1: %\documentclass[10pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,psfig]{article}
3: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6:
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10:
11: \title{Measuring Dark Energy with Gamma-Ray Bursts and Other Cosmological Probes}
12:
13: \author{F. Y. Wang and Z. G. Dai}
14: \affil{Department of Astronomy, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China}
15:
16: \and
17:
18: \author{Zong-Hong Zhu}
19: \affil{Department of Astronomy, Beijing Normal University,
20: Beijing 100875, China}
21:
22: \altaffiltext{}{E-mails: wfytxh2002@gmail.com (FYW), dzg@nju.edu.cn
23: (ZGD), zhuzh@bnu.edu.cn (ZHZ)}
24:
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: It has been widely shown that the cosmological parameters and dark
28: energy can be constrained by using data from type-Ia supernovae (SNe
29: Ia), the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy, the baryon
30: acoustic oscillation (BAO) peak from Sloan Digital Sky Survey
31: (SDSS), the X-ray gas mass fraction in clusters, and the linear
32: growth rate of perturbations at $z=0.15$ as obtained from the 2dF
33: Galaxy Redshift Survey. Recently, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) have also
34: been argued to be promising standard candles for cosmography. In
35: this paper, we present constraints on the cosmological parameters
36: and dark energy by combining a recent GRB sample including 69 events
37: with the other cosmological probes. First, we find that for the
38: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology this combination makes the constraints
39: stringent and the best fit is close to the flat universe. Second, we
40: fit the flat Cardassian expansion model and find that this model is
41: consistent with the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. Third, we present
42: constraints on several two-parameter dark energy models and find
43: that these models are also consistent with the $\Lambda$CDM
44: cosmology. Finally, we reconstruct the dark energy equation-of-state
45: parameter $w(z)$ and the deceleration parameter $q(z)$. We see that
46: the acceleration could have started at a redshift from
47: $z_T=0.40_{-0.08}^{+0.14}$ to $z_T=0.65_{-0.05}^{+0.10}$. This
48: difference in the transition redshift is due to different dark
49: energy models that we adopt. The most stringent constraint on $w(z)$
50: lies in the redshift range $z\sim0.3-0.6$.
51: \end{abstract}
52:
53: \keywords{gamma rays: bursts --- cosmology: theory}
54:
55: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
56: The traditional cosmology has been revolutionized by modern
57: observational techniques in distant Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia)
58: (Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999), cosmic microwave
59: background (CMB) fluctuations (Bennett et al. 2003; Spergel et al.
60: 2003, 2006), and large-scale structure (LSS) (Tegmark et al. 2006).
61: These observations suggest that the composition of the universe may
62: consist of an extra component such as dark energy or the equations
63: governing gravity may need a variation to explain the acceleration
64: of the universe at the present epoch.
65:
66: SNe Ia have been considered as astronomical standard candles and
67: used to measure the geometry and dynamics of the universe. However,
68: since it is difficult to observe SNe Ia at redshift $z\gtrsim 1.7$,
69: this measurement has been carried out only for the $z\lesssim 1.7$
70: universe. Recently, it was shown that GRBs may be complementary to
71: the SN cosmology for three reasons. First, GRBs are the most
72: powerful explosive events at cosmological distances and in
73: particular long-duration GRBs originate from the core collapse of
74: massive stars. So GRBs would be detectable out to very high
75: redshifts when the core collapse of the first stars occur (Ciardi \&
76: Loeb 2000; Lamb \& Reichart 2000; Bromm \& Loeb 2002, 2006). In
77: fact, the farthest burst detected so far is GRB 050904, which is at
78: $z=6.295$ (Kawai et al. 2006). Thus, GRBs could provide a much
79: longer arm for measuring changes in the slope of the Hubble diagram
80: than do SNe Ia. Second, gamma-ray photons suffer from no dust
81: extinction when they propagate to us, so the observed gamma-ray flux
82: is a direct measurement of the prompt emission energy. Third, there
83: have been extensive discussions on relations between the spectral
84: and temporal properties and some of these relations have been shown
85: to be promising standard candles for cosmography. Schaefer (2003)
86: derived the luminosity distances of 9 GRBs with known redshifts by
87: using two quantities (the spectral lag and the variability) as
88: luminosity calibrators and gave a constraint on the mass density
89: $\Omega_M$. Ghirlanda et al. (2004a) found a tight relation between
90: collimation-corrected energy $E_{\gamma}$ and the local-observer
91: peak energy $E_{p}^{'}$ (i.e., the so-called Ghirlanda relation).
92: This relation may be physically understood as due to the viewing
93: angle effect of an annular jet (Levinson \& Eichler 2005) or
94: Comptonization of the thermal radiation flux that is advected from
95: the base of an outflow (Rees \& \& M\'esz\'aros 2005; Thompson et
96: al. 2006). Assuming that some physical explanation (e.g., the
97: understandings mentioned above) comes into existence, Dai, Liang \&
98: Xu (2004) used the Ghirlanda relation to constrain the cosmological
99: parameters and dark energy. Since then, a lot of work in this
100: so-called {\em GRB cosmology} field has been published (Ghirlanda et
101: al. 2004b; Di Girolamo et al. 2005; Firmani et al. 2005; Friedman \&
102: Bloom 2005; Lamb et al. 2005; Liang \& Zhang 2005, 2006; Xu, Dai \&
103: Liang 2005; Wang \& Dai 2006a; Li et al. 2006; Su et al. 2006;
104: Schaefer 2007; Wright 2007). Very recently, Schaefer (2007) used 69
105: GRBs and five relations to build the Hubble diagram out to $z=6.60$
106: and discussed the properties of dark energy in several dark energy
107: models. He found that the GRB Hubble diagram is consistent with the
108: concordance cosmology. Besides SNe Ia and GRBs, the other
109: observations such as the shift parameter of CMB (Spergel et al.
110: 2003, 2006), the baryon acoustic peak from Sloan Digital Sky Survey
111: (SDSS) (Eisenstein et al. 2005), the X-ray gas mass fraction in
112: clusters (Allen et al. 2004), the perturbation growth rate from 2dF
113: Galaxy Redshift Survey (Hawkins et al. 2003), and the weak lensing
114: (e.g., Schimd et al. 2007) have been used to constrain cosmological
115: parameters and explore the properties of dark energy.
116:
117: It is of growing interest that dark energy is reconstructed in a
118: model-independent way to investigate the evolution of the
119: deceleration parameter $q(z)$ and the dark-energy equation-of-state
120: parameter $w(z)$ (Alam et al. 2004; Virey et al. 2005; Gong \& Wang
121: 2007; Alam et al; 2007). Evolving dark energy models had been shown
122: to satisfy the data from SNe Ia. To reconstruct $q(z)$ and $w(z)$,
123: Gong \& Wang (2007) used the new ``Gold" sample of SNe and data of
124: SDSS and CMB, while Alam et al. (2007) adopted the new ``Gold" SN
125: sample, the SNLS sample, and data of SDSS and CMB. It is found that
126: the result is strongly dependent on the matter density $\Omega_{M}$.
127: The transition redshift $z_T\sim0.2$ was found in reconstruction of
128: $q(z)$ (Virey et al. 2005; Shapiro \& Turner 2006; Gong \& Wang
129: 2006). Previous investigations in the construction of $w(z)$ show
130: that the stringent constraint on $w(z)$ is in the redshift range
131: $z\sim0.2-0.5$ (Alam et al. 2004; Gong \& Zhang 2005).
132:
133: In this paper we use GRBs and the other observational data to
134: measure the cosmological parameters and the nature of dark energy.
135: We also reconstruct $q(z)$ and $w(z)$ out to $z>6.0$ using these
136: observational datasets, explore the transition redshift and
137: constrain $w(z)$. Recently, Su et al. (2006), Li et al. (2006), and
138: Wright (2007) combined GRBs with some other cosmological probes to
139: constrain the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, the constant $w$ model, and
140: the dark energy model of $w(z)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$ (where $a$ is the scale
141: factor of the universe), respectively. In their papers, these
142: authors adopted the distance modulus and its error (of a GRB)
143: calculated for the concordance cosmology or the dynamical dark
144: energy model of $w(z)=-1.31+1.48z$, which were presented by Schaefer
145: (2007). In addition, Li et al. (2006) used the Markov Chain Monte
146: Carlo technique to carry out global fitting. Here we use the
147: observational data (e.g., time lag, variability, spectral peak
148: energy $E_{\rm peak}$, minimum rise time) of GRBs to make a
149: simultaneous fit of five correlations in any given cosmology, and
150: consider more other cosmological probes and more dark energy models.
151: The structure of this paper is arranged as follows: in section 2, we
152: introduce GRBs and the other cosmological probes and describe our
153: analytical methods. The constraints on the cosmological parameters
154: and dark energy are presented in section 3. In section 4, we
155: reconstruct $w(z)$ and $q(z)$. In sections 5, we summarize our
156: findings and present a brief discussion.
157:
158: \section{Observational data and Analysis Methods}\label{sec:analysis}
159: \subsection{Type Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia)}
160: Riess et al. (2004) reanalyzed the SN Ia dataset. They considered 14
161: new high-redshift events observed by the Hubble Space Telescope
162: (HST). This led to a sample known as the ``Gold" sample containing
163: 157 SNe Ia. Recently, Riess et al. (2007) added $25$ SNe Ia to this
164: sample. The final sample now consists of $182$ SNe Ia. The
165: observations of SNe Ia provide the currently most direct way of
166: probing the dark energy at low-to-medium redshifts because the used
167: luminosity distance is directly related to the expansion history of
168: the universe, that is,
169: \begin{equation}
170: d_{L}=\left\{
171: \begin{array}{l}
172: \displaystyle
173: cH_{0}^{-1}(1+z)(-\Omega_{k})^{-1/2}\sin[(-\Omega_{k})^{1/2}I]
174: \phantom{sssssssssssssssss} \Omega_{k}<0, \\
175: \displaystyle cH_{0}^{-1}(1+z)I
176: \phantom{sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss}
177: \Omega_{k}=0,\\
178: \displaystyle
179: cH_{0}^{-1}(1+z)\Omega_{k}^{-1/2}\sinh[\Omega_{k}^{1/2}I]
180: \phantom{ssssssssssssssssssssssss}\, \Omega_{k}>0,\\
181: \end{array} \right.
182: \label{eqn:fc:}
183: \end{equation}
184: where
185: \begin{equation}
186: \Omega_{k}=1-\Omega_{M}-\Omega_{DE},
187: \end{equation}
188: \begin{equation}
189: I=\int_{0}^{z}dz/E(z),
190: \end{equation}
191: \begin{equation}
192: E(z)=[(1+z)^{3}\Omega_{M}+f(z)\Omega_{DE}+(1+z)^{2}\Omega_{k}]^{1/2},
193: \end{equation}
194: \begin{equation}
195: f(z)=\exp\left[3\int_{0}^{z}\frac{(1+w(z'))dz'}{(1+z')}\right],
196: \end{equation}
197: where $w(z)$ is the equation-of-state parameter for dark energy and
198: $d_{L}$ is the luminosity distance. With $d_{L}$ in units of
199: megaparsecs, the predicted distance modulus is
200: \begin{equation}
201: \mu=5\log(d_{L})+25.
202: \end{equation}
203: The likelihood functions for the parameters $\Omega_{M}$ and
204: $\Omega_{DE}$ can be determined from $\chi^{2}$ statistics,
205: \begin{equation}
206: \chi^{2}(H_{0},\Omega_{M},\Omega_{DE})=\sum_{i=1}^{N}
207: \frac{[\mu_{i}(z_{i},H_{0},\Omega_{M},\Omega_{DE})-\mu_{0,i}]^{2}}
208: {\sigma_{\mu_{0,i}}^{2}+\sigma_{\nu}^{2}},
209: \end{equation}
210: where $\sigma_{\nu}$ is the dispersion in the supernova redshift
211: (transformed to distance modulus) due to a peculiar velocity,
212: $\mu_{0,i}$ is the observed distance modulus, and
213: $\sigma_{\mu_{0,i}}$ is the uncertainty in the individual distance
214: modulus. The confidence regions in the $\Omega_{M}-\Omega_{DE}$
215: plane can be found through marginalizing the likelihood functions
216: over $H_{0}$ (i.e., integrating the probability density
217: $p\propto\exp(-\chi^2/2)$ for all values of $H_{0}$).
218:
219: \subsection{Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs)}
220: GRBs can be detected out to very high redshifts (Ciardi \& Loeb
221: 2000; Lamb \& Reichart 2000; Bromm \& Loeb 2002, 2006). They can
222: bridge up the gap between the nearby SNe Ia and the distant CMB
223: anisotropy. Schaefer (2007) complied 69 GRBs to make simultaneous
224: uses of five luminosity indicators, which are relations of
225: $\tau_{\rm lag}-L$, $V-L$, $E_{\rm peak}-L$, $E_{\rm
226: peak}-E_{\gamma}$, and $\tau_{\rm RT}-L$. Here the time lag
227: ($\tau_{\rm lag}$) is the time shift between the hard and soft light
228: curves, $L$ is the luminosity of a GRB, the variability $V$ of a
229: burst denotes whether its light curve is spiky or smooth and $V$ can
230: be obtained by calculating the normalized variance of an observed
231: light curve around a smoothed version of that light curve (Fenimore
232: \& Ramirez- Ruiz 2000), $E_{\rm peak}$ is the peak energy in the
233: $\nu F_{\nu}$ spectrum, $E_{\gamma}=(1-\cos\theta_j)E_{\rm iso}$ is
234: the collimation-corrected energy of a GRB, and the minimum rise time
235: ($\tau_{\rm RT}$) in the gamma-ray light curve is the shortest time
236: over which the light curve rises by half of the peak flux of the
237: pulse. We make a simultaneous fit to these five relations for any
238: fixed cosmology. We perform a linear regression analysis to find a
239: relation between observational quantities. After obtaining the
240: distance modulus of each burst using one of these relations, we use
241: the same method as Schaefer (2007) to calculate the real distance
242: modulus,
243: \begin{equation}
244: \mu_{\rm fit}=(\sum_i \mu_i/\sigma_{\mu_i}^2)/(\sum_i
245: \sigma_{\mu_i}^{-2}),
246: \end{equation}
247: where the summation runs from $1-5$ over the relations with
248: available data, $\mu_i$ is the best estimated distance modulus from
249: the $i$-th relation, and $\sigma_{\mu_i}$ is the corresponding
250: uncertainty. The uncertainty of the distance modulus for each burst
251: is
252: \begin{equation}
253: \sigma_{\mu_{\rm fit}}=(\sum_i \sigma_{\mu_i}^{-2})^{-1/2}.
254: \end{equation}
255: Fig.1 shows the Hubble diagram from the new ``Gold" SNIa sample and
256: 69 GRBs. The combined Hubble diagram is consistent with the
257: concordance cosmology. GRBs can build the Hubble diagram out to
258: $z>6.0$ (Schaefer 2007). The GRB Hubble diagram is well-behaved and
259: describes the shape of the Hubble diagram at high redshifts. When
260: calculating constraints on cosmological parameters and dark energy,
261: we do not care about the slopes of the five relations because we
262: have marginalized these parameters (Schaefer 2007). The
263: marginalization method is to integrate over some parameter for all
264: of its possible values. We also marginalize the nuisance parameter
265: $H_{0}$. The $\chi^2$ value is
266: \begin{equation}
267: \chi^{2}(H_{0},\Omega_{M},\Omega_{DE})=\sum_{i=1}^{N}
268: \frac{[\mu_{i}(z_{i},H_{0},\Omega_{M},\Omega_{DE})-\mu_{{\rm
269: fit},i}]^{2}}{\sigma_{\mu_{{\rm fit},i}}^{2}},
270: \end{equation}
271: where $\mu_{{\rm fit},i}$ and $\sigma_{\mu_{{\rm fit},i}}$ are the
272: fitted distance modulus and its error.
273:
274: \subsection{Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)}
275: Observations of the CMB anisotropy provide us with very accurate
276: measurements, which may be used to gain insight about dark energy
277: and cosmological parameters (Spergel et al. 2006). We may make use
278: of the 3-year WMAP results to get the shift parameter (Wang \&
279: Mukherjee 2006)
280: \begin{equation}
281: \label{shift}
282: \mathcal{R}=\frac{\sqrt{\Omega_M}}{\sqrt{|\Omega_k|}}{\rm
283: sinn}\left(\sqrt{|\Omega_k|}\int_{0}^{z_{\rm
284: ls}}\frac{dz}{E(z)}\right)=1.70\pm 0.03,
285: \end{equation}
286: where $E(z) \equiv H(z)/H_0$ and the function ${\rm sinn}(x)$ is
287: defined as ${\rm sinn}(x) = \sin(x)$ for a closed universe, ${\rm
288: sinn}(x) = \sinh(x)$ for an open universe and ${\rm sinn}(x) = x$
289: for a flat universe. To calculate the last scattering redshift
290: $z_{\rm ls}$, we adopt $\Omega_b h^2=0.024$ and $\Omega_{M}h^2 =0.14
291: \pm 0.02$. To calculate $z_{\rm ls}$, we consider a fitting
292: function:
293: \begin{equation}
294: z_{\rm ls}=1048[1+0.00124 (\Omega_{b}h^2)^{-0.738}][1+g_1
295: (\Omega_{M}h^2)^{g_2}],
296: \end{equation}
297: where the quantities $g_1$ and $g_2$ are defined as $
298: g_1=0.078(\Omega_b h^2)^{-0.238} [1+39.5 (\Omega_b
299: h^2)^{0.763}]^{-1}$ and $g_2=0.56 [1+21.1 (\Omega_b
300: h^2)^{1.81}]^{-1}$ respectively (Hu \& Sugiyama 1996). The $\chi^2$
301: value is
302: \begin{equation}
303: \chi^{2}_{\rm CMB}=\frac{(\mathcal{R}-1.70)^2}{0.03^2}.
304: \end{equation}
305:
306: \subsection{Baryon Acoustic Peak from SDSS}
307: It is well known that the acoustic peaks in the CMB anisotropy power
308: spectrum can be used to determine the properties of perturbations
309: and to constrain cosmological parameters and dark energy (Spergel et
310: al. 2003). The acoustic peaks occur because the cosmic perturbations
311: excite sound waves in the relativistic plasma of the early universe
312: (Peebles \& Yu 1970; Holtzmann 1989). Because the universe has a
313: fraction of baryons, the acoustic oscillations in the relativistic
314: plasma would be imprinted onto the late-time power spectrum of the
315: nonrelativistic matter (Peebles \& Yu 1970; Eisenstein \& Hu 1998).
316: The acoustic signatures in the large-scale clustering of galaxies
317: can also be used to constrain cosmological parameters and dark
318: energy by detection of a peak in the correlation function of
319: luminous red galaxies in the SDSS (Eisenstein et al. 2005). This
320: peak can provide a ``standard ruler" with which the cosmological
321: parameters and dark energy are measured. We use the value
322: \begin{equation}
323: A = \frac{\sqrt{\Omega_{M}}}{z_1}
324: \left[\frac{z_1}{E(z_1)}\frac{1}{|\Omega_k|} {\rm sinn}^2
325: \left(\sqrt{|\Omega_k|}\int_0^{z_1}\frac{dz}{E(z)}\right)\right]^{1/3},
326: \end{equation}
327: measured from the SDSS data to be $A=0.469(0.95/0.98)^{-0.35}\pm
328: 0.017$, where $z_1 = 0.35$. The $\chi^2$ value is
329: \begin{equation}
330: \chi^{2}_{\rm BAO}=\frac{(A-0.469)^2}{0.017^2}.
331: \end{equation}
332:
333: \subsection{X-ray Gas Mass Fraction in Clusters}
334: Since clusters of galaxies are the largest virialized systems in the
335: universe, their matter content is thought to provide a sample of the
336: matter content of the universe. A comparison of the gas mass
337: fraction, $f_{\rm gas} = M_{\rm gas} / M_{\rm tot}$, as inferred
338: from X-ray observations of clusters of galaxies to the cosmic baryon
339: fraction can provide a direct constraint on the density parameter of
340: the universe $\Omega_M$ (White et al. 1993). Moreover, assuming the
341: gas mass fraction is constant in cosmic time, Sasaki (1996) showed
342: that the $f_{\rm gas}$ measurements of clusters of galaxies at
343: different redshifts also provide an efficient way to constrain other
344: cosmological parameters decribing the geometry of the universe. This
345: is based on the fact that the measured $f_{\rm gas}$ values for each
346: cluster of galaxies depend on the assumed angular diameter distances
347: to the sources as $f_{\rm gas} \propto (D^A)^{3/2}$. The true,
348: underlying cosmology should be the one which makes these measured
349: $f_{\rm gas}$ values invariant with redshift (Sasaki 1996; Allen at
350: al. 2004). Using the {\it Chandra} observational data, Allen et al.
351: (2004) have got the $f_{\rm gas}$ profiles for the 26 relaxed
352: clusters. These authors used the 26-cluster data to constrain
353: cosmological parameters. They found $\Omega_{M} =
354: 0.245^{+0.040}_{-0.037}$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda} =
355: 0.96^{+0.19}_{-0.22}$ in the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. This database
356: has also been used to constrain the generalized Chaplygin gas model
357: (Zhu 2004) and the braneworld cosmology (Zhu and Alcaniz 2005). We
358: will combine this probe in our analysis. Following Allen et al.
359: (2004), we calculate the $\chi^2$ value as
360: \begin{eqnarray}
361: \chi^2_{\rm gas}& =& \left( \sum_{i=1}^{26} \frac{\left[f_{\rm
362: gas}^{\rm SCDM}(z_{\rm i})- f_{\rm gas,\,i}
363: \right]^2}{\sigma_{f_{\rm gas,\,i}}^2}\nonumber \right)
364: \end{eqnarray}
365:
366: \begin{eqnarray}
367: +\left(\frac{\Omega_{\rm b}h^2-0.0233}{0.0008} \right)^2
368: +\left(\frac{h-0.72} {0.08} \right)^2+\left(\frac{b-0.824} {0.089}
369: \right)^2,
370: \end{eqnarray}
371: where $f_{\rm gas}^{\rm
372: SCDM}(z)=b\Omega_b/[(1+0.19\sqrt{h})\Omega_M]\times [d_A^{\rm
373: SCDM}(z)/d_A^{\rm mod}(z)]^{1.5}$, $f_{{\rm gas},i}$ is the
374: observational baryon gas mass fraction and $b$ is a bias factor
375: motivated by gas-dynamical simulations which suggest that the baryon
376: fraction in clusters is slightly lower than for the universe as a
377: whole.
378:
379: \subsection{Perturbation Growth Rate from 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey}
380: The clustering of galaxies is determined by the initial mass
381: fluctuations and their evolution. We can set constraints on the
382: initial mass fluctuations and their evolution by measuring the
383: galactic two-point correlation function. The 2dF galaxy redshift
384: survey measured the two point correlation function at the redsift of
385: $z=0.15$. Hawkins et al. (2003) measured the redshift distortion
386: parameter $\beta=0.49\pm0.09$. This result can be combined with the
387: linear bias parameter ${\bar b}=1.04\pm0.11$. So the growth factor
388: $g$ at $z= 0.15$ is $g={\bar b}\times \beta=0.51\pm0.11$.
389: Theoretically, this growth factor is cosmology-dependent. Thus, the
390: measurement of the perturbation growth rate (PGR) $g(z=0.15)$ can be
391: used to calculate $\chi^{2}$:
392: \begin{equation}
393: \chi^{2}_{\rm PGR}=\frac{(g-0.51)^2}{0.11^2},
394: \end{equation}
395: which constrains the cosmological parameters and dark energy.
396:
397:
398: \section{Constraints on Cosmological Parameters and Dark Energy}
399: Using the datasets of the above observational techniques, we measure
400: cosmological parameters and dark energy. We can combine these probes
401: by multiplying the likelihood functions. The total $\chi^2$ value is
402: \begin{equation}
403: \chi^2_{\rm total}=\chi^2_{\rm SN}+\chi^2_{\rm GRB}+\chi^2_{\rm
404: CMB}+\chi^2_{\rm BAO}+\chi^2_{\rm gas}+\chi^2_{\rm PGR}
405: \end{equation}
406:
407: \subsection{The $\Lambda$CDM Cosmology}
408: The luminosity distance in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW)
409: cosmology with mass density $\Omega_M$ and vacuum energy density
410: (i.e., the cosmological constant) $\Omega_\Lambda$ is (Carroll,
411: Press \& Turner 1992)
412: \begin{eqnarray}
413: d_L & = & c(1+z)H_0^{-1}|\Omega_k|^{-1/2}{\rm
414: sinn}\{|\Omega_k|^{1/2}\nonumber
415: \\ & & \times
416: \int_0^zdz[(1+z)^2(1+\Omega_Mz)-z(2+z)\Omega_\Lambda]^{-1/2}\}.
417: \end{eqnarray}
418: We use the datasets discussed above to constrain cosmological
419: parameters. Fig.2 shows the $1\sigma$ contours plotting in the
420: $\Omega_{M}-\Omega_{\Lambda}$ plane. The thick black line contour
421: from all the datasets shows $\Omega_{M}=0.27\pm0.02$ and
422: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73\pm0.08$ ($1\sigma$) with $\chi^{2}_{\rm
423: min}=270.60$. The red contour shows a constraint from 69 GRBs, and
424: for a flat universe, we measure $\Omega_M=0.34_{-0.10}^{+0.09}$
425: ($1\sigma$), which is consistent with Schaefer (2007). Because the
426: thin solid line in Fig.2 represents a flat universe, our result from
427: all the datasets favors a flat universe.
428:
429: \subsection{The Cardassian Expansion Model}
430: The Cardassian expansion models (Freese \& Lewis 2002) involve a
431: modification of the Friedmann equation, which allows an acceleration
432: in a flat, matter-dominated cosmology. We assume that the Cardassian
433: expansion model is (Freese \& Lewis 2002; Zhu et al. 2004)
434: \begin{equation}
435: H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}(\rho+C\rho^n).
436: \end{equation}
437: This modification may arise from embedding our observable universe
438: as a (3+1)-dimensional brane in extra dimensions or the
439: self-interaction of dark matter. The luminosity distance in this
440: model is
441: \begin{equation}
442: d_{L}=cH_{0}^{-1}(1+z)\int_{0}^{z}dz[(1+z)^{3}\Omega_{M}
443: +(1-\Omega_{M})(1+z)^{3n}]^{-1/2}.
444: \end{equation}
445: Fig.3 shows constraints on $\Omega_{M}$ and $n$. The solid contours
446: are obtained from all the datasets. From this figure, we have
447: $\Omega_{M}=0.28\pm0.02$ and $n=0.02^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$ at the
448: $1\sigma$ confidence level with $\chi^2_{\rm min}=272.52$. This
449: result is consistent with the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology.
450:
451:
452: \subsection{The $w(z)=w_{0}$ Model}
453: We consider an equation of state for dark energy
454: \begin{equation}
455: w(z)=w_{0}.
456: \end{equation}
457: In this dark energy model, the luminosity distance for a flat
458: universe is (Riess et al. 2004)
459: \begin{equation}
460: d_{L}=cH_{0}^{-1}(1+z)\int_{0}^{z}dz[(1+z)^{3}\Omega_{M}+(1-\Omega_{M})
461: (1+z)^{3(1+w_{0})}]^{-1/2}
462: \end{equation}
463: Fig.4 shows the constraints on $w_{0}$ versus $\Omega_{M}$ in this
464: dark energy model from all the datasets. From this figure, we have
465: $\Omega_{M}=0.31\pm0.03$ and $w_{0}=-0.95^{+0.16}_{-0.13}$
466: ($1\sigma)$ with $\chi^2_{\rm min}=272.23$.
467:
468:
469: \subsection{Two-Parameter Dark Energy Models}
470: Using the parameterization
471: \begin{equation}
472: w(z)=w_{0}+\frac{w_{1}z}{1+z},
473: \end{equation}
474: the luminosity distance is calculated by (Chevallier \& Polarski
475: 2001; Linder 2003)
476: \begin{equation}
477: d_{L}=cH_{0}^{-1}(1+z)\int_{0}^{z}dz[(1+z)^{3}\Omega_{M}
478: +(1-\Omega_{M})(1+z)^{3(1+w_{0}+w_{1})}e^{-3w_{1}z/(1+z)}]^{-1/2}.
479: \end{equation}
480: Fig.5 shows the constraints on $w_{0}$ versus $w_{1}$ in this dark
481: energy model. The solid contours are obtained from all the datasets
482: and we find $\chi^{2}_{\rm min}=273.25$,
483: $w_{0}=-1.08_{-0.32}^{+0.20}$ and $w_{1}=0.84_{-0.82}^{+0.40}$
484: ($1\sigma$) for the prior of $\Omega_{M}=0.30$. We also assume this
485: prior in the following analysis.
486:
487: Jassal, Bagla and Padmanabhan (2004) modified the above
488: parameterization as
489: \begin{equation}
490: w(z)=w_{0}+\frac{w_{1}z}{(1+z)^2}.
491: \end{equation}
492: This equation can model a dark energy component which has a similar
493: value at lower and higher redshifts. The luminosity distance is
494: \begin{equation}
495: d_{L}=cH_{0}^{-1}(1+z)\int_{0}^{z}dz[(1+z)^{3}\Omega_{M}
496: +(1-\Omega_{M})(1+z)^{3(1+w_{0})}e^{3w_{1}z^{2}/2(1+z)^{2}}]^{-1/2}.
497: \end{equation}
498: Constraints on $w_{0}$ and $w_{1}$ are presented in Fig.6. From this
499: figure, we find $\chi^{2}_{\rm min}=272.07$,
500: $w_{0}=-1.36_{-0.48}^{+0.38}$ and $w_{1}=3.32_{-2.82}^{+2.28}$
501: ($1\sigma$) from all the datasets (blue contour).
502:
503:
504: The third dark energy model that we consider is (Alam et al. 2003)
505: \begin{equation}
506: w(z)=\frac{1+z}{3}\frac{A_1+2A_2(1+z)}{\Omega_{DE}(z)}-1,
507: \end{equation}
508: where $\Omega_{DE}(z)$ is defined as
509: \begin{equation}
510: \Omega_{DE}(z)=A_1(1+z)+A_2(1+z)^2+1-\Omega_M-A_1-A_2.
511: \end{equation}
512: Fig.7 shows the constraints on $A_{1}$ versus $A_{2}$ in this dark
513: energy model. The solid contours are obtained from all the datasets
514: and we find $\chi^{2}_{\rm min}=273.95$,
515: $A_{1}=-0.43_{-1.08}^{+0.96}$ and $A_{2}=0.22_{-0.32}^{+0.29}$
516: ($1\sigma$).
517:
518:
519: \section{Reconstruction of $w(z)$ and $q(z)$}\label{recs}
520: Many dark energy models have been proposed (Copeland et al. 2006;
521: Bludman 2006 for a recent review) and we have fitted these models
522: using the observational data in the last section. We now explore the
523: properties of dark energy in a model-independent way (Sahni et al.
524: 2006 for a review). In the following we reconstruct dark energy to
525: find new information about dark energy from most of the recent
526: datasets. The method to reconstruct directly properties of dark
527: energy from observations in a quasi-model independent method has
528: been discussed (Alam et al. 2004; Gong \& Wang. 2007; Alam et al.
529: 2007). We determine the dark energy equation of state based on
530: \begin{equation}
531: w(z)=\frac{\frac{2}{3}(1+z)\frac{d\ln
532: H}{dz}-1}{1-\Omega_{M}H^{-2}(1+z)^3}.
533: \end{equation}
534: The deceleration parameter
535: \begin{equation}
536: q(z)=(1+z)H^{-1}\frac{dH}{dz}-1.
537: \end{equation}
538: We consider the first ansatz
539: \begin{equation}
540: H(z)=H_{0}[(1+z)^{3}\Omega_{M}+(1-\Omega_{M})(1+z)^{3(1+w_{0}
541: +w_{1})}e^{-3w_{1}z/(1+z)}]^{1/2}],
542: \end{equation}
543: which is in fact equivalent to the parameterization equation (24).
544: The evolution of $w(z)$ is plotted in Fig.8. It is easy to see that
545: the errors of the constraint on the equation of state become larger
546: with redshift. The stringent constraint on $w(z)$ happens at
547: $z=0.3\sim0.7$. Using the GRB data, we can reconstruct $w(z)$ out to
548: $z\sim6.0$ in the bottom panel. The evolution of $q(z)$ is plotted
549: in Fig.9. We can see that the transition redshift at which the
550: expansion of the universe was from deceleration $(q(z)>0)$ to
551: acceleration $(q(z)<0)$ is $z_{T}=0.57_{-0.07}^{+0.08}$ ($1\sigma$).
552: This result is consistent with Riess et al. (2004) and Wang \& Dai
553: (2006a, 2006b).
554:
555:
556: We consider the second ansatz
557: \begin{equation}
558: H(z)=H_{0}[(1+z)^{3}\Omega_{M}+(1-\Omega_{M})(1+z)^{3(1+w_{0})}
559: e^{3w_{1}z^{2}/2(1+z)^{2}}]^{1/2},
560: \end{equation}
561: which is in fact equivalent to the parameterization equation (26).
562: The evolution of $w(z)$ is plotted in Fig.10. The stringent
563: constraint on $w(z)$ happens at $z=0.2\sim0.35$. Using the GRB data,
564: we can reconstruct $w(z)$ out to $z\sim6.0$ in the bottom panel. We
565: find that the constraint on $w(z)$ is also stringent around
566: $z=4.0\sim5.0$. The evolution of $q(z)$ is plotted in Fig.11. We can
567: see that the transition redshift is $z_T=0.40_{-0.08}^{+0.14}$
568: ($1\sigma$).
569:
570:
571: We consider the third ansatz
572: \begin{equation}
573: H(z)=H_{0}[(1+z)^{3}\Omega_{M}+A_1(1+z)+A_2(1+z)^2+1-\Omega_M-A_1-A_2]^{1/2},
574: \end{equation}
575: which is in fact equivalent to the parameterization equation (28).
576: The evolution of $w(z)$ is plotted in Fig.12. The stringent
577: constraint on $w(z)$ happens at $z=0.35\sim0.55$. Using the GRB
578: data, we can reconstruct $w(z)$ out to $z\sim6.0$ in the bottom
579: panel. We find that the constraint on $w(z)$ becomes stringent
580: around $z\sim6.0$. The evolution of $q(z)$ is plotted in Fig.13.
581: >From this figure, we can see that the transition redshift is
582: $z_T=0.65_{-0.05}^{+0.10}$ ($1\sigma$).
583:
584: \section{Conclusions and Discussion}\label{discussion}
585: In this paper, we have presented the constraints on the cosmological
586: parameters and dark energy by combining a recent GRB sample
587: including 69 events with the 182 SNe Ia, CMB, BAO, the X-ray gas
588: mass fraction in clusters and the linear growth rate of
589: perturbations at $z=0.15$ as obtained from the 2dF galaxy redshift
590: survey. We found that the mass density of the universe is
591: $\Omega_{M}=0.27\pm0.02$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73\pm0.08$
592: ($1\sigma$) in the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. This result is well
593: consistent with a flat universe. We also found that
594: $\Omega_{M}=0.28\pm0.02$ and $n=0.02^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$ ($1\sigma$) in
595: the flat Cardassian expansion model. We fitted several dark energy
596: models. Finally, we reconstructed the dark energy equation-of-state
597: parameter $w(z)$ and the deceleration parameter $q(z)$. We found
598: that the the cosmic acceleration could have started between the
599: redshift $z_T=0.40_{-0.08}^{+0.14}$ and $z_T=0.65_{-0.05}^{+0.10}$
600: ($1\sigma$). The stringent constraints on $w(z)$ lie in the redshift
601: range $z\sim0.3-0.6$.
602:
603: Based on our analysis, it can be seen that the preferred
604: cosmological model is the flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology because of a
605: small minimum $\chi^2$ value, $\chi^2_{\rm min}=270.60$. The other
606: models such as the Cardassian expansion model, the flat constant $w$
607: model, and three two-parameter dark energy models can also fit all
608: the datasets because the minimum $\chi^2$ values in these models
609: vary only from $\chi^2_{\rm min}=272.23$ to $\chi^2_{\rm
610: min}=273.95$. Thus, we cannot reject any of these models.
611:
612: It is well known that the cosmological constant suffers from the
613: ``fine tuning" problem and the coincidence problem (Zeldovich 1968;
614: Weinberg 1989). In this paper, therefore, we have considered
615: alternative possibilities, e.g., the Cardassian expansion model, the
616: flat constant $w$ model, and three two-parameter dark energy models.
617: As we have shown, all the alternative models can be reduced to the
618: flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology at the $1\sigma$ confidence level. So
619: one needs more new observed data to distinguish between these
620: models. New observations would be expected to improve the current
621: constraints and test the flat $\Lambda$CDM model. GRBs appear to be
622: natural events to study the universe at very high redshifts. The
623: forthcoming GLAST will accumulate more GRB data, and in particular,
624: its combination with {\em Swift} would lead to stronger constraints
625: on high-redshift properties of dark energy.
626:
627:
628: \acknowledgments We thank the referee for his/her detailed and very
629: constructive suggestions that have allowed us to improve our
630: manuscript. This work is supported by the National Natural Science
631: Foundation of China (grants 10221001 and 10640420144) and the
632: Scientific Research Foundation of Graduate School of Nanjing
633: University(for FYW). ZHZ acknowledges support from the National
634: Natural Science Foundation of China, under Grant No. 10533010, and
635: SRF for ROCS, SEM of China.
636:
637:
638:
639:
640:
641: \begin{thebibliography}{43}
642: \bibitem{alam03} Alam, U., Sahni, V., Saini, T. D., \& Starobinsky, A. A. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1057
643: \bibitem{alam04} Alam, U., Sahni, V., Saini, T. D., \& Starobinsky, A. A. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 275
644: \bibitem{alam} Alam, U., Sahni, V., \& Starobinsky, A. A. 2007, JCAP, 0702, 011
645: \bibitem{allen} Allen, S. W., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 457
646: \bibitem{bennett} Bennett, C. L., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 1
647: \bibitem{Bludman} Bludman, S. 2006, astro-ph/0605198
648: \bibitem{bromm} Bromm, V., \& Loeb, A. 2002, ApJ, 575, 111
649: \bibitem{bromm06} Bromm, V., \& Loeb, A. 2006, ApJ, 642, 382
650: \bibitem{carroll} Carroll, S. M., Press, W. H., \& Turner, E. L. 1992, ARA\&A, 30, 499
651: \bibitem{cheva} Chevallier, M., \& Polarski, D. 2001, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 10, 213
652: \bibitem{cird} Ciardi, B., \& Loeb, A. 2000, ApJ, 540, 687
653: \bibitem{Coh} Copeland, E. J., Sami, M., \& Tsujikawa, S. 2006, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 15, 1753
654: \bibitem{dai04} Dai, Z. G., Liang, E. W. \& Xu, D. 2004, ApJ, 612, L101
655: \bibitem{di} Di Girolamo, T., et al. 2005, JCAP, 04, 008
656: \bibitem{sdss} Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 560
657: \bibitem{Eist} Eisenstein, D. J., \& Hu, W. 1998, ApJ, 496, 605
658: \bibitem{Feni} Fenimore, E. E. \& Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2000, astro-ph/0004176
659: \bibitem{Firmani} Firmani, C., Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., \& Avila-Reese, V. 2005, MNRAS, 360, L1
660: \bibitem{Freeze} Freese, K., \& Lewis, M. 2002, Phys. Lett. B, 540, 1
661: \bibitem{friedman} Friedman, A. S. \& Bloom, J. S. 2005, ApJ, 627, 1
662: \bibitem{ghir1} Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., \& Lazzati, D. 2004a, ApJ, 616, 331
663: \bibitem{ghir2} Ghirlanda, G., et al. 2004b, ApJ, 613, L13
664: \bibitem{gong} Gong, Y. G., \& Wang, A. Z. 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 75, 043520
665: \bibitem{gw} Gong, Y. G. \& Zhang, Y. Z. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 043518
666: \bibitem{Haw} Hawkins, E. et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 78
667: \bibitem{Holtzmann} Holtzmann, J. A. 1989, ApJS, 71, 1
668: \bibitem{hu} Hu, W., \& Sugiyama. 1996, ApJ, 471, 30
669: \bibitem{jassal} Jassal, H. K., Bagla, J. S., \& Padmanabhan, T. 2004, MNRAS. 356, L11
670: \bibitem{Kawai} Kawai, N. et al. 2006, Nature, 7081, 184
671: \bibitem{lamb00} Lamb, D. Q., \& Reichart, D. E. 2000, ApJ, 536, 1
672: \bibitem{lamb05} Lamb, D. Q., et al. 2005, astro-ph/0507362
673: \bibitem{Le} Levinson, A. \& Eichler, D. 2005, ApJ, 629, L13
674: \bibitem{Li} Li, H., et al. 2006, astro-ph/0612060
675: \bibitem{liang05} Liang, E. W., \& Zhang, B. 2005, ApJ, 633, 611
676: \bibitem{liang06} Liang, E. W., \& Zhang, B. 2006, MNRAS, 369, L37
677: \bibitem{linder} Linder, E, V. 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett, 90, 091301
678: \bibitem{peebles} Peebles, P. J. E., \& Yu, J. T. 1970, ApJ, 162, 815
679: \bibitem{perl99} Perlmutter, S., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
680: \bibitem{Rees} Rees, M. J., \& M\'esz\'aros, P. 2005, ApJ, 628, 847
681: \bibitem{riess98} Riess, A. G., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009
682: \bibitem{riess04} Riess, A. G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 607, 665
683: \bibitem{riess07} Riess, A. G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 659, 98
684: \bibitem{Sahni} Sahni, V., \& Starobinsky, A. 2006, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 15, 2105
685: \bibitem[Sasaki(1996)]{sas96} Sasaki, S. 1996, \pasj, 48, L119
686: \bibitem{scha03} Schaefer, B. E. 2003, ApJ, 588, 387
687: \bibitem{scha06} Schaefer, B. E. 2007, ApJ, 660, 16
688: \bibitem{schi07} Schimd, C., et al. 2007, A\&A, 463, 405
689: \bibitem{Shapiro} Shapiro, C. A., \& Turner, M. S. 2006, ApJ, 649, 563
690: \bibitem{sper03} Spergel, D. N., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175
691: \bibitem{sper06} Spergel, D. N., et al. 2006, astro-ph/0603449
692: \bibitem{su} Su, M., Fan, Z. H., \& Liu, B. 2006, astro-ph/0611155
693: \bibitem{tegmark06} Tegmark, M., et al. 2006, Phys.Rev. D., 74, 123507
694: \bibitem{Thompson} Thompson, C., M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P. \& Rees, M. J. 2006, ApJ, in press
695: (astro-ph/0608282)
696: \bibitem{virey} Virey, J. M., et al. 2005, Phys. Rev. D., 72, 061302
697: \bibitem{xu} Xu, D., Dai, Z. G., \& Liang. E. W. 2005, ApJ, 633, 603
698: \bibitem{wang06a} Wang, F. Y., \& Dai, Z. G. 2006a, MNRAS, 368, 371
699: \bibitem{wang06b} Wang, F. Y., \& Dai, Z. G. 2006b, ChJAA, 6, 561
700: \bibitem{wangy} Wang, Y., \& Mukherjee, P. 2006, ApJ, 650, 1
701: \bibitem{weinberg} Weinberg, S. 1989, Rev. Mod. Phys., 61, 1
702: \bibitem[White et al.(1993)]{whi93} White, S. D. M. et al. 1993, Nature, 366, 429
703: \bibitem{wright} Wright, E. L. 2007, astro-ph/0701584
704: \bibitem{Zel} Zeldovich, Y. B. 1968, Sov. Phys, 11, 381
705: \bibitem[]{zhzh} Zhu, Z.-H. 2004, \aap, 423, 421
706: \bibitem[Zhu \& Alcaniz(2005)]{zhu05} Zhu, Z.-H. \& Alcaniz, J. S. 2005, \apj, 620, 7
707: \bibitem{zhu} Zhu, Z.-H., Fujimoto, M. K., \& He, X. T. 2004, ApJ, 603, 365
708: \end{thebibliography}
709:
710:
711:
712: \begin{figure}
713: \begin{center}
714: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig1.pdf}
715: \caption{Hubble diagram of new 182 SNe Ia (filled circles) and 69
716: GRBs (open circles). The solid line is calculated for a flat
717: cosmology: $\Omega_{M}=0.27$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$.
718: \label{fig1}}
719: \end{center}
720: \end{figure}
721:
722: \clearpage
723:
724: \begin{figure}
725: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig2.pdf} \caption{The $1\sigma$ joint confidence contours
726: for $(\Omega _M,\Omega _\Lambda)$ from the observational datasets.
727: The thick black line contour corresponds to all the datasets. The
728: blue contour corresponds to 26 galaxy clusters. The red contour
729: corresponds to 69 GRBs. The yellow contour corresponds to the CMB
730: shift parameter. The violet contour corresponds to 182 SNe Ia. The
731: orange contour corresponds to BAO. The purple contour corresponds to
732: 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey. The thin solid line represents a flat
733: universe \label{fig2}}
734: \end{figure}
735:
736:
737:
738: \begin{figure}
739: \begin{center}
740: \includegraphics[angle=0,height=1.0\textheight,width=1.0\textwidth]{Fig3.pdf}
741: \caption{The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ joint confidence contours for
742: $(\Omega_{M}, n)$ from all the observational data.
743: \label{fig3}}
744: \end{center}
745: \end{figure}
746:
747:
748:
749: \begin{figure}
750: \plotone{Fig4.pdf} \caption{The $1\sigma$, $2\sigma$ and $3\sigma$
751: joint confidence contours for $(\Omega _M ,w_{0})$ from all the
752: observational datasets. \label{fig4}}
753: \end{figure}
754:
755:
756:
757:
758: \begin{figure}
759: \begin{center}
760: \includegraphics[angle=0,height=1.0\textheight,width=1.0\textwidth]{Fig5.pdf}
761: \caption{The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ joint confidence contours of
762: from all the observational data in the $w(z)=w_{0}+w_{1}z/(1+z)$
763: model. \label{fig5}}
764: \end{center}
765: \end{figure}
766:
767:
768:
769: \begin{figure}
770: \begin{center}
771: \includegraphics[angle=0,height=0.9\textheight,width=1.0\textwidth]{Fig6.pdf}
772: \caption{The $1\sigma$ joint confidence contours from the
773: observational datasets in the $w(z)=w_{0}+w_{1}z/(1+z)^2$ model. The
774: blue contour corresponds to all the datasets. The cyan contour
775: corresponds to 69 GRBs. The black contour corresponds to the CMB
776: shift parameter. The green contour corresponds to 182 SNe Ia. The
777: dashed contour corresponds to BAO. The yellow contour corresponds to
778: the perturbation growth rate from 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey.
779: \label{fig6}}
780: \end{center}
781: \end{figure}
782:
783:
784:
785:
786: \begin{figure}
787: \begin{center}
788: \includegraphics[angle=0,height=1.0\textheight,width=1.0\textwidth]{Fig7.pdf}
789: \caption{The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ joint confidence contours for
790: $(A_1 ,A_2)$ from all the observational data in the model of
791: equation (28). \label{fig7}}
792: \end{center}
793: \end{figure}
794:
795:
796: \begin{figure}
797: \begin{center}
798: \includegraphics[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig8a.pdf}
799: \includegraphics[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig8b.pdf}
800: \caption{The evolution of $w(z)$ by fitting the model
801: $w(z)=w_{0}+w_{1}z/(1+z)$ to all the observational data. The solid
802: line represents the reconstructed $w(z)$. The shaded region shows
803: the $1\sigma$ error. We can constrain the evolution of $w(z)$ up to
804: $z>6.0$ using GRBs (bottom panel). \label{fig8}}
805: \end{center}
806: \end{figure}
807:
808:
809:
810: \begin{figure}
811: \begin{center}
812: \includegraphics[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig9a.pdf}
813: \includegraphics[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig9b.pdf}
814: \caption{The evolution of $q(z)$ by fitting the model
815: $w(z)=w_{0}+w_{1}z/(1+z)$ to all the observational data. The solid
816: line is plotted by using the best fitting parameters. The shaded
817: region shows the $1\sigma$ error. We can reconstruct $q(z)$ up to
818: $z>6.0$ using GRBs (bottom panel). \label{fig9}}
819: \end{center}
820: \end{figure}
821:
822:
823: \begin{figure}
824: \begin{center}
825: \includegraphics[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig10a.pdf}
826: \includegraphics[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig10b.pdf}
827: \caption{Same as Fig.8 but fitting the model
828: $w(z)=w_{0}+w_{1}z/(1+z)^2$ to all the observational data.
829: \label{fig10}}
830: \end{center}
831: \end{figure}
832:
833:
834:
835: \begin{figure}
836: \begin{center}
837: \includegraphics[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig11a.pdf}
838: \includegraphics[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig11b.pdf}
839: \caption{Same as Fig.9 but fitting the model
840: $w(z)=w_{0}+w_{1}z/(1+z)^2$ to all the observational data.
841: \label{fig11}}
842: \end{center}
843: \end{figure}
844:
845:
846: \begin{figure}
847: \begin{center}
848: \includegraphics[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig12a.pdf}
849: \includegraphics[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig12b.pdf}
850: \caption{Same as Fig.8 but fitting the model of equation (28) to all
851: the observational data. \label{fig12}}
852: \end{center}
853: \end{figure}
854:
855:
856:
857: \begin{figure}
858: \begin{center}
859: \includegraphics[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig13a.pdf}
860: \includegraphics[angle=0, width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig13b.pdf}
861: \caption{Same as Fig.9 but fitting the model of equation (28) to all
862: the observational data. \label{fig13}}
863: \end{center}
864: \end{figure}
865:
866:
867:
868: \end{document}
869: