1: % mn2esample.tex
2: %
3: % v2.1 released 22nd May 2002 (G. Hutton)
4: %
5: % The mnsample.tex file has been amended to highlight
6: % the proper use of LaTeX2e code with the class file
7: % and using natbib cross-referencing. These changes
8: % do not reflect the original paper by A. V. Raveendran.
9: %
10: % Previous versions of this sample document were
11: % compatible with the LaTeX 2.09 style file mn.sty
12: % v1.2 released 5th September 1994 (M. Reed)
13: % v1.1 released 18th July 1994
14: % v1.0 released 28th January 1994
15:
16: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
17:
18: % If your system does not have the AMS fonts version 2.0 installed, then
19: % remove the useAMS option.
20: %
21: % useAMS allows you to obtain upright Greek characters.
22: % e.g. \umu, \upi etc. See the section on "Upright Greek characters" in
23: % this guide for further information.
24: %
25: % If you are using AMS 2.0 fonts, bold math letters/symbols are available
26: % at a larger range of sizes for NFSS release 1 and 2 (using \boldmath or
27: % preferably \bmath).
28: %
29: % The usenatbib command allows the use of Patrick Daly's natbib.sty for
30: % cross-referencing.
31: %
32: % If you wish to typeset the paper in Times font (if you do not have the
33: % PostScript Type 1 Computer Modern fonts you will need to do this to get
34: % smoother fonts in a PDF file) then uncomment the next line
35: % \usepackage{Times}
36:
37: %%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN MACROS HERE %%%%%
38: \usepackage{verbatim}
39: \usepackage{graphicx}
40: \usepackage{amssymb}
41: \usepackage{amsmath}
42: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}
43: \newcommand{\mnras}{MNRAS}
44: \newcommand{\lam}{\Lambda}
45: \newcommand{\om}{\Omega_m}
46: \newcommand{\apjl}{ApJL}
47: \newcommand{\hovm}{h{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}
48: \newcommand{\lw}{L\&W }
49: \newcommand{\aap}{A\&A}
50: \newcommand{\prd}{PhRvD}
51: \newcommand{\apj}{ApJ}
52: \newcommand{\aj}{AJ}
53: \newcommand{\physrep}{PhR}
54: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
55:
56: \title[Halo Mass Functions
57: in Early Dark Energy Cosmologies]{Halo Mass Functions
58: in Early Dark Energy Cosmologies} \author[Francis, Lewis \& Linder]
59: {Matthew J. Francis$^{1}$\thanks{Email:
60: mfrancis@physics.usyd.edu.au}, Geraint F. Lewis$^{1}$ and Eric
61: V. Linder$^{2}$ \\ $^{1}$ School of Physics, University of Sydney,
62: NSW 2006, Australia\\ $^{2}$ Berkeley Lab \& University of
63: California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA }
64:
65: \begin{document}
66:
67: \date{}
68:
69: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2007}
70:
71: \maketitle
72:
73: \label{firstpage}
74:
75: \begin{abstract}
76: We examine the linear density contrast at collapse time, $\delta_c$,
77: for large-scale structure in dynamical dark energy cosmologies,
78: including models with early dark energy. Contrary to previous
79: results, we find that as long as dark energy is homogeneous on small
80: scales, $\delta_c$ is insensitive to dark energy properties for
81: parameter values fitting current data, including the case of early
82: dark energy. This is significant since using the correct $\delta_c$
83: is crucial for accurate Press-Schechter prediction of the halo mass
84: function. Previous results have found an apparent failing of the
85: extended Press-Schechter approach (Sheth-Tormen) for early dark
86: energy. Our calculations demonstrate that with the correct $\delta_c$
87: the accuracy of this approach is restored. We discuss the
88: significance of this result for the halo mass function and examine
89: what dark energy physics would be needed to cause significant change
90: in $\delta_c$, and the observational signatures this would leave.
91: \end{abstract}
92:
93: \begin{keywords}
94: methods: numerical --- large-scale structure of Universe
95: \end{keywords}
96:
97: \long\def\symbolfootnote[#1]#2{\begingroup%
98: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}\footnotetext[#1]{#2}\endgroup}
99:
100: \symbolfootnote[1]{Research
101: undertaken as part of the Commonwealth Cosmology Initiative (CCI:
102: www.thecci.org), an international collaboration supported by the
103: Australian Research Council}
104:
105: \section{Introduction}
106:
107: Observations of Supernovae Ia \citep{riess98,perl99,kowalski08}, the
108: Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)\citep{wmap5} and large scale
109: structure \citep{2dfcosmo} demonstrate that the expansion of the
110: Universe is accelerating. Discovering the physics of the dark energy
111: thought to be driving this phenomenon is a key goal of modern
112: cosmology. Observations that probe the non-linear growth of structure
113: are sensitive to the entire history of the Universe and are a crucial
114: element in attempts to measure the evolution of dark energy properties
115: with time.
116:
117: The abundance of collapsed structures as a function of mass, the Halo
118: Mass Function (HMF), is an important statistic that is measurable
119: through strong lensing statistics \citep{lenseArcs}, galaxy redshift
120: surveys \citep{clusters} and X-ray \citep{xray} detection of clusters
121: and future cluster surveys utilising the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
122: signature in the CMB \citep{plank}. Accurate estimation of this
123: statistic as a function of cosmology is therefore required in order to
124: extract the maximum amount of information from observations.
125:
126: Determining the HMF of cosmological models can be a computationally
127: expensive task requiring many large N-body simulations, since
128: non-linear gravitational structure growth cannot be calculated
129: analytically. Therefore, simulation calibrated tools for rapidly and
130: accurately generating the observational signatures of a wide variety
131: of models are essential. However, given the theoretical uncertainty
132: surrounding the physics of dark energy, tools for predicting the HMF
133: must be valid for dark energy models models as generally as possible,
134: to avoid detailed computation for every one of the plethora of
135: possibilities.
136:
137: Current methods for estimating the HMF fall into two main categories
138: (see \citet{cooray} for a review). The first are methods based on
139: \citet{PressSch} theory that relate the density of collapsed objects
140: of a given mass to variance of the density field on scales enclosing
141: that mass in the mean, $\sigma^2(M)$, and a threshold parameter,
142: $\delta_c$, determining the linear overdensity required for collapse
143: by a given redshift. The leading approach based on these ideas is the
144: \citet{ShethTormen} (hereafter ST) mass function, which incorporates
145: ellipsoidal collapse (rather than the purely spherical collapse of
146: Press-Schechter theory) and has free parameters that are simulation
147: calibrated.
148:
149: The second type of mass function fitting approach is to fit directly
150: the multiplicity function
151: \begin{equation}
152: f(\sigma) = \frac{M}{\bar{\rho}}\frac{dn(M,z)}{d\textrm{ln}\sigma^{-1}}
153: \end{equation}
154: by a universal function of the variance
155: \begin{equation}
156: \sigma^2(M) = \frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_0^\infty k^2 P(k) W^2(k,M) dk
157: \end{equation}
158: in which $P(k)$ is the power spectrum of density fluctuations,
159: $\bar{\rho}$ is the mean matter density, and $W(k,M)$ is the Fourier
160: transform of a spherical top hat function with a radius that encloses
161: the mass $M$ at the mean density of the universe. \citet{Jenkins01}
162: (hereafter J01) found a universal function of $\sigma$ from
163: simulations of $\Lambda$CDM, matter dominated and open universes that
164: fits the multiplicity function for all of these cosmologies. More
165: recently \citet{Warren} have found a similar formula that fitted
166: their simulation results slightly better.
167:
168: Since there are many different dark energy models currently proposed,
169: it has not proved practical to include dark energy variation into HMF
170: fitting work, and currently available formulas are calibrated only to
171: $\Lambda$CDM and matter only cosmologies. However, the J01 formula
172: has been demonstrated via N-body simulations to be valid (at least at
173: the $20\%$ level) for an evolving dark energy model
174: \citep{LinderJenkins} and the ST formula was also found to agree with
175: evolving dark energy models in \citet{klypin}, indicating that the
176: universality of gravitational collapse appears to extend to at least
177: some dark energy models.
178:
179: One particularly interesting class of evolving dark energy models is
180: the concept of early dark energy (hereafter EDE). In these models
181: \citep{Wetterich04,DoranRobbers06}, dark energy has a non-negligible
182: energy fraction through the entire course of cosmic history, rather
183: than being important only at late times as in the $\Lambda$CDM model.
184: In an investigation of the HMF in EDE cosmology, \citet{bartDW06}
185: (hereafter BDW) calculated, using the ST approach, that the presence
186: of EDE leads to a significant enhancement of the abundance of
187: collapsed objects relative to $\Lambda$CDM, particularly at high
188: redshift. However, in a recent study \citep{francis}, we found that
189: the J01 and Warren et al. mass functions, in contrast, predicted much
190: less difference between EDE and $\Lambda$CDM and N-body simulations
191: agreed with this result. The ST results using the BDW $\delta_c$ were
192: clearly ruled out by simulation data.
193:
194: Why did the Press-Schecter (Sheth-Tormen) approach appear to fail?
195: While the multiplicity function is expressed directly in terms of
196: $\sigma$, the Press-Schechter approach involves $\delta_c/\sigma$,
197: suggesting that $\delta_c$ could be the source of the discrepancy. BDW
198: calculated that $\delta_c$ is significantly altered in EDE cosmology
199: compared to $\Lambda$CDM and this difference in $\delta_c$ resulted in
200: the difference in mass functions. \citet{gross} noted that if instead
201: of using spherical collapse arguments, a constant value of
202: $\delta_c=1.689$ is assumed for all cosmologies at all redshifts the
203: basic agreement between the ST and J01 mass functions is restored. In
204: this work we investigate this issue further, re-examining the root
205: calculation of $\delta_c$.
206:
207: In Section \ref{calcdc}, we re-examine methods for calculating
208: $\delta_c$ and advocate a more accurate technique for dark energy
209: models, especially for early dark energy. Given our calculations of
210: $\delta_c$, in Section \ref{halostuff} we determine halo mass
211: functions from the ST approach and compare to the J01 approach. We
212: also discuss the implications for mass functions in dark energy
213: cosmologies more generally. Finally in Section \ref{disc} we discuss
214: the dependence of $\delta_c$ on dark energy and suggest under what
215: conditions we might expect a significantly different value from that
216: of $\Lambda$CDM and the observational consequences.
217:
218: \section{Computing the Linear Density Contrast}\label{calcdc}
219:
220: The picture of non-linear growth of structure involves density
221: perturbations growing in amplitude, initially by a linear growth
222: factor, then achieving sufficient density contrast to separate from
223: the Hubble expansion and to collapse, increasing its density in a
224: non-linear manner. One can calculate the level to which the density
225: contrast would have grown in linear theory by collapse time, as a
226: convenient parameter (and an essential ingredient in Press-Schechter
227: formalism), though the true, non-linear density contrast is much
228: larger.
229:
230: The linear density contrast at collapse, $\delta_c$, is defined by
231: \begin{equation}\label{dcdef}
232: \delta_c = \lim_{a\to0}\left[\Delta(a)-1\right]\frac{D_+(a_c)}{D_+(a)}
233: \end{equation}
234: where $\Delta$ is the overdensity, $\rho/\bar{\rho}$, of some
235: spherical region of the universe that collapses at scale factor $a_c$,
236: $D_+(a)$ is the linear growth factor. This parameter, therefore,
237: quantifies the linear growth from the early universe until $a_c$ of an
238: overdensity known to collapse under non-linear growth by that time.
239: For matter dominated cosmologies, $\delta_c=1.686$ and for
240: $\Lambda$CDM it becomes a weak function of cosmology, retaining the
241: matter dominated value at high redshift and dipping only slightly by
242: redshift zero.
243:
244: In order to calculate $\delta_c$, we need to solve the linear growth
245: equations to obtain $D_+(a_c)/D_+(a)$. We also need to find the
246: overdensity in the early universe that leads to collapse of the
247: perturbation at the exact desired scale factor $a_c$. The usual
248: approach (see e.g. \citet{peebles}) is to solve simultaneously the
249: Friedmann equations for the background universe and perturbation,
250: treating the perturbation as a closed universe. It is also
251: traditional to normalise these equations to turnaround, when the time
252: derivative of the perturbation radius is zero. Following the notation
253: of BDW, we therefore need to solve the following equations (for
254: simplicity we take a flat background universe)
255:
256: \begin{equation}\label{fred1}
257: \dot{x}= \sqrt{ \frac{\omega}{x} + \lambda x^2 g(x)}
258: \end{equation}
259:
260: \begin{equation}\label{fred2}
261: \ddot{y}= -\frac{\omega \zeta}{2 y^2} - \frac{1+3w(x)}{2}\lambda g(x)y
262: \end{equation}
263: where $x\equiv a/a_{ta}$ and $y\equiv R/R_{ta}$, and $R$ is the radius
264: of the perturbation (which is assumed to be spherical). The
265: dimensionless density parameters of matter and dark energy at
266: turnaround are $\omega$ and $\lambda$ respectively and $\zeta$
267: quantifies the overdensity at turnaround; $w(x)$ is the dark energy
268: equation of state and $g(x)$ is the dark energy density normalised to
269: the turnaround value. The dots indicate derivatives with respect to
270: the time parameter $\tau \equiv H_{ta}t$ where $H$ is the Hubble
271: parameter and $t$ is cosmic time. Finding the value of $\zeta$ that
272: ensures collapse of the perturbation at the required scale factor
273: $a_c$ requires a numerical search.
274:
275: The overdensity, $\Delta(x)$, can be defined via
276: \begin{equation}
277: \Delta(x)=\frac{\zeta x^3}{y^3}
278: \end{equation}
279: and therefore, once $\zeta$ is found, the behaviour of Eqs.
280: (\ref{fred1}) and (\ref{fred2}) determines the size of the overdensity
281: at early times.
282:
283: In BDW, an approximate solution for the overdensity at early times was
284: derived of the form
285: \begin{equation}
286: \Delta(x)=1+\frac{3}{5}F\zeta^{1/3}x
287: \end{equation}
288: where there are two solutions for $F$, one for the case when the dark
289: energy equation of state at early times, $w_i \equiv \lim_{x\to0} w(x)
290: <-1/3$, and one for $w_i > -1/3$. $\Lambda$CDM is an example of the
291: first case, and the solution results in
292: \begin{equation}\label{FL}
293: F_{\Lambda CDM} = 1 + \frac{\lambda}{\omega \zeta}.
294: \end{equation}
295: The second case includes the \citet{Wetterich04} EDE model examined in
296: BDW, with
297: \begin{equation}\label{FEDE}
298: F_{EDE} = 1 - \frac{\Omega_e}{1-\Omega_e}
299: \end{equation}
300: where $\Omega_e$ is a parameter of the \citet{Wetterich04} EDE model
301: quantifying the fractional dark energy density at early times. In
302: this model, as $\Omega_e \to 0$, the cosmology converges to
303: $\Lambda$CDM, and hence we should expect that these two solutions also
304: converge. However this does not occur, in this limit Eq. (\ref{FEDE})
305: converges to unity and not to Eq. (\ref{FL}).
306:
307: Moreover, the non-negligible presence of dark energy in the early
308: universe should, relative to $\Lambda$CDM, slow the collapse of the
309: perturbation due to the lower matter clustering source term in the
310: early universe and later the higher expansion rate. We should expect
311: then, that for the same collapse scale factor $a_c$, the addition of
312: EDE should require increasing the overdensity in the early universe in
313: order to compensate for the slower non-linear growth. However, the
314: solution for $\Delta(x)$ in the early universe from BDW predicts a
315: {\it decrease} in the overdensity for EDE relative to $\Lambda$CDM.
316: These problems raise doubts about the accuracy of this solution.
317:
318: We note that a precise determination of the initial $\Delta(a_i)$ is
319: needed in order to accurately determine $\delta_c$. We find typical
320: values of $\Delta(a_i)$ to be $\Delta(a_i) \simeq 1+3(a_i/a_c)$ where,
321: to ensure numerical convergence (results independent of the chosen
322: $a_i$) we take $a_i < a_c \times 10^{-4}$. This means that even a
323: small error, say of order $10^{-3}$ in $\Delta(a_i)$, is greatly
324: amplified when going to $\Delta(a_i)-1$, needed to calculate
325: $\delta_c$ in Eq. (\ref{dcdef}). In this example the error induced in
326: $\delta_c$ would then be of order unity.
327:
328: We employ a different, straightforward approach to computing
329: $\delta_c$, purely numerically. We still solve Eqs. (\ref{fred1}) and
330: (\ref{fred2}), however rather than searching for the overdensity at
331: turnaround numerically then scaling this back to early times
332: approximately, we perform the numerical search starting the
333: integration at early times, and hence search directly for the
334: overdensity $\Delta(a_i)$ that causes collapse of the perturbation
335: ($y\to 0$) by the desired collapse scale factor $a_c$. Our approach
336: has several advantages:
337:
338: \begin{itemize}
339: \item In the previous approach, a numerical search must be made to
340: find the overdensity at turnaround before this can be scaled back to
341: the early universe using an approximate solution. Performing this
342: search at the early time instead avoids the need for the approximate
343: scaling back without adding to computation time.
344:
345: \item Finding the overdensity at turnaround implicitly assumes that
346: the rise and fall times of the radius of the perturbation are
347: equal. This is not true in general dark energy cosmologies\footnote{
348: From Eq.(\ref{fred2}) we see that the symmetry in the perturbation
349: rise and fall times holds when the coefficient of $y$ in the last term
350: is time independent (then it gives the ``development angle" solution
351: $y\sim\cos^{2/3}[C(t-t_a)]$, where $C$ is constant, cf.\ Peebles
352: 1980). The coefficient is indeed time independent in three cases: 1)
353: when $\lambda=0$ (pure matter universe), 2) when $g(x)$ is constant
354: (which implies $w(x)=-1$: $\Lambda$CDM), and 3) when $w(x)=-1/3$
355: (equivalent to spatial curvature, i.e.\ a matter plus curvature
356: universe such as OCDM). These were the cases most researchers were
357: interested in until the late 1990s, and so symmetry has passed into
358: the lore of linear collapse. However, it is {\it not\/} true for dark
359: energy cosmologies with $w \ne -1$!}. By avoiding reference to
360: turnover, we avoid this approximation.
361:
362: \item By solving the exact equations, we can quantify the magnitude of
363: any errors introduced by approximations that may lead to a simpler
364: functional form for $\Delta(x)$. Without this solution we cannot
365: properly test the validity of approximations.
366: \end{itemize}
367:
368: Results from our numerical calculation, compared to the method of BDW,
369: are shown in Fig.~\ref{dcplot}. The EDE model is model (I) from BDW
370: with parameters $\Omega_m=0.325$, $w_0=-0.93$, and
371: $\Omega_e=2\times10^{-4}$. This is compared to a flat $\Lambda$CDM
372: model with $\Omega_m=0.3$ as in BDW. We also compare to different EDE
373: model, proposed by \citet{DoranRobbers06}, which, compared to the
374: \citet{Wetterich04} model, has a greater EDE density at early times
375: relative to its $z\approx2$ value. We show our results for this model,
376: with $\Omega_m=0.3$, $w_0=-1$ and $\Omega_e=0.05$ (note that current
377: data permits higher values of $\Omega_e$ in the \citet{DoranRobbers06}
378: model than the \citet{Wetterich04} model, see \citet{DRW} for
379: details).
380: \begin{figure}
381: \includegraphics[
382: scale=0.35,
383: angle=-90]{dcPlot.ps}
384: \caption{Linear density contrast at collapse time, $\delta_c$, for
385: $\Lambda$CDM and EDE cosmologies. The $\Lambda$CDM model (solid
386: black line), is tracked closely by our numerical result for EDE
387: (dashed red line). By contrast, the method of BDW (dot-dashed green
388: line) predicts a significant decrease in EDE cosmology. Our result
389: for the \citet{DoranRobbers06} EDE model (dotted blue line) has a
390: somewhat greater departure from the $\Lambda$CDM value than for the
391: \citet{Wetterich04} model, even at high redshifts. For the
392: \citet{DoranRobbers06} model, the BDW approach gives $\delta_c\to0$
393: (see Francis et al. 2008), so we do not plot that
394: case.}\label{dcplot}
395: \end{figure}
396: The key result from Fig.~\ref{dcplot} is that we find $\delta_c$ in
397: EDE cosmology to be little changed compared to $\Lambda$CDM. This is
398: significant, and in contrast to previous results. The implications
399: for the ST mass function are discussed in Section \ref{halostuff}.
400: The reasons for breakdown of the BDW solution are detailed in the
401: Appendix.
402:
403: The dependence of $\delta_c$ on EDE is fit by
404: \begin{equation}\label{fit}
405: \delta_c^{EDE}(a_c)= A + \left[b(1+w_0)+c\Omega_m-d\right]a_c-e\Omega_e
406: \end{equation}
407: where for the \citet{DoranRobbers06} model, $A=1.6905$, $b=-0.0183$,
408: $c=0.0264$, $d=0.0208$ and $e=0.202$, and for the \citet{Wetterich04}
409: model, $A=1.6899$, $b=-0.0170$, $c=0.0455$, $d=0.0307$ and
410: $e=0.753$. Both of these fits are good to $\sim0.1\%$ in the range
411: $0.2<\Omega_m<0.4$, $-1.2<w_0<-0.8$, $0.1<a_c<1.0$ and $0<\Omega_e
412: <0.05$ for the \citet{DoranRobbers06} model and $0<\Omega_e
413: <1\times10^{-3}$ for the \citet{Wetterich04} model. By taking
414: $\Omega_e=0$ and $w=-1$, Eq. \ref{fit} returns the $\Lambda$CDM
415: result.
416:
417: \section{Halo Mass Functions}\label{halostuff}
418:
419: The results on the linear collapse parameter solve a puzzle from
420: \citet{francis}, where a marked difference between the ST and J01 mass
421: functions in EDE cosmologies was highlighted, and \citet{gross} where
422: it was noted that if spherical collapse is ignored and a common value
423: of $\delta_c=1.689$ is assumed instead the agreement between these
424: methods is restored. For the ST mass function, using spherical
425: collapse arguments for $\delta_c$, both studies relied upon the
426: calculation from BDW. Using instead the method outlined in this
427: study, we have re-examined the ST and J01 mass functions. As found in
428: \citet{francis}, the EDE mass functions are not greatly altered
429: compared to $\Lambda$CDM at $z=0$, however the difference increases
430: with redshift. The EDE mass functions as a ratio to $\Lambda$CDM at
431: $z=1$ for the same models as Fig.~\ref{dcplot} are shown in
432: Fig.~\ref{haloplot}.
433: \begin{figure}
434: \includegraphics[
435: scale=0.35,
436: angle=-90]{halo.ps}
437: \caption{Comparison between the ST and J01 mass functions. The upper
438: set of curves are for the \citet{Wetterich04} model and the lower
439: set the \citet{DoranRobbers06} model. The solid black line shows the
440: calculated ratio between the EDE and $\Lambda$CDM using the J01
441: formula. The red dashed line shows the same ratio using the ST mass
442: function for both models using our calculated values of $\delta_c$.
443: The green dot-dashed line shows the ST ratio when $\delta_c=1.689$
444: is used instead of the calculated values. The \citet{DoranRobbers06}
445: mass functions use linear power spectra, $P(k)$, for the EDE and
446: $\Lambda$CDM models normalised to a common $\sigma_8$ today, while
447: the \citet{Wetterich04} mass functions use the models from BDW which
448: are picked from a Monte-Carlo chain fitting current data and have
449: some differences in normalisation and primordial spectral
450: index. }\label{haloplot}
451: \end{figure}
452: This result demonstrates that the basic agreement between the ST and
453: the J01 mass functions is preserved, even when the spherical collapse
454: motivated, cosmology dependent, $\delta_c$ is used. Thus not only the
455: form, but also the conceptual basis of the ST mass function is valid
456: for EDE. We note that at the high mass end ($M\gtrsim 10^{13}
457: M_{\sun}/h$), the choice of calculating $\delta_c$ or holding it fixed
458: makes as big a difference as choosing between the ST and J01 formulas.
459: Neither the simulations from \citet{francis} nor \citet{gross} have
460: sufficient accuracy at this high mass end to make any clear judgement
461: about which choice better fits simulation data.
462:
463: The success of the J01 style mass functions, that are blind to the
464: growth history of the universe (as opposed to the instantaneous growth
465: factor), indicates that indeed the abundance of halos is insensitive
466: to this. When the growth history {\it is} considered, via the
467: alteration of $\delta_c$ in the ST mass functions, small, but not
468: insignificant, differences between the ST and J01 predictions for the
469: relative mass function in EDE and $\Lambda$CDM emerge. Future work
470: with simulations containing sufficient volume to accurately probe the
471: high mass range could discriminate between the two approaches to mass
472: function fitting and determine whether the growth history affects halo
473: abundances.
474:
475: While the abundance of halos is unaffected by the growth history,
476: \citet{francis} found that non-linear power at small scales
477: ($k\gtrsim1$) is increased in EDE cosmologies relative to
478: $\Lambda$CDM. Since this part of the power spectrum is dominated by
479: the one-halo term in the halo model \citep{cooray}, the internal
480: density profile of halos in EDE will be different than in
481: $\Lambda$CDM. This is also seen in the results of \citet{gross}.
482:
483: \section{Discussion and Conclusion}\label{disc}
484:
485: In this letter we have demonstrated that the ST mass function, when
486: the correct $\delta_c$ is used, agrees with the J01 and \citet{Warren}
487: mass functions. For reasonable parameter values, $\delta_c$ in EDE
488: models is not significantly altered compared to $\Lambda$CDM. This is
489: in contrast to previous results for EDE, but agrees with analyses of
490: other dynamical dark energy models, for instance
491: \citet{2003ApJ...599...24M}. From Eq. (\ref{dcdef}), we can see that
492: $\delta_c$ is defined by comparing linear to non-linear growth. If,
493: in some cosmology, we find $\delta_c$ to be significantly altered
494: compared to some other model, then this indicates that the difference
495: between models must be altering the linear and non-linear growth
496: differently.
497:
498: What kind of cosmology would have a significantly different $\delta_c$
499: compared to $\Lambda$CDM? Some new physics must alter the linear and
500: non-linear growth rates in different ways compared to $\Lambda$CDM.
501: One key assumption we have made in our analysis is that dark energy is
502: smoothly distributed on the relevant length scales. This means that
503: the dark energy density in the background universe and within the
504: perturbation are not evolved independently. If dark energy
505: perturbations were in fact important on small scales, or for instance
506: if dark energy was non-minimally coupled to dark matter then the dark
507: energy density within the perturbation will evolve differently to the
508: background universe. In this case we would expect a more significant
509: alteration of $\delta_c$, although careful determination of the linear
510: growth as well as the non-linear spherical collapse taking any
511: coupling or dark energy perturbations properly into account would be
512: needed, see for instance \citep{ManMota,dc1,dc2,dc3,dc4}.
513:
514: As found in BDW, if $\delta_c$ is postulated to be significantly
515: different to the $\Lambda$CDM value, then large differences in the
516: abundance of collapsed objects would be seen, over and above any
517: difference we might anticipate based upon measurements of the linear
518: growth rate from the CMB, weak lensing and the large scale galaxy
519: power spectrum normalisation combined with knowledge of the expansion
520: history from supernovae Ia data. Since some discrepancies in structure
521: measurements may exist \citep{fedeli}, it therefore remains a question
522: for further studies as to whether such observations potentially point
523: to the non-linear growth in our universe not following the universal
524: form and hint at added physics for dark energy or dark matter.
525:
526: \section*{Acknowledgments}
527:
528: We thank Carlos Frenk and Ravi Sheth for useful conversations. GFL
529: acknowledges support from ARC Discovery Project DP0665574. This work
530: has been supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office
531: of High Energy Physics, of the U.S.\ Department of Energy under
532: Contract No.\ DE-AC02-05CH11231.
533:
534: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
535: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Abramo et al.}{2008}]{dc1} Abramo, L.~R., Batista,
536: R.~C., Liberato, L., \& Rosenfeld, R.\ 2008, arXiv:0806.3461
537: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bartelmann, Doran \& Wetterich}{2006}]{bartDW06} Bartelmann, M.,
538: Doran, M., \& Wetterich, C.\ 2006, \aap, 454, 27
539: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bartelmann et al.}{1998}]{lenseArcs} Bartelmann, M., Huss, A., Colberg, J.~M., Jenkins, A., \& Pearce, F.~R.\ 1998, \aap, 330, 1
540: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Basilakos \& Voglis}{2007}]{dc3} Basilakos, S., \& Voglis, N.\ 2007, \mnras, 374, 269
541: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Borgani et al.}{2001}]{xray} Borgani, S., et al.\
542: 2001, \apj, 561, 13
543: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cole et al.}{2005}]{2dfcosmo} Cole, S., et al.\ 2005,
544: \mnras, 362, 505
545: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cooray \& Sheth}{2002}]{cooray} Cooray, A., \& Sheth, R.\ 2002, \physrep, 372, 1
546: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Doran \& Robbers}{2006}]{DoranRobbers06} Doran, M., \&
547: Robbers, G.\ 2006, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 6, 26
548: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Doran et al.}{2007}]{DRW} Doran, M., Robbers, G.,
549: \& Wetterich, C.\ 2007, \prd, 75, 023003
550: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dutta \& Maor}{2007}]{dc2} Dutta, S., \& Maor, I.\ 2007, \prd, 75, 063507
551: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Evrard et al.}{2002}]{clusters} Evrard, A.~E., et al.\
552: 2002, \apj, 573, 7
553: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fedeli et al.}{2008}]{fedeli} Fedeli, C., Bartelmann, M., Meneghetti, M., \& Moscardini, L.\ 2008, \aap, 486, 35
554: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Francis et al.}{2008}]{francis} Francis, M.~J., Lewis,
555: G.~F., \& Linder, E.~V.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 808, arXiv:0808.2840
556: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Grossi \& Springel}{2008}]{gross} Grossi, M. \& Springel, V., 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 809, arXiv:0809.3404v1 [astro-ph]
557: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jenkins et al.}{2001}]{Jenkins01} Jenkins, A., Frenk,
558: C.~S., White, S.~D.~M., Colberg, J.~M., Cole, S., Evrard, A.~E., Couchman,
559: H.~M.~P., \& Yoshida, N.\ 2001, \mnras, 321, 372
560: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Klypin et al.}{2003}]{klypin} Klypin, A., Macci{\`o},
561: A.~V., Mainini, R., \& Bonometto, S.~A.\ 2003, \apj, 599, 31
562: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Komatsu et al.}{2008}]{wmap5} Komatsu, E., et al.\
563: 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 803, arXiv:0803.0547
564: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kowalski et al.}{2008}]{kowalski08} Kowalski, M., et al.\
565: 2008, \apj, 686, 749
566: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Linder \& Jenkins}{2003}]{LinderJenkins} Linder E. \& Jenkins A., 2003, MNRAS, 346, 573
567: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Linder \& Robbers}{2008}]{LinderRobbers} Linder, E.~V., \& Robbers, G.\ 2008, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 6, 4
568: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mainini et al.}{2003}]{2003ApJ...599...24M} Mainini, R.,
569: Macci{\`o}, A.~V., Bonometto, S.~A., \& Klypin, A.\ 2003, \apj, 599, 24
570: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mainini \& Bonometto}{2006}]{dc4} Mainini, R., \& Bonometto, S.\ 2006, \prd, 74, 043504
571: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Manera \& Mota}{2006}]{ManMota} Manera, M., \& Mota, D.~F.\ 2006, \mnras, 371, 1373
572: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Peebles}{1980}]{peebles} Peebles, P.~J.~E.\ 1980,
573: Princeton University Press, 1980.
574: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Perlmutter et al.}{1999}]{perl99} Perlmutter, S., et
575: al.\ 1999, \apj, 517, 565
576: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Press \& Schechter}{1974}]{PressSch} Press, W.~H., \& Schechter, P.\ 1974, \apj, 187, 425
577: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Riess et al.}{1998}]{riess98} Riess, A.~G., et al.\
578: 1998, \aj, 116, 1009
579: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sheth \& Tormen}{1999}]{ShethTormen} Sheth, R.~K., \& Tormen, G.\ 1999, \mnras, 308, 119
580: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tauber}{2005}]{plank} Tauber, J.~A.\ 2005, New
581: Cosmological Data and the Values of the Fundamental Parameters, 201, 86
582: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Warren et al.}{2006}]{Warren} Warren, M.~S.,
583: Abazajian, K., Holz, D.~E., \& Teodoro, L.\ 2006, \apj, 646, 881
584: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wetterich}{2004}]{Wetterich04} Wetterich, C.\ 2004, Physics
585: Letters B, 594, 17
586: \end{thebibliography}
587:
588: \section*{Appendix: The BDW solution for $\Delta(\lowercase{x})$}\label{appendix}
589:
590: The calculation of $\delta_c$ in BDW makes two key assumptions in
591: order to approximate the early time evolution of the overdensity in
592: EDE cosmologies. In Eq. (\ref{fred1}), the second term is neglected
593: on the assumption that it is small compared to the first, and the
594: second order differential Eq. (\ref{fred2}) is converted to an
595: approximate first order equation. These approximate equations, for a
596: flat universe, are
597: \begin{equation}\label{app1}
598: \dot{x} \simeq \left[\omega/x\right]^{1/2}
599: \end{equation}
600: \begin{equation}\label{app2}
601: \dot{y}\simeq\left[\frac{\omega \zeta}{y} - \omega\zeta + \frac{\zeta \Omega_e \omega}{(1-\Omega_e)y}\right]^{1/2}
602: \end{equation}
603: To examine the effects that these approximations introduce, we first
604: determine $\zeta$ using our numerical solution for $\Delta(a_i)$, and
605: then numerically integrate Eqs. (\ref{app1}) and (\ref{app2}) in the
606: early universe. If the approximations are good the results should
607: match our exact calculation in the early universe.
608:
609: There is an important point that must be made using our approach. The
610: boundary conditions of $\dot{y}_i/y_i=\dot{x}_i/x_i$ at $a_i$ (the
611: perturbation starts off co-moving with the Hubble flow) ensure that we
612: have both a growing and decaying mode initially, such that $\delta_+ =
613: (3/5)\delta_i$ where $\delta \equiv \Delta -1$. At the initial time
614: $x_i$, we have both growing and decaying modes and hence we need to
615: apply the factor of $3/5$ in order to extricate the growing mode
616: only. The essence of the BDW approach is to approximate the early time
617: trends of Eqs. (\ref{fred1}) and (\ref{fred2}), which should return
618: simply the growing mode. As expected from the results of Section
619: \ref{calcdc}, the integration using Eqs. (\ref{app1}) and
620: (\ref{app2}) does not match our result, however it does reproduce the
621: solution of BDW after the decaying mode has dissipated, indicating
622: that these approximations cause the difference compared to our result
623: (both approximations contribute comparable errors). The subsequent
624: manipulations of these equations in BDW are clever but the damage is
625: already done.
626:
627: \bsp
628:
629: \label{lastpage}
630:
631: \end{document}
632:
633: