1:
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint,epsfig]{aastex}
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \title{Analysis of two quintessence models \\
6: with SN Ia data}
7:
8: \author{M. Pavlov\altaffilmark{1}}
9: \affil{Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, via Moiariello
10: 16, I-80131 Napoli, Italy}
11:
12: \author{C. Rubano}
13: \affil{Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche - Univ. Federico II di Napoli,
14: INFN Sez. di Napoli, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, Via
15: Cintia, ed. G, I-80126 Napoli, Italy}
16: \email{rubano@na.infn.it}
17:
18: \author{M. Sazhin}
19: \affil{Sternberg Astronomical Institute,
20: Universitesty pr. 13, Moscow 119899, Russia}
21:
22: \and
23:
24: \author{P. Scudellaro}
25: \affil{Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche - Univ. Federico II di Napoli,
26: INFN Sez. di Napoli, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, Via
27: Cintia, ed. G, I-80126 Napoli, Italy}
28:
29: \altaffiltext{1}{Permanent Address: Sternberg Astronomical Institute,
30: Universitesty pr. 13, Moscow 119899, Russia}
31:
32: \begin{abstract}
33: The supernovae Ia data are used to analyze two general exact solutions for
34: quintessence models. The best fit values for $\Omega _{m0}$ are smaller than
35: in the $\Lambda $-term model, but still acceptable. With present-day data,
36: it is not possible to discriminate among the various situations.
37: \end{abstract}
38:
39: \keywords{cosmology: quintessence, supernovae: type Ia supernovae}
40:
41: \section{Introduction}
42:
43: Recently, astronomers discovered an accelerated expansion of our Universe.
44: It is well known that all known types of matter generate attraction, which
45: leads to a decelerated expansion of the Universe. That discovery then
46: reveals a new type of matter, which is now called {\em quintessence} or,
47: sometimes, {\em dark energy} \citep{ost95,tur97,chi97,cal98,zla99,pmw99}.
48:
49: The discovery of the presence of dark energy became possible when
50: astronomers recognized that SN Ia can be the long expected {\em standard
51: candle} for cosmological investigations. Two main features provide the use
52: of SN Ia as a standard candle \citep{fil00}:
53:
54: {\em i}) They are exceedingly luminous, comparable with luminosity of a
55: whole galaxy; they can, thus, be detected and observed with high S/N ratio
56: even at cosmological distances.
57:
58: {\em ii}) ``Normal'' SNe Ia have small variations among their peak
59: absolute magnitudes (around 0.3).
60:
61: The accelerated expansion of our Universe was discovered as a result of
62: two projects: the High-z SN Search \citep{sch98,rie98} and the Supernova
63: Cosmology Project \citep{per99}.
64:
65: In fact, a new type of matter was predicted many years ago by A. Einstein,
66: who included a $\Lambda$-term into his considerations \citep{ein17}. At
67: the beginning of the past century, the $\Lambda$-term was just a new
68: fundamental constant, and only much later it was really considered as a
69: formidable challenge by both observational and theoretical cosmologists
70: \citep{wein89,zel90,zel92,cpt92,carr00,star00,rub00}. Moreover, during the
71: last 20 years cosmologists understood that this constant can be replaced
72: with a scalar field, which induces the repulsive gravitational force
73: dynamically. Accordingly, several models were proposed
74: \citep{rat88,pee88,wet95,wet98,cop98,fer98,lid99,ste99,bra99,sah00,bin00,rub01},
75: in order to explain the observed present acceleration of our Universe.
76:
77: Two of these models continued to be developed after the discovery of
78: acceleration, and were also roughly elaborated and adapted for present-day
79: data \citep{rub01}. Here, we again use these models to such an end, but in
80: a much more refined way: the goal is now to fit the observed data of
81: apparent magnitude and redshift of the supernovae Ia, and test the models
82: themselves.
83:
84: \section{Model description}
85:
86: As said above, in this paper we discuss two models for quintessence, both
87: based on a scalar field with a special type of potential. The field is
88: minimally coupled with pressureless matter, and the total density
89: parameter $\Omega$ of the Universe is fixed to be 1. A detailed discussion
90: of the consequences of assuming such models in cosmology is given in
91: \citep{rub01}, so that we limit ourselves here only to a short summary of
92: the results we need for our purpose.
93:
94: The main attractive feature of these models is that they allow a general
95: exact solution of the field equations, obtained through a suitable
96: transformation of variables. Anyway, independently of the fact that this is
97: an exact solution, we also find that this solution reflects many properties
98: of the real Universe correctly.
99:
100: The first model considers a potential of the form
101: \begin{equation}
102: V(\varphi) =B^2 e^{-\sigma \varphi}, \label{eq1}
103: \end{equation}
104: where $B^2$ is a generic positive constant and $\sigma^2$ is some fixed
105: combination of universal constants
106: \begin{equation}
107: \sigma^2 = {\frac{\displaystyle 12 \pi G}{\displaystyle c^2}}. \label{eq2}
108: \end{equation}
109:
110: Actually, this kind of potential has already been widely discussed in the
111: literature, but without any particular assumption on the value of $\sigma$
112: \citep{rat88,pee88,wet95,wet98,cop98,fer98,bra99,sah00,bin00,fab00}. We
113: stress that it is the particular choice of this constant given above that
114: allows the exact integration of the field equations (see also
115: \citep{bar87,bur88}).
116:
117: The general solution of the cosmological equations (both for the metric
118: and the scalar field) has five free parameters (including $B^2$)
119: \citep{rub01}. We fix two of them and keep three as free. But one of these
120: three parameters just determines the present value of the scale factor of
121: our Universe, which, in a spatially flat geometry, is not observable. It
122: is not included into statistical analysis and does not affect the degrees
123: of freedom of our analysis.
124:
125: We list below only the three cosmological functions which we need in our
126: analysis (the other ones can be found in \citep{rub01}, of course)
127: \begin{eqnarray}
128: (1 +z)^3 ={\frac{\displaystyle \tau^2_0(1+ \tau^2_0)}{\displaystyle \tau^2
129: (1 + \tau^2)}}, \label{eq3} \\
130: \phantom{blanck space} \nonumber \\
131: H={\frac{\displaystyle 2(1 + 2\tau^2)}{\displaystyle 3t_s\tau (1 +\tau^2)}},
132: \label{eq4} \\
133: \phantom{blanck space} \nonumber \\
134: \Omega_m = {\frac{\displaystyle 1 + \tau^2}{\displaystyle (1 + 2\tau^2)^2}}.
135: \label{eq5}
136: \end{eqnarray}
137: They are the redshift of the epoch, the Hubble parameter, and the
138: $\Omega_m$ parameter of pressureless matter, and are expressed in terms of
139: the dimensionless time $\tau \equiv t/t_s$. The free parameters are then
140: the time scale $t_s$ and the present value of the dimensionless time
141: $\tau_0$. Le us remark that $t_s$ is of the same order of magnitude (but
142: not necessary equal to) as the age of the Universe.
143:
144: As to the second model, it considers a potential of the form
145: \begin{equation}
146: V(\varphi) = A^2 e^{\sigma \varphi} +B^2 e^{-\sigma \varphi}, \label{eq6}
147: \end{equation}
148: with $\sigma^2 =12 G \pi / c^2$ as before, and $A^2$ and $B^2$ free
149: parameters.
150:
151: We have, now, one additional free parameter; therefore, according to the
152: same considerations as above, we have to deal with three of them.
153:
154: The equations which describe the Hubble parameter, the redshift, and the
155: density parameter in the second model are
156: \begin{eqnarray}
157: (1+z)^3 = {\frac{\displaystyle \lambda^2 \sinh^2 \tau_0 \sin^2 \tau_0}{%
158: \displaystyle \lambda^2 \sinh^2 \tau -\sin^2 \tau}}, \label{eq7} \\
159: \phantom{blanck space} \nonumber \\
160: H(\tau)={\frac{\displaystyle \omega (\sin(2 \tau) -\lambda^2 \sinh (2\tau))}{%
161: \displaystyle 3(\sin^2 \tau -\lambda^2 \sinh^2 \tau)}}, \label{eq8} \\
162: \phantom{blanck space} \nonumber \\
163: \Omega_m(\tau) = {\frac{\displaystyle 2(\lambda^2-1)(\cos(2\tau) +\lambda^2
164: \cosh(2\tau) -1 - \lambda^2)}{\displaystyle (\sin(2\tau) -\lambda^2
165: \sinh(2\tau))^2}}. \label{eq9}
166: \end{eqnarray}
167: The dimensionless time, in this case, is $\tau=\omega t$. Following
168: \citet{rub01}, we use here $\omega$ instead of $t_s$, because of the fact
169: that it is directly connected with the parameters in the potential of the
170: scalar field, and has the meaning of a mass factor in theoretical
171: considerations. So, the free parameters are $\omega$, $\lambda$, and
172: $\tau_0$.
173:
174: In the analysis of the supernovae data, we use the bolometric distance. As
175: explained better below, it can be expressed in terms of the ``Hubble
176: free'' luminosity distance and of a parameter $m_0$, connected with the
177: absolute magnitude and the Hubble parameter. The parameters of the first
178: model ($\tau_0$ and $t_s$) can be recasted into $\tau_0$ and $m_0$. The
179: parameters of the second model ($\lambda$, $\tau_0$, and $\omega$) can be
180: recasted into $\lambda$, $\tau_0$, and $m_0$. Once the best fit is made,
181: it is easy to compute the relevant physical quantities $H_0$ and
182: $\Omega_{m0}$. In all the considerations below, $H_0$ turns out to have
183: the same value as in \citep{per99}. So, we concentrate on $\Omega_{m0}$.
184:
185: \section{SNe Ia Data}
186:
187: The published data of the supernovae consist of 60 SNe Ia \citep{per99}.
188: The data analysis and the determination of cosmological parameters can be
189: considered in two steps. The first one is the measurement of the Hubble
190: parameter for close supernovae (Calan - Tololo survey) \citep{ham96}, to
191: be compared with the absolute magnitude $M$ of a supernova SN Ia. The
192: second step is the comparison of the high redshift supernovae with the
193: theoretical prediction of bolometric distance:
194: \begin{equation}
195: m=5\log (D_b) + m_0; \label{eq10}
196: \end{equation}
197: here, $D_b$ is the "Hubble free" bolometric distance
198: \begin{equation}
199: D_b = H_0(1 + z)\int^z_0\frac{dz^{\prime}}{H(z^{\prime})}, \label{eq11}
200: \end{equation}
201: and $m_0$ is a parameter connected to the absolute magnitude and the
202: Hubble parameter.
203:
204: In data presented in \citep{per99} there are several values for corrected
205: apparent magnitude. Authors consider $m^{peak}_B$ and stretch luminosity
206: corrected effective $B$-band magnitude $m^{eff}_B$. For the analysis of
207: cosmological parameters only $m^{eff}_B$ is used, together with its errors
208: $\sigma_{m_B^{eff}}$.
209:
210: There are several methods for SN Ia data analysis. Two of them are used in
211: \citep{rie98}. The first one is the Multicolor Light Curve Shape (MLCS)
212: method and the second one is a template fitting method. In \citep{per99}
213: another method is used.
214:
215: The data of both groups have the statistical errors approximately as
216: $\sigma_m \sim 0.25$.
217:
218: We follow the authors of paper \citep{per99} to analyze the models
219: described in \citep{rub01}. First of all, as a check of the procedure, we
220: apply the flat cosmological model with a $\Lambda$-term to fit the data.
221: The standard $chi^2$ algorithm of data analysis reveals a good agreement
222: of our analysis with published statistical values \citep{per99}. We use
223: the complete set of data of 60 SNe Ia. It results $\chi^2=1.75$ per degree
224: of freedom, not significantly different from $\chi^2=1.76$ found in
225: \citep{per99}. The same is for the $\Omega_\Lambda$ parameter. Since 4
226: points in the data are outliers, we can proceed with analysis and exclude
227: these data from our considerations. The total number of SN Ia data then
228: drops to 56. The $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom in this case becomes 1.16,
229: which is in good agreement with previously published results \citep{per99}
230: and is within $1\sigma$ level.
231:
232: \section{Data analysis and fitting}
233:
234: In our analysis we use the standard $\chi^2$ method. The analysis is done
235: minimizing the value of weitghed $\chi^2$:
236: \begin{equation}
237: \chi^2 = \sum w_i (m_i - m^{model}_i)^2,
238: \end{equation}
239: where $w_i$ is the weight of the $i$-th SN Ia, $m_i$ is its $B$-band
240: effective apparent magnitude, and $m^{model}_i$ is its magnitude as
241: predicted with the models introduced before and thoroughly discussed in
242: \citep{rub01}.
243:
244: \subsection{The first model}
245:
246: In the first model, it is possible to eliminate $\tau$ from Eqs.
247: (\ref{eq3}) and (\ref{eq4}), and to obtain an analytical expression for
248: $H(z)$. Thus, it is possible to compute $m$ from Eqs. (\ref{eq10}) and
249: (\ref{eq11}), and $\chi^2$ as a function of $\tau$ and $m_0$.
250:
251: Firstly, we use 60 SN Ia data and get the $\chi^2$ minimum at $m_0=24.01$,
252: $\tau_0=1.04$, with $\chi^2 = 1.77$ per degree of freedom. As it is
253: unsatisfactory, we reject data which are out of the 3$\sigma$ level, as
254: done in \citep{per99}.
255:
256: After data rejection, the $\chi^2$ minimum drops down to $\chi^2=1.195$
257: per degree of freedom. It is definitely within one sigma level of the
258: expected value of $\chi^2$. The minimum now has other values than
259: $m_0=23.985$ and $\tau_0=1.268$.
260:
261: If we accept the value of this minimum, we obtain, from Eqs. (4) and (5),
262: $H_{0}=70kms^{-1}Mpc^{-1}$, $\Omega _{m0}=0.15$.
263:
264: The situation is illustrated in Figs. 1 -- 3.
265:
266: \subsection{The second model}
267:
268: The second model has only been tested and fitted with 56 data of SNe Ia.
269: The number of parameters in this case is equal to three. The true minimum
270: of the $\chi ^{2}$ is at $m_{0}=23.98$, $\tau _{0}=0.8$, and $\lambda
271: =1.182$. We find a value of $\chi ^{2}=1.1906$, which is definitely within
272: one sigma level of expected value. After such value we obtain from Eqs.
273: (\ref{eq8}) and (9) that $\Omega _{m0}=0.17$.
274:
275: The $\chi ^{2}$ value is a function of three arbitrary values: $m_{0}$,
276: $\tau _{0}$, and $\lambda $. Therefore, the $\chi ^{2}$ as a function of
277: all parameters is impossible to plot, but we can nonetheless plot several
278: slits.
279:
280: The situation is illustrated in Figs. 4 -- 8.
281:
282: \section{Conclusions}
283:
284: In a quintessential universe we have analyzed the same data as in
285: \citep{per99}, where it is present only a cosmological constant, and found
286: good values for $\chi^{2}$ in both cases. The values of $\Omega_{m0}$
287: found are rather different from the one found in \citep{per99}, but it is
288: impossible to say if this is due to differences in the models or to
289: influence of the measurement errors on the final values.
290:
291: In fact, in both models we have degeneracy in the parameters, particularly
292: large in $\lambda$ (II model). This makes impossible to give significant
293: confidence limits for the values of $\Omega _{m0}$, which we found. Only
294: very rough estimates can be given. Our main results are summarized in the
295: following tables.
296:
297: \bigskip
298:
299: \begin{center}
300: Model I
301:
302: \medskip
303:
304: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
305: \hline
306: $\chi ^{2}$ & $m_{0}$ & $\tau _{0}$ & $\Omega _{m0}$ & $\tau _{0}$ range & $%
307: \Omega _{m0}$ range \\ \hline
308: 1.195 & 23.985 & 1.268 & 0.15 & 0.82 $\div $ 1.40 & 0.12 $\div $ 0.30 \\
309: \hline
310: \end{tabular}
311:
312: \bigskip
313:
314: Model II\medskip
315:
316: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
317: \hline
318: $\chi ^{2}$ & $m_{0}$ & $\tau _{0}$ & $\lambda $ & $\Omega _{m0}$ & $\Omega
319: _{m0}$ range \\ \hline
320: 1.19 & 23.98 & 0.8 & 1.182 & 0.17 & 0.14 $\div $ 0.22 \\ \hline
321: \end{tabular}
322: \end{center}
323:
324: As final remarks, we want to observe that our results are in a very good
325: agreement with the one found in \citep{bah00} in a completely independent
326: way, and that the high degeneracy we get for the model parameters seems to
327: support the opinion of those who claim that it is very difficult to
328: discriminate among theories on the basis of observational data only
329: \citep{mao00,bar00}.
330:
331: \acknowledgments
332:
333: M.V. Sazhin acknowledges the INFN (Naples Section) and Osservatorio
334: Astronomico di Capodimonte for financial support and hospitality during
335: his visit in Napoli. M.V. Pavlov acknowledges the support of Osservatorio
336: Astronomico di Capodimonte. C. Rubano and P. Scudellaro are in part
337: supported by MURST Prin2000 SINTESI.
338:
339: \begin{thebibliography}{}
340:
341: \bibitem[Bahcall et al.(2000)]{bah00}
342: Bahcall, N. et al., \apj, 541, 1
343:
344: \bibitem[Barger and Marfatia(2000)]{bar00}
345: Barger, V. and Marfatia, D. 2000, astro-ph/0009256
346:
347: \bibitem[Barrow(1987)]{bar87}
348: Barrow, J. D. 1987, Phys. Lett. B, 187, 12
349:
350: \bibitem[Binetruy(2000)]{bin00} Binetruy, P. 2000, hep-th/0005037
351:
352: \bibitem[Brax and Martin(1999)]{bra99}
353: Brax, Ph. and Martin, J. 1999, Phys. Lett. B, 468, 40
354:
355: \bibitem[Burd and Barrow(1988)]{bur88}
356: Burd, A. B. and Barrow, J. D. 1988, Nucl. Phys. B, 308, 929
357:
358: \bibitem[Caldwell et al.(1998)]{cal98}
359: Caldwell, R. R., Dave, R., and Steinhardt, P. J. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett.,
360: 80, 1582
361:
362: \bibitem[Carroll(2000)]{carr00}
363: Carroll, S. M. 2000, astro-ph/0004075.
364:
365: \bibitem[Carroll et al.(1992)]{cpt92}
366: Carroll, S. M., Press, W. H., and Turner, E. L. 1992, Ann. Rev. Astron.
367: Astrophys., 30, 499
368:
369: \bibitem[Chiba et al.(1997)]{chi97}
370: Chiba, T., Sugiyama, N., and Nakamura, T. 1997, \mnras, 289, L5
371:
372: \bibitem[Copeland et al.(1998)]{cop98}
373: Copeland, E. J., Liddle, A. R., and Wands, D. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 57, 4686
374:
375: \bibitem[Dolgov et al.(1990)]{zel90}
376: Dolgov, A. D., Sazhin, M. V., and Zel'dovich, Ya. B. 1990, Basics of
377: modern cosmology, Gif-sur-Yvette: Editions Frontieres, 1990
378:
379: \bibitem[Einstein(1917)]{ein17}
380: Einstein, A. 1917, Sitzungber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys.-Math. Kl., 142
381:
382: \bibitem[Fabris et al.(2000)]{fab00}
383: Fabris, K. C., Goncalves, S. V. B., and Tomimura, N. A. 2000, Class.
384: Quantum Grav., 17, 2983
385:
386: \bibitem[Ferreira and Joyce(1998)]{fer98}
387: Ferreira, P. G. and Joyce, M. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 58, 023503
388:
389: \bibitem[Filippenko and Riess(2000)]{fil00}
390: Filippenko, A. V. and Riess, A. G. 2000, ``Type Ia Supernovae and Their
391: Cosmological Implications'', in: Type Ia Supernovae: Theory and Cosmology,
392: J.C. Niemeyer, J.W. Truran (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000,
393: 1
394:
395: \bibitem[Hamuy et al.(1996)]{ham96}
396: Hamuy, M. et al., Astron. J., 112, 2391
397:
398: \bibitem[Liddle and Scherrer(1999)]{lid99}
399: Liddle, A. R. and Scherrer, R. J. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 023509
400:
401: \bibitem[Maor et al.(2000)]{mao00}
402: Maor, I., Brunstein, R., and Steinhardt, P. J. 2000, astro-ph/0007297
403:
404: \bibitem[Ostriker and Steinhardt(1995)]{ost95}
405: Ostriker, J. P. and Steinhardt, P. J. 1995, Nature, 377, 600
406:
407: \bibitem[Peebles and Ratra(1988)]{pee88}
408: Peebles, P. J. E. and Ratra, B. 1988, \apjl, 325, L17
409:
410: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.(1999,a)]{per99}
411: Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G. et al. 1999, \apj, 517, 565
412:
413: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.(1999,b)]{pmw99}
414: Perlmutter, S., Turner, M. S., and White, M. 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83,
415: 670
416:
417: \bibitem[Ratra and Peebles(1988)]{rat88}
418: Ratra, B. and Peebles, P. J. E. 1988, Phys. Rev. D, 37, 3406
419:
420: \bibitem[Riess et al.(1998)]{rie98}
421: Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V., Challis, P. et al. 1998, Astron. J., 116,
422: 1009
423:
424: \bibitem[Rubakov(2000)]{rub00}
425: Rubakov, V. A. 2000, Phys. Rev. D, 61, 061501
426:
427: \bibitem[Rubano and Scudellaro(2001)]{rub01}
428: Rubano, C. and Scudellaro, P. 2001, astro-ph/0103335, to appear in General
429: Relativity and Gravitation
430:
431: \bibitem[Sahni and Starobinsky(2000)]{star00}
432: Sahni, V. and Starobinsky, A. 2000, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 9, 373
433:
434: \bibitem[Sahni and Wang(2000)]{sah00}
435: Sahni, V. and Wang, L. 2000, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 103517
436:
437: \bibitem[Schmidt et al.(1998)]{sch98}
438: Schmidt, B. P., Suntzeff, N. B., Phillips, M. M. et al. 1998,
439: \apj, 507, 46
440:
441: \bibitem[Steinhardt et al.(1999)]{ste99}
442: Steinhardt, P. J., Wang, L., and Zlatev, I. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 123504
443:
444: \bibitem[Turner and White(1997)]{tur97}
445: Turner, M. S. and White, M. 1997, Phys. Rev. D, 56, 4439
446:
447: \bibitem[Weinberg(1989)]{wein89}
448: Weinberg, S. 1989, Rev. Mod. Phys., 61, 1
449:
450: \bibitem[Wetterich(1995)]{wet95}
451: Wetterich, C. 1995, Astron. Astrophys., 301, 321
452:
453: \bibitem[Wetterich(1998)]{wet98}
454: Wetterich, C. 1998, Nucl. Phys. B, 302, 668
455:
456: \bibitem[Zel'dovich(1992)]{zel92}
457: Zel'dovich, Ya. B. 1992, My Universe: selected reviews, Zel'dovich, Ya. B.
458: and Sazhin, M. V. (eds.), Gordon and Breach, 1992
459:
460: \bibitem[Zlatev et al.(1999)]{zla99}
461: Zlatev, I., Wang, L., and Steinhardt, P. J. 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett., 82,
462: 896
463:
464: \end{thebibliography}
465:
466: \clearpage
467:
468: \begin{figure}
469: \plotone{f1.ps}
470: %\epsfxsize=12cm \centerline{\epsffile{model1_1.ps}}
471: \caption{The surface of $\protect\chi ^{2}$ as a function of two variables,
472: the $\protect\tau _{0}$ parameter and $m_{0}$ parameter. This function has
473: a very definite and sharp minimum.
474: \label{fig1}}
475: \end{figure}
476:
477:
478: \begin{figure}
479: \plotone{f2.ps}
480: %\epsfxsize=12cm \centerline{\epsffile{model1_2.ps}}
481: \caption{Countour plot of the levels of $\protect\chi ^{2}$ is shown. The
482: one sigma level is the small white region on the graph. The two sigma level
483: is the shadowed region. It reveals a large degeneracy of the $\protect\chi %
484: ^{2}$ function with respect to the parameter $\protect\tau _{0}$.
485: \label{fig2}}
486: \end{figure}
487:
488: \begin{figure}
489: \plotone{f3.ps}
490: %\epsfxsize=12cm \centerline{\epsffile{model1_3.ps}}
491: \caption{The solid line corresponds to the slit of 2D $\protect\chi ^{2}$
492: taken at the point of true minimum $m_{0}=23.985$. The dot-and-dashes curves
493: corresponds to the slit taken at $m_{0}=24.035$, and the dashes curve to the
494: slit taken at $m_{0}=23.935$. It results that the minimum in $\protect\tau %
495: _{0}$ is strongly dependent on the $m_{0}$ minimum.
496: \label{fig3}}
497: \end{figure}
498:
499: \begin{figure}
500: \plotone{f4.ps}
501: %\epsfxsize=12cm \epsfysize=12cm \centerline{\epsffile{model2.1.ps}}
502: \caption{The surface of $\protect\chi ^{2}$ as a function of two parameters:
503: $m_{0}$ and $\protect\lambda $; here, we fix $\protect\tau _{0}=0.8$. One
504: can see the profile of this surface and minimum.
505: \label{fig4}}
506: \end{figure}
507:
508: \begin{figure}
509: \plotone{f5.ps}
510: %\epsfxsize=12cm \epsfysize=12cm \centerline{\epsffile{model2.2.ps}}
511: \caption{Contour plot of the Fig. 4 surface. The 1$\protect\sigma $ area is
512: the small white region at $m_{0}=23.985$ and at $\protect\tau _{0}=1.268$.
513: The shadowed region is the $2\protect\sigma $ area, revealing that there
514: is parameter degeneracy.
515: \label{fig5}}
516: \end{figure}
517:
518: \begin{figure}
519: \plotone{f6.ps}
520: %\epsfxsize=12cm \epsfysize=12cm \centerline{\epsffile{model2.3.ps}}
521: \caption{We plot $\protect\chi ^{2}$ as a function of other two parameters, $
522: \protect\tau _{0}$ and $\protect\lambda $, fixing $m_{0}=23.985$.
523: \label{fig6}}
524: \end{figure}
525:
526: \begin{figure}
527: \plotone{f7.ps}
528: %\epsfxsize=12cm \epsfysize=12cm \centerline{\epsffile{model2.4.ps}}
529: \caption{Countour plot of Fig. 6 surface. The white region in the right
530: corner below is the $1\protect\sigma $ level of parameters $\protect\tau
531: _{0} $ and $\protect\lambda$. The shadowed region is the $2\protect\sigma $
532: level of these parameters. One can see again a large degeneration for
533: them.
534: \label{fig7}}
535: \end{figure}
536:
537: \begin{figure}
538: \plotone{f8.ps}
539: %\epsfxsize=12cm \epsfysize=12cm \centerline{\epsffile{model2.5.ps}}
540: \caption{Three different slits at fixed $m_{0}=23.985$ and $\protect\tau
541: _{0}=0.8$, showing degeneracy in $\protect\lambda $.
542: \label{fig8}}
543: \end{figure}
544:
545:
546:
547: \end{document}
548: