1:
2: \def\etal{{\frenchspacing\it et al.}}
3: \def\ie{{\frenchspacing\it i.e.}}
4: \def\eg{{\frenchspacing\it e.g.}}
5: \def\etc{{\frenchspacing\it etc.}}
6: \def\rms{{\frenchspacing r.m.s.}}
7: \def\ith{i^{\rm th}}
8: \def\bth{b^{\rm th}}
9:
10: %%%% EQUATION STUFF: %%%%
11: \def\beq#1{\begin{equation}\label{#1}}
12: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
13: \def\beqa#1{\begin{eqnarray}\label{#1}}
14: \def\eeqa{\end{eqnarray}}
15: \def\eq#1{equation~(\ref{#1})}
16: \def\Eq#1{Equation~(\ref{#1})}
17: \def\eqn#1{~(\ref{#1})}
18:
19: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}
20: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}
21: \def\fun#1#2{\lower3.6pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt\lineskip.9pt
22: \ialign{$\mathsurround=0pt#1\hfill##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
23:
24: %%%% FIGURE STUFF: %%%%
25: \def\fig#1{Figure~\ref{#1}}
26: \def\Fig#1{Figure~\ref{#1}}
27: \def\figsize{11.5cm}
28:
29: \def\N{{\bf N}}
30: \def\e{{\bf e}}
31: \def\w{{\bf w}}
32: \def\x{{\bf x}}
33: \def\y{{\bf y}}
34:
35: \def\Ni{{{\bf N}_b}}
36: \def\wi{{{\bf w}^b}}
37: \def\wti{\tilde{\bf w}^b}
38: \def\wt{{\tilde w}}
39: \def\xi{{{\bf x}^b}}
40:
41: \def\rmdet{{\rm det}}
42: \def\rmCov{{\rm Cov}}
43: \def\rmFoM{{\rm FoM}}
44: \def\zbar{\overline{z}}
45:
46: \def\expec#1{\langle#1\rangle}
47:
48: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
49: %\documentclass[twocolumn,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
50: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,showpacs,showkeys,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
51: \documentclass[twocolumn,aps,showpacs,showkeys,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
52: \usepackage{epsfig}
53:
54: %\documentclass{article}
55: %\usepackage{emulateapj5,pstricks,apjfonts}
56: %\usepackage{emulateapj5,pstricks}
57:
58: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
59: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
60: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
61: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
62:
63: %\shorttitle{}
64: %\shorttitle{}
65: %\shortauthors{}
66:
67: %\def\baselinestretch{2}
68: \begin{document}
69: \input{epsf.sty}
70:
71:
72: \title{Figure of Merit for Dark Energy Constraints
73: from Current Observational Data}
74: %from Supernovae, Galaxy Clustering, and Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
75: %Five Year Observations}
76: \author{Yun~Wang}
77: \address{Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Univ. of Oklahoma,
78: 440 W Brooks St., Norman, OK 73019;
79: email: wang@nhn.ou.edu}
80:
81: \today
82:
83:
84:
85: \begin{abstract}
86: In order to make useful comparisons of different dark energy experiments,
87: it is important to choose the appropriate figure of merit (FoM)
88: for dark energy constraints.
89: Here we show that for a set of dark energy parameters $\{f_i\}$,
90: it is most intuitive to define FoM=$1/\sqrt{\rmdet\, \rmCov(f_1,f_2,f_3,...)}$,
91: where $\rmCov(f_1,f_2,f_3,...)$ is the covariance matrix of $\{f_i\}$.
92: In order for this FoM to represent the dark energy constraints
93: in an optimal manner, the dark energy parameters $\{f_i\}$
94: should have clear physical meaning, and be minimally correlated.
95: We demonstrate two useful choices of $\{f_i\}$
96: using 182 SNe Ia (from the HST/GOODS program,
97: the first year Supernova Legacy Survey, and nearby SN Ia surveys),
98: [$R(z_*)$, $l_a(z_*)$, $\Omega_b h^2$] from the five year
99: Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations,
100: and SDSS measurement of the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) scale,
101: assuming the HST prior of $H_0=72\pm 8\,$(km/s)Mpc$^{-1}$,
102: and without assuming spatial flatness.
103: We find that for a dark energy equation of state linear in the
104: cosmic scale factor $a$, the correlation of $(w_0,w_{0.5})$
105: [$w_0=w_X(z=0)$, $w_{0.5}=w_X(z=0.5)$, with
106: $w_X(a)=3 w_{0.5}-2 w_0 + 3( w_0 - w_{0.5} ) \,a$] is
107: significantly smaller than that of $(w_0,w_a)$ [with
108: $w_X(a)=w_0 + (1-a) w_a$].
109: In order to obtain model-independent constraints on dark energy,
110: we parametrize the dark energy density function
111: $X(z)=\rho_X(z)/\rho_X(0)$ as a free function
112: with $X_{0.5}$, $X_{1.0}$, and $X_{1.5}$ [values of $X(z)$
113: at $z=0.5$, 1.0, and 1.5] as free parameters estimated from data.
114: If one assumes a linear dark energy equation of state,
115: current observational data are consistent
116: with a cosmological constant at 68\% C.L.
117: If one assumes $X(z)$ to be a free function parametrized by
118: ($X_{0.5}$, $X_{1.0}$, $X_{1.5}$), current data
119: deviate from a cosmological constant at $z=1$ at 68\% C.L.,
120: but are consistent with a cosmological constant at 95\% C.L..
121: Future dark energy experiments will allow us to dramatically
122: increase the FoM of constraints on ($w_0,w_{0.5})$, and of ($X_{0.5}, X_{1.0}, X_{1.5}$).
123: This will significantly shrink the dark energy parameter space
124: to either enable the discovery of dark energy evolution,
125: or the conclusive evidence for a cosmological constant.
126:
127: \end{abstract}
128:
129:
130: \pacs{98.80.Es,98.80.-k,98.80.Jk}
131: %98.80.Es Observational cosmology (including Hubble constant,
132: %distance scale, cosmological constant, early Universe, etc)
133: %98.80.-k Cosmology
134: %98.80.Jk Mathematical and relativistic aspects of cosmology)
135:
136: \keywords{Cosmology}
137:
138: \maketitle
139:
140: %\end{document}
141:
142: \section{Introduction}
143:
144: The understanding of dark energy, the unknown cause for the observed
145: cosmic acceleration \cite{Riess98,Perl99}, continues to be
146: one of the most important challenges in cosmology today.
147: Dark energy could be an unknown energy component
148: \cite{Freese87,Linde87,Peebles88,Wett88,Frieman95,Caldwell98},
149: or a modification of general relativity
150: \citep{SH98,Parker99,Boisseau00,DGP00,Freese02}.
151: \cite{Pad} and \cite{Peebles03} contain reviews of many models.
152: Much work continues to be done on the theoretical front,
153: see for example, \cite{OW04,Cardone05,Caldwell06,KO06,DeFelice07,Koi07}.
154: Current observational data do not provide stringent constraints
155: on dark energy, and allow a wide range of possibilities including
156: dark energy being a cosmological constant (see, for example,
157: \cite{Wang04,WangTegmark04,WangTegmark05,Alam05,Daly05,Jassal05b,Polar05,Barger06,Dick06,Huterer06,Ichi06,Jassal06,Liddle06,Nesseris06,Schimd06,Sumu06,WangPia06,Wilson06,Xia06,Alam07,Clarkson07,Davis07,Gong07,Kazu07,Wei07,Wright07,Zhang07,Zun07}).
158:
159:
160:
161: Future dark energy experiments that are significantly more ambitious
162: than current ones are required to illuminate the nature of
163: dark energy. In order to compare proposed future dark energy
164: experiments in a useful manner, we need to choose the appropriate
165: figure of merit (FoM) for dark energy constraints \cite{FoM}.
166:
167: In this paper, we explore the optimization of FoM using current
168: observational data from supernovae, galaxy clustering,
169: and cosmic microwave background anisotropy (CMB) data.
170: We describe our method in Sec.II, present our results in Sec.III,
171: and conclude in Sec.IV.
172:
173:
174: \section{Method}
175:
176: \subsection{General definition for figure of merit}
177:
178: When we estimate a set of parameters, $\{f_i\}$ (i=1, 2, ..., $N$), from data,
179: the most intuitive figure of merit is the $N$-dimensional volume
180: enclosed by the 68\% or 95\% confidence level (C.L.) contours of the parameters.
181: If the likelihood surfaces for all the parameters are Gaussian,
182: this $N$-dimensional volume is proportional to the squre root
183: of the covariance matrix of $\{f_i\}$, $\sqrt{ \rmdet\,\rmCov(f_1,f_2,f_3,...)}$.
184: For $N=2$, the 68\% or 95\% C.L. contours of $f_1$ and $f_2$
185: are ellipses, with enclosed area given by $\pi \sqrt{ \rmdet\,\rmCov(f_1,f_2)}$
186: multiplied by 2.30 or 6.17. Parametrizing dark energy equation of state as
187: $w_X(a)=w_0+(1-a)w_a$ \cite{Chev01}, the Dark Energy Task Force (DETF)
188: defined FoM to be the inverse of the area enclosed by the 95\% C.L.
189: contour of ($w_0,w_a$) \cite{detf}, i.e.,
190: \be
191: \rmFoM_{DETF}=\frac{1}{6.17 \pi \sigma({w_a}) \sigma({w_p})}
192: \ee
193: where $w_p=w_0- w_a\, \langle \delta w_0 \delta w_a\rangle/\langle \delta w_a^2\rangle$,
194: and $\sigma({w_i})=\sqrt{\langle \delta w_i^2\rangle}$.
195: Note that $\sigma({w_a}) \sigma({w_p})=\sqrt{ \rmdet\,\rmCov(w_0,w_a)}$,
196: thus the conversion to $w_p$ is $\it not$ needed to calculate the FoM.
197:
198: For real data, the likelihood surfaces for the parameters $\{f_i\}$ are almost
199: always {\it non-Gaussian} at the 95\% C.L., thus defining the FoM
200: as enclosed area or volume by the 95\% C.L. contours
201: of $\{f_i\}$ becomes problematic.
202: We propose the definition for a relative generalized FoM
203: given by
204: \be
205: \rmFoM_r=\frac{1}{\sqrt{ \rmdet\,\rmCov(f_1,f_2,f_3,...)}},
206: \label{eq:FoM_r}
207: \ee
208: where $\{f_i\}$ are the chosen set of dark energy parameters.
209: This definition has the advantage of being easy to calculate for
210: either real or simulated data. We have streamlined the definition
211: to omit numerical factors since what matters is the relative FoM between
212: different experiments.
213:
214: Note that while this FoM definition has an intuitive physical
215: interpretation, it rewards experiments that yield very correlated
216: estimates of the dark energy parameters. This is especially
217: true in applying the DETF FoM, since ($w_0, w_a$) are always
218: highly correlated. Hence the dark energy FoM [as defined
219: in Eq.(\ref{eq:FoM_r})] is most meaningful
220: when the dark energy parameters $\{f_i\}$ are chosen such that
221: they are minimally correlated with each other.
222:
223: %\end{document}
224:
225: \subsection{Dark energy parametrization}
226:
227: We study constraints on a 2-parameter dark energy
228: equation of state $w_X(z)$ linear in $a$, as well
229: the dark energy density function
230: $X(z) \equiv\rho_X(z)/\rho_X(0)$
231: as a free function at $z\leq 1.5$.
232:
233: The 2-parameter $w_X(z)$ is given by
234: \ba
235: w_X(a)&=&\left(\frac{a_c-a}{a_c-1}\right) w_0
236: +\left(\frac{a-1}{a_c-1}\right) w_c \nonumber\\
237: &=&\frac{a_cw_0-w_c + a(w_c-w_0)}{a_c-1}
238: \label{eq:wc}
239: \ea
240: where $w_0=w_X(z=0)$, and $w_c=w_X(z=z_c)$.
241: Eq.(\ref{eq:wc}) corresponds to a dark energy density function
242: \ba
243: X(z) &=&\exp \left\{ 3\left[ 1+\left(\frac{a_cw_0-w_c}{a_c-1}\right)\right]\,\ln(1+z)
244: + \right.\nonumber\\
245: & & \hskip 1cm \left.3 \left(\frac{w_c-w_0}{a_c-1}\right) \frac{z}{1+z}\right\}
246: \ea
247:
248: Eq.(\ref{eq:wc}) is related to $w_X(z)=w_0+(1-a)w_a$ by setting
249: \be
250: w_a= \frac{w_c-w_0}{1-a_c}, \hskip 1cm
251: {\rm or} \hskip 1cm
252: w_c=w_0+(1-a_c) w_a.
253: \label{eq:wa,wc}
254: \ee
255: If we choose $a_c=1+\sigma^2(w_0)/\sigma^2(w_0w_a)$,
256: then $(w_0,w_c)$ are {\it uncorrelated}.
257: For current data, $z_c \sim 0.3$.
258: Choosing $a_c$ to make $(w_0,w_c)$ uncorrelated has
259: the disadvantage that $a_c$ is different for different
260: data sets.
261:
262: We recommend choosing $z_c=0.5$; it is sufficiently close
263: to $z_c \sim 0.3$ that the correlation of $w_0$ and $w_{0.5}=w_X(z=0.5)$
264: is relatively small.
265: It is straightforward to show that if
266: $|\sigma^2(w_0 w_a)/[\sigma(w_0)\sigma(w_a)]|<1$,
267: $(w_0,w_c)$ are {\it less} correlated than $(w_0,w_a)$ if
268: \be
269: \sigma^2(w_0) < 2 \left|(1-a_c) \sigma^2(w_0 w_a)\right|.
270: \ee
271: This is always satisfied for $z_c=0.5$.
272: Choosing $z_c=0.5$, the correlation
273: of $(w_0,w_{0.5})$ is smaller than that of $(w_0,w_a)$
274: by about a factor of 2 for the combined SNe, BAO, and CMB data
275: considered in this paper.
276: Fixing $z_c$ has the significant advantage of allowing the
277: comparison of the {\it same} dark energy property
278: for different data sets.
279: For our results for the 2-parameter dark energy model,
280: we use Eq.(\ref{eq:wc}) with $a_c=1/(1+0.5)=2/3$ ($z_c=0.5$).
281: Thus
282: \ba
283: \label{eq:w_0.5}
284: &&w_X(a)=3 w_{0.5}-2 w_0 + 3\left( w_0 - w_{0.5} \right) \,a\\
285: &&X(z)= (1+z)^{3(1-2 w_0+ 3w_{0.5})} \exp\left[9(w_0-w_{0.5})\, \frac{z}{1+z}\right]
286: \nonumber
287: \ea
288:
289:
290: In order to obtain model-independent constraints on dark energy,
291: we parametrize the dark energy density function
292: $X(z)=\rho_X(z)/\rho_X(0)$ as a free functions
293: with $X_{0.5}$, $X_{1.0}$, and $X_{1.5}$ [values of $X(z)$
294: at $z=0.5$, 1.0, and 1.5] as free parameters estimated from data.
295: At $z>1.5$, we choose either $X(z)=X_{1.5}$, or
296: $X(z)=X_{1.5} \,e^{\alpha (z-1.5)}$ (with $\alpha$ as an
297: additional parameter to be estimated from data). Our results are insensitive
298: to the assumption about $X(z)$ at $z>1.5$ (other than that
299: dark energy becomes insignificant at $z>1.5$).
300: As more data become available at $z>1.5$, we can include
301: $X_{2.0}=X(z=2.0)$, $X_{2.5}=X(z=2.5)$, and
302: $X_{3.0}=X(z=3.0)$ as estimated parameters,
303: as well as inserting more estimated $X(z)$ values at
304: $z<1.5$.
305: Early dark energy (significant at high $z$) is not required by current data,
306: and leads to contradiction with observed cosmic structure formation \cite{Sandvik},
307: unless a cutoff is imposed.
308:
309: The constraints on $X_{0.5}$, $X_{1.0}$, and $X_{1.5}$ are
310: insensitive to the interpolation used in deriving $X(z)$ elsewhere.
311: The simplest smooth interpolation is given by a polynomial:
312: \ba
313: X(z)&=& -\frac{1}{2} \left(3\zbar-1\right) \left(3\zbar-2\right)
314: \left(\zbar-1\right)\nonumber\\
315: & & \hskip 0.2cm +\frac{9}{2} X_{0.5}\zbar \left(3\zbar-2\right)
316: \left(\zbar-1\right) \nonumber\\
317: & & \hskip 0.2cm -\frac{9}{2} X_{1.0} \zbar \left(3\zbar-1\right)
318: \left(\zbar-1\right)\nonumber\\
319: & & \hskip 0.2cm +\frac{1}{2} X_{1.5} \zbar \left(3\zbar-1\right) \left(3\zbar-2\right),
320: \label{eq:Xz}
321: \ea
322: where $\zbar=z/1.5$.
323:
324: \subsection{Data analysis technique}
325:
326:
327: The comoving distance from the observer to redshift $z$ is given by
328: \ba
329: \label{eq:rz}
330: &&r(z)=cH_0^{-1}\, |\Omega_k|^{-1/2} {\rm sinn}[|\Omega_k|^{1/2}\, \Gamma(z)],\\
331: &&\Gamma(z)=\int_0^z\frac{dz'}{E(z')}, \hskip 1cm E(z)=H(z)/H_0 \nonumber
332: \ea
333: where $\Omega_k=-k/H_0^2$ with $k$ denoting the curvature constant,
334: and ${\rm sinn}(x)=\sin(x)$, $x$, $\sinh(x)$ for
335: $\Omega_k<0$, $\Omega_k=0$, and $\Omega_k>0$ respectively, and
336: \be
337: E^2(z)=\Omega_m (1+z)^3+\Omega_{\rm rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_k(1+z)^2+
338: \Omega_X X(z)
339: \ee
340: with $\Omega_X=1-\Omega_m-\Omega_{\rm rad}-\Omega_k$, and the dark energy density
341: function $X(z) \equiv \rho_X(z)/\rho_X(0)$.
342:
343: CMB data give us the comoving distance to the photon-decoupling surface
344: $r(z_*)$, and the comoving sound horizon
345: at photo-decoupling epoch \cite{EisenHu98,Page03}
346: \ba
347: \label{eq:rs}
348: r_s(z_*) &=& \int_0^{t_*} \frac{c_s\, dt}{a}
349: =cH_0^{-1}\int_{z_*}^{\infty} dz\,
350: \frac{c_s}{E(z)}, \nonumber\\
351: &=& cH_0^{-1} \int_0^{a_{*}}
352: \frac{da}{\sqrt{ 3(1+ \overline{R_b}\,a)\, a^4 E^2(z)}},
353: \ea
354: where $a$ is the cosmic scale factor,
355: $a_* =1/(1+z_*)$, and
356: $a^4 E^2(z)=\Omega_m (a+a_{\rm eq})+\Omega_k a^2 +\Omega_X X(z) a^4$,
357: with $a_{\rm eq}=\Omega_{\rm rad}/\Omega_m=1/(1+z_{\rm eq})$, and
358: $z_{\rm eq}=2.5\times 10^4 \Omega_m h^2 (T_{CMB}/2.7\,{\rm K})^{-4}$.
359: The sound speed is $c_s=1/\sqrt{3(1+\overline{R_b}\,a)}$,
360: with $\overline{R_b}\,a=3\rho_b/(4\rho_\gamma)$,
361: $\overline{R_b}=31500\Omega_bh^2(T_{CMB}/2.7\,{\rm K})^{-4}$.
362: COBE four year data give $T_{CMB}=2.728\pm 0.004\,$K (95\%
363: C.L.) \cite{Fixsen96}.
364: We take $T_{CMB}=2.725$ following \cite{Komatsu08}, since
365: we will use the CMB bounds derived by \cite{Komatsu08}.
366: The angular scale of the sound horizon at recombination is
367: defined as $l_a=\pi r(z_*)/r_s(z_*)$ \cite{Page03}.
368:
369: Wang \& Mukherjee 2007 \cite{WangPia07} showed that
370: the CMB shift parameters
371: \be
372: R \equiv \sqrt{\Omega_m H_0^2} \,r(z_*), \hskip 0.1in
373: l_a \equiv \pi r(z_*)/r_s(z_*),
374: \ee
375: together with $\Omega_b h^2$, provide an efficient summary
376: of CMB data as far as dark energy constraints go.
377: We use the covariance matrix of [$R(z_*), l_a(z_*), \Omega_b h^2]$ from
378: the five year WMAP data (Table 11 of \cite{Komatsu08}), with $z_*$
379: given by fitting formulae from Hu \& Sugiyama (1996) \cite{Hu96}:
380: \be
381: z_*=1048\, \left[1+ 0.00124 (\Omega_b h^2)^{-0.738}\right]\,
382: \left[1+g_1 (\Omega_m h^2)^{g_2} \right],
383: \ee
384: where
385: \ba
386: g_1&=&\frac{0.0783\, (\Omega_b h^2)^{-0.238}}
387: {1+39.5\, (\Omega_b h^2)^{0.763}}\\
388: g_2&=&\frac{0.560}{1+21.1\, (\Omega_b h^2)^{1.81}}
389: \ea
390: CMB data are included in our analysis by adding
391: the following term to the $\chi^2$ of a given model
392: with $p_1=R(z_*)$, $p_2=l_a(z_*)$, and $p_3=\Omega_b h^2$:
393: \be
394: \label{eq:chi2CMB}
395: \chi^2_{CMB}=\Delta p_i \left[ Cov^{-1}(p_i,p_j)\right]
396: \Delta p_j,
397: \hskip .5cm
398: \Delta p_i= p_i - p_i^{data},
399: \ee
400: where $p_i^{data}$ are the maximum likelyhood values given in
401: Table 10 of \cite{Komatsu08}.
402:
403:
404:
405: SN Ia data give the luminosity distance as a function of redshift,
406: $d_L(z)=(1+z)\, r(z)$.
407: We use 182 SNe Ia from the HST/GOODS program \cite{Riess07} and the first
408: year SNLS \cite{Astier05}, together with nearby SN Ia data,
409: as compiled by \cite{Riess07}.
410: We do not include the ESSENCE data \cite{Wood07}, as these are not yet derived using
411: the same method as thosed used in \cite{Riess07}.
412: Combining SN Ia data derived using different analysis techniques
413: leads to systematic effects in the estimated SN distance moduli
414: \cite{Wang00b,Wood07}.
415: Appendix A of \cite{WangPia07} describes in detail how we use
416: SN Ia data (flux-averaged to reduce lensing-like systematic
417: effects \cite{Wang00b,WangPia04,Wang05}
418: and marginalized over $H_0$) in this paper.
419:
420:
421: We also use the SDSS baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO)
422: scale measurement by adding the following term to the
423: $\chi^2$ of a model:
424: \be
425: \chi^2_{BAO}=\left[\frac{(A-A_{BAO})}{\sigma_A}\right]^2,
426: \label{eq:chi2bao}
427: \ee
428: where $A$ is defined as
429: \be
430: \label{eq:A}
431: A = \left[ r^2(z_{BAO})\, \frac{cz_{BAO}}{H(z_{BAO})} \right]^{1/3} \,
432: \frac{\left(\Omega_m H_0^2\right)^{1/2}} {cz_{BAO} },
433: \ee
434: and $A_{BAO}=0.469\,(n_S/0.98)^{-0.35}$,
435: $\sigma_A= 0.017$, and $z_{BAO}=0.35$
436: (independent of a dark energy model) \cite{Eisen05}.
437: We take the scalar spectral index $n_S=0.96$ as measured by WMAP
438: five year observations \cite{Komatsu08}.
439:
440: For Gaussian distributed measurements, the likelihood function
441: $L\propto e^{-\chi^2/2}$, with
442: \be
443: \chi^2=\chi^2_{CMB}+\chi^2_{SNe}+\chi^2_{BAO},
444: \label{eq:chi2}
445: \ee
446: where $\chi^2_{CMB}$ is given in Eq.({\ref{eq:chi2CMB}}),
447: $\chi^2_{SNe}$ is given in Appendix A
448: of \cite{WangPia07}, and $\chi^2_{BAO}$ is given in Eq.({\ref{eq:chi2bao}}).
449:
450: The current BBN constraints \cite{Steigman06}, $S=0.942\pm 0.030$
451: ($N_{\nu}=2.30^{+0.35}_{-0.34}$) rule out the standard model
452: of particle physics ($S=1$, $N_{\nu}=3$) at 1$\sigma$ \cite{Steigman06}.
453: Given the uncertainties involved in deriving the BBN constraints,
454: we relax the standard deviation of $S$ by a factor of two, so that the
455: standard model of particle physics is allowed at 1$\sigma$.
456: We find that the resultant BBN constraints do not have measurable effect
457: on our dark energy constraints.
458:
459: For all the dark energy constraints from combining the different
460: data sets presented in this paper,
461: we marginalize the SN Ia data over $H_0$ in
462: flux-averaging statistics \cite{WangPia07}, and
463: impose a prior of $H_0=72\pm 8\,$(km/s)Mpc$^{-1}$
464: from the HST Cepheid variable star observations \cite{HST_H0}.
465:
466: We run a Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) based on the MCMC engine
467: of \cite{Lewis02} to obtain ${\cal O}$($10^6$) samples for each set of
468: results presented in this paper.
469: The parameters used are ($\Omega_k$, $\Omega_m$, $h$, $\Omega_b h^2$,
470: $\mbox{\bf p}_{DE}$). The dark energy parameter set
471: is described in Sec.IIB.
472: We assumed flat priors for all the parameters, and allowed ranges
473: of the parameters wide enough such that further increasing the allowed
474: ranges has no impact on the results.
475: The chains typically have worst e-values (the
476: variance(mean)/mean(variance) of 1/2 chains)
477: much smaller than 0.005, indicating convergence.
478: The chains are subsequently
479: appropriately thinned to ensure independent samples.
480:
481:
482:
483: \section{Results}
484:
485:
486: Fig.{\ref{fig:w0wc}} shows the 68\% and 95\% C.L. contours of
487: ($w_0,w_{0.5}$) (upper panel) and ($w_0,w_a$) (lower panel) from
488: WMAP 5 year measurement of [$R(z_*)$, $l_a(z_*)$, $\Omega_b h^2$],
489: and 182 SNe Ia (from the HST/GOODS program,
490: the first year Supernova Legacy Survey, and nearby SN Ia surveys),
491: with and without the SDSS measurement of the baryon acoustic oscillation
492: (BAO) scale.
493: We have assumed the HST prior of $H_0=72\pm 8\,$(km/s)Mpc$^{-1}$,
494: and allowed $\Omega_k$ to vary.
495: Table 1 shows the mean, rms variance, and correlation coefficients
496: of ($w_0,w_{0.5}$) and ($w_0,w_a$), as well as the relative
497: dark energy FoM$_r$ defined in Eq.(\ref{eq:FoM_r}).
498: Note that Pearson's correlation coefficient
499: $\rho_{xy}=\sigma^2(x y)/[\sigma(x)\sigma(y)]$.
500: Adding the SDSS BAO scale measurement improves
501: the FoM$_r$ by a factor of 21.5 for ($w_0,w_{0.5}$), and
502: by a factor of 27.0 for ($w_0,w_a$). Since ($w_0,w_{0.5}$)
503: are significantly less correlated than ($w_0,w_a$),
504: the improvement factor in FoM$_r$ of ($w_0,w_{0.5}$) is a more
505: reliable indicator of the impact of adding the SDSS BAO scale measurement.
506:
507:
508: \begin{table*}[htb]
509: \caption{Constraints on ($w_0,w_{0.5}$) and ($w_0,w_a$)}
510: \begin{center}
511: \begin{tabular}{llllllll}
512: \hline
513: Data& $\mu(w_0)$ & $\sigma(w_0)$ & $\mu(w_0)$ & $\sigma(w_{0.5})$ & $\rho_{w_0w_{0.5}}$ & FoM$_r$ \\
514: WMAP5+SNe & -1.075 & 0.598 & -1.939 & 1.572 & -0.401 & 1.163 \\
515: WMAP5+SNe+BAO & -0.937 & 0.226 & -0.953 & 0.206 & -0.512 & 25.013 \\
516: \hline
517: \hline
518: Data& $\mu(w_0)$ & $\sigma(w_0)$ & $\mu(w_a)$ & $\sigma(w_a)$ & $\rho_{w_0w_a}$ & FoM$_r$ \\
519: WMAP5+SNe & -1.073 & 0.647 & -2.960 & 6.759 & -0.670 & 0.308 \\
520: WMAP5+SNe+BAO & -0.938 & 0.226 & -0.045 & 1.126 & -0.882 & 8.326 \\
521: \hline
522: \end{tabular}
523: %\tablecomments{}
524: \end{center}
525: \end{table*}
526:
527:
528:
529: \begin{figure}
530: \psfig{file=w0wc_col.ps,width=2.8in}\\
531: \caption[2]{\label{fig:w0wc}\footnotesize%
532: The 68\% and 95\% C.L. contours of
533: ($w_0,w_{0.5}$) (upper panel) and ($w_0,w_a$) (lower panel) from
534: WMAP 5 year measurement of [$R(z_*)$, $l_a(z_*)$, $\Omega_b h^2$],
535: and 182 SNe Ia (from the HST/GOODS program,
536: the first year Supernova Legacy Survey, and nearby SN Ia surveys),
537: with and without the SDSS measurement of the baryon acoustic oscillation
538: (BAO) scale.}
539: \end{figure}
540:
541:
542: Fig.2 shows the one dimensional marginalized probability distributions
543: (pdf) of ($\Omega_m$, $h$, $\Omega_k$, $\Omega_b h^2$, $w_0$, $w_a$),
544: for 182 SNe Ia, the SDSS BAO scale measurement,
545: and the WMAP 5 year data in the form of measured
546: (1) [$R(z_*)$, $l_a(z_*)$, $\Omega_b h^2$] (solid lines),
547: (2) [$R(z_*)$, $l_a(z_*)$, $\Omega_b h^2$] with $z_*$ fixed
548: at 1090.4 (dotted),
549: and (3) [$R(z_*)$, $l_a(z_*)$, $z_*$] (dashed).
550: For reference, the dot-dashed line shows the pdfs
551: for 182 SNe Ia, the SDSS measurement of the BAO scale, and the
552: WMAP 3 year data in the form of measured
553: [$R(z_{CMB})$, $l_a(z_{CMB})$, $\Omega_b h^2$] with $z_{CMB}$ fixed
554: at 1089 from \cite{WangPia07}.
555:
556: \begin{figure}
557: \psfig{file=w0wa_pdf.ps,width=3.5in}\\
558: \caption[2]{\label{fig:w0wa_pdf}\footnotesize%
559: One dimensional marginalized pdfs of
560: ($\Omega_m$, $h$, $\Omega_k$, $\Omega_b h^2$, $w_0$, $w_a$)
561: from 182 SNe Ia, the SDSS BAO scale measurement, and
562: the WMAP 5 year data in the form of measured
563: (1) [$R(z_*)$, $l_a(z_*)$, $\Omega_b h^2$] (solid lines),
564: (2) [$R(z_*)$, $l_a(z_*)$, $\Omega_b h^2$] with $z_*$ fixed
565: at 1090.4 (dotted),
566: and (3) [$R(z_*)$, $l_a(z_*)$, $z_*$] (dashed).
567: The dot-dashed line shows the pdfs
568: for 182 SNe Ia, the SDSS measurement of the BAO scale, and the
569: WMAP 3 year data in the form of measured
570: [$R(z_{CMB})$, $l_a(z_{CMB})$, $\Omega_b h^2$] with $z_{CMB}$ fixed
571: at 1089 from \cite{WangPia07}.}
572: \end{figure}
573:
574:
575: We find that in spite of the different pdfs for $\Omega_b h^2$,
576: using the [$R(z_*)$, $l_a(z_*)$, $\Omega_b h^2$] and
577: [$R(z_*)$, $l_a(z_*)$, $z_*$] measurements give about the same constraints
578: on ($\Omega_m$, $h$, $\Omega_k$, $w_0$, $w_a$).
579: Using the [$R(z_*)$, $l_a(z_*)$, $\Omega_b h^2$] measurement
580: with $z_*$ fixed at 1090.4 gives slightly tighter constraints
581: on ($w_0$, $w_a$).
582: In combination with the supernova and BAO data,
583: the WMAP 5 year data improve constraints on ($w_0$, $w_a$) slightly
584: compared to the WMAP 3 year data, while tightening the constraints
585: on $\Omega_k$ and $h$.
586:
587: Fig.3 shows the constraints on the dark energy density function
588: $X(z)=\rho_X(z)/\rho_X(0)$ parametrized by Eq.(\ref{eq:Xz}),
589: with $X(z)$ at $z>1.5$ given by either $X(z)=X_{1.5}$
590: or $X(z)=X_{1.5}\,\exp[\alpha(z-1.5)]$.
591: Note that the assumption about dark energy at $z>1.5$ has
592: only a weak effect on the dark energy constraints at $z\leq 1.5$.
593: Note that taking $X(z>1.5)=X_{1.5}$ gives slightly less stringent constraints
594: on dark energy at $z\leq 1.5$.
595: This is because parametrizing dark energy at $z>1.5$ with an extra parameter
596: requires choosing the early dark energy parametrization such that
597: it is not degenerate with cosmic curvature; this is why
598: $\Omega_k$ is not well constrained if we choose
599: $X(z>1.5)=X_{1.5}\,(1+z)^{\alpha}$, but $\Omega_k$ is well constrained
600: if we choose $X(z>1.5)=X_{1.5}\,\exp[\alpha(z-1.5)]$ \cite{WangPia07}.
601: The latter helps break the degeneracy of $\Omega_k$ with $X(z)$,
602: thus leading to much tighter constraints on $\Omega_k$
603: and slightly tighter constraints on $X(z)$ at $z\leq 1.5$ (see Fig.3).
604: This suggests that the more conservative approach in constraining
605: dark energy is to assume that $X(z>1.5)=X_{1.5}$.
606: \begin{figure}
607: \psfig{file=Xz3_pdf.ps,width=3.5in}\\
608: \caption[2]{\label{fig:Xz3_pdf}\footnotesize%
609: One dimensional marginalized pdfs of dark energy and cosmological
610: parameters from WMAP 5 year measurement of
611: [$R(z_*)$, $l_a(z_*)$, $\Omega_b h^2$],
612: 182 SNe Ia, and the SDSS BAO scale measurement.
613: Solid and dashed lines indicate $X(z)$ at $z>1.5$ given by
614: $X(z)=X_{1.5}$ and $X(z)=X_{1.5}\,\exp[\alpha(z-1.5)]$ respectively.
615: }
616: \end{figure}
617:
618: Table 2 shows the mean, rms variance, and correlation coefficients of
619: ($X_{0.5}$, $X_{1.0}$, $X_{1.5}$),
620: as well as the relative dark energy FoM$_r$ defined
621: in Eq.(\ref{eq:FoM_r}).
622:
623: \begin{table*}[htb]
624: \caption{Constraints on $X(z)$ parametrized by ($X_{0.5}$, $X_{1.0}$, $X_{1.5}$)}
625: \begin{center}
626: \begin{tabular}{lllllllllll}
627: \hline
628: $X(z>1.5)$ & $\mu(X_{0.5})$ & $\sigma(X_{0.5})$ & $\mu(X_{1.0})$ & $\sigma(X_{1.0})$ &
629: $\mu(X_{1.5})$ & $\sigma(X_{1.5})$ & $\rho_{X_{0.5}X_{1.0}}$ & $\rho_{X_{0.5}X_{1.5}}$
630: & $\rho_{X_{1.0}X_{1.5}}$ & FoM$_r$ \\
631: $X_{1.5}$ & 1.059 & 0.213 & 2.556 & 1.215 & 7.503 & 8.037 & -0.389 & -0.666 & 0.906 & 2.0771 \\
632: $X_{1.5}\,e^{\alpha(z-1.5)}$ &
633: 1.091 & 0.195 & 2.436 & 1.121 & 6.533 & 7.351 & -0.303 & -0.609 & 0.895 & 2.402 \\
634: \hline
635: \end{tabular}
636: %\tablecomments{}
637: \end{center}
638: \end{table*}
639:
640:
641:
642: \section{Summary and Discussion}
643:
644: In order to compare current and future dark energy experiments
645: on the same footing, we have introduced a simple and straightforward
646: definition for the Figure-of-Merit (FoM) of constraints on any set of
647: dark energy parameters, Eq.(\ref{eq:FoM_r}), that is easily applicable
648: to both real and simulated data.
649:
650: We recommend the adoption of two dark
651: energy parametrizations in comparing different experiments:
652: (1) A dark energy equation of state $w_X(z)$ linear in $a$, with its
653: values at $z=0$ and $z=0.5$, ($w_0$, $w_{0.5}$), as parameters
654: estimated from data [see Eq.(\ref{eq:w_0.5})].
655: We find that ($w_0$, $w_{0.5}$) are significantly less
656: correlated than ($w_0$, $w_a$) [see Table 1 and Fig.{\ref{fig:w0wc}}],
657: hence the factor of improvement in the FoM$_r$ [as defined in
658: Eq.(\ref{eq:FoM_r})] for ($w_0$, $w_{0.5}$) is a more reliable
659: indicator of the improvement in dark energy constraints than
660: the factor of improvement of FoM$_r$ for ($w_0$, $w_a$).
661: (2) The dark energy density function $X(z)=\rho_X(z)/\rho_X(0)$
662: parametrized by its values at $z=0.5$, 1.0, and 1.5,
663: ($X_{0.5}$, $X_{1.0}$, $X_{1.5}$), for $z\leq 1.5$ [see Eq.(\ref{eq:Xz})],
664: and $X(z>1.5)=X_{1.5}$. We find that this flat cutoff
665: in $X(z)$ gives more conservative constraints on $X(z)$ than
666: parametrizing early dark energy with an extra parameter such
667: that cosmic curvature is constrained (see Fig.{\ref{fig:Xz3_pdf}}).
668:
669: We have demonstrated the use of the FoM$_r$ [see Eq.(\ref{eq:FoM_r})]
670: for these two dark energy parametrizations
671: [see Eq.(\ref{eq:w_0.5}) and Eq.(\ref{eq:Xz})] using
672: WMAP 5 year measurement of [$R(z_*)$, $l_a(z_*)$, $\Omega_b h^2$],
673: 182 SNe Ia (from the HST/GOODS program,
674: the first year Supernova Legacy Survey, and nearby SN Ia surveys),
675: and the SDSS measurement of the baryon acoustic oscillation
676: (BAO) scale [see Figs.{\ref{fig:w0wc}}-{\ref{fig:Xz3_pdf}}].
677: Dark energy is consistent with a cosmological constant at 68\%
678: C.L. if one assumes the two-parameter dark energy equation
679: of state model, $w_X(a)=3 w_{0.5}-2 w_0 + 3( w_0 - w_{0.5}) \,a$.
680: If one assumes dark energy density to be a free function
681: parametrized by its values at $z=0.5$, 1.0, and 1.5, then
682: dark energy deviates from a cosmological constant at $z =1.0$
683: at 68\% C.L., but is consistent with a cosmological
684: constant at 95\% C.L. (see Fig.{\ref{fig:Xz3_pdf}}).
685: This illustrates the importance of using the model-independent parametrization
686: in probing dark energy. Measuring $X(z)$ as a free function
687: from data allows us to detect epochs of variation
688: in dark energy density. It also allows us to constrain a broader
689: class of dark energy models than represented by $w_X(z)$;
690: for example, dark energy models in which $X(z)$ becomes negative in
691: the past or future, which are excluded by fiat if one only measures
692: $w_X(z)$ since $X(z)=\exp\{\int_0^z{\rm d}z' \, 3[1+w_X(z')]/(1+z')\}$
693: \cite{WangTegmark04}.
694: The two parameter dark energy equation of
695: state model (linear in $a$) implies strong assumptions about dark energy,
696: and is not sensitive to a transient variation in dark energy;
697: thus it is most useful in comparing forecasts
698: for future dark energy experiments under the simplest assumptions.
699:
700:
701: Future dark energy experiments from both ground and space
702: \cite{Wang00a,detf,ground,jedi,SPACE,Wang07}, together with CMB data
703: from Planck \cite{planck}, will dramatically improve our ability
704: to probe dark energy, and eventually shed light on the nature of dark energy.
705: Using both a linear dark energy equation of state [parameterized by
706: ($w_0$, $w_{0.5}$)] and dark energy density function $X(z)$ as
707: a free function [parametrized by ($X_{0.5}$, $X_{1.0}$, $X_{1.5}$)]
708: provides a simple and balanced approach to exploring dark energy.
709: Proposed future dark energy experiments should be evaluated
710: by comparing their FoM$_r$ for both ($w_0$, $w_{0.5}$)
711: and ($X_{0.5}$, $X_{1.0}$, $X_{1.5}$) to that of current data.
712:
713:
714: \bigskip
715:
716: {\bf Acknowledgements}
717: I am grateful to Eiichiro Komatsu for sending me the covariance
718: matrix for [$R(z_*), l_a(z_*), z_*, \Omega_b h^2$] from
719: WMAP 5 year data, and
720: for helpful discussions. I acknowledge the use of cosmomc
721: in processing the MCMC chains.
722:
723:
724:
725: \begin{thebibliography}{}
726:
727: \bibitem[Riess et al.~(1998)]{Riess98}
728: Riess, A. G, {\etal}, 1998, Astron. J., 116, 1009
729:
730: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.~(1999)]{Perl99}
731: Perlmutter, S. {\etal}, 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
732:
733: \bibitem[Freese et al.(1987)]{Freese87}
734: Freese, K., Adams, F.C., Frieman, J.A.,
735: and Mottola, E.,
736: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B287}, 797 (1987).
737:
738: \bibitem[Linde(1987)]{Linde87}
739: Linde A D, ``Inflation And Quantum Cosmology,'' in
740: {\it Three hundred years of gravitation}, (Eds.: Hawking, S.W. and Israel, W.,
741: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987), 604-630.
742:
743: \bibitem[Peebles \& Ratra(1988)]{Peebles88}
744: Peebles, P.J.E., and Ratra, B., 1988, ApJ, 325, L17
745:
746: \bibitem[Wetterich(1988)]{Wett88}
747: Wetterich, C., 1988, Nucl.Phys., B302, 668
748:
749: \bibitem[Frieman et al.(1995)]{Frieman95}
750: Frieman, J.A., Hill, C.T., Stebbins, A., and Waga, I., 1995, PRL, 75, 2077
751:
752: \bibitem[Caldwell, Dave \& Steinhardt(1998)]{Caldwell98}
753: Caldwell, R., Dave, R., \& Steinhardt, P.J., 1998, PRL, 80, 1582
754:
755: \bibitem[Sahni \& Habib(1998)]{SH98}
756: Sahni, V., \& Habib, S., 1998, PRL, 81, 1766
757:
758:
759: \bibitem[Parker \& Raval(1999)]{Parker99}
760: Parker, L., and Raval, A., 1999, PRD, 60, 063512
761:
762: \bibitem[Boisseau et al.(2000)]{Boisseau00}
763: Boisseau, B., Esposito-Far\`ese, G.,
764: Polarski, D. \& Starobinsky, A. A. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 2236
765: % Cosmic acceleration from scalar-tensor gravity
766:
767: %\bibitem[Deffayet(2001)]{Deffayet01}
768: %Deffayet, C., 2001, Phys. Lett. B, 502, 199
769:
770: \bibitem[Dvali, Gabadadze, \& Porrati(2000)]{DGP00}
771: Dvali, G., Gabadadze, G., \& Porrati, M. 2000,
772: Phys.Lett. B485, 208
773:
774:
775: \bibitem[Freese \& Lewis(2002)]{Freese02}
776: Freese, K., \& Lewis, M., 2002, Phys. Lett. B, 540, 1
777:
778:
779: \bibitem[Padmanabhan(2003)]{Pad}
780: Padmanabhan, T., 2003, Phys. Rep., 380, 235
781:
782:
783: \bibitem[Peebles \& Ratra(2003)]{Peebles03}
784: Peebles, P.J.E., \& Ratra, B., 2003, Rev. Mod. Phys., 75, 559
785:
786: %\bibitem[Carroll et al.(2004)]{Carroll04}
787: %Carroll, S M, de Felice, A, Duvvuri, V, Easson, D A, Trodden, M \& Turner, M S,
788: %Phys.Rev. D71 (2005) 063513
789:
790: \bibitem[Onemli \& Woodard(2004)]{OW04}
791: Onemli, V. K., \& Woodard, R. P. 2004,
792: Phys.Rev. D70, 107301
793:
794: \bibitem[Cardone et al.(2005)]{Cardone05}
795: Cardone, V.F., Tortora, C., Troisi, A., \& Capozziello, S. 2005,
796: astro-ph/0511528, Phys.Rev.D, in press
797:
798:
799: %\bibitem[Kolb, Matarrese, \& Riotto(2005)]{Kolb05}
800: %Kolb, E.W., Matarrese, S., \& Riotto, A. 2005, astro-ph/0506534
801:
802:
803: \bibitem[Caldwell(2006)]{Caldwell06}
804: Caldwell, R.R.; Komp, W.; Parker, L.; Vanzella, D.A.T.,
805: Phys.Rev. D73 (2006) 023513
806:
807: \bibitem[Kahya \& Onemli(2006)]{KO06}
808: E. O. Kahya and V. K. Onemli, gr-qc/0612026
809:
810: \bibitem[DeFelice(2007)]{DeFelice07}
811: De Felice, A.; Mukherjee, P.; Wang, Y.,
812: %Observational Bounds on Modified Gravity Models,
813: PRD, submitted (2007),
814: arXiv:0706.1197 [astro-ph]
815:
816:
817: \bibitem[Koi(2007)]{Koi07}
818: Koivisto, T.; Mota, D.F., hep-th/0609155, Phys.Rev. D75 (2007) 023518
819:
820: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2004)]{Wang04}
821: Wang, Y.; Kratochvil,J.M.; Linde, A.; Shmakova, M. 2004,
822: JCAP, 12, 006 (2004), astro-ph/0409264
823:
824: \bibitem[Wang \& Tegmark(2004)]{WangTegmark04}
825: Wang, Y., \& Tegmark, M. 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 241302
826:
827: \bibitem[Wang \& Tegmark(2005)]{WangTegmark05}
828: Wang, Y., \& Tegmark, M. 2005, Phys. Rev. D 71, 103513
829:
830: \bibitem[Alam \& Sahni(2005)]{Alam05}
831: Alam, U., \& Sahni, V. 2005, astro-ph/0511473
832:
833: \bibitem[Daly \& Djorgovski(2005)]{Daly05}
834: Daly,R. A.,\& Djorgovski, S. G. 2005,
835: astro-ph/0512576.
836:
837: %\bibitem[Jassal, Bagla, \& Padmanabhan(2005a)]{Jassal05a}
838: %Jassal, H.K., Bagla, J.S., Padmanabhan, T. 2005,
839: %Phys.Rev.D 72, 103503
840:
841: \bibitem[Jassal, Bagla, \& Padmanabhan(2005b)]{Jassal05b}
842: Jassal, H.K., Bagla, J.S., Padmanabhan, T. 2005,
843: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.Letters, 356, L11
844:
845: \bibitem[Polarski \& Ranquet(2005)]{Polar05}
846: D. Polarski, and A. Ranquet,
847: Phys. Lett. B627, 1 (2005)
848: [astro-ph/0507290]
849:
850: \bibitem[Barger(2006)]{Barger06}
851: Barger, V.; Gao, Y.; Marfatia, D., astro-ph/0611775
852:
853: \bibitem[Dick, Knox, \& Chu(2006)]{Dick06}
854: Dick, J., Knox, L., \& Chu, M. 2006,
855: astro-ph/0603247
856:
857: \bibitem[Huterer(2006)]{Huterer06}
858: Huterer, D.; Peiris, H.V., astro-ph/0610427
859:
860: %\bibitem[Franca(2006)]{Franca06}
861: %U.~Franca,
862: %``Dark energy, curvature and cosmic coincidence,''
863: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 641}, 351 (2006)
864: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0509177]
865:
866: %\bibitem[Ichikawa \& Takahashi(2006)]{IT06}
867: %K. Ichikawa and T. Takahashi,
868: % Phys. Rev. D73, 083526 (2006)
869: % [arXiv:astro-ph/0511821]
870:
871: \bibitem[Ichikawa et al.(2006)]{Ichi06}
872: K. Ichikawa, M. Kawasaki, T. Sekiguchi and T. Takahashi,
873: JCAP 0612, 005 (2006)
874: [arXiv:astro-ph/0605481]
875:
876: \bibitem[Jassal, Bagla, \& Padmanabhan(2006)]{Jassal06}
877: Jassal, H.K., Bagla, J.S., Padmanabhan, T. 2006,
878: astro-ph/0601389
879:
880: \bibitem[Liddle(2006)]{Liddle06}
881: Liddle, A.R.; Mukherjee, P.; Parkinson, D.; Wang, Y.,
882: PRD, 74, 123506 (2006), astro-ph/0610126
883:
884: \bibitem[Nesseris \& Perivolaropoulos(2006)]{Nesseris06}
885: Nesseris, S., \& Perivolaropoulos, L. 2006,
886: astro-ph/0602053;
887: Nesseris, S., \& Perivolaropoulos, L. 2006, astro-ph/0612653
888:
889: \bibitem[Schimd et al.(2006)]{Schimd06}
890: Schimd, C. et al. 2006, astro-ph/0603158
891:
892: \bibitem[Sumu(2006)]{Sumu06}
893: Samushia, L.; Ratra, B., Astrophys.J. 650 (2006) L5
894:
895: \bibitem[Wang \& Mukherjee(2006)]{WangPia06}
896: Wang, Y., \& Mukherjee, P. 2006, ApJ, 650, 1
897:
898: \bibitem[Wilson, Chen, \& Ratra(2006)]{Wilson06}
899: Wilson, K.M., Chen, G., Ratra, B. 2006, astro-ph/0602321
900:
901: \bibitem[Xia(2006)]{Xia06}
902: Xia, J.-Q.; Zhao, G.-B.; Li, H.; Feng, B.; Zhang, X.,
903: Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) 083521
904:
905: %\bibitem[Zhao et al.(2006)]{Zhao06}
906: %Zhao, G., Xia, J., Feng, B., \& Zhang, X. 2006, astro-ph/0603621
907:
908: \bibitem[Alam(2007)]{Alam07}
909: Alam, U.; Sahni, V.; Starobinsky, A.A., JCAP 0702 (2007) 011
910:
911: \bibitem[Clarkson(2007)]{Clarkson07}
912: Clarkson, C.; Cortes, M.; Bassett, B.A., astro-ph/0702670
913:
914: \bibitem[Davis(2007)]{Davis07}
915: Davis, T. M., et al. 2007, astro-ph/0701510
916:
917: \bibitem[Gong(2007)]{Gong07}
918: Gong, Y.; Wang, A., Phys.Rev. D75 (2007) 043520
919:
920: \bibitem[Ichikawa(2007)]{Kazu07}
921: Ichikawa, K.; Takahashi, T., JCAP 0702 (2007) 001
922:
923: \bibitem[Wei(2007)]{Wei07}
924: Wei, H.; Zhang, S.N., astro-ph/0609597, Phys.Lett. B644 (2007) 7
925:
926: \bibitem[Wright(2007)]{Wright07}
927: Wright, E.L., astro-ph/0701584
928:
929: \bibitem[Zhang(2007)]{Zhang07}
930: Zhang, J.; Zhang, X.; Liu, H., astro-ph/0612642
931:
932: \bibitem[Zun(2007)]{Zun07}
933: Zunckel, C.; Trotta, R., astro-ph/0702695
934:
935: \bibitem[FoM(2007)]{FoM}
936: A. Albrecht, G. Bernstein, Phys.Rev.D, 75, 103003, 2007
937: S. Sullivan , et al., arXiv:0709.1150
938:
939:
940: %\bibitem[sdss(2004)]{sdss}
941: %Tegmark, M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 606, 702
942:
943: %\bibitem[2df(2006)]{2df}
944: %Verde, L., et al., 2002, MNRAS, 335, 432;
945: %Hawkins, E., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 78
946:
947:
948:
949: %\bibitem[Zhao(2007)]{Zhao07}
950: %Zhao, G., et al., astro-ph/0612728
951:
952: \bibitem[Chev01(2001)]{Chev01}
953: Chevallier, M., \& Polarski, D. 2001, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10,
954: 213
955:
956: \bibitem[deft(2006)]{detf}
957: Albrecht, A.; Bernstein, G.; Cahn, R.; Freedman, W. L.; Hewitt, J.;
958: Hu, W.; Huth, J.; Kamionkowski, M.; Kolb, E.W.; Knox, L.; Mather, J.C.;
959: Staggs, S.; Suntzeff, N.B., Report of the Dark Energy Task Force,
960: astro-ph/0609591
961:
962: \bibitem[Eisenstein \& Hu(1998)]{EisenHu98}
963: Eisenstein, D. \& Hu, W. 1998, ApJ, 496, 605
964:
965: \bibitem[Page(2003)]{Page03}
966: Page, L., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 233
967:
968: \bibitem[Fixsen(1996)]{Fixsen96}
969: Fixsen, D. J., 1996, ApJ, 473, 576
970:
971: \bibitem[Wang \& Mukherjee(2007)]{WangPia07}
972: PRD, 76, 103533 (2007), astro-ph/0703780
973:
974: \bibitem[Komatsu et al.(2008)]{Komatsu08}
975: Komatsu, E., et al., arXiv:0803.0547 [astro-ph]
976:
977: \bibitem[Hu \& Sugiyama(1996)]{Hu96}
978: Hu, W., \& Sugiyama, N. 1996, ApJ, 471, 542
979:
980: \bibitem[Riess(2007)]{Riess07}
981: Riess, A.G., et al., astro-ph/0611572
982:
983: \bibitem[Astier et al.(2005)]{Astier05}
984: Astier, P., et al. 2005, astro-ph/0510447,
985: Astron. Astrophys. 447 (2006) 31
986:
987: \bibitem[Wood(2007)]{Wood07}
988: Wood-Vasey, W. M., et al., astro-ph/0701041
989:
990: %\bibitem[Wang(2000a)]{Wang00a}
991: %Wang, Y., ApJ 531, 676 (2000a)
992:
993: \bibitem[Wang(2000b)]{Wang00b}
994: Wang, Y., ApJ 536, 531 (2000b)
995:
996: \bibitem[Wang \& Mukherjee(2004)]{WangPia04}
997: Wang, Y., \& Mukherjee, P. 2004, ApJ, 606, 654
998:
999: \bibitem[Wang(2005)]{Wang05}
1000: Wang, Y., JCAP, 03, 005 (2005), astro-ph/0406635
1001:
1002:
1003: \bibitem[Eisenstein et al.(2005)]{Eisen05}
1004: Eisenstein, D., et al., ApJ, 633, 560
1005:
1006: \bibitem[Steigman(2006)]{Steigman06}
1007: Steigman, G. 2006, astro-ph/0611209
1008:
1009: \bibitem[HST_H0(2001)]{HST_H0}
1010: Freedman, W. L., et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47
1011:
1012: \bibitem[Lewis02(2002)]{Lewis02}
1013: Lewis, A., \& Bridle, S. 2002, PRD, 66, 103511
1014:
1015: \bibitem[Sandvik(2004)]{Sandvik}
1016: Sandvik, H.; Tegmark, M.; Zaldarriaga, M.; Waga, I. 2004,
1017: Phys.Rev. D69 (2004) 123524
1018:
1019: %*******
1020:
1021: \bibitem[Wang \& Garnavich(2001)]{WangGarna}
1022: Wang, Y., and Garnavich, P. 2001, ApJ, 552, 445
1023:
1024: \bibitem[Tegmark(2002)]{Tegmark02}
1025: Tegmark, M. 2002, Phys. Rev. D66, 103507
1026:
1027: \bibitem[Wang \& Freese(2006)]{WangFreese}
1028: Wang, Y., \& Freese, K. 2006, Phys.Lett. B632, 449
1029: (astro-ph/0402208)
1030: %*******
1031:
1032: % SN pencil beam paper (astro-ph/9806185)
1033: \bibitem[Wang(2000a)]{Wang00a}
1034: Wang, Y. 2000, ApJ 531, 676
1035:
1036:
1037: \bibitem[ground(2007)]{ground}
1038: See for example, http://www.astro.ubc.ca/LMT/alpaca/;
1039: http://www.lsst.org/; http://www.as.utexas.edu/hetdex/.
1040: \cite{detf} contains a more complete list of future
1041: dark energy experiments.
1042:
1043:
1044: \bibitem[jedi(2006)]{jedi}
1045: Wang, Y., et al., BAAS, v36, n5, 1560 (2004);
1046: Crotts, A., et al. (2005), astro-ph/0507043;
1047: Cheng, E.; Wang, Y.; et al., Proc. of SPIE, Vol. 6265, 626529 (2006);
1048: http://jedi.nhn.ou.edu/
1049:
1050: \bibitem[SPACE(2007)]{SPACE}
1051: M. Robberto, A Cimatti, and the SPACE science team,
1052: Venice 2007 Conf. Proc., to appear on Il Nuovo Cimento,
1053: %in Proc. of ``A Century of Cosmology: Past, Present and Future",
1054: %San Servolo, Venice, Aug. 2007, G. Chincarini Ed., Il Nuovo Cimento
1055: %(2008, in press)
1056: arXiv:0710.3970
1057:
1058: \bibitem[Wang(2007)]{Wang07}
1059: Wang, Y., arXiv:0710.3885 [astro-ph]
1060:
1061: \bibitem[planck(2007)]{planck}
1062: Planck Bluebook, \\
1063: http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?project=PLANCK
1064:
1065:
1066: %\bibitem[Press et al.(1994)]{Press94}
1067: %Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vettering, W.T.,
1068: %\& Flannery, B.P. 1994, Numerical Recipes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1069:
1070: %\bibitem[Elgaroy(2007)]{Elgaroy}
1071: %Elgaroy, O., and Multamaki, T., astro-ph/0702343.
1072:
1073:
1074:
1075: %\bibitem[Shafieloo et al.(2006)]{shaf06}
1076: %Shafieloo, A.; Alam, U.; Sahni, V.; and Starobinsky, A.A. 2005,
1077: %MNRAS, 366, 1081
1078:
1079:
1080: \end{thebibliography}
1081:
1082:
1083: \end{document}
1084: