1: %% Lyx 1.4.3 created this file. For more info, see http://www.lyx.org/.
2: %% Do not edit unless you really know what you are doing.
3: %\documentclass[english,prd, twocolumn, nofootinbib]{revtex4}
4: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5: %\pdfoutput=1
6: %\usepackage{psfig}
7: %\slugcomment{Submitted to ApJLett}
8:
9: %\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
10: %\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
11: %\usepackage{amssymb}
12:
13: %\makeatletter
14:
15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LyX specific LaTeX coMmands.
16: %% bold symbol macro for standard LaTeX users
17: \providecommand{\boldsymbol}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}
18:
19: \def\etal{et al.\ }
20:
21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% User specified LaTeX commands.
22:
23: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
24: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
25:
26: %%\usepackage{fig}
27: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
28: % Include figure files
29:
30: %\topmargin 0.5cm
31:
32: %\newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
33: %\newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
34: %\newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
35: %\newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
36: %\newcommand{\om}{\Omega_m}
37: %\newcommand{\ome}{\Omega_e}
38: %\newcommand{\wt}{w_{\rm tot}}
39: %\newcommand{\winf}{w_\infty}
40: %\newcommand{\lang}{\langle}
41: %\newcommand{\rang}{\rangle}
42: %\newcommand{\rp}{\rho_\phi}
43: %\newcommand{\eps}{\epsilon}
44:
45: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
46: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
47: \newcommand{\lexp}{\mathop{\langle}}
48: \newcommand{\rexp}{\mathop{\rangle}}
49:
50: \newcommand{\rexpc}{\mathop{\rangle}}
51: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
52: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
53:
54: \def\vk{{\hbox{\bf k}}}
55: \def\vq{{\hbox{\bf q}}}
56: \def\vx{{\hbox{\bf x}}}
57: \def\vp{{\hbox{\bf p}}}
58: \def\dD{\delta_{\rm D}}
59: \def\d{{\rm d}}
60:
61: \def\Mpc{\, h^{-1} \, {\rm Mpc}}
62: \def\Gpc{\, h^{-1} \, {\rm Gpc}}
63: \def\Gpccube{\, h^{-3} \, {\rm Gpc}^3}
64: \def\kvecMpc{\, h \, {\rm Mpc}^{-1}}
65:
66: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}
67: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}
68: \def\fun#1#2{\lower3.6pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt\lineskip.9pt
69: \ialign{$\mathsurround=0pt#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
70: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
71: %\long\def\symbolfootnote[#1]#2{\begingroup%
72: %\def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}\footnote[#1]{#2}\endgroup}
73:
74: %\usepackage{babel}
75: %\makeatother
76: \begin{document}
77:
78: \title{Measuring Baryon Acoustic Oscillations along the line of sight with
79: photometric redshifts: the PAU survey}
80:
81: \shorttitle{The PAU Survey}
82: \shortauthors{Ben\'{\i}tez et al.}
83:
84: \author{
85: N.~Ben\'{\i}tez,\altaffilmark{1}
86: E.~Gazta\~naga,\altaffilmark{2}
87: R.~Miquel,\altaffilmark{3,4}
88: F.~Castander,\altaffilmark{2}
89: M.~Moles,\altaffilmark{5}
90: M.~Crocce,\altaffilmark{2}
91: A.~Fern\'andez-Soto,\altaffilmark{6,7}
92: P.~Fosalba,\altaffilmark{2}
93: F.~Ballesteros,\altaffilmark{8}
94: J.~Campa,\altaffilmark{9}
95: L.~Cardiel-Sas,\altaffilmark{4}
96: J.~Castilla,\altaffilmark{9}
97: D.~Crist\'obal-Hornillos,\altaffilmark{5}
98: M.~Delfino,\altaffilmark{11}
99: E.~Fern\'andez,\altaffilmark{4}\footnote{PAU Coordinator.
100: E-mail: {\tt Enrique.Fernandez@ifae.es}} \,
101: C.~Fern\'andez-Sopuerta,\altaffilmark{2}
102: J.~Garc\'{\i}a-Bellido,\altaffilmark{10}
103: J.A.~Lobo,\altaffilmark{2}
104: V.J.~Mart\'{\i}nez,\altaffilmark{8}
105: A.~Ortiz,\altaffilmark{8}
106: A.~ Pacheco,\altaffilmark{4,11}
107: S.~Paredes,\altaffilmark{8}\footnote{Permanent address:
108: Universidad Polit\'ecnica de Cartagena} \,
109: M.J.~Pons-Border\'{\i}a,\altaffilmark{8}\footnote{Permanent address:
110: Universidad Complutense de Madrid} \,
111: E.~S\'anchez,\altaffilmark{9}
112: S.F.~S\'anchez,\altaffilmark{12}
113: J.~Varela,\altaffilmark{5}
114: J.F.~de Vicente\,\altaffilmark{9}
115: }
116:
117: \altaffiltext{1}{Instituto de Matem\'aticas y F\'{\i}sica Fundamental (CSIC), Madrid}
118: \altaffiltext{2}{Institut de Ci\`encies de l'Espai (IEEC-CSIC), Barcelona}
119: \altaffiltext{3}{Instituci\'o Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avan\c{c}ats, Barcelona}
120: \altaffiltext{4}{Institut de F\'{\i}sica d'Altes Energies, Barcelona}
121: \altaffiltext{5}{Instituto de Astrof\'{\i}sica de Andaluc\'{\i}a (CSIC), Granada}
122: \altaffiltext{6}{Departament d'Astronomia i Astrof\'{\i}sica, Universitat de Val\`encia}
123: \altaffiltext{7}{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica de Cantabria (CSIC), Santander}
124: \altaffiltext{8}{Observatori Astron\`omic de la Universitat de Val\`encia}
125: \altaffiltext{9}{Centro de Investigaciones En\'ergeticas, Medioambientales y Tecnol\'ogicas, Madrid}
126: \altaffiltext{10}{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica Te\'orica (UAM-CSIC), Madrid}
127: \altaffiltext{11}{Port d'Informaci\'o Cient\'{\i}fica, Barcelona}
128: \altaffiltext{12}{Centro Astron\'omico Hispano Alem\'an (CSIC/MPG), Calar Alto}
129:
130: %\email{xxx@yyy.es}
131:
132: % \date{\today}
133:
134: \begin{abstract}
135: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO)
136: %,subtle features in the large scale
137: %distribution of galaxies produced by acoustic waves in the photon-baryon
138: %plasma during the early stages of the universe,
139: provide a ``standard ruler'' of known physical length,
140: %easy to
141: %interpret observationally,
142: making it one of the most promising probes of the nature of dark energy.
143: %approaches to obtain an accurate and unbiased determination of
144: %the equation of state of dark energy.
145: The detection of BAO as an excess of power in the galaxy distribution at a certain scale
146: requires measuring galaxy positions and redshifts. ``Transversal''
147: (or ``angular'') BAO measure the angular
148: size of this scale projected in the sky and provide information about the angular
149: distance. ``Line-of-sight'' (or ``radial'') BAO require very precise redshifts, but provide a direct measurement of
150: the Hubble parameter at different redshifts, a more sensitive probe of dark energy.
151: %the matter-energy content of
152: %the universe.
153: %It is implied in the literature that ``transversal'' BAO can and should be
154: %studied using photometric redshifts, which are much more ``cheap'' in terms of observing time
155: %than spectroscopic redshifts, and that the precision afforded by the latter should be reserved
156: %for ``line-of-sight'' BAO.
157: The main goal of this paper is to show that
158: %, contrary to usual assumptions,
159: it is possible to obtain photometric redshifts with
160: enough precision ($\sigma_z$) to measure BAO along the line of sight.
161: There is a fundamental limitation as to how much one can improve the BAO
162: measurement by reducing $\sigma_z$. We show that $\sigma_z\sim 0.003 (1+z)$
163: is sufficient:
164: a much better precision will produce an oversampling of the BAO peak without
165: a significant improvement on its detection, while a much worse precision
166: will result in the effective loss of the radial information.
167: This precision in redshift can be achieved for
168: bright, red galaxies,
169: featuring a prominent $4000$~\AA\ break,
170: by using a filter system comprising about 40 filters, each with a width
171: close to $100$~\AA, covering
172: the wavelength range from $\sim4000$~\AA\ to $\sim8000$~\AA, supplemented
173: by two broad-band filters similar to the SDSS $u$ and $z$ bands.
174: We describe the practical implementation of this idea, a new galaxy
175: survey project, PAU\footnote{Physics of the
176: Accelerating Universe (PAU): {\tt http://www.ice.cat/pau}},
177: to be carried out with a telescope/camera combination with an {\it etendue} about 20~m$^2$~deg$^2$,
178: equivalent to
179: a 2~m telescope equipped
180: with a 6~deg$^{2}$-FoV camera, %with about $500$~Mpixels,
181: and covering 8000~sq.~deg.\ in the sky in four years. We expect to measure
182: positions and redshifts for over 14 million red, early-type galaxies
183: with $L>L_\star$ and $i_{AB}\lesssim 22.5$ in the redshift interval
184: $0.1<z<0.9$, with a precision $\sigma_z < 0.003(1+z)$. This population
185: has a number density $n\gtrsim 10^{-3}$ $\textrm{Mpc}^{-3}\textrm{h}^{3}$
186: galaxies within the 9~$\textrm{(Gpc/h)}^{3}$ volume
187: to be sampled by our survey,
188: ensuring that the error in the determination of the BAO scale is
189: not limited by shot-noise.
190: By itself, such a survey will deliver precisions of order $5\%$ in
191: the dark-energy equation of state parameter $w$, if assumed constant,
192: and can determine its time derivative when combined with future CMB
193: measurements.
194: In addition, PAU will yield high-quality redshift and low-resolution spectroscopy
195: for hundreds of millions of other galaxies, including
196: a very significant high-redshift population.
197: The data set produced by this survey will have a unique legacy value, allowing
198: a wide range of astrophysical studies.
199: %
200: \end{abstract}
201:
202: \keywords{large-scale structure of universe --- cosmological parameters}
203:
204: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
205:
206: Physical Cosmology has recently entered the precision era. This transition has been propelled by the gathering, over the past decade, of unprecedented high-precision data sets for several cosmological observables. The combined analysis of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies (e.g.,
207: \citet{wmap3ext, wmap5ext, boomerang, cbi, acbar, vsa}) with distance-scale measurements at increasingly higher redshifts (e.g.,
208: \citet{SNe1, astier06, SNe2}) and probes of large-scale structure
209: \citep{2df, sdss1, sdss2, Tegmark06, hutsi-2}
210: yields a remarkably consistent picture: a spatially flat universe that has started a phase of acceleration of the expansion at the present epoch. From the observations gathered so far this acceleration is consistent with the effect of a cosmological constant, but it may also be caused by the presence of a dynamical energy component with negative pressure, now termed Dark Energy (DE), or might also point to a fundamental modification of our description of gravity. The answer to what is the exact cause is likely to have profound implications for cosmology and for particle physics.
211:
212: Two recent collective reports, one by the US Dark Energy Task Force
213: %\citep[DETF][]{detf},
214: (DETF)\ \citep{detf},
215: convened by NASA, NSF and DOE, and another by the European ESA-ESO Working Group on Fundamental Cosmology
216: \citep{esa-eso},
217: have identified the most promising observational strategies to characterize DE properties in the near future. These reports concluded that the method based on measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) from galaxy redshift surveys is less likely to be limited by systematic uncertainties than other methods that are proposed.
218: %, although photometric calibration needs to be sufficiently accurate.
219: It appears that, while recognizing the need for a combined strategy involving two or more independent techniques, BAO measurements can substantially contribute to increase the accuracy on the DE equation of state.
220:
221: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations are produced by acoustic waves in the photon-baryon plasma generated by primordial perturbations \citep{eh98}. At recombination ($z\sim 1100$), the photons decouple from the baryons and start to free stream, whereas the pressure waves stall. As a result, baryons accumulate at a fixed distance from the original overdensity. This distance is equal to the sound horizon length at the decoupling time, $r_{BAO}$. The result is a peak in the mass correlation function at the corresponding scale. First detections of this excess were recently reported, at a significance of about three standard-deviations, both in spectroscopic~\citep{eisenstein,2dFb,hutsi} and photometric~\citep{nikhil,blake} galaxy redshift surveys.
222:
223: The comoving BAO scale is accurately determined by CMB observations ($r_{BAO}=146.8 \pm 1.8$~Mpc for a flat $\Lambda CDM$ Universe~\citep{Hinshaw08}), and constitutes a ``standard ruler'' of known physical length. The existence of this natural standard ruler, measurable at different redshifts, makes it possible to probe the expansion history of the
224: Universe, and thereby dark energy properties and the Universe geometry
225: (see, e.g., \citet{seo,Glazebrook} and references therein). This motivates the present efforts to measure BAO (e.g., \citet{adept}, \citet{des}, \citet{hetdex}, \citet{panstarrs}, \citet{space},
226: \citet{wfmos}, \citet{wigglez}).
227:
228: Broad-band photometric galaxy surveys can measure the angular scale of
229: $r_{BAO}$ in several redshift shells, thereby determining
230: $d_{A}(z)/r_{BAO}$, where $d_{A}(z)$ is the angular distance to the
231: shell at redshift $z$. If galaxy redshifts can be determined precisely enough, the BAO scale can also be measured along the line of sight, providing a direct measurement of the instantaneous expansion rate, the Hubble parameter (or actually of $H(z)\, r_{BAO}$), at different redshifts. This quantity is more sensitive to the matter-energy contents of the universe compared to the integrated quantity $d_{A}(z)$. The direct determination of $H(z)$
232: distinguishes the BAO method from other methods. In addition, since systematic errors affect the radial and tangential measurements in different ways, the consistency between the measured values of $H(z)$ and $d_{A}(z)$ offers a test of the results.
233:
234: As a rule of thumb, in order to get the same sensitivity to the dark-energy parameters, a galaxy redshift survey capable of exploiting the information along the line of sight needs to cover only $\sim$ 10\% of the volume covered by a comparable survey that detects the scale in the transverse direction only~\citep{briddle}. When covering a similar volume, precise enough redshift measurements can provide substantially tighter constraints on the DE parameters.
235:
236: Large volumes have to be surveyed in order to reach the statistical accuracy needed to obtain relevant constraints on dark-energy parameters. Enough galaxies must be observed to reduce the shot noise well below the irreducible component due to sampling variance
237: (see section~\ref{sec:power}).
238: The usefulness of the correlation along the line of sight favors spectroscopic redshift surveys that obtain very accurate redshifts, but the need for a large volume favors photometric redshifts that can reach down to fainter galaxies.
239:
240: The intrinsic comoving width of the peak in the mass correlation function is about 15~Mpc/h, due mostly to Silk damping~\citep{Silk}. This sets a requirement for the redshift error of order $\sigma(z)=0.003(1+z)$, corresponding to 15~Mpc/h along the line of sight at $z=0.5$. A much better precision will result in oversampling of the peak without a substantial improvement on its detection, while worse precision will, of course, result in the effective loss of the information in the radial modes \citep{seo}. Note also that in the presence of substantial redshift errors, the error distribution needs to be known and accurately corrected for when inferring the BAO scale.
241:
242: It has usually been assumed in the literature that photometric redshifts are not precise enough to measure ``line-of-sight'' BAO \citep{seo,briddle}. While this is true for broad-band photometric surveys, here we examine how one can reach the required redshift precision with narrow-band photometry. We find (see section~\ref{sec:survey}) that redshifts of luminous red galaxies can be measured with a precision $\sigma(z)\sim 0.003(1+z)$ using a photometric system of $40$ filters of $\sim 100$~\AA, continuously covering the spectral range from $\sim 4000$ to $\sim 8000$~\AA , plus two additional broad-band filters similar to the $u$ and $z$ bands.
243:
244: We describe the practical implementation of this idea, a photometric galaxy redshift survey called PAU (Physics of the Accelerating Universe). PAU will measure positions and redshifts for over 14 million luminous red galaxies over 8000 deg$^{2}$ in the sky, in the range $0.1<z<0.9$ (comprising a volume of
245: 9~(Gpc/h)$^{3}$), and with an expected photometric redshift precision
246: $\sigma(z)\lesssim 0.003(1+z)$. This redshift precision makes it possible to measure radial BAO with minimal loss of information. The PAU survey can be carried out in a four
247: year observing program at a dedicated telescope with an effective {\it etendue} $\sim 20$~m$^2$deg$^2$.
248:
249: The outline of the paper is as follows. Section~\ref{sec:req} discusses the scientific requirements for such a survey. An optimization of the survey parameters follows in section~\ref{sec:survey}, while section~\ref{sec:base} presents a possible baseline design for the instrument. The science capabilities of the survey are given in section~\ref{sec:science}. Finally, section~\ref{sec:summary} contains the summary and conclusions.
250:
251: \section{Scientific Requirements}
252:
253: \label{sec:req}
254:
255: Given current priors on other cosmological parameters a measurement
256: of the expansion rate history $H(z)$ with percent precision will
257: translate into a measurement of the DE equation of state w
258: of few times this precision.
259: We will focus here on how well we can do this by measuring the BAO feature
260: at comoving size $r_{BAO}\simeq 100Mpc/h$ and use
261: it as a standard ruler in both the radial and tangential directions.
262:
263: We first explore how an error in the BAO scale $r_{BAO}$ translates into
264: an error in the DE equation of state $w$. The relation is different
265: if we measure the scale in the radial or in the tangential (ie angular)
266: directions. We then move to show how the BAO scale can be measured
267: statistically using galaxy surveys. We start with a visual ilustration
268: of the problem and a brief presentation of two N-body simulations
269: that we used in order to study the main goal of this paper.
270: We then show how this scale can be measured using the
271: statistics of galaxy density fluctuations and relate the error in $r_{BAO}$
272: to the volume of the survey, given perfect distance indicators.
273: We finish by considering what redshift precision is required to maintain
274: a given precision in the $r_{BAO}$ measurement and how this is limited
275: by different systematic effects.
276: Note that we focus here in showing the implication of the photo-z accuracy
277: in the measurements of the monopole, which combines the radial and perpendicular
278: information. These two components can be separated by considering the anisotropic
279: correlation function
280: (see Okumara et al.~2007, Padmanabhan \& White 2008, Cabre \& Gaztanaga 2008, and
281: Figs.~17--18 in Gaztanaga, Cabre \& Hui 2008,
282: which show how the anisotropic correlation
283: function changes for PAU-like photo-z precisions).
284:
285: We note that these are just rough estimates
286: to show the viability of this approach. In a real survey, there might be
287: other sources of systematic errors that have not been taken into account in
288: detail here. However, experience indicate that the actual data themselves can
289: be used to study and minimize those sources of errors.
290:
291: In what follows we assume a flat FRW cosmology, with cosmological
292: parameters compatible with WMAP data~\citep{Hinshaw08}.
293:
294: \subsection{BAO scale and DE equation of state}
295:
296: In a galaxy survey we measure distances in terms of angles and redshifts.
297: These observed quantities can be related to known distances, such
298: as $r_{BAO}$, using the FRW metric.
299: The differential radial (comoving)
300: distance is inversely proportional to the expansion rate
301: $H(z) \equiv \dot{a}/a$:
302: \begin{equation}
303: dr(z)=\frac{c}{{H(z)}}~dz\ ,
304: \end{equation}
305: while the angular diameter distance is proportional to the integral
306: of $dr(z)$:
307: \begin{equation}
308: d_{A}(z)=\frac{c}{{1+z}}\int_{0}^{z}~\frac{dz'}{{H(z')}}
309: \end{equation}
310: for a flat universe.
311: In particular, measurements of the charateristic size of the
312: BAO feature in the radial ($\delta z_{BAO}$)
313: and tangential ($\delta \theta_{BAO}$) direction relate to the known comoving
314: BAO scale $r_{BAO}$ as:
315: \begin{eqnarray}
316: \delta z_{BAO} & = & r_{BAO}~\frac{H(z)}{{c}}\\
317: \delta \theta_{BAO} & = & \frac{r_{BAO}}{{d_{A}(z)}(1+z)}
318: \end{eqnarray}
319: We therefore have, neglecting for a moment the uncertainty on the determination of $r_{BAO}$
320: by CMB observations, that a relative error in the measured size
321: of the BAO feature corresponds to a relative error in either $d_A(z)$ or $H(z)$:
322: \begin{eqnarray}
323: \Delta^T_{BAO} \equiv \frac{\sigma(\delta\theta_{BAO})}{\delta\theta_{BAO}}
324: = \frac{\Delta d_A }{d_A} \nonumber \\
325: \Delta^L_{BAO} \equiv \frac{\sigma(\delta z_{BAO})}{\delta z_{BAO}} =
326: \frac{\Delta H}{H}
327: \label{deltaBAO}
328: \end{eqnarray}
329:
330: For this argument, we will write the expansion rate as:
331: \begin{equation}
332: H^{2}(z)/H_{0}^{2}=\Omega_{m}\;(1+z)^{3}+\left(1-\Omega_{m}\right)\;(1+z)^{3(1+w)}
333: \end{equation}
334: which corresponds to a flat universe ($\Omega_{m}+\Omega_{DE}=1$)
335: with a constant equation of state $w\equiv p/\rho$, with $p$ the
336: pressure, and $\rho$ the density of the dark energy. Figure~\ref{fig:walfa}
337: shows the relative change in Eq.(\ref{deltaBAO}) (in percent)
338: as a function of the relative changes in $w$
339: with respect to $w=-1$ for different redshifts. We show the cases
340: for $z = 0.3-1.0$ which will be relevant for our study. As can be seen in
341: the figure, a $1\%$ error in $\Delta_{BAO}$ (our goal)
342: at $z \simeq 1.0$ results in a $~\simeq 4\%$
343: uncertainty in $w$, but the precision varies with redshift.
344: A constant 1\% error in the angular distance quickly degrades the $w$ precision
345: with decreasing redshift,
346: from $4.5\%$ at $z=1.0$ to $8.0\%$ at $z=0.3$, while
347: the radial distance achieves a more uniform precision
348: in $w$, $3.5-4.5\%$ in the whole redshift range.
349:
350: This illustrates the advantage of having a good radial
351: measurement. Angular distances provide a good geometrical test, while
352: radial distances tell us directly the instantaneous expansion rate.
353: In addition, comparing relative sizes of the BAO feature when measured
354: parallel and perpendicular to the line of sight will provide us with
355: a consistency test.
356:
357: \subsection{BAO scale in N-body simulations}
358:
359: To support some of the main claims of this paper
360: we have used large N-body dark matter (DM) simulations,
361: %run by the MICE collaboration\footnote{http://www.ice.cat/mice}.
362: using the MICE collaboration\footnote{http://www.ice.cat/mice} set-up.
363: In particular, we have computed non-linear DM clustering statistics in terms of
364: the 2-point correlation function, $\xi(r)$, and its Fourier transform,
365: the power spectrum, $P(k)$, and we have assessed the impact of real world systematic effects
366: on the BAO mesurements based on these standard estimators.
367:
368: MICE simulations have been run
369: using the Gadget-2 code \citep{Springel05} on the MareNostrum supercomputer
370: at BSC \footnote{Barcelona Supercomputer Center, http://www.bsc.es},
371: with a modification to produce outputs in the light-cone
372: \citep{OnionUniverse}. We focus here on two simulations, shown in Table \ref{tableN},
373: corresponding to a flat concordance $\Lambda$CDM model with $\Omega_m=0.25$,
374: $\Omega_\Lambda =0.75$, $\Omega_b=0.044$, $n_s=0.95$, $\sigma_8=0.8$
375: and $h=0.7$.
376: Halos were obtained from the $z=0.5$ comoving output using the Friends-of-Friends (FoF)
377: algorithm with linking length $0.164$.
378: The larger simulation has a dynamic range close to five orders of magnitude.
379:
380: Figure~\ref{slice}
381: shows a thin slice of the light-cone built from the MICE3072 simulation.
382: We build the light-cone placing the observer at the origin, so that cosmic time (redshift)
383: corresponds to the radial direction, which expands from $z=0$
384: to $z=1$ (corresponding to a comoving radius of 2400 Mpc/h for
385: our cosmology). The bottom panel corresponds to the
386: true dark matter distribution in real space.
387: The next panel up shows the redshift space distribution,
388: where the radial positions are distorted due to peculiar (gravitationally induced)
389: motions away from the Hubble flow.
390: In order to model this distortion, we add the radial component of
391: the peculiar velocity $v_r$ of each particle to its (real space) position:
392: $s = r + f v_r (1+z)/H(z)$, where $f\sim 1$ for the assumed $\Lambda$CDM cosmology at $z\sim 0.5$.
393: We note that, in this image, distortions can only be seen
394: whenever they are much larger than the pixel size $\Delta r_{pix} \simeq 3 \rm{Mpc/h}$
395: or, in velocity units, $\Delta v_{pix} \simeq 300 \rm{km/s}$.
396: This implies that the so called Fingers of God effect (see explanation below) cannot be detected
397: because it arises from random peculiar velocities of order $\Delta v_{pix}$. Instead, the
398: Kaiser effect \citep{Kaiser} due to a large-scale coherent infall is visible as an
399: enhancement of the filamentary structures perpendicular to the line of sight.
400:
401: The two top panels include in addition a radial distortion
402: due to photo-z errors which we assumed to be Gaussian distributed. Thus,
403: they can be modeled by randomly displacing the particles along the line of sight
404: according to the probability distribution,
405: \begin{equation}
406: f(\delta r_{z})\sim\exp\left[-(1/2)\left(\delta r_z/\Delta_z\right)^{2}\right],
407: \end{equation}
408: with the smoothing scale $\Delta_z$ and the photo-z error
409: $\sigma_{z}$ related through the Hubble parameter $H(z)$ as $\Delta_z=\sigma_z (1+z)c/H(z)$.
410: Third panel up assumes $\sigma_z = 0.003(1+z)$, which is roughly the photo-z error expected for PAU
411: galaxies, while the top panel corresponds to an order-of-magnitude worse case, $\sigma_z = 0.03(1+z)$.
412:
413: Overall this figure illustrates how the image is degraded both by peculiar velocities and
414: redshift errors. Comparing the middle panels,
415: it is evident that redshift errors produce, on average,
416: much stronger distortions than peculiar velocities.
417:
418: \subsection{Redshift errors}
419: \label{sec:redshifterrors}
420:
421: We now turn to a more quantitative estimate of the minimum radial resolution required to detect the BAO scale in 3D.
422:
423: The BAO signature appears in the two-point correlation of particles as a single bump
424: at a scale $r_{BAO}\simeq 100\, h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$ with an intrinsic
425: width $\Delta r_{BAO}\simeq 10\, h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$ and relative amplitude
426: of about a factor two with respect to a non-BAO model with the same broad-band
427: shape. Therefore, a simple approach would be to look at the degradation of this
428: peak as we increase the redshift error.
429:
430: To be more realistic, we have studied the clustering of halos
431: (selected with a FoF algorithm with linking length of 0.164)
432: since they are more closely related to the observed galaxies and clusters of galaxies
433: than DM particles.
434: In particular, Luminous Red Galaxies
435: (LRGs) are thought to populate large DM halos and closely trace the
436: halo distribution.
437:
438: At large scales the halo and matter density fluctuations are related by a linear bias factor
439: ($\delta_{halo} = b\,\delta_{matter}$), which translates into a $b^2$ scaling
440: for the 2-point funcion. Halos with large mass cut in Table \ref{tableN} have
441: $b\simeq 3$, which was chosen to magnify possible non-linear effects.
442: To estimate errors (eg.~in Fig.~\ref{fig:Pk}), we use instead a lower mass cut which
443: corresponds to $b \simeq 2$ and better matches the clustering of LRGs that
444: have already been used to measure BAO \citep[e.g.][]{eisenstein,Tegmark06}.
445:
446: Figure~\ref{fig:xi2} shows the two-point correlation function (black empty circles) traced
447: by all halos in MICE3072 at $z=0.5$ (see Table\ref{tableN}). The dashed line corresponds to the linear correlation and the black solid line to the nonlinear model of Renormalized
448: Perturbation Theory (RPT) \citep{RPTbao},
449: %\citep[RPT][]{RPTbao},
450: both biased with $b=3$. As illustrated by
451: Fig.~\ref{fig:xi2} (solid black line), %the halo biasing is reasonably well described
452: the simple scale independent linear bias scheme works reasonably well, but this assumption certainly needs to be tested more accurately.
453:
454: We then estimated the impact of photo-z errors using Gaussian distortions in the radial direction as described in the previous section.
455: The corresponding correlation function of this smeared distribution of halos
456: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:xi2} for different values of the photo-z error,
457: $\sigma_{z}/(1+z)=0.003$ (as expected for PAU) $0.006, 0.03$, with
458: red, blue and green symbols respectively.
459:
460: In turn, this smearing can be modeled in Fourier Space by damping
461: the power spectrum along the line-of-sight as
462: \begin{equation}
463: P_z(k,\mu)=b^2 P_{nl}(k)\exp\left[-k^{2}\Delta_z^{2}\mu^2\right],\label{eqPphotoz}
464: \end{equation}
465: where $P_{nl}$ is the nonlinear power spectrum from RPT, the linear bias is $b=3$, and $\mu$ is the cosine of the angle with the line of sight. The red, blue and green solid lines
466: in Fig.~\ref{fig:xi2} correspond to the angle averaged Fourier transform
467: of Eq.~(\ref{eqPphotoz}) for $\sigma_{z}=0.003$, $0.006$ and $0.03$
468: respectively.
469:
470: In summary, Fig. ~\ref{fig:xi2} illustrates that one can basically
471: recover the right BAO shape once the error is better than about $0.003(1+z)$.
472: Larger errors erase the BAO bump and will result in the loss of cosmological
473: information. The change can be roughly quantified by the ratio between
474: the amplitude of the BAO peak (at $r \simeq 108$ Mpc/h) and the amplitude in
475: the valley (at $r \simeq 85$ Mpc/h). For $r^2 \xi(r)$ in the right panel
476: of Figure ~\ref{fig:xi2}, this ratio is about $1.8$ in real space
477: with no photometric errors and decreases smoothly to $1.5$ as we increase
478: the error towards $0.003(1+z)$.
479: For larger errors, this ratio decreases more rapidly an gets all the
480: way to unity for $0.006(1+z)$, as shown in the figure.
481: This makes sense because $0.003(1+z)$ corresponds
482: to a comoving scale of about $15\, h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$ at $z=0.5$, which matches the
483: intrinsic width (Silk damping) of the BAO peak. Although this is
484: just a rough estimate, it is all we need as a starting point
485: for our considerations below, and it agrees with other considerations
486: based on counting the number of modes in 2D and 3D surveys and the
487: work of \citet{Glazebrook,seo}.
488:
489: The clustering analysis presented above is in real rather than redshift space.
490: Redshift space distortions can
491: be modeled as a combination of two separate effects:
492: coherent and random peculiar velocities.
493: The first term is the so-called Kaiser effect \citep{Kaiser},
494: which increases the amplitude
495: of clustering at large scales by a factor $\sim (1+\beta \mu^2)^2$ (where $\beta=\Omega_m^{0.6}/b$, $b$ is the bias and $\mu$ the cosine of the angle with the line of sight). Our analysis allows for such an effect by incorporating a larger effective bias in the correlation function monopole (e.g. $b=3$ as in Fig.~\ref{fig:xi2}).
496: The effect of random velocities can be modeled as a Gaussian
497: damping, very similar to photo-z errors in Eq.(\ref{eqPphotoz}) but where
498: $\sigma_z^2$ is replaced by $\sigma_p^2/2$, where $\sigma_p$ is
499: the one dimensional galaxy pairwise velocity
500: dispersion (the factor of 1/2 is because a velocity difference has twice the variance
501: of a single velocity). The net effect is that the density field is convolved with a one
502: dimensional random field with a net dispersion
503: $\sigma^2=\sigma_p^2/2+\sigma_z^2$.
504: The typical value of $\sigma_p$ in our DM simulation is smaller than the photo-z errors
505: considered here. This is also the case in regions of high density, populated by LRG galaxies,
506: and where $\sigma_p$ could be larger, e.g, $\sigma_p \sim 400 \rm{km/s}/c \sim 0.0013$ for
507: $r > 5 \rm{Mpc/h}$ \citep{Ross}.
508: This is clearly seen by comparing the
509: two middle panels of Fig.\ref{slice} where it is evident that even in
510: regions of high density the photo-z distortions are larger than the
511: redshift space distortions.
512: Thus effectively $\sigma_z>\sigma_p$ and we can
513: consider this effect subdominant in our considerations.
514:
515: We note here that there is a fundamental limitation as to how much
516: one can improve the BAO measurement by reducing the photo-z error. The photo-z
517: error $\sigma_z \simeq 0.003(1+z)$
518: proposed by the PAU survey is close to optimal.
519: Redshift space distortions and non-linear effects can produce distortions that are
520: comparable to this value, depending on what is the (biased) tracer
521: that is used to measure BAO.
522:
523: \subsection{Estimating the BAO scale}
524: \label{sec:power}
525:
526: Armed with the conclusions from the previous discussion about photo-z errors and other nonlinear effects
527: (clustering, bias and redshift distortions), we are now in a position to give an estimate of the
528: expected 1-$\sigma$ error determination from a survey with the characteristics of PAU.
529: To this end we will employ the 2-point statistics in Fourier Space (i.e. the power spectrum $P(k)$).
530:
531: To estimate the error in the measurement of the power spectrum we will resort to the commonly used expression:
532: \begin{equation}
533: \sigma_{P}\equiv\frac{\Delta P(k)}{{P(k)}}\simeq\sqrt{\frac{2}{{N_{m}(k)}}}\left(1+\frac{1}{\bar{n}P(k)}\right),
534: \label{eq:deltaP}
535: \end{equation}
536: which can be derived from~\citet{FKP94} (see, for instance,
537: Martinez \& Saar 2002, \S 8.2),
538: where $N_{m}(k)$ is the number of Fourier modes present in a spherical
539: shell extending from $k$ to $k+\Delta k$. In terms of the survey
540: volume $V$, we have $N_{m}(k)=V(4\pi k^{2}\Delta k)/(2\pi)^{3}$.
541: The first term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltaP}) corresponds to the sampling error and is independent of
542: redshift. The second term corresponds to Poisson shot-noise, and $\bar{n}$
543: denotes the number density of observed galaxies in the survey. This
544: formula is exact when the probability density function of spectral
545: amplitudes is Gaussian and a very good approximation when the shot-noise
546: term is negligible~\citep[see][]{ABFL07}.
547:
548: For $k\le0.12\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$ and for halos that host LRGs
549: we expect that $P(k)>2\times 10^4\,h^{-3}\,{\rm Mpc}^3$ ($b\simeq 2$) at $z\sim 0$. This agrees well with actual measurements of $P(k)$ for LRGs in the SDSS catalogue (see e.g. Fig.~4 in \citet{Tegmark06}). As we will show below, the PAU number density of LRGs is expected to be $\bar{n}> 0.001\,h^3\,{\rm Mpc}^{-3}$ for $z<0.9$ (see Fig.\ref{fig:nv} below), which implies that the Poisson shot-noise contribution to the error in Eq.(\ref{eq:deltaP}) is smaller than $8\%$ at $z\sim 0.5$, even taking into account the degradation from a photo-z error of $\sigma_z = 0.003$ as discussed before.
550:
551: The bump in the spatial correlation function translates into the power spectrum as a series of damped oscillations of a few percent in relative amplitude. This is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Pk} that contains the power spectrum of DM (left panel) and halos of mass $M>4.7\times10^{12}\, h^{-1}\, M_{\odot}$ (right panel) measured in the MICE1536 simulation. In both panels the measured spectra have been divided by a smoothed one with the same broad band power obtained from the data themselves~\citep[][]{2dFb,ABFL07}. The solid red lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:Pk} show that this ratio can be roughly modeled as,
552: \begin{equation}
553: \hat{P}(k)\simeq1+Ak\exp[-(k/0.1h{\rm Mpc}^{-1})^{2}]\sin{(r_{BAO}k)},\ \
554: \label{parametric}
555: \end{equation}
556: which illustrates how $P(k)$ depends on the BAO scale.
557:
558: Moreover, the discussion in Sec.~\ref{sec:redshifterrors} that led to Fig.~\ref{fig:xi2} validates to a good extent that photo-z, clustering, bias and redshift distortions can be modelled in the power spectrum monopole as the angle average of,
559: \begin{equation}
560: P(k,\mu)= b^2 P_{nl}(k) (1+\beta \mu^2)^2 \exp\left[-k^2 \Delta^2 \mu^2\right],
561: \label{fullPk}
562: \end{equation}
563: where $\Delta= \sigma (1+z)/ H(z)$ and $\sigma=\sqrt{\sigma^2_z+\sigma^2_p/2}$. Therefore, except from nonlinear clustering, which is stronger than the intrinsic Silk damping of BAO, and is responsible for the exponential damping in Eq.~(\ref{parametric}), the remaining effects are multiplicative contributions to the measured $P(k)$, and they factor out when constructing $\hat{P}$.
564: This means that the above described systematic effects do not affect the BAO signal
565: in the spherically averaged $P(k)$, although they do increase the associated errors as
566: we will discuss below.
567: Thus Eq.~(\ref{parametric}) allows to compute how the measured $\hat{P}$
568: varies with the BAO scale,
569: \begin{equation}
570: d\hat{P}/dr_{BAO}\simeq Ak^{2}\exp[-(k/0.1h{\rm Mpc}^{-1})^{2}]\cos{(r_{BAO}k)}
571: \end{equation}
572:
573: Such variation in $\hat{P}$ produces a shift in the $\chi^{2}$ fitting to measurements
574: of $\hat{P}(k_{i})$ given by,
575: \begin{eqnarray*}
576: \Delta\chi^{2}\simeq\sum_{i}\frac{\Delta\hat{P}^{2}(k_{i})}{{\sigma_{P}^{2}(k_{i})}}\simeq\Delta_{BAO}^{2}\left(\frac{A}{{r_{BAO}}}\right)^{2}\!\left(\frac{V}{{r_{BAO}^{3}}}\right)\! I^{2}[m]\end{eqnarray*}
577: where,
578: \begin{eqnarray}
579: I^{2}[m]=\frac{1}{{(2\pi)^{2}}}\int_{0}^{2\pi m}\!\!\! \frac{x^{6}\exp[-2(x/10.86)^{2}]\cos^{2}(x)}{(1+1/ \bar{n} P)^2},\ \ \
580: \label{eqIm}
581: \end{eqnarray}
582: $m$ is the number of BAO oscillations included in the fit ($k_{max}=2\pi m / r_{BAO}$) and
583: $\Delta_{BAO}\equiv\Delta r_{BAO}/r_{BAO}$. The shot-noise term includes the full power spectrum given by Eq.~(\ref{fullPk}) and accounts, in particular, for photo-z errors. In deriving Eq.~(\ref{eqIm}) we have explicitly used that for our reference cosmology $r_{BAO}=108.6\, h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$.
584:
585: A 1-sigma determination of $\Delta_{BAO}$ alone corresponds to $\Delta\chi^{2}=1$,
586: so that,
587: \begin{equation}
588: \Delta_{BAO}|_{\Delta\chi^{2}=1}=
589: \left(\frac{r_{BAO}^{3}}{{V}}\right)^{1/2}\frac{1}{I[m](A/r_{BAO})}.
590: \label{estimate}\end{equation}
591: From Fig.~\ref{fig:Pk} we find that $A/r_{BAO}\sim0.02$ fits well
592: both halos and dark matter clustering. We then assume $m\simeq2.5$
593: which corresponds to the range $0<k<0.14~h~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ (including two BAO peaks) and obtain
594: from Eq.~(\ref{estimate}),
595: \begin{equation}
596: \Delta_{BAO}\simeq 0.33\left(\frac{r_{BAO}^{3}}{{V}}\right)^{1/2}
597: \simeq 0.33\% \sqrt{13\, h^{-3}\,{\rm Gpc}^{3}/V}
598: \end{equation}
599: when we neglect completely the shot-noise term in Eq.~(\ref{fullPk}). Including the shot-noise but no photo-z degradation yields a prefactor of $0.35\%$ (for $\sigma_p = 400 \rm{km/s}$).
600: If we also add a photo-z error of $\sigma_z=0.003$ (as PAU) we find $0.36\%$. If instead, we add a photo-z error of $\sigma_z=0.03$, the amplitude rises to $2.2\%$.
601: In other words, we expect PAU to yield a measurement of BAO with only a $10\%$ degradation with respect to an ideal survey, whereas a survey with an order-of-magnitude larger photo-z is expected to produce a factor $\sim 6.5$ worse measurement.
602: According to this, in a 3D analysis, the relative error in the BAO scale
603: is just approximately equal to the inverse of the square root of
604: the number of independent
605: regions of size $r_{BAO}^{3}$ that are sampled by our survey, and
606: it is quite robust in front of close to optimal (PAU-like) photo-z error and nonlinear effects.
607: For $V \simeq 10 h^{-3}\,{\rm Gpc}^{3}$ we get about $\Delta_{BAO} \simeq 0.5\%$.
608: The above estimate is in good agreement with Table~2 in~\citet{ABFL07}
609: and with the analysis in~\citet{Glazebrook} and \citet{seo}.
610:
611: If we limit ourselves to optical surveys of LRGs,
612: we have $z \lesssim 1$. To get to $V\simeq 10\, h^{-3}\,{\rm Gpc}^{3}$
613: we will have to map of the order of $8000$~sq.~deg. There
614: are roughly two million LRGs with luminosity $L$ above the characteristic
615: galaxy luminosity $L^\star$ in 1000 sq.~deg.~at $z<0.9$ with
616: magnitude $I_{AB}<22.5$~\citep{Brown2007}.
617: However, not all galaxies in a given
618: volume need to be measured as long as $\bar{n}P>3$, so that shot
619: noise is sub-dominant in Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltaP}). We will show below
620: that it is in fact possible to get to $\bar{n}P \gtrsim 10$
621: with the subsample of PAU LRGs that have good quality redshifts.
622:
623:
624: \section{Survey Simulations}\label{sec:survey}
625:
626: The main distinctive feature of our survey is the use of photometric
627: information to achieve the highly accurate redshift measurements
628: needed to characterize the line-of-sight BAO signature. Since such an
629: observational program has not been attempted before, we need to prove,
630: at least conceptually, that it is possible to achieve precisions of
631: $\sigma_z/(1+z)\simeq0.003$ with photometric data. According to
632: section~\ref{sec:req} and particularly Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltaP}), we only
633: need to reach such a precision for a galaxy population tracer with a
634: space number density which satisfies $\bar{n}P(k) \gtrsim 3$. Ideally
635: we would like galaxies that are luminous so we can observe them up to
636: high redshift and that present a spectral energy distribution with
637: distinctive features to achieve accurate photometric redshifts. The
638: most luminous of the early type galaxies (LRGs or Luminous Red
639: Galaxies) constitute such a population. Their space number density is
640: high enough. They are highly biased and they feature a prominent
641: 4000~\AA\ break in their spectrum which, together with other spectral
642: features, makes possible a precise estimation of their redshifts using
643: photometric measurements (Fig.~\ref{fig:filters}). As a matter of fact,
644: bright early type galaxies were the subject of the first attempt to
645: estimate photometric redshifts in the seminal paper of \citet{1962IAUS...15..390B}.
646: %Baum 1962.
647:
648: \citet{Hickson1994} was the first to propose using intermediate band
649: filters as a viable alternative to traditional spectroscopy. The
650: COMBO-17 survey \citep{Wolf2001,Wolf2003} put this
651: idea into practice, using a combination of traditional broad band and
652: medium band filters. COMBO-17 reaches an accuracy of $\sigma_z\sim
653: 0.02(1+z)$ for the general galaxy population~\citep{Hildebrandt2008},
654: and has reached a scatter of $\sigma_z\sim 0.0063$ for the bright
655: ellipticals in the Abell 901/902 superclusters. Taking into account
656: the velocity dispersion of the cluster the authors infer an intrinsic
657: photometric accuracy close to $0.004(1+z)$ \citep{Wolf2003}.
658:
659: \citet{Benitez2008} has shown that the most effective way of reaching
660: high photo-z precisions is using a system of constant-width,
661: contiguous, non-overlapping filters. The ALHAMBRA
662: survey~\citep{ALHAMBRA,Moles2008} has implemented such a filter
663: system, and preliminary results for that survey show that it is
664: possible to get close to $0.01(1+z)$ photo-z accuracy for the general
665: galaxy population. LRGs usually have higher photo-z precisions than
666: the rest of the galaxies, (as it happens with the COMBO-17 data or the
667: SDSS LRGs \citep{Oyaizu2008, D'Abrusco}), and it is expected that
668: LRGs in the ALHAMBRA survey will have photo-z
669: errors substantially below $\sigma_z\sim 0.01(1+z)$.
670:
671: In view of these results, it seems reasonable to suggest that a
672: precision a few times smaller that $0.01(1+z)$ can be reached for the
673: LRG population with filters that are three times narrower than those
674: of ALHAMBRA, and about 2-3 times narrower than the medium band filters
675: in COMBO-17 (which do not fill the optical range contiguously). In
676: what follows we try to demonstrate that the observing program required
677: by PAU is feasible,
678: %(at least conceptually)
679: and can deliver redshift values with $\sigma_z/(1+z) \simeq 0.003$ for LRGs.
680:
681: In order to qualitatively understand the relationship between
682: measurement uncertainties and the accuracy of the redshift estimation
683: we can use a toy, step-like spectrum, flat in wavelength except for a
684: jump by a factor $D$ in the amplitude at $4000$~{\AA}: i.e. we assume that
685: the spectrum has a flux of $F$ redwards of the break and $F/D$
686: bluewards of it. This roughly approximates a low resolution version of
687: an LRG~\citep{EisensteinLRG}. If we use a set of constant
688: width, contiguous filters of width $\Delta\lambda$, the flux in the
689: filter that spans the break will be equal to
690: \begin{equation}
691: f=\alpha\frac{F}{D}+(1-\alpha)F
692: \end{equation}
693: where $\alpha=(\lambda_B-\lambda_0)/\Delta\lambda + 1/2 = Rz + k$,
694: here $\lambda_B=4000(1+z)$ is the observed wavelength of the break,
695: $\lambda_0$ is the central wavelength of the filter, the ``local
696: resolution'' is $R=4000/\Delta\lambda$ and $k = (4000-\lambda_0) /
697: \Delta\lambda + 1/2$. We then have that
698: \begin{equation}
699: f = F [ (D^{-1}-1)(Rz+k)+1]
700: \end{equation}
701: and
702: \begin{equation}
703: z= \frac{1}{R} \left[ \left(\frac{f}{F}-1\right)\left(\frac{D}{1-D}\right)-k \right] \ .
704: \end{equation}
705: The error in the redshift roughly depends on the flux measurement
706: error $\sigma_f$ as
707: \begin{equation}
708: \sigma_{z_f} \approx \frac{D}{R(D-1)} \frac{\sigma_f}{F}
709: \end{equation}
710: where we have considered that the error in the determination of $F$ is
711: much smaller than $\sigma_f$.
712:
713: Apart from the photometric error, another source of uncertainty in
714: the redshift estimation is the intrinsic variability of galaxy spectra
715: around its average, even within such a homogeneous class as LRGs.
716: \citep{Cool2006, EisensteinLRG}. We can include this in our toy model
717: as an uncertainty in the $4000$~\AA\ break amplitude $D$. Using the
718: above formulae we get that
719: \begin{equation}
720: \sigma_{z_D} \leq \frac{1}{R(D-1)^2} \sigma_{D} \ .
721: \label{eq:template}
722: \end{equation}
723: The total uncertainty predicted by the toy model is thus,
724: \begin{equation}
725: \sigma_z \sim \frac{1}{R(D-1)^2}\sqrt{ \sigma_D^2+2 (\sigma_f/F)^2} \ .
726: \label{eq:sigmaz}
727: \end{equation}
728:
729: We can estimate the intrinsic scatter in $D$ to be $\sigma_D=0.1$,
730: as shown below. To check the validity of this formula we can use the
731: photometric observations of LRGs with measured spectroscopic
732: redshifts. We have downloaded a LRG catalog with spectroscopic
733: redshifts from the SDSS website and estimated their photometric
734: redshifts using the LRG template described below, measuring an average
735: error of $\sigma_z \approx 0.02(1+z)$. Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigmaz}) clearly
736: overestimates the error, since at e.g. $z=0.3$, where galaxies have
737: typically $\sigma_f/F=0.05$, it would predict (using $D=1.8$) an error
738: from the template variability of $\sigma_{z_D}=0.044$, a photometric
739: error of $\sigma_{z_f}=0.03$ and a total error of $\sigma_z=0.05$,
740: about twice as large as the real result $\sigma_z=0.026$. This is not
741: surprising, since real galaxies have many features which contain
742: redshift information apart from the 4000~\AA\ break. Therefore,
743: although Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigmaz}) can be useful to qualitatively understand the
744: effects of intrinsic scatter and photometric noise on the photometric
745: redshift accuracy, it clearly underestimates the precisions which can
746: be achieved in practice.
747:
748: The application of Eq.~\ref{eq:sigmaz} to our set up, with $\sigma_f/F=0.1$ gives $\sigma_z=0.006$, which again is twice what we expect.
749: In what follows we will perform a detailed simulation to show that it
750: is feasible to reach the photometric redshift accuracy required for
751: our experiment ($0.003(1+z)$) under realistic observing conditions, taking into
752: account the shape of real galaxies, the behaviour of the sky
753: background as a function of wavelength and lunar phase, and the
754: expected throughput and efficiency of astronomical instruments.
755:
756: \subsection{Observational setup and S/N considerations}
757:
758: In order to simulate the characteristics of the astronomical site
759: where the PAU observations will be carried out, we assume that the sky
760: brightness for the dark phase of the lunar cycle is similar to that of
761: Paranal, as measured by \citet{Patat}. For the middle of the Moon
762: cycle, or ``gray'' time we use the values of \citet{walker} for Cerro
763: Tololo. Figure~\ref{fig:sky} shows the assumed sky brightness in the
764: standard $UBVRI$ broad bands. However, due to the narrowness of our
765: filters, it is necessary to have a good representation of the small
766: scale structure of the sky spectrum, for this we use the model optical
767: spectrum of~\citet{Puxley}, the same used for the Gemini exposure time
768: calculator.
769: %
770:
771: We have written an exposure time calculator for this task. To
772: calculate the full throughput of the system we use the La Palma
773: atmosphere at 1.2 airmass, two aluminum reflections and the LBNL CCDs~\citep{Holland03}
774: quantum efficiency curves. We also approximate the throughput of the
775: filter system using the values of the BARR filters produced for the
776: ALHAMBRA Survey. The final result is shown in
777: Fig.~\ref{fig:filters}. We match our results to those of the ING
778: exposure time calculator, SIGNAL, using the same observational setup.
779: To reproduce their results, which have been calibrated empirically, we
780: have to degrade our theoretical estimates by $25\%-10\%$ (which are
781: basically the values of the empirical corrections they use). We have
782: checked our predictions with preliminary results from the ALHAMBRA
783: Survey observations and they agree within $10\%$.
784: We have compared the predictions of our simulator with those of
785: DIET~\footnote{
786: http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Instruments/Imaging/Megacam\-/dietmegacam.html},
787: the Direct Imaging Exposure Time calculator. DIET estimates $5 \sigma$ point source limiting magnitudes of $g=25.74$ (dark time) and $r=24.94, i=24.49$ (grey time) for 442~s exposures, within $\approx 1$ arcsec$^2$ apertures and 0.8 arcsec seeing. We can scale these results taking into account the effective width of our narrow band filters and the relative collecting mirror areas ($10$ m$^2$ for CFHT vs. $\pi$ m $^2$ for our fiducial telescope), corresponding to limiting magnitudes of $m_{F4982}=23.63$, $m_{F6283}=23.12$ and $m_{F7771}=22.78$. Our predictions shown in Fig 7 are $m_{F4982}=23.77$, $m_{F6283}=22.98$ and $m_{F7771}=23.15$. Most of the differences can be explained by the introduction by DIET of a coefficient which attempts to account for the incorrect measurement of the sky background for very small apertures and which worsens the S/N by a factor 1.22 for faint objects.
788:
789: The simulations below have been carried out assuming that the survey
790: will use a dedicated 2m-class telescope, with an effective area of
791: $\pi\textrm {m}^{2}$, and a camera with a 6~deg$^2$ FoV. The results
792: will remain qualitatively valid as long as the {\it etendue} of the
793: final observational setup is roughly the same.
794: Most likely the observations will be carried out in drift-scan mode. Since there
795: is no need to change instruments, we expect that the observing
796: efficiency will be very high and that only a maximum of two CCD
797: readouts per filter will be carried out.
798: Assuming that the useful time will be similar to that in
799: Calar Alto~\citep{sanchez2007} and that the moonlight will prevent us from taking data during 3 nights per Moon cycle, the number of useful hours per year amounts to 1930. Leaving some room for unforeseen incidences, we assume that the total number of hours of exposure time per year will amount to 1800. For a survey area of 8,000 sq.deg, and with a 6 sq. deg. camera in a period of 4 years we expect to be able to expose each field a total of 5.4hrs, or 19440s.
800:
801: The best way of measuring accurate colors for photo-z is using
802: relatively small isophotal apertures~\citep{Benitez2004} which
803: maximize the S/N of the color measurements, despite the fact that such
804: an aperture leaves out a large amount of the flux, and they are
805: therefore not optimal for other scientific purposes. In our S/N
806: estimations we assume that we will use $2$ arcsec$^{2}$ apertures,
807: which enclose about $40\%$ and $64\%$ of the flux of respectively a
808: $z=0.2$ and a $z=0.9$ $L_\star$ galaxy. In the next subsection we
809: explain how we calculate these corrections.
810:
811: A crucial question is how to divide the exposure time between the
812: different filters. At each redshift, we identify the filter which
813: corresponds to the $4150\AA$ rest frame region, and try to detect a
814: LRG $L_\star$ within a $2$ arcsec$^{2}$ aperture at that redshift with
815: at least a S/N of 10. We set a minimum exposure time of $120$s, and
816: adjust the maximum exposure time in each filter so that the total is
817: below 5.4 hours. The resulting exposure times are $< 120$s for filters
818: bluer than $F5446$, and increase until they reach the maximum exposure
819: time of $861$s for $F7307$ and redder filters.
820: The resulting $5\sigma$
821: limiting magnitudes are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:mag5} and
822: Fig. ~\ref{fig:mag}.
823:
824: \subsection{Intrinsic galaxy variability}
825:
826: As Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigmaz}) shows, it is necessary to understand the intrinsic
827: variability of LRGs in order to estimate the photometric redshift
828: accuracy achievable with them. It is well known (Eisenstein et
829: al. 2003, Cool et al. 2006 and references therein) that LRG galaxies
830: (with $L>2.2L_{\star}$) are a remarkably homogeneous class. At a fixed
831: redshift, they form a red sequence, which varies slowly and regularly
832: with absolute magnitude and environment. LRG galaxies in the red
833: sequence present a scatter of only a few percent in the color defined
834: by a pair of filters spanning the $4000\AA$ break. Therefore, if we
835: know the absolute magnitude of a LRG and the richness of its
836: environment, we can predict its broad band colors with a precision of
837: at least $\sigma_{g-r}\approx0.035$ (Cool et al. 2006).
838:
839: It is not clear however, which are the actual variations in the
840: spectral shape of LRGs behind this broad band scatter. The SDSS
841: spectrophotometry is not good enough to accurately characterize this
842: phenomenon, since its precision (about 0.05 mags in g-r colors, according to the SDSS
843: web site and Adelman-McCarthy et al.~(2008)) is of the same order or even
844: larger than the intrinsic color variation of real galaxies. In
845: addition, the errors in the spectrophotometry are bound to be highly
846: correlated and will be much worse at certain wavelength regions, like
847: sky lines. The section of the SDSS website which describes the quality
848: of the spectrophotometric calibration shows that below $4000\AA$ the
849: flux calibration error can be as large as $10\%$ .
850:
851: Since it is not feasible to use the SDSS spectral information, we
852: have therefore decided to use a different approach to characterize
853: this intrinsic spectral variability. Eisenstein et al.~(2003) split the
854: spectra of LRG into different classes and samples, and looked at the
855: differences amongst them using Principal Component Analysis (PCA).
856: They showed that most of the variation between these average classes
857: can be ascribed to a single spectral component. It is therefore
858: reasonable to assume that the intrinsic variation for galaxies of each
859: class, responsible for the red sequence scatter described above, can
860: be modeled approximately using the same PCA component. We have
861: therefore generated a mock galaxy sample with $L>L_{\star}$ at $z=0.16$
862: using the red sequence described by Cool et al.~(2006), and the
863: luminosity function described in Brown et al.~(2007), and fit their
864: $g-r$ and $r-i$ colors using the average template of Eisenstein et
865: al.~(2003) and the first PCA component (shown in Fig.~8 of Eisenstein's
866: paper).
867:
868: The reason to limit ourselves to those two filters is that
869: Eisenstein et al.~(2003) only provide spectra in the $3650\AA-7000\AA$
870: wavelength range, which does not include other filters. The comparison
871: with the average Cool et al. 2006 colors show that we have to slightly
872: correct Eisenstein's average template to adapt it to the observations,
873: subtracting the first PCA component multiplied by 1.74, and that the
874: required variation of the amplitude of the PCA component needed to
875: explain the intrinsic scatter around the red sequence is approximately
876: 1.8 times that necessary to explain the variation of LRGs with
877: redshift, magnitude and environment. The average D4000 is 1.81, and
878: the rms around this average value is 0.104. Therefore the $4000\AA$
879: break amplitude seems to display an intrinsic scatter of $6\%$ in real
880: galaxies.
881:
882: \subsection{Input early type catalog}
883:
884: To describe the early type galaxy population we use the luminosity
885: functions described in Brown et al.~(2007). We populate a 10~sq.~deg.~area
886: with galaxies following this distribution and exclude those which
887: are fainter than $L_{\star}$ (although it is obvious that many of them
888: will be detected as well) and fainter than $I_{AB}=23$.
889:
890: LRGs are extended objects, and we have to calculate which is the
891: fraction of the total flux which falls within our reference 2~sq.~arcsec aperture.
892: For this we use the data on galaxy sizes and
893: their evolution provided by Brown et al.~(2007), assuming, as they do,
894: that galaxies can be well represented by a de Vaucouleur profile. The
895: correction ranges from $1.5$ mags at z=0.1 to $\approx 0.5$ for
896: $z>0.7$. The resulting differential numbers counts and redshift
897: distribution are plotted with dashed lines in Figs.~\ref{fig:nc} and \ref{fig:nz} (note
898: that we plot the magnitudes corresponding to a 2~sq.~arcsec aperture).
899:
900: %
901: \subsection{Results}
902: %
903: To simulate our observations we will redshift and integrate under
904: the corresponding filter transmissions a spectrum resembling a typical
905: LRG galaxy, and then try to recover its redshift using a Bayesian
906: photometric redshift method (BPZ, described in~\citet{Benitez2000}).
907: Obviously in the real world we will not use a single template for all
908: LRGs between $0 < z < 0.9$: their spectra are known to vary with
909: redshift and luminosity (Eisenstein et al. 2003; Cool et al. 2006).
910: However, as that paper shows, the variation is smooth and easy to
911: parameterize. This is confirmed by HST very deep observations of
912: galaxy clusters, where the scatter around the red sequence remains
913: small ($\sim 0.03$) up to $z=1$ and higher \citep{Blakeslee2003}.
914:
915: We assume that we will be able to split our LRGs into subsamples such
916: that for each of them we can define an empirically calibrated template
917: (using a technique similar to that of \citet{Budavari2000} or
918: \citet{Benitez2004}) which correctly represents the average galaxy
919: colors for that galaxy subsample. Using standard photo-z
920: techniques~\citep{Benitez2000} we reasonably expect to be able to
921: determine the redshift and spectral type of our galaxies in a
922: preliminary pass to within $0.01(1+z)$. This is already being done
923: for the ALHAMBRA survey~\citep{Benitez2008,Moles2008}. Thus, for each
924: galaxy we will have a preliminary estimate of its redshift to within
925: $\sigma_z \sim 0.01(1+z)$ and its absolute magnitude to with
926: $\sigma_M\sim 0.15$ (within the redshift interval $z<0.9$). This
927: ensures that we can pin down the required template for each galaxy
928: with large certainty (the error in the absolute magnitude corresponds
929: to an intrinsic color variation of only 0.004~mag, much smaller than
930: the expected scatter around the sequence at each redshift,
931: 0.03-0.04~mag).
932:
933: The LRG template corresponds to $z<0.5$ galaxies, and one may wonder
934: if the results obtained with this template are representative of
935: higher redshift LRGs. Homeier et al.~(2006) have measured the
936: $V_{606}-I_{814}$
937: %[NOTE *** explain notation]
938: colors of a pair of clusters at $z=0.9$ with the
939: Advanced Camera for Surveys aboard HST. They measure a red sequence
940: that is only $0.09$ bluer than the colors predicted by our LRG
941: template which illustrates the small amount of color evolution
942: expected to $z<1$ and shows that the results obtained with our LRG
943: template should be similar to those obtained with real LRG templates
944: at higher redshifts.
945:
946: In our simulation we generate the galaxy colors using a combination
947: of the average Eisenstein et al. 2003 template, corrected as mentioned
948: above and the first PCA component, multiplied by a coefficient with a
949: Gaussian distribution of rms=1.8. This first PCA component scatter
950: represents well the real broadband scatter of galaxies observed by
951: Cool et al. (2006) for $L>2.2L_{\star}$ LRGs. We extrapolate this
952: scatter to $L>L_{\star}$. We also add a $2\%$ noise to represent the
953: expected scatter in the zero point determination across the survey
954:
955: Then we calculate photometric redshifts using the Bayesian
956: photometric redshift method implemented in the BPZ code and a single
957: LRG reference template. We have also tried a template library with 11
958: templates, formed by linear combinations of the LRG template and the
959: first PCA component encompassing $\pm 3\sigma$ variations and the
960: results are basically the same. For simplicity we quote the results
961: obtained with only one LRG template.
962:
963: With a single template, there is no point in using a prior, but the
964: Bayesian framework still remains useful: it produces the so called
965: ``odds'' parameter, a highly reliable quality indicator for the
966: redshift estimate. In Fig.~\ref{fig:odds} we plot the scatter diagram
967: corresponding to the quantity $(z_{phot}-z_{s})/(1+z_{s})$, where $z_s$ is the true
968: redshift, as a
969: function of the odds parameter, together with the rms corresponding to
970: each value of the odds. We can see that if we exclude the objects with
971: low values of the odds parameter we get rid of most of the redshift
972: outliers. The effectiveness of this technique has been often
973: validated with real data \citep{Benitez2000,Benitez2004,Coe2006}. Note
974: that using a cut in $\chi^2$ does not work well to eliminate outliers,
975: as it was shown by~\citet{Benitez2000}.
976:
977: We thus proceed to eliminate the objects with odds $< 0.55$ from our
978: catalog. Figure~\ref{fig:scatter} shows the scatter diagram for
979: $(z_{phot}-z_{s})/(1+z_{s})$ now as a function of the real redshift,
980: $z_s$. Once the odds cut is applied there are no large outliers.
981:
982: The resulting redshift and number counts distributions are plotted as solid lines in
983: Figs.~\ref{fig:nc} and \ref{fig:nz}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:res} we plot the
984: resulting accuracy as a function of redshift. We are safely below the
985: $0.003(1+z)$ limit for all our redshift range. Finally, in
986: Fig.~\ref{fig:nv} we plot the number density of all the galaxies, and
987: of those with high-quality photo-z as function of redshift.
988: These figures show that we have a spatial density of $\bar{n} >
989: 10^{-3}$~(h/Mpc)$^3$ in the redshift range $z<0.9$. Since $P(k) >
990: 10^{4}$~(Mpc/h)$^3$ for LRGs (see eg.~Fig.~4 in~\citet{Tegmark06})
991: and $k<0.2$~h/Mpc, we will have $\bar{n}P(k)>10$ for the $k$ range of
992: interest for BAO, so that, according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltaP}), shot
993: noise will be negligible.
994:
995: Finally, there are two caveats to consider. First, there are no
996: spectroscopic data with good enough spectrophotometric calibration for
997: LRGs in the redshift range of interest. We can therefore only estimate
998: the intrinsic variation of the galaxies from the data available. We
999: have assumed that it will behave similarly to the variation among LRG
1000: types described by Eisenstein et al.~(2003). Second, the PCA study only
1001: covers the $3650\AA-7000\AA$ range, and we assume that there is no
1002: template variation outside this range. We feel that this is justified
1003: since most of the redshift information for the galaxies is in practice
1004: contained in this interval, especially at high redshift.
1005:
1006: \subsection{Comparison with a spectroscopic survey}
1007: %
1008: A typical multi-fiber spectroscopic survey with about 1000 fibers and
1009: a resolution $R\sim2000$ in a telescope similar to the one we are
1010: assuming here (2-meter class, about 6-deg$^{2}$ FoV, etc.) will reach
1011: up to a magnitude $i<20$ in about 2-hour-long exposures~\citep{BOSS},
1012: assuming the transmission of a good optical spectrograph and low
1013: readout noise. This allows covering in a year close to
1014: 4000~deg$^{2}$ with $0.1<z<0.8$ for LRGs, or about 2.5~(Gpc/h)$^{3}$
1015: per year. In our PAU approach, with our 300-900~s (depending on
1016: the band) exposures, we can cover about 2000~deg$^{2}$ per year with
1017: $0.1<z<0.9$ for LRGs, which translates to about 2~(Gpc/h)$^{3}$ per
1018: year, however with higher galaxy density. This results in $\bar{n}P(k)
1019: >10$ at the relevant scales (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltaP})), while for a
1020: spectroscopic survey similar to~\citet{BOSS}, with about 1000
1021: fibers in a 6~deg$^{2}$ FoV, one can only reach
1022: $\bar{n}P(k)\sim1$. Putting volume per year and galaxy density
1023: together, for an equal-time survey one gets
1024: \begin{equation}
1025: \frac{\left(\Delta P/P\right)_{\mathrm{PAU-BAO}}}
1026: {\left(\Delta P/P\right)_{\mathrm{spect}}}=\sqrt{\frac{2.5}{2}}\
1027: \frac{1+1/10}{1+1/1}\sim0.6\label{eq:compa-PAU-BOSS}
1028: \end{equation}
1029: For the radial modes, one further needs to take into account the
1030: slight degradation in information that affects the PAU measurement
1031: with its $\sigma(z)=0.003(1+z)$.
1032:
1033: Furthermore, in the imaging survey one gets many more galaxies than the
1034: LRGs. A preliminary study for the whole galaxy population obtains a
1035: good photometric redshift determination, $\sigma(z) \approx 0.01
1036: (1+z)$, for a large number of them (over 200 million). These galaxies
1037: would deliver a constraint on the BAO scale of similar power than the
1038: one from LRGs (although correlated, since both galaxy distributions trace
1039: the same underlying density fluctuations), so that the combination of both
1040: would improve the sensitivity, and could serve as a cross-check on systematic errors.
1041: %
1042: \subsection{Calibration Requirements}
1043: %
1044: We present here some general considerations to give an idea of what
1045: level of photometric and spectroscopic calibration is required to
1046: measure the BAO scale with PAU. In the next section we will address
1047: the issue of whether these requirements can be met in practice. We
1048: split this section into photometric and photo-z requirements.
1049: %
1050: \subsubsection{Photometric Calibration}
1051: %
1052: The magnitude of a galaxy that we measure in the survey, $m_{O}$, is
1053: the sum of the true magnitude $m$, plus a random statistical error
1054: that arises from photon and detector noise, $e_{mr}$, plus a
1055: systematic error $e_{ms}$. The systematic error arises from a variety
1056: of effects. For example, variations across the survey of the exposure
1057: time, mean atmospheric absorption and sky background; non-uniformity
1058: of galactic dust absorption and inaccuracies in its correction;
1059: variations in the instrument/detector efficiencies through the
1060: duration of the survey. All these effects are assumed to have been
1061: corrected for through calibrations with standard stars and flat
1062: fielding corrections. But inevitably, every correction has an error
1063: which contributes to $e_{ms}$. While the random statistical errors of
1064: any two galaxies are uncorrelated, the systematic errors in the
1065: magnitude over the survey have a correlation function
1066: $\xi_{ms}(z,\theta,g)$ that is likely to depend on redshift and
1067: angular separation $\theta$, as well as galaxy properties $g$ (e.g.,
1068: luminosity, morphology or color).
1069:
1070: The random statistical errors have an effect that is reduced as the
1071: number of galaxies is increased. Generally the galaxy number shot
1072: noise will be larger than the error introduced by random errors in the
1073: apparent magnitude, as long as these magnitude errors are not very
1074: large. So if the number of galaxies that is observed is large enough
1075: the statistical errors should be small compared to the uncertainty in
1076: the correlation function due to cosmic variance. The systematic
1077: errors, however, do not go down with the number of galaxies observed.
1078:
1079: For a flux limited survey, a magnitude calibration covariance across the
1080: sky $\Delta_{m}(\theta)$ will result in angular density fluctuations
1081: $\delta(\theta)$. If we take the number of galaxies brighter than
1082: magnitude $m$ to be $N(<m)\simeq10^{\alpha\; m}$ (typically
1083: $\alpha\ln{10}\simeq1$), then a magnitude error translates into a
1084: number density fluctuation error:
1085: \begin{equation}
1086: \delta\simeq\alpha\;\ln{10}\;\Delta_{m}\ .
1087: \label{deltam}
1088: \end{equation}
1089: We can decompose the calibration error field in the sky into spherical
1090: harmonics. We would like the resulting spectrum of calibration
1091: errors $C_{l}^{m}$
1092: \begin{equation}
1093: C_{l}^{m}=2\pi\int_{-1}^{1}\mathrm{d}\cos\theta\,\Delta_{m}(\theta)\, P_{l}(\cos\theta)
1094: \end{equation}
1095: to produce errors in the angular power spectrum $C_{l}$ which are
1096: smaller than the sampling variance errors in $C_{l}$:
1097: \begin{equation}
1098: C_{l}^{m}<\frac{\Delta C_{l}}{{\alpha\;\ln{10}}}\simeq\frac{C_{l}}{{\alpha\;\ln{10}\sqrt{f_{sky}(l+1\
1099: /2)}}}
1100: \end{equation}
1101: We will assume that angular clustering will be sampling variance
1102: rather than shot-noise variance dominated. We also assume Gaussian
1103: statistics. The corresponding errors in the correlation function $\Delta_{m}(\theta)$
1104: are: \begin{equation}
1105: \Delta_{m}(\theta)=\sum_{l}\frac{2 l+1}{4\pi}C_{l}^{m}~P_{l}(cos\theta)
1106: \label{eq:req}\end{equation}
1107:
1108: The BAO scale projects at angles between $3.7$ and $1.7$ degrees
1109: for redshifts between $z=0.4$ and $z=1.0$ (smaller redshifts cover
1110: a negligible volume). Unfortunately the field of view (FoV) of the
1111: planed PAU camera plans to cover very similar angular scales. We therefore
1112: need to be careful about calibration on the FoV. At angular
1113: scales $3.7$ and $1.7$ degrees, the requirement in Eq.(\ref{eq:req})
1114: translates into rms correlated calibration errors smaller than $2\%$
1115: to $3\%$ (ie $0.02$ and $0.03$ rms magnitude errors) in units of $(b/2)/(\alpha~\ln{10})$ for $f_{sky}=0.2$.
1116: This is for the whole (flux limited) sample (mean $z\simeq0.7$). These constraints become
1117: looser when we split the sample into redshift bins because the amplitude
1118: of clustering increases as we reduce the projected volume. The detailed
1119: constraints are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:d_m}.
1120: %
1121: \subsubsection{Selection effects on $\xi_2(r)$}
1122: %
1123: Another angle to look at possible photometric calibration effects is
1124: to assume that different systematics on the galaxy density
1125: fluctuations will act as multiplicative correction over the galaxy
1126: density at a given position in the sample. We will assume that this
1127: type of error is uncorrelated to the galaxy clustering so that:
1128: \begin{equation}
1129: \xi_{obs}(r) = \xi(r) + \xi_e(r)
1130: \end{equation}
1131: where $\xi(r)$ is the true correlation and $\xi_e(r)$ is the
1132: correlation due to systematics in selection and calibration. To see
1133: how this could affect the BAO scale measurement we model the true
1134: correlation around the BAO scale as a Gaussian peak of width
1135: $\sigma_0$. We further assume a generic power-law $\xi_e(r) \propto
1136: r^{-\beta}$ for the error around the BAO scale. The relative shift in
1137: the BAO scale can be found by Taylor expansion around the peak:
1138: \begin{equation}
1139: \Delta_{BAO}= \beta ~ { \xi_e(r_{BAO}) ~ \sigma_0^2
1140: \over{\xi (r_{BAO}) ~ r_{BAO}^2}}.
1141: \end{equation}
1142: This requires an amplitude of $\xi_e(r_{BAO})< 0.002$ if we want a
1143: shift in the peak $\Delta_{BAO} < 1\%$ and $\beta \simeq 2$. We have
1144: used here $\sigma_0 \simeq 15$ Mpc/h, $r_{BAO} \simeq 100$ Mpc/h, and
1145: $ \xi(r_{BAO}) \simeq 0.01$ from Fig.\ref{fig:xi2}.
1146: This corresponds to a $20\%$ error in the correlation at the BAO scale,
1147: %i.e. about $\sqrt{20}\sim 5\%$ on density fluctuations.
1148: and about $\sqrt(\xi_e)=4.5\%$ error on density fluctuations.
1149:
1150: We have also tested the above
1151: calculations directly in simulations, by adding $\xi_e(r)$ and
1152: recovering the BAO scale.
1153:
1154: Using Eq.~(\ref{deltam}), this value of $\xi_e(r_{BAO})< 0.002$
1155: corresponds to $\Delta m < 0.05$ (in units of $\alpha\;\ln{10}$ with
1156: $N(<m)\simeq10^{\alpha\; m}$). Thus, with very different assumptions
1157: we reach the same conclusion on the requirement on photometric
1158: accuracy of around $5\%$ on the BAO scale.
1159: %
1160: \subsubsection{Photo-z bias}
1161: %
1162: Systematic errors in the radial direction (photo-z biases) also need
1163: to be under careful control. At any given redshift, we would like the
1164: mean in the photo-z measurements to differ from the true redshift by
1165: less than $1\%$ (the target in $\Delta_{BAO}$ accuracy) in the radial
1166: BAO distance, ie $\sigma_r \simeq 1 $Mpc/h, which corresponds to:
1167: \begin{equation}
1168: \Delta_z = \sigma_r~H(z)/c \simeq 5 \times 10^{-4} ~ (z=0.8)
1169: \end{equation}
1170: where the numerical value corresponds to $z=0.8$ and $\Omega_m=0.2$.
1171: This is about an order of magnitude better than the statistical error
1172: at the same redshift, i.e.~$\sigma_z \simeq 0.003 (1+z) \simeq 5 \times
1173: 10^{-3}$.
1174:
1175: Note that this is a conservative approach because we need the
1176: $\Delta_{BAO}$ accuracy as measured by galaxy density fluctuations and
1177: not by the absolute distances to the galaxies. The former will probably
1178: result into a weaker constraint for $\Delta_z$.
1179: %
1180: \subsection{Calibration Plan}
1181: %
1182: As a summary for the above requirements, we need relative calibration
1183: to be better than about $3\%-5\%$ to avoid systematic effects on
1184: density fluctuations to dominate over intrinsic fluctuations on the
1185: BAO scale. On top of this we would like to have a bias in the photo-z
1186: scale to be below $1\%$ on radial measurements of the BAO scale.
1187:
1188: In terms of global photometry, it has now been shown that a
1189: homogeneous global relative calibration below $2-3\%$ accuracy is
1190: possible in current and future surveys (e.g., \cite{Sterken07} and
1191: references therein). The large field of view required by the PAU survey
1192: and the drift scanning strategy will both help in the provision of
1193: standard calibration techniques, such as done in SDSS. We will also
1194: need to use a set of calibrated standard spectra of stars (or
1195: galaxies) to monitor and correct for relative color bias between
1196: narrow bands.
1197:
1198: Apart from these "classical" techniques, it seems to be possible to
1199: use the observed colors of galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts as a
1200: photometric calibrator. In HST´s Ultra Deep Field \citet{Coe2006} have
1201: been able to calibrate the NICMOS zero-points using the comparison
1202: between predicted colors using the templates of \citet{Benitez2004}
1203: and $\sim 50$ spectroscopic redshifts. Similar techniques have been
1204: used for the COSMOS field \citep{Capak2007} and are being applied to
1205: ALHAMBRA \citep{Moles2008}. Further work with the later survey will
1206: help refine our calibration redshift requirements.
1207:
1208: Independently of the exact photo-z method finally used for the survey,
1209: it will be equivalent to defining a function $z=f(p,C,o)$, where $p$
1210: are a set of parameters describing the function, $o$ are a set of
1211: observables like the approximate redshift of the galaxy (determined
1212: with standard photo-z techniques), its luminosity, size or environment
1213: density, and $C$ are the observed colors. The LRG population under
1214: study is relatively homogeneous and its changes with redshift and
1215: magnitude can be described with a very compact set of parameters
1216: \citep{EisensteinLRG}. If we determine the parameters $p$ with enough
1217: precision to reach a redshift error $\sigma_z$ over the whole range
1218: under consideration, then, provided that the parametrization is
1219: flexible enough to adapt itself to the observed redshift/color
1220: relationship of galaxies, the systematic zero point error, averaged
1221: over all the galaxies, will be equivalent to $\sigma_z /\sqrt{N_c}$
1222: where $\sigma_z$ is the rms redshift error and $N_c$ is the number of
1223: calibrators. We expect to have a calibration set with several thousand
1224: galaxies, easy to reach with 10-m telescopes as the GTC, and therefore
1225: will have negligible redshift bias.
1226: %
1227: \section{The Survey Instrument}\label{sec:base}
1228: %
1229: The approach of the PAU project is to use known and proven technologies
1230: to build a large field of view (FoV) camera and mount it on a telescope
1231: that is optimized for the survey.
1232:
1233: The simulations presented in previous sections use a baseline concept of
1234: camera plus telescope with a large
1235: {\it etendue}, $A\Omega\approx 20$~m$^2$deg$^2$. This {\it etendue} is
1236: achieved by means of a telescope with a 2-m effective aperture and a
1237: camera with 6~deg$^2$ FoV. A total of 42 filters is considered, each
1238: one having a width of 100~\AA ~in wavelength. The full filter system
1239: covers a range that goes from $\sim$4000~\AA ~to $\sim$8000~\AA, completed
1240: by two broad-band filters similar to the SDSS $u$ and $z$ bands.
1241:
1242: In this section, we present the main ideas of a possible implementation of
1243: such a system. The goal is to show the feasibility of the telescope/camera
1244: system, and not to present a complete design.
1245:
1246: %
1247: \subsection{Optics}\label{sec:optics}
1248: %
1249: Achieving a many-filter, very-large-area survey in a relatively
1250: short time and the need for a rather large value of the {\it etendue}
1251: demand a very large FoV. The depth is not a major concern since
1252: the targets are bright galaxies in all the surveyed redshift
1253: range. Therefore, the field of view is the main driver of the optical
1254: design.
1255:
1256: To give some quantitative estimates, with a telescope of 2.3 m
1257: aperture, a pixel size of 0.4\char`\"{} and state of the art
1258: detectors, it is possible to reach S/N $\sim$ 5 for a star of
1259: m(AB) = 23.5 in $\sim$300 sec in all the spectral range bluer
1260: than ~7500~\AA. Since the survey should cover, as
1261: argued before, an area of at least 8000 square degrees, a FoV of
1262: 6 sq.~deg.~is needed to be able to perform the survey in
1263: 4-5 years.
1264:
1265: It is important to notice that we do not intend to use detailed
1266: information on the morphology/shape of the objects, which relaxes
1267: the requirements on the image scale. This is the reason to choose
1268: a rather modest plate scale that translates 15 $\mu$m pixels into
1269: 26 arcsec/mm.
1270:
1271: These FoV and plate scale are the basic requirements for a telescope
1272: that will be dedicated to the survey until its completion. These optical
1273: requirements for such a large FoV telescope and the corresponding
1274: panoramic CCD camera are demanding but they appear feasible.
1275:
1276: The next optical elements are the filters. They are intended to have
1277: transmission curves with very sharp limits and minimal wavelength
1278: overlap, very similar to the filters in the ALHAMBRA
1279: survey~\citep{ALHAMBRA, Moles2008, Benitez2008} but 100~\AA-wide.
1280:
1281: The location of the filters in the path to the detectors can affect
1282: the final efficiency of the system. Two options are being considered:
1283: attaching the filters directly over the CCDs or on plate holders that
1284: could be interchanged. The first option is mechanically simpler but
1285: reduces the survey flexibility. The second one allows the optimisation
1286: of the exposure times using different sets of filters depending on the
1287: moon-phase or any other external constraint, but its practical
1288: implementation is more demanding. The final decision will
1289: be taken when all the practical aspects of the survey, such as observing
1290: mode and calibration strategy are fixed.
1291:
1292: \subsection{Focal-Plane and Observing Strategy}
1293: \label{sec:focal}
1294:
1295: The baseline concept for the camera is a large mosaic of CCDs
1296: covering the 6 deg$^2$ FoV. The scientific goals can be
1297: reached with pixels of 0.40\char`\"{}. Since most of the current astronomical
1298: large CCD detectors have pixel scales of 15 microns, we need a camera
1299: of around 500~Mega-pixel or a number of 2K$\times$4K CCDs that ranges
1300: in between 60 and 80, including a few CCDs for focusing and
1301: guiding purposes.
1302:
1303: The baseline CCDs under consideration for the PAU camera are the
1304: fully depleted, high-resistivity, 250 micron thick devices developed
1305: by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)~\citep{Holland03}. These
1306: CCDs ensure
1307: a very high quantum efficiency in the red zone of the wavelength region
1308: covered by PAU. However, the different possibilities of optimisation
1309: have some impact in the focal plane instrumentation. There is the possibility
1310: of having two different types of CCDs covering different regions of the focal
1311: plane, in direct correlation with the filters, in order to maximise
1312: the sensitivity in the whole wavelength range. Thin blue-sensitive
1313: CCDs correlated with blue filters and thick red-optimized CCDs correlated
1314: with red filters. Several suppliers of CCDs are available for thin
1315: blue-optimized CCDs. A final decision for the focal plane intrumentation will
1316: be taken considering the global optimisation of the survey.
1317:
1318: The camera vessel will need to contain a liquid nitrogen reservoir
1319: to maintain the focal plane cold for several hours, ensuring stability
1320: and not compromising the efficiency of the observations. We will also
1321: investigate the choice of cryo-coolers or pulse tube coolers, taking into
1322: account the mechanical requirements that impose a stable precision of a
1323: few microns on the positioning of the CCDs in the focal plane.
1324:
1325: The best observing strategy for a project of these characteristics is
1326: the time-delay-and-integrate (TDI) drift scanning mode. Drift scanning
1327: is a powerful imaging technique in which the telescope is kept stationary
1328: and one lets the sky image drift across the CCDs. Normally, TDI mode is
1329: operated at sidereal rate, and the lines of the CCD must be
1330: read in perfect synchronisation with the movement of the sky at the focal
1331: plane. In this way, long continuous strips of the sky are imaged and large
1332: fields can be explored automatically, which makes this observing strategy
1333: particularly well-suited for large surveys. Therefore, it is considered as
1334: the baseline strategy for PAU.
1335:
1336: \subsection{Front-End Electronics}
1337: \label{sec:electro}
1338:
1339: The readout of a focal plane of the size of the PAU camera is a
1340: challenge. One of the most attractive options to read out such a large
1341: number of CCDs is to use the open system MONSOON~\citep{monsoon},
1342: developed by the
1343: instrumentation division of NOAO (National Optics Astronomical
1344: Observatory, supported by the US NSF). A custom-made system or a commercial
1345: one, such as the Leach controller~\citep{leach}, are also being considered.
1346:
1347: MONSOON is a generic readout system which consists in three kind of
1348: boards: the Acquisition Board, responsible for the bias voltage generation
1349: and the digitization of signals coming from the CCDs, the Clock
1350: Board, responsible of the clock signal generation needed to read out the
1351: CCD, and the Master Control Board, responsible of the event building and the
1352: data transmission to the DAQ computer. The system can be customised to
1353: meet the specific and demanding requirements of the PAU camera.
1354:
1355: \section{Science Capabilities} \label{sec:science}
1356: %
1357: \subsection{The BAO scale}\label{sec:BAO}
1358: %
1359: We have performed extensive simulations of the PAU survey, assuming
1360: 8000~deg$^{2}$ covered up to $z=0.9$ using luminous red galaxies with the galaxy density given in Fig.~\ref{fig:nv}
1361: and the redshift precision from Fig.~\ref{fig:res}. This results in measurements
1362: of $H(z)\cdot r_s$ and $d_A(z)/r_s$, $r_s$ being here the sound horizon
1363: at recombination, which are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:h-da}. The relative
1364: precision achieved improves monotonically with increasing redshift, flattening
1365: out at about 5\% for $H(z)$ and 2\% for $d_A(z)$.
1366:
1367: We have split the redshift interval from $z=0.1$ to $z=0.9$
1368: into 16 equal bins. Results do not change if we change the binning.
1369: Combining these measurements into a cosmology fit, taking into account
1370: correlations, leads to determinations of the parameters $\Omega_{m},w_{0},w_{a}$.
1371: In the following, we will be using the standard parametrization
1372: \citep{Chevallier2001,linder2003} of
1373: the time evolution of the Dark Energy equation of state, $w(z)=w_{0}+w_{a}\cdot(1-a)$, where $w_0$ denotes the equation of state now, and $w_a$ is (minus) its
1374: current derivative with respect to the scale factor $a$.
1375: The value of the reduced Hubble constant, $h$ drops out of the measured
1376: quantities. The left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:w0vswa} shows the 68\%
1377: confidence level (CL) contour in the $\Omega_{m}$-$w$ plane that
1378: can be achieved using only PAU LRG data. The corresponding one-sigma
1379: errors are $\sigma(\Omega_m,w) = (0.016,0.115)$.
1380: A flat universe and constant
1381: equation of state has been assumed. In the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:w0vswa},
1382: 68\% CL contours are shown in the $w_{0}$-$w_{a}$ plane, assuming
1383: a flat universe. The outermost contour approximates the expected world
1384: combined precision from SNe and WMAP when PAU will start taking
1385: data, while the inner contour adds the PAU LRG data to the previous
1386: data set. The reduction in area corresponds to an improvement
1387: by more than a factor three in the DETF figure of merit. The one-sigma
1388: errors are $\sigma(w_0,w_a) = (0.14,0.67)$.
1389: %
1390:
1391: We have also simulated a straw-man spectroscopic survey with equal
1392: area and depth but with $\sigma_{z}=0.0005(1+z)$. The greatly improved
1393: redshift precision results in only a modest $20\%$ decrease in the
1394: cosmological parameter uncertainties.
1395: %
1396: Actually, the larger galaxy density that a photometric survey affords
1397: overcompensates for this deficit, as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:compa},
1398: where our simulated reach for several proposed BAO surveys is compared.
1399: %Details of the input assumed for each of the surveys are given in Table~\ref{tab:compa}.
1400: Details of the survey characteristics are taken from public
1401: sources and are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:compa}. For Wiggle-Z, we adopt the
1402: total number of galaxies and redshift distribution as given in
1403: \citet{Glazebrook2007}. Surprisingly, our Wiggle-Z constraints on dark energy
1404: parameters are approximately a factor two worse than what one would
1405: predict from the errors on the $d_A$ and $H$ measurements quoted by the
1406: authors. We use the information in section 3 of the SDSS3 project
1407: description (http://www.sdss3.org/collaboration/description.pdf) to
1408: simulate BOSS. The information for HETDEX is taken from \citet{Hill2004}.
1409: The WFMOS surveys details are taken from the Feasibility Study Report, which can be found in
1410: http://www.gemini.edu/files/docman/science/aspen/.
1411: %WFMOS\_feasibility\_report\_public.pdf.
1412: The Pan-STARRS 1 Survey (PS1) and Dark Energy Survey (DES) information are
1413: taken from their web pages (http://pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu/ and
1414: http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/).
1415: %
1416: \subsection{Other Probes of Dark Energy} \label{sec:other-probes}
1417: %
1418: \subsubsection{The galaxy clustering in redshift space}\label{sec:redshift-space}
1419: %
1420: The redshift accuracy will be sufficiently good to
1421: identify individual structures (walls and voids) along the line of
1422: sight (see Fig.~2). Accurate measurements of the redshift-space power spectrum
1423: will be possible in the linear and mildly non-linear regime, and a
1424: detailed comparison with theoretical predictions will be done in conjunction
1425: with the measurement of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations. Detailed measurements
1426: of redshift space distortions offer an independent test of the growth
1427: history of the peculiar velocity field (i.e.~Newtonian gravitational potential).
1428: This encloses cosmological information on
1429: dark energy (and/or modified gravity), complementary to that in
1430: BAO, which measures the background history. A descomposition
1431: of the 2-point correlation function in radial and transverse directions
1432: also allows for a measurement of bias $b$ and the amplitude
1433: of matter clustering $\sigma_8$, which can be used to study the growth history of
1434: density fluctuations to $z=1$.
1435: Measurement of the amplitude of the galaxy power spectrum, $P(k)$, as
1436: a function of redshift can also be used to determine the growth rate of
1437: structure through the cross-correlation of the galaxy data with
1438: future CMB lensing data or by using higher-order correlations to determine the bias
1439: parameter as a function of scale and redshift. Higher-order correlations,
1440: such as the 3-point function or bispectrum, can also be used to measure the BAO feature.
1441: %
1442: \subsubsection{Weak Lensing}\label{sec:WL}
1443: %
1444: Weak lensing is sensitive to both the distance and
1445: the growth factor as a function of redshift. The lensing effect can
1446: be measured using either the shear or the magnification.
1447: The PAU camera will not be optimized to measure galaxy
1448: ellipticities, so weak lensing shear may not be as good as those from other
1449: surveys. However, the accurate photometric redshifts obtained in PAU may
1450: be combined with ellipticity measurements obtained in other surveys for the same galaxies.
1451: This additional information will help separating shear lensing from intrinsic
1452: galaxy aligment.
1453:
1454: Gravitational lensing modulates the observed
1455: spatial distribution of galaxies. Dim galaxies that otherwise would not
1456: have been detected are brought into the sample by the lensing magnification.
1457: This increases the observed number density of galaxies.
1458: On the other hand, magnification also increases the apparent area, which
1459: leads to a drop in the observed number density of galaxies.
1460: The net lensing effect, known as magnification bias,
1461: is controlled by the slope of the number counts.
1462: The PAU survey will be able to measure this effect
1463: by cross-correlating galaxy samples defined
1464: by separated redshift slices.
1465: %
1466: \subsubsection{Galaxy Clusters}
1467: \label{sec:clusters}
1468: %
1469: Galaxy clusters are the largest collapsed structures
1470: in the Universe, containing up to hundreds or thousands of individual galaxies.
1471: The redshift distribution and the evolution of
1472: clustering of massive clusters of galaxies can provide a direct
1473: measurement of the cosmic volume
1474: as a function of redshift as well as the growth rate of density perturbations.
1475: This is complementary to the measurement of the BAO scale,
1476: which is purely geometrical in nature. Comparison of theory to observations requires
1477: a calibration of the cluster masses (or at least the mass threshold
1478: of each cluster sample). Clusters of galaxies can be
1479: identified optically by searching for concentrations of galaxies with the same color.
1480: The PAU survey by itself will provide a new
1481: window for accurate optical cluster detection and selection, based on the combination
1482: of photometric colors and good photo-z precision over all galaxies
1483: around each cluster, which will help improving on
1484: cluster completeness and contamination. PAU will also provide the opportunity
1485: to self-calibrate the mass threshold of a given cluster sample in different ways,
1486: such as stacking weak lensing magnification measurements over the cluster positions
1487: or using the (biased) amplitude of clustering in the same cluster sample.
1488: The photo-z accuracy for clusters will be improved
1489: in comparison to the galaxy photo-z by the square
1490: root of the number of galaxies in the cluster. This will result in
1491: a typical photo-z accuracy which is a few times smaller than that for galaxies.
1492: At the same time, one could use the velocity dispersion of the
1493: galaxies in each cluster to provide an estimate of the cluster mass. This will not
1494: be accurate for individual clusters, but should be accurate enough
1495: to have an estimate of the mass threshold of a given cluster sample.
1496:
1497: A cluster survey carried out over the PAU area also constrains cosmology through the
1498: spatial clustering of the galaxy clusters. As mentioned above, this can be done
1499: with even higher photo-z accuracy than in the PAU galaxy survey.
1500: The clustering of galaxy clusters reflect the underlying clustering in the dark matter;
1501: these correlations contain a wealth of cosmological information, much like the information
1502: contained in the LRG correlation function, including the BAO position.
1503: Even if the number density for clusters is lower
1504: than that of LRGs, this is partially compensated by the higher (biased)
1505: clustering amplitude. We plan to use the PAU cluster redshift
1506: distribution and the cluster power spectrum and clustering
1507: as cosmological probes to study the density and nature of the dark energy.
1508:
1509: PAU can also be used in combination with other
1510: surveys to provide accurate photo-z in a sample of
1511: clusters detected by the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ)
1512: or X-ray signatures of hot gas in clusters, as well as in weak
1513: lensing cluster selection.
1514: %
1515: \subsection{Other science}\label{sec:other}
1516: %
1517: The large number of narrow filters in the PAU survey will yield many
1518: colors for all the detected galaxies, allowing the measurement of
1519: numerous interesting parameters for the study of galaxy evolution:
1520: stellar mass, stellar age distribution, metallicity, dust absorption,
1521: and interstellar gas emission. This will make possible a detailed
1522: study of the rates of star formation, galaxy mergers and chemical
1523: evolution that can account for the evolution of the stellar contents
1524: of galaxies of different types, as a function of their environment.
1525:
1526: The PAU survey will substantially increase the sensitivity of
1527: astronomical observations to the presence of intergalactic dust, and
1528: possibly detect and characterize it for the first time. Intergalactic
1529: dust extinction can be searched for by correlating the foreground
1530: density of galaxies with the background surface brightness of sources,
1531: as well as the extinction measured from our multiple colors. Our
1532: accurate photometric redshifts will allow for a good estimate of the
1533: mass column density (which should presumably correlate with dust
1534: extinction) in the line of sight to every background galaxy. A detailed
1535: extinction curve for intergalactic dust may be measurable with our
1536: multiple narrow-band colors. The presence of gray dust
1537: (causing extinction with no reddening) could also be explored.
1538:
1539: The narrow filters of PAU will result in an improved separation of
1540: quasars and stars compared to other surveys, and also a more accurate
1541: estimate of quasar redshifts from the photometry.
1542: Our narrow-band photometry may also be useful
1543: to study the mean transmission of the Lyman alpha forest on large
1544: scales, its fluctuations and its evolution with redshift.
1545: Quasar lens candidates can be searched for by
1546: checking for the presence of multiple images and
1547: followed-up at another observatory with higher angular
1548: resolution. The PAU survey will also provide a map of galaxies in the vicinity of the
1549: lines of sight of all our quasars, with rather accurate photometric
1550: redshifts for all the galaxies. One can follow up with spectroscopic
1551: observations of a selected sample of quasars at another observatory,
1552: and use the PAU galaxies to correlate absorption systems seen in the
1553: quasar spectra with the galaxies, to study the distribution of gas
1554: around galaxies.
1555:
1556: The most luminous star-forming galaxies at redshifts $z \gtrsim 2.5$
1557: will be detectable with the PAU survey narrow-band photometry by means
1558: of their Lyman continuum break, the Lyman alpha forest absorption, and
1559: possibly a Lyman alpha emission line.
1560: This will allow the study of this galaxy population and its clustering
1561: properties over an unprecedentedly large volume.
1562:
1563: By selecting the PAU filters appropriately, several
1564: parameters of the stars observed in our survey should be measurable, such as
1565: effective temperature, surface gravity, iron abundance, and $\alpha$/Fe.
1566: An accurate determination of the density profile and metallicity
1567: distribution of halo stars in the Milky Way may follow: the PAU survey
1568: could yield the largest number of metallicity measurements of halo
1569: stars, characterizing the stellar populations of the various streams
1570: believed to have originated our stellar halo.
1571: Giant stars may be also detected by PAU at distances up to $\sim$ 1 Mpc.
1572: This could provide our first substantial sample of stars far from any
1573: galaxy in the Local Group, and extend the measurements of the halo
1574: profile of the Milky Way and its metallicity distributions to much
1575: larger radii. For this purpose, it is necessary to have good ways of
1576: distinguishing nearby K and M dwarfs from distant K and M giants with
1577: the PAU narrow-band photometry.
1578:
1579: PAU should also be great for serendipitous discoveries. We
1580: will have spectral information for every one of the $10^9$ pixels
1581: in the survey, which will allow for search of diffuse, low signal-to-noise,
1582: components or rare new objects.
1583: For example, if there exist any objects in the universe that produce bursts and
1584: emit most of their power in an emission line, the PAU survey will be
1585: ideal for discovering them.
1586: %
1587: \section{Summary and Conclusions} \label{sec:summary}
1588: %
1589: In 1998, the discovery of the accelerated expansion of the universe
1590: changed completely our understanding of the universe and its
1591: components. Ten years on, the quest to understand what causes the
1592: acceleration continues. Along the way, the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation
1593: (BAO) technique has been identified as a systematically
1594: robust, yet statistically powerful, probe of dark energy properties.
1595: In particular, measuring the BAO feature along the line of sight as a funcion
1596: of redshift provides a direct determination of $H(z)$, which, in turns, depends on the amount and
1597: characteristics of dark energy. However, such a measurement requires a very precise determination
1598: of galaxy redshifts.
1599:
1600: We have presented here a novel approach to photometric redshift determination
1601: which allows the measurement
1602: of the BAO feature along the line of sight in an efficient way, by using a set of about 40 narrow-band
1603: (FWHM$\approx$~100~\AA) filters. The
1604: approach complements (for BAO and for other science) spectroscopic
1605: surveys, which typically measure much more precisely the spectra of a much reduced
1606: sample of galaxies.
1607:
1608: Because of the intrinsic width of the peak in the galaxy-galaxy correlation
1609: function of about 15~Mpc/h, there is a fundamental limitation as to how much
1610: one can improve the BAO measurement by reducing the photo-z errors.
1611: A redshift precision of order $\sigma(z)\approx 0.003(1+z)$, corresponding to 15~Mpc/h along the line of sight at $z=0.5$, is about optimal for this measurement. Redshift space distortions, biasing and non-linear effects produce distortions that can be comparable to the effect of this photo-z precision.
1612:
1613: Simulations show that both the target galaxy density ($n\sim 10^{-3}$(h/Mpc)$^3$) and precision in redshift
1614: ($\sigma_z/(1+z) \sim 0.003$) can be achieved with the proposed system. These simulations indicate that
1615: PAU by itself
1616: %(no priors)
1617: can determine the equation of state of the dark energy assumed constant ($w$) to about
1618: 5\%, while when the PAU data is combined with expected supernova and CMB data samples, a sizable increase
1619: in the Dark Energy Task Force figure-of-merit (inverse of the area of the error ellipse in the
1620: $w_0$--$w_a$ plane)
1621: by about a factor three is achieved, making the PAU very competitive when compared to other planned ground-based
1622: BAO surveys, photometric or spectroscopic.
1623:
1624: The survey will produce a unique data set with low-resolution spectroscopy in the optical
1625: wavelengths for all objects in the northern sky up to $m_{AB}=23$--$23.5\ \textrm{arcsec}^{-2}$ (five sigma).
1626: A survey like PAU, producing
1627: such a catalogue,
1628: will have enormous legacy value and will be extremely useful for many areas of astrophysics,
1629: with contibutions that are different
1630: from, and complementary to, those a spectroscopic survey can deliver.
1631: %
1632: \section*{Acknowledgements}
1633: %
1634: This work was carried out in the framework of the PAU Consolider Collaboration,
1635: supported in part by the
1636: Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (MEC) through the Consolider
1637: Ingenio-2010 program, under project CSD2007-00060 ``Physics of the
1638: Accelerating Universe (PAU).'' Additional support comes from the Barcelona
1639: Supercomputer Center, as well as from the European Commission,
1640: the Spanish High Council for Scientific Research (CSIC),
1641: and the regional governments of Andalusia, Aragon, Catalonia, Madrid, and Valencia.
1642: %
1643: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1644:
1645: \bibitem[ADEPT (2008)]{adept}
1646: ADEPT 2008,
1647: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/BE\_Nov\_2006\_bennett.pdf
1648:
1649: \bibitem[Albrecht et al.\ (2006)]{detf}
1650: Albrecht, A., et al.\ 2006,
1651: %The Dark Energy Task Force (DETF),
1652: arXiv:astro-ph/0609591
1653:
1654: \bibitem[Alcock \& Paczynski (1979)]{AP}
1655: Alcock, C., Paczynski, B.\ 1979, Nature 281, 358
1656:
1657: \bibitem[Angulo et al.\ (2008)]{ABFL07}
1658: Angulo, R.~E., Baugh, C.~M., Frenk, C.~S., \& Lacey, C.~G.\ 2008,
1659: \mnras, 383, 755
1660:
1661: \bibitem[Astier et al.\ (2006)]{astier06}
1662: Astier, P., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 447, 31
1663:
1664: \bibitem[Basset et al.\ (2005)]{wfmos}
1665: Basett, B. et al.\ 2005, arXiv:astro-ph/0510272
1666:
1667: \bibitem[Baum (1962)]{1962IAUS...15..390B} Baum, W.~A.\ 1962, Problems of Extra-Galactic Research, 15, 390
1668:
1669: \bibitem[Ben{\'{\i}}tez (2000)]{Benitez2000}
1670: %{2000ApJ...536..571B}
1671: Ben{\'{\i}}tez, N.\ 2000, \apj, 536, 571
1672:
1673: \bibitem[Ben{\'{\i}}tez et al.\ (2004)]{Benitez2004}
1674: %{2004ApJS..150....1B}
1675: Ben{\'{\i}}tez, N., et al.\ 2004, \apjs, 150, 1
1676:
1677: \bibitem[Ben\'{\i}tez et al.\ (2008)]{Benitez2008}
1678: Ben\'{\i}tez, N., et al.\ 2008, ApJL submitted
1679:
1680: \bibitem[Blake et al.\ (2007)]{blake}
1681: Blake, C., Collister, A., Bridle, S., \& Lahav, O.\ 2007, \mnras, 374, 1527
1682:
1683: \bibitem[Blake \& Bridle (2005)]{briddle}
1684: Blake, C., ~Bridle, S.\ 2005, \mnras, 363, 1329
1685:
1686: \bibitem[Blake \& Glazebrook (2003)]{Glazebrook}
1687: Blake, C., Glazebrook, K.\ 2003, \apj, 594, 665
1688:
1689: \bibitem[Blakeslee et al.\ (2003)]{Blakeslee2003}
1690: Blakeslee, J.~P., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 596, L143
1691:
1692: \bibitem[BOSS (2008)]{BOSS}
1693: BOSS 2008, http://www.sdss.org/news/releases/20080110.sdss3.html
1694:
1695: \bibitem[Brown et al.\ (2007)]{Brown2007}
1696: %{2007ApJ...654..858B}
1697: Brown, M.~J.~I., Dey, A.,
1698: Jannuzi, B.~T., Brand, K., Benson, A.~J., Brodwin, M., Croton, D.~J.,
1699: \& Eisenhardt, P.~R.\ 2007, \apj, 654, 858
1700:
1701: \bibitem[Budav{\'a}ri et al.\ (2000)]{Budavari2000}
1702: %{2000AJ....120.1588B}
1703: Budav{\'a}ri, T., Szalay, A.~S., Connolly, A.~J., Csabai, I.,
1704: \& Dickinson, M.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 1588
1705:
1706: \bibitem[Cabre \& Gaztanaga (2008)]{2008arXiv0807.2460C}
1707: Cabre, A., \& Gaztanaga, E.\ 2008, arXiv:0807.2460 [astro-ph]
1708:
1709: \bibitem[Capak et al.\ (2007)]{Capak2007}
1710: Capak, P. et al.\ 2007, arXiv:0704.2430 [astro-ph]
1711:
1712: \bibitem[Chevallier \& Polarski (2001)]{Chevallier2001}
1713: Chevallier, M., \& Polarski, D.\ 2001, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ D 10, 213
1714:
1715: \bibitem[Coe et al.\ (2006)]{Coe2006}
1716: %{2006AJ....132..926C}
1717: Coe, D., Ben{\'{\i}}tez, N., S{\'a}nchez, S.~F., Jee, M., Bouwens, R.,
1718: \& Ford, H.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 926
1719:
1720: \bibitem[Cole et al.\ (2005)]{2df}
1721: Cole, S. et al.\ 2005, \mnras, 362, 505
1722:
1723: \bibitem[Cool et al.\ (2006)]{Cool2006}
1724: %{2006AJ....131..736C}
1725: Cool, R.~J., Eisenstein,
1726: D.~J., Johnston, D., Scranton, R., Brinkmann, J., Schneider, D.~P.,
1727: \& Zehavi, I.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 736
1728:
1729: \bibitem[Crocce \& Scoccimarro (2008)]{RPTbao}
1730: Crocce, M., \& Scoccimarro, R.\ 2008, \prd 77, 023533
1731:
1732: \bibitem[D'Abrusco et al.\ (2007)]{D'Abrusco}
1733: D'Abrusco, R., Staiano, A., Longo, G., Brescia, M., Paolillo, M.,
1734: De Filippis, E., \& Tagliaferri, R.\ 2007, \apj, 663, 752
1735:
1736: \bibitem[DES (2008)]{des}
1737: DES 2008, {http://www.darkenergysurvey.org}
1738:
1739: \bibitem[Dickinson et al.\ (2004)]{vsa}
1740: Dickinson C., et al.\ 2004, \mnras, 353, 732
1741:
1742: \bibitem[Eisenstein et al.\ (2003)]{EisensteinLRG}
1743: Eisenstein, D.~J., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 585, 694
1744:
1745: \bibitem[Eisenstein et al.\ (2005)]{eisenstein}
1746: Eisenstein, D.~J., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 633, 560
1747:
1748: \bibitem[Eisenstein \& Hu (1998)]{eh98}
1749: Eisenstein, D.~J., \& Hu, W.\ 1998, \apj, 496, 605
1750:
1751: \bibitem[Feldman, Kaiser \& Peacock (1994)]{FKP94}
1752: Feldman, H.A., Kaiser, N., Peacock, J.A.\ 1994, \apj, 426, 23
1753:
1754: \bibitem[Fosalba et al.\ (2007)]{OnionUniverse}
1755: Fosalba, P., Gazta\~{n}aga, E., Castander, F., \& Manera, M.\ 2007,
1756: arXiv:0711.1540 [astro/ph]
1757:
1758: \bibitem[Gaztanaga, Cabre \& Hui (2008)]{2008arXiv0807.3551G}
1759: Gaztanaga, E., Cabre, A \& Hui, L.\ 2008, arXiv:0807.3551 [astro-ph]
1760:
1761: \bibitem[Glazebrook et al.\ (2007)]{Glazebrook2007}
1762: Glazebrook, K., et al.\ 2007,
1763: %``The Wiggle-Z project: AAOmega and dark energy'',
1764: Proceedings of the Durham ``Cosmic Frontiers'' Conference,
1765: ASP Conference Series, Vol.\ 379, p.\ 72. eds.\ Metcalfe \&
1766: Shanks. [arXiv:astro-ph/0701876].
1767:
1768: \bibitem[HETDEX (2008)]{hetdex}
1769: HETDEX 2008, http://www.as.utexas.edu/hetdex
1770:
1771: \bibitem[Hickson et al.\ (1994)]{Hickson1994}
1772: %{1994MNRAS.267..911H}
1773: Hickson, P., Gibson, B.~K., \& Callaghan, K.~A.~S.\ 1994, \mnras, 267, 911
1774:
1775: \bibitem[Hildebrandt et al.\ (2008)]{Hildebrandt2008}
1776: %{2008A&A...480..703H}
1777: Hildebrandt, H., Wolf, C., \& Ben{\'{\i}}tez, N.\ 2008, \aap, 480, 703
1778:
1779: \bibitem[Hill et al.\ (2004)]{Hill2004}
1780: Hill, G. et al.\ 2004, Mitchell symposium: "The HET Dark Energy
1781: Experiment"
1782: %http://www.as.utexas.edu/hetdex/Hill\_MitchellSymposium\_mod.pdf
1783:
1784: \bibitem[Hinshaw et al.\ (2008)]{Hinshaw08}
1785: Hinshaw, G.\ 2008, arXiv:0803.0732v1 [astro-ph]
1786:
1787: \bibitem[Holland et al.\ (2003)]{Holland03}
1788: Holland, S. E., Groom, D. E., Palaio, N. P. \& Wei, M.\ 2003,
1789: IEEE Trans. Electron. Dev., ED-50, 225
1790:
1791: \bibitem[Homeier et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...647..256H}
1792: Homeier, N.~L., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 647, 256
1793:
1794: \bibitem[H\"utsi (2006)]{hutsi}
1795: H\"utsi, G.\ 2006, \aap, 449, 891
1796:
1797: \bibitem[H\"utsi (2006a)]{hutsi-2}
1798: H\"utsi, G.\ 2006, \aap, 459, 375
1799:
1800: \bibitem[Jones et al.\ (2006)]{boomerang}
1801: Jones, W.~C., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 647, 823
1802:
1803: \bibitem[Kaiser (1987)]{Kaiser}
1804: Kaiser, N.\ 1987, \mnras, 227, 1
1805:
1806: \bibitem[Komatsu et al.\ (2008)]{wmap5ext}
1807: Komatsu, E. et al.\ 2008, arXiv:0803.0547 [astro-ph]
1808:
1809: \bibitem[Leach et al.\ (2000)]{leach}
1810: Leach, B.~and Low, F.~J., 2000, {\em "CCD and IR Array Controllers,"}
1811: Proc.~SPIE, vol.~4008, 337, eds.~M.~Iye and A.~F.~Moorwood
1812:
1813: \bibitem[Linder (2003)]{linder2003}
1814: Linder, E.~V.\ 2003, \prl, 90, 091301
1815:
1816: \bibitem[Mart\'{\i} nez \& Saar (2002)]{martinez}
1817: Mart\'{\i}nez V.~J., Saar E., 2002,
1818: {\it Statistics of the Galaxy Distribution.} Chapman \& Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL
1819:
1820: \bibitem[Moles et al.\ (2005)]{ALHAMBRA}
1821: Moles, M., et al.\ 2005, arXiv:astro-ph/0504545
1822:
1823: \bibitem[Moles et al.\ (2008)]{Moles2008}
1824: Moles, M., et al.\ 2008, \aj, 136, 1325
1825: %arXiv:0806.3021v1 [astro-ph]
1826:
1827: \bibitem[Okumura et al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...676..889O}
1828: Okumura, T., Matsubara, T., Eisenstein, D.~J., Kayo, I., Hikage, C., Szalay, A.~S.,
1829: \& Schneider, D.~P.\ 2008, \apj, 676, 889
1830:
1831: \bibitem[Oyaizu et al.(2008)]{Oyaizu2008}
1832: %{2008ApJ...674..768O}
1833: Oyaizu, H., Lima, M., Cunha, C.~E., Lin, H., Frieman, J., \& Sheldon, E.~S.\ 2008, \apj, 674, 768
1834:
1835: \bibitem[Padmanabhan \& White(2008)]{2008PhRvD..77l3540P}
1836: Padmanabhan, N., \& White, M.\ 2008, \prd, 77, 123540
1837:
1838: \bibitem[Padmanabhan et al.\ (2007)]{nikhil}
1839: Padmanabhan, N., et al.\ 2007, \mnras, 378, 852
1840:
1841: \bibitem[Pan-STARRS (2008)]{panstarrs}
1842: Pan-STARRS 2008, http://pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu/public/
1843:
1844: \bibitem[Patat (2004)]{Patat}
1845: Patat, F.\ 2004, The Messenger, 115,1
1846:
1847: \bibitem[Peacock et~al.\ (2006)]{esa-eso}
1848: Peacock, J.A., et al.\ 2006,
1849: %Report by the ESA-ESO Working Group on Fundamental Cosmology,
1850: arXiv:astro-ph/0610906
1851:
1852: \bibitem[Percival et al.\ (2007)]{sdss2}
1853: Percival W. et al.\ 2007, \apj, 657, 645
1854:
1855: \bibitem[Percival et al.\ (2007b)]{2dFb}
1856: Percival, W.~J., Cole, S.,
1857: Eisenstein, D.~J., Nichol, R.~C., Peacock, J.~A., Pope, A.~C.,
1858: \& Szalay, A.~S.\ 2007, \mnras, 381, 1053
1859:
1860: \bibitem[Planck (2008)]{Planck}
1861: Planck (2008), http://planck.esa.int
1862:
1863: \bibitem[Puxley (2008)]{Puxley}
1864: Puxley (2008),
1865: http://www.gemini.edu/sciops/ObsProcess\\/obsConstraints/ocSkyBackground.html
1866:
1867: \bibitem[Redhead et al.\ (2004)]{cbi}
1868: Redhead, A.C.S., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 609, 498
1869:
1870: \bibitem[Reichardt et al.\ (2008)]{acbar}
1871: Reichardt, C. L. et al.\ 2008, arXiv:0801.1491 [astro-ph]
1872:
1873: \bibitem[Riess et al.\ (2007)] {SNe2}
1874: Riess, A. et al.\ 2007, \apj, 659, 98
1875:
1876: \bibitem[Ross et al.\ (2007)] {Ross}
1877: Ross, N.P., et al. \ 2007, \mnras, 381, 573
1878:
1879: \bibitem[S\'anchez et al.\ (2007)] {sanchez2007}
1880: S\'anchez, S.~F.\ et al.\ 2007, arXiv:0709.0813v1 [astro-ph]
1881:
1882: \bibitem[Seo \& Eisenstein (2003)]{seo}
1883: Seo, J.~J., Eisenstein, D.~J.\ 2003, \apj, 598, 720
1884:
1885: \bibitem[Silk (1968)]{Silk}
1886: Silk, J.\ 1968, \apj, 151, 459
1887:
1888: \bibitem[SPACE (2008)]{space}
1889: SPACE 2008,
1890: http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=42266\
1891:
1892: \bibitem[Spergel et al.\ (2007)]{wmap3ext}
1893: Spergel, D. et al.\ 2007, \apjs, 170, 377
1894:
1895: \bibitem[Springel (2005)]{Springel05}
1896: Springel, V.\ 2005, \mnras, 364, 1105
1897:
1898: \bibitem[Springel et al.\ (2005)]{millenium}
1899: Springel, V. et al.\ 2005, Nature, 435, 639
1900:
1901: \bibitem[Starr et al.\ (2004)]{monsoon}
1902: Starr, B.~M.~et al.\ 2004,
1903: %Nicholas Buchholz, Gustavo Rahmer, Jerry Penegor, Ricardo Schmidt,
1904: %Michael Warner, K. Michael Merrill, Charles F. Claver, Ho Y., Kaviraj Chopra,
1905: %Eduardo Mondaca, Chirag Shroff and D. Shroff,
1906: {\em "Monsoon Image Acquisition System,"}
1907: Scientific Detectors for Astronomy, Astrophysics and Space Science Library,
1908: vol.~300, 269, ed.~P.~Amico, J.~N.~Beletic, and J.~E.~Beletic,
1909: Springer Netherlands.
1910:
1911: \bibitem[Sterken (2007)]{Sterken07}
1912: Sterken, C.\ (ed.) 2007, {\em``The Future
1913: of Photometric, Spectrophotometric and Polarimetric Standardization,''}
1914: ASP Conference Series, Vol.~364
1915:
1916: \bibitem[Tegmark et al.\ (2004)]{sdss1}
1917: Tegmark M. et al.\ 2004, \apj, 606, 702
1918:
1919: \bibitem[Tegmark et al.\ (2006)]{Tegmark06}
1920: Tegmark, M., et al.\ 2006, \prd, 74, 123507
1921:
1922: \bibitem[Walker (1987)]{walker}
1923: Walker, A.\ 1987, NOAO Newsletter, 10, 16
1924:
1925: \bibitem[WiggleZ (2008)]{wigglez}
1926: WiggleZ 2008, {http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~karl/Karl-Home/Home.html}
1927:
1928: \bibitem[Wolf et al.\ (2001)]{Wolf2001}
1929: %{2001\&A...365..681W}
1930: Wolf, C., et al.\ 2001, \aap, 365, 681
1931:
1932: \bibitem[Wolf et al.\ (2003)]{Wolf2003}
1933: %{2003A&A...401...73W}
1934: Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., Rix, H.-W., Borch, A.,
1935: Dye, S., \& Kleinheinrich, M.\ 2003, \aap, 401, 73
1936:
1937: \bibitem[Wood-Vasey et al.\ (2007)]{SNe1}
1938: Wood-Vasey, W.~M. et al.\ 2007, \apj, 666, 694
1939:
1940: \end{thebibliography}
1941:
1942: \clearpage
1943:
1944: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
1945: \tablewidth{0pt}
1946: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1947: \tablecaption{N-body simulations used in this paper. Minimum
1948: halo mass and number of halos correspond to $z=0.5$.
1949: \label{tableN}}
1950: \tablehead{
1951: \colhead{name} & \colhead{$L_{box}$} & \colhead{$N_{par}$} &
1952: \colhead{halo mass} & \colhead{$N_{halos}$} \\
1953: \colhead{acronym} & \colhead{$Mpc/h$} & \colhead{number} &
1954: \colhead{$10^{11} M_{sun}/h$} & \colhead{Total number}
1955: }
1956: \startdata
1957: MICE3072 & $3072$ & $1024^3$ & $>375$ & $1.1 \times 10^6$ \\
1958: MICE1536 & $1536$ & $1024^3$ & $>47$ & $2.1 \times 10^6$
1959: \enddata
1960: \end{deluxetable}
1961:
1962: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccc}
1963: \tablewidth{0pt}
1964: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1965: \tablecaption{Details of the surveys considered in fig.~\ref{fig:compa}.
1966: \label{tab:compa}}
1967: \tablehead{
1968: \colhead{survey} & \colhead{z range} & \colhead{Number galaxies} &
1969: \colhead{Tracer} & \colhead{Area} & \colhead{Volume} &
1970: \colhead{Radial} & \colhead{Time scale} & \colhead{reference} \\
1971: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} &
1972: \colhead{} & \colhead{deg$^{2}$} & \colhead{(Gpc/h)$^{3}$} &
1973: \colhead{information} & \colhead{} &\colhead{}
1974: }
1975: \startdata
1976: WiggleZ & $0.3<z<1.2$ & $2.8\times 10^{5}$ & ELG & 1000 & 2.04 & yes & 2007-2009 & \citet{Glazebrook2007}\\
1977: BOSS-LRG & $0.2<z<0.8$ & $1.5\times 10^{6}$ & LRG & 10000 & 8.06 & yes & 2009-2014 & see text\\
1978: HETDEX & $1.8<z<3.7$ & $1.0\times 10^{6}$ & LAE & 200 & 1.91 & yes & ? & \citet{Hill2004}\\
1979: WFMOS-ELG & $0.5<z<1.3$ & $2.0\times 10^{6}$ & ELG & 2000 & 4.47 & yes & ? & see text\\
1980: WFMOS-LBG & $2.3<z<3.3$ & $6.0\times 10^{5}$ & LBG & 300 & 1.53 & yes & ? & see text\\
1981: PS1 & $0.3<z<1.5$ & $5.0\times 10^{8}$ & ALL & 20000 & 65.3 & no & ? & \\
1982: DES & $0.3<z<1.5$ & $1.5\times 10^{8}$ & ALL & 5000 & 16.3 & no & 2011-2015 & \\
1983: PAU-LRG & $0.1<z<0.9$ & $1.3\times 10^{7}$ & LRG & 8000 & 8.6 & yes & 2011-2015 & this paper
1984: \enddata
1985: \end{deluxetable}
1986:
1987: \clearpage
1988:
1989: \begin{figure}
1990: \epsscale{1}
1991: \plotone{f1.eps}
1992: \figcaption[walfa]{Relation between the change in the
1993: dark energy equation of state parameter $w$, shown in the x-axis,
1994: and its effect in the apparent measured BAO scale,
1995: $\Delta_{BAO}$, shown in the y-axis.
1996: Changes are shown in percent, relative to the w=-1 case.
1997: Top panel corresponds
1998: to the radial distance: $\Delta^L_{BAO}=\Delta H(z)/H(z)$. The bottom panel
1999: shows the angular diameter distance: $\Delta^T_{BAO}=\Delta d_{A}(z)/d_{A}(z)$.
2000: The different lines correspond to $z=0.3$ (continuous),
2001: $z=0.6$ (short dashed) and $z=1$ (long dashed).
2002: In all cases $\Omega_{m}=0.25$ and flat universe are assumed. All other cosmological
2003: parameters are kept fixed.
2004: \label{fig:walfa}}
2005: \end{figure}
2006:
2007: \begin{figure}
2008: \epsscale{1}
2009: \plotone{f2.eps}
2010: \figcaption[slice]{Sytematic effects in the lightcone:
2011: panels show a 1 Mpc/h thick section of the lightcone
2012: distribution in MICE3072 in comoving coordinates.
2013: The two bottom panels corresponds to the
2014: actual dark matter distribution in the simulation in real (bottom) and
2015: redshift space (upper panels). The top two panels also include
2016: a (Gaussian distributed) photo-z error distortion
2017: of $\sigma_z = 0.003(1+z)$, as expected from PAU galaxies, and
2018: an order-of-magnitude worse case, $\sigma_z = 0.03(1+z)$.
2019: The BAO scale is shown by a section of circle with radius $~100$ Mpc/h around the observer.
2020: %The larger structures in these maps are of comparable size
2021: \label{slice}}
2022: \end{figure}
2023:
2024: \begin{figure}
2025: \epsscale{1}
2026: \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}
2027: \figcaption[xi2]{
2028: Smearing of the BAO signature due to photometric redshift errors. The circles
2029: denote the two-point correlation function from over a million halos
2030: with mass $M>3.7\times10^{13}\, h^{-1}\, M_{\odot}$ (assumed to
2031: host LRGs) measured in a MICE simulation of
2032: $27\, h^{-3}\,{\rm Gpc}^{3}$ volume.
2033: The dashed line is the linear correlation function scaled with the
2034: linear halo bias ($b=3$), while the black solid line corresponds
2035: to the nonlinear prediction given by RPT \citep{RPTbao}.
2036: Their difference shows the degradation coming solely
2037: from nonlinear clustering. In addition, the triangle (red),
2038: square (blue) and cross (green) symbols show the measured correlation
2039: function after a Gaussian error degradation
2040: in the line-of-sight position of the halos is introduced
2041: ($\sigma_{z}/(1+z)=0.003,0.007$
2042: and $0.03$, respectively). The corresponding solid lines are the analytical
2043: predictions derived from Eq.~(\ref{eqPphotoz}). The right panel shows a
2044: zoom over the peak region scaled as $r^2\xi(r)$. Clearly, the signal-to-noise
2045: in the BAO feature reduces with photo-z error and starts to totally disappear
2046: above the PAU threshold of $0.003$, which
2047: roughly corresponds to the intrinsic width of the BAO feature due to
2048: Silk damping.
2049: \label{fig:xi2}}
2050: \end{figure}
2051:
2052: \begin{figure}
2053: \epsscale{1}
2054: \plottwo{f4a.eps}{f4b.eps}
2055: \figcaption[Pk]{Ratio of the power spectrum measured at $z=0.5$ in MICE1536
2056: to a smoothed version of the same spectrum
2057: for dark matter (left panel) and halos of mass $M\ge4.7\times10^{12}\, h^{-1}\, M_{\odot}$ (right panel). These large halos are expected to host LRGs.
2058: The reference spectrum was obtained by rebinning the
2059: original one in bins of $\Delta k=0.055\, h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ in order
2060: to wash out the BAO signature but keeping the broad band shape of the nonlinear spectrum.
2061: Error bars were obtained using the
2062: approximation in Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltaP}). The red solid line
2063: corresponds to the parametric fit given by Eq.~(\ref{parametric})
2064: with $A / r_{BAO}=0.016 $ for dark matter and
2065: $A / r_{BAO}=0.017$ for halos
2066: ($r_{BAO}=108.6\,\mathrm{Mpc/h}$ for our reference cosmology).
2067: This figure illustrates that for both
2068: dark matter and halos, one can approximately model BAO in the $P(k)$
2069: with Eq.~(\ref{parametric}). This conclusion also applies in redshift
2070: space and for different galaxy populations \citep{ABFL07}. \label{fig:Pk}}
2071: \end{figure}
2072:
2073: \begin{figure}
2074: \epsscale{1}
2075: \plotone{f5.eps}
2076: \figcaption{An example of a filter system similar to the one which will be used
2077: by the PAU survey. We have included the redshifted spectrum of an early type
2078: galaxy at z=0.2 from the Bruzual and Charlot library to illustrate
2079: how the sharp 4000~\AA\ break (which here falls at 4800~\AA)
2080: is basically bracketed by only two filters. Note that the filters
2081: are spaced 93~\AA\ but have FWHM widths of 118~\AA\
2082: due to the wavelength extent of their wings. The blue squares represent
2083: the flux which would be observed through the filters. Note that many
2084: spectral features apart from the 4000~\AA\ break are resolved by such a
2085: filter system.
2086: \label{fig:filters}}
2087: \end{figure}
2088:
2089: \begin{figure}
2090: \epsscale{1}
2091: \plotone{f6.eps}
2092: \figcaption{The sky background assumed for our simulations. We have assumed that
2093: we are able to adapt the choice of filters in our observations to
2094: the moon cycle, observing in the u-band the darkest night, and then
2095: moving towards redder filters as the sky brightness grows. The red,
2096: continuous line corresponds to our expected {}``effective'' sky
2097: spectrum, with the squares showing the equivalent broad band $AB$
2098: magnitudes in the $UBVRI$ filters. The spectrum is normalized to
2099: have the same broad band brightness as the \citet{Patat} measurements
2100: of the dark sky at Paranal for the $U$ and $B$ bands, and the same
2101: as the middle of the cycle {}``gray'' nights from \citet{walker} in
2102: the rest of the filters.
2103: \label{fig:sky}}
2104: \end{figure}
2105:
2106: \begin{figure}
2107: \epsscale{1}
2108: \plotone{f7.eps}
2109: \figcaption{Expected limiting magnitudes for PAU-BAO. The squares represent the
2110: $5\sigma$ magnitude limits within a 1 sq. arcsec aperture, the circles within a 2 sq. arcsec aperture and
2111: the continuous line is the $5\sigma$ magnitude limit which would be reached
2112: if we divided the total exposure time of 19440s equally among all the filters.
2113: \label{fig:mag5}}
2114: \end{figure}
2115:
2116: \begin{figure}
2117: \epsscale{1}
2118: \plotone{f8.eps}
2119: \figcaption{The expected 5-$\sigma$ limiting magnitudes for point
2120: sources (squares) and the observed spectra of a $L_{\star}$ red galaxy
2121: at different redshifts (without taking into account spectral evolution, but taking
2122: into account aperture corrections). Note
2123: that we are able to catch the rest frame 4000~\AA~ break with
2124: enough filters on both sides up to z=0.9.
2125: \label{fig:mag}}
2126: \end{figure}
2127:
2128: \begin{figure}
2129: \epsscale{1}
2130: \plotone{f9.eps}
2131: \figcaption{Differential number counts distribution of $L>L_{\star}$ red galaxies.
2132: \label{fig:nc}}
2133: \end{figure}
2134:
2135: \begin{figure}
2136: \epsscale{1}
2137: \plotone{f10.eps}
2138: \figcaption{Redshift distribution of $L>L_{\star}$ red galaxies.
2139: \label{fig:nz}}
2140: \end{figure}
2141:
2142: \begin{figure}
2143: \epsscale{1}
2144: \plotone{f11.eps}
2145: \figcaption{Photometric redshift error as a function of the Bayesian odds. Note that a cut at odds $= 0.55$
2146: eliminates most of the objects with high redshift errors. For the sake of clarity,
2147: only one in every five points is plotted. The solid line corresponds to the rms of $\Delta z/(1+z)$
2148: for each value of the odds.
2149: \label{fig:odds}}
2150: \end{figure}
2151:
2152: \begin{figure}
2153: \epsscale{1}
2154: \plotone{f12.eps}
2155: \figcaption{Scatter plot comparing the normalized difference
2156: between the photometric redshifts and the ``true'' input redshifts $z_S$. The red points are eliminated
2157: by the odds~$<0.55$ cut. For the sake of clarity, only one in every five points is plotted.
2158: \label{fig:scatter}}
2159: \end{figure}
2160:
2161: \begin{figure}
2162: \epsscale{1}
2163: \plotone{f13.eps}
2164: \figcaption{Photometric redshift error as a function of redshift, for all $L>L_{\star}$,$I<23$ red galaxies,
2165: and for the subset with high quality photo-z.
2166: \label{fig:res}}
2167: \end{figure}
2168:
2169: \begin{figure}
2170: \epsscale{1}
2171: \plotone{f14.eps}
2172: \figcaption{Spatial density as a function of redshift, for all $L>L_{\star},$$I<23$
2173: red galaxies, and for the subset with high quality photo-z.
2174: \label{fig:nv}}
2175: \end{figure}
2176:
2177: \begin{figure}
2178: \epsscale{1}
2179: \plotone{f15.eps}
2180: \figcaption[fig:dm]{Required systematic calibration error (rms percentage) for two
2181: broad redshift slices (thick blue continuous lines): $z=0.4-0.5$
2182: (top) and $z=0.9-1.0$ (bottom) and for a flux
2183: limited sample (red dashed line) including all galaxies to the depth
2184: of PAU (mean $z=0.7$). In these units, at BAO scales (which is a
2185: function of $z$ and is marked by the arrow) the correlation in calibration
2186: error has to be smaller than about $~6\%$ for $z\simeq 0.45$ and
2187: $~5\%$ for $z\simeq0.95$. For other science, the stronger requirements
2188: are driven by the flux limited sample, i.e.~$<2\%$ and $<8\%$ in
2189: correlated errors on scales smaller than $4$ and $0.1$ degrees respectively,
2190: as given by the dashed line.
2191: \label{fig:d_m}}
2192: \end{figure}
2193:
2194: \begin{figure}
2195: \epsscale{1}
2196: \plottwo{f16a.eps}{f16b.eps}
2197: \figcaption[h-da]{ \textit{Left:} The expected measurement of radial BAO scale
2198: from the PAU survey (LRGs only).
2199: \textit{Right:} Same for the measurement of the transverse (angular) BAO scale.
2200: \label{fig:h-da}}
2201: \end{figure}
2202:
2203: \begin{figure}
2204: \epsscale{1}
2205: \plottwo{f17a.eps}{f17b.eps}
2206: \figcaption[w0-wa]{ \textit{Left:} 68\% confidence-level contours in the $\Omega_{m}$-$w$
2207: plane, using only PAU data, assuming a flat universe and a constant
2208: equation of state $w$.
2209: \textit{Right:} 68\% confidence-level contours in the $w_{0}$-$w_{a}$
2210: plane for the world combined data from SNe and WMAP in about 2010,
2211: and after adding PAU data to that data set. The area of the contour
2212: decreases by about a factor three.
2213: A flat universe has been assumed.
2214: \label{fig:w0vswa}}
2215: \end{figure}
2216:
2217: \begin{figure}
2218: %\begin{center}
2219: \epsscale{1}
2220: \plotone{f18.eps}
2221: \figcaption[Comparison]{Precision on $w$ (assumed constant) for different proposed ground-based BAO surveys.
2222: All other
2223: cosmological parameters are kept fixed, therefore the overall scale
2224: is unrealistic, but the relative reach of the different proposals
2225: should be realistic. Details about the inputs for the calculations can be found in
2226: Table~\ref{tab:compa}.
2227: \label{fig:compa}}
2228: %\end{center}
2229: \end{figure}
2230:
2231: \end{document}
2232: