text:
# Optimising GAIA: How do we meet the science challenge?

## 1. Introduction

The GAIA mission has been approved to provide for the first time a clear picture of the formation, structure, evolution, and future of the entire Milky Way. In addition, as secondary goals, GAIA will contribute to many other branches of astrophysics, especially stellar and solar system minor body astrophysics, with a valuable contribution to cosmology and fundamental physics.

This clear scientific prioritisation must drive the design, and all compromises.

Understanding the structure and evolution of the Galaxy requires three complementary observational approaches: * Carrying out a full census of all the objects in a large, representative, part of the Galaxy; * Mapping quantitatively the spatial structure of the Galaxy; * Measuring the motions of objects in three-dimensions to determine the gravitational field and the stellar orbits. In other words, what is required are complementary measurements of distances (astrometry), photometry to determine both extinction and intrinsic stellar properties, and the radial velocities along our line of sight.

Detailed studies of the Local Group are the key specific test of our understanding of the formation and growth of structure in the Universe. The most significant questions here relevant for GAIA include the history of most of the stars in the Galaxy: the nature of the inner Galactic disk and the Galactic Bulge: what are their age, abundance and assembly histories? Stellar studies locally of course are of critical general significance: only locally can we determine the stellar Initial Mass Function directly. This function directly controls the chemical and luminosity evolution of the Universe. Galactic satellite galaxies are proving the most suitable environs to quantify the nature and distribution of dark matter, and to test the small scale predictions of hierarchical galaxy formation models. The Galactic disk itself, of course, is a key test of angular momentum distributions (figure 1), chemical evolution, and merger histories, and must eventually provide the most robust information on Cold Dark Matter. Such issues as the number of local dwarf galaxies and the inner CDM profiles of the dSphs are well known demanding challenges for CDM models. Other Local group information is also important: what is the stellar Initial Mass Function, what is the distribution of chemical elements, what is the age range in the Galactic Bulge, when did the last significant disk merger happen…? All these challenge our appreciation of galaxy formation and evolution, and in turn provide the information needed to refine the models. The partnership between local observations and ab initio theory is close, and developing well, and must culminate in GAIA.

There are clear similarities and distinctions between fundamental properties of the different Galactic stellar populations, such as age, metallicity, star formation history, angular momentum (figure 1) which allow study of their individual histories. This is arguably one of the greatest advantages of studies of Local Group galaxies: one is able to disentangle the many different histories which have led to a galaxy typical of those which dominate the luminosity density of the Universe.

## 2. GAIA and Dark Matter Mapping

Ninety percent of the matter in the Universe is of an unknown nature (to say nothing here of the even larger amount of dark energy). This matter dominates gravitational potential wells in the early Universe on all scales, and everywhere except in the centres of large galaxies and dense stellar clusters today. The smallest scale lengths on which this dark matter is dominant are an important constraint on its nature: for example, if dark matter is concentrated on very small scale lengths it cannot be relativistic. The only known way in which we can study dark matter is through its dynamical effects on test particles orbiting in a potential which it generates. The simplest dark-matter dominated systems known, with scale lengths of interest to constrain the physical nature of the dark matter, and with a dynamical structure simple enough to be amenable to understanding, are the Galactic satellite dwarf spheroidal galaxies. Very extensive studies, using gravitational lensing, galaxy rotation curves, stellar and gas kinematics, X-ray profiles, and so on, have initiated mapping dark matter on larger scales. For the dwarf galaxies, stellar kinematics are uniquely the method of choice.

This dark matter dominates the matter in the Universe, but remains weakly constrained: what is the nature of the dark matter? A variety of theoretical studies suggest that the small scale structure of dark matter is the key test of its nature (Navarro, Frenk & White 1997; Klypin etal 1999; Moore etal 1999). Many extant studies of dark matter on many different scale lengths are available, using techniques such as gravitational lensing, X-ray luminosity and temperature profiles, HI and H$`\alpha `$ rotation curves, and stellar dynamics. None has been able to provide a reliable study of dark matter on the crucial small length scales, because the only small dark-matter dominated relatively simple dynamical systems, the Milky Way satellite dwarf galaxies, can be studied in detail only with very accurate kinematics of faint stars.

### 2.1. The Importance of the Smallest Dark Haloes

To be confined on small scales, a system must be cold. For self-gravitating systems the virial velocity, and equivalently virial temperature, of a system in equilibrium is simply related to its mean density, $`\rho `$, and characteristic radius, $`R`$, as

$$V_{virial}^2=k_BT_{virial}/m_pG\rho R^2.$$

Baryonic material, which can radiate away energy while gaseous, can form systems of a wide range of virial velocities, with the lower limit just set by the cooling law. In particular, baryonic dark matter could form dark haloes of small scalelength. One can relate the ‘temperature’ of non-baryonic dark matter (assumed in thermal equilibrium in the early Universe) with its velocity dispersion at the epoch in the early universe when it decouples from the ordinary matter (Bond & Szalay 1983). ‘Hot’ dark matter, for example a massive neutrino, which is relativistic at this epoch, has a large free-streaming length and cannot be confined on small scales (Bond, Szalay & White 1983). In contrast, ‘cold’ dark matter, which is non-relativistic when it decouples from ordinary matter, can form small-scale structure. One currently popular non-baryonic cold dark matter candidate, the axion, is not produced through processes in thermal equilibrium, has an extremely low ‘temperature’, and can cluster on scales below that of even a dwarf galaxy.

Thus the study of dark matter in systems with the smallest characteristic radius provides a thermometer of dark matter and can be used to determine its nature. Dwarf spheroidal galaxies have (stellar) scale-lengths of $`300`$ pc (Irwin & Hatzidimitriou 1995), comparable to the scale height of the Galactic thin disk and bulge. Numerical simulations of cosmological structure formation do not have the dynamic range necessary to study such scales. Irrespective of the future developments of computing power and techniques, the simulation of a dwarf galaxy requires the inclusion of the unknown physics of star formation and feedback, expected to be particularly important in these low velocity-dispersion systems (e.g. Dekel & Silk 1986; Wyse & Silk 1985; Lin & Murray 1991). Improved understanding must be led by observations.

What are the smallest systems for which there is evidence of dark matter? Galactic disks are thin, of small scale-height, and we are located in the middle of one. Dark matter confined to the disk (as distinct from the extended, Galactic-scale dark halo) would be ‘cold’. However, the local neighbourhood is not a good place to study cold disk dark matter, since it is now accepted there is no evidence that any exists (Kuijken & Gilmore 1989, 1991; Gilmore, Wyse & Kuijken 1989; Flynn & Fuchs 1994; Creze etal. 1998; Holmberg & Flynn 2000). Globular clusters are fairly nearby, and have very small scalelengths, tens of parsecs, but again there is no evidence for dark matter associated with globular clusters (e.g. Meylan & Heggie 1997). Note that in fact in these two cases there is not just lack of evidence for cold dark matter, there is actual evidence for a lack of dark matter, which in itself is significant.

In contrast, the dark matter content of low-luminosity dwarf galaxies, as inferred from analyses of their internal stellar and gas kinematics, makes them the most dark-matter-dominated galaxies (e.g. Mateo 1998; Carignan & Beaulieu 1989). Of these small galaxies, the low-luminosity gas-free dwarf Spheroidals (dSph) are the most extreme. Available stellar kinematic studies provide strong evidence for the presence of dominant dark matter (e.g. review of Mateo 1998), confirming earlier inferences from estimates of the dSph’s tidal radii and a model of the Milky Way gravitational potential (Faber & Lin 1983).

#### What information is essential?

Substantial analytic methodologies have been developed over the last few years by several groups to interpret colour-magnitude data and stellar kinematics. These studies provide an existence theorem proving that efficient analysis of the GAIA and complementary data is possible.

Adequate kinematic data can determine the potential well locally on a variety of different scales, parsecs up to 1Mpc. The motivation is that the smallest scale is set by a fundamental characteristic of the dark matter, its velocity dispersion, analogously its temperature, so that study of the dynamics on these scales provides unique and strong constraints on the nature of dark matter. Such a determination is possible – and is possible only – using full 6-dimensional phase space data, such as will be determinable by GAIA.

## 3. Dwarf galaxies: an example analysis

The dynamical structure of a dwarf galaxy, while simple, is not trivial. The galaxies are probably triaxial, can sustain complex families of anisotropic orbits, and live in a time-varying Galactic tidal field. Given this complexity, considerable information is required to derive a robust measurement of the 3-dimensional gravitational potential, and hence the generating (dark) mass. Several groups have devised methods to explore the possible dynamical structure of a Galactic satellite, and used these to simulate observational approaches to determination of the mass distribution. These studies show that determination of at least five phase space coordinates – two projected spatial coordinates, and all three components of the velocity – are necessary and sufficient to provide a robust and reliable determination of a dark matter mass distribution. Acquisition of these data are possible only with a combination of radial velocity data and proper motion data for a well-selected sample of stars distributed across the whole face of the target galaxy. In the nearest appropriate target galaxies, Draco and Ursa Minor, the stars of interest are at magnitude V$`19`$, and the required proper motion accuracy, corresponding to 1-2 km/s in velocity, is 3–6$`\mu as`$yr<sup>-1</sup>. Thus this specific test of the nature of matter on small scales is better with SIM rather than GAIA. Nonetheless, the analysis principles apply in general, and can be generalised to GAIA studies of the local galaxy, where SIM cannot contribute.

An important simplification in any dynamical analysis is that the potential be time-independent over an internal dynamical timescale, the tracer stellar distribution be in equilibrium with the potential, and be well-mixed (relaxed). While dSph galaxies show every possible star formation history, it is a defining characteristic that star formation ceased at least a few Gyr ago (e.g. Hernandez, Gilmore & Valls-Gabaud 2000). The internal dynamical times of these galaxies are typically only $`t_{dyn}R/\sigma 2\times 10^7(R/200\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})(10\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1/\sigma )`$ yr; thus star formation indeed ceased many hundreds of crossing times ago and the systems should be well-mixed. This assumption can of course be directly tested by the data.

#### The Degeneracy between Anisotropy and Mass

Most studies of galactic dynamics have been impeded by the degeneracy between anisotropy and mass. This degeneracy, that one cannot distinguish between gravitational potential gradients and gradients in orbital anisotropy from measurements of just one component of the velocity ellipsoid (radial velocity), is the fundamental limitation in extant analyses, and the key justification for extending observation to 5 phase space coordinates. The large observed central radial velocity dispersion is compatible with either a massive halo, and a low central density; or no halo, and a large central density. To demonstrate our ability to discern between these possibilities, Wilkinson etal (2002) constructed a set of models that span the space of halo mass and anisotropy, and perform Monte Carlo recoveries of the input anisotropy and halo mass.

They assume that the luminosity density of a dSph is given by a Plummer model

$$\rho _\mathrm{p}(r)=\frac{\rho _0}{\left(1+\left(r/r_0\right)^2\right)^{5/2}},$$
(1)
where $`\rho _0`$ is determined by the total observed luminosity. Next, assume that the potential of the system has the form

$$\psi (r)=\frac{\psi _0}{\left(1+\left(r/r_0\right)^2\right)^{\alpha /2}}$$
(2)
For this dark matter potential, $`\alpha =1`$ corresponds to a mass–follows–light Plummer potential, Keplerian at large radii; $`\alpha =0`$ yields, for large $`r`$, a flat rotation curve; and $`\alpha =2`$ gives a harmonic oscilator potential. As the parameter $`\alpha `$ decreases, the dSph becomes more and more dark matter dominated.

Finally, assume that the distribution function (DF) of the stars in the model potential is a function entirely of the energy $`E`$ and norm of the angular momentum $`L`$. Under this assumption, one can derive a two parameter set of DFs, parameterised by $`\alpha `$ and an anisotropy parameter $`\gamma `$, namely

$`F(E,L^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{\psi _0^{5/\beta \gamma /\beta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(5/\beta \gamma /\beta +1)}{(2\pi )^{3/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(5/\beta \gamma /\beta 1/2)}}E^{5/\beta \gamma /\beta 3/2}`$
$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\gamma /2;3/25/\beta +\gamma /\beta ,1,L^2/2E)`$ (3)
This formula holds for $`L^2<2E`$ and $`\alpha <0`$; similar expressions can be derived for all the other cases. These DFs generalise earlier calculations by Dejonghe (1987), which are restricted to the case where there is no dark matter. In terms of Binney’s anisotropy parameter $`\beta `$, the radial and tangential velocity dispersions $`\sigma _r^2`$ and $`\sigma _\theta ^2`$ vary as

$$\beta =1\frac{\sigma _\theta ^2}{\sigma _r^2}=\frac{\gamma }{2}\frac{r^2}{1+r^2}$$
(4)
The potential normalisation $`\psi _0`$ in eqn 2 is a well defined function of the observed central radial velocity dispersion, and the assumed $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$. Figure 2 shows the variation of the central and large–scale mass to light ratio as a function of $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$.

To simulate our ability to resolve among values of $`\gamma `$ and $`\alpha `$, we generate 6D phase space coordinates $`\{x_i,y_i,v_{x}^{}{}_{i}{}^{},v_{y}^{}{}_{i}{}^{},v_{z}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}\}_{i=1\mathrm{}N}`$ drawn from the DF $`F(x,y,z,v_x,v_y,v_z;\alpha ,\gamma )`$, discard the $`z`$ (geocentric radial position) coordinate, and attempt to recover $`\gamma `$ and $`\alpha `$ using a Bayesian likelihood technique (see e.g. Little & Tremaine 1987, Kochanek 1996, Wilkinson & Evans 1999, van der Marel etal 2000). Specifically, we scan a grid of $`\alpha ,\gamma `$, and at each point compute the probability of observing the input data set

$$P(\{x_i,y_i,v_{x}^{}{}_{i}{}^{},v_{y}^{}{}_{i}{}^{},v_{z}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}\}_{i=1\mathrm{}N}|\alpha ,\gamma )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑zF(x_i,y_i,z,v_{x}^{}{}_{i}{}^{},v_{y}^{}{}_{i}{}^{},v_{z}^{}{}_{i}{}^{};\alpha ,\gamma )$$
(5)
By Bayes’s theorem, and the assumption of uniform prior probabilities of $`\alpha ,\gamma `$, the most likely $`\alpha ,\gamma `$ are given by maximising eqn 5. Confidence regions are obtained by applying 2D $`\chi ^2`$ statistics to the logarithm of eqn 5.

#### Results

Figure 3 (left) shows the result of a Monte Carlo simulation to recover the input $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ of two model distributions ($`\alpha =0.35,\gamma =1`$, and $`\alpha =0.8,\gamma =1`$, respectively). These values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ lie along the direction of the usual mass/anisotropy indeterminacy, and thus illustrate our ability to break this degeneracy. Both model fits involve 800 reconstructions, each of which contains an ensemble of 250 simulated stars. The right panel of Figure 3 depicts constraints placed on the central $`M/L`$, and the total $`M/L`$ within four Plummer radii. Although the two models evaluated have a similar total mass within $`4r_p`$, our method clearly recovers the significant difference in central $`M/L`$ caused by a halo.

The top two panels of Figure 4 illustrate the effect of anticipated velocity measurement errors which are 10% and 20% of the internal (local) velocity dispersion of the (sub-)system under study, assuming a 250 star sample. These errors cause a systematic displacement of the best–fit $`\alpha `$ in the small halo ($`\alpha =0.7`$) case we examine, because they create a significant increase of the apparent velocity dispersion at the maximum radius ($`3r_P`$) considered. However, the width of the distribution remains narrow, and the systematic $`\alpha `$ shift will be rigorously incorporated into the analysis by convolving the velocity errors with the DF. Larger errors would not be acceptable, however, because resolving among $`\alpha `$ values requires a precise determination of the falloff of the velocity dispersion. The third panel of Figure 4 illustrates the recovery of $`\alpha ,\gamma `$ using only 25 velocities; the halo and anisotropy are essentially unconstrained by this small sample. The bottom panel shows the effect of using 750 purely radial velocities, with zero errors. Although we have the same number of one–dimensional velocities as in the 250 star cases, we are unable to recover $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$; this failure indicates that the analysis requires all three velocity components, and this work could not be performed using ground–based radial velocities.

### 3.1. Triaxial dSph Models

A triaxial spheroid seen projected on the plane of sky mimics a rotationally symmetric ellipse. Triaxial systems can support much more complex orbital structures than can 2-D systems; this allows a degeneracy between radially-dependent orbital complexity and system shape, potentially invalidating dynamical analyses. More complex modelling is required in this case, and has been partially developed. The (very obvious!) conclusion from extensive numerical simulations based on those triaxial models is that it is vital to have full kinematics available if we are to investigate triaxial (more generally: not isolated spherical) systems.

## 4. Implications for GAIA design

The discussion above illustrates the considerable progress in quantitative analyses of stellar kinematics which are currently under development. the introduction recalled that GAIA is funded to study Galactic evolution. What data must GAIA provide so these analysis techniques can deliver this science. The quantitative analysis techniques need distances, 2-D (better 3-D) kinematics, and some astrophysical information on the distribution function of stellar properties. Highly detailed information on a few stars is not what is needed. Can GAIA deliver? Simulations presented at this meeting show GAIA radial velocity data will be unable to provide useful scientific data at low Galactic latitudes. Low Galactic latitudes, while “only” a few percent of sky, contain most of the stars, and contain ALL of the inner disk and bulge. It is worth emphasising that these parts of the Milky way are the only parts of high redshift galaxies which we can see. If GAIA fails to provide adequate data on these low latitudes, it fails a primary science goal.

However, as the simulations show, bad data are useless. The lesson for GAIA spectra is clear: do something excellently, not several things badly, optimise for the faintest possible stars in uncrowded regions: leave low latitudes for the other instruments.

What other instruments? The medium band photometr (MBP) unfortunately has been degraded to poor ground-based quality spatial resolution, 1arcsec. Thus, as long experience has establsihed, MBP will also be of little or no value in the inner Galaxy. Again, the implication is clear: optimise MBP for relatively low extinction higher-latitude regions, with somewhat metal-poor old stars.

Can GAIA meets its primary science goals at all: only if the broad band filters are optimised to deliver the essential minimum astrophysical data. That is, the limited sensitivity of RVS and the poor resolution of MBP require that the broad band filters be optimised for astrophysical analyses, and not other considerations. Without these choices, GAAI will fail to meet its design science goals. With them, it will revolutionise our understanding of galaxy formation and evolution.

## References

Bond, J.R. & Szalay, A.S. 1983, ApJ, 274, 443

Bond, J.R., Szalay, A.S. & White, S.D.M, 1983, Nature, 301, 584

Carignan, C. & Beaulieu, S. 1989, ApJ, 347, 760

Creze, M., Chereul, E., Bienayme, O. & Pichon, C. 1998, A&A, 329, 920

Dejonghe, H. 1987, MNRAS, 224, 13

Dekel, A. & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39

Faber, S.M. & Lin, D.N.C. 1983, ApJL, 266, L17

Flynn, C. & Fuchs, B. 1994, MNRAS, 270, 471

Gilmore, G., Wyse, R.F.G. & Kuijken, K. 1989, ARAA, 27, 555

Hernandez, X., Gilmore, G. & Valls-Gabaud, D. 2000, MNRAS, 317 831

Holmberg, J. & Flynn, C. 2000, MNRAS, 313, 209

Irwin, M. & Hatzidimitriou, D. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1354

Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A.V., Valenzuela, O. & Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82

Kochanek, C. 1996, ApJ, 457, 228

Kuijken, K. & Gilmore, G. 1989, MNRAS 239, 605

Kuijken, K. & Gilmore, G. 1991, ApJL

Lin, D.N.C. & Murray, S. 1991, in ‘The Formation and Evolution of Star Clusters’, ASP conference series vol. 13, ed K. Janes, (ASP, San Francisco) p55

Little, B. & Tremaine, S. 1987, ApJ, 320, 494L

Mateo, M. 1998, ARAA, 36, 435

Meylan, G. & Heggie, D.C. 1997, A&A Rev, 8, 1

Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J. & Tozzi, P. 1999, ApJL, 524, L19

Navarro, J., Frenk, C. & White, S.D.M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

van der Marel R.P., Magorrian J., Carlberg R.G., Yee H.K.C., Ellingson E. AJ, 119 2038, 2000

Wilkinson, M.I. & Evans, N.W. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 645

Wilkinson, M., Kleyna, J., Evans, N.W., & Gilmore, G. 2002 MNRAS 330 778

Wyse, R.F.G. & Silk, J. 1985, ApJL, 296, L1


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recent cosmological observations suggest the existence of a Dark Energy component in the Universe (e.g. Bahcall et al. 1999; Efstathiou et al. 2002). However, the data still allow room for a complicated cosmic Equation of State $`w=P/\rho `$ which may vary with redshift, as proposed by models of ‘Quintessence’ (e.g. Sahni & Starobinsky 2000; Peebles & Ratra 2002 for a review).

We shall first clarify notation and convention in this field. The case $`w=1`$ corresponds to Einstein’s Cosmological Constant. Then the only Dark Energy parameter is the present-epoch Dark Energy density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q0}`$, which commonly appears in the literature as $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }/(3H_0^2)`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. If a general Equation of State is allowed then one has to solve for both $`w(z)`$ (parameterized e.g. as $`w(z)=w=const.`$ or $`w(z)=w_0+w_1z`$) as well as for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q0}`$ (see below). In quoting results from the literature we shall specify which model of Cosmological Constant or Quintessence is assumed and what is the prior on the allowed range of $`w`$. For example, $`w1`$ is expected for standard minimally coupled scaler fields (e.g. Sahni & Starobinsky 2000), although $`w<1`$ is allowed in some scenarios (e.g. Melchiorri et al. 2002).

Here we discuss what can (or cannot) be learned from redshift surveys alone and with input from other cosmic probes such as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The methods we consider include galaxy clustering and dynamics, the Alcock-Paczynski curvature test, abundance of clusters and galaxies with redshift, and cross correlation of the galaxy surveys with the CMB to detect the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect.

## 2 Clustering and Dynamics

It is worth emphasizing from the start that the fundamental function that controls the growth of structure is the epoch-dependent Hubble parameter:

$$H^2(z)/H_0^2=(1+z)^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}+(1+z)^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{k0}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q0}\mathrm{exp}[3X(z)]$$
(1)
where

$$X(z)=_0^z[1+w(z^{})](1+z^{})^1𝑑z^{},$$
(2)
and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q0}`$ are the present density parameter of matter and dark energy components and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{k0}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q0}`$ is the present curvature.

### 2.1 Growth of Perturbations and Biasing

The growth of structure in the Universe is sensitive to the underlying cosmological model due to the dependence on $`H(z)`$. In linear theory the density contrast $`\delta \frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }`$ obeys

$$\ddot{\delta }+2H\dot{\delta }=\frac{3}{2}H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}(1+z)^3\delta .$$
(3)
Starobinsky (1998) evaluated $`H(z)`$ for a given $`\delta (z)`$.

There are at least two problems in trying to deduce $`w(z)`$ from surveys at different redshifts: (i) The function $`w(z)`$ appears under an integral \[eq. (2)\], hence detailed information on the redshift dependence of $`w`$ is ‘washed out’. A similar problem exists in trying to deduce $`w(z)`$ from the luminosity distance of e.g. Supernova Ia (Maor et al. 2002); (ii) Ideally we would like to map the growth of structure by observing galaxy clustering at different redshifts. However, the relation between the galaxy density contrast $`\delta _g(z)`$ and the (growing mode) mass density contrast $`\delta (z)`$ is non-trivial, and is usually parameterized via the (linear) biasing parameter $`b(z)=\delta _g(z)/\delta (z)`$. Simple forms of redshift-dependent biasing exist, e.g. by assuming that galaxies follow the cosmic flow as test particles (Fry 1996):

$$b(z)=1+[b(0)1]/\delta (z).$$
(4)
Note that even if biasing was large at high redshifts it would tend to unity at the present epoch ($`b1`$ is supported by measurement of the biasing of bright 2dF galaxies on large scales, e.g. Lahav et al. 2002; Verde et al. 2002). In reality it is more complex as galaxies of different types cluster differently on small scales, and hierarchical merging scenarios suggest a more complicated picture of biasing as it could be non-linear scale dependent and stochastic (e.g. Matarrese et al. 1997; Dekel & Lahav 1999; Blanton et al. 2000; Somerville et al. 2001).

Given two unknown functions, $`w(z)`$ and $`b(z)`$, we see that clustering of galaxies with redshift will not provide a clear test of Cosmology, unless $`b(z)`$ is specified a priori by other arguments (from galaxy formation scenarios).

### 2.2 The Present Epoch Growth Factor

At a given epoch (e.g. the present) the growth factor is nearly ‘blind’ to dark energy. In the case of Einstein’s Cosmological Constant $`(w=1)`$ the linear theory relation is approximately (Lahav et al. 1991):

$$f\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\delta }{d\mathrm{ln}a}\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}^{0.6}+\frac{1}{70}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q0}(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}/2).$$
(5)
For an epoch-independent $`w`$ the growth factor (for a flat Universe) is approximately (Wang & Steinhardt 1998):

$$f\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}^{\alpha (w)}.$$
(6)
with

$$\alpha (w)\frac{3}{5w/(1w)}.$$
(7)
For a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model ($`w=1`$) it agrees reasonably well with eq. Eq. (5). The main implication of the weak dependence of $`f`$ on $`w`$ is that peculiar velocities and redshift distortion cannot constrain Dark Energy at all. The good news is that they can tell us about $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}`$ independently of any assumptions about the nature of the Dark Energy.

### 2.3 Virialization

A well known result for the spherical collapse in an Einstein- de Sitter Universe is that the radius $`R_{vir}`$ at virialization is half the turn-around radius $`R_{ta}`$. In the presence of a Cosmological Constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q0}`$ (assuming $`w=1`$) the relation is more complicated (Lahav et al. 1991):

$$\frac{R_{vir}}{R_{ta}}\frac{1\eta /2}{2\eta /2},$$
(8)
where $`\eta \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q0}}{4\pi G\rho _{ta}}<1`$ (the condition for turn around). The minimal possible ratio $`\frac{R_{vir}}{R_{ta}}`$ is about $`\frac{1}{3}`$ (compared with $`\frac{1}{2}`$ in the Einstein de Sitter case), so it is difficult to detect the effect observationally. Other details for spherical collapse in a Universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q0}>0`$ are given in Lilje (1992) and Lokas & Hoffman (2002), and a more general case of a spherical collapse in a Quintessence model is derived in Wang & Steinhardt (1998).

## 3 Dark Energy constraints from the 2dFGRS Power spectrum combined with the CMB

For conventional Dark Energy models (where the Dark Energy density was negligible at high redshift) the matter power spectrum of fluctuations is actually insensitive to Dark energy. On the other hand, the matter power spectrum derived e.g. from galaxy redshifts surveys can constrain other parameters such as the CDM shape parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh`$. For example, the 2dF galaxy power spectrum based on 160K redshifts fits well a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-CDM model (Percival et al. 2001) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh=0.20\pm 0.03`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.15\pm 0.07`$ (1-sigma errors) over the scales $`0.02<k<0.15h`$ Mpc<sup>-1</sup> (assuming a reasonable prior on the Hubble constant). Some deviations from this standard model are possible, e.g. a contribution of massive neutrinos with an upper limit of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu /\mathrm{\Omega }_m<0.13`$ (95% CL) is still allowed by the current 2dFGRS data (Elgaroy et al. 2002).

To get interesting limits on Dark Energy the 2dFGRS power spectrum can be combined with the CMB. Efstathiou et al. (2002) showed that 2dFGRS+CMB provide evidence for a positive Cosmological Constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q0}0.7`$ (assuming $`w=1`$), independently of the studies of Supernovae Ia. As explained in Percival et al. (2002), the shapes of the CMB and the 2dFGRS power spectra are insensitive to Dark Energy. The main important effect of the Dark Energy is to alter the angular diameter distance to the last scattering, and thus the position of the first acoustic peak. For a flat model, the present day horizon size is given for a constant $`w`$ by:

$$r_H(z=0)=\frac{2c}{H_0}\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}^{\gamma (w)}$$
(9)
with

$$\gamma (w)\frac{2w}{13.8w}.$$
(10)
It turns out that the CMB+2dFGRS constrain the combination of $`w`$ and the Hubble constant $`h`$, as shown in Figure 1 for the case of a flat Universe. With the extra HST constraint of $`h=0.72\pm 0.08`$ (Freedman et al. 2001) and a prior $`w1`$ Percival et al. (2002) find an upper limit

$$w<0.52(95\%CL).$$

Lewis & Bridle (2002) combined the CMB, 2dFGRS, HST, BBN and SN Ia and found after marginalizing over 8 other free parameters $`w<0.68`$ (95% CL) for a flat Universe with a prior of $`w1`$, and $`1.6<w<0.73`$ (95% CL) with no prior on $`w`$. Similar results for $`w`$ are given by Melchiorri et al. (2002) and others. The main conclusion so far is that $`w=1`$ (Einstein’s Cosmological Constant) is consistent with all currently available data, but a slight deviation from it cannot yet be ruled out, including the possibility of $`w<1`$.

## 4 The Alcock-Paczynski Curvature Test

Consider a spherical object at high redshift. If the wrong cosmology is assumed in interpreting the distance-redshift relation along the line of sight and in the transverse direction, the sphere will appear distorted. Alcock & Paczynski (1979) pointed out that this curvature effect could be used to estimate the cosmological constant. Phillips (1994) suggested that if the correlation function in real space is isotropic it could be used as a spherical object to measure the effect. Certain studies were less optimistic than others about the possibility of measuring this A-P effect. For example, Ballinger, Peacock and Heavens (1996) argued that the geometrical distortion could be confused with the dynamical redshift distortions caused by peculiar velocities and characterized by the linear theory parameter $`\beta \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.6}}{b}`$. Their model for the distorted power spectrum $`P^S(k_{},𝐤_{})`$ as a function of line of sight and perpendicular direction was applied by Outram et al. (2001) to a sample of 10,000 quasars from the 2dF quasar redshift survey. They found best fit values with relatively large error bars, $`\beta =0.39_{0.17}^{+0.18}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q0}=0.23_{0.13}^{+0.44}`$ (assuming $`w=1`$), and illustrated that an Einstein-de Sitter Universe can only marginally be rejected. See also Popowski et al. (1998).

Matsubara & Szalay (2002a,b) showed that the typical SDSS and 2dF samples of normal galaxies at low redshift ($`0.1`$) have sufficiently low signal-to-noise, but they are too shallow to detect the A-P effect. On the other hand, the quasar SDSS and 2dFGRS surveys are at a useful redshift, but they are too sparse. A more promising sample is the SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies survey (out to redshift $`z0.5`$) which turns out to be optimal in terms of both depth and density. Figure 2 shows the expected lowest error bounds (via Fisher matrix analysis) on the Dark Energy parameters for an Equation of State of the form $`w(z)=w_0+w_1z`$. This analysis is based on a galaxy counts in 15 $`h^1`$Mpc spheres. While this analysis is promising, it remains to be tested if non-linear clustering and complicated biasing (which is quite plausible for red galaxies) would not ‘contaminate’ the measurement of the Equation of State. Even if the A-P test turns out to be less accurate than other cosmological tests (e.g. CMB and SN Ia) the effect itself is an important ingredient in analyzing the clustering pattern of galaxies at high redshifts.

A variant of the A-P method has been proposed by Hui et al. (1999) and McDonald et al. (1999) using observations of the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest in the spectra of close quasar pairs. The idea is to compare the auto-correlation along the line of sight with the cross-correlation between two (or more) close lines of sight to quasars. It has been estimated that 30 or so pairs of quasar spectra are needed to estimate of the Dark Energy parameters with reasonable accuracy, subject to modelling uncertainties.

## 5 Abundance of Clusters and Galaxies with Redshift

A popular method for constraining cosmological parameters is to count the number $`N(z)`$ of clusters with redshift. Commonly the Press-Schechter mass function (or one of its variants) is used to predict the number of clusters with redshift. The Equation of State parameter is mainly sensitive to the growth rate $`\delta (z)`$ and the volume element (e.g. Wang & Steinhardt 1998; Weller et al. 2002). The main uncertainty is in relating the observed cluster quantities such as temperature, velocity dispersion or Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect to the cluster mass. While some empirical relations exist, they suffer from various systematic effects, e.g. evolution. The cluster abundance test is discussed in more detail by others in this Volume.

Another variant of this method has been suggested by Newman & Davis (2002) for the abundance of galaxies (e.g. in the DEEP2 survey, over the redshift range $`0.7<z<1.5`$ ) as a function of their circular velocity. Subject to possible systematic errors, this test can provide information about Dark Energy parameters, in particularly if extra constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ are available.

## 6 Cross Correlation of the CMB and Galaxy Surveys

An entirely different method to constrain Dark Energy, by cross correlating the CMB with tracers of the mass density at low redshift, has been proposed by Crittenden & Turok (1996). The idea is that in a Universe with a Cosmological Constant the gravitational potential is time dependent even on large scales (unlike in the Einstein de Sitter case, in which the potential is constant with time). Then CMB fluctuations can arise via the Integrated Sachs Wolfe (ISW) effect, as the photons travel through the time-dependent potentials. They can be observed by searching for spatial correlations between the CMB and the local matter density (e.g. from galaxy counts $`N`$), $`<\delta N\delta T>`$. Boughn & Crittenden (2002) crossed-correlated the CMB with distant radio sources, and could only place an upper limit on the cross-correlation signal. For a Cosmological Constant model ($`w=1`$) they translated it to an upper limit of

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q0}0.74(95\%CL).$$

This is actually the only measurement discussed in this review which argues marginally against a Dark Energy component (it is actually similar to the upper limit derived from the frequency of lensed quasars; Kochaneck 1996). However, this upper limit is still in accord with the concordance model, and systematic effects such as galaxy biasing may confuse the deduction of the cosmological parameters. If indeed a Dark Energy component does exist, it should be detectable with future CMB maps and galaxy surveys.

## 7 Conclusions

The main conclusions of this review are:

* The present epoch matter power spectrum and dynamics are almost ‘blind’ to a Dark Energy component. This is actually useful as these measurements can be used to deduce the matter density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ independent of any assumption on the nature of the Dark Energy, and then combined with other probes such as the CMB and Supernovae Ia.
* Geometrical tests and counts at high redshift are potentially useful, but they suffer from degeneracy with other parameters such as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and biasing.
* The current data are consistent with $`w=1`$ (i.e. a Cosmological Constant), but other forms of Quintessence $`w(z)`$ are still possible.

## 8 Outlook

There is general acceptance (perhaps too strongly) of the ‘concordance’ model with the following ingredients: 4% baryons, 26% Cold Dark Matter (possibly with a small contribution of massive neutrinos) and the remaining 70% in the form of Dark Energy (the Cosmological Constant or ‘Quintessence’). Conceptually, it seems we have to learn to live in a multi-component complex Universe, which perhaps takes us away from an idealized model motivated by Occam’s razor.

While phenomenologically the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-CDM model has been successful in fitting a wide range of cosmological data, there are some open questions:

* Both components of the model, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and CDM, have not been directly measured. Are they ‘real’ entities or just ‘epicycles’? Historically epicycles were actually quite useful in forcing observers to improve their measurements and theoreticians to think about better models!
* ‘The Old Cosmological Constant problem’: Why is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q0}`$ at present so small relative to what is expected from Early Universe physics?
* ‘The New Cosmological Constant problem’: Why is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q0}`$ at the present-epoch? Why is $`w1`$ ? Do we need to introduce new physics or to invoke the Anthropic Principle to explain it?
* There are still open problems in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-CDM on the small scales, e.g. galaxy profiles and satellites.
* The age of the Universe is uncomfortably close to some estimates for the age of the Globular Clusters, if their epoch of formation was late.
* Could other (yet unknown) models fit the data equally well?
* Where does the field go from here? Should the activity focus on refinement of the cosmological parameters within $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-CDM, or on introducing entirely new paradigms?

Acknowledgements.  I am grateful to members of the 2dF galaxy redshift survey team and participants of the Leverhulme Quantitative Cosmology group in Cambridge for helpful discussions.


text:
# Subtracting the photon noise bias from single-mode optical interferometer visibilities

## 1 Introduction

The properties of source photon noise are well known. It follows a Poisson distribution whose variance is equal to the average total number of photons. In frequency space, it is a white noise with a flat average power spectral density. In most practical cases where the observables are linearly linked to the number of photons detected, photon noise can be directly averaged out from the data to reduce its variance. For some applications for which the observables are quadratically linked to the number of photons, the data suffer both from photon noise and from a bias linked to the variance of the noise. This is for example the case in speckle imaging techniques where the source spatial intensity distribution is recovered from the power spectral density of a short time exposure (Thiébaut (1994)). In astronomical optical interferometry, the observables are the modulus of the visibility and its phase usually expressed as a closure phase quantity. The visibility modulus can be obtained by integrating the modulus of the spectrum of interferograms. However, this estimator is biased by the power spectral density of noises as these add to the power spectral density of the fringe signal. An unbiased estimator of the modulus of the visibility is obtained by forming the squared modulus of the visibility as the power spectral densities of the noises can be independently estimated and subtracted. An example in interferometry is the computation of the fringe squared visibility in the ABCD method where the white light fringe is sampled at four $`\lambda /4`$ spaced optical path differences. An unbiased single fringe ABCD estimator is obtained by subtracting the source photon noise and the detector noise variances (when the noise has a flat spectrum the power spectral density is constant and equal to the variance) from the fringe power spectral density (Tango & Twiss (1980)).
In single-mode interferometers, beams are spatially filtered by single-mode waveguides trading phase fluctuations against intensity fluctuations. A fraction of intensities collected by each aperture can be measured to renormalize interferograms to eliminate the fluctuations due to turbulence. The visibility estimator is no longer directly linked to the power spectral density of the fringe signal. I demonstrate in the following sections that the classical method (explained further in the paper) established by Goodman (1985) can be rigourously extended to such ratios of physical noisy signals under certain assumptions to provide unbiased visibility estimators. Real data reduction cases are presented to illustrate the method.

## 2 Principles of photon noise bias subtraction

### 2.1 Description of the signals and assumptions

I refer the reader to Coudé du Foresto et al. (1997) for a full description of the principle to measure fringe amplitudes (also called coherence factors) with a single-mode fiber interferometer and for a detailed description of the fringe signal for coaxial interferometers. Visibility calibration will be addressed in a separate paper (Perrin (2002)). I assume here, for sake of simplicity, that no calibration is required and the coherence factor is directly equal to the visibility. Here I will use the more general expression of the interferogram for a two-telescope interferometer:

$$i(x)=P_A(x)+P_B(x)+2\sqrt{P_A(x)P_B(x)}m(x)$$
(1)
where $`m`$ is an oscillating function containing the fringes. $`P_A`$ and $`P_B`$ are the intensities coupled in the single-mode waveguide at each telescope and are called the photometric signals. $`i`$ is a function of the optical path difference or of time for coaxial beamcombiners. For multiaxial interferometers, $`x`$ is a focal plane coordinate. In the following, I will deal with coaxial interferometers only and I will use time $`t`$ as the variable. The method can be easily adapted to multiaxial interferometers. The photometric signals vary in time with turbulence and the modulation $`m`$ varies with turbulence and with the optical difference which is varied linearly with time, coding the fringe signal in frequency space. $`i`$ is measured in photon counts and is defined as the average signal one would obtain if no noise were present.
In the photometric calibration method, the photometric signals need to be estimated. The estimated signals are filtered, the filtering function being adjusted to reject most of the noise and keep the intensity fluctuations due to turbulence only. Turbulent fluctuations are low frequency fluctuations (limited to frequency ranges of a few tens of Hertz). I note $`\overline{P_A}`$ and $`\overline{P_B}`$ the estimated photometric signals suitably low-pass filtered. The important property of the filtered photometric signals is that they contain no energy at the fringe frequency and above.
I call $`g`$ the following gain function:

$$g(t)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\overline{P_A}(t)\overline{P_B}(t)}}$$
(2)
I define the normalized interferogram:

$`i_n(t)`$ $`=`$ $`g(t).i(t)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P_A(t)+P_B(t)}{2\sqrt{\overline{P_A}(t)\overline{P_B}(t)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{P_A(t)P_B(t)}}{\sqrt{\overline{P_A}(t)\overline{P_B}(t)}}}m(t)`$
The first term is mainly a low frequency signal whereas the second term is the high frequency signal containing the fringe modulation. I introduce the continuum function:

$$c(t)=\frac{\overline{P_A}(t)+\overline{P_B}(t)}{2\sqrt{\overline{P_A}(t)\overline{P_B}(t)}}$$
(4)
The continuum function is the low frequency part of the normalized interferogram. It is the ratio of the arithmetic and geometric means of the photometric signals. If the two photometric signals are equal then the continuum function is equal to 1. It departs all the more from 1 as the photometric beams get unbalanced. The visibility estimate is computed from the corrected interferogram:

$`i_{cor}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`i_n(t)c(t)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[P_A(t)\overline{P_A}(t)\right]+\left[P_B(t)\overline{P_B}(t)\right]}{2\sqrt{\overline{P_A}(t)\overline{P_B}(t)}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{P_A(t)P_B(t)}}{\sqrt{\overline{P_A}(t)\overline{P_B}(t)}}}m(t)`$
In the corrected interferogram the low frequency components due to turbulence are eliminated. If the photometric signals are perfectly estimated then the average value of the corrected interferogram is equal to zero and the oscillating signal is properly renormalized. In the ideal case where data are noiseless, the corrected interferogram is equal to the oscillating function $`m`$ which is proportional to the visibility. Although the filtered photometric signals do not contain energy at the fringes frequency, the gain and continuum function may contain some as the residual noise may have been redistributed in the frequency domain by the non-linear combinations of the filtered photometric signals. I make the assumption that this high frequency noise is negligeable by several orders of magnitude compared to the energy of the fringes. This assumption will be validated in Sect. 3 on real data. As a consequence of this assumption, $`i_n`$ and $`i_{cor}`$ share the same photon noise. This assumption is crucial for the success of the method. Finding an analytical solution to the problem of bias subtraction without this assumption is certainly a big issue.

### 2.2 Method

The method to subtract the photon noise bias is a direct generalization of that proposed by Goodman (1985) and I will use the same notations. In the following only photon noise is considered. Methods to subtract additive noises are well established (see for example Coudé du Foresto et al. (1997)). Detector and source photon noises being independent the detector noise could be added in the following derivation leading to the classical result on power spectral density bias by detector noise variance. The primary scope of this paper being source photon noise I have decided to keep equations as light as possible and not include detector noise in the equations. Detector noise will nevertheless be considered in the last section on real data.
I call $`\stackrel{~}{ı}(t)`$ a representation of the interferogram in which photon events are represented by Dirac functions. Assuming that the total number of photons in the interferogram is $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ for a given realization, then I can write:

$$\stackrel{~}{ı}(t)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}\delta (tt_k)$$
(6)
There are two random variables in this expression: the individual photon detection times $`t_k`$ and the total number of photons $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ which is equal to $`N`$ in average. A model of the normalized interferogram can be built:

$$\stackrel{~}{ı}_n(t)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}g(t)\delta (tt_k)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}g(t_k)\delta (tt_k)$$
(7)
Its Fourier transform is therefore:

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_n(f)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}g(t_k)e^{2i\pi t_kf}$$
(8)
Thus, the average spectrum of the normalized interferogram is therefore:

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_n(f)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}}g(t_k)e^{2i\pi t_kf}_{t_k}_{\stackrel{~}{N}}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}}g(t_k)e^{2i\pi t_kf}_{t_k}_{\stackrel{~}{N}}`$ (10)
In the above expression, the average on $`t_k`$ does not depend upon $`k`$ and the average normalized interferogram can be written:

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_n(f)=\stackrel{~}{N}g(t)e^{2i\pi tf}_t_{\stackrel{~}{N}}$$
(11)
The statistics of the photon arrival time $`t`$ are described by the probability density function $`\frac{i(t)}{N}`$ with $`i(t)`$ the average photon flux. Hence the average on the arrival times is equal to:

$`g(t)e^{2i\pi tf}_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}g(t){\displaystyle \frac{i(t)}{N}}e^{2i\pi tf}𝑑t`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}I(f)G(f)`$ (13)
The $``$ symbol indicates a convolution. Capital letters are used for Fourier transforms. Replacing the average on $`t`$ by this expression, I obtain for the average normalized interferogram:

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_n(f)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{N}_{\stackrel{~}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}G(f)I(f)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`G(f)I(f)`$ (15)
As a check, the expression of the average interferogram after applying the inverse Fourier transform to the above expression is:

$$\stackrel{~}{i}_n(t)=g(t).i(t)$$
(16)
Let us consider $`\stackrel{~}{I}_n^{(2)}(f)`$ the power spectral density of the normalized interferogram with $`\stackrel{~}{I}_n^{(2)}(f)=|\stackrel{~}{I}_n(f)|^2`$. In the ideal case of non noisy data, the integral of the power spectral density is proportional to the squared visibility. The integral of the average power spectral density is:

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_n^{(2)}(f)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}g(t_k)g(t_l)e^{2i\pi (t_kt_l)f}_{t_k,t_l}_{\stackrel{~}{N}}$$
(17)
An important assumption on photon events to derive the Poisson statistics is that they are not correlated. Arrival times $`t_k`$ and $`t_l`$ are therefore not correlated as long as $`kl`$. This important property is used to split the above expression in two terms:

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_n^{(2)}(f)=$$

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}[g(t_k)]^2+2\underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}\underset{l<k}{}g(t_k)g(t_l)e^{2i\pi (t_kt_l)f}_{t_k}_{\stackrel{~}{N}}$$
(18)
The first average is equal to:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}}[g(t_k)]^2_{t_k}_{\stackrel{~}{N}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}}[g(t_k)]^2_{t_k}_{\stackrel{~}{N}}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}[g(t)]^2{\displaystyle \frac{i(t)}{N}}𝑑t_{\stackrel{~}{N}}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{N}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}[g(t)]^2{\displaystyle \frac{i(t)}{N}}𝑑t_{\stackrel{~}{N}}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}[g(t)]^2i(t)𝑑t`$ (22)
where I have used once again the probability density of the photon statistics $`\frac{i(t)}{N}`$. The second average of Eq. (18) can be written as the sum of factors yielding:

$$2\underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}\underset{l<k}{}g(t_k)g(t_l)e^{2i\pi (t_kt_l)f}_{t_k,t_l}_{\stackrel{~}{N}}=$$

$$2\underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}\underset{l<k}{}g(t_k)e^{2i\pi t_kf}_{t_k}g(t_l)e^{2i\pi t_lf}_{t_l}_{\stackrel{~}{N}}$$
(23)
The averages on $`t_l`$ and $`t_k`$ can be substituted by the expression of Eq. (13) yielding:

$$2\underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}\underset{l<k}{}g(t_k)g(t_l)e^{2i\pi (t_kt_l)f}_{t_k,t_l}_{\stackrel{~}{N}}=$$

$$2\underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}\underset{l<k}{}\frac{1}{N^2}|I(f)G(f)|^2_{\stackrel{~}{N}}$$
(24)
and:

$$2\underset{k=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}\underset{l<k}{}\frac{1}{N^2}|I(f)G(f)|^2_{\stackrel{~}{N}}=$$

$$\stackrel{~}{N}(\stackrel{~}{N}1)_{\stackrel{~}{N}}\frac{1}{N^2}|I(f)G(f)|^2=|I(f)G(f)|^2$$
(25)
$`|I(f)G(f)|^2`$ is the power spectral density of the normalized interferogram. From the equation above I therefore derive an unbiased estimate of this quantity:

$$|I(f)G(f)|^2=\stackrel{~}{I}_n^{(2)}(f)_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}[g(t)]^2i(t)𝑑t$$
(26)
Since the normalized and the corrected interferograms share the same noise bias, the integral term of the above equation is also the bias of the power spectral density of the corrected interferogram.

### 2.3 Comments

The expression of the photon noise bias is very intuitive. $`i(t)`$ is the average number of photons detected at time $`t`$. Being a Poisson statistics, it is also the variance of the photon noise. When the signal is multiplied by the gain $`g(t)`$, the variance at time $`t`$ becomes $`[g(t)]^2i(t)`$. Photon events at different times being uncorrelated, the total variance of the photon noise is therefore equal to the integral of the local variance.
Equation (26) demonstrates that the noise of the corrected interferogram remains a white noise whose mean power spectral density is constant. This property is also the result of the independence of photon events.
With the above result, the computation of the unbiased estimate of the visibility is easy. The bias is simply obtained by co-adding the individual counts of the normalized interferogram.

## 3 Example of bias subtraction on real signals

The purpose of this section is to illustrate the theoretical results of the previous section and to show that the assumptions on the noise of the continuum and gain functions are correct.
I have selected a series of scans of Mira observed with FLUOR in October 2000. The observations were carried out with a baseline long enough that the fringe contrast is of a few percent only. This is an interesting case because the source is very bright and the fringe contrast is small, hence the photon noise bias is relatively important and accounts for a large fraction of the visibility if not corrected.
The raw photometric and interferometric signals are displayed on Fig. 1. The intensities are in photon counts. The fringes are hardly visible and their amplitude is smaller than that of the photometric fluctuations. The fringes peak is visible in the power spectral density between 350 and 400 Hz. In Fig. 2 are presented the gain and continuum functions as well as their power spectral densities on a log scale. The noise level of the continuum at the fringes frequency range can be directly compared to that of the corrected interferogram in Fig. 3. A residual photometric fluctuation is visible on the corrected interferogram hence the low frequency component. In the data reduction procedure, the detector dark current signals undergo the same correction process as the source signals. In case the dark currents would combine both detector dark signal and sky background if measured with a chopping technique, the dark signals would contain both background photon noise and detector noise. But both noises can be treated as additive noise, in particular the background photon noise does not need to be processed like the source photon noise. In the case of the FLUOR signals, background photon noise is totally negligible and the dark signals only contain the detector contribution. In Fig. 4 I have represented the average of power spectral densities of both the corrected detector dark current and corrected interferograms to reduce the noise on the power spectral densities. On the same figure, the difference of the two is plotted. At this stage, the bias due to source photon noise is not removed to make its magnitude obvious to the reader. The fringe squared visibility being obtained by integrating the power spectral density at the fringe frequency, the non-zero mean level under the fringe peak causes the bias. This is the bias due to source photon noise. This graph also shows an increasing residual noise at high frequency due to detector instabilities. The value of the bias has been computed with the method presented in this paper and subtracted as illustrated by the last graph of this figure. The power spectral density background level is now equal to zero in average showing that the bias has been correctly subtracted.

## 4 Conclusion

A method to subtract the photon noise bias from visibility data acquired with a single-mode interferometer has been presented. An analytical expression for the bias can be established under verified assumptions. Other non-analytical methods based on the fit of the average level of power spectral densities may suffer from confusion with fringe signal and from detector instabilities and the analytical method should be preferred.

###### Acknowledgements.

I wish to thank P. Bordé for his careful reading of the paper and for his precious comments that helped me write the final version.


text:
# Neutron Stars in Supernova Remnants and Beyond

## 1. Introduction

Massive ($`810M_{}`$) stars are the progenitors of most of supernovae (SNe). The explosion of a massive star results in the origin of an extended (tens of parsecs) diffuse supernova remnant (SNR) and a compact stellar remnant. In most cases the stellar remnant is a neutron star (NS). Therefore most of SNRs should be associated with NSs. A NS could be located within the confine of the associated SNR or beyond it, depending on the kick velocity received by the star, the age of the system and some other factors (see below). However, only a small fraction of known SNRs was found to be associated with NSs. Moreover, it is believed that some of proposed NS/SNR associations are the result of geometrical projection. Thus, the obvious lack of associations should be explained or filled up. The latter seems to be more attractive and fruitful in view of the recent splash of discoveries of NSs in SNRs.

The reliability of NS/SNR associations is usually assessed with help of several criteria (see e.g. Kaspi 1996). Some of them are trivial, i.e. should be fulfilled for any association. Other criteria are based on the use of the standard Sedov-Taylor model of SNRs and therefore are over-simplified. The application of these criteria can lead to rejection of genuine associations (Gvaramadze 2000, 2002a,b; Bock & Gvaramadze 2002). The point is that the massive stars strongly modify their environs by virtue of their winds and ionizing emission, and it is the subsequent interaction of SN blast waves with their processed ambient medium that results in the observed SNRs (e.g. Shull et al. 1985; Ciotti & D’Ercole 1989; Chevalier & Liang 1989). It is clear that the presence of circumstellar and interstellar structures could strongly affect the standard sequence and duration of evolutionary stages of the SN blast wave (e.g. Woltjer 1972). For example, the Sedov-Taylor stage could be absent at all if the SN exploded within the wind-blown cavity surrounded by a massive shell (e.g. Franco et al. 1991). Another important point is the proper motion of massive stars, which causes them to explode far from the geometrical centres of their cavities and makes the cavities and other circumstellar and interstellar structures non-spherically-symmetrical. The natural consequence of an off-centred cavity SN explosion is that the SN blast centre does not coincide with the geometrical centre of the future SNR. Taking into account these considerations allows us to enlarge the circle of possible NS/SNR associations and to explain the morphological peculiarities of SNRs (Gvaramadze 2000, 2002a,b; Bock & Gvaramadze 2002; Gvaramadze & Vikhlinin 2003). On the other hand, the better understanding of origin of peculiar SNRs helps to infer the “true” SN explosion sites in these remnants, and therefore to search for new NSs associated with them (Gvaramadze 2002b; Gvaramadze & Vikhlinin 2002, 2003; see also Sect. 4).

To illustrate the significance of the concept of off-centred cavity SN explosion we show how this concept could be used to preclude the anti-humane decapitating the Duck (G 5.4$``$1.2 $`+`$ G 5.27$``$0.9) and dismembering the Swan (Cygnus Loop, G 74.0$``$8.5) recently attempted, respectively, by Thorsett, Brisken, & Goss (2002) and Uyaniker et al. (2002), and to search for a NS associated with the SNR RCW 86 (MSH 14-63, G 315.4$``$2.30).

## 2. The Duck (G 5.4$``$1.2 $`+`$ G 5.27$``$0.9)

The association between the pulsar B 1757$``$24 and the SNR G 5.4$``$1.2 was for a long time one of a few most reliable NS/SNR associations. However, recently this association was questioned by Thorsett et al. (2002), who suggested that PSR B 1757$``$24 and the compact nebula G 5.27$``$0.9 behind it (the “head” of the “Duck”) are unrelated to the SNR G 5.4$``$1.2 (the “body” of the “Duck”). To justify the decapitating the Duck, Thorsett et al. used a set of standard criteria for evaluating the reliability of NS/SNR associations (e.g. Kaspi 1996), which include the agreement of distance and age estimates for pulsar and SNR, the consistence of the implied pulsar transverse velocity (i.e. the velocity inferred by the displacement of the pulsar from the geometrical centre of the SNR) with the measured (e.g. proper motion) velocity, and the correct orientation of the vector of pulsar transverse motion. We agree with Thorsett et al. (2002) that the estimates of the distance to the pulsar and the SNR are not inconsistent and therefore will concentrate on the rest three criteria.

Two main arguments against the association put forward by Thorsett et al. (2002) are based on their interferometric proper motion measurements of PSR B 1757$``$24 \[an upper limit on the westward motion of the pulsar, $`v_\mathrm{w}`$ $`145d_{4.5}`$ $`\mathrm{km}`$ $`\mathrm{s}^1`$ ($`d_{4.5}`$ is the distance to the SNR in units of 4.5 kpc) was found to be an order of magnitude less than the implied transverse velocity\] and the “incorrect” orientation of the pulsar proper motion (a cometary-shaped nebula behind the pulsar does not point back to the geometrical centre of G 5.4$``$1.2). Both “inconsistencies”, however, could be removed if the SNR G 5.4$``$1.2 is the result of off-centred cavity SN explosion. We suggest that: a) PSR B 1757$``$24 was born near the northwest edge of a wind-blown cavity; b) the cavity was surrounded by a massive ($`50M_{\mathrm{ej}}`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}34M_{}`$ is the mass of the SN ejecta) wind-driven shell (see also Gvaramadze 2000, 2002b). The first suggestion implies that: i) the “true” transverse velocity of the pulsar is much smaller than the implied one; ii) the tail behind the pulsar has a correct orientation. The second suggestion implies that: i) the SN blast wave was drastically decelerated by the interaction with the wind-driven shell, so that the pulsar (moving in the westward direction at the velocity $`v_\mathrm{w}`$) was able to overrun the resulting SNR; ii) the current radius of the SNR is about the same as the radius of the wind-driven shell.

The proper motion measurements by Thorsett et al. (2002) provide an estimate of the kinematic age of the system: $`t_{\mathrm{kin}}l/v_\mathrm{w}`$, where $`l`$ is the distance travelled by the pulsar from its birthplace. For $`l8d_{4.5}`$ pc (Gvaramadze, in preparation), one has $`t_{\mathrm{kin}}3\tau `$, where $`\tau =1.55\times 10^4\mathrm{yr}`$ is the characteristic age of the pulsar. The “true” pulsar age, however, could be equal to $`t_{\mathrm{kin}}`$ if the spin-down rate of the pulsar is mainly due to the interaction between the pulsar’s magnetosphere and the dense ambient medium (see Gvaramadze 2001 and references therein), or if the pulsar braking index is $`1.7`$ (cf. Gaensler & Frail 2000).

## 3. The Swan (Cygnus Loop, G 74.0$``$8.5)

Recent polarized intensity image of the Cygnus Loop obtained by Uyaniker et al. (2002) revealed a prominent shell-like structure encompassing the “break-out” region in the south of this SNR. Uyaniker et al. advocated the widely accepted point of view on the origin of SNRs consisting of two overlapping shells and suggested that the Cygnus Loop is actually two individual SNRs interacting with each other. An alternative possibility is that the SNRs of this type are due to off-centred cavity SN explosions (Dubner et al. 1994, Gvaramadze 2002b). We suggest that the SNR Cygnus Loop is the result of SN explosion near the south edge of a cavity blown up by the SN progenitor during the main-sequence phase (cf. Gvaramadze & Vikhlinin 2003; see also Sect. 4). This implies that the conventional shell of the Cygnus Loop corresponds to the former cavity re-energized by the SN blast wave, while the south shell is created by the interaction of the SN blast wave with the unperturbed interstellar medium. Accordingly, we expect that only one stellar remnant is associated with both shells.

Uyaniker et al. (2002) discussed eight reasons for considering the Cygnus Loop as two colliding SNRs. We note however that these reasons could also be considered as indications of the off-centred cavity SN explosion. For example, we believe that the presence of a NS candidate (Miyata et al. 2001) near the centre of the south shell is a strong argument in support of our suggestion. Note also that the absence of centrally peaked X-ray emission in the south shell implies that the SN progenitor exploded after the red supergiant phase of its evolution (cf. Gvaramadze 2002b), i.e. the initial mass of the progenitor was $`<15M_{}`$.

## 4. RCW 86 (MSH 14-63, G 315.4$``$2.30)

RCW 86 is a bright shell-like SNR with a peculiar protrusion in the southwest encompassing a prominent hemispherical optical nebula. We believe that RCW 86 is the result of a cavity SN explosion of a moving massive star, which after the main-sequence phase has evolved through the red supergiant phase, and then experienced a short “blue loop” (Gvaramadze & Vikhlinin 2003; cf. Gvaramadze 2002b). During the main-sequence phase the stellar wind blows up a large-scale cavity, while the motion of the star causes it to cross the cavity and start to interact directly with the interstellar medium. We suggest that the SN exploded inside a “hollow” bow shock-like circumstellar structure (created by the post-main-sequence winds) adjacent to the main-sequence cavity. This suggestion implies that the optical arc in the southwest of RCW 86 is the remainder of the pre-existing circumstellar structure and that the stellar remnant associated with the SNR should be in the centre of the arc.

Motivated by these considerations we searched for a stellar remnant in the southwest protrusion of RCW 86 using the ROSAT and Chandra archival data. The unprecedented high angular resolution of the Chandra X-ray Observatory allows us to detect a NS candidate just in the “proper” place (see Gvaramadze & Vikhlinin 2002, 2003).

## References

Bock, D.C.-J., & Gvaramadze, V.V. 2002, A&A, 394, 533

Chevalier, R.A., & Liang E.P. 1989, ApJ, 344, 332

Ciotti, L., & D’Ercole, A. 1989, A&A, 215, 347

Dubner, G.M., Giacani, E.B., Goss W.M., & Winkler, P.F. 1994, AJ, 108, 207

Franco, J., Tenorio-Tagle, G., Bodenheimer, P., & Ró$`\dot{\mathrm{z}}`$yczka, M. 1991, PASP, 103, 803

Gaensler, B.M., & Frail, D.A. 2000, Nature, 406, 158

Gvaramadze, V.V. 2000, astro-ph/0005572

Gvaramadze, V.V. 2001, A&A, 374, 259

Gvaramadze, V.V. 2002a, in ASP Conf. Ser., 271, Neutron Stars in Supernova Remnants, ed. P.O. Slane & B.M. Gaensler (San Francisco: ASP), 23

Gvaramadze, V.V. 2002b, in New Visions of the X-ray Universe in the XMM-Newton and Chandra Era, ed. F. Jansen (ESA SP-488), in press (astro-ph/0208028)

Gvaramadze, V.V., & Vikhlinin, A.A. 2002, these proceedings

Gvaramadze, V.V., & Vikhlinin, A.A. 2003, A&A, in press (astro-ph/0208030)

Kaspi, V.M. 1996, in Pulsars: Problems and Progress, ed. S. Johnston, M.A. Walker & M. Bailes (San Francisco: ASP), 375

Miyata, E., Ohta, K., Torii, K., Takeshima, T., Tsunemi, H., Hasegawa, T., & Hashimoto, Y. 2001, ApJ, 550, 1023

Shull, P., Dyson, J.E., Kahn, F.D., & West, K.A. 1985, MNRAS, 212, 799

Thorsett, S.E., Brisken, W.F., & Goss, W.M. 2002, ApJ, 573, L111

Uyaniker, B., Reich, W., Yar, A., Kothes, R., & Fürst, E. 2002, A&A, 389, L61

Woltjer, L. 1972, ARA&A, 10, 129