1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
2: \usepackage{psfig}
3:
4: % If you wish to typeset the paper in Times font (if you do not have the
5: % PostScript Type 1 Computer Modern fonts you will need to do this to get
6: % smoother fonts in a PDF file) then uncomment the next line
7: % \usepackage{Times}
8:
9: %%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN MACROS HERE %%%%%
10: %\usepackage{psfig}
11: \usepackage{times}
12: \def\Liso{\mbox{$L_{\rm iso}$}}
13: \def\Eiso{\mbox{$E_{\rm iso}$}}
14: \def\Ep{\mbox{$E_{\rm pk}$}}
15: \def\Epob{\mbox{$E_{\rm pk}^{obs}$}}
16: \def\Ecol{\mbox{$E_{\rm coll}$}}
17: \def\tlag{\mbox{$\tau_{\rm lag}$}}
18: \def\tbreak{\mbox{$t_{\rm break}$}}
19: \def\tbreakob{\mbox{$t_{\rm break}^{obs}$}}
20: \def\tdur{\mbox{$T_{0.45}$}}
21: \def\tdurob{\mbox{$T_{0.45}^{\rm obs}$}}
22: \def\relE{\mbox{\Eiso(\Ep,\tbreak)}}
23: \def\relL{\mbox{\Liso--\Ep--\tdur}}
24: %\def\chrs{\mbox{$\chi_r^2$}}
25: \def\chs{\mbox{$\chi^2$}}
26: \def\tj{\mbox{$\theta_{j}$}}
27: \def\chsr{\mbox{$\chi_r^2$}}
28:
29: \def\grb{GRB~030329}
30: \def\Om{\mbox{$\Omega_{\rm m}$}}
31: \def\OL{\mbox{$\Omega_{\Lambda}$}}
32: \def\Oe{\mbox{$\Omega_{\rm de}$}}
33: \def\Ok{\mbox{$\Omega_{k}$}}
34: \def\Ot{\mbox{$\Omega_{\rm tot}$}}
35: \def\rde{\mbox{$\rho_{\rm DE}$}}
36: \def\wz{\mbox{$w(z)$}}
37: \def\wo{\mbox{$w_0$}}
38: \def\wu{\mbox{$w_1$}}
39: \def\wi{\mbox{$w_{\infty}$}}
40: \def\wp{\mbox{$w_0'$}}
41: \def\zt{\mbox{$z_t$}}
42: \def\at{\mbox{$a_t$}}
43: \def\dl{\mbox{$d_{\rm L}$}}
44:
45: \newcommand{\hete}{\textit{HETE-II}}
46: \newcommand{\hst}{\textit{HST}}
47:
48: \newcommand{\ergcms}{erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$}
49: \newcommand{\uJy}{\mbox{$\mu$Jy}}
50: \newcommand{\Tburst}{\mbox{$T_{\rm GRB}$}}
51: \newcommand{\corr}{\mbox{$E_{\gamma}-E_{\rm peak}$}}
52:
53:
54: \def\spose#1{\hbox to 0pt{#1\hss}}
55: \newcommand\lsim{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
56: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}
57: \newcommand\gsim{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
58: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}
59:
60: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
61:
62:
63: \title[The Hubble diagram at $z>>1$]
64: {The Hubble diagram extended to $z>>1$: the $\gamma-$ray properties of GRBs
65: confirm the $\Lambda$CDM model}
66:
67:
68: \author[Firmani et al.]
69: {C. Firmani$^{1,2}$\thanks{E--mail: firmani@merate.mi.astro.it},
70: V. Avila--Reese$^{2}$, G. Ghisellini$^{1}$ and G. Ghirlanda$^{1}$\\
71: $^{1}$Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, via E.Bianchi 46, I-23807
72: Merate, Italy\\
73: $^{2}$Instituto de Astronom\'{\i}a, Universidad Nacional Aut\'onoma de M\'exico,
74: A.P. 70-264, 04510, M\'exico, D.F.}
75:
76: \begin{document}
77:
78: % \date{Accepted 1988 December 15. Received 1988 December 14;
79: % in original form 1988 October 11}
80:
81: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2002}
82:
83: \maketitle
84:
85: \label{firstpage}
86:
87: \begin{abstract}
88: Tight constraints on cosmological parameters can be obtained with
89: standard candles spanning a range of redshifts as large as possible.
90: We propose to treat SNIa and long Gamma--Ray Bursts (GRBs) as a
91: single class of candles. Taking advantage of the recent release of
92: the Supernova Legacy Survey and {\it the recent finding of a tight
93: correlation among the energetics and other prompt $\gamma-$ray
94: emission properties of GRBs}, we are able to standardize the
95: luminosities/energetics of both classes of objects. In this way
96: we can jointly use GRB and SNIa as cosmological probes
97: to constrain \Om\ and \OL\ and the parameters of the Dark Energy
98: equation of state through the same Bayesian method that we have,
99: so far, applied to GRBs alone.
100: Despite the large disparity in number (115 SN
101: Ia versus 19 GRBs) we show that the constraints on \Om\ and \OL\ are
102: greatly improved by the inclusion of GRBs. More
103: importantly, the result of the combined sample is in excellent
104: agreement with the $\Lambda$CDM concordance cosmological model and does
105: not require an evolving equation of state for the Dark Energy.
106: \end{abstract}
107:
108: %long and gamma-ray
109:
110: \begin{keywords}
111: cosmological parameters --- cosmology:observations --- distance
112: scale---gamma rays: bursts
113: \end{keywords}
114:
115: %======================================================
116: \section{Introduction}
117: %======================================================
118:
119: Cosmology passed from being mostly a theoretical science
120: to be one of the most accurate physical sciences in the phenomenological sense.
121: The recent high--precision measurements of cosmological parameters together
122: with the spectacular advances in the understanding of
123: cosmic structure formation, produced a coherent picture of the evolution of
124: the Universe but, on the other hand, prompted new fundamental questions.
125: One of them is related to the expansion history of the Universe and the
126: possibility that a repulsive medium with negative pressure (Dark Energy,
127: hereafter DE) dominates its content. The Hubble diagram
128: (distance--redshift relation, HD hereafter)
129: provides a key probe of the Universe expansion history. Because of their
130: almost homogeneous intrinsic energetics, Type Ia Supernovae
131: (SNIa) have been used as the main distance indicators for constructing the
132: HD. However, their current observability is limited to redshifts
133: $z\la 1.7$, and the high--$z$ SNIa could suffer intergalactic dust extinction
134: and evolutive effects \citep[e.g.,][and the references therein]{ostman05}.
135: Thus, the finding of alternative
136: and complementary cosmological distance indicators is highly
137: desirable. Gamma--ray Bursts (GRBs), after ``standardizing'' their
138: energetics through adequate relations, probed to be reliable distance
139: indicators detectable up to very high $z'$s and free from dust
140: extinction. The recent discovery of a
141: tight correlation among prompt $\gamma-$ray emission observables
142: {\it alone} \citep{paper1} opens new perspectives for the HD
143: method, where GRBs can be combined with SNIa to extend the HD
144: to $z\sim 5-10$ \citep[][]{schaefer}.
145:
146: The observations of SNIa demonstrated that the expansion of the Universe is
147: accelerating \citep{riess98,perl99}. The main explanation to this
148: acceleration is the dominion of DE in the current cosmological dynamics,
149: though departures from conventional physics, like modified
150: gravity theories, are also considered.
151: DE is characterized mainly by its equation-of-state
152: parameter, $w = p_{\rm DE}/\rde$, where $p_{\rm DE}$ and \rde\ are
153: the pressure and energy density of DE. For $w<-1/3$ the universe
154: undergoes accelerated expansion. The simplest interpretation of DE is
155: the cosmological constant $\Lambda$, in which case $w=-1$ and
156: $\rde=\rho_{\Lambda}=$const. However, more exotic models, with
157: $w\ne -1$ and in general varying with $z$, have been proposed
158: (e.g., quintessence, k--essence, Chaplygin gas, Braneworld models, etc.);
159: even models that allow $w<-1$ (e.g., Phantom energy) have been considered
160: \citep[see for recent reviews][]{Sahni04,Padma06}.
161:
162:
163: We need further observations to unveil the true nature of what we call DE.
164: A strong effort is being done now for developing the
165: next--generation SNIa experiments \citep[see e.g.][]{LH05} aimed
166: mainly to reduce random uncertainties. However, it is also crucial to
167: reduce systematic uncertainties as well as to break model
168: degeneracies \citep[e.g.,][]{weller02, LH03,
169: nesseris04,Ghisellini05,paper2}.
170: The two latter papers illustrate how some degeneracies in the
171: cosmological parameter space can be reduced if the standard candles
172: used to construct the HD span a wide $z$ range. In this sense, long GRBs
173: have been proposed as a class of objects able to extend the
174: HD up to very high redshifts in a natural manner \citep[][]{schaefer,gglf04}.
175:
176:
177: Despite the large dispersion of the long GRB energetics
178: \citep{frail01,bloom03}, the discovery that their energetics correlate
179: with observable quantities like the peak energy \Ep\ (in $\nu L_\nu$)
180: of the time--integrated prompt emission spectrum and the achromatic
181: ``break--time'' in the afterglow ligth curve \citep{ggl04,LZ05,Nava05},
182: has been used to ``standardize'' it. This allowed to employ GRBs as truly
183: cosmological tools \citep[Ghirlanda et al. 2004b,2006,][]{dai04, fgga05,XDL05}.
184: \citet{paper1} have found a new GRB
185: correlation whose tightness, in the framework of the standard fireball
186: scenario, is explained by its scalar nature.
187: Since such new correlation has the same shape in the observer and in
188: the comoving frame, the influence of the $\Gamma$ relativistic
189: factor on the observed scatter becomes negligible.
190: The correlation is based on prompt $\gamma-$ray observables only
191: (besides the redshift),
192: by--passing the need of measuring afterglow quantities as is the
193: case of the ``Ghirlanda" relation \citep{ggl04}. The quantities
194: involved in the new correlation are the isotropic peak luminosity
195: \Liso, \Ep, and the ``high signal'' timescale \tdur,
196: previously used to characterize the variability behavior of bursts. In
197: \citet{paper2} we have found that by varing the cosmology, the data
198: points present a minimum scatter around their best fit line in
199: correspondence of the so--called $\Lambda$ cold dark matter ($\Lambda$CDM)
200: concordance cosmology: a flat geometry Friedmann-Robertson-Walker-Lema\^itre
201: model with the cosmological constant dominating today.
202: This result shows that, indeed, the \relL\ relation can be used to
203: derive cosmological constraints.
204:
205: Due to the lack of low$-z$ GRBs for calibrating a given correlation
206: independently from cosmology, the use of a
207: statistical approach to {\it jointly} calibrate the correlation and
208: constrain the cosmological parameters is required.
209: \citet[][2006b]{fgga05} have presented an
210: iterative Bayesian method to deal with this, so--called, 'circularity problem'.
211: The same method can be used for SNIa. Note that SNIa are not {\it
212: perfect} standard candles: their luminosities vary with the shape of
213: the light--curve (the brighter--slower relation) and with color (the
214: brighter--bluer relation) \citep[e.g.,][and the references
215: therein]{Guy05}. Due to several high$-z$ systematical effects, a
216: better calibration of these relations is obtained if higher$-z$ SNe
217: are included. The latter makes these relations cosmology
218: dependent. Therefore, the best fit to these relations has to be
219: carried out {\it jointly} within the same cosmological fit
220: \citep[][hereafter A05]{Astier05}. This approach has been applied to the 'Supernova
221: Legacy Survey' (SNLS) of 115 SNIa (A05). We apply here our
222: Bayesian method to this sample
223: to improve the constraints given by A05, who used a simple
224: multi--parametric \chs\ minimization method.
225:
226: Observations of SNIa are accurate and the current samples
227: comprise more than one hundred objects, but they are detected only at
228: relatively low $z'$s, which introduces the degeneracy problem
229: mentioned above. The GRBs useful as distance indicators span a
230: large redshift range (up to $z=4.5$) but they are still scarce (19 bursts for the
231: \relL\ relation). Thus, a promising strategy to partially overcome the
232: problems that each family of objects individually suffer of,
233: is to combine both in the same Hubble
234: diagram and use them jointly for constraining the cosmological parameters.
235: This is the goal of this Letter. Our main result is that the concordance
236: $\Lambda$ cosmology (minimal DE model) is fully consistent with the joint
237: GRB and SNLS SNIa data spanning the redshift range from $z=0.015$ to 4.5.
238: Previous results with the so--called SNIa 'gold-set' ($z<1.7$) showed a
239: marginal inconsistency with the concordance model
240: \citep[][]{Riess04,alam04,CP05,jassal05,NP05}, suggesting the possibility of
241: alternative DE models.
242:
243: In \S 2 we describe the SNIa and GRB samples used here. Section 3 deals
244: with the method while the results are presented in \S 4. The conclusions
245: of this work are given in \S 5.
246:
247: %========================================================
248: \section{The samples}
249: %========================================================
250:
251: \subsection{Type Ia supernovae}
252:
253: We analyze here the SNIa sample presented in A05.
254: This sample consists of 44 nearby ($0.015<z<0.125$) SNIa assembled
255: from the literature, and of 73 distant SNIa {\bf ($0.249<z<1.010$)}
256: discovered and followed during the first year of SNLS\footnote
257: {see \textit{cfht.hawaii.edu/SNLS/}}.
258: The same light--curve fit method \citep{Guy05} was applied to
259: all SNIa in the sample.
260: For each SN, the reported quantities along with their errors are the
261: fitted rest--frame $B-$band magnitude $m^*_B$ and the values of the
262: parameters $s$ (light--curve stretch) and $c$ (normalized $B-V$
263: color at the maximum of the light--curve).
264: The magnitude $m^*_B$ refers to observed brightness, and therefore
265: does not account for the brighter--slower and the brighter-bluer
266: correlations. As mentioned in the Introduction, A05 suggest to
267: empirically calibrate these correlations using all objects (either at
268: low or high$-z$). For the cosmological fits, two SNIa out of the 117
269: SNLS sample objects were excluded because they are outliers in the HD.
270:
271: We follow A05 and include in the SNIa dispersions the contribution of
272: a peculiar velocity of 300 km/s (this dispersion depends on $z$ and
273: on cosmology) and an intrinsic dispersion of SN absolute magnitudes of 0.132.
274: The latter is adjusted to obtain a SN reduced \chsr=1 and coincides with
275: the value of $0.13\pm 0.02$ given in A05 for their concordance cosmology.
276:
277:
278: \subsection{GRBs and the \relL\ relation}
279:
280: The sample of 19 GRBs with known redshifts and with the observational
281: information required to establish the $\Liso=CE_{\rm pk}^mT_{0.45}^{-n}$
282: correlation was presented in \citet{paper1}.
283: The {\it rest frame} quantities entering
284: in this correlation are the bolometric corrected (in the range of $1-10^4$
285: keV in the rest frame) isotropic--equivalent luminosity, \Liso, the spectrum
286: peak energy, \Ep, and the time spanned by the brightest 45$\%$ of the total
287: lightcurve counts above the background, \tdur.
288: The assumed energy range for calculating \tdur\ is $50-300$ keV in
289: the rest frame.
290: We use the recipe proposed by \citet{Reichart01} to pass from the observed
291: energy range to the assumed rest one, and the ligth-curve time binning of
292: {\it HETE-II}, 164-ms \citep[see][]{paper1}.
293:
294: Besides the redshift, the observables required to estimate \Liso, \Ep\
295: and \tdur\ are: the peak flux $P$, the fluence $F$, the spectrum peak
296: energy \Ep, and its overall shape \citep[as described by the][model for most cases]
297: {Band93}, and the time scale of the brightest $45\%$ of the total light--curve
298: counts above the background, \tdurob. Errors on the observable parameters are
299: appropriately propagated to the composite quantities under the
300: assumption of no correlation among the measured errors.
301: For the concordance cosmology the correlation gives a reduced $\chsr=0.7$
302: \citep{paper1}, which could be signaling to an overestimate in the
303: data uncertainties. Whilst the observable uncertainties do not improve,
304: we can not attempt to estimate any intrinsic dispersion for our GRB sample.
305:
306:
307:
308: %========================================================
309: \section{The method}
310: %========================================================
311:
312: The 'circularity problem' mentioned in the Introduction in principle
313: should not be a problem for SNIa because the brighter--slower and brighter--bluer
314: correlations could be calibrated with a low$-z$ sample. However, the
315: distance estimates to high--$z$ SNIa improve if the parameters
316: of these correlations are empirically determined along with the \chs\
317: minimization, from which the cosmological parameters are also constrained
318: (A05; note that multi--band photometric data are necessary
319: to apply this technique). The situation is therefore, at least mathematically,
320: similar to the circularity problem of GRBs. This suggests us to use our
321: Bayesian method for improving the SNLS cosmological constraints estimated
322: by A05.
323:
324: The basic idea of our approach is to find the best--fitted correlation on
325: each point $\bar\Omega$ of the explored cosmological parameter space [for instance
326: $\bar{\Omega} = (\bar{\Omega}_{\rm m},\bar{\Omega}_{\Lambda})$] and estimate
327: with such correlation the scatter
328: $\chi^2(\Omega,\bar{\Omega})$ on the HD for any given cosmology $\Omega$.
329: The conditional probability $P(\Omega|\bar{\Omega})$ inferred from the
330: $\chi^2(\Omega,\bar{\Omega})$ statistics provides the probability for each
331: $\Omega$ given a possible $\bar{\Omega}$--defined correlation.
332: By defining with $P^\prime(\bar\Omega)$ an arbitrary probability for each
333: $\bar\Omega$--defined correlation, the total probability of each $\Omega$,
334: using the Bayes formalism, is given by
335: \begin{equation}
336: P(\Omega) = \int P(\Omega|\bar{\Omega})P^\prime(\bar{\Omega})d\bar{\Omega},
337: \label{bayes}
338: \end{equation}
339: where the integral is extended on the available $\bar{\Omega}$ space.
340: Because the observations give a correlation for each cosmology,
341: $P^\prime(\bar{\Omega})$ is actually the probability of the cosmology.
342: Consequently such probability is obtained putting
343: $P^\prime(\bar{\Omega}) = P(\Omega)$ and solving the integral Eq.(\ref{bayes}).
344: This method based on the use of an iterative Monte Carlo technique has been
345: presented in Firmani et al. (2005,2006b), and we refer the reader to such
346: papers for more details.
347:
348: In what follows, we apply the Bayesian method to (i) the SNLS SNIa sample
349: alone, and (ii) to the combination of both the SNIa and GRB samples.
350:
351:
352: %========================================================
353: \section{Results}
354: %========================================================
355:
356: %--------------------------------------------------
357: \begin{figure}
358: \vskip -2.2 true cm
359: \hskip -1.7 true cm \psfig{file=prometeo_hd.ps,height=14.5cm,width=11.5cm}
360: \vskip -1.5 true cm
361: \caption{
362: Top panel: The SNIa (red symbols) and GRB (blue symbols)
363: Hubble diagram (HD) for a concordance cosmology.
364: In the bottom panel we show the residuals of the data points
365: minus the concordance model.
366: }
367: \label{fig1}
368: \end{figure}
369:
370: %--------------------------------------------------
371:
372: Figure \ref{fig1} shows the HD assuming the concordance
373: cosmology (\Om=0.28, \OL=0.72 and h=0.71) for the 117 SNIa ($0.015<z<1.010$)
374: reported in A05 (red symbols), as well as for the 19 GRBs ($0.17<z<4.5$) from our
375: sample (blue symbols). From this plot one sees that GRBs are a
376: natural extension of SNIa to high redshifts. The observational
377: uncertainties for GRBs are
378: still significantly larger than for SNIa. The residuals of both
379: samples with respect to the assumed cosmology (solid curve) are shown
380: in the bottom panel of Fig. \ref{fig1}.
381: The average of the absolute values of the residuals and its uncertainty
382: for the SNIa and GRB samples are $0.15\pm 0.01$ and $0.26\pm 0.05$, respectively.
383:
384: % ----------------------------------------------
385:
386: \begin{figure}
387: \vskip -2.5 true cm
388: \hskip -2 true cm \psfig{file=prometeoalg.ps,height=13.5cm,width=13.5cm}
389: \vskip -1.5 true cm
390: \caption{
391: Constraints on the (\Om,\OL) plane from the SNIa HD using our Bayesian
392: approach to circumvent
393: the circularity problem (green line) and from the combined SNIa+GRB
394: HD (red line and shaded region). Both lines are contours at 68.3\% CL's.
395: The star shows where \chsr\ reaches its minimum, while the cross indicates the
396: concordance cosmology.
397: The line corresponds to the flat geometry cosmology, the upper curve
398: is the loitering limit between Big Bang and no Bing Bang models
399: }
400: \label{fig2}
401: \end{figure}
402:
403: % ----------------------------------------------
404:
405: In Fig. \ref{fig2} we show the 1$\sigma$ confidence levels (CL's) for only
406: the SNIa sample (green line) and for the combined SNIa+GRB sample (red
407: shaded region) in the \Om--\OL\ plane. The use of the Bayesian method for
408: analyzing the first--year SNLS SNIa dataset improves somewhat the
409: cosmological constraints, especially for the large \OL\ part of the CL,
410: as can be appreciated by comparing Fig. \ref{fig2} with Fig. 5
411: in A05. From Fig. \ref{fig2} we also see that the
412: inclusion of GRBs greatly improves the constraints given by SNIa
413: alone. Because GRBs span a wide range of $z'$s, the degeneracy
414: between \OL\ and \Om\ is less severe for them than for the SNIa
415: \citep[see the discussion in][]{paper2}. This achievement
416: is obtained despite the small number of GRBs and their relatively
417: large observational uncertainties.
418:
419: Both the SNLS SNIa sample and the GRBs sample, show each one that
420: the best--fit values of \Om\ and \OL\ are close to the flat--geometry case:
421: the concordance model is actually well
422: inside the corresponding 1$\sigma$ CL constraints \citep[A05,][]{NP05,paper2}.
423: Now, the combined set makes the constrain even more restrictive.
424: If one forces \Ot = 1, our statistical analysis gives
425: $\Om = 0.273^{+0.027}_{-0.024}$.
426: This range intersects the range of \Om\ values allowed by dynamical determinations
427: \citep[e.g.,][]{Hawkins03,schu03}.
428: Thus the constraints to the $\Lambda$ cosmology parameters obtained
429: here are consistent with several other independent cosmological measurements.
430:
431: \begin{figure}
432: \vskip -2.5 true cm
433: \hskip -2 true cm \psfig{file=prometeodlg.ps,height=13.5cm,width=13.5cm}
434: \vskip -1.5 true cm
435: \caption{
436: Constraints on the (\Om, \wo) plane for a flat cosmology with static DE,
437: using the same convention of Fig. \ref{fig2}.
438: }
439: \label{fig3}
440: \end{figure}
441:
442: \begin{figure}
443: \vskip -2.5 true cm
444: \hskip -2 true cm \psfig{file=prometeoslg.ps,height=13.5cm,width=13.5cm}
445: \vskip -1.5 true cm
446: \caption{
447: Constraints on the (\wo,\wu) plane for a flat cosmology with dynamic DE,
448: \zt=1, and \Om =0.28, using the same convention of Fig. \ref{fig2}.
449: The encapsulated panel shows the 1$\sigma$ CL for \wz corresponding to the
450: SNIa dataset alone (green plus red region) and the SNIa+GRB (red region).
451: }
452: \label{fig4}
453: \end{figure}
454:
455: \subsection{Flat cosmology with alternative DE}
456:
457: We now relax the assumption $w=-1$, which was implicit up to now, and
458: explore the possibility of $w=\wo$, where $\wo$ is a free parameter.
459: The limited number of objects in our two samples and the current
460: accuracies do not allow to have more than two free parameters. Therefore, we
461: fix \Om+\OL=1, and find the CL contours in the $\wo-\Om$ plane.
462: Figure \ref{fig3} shows the 1$\sigma$ CL's in the $\wo-\Om$ plane
463: using only the SNLS SNIa sample (green line), and the combined
464: SNIa+GRB sample (red line and shaded region).
465: Again, the SNIa constraints obtained with our iterative Bayesian method
466: are tighter than the ones obtained in A05 (compare Fig. \ref{fig3}
467: with their Fig. 5).
468: When using the combined SNIa+GRB sample, we obtain a tight constraint
469: on \wo\ for reliable values of \Om.
470: For values of \Om\ in the range 0.236--0.286, the $\Lambda$ model ($w=-1$)
471: is consistent at the 1$\sigma$.
472: Assuming the prior \Om = 0.28, we obtain $\wo=-1.055^{+0.073}_{-0.029}$,
473: while for \Om = 0.26, we obtain $\wo=-1.000^{+0.055}_{-0.073}$.
474: By combining independent cosmological probes that are sensitive to \Om~
475: \citep[e.g.,][]{Allen04, Eisen05} with our joint GRB+SNIa probe,
476: better constraints on \wo\ could be obtained.
477:
478: In order to explore the constraints on a possible evolution of $w$, based on
479: the same arguments given in \citet{paper2}, we use the parametrization
480: \citep{raw05}
481: %
482: \begin{equation}
483: \wz = \wo + \wu \frac{z} {\zt + z}.
484: \label{w}
485: \end{equation}
486: %
487: Constraints on (\wo,\wu) for flat geometry {\it dynamical} DE models with the
488: priors \Om=0.28 and \zt=1 are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig4}. As discussed in
489: \citet{paper2}, current
490: observational data do not allow yet to determine well \zt\
491: \citep[$\zt=1$ corresponds to a popular parametrization introduced by][]{CP01}.
492: The green line and the red shaded region represent the 1$\sigma$ CL's for the
493: SNIa dataset alone and for the combined SNIa+GRB sample, respectively.
494: The encapsulated panel shows the corresponding 1$\sigma$ CL for the
495: evolution of \wz\ using the SNIa dataset alone (green plus red region)
496: and the SNIa+GRB datasets (red shaded region).
497: Again the $\Lambda$ case (\wo=$-1$ and \wu=0, which reduces to the concordance
498: model because of the assumption that \Om = 0.28), is within the 1$\sigma$ CL's for
499: both SNIa and SNIa+GRB constraints. Our results allow at the 1$\sigma$ CL for
500: models that avoid crossing the phantom dividing line ($w[z]=-1$). Notice that
501: although Eq. (\ref{w}) describes the evolution of $w$ up to any arbitrary
502: large $z$ once its parameters were determined, the changes on $w$ with $z$
503: suggested by the observational constraints are formally valid only within
504: the redshift range of the observational data, $z<4.5$ in our case.
505:
506: \vspace{0.4cm}
507:
508: %========================================================
509: \section{Conclusions}
510: %========================================================
511:
512: We have combined a sample of potential standard candles that includes
513: 115 SNIa of the SNLS dataset (A05) and 19 long GRBs. The latter were
514: ``standarized'' on the basis of a tight correlation among prompt
515: $\gamma-$ray properties alone \citep{paper1}.
516: Exploiting some similarities between the energetic callibrations of the SNLS
517: SNe and the GRBs, we use for both populations of objects the same method to
518: constrain cosmological parameters, namely a Bayesian approach described in
519: Firmani et al. (2005,2006b). GRBs may be conceived as the natural extension
520: of SNIa to large $z'$s in the HD.
521: The advantage of this extension by using GRBs is that the heavy degeneracy
522: in the space of the cosmological parameters due to a narrow and low $z$ range
523: (as is the case of SNIa) is remarkably reduced. Our main results are as follow:
524:
525: \begin{itemize}
526:
527: \item
528: The cosmological constraints obtained with the Bayesian method for the SNLS
529: sample alone are in agreement with those reported in A05. However, with the
530: Bayesian method we obtain somewhat tighter constraints on \Om, \OL\ and \wo\
531: than with the \chs\ minimization method used in A05.
532: The values of \Om\ and \OL\ of the best fit (using SNIa only) are in good agreement
533: with the flat--geometry case. Moreover, the best fitting values of \Om\ and \OL\
534: do not disagree with those obtained by using other cosmological probes
535: \citep[e.g.,][]{spergel06}, re--affirming the reliability of the cosmological
536: concordance model.
537:
538: \item
539: We have presented in a previous paper \citep{paper2} cosmological constraints
540: derived by using GRBs only, whose energetics is standardized with the \relL\
541: relation.
542: We have shown here that the combined SNIa+GRB sample is able to largely reduce
543: the allowed region of the parameter space with respect to the case where a
544: single population is used.
545: The resulting values of the best fits, once again, are in agreement with the
546: concordance $\Lambda$CDM model.
547:
548: \item
549: As a consistency check, we have explored DE models with $w=\wo=$const (i.e. relaxing
550: the assumption of $w=-1$), but assuming flat geometry.
551: Furthermore, for completeness, we have allowed also $w$ to change with $z$
552: according to a parametric law and assuming \Om=0.28. In both cases we find
553: that $w=-1=$const. is within the 1$\sigma$ CL from the best fits.
554:
555: \end{itemize}
556:
557: Finally, we emphasize the next two general conclusions:
558:
559: 1) GRBs and SNIa as standard candles should not be considered as competing
560: cosmological probes but as complementary methods.
561: Besides, both GRBs and high--$z$ SNIa suffer from the circularity
562: problem concerning their calibration in such a way the same Bayesian method can be
563: applied for both samples.
564:
565: 2) According to our results there is no need for DE ``exotic" equations of state.
566: The flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker-Lema\^itre $\Lambda$ cosmology is fully
567: consistent with the HD constructed for the joint sample of SNIa and
568: GRBs up to $z=4.5$. Similar conclusions were obtained recently on the basis of other
569: high--precision cosmological probes \citep{spergel06}.
570:
571:
572:
573: \section*{Acknowledgments}
574:
575: We acknowledge the anonymous referee for constructive comments
576: and Giuseppe Malaspina for technical support.
577: V.A-R. acknowledges the hospitality extended by INAF--OAB.
578: This work was supported by the italian INAF and MIUR
579: (Cofin grant 2003020775\_002), and PAPIIT-UNAM grant IN107706-3.
580:
581:
582: \begin{thebibliography}{}
583:
584: \bibitem[Alam, Sahni, \& Starobinsky(2004)]{alam04}
585: Alam U., Sahni V., Saini T.D. \& Starobinsky A.A., 2004,
586: JCAP, 06, 008 %new
587:
588: \bibitem[Allen et al.(2004)]{Allen04}
589: Allen S. W., Schmidt R. W., Ebeling H., Fabian A. C.
590: \& van Speybroeck L., 2004, MNRAS, 353, 457
591:
592: \bibitem[Astier et al.(2005)]{Astier05}
593: Astier P., Guy J., Regnault N. et al., 2006, A\&A, 447, 31 (A05)
594:
595: \bibitem[Band et al.(1993)]{Band93}
596: Band D., Matteson J., Ford L., et al., 1993, ApJ, 413, 281
597:
598: \bibitem[Bloom, Frail \& Kulkarni(2003)]{bloom03}
599: Bloom J.~S., Frail D.~A. \& Kulkarni S.~R. 2003, ApJ, 594, 674
600:
601: %\bibitem[Bridle et al.(2003)]{Bridle03}
602: % Bridle S. L., Lahav O., Ostriker J. P. \& Steinhardt P. J., 2003,
603: % Science 299, 1532
604:
605: %\bibitem[Caldwell \& Doran(2004)]{Caldwell04}
606: % Caldwell R. R. \& Doran M., 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 103517
607:
608: \bibitem[Chevallier \& Polarski (2001)]{CP01}
609: Chevallier M. \& Polarski D., 2001, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213
610:
611: \bibitem[Choudhury \& Padmanabhan(2004)]{CP05}
612: Choudhury T.R. \& Padmanabhan T., 2004, A\&A, 429, 807 %new
613:
614: \bibitem[Dai, Liang \& Xu(2004)]{dai04}
615: Dai Z.G., Liang E.W. \& Xu D. 2004, ApJ, 612, L101
616:
617: \bibitem[Eisenstein et al.(2005)]{Eisen05}
618: Eisenstein D. J.,Z ehavi I., Hogg D. W. et al., 2005, ApJ, 633, 560
619:
620: \bibitem[Firmani et al.(2005)]{fgga05}
621: Firmani C., Ghisellini G., Ghirlanda G. \& Avila-Reese V., 2005, MNRAS, 360, L1
622:
623: \bibitem[Firmani et al.(2006a)]{paper1}
624: Firmani C., Ghisellini G., Avila-Reese V. \& Ghirlanda G., 2006a, MNRAS,
625: in press (astro-ph/0605073) %(Paper I)
626:
627: \bibitem[Firmani et al.(2006b)]{paper2}
628: Firmani C., Avila-Reese V., Ghisellini G. \& Ghirlanda G., 2006b, MNRAS,
629: submitted %(Paper II)
630:
631: \bibitem[Frail et al.(2001)]{frail01}
632: Frail D.~A., Kulkarni S.R., Sari R., et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, L55
633:
634: \bibitem[Ghirlanda et al.(2004a)]{ggl04}
635: Ghirlanda G., Ghisellini G. \& Lazzati D., 2004a, ApJ, 616, 331
636:
637: \bibitem[Ghirlanda et al.(2004b)]{gglf04}
638: Ghirlanda G., Ghisellini G., Lazzati D. \& Firmani C., 2004b,
639: ApJ, 613, L13
640:
641: \bibitem[Ghirlanda et al.(2006)]{Ghirla06}
642: Ghirlanda G., Ghisellini G., Firmani, C., Nava, L., Tavecchio, F.,
643: \& Lazzati, D. 2006, A\&A, in press (astro-ph/0511559)
644:
645: \bibitem[Ghisellini et al.(2005)]{Ghisellini05}
646: Ghisellini G., Ghirlanda G., Firmani C., Lazzati D.
647: \& Avila-Reese V., 2005, Il Nuovo Cimento C, 028, 639
648:
649: \bibitem[Guy et al.(2005)]{Guy05}
650: Guy J., Astier P., Nobili S., Regnault N. \& Pain R., 2005, A\&A, 443, 781
651:
652: \bibitem[Jassal, Bagla \& Padmanabhan(2005)]{jassal05}
653: Jassal H.K., Bagla J.S., \& Padmanabhan T., 2005, Phys. Rev. D., 72, 103503
654:
655: \bibitem[Hawkins et al.(2003)]{Hawkins03}
656: Hawkins E., Maddox S., Cole S., et al., 2003, MNRAS, 346, 78
657:
658: %\bibitem[Kawai et al.(2005)]{Kawai05}
659: % Kawai N. et al., 2005, preprint (astro-ph/0512052)
660:
661: %\bibitem[Lahav \& Liddle(2006)]{LL06}
662: % Lahav O. \& Liddle A. R., 2006, preprint (astro-ph/0601168)
663:
664: \bibitem[Liang \& Zhang(2006)]{LZ05}
665: Liang E. \& Zhang B., 2006, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0504404)
666:
667: %\bibitem[Lamb \& Reichart(2000)]{lamb00}
668: %Lamb D.Q, \& Reichart D.E. 2000, ApJ, 536, 1
669:
670: %\bibitem[Linder(2003)]{linder03}
671: % Linder E.V., 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 091301
672:
673: %\bibitem[Linder(2004)]{Linder04}
674: % Linder E.V., 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 061302
675:
676: \bibitem[Linder \& Huterer(2003)]{LH03}
677: Linder E.V. \& Huterer D., 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 081303
678:
679: \bibitem[Linder \& Huterer(2005)]{LH05}
680: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 043509
681:
682: \bibitem[Nava et al.(2006)]{Nava05}
683: Nava L., Ghisellini G., Ghirlanda G., Tavecchio F. \& Firmani C.,
684: 2006, A\&A, 450, 471
685:
686: \bibitem[Nesseris \& Perivolaropoulos(2005)]{nesseris04}
687: Nesseris S. \& Perivolaropoulos L., 2005, JCAP, 10, 001
688:
689: \bibitem[Nesseris \& Perivolaropoulos(2006)]{NP05}
690: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 2006, preprint (astro-ph/0511040)
691:
692: \bibitem[\"Ostman \& M\"ortsell(2005)]{ostman05}
693: \"Ostman L. \& M\"ortsell E., 2005, 02, 005
694:
695: \bibitem[Padmanabhan(2006)]{Padma06}
696: Padmanabhan T., 2006, preprint (astro-ph/0603114)
697:
698: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.(1999)]{perl99}
699: Perlmutter S., Aldering G., Goldhaber G., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
700:
701: %\bibitem[Preece et al.(2000)]{Preece00}
702: % Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., Mallozzi, R.S., Pendleton, G. N.,
703: % Paciesas, W. S. \& Band, D. L., 2000, ApJSS, 126, 19
704:
705: %\bibitem[Press et al.(1999)]{pre99}
706: % Press W.H. et al., 1999, {\it Numerical Recipes in C},
707: % Cambridge University Press, 661
708:
709: \bibitem[Rapetti et al.(2005)]{raw05}
710: Rapetti D., Allen S. W., \& Weller J., 2005, MNRAS, 360, 555
711:
712: \bibitem[Reichart et al.(2001)]{Reichart01}
713: Reichart D., Lamb D. Q., Fenimore E. E., Ramirez-Ruiz E.,
714: Cline Th. L. \& Hurley K., 2000, ApJ, 552, 57
715:
716: \bibitem[Riess et al.(1998)]{riess98}
717: Riess A.G., Filippenko A.V., Challis P., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009
718:
719: \bibitem[Riess et al.(2004)]{Riess04}
720: Riess A.G., Strolger L.-G., Tonry J., et al., 2004, ApJ, 607, 665
721:
722: %\bibitem[Sahni et al.(2003)]{sahni03}
723: % Sahni V. et al., 2003, JETP Letters 77, 201
724:
725: \bibitem[Sahni(2004)]{Sahni04}
726: Sahni V., 2004, in ``The Physics of the Early Universe'', Ed. E.
727: Papantonopoulos, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 653 (Berlin: Springer)
728: p.141 (astro-ph/0403324)
729:
730: \bibitem[Schaefer(2003)]{schaefer}
731: Schaefer, B.E. 2003, ApJ, 583, L67
732:
733: \bibitem[Schuecker et al.(2003)]{schu03}
734: Schuecker P., Caldwell R.R., B\"ohringer H., et al., 2003, A\&A, 402, 53
735:
736: %\bibitem[Seljak et al.(2005)]{Seljak05}
737: % Seljak U. et al., 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 103515
738:
739: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2006)]{spergel06}
740: Spergel D.N., Bean R., Dor\`e O., et al., 2006, preprint (astro-ph/0603449)
741:
742: %\bibitem[Tegmark et al.(2004)]{Tegmark04}
743: % Tegmark M. et al., 2004, Phys.Rev. D, 69, 103501
744:
745: %\bibitem[Upadhye, Ishak \& Steinhardt(2005)]{amol05}
746: % Upadhye A., Ishak M. \& Steinhardt P. J., 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 063501
747:
748: %\bibitem[Visser(2004)]{visser04}
749: % Visser M., 2004, preprint (gr-qc/0309109)
750:
751: \bibitem[Weller \& Albrecht(2002)]{weller02}
752: Weller J. \& Albrecht A., 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 103512
753:
754: %\bibitem[Xu(2005)]{Xu05}
755: % Xu D., 2005, preprint (astro-ph/0504052)
756:
757: \bibitem[Xu, Dai \& Liang(2005)]{XDL05}
758: Xu D., Dai Z. G. \& Liang E. W., 2005, ApJ, 633, 603
759:
760: \end{thebibliography}
761:
762:
763:
764: \end{document}
765:
766:
767:
768:
769:
770: