1: % Time-stamp: "2007-07-16 13:50:54 kamion"

2: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps,floats,tabularx,epsfig]{revtex}

3: \documentclass[twocolumn,prl,footinbib]{revtex4}

4: \usepackage{amsfonts, amssymb}

5: \usepackage{graphicx, epsfig,bm}

6: \usepackage{color}

7: %\documentclass{article}

8: %\usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

9: %\usepackage{bm}% bold math

10: 

11: \textwidth 173mm

12: \textheight 240mm

13: \oddsidemargin -2.5mm

14: \evensidemargin 0mm

15: \topmargin -48pt

16: \renewcommand\theequation{\arabic{equation}}

17: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

18: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

19: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

20: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

21: \newcommand{\eqn}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

22: \newcommand{\pp}{.}

23: \newcommand{\vv}{,}

24: \newcommand{\PTP}{Prog. Theo. Phys.}

25: \newcommand{\Nature}{{Nature\,}}

26: \newcommand{\PRep}{{Phys. Rep.\,}}

27: \newcommand{\ApJ}{{Astrophys. J.\,}}

28: \newcommand{\ApJS}{{Astrophys. J. Suppl.\,}}

29: \newcommand{\ARAA}{{Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.\,}}

30: \newcommand{\ARNS}{{Annu. Rev. Nucl. Sci.\,}}

31: \newcommand{\NP}{{Nucl. Phys.\,}}

32: \newcommand{\aaps}{{Astron.~Astrophys.~Supp.}}

33: \newcommand{\araa}{{Annu.~Rev.~Astron.~Astrophys.}}

34: \newcommand{\aap}{{Astron.~Astrophys.}}

35: \newcommand{\apjl}{{Astrophys.~J.~Lett.}}

36: %\newcommand{\apj}{{Astrophys.~J.}}

37: \newcommand{\apjs}{{Astrophys.~J.~Supp.}}

38: \newcommand{\aj}{{Astron.~J.}}

39: \newcommand{\PRD}{{Phys. Rev. D}}

40: \newcommand{\PR}{{Phys. Rev.\,}}

41: \newcommand{\PRL}{{Phys. Rev. Lett.\,}}

42: \newcommand{\PRS}{{Proc. Roy. Soc.\,}}

43: \newcommand{\PL}{{Phys. Lett.\,}}

44: \newcommand{\RMP}{Rev. Mod. Phys.\,}

45: \newcommand{\RPP}{Rep. Prog. Phys.\,}

46: \newcommand{\mnras}{Mon.~Not.~R.~Astron.~Soc.\,}

47: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}}

48: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}

49: \def\ga{\mathrelbe {\mathpalette\fun >}}

50: \def\fun#1#2{\lower3.6pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt\lineskip.9pt

51:         \ialign{$\mathsurround=0pt#1\hfill##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}

52: 

53: \renewcommand\({\left(}

54: \renewcommand\){\right)}

55: \renewcommand\[{\left[}

56: \renewcommand\]{\right]}

57: 

58: \newcommand\del{{\mbox {\boldmath $\nabla$}}}

59: 

60: \newcommand\eq[1]{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}

61: \newcommand\eqs[2]{Eqs.~(\ref{#1}) and (\ref{#2})}

62: \newcommand\eqss[3]{Eqs.~(\ref{#1}), (\ref{#2}) and (\ref{#3})}

63: \newcommand\eqsss[4]{Eqs.~(\ref{#1}), (\ref{#2}), (\ref{#3})

64: and (\ref{#4})}

65: \newcommand\eqssss[5]{Eqs.~(\ref{#1}), (\ref{#2}), (\ref{#3}),

66: (\ref{#4}) and (\ref{#5})}

67: \newcommand\eqst[2]{Eqs.~(\ref{#1})--(\ref{#2})}

68: 

69: \newcommand\pa{\partial}

70: \newcommand\pdif[2]{\frac{\pa #1}{\pa #2}}

71: 

72: %\newcommand\ee{\end{equation}}

73: %\newcommand\be{\begin{equation}}

74: %\newcommand\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

75: %\newcommand\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

76: 

77: %Fields and their VEVs

78: \def\so{S_1}

79: \def\st{S_3}

80: \def\stb{\overline{S}_3}

81: \def\se{S_8}

82: \def\see{S'_8}

83: \def\sf{S_{15}}

84: \def\sfp{S'_{15}}

85: 

86: \def\vo{|S_1|^2}

87: \def\vt{|S_3|^2}

88: \def\vtb{|\overline{S}_3|^2}

89: \def\ve{|S_8|^2}

90: \def\vee{|S'_8|^2}

91: \def\vf{|S_{15}|^2}

92: \def\vfp{|S'_{15}|^2}

93: 

94: %units

95: \newcommand\yr{\,\mbox{yr}}

96: \newcommand\sunit{\,\mbox{s}}

97: \newcommand\munit{\,\mbox{m}}

98: \newcommand\wunit{\,\mbox{W}}

99: \newcommand\Kunit{\,\mbox{K}}

100: \newcommand\muK{\,\mu\mbox{K}}

101: 

102: \newcommand\metres{\,\mbox{meters}}

103: \newcommand\mm{\,\mbox{mm}}

104: \newcommand\cm{\,\mbox{cm}}

105: \newcommand\km{\,\mbox{km}}

106: \newcommand\kg{\,\mbox{kg}}

107: \newcommand\TeV{\,\mbox{TeV}}

108: \newcommand\GeV{\,\mbox{GeV}}

109: \newcommand\MeV{\,\mbox{MeV}}

110: \newcommand\keV{\,\mbox{keV}}

111: \newcommand\eV{\,\mbox{eV}}

112: %\newcommand\pc{\,\mbox{pc}}

113: \newcommand\Mpc{\,\mbox{Mpc}}

114: 

115: %astronomical

116: \newcommand\msun{M_\odot}

117: \newcommand\mpl{M_{\rm P}}

118: \newcommand\MPl{M_{\rm P}}

119: \newcommand\Mpl{M_{\rm P}}

120: \newcommand\mpltil{\widetilde M_{\rm P}}

121: \newcommand\mf{M_{\rm f}}

122: \newcommand\mc{M_{\rm c}}

123: \newcommand\mgut{M_{\rm GUT}}

124: \newcommand\mstr{M_{\rm str}}

125: \newcommand\mpsis{|m_\chi^2|}

126: \newcommand\etapsi{\eta_\chi}

127: \newcommand\luv{\Lambda_{\rm UV}}

128: \newcommand\lf{\Lambda_{\rm f}}

129: 

130: \newcommand\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

131:     \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}

132: \newcommand\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

133:     \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}

134: 

135: \newcommand\diff{\mbox d}

136: 

137: \def\dbibitem#1{\bibitem{#1}\hspace{1cm}#1\hspace{1cm}}

138: \newcommand{\dlabel}[1]{\label{#1} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ #1\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }

139: \def\dcite#1{[#1]}

140: 

141: \def\dslash{\not{\hbox{\kern-2pt $\partial$}}}

142: \def\Dslash{\not{\hbox{\kern-4pt $D$}}}

143: \def\Oslash{\not{\hbox{\kern-4pt $O$}}}

144: \def\Qslash{\not{\hbox{\kern-4pt $Q$}}}

145: \def\pslash{\not{\hbox{\kern-2.3pt $p$}}}

146: \def\kslash{\not{\hbox{\kern-2.3pt $k$}}}

147: \def\qslash{\not{\hbox{\kern-2.3pt $q$}}}

148: 

149: %

150:  \newtoks\slashfraction

151:  \slashfraction={.13}

152:  \def\slash#1{\setbox0\hbox{$ #1 $}

153:  \setbox0\hbox to \the\slashfraction\wd0{\hss \box0}/\box0 }

154: 

155: % EXAMPLE OF HOW TO USE IT

156: % $\slash D$

157: % {\slashfraction={.075} $\slash{\cal A}$}

158: % $\slash B$

159: % $\slash a$

160: % {\slashfraction={.09} $\slash p$}

161: % $\slash q$

162: 

163: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

164: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

165: \def\smallfrac#1#2{\hbox{${\scriptstyle#1} \over {\scriptstyle#2}$}}

166: \def\fourth{{\scriptstyle{1 \over 4}}}

167: \def\half{{\scriptstyle{1\over 2}}}

168: \def\st{\scriptstyle}

169: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}

170: \def\mco{\multicolumn}

171: \def\epp{\epsilon'}

172: \def\vep{\varepsilon}

173: \def\ra{\rightarrow}

174: \def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}

175: \def\vp{{\bf p}}

176: \def\ko{K^0}

177: \def\kb{\bar{K^0}}

178: \def\al{\alpha}

179: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}

180: 

181: \def\calg{{\cal G}}

182: \def\calm{{\cal M}}

183: \def\calp{{\cal P}}

184: \def\calr{{\cal R}}

185: \def\calpr{{\calp_\calr}}

186: 

187: \newcommand\bfa{{\bf a}}

188: \newcommand\bfb{{\bf b}}

189: \newcommand\bfc{{\bf c}}

190: \newcommand\bfd{{\bf d}}

191: \newcommand\bfe{{\bf e}}

192: \newcommand\bff{{\bf f}}

193: \newcommand\bfg{{\bf g}}

194: \newcommand\bfh{{\bf h}}

195: \newcommand\bfi{{\bf i}}

196: \newcommand\bfj{{\bf j}}

197: \newcommand\bfk{{\bf k}}

198: \newcommand\bfl{{\bf l}}

199: \newcommand\bfm{{\bf m}}

200: \newcommand\bfn{{\bf n}}

201: \newcommand\bfo{{\bf o}}

202: \newcommand\bfp{{\bf p}}

203: \newcommand\bfq{{\bf q}}

204: \newcommand\bfr{{\bf r}}

205: \newcommand\bfs{{\bf s}}

206: \newcommand\bft{{\bf t}}

207: \newcommand\bfu{{\bf u}}

208: \newcommand\bfv{{\bf v}}

209: \newcommand\bfw{{\bf w}}

210: \newcommand\bfx{{\bf x}}

211: \newcommand\bfy{{\bf y}}

212: \newcommand\bfz{{\bf z}}

213: 

214: \newcommand\sub[1]{_{\rm #1}}

215: \newcommand\su[1]{^{\rm #1}}

216: 

217: \newcommand\supk{^{(K) }}

218: \newcommand\supf{^{(f) }}

219: \newcommand\supw{^{(W) }}

220: \newcommand\Tr{{\rm Tr}\,}

221: 

222: \newcommand\msinf{M\sub{inf}}

223: \newcommand\phicob{\phi\sub{COBE}}

224: \newcommand\delmult{\Delta V_{\chi\widetilde\chi{\rm f}}}

225: \newcommand\mgrav{m_{3/2}(t)}

226: \newcommand\mgravsq{m_{3/2}(t)}

227: \newcommand\mgravvac{m_{3/2}}

228: 

229: \newcommand\cpeak{\sqrt{\widetilde C_{\rm peak}}}

230: \newcommand\cpeako{\sqrt{\widetilde C_{\rm peak}^{(0)}}}

231: \newcommand\omb{\Omega\sub b}

232: \newcommand\ncobe{N\sub{COBE}}

233: \newcommand\vev[1]{\langle{#1}\rangle}

234: 

235: \begin{document}

236: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}

237: %\twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname@twocolumnfalse\endcsname]

238: 

239: \title{Beyond Two Dark Energy Parameters} \author{

240: Devdeep Sarkar$^1$, Scott Sullivan$^1$, Shahab Joudaki$^1$, Alexandre Amblard$^1$, Daniel

241: E. Holz$^{2,3}$,  and Asantha Cooray$^1$} \affiliation{$^1$Department

242: of Physics and Astronomy,  University of California, Irvine, CA 92697}

243: \affiliation{$^2$Theoretical    Division,   Los   Alamos   National

244: Laboratory,  Los  Alamos, NM  87545}  \affiliation{$^3$Department  of

245: Astronomy \& Astrophysics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637}

246: 

247: \date{\today}%

248: %\maketitle % use with old revtex !

249: 

250: \begin{abstract}

251: 

252: Our  ignorance  of  the  dark  energy  is  generally  described  by  a

253: two-parameter  equation of  state.  In  these approaches  a particular

254: {\it  ad hoc}  functional form  is assumed,  and only  two independent

255: parameters   are  incorporated.    We  propose   a  model-independent,

256: multi-parameter  approach to fitting  the dark  energy, and  show that

257: next-generation surveys will constrain  the equation of state in three

258: or  more independent  redshift  bins to  better  than $10$\%.   Future

259: knowledge  of  the  dark   energy  will  surpass  two  numbers  (e.g.,

260: [$w_0$,$w_1$]  or  [$w_0$,$w_a$]),  and  we propose  a  more  flexible

261: approach to the analysis of present and future data.

262: \end{abstract}

263: \bigskip

264: \pacs{PACS number(s): 95.85.Sz 04.80.Nn, 97.10.Vm }

265: 

266: \maketitle

267: 

268: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

269: %\section{Introduction}

270: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

271: Standard candles such as Type Ia supernovae (SNe), as well as standard

272: rulers such  as the cosmic  microwave background (CMB) and  the baryon

273: acoustic oscillation  (BAO) scale, are currently  the preferred probes

274: of the expansion  history of the Universe \cite{Rieetal04,Tonryetal03,

275: Spergel06,  Eis05}. By determining  distances at  cosmological scales,

276: these  probes  have  firmly  established  that the  expansion  of  the

277: universe is accelerating~\cite{perlmutter-1999,Rie06,Wood,Astier}.  It

278: is now believed that a mysterious dark energy component with an energy

279: density  $\sim$70\% of  the total  energy density  of the  universe is

280: responsible for this accelerated expansion.  The underlying physics of

281: dark energy  remains obscure \cite{Padmanabhan}  and understanding the

282: acceleration has become one  of the foremost challenges in fundamental

283: physics.

284: 

285: In an attempt to discriminate observationally between differing models

286: of dark  energy, it is useful  to parameterize the dark  energy by its

287: equation  of  state (EOS),  encapsulating  the  ratio  of pressure  to

288: density.  When  model fitting data,  it is generally assumed  that the

289: dark energy  EOS follows a certain  predetermined evolutionary history

290: with  redshift,  $w(z)$.  Common  parameterizations  include a  linear

291: variation,  $w(z)=w_0+w_z  z$ \cite{CooHut99},  or  an evolution  that

292: asymptotes to a constant $w$ at high redshift, $w(a)=w_0 + w_a (1-a)$,

293: with $a$ the scale factor \cite{ChevPol, Linder}.

294: 

295: Fitting data to an assumed functional form leads to possible biases in

296: the determination of properties of  the dark energy and its evolution,

297: especially  if  the true  behavior  of  the  dark energy  EOS  differs

298: significantly from the  assumed form~\cite{Gerke}.  The issues related

299: to  model-dependent studies  of  the  dark energy  EOS  are a  greater

300: problem for the high  precision datasets expected from next-generation

301: cosmological experiments, including distance measurements from a Joint

302: Dark Energy Mission (JDEM

303: \footnote{http://universe.nasa.gov/program/probes/jdem.html}).

304: 

305: Instead of  using a parameterized form  for $w(z)$, one  can utilize a

306: variant of  principal component analysis  \cite{HutSta03} to establish

307: the EOS  without relying  on a specific  parameter description  of the

308: underlying  redshift  evolution.   This  was  applied  by  Huterer  \&

309: Cooray~\cite{HutCoo} to a set  of early supernova data.  More recently

310: Riess et al. \cite{Rie06} used the  same approach to analyze a new set

311: of $z  > 1$  SNe from  the Hubble Space  Telescope, while  an analysis

312: involving a larger combined  dataset \cite{Davis07} has been presented

313: in   Sullivan   et   al.   \cite{sullivan07}.   Here   we   use   this

314: model-independent approach  to study the  extent to which  future data

315: will constrain  dark energy.  We find that  more than  two independent

316: parameters of the EOS  can be determined with next-generation surveys.

317: Our results argue against claims in the literature that

318: next-generation surveys can only determine two parameters of the EOS

319: as a function of redshift \cite{LinHut} and we motivate a

320: model-free approach to study dark energy.

321: 

322: To encapsulate  the range of  possible future dark energy  surveys, we

323: consider six different data scenarios  and generate mock data for each

324: one      assuming      a      flat      $\Lambda$CDM      cosmological

325: model~\cite{Spergel06}. Our datasets are: 

326: 

327: \begin{itemize}

328: \item Case A:  A catalog of 200 SNe  uniformly distributed in redshift

329:   out to $z=1.8$;  in addition, two BAO distance  estimates at $z=0.2$

330:   and $z=0.35$, with 6\%  and 4.7\% uncertainties, respectively.  This

331:   case   approximates    the   current   state   of    the   data   in

332:   SNe~\cite{Rie06,Astier,Davis07} and BAOs~\cite{Eis05,Percival}.

333: \item Case  B: A catalog  of 300 SNe  uniformly distributed out  to $z

334:   =0.1$, as  expected from ground-based  low redshift samples,  and an

335:   additional 2,000 SNe uniformly distributed in the range $0.1<z<1.8$,

336:   as expected from {\it  JDEM} or similar future surveys~\footnote{Our

337:   results  are  insensitive  to  the  precise shape  of  the  redshift

338:   distributions.   Furthermore, a mission  like {\it  SNAP} (SuperNova

339:   Acceleration Probe) would find greater  than 2,000 SNe, and a subset

340:   of  the SNe  with a  uniform redshift  distribution is  expected for

341:   analysis.}.  In addition to the  two BAO distances described in Case

342:   A,  five additional BAO  constraints at  $z =  [0.6, 0.8,  1.0, 1.2,

343:   3.0]$ with  corresponding fiducial survey precisions  of $[4.3, 3.2,

344:   2.3, 2.0, 1.2]$\% (V1N1 from~\cite{Seo03}).

345: \item Case  C: The same SN dataset  as described in case  B, the seven

346:   BAO estimates as described in case  B, and, in addition, ten new BAO

347:   constraints expected  from a  proposed JDEM mission  by NASA  or ESA

348:   concentrating  primarily on  BAO measurements,  such as  {\it ADEPT}

349:   (Advanced Dark Energy Physics  Telescope).  These BAO estimates have

350:   precision         (in         $D_V$         \cite{Eis05})         of

351:   $[0.36,0.33,0.34,0.33,0.31,0.33,0.32,0.35,0.37,\\0.37]$\%        from

352:   $z=1.05$ to 1.95 in steps of 0.05 \cite{Eisen}.

353: \item Case  D: A  dataset of 10,000  SNe uniformly distributed  out to

354:   $z=2$. In addition, seven BAO constraints as in case B, but assuming

355:   stronger   accuracies   (V5N5    of~\cite{Seo03})   for   the   five

356:   higher-redshift BAO constraints: $[1.9, 1.5, 1.0, 0.9, 0.6]$\% at $z

357:   = [0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 3.0]$.

358: \item  Case  E:  The  10,000  SN  dataset along  with  the  seven  BAO

359:   constraints  as  described in  case  D  and  the additional  10  BAO

360:   constraints expected  from space-based missions as  decribed in case

361:   C.

362: 

363: \item Case F: The SN dataset as described in case A

364:  combined with the  BAO estimates in case  E.

365: \end{itemize}

366: 

367: For each of  the cases listed above we create mock  catalogs of SN and

368: BAO  observations.   For  each  individual  SN we  simulate  a  random

369: distance  modulus  $m(z)-{\mathcal M}$  consistent  with our  fiducial

370: cosmological model.   In cases A  to C, we  bin the Hubble  diagram at

371: $z>0.1$ into 50 redshift bins, while  the 10,000 SNe sample in cases A

372: to F is binned into 500  bins.  The error in distance modulus for each

373: SN   bin  is  given   by  $\sigma_m=\sqrt{(\sigma_{\mbox{\footnotesize

374: int}}/\sqrt{N_{\mbox{\footnotesize   bin}}})^2+\delta   m^2}$,   where

375: $\sigma_{\mbox{\footnotesize  int}}=0.1\,\mbox{mag}$ is  the intrinsic

376: error  for each SN~\cite{kim},  $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize bin}}$  is the

377: number of SNe  in the redshift bin, and $\delta  m$ is the irreducible

378: systematic  error.  We  take the  systematic  error to  have the  form

379: $\delta m=0.02(0.1/\Delta  z)^{1/2} (1.7/z_{\mbox{\footnotesize max}})

380: (1 + z)/2.7$, where  $z_{\mbox{\footnotesize max}}$ is the redshift of

381: the furthest SNe, and $\Delta z$ is the width of the relevant redshift

382: bin.  This is equivalent to  the form in \cite{LinHut03}. In addition,

383: we     include     the     effects    of     gravitational     lensing

384: magnification~\cite{Frieman,HolzWald98,Wang00},   although  the  noise

385: from lensing is expected to be  small for large datasets due to sample

386: averaging  \cite{HolzLinder,Sarkar}.  We make  use of  the probability

387: distribution function  for lensing  magnification from Wang,  Holz, \&

388: Munshi~\cite{WangHolzMunshi} at $z \geq 0.6$, while for SNe at $z<0.6$

389: we   approximate  the   lensing   by  a   Gaussian  distribution   for

390: magnification with dispersion $0.093z$ magnitudes, as given in Holz \&

391: Linder~\cite{HolzLinder}.

392: 

393: We analyze a set of 10  independent mock catalogs for the data cases B

394: and C, to  account for random variations in the  estimates of the EOS.

395: When model  fitting each of  the mock samples,  we follow~\cite{Rie06}

396: and  marginalize  over  a  prior  in $\Omega_mh$  ($0.213  \pm  0.023$

397: \cite{Tegmark04}), a prior in $H_0$ (72 $\pm$ 8 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$

398: \cite{key01}),  and a  prior in  the distance  to the  last scattering

399: surface  at $z=1089$  ($R=1.71 \pm  0.03$ \cite{Wang}).   In  order to

400: account for uncertainty in the absolute magnitude, we also marginalize

401: over the  nuisance parameter,  $\mathcal M$, with  a uniform  prior of

402: -0.6 to  0.6 \cite{Wood}.  To  explore the importance of  our fiducial

403: assumption of  a flat universe,  for cases C  and E we also  explore a

404: curvature  prior,  with  a  1$\sigma$  uncertainty  on  $\Omega_k$  of

405: $0.0032$ \cite{Smith}.

406: 

407: We refer the reader to  Sullivan et al.  \cite{sullivan07} for details

408: of our  approach.  We make use  of a modified version  of the publicly

409: available              {\it              wzbinned}\/              code

410: \footnote{http://www.cooray.org/sn.html}, which analyzes observational

411: cosmological  data via a  Markov Chain  Monte Carlo  (MCMC) likelihood

412: approach   to   estimate   $w(z)$   in   redshift   bins.    In   this

413: parameterization, the  EOS is  taken to be  constant in  each redshift

414: bin, but can vary from bin to bin. We take a total of six bins between

415: $z=0$ and $z=3$ and fix the EOS at higher redshift to a constant value

416: of $-1$  out to the  CMB at $z=1089$.   In addition, we also  impose a

417: prior  on our  furthest (6th)  bin: $-5  \leq w_6  \leq 0$.   This bin

418: remains largely unconstrained  by the data cases we  have studied, and

419: the prior  facilitates convergence. In what follows  we will generally

420: omit this bin, as it  is poorly constrained. The redshift intervals of

421: the first five bins are listed in Table~1 and the intervals are chosen

422: so that the error on $w(z_i)$ is spread evenly across all bins.

423: 

424: The integration  to higher redshifts causes  correlations between lower-

425: and higher-redshift $w_i(z)$ bins, and this must be taken into account

426: in the subsequent analysis. These correlations are encapsulated in the

427: covariance matrix, which can be generated by taking the average of the

428: Markov  chain, $C  = \left\langle  {\bf  w} {\bf  w}^T \right\rangle  -

429: \left\langle    {\bf    w}\right\rangle    \left\langle   {\bf    w}^T

430: \right\rangle$, where  ${\bf w}$ captures  estimates of $w_i(z)$  as a

431: vector.   This covariance  matrix is  non-diagonal,  with correlations

432: between  adjacent  bins  that  slowly  decrease  with  increasing  bin

433: separation.

434: 

435: Instead of restricting ourselves  to correlated values of $w_i(z)$, we

436: follow  Huterer  \&   Cooray~\cite{HutCoo}  and  decorrelate  the  EOS

437: estimates.   This  is  achieved  by  changing  the  basis  through  an

438: orthogonal  matrix rotation that  diagonalizes the  inverse covariance

439: matrix.  The Fisher  matrix  ${\bf  F} \equiv  C^{-1}$  is then  ${\bf

440: F}={\bf  O^T} \Lambda  {\bf  O}$  where the  matrix  $\Lambda$ is  the

441: diagonalized   inverse  covariance  of   the  transformed   bins.  The

442: uncorrelated parameters are then  defined by the rotation performed by

443: the orthogonal matrix: ${\bf q} = {\bf O} {\bf w}$.

444: 

445: There is a freedom of choice  in the orthogonal matrix used to perform

446: this   transformation.   We   follow   the   approach   advocated   in

447: ~\cite{HutCoo}   and  write  the   weight  transformation   matrix  as

448: $\tilde{{\bf W}} = {\bf O}^T \Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}} {\bf O}$, where the

449: rows are summed such that the  weights from each band add up to unity.

450: This choice  ensures we have mostly positive  contributions across all

451: bands, an  intuitively pleasing  result.  We apply  the transformation

452: $\tilde{{\bf W}}$ to  each link in the Markov chain  to generate a set

453: of independent, uncorrelated  measures of the probability distribution

454: of the  EOS in each bin  as determined by the  observables.  We denote

455: these uncorrelated bins as  $\tilde{{\bf w}}=\tilde{{\bf W}} {\bf w}$.

456: When  discussing  our  results,  we  will  generally  refer  to  these

457: uncorrelated   estimates.  

458:   

459: 

460: \begin{figure}[!t]

461: \epsfxsize=3.4in

462: \centerline{\epsfbox{Fig1.ps}}

463: \caption{Uncorrelated binned estimates of  the EOS from a typical mock

464: sample generated  for Case  C (top panel)  and Case E  (bottom panel).

465: The error  bars show 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$  uncertainties with solid

466: and dashed lines, respectively.  At the bottom, in separate colors, we

467: show  the window function  for each  of the  independent, decorrelated

468: bins.  The  overlap  in   window  functions  represents  the  relative

469: contribution  from  adjacent   redshifts  bins  to  each  uncorrelated

470: $w(z_i)$ estimate.  }

471: \label{figure1}

472: \end{figure}

473: 

474: 

475: 

476: The results of our analysis are summarized in Table~\ref{table1}.  For

477: each of  the observational scenarios  we give the $1\sigma$  errors on

478: the determination  of $w$ in  5 uncorrelated redshift  ``bins''. Since

479: the redshift  bins are decorrelated,  they now leak into  one another;

480: the new window  functions are shown in Fig.~1  where we illustrate the

481: expected errors in  $w(z_i)$ for two mock samples from  Cases C and E.

482: For Cases B  and C we also list the relative  dispersion of the binned

483: $w(z)$ errors  determined by  analyzing 10 independent  datasets.  For

484: Case C we find that the  first four bins have average errors of 0.067,

485: 0.056, 0.048, and 0.059.  Analyzing several independent mock catalogs,

486: we   found   the  standard   deviation   to  be   [3.3,1.6,2.5,2.9]\%,

487: respectively for the first four  bins, relative to the mean error.  In

488: the last  column of Table~\ref{table1}, we specify  the number ($N_P$)

489: of  {\em  independent}  EOS   parameters  that  could  be  determined,

490: according to  our analysis, to an  accuracy better than  10\%. This is

491: the  same  criteria  used  previously to  argue  that  next-generation

492: surveys can determine at most two parameters of the EOS \cite{LinHut}.

493: 

494: \begin{table}[!t]\footnotesize

495: \begin{center}

496: \begin{tabular}{r|ccccc|c}

497: \hline

498: Bin      & $w_1(z)$ & $w_2(z)$   & $w_3(z)$  & $w_4(z)$ & $w_5(z)$ &  $N_P$ \\

499: z range  & 0-0.07   & 0.07-0.15  & 0.15-0.3  & 0.3-0.6  & 0.6-1.2   &     \\

500: \hline \hline

501: Case A     &  0.192       & 0.151   & 0.114     &  0.130     & 0.192    &  0 \\

502: \hline

503: Case B      & 0.077       & 0.066       & 0.061       & 0.084    & 0.230  & 4 \\

504:            & (1.9\%)     & (2.2\%)  & (1.8\%)  & (5.2\%)  & (12.8\%) &    \\

505: \hline

506: Case C     &  0.067       & 0.056   & 0.048     &  0.059     & 0.153  &   4 \\

507:            & (3.3\%)     & (1.6\%)  & (2.5\%)  & (2.9\%)  & (8.1\%) &  \\

508: with $\Omega_K$ & 0.073  & 0.060  & 0.053  & 0.065  & 0.179 &  4  \\

509: \hline

510: Case D      &  0.059       & 0.051   & 0.048     &  0.072    & 0.193   & 4 \\

511: \hline

512: Case E      & 0.055      &  0.044      & 0.040       &  0.052   &  0.116 &  4 \\

513: with $\Omega_K$ & 0.059  &  0.048      & 0.044   & 0.058   & 0.147  &  4\\

514: \hline

515: Case F     &  0.147       & 0.103   & 0.072     &  0.066     & 0.124  &  2 \\

516: \hline

517: \end{tabular}

518: \caption{$68$\% error in the value of $w$ in the uncorrelated redshift

519: bins assuming a flat universe. The $z$ range lists the redshift ranges

520: for the original bins, but decorrelating the covariance matrix results

521: in a leakage across bins. We show this leakage in the window functions

522: in Figure~1 for two mock samples  from cases C and E.  The last column

523: is  the number  of  {\em  independent} EOS  parameters  that could  be

524: determined to  an accuracy better  than 10\%, consistent with  a prior

525: study \cite{LinHut}.  For cases B  and C, within brackets, we list the

526: scatter relative to the mean error of $w_i(z)$ using a moderate number

527: of random datasets corresponding to the two cases.  For cases C and E,

528: we also show the errors for  the case where we allow for variations in

529: curvature with a prior on $\Omega_K$ expected from Planck.}

530: \label{table1}

531: \end{center}

532: \end{table}

533: 

534: Our  results  show  that  it   is  possible  to  determine  {\em  four

535: independent} EOS parameters  to an accuracy better than  10\%, for the

536: case of 2300  SNe coupled with high precision  BAO measurements (e.g.,

537: Case C; Fig.~1).  With cases D and E, two of these four parameters are

538: determined with  an accuracy  at the level  of 5\%.  Finally,  we note

539: that the results  of case F show that even with  only 200 SNe combined

540: with future BAO measurements,  one can constrain three independent EOS

541: parameters to around 10\%.

542: 

543: The results in Table~1 are for the case of a flat universe, except for

544: an additional analysis of cases C and E with the inclusion of a Planck

545: prior on  the curvature~\cite{Smith}. With varying  curvature, we find

546: that the  errors on $w(z)$  broaden by less  than 3\% relative  to the

547: errors  with the  flat  universe assumption.  Thus  the assumption  of

548: flatness, although it very slightly  improves our fits, does not alter

549: the  general  conclusion  that  one  can  constrain  more  than  three

550: parameters of the dark energy EOS.

551: 

552: Linder  \& Huterer~\cite{LinHut}  have argued  that future  data (SNe,

553: CMB, and weak lensing measurements) will lead to a determination of no

554: more than two  independent parameters of the EOS  to better than 10\%.

555: They consider  a principal  components analysis of  the EOS  binned at

556: redshift  intervals  of  0.05,  and  argue that  only  the  first  two

557: components are  determined to  better than 10\%.  While the  third and

558: higher  principal  components  are  determined  invidually  with  less

559: accuracy,  by  combining  multiple components  additional  independent

560: precise  $w(z_i)$ estimates  can be  achieved.  Our  approach utilizes

561: much wider  (and uneven) binning  in redshift, thereby allowing  for a

562: more  robust capture  of dark  energy properties,  and  thus naturally

563: finding   multiple  independent   parameters.    In  addition,   while

564: \cite{LinHut}  limited  themselves to  a  Fisher  matrix approach,  we

565: explicitly generate  mock data sets, accounting  for intrinsic scatter

566: and  systematic biases  such as  lensing. Even  with the  inclusion of

567: additional systematic errors, we  find that future data constrain more

568: than two independent parameters of the dark energy equation of state.

569: 

570: Two-parameter  dark  energy fitting  has  been  incorporated into  the

571: figure-of-merit (FoM) quantity advocated by the Dark Energy Task Force

572: \cite{DETF}, which is based on  a two-parameter model for the equation

573: of state  ($w(z)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$). This provides  a convenient criterion

574: for  the evaluation  of next-generation  dark energy  surveys.   As an

575: alternative, more general FoMs, such as the ones discussed in Albrecht

576: \&  Bernstein~\cite{Albrecht} and  Sullivan  et al.~\cite{sullivan07},

577: allow for  more than two  parameters.  Since different  FoMs highlight

578: different aspects of the theory and the data, consideration of a range

579: of FoMs is warranted.

580: 

581: In summary, we  find that next-generation dark energy  surveys will be

582: able to constrain three or more independent parameters of the equation

583: of  state to  an accuracy  better than  10\%. This  is in  contrast to

584: recent claims in the  literature, and convenventional wisdom, that two

585: parameters are sufficient in dark energy analyses.  As we enter an era

586: of precision  measurements, it is  important to avoid  prejudicing our

587: results with arbitrary  functional forms for the dark  energy. We have

588: thus proposed a  model-independent, multi-parameter analysis procedure

589: for fitting  the dark  energy equation of  state, and have  shown that

590: precision measurements  of the  dark energy can  be expected  with the

591: next generation of surveys.

592: 

593: 

594: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

595: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

596: \smallskip

597: We thank  an anonymous referee  and Adam Riess for  valuable comments.

598: This  work  was  supported  by  LANL IGPP  Astro-1603-07,  NSF  CAREER

599: AST-0645427  (AC)  and  a  Richard  P. Feynman  Fellowship  from  LANL

600: (DEH). AC and DEH thank Aspen Center for Physics for hospitality while

601: this work was completed.

602: 

603: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

604: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

605: 

606: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

607: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

608: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

609: \frenchspacing

610: \bibitem{Rieetal04}

611:   A.~G.~Riess {\it et al.},

612:   %``Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z>1 From the Hubble Space Telescope:

613:   %Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution,''

614:   Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 607}, 665 (2004).

615:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0402512;%%

616: 

617: \bibitem{Tonryetal03}

618:   J.~L.~Tonry {\it et al.},

619:   %``Cosmological Results from High-z Supernovae,''

620:   Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 594}, 1 (2003).

621:   

622: \bibitem{Eis05}

623:   D.~J.~Eisenstein {\it et al.},  

624:   %``Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation

625:   %Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies,''

626:   Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 633}, 560 (2005).

627:   %%CITATION = ASJOA,633,560;%%

628: 

629: \bibitem{Spergel06}

630:   D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.},

631:   %``Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results:

632:   %Implications for cosmology,''

633:   Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 170}, 377 (2007).

634:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/0603449;%%

635: 

636: 

637: \bibitem{perlmutter-1999}

638:   A.~Riess {\it et al.}, Astron. J. {\bf 116}, 1009 (1998);

639:   S.\ Perlmutter {\it et al.},  

640:   %``Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae,''

641:   Astrophys.\ J. {\bf 517}, 565 (1999).

642:     

643: \bibitem{Wood}

644:  W.~M.~Wood-Vasey {\it et al.},

645:   %``Observational Constraints on the Nature of the Dark Energy: First

646:   %Cosmological Results from the ESSENCE Supernova Survey,''

647:   Astrophys.\ J. {\bf 666}, 694 (2007).

648:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/0701041;%%

649:     

650: \bibitem{Rie06}

651:   A.~G.~Riess {\it et al.},

652:   %``New Hubble Space Telescope Discoveries of Type Ia Supernovae at $z > 1$:

653:   %Narrowing Constraints on the Early Behavior of Dark Energy,''

654:   Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 659}, 98 (2007).

655:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/0611572;%%

656: 

657: \bibitem{Astier} P. Astier {\it et al.}, 

658:   %``The Supernova Legacy Survey: Measurement of Omega_M, Omega_Lambda and w from the First Year Data Set''

659:   Astron. Astrophys. {\bf 447} 31 (2006).

660:   

661: \bibitem{Padmanabhan}

662:   T.~Padmanabhan,

663:   %``Cosmological constant: The weight of the vacuum,''

664:   Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 380}, 235 (2003).

665:   %%CITATION = PRPLC,380,235;%%

666: 

667: \bibitem{CooHut99}

668:   A.~R.~Cooray and D.~Huterer,

669:   %``Gravitational Lensing as a Probe of Quintessence,''

670:   Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 513}, L95 (1999)

671:   [arXiv:astro-ph/9901097].

672: 

673: \bibitem{ChevPol}

674:   M.~Chevallier and D.~Polarski, 

675:   %``Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter''

676:   Int. J. Mod. Phys. D {\bf 10}, 213 (2001).

677: 

678: \bibitem{Linder}

679: 	E.V.~Linder

680: 	Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 90}, 091301 (2003).

681: 	

682: 

683: \bibitem{Gerke}

684:   B.~F.~Gerke and G.~Efstathiou,

685:   %``Probing quintessence: Reconstruction and parameter estimation from

686:   %supernovae,''

687:   Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\  {\bf 335}, 33 (2002);

688:   C.~Li, D.~E.~Holz and A.~Cooray,

689:   %``Direct reconstruction of the dark energy scalar-field potential,''

690:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 75}, 103503 (2007).

691:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D75,103503;%%

692: 

693: \bibitem{HutSta03}

694:   D.~Huterer and G.~Starkman,

695:   %``Parameterization of dark-energy properties: A principal-component

696:   %approach,''

697:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 90}, 031301 (2003).

698: 

699: \bibitem{HutCoo}

700:   D.~Huterer and A.~Cooray,

701:   %``Uncorrelated Estimates of Dark Energy Evolution,''

702:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 023506 (2005)

703:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0404062].

704:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0404062;%%

705:   

706:   \bibitem{Davis07}

707:   T.~M.~Davis {\it et al.},

708:   %``Scrutinizing exotic cosmological models using ESSENCE supernova data

709:   %combined with other cosmological probes,''

710:   Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 666}, 716 (2007)

711:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/0701510;%%

712: 

713: \bibitem{sullivan07}

714:   S.~Sullivan, A.~Cooray, and D.~E.~Holz,

715:   %``Narrowing Constraints with Type Ia Supernovae: Converging on a

716:   %Cosmological Constant,''

717:   J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2007) 004

718: 

719: \bibitem{LinHut}

720:   E.~V.~Linder and D.~Huterer,

721:   %``How many dark energy parameters?,''

722:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 72}, 043509 (2005).

723:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D72,043509;%%

724: 

725: \bibitem{Percival}

726:   W.~J.~Percival {\it et al.},

727:   Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. {\bf 381}, 1053 (2007)

728:   %%CITATION = ASJOA,657,645;%%

729: 

730: \bibitem{Seo03}

731: 	H-J.~Seo and D.~J.~Eisenstein,

732: 	%``Probing dark energy with baryonic acoustic oscillations from future 

733: 	%large galaxy redshift surveys''

734: 	Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 598}, 720 (2003).

735: 	

736: \bibitem{Eisen}

737:   A. Riess (private communication).

738: 

739: \bibitem{kim}

740:   A.~G.~Kim, E.~V.~Linder, R.~Miquel and N.~Mostek,

741:   %``Effects of Systematic Uncertainties on the Supernova Determination of

742:   %Cosmologial Parameters,''

743:   Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\  {\bf 347}, 909 (2004).

744:   %%CITATION = MNRAA,347,909;%%

745: 

746: \bibitem{LinHut03}

747:   E.~V.~Linder and D.~Huterer,

748:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 67}, 081303 (2003).

749: 

750:   \bibitem{Frieman}

751:   J.~A.~Frieman,

752:   %``Weak Lensing and the Measurement of q0 from Type Ia Supernovae,''

753:   arXiv:astro-ph/9608068.

754:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/9608068;%%

755: 

756: 

757:   \bibitem{HolzWald98}

758:   D.~E.~Holz and R.~M.~Wald,

759:   %``Weak Lensing and the Measurement of q0 from Type Ia Supernovae,''

760:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 063501 (1998).

761:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/9608068;%%

762: 

763:   \bibitem{Wang00}

764:   Y.~Wang,

765:   %``Observational Constraints on Dark Energy and Cosmic Curvature,''

766:   Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 536}, 531 (2000)  

767:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/0703780;%%

768: 

769: \bibitem{Sarkar}

770:   D.~Sarkar, A. ~Amblard, D. ~E. ~Holz, and A. ~Cooray,

771:   Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 678}, 1 (2008)

772:   [arXiv:0710.4143]. 

773: 

774: \bibitem{HolzLinder}

775:         D.~E.~Holz and E. V. Linder,

776:         %``Safety in Numbers: Gravitational Lensing Degradation of the Luminosity Distance-Redshift Relation''

777:         Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 631}, 678 (2005).

778: 

779: 

780: \bibitem{WangHolzMunshi}

781: 	Y.~Wang, D.~E.~Holz, and D.~Munshi,

782: 	%``A universal probability distribution function for weak-lensing 

783: 	%amplification''

784: 	Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 572}, L15 (2002).

785: 

786: \bibitem{Tegmark04}  

787: 	M.~Tegmark et al.,

788: 	%``The three-dimensional power spectrum of galaxies from the Sloan

789: 	%Digital Sky Survey,''

790: 	Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 606}, 702 (2004).

791: 	%[arXiv:astro-ph/0310725]

792: 

793: 

794: \bibitem{key01}

795: W. L. ~Freedman et al. ,

796: Astrophys. \ J. \ {\bf 553}, 47 (2001).

797: 

798: 

799: \bibitem{Wang}

800:   Y.~Wang and P.~Mukherjee,

801:   %``Observational Constraints on Dark Energy and Cosmic Curvature,''

802:   Phys. Rev. D {\bf 76}, 103533 (2007).

803:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/0703780;%%

804: 

805: \bibitem{Smith}

806: K.~M.~Smith, W.~Hu, and M.~Kaplinghat, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 123002 (2006).

807: 

808: \bibitem{DETF}

809:   A.~Albrecht {\it et al.},

810:   %``Report of the Dark Energy Task Force,''

811:   arXiv:astro-ph/0609591 (2006).

812:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/0609591;%%

813: 

814: \bibitem{Albrecht}

815:   A.~Albrecht and G.~Bernstein,

816:   %``A dark energy figure of merit in higher dimensions,''

817:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 75}, 103003 (2007).

818:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D75,103003;%%

819:   

820: 

821: \end{thebibliography}

822: \end{document}

823: