Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
The Planck cluster catalog is expected to contain of order a thousand galaxy clusters, both
newly discovered and previously known, detected through the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect over the
redshift range 0 . z . 1. Follow-up X-ray observations of a dynamically relaxed sub-sample of
newly discovered Planck clusters will improve constraints on the dark energy equation-of-state found
through measurement of the cluster gas mass fraction (fgas ). In view of follow-up campaigns with
XMM-Newton and Chandra, we determine the optimal redshift distribution of a cluster sample to
most tightly constrain the dark energy equation of state. The distribution is non-trivial even for the
standard w0 -wa parameterization. We then determine how much the combination of expected data
from the Planck satellite and fgas data will be able to constrain the dark energy equation-of-state.
Our analysis employs a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method as well as a Fisher Matrix analysis. We
find that these upcoming data will be able to improve the figure-of-merit by at least a factor two.
where cov(w0 , wa ) is the covariance between w0 and wa . Since clusters form from matter initially distributed
As there is little correlation, at least in the Gaussian over large volumes, we expect their composition to re-
approximation, between wa − wp , the area is simply flect that of the cosmic mean [5]. The cluster baryon
proportional to the product of the standard deviations: fraction fb , defined as the total baryonic mass over the
σ(wp ) × σ(wa ). total cluster mass, should faithfully reflect the cosmic
This motivates the definition: baryon fraction
true
fb = fgas + fstars ∝ Ωb /Ωm ,
−1
FoM = [σ(wp ) × σ(wa )] . (3)
true
where fstars is the fraction of baryons in stars and fgas
In this paper we look for the optimal cluster redshift is the true value of the cluster gas mass fraction. This
distribution that maximizes the FoM for a combined fu- relation is supported by hydrodynamical simulations [27–
ture CMB+fgas data set. We consider as illustration an 29]. Turning the relation around, allowing for systematic
observational X-ray campaign with a total available ob- and astrophysical effects [1, 2] and expressing the cosmic
servational time of ∼ 5M s to measure fgas of newly dis- baryon fraction through the physical densities ωb,m =
covered clusters or to improve the fgas determinations of Ωb,m h2 , with h being the reduced Hubble parameter h =
previously observed clusters. We assume that with this H0 /(100 Km/s/Mpc), we write:
amount of time it will be possible to obtain fgas mea-
surements for ∼ 100 clusters with an error of ∼ 10% and
true ωb b(z)
with a maximum redshift of zmax = 1. This scenario fgas (z) = γ K . (4)
ωm 1 + s(z)
is motivated in particular by the expectation that the
Planck clusters will be luminous X-ray objects [16], as where γ quantifies potential departures from hydrostatic
it is also suggested by the preliminary follow-up of the equilibrium, e.g., due to non-thermal pressure support;
ESZ [17]. Such an increase in sample size will certainly K is a normalization uncertainty related to instrumental
auger an improvement on dark energy constraints. Our calibration and certain modelling issues; b(z) = b0 (1 +
study includes the CMB temperature and polarization αb z) represents a possible cluster depletion factor and
data expected from Planck [25], together with the cluster its evolution, and s(z) = s0 (1 + αs z) is the stellar baryon
fgas measurements. Using the Fisher matrix formalism, fraction as a function of redshift (see, e.g., [1]).
we forecast uncertainties on dark energy parameters and When calculating fgas from the X-ray observations,
calculate the FoM given different cluster redshift distri- one needs to adopt a reference cosmological model, which
butions. We determine the optimal distribution as that is usually taken to be ΛCDM, in order, e.g., to relate the
which maximizes the FoM . observed flux to the luminosity of the bremsstrahlung
Once the optimal redshift distribution has been iden- emission, related to the density of the emitting gas. It
tified, we perform a Monte Carlo analysis on simulated can be shown that the mass of the gas estimated from
data and examine the improvement in constraining dark the deprojected X-ray surface brightness has a Mgas ∝
energy parameters when measuring fgas . 5/2
dA dependence on the angular diameter distance, while
Our paper is organized as follows: in section I we the estimated total mass has a dependence of the type
briefly describe the fgas method and the dependence of 3/2
M ∝ dA [7]. Thus, the fgas has a ∝ dA dependence on
the data on cosmological parameters. Section II describes the angular diameter distance. If the reference cosmology
the Fisher Matrix method and its use for fgas and CMB is not the true one, the gas fraction found by adopting
data, while section III presents the analysis of the opti- ref
the reference cosmology, fgas (the observed fraction), is
mal cluster redshift distribution. Finally, in section IV related to the true gas fraction via:
we present parameter constraints from the Monte-Carlo
study. In section V, we discuss our conclusions.
1.5 η
dref ref
ref ref true true A (z) θ2500 (z)
fgas (z; θ2500 ) = fgas (z; θ2500 ) .
dtrue
A (z)
true (z)
θ2500
I. THE fgas METHOD
(5)
Here, we suppose the gas mass fraction is measured
We begin by briefly recalling the fgas method and its within an angular radius θ2500 corresponding to a phys-
use for cosmological analyses. For greater detail, we refer ical radius r2500 1 . If the true cosmology is different
the reader to [5, 26]. from the reference one, the misestimate of θ2500 intro-
The X-ray gas mass fraction fgas is defined as the ra- duces an additional dependence on cosmology, due to
tio of the X-ray emitting gas mass to the total mass of true
the fact that fgas smoothly varies with radius [27],
a cluster. It is determined from the observation of the
X-ray surface brightness and the spectrally-determined,
deprojected gas temperature profile. As both spherical
symmetry and hydrostatic equilibrium are assumed for 1 The radius r2500 is defined as that radius within which the mean
the clusters considered [1], the analysis is best limited to density is 2500 times the critical density of the universe at the
the hottest, dynamically relaxed clusters. redshift of the cluster.
3
fgas ∝ (r/r2500 )η . It can be shown that θ2500 depends on chosen to provide the same angular diameter distance at
the Hubble parameter and on the angular diameter dis- the redshift of recombination, i.e., to be completely de-
tance as θ2500 = r2500 /dA (z) ∝ (H(z)dA (z))−1 [2]. The generate in CMB data. Is is evident from this figure that
parameter η is thus taken into account along with po- the fgas data breaks this degeneracy.
tential systematic effects. The angular diameter distance
is defined as dA (z) = (1 + z)−1 Sk (χ). Sk depends on
cosmological parameters as:
√ 1 sin χ |Ωk | k > 0
p
|Ωk |
Sk (χ) = χ k=0 (6)
√ 1 sinh χ |Ωk | k < 0
p
|Ωk |
∂f (z )
0.002/M pc), and scalar spectral index, ns , of the primor- parameters, i.e., gas∂θibin , is largest. In fact, degenera-
dial fluctuations, as well as the optical depth to reioniza- cies between parameters invalidate this deduction, mak-
tion, τ . As fiducial model for this parameter set, we use ing the optimal redshift distribution depend on the pre-
the best fit from the 5-year release of the WMAP satel- cision of the data and its degeneracy-breaking power, as
lite data (WMAP5) [33], reported in Table I. We verified well as on the influence of other (non fgas ) constraints.
that using the best fit from the 7-year release (WMAP7) For the CMB data, the Fisher Matrix is:
[8] does not change any of our results. Finally, we also X X ∂C X ∂CℓY
consider seven additional parameters to describe system- FijCMB = ℓ
[CℓXY ]−1 (12)
atic effects as in Eq. 4 and Eq. 5, and listed in Table ∂θi ∂θj
XY ℓ
II with the assumed priors. The priors adopted are the
same as in [1]. They reflect the current knowledge of where CℓX,Y denotes the CMB angular power spectra
their magnitude and therefore are conservative expec- X,Y=TT, EE, TE, plus the effective noise power spec-
tations for future data. Since the Fisher analysis only trum of Equation 13 below, and CℓXY is the covariance
allows Gaussian priors, for those parameters with a uni- matrix of the CℓX,Y as defined in [34]. We simulate angu-
form prior, we choose to interpret half of the uniform lar power spectra using the camb code[35] adopting the
intervals as the 2σ bounds of Gaussian priors. In sec- expected values for the 143 GHz channel of the Planck
tion IV, we perform a MCMC analysis using the correct satellite [25]. The experimental noise on the angular
priors. power spectrum is described as in [36]:
For the fgas data, the Fisher Matrix is:
2
w−1/2 ℓ(ℓ + 1)(θFWHM /rad)2
Nclusters
f
X ∂fgas (zk ) ∂fgas (zk ) Nℓ = exp , (13)
Fijgas = [Ckk ]−1 (10) µK-rad 8 ln 2
∂θi ∂θj
k=1
with w−1 = 3×10−4 µK 2
√ as the temperature noise level
where the sum is over the number of clusters Nclusters (we consider a factor 2 larger for polarization noise)
and C is the covariance matrix of fgas . In our case, C is and θFWHM = 7′ for the beam size [25]. We neglect the
diagonal and equal to C = σI, with σ = 10% × fgas (zk ), contribution of primordial B-mode polarization spectra
as the errors on the measured fgas at different redshifts and the lensing signal and we take fsky = 1 for the sky
are not correlated and we suppose that the errors are the coverage. We however verified that assuming a smaller
same for all clusters. sky coverage, e.g. fsky = 0.65, lowers the FoM by less
Dividing the redshift range into Nbins , each containing than . 10%.
nbin clusters, Equation 10 can be expressed as:
NX
bins III. SEARCH FOR THE OPTIMAL
f ∂fgas (zbin ) 1 ∂fgas (zbin )
Fijgas = nbin (11) DISTRIBUTION
∂θi σ2 ∂θj
bin=1
We calculate the total Fisher Matrix to estimate the
This equation shows explicitly the dependence of the fgas
cosmological parameters by summing the CMB and fgas
Fisher Matrix on the redshift distribution of the clusters,
Fisher Matrices:
i.e., the number nbin of clusters in each bin. This is what
we want to optimize. F Tot (nbin ) = F CMB + F fgas (nbin )
It is interesting to note that the tightest contraints on
cosmological parameters do not necessarly follow from The number of clusters in each redshift bin nbin are the
clusters at redshifts where the variation of fgas with the free parameters in our analysis. We search for the redshift
5
distribution nbin that provides the highest value for the redshifts, thus being degenerate with H0 . Measuring fgas
FoM , calculating the latter from the standard deviations at high redshifts can help disentangle these effects, given
σii = (F T ot )−1
ii for each tested redshift distribution and that the redshift-dependent systematic parameters are
using a maximization algorithm [37]. limited by priors. This explains why the optimal distri-
We first optimize the cluster distribution for the case bution places clusters in the highest redshift bin.
of linear evolution of the dark energy equation-of-state in Finally, the central peak isolates the effects of w0 and
a flat universe, i.e., when w(z) = w0 + (1 − (1 + z)−1 )wa , wa . This peak is expected to be near to or at slightly
constrained using a combination of CMB and fgas data. higher redshift than the equivalence between dark energy
In Table III, we report the optimal distribution for 100 and matter in the fiducial true cosmology, i.e., around
clusters in 10 bins over the redshift range z = 0 − 1. This zeq ∼ 0.42. At this redshift, the variation of fgas on true
maximizes the FoM to a value of 15.2. values of w0 and wa differs from the reference ones is
maximized, as also shown in Fig. 1.
Redshift Interval Number of clusters nbin There are two issues with this result. The first is that
0.0 - 0.1 38 the optimal distribution in Tab. III peaks in a bin cor-
0.1 - 0.2 0 responding to redshifts smaller than z = 0.42. This is
0.2 - 0.3 0
due to systematic effects, as their uncertainties grow with
0.3 - 0.4 45
0.4 - 0.5 0
redshift, so measurements at low z can better constrain
0.5 - 0.6 0 the parameters of interest. The second is the fact that
0.6 - 0.7 0 we obviously do not know the true value of zeq ; however,
0.7 - 0.8 0 recent data (see e.g. [38]) show that the redshift of equiv-
0.8 - 0.9 0 alence is between 0.35 . z . 0.55 at 68% c.l., in the case
0.9 - 1.0 17 of a dark energy equation of state as considered here.
We verified that even if the true zeq is different from the
TABLE III. Optimal distribution for 100 clusters in the red- fiducial one, within the current constraints, the optimal
shift range z = 0 − 1 for the (w0 − wa , Ωk = 0) model. distribution of Tab. III still provides a FOM that is very
close (within ∼ 5%) to the maximum value.
Thus we conclude that the use of the optimal distribu-
The distribution presents a peak in the first bin at the tion of Tab. III provides a FOM very close to the maxi-
lowest redshift, a second peak at an intermediate redshift mum obtainable, even when the fiducial true cosmology
of z ∼ 0.35 and then a third smaller peak in the last bin. is changed.
This distribution improves the figure of merit by 30%
compared to a simple uniform distribution, which has a We also perform several tests to check the optimal dis-
FoM of 11.3. tribution in a wide range of cases:
The shape of this optimized distribution is determined - We check the stability of the shape of the opti-
by the various factors. The expected Planck CMB data mal distribution by testing that small changes in
provide excellent contraints on the single values of ωb and the distribution still provide high FoM values. We
ωc at subpercent level. However, they can only constrain perform this test by finding the distributions that
the combination of H0 , w0 , wa and Ωk (but we are here provide a FoM within 5% of the maximum value.
first considering the case of a flat universe) because of These distributions are calculated by sampling the
the geometric degeneracy. Thus, the fgas distribution FoM on a regular grid of the nbin parameters, us-
is optimized to break at best the degeneracy between ing a step of ∆nbin = 10. This check confirms that
these parameters, as well as the additional degeneracies all the distributions corresponding to a high value
introduced by the presence of fgas systematics. of the FoM are similar to the one in Table III, i.e.
Suppose, at first, that systematics are perfectly known. have most of the clusters in the first, last and in-
In this case, measuring the fgas at low redshift permits termediate bin around z ∼ 0.42.
us to measure H0 , as the effect of w0 and wa at these
redshifts is negligible. This can be easily shown from Eq. This is shown in Fig. 2, where we plot the opti-
5, which in the limit of small z becomes: mal distributions for the (w0 , wa , Ωk = 0) model,
and the distributions with FoM within 5% of the
1.5 maximum FoM obtainable with the optimal distri-
H0true
ref ref true bution.
lim fgas (z; θ2500 ) = fgas (z) (14)
z→0 H0ref
- We check that the optimal distribution has roughly
Thus, a measurement of fgas at the smallest possible red- the same behavior when different redshift ranges
shift separates the effect of H0 from w0 , wa , provided that are considered, i.e., when the maximum redshift
ωb and ωc are sufficiently well measured by the CMB assumes a value between zmax = 0.9 and zmax = 3.
data. This check has a purely theoretical interest for
Consider now the effect of redshift-independent sys- the higher redshifts, as it seems very unlikely that
tematics. They can change the value of the fgas at low present and near-future experiments will detect
6
FIG. 2. The black thick line shows the optimal redshift dis-
tribution of galaxy clusters in 10 redshift bins in the range
z=0-1, corresponding to the highest FoM =15.2 (from the FIG. 3. FoM and the standard deviations of w0 and wa as
Fisher Matrix analysis). The blue lines show the redshift dis- a function of the maximum redshift. We determine these
tributions that have a FoM within 5% of the maximum value. constraints by combining simulated Planck CMB data and
fgas measurements for 100 clusters in the redshift range 0 −
zmax . We show both the results for an optimal (blue solid
lines) and a uniform (red dashed lines) distribution of clusters.
many massive hot clusters at z & 1.5. Neverthe- These results are obtained with the Fisher Matrix analysis.
less, we perform this analysis to better understand
the shape of the optimal distributions. The optimal
distributions appear to all have similar character-
istics for different redshift ranges. Indeed, all of the maximum FoM achievable is only 3.9. This is
them have around ∼ 35% of the clusters in the first due the absence of the high redshift measurement
bin, ∼ 15% in the last, and almost all the remain- of the angular diameter distance provided by the
ing clusters in the intermediate bin close to zeq . A CMB. In fact, while the effect of w0 and wa on
minor peak (∼ 5% of the clusters) also appears at fgas , i.e., on the ratio of the angular diameter dis-
z ∼ 1.15 when zmax & 1.8. tances dref true
A /dA , decreases with redshift some time
after the epoch of equality, their integrated effect on
Fig. 3 shows the constraints on the dark energy pa- the overall true angular diameter distance at high
rameters, as well as the FoM , for a (w0 − wa , Ωk = redshift is conserved. This is useful to constrain
0) model, as a function of the maximum redshift wa , which has a weak effect on fgas (compared for
zmax of the redshift range 0 − zmax , for both the example to w0 ). Thus, in absence of such a high
optimal and uniform distributions. It is interesting redshift information, the FoM remains very small.
to note that the FoM obtained using a uniform dis-
tribution increases with the maximum redshift till
zmax = 1.3 and then starts decreasing again. The - We also study how much the systematics affect the
gain in FoM offered by pushing the observations of optimal distribution and the FoM . The upper-left
a uniform distribution to such a maximum redshift plot of Fig. 4 shows the optimal distribution of
is, in any case, small as the FoM obtained is only Tab. III, obtained assuming priors on systematics
11.5. as in Tab. II, as well as the optimal distribution
obtained assuming that systematic effects are per-
- We also verify that a very similar optimal distri- fectly known. In this last case, the last bin dis-
bution is obtained when instead of CMB data we appears, as the degeneracy between H0 and the
consider priors of Ωb h2 = 0.0213 ± 0.002 [39] and systematics is no longer present, while the inter-
H0 = 73.8 ± 2.4 [40] in combination with the fgas mediate peak of clusters shifts at the bin centered
data. In this case we find that the optimal distri- in z = 0.55. The maximum FoM obtainable in this
bution is almost the same as when using the full case is obviously much higher than in the case when
analysis with CMB+fgas . This is due to the fact systematic uncertainties are present, namely FoM
that now the clusters in the low redshift bin are = 51.5. This indicates that the forecasted fgas data
used to constrain ωc instead of H0 , as also this pa- is not enough to break degeneracies between sys-
rameter has a strong effect on the fgas at low z. For tematics and cosmological parameters. Thus, pri-
the z = 0 − 1 range in the (w0 − wa ,Ωk = 0) model, ors heavily affect the constraints on dark energy.
7
FIG. 4. Optimized distributions of clusters for the (w0 -wa , Ωk = 0) model (top-left), for (w0 -wa , Ωk ) (top-right), for (w0 , wa =
0, Ωk = 0) (bottom-left) and for (w0 wa = 0, Ωk ) (bottom-right). We show the results for the case using priors on systematics
as in Tab.II (black solid lines) and assuming perfectly known systematics (red dashed lines).
tion for the dark energy perturbations [42] implemented index nS , the overall normalization of the spectrum A at
by [43] in the camb code. Moreover, we use the code of k = 0.002 Mpc−1 , and the optical depth to reionization,
[44] to implement the fgas data in the cosmomc code. τ . Furthermore, for fgas we consider the seven system-
We simulate datasets for the Planck experiment follow- atic parameters described in Section 4, with the priors in
ing the commonly used approach, described, for example, Table II.
in [45]. We first generate the fiducial theoretical angular We test the four models considered in the Fisher Ma-
power spectra CℓT T , CℓT E , CℓEE with the camb code for a trix analysis, i.e., a linear evolution of the dark energy
cosmological model compatible with the WMAP5 maxi- equation of state w0 − wa in a flat and non-flat universe,
mum likelihood parameters reported in Table I. We then and a constant value of the dark energy equation-of-state
add the experimental noise Nℓ described in Equation 13. w0 in a flat and non-flat universe.
For fgas we simulate a dataset of 100 clusters over the
redshift range z = 0 − 1, distributed with either the opti-
mal configuration reported in Table III or with a uniform B. Results
distribution. We assume that the true and the reference
cosmology are the same as the fiducial model of Table I. Table V shows our constraints on the most interest-
A 10% error is assigned to the measurements. ing varied and derived parameters for all the models and
We sample a set of cosmological parameters similar to combinations of data tested, obtained using the cosmomc
the one used in the Fisher Matrix analysis, adopting flat code. Concerning the (w0 − wa , Ωk = 0) model, the FoM
priors: the physical baryon and cold dark matter densi- found with a combination of the synthetic Planck CMB
ties, ωb = Ωb h2 and ωc = Ωc h2 , the ratio of the sound data plus an optimal distribution of fgas data is smaller
horizon to the angular diameter distance at decoupling, than the Fisher Matrix value in Table IV (14.4, instead
θS (used instead of H0 ), and the curvature Ωk . For the of 15.1) due to better accounting of uniform priors and a
CMB data, we additionally consider the scalar spectral more reliable treatment of the non-Gaussian probability
9
2
Ωb h
nation of Planck CMB+fgas data with an optimal distri-
bution still improves the FoM by ∼ 26% compared to a 0.114
2
ΩDM h
uniform distribution over the same redshift range, which 0.112
0.11
0.108
provides a FoM of 11.4. 0.106
2
Moreover, the results obtained with the combination 0
0
w
of synthetic Planck CMB+optimal fgas represent a ma- −2
jor improvement over current data. For instance, we 2
0
a
calculated the FoM from WMAP5 CMB combined with −2
w
−4
−6
the fgas data for 42 clusters measured by Allen et al.[1].
0.8
These datasets yield a FoM of 8.3; therefore, future data
DE
0.6
Ω
0.4
will improve this result by almost a factor ∼ 2, as clear 0.2
100
from the second line of Tab. V. An even more impressive
0
H
improvement is obtained if in addition to the synthetic 50
Planck CMB data and the fgas data for 100 clusters with 0.022 0.023
Ωb h
2
0.1060.110.114
ΩDM h
2
−2
w
0 2 −6 −2
w
2 0.20.40.60.8
Ω
50
H
100
DE
an optimal distribution, we add the known 42 fgas mea- 0 a 0
Model: w0 − wa , Ωk = 0
TABLE V. Figures of merit and 68% c.l. errors on cosmological parameters for different models, obtained using the cosmomc
code. The dark energy and dark matter density parameters Ωde and Ωm are indirectly derived. We show the results for different
combinations of data. ‘WMAP5’ indicates CMB data from the 5-year release of the WMAP satellite data [33], while ‘Planck’
indicates simulated CMB data from the Planck satellite [25]. ‘fgas (opt).’ indicates fgas simualated data for 100 clusters with
an optimal distribution between redshift 0 and 1, while ’fgas (uni.)’ is for a uniform distribution. Finally, ‘Allen’ indicates fgas
real data for 42 clusters publicated in Allen et al. [1].
expected from the Planck satellite and simulated fgas by both using the Fisher Matrix and the MCMC meth-
measurements for 100 clusters observed by a possible fu- ods to forecast constraints. We found that future data
ture X-ray campaign with X-ray satellites. We found will increase the FoM by a factor ∼ 2 relative to the
the optimal cluster distribution over the redshift range current constraints available with WMAP5 and the fgas
z = 0 − 1 to provide the tightest constraints on the dark data from [1]. Our study provides a useful guide for plan-
energy equation-of-state. The optimal distribution im- ning XMM-Newton and Chandra follow-up observations
proves the FoM by almost ∼ 30% compared to a uniform of Planck and SPT clusters.
distribution. We found that the optimal distribution, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
found for a linearly evolving dark energy equation of state
in a flat universe, provides very high figures of merit also S.G. would like to thank D. Rapetti, B. Wandelt and
in other theoretical frameworks, namely free curvature or S. Allen for useful discussions. A portion of the research
a constant equation-of-state. A positive characteristic of described in this paper was carried out at the Jet Propul-
the optimal distribution is that clusters are placed at low sion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, un-
and intermediate redshifts, while only a few should be der a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space
observed at high redshift, where measurements require Administration. This work was supported by the PRIN-
longer observational times. We performed our analysis INAF grant ’Astronomy probes fundamental physics.
[1] Allen, S. W., Rapetti, D. A., Schmidt, R. W., Ebeling, [3] S. Ettori et al., arXiv:0904.2740 [astro-ph.CO].
H., Morris, R. G., & Fabian, A. C. 2008, Mon. Not. R. [4] S. LaRoque, M. Bonamente, J. Carlstrom, M. Joy, D. Na-
Astron. Soc. ,, 3 (8)3, 879 gai, E. Reese and K. Dawson, Astrophys. J. 652, 917
[2] Rapetti, D., Allen, S. W., & Mantz, A. 2008, Mon. Not. (2006) [arXiv:astro-ph/0604039].
R. Astron. Soc. ,, 3 (8)8, 1265
11
−1
−1.5
[14] Planck Collaboration, Astron. & Astrophys., 536:8, De-
cember 2011
0.8
[15] Planck Collaboration Astron. & Astrophys., 531:1, De-
ΩDE