1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: \def\figsize{9.5cm}
3: \def\figsiz{8.5cm}
4: \def\smtopskip{-1.2cm}
5: \def\smbotskip{-1.0cm}
6: %\def\smtopskip{-1cm}
7: %\def\smbotskip{-0.5cm}
8:
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10: % THIS STUFF IS FOR MY FULLY PORTABLE RERENCE NOTATION.
11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
12:
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: % PHYSICAL REVIEW:
15: % LINE INDENTATION:
16: %\def\rn{\noindent\parshape 2 0truecm 8.5truecm 0.3truecm 8.2truecm}
17: %\def\rn{\noindent\parshape 2 0.5truecm 8.5truecm 0.5truecm 8.5truecm}
18: \def\rn{}
19: % NAME STYLE: A. E. Neumann
20: \def\nn#1 #2{#2. #1} % Name with 1 initial
21: \def\nnn#1 #2 #3{#2. #3. #1} % Name with 2 initials
22: \def\nnnn#1 #2 #3 #4{#2. #3. #4 #1} % Name with 3 initials
23: \def\nnnnn#1 #2 #3 #4 #5{#2. #3. #4 #5. #1} % Name with 4 initials
24: % AUTHOR SEPARATION STYLE: "first and second", "first, second, and third"
25: \def\dualand{ and\hbox{ }}
26: \def\multiand{, and\hbox{ }}
27: %\def\multiand{ and,\hbox{ }}
28: % JOURNAL ARTICLE STYLE:
29: \def\rf#1;#2;#3;#4;#5 {{\frenchspacing\par\rn#1, #3 {\bf #4}, #5 (#2). \par}}
30: \def\rrf#1;#2;#3;#4;#5 {{\frenchspacing\rn#1, #3 {\bf #4}, #5 (#2);~}}
31: \def\rrrf#1;#2;#3;#4;#5 {{\frenchspacing\rn#1, #3 {\bf #4}, #5 (#2).}}
32: \def\rg#1;#2;#3;#4;#5;#6 {{\frenchspacing\par\rn#1, #3 {\bf #4}, #5 (#2). \par}}
33: % BOOK STYLE:
34: \def\rfbook#1;#2;#3;#4;#5 {{\frenchspacing\par\rn#1, {\it #3} (#5, #4, #2).\par}}
35: % PREPRINT STYLE:
36: \def\rfprep#1;#2;#3 {{\par\frenchspacing\rn#1, #3 (#2).\par}}
37: \def\rrfprep#1;#2;#3 {{\frenchspacing\rn#1, #3 (#2);~}}
38: \def\rrrfprep#1;#2;#3 {{\frenchspacing\rn#1, #3 (#2).}}
39: %\def\rfprep#1;#2;#3 {{\par\frenchspacing\rn#1, Report No. #3, #2 (unpublished).\par}}
40: % PROCEEDINGS STYLE: APJ + ITALIC
41: \def\rfproc#1;#2;#3;#4;#5;#6 {{\frenchspacing\par\rn#1 #2, in {\it #3}, ed. #4 (#5: #6)\par}}
42: \def\rfprocp#1;#2;#3;#4;#5;#6;#7 {{\frenchspacing\par\rn#1 #2, in {\it #3}, ed. #4 (#5: #6), p#7\par}}
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44:
45:
46: \def\rg#1;#2;#3;#4;#5;#6 {\par\rn#1 #2, {\it #3}, {\bf #4}, #5 (``#6'') \par}
47: % JOURNAL ARTICLE STYLE: APJ + ITALIC JOURNAL & BOLD VOLUME:
48: %\def\rf#1;#2;#3;#4;#5 {\par\rn#1 #2, {\it #3}, {\bf #4}, #5\par}
49: \def\rf#1;#2;#3;#4;#5 {\par\rn#1, {\it #3}, {\bf #4}, #5 (#2)\par}
50: % BOOK STYLE: APJ + ITALIC
51: \def\rfbook#1;#2;#3;#4;#5 {{\frenchspacing\par\rn#1, {\it #3} (#4: #5, #2)\par}}
52: %\def\rfbook#1;#2;#3;#4;#5 {{\frenchspacing\par\rn#1 #2, {\it #3} (#4: #5)\par}}
53: % PROCEEDINGS STYLE: APJ + ITALIC
54: \def\rfproc#1;#2;#3;#4;#5;#6 {{\frenchspacing\par\rn#1 #2, in {\it #3}, ed. #4 (#5: #6)\par}}
55: \def\rfprocp#1;#2;#3;#4;#5;#6;#7 {{\frenchspacing\par\rn#1 #2, in {\it #3}, ed. #4 (#5: #6), p#7\par}}
56: % BRIEFER PREPRINT STYLE:
57: \def\rfprep#1;#2;#3 {{\par\rn#1, #3, #2\par}}
58: %\def\rfprep#1;#2;#3 {{\par\rn#1 #2, #3\par}}
59: \def\rfprepp#1;#2;#3 {{\par\rn#1 #2, #3\par}}
60:
61: % NAME STYLE: A E Neumann
62: %\def\nn#1 #2{#2 #1} % Name with 1 initial
63: %\def\nnn#1 #2 #3{#2 #3 #1} % Name with 2 initials
64: %\def\nnnn#1 #2 #3 4{#2 #3 #4 #1} % Name with 3 initials
65:
66: %\def\hurf{{\bf (HURF)}}
67: %\def\refs{{\bf (REFS)}}
68: \def\hurf{}
69: %\def\refs{}
70:
71: \def\kg{{\rm kg}}
72: \def\Meter{{\rm m}}
73: \def\Second{{\rm s}}
74: \def\K{{\rm K}}
75: \def\milliK{{\rm mK}}
76: \def\mK{{\rm \mu K}}
77: \def\muK{{\rm \mu K}}
78: \def\MJy{{\rm MJy}}
79: \def\Jy{{\rm Jy}}
80: \def\mJy{{\rm mJy}}
81: \def\sr{{\rm sr}}
82: \def\MJysr{\MJy/\sr}
83: \def\Mpc{{\rm Mpc}}
84: \def\hperMpc{\,h/\Mpc}
85: \def\hMpc{\,h^{-1}\Mpc}
86: \def\km{{\rm km}}
87: \def\GHz{{\rm GHz}}
88:
89: \def\expec#1{\langle#1\rangle}
90: \def\notyet{\vskip0.5cm{\large [Not written yet]}\vskip0.5cm}
91:
92: \def\etal{{\frenchspacing\it et al.}}
93: \def\ie{{\frenchspacing\it i.e.}}
94: \def\eg{{\frenchspacing\it e.g.}}
95: \def\etc{{\frenchspacing\it etc.}}
96: %\def\rms{rms}
97: \def\rms{{\frenchspacing r.m.s.}}
98:
99: \def\crr{\cr\noalign{\vskip 4pt}}
100:
101: \def\bfk{\mbox{\bf k}}
102: \def\bfr{\mbox{\bf r}}
103: \def\bfe{\mbox{\bf e}}
104: \def\bfd{\mbox{\bf d}}
105: \def\bfx{\mbox{\bf x}}
106: \def\bfp{\mbox{\bf p}}
107: \def\bfq{\mbox{\bf q}}
108: \def\bfs{\mbox{\bf s}}
109:
110:
111: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
112: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
113: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
114: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
115:
116: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}
117: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}
118: \def\fun#1#2{\lower3.6pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt\lineskip.9pt
119: \ialign{$\mathsurround=0pt#1\hfill##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
120:
121: %%%% EQUATION STUFF: %%%%
122: \def\beq#1{\begin{equation}\label{#1}}
123: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
124: \def\beqa#1{\begin{eqnarray}\label{#1}}
125: \def\eeqa{\end{eqnarray}}
126: \def\eq#1{equation~(\ref{#1})}
127: \def\Eq#1{Equation~(\ref{#1})}
128: \def\eqn#1{~(\ref{#1})}
129:
130: %%%% FIGURE STUFF: %%%%
131: \def\fig#1{Figure~\ref{#1}}
132: \def\Fig#1{Figure~\ref{#1}}
133:
134: %%%% TABLE STUFF: %%%%
135: %\def\tab#1{Table~\ref{#1}}
136: %\def\Tab#1{Table~\ref{#1}}
137:
138:
139: %%%% SECTION REFERENCING STUFF: %%%%
140: \def\Sec#1{Section~\ref{#1}}
141: \def\Sec#1{Section~\ref{#1}}
142:
143: \def\nskip{\hskip-2mm}
144:
145: %\simlt and \simgt produce > and < signs with twiddle underneath
146: \def\spose#1{\hbox to 0pt{#1\hss}}
147: \def\simlt{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
148: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}
149: \def\simgt{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
150: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}
151: %\simpropto produces \propto with twiddle underneath
152: \def\simpropto{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
153: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\propto$}}}
154:
155: \def\ed{\end{document}}
156:
157: \def\f{X}
158: %\def\f{f_X}
159: %\def\f{\lambda}
160: \def\rhol{\rho_\Lambda}
161: \def\rhox{\rho_X}
162: %\def\finf{\f_\infty}
163: \def\finf{f_\infty}
164: \def\wi{w_i}
165: \def\wa{w_a}
166: \def\wo{w_1}
167: \def\wz{w_0}
168: \def\wp{w'_0}
169: \def\zcut{z_*}
170: \def\tturn{t_{\rm turn}}
171: \def\Om{\Omega_m}
172: \def\Ox{\Omega_x}
173: \def\Omz{\Omega_m^0}
174: \def\Otot{\Omega_{\rm tot}}
175: \def\zcmb{z_{\rm CMB}}
176: \def\ztwodf{z_{\rm 2df}}
177: \def\zmax{z_{\rm max}}
178:
179: %\def\Angstrom{{\rm\AA}} % A with circle on top
180:
181:
182: %%%% EQUATION STUFF: %%%%
183: \def\beq#1{\begin{equation}\label{#1}}
184: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
185: \def\beqa#1{\begin{eqnarray}\label{#1}}
186: \def\eeqa{\end{eqnarray}}
187: \def\eq#1{equation~(\ref{#1})}
188: \def\Eq#1{Equation~(\ref{#1})}
189: \def\eqn#1{~(\ref{#1})}
190:
191:
192: %\def\sectio#1{\section{#1}}
193: % TO REMOVE SECTION HEADINGS:
194: %\def\sectio#1{}
195: \def\sectio#1{{\bf #1:}}
196:
197: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
198:
199: % FOR PRD:
200: %\documentclass[checkin,prd,amsmath,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
201: \documentclass[twocolumn,amsmath,nofootinbib]{revtex4} % For astro-ph
202: %\documentclass[amsmath,nofootinbib,preprint]{revtex4} % 4 strauss
203: \usepackage{url}
204: \begin{document}
205: % Include Rokicki's epsf.sty file for Encapsulated PostScript graphics
206: \input{epsf.sty}
207:
208: % FOR APJ:
209: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,danonecolfloat]{article}
210: %%\documentstyle[aasms4]{article}
211: %\def\NoApjSectionMarkInTitle#1{#1.\ }
212: %%\draft
213: %\begin{document}
214: %\twocolumn[%%% Begin front material
215:
216: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
217:
218: %\tighten
219: %\eqsecnum
220: %\received{4 August 1988}
221: %\accepted{23 September 1988}
222: %\journalid{337}{15 January 1989}
223: %\articleid{11}{14}
224:
225:
226: \def\affilmrk#1{$^{#1}$}
227: \def\affilmk#1#2{$^{#1}$#2;}
228:
229:
230: %\submitted{\today. To be submitted to PRL}
231:
232:
233:
234: \title{Differentiating dark energy and modified gravity with
235: galaxy redshift surveys}
236:
237: \author{Yun Wang}
238: \address{Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Univ. of Oklahoma,
239: 440 W.~Brooks St., Norman, OK 73019, USA; wang@nhn.ou.edu}
240:
241: %\author{Yun Wang\footnote{Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Univ. of Oklahoma,
242: %440 W.~Brooks St., Norman, OK 73019, USA; wang@nhn.ou.edu}}
243: %\address{}
244: %\address{Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Univ. of Oklahoma,
245: %440 W.~Brooks St., Norman, OK 73019, USA; wang@nhn.ou.edu}
246:
247:
248: %\date{\today.}
249: %\date{Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. March 11 2004, accepted April 21.}
250:
251: %
252: \begin{abstract}
253: The observed cosmic acceleration today could be due to an
254: unknown energy component (dark energy),
255: or a modification to general relativity (modified gravity).
256: If dark energy models and modified gravity models are
257: required to predict the same cosmic expansion history $H(z)$,
258: they will predict {\it different} growth rate for
259: cosmic large scale structure, $f_g(z)$.
260: %$f_g(z)=d\ln \delta/d\ln a$
261: %($\delta=(\rho_m-\overline{\rho_m})/\overline{\rho_m})$,
262: %$a$ is the cosmic scale factor).
263: If gravity is not modified, the measured
264: $H(z)$ leads to a unique prediction for $f_g(z)$,
265: $f_g^H(z)$, if dark energy and dark matter are separate.
266: Comparing $f_g^H(z)$ with the measured $f_g(z)$
267: provides a transparent and straightforward test of gravity.
268: We show that a simple $\chi^2$ test provides a general
269: figure-of-merit for our ability to distinguish between
270: dark energy and modified gravity given the measured $H(z)$
271: and $f_g(z)$.
272: We find that a magnitude-limited NIR
273: galaxy redshift survey covering $>$10,000 (deg)$^2$
274: and the redshift range of $0.5<z<2$ can be used
275: to measure $H(z)$ to 1-2\% accuracy via baryon acoustic oscillation
276: measurements, and $f_g(z)$ to the accuracy of a few percent
277: via the measurement of redshift-space distortions
278: and the bias factor which describes how
279: light traces mass.
280: %We study a magnitude-limited NIR
281: %galaxy redshift survey covering $>$10,000 (deg)$^2$
282: %and the redshift range of $0.5<z<2$. The resultant data
283: %can be divided into 7 redshift bins, and yield the measurement
284: %of $H(z)$ to the accuracy of 1-2\% via baryon acoustic oscillation
285: %measurements, and $f_g(z)$ to the accuracy of a few percent
286: %via the measurement of redshift-space distortions
287: %and the bias factor which describes how
288: %light traces mass.
289: We show that if the $H(z)$ data are fit by both a DGP gravity model and
290: an equivalent dark energy model that predict the same $H(z)$,
291: a survey area of 11,931$\,$(deg)$^2$ is required
292: to rule out the DGP gravity model at the 99.99\% confidence level.
293: It is feasible for such a galaxy redshift survey to be carried out by
294: the next generation space missions from NASA and ESA,
295: and it will revolutionize our understanding of the universe
296: by differentiating between dark energy and modified gravity.
297:
298:
299:
300: \end{abstract}
301:
302: \keywords{large-scale structure of universe
303: --- galaxies: statistics
304: --- methods: data analysis}
305: % ]%%% End front material
306:
307:
308: % PACS, the Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme
309: % http://www.aip.org/pacs/pacs03/pacs0390.html
310: \pacs{98.80.Es}
311: %\keywords{cosmic microwave background -- diffuse radiation}
312: %%-- radiation mechanisms: thermal and non-thermal
313: %%-- methods: data analysis}
314: %]%%% End front material
315:
316: \maketitle
317:
318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
320:
321:
322:
323: %\setcounter{footnote}{0}
324:
325: \section{Introduction}
326: The observed cosmic acceleration today \cite{Riess98,Perl99}
327: could be due to an unknown energy component (dark energy,
328: \eg, \cite{quintessence}), or a modification to general relativity
329: (modified gravity, \eg, \cite{modifiedgravity,DGPmodel}).
330: Ref.\cite{reviews} contains reviews with more complete lists of references.
331: Illuminating the nature of dark energy is one of the most exciting
332: challenges in cosmology today.
333:
334: The cosmic expansion history, $H(z)=(d\ln a/dt)$ ($a$ is the cosmic
335: scale factor), and the growth rate for cosmic large scale structure,
336: $f_g(z)=d\ln \delta/d\ln a$
337: [$\delta=(\rho_m-\overline{\rho_m})/\overline{\rho_m}$],
338: are two functions of redshift $z$
339: %(or cosmic time $t$)
340: that can be measured from cosmological data.
341: They provide independent and complementary probes
342: of the nature of the observed cosmic acceleration \cite{DGP,otherfg}.
343: The precisely measured $H(z)$ and $\Omega_m$ lead to a unique prediction
344: for $f_g(z)$ in the absence of modified gravity,
345: $f_g^H(z)$, if dark energy and dark matter are separate.
346: Comparing $f_g^H(z)$ with the measured $f_g(z)^{obs}$
347: provides a transparent and straightforward test of gravity (see Fig.1).
348: If gravity is not modified, $H(z)$ and $f_g(z)$
349: together provide stronger constraints on dark energy
350: models \cite{fg_use}.
351:
352: Using the VVDS data,
353: Ref.\cite{Guzzo07} demonstrated that a magnitude-limited
354: galaxy redshift survey can be used to measure $f_g(z)$
355: via measurements of redshift-space distortion parameter
356: \be
357: \beta(z)=\frac{f_g(z)}{b(z)}
358: \ee
359: and the bias parameter
360: $b(z)$ (which describes how light traces mass)
361: from galaxy clustering.
362: In this paper we show that a feasible, sufficiently wide and deep
363: magnitude-limited galaxy redshift survey will allow us to unambiguously
364: differentiate between dark energy and modified gravity by providing
365: precise measurements of $H(z)$ and $f_g(z)$ (see Fig.1).
366:
367: \begin{figure}
368: \vskip-1.3cm
369: \centerline{\epsfxsize=\figsize\epsffile{Hzfg.ps}}
370: \vskip-0.3cm
371: \caption[1]{\label{Hzfg}\footnotesize%
372: Current and expected future measurements of the
373: cosmic expansion history $H(z)=H_0 E(z)$ and the growth rate of
374: cosmic large scale structure
375: $f_g(z)=d\ln \delta/d\ln a$ ($\delta=(\rho_m-\overline{\rho_m})/
376: \overline{\rho_m})$, $a$ is the cosmic scale factor).
377: Note that the fiducial model assumed for the future galaxy redshift
378: survey is a dark energy model with the same $H(z)$ as that of
379: the DGP model. These two models have identical expansion histories
380: $H(z)$ [solid line in panel (a)], but very different growth
381: rates $f_g(z)$ [solid and dashed lines in panel (b)].
382: }
383: \end{figure}
384:
385:
386: \section{Models}
387: If the present cosmic acceleration is caused by dark energy,
388: $E(z) \equiv H(z)/H_0=[\Omega_m (1+z)^3 + \Omega_k (1+z)^2 +\Omega_X X(z)
389: ]^{1/2}$, where $X(z)\equiv \rho_X(z)/\rho_X(0)$, with $\rho_X(z)$
390: denoting the dark energy density.
391: The linear growth rate $f_g\equiv d\ln D_1/d\ln a$
392: is determined by solving the equation for $D_1=\delta^{(1)}(\bfx,t)/\delta(\bfx)$,
393: \be
394: \label{eq:fg}
395: D_1''(\tau) + 2E(z)D_1'(\tau) - {3\over 2}\Om (1+z)^3D_1 = 0,
396: \ee
397: where primes denote $d/d(H_0 t)$, and we have assumed that dark
398: energy and dark matter are separate.
399:
400:
401: In the simplest alternatives to dark energy,
402: the present cosmic acceleration is caused by a modification
403: to general relativity. The only rigorously worked example
404: is the DGP gravity model \cite{DGPmodel,DGP},
405: which can be described by a modified
406: Friedmann equation:
407: %\footnote{The validity of
408: %the DGP model has been studied by \cite{DGP2}.}:
409: \be
410: H^2 - \frac{H}{r_0}=\frac{8\pi G \rho_m}{3},
411: \label{eq:H(z)_DGP}
412: \ee
413: where $r_0$ is a parameter in DGP gravity, and
414: $\rho_m(z)=\rho_m(0)(1+z)^3$. Solving Eq.(\ref{eq:H(z)_DGP})
415: gives
416: \be
417: E(z)=\frac{H(z)}{H_0}=\frac{1}{2} \left\{
418: \frac{1}{H_0 r_0}+\left[ \frac{1}{(H_0 r_0)^{2}}
419: + 4 \Omega_m^0 (1+z)^3
420: \right]^{1/2} \right\},
421: \ee
422: with $\Omega_m^0 \equiv \rho_m(0)/\rho_c^0$, $\rho_c^0 \equiv
423: 3H_0^2/(8\pi G)$. The added superscript ``0'' in
424: $\Omega_m^0$ denotes that this is the matter fraction today
425: in the DGP gravity model.
426: Note that consistency at $z=0$, $E(0)=1$
427: requires that
428: \be
429: H_0 r_0 = \frac{1}{1-\Omega_m^0},
430: \ee
431: so the DGP gravity model is parametrized by a single parameter,
432: $\Omega_m^0$.
433: The linear growth factor in the DGP gravity model is
434: given by \cite{DGP}
435: \be
436: \label{eq:fg_DGP}
437: D_1''(\tau) + 2E(z)D_1'(\tau) - {3\over 2}\Om (1+z)^3D_1
438: \left(1+ \frac{1}{3\alpha_{DGP}} \right)= 0,
439: \ee
440: where
441: \be
442: \alpha_{DGP}=\frac{1-2H_0r_0+ 2(H_0 r_0)^2}{1-2H_0r_0}.
443: \ee
444:
445: The dark energy model equivalent of the DGP gravity model
446: is specified by requiring
447: \be
448: \frac{8\pi G\rho_{de}^{eff}}{3}=\frac{H}{r_0}.
449: \ee
450: Eq.(\ref{eq:H(z)_DGP}) and the conservation of energy and
451: momentum equation,
452: \be
453: \dot{\rho}_{de}^{eff}+3(\rho_{de}^{eff}
454: +p_{de}^{eff})H=0,
455: \ee
456: imply that \cite{DGP}
457: \be
458: w_{de}^{eff}=-\frac{1}{1+\Omega_m(a)},
459: \ee
460: where
461: \be
462: \Omega_m(a) \equiv \frac{8\pi G \rho_m(z)}{3 H^2}
463: = \frac{\Omega_m^0 (1+z)^3}{E^2(z)}.
464: \ee
465: As $a\rightarrow 0$, $\Omega_m(a) \rightarrow 1$,
466: and $w_{de}^{eff} \rightarrow -0.5$.
467: As $a \rightarrow 1$, $\Omega_m(a) \rightarrow \Omega_m^0$,
468: and $w_{de}^{eff} \rightarrow -1/(1+\Omega_m^0)$.
469: This means that the matter transfer function for
470: the dark energy model equivalent of viable DGP gravity model
471: ($\Omega_m^0<0.3$ and $w\leq -0.5$) is very close
472: to that of the $\Lambda$CDM model
473: at $k\ga 0.001\,h\,$Mpc$^{-1}$.\cite{Ma99}
474:
475: It is very easy and straightforward to integrate
476: Eqs.(\ref{eq:fg}) and (\ref{eq:fg_DGP}) to obtain
477: $f_g$ for dark energy models and DGP gravity models,
478: with the initial condition that for $a\rightarrow 0$, $D_1(a) = a$
479: (which assumes that the dark energy or modified gravity
480: are negligible at sufficiently early times).
481: There are well known approximations to $f_g$,
482: with $f_g(z) = \Omega_m(a)^{6/11}$ for dark energy
483: models \cite{WangStein},
484: and $f_g(z) = \Omega_m(a)^{2/3}$ for DGP gravity models
485: \cite{DGP}.
486: Fig.2 shows that these
487: powerlaw approximations of $f_g$
488: are not sufficiently accurate for future galaxy redshift
489: surveys that can measure $f_g$ to a few percent accuracy
490: in $\Delta z=0.2$ redshift bins.
491: % (see Fig.1(b)).
492:
493: \begin{figure}
494: %\vskip-0.2cm
495: \vskip 0.1cm
496: \centerline{\epsfxsize=\figsize\epsffile{fgOa.ps}}
497: %\vskip-4.5cm
498: \caption[1]{\label{fgOa}\footnotesize%
499: The accuracy of approximate expressions for $f_g(z)$
500: for various models.
501: }
502: %\vskip-4mm
503: \end{figure}
504:
505: \section{Analysis Technique}
506:
507: Galaxy redshift surveys allow us to measure both $H(z)$ and $f_g(z)$
508: through baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements
509: \cite{BG03,SE03,Eisen05,BAO} and redshift-space distortion measurements \cite{Guzzo07}.
510: BAO in the observed galaxy power
511: spectrum have the characteristic scale determined by the
512: comoving sound horizon at recombination, which is
513: precisely measured by the cosmic microwave background (CMB)
514: anisotropy data \cite{Spergel06}.
515: Comparing the observed BAO scales with the expected values
516: gives $H(z)$ in the radial direction, and $D_A(z)$ [the angular
517: diameter distance $D_A(z)=r(z)/(1+z)$, where
518: $r(z)$ is the coordinate or comoving distance] in the transverse direction.
519: We will only estimate the accuracy to which $H(z)$
520: and $f_g(z)$ can be determined from galaxy redshift surveys
521: in dark energy models (the error bars in Fig.1).\footnote{\cite{Roman}
522: gives a more precise treatment of redshift-space distortions,
523: and \cite{Stab} studies power spectra in alternative gravity models.}
524:
525: The observed power spectrum is reconstructed using a particular reference
526: cosmology, including the effects of bias and redshift-space distortions \cite{SE03}:
527: \ba
528: \label{eq:P(k)}
529: P_{obs}(k^{ref}_{\perp},k^{ref}_{\parallel}) &=&
530: \frac{\left[D_A(z)^{ref}\right]^2 H(z)}{\left[D_A(z)\right]^2 H(z)^{ref}}
531: \, b^2 \left( 1+\beta\, \mu^2 \right)^2
532: \cdot \nonumber\\
533: & \cdot& \left[ \frac{G(z)}{G(0)}\right]^2 P_{matter}(k)_{z=0}+ P_{shot},
534: \ea
535: where the growth factor $G(z)$ and the growth rate
536: $f_g(z)=\beta b(z)$ are related via
537: $f_g(z)=d\ln G(z)/d\ln a$, and
538: $\mu = \bfk \cdot \hat{\bfr}/k$, with $\hat{\bfr}$ denoting the unit
539: vector along the line of sight; $\bfk$ is the wavevector with $|\bfk|=k$.
540: Hence $\mu^2=k^2_{\parallel}/k^2=k^2_{\parallel}/(k^2_{\perp}+k^2_{\parallel})$.
541: The values in the reference cosmology are denoted by the subscript ``ref'',
542: while those in the true cosmology have no subscript.
543: Note that
544: \be
545: k^{ref}_{\perp}=k_\perp\,\frac{ D_A(z)}{D_A(z)^{ref}}, \hskip 0.5cm
546: k^{ref}_{\parallel}=k_\parallel\,\frac{H(z)^{ref}}{H(z)}.
547: \ee
548: Eq.(\ref{eq:P(k)}) characterizes the dependence of the observed galaxy power
549: spectrum on $H(z)$ and $D_A(z)$ due to BAO, as well as
550: the sensitivity of a galaxy redshift survey to the redshift-space
551: distortion parameter $\beta$ \cite{Kaiser}.
552: %and $\beta$ is {\it not} degenerate with the other parameters.
553:
554: To study the expected impact of future galaxy redshift surveys,
555: we use the Fisher matrix formalism.
556: In the limit where the length scale corresponding to
557: the survey volume is much larger than
558: the scale of any features in $P(k)$,
559: we can assume that the likelihood function for the band powers of a
560: galaxy redshift survey is Gaussian \cite{FKP}.
561: Then the Fisher matrix can be approximated as \citep{Tegmark97}
562: \be
563: F_{ij}= \int_{k_{min}}^{k_{max}}
564: \frac{\partial\ln P(\bfk)}{\partial p_i}
565: \frac{\partial\ln P(\bfk)}{\partial p_j}\,
566: V_{eff}(\bfk)\, \frac{d \bfk^3}{2\, (2\pi)^3}
567: \label{eq:full Fisher}
568: \ee
569: where $p_i$ are the parameters to be estimated from data, and
570: the derivatives are evaluated at parameter values of the
571: fiducial model. The effective volume of the survey
572: \ba
573: V_{eff}(k,\mu) &=&\int d\bfr^3 \left[ \frac{n(\bfr) P(k,\mu)}{ n(\bfr) P(k,\mu)+1}
574: \right]^2
575: \nonumber\\
576: &=&\left[ \frac{ n P(k,\mu)}{n P(k,\mu)+1} \right]^2 V_{survey},
577: \ea
578: where the comoving number density $n$ is assumed to only depend on
579: the redshift for simplicity.
580: Note that the Fisher matrix $F_{ij}$ is the inverse of the covariance matrix
581: of the parameters $p_i$ if the $p_i$ are Gaussian distributed.
582: Eq.(\ref{eq:full Fisher}) propagates the measurement
583: error in $\ln P(\bfk)$ (which is proportional to $[V_{eff}(\bfk)]^{-1/2}$)
584: into measurement errors for the parameters $p_i$.
585:
586: Since we do not include nonlinear effects, we only consider
587: wavenumbers smaller than a minimum value of non-linearity.
588: Following \cite{BG03}, we take $k_{min}=0$, and $k_{max}$ given by
589: requiring that the variance of matter fluctuations
590: in a sphere of radius $R$, $\sigma^2(R)= 0.35$, for $R=\pi/(2k_{max})$.
591: We will also give results for $\sigma^2(R)= 0.2$ for comparison.
592: In addition, we impose a uniform upper limit of $k_{max}\leq 0.2\,h$Mpc$^{-1}$,
593: to ensure that we are only considering the conservative linear regime
594: essentially unaffected by nonlinear effects.
595: \cite{nonlinear1} shows that nonlinear effects can be accurately
596: taken into account. \cite{nonlinear2} shows that
597: the BAO signal is {\it boosted} when these effects are properly
598: included in the Hubble Volume simulation.
599: We assume $\Omega_b=0.045$, $h=0.7$, $b=1$,
600: and $nP=3$ \cite{BG03};
601: this is conservative since $nP>3$ at any redshift
602: for a magnitude-limited survey.
603:
604:
605: The observed galaxy power spectrum in a given redshift shell centered
606: at redshift $z_i$ can be described by a set of parameters,
607: \{$H(z_i)$, $D_A(z_i)$, $\overline{G(z_i)}$, $\beta(z_i)$, $P_{shot}^i$, $n_S$, $\omega_m$,
608: $\omega_b$\}, where $n_S$ is the power-law index of the primordial
609: matter power spectrum, $\omega_m=\Omega_m h^2$, and $\omega_b=\Omega_b h^2$
610: ($h$ is the dimensionless Hubble constant).
611: Note that $P(k)$ does {\it not} depend on $h$ if $k$ is in units of Mpc$^{-1}$,
612: since the matter transfer function $T(k)$ only depends on $\omega_m$ and
613: $\omega_b$ \cite{EisenHu98},\footnote{Massive neutrinos can suppress
614: the galaxy power spectrum amplitudes by $\ga 4$\% on BAO
615: scales \cite{neutrino}. It will be important for future
616: work to quantify the effect of massive neutrinos
617: on the measurement of $H(z)$ and $f_g(z)$.}
618: if the dark energy dependence of $T(k)$ can be neglected.
619: Since $G(z)$, $b$, and the power spectrum normalization $P_0$ are
620: completely degenerate in Eq.({\ref{eq:P(k)}}), we have defined
621: $\overline{G(z_i)}\equiv b\,G(z)\,P_0^{1/2}/G(0)$.
622:
623: The square roots of diagonal elements of the inverse of the full Fisher matrix of
624: Eq.(\ref{eq:full Fisher}) gives the estimated smallest possible measurement
625: errors on the assumed parameters.
626: The parameters of interest are \{$H(z_i)$, $D_A(z_i)$, $\beta(z_i)$\},
627: all other parameters are marginalized over.
628: Note that the estimated errors we obtain here are {\it independent}
629: of cosmological priors,\footnote{Priors on $\omega_m$,
630: $\omega_b$, $\Omega_k$, and $n_S$ will be required to obtain the
631: errors on dark energy parameters.}
632: thus scale with (area)$^{-1/2}$ for a fixed survey depth.
633:
634: Fig.1 shows the errors on $H(z)$ and $f_g(z)=\beta(z) b(z)$
635: for a dark energy model that gives the same $H(z)$ as a
636: DGP gravity model with the same $\Omega_m^0$,
637: for a redshift survey covering 11,931 (deg)$^2$, and
638: the redshift range $0.5<z<2$ [$\sigma^2(R)= 0.35$ assumed].
639: Note that the $D_A(z)$ measured from the same redshift survey provides
640: additional constraints on $H(z)$ that can be used for cross-checking
641: to eliminate systematic effects.
642: We have neglected the very weak dependence of the transfer function
643: on dark energy at very large scales in this model \cite{Ma99}, and
644: added $\Delta\ln b=0.01\,\{$(area)/[28,600$\,$(deg)$^2$]$\}^{-1/2}$
645: in quadrature to the estimated error on $\beta$.\footnote{This
646: $\Delta\ln b$ estimate comes from extrapolating 2dF measurement
647: of $b=1.04\pm0.11$ at $z\sim 0.15$ for an effective survey area of
648: 1300$\times$127000/245591=672 (deg)$^2$ \cite{2dFbias},
649: and assuming a factor of 1.6 improvement for a NIR space mission
650: that can detect galaxies at a much higher number density.
651: This $\Delta\ln b$ estimate is comparable (and larger) than
652: that estimated by \cite{Dolney06} for imaging surveys at $z<2$.}
653:
654: \cite{bias} developed the method for measuring $b(z)$
655: from the galaxy bispectrum, which was applied by \cite{2dFbias}
656: to the 2dF data.
