1:
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: % Astro-ph, 9/9/04
4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5:
6: \documentclass[eclepsf,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
7: %\documentstyle[aps,prd,floats,graphicx]{revtex}
8: %\documentclass[showpacs]{revtex4}
9: %\documentclass[preprint,epsf,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
10: %\usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
11: %\usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
12: %\usepackage{bm}% bold math
13: %\documentclass[epsf,12pt,preprint]{article}
14: %\documentclass[epsf,12pt,preprint]{revtex}
15: %\documentstyle[epsf,fleqn,aps]{revtex}
16: \usepackage{graphicx}
17: %\textheight 43pc
18: %\textwidth 27pc
19:
20:
21: \def\title#1{\begin{center}{\Large\bf #1}\end{center}}
22: \def\author#1{\vskip 5mm \begin{center}{#1}\end{center}}
23: \def\address#1{\begin{center}{\it #1}\end{center}}
24: \newcommand{\simgt}{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}
25: \newcommand{\simlt}{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}
26:
27: %\nofiles
28: %\makeatother
29: \begin{document}
30:
31: \title{Dark energy reflections in the redshift-space quadrupole}
32:
33: \author{Kazuhiro Yamamoto$^{1}$, Bruce A. Bassett$^{2,3}$ and Hiroaki Nishioka$^4$
34: % ~~E-mail: kazuhiro@hiroshima-u.ac.jp\\
35: }
36: \address{
37: $^1$Department of Physical Science, Hiroshima University,
38: Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-8526,~Japan\\ %}
39: $^2$Department of Physics, Kyoto University,
40: Kyoto,739-8502,~ Japan\\%}
41: $^3$ ICG, University of Portsmouth, PO12EG, England\\
42: $^4$Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics,
43: Academia Sinica, Taipei 106, Taiwan, R.O.C.
44: }
45:
46: \begin{abstract}
47: We show that the redshift-space quadrupole will be a powerful tool
48: for constraining dark energy even if the baryon oscillations are missing from the usual monopole
49: power spectrum and bias is scale- and time-dependent. We calculate the accuracy with which a
50: next-generation galaxy survey based on KAOS will measure the quadrupole power spectrum,
51: which gives the leading anisotropies
52: in the power spectrum in redshift space due to the linear velocity, Finger of God and Alcock-Paczynski effects.
53: Combining the monopole and quadrupole power spectra
54: breaks the degeneracies between the multiple bias parameters and dark energy both in the linear and
55: nonlinear regimes and,
56: in the complete absence of baryon oscillations ($\Omega_b=0$), leads
57: to a roughly 500\% improvement in constraints on dark energy compared
58: with those from the monopole spectrum alone.
59: As a result the worst case -- with no baryon oscillations -- has dark energy
60: errors only mildly degraded relative to the ideal case, providing insurance
61: on the robustness of next-generation galaxy survey constraints on dark energy.
62: \end{abstract}
63: \pacs{98.70.Vc, 95.35.+d, 98.62.Py}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy
64: % Classification Scheme.
65: \maketitle
66: \def\M{{M}}
67: \def\w{{\psi}}
68: \def\calP{{\cal P}}
69:
70: {\em Introduction}~~~The promise of next-generation galaxy surveys such as that planned with KAOS
71: (the Kilo-Aperture Optical Spectrograph \cite{KAOS}) \footnote{In this paper, `KAOS' will refer to surveys performed using
72: a KAOS-like wide field multi-object spectrograph. KAOS1 denotes a putative survey at $z<1.5$ while KAOS2 refers to a survey
73: at $2.5 < z < 3.5$. Since we never need to discuss the actual spectrograph itself this slight abuse of terminology, between the instrument and the survey conducted with that same instrument, should not cause confusion. } is to map the distribution
74: of over one million galaxies in the redshift range $z= 0.5 - 3.5$.
75: This redshift coverage will allow the baryon oscillations in the
76: matter power spectrum to be followed as they were stretched by
77: the cosmic expansion, thus providing us with a standard ruler
78: with which to precisely measure the extragalactic distance
79: scale and expansion rate \cite{eisen,Blake,Linder,SE,HH,Amendola}.
80:
81: However, this technique relies crucially on the assumption that
82: the baryon oscillations will be detected. Although there
83: are tentative indications for this at low-$z$ in the 2df data
84: \cite{2dfosc,Yamamoto2004} the jury is still out on their existence.
85: If bias turns out to be much more complicated than we think or
86: $\Omega_b$ is unexpectedly low we may face an essentially
87: featureless galaxy power spectrum that is too slippery to
88: supply a standard ruler. In that case it is natural to ask
89: whether surveys such as KAOS
90: will yield any constraints on dark energy at all.
91:
92: The aim of this letter is to show that {\em even} in this worst case scenario,
93: next-generation surveys will be able to deliver
94: good constraints on dark energy through a very different route: redshift-space
95: anisotropies and the Alcock-Paczynski (AP) effect
96: \cite{Alcock,BPH,MS,MSz,matubara,Yamamoto2003}.
97:
98: In general the power spectrum {\em in redshift space} is not isotropic; an effect already seen in
99: the 2df survey \cite{Peacock}. There is a linear distortion due to the bulk motion of the sources within
100: the linear theory of density perturbation \cite{Kaiser},
101: while the Finger of God effect causes radial elongations due to the
102: motion of galaxies in the nonlinear regime \cite{PD}.
103: In addition there is a geometric distortion due to the AP effect related to the
104: distance-redshift relation of the universe. As a result the
105: redshift-space power spectrum depends on the angle $\theta$
106: between the line-of-sight direction $\gamma$ and the wave
107: number vector ${{\bf k}}$ (see e.g., \cite{SMJMY}).
108:
109: In general the redshift-space power spectrum can be expanded as \cite{TH,Hamilton}:
110: \begin{eqnarray}
111: P({\bf k},z)=P(k,\mu,z)=\sum_{l=0,2,4\cdots} P_{l}(k,z){\cal L}_{l}(\mu),
112: \end{eqnarray}
113: where ${\cal L}_{l}(\mu)$ is the Legendre polynomial,
114: $\mu=\cos\theta$ and $k=|{\bf k}|$. The odd moments vanish by symmetry.
115:
116: The monopole $P_{0}(k,z)$ represents the angular averaged power
117: spectrum and is usually what we mean by `the power spectrum'. At low-z it has been investigated in great depth
118: in the 2df and SDSS surveys. $P_{2}(k,z)$ is the quadrupole spectrum and gives the leading anisotropic contribution. As can be
119: seen in Fig.~1 it will be well-constrained even by just the $z<1.5$ sample, which we label KAOS1
120: (see Table 1 for definitions). The higher order multipoles are not well-constrained however.
121:
122: Crucially, the multipole moments reflect different
123: aspects of the redshift distortions in the power spectrum which can therefore aid in
124: breaking degeneracies between the cosmological parameters, bias and dark energy.
125: The purpose of this {\em letter} is to consider the extent to which the anisotropic
126: component of the power spectrum, $P_{\ell},~\ell \geq 2$, gives new information about dark
127: energy via the nonlinear effects and the geometric (AP) distortion.
128:
129: \def\dls{{D_{\rm LS}}}
130: \def\dos{{D_{\rm OS}}}
131: \def\bftheta{{\Theta}}
132: \def\calD{{\cal D}}
133: \def\bfk{{\bf k}}
134: \def\bfs{{\bf s}}
135:
136: \begin{figure*}
137: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f1_colour.ps}% Here is how to import EPS art
138: \caption{\label{fig1} {\bf KAOS1 constraints ($z<1.5$) on the multipole moments of the power spectrum},
139: $\langle \calP_0(k)\rangle$, $\langle \calP_2(k)\rangle$, $\langle \calP_4(k)\rangle$ and $\langle \calP_6(k)\rangle$
140: for linear (dotted lines) and nonlinear (shaded region, solid lines) spectra respectively. While the nonlinear correction to $\calP_0$
141: (the usual `power spectrum') is small this is not true for the anisotropic spectra. The nonlinear
142: $\langle \calP_2(k)\rangle$ changes sign at large $k$. Here we have fixed $n=1$, $h=0.7$,
143: $\Omega_b=0.045$, $\Omega_m=0.28$ and $w=-1$. For the bias we adopted $b_0=1.35$,
144: $p_0=1$ for the linear model, $p_1=1$, $b_1=0.1$, $\nu=1$ for the
145: nonlinear spectrum (see eq. \ref{nlbias}). The higher moments $\calP_{\ell},~~ \ell \geq 4$ are not
146: well-constrained, even by KAOS and hence make a minimal contribution to constraints on dark energy (see Fig. ~2).
147: }
148: \end{figure*}
149:
150: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
151: {\em Formalism}~~~Here we employ the Fisher matrix approach in order to estimate
152: the accuracy with which we can constrain the equation of state, $w \equiv p/\rho$,
153: of the dark energy with a measurement of the power
154: spectrum. In general the Fisher matrix is defined by
155: $ { F}_{ij}=-\bigl\langle {\partial^2 \ln L
156: /\partial\theta_i \partial\theta_j}
157: \bigr\rangle$,
158: where $L$ is the likelihood of a data
159: set given the model parameters $\theta_i$. Assuming a Gaussian probability distribution function for
160: the errors of a measurement of the multipole power spectrum
161: ${\calP}_{l}(k)$, the Fisher matrix for each multipole spectrum is
162: \begin{eqnarray}
163: F_{ij}^{(l)}\simeq
164: {1\over 4\pi} \int_{k_{\rm min}}^{k_{\rm max}} \kappa_{l} (k)
165: {\partial \langle{\calP}_{l}(k)\rangle\over \partial \theta_i}
166: {\partial \langle{\calP}_{l}(k)\rangle\over \partial \theta_j}
167: k^3 d\ln k,
168: \end{eqnarray}
169: where $\kappa_{l}(k)$ is the effective volume of the survey available for measuring
170: $\cal P_{\ell}$ at wavenumber $k$:
171: \begin{eqnarray}
172: \kappa_{l}(k)^{-1}=
173: {1\over 2}
174: \int_{-1}^1 d\mu
175: { \int d\bfs \bar n(\bfs)^4 \w(\bfs,k,\mu)^{4}
176: \bigl[P(k,\mu,z)+1/\bar n(\bfs)\bigr]^2
177: [{\cal L}_{l}(\mu)]^2
178: \over
179: \Bigl[\int d\bfs' \bar n(\bfs')^2 \w(\bfs',k,\mu)^{2}\Bigr]^2},
180: \label{optimal}
181: \end{eqnarray}
182: and
183: \begin{eqnarray}
184: \langle {\calP}_{l}(k)\rangle=
185: {1\over 2}\int_{-1}^1d\mu
186: {\int d\bfs \bar n(\bfs)^2\w(\bfs,k,\mu)^2 P(k,\mu,z)
187: {\cal L}_{l}(\mu)
188: \over
189: \int d\bfs' \bar n^2(\bfs') \w(\bfs',k,\mu)^2},
190: \end{eqnarray}
191: where $\w(\bfs,k,\mu)$ is a weight factor that we can choose freely,
192: $\bar n(\bfs)$ is the mean number density, and $\bfs$
193: denotes the three dimensional coordinate in redshift space.
194: This formula can be derived in a similar way to obtain the optimal
195: weighting scheme (see e.g., \cite{FKP,Yamamoto2003}).
196: Minimizing the variance on the power spectrum yields
197: $ \w(\bfs,k,\mu)=[1+\bar n(\bfs) P(k,\mu,z)]^{-1}$,
198: the same as used in \cite{SE}.
199:
200: \newcommand{\cpara}{c_{\scriptscriptstyle \|}}
201: \newcommand{\cperp}{c_{\scriptscriptstyle \bot}}
202: \newcommand{\qpara}{q_{\scriptscriptstyle \|}}
203: \newcommand{\qperp}{q_{\scriptscriptstyle \bot}}
204:
205: Next we explain our theoretical modelling of the power
206: spectrum. In a redshift survey, the redshift $z$ is the indicator of the
207: distance. Therefore we need to assume a distance-redshift relation
208: $s=|\bfs|=s[z]$ to plot a map of objects. The power spectrum depends on
209: this choice of the radial coordinate of the map $s=s[z]$ due to
210: the geometric distortion (AP) effect. For our fiducial background we adopt
211: a flat universe with $\Omega_m=0.3$. Here $H_0=100~h{\rm km/s/Mpc}$ is the Hubble parameter.
212: %
213: We consider a cosmological model with the dark energy
214: component with constant equation of state, $w \equiv p/\rho$, since estimates for the nonlinear power
215: spectrum in more general cases do not yet exist. While such an approach has severe limitations when
216: extracting accurate conclusions from real data \cite{param}, it suffices for our purposes since we are mainly
217: interested in understanding the qualitative improvements in the constraints on $w$ from inclusion of the
218: quadrupole, especially as the baryon oscillations disappear from the monopole.
219:
220: For constant $w$ we have
221: \begin{eqnarray}
222: &&r(z,\Omega_m,w)={1\over H_0}\int_0^z{dz'\over
223: \sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z')^3+(1-\Omega_m) (1+z')^{-3(1+w)}}}.
224: \label{defr}
225: \end{eqnarray}
226:
227: Our fiducial model thus has $s(z) \equiv r(z,0.3,-1)$.
228: The geometric distortion in the power spectrum depends on $r(z,\Omega_m,w)$
229: and the power spectrum at redshift $z$ is described by
230: scaling the wave numbers from real space to redshift space via
231: $\qpara\rightarrow{k\mu/\cpara}$ and $\qperp\rightarrow
232: {k\sqrt{1-\mu^2}/\cperp}$ with
233: $\cpara(z)={dr(z)/ds(z)}$ and $\cperp(z)={ r(z)/s(z)}$.
234: %%%fig3
235: \begin{figure*}
236: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f2_colour.ps}% Here is how to import EPS art
237: \caption{\label{fig2} {\bf Error estimates for $w$ as the baryon oscillations disappear ($\Omega_b \rightarrow 0$)}.
238: The left panels (a) and (c) are the results using the linear spectrum and the right
239: panels (b) and (d) are the nonlinear spectrum. The dashed curve is the result
240: utilizing {\em only} $\calP_0(k)$, the dotted curve is the result
241: with {\em only} $\calP_2(k)$, the solid curve (delimiting the shaded region) is the result obtained using
242: {\em both} $\calP_0(k)$ and $\calP_2(k)$. The target parameters here are same as those in Fig.~1.
243: The low-redshift sample, KAOS1, is assumed in (a) and (b), the high-redshift sample, KAOS2,
244: is assumed in (c) and (d). The dotted-dashed curve in (a) and (b) shows the constraint
245: combining all $\calP_0(k)$ to $\calP_6(k)$.
246: The double dotted-dashed curve in (c) and (d) shows the constraint
247: obtained from the full KAOS sample (KAOS1 + KAOS2). The key point is
248: how flat the resulting curve is for $\Omega_b \leq 0.05$ despite the absence of baryon oscillations
249: for $\Omega_b \rightarrow 0$.
250: }
251: \end{figure*}
252:
253: We write the galaxy power spectrum in nonlinear theory as
254: \begin{eqnarray}
255: P_{\rm gal}(\qpara,\qperp,z)=
256: \biggl(1+{f(z)\over b(z,q)}{\qpara^2\over q^2}\biggr)^2
257: b(z,k)^2 P^{\rm NL}_{\rm mass}(q,z) D[\qpara],
258: \label{PQSO}
259: \end{eqnarray}
260: with
261: $f(z)=d\ln D_1(z)/d\ln a(z)$, where $q^2=\qpara^2+\qperp^2$, $b(z,q)$ is a scale-dependent
262: bias factor, $P^{\rm NL}_{\rm mass}(q,z)$ is the nonlinear
263: mass power spectrum normalized by $\sigma_8=0.9$,
264: $D_1(z)$ is the linear growth rate, and
265: $a(z)$ is the scale factor.
266: The term in proportion to $f(z)$ describes the linear
267: distortion \cite{Kaiser}.
268: $D[\qpara]$ represents the
269: damping factor due to the Finger of God effect. Assuming
270: an exponential distribution function for the pair-wise
271: peculiar velocity \cite{MJB,MJS,SMY} gives
272: $ D[\qpara]=1/( 1+(\qpara\sigma_P)^2/2)$,
273: where $\sigma_P$ is the 1-dimensional pair-wise peculiar
274: velocity dispersion estimated in \cite{MJB}.
275:
276: For $P^{\rm NL}_{\rm mass}(q,z)$ we adopt the
277: fitting formula for the quintessence cosmological
278: model \cite{Ma}.
279:
280: We then use the fitting formula for $f(z)$ developed in \cite{WS}.
281: For the nonlinear modelling, we assume a four-parameter, scale-dependent, bias model
282: \begin{eqnarray}
283: b(z,k)=\left(1+{b_0-1\over D_1(z)}\right)\left[
284: 1+{b_1}\left({D_1(z)^{p_1}q\over0.1~h{\rm Mpc^{-1}}}\right)^{\nu}
285: \right],
286: \label{nlbias}
287: \end{eqnarray}
288: where $b_0$, $b_1$, $p_1$ and $\nu$ are the nonlinear bias constants. In the linear case the bias is scale-{\em independent} and given by
289: $b(z)=1+(b_0-1)D_1(z)^{-p_0}$ where $p_0$ is a constant.
290:
291:
292: {\em Results}~~~Fig.~1 shows the power
293: spectra $\langle \calP_0(k)\rangle$ (usual monopole), $\langle \calP_2(k)\rangle$ (quadrupole),
294: $\langle \calP_4(k)\rangle$ and $\langle \calP_6(k)\rangle$
295: for the linear and nonlinear models described above, assuming the KAOS1 sample described in Table 1.
296: $\langle \calP_0(k)\rangle$ is positive while the nonlinear effects
297: cause $\langle \calP_2(k)\rangle$ to change sign at large $k$.
298: For $\langle\calP_0(k)\rangle$, the linear power spectrum agrees well with
299: the nonlinear power spectrum because the two nonlinear contributions to it
300: cancel out: the Finger of God effect decreases the amplitude while
301: $P^{\rm NL}_{\rm mass}(k)$ increases the amplitude due to the nonlinearity at large $k$.
302: By comparison, it is very clear that the linear theory is not good for the
303: higher multipole moments on small scales, $k\simgt 0.1 h{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.
304:
305:
306: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
307: \begin{figure*}
308: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f3.ps}% Here is how to import EPS art
309: \caption{\label{fig3} {\bf The effect of adding the quadrupole}.
310: the $w-\Omega_m$ (left) and $w-b_0$ (right) likelihoods
311: for $\calP_0$ alone (large, medium-blue ellipses),
312: $\calP_2$ alone (largest, lightly-shaded ellipses) and $\calP_0 + \calP_2$ (small,
313: darkest ellipses). Here the same parameters are used as in Fig. 1 except that $\Omega_b=0$ so
314: there are no baryon oscillations, which explains the poor constraints from $\calP_0$ alone.
315: Adding the quadrupole significantly reduces the uncertainty in all the bias parameters
316: resulting in final error ellipses that are competitive with those from the ideal
317: baryon oscillation case, see Fig. 2.
318: }
319: \end{figure*}
320: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
321: While the quadrupole will make a key contribution to constraining dark energy with
322: KAOS, the errors on $\langle \calP_4(k)\rangle$ and
323: $\langle \calP_6(k)\rangle$ are large and hence their contribution to constraints
324: on dark energy are marginal, as can be seen from the
325: dot-dashed curves in panel (a) and (b) in Fig.~2.
326:
327:
328: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
329: %\section{Analysis of the Fisher matrix}
330: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
331: \begin{table}
332: \begin{center}
333: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
334: \hline
335: ~ & ~~~~~KAOS1~~~~~~ & ~~~~~KAOS2~~~~ \\
336: \hline
337: redshift range & $0.5 <z< 1.5$ & $2.5 <z< 3.5$ \\
338: survey area (deg${}^2$) & $103$ & $150$ \\
339: $\bar n~ ({\rm h^{3}Mpc^{-3}})$ & $10^{-4} $ & $10^{-4} $\\
340: $k_{\rm max} ~(h{\rm Mpc}^{-1})$ & $0.4 $ & $1 $ \\
341: $b_0$ &$1.35$ & $1.75$ \\
342: \hline
343: \end{tabular}
344: \end{center}
345: \caption{The parameters of the samples used in our analysis.
346: $\bar n$ is the average galaxy number density, $k_{\rm max}$ is the
347: maximum wavenumber used in evaluating the Fisher matrix.}
348: \end{table}
349:
350: The precision with which $w$ can be recovered is shown in Fig 2. We
351: consider separately the low-redshift, $z < 1.5$, (KAOS1) and high-redshift (KAOS2) samples, with
352: parameters summarized in Table 1.
353:
354: To produce these estimates we quote $\Delta w \equiv ({\bf F}^{-1/2})_{ww}$, marginalizing over $\Omega_m$ and
355: all the bias parameters, {\em viz} $b_0$, $p_0$ (linear case) and
356: $b_0$, $p_1$, $b_1$ and $\nu$ (nonlinear case).
357: Since the bias may be constrained by other methods
358: (e.g. lensing or the higher-order correlation function) our results
359: are conservative.
360:
361: Fig.~2 shows $\Delta w$ as a function of $\Omega_b$.
362: The left panels are the results for the linear perturbation theory,
363: while the right panels are the nonlinear model.
364: The upper panels assume the KAOS1 sample, while the lower
365: panels assume the KAOS2 sample.
366: In general, $\Delta w$ becomes larger as the baryon fraction
367: becomes smaller since the baryon oscillations become less and
368: less distinct.
369: %
370: As $\Omega_b$ becomes smaller, the contribution from $\calP_2$ becomes
371: increasingly important. It is clear from the dashed curve that
372: the constraint on $w$ from $\calP_0$ is very weak around $\Omega_b=0$ because
373: the baryon oscillations disappear, taking with it the standard ruler.
374: This is the same for the dotted curve which shows the constraints from $\calP_2$.
375:
376: One of the main results of this paper is the solid curve
377: which shows the constraint from the combination
378: of $\calP_0$ and $\calP_2$. It is good even in the case $\Omega_b=0$ when
379: the baryon oscillation are missing, implying that
380: the geometric distortion (AP test) plays the central role in
381: constraining $w$. This does not depends on the bias parameters and
382: inclusion of a constant parameter for stochastic bias does not alter our
383: results \cite{TP}.
384:
385: It is interesting to address why the constraint on $w$
386: from $\calP_0$ and $\calP_2$ combined is so much better than from either one
387: separately. For each pair of marginalized parameters the error ellipses for $\calP_0$ and $\calP_2$ are
388: rotated with respect to each other, as in Fig~3, thus breaking degeneracies in the bias-dark
389: energy parameter space. On marginalization these gains are passed through to $w$, resulting in significantly smaller
390: error-ellipses, a feature observed in both the linear and nonlinear cases.
391: The power in combining $\calP_0$ and $\calP_2$ thus
392: extends the well-known fact that $\calP_2$ gives useful information
393: about bias (e.g., \cite{TH,Hamilton}).
394:
395: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
396: %\section{Conclusions}
397: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
398: {\em Conclusions}~~~ We have investigated the accuracy with which we can expect next-generation
399: galaxy surveys such as KAOS \cite{KAOS} to measure the multipole moments of the anisotropic power spectrum in
400: redshift space and the resulting improvements in dark energy constraints. Anisotropies in the redshift-space power spectrum
401: arise from the contribution of velocities to an object's redshift as well as from the geometric distortion due to the
402: Alock-Paczynski effect.
403:
404: We found a number of key results: (1) only the quadrupole among the anisotropic power spectra
405: will be well-measured by KAOS but this is useful for breaking
406: degeneracies between bias and dark energy. (2) Nonlinear effects have a substantial influence on the
407: quadrupole and higher multipoles at scales
408: $k\simgt 0.1 h{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. The inclusion of the nonlinear power spectrum
409: enhances the precision with which the dark energy can be constrained because
410: the nonlinear effects increase the power at small scale which is also where
411: constraints are good.
412: The nonlinear regime provides us with new information about the dark energy,
413: as has been discussed in different contexts (e.g., \cite{ND}).
414: (3) Applying these results to dark energy and the KAOS survey we have found that significant constraints
415: arise by combining the monopole and quadrupole spectra even if there are {\em no baryon oscillations} in the standard
416: monopole spectrum and even if we allow for multi-parameter scale-dependent or stochastic bias.
417:
418: This is a key piece of insurance for large galaxy surveys given
419: current uncertainty about the existence of baryon oscillations
420: and ensures that large, next-generation,
421: galaxy surveys will make a significant contribution to the hunt
422: for dark energy irrespective of the existence of baryon oscillations.
423:
424: {\em Acknowledgements}~~~We thank Daniel Eisenstein and Bob Nichol for comments on the draft.
425: This work is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of Japanese Ministry of Education,
426: Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology 15740155 and by a Royal Society/JSPS
427: Fellowship.
428:
429: %\newpage
430: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
431: \bibitem{KAOS} http://www.noao.edu/kaos/
432: \bibitem{eisen} D.~Eisenstein, Proc. WFMOS conference, arXiv:astro-ph/0301623.
433: \bibitem{Blake} C. Blake, K. Glazebrook, ApJ 594, 665 (2003)
434: \bibitem{Linder} E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D68 083504 (2003)
435: \bibitem{SE} H-J Seo, D. J. Eisenstein, ApJ, 598, 720 (2003)
436: \bibitem{HH} W. Hu, Z. Haiman, Phys. Rev. D68 063004 (2003)
437: \bibitem{Amendola} L. Amendola, C. Quercellini, E. Giallongo, arXiv:astro-ph/0404599
438: \bibitem{2dfosc} C.~J.~Miller, R.~C.~Nichol, X.~l.~Chen, Astrophys.\ J.\
439: {\bf 579}, 483 (2002)
440: \bibitem{Yamamoto2004} K. Yamamoto, ApJ, 605, 620 (2004)
441: \bibitem{Alcock} C. Alcock, B. Paczynski, Nature, 281, 358 (1979)
442: \bibitem{MSz} T. Matsubara, A. S. Szalay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 021302 (2003)
443: \bibitem{BPH} W. E. Ballinger, J. A. Peacock, A. F. Heavens, MNRAS, 282, 877 (1996)
444: \bibitem{MS} T. Matsubara, Y. Suto, ApJ, 470, L1 (1996)
445: \bibitem{matubara} T. Matsubara, arXiv:astro-ph/0408349
446: \bibitem{Yamamoto2003} K. Yamamoto, ApJ, 595, 577 (2003)
447: \bibitem{Peacock} J. A. Peacock, {\em et al.}, Nature, 410, 169 (2001)
448: \bibitem{Kaiser} N. Kaiser MNRAS, 227, 1 (1987)
449: \bibitem{PD} J. A. Peacock, S. J. Dodds, MNRAS, 267, 1020 (1994)
450: \bibitem{SMJMY} Y. Suto, H. Magira, Y. P. Jing, T. Matsubara, K. Yamamoto,
451: Prog.Theor.Phys.Suppl. 133, 183, (1999)
452: \bibitem{TH} A. N. Taylor, A. J. S. Hamilton, MNRAS, 282, 767 (1996)
453: \bibitem{Hamilton} A. J. S. Hamilton, in The Evolving Universe,
454: ed. D. Hamilton, Kluwer Academic, 185 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9708102
455: \bibitem{FKP} H. A. Feldman, N. Kaiser, J. A. Peacock ApJ, 426, 23 (1994)
456: \bibitem{param} B. A. Bassett, P.S. Corasaniti and M. Kunz, astro-ph/0407364 (2004)
457: \bibitem{MJB} H-J. Mo, Y. P. Jing, G. Boerner, MNRAS, 286 979 (1997)
458: \bibitem{SMY} Y. Suto, H. Magira, K. Yamamoto, Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan,
459: 52, 249 (2000)
460: \bibitem{MJS} H. Magira, Y. P. Jing, Y. Suto, ApJ, 528, 30 (1997)
461: \bibitem{Ma} C-P. Ma, R. R. Caldwell, P. Bode, L. Wang ApJL, 521, L1 (1999)
462: \bibitem{WS} L. Wang, P. J. Steinhardt ApJ, 508, 483 (1998)
463: \bibitem{TP} M. Tegmark, P. J. E. Peebles, ApJ, 500, L79 (1998)
464: \bibitem{ND} J. A. Newman, M. Davis, ApJ, 534, L11 (2000)
465: \end{thebibliography}
466:
467:
468: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
469:
470:
471: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
472:
473: \end{document}
474: