1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %\documentclass{article}
4: %\usepackage{emulateapj,pstricks,apjfonts}
5: %\usepackage{emulateapj5,pstricks}
6:
7: \input{epsf}
8: \def\n{{\noindent}}
9: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
10: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
12: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
13:
14: \shorttitle{Weak Lensing and Dark Energy}
15: \shortauthors{Munshi \& Wang}
16:
17: %\def\baselinestretch{2}
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \title{How Sensitive Are Weak Lensing Statistics \\
21: to Dark Energy Content?}
22: \author{Dipak Munshi$^{1,2}$, and Yun Wang$^{3}$}
23: \affil{{}$^1$Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road,
24: Cambridge, CB3 OHA, United Kingdom\\
25: {}$^2$Astrophysics Group, Cavendish Laboratory, Madingley Road, Cambridge,
26: CB3 OHE, United Kingdom\\
27: {}$^3$Department of Physics \& Astronomy,University of Oklahoma,
28: Norman, OK 73019 USA. munshi@ast.cam.ac.uk, wang@mail.nhn.ou.edu}
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: Future weak lensing surveys will directly probe the clustering of dark
32: matter, in addition to providing a test for various cosmological models.
33: Recent studies have provided us with the tools
34: which can be used to construct the complete probability distribution
35: function for convergence fields. It is also possible to construct
36: the bias associated with the hot-spots in convergence maps. These
37: techniques can be used in both the quasi-linear and the highly nonlinear
38: regimes using various well developed numerical methods. We use these results
39: here to study the weak lensing statistics of cosmological models
40: with dark energy. We study how well various classes of
41: dark energy models can be distinguished from models with a cosmological
42: constant. We find that the ratio of the square root of the variance of
43: convergence is complementary to the convergence skewness $S_3$ in probing
44: dark energy equation of state; it can be used to predict the expected
45: difference in weak lensing statistics between various dark energy models,
46: and for choosing optimized smoothing angles to constrain a given class of
47: dark energy models.
48: Our results should be useful for probing dark energy
49: using future weak lensing data with high statistics from galaxy weak
50: lensing surveys and supernova pencil beam surveys.
51: \end {abstract}
52:
53:
54: %\end{document}
55:
56: %\keywords{Cosmology}
57:
58: \keywords{Cosmology: theory -- weak lensing --
59: Methods: analytical -- Methods: statistical --Methods: numerical}
60: %cosmology: observations---cosmology:theory---gravitational lensing}
61:
62:
63: \section{Introduction}
64:
65: Recent cosmological observations favor an accelerating universe
66: \cite{Garna98a,Riess98,Perl99}.
67: This implies the existence of energy of unknown nature (dark energy),
68: which has negative pressure. Current data are consistent with dark energy
69: being a non-zero cosmological constant (see for example, Wang \& Garnavich 2001;
70: Bean \& Melchiorri 2002). Many other alternative
71: dark energy candidates have been considered, and are consistent with
72: data as well. For example, quintessence, k-essence, spintessence, etc.
73: (Peebles \& Ratra 1988; Frieman et al. 1995; Caldwell, Dave, \& Steinhardt 1998;
74: Garnavich et al. 1998b; White 1998; Efstathiou 1999; Steinhardt, Wang, \& Zlatev 1999;
75: Podariu \& Ratra 2000; Sahni \& Wang 2000; Sahni \& Starobinsky 2000;
76: Saini et al. 2000; Waga \& Frieman 2000;
77: Huterer \& Turner 2001; Ng \& Wiltshire 2001; Podariu, Nugent, \& Ratra 2001;
78: Weller \& Albrecht 2001)
79:
80:
81: Different dark energy models can be conveniently classified according
82: to the equation of state of the dark energy component, $w_X$. For
83: example, for quintessence models, $dw_X /dz > 0$, while for k-essence
84: models, $dw_X /dz < 0$. There are many complimentary probes of dark energy.
85: These include, the distance-redshift relations of cosmological standard
86: candles, Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy, volume-redshift test
87: using galaxy counts, the evolution of galaxy clustering, weak lensing,
88: etc. These different methods to probe dark energy are complimentary
89: to each other, and can provide important consistency checks,
90: due to the different sources of systematics in each method
91: (for example, see Kujat et al. 2002).
92:
93:
94: Weak lensing surveys (Bacon, Refregier \& Ellis 2000;
95: Van Waerbeke et al. 2000; Wittman et al. 2000;
96: Maoli et al. 2001; Van Waerbeke et al. 2001;
97: Wilson, Kaiser, \& Luppino 2001; Bacon et al. 2002; Hoekstra et al. 2002;
98: Refregier, Rhodes \& Groth 2002), currently underway and more
99: proposed in the near future, are well suited to studying the dark energy
100: equation of state.
101: Weak lensing directly probes the gravitational clustering
102: and the background cosmology. Many recent studies, both theoretical and
103: numerical, have analyzed these possibilities. Observational teams have already
104: reported first detections of cosmic shear. On theoretical front
105: progress has been made in modeling the statistics using both
106: perturbative calculations which are valid for large smoothing angles and
107: also using the well motivated hierarchical ansatz which is valid for
108: small smoothing angles. Numerical studies carried out so far uses ray shooting
109: experiments and are quite useful in testing analytical calculations.
110:
111: In an earlier study on probing quintessence using weak lensing,
112: Hui (1999) concluded that the large scale
113: convergence skewness can directly provide a constraint
114: for $w_X$, the equation of state of dark energy.
115: Similarly, Huterer studied the use of weak lensing convergence
116: power spectrum and three-point statistics to constrain dark energy models.
117: Both of these papers are useful in utilizing large weak lensing surveys of
118: galaxies to constrain dark energy.
119:
120: In this paper we construct the complete probability distribution function
121: of convergence
122: to study the effects of dark energy. Our results apply to the weak lensing
123: of both galaxies (on large angular scales) and type Ia supernovae (on
124: small angular scales). We compare two classes of dark energy models
125: (one with effective constant equation of state $w_X$, the other with
126: time-varying $w_X$) against that of a $\Lambda$ dominated universe.
127:
128: The technique we use in this paper has been tested in detail using
129: N-body calculations. Analytical results
130: are obtained for large smoothing angles using the perturbative calculations,
131: and for small smoothing angles using the hierarchical ansatz.
132: We focus on both the one-point probability distribution function and
133: the bias associated with convergence maps in the quasi-linear
134: and the highly nonlinear regimes. Our studies are quite complementary
135: to the studies done using a Fisher matrix analysis for the recovery
136: of power spectra from observations. While such studies are well suited for
137: recovering the nonlinear matter power spectra; the study of the probability
138: distribution function and the bias will give us a direct probe
139: of non-Gaussianity developed through gravitational clustering.
140:
141: The paper is organized as follows. In Section $2$ we give the definition
142: of some basic equations for reference, and identify the dark
143: energy models studied in this paper.
144: Section $3$ discusses the weak lensing statistics of dark energy models.
145: Section $4$ contains discussions and a summary.
