text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

Recent astronomical observations of high redshift type Ia Supernovae performed by two groups  as well as the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation obtained by the BOOMERANG  and MAXIMA-1  experiments seem to indicate that at present the Universe is in a state of accelerated expansion. If one analyzes these data within the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) standard model of cosmology their most natural interpretation is that the Universe is spatially flat and that the (baryonic plus dark) matter density $`\rho `$ is about one third of the critical density $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}`$. Most interestingly, the dominant contribution to the energy density is provided by the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The vacuum energy density

$$\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }/(8\pi G)$$
(1)
is about twice as large as $`\rho `$, i.e. about two thirds of the critical density. With $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}\rho /\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }/\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}1/3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }2/3,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}1.$$
(2)
This implies that the deceleration parameter $`q`$ is approximately $`1/2`$. While originally the cosmological constant problem  was related to the question why $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is so unnaturally small, the discovery of the important role played by $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has shifted the emphasis toward the “coincidence problem”, the question why $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ happen to be of the same order of magnitude precisely at this very moment .

In an attempt at resolving this naturalness problem the quintessence models  have been proposed in which the cosmological constant becomes a time dependent quantity . Their dynamics is arranged in such a way that $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ automatically adjusts itself relative to the value of $`\rho `$. In most of the quintessence models the vacuum energy density $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is carried by a scalar field which has to be introduced on an ad hoc basis.

In this paper we shall describe a different scenario which provides a natural explanation for the approximate equality of $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and for the smallness of the cosmological constant. We are going to set up a very general framework for cosmologies in which both Newton’s constant and the cosmological constant are time dependent. Within this framework, we shall formulate a single hypothesis whose consequences will be analyzed and which will turn out to imply that $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are approximately equal in the late Universe. In a nutshell, the hypothesis is that there exists an infrared (IR) attractive fixed point for the renormalization group (RG) flow of the (dimensionless) Newton constant and cosmological constant, respectively. Our analysis is at purely phenomenological level in the sense that it is not necessary to know the details of the physics which is responsible for this postulated fixed point.

Before we formulate our hypothesis in detail we first describe the kinematic framework we are going to employ. It is the same framework which we used in ref., henceforth referred to as (I), for an analysis of the quantum gravity effects in the early Universe (Planck era).

## II The Kinematic Framework

We consider homogeneous and isotropic cosmologies described by a standard Robertson-Walker metric containing the scale factor $`a(t)`$ and the parameter $`K=0,\pm 1`$ which distinguishes the three types of maximally symmetric 3-spaces of constant cosmological time $`t`$. The dynamics is governed by Einstein’s equation $`R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }+8\pi GT_{\mu \nu }`$ with a conserved energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }=\mathrm{diag}(\rho ,p,p,p)`$ for which we assume the equation of state $`p(t)=w\rho (t)`$ where $`w>1`$ is an arbitrary constant. Now we perform a “RG improvement”  of Einstein’s equation by replacing $`GG(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ where the time dependence of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is such that the integrability of the field equations is maintained. This leads to the following system of equations:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{K}{a^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3}}G\rho `$ (3a)
$`\dot{\rho }+3(1+w)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)\rho =0`$ (3b)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+8\pi \rho \dot{G}=0`$ (3c)
$`G(t)G(k=k(t)),\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)\mathrm{\Lambda }(k=k(t))`$ (3d)
Eq.(3a) is the standard Friedmann equation with a time dependent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`G`$, and Eq.(3b) expresses the conservation of $`T^{\mu \nu }`$. Eq.(3c) is a novel consistency condition which is dictated by Bianchi’s identity. It guarantees that the RHS of Einstein’s equation has vanishing covariant divergence. The system of equations (2.1a,b,c) has already been studied in the literature . Our crucial new ingredient  are the RG equations (3d). Their meaning is as follows.

We describe gravitational phenomena at a typical distance scale $`\mathrm{}k^1`$ in terms of a scale dependent effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[g_{\mu \nu }]`$ which should be thought of as a Wilsonian coarse grained free energy functional. The mass parameter $`k`$ is a IR cutoff in the sense that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ encapsulates the effect of all metric fluctuations with momenta larger than $`k`$ while those with smaller momenta are not yet “integrated out”. When evaluated at tree level, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ describes all processes involving a single characteristic momentum $`k`$ with all loop effects included.

In , $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ has been identified with the effective average action  for Euclidean quantum gravity and an exact functional RG equation for the $`k`$-dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ has been derived. Nonperturbative solutions were obtained within the “Einstein-Hilbert truncation” which assumes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ to be of the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_k=(16\pi G(k))^1d^4x\sqrt{g}\{R(g)+2\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)\}$$
(4)
The RG equations yield an explicit answer for the $`k`$-dependence of the running Newton constant $`G(k)`$ and the running cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)`$. Within the Einstein-Hilbert approximation, the renormalization effects are strong only if $`k`$ is close to the Planck mass $`m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$. In (I) we argued that they are important for an understanding of the Planck era immediately after the big bang. However, there are indications  that quantum Einstein gravity, because of its inherent IR divergences, is subject to strong renormalization effects also at very large distances. In cosmology those effects would be relevant to the Universe at late times. It has been speculated that they might lead to a dynamical relaxation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, thus solving the cosmological constant problem . An analysis of such IR effects in the framework of the effective average action is not available yet. It would require truncations which are much more complicated than (4) and which contain nonlocal invariants , for instance.

Nevertheless, in order to describe the idea of the “RG improvement” let us assume that we actually know the functions $`G(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)`$ for all values of $`k`$, in particular for $`k0`$, i.e. in the IR. The idea is to express the mass parameter $`k`$ in terms of the physically relevant cutoff scale. In (I) we argued that, in leading order, the correct cutoff identification in a Robertson-Walker spacetime is

$$k(t)=\xi /t$$
(5)
where $`\xi >0`$ is an a priori unknown constant. Inserting (5) into $`G(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)`$ we obtain the $`\mathrm{𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒}`$ dependent quantities $`G(t)G(k=\xi /t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)\mathrm{\Lambda }(k=\xi /t)`$. This is precisely what is meant by the last two equations of the system (2.1), Eq.(3d). (See (I) for further details.)

The cutoff identification (2.3) applies in the case of perfect homogeneity and isotropy for which $`k_{\mathrm{cosmo}}k(t)=\xi /t`$ is the only relevant scale. Allowing for (large, nonlinear) density perturbations $`\delta \rho (𝐱,t)`$ of a typical wave length $`\lambda _{\mathrm{pert}}`$ we introduce a new scale $`k_{\mathrm{pert}}=2\pi /\lambda _{\mathrm{pert}}`$ into the problem. Similarly, immersing a localized matter distribution (a massive body) of total mass $`M`$ into the cosmological fluid gives rise to the scale $`k_\mathrm{M}=M`$. In the situations of interest the latter two mass scales are much larger than the cosmological one: $`k_{\mathrm{pert}},k_\mathrm{M}k_{\mathrm{cosmo}}`$.

In a situation with more than one possible physical cutoff scale the general theory of the effective average action  implies that the relevant action is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ where $`k`$ is the largest one of the various competing scales. Hence in order to describe the physics of density perturbations of the localized matter distribution one has to use $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ at $`k=k_{\mathrm{pert}}`$ and $`k=k_\mathrm{M}`$, respectively, rather than at $`k=k_{\mathrm{cosmo}}`$. In this case one needs to know $`G(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)`$ for $`k`$ near $`k_{\mathrm{pert}},k_\mathrm{M}k_{\mathrm{cosmo}}`$ i.e. in a very different regime.

In the present paper we are interested only in the large scale dynamics of the Universe. In the next section we are going to formulate a hypothesis on the running of $`G(k)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)`$ for $`k`$ near $`k_{\mathrm{cosmo}}`$. The only assumption which we make about the RG flow of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at “non-cosmological” scales $`kk_{\mathrm{cosmo}}`$ (e.g. for $`kk_{\mathrm{pert}},k_M`$) is that at those scales the $`k`$-dependence is very weak or zero so that standard gravity is recovered at sub-cosmological scales.

At this point we emphasize that it is not important for the present discussion which physical mechanism actually causes the $`k`$\- or $`t`$\- dependence of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In particular, we also cover the possibility of an entirely classical origin of this running. In fact, it has been pointed out  that $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ naturally acquire a scale dependence if one starts from a density distribution which is inhomogeneous at small distances and then performs spatial averaging over 3-volumes of increasing linear extension $`\mathrm{}=k^1`$. The classical dynamics of the averaged quantities leads to a nontrivial RG flow of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Since the Universe is certainly not homogeneous at small distance scales, knowledge of this RG flow is important if one wants to parametrize observational data obtained at those scales in terms of a homogeneous FRW model; it was argued that this classical scale dependence might resolve the controversy about the value of the Hubble constant . Another intriguing result is that, after spatial averaging, the backreaction of long wavelength scalar and tensor cosmological perturbations amounts to an effective negative energy density which counteracts any pre-existing cosmological constant .

## III the fixed point hypothesis

The above remarks complete our motivation of the system of equations (2.1). We shall now formulate a hypothesis about the RG behavior of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ whose dynamical origin is left open. Introducing dimensionless quantities $`g(k)k^2G(k)`$ and $`\lambda (k)\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)/k^2`$ the hypothesis is that for $`k0`$ both $`g`$ and $`\lambda `$ run into an IR attractive non-Gaussian fixed point, i.e. that for a wide range of initial conditions

$$\underset{k0}{lim}g(k)=g_{}^{\mathrm{IR}},\underset{k0}{lim}\lambda (k)=\lambda _{}^{\mathrm{IR}}$$
(6)
where $`g_{}^{\mathrm{IR}}`$ and $`\lambda _{}^{\mathrm{IR}}`$ are strictly positive. While there are encouraging indications pointing toward the existence of this fixed point , a rigorous proof would be a formidable task, however, probably comparable to a proof of confinement in QCD. In the following we explore the cosmological implications of (6) which, as we shall see, provide further evidence for the fixed point hypothesis from the phenomenological side.

The postulated fixed point is the IR counterpart of the UV attractive non-Gaussian fixed point which is known to exist in the Einstein-Hilbert truncation of pure quantum gravity . For a large class of trajectories ,

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}g(k)=g_{}^{\mathrm{UV}},\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\lambda (k)=\lambda _{}^{\mathrm{UV}}$$
(7)
More generally, we assume that the exact cosmologically relevant RG trajectory in $`(g,\lambda )`$-space smoothly interpolates between $`(g_{}^{\mathrm{UV}},\lambda _{}^{\mathrm{UV}})`$ for $`k\mathrm{}`$ and $`(g_{}^{\mathrm{IR}},\lambda _{}^{\mathrm{IR}})`$ for $`k0`$. The UV fixed point is important for the very early Universe $`(t0)`$ while the IR fixed point determines the cosmology at late times $`(t\mathrm{})`$.

It is reassuring to note that a similar crossover between two non-trivial RG fixed points has actually been shown to exist in 2-dimensional Liouville quantum gravity . Its RG trajectory connects two conformal field theories with central charges $`25c`$ and $`26c`$, respectively, where $`c`$ is the central charge of the matter system.

In the vicinity of either of the two fixed points the evolution of the dimensionful $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is approximately given by

$$G(k)=\frac{g_{}}{k^2},\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)=\lambda _{}k^2$$
(8)
Here and in the following the fixed point values are denoted $`g_{}`$ and $`\lambda _{}`$ if the corresponding formula is valid both at the UV and at the IR fixed point. From (8) with (5) we obtain the time dependent Newton constant and cosmological constant:

$$G(t)=g_{}\xi ^2t^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=\frac{\lambda _{}\xi ^2}{t^2}$$
(9)
The power laws (9) are valid both for $`t0`$ and, with different coefficients, for $`t\mathrm{}`$. By assumption, the time dependence of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at intermediate times is given by smooth functions $`G(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ which interpolate between the UV and IR power laws. If we use these functions $`G(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ in the coupled system (2.1), its solution gives us the scale factor $`a(t)`$ and the density $`\rho (t)`$ of the “RG improved cosmology”.

To be precise, our hypothesis about the RG trajectory $`k(G(k),\mathrm{\Lambda }(k))`$ consists of two parts. For $`kk_{\mathrm{cosmo}}`$ we assume the validity of the IR fixed point behavior (3.3). For $`kk_{\mathrm{cosmo}}`$ the assumption is that $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ depend on $`k`$ only extremely weakly or are $`k`$-independent. In this manner we recover standard gravity with $`G,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=const at the length scales smaller than the cosmological scale $`t`$. In particular $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are essentially constant at $`k_{\mathrm{pert}}`$ and $`k_\mathrm{M}`$ so that the dynamics of localized matter distribution remains unchanged and there is no conflict with the classical tests of general relativity. Stated differently, the hypothesis is that the nontrivial runnning is due to quantum fluctuations with momenta between $`k_{\mathrm{cosmo}}`$ and $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ where $`1/k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the length scale characterizing the largest localized structures in the Universe of which we know for sure that standard gravity applies.

## IV cosmological solutions in the fixed point regime

It is important to note that the system (2.1) is actually overdetermined: it consists of 5 equations for the 4 unknowns $`a,\rho ,G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This leads to nontrivial consistency conditions for admissible RG trajectories and cutoff identifications. (See (I) for a detailed discussion.) In (I) we showed that if $`G(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ are given by (9) the system (2.1) has indeed a consistent solution provided $`\xi `$ assumes a specific value. Quite generally the consistency conditions have the very welcome feature of fixing the ambiguities in the modeling of the cutoff (here $`\xi `$) to some extent.

For the case of a spatially flat Universe $`(K=0)`$ the consistency condition reads

$$\xi ^2=\frac{8}{3(1+w)^2\lambda _{}}$$
(10)
If it is satisfied, the system (2.1) with (9) has the following almost unique solution

$`a(t)=\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\right)^2(1+w)^4g_{}\lambda _{}\right]^{1/(3+3w)}t^{4/(3+3w)}`$ (11a)
$`\rho (t)={\displaystyle \frac{8}{9\pi (1+w)^4g_{}\lambda _{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^4}}`$ (11b)
$`G(t)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}(1+w)^2g_{}\lambda _{}t^2`$ (11c)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)={\displaystyle \frac{8}{3(1+w)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}`$ (11d)
Apart from the parameter $`w`$ and the product $`g_{}\lambda _{}`$, the solution (4.2) depends only on a single constant of integration, $``$, whose value affects only the overall scale of $`a(t)`$. Numerically it equals $`8\pi \rho (t)[a(t)]^{3+3w}`$ which, like in standard cosmology, is a conserved quantity for the system (2.1).

The solution (4.2) has several very interesting and attractive features. Introducing the critical density

$$\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}(t)\frac{3}{8\pi G(t)}\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2$$
(12)
we find for any value of $`w`$, $`g_{}\lambda _{}`$, and $``$ that $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}(t)=2\rho (t)`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=\rho (t)`$. Hence

$$\rho =\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2}\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}$$
(13)
Thus the total energy density $`\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}\rho +\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ equals precisely the critical one: $`\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}(t)=\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}(t)`$. This latter equality does not come as a surprise because also the RG improved Friedmann equation can be brought to the form

$$K=\dot{a}^2[\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}/\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}1]$$
(14)
so that $`\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}=\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}`$ holds true for any solution with $`K=0`$. On the other hand, the exact equality of the matter energy density $`\rho `$ and the vacuum energy density $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a nontrivial prediction of the fixed point solution. In terms of the relative densities,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}=1$$
(15)
Also the Hubble parameter of the solution (4.2)

$$H\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{4}{3+3w}\frac{1}{t}$$
(16)
and its deceleration parameter

$$q\frac{a\ddot{a}}{\dot{a}^2}=\frac{3w1}{4}$$
(17)
are independent of $`g_{}`$, $`\lambda _{}`$ and $``$. It can be shown that the standard formula for $`q`$ in terms of the relative densities continues to be correct for the improved system (2.1) with an arbitrary RG solution (2.1d):

$$q=\frac{1}{2}(3w+1)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(18)
Clearly (18) is satisfied by (17) with (15).

Another interesting feature of the fixed point solution is that it yields a universal, time independent value of the “Machian” quantity $`\rho Gt^2`$

$$\rho (t)G(t)t^2=\frac{1}{3\pi (1+w)^2}$$
(19)
Since the 1-parameter family of cosmologies (with parameter $``$ ) described by (4.2) is the most general solution of the system (2.1) with the fixed point running (9) we conclude that every complete solution of (2.1), valid for all $`t(0,\mathrm{})`$, approaches one of the solutions (4.2) either for $`t0`$ or for $`t\mathrm{}`$, depending on whether the fixed point is UV or IR for the trajectory considered. Thus the fixed point solution (4.2) is an attractor in the space of the functions $`(a,\rho ,G,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

Note that the product $`G(t)\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=G(k)\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)=g_{}\lambda _{}`$ is constant in the vicinity of any fixed point. Its actual value is characteristic of this fixed point. While, for pure gravity, $`g_{}^{\mathrm{UV}}\lambda _{}^{\mathrm{UV}}=O(1)`$ at the UV fixed point of , the hypothetical IR fixed point of the coupled gravity-matter system has $`g_{}^{\mathrm{IR}}\lambda _{}^{\mathrm{IR}}=O(10^{120})`$. It is important to understand that the smallness of this number does not pose any finetuning problem as in the standard situation. In fact, in our approach both $`g_{}^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`\lambda _{}^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ and $`g_{}^{\mathrm{IR}}`$ $`\lambda _{}^{\mathrm{IR}}`$ are fixed and well-defined numbers which, at least in principle, can be computed from the RG equation. However, apart from being a difficult task technically, their actual determination is possible only once we know the complete system of all matter fields in the Universe. The number $`10^{120}`$ reflects specific properties of this matter system coupled to gravity rather than an initial condition.

In the following we focus on the possibility of an IR attractive fixed point which governs the cosmological evolution for $`t\mathrm{}`$. Whether or not there exists in addition an UV fixed point approached for $`t0`$ is not important in this context. Assuming the existence of the IR fixed point and the validity of the equations (2.1) we are led to conclude that the late Universe, for which the RG trajectory is already sufficiently close to the fixed point, is described by the power laws (4.2). This leads to the unambiguous prediction that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1/2`$ for every value of $`w`$. Moreover, if we make the additional assumption that the late Universe is matter dominated ($`w=0`$), Eq.(17) yields $`at^{4/3}`$ with the deceleration parameter $`1/4`$. Hence, near the fixed point,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2},q=\frac{1}{4}(w=0)$$
(20)
Without any further input from the RG equations (which would require detailed knowledge of the matter sector) we cannot assess at which time $`t_{\mathrm{FP}}`$ the fixed point behavior sets in. At $`t_{\mathrm{FP}}`$ a generic solution, arising from arbitrary initial conditions, starts looking like (4.2). However, it is very intriguing that the prediction (20), valid for $`t>t_{\mathrm{FP}}`$, is quite close to the values (2) favored by the recent observations<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*Note that the values (2) are still afflicted with large error bars . In the $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$-plane, the values (20) lie within the ellipse corresponding to the $`2\sigma `$ confidence region.. In particular, the fixed point structure provides a natural explanation for the mysterious equality (or approximate equality) of $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This success supports the idea that the present-day Universe is in the, or at least close to the IR fixed point regime.

The deviation of the observed values (2) from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1/2`$ could be due to the fact that the fixed point behavior is not fully developed yet so that the Universe still has some way to go before the finer quantitative details of the solution (4.2) are realized. However, given the large observational uncertainties  it is also well possible that more precise observations will lead to modified values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which are closer to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1/2`$.

A further testable prediction of the fixed point hypothesis is the time variation of Newton’s constant. From (4.2) we obtain

$$\frac{\dot{G}}{G}=\frac{2}{t}=\frac{1}{2}(3+3w)H(t)$$
(21)
The experimental upper bound from laboratory and Solar System experiments for the present-day value of this quantity  is of the order of $`|\dot{G}/G|(10^{11}\mathrm{yr})^1`$. Hence even the technology available today is not very far away from being able to verify or falsify (21). One should bear in mind, however, that the $`G`$ in Eq.(21) refers to a different length scale than the one measured in Solar System experiments, say.

In this context it is interesting to remark that recently a Brans-Dicke theory with a quadratic self-coupling of the Brans-Dicke field has been constructed  which admits a solution very similar to our fixed point solution (4.2) and which predicts the same time dependence of Newton’s constant.

Up to now we discussed the spatially flat Universe only. The $`K=0`$-solution (4.2) exists for every value of the parameter $`w`$. The situation is different when we now look for solutions with $`K=\pm 1`$ corresponding to spatially curved Universes. In (I) we have shown that consistent solutions to the system (2.1), (9) with $`K=+1`$ or $`K=1`$ exist only if $`w=+1/3`$, i.e. for a radiation dominated Universe. Assuming the validity of (2.1) and of the fixed point hypothesis, and excluding the possibility of $`w=+1/3`$ for $`t\mathrm{}`$, we see that the Universe can fall into the basin of attraction induced by the IR fixed point only if it is spatially flat, i.e. if $`K=0`$. By Eq.(14) this is equivalent to $`\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}=\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}`$, as it would be in standard cosmology.

It is important to stress that the fixed-point scenario sets in at scales that are much larger than the characteristic scales of local gravitational interactions. One cannot expect that any simple scaling law, or cutoff identification, can be used in a general gravitating system when we are probably far from any fixed point in the $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ evolution. Instead we assume that $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be RG evolved only through the large scale evolution of the Universe, which would then provide a natural scaling law and a meaningful cutoff identification by means of the cosmological time. In fact at much smaller scales than galaxy cluster scales neither we can establish the flow equations, nor we could guess a meaningful identification of the cutoff since several “crossover” regions can be present, which would drive us away from the fixed point law and would make any identification of the cutoff problematic.

It is nevertheless possible to describe the evolution of weak, localized density perturbations $`\delta \rho \rho `$ within our framework in a consistent way. The reason is that, at the linearized level, the effective cutoff scale is still given by $`k_{\mathrm{cosmo}}`$ rather than the scales associates with $`\delta \rho `$.

Let us consider a “fundamental observer” describing the cosmological fluid flow lines. Its 4-velocity is $`u^\mu =dx^\mu /d\tau ,u^\mu u_\mu =1`$ where $`\tau `$ is the proper time along the fluid flow lines. The projection tensor in the tangent 3-space orthogonal to $`u^\mu `$ is $`h_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }+u_\mu u_\nu `$ with $`h_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\sigma }{}^{}=h_{}^{\mu }{}_{\sigma }{}^{}`$ and $`h_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}u^\nu =0`$. The energy-momentum tensor then reads $`T^{\mu \nu }=\rho u^\mu u^\nu +ph^{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\rho =\overline{\rho }+\delta \rho (x^\mu )`$ and $`p=\overline{p}+\delta p(x^\mu )`$ being $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ the pressure and the density of the unperturbed universe. From the Bianchi identities and the conservation law $`_\nu T^{\mu \nu }=0`$ we have the following propagation equations

$`u^\nu (_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }+8\pi \rho _\nu G)=0`$ (22)
$`h^{\mu \nu }(_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }+8\pi p_\nu G)=0`$ (23)
for the $`u^\mu `$ direction and for the tangent orthogonal 3-space, respectively, together with

$$G\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda _{}g_{}$$
(24)
coming from the fixed point behavior (8). From (4.14) we thus see that in the late Universe, which is of interest for us, when $`\overline{p}=0`$ is a good equation of state, there are no space gradients of the cosmological constant up to first order perturbation theory. In fact since $`\delta p`$, $`\delta \rho `$ and the space gradients of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are assumed to be of the same order, $`\delta ph_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}_\nu G`$ is of second order. Therefore, by differentiation of (24) and subsequent projection onto the 3-space, one concludes that also the space gradients of $`G`$ are negligible in this approximation. This result implies that the description of local gravitational interactions depends only on the global, large scale, time evolution of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and it does not introduce additional effects coming from the space gradients of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that could in principle appear in the description of local deviations from homogeneity. One can then discuss the standard scenario of structure formation with the large scale structure evolution provided by the solution (4.2).

We also emphasize that the standard experimental value of Newton’s constant, $`G_{\mathrm{exp}}`$, does not coincide with the value $`G(k=\xi /t_0)`$ which is relevant for cosmology today, i.e. for $`t=t_0`$. $`G_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ is measured (today) at $`k_{\mathrm{exp}}\mathrm{}^1`$ where the length $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{sol}}`$ is a typical solar system length scale, say. Thus, in terms of the running Newton constant, $`G_{\mathrm{exp}}=G(k=\xi ^{}/\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{sol}})`$, since $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{sol}}t_0`$, and since in presence of several scales the relevant cutoff is always the larger oneSee ref. for a detailed discussion of this point.. It is only the cosmological quantity $`G(k=\xi /t)`$ which grows $`t^2`$ in the fixed point regime, not $`G_{\mathrm{exp}}`$. This remark entails that a $`t^2`$-growth of the cosmological Newton constant in the recent past does not ruin the predictions about primordial nucleosynthesis which requires that $`G(k=\xi /t_{\mathrm{nucl}})`$ coincides with $`G_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ rather precisely. In fact, at the time $`t=t_{\mathrm{nucl}}`$ of nucleosynthesis the cosmological Newton constant was indeed $`G(k=\xi /t_{\mathrm{nucl}})G_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ since $`ct_{\mathrm{nucl}}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{sol}}`$ are of the same order of magnitude (a few light minutes).

## V discussion and conclusion

In this paper we modified Einstein’s equation for a Robertson-Walker spacetime by allowing for a scale-, and hence time-dependent Newton’s constant and cosmological constant. The scale dependence of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ follows from a renormalization group which could be of either classical or quantum origin. We postulated that the RG flow at large distances is governed by an IR fixed point and we investigated the cosmological implications of this assumption. It turned out that, in the fixed point regime, the vacuum energy density $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ equals precisely the matter density $`\rho `$ and that they decrease proportional to $`1/t^4`$, while Newton’s constant increases $`t^2`$. Assuming that the present Universe is in that regime, this scenario leads to a natural resolution of the coincidence problem (“Why is $`\rho /\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=O(1)`$ today?”) and of the cosmological constant problem in its original form (“Why is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ so small?”). It predicts that the universe is spatially flat.

Obviously cosmologies of the type found here are very attractive from the phenomenological point of view. This success provides a strong motivation for further attempts at actually proving the existence of the postulated IR fixed point and the validity of the improved system of cosmological evolution equations, Eqs.(2.1).

In the present paper we assumed the existence of a cosmologically relevant IR fixed point, while in (I) we investigated the consequences of a UV fixed point for the Planck era directly after the big bang. The UV fixed point has been shown to exist in (the Einstein-Hilbert truncation of) pure quantum gravity. The assumption that the matter contents of the Universe is such that there exists both the UV and the IR fixed point leads to a particularly symmetric cosmological scenario: The Universe begins and ends at two different attractors, attractive for $`t0`$ and $`t\mathrm{}`$, respectively, and its evolution between them is a kind of crossover between two fixed points.

Before closing let us see what happens if we relax our hypothesis to some extent. Up to now we assumed the IR fixed point to be attractive in all directions in the space of coupling constants. It might be that actually there are also unstable directions so that for $`t\mathrm{}`$ the Universe is eventually driven away from it. Nevertheless, if it stays for a sufficiently long time close to the fixed point, the solution (4.2) might still be a rather accurate description of the present Universe even though its ultimate fate for $`t\mathrm{}`$ cannot be predicted then.

As a more radical step, let us give up our idea that the $`t`$-dependence of $`G(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ arises from some RG trajectory $`G(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)`$ by identifying $`kk(t)`$. We retain however the three differential equations (3a), (3b), and (3c). The system (2.1a,b,c) without (3d) is underdetermined so that an additional condition on $`a,\rho ,G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ may be imposed. Without providing a physical explanation, it was assumed in ref. that Newton’s constant varies according to a power law $`Gt^n`$ with an arbitrary, not necessarily integer exponent $`n`$. With this additional condition the system (2.1a,b,c) with $`K=0`$ has the following 2-parameter family of solutions (The parameters are $``$ and $`C>0`$.) :

$`a(t)=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3(1+w)^2}{2(n+2)}}C\right]^{1/(3+3w)}t^{(n+2)/(3+3w)}`$ (25a)
$`\rho (t)={\displaystyle \frac{(n+2)}{12\pi (1+w)^2C}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^{n+2}}}`$ (25b)
$`G(t)=Ct^n`$ (25c)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)={\displaystyle \frac{n(n+2)}{3(1+w)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}`$ (25d)
The solution (4.2) resulting from the fixed point hypothesis corresponds to the special case $`n=2`$ and $`C=3(1+w)^2g_{}\lambda _{}/8`$. Note that the exponent $`n=2`$ is an unambiguous prediction of the fixed point scenario. It is obtained even if we use an identification of $`k`$ in terms of $`t`$ which is different from $`k=\xi /t`$. The reason is that (8) implies $`G\mathrm{\Lambda }=g_{}\lambda _{}=\text{const}`$ for every function $`k=k(t)`$, but according to (5.1) the product $`G\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is constant only if $`n=2`$. For the cosmology (5.1) one easily computes

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=\frac{2}{n+2},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{n}{n+2},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}=1,q=\frac{1+3wn}{n+2}$$
(26)
For $`n2`$, $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are no longer equal: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=n/2`$. It is amusing to note that setting $`n=4`$ and $`w=0`$ yields

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=\frac{1}{3},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{2}{3},q=\frac{1}{2}(n=4,w=0)$$
(27)
which equals quite precisely the values (1.2) favored by the present experimental data.

Once more we see that a more accurate experimental determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is highly desirable. In case the values ultimately stabilize near $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1/2`$ this would be an important step toward confirming the fixed point scenario. If instead they remain close to their present values (2) it might be worthwhile to reconsider the more general cosmologies of the type (5.1) with $`n=4`$. However, at present there seems to be no theoretical argument which would single out $`Gt^n`$ and $`n=4`$. While the classical cosmological tests related to the early Universe (nucleosynthesis) are most probably insensitive to the modifications caused by the IR fixed point, measurements of $`\dot{G}/G`$ at different length scales are another important test for the validity of the fixed point hypothesis.

## Acknowledgements

M.R. would like to thank the Department of Theoretical Physics, University of Catania, the Department of Theoretical Physics, University of Trieste, and the Astrophysical Observatory of Catania for their hospitality while this work was in progress. He also acknowledges the financial support by INFN, MURST, and by a NATO traveling grant.


format: text

text:
# Gravitational Lens Statistics and The Density Profile of Dark Halos

## 1 Introduction

It has been known since the 1930s that dark matter is the gravitationally main component in a variety of astrophysical objects such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies, but the nature of dark matter still eludes us. (Peebles (1993)). Recently, the systematic discrepancy between numerical simulations and observations regarding the inner density profile of dark halos has been reported. For the inner density profile of dark halos $`\rho (r)r^\alpha `$, numerical simulations suggest the steeper profile $`\alpha 11.5`$, while observations suggest the shallower profile $`\alpha 01`$. Numerical simulations of CDM halos by Navarro, Frenk & White (1996,1997, hereafter NFW) have shown that the density profile has the “universal” form $`\rho r^1(r+r_s)^2`$, where $`r_s`$ is the scale length, irrespective of the cosmological parameters, the initial power spectrum and the formation histories. Following NFW, higher-resolution simulations have been performed, and the results suggest the steeper inner slope $`\rho (r)r^{1.5}`$ (Moore et al.  (1999); Fukushige & Makino (2001)). On the other hand, observations of rotation curves of the spiral and the low surface brightness galaxies indicate the shallower halo profile $`\alpha 01`$ (van den Bosch et al.  (2000); de Blok et al.  (2001); Borriello & Salucci (2001)). The mass distribution of the cluster CL0024+1654 is reconstructed from lensed images and indicates the flat core (Tyson et al.  (1998)). It is important to resolve the discrepancy to get clues to the nature of dark matter.

In this regard, strong gravitational lensing effects can provide an important method to probe the nature of dark matter. Strong lensing probes the inner dense region of lens objects, and the impact parameter is estimated as

$$\xi 6.2h_{70}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\text{kpc}\frac{H_0D_L}{0.3}\frac{\theta }{1^{\prime \prime }},$$
(1)
where $`D_L`$ is the distance to the lens and $`\theta `$ is the image separation. So it is sensitive to the inner profile of lenses and can be a useful method for probing the inner profile of dark halos. In fact, $`\xi `$ in Eq.(1) is comparable to the scale length $`r_s`$ in the NFW profile $`\rho r^1(r+r_s)^2`$ (Navarro, Frenk & White (1997)). Dark halos is gravitationally dominant in galactic halos and clusters of galaxies. However, at the inner region of galaxies, baryonic components such as bulge and disk are also gravitationally dominant, and dissipation processes among the baryons are important. On the other hand, since clusters of galaxies are formed only recently, the baryonic component distributes broadly as gas (Rees & Ostriker (1977)) and the radial distribution of gas mass is similar to the total mass (Einasto & Einasto (2000)). Hence, in order to study strong gravitational lensing without the need to include the gravitational effects of baryonic components, we shall mainly concentrate on clusters of galaxies as the lens objects and look for large-separation images (the effect of baryons on lensing was studied in (Porciani & Madau (2000); Kochanek & White (2001); Keeton (2001))).

In this paper, we examine the effect of the inner density profile of lens objects on gravitational lens statistics, including the effect of magnification bias and both the evolution and the scatter of halo profiles. Statistics of gravitational lensing of QSOs provides a useful tool to set constraints on the cosmological constant (Fukugita et al.  (1992); Kochanek (1996)). However, it depends on the lens model such as the profile of lenses and its number density as well as cosmology. Hence, in using it as a tool to limit the cosmological constant, we must be careful about the uncertainties concerning the lens model. We estimate the sensitivity of the lensing probability of distant sources to the inner profile of lenses and to the cosmological constant. We consider three kinds of density profile of lens objects : SIS ($`\rho (r)r^2`$), the NFW ($`\rho (r)r^1`$ for the inner profile), the generalized NFW ($`\rho (r)r^\alpha `$ for the inner profile). Only smooth and spherical models are considered. Subclumps (cluster galaxies) in clusters do not affect the cross section of lensing (Flores et al.  (2000)). Nonsphericity can affect the relative frequency of four-image lenses (Rusin & Tegmark (2001)). The distribution of lenses is taken to be the Press-Schechter function. We compare the predictions with the large observational data, CLASS (the Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey), and predict for larger surveys such as 2dF and SDSS. Multiple images of large separation angles are expected to be caused by clusters of galaxies, so when we compare the observational data, we will use the large angle images ($`\theta 6^{\prime \prime }`$). The statistics of wide-separation lenses ($`\xi 10\text{kpc}`$) has been used to probe the distributions of mass inhomogeneities derived from the CDM scenarios, since one does not need to be concerned with the physics of baryonic components and bias (Wambsganss et al.  (1995)). By studying the lensing properties in this regime assuming the CDM scenarios, theoretical calculations based on N-body simulations (Cen et al.  (1994); Wambsganss et al.  (1995, 1998)) and semi-analytical method using the Press-Schechter function (Narayan & White (1988); Kochanek (1995); Nakamura & Suto (1997); Mortlock & Webster (2000)) have been used to place limits on cosmological parameters. Similarly, incorporating realistic input for mass profile and number density of clusters, analytical calculations have been used to set constraint to cosmological models (Tomita (1996)) and lens models (Maoz et al.  (1997)). We pay particular attention to the influence of the inner lens structure on the statistics of wide-separation lenses (for earlier discussion before NFW profile, see Flores & Primack (1996)).

Recently a similar analysis has been performed by several authors (Wyithe, Turner & Spergel (2000); Fox & Pen (2001); Li & Ostriker (2000); Keeton & Madau (2001)). Wyithe, Turner & Spergel (2001) used the generalized NFW lens model and suggested the optical depth to multiple imaging of the distant sources is very sensitive to the inner lens profile, but no comparison with observational data was made. Li & Ostriker (2000) found that the lensing probability is very sensitive to the density profile of lenses, and somewhat less so to the cosmological parameters such as the mean mass density in the universe and the amplitude of primordial fluctuations. However, they did not take into account the scatter of dark halo profiles (concentration parameter) and the uncertainty in the treatment of magnification bias. Keeton & Madau (2001) found that the number of predicted lenses is strongly correlated with the core mass fraction. In this paper, we present a systematic study of the effect of the inner dark halo profile and cosmological parameters on gravitational lens statistics. It is very important to be careful about both the effect of magnification bias, which depends on the lens profile and magnification of each images, and both the evolution and the scatter of halo profiles in N-body simulations (Bullock et al.  (2001)).

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we briefly summarize the basic formulae of gravitational lens statistics for various lens models. In section 3, we examine the effect of magnification bias and compare the theoretical prediction with observation. In section 4, we estimate the number of lensed images expected in larger surveys. Finally, in section 5, we summarize the main results of this paper. We use the units of $`c=G=1`$.

## 2 Basics

### 2.1 SIS Lens

The SIS (singular isothermal sphere) model is frequently used in the lensing analysis, since it is supported by observed flat rotation curves and moreover the density profile is very simple and quantities related to gravitational lensing can be written in simple analytic forms (Turner, Ostriker & Gott (1984)). SIS is characterized by the one-dimensional velocity dispersion $`v`$, and the density profile is $`\rho (r)=v^2/2\pi r^2`$ . The lens equation leads to the two solutions (image positions) at $`x_\pm =y\pm 1`$ with magnifications $`\mu _\pm =\left|(y/x_\pm )(dy/dx_\pm )\right|^1=1/y\pm 1`$, where dimensionless quantities $`x`$ and $`y`$ are the impact parameter divided by the Einstein radius in the lens plane and the source position divided by it in the source plane (Schneider, Ehlers & Falco (1992)). Magnification of the brighter (fainter) image is $`\mu _+(\mu _{})`$, and the total magnification is $`\mu (y)=2/y`$. The splitting angle between the two images is $`\theta =8\pi v^2D_{LS}/D_S`$, where $`D_L`$, $`D_S`$ and $`D_{LS}`$ are the angular diameter distances between the observer, lens and source. We shall adopt the so-called filled beam distance (Dyer & Roeder (1973)), since the ray shooting in an inhomogeneous universe created by N-body simulations is consistent with it (Tomita (1998); Tomita, Asada & Hamana (1999)).

When the light ray from the source passes near the lens object, if $`\left|y\right|1`$, double images form. We define the cross section $`\sigma (v,z_L,z_S)`$ as the area of a region in the source plane which satisfies the following criteria; (i)double images are formed, and (ii)the magnification is larger than the minimum amplification $`\mu _{}`$. The second condition is needed for the calculation of magnification bias (see Eq.(15) below). Then, the cross section is given by,

$$\sigma (v,z_L,z_S)=\pi r_E^2\times 2_0^1𝑑yy\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu (y)\mu _{}),$$
(2)
where $`r_E(=4\pi v^2D_{LS})`$ is the Einstein radius in the source plane, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the step function.

### 2.2 Generalized NFW Lens

In this section we consider the generalized NFW profile for dark halos (Wyithe, Turner & Spergel (2000); Li & Ostriker (2000)),

$$\rho (r)=\frac{\rho _s}{\left(\frac{r}{r_s}\right)^\alpha \left(\frac{r}{r_s}+1\right)^{3\alpha }},$$
(3)
where $`\rho _s`$ and $`r_s`$ are parameters which depend on the mass of halo $`M`$ and redshift $`z`$, and $`\alpha (0\alpha 2)`$ is a constant. The scale radius $`r_s`$ is about $`10`$ kpc on a galactic halo scale ($`M10^{12}M_{}`$) and $`100`$ kpc on a cluster scale ($`M10^{15}M_{}`$) (Navarro, Frenk & White (1997)). Since the impact parameter $`\xi `$ is comparable to the scale radius $`r_s`$ (see Eq.(1)), we could set a strong constraint on inner slope $`\alpha `$ in Eq.(3) by using strong gravitational lensing. We consider the case of $`\alpha =0.5,1,1.5`$.

The concentration parameter $`c`$ and the characteristic density $`\delta _c`$ are respectively defined by

$`c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{vir}}{r_s}},`$ (4)
$`\delta _c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _s}{\rho _m(z)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{_0^c𝑑xx^{2\alpha }(1+x)^{\alpha 3}}}.`$ (5)
$`c`$ represents degree of the mass concentration at the inner region of a halo. The virial radius of the halo $`r_{vir}`$ is related to the mass $`M`$ and redshift $`z`$ as

$$H_0r_{vir}=5.643\times 10^5h^{1/3}\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{1/3}(1+z)^1\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}}{18\pi ^2}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{M}{10^{12}M_{}}\right)^{1/3},$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}`$ is the overdensity of the halo ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}=18\pi ^2`$ for EdS $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1)`$ model, and for other cosmological models we use the fitting formulae given in Kitayama & Suto (1996) and Nakamura & Suto (1997)).

For the NFW profile ($`\alpha =1`$), $`c`$ is fitted by the numerical simulation (Navarro, Frenk & White (1997)). For the generalized NFW profile, following the recent work (Bullock et al.  (2001); Keeton & Madau (2001)), we define $`c`$ to be $`c=r_{vir}/r_2`$, where $`r_2`$ is the radius at which the logarithmic slope of the density profile is $`2`$ ($`r_2`$ is equivalent to $`r_s`$ for the NFW profile). Thus we obtain $`c=(2\alpha )^1r_{vir}/r_s`$.

However, there is a scatter in the concentration parameter $`c`$ at fixed mass and redshift (Bullock et al.  (2001); Jing (2000)). Keeton & Madau (2001) pointed out the importance of the scatter of $`c`$ on the lensing statistics. We adopt a log-normal function as the probability distribution function of $`c`$,

$$p(c)dc=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _c}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\left(\mathrm{ln}c\mathrm{ln}c_{med}\right)^2}{2\sigma _c^2}\right]d\mathrm{ln}c,$$
(7)
with $`\sigma _c=0.18`$ (Bullock et al.  (2001); Jing (2000)).

Using the toy model of a $`c_{med}M`$ relation found by Bullock et al. (2001), we estimate the concentration of the halos,

$$c_{med}=\frac{10}{1+z}\left(\frac{M}{M_{}}\right)^\beta ,$$
(8)
where the fitting parameters $`(M_{},\beta )`$ are $`(7.0\times 10^{13}M_{},0.16)`$ for EdS ($`h=0.5,\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1,\lambda _0=0,\sigma _8=0.67`$) model, $`(2.1\times 10^{13}M_{},0.14)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`h=0.7,\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3,\lambda _0=0.7,\sigma _8=1`$) model and $`(2.6\times 10^{13}M_{},0.19)`$ for open ($`h=0.7,\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3,\lambda _0=0,\sigma _8=0.85`$) model. Recent high resolution numerical simulations (Bullock et al.  (2001)) show that $`c`$ does depend on $`z`$ contrary to the earlier suspicious that $`c`$ does not vary much with the redshift (Navarro, Frenk & White (1997)).

The lens equation for the halo with the generalized NFW profile is

$$y=xA\frac{g(x)}{x}$$
(9)
where $`x=\xi /r_s`$ ($`\xi `$ is the impact parameter in the lens plane), $`y=(D_L/D_S)(\eta /r_s)`$ ($`\eta `$ is source position in the source plane), and

$`g(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^x}𝑑zz^{2\alpha }{\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}𝑑\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{(\mathrm{cos}\theta +z)^{3\alpha }}},`$ (10)
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi \rho _s{\displaystyle \frac{D_LD_{LS}}{D_S}}r_s.`$ (11)
For $`\alpha =0,1,2`$, the integration of the Eq.(10) can be carried out analytically (the lens equation for the NFW lens was obtained by Bartelmann (1996)). In Fig.2, we show the lens equation for the NFW lens with $`A=10`$. If $`|y|y_{crit}`$, three images $`x_i(i=1,2,3,x_3x_2x_1)`$ form. The image positions $`x_i=x_i(y)`$ with magnifications $`\mu _i(y)`$ can be obtained numerically. The image separation angle $`\theta `$ is defined as the separation between the outer two images and depends on the source position $`y`$. We use the averaged value in the source plane.

$$\theta (M,z_L)=\frac{1}{\pi y_{crit}^2}_0^{y_{crit}}d(\pi y^2)(x_3x_1)\frac{r_s(M,z_L)}{D_L}.$$
(12)
The total magnification is the sum of the magnifications of three images ($`_{i=1}^3\mu _i`$) and the magnification of the fainter image is smaller magnification of outer two images (min { $`\mu _1,\mu _3`$ }). Following the case of SIS (see Eq.(2)), the cross section is defined by

$$\sigma (M,z_L,z_S)=\pi \left(\frac{D_S}{D_L}r_s\right)^2\times 2_0^{y_{crit}}𝑑yy\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu (y)\mu _{}).$$
(13)
### 2.3 Lensing Probability

The lensing probability for a source at redshift $`z_S`$ is (Schneider, Ehlers & Falco (1992))

$$P(z_S)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑M_0^{z_S}𝑑z_L\frac{1}{D_{S}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\frac{(1+z_L)^2}{H(z_L)}D_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma (M,z_L,z_S)N_M(M,z_L),$$
(14)
where $`H(z)=H_0\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z)^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_0\lambda _0)(1+z)^2+\lambda _0\right]^{1/2}`$ is the Hubble parameter at redshift $`z`$, and $`N_M(M,z_L)`$ is the comoving number density of lenses and is assumed to be given by the Press-Schechter mass function. The one-dimensional velocity dispersion $`v`$ is related to the mass through $`v=\left(M/2r_{vir}\right)^{1/2}`$, and this relates the PS mass function to the SIS lens profile. The probability of the image separation angle is obtained by computing $`dP/d\theta `$.

Since gravitational lensing causes a magnification of images, lensed sources are over-represented in a magnitude-limited sample and the actual lensing probability is enhanced. This selection effect is called magnification bias. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_S(z_S,L)dL`$ be the luminosity function of sources. The observed flux $`S`$ for a lensed source is related to the luminosity $`L`$, $`L=4\pi (1+z_S)^4D_S^2(1+z_S)^{\gamma 1}S`$, where the factor $`(1+z_S)^{\gamma 1}`$ is the K-correction, which assumes that the energy spectrum of source is of the form $`E\nu ^\gamma `$. When one searches for lensed source of the observed flux $`S`$, the lensing probability increases as

$$P^B(z_S,L)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_S(z_S,L)}_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\mu _{}\left|\frac{d}{d\mu _{}}P(z_S)\right|\mathrm{\Phi }_S(z_S,L/\mu _{})1/\mu _{}.$$
(15)
Including magnification bias, the lensing probability $`P^B(z_S,L)`$ for the generalized NFW lens is expressed as Eq.(14) with $`\sigma (M,z_L,z_S)`$ replaced by

$$\sigma ^B(M,z_L,z_S,L)=\pi \left(\frac{D_S}{D_L}r_s\right)^2\times \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Phi }_S(z_S,L)}_0^{y_{crit}}𝑑yy\mathrm{\Phi }_S(z_S,L/\mu (y))/\mu (y).$$
(16)
$`\mu (y)`$ can be the magnification of the total images or the fainter image. We will discuss each case in Sec. 3.1.

### 2.4 Press-Schechter Function

We use the Press-Schechter (PS) function (Press & Schechter (1974)) for computing the number density of the halos. The PS mass function is given by

$$N_M(M,z)dM=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\frac{\rho _0}{M}\frac{\delta _{crit}(z)}{\sigma (R)}\left|\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\sigma }{d\mathrm{ln}M}\right|\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\delta _{crit}^2(z)}{2\sigma ^2(R)}\right]\frac{dM}{M}.$$
(17)
Here $`\rho _0`$ is the mean mass density of the universe at present and $`\sigma (R)`$ is the linear density fluctuation presently on the comoving scale $`R`$,

$$\sigma ^2(R)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^2P(k)W^2(kR),R=\left(\frac{2M}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0H_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)^{1/3},$$
(18)
where $`P(k)`$ and $`W(kR)`$ are the power spectrum at present (Bardeen et al.  (1986); Sugiyama (1995)) and the top-hat window function. We normalize $`\sigma (R)`$ so that $`\sigma (R=8h^1\mathrm{Mpc})=\sigma _8`$, and the critical density contrast is $`\delta _{crit}(z)=1.686/D_1(z)`$, where $`D_1(z)`$ is the linear growth rate normalized to unity at $`z=0`$.

## 3 Results

In order to explore the dependence of the lensing probability on cosmological models, we consider three representative models; EdS model ($`h=0.5,\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1,\lambda _0=0,\sigma _8=0.67`$), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model ($`h=0.7,\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3,\lambda _0=0.7,\sigma _8=1`$), open model ($`h=0.7,\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3,\lambda _0=0,\sigma _8=0.85`$).

### 3.1 The Effect of Magnification Bias

We demonstrate the effect of magnification bias by calculating the biased lensing probability Eq.(14, 15). In calculating magnification bias, we use an optical QSO luminosity function. We adopt the 2dF QSO redshift survey data which include about 6000 QSOs with the redshift distribution $`0.35<z<2.3`$ (Boyle et al.  (2000)). The QSO luminosity function is fitted by the two-power-law model

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_S(z_S,L)dL`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_S^{}dL}{(L/L_{})^{c_1}+(L/L_{})^{c_2}}},`$ (19)
$`L_{}(z_S)`$ $`=`$ $`L_010^{k_1z_S+k_2z_S^2}.`$ (20)
The fitting parameters for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model are given by

$`(c_1,c_2,M_B,k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(3.41,1.58,21.14+5\mathrm{log}h,1.36,0.27),`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_S^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2.88\times 10^6h^3\text{Mpc}^3\text{mag}^1,`$ (22)
where $`M_B`$ is the absolute B-band magnitude corresponding to $`L_0`$ (Eq.(20)). We take the absolute magnitude of a source is $`M_B=25.8`$ mag in Eq.(20) and consider the image separation range $`\theta 0.3^{\prime \prime }`$. For the energy spectrum index of source (see section 2.3), we use $`\gamma =0.5`$ for the optical QSOs (Boyle et al.  (1988)). In Fig.2, the effect of magnification bias for SIS and the NFW is shown for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model. The vertical axis is the lensing probability with magnification bias divided by that without it. As the source redshift is higher, the amplitude of magnification bias is smaller. This is because the number of fainter QSOs (its luminosity is $`LL_{}`$) is smaller at higher redshift (Eq.(19)), so the integration of luminosity function Eq.(16) takes a smaller value. From Fig.2, we find that the magnification bias effect for the NFW is order of magnitude larger than that for SIS. This is due to the fact that the magnification for the NFW is divergent at $`y=y_{crit}`$ and $`y=0`$ (see Fig.2). Hence, if we attempt to predict lensing frequencies by using the NFW lens model, magnification bias should not be ignored.

In Fig.2, we also compare the case when $`\mu `$ in Eq.(16) is the magnification of the total images with the case of the fainter image. Depending on the properties the gravitational lensing configuration, we should use $`\mu `$ in the bias factor as the magnification of the total images (we call “$`\mu `$ total”) or the fainter image among the outer two images (“$`\mu `$ fainter”). If individual sources in a sample are not examined closely enough to determine whether they are lensed or not, the magnification of the fainter image should be used (Sasaki & Takahara (1993); Cen et al.  (1994)) because the fainter image should be bright enough to be recognized as one of the multiple images. On the contrary, if one searches for lensed source of small separation angles, then the total magnification may be relevant, because it is likely that the brightness of a lensed source with a small separation is recognized as the total brightness of all the images. So as far as images of large separation angles are concerned, it may be better to use $`\mu `$ as the magnification of the fainter image.

From Fig.2, different choice of $`\mu `$ in the bias factor greatly changes the amplitude of magnification bias for SIS, but does not change it so much for the NFW; the difference is only factor of three. This is because the magnification for the NFW is divergent at $`y=0`$ more strongly than at $`y=y_{crit}`$ and the magnifications of both of the outer two images (including the fainter image) are divergent at $`y=0`$ (see Fig.1). In the following we will consider both cases ($`\mu `$ total or $`\mu `$ fainter), since the degree of the magnification bias depends on the method of gravitational lensing search and thus the expected number of lensed sources will be in between.

### 3.2 Comparison with the CLASS Data

In this section, we compare predicted lens statistics with a well-defined observational sample. The Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey (CLASS) is the largest statistically homogeneous search for gravitational lenses (Browne & Myers (2000)). The sample comprises 10,499 flat-spectrum radio sources with flux $`S>30`$ mJy at 5 GHz, and includes 18 gravitational lenses with image separations $`0.3^{\prime \prime }\theta 6.0^{\prime \prime }`$. An explicit search for lenses with image separations $`6.0^{\prime \prime }\theta 15.0^{\prime \prime }`$ has found no lenses (Phillips et al.  (2000)). The flux distribution of flat-spectrum radio sources in the CLASS samples can be described as a power-law (Rusin & Tegmark (2001))

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_S(z_S,L)dLL^{2.1}dL.$$
(23)
It is a steeper number-flux relation than predicted by the Dunlop & Peacock (1990) luminosity function (whose slope is $`1.8`$ for the faint sources). The redshift distribution of the full CLASS sample is not known. Marlow et al. (2000) reported the redshifts for a small subsample of 27 sources. We assume that the redshift distribution of the full sample is identical to that of the subsample. We need not consider the magnitude distribution of the sample, since the lensing probability does not depend on the magnitude of the source for the power-law luminosity function.

In Fig.3-5, we show the predicted image separation distribution of expected number of lensed source’s in the CLASS with magnification bias for each case of $`\mu `$. The angular resolution of parent survey in the CLASS is very low. The survey flux encompasses all the flux of even the widest separation lenses observed to date. The CLASS survey then reimages the systems looking for multiple imaging (Myers et al.  (1995); Mortlock & Webster (2000); Helbig (2000)). Hence, for the lensed source, $`\mu `$ is given by summing the fluxes of all images (i.e. “$`\mu `$ total” is appropriate). In these figures, we also show the case of “$`\mu `$ fainter ” for comparison. We note that the lenses of large separation angle ($`\theta 6^{\prime \prime }`$) is expected to be lensed by clusters of galaxies (or equally dark halos), so we should compare the theoretical prediction with large image separation side in CLASS data. In Fig.3, we take the NFW profile and compare the dependence on the cosmological models. The lensing probability is the highest for EdS model. This is due to the fact that the PS mass function is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ (see Eq.(17)) and the concentration parameter $`c`$ is the highest (see Eq.(8)). In Fig.4, we show the lens model dependence for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model. Since there are no lenses for large image separations ($`6^{\prime \prime }\theta 15^{\prime \prime }`$) in CLASS sample, the steeper inner profile ($`\alpha >1.5`$) seems disfavored. However, it is preliminary, since we do not know whether the subsample by Marlow et al. is a fair sample.

We estimate the sensitivity of the lensing probability to the model parameters. Using Eq.(14,15) and the CLASS data with the magnification of total images, it is estimated around $`\alpha =1,\sigma _8=1,\lambda _0=1\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.7,w=1`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta N_\theta }{N_\theta }}|_{\theta =6^{\prime \prime }}7.4{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }}+5.7{\displaystyle \frac{\delta c_{med}}{c_{med}}}+4.3{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \sigma _8}{\sigma _8}}5.7{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \lambda _0}{\lambda _0}}+0.35{\displaystyle \frac{\delta w}{w}},`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta N_\theta }{N_\theta }}|_{\theta =12^{\prime \prime }}7.3{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }}+6.3{\displaystyle \frac{\delta c_{med}}{c_{med}}}+6.1{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \sigma _8}{\sigma _8}}6.3{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \lambda _0}{\lambda _0}}+0.27{\displaystyle \frac{\delta w}{w}},`$ (25)
where $`w`$ is the equation of state of dark energy ($`w=1`$ for the cosmological constant) and a flat FRW model is assumed. Eqs.(24) and (25) indicate clearly that the lensing probability is very sensitive to the lens model parameters ($`\alpha ,c_{med}`$) as well as the cosmological parameters ($`\lambda _0,\sigma _8`$), but not sensitive to dark energy parameter ($`w`$). For example, in order to put constraint on $`\lambda _0`$ within $`𝒪(10)\%`$ accuracy, one needs to determine the inner profile $`\alpha `$ and the concentration parameter $`c`$ with similar accuracy. The dispersion of concentration parameter $`c`$ is about $`0.2`$ (Jing (2000); Bullock et al.  (2001)). However, the current uncertainty in $`\alpha `$ is $`𝒪(50)\%`$ ($`\alpha 11.5`$). Hence, it may be more useful to use the number of large image separation lenses to constrain the inner density profile $`\alpha `$. Cosmological parameters $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\sigma _8`$ could be determined within $`𝒪(10)\%`$ by using CMB, SNIa and number count of clusters data (de Bernardis et al.  (2001); Fan & Chiueh (2001)). The sensitivity of the lensing probability to the model parameters was also estimated by Li & Ostriker (2000), but they assumed a single source at $`z=1.5`$ and did not include the effect of magnification bias. So the detailed comparison may not be so meaningful. However, we note that the dependence on $`c`$ and the cosmological constant parameter is slightly larger than that found by Li & Ostriker (2000).

In Fig.5, we show the effect of the scatter in N-body simulation on the image separation distribution. The dispersion of $`N_\theta `$, $`\sigma _\theta ^2`$, is calculated by using the probability distribution function of $`c`$ (Eq.(7)). We use the NFW profile for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model and compare the amplitude of the square of the dispersion $`\sigma _\theta ^2`$ with the predicted number of lenses $`N_\theta `$. We find that the amplitude of $`\sigma _\theta `$ is comparable to or larger than $`N_\theta `$, so the scatter of halo profiles strongly affect the lensing probability. When compared with Fig.3, we also find that the scatter is too large to distinguish the different cosmological models, even if the lens model ($`\alpha `$) is fixed.

## 4 Prediction for Future Survey

With the current data, the constraints on the parameters are not sufficient. However, we expect that larger surveys currently underway such as the 2dF and SDSS detect a larger number of lenses. For example, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) plans a spectroscopic survey of $`10^5`$ QSOs over $`\pi `$ steradian brighter than $`i^{}19`$ at $`z3.0`$; at redshift between 3.0 and about 5.2, the limiting magnitude will be $`i^{}20`$ (York et al.  (2000)). In this section, we will make predictions for the SDSS.

Let $`N_\theta d\theta `$ be the expected number of lensed QSOs with image separation $`\theta \theta +d\theta `$ within solid angle $`\pi `$ in the sky. We use the QSOs luminosity function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_S`$ for $`z3`$ in SDSS data (Fan et al.  (2001)), since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_S`$ from 2dF redshift survey is known only for lower redshift QSOs ($`z3`$) (Boyle et al.  (2000)). $`\mathrm{\Phi }_S`$ is fitted by a power-law,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_S(z_S,M_{1450})=\mathrm{\Phi }_S^{}10^{0.4\left\{M_{1450}+26\alpha \left(z_S3\right)\left(\beta +1\right)\right\}},$$
(26)
where $`M_{1450}`$ is the absolute AB magnitude of the quasar continuum at $`1450\AA `$ in the rest frame. We assume $`m_i^{}=m_{1450}+0.7`$. The fitting parameters for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model are given by (Fan et al.  (2001))

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }_S^{},\alpha ,\beta )=(2.6\times 10^7h^3\text{Mpc}^3\text{mag}^1,0.75,2.58).$$
(27)
Similarly, for lower redshift sources ($`z3`$) the QSO luminosity function (Eq.(19,20)) is used (Boyle et al.  (2000)). Then, using the QSO luminosity function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_S`$, $`N_\theta (\theta )`$ can be calculated as

$`N_\theta (\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{z_{max}}}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{dV_\pi }{dz}}{\displaystyle _{L_{lim}(z)}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑L{\displaystyle \frac{dP}{d\theta }}(\theta ,z,L)\mathrm{\Phi }_S(z,L),`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dV_\pi }{dz}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi {\displaystyle \frac{(1+z)^2D(z)^2}{H(z)}},`$
where $`z_{max}=5.2`$ and $`L_{lim}(z)`$ is calculated from the limiting magnitude. In Fig.6, we show the predicted image separation distribution for SDSS. We use various lens model for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model. In this model, the number of QSOs is expected to be about 26,000. In Table 1, the expected number of large image separation lenses ($`6^{\prime \prime }\theta 30^{\prime \prime }`$) is shown. We find that the ambiguity resulting from the treatment of magnification bias is not so large. From this table, we expect that the future SDSS data could set constraint on the inner density profile.

## 5 Summary and Discussion

We have examined the influence of the inner density profile of lenses on gravitational lens statistics carefully taking into account of the effect of magnification bias and the evolution and the scatter in halo profiles. We have estimated the sensitivity of the lensing probability to the inner density profile of lenses and to the cosmological constant. We have found that lensing probability is strongly dependent on the inner density profile as well as on the cosmological constant. We have also shown that magnification bias for the NFW is order of magnitude larger than that for SIS. There is an uncertainty in the treatment of magnification bias: fainter image should be detected in the survey, or the light from both the fainter and brighter images is initially unresolved in a single image and thus the total image should be detected. However, for NFW profile, difference between the magnification bias of the fainter image and that of the total image is found to be only by factor of three. In any case, we should be careful about magnification bias which strongly depends on the lens profile. We have compared the predictions with the CLASS data and suggested that the steeper inner profile ($`\alpha >1.5`$) seems disfavored. The absence or presence of large splitting events in larger surveys currently underway such as the 2dF and SDSS could set constraints on the inner density profile of dark halos.

Recently, using the arc statistics of gravitational lensing, various authors have examined the inner profile of dark halos (Bartelmann et al.  (1998); Molikawa & Hattori (2000); Oguri, Taruya & Suto (2001)). Comparing with the existing observational data, Molikawa & Hattori (2001) and Oguri, Taruya & Suto (2001) suggested that the steeper inner profile of dark halos ($`\alpha >1`$ or even $`\alpha >1.5`$) is favored. On the other hand, the absence of large images separations in QSOs multiple images in the CLASS sample constrains the inner profile and rather disfavors the steeper profile. Combining the arc statistics and the statistics of QSOs multiple image, we could narrow the allowed range of the inner profile of dark halos, or more interestingly both methods might exhibit discrepancy.

In any event, larger surveys will produce a lot of QSOs multiple images in near future and theoretical development especially concerning the uncertainties of various models will be expected. So we will get clues to the nature of dark matter.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Professor Yasushi Suto, Dr. Ryoichi Nishi for useful discussion and comments. One of the authors (RT) also thanks Dr. Atsushi Taruya and Dr. Masamune Oguri for useful comments. This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No.13740154) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.


text:
# Hysteretic dynamics of domain walls at finite temperatures

## Abstract

Theory of domain wall motion in a random medium is extended to the case when the driving field is below the zero-temperature depinning threshold and the creep of the domain wall is induced by thermal fluctuations. Subject to an ac drive, the domain wall starts to move when the driving force exceeds an effective threshold which is temperature and frequency-dependent. Similarly to the case of zero-temperature, the hysteresis loop displays three dynamical phase transitions at increasing ac field amplitude $`h_0`$. The phase diagram in the 3-d space of temperature, driving force amplitude and frequency is investigated.

Pinning dominated driven dynamics of elastic media in random environment is a paradigm for a vast diversity of physical systems. Examples include vortices in type II superconductors, charge density waves (CDW) in solids, stripe phases, Wigner crystals, dislocations in crystals, domain walls in magnets and many others . Having appeared first in the context of dislocation dynamics , the scaling theory of glassy dynamic state of random elastic media came to fruition in the context of CDW  and vortex lattices in high temperature superconductors , and enjoyed an impressive success in explaining a wealth of phenomenology of the low temperature vortex state. A closely related subject is the zero temperature depinning transition first studied for CDWs  and domain walls . Despite the significant recent progress, several key questions specific to glassy dynamics are yet poorly understood. One of such fundamental key issues, although known and extensively studied for more than hundred years in magnets, is hysteresis of interfaces subject to the applied ac drive and related aging and memory effects. A quest for urgent progress in understanding hysteretic behavior of magnetic domain walls is motivated also by emerging technological nano-scale magnetic systems whose ac properties are controlled by the hysteretic dynamics of interfaces.

A step towards theoretical description of hysteretic behavior of disordered interfaces has been undertaken in , where the cyclic motion of the domain wall at zero temperature under the ac field was investigated and the resulting magnetization hysteretic loop was described. A finite temperature may change drastically the interface dynamics: thermally activated creep motion becomes possible at any small drive.

In this Letter we develop a unified description of thermally activated and over-threshold domain wall dynamics in impure magnets. We demonstrate that at finite temperature new scales of length, activation energy and force appear leading to emergence of a new, temperature and frequency-dependent threshold field in the case of ac drive. The latter is the first in a series of dynamical phase transitions. To be specific, we will speak on magnetic domain walls. Accordingly we will be using either of terms ”force” or ”field” equivalently.

Finite temperature dc dynamics The essential of the zero-temperature dynamic behavior of an elastic medium in a random environment is the existence of the finite threshold depinning force $`h_p`$, separating immobile at $`h<h_p`$ and sliding at $`h>h_p`$ states of the system. Near the threshold the sliding velocity $`v`$ shows a critical behavior  $`v(hh_p)^\beta `$. At finite temperatures and $`hh_p`$ thermally activated drift motion controlled by the static rugged energy landscape occurs. The latter is governed by the interface free energy

$$=d^Dx\left\{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z)^2+V(𝐱,Z)hZ(𝐱)\right\}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the interface stiffness, $`h`$ is the external driving force and $`V(𝐱,Z)`$ is the random impurity potential. $`D`$\- dimensional vector $`𝐱`$ is the coordinate along the interface, and $`Z`$ is the coordinate of the transverse interface displacement. In the following we assume that the disorder average of the random potential vanishes. There are two different types of impurities, random bond (RB) and random field (RF) type in terms of magnetic models. The RB potential obeys the Gaussian statistics with:

$$\overline{V_{RB}(𝐱,Z)V_{RB}(\mathrm{𝟎},0)}=v^2l^{D+1}\delta (𝐱)\delta (Z)$$
(2)
where $`v_{}^2=v_0^2c`$. $`v_0,c`$ and $`l`$ denote the strength, the concentration and the correlation length of the impurity potential. In the RF case $`V_{RF}(𝐱,Z)=\underset{0}{\overset{Z}{}}h(𝐱,Z^{})𝑑Z^{}`$ where the RF $`h(𝐱,Z)`$ has properties similar to $`V_{RB}(𝐱,Z)`$.

The static interface in a random environment becomes rough. Its roughness obeys the scaling law :

$$w^2(L)=\overline{\left(Z(𝐱)Z(\mathrm{𝟎})\right)^2}l^2\left(\frac{L}{L_p}\right)^{2\zeta };L=|𝐱|$$
(3)
where the roughness exponent is $`\zeta =\frac{4D}{3}`$ for RF and $`\zeta 0.2083(4D)`$ for $`4D1`$ and $`\zeta =2/3`$ for $`D=2`$, for RB impurities, respectively . The rough configuration develops over length scales $`LL_p`$, where the Larkin length $`L_p`$ is a distance at which a typical fluctuation of the pinning forces, balanced by elastic forces, produces the transverse displacement $`wl`$:

$$L_pl\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }/v\right)^{2/(4D)}.$$
(4)
Note that the typical slopes $`w(L)/L`$ of the wall vanish for $`LL_p`$ since $`\zeta <1`$. The energy barriers which must be overcome to depin a segment of the wall with the linear size $`L`$ is :

$$E_{B,0}(L)T_p(L/L_p)^\chi ;\chi =D2+2\zeta .$$
(5)
Here $`T_pE_{B,0}(L_p)\mathrm{\Gamma }l^2L_p^{D2}`$ is a typical pinning energy on a scale $`L_p`$. At temperature $`T>T_p`$ the effective force necessary for depinning drops rapidly with the temperature. If an external driving force $`h`$ is applied, the total energy barrier $`E_B(L)`$ becomes

$`E_B(L)`$ $``$ $`E_{B,0}(L)hL^Dw(L)`$ (6)
$``$ $`E_{B,0}(L)\left(1(L/L_h)^{2\zeta }\right)`$ (7)
where $`L_hL_p(h_p/h)^{1/(2\zeta )}`$. The energy barrier reaches its maximum $`E_{B,max}`$ at $`L(\frac{\chi }{D+\zeta })^{1/(2\zeta )}L_h`$ which gives $`E_{B,max}T_p(h_p/h)^\mu `$ and $`\mu =\chi /(2\zeta )`$.

For completeness we note here that equilibrium RF systems in $`d=D+1=2`$ bulk dimensions have no long range order at length scales $`L\xi _{RF}l\mathrm{exp}c(\mathrm{\Gamma }/v)^{4/3}`$. For weak disorder $`\xi _{RF}`$ is very large and can easily exceed the system size. As soon as an external field is applied such that $`L_h<\xi _{RF}`$, domain wall motion is dominated by the forces on scales $`L_h`$ and the absence of true long range order can be ignored.

As first found by Middleton , close to $`h_p`$ the smallest energy barrier vanishes as $`(hh_p)^\theta `$ with $`\theta =2`$. We therefore get the effective energy barrier at $`hh_p`$ if we replace in the above expressions $`T_p`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{T}_p=T_p(\frac{h_ph}{h_p})^\theta `$.

The time scale to overcome this barrier is of the order $`\tau (L_h)\tau _0\mathrm{exp}\left(\stackrel{~}{E}_{B,max}/T\right)`$, where $`\tau _0`$ is a microscopic hopping time, which leads to an average velocity:

$$v(h)\gamma h\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{T_p}{T}\left(\frac{h_ph}{h_p}\right)^\theta \left(\frac{h_p}{h}\right)^\mu \right]$$
(8)
where $`\gamma `$ is the effective friction coefficient .

At low temperature $`TT_p`$ the dynamic threshold $`h_p`$ separates the creep regime from the active sliding regime. As can be seen from (8) a characteristic crossover field $`h_T`$ plays the role of the depinning force, where

$$\frac{h_T}{h_p}=\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_p(h_T)}{T}\right)^{1/\mu }=\left(\frac{T_p}{T}(1\frac{h_T}{h_p})^\theta \right)^{1/\mu }$$
(9)
At $`hh_T`$, the drift velocity increases rapidly and at larger fields it displays almost linear behavior $`v\gamma h`$. Note that $`h_T`$ is a monotonously decreasing function of temperature with a maximum $`h_T=h_p`$ at $`T=0`$.

In a close vicinity of the threshold field $`h_p`$, the effective energy barrier becomes small and even small thermal fluctuations may be sufficient to overcome it. At finite temperatures and $`hh_p`$ the wall moves via thermal activation process with velocity given by eq. (8). Strictly speaking, it means that at finite temperatures the critical point shifts from $`h=h_p`$ to $`h=0`$. Yet there remains a memory of the critical behavior around $`hh_p`$ displaying itself in a crossover behavior at finite but low temperatures. The crossover is seen as a rounding of the $`hv`$ characteristics $`v(hh_p)T^{\beta /\theta }`$. We now can write an interpolation formula for the velocity which is valid in a wide range of variables:

$$v(h,T)=\gamma hF(x,y);x=h/h_p;y=T_p/T,$$
(10)
$`F(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(1x)}{1+(yx^\mu )^{\beta /\theta }}}\mathrm{exp}\left[yx^\mu \left(1x\right)^\theta \right]`$ (12)
$`+\mathrm{\Theta }(x1)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+(yx^\mu )^{\beta /\theta }}}+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right)^\beta \right]`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the step function equal to zero at $`x<0`$ and equal to 1 at positive $`x`$. The interpolation formula (12) satisfies following requirements: (i) $`v(h,T)=\gamma h`$ at any fixed $`T`$ and $`hh_T`$; (ii) $`v(h,T)=\gamma h\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{T_p}{T}\left(\frac{h_ph}{h_p}\right)^\theta \right]`$ for $`h_phh_p`$ and $`TT_p`$; (iii) $`v(h,T)\gamma h\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{T_p}{T}\left(\frac{h_p}{h}\right)^\mu \right]`$ for $`TT_p`$, $`hh_p`$ and $`E_{B,max}/T1`$ ; (iv) $`v(h,T)\gamma h_p(h/h_p1)^\beta `$ for $`(h/h_p1)1`$ and $`TT_p(h/h_p1)^\theta `$; (v) $`v(h_p,T)\gamma h_p(T/T_p)\beta /\theta `$ for $`TT_p`$.

So far we assumed that the propagating interface is self-affine. This is confirmed by numerical simulations in $`D>1`$ interface dimensions for systems with weak disorder . In $`D=1`$ dimensions the situation is less transparent: in simulations which use a bounded distribution of random fields the interface appears to be self-affine  or faceted  depending on whether lattice effects are avoided or admitted, respectively. We ignore here the possibility of faceted growth which occurs only in systems with narrow magnetic domain walls. For an unbounded distributions of random fields however a percolative self-similar domain wall propagation was observed . In the following we will always assume, that the random fields distribution is bounded such that the domain walls remain well defined. This is also confirmed by our earlier simulation outside of the critical region .

Alternating fields. If the external drive is oscillating with frequency $`\omega `$, $`h=h_0\mathrm{sin}\omega t`$, the barriers for which $`\omega \tau (L)>1`$ cannot be overcome during one cycle of the ac field. From the condition $`\omega \tau =1`$ we find a new frequency and temperature dependent magnetic field $`h_\omega `$ which obeys

$$\frac{h_\omega }{h_p}=\left(\frac{T_p}{T\mathrm{\Lambda }}(1\frac{h_\omega }{h_p})^\theta \right)^{1/\mu }$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{ln}1/(\omega \tau _0)`$. $`h_\omega `$ plays the role of the dynamic threshold. At low fields $`h_0<h_\omega `$ there is no macroscopic motion of the wall, its segments oscillate between the metastable states with close energies giving rise to dissipation. Drift of the wall starts at $`h_0>h_\omega `$. We assume $`\omega \tau _01,`$ so that $`h_\omega <h_T`$. Various regimes of domain wall motion are summarized in Fig.1.

Having derived the domain wall velocity as a function of the driving field in the different $`hT`$-regions we consider now the magnetic hysteresis following from the motion of a single wall under the influence of an oscillating field. Since substantial length scales are larger than $`L_p`$, where slopes are small, the domain wall will be considered as a straight line (plane) characterized by one coordinate $`Z`$ . Its dynamics is determined by equation of motion

$$\dot{Z}=v(h(t))$$
(14)
$`Z`$ varies between limiting values $`0`$ and $`L`$. Here $`L`$ is the linear size of the sample in the case of a single domain wall or, in the multi-domain case, equal to the average distance between expanding nuclei  . For harmonically oscillating field $`h=h_0`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\omega t`$, equation (14) can be rewritten in terms of $`h`$ only:

$$\frac{dZ}{dh}=\frac{v(h)}{\omega \sqrt{h_0^2h^2}};Z(h=0)=0$$
(15)
Equations (14) and (15) are valid for $`h>h_\omega `$. The field region $`h<h_\omega `$ where the motion has zero drift velocity will not be considered here. The value $`h_\omega `$ plays the same role as the threshold field $`h_p`$ plays at zero temperature. At $`h>h_\omega `$ the hysteresis is dominated by the activation processes. In this respect it is similar to the nucleation dominated hysteresis described in  with two essential differences. First, the activation relates to the formation of a nucleus on the interface, not in the bulk. Second, the activation energy depends on the magnetic field as a power function $`h^\mu `$ due to the distribution of barriers depending on their length scale.

We start with large temperatures $`T>T_p`$ at which the zero-temperature threshold field $`h_p`$ plays no role (field sweep (2) in Fig.1). In this case the motion of the domain wall is determined by equation ( 15) for $`h>h_\omega `$. As in the case of zero temperature  three dynamic phase transitions take place when the amplitude $`h_0`$ increases gradually at a fixed value of frequency. These transitions change the shape (symmetry) of the hysteresis loop. At the first of them proceeding at $`h_0=h_\omega `$ the hysteresis loop first appears, at smaller amplitudes $`h_0<h_\omega `$ the magnetization remains unchanged. The hysteresis loop appearing at $`h_0>h_\omega `$ is characterized by incomplete magnetization reversal and reflection symmetry $`hh,MM`$ as shown in Fig. 2a. This symmetry as well as incomplete magnetization reversal persists until the next dynamic phase transition at $`h_0=h_{t1}`$.

At $`h>h_{t1}`$ the magnetization reversal becomes complete and hysteresis loop symmetry changes to inversion $`hh`$, $`MM`$ (see Figs. 2b, 2c). The value $`h_{t1}`$ is determined by a requirement that the domain wall proceeds from one sample boundary to another for half a period. At the next dynamic phase transition the symmetry of the hysteresis loop remains unchanged, but the part of the cycle becomes reversible. Visually the hysteresis loop acquires characteristic ”whiskers” as shown in Fig. 2d. The point of this transition $`h_{t2}`$ is determined by a requirement that the domain wall proceeds from one sample boundary to another for quarter period.

Starting from the transition amplitude $`h_0=h_{t1}`$ each hysteresis loop goes through three important points. One of them is $`h_\omega `$, at which the motion of domain wall starts. Two others the so-called coercive field $`h_c`$ and reversal field $`h_r`$. At coercive field the magnetization turns into zero, at reversal field the magnetization becomes completely reversed (see Fig. 2b-2d). Note that for $`h_0=h_{t1}`$ $`h_r=h_\omega `$ and $`h_c=h_0`$; for $`h_0=h_{t2}`$ $`h_r=h_0`$. All these fields can be found in our case. Equations for $`h_{t1}`$, $`h_{t2}`$ are:

$$_{h_\omega }^{h_{tn}}\frac{v(h)dh}{\sqrt{h_{tn}^2h^2}}=\frac{n\omega L}{2},n=1,2$$
(16)
For the case $`T>T_p`$ the equations (16) read:

$$g(x_n)=\frac{n\omega L}{2\gamma h_T},g(x)=\underset{x_\omega }{\overset{x}{}}ye^{y^\mu }(x^2y^2)^{1/2}𝑑x$$
(17)
where $`x_n=h_{tn}/h_T`$, $`n=1,2`$; $`x_\omega =h_\omega /h_T=1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/\mu }`$. Thus, $`x_1`$, $`x_2`$ are functions of a dimensionless parameter $`u=\omega L/\gamma h_T`$, where $`L`$ is the size of the system or an average size of domains. Its asymptotic at small $`u`$ results in $`x_n[\mathrm{ln}(2/nu)]^{1/\mu }`$. The fields $`h_{t1}`$; $`h_{t2}`$ are close in this case: $`(h_{t2}h_{t1})/h_{t1}\mathrm{ln}2/(\mu \mathrm{ln}u)`$. The requirement $`h_{t1}>h_\omega `$ is satisfied if $`\gamma h_T\tau _0<L`$. The coercive field $`h_c`$ and the reversal field $`h_r`$ are determined by equations: $`M(h_c)=0`$; $`M(h_r)=M_s`$.

A simple analysis at small $`u`$ results in $`h_ch_{t1}\text{}h_rh_{t2}`$. The area $`𝒜`$ of the hysteresis loop at $`u<<1`$ and $`h_0>h_{t1}`$ does not depend strongly on the amplitude $`h_0`$ and becomes $`𝒜4h_r_s`$. Fig.2 shows typical hysteresis loops and illustrates the geometrical meaning of the field $`h_\omega ,h_c,h_r`$. The dependence of magnetization on magnetic field is given by equation: $`M(h)=M_s\left(\frac{2Z(h)}{L}1\right)`$.

Finally, in the range of moderately low temperature $`T<T_{p\text{ }}`$ the more complete expression (10) and (11) have to be used in integrating equation (14).

It interesting to note that the similar (dynamic) transition from incomplete to complete hysteresis was observed even in a standard simplistic mean-field model for pure magnets with the reaction described by the Brilloin function . This suggests that this kind of dynamic transition we discuss, may be a generic property of nonlinear systems. Another note is in order: hysteresis in large multidomain magnet samples is a very complex phenomenon and cannot be always reduced to motion of a single domain wall (see for example numerical simulations of random Ising model in , where hysteretic and memory efects unlikely reducible to motion of a sible DW were revealed).

In conclusion, we have investigated critical creep motion at low, $`TT_p`$, and at high, $`T>T_p`$, temperatures, $`T_p`$ being the depinning temperature, and constructed the dynamic phase diagram. At low temperatures creep at $`hh_p`$ retains features of the critical behavior and exhibits the rounding of the $`hv`$ characteristic, according to . At finite frequencies $`\omega `$, a new characteristic field $`h_\omega <h_p`$ comes into play, and the transition from the sliding regime to pinning dominated activation motion is shifted to $`h_\omega `$.

Acknowledgements. We are grateful to A. Middleton for a valuable discussion. One of us (V.P.) acknowledges the support of this work by the NSF under the grant DMR-97-05182, DMR-00-72115 and by the DOE under the grant DE-FG03-96ER45598 as well as from Humboldt-foundation. The work at ANL was supported by the by the U.S. DOE, Office of Science under contract No. W-31-109-ENG-38.