1: \documentclass{aa}
2: \usepackage{txfonts}
3:
4: \usepackage{psfig,graphics,astrobib,amssymb}
5:
6: \def\eg{e.g.}
7: \def\ie{i.e.}
8:
9: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
10: \newcommand{\e}{\end{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\bear}{\begin{eqnarray}}
12: \newcommand{\ear}{\end{eqnarray}}
13: \newcommand{\nline}{\nonumber \\}
14: \newcommand{\f}{\frac}
15: \newcommand{\de}{{\rm d}}
16: \newcommand{\del}{\partial}
17: \newcommand{\dphi}{\partial_i \phi \partial^i \phi}
18:
19:
20:
21: \begin{document}
22:
23: \title
24: {Cosmological parameters from supernova observations: A critical comparison
25: of three data sets}
26: \author
27: {T. Roy Choudhury \inst{1}
28: \and
29: T. Padmanabhan \inst{2}}
30: \offprints{T. Roy Choudhury, \email{chou@sissa.it}}
31: \institute{SISSA/ISAS, via Beirut 2-4, 34014 Trieste, Italy\\
32: \email{chou@sissa.it}
33: \and
34: IUCAA, Ganeshkhind, Pune, India 411 007\\
35: \email{nabhan@iucaa.ernet.in}
36: }
37:
38:
39: \date{\today}
40:
41: \abstract{
42: We extend our previous analysis of cosmological supernova Type Ia data
43: \cite{pc03} to include three recent compilation of data sets.
44: Our analysis ignores the possible correlations and systematic effects
45: present in the data and concentrates mostly on some key theoretical
46: issues.
47: Among the three data sets, the first set
48: consists of 194 points obtained from various
49: observations while the second
50: discards some of the points from the
51: first one because of large uncertainties
52: and
53: thus consists of 142 points. The third data set is obtained
54: from the second by adding the latest 14 points observed through HST.
55: A careful comparison of these different data sets help us to draw
56: the following conclusions: (i)
57: All the three data sets strongly rule out
58: non-accelerating models.
59: Interestingly, the first and the second data sets favour a closed
60: universe; if $\Omega_{\rm tot}\equiv \Omega_m+\Omega_{\Lambda}$, then the
61: probability of obtaining models with $\Omega_{\rm tot} > 1$ is
62: $\gtrsim 0.97$.
63: Hence these data sets are in
64: mild disagreement with the ``concordance'' flat model. However, this
65: disagreement is reduced (the probability of obtaining models with
66: $\Omega_{\rm tot} > 1$ being $\approx 0.9$) for the third data set, which
67: includes the most recent points observed by HST around $1 < z < 1.6$.
68: (ii) When the first data set is divided into two separate
69: subsets consisting of low ($z < 0.34$) and high ($z > 0.34$)
70: redshift supernova, it
71: turns out that these two subsets, individually, admit
72: non-accelerating models with
73: zero dark energy because of different magnitude zero-point values
74: for the different subsets.
75: This can also be seen when the data is analysed while allowing
76: for possibly different
77: magnitude zero-points for the two redshift subsets.
78: However, the non-accelerating models
79: seem to be ruled out using {\it only} the low redshift data for
80: the other two data sets, which have
81: less uncertainties.
82: (iii) We have also
83: found that it is quite difficult to measure the
84: evolution of the dark energy equation of state $w_X(z)$ though
85: its present value can be constrained quite well.
86: The best-fit value seems to {\it mildly} favour a dark energy component
87: with current equation of state $w_X < -1$, thus opening
88: the possibility of existence of more exotic forms of matter. However,
89: the data is still consistent with the
90: the standard cosmological constant at 99 per cent confidence level
91: for $\Omega_m \gtrsim 0.2$.
92: %
93: \keywords{supernovae: general -- cosmology: miscellaneous --
94: cosmological parameters}
95: }
96:
97: \titlerunning{Cosmological parameters from supernova observations}
98: \authorrunning{Choudhury \& Padmanabhan}
99:
100: \maketitle
101:
102: \section{Introduction}
103:
104: Current cosmological observations, particularly those
105: of supernova Type Ia, show a strong signature of
106: the existence of a
107: dark energy component with negative pressure
108: \cite{rfc++98,pag++99,riess00}. The most obvious
109: candidate for this dark energy is the cosmological constant (with
110: the equation of state $w_X = p/\rho = -1$), which, however,
111: raises several theoretical difficulties [for reviews,
112: see \citeN{ss00}, \citeN{pr03}, \citeN{padmanabhan03}].
113: This has led to
114: models for dark energy component
115: which evolves with time \cite{rp88,wetterich88,fj98,fhsw95,bm99,bm00b,um00,bcn00,zws99,as00b,btv02}.
116:
117: Currently, there is a tremendous amount of activity
118: going on in trying to determine the equation of state $w_X(z)$ and
119: other cosmological parameters from
120: observations of high redshift Type Ia supernova
121: \cite{gjc++98,astier00,srss00,wg01,wa01,gaagp01,wl01,leibundgut01,trentham01,pnr01,cc02,klsw02,mhh02,mbms02,wa02,ge02,rowan-robinson02,lj03,pc03,visser04,cmm04,alcaniz04,wm04,nbs03,kaa++03,zf03,dja04,gcd04,gc04,gd04,gong04,bertolami04,wt04,ccrl04,mcinnes04,sc04,bsss04,la04,np04,ass04,zfh04,ap04}.
122: While there has been a considerable activity in this field,
123: one should keep in mind that there are several theoretical
124: degeneracies in the Friedmann model, which can
125: limit the determination of $w_X(z)$. To understand
126: this, note that the only
127: non-trivial metric function in a Friedmann universe is the
128: Hubble parameter $H(z)$ (besides the curvature of the spatial
129: part of the metric), which is related
130: to the \emph{total}
131: energy density in the universe.
132: \emph{Hence, it is not possible to determine the energy
133: densities of individual components of energy densities in the
134: universe from any geometrical observation.} For example,
135: if we assume a flat universe,
136: and further assume that
137: the only energy densities present are those corresponding to
138: the non-relativistic dust-like
139: matter and dark energy, then we need to know $\Omega_m$ of
140: the dust-like matter and
141: $H(z)$ to a very high accuracy in order
142: to get a handle on $\Omega_X$ or $w_X$ of the dark energy. This can be
143: a fairly strong degeneracy for determining $w_X(z)$ from observations.
144:
145: Recently, we discussed
146: certain questions related to the
147: determination of the nature of
148: dark energy component from observations of high redshift supernova
149: in \citeN{pc03} [hereafter Paper~I].
150: In the above work, we
151: reanalyzed the supernova data using very simple
152: statistical tools in order to focus attention on
153: some key issues. The analysis of the data were
154: intentionally kept simple as
155: we subscribe to the point of
156: view that any result which cannot be revealed by a simple
157: analysis of data, but arises
158: through a more complex statistical procedure, is inherently
159: suspect and a conclusion as
160: important as the existence of dark energy with
161: negative pressure should pass such a test. The key results
162: of our previous analysis were:
163:
164: $\bullet$ Even if the precise
165: value of $\Omega_X$ or the equation of state $w_X(z)$ is known from
166: observations, it is {\em not} possible to determine the nature
167: (or, say, the Lagrangian) of
168: the unknown dark energy source using only kinematical
169: and geometrical measurements.
170: For example,
171: if one assumes that the dark energy arises from a scalar field, then
172: it is possible to come up with
173: scalar field Lagrangians of different forms leading to same $w_X(z)$.
174: As an explicit example, we considered
175: two Lagrangians, one corresponding to quintessence
176: \cite{pr88,rp88,zws99} and
177: the other corresponding to the tachyonic scalar fields
178: \cite{padmanabhan02,pc02,fks02,sw02,gibbons02,ft02,mukohyama02,feinstein02,bjp03}.
179: These two fields are quite different in terms of their intrinsic
180: properties; however,
181: it is possible to make both the Lagrangians
182: produce a given $w_X(a)$ by choosing the potential functions in
183: the corresponding Lagrangians [for explicit examples and forms
184: of potential functions,
185: see \citeN{padmanabhan02}; Paper~I].
186:
187:
188: $\bullet$ Although
189: the full data set of supernova observations
190: strongly rule out models without dark energy,
191: the high and low redshift
192: data sets, individually, admit non-accelerating models with
193: zero dark energy. It is not surprising that the high redshift data
194: is consistent with non-accelerating models as the universe is in its
195: decelerating phase at those redshifts.
196: On the other hand, though the acceleration
197: of the universe is a low redshift phenomenon, the non-accelerating
198: models could not be ruled out using low redshift data {\it alone} because of
199: large errors.
200: Given the small data set, any possible evolution
201: in the absolute magnitude of the supernovae, if detected,
202: might have allowed the data to be consistent with the non-accelerating models.
203:
204: $\bullet$ We introduced two parameters, which
205: can be obtained entirely from theory,
206: to study the sensitivity of the luminosity distance on $w_X$.
207: Using these two parameters, we argued that although
208: one can determine the present value of $w_X$ accurately from
209: the data, one cannot constrain the evolution of $w_X$. The situation
210: is worse if we add the uncertainties in determining $\Omega_m$.
211:
212: All the above conclusions were obtained by analysing only 55
213: supernova data points from a very simple point of view.
214: In recent times, data points from various sets of observations have been
215: compiled taking into account the calibration errors and other uncertainties.
216: This enables us to repeat our analysis for much larger data sets, and
217: see how robust are the conclusions of Paper~I with respect to
218: the choice of the data points. In this paper, we will compare
219: three such data sets, which differ in their selection criteria
220: for data points and redshift range covered.
221:
222: The structure of the paper is as follows: In the next section, we
223: describe the three data sets used in this paper,
224: and then analyse them for models
225: with non-relativistic dust-like matter and
226: cosmological constant. Some key points
227: regarding the importance of low and high redshift data are discussed.
228: In Section 3, we briefly discuss the constraints on the
229: dark energy equation of state and its evolution. The results are
230: summarized in Section 4. Finally, the effect of our
231: extinction-based selection criterion on the determination of cosmological
232: parameters is discussed in the Appendix.
233:
234:
235: \section{Recent supernova data and their analysis}
236: \label{sndata}
237:
238: We begin with a brief outline of the method of our analysis
239: of the supernova data.
240: The observations essentially
241: measure the apparent magnitude $m$ of a supernova at peak brightness
242: which, after correcting for galactic extinction and possible
243: K-correction, is related to the
244: luminosity distance $d_L$ of the supernova through
245: \be
246: m(z) = {\cal M} + 5 \log_{10} Q(z),
247: \label{mq}
248: \e
249: where
250: \be
251: Q(z) \equiv \f{H_0}{c} d_L(z)
252: \e
253: and
254: \be
255: {\cal M} = M + 5 \log_{10} \left(\f{c/H_0}{1~\mbox{Mpc}}\right) + 25
256: = M - 5 \log_{10} h + 42.38.
257: \e
258: The parameter $M$ is the absolute magnitude of the supernovae after correcting
259: for supernova light curve width - luminosity
260: correlation \cite{rpk96,pgg++97,pls++99}.
261: After applying the above correction, $M$, and hence ${\cal M}$, is
262: believed to be constant
263: for all supernovae of Type Ia.
264:
265: For our analysis, we
266: consider three sets of data available in the literature at present.
267: For completeness, we describe the data sets in detail:
268:
269: (i) TONRY: In this data set we start with the 230 data points listed in
270: \citeN{tsb++03} alongwith the 23 points
271: from \citeN{btb++04}.
272: These data points are compiled and calibrated from a wide range of different
273: observations.
274: For obtaining the best-fit cosmological model from the data, one
275: should keep in mind that the very low-redshift points might be affected
276: by peculiar motions, thus making the measurement of
277: the cosmological redshift uncertain; hence we consider only those
278: points which have $z > 0.01$. Further, since one is not sure about
279: the host galaxy extinction $A_V$, we do {\it not} consider
280: points which have $A_V > 0.5$.
281: The effect of this selection criterion based on the extinction, is discussed
282: in the appendix.
283: Thus
284: for our final
285: analysis, we are left with only 194 points
286: [identical to what is used in \citeN{btb++04}], which
287: is more than thrice compared to what was used in Paper~I.
288:
289: The supernova data points in \citeN{tsb++03} and \citeN{btb++04}
290: are listed in terms of the luminosity distance
291: \be
292: \mu_1(z) \equiv m(z) - {\cal M}_{\rm obs}(z) = 5 \log_{10} Q_{\rm obs}(z),
293: \label{mu1}
294: \e
295: alongwith
296: the corresponding errors $\sigma_{\mu_1}(z)$. Note
297: that the quantity $\mu_1(z)$ is obtained from observations
298: by assuming some value of ${\cal M}$. This assumed value
299: of ${\cal M}$
300: [denoted by ${\cal M}_{\rm obs}$ in equation (\ref{mu1})]
301: does {\it not} necessarily represent the ``true'' ${\cal M}$, and hence
302: one has to keep it as a free parameter while fitting the data.
