1: %\documentclass[manuscript]
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[prd,twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}
4: %\usepackage{graphicx}
5: %\usepackage{latexsym}
6: %\usepackage{amsmath}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{Dark energy and cosmic curvature: Monte-Carlo Markov Chain approach}
11:
12: \author{Yungui Gong}
13: \affil{College of Mathematics and Physics, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications,
14: Chongqing 400065, China} \email{gongyg@cqupt.edu.cn}
15: \author{Qiang Wu}
16: \affil{GCAP-CASPER, Department of
17: Physics, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798, USA}
18: \email{qiang\_wu@baylor.edu} \and
19: \author{Anzhong Wang}
20: \affil{ Department of Theoretical
21: Physics, Institute of Physics, the State University of Rio de
22: Janeiro, Brazil\\
23: and\\
24: GCAP-CASPER, Department of Physics, Baylor University,
25: Waco, TX 76798, USA} \email{anzhong\_wang@baylor.edu}
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: We use the Monte-Carlo Markov Chain method to explore the dark
29: energy property and the cosmic curvature by fitting two popular dark
30: energy parameterizations to the observational data. The new 182 gold
31: supernova Ia data and the ESSENCE data both give good constraint on
32: the DE parameters and the cosmic curvature for the dark energy model
33: $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$. The cosmic curvature is found to be
34: $|\Omega_k|\la 0.03$. For the dark energy model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)^2$,
35: the ESSENCE data gives better constraint on the cosmic curvature and
36: we get $|\Omega_k|\leq 0.02$.
37: \end{abstract}
38:
39: \keywords{Cosmology: cosmological parameters --- Cosmology:
40: observations}
41:
42: %\pacs{98.80.Cq; 98.80.-k}
43: %\preprint{arXiv: 0708.1817}
44:
45: %\maketitle
46:
47: \section{Introduction}
48:
49: The supernova (SN) Ia observations indicate the accelerated
50: expansion of the Universe \citep{riess98,perlmutter}. The direct and
51: model independent evidence of the acceleration of the Universe was
52: shown by using the energy conditions in \citet{gong07b} and
53: \citet{gong07c}. The driving force of the late time acceleration of
54: the Universe, dubbed ``dark energy (DE)", imposes a big challenge to
55: theoretical physics. Although the cosmological constant is the
56: simplest candidate of DE and consistent with current observations,
57: other possibilities are also explored due to many orders of
58: magnitude discrepancy between the theoretical estimation and
59: astronomical observations for the cosmological constant. For a
60: review of DE models, see for example,
61: \citet{review1,review2,review3,review4,review5}.
62:
63: There are model independent studies on the nature of DE by using the
64: observational data. In particular, one usually parameterizes DE
65: density or the equation of state parameter $w(z)$ of DE
66: \citep{alam04a,alam04b,astier,barger,cardone,mcdp,trc,clarkson,corasaniti,efstathiou,gerke,gong05a,gong05b,gong05c,gong06,
67: gong07a,gu,huterer,huterer05,ichikawa6,ichikawa,ichikawa7,jbp,jonsson,lee,linder,setare,cooray,flux,flux1,flux2,weller01,weller02,wetterich,zhu}.
68: Due to the degeneracies among the parameters in the model,
69: complementary cosmological observations are needed to break the
70: degeneracies. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropic Probe (WMAP)
71: measurement on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropy,
72: together with the SN Ia observations provide complementary data. In
73: this paper, we use the three-year WMAP (WMAP3) data \citep{wmap3},
74: the SN Ia data \citep{riess06,essence,essence1} and the Baryon
75: Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) measurement from the Sloan Digital Sky
76: Survey \citep{sdss} to study the property of DE and the cosmic
77: curvature. Two DE models $w(z)=w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$ \citep{mcdp,linder}
78: and $w(z)=w_0+w_a z/(1+z)^2$ \citep{jbp} are considered. In
79: \citet{lar}, the authors showed that combining the shift parameters
80: $R$ and the angular scale $l_a$ of the sound horizon at
81: recombination appears to be a good approximation of the full WMAP3
82: data. Wang and Mukherjee gave model independent constraints on $R$
83: and $l_a$ by using the WMAP3 data, they also provided the covariance
84: matrix of the parameters $R$, $l_a$ and $\Omega_b h^2$
85: \citep{wang07}. So we use the shift parameter $R$, the angular scale
86: $l_a$ of the sound horizon at recombination and their covariance
87: matrix given in \citet{wang07} instead to avoid using several
88: inflationary model parameters and calculating the power spectrum.
89: When the covariance matrix is used, we have six parameters. We use
90: the Monte-Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) method to explore the parameter
91: space. Our MCMC code is based on the publicly available package
92: COSMOMC \citep{cosmomc}.
93:
94: The paper is organized as follows. In section II, we give all the
95: formulae and show the constraint on the cosmic curvature is much
96: better by using the parameters $R$, $l_a$ and their covariance
97: matrix than that by using the parameter $R$ only. We also discuss
98: the effect of the radiation component $\Omega_r$ on $l_a$. In
99: section III, we give our results. We discuss the analytical
100: marginalization over $H_0$ in appendix A.
101:
102: \section{Method}
103:
104: For the SN Ia data, we calculate
105: \begin{equation}
106: \label{chi}
107: \chi^2=\sum_i\frac{[\mu_{obs}(z_i)-\mu(z_i)]^2}{\sigma^2_i},
108: \end{equation}
109: where the extinction-corrected distance modulus
110: $\mu(z)=5\log_{10}[d_L(z)/{\rm Mpc}]+25$, $\sigma_i$ is the total
111: uncertainty in the SN Ia data, and the luminosity distance is
112: \begin{equation}
113: \label{lumdis}
114: d_{\rm L}(z)=\frac{1+z}{H_0\sqrt{|\Omega_{k}|}} {\rm
115: sinn}\left[\sqrt{|\Omega_{k}|}\int_0^z
116: \frac{dz'}{E(z')}\right],
117: \end{equation}
118: here
119: \begin{eqnarray}
120: \frac{{\rm sinn}(\sqrt{|\Omega_k|}x)}{\sqrt{|\Omega_k|}}=\left\{\begin{array}{lr}
121: \sin(\sqrt{|\Omega_k|}x)/\sqrt{|\Omega_k|},& {\rm if}\ \Omega_k<0,\\
122: x, & {\rm if}\ \Omega_k=0, \\
123: \sinh(\sqrt{|\Omega_k|}x)/\sqrt{|\Omega_k|}, & {\rm if}\ \Omega_k>0,
124: \end{array}\right.
125: \end{eqnarray}
126: and the dimensionless Hubble parameter is
127: \begin{equation}
128: \label{ezdef}
129: E^2(z)=H^2(z)/H^2_0=\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_r (1+z)^4+\Omega_k (1+z)^2+\Omega_{DE},
130: \end{equation}
131: where $\Omega=8\pi G\rho/(3H^2_0)$, $\rho_r=\sigma_bT_{cmb}^4$,
132: $\sigma_b$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, the CMB temperature
133: $T_{cmb}=2.726$K, and $\Omega_{DE}$ is the DE density. Note that the
134: distance normalization is arbitrary in the SN Ia data, the Hubble
135: constant $H_0$ determined from the SN data is also an arbitrary
136: number, not the observed Hubble constant. Therefore we need to
137: marginalize over this nuisance parameter $H_0$. The parameter $H_0$
138: is marginalized over with flat prior, the analytical marginalization
139: method is discussed in Appendix A. For the DE model
140: \citep{mcdp,linder}
141: \begin{equation}
142: \label{lind}
143: w(z)=w_0+\frac{w_a z}{1+z},
144: \end{equation}
145: the dimensionless DE density is
146: \begin{equation}
147: \label{deneq}
148: \Omega_{DE}(z)=(1-\Omega_m-\Omega_k-\Omega_r)(1+z)^{3(1+w_0+w_a)}\exp[-3w_a z/(1+z)].
149: \end{equation}
150: For the DE model \citep{jbp}
151: \begin{equation}
152: \label{wzeq}
153: w(z)=w_0+\frac{w_a z}{(1+z)^2},
154: \end{equation}
155: the dimensionless DE density is
156: \begin{equation}
157: \label{deneq1}
158: \Omega_{DE}(z)=(1-\Omega_m-\Omega_k-\Omega_r)(1+z)^{3(1+w_0)}\exp\left[3w_a z^2/2(1+z)^2\right].
159: \end{equation}
160:
161: For the SDSS data, we add the term
162: $$\left[\frac{A-0.469(0.95/0.98)^{-0.35}}{0.017}\right]^2$$
163: to $\chi^2$ \citep{sdss,wmap3}, where the BAO parameter
164: \begin{equation}
165: \label{para1}
166: A=\frac{\sqrt{\Omega_{m}}}{0.35}\left[\frac{0.35}{E(0.35)}\frac{1}{|\Omega_{k}|}{\rm
167: sinn}^2\left(\sqrt{|\Omega_{k}|}\int_0^{0.35}
168: \frac{dz}{E(z)}\right)\right]^{1/3}.
169: \end{equation}
170:
171: For WMAP3 data, we first add the term
172: $$\left(\frac{R-1.71}{0.03}\right)^2$$
173: to $\chi^2$ \citep{wang07}, where the shift parameter
174: \begin{equation}
175: \label{shift1}
176: R=\frac{\sqrt{\Omega_{m}}}{\sqrt{|\Omega_{k}|}}{\rm
177: sinn}\left(\sqrt{|\Omega_{k}|}\int_0^{z_{ls}}\frac{dz}{E(z)}\right),
178: \end{equation}
179: and $z_{ls}=1089\pm 1$.
180:
181: When we fit the DE models (\ref{lind}) and (\ref{wzeq}) to the
182: observational data, we have four parameters $\Omega_m$, $\Omega_k$,
183: $w_0$ and $w_a$. The MCMC method is used to explore the parameter
184: space. The marginalized probability of $\Omega_k$ is shown in Fig.
185: \ref{fig1}. It is obvious that the cosmic curvature cannot be well
186: constrained for the DE model (\ref{lind}). As discussed in
187: \citet{lar} and \citet{wang07}, the combination of the shift
188: parameter and the angular scale of the sound horizon at
189: recombination gives much better constraints on cosmological
190: parameters. So we add the angular scale of the sound horizon at
191: recombination \citep{wang07}
192: \begin{equation}
193: \label{csla}
194: l_a=\frac{\pi R/\sqrt{\Omega_m}}{\int_{z_{ls}}^\infty dz c_s/E(z)}=302.5\pm 1.2,
195: \end{equation}
196: where the sound speed $c_s=1/\sqrt{3(1+\bar{R_b} a)}$,
197: $\bar{R_b}=315000\Omega_b h^2(T_{cmb}/2.7{\rm K})^{-4}$, $a$ is the
198: scale factor, and $\Omega_b h^2=0.02173\pm 0.00082$ \citep{wang07}.
199: To implement the WMAP3 data, we need to add three fitting parameters
200: $R$, $l_a$ and $\Omega_b h^2$. So we need to add the term $\Delta
201: x_i {\rm Cov}^{-1}(x_i,x_j)\Delta x_j$ to $\chi^2$, where $x_i=(R,\
202: l_a,\ \Omega_b h^2)$ denote the three parameters for WMAP3 data,
203: $\Delta x_i=x_i-x_i^{obs}$ and Cov$(x_i,x_j)$ is the covariance
204: matrix for the three parameters. Follow Wang and Mukherjee, we use
205: the covariance matrix for $x_i=(R,\ l_a,\ \Omega_b h^2)$ derived in
206: \citet{wang07}. Since the covariance matrix for the six quantities
207: in \citet{wang07} is defined as the pair correlations for those
208: variables, so each element in the matrix is obtained by
209: marginalizing over all other variables. Therefore, the covariance
210: matrix between $x_i$ and $x_j$ is the three by three sub-matrix of
211: the full six by six matrix in \cite{wang07}. The marginalized
212: probability of $\Omega_k$ is shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}. We see that
213: the cosmic curvature is constrained better with the addition of the
214: angular scale $l_a$ of the sound horizon at recombination.
215:
216: Since the angular scale of the sound horizon depends on the early
217: history of the Universe, so it strongly depends on $\Omega_r$.
218: However, we can neglect the effect of $\Omega_r$ when we evaluate
219: the distance modules $\mu(z)$ and the shift parameter $R$ because
220: the Universe is matter dominated. So only when we implement the CMB
221: data with $l_a$, we need to consider the effect of $\Omega_r$. We
222: know the energy density $\rho_r$ of radiation, so the dependence of
223: $\Omega_r=8\pi G\rho_r/(3 H_0^2)$ is manifested by the Hubble
224: constant $H_0$. Since we can neglect the effect of $\Omega_r$ in
225: fitting SN Ia data, so the effect of the observed value of $H_0$ can
226: be neglected by marginalizing over it. Therefore, we use the Hubble
227: constant $H_0$ as a free parameter instead of $\Omega_r$.
228: The marginalized probabilities of $\Omega_k$ for
229: $H_0=65$ km/s/Mpc and $H_0=72$ km/s/Mpc are shown in Fig.
230: \ref{fig2}. We see that the results indeed depend on $H_0$. As
231: discussed in \citep{lar}, the combination of $R$ and $l_a$
232: approximates the WMAP3 data and the WMAP3 data depends on $H_0$
233: through $l_a$. So, as expected, $l_a$ also depends on $H_0$. From
234: now on we also take $H_0$ as a fitting parameter, and impose a prior
235: of $H_0=72\pm 8$ km/s/Mpc \citep{freedman}. To understand why we can
236: marginalize over $H_0$ in fitting SN Ia data and treat $H_0$ as a
237: parameter in fitting WMAP3 data, we should think that we actually
238: treat $\Omega_r$, not $H_0$ as a parameter when fitting the WMAP3
239: data. The parameter $H_0$ is not the observed Hubble constant when
240: fitting the SN data because the normalization of the distance
241: modulus was chosen arbitrarily. In summary, we have six fitting
242: parameters for the DE models (\ref{lind}) and (\ref{wzeq}).
243:
244: \section{Results}
245: In this section, we present our results. We first use the 182 gold
246: SN Ia data \citep{riess06}, then we use the ESSENCE data
247: \citep{riess06, essence,essence1}. For the SN Ia data, we consider
248: both the SN Ia flux averaging with marginalization over $H_0$
249: \citep{flux,flux1,flux2} and the analytical marginalization without
250: the flux averaging. The results with the analytical marginalization
251: are shown in solid lines and the results with flux averaging are
252: shown in dashed lines. We also put the $\Lambda$CDM model with the
253: symbol + in the contour plot.
254:
255: \subsection{Gold SN Ia data}
256:
257: Fig. \ref{fig3} shows the marginalized probabilities for $\Omega_m$,
258: $\Omega_k$, $w_0$ and $w_a$ for the DE model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$. Fig.
259: \ref{fig4} shows the marginalized $\Omega_m$-$\Omega_k$ and
260: $w_0$-$w_a$ contours. The $w_0$-$w_a$ contour with the flux
261: averaging is consistent with the result in \citet{wang07}. From
262: Figs. \ref{fig3} and \ref{fig4}, we see that the difference in the
263: results between the analytical marginalization and the flux
264: averaging is small. The $\Lambda$CDM model is consistent with the
265: observation at the $1\sigma$ level. The value of $w_a$ is better
266: constrained with the analytical marginalization.
267:
268: Fig. \ref{fig5} shows the marginalized probabilities for $\Omega_m$,
269: $\Omega_k$, $w_0$ and $w_a$ for the DE model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)^2$.
270: Fig. \ref{fig6} shows the marginalized $\Omega_m$-$\Omega_k$ and
271: $w_0$-$w_a$ contours. From Figs. \ref{fig5} and \ref{fig6}, we see
272: that the parameters are a little better constrained with the flux
273: averaging. For the analytical marginalization, the $\Lambda$CDM
274: model is consistent with the observation at the $2\sigma$ level. For
275: the flux averaging, the $\Lambda$CDM model is consistent with the
276: observation at the $1\sigma$ level.
277:
278:
279: \subsection{ESSENCE data}
280:
281: Fig. \ref{fig7} shows the marginalized probabilities for $\Omega_m$,
282: $\Omega_k$, $w_0$ and $w_a$ for the DE model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$. Fig.
283: \ref{fig8} shows the marginalized $\Omega_m$-$\Omega_k$ and
284: $w_0$-$w_a$ contours. From Figs. \ref{fig7} and \ref{fig8}, we see
285: that the difference in the results between the analytical
286: marginalization and the flux averaging is small. The $\Lambda$CDM
287: model is consistent with the observation at the $1\sigma$ level.
288:
289: Fig. \ref{fig9} shows the marginalized probabilities for $\Omega_m$,
290: $\Omega_k$, $w_0$ and $w_a$ for the DE model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)^2$.
291: Fig. \ref{fig10} shows the marginalized $\Omega_m$-$\Omega_k$ and
292: $w_0$-$w_a$ contours. From Figs. \ref{fig9} and \ref{fig10}, we see
293: that the parameters are a little better constrained with the
294: analytical marginalization. The $\Lambda$CDM model is consistent
295: with the observation at the $1\sigma$ level.
296:
297: We summarize the results in Tables 1 and 2. We do not see much
298: improvement on the constraints on the DE parameters and the cosmic
299: curvature by using the flux averaging method. For the DE model
300: $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$, the gold data gives better constraints than the
301: ESSENCE data on the DE parameters $w_0$ and $w_a$, but both data
302: give good constraints on the cosmic curvature. For the DE model
303: $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)^2$, the ESSENCE data gives much better constraint
304: on the cosmic curvature than the gold data, although the constraints
305: on the DE parameters $w_0$ and $w_a$ are almost the same for both
306: data. For the 182 gold data, the DE model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$ gives
307: much better constraints on the cosmic curvature $\Omega_k$. For the
308: ESSENCE data, the two DE models give almost the same constraint on
309: $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_k$. For the DE model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$, the
310: mean value of $w_0$ determined from the observation tends to be
311: $w_0\geq -1$, while the mean value of $w_0$ is less than $-1$ for
312: the DE model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)^2$.
313:
314: From Tables 1 and 2, we see that the constraints on $\Omega_k$ are
315: almost the same for the two different DE models (\ref{lind}) and
316: (\ref{wzeq}). In other words, the results we obtained on $\Omega_k$
317: do not depend on the chosen models much. Recently, the authors in
318: \cite{clarkson} found that the assumption of a flat universe induces
319: critically large errors in reconstructing the dark energy equation
320: of state at $z\ga 0.9$ even if the true cosmic curvature is very
321: small, $\Omega_k\sim 0.01$ or less. They obtained the result by
322: fitting the data derived from a DE model with $\Omega_k\neq 0$ with
323: a flat model, so the result may not be conclusive. To see how the
324: value of $\Omega_k$ affect the constraints on the property of DE, we
325: perform the MCMC analysis on the DE models (\ref{lind}) and
326: (\ref{wzeq}) with $\Omega_k=0$. The results are reported in Tables 3
327: and 4. Although the uncertainties of $\Omega_k$ change the values of
328: $w_0$ and $w_a$, the ranges of $w_0$ and $w_a$ are almost the same
329: for small $\Omega_k$.
330:
331: In conclusion, we first confirm previous results that the shift
332: parameter $R$ alone does not give good constraint on $\Omega_k$, we
333: must combine $R$ and $l_a$ to constrain $\Omega_k$. By using $R$,
334: $l_a$ and their covariance matrix, we get almost the same results as
335: those obtained by using the original WMAP3 data. Without calculating
336: the power spectrum, the fitting process is much faster and
337: efficient. The cosmic curvature is found to be $|\Omega_k| \la
338: 0.03$.
339:
340: \acknowledgments
341: YGG and AW thank Yun Wang for the help with the
342: MCMC method. YGG is grateful of Zong-hong Zhu for fruitful
343: discussions, and he is supported by NNSFC under grant No. 10605042.
344: A. Wang is partially supported by the VPR funds, Baylor University.
345:
346:
347: \appendix
348: \section{Analytical marginalization on $H_0$}
349:
350: By assuming a flat prior $P(H_0)=1$ for $H_0$, the marginalization
351: over $H_0$ means
352: \begin{equation}
353: \label{intmarg}
354: L=e^{-\chi^2_m/2}=\int e^{-\chi^2/2}P(H_0)dH_0=\int e^{-\chi^2/2}dH_0.
355: \end{equation}
356: Let $x=5\log_{10}H_0$ and
357: $\alpha_i=\mu_{obs}(z_i)-25-5\log_{10}[(1+z_i){\rm
358: sinn}(\sqrt{|\Omega_k|}\int_0^{z_i} dz'/E(z'))/\sqrt{|\Omega_k|}]$,
359: and substitute Eq. (\ref{chi}) into the above Eq. (\ref{intmarg}),
360: we get
361: \begin{eqnarray}
362: \label{intmarg1}
363: \begin{array}{cl}
364: L&=\frac{\ln 10}{5}\int dx\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}\sum_i\frac{(\alpha_i+x)^2}{\sigma^2_i}+\frac{\ln 10}{5}x\right]\\
365: &=\frac{\ln 10}{5}\int
366: dx\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}\left(\sum_i\frac{1}{\sigma_i^2}\right)
367: \left(x+\frac{\sum_i\alpha_i/\sigma_i^2-\ln
368: 10/5}{\sum_i1/\sigma_i^2}\right)^2\right.\\
369: &\left.\ \ \ -\frac{1}{2}\sum_i\frac{\alpha^2_i}{\sigma^2_i}
370: +\frac{1}{2}\frac{(\sum_i\alpha_i/\sigma_i^2-\ln 10/5)^2}{\sum_i1/\sigma_i^2}\right]\\
371: &=\frac{\ln
372: 10}{5}\left(\frac{2\pi}{\sum_i1/\sigma_i^2}\right)^{1/2}\exp(-\frac{1}{2}\sum_i\frac{\alpha^2_i}{\sigma^2_i}
373: +\frac{1}{2}\frac{(\sum_i\alpha_i/\sigma_i^2-\ln
374: 10/5)^2}{\sum_i1/\sigma_i^2}).
375: \end{array}
376: \end{eqnarray}
377: So the minimum $\chi^2$ is
378: \begin{equation}
379: \label{minchi2}
380: \chi^2_m=\sum_i\frac{\alpha^2_i}{\sigma^2_i}-\frac{(\sum_i\alpha_i/\sigma_i^2-\ln
381: 10/5)^2}{\sum_i1/\sigma_i^2} -2\ln\left(\frac{\ln
382: 10}{5}\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{\sum_i1/\sigma_i^2}}\right).
383: \end{equation}
384:
385:
386: \begin{thebibliography}{}
387: \bibitem[Alam et al.(2004a)]{alam04a} Alam, U., Sahni, V., Saini, T.D. \& Starobinsky, A. A. 2004a, \mnras, 354, 275
388: \bibitem[Alam et al.(2004b)]{alam04b} Alam, U., Sahni, V., \& Starobinsky, A. A. 2004b, J. Cosmol.
389: Astropart. Phys., JCAP 0406(2004)008
390: \bibitem[Astier(2001)]{astier} Astier, P. 2001, Phys. Lett. B, 500, 8
391: \bibitem[Barger et al.(2007)]{barger} Barger, V., Gao,Y. \&
392: Marfatia, D. 2007, Phys. Lett. B, 648, 127
393: \bibitem[Cardone et al.(2004)]{cardone} Cardone, V. F., Troisi, A. \&
394: Capozziello, S. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 083517
395: \bibitem[Chevallier \& D. Polarski(2001)]{mcdp} Chevallier, M. \& Polarski, D. 2001, Int. J. Mod.
396: Phys. D, 10, 213
397: \bibitem[Choudhury \& Padmanabhan(2005)]{trc} Choudhury, T. R. \& Padmanabhan, T. 2005, \aa, 429, 807
398: \bibitem[Clarkson et al.(2007)]{clarkson} Clarkson, C., Cortes, M. \& Bassett, B. A. 2007,
399: JCAP, 0708, 011.
400: \bibitem[Copeland et al.(2006)]{review5} Copeland, E. J., Sami, M. \& Tsujikawa, S. 2006, Int.
401: J. Mod. Phys. D, 15, 1753
402: \bibitem[Corasaniti \& Copeland(2003)]{corasaniti} Corasaniti, P.S. \& Copeland, E. J. 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 063521
403: \bibitem[Davis et al.(2007)]{essence1} Davis, T.M. et al., 2007, arXiv: astro-ph/0701510.
404: \bibitem[Efstathiou(1999)]{efstathiou} Efstathiou, G. 1999, \mnras, 310, 842
405: \bibitem[Eisenstein et al.(2005)]{sdss} Eisenstein, D. J. et al., 2005, \apj, 633, 560
406: \bibitem[Elgar{\o}y \& Multam\"{a}ki(2007)]{lar} Elgar{\o}y, O. \& Multam\"{a}ki, T. 2007, arXiv: astro-ph/0702343
407: \bibitem[Freedman(2001)]{freedman} Freedman, W. L. et al., 2001, \apj, 553, 47
408: \bibitem[Gerke \& Efstathiou(2002)]{gerke} Gerke, B. F. \& Efstathiou, G. 2002, \mnras, 335, 33
409: \bibitem[Gong(2005a)]{gong05a} Gong, Y. G. 2005a, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 14, 599
410: \bibitem[Gong(2005b)]{gong05b} Gong, Y. G. 2005b, Class. Quantum Grav., 22, 2121
411: \bibitem[Gong \& Zhang(2005)]{gong05c} Gong, Y. G. \& Zhang, Y. Z. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 043518
412: \bibitem[Gong \& Wang(2006)]{gong06} Gong, Y. G. \& Wang, A. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 083506
413: \bibitem[Gong \& Wang(2007a)]{gong07a} Gong, Y. G. \& Wang, A. 2007a, Phys. Rev. D, 75, 043520
414: \bibitem[Gong \& Wang(2007b)]{gong07b} Gong, Y.G. \& Wang, A. 2007b, Phys. Lett. B, 652, 63
415: \bibitem[Gong et al.(2007)]{gong07c} Gong, Y. G., Wang, A., Wu, Q. \& Zhang, Y. Z. 2007, astro-ph/0703583, JCAP in
416: press
417: \bibitem[Gu \& Khlopov(2007)]{gu} Gu, Y. Q. \& Khlopov, M. Y. 2007, gr-qc/0701050
418: \bibitem[Huterer \& Turner(2001)]{huterer} Huterer, D. \& Turner, M. S. 2001, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 123527
419: \bibitem[Huterer \& Cooray(2005)]{huterer05} Huterer, D. \& Cooray, A. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 023506
420: \bibitem[Ichikawa et al.(2006)]{ichikawa6}Ichikawa, K., Kawasaki, M., Sekiguchi, T. \&
421: Takahashi, T. 2006, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., JCAP12(2006)005
422: \bibitem[Ichikawa \& Takahashi(2006)]{ichikawa} Ichikawa, K. \& Takahashi, T. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 083526
423: \bibitem[Ichikawa \& Takahashi(2007)]{ichikawa7} Ichikawa, K. \& Takahashi, T.
424: 2007, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., JCAP02(2007)001
425: \bibitem[Jassal et al.(2005)]{jbp} Jassal, H. K., Bagla, J. S. \& Padmanabhan, T. 2005, \mnras, 356, L11
426: \bibitem[J\"{o}nsson et al.(2004)]{jonsson} J\"{o}nsson, J., Goobar, A., Amanullah, R. \& Bergstr\"{o}m, L. 2004,
427: J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., JCAP 0409(2004)007
428: \bibitem[Lee(2005)]{lee} Lee, S. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 123528
429: \bibitem[Lewis \& Bridle(2002)]{cosmomc} Lewis, A. \& Bridle, S. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 103511
430: \bibitem[Linder(2003)]{linder} Linder, E. V. 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 091301
431: \bibitem[Padmanabhan(2003)]{review2} Padmanabhan, T. 2003, Phys. Rep., 380, 235
432: \bibitem[Peebles \& Ratra(2003)]{review3} Peebles, P. J. E. \& Ratra, B. 2003, Rev. Mod. Phys., 75, 559
433: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.(1999)]{perlmutter} Perlmutter, S. et al., 1999, \apj, 517, 565
434: \bibitem[Riess et al.(1998)]{riess98} Riess, A. G. et al., 1998, \aj, 116, 1009
435: \bibitem[Riess et al.(2006)]{riess06} Riess, A. G. et al., 2006, arXiv: astro-ph/0611572
436: \bibitem[Sahni \& Starobinsky(2000)]{review1} Sahni, V. \& Starobinsky, A. A., 2000, Int. J. Mod. Phys.
437: D, 9, 373
438: \bibitem[Sahni(2005)]{review4} Sahni, V. 2005, The Physics of the Early Universe,
439: E. Papantonopoulos, Springer: New York, 141
440: \bibitem[Setare et al.(2007)]{setare} Setare, M. R., Zhang, J., \&
441: Zhang, X. 2007, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., JCAP 0703(2007)007
442: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2007)]{wmap3} Spergel, D. N. et al., 2007, \apjs, 170, 377
443: \bibitem[Sullivan et al.(2007)]{cooray} Sullivan, S., Cooray, A. \&
444: Holz, D. E. 2007, arXiv: 0706.3730
445: \bibitem[Wang(2000)]{flux} Wang, Y. 2000, \apj, 536, 531
446: \bibitem[Wang \& Mukherjee(2004)]{flux1} Wang, Y. \& Mukherjee, P. 2004, \apj, 606, 654
447: \bibitem[Wang \& Mukherjee(2006)]{wang06} Wang, Y. \& Mukherjee, P. 2006, \apj, 650, 1
448: \bibitem[Wang \& Mukherjee(2007)]{wang07} Wang, Y. \& Mukherjee, P. 2007, arXiv: astro-ph/0703780
449: \bibitem[Wang \& Tegmark(2004)]{flux2} Wang, Y. \& Tegmark, M. 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 241302
450: \bibitem[Weller \& Albrecht(2001)]{weller01} Weller, J. \& Albrecht, A. 2001, Phys. Rev.
451: Lett., 86, 1939
452: \bibitem[Weller \& Albrecht(2002)]{weller02} Weller, J. \& Albrecht, A. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 103512
453: \bibitem[Wetterich(2004)]{wetterich} Wetterich, C. 2004, Phys. Lett. B, 594, 17
454: \bibitem[Wood-Vasey et al.(2007)]{essence} Wood-Vasey, W. M. et al., 2007, arXiv: astro-ph/0701041
455: \bibitem[Zhu et al.(2004)]{zhu} Zhu, Z. H., Fujimoto, M. K. \& He, X. T. 2004, \aa, 417, 833
456: \end{thebibliography}
457: \clearpage
458:
459: \begin{figure}
460: \centering
461: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{f1.eps}
462: \caption{The marginalized probabilities of $\Omega_k$. The solid lines denote the results
463: using the shift parameter $R$, the angular scale $l_a$, and the full covariance matrix. The dashed
464: lines denote the results using the shift parameter only. The black lines are for
465: the dark energy model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)^2$ and the red lines are for the model
466: $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$.}
467: \label{fig1}
468: \end{figure}
469:
470: \begin{figure}
471: \centering
472: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{f2.eps}
473: \caption{The marginalized probabilities of $\Omega_k$. The solid lines denote the results
474: with $H_0=65$. The dashed lines denote the results with $H_0=72$. The black lines are for
475: the dark energy model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)^2$ and the red lines are for the model
476: $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$.}
477: \label{fig2}
478: \end{figure}
479:
480: \begin{figure}
481: \centering
482: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{f3.eps}
483: \caption{The marginalized probabilities for the DE model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$
484: by using the gold SN Ia data. The solid lines denote the results
485: with analytical marginalization and the dashed lines denote the results with flux averaging.}
486: \label{fig3}
487: \end{figure}
488:
489: \begin{figure}
490: \centering
491: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{f4.eps}
492: \caption{The marginalized $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ $\Omega_m$-$\Omega_k$ and $w_0$-$w_a$ contours for the DE model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$
493: by using the gold SN Ia data.
494: The upper panels denote the results
495: with analytical marginalization and the lower panels denote the results with flux averaging.}
496: \label{fig4}
497: \end{figure}
498:
499: \begin{figure}
500: \centering
501: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{f5.eps}
502: \caption{The marginalized probabilities for the DE model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)^2$
503: by using the gold SN Ia data. The solid lines denote the results
504: with analytical marginalization and the dashed lines denote the results with flux averaging.}
505: \label{fig5}
506: \end{figure}
507:
508: \begin{figure}
509: \centering
510: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{f6.eps}
511: \caption{The marginalized $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ $\Omega_m$-$\Omega_k$ and $w_0$-$w_a$ contours for the DE model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)^2$
512: by using the gold SN Ia data.
513: The upper panels denote the results
514: with analytical marginalization and the lower panels denote the results with flux averaging.}
515: \label{fig6}
516: \end{figure}
517:
518: \begin{figure}
519: \centering
520: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{f7.eps}
521: \caption{The marginalized probability distributions for the dark energy model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$
522: by using the ESSENCE data.
523: The solid lines denote the results
524: without flux average and the dashed lines denote the results with flux average.}
525: \label{fig7}
526: \end{figure}
527:
528: \begin{figure}
529: \centering
530: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{f8.eps}
531: \caption{The marginalized $\Omega_m$-$\Omega_k$ and $w_0$-$w_a$ contours for the dark energy model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$
532: by using the ESSENCE data.
533: The upper panels denote the results
534: without flux average and the lower panels denote the results with flux average.}
535: \label{fig8}
536: \end{figure}
537:
538:
539: \begin{figure}
540: \centering
541: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{f9.eps}
542: \caption{The marginalized probability distributions for the dark energy model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)^2$
543: by using the ESSENCE data.
544: The solid lines denote the results
545: without flux average and the dashed lines denote the results with flux average.}
546: \label{fig9}
547: \end{figure}
548:
549: \begin{figure}
550: \centering
551: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{f10.eps}
552: \caption{The marginalized $\Omega_m$-$\Omega_k$ and $w_0$-$w_a$ contours for the dark energy model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)^2$
553: by using the ESSENCE data.
554: The upper panels denote the results
555: without flux average and the lower panels denote the results with flux average.}
556: \label{fig10}
557: \end{figure}
558:
559: \begin{table}
560: \label{table1}
561: \caption{The marginalized results with $1\sigma$
562: errors for the model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$}
563: \begin{tabular}{|ccccc|}
564: \hline
565: & \multicolumn{2}{c} {Gold Data} &\multicolumn{2}{c|} {Essence Data} \\
566: & Analytical & Flux & Analytical & Flux\\ \hline
567: $\Omega_m$&$0.29^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $0.29\pm 0.02$ & $0.28^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $0.28\pm 0.02$ \\ \hline
568: $\Omega_k$& $0.007^{+0.023}_{-0.019}$ & $0.002\pm 0.018$ & $-0.007\pm 0.016$ & $-0.004^{+0.015}_{-0.016}$\\ \hline
569: $w_0$& $-0.99^{+0.18}_{-0.16}$ & $-0.95\pm 0.22$ & $-0.94\pm 0.25$ & $-1.0^{+0.24}_{-0.26}$ \\ \hline
570: $w_a$& $0.34\pm 0.77$ & $-0.05^{+1.04}_{-1.09}$& $-0.70^{+1.54}_{-1.52}$& $-0.26^{+1.29}_{-1.31}$ \\ \hline
571: \end{tabular}
572: \end{table}
573:
574: \begin{table}
575: \label{table2} \caption{The marginalized results with $1\sigma$
576: errors for the model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)^2$}
577: \begin{tabular}{|ccccc|}
578: \hline
579: & \multicolumn{2}{c} {Gold Data} &\multicolumn{2}{c|} {Essence Data} \\
580: & Analytical & Flux & Analytical & Flux \\ \hline
581: $\Omega_m$& $0.27^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $0.27^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$& $0.28^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ & $0.29\pm 0.02$ \\ \hline
582: $\Omega_k$& $0.05\pm 0.04$& $0.02^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$& $-0.002^{+0.015}_{-0.016}$& $-0.013\pm 0.011$ \\ \hline
583: $w_0$& $-1.8^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$& $-1.6^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$& $-1.1\pm 0.4$& $-1.1^{+0.4}_{-0.5}$ \\ \hline
584: $w_a$& $6.4\pm 3.6$ & $4.5\pm 3.6$& $0.5\pm 3.1$& $0.6\pm 3.3$ \\ \hline
585: \end{tabular}
586: \end{table}
587:
588: \begin{table}
589: \label{table3}
590: \caption{The marginalized results with $1\sigma$
591: errors for the model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$ with $\Omega_k=0$}
592: \begin{tabular}{|ccccc|}
593: \hline
594: & \multicolumn{2}{c} {Gold Data} &\multicolumn{2}{c|} {Essence Data} \\
595: & Analytical & Flux & Analytical & Flux\\ \hline
596: $\Omega_m$&$0.29 \pm 0.02$ & $0.29 \pm 0.02$ & $0.27^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$ & $0.27\pm 0.02$ \\ \hline
597: $w_0$& $-0.98^{+0.17}_{-0.13}$ & $-0.98\pm 0.20$ & $-1.06^{+0.18}_{-0.17}$ & $-1.09 \pm 0.22$ \\ \hline
598: $w_a$& $0.28^{+0.65}_{-0.64}$ & $0.15 \pm 0.78$& $0.17^{+0.79}_{-0.85}$& $0.28 \pm 0.87$ \\ \hline
599: \end{tabular}
600: \end{table}
601:
602: \begin{table}
603: \label{table4} \caption{The marginalized results with $1\sigma$
604: errors for the model $w_0+w_a z/(1+z)^2$ with $\Omega_k=0$}
605: \begin{tabular}{|ccccc|}
606: \hline
607: & \multicolumn{2}{c} {Gold Data} &\multicolumn{2}{c|} {Essence Data} \\
608: & Analytical & Flux & Analytical & Flux \\ \hline
609: $\Omega_m$& $0.29 \pm 0.02$ & $0.28\pm 0.02$& $0.27 \pm 0.02$ & $0.27\pm 0.02$ \\ \hline
610: $w_0$& $-1.23\pm 0.26$& $-1.22^{+0.31}_{-0.30}$& $-1.15^{+0.29}_{-0.30}$& $-1.29^{+0.33}_{-0.32}$ \\ \hline
611: $w_a$& $2.28^{+1.75}_{-1.71}$ & $1.94^{+1.98}_{-1.96}$& $1.01^{+2.15}_{-2.14}$& $1.87^{+2.11}_{-2.12}$ \\ \hline
612: \end{tabular}
613: \end{table}
614:
615: \end{document}
616: