4.7 Article

Figures of merit for present and future dark energy probes

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 82, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.063004

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. CCAPP at The Ohio State University
  2. DOE [DE-FG02-95ER40899, DE-FG02-90ER-40560]
  3. NSF [AST-0807564, PHY-0114422]
  4. NASA [NNX09AC89G]
  5. Packard Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We compare current and forecasted constraints on dynamical dark energy models from Type Ia supernovae and the cosmic microwave background using figures of merit based on the volume of the allowed dark energy parameter space. For a two-parameter dark energy equation of state that varies linearly with the scale factor, and assuming a flat universe, the area of the error ellipse can be reduced by a factor of similar to 10 relative to current constraints by future space-based supernova data and CMB measurements from the Planck satellite. If the dark energy equation of state is described by a more general basis of principal components, the expected improvement in volume-based figures of merit is much greater. While the forecasted precision for any single parameter is only a factor of 2-5 smaller than current uncertainties, the constraints on dark energy models bounded by -1 <= w <= 1 improve for approximately 6 independent dark energy parameters resulting in a reduction of the total allowed volume of principal component parameter space by a factor of similar to 100. Typical quintessence models can be adequately described by just 2-3 of these parameters even given the precision of future data, leading to a more modest but still significant improvement. In addition to advances in supernova and CMB data, percent-level measurement of absolute distance and/or the expansion rate is required to ensure that dark energy constraints remain robust to variations in spatial curvature.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available