303:
304:
305: Any model of cosmology will predict the
306: theoretical value $Q_{\rm th}(z; c_{\alpha})$ with some undetermined parameters
307: $c_{\alpha}$
308: (which may be, for example, $\Omega_m, \Omega_{\Lambda}$). The best-fit model
309: is obtained by minimizing the quantity
310: \be
311: \chi_1^2 = \sum_{i=1}^M \left[
312: \f{\mu_1(z_i)
313: - {\cal M}_1
314: - 5 \log_{10}Q_{\rm th}(z_i; c_{\alpha})}{\sigma_{\mu_1}(z_i)}
315: \right]^2
316: \label{chisq}
317: \e
318: where
319: \be
320: {\cal M}_1 = {\cal M} - {\cal M}_{\rm obs}
321: \e
322: is a free parameter representing the difference between the
323: actual ${\cal M}$ and its assumed value ${\cal M}_{\rm obs}$
324: in the data. To take into account the uncertainties arising because of
325: peculiar motions at low redshifts, we add an
326: uncertainty of $\Delta v = 500$ km s$^{-1}$ to the distance error
327: \cite{tsb++03}, i.e.,
328: \be
329: \sigma_{\mu_1}^2(z) \to
330: \sigma_{\mu_1}^2(z) + \left(\f{5}{\ln 10} 10^{-0.2 \mu_1}
331: \f{\Delta v}{c}\right)^2
332: \e
333: Note that this correction is most effective at low redshifts (i.e.,
334: for small values of $\mu_1$). The minimization of
335: (\ref{chisq}) is done with respect to the parameter
336: ${\cal M}_1$ and the cosmological parameters
337: $c_{\alpha}$.
338:
339: (ii) RIESS(w/o HST): Recently, \citeN{rst++04}
340: have compiled a set of supernova data
341: points from various sources
342: with reduced calibration errors arising from systematics. In
343: particular, they have discarded various points
344: from the TONRY data set where the classification of the supernova
345: was not certain or the
346: photometry was incomplete -- it is claimed that
347: this has increased
348: the reliability of the sample. The most reliable set of data,
349: named as `gold', contain
350: 142 points from previously published data, plus 14 points
351: discovered recently using HST \cite{rst++04}.
352: Our second data set consists of 142 points from the above `gold' sample of
353: \cite{rst++04}, which does {\it not} include
354: the latest HST data [hence the name RIESS(w/o HST)].
355: Essentially, this
356: data set is similar to the TONRY data set in terms of the covered
357: redshift range, but is supposed to be more ``reliable'' in terms
358: of calibration and other uncertainties.
359:
360: We would like to mention here that the data points in \cite{rst++04} are
361: given in terms of the distance modulus
362: \be
363: \mu_2(z) \equiv m(z) - M_{\rm obs}(z),
364: \e
365: which differs from the previously defined quantity
366: $\mu_1(z)$ in equation (\ref{mu1})
367: by a constant factor. Consequently, the $\chi^2$ is
368: calculated from
369: \be
370: \chi_2^2 = \sum_{i=1}^M \left[
371: \f{\mu_2(z_i)
372: - {\cal M}_2
373: - 5 \log_{10}Q_{\rm th}(z_i; c_{\alpha})}{\sigma_{\mu_2}(z_i)}
374: \right]^2
375: \label{chisq2}
376: \e
377: where
378: \be
379: {\cal M}_2 = {\cal M} - M_{\rm obs}
380: \e
381: Note that the errors $\sigma_{\mu_2}(z_i)$ quoted in \citeN{rst++04}
382: already take into account the effects of peculiar motions.
383:
384: (iii) RIESS: Our third data set consists of all the 156 points in the
385: `gold' sample of \cite{rst++04}, which includes the latest points
386: observed by
387: HST. The main difference of this set from the previous two is that
388: this covers the previously
389: unpopulated redshift range $1 < z < 1.6$.
390:
391:
392: \begin{figure}
393: \begin{center}
394: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{dataflat.ps}}}
395: \caption{Comparison between various flat models and
396: the observational data.
397: The observational data points, shown with error-bars, are obtained
398: from the `gold' sample of Riess et al. (2004). The most recent
399: points, obtained from HST, are shown in red.
400: }
401: \label{dataflat}
402: \end{center}
403: \end{figure}
404:
405:
406: Before starting our analysis, we would like to caution the reader about
407: two very important points. First, the errors $\sigma_m(z)$ used above do
408: not contain uncertainties because of systematics. Any rigorous
409: statistical analysis of the supernova data for determining the
410: cosmological parameters must take into account the systematic errors.
411: The errors might arise because of calibration uncertainties,
412: K-correction, Malmquist bias,
413: gravitational lensing or the evolutionary effects
414: \cite{gma++02,gman02,l+h03,ps03,cmm04,hkkb04,linder04,wang04,klmm04}.
415: Including
416: such errors into the analysis requires much involved analysis. Once
417: these systematic errors are included, the errors on the cosmological
418: parameter estimations might be higher than what will be reported
419: in this paper. In this respect,
420: we would also like to add that the data sets RIESS and
421: RIESS(w/o HST) are supposed
422: to reduce some of the systematic and calibration uncertainties in data.
423:
424:
425: Second, our simple frequentist analysis
426: holds good only when the errors $\sigma_m(z)$ are gaussian and
427: uncorrelated. While considerable amount of analysis
428: exist in the literature working with these approximations,
429: there are various systematics because of which such approximations
430: do not hold true.
431: For example, the uncertainties in calibrating the data would surely
432: introduce correlations in the errors \cite{klmm04}. Similarly, uncertainties
433: in the host galaxy extinction would introduce non-gaussian asymmetric
434: errors. Neglecting such effects might result in lower errors on the
435: estimated values of the cosmological parameters.
436: Note that the main thrust of our analysis is to study some of the theoretical
437: degeneracies inherent in any geometrical observations, in particular the
438: supernova data, which are {\it not} adequately stressed elsewhere.
439: Of course, this study can be complemented by other analyses
440: which actually deal with quality and reliability of data,
441: validity of error estimates, hidden correlations,
442: nature of statistical analysis etc.
443: All of these are important, but in order to make some key points
444: we have attempted to restrict the domain of our exploration.
445: Keeping this in mind, we believe that the simple
446: (non-rigorous) $\chi^2$
447: analysis should be adequate.
448:
449: \begin{figure*}
450: \begin{center}
451: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{adot_omega_m.ps}}}
452: \caption{The observed supernova data points in the $\dot{a} - a$ plane for
453: flat models. The error bars for the data points
454: are correlated (see text for detailed description). The solid
455: curves, from bottom to top,
456: are for flat cosmological models with
457: $\Omega_m = 0.00, 0.16, 0.32, 0.48, 0.64, 0.80, 1.00$ respectively.
458: The left, middle and right panels show data points for the data sets
459: RIESS, RIESS(w/o HST) and TONRY respectively. The vertical dashed line
460: shows the redshift $z = 0.34$.}
461: \label{adotomegam}
462: \end{center}
463: \end{figure*}
464:
465:
466: \begin{figure*}
467: \begin{center}
468: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.8\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fit_perlmutter_flat.ps}}}
469: \caption{Confidence region
470: ellipses in the $\Omega_m - {\cal M}_{1,2}$ plane for flat models with
471: non-relativistic matter and a cosmological constant. The
472: ellipses corresponding to the
473: 68, 90 and 99 per cent confidence regions are shown.
474: The top, middle and bottom rows show data points for the data sets
475: RIESS, RIESS(w/o HST) and TONRY respectively.
476: In the left panels, all the data points in the data set are used.
477: In the middle panel, data
478: points with $z < 0.34$ are used, while in the right panel, we have used
479: data points with $z > 0.34$. We have indicated the best-fit values of
480: $\Omega_m$ and ${\cal M}_{1,2}$ (with 1$\sigma$ errors).
481: }
482: \label{fitflat}
483: \end{center}
484: \end{figure*}
485: Let us start our analysis with the flat models where
486: $\Omega_m + \Omega_{\Lambda} = 1$,
487: which are currently favoured strongly
488: by CMBR data (for recent WMAP results, see \citeNP{svp++03}).
489: Our simple analysis for the most recent RIESS data set, with two free
490: parameters ($\Omega_m, {\cal M}_2$), gives
491: a best-fit value of $\Omega_m$ (after marginalizing
492: over ${\cal M}_2$) to be $0.31 \pm 0.04$
493: (all the errors quoted in this paper are 1$\sigma$).
494: This matches with the value $\Omega_m = 0.29^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$
495: obtained by \citeN{rst++04}.
496: In comparison, the best-fit $\Omega_m$ for flat models
497: was found to be $0.31 \pm 0.08$ in Paper~I -- thus there is
498: a clear improvement in the errors because of increase in the
499: number of data points although the best-fit value does not change.
500: The comparison between three flat models and
501: the observational data from the RIESS data set
502: is shown in in Figure \ref{dataflat}.
503:
504: To see the accelerating phase of the universe more clearly,
505: let us display
506: the data as the phase portrait of the universe in the $\dot{a} - a$ plane.
507: Though the procedure for
508: doing this is described in Paper~I
509: (see also \citeNP{dd03}), we
510: would like to discuss some aspects of the procedure in
511: detail to emphasize a different approach we have used
512: here in estimating the errors.
513:
514: Each of the three sets of observational data used in this paper can be fitted
515: by the function of simple form
516: \be
517: m_{\rm fit}(z)
518: = a_1 + 5 \log_{10} \left[\f{z (1 + a_2 z)}{1 + a_3 z}\right],
519: \label{fitfunc}
520: \e
521: with $a_1, a_2, a_3$ being obtained by minimizing the $\chi^2$.
522: We can then represent the luminosity distance obtained
523: from the data by the function
524: \be
525: Q_{\rm fit}(z) = 10^{0.2 [m_{\rm fit}(z) - {\cal M}]}
526: \e
527: Note that one needs to fix the value of ${\cal M}$ to
528: obtain the function $Q_{\rm fit}(z)$. It is obvious, from the
529: form of the fitting function (\ref{fitfunc}) at low redshifts,
530: that the parameter $a_1$ actually measures the quantity ${\cal M}$.
531: It is then straightforward to obtain
532: \be
533: Q_{\rm fit}(z) = \f{z (1 + a_2 z)}{1 + a_3 z}
534: \e
535: For flat models, it the Hubble parameter
536: is related to $Q(z)$ by a simple relation -- in this work
537: we are interested in a related quantity
538: \be
539: H_0^{-1} \dot{a}(z) = \left[(1+z) \f{\de}{\de z} \left\{\f{Q(z)}{1+z}\right\}
540: \right]^{-1}
541: \e
542: which will enable us to plot the data points in the
543: $\dot{a} - a$ plane. Using the form of the fitting function, we can
544: obtain the ``fitted'' $\dot{a}$ as:
545: \be
546: H_0^{-1} \dot{a}_{\rm fit}(z) = \f{(1 + a_3 z)^2 ~ (1 + z)}
547: {1 + 2 a_2 z + (a_2 - a_3 + a_2 a_3) z^2}
548: \label{adotfit}
549: \e
550:
551: To plot the individual supernova data points in the $\dot{a} - a$ plane, we
552: first write $H_0^{-1} \dot{a}_{\rm fit}$ as a function of
553: $m_{\rm fit}$ [which is trivially done by eliminating
554: $z$ from equations (\ref{fitfunc}) and (\ref{adotfit})]. We then
555: assume that the same relation can be applied to obtain the
556: $\dot{a}$ corresponding to a particular measurement of $m$.
557: Note that the relation between $\dot{a}$ and $m$ will involve
558: the fitting parameters $a_1, a_2, a_3$, and hence is dependent
559: on the fitting function.
560:
561: The determination of the corresponding
562: error-bars is a non-trivial exercise. In this paper, we obtain
563: the error-bars using a Monte-Carlo realization technique, along the following lines:
564: Given the observed values of $m(z)$ and $\sigma_m(z)$,
565: we generate random realizations of the data
566: set. Basically we randomly vary the magnitude of each supernova from a
567: gaussian distribution with dispersion $\sigma_m$ -- each such set corresponds
568: to one realization of the data set.
569: Next, we fit each of the realization of the
570: data sets with the fitting function
571: (\ref{fitfunc}), and obtain
572: the set of three parameters $a_1,a_2,a_3$.
573: Given the set of parameters $a_1,a_2,a_3$,
574: we can obtain $\dot{a}$ for each $a$ (or equivalently, $z$). In
575: this way we end up with different values of $\dot{a}$ for each supernova, each
576: corresponding to one realization.
577: Finally, we plot the distribution of $\dot{a}$'s for each supernova, fit
578: it with a gaussian, and obtain the width of the gaussian. This width is a
579: possible candidate for the error in $\dot{a}$ for each
580: supernova.
581:
582:
583: The data points, with error-bars, in the $\dot{a} - a$ plane are shown in
584: Figure \ref{adotomegam} for all the three data sets.
585: The solid curves plotted in Figure \ref{adotomegam} correspond
586: to theoretical flat models with different $\Omega_m$.
587: In order to do any serious statistics
588: with Figure \ref{adotomegam}, one should
589: keep in mind that the errors for the data points in the figure are
590: correlated.
591:
592:
593:
594: It is obvious that the high redshift data {\it alone} cannot
595: be used to establish the existence of a cosmological constant as
596: the points having, say $a < 0.75$, more or less, resemble
597: a decelerating universe.
598: In particular,
599: one can use the freedom in the value of ${\cal M}$ to shift the
600: data points vertically, and make them consistent with the non-accelerating
601: SCDM
602: model ($\Omega_m = 1$, topmost curve).
603: On the other hand, the low redshift
604: data points show a clear, visual, sign of an accelerating universe
605: at low redshifts.
606: But to convert this visual impression into quantitative statistics
607: is not easy since --- as we said before ---
608: the errors at neighbouring points are correlated. We shall see later on,
609: with correct statistical analysis,
610: that it is, in general,
611: quite difficult to rule out non-accelerating models using
612: low redshift data alone, particularly when the uncertainties in the data
613: are large.
614:
615:
616:
617:
618: \begin{figure*}
619: \begin{center}
620: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.8\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fit_perlmutter_main.ps}}}
621: \caption{Confidence region
622: ellipses in the $\Omega_m - \Omega_{\Lambda}$ plane for models with
623: non-relativistic matter and a cosmological constant.
624: The ellipses corresponding to the
625: 68, 90 and 99 per cent confidence regions are shown.
626: The confidence regions are obtained after marginalizing
627: over ${\cal M}_{1,2}$. The dashed line corresponds to the flat
628: model $(\Omega_{~m} + \Omega_{\Lambda} = 1)$.
629: The unbroken
630: slanted line corresponds to the contour of
631: constant luminosity distance, $Q(z) =$ constant.
632: The top, middle and bottom rows show data points for the data sets
633: RIESS, RIESS(w/o HST) and TONRY respectively.
634: In the left panels, all the data points in the data set are used.
635: In the middle panel, data
636: points with $z < 0.34$ are used, while in the right panel, we have used
637: data points with $z > 0.34$. The values of the best-fit parameters, with
638: 1$\sigma$ errors are indicated in the respective panels.
639: }
640: \label{fitallz}
641: \end{center}
642: \end{figure*}
643:
644:
645:
646:
647: Let us now make the above conclusions more quantitative by
648: studying the confidence
649: ellipses in the $\Omega_m - {\cal M}_{1,2}$
650: plane, shown in Figure \ref{fitflat},
651: which should be compared with Figure 4 of Paper~I.
652: For all the three rows, the left panels show the confidence regions using
653: the full data sets.
654: The confidence contours in the middle and right panels are obtained by
655: repeating the best-fit analysis for the low redshift data set
656: ($z < 0.34$) and high redshift data set ($z > 0.34$), respectively.
657: \footnote{One might notice that, in Paper~I,
658: we divided the high and low-redshift
659: data points at $z = 0.25$, whereas in this paper we divide them
660: at $z = 0.34$. The results of Paper~I remain unchanged irrespective
661: of whether the points are divided at $z = 0.25$ or at $z = 0.34$; this
662: is because there were very few points between these redshifts.}
663: The three rows are for the three data sets respectively, as indicated in
664: the figure itself.
665:
666:
667: When the supernova data is divided into low and high redshift
668: subsets, the points to be noted are:
669: (i) The best-fit value of ${\cal M}_{1,2}$ are substantially
670: different for the two subsets (as indicated in the middle and right-hand
671: panels of Figure \ref{fitflat}), irrespective of the
672: data set used. The difference is most for the TONRY data set,
673: comparatively less for the RIESS(w/o HST) data set and
674: least for the RIESS data set.
675: (ii) Because of the difference in the value of
676: ${\cal M}_1$ for the TONRY data set, both the low and high
677: redshift data subsets, when treated separately, are quite consistent with
678: the SCDM model ($\Omega_m=1$). This
679: indirectly stresses the importance of any evolutionary effects.
680: If, for example, supernova at $z\gtrsim 0.34$ and supernova at
681: $z\lesssim 0.34$ have different absolute luminosities because of
682: some unknown effect, or if there is any
683: systematics involved in estimating the
684: magnitudes of the supernova, then the entire TONRY
685: data set can be made consistent
686: with the SCDM ($\Omega_m =1,\Omega_\Lambda =0$) model.
687: Comparing the best-fit values of ${\cal M}_1$ in
688: the middle and right-hand panels in the lowest row
689: of Figure \ref{fitflat}, one
690: can see that a difference of about $0.5$ magnitude in the
691: absolute luminosities of the low and high-redshift supernova
692: is sufficient to make the entire TONRY
693: data set consistent with the SCDM
694: model. This agrees with the point made in Paper~I.
695: (iii) However, the situation is markedly
696: different for the other two data sets [RIESS(w/o HST) and RIESS],
697: which are supposed to be more reliable than the TONRY data set.
698: It turns out that because of less systematic errors,
699: it is possible to rule out the SCDM model using
700: the low redshift data {\it alone} as long as
701: the absolute luminosities of supernovae do not evolve
702: within the redshift range $z < 0.34$. This is very important as it
703: establishes the presence of {\it the accelerating phase of the universe
704: at low redshifts irrespective of the evolutionary effects}. More
705: reliable data sets at low redshifts will help in making this
706: conclusion more robust.
707:
708:
709:
710:
711:
712:
713: Let us now consider the
714: non-flat cosmologies where we have
715: three free parameters, namely, $\Omega_m$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ and
716: ${\cal M}_{1,2}$.
717: The confidence region ellipses in the $\Omega_m$--$\Omega_{\Lambda}$
718: plane (after marginalizing over
719: ${\cal M}_{1,2}$) are shown in
720: Figure \ref{fitallz}
721: for the three data sets.
722:
723:
724: The left panels, for all the three rows, give the confidence contours
725: for the full data sets.
726: One can compare the equivalent panel (a) of Figure 5 in Paper~I
727: with the left panels of Figure \ref{fitallz} and see that
728: they are essentially similar. In the previous case the best-fit values
729: for the full data set
730: were given by $\Omega_m = 0.67 \pm 0.25, \Omega_{\Lambda} = 1.24 \pm 0.34$,
731: which agree, within allowed errors, with the best-fit values
732: (indicated in the figure itself) for all the three data sets.
733: The slanted shape of the probability
734: ellipses in the left panels show that a particular linear combination of
735: $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ is selected out by these observations
736: (which
737: turns out to be $0.81 \Omega_m - 0.58 \Omega_{\Lambda}$ for the TONRY and
738: RIESS(w/o HST) data sets, while it is $0.85 \Omega_m - 0.53 \Omega_{\Lambda}$
739: for the RIESS data set).
740: This feature, of course, has nothing to do with supernova
741: data and arises purely
742: because the luminosity distance $Q$ depends strongly on a
743: particular linear combination of $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$
744: \cite{gp95}.
745: This point is illustrated by plotting the contour of
746: constant luminosity distance, $Q(z) =$ constant in the left panels.
747: The coincidence
748: of this line (which roughly corresponds to $Q$ at a redshift
749: in the middle of the data) with the probability ellipses
750: indicates that it is the dependence of the luminosity
751: distance on cosmological parameters
752: which essentially determines the nature of this result.
753: This aspect was discussed in detail in Paper~I.
754:
755:
756: One disturbing aspect of all the three data sets (also
757: noticed in the data sets right from the early days) is
758: that the best-fit model favours a closed universe with
759: $\Omega_{\rm tot} \equiv
760: \Omega_m + \Omega_{\Lambda} > 1$.
761: It is repeatedly argued
762: that, due to the highly correlated nature of the probability contours
763: (indicated by the very elongated ellipses in the left panels
764: of Figure \ref{fitallz}), the best-fit value
765: does not mean much. While this is true, one can certainly ask what is the
766: probability distribution for $\Omega_{\rm tot}$ if we marginalize over
767: everything else.
768: Interestingly we get $\Omega_{\rm tot} = 1.91 \pm 0.41$
769: for the TONRY data set,
770: $\Omega_{\rm tot} = 1.98 \pm 0.36$ for the RIESS(w/o HST) data set and
771: $\Omega_{\rm tot} = 1.44 \pm 0.28$ for the RIESS data set.
772: Alternatively, one can also compute the probability
773: ${\cal P}(\Omega_{\rm tot} > 1)$ of obtaining $\Omega_{\rm tot} > 1$, which is
774: found to be
775: ${\cal P}(\Omega_{\rm tot} > 1) = 0.97$ for the TONRY data set,
776: ${\cal P}(\Omega_{\rm tot} > 1) = 0.99$ for the RIESS(w/o HST) data set and
777: ${\cal P}(\Omega_{\rm tot} > 1) = 0.88$ for the RIESS data set.
778: Although there is a general consensus that the
779: ``concordance'' cosmological model
780: has $\Omega_{\rm tot} = 1$, one should keep in mind that as
781: far as supernova data {\it alone} is
782: concerned, it is highly probable that $\Omega_{\rm tot} > 1$
783: --- in particular,
784: the probability
785: is quite high ($\gtrsim 0.97$)
786: when the recent HST data points are {\it not} included in the analysis.
787: The presence
788: of 14 new HST points
789: at redshifts around 1 to 1.6 makes sure that the probability
790: of obtaining $\Omega_{\rm tot} > 1$ is somewhat lower ($< 0.9$).
791:
792:
793: \begin{figure*}
794: \begin{center}
795: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.3\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fit_perlmutter_2mu.ps}}}
796: \caption{Confidence region
797: ellipses in the $\Omega_m - \Omega_{\Lambda}$ plane for models with
798: non-relativistic matter and a cosmological constant,
799: allowing for possibly different
800: ${\cal M}_{1,2}$ for the different redshift subsamples.
801: It is assumed that supernovae at $z < 0.34$ have ${\cal M}_{1,2}^{\rm low}$,
802: while those at $z > 0.34$ have ${\cal M}_{1,2}^{\rm high}$.
803: The ellipses corresponding to the
804: 68, 90 and 99 per cent confidence regions are shown.
805: The confidence regions are obtained after marginalizing
806: over ${\cal M}_{1,2}$. The dashed line corresponds to the flat
807: model $(\Omega_{~m} + \Omega_{\Lambda} = 1)$.
808: The dot-dashed line denotes the models having zero deceleration
809: at the present epoch
810: (i.e., $q_0 = 0$), with the region below this line representing
811: the non-accelerating models.
812: The left, middle and right panels show data points for the data sets
813: RIESS, RIESS(w/o HST) and TONRY respectively.
814: The values of the best-fit parameters, with
815: 1$\sigma$ errors are indicated in the respective panels.
816: }
817: \label{fit2mu}
818: \end{center}
819: \end{figure*}
820:
821:
822:
823: Finally, we comment on the interplay between high and low
824: redshift data for non-flat models. Just as in the case of the flat models,
825: we divide the full data set into low ($z < 0.34$) and high
826: ($z > 0.34$) redshift subsets, and repeat the best-fit analysis.
827: The resulting confidence contours are shown
828: in the middle and right panels of Figure \ref{fitallz}, which should
829: be compared with panels (a) and (e) of Figure 7 in Paper~I.
830: One can see that
831: it is not possible to rule out the SCDM model using
832: only high redshift data points when there are large
833: uncertainties in ${\cal M}_{1,2}$, which agrees with what we
834: concluded in Paper~I.
835: It is also clear that, like in Paper~I,
836: the low redshift data for the TONRY data set cannot be used to discriminate
837: between cosmological models effectively because of large errors on the data.
838: However, the situation is quite different for the RIESS(w/o HST) and RIESS
839: data sets. As we discussed before, the reduced uncertainties in these
840: data sets have made it possible to rule out the SCDM model using
841: low redshift data only. It is thus very important to have more data points
842: at low redshifts (with less distance uncertainties) so as to
843: conclude about the existence of accelerating phase of the universe,
844: irrespective of evolutionary effects in absolute luminosities of supernovae.
845:
846: We also note, as we did for flat models, that the
847: best-fit value of ${\cal M}_{1,2}$ are substantially
848: different for the two subsets (as indicated in the middle and right-hand
849: panels of Figure \ref{fitallz}) with
850: the difference being most for the TONRY data set
851: and least for the RIESS data set.
852: We can thus take our analysis
853: one step further by fitting supernovae from all redshifts
854: while allowing for possibly different
855: ${\cal M}_{1,2}$ for the different redshift samples. To be precise,
856: we assume that supernovae at lower redshifts
857: $z < 0.34$ have ${\cal M}_{1,2}^{\rm low}$,
858: while those at higher redshifts have ${\cal M}_{1,2}^{\rm high}$.
859: Given these, we can fit the data with four parameters
860: and then marginalize over ${\cal M}_{1,2}^{\rm low}$ and
861: ${\cal M}_{1,2}^{\rm high}$. The resulting confidence regions
862: in the $\Omega_m$--$\Omega_{\Lambda}$
863: plane are shown in
864: Figure \ref{fit2mu}
865: for the three data sets.
866:
867: \begin{figure*}
868: \begin{center}
869: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.8\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fit_perlmutter_w0w1.ps}}}
870: \caption{Confidence region
871: ellipses in the $w_{~0} - w_1$ plane for flat models with
872: a fixed value of $\Omega_m$, as indicated
873: in the frames.
874: The confidence regions are obtained after marginalizing over
875: ${\cal M}_{1,2}$. The
876: ellipses corresponding to the
877: 68, 90 and 99 per cent confidence regions are shown.
878: The square point denotes the equation of state
879: for a universe with a non-evolving dark energy component (the
880: cosmological constant). The unbroken
881: slanted line corresponds to the contour of
882: constant luminosity distance, $Q(z) =$ constant.
883: The top, middle and bottom rows show data points for the data sets
884: RIESS, RIESS(w/o HST) and TONRY respectively.
885: The best-fit values of the fitted parameters $w_0$ and $w_1$ are indicated
886: in the panels, alongwith the corresponding errors.
887: }
888: \label{fitw0w1}
889: \end{center}
890: \end{figure*}
891:
892: As is clear from the figure, one has quite different values for
893: ${\cal M}_1^{\rm low}$ and ${\cal M}_1^{\rm high}$ for the TONRY
894: data set, while the difference is lower for the other two
895: data sets. This probably indicates that the difference
896: in the values of ${\cal M}_1$ for different subsets for the
897: TONRY data set arises from systematic errors, which are claimed
898: to be reduced for the other two data sets. One requires
899: more work, possibly a rigorous study using Monte-Carlo simulations,
900: to understand this in detail.
901: One should also note that the
902: data is consistent with the
903: non-accelerating models
904: at 68 and 99 percent confidence levels
905: for the TONRY and RIESS data sets respectively, while they
906: are ruled out for the RIESS(w/o HST) data set.
907:
908:
909: Before ending this section, let us explain a subtle point in determining
910: $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ from geometrical observations.
911: As has been discussed in Paper I, the only
912: non-trivial metric function in a Friedmann universe is the
913: Hubble parameter $H(z)$ (besides the curvature of the spatial
914: part of the metric), hence, it is not possible to determine the energy
915: densities of individual components of energy densities in the
916: universe from any geometrical observation.
917: However, the analysis in this section might give the wrong impression
918: that we have actually been able to determine both
919: $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ just from geometrical observations.
920: The point to note that we have made a crucial {\it additional}
921: assumption that the
922: universe is dominated by non-relativistic matter and a cosmological
923: constant, with known equations of state. Once this assumption
924: about the equations of state is made, it allows us to determine
925: the energy densities of the individual components.
926: On the other hand, if, for example,
927: we generalize the composition of the universe from a simple cosmological
928: constant to a more general dark energy with unknown equation of state, it
929: will turn out that the constraints will become much weaker. We shall take
930: up this issue in the next section.
931:
932:
933:
934:
935: \section{Constraints on evolving dark energy}
936: \label{evoldarken}
937:
938: As we have discussed in Paper~I, the supernova data can be used for
939: constraining the equation of state of the dark energy.
940: In this section, we shall examine the possibility of
941: constraining $w_X(z)$ by comparing theoretical
942: models with supernova observations.
943:
944: As done in Paper~I, we parametrize the function $w_X(z)$ in
945: terms of two parameters $w_0$ and $w_1$:
946: \be
947: w_X(z) = w_0 - w_1 (a - 1) = w_0 + w_1 \f{z}{1+z},
948: \label{wxz}
949: \e
950: and constrain these parameters from observations. We shall
951: confine our analyses to flat models in this section
952: (keeping in mind that the supernova data favours a
953: universe with $\Omega_{\rm tot} > 1$ when $w_0 = -1, w_1=0$).
954:
955: If we assume $w_X$ does not evolve with time ($w_1 = 0$), then
956: a simple best-fit analysis for RIESS data set shows that for a flat model with
957: $\Omega_m = 0.31$ and ${\cal M}_2 = 43.34$ (the best-fit
958: parameters for flat models, obtained in the previous section),
959: the best-fit value of
960: $w_0$ is $-1.03 \pm 0.07$ (which is nothing but the
961: conventional cosmological constant). The data, as before in Paper~I,
962: clearly rules out
963: models with $w_0 > -1/3$ at a high
964: confidence level, thereby supporting the existence of
965: a dark energy component with negative pressure.
966:
967: One can extend the analysis to find the constraints in the
968: $w_0 - w_1$ plane.
969: As before, we limit our analysis to a flat universe. Ideally, one should
970: fit all the four parameters $\Omega_m, {\cal M}_{1,2}, w_0, w_1$, and
971: then marginalize over $\Omega_m$ and ${\cal M}_{1,2}$ to obtain the
972: constraints on $w_X$.
973: However, if we put a uniform prior on $\Omega_m$ in the whole range, then
974: it turns out that it is impossible to get any sensible constraints
975: on $w_0$ and $w_1$. Furthermore, we would like to present the results in
976: such a manner so that one can see how the uncertainty in $\Omega_m$
977: affects the constraints on $w_X$.
978: Keeping this in mind, we fix the value of $\Omega_m$
979: to 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 (which are typical range of values determined by
980: other observations, like the LSS surveys, and are independent
981: of the nature of the dark energy; \citeNP{pms++04,tsb++04,tbs++04}), and
982: marginalize only over ${\cal M}_{1,2}$.
983:
984:
985: The
986: confidence contours for the three data sets are shown in Figure \ref{fitw0w1},
987: which can be compared with Figure 8 of Paper~I.
988:
989:
990: The square point denotes the equation of state
991: for a universe with a non-evolving dark energy component (the
992: cosmological constant).
993: The main points revealed by this figure are:
994: (i) The confidence contours are quite
995: sensitive to the value of $\Omega_m$ used, thus
996: confirming the fact (which was mentioned in Paper~I) that it
997: is difficult to constrain $w_X$ with uncertainties
998: in $\Omega_m$. For example, in the TONRY data set,
999: we see that non-accelerating models
1000: with $w_0 < -1/3$ are ruled out with a high degree
1001: of confidence for low values of $\Omega_m$, while it is possible to
1002: accommodate them for $\Omega_m \gtrsim 0.4$.
1003: We have elaborated this point in Paper~I by studying the
1004: sensitivity of $Q(z)$ to $w_0$ and $w_1$ with varying $\Omega_m$.
1005: (ii) The shape of the confidence
1006: contours clearly indicates that the data is not as sensitive to
1007: $w_1$ as compared to $w_0$. We stressed in Paper~I that
1008: this has nothing to do with the supernova data as such. Essentially,
1009: the supernova observations measure
1010: $Q(z)$ and it turns out that $Q(z)$ is
1011: comparatively
1012: insensitive to $w_1$.
1013: (iii) The best-fit values for all the
1014: three data sets strongly favour models with $w_0 < -1$, which
1015: indicate the possibility of exotic forms of energy densities --
1016: possibly scalar fields
1017: with negative kinetic energies [such models are explored, for example, in
1018: \citeN{caldwell02}; \citeN{hm02}; \citeN{cht03}; \citeN{ckw03}; \citeN{mmot03}; \citeN{ssd03}; \citeN{johri04}; \citeN{stefancic04}; \citeN{st04}; \citeN{lh04}; \citeN{hl04}; \citeN{sck04}; \citeN{pz04}]. However,
1019: one should note that all the three data sets are still quite consistent
1020: with the standard cosmological constant
1021: ($w_0=-1,w_1=0$)
1022: at 99 per cent confidence level for relatively
1023: higher values of $\Omega_m$. One still requires data sets of
1024: better qualities
1025: to settle this issue.
1026: (iv) The inclusion of the new HST data points (RIESS data set) have resulted
1027: in drastic decrease in the best-fit
1028: value of $w_1$ (from 5.92 to 3.31 for $\Omega_m = 0.3$),
1029: implying less rapid variation
1030: of $w_X(z)$.
1031:
1032: \section{Discussion}
1033:
1034:
1035: We have reanalyzed the supernova data with the currently available data
1036: points and constrained various parameters related to
1037: general cosmological models and dark energy.
1038: We would like to mention that our analysis ignores the effects of correlation
1039: and other systematics present in the data.
1040: The main aim of the work has been to focus on some important theoretical issues which
1041: are not adequately stressed in the literature.
1042: We have used three compiled
1043: and available data sets, which are called TONRY (194 points),
1044: RIESS(w/o HST) (142 points) and RIESS (156 points). The RIESS(w/o HST) is
1045: obtained from the TONRY data set by discarding points with
1046: large uncertainties and by reducing calibration errors, while the
1047: RIESS data set is obtained by adding the recent points from HST to the
1048: RIESS(w/o HST) set. The analysis
1049: is an extension to what was performed in Paper~I with a small subset
1050: of data points.
1051: In particular, we have critically compared the estimated values of
1052: cosmological parameters from the three data sets.
1053: While the errors on the parameter estimation
1054: have come down significantly with all the data sets, we find that
1055: there some crucial differences between the data sets.
1056: We summarize the key results once more:
1057:
1058: $\bullet$ It has been well known that the supernova data
1059: rule out the flat and open matter-dominated models
1060: with a high degree of confidence
1061: \cite{rfc++98,pag++99,riess00}. However, for the TONRY and
1062: RIESS(w/o HST) data sets, we find that the data
1063: favours a model with $\Omega_{\rm tot} > 1$
1064: (with probability $\gtrsim 0.97$) and
1065: is in mild
1066: disagreement with the ``concordance'' flat models
1067: with cosmological constant.
1068: This disagreement seem to be less (the
1069: probability of obtaining models with $\Omega_{\rm tot} > 1$
1070: being $\approx 0.9$)
1071: for the RIESS data set,
1072: which includes the
1073: new HST points in the redshift range $1 < z < 1.6$,
1074:
1075: $\bullet$ The supernova data on the whole
1076: rules out non-accelerating models with very high confidence
1077: level.
1078: However, it is interesting
1079: to note that if we divide the TONRY data set
1080: into high and low redshift subsets,
1081: neither
1082: of the subsets are able to rule out the non-accelerating models.
1083: In particular, the low redshift data points are consistent with the
1084: non-accelerating models because of large errors on the data.
1085: This keeps open the possibility that the evolutionary effects
1086: in the absolute luminosities of supernovae might make
1087: the entire data set consistent with SCDM model.
1088: The situation is quite different for the RIESS(w/o HST) and RIESS data sets,
1089: where points with large errors are discarded.
1090: The low redshift data
1091: alone seem to rule out the SCDM model with high degree of confidence.
1092: This means that unless the absolute luminosities of supernovae
1093: evolve rapidly with redshift,
1094: it might be difficult for the data set to be consistent
1095: with the SCDM model. In other words, the RIESS(w/o HST) and RIESS data sets
1096: establish the presence of the accelerating phase of the universe
1097: regardless of the evolutionary effects.
1098:
1099: \begin{figure*}
1100: \begin{center}
1101: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.3\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fit_perlmutter_av.ps}}}
1102: \caption{Confidence region
1103: ellipses in the $\Omega_m - \Omega_{\Lambda}$ plane for models with
1104: non-relativistic matter and a cosmological constant for
1105: different selection criteria based on extinction for the TONRY data set.
1106: The ellipses corresponding to the
1107: 68, 90 and 99 per cent confidence regions are shown.
1108: The confidence regions are obtained after marginalizing
1109: over ${\cal M}_1$. The dashed line corresponds to the flat
1110: model $(\Omega_{~m} + \Omega_{\Lambda} = 1)$.
1111: The left panel shows results when only those points with
1112: $A_V < 0.5$ are included, the middle panel
1113: considers only points which have $A_V < 0.3$, while the
1114: right panel includes all the points irrespective of the value
1115: of $A_V$.
1116: The values of the best-fit parameters, with
1117: 1$\sigma$ errors are indicated in the respective panels.
1118: }
1119: \label{fitav}
1120: \end{center}
1121: \end{figure*}
1122:
1123: $\bullet$
1124: The key issue regarding dark energy is
1125: to determine the evolution of its equation of
1126: state, $w_X$. We find
1127: that although one can constrain the current
1128: value of $w_X$ quite well, it
1129: is comparatively difficult
1130: to determine the
1131: evolution of $w_X$. The situation
1132: is further worsened when we take the uncertainties in $\Omega_m$
1133: into account.
1134:
1135: $\bullet$ The supernova data {\it mildly} favours a dark energy equation of state
1136: with its present best-fit value less than -1 which will require more exotic forms of matter (possibly with
1137: negative kinetic energy). However, one should keep in mind that
1138: the
1139: data is still consistent with the
1140: standard cosmological constant at 99 per cent confidence level.
1141:
1142: $\bullet$ The analysis of different subsamples of the supernova data set
1143: is important in determining the effect of evolution.
1144: In this work, we have taken the simple approach
1145: of dividing the data roughly around the epoch where the
1146: universe might have transited from a decelerating to an
1147: accelerating phase, and checked whether the data can be made
1148: consistent with the non-accelerating models. In future, it
1149: would be interesting to divide the data based on the nature of
1150: supernova searches. For example, one can divide the data into
1151: three redshift splits: $z < 0.1$,
1152: $0.2 < z < 0.8$ and $z > 0.8$,
1153: which roughly correspond to supernovae discovered
1154: in shallow searches, ground-based deep searches, and space-based deep
1155: searches. It would be interesting to check the cosmological constraints
1156: with such a divide.
1157:
1158:
1159: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1160: We thank Alex Kim for extensive
1161: comments which significantly improved the paper.
1162:
1163: \section*{Appendix: Effect of including supernovae with high extinction}
1164:
1165: Since there is considerable uncertainty
1166: in determining the host extinction and reddening, we have considered
1167: only those supernova which have extinction $A_V < 0.5$ for the TONRY
1168: data set.
1169: It would be interesting to see how this selection criterion affects
1170: our determination of cosmological parameters. In particular, one should
1171: keep in mind that the high-redshift supernovae
1172: observed from the ground could have large
1173: uncertainty in their color and hence statistically will often have
1174: measured $A_V > 0.5$ even if they have no extinction.
1175:
1176: To check how this affects the cosmological parameters, we concentrate
1177: on the cosmological models with non-relativistic matter and
1178: a cosmological constant, and find the constraints
1179: in the $\Omega_m - \Omega_{\Lambda}$ plane. We consider three
1180: cases, namely, (i) the usual one where we exclude all the data points
1181: with $A_V > 0.5$, (ii) the one with a stricter selection criterion where
1182: we exclude points with $A_V > 0.3$ and finally (iii) we include all
1183: the points irrespective of the extinction. The results for the
1184: three cases are plotted in Figure \ref{fitav}.
1185: It is clear from the figure that the exclusion of points
1186: based on their extinction have little effect on the
1187: determination of the cosmological parameters, at least for the
1188: TONRY data set. The cosmological parameters agree within 1$\sigma$ errors
1189: for the three different selection criteria.
1190:
1191:
1192: \bibliography{aamnemonic,astropap}
1193:
1194: \bibliographystyle{aa}
1195:
1196:
1197: \end{document}
1198: