# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The ESO Imaging Survey (EIS), presented in this conference , represents a unique opportunity of a large data set being made available to the community to produce all kinds of science. In particular, our working group at Brera is interested in the search for high redshift ($`z\begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}1.2`$) galaxy clusters with the EIS-wide, as well as in the subsequent study of these systems and the evolution of their properties with redshift and environment (see e.g.  and references therein). Moreover, it is needless mentioning all cosmological questions that are raised simply by the existence and number density of clusters of galaxies up to very large distances and their use as discriminant tests among different cosmological models (see e.g. N. Bahcall’s contribution in this conference).   
The finding of a reliable set of cluster candidates in this or any other catalogue produced by means of imaging data is, by itself, a preparation for the era of large telescopes such as the VLT, where we expect to perform the spectroscopic follow-up. This will, of course, confirm their real existence (and discard false chance alignments) and determine their distance/redshift. In fact, we shall have first an imaging campaign on 4m telescopes to produce photometric redshifts and to provide a first cut on individual cluster members. Large telescope time is precious, so we need to provide a list of robust candidates and this can only be accomplished if we have a highly performing cluster search method. So, up to now, this has been our main objective: develop a cluster search algorithm which gives a high success rate - that is, a high completeness level - without being overwhelmed by contamination in the form of spurious detections.   
In their pioneering work on the Palomar Distant Cluster Survey, Postman and collaborators  wrote a matched filter algorithm to identify cluster candidates by using positional and photometric data simultaneously. We have tried to improve on their algorithm, especially in the sense of disposing of the a priori assumptions that are implicit in the Postman et al. technique.   
Here we briefly describe our method, stressing the strong points and advantages of our algorithm, though leaving out the technical details, which can be found in a separate contribution by Lazzati et al. . Finally, we shall present the results obtained by applying it to the preliminary EIS data of patch A that were released late march.

## 2 Characteristics of our algorithm

We use both spatial and luminosity information in the form of a catalogue containing positions and magnitudes for all galaxies detected in patch A. What we are looking for is a spatial concentration of galaxies which also presents a luminosity distribution typical of a cluster, say a Schechter, that hopefully sticks out from the background number counts - these ones following rather a power law.   
The Postman algorithm relies on the choice of both a given cluster profile - modified Hubble - with a typical cluster size, and a typical M (corresponding to the chosen parametrization of the Schechter). Moreover, the two parameters are fixed assuming a constraining relation between them, imposed by the tentative redshift that is thus assigned to each candidate.   
Instead, in our new algorithm the spatial and luminosity part of the filter are run separately on the catalogue and we make no assumption on the typical size or typical M for clusters, as these parameters intervene in our algorithm as typical angular scale $`\sigma `$ and typical apparent magnitude m.   
For the spatial part we chose a gaussian filter (a choice that brings along all the advantages and favorable properties of the Gauss function, see ) and do not bind it to any fixed physical scale. We rather use a set of five widths - $`\sigma `$ \- for the gaussian that cover a wide range of angular dimensions on the sky (from $`0.35`$ up to $`1.42`$ arcmin by steps of $`\sqrt{2}`$), instead of fixing an intrinsic value for the core radius (r<sub>C</sub>) and a given cosmology.   
Next to the spatial filtrage, we apply a maximum-likelihood technique to assess the signal given by the luminosity of the preliminary candidates found in that first step. We use as functional form for the luminosity function a Schechter expressed in apparent magnitudes, thus avoiding the choice of an intrinsic M, and the choice of a given cosmology ($`H_0`$ and $`q_0`$) and morphological content (translated in the assumption of a given k-correction and, eventually, of an e-correction as well).   
A very important point through all the process is that we estimate the background locally for each candidate. This particular feature of our algorithm allows us to adapt well to and overcome the hazards of inhomogeneous data sets. Cluster candidates can thus be detected even in shallower regions of the catalogue. In this way, we get the $`\sigma `$ and m that independently maximize the signal with a given significance (respectively), combine these two and thus get a final probability for the detection of a cluster candidate.

Now, it is true that such a method does not allow us to produce, as a direct product and in a straightforward way, an estimate of the redshift for the cluster candidate. However, we believe that basing such an estimate on the rigid coupling of r<sub>C</sub> with M via redshift, as done in , is a drawback : not only does it bear unavoidable large uncertainties, but it also lowers the chance of detection of all candidates that do not flag a maximum likelihood at the very same redshift value simultaneously both for space and luminosity distributions. This is especially important when dealing with candidates close to the detection cutoff and knowing that the magnitude information is harder to deal with, providing less weight. Instead, our approach of combining the most probable m with the most probable $`\sigma `$, produced in an independent way, allows us to preserve those candidates, thus reaching higher completeness values. Moreover, a redshift estimate is always feasible, in the “standard” way (and again with unavoidable uncertainties), through both these quantities.

## 3 Preliminary results

Fig. 1 shows the results of our algorithm applied to both even and odd catalogues (see  for these definitions) of the EIS patch A in the I band. This surveyed area totals $`3`$ square degrees. The analysis has been limited to $`I=22.0`$ so as to avoid data incompleteness, problems of discarding double objects at the borders of the individual frames and the steeply rising uncertainties of the star/galaxy separation at fainter magnitudes. Rounds indicate the candidates we found simultaneously in both catalogues with a cutoff S/N $`\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}3`$. Our set totals $`64`$ cluster candidates. In order to assess our contamination rate we ran our algorithm on the original catalogues after shuffling galaxy positions (both in right ascension and declination) while maintaining their magnitudes. We got $`1`$ matched spurious detections in the whole patch area, which is actually a rough lower limit as it does not take into account the known angular two-point galaxy correlation function. In fig. 1 are also shown (crosses) the 21 detections obtained by , again in both catalogues and with S/N $`\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}3`$, but using the Postman et al. standard algorithm and a fainter limiting magnitude of $`I=23.0`$. Moreover, in their candidate selection, they impose a cutoff in richness which most certainly accounts, at least partly, for the lower number of detections. Notice also that the spatial distribution of our candidates seems to be somewhat more homogeneous than in , especially for $`\alpha \begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}341^{}`$.2 (even if  excluded from their analysis the upper left area, also marked in the figure). This is very likely due to our different ways of estimating the background, our local assessment providing a clear advantage over their global fit throughout the whole patch. Also, it is clear that both these works have different objectives : while we aim at obtaining a complete well-controlled sample (this being well patent in the philosophy of our algorithm), Olsen et al. are interested rather in providing reliable single candidates. And this would also contribute to us having a larger catalogue at the same cutoff, which also spans a wider range of richness classes. In common with , we detect $`11`$ candidates ($`68\%`$ of them having higher S/N in our catalogue). As for their remaining $`10`$ : (a) there are $`6`$ that we do detect but in one of the catalogues only, $`2`$ of which are flagged by Olsen et al. as “problematic” detections (see table notes in ); (b) and $`4`$ that we do not detect at all : it is quite striking that, $`2`$ of these are labeled as “no obvious galaxy density visible” by .   
Finally, we should add that, even if we adopt in this paper a cutoff of S/N $`3`$, a more reasonable value to be applied to our algorithm output would rather be $`4`$. This value lowers the total number of our matched detections to $`26`$, discarding the less rich and smaller angular sized systems. In this way, we still keep $`10`$ candidates in common with  (instead of the $`11`$ cited above) plus $`3`$ (instead of $`6`$) additional ones that we find in only one of the catalogues.

Acknowledgements.  C. Lobo acknowledges financial support by the CNAA fellowship reference D.D. n.37 08/10/1997