text:
# Phenomenological approach to profile impact of scientific research: Citation MiningThe views in this paper are solely those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of the Navy or any of its components, the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México or NOESIS Inc.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Most scientists publish their findings to disseminate their research results widely and hope that their research has some impact in the scientists’ community and society in general. For many years, citation counts have been used for this goal. This research evaluation approach has produced interesting results identifying the complex nature of Physics impact in the research community (for instance see refs. , , ). This identification of diverse research impacts is important to research managers/ sponsors/ evaluators, and of course performers. They are interested in the types of people and organizations citing the research outputs, and whether the citing audience is the target audience. Also, they are interested in whether the development categories and technical disciplines impacted by the research outputs are the desired targets. Since fundamental research can evolve along myriad paths, tracking diverse impacts becomes very complex.

Recently, scientists have addressed the problem of citation in scientific research from different perspectives: looking for topological description of citation , or for power laws in citation networks , or obtaining power laws in number of cites received by journals according to their number of published papers , or though two-step competition model relating the number of publications and number of cites. These different approaches use power laws trying to obtain simple results from complex interactions, assuming that the precise details of the interactions among the parts of the system play no role in determining the overall behavior of the system. Other approaches try to find some kind of universality in the behavior of research institutions ,. However, in order to obtain a detailed representation of the system it is important to know the details of the interactions. The creation of roadmaps for science and technology illuminates these interactions, and allows the progression of research to be portrayed from both retrospective and prospective perspectives. and with these , . The analysis of the cites and authorship from a social network perspective gives other useful information to characterize scientific disciplines , . However, these approaches: scaling, networks and roadmaps, have limitations due to the fact that they explore only partially the data available from the citation system. The detailed analysis of all the available data of the citing community is required to obtain more information and knowledge. Until now there has been no comprehensive systematic methodology to deal with the information available through cites of the scientific article. To overcome the above mentioned limitations of these techniques, we have developed a phenomenological approach to deal with all the citation information available, and obtain a more detailed description of this complex system. The aim of this paper is to show how we can obtain a more complete profile of the citing papers, and thereby get a more complete representation of the impact of science. The application of this kind of phenomenological detailed description is useful to obtain a different and illustrative view of the complex systems.

The enhanced coverage of the research literature by the Web version of the Science Citation Index (SCI-~5300 leading research journals) allows a broad variety of bibliometric analyses of R&D units (papers, researchers, journals, institutions, countries, technical areas) to be performed.

Aggregation of citation number counts is characteristic of almost all published citation studies,, ; this approach identifies R&D units that have had (and have not had) gross impact on the user community. However, as we have already mentioned, this abscence of fine-structure represents a limited perspective; therefore, we require an approach that utilizes all the available citing data and could help answer questions such as:

What types of people and organizations are citing the research outputs; is this the desired target audience?

What development categories are citing the research outputs?

What technical disciplines are citing the research outputs?

What are the relationships between the citing technical disciplines and the cited technical disciplines?

The aim of the present study is to show the power and capability of this new phenomenological approach to citer profiling. It is necessary to stress that the aim is not to assess the productivity and magnitude of impact of any individual researcher, research group, laboratory, institution, or country. To perform such an assessment, the authors would need a charter and statistically representative data based on the unit of assessment, i.e. to make a portrait of the research impact according with the current available scientific databases.

The organization of this paper is the following: In the second section, we summarize the methodology, and describe citation mining. In the third section, we present the results of analyzing four sets of papers. In the following we will refer to these papers as cited papers, in order to distinguish them from the citing papers that are the papers in which the cited papers are referenced. We profile the four selected paper sets through the analysis of the characteristics of the citing authors, journals where the citing papers appeared, references in the citing papers, and also through the analysis of linguistic correlations in the abstract of the cited and citing papers as well as the titles and the keywords, and other registers available in the SCI database. Finally, we conclude with some remarks on the present study.

## 2 METHOD

In this section we describe a simple procedure to incorporate much of the SCI information in the analysis of the impact of scientific papers. First, we identify the types of data contained in the SCI (circa early 2000), and the types of analyses that will be performed on this information (see Table 1).

Table 1 shows a record from the SCI, without the field tags. The actual paper that it represents is referred in the following description as the ’full paper’. Starting from the top, the individual fields are:

| Table 1 | SCI RECORD |
| --- | --- |
| Title | the complete title of the actual paper |
| Authors | all the authors of the actual paper |
| Source | journal name (e.g. Nature) |
| Issue/ Page(s)/ Publication Date |  |
| Document Type | Article, notes, review, letters |
| Cited References | the number and names of the references cited in the full paper. |
| Times Cited | the number and names of the papers (whose records are contained in the SCI) that cited the full paper. Thus, the number provided by this field is a lower bound. |
| Related Records | papers sharing at least one reference with the SCI record |
| Abstract | the complete Abstract from the full paper |
| Keywords Plus | keywords supplied by the indexer. In this example, no Keywords were supplied by the author, but the SCI contains a field for Keywords, if supplied. |
| Addresses | organizational and street addresses of the authors. For multiple authors, this can be a difficult field to interpret accurately. Different authors from the same organizational unit may describe their organizational level differently. Different authors may abbreviate the same organizational unit differently. |
| Publisher |  |

Before proceeding further, we define the overall study objectives, followed by the approach chosen. The purpose is to identify the infrastructure and technical characteristics of the citing community, by stratified categories. The approach is to perform bibliometric analysis of the citing papers to identify the infrastructure, text mining (extraction of useful information from text using computational linguistics mainly) of the citing papers to identify the main technical themes and their relationships, and then integrate the bibliometrics and text mining results to obtain a unified picture of the citing community.

Specifically, we want to present a summary analysis of the citing paper information. This establishes boundaries on the population to be cited, the fields of the cited records to be analyzed, and the statistical requirements for the citing population. The population to be cited could be (and is) an individual paper, the papers from a single author, the papers from an organizational unit, the papers from a technical discipline, the papers from a country, and/ or various combinations of the above. The key fields of the citing records will be analyzed.

Title record is used in text mining together with the other unstructured text fields, Abstracts and Keywords, to perform the correlation analysis of the themes in the cited paper to those of the citing papers. Computational linguistics analysis is then performed.

Author records used to obtain multi-author distribution profiles could be computed (e.g., number of papers with one author, number with two authors, etc.).

Counts in Source field can lead to journal name distributions, theme distributions, and development level distributions.

Document Type register allows distributions of different document types to be computed (e.g., three articles, four conference proceedings, etc.)

Language field allows distributions over languages to be computed.

Cited References allows a historical analysis of the problem to be performed, and this field can be used to analyze the interrelations between different groups working on related problems.

Times Cited register would be important if the citing papers are of sufficient vintage. Then their multiplier effect would be of interest, and could be computed. The distribution profile of times cited of the citing paper would be generated.

The Addresses register allows distributions of names and types of institutions, and countries, to be generated. Institution and country combinations would be of special interest, and could be correlated with author combination distributions.

The present demonstration of citation mining includes a comparison of a cited research unit from a developing country with a cited research unit from a developed country. It also compares a cited unit from a basic research field with a cited unit from an applied research field. Specifically, the technique is being demonstrated using selected papers from a Mexican semiconductor applied research group (MexA), a United States semiconductor applied research group (USA), a British fundamental research group (BriF), and a United States fundamental research group (USF) (see Table 2). These papers were selected based on the authors’ familiarity with the topical matter, and the desire to examine papers that are reasonably cited. Here, we select these analyzed sets considering at least 50 external cites in order to have a good phenomenological description.

In addition, selection and banding of variables are key aspects of the bibliometric study. While specific variable values are of interest in some cases (e.g., names of specific citing institutions), there tends to be substantial value in meta-level groupings (e.g., institution class, such as government, industry, academia). Objectives of the study are to demonstrate important variables, types of meta-level groupings providing the most information and insight, and those conditions under which non-dimensionalization become useful. However, we present also two analyses at the micro-level involving specific correlations between both citing author and references for BriF and USF papers. This latter analysis is directly important for the performers of scientific research. In addition, text mining could be performed on the text fields (mainly the Abstract, but including the Title and Keywords) to supplement the analysis on the semi-structured and structured fields.

## 3 RESULTS

This section presents the bibliometric and text mining results, showing the advantages and broad perspectives offered by these techniques, both alone and combined. The results are presented in graph and tabular forms. In order to organize the presentation, we divide our results into bibliometrics and textmining analysis.

### 3.1 Bibliometrics Analysis

Figure 1 contains a bar graph of multi-author distribution for the four sets analyzed. The ordinate represents the fraction of total papers published in each author band, and the abscissa represents the number of authors per paper. The most striking feature of this graph is the behavior at the wings. The papers citing basic research dominate the low end (single author), while the papers citing applied research dominate the high end (6-7 authors). The papers citing basic research (BriF and USF) have a similar number of authors per paper, with a maximum in the frequency distribution at two authors per paper. The USA citing papers show gaussian-like authorship distribution with three and four authors per paper, while the MexA group citing papers show a distribution similar to the groups citing fundamental research papers but with fewer single-author papers. These four sets show author distributions where 90% of the papers had less than six authors. These results confirm the diversity of collaborative group compositions over different disciplines and levels of development.

Generally, as projects become more applied, they tend to become larger and more expensive, and require more resources. They also usually require the integration of multiple disciplines. Both these characteristics typically result in larger research groups, and hence in more contributors to a project and its resulting documents. Experimental work usually involves larger teams than theoretical work, while modeling and simulation activities tend to allow more individual efforts. The strong experimental emphasis of the two applied semiconductor groups, with little evidence of computer simulation shown, results in large teams on average. The more balanced theory/ experiment combination of the basic research group tends to suppress larger team efforts in favor of more individualized research. In addition, the intrinsic nature of sandpile vibration research, as opposed to elementary particle or fusion research, does not require large facilities and large research teams.

The citing journal discipline frequency is shown in Table 3. Clearly, each paper set has defined its main discipline well. Also, there is a symmetry in the cross citing disciplines. USF and BriF groups were cited around 80% in fundamental journals (Phys, Bio, Chem) and close to 10% in applied journals (Environ, Mate, Eng.). Similarly, MexA and USA groups were cited close to 50% in applied journals and 45% in fundamental journals. These journal discipline results suggest that the applications developed by the MexA group have a stronger impact on chemical journals than those of the USA group, while the applications developed by the USA have a group stronger impact on physics journals than those of the MexA group. A point to be stressed is that only the fundamental papers received cites in journals clearly outside of their disciplines.

| Table 3 |  | Citing | Journal | Theme |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Theme | MexA | USA | BriF | USF |
| Phys. | 20% | 44% | 83% | 79% |
| Bio. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1% |
| Chem. | 25% | 1% | 2% | 2% |
| Enviromental | 0 | 0 | 1% | 0 |
| Mate. & Eng. | 54% | 55% | 12% | 13% |
| Multidiscipl. | 0 | 0 | 2% | 5% |

The discipline distribution of the citing papers, produced by analyzing the papers’ Abstracts and Titles, is shown in Table 4. It is slightly different from Table 3. As concluded in the text mining, these free-text fields provide far more precise information than can be obtained from the journal discipline. Multi-disciplinary journals can publish uni-disciplinary papers from many different disciplines. Also, the journal categories, determined by ISI, are not a unique reflection of specific contents (e.g., an environmental journal can accept engineering papers, a materials journal can accept physics papers, etc.).

| Table 4 |  | Citing | Article | Theme |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Theme | MexA | USA | BriF | USF |
| Phys. | 10% | 22% | 86% | 83% |
| Bio. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1% |
| Chem. | 26% | 5% | 0% | 1% |
| Mate. & Eng. | 64% | 73% | 12% | 14% |
| Multidiscipl. | 0 | 0 | 2% | 1% |

In three of the four sets analyzed, the component papers were published in different years (see Figure. 2). The MexA set was published from 1989 to 1994, USA from 1994 to 1995, BriF from 1989 to 1996, while USF includes only one paper published in 1992. Figure 2 shows a clear oscillating behavior of USA and BriF, due partly to the different dates of paper publication. Also, most of the sets have between 10% and 20% of cites per year, while the USA set received 38% of the cites in 1998.

The single highly-cited paper feature of the USF set allows additional analyses and perspectives. In Figure 3, the USF citing paper disciplines are shown as a function of time. As time evolves, citing papers from disciplines other than those of the cited paper emerge. An important point is the four-year delay of the systematic appearance of application/development citing papers, but no delay for extra-discipline research citing papers.

Table 5 shows that most cites appear in articles. The four analyzed sets are cited in review articles and letters. This indicates the relevance of the analyzed papers. One important point is that only the fundamental papers are cited in notes, and only the USF paper was cited in an editorial document.

| Table 5 |  | Citing | Paper | Type |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Paper type | MexA | USA | BriF | USF |
| Article | 95% | 96% | 92% | 89% |
| Letter | 3% | 1% | 2% | 2% |
| Review | 2% | 3% | 2% | 5% |
| Note | 0 | 0 | 4% | 3% |
| Edit.Mat. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1% |

Table 6 shows that English is the dominant language of all the paper sets analyzed. However, the surprising appearance of a significant number of citing papers written in Romanian for the MexA set indicates that MexA’s work is important for at least one developing country.

| Table 6 |  | Citing | Paper | Language |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Language | MexA | USA | BriF | USF |
| English | 93% | 100% | 99% | 99.7% |
| Romanian | 7% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| French | 0 | 0 | 1% | 0 |
| German | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.3% |

Figure 4 shows the profile of the citing institutions. Clearly, academia has the highest citing rates. Industry references the advance of high-technological developments, but is not referencing directly the advances in fundamental research. Research Centers follow applied and fundamental research about equally. Direct government participation is not significant in the fields studied. Government/ national laboratories were classified under research centers.

There are 44 countries represented in the citing paper sets analyzed. Figure 5 shows only those countries with at least 10% of the citing countries for a set. USA has the most cites in aggregate. India has the largest cites of the MexA set; Japan has the largest cites of the USA set. This fact is due to the different nature of the applied technology developed by MexA and USA. The USA set contains work related to high technology (high efficiency photovoltaic cells), and the MexA set is dedicated to explore low-cost technology (low cost photovoltaic thin films). Therefore, this last set is cited by the less affluent countries of India, Romania and Mexico. India and Mexico also cite fundamental research, but not Romania. It is important to stress that if no low-cost technology papers were considered, these latter countries would not appear in this graph, and only developed countries would appear. Another point is that England does not cite USA works.

Figure 6 shows clearly that the low-cost technology papers are cited by developing countries. Developed countries cite the mostly high-technology papers, there exist a clear asymmetry in the interests and of course the number of cites from developing countries is less than cites from developed ones.

The analysis of the most common citing authors is presented in Figures 7 where the frequency of an author citing USF (triangle) or BriF (square) is plotted. Figure 7 shows that there is a closed relation between the citing authors for both BriF and USF groups, actually there is a common citing author who occupied the highest position in the frequency plot in both sets (Hermann, HJ). Three of the highest citing authors are not shared between the citing sets of USF and BriF. Jaeger and Nagel are the authors of the USF paper and Mehta is one of the authors of BriF paper. They maintain awareness of each other’s work. In contradistinction, Figure 8 shows that MexA and USA have no intersection between their topics (low cost photovoltaic thin films and high efficiency photovoltaic cells, respectively), from the perspective of the highest citing authors. Previous citation results have shown that applied research authors tend to cite more fundamental research, along relatively stratified lines. In Figure 8, it is clear that the maximum citing author of the MexA group is a Romanian researcher.

In Figure 9, it is clear that there are common features in the number of references in those papers that cite the core applied and fundamental papers, but there are also some differences. For instance, at the lower end of the spectrum (0-20), the applied papers’ citing papers dominate. At the higher end of the spectrum (21-50+), the fundamental papers’ citing papers dominate, with the exception of the BriF anomaly at 41-50.

There are many possible reasons for these differences, and separating out the effects is complex. There are two different technical disciplines, and each one has its citing culture and traditions. Also, each technical discipline has a different level of research activity, and this could influence the magnitude of citations generated. Basic researchers tend to document more, and therefore produce a larger literature to cite. Finally, there may be different citing practices in basic and applied research.

Frequency analysis of the most common references in the citing papers provides insight to co-cited papers, and allows a historical perspective to be obtained. The reference-frequency for the USF and BriF citing papers is shown in Figure 10. Here we see that the fundamental papers dealing with sand-piles are actually correlated, because the highest occurring references in their citing papers are common references (each line has two symbols).

In Figure 10 also we observed that Faraday’s work (1831) appears within the twenty papers most cited in the USF and BriF citing papers. This indicates the fundamental and seminal character of the experimental work performed by Faraday. Also, Reynolds’ work (1885) appears within the twenty most cited papers in the references of the BriF set. These two references also indicate the longevity of the unsolved problems tackled by the USF and BriF groups. The highest frequency co-cited papers have three interesting characteristics. They are essentially all in the same general physics area, they are all published in fundamental science journals (mainly physics), and they are all relatively recent, indicating a dynamic research area with high turnover.

The corresponding analysis of the most common references in the applied MexA and USA groups is presented in Figure 11. These two groups have no correlations, because they have no common references between the highest occurring references in their citing papers. However, in the detailed analysis of the correlation there is one paper in the intersection of these two groups.

This ends the bibliometric analysis. The following section illustrates the usefulness of text mining analysis.

### 3.2 Text mining

The purpose of the text mining is to perform trans-citation linguistic pattern analyses, and make trans-citation comparisons. Two text mining techniques will be used for the following analyses. Phrase frequency analysis will be used to identify the main technical themes of the citing papers relative to the cited papers. Phrase proximity analysis, mainly phrase clustering and taxonomy generation, will be used to show the relationships among themes and category structures of the overall technical citing disciplines. The findings for each of the four paper groups are summarized. Phrase frequency results are presented for the first three groups, and, in addition, phrase clustering results are presented for the fourth group.

#### 3.2.1 USA

The highest frequency single, adjacent double, and adjacent triple word phrases from its USA citing papers aligned with the themes of the cited paper can be seen in del Rio et al. .

The central themes and specific phrases used in the cited paper are replicated in the citing papers. There were no phrases in the citing papers that represented themes or disciplines significantly different from those in the cited paper, above a frequency of unity. While there could possibly be phrases representative of different themes with a unity frequency, some minimal theme coherence was desired. The citing readership appears to be strongly concentrated in the thematic areas of the cited paper. One suspects that the audience obtained is the target audience for this paper, at least in terms of thematic interest. We could not find phrases reflecting themes other than cited paper.

#### 3.2.2 MexA

The central themes and specific phrases used in the cited paper are replicated in the citing papers. There were two phrases in the citing papers that represented themes or disciplines other than those in the cited paper, above a frequency of unity (See Table 7). These additional themes reflected use of the solar coatings for automobile windows, in addition to the core architectural (building) applications. This is a very small extrapolation. Again, the citing readership appears to be strongly concentrated in the thematic areas of the cited paper.

| Table 7 | Phrases Reflecting Themes other than Cited Paper (MexA) |
| --- | --- |
| Frequency | Theme |
| 2 | AUTOMOBILE |
| 2 | ARCHITECTURAL AND AUTOMOBILE |

#### 3.2.3 BriF

Use of text mining capabilities, such as computational linguistics, allows only those applications and extra-discipline papers of interest to be identified, and the requisite information can then be obtained from reading the Abstracts. In addition, the computational linguistics provides a structure and categorization of these myriad applications, allowing the larger context of application themes to be displayed and understood. While phrase frequency algorithms were used for the present study, and proved adequate, specifically-tailored co-occurrence and clustering algorithms are being developed to improve the efficiency of the application papers identification and retrieval process, see Table 8.

| Table 8 | Phrases Reflecting Themes other than Cited Paper (BriF) |
| --- | --- |
| Frequency | Theme |
| 5 | CAR\* |
| 4 | ALLOY |
| 4 | TRAFFIC |
| 4 | WATER PROTON |
| 3 | MAGNETIC |
| 3 | PROTON TRANSVERSE |
| 3 | TRAFFIC FLOW |
| 2 | AQUIFER |
| 2 | EXPRESSWAY |
| 2 | FOOD |
| 2 | FOODSTUSFFS |
| 2 | ICE |
| 2 | NUCLEAR |
| 2 | TUNGSTEN |
| 2 | WATER PROTON TRANSVERSE |

#### 3.2.4 USF

The citing papers to USF paper representing different categories of development and different disciplines from those of the cited paper are portrayed graphically in Figure 12, the axes are Category, Alignment and Papers. The Category represents the level of development characterized by the citing paper (1=basic research; 2=applied research; 3=advanced development/ applications), and the alignment represents the degree of similarity between the main themes of the citing and cited papers (1=strong alignment; 2=partial alignment; 3=little alignment). There are three interesting features on Figure 12. First, the tail of total annual citation counts is very long, and shows little sign of abating, this is one characteristic feature of a seminal paper. Second, the fraction of extra-discipline basic research citing papers to total citing papers ranges from about 20-40% annually, with no latency period evident. This instant extra-disciplinary diffusion may have been due to the combination of intrinsic broad-based applicability of the subject matter and publication of the paper in a high-circulation science journal with very broad-based readership. Third, there was a four-year latency period before the higher development category citing papers began to emerge. One can see that black dots (earlier cites) are completely in the category. This correlates with the results from the bibliometrics component. The latency could have been due to the information remaining in the basic research journals, and not reaching the applications community, or the time that an application needs to be developed is of the order of four years. Thus, the basic science publication feature that may have contributed heavily to extra-discipline citations may also have limited higher development category citations for the latency period.

The present phenomenological approach of identifying impact themes through text mining allows a much more detailed and informative picture of the impact of research to be obtained compared to semi-automated journal classification comparison approaches . It represents the difference between stating that a ”Physics paper impacted Geology research” and a ”paper focused on sand-pile avalanches for surface smoothing impacted analyses of steep hill-slope landslides”.

In the final data analysis, a taxonomy of the USF citing papers was generated using phrase clustering. The Abstracts of all the USF citing papers were converted to phrases and their frequencies of occurrence with use of a Natural Language Processor contained in the TechOasis software package. The 153 highest frequency technical content phrases (expert-selected) were exported to a statistical clustering software package (WINSTAT). Based on the relations among phrases generated by this package, a taxonomy was generated by the authors. A particularly helpful output for each clustering run was the dendogram, a tree-like diagram showing the structural branches that define the clusters. Figure 13 is one dendogram based on the 48 highest frequency phrases (for illustration purposes only). The abscissa contains the phrases that are clustered. The ordinate is a distance metric. The smaller the distance at which phrases, or phrase groups, are clustered, the closer is the connection between the phrases.

Thus, samples of the phrases combined, near the right hand end of the graph include DISSIPATION, COLLISIONS and ENERGY, and MIXTURES/ ALTERNATING LAYERS/ SMALL GRAINS/ LARGE GRAINS/ STRATIFICATION. In the middle part of the graph VIBRATION and AMPLITUDE can be found. At some later time, the VIBRATION-AMPLITUDE combination is grouped with the GRAVITY-GRANULAR MEDIA combination to form the next hierarchical level grouping, and so on.

Many statistical agglomeration techniques for clustering were tested; the Average Neighbor method appeared to provide reasonably consistent good results. Analyses were performed of the numerous cluster options that were produced. The following is one of the top-level cluster descriptions that represented the results of the phrase and word lists clustering best, as well as the factor matrix clustering from the TechOasis results (more clusters can be found in Kostoff et al. ).

The highest level categorization based on the highest frequency 153 phrases produced three distinct clusters : Structure/ Properties, Flow-Based Experiments, Modeling and Simulation. In the description of the Structure and Properties cluster (right part of the dendogram Figure 13) that follows, phrases that appeared within the clusters will be capitalized.

This cluster contained MIXTURES of LARGE GRAINS and SMALL GRAINS, with STRATIFICATION along ALTERNATING LAYERS based on SIZE SEGREGATION and grain SHAPE and GEOMETRICAL PROFILE. The MIXTURE forms a PILE with an ANGLE of REPOSE. When the ANGLE of REPOSE is LARGER than a critical ANGLE, DYNAMICAL PROCESSES produce AVALANCHES, resulting in SURFACE FLOW within THIN LAYERS.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we have presented a phenomenological technique to analyze some aspects of a complex system like the multi-path non-monotonic impact of scientific research. The result of using citation mining (bibliometrics and text mining) to analyze the impact of science, through the use of the available information from the Web of Science ISI, allows the profiling of the citing papers of a given paper, research group, scientific organization, etc. We illustrated citation mining through the analysis of four research groups. This analysis provided multiple facets and perspectives of the myriad impacts of research. Citation mining offers insights that would not emerge if only separate citing paper counts were used independently, as is the prevalent use of citation analysis today. Moreover, by removing the need to actually read thousands of abstracts through the use of text mining, comprehensive assessments of research impact become feasible. One important result from the basic research citation mining  was that impacts are possible in myriad fields and applications not envisioned by the researchers. This reference also questioned whether fundamental sand-pile research would receive funding from Tokamak, air traffic control, or materials programs, even though sand-pile research could impact these or many other types of applications, as shown in the paper. The reference concluded that sponsorship of some unfettered research must be protected, for the strategic long-term benefits on global technology and applications!

Acknowledgments. This paper has been partially supported by DGAPA-UNAM under project IN103100.

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Multi-author distribution for the four paper sets analyzed .

Figure 2. Time profile of citing papers.

Figure 3. Time profile of citing papers for USF. Here it is important to stress a four year delay in the appearence of applied citing papers, but no delay in the appearence of extradiscipline fundamental papers.

Figure 4. Institution profile of citing papers. Most of the research related to these two fields is perfomed in academic institutions.

Figure 5. Country profile of citing papers. The main objective in the MexA research is to obtain a low cost technology, this marks the countries interested in this kind of work.

Figure 6. Citing country development phase. In this graph we are plotting the relative number of citing countries according to their development phase. Each axis indicates the ratio between developed or developing citing countries and the total number of citing countries to each group. Lines are drawn in order to guide the eye and group the different origins of the citing papers. In the fundamental groups, the difference between the number of papers produced in developed and developing countries is clear. USF, USA and BriF receive more cites from developed countries than from developing ones. However, note that again the topic of low cost technology is more interesting for developing countries.

Figure 7. Correlation between the citing authors in fundamental sets. One line with two symbols (triangle and square) means close relation.

Figure 8. Correlation between the citing authors in applied groups. Here, there is no close relation.

Figure 9. Citing paper reference distribution.

Figure 10. Reference-frequency for fundamental sets.One line with two symbols (triangle and circle) means that this reference appears in both (BriF and USF) sets.

Figure 11. Reference-frequency for applied sets. There is no close relation, because there is no line with two symbols.

Figure 12. Cathegory and alignment in the citing papers of USF. Black symbols represent to earlies cites, while empty symbols indicate recent cites.

Figure 13. Dendogram: tree-like diagram defining clusters of realted words in the citing papers of USF. Lesser distance means close relations within phrases.


format: text

text:
# Prospects For Determining The Equation Of State Of The Dark Energy: What Can Be Learned From Multiple Observables?

## 1 Introduction

The big cosmological surprise of recent years is that the dominant form of energy in the universe has negative pressure and is therefore causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. The most direct evidence for acceleration comes from the Hubble diagram of Type Ia supernovae (SN Ia), in particular the relative apparent brightness of SN Ia at redshifts $`z0`$ and $`z0.51`$ (Riess et al., 1998; Perlmutter et al., 1999). However, other strong arguments for a “dark energy” component follow from combining the cosmic microwave background (CMB) evidence for a spatially flat universe (Netterfield et al., 2001; Pryke et al., 2001) with either a minimum age $`t_013`$Gyr (Vandenberg, Stetson, & Bolte, 1996) or dynamical evidence that the density of clustered matter is well below the critical density (see Bahcall, Fan, & Cen 1997; Carlberg, Yee, & Ellingson 1997; Weinberg et al. 1999b for examples of three distinct routes to this conclusion, though there are many others). The first combination, together with a Hubble constant $`H_070\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1=(14\mathrm{Gyr})^1`$ (Freedman et al., 2001), requires a component whose gravitational acceleration roughly cancels the gravitational deceleration caused by the pressureless matter, so that $`t_0H_0^1`$. The second combination requires that the dominant form of energy be unclustered, though it implies nothing more specific about its equation of state. A more model-dependent argument for a negative pressure component comes from the success of inflationary models with cold dark matter (CDM) and a cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) in matching a variety of constraints from CMB anisotropies and large scale structure measurements (see Wang, Tegmark, & Zaldarriaga 2001 for a recent review).

In this paper, we explore the prospects for determining the equation of state of the dark energy component through a variety of observational methods. A true cosmological constant can be treated as a vacuum energy with time-independent density and pressure related by $`p=\rho `$. Current observations favor an equation of state fairly close to this prediction (Garnavich et al., 1998). However, a number of authors have considered the more general possibility that the negative pressure component is a scalar field (a.k.a. “quintessence”) with energy density determined by its potential and effective equation of state $`p=w\rho `$, where $`w`$ can be constant or time-varying (Ratra & Peebles, 1988; Turner & White, 1997; Caldwell, Dave, & Steinhardt, 1998). Interest in models with time-varying $`w`$ has been spurred by arguments that certain simple potentials lead “naturally” to a negative pressure quintessence component that dominates the expansion at late times, independent of the initial conditions (Zlatev, Wang, & Steinhardt, 1999; Steinhardt, Wang, & Zlatev, 1999). Variants on this theme include fields with a non-standard kinetic term (Armendariz-Picon, Mukhanov, & Steinhardt, 2000) or models with a complex scalar field (Boyle, Caldwell, & Kamionkowski, 2001).

Further afield, there is the possibility that the negative pressure component is a network of frustrated topological defects (Vilenkin, 1985; Spergel & Pen, 1997), or that cosmic acceleration arises from a breakdown of general relativity rather than the addition of a new energy component (Mannheim 2001; see also Tegmark 2001). The hope, thus far unrealized, is that one of these ideas will eventually provide a natural explanation of why the vacuum energy density is 120 orders-of-magnitude below the Planck scale and why it is comparable to the matter density at the present day, without having to resort to anthropic selection arguments (Efstathiou, 1995; Martel, Shapiro, & Weinberg, 1998).

Any clear evidence that $`w1`$, or, better still, that $`w`$ varies in time, would provide crucial clues towards understanding the physics of the dark energy. Through its influence on the cosmic expansion history, this component affects many observable phenomena, including CMB anisotropies, the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest, strong and weak gravitational lensing, the anisotropy of quasar and galaxy clustering in redshift space, the ages of the oldest galaxies as a function of redshift, and standard-candle or standard-ruler measurements of the distance-redshift relation. This paper discusses these potential observational tests in a unified fashion. The equation of state determines the history of the energy density $`\rho _\varphi `$, which, together with the densities $`\rho _m`$ and $`\rho _r`$ of matter and radiation, determines the evolution of the Hubble parameter $`H(z)`$ via the Friedmann equation. The history of $`H(z)`$ in turn determines the age of the universe $`t(z)`$, the growth factor of linear perturbations $`D_1(z)`$, and distance measures like the angular diameter distance $`d_A(z)`$ or luminosity distance $`d_L(z)`$, which are related to each other by cosmology-independent powers of $`(1+z)`$. Essentially all proposed tests of the properties of the negative pressure component amount to measurements of $`H(z)`$, $`t(z)`$, $`D_1(z)`$, or $`d(z)`$, or some combination of them, at redshifts accessible to a particular observational technique. We will investigate the dependence of these four quantities, and of the specific combination $`H(z)d_A(z)`$ that is constrained by the Alcock-Paczynski (1979; hereafter AP) anisotropy test, on the value and time history of $`w`$.

Our paper joins, and, we hope, complements, a flood of recent papers that examine the prospects for specific tests and specific data sets in much greater detail. Since the strongest evidence for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or a quintessence component comes from SN Ia observations, and substantial improvements are likely from ground-based campaigns and possibly a dedicated satellite (SNAP; see http://snap.lbl.gov), many authors have examined the extent to which present or future SN Ia observations can constrain $`w(z)`$ (Turner & White, 1997; Garnavich et al., 1998; Astier, 2000; Chiba & Nakamura, 2000; Huterer & Turner, 2001; Saini et al., 2000; Barger & Marfatia, 2001; Chevallier & Polarski, 2001; Maor, Brustein, & Steinhardt, 2001; Ng & Wiltshire, 2001; Podariu, Nugent, & Ratra, 2001; Wang & Garnavich, 2001; Wang & Lovelace, 2001; Weller & Albrecht, 2001). Because CMB anisotropy predictions depend most strongly on the sum of $`\rho _\varphi `$ and $`\rho _m`$ while SN Ia distances depend more nearly on the difference, the combination of these complementary observations yields much tighter constraints on the negative pressure component than either does alone (Caldwell, Dave, & Steinhardt, 1998; Efstathiou, 1999; Baccigalupi et al., 2001; Corasiniti & Copeland, 2001; Doran, Lilley, & Wetterich, 2001). The Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect or size of radio sources offer alternative ways of measuring $`d_A(z)`$ (Birkinshaw, 1999; Lima & Alcaniz, 2001), and the volume-redshift test using galaxy counts constrains the combination $`d_A^2(z)H^1(z)`$ (Newman & Davis, 2000, 2001). The evolution of the galaxy cluster mass function can constrain the linear growth factor $`D_1(z)`$ (Benabed & Bernardeau, 2001; Doran, Schwindt, & Wetterich, 2001; Haiman, Mohr, & Holder, 2001; Newman et al., 2001; Weller, Battye, & Kneissl, 2001), and population synthesis modeling of galaxy spectra can constrain $`t(z)`$ (Lima & Alcaniz, 2000). Jimenez & Loeb (2001) suggest that relative galaxy ages can be used to measure $`dz/dt`$, and thus $`H(z)`$. Hui (1999) and Huterer (2001) have examined constraints on $`w`$ that can be obtained from weak lensing, while Hu (2002) has considered lensing in combination with the CMB. Calvão, de Mello Neto, & Waga (2001) have discussed constraints that could be obtained by applying the AP test to the 2dF quasar redshift survey of Boyle et al. (2000; for related discussions see Hui, Stebbins, & Burles 1999; Cappi 2001; Dalal et al. 2001; McDonald 2001).

Most of these papers have considered the potential observational constraints singly, or in pairs. The goals of our more abstract discussion, where we consider all of these observables together but do not focus on specific observational strategies, are twofold. First, we aim to understand what level of precision is necessary with any of these quantities to obtain useful constraints on $`w`$. Second, we want to know whether these different observables provide complementary information about the time-variation of $`w`$, breaking degeneracies that exist for a single measure by probing different aspects of the expansion history. Unfortunately, our conclusions on the latter point are pessimistic — there are many different ways to measure $`w`$, but distinguishing a time-varying $`w`$ from a constant $`w`$ is likely to prove difficult. The papers by Wang et al. (2000) and Tegmark (2001) also consider multiple observables, focusing on present constraints and future prospects, respectively. Tegmark’s paper, in particular, is similar in spirit to ours, but different in the way that it frames the problem and evaluates the prospects.

In the next section we discuss the various quintessence models that we examine in this paper. We discuss the observables in §3, beginning with the formulas that relate these quantities to the expansion history and proceeding to a brief account of observations that might measure these quantities in the next few years. We present our results in §4, first for the quintessence models described in §2, then for a class of “toy” models designed to allow stronger time-variation of $`w`$ at low redshift. We summarize our conclusions in §5.

## 2 Quintessence Models

We will adopt the language and calculational framework of quintessence models, though most of our general conclusions are also relevant to other possible explanations of cosmic acceleration, like those mentioned in §1. Also, in light of evidence from the location of the first acoustic peak in the CMB anisotropy spectrum (Netterfield et al., 2001; Pryke et al., 2001), we will restrict our attention to spatially flat models.

The Friedmann equation for a spatially flat, expanding universe can be written

$$\frac{\dot{a}}{a}H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{i,0}\frac{\rho _i(z)}{\rho _{i,0}}}.$$
(1)
Here $`a`$ is the scale factor, $`\dot{a}`$ is the derivative of the scale factor with respect to time $`t`$, $`H_0`$ is the value of the Hubble parameter at the present time $`t_0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{i,0}`$ is the present density of some $`i`$th component of the energy density relative to the present critical density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{i,0}\rho _{i,0}/\rho _{c,0}`$). For adiabatic expansion, the energy density of a component with equation of state $`p_i=w_i\rho _i`$ with constant $`w_i`$ evolves with redshift as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _i(z)}{\rho _{i,0}}}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+z)^{n_i},`$ (2)
$`n_i`$ $``$ $`3(1+w_i).`$ (3)
Normal matter has $`w_i=0`$ and $`n_i=3`$, while radiation has $`w_i=1/3`$ and $`n_i=4`$. A true cosmological constant, with $`\rho _i=`$const, $`n_i=0`$, has $`w_i=1`$. We will often refer to models in terms of the energy density scaling index $`n`$, defined by equation (2), rather than by $`w`$ itself, since the value of $`n`$ more directly captures the impact of a component on the expansion history.

A coasting expansion, in which comoving observers have constant velocity, has $`H(z)(1+z)`$. An accelerated expansion requires, at a minimum, that the dominant energy component have $`n_i<2`$, and thus $`w_i<1/3`$. \[More precisely, $`w`$, the density-weighted average value of $`w`$, must satisfy $`w<1/3`$\]. Quintessence, a term reintroduced to cosmology by Caldwell, Dave, & Steinhardt (1998) after millennia of neglect, refers generically to a scalar field with equation of state $`p_\varphi =w_\varphi \rho _\varphi `$ and $`w_\varphi <0`$. The first class of models that we consider are those in which $`w_\varphi `$ is constant. In this case, the Friedmann equation can be written

$$H(z)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=H_0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{r,0}(1+z)^4+\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\varphi ,0}(1+z)^n},$$
(4)
with $`n`$ given by equation (3).

More general models often treat quintessence as a minimally coupled scalar field $`\varphi `$, obeying the equation

$$\ddot{\varphi }=3H\dot{\varphi }\frac{dV}{d\varphi },$$
(5)
where $`w`$ for the scalar field is

$$w=\frac{(1/2)\dot{\varphi }^2V(\varphi )}{(1/2)\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi )}.$$
(6)
When $`V(\varphi )`$ is an exponential or a negative power-law, the scalar field has the desirable property that its final evolution is independent of initial conditions, a behavior that has been dubbed “tracking” (Zlatev, Wang, & Steinhardt, 1999; Steinhardt, Wang, & Zlatev, 1999). The negative power-law potentials lead to constant $`w`$ when the contribution from the scalar field energy density is sub-dominant (Ratra & Peebles, 1988; Liddle & Scherrer, 1999), but when the scalar field energy density comes to dominate at late times, the value of $`w`$ changes. In principle, then, such models should be observationally distinguishable from models with constant $`w`$.

For our second class of models, we have chosen a subset of the negative power-law potentials, where

$$V(\varphi )\varphi ^\alpha ,$$
(7)
with $`\alpha <0`$. If the dominant component has a density that scales as $`\rho (1+z)^m`$ (e.g., $`m=4`$ during the radiation-dominated era and $`m=3`$ during the matter dominated era), then these models have

$$n=[\alpha /(\alpha 2)]m$$
(8)
when $`\rho _\varphi \rho _m`$ (Liddle & Scherrer, 1999). At late times, when the scalar field energy density begins to dominate, equation (8) no longer holds, and $`n`$ changes with time. We have chosen to examine two representative cases: $`\alpha =1`$ and $`\alpha =6`$. This choice is somewhat arbitrary, but these are the same cases that are discussed by Zlatev, Wang, & Steinhardt (1999).

The evolution of $`n`$ in these models is displayed in Figure 1, assuming cosmological parameter values $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.4`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{r,0}=9.8\times 10^5`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\varphi ,0}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}\mathrm{\Omega }_{r,0}`$. (This value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{r,0}`$ corresponds to a photon temperature of $`T=2.73`$ K, a standard neutrino population, and a Hubble parameter of $`H_0=65\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. This is the only place in our calculations where $`H_0`$ enters, and it has a very small effect on our results). For these models, we define $`n(z)`$ to be the local logarithmic derivative of $`\rho _\varphi `$ with respect to $`(1+z)`$. Figure 1 shows that the value of $`n`$ for $`3\mathrm{}<z\mathrm{}<10`$ is almost exactly constant and given by equation (8), namely $`n=1`$ for $`\alpha =1`$ and $`n=9/4`$ for $`\alpha =6`$. At $`z<3`$, $`n`$ decreases slightly, reaching present-day values of $`n=0.77`$ for $`\alpha =1`$ and $`n=1.89`$ for $`\alpha =6`$. In §4 we will see whether cosmological tests can detect these slight changes in $`n`$.

Although models with an exponential potential are quite natural and can lead to $`\rho _\varphi \rho _m`$ at all times, they are ruled out for several reasons: they tend to give $`\rho _\varphi `$ too large during primordial nucleosynthesis (Ferreira & Joyce, 1997), and they lead to $`n=3`$ at late times, which does not produce an accelerated expansion. These problems are remedied in the model of Albrecht & Skordis (2000), who introduced a potential consisting of an exponential multiplied by a polynomial,

$$V(\varphi )=[(\varphi B)^\gamma +A]e^{\lambda \varphi },$$
(9)
where $`A`$, $`B`$, $`\gamma `$, and $`\lambda `$ are constants. These constants can be chosen to produce a model for which $`n=m`$ at early times, when the scalar field is sliding down the exponential potential, but $`n=0`$ at late times, when the scalar field settles into the local minimum in the potential. The constants in this model must still be tuned to give the desired value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\varphi ,0}`$; following Albrecht and Skordis (2000), we have examined a model with $`A=0.01,B=34.8,\gamma =2,`$ and $`\lambda =8`$, and with initial conditions chosen so as to fix $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.4`$ today. The evolution of $`n`$ for this model is also shown in Figure 1. It exhibits a sharp transition from $`n3.5`$ at $`z10`$ to $`n0`$ at $`z<3`$, a much more dramatic change than that in the power-law scalar field models. \[Exponential potentials can also be made to work in models in which the scalar field is coupled to matter (Amendola, 2000); however, we confine our attention in this paper to minimally-coupled fields\].

The dynamical significance of the quintessence component is quantified by the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (z)`$. Figure 2 shows the evolution of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (z)`$ for a cosmological constant (solid curve) and the five quintessence models discussed above. The $`n=0`$ (cosmological constant), $`n=1`$, and $`n=2`$ cases are quite distinct, as one would expect from their differing $`\rho _\varphi (z)`$. However, the $`V(\varphi )=\varphi ^1`$ case closely parallels the constant $`n=1`$ case, and the $`V(\varphi )=\varphi ^6`$ case likewise tracks the model with constant $`n=2`$. The Albrecht-Skordis $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ is nearly indistinguishable from that of a cosmological constant except at high redshift, where the change in $`n`$ makes a small but noticeable difference.

## 3 The Observables

Our starting point is the Friedmann equation in the form of equation (1). As components we consider matter with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.4`$, radiation with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{r,0}=9.8\times 10^5`$, and quintessence with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\varphi ,0}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}\mathrm{\Omega }_{r,0}0.6`$. We compute the ratio $`\rho _\varphi (z)/\rho _{\varphi ,0}`$ from equation (2) for constant-$`w`$ models \[thus obtaining equation (4) for $`H(z)`$\] or by computing the evolution of $`\varphi `$ from the dynamical equation (5) for the negative power-law or Albrecht-Skordis models.

The Friedmann equation directly determines the behavior of our first observable, the Hubble parameter $`H(z)`$. We compute other observables given $`H(z)`$ via the standard treatments in, e.g., Peebles (1980, 1993), Kolb & Turner (1990), or Hogg (1999). The age of the universe at redshift $`z`$ is

$$t(z)=_z^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dz^{}}{(1+z^{})H(z^{})}.$$
(10)
The angular diameter distance $`d_A(z)`$, which is the ratio of the comoving size of an object to its angular size in radians, is

$$d_A(z)=\frac{c}{(1+z)}_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{H(z^{})}.$$
(11)
Other distances, e.g., those that affect the SN Ia Hubble diagram or gravitational lensing predictions, are related to $`d_A`$ by powers of $`(1+z)`$; the bolometric luminosity distance, for example, is $`d_L(z)=(1+z)^2d_A(z)`$. Since these factors are independent of the cosmological model, a measurement of any of these distances determines all of them to the same fractional accuracy, so we take $`d_A(z)`$ as our representative observable for all distance measures.

The linear growth factor $`D_1`$ is defined by the relation

$$\delta ^{(1)}(𝐱,t)=\delta (𝐱)D_1(t),$$
(12)
where $`\delta ^{(1)}(𝐱,t)`$ is the first-order density perturbation. We choose the normalization $`D_1(z=0)=1`$, so that $`D_1(z)=\delta ^{(1)}(z)/\delta ^{(1)}(0)`$ gives the linear growth of perturbations between redshift $`z`$ and redshift 0. Then $`D_1`$ is the growing-mode solution to the differential equation

$$\ddot{D}_1+2H(z)\dot{D}_1\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}H_0^2(1+z)^3D_1=0.$$
(13)
For fixed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$, $`D_1(z)`$ is a function only of $`H(z)`$, so it is again determined by the Friedmann equation. We solve this equation for $`D_1(z)`$ with a standard Runge-Kutta integration method. In the pure cosmological constant case, a closed form expression for $`D_1(z)`$ is

$$D_1(z)=\frac{H(z)}{H_0}_z^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dz^{}(1+z^{})}{H^3(z^{})}\left[_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dz^{}(1+z^{})}{H^3(z^{})}\right]^1,$$
(14)
where the factor in brackets enforces our normalization definition (Eisenstein 1997, based on Heath 1977). Unfortunately, this expression generalizes only to the case $`n=2`$, but it does illustrate that the linear growth factor weights the expansion history in a different way than does the age or distance. For constant $`w`$, a solution for $`D_1(z)`$ can be found in terms of hypergeometric functions (Silveira & Waga 1994).

In addition to these four observables, we consider the specific combination $`h(z)`$ that is probed by the AP geometrical test. AP pointed out that, while tests using $`d_A(z)`$ or $`d_L(z)`$ can be affected by evolution in the sizes of “standard rulers” or the luminosities of “standard candles,” one can measure the ratio of redshift separation distance to angular separation distance assuming only that the structures under investigation are isotropic. Recent implementations of this idea consider, instead of the idealized spherical clusters discussed by AP, the statistical pattern of clustering traced by quasars (Phillips, 1994; Ballinger, Peacock, & Heavens, 1996; Matsubara & Suto, 1996; Popowski et al., 1998; Outram et al., 2001; Calvão, de Mello Neto, & Waga, 2001), galaxies (Ryden, 1995; Nakamura, Matsubara, & Suto, 1998; Nair, 1999; Matsubara & Szalay, 2001), or the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest (Hui, Stebbins, & Burles, 1999; McDonald & Miralda-Escudé, 1999; McDonald, 2001). Adopting the notation of Phillips (1994) and Popowski et al. (1998), we define

$$h=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z}{z\mathrm{\Delta }\theta }$$
(15)
as the ratio of redshift separation to a “redshift arc length” for equal tangential and line-of-sight separations in physical coordinates, assuming $`\mathrm{\Delta }zz`$. For a fixed physical separation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is proportional to $`H(z)`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )^1`$ is proportional to $`d_A(z)`$, so $`h(z)`$ is proportional to their product,

$$h(z)=\frac{1+z}{cz}H(z)d_A(z).$$
(16)
We will refer to $`h(z)`$ as the AP parameter.

What are the prospects for measuring these observables in the next $`510`$ years? Our remarks here will be qualitative and somewhat speculative, but it is useful to approach the predictions of §4 with some sense of what may be achieved by different methods.

The prospects for distance measurements are the clearest and most well studied. The rms scatter of the relation between peak luminosity and light curve shape for SN Ia is only $`10\%`$ (Phillips, 1994; Riess, Press, & Kirshner, 1996), so each well observed supernova allows a distance estimate with a $`1\sigma `$ statistical uncertainty $`5\%`$. Current samples (Hamuy et al., 1996; Riess et al., 1998; Perlmutter et al., 1999) are concentrated at $`z0`$ and $`z0.50.8`$, but the approach can be extended to $`z1.7`$ if the SNAP satellite is built. With samples of hundreds or even thousands of supernovae, the statistical errors will become very small indeed, and the measurement accuracy is likely to be limited by systematic uncertainties such as dust extinction, possible evolution of the progenitor population, and stability of photometric calibration over a wide dynamic range. A precision $`1\%`$ to $`z1.7`$ seems plausibly achievable, and perhaps even unduly pessimistic.

There are numerous other ways to measure the distance-redshift relation. Measurements of the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich decrement and X-ray properties of clusters can be combined to yield the angular diameter distance (Birkinshaw, 1999; Molnar, Birkinshaw, & Mushotzky, 2002). This method can provide an entirely independent check on SN Ia results, and its limiting precision depends on the size of well-observed cluster samples and the accuracy with which internal cluster properties (particularly substructure) can be understood. The angular diameter distance can also be measured by identifying a characteristic scale (such as the curvature scale of the CDM power spectrum) in the angular clustering of distant clusters (Cooray et al., 2001), or even by using the amplitude of this angular clustering in comparison to theoretical predictions. Roukema & Mamon (2000) have already applied a similar approach to a putative feature at $`130h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ in the quasar power spectrum. Galaxy counts in a deep redshift survey depend on the volume element $`dVd_A^2(z)H^1(z)`$, providing yet another way to constrain distances. The chief uncertainty in this approach is evolution of the galaxy population, but Newman & Davis (2000, 2001) argue that this can be controlled in the DEEP redshift survey by measurement of galaxy circular velocities, allowing useful constraints on $`w`$.

At redshifts $`z\mathrm{}>2`$ all of these methods become difficult, but the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest offers an alternative probe out to $`z4`$. The predicted correlation of flux along lines of sight to quasar pairs depends on $`d_A(z)`$, and measurements of this correlation will improve as more close pairs are discovered and studied. Such estimates of $`d_A(z)`$ would be somewhat model dependent, but the statistics of flux along individual lines of sight can provide detailed checks of the assumed model. This method has not been investigated in any detail (though McDonald 2001 presents relevant results), so it is hard to know what precision can be achieved, perhaps a few percent. Strong gravitational lensing statistics also test the equation of state through their dependence on distance at various redshifts (Cooray & Huterer, 1999), and constraints can also be obtained by measuring the source redshifts in well understood lens systems (Yamamoto et al., 2001). Finally, the first acoustic peak in the CMB power spectrum gives a high-precision measurement of the angular diameter distance to the surface of last scattering, at $`z=z_r1100`$. The uncertainty in this determination is associated with the uncertainty in the parameters that determine the sound horizon at $`z_r`$, which are themselves constrained by the CMB power spectrum and other cosmological observations. It is again hard to know just what precision will be obtained on $`d_A(z_r)`$ itself, but a percent or better seems plausible.

Out to redshift $`z1`$, the main observational probe of the growth factor $`D_1(z)`$, at least at present, is the mass function of galaxy clusters. Because clusters are rare objects that form from $`23\sigma `$ excursions of the initial Gaussian fluctuation spectrum, their predicted abundance is sensitive to the normalization of that spectrum, and thus to the product $`\sigma _8D_1(z)`$, where $`\sigma _8`$ is the rms fluctuation of matter in spheres of radius $`8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ at $`z=0`$ (see, e.g., Bahcall, Fan, & Cen 1997). However, because the cluster mass function is steep, abundances are also sensitive to the accuracy and precision of mass determinations (Frenk et al., 1990), and the limitation on measurements of $`D_1`$ is likely to be systematic rather than statistical. The combination of X-ray, Sunyaev-Zel’dovich, and weak lensing approaches should reduce these systematic uncertainties below current levels. To guess what level of precision is achievable for $`D_1`$, we note that current “$`2\sigma `$” uncertainties in the fluctuation amplitude $`\sigma _8`$ (for specified $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$) are $`10\%`$ (e.g., Eke, Cole, & Frenk 1996), though independent estimates can differ by more than this amount even when the input data are similar (see, e.g., Seljak 2001). Balancing the difficulties of working at higher redshift against the anticipated large improvements in cluster data, it seems reasonable to hope for $`5\%`$ precision in $`D_1`$ out to $`z1`$, possibly better. Recent discussions of the potential of galaxy cluster surveys for constraining $`w`$ include Haiman, Mohr, & Holder (2001), Newman et al. (2001), and Weller, Battye, & Kneissl (2001).

Cosmic shear is another potential probe of $`D_1(z)`$, measuring the amplitude of surface density fluctuations (see Huterer 2001 for a discussion in the context of $`w`$ constraints). Recent measurements already yield a constraint on $`\sigma _8`$ (for fixed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$) that is competitive with determinations from the cluster mass function, with remarkably good agreement of independent estimates (see Maoli et al. 2001 and references therein). Measurements of shear for samples of foreground and background galaxies with different photometric redshifts should allow $`\sigma _8`$ and $`D_1(z)`$ to be disentangled. Weak lensing will, at the least, provide an independent check on estimates of $`D_1(z)`$ from cluster masses, and the ambitious surveys now underway may eventually yield significantly better precision. At $`z>2`$, the most promising route to $`D_1(z)`$ is the flux power spectrum of the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest, which is related to the underlying matter power spectrum in a fairly straightforward way (Croft et al., 1998, 1999, 2001; McDonald et al., 2000; Gnedin & Hamilton, 2001; Zaldarriaga, Hui, & Tegmark, 2001). Current uncertainties in the rms fluctuation amplitude are $`15\%`$, with roughly equal statistical and systematic uncertainties. The former will decrease with larger samples such as those from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (York et al., 2000), while the latter will decrease with improved determinations of the mean Ly$`\alpha `$ flux decrement, improved numerical simulations to calibrate the relation between the flux and matter power spectra, and the use of other statistics to test the assumptions that enter these simulations. At this point, it is not clear where systematic uncertainties will limit the precision of mass fluctuation measurements from the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest, but $`510\%`$ seems a reasonable guess. The other redshift at which we can expect to determine $`D_1(z)`$ is the redshift of recombination, from comparing the amplitude of the CMB power spectrum to that of today’s matter power spectrum (Doran, Schwindt, & Wetterich, 2001). Here measurement precision will be high, and the limiting factor is the degeneracy of the fluctuation amplitude with other parameters that affect the level of CMB anisotropy.

We note in passing that the cluster abundance, cosmic shear amplitude, and Ly$`\alpha `$ flux power spectrum are not “pure” measurements of $`D_1(z)`$, since the distance-redshift relation affects the first two through volume factors and lensing geometry, respectively, and the Hubble parameter affects the third because the power spectrum is measured in $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ units at the observed redshift. Similarly, the angular diameter distance is needed to identify angular scales in the CMB with lengthscales at $`z=0`$. However, given the direct dependence of these quantities on the mass fluctuation amplitude, it makes sense to describe them primarily as probes of the growth factor. Going from an amplitude of fluctuations at redshift $`z`$ to a value of $`D_1(z)`$ also requires accurate knowledge of the fluctuation amplitude today (i.e., of $`\sigma _8`$), which we are implicitly assuming will emerge from the tightening web of CMB, large scale structure, cluster, and weak lensing constraints. The obtainable precision on $`D_1`$ may be higher than the precision in $`\sigma _8`$ itself in the case of a differential evolutionary measurement, such as the cluster mass function.

Lower limits to the age of the universe can be obtained by modeling the stellar populations of the oldest galaxies observed at a given redshift. This approach has been used to argue against $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$ models, for which the age scales as $`t(z)=t_0(1+z)^{3/2}`$; even relative to open models, the addition of a cosmological constant makes it substantially easier to understand the red colors and high stellar mass-to-light ratios of high-redshift ellipticals (e.g., Peacock et al. 1998; van Dokkum et al. 1998). Lima & Alcaniz (2000) have investigated the usefulness of galaxy ages as a constraint on $`w`$. Given the uncertainties associated with population synthesis modeling and dust extinction, precision of 10% or better in $`t(z)`$ at high $`z`$ would seem highly optimistic. However, age constraints can provide an upper limit on $`w`$ that allows a consistency check with other estimates. Exploiting this limit requires accurate knowledge of $`H_0`$, which sets the overall normalization of timescales.

The most promising targets for the AP test are quasars (Phillips, 1994; Ballinger, Peacock, & Heavens, 1996; Matsubara & Suto, 1996; Popowski et al., 1998; Outram et al., 2001), the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest towards quasar pairs (Hui, Stebbins, & Burles, 1999; McDonald & Miralda-Escudé, 1999; McDonald, 2001), and galaxies in the Sloan or 2dF redshift surveys (Ryden, 1995; Nakamura, Matsubara, & Suto, 1998; Matsubara & Szalay, 2001). The Ly$`\alpha `$ forest approach is elegant, but McDonald (2001) shows that $`h(z)`$ at $`z24`$ is insensitive to $`w`$, and our results below reinforce this conclusion. Instead, $`h(z)`$ at these redshifts provides a good diagnostic of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ (and thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\varphi ,0}1\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$), with little dependence on $`w`$ if it is less than $`0.5`$ (McDonald, 2001). A precise value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ is needed to get useful constraints on $`w`$ with other tests, as we discuss and illustrate below. Most studies of the AP test with quasars or galaxies also focus on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}`$ rather than $`w`$. However, Calvão, de Mello Neto, & Waga (2001) have examined constraints on $`w`$ that could be obtained with the 2dF quasar redshift survey, with encouraging conclusions. They do not present their results in the form of precision on $`h(z)`$, but their projected sensitivity to $`w`$ must imply fairly good precision at $`z0.51`$.

The Hubble parameter $`H(z)`$ is the observable most directly tied to the Friedmann equation (1). One way to measure it is by combining the volume-redshift or AP test with estimates of $`d_A(z)`$. The Ly$`\alpha `$ forest offers a more direct route because the width and separation of features is determined largely by Hubble flow (Weinberg et al., 1997). Statistics like the threshold crossing frequency are sensitive to the difference between open and flat CDM models because of the difference in $`H(z)`$ (Weinberg et al., 1999a), and measurements of the power spectrum shape can yield characteristic scales in km s<sup>-1</sup> units at the observed redshift, for comparison with scales measured in $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ at $`z=0`$ (Croft et al., 2001). This method of measuring $`H(z)`$ has not been investigated in any detail, so we do not know what precision is attainable; it is likely to be set by the tradeoff between $`H(z)`$ and other parameters that describe the temperature-density relation of the diffuse intergalactic medium. It is likely to work better at $`z24`$ than at lower redshifts, where the observations must be done from space and shock heated gas contributes more to the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest (Davé et al., 1999), though even here the separation between features might prove a useful diagnostic of the expansion rate.

At $`z\mathrm{}<1`$, the skewness of the cosmic shear distribution offers an alternative probe of $`H(z)`$. Hui (1999) discusses the constraints on $`w`$ that can be obtained by this method, which arise from the sensitivity of the predicted skewness to the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m(z)`$. Since the matter density is necessarily $`\rho _m(z)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}\rho _{c,0}(1+z)^3`$, the cosmology dependence of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m(z)`$ comes from the critical density $`\rho _c(z)=3H^2(z)/8\pi G`$, so in the context of our discussion it makes sense to view weak lensing skewness as a measurement of $`H(z)`$. Jimenez & Loeb (2001) have proposed yet another route to measuring $`H(z)`$, using the relative ages of galaxy populations at two different redshifts (which can be determined more accurately than the absolute ages, since some of the uncertainties in the population synthesis models cancel out). The ratio of redshift difference to age difference yields $`dz/dt=(1+z)H(z)`$, where the equality uses the definitions $`(1+z)=a_0/a`$ and $`H=\dot{a}/a`$. Note that, while the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest and weak lensing methods effectively measure the ratio $`H(z)/H_0`$, the age difference method gives $`H(z)`$ in physical units. Jimenez & Loeb (2001) argue that percent-level precision in $`H(z)`$ is achievable, in which case the uncertainty in the ratio (which is the quantity sensitive to the equation of state) is likely to be dominated by the uncertainty in $`H_0`$ itself.

There is significant degeneracy between the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ and the value of $`w`$, since either lower $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ or lower $`w`$ leads to greater acceleration. We assume that improving CMB and large scale structure measurements will allow a precise determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ in the next few years, independent of measurements of $`d_A`$, $`D_1`$, $`t`$, $`H`$, and $`h`$, so that the power of these constraints can be brought to bear entirely on the equation of state. We will consider the impact of a 0.05 uncertainty in the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$, and it is not obvious whether this assumption is optimistic or pessimistic. Apart from the determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$, the only role that we ascribe to the CMB is the measurement of $`d_A`$ and $`D_1`$ at $`z1100`$. It may be that CMB data can also yield constraints on the expansion history and $`D_1`$ at lower redshifts, via the integrated Sachs-Wolfe (1967) effect or lensing of anisotropies (see, e.g., Seljak 1996), but we do not know just what these constraints will be. If the quintessence field is inhomogeneous, it will contribute to large-angle CMB anisotropy (Caldwell, Dave, & Steinhardt, 1998), allowing a probe of the dark energy independent of the ones considered here, which are all based on the expansion history.

By focusing on this specific set of observables, we do not wish to imply that this is necessarily the ground on which theory and observation will be compared. Presumably the constraints on the equation of state from, say, weak lensing will be derived in terms of the weak lensing observables themselves, without first extracting constraints on $`D_1`$, $`d_A`$, and $`H`$ at various redshifts. However, in trying to understand the potential power of combining different observational approaches, it is helpful to think in terms of the fundamental quantities that they can measure. In particular, two models that predict indistinguishable results for $`d_A(z)`$, $`D_1(z)`$, $`t(z)`$, and $`H(z)`$ cannot be discriminated by any combination of observations that depend only on these quantities. Our focus on fundamental observables is also a helpful way of estimating the level of precision needed for some observational strategy to make a useful contribution to constraining the equation of state and its history.

## 4 Dependence of the Observables on the Equation of State

Figure 3 presents our basic results for the quintessence models discussed in §2. Each panel shows the evolution of one of the five observables, $`d_A`$, $`D_1`$, $`t`$, $`H`$, or $`h`$, out to redshift $`z=10^3z_r`$. Open triangles and squares represent constant-$`w`$ models with $`n=1`$ and $`n=2`$ ($`w=2/3,1/3`$), respectively. Filled triangles and squares represent $`V=\varphi ^1`$ and $`V=\varphi ^6`$ models, and stars represent the Albrecht-Skordis model with the parameters stated in §2. In all cases, the points are computed assuming a flat universe, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.4`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{r,0}=9.8\times 10^5`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\varphi ,0}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}\mathrm{\Omega }_{r,0}`$. Furthermore, we normalize the value of each observable to the value predicted by a pure-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model ($`n=0`$, $`w=1`$) at the corresponding redshift. Thus, for example, the open triangle at $`z=0.5`$, $`d_A(z)/d_A(z)_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.96`$ implies that a precision of 4% (at the desired confidence level) is sufficient to distinguish an $`n=1`$ model from a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-model using the angular diameter distance at $`z=0.5`$, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ is known perfectly. The ends of the error bars on each point show results for models with the same equation of state but $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.35`$ and 0.45, to illustrate the impact of uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$. (Ratios are still computed relative to an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.4`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-model.) If the error bar on an observable overlaps a ratio of 1.0, then even a perfect measurement of that observable at that redshift will not distinguish the model from a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-model unless $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ is known to better than 0.05.

For a given precision, the sensitivity of different observables peaks at different redshifts. The Hubble parameter sensitivity peaks at $`z12`$, when the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (z)`$ values in different models is large and the quintessence energy density is still large enough to be dynamically important (see Figure 2; roughly speaking, it is the absolute difference in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ in this Figure that matters for differences in $`H`$). The sensitivity of $`d_A(z)`$ remains fairly flat, since even at high $`z`$ the distance “remembers” the behavior of $`H(z)`$ at low redshifts (see eq. 11). The age of the universe, by constrast, depends only on the Hubble parameter at redshifts higher than $`z`$ (eq. 10), so the sensitivity of $`t(z)`$ continues to increase almost all the way down to $`z=0`$. Note that the sensitivity of an observable to the value of $`n`$, displayed in Figure 3, may be quite different from the sensitivity of that observable’s $`z`$derivative, which often peaks at lower redshift.

The behavior of $`h(z)`$ is governed by the competing effects of $`H(z)`$ and $`d_A(z)`$ — from equations (16) and (11), one can see that $`h(z)`$ is proportional to the product of $`H(z)`$ and the average value of $`H^1(z)`$ at lower redshifts. At $`z3`$, $`h(z)`$ is very insensitive to $`w`$, as pointed out by McDonald (2001), who emphasizes that this independence of $`w`$ makes the AP test at this redshift an especially good diagnostic of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$. The sensitivity to $`w`$ peaks at $`z0.5`$, making quasar clustering better than the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest as a probe of the equation of state per se. The Sloan survey’s luminous red galaxy sample (Eisenstein et al., 2001) might also be useful for this application (Matsubara & Szalay, 2001). The sensitivity of $`h(z)`$ to $`w`$ grows again at $`z\mathrm{}>5`$, but the prospects for applying the AP test at these redshifts seem very slim.

The sensitivity of $`D_1(z)`$ increases with increasing $`z`$, since the growth factor depends only on clustering between redshift $`z`$ and redshift zero, and models with lower $`n`$ have larger $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m(z)=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (z)\mathrm{\Omega }_r(z)`$ at all $`z>0`$. For $`n=1`$, the sensitivity levels out at $`z\mathrm{}>3`$ as quintessence becomes dynamically unimportant, but for $`n=2`$ the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (z)`$ is non-negligible even at fairly high redshift (Figure 2).

Figure 3 shows that $`10\%`$ measurements of any of these observables near their redshift of peak sensitivity can discriminate an $`n=2`$ model from a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-model, or from an $`n=1`$ model. Since the expansion of an $`n=2`$ model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}>0`$ is always decelerating, it is not surprising that this model is fairly easy to distinguish from a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-model with significant acceleration at low redshift. SN Ia measurements already rule out this value of $`n`$ (Garnavich et al., 1998), and Figure 3 implies that other observations are within reach of confirming this result independently. Distinguishing an $`n=1`$ model from a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-model is much harder, typically requiring measurement precision of a few percent or better, and independent precision on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ that is not much worse than the 0.05 represented by our error bars. Nonetheless, this level of discrimination is clearly within reach of the improving SN Ia measurements, and the discussion in §3 suggests that several other methods have a realistic hope of reaching the necessary precision on a timescale of several years. The sensitivity of our observables to $`w`$ would be slightly greater if we adopted $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.3`$ as our central value. Furthermore, the precision that might be obtained from measurement of these observables at multiple redshifts can be higher if the errors in the separate measurements are uncorrelated; however, if the source of uncertainty is systematic, it may produce correlated errors at different redshifts.

Unfortunately, distinguishing any of the time-varying $`w`$ models that we have considered from the closest constant-$`w`$ model looks all but impossible. The $`V=\varphi ^1`$ model tracks the $`n=1`$ model almost perfectly, and the $`V=\varphi ^6`$ model tracks the $`n=2`$ model with similar faithfulness. The close match of these models is unsurprising given the plots of $`n(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (z)`$ in Figures 1 and 2. The predicted differences between the power-law potential models and the constant-$`n`$ models, and the redshift-dependence of these differences, have the sign one would expect from Figure 1; the problem is simply that the time-dependence of the equation of state predicted by these models is extremely weak. Similarly, the Albrecht-Skordis model is virtually indistinguishable from a pure-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model because it has $`n0`$ at all redshifts where quintessence is dynamically important, even though it has a very different $`n`$ at $`z>3`$. The one potential distinguishing feature of the Albrecht-Skordis model is the value of $`D_1`$ at recombination, which is about 7.5% larger than that of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-model. This level of precision is plausibly within reach of future observations. The distinguishability of the Albrecht-Skordis model would increase if the equation-of-state transition were shifted towards lower redshift, and vice versa.

Since we have so little empirical information about the nature of dark energy, there is no reason to think that models presently in the literature exhaust the possibilities for the time-dependence of the equation of state. We have therefore constructed a set of “toy” models that exhibit a wider range of behavior, so that we can better understand the ability of observations to detect time-variation if it is present. For these models, we assume that the redshift-dependence of $`\rho _\varphi `$ is a broken power-law of the form

$$\rho _\varphi (z)=\frac{(1+z_c)^{nm}(1+z)^n}{(1+z_c+z)^{nm}}\rho _\varphi (z=0),$$
(17)
where $`z_c`$ is the critical redshift near which the scaling behavior of $`\rho _\varphi `$ changes from $`(1+z)^m`$ for $`zz_c`$ to $`(1+z)^n`$ for $`zz_c`$. The model therefore switches from an early time constant-$`m`$ case to a late time constant-$`n`$ case. This class of models allows us to examine the effects of a more extreme change in the power-law scaling of $`\rho _\varphi `$ than is exhibited by the tracker models examined earlier. (For the cases $`m=n`$ or $`z_c=0`$, this model reduces exactly to the constant-$`n`$ models discussed earlier, while the $`m=3`$, $`n=0`$ case resembles the Albrecht-Skordis model). Note that a similar, but somewhat different toy model was examined by Huterer and Turner (2001), who looked at models in which $`w`$ was taken to be constant in discrete redshift bins.

Figure 4 shows $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (z)`$ for a variety of broken power-law models. The late time behavior ($`n`$) has been fixed at $`n=1`$, and early time behavior ($`m`$) has been taken to be $`m=0`$ or $`m=2`$, for two different values of the critical redshift ($`z_c=1`$ and $`z_c=3`$). For comparison, we have also included three constant-$`n`$ models ($`m=n`$), namely $`m=n=0,1,2`$. As expected, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (z)`$ in our broken power-law models deviates from its behavior in the constant-$`n`$ models to a much greater extent than is the case for the power-law potentials in Figure 2.

In Figures 5$``$7 we examine our five observables for the broken power-law cases $`m,n=0,1,2`$ and $`z_c=1,3`$. Each page of graphs shows models with a different late time behavior (different value of $`n`$), and the observables on each page are normalized to the corresponding constant-$`n`$ case: $`n=0`$ in Figure 5, $`n=1`$ in Figure 6, and $`n=2`$ in Figure 7. The deviation from a ratio of unity in each case shows the observational effect of the break in scaling behavior. This deviation is quite significant in many cases, often more than $`10\%`$ for $`H`$, $`d_A`$ or $`t`$, and up to almost $`30\%`$ for $`D_1`$. The broken power-law model is therefore clearly distinguishable from the constant-$`n`$ model that has the same value of $`n`$ at $`z=0`$.

However, if we choose a constant-$`n`$ model that is matched to the “average” behavior of the broken power-law model instead of the $`z=0`$ value of $`n`$, then this distinguishability vanishes. The curves in Figures 5$``$7 show, for each broken power-law case, the predictions of a constant-$`n`$ model selected to produce the same value of the Hubble parameter $`H(z)`$ at $`z=1`$. This matched constant-$`n`$ model predicts nearly the same values for all observables at every redshift as the corresponding broken power-law model. By design, our toy model has a large change in $`n`$ (and thus $`w`$) at low redshift, but this time-variation cannot be detected unless the observables can be measured to extremely high precision. Making the transition redshift $`z_c`$ higher or lower does not make the time-dependence easier to detect; it just changes the effective average value of $`n`$, so the constant-$`n`$ model that matches the broken power-law model is different from before. For example, we have constructed models with $`z_c=0.5`$, and our results are quite similar, except that the corresponding constant-$`n`$ model has a value of $`n`$ which is closer to the low-redshift exponent in the broken power-law model. A sharper transition would be easier to detect, but our models already change the energy scaling index by order unity over a redshift interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }zz_c`$ \[and thus a time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }tH^1(z)`$\], and a much faster transition seems physically unlikely, although such models can be constructed (see, e.g, Weller and Albrecht 2001).

While our results suggest that generic variations of the equation of state with redshift are essentially undetectable, there is one exception to this rule that is worthy of note. Our models with high-redshift index $`m=2`$ predict values of $`D_1(z)`$ at $`z=10^3`$ that differ by a few percent from those of the constant-$`n`$ model that matches the low-redshift observables. This level of precision might plausibly be achieved with comparisons of CMB anisotropy to local clustering, though substantial improvements in observational data would be required. \[The values of $`t(z)`$, $`H(z)`$, and $`h(z)`$ also show percent-level deviations from the matched constant-$`n`$ model at $`z\mathrm{}>3`$, but we see no plausible routes to attaining the necessary precision for these quantities.\] The behavior of the $`m=2`$ models is reminiscent of the Albrecht-Skordis model, and the cause is similar: the energy density of the quintessence component remains a non-negligible fraction of the critical density out to fairly high redshift, so the gravitational growth of matter clustering is correspondingly slower.

## 5 Conclusions

Our results both confirm and extend earlier work on this subject. For any of the five observable quantities considered here — the angular-diameter distance $`d_A(z)`$, the Hubble parameter $`H(z)`$, the age of the universe $`t(z)`$, the linear growth factor $`D_1(z)`$, or the Alcock-Paczynski parameter $`H(z)d_A(z)`$ — measurement with $``$10% precision near the observable’s redshift of peak sensitivity would be sufficient to distinguish an $`n=2`$ ($`w=1/3`$) model from a pure cosmological constant, even if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ were known only to an accuracy of $`\pm 0.05`$. Although this value of $`w`$ is already ruled out by the SN Ia measurements, our results suggest that other observations may soon be able to independently confirm the result. Distinguishing an $`n=1`$ ($`w=2/3`$) model from a pure cosmological constant is much harder, demanding measurement precision of a few percent near the redshift of peak sensitivity, along with a determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ to within $`\pm 0.05`$. Although this level of precision is currently unavailable, it seems clearly within reach of improving SN Ia data, and it is likely to be achieved by one or more of the other observational methods discussed in §3. Thus, while SN Ia surveys may provide the first precise determination of $`w`$, a collection of other observations seems likely to provide confirmation (or refutation!) of the measurement within a few years.

The sensitivity of the observables to the value of $`n`$ depends on redshift in different ways, reflecting the links between these quantities and the expansion history. The age $`t(z)`$ depends only on expansion at redshifts greater than $`z`$, so its sensitivity to $`n`$ decreases monotonically with increasing $`z`$. The linear growth factor, on the other hand, depends on clustering from redshift $`z`$ to redshift zero, so the sensitivity of $`D_1(z)`$ increases monotonically with $`z`$. The Hubble parameter $`H(z)`$ is most sensitive at $`z12`$, when $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ is substantially different from its present-day value but not so small that quintessence is dynamically unimportant. The sensitivity of the angular diameter distance is fairly flat over a wide range of redshift. The sensitivity of the AP parameter is governed by competing effects of $`H(z)`$ and $`d_A(z)`$, which cancel each other at $`z3`$.

Because of their different connections to the expansion history, we hoped at the outset of this investigation that these observables would provide complementary information about the history of the equation of state, allowing a combination of measurements to detect a time-variation of $`w`$ that could not be found by any one method on its own. Unfortunately, we find that the level of complementarity is too weak to be useful in practice: models that make indistinguishable predictions for one observable generally make indistinguishable predictions for all of them. Of course, it is valuable to confirm an important result like a measurement of $`w`$ by independent methods, to check for systematic errors or a breakdown of the assumptions implicit in each approach. Also, different observables can provide complementary information about $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$, precise knowledge of which is essential if one hopes to constrain $`w`$. However, once $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ is known, the constraints on the equation of state and its history will be dominated by the single highest precision measurement; adding lower precision measurements of other observables will give little additional purchase.

We find, furthermore, that none of the observables holds much promise for distinguishing a quintessence model with a time-dependent equation of state from an appropriately chosen constant-$`n`$ model, even if one is highly optimistic about the achievable precision and assumes perfect, independent knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$. Tracker models with $`V(\varphi )\varphi ^1`$ and $`V(\varphi )\varphi ^6`$ are effectively identical to models with constant $`n=1`$ and $`n=2`$, respectively. Models with an Albrecht-Skordis potential cannot be distinguished from a pure-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model, except, perhaps, by a measurement of the growth factor at recombination from CMB anisotropy (a point we will return to shortly). The fundamental difficulty is that, in any observationally viable model, quintessence becomes dynamically important only at low redshift, so it affords little purchase for measuring redshift dependence of its equation of state. Furthermore, as Figures 5$``$7 demonstrate, even a substantial transition in $`n`$ at low redshifts is very difficult to detect, since the value of $`n`$ at $`z=0`$ is not known a priori, and time-variation must therefore be judged relative to the constant-$`n`$ model that best mimics the time-variable model. Our broken power-law models have substantial low redshift transitions by design, but there is usually a constant-$`n`$ model that predicts the same values of all observables to better than 1% at all observationally accessible redshifts. We conclude that detecting time-variation of the equation of state requires truly extraordinary precision, unless this variation occurs on a timescale much shorter than the Hubble time, which is possible but seems physically unlikely. Sub-percent precision may be achievable by some methods (SN Ia observations look to us like the best hope), but it requires controlling systematic uncertainties, especially those that are correlated among different redshift bins, very tightly.

Our conclusions in this regard agree with those of Maor, Brustein, & Steinhardt (2001), who found that accurate measurements of the luminosity distance alone would be insufficient to determine the form of $`w(z)`$ for the dark matter energy component. Wang & Garnavich (2001) and Tegmark (2001) showed that SN Ia measurements should be able to detect time-variation in the energy density $`\rho _\varphi (z)`$, but this only means demonstrating that $`n>0`$ ($`w>1`$); we agree that a significant departure from $`n=0`$ should be detectable, but detecting time-variation of $`n`$ is far more challenging. In a similar vein, despite fairly optimistic assumptions about the prospects for the SNAP satellite, Huterer & Turner (2001) find that error bars on the time-derivative of $`w`$ are quite large, and degrade considerably with uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. Yamamoto et al. (2001) suggest that the form of the dark energy equation of state might be determined by studying strong gravitational lensing systems, but their results indicate that detecting time-variation is possible only with extremely high precision measurements of the lensing systems, and then only if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ is known precisely. The principal significance of our results, relative to these earlier papers, is that they apply to all proposed observable tests based on the cosmic expansion history, since these tests always measure some combination of $`H(z)`$, $`d_A(z)`$, $`t(z)`$, or $`D_1(z)`$.

Our investigation shows that there is one generic form of time-variation in the equation of state that might be observationally detectable. Constant-$`n`$ models with $`n2`$ ($`w1/3`$) are ruled out by current data, but a time-variable model could have $`n2`$ at high redshift and a transition to low $`n`$ at low redshift when quintessence becomes the dominant energy component. The Albrecht-Skordis model displays just this behavior, since the quintessence roughly tracks the matter energy density ($`n3`$) along the exponential part of $`V(\varphi )`$ but changes its equation of state (to $`w1`$, $`n0`$) when it reaches the potential minimum. If $`n2`$ down to some fairly low redshift, then the dynamical effects of quintessence are non-negligible (though small) over a fair fraction of the post-recombination expansion history, and they slow the progress of matter clustering. The result is a slight (few percent) mismatch between the value of $`D_1`$ at $`z=z_r1100`$ and the value expected for a constant-$`n`$ model that matches the low redshift data; in observational terms, the level of CMB anisotropy would be a few percent higher than anticipated. Doran, Schwindt, & Wetterich (2001) emphasize a similar point and discuss the relation between CMB anisotropy and $`\sigma _8`$ in detail. Detecting even this type of time-variation will be very challenging, requiring a precise determination of the effective low-redshift value of $`n`$, precise determinations of the present-day amplitude of matter clustering and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$, and the demonstration that any excess CMB anisotropy does not arise from other sources, such as tensor fluctuations, secondary anisotropies, or contaminating foregrounds.

The discovery of dark energy is an extraordinary cosmological achievement, one that could happen only in the era of “precision cosmology.” If the equation of state of this dark energy is substantially different from $`p=\rho `$, or if it has been different in the recent past, then that departure should be detected independently by several of the ambitious observational efforts currently planned or underway. A precise ($`\pm 0.1`$) measurement of the low-redshift value of $`w`$ would be another extraordinary achievement, ruling out many models for the origin of dark energy and tightening the parameter space of others. However, the information provided by different observable probes of the cosmic expansion history, or by the same probe at different redshifts, is mostly redundant rather than complementary, once $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ has been determined to high precision. As a result, the next step of detecting time-variation in the cosmic equation of state is likely to prove extremely difficult. If we are lucky, then the dark energy has the kind of dynamical significance at high redshift or sudden transition at low redshift that produces an observationally accessible signature, though reading that signature will still require a combination of several cosmological measurements of unprecedented precision. If we are not so fortunate, then the observable effects of the dark energy will, for the foreseeable future, provide only two numbers with which to describe it, the current energy density and an effective low-redshift value of $`w`$ (or some equivalent pair of parameters). Until a physical model comes along that accounts for these two numbers in a natural way without adjustable inputs, the true nature of the dark energy component is likely to remain mysterious.

Acknowledgments

A.M.L. and R.J.S. were supported in part by the DOE (DE-FG02-91ER40690). D.H.W. was supported in part by the NSF (AST-0098584). D.H.W. acknowledges the hospitality of the Institute for Advanced Study and financial support of the Ambrose Monell Foundation during the final phases of this work. We thank L. Amendola, R. Jimenez, E. Linder, and the anonymous referee for helpful comments on the manuscript.