657: Assuming that \cite{Fry93}
658: \be
659: \delta_g= b \delta(\bfx)+ \frac{1}{2}\,b_2 \delta^2(\bfx),
660: \ee
661: the galaxy bispectrum
662: \ba
663: \langle \delta_{g\bfk_1} \delta_{g\bfk_2} \delta_{g\bfk_1}\rangle
664: &=&(2\pi)^3 \left\{P_g(\bfk_1) P_g(\bfk_2)
665: \left[\frac{J(\bfk_1,\bfk_2)}{b}
666: \right.\right.\nonumber\\
667: && \left.\left.+\frac{b_2}{b^2}\right]+cyc.\right\} \delta^D(\bfk_1+\bfk_2+\bfk_3),
668: \nonumber\\
669: \ea
670: where $J$ is a function that depends on the shape of the
671: triangle formed by ($\bfk_1$, $\bfk_2$, $\bfk_3$) in
672: $\bfk$ space, but only depends very weakly on cosmology \cite{bias}.
673:
674: Ref.\cite{BG03} used Monte Carlo N-body simulation to study the
675: extraction of the BAO scales.
676: For comparison, we calculated \{$H(z_i)$, $D_A(z_i)$\} for the
677: same fiducial model as considered by \cite{BG03} (with the
678: same assumptions and cutoffs in $k$),
679: and obtained results that are within 30\% of the values
680: given by the fitting formulae from \cite{Blake06}.
681: This is reassuring, as it validates the approach of using the Fisher
682: matrix formalism to forecast the parameter accuracies for
683: future redshift surveys. \footnote{Ref.\cite{SE05} found similar
684: agreement in their comparison.}
685:
686:
687: \section{Observational methods}
688: $H(z)$ can be probed using multiple techniques.
689: It can be measured using Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia)
690: as cosmological standard candles \cite{SNe Ia}.
691: CMB and large scale structure data provide constraints on cosmological
692: parameters that help tighten the constraints on $H(z)$ \cite{WangPia07}.
693: Fig.1(a) shows the $H(z)$ given by Eq.(\ref{eq:H(z)_DGP}) with
694: $\Omega_m^0=0.25$ (solid line), as well as a cosmological constant model
695: with $\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ (dotted line).
696: Clearly, both these fit the constraints on $H(z)$ from
697: current data \cite{WangPia07} (no priors assumed).\footnote{Ref.\cite{WangPia07}
698: uses WMAP three year data \cite{Spergel06}, 182 type Ia supernovae \cite{SNeIa07},
699: and the SDSS baryon acoustic scale measurement \cite{Eisen05}.}
700:
701: BAO measurements from a very wide and deep galaxy redshift
702: survey provide a direct precise measurement of $H(z)$
703: [see Fig.1(a)]. Suppose $H(z)$ is measured to be
704: $H^2-H/r_0=8\pi G\rho_m/3$ [see solid
705: line in Fig.1(a)] and $\Omega_m$ is known accurately,
706: Eq.(\ref{eq:fg}) yields a unique prediction for $f_g(z)$,
707: $f_g^{H}(z)$, assuming that gravity is {\it not}
708: modified [see the dashed line in Fig.1(b)].
709:
710:
711: The measurement of $f_g(z)$ can be obtained through
712: independent measurements of
713: $\beta=f_g(z)/b$ and $b(z)$ \cite{Guzzo07}.
714: The parameter $\beta$
715: can be measured directly from galaxy redshift survey data
716: by studying the observed redshift-space correlation function
717: \cite{2dFbeta,beta}.
718: The bias factor $b(z)$ can be measured
719: by studying galaxy clustering properties (for example,
720: the galaxy bispectrum) from
721: the galaxy redshift survey data \cite{2dFbias}.
722: Independent measurements of $\beta(z)$ and $b(z)$
723: have only been published for the 2dF data
724: \cite{2dFbeta,2dFbias,NP07}.
725:
726: Fig.1(b) shows the $f_g(z)$ for the DGP gravity model
727: with $\Omega_m^0=0.25$ (solid line), as well as a dark energy model
728: that gives the same $H(z)$ for the same $\Omega_m^0$ (dashed line).
729: The cosmological constant model from Fig.1(a)
730: is also shown (dotted line).
731: Clearly, current data can not differentiate between dark energy
732: and modified gravity.
733:
734: A very wide and deep galaxy redshift survey provides
735: measurement of $f_g(z)$ accurate to a few percent
736: [see Fig.1(b)]; this will allow an unambiguous distinction
737: between dark energy models and modified gravity models
738: that give identical $H(z)$ [see the solid and dashed lines
739: in Fig.1(b)]. A simple $\chi^2$ test can provide a general
740: figure-of-merit for our ability to distinguish between
741: dark energy and modified gravity models that fit the measured $H(z)$
742: but predict different $f_g(z)$. If the measurement errors
743: are normally distributed,
744: $\Delta \chi^2 \equiv \chi^2(\bfs)-\chi^2(\bfs_0)$ is
745: distributed as a chi-square distribution with $n$ degrees
746: of freedom ($n$ is the number of data points), where
747: $\bfs$ is the test model, and $\bfs_0$ is the bestfit
748: model measured from data.
749: %The cumulative probability for
750: %$\chi^2$ is given by $P(\chi^2|n)=\int_0^{\chi^2}\left[2^{n/2}\Gamma(n/2)\right]^{-1}
751: %e^{-\chi^2/2} \left(\chi^2\right)^{n/2-1}$.
752: $P(\chi^2|n)=99.99$\% corresponds to $\Delta \chi^2=29.877$ for $n=7$.
753: Assuming that $\chi^2(\bfs_0)=n$, we find that $\chi^2(\bfs)=36.877$.
754: In Fig.1, we assume that the true model is a dark energy model with
755: $\Omega_m^0=0.25$, $H^2-H/r_0=8\pi G\rho_m/3$, with
756: $Hr_0=1/(1-\Omega_m^0)$.
757: For a linear cutoff given by $\sigma^2(R)= 0.35$ (or 0.2),
758: a survey covering 11,931$\,$(deg)$^2$ would rule out the
759: DGP gravity model that gives the same
760: $H(z)$ and $\Omega_m^0$ at 99.99\% (or 95\%) C.L.;
761: %in order to rule out the DGP gravity model that gives the same
762: %$H(z)$ and $\Omega_m^0$ at the 99.99\% C.L., a survey area of
763: %11,931$\,$(deg)$^2$ is required (such that the $\chi^2$ of the
764: %DGP gravity model is 36.877).
765: a survey covering 13,912$\,$(deg)$^2$ would rule out the
766: DGP gravity model at 99.999\% (or 99\%) C.L..
767:
768: \section{Conclusions}
769:
770:
771: Discovering the nature of dark energy has been identified
772: as a high priority by both NASA and ESA.
773: A magnitude-limited NIR galaxy redshift survey, covering
774: $>$10,000 (deg)$^2$ and the redshift range $0.5<z<2$,
775: can be feasibly carried out by a space mission
776: that uses MEMS technology to obtain 5000-10,000 galaxy
777: spectra simultaneously \cite{JEDI,SPACE}.
778: The low background from space enables very short exposure times
779: to obtain galaxy spectra to $z\sim 2$,
780: making it practical to carry out a
781: magnitude-limited NIR galaxy redshift survey
782: over $>$10,000 (deg)$^2$ in only a few years.
783: A magnitude-limited galaxy redshift survey
784: over $>10,000$ (deg)$^2$ will enable
785: robust and precise determination of $b(z)$
786: using multiple techniques
787: and with sufficient statistics \cite{bias,2dFbias,Guzzo07}.
788: This is critical for determining $f_g(z)$ using
789: measurements of redshift-space distortions.
790: Such a survey will also enable rigorous study
791: of the systematic uncertainties of BAO, and accurate
792: measurements of redshift-space distortions.
793:
794: Ref.\cite{Knox06} studied the use of weak lensing
795: shear maps to differentiate between dark energy
796: and modified gravity, complementary to
797: what we have studied in this paper.
798: While both weak lensing surveys
799: and galaxy redshift surveys can provide accurate
800: measurements of $H(z)$ (if the systematic uncertainties
801: are properly modeled and controlled), galaxy redshift surveys
802: can potentially provide the most accurate measurement
803: of $f_g(z)$ [compare Fig.2 of \cite{Knox06} with
804: Fig.1 of this paper, noting that $f_g(z)=d\ln G(z)/d\ln a$].
805:
806:
807:
808: We have shown that a magnitude-limited
809: NIR galaxy redshift survey covering $>$10,000 (deg)$^2$
810: and $0.5<z<2$ can provide precise measurements
811: of the cosmic expansion history $H(z)$, and the growth
812: rate of cosmic large scale structure $f_g(z)$.
813: These provide {\it model-independent} constraints
814: on dark energy
815: %\cite{de_modelindep}
816: and the nature of gravity.
817: The precisely measured $H(z)$ can be used to
818: predict $f_g(z)$ expected in the absence of modified
819: gravity, $f_g^H(z)$, if dark energy and dark matter
820: are separate.
821: Comparing $f_g^H(z)$ with $f_g(z)^{obs}$ provides a
822: transparent and powerful probe of modified gravity.
823: This will allow us to illuminate
824: the nature of the observed cosmic acceleration
825: by differentiating between dark energy and modified
826: gravity [see Fig.1].
827: A magnitude-limited survey covering 11,931$\,$(deg)$^2$ can
828: rule out the DGP gravity model at the 99.99\%
829: confidence level.\footnote{Such a survey would allow us to
830: distinguish between dark energy and modified
831: gravity even if dark energy is clustered such that
832: $f_g$, bias, and redshift distortions are scale-dependent \cite{DEcluster},
833: since a dark energy
834: model and a modified gravity model generally have
835: different redshift dependences of the
836: modified growth rate,
837: and the data of such a survey can be analyzed
838: in multi redshift slices, on multi scales, and using
839: different populations of galaxies.}
840: If this technologically feasible
841: survey is carried out by a space mission, it will
842: have a revolutionary effect on our understanding of
843: the universe.
844:
845:
846: {\bf Acknowledgements:}
847: I thank Gigi Guzzo for helpful comments on a draft of this paper,
848: and Chris Blake, Craig Wheeler, and Eiichiro Komatsu
849: for useful discussions.
850:
851:
852: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
853:
854: \bibitem{Riess98}
855: \rf\nnn Riess A G {\etal};1998;Astron. J.;116;1009
856: % Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant% astro-ph/9805201
857: % The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.
858:
859: \bibitem{Perl99}
860: \rf\nn Perlmutter S {\etal};1999;ApJ;517;565
861:
862: \bibitem{quintessence}
863: \rrf\nn Freese K {\etal};1987;Nucl.Phys.;B287;797
864: \rrf\nnnn Peebles P J E\dualand\nn Ratra B;1988;ApJ;325;L17
865: \rrf\nn Wetterich C;1988;Nucl.Phys.;B302;668
866: \rrf\nnn Frieman J A {\etal};1995;PRL;75;2077
867: %\rrf\nnn Frieman J A, \nnn Hill C T, \nn Stebbin A\multiand\nn Waga I;1995;PRL;75;2077
868: \rrf\nn Caldwell R, \nn Dave R\multiand\nnn Steinhardt P J;1998;PRL;80;1582
869:
870:
871: \bibitem{modifiedgravity}
872: \rrf\nn Sahni V \dualand\nn Habib S;1998;PRL;81;1766
873: \rrf\nn Parker L\dualand\nn Raval A;1999;PRD;60;063512
874: \rrf\nn Deffayet C;2001;Phys.Lett.B;502;199
875: J-P. Uzan, F. Bernardeau, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 083004;
876: \rrf\nn Freese K\dualand\nn Lewis M;2002;Phys.Lett.B;540;1
877: \rrrf\nnn Onemli V K \dualand\nnn Woodard R P;2004;PRD;70;107301
878:
879:
880: \bibitem{DGPmodel}
881: \rf\nn Dvali G, \nn Gabadadze G, \nn Porrati M;2000;PLB;485;208
882:
883:
884: \bibitem{reviews}
885: \rrf\nn Padmanabhan T;2003;Phys.Rep.;380;235
886: \rrf\nnnn Peebles P J E\dualand\nn Ratra B;2003;Rev.Mod.Phys.;75;55
887: \rrf\nn Sahni V \dualand\nn Starobinsky A;2006;IJMPD;15;2105
888: \rrf\nnn Copeland E J, \nn Sami M\multiand\nn Tsujikawa S;2006;IJMPD;15;1753
889: \rrf\nn Ruiz-Lapuente P;2007;Class. Quantum. Grav.;24;R91
890: \rrrfprep\nn Ratra B \dualand\nnn Vogeley M S;2007;arXiv:0706.1565
891: V. Sahni, A. Starobinsky, IJMPD 15 (2006) 2105
892:
893: \bibitem{DGP}
894: \rrf\nn Lue A, \nn Scoccimarro R\multiand\nnn Starkman G D;2004;PRD;69;124015
895: \rrrf\nn Lue A;2006;Physics Report;423;1
896:
897:
898: \bibitem{Knox06}
899: \rf\nn Knox L, \nnn Song Y S, \multiand\nnn Tyson J A;2006;PRD;74;023512
900:
901: \bibitem{otherfg}
902: A. F. Heavens, T.D. Kitching, L. Verde, MNRAS, 380, 1029 (2007);
903: P. Zhang, M. Liguori, R. Bean, and S. Dodelson,
904: Phys.Rev.Lett. 99 (2007) 141302;
905: D. Sapone, L. Amendola, arXiv:0709.2792 [ps, pdf, other]
906:
907:
908: \bibitem{fg_use}
909: \rrf\nnn Knop R A {\etal};2003;ApJ;598;102
910: \rrf\nn Wang Y\dualand\nn Mukherjee P;2004;ApJ;606;654
911: \rrrf\nn Wang Y\dualand\nn Tegmark T;2004;PRL;92;241302
912:
913: \bibitem{Guzzo07}
914: L. Guzzo, {\etal}, {\it Nature}, 451, 541 (2008)
915:
916: %\bibitem{DGP2}
917: %Y.-S. Song, I. Sawicki, and W. Hu, PRD, {\bf 75}, 064003 (2007);
918: %K. Koyama, arXiv:0709.2399
919:
920:
921: \bibitem{Ma99}
922: \rf\nnn Ma C P, \nnn Caldwell R R, \nn Bode P\multiand\nn Wang L;
923: 1999;ApJ;521;L1
924:
925: \bibitem{WangStein}
926: \rf\nn Wang L\dualand\nnn Steinhardt P J;1998;ApJ;508;483
927:
928: \bibitem{Spergel06}
929: \rf\nnn Spergel D N {\etal};2007;ApJS;170;377
930:
931: \bibitem{BG03}
932: \rf\nn Blake C\dualand\nn Glazebrook K;2003;ApJ;594;665
933:
934: \bibitem{SE03}
935: \rf\nn Seo H\dualand\nnn Eisenstein D J;2003;ApJ;598;720
936:
937:
938: \bibitem{BAO}
939: See for example,
940: \rrf\nn White M;2005;Astropart. Phys.;24;334
941: \rrf\nn Huetsi G;2006;A\&A;449;891
942: \rrf\nn Wang Y;2006;ApJ;647;1
943: \rrrfprep\nn Angulo R {\etal};2007;astro-ph/0702543
944: %\rrf\nnn Koehler R S, \nn Schuecker P\multiand\nn Gebhardt K;2007;A\&A;462;.7
945: %see http://cdm.berkeley.edu/doku.php?id=baopages for a more complete list
946: %of references.
947:
948: \bibitem{Roman}
949: R. Scoccimarro, PRD, {\bf 70}, 083007 (2004)
950:
951: \bibitem{Stab}
952: \rf\nnn Stabenau H F\dualand\nn Jain B;
953: 2006;PRD;74;084007
954:
955: \bibitem{SE05}
956: \rf\nn Seo H\dualand\nnn Eisenstein D J;2005;ApJ;633;575
957:
958: \bibitem{Kaiser}
959: \rf\nn Kaiser N;1987;MNRAS;227;1
960:
961:
962: \bibitem{FKP}
963: \rf\nnn Feldman H A, \nn Kaiser N\multiand\nnn Peacock J A;1994;ApJ;426;23
964:
965: \bibitem{Tegmark97}
966: \rf\nn Tegmark M;1997;PRL;79;3806
967:
968: \bibitem{neutrino}
969: \rrf\nnn Eisenstein D J\dualand\nn Hu W;
970: 1999;ApJ;511;5
971: \rrrf\nn Hu W, \nnn Eisenstein D J\multiand\nn Tegmark M;
972: 1998;PRL;80;5255
973:
974: \bibitem{nonlinear1}
975: \rrf\nn Jeong D\dualand\nn Komatsu E;
976: 2006;ApJ;651;619
977: M. Crocce, and R. Scoccimarro, arXiv:0704.2783;
978: R. E. Smith, R. Scoccimarro, and R. K. Sheth, astro-ph/0703620;
979:
980:
981: \bibitem{nonlinear2}
982: \rf\nnn Koehler R S, \nn Schuecker P\multiand\nn Gebhardt K;2007;A\&A;462;7
983:
984: \bibitem{EisenHu98}
985: \rf\nn Eisenstein D\dualand\nn Hu W;1998;ApJ;496;605
986:
987: \bibitem{Blake06}
988: \rf\nn Blake C {\etal};2006;MNRAS;365;255
989:
990:
991:
992: \bibitem{SNe Ia}
993: \rrf\nnn Phillips M M; 1993;ApJ;413;L105
994: %\rrrf\nn Wang Y;2000;ApJ;531;676
995:
996: \bibitem{WangPia07}
997: Y. Wang, and P. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D 76, 103533 (2007)
998: %{arXiv:astro-ph/0703780}
999:
1000: \bibitem{SNeIa07}
1001: \rrf\nn Astier P {\etal};2006;Astron. Astrophys.;447;31
1002: \rrrf\nnn Riess A G {\etal};2007;ApJ;659;98
1003:
1004: \bibitem{Eisen05}
1005: \rrf\nn Eisenstein D {\etal};2005;ApJ;633;560
1006:
1007: \bibitem{2dFbeta}
1008: \rf\nn Hawkins E {\etal};2003;MNRAS;346;78
1009:
1010: \bibitem{beta}
1011: \rrf\nn Tegmark M {\etal};2006;PRD;74;123507
1012: \rrf\nnn Ross N P {\etal};2007;MNRAS;381;573
1013: J. da Angela {\etal}, astro-ph/0612401.
1014:
1015: \bibitem{Fry93}
1016: \rf\nnn Fry J N\dualand\nn Gaztanaga E;
1017: 1993;ApJ;413;447
1018:
1019: \bibitem{bias}
1020: \rf\nn Matarrese S, \nn Verde L\multiand\nnn Heavens A F;
1021: 1997;MNRAS;290;651
1022:
1023: \bibitem{2dFbias}
1024: L. Verde, {\etal}, MNRAS, 335, 432 (2002);
1025: http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/2dFGRS/
1026:
1027: \bibitem{Dolney06}
1028: \rf\nn Dolney D, \nn Jain B\multiand\nn Takada M;2006;MNRAS;366;884
1029:
1030: \bibitem{NP07}
1031: S. Nesseris, \& L. Perivolaropoulos, arXiv:0710.1092
1032:
1033:
1034: \bibitem{JEDI}
1035: \rrf\nn Wang Y {\etal};2004;BAAS;v36;n5;1560
1036: \rrfprep\nn Crotts A {\etal};2005;astro-ph/0507043
1037: \rrrf\nn Cheng E\dualand\nn Wang Y {\etal};2006;Proc. of SPIE;Vol. 6265;626529
1038:
1039: \bibitem{SPACE}
1040: M. Robberto, A. Cimatti, and the SPACE science team,
1041: Venice 2007 Conf. Proc., to appear on Il Nuovo Cimento,
1042: arXiv:0710.3970
1043:
1044: \bibitem{DEcluster}
1045: \rrf\nn Hu W;2002;PRD;65;023003
1046: \rrf\nn Gordon C, \dualand\nn Hu W;2004;PRD;70;083003
1047: L. Hui, and K.P. Parfrey, arXiv:0712.1162
1048:
1049:
1050: \end{thebibliography}
1051: \end{document}
1052:
1053:
1054: