Sons
Croton, D. J., Farrar, G. R., & Norberg, P. et al. 2005, MNRAS,
356, 1155
Dawson, K. S. et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 10
Einasto, J., Joeveer, M., & Saar E. 1980, Nature, 283, 47
Elizalde, E., & Gaztanaga, E. 1992, MNRAS, 254, 247
Fry, J. N. 1986, ApJ, 306, 358
Goldberg, D. M., & Vogeley, M. S. 2004, ApJ, 605, 1
Gregory S. A., & Thompson L. A. 1978, ApJ, 222, 784
Hamilton, A. J. S. 1985, ApJ, 292, L35

Hamaus, N., Sutter, P. M., & Wandelt, B. D. 2014, Physical
Review D, 112, 25
Hoyle, F., Rojas, R. R., Vogeley, M. S., & Brinkmann, J. et al.
2005, ApJ, 620, 618
Johnson, N.L, Kotz, S, & Balakrishnan, N. 1994, Continuous
Univariate Distributions, Vol. 1 (2nd ed; Wiley)
Kayo, I., Taruya, A., & Suto, Y. 2001, ApJ, 561, 22
Kendall, M., & Stuart, A. 1977, The advanced theory of
statistics. Vol 1: Distribution Theory, 2nd Ed., (New York,
NY., Macmillan)
Kofman, L., Bertschinger, E., Gelb, J. M., Nusser, A., & Dekel,
A. 1994, ApJ, 420, 44
Komatsu, E. et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18
Lavaux, G., & Wandelt, B. D. 2012, ApJ, 754, 109
Manera, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1036
Neyrinck, M. C. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 2101
Nadathur, S.,& Hotchkiss, S. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1248
Nadathur, S. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3997
Planck Collaboration, 2014, A&A, 571, A19
Russell, E. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3525
Russell, E. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1630

Lognormal Distribution of Cosmic Voids
Pycke, J.-R., & Russell, E. 2016, ApJ, 821, 110
Sheth, R. K., & van de Weygaert, R. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 517
Sheskin, D. J. 2011, Handbook of parametric and nonparametric
statistical procedures (Boca Raton: FL, CRC Press)
Strauss, M. A. 2002, AJ, 124, 1810
Sutter, P. M., Lavaux, G., Wandelt, B. D., & Weinberg, D. H.
2012, ApJ, 761, 44
Sutter, P. M., Lavaux, G., Hamaus, N., Wandelt, B. D.,
Weinberg, D. H., & Warren, M. S., 2014, MNRAS, 462, 471

11

Sutter, P. M., Lavaux, G., Wandelt, B. D., Weinberg, D. H.,
Warren, M. S., & Pisani, A., 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3127
Taylor, A. N., & Watts, P. I. R. 2000, MNRAS, 314, 92
Tinker, J. L., Weinberg, D. H., & Zheng, Z., 2006, MNRAS, 368,
85
van de Weygaert R., & Platen E. 2011, International Journal of
Modern Physics Conference Series, 1, 41
White, S. D. M. 1979, MNRAS, 186, 145
Zehavi, I. et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 59
Zheng, Z., Coil, A. L., & Zehavi, I. 2007, ApJ, 667, 760

