1: %\documentclass{aastex}
2: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
4:
5: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
6:
7: \newcommand{\gsim}{\mbox{\raisebox{-1.0ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle >}
8: {\textstyle \sim}$ }}}
9: \newcommand{\lsim}{\mbox{\raisebox{-1.0ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}
10: {\textstyle \sim}$ }}}
11: \newcommand{\gtsima}{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
12: \newcommand{\ltsima}{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
13: \newcommand{\simgt}{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
14: \newcommand{\simlt}{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
15: \newcommand{\himpc}{{\hbox {$\,h^{-1}$}{\rm Mpc}} }
16: \newcommand{\himpcz}{{\hbox {$\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}_z$}} }
17: \newcommand{\bfd}{{\mbox{\boldmath $d$}}}
18: \newcommand{\bfx}{{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}
19: \newcommand{\bfy}{{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}}
20: \newcommand{\bfs}{{\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}}
21: \newcommand{\bfk}{{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}}
22: \newcommand{\bfC}{{\mbox{\boldmath $C$}}}
23: \newcommand{\bfth}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}
24: \newcommand{\sbfk}{{\mbox{\scriptsize\boldmath $k$}}}
25: \newcommand{\sbfx}{{\mbox{\scriptsize\boldmath $x$}}}
26: \newcommand{\thf}{{\theta_{\rm f}}}
27: \newcommand{\omm}{\Omega_{\rm M}}
28: \newcommand{\oml}{\Omega_{\rm \Lambda}}
29:
30: %\slugcomment{Submitted to Astrophys. J.}
31:
32: \begin{document}
33:
34: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
35: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\mbox{\rm
36: %{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}}}
37: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\mbox{\rm {\arabic{equation}}}}
38:
39: %MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
40:
41: \title{
42: Constraining the Cosmological Constant from Large-Scale
43: Redshift-Space Clustering}
44:
45: \author{Takahiko Matsubara}
46: \affil{Department of Physics and Astrophysics,
47: Nagoya University,
48: Chikusa, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan}
49: \and
50: \author{Alexander S. Szalay}
51: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
52: The Johns Hopkins University,
53: Baltimore, MD 21218}
54: \email{taka@a.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp, szalay@jhu.edu}
55:
56:
57:
58: \begin{abstract}
59:
60: We show how the cosmological constant can be estimated from redshift
61: surveys at different redshifts, using maximum-likelihood techniques.
62: The apparent redshift-space clustering on large scales (\simgt 20
63: \himpc) are affected in the radial direction by infall, and curvature
64: influences the apparent correlations in the transverse direction. The
65: relative strengths of the two effects will strongly vary with
66: redshift. Using a simple idealized survey geometry, we compute the
67: smoothed correlation matrix of the redshift-space correlation
68: function, and the Fisher matrix for $\omm$ and $\oml$. These represent
69: the best possible measurement of these parameters given the geometry.
70: We find that the likelihood contours are turning, according to the
71: behavior of the angular-diameter distance relation. The clustering
72: measures from redshift surveys at intermediate-to-high redshifts can
73: provide a surprisingly tight constraint on $\oml$. We also estimate
74: confidence contours for real survey geometries, using the SDSS LRG and
75: QSO surveys as specific examples. We believe that this method will
76: become a practical tool to constrain the nature of the dark energy.
77: \end{abstract}
78:
79: %MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
80:
81: \keywords{cosmology: theory ---galaxy clustering --- large-scale
82: structure of universe}
83:
84: \setcounter{equation}{0}
85: \section{Introduction}
86:
87: \label{sec1}
88:
89: The dark energy, which is the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ in its
90: simplest form, currently have turned out to possibly be a dominant
91: component in the universe \citep[e.g.,][]{bah99}. It is one of the
92: central issues in cosmology to reveal the quantitative nature of this
93: mysterious form of the energy. One of the mysteries of the
94: cosmological constant is its smallness. There are no evidence detected
95: on the Earth for existence of the cosmological constant. The
96: cosmological constant is so small that it only affects the phenomena
97: on cosmologically large scales.
98:
99: %Traditional test of $\Lambda$
100:
101: There are several traditional tests of the cosmological constant. The
102: expected frequency of multiple image lensing events for high-redshift
103: sources is quite sensitive to the cosmological constant
104: \citep{fuk90,tur90}. Luminosity--volume, and redshift--volume
105: relations can also be used to measure the geometry of the universe to
106: constrain the cosmological constant \citep{row68,loh88}. \citet{alc79}
107: proposed an evolution-free test for the cosmological constant using
108: statistically spherical objects. The type Ia supernova Hubble diagram
109: is used to constrain the mass density parameter and the cosmological
110: constant \citep{sch98,per99} through the luminosity distance $d_L$.
111: Acoustic peaks of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies
112: constrain the curvature of the universe \citep[e.g.,][]{hu97}. Recent
113: observational developments of the type Ia supernova and the CMB
114: anisotropies \citep{bal00,deb00} suggest a flat, low-density universe
115: with positive cosmological constant, $\Omega_{\rm M} \sim 0.3,
116: \Omega_\Lambda \sim 0.7$.
117:
118: The effect of a cosmological constant on the clustering properties of
119: objects in the nearby universe ($z \ll 1$) is so weak, that redshift
120: surveys have not been used to constrain $\Omega_\Lambda$ so far. As
121: the depth and the sampling rate of redshift surveys increase,
122: redshift-space clustering depends on the cosmological constant through
123: {\em the cosmological redshift distortions}
124: \citep{bal96,mat96,mat00a}. Several applications of this effect are
125: proposed \citep{nai99,nak98,pop98,yam99a,yam99b}. To maximally extract
126: the cosmological information from the survey data, the likelihood
127: analysis combined with a data reduction technique like the
128: Karhunen-Lo\`eve transform has been quite successful at low redshifts
129: \citep{vog96,sza98,mat00b}. We expect it to be just as useful at
130: intermediate-to-high redshifts here.
131:
132: In this {\em Letter}, we combine the two methods, i.e., the likelihood
133: analysis on pixelized data and the cosmological distortions. Specifically,
134: we compute the Fisher matrix for simple geometries to illustrate how
135: the cosmological distortions constrain the cosmological constant and the
136: density parameter in a given redshift survey data.
137:
138: \section{From Correlations to Fisher Matrix}
139: \label{sec2}
140:
141:
142: To generically investigate how a given redshift survey can constrain
143: the cosmological constant, we construct a rectangular box, in which
144: objects like galaxies or quasars in redshift space are observed. We
145: will use smooth pixels rather than hard cells in order to make our
146: calculations numerically more efficient. We apply a Gaussian smoothing
147: window to the objects in the survey, to get a smoothed estimate of the
148: local density. With a sufficiently large smoothing radius, we do not
149: have to deal with the nonlinearities of the density field. The
150: Gaussian smoothed cells are placed on lattice sites in the box. In
151: this way, the smoothed density vector $\rho_i$ on discrete lattice
152: sites labeled by $i$ is considered as our fundamental data to be
153: analyzed. In the following we assume the mean value of the density
154: vector $\langle\rho_i\rangle$ is known so that we can define a
155: density-fluctuation vector $d_i = \rho_i/\langle\rho_i\rangle - 1$.
156:
157: In standard theories of structure formation, the linear density field
158: is a random Gaussian process. In this case, all clustering properties of
159: the universe are represented by two-point correlations. Thus, a
160: correlation matrix
161: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
162: \begin{eqnarray}
163: C_{ij} =
164: \left\langle
165: d_i d_j
166: \right\rangle,
167: \label{eq1}
168: \end{eqnarray}
169: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
170: theoretically specifies all the statistical information for a given
171: data set. This matrix is related to a smoothed two-point correlation
172: function plus a shot noise term:
173: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
174: \begin{eqnarray}
175: C_{ij} =
176: \int d^3s_1\,d^3s_2\,W(\bfs_i - \bfs_1) W(\bfs_j - \bfs_2)\,
177: \xi(\bfs_1,\bfs_2) +
178: \int d^3s\,W(\bfs_i - \bfs) W(\bfs_j - \bfs)/\bar{n}(\bfs),
179: \label{eq2}
180: \end{eqnarray}
181: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
182: where $W(\bfs) = \exp[-s^2/(2R^2)]/(\sqrt{2\pi} R)$ is a Gaussian
183: smoothing window, $\xi$ is a two-point correlation function, and
184: $\bfs_i$ is the position vector of a lattice site $i$, and
185: $\bar{n}(\bfs)$ is the mean number density field. The position vectors
186: are all in observable redshift space which consists of the redshift
187: $z$ and the angular position $(\theta, \phi)$. In the distant-observer
188: approximation, we can approximately use the Cartesian coordinates in
189: redshift space and the two-point correlation function is a function of
190: the relative vector $\bfs_1 - \bfs_2$. The correlation function does
191: depend on the direction of this relative vector, because of the
192: redshift distortions. An analytic form of the linear two-point
193: correlation function in redshift space including high-redshift effects
194: is given by \citet{mat96}. One of the equivalent forms given in
195: \citet{mat96} is \citep[see also][]{bal96}
196: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
197: \begin{eqnarray}
198: \xi(\bfs_1 - \bfs_2) =
199: b^2(z) D^2(z)
200: \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} e^{i\sbfk\cdot(\sbfx_1 - \sbfx_2)}
201: \left[1 + \beta(z) {k_3}^2/k^2 \right]^2 P(k),
202: \label{eq3}
203: \end{eqnarray}
204: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
205: where $P(k)$ is the linear mass power spectrum at $z=0$, $D(z)$ is the
206: linear growth rate normalized as $D(0)=1$, $b(z)$ is the bias factor
207: at redshift $z$, and $\beta(z)$ is the redshift distortion parameter,
208: which is approximately related to the redshift-dependent mass density
209: parameter as $\beta(z) \sim {\Omega_{\rm M}}^{0.6}(z)/b(z)$. In the
210: above equation, the third axis is taken as the direction of the line
211: of sight. The vectors $\bfx_1$ and $\bfx_2$ are the comoving positions
212: of the two points which are labeled by $\bfs_1$ and $\bfs_2$ in redshift
213: space \citep[see][]{mat96}, i.e., they are related by a comoving
214: distance--redshift relation and the spatial curvature of the universe.
215: Assuming the distant-observer approximation, a Gaussian window function,
216: and that the mean number density is effectively constant, $\bar{n}$,
217: the equation (\ref{eq2}) finally reduces to
218: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
219: \begin{eqnarray}
220: &&
221: C_{ij} =
222: \frac12
223: b^2(z) D^2(z)
224: \int_0^\infty \frac{k^2dk}{2\pi^2} P(k)
225: \int_0^\pi \sin\theta d\theta
226: \exp\left\{
227: - k^2 R^2
228: \left[
229: \left({c_\Vert}^2 - {c_\bot}^2\right)\cos^2\theta
230: + {c_\bot}^2
231: \right]
232: \right\}
233: \nonumber\\
234: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\times\,
235: \left(1 + \beta \cos^2\theta\right)^2
236: J_0\left(kx\sin\theta_x\sin\theta\right)
237: \cos\left(kx\cos\theta_x\cos\theta\right)
238: \nonumber\\
239: && \qquad +\;
240: \frac{\exp\left[-x^2/(4R^2)\right]}{\pi^{3/2} (2R)^3 \bar{n}}
241: \label{eq4}
242: \end{eqnarray}
243: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
244: In this equation, $c_\Vert(z) = H_0/H(z)$, $c_\bot(z) = H_0 s_K(z)/z$
245: are the distortion factor parallel and perpendicular to the line of
246: sight, respectively, where $H(z)$ and $s_K(z)$ are the Hubble
247: parameter and the comoving angular diameter distance at $z$, and $H_0$
248: is the Hubble's constant. A line-of-sight component of the
249: redshift-space distance $s_\Vert$ between the centers of $i$-cell and
250: $j$-cell is related to that of the comoving distance $x_\Vert$ by
251: $x_\Vert = c_\Vert(z) s_\Vert$. Similarly, for a component
252: perpendicular to the line-of-sight we have $x_\bot = c_\bot(z)
253: s_\bot$. In this notation, the quantities in equation (\ref{eq4}) can
254: be written as $x \equiv ({c_\Vert}^2 {s_\Vert}^2 + {c_\bot}^2
255: {s_\bot}^2)^{1/2}$, and $\theta_x = \cos^{-1}(c_\Vert s_\Vert/x)$.
256: Integration over $\theta$ remains because a spherical Gaussian
257: smoothing kernel in observable redshift space is no longer spherical
258: but is ellipsoidal in comoving space. The second term in equation
259: (\ref{eq4}) is a shot noise term, convolved with the Gaussian kernel.
260:
261: Once the correlation matrix can be theoretically calculated in any
262: cosmological model, one can calculate the Cram\'er-Rao bound which
263: gives an estimate how well the model parameters can be measured.
264: This is one of the most powerful results in estimation theory
265: \citep{the92}. The Fisher information matrix is a key quantity in this
266: theory \citep{ken69}:
267: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
268: \begin{eqnarray}
269: F_{\alpha\beta} =
270: - \left\langle
271: \frac{\partial^2 \ln L}
272: {\partial \theta_\alpha \partial \theta_\beta}
273: \right\rangle,
274: \label{eq5}
275: \end{eqnarray}
276: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
277: where $L(\bfd; \bfth)$ is a probability distribution for the data
278: vector $\bfd$, which depends on a vector of model parameters $\bfth$.
279: In our case, the data vector is density fluctuations on lattice sites
280: and the model parameters are the cosmological parameters. The
281: Cram\'er-Rao bound states that the maximal likelihood estimate
282: constrains the model parameters with a minimum variance
283: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
284: \begin{eqnarray}
285: \left\langle
286: \theta_\alpha \theta_\beta
287: \right\rangle
288: \geq
289: \left(F^{-1}\right)_{\alpha\beta},
290: \label{eq6}
291: \end{eqnarray}
292: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
293: where $F^{-1}$ is the inverse matrix of $F$. When the number of data,
294: i.e., the dimension of the data vector is very large, the Cram\'er-Rao
295: bound (\ref{eq6}) becomes equality. A contour $[\theta_\alpha
296: F_{\alpha\beta} \theta_\beta]^{1/2} = A$ in parameter space gives a
297: concentration ellipsoid, which indicate regions where the likelihood
298: density for model parameters are most concentrated. The threshold $A =
299: 1,2,3$ corresponds to maximally attainable confidence levels of
300: $1\sigma$, $2\sigma$, $3\sigma$, respectively, in a likelihood
301: analysis, if the likelihood function is Gaussian. The concentration
302: ellipsoids are useful even when the likelihood function is not
303: Gaussian to give a rough idea of the spread of the density
304: \citep{the92}.
305:
306: As we are interested in a linear density field, the probability
307: distribution of the density field is considered to be Gaussian so that
308: the likelihood function has the form,
309: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
310: \begin{eqnarray}
311: -2 \ln L = \ln \det \bfC + \bfd^{T} \bfC^{-1} \bfd
312: + {\rm const.}
313: \label{eq7}
314: \end{eqnarray}
315: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
316: where $\bfC$ is the correlation matrix which depends on model
317: parameters, and $\bfd$ is the data vector. In this case, the Fisher
318: information matrix reduces to \citep[see, i.e.,][]{vog96}
319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
320: \begin{eqnarray}
321: F_{\alpha\beta} = \frac12 {\rm Tr}
322: \left(
323: \bfC^{-1} \bfC_{,\alpha}
324: \bfC^{-1} \bfC_{,\beta}
325: \right),
326: \label{eq8}
327: \end{eqnarray}
328: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
329: where $\bfC_{,\alpha} = \partial\bfC/\partial\theta_\alpha$, etc.
330: Thus, the Fisher matrix or the concentration ellipsoids for any model
331: parameters are straightforward to calculate from the correlation
332: matrix of equation (\ref{eq4}).
333:
334: \section{Results for a Simple Cubic Box}
335: \label{sec3}
336:
337: In this {\em Letter}, the mass density parameter $\omm$ and the
338: normalized cosmological constant $\oml$, both at the present time, are
339: the model parameters to be constrained. These parameters has the
340: primary importance in high-redshift clustering distortions. For
341: simplicity, the power spectrum $P(k)$ and the bias parameter $b(z)$,
342: on which the correlation matrix of equation (\ref{eq4}) also depends,
343: are fixed throughout. We use the cold dark matter-type spectrum with a
344: fixed shape parameter $\Gamma = 0.2$ and a fixed normalization
345: $\sigma_8 = 1$. The growth factor $D(z)$ and the distortion parameter
346: $\beta(z)$ are the functions of $\omm$ and $\oml$. Throughout this
347: {\em Letter}, we take a fiducial models $(\omm, \oml) = (0.3, 0.7)$ at
348: which the Fisher matrix is evaluated.
349:
350: Although the most natural choice of the length unit system would be
351: comoving coordinate system, we should not use this system, because
352: they are not actually observable in redshift surveys, and depend on
353: the cosmological models which we are seeking. Thus, we use the
354: coordinate system like $(z, \theta, \phi)$ in polar coordinates. The
355: clustering scale we are interested in is too small in figures when the
356: distance is represented by $z$ itself, so that we invent a new radial
357: coordinate $s = cz/H_0 \simeq 2997.9\,z$, i.e., the linear
358: extrapolation of distance-redshift relation for $z \ll 1$. For
359: example, a redshift interval $\Delta z = 0.1$ around {\em any}
360: redshift $z$ corresponds to $\Delta s = 300$. Although the unit of
361: this coordinate system is still \himpc, we use a new notation \himpcz
362: to avoid a confusion with the comoving coordinate system.
363:
364: In this coordinate system, a 200\himpcz cubic box is considered to
365: obtain generic estimates for Cram\'er-Rao bound, and we compute the
366: Fisher matrix for this sample, varying the mean redshift $z$ of this
367: box. The density fluctuations are sampled on regular $10\times
368: 10\times 10$ lattice sites in the box. The Gaussian smoothing radius
369: is set as $R=10\himpcz$.
370:
371: Figure~\ref{fig1} shows the concentration ellipses of the 200\himpcz
372: box placed at redshift $z = 0$ to $6.0$.
373: \begin{figure}
374: \epsscale{0.6} \plotone{fig1.eps} \figcaption[fig1.eps]{Concentration
375: ellipses from the Fisher matrix for generic boxes. Contour lines
376: correspond to confidence levels $1\sigma$, $2\sigma$, $3\sigma$
377: attainable from a single 200\himpcz box placed at redshift $z = 0$ to
378: $6.0$ as indicated in each panels. This figure contains no shot noise,
379: and a bias factor of 1.
380: \label{fig1}}
381: \end{figure}
382: The contour
383: lines correspond to $A=1,2,3$ which indicate the maximally attainable
384: confidence levels of $1\sigma$, $2\sigma$, $3\sigma$ when one performs
385: a likelihood analysis for these samples as we described in the
386: previous section. The shot noise is neglected in this Figure, while it
387: would be difficult to reduce shot noise for $z\ge 2$ in reality. As is
388: well known, a low-redshift sample ($z \sim 0$) only constrains the
389: mass density parameter through its dependence of the redshift
390: distortion parameter $\beta \sim \omm^{0.6}/b$. Increasing the mean
391: redshift, the concentration ellipses rotates clockwise and the major
392: axis becomes shorter, and thus the cosmological constant becomes
393: constrained. The higher the mean redshift is, the more the
394: cosmological constant is constrained. Around $z \sim 1.7$, the
395: concentration ellipses begin to rotate counterclockwise. This is
396: consistent with the fact that the angular diameter distance--redshift
397: relation turns over at $z \sim 1.7$ in our fiducial model $(\omm,
398: \oml) = (0.3, 0.7)$.
399:
400: On one hand, the number density one can sample is smaller for
401: high-redshift objects, which dilute the constraints on cosmological
402: parameters. On the other hand, there is a larger volume to be sampled
403: than for low-redshift objects. To obtain the concentration ellipses in
404: realistic samples, one should take into account both the shot noise
405: effect and the total volume in a given sample. We again set the
406: 200\himpcz boxes and estimate the Cram\'er-Rao bound with the shot
407: noise effect included. In Figure~\ref{fig2}, the bound for the
408: normalized cosmological constant $\oml$ is plotted.
409: \begin{figure}
410: \epsscale{0.6} \plotone{fig2.eps} \figcaption[fig2.eps]{Cram\'er-Rao
411: bound for the normalized cosmological constant $\oml$ as a function of
412: the mean redshift $z$. Shot noise is varied as $(20\himpcz)^3 \bar{n} =
413: 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, 10$, and $\infty$, from top to bottom lines. {\em Left
414: panel}: a single 200\himpcz box. {\em Right panel}: For a survey of
415: $\pi$ steradians, a redshift interval of $z/2$, centered at $z$. The
416: number of independent boxes is increased by the volume of the shell,
417: correspondingly the accuracy improves. A bias factor of 1 has been
418: used throughout this figure.
419: \label{fig2}}
420: \end{figure}
421: In the left panel, the volume is given by just one 200\himpcz box as
422: in the case of Figure~\ref{fig1}. The shot noise is varied as
423: $(20\himpcz)^3 \bar{n} = 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, 10$, and $\infty$, from top
424: to bottom lines. In the right panel, the Cram\'er-Rao bound is scaled
425: by the number of independent 200\himpcz boxes in a $\pi$ steradian
426: region with a redshift interval $z/2$ around $z$, to obtain a rough
427: idea of how our error bound is affected by the survey volume. We can
428: see how densely the objects should be sampled to constrain the
429: cosmological constant with a certain accuracy both for a sample with a
430: fixed volume and a sample with a fixed solid angle.
431:
432: \section{Possibilities for Realistic Survey Volumes}
433: \label{sec4}
434:
435: We have considered several different survey layouts for both galaxies
436: and quasars. The best survey to perform these tests seems to be the
437: Luminous Red Galaxy (LRG) sample of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
438: (SDSS). This sample consists of 100,000 galaxies selected for
439: spectroscopic observations on the basis of their very red rest frame
440: colors, using photometric redshifts, down to a limiting magnitude of
441: $r'=19.5$. They form an approximately volume limited sample, where the
442: outer edge lies at around $z=0.45$, and the total surface area is
443: 10,000 square degrees.
444:
445: We consider this geometry as a composite of the generic $200\himpcz$
446: boxes at the mean redshift $z=0.3$. There are about 220 boxes out to
447: $z=0.45$ in a $\pi$ steradian region, so that the shot noise is
448: approximately given by $(20\himpcz)^3 \bar{n} = 0.5$. We assume two
449: bias factors, $b=1.5$ and $b=2$. The resulting concentration ellipses
450: are shown in Figure~\ref{fig3}.
451: \begin{figure}
452: \epsscale{0.4} \plotone{fig3.eps} \figcaption[fig3.eps]{Concentration
453: ellipses corresponding to $1\sigma$, $2\sigma$, $3\sigma$ confidence
454: levels for approximate geometries of the 100,000 galaxies in the SDSS
455: LRG (Luminous Red Galaxy) sample. Dotted lines assume a bias factor of
456: $b=1.5$, solid lines has $b=2$.
457: \label{fig3}}
458: \end{figure}
459: We can see the result is quite
460: remarkable. The Cram\'er-Rao bound for the cosmological constant is
461: only $[(F^{-1})_{\Lambda\Lambda}]^{1/2} = 0.04$ for $b=1.5$, and
462: $[(F^{-1})_{\Lambda\Lambda}]^{1/2} = 0.03$ for $b=2$. This shows that
463: the shot noise level and the depth of the survey volume are suitably
464: balanced to constrain the geometry of the universe in the SDSS LRG
465: survey.
466:
467: We have considered various QSO surveys to possibly measure the dark
468: energy at higher redshifts. Unfortunately, the currently ongoing QSO
469: redshift surveys, like Sloan Digital Sky Survey \citep[SDSS,
470: i.e.,][]{yor00} and 2dF QSO redshift survey \citep[2QZ,
471: i.e.,][]{boy01}, have lower sampling rates for QSOs, $\bar{n} \sim
472: 10^{-3}/(40 \himpcz)^3$. They typically give the Cram\'er-Rao bound of
473: order $\Delta \Omega_\Lambda \sim 1$, almost regardless of the
474: smoothing radius. To constrain the cosmological constant with QSO
475: surveys, one should sample QSOs more densely than these current QSO
476: surveys. This fact is in agreement with \citet{pop98} who analyzed
477: nonlinear clustering to constrain the geometry of the universe and
478: indicated an advantage of a dense sampling.
479:
480: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
481: %\begin{eqnarray}
482: %\label{eq}
483: %\end{eqnarray}
484: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
485:
486: \section{Discussion}
487: \label{sec5}
488:
489: We have shown that large-scale clustering of galaxies at intermediate
490: redshifts $z \sim 0.5$ is surprisingly suitable for constraining the
491: cosmological parameters of $\omm$ and $\oml$, and thus the geometry of
492: the universe. The QSOs in currently ongoing surveys are too sparse to
493: give comparable constraints.
494:
495: The apparent redshift-space clustering method used in this {\em
496: Letter} is a completely self-contained test for $\omm$ and $\oml$. The
497: results from this method can be further combined with any of the
498: other independent tests to obtain stricter constraints, or to check a
499: consistency of our standard picture of the cosmology.
500:
501: One can use Figure~\ref{fig2} to aid designs of future surveys at
502: various redshifts. The lines indicate the statistical uncertainty in
503: the cosmological constant corresponding to different sampling rates.
504: They should be scaled, noting that the Cram\'er-Rao error bound
505: roughly scales as the inverse of the square of survey volumes.
506:
507: In this work, we have only considered two parameters $\omm$ and
508: $\oml$. We still need to measure the evolution of bias parameter,
509: which is not obvious. Moreover, there is a possiblity that the dark
510: energy has a more complex behaviour than the cosmological constant
511: \citep{wan00}. There are many other cosmological parameters, like
512: baryonic density $\Omega_{\rm b}$, primordial spectral index $n$, the
513: neutrino mass density $\Omega_\nu$, etc., which more or less depend on
514: the apparent redshift-space clustering.
515:
516:
517:
518: \acknowledgements
519:
520: AS acknowledges support from grants NSF AST-9802 980 and NASA LTSA
521: NAG-53503. We would like to acknowledge useful discussions with Dan
522: VandenBerk, Daniel Eisenstein and Adrian Pope.
523:
524: \begin{thebibliography}{}
525:
526: \bibitem[Alcock \& Paczy\'nski(1979)]{alc79} Alcock, C. \&
527: Paczy\'nski, B. 1979, \nat, 281, 358
528: \bibitem[Bahcall et al.(1999)]{bah99} Bahcall, N.\ A., Ostriker, J.\ P.,
529: Perlmutter, S., \& Steinhardt, P.\ J.\ 1999, Science, 284, 1481
530: \bibitem[Balbi et al.(2000)]{bal00} Balbi, A.\ et al.\ 2000,
531: \apjl, 545, L1
532: \bibitem[Ballinger, Peacock \& Heavens(1996)]{bal96} Ballinger, W. E.,
533: Peacock, J. A. \& Heavens, A. F. 1996, \mnras, 282, 877
534: \bibitem[Boyle et al.(2001)]{boy01} Boyle, B.\ J., Croom, S.\
535: M., Smith, R.\ J., Shanks, T., Outram, P.\ J., Hoyle, F., Miller, L. \&
536: Loaring, N.\ S.\ 2001, submitted to proceedings of ESO
537: Deep Fields conference., (astro-ph/0103064)
538: \bibitem[de Bernardis et al.(2000)]{deb00} de Bernardis, P.\
539: et al.\ 2000, \nat, 404, 955
540: \bibitem[Davis, Newman, Faber \& Phillips(2000)]{dav00}
541: Davis, M., Newman, J., Faber, S., \& Phillips, A.\ 2000, to appear
542: in Proc.\ of the ESO/ECF/STSCI workshop on Deep Fields, Garching Oct 2000,
543: (astro-ph/0112189)
544: \bibitem[Fukugita, Futamase, \& Kasai(1990)]{fuk90} Fukugita,
545: M., Futamase, T., \& Kasai, M.\ 1990, \mnras, 246, 24P
546: \bibitem[Hu, Sugiyama \& Silk(1997)]{hu97} Hu, W., Sugiyama, N.\ \&
547: Silk, J.\ 1997, \nat, 386, 37
548: \bibitem[Kendall \& Stuart(1969)]{ken69} Kendall, M.\ G. \& Stuart, A.
549: 1969, The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 2 (London: Griffin)
550: \bibitem[Loh(1988)]{loh88} Loh, E.\ D.\ 1988, \apj, 329,
551: 24
552: \bibitem[Matsubara(2000)]{mat00a} Matsubara, T. 2000, \apj, 535, 1
553: \bibitem[Matsubara \& Suto(1996)]{mat96} Matsubara, T. \& Suto, Y.
554: 1996, \apj, 470, L1
555: \bibitem[Matsubara, Szalay \& Landy(2000)]{mat00b} Matsubara, T.,
556: Szalay, A. S. \& Landy, S. D. 2000, \apjl, 535, L1
557: \bibitem[Nair(1999)]{nai99} Nair, V.\ 1999, \apj, 522, 569
558: \bibitem[Nakamura, Matsubara \& Suto(1998)]{nak98} Nakamura, T.\ T.,
559: Matsubara, T., \& Suto, Y.\ 1998, \apj, 494, 13
560: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.(1999)]{per99} Perlmutter, S.\ et
561: al.\ 1999, \apj, 517, 565
562: \bibitem[Popowski et al.(1998)]{pop98} Popowski, P. A., Weinberg, D.
563: H., Ryden, B. S. \& Osmer, P. S. 1998, \apj, 498, 11
564: \bibitem[Rowan-Robinson(1968)]{row68} Rowan-Robinson, M.\
565: 1968, \mnras, 138, 445
566: \bibitem[Schmidt et al.(1998)]{sch98} Schmidt, B.\ P.\ et
567: al.\ 1998, \apj, 507, 46
568: \bibitem[Szalay, Matsubara \& Landy(1998)]{sza98} Szalay, A. S.,
569: Matsubara, T. \& Landy, S. D. 1998, \apjl, 498, L1
570: \bibitem[Therrien(1992)]{the92} Therrien, C. W. 1992, Discrete Random
571: Signals and Statistical Signal Processing, (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall).
572: \bibitem[Turner(1990)]{tur90} Turner, E.\ L.\ 1990, \apjl,
573: 365, L43
574: \bibitem[Vogeley \& Szalay(1996)]{vog96} Vogeley, M. S. \& Szalay, A.
575: S. 1996, \apj, 465, 34
576: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2000)]{wan00} Wang, L., Caldwell, R.\ R.,
577: Ostriker, J.\ P. \& Steinhardt, P.\ J.\ 2000, \apj, 530, 17
578: \bibitem[Yamamoto \& Suto(1999)]{yam99a} Yamamoto, K.\ \& Suto, Y.\
579: 1999, \apj, 517, 1
580: \bibitem[Yamamoto, Nishioka \& Suto(1999)]{yam99b} Yamamoto, K.,
581: Nishioka, H., \& Suto, Y.\ 1999, \apj, 527, 488
582: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{yor00} York, D.\ G.\ et al.\
583: 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
584:
585: \end{thebibliography}
586:
587:
588: \end{document}
589: