text:
# The Geant4 Hadronic Verification Suite for the Cascade Energy Range

## I INTRODUCTION

The Geant4 toolkit G4  includes a collection of models and packages for hadronic physics which are applicable to various particle transport problems HadStatus . In Geant4, final state generation is separated from the access and use of cross sections and from tracking. It is therefore possible and desirable to have independent, alternative physics models. In order to optimize these models and to identify their most appropriate application, detailed comparisons between experimental data and model predictions are required.

The cascade energy region from the reaction threshold to incident hadron energies of a few GeV is problematic for all existing Monte Carlo packages. In order to verify and further develop Geant4 models in this energy range, a verification suite has been created. The stages of the verification, including experimental data handling, event generation and comparison to data are described here. Results of the comparison are also presented.

## II VERIFICATION SUITE

### II.1 Method

The verification suite is generic, as it is based on an abstract interface to a final state hadronic interaction generator. This interface can be found in Level 2 of the Geant4 hadronic physics framework G4had . It focuses on quantities relevant to the LHC radiation environment and spallation source targets.

The modular structure of Geant4 allows the generation of single events with a known incident particle energy and an explicitly defined hadronic final state generator. The kinematics of secondaries produced in the interaction are analyzed and the resulting angular, momentum, energy, and baryon number spectra are stored in histograms. The energy-momentum balance can be controlled as well. The histograms are compared to published measurements of the differential and double differential cross sections, $`d\sigma /dE`$, $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`d^2\sigma /dEd\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and the invariant cross sections, $`Ed^3\sigma /d^3p`$.

The cross section contributing to the $`i`$-th bin of the histogram are given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _i=\sigma _{tot}N_i/N,$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _{tot}`$ is the total cross section for the interaction being tested, $`N`$ is the number of simulated events in the sample, and $`N_i`$ is the number of times bin $`i`$ is incremented during the run. Each bin represents a small region of phase space such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, or $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, into which the secondary particle goes after being produced in the interaction. The double differention cross section is estimatated as

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{dEd\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _i}{\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}.$$
(2)
The verification suite is organized into a number of test cases, each defined by a unique incident beam energy and a single target nucleus. All data files, macro files, kumac files and results for each case are stored in a separate subdirectory. The AIDA abstract interface AIDA  is used in the suite for histogram creation and filling. The output is done in ASCII and HBOOK formats.

### II.2 Cross Sections

The verification is done by comparing simulation results with experimental data mainly from the EXFOR database EXFOR . Only data with absolute measurements of the differential cross sections are utilized in the suite. The data downloaded from the database are re-formatted in order to provide intermediate files acceptable for PAW analysis. In some cases re-binning of the data was performed during this process. This was required mainly for the low energy part of the spectra. If, within a given test case, only double differential cross section data are available, the single differential cross sections are obtained by numerical integration.

Initial verifications have been performed for neutrons and pions produced by protons incident upon various targets. For these test cases the initial proton energies were all below 1 GeV. In this energy region the inclusive reaction channel

$$p+An+X,$$
(3)
has been studied experimentally for many years. The secondary neutrons can be identified and their energies can be measured with good precision by using time-of-light techniques. Because this reaction is important for many applications, a significant number of test cases have been created for it (Table 1).

For HEP applications and in particular for the LHC detector, simulating secondary pion production is important. Model verification for pion production by incident protons is available for several test cases (Table 2) for the reactions

$$p+A\pi ^\pm +X.$$
(4)
### II.3 User Interface

The user interface is implemented by macro files which allow the specification of various parameters of the verification. These include:

* initial particle and its energy,
* beam energy spread,
* target nucleus,
* hadronic interaction generator,
* generator options, and
* histogram types and bins.

Both linear and logarithmic binning are available. Each verification test case contains a script which executes the macro files. Hence the user can perform the complete verification process by issuing a single command. The results are stored in HBOOK format and can be processed in PAW by prepared kumac files.

## III HADRONIC MODELS

The verification suite has been used extensively during the release phase of the new Geant4 Bertini cascade and Binary cascade packages HadStatus . The Bertini cascade model is a classical cascade code which was described in detail at another presentation at this conference Bertini .

The Binary cascade introduces a new approach to cascade calculations. The interaction is modeled exclusively on binary scattering between reaction participants and nucleons. The nucleus is described by a detailed 3-dimensional model in which the nucleons are explicitly positioned in phase space. Free hadron-hadron elastic and reaction cross sections are used to define the collisions. Propagation of the particles in the nuclear field is done by numerically solving the the equation of motion.

The cascade begins with a projectile and a description of the nucleus, and terminates when the both average and maximum energy of all particles within the nuclear boundary are below a given threshold. The remaining nuclear fragment is treated by pre-equilibrium decay and de-excitation models deexc .

## IV RESULTS OF VERIFICATION

### IV.1 Inclusive neutron spectra

The single and the double differential inclusive neutron spectra are very sensitive to the physics model used in the cascade code. As shown in Fig. 1, the Binary cascade reproduces the data rather well for all targets, except for energies below 50 MeV where neutron evaporation is important. In contrast, the Bertini cascade (Fig.2) does well below 50 MeV for all but the lightest nuclei. Above 50 MeV only the general trend of the data is reproduced, while the overall normalization improves as $`A`$ increases.

Fig. 3 shows forward scattering in which the proton transfers its energy to one target neutron. Here the Binary cascade describes the data above 50 MeV. The Bertini cascade (Figs.4) does less well, significantly underestimating the data at higher neutron energies. This discrepancy is reduced for heavier nuclei.

Additional verification test cases indicate that the Binary cascade approach is reasonably accurate for other angles and energies as well. Fig. 5 shows comparisons for aluminum at forward and backward neutron angles at energies of 113, 256, 585 and 800 MeV. At 113 and 256 MeV, agreement at all angles is good. At 585 and 800 MeV the backward angle spectra are not well-reproduced. The same set of plots is shown in Fig. 6 for iron, and in Fig. 7 for lead. For both targets the same trends apply as were observed in aluminum.

### IV.2 Pion production

Another useful test of the cascade codes is to look at the double differential cross sections for the production of $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$. Experimental cross sections show that $`\pi ^+`$ production by protons is significantly larger than that for $`\pi ^{}`$. This feature is well-reproduced by the Binary cascade as shown in Fig.8. The trend of the cross section versus energy is also reproduced, although the overall normalization is underestimated by a factor of 2-3 for carbon, aluminum and nickel.

Similar plots for $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ are shown for an incident proton energy of 730 MeV. Figs.9 and 10 show $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^+`$ at forward and backward angles from aluminum, while Figs. 11 and 12 show $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^+`$ from copper. In all these cases the observed ratio of $`\pi ^+`$ to $`\pi ^{}`$ production is reproduced. As was the case for 597 MeV incident protons (Fig. 8), the trend of cross section versus energy is also reproduced. However at 730 MeV it is seen that the Binary cascade does an increasingly poor job of reproducing the overall normalization as the pion angle increases.

### IV.3 Future verification work

While the existing verification suite has already been used extensively, further development is required. So far the validity of the cascade codes has only been demonstrated for incident protons at the low end of their energy ranges. In order to test the full range of energies and particles, many more test cases are required, including:

* incident proton energies up to 15 GeV,
* incident pion energies up to 15 GeV.
* incident neutrons, and
* proton inclusive spectra.

## V CONCLUSIONS

A verification suite for hadronic interaction models in the cascade energy region has been designed and implemented. This suite has been used both to develop the Bertini and Binary cascade model codes for the Geant4 toolkit and to compare their predictions with data from thin target scattering experiments.

The suite has proved to be an efficient tool for model validation which can be used for the development and testing of other hadronic interaction models. The suite is also being expanded to include tests for more types of incident particles and higher energies.

###### Acknowledgements.

Work of VI was partially supported by INTAS (grant INTAS-2001-0323). The work of TK and DHW was supported by U.S. Department of Energy contract DE-AC03-76SF00515.


format: text

text:
# Constraining Dark Energy Evolution with Gravitational Lensing by Large Scale Structures

## I Theory

We establish in this section the theoretical basis of the result presented in section II. We show here how to compute the non-linear cosmic shear power spectrum with a non-trivial dark energy, and how it is evaluated from the data. We discuss the sensitivity of this quantity to the evolution of an hypothetical dark energy component. We then propose a dark energy equation of state parameterization suitable for a class of dark energy models.

### I.1 Cosmology

Lets assume that the dark energy component is minimally coupled to the universe, which means that it interacts with the rest of the Universe via gravity only. The expansion of the universe is completely described by the Friedmann equations

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3M_{\text{Planck}}}}{\displaystyle \rho _\text{X}}`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3M_{\text{Planck}}}}{\displaystyle \left(\rho _\text{X}+3p_\text{X}\right)}.`$ (2)
and the knowledge of an equation of state for each component

$$P_\text{X}=w_\text{X}\rho _\text{X}.$$
(3)
The radiation, matter and curvature equation of state are fixed. The only unknown quantity here, is the equation of state parameter of the dark energy, $`w_Q`$. It usually varies between $`+1`$ and $`1`$. The case $`w_Q=1`$ corresponds to a cosmological constant.

It has been proposed recently that $`w_Q`$ can also take values lower than $`1`$ Carroll et al. (2003). This is only possible if the dark energy has a negative kinetic energy. Such unusual behavior have only been found in very specific modelsOnemli and Woodard (2002), and it is not yet clear if it has any physical meaning. Therefore, we keep the conservative prior $`w_Q1`$.

We also assume that the dark energy does not fluctuate and thus is not coupled to the fluctuations of the matter density. This is of course not true in general: it is expected that dark energy fluctuates from one Hubble volume to the next, which is expected to leave an imprint on the metric fluctuations when the universe expands. However, it has been showed that these fluctuations are quickly damped by the evolution. Moreover, it is expected that they are negligible on scales smaller than the horizon at recombination Ferreira and Joyce (1998); Malquarti and Liddle (2002); Brax et al. (2000). In the following, we only consider such scales and can thus safely ignore these fluctuations.

With these assumptions, the impact of dark energy on the evolution of the large structures is completely described by the equation of state Benabed and Bernardeau (2001).

### I.2 Shear measurements on distant galaxies

The deviation of light by the gravitational potential wells distorts the image of the distant galaxies. This shear effect can be used to probe the projected mass distribution along the line of-sight (see and references Bartelmann, Matthias and Schneider, Peter (1999) therein), from a measurement of the shape of the lensed galaxies. The lensing effect produced by the large scale structures is weak, but has already been measured Van Waerbeke and Mellier (2003).

The gravitational lensing effect depends on the second order derivatives of the gravitational potential projected along the line-of-sight. The convergence $`\kappa `$ and the shear $`\gamma `$ describe the distortion of the image of the distant images (located at some redshift $`z_s`$), by the inhomogeneous matter distribution along the line-of-sight. At linear order, convergence and shear field are related

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa =\left(_1^2_2^2\right)\gamma _1+2_1_2\gamma _2$$
(4)
At the same order, the convergence in the direction $`\theta `$, which describes the isotropic change of the image at position $`\chi _s`$, is given by:

$`\kappa (\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{c}}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\chi _S}}\text{d}\chi {\displaystyle \frac{𝒟(\chi _s\chi )𝒟(\chi )}{𝒟(\chi _s)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (𝒟(\chi )\theta ,\chi )}{a(\chi )}},`$
where $`\chi _s(z_s)`$ is the source radial distance located at redshift $`z_s`$, and $`a=1/(1+z)`$ is the scale factor. The radial distance at redshift $`z`$ is given by

$$\chi (z)=_0^z\text{d}z^{}\frac{c}{H}.$$
(6)
The angular diameter distance $`𝒟`$ is defined by

$$𝒟(\chi )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{K}\chi )/\sqrt{K},\hfill & K>1\hfill \\ \chi ,\hfill & K=1\hfill \\ \mathrm{sinh}(\sqrt{K}\chi )/\sqrt{K},\hfill & K<1\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
where $`K`$ is the curvature. As a consequence, the weak lensing effect is a direct and unbiased measurement of the projected density contrast.

We focus on the convergence power spectrum $`P_\kappa (\mathrm{})`$. It can be shown Bernardeau et al. (1997); Jain and Seljak (1997) that it is directly related to the 3-dimensional mass power spectrum $`P_{3D}`$ via:

$`P_\kappa (\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{c}}\right)^4\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\chi _S}}\text{d}\chi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2(\chi ^{})}{𝒟^2(\chi ^{})a^2(\chi ^{})}}P_{3D}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{𝒟(\chi ^{})}},\chi ^{}),`$
where the $`g(\chi )`$ function describe the lensing efficiency,

$$g(\chi )=\frac{𝒟(\chi _s\chi )𝒟(\chi )}{𝒟(\chi _s)}.$$
(9)
When the lensed galaxies are distributed in redshift, the observed signal is given by Eq.9 integrated among the source redshift distribution $`p_s(\chi )`$. In that case, the $`g(\chi )`$ function becomes:

$$g(\chi )=𝒟(\chi )_\chi ^{\chi _s}\text{d}\chi ^{}p_s(\chi ^{})\frac{𝒟(\chi _s\chi ^{})}{𝒟(\chi _s)}.$$
(10)
The source redshift distribution $`p_s(z)`$ is normalised, and usually parametrised as

$$p_s(z)=\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\left(\frac{1+\alpha }{\beta }\right)\frac{\beta }{z_s}\left(\frac{z}{z_s}\right)^\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{z}{z_s}\right)^\beta \right].$$
(11)
The free parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`z_s`$ are adjusted to accommodate different survey properties.

The ellipticity of the galaxies is an unbiased measure of the shear, from which we derive the statistical properties of the convergence field (see a review of the observational results in Van Waerbeke and Mellier (2003)). In practice, the statistic of interest is the aperture mass variance as function of scale, $`M_{\text{ap}}^2(\theta )`$ Schneider et al. (1998), also called the $`M_{\text{ap}}`$ statistic. It links the variance of the convergence field (which is the field of physical interest, because proportional to the projected mass density) and the shear (which is the observable quantity). Its main feature is to provide a natural separation between the cosmological signal (which is curl-free) and the systematics (contributing to the curl mode). It has already been measured on several galaxy surveys Van Waerbeke and Mellier (2003). The $`M_{\text{ap}}`$ statistic at a scale $`\theta _c`$ is defined as the convergence smoothed with a compensated filter $`U(\theta )`$. Using Eq. (4), it is also given by a properly smoothed shear component $`\gamma _t`$:

$`M_{\text{ap}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\theta _c}}\text{d}^2\theta U(\theta )\kappa (\theta )`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\theta _c}}\text{d}^2\theta Q(\theta )\gamma _t(\theta ),`$ (13)
with $`_0^{\theta _c}\text{d}\theta \theta U(\theta )=0`$, and where

$$Q(\theta )=\frac{2}{\theta _c^2}_0^{\theta _c}\text{d}\theta ^{}\theta ^{}U(\theta ^{})U(\theta ).$$
(14)
The tangential shear $`\gamma _t`$ at a location $`\theta =(\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi ,\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi )`$ is defined by

$$\gamma _\text{t}(\theta )\mathrm{}\left(\gamma (\theta )\text{e}^{2\text{i}\phi }\right).$$
(15)
The choice of $`U(\theta )`$ is arbitrary provided it has a zero mean. In the following, we will use Van Waerbeke and Mellier (2003)

$$U(\theta )\frac{9}{\pi \theta _c^2}\left(1\left(\frac{\theta }{\theta _c}\right)^2\right)\left(\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{\theta }{\theta _c}\right)^2\right).$$
(16)
For this particular choice, the variance of the convergence is expressed in term of the shear power spectrum as

$$M_{\text{ap}}^2=\frac{288}{\pi }\text{d}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}P_\kappa (\mathrm{})\left[\frac{J_4(\mathrm{}\theta _c)}{\mathrm{}^2\theta _c^2}\right]^2.$$
(17)
The variance of the aperture mass is therefore a broad-band estimate of the convergence power spectrum given in Eq.(9), which can directly be estimated from the galaxy shapes. This is the quantity which will be used to study the evolution of dark energy in section II. In order to make predictions on cosmic shear observable, one only needs to compute the convergence power spectrum in dark energy. As shown in Eq. (I.2), it only depends on the cosmology through the relation between angular distances and redshifts, and through the power spectrum of the matter density fluctuations. The source distribution $`p(z)`$ can be determined from the data and does not depend on the cosmology.

A complete discussion on the computations of the weak lensing power spectrum with a cosmology with a non-trivial dark energy has been done in BB01. We only reproduce here the conclusions of this work.

### I.3 Cosmological distances

The relation between the cosmological distances and redshift is given by eq. (6). The dark energy component only leaves an imprint on $`\chi (z)`$ by modifying the acceleration of the universe obtained by solving Eq. (1-2).

The modification of the relation distance / redshift affects mildly the convergence power spectrum. It can be summarized into two simple effects : a normalization change and a scale shift (similar to the modification of the position of peaks in CMB).

The lensing efficiency function (Eq. 9-10) acts as a selection window. It is maximum for lenses located roughly at mid-distance between the observer and the source galaxies. This selection effect can be approximated by replacing the $`g(\chi )^2`$ term in in Eq. (I.2) by a Dirac function

$$g^2(\chi )g^2(\chi _{\text{mid}})\delta (\chi \chi _{\text{mid}}).$$
(18)
In this approximation, the normalization change advertised earlier is driven by the change in the position of the maximum of the selection function.

The scale shift is also easily understood with this approximation. This shift comes from the $`P_{3D}(\frac{\mathrm{}}{𝒟(\chi )})`$ term in Eq. (I.2). The modification of the maximum of the efficiency window selects a different depth for projection.

In the following, we will show that the matter power spectrum can be split into two evolution regimes. At large scale, the linear regime is well described by a power law. The effect of dark energy can be completely re-absorbed into a change in normalization. At small scales however, in the non-linear regime, the power law approximation is no longer a good description of the power spectrum. Like the modification of the peaks in the CMB power spectrum, the scale under which is seen the transition from linear to non-linear regime will be slightly shifted by the above effect.

### I.4 Power spectrum of matter

From a practical point of view, there is no need to compute the whole power spectrum of the density fluctuation. Only a narrow range of scale, from a few arc-second (galaxy scale) to a few hundreds of arc-minutes across the sky is enough. Large scales ($`>5`$ degrees) are difficult to access observationally anyway; the weak lensing correlation amplitude is small, where the residual systematics might be a problem, and the surveys capable of such measurement are not yet planned. At scales smaller than a few arc-seconds, the number of lensed galaxies drops, and the noise blows up.

At redshift one, a few degrees corresponds to a few hundreds of Mpc, which is far below the horizon size at recombination. As stated in section I.1 we can safely assume that for the scales of interest, a classic CDM power spectrum is a good approximation of the power spectrum of the matter density fluctuation. Moreover, for these scales, the power spectrum behaves essentially as a power law. The remarks made above on the cosmological distances holds, and the effect of the modification of the equation of state of dark energy on the cosmological distances translate, for this range of scales, in a simple normalization shift.

We have yet to investigate the evolution of the power spectrum from recombination until now. The growth of structures is modified by the presence of a dynamic dark energy component. At the linear order, it is given by the well known equationPeebles (1993)

$$\ddot{D}_+(t)+2H\dot{D}_+(t)\frac{3}{2}H^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0(t)D_+(t)=0.$$
(19)
In this equation, the matter acts as a source term that increases the depth of the potential well and tends to increase the density contrast. On the opposite, the expansion of the universe acts, via the second term, as a friction effect and reduces the efficiency of gravitation to increase the density contrast. This term carries all the effect of dark energy on the growth of structures.

At high redshift, the dark energy is completely dominated by the radiation or the matter density. During the radiation era, the growing mode of equation Eq. (19) can be obtained analytically

$$D_+a^{\frac{3}{2}}.$$
(20)
During matter domination, the solution is also well known

$$D_+a.$$
(21)
These remarks allow us to integrate Eq. (19) in our model; we do not know any other initial condition that would allow us to perform the integration and be sure to keep the growing solution.

It is worth noting here that there is no other way to compute the growth of structureBenabed and Bernardeau (2001); Linder and Jenkins (2003). The well known integral solution of Eq. (19) is valid when the universe only contains matter, radiation curvature and a cosmological constant. It is also easy to convince oneself that there is no solution to Eq. (19) that can be integrated from today toward the past. Equation (19) generically admits a growing and a non-growing solution. Only the first one is of cosmological interest, and there is no way to build this solution when integrating from the final point of the evolution.

During the expansion, the growth follows the radiation, and then the matter solution. When dark energy gets closer to the energy density of matter, the friction term grows compared to the source one. The efficiency of gravitational collapse to build up the density perturbation decreases and the growth of structures is damped. For the set of models where the dark energy happens to dominate earlier, this reduction of the growth rate is experienced at a higher redshift. The exact starting point of this damping depends on the evolution properties of the dark energy model. Models with $`w_Q>1`$ experience this effect earlier than for $`w_Q=1`$. For a constant equation of state, the energy density of the dark energy goes as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_Qa^{3(1+w_Q)}.$$
(22)
As said above, the $`w_Q=1`$ model is the cosmological constant case. When $`w_Q>1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ grows as the scale factor $`a`$ goes to unity. In this case, the dark energy contribution to the expansion is significant at a higher redshift than when $`w_Q=1`$. This is even more important for varying $`w_Q`$, as shown figure 1. The modelling of the dark energy used in this figure will be described later.

Figure 2 shows the result of a numerical integration of eq. (19) for different models. The damping of the growth appears earlier in the varying equation of state models, compared to the constant equation of state.

For a fixed redshift, the modification of the growth of structure at linear order will be degenerated with the normalization of the power spectrum. Of course, following the linear power spectrum along the line of sight allows to break this degeneracy. Unfortunately, the measured shear power spectrum is only a projection of the mass power spectrum along the line of sight. We showed in previous section that this projection acts like a selection effect on a single redshift plane. Therefore, the integrated growth effect will be, in the linear part of the lensing power spectrum, indistinguishable from a normalization shift.

At small scales, the evolution of the density contrast changes dramatically. Virialized objects are formed and evolve in a different regime than the simple one described by the linear approximation. BB01 showed that this regime can potentially solve part of the degeneracy described above. The weak lensing measurement on galaxies allows access to the bigger scales of this non-linear regime.

The perturbation approach cannot describe this regime as the density contrast is very big at the scale of virialized objects. A complete computation of this regime cannot be done analytically. One has to rely on hypotheses on the properties of this regime to be able to describe it. Several “classic” description of this regime has been proposed (among others see Hamilton et al. (1991); Peacock and Dodds (1996); Cooray and Sheth (2002)). We will follow here the choices made in BB01. We assume that the Stable Clustering Ansatz provide a valid description of the smaller scales of the non-linear regime. It states that virialized objects are stable, that is to say that their physical size does not vary with the expansion of the universe. Hence, at the scale of these objects, the density contrast has to grow to match exactly the expansion. Instead of a growth of order $`a`$ or smaller, the density contrast evolves as $`a^{3/2}`$.

One should note that the scales described by the Ansatz are below the shear measurement scales. The transition between the linear and non-linear regimes is described by a mapping between the two regimes Hamilton et al. (1991). This mapping is calibrated using a fit to n-body simulations, as described in Peacock & Dodds Peacock and Dodds (1996). At large scale, the mapping keeps unchanged the linear regime, and at small scales, it must go as $`(a^2/g^2P)^{3/2}`$. Although this type of mapping has been widely tested for many different cosmologies, it has never been tested for dark energy models. However, given the robustness of the mapping for very different cosmologies, we assumed it remains valid for the class of models studied here.

This is a very strong assumption. It can partly be justified by the fact that it is unlikely that a smoothed dark energy component with no coupling can affect the small scale behavior of the matter. Its influence should only appear as a change in the expansion and thus, as we have shown above, as a modification of the linear growth of structures. The strength of this argument argument is enhanced by a recent result from another description of the non-linear regime usually called the *halo model*. This approach describes the virialized object as dark matter halos of known111read *fitted on N-body simulations* profile and abundance depending on the cosmological parameters Cooray and Sheth (2002). The results and concepts behind this approach have been successfully tested in the context of dark energy Klypin et al. (2003); Linder and Jenkins (2003). In particular the differences observed between halos in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmologies and in cosmology with non trivial dark energy can be explained by an earlier entrance into the non-linear regime. The observed discrepancies are, as expected, all explained by the modification of the linear growth of structures Benabed and Bernardeau (2001); Bartelmann et al. (2002b).

As we just emphasized above, the effect of a non trivial dark energy on the non-linear regime are all encoded in the linear growth. As the structures grow slowly, they reach the non-linear regime earlier (for the same final normalization). Thus, changing their growth at a higher redshift they undergo a longer non-linear evolution. This translates, in the context of Stable Clustering Ansatz into a higher asymptote of the power spectrum at large wave numbers Benabed and Bernardeau (2001), and in the halo approach, into a halo profile with more substructure and more mass in the center Klypin et al. (2003). Note that the case described here is very similar to a comparison between an open and a flat model.

This will show up in the weak lensing power spectrum in two ways. First, the earlier entrance in the non-linear regime, once projected, gives a transition between the linear and non linear regime at smaller $`\mathrm{}`$. Second, the amplitude of the power spectrum at small scale is expected to be higher. BB01 proposed estimations of these two effects. In particular, due to the different evolution in the non-linear regime, the modification of the asymptote height is expected to go as the third power of the normalization modification in the linear regime.

Probing the small scales of the shear power spectrum will reduce the degeneracy between the determination of dark energy properties and the normalization of the matter density fluctuation. The extend to which this can be done is the main subject of sec. II.

Before going to next section, we would like to emphasize the fact that any modification in the nature of dark matter will be degenerated (at the level of the growth of structures of course) with the effect of dark energy. In particular, inclusion of hot dark matter will also modify the rate of growth. It is expected that this modification should decrease the amount of small scale structure, thus suppressing the effect of dark energy. We are then likely to underestimate the effect of dark energy in those models.

### I.5 Dark Energy Model

The evolution of $`w_Q`$ is *a priori* free. It has to be fixed by a proper model of dark energy. Several models have been studied. The simplest being the *minimal quintessence model*, where $`w_Q`$ is constant. Another very interesting class of models are the so-called *tracking potential models*.

These models have been extensively described Steinhardt et al. (1999). Their interest lie in the fact that their equation of state parameter is constant during most of the universe evolution. The constant equation of state is an attractor solution for $`w_Q`$ when the expansion of the universe is dominated by another component (like the radiation or the matter). Of course, when the dark energy reaches the order of magnitude of the other energy densities, it leaves its attractor evolution. This attractor ensures that the initial conditions of dark energy does not have to be finely tuned. Whatever is the starting value of the dark energy222Usually the initial condition are free within a few tens of order of magnitude. , it has to reach the attractor and will always exit the domination of matter at the same point, which in turn depends of the exact model.

This explains the interest these models have met among the high energy physics community. In particular, it has been shown that some tracking potential models can be built within particle physics models. For example, P. Brax and J. Martin Brax and Martin (2000) proposed a version of the Ratra-Peebles model Peebles and Ratra (1988) that can be embedded in super-gravity models.

Minimal and tracking models are not the only dark energy models available. The problem however is that it does not exist any common framework to describe the different dark energy models that allows a direct comparison between them as we plan to do here, in the context of weak lensing. We attempt here to provide a suitable parameterization that will allow to constrain the dark energy properties using shear measurements. This is a simplification of the problem: we only have to model the evolution of dark energy that can leave an imprint on the weak lensing power spectrum. As a consequence, we only have to consider its impact on the growth of structure and on the relation distance-redshift.

We choose to parameterize the evolution of dark energy in term of its equation of state. This choice is the most prevalent one. This is by no mean the only possible parameterization Alam et al. (2003). As stated in section I.1, the knowledge of the EOS of dark energy is sufficient to solve Eq. (1-2) and to compute $`\chi (z)`$ and $`D_+`$.

If we do not make any further assumptions, $`w_Q`$ can freely vary between $`1`$ and $`1`$. The easiest solution is to assume that $`w_Q`$ can be written as a power series of the redshift

$$w_Q=w_iz^i.$$
(23)
This is the way most SNIa data are analyzed. More precisely, using the fact that the data collected relates directly to the integral of the expansion factor up to a redshift of order one, it is enough to only investigate this equation of state in a perturbative development

$$w_Q=w_0+w_1z\mathrm{}$$
(24)
The possible determination of the two first orders of this development Astier (2001); Goliath et al. (2001); Maor et al. (2001) as been studied.

This approach is not valid in our case. As noted above, one can only compute the growth of structure from recombination. A perturbative development as Eq. (24) is of course not suitable for our purposes; it leads to arbitrarily growing equation of state, which is not physical! The full power series is also useless. As explained above, it is in the transition between linear and non-linear scales that one can expect to gain some information on the dark energy. As shown figure 1 and 2, one can expect some level of degeneracy even between a given varying and a non varying EOS models. Accordingly, it is very important here that we greatly reduce the parameter space allowed to $`w_Q`$.

Since we obviously cannot explore completely the equation of state space if we want to restrict ourselves to a small number of parameters, we have to make some assumptions on the behavior of the dark energy equation of state. There are already too many different models of dark energy, and it is impossible to describe them with just one simple parameterization. Attempts have been made to generically describe dark energy with a simpler parameterization than the naive power series. They however produce results with yet to many parameters Corasaniti and Copeland (2002) for our purpose. Another possible approach would be a principal component analysis designed for shear power spectrum inspired from ideas proposed in Huterer and Starkman (2002).

Here, to reduce the complexity, we add a physical assumption. We will only be interested in models who exhibit a behavior similar to the one of the tracking potential models. This is a very strong assumption. If the choice of model is hard to justify, we will however give here a few arguments in favor of the tracking potential behavior.

The behavior of the dark energy equation of state at large redshift is in fact quite irrelevant for us. Indeed, tracking models assures that the equation of state of the dark energy is constant as long as it is dominated by the other components Steinhardt et al. (1999). When dark energy is dominated its variation have little or no impact on the expansion of the universe. The growth of structure is not greatly modified by variation of $`w_Q`$ when the dark energy component does not contribute significantly to the expansion. Accordingly, assuming a constant or varying equation of state during domination of matter or radiation is not relevant to our problem. Of course if one assumes that dark energy can be dominant at high redshift, this discussion is not valid. However, an such a dark energy model would leave a huge imprint on the CMB and would be most probably already ruled out by observations.

At low redshift, when dark energy reaches the order of magnitude of the energy density of matter, it will start to contribute to the expansion, and induce a new period of acceleration. Variations of $`w_Q`$ then leave a potentially strong imprint on the shear power spectrum, through modifications of the cosmological distances and structure growth. This is where our assumption on the shape of the model is important. Other models of the dark energy can have very different behavior. Our choice to only consider tracking like models theoretically reduce the reach of our conclusion, at least in its details.

It has been shown Efstathiou (1999) that the equation of state of tracking models can be fitted at low redshift by a log function

$$w_Qw_0+w_1\mathrm{log}(1+z).$$
(25)
This behavior is roughly valid up to redshift $`z1`$ at least for SUGRA and Ratra-Peebles potentials. Note that this equation of state parameter admits Eq. (24) as its Taylor expansion at small $`z`$.

The parameterization given in Eq.(25) fails quickly above $`z1`$ (see figure 3 ). It has to be modified to account for the evolution of the equation of state for $`z>1`$. We propose to use an arctangent which has the property to quickly reach a constant value. We will then use

$`w_Q`$ $`=`$ (29)
$`\{\begin{array}{c}w_0+w_1\mathrm{log}(1+z),\text{if }z1\hfill \\ w_0+w_1\left[\mathrm{log}(2)\mathrm{arctan}(1)+\mathrm{arctan}(z)\right],\text{if }z>1\hfill \end{array}.`$
This is a crude assumption, because the value of $`w`$ at high $`z`$ will be $`w_0+w_1(\mathrm{log}(2)\mathrm{arctan}(1)+\pi /2)`$ which has no reason to correspond to the high $`z`$ asymptote of a given tracking potential model. However, as said above, the dark energy component is completely dominated at high redshift by the energy density of matter, and the expansion is nearly insensitive to its evolution. In the end, the only thing that matters is the evolution of dark energy from the epoch when it starts to dominate. This epoch can be at redshift as high as 10. For example, in a SUGRA $`\alpha =6`$ modelBrax and Martin (2000) the energy density of dark energy represents 10% of the total energy density as early as redshift $`z5`$ (see figs. 3 and 1 ).

The parameterization, Eq. (29), is not very good at fitting the equation of state. As shown figure 3 for the example of a SUGRA $`\alpha =6`$ model, it reasonably agrees with the dark energy density predicted in this model. This is not the relevant comparison anyway, as we should compare the growth and distances of the different models. This is done fig. 4.

The agreement with the explicit tracking models we tested is around 3%. We will assume that this order of magnitude of the error holds for any other tracking model.

We use this parameterization in our analysis. Although it is a *ad hoc* choice, it conveys most of the feature of a tracking model, and fits them, at least at the level of the growth of structure and the cosmological distances. It also has the advantage to be described by only two parameters, $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$. We have fixed the change between the log and tan branches to $`z_c=1`$. Small variations of $`z_c`$ translate into small modifications of the growth of structure. For example, taking $`z_c=1.5`$ translates into one percent modification in $`D_+/a`$, comparable with the error on the modeling. Of course, since we are only interested to lensing effect to redshift around 1, it leads to negligible modifications in the cosmological distances and the projection effect 333We do have a small dependency on redshift higher than 1 through the broad distribution of the source $`p_s(z)`$. This effect is small enough to be neglected here.. Finally, since the parameterization (29) admits Eq. (24) as its Taylor expansion, our results are directly comparable with the well advertised SNIa ones Goliath et al. (2001).

## II Results

We perform a maximum likelihood analysis of the aperture mass statistic for a set of dark energy models. The method is well known and has been formerly described in Van Waerbeke et al. (2002). Section II.1 describes the models and surveys that will be investigated. Finally, we present section II.2 the numerical results and a discussion on the degeneracy between the parameters.

### II.1 Parameter estimation

We know from previous studies that the gravitational lensing by large scale structures depends mainly on four parameters: the matter energy density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, the mass power spectrum normalisation $`\sigma _8`$, its slope, and the redshift of the sources Schneider et al. (2002). As described above, we can safely ignore modification to the Cold Dark Matter transfert function Bardeen et al. (1986) due to dark energy. We thus use it and describe the slope of the power spectrum by the parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The lensing effect is also sensitive to other parameters, but to a lower extend. Therefore when studying the impact of the dark energy on cosmic shear, one has to incorporate the effect of the main parameters as well. We highlighted above that in the linear regime at least, dark energy variation should be degenerated with the normalization of the power spectrum. By keeping the main parameter we will be able to test other possible degeneracies.

We assume that one of the main parameters is known. Indeed, the forthcoming lensing surveys are supposed to provide an accurate measurement of the distribution of the sources from photometric redshifts. Moreover, the redshift dependence is very similar to the $`\sigma _8`$ dependence. Hence, we will assume $`z_s`$ known. A slight error on its value can be translated in our result in broader $`\sigma _8`$ constraint.

Our set of free parameters is chosen as $`\text{p}=(w_0,w_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\sigma _8,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. We deliberately choose a flat prior. The current CMB results are in very good agreement with a flat geometry Spergel et al. (2003).

We compute the likelihood $`(\text{p}|𝐝)`$, where the data vector $`𝐝`$ is the aperture mass $`M_{\text{ap}}^2`$ as function of scale:

$$=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{n/2}\left|𝐒\right|^{1/2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{d}\text{-}\text{s}\right)^T𝐒^1\left(\text{d}\text{-}\text{s}\right)\right],$$
(30)
where $`𝐬`$ is the fiducial model vector and $`𝐒:=\left(\text{d}\text{-}\text{s}\right)^T\left(\text{d}\text{-}\text{s}\right)`$ is the covariance matrix. The covariance matrix is computed following the method described in Schneider et al. (2002) assuming the Gaussian field approximation. In this work we are interested in two surveys: one is the ground based Canada France Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey 444http://www.cfht.Hawaii.edu/Science/CFHLS/, and the other the spatial Super-Novae Acceleration Probe 555http://snap.lbl.gov/. The observational properties of the lensing survey associated with these two projects are summarized in table 1.

For the two surveys, we selected three fiducial models (with a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$):

* model1: $`\text{p}_1=(1,0,0.3,0.9,0.24)`$
* model2: $`\text{p}_2=(0.8,0,0.3,0.9,0.24)`$
* model3: $`\text{p}_3=(0.8,0.32,0.3,0.9,0.24)`$

The first model is a pure cosmological constant case. Second is a minimal dark energy model with no variation of the equation of state. This type of model is widely used in the literature. From the discussion of section I.4, it is expected that this kind of model under-evaluate greatly the effect of a varying EOS with identical final value. Last model has a varying EOS. The value of $`w_1`$ has been choose so as to agree with a $`\alpha =6`$ SUGRA model. It correspond to a strongly evolving equation of state model. Models with a smaller $`w_1`$ between our choices interpolate between our model2 and model3.

We also have to make a choice on the range of parameters we want to investigate. Maximum likelihood analysis with five parameters is already a computationally expensive task. It can be reduced in part by narrowing the range of the parameters and the number of points in each direction.

For the CFHTLS analysis, it is expected that we will mildly constrain the parameters. We thus used a relatively sparse grid and relatively wide parameter ranges. The matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ will be allowed to vary between 0.1 and 0.5, while $`\sigma _8`$ will be free between 0.6 and 1.1. The choices for this two parameters are quite conservative. They allow to probe the full one sigma contour. The slope of the power spectrum is weakly constrained by the weak lensing measurement we probe its values between 0.08 and 0.4. The results below (figures 9-11) shows that this is more that enough to correctly probe the parameter space.

For SNAP, we greatly reduce the range of parameters. The precision required here forces us to increase the number of computed models, in particular in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\sigma _8`$ space. We thus suppose that it is enough to probe $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ between 0.28 and $`0.32`$, and $`\sigma _8`$ between $`0.85`$ and $`0.95`$. Nevertheless, it is expected that by the time SNAP will collect data, previous weak lensing measurements, CMB, galaxy and cluster surveys will have cut down the accuracy on this parameters to these levels. We conservatively keep a relatively wide range on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ ($`0.1`$ to $`0.3`$, in agreement with the results for CFHTLS).

For both models, we probed the dark energy parameter space between -1 and 0.6 for $`w_0`$ and 0 and 0.4 for $`w_1`$. Note here that as described higher, we do not take into account models with an equation of state more negative than -1. The upper bond on $`w_0`$ correspond roughly to the degeneracy expected between our target varying equation of state and a constant equation of state model (see section I.4). We do not investigate negative $`w_1`$ models. Negative $`w_1`$ models are very close to the cosmological constant case, and should be strongly degenerated with it. It is very dubious that weak lensing will be able to distinguish between them. The $`w_1`$ upper bond correspond to strongly varying equation of state. It is very difficult to reach this bond with SUGRA or Ratra-Peebles models.

### II.2 Numerical results – Discussion

We first compute the aperture mass for our dark energy models. Figure 5 presents the results for SNAP and the CFHTLS surveys. It shows that the evolution of the dark energy can lead to a $`10`$ to $`20\%`$ effect at small scale. As emphasized section I.4, this is precisely the expected effect.

Next we perform the likelihood analysis on our target models. Figures 9, 10, and 11 show respectively the parameter predictions for the models 1, 2 and 3. All possible combinations of pairs of parameters are plotted in order to show the direction of degeneracies. On each plot, the two hidden parameters are assumed to be perfectly known. We first note the strong degeneracy between the dark energy parameters ($`w_0`$, $`w_1`$) and the other parameters. The full degeneracy between $`w_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is understood by the fact that the shape parameter describes the slope of the power spectrum, for a fixed normalisation $`\sigma _8`$. Changing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will modify the ratio between linear and non-linear regime, and the scale of transition. As shown in section I.4, a change in $`w_1`$ has a similar consequence.

Even allowing for dark energy, the shear two points function remains a good constraint on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\sigma _8`$. Figure 6 shows the effect of unknown dark energy parameters (marginalised on $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$) on the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\sigma _8`$. For the pure cosmological constant model (top panel), we see that the most probable models correspond to higher $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and lower $`\sigma _8`$ than the fiducial model. For the model2 (bottom panel), the normalisation is underestimated. This figure shows that the width of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, $`\sigma _8`$ contours is not dramatically affected, but the most probable models are changed.

Super-Novae luminosity surveys have a small sensitivity to the variation of the equation of state. In particular, it is expected that without a strong prior on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ they cannot provide much information on $`w_1`$ Astier (2001); Maor et al. (2001); Goliath et al. (2001). The question is whether the shear two points function also suffers from this kind of limitation or not. Figure 7 and 8 show the predictions for $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$, respectively for the CFHLS and SNAP observations. The left panels correspond to the contours obtained with a perfect knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The middle panels are for a known $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, but marginalised over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\sigma _8`$. The right panels are for known $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\sigma _8`$, and marginalised over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The top panels are for model 2, and the bottom panel for model 3. The important result here is that the marginalisation over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\sigma _8`$ do not increase too much the width of the contours, it only restores a degeneracy between $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$.

Contrary to the angular diameter distance tests, the weak lensing is sensitive to the evolution parameter $`w_1`$. The marginalisation over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ restores the degeneracy along a different direction, but still does not increase the contours width significantly. It means that even with a limited knowledge on external important parameters, it is still possible to constrain the quintessence, in particular when it evolves with time. In that case indeed (i.e. $`w_10`$), the increase of the lensing signal is large enough to allow the CFHTLS observations to rule out a pure cosmological constant case. However, an accurate joint measurement of the quintessence parameters and the others is not possible using the lensing power spectrum alone, because of the strong degeneracy between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\sigma _8`$.

This degeneracy is broken with the SNAP lensing survey: according to Figure 8, one sees that cosmic shear observations alone with the SNAP satellite, provide constraints which are competitive with the SNIa constraints from the same satellite. The expected constraints from SNIa alone, assuming a perfect knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, is sketched on this figure (solid line). It shows that SNIa are less sensitive to $`w_1`$ than weak lensing. Therefore a combination of SNIa and cosmic shear could simultaneously probe the dark energy and its evolution. More precisely, figures 9, 10, and 11 show that the knowledge of $`w_0`$ is irrelevant for constraining $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ from cosmic shear. On the other hand, the SNIa measurements are degenerate between $`w_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. A combination of the two experiments provide a simultaneous measure of $`w_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ without the need for an external measurement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. We can then use the lensing constraints on $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$ (Figures 7 and 8) to estimate the dark energy evolution $`w_1`$. In fact even a poor knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ can be tolerated; we known from Goliath et al. (2001) that a marginalisation over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ of the SNIa measurements increases the $`w_0`$, $`w_1`$ contours perpendicularly to the increase of the same contours from cosmic shear with poor knowledge on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ (Figures 7 and 8, middle panels). Adding the cosmic microwave background over-constrains the parameter space, because the contours in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, $`w_0`$ space are ’perpendicular’ to the SNIa and cosmic shear constraints Spergel et al. (2003). Weak lensing, cosmic microwave background and SNIa provide therefore an ideal set of complementary experiments for constraining the dark energy beyond the constant energy density case Frieman et al. (2003), because weak lensing measurement breaks the degeneracy with the dark energy evolution.

Earlier work has shown that cosmic shear provides also independent constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ from the measurement of high order statistics of the convergence Pen et al. (2003); Bernardeau et al. (2003, 2002); van Waerbeke et al. (1999). Dark energy modifies mildly this picture. At the level of the quasi-linear regime, it only affects the three points function of the convergence field through the projection effect Benabed and Bernardeau (2001). The modifications are expected to be more important at small scales Hui (1999). One can see from Figure 9, 10, and 11 that this additional information is not necessary, given the degeneracy among $`w_0`$ in the ($`w_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$) space. However, such external constraint could be very helpful to pin down the degeneracy with $`\sigma _8`$, and consequently to reduce the degeneracy between $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$, helping to narrow the constraint on $`w_1`$.

## III conclusion

We investigated the possibility to constrain the evolution of dark energy evolution from measurements of the gravitational lensing by large scale structures. We used the fact that the non-linear growth rate of structures is significantly affected. This is a consequence of an earlier influence of dark energy on the expansion of the Universe. It was found that the cosmic shear effect is an ideal probe of the evolution of dark energy, in opposition with experiments based on angular diameter distances like SNIa and cosmic microwave background, which are better suited to measure the “constant” part of dark energy equation of state (in a particular parametrization). The degeneracy with other parameters ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) restore a degeneracy between $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$, but the width of the contours in that space are slightly affected. Therefore a linear combination of $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$ is well measured using weak lensing, even with a poor knowledge on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\sigma _8`$.

It is generally believed that the measurement of the dark energy equation of state parameter as a constant is such a difficult task, that we should not even dream to measure its evolution. We have shown here, for a class of models, that the sensitivity of the large scale structures to a simple evolution parameter $`w_1`$ is as easy (or difficult!) as $`w_0`$ to measure. Consequently, we found out that a combination of cosmic shear, SNIa and cosmic microwave background provide orthogonal constraints of the parameters $`w_0`$, $`w_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, which opens great opportunities to probe non-trivial models of dark energy. For the set of models studied here, we found that these three experiments over constrain these parameters.

One should note that the difference in the amplitude of the cosmic shear signal between model 2 ($`w_0=0.8`$, $`w_1=0`$) and model 3 ($`w_0=0.8`$, $`w_1=0.32`$), at scales below $`5^{}`$ reaches $`10\%`$. This is large compared to the statistical errors of the CFHTLS and SNAP surveys. However, it is yet within the limits of the Point Spread Function (PSF) correction and non-linear modeling accuracies Van Waerbeke et al. (2002). If one wants to measure the dark energy evolution as proposed here, it is clear that we need to perform ray-tracing simulations for the class of models we want to investigate, in order to calibrate the non-linear modeling Smith et al. (2002). The PSF correction is an entirely different issue, which is not discussed here, but there is good hopes to be able to reduce the systematics level by a factor of 5 to 10 Hoekstra (in preparation), which should be enough for our purpose here.

Redshift degeneracy was not discussed, but it is not different from the $`\sigma _8`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ degeneracies. What has been said for these parameters also applies to the source redshift. In the future, photometric redshifts will provide accurate source redshift measurements, as we do not need an accurate redshift for each lensed galaxy.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors acknowledge useful discussions with F. Bernardeau, O. Doré, B. Fort, M. Joyce, Y. Mellier, D. Pogosyan, R. Scoccimarro and J-P. Uzan. KB’s research is supported by NSF grant PHY-0101738. Our likelihood computations were run on the NYU Beowulf cluster supported by NSF grant PHY-0116590.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Thomas precession is purely kinematical in origin . If a component of acceleration $`(\stackrel{}{a})`$ exists perpendicular (to the velocity) $`\stackrel{}{v}`$, for whatever reason, then there is a Thomas Precession, independent of other effects . When the acceleration is caused by a gravitational force field, the corresponding Thomas Precession is reasonably referred to as the Gravitational Thomas Precession (GTP). Given the physics involved in the Thomas Precession, the possibility of the existence of the GTP in planetary motion can not be ruled out in principle. However, the very existence of the GTP in planetary motion and its contribution to the perihelion advance of a planet as shown in this letter seems to be of some concern for the standard general relativistic explanation for the observed anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury .

## 2  The GTP’s contribution to the Perihelion Advance

The Thomas Precession frequency $`\stackrel{}{\omega }_T`$ in the non-relativistic limit (i.e., when $`v<<c`$) is given by

$$\stackrel{}{\omega }_T=\frac{1}{2c^2}(\stackrel{}{a}\times \stackrel{}{v}),$$
(1)
where the symbols have there usual meanings. For a planet (say Mercury ) moving around the Sun, the acceleration $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ is predominately caused by the Newtonian gravitational field of the Sun,viz.,

$$\stackrel{}{a}=\frac{GM_{}}{r^3}\stackrel{}{r},$$
(2)
where the symbols have their usual meanings. Thus, from Eqs.$`(1)`$ and $`(2)`$ we get the GTP frequency of the planet in question as

$$\stackrel{}{\omega }_{gT}=\frac{GM_{}}{2c^2r^3}(\stackrel{}{r}\times \stackrel{}{v}),$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is the velocity of the planet. Now making use of the relation $`\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{v}_r+\stackrel{}{\omega }_o\times \stackrel{}{r},`$ where $`\stackrel{}{v}_r`$ is the radial velocity and $`\stackrel{}{\omega }_o`$ is the classical orbital frequency of the planet and noting that $`(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{\omega }_o)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, Eq.$`(3)`$ can be reduced to

$$\stackrel{}{\omega }_{gT}=\frac{GM_{}}{2c^2r}\stackrel{}{\omega }_o,$$
(4)
which suggests that the vectors $`\stackrel{}{\omega }_{gT}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\omega }_o`$ are oppositely directed. The very existence of $`\stackrel{}{\omega }_{gT}`$ imply a modification of $`\stackrel{}{\omega }_o`$ to a new one, viz.,

$$\stackrel{}{\omega }=\stackrel{}{\omega }_{gT}+\stackrel{}{\omega }_o=\left(1\frac{GM_{}}{2c^2r}\right)\stackrel{}{\omega }_o.$$
(5)
For a planet moving in an elliptical orbit, we have $`r=a(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}e^2)/(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+ecos\theta )`$, where $`a`$ is the semi-major axis and $`e`$ is the eccentricity of the orbit. Thus, for an elliptical orbit $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ is a function of $`\theta `$. But an average value of $`\omega `$ over one revolution may be obtained as

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }\omega _{gT}𝑑\theta =\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{GM_{}}{2c^2a(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}e^2)}\right]\omega _𝐨.$$
(6)
The interpretation of Eq.$`(6)`$ is that the perihelion of the planet in question makes a negative advance ( i.e., a retreat ) of $`\pi GM_{}/c^2a(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}e^2)`$ radians in one classical planetary year. Thus, we can speak of a perihelion advance of

$$\delta \dot{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}_{gT}=\frac{\pi GM_{}}{c^2a(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}e^2)}\mathrm{radians}/\mathrm{planetary}\mathrm{year}$$
(7)
caused by the Gravitational Thomas Precession. In terms of Einstein’s expression for the perihelion advance,viz.,

$$\delta \dot{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}_E=\frac{6\pi GM_{}}{c^2a(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}e^2)}\mathrm{radians}/\mathrm{planetary}\mathrm{year},$$
(8)
Eq.$`(7)`$ can be re-expressed as

$$\delta \dot{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}_{gT}=\frac{1}{6}\delta \dot{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}_E\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}163^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{per}\mathrm{century},\mathrm{for}\mathrm{Mercury},$$
(9)
since $`\delta \dot{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}_E=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}42}98^{\prime \prime }`$ per century - a well known data  for Mercury. This is in no way a negligible contribution. Therefore, it should be included in any relativistic explanation for the perihelion advance of Mercury’s orbit.

## 3 Discussion

The Modern observational value of the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury is at $`\delta \dot{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}43}^{\prime \prime }`$ per century . For Mercury, General Relativity predicts this phenomenon at

$$\delta \dot{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}=\left[4298^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}289^{\prime \prime }(J_2/10^5)\right]\mathrm{per}\mathrm{century},$$
(10)
where $`J_2`$ is the magnitude of the solar quadrupole moment - a definite value of which has still to be determined .It is to be noted that the standard explanation for the perihelion advance of Mercury offered by Eq.$`(10)`$ does not include the contribution arising out of the GTP discussed in this letter. Eq.$`(10)`$ taken in conjunction with the the contribution arising out of the GTP given by Eq.$`(9)`$ is not in agreement with the observed perihelion advance of Mercury. However , as a remedy for this disagreement one may suggest a value of $`J_2`$ at

$$J_2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}56\times 10^5$$
(11)
Unfortunately, such a suggestion is not in agreement with none of the existing observational data on $`J_2`$. For example, Dicke and Goldenberg’s  optical measurements of the solar oblateness showed $`J_2(25\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}2)\times 10^5`$,which is about half the value suggested in Eq.$`(11)`$. It is to be noted that Dicke and Goldenberg’s measured value of $`J_2`$ makes the observations of the perihelion advance of Mercury disagree with the predictions of General Relativity . In 1974, Hill et.al.,  , by measuring Sun’s optical oblateness, obtained $`J_2(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}1\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}4)\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$. The values of $`J_2`$ much smaller than the above cited values have also been measured by others ( for references see for example ). From these considerations, the suggested value of $`J_2`$ in Eq.$`(11)`$ is unacceptable. In this scenario, the GTP seems to make a point of concern for the standard general relativistic explanation for the observed anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury in particular and other planets in general.

Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the help received from Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar for using its Library and Computer Centre for this work.


text:
# Experiments on the Fermi to Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid transition in quasi-1D systems

thanks: hilke@physics.mcgill.ca (June 9, 2003)

## Abstract

We present experimental results on the tunneling into the edge of a two dimensional electron gas (2DEG) obtained with GaAs/AlGaAs cleaved edge overgrown structures. The electronic properties of the edge of these systems can be described by a one-dimensional chiral Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid when the filling factor of the 2DEG is very small. Here we focus on the region where the Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid breaks down to form a standard Fermi liquid close to $`\nu =1`$ and show that we recover a universal curve, which describes all existing data.

Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid, strongly interacting systems, quantum Hall effect, low dimensional systems, heterostructures, GaAs

In one dimension and in the presence of interactions, a metal can have a Fermi surface in agreement with Luttinger’s theorem luttinger . However, fermionic quasi-particles are no longer possible and the elementary excitations are replaced by bosonic charge and spin fluctuations dispersing with different velocities. Hence, this one-dimensional metal is no longer a Fermi-liquid but a Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid (TLL) haldane . Models describing one-dimensional interacting Fermions were first considered by Tomonaga and Luttinger tomonaga .

While there are a number of systems, which could exhibit $`TLL`$ behavior, Wen wen  showed that the edge modes of fractional quantum Hall (FQH) states can be described as chiral $`TLL`$s. The chirality is due to the presence of a magnetic field, which forces the edge states to propagate in one direction. A unique feature of the chiral $`TLL`$ is the absence of back-scattering, i.e., no localization can occur, which is in stark contrast to the non-chiral case. For experiments, a key theoretical result is the existence of power-law correlation functions, which lead to the vanishing of the momentum distribution function at $`k_F`$ following a power-law, i.e., $`n(k)|kk_F|^\alpha `$, where $`\alpha `$ is related to the interaction strength. As a consequence, the tunneling current-voltage (I-V) characteristics follows $`IV^\alpha `$ and the zero bias conductance follows $`\sigma T^{\alpha 1}`$.wen  For the particular case, where the filling factor $`\nu =1/3`$, Wen predicted that $`\alpha =3`$, hence the tunneling current and conductivity should vanish like $`IV^3`$ and $`\sigma T^2`$ respectively. This is very different from the Fermi liquid-to-Fermi liquid tunneling which would be ohmic and independent of temperature.

Following the predictions of Wen wen  and others kane , several experimental attempts were made in order to observe this power-law dependence. The first experiments considered a gate induced constriction to tunnel between two FQH liquids proexp ; conexp . Unfortunately, in some cases the results were consistent with a power-law proexp  but not in others conexp . This was largely attributed to the smoothness of the potential barrier causing the possible reconstruction of the edge and an energy dependent tunneling barrier. Chang et al. chang  avoided this problem by growing a sharp tunneling barrier on the cleaved edge of a two dimensional electron gas (2DEG). They obtained a good power-law over more than a decade in voltage to obtain a tunneling exponent ($`\alpha 2.7`$ at $`\nu =1/3`$) close to Wen’s prediction.

When moving away from the primary fraction $`\nu =1/3`$ to $`\nu =p/(2np\pm 1)`$ (where p and n are positive integers), the edge cannot be described anymore by a single LL edge mode but requires several additional modes, the number and nature of which depends strongly on the particular fraction and, moreover, the disorder becomes important because of possible inter-mode scattering. The overall structure of these states is reviewed in ref. wen2 . As a consequence, the recent experimental result from Grayson et al. grayson  came as a surprise, because instead of observing a plateau-like structure between $`\nu ^1=2`$ and 3, as expected from both the composite fermion theory shytov ; levitov  and a disordered edge in the hierarchical model polchinski , they observed a linear dependence of the exponent on the inverse filling factor, $`\alpha \nu ^1`$. Recent theories have attempted to account for this behavior using different approaches theopro  and are currently under debate.

In this article, we are interested in the transition between the Fermi liquid and the non-Fermi liquid (or TLL) behavior. It is generally expected that at $`\nu =1`$ the edge should behave as a standard Fermi liquid and all theories agree. Away from $`\nu =1`$ the situation is very different, for both $`\nu <1`$ and $`\nu >1`$. We experimentally probe the edge around this filling factor by using very high mobility 2DEGs (between $`130\times 10^6`$cm-2/Vs), which all show well pronounced fractional quantum Hall features. The 2DEG is confined in GaAs/AlGaAs quantum wells. The 2DEG sample is then placed in the molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) chamber and cleaved for a subsequent growth along the (110) direction. First an atomically sharp barrier of (AlxGa1-xAs) is grown and then a n-doped GaAs layer loren . We fixed the barrier height to about 200meV, by using $`x=0.2`$ as barrier material. The value of the tunnelling resistance can be tuned by changing the barrier width. We typically used a barrier between 60Å and 120Å wide. A sketch of the structure is shown in fig.1.

The n-doped GaAs layer plays a crucial role because it defines the electrostatic potential at the interface between the 2D and 3D. Indeed, when using a high 3D doping or density the resistance across the barrier is extremely high ($`>G\mathrm{\Omega }`$), even at room temperature and independent on the barrier width. We believe that this is due to important electrostatic depletion. In order to analyze the 3D density, we alloyed two shallow ohmic contacts directly on the edge and measured the Shubnikov de Haas oscillations. Typical curves of these are shown in fig. 2. For these densities, the zero field tunnelling resistance depends mainly on the barrier width. A representative list of the different samples is shown in table I below, with their corresponding densities.

In fig. 3 we show a typical four terminal magnetoresistance trace across the barrier. In this particular sample the tunnelling resistance is very low at B=0, which allows us to identify all the quantum Hall features typical of a high mobility 2DEG. Above 6T the tunnelling barrier becomes very resistive and we observe an exponential increase in tunnelling resistance with B. This is generic to all samples. The main difference between samples is the tunnelling resistance at $`B=0`$. The overall magnetic field dependence is dominated by an exponential increase of the resistance as a function of $`B`$, which is due both to the suppression of momentum conservation and to the finite extent of the wave-function given by the magnetic length.

We measured the current-voltage (I-V) characteristics at different magnetic fields. Overall, the I-V’s are essentially linear at low fields and become increasingly non-linear at higher fields. This non-linearity does not depend on the tunnelling resistance since the behavior is very similar in samples who have very different tunnelling resistances. We found that in all samples the filling factor is the relevant parameter, which determines whether we have a linear or a non-linear I-V. Following the analysis of refs.chang ; grayson ; chang2 ; hilke  we extract $`\alpha `$ from the power-law of the I-V’s, using two different methods. We can either use the temperature dependence of the I-V traces or directly the non-linearity in the I-V. A typical temperature dependent I-V curve is shown in fig. 4, in which the filling factor is $`\nu =2.7`$.

From the slopes of the $`IV`$ traces we can extract the zero bias conductance as a function of temperature, which is plotted in fig. 5. Above 100mK the conductance clearly follows a power-law dependence over one decade in temperature. When fitting the data with a power law in that range we obtain a power of 1.64$`\pm 0.03`$. The saturation below 100mK is a consequence of the finite input resistance of our voltmeter and not related to the sample. We can avoid this saturation by using a two-terminal configuration for more resistive samples, since in that case the two-terminal contribution from the 2DEG becomes negligible.

In fig. 6 the I-V characteristic is drawn on a log-log scale at base temperature (40mK). The data follows a power-law over more than a decade in voltage before it starts to deviate significantly from a power-law. We obtain a power of 2.45$`\pm 0.01`$, when fitting the data below 1mV. Following Wen’s wen  argument, this would lead to $`\alpha =2.45`$. This value is very close to the one obtained from the temperature dependence, i.e., $`\alpha =1+1.64`$.

We have repeated this procedure for different magnetic fields and different samples. In fig. 7 we have compiled all the values of $`\alpha `$ as a function of the inverse 2DEG filling factor.

It is striking that all samples behave qualitatively in a very similar way. Indeed, $`\alpha 1`$ for low magnetic fields (low inverse filling factor) and all the way up to a field corresponding to a filling factor between 1 and 1.5. When Increasing the field further there is a transition to a non-linear regime, in which the exponent increases linearly with the inverse filling factor. The field at which this transition occurs corresponds to the Fermi liquid to TLL transition.hilke  Unexpectedly, this transition occurs at a filling factor larger than one, which implies that at $`\nu =1`$ the system is not a Fermi liquid. In addition, this behavior questions the universal nature of the TLL at the edge of a FQHE system, since $`\alpha `$ depends on sample parameters.

But; when rescaling the filling factor of all our samples with a value such that $`\nu =\alpha =1`$ at the linear intercept, we can collapse all our data onto a single curve shown in fig. 8. This rescaling factor depends on the sample growth structure but is identical when using two samples from the same growth. We can perform the same operation on Chang and Grayson’s earlier data, chang ; grayson  by multiplying the filling factor by 1.4. (We haven’t included the recent data from ref. chang2  since the data cannot be extrapolated consistently all the way down to $`\alpha =1`$ because most of their data is clustered around $`\alpha =3`$.) Here again all the data points fall on the same curve. This is very remarkable, considering that the different data points stem from very different sample growth parameters. Indeed, the barrier width varies between 60Å and 225Å and the $`Al`$ content of the barrier between 10% and 20%. The different 2D and 3D densities cover a factor 3 in range.

After rescaling the filling factor, we can describe all the data with the generic form $`(\alpha 1)=1.6(\nu _{edge}^11)\pm 0.2`$, when $`\nu _{edge}<1`$. We named this rescaled filling factor $`\nu _{edge}`$, since the edge filling factor of our 2DEG might be different from the bulk filling factor. The exact dependence of this rescaling factor on sample properties, such as the 2D and 3D densities is currently under investigation. It is interesting to note that the extrapolation of our curve to $`\alpha =3`$ is $`\nu ^12+1/4`$, which is slightly off from most existing theories.wen ; kane ; wen2 ; shytov ; levitov ; polchinski ; theopro ; tsiper  Moreover, recent theories levitov ; tsiper  suggest that the 2DEG density is not monotonic and even oscillates as one approaches the edge. This could be indicative of a complex dependence of the effective edge filling factor $`\nu _{edge}`$ on various sample parameters.

In summary, we have presented experimental results on the Tomonaga-Luttinger to Fermi liquid transition at the edge of a 2DEG system close to $`\nu =1`$. Although the filling factor of the transition is different for different sample structures, we are able to collapse all the data onto a single curve if we rescale the filling factor using a single parameter, hence recovering the notion of a universal behavior in the chiral TLL.

We acknowledge support from NSF, NSERC and FCAR


text:
# Mean-Field Theory, Mode-Coupling Theory, and the Onset Temperature in Supercooled Liquids

## Abstract

We consider the relationship between the temperature at which averaged energy landscape properties change sharply ($`T_o`$), and the breakdown of mean-field treatments of the dynamics of supercooled liquids. First, we show that the solution of the wavevector dependent mode-coupling equations undergoes an ergodic-nonergodic transition consistently close to $`T_o`$. Generalizing the landscape concept to include hard-sphere systems, we show that the property of inherent structures that changes near $`T_o`$ is governed more fundamentally by packing and free volume than potential energy. Lastly, we study the finite-size Random Orthogonal Model (ROM), and show that the onset of noticeable corrections to mean-field behavior occurs at $`T_o`$. These results highlight new connections between the energy landscape and mode-coupling approach to supercooled liquids, and identify what features of the relaxation of supercooled liquids are properly captured by mode-coupling theory.

preprint: HEP/123-qed

The slow dynamics that supercooled liquids undergo as they approach the glass transition has defied a satisfying explanation for many decades Ediger et al. (1996); Debebedetti and Stillinger (2001). Several theoretical paradigms have been presented that shed light on certain features of these dynamics. The notion of an energy landscape has been useful for understanding thermodynamic properties of the glassy state as well as for rationalizing the connection between transport properties and the packing structures associated with local potential energy minima (“inherent structures”) that are visited at a given temperature Debebedetti and Stillinger (2001); Sastry et al. (1998). Other theories, such as mode-coupling theory (MCT) Bengtzelius et al. (1984); Leutheusser (1984), have also been influential in explaining the sequence of relaxation events that occurs in mildly supercooled liquids. While successful in several contexts, both the landscape and MCT approaches suffer from problems that limit their utility. The landscape picture does not provide a predictive, quantitative framework for describing the dynamics of supercooled liquids. Furthermore, it is not clear how one could apply energy landscape concepts in a useful way to entropically dominated glassy systems such as hard-sphere liquids. MCT does provide such a framework, but several important predictions made by this theory, including the thermodynamic location of the ergodic-nonergodic transition, are incorrect Nauroth and Kob (1997). Here we elucidate connections between these two viewpoints that shed new light on various features of these seemingly different approaches.

Effort has been made to connect the intuitively based landscape picture to the more mathematical mode-coupling approach. Pioneering work of Kirkpatrick, Wolynes and Thirumalai Kirkpatrick et al. (1989); T.R.Kirkpatrick and Thirumalai (1987) showed that the mode-coupling equations are exact for certain mean-field spin glasses. In particular, the $`p=3`$ $`p`$-spin model exhibits a dynamical transition at a temperature $`T_c`$ and a thermodynamic transition at a lower temperature $`T_K`$ Kirkpatrick and Wolynes (1987); Crisanti and Sommers (1992); Crisanti et al. (1992); Crisanti and Sommers (1995). The temperature $`T_c`$ is associated with a mean-field divergence of barriers, leading to nonergodicity. It has been argued that effects beyond the mean-field limit render the barriers at $`T_c`$ finite Kirkpatrick and Wolynes (1987); Crisanti and Ritort (2000). Thus, $`T_c`$ corresponds to the temperature at which activated processes over finite sized barriers dominate transport. Since MCT in its simplest form neglects these activated processes, the full wavevector dependent MCT equations exhibit a “glass” transition at $`T_c>T_g`$ where $`T_g`$ is the calorimetric glass transition observed in the laboratory. Several computer studies have attempted to strengthen the connection between activated processes on the energy landscape and the temperature $`T_c`$ Sastry et al. (1998); Cavagna (2001); Broderix et al. (2000); Angelani et al. (2000). Recently, however, simulations have shown that activated processes strongly influence transport in supercooled liquids at temperatures significantly in excess of $`T_c`$ Doliwa and Heuer (2003a, b); Denny et al. (2003). Thus, the physical meaning and relevance of $`T_c`$ for finite dimensional, non-mean-field glassy systems remains unclear.

Several years ago, Sastry et al. Sastry et al. (1998) pointed out the existence of another characteristic landscape temperature, the “onset” (or “landscape influenced”) temperature $`T_o`$. $`T_o`$ may be significantly larger than $`T_c`$ as calculated by power-law fits of diffusive data, and coincides with the onset of nonexponential and non-Arrhenius relaxation in supercooled liquids. Sastry et al. Sastry et al. (1998) found that $`T_o`$ also marked the temperature at which averaged energy landscape properties (such as the average value of the inherent structure energy) show a sharp change as a function of temperature. While much work has focused on understanding the qualitative changes in dynamics near $`T_c`$, very little work has been devoted to understanding the meaning of $`T_o`$. Here we demonstrate connections between MCT, (and mean-field-like approaches in general) and the changes in landscape properties that occur as the system is cooled below $`T_o`$.

It has long been known that the location of the temperature at which the full wavevector dependent MCT equations predict a loss of ergodicity is significantly higher than $`T_c`$ as obtained by power-law fits of the temperature dependence of transport coefficients. Here we show that the ergodic-nonergodic transition actually occurs close to $`T_o`$. We solve the wavevector dependent MCT equations for the $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`\ddot{𝐅}(𝐪,t)`$ with matrix elements $`F_{ij}(𝐪,t),`$ where Nauroth and Kob (1997)

$$\ddot{𝐅}(𝐪,t)+𝛀^2(𝐪)𝐅(𝐪,t)+_0^t𝑑\tau 𝐌(𝐪,t\tau )\dot{𝐅}(𝐪,\tau )=0.$$
(1)
The frequency matrix $`𝛀^2(𝐪)`$ is defined as

$$[𝛀^2(𝐪)]_{ij}=\frac{𝐪^2k_BTx_i}{m_i}\underset{k}{}\delta _{ik}[𝐒^1(𝐪)]_{kj}$$
(2)
and the mode-coupling approximation for the memory function is given by

$`M_{ij}(𝐪,t)={\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{2nm_ix_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{\alpha \beta }{}\underset{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}{}V_{i\alpha \beta }(𝐪,𝐤)}`$
$`V_{j\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}(𝐪,𝐪𝐤)F_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(𝐤,t)F_{\beta \beta ^{}}(𝐪𝐤,t)`$ (3)
where $`n`$ is the particle density, $`x_i`$ and $`m_i`$ are, respectively, the concentration and mass of particle type $`i`$ and $`𝐒(𝐪)`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ matrix of partial structure factors. Expressions for the vertices $`V_{i\alpha \beta }`$ can be found in the literature Nauroth and Kob (1997).

Solving Eqs. (1)-(3) yields the location of the temperature at which the function $`F(𝐤,t)/S(k)`$ fails to decay to zero as $`t\mathrm{}`$. In Fig. 1 we plot the average inherent structure energy ($`\overline{E}_{IS}(T)`$) as a function of temperature for two different potentials. The first system studied is the 50/50 soft-sphere mixture studied by Barrat et. al. Barrat et al. (1990). The second system is the 80/20 Lennard-Jones mixture studied by Kob and Andersen Kob and Andersen (1995). The onset temperature $`T_o`$ is located where $`\overline{E}_{IS}(T)`$ show a sharp decrease as a function of temperature, or where the 1st order polynomial fits to the high and low temperature data cross. A dashed line indicates the location of the ergodic-nonergodic transition temperature obtained from Eqs. (1)-(3). Clearly, the location of the ergodic-nonergodic transition occurs very close to the landscape onset temperature $`T_o`$ and not $`T_c`$ as calculated by fits to diffusion data. Since MCT may be viewed as a particular type of dynamical mean-field theory, the coincidence of the breakdown of MCT at $`T_o`$ signals the failure of MCT to capture specific non-mean-field effects. The nature of this failure is discussed below.

A particularly troubling feature of energy landscape theories is the inability to treat hard-sphere systems, where barrier crossing events are completely entropic in nature. In order to address this issue, we generalize the inherent structure concept in a manner similar to that discussed by Santen and KrauthSanten and Krauth (2000). Specifically, we study a binary hard-sphere system consisting of 225 particles with $`\sigma _1=0.1`$ and and 25 particles with $`\sigma _2=0.5`$ at various packing fractions $`\eta `$ Thakur and Bosse (1991). Starting with well equilibrated configurations generated at a given packing fraction, the system is “crunched” until hard-sphere overlap occurs. Some Monte Carlo moves are made during this process to ensure the system reaches a stable packing structure. The final, stable configuration obtained from this procedure is called an inherent structure. In Fig. 2a we show the average inherent structure volume ($`\overline{V}_{IS}(\eta )`$) versus packing fraction for the binary hard-sphere system. Remarkably, an onset packing fraction $`\eta _o`$ may be defined from the inherent structures that again coincides with the ergodic-nonergodic critical packing fraction as found from Eqs.(1)-(3). This not only demonstrates the robustness of the correlation between the dynamics of the ergodic-nonergodic transition as found directly from MCT via Eqs. (1)-(3) and the onset temperature (packing fraction) $`T_o`$ ($`\eta _o`$), but it also hints at a deep connection between inherent structures labeled by potential energy, and configurations defined by packing and free volume. To strengthen this connection, we reconsider a thermal system, namely the soft-sphere system studied in Fig. 1. Using a crunching procedure (with an upper energy cutoff) similar to that used in the hard-sphere system, we calculate $`\overline{V}_{IS}(T)`$ versus $`T`$. In Fig. 2b we show that the onset temperature for changes in $`\overline{V}_{IS}(T)`$ quantitatively coincides with $`T_o`$ as extracted from inherent structure energies ($`\overline{V}_{IS}(T)`$) for the same system. This demonstrates that the changes in the inherent structures that are sampled in the liquid range where dynamics become nonexponential are associated with sharp changes in free volume and structural packing motifs. In fact, such quantities are more fundamental than the quenched potential energy and allow for the generalization of landscape-like concepts to athermal systems such as hard-spheres.

Despite the fact that the solution to the full set of Eqs.(1)-(3) yields an ergodic-nonergodic transition temperature that is very close to $`T_o`$, one still expects MCT to give physically sensible results in the range $`T_c<T<T_o`$. Indeed, Kob et al. have demonstrated that Eqs.(1)-(3) accurately account for dynamics at these temperatures if the static input is calculated at a higher (effective) temperatureKob et al. (939), and many of the scaling predictions of MCT appear to be corroborated via computer simulations in this range Götze (1999); Kob and Andersen (1995).

The freezing of $`F(𝐤,t)/S(k)`$ at $`T_o`$ (and not $`T_c`$) merely signals the sensitivity of MCT to changes in the packing structure of the liquid and hints at the breakdown of the mean-field like approximation that is inherent in the idealized version of mode-coupling theory. To get a better feeling for the nature of this breakdown, we consider the dynamics of the random orthogonal model (ROM) Marinari et al. (1994). Specifically, we take the Hamiltonian

$$H=2\underset{ij}{}J_{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j,$$
(4)
where $`\sigma _i=\pm 1`$ are Ising spin variables, and $`J_{ij}`$ is an $`N\times N`$ random symmetric orthogonal matrix with $`J_{ii}=0`$. The Glauber algorithm Glauber (1963) is employed for dynamics. For $`N\mathrm{}`$, this model is in the same dynamical universality class as the $`p=3`$ spherical $`p`$-spin model. Thus, in this limit, MCT is exact. For $`N`$ finite, $`1/N`$ corrections to the MCT should appear. It has already been shown that for finite $`N`$, the model defined by Eq.(4) behaves similarly to real liquids, exhibiting landscape properties very similar to atomistic models, as well as non-trivial dynamical properties such as Nagel scaling Rao et al. (2003). In Fig. 3a a plot of $`\overline{E}_{IS}(T)`$ versus $`T`$ is shown for a particular value of $`N`$. The generic features of this plot are not sensitive to $`N`$ over a wide range of values for finite $`N`$. An onset temperature $`T_o0.72`$ is found for this model, while $`T_c=0.536`$ and $`T_K=0.26`$. In Fig. 3b, we plot $`\chi _{N,N^{^{}}}(T)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t|C_N(t)C_N^{^{}}(t)|,`$ where $`C_N(t)=\frac{1}{N}_{i=1}^N\overline{\sigma _i(t)\sigma _i(0)}`$ is the disorder-averaged spin-spin correlation function for a finite $`N`$ system. Clearly, this “succeptability” measures finite $`N`$ corrections to mean-field dynamics for $`N^{^{}},N<\mathrm{}`$. In Fig. 3b, we plot $`\chi _{N,N^{^{}}}(T)`$ versus $`T`$ for several different choices of $`N`$ and $`N^{^{}}`$. Remarkably, $`\chi (T)`$ sharply increases from zero very close to $`T_o`$. This result is not sensitive to $`N`$ and $`N^{^{}}`$ for a wide range of values. Indeed, this result demonstrates that noticeable corrections to mean-field (MCT) dynamics occur at $`T_o>T_c`$ as calculated by fits to transport coefficients.

To determine which portion of the dynamics is sensitive to finite $`N`$ effects, we have calculated $`C_N(t)`$ for several different values of $`N`$ for one particular temperature in the range $`T_o>T>T_c`$. The intermediate time (“$`\beta `$-relaxation”) regime is not strongly $`N`$-sensitive, while the long-time (“$`\alpha `$-relaxation”) regime shows strong finite $`N`$ effects. This observation is consistent with a recent study of the dynamics of the finite-sized Random Energy Model by Ben Arous et al Arous et al. (2002). These authors have demonstrated that dynamical effects beyond the mean-field limit occur at long times, and that the longest time behavior is compatible with the predictions of the phenomenological trap model Monthus and Bouchaud (1996). Recent computer simulation work has also shown that the long-time dynamics of atomistic liquids is consistent with an activated-like trap model precisely in the range $`T_o>TT_c`$. Note that in the ROM model, for finite $`N,N^{^{}}`$, $`\chi _{N,N^{^{}}}(T)`$ essentially varies continuously through $`T_c`$ but changes sharply near $`T_o`$. Meta-basin dynamics in atomistic simulations also show a sharp onset of trap-like behavior near $`T_o`$, and continuous variation near $`T_c`$ Doliwa and Heuer (2003a, b); Denny et al. (2003). It should also be noted that recent work by Berthier and Garrahan on kinetic facilitated models also demonstrates that activated processes set in at $`T_o`$, where local dynamical heterogeneities begin to occurBerthier and Garrahan .

In this paper, we have studied a number of model systems and demonstrated deep connections between mean-field theory, mode-coupling theory, and the landscape paradigm. The picture that emerges from this work and these previous studies is that $`T_o`$ marks the edge boundary for significant barriers that result from a non-mean-field smearing of the dynamical transition that occurs at $`T_c`$ in mean-field systems. Barriers that would be infinite at $`T_c`$ for an infinite dimensional liquid become finite, and influence dynamics not just in the vicinity of $`T_c`$ but at temperatures up to $`T_o`$. Transport involves activation over these barriers, and is trap-like at very long times.

What, then, can one expect from the idealized version of MCT? The analog between $`1/N`$ corrections to mean-