146:
147:
148: \section{Notation}
149:
150:
151: \n
152: The weak lensing convergence, $\kappa$, maps the distribution of projected
153: density fields, and its statistics is directly related to that of the
154: underlying matter distribution. We write
155:
156: \begin{equation}
157: \kappa(\theta_0) = \int_0^{\chi_s} d \chi \omega(\chi)
158: \delta(r(\chi)\theta_0,\chi),
159: \end{equation}
160:
161: \n
162: where $r(\chi)$ is the angular diameter distance and $\omega(\chi)$ is the
163: weight function associated with the source distribution. The observer is
164: placed at $\chi=0$, and the sources (which for simplicity we assume are all
165: at the same redshift) are placed at $\chi_s$. $\chi$ is given by
166:
167: \begin{equation}
168: \chi(z) = cH_0^{-1} \int_0^z dz'[\Omega_m(1+z')^3 + \Omega_k(1+z')^2 +
169: \Omega_X \, f(z) ]^{-1/2}
170: %\Omega_q(1 + z')^{3(1+\omega_q)} ]^{-1/2}
171: \end{equation}
172:
173: \n
174: where the $\Omega$'s denote the fraction of critical density in various
175: components. $\Omega_X$ denotes the dark energy component,
176: and $\Omega_k=1-\Omega_m-\Omega_X$, The function
177: $f(z)$ parametrizes the time-dependence of the dark energy density,
178: and $f(z=0)=1$. For dark energy with constant equation of state,
179: $w_X= p_X/\rho_X = constant$, $f(z)=(1 + z)^{3(1+w_X)}$.
180: The limiting case with $w_X = -1$ [i.e.,
181: $f(z)=1$] corresponds to a cosmological constant.
182: Note that to obtain accelerated expansion of the universe,
183: we need $\rho+3 p <0$, which implies $w_X <-1/3$ for a power law
184: dark energy density $f(z)$.
185: In general, the dark energy equation of state, $w_X(z)$,
186: can be written in terms of the dimensionless dark energy density, $f(z)$,
187: $w_X(z)=\frac{1}{3}(1+z)\,f'(z)/f(z) -1$, for dark energy density or
188: equation of state with arbitrary time dependence.
189: (Wang \& Garnavich 2001)
190:
191: We study two classes of dark energy models.
192: The first class contains dark energy models with effective constant
193: equation of state, $w_X=-1/3, -2/3, -1$ ($\Lambda$CDM), and $-1.9$.
194: If dark energy arises from classical fields, it must satisfy the
195: weak energy condition, which requires that $w_X >-1$.
196: The weak energy condition violating toy model, $w_X=-1.9$,
197: is motivated by quantum gravity models of inflation in which
198: quantum effects lead to the violation of the weak energy condition
199: (Onemli \& Woodard 2002).
200: The second class contains two dark energy toy models
201: with linear time-varying equations of state, $w_X=w_q(z)=-1+z$ and $-1+2z/3$.
202: These are motivated by quintessence models which have $w_X$ that effectively
203: increases with $z$.
204: All the models have $\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_X=0.7$, $h=0.7$, $n_S=1$
205: (power law index of the primordial power spectrum),
206: and $\sigma_8=0.8$. We normalize the nonlinear power spectrum
207: to $\sigma_8$. Table 1 lists these dark energy models.
208:
209: %\vspace*{-.2cm}
210: \begin{center}
211: Table 1\\
212: {\footnotesize{Dark Energy Models}}
213:
214: %{\scriptsize
215: {\footnotesize
216: \begin{tabular}{|llll|}
217: %\tableline
218: \hline
219: Model && $w_X(z)$ \\
220: %\tableline
221: \hline
222: $\Lambda$CDM & $-1$ & & \\
223: constant $w_X$ & $-1/3$, & $-2/3$, & $-1.9$\\
224: $w_q(z)$ & $-1+2z/3$, & $-1+z$ & \\
225: \hline
226: %\tableline
227: \end{tabular}
228: }
229: \end{center}
230:
231: \n
232: The two classes of dark energy models are compared with the fiducial
233: $\Lambda$CDM model to quantify the variation in various statistics of
234: convergence maps.
235:
236:
237: \section{Statistics of Weak Lensing in Dark Energy Models}
238:
239: To compute the statistics of weak lensing convergence field, we
240: need to relate it to the statistics of three dimensional density
241: field of underlying matter distribution. In recent studies such
242: analysis has been done extensively. We use such a formalism to
243: explore the weak lensing statistics for the dark energy cosmologies.
244: For large smoothing angles we use the perturbative calculations and
245: for small smoothing angles we use the well motivated hierarchical
246: ansatz to compute the relevant quantities.
247:
248:
249:
250:
251: \subsection{Evolution of the Matter Power Spectrum}
252:
253: We compute the matter power spectrum using the scaling
254: ansatz of Hamilton et al. (1991), which was later extended by various
255: authors [see e.g. Peacock \& Dodds (1996)]. This ansatz essentially
256: consists of postulating that $4\pi k^3 P(k) = f[ 4 \pi k_l^3 P_l(k_l)]$,
257: where $P(k)$ is the nonlinear power spectrum and $P_l$ is the linear
258: power spectrum, and the function $f$ in general will depend on the
259: initial power spectrum. The linear power spectrum is evaluated at a
260: different wave number, $k_l = ( 1 + 4 \pi k^3 P(k) )^{-1/3} k$,
261: hence the mapping is non-local in nature. The cosmological model enters
262: through the linear growth function $g(z)$, so that
263: $P_l(k, z) = [ g(z)/(1+z)]^2\, P_l(k, z=0)$.
264: The linear growth function is given by:
265:
266: \begin{equation}
267: g(z) = \frac{\delta(z, \Omega_m, \Omega_{\Lambda})}{\delta(z, \Omega_m=1)}
268: = { 5 \over 2 } \Omega_m \, (1+z)\, E(z)\, \int_z^{\infty} dz' \,
269: \frac{ (1+z')}{ \left[ E(z') \right]^3},
270: \end{equation}
271:
272: \n
273: Where
274:
275: \begin{equation}
276: E(z) \equiv \sqrt{ \Omega_m(1+z)^3 + \Omega_k(1+z)^2 + \Omega_X \, f(z)}
277: \end{equation}
278:
279: \n
280: We compute the linear growth function by direct integration [for
281: more on power spectrum evolution in quintessence models see \cite{BeBa}].
282:
283:
284: Our method enforces stable clustering in the nonlinear regime and assumes the
285: hierarchical ansatz (which is tested by numerous numerical simulations),
286: therefore we are able to predict the higher order correlation functions
287: (Davis \& Peebles 1977, Groth \& Peebles 1977, Fry \& Peebles 1978) and
288: (their Fourier transforms or) the multi-spectrum correctly. Combining these
289: with the powerful technique of the generating function we can construct the
290: complete probability distribution function and the bias associated with
291: convergence maps.
292:
293:
294:
295: \subsection{Convergence Probability Distribution Function}
296:
297:
298: Perturbative calculations depend on the expansion of the convergence
299: field $\kappa(\theta_0)$ for smoothing angle $\theta_0$ in terms
300: of perturbative expansion of the density field $\delta$. Such an
301: analysis can be performed in an order by order manner,
302:
303:
304: \begin{equation}
305: \kappa^{(1)}(\theta_0) + \kappa^{(2)}(\theta_0) + \dots =
306: \int_0^{\chi_s} d \chi \omega(\chi) \,
307: \left[\delta^{(1)}(r(\chi)\theta_0) +\delta^{(1)}(r(\chi)\theta_0)+ \dots \right]
308: \end{equation}
309:
310:
311:
312: \n
313: where $\delta^{(i)}$ and $\kappa^{(i)}$ correspond to the $i$-th order perturbative
314: expansion, $i=1$ being the linear order. In the perturbative regime at tree
315: level (Fry 1984; Bernardeau 1992, 1994; Bernardeau \& Schaeffer 1992),
316: it is possible to introduce vertex generating function $G(\tau)$ which
317: will encode the tree level contribution from all orders.
318: The smoothing using a top-hat filter function can be incorporated
319: in the generating function formalism and then the generating function
320: can be written in terms of the generating function of the
321: unsmoothed case.
322: All statistical quantities including probability distribution functions
323: can be constructed once we have solved for the tree-level generating
324: functions (Bernardeau 1992, 1994). We write
325:
326: \begin{equation}
327: G(\tau) = \left ( 1 - { \tau \over \kappa_a} \right )^{-\kappa_a};~~~
328: G_s^{PT}(\tau) = G^{PT} \left [ \tau { \sigma(R_0(1+G^{PT}(\tau))^{1/2})
329: \over \sigma(R_0) } \right ]
330: \end{equation}
331:
332: \n
333: The parameter $\kappa_a$ can be determined from the dynamical equation
334: governing the evolution of perturbations in the quasi-linear regime,
335: and it is given by $ \kappa_a = {{\sqrt {13} - 1} \over 2}$.
336: The variance at a length scale $\sigma(R_0) = R_0^{-(n+3)/2}$, where
337: a local power law spectrum index $n$ is used to evaluate the generating
338: function. The generating function is now used to compute the probability
339: distribution function at a particular smoothing scale.
340:
341: In the highly nonlinear regime (Balian \& Schaeffer 1989,
342: Davis \& Peebles 1977, Groth \& Peebels 1977, Szapudi \& Szalay 1993,
343: Scoccimarro \& Frieman 1999, Munshi et al. 1999c), the perturbative series
344: starts to diverge and the usual perturbative calculations are replaced by
345: the hierarchical ansatz for higher order correlation functions, which
346: can be built from two-point correlation functions. The amplitude
347: of various contributions can be constructed from the knowledge of the
348: generating function. It was found from analytical reasoning and numerical
349: experimentation that the generating function in the highly nonlinear regime
350: retains exactly the same form as in the quasi-linear regime; however, the
351: value of $\kappa_a$ is changed (Beranrdeau 1992) -- it is now treated as
352: a free parameter (Colombi et al. 1995, Munshi et al. 1999a,b). It is
353: customary to use a different parameter $\omega$ that is easy to evaluate
354: from numerical simulations, $\kappa_a = {2 \omega \over (1 - \omega)}$.
355: It was found that $\omega=.3$ reproduces various statistics in the
356: nonlinear regime quite well (Colombi et al. 1997, Colombi, Bouchet,
357: Schaeffer 1995, Munshi et al. 1999d). To compute the probability distribution
358: function, one has to compute the void probability function $\phi(y)$,
359: which acts as a generating function for normalized cumulants or
360: $S_N$ parameters and can be expressed in terms of the function $G(\tau)$ as
361: (Balian \& Schaeffer 1989):
362: \begin{eqnarray}
363: &&\phi(y) = y G(\tau) - {1 \over 2} y \tau { d \over d \tau} G(\tau) \nonumber\\
364: &&\tau = -y { d \over d \tau} G(\tau).
365: \end{eqnarray}
366:
367: \n
368: Finally the probability distribution function can now be written as (Balian \& Schaeffer 1989):
369:
370: \begin{equation}
371: P(\delta) = \int_{-i\infty}^{i\infty} {dy \over 2 \pi i} \exp \left [
372: { (1+ \delta)y - \phi(y) \over \bar \xi_2} \right ]
373: \end{equation}
374:
375:
376: In recent studies it was found that in both the quasi-linear and the highly
377: nonlinear regimes, it is possible to introduce a reduced convergence field
378: (Munshi \& Jain 2000, Munshi 2002),
379: $\eta = {\kappa - \kappa_{min} \over -\kappa_{min}}$, which to a very
380: good approximation follows the same statistics as $1 + \delta$. In the
381: quasi-linear regime it follows the smoothed projected density, and in the
382: highly nonlinear regime it simply follows the 3D statistics of the density
383: field.\footnote{It was recently shown by Munshi (2002) that analytical
384: results obtained by direct perturbative calculations can also be obtained
385: by using a functional fit obtained from assuming a log-normal evolution of
386: local correlated density field. This method was also found not only to work
387: for one point probability distribution function but also for bias associated
388: with convergence maps.}
389:
390: The variance of $\eta$ is given by \cite{Valageas00a,V00b}
391: \begin{equation}
392: \label{eq:xieta}
393: \xi_{\eta} = \int_0^{\chi_s} {\mathrm{d}}\chi\, \left(\frac{w}{F_s}\right)^2\,
394: I_{\mu}(\chi),
395: \end{equation}
396: with
397: \ba
398: && w(\chi,\chi_s) = \frac{H_0^2}{c^2}\, \frac{ {\cal{D}}(\chi)\,
399: {\cal{D}}(\chi_s-\chi)} {{\cal{D}}(\chi_s)} \, (1+z), \hskip 1cm
400: {\cal{D}}(\chi) = \frac{cH_0^{-1}}{\sqrt{|\Omega_k|}}\,
401: {\rm sinn}\left(\sqrt{|\Omega_k|} \, \chi\right) \nonumber\\
402: && F_s= \int _0^{\chi_s} \mathrm{d}\chi\, w(\chi, \chi_s),\hskip 1cm
403: I_{\mu}(z)= \pi \int_0^{\infty} \frac{\mathrm{d}k}{k}\,\,
404: \frac{\Delta^2(k,z)}{k}\, W^2({\cal D}k\theta_0),
405: \ea
406: where ``$\rm sinn$'' is defined as $\sinh$ if $\Omega_k>0$, and $\sin$
407: if $\Omega_k<0$. If $\Omega_k=0$, the $\rm sinn$ and $\Omega_k$'s
408: disappear.
409: $\Delta^2(k,z)= 4\pi k^3 P(k,z)$, $k$ is the wavenumber,
410: $P(k,z)$ is the matter power spectrum,
411: The window function $W({\cal D}k\theta_0)=2J_1({\cal D}k\theta_0)/
412: ({\cal D}k\theta_0)$ for smoothing angle $\theta_0$. Here $J_1$ is the Bessel
413: function of order 1.
414: Note that the clustering of the dark energy field would lead to an
415: increase in the transfer function on very large scales. Huterer (2002)
416: has shown that the clustering of the dark energy field can be neglected
417: on the scales relevant to weak lensing surveys.
418:
419: Fig.1 shows $-\kappa_{min}$ and $\sqrt{\xi_{\eta}}$, and
420: Figs. 2 \& 3 show the pdf for the two classes of dark energy models
421: listed in Table 1.
422:
423:
424: \subsection{Bias Associated with Convergence Maps}
425:
426: Assuming a correlation function hierarchy guarantees that we have a two-point
427: probability distribution function $P(\kappa_1,\kappa_2)$ which can be
428: factorized as follows (Munshi 2001),
429:
430: \begin{equation}
431: P(\kappa_1,\kappa_2) d\kappa_1 d\kappa_2 = P(\kappa_1)P(\kappa_2)
432: \left[1 + b(\kappa_1)\xi^{\kappa}_{12}b(\kappa_2)\right] d\kappa_1d\kappa_2.
433: \end{equation}
434:
435: \n
436: The function $\xi^{\kappa}_{12}$ is the two point correlation function
437: corresponding to convergence maps.
438: The function $b(\kappa)$ is the bias associated with the convergence maps,
439: and can be shown to be related to the bias associated with overdense regions,
440: $b(1+\delta)$ (Munshi 2001).
441: The perturbative calculations also produce similar results, although the
442: nature of the bias function $b(\kappa)$ changes from one regime to another.
443: As was the case for one point normalized moments, whose generating function
444: was related to the one point probability distribution function, the
445: generating functions for two-point collapsed higher order correlation
446: functions, also known as cumulant correlators, are also related
447: to the bias function in a very similar manner. We write
448:
449:
450: \begin{equation}
451: P(\delta)b(\delta) = \int_{-i\infty}^{i\infty} {dy \over 2 \pi i}
452: \tau \exp \left [
453: { (1+ \delta)y - \phi(y) \over \bar \xi_2} \right ],
454: \end{equation}
455:
456: \n
457: where $\tau$ is a generating function for the cumulant correlators.
458: However, it turns out that the differential bias, as we have
459: written down above, is difficult to estimate from numerical data.
460: Therefore we work with the cumulative bias, which is the bias associated with
461: points where convergence maps cross a particular threshold (Munshi 2001).
462: Previous studies against numerical simulations showed that the bias
463: function describes the numerical results quite accurately. It was shown
464: in earlier studies that $b(\kappa) = {b(1+\delta) \over \kappa_{min}}$.
465:
466: Figures 4 \& 5 show the cumulative bias for the two classes of dark
467: energy models indicated in Figure 1.
468: Clearly, the cumulative bias of convergence is complementary to the
469: convergence pdf in probing the non-Gaussianity of gravitational clustering
470: and constraining dark energy models.
471:
472:
473: \subsection{A New Indicator for Deviations from the $\Lambda$CDM model}
474:
475: We find that the deviations of dark energy models
476: from the fiducial $\Lambda$CDM model can be quantified with
477: a single parameter
478:
479: \begin{equation}
480: 1+ \epsilon \equiv \frac{ \sqrt{\bar{\xi_\kappa}({\mbox{XCDM}})}}
481: { \sqrt{\bar{\xi_\kappa}({\Lambda\mbox{CDM}})}}
482: =\frac{ \kappa_{min}({\mbox{XCDM}})\,
483: \sqrt{\bar{\xi_{\eta}}({\mbox{XCDM}})} }
484: { \kappa_{min}(\Lambda\mbox{CDM})\,
485: \sqrt{\bar{\xi_{\eta}}(\Lambda \mbox{CDM})} },
486: \end{equation}
487: \n
488: where XCDM represents an arbitrary dark energy model.
489: Figure 6 shows the indicator $1+\epsilon$ for the two classes of dark energy
490: models studied in this paper, for smoothing angle $\theta_0=1'$ and $15'$.
491:
492: Comparison of Fig.6 and Figs.2-3 shows that the more the pdf
493: of the dark energy model differs from that of the fiducial
494: $\Lambda$CDM model, the more the indicator $1+\epsilon$ deviates
495: from one. This indicates that the pdf is primarily determined by
496: its variance, which is consistent with the finding of
497: the existence of a universal probability distribution function (in terms of
498: the scaled convergence $\eta$) for weak lensing amplification
499: by Wang, Holz, \& Munshi (2002).
500:
501:
502: It is useful to compare our new indicator with the convergence skewness
503: $S_3$ (Hui 1999)
504: for the same models. Figure 7 shows $S_3$ for the same models as
505: in Figure 6, with the same line and arrow types.
506: We have computed the convergence skewness $S_3$ using Hyper-Extended
507: Perturbation theory in the nonlinear regime (small smoothing angular scales),
508: and perturbative results are adopted for the quasi-linear regime
509: (larger smoothing angular scales). While $S_3$, as an indicator, mainly
510: encodes the information about non-Gaussianity, the indicator we
511: have proposed is directly related to the variance and is more
512: sensitive to the projected density power spectrum.
513:
514:
515: Our new weak lensing pdf shape indicator, $1+\epsilon$, is complementary
516: to $S_3$ in constraining the dark energy equation of state.
517: The indicator, $1+\epsilon$, is sensitive to smoothing angle $\theta_0$,
518: while $S_3$ is not very sensitive to $\theta_0$ at small angular scales.
519: Feasible future supernova surveys
520: can yield a large number of type Ia supernovae out to
521: redshift $z=1$ and beyond (Wang 2000,
522: SNAP\footnote{See http://snap.lbl.gov.}).
523: It may be possible to directly measure the weak lensing pdf with sufficiently
524: high statistics (Metcalf \& Silk 1999; Seljak \& Holz 1999);
525: this would allow us to utilize the pdf with different smoothing angles
526: to probe different ranges of constant $w_X$ models,
527: and the variation of $w_X$ with $z$.
528:
529: \section{Discussions and Summary}
530:
531: We have analyzed weak lensing statistics for two classes of dark energy
532: cosmological models. One class of dark energy models have effective constant
533: equation of state $w_X$, while the other have linear
534: time-varying $w_X(z)$ inspired by quintessence models.
535: The weak lensing statistics of these dark energy models are compared
536: with that of a ${\Lambda}$CDM model.
537:
538: It has been shown that in directly using the distance-redshift relations of
539: type Ia supernovae to probe dark energy, it is optimal to measure the
540: dark energy density, $\rho_X(z)=\rho_X(0)\,f(z)$, instead
541: of the dark energy equation of state, $w_X(z)$. (Wang \& Garnavich 2001;
542: Wang \& Lovelace 2001; Tegmark 2001)
543: In this paper, for convenience and illustration,
544: we have used $w_X$ to classify various models.
545:
546: Note that we have considered a dark energy toy model which violates
547: the weak energy condition, as similar models could arise from
548: quantum effects in quantum gravity models of inflation (Onemli \& Woodard 2002).
549: Also, we have only considered dark energy models with linear time-varying
550: $w_X(z)$, although dark energy models with much more complicated time
551: dependence in $w_X(z)$ have been proposed (see for example,
552: Bassett et al. 2002).
553: This is because it is extremely difficult to extract the time dependence
554: of $w_X(z)$, even if it were a simple linear function of the redshift $z$,
555: from observational data (for example, see Maor et al. 2001;
556: Barger \& Marfatia 2001; Wang \& Garnavich 2001; Kujat et al. 2002;
557: Maor et al. 2002).
558:
559: We have studied the statistics of the cosmic convergence field
560: via various diagnostics including the one point probability distribution
561: functions and the bias associated with convergence ``hot spots''.
562: The analysis was done for both the quasi-linear scales
563: where perturbative calculations are valid and also for very small
564: angular scales where hierarchical ansatz is generally used to quantify
565: the statistical distributions. Following earlier studies we introduce
566: a quantity $\kappa_{min}$ which can help us to write the observed convergence
567: field in terms of a reduced convergence field which in turn represents
568: directly the statistics of density distribution. For large smoothing angles,
569: perturbation theory predicts this quantity $\eta$ to trace the projected
570: density field, and on small angular scales it traces the nonlinear density
571: field in three dimensions. The lower order moments corresponding to various
572: cosmologies have already been investigated in detail and our studies
573: complement these results. Also we have used top-hat window functions,
574: but Bernardeau \& Valageas (2000) have shown how to generalize
575: similar calculations in terms of aperture mass using compensated
576: filters.
577:
578: We have identified a new weak lensing pdf shape indicator,
579: $1+\epsilon \propto \sqrt{\bar{\xi_{\kappa}}} =\kappa_{min}\,
580: \sqrt{\bar{\xi_{\eta}}}$,
581: which can be used to predict the expected difference in weak lensing
582: statistics between various dark energy models, and for choosing optimized
583: smoothing angles to constrain a given class of dark energy models.
584: For example, small smoothing angles are favored for constraining dark
585: energy models with $w_X < -1$.
586:
587: Our proposed $1+\epsilon$ statistics is related to the volume average of
588: two-point statistics of $\bar{\xi_{\kappa}}$.
589: Note that while $\bar{\xi_{\eta}}$ only depends on the smoothing angle
590: and the underlying mass distribution, $\kappa_{min}$ encodes
591: the dependence on cosmological parameters. Therefore, our new
592: statistical indicator, $1+\epsilon \propto \sqrt{\bar{\xi_{\kappa}}}
593: =\kappa_{min}\, \sqrt{\bar{\xi_{\eta}}}$, is of interest
594: as far as we are interested in differentiating
595: various cosmological models. We found that both $P(\kappa)$ and
596: $b(\kappa)$ depends on $k_{min}$ and $\xi_{\eta}$, however, it is
597: difficult to infer the difference in these statistics in
598: various cosmologies. The $1+\epsilon$ statistics we have devised,
599: however, is quite interesting in the sense that it can very easily
600: be used to check how much various dark energy models differ
601: in weak lensing. It can be used to complement and supplement
602: various other statistics such as $S_3$.
603:
604: We have computed the convergence skewness $S_3$ for the dark energy models
605: considered in this paper. We find that the new weak lensing pdf shape
606: indicator, $1+\epsilon$, is indeed complementary to $S_3$ in probing dark
607: energy equation of state.
608:
609: We note that getting maps of convergence is difficult compared to
610: direct evaluation of non-Gaussian statistics from shear maps
611: (see e.g. Schneider \& Lombardi 2002; Zaldariaga \& Scoccimarro 2002).
612: On the other hand, the construction
613: of convergence statistics can be directly modeled at arbitrary
614: level, whereas for shear field the computation of statistics
615: is done in a order by order manner so far. So an independent analysis of
616: convergence maps constructed from shear maps should be useful
617: in constraining various errors which might get introduced during
618: various stages of data reduction. The question of error bars
619: in weak lensing measurements
620: has been dealt with in great detail in Munshi \& Coles (astro-ph/0003481,
621: to appear in MNRAS) for various window functions and are
622: independent of the cosmological model assumed.
623: Our convergence statistics can be a powerful diagnostic and complementary
624: tool to the shear map statistic.
625:
626: With high statistics data from future weak lensing surveys of galaxies
627: and supernova pencil beam surveys (Wang 2000; SNAP), weak lensing can be
628: a useful tool in differentiating different dark energy models.
629:
630:
631:
632: \acknowledgements
633: DM was supported by PPARC grant RG28936, and
634: YW was supported in part by NSF CAREER grant AST-0094335.
635: DM would like to thank Alexandre Refregerier for many useful discussion, and
636: Francis Bernardeau for making a copy of his code to compute the pdf and bias
637: available to us.
638:
639:
640:
641: \begin{thebibliography}{}
642:
643: \bibitem[Bacon, Refregier, \& Ellis 2000]{Bacon00}
644: Bacon, D.J.; Refregier, A.R.; Ellis, R.S. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 625
645:
646: \bibitem[Bacon et al. 2002]{Bacon02}
647: Bacon, D.J.; Massey, R.; Refregier, A.R.; Ellis, R.S. 2002, astro-ph/0203134,
648: submitted to MNRAS
649:
650: \bibitem[Benabed \& Bernardeau 2001]{BeBa}
651: Benabed,K., Bernardeau, F., Phys.Rev. D64 (2001) 083501
652:
653: \bibitem[Barger \& Marfatia 2001]{Barger}
654: Barger, V., \& Marfatia, D. 2001, Phys. Lett. B, 498, 67
655:
656: \bibitem[Balian \& Schaeffer 1989]{BaSa} Balian R., Schaeffer R., 1989,
657: A\& A, 220, 1
658:
659: \bibitem[Bartelmann \& Schneider 1991]{Bartel91} Bartelmann, M.,
660: Schneider, P., 1991, A\& A, 248, 353
661:
662: \bibitem[Bassett et al. 2002]{Bas02}
663: Bassett, B. A., Kunz, M., Silk, J., \& Ungarelli, C. 2002, astro-ph/0203383
664:
665: \bibitem[Bean \& Melchiorri 2002]{Bean02}
666: Bean, R., \& Melchiorri, A., Phys.Rev. D65 (2002) 041302
667:
668: \bibitem[Bernardeau 1992]{B92} Bernardeau, F., 1992, ApJ, 392, 1
669:
670: \bibitem[Bernardeau 1994]{Ber94} Bernardeau, F., 1994, A\& A, 291, 697
671:
672: \bibitem[Bernardeau 1998]{B99} Bernardeau, F., 1998, A\& A, 338, 375
673:
674: \bibitem[Bernardeau \& Schaeffer 1992]{BerSha92} Bernardeau, F., Schaeffer, R.,
675: 1992, A\& A, 255, 1
676:
677: \bibitem[Bernardeau et al. 1997]{Beratal97} Bernardeau, F., van Waerbeke, L.,
678: Mellier, Y., 1997, A\& A, 322, 1
679:
680: \bibitem[Bernardeau \& Valageas 2000]{Ber00}
681: Bernardeau, F.; Valageas, P. 2000, A \& A, 364, 1
682:
683: \bibitem[Blandford et al. 1991]{Blan91} Blandford, R.D., Saust, A.B., Brainerd, T.G.,
684: Villumsen, J.V., 1991, MNRAS, 251, 600
685:
686: \bibitem[Boschan et al. 1994]{Bosch94} Boschan, P., Szapudi, I., Szalay, A.S.
687: 1994, ApJS, 93, 65
688:
689: \bibitem[Caldwell, Dave, \& Steinhardt 1998]{Cald98} Caldwell, R.R., Dave, R.,
690: Steinhardt, P.J. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1582
691:
692: \bibitem[Colombi et al. 1995]{Colom95} Colombi, S., Bouchet, F.R.,Schaeffer, R.,
693: 1995, ApJS, 96, 401
694:
695: \bibitem[Colombi et al. 1997]{Colom97} Colombi, S., Bernardeau, F., Bouchet, F.R.,
696: Hernquist, L., 1997, MNRAS,287, 241
697:
698: %\bibitem{} Couchman H.M.P., Barber A.J., Thomas P.A., 1998,
699: %astro-ph/9810063
700:
701: \bibitem[Davis \& Peebles 1977]{Davis77} Davis, M., Peebles, P.J.E., 1977,
702: ApJS, 34, 425
703:
704:
705: \bibitem[Efstathiou 1999]{Efsta99}
706: Efstathiou, G. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 842
707:
708: \bibitem[Frieman et al. 1995]{Frieman95}
709: Frieman, J.A.; Hill, C.T.; Stebbins, A.; \& Waga, I. 1995, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75,
710: 2077
711:
712: \bibitem[Fry 1984]{Fry84} Fry, J.N., 1984, ApJ, 279, 499
713:
714: \bibitem[Fry et al. 1978]{Fry78} Fry, J.N., Peebles, P.J.E., 1978, ApJ, 221, 19
715:
716: \bibitem[Garnavich et al. 1998a]{Garna98a}
717: Garnavich, P.M. et al. 1998a, ApJ, 493, L53
718:
719: \bibitem[Garnavich et al. 1998b]{Garna98b}
720: Garnavich, P.M. et al. 1998b, ApJ, 509, 74
721:
722: \bibitem[Groth \& Peebles 1977]{Groth77} Groth, E., Peebles, P.J.E., 1977,
723: ApJ, 217, 385
724:
725:
726: \bibitem[Hamilton et al. 1991]{Hamil91} Hamilton, A.J.S., Kumar, P., Lu, E.,
727: Matthews, A., 1991, ApJ, 374, L1
728:
729: \bibitem[Hoekstra, H., et al. 2002]{Hoeks02}
730: Hoekstra, H., et al. 2002, ApJ, 572, 55
731:
732: \bibitem[Hui 1999]{Hui99} Hui, L., 1999, ApJ, 519, L9
733:
734: \bibitem[Huterer \& Turner 2001]{Huterer01} Huterer, D., \& Turner,
735: M. S. 2001, Phys. Rev. D64, 123527
736:
737: \bibitem[Huterer 2002]{Huterer02} Huterer, D. 2002, Phys. Rev. D65, 063001
738:
739: \bibitem[Jain, Mo, \& White 1995]{Jain95} Jain, B., Mo H.J., White S.D.M.,
740: 1995, MNRAS, 276, L25
741:
742: \bibitem[Jain \& Seljak 1997]{Jain97} Jain, B., Seljak, U., 1997,
743: ApJ, 484, 560
744:
745: \bibitem[Jain \& van Waerbeke 2000]{Jain00} Jain, B., van Waerbeke L., 2000,
746: ApJ, 530, L1
747:
748: \bibitem[Kaiser 1992]{Kaiser92} Kaiser, N., 1992, ApJ, 388, 272
749:
750: \bibitem[Kaiser 1998]{Kaiser98} Kaiser, N., 1998, ApJ, 498, 26
751:
752:
753: \bibitem[Kujat et al. 2002]{Kujat02} Kujat, J., Linn, A.M., Scherrer, R.J.,
754: Weinberg, D.H. 2002, ApJ, 572, 1-14,2001
755:
756:
757: \bibitem[Maoli et al. 2001]{Maoli01}
758: Maoli, R., et al. 2001, A \& A, 368, 766
759:
760: \bibitem[Maor, Brustein, \& Steinhardt 2001]{MBS00}
761: Maor, I., Brustein, R., \& Steinhardt, P.J. 2001,
762: Phys. Rev. Lett., 86, 6; Erratum-ibid. 87 (2001) 049901
763:
764: \bibitem[Maor et al. 2002]{MBS02}
765: Maor, I., Brustein, R., McMahon, J., \& Steinhardt, P.J. 2002,
766: Phys.Rev. D65 (2002) 123003
767:
768: \bibitem[Metcalf \& Silk 1999]{Metca99} Metcalf, R. B., \& Silk, J. 1999,
769: ApJ, 519, L1
770:
771:
772: \bibitem[Munshi, Coles, \& Melott 1999a]{Munshi99a} Munshi, D., Coles, P.,
773: Melott, A.L., 1999a, MNRAS, 307, 387
774:
775: \bibitem[Munshi, Coles, \& Melott 1999b]{Munshi99b} Munshi, D., Coles, P.,
776: Melott, A.L., 1999b, MNRAS, 310, 892
777:
778: \bibitem[Munshi, Melott, \& Coles 1999c]{Munshi99c} Munshi, D.,
779: Melott, A.L., Coles, P., 1999c, MNRAS, 311, 149
780:
781: \bibitem[Munshi et al. 1999d]{Munshi99d} Munshi, D., Bernardeau, F., Melott, A.L.,
782: Schaeffer, R., 1999d, MNRAS, 303, 433
783:
784: \bibitem[Munshi \& Coles 2000a]{Munshi00a} Munshi, D., Coles, P., 2000a,
785: MNRAS, 313, 148
786:
787: \bibitem[Munshi \& Coles 2000b]{Munshi00b} Munshi, D., Coles, P., 2000b,
788: MNRAS, submitted
789:
790: \bibitem[Munshi \& Coles 2002]{Munshi02} Munshi, D., Coles, P., 2002,
791: MNRAS in press, astro-ph/0003481
792:
793:
794: \bibitem[Munshi \& Jain 2000]{MunshiJain00} Munshi, D., Jain, B., 2000,
795: MNRAS, 318, 109
796:
797: \bibitem[Munshi 2001]{Munshi01} Munshi, D, 2001, MNRAS, 322, 107
798:
799: \bibitem[Ng \& Wiltshire 2001]{Ng01}
800: Ng, S.C.C., \& Wiltshire, D.L. 2001, Phys. Rev. D64, 123519
801:
802:
803: \bibitem[Onemli \& Woodard 2002]{Onemli02} Onemli, V. K., Woodard, R. P. 2002,
804: gr-qc/0204065.
805:
806: \bibitem[Peacock \& Dodds 1996]{Peacock96} Peacock, J.A., Dodds, S.J., 1996,
807: MNRAS, 280, L19
808:
809: \bibitem[Peebles \& Ratra 1988]{Peebles88}
810: Peebles, P. J. E.; \& Ratra, B. 1988, ApJ, 325L, 17
811:
812: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al. 1999]{Perl99}
813: Perlmutter, S., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
814:
815: \bibitem[Podariu \& Ratra 2000]{Podariu00}
816: Podariu, S., \& Ratra, B. 2000, ApJ, 532, 109
817:
818: \bibitem[Podariu, Nugent, \& Ratra 2001]{Podariu01}
819: Podariu, S., Nugent, P., \& Ratra, B. 2001, ApJ, 553, 39
820:
821: \bibitem[Refregier, Rhode, \& Groth 2002]{Refre02}
822: Refregier, A., Rhode, J, \& Groth, E., 2002, ApJ, 572, L131
823:
824: \bibitem[Rhode, Refregier, \& Groth 2001]{Rhode01} Rhode, J,
825: Refregier, A., Groth, E., 2001, ApJ, 552, L85
826:
827: \bibitem[Riess et al. 1998]{Riess98}
828: Riess, A.G., et al 1998, AJ, 116, 1009
829:
830: \bibitem[Sahni \& Starobinsky 2000]{Sahni00a}
831: Sahni, V., \& Starobinsky, A. 2000, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 9, 373
832:
833: \bibitem[Sahni \& Wang 2000]{Sahni00b}
834: Sahni, V., \& Wang, L. 2000, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 103517
835:
836: \bibitem[Saini et al. 2000]{Saini00}
837: Saini, T.; Raychaudhury, S.; Sahni, V.; and Starobinsky, A.A. 2000,
838: Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 1162
839:
840: \bibitem[Schneider & Lombardi 2002]{Schneider02}
841: Schneider, P., \& Lombardi, M. 2002, astro-ph/0207454, submitted to A \& A
842:
843: \bibitem[Scoccimarro \& Frieman 1999]{Scoc99} Scoccimarro R., \&
844: Frieman J.A. 1999, ApJ, 520, 35
845:
846:
847: \bibitem[Seljak \& Holz 1999]{Sel99} Seljak, U., \& Holz, D. E. 1999,
848: A\&A, 351, L10
849:
850:
851: \bibitem[Steinhardt, Wang, \& Zlatev 1999]{Stein99}
852: Steinhardt, P.J., Wang, L., \& Zlatev, I. 1999,
853: Phys. Rev. D59, 123504
854:
855: \bibitem[Szapudi \& Szalay 1993]{Sza93} Szapudi, I., Szalay, A.S., 1993, ApJ,
856: 408, 43
857:
858:
859: \bibitem[Tegmark 2001]{Teg01} Tegmark, M. 2001, astro-ph/0101354
860:
861: \bibitem[Valageas 2000a] {Valageas00a} Valageas, P., 2000a, A\& A, 354, 767
862:
863: \bibitem[Valageas 2000b]{V00b} Valageas, P., 2000b, A\& A, 356, 771
864:
865:
866: \bibitem[Van Waerbeke et al. 2000]{VanWae00}
867: Van Waerbeke, L. et al. 2000, A \& A, 358, 30
868:
869: \bibitem[Van Waerbeke et al. 2001]{VanWae01}
870: Van Waerbeke, L., et al. 2001, A \& A, 374, 757
871:
872:
873: \bibitem[Waga \& Frieman 2000]{Waga00}
874: Waga, I., \& Frieman, J.A. 2000, Phys.Rev. D62, 043521
875:
876:
877: \bibitem[Wang 1999]{Wang99} Wang Y., 1999, ApJ, 525, 651
878:
879: \bibitem[Wang 2000]{Wang00}{} Wang, Y. 2000, ApJ, 531, 676
880:
881: \bibitem[Wang \& Garnavich 2001]{Wang01a} Wang, Y. \& Garnavich, P.
882: 2001, ApJ, 552, 445
883:
884: \bibitem[Wang \& Lovelace 2001]{Wang01b} Wang, Y. \& Lovelace, G. 2001,
885: ApJ, 562, L115
886:
887: \bibitem[Wang, Holz, \& Munshi 2002]{Wang02} Wang Y.,
888: Holz, D.E., \& Munshi, D. 2002, ApJ, 572, L15
889:
890: \bibitem[Weller \& Albrecht 2001]{Weller01}
891: Weller, J., \& Albrecht, A. 2001, astro-ph/0106079
892:
893: \bibitem[White 1998]{White98} White, M. 1998, ApJ, 506, 495
894:
895:
896: \bibitem[Wilson, Kaiser, \& Luppino 2001]{Wilson01}
897: Wilson, G.; Kaiser, N.; Luppino, G.A. 2001, ApJ, 556, 601
898:
899: \bibitem{} Wittman, D.M, Tyson, J.A., Kirkman, D., Dell'Antonio,I.,
900: Bernstein, G., 2000, nature, 405, 143
901:
902: \bibitem[Zaldariaga & Scoccimarro 2002]{Zaldariaga02}
903: Zaldarriaga, M., \& Scoccimarro, R. 2002, astro-ph/0208075
904:
905: \end{thebibliography}
906:
907: \clearpage
908: \setcounter{figure}{0}
909:
910: \figcaption[f1.eps]
911: {The minimum value of the convergence field, $\kappa_{min}$,
912: and variance of the scaled convergence $\eta=1+\kappa/|\kappa_{min}|$,
913: $\xi_{\eta}$, as functions of constant dark energy equation of state,
914: $w_X$, for source redshift $z_s=0.5$ and 1.0.
915: The arrows indicate the $-\kappa_{min}$ and $\sqrt{\xi_{\eta}}$ values for
916: dark energy models with time-varying equation of state, $w_q(z)=-1+z$
917: (long arrows) and $w_q(z)=-1+2z/3$ (short arrows).
918: Note that $\kappa_{min}$ does not depend on the smoothing angle
919: $\theta_0$ but it depends on the background dynamics of the universe.
920: }
921:
922: \figcaption[f2.eps]
923: {PDF associated with constant $w_X$ models. Two different regimes
924: are considered for computing the PDF. Upper panels $\theta_s = 1',4'$
925: correspond to the nonlinear
926: calculations where we have assumed a hierarchical ansatz for the
927: correlation
928: hierarchy. For the lower panels perturbative results are used to
929: construct the PDF at smoothing angles $\theta_s = 15'$ and $60'$.
930: Various curves correspond to various quintessence models. In each panel
931: solid line represents the $\Lambda$CDM model, short dashed line represent
932: $w_X = -2/3$, dot-dashed line represents $w_X = -1/3$, and long
933: dashed line represents $w_X = -1.9$.
934: }
935:
936: \figcaption[f3.eps]
937: {PDF associated with time-varying $w_X$ models compared to
938: $\Lambda$CDM. As in the previous figure two different regimes
939: are considered for computing the PDF. Upper panels $\theta_s = 1',4'$
940: correspond to the nonlinear
941: calculations where we have assumed a hierarchical ansatz for the
942: correlation
943: hierarchy. For the lower panels perturbative results are used to
944: construct the PDF at smoothing angles $\theta_s = 15'$ and $60'$.
945: Various curves correspond to various quintessence models. In each panel
946: solid line represents the $\Lambda$CDM model, short dashed line represent
947: $w_X = -1+z$ model, and long dashed line represents $w_X = -1+2z/3$ model.
948: }
949:
950: \figcaption[f4.eps]
951: {Bias associated with constant $w_X$ models. Two different regimes
952: are considered for computing the PDF. Upper panels $\theta_s = 1',4'$
953: correspond to the nonlinear calculations where we have assumed a hierarchical
954: ansatz for the correlation
955: hierarchy. For the lower panels perturbative results are used to
956: construct the PDF at smoothing angles $\theta_s = 15'$ and $60'$.
957: Various curves correspond to various quintessence models. In each panel
958: solid line represents the $\Lambda$CDM model, short dashed line represent
959: $w_X = -2/3$, dot-dashed line represents $w_X = -1/3$, and long
960: dashed line represents $w_X = -1.9$.
961: }
962:
963: \figcaption[f5.eps]
964: {Bias associated with time-varying $w_X$ models compared to $\Lambda$CDM.
965: As in previous figure two different regimes
966: are considered for computing the PDF. Upper panels $\theta_s = 1',4'$
967: correspond to the nonlinear
968: calculations where we have assumed a hierarchical ansatz for the
969: correlation
970: hierarchy. For the lower panels perturbative results are used to
971: construct the PDF at smoothing angles $\theta_s = 15'$ and $60'$.
972: Various curves correspond to various quintessence models. In each panel
973: solid line represents the $\Lambda$CDM model, short dashed line represent
974: $w_X = -1+z$ model, and long dashed line represents $w_X = -1+2z/3$ model.
975: }
976:
977: \figcaption[f6.eps]
978: {Indicator of the deviations of dark energy models from the fiducial
979: $\Lambda$CDM model, $1+\epsilon$, as function of constant dark energy
980: equation of state $w_X$, for smoothing angle $\theta_0=1'$ and $15'$.
981: The arrows indicate the $1+\epsilon$ values for dark energy
982: models with time-varying equation of state, $w_q(z)=-1+z$ (long arrows),
983: and $w_q(z)=-1+2z/3$ (short arrows).}
984:
985: \figcaption[f7.eps]
986: {The skewness $S_3$, for the same models as in Fig.6.
987: The line and arrow types are the same. In the left panel we use Hyper-Extended
988: Perturbation theory to compute the convergence skewness, whereas
989: in the right panel (where larger smoothing angular scales are
990: considered) perturbative results are adopted.}
991:
992: \clearpage
993: \setcounter{figure}{0}
994: \plotone{f1.eps}
995: \figcaption[f1.eps]
996: {The minimum value of the convergence field, $\kappa_{min}$,
997: and variance of the scaled convergence $\eta=1+\kappa/|\kappa_{min}|$,
998: $\xi_{\eta}$, as functions of constant dark energy equation of state,
999: $w_X$, for source redshift $z_s=0.5$ and 1.0.
1000: The arrows indicate the $-\kappa_{min}$ and $\sqrt{\xi_{\eta}}$ values for
1001: dark energy models with time-varying equation of state, $w_q(z)=-1+z$
1002: (long arrows) and $w_q(z)=-1+2z/3$ (short arrows).
1003: Note that $\kappa_{min}$ does not depend on the smoothing angle
1004: $\theta_0$ but it depends on the background dynamics of the universe.
1005: }
1006:
1007: \plotone{f2.eps}
1008: \figcaption[f2.eps]
1009: {PDF associated with constant $w_X$ models. Two different regimes
1010: are considered for computing the PDF. Upper panels $\theta_s = 1',4'$
1011: correspond to the nonlinear
1012: calculations where we have assumed a hierarchical ansatz for the
1013: correlation
1014: hierarchy. For the lower panels perturbative results are used to
1015: construct the PDF at smoothing angles $\theta_s = 15'$ and $60'$.
1016: Various curves correspond to various quintessence models. In each panel
1017: solid line represents the $\Lambda$CDM model, short dashed line represent
1018: $w_X = -2/3$, dot-dashed line represents $w_X = -1/3$, and long
1019: dashed line represents $w_X = -1.9$.
1020: }
1021:
1022: \plotone{f3.eps}
1023: \figcaption[f3.eps]
1024: {PDF associated with time-varying $w_X$ models compared to
1025: $\Lambda$CDM. As in the previous figure two different regimes
1026: are considered for computing the PDF. Upper panels $\theta_s = 1',4'$
1027: correspond to the nonlinear
1028: calculations where we have assumed a hierarchical ansatz for the
1029: correlation
1030: hierarchy. For the lower panels perturbative results are used to
1031: construct the PDF at smoothing angles $\theta_s = 15'$ and $60'$.
1032: Various curves correspond to various quintessence models. In each panel
1033: solid line represents the $\Lambda$CDM model, short dashed line represent
1034: $w_X = -1+z$ model, and long dashed line represents $w_X = -1+2z/3$ model.
1035: }
1036:
1037: \plotone{f4.eps}
1038: \figcaption[f4.eps]
1039: {Bias associated with constant $w_X$ models. Two different regimes
1040: are considered for computing the PDF. Upper panels $\theta_s = 1',4'$
1041: correspond to the nonlinear calculations where we have assumed a hierarchical
1042: ansatz for the correlation
1043: hierarchy. For the lower panels perturbative results are used to
1044: construct the PDF at smoothing angles $\theta_s = 15'$ and $60'$.
1045: Various curves correspond to various quintessence models. In each panel
1046: solid line represents the $\Lambda$CDM model, short dashed line represent
1047: $w_X = -2/3$, dot-dashed line represents $w_X = -1/3$, and long
1048: dashed line represents $w_X = -1.9$.
1049: }
1050:
1051: \plotone{f5.eps}
1052: \figcaption[f5.eps]
1053: {Bias associated with time-varying $w_X$ models compared to $\Lambda$CDM.
1054: As in previous figure two different regimes
1055: are considered for computing the PDF. Upper panels $\theta_s = 1',4'$
1056: correspond to the nonlinear
1057: calculations where we have assumed a hierarchical ansatz for the
1058: correlation
1059: hierarchy. For the lower panels perturbative results are used to
1060: construct the PDF at smoothing angles $\theta_s = 15'$ and $60'$.
1061: Various curves correspond to various quintessence models. In each panel
1062: solid line represents the $\Lambda$CDM model, short dashed line represent
1063: $w_X = -1+z$ model, and long dashed line represents $w_X = -1+2z/3$ model.
1064: }
1065:
1066: \plotone{f6.eps}
1067: \figcaption[f6.eps]
1068: {Indicator of the deviations of dark energy models from the fiducial
1069: $\Lambda$CDM model, $1+\epsilon$, as function of constant dark energy
1070: equation of state $w_X$, for smoothing angle $\theta_0=1'$ and $15'$.
1071: The arrows indicate the $1+\epsilon$ values for dark energy
1072: models with time-varying equation of state, $w_q(z)=-1+z$ (long arrows),
1073: and $w_q(z)=-1+2z/3$ (short arrows).}
1074:
1075: \plotone{f7.eps}
1076: \figcaption[f7.eps]
1077: {The skewness $S_3$, for the same models as in Fig.6.
1078: The line and arrow types are the same. In the left panel we use Hyper-Extended
1079: Perturbation theory to compute the convergence skewness, whereas
1080: in the right panel (where larger smoothing angular scales are
1081: considered) perturbative results are adopted.}
1082:
1083: \end{document}
1084: