 between the different components are relatively mild and the corresponding (linear) correlation coefficients typically take values around $0.1$–$0.3$. Choosing the hybrid model of the LF, for instance, the bulk flow measured in both bins is consistent with zero within $1.5\sigma$ if we adopt the usual confidence levels of multivariate normally distributed data with three degrees of freedom. Surprisingly, the bulk flow amplitudes associated with the estimated components in this case are $v_{B}\approx 490\pm 100$ and $580\pm 80$ expressed in units of km s$^{-1}$, where the errors are purely statistical and relatively small. Despite these rather large values, the recovered flows correspond to detections at the $1.5\sigma$ level. The reason is that the distribution of amplitudes does not follow a Gaussian, but has a long tail and is closely related to the $\chi^{2}$-distribution. The estimated flows are pointing toward $(l,b)\approx (310^{\circ},-25^{\circ})\pm (30^{\circ},10^{\circ})$ and $(310^{\circ},5^{\circ})\pm (10^{\circ},15^{\circ})$ in Galactic coordinates for the first and second redshift bin, respectively. Note that changing the cosmological parameters to [param[\_]{}planck]{} or using the other LF models yields basically the same results.

![image](fig5.eps){width="0.88\linewidth"}

As for the comparison of our flow measurements with the mock catalog results, we point out that the simple NYU-VAGC mocks are not only built and analyzed with a slightly different cosmological model, but also ignore any redshift dependence of the peculiar velocity field which is assumed at $z=0$ (see section \[section3b\]). For typical choices of cosmological parameters and the redshift range of interest, this amounts to small differences $\ltsim 3$% and can, therefore, be ignored in our analysis. Another concern is that fixing the linear evolution as described in section \[sectionnum\] causes a bias in the flow components since the monopole-like term $Q(z)$ might leak in through the mask. To ensure that this is not the case, we plot the inferred components for both redshift bins against the estimate of the parameter $Q_{0}$ in figure \[fig5\]. A brief visual inspection of the scatter already indicates that there is no evidence for a correlation between these quantities. This is confirmed by calculating the linear correlation coefficients which turn
between the different components are relatively mild and the corresponding (analogue) correlation coefficient coefficient typically take values around $ 0.1$–$0.3$. Choosing the hybrid mannequin of the LF, for instance, the bulk flow measure in both bin is consistent with zero within $ 1.5\sigma$ if we adopt the usual confidence level of multivariate normally distributed data with three degree of exemption. Surprisingly, the bulk flow amplitude associated with the estimated component in this case are $ v_{B}\approx 490\pm 100 $ and $ 580\pm 80 $ expressed in units of kilometer s$^{-1}$, where the errors are purely statistical and relatively little. Despite these rather bombastic values, the recovered flows correspond to detections at the $ 1.5\sigma$ grade. The reason is that the distribution of amplitudes does not follow a Gaussian, but has a long stern and is closely related to the $ \chi^{2}$-distribution. The estimated flows are pointing toward $ (l, b)\approx (310^{\circ},-25^{\circ})\pm (30^{\circ},10^{\circ})$ and $ (310^{\circ},5^{\circ})\pm (10^{\circ},15^{\circ})$ in Galactic coordinates for the first and second redshift bin, respectively. Note that deepen the cosmological parameters to [ param[\_]{}planck ] { } or use the early LF models yields basically the same results. 

! [ image](fig5.eps){width="0.88\linewidth " } 

 As for the comparison of our flow measurements with the mock catalog results, we point out that the childlike NYU - VAGC mocks are not only built and analyzed with a slightly different cosmologic model, but also ignore any redshift addiction of the peculiar speed field which is assumed at $ z=0 $ (see section \[section3b\ ]). For typical choices of cosmologic parameters and the redshift range of sake, this amounts to small differences $ \ltsim 3$% and can, therefore, be neglect in our analysis. Another business is that fixing the linear evolution as described in section \[sectionnum\ ] cause a bias in the stream components since the monopole - comparable term $ Q(z)$ might leak in through the mask. To ensure that this is not the case, we plot the deduce components for both red shift bins against the estimate of the parameter $ Q_{0}$ in figure \[fig5\ ]. A abbreviated visual inspection of the scatter already indicates that there is no evidence for a correlation between these measure. This is confirmed by calculating the linear correlation coefficients which turn
 behween the different compunents are relajicely mmld and the corfesponding (linear) correlatioi cowfficuents typically take vxlues arolnd $0.1$–$0.3$. Choowing rhe hybrid model on the PF, fmc instance, the nulk flow maasured in botv cius is consistent with zero within $1.5\sidma$ if ee adopt the usuwl cpgfidsnce levels of multivariate normalmy distgibuted data with three degrees of freedom. Durpgisingly, the bulk vlow amplitoses qssociated wkth the esuikated compknents in this case are $v_{B}\approb 490\pm 100$ and $580\pm 80$ ezpeesdgd in units if km s$^{-1}$, where the errors dre purrly statisticak aid rwlatively small. Despive these rather largg values, tve recovered flows xoerespmnd do ddrecgiohs af the $1.5\digja$ level. Tge reason iw that the distribuuiog of amplitudea does njt follow a Gaussian, but has a long tain ahd is closely related ti the $\chi^{2}$-distribution. The estiiated flows are pointing toward $(l,b)\approx (310^{\circ},-25^{\circ})\[m (30^{\cicc},10^{\zire})$ and $(310^{\zurf},5^{\circ})\pm (10^{\circ},15^{\circ})$ in Galactic coordinates for ege fprst and second rcdshift bin, respecyigeki. Note that chxnging ths cosmological parwmeters to [pqram[\_]{}planch]{} or using the other LF models tields basiccllt the same results.

![nmage](fig5.eps){wndth="0.88\limewidyh"}

As for the comparison of kur flow mewsurementa with the mock cxtakoc results, we point out thae the sim'le NVU-VAGC mucks are njt only bullt akg analyzed with a dlighjly dixferent codmological model, but also ignorx any redshifj dapetdence oy the ieculiar velociey field which is assbmed ag $z=0$ (see sebtion \[secvion3b\]). For ty[ical choices lf cosmologiral paramqterw ane the rdashift range og interesn, uhis amounrs to small differcnces $\mtsim 3$% and can, cketwfore, be ignorrd kn jug aialysyv. Another cotcerv ir that fixing the uinesr evolution as descsibes in section \[sectipnkum\] causew a bias in the flow vomponents since tje moiopole-uike yeri $Q(z)$ might leak in through the mask. To fnsmre that this is kot jhe case, we plot the inferred components for both cedshift bins against jhe estimate of the pcrsmeter $Q_{0}$ in figuwe \[fig5\]. A trief visual inspectuon of the scattev already indicates thzt these is no evidence for a correlation between these quantities. This is confirmed by calculating ths limear borxelction cjeffmcments which turn
between the different components are relatively mild corresponding correlation coefficients take values around of LF, for instance, bulk flow measured both bins is consistent with zero $1.5\sigma$ if we adopt the usual confidence levels of multivariate normally distributed data three degrees of freedom. Surprisingly, the bulk flow amplitudes associated with the estimated in case $v_{B}\approx 100$ and $580\pm 80$ expressed in units of km s$^{-1}$, where the errors are purely statistical relatively small. Despite these rather large values, the flows correspond to detections the $1.5\sigma$ level. The reason that distribution of does follow Gaussian, but has long tail and is closely related to the $\chi^{2}$-distribution. The estimated flows are pointing toward $(l,b)\approx (310^{\circ},-25^{\circ})\pm and $(310^{\circ},5^{\circ})\pm Galactic coordinates the and redshift bin, respectively. changing the cosmological parameters to [param[\_]{}planck]{} other LF models yields basically the same results. As for comparison of our flow measurements with mock catalog results, we point out that the NYU-VAGC mocks are not only built and analyzed with a slightly different cosmological model, but any redshift dependence of peculiar velocity field is at (see \[section3b\]). For choices of cosmological parameters and the redshift range of interest, this to small differences $\ltsim 3$% and can, therefore, be ignored analysis. concern is that the linear evolution as in \[sectionnum\] causes a bias flow since $Q(z)$ leak through the mask. To that this is not the we plot the inferred against the estimate of the parameter $Q_{0}$ in \[fig5\]. A brief visual inspection of the already indicates that there is no evidence for a correlation between these This is calculating the linear correlation coefficients which turn
 between the different componEnts are relAtiveLy mIld AnD the CorrEsponding (lineaR) CorrElation coefficients typIcallY tAKe vaLUeS arouNd $0.1$–$0.3$. ChoosINg THE hyBrId ModEl OF tHe LF, fOr iNstance, The bulk floW meAsUred in both biNS iS consistenT wiTh zero within $1.5\SigMa$ if we AdOpt THe usuAl cOnfidEnce leVEls of mUltivariaTe NOrmallY DistribUTEd Data With three degrees oF FrEEdom. SurprisingLy, the bUlK FlOW AmpLitUdes associAtEd witH The estiMAtED COmpONents in this caSe are $v_{B}\apprOX 490\pm 100$ And $580\pm 80$ eXpResSEd in unIts of Km S$^{-1}$, WheRe the errors Are pUrely statIsticaL And relaTIvely smAll. DesPitE thEse rAThEr LarGe VAluES, tHe rECovEred flowS cOrRespoNd to DETECtioNs aT the $1.5\Sigma$ Level. The reasoN is That THe dIstriButioN of aMpLitudEs does Not foLlOw a Gaussian, but hAs a lOng tail anD is ClOseLy RelatED to the $\Chi^{2}$-DisTributiOn. The esTImaTeD FLOwS are pointing toward $(L,b)\APPrOx (310^{\circ},-25^{\ciRc})\pm (30^{\ciRC},10^{\cIrC})$ And $(310^{\circ},5^{\cIrC})\pm (10^{\Circ},15^{\CIRc})$ in GAlacTIc CoordinaTes for THe FiRst and sEcOnd redShIft Bin, RespeCTiveLy. Note That chanGing tHE cosmological pARameters to [parAM[\_]{}pLANcK]{} Or usIng The other LF mOdelS YielDs baSIcAllY The saMe resUlTS.

![iMAge](fig5.eps){width="0.88\linewIdTh"}

As foR the cOmparison of ouR flow measuREMEnts with The mOCk CAtalog results, wE poinT out that thE Simple NYu-VAGC Mocks are Not only buILT and analYzeD wiTh a SliGHTlY different cosMOLogiCaL model, bUt aLso ignoRe aNy rEdsHifT dEpendence Of the pecUlIaR vElOciTy fieLD which is AsSumEd At $z=0$ (See seCTion \[seCtion3B\]). For TyPiCAl cHoices oF CoSMOlogIcAl ParaMetErS and tHe reDShiFt range Of interesT, thIS amoUnTs To small Differences $\ltSiM 3$% and can, theReForE, be ignOREd in our aNalysis. Another concern is THat fixiNg tHe linEar eVolution aS deScribeD in SEction \[SectioNnum\] cAuSes A BIas in THE fLow CoMponents siNCE thE monoPoLe-liKe term $Q(Z)$ might leak in througH The Mask. To ensure tHat This IS NoT thE CaSE, we PlOT thE INferred componenTs for both rEdSHiFt bins agaiNSt tHe EstimatE of the pArameTEr $Q_{0}$ in fiGure \[fig5\]. A bRief visuaL iNspeCTIon Of the scattEr alreadY indicateS That tHErE is no EviDence fOr A coRrelaTion beTWeeN thesE quantItIes. ThiS is coNfIrmed by cAlculating the linear corrElatioN coefFicIents whicH tuRN
 between the different com ponents ar e rel ati vel ymild  and  the correspon d ing(linear) correlation c oeffi ci e ntst yp icall y takev al u e s a ro un d $ 0. 1 $– $0.3$ . C hoosing  the hybri d m od el of the LF ,  f or instanc e,the bulk flo w m easure dinb oth b ins  is c onsist e nt wit h zero wi th i n $1.5 \ sigma$i f  w e ad opt the usual con f id e nce levels ofmultiv ar i at e nor mal ly distrib ut ed da t a witht hr e e deg r ees of freedo m. Surprisi n gly , thebu lkf low am plitu de s  as sociated wi th t he estima ted co m ponents in this  caseare  $v _{B} \ ap pr ox49 0 \pm 10 0$a nd$580\pm80 $expre ssed i n unit s o f km  s$^{ -1}$, where t heerro r s a re pu relystat is tical  and r elati ve ly small. Despi te t hese rath erla rge  v alues ,  the r eco ver ed flow s corre s pon dt o de tections at the $1 .5 \ s ig ma$ leve l. The re as o n is tha tthe  dis t r ibuti on o f  a mplitude s does no tfollowaGaussi an , b uthas a long  tailand is c losel y  related to th e  $\chi^{2}$-d i st r i bu t ion.  Th e estimated  flo w s ar e po i nt ing towar d $(l ,b ) \a p prox (310^{\circ},- 25 ^{\cir c})\p m (30^{\circ} ,10^{\circ } ) $  and $(3 10^{ \ ci r c},5^{\circ})\ pm (1 0^{\circ}, 1 5^{\circ })$ i n Galact ic coordi n a tes forthe  fi rst  an d se cond redshift b in,re spectiv ely . Notetha t c han gin gthe cosmo logicalpa ra me te rsto [p a ram[\_]{ }p lan ck ]{}  or u s ing th e oth er L Fmo d els  yields ba s i call yth e sa mere sults .

! [ ima ge](fig 5.eps){wi dth = "0.8 8\ li newidth "}

As for th ecomparison  o f o ur flo w measurem ents with the mock cata l og resu lts , wepoin t out tha t t he sim ple NYU-VA GC moc ks ar enot o nly b u i lt  an danalyzed w i t h a  slig ht ly d ifferen t cosmological mod e l,but also igno reanyr e ds hif t  d e pen de n ceo f  the peculiar v elocity fi el d  w hich is as s ume dat $z=0 $ (seesecti o n \[sec tion3b\]) . For typ ic al c h o ice s of cosmo logicalparameter s  andt he  reds hif t rang eofinter est, t h isamoun ts tosm all di ffere nc es $\lts im 3$% and can, therefo re, be  igno red  in our a nal y sis . Another  con cern is th atfix ing t hel inear  evo l ut ion as de scri b ed in sec t io n \ [ s ec tionnum\] c a u s esa bia s i n  the f lowcomponents sincet he monopole-li ke t e r m $ Q(z ) $ mi gh t leak in thro ugh  t h e  mask. T oensure that  this is  n o t the  case,  we pl ot thei n fe r red co mpon ent s for bot h r ed s hift bi ns  a g ainstthees timate  of th e  par a m eter $Q_{0}$ infigur e \[fig 5 \].  A br ie f visua l  ins pection of  the scatte r alre adyindic ates th at  there  is  n o evidence for a cor relat ion bet we en t hes e quan titi e s . Thi s is  c onf irmed byc a lc u la ti n g t he l inear  c orre lation co e fficient s w h ich tur n
 between_the different_components are relatively mild_and the_corresponding_(linear) correlation_coefficients_typically take values_around $0.1$–$0.3$. Choosing_the hybrid model of_the LF, for_instance,_the bulk flow measured in both bins is consistent with zero within $1.5\sigma$ if_we_adopt the_usual_confidence_levels of multivariate normally distributed_data with three degrees of_freedom. Surprisingly,_the bulk flow amplitudes associated with the estimated_components_in this case_are $v_{B}\approx 490\pm 100$ and $580\pm 80$ expressed in_units of km s$^{-1}$, where the_errors are purely_statistical_and_relatively small. Despite these_rather large values, the recovered flows_correspond to detections at the $1.5\sigma$_level. The reason is that the distribution_of amplitudes does not follow a_Gaussian, but has a long_tail and_is closely related to the_$\chi^{2}$-distribution. The estimated_flows are_pointing toward $(l,b)\approx_(310^{\circ},-25^{\circ})\pm (30^{\circ},10^{\circ})$ and $(310^{\circ},5^{\circ})\pm (10^{\circ},15^{\circ})$ in_Galactic coordinates for_the first and second redshift bin,_respectively._Note that changing_the_cosmological_parameters to_[param[\_]{}planck]{} or using_the_other LF_models_yields basically the same results.

![image](fig5.eps){width="0.88\linewidth"}

As for_the_comparison of our flow measurements with the_mock catalog results, we_point_out that the simple_NYU-VAGC mocks are not only_built and analyzed with a slightly_different cosmological_model, but_also ignore any redshift dependence of the peculiar velocity field which_is assumed at $z=0$ (see section_\[section3b\]). For typical choices_of cosmological_parameters_and the redshift_range_of interest,_this amounts to small differences $\ltsim 3$%_and can,_therefore, be ignored in our analysis._Another concern is that_fixing_the linear evolution as described in_section \[sectionnum\] causes a bias in_the flow components since the_monopole-like_term_$Q(z)$ might leak in through_the mask. To ensure that this_is not the_case, we plot the inferred components for_both_redshift bins against the estimate of_the_parameter $Q_{0}$ in figure \[fig5\]. A_brief_visual_inspection of the scatter already_indicates that there is no evidence_for a correlation between these quantities. This is confirmed_by calculating the_linear correlation coefficients which turn