1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%%%%% template.tex for PTPTeX.cls <ver.0.9> %%%%%
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: \documentclass[seceq]{ptptex}
5: %\documentclass[letter]{ptptex}
6: %\documentclass[seceq,supplement]{ptptex}
7: %\documentclass[seceq,addenda]{ptptex}
8: %\documentclass[seceq,errata]{ptptex}
9: %\documentclass[seceq,preprint]{ptptex}
10:
11: \usepackage{graphicx}
12: \usepackage{wrapft}
13:
14: %%%%% Personal Macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15:
16: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
17:
18: %\pubinfo{Vol.~11X, No.~X, Mmmmm YYYY}%Editorial Office will fill in this.
19: %\setcounter{page}{} %Editorial Office will fill in this.
20: %\def\ptype{p} %Editorial Office will fill in this.
21: %\def\ptpsubject{} %Editorial Office will fill in this.
22: %\def\pageinfo{X-X} %Editorial Office will fill in this.
23: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
24: %\nofigureboxrule %to eliminate the rule of \figurebox
25: %\notypesetlogo %comment in if to eliminate PTPTeX
26: %---- When [preprint] you can put preprint number at top right corner.
27: %\preprintnumber[3cm]{%<-- [..]: optional width of preprint # column.
28: %KUNS-1325\\PTPTeX ver.0.8\\ August, 1997}
29: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
30:
31: \markboth{% %running head for even-page (authors' name)
32: K. Yamamoto, T. Sato, and G. H\"utsi
33: }{% %running head for odd-page (`short' title)
34: Testing general relativity with the multipole spectra
35: }
36:
37: \title{% %You can use \\ for explicit line-break
38: Testing general relativity with the multipole spectra
39: of the SDSS luminous red galaxies
40: }
41:
42: %\subtitle{Subtitle} %use this when you want a subtitle
43:
44: \author{% %Use \scshape for the family name
45: \textsc{Kazuhiro Yamamoto}${}^1$, \textsc{Takahiro Sato}${}^1$,
46: \textsc{Gert H\"utsi}${}^{2,3}$}
47:
48: \inst{% %Affiliation, neglected when [addenda] or [errata]
49: $^1$Department of Physical Sciences, Hiroshima University,
50: Higashi-hiroshima, 739-8526, Japan
51: \\
52: $^{2}$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT\\
53: $^{3}$Tartu Observatory, EE-61602 T\~oravere, Estonia
54: }
55:
56:
57: \abst{% %this abstract is neglected when [addenda] or [errata]
58: As a test of general relativity on cosmological scales, we
59: measure the $\gamma$ parameter for the growth rate of density
60: perturbations using the redshift-space distortion of the luminous
61: red galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS).
62: Assuming the cosmological constant model, which
63: matches the results of the WMAP experiment,
64: { we find $\gamma=0.62+1.8(\sigma_8-0.8) \pm 0.11$ at 1-sigma
65: confidence level, which is consistent with the prediction of
66: general relativity, $\gamma\simeq0.55\sim0.56$.
67: Rather high value of $\sigma_8(\geq0.87)$ is required
68: to be consistent with the prediction of the cosmological
69: DGP model,
70: $\gamma\simeq0.68$}.}
71:
72: \begin{document}
73:
74: \maketitle
75:
76: %\section{Introduction}
77: {\it Introduction}~--~
78: Modified gravity models, e.g., $f(R)$ gravity, TeVeS theory,
79: DGP model, have been proposed as possible alternatives
80: to the dark energy model. Although these models might not be complete,
81: they pose ambitious challenges to the fundamental physics,
82: suggesting one to go beyond the standard model.
83: In fact, a lot of dark energy surveys are already under
84: progress.\cite{DETF,European}
85: Testing the theory of gravity on cosmological scales will surely
86: become one of the important objectives of these future large surveys.
87: \cite{Linder2006,IshakSpergel,YamamotoA,YamamotoB}.
88:
89: Measurement of the growth of density perturbations
90: will be the key for testing the gravity theory.
91: \cite{Linder2005,Amendola,Heavens,MaartensKoyama,KunzSapone,
92: JainZhang,Chiba,Koyama08,Uzan}. Several authors have already investigated
93: the growth of density perturbations as a way of
94: constraining these theories.
95: \cite{NesserisPerivolaropoulos,PortoAmendola,Wang}.
96: In the future weak lensing statistics will be a promising probe of the
97: density perturbations, while the redshift-space distortions
98: may also be useful for constraining the growth rate of
99: perturbations \cite{Linder,SaponeAmendola}.
100: Recently, Guzzo, et al. have reported a constraint on the growth rate
101: by evaluating the anisotropic correlation function of the galaxy
102: sample from the VIMOS-VLT Deep Survey (VVDS) \cite{Guzzo}.
103:
104: The characteristic redshift of the VVDS galaxy sample is rather large.
105: However, the survey area of the VVDS sample is small.
106: This is a disadvantage in detecting the linear redshift-space
107: distortions. In the present paper, we use the Sloan Digital Sky
108: Survey (SDSS) luminous red galaxy (LRG) sample from the Data Release 5,
109: whose survey area is around 5000 square degrees.
110: In this letter, we present the results of the multipole power
111: spectrum analysis for the SDSS LRG sample, and subsequently use it to
112: measure the $\gamma$ parameter for the growth rate of density
113: perturbations. This gives a simple test of general relativity.
114: Throughout this paper, we use the units where the light speed
115: equals 1.
116:
117:
118: %\section{Measurement of the quadrupole spectrum}
119: {\it Measurement of the quadrupole spectrum}~--~
120: The (linear) growth rate is defined by $f=d\ln D_1/d\ln a$, where
121: $D_1$ is the growth factor, and $a$ is the scale factor.
122: Due to the continuity equation of the matter density the linear
123: velocity field is related to the time derivative of the
124: matter density contrast, which itself is proportional to the growth
125: factor $D_1$.
126: %by
127: %$\div \vec V \propto aH(a) fD_1$,
128: %where $H(a)$ is the Hubble expansion rate.
129: The peculiar velocity of galaxies contaminates the observed
130: redshift, which leads to the difference in the radial position
131: if the redshift is taken as the indicator of the distance.
132: This causes the difference in the spatial clustering
133: between redshift space and real space, which is called
134: the redshift-space distortion. The power spectrum including
135: the redshift-space distortion can be modeled as (e.g., \citen{PD96PD94})
136: %\begin{eqnarray*}
137: $
138: P(k,\mu)=(b(k)+f\mu^2)^2 P_{\rm mass}(k) {\cal D}(k,\mu)$,
139: %\end{eqnarray*}
140: where $\mu$ is the directional cosine between the line of sight
141: direction and the wave number vector, $b(k)$ is the bias factor,
142: $P_{\rm mass}(k)$ is the mass power spectrum, ${\cal D}(k,\mu)$
143: describes the damping factor due to the finger of God effect.
144:
145: Thus, the redshift-space distortion causes the anisotropy
146: of the clustering amplitude depending on $\mu$.
147: The multipole power spectra are defined by the coefficients
148: of the multipole expansion \cite{TH,YamamotoN}
149: %\begin{eqnarray*}
150: $P(k,\mu)=\sum_{\ell=0,2,\cdots} P_\ell(k) {\cal L}_\ell(\mu)(2\ell+1)$,
151: %\end{eqnarray*}
152: where ${\cal L}_\ell(\mu)$ are the Legendre
153: polynomials.\footnote{Note that our definition of the
154: multipole spectrum $P_\ell(k)$ is different from the conventional
155: definition by the factor $2\ell+1$.}
156: The monopole $P_0(k)$ represents the angular averaged
157: power spectrum and is usually what we mean by the power
158: spectrum. $P_2(k)$ is the quadrupole spectrum, which gives
159: the leading anisotropic contribution. The usefulness of
160: the quadrupole spectrum for the dark energy is discussed in
161: \citen{YamamotoPRL}.
162:
163: Within the linear theory of density perturbations,
164: the ratio of the quadrupole to the monopole is given by
165: %\begin{eqnarray*}
166: %{P_2(k)\over P_0(k)}={1\over 5}{
167: %%\displaystyle
168: %{{4\over 3}{f\over b(k)}+{4\over 7}{f^2\over b(k)^2}}
169: %\over
170: %%\displaystyle
171: %{1+{2\over 3}{f\over b(k)}+{1\over 5}{f^2\over b(k)^2}}}.
172: %\end{eqnarray*}
173: %\begin{eqnarray*}
174: ${P_2(k)/ P_0(k)}=
175: [{4\beta/ 3}+{4\beta^2/7}]/
176: 5[1+{2\beta/3}+{\beta^2/ 5}]$,
177: %\end{eqnarray*}
178: where $\beta=f/b(k)$.
179: Thus, we can measure the growth rate from the quadrupole-monopole ratio.
180: However, there are two difficulties to perform this method.
181: The first is the clustering bias $b(k)$, for which we need other
182: independent information.
183: The second is the effect of nonlinear velocity, the finger
184: of God effect, which significantly contaminates the quadrupole spectrum,
185: as one can see in Figure 1-b.
186:
187: In the present work we measured the monopole and quadrupole
188: power spectra in the clustering of the SDSS DR5 luminous red
189: galaxy sample. The galaxy sample used in our analysis
190: consists of 64867 galaxies over the survey area of 4780 deg${}^2$
191: and redshift range $0.16\leq z\leq 0.47$.\cite{HutsiAB}.
192: We have excluded the southern survey stripes since these just increase the
193: sidelobes of the survey window without adding much of the extra volume.
194: We have also removed some minor parts of the LRG sample to obtain more
195: continuous and smooth chunk of volume.
196:
197: The scheme to measure the monopole and the quadrupole
198: spectrum is the same as the one described in reference \citen{YamamotoN}.
199: In this analysis we adopted the comoving distance of the
200: fiducial model, which we assumed to be a flat universe with the
201: cosmological constant and matter density parameter $\Omega_m=0.3$.
202: In our power spectrum analysis we fixed
203: the weight function equal to 1.
204:
205: Figure 1-a shows the monopole spectrum. The error
206: bars correspond to the $1$-sigma errors. The result is consistent
207: with the previous measurement by H\"utsi in reference \citen{HutsiAB},
208: which is also plotted in this figure for comparison.
209: As discussed in reference \citen{HutsiAB}, the monopole spectrum
210: reveals the baryon acoustic oscillation feature.
211:
212: Figure 1-b plots the ratio of the quadrupole to the monopole.
213: The quadrupole spectrum changes the signature at the wave number
214: $k\sim 0.3~h{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. This is because the finger of God
215: effect becomes significant on small scales.
216: The solid curve is the theoretical curve for the
217: $\Lambda$CDM model with $\Omega_m=0.3$,
218: $n_s=0.96$ (initial spectral index),
219: $\sigma_8=0.8$, $h=0.7$, $\gamma=0.56$ and $\sigma_v=360$km/s
220: (see also below), and assumes a clustering bias
221: $b(k)=1.2[1+0.2(k/0.1h{\rm Mpc}^{-1})^{1/2}]$.
222:
223:
224: \begin{figure}
225: \leavevmode
226: \begin{center}
227: \begin{tabular}{ c c }
228: \includegraphics[width=2.6in,angle=0]{f1a.eps}
229: &
230: \includegraphics[width=2.6in,angle=0]{f1b.eps}
231: \end{tabular}
232: \caption{ (a,~Left)
233: Monopole power spectrum as a function of the wave number.
234: The dark (black) points represent this work, the light (green) points
235: the previous result \cite{HutsiAB}. (b,~Right) Quadrupole power spectrum
236: divided by the monopole spectrum. The solid curve is the theoretical
237: curve of the $\Lambda$CDM model.}
238: \label{fig:modifiedgravityone}
239: %}
240: \end{center}
241: \end{figure}
242:
243:
244:
245:
246: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
247: %\section{Testing the growth rate}
248: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
249: {\it Testing the growth rate}~--~
250: By using the quadrupole spectrum, we perform a simple test
251: of the gravity theory. In particular, we focus on the $\gamma$ parameter,
252: which is introduced to parameterise the growth rate as,
253: %\begin{eqnarray*}
254: $ f\equiv{d\ln D_1(a)/ d\ln a} = \Omega_m(a)^\gamma$,
255: %\label{growthr}
256: %\end{eqnarray*}
257: where $\Omega_m(a)=H_0^2\Omega_m a^{-3}/H(a)^2$, $H(a)=\dot a/a$ is
258: the Hubble expansion rate, $H_0(=100 h{\rm km/s/Mpc})$
259: is the Hubble parameter.
260: %, and $\Omega_m$ is the matter density parameter.
261:
262: Measurement of $\gamma$ provides a simple test of the gravity theory.
263: Within general relativity, even with the dark energy component,
264: $\gamma$ takes the value around $\gamma\simeq0.55$ \cite{Linder2005}.
265: However, $\gamma$ may take different
266: values in modified gravity models. For example, $\gamma\simeq 0.68$,
267: in the cosmological DGP model including a self-acceleration
268: mechanism. Thus, the measurement of $\gamma$ is a simple
269: test of general relativity.
270:
271: As mentioned in the previous section, we need to take the
272: clustering bias and the finger of God effect into account.
273: %
274: For the finger of God effect we adopt the following
275: form of ${\cal D}(k,\mu)$, the damping due to the nonlinear
276: random velocity,
277: %\begin{eqnarray*}
278: ${\cal D}(k,\mu)={1/[ 1+(k\mu \sigma_v/H_0)^2/2]}$,
279: %\end{eqnarray*}
280: where $\sigma_v$ is the one dimensional pairwise velocity dispersion
281: (e.g., \citen{MJB}).
282: This form of the damping assumes an exponential distribution function
283: for the pairwise peculiar velocity.
284: %
285: In order to determine the clustering bias, we simply
286: fix the value of $\sigma_8$. If $\sigma_8$ is fixed, and
287: the cosmological parameters and the clustering bias are given,
288: we can compute the monopole spectrum $P_0^{\rm theor}(k)$ with
289: %\begin{eqnarray*}
290: $P_\ell(k)={1\over 2}\int_{-1}^1 d\mu P(k,\mu) {\cal L}_\ell(\mu)$,
291: %\end{eqnarray*}
292: where we use the Peacock and Dodds formula for
293: the mass power spectrum $P_{\rm mass}(k)$ \cite{PD96PD94}.
294: We determine the clustering bias $b(k_i)$ through the condition
295: $P_0^{\rm obs}(k_i)=P_0^{\rm theor}(k_i)$ using a numerical method.
296: Here $P^{\rm obs}_0(k_i)$ is the measured value of the monopole
297: at wave number $k_i$, and $P^{\rm theor}_0(k_i)$ is the
298: corresponding theoretical value.
299: Figure 2 exemplifies the bias obtained by the above method
300: for the cases of $\sigma_8$ fixed as $\sigma_8=0.9,~0.8,~0.7$.
301:
302: \begin{wrapfigure}{l}{8.cm}
303: % \leavevmode
304: % \begin{center}
305: % \includegraphics[width=2.6in,angle=0]{cn7ptp.eps}
306: \includegraphics[width=2.6in,angle=0]{f2.eps}
307: % \figurebox{60mm}{6cm}
308: \caption{
309: The bias $b(k_i)$ obtained from our numerical method.
310: The three curves correspond to $\sigma_8=0.9,~0.8,~0.7$ and
311: the other parameters are the same as those of Figure 1-b.
312: For the case $\sigma_8=0.8$ the errors are estimated
313: from those of $P(k_i)$. The dashed curve is
314: $b(k)=1.2[1+0.2(k/0.1h{\rm Mpc}^{-1})^{1/2}]$.
315: }
316: \label{fig:bias}
317: %}
318: %\end{center}
319: \end{wrapfigure}
320:
321:
322: We used the monopole spectrum to determine the bias, and
323: the quadrupole spectrum to obtain constraints on
324: $\gamma$ and $\sigma_v$. Since the galaxy sample covers rather
325: broad redshift range, $0.16\leq z\leq 0.47$,
326: the effect of the time-evolution (light-cone effect) should
327: be considered properly.\cite{YamamotoSuto}
328: However, for simplicity, we here evaluated
329: the theoretical spectra at the mean redshift of $z=0.31$.
330:
331: %The linear redshift-space distortion is determined by
332: %the parameter
333: %\begin{eqnarray*}
334: % \beta(a)={1\over b(a)} {d\ln D_1(a)\over d\ln a},
335: %\end{eqnarray*}
336: %where $b(a)$ is the clustering bias amplitude. Thus, the bias
337: %contaminates the linear redshift-space distortion, and we must
338: %determine the clustering bias amplitude to measure the $\beta$
339: %parameter.
340: %In principle, $\beta$ can be determined using the monopole
341: %power spectrum, the quadrupole power spectrum and other
342: %independent information of the matter clustering amplitude
343: %\cite{Guzzo}.
344:
345: Figure 3-a demonstrates the contours of $\Delta \chi^2$ in the
346: $\gamma$ versus $\sigma_v$ parameter plane. We compute
347: $\chi^2$ as
348: %\begin{eqnarray*}
349: $\chi^2={\sum}_i{{[P^{\rm obs}_2(k_i)-P^{\rm theor}_2(k_i)]^2}
350: %\over
351: %\\
352: /{[\Delta P_2^{\rm obs}(k_i)]^2}}$,
353: %\end{eqnarray*}
354: where $P^{\rm obs}_2(k_i)$ and $\Delta P^{\rm obs}_2(k_i)$ are the
355: measured values and errors as plotted in Figure 1-b.
356: $P^{\rm theor}_2(k_i)$ are the corresponding theoretical values.
357: The solid curves assume $\sigma_8=0.8$, while the dotted (dashed)
358: ones $\sigma_8=0.7$ ($\sigma_8=0.9$). The other
359: parameters are fixed as $\Omega_m=0.28$, \footnote{As
360: the observed power spectra are obtained by adopting the
361: distance-redshift relation of the fiducial model, the flat
362: $\Lambda$CDM model with $\Omega_m=0.3$,
363: the cosmological distortion effect is taken into account
364: properly in our theoretical computation \cite{Ballinger,Matsubara}. }
365: $n_s=0.96$, $h=0.7$.\cite{Komatsu}
366: %
367: In Figure 3-a we plot the contour levels of $\Delta\chi^2=2.3$
368: (inner curves) and 6.2 (outer curves), which correspond to
369: the 1-sigma and 2-sigma confidence levels of the $\chi^2$ distribution.
370: Clearly, the higher value of $\sigma_8$ favours higher value for $\gamma$.
371: {We find $\gamma=0.62+1.8(\sigma_8-0.8) \pm 0.11~(\pm0.19)$ and
372: $\sigma_v=367+80(\sigma_8-0.8) \pm 16~(\pm27)$~km/s
373: at $68~(90)$ percent confidence level, respectively.}
374: The value of $\gamma$ is consistent with general relativity.
375: The result is not sensitive to the inclusion of the baryon oscillation
376: in the theoretical power spectrum.
377:
378: The relation of $\gamma$ and $\sigma_8$ can be understood as
379: the degeneracy between $\sigma_8$ and the growth rate $f$
380: in the following way. As the observed power spectra can be roughly written as
381: $P^{\rm obs}_0\propto b^2(k)\sigma_8^2 D^2_1(z)/D^2_1(z=0)$ and
382: $P^{\rm obs}_2\propto b(k)f\sigma_8^2 D_1^2(z)/D_1^2(z=0)$,
383: the degeneracy between $\sigma_8$ and the growth rate
384: $f$ (or $\gamma$) in our method is given by
385: %\begin{eqnarray*}
386: $ f\sigma_8 {D_1(z)/ D_1(z=0)}={\rm constant}$.
387: %\end{eqnarray*}
388:
389:
390: Figure 3-b is the analogue of Figure 3-a, with the expansion
391: history now taken to be that of the spatially flat DGP model,
392: which follows $H^2(a) -H(a)/r_c=8\pi G\rho/3$, where $\rho$
393: is the matter density and $r_c=H_0/(1-\Omega_m)$ is the
394: crossover scale related to the 5-dimensional Planck mass.
395: The expansion history in this model can be well approximated by the dark
396: energy model with the equation of state parameter $w(a)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$,
397: where $w_0=-0.78$ and $w_a=0.32$, as long as $\Omega_m\sim 0.3$
398: \cite{Linder2005}.
399: However, the Poisson equation is modified, and the growth history
400: is approximated by the formula with $\gamma\simeq0.68$.
401: In order to be consistent with $\gamma=0.68$, Figure 3-b requires
402: higher value of $\sigma_8$ as compared to the $\Lambda$CDM case.
403: {We find $\gamma=0.47+1.7(\sigma_8-0.8) \pm 0.09$ at $68$
404: percent confidence level, which requires $\sigma_8\geq0.87$}.
405:
406: The pair-wise velocity dispersion measured in this work is
407: somewhat smaller than the theoretical model in the reference
408: \cite{MJB}.
409: Li, et al. investigated the pair-wise velocity of the SDSS
410: galaxies \cite{Li}. Their analysis is limited since it
411: is based on galaxies with redshifts less than 0.3, however,
412: they report the dependence of the pairwise velocity dispersion on galaxy
413: properties and also on scales.
414:
415:
416: %\section{Conclusion}
417: {\it Conclusion}~--~
418: In summary, we measured the monopole and quadrupole spectra in the spatial
419: clustering of the SDSS LRG galaxy sample from DR5. The monopole spectrum
420: is consistent with the previous result by H\"utsi. Using the quadrupole
421: spectrum, we measured the $\gamma$ parameter for the linear growth
422: rate and the pair-wise peculiar velocity dispersion.
423: The measurement of $\gamma$ provides a simple test of general relativity.
424: The measured value of $\gamma$ is consistent with general
425: relativity, however, it is inconsistent with the cosmological DGP model,
426: $\gamma\simeq0.68$, {as long as $\sigma_8<0.87$}.
427: If a constraint on $\sigma_8$ from other independent sources,
428: e.g., the cosmic microwave background anisotropies, is included,
429: we would be able to obtain tighter constraint on the DGP model
430: \cite{Starkman}.
431: %
432: The constraint on $\gamma$ can be applied to other modified
433: gravity models, given that the value of $\gamma$ which
434: characterizes a particular model is found, as discussed
435: by Linder and Cahn \cite{LC} (cf. \cite{PolarskiAPolarskiB}).
436: In this work we only considered a spatially flat model
437: and fixed the cosmological parameters so as to match with
438: the results of the WMAP experiment.
439: The constraint on $\gamma$ will be weakened by including the
440: uncertainties of the cosmological model, e.g., the dark energy
441: properties.
442:
443:
444:
445: \begin{figure}[t]
446: \leavevmode
447: \begin{center}
448: \begin{tabular}{ c c }
449: \includegraphics[width=2.4in,angle=0]{f3a.eps}
450: &
451: \includegraphics[width=2.4in,angle=0]{f3b.eps}
452: \end{tabular}
453: \caption{ (a,~Left)
454: $\Delta\chi^2$ in the $\gamma$-$\sigma_v$ plane.
455: We fixed the normalization of the mass power spectrum
456: as $\sigma_8=0.7$ (dotted curves), $\sigma_8=0.8$
457: (solid curves), and $\sigma_8=0.9$ (dashed curves), respectively.
458: The contour levels are $\Delta\chi^2=2.3$
459: (inner curves) and 6.2 (outer curves), which correspond to
460: the 1-sigma and 2-sigma confidence levels of the $\chi^2$ distribution.
461: The other parameters are fixed as $\Omega_m=0.28$, $n_s=0.96$, and
462: $h=0.7$.\cite{Komatsu}
463: (b,~Right)
464: Same as the left (a), except here we used the expansion history of
465: the DGP model.
466: }
467: \end{center}
468: \end{figure}
469:
470:
471: \vspace{2mm}
472: %\section*{Acknowledgements}
473: {\it Acknowledgements}~
474: We would like to thank H.~Nishioka, Y.~Kojima and
475: Y.~Suto for useful
476: discussions and comments. We thank G.~Nakamura, K.~Koyama and R.~C.~Nichol for
477: useful comments and discussions on the earlier version of the manuscript.
478: This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid
479: for Scientific research of Japanese Ministry of Education,
480: Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (No. 18540277).
481:
482: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
483: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
484: % Some macros are available for the bibliography:
485: % o for general use
486: % \JL : general journals \andvol : Vol (Year) Page
487: % o for individual journal
488: % \AJ : Astrophys. J. \NC : Nuovo Cim.
489: % \ANN : Ann. of Phys. \NPA, \NPB : Nucl. Phys. [A,B]
490: % \CMP : Commun. Math. Phys. \PLA, \PLB : Phys. Lett. [A,B]
491: % \IJMP : Int. J. Mod. Phys. \PRA - \PRE : Phys. Rev. [A-E]
492: % \JHEP : J. High Energy Phys. \PRL : Phys. Rev. Lett.
493: % \JMP : J. Math. Phys. \PRP : Phys. Rep.
494: % \JP : J. of Phys. \PTP : Prog. Theor. Phys.
495: % \JPSJ : J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \PTPS : Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.
496: % Usage:
497: % \PRD{45,1990,345} ==> Phys.~Rev.\ D \textbf{45} (1990), 345
498: % \JL{Nature,418,2002,123} ==> Nature \textbf{418} (2002), 123
499: % \andvol{123,1995,1020} ==> \textbf{123} (1995), 1020
500: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
501: \bibitem{DETF}
502: A. Albrecht, et al., arXiv:astro-ph/0609591
503: \bibitem{European}
504: J. A. Peacock, et al., arXiv:astro-ph/0610906
505: \bibitem{Linder2006} D. Huterer, E. V. Linder,
506: \PRD{75,2007,023519}
507: \bibitem{IshakSpergel} M. Ishak, A. Upadhye, D. N. Spergel,
508: \PRD{74,2006,043513}
509: \bibitem{YamamotoA} K.Yamamoto, B.A.Bassett, R.C.Nichol, Y.Suto, K.Yahata
510: \PRD{74,2006,063525}
511: \bibitem{YamamotoB} K.Yamamoto, D.Parkinson, T.Hamana, R.C.Nichol, Y.Suto
512: \PRD{76,2007,023504}
513: \bibitem{Linder2005} E. V. Linder,
514: \PRD{72,2005,043529}
515: \bibitem{Amendola}L. Amendola, et al., %M. Kunz, D. Sapone,
516: Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 04 (2008), 013
517: \bibitem{Heavens} A. F. Heavens, T. D. Kitching, L. Verde,
518: MNRAS 380 (2007), 1029.
519: \bibitem{MaartensKoyama} K. Koyama, R. Maartens,
520: Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 01 (2006), 016
521: \bibitem{KunzSapone} M. Kunz, D. Sapone,
522: \PRL{98,2007,121301}
523: \bibitem{JainZhang} B. Jain, P. Zhang,
524: arXiv0709.2375
525: \bibitem{Chiba} T. Chiba, T. Nakamura,
526: \PTP{118,2007,815}
527: \bibitem{Koyama08} Y-S. Song, K. Koyama,
528: arXiv:0802.3897
529: \bibitem{Uzan} J-P. Uzan,
530: arXiv:astro-ph/0605313
531: \bibitem{NesserisPerivolaropoulos} S. Nesseris, L. Perivolaropoulos,
532: \PRD{77,2008,023504 }
533: \bibitem{PortoAmendola} C. di Porto, L. Amendola,
534: \PRD{77,2008,083508}
535: \bibitem{Wang} Y. Wang
536: Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, in press, 2007arXiv0710.3885
537: \bibitem{Linder} E. V. Linder,
538: arXiv:0709.1113
539: \bibitem{SaponeAmendola} D. Sapone, L. Amendola,
540: arXiv:0709.2792
541: \bibitem{Guzzo} L. Guzzo, et al.,
542: \JL{Nature,451,2008,541}
543: \bibitem{PD96PD94} J. A. Peacock, S. J. Dodds,
544: MNRAS 280 (1996), L19; MNRAS 267 (1994), 1020
545: %\bibitem{PD94} J. A. Peacock, S. J. Dodds,
546: \bibitem{TH} A. N. Taylor, A. J. S. Hamilton, MNRAS 282 (1996), 767
547: \bibitem{YamamotoN} K. Yamamoto, et~al.,
548: %M. Nakamichi, A. Kamino, B. A. Bassett, H. Nishioka,
549: Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 58 (2006), 93
550: \bibitem{YamamotoPRL} K. Yamamoto, B. A. Bassett, and H. Nishioka
551: \PRL{94,2005,051301}
552: \bibitem{HutsiAB} G. H\"utsi,
553: A\&A 449 (2006), 891; A\&A 459 (2006), 375
554: %\bibitem{HutsiB} G. H\"utsi,
555: %\bibitem{Percival} W. Percival, et al., ApJ, 657, (2007) 645
556: %\bibitem{Nishioka} H. Nishioka,
557: %private communication.
558: \bibitem{Ballinger}W. E. Ballinger, J. A. Peacock, A. F. Heavens,
559: MNRAS 282 (1996), 877
560: \bibitem{Matsubara}T. Matsubara, Y. Suto,
561: Astrophysical Journal 470 (1996), L1
562: \bibitem{MJB} H. J. Mo, Y. P. Jing, G. Boerner,
563: MNRAS 286 (1997), 979
564: \bibitem{YamamotoSuto}K. Yamamoto, Y. Suto,
565: Astrophysical Journal 517 (1999), 1
566: \bibitem{Komatsu} E. Komatsu, et al.,
567: arXiv:0803.0547
568: \bibitem{Li} C. Li, et al.,
569: MNRAS 368 (2006), 37
570: \bibitem{Starkman}
571: A. Lue, R. Scoccimarro, G. D. Starkman,
572: Phys.Rev. D69 (2004), 124015
573: \bibitem{LC}
574: E. V. Linder, R. N. Cahn,
575: Astroparticle Physics 28 (2007), 481
576: \bibitem{PolarskiAPolarskiB}
577: D. Polarski, R. Gannouji, arXiv:0710.1510;~
578: R. Gannouji, D. Polarski, arXiv:0802.4196
579: \end{thebibliography}
580:
581:
582: \end{document}
583:
584:
585:
586:
587:
588:
589:
590:
591:
592:
593:
594:
595:
596: