1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3:
4:
5:
6: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
7:
8: \shorttitle{DM--DE coupling biasing parameter estimation}
9: \shortauthors{La Vacca et al.}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: \title{Dark Matter--Dark Energy coupling biasing parameter estimates from CMB
14: data}
15:
16: \author{Giuseppe La Vacca\altaffilmark{1}}
17: \affil{Theoretical and Nuclear Physics Department, Pavia University,
18: Via A. Bassi 6, 20700 Pavia, Italy}
19: \email{giuseppe.lavacca@mib.infn.it}
20:
21: \author{Loris P.L. Colombo \altaffilmark{2}}
22: \affil{Department of Physics \& Astronomy,
23: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0484}
24: \email{colombo@usc.edu}
25:
26:
27: \author{Luca Vergani}
28: \affil{Physics Dep.~G.~Occhialini, Milano--Bicocca University, Piazza
29: della Scienza 3, 20126 Milano, Italy}
30: \email{luca.vergani@mib.infn.it}
31:
32: \and
33:
34: \author{Silvio A. Bonometto \altaffilmark{1}}
35: \affil{Physics Dep.~G.~Occhialini, Milano--Bicocca University, Piazza
36: della Scienza 3, 20126 Milano, Italy}
37: \email{silvio.bonometto@mib.infn.it}
38:
39:
40: \altaffiltext{1}{I.N.F.N., sez. Milano--Bicocca, Piazza della Scienza 3,
41: 20126 Milano, Italy}
42: \altaffiltext{1}{Physics Dep.~G.~Occhialini, Milano--Bicocca University, Piazza
43: della Scienza 3, 20126 Milano, Italy}
44:
45:
46: \begin{abstract}
47: When CMB data are used to derive cosmological parameters, their very
48: choice does matter: some parameter values can be biased if the
49: parameter space does not cover the ``true'' model. This is a problem,
50: because of the difficulty to parametrize Dark Energy (DE) physics. We
51: test this risk through numerical experiments. We create artificial
52: data for dynamical or coupled DE models and then use MCMC techniques
53: to recover model parameters, by assuming a constant DE state parameter
54: $w$ and no DM--DE coupling. For the DE potential considered, no
55: serious bias arises when coupling is absent. On the contrary,
56: $\omega_{o,c}$, and thence $H_o$ and $\Omega_{o,m}$, suffer a serious
57: bias when the ``true'' cosmology includes even just a mild DM--DE
58: coupling. Until the dark components keep an unknown nature, therefore,
59: it can be important to allow for a degree of freedom accounting for
60: DM--DE coupling, even more than increasing the number of parameters
61: accounting for the $w(a) $ behavior.
62: \end{abstract}
63:
64: \keywords{Dark Matter -- Dark Energy -- Cosmic Microwave Background --
65: Cosmological Parameters}
66:
67: \section{Introduction}
68: Scarce doubts remain that Dark Energy (DE) exists. Not only SNIa data
69: indicate an accelerated cosmic expansion (Perlmutter et al. 1997,
70: 1998, Riess et al. 1998, Foley et al. 2007); also CMB and deep sample
71: data show a clear discrepancy between the total density parameter
72: $\Omega_o,$ approaching unity, and the matter density parameter
73: $\Omega_{o,m} \sim 0.25$--$0.3~$ (see, {\it e.g.}, Spergel et
74: al. 2007). DE covers this gap; its state parameter $w\equiv
75: p_{de}/\rho_{de}$ must approach $-1$ today, so apparently excluding
76: that DE is made of free particles ($p_{o,de}, ~\rho_{o,de}$: DE
77: pressure, energy density). The true nature of DE is however still
78: elusive; a false vacuum and a self--interacting scalar field are among
79: the most popular hypotheses for it (Wetterich 1988, Ratra \& Peebles
80: 1988).
81:
82: In this paper we explore some possible consequences of our poor
83: knowledge of DE nature. In particular we test the risk that other
84: cosmological parameter estimates are biased by a inadequate
85: parametrization of the DE component. We shall see that this risk is
86: real.
87:
88:
89: Theoretical predictions had an astonishing success in fitting CMB
90: data. For instance, the SW effect, predicting low--$l$ $C_l$ data, or
91: primeval compression waves, predicting $C_l$ peaks and deeps, were
92: clearly detected. There is little doubt that we are exploring the
93: right range of models.
94:
95: When we investigate DE nature through CMB data, we must bear in mind
96: that they were mostly fixed at a redshift $z \sim 1100\, ,$ when the
97: very DE density should be negligible, and so affects peak and deep
98: positions indirectly, through the values of $\omega_{o,c}\equiv
99: \Omega_{o,c} h^2$ and $\omega_{o,b}\equiv \Omega_{o,b} h^2$ (here $
100: H_o = 100\, h\, $km/s/Mpc is the present Hubble parameter;
101: $\Omega_{o},~ \Omega_{o,c},~ \Omega_{o,b}$ are the present total, CDM,
102: baryon density parameters). Later information on DE state equation,
103: conveyed by the ISW effect, is seriously affected by cosmic variance
104: and often relies on the assumption that a single opacity parameter
105: $\tau$ can account for reionization, assumed to be (almost)
106: instantaneous. Accordingly, if we assume dynamical DE (DDE), due to a
107: scalar field $\phi$ self interacting through a potential $V(\phi),$
108: CMB data allow to exclude some interaction shape, {\it e.g.}
109: Ratra--Peebles (1988) potentials with significantly large $\Lambda$
110: energy scales, but hardly convey much information on potential
111: parameters.
112:
113: In spite of that, when we choose a DE potential or a specific scale
114: dependence of the DE state parameter $w(a),$ we risk to bias the
115: values of other cosmological parameters, sometimes leading to
116: premature physical conclusions. An example is the value of the
117: primeval spectral index for scalar fluctuation $n_s$. Using WMAP3 data
118: (Spergel et al. 2007) and assuming a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, the value
119: $n_s=1$ is ``excluded'' at the 2--$\sigma$ confidence level. On the
120: contrary, Colombo \& Gervasi (2007) showed that this is no longer true
121: in a DDE model based on a SUGRA potential (Brax \& Martin 1999, 2001;
122: Brax, Martin \& Riazuelo 2000), whose likelihood was the same of
123: $\Lambda$CDM.
124:
125: The risk that our poor knowledge of DE nature biases parameter
126: determination is even more serious if DM--DE coupling is allowed.
127: Coupled DE (CDE) cosmologies were studied by various authors (see,
128: {\it e.g.}, Wetterich 1995, Amendola 2000, Bento, Bertolami \& Sen
129: 2002, Macci\`o et al. 2004).
130:
131: While DDE was introduced in the attempt to ease DE {\it fine--tuning}
132: problems, CDE tries to ease the {\it coincidence} problem. Let us then
133: parametrise the strength of DM--DE coupling through a parameter
134: $\beta,$ defined below. When $\beta$ is large enough, DM and DE scale
135: (quasi) in parallel since a fairly high redshift. In turn this
136: modifies the rate of cosmic expansion whenever DM and/or DE
137: contributions to the total energy density are non--negligible, so that
138: limits on $\beta$ can be set through data.
139:
140: The range allowed ($\beta < 0.10$--0.12; Mainini, Colombo \& Bonometto
141: 2005, Mainini \& Bonometto 2007, see also Majerotto, Sapone \&
142: Amendola 2004, Amendola, Campos \& Rosenfeld, 2006), unfortunately, is
143: so limited that DM and DE are doomed to scale differently, but in a
144: short redshift interval. Clearly, this spoils the initial motivation
145: of coupling, but, once the genie is outside the lamp, it is hard to
146: put him back inside: even though the coupling solves little conceptual
147: problems, we should verify that no bias arises on the other parameters,
148: for the neglect of $\beta$'s consistent with data. This is far from
149: being just a theoretical loophole, the still unknown physics of the
150: dark components could really imply the presence of a mild DM--DE
151: coupling, and its discovery could mark a step forwards in the
152: understanding of their nature.
153:
154: Here we test this possibility by performing some numerical
155: experiments. We assume DDE and CDE due to a SUGRA potential and use
156: MCMC techniques to fit the following parameter set: $\omega_{o,c} $,
157: $\omega_{o,b} $, $\tau$, $\theta$, $n_s$, $A_s$ and (constant) $w$;
158: $\theta$ is the angular size of the sound horizon at recombination
159: (see however below), $n_s$ and $A_s$ are spectral index and amplitude
160: of scalar waves, no tensor mode is considered.
161:
162: The plan of the paper is as follows: In Section 2 we discuss how
163: artificial data are built, outlining the models selected, the DDE
164: potential used and the sensitivity assumed. In Section 3 we briefly
165: debate the features of the MCMC algorithm used and illustrate a test
166: on its efficiency, also outlining the physical reasons why some
167: variables are more or less efficiently recovered. In Section 4 we
168: discuss the results of an analysis of DDE artificial data, against the
169: $w = {\rm const.}$ assumption. In Section 5 we briefly summarize why
170: and how CDE models are built and do the same of Sec.~4 for CDE
171: models. This section yields the most significant results of this
172: work. In Section 6 we draw our conclusions.
173:
174: \section{Building artificial data}
175: In order to produce artificial data we use CAMB, or a suitable
176: extension of it (see below), to derive the angular spectra
177: $C_l^{(TT)}$, $C_l^{(EE)}$, $C_l^{(TE)}$ for various sets of parameter
178: values. Artificial data are then worked out from spectra, according to
179: Perotto et al. (2006)$\, $.
180:
181: The analysis we report is however mostly based on a single choice of
182: parameters, WMAP5 inspired (see Komatsu et al., 2008, Spergel et
183: al. 2007), in association with three different $\beta$'s. Two other
184: parameter choices will also be used: (i) to test the efficiency of the
185: MCMC algorithm; (ii) to add results for a still lower $\beta$ value,
186: so strengthening our conclusions.
187:
188: The parameter sets for the most general case and the (ii) case are
189: shown in Table~1. In these cases DE is due to a scalar field
190: self--interacting through a SUGRA potential
191: \begin{equation}
192: V(\phi) = (\Lambda^{\alpha+4}/\phi^\alpha) \exp(4\pi\, \phi^2/m_p^2)~,
193: \label{sugra}
194: \end{equation}
195: ($m_p:$ Planck mass) which has been shown to fit CMB data at least as
196: well as $\Lambda$CDM (Colombo \& Gervasi 2007); as outlined in the
197: Table, we input the value of the energy scale $\Lambda;$ the
198: corresponding $\alpha$ value is determined by the program itself; the
199: choice $\Lambda = 1\, $GeV is consistent with Colombo \& Gervasi
200: (2007) findings and is however scarcely constrained by data. The
201: meaning of the coupling constant $\beta$ is discussed at the beginning
202: of Section 5~.
203:
204: \begin{table}[!hbt]
205: \begin{center}
206: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
207: \hline \hline
208: & Model A & Model B \\
209: \hline
210: $\Omega_o$ & 1 & 1 \\
211: $10^2 \, \omega_{o,b}$ & 2.273 & 2.4 \\
212: $\omega_{o,c}$ & 0.1099 & 0.11 \\
213: $100 \, h$ & 71.9 & 85 \\
214: $\tau_{opt}$ & 0.087 & 0.15 \\
215: $\ln(10^{10} \, A_s)$ & 3.1634 & 3.1355 \\
216: $n_s$ & 0.963 & 1 \\
217: $\Lambda /$GeV & 1 & 1 \\
218: \hline
219: & 0\, \, & \\
220: $\beta$& 0.05 & 0.02 \\
221: & 0.10 & \\
222: \hline\hline
223: \end{tabular}
224: \caption{\textsl{Cosmological parameters for artificial CMB data.}}
225: \label{tabin}
226: \end{center}
227: \vskip -.8truecm
228: \end{table}
229:
230:
231: Starting from the spectral components and assuming that cosmic
232: fluctuations are distributed according to a Gaussian process, we generate {\it
233: realizations} of the coefficients of the spherical harmonic expansions for the
234: temperature and E--polarization fields, according to the expressions
235: \begin{equation}
236: a_{lm}^{(T)} = \sqrt{C_l^{(TT)}} g_{lm}^{(1)}~,
237: \label{almt}
238: \end{equation}
239: \begin{equation}
240: a_{lm}^{(E)} = \left[C_l^{(TE)}/C_l^{(TT)}\right] \sqrt{C_l^{(TT)}}
241: g_{lm}^{(1)} + \sqrt{C_l^{(EE)} -
242: \left[\left(C_l^{(TE)}\right)^2/C_l^{(TT)} \right] } g_{lm}^{(2)}~,
243: \label{alme}
244: \end{equation}
245: where both $g_{lm}^{(i)},$ for any $l$ and $m$, are casual variables,
246: distributed in a Gaussian way with null averages and unit variance, so
247: that the equality $\langle g_{lm}^{(i)} g_{lm}^{(j)} \rangle =
248: \delta^{ij}$ is approached when the number of realizations increases.
249: Together with eqs.~(\ref{almt}) and (\ref{alme}) this grants that
250: $$
251: \langle a_{lm}^{(T)} a_{l'm'}^{(T)*} \rangle = C_l^{(TT)} \delta_{ll'}
252: \delta_{mm'}~,~~
253: \langle a_{lm}^{(E)} a_{l'm'}^{(E)*} \rangle = C_l^{(EE)} \delta_{ll'}
254: \delta_{mm'}~,~~
255: $$
256: \begin{equation}
257: \langle a_{lm}^{(T)} a_{l'm'}^{(E)*} \rangle = C_l^{(TE)} \delta_{ll'}
258: \delta_{mm'}~,
259: \label{aver}
260: \end{equation}
261: if averages are taken over an ``infinite'' set of sky realizations.
262: >From a single realization, we can define estimators of the power as
263: $$
264: (2l+1) \hat C_l^{(TT)} = \sum_m a_{lm}^{(T)} a_{lm}^{(T)*} ~,~~
265: (2l+1) \hat C_l^{(EE)} = \sum_m a_{lm}^{(E)} a_{lm}^{(E)*} ~,~~
266: $$
267: \begin{equation}
268: (2l+1) \hat C_l^{(TE)} = \sum_m a_{lm}^{(T)} a_{lm}^{(E)*} ~.
269: \label{sum}
270: \end{equation}
271: Taken independently from each other, $ \hat C_l^{(TT)}$ and $ \hat
272: C_l^{(EE)}$ at a given $l$ are the sum of the squares of $2l +1$
273: Gaussian random variables, so they are distributed according to a
274: $\chi^2$ with $2l +1$, which approaches a Gaussian distribution
275: centered around the fiducial $ C_l^{(TT)}$, $ C_l^{(EE)}$, values, as
276: $l$ increases. If we consider $T$ and $E$ simultaneously, the set of
277: estimators $ \hat C_l^{(TT)}$, $ \hat C_l^{(EE)}$, $ \hat C_l^{(TE)}$
278: follow a Wishart distribution (see, e.g., Percival \& Brown 2006).
279:
280: We consider here an idealized full--sky experiment characterized by:
281: (i) finite resolution, that we shall set through a Full Width Half
282: Maximum angle $\vartheta_{FWHM}$, where the antenna sensitivity is
283: reduced to $50\, \%,$ assuming a circularly symmetric Gaussian beam
284: profile; (ii) background noise due to the apparatus, that we shall
285: assume to be {\it white}, {\it i.e.} $l$--independent with an assigned
286: variance~$\sigma^2_N.$
287:
288:
289: More in detail: for what concerns the Gaussian and circularly
290: symmetric beam profile, its window function reads
291: \begin{equation}
292: _s B_l = e^{-[l(l+1) - s^2] \sigma^2/2}
293: ~,~~{\rm with} ~~~~
294: \sigma \equiv \vartheta_{FWHM}/\sqrt{8\, \ln 2}~,
295: \end{equation}
296: $s$ being the spin of the signal (0 for anisotropy or
297: $E$--polarization spectra; its value however matters just for the
298: lowest $l$'s). For what concerns noise, we shall consider the
299: coefficients $n_{lm}$ such that
300: \begin{equation}
301: \langle {a_{lm}^{(R)\, }} n_{l'm'}^{(S)*} \rangle = 0
302: ~,~~~~
303: \langle {n_{lm}^{(R)\, }} n_{l'm'}^{(S)*} \rangle = N_l^{(RS)} \delta_{ll'}
304: \delta_{mm'}~,
305: \end{equation}
306: with $N_l^{(RS)} = \sigma_N^2 \delta^{RS}$, and $R$ and $S$ stand for
307: either $T$ or $E$. As the sum of two independent Gaussian random
308: variables is still Gaussian distributed, the statistics of the
309: (beam--convolved) CMB +white noise field are given by ${\cal
310: C}_l^{(RS)} = C_l^{(RS)}|_0 B_l |^{2} + N_l^{(RS)}$. In an analogous
311: manner from $\hat C_l^{(RS)}$ we can define $\hat {\cal
312: C}_l^{(RS)}$. In the following we will consider both {\it fiducial},
313: i.e. ${\cal C}_l^{(RS)}$, or {\it realized}, $\hat {\cal C}_l^{(RS)}$,
314: model data sets.
315:
316: Under these simplified assumptions, the characteristics of an experiment
317: are completely defined by the values of $\vartheta_{FWHM}$ and
318: $\sigma_N^2$. Here we shall take $\vartheta_{FWHM} \simeq 7.0',$
319: while $\sigma_T^2 \simeq 3 \times 10^{-4} (\mu {\rm K})^2$ and
320: $\sigma_P^2 \simeq 6 \times 10^{-4} (\mu {\rm K})^2$. These can be
321: considered conservative estimates of sensitivity in the forthcoming
322: Planck experiment.
323:
324: \section{The MCMC algorithm}
325: When the number $\cal N$ of the parameters to be determined from a
326: given data set is large, the whole $\cal N$--dimensional parameter
327: space cannot be fully explored within a reasonable computing time.
328: MonteCarlo Markov Chain (MCMC) algorithms are then used, whose
329: efficiency and reliability have been widely tested.
330:
331: In this work we used the MCMC engine and statistical tools provided by
332: the CosmoMC package (Lewis \& Bridle 2002; {\it http://
333: cosmologist.info/cosmomc}). This tool set allows us to work out a
334: suitable set of $M$ Markov Chains and analyze their statistical
335: properties, both in the full $\cal N$--dimensional parameter space,
336: and in lower dimensional subspaces. Of particular interest are the
337: {\it marginalized} distributions of each parameter, obtained by
338: integrating over the distribution of the other ${\cal N}-1$
339: parameters.
340:
341: The above algorithms implement the following steps. (i) Let $\zeta_1$
342: be a point--model in the parameter space. The spectra $C_l$ of such
343: model are computed and their corresponding likelihood ${\cal L}_1$ is
344: evaluated according to
345: \begin{equation}
346: -\ln {\cal L} = \sum_l \left(l+{1 \over 2} \right) \left[{_d{C}_l|_0B_l|^2+{N}_l
347: \over C_l |_0B_l|^2+{N}_l}+ \ln \left({ C_l |_0B_l|^2 +{N}_l \over
348: _d{C}_l|_0B_l|^2 +{N}_l }\right) -1 \right] + {\rm const.} ~,
349: \end{equation}
350: where $_dC_l$ stands for either fiducial or realized spectra.
351: The above expression holds for a single $TT$ or $EE$ spectrum; for its
352: generalization to 3 spectra and a discussion of the effects of
353: anisotropic noise, sky cuts, etc. see, e.g. Percival \& Brown (2006).
354: (ii) The algorithm then randomly selects a different point $\zeta_2$,
355: in parameter space, according to a suitable {\it selection
356: function}. The probability of accepting $\zeta_2$ is given by ${\rm
357: min}({\cal L}_2 /{\cal L}_1,1)$. If $\zeta_2$ is accepted, it is
358: added to the chain, otherwise the multiplicity $N_1$ of $\zeta_1$
359: increases by 1. (iii) The whole procedure is then iterated starting
360: either from $\zeta_2$ or from $\zeta_1$ again, until a stopping
361: condition is met. The resulting chain is defined by $(N_i \zeta_i)$,
362: where $\zeta_i$ are the points explored and the multiplicity $N_i$ is
363: the number of times $\zeta_i$ was kept.
364:
365: The whole cycle is repeated until the chains reach a satisfactory {\it
366: mixing} and a good {\it convergence}. The first requisite essentially
367: amounts to efficiently exploring the parameter space, by quickly
368: moving through its whole volume. In particular, the fact that the
369: algorithm sometimes accepts points with lower likelihood than the
370: current point, avoids permanence in local minima, while a careful
371: choice of parametrization and of the selection function minimize the
372: time spent exploring degenerate directions. A good convergence
373: instead guarantees that the statistical properties of the chains (or
374: of a suitably defined subset of the chains), correspond to those of
375: the underlying distribution. Here we implement the convergence
376: criterion of Gelman \& Rubin (1992), based on $R$--ratio computation:
377: convergence and mixing are reached when $R-1 \ll 0.1\, $. Fulfilling
378: such criterion requires $N \sim 10^5$ points, in the cases considered
379: here.
380:
381: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
382: \begin{figure}
383: \epsscale{.60}
384: \plotone{f1.eps}
385: \caption{\textsl{Marginalized {\it a posteriori} likelihood
386: distributions (solid lines), when artificial data derive from a
387: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. Vertical lines yield the input parameter
388: values. Derived parameter panels are marked by an asterisk. Dotted
389: lines show the average likelihood distributions. }}
390: \label{LCDM}
391: \end{figure}
392: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
393:
394: The algorithm was preliminarily tested by using $\Lambda$CDM as true
395: cosmology and the set of parameter values shown in Figure~\ref{LCDM}.
396: Such Figure reports the likelihood distributions found in this case,
397: both for input parameters (with asterisk) and for several derived
398: parameters as well. Besides confirming that input values are suitably
399: recovered, mostly with fairly small errors, Fig.~\ref{LCDM} shows a
400: broad non--Gaussian distribution for $w$ values, with little skewness
401: but significant kurtosis. This is a well--known consequence of the
402: geometrical degeneracy present in CMB spectra, and clearly shows the
403: difficulty of CMB data to yield results on DE nature. The
404: non--Gaussian behavior is even more accentuated for some derived
405: parameter, as $\Omega_{o,c}$, $H_o$ and the Universe age $\tau_o\, .$
406: We shall recover analogous features in the next plots; here we want to
407: stress that they do not derive from fitting a partially unsuitable
408: parameter set.
409:
410: Figure \ref{LCDM} also shows how errors increase when passing to some
411: secondary parameter, from primary parameters specifically devised to
412: break degeneracies. For instance, the errors on $\theta$ and
413: $\omega_{o,c}$ are $\sim 0.03\, \%$ and $\sim 1.3\, \%$, respectively.
414: From these parameters, $H_o$ and $\Omega_{o,c}$ are derived, whose
415: errors are $\sim 15\, \%$.
416:
417: The point here is that the primary variable is
418: \begin{equation}
419: \label{theta}
420: \theta \equiv r_s(a^*)/D(a^*)~,
421: \end{equation}
422: $a^*$ setting the peak of the {\it quasi}--Gaussian last scattering
423: band (LSB). It is then easy to see that
424: $$
425: r_s (a^*) = {c \over H_o\, \Omega_{o,m}^{1/2}} \int^{a^*} {da \over a^2} \,
426: {c_s(a) \over c}\, {H_o\, \Omega_{o,m}^{1/2} \over H(a)}~,~~
427: $$
428: \begin{equation}
429: \label{rs} D(a^*) = {c \over H_o\, \Omega_{o,m}^{1/2}} \int_{a^*}
430: ^{a_o} {da \over a^2} {H_o\, \Omega_{o,m}^{1/2} \over H(a)} ~,
431: ~~~~~~~~~~
432: \end{equation}
433: so that $\theta$ is apparently independent from $H_o$ and
434: $\Omega_{o,m}$ as, in the former equation
435: \begin{equation}
436: \label{hoh0} {H^2(a) \over H_o^2 ~\Omega_{o,m} } = \left(1+ {a_{eq}
437: \over a} \right) \left(a_o \over a \right)^3 ~,
438: \end{equation}
439: while, in the latter one
440: \begin{equation}
441: \label{hoh}
442: {H^2(a) \over H_o^2 ~\Omega_{o,m} } =
443: \left(a_o \over a \right)^3 + \left(\Omega_{o,m}^{-1}-1 \right)
444: g \left(a_o \over a \right)~,
445: \end{equation}
446: and $\Omega_{o,m}$ only sets the normalization of the latter term at
447: the r.h.s., so that $g(1) = 1\, .$ As a matter of fact, these
448: equations exhibit a mild dependence of $\theta$ on $\omega_{o,m}$ and
449: $\omega_{o,b}$, as $ a_o/a_{eq} = 2.41 \times 10^4 \omega_{o,m} (T_o/
450: 2.726\, {\rm K})^{-4} [1.681/(1+0.227\, N_\nu)]$ and $(c_s/c)^{-2} =
451: 3[1 + (3/4) (\omega_{o,b}/\omega_{o,m}) (a/a_{eq}) (1+0.227\, N_\nu)]$
452: (here $T_o$ is the present CMB temperature and $N_\nu$ is number of
453: neutrino families in the radiative background). Information of
454: $\Omega_{o,m}$ and, thence, on $H_o$ can be obtained only if the
455: factor $g(a_o/a)$, yielding the evolution of the ratio between DE and
456: matter at low redshift, is under control. It is certainly so if a
457: $\Lambda$CDM model is assumed; but, if we keep $w$ as free parameter,
458: the uncertainty on it, ranging around 60$\, \%\, ,$ reflect the
459: difficulty to obtain the secondary parameters $\Omega_{o,m}$
460: and~$H_o$.
461:
462: More in general, eq.~(\ref{hoh}) shows that CMB data are sensitive to
463: a change of $g(a_o/a)$ causing a variation of LSB distance $D^*$. On
464: the contrary, $\theta$ does not discriminate between different $w(a)$
465: yielding the same $D^*$.
466:
467: Incidentally, all that confirms that it is unnecessary to fix $a^*$
468: with high precision, or to discuss whether it is a suitable indicator
469: of the LSB depth. Knowing $a^*$ with $\sim 1\, \%$ approximation is
470: quite suitable to this analysis.
471:
472: \section{Dynamical DE vs.~$w={\rm const.}$}
473: Let us now discuss what happens if DE state equation, in the ``real''
474: cosmology, cannot be safely approximated by a constant $w\, .$ To
475: build data, we use then a SUGRA cosmology and our own extension of
476: CAMB, directly dealing with a SUGRA potential both in the absence and
477: in the presence of DM--DE coupling. Artificial data worked out for
478: Model A with $\beta=0$ were then fit to the same parameters as in
479: Figure \ref{LCDM}. The whole findings are described in Table
480: \ref{tab1} (second column).
481:
482: In Figure \ref{dde} we add further information, comparing the value
483: distributions in fits assuming either a cosmology with $w={\rm
484: const.}$ or a SUGRA cosmology, then including $\Lambda,$ as parameter,
485: instead of $w$. The two fits agree well within 1--$\sigma$, among
486: themselves and with input values. In the Figure we show the fiducial
487: case.
488:
489: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
490: \begin{figure}
491: \epsscale{.60}
492: \plotone{f2.eps}
493: \caption{\it{Marginalized likelihood distributions on parameter
494: values. Data built with an uncoupled SUGRA model. The parameter space
495: for the fit includes either $\log(\Lambda/{\rm GeV})$ (solid lines) or
496: a constant $w$ (dashed lines). Vertical dotted lines show the input
497: parameter values. Derived parameters plots are with asterisk. }}
498: \label{dde}
499: \end{figure}
500: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
501:
502: \begin{table}[!hbt]
503: \vskip -.2truecm
504: \begin{center}
505: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
506: \hline
507: \multicolumn{4}{c}{{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
508: \rm Input~model:~{\it SUGRA} ($\Lambda = 1\, $GeV)~with}} \\
509: {\rm Parameter} \& & $\beta=0$ & $\beta=0.05$ & $\beta=0.1$
510: \\
511: {\rm Input~value} &
512: {\rm Av.~value}~$\pm\sigma$ & {\rm Av.~value}~$\pm\sigma$ & {\rm Av.~value}~$\pm\sigma$
513: \\
514: \hline
515: $10^2 \, \omega_{o,b}$ &$2.274\pm0.015$ &$2.274\pm0.015$ &$2.277\pm0.017$\\
516: $2.273$ &$2.278\pm0.015$ &$2.275\pm0.015$ &$2.295\pm0.017$\\
517: &$2.278\pm0.015$ &$2.261\pm0.015$ &$2.287\pm0.017$\\
518: &$2.280\pm0.015$ &$2.278\pm0.015$ &$2.282\pm0.017$\\
519: \hline
520: $\omega_{o,c}$ &$0.1099\pm0.0013$ &$0.1164\pm0.0014$ &$0.1225\pm0.0016$\\
521: $0.1099$ &$0.1083\pm0.0013$ &$0.1166\pm0.0012$ &$0.1225\pm0.0016$\\
522: &$0.1086\pm0.0013$ &$0.1171\pm0.0014$ &$0.1216\pm0.0016$\\
523: &$0.1104\pm0.0013$ &$0.1163\pm0.0014$ &$0.1225\pm0.0015$\\
524: \hline
525: $10^2 \, \theta$ &$1.0758\pm0.0003$ &$1.0736\pm0.0003$ &$1.0507\pm0.0003$\\
526: $1.072$ &$1.0759\pm0.0003$ &$1.0736\pm0.0003$ &$1.0509\pm0.0003$\\
527: &$1.0760\pm0.0003$ &$1.0737\pm0.0003$ &$1.0507\pm0.0003$\\
528: &$1.0759\pm0.0003$ &$1.0736\pm0.0003$ &$1.0507\pm0.0003$\\
529: \hline
530: $\tau_{opt}$ &$0.088\pm0.005$ &$0.087\pm0.005$ &$0.085\pm0.005$ \\
531: $0.087$ &$0.087\pm0.005$ &$0.903\pm0.005$ &$0.084\pm0.005$\\
532: &$0.089\pm0.005$ &$0.083\pm0.005$ &$0.087\pm0.005$\\
533: &$0.093\pm0.005$ &$0.079\pm0.005$ &$0.078\pm0.005$\\
534: \hline
535: $w$ &$-0.79-0.12+0.49$ &$-0.75-0.30+0.26$ &$-0.85-0.43+0.38$\\
536: --- &$-0.84-0.27+0.25$ &$-0.76-0.30+0.26$ &$-0.96-0.44+0.82$\\
537: &$-0.81-0.26+0.25$ &$-0.79-0.29+0.26$ &$-0.67-0.34+0.37$\\
538: &$-0.87-0.28+0.28$ &$-0.54-0.15+0.16$ &$-0.63-0.24+0.23$\\
539: \hline
540: $n_s$ &$0.963\pm0.004$ &$0.962\pm0.004$ &$0.960\pm0.004$ \\
541: $0.963$ &$0.966\pm0.004$ &$0.962\pm0.004$ &$0.958\pm0.004$\\
542: &$0.968\pm0.004$ &$0.962\pm0.004$ &$0.963\pm0.004$\\
543: &$0.959\pm0.004$ &$0.961\pm0.004$ &$0.959\pm0.004$\\
544: \hline
545: $\ln(10^{10}\, A_s)$ &$3.3168\pm0.0102$&$3.1695\pm0.0101$ &$2.8860\pm0.0101$ \\
546: $3.3144$~for~$\beta=0$ \hfill &
547: $3.3127\pm0.0094$ &$3.1699\pm0.0106$ &$2.8866\pm0.0099$ \\
548: $3.1634$~for~$\beta=0.05$ \hfill &
549: $3.3144\pm0.0103$&$3.1565\pm0.0095$&$2.8885\pm0.0102$ \\
550: $2.8902$~for~$\beta=0.10$ \hfill&
551: $3.3310\pm0.0097$&$3.1486\pm0.0105$ &$2.8736\pm0.0111$ \\
552: \hline
553: $100 \, h$ &$74.7-7.2+25.3$ &$70.6-11.3+12.8$ &$66.3-11.7+13.8$ \\
554: $71.9$ &$77.3-12.4+13.7$ &$71.0-11.4+12.6$ &$70.2-20.3+14.6$\\
555: &$75.7-12.3+13.3$ &$71.9-11.0+12.6$ &$60.9-11.1+10.5$\\
556: &$78.4-13.6+13.9$ &$61.6-6.1+6.0$ &$59.5-5.7+5.6$\\
557: \hline
558: $\Omega_{o,m}$ &$0.255{-0.084}{+0.169}$ &$0.300{-0.100}{+0.095}$
559: &$0.360{-0.133}{+0.127}$\\
560: $0.257$ &$0.235{-0.105}{+0.077}$ &$0.296{-0.096}{+0.096}$
561: &$0.325{-0.123}{+0.140}$\\
562: &$0.245{-0.079}{+0.077}$ &$0.289{-0.093}{+0.088}$
563: &$0.422{-0.138}{+0.121}$\\
564: &$0.233{-0.101}{+0.084}$ &$0.379{-0.074}{+0.073}$
565: &$0.431{-0.103}{+0.097}$\\
566: \hline
567: \end{tabular}
568: \vskip -.1truecm
569: \caption{\it Results of an MCMC analysis, seeking the parameters
570: listed in the first column, on artificial CMB data built with the
571: parameter values also listed in the first column, but using a SUGRA
572: cosmology, whose $\Lambda$ and $\beta$ are shown in the header. For
573: each parameter, the first line yields results for the fiducial case,
574: the next 3 lines for model realizations.}
575: \label{tab1}
576: \end{center}
577: \end{table}
578:
579: Let us briefly comment the results in the absence of coupling, when
580: the fitting parameter set includes $w$ instead of $\Lambda$: (i)
581: $\omega_{o,b}$ and $\omega_{o,c}$ are recovered without any bias. (ii)
582: The same holds for $\theta,$ if a numerically refined value of $a^*$
583: is used; the expression of $a^*$, as above outlined, has a precision
584: $\sim 1\, \%$. Errors on $a^*$, however, are negligible in comparison
585: with errors arising from the scarce knowledge of $w(a)$.
586:
587: As outlined in the previous Section, the main problem to fix
588: $\Omega_{o,m}$, $\Omega_{o,\Lambda}$, and $H_o$, resides in the
589: difficulty to determine the state equation of the expansion source
590: since DE becomes substantially sub--dominant or dominant. This also
591: makes clear why the formal error in the determination of the above
592: three parameters is wider when the fit assumes a constant $w:$ varying
593: $w$ yields an immediate and strong effect on DE contributions and
594: state equation, extending up to now; on the contrary, only huge
595: displacements of the energy scale $\Lambda$ cause significant
596: variations to DE contributions and state equation within the family of
597: SUGRA cosmologies. In other terms, when $\Lambda$ varies, the part of
598: the functional space that $w(a)$ covers is not so wide.
599:
600: Accordingly, the greater error bars on $\Omega_{o,m}$,
601: $\Omega_{o,\Lambda}$, $H_o$, found when we use $w$ as a parameter, do
602: not arise because we fit data to a ``wrong'' cosmology, but because
603: varying $w$ leads to a more effective spanning of the functional space
604: of $w(a)$.
605:
606: As a matter of fact, the reliability of the fit must be measured by
607: comparing the likelihood of the best--fit parameter sets. Likelihood
608: values, given in the next Section, do not discriminate between the two
609: fits. Otherwise, a direct insight into such reliability is obtained by
610: looking at the width of the marginalized {\it a posteriori} likelihood
611: distributions on primary parameter values. Figure \ref{dde} then
612: confirms that such distributions, although slightly displaced, have
613: similar width for all primary parameters.
614:
615: A general conclusion this discussion allows to draw is to beware from
616: ever assuming that error estimates on secondary parameters, as
617: $\Omega_{o,m}$, $\Omega_{o,b}$, and $H_o$, are safe.
618:
619:
620: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
621: \begin{figure}
622: \epsscale{.55}
623: \plotone{f3a.eps}
624: \vskip1.2truecm
625: \plotone{f3b.eps}
626: \caption{\it{Marginalized likelihood distributions on parameter
627: values. Data built with coupled SUGRA models with $\beta = 0.05$,
628: $\beta = 0.1$ (upper, lower panels). The parameter space for fits
629: includes $\log(\Lambda/{\rm GeV})$ and $\beta$ (solid lines) or just a
630: constant $w$ (dashed lines). Vertical dotted lines show the input
631: parameter values. Pay attention to the different abscissa units in
632: the two panel sets. }}
633: \label{couple}
634: \end{figure}
635: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
636: %\textsl
637:
638: \section{Coupled DE vs.~$w={\rm const.}$}
639:
640: In cosmologies including cold DM and DE, the equation obeyed by
641: the stress--energy tensors of the dark components
642: \begin{equation}
643: \label{conti0}
644: T^{(c)~\mu}_{~~~~\nu;\mu} + T^{(de)~\mu}_{~~~\, ~~\nu;\mu} = 0~,
645: \end{equation}
646: yields
647: \begin{equation}
648: {d \over d\tau} (\rho_c + \rho_{de}) = -3 (\rho_c + p_c +
649: \rho_{de} + p_{de}) {\dot a \over a} ~, \label{conti}
650: \end{equation}
651: if their pressure and energy densities are $p_{c}$, $p_{de}$ and
652: $\rho_{c},$ $\rho_{de};$ $\tau$ is the conformal time and dots
653: indicate differentiation in respect to $\tau.$ Eqs.~(\ref{conti0}) and
654: (\ref{conti}) state that no force, apart gravity, acts between
655: standard model particles and the dark components. The
656: eq.~(\ref{conti0}) is fulfilled if DM and DE separately satisfy the
657: eqs.
658: \begin{equation}
659: T^{(de)~\mu}_{~~~\, ~~\nu;\mu} = C T^{(c)} \phi_{,\nu}~,~~~~~~~~
660: T^{(c)~\mu}_{~~~~\nu;\mu} =- C T^{(c)} \phi_{,\nu}~,
661: \end{equation}
662: where $T^{(de),(c)}$ are traces of the stress--energy tensors. $C$ can
663: be an arbitrary constant or, {\it e.g.}, a function of $\phi$ itself;
664: when $C=0$, the two dark components are uncoupled and so are the cases
665: we considered up to here.
666:
667: It is however known (Wetterich 1995, Amendola 2000, Amendola \&
668: Quercellini 2003) that self consistent theories can be built with
669: \begin{equation}
670: C \equiv 4 \sqrt{\pi \over 3} { \beta \over m_p} \neq 0~,
671: \end{equation}
672: so that $\beta $ is used to parametrize the strength of DM--DE
673: coupling.
674:
675: By using MCMC techniques, we explored cosmologies with $\beta = 0.05$
676: and 0.1 (Model A); we also report some results for $\beta = 0.02$ (Model
677: B). We aim to show that, when $\beta$ is excluded from the parameter
678: budget, the values MCMC provide for some parameters can be
679: significantly biased, even though $\beta $ is small.
680:
681: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
682: \begin{figure}
683: \epsscale{.60}
684: \plotone{f4.eps}
685: \caption{\it Anisotropy spectra comparison. The 3 values of $\beta$
686: considered are clearly distinguished thanks to their different input
687: normalization and to the line type indicated inside the upper frame.
688: The dotted lines (hardly visible at low $l$'s in the upper panel) are
689: the spectra of the corresponding best--fit model when assuming no
690: coupling and $w = const.\, $. In the lower panel the relative
691: differences between input and best--fit models are compared with WMAP5
692: error~size. }
693: \label{Cla}
694: \end{figure}
695: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
696: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
697: \begin{figure}
698: \epsscale{.60}
699: \plotone{f5.eps}
700: \caption{\it The comparison made in the upper panel of the previous
701: Figure is extended to ET and E--polarization spectra. Model differences
702: are hardly visible at very low $l$ and on the $l$ values where the
703: ET spectrum changes sign. }
704: \label{Clb}
705: \end{figure}
706: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
707:
708:
709: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
710: \begin{figure}
711: \epsscale{.50}
712: \plotone{f6a.eps}
713: \vskip0.5truecm
714: \plotone{f6b.eps}
715: \vskip0.5truecm
716: \plotone{f6c.eps}
717: \caption{\it Luminosity distance vs.~redshift in models with $\beta =
718: $0, 0.05, 0.10~(solid lines). Each model is compared with the
719: corresponding best--fit constant--$w$ model (dashed line) and
720: with a SCDM model (dotted line) with equal $\Omega_b~.$
721: }
722: \label{hubdia}
723: \end{figure}
724: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
725: \begin{figure}
726: \plotone{f7.eps}
727: \caption{\it Transfer functions for the models A. The dotted lines
728: yield the transfer function of the models with w=const., yielding
729: the best--fit for CMB spectra. }
730: \label{trans}
731: \end{figure}
732: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
733:
734: In Table \ref{tab1} (3rd--4th columns) we report the results of
735: fitting the parameter set including constant $w$, in place of
736: $\Lambda$ and $\beta$. The Table allows an easy comparison with the
737: uncoupled case, when all parameters unrelated to DE are nicely
738: recovered. On the contrary, already for $\beta = 0.05$, the input
739: $\omega_{o,c}$ value is formally $4.5~\sigma$'s away from best--fit,
740: in the fiducial case, and more than 5~$\sigma$'s in some realization.
741: The effect is stronger for $\beta = 0.1$, yielding a discrepancy $\sim
742: 8$ $\sigma$'s. That coupling affects the detection of $\omega_{o,c}$
743: is not casual: in coupled models a continuous exchange of energy
744: between DM and DE occurs.
745:
746:
747: Several parameters exhibit a non--Gaussian distribution, however.
748: This is visible in Figure \ref{couple}, where we also provide a
749: comparison between likelihood distributions when (i) the fit includes
750: just $w$ or, instead, (ii) the parameter space includes $\Lambda$ and
751: $\beta$.
752:
753: The comparison allows to appreciate that, in the (i) case,
754: $\omega_{o,c}$ is apparently much better determined than in the (ii)
755: case. Appreciable discrepancies concern also the $\theta$ parameter and
756: they reflect onto the derived parameters $\Omega_{o,b}$,
757: $\Omega_{o,m}$ and $H_o$, whose distribution however appears
758: significantly non--Gaussian.
759:
760:
761: These results deserve to be accompanied by a comparison between the
762: likelihood values in the different cosmologies. The following table
763: shows
764: %SB the effective ===================================================
765: $\chi^2_{\rm eff} \equiv -2 \, {\rm ln}
766: ({\cal L}) $ for the fiducial cases only:
767: $$
768: %
769: \left|
770: \matrix{
771: & & {\rm constant~} w & \Lambda~\&~\beta \cr
772: {\bf }~~ & & ----- & ----- \cr
773: {\bf }~~ &\beta = 0 \hfill & 0.175 & 0.887 \cr
774: {\bf }~~ &\beta = 0.05 \hfill & 0.214 & 0.332 \cr
775: {\bf }~~ &\beta = 0.10 \hfill & 0.778 & 0.251 }
776: \right|
777: $$
778: %
779: The likelihood values for realizations are systematically smaller, as
780: expected, but confirm the lack of significance shown here. Given that
781: coupled models have 1 additional parameter over the $ w = const$
782: model, differences $\Delta \chi^2_{\rm eff} < \sim 1$ indicate that
783: both models are an equally good fit of data. The
784: %SBclear
785: conclusion is that spectral differences, between input and best--fit
786: models,
787: %SB must
788: lay systematically below the error size. As a matter of fact, we are
789: apparently meeting a case of degeneracy.
790:
791: This statistical observation is corroborated by a direct insight into
792: angular spectra, provided by Figures \ref{Cla} and \ref{Clb}. We show
793: the behaviors of the $C_l$ spectra for the Model A, with $\beta=0$,
794: $\beta=0.05$, $\beta=0.1$, compared with the $C_l$ for the
795: best--fitting ($w={\rm const.}$) model. Differences are so small to be
796: hardly visible. Figure \ref{Cla} refers just to anisotropy. In its
797: lower panel the $\Delta C_l/C_l$ ratio is compared with WMAP5
798: 1--$\sigma$ error size ($\Delta C_l$ is the difference between the
799: spectra of the input and best--fit models). Notice that shifts
800: by 1 or 2 units along the abscissa,
801: %SB
802: at large $l$ values,
803: %
804: would still badly cut--off the apparent
805: ratios. Clearly, degeneracy can be removed only if the error size is
806: reduced by a factor $\sim 10$ or more, in the region between the first
807: deep and the second acoustic peak.
808:
809: A further example we wish to add concerns a still smaller coupling
810: intensity, $\beta = 0.02$ (Model B, Table \ref{tab02}). At this
811: coupling level, the MCMC meet all input parameter values within a
812: couple of $\sigma$'s. A closer inspection of plots similar to Figure
813: \ref{couple}, not reported here, shows that the probability of
814: realizations yielding $\omega_{o,c}$ formally more than 3--$\sigma$'s
815: away from the true value, is still $> 8 \, \%:$ the genie is still not
816: completely back inside the lamp.
817:
818: \begin{table}%[!hbt]
819: \begin{center}
820: \begin{tabular}{cc}
821: %\hline
822: %{Parametro} & {$x$} & {$<x>\pm\sigma_x$} \\
823: \hline \hline
824: \multicolumn{2}{c}{{\rm Input~model:~coupled {\it SUGRA} ($\Lambda = 1\, $GeV,~~$\beta=0.02$)}} \\
825: \hline \hline {\rm Parameter} \& {\rm Input~value} & {\rm
826: b.f.~value}~$\pm\sigma$
827: \\
828: \hline \hline
829: $10^2 \, \omega_{o,b} = 2.400$ & $2.400\pm0.016$ \\
830: & $2.424\pm0.016$ \\
831: & $2.423\pm0.017$ \\
832: & $2.391\pm0.016$ \\
833: \hline
834: $\omega_{o,c} = 0.1100$ & $0.1127\pm0.0014$ \\
835: & $0.1120\pm0.0013$ \\
836: & $0.1121\pm0.0013$ \\
837: & $0.1130\pm0.0014$ \\
838: \hline
839: $10^2 \, \theta$ & $1.11135\pm0.00032$ \\
840: & $1.11174\pm0.00031$ \\
841: & $1.11170\pm0.00032$ \\
842: & $1.11108\pm0.00032$ \\
843: \hline
844: $\tau = 0.1500$ & $0.1515\pm0.0059$ \\
845: & $0.1413\pm0.0067$ \\
846: & $0.1412\pm0.0061$ \\
847: & $0.1510\pm0.0061$ \\
848: \hline
849: $w$ (at $z=0$) & $-0.70-0.16+0.16$ \\
850: & $-0.65-0.17+0.17$ \\
851: & $-0.67-0.17+0.16$ \\
852: & $-0.63-0.14+0.13$ \\
853: \hline
854: $n_s = 1.0000$ & $0.9998\pm0.0042$ \\
855: & $0.9994\pm0.0039$ \\
856: & $0.9990\pm0.0041$ \\
857: & $0.9976\pm0.0041$ \\
858: \hline
859: $\ln{(10^{10} \, A_s)} = 3.136$ & $3.138\pm0.011$ \\
860: & $3.119\pm0.013$ \\
861: & $3.119\pm0.012$ \\
862: & $3.139\pm0.012$ \\
863: \hline
864: $100 \, h = 85$ & $79-9\phantom{0}+10$ \\
865: & $77-10+10$ \\
866: & $77-10+10$ \\
867: & $75-8\phantom{0}+8\phantom{0}$ \\
868: \hline
869: $\Omega_{o,m} = 0.185$ & $0.254-0.057+0.058$ \\
870: & $0.294-0.062+0.062$ \\
871: & $0.268-0.059+0.059$ \\
872: & $0.219-0.054+0.054$ \\
873: \hline\hline
874: \end{tabular}
875: \caption{\textsl{As previous Table, with different input values of
876: cosmological parameters and $\beta$ as small as 0.02}}
877: \label{tab02}
878: \end{center}
879: \end{table}
880:
881:
882: \section{Other observables}
883: The degeneracy observed in CMB spectra could be broken off through
884: different observables. We plan to deepen this aspect in a forthcoming
885: work, by building detailed data sets accounting from the dependence on
886: cosmology of the expansion rate and growth factor.
887:
888: A first insight into the actual situations can be however gained
889: through an inspection of Hubble diagrams and transfer functions.
890:
891: In Figure \ref{hubdia} we show the redshift dependence of the
892: luminosity distances for models with $\beta=0$, 0.05, 0.1 and compare
893: them with the corresponding best--fit models with constant $w$, as
894: well as with SCDM models with the same value of $\Omega_b$. These
895: plots clearly indicate that a fit with SNIa data would hardly allow
896: any discriminatory signal: discrepancies from constant--$w$ model
897: %SB
898: increase with $\beta$; but, even for the $\beta = 0.10$ case, they
899: hardly exceed $\sim 10\, \%$ of the difference from SCDM.
900:
901: In Figure \ref{trans} we then exhibit the transfer functions $T(k)$
902: (multiplied by $k^{1.5}$ to improve the visibility of details) for
903: models A.
904:
905: %SB 0.5 --> 0.05
906: In the cases $\beta = 0$ and $\beta = 0.05$, we notice slight
907: displacements for the BAO system and the slope. The actual setting of
908: BAO's is however subject to non--linear effects and residual
909: theoretical uncertainties are wider than the shifts in the plots. The
910: change of slope is also easily compensated by a shift of $n_s$ by
911: $\sim 0.01$, widely within expected observational errors. Notice then
912: that the relative position of the input and best--fit functions is
913: opposite in the two cases. Accordingly, in the intermediate case
914: $\beta = 0.033$, not shown in the plot, the overlap is almost exact
915: and the observed scale dependence of the growth factor, at low
916: %SB
917: redshift, does not break the degeneracy at all.
918:
919: The situation is different when $\beta > 0.05$ is considered. For
920: $\beta = 0.1$, the BAO displacement is indeed relevant; to compensate
921: for the change of slope, we would then require a shift of $n_s$
922: greater than 0.1$\, $.
923:
924: A numerical analysis can therefore determine at which value, probably
925: intermediate between 0.05 and 0.1, the CMB spectra degeneracy is
926: broken.
927:
928: \section{Conclusions}
929: The nature of the dark cosmic components is unclear. DE could be a
930: self--interacting field, yielding a scale dependent state parameter
931: $w(a)\, .$ Which bias does then arise on cosmological parameter
932: estimates, if performed by assuming $w = {\rm const.}\, $? This
933: question regards also parameters which do not describe DE; their
934: estimate could be biased because the {\it true} model is not directly
935: explored. A first conclusion of this work is that such bias exists
936: but, in the cases we treated, yields acceptable displacements, within
937: 1--$\sigma$.
938:
939: Suppose however that future data allow to exclude $n_s = 1$, within
940: 3--$\sigma$'s, when we assume $w = {\rm const.}\, $. Setting $n_s < 1$
941: discriminates among inflationary potentials. It would be however
942: legitimate to assess that, at that stage, such conclusions would still
943: be premature.
944:
945: Our analysis was then extended to the case of DM--DE coupling. The
946: idea that DM and DE have related origins or arise from the same field
947: has been widely pursued (see, {\it e.g.} Kamenshchik, Moschella \&
948: Pasquier 2001, Bento, Bertolami \@ Sen 2002, 2004; Mainini \&
949: Bonometto 2004; for a review, see~Cop\-eland, Sami \& Tsujikawa
950: 2006). Coupling causes DM--DE energy exchanges and this option was
951: first explored in the attempt to ease the {\it coincidence} problem.
952:
953: Unfortunately, when a DM--DE coupling, strong enough to this aim, is
954: added to models, predictions disagree with data. This does not forbid,
955: however, that the physics of the dark components includes a weaker
956: coupling or that a stronger coupling is compensated by other features
957: (see, {\it e.g.}, La Vacca et al. 2008).
958:
959: In this work we pointed out that a significant degeneracy exists, so
960: that we can find an excellent fit of CMB data for coupled DE
961: cosmologies just by using constant--$w$ uncoupled cosmologies. The fit
962: is so good that even likelihood estimates do not allow to distinguish
963: between the ``true'' cosmology and the best--fit constant--$w$ model,
964: at the present or foreseeable sensitivity levels. {\it Unfortunately,
965: however, the values obtained for several parameters are then widely
966: different from input ones.}
967:
968: In fact, if we ignore the coupling degree of freedom, when data are
969: analyzed, we can find biased values for some primary parameter as
970: $\omega_{o,c}$, for which input values lay $\sim 5$--$\sigma$'s away
971: from what is ``detected''. Also $\Omega_{o,m} $ and $H_o$, which are
972: secondary parameters, are significantly biased. In particular, with a
973: coupling as low as $\beta = 0.05$, we found model realisations
974: yielding $H_o$ estimate $\sim 2$--$\sigma$'s away from the input
975: value. If we keep to the fiducial case, however, the probability to
976: find $H_o \geq $ its input value is 36.5$\, \%$ for $\beta = 0.05$ and
977: 26.5$\, \%$ for $\beta = 0.1~.$ This outlines the tendency to find
978: smaller values than ``true'' ones.
979:
980: As a matter of fact, however, because of the uncertainty induced by
981: our ignorance on DE state equation, the width of errors on secondary
982: parameter significantly exceeds the width for primary ones, and a
983: 5--$\sigma$ discrepancy is partially hidden by such ignorance. This
984: agrees with the fact that data analysis shows a significant increase
985: of errors on secondary parameters when the set of models inspected
986: passes from $\Lambda$CDM to generic--$w$ cosmologies. For instance,
987: in the very WMAP5 analysis, the error on $H_0$ increases by a huge
988: factor $\sim 6$, when one abandons the safety of $\Lambda$CDM to
989: explore generic constant--$w$ models. A general warning is then that
990: errors obtained assuming $\Lambda$CDM are to be taken with some
991: reserve.
992:
993: An important question is whether the bias persists when different
994: observables, besides CMB, are used. A preliminary inspection shows
995: that SNIa data would hardly provide any discrimination. On the
996: contrary an analysis of fluctuation growth can be discriminatory if
997: $\beta >\sim 0.07$--0.08~.
998:
999: An even more discriminatory signal could be found in the $z$
1000: dependence of the growth factor is suitably analyzed. Observational
1001: projects aiming at performing a tomography of weak lensing, like
1002: DUNE--EUCLID (see, {\it e.g.}, Refre\-gier et al. 2006, 2008),
1003: therefore, can be expected to reduce this degeneracy~case.
1004:
1005: \vskip .3truecm
1006:
1007: \noindent
1008: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. LPLC is supported by NASA grant NNX07AH59G and JPL--Planck
1009: subcontract no. 1290790.
1010:
1011:
1012: \vfill\eject
1013: % Bibliography
1014:
1015: \begin{thebibliography}{20}
1016:
1017: \bibitem{A1} Amendola L. (2000) PR D{\bf 62}, 043511.
1018:
1019: \bibitem{A2} Amendola L. \& Quercellini C. (2003) PR D{\bf 68},
1020: 023514.
1021:
1022: \bibitem{A4} Amendola L., Campos G.C. \& Rosenfeld R. (2004)
1023: astro-ph/0410543.
1024:
1025: \bibitem{A3} Amendola L., Quercellini C., Tocchini-Valentini D. \&
1026: Pasqui A. (2003) ApJ Lett.~{\bf 583}, 53.
1027:
1028: \bibitem{B1} Brax P. \& Martin J. (1999) PL B{\bf 468}, 40;
1029: (2001) PR D{\bf 62}, 10350.
1030:
1031: \bibitem{B2} Brax P., Martin J. \& Riazuelo A. (2000) PR D{\bf
1032: 61}, 103505.
1033:
1034: \bibitem{B0} Bento M.C., Bertolami O. \& Sen A.A. (2002) PR D{\bf 66}, 043506;
1035: (2004) PR D{\bf 70}, 107304.
1036:
1037: \bibitem{C0} Copeland E.J., Sami M. \& Tsujikawa S. (2006)
1038: Int.J.Mod.Phys. D{\bf 15}, 1753.
1039:
1040: \bibitem{C1} Colombo L.P.L. \& Gervasi M. (2007) JCAP {\bf 0610}, 001.
1041:
1042: \bibitem{F1} Foley R.J. et al. (2007) astro-ph/0710.2338.
1043:
1044: \bibitem{??} Gelman A. \& Rubin D.B. (1992) Stat.Sc. {\bf 7}, 457.
1045:
1046: \bibitem{H1} Hu W. \& Sugiyama N. (1995) PR D{\bf 51}, 2599.
1047:
1048: \bibitem{K1} Kamenshchik A., Moschella U. \& Pasquier V. (2001) PL B{\bf
1049: 511}, 265.
1050:
1051: \bibitem{Ko} Komatsu Y. et al (2008) arXiv:0803.0547v1 (astro--ph)
1052: and APJ Suppl (in press).
1053:
1054: \bibitem{C2} La Vacca G. \& Colombo L.P.L. (2007) JCAP {\bf 0804}, 007
1055: (2008).
1056:
1057: \bibitem{C2a} La Vacca G., S.A. Bonometto \& Colombo
1058: L.P.L., arXiv:0810.0127 (astro--ph) and New Astr. (submitted)
1059:
1060: \bibitem{L1} Lewis A. \& Bridle S. (2002) PR D{\bf 66}, 103511.
1061:
1062: \bibitem{M1} Mainini R. \& Bonometto S.A. (2007) JCAP {\bf 06}, 020.
1063:
1064: \bibitem{M1b} Mainini R. \& Bonometto S.A. (2004) PR Lett.~{\bf 93},
1065: 121301.
1066:
1067: \bibitem{M2} Mainini R., Colombo L.P.L. \& Bonometto S.A. (2005) ApJ
1068: {\bf 632}, 691.
1069:
1070: \bibitem{M2a} Majerotto E., Sapone D. \& Amendola L. (2006)
1071: astro-ph/0610806.
1072:
1073: \bibitem{M3} Maccio' A.V., Quercellini C., Mainini R., Amendola L. \&
1074: Bonometto S.A. (2004) PR D{\bf 69}, 123516.
1075:
1076: \bibitem{P1} Perlmutter S. et al. (1997) ApJ {\bf 483}, 565;
1077: (1998) Nature {\bf 391}, 51.
1078:
1079: \bibitem{percival06} Percival W.J. \& Brown M.L. (2006) MNRAS {\bf 372}, 1104.
1080:
1081: \bibitem{R0} Ratra B. \& Peebles P.J.E. (1988) PR D{\bf 37}, 3406.
1082:
1083: \bibitem{Re} Refregier et al. (2006) Procs. of SPIE symposium
1084: "Astronomical Telescopes and Instrumentation", Orlando, May 2006,
1085: astro-ph/0610062.
1086:
1087: \bibitem{Re1} Refregier et al. (2008) arXiv:0807.4036 and to appear on
1088: Procs. of SPIE symposium "Astronomical Telescopes and
1089: Instrumentation", Marseille, June 2006
1090:
1091:
1092: \bibitem{R1} Riess et al. (1997) ApJ {\bf 114}, 722.
1093:
1094: \bibitem{S1} Spergel D.N. et al. (2007) ApJ Suppl. {\bf 170}, 377.
1095:
1096: \bibitem{W1} Wetterich C. (1988) Nuc.Phys. B{\bf 302}, 483; (1995) A\&A
1097: {\bf 301}, 32.
1098:
1099: \end{thebibliography}
1100:
1101:
1102:
1103:
1104:
1105: \end{document}
1106: