1:
2: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,prd,
3: %tightenlines]{revtex4}
4: \documentclass[showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,prd]{revtex4}
5:
6: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
7: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
8: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities
9: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
10: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
11: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
12:
13: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
14: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
15: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
16: \usepackage{subfigure}
17:
18: \newcommand{\mnras}{MNRAS}
19: \newcommand{\apjl}{ApJ}
20: \newcommand{\aap}{A\&A}
21: \newcommand{\aj}{AJ}
22: \newcommand{\apjs}{ApJS}
23: \newcommand{\physrep}{Physics Reports}
24: \newcommand{\pasj}{PASJ}
25: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.\ }
26: \newcommand{\mpc}{\, {\rm Mpc}}
27: \newcommand{\kpc}{\, {\rm kpc}}
28: \newcommand{\hmpc}{\, h^{-1} \mpc}
29: \newcommand{\ihmpc}{\, h\, {\rm Mpc}^{-1}}
30: \newcommand{\hkpc}{\, h^{-1} \kpc}
31: \newcommand{\lya}{Ly$\alpha$}
32: \newcommand{\lyaf}{Ly$\alpha$ forest}
33: \newcommand{\bF}{\bar{F}}
34: \newcommand{\xrei}{x_{rei}}
35: \newcommand{\lr}{\lambda_{{\rm rest}}}
36: \newcommand{\lrmin}{\lambda_{{\rm rest, min}}}
37: \newcommand{\lrmax}{\lambda_{{\rm rest, max}}}
38: \newcommand{\lmin}{\lambda_{{\rm min}}}
39: \newcommand{\lmax}{\lambda_{{\rm max}}}
40: \newcommand{\hi}{\mbox{H\,{\scriptsize I}\ }}
41: \newcommand{\heii}{\mbox{He\,{\scriptsize II}\ }}
42: \newcommand{\vdF}{{\mathbf \delta_F}}
43: \newcommand{\vp}{\mathbf{p}}
44: \newcommand{\vq}{\mathbf{q}}
45: \newcommand{\vx}{\mathbf{x}}
46: \newcommand{\vy}{\mathbf{y}}
47: \newcommand{\vk}{\mathbf{k}}
48: \newcommand{\tdtwo}{\tilde{b}_{\delta^2}}
49: \newcommand{\tstwo}{\tilde{b}_{s^2}}
50: \newcommand{\tbthree}{\tilde{b}_3}
51: \newcommand{\tadtwo}{\tilde{a}_{\delta^2}}
52: \newcommand{\tastwo}{\tilde{a}_{s^2}}
53: \newcommand{\tabthree}{\tilde{a}_3}
54: \newcommand{\vnabla}{\mathbf{\nabla}}
55: \newcommand{\tpsi}{\tilde{\psi}}
56: \newcommand{\vv}{\mathbf{v}}
57: \newcommand{\fnl}{{f_{\rm NL}}}
58: \newcommand{\tfnl}{{\tilde{f}_{\rm NL}}}
59: \newcommand{\gnl}{g_{\rm NL}}
60: \newcommand{\Ptt}{{P_{\theta\theta}}}
61: \newcommand{\orderfour}{\mathcal{O}\left(\delta_1^4\right)}
62: \def\pvm#1{[PM: {\it #1}] }
63: \def\US#1{[US: {\it #1}] }
64:
65: \begin{document}
66:
67: \title{How to measure redshift-space distortions without sample variance}
68:
69: \author{Patrick McDonald}
70: \email{pmcdonal@cita.utoronto.ca}
71: \affiliation{Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of
72: Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3H8, Canada}
73: \author{Uro{\v s} Seljak}
74: \affiliation{Physics and Astronomy Department and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
75: University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA}
76: \affiliation{Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Zurich, Switzerland}
77:
78: \date{\today}
79:
80: \begin{abstract}
81:
82: We show how to use multiple tracers of large-scale density with different
83: biases to measure the redshift-space distortion parameter
84: $\beta\equiv b^{-1}f\equiv b^{-1}d\ln D/d\ln a$ (where $D$ is the growth rate
85: and $a$ the expansion factor), to a much better precision than one could
86: achieve with a single tracer, to an arbitrary precision in the low noise limit.
87: In combination with the power spectrum of the tracers this allows a much more
88: precise measurement of the bias-free velocity divergence power spectrum,
89: $f^2 P_m$ -- in fact, in the low noise limit $f^2 P_m$ can be measured as well
90: as would be possible if velocity divergence was observed directly, with rms
91: improvement factor
92: $\sim\left[5.2\left(\beta^2+2\beta+2\right)/\beta^2\right]^{1/2}$ (e.g.,
93: $\simeq 10$ times better than a single tracer for $\beta=0.4$). This would
94: allow a high precision determination of $f D$ as a function of redshift with an
95: error as low as 0.1\%. We find up to two orders of magnitude improvement in
96: Figure of Merit for the Dark Energy equation of state relative to Stage II, a
97: factor of several better than other proposed Stage IV Dark Energy surveys. The
98: ratio $b_2/b_1$ will be determined with an even greater precision than $\beta$,
99: producing, when measured as a function of scale, an exquisitely sensitive probe
100: of the onset of non-linear bias. We also extend in more detail previous work on
101: the use of the same technique to measure non-Gaussianity. Currently planned
102: redshift surveys are typically designed with signal to noise of unity on scales
103: of interest, and are not optimized for this technique. Our results suggest that
104: this strategy may need to be revisited as there are large gains to be achieved
105: from surveys with higher number densities of galaxies.
106:
107: \end{abstract}
108:
109: \pacs{98.65.Dx, 95.35.+d, 98.80.Es, 98.80.-k}
110:
111: \maketitle
112:
113: \section{Introduction}
114:
115: Growth of structure in the universe has long been recognized as one of the
116: most powerful ways to learn about the nature of dark energy and other
117: properties of our universe. Currently the most promising method is weak
118: lensing tomography, which traces the dark matter directly and can measure the
119: growth of structure by splitting the source galaxies by their (photometric)
120: redshift. For example, the Dark Energy Task Force concludes that of all
121: proposed next
122: generation experiments weak lensing holds the best promise to succeed in
123: improving our knowledge of dark energy \cite{2006astro.ph..9591A}. However,
124: weak lensing is
125: not necessarily the ideal method: it measures the structure projected over a
126: broad
127: window in redshift and its ability to probe rapid changes in growth rate is
128: limited.
129: Moreover, one is measuring a 2-dimensional projection only as opposed to the
130: full
131: 3-dimensional information, drastically reducing the amount of available
132: information.
133: In addition, for all of the methods proposed so far the requirements on
134: systematic error
135: exceed what is achievable today, so it is worth pursuing multiple methods until
136: we have a better control of systematics.
137:
138: Galaxy clustering has been the favorite method of measuring large scale
139: structure in
140: the universe and it is likely this will continue also in the future.
141: The main reason is that galaxies are easily observed and that by measuring
142: their redshift
143: one can reconstruct the 3-dimensional clustering information, in contrast to
144: weak lensing
145: or cosmic microwave background anisotropies which only measure a 2-dimensional
146: projection.
147: The relation between galaxy and dark matter clustering
148: is however not straight-forward. In the simplest model of linear bias galaxies
149: trace
150: dark matter up to an overall constant called linear bias. The bias cannot be
151: predicted
152: from the theory and as a result galaxy clustering alone
153: cannot measure the growth of structure with redshift.
154: If one could determine bias with sufficiently small error then galaxy
155: clustering
156: would become the leading method due to its higher information content.
157:
158: There are several methods proposed to determine the bias.
159: One is to use weak lensing, specifically
160: galaxy-galaxy lensing which measures the cross-correlation between galaxies and
161: dark matter.
162: This is proportional to bias $b$ and in combination with the galaxy
163: auto-correlation
164: function which scales as $b^2$ one can eliminate the dependence on bias to
165: measure
166: $\Omega_{m 0}^2P_m(k)$, where $\Omega_{m0}$ is the matter density parameter
167: today and
168: $P_m(k)$ is the matter power spectrum at a given redshift
169: \cite{2002ApJ...577..604H,2004AJ....127.2544S}.
170: Alternatively, one can also measure the halo mass distribution with weak
171: lensing
172: which, in connection with the
173: theoretical bias predictions, can determine the bias and thus $P_m(k)$
174: \cite{2005PhRvD..71d3511S}.
175: A second method to determine the bias and thus $P_m(k)$ is to measure the
176: three-point function \cite{2002MNRAS.335..432V}.
177: A third method, and the one we focus here, is to measure the redshift space
178: distortion
179: parameter
180: $\beta \equiv b^{-1} f\equiv b^{-1} d\ln D / d\ln a $ (where
181: $b$ is the bias of the galaxies, $D$ is the linear theory growth factor, and
182: $a$ is the expansion factor)
183: \cite{2003MNRAS.346...78H,2004MNRAS.353.1201P,2006PhRvD..74l3507T,
184: 2008Natur.451..541G}. In combination with the galaxy power spectrum
185: this gives $f^2 P_m$. Note that these methods give somewhat different dynamical
186: measurements once the bias is eliminated, so to some extent they are
187: complementary to each other. However,
188: none of these methods is presently competitive in terms of
189: derived cosmological constraints, as they all have rather large statistical
190: errors
191: from the current data, although this may change in the future as data improve
192: and
193: new analysis methods are developed
194: \cite{2006ApJ...652...26Y,2006PhRvD..74b3522S,2008arXiv0807.0810S,
195: 2008arXiv0808.0003P}.
196:
197: In this paper we focus on redshift space distortion parameter $\beta$ as a way
198: to
199: determine the bias. Clustering of galaxies along the line of sight is enhanced
200: relative to the transverse direction due to peculiar motions and this allows
201: one to
202: determine $\beta$. Current methods require one to compare the clustering
203: strength as a
204: function of angle relative to the line of sight, but this method is only
205: applicable on large
206: scales where linear theory holds. As a result, the sampling variance limits its
207: statistical precision.
208: Recently, \cite{2008arXiv0807.1770S} proposed a new method for
209: measuring the primordial non-Gaussianity parameter $\fnl$, by comparing two
210: sets of galaxies with a different bias, and a different sensitivity to $\fnl$
211: \cite{2008PhRvD..77l3514D},
212: which allows one to eliminate the sample variance.
213: Optimization of this technique was investigated by \cite{2008arXiv0808.0044S}.
214: Here we apply this technique to the measurement of the redshift-space
215: distortion parameter, which in turn improves
216: the measurement of the velocity divergence power spectrum
217: $\Ptt\equiv f^2 P_m(k)$.
218: As we show here, this approach can in principle measure $\beta$ perfectly and
219: $\Ptt$ as well as if we observed velocity divergence directly.
220: If this promise were realized from the data it would allow for a much higher
221: statistical
222: power than weak lensing or other 2-dimensional projections.
223: We also show that our method, and large-scale structure surveys in general,
224: become even more powerful
225: when additional cosmology dependence, such as the Alcock-Paczy{\'n}ski
226: effect \cite{1979Natur.281..358A}, is included.
227:
228: We begin by presenting the basic method, followed by
229: an analysis of the expected improvement as a function of survey parameters.
230: This is followed by
231: predictions for some of the existing and
232: future surveys in terms of expected improvement of dark energy
233: parameters. On small scales
234: the deterministic linear bias model
235: eventually becomes inaccurate and for this reason we often quote results as
236: a function of the maximum usable wavenumber, $k_{\rm max}$.
237: While we have some idea what its value should be, we leave a more detailed
238: analysis with numerical simulations for the future.
239: One should note,
240: however, that the multiple-tracer approach is likely to actually help in
241: disentangling non-linear bias effects on quasi-linear scales, making those
242: scales potentially much more useful than they would otherwise be.
243: We conclude with a summary and a discussion of future directions.
244:
245: \section{Method and Results}
246:
247: The density perturbation, $\delta_{g i}$, for a type of galaxy $i$, in the
248: linear regime, in redshift space, is \cite{1987MNRAS.227....1K}
249: \begin{equation}
250: \delta_{g i}=\left(b_i+f\mu^2\right) \delta +\epsilon_i
251: \label{eqkaiser}
252: \end{equation}
253: where $b_i$ is the galaxy bias, $\mu=k_\parallel/k$, $\delta$ is the mass
254: density
255: perturbation, and $\epsilon_i$ is a white noise variable which can
256: represent either
257: the standard shot-noise or other stochasticity.
258: All equations are understood to apply to the real or imaginary part of a
259: single Fourier mode unless otherwise indicated.
260: In this paper we will consider two types of galaxies, type 1 with bias $b$,
261: and type 2 with bias $\alpha b$.
262: The perturbation equations can then be written
263: \begin{equation}
264: \delta_{g 1}=f \left(\beta^{-1}+ \mu^2\right) \delta +\epsilon_1~,
265: \label{eq1}
266: \end{equation}
267: and
268: \begin{equation}
269: \delta_{g 2}=f \left(\alpha\beta^{-1}+ \mu^2\right) \delta +\epsilon_2~.
270: \label{eq2}
271: \end{equation}
272: We are denoting $\beta=f/b$ (the equivalent distortion parameter for the 2nd
273: type of galaxy is $\beta/\alpha$).
274:
275: The traditional method to determine $\beta$ is to look at the angular
276: dependence
277: of the two-point correlation function or its Fourier transform, the power
278: spectrum. The correlations
279: will be enhanced along the line of sight (where $\mu=1$)
280: relative to the direction perpendicular to it (where $\mu=0$),
281: but to observe this enhancement one must average over many independent modes to
282: beat down the sampling (or cosmic) variance. This is because each mode is a
283: random realization of a Gaussian field and there will be fluctuations in the
284: measured power even in the absence of noise. By combining a measurement of
285: $\beta$
286: with that of the galaxy power spectrum one can determine $f^2 P_m$, which no
287: longer
288: depends on the unknown bias of the galaxies. This method has been applied to
289: the
290: data, most recently in \cite{2003MNRAS.346...78H,2004MNRAS.353.1201P,2006PhRvD..74l3507T,2008Natur.451..541G},
291: and is limited by the accuracy with which we can
292: determine $\beta$. For example, for the analysis in \cite{2006PhRvD..74l3507T},
293: which currently has the highest signal to noise
294: measurement of $\beta$, the error on the overall amplitude of
295: galaxy power spectrum $P_{gg}$ is about 1\% adding up all the modes up to $k=0.1\ihmpc$,
296: while the error on $\beta$ is about 12\%, so the
297: error on reconstructed $f^2 P_m=\beta^2 P_{gg}$ is entirely dominated by the
298: error on $\beta$. Predictions
299: for the future surveys with this and related methods can be found in \cite{2008arXiv0807.0810S,2008arXiv0808.0003P}.
300:
301: To understand the main point of the new method we are proposing here
302: let us consider the situation without the noise, which would apply if, for example,
303: we have a very high density of the two tracers sampling the field, and no
304: stochasticity. In that case
305: we can divide equation \ref{eq2} by equation \ref{eq1} above to obtain
306: \begin{equation}
307: {\delta_{g 2} \over \delta_{g 1}}={ \alpha\beta^{-1}+ \mu^2 \over \beta^{-1}+ \mu^2}.
308: \end{equation}
309: This expression has a specific angular dependence, allowing one to extract $\alpha$ and
310: $\beta$ separately. Note that there is no dependence on the
311: density field $\delta$. The random nature of the density field is therefore not
312: affecting this method and we can determine $\beta$ exactly in the absence of noise.
313: More generally, the precision with which we can determine $\beta$ is controlled by the (shot)
314: noise, i.e. density of tracers, rather than the sampling variance.
315: In order to address the gains in a realistic case
316: we must perform the full analysis, which we turn to next.
317:
318: Generally, the noise variables can be correlated with each other, although
319: they would not be for standard shot-noise. For example,
320: \cite{2006PhRvD..74j3512M} showed that one generically expects non-linear
321: structure formation to generate a full covariance matrix for the noise at some
322: level, so this will probably be the
323: ultimate limit for this kind of measurement.
324: The covariance matrix of the perturbations is
325: \begin{equation}
326: C \equiv \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
327: \left<\delta^2_{g 1}\right> & \left<\delta_{g 1} \delta_{g 2}\right> \\
328: \left<\delta_{g 2} \delta_{g 1}\right> & \left<\delta^2_{g 2}\right>
329: \end{array} \right] = \frac{\Ptt}{2} \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
330: \left(\beta^{-1}+\mu^2\right)^2 & \left(\beta^{-1}+\mu^2\right)
331: \left(\alpha\beta^{-1}+\mu^2\right) \\
332: \left(\beta^{-1}+\mu^2\right) \left(\alpha\beta^{-1}+\mu^2\right) &
333: \left(\alpha\beta^{-1}+\mu^2\right)^2
334: \end{array} \right] + \frac{N}{2}
335: \label{eqcovarmat}
336: \end{equation}
337: where $\Ptt\equiv 2 f^2\left<\delta^2\right>$ and
338: $N_{ij}\equiv 2 \left<\epsilon_i \epsilon_j\right>$ (note that $\Ptt$ and $N$
339: are the
340: usual power spectrum and noise -- the factor of 2 comes from the fact that
341: $\delta$ and $\epsilon$ are only the real or imaginary part of a Fourier mode).
342: If we assume that the noise matrix is known then the covariance matrix for two types of galaxies is
343: a function of
344: three parameters: the velocity divergence power spectrum amplitude, $\Ptt$,
345: the
346: redshift-space distortion parameter, $\beta$, and the ratio of biases
347: $\alpha$.
348: We work with $\alpha$ instead of a second $\beta$ parameter because
349: the ratio of biases will generally be determined substantially
350: more precisely than $\beta$, which means that the measurement of the
351: second $\beta$ parameter would be almost perfectly correlated with the first.
352: The Fisher matrix for the measurement of these parameters is
353: \begin{equation}
354: F_{\lambda\lambda^\prime}=\frac{1}{2}{\rm Tr}\left[C_{,\lambda} C^{-1}
355: C_{,\lambda^\prime} C^{-1}\right]
356: \label{eqfishmat}
357: \end{equation}
358: where $C_{,\lambda}\equiv dC/d\lambda$ and $\lambda$ are the parameters.
359:
360: For any single mode, the inverse of the Fisher matrix is singular, i.e., we
361: can only constrain two parameters, not three. However, adding Fisher matrices
362: for modes with different $\mu$ breaks this degeneracy.
363: Generally, the total Fisher matrix will be an integral over modes with all
364: angles.
365: As a simple example, we assume first a pair of modes with $\mu=0$ and $\mu=1$
366: and
367: compute the error on the parameters in the small noise limit:
368: \begin{equation}
369: \frac{\sigma^2_\alpha}{\alpha^2} = X_{11}- 2 X_{12}+X_{22}~,
370: \end{equation}
371: where $X_{ij}=N_{ij}/b_i b_j P_m$,
372: \begin{equation}
373: \frac{\sigma^2_{\beta}}{\beta^2}=
374: \frac{\left[\alpha^2 \left(1+\beta\right)^2+
375: \left(\alpha+\beta\right)^2\right]X_{11}
376: -2 \left[\alpha^2\left(1+\beta\right)^2+
377: \alpha\left(1+\beta\right)\left(\alpha+\beta\right)\right] X_{12}
378: +2 \alpha^2\left(1+\beta\right)^2 X_{22}}{\beta^2\left(\alpha-1\right)^2}~,
379: \end{equation}
380: and
381: \begin{equation}
382: \frac{\sigma^2_\Ptt}{\Ptt^2} = 1~.
383: \end{equation}
384: The key points are that the only lower limit on the errors on $\alpha$ and
385: $\beta$ from this
386: single pair of modes is set by the achievable noise-to-signal ratios on the
387: tracers, $X_{ij}$, and
388: the error on $\Ptt$ is the error one would obtain for a simple power spectrum
389: measurement from two modes, with no degradation due to degeneracy with the bias
390: parameters (this is of course only true to leading order in the small noise
391: limit).
392:
393: In contrast, for a single type of
394: galaxy, for the same pair of radial and transverse modes, in the low noise
395: limit we find:
396: \begin{equation}
397: \frac{\sigma^2_\beta}{\beta^2} =\frac{\left(1+\beta\right)^2}{\beta^2}
398: \end{equation}
399: and
400: \begin{equation}
401: \frac{\sigma^2_\Ptt}{\Ptt^2} =
402: \frac{2 \left(\beta^2+2 \beta+2\right)}{\beta^2}
403: \end{equation}
404: i.e., here the signal-to-noise per mode on $\beta$ saturates at
405: greater than unity for low noise, and the overall power measurement is
406: substantially degraded because we cannot determine $\beta$ very accurately and this
407: then limits the precision with which the velocity divergence power spectrum can
408: be determined as well.
409: If we assume the first tracer is much better sampled than the second, we get
410: the ratio of errors
411: \begin{equation}
412: \frac{\sigma^2_{\beta}\left(2~{\rm tracers}\right)}
413: {\sigma^2_{\beta}\left(1~{\rm tracer}\right)} \simeq
414: \frac{2 \alpha^2 X_{22}}{\left(\alpha-1\right)^2}=
415: \frac{2 N_{22}}{\left(b_2-b_1\right)^2 P_m}
416: \label{eqrelativebetaerror}
417: \end{equation}
418: and
419: \begin{equation}
420: \frac{\sigma^2_\Ptt\left(2~{\rm tracers}\right)}
421: {\sigma^2_\Ptt\left(1~{\rm tracer}\right)} \simeq
422: \frac{\beta^2}{2 \left(\beta^2+2 \beta+2\right)}~.
423: \label{eqrelativePerror}
424: \end{equation}
425: We see that the improvement in the measurement of $\beta$ can be arbitrarily
426: large in the limit $N_{22} \rightarrow 0$,
427: while the improvement in $\Ptt$ is limited by sample variance but is
428: generally quite large, e.g., a factor $10^{1/2}$ (rms) for $\beta=1$, and
429: $50^{1/2}$ for $\beta=1/3$.
430: All of these formulae are only good as long as the noise is small relative to
431: the power spectrum of the difference between the two tracer fields
432: (obviously the two tracer case should never be worse than the one tracer
433: case).
434:
435: A yet more realistic analysis must integrate over all modes rather than look
436: just at the two specific modes as done above. In doing so we find that
437: the two-mode approximation above substantially
438: underestimates the improvement in the $\Ptt$ measurement. If we integrate the
439: Fisher matrix over the full range of $\mu$, the improvement is a factor of
440: approximately $2.6^{1/2}$ larger than above, e.g., a factor of $25^{1/2}$
441: for $\beta=1$, or $138^{1/2}$ for $\beta=1/3$.
442: The result of the $\mu$ integration in the idealized case of two perfect tracers remains
443: simply:
444: \begin{equation}
445: \frac{\sigma^2_\Ptt}{\Ptt^2} =
446: \frac{2}{N},
447: \end{equation}
448: where $N$ is the effective number of discrete modes sampled (counting real and
449: imaginary parts separately). Thus, the
450: combination of two perfect tracers produces the measurement of $f^2 P_m$ that
451: one would obtain if one could observe the velocity divergence field directly
452: and perfectly.
453:
454: \subsection{General usefulness of redshift-space distortion measurements}
455:
456: Of course, we will never have perfect sampling, so it is necessary to
457: numerically evaluate
458: the exact Fisher matrix with finite noise to determine the improvement for
459: real surveys.
460: We assume the survey volume, $V$, is roughly spherical, so the
461: Fisher matrix for a survey will be
462: \begin{equation}
463: F_V\simeq \frac{V}{4 \pi^2}
464: \int_{k_{\rm min}}^{k_{\rm max}} k^2 dk \int_{-1}^1 d\mu ~ F\left(k,\mu\right)
465: \end{equation}
466: where $F\left(k,\mu\right)$ is computed for a single mode using Eqs.
467: (\ref{eqcovarmat}) and (\ref{eqfishmat}) (remembering that both real and
468: imaginary parts must be added).
469: We assume the minimum usable $k$ is $k_{\rm min}\simeq 2 \pi / V^{1/3}$.
470:
471: In Figure \ref{figf2Pvsz} we show the errors on the amplitude of the
472: velocity divergence power spectrum $\Ptt$ that one
473: can obtain from a generic 3/4-sky (30000 square degree) survey, as a function
474: of redshift.
475: \begin{figure}
476: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f2Pkm0.1vsz.eps}}
477: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{f2Pkm0.1vsz.eps}}
478: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{f2Pkm0.05vsz.eps}}
479: \caption{
480: Projected fractional error on the normalization of
481: $\Ptt\equiv f^2 P_m$, for 30000 square degrees, in redshift bins
482: with width $dz=0.2$.
483: The upper and lower green (short-dashed) lines show the constraints from
484: single tracers with $b=2$ and $b=1$, respectively.
485: Black (solid) lines show the two tracers together, each with, from top
486: to bottom,
487: S/N=1, 3, 10, 30, 100 at $k=0.4\ihmpc$.
488: The red (long-dashed) line shows the case where both
489: tracers are perfectly sampled.
490: For the left panel we assume $k_{\rm max}(z)=
491: 0.1~\left[D\left(z\right)/D\left(0\right)\right]^{-1}\ihmpc$, while the
492: right assumes $k_{\rm max}(z)=
493: 0.05~\left[D\left(z\right)/D\left(0\right)\right]^{-1}\ihmpc$.
494: }
495: \label{figf2Pvsz}
496: \end{figure}
497: This may seem unreasonably optimistic/futuristic, but it may be possible
498: surprisingly quickly if the 21 cm emission intensity mapping method is
499: successful
500: \cite{2008PhRvL.100i1303C}, as discussed further below.
501: We assume either
502: $k_{\rm max}(z)=
503: 0.1~\left[D\left(z\right)/D\left(0\right)\right]^{-1}\ihmpc$, or
504: $k_{\rm max}(z)=
505: 0.05~\left[D\left(z\right)/D\left(0\right)\right]^{-1}\ihmpc$,
506: with the redshift dependence motivated
507: by \cite{2006PhRvD..73f3520C,2007ApJ...665...14S}.
508: We give results for different values of
509: $X_{ij}$ at $k=0.4\ihmpc$ (for $i=j$, i.e., the off-diagonal element is zero).
510: Surveys with S/N$\sim 1$ at $k=0.4 \ihmpc$ recover $\sim 90$\% of the
511: total possible information from BAO measurements, i.e., the S/N ratios we give
512: should be interpreted as being relative to a nearly ideal BAO survey.
513: In these calculations we are assuming the shape of the power spectrum
514: is known so that we can compress the information from all the modes into a
515: single
516: number, that of the power spectrum amplitude. This is discussed further below.
517:
518: We see from Fig. \ref{figf2Pvsz} that one obtains large improvements using the
519: multi-tracer method,
520: even for S/N as small as 3. For example,
521: at $z\sim 1$, with $k_{\rm max}(z)=
522: 0.1~\left[D\left(z\right)/D\left(0\right)\right]^{-1}\ihmpc$,
523: the gain is equivalent to increasing the survey volume by a factor
524: of 3 over a single, perfectly sampled, unbiased tracer.
525: For the more conservative $k_{\rm max}(z)$,
526: the results are substantially degraded,
527: but the multi-tracer method actually
528: becomes more valuable, at fixed absolute S/N level, because the S/N level in
529: the usable range of $k$ is higher.
530:
531: It is interesting to note that, in the single-tracer case, low bias is
532: substantially better than high bias. This is easy to understand from Eq.
533: \ref{eqkaiser} -- lower bias simply means that
534: power due to redshift-space distortions makes a larger fractional contribution
535: to the total. The practical consequence of this observation is that,
536: once BAO surveys using high bias objects have been completed, an opportunity
537: exists for improvement by observing lower bias objects at similarly low S/N,
538: i.e.,
539: even if the S/N is not large enough to decisively
540: exploit the multi-tracer method in this
541: paper.
542:
543: To put these results into a broader context, Fig. \ref{figdPdp}
544: shows how velocity divergence power spectrum $\Ptt=f^2 P_m$ depends on the
545: underlying cosmological parameters of interest,
546: as a function of redshift.
547: \begin{figure}
548: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{dPdp.eps}}
549: \caption{
550: Dependence of $\Ptt\left(k=0.1\ihmpc,z\right)$ on cosmological parameters.
551: The derivatives are at fixed values of the other parameters, including
552: not-shown parameters $\omega_b$, $\theta_s$, and $n_s$. The derivatives are
553: normalized by typical projected errors on the parameters, for the scenario
554: described in Fig. \ref{figallparamsvsz}, with $z_{\rm max}=1$.
555: Lines correspond to:
556: black (solid): $w_0$,
557: green (long-dashed): $w^\prime$,
558: red (dot-short-dashed): $\Omega_k$,
559: magenta (dot-long-dashed): $\omega_m$,
560: cyan (dotted): $\log A$.
561: Error bars show the projected errors on $\Ptt$ for
562: $k_{\rm max}(z)=
563: 0.1~\left[D\left(z\right)/D\left(0\right)\right]^{-1}\ihmpc$, and $S/N=10$.
564: }
565: \label{figdPdp}
566: \end{figure}
567: The derivatives with respect to parameter $p_i$, $d \ln \Ptt/dp_i$,
568: are taken at fixed values of the other parameters in the following set:
569: $\omega_m=\Omega_m h^2$, the matter density; $\omega_b=\Omega_b h^2$, the
570: baryon density; $\theta_s$, the angle
571: subtended by the sound horizon at the CMB decoupling redshift; $w_0$ and
572: $w^\prime$, defined by $w(z)=w_0 + w^\prime \left(1-a \right)=p(z)/\rho(z)$
573: where here $p(z)$ and $\rho(z)$ are the dark energy pressure and density;
574: $\Omega_k$, the effective fraction of the critical density in curvature;
575: and $A$ and $n_s$, the amplitude and
576: power law slope of the primordial perturbation power spectrum.
577: Fixing $\omega_m$, $\omega_b$,
578: $\theta_s$, $A$, and $n_s$ guarantees that changes in $w_0$, $w^\prime$,
579: and $\Omega_k$ have minimal effect on the CMB. The scale for the parameter
580: dependences is chosen using the error bars on each parameter that we project
581: for
582: the scenario described for Fig. \ref{figallparamsvsz}, including the Planck
583: CMB experiment, and $\Ptt$ and BAO constraints up to $z_{\rm max}=1$.
584: While it is easy to see that $\Ptt$ measurements have a lot of
585: power to
586: constrain parameters, especially the dark energy equation of state, exactly
587: what constraints can be obtained is not obvious to the eye,
588: because one needs to account
589: for degeneracy between parameters.
590:
591: In the derivatives in Fig. \ref{figdPdp},
592: and the following calculations, we assume that the
593: constraints on $\Ptt$ can be taken as a measurement of
594: $\Ptt$ at $k=0.1\ihmpc$, for all $z$ and all cosmological models.
595: This allows us to apply the constraints directly to the product $f(z) D(z)$,
596: with the power spectrum entering only through a single overall normalization.
597: We do this for simplicity and transparency (i.e., so one can see clearly where
598: the constraints are coming from), but
599: it is imperfect in two ways: first, the
600: measurement at different redshifts is really weighted toward different $k$, so
601: the shape of the power spectrum enters in converting between them; and,
602: second, we can
603: not measure the power spectrum in $\hmpc$ units, only radial velocity
604: separations and angular separations, which leads to sensitivity to
605: the Hubble parameter, $H(z)$, and angular diameter distance, $D_A(z)$
606: (this includes, but is not entirely, the
607: Alcock-Paczy{\'n}ski effect \cite{1979Natur.281..358A}). We will revisit these
608: issues later.
609:
610: In Fig. \ref{figfom}
611: we show the contribution these
612: measurements of $\Ptt$ can make to the study of dark energy,
613: quantified by the Dark Energy Task Force (DETF) Figure of Merit (FoM),
614: proportional to the inverse of the area within the 95\% confidence contours
615: describing constraints on $w_0$ and $w^\prime$
616: \cite{2006astro.ph..9591A}.
617: \begin{figure}
618: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fomkm0.1.eps}}
619: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fomkm0.1.eps}}
620: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fomkm0.05.eps}}
621: \caption{
622: Improvement in Dark Energy constraints (quantified by the DETF FoM), relative
623: to Planck + DETF Stage II, when the
624: $\Ptt$ constraints from Fig. \ref{figf2Pvsz} are added.
625: The lines refer to the same cases as in Fig. \ref{figf2Pvsz}, and again the
626: left panel is $k_{\rm max}(z)=
627: 0.1~\left[D\left(z\right)/D\left(0\right)\right]^{-1}\ihmpc$ while the
628: right is $k_{\rm max}(z)=
629: 0.05~\left[D\left(z\right)/D\left(0\right)\right]^{-1}\ihmpc$.
630: }
631: \label{figfom}
632: \end{figure}
633: We see that there is the potential for a huge improvement in dark energy
634: constraints, by two orders of
635: magnitude in the FoM, when $k_{\rm max}(z)=
636: 0.1~\left[D\left(z\right)/D\left(0\right)\right]^{-1}\ihmpc$, well beyond even
637: the
638: optimistic Stage IV constraints envisioned by the DETF (which gave an
639: improvement of a factor $\sim 20$ in the units of this figure).
640: The FoM improvements for the $k_{\rm max}(z)=
641: 0.05~\left[D\left(z\right)/D\left(0\right)\right]^{-1}\ihmpc$
642: constraints are substantially weaker of
643: course, but still potentially spectacular.
644:
645: Finally, we add the BAO distance measurements that one would obtain from the
646: same surveys, with the resulting FoM shown in Fig. \ref{figfomwbao}.
647: \begin{figure}
648: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fomkm0.1wbao.eps}}
649: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fomkm0.1wbao.eps}}
650: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fomkm0.05wbao.eps}}
651: \caption{
652: Improvement in Dark Energy constraints (quantified by the DETF FoM), relative
653: to Planck + DETF Stage II, when the
654: $\Ptt$ constraints from Fig. \ref{figf2Pvsz} are added, and
655: the BAO distance measurements from the same survey is added.
656: The lines refer to the same cases as in Fig. \ref{figf2Pvsz}, except
657: the blue (dotted) line is the case with BAO alone. The left and right panels
658: again show the stronger and weaker values of $k_{\rm max}$, respectively.
659: }
660: \label{figfomwbao}
661: \end{figure}
662: We see that even a minimal $\Ptt$ measurement adds substantially
663: to the BAO-only measurement.
664: To give more meaning to these FoM improvement numbers: in the best case
665: shown here, the constraint on $w(z_p)$ at the pivot point $z_p \simeq 0.8$
666: (where the errors on $w(z_p)$ and $w^\prime$ are uncorrelated) is
667: $\pm 0.0023$, with $w^\prime$ is measured to $\pm 0.031$. In the less
668: optimistic case of $S/N=10$ out to $z_{\rm max}=2$, with
669: $k_{\rm max}(z)=
670: 0.1~\left[D\left(z\right)/D\left(0\right)\right]^{-1}\ihmpc$,
671: we find $w(z_p=0.45)$ is constrained
672: to $\pm 0.0074$, and $w^\prime$ to $\pm 0.091$.
673:
674: Finally, in Fig. \ref{figallparamsvsz} we show the constraints on all of the
675: parameters where $\Ptt$ helps significantly, not just dark
676: energy.
677: \begin{figure}
678: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{allparamsvsz.eps}}
679: \caption{
680: Improvements in constraints on various parameters, vs. $z_{\rm max}$,
681: for the case including BAO,
682: $k_{\rm max}(z)=
683: 0.1~\left[D\left(z\right)/D\left(0\right)\right]^{-1}\ihmpc$,
684: and $S/N=10$ for the $\Ptt$
685: measurement. Lines are:
686: black (solid): $w_0$,
687: green (long-dashed): $w^\prime$,
688: red (dot-short-dashed): $\Omega_k$,
689: blue (dashed): $\Omega_\Lambda$,
690: magenta (dot-long-dashed): $\omega_m$,
691: cyan (dotted): $\log A$.
692: }
693: \label{figallparamsvsz}
694: \end{figure}
695: This figure is for the specific case with Planck, Stage II, BAO from the same
696: galaxy
697: survey included, $k_{\rm max}(z)=
698: 0.1~\left[D\left(z\right)/D\left(0\right)\right]^{-1}\ihmpc$,
699: and S/N=10
700: (note that, with one exception that we will indicate, $k_{\rm max}$ generally
701: does not apply to the BAO calculation, which essentially follows the
702: procedure in \cite{2007ApJ...665...14S}).
703: We see that dramatic improvements will be made in the constraints on
704: $\Omega_k$, $\Omega_\Lambda$ (the dark energy density), and even $\omega_m$
705: and $A$.
706:
707: \subsection{Specific example surveys}
708:
709: We now explore a few planned or existing surveys.
710:
711: \subsubsection{High redshift, high volume space mission}
712:
713: As a first example, we consider scenarios motivated by the EUCLID mission
714: \cite{2008ExA...tmp...12C} (EUCLID is the combination of the missions formerly
715: known as SPACE and DUNE -- there is a proposal similar to SPACE in the USA
716: named ADEPT).
717: The proposal is to cover $\sim 1/2$ of the sky over a
718: wide range of redshifts. Our calculation considers
719: $100 \left(h^{-1}{\rm Gpc}\right)^3$ centered at $z=1.4$. We use the planned
720: galaxy density $0.0016 \left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$
721: (L. Guzzo, private communication).
722: We assume a
723: mean bias of $b=2$ (somewhat arbitrarily -- the bias could be significantly
724: higher if one is able to select galaxies in the most massive halos at that
725: time). Fig. \ref{figeuclid} shows the
726: $f^2 P_m$ measurement for various modifications or additions to the EUCLID
727: mission.
728: \begin{figure}
729: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{euclidPrat.eps}}
730: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{euclidPrat.eps}}
731: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{euclidP.eps}}
732: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{euclidbeta.eps}}
733: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{euclidalpha.eps}}
734: \caption{
735: Upper left panel:
736: Projected error (inverse variance) on the normalization of
737: $\Ptt\equiv f^2 P_m$, relative to the error one could achieve by
738: observing velocity divergence
739: directly (which is also obtainable by observing two noise-free
740: tracers with different bias), as a function of $k_{\rm max}$, for
741: the EUCLID mission-motivated example described in the text.
742: The black (solid) line shows EUCLID-like galaxies treated as a single tracer.
743: The magenta (dotted) and blue (dot-short-dashed) lines show single
744: perfectly sampled tracers with $b=2$ and $b=1$, respectively.
745: Green (short-dashed) shows the EUCLID-like galaxies split into two groups with
746: different bias, as described in the text. Red (long-dashed) shows the
747: EUCLID-like galaxies plus a perfect unbiased tracer, while cyan
748: (dot-long-dashed)
749: shows a density $\bar{n}=0.03 \left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$ plus an unbiased tracer.
750: Where there are two lines of the same type, the upper one uses a genuinely
751: perfectly sampled tracer, while the lower one shows density
752: $\bar{n}=0.03 \left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$.
753: Because the error is always dominated by $k$'s near $k_{\rm max}$, this
754: plot (and subsequent plots) also gives a good estimate of how well one
755: can do near $k_{\rm max}$ in a scale dependent measurement.
756: Upper right panel: Projected absolute error on $\Ptt$ for the same cases,
757: except the upper black (solid)
758: curve is for perfectly observed velocity divergence (or two perfect tracers
759: with different bias).
760: Lower left (right) panel: Projected error on $\beta$ ($\alpha$), which has no
761: cosmic variance limit.
762: }
763: \label{figeuclid}
764: \end{figure}
765: We see (black, solid line, in the upper left) that this survey is a long
766: way from achieving the best possible measurement of $\Ptt$, by
767: almost a factor of 10 in the rms error.
768: Viewed as a single tracer, the problem is
769: not noise (compare to the magenta, dotted line),
770: it is simply that, for $b=2$, we lose this much constraining power
771: to degeneracy with the bias.
772: A single perfectly sampled
773: tracer with $b=1$ would do better, but still be far from as good as
774: possible (blue, dot-dashed).
775: If we hypothetically split the
776: sample into $b=1.5$, $\bar{n}=0.0008 \left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$ and
777: $b=2.5$, $\bar{n}=0.0008 \left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$ subsamples (chosen for
778: illustration, not because we know this is possible), in order to exploit
779: the method of \cite{2008arXiv0807.1770S},
780: the gains are non-negligible, especially
781: on large scales where they can more than double the effective volume of the
782: survey, however, the noise is too large to achieve the much larger
783: gains that are in principle possible.
784: If we could leave the EUCLID-like sample intact and add a
785: perfect unbiased tracer as the second field, we would get a substantial gain
786: from the combination, equivalent to multiplying the volume of the survey by a
787: factor of $\sim 10-17$
788: (the exact improvement factor depends on $k_{\rm max}$), although a factor
789: $\sim 3$ of this would be obtained from the perfect unbiased tracer alone.
790: As a practical matter,
791: a factor of ten larger number density for the unbiased tracer over the biased
792: tracer is nearly
793: equivalent to perfect, i.e., the rms error is within $\sim 10$\% of the
794: infinite density error.
795:
796: The ratios shown in the upper left of
797: Fig. \ref{figeuclid} are largely independent of the volume of the
798: survey. The upper right of Fig. \ref{figeuclid} shows how well one can do in
799: an absolute sense with a 100 cubic Gpc/h survey.
800: One critical point to take away from this figure is how vital it is to push
801: $k_{\rm max}$ to be as large as possible. The overall error on a power spectrum
802: scales like $k_{\rm max}^3$ as long as one has good S/N, so a mere 30\%
803: slippage in $k_{\rm max}$ (e.g., $0.1 \ihmpc$ instead of $0.13\ihmpc$) is
804: equivalent to throwing away more than half of the survey volume! Similarly,
805: when one is using the multi-tracer method in this paper, increasing
806: $k_{\rm max}$ by a factor of two is roughly equivalent to an order of magnitude
807: increase in the number of galaxies. Future analyses will need to explore
808: $k_{\rm max}$ of the single versus double tracer method, but for this numerical
809: simulations are needed, which are beyond the scope of this paper.
810:
811: Figure \ref{figeuclid} also shows the projected error on
812: $\beta$, which shows very similar dependences to $f^2 P_m$.
813: In fact, the
814: $\beta$ and $f^2 P_m$ errors are almost perfectly correlated, to the point
815: where
816: it is probably most accurate to think of these surveys as making a very
817: precise
818: measurement of $b^2 P_m$ which is converted to $f^2 P_m$ by multiplying by
819: $\beta^2$, with the resulting error dominated by the error on $\beta$.
820: Note, however, that with very low noise, the
821: $\beta$ error will continue to decrease toward zero, while the $b^2 P_m$ error
822: will not and therefore will eventually dominate the $f^2 P_m$ error (of course,
823: this is just the cosmic variance limit for a direct measurement of velocity
824: divergence).
825: Fig. \ref{figeuclid} also shows the projected error on $\alpha$.
826: $\alpha$ can be measured very precisely, e.g., even for the simple split of
827: the EUCLID-like sample in half, $\alpha$ will be measured to $\sim 0.1$\%
828: for $k_{\rm max}= 0.05\ihmpc$,
829: and $\sim 1$\% for
830: $k_{\rm max}\gtrsim 0.01 \ihmpc$.
831: This will measure the scale dependence of $\alpha$
832: and thus allow a very precise test of
833: the onset of non-linear biasing.
834:
835: \subsubsection{Higher density, smaller volume space mission}
836:
837: Another option to consider is a space mission with a
838: somewhat smaller volume, but higher density of galaxies.
839: For example, one of the SNAP satellite designs would allow for a 10000 sq. deg.
840: survey at
841: $0.9<z<1.6$, with density $\bar{n}=0.004 \left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$ and mean
842: bias $b=2.3$ (D. Schlegel, private communication). The higher density than
843: EUCLID is what we look for to make the
844: multiple-tracer method powerful.
845: We show projections in Fig. \ref{figsnap}
846: \begin{figure}
847: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{snapPrat.eps}}
848: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{snapPrat.eps}}
849: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{snapP.eps}}
850: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{snapbeta.eps}}
851: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{snapalpha.eps}}
852: \caption{
853: Upper left panel:
854: Projected error (inverse variance) on the normalization of
855: $\Ptt\equiv f^2 P_m$, relative to the error one could achieve by
856: observing velocity divergence
857: directly (or using two perfect
858: tracers with different bias), as a function of $k_{\rm max}$, for
859: the SNAP mission-motivated example described in the text.
860: The black (solid) line shows SNAP-like galaxies treated as a single tracer.
861: The magenta (dotted) and blue (dot-short-dashed) lines show single
862: perfectly sampled tracers with $b=2.3$ and $b=1$, respectively.
863: Green (short-dashed) shows the SNAP-like galaxies split into two groups with
864: different bias, as described in the text. Red (long-dashed) shows the
865: SNAP-like galaxies plus a perfect unbiased tracer, while cyan
866: (dot-long-dashed)
867: shows a density $\bar{n}=0.03 \left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$ plus an unbiased tracer.
868: Where there are two lines of the same type, the upper one uses a genuinely
869: perfectly sampled tracer, while the lower one shows density
870: $\bar{n}=0.03 \left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$.
871: The other panels are related to the upper left as in Fig. \ref{figeuclid}.
872: }
873: \label{figsnap}
874: \end{figure}
875: As an example, we split the SNAP sample into $b=2.8$ and $b=1.8$ subsamples.
876: The improvement in $\Ptt$ measurement is substantial, a factor of
877: $\sim 2-5$ in effective volume, depending on $k_{\rm max}$. The enhanced
878: density of SNAP over EUCLID would roughly cancel the factor of 2 in greater
879: sky area in the EUCLID survey (note, however, that the EUCLID survey still
880: comes out ahead overall because it covers a broader redshift extent).
881:
882: \subsubsection{SDSS-III/BOSS}
883:
884: Fig. \ref{figlowz} shows the achievable gains for survey configurations
885: motivated by the SDSS-III/BOSS survey \footnote{www.sdss3.org}.
886: \begin{figure}
887: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{lowzPrat.eps}}
888: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{lowzPrat.eps}}
889: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{lowzP.eps}}
890: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{lowzbeta.eps}}
891: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{lowzalpha.eps}}
892: \caption{
893: Upper left panel: Projected error (inverse variance) on the normalization of
894: $\Ptt\equiv f^2 P_m$, relative to the error one could achieve by
895: observing velocity divergence
896: directly, or with two perfectly sampled tracers,
897: similar to Fig. \ref{figeuclid},
898: except this is for the SDSS-III/BOSS-galaxy-related example described in the
899: text.
900: The black (solid) line shows BOSS galaxies treated as a single tracer.
901: The magenta (dotted) and blue (dot-short-dashed) lines show single
902: perfect tracers with $b=1.9$ and $b=1$, respectively.
903: Green (short-dashed) shows the BOSS galaxies split into two groups with
904: different bias, as described in the text. Red (long-dashed) shows the
905: SDSS-III galaxies plus a perfect unbiased tracer, while cyan (dot-long-dashed)
906: shows ten times the BOSS galaxy density plus a perfect unbiased tracer.
907: Where there are two lines of the same type, the upper one uses a genuinely
908: perfectly sampled tracer, while the lower one shows density
909: $\bar{n}=0.003 \left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$ (long-dashed and dot-short-dashed) or
910: $\bar{n}=0.03 \left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$ (dot-long-dashed).
911: The other panels are related to the upper left as in Fig. \ref{figeuclid}.
912: }
913: \label{figlowz}
914: \end{figure}
915: BOSS will cover 10000 sq. deg. with
916: central redshift $z=0.5$ and maximum $z\sim 0.7$, giving comoving volume
917: 6 cubic Gpc/h. The planned galaxy sample has $b\sim 1.9$ and number density
918: $\bar{n}=0.0003 \left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$.
919: Not coincidentally, the form of Fig. \ref{figlowz} is very similar to
920: Fig. \ref{figeuclid}. The only quantity that really matters for these
921: calculations is the basic ratio of the noise level to power spectrum level, and
922: the optimization of these surveys for BAO means that this ratio will be very
923: similar. The BOSS S/N is somewhat lower than EUCLID,
924: so BOSS is even
925: farther from achieving the best possible measurement of $\Ptt$.
926: If we hypothetically split the
927: sample into a $b=1.6$, $\bar{n}=0.0002 \left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$ and
928: $b=2.5$, $\bar{n}=0.0001 \left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$ subsamples (chosen for
929: illustration, not because this is known to be possible), in order to exploit
930: the method of \cite{2008arXiv0807.1770S}, the gains are small -- the noise is
931: too large.
932: The different panels of Fig. \ref{figlowz} show how well one can do in an
933: absolute sense with a 6 cubic Gpc/h survey, on $\Ptt$, $\beta$, and
934: $\alpha$.
935:
936: \subsubsection{Present SDSS}
937:
938: To put the future in context, it is interesting to see what we could do with
939: current SDSS data. First, we take the LRGs, which we assume cover
940: 2 cubic Gpc/h centered at $z\sim 0.33$ (10000 sq. deg.) with a density
941: $\bar{n}=0.000068\left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$, and $b=1.9$.
942: Fig. \ref{figlrg} shows our usual comparison between the $\Ptt$
943: measurement obtained from the LRGs and the ideal measurement.
944: \begin{figure}
945: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{lrgPrat.eps}}
946: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{lrgPrat.eps}}
947: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{lrgP.eps}}
948: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{lrgbeta.eps}}
949: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{lrgalpha.eps}}
950: \caption{
951: Upper left panel: Projected error (inverse variance) on the normalization of
952: $\Ptt \equiv f^2 P_m$, relative to the error one could achieve by
953: observing velocity divergence
954: directly, or with two perfectly sampled tracers,
955: similar to Fig. \ref{figeuclid},
956: except this is for the current SDSS LRGs.
957: The black (solid) line shows LRGs as a single tracer.
958: The magenta (dotted) and blue (dot-short-dashed) lines show single
959: perfect tracers with $b=1.9$ and $b=1$, respectively.
960: Green (short-dashed) shows the LRGs galaxies split into two groups with
961: different bias, as described in the text. Red (long-dashed) shows the
962: LRGs plus a perfect unbiased tracer.
963: The other panels are related to the upper left as in Fig. \ref{figeuclid}.
964: }
965: \label{figlrg}
966: \end{figure}
967: In this case, noise substantially degrades even the single-tracer version of
968: the measurement. Splitting the sample into high and low bias parts
969: (we assume $b=1.5$ and $b=2.3$) results in a completely negligible improvement,
970: and adding the LRGs on top of a perfect unbiased tracer does not improve the
971: results much (beyond the unbiased tracer results).
972: Figure \ref{figlrg} also shows the
973: absolute results for $\Ptt$, $\beta$, and $\alpha$.
974: While the
975: $\Ptt$ and $\beta$ figures are largely provided as a reference for
976: how well a single-tracer can do on these quantities, The lower right panel of
977: Fig. \ref{figlrg}
978: shows that the $\alpha$ measurement for the sample split in half could be
979: an interesting exercise. The bias ratio can be measured to about 2\% at
980: $k\simeq 0.05\ihmpc$, or 1\% at $k\simeq 0.1\ihmpc$. This should be precise
981: enough to place interesting constraints on the form of non-linear bias.
982:
983: The SDSS main galaxy sample is generally not as good for LSS as the LRGs,
984: because it covers only low redshift and thus much less volume; however, it
985: does have the higher number density that we look for to make the multi-tracer
986: method powerful. \cite{2008MNRAS.385.1635S} provide a realistic split into
987: blue and red samples with bias ratio 0.7, each with
988: $\bar{n}\simeq 0.0044 \left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$ at $z<0.1$ (center of
989: volume $z\simeq 0.08$). We take $b=0.9$ and $b=1.3$. This sample covers only
990: 0.026 cubic Gpc/h. Fig. \ref{figmain} shows that the
991: multi-tracer approach to measuring $\Ptt$ is quite effective at this
992: number density.
993: \begin{figure}
994: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{mainPrat.eps}}
995: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{mainPrat.eps}}
996: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{mainP.eps}}
997: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{mainbeta.eps}}
998: \subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{mainalpha.eps}}
999: \caption{
1000: Upper left panel:
1001: Projected error (inverse variance) on the normalization of
1002: $\Ptt \equiv f^2 P_m$, relative to the error one could achieve by
1003: observing velocity divergence
1004: directly, or with two perfectly sampled tracers,
1005: similar to Fig. \ref{figeuclid},
1006: except this is for the current SDSS main galaxies.
1007: The black (solid) line shows SDSS galaxies as a single tracer.
1008: The magenta (dotted) and blue (dot-short-dashed) lines show single
1009: perfect tracers with $b=1.1$ and $b=1$, respectively.
1010: Green (short-dashed) shows the main galaxies split into two groups with
1011: bias $b=1.3$ and $b=0.9$, both with $\bar{n}=0.0044\left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$,
1012: as described in the text. Red (long-dashed) shows the
1013: main galaxies plus a perfect unbiased tracer.
1014: Cyan (dot-long-dashed) shows two tracers
1015: with $b=1.3$ and $b=0.9$, both with $\bar{n}=0.044\left(\hmpc\right)^{-3}$.
1016: The other panels are related to the upper left as in Fig. \ref{figeuclid}.
1017: }
1018: \label{figmain}
1019: \end{figure}
1020: Unfortunately, the upper right panel of Fig. \ref{figmain} shows that the
1021: absolute measurement still
1022: is not very good, requiring one to go to $k_{\rm max}>0.1$ just to get a
1023: $3-\sigma$ level of detection, and to $k_{\rm max}>0.3$ to measure
1024: $\Ptt$ to 10\% (which is surely not possible at low $z$ because of
1025: non-linearity).
1026: The situation with $\beta$ is similar, but it is again interesting to note,
1027: in the lower right of Fig. \ref{figmain},
1028: that the bias ratio for the realistic split sample
1029: can be measured to a few percent. One should keep in mind however that
1030: at high $k$ the tracers are not maximally correlated and this weakens the
1031: constraints. Cosmological simulations will be needed to address this in more
1032: detail.
1033:
1034: \subsection{Beyond redshift-space distortions}
1035:
1036: So far, primarily for the purpose of transparency of the presentation, the only
1037: information we have used from galaxy surveys is the BAO scale and
1038: $\Ptt(z,k=0.1\ihmpc)$,
1039: as measured from redshift-space distortions, ignoring
1040: other effects on the galaxy power spectrum. Generally, however, several other
1041: obvious effects should be included:
1042: The power spectrum cannot be observed
1043: in $\hmpc$ units, so the conversion to velocity (redshift) coordinates,
1044: $\Delta v = H(a)~a~\Delta x_\parallel$, and angular coordinates,
1045: $\Delta \theta = D_A(a)^{-1}~a~\Delta x_\perp$, must be accounted for.
1046: The uncertainty in the component of these conversions that takes one from
1047: angular coordinates to
1048: velocity coordinates, $H(a) D_A(a)$, is often called the
1049: Alcock-Paczy{\'n}ski effect \cite{1979Natur.281..358A}.
1050: In addition to the transformation to observable coordinates, cosmological
1051: parameters generally affect the scale dependence of the power spectrum through
1052: the transfer function between early-time
1053: perturbations from inflation and the linear theory perturbations that we see,
1054: e.g., the classic $\Gamma=\Omega_{m,0} h$ scale for the turnover of the
1055: power spectrum.
1056: In Figure \ref{figfomvszAPwl} we show the constraining power for the
1057: same general 3/4-sky survey up to $z_{\rm max}$ that we have discussed before,
1058: except
1059: now computing the Fisher matrix using the full parameter dependence of the
1060: power spectrum.
1061: Note that the BAO measurement is automatically included within this framework,
1062: although in a somewhat weaker than usual form because
1063: of our relatively conservative $k_{\rm max}$ cut.
1064: \begin{figure}
1065: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fomvszAPwl.eps}}
1066: \caption{
1067: Improvement in DETF FoM when all of the information in the redshift-space
1068: power spectrum is used rather than just BAO and
1069: $f^2 P_m$ constraints, for $k_{\rm max}(z)=
1070: 0.1~\left[D\left(z\right)/D\left(0\right)\right]^{-1}\ihmpc$ (relative to
1071: Planck+Stage II, and for 30000 sq. deg., as usual).
1072: Green (dashed) lines show single S/N=1
1073: (at $k=0.4\ihmpc$) tracers with
1074: $b=1$ (upper) and $b=2$ (lower). The black curves show both types of galaxy
1075: together, each with (bottom to top) S/N=1, 3, 10, 30, 100, 1000 (the
1076: constraining power increases without bound as the S/N improves).
1077: Blue (dotted) shows BAO alone, with the lower curve using the above
1078: $k_{\rm max}$ and
1079: the upper curve using smaller scales as described in \cite{2007ApJ...665...14S}
1080: (the rest of the curves effectively use the weaker version).
1081: The red (long-dashed) curves include weak lensing constraints, with the lower
1082: two (horizontal) lines including no redshift survey (lowest is approximately
1083: as SNAP weak lensing, 2nd lowest is LSST weak lensing), while the upper two include the $b=2$-only (weakest) redshift
1084: survey.
1085: }
1086: \label{figfomvszAPwl}
1087: \end{figure}
1088: The extra parameter
1089: dependence leads to typically a factor ~3-5 larger FoM than one would find
1090: using $f^2 P_m$ and BAO constraints alone. There is a new feature
1091: at high S/N, however,
1092: in that we no longer find any cosmic variance limit on the constraining power!
1093: The measurement can be improved arbitrarily much if the S/N can be improved, but
1094: to achieve these improvements the number density of tracers must greatly exceed current designs.
1095: %(Admittedly, the S/N required to exploit this possibility may be unattainably high.)
1096:
1097: In Fig. \ref{figfomvszAPwl} we also explore the complementarity of weak
1098: gravitational lensing measurements, as represented by the DETF
1099: Stage IV space (SNAP) or ground (LSST) projections (we use their optimistic
1100: versions). We see that these
1101: experiments, in combination with Planck (and all Stage II experiments, although
1102: these play a minor role), can achieve an FoM improvement of about a factor of
1103: 10 over the baseline. Redshift surveys are at best comparable if they are
1104: limited to BAO, but they can potentially greatly exceed this if all information
1105: at $k_{\rm max}(z)=
1106: 0.1~\left[D\left(z\right)/D\left(0\right)\right]^{-1}\ihmpc$ can be used.
1107:
1108: \section{non-Gaussianity}
1109:
1110: Many of the non-standard models of how the primordial structure was seeded
1111: predict non-Gaussianity of local type, $\Phi=\phi+\fnl \phi^2$, where $\Phi$
1112: is the gravitational
1113: potential in the matter era and $\phi$ is the corresponding primordial Gaussian
1114: case. The effect of this type of initial conditions on the galaxy power
1115: spectrum was recently computed by \cite{2008PhRvD..77l3514D} and further
1116: investigate by \cite{2008ApJ...677L..77M,2008arXiv0806.1061M,
1117: 2008arXiv0806.1046A,2008ApJ...684L...1C}. The effect was
1118: used to place
1119: observational limits on $\fnl$ by \cite{2008JCAP...08..031S}.
1120: We can easily generalize the \cite{2008arXiv0807.1770S} multi-tracer error on
1121: the non-Gaussianity parameter $\fnl$ to the
1122: more transparent approach of this paper.
1123: In that case, where redshift-space distortions have so far been ignored, the
1124: perturbations of galaxy type $i$ can be written
1125: \begin{equation}
1126: \delta_{g i}=\left(b_i+c_i \fnl\right) \delta +n_i
1127: \end{equation}
1128: where $c_i$ is an ideally known coefficient characterizing the galaxy type's
1129: response
1130: to non-Gaussianity (called $\Delta b(k)$ by \cite{2008arXiv0807.1770S},
1131: with $\Delta b_i(k)= 3\left(b_i-p_i\right)\delta_c \Omega_m H_0^2/c^2 k^2
1132: T\left(k\right)D(z)$ from a model for clustering of halos -- see
1133: \cite{2008arXiv0807.1770S} for an explanation).
1134: The model we will use for perturbations of two types of galaxies is
1135: \begin{equation}
1136: \delta_{g 1}=b\left(1+c_1 \tfnl\right) \delta +n_1~,
1137: \end{equation}
1138: where $\tfnl=\fnl/b$, and
1139: \begin{equation}
1140: \delta_{g 2}=b\left(\alpha+c_2 \tfnl\right) \delta +n_2~.
1141: \end{equation}
1142: Note that the quantity we can measure precisely is not really $\fnl$ but
1143: instead $\tfnl=\fnl/b$. If one is trying to calculate the detection limit, as
1144: in \cite{2008arXiv0807.1770S},
1145: then the error on $b$ is irrelevant, but for actual constraints on its value
1146: once it is detected the degeneracy between $b$ and $\fnl$ becomes relevant.
1147: Like \cite{2008arXiv0807.1770S}, we start by assuming that $\alpha$ is measured
1148: precisely from relatively small scales where the non-Gaussian effect is
1149: small, and $c_i$ are known, so we only have two free parameters,
1150: $P\equiv 2~b^2 \left<\delta^2\right>$, and
1151: $\tfnl$.
1152: The Fisher
1153: matrix for a single mode can be inverted to give the error on $\tfnl$, in
1154: the low noise, small $\tfnl$ limit:
1155: \begin{equation}
1156: \sigma^2_\tfnl=\frac{X_{11} -2 X_{12} +
1157: X_{22}}{\left(c_1-\alpha^{-1} c_2\right)^2}~,
1158: \end{equation}
1159: where, again, $X_{ij}=N_{ij}/b_i b_j P_m$.
1160: This result is the same as in \cite{2008arXiv0807.1770S}, once we account for
1161: differences in definitions.
1162:
1163: Estimates of the improvement factor for
1164: specific surveys in \cite{2008arXiv0807.1770S}
1165: are somewhat optimistic, because the improvement
1166: factor was evaluated using the signal-to-noise ratio at $k=0.01 \ihmpc$,
1167: near the
1168: peak of the power spectrum. This will give the correct improvement factor for
1169: a measurement using modes on that scale, but, as shown by
1170: \cite{2008arXiv0806.1061M}, it is
1171: larger scale modes, where the signal-to-noise ratio for fixed noise will be
1172: lower, that will give the most interesting constraints on $\fnl$. It is also
1173: not obvious when the assumption that $P$ and $\alpha$ are perfectly
1174: measured using higher $k$ data is safe.
1175: It seems useful to recalculate the constraints in the slightly more general
1176: approach we used for redshift-space distortions, i.e., including $\alpha$ as
1177: a free parameter and integrating over $k$ up to some $k_{\rm max}$.
1178: The results are shown in Figs \ref{figbossfnl} and \ref{figeuclidfnl}.
1179: \begin{figure}
1180: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{bossfnl.eps}}
1181: \caption{
1182: Projected $\fnl$ errors (inverse variance) as a function of $k_{\rm max}$, for
1183: the SDSS-III/BOSS galaxy example described in the text.
1184: Strictly speaking, this is
1185: not $\sigma_{\fnl}$ but instead $b~\sigma_\tfnl$, where $\tfnl=b^{-1}\fnl$, but
1186: the distinction is irrelevant for a rough detection limit. In
1187: each case, the lower curve of a type is marginalized over $P$ and $\alpha$,
1188: while the upper curve is not. Black (solid) assumes BOSS alone, treated
1189: as a single tracer. Green (short-dashed) curves show the
1190: case when the BOSS galaxies are split into high and low bias subsamples, as
1191: described in the text, while magenta (dotted) curves are the same except the
1192: transfer function is ignored when computing the non-Gaussian effect,
1193: restricting it to large scales.
1194: Red (long-dashed) show an infinite S/N, unbiased, tracer added to BOSS, while
1195: blue (dot-short-dashed) show the same with no transfer function effect in the
1196: calculation of the non-Gaussian signal.
1197: Cyan (dot-long-dashed) shows a perfect unbiased tracer
1198: added to a tracer with $b=1.9$
1199: and ten times the BOSS number density.
1200: The yellow (short-dash-long-dash) curves do not show errors on
1201: $\fnl$, the upper curve shows $\left(P/2 N\right)/10$,
1202: where $P$ is the power spectrum and $N$ is the noise for the full set of
1203: BOSS galaxies, and the lower curve $\fnl c\left(k\right)/b$
1204: where $c(k)$ is our best guess at the BOSS galaxies'
1205: response to non-Gaussianity, $b$ is their bias, and $\fnl=30$.
1206: }
1207: \label{figbossfnl}
1208: \end{figure}
1209: Fig. \ref{figbossfnl} shows the same SDSS-III scenarios discussed for
1210: constraints on $\beta$. For the single galaxy type case, we expect an
1211: error $b~\sigma_\tfnl\sim 21$, as long as we can use modes up to
1212: $k_{\rm max}\sim 0.05 \ihmpc$. Note that the need to marginalize over the
1213: amplitude
1214: leads to a $\sim 33$\% expansion in the errors. The improvement when the
1215: sample is split into high and low bias parts is modest, with
1216: $b~\sigma_\tfnl\sim 17$.
1217: This is consistent with the finding of \cite{2008arXiv0807.1770S}.
1218: Adding a perfect unbiased tracer helps substantially more, allowing a
1219: measurement to $b~\sigma_\tfnl\sim 7.3$, again consistent with the
1220: improvement factor of \cite{2008arXiv0807.1770S}. The marginalization
1221: over nuisance parameters has led to a $\sim 45$\% increase in the error.
1222:
1223: Fig \ref{figeuclidfnl} shows the $\fnl$ constraints for the EUCLID-like
1224: scenario, as discussed for $\beta$.
1225: \begin{figure}
1226: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{oldeuclidfnl.eps}}
1227: \caption{
1228: Projected $\fnl$ errors (inverse variance)
1229: as a function of $k_{\rm max}$,
1230: similar to Fig. \ref{figbossfnl}, for the EUCLID-like scenario.
1231: In each case, the lower curve of a type is marginalized over $P$ and $\alpha$,
1232: while the upper curve is not. Black (solid) assumes EUCLID alone, treated
1233: as a single tracer. Green (short-dashed) curves show the
1234: case when the EUCLID galaxies are split into high and low bias subsamples, as
1235: described in the text, while magenta (dotted) curves are the same except the
1236: transfer function is ignored when computing the non-Gaussian effect,
1237: restricting it to large scales.
1238: Red (long-dashed) show an infinite S/N, unbiased, tracer added to EUCLID, while
1239: blue (dot-short-dashed) show the same with no transfer function effect in the
1240: calculation of the non-Gaussian signal.
1241: Cyan (dot-long-dashed) shows a perfect unbiased tracer
1242: added to a tracer with $b=2$
1243: and ten times the EUCLID number density.
1244: The yellow (short-dash-long-dash) curves do not show errors on
1245: $\fnl$, the upper curve shows $\left(P/2 N\right)$,
1246: where $P$ is the power spectrum and $N$ is the noise for the full set of
1247: EUCLID galaxies, and the lower curve $1000 \fnl c\left(k\right)/b$
1248: where $c(k)$ is our best guess at the EUCLID galaxies'
1249: response to non-Gaussianity, $b$ is their bias, and $\fnl=1$.
1250: }
1251: \label{figeuclidfnl}
1252: \end{figure}
1253: With only a single tracer, we expect an
1254: error $b \sigma_\tfnl\sim 2.0$, as long as we can use modes up to
1255: $k_{\rm max}\sim 0.05 \ihmpc$. A simple split of the sample could
1256: improve this significantly, to 1.4 (note that \cite{2008arXiv0807.1770S}
1257: assumed a factor of two higher galaxy density for his high redshift example,
1258: corresponding to the original
1259: SPACE plan, and so found a somewhat larger enhancement factor).
1260: The enhancement when a perfect unbiased tracer
1261: is added is dramatic, $b \sigma_\tfnl\sim 0.54$. In order to produce a
1262: solid detection for $\fnl < 1$, we would need either a higher number
1263: density, e.g., like the SNAP sample we discussed above (except over a larger
1264: volume), or we would need to go
1265: to higher redshift where there is more volume,
1266: as discussed by \cite{2008arXiv0806.1061M,2008arXiv0806.1046A,
1267: 2008arXiv0807.1770S}.
1268:
1269: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
1270:
1271: Galaxy redshift surveys allow one to measure the 3-dimensional distribution of galaxies,
1272: which contains an enormous amount of information compared to the 2-dimensional
1273: surveys
1274: such as cosmic microwave background anisotropies or weak lensing. Their main limitation
1275: is that we cannot directly determine the bias $b$ which relates galaxies to the dark matter.
1276: In this paper we propose a new method to measure the redshift space distortion parameter
1277: $\beta=f/b$, where $b$ is the tracer bias,
1278: $f=d\ln D/d \ln a$, $D$ is the growth factor and $a$ the expansion
1279: factor. The method is based on angular dependence (with respect to the line of sight)
1280: of relative clustering amplitude of
1281: two tracers with different bias. In such a ratio the dependence on the mode amplitude
1282: vanishes and the method circumvents the usual cosmic variance limit caused by
1283: random nature of the modes. This allows
1284: one to determine the relative bias to an accuracy that is only limited by the
1285: number density of tracers. In principle this allows one to determine the
1286: velocity divergence power spectrum $\Ptt$ as precisely as one would by directly
1287: measuring the velocity divergence itself. This, in turn, would allow for a high precision
1288: determination of growth of structure
1289: as a function of redshift, as encoded in $fD$. A high density redshift survey
1290: of galaxies would allow for a more precise determination of dark energy
1291: parameters, as encoded in DETF Figure of Merit, than any other currently proposed
1292: Stage IV experiment.
1293:
1294: To achieve these gains one needs low noise, which in turn requires
1295: high density of galaxies for both samples. Roughly, the method requires
1296: $\bar{n}P_g \gg 1$, where $\bar{n}$ is the number density and $P_g(k)$ is the
1297: galaxy power spectrum amplitude. However, most of the existing and planned BAO
1298: redshift surveys strive for $\bar{n}P_g \sim 1$, since one does not gain much
1299: in the galaxy power spectrum error once the field is significantly oversampled
1300: (i.e. $\bar{n}P_g \gg 1$). Most redshift surveys only try to measure
1301: the shape of the power spectrum (in search of baryonic acoustic oscillations
1302: and other features) and not its amplitude.
1303: As long as survey speed is limited by the rate of observing individual objects
1304: (e.g., doubling the number density means halving the volume),
1305: the correct strategy will probably be to observe the full sky at the usual
1306: optimal BAO density, and then to go back to observe at higher density if
1307: possible.
1308:
1309: In addition to very precise measurements of $\beta$, this multiple tracer
1310: method will allow precise consistency checks of the model.
1311: As one example, we can measure the bias ratio as a function of scale without
1312: cosmic variance and therefore study the onset of nonlinear bias.
1313: As another example, we
1314: can test the redshift space distortion model by fitting for
1315: a parameter $\beta^\prime$ of the distortion model $\left(1+\beta \mu^2+
1316: \beta^\prime \mu^4\right)$, to verify that $\beta^\prime=0$.
1317: This new parameter $\beta^\prime$ can also be measured to the same in principle bottomless level
1318: of precision as $\beta$.
1319:
1320: In the short term, the technique in this paper will be most useful
1321: if methods are found that can achieve high effective number density without
1322: sacrificing volume, e.g., 21cm emission mapping \cite{2008PhRvL.100i1303C}.
1323: Suppose one had a single perfectly sampled, high resolution field, say, from
1324: 21 cm emission mapping \cite{2008PhRvL.100i1303C}. One can
1325: always create a second, biased field by some simple non-linear transformation,
1326: like squaring the original field, or taking just the high sigma peaks of the field.
1327: It may seem impossible that this could gain
1328: one any information, and that would be true if one was able to theoretically
1329: describe and exploit the field on all scales, including using higher order
1330: statistics; however, when one is otherwise limited to only very large scales
1331: this approach can add information, because it makes selective use of
1332: small-scale information, exploiting our understanding
1333: from renormalization of perturbation theory
1334: that local non-linear transformations of the density field can do nothing but
1335: change the bias parameters on large scales
1336: \cite{2006PhRvD..74j3512M,2008arXiv0806.1061M}. Another way to see that this
1337: can work is
1338: simply to note that the two types of galaxy fields we have been discussing are
1339: simply two different non-linear transformations by nature of the same
1340: underlying density field, i.e., there is no reason we cannot do the same thing
1341: artificially. One would need to keep in mind
1342: in this approach that the transformation is applied to the redshift-space
1343: field, unlike standard bias which is a transformation of the real-space field.
1344: For the $\fnl$ application this is unlikely to be a fatal problem, but it may
1345: be for the redshift-space distortion measurement discussed in this paper.
1346:
1347: Our results suggest that there is much more to be gained
1348: by oversampling the density field
1349: and that one can determine the growth of structure
1350: as a function of redshift to a higher accuracy than previously believed.
1351: It is thus worth revisiting the planning of redshift
1352: surveys in light of these results.
1353: There is every reason to believe that these measurements can be made very
1354: robustly. We have boiled the constraint from a galaxy survey at a single
1355: redshift down to one number, but we will still have the full scale and
1356: angular dependence of the power spectrum, along with higher order statistics,
1357: to help us verify that there is nothing about the modeling that we do not
1358: understand.
1359: In addition, a realistic assessment would also need to address the issue of
1360: stochasticity between the tracers with numerical simulations, which would
1361: determine the value of $k_{max}$ beyond which the two tracers are not strongly correlated
1362: anymore. Preliminary results suggest this is around
1363: $k_{max} \sim 0.1\ihmpc$ \cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S},
1364: but a more
1365: detailed analysis of multi-tracer method with simulations is needed, similar to the recent analysis of
1366: single tracer method \cite{2008arXiv0808.0003P}.
1367: We leave this subject to a future work.
1368:
1369: Another promising direction is to combine our no cosmic variance
1370: measurement of $\beta=f/b$ with an analogous measurement
1371: of bias $b$ using a comparison of weak lensing and galaxy clustering
1372: \cite{2004MNRAS.350.1445P}, to derive $f(z)$ alone without any cosmic
1373: variance limitation. We leave these subjects to a future work.
1374:
1375: We than Ue-Li Pen, Nikhil Padmanabhan and Martin White for helpful discussions.
1376: U.S. is supported by the
1377: Packard Foundation, DOE and
1378: Swiss National Foundation
1379: under contract 200021-116696/1.
1380:
1381: \bibliography{cosmo,cosmo_preprints}
1382: %\bibliographystyle{nsf}
1383:
1384: \end{document}
1385:
1386:
1387: