1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %

3: %  Extracting Angular Diameter Distance and Expansion Rate of

4: %  the Universe from the two-dimensional Galaxy Power Spectrum 

5: %  at High Redshifts: BAO Fitting vs Full Modeling

6: %    

7: % First Draft : MS, Dec 30, 2007

8: % revision    : EK, Apr 18, 2008

9: % Second Draft: MS, Apr 21, 2008

10: % revision    : EK, Apr 23, 2008

11: % Third Draft : MS, May 27, 2008

12: % Fourth Draft: MS, Sep 25, 2008

13: % revision    : EK, Oct 1, 2008

14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

15: 

16: \documentclass[apjl]{emulateapj}

17: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

18: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

19: \newcommand{\myemail}{mshoji@astro.as.utexas.edu}

20: 

21: \usepackage{graphics}

22: \shorttitle{BAO Fitting vs Full Modeling}

23: \shortauthors{SHOJI, JEONG $\&$ KOMATSU}

24: \begin{document}

25: \title{

26:   Extracting Angular Diameter Distance and Expansion Rate of

27:   the Universe from Two-dimensional Galaxy Power Spectrum 

28:   at High Redshifts: Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Fitting versus Full Modeling

29: }

30: \author{Masatoshi Shoji, Donghui Jeong $\&$ Eiichiro Komatsu}

31: \affil{Department of Astronomy, University of Texas at Austin, \\

32:        1 University Station, C1400, Austin, TX, 78712}

33: \email{mshoji@astro.as.utexas.edu}

34: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

35: \begin{abstract}

36:  We present a method for extracting the angular diameter distances, $D_A$, and

37:  the expansion rates, $H$, of the universe from the {\it two-dimensional} 

38:  Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) in the galaxy power spectrum. Our

39:   method builds upon the existing algorithm called the

40:  ``fit-and-extract'' (FITEX) method, which allows one to extract only

41:  $D_A^2/H$ from a spherically averaged one-dimensional power

42:  spectrum. We develop the FITEX-2d method, an extension of the FITEX

43:  method, to 

44:  include the two-dimensional  information, which allows us to extract

45:  $D_A$ and $H$  

46:  simultaneously. We test the FITEX-2d method using the Millennium Simulation as

47:  well as simplified Monte Carlo simulations with a bigger volume. The

48:  BAOs, however, contain only a limited amount of information.

49:  We show that the full modeling, including the overall shape of the

50:  power spectrum, yields much better determinations of $D_A$ and $H$,

51:  hence the dark energy equation of state parameters such as $w_0$ and

52:  $w_a$,  than 

53:  the BAO-only analysis by more than a factor of two, provided that non-linear

54:  effects are under control.

55: \end{abstract}

56: \keywords{cosmology : theory --- large-scale structure of universe}

57: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

58: \section{Introduction}

59: 

60: Dark energy, discovered via the observed luminosity distances 

61: out to high-$z$ Type Ia supernovae

62: \citep{riess/etal:1998,perlmutter/etal:1999},

63: is the most mysterious element in physics today

64: \citep[see][for a recent review]{copeland/sami/tsujikawa:2006}.

65: 

66: As dark energy primarily affects the expansion rate of the universe,

67: one can gain information on the nature of dark energy by measuring 

68: the cosmological distances as well as the expansion rates of the

69: universe accurately.\footnote{While dark energy also affects the growth rate of

70: the amplitude of matter fluctuations, which has been seen in the data

71: via the so-called Integrated Sachs--Wolfe (ISW) effect 

72: \citep[e.g.,][]{boughn/crittenden:2004,nolta/etal:2004,afshordi/loh/strauss:2004}, 

73: we do not discuss the effect on the amplitude of fluctuations in this paper.}

74: 

75: While the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the Type Ia supernovae

76: can be used for measuring the angular diameter distance out to $z\simeq 1090$

77: and the luminosity distances 

78: out to $z\lesssim 2$, respectively, 

79: the power spectrum of matter distribution in the universe can be 

80: used to measure the angular diameter distances {\it as well as} the

81: expansion rates of the universe out to a wider range of redshifts.

82: 

83: {\it Two} length scales are encoded in the matter power spectrum, $P(k)$

84: \citep[see, e.g.,][]{weinberg:COS}:

85: \begin{itemize}

86:  \item The comoving Hubble horizon size at the matter-radiation equality,

87:        $r_H(z_{eq})=c/[a(z_{eq})H(z_{eq})]$.

88:  \item The comoving sound horizon size at the so-called drag epoch

89:        at which baryons were released from photons, 

90:        $r_s(z_{drag})=\int_0^{t(z_{drag})}dt~c_s(t)/a(t)$, where

91:        $c_s(t)=c/\left[\sqrt{3}(1+a(t)3\Omega_b/(4\Omega_\gamma))\right]$

92:        is the sound speed of photon-baryon fluid.

93: \end{itemize}

94: The former determines the overall shape of the power spectrum of dark

95: matter including the location of the peak of $P(k)$ at $k_{eq}\equiv

96: 1/r_H(z_{eq})$, whereas the latter determines the location of the

97: baryonic features called the Baryon Acoustic

98: Oscillations (BAOs). 

99: 

100: These length scales can be predicted from the 5-year data of the

101: Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)

102: \citep{hinshaw/etal:prep,dunkley/etal:prep,komatsu/etal:prep}\footnote{These

103: predictions assume a flat universe and dark energy being the vacuum

104: energy. For a non-flat universe with dark energy having a constant

105: equation of state, $w$, the WMAP 5-year data yield

106: $k_{eq}=(0.975^{+0.044}_{-0.045})\times 10^{-2}~{\rm 

107: Mpc}^{-1}$, $r_s(z_{drag})=153.4^{+1.9}_{-2.0}~{\rm Mpc}$,

108: $z_{eq}=3198^{+145}_{-146}$, and $z_{drag}=1019.8\pm 1.5$.}:

109: \begin{eqnarray}

110:  k_{eq} \equiv \frac1{r_H(z_{eq})} &=& (0.968\pm 0.046)\times

111:   10^{-2}~{\rm Mpc}^{-1},\\

112:  r_s(z_{drag}) &=& 153.3 \pm 2.0~{\rm Mpc},

113: \end{eqnarray}

114: and

115: \begin{equation}

116:  z_{eq}=3176^{+151}_{-150},\qquad z_{drag}=1020.5\pm 1.6.

117: \end{equation}

118: These lengths can be used as the ``standard rulers,'' which give us

119: the angular diameter distances as well as the expansion rates of the

120: universe

121: \citep{seo/eisenstein:2003,blake/glazebrook:2003,hu/haiman:2003}.\footnote{The matter power spectrum also contains the third

122: distance scale, the Silk damping scale, which can also be used as the

123: standard ruler. The Silk damping scale is the smallest of these three

124: distance scales, and its effect (i.e., the suppression of power below

125: the Silk damping scale) is not as prominent as the effects of the other

126: two distance scales. Nevertheless, the Silk damping must be taken into

127: account when we model the full shape of the power spectrum.}

128: 

129: 

130: We, as observers who measure the angular and redshift distribution of

131: galaxies, can measure {\it four} distance ratios given by 

132: \begin{eqnarray}

133:  \theta_{eq}(z) &=& \frac{r_H(z_{eq})}{(1+z)D_A(z)}

134: =\frac{1}{k_{eq}(1+z)D_A(z)}, \\

135:  \theta_{s}(z) &=& \frac{r_s(z_{drag})}{(1+z)D_A(z)}, \\

136:  \delta z_{eq}(z) &=& \frac{r_H(z_{eq})H(z)}{c}

137: = \frac{H(z)}{k_{eq}c}, \\

138:  \delta z_{s}(z) &=& \frac{r_s(z_{drag})H(z)}{c},

139: \end{eqnarray}

140: where $D_A(z)$ is the proper (i.e., not comoving) angular diameter distance.

141: We measure $\theta_{eq}(z)$ and $\theta_s(z)$ by comparing the

142: predicted lengths with the  

143: corresponding observed lengths perpendicular to the line of sight,

144:  and $\delta z_{eq}(z)$ and $\delta z_s(z)$ from the lengths parallel to the

145:  line of sight.\footnote{The measured power spectrum in redshift space is a

146: function of the wavenumber parallel to the line of sight, $k_\parallel$, and

147: that perpendicular to the line of sight, $k_\perp$, i.e.,

148: $P=P(k_\parallel,k_\perp)$.

149: The angular observables, $\theta_{eq}$ and $\theta_s$, are measured from

150: $k_\perp$, while the line-of-sight observables, $\delta z_{eq}$ and

151: $\delta z_s$, are measured from $k_\parallel$.}

152: 

153: The BAOs have been detected in 

154: the current galaxy redshift survey data from the Sloan Digital Sky

155: Survey (SDSS) and the 

156: Two-degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS) 

157: \citep{eisenstein/etal:2005,cole/etal:2005,hutsi:2006,percival/etal:2007c}. However, the current

158: data are not yet sensitive enough to yield $D_A(z)$ and $H(z)$

159: separately \citep{okumura/etal:prep}; thus, one can only determine a

160: combined distance scale ratio from the spherically averaged power

161: spectrum. Since two spatial dimensions are available on the sky and one

162: dimension is available along the line of sight, one can measure 

163: \begin{equation}

164:  \left[\theta_s^2(z) \delta z_s(z)\right]^{1/3} 

165: = \frac{r_s(z_{drag})}{[(1+z)^2D_A^2(z)c/H(z)]^{1/3}}.

166: \end{equation}

167: \citet{eisenstein/etal:2005} have measured this quantity at $z=0.35$

168: from the SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies (LRG), and

169: \citet{percival/etal:2007c} have extended their analysis to include more

170: data from the SDSS LRG, as well as the SDSS main galaxy samples and the

171: 2dFGRS galaxies at $z=0.2$. 

172: 

173: \citet{komatsu/etal:prep} have combined

174: these measurements with the CMB distance ratios determined from the WMAP

175: 5-year data, the ``WMAP distance priors,'' to obtain the constraints on

176: dark energy properties. The analysis performed in

177: \citet{komatsu/etal:prep} is a proto-type of what one can do in the

178: future. It is clear that we can gain more information if we can

179: measure $D_A(z)$ and $H(z)$ simultaneously at various redshifts. 

180: Therefore, in the future we should be able to perform a much more

181: sensitive test of dark energy properties by combining 

182: $D_A(z)$ and $H(z)$ from the future galaxy survey data, and the CMB

183: distance priors from the future CMB experiments such as Planck.

184: 

185: Moreover, the BAOs capture only a part of information encoded in the

186: shape of $P(k)$. One would miss another baryonic feature, the Silk

187: damping scale, by only measuring BAOs. A more serious drawback is that

188: one would miss the other prominent standard ruler, $k_{eq}$, completely, by only

189: measuring BAOs. 

190: 

191: Nevertheless, there is one major advantage of using BAOs: the phases (not

192: the amplitude) of

193: BAOs are less sensitive to the distortion of the shape of $P(k)$ due to

194: non-linear matter clustering, non-linear galaxy bias, or non-linear

195: redshift space distortion

196: \citep{seo/eisenstein:2005,eisenstein/seo:2007,nishimichi/etal:2007,smith/scoccimarro/sheth:2008,angulo/etal:2008,sanchez/baugh/angulo:prep,seo/etal:2008}. As

197: a result, many 

198: studies have 

199: focused on developing various ways to extract the distance information

200: from BAOs. 

201: 

202: Most of the previous work focused only on extracting the BAOs

203: from the spherically averaged $P(k)$ (which gives $D_A^2/H$)

204: \citep[e.g.,][]{percival/etal:2007c}. 

205: \citet{yamamoto/etal:2005} have studied the monopole and quadrupole

206: moments in the galaxy 

207: power spectrum and their implications for determinations of the dark

208: energy equation of state parameter, $w$, and concluded that even

209: in the worst case scenario (i.e., absence of the BAOs feature on the observed

210: power spectrum), galaxy survey can still provide useful limits on

211: $w$ from  a combination of the monopole and quadrupole power spectra.

212: Recently, 

213: \citet{padmanabhan/white:prep} have explored an extraction of the

214: quadrupole moment of the two-dimensional power spectrum,

215: $P(k,\mu)$, which gives a different distance combination,

216: $D_AH$. 

217: 

218: In this paper, we shall develop a method for extracting $D_A$ and $H$

219: simultaneously from the two-dimensional BAOs. 

220: Since we do not use spherical averaging or

221: truncate the Legendre expansion of BAOs at arbitrary orders, our method uses

222: more information than most of the previous methods. To our knowledge,

223: the full two-dimensional extraction of $D_A$ and $H$ from BAOs has been explored

224: only by \citet{wagner/muller/steinmetz:prep}. 

225: 

226: This paper is organized as follows. In \S~\ref{sec:fitex} we give a 

227: brief account of the original one-dimensional ``fit-and-extract''

228: (FITEX) method, which was developed by

229: \citet{koehler/schuecker/gebhardt:2007} for extracting BAOs from a

230: spherically averaged one-dimensional $P(k)$. We then extend this method to the

231: two-dimensional FITEX-2d method by including the full two-dimensional

232: information without spherical averaging. 

233: In \S~\ref{sec:montecarlo} we extract $D_A$ and $H$ from simulated noisy

234: data using the FITEX-2d method, and show that the FITEX-2d yields

235: unbiased estimates of $D_A$ and $H$. 

236: In \S~\ref{sec:millennium} we repeat the same analysis for 

237: a more realistic simulation, using the Millennium Simulation

238: \citep{springel/etal:2005}. 

239: In \S~\ref{sec:darkenergy} we propagate errors in $H(z)$ and $D_A(z)$ to 

240: those in the dark energy equation of state with the parametrization of 

241: $w(z)=w_0+w_az/(1+z)$. We conclude in \S~\ref{sec:conclusion}.

242: %In Appendix~\ref{app:bao}

243: %we show that the empirical form of BAOs used in some of the literature

244: %is inaccurate.  We also analyze  the effect of the non-linear redshift

245: %distortion  

246: %on the phases of BAO.

247: 

248: Throughout this paper we shall use the cosmological parameters given by

249: $\Omega_m=0.277$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.723$, $\Omega_b=0.0459$, $n_s=0.962$,

250: and $h=0.702$ \citep{dunkley/etal:prep,komatsu/etal:prep}, 

251: which are the maximum likelihood values inferred from 

252: the WMAP 5-year data \citep{hinshaw/etal:prep} 

253: combined with the current BAO data \citep{percival/etal:2007c}

254: and Type Ia supernova data \citep{kowalski/etal:prep}.

255: 

256: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

257: \section{FITEX-2d: Methodology}

258: \label{sec:fitex}

259: We develop a method for extracting $D_A$ and $H$ simultaneously from

260: the two-dimensional BAOs  without

261: spherical averaging. 

262: 

263: Our method builds upon the existing ``fit-and-extract'' (FITEX) method

264: developed by \citet{koehler/schuecker/gebhardt:2007} for extracting

265: $D_A^2/H$ from a spherically averaged, one-dimensional $P(k)$. 

266: The FITEX method extracts BAOs by fitting and removing the

267: non-oscillatory part of $P(k)$, which leaves only the oscillatory

268: component, i.e., BAOs. 

269: \citet{koehler/schuecker/gebhardt:2007} model

270: the non-oscillatory, smooth part by the following functional form:

271: \begin{equation} 

272: P_{smooth}^{1d}(k)=

273:  \left[\frac{A}{1+Bk^{\delta}}e^{({k/k_1})^{\alpha}}\right]^2 k^{n_s},

274: \label{eq:Psmooth1d}

275: \end{equation}

276: where $n_s$ is the primordial tilt, while $A$, $B$, $\delta$, $k_1$, and

277: $\alpha$ are free parameters. \citet{koehler/schuecker/gebhardt:2007}

278: have shown that this function is flexible enough to fit out the smooth

279: part of the spherically averaged $P(k)$ measured from the Hubble Volume

280: Simulation \citep{evrard/etal:2002}. They have tested the FITEX method

281: particularly for a large scale, $k<0.3~h~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, at high

282: redshifts, $1.9<z<3.8$, that are relevant to the Hobby Eberly Dark

283: Energy Experiment \citep[HETDEX;][]{hill/etal:2004}.

284: 

285: We make a simple extension of the one-dimensional FITEX method by

286: including angular dependence. We model the two-dimensional smooth power

287: spectrum by

288: \begin{eqnarray}

289: \nonumber

290: & & P_{smooth}^{2d}(k,\mu) = P_{smooth}^{1d}(k) \\

291: &\times& \left[1 +

292: 	  g^{(2)}(k)P_2(\mu)+g^{(4)}(k)P_4(\mu)+g^{(6)}(k)P_6(\mu)\right],

293: \label{eq:Psmooth2d}

294: \end{eqnarray} 

295: where $\mu$ is the cosine of the angle $\theta$ between $\mathbf{k}$ 

296: and the line of sight, i.e., $\mu=\cos\theta$ and

297: $\tan\theta=k_\perp/k_\parallel$. Therefore, $\mu=0$ and $\mu=1$ for

298: $k_\parallel=0$ and $k_\perp=0$, respectively. 

299: 

300: Here, 

301: $P_l(\mu)$ is the Legendre polynomials:

302: \begin{eqnarray}

303:  P_2(\mu) &=& \frac12\left(3\mu^2-1\right),\\

304:  P_4(\mu) &=& \frac18\left(35\mu^4-30\mu^2+3\right),\\

305:  P_6(\mu) &=& \frac1{16}\left(231\mu^6-315\mu^4+105\mu^2-5\right).

306: \end{eqnarray}

307: The odd multipoles must vanish by symmetry.

308: One may include $l\ge 8$ if necessary, but we find it sufficient to

309: include the terms only up to $l=6$.

310: 

311: Finally, $g^{(l)}(k)$ is given by the 6th-order polynomials

312: with only even powers of $k$:

313: \begin{equation}

314:  g^{(l)}(k) = a_0^{(l)} + a_2^{(l)} k^2 + a_4^{(l)} k^4 + a_6^{(l)} k^6,

315: \label{eq:gl}

316: \end{equation}

317: where all of $a_i^{(l)}$'s are varied simultaneously for each $l$.

318: The odd powers must vanish because they are not analytic in

319: $\mathbf{k}$ \citep{weinberg:COS}. We include the terms only up to $k^6$, as we include the

320: multipoles up to $l=6$. If, for instance, $l=8$ is included, then $k^8$

321: may also be included for consistency.

322: 

323: Aside from the primordial tilt, $n_s$, the FITEX-2d contains 17 free

324: parameters (5 for $P_{smooth}^{1d}(k)$ plus $4\times 3=12$ for the angular

325: dependence). While it may sound like many, the number of data points

326: available on the {\it two-dimensional} power spectrum is usually much

327: larger, and thus our fit is well behaved.

328: 

329: It may be instructive to use the conventional model for the redshift

330: space power spectrum to show what these

331: parameters are supposed to 

332: capture. The leading order angular distortion is

333: given by the so-called Kaiser effect, which arises from coherent

334: converging velocity flow toward the linear overdensity region

335: \citep{kaiser:1987}. 

336: The linear Kaiser power spectrum is given by

337: \begin{eqnarray}

338: \nonumber

339:  P_{kaiser}^{linear}(k,\mu) 

340: &=& b_1^2(1+2\beta\mu^2+\beta^2\mu^4)P^{linear}(k)\\

341: \nonumber

342: &=& b_1^2\left[\left(1+\frac23\beta+\frac15\beta^2\right)\right.\\

343: \nonumber

344: &+& \frac{4}{3}\beta\left(1+\frac37\beta\right)P_2(\mu)\\

345: &+& \left.\frac{8}{35}\beta^2P_4(\mu)\right]P^{linear}(k),

346: \end{eqnarray}

347: where $\beta\equiv f/b_1$ is a $k$-independent function that depends on

348: the linear galaxy bias, $b_1$, and the cosmological 

349: parameters (mainly $\Omega_m$) via

350: \begin{equation}

351:  f\equiv \frac{d\ln D}{d\ln a},

352: \end{equation}

353: where $D$ is the growth factor of linear density fluctuations.

354: We therefore find

355: \begin{eqnarray}

356:  a_0^{(0)} &=& 1\\

357:  a_0^{(2)} &=&\frac{\frac{4}{3}\beta\left(1+\frac37\beta\right)}

358: {1+\frac23\beta+\frac15\beta^2}, \\

359:  a_0^{(4)} &=&\frac{\frac{8}{35}\beta^2}

360: {1+\frac23\beta+\frac15\beta^2},

361: \end{eqnarray}

362: and the other terms are zero.

363: 

364: Another example is the so-called Finger-of-God (FoG) effect,

365: which arises from random motion within virialized halos. When the

366: distribution of the pairwise peculiar velocity within a halo is given by

367: an exponential distribution with the velocity dispersion $\sigma_v^2$

368: \citep{peebles:1976,davis/peebles:1983}, one finds

369: \citep{ballinger/peacock/heavens:1996}

370: \begin{equation}

371:  P_{FoG}(k,\mu) = \frac{P^{linear}_{kaiser}(k,\mu)}{1+f^2k^2\mu^2\sigma_v^2}.

372: \end{equation}

373: While the FoG yields many terms when expanded into the Legendre polynomials,

374:  it is still a good approximation to truncate the expansion

375: at $l=6$ if $k$ is sufficiently smaller than $1/\sigma_v$.

376: Note that the FoG effect yields terms in the form of powers of $(k\mu)^2$;

377: thus, it makes sense to use the same number for the maximum power of $k$

378: (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:gl}))

379: and the maximum multipole 

380: (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:Psmooth2d}))

381: of the FITEX-2d fitting function.

382: 

383: In general, neither of these two expressions are adequate.

384: The linear Kaiser formula is valid only on very large scales, while the

385: exponential FoG formula is valid only on very small scales.

386: At the intermediate scales we find more complicated expressions from,

387: e.g., the 3rd-order perturbation theory

388: \citep{heavens/matarrese/verde:1998}. To account for these complications 

389: we have included $k$-dependent coefficients for the Legendre

390: polynomials.

391: 

392: In Figure~\ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2} we show the performance of

393: $P_{smooth}^{2d}(k,\mu)$. In Figure~\ref{fig1} we show a simple

394: analytical model\footnote{This model is admittedly too simple to be

395: realistic. We shall test the FITEX-2d method in a more realistic

396: setting using the Millennium Simulation in \S~\ref{sec:millennium}.} for the non-linear galaxy power spectrum in redshift space

397: given by 

398: \begin{eqnarray}

399: \nonumber

400:  P_g(k,\mu) &=& b_1^2\left[P_{\delta\delta}(k) + 2\beta\mu^2P_{\delta\theta}(k)

401: +\beta^2\mu^4P_{\theta\theta}(k)\right]\\

402: & &\times\frac1{1+f^2k^2\mu^2\tilde{\sigma}_v^2},

403: \label{eq:pkred}

404: \end{eqnarray}

405: where $P_{\delta\delta}(k)$, $P_{\delta\theta}(k)$, 

406: and $P_{\theta\theta}(k)$ are the density-density, density-velocity, and 

407: velocity-velocity power spectra computed from the 3rd-order perturbation

408: theory, and they are given by 

409: Eq.~(63), (64), and (65) in \citet{scoccimarro:2004}, respectively. 

410: This form is similar to Eq.~(71) of \citet{scoccimarro:2004}, but we

411: have replaced $\exp(-f^2k^2\mu^2\sigma_v^2)$ and $f$ in his formula by 

412: $1/(1+f^2k^2\mu^2\tilde{\sigma}_v^2)$ and $\beta$, respectively,

413: where $\tilde{\sigma}_v^2\equiv 0.6\sigma_v^2$ is

414: the 1-d peculiar velocity dispersion with

415:  an empirical fudge factor of $0.6$ calibrated off our simulations

416:  presented in \citet{jeong/komatsu:2006}. Here, $\sigma_v^2$ is given by

417: \begin{equation}

418:  \sigma_v^2\equiv

419:   \frac13\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{P^{linear}(k)}{k^2}

420: =

421: \frac13\int\frac{dk}{2\pi^2}P^{linear}(k).

422: \label{eq:sigmav2}

423: \end{equation}

424: 

425: We chose $z=2$ and $b_1=2.5$. 

426: The contour of power spectrum is anisotropic in Fig.~\ref{fig1} due to the

427: redshift space distortion; however, we recover isotropy after

428: subtracting the best-fitting $P_{smooth}^{2d}(k,\mu)$ from the

429: anisotropic data (see Fig.~\ref{fig2}). We see that the BAOs have been

430: extracted successfully, with isotropy of the oscillation phases

431: recovered well.

432: 

433: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

434: \begin{figure}[t]

435: \centering

436: \rotatebox{0}{%

437:   \includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{fig1.ps}

438: }%

439: \caption{%

440: Illustration of the FITEX-2d method. This figure shows 

441: an anisotropic non-linear galaxy power spectrum before we apply FITEX-2d. 

442: The contours show $\ln[P(k_\parallel,k_\perp)]$ at $z=2$, where

443:  we have computed $P(k_\parallel,k_\perp)$ from

444:  Eq.~(\ref{eq:pkred}). Anisotropic distribution of power due to 

445:  redshift space distortion is apparent.

446: }%

447: \label{fig1}

448: \end{figure}

449: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

450: \begin{figure}[t]

451: \centering

452: \rotatebox{0}{%

453:   \includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{fig2.ps}

454: }%

455: \caption{%

456: Illustration of the FITEX-2d method. This figure shows 

457: the power spectrum shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1} minus the best-fitting

458:  two-dimensional smooth spectrum,

459:  $P_{smooth}^{2d}(k_\parallel,k_\perp)$, given by

460:  Eq.~(\ref{eq:Psmooth2d}).

461: The structure of BAOs, i.e., the oscillatory feature, is now apparent.

462: The FITEX-2d method recovers the isotropic distribution of the BAO phases

463:  successfully, which makes it possible to use the distribution of the phases

464:  for measuring $D_A$ and $H$ simultaneously.

465:  ({\it Top}) Positive BAO peaks. ({\it Bottom}) Negative BAO peaks (troughs).

466: }%

467: \label{fig2}

468: \end{figure}

469: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

470: 

471: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

472: \section{Extraction of $D_A$ and $H$ from noisy data: FITEX-2d vs Full Modeling}

473: \label{sec:montecarlo}

474: In \S~\ref{sec:err_fitex2d} we show how well we can estimate $D_A$ and

475: $H$ from the 

476: two-dimensional BAOs extracted from noisy data using the FITEX-2d

477: method. In \S~\ref{sec:err_full} we compare the BAO results to the accuracy

478: one would obtain from 

479: the full modeling of $P(k,\mu)$, including the overall

480: shape. In other words, for the former (BAOs) we only use $\theta_s$ and

481: $\delta z_s$ for measuring $D_A$ and $H$, while for the latter (full

482: modeling) we can use $\theta_s$, $\delta z_s$, $\theta_{eq}$, $\delta

483: z_{eq}$, as well as the Silk damping scale for measuring $D_A$ and $H$,

484: provided that non-linear effects (non-linear matter clustering,

485: non-linear redshift space distortion, and non-linear bias) are under

486: control. 

487: 

488: Note that the treatment of non-linear effects in this section is too

489: simple to be realistic. For a more realistic treatment we shall use the

490: galaxy power spectrum from the Millennium Simulation \citep{springel/etal:2005} in

491: \S~\ref{sec:millennium}. 

492: \subsection{FITEX-2d}

493: \label{sec:err_fitex2d}

494: To estimate errors in $D_A$ and $H$ from the FITEX-2d method, we use 

495: simple Monte Carlo simulations. 

496: 

497: For the underlying spectrum we use the same data as shown in

498: Fig.~\ref{fig1}, which includes a simplified modeling of non-linear

499: matter clustering and non-linear redshift space distortion as given by

500: Eq.~(\ref{eq:pkred}). As for the galaxy bias, we use a

501: linear bias with $b_1=2.5$.

502: 

503: Once the underlying spectrum is specified, it is straightforward to

504: compute the errors in $P_g(k_\parallel,k_\perp)$, $\sigma_{P_g}$, provided that the

505: distribution of $P_g(k_\parallel,k_\perp)$ is a Gaussian. We use the

506: standard formula that includes sampling variance as well as shot noise

507: \citep[see, e.g.,][]{jeong/komatsu:2008}

508: \begin{equation}

509: \frac{\sigma_{P_g}(k_\parallel,k_\perp)}{P_g(k_\parallel,k_\perp)} = 2\pi \sqrt{\frac1{V_{survey}k_{\perp} \Delta

510:  k_{\perp} \Delta k_{\parallel}}}\frac{1+n_gP_g(k_\parallel,k_\perp)}{n_gP_g(k_\parallel,k_\perp)},

511: \label{eq:sigP}

512: \end{equation}

513: where $n_g$ is the number density of galaxies, $V_{survey}$ is the

514: survey volume, $\Delta k_\perp$ and $\Delta k_\parallel$ are the

515: fundamental wavenumbers, i.e., the resolution in $k_\perp$ and

516: $k_\parallel$. We take these to be $\Delta k_\parallel=\Delta k_\perp=(2\pi)/V_{survey}^{1/3}$.

517: 

518: We use $\sigma_{P_g}$ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigP}) to calculate the r.m.s. error

519: in $P_g(k_\parallel,k_\perp)$, and generate 1000 Monte Carlo

520: realizations. We then apply the FITEX-2d method to remove the smooth

521: component from each realization to extract BAOs. For each 

522: realization, we measure $D_A$ and $H$ 

523: simultaneously by fitting the phases of extracted two dimensional 

524: BAOs to those of the reference BAOs extracted from either (i) 

525: the linear power spectrum, or (ii) the non-linear power spectrum given

526: by Eq.~(\ref{eq:pkred}), 

527: with known $D_{A,ref}$ and $H_{ref}$. 

528: (Later we find that using the linear spectrum as the reference BAO yields the

529: biased estimates of $D_{A,ref}$ and $H_{ref}$.) 

530: We use a simplex downhill method 

531: for $\chi^2$-minimization in the two-dimensional 

532: parameter space. 

533: The number of free parameters for this analysis is two, i.e., $D_A$ and

534: $H$, and we do not include the amplitude in the fit.

535: We have checked that including the amplitude does not change 

536: the results very much, as the amplitude and the phases of BAOs are

537: nearly uncorrelated (see Appendix~\ref{sec:cc_no_beta} for more

538: details). This is true in both real and redshift space. 

539: When we apply FITEX-2d to the simulated data, we perform

540: a fit out to $k_{max}=0.40~h~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.

541: 

542: We choose the survey parameters, $V_{survey}$, $z$, and $n_g$, such that

543: they roughly match those expected for the Hobby-Eberly Dark Energy

544: Experiment (HETDEX) \citep{hill/etal:2004}: $N_g=0.755\times10^6$,

545: and $1.9\le z\le 3.5$ with the

546: sky coverage of 420~deg$^2$, which yields $V_{survey}\simeq 3.0~h^{-3}~{\rm

547: Gpc}^3$.\footnote{The HETDEX is expected to detect 0.755 million Lyman-$\alpha$

548: emitting galaxies between $1.9\le z\le 3.5$ over 420~deg$^2$ in 3 years

549: of observations on the Hobby-Eberly Telescope.}

550: 

551: We find that, when the phases extracted by FITEX-2d are compared with

552: the reference BAOs extracted from the linear power spectrum, 

553:  the best-fitting values of $D_A$ and $H$ averaged over 1000

554: simulations disagree with the underlying, ``true'' values by 0.05\% and 0.63\%

555: for $D_A$ and $H$, respectively, due to the phase shift

556: of BAOs caused by non-linearities (including non-linear redshift space

557: distortion). This result extends the previous study by 

558: \citet{nishimichi/etal:2007}, who studied a

559: spherically averaged 1-d power spectrum and found that the bias 

560: was less than 1\% in $(D_A^2H^{-1})^{1/3}$. 

561: 

562: On the other hand, when the phases are compared with 

563: the reference BAOs extracted from the {\it non-linear} power spectrum

564: (Eq.~(\ref{eq:pkred})), the best-fitting values of $D_A$ and $H$ agree

565: with the true values 

566: to well within the Monte Carlo sampling error; thus, 

567: we confirm that the FITEX-2d method yields unbiased estimates of $D_A$

568: and $H$. 

569: 

570: In Figure~\ref{fig3} we show the projected error ellipses on 

571:  $D_A$ and $H$ from the BAOs extracted with the FITEX-2d 

572: (larger, dotted contours; same in all four panels).  

573: We find 1.8\% and 2.5\% errors on

574: $D_A$ and $H$, respectively, with the cross-correlation coefficient of

575: $r=0.44$, from the Monte Carlo simulations.

576: For the same survey parameters, the BAO Fisher matrix proposed by

577: \citet{seo/eisenstein:2007} yields 1.5\% and 2.5\% errors on

578: $D_A$ and $H$, respectively, with $r=0.41$. Therefore, we conclude that

579: the FITEX-2d method yields the results that nearly saturate the Fisher

580:  matrix bound, i.e., it is nearly an optimal method in a sense that it

581:  can yield the smallest errorbars one can obtain with the BAO-only analysis.

582: 

583: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

584: \begin{figure}[t]

585: \centering

586: \rotatebox{0}{%

587:   \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig3.ps}

588: }%

589: \caption{%

590: Accuracy of $D_A$ and $H$ extracted from BAOs with the FITEX-2d method

591:  applied to simulated Monte Carlo realizations that approximate the

592:  HETDEX survey (the larger, dotted contours; see \S~\ref{sec:err_fitex2d}).

593: The best-fitting values of $D_A$ and $H$ agree with the true values;

594:  thus, the FITEX-2d method yields unbiased estimates of $D_A$ and $H$.

595:  The solid contours show $D_A$ and $H$ from the full modeling,

596:  including the overall shape of the power spectrum, with various

597:  parameters marginalized over. (Note that the BAO-only contours are

598:  unaffected by the marginalization.)

599:  For this we have

600:  used the Fisher matrix forecast (see \S~\ref{sec:err_full}).

601: The inner and outer ellipses show $68\%$ and

602:  $95\%$ C.L., respectively.

603: ({\it Top Left}) the full modeling Fisher matrix is marginalized over

604:  the overall amplitude, $\ln A$,

605: ({\it Top Right}) marginalized over $\ln A$ and the linear redshift

606:  distortion parameter, $\beta$,

607: ({\it Bottom Left}) marginalized over $\ln A$, $\beta$, and the velocity

608:  dispersion in the FoG factor, $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$,

609: ({\it Bottom Right}) marginalized over $\ln A$, $\beta$,

610:  $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$, and the shape of the initial power spectrum,

611: $n_s$ and $\alpha_s$. 

612: }%

613: \label{fig3}

614: \end{figure}

615: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

616: 

617: \subsection{Full Modeling}

618: \label{sec:err_full}

619: To calculate the errors in $D_A$ and $H$ expected from the full modeling

620: of the two-dimensional galaxy power spectrum,

621: $P_g(k,\mu)$, we use the Fisher matrix given by

622: \citep[see, e.g.,][]{eisenstein/hu/tegmark:1999,seo/eisenstein:2003}

623: 

624: \begin{equation}

625: F_{ij}=\int_0^{k_{max}}\frac{4\pi k^2dk}{(2\pi)^3}

626: \int_0^1d\mu\frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial\theta_i}

627: \frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial\theta_j}w(k,\mu),

628: \label{eq:fisher_fm}

629: \end{equation}

630: 

631: where $\theta_i=(\ln D_A,\ln H,\ln A,\beta,\tilde{\sigma}^2_v,n_s,\alpha_s)$ for $i=1$, 2,...,7, respectively, $k_{max}\!=\!0.40~h~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, where $A$ is the

632: overall amplitude of the power spectrum, $\beta$ is the linear redshift

633: distortion parameter, $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$ is the calibrated 1-d

634: velocity dispersion (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:pkred})), 

635: and $n_s$ and $\alpha_s$ describe

636: the shape of the initial (primordial) power spectrum:

637: \begin{equation}

638:  P_{ini}(k)\propto k^{n_s+\frac12\alpha_s\ln(k/k_{pivot})}.

639: \end{equation} 

640: 

641: Here, the weight function, $w(k,\mu)$, is one half of the so-called

642: ``effective volume,'' 

643: \begin{equation}

644: w(k,\mu)\equiv \frac12\left[\frac{n_gP_g(k,\mu)}{1+n_gP_g(k,\mu)}\right]

645: V_{survey}

646: \equiv \frac12V_{eff}(k,\mu).

647: \label{eq:weight_fm}

648: \end{equation}

649: The effective volume is equal to the actual survey volume, $V_{survey}$,

650: in the sampling variance dominated regime, $P_g(k,\mu)\gg 1/n_g$, whereas it

651: is small in the shot-noise dominated regime, $P_g(k,\mu)\ll 1/n_g$.

652: In Figure~\ref{fig4} we show $n_gP_g(k,\mu)$ for

653: $N_g=0.755\times10^6$ and $b_1=2.5$ as a function of $z$.

654: The factor of $1/2$ accounts for symmetry in ${\mathbf k}\rightarrow

655: -{\mathbf k}$.

656: The derivatives of $\ln P_g(k,\mu)$ with respect to $\theta_i$ are

657: calculated and given in the Appendix~\ref{sec:derivatives}.

658: 

659: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

660: \begin{figure}[t]

661: \centering

662: \rotatebox{0}{%

663:   \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig4.ps}

664: }%

665: \caption{%

666: The galaxy power spectrum times the number density of galaxies,

667:  $n_gP_g(k,\mu)$, where the number of the galaxies is fixed

668: for each redshift bin to $N_g=0.755\times10^6$, and

669:  $P_g(k,\mu)$ is 

670:  computed from Eq.~(\ref{eq:pkred}) with $b_1=2.5$.

671:  The shot noise dominates the error budget when $n_gP_g(k,\mu)<1$.

672: Contour values are [0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, 3.0, 5.0].

673:  ({\it Top Left}) $z=1$,

674:  ({\it Top Right}) $z=2$, 

675:  ({\it Bottom Left}) $z=3$,

676:  ({\it Bottom Right}) $z=4$. 

677: }%

678: \label{fig4}

679: \end{figure}

680: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

681: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccc}

682: \tabletypesize{\small}

683: \tablecaption{Fisher matrix forecast for the full power spectrum

684:  analysis with various choices of marginalization}

685: \tablenum{1}

686: \tablehead{ & \colhead{none} & \colhead{$\ln A$} & \colhead{$\beta$} & \colhead{$\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$} & \colhead{$n_s$} & \colhead{$\alpha_s$} & \colhead{$\ln A$, $\beta$}}

687: \startdata

688: $\Delta\ln D_A$ (\%) & 0.279 & 0.877 & 0.317 & 0.282 & 0.479 & 0.416 & 1.100 \\

689: $\Delta\ln H$ (\%) & 0.437 & 0.786 & 1.124 & 0.801 & 0.509 & 0.539 & 1.134 \\

690: $r_{D_A,H}$ & 0.382 & $-0.720$ & $-0.309$ & 0.082 & $-0.227$ & $-0.226$

691:  & 0.038 \\

692: $\Delta\ln R$ (\%) & 0.187 & 0.762 & 0.317 & 0.259 & 0.386 & 0.363 & 0.775 \\

693: \hline

694:  & $\beta$, $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$ & $\ln A$, $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$ &  $\ln A$, $\beta$, $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$ & $\ln A$, $n_s$, $\alpha_s$ & $\ln A$, $\beta$, $n_s$ & $\ln A$, $\beta$, $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$, \\

695: & & & & & $\alpha_s$ & $n_s$, $\alpha_s$\\

696: \hline

697: $\Delta\ln D_A$ (\%) & 0.327 & 0.891 & 1.101 & 1.089 & 1.233 & 1.250 \\

698: $\Delta\ln H$ (\%) & 1.457 & 1.101 & 1.468 & 0.984 & 1.362 & 1.530 \\

699: $r_{D_A,H}$ & $-0.383$ & $-0.632$ & 0.005 & $-0.820$ & $-0.199$ &

700:  $-0.098$ \\

701: $\Delta\ln R$ (\%) & 0.322 & 0.869 & 0.879 & 0.974 & 1.000 & 1.014

702: \enddata

703: \tablecomments{The fractional errors in $D_A$ and $H$, and their

704:  cross-correlation coefficients, $r_{D_A,H}$, and the fractional errors

705:  in the combined 1-d distance scale, $R$ (Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigmaR2})), marginalized over several combinations of parameters:

706: $\ln A$, $\beta$, $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$, $\alpha_s$ and $n_s$. The cosmological

707: parameters are taken from Table 1 of the \citet{komatsu/etal:prep}

708:  (``WMAP+BAO+SN ML''). 

709: The survey parameters approximate those of HETDEX:

710: the survey area and target redshift are $420~{\rm deg^2}$ and

711:  $1.9<z<3.5$, respectively, 

712: the number of galaxies is $N_g=0.755\times 10^6$, and the bias

713: is assumed to be linear with $b_1=2.5$.}

714: \label{tb:fisher}

715: \end{deluxetable*}

716: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

717: 

718: Unlike for BAOs, which are insensitive to the parameters that affect the

719: overall shape, for the full modeling we need to make sure that we take

720: into account potential degeneracy between $D_A$ and $H$ and any other

721: parameters that affect the overall shape. In this paper we include

722: $\ln A$, $\beta$, $\tilde{\sigma_v}^2$, $n_s$, and $\alpha_s$.

723: (We shall comment on the effects of non-linear bias in

724: \S~\ref{sec:caveat}).

725: 

726: We study the effects of marginalization over various parameter

727: combinations by taking the submatrix, $\bar{F}_{ij}$,

728: of the full $7\times 7$  matrix with the index, $i$, of $\theta_i$ running from

729: 1 to 7, such that the submatrix includes the matrix components of desired

730: parameters to be marginalized. In other words, the parameters that are

731: not included in the submatrix are fixed and not marginalized over.

732: 

733: Then, we compute the marginalized errors in $\ln D_A$ and $\ln H$ as

734: \begin{eqnarray}

735:  \sigma_{\ln D_A} &=& \sqrt{(\bar{F}^{-1})_{11}},\\

736:  \sigma_{\ln H} &=& \sqrt{(\bar{F}^{-1})_{22}}.

737: \end{eqnarray}

738: 

739: To simplify the analysis, 

740: we fix all the other cosmological parameters, such as

741: $f(z)$, $\Omega_bh^2$, etc. These cosmological parameters will be

742: determined by the future CMB mission, Planck, accurately, and therefore

743: it is a good approximation to simply fix them, and vary only $\ln D_A$,

744: $\ln H$, $A$, $\beta$, $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$, $n_s$ and $\alpha_s$. 

745: The fiducial value for the bias is set to $b_1=2.5$ and $f=d\ln D/d\ln a$ is

746: computed from the fiducial cosmological model.\footnote{One might also

747: wish to marginalize over $f$ for the following reason: while $f$ can be

748: calculated from the cosmological parameters assuming the validity of

749: General Relativity, one might choose to let $f$ free and use it 

750: for testing  the validity of General Relativity. In this paper we chose

751: to assume the validity of General Relativity, but one can extend our

752: analysis to let $f$ free in a straightforward manner.}

753: We expect that

754: the analysis of the bispectrum (Fourier transform of three-point

755: function) will give a precise determination of $b_1$ (as well as

756: non-linear bias parameters such as $b_2$)

757: \citep{sefusatti/komatsu:2007}, and therefore it is also a good

758: approximation to simply fix it. However, 

759: we also explore a more conservative case where we do not know what $b_1$

760: is, i.e., we marginalize over the overall amplitude as well as $\beta$. 

761: In the future work we also plan to

762: investigate the effect of marginalization over $b_2$, using a joint

763: analysis of the power spectrum and bispectrum. 

764: Therefore, our calculation

765: presented here will provide the lower limit to the errors in 

766: $\ln D_A$ and $\ln H$ expected from the full modeling of the power spectrum

767: measured in a survey like HETDEX.

768: We use the same survey parameters that we have used in

769: \S~\ref{sec:err_fitex2d}, and we integrate Eq.~(\ref{eq:fisher_fm}) up to

770: $k_{max}=0.40~h~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.

771: 

772: In Figure~\ref{fig3} we show the resulting

773: error ellipses from the full modeling, in the smaller, solid contours,

774: with four choices of marginalization. 

775: (We present the results from more choices of marginalization in

776: Table~\ref{tb:fisher}.) 

777: First, for all choices of marginalization we find that the sizes of

778: the errors in both $D_A$ and $H$ are substantially smaller than those from

779: the BAO-only analysis with the FITEX-2d.

780: For example, determinations of both $D_A$

781: and $H$ are  improved by more than a factor of two in the case of the

782: amplitude marginalization. 

783: This is expected, as we are

784: able to use more information encoded in the power spectrum; namely, the

785: Hubble horizon at the matter-radiation equality epoch and the Silk

786: damping scale.  Second, $D_A$ and $H$ are {\it

787: anti-correlated} for the amplitude marginalization,

788: with the cross-correlation coefficient of $r=-0.72$ (see top-left panel

789: of Fig.~\ref{fig3}),

790: as opposed to a positive correlation seen in the

791: BAO-only analysis. This is due to the marginalization over the overall

792: amplitude: if we fixed the overall normalization, then we would still

793: find a positive correlation between $D_A$ and $H$ with $r=0.38$.

794: 

795: The origin of the negative correlation is the so-called 

796: Alcock-Paczynski (AP) test \citep{alcock/paczynski:1979}:

797: when the redshift space distortion is known perfectly well, 

798: the departure of the power spectrum in redshift space from isotropy,

799: i.e., dependence of $P(k,\mu)$ on $\mu^2$, can be used to determine

800: $D_AH$, resulting in $r=-1$ for a power-law power spectrum. 

801: The contributions from departures of $P(k)$ from a pure power-law,

802: i.e., the existence of ``standard rulers,'' such as BAOs, the Hubble

803: horizon at the matter-radiation equality and the Silk damping scale,

804: make $r$ bigger than $-1$. (See Appendix~\ref{sec:cc} for more details.)

805: When $\ln A$ and $\beta$ are marginalized over simultaneously, the

806: correlation between $D_A$ and $H$ 

807: nearly disappears: the AP test no longer works when we

808: marginalize over the linear redshift space distortion.

809: We find $r=0.038$ (see top-right panel of

810: Fig.~\ref{fig3}) for this case.

811: 

812: When $\ln A$ is marginalized over while the other parameters 

813: ($\beta$, $\tilde{\sigma}_v^2$, $n_s$, and $\alpha_s$) are held fixed, 

814: we find 0.88\% and 0.79\% errors on

815: $D_A$ and $H$, respectively, with $r=-0.72$.

816: The more parameters we marginalize over, the greater 

817: the cross-correlation coefficient between $D_A$ and $H$ 

818: as well as the errors on $D_A$ and $H$ become. 

819: Note that the increase in the errors does not necessarily imply the

820: decrease in the statistical power in constraining dark energy

821: properties: since the cross-correlation coefficient is also reduced, the

822: error in the combined 1-d distance scale, $R$, is much less affected by

823: the marginalization (see Table~\ref{tb:fisher}). The error in $\ln R$

824: has been computed as \citep{seo/eisenstein:2007}:

825: \begin{equation}

826:  \sigma_{\ln R}^2

827: = \frac{\sigma_{\ln D_A}^2\left(1-r^2\right)}{1+2r\sigma_{\ln

828: D_A}/\sigma_{\ln H}+\sigma_{\ln D_A}^2/\sigma_{\ln H}^2}.

829: \label{eq:sigmaR2}

830: \end{equation}

831: 

832: Finally, the errors in $D_A$, $H$, and $R$ for various choices of 

833: marginalization are:

834: ($\sigma_{\ln D_A},\sigma_{\ln H},\sigma_{\ln R}$) = (0.88\%, 0.79\%, 0.76\%),

835: (1.10\%, 1.13\%, 0.78\%),

836: (1.10\%, 1.47\%, 0.88\%), and (1.25\%, 1.53\%, 1.01\%) for the marginalization

837: over $\ln A$, 

838: $\ln A$ and $\beta$, $\ln A$, $\beta$ and $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$, and

839: $\ln A$, $\beta$, $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$, $n_s$ and $\alpha_s$,

840: respectively

841: (see Table~\ref{tb:fisher} for more comprehensive list).

842: This result should be compared with that from the BAO-only analysis:

843: ($\sigma_{\ln D_A},\sigma_{\ln H},\sigma_{\ln R}$)=(1.76\%, 2.47\%, 1.08\%).

844: It is clear that the full analysis, even with a generous set of

845: marginalization choices, beats the BAO-only analysis with a significant

846: gain in the distance determination accuracies.

847: 

848: \subsection{Caveat for the full modeling}

849: \label{sec:caveat}

850: Our analysis presented in \S~\ref{sec:err_full} is too simplistic and 

851: optimistic, as it ignores any

852: systematic errors due to our lack of understanding of the effects of

853: various non-linearities in the power spectrum.

854: 

855: Among the three major

856: non-linearities, non-linear matter clustering is under control, at least

857: for high redshifts, i.e., $z\gtrsim 2$, as one can model non-linear

858: evolution of matter fluctuations almost exactly by the 3rd-order

859: perturbation theory \citep{jeong/komatsu:2006}. 

860: While the nominal 3rd-order perturbation theory breaks down at lower

861: redshifts, $z\sim 1$, there have been a number of studies aiming at

862: improving upon our ability to compute $P(k)$ at $z\sim 1$ or even lower

863: redshifts 

864: \citep{crocce/scoccimarro:2008,matarrese/pietroni:2007,taruya/hiramatsu:2008,valageas:2007,matsubara:2008,mcdonald:2007}. Therefore,

865: it is quite possible that the non-linear matter clustering will be fully

866: under control in the near future, at least for the scales that are

867: relevant to the BAO scales, i.e., $k\lesssim 0.40~h~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.

868: 

869: In a separate paper \citep{jeong/komatsu:2008}, we show that

870: non-linear galaxy biasing is also under control in the weakly non-linear

871: regime. One can use the perturbation theory approach combined with the

872: local bias assumption \citep{fry/gaztanaga:1993,mcdonald:2006} to model

873: the galaxy power spectrum with non-linear bias.

874: 

875: The most problematic one is the non-linear redshift space distortion.

876: Our understanding of non-linear redshift space distortion, especially

877: the Finger-of-God (FoG) effect, is limited \citep{scoccimarro:2004}.

878: Therefore, whether one can achieve the accuracy of $D_A$ and $H$ ($H$ in

879: particular) reported in Fig.~\ref{fig3} depends crucially on our ability

880: to correct for the FoG effect. This is work in progress.

881: Note that the marginalization over $\tilde{\sigma}_v^2$ should capture

882: some of the increase in the errors in distance scales due to our

883: ignorance of FoG.

884: 

885: \section{Extraction of $D_A$ and $H$ from the Millennium Simulation}

886: \label{sec:millennium}

887: How realistic is our result for the determinations of $D_A$ and $H$ from

888: the BAO phases using the FITEX-2d method? 

889: Since our Monte Carlo simulations used in \S~\ref{sec:err_fitex2d} are

890: too simple, in this section we test the FITEX-2d method further by using

891: the Millennium Simulation \citep{springel/etal:2005}. 

892: 

893: We use the Millennium Galaxy catalogue, generated by the semi-analytical

894: galaxy formation code \citep{bower/etal:2006,benson/etal:2003,cole/etal:2000}. 

895: We have measured the two-dimensional power spectrum of galaxies in

896: redshift space from the

897: Millennium Simulation, and applied the FITEX-2d method to remove the

898: smooth component. We then find the best-fitting $D_A$ and $H$ from the

899: BAO phases extracted from the FITEX-2d. Again, we use the data up to

900: $k_{max}=0.40~h~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.

901: 

902: In Figure~\ref{fig5} we show the result. The best-fitting value that we

903: find from the Millennium Simulation corresponds to one point at the

904: center of the contours. We find the errors from the Monte Carlo

905: simulations that we described in \S~\ref{sec:err_fitex2d} with the survey

906: parameters replaced by those of the Millennium Simulation:

907: $V_{survey}= (0.5~h^{-1}~{\rm Gpc})^3$, $n_g=0.138~h^3~{\rm Mpc}^{-3}$,

908: and $z=3.06$. (There are 17,238,935 galaxies in the Millennium

909: Simulation at $z=3.06$.) For the theoretical power spectrum that we use

910: for generating Monte Carlo simulations, we use the best-fitting power

911: spectrum for the galaxy catalogue of the Millennium Simulation

912: found in \citet{jeong/komatsu:2008}.

913: 

914: Since the volume of the Millennium Simulation is $\sim\!24$ times as small as

915: that would be surveyed by HETDEX, the uncertainties in $D_A$ and $H$ are

916: larger for the Millennium Simulation. (Compare Fig.~\ref{fig5} with

917: the larger contours of Fig.~\ref{fig3}.)

918: We find 5.1\% and 6.8\% errors on

919: $D_A$ and $H$, respectively, with the cross-correlation coefficient of

920: $r=0.43$, from the Monte Carlo simulations. These errors are larger than 

921: those from HETDEX Monte-Carlo simulation

922: by a factor of two (rather than $\sqrt{24}\sim 5$) as the shot noise on the 

923: power spectrum of the Millennium Simulation is much smaller than that of 

924: HETDEX simulation.

925: 

926: 

927: The best-fitting values of $D_A$ and $H$ are well within

928: 68\% C.L. region, which indicates that the FITEX-2d is able to yield

929: unbiased estimates of the BAO phases from the Millennium Simulation.

930: 

931: These results indicate that the FITEX-2d method that we have developed

932: in this paper can be used for extracting the BAOs and measuring $D_A$

933: and $H$ safely from the real data. It would be interesting to apply the

934: FITEX-2d method to the two-dimensional power spectrum measured from the

935: SDSS LRG samples \citep{okumura/etal:prep}, and extract $D_A$ and $H$

936: from them.

937: 

938: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

939: \begin{figure}[t]

940: \centering

941: \rotatebox{0}{%

942:   \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig5.ps}

943: }%

944: \caption{%

945: Accuracy of $D_A$ and $H$ extracted from BAOs with the FITEX-2d method

946:  applied to the Millennium Galaxy Simulation in redshift space at $z=3$

947:  \citep{springel/etal:2005,bower/etal:2006,benson/etal:2003,cole/etal:2000}. 

948: The best-fitting values of $D_A$ and $H$ agree with the true values to

949:  within statistical errors of the Millennium Simulation;  thus, the

950:  FITEX-2d method also yields unbiased estimates of $D_A$ and $H$ for the

951:  Millennium Simulation. The solid and dotted lines show $68\%$ and

952:  $95\%$ C.L., respectively. 

953: }%

954: \label{fig5}

955: \end{figure}

956: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

957: 

958: 

959: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

960: \section{Error Propagation to The Dark Energy Equation of State}

961: \label{sec:darkenergy}

962: 

963: In \S~\ref{sec:montecarlo} and \S~\ref{sec:millennium}, we have estimated 

964: errors in $D_A$ and $H$ from two different approaches, i.e., the BAO

965: fitting using the FITEX-2d method and the full modeling. In this section, we 

966: propagate errors in $D_A$ and $H$ to those in the dark energy equation

967: of state parameters.

968: We parametrize $w(z)$ using the linear model, $w(z)=w_0+w_az/(1+z)$

969: \citep{linder:2003,chevallier/polarski:2001}.

970: 

971: We propagate the errors in   $D_A$ and $H$ to those in $w_0$ and $w_a$ by

972: \begin{equation}

973: \tilde{F}_{\alpha\beta}=\sum_{ij}{\partial p_i\over \partial q_\alpha}{\partial p_j\over \partial q_\beta}F_{ij},

974: \end{equation}

975: where $\tilde{F}_{\alpha\beta}$ is the Fisher matrix for the dark energy

976: parameters, $F_{ij}$ is the Fisher matrix for $D_A$ and $H$, 

977: $p_i=(\ln D_A, \ln H)$ for $i=1$ and 2, and $q_\alpha=(w_0,w_a)$ for

978: $\alpha=1$ and 2. 

979: 

980: Partial derivatives of $D_A$ and $H$ with respect to $w_0$ and 

981: $w_a$ are given by

982: \begin{eqnarray}

983: {\partial \ln{D_A} \over \partial w_0}

984: &=&-{3\over2}\Omega_\Lambda{\int_0^z \ln(1+z^{\prime})f(z^{\prime})g(z^{\prime})^{-3/2}dz^{\prime}

985: \over\int_0^z g(z^{\prime})^{-1/2}dz^{\prime}},\\

986: {\partial \ln{D_A} \over \partial w_a}&=&-{3\over2}\Omega_\Lambda\nonumber\\

987: &\times&{\int_0^z [\ln(1+z^{\prime})-\frac{z^{\prime}}{1+z^{\prime}}]f(z^{\prime})g(z^{\prime})^{-3/2}dz^{\prime}

988: \over\int_0^z g(z^{\prime})^{-1/2}dz^{\prime}},\\

989: {\partial \ln{H} \over \partial w_0}&=&{3\over2}\Omega_\Lambda \ln(1+z){f(z)\over g(z)},\\

990: {\partial \ln{H} \over \partial w_a}&=&{3\over2}\Omega_\Lambda

991: \left[\ln(1+z)-\frac{z}{1+z}\right]{f(z)\over g(z)},

992: \end{eqnarray}

993: where $f(z)$ and $g(z)$ are given by

994: \begin{eqnarray}

995: f(z)&=&\exp\left(3\int_0^{z}{1+w_0+w_a \frac{z^{\prime}}{1+z'}

996: \over 1+z^{\prime}}dz^{\prime}\right),\\

997: g(z)&=&\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_\Lambda f(z).

998: \end{eqnarray}

999: 

1000: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1001: \begin{figure}[t]

1002: \centering

1003: \rotatebox{0}{%

1004:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig6.ps}

1005: }%

1006: \caption{%

1007: Partial derivatives of $\ln D_A$ and $\ln H$ with respect to the 

1008: dark energy equation of state parameters, $w_0$ and $w_a$, as a function

1009:  of $z$ for two different cosmological models.

1010: ({\it Left}) 

1011: $(w_0, w_a)=(-1.0, 0.0)$.

1012: ({\it Right}) 

1013: $(w_0, w_a)=(-1.1, 0.5)$.

1014: }%

1015: \label{fig6}

1016: \end{figure}

1017: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1018: 

1019: Figure \ref{fig6} shows the derivatives as a function of $z$ between

1020: $0.5\le z\le 6.5$ in 

1021: two different cosmological models, ($w_0$, $w_a$)=($-1.0$, $0.0$) and 

1022: ($-1.1$, $0.5$). The former is the $\Lambda$CDM model, while the latter

1023: resembles the maximum likelihood values of $w_0$ and $w_a$ from the 

1024: WMAP+BAO+SN+BBN \citep{komatsu/etal:prep}.

1025: The derivatives are similar for these cosmological models, and therefore

1026: we use the $\Lambda$CDM model as the fiducial model for computing the

1027: derivatives. 

1028: 

1029: We add the distance information from CMB as

1030: \begin{equation}

1031: \tilde{F}^{total}_{\alpha\beta}(z)=\tilde{F}^{CMB}_{\alpha\beta}

1032: +\tilde{F}^{gal}_{\alpha\beta}(z),

1033: \end{equation}

1034: where we assume that the CMB experiment yields 1\% determination of the

1035: angular diameter distance out to $z=1090$, i.e., we use

1036: \begin{equation}

1037:  \tilde{F}^{CMB}_{\alpha\beta} = 10^4 \frac{\partial \ln

1038:   D_A(z=1090)}{\partial q_\alpha}\frac{\partial \ln D_A(z=1090)}{\partial q_\beta}.

1039: \end{equation}

1040: 

1041: We are interested in how the BAO-only analysis compares with the full

1042: modeling. In Fig.~\ref{fig7} we show the projected error contours on

1043: $w_0$ and $w_a$ calculated from the BAO-only analysis with the FITEX-2d

1044: and those from the full analysis at four redshift bins:

1045: $0.5\le z\le 1.5$, $1.5\le z\le 2.5$, $2.5\le z\le 3.5$, and $3.5\le

1046: z\le 4.5$. The survey area and the number of galaxies are

1047:  420~${\rm deg^2}$ and $N_g=2.9\times10^6$ for all redshift bins.

1048: From the BAO-only analysis we find $(\Delta w_0,\Delta w_a)=(0.29,1.26)$, 

1049: $(0.38,1.39)$, $(0.55,1.92)$, and $(0.91,3.18)$, whereas

1050: from the full modeling we find $(\Delta w_0,\Delta w_a)=(0.09,0.27)$, 

1051: $(0.06,0.17)$, $(0.09,0.35)$, and $(0.17,0.68)$, for

1052: $0.5\le z\le 1.5$, $1.5\le z\le 2.5$, $2.5\le z\le 3.5$, and $3.5\le

1053: z\le 4.5$, respectively.

1054: 

1055: We therefore conclude that the full analysis yields much better

1056: constraints on $w_0$ and $w_a$ than the BAO-only analysis.

1057: 

1058: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1059: \begin{figure}[t]

1060: \centering

1061: \rotatebox{0}{%

1062:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig7.ps}

1063: }%

1064: \caption{%

1065: Projected 68\% constraints on the dark energy parameters, $w_0$ and

1066:  $w_a$: the BAO fitting with the FITEX-2d method (dotted) versus the

1067:  full modeling (solid). For both cases, we use the power spectrum 

1068: up to $k_{max}=0.40~h~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, and we assume that the CMB

1069:  experiment measures the angular diameter distance out to $z=1090$ with

1070:  1\% accuracy. The survey area and the number of galaxies are

1071:  420~${\rm deg^2}$ and $N_g=0.755\times10^6$ for all cases.

1072: ({\it Top Left}) $0.5\le z\le 1.5$,

1073: ({\it Top Right}) $1.5\le z\le 2.5$,

1074: ({\it Bottom Left}) $2.5\le z\le 3.5$,

1075: ({\it Bottom Right}) $3.5\le z\le 4.5$.

1076: }%

1077: \label{fig7}

1078: \end{figure}

1079: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1080: 

1081: \section{Conclusion}

1082: \label{sec:conclusion}

1083: In this paper we have developed a method, called the FITEX-2d method, to

1084: extract the two-dimensional phases of BAOs from galaxy power spectra in

1085: redshift space. Our model builds on and extends the existing

1086: one-dimensional algorithm, called FITEX, developed by

1087: \citet{koehler/schuecker/gebhardt:2007}. 

1088: 

1089: Our method removes the smooth, non-oscillating component from the

1090: observed galaxy power spectrum in redshift space. The fitting function

1091: consists of the smooth one-dimensional spectrum that depends only on

1092: $k$, $P_{smooth}^{1d}(k)$ given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:Psmooth1d}), multiplied by 

1093: the angle-dependent function expanded in the Legendre polynomials with

1094: even multipoles. The coefficients of the Legendre polynomials contain

1095: even powers of $k$. 

1096: The resulting function, given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:Psmooth2d}), is able to capture

1097: the non-oscillating part of the galaxy power spectrum well.

1098: 

1099: We have tested the FITEX-2d method using the analytical model without

1100: any noise, the Monte Carlo realizations with noise expected from the

1101: HETDEX experiment \citep{hill/etal:2004}, and the galaxy catalogue

1102: created from the Millennium Simulation \citep{springel/etal:2005}.

1103: In all cases the FITEX-2d method yields unbiased estimates of the

1104: angular diameter distance, $D_A$, and the expansion rate, $H$. 

1105: 

1106: However, the BAOs capture only a part of distance information encoded in the

1107: galaxy power spectrum. To exploit the distance information, especially

1108: the equality scale, $r_H(z_{eq})$, we have explored the constraints on

1109: $D_A$ and $H$ from the full modeling of the galaxy power spectrum in

1110: redshift space. Provided that three key non-linearities (non-linear

1111: matter clustering, non-linear galaxy bias, and non-linear redshift space

1112: distortion) are under control, we find that the full modeling yields the

1113: constraints that are better than the BAO-only analysis by more than a

1114: factor of two both in $D_A$ and $H$, and the dark energy parameters such

1115: as $w_0$  and $w_a$. 

1116: 

1117: While the effects of non-linear matter clustering

1118: \citep{jeong/komatsu:2006,crocce/scoccimarro:2008,matarrese/pietroni:2007,taruya/hiramatsu:2008,valageas:2007,matsubara:2008,mcdonald:2007}

1119: and non-linear galaxy bias \citep{jeong/komatsu:2008} are being

1120: understood in the weakly non-linear regime that is relevant to the

1121: future galaxy surveys, the effects of non-linear redshift space

1122: distortion are poorly understood. While the FITEX-2d method that we have

1123: developed in this paper are useful for obtaining {\it robust} constraints

1124: on $D_A$ and $H$, hence the dark energy properties, one must understand

1125: non-linear redshift space distortion to fully exploit the full

1126: information content of the galaxy power spectrum in redshift space.

1127: We would then be able to reduce the errors in $D_A$ and $H$ by more than

1128: a factor of two.

1129: 

1130: 

1131: \acknowledgements

1132: We thank the anonymous referee for illuminating comments on the

1133: correlation coefficients, which motivated our doing more thorough analysis.

1134: This material is based in part upon work supported by the Texas Advanced

1135: Research Program under Grant No. 003658-0005-2006.

1136: EK acknowledges support from an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship.

1137: The Millennium Simulation databases used in this paper and the 

1138: web application providing online access to them were constructed as 

1139: part of the activities of the German Astrophysical Virtual Observatory.

1140: %\bibliographystyle{apj}

1141: %\bibliography{apj-jour,wmap}

1142: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1143: \appendix

1144: \section{Fisher Matrix Code}

1145: \label{sec:cc_fisher}

1146: In this Appendix we describe what we have implemented in our Fisher

1147: matrix code, which is publicly available as a part of ``Cosmology

1148: Routine Library (CRL),'' developed by one of the authors (EK).

1149: This code includes the non-linear matter power spectrum in both real and

1150: redshift space, as well as marginalization over the amplitude, the

1151: linear redshift space distortion, the velocity dispersion of

1152: Fingers-of-God, the primordial tilt and running index. In the future

1153: release we plan to include non-linear galaxy bias and primordial

1154: non-Gaussianity. 

1155: 

1156: \subsection{Basics}

1157: A simple, approximate formula of the Fisher matrix for galaxy survey

1158: is given by \citep[e.g.,][]{seo/eisenstein:2003}

1159: \begin{equation}

1160: F_{ij}=\int_0^{k_{max}}\frac{4\pi k^2dk}{(2\pi)^3}

1161: \int_0^1d\mu\frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial\theta_i}

1162: \frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial\theta_j}w(k,\mu),

1163: \label{eq:fisher}

1164: \end{equation}

1165: where $P_g(k,\mu)$ is the galaxy survey power spectrum calculated

1166: theoretically as a function of parameters, $\theta_i$ are the

1167: parameters to be extracted from the data, and $w(k,\mu)$

1168: is a function given by

1169: \begin{equation}

1170: w(k,\mu)\equiv \frac12\left[\frac{n_gP_g(k,\mu)}{1+n_gP_g(k,\mu)}\right]

1171: V_{survey}

1172: \label{eq:weight}

1173: \end{equation}

1174: Here, $n_g$ and $V_{survey}$ are the number density of galaxies and

1175: the volume of survey, respectively. 

1176: 

1177: In linear theory, $P_g(k,\mu)$ is given by

1178: \begin{equation}

1179: P_g(k,\mu)=b_1^2R(\mu^2)P^{linear}(k),

1180: \end{equation}

1181: where $b_1$ is the scale independent linear bias factor, $P^{linear}(k)$

1182: is the linear matter power spectrum, and $R(\mu^2)$ describes the

1183: linear redshift space distortion effect (Kaiser effect):

1184: \begin{eqnarray}

1185: R(\mu^2)&\equiv& (1+\beta\mu^2)^2\\

1186: \beta&=&(d\ln D/d\ln a)/b_1,

1187: \end{eqnarray}

1188: where $D$ is the growth factor of the linear density fluctuations,

1189: and $a$ is the scale factor.

1190: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1191: \subsection{Derivatives}

1192: \label{sec:derivatives}

1193: To calculate the logarithmic derivatives of $P(k)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:fisher}), 

1194: let us write down the non-linear galaxy power spectrum (with linear bias)

1195: as (Eq.~(\ref{eq:pkred})):

1196: \begin{eqnarray}

1197: \nonumber

1198:  P_g(k,\mu) = b_1^2\left[P_{\delta\delta}(k) + 2\beta\mu^2P_{\delta\theta}(k)

1199: +\beta^2\mu^4P_{\theta\theta}(k)\right]

1200: \times\frac1{1+f^2k^2\mu^2\tilde{\sigma}_v^2}.

1201: \end{eqnarray}

1202: We compute the derivatives with respect to the following seven

1203: parameters: 

1204: the angular diameter distance, $D_A$, the Hubble expansion rate, $H$,

1205: the overall amplitude of the galaxy power spectrum, $A$,  the linear

1206: redshift space distortion factor, $\beta\equiv f/b_1$, the velocity

1207: dispersion with an empirically calibrated fudge factor, $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$,

1208: the tilt of the primordial power spectrum, $n_s$, and the running index,

1209: $\alpha_s$ ($P_{ini}\propto k^{n_s+1/2\alpha_s\ln[k/k_{pivot}]}$).

1210: We choose the convention such that

1211: \begin{equation}

1212: (\theta_1,\theta_2,\theta_3,\theta_4,\theta_5,\theta_6,\theta_7)

1213: =(\ln D_A,\ln H,\ln A,\beta,\tilde{\sigma}^2_v,n_s,\alpha_s).

1214: \end{equation}

1215: 

1216: The derivatives with respect to $\ln A$, $\beta$, $\tilde{\sigma}_v^2$,

1217: $n_s$, and $\alpha_s$ are easy to evaluate. They are given by

1218: 

1219: \begin{eqnarray}

1220: \frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial\ln A}&=&1,\\

1221: \frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial\beta}&=&

1222: \frac{2\mu^2P_{\delta\theta}(k)+2\beta\mu^4P_{\theta\theta}(k)}

1223: {P_{\delta\delta}(k)+2\beta\mu^2P_{\delta\theta}(k)+\beta^2\mu^4P_{\theta\theta}(k)}

1224: \label{eq:dlnpdbeta}

1225: \\,

1226: \frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial\tilde{\sigma}^2_v}&=&

1227: -\frac{f^2k^2\mu^2}{1+f^2k^2\mu^2\tilde{\sigma}^2_v},\\

1228: \frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial n_s}&=&

1229: \frac{\partial\ln P_{ini}(k)}{\partial n_s}=\ln k,\\

1230: \frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial\alpha_s}&=&

1231: \frac{\partial\ln P_{ini}(k)}{\partial \alpha_s}=

1232: \frac12\left[\ln\left(\frac{k}{k_{pivot}}\right)\right]^2.

1233: \end{eqnarray}

1234: We compute the derivatives with respect to $\ln D_A$ and $\ln H$

1235: in a two step process. First, we write

1236: \begin{eqnarray}

1237: \frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial\ln D_A}&=&

1238: \frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial\ln k}

1239: \frac{\partial\ln k}{\partial\ln D_A}

1240: +\frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial\mu^2}

1241: \frac{\partial\mu^2}{\partial\ln D_A},\\

1242: \frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial\ln H}&=&

1243: \frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial\ln k}

1244: \frac{\partial\ln k}{\partial\ln H}

1245: +\frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial\mu^2}

1246: \frac{\partial\mu^2}{\partial\ln H},

1247: \end{eqnarray}

1248: where

1249: \begin{eqnarray}

1250: \frac{\partial\ln k}{\partial\ln D_A}&=&1-\mu^2,\\

1251: \frac{\partial\ln k}{\partial\ln H}&=&-\mu^2,\\

1252: \frac{\partial\mu^2}{\partial\ln D_A}&=&-2\mu^2(1-\mu^2),\\

1253: \frac{\partial\mu^2}{\partial\ln H}&=&-2\mu^2(1-\mu^2),\\

1254: \frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial\mu^2}&=&

1255: \frac{2\beta P_{\delta\theta}(k)+2\beta^2\mu^2P_{\theta\theta}(k)}

1256: {P_{\delta\delta}(k)+2\beta\mu^2P_{\delta\theta}(k)+\beta^2\mu^4P_{\theta\theta}(k)}

1257: -\frac{f^2 k^2\tilde{\sigma}_v^2}

1258: {1+f^2k^2\mu^2\tilde{\sigma}_v^2}.

1259: \end{eqnarray}

1260: Finally, we need to know the ``effective spectral index'', $n_{eff}(k,\mu)$,

1261: given by

1262: \begin{equation}

1263: n_{eff}(k,\mu)\equiv\frac{\partial\ln P_g(k,\mu)}{\partial\ln k},

1264: \label{eq:n_eff}

1265: \end{equation}

1266: or explicitly

1267: \begin{eqnarray}

1268: n_{eff}(k,\mu)&=&\frac{P_{\delta\delta}(k)n_{\delta\delta}(k)

1269: +2\beta\mu^2P_{\delta\theta}(k)n_{\delta\theta}(k)

1270: +\beta^2\mu^4P_{\theta\theta}(k)n_{\theta\theta}(k)}

1271: {P_{\delta\delta}(k)+2\beta\mu^2P_{\delta\theta}(k)+\beta^2\mu^4P_{\theta\theta}(k)}\nonumber\\

1272: &&-\frac{2f^2 k^2\mu^2\tilde{\sigma}_v^2}{1+f^2k^2\mu^2\tilde{\sigma}_v^2},

1273: \label{eq:n_eff_exp}

1274: \end{eqnarray}

1275: where

1276: \begin{eqnarray}

1277: n_{\delta\delta}(k)&\equiv&

1278: \frac{\partial\ln P_{\delta\delta}(k)}{\partial\ln k},\\

1279: n_{\delta\theta}(k)&\equiv&

1280: \frac{\partial\ln P_{\delta\theta}(k)}{\partial\ln k},\\

1281: n_{\theta\theta}(k)&\equiv&

1282: \frac{\partial\ln P_{\theta\theta}(k)}{\partial\ln k}.

1283: \end{eqnarray}

1284: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1285: \subsection{Correlation Coefficients}

1286: \label{sec:cc}

1287: In this subsection we explore the behaviour of the 

1288: cross-correlation coefficient between $D_A$ and $H$ in various cases. In

1289: particular we focus on the effect of the marginalization over the

1290: overall amplitude with (\S~\ref{sec_cc_beta}) and 

1291: without (\S~\ref{sec:cc_no_beta}) the additional marginalization over

1292: the redshift space distortion.

1293: \subsubsection{No redshift space distortion, $\beta=0$}

1294: \label{sec:cc_no_beta}

1295: Let us evaluate the Fisher matrices in the limit that the redshift

1296: space distortion is absent, i.e., $\beta=0$. In this limit, the

1297: weighting function in Eq.~(\ref{eq:fisher}) and the effective spectral

1298: index in Eq.~(\ref{eq:n_eff}) become independent

1299: of $\mu$, i.e., $w(k,\mu)\to w(k)$ and $n_{eff}(k,\mu)\to n_{eff}(k)$.

1300: We obtain

1301: \begin{eqnarray}

1302: F_{11}&=&\int^{k_{max}}_{k_{min}}\frac{k^2dk}{2\pi^2}[n_{eff}(k)]^2w(k)

1303: \int^1_0d\mu (1-\mu^2)^2\\

1304: F_{12}&=&\int^{k_{max}}_{k_{min}}\frac{k^2dk}{2\pi^2}[n_{eff}(k)]^2w(k)

1305: \int^1_0d\mu (1-\mu^2)(-\mu^2)\\

1306: F_{13}&=&\int^{k_{max}}_{k_{min}}\frac{k^2dk}{2\pi^2}n_{eff}(k)w(k)

1307: \int^1_0d\mu (1-\mu^2)\\

1308: F_{22}&=&\int^{k_{max}}_{k_{min}}\frac{k^2dk}{2\pi^2}[n_{eff}(k)]^2w(k)

1309: \int^1_0d\mu (-\mu^2)^2\\

1310: F_{23}&=&\int^{k_{max}}_{k_{min}}\frac{k^2dk}{2\pi^2}n_{eff}(k)w(k)

1311: \int^1_0d\mu (-\mu^2)\\

1312: F_{33}&=&\int^{k_{max}}_{k_{min}}\frac{k^2dk}{2\pi^2}w(k)

1313: \int^1_0d\mu

1314: \end{eqnarray}

1315: Now, in order to understand the effect of the structure of

1316: $n_{eff}$, let us assume that the galaxy power spectrum is a pure

1317: power-law, i.e., $n_{eff}(k)=n$ and $n$ is the independent of $k$.

1318: In this limit, we obtain

1319: 

1320: \begin{equation}

1321: F_{ij}=\bar{w}

1322: \left(

1323: \begin{array}{ccc}

1324: \frac{8n^2}{15} & -\frac{2n^2}{15} & \frac{2n}{3}\\

1325: -\frac{2n^2}{15} & \frac{n^2}{5} & -\frac{n}{3}\\

1326: \frac{2n}{3} & -\frac{n}{3} & 1

1327: \end{array}

1328: \right)

1329: \label{eq:3by3fisher}

1330: \end{equation}

1331: where $\bar{w}\equiv\int\frac{k^2dk}{2\pi^2}w(k)$.

1332: 

1333: The marginalized errors of parameters and the correlation coefficients

1334: are computed from the inverse of the Fisher matrix. However, one can

1335: show that the matrix given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:3by3fisher}) is singular.

1336: In other words, $D_A$ and $H$ are completely degenerate with the amplitude

1337: for a power-law power spectrum. This result shows that only the departure

1338: of the power spectrum from a pure power-law, i.e., the existence

1339: of characteristic scales, can break the degeneracy between $D_A$ and $H$,

1340: and $A$. These scales are often called the ``standard rulers.''

1341: 

1342: To understand the structure of the Fisher matrix in Eq.~(\ref{eq:3by3fisher})

1343: better, let us add small perturbations, $\epsilon>0$, to the diagonal

1344: elements, and invert the matrix. The result is

1345: \begin{equation}

1346: (F^{-1})_{ij}=\frac1{\bar{w}}

1347: \left(

1348: \begin{array}{ccc}

1349: \frac1{(2+n^2)\epsilon} & -\frac1{(2+n^2)\epsilon} & -\frac{n}{(2+n^2)\epsilon}\\

1350: -\frac1{(2+n^2)\epsilon} & \frac1{(2+n^2)\epsilon} & \frac{n}{(2+n^2)\epsilon}\\

1351: -\frac{n}{(2+n^2)\epsilon} & \frac{n}{(2+n^2)\epsilon} & \frac{n^2}{(2+n^2)\epsilon}

1352: \end{array}

1353: \right)

1354: +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^0)

1355: \end{equation}

1356: We find that the correlation coefficient between $D_A$ and $H$ is

1357: \begin{equation}

1358: r_{12}\equiv\frac{(F^{-1})_{12}}{\sqrt{(F^{-1})_{11}(F^{-1})_{22}}}

1359: \to -1

1360: \end{equation}

1361: as $\epsilon\to 0$. Therefore, $\ln D_A$ and $\ln H$ are totally

1362: anti-correlated, which implies that, although we cannot determine

1363: $\ln D_A$ and $\ln H$ simultaneously, we can determine

1364: $\ln D_A+\ln H=\ln(D_AH)$, even for a power-law power spectrum.

1365: \footnote{

1366: The other cross-correlation coefficients are $r_{13}\to\mp 1$

1367: and $r_{23}\to\pm 1$ for $n>0$ and $n<0$ respectively.

1368: }

1369: This is known as the Alcock-Paczy\'nski (AP)

1370: test \citep{alcock/paczynski:1979}.

1371: 

1372: There is a special case in which the covariance between $A$ and $D_A$ or $H$

1373: may be ignored. One may imagine the situation where $n_{eff}(k)$

1374: depends upon $k$ such that $A$ is uncorrelated with $D_A$ or $H$.

1375: For example, if $n_{eff}(k)$ oscillates about zero, then

1376: $\int_{k_{min}}^{k_{max}}\frac{k^2dk}{2\pi^2}n_{eff}(k)w(k)$ would

1377: be small compared with

1378: $\int_{k_{min}}^{k_{max}}\frac{k^2dk}{2\pi^2}[n_{eff}(k)]^2w(k)$

1379: or $\int_{k_{min}}^{k_{max}}\frac{k^2dk}{2\pi^2}w(k)$.

1380: Therefore, $F_{13}$ and $F_{23}$ may be ignored, making $A$ de-correlated

1381: with $D_A$ and $H$. In this case, the Fisher matrix is a 2-by-2 matrix given by

1382: \begin{equation}

1383: F_{ij}=\bar{w}n^2

1384: \left(

1385: \begin{array}{cc}

1386: \frac8{15} & -\frac2{15}\\

1387: -\frac2{15} & \frac15

1388: \end{array}

1389: \right)

1390: \end{equation}

1391: The inverse of this matrix is then

1392: \begin{equation}

1393: (F^{-1})_{ij}=\frac1{\bar{w}n^2}

1394: \left(

1395: \begin{array}{cc}

1396: \frac94 & \frac32\\

1397: \frac32 & 6

1398: \end{array}

1399: \right)

1400: \end{equation}

1401: The correlation coefficient between $D_A$ and $H$ is thus given by

1402: \begin{equation}

1403: r_{12}=\frac{3/2}{\sqrt{9/4\times6}}=\frac1{\sqrt{6}}\simeq0.408.

1404: \end{equation}

1405: This result has been derived by \citet{seo/eisenstein:2007}, and

1406: justifies the use of BAOs as a way to measure $D_A$ and $H$ with a correlation

1407: coefficient of $0.408$.

1408: 

1409: From these studies we are led to the following conclusion:

1410: \begin{itemize}

1411: \item When the information is dominated by BAOs, the correlation coefficient

1412: between $D_A$ and $H$ is $r_{12}\simeq 0.408$. The amplitude of the

1413: BAOs contributes little to the errors on $D_A$ and $H$, 

1414: as the amplitude information is de-correlated with $D_A$ and $H$.

1415: \item When the information is dominated by the AP test, $r_{12}\simeq -1$.

1416: \item In reality, as we have shown in this paper, BAOs contribute less than the

1417: overall shape of the power spectrum. Also, the shape of the power spectrum

1418: is not exactly a power-law. As a result, the correlation coefficient from the

1419: full analysis is usually negative (or small positive), 

1420: but always greater than $-1$ (see Table~\ref{tb:fisher}).

1421: \end{itemize}

1422: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1423: \subsubsection{With redshift space distortion, $\beta>0$}

1424: \label{sec_cc_beta}

1425: Next, let us consider the case where the redshift space distortion

1426: cannot be ignored. In this case, we see from Eq.~(\ref{eq:weight})

1427: and Eq.~(\ref{eq:n_eff_exp}) that

1428: the weighting function, $w(k,\mu)$, and  the effective spectral index,

1429: $n_{eff}(k,\mu)$, are no longer independent of $\mu$.

1430: The analytical treatment is also possible for this case, although the

1431: results are too complicated to be useful. 

1432: We therefore report on the numerical results.

1433: 

1434: Here, we choose the survey parameters given in \S~\ref{sec:err_full}

1435: with the non-linear power spectrum of Eq.~(\ref{eq:pkred}).

1436: The results from the numerical calculations of the Fisher matrix are 

1437: given in Table \ref{tb:fisher}.

1438: We find that the marginalization over the amplitude information,

1439: and that over the amplitude and the shape of the primordial power

1440: spectrum (i.e., $n_s$ and $\alpha_s$) 

1441: give the cross-correlation close to $-1$; thus, one relies on the

1442: AP test. 

1443: The marginalization over the amplitude and the linear redshift

1444: space distortion (i.e., $\beta$) drive the cross-correlation

1445: towards zero, as the AP test no longer works when the linear redshift

1446: space distortion is marginalized over. However, in both cases the errors

1447: in the combined 1-d distance scale, $R$, are about the same. In other

1448: words, while one changes the orientation of the ellipse, the area is

1449: approximately preserved. 

1450: 

1451: In summary, when the amplitude information is marginalized over, the information

1452: is mostly coming from the dependence of $P(k,\mu)$ on $\mu^2$, which

1453: yields a constraint on $D_AH$ via the AP test, while when both the amplitude and

1454: the linear redshift space distortion are marginalized, the most information is

1455: coming from the standard rulers, which can constrain $D_A$ and $H$

1456: separately, driving the cross-correlation towards zero.

1457: 

1458: Finally, in Fig.~\ref{fig8} we show how different choices of 

1459: marginalization over parameters influence the error contours of $w_0$ and $w_a$:

1460: $(\Delta w_0,\Delta w_a)=(0.08,0.27)$, 

1461: $(0.08,0.30)$, $(0.24,0.85)$, and $(0.24,0.86)$, for the cases of no marginalization,

1462: marginalization over $\ln A$, marginalization over $\ln A$, $\beta$ and $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$,

1463: and marginalization over $\ln A$, $\beta$, $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$, $n_s$ and $\alpha_s$

1464: respectively.

1465: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1466: \begin{figure}[t]

1467: \centering

1468: \rotatebox{0}{%

1469:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig8.ps}

1470: }%

1471: \caption{%

1472: Projected 68\% constraints on the dark energy parameters, $w_0$ and

1473: $w_a$. The full modeling (solid) marginalized over different combinations of

1474: parameters as well as the BAO-only analysis (dotted) are shown. 

1475: For all cases, we use the power spectrum up to $k_{max}=0.40~h~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, and we assume that the CMB

1476: experiment measures the angular diameter distance out to $z=1090$ with

1477: 1\% accuracy. The survey area and the number of galaxies are

1478: 420~${\rm deg^2}$ and $N_g=0.755\times10^6$, and the redshift range is

1479: $1.9\le z\le 3.5$ for all cases.

1480: ({\it Top Left}) marginalized over $\ln A$,

1481: ({\it Top Right}) marginalized over $\ln A$, $\beta$,

1482: ({\it Bottom Left}) marginalized over $\ln A$, $\beta$ and $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$,

1483: ({\it Bottom Right}) marginalized over $\ln A$, $\beta$, $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$,

1484: $n_s$ and $\alpha_s$.

1485: }%

1486: \label{fig8}

1487: \end{figure}

1488: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1489: 

1490: \subsection{User's Guide}

1491: When using the Fisher matrix code, one may choose the form of the model

1492: galaxy power spectrum from: 

1493: \begin{itemize}

1494: \item Linear power spectrum with the linear redshift space distortion

1495:       (Kaiser effect), 

1496: \item Non-linear power spectrum from the 3rd-order perturbation theory with

1497: the linear redshift space distortion, 

1498: \item Non-linear power spectrum from the 3rd-order perturbation theory with

1499: the non-linear redshift space distortion given by Eq.~(71) of

1500:       \citet{scoccimarro:2004}, or

1501: \item Non-linear power spectrum from the 3rd-order perturbation theory with

1502: the non-linear redshift space distortion given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:pkred}).

1503: \end{itemize}

1504: 

1505: Next, specify the number of parameters one wishes to marginalize

1506: over, and then choose the parameters from: $\ln A$, $\beta$,

1507: $\tilde{\sigma}^2_v$, $n_s$, and $\alpha_s$.

1508: 

1509: A given galaxy survey can be sliced up into multiple redshift bins.

1510: After entering the survey area in units of ${\rm deg}^2$, one is asked

1511: to enter  the following parameters at each redshift bin: 

1512: the redshift range ($z_{min}\!<\!z\!<\!z_{max}$), the number of galaxies

1513: in units of millions in the bin, $b_1$, $k_{max}$ in units of 

1514: $h~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, and the redshift error in units of km/s.

1515: 

1516: The linear power spectrum at $z=30$ has been precomputed using the CAMB code

1517: \citep{lewis/challinor/lasenby:2000} for the

1518: maximum likelihood parameters given in Table~1 of

1519: \citet{komatsu/etal:prep} (''WMAP+BAO+SN''). 

1520: The ingredients of the non-linear power spectra, $P_{\delta\delta}$,

1521: $P_{\delta\theta}$, and $P_{\theta\theta}$, have been precomputed

1522: from the linear spectrum at $z=30$. 

1523: These spectra are then evolved to a specified redshift by the

1524: appropriate growth factor obtained by solving the differential equation

1525: given in Eq.~(76) of \citet{komatsu/etal:prep}.

1526: 

1527: Finally, the code yields the errors on $\ln D_A$, $\ln H$, $r_{D_A,H}$,

1528: and $\ln R$ (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigmaR2}) for the definition of the error

1529: in the combined distance scale, $R$).

1530: 

1531: 

1532: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1533: 

1534: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Afshordi, Loh, \& Strauss}{Afshordi

1535:   et~al.}{2004}]{afshordi/loh/strauss:2004}

1536: Afshordi, N., Loh, Y.-S.,  \& Strauss, M.~A. 2004, Phys. Rev., D69, 083524

1537: 

1538: \bibitem[Alcock 

1539: \& Paczynski(1979)]{alcock/paczynski:1979} Alcock, C., \& Paczynski, B.\ 1979, \nat, 281, 358

1540: 

1541: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Angulo} et~al.}{{Angulo}

1542:   et~al.}{2008}]{angulo/etal:2008}

1543: {Angulo}, R.~E., {Baugh}, C.~M., {Frenk}, C.~S.,  \& {Lacey}, C.~G. 2008,

1544:   \mnras, 383, 755

1545: 

1546: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Ballinger}, {Peacock}, \&

1547:   {Heavens}}{{Ballinger} et~al.}{1996}]{ballinger/peacock/heavens:1996}

1548: {Ballinger}, W.~E., {Peacock}, J.~A.,  \& {Heavens}, A.~F. 1996, \mnras, 282,

1549:   877

1550: 

1551: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Benson} et~al.}{{Benson}

1552:   et~al.}{2003}]{benson/etal:2003}

1553: {Benson}, A.~J., {Bower}, R.~G., {Frenk}, C.~S., {Lacey}, C.~G., {Baugh},

1554:   C.~M.,  \& {Cole}, S. 2003, \apj, 599, 38

1555: 

1556: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Blake} \& {Glazebrook}}{{Blake} \&

1557:   {Glazebrook}}{2003}]{blake/glazebrook:2003}

1558: {Blake}, C.,  \& {Glazebrook}, K. 2003, \apj, 594, 665

1559: 

1560: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Boughn} \& {Crittenden}}{{Boughn} \&

1561:   {Crittenden}}{2004}]{boughn/crittenden:2004}

1562: {Boughn}, S.,  \& {Crittenden}, R. 2004, \nat, 427, 45

1563: 

1564: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bower} et~al.}{{Bower}

1565:   et~al.}{2006}]{bower/etal:2006}

1566: {Bower}, R.~G., {Benson}, A.~J., {Malbon}, R., {Helly}, J.~C., {Frenk}, C.~S.,

1567:   {Baugh}, C.~M., {Cole}, S.,  \& {Lacey}, C.~G. 2006, \mnras, 370, 645

1568: 

1569: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chevallier \& Polarski}{Chevallier \&

1570:   Polarski}{2001}]{chevallier/polarski:2001}

1571: Chevallier, M.,  \& Polarski, D. 2001, Int. J. Mod. Phys., D10, 213

1572: 

1573: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cole} et~al.}{{Cole}

1574:   et~al.}{2000}]{cole/etal:2000}

1575: {Cole}, S., {Lacey}, C.~G., {Baugh}, C.~M.,  \& {Frenk}, C.~S. 2000, \mnras,

1576:   319, 168

1577: 

1578: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cole} et~al.}{{Cole}

1579:   et~al.}{2005}]{cole/etal:2005}

1580: {Cole}, S., et~al. 2005, \mnras, 362, 505

1581: 

1582: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Copeland, Sami, \& Tsujikawa}{Copeland

1583:   et~al.}{2006}]{copeland/sami/tsujikawa:2006}

1584: Copeland, E.~J., Sami, M.,  \& Tsujikawa, S. 2006, Int. J. Mod. Phys., D15,

1585:   1753

1586: 

1587: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Crocce} \& {Scoccimarro}}{{Crocce} \&

1588:   {Scoccimarro}}{2008}]{crocce/scoccimarro:2008}

1589: {Crocce}, M.,  \& {Scoccimarro}, R. 2008, \prd, 77, 023533

1590: 

1591: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Davis} \& {Peebles}}{{Davis} \&

1592:   {Peebles}}{1983}]{davis/peebles:1983}

1593: {Davis}, M.,  \& {Peebles}, P.~J.~E. 1983, \apj, 267, 465

1594: 

1595: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Dunkley} et~al.}{{Dunkley}

1596:   et~al.}{2008}]{dunkley/etal:prep}

1597: {Dunkley}, J., et~al. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 803

1598: 

1599: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Eisenstein}, {Hu}, \& {Tegmark}}{{Eisenstein}

1600:   et~al.}{1999}]{eisenstein/hu/tegmark:1999}

1601: {Eisenstein}, D.~J., {Hu}, W.,  \& {Tegmark}, M. 1999, \apj, 518, 2

1602: 

1603: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Eisenstein}, {Seo}, \& {White}}{{Eisenstein}

1604:   et~al.}{2007}]{eisenstein/seo:2007}

1605: {Eisenstein}, D.~J., {Seo}, H.-J.,  \& {White}, M. 2007, \apj, 664, 660

1606: 

1607: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Eisenstein} et~al.}{{Eisenstein}

1608:   et~al.}{2005}]{eisenstein/etal:2005}

1609: {Eisenstein}, D.~J., et~al. 2005, \apj, 633, 560

1610: 

1611: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Evrard} et~al.}{{Evrard}

1612:   et~al.}{2002}]{evrard/etal:2002}

1613: {Evrard}, A.~E., et~al. 2002, \apj, 573, 7

1614: 

1615: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Fry} \& {Gaztanaga}}{{Fry} \&

1616:   {Gaztanaga}}{1993}]{fry/gaztanaga:1993}

1617: {Fry}, J.~N.,  \& {Gaztanaga}, E. 1993, \apj, 413, 447

1618: 

1619: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Heavens}, {Matarrese}, \& {Verde}}{{Heavens}

1620:   et~al.}{1998}]{heavens/matarrese/verde:1998}

1621: {Heavens}, A.~F., {Matarrese}, S.,  \& {Verde}, L. 1998, \mnras, 301, 797

1622: 

1623: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{{Hill}, G.~J. and {Gebhardt}, K. and

1624:   {Komatsu}, E. and {MacQueen}, P.~J. }}{{{Hill}, G.~J. and {Gebhardt}, K. and

1625:   {Komatsu}, E. and {MacQueen}, P.~J. }}{2004}]{hill/etal:2004}

1626: {{Hill}, G.~J. and {Gebhardt}, K. and {Komatsu}, E. and {MacQueen}, P.~J. }.

1627:   2004, {American Institute of Physics Conference Series}, 743, 224

1628: 

1629: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hinshaw} et~al.}{{Hinshaw}

1630:   et~al.}{2008}]{hinshaw/etal:prep}

1631: {Hinshaw}, G., et~al. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 803

1632: 

1633: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hu} \& {Haiman}}{{Hu} \&

1634:   {Haiman}}{2003}]{hu/haiman:2003}

1635: {Hu}, W.,  \& {Haiman}, Z. 2003, \prd, 68, 063004

1636: 

1637: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{H{\"u}tsi}}{{H{\"u}tsi}}{2006}]{hutsi:2006}

1638: {H{\"u}tsi}, G. 2006, \aap, 449, 891

1639: 

1640: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Jeong} \& {Komatsu}}{{Jeong} \&

1641:   {Komatsu}}{2006}]{jeong/komatsu:2006}

1642: {Jeong}, D.,  \& {Komatsu}, E. 2006, \apj, 651, 619

1643: 

1644: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Jeong} \& {Komatsu}}{{Jeong} \&

1645:   {Komatsu}}{2008}]{jeong/komatsu:2008}

1646: {Jeong}, D.,  \& {Komatsu}, E. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 805

1647: 

1648: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kaiser}}{{Kaiser}}{1987}]{kaiser:1987}

1649: {Kaiser}, N. 1987, \mnras, 227, 1

1650: 

1651: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Koehler}, {Schuecker}, \&

1652:   {Gebhardt}}{{Koehler} et~al.}{2007}]{koehler/schuecker/gebhardt:2007}

1653: {Koehler}, R.~S., {Schuecker}, P.,  \& {Gebhardt}, K. 2007, \aap, 462, 7

1654: 

1655: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Komatsu} et~al.}{{Komatsu}

1656:   et~al.}{2008}]{komatsu/etal:prep}

1657: {Komatsu}, E., et~al. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 803

1658: 

1659: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kowalski} et~al.}{{Kowalski}

1660:   et~al.}{2008}]{kowalski/etal:prep}

1661: {Kowalski}, E., et~al. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 804

1662: 

1663: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lewis}, {Challinor} \& {Lasenby}}{{Lewis}, {Challinor} \& {Lasenby}}{2000}]{lewis/challinor/lasenby:2000} Lewis, A., Challinor, A., 

1664: \& Lasenby, A.\ 2000, \apj, 538, 473

1665: 

1666: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Linder}{Linder}{2003}]{linder:2003}

1667: Linder, E.~V. 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 091301

1668: 

1669: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Matarrese} \& {Pietroni}}{{Matarrese} \&

1670:   {Pietroni}}{2007}]{matarrese/pietroni:2007}

1671: {Matarrese}, S.,  \& {Pietroni}, M. 2007, Journal of Cosmology and

1672:   Astro-Particle Physics, 6, 26

1673: 

1674: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Matsubara}}{{Matsubara}}{2008}]{matsubara:20%

1675: 08}

1676: {Matsubara}, T. 2008, \prd, 77, 063530

1677: 

1678: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{McDonald}}{{McDonald}}{2006}]{mcdonald:2006}

1679: {McDonald}, P. 2006, \prd, 74, 103512

1680: 

1681: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{McDonald}}{{McDonald}}{2007}]{mcdonald:2007}

1682: {McDonald}, P. 2007, \prd, 75, 043514

1683: 

1684: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Nishimichi} et~al.}{{Nishimichi}

1685:   et~al.}{2007}]{nishimichi/etal:2007}

1686: {Nishimichi}, T., et~al. 2007, \pasj, 59, 1049

1687: 

1688: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Nolta} et~al.}{{Nolta}

1689:   et~al.}{2004}]{nolta/etal:2004}

1690: {Nolta}, M.~R., et~al. 2004, Astrophys. J., 608, 10

1691: 

1692: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Okumura} et~al.}{{Okumura}

1693:   et~al.}{2007}]{okumura/etal:prep}

1694: {Okumura}, T., {Matsubara}, T., {Eisenstein}, D.~J., {Kayo}, I., {Hikage}, C.,

1695:   {Szalay}, A.~S.,  \& {Schneider}, D.~P. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 711

1696: 

1697: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Padmanabhan} \& {White}}{{Padmanabhan} \&

1698:   {White}}{2008}]{padmanabhan/white:prep}

1699: {Padmanabhan}, N.,  \& {White}, M. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 804

1700: 

1701: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Peebles}}{{Peebles}}{1976}]{peebles:1976}

1702: {Peebles}, P.~J.~E. 1976, \apss, 45, 3

1703: 

1704: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Percival} et~al.}{{Percival}

1705:   et~al.}{2007}]{percival/etal:2007c}

1706: {Percival}, W.~J., {Cole}, S., {Eisenstein}, D.~J., {Nichol}, R.~C., {Peacock},

1707:   J.~A., {Pope}, A.~C.,  \& {Szalay}, A.~S. 2007, \mnras, 381, 1053

1708: 

1709: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Perlmutter} et~al.}{{Perlmutter}

1710:   et~al.}{1999}]{perlmutter/etal:1999}

1711: {Perlmutter}, S., et~al. 1999, \apj, 517, 565

1712: 

1713: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Riess} et~al.}{{Riess}

1714:   et~al.}{1998}]{riess/etal:1998}

1715: {Riess}, A.~G., et~al. 1998, \aj, 116, 1009

1716: 

1717: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sanchez}, {Baugh}, \& {Angulo}}{{Sanchez}

1718:   et~al.}{2008}]{sanchez/baugh/angulo:prep}

1719: {Sanchez}, A.~G., {Baugh}, C.~M.,  \& {Angulo}, R. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 804

1720: 

1721: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Scoccimarro}}{{Scoccimarro}}{2004}]{scoccima%

1722: rro:2004}

1723: {Scoccimarro}, R. 2004, \prd, 70, 083007

1724: 

1725: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sefusatti} \& {Komatsu}}{{Sefusatti} \&

1726:   {Komatsu}}{2007}]{sefusatti/komatsu:2007}

1727: {Sefusatti}, E.,  \& {Komatsu}, E. 2007, \prd, 76, 083004

1728: 

1729: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Seo} \& {Eisenstein}}{{Seo} \&

1730:   {Eisenstein}}{2003}]{seo/eisenstein:2003}

1731: {Seo}, H.-J.,  \& {Eisenstein}, D.~J. 2003, \apj, 598, 720

1732: 

1733: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Seo \& Eisenstein}{Seo \&

1734:   Eisenstein}{2005}]{seo/eisenstein:2005}

1735: Seo, H.-J.,  \& Eisenstein, D.~J. 2005, Astrophys. J., 633, 575

1736: 

1737: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Seo} \& {Eisenstein}}{{Seo} \&

1738:   {Eisenstein}}{2007}]{seo/eisenstein:2007}

1739: {Seo}, H.-J.,  \& {Eisenstein}, D.~J. 2007, \apj, 665, 14

1740: 

1741: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Seo} et~al.}{{Seo}

1742:   et~al.}{2008}]{seo/etal:2008}

1743: {Seo}, H.-J., {Siegel}, E.~R., {Eisenstein}, D.~J.,  \& {White}, M. 2008, ArXiv

1744:   e-prints, 805

1745: 

1746: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Smith}, {Scoccimarro}, \& {Sheth}}{{Smith}

1747:   et~al.}{2008}]{smith/scoccimarro/sheth:2008}

1748: {Smith}, R.~E., {Scoccimarro}, R.,  \& {Sheth}, R.~K. 2008, \prd, 77, 043525

1749: 

1750: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Springel} et~al.}{{Springel}

1751:   et~al.}{2005}]{springel/etal:2005}

1752: {Springel}, V., et~al. 2005, \nat, 435, 629

1753: 

1754: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Taruya} \& {Hiramatsu}}{{Taruya} \&

1755:   {Hiramatsu}}{2008}]{taruya/hiramatsu:2008}

1756: {Taruya}, A.,  \& {Hiramatsu}, T. 2008, \apj, 674, 617

1757: 

1758: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Valageas}}{{Valageas}}{2007}]{valageas:2007}

1759: {Valageas}, P. 2007, \aap, 465, 725

1760: 

1761: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Wagner}, {M{\"u}ller}, \&

1762:   {Steinmetz}}{{Wagner} et~al.}{2007}]{wagner/muller/steinmetz:prep}

1763: {Wagner}, C., {M{\"u}ller}, V.,  \& {Steinmetz}, M. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 705

1764: 

1765: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Weinberg}{Weinberg}{2008}]{weinberg:COS}

1766: Weinberg, S. 2008, Cosmology (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press)

1767: 

1768: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Yamamoto} et~al.}{{Yamamoto} et~al.}{2005}]{yamamoto/etal:2005} Yamamoto, K., Bassett, 

1769: B.~A., \& Nishioka, H.\ 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 051301 

1770: 

1771: 

1772: \end{thebibliography}

1773: 

1774: 

1775: 

1776: 

1777: 

1778: 

1779: 

1780: \end{document}

1781: 

1782: 

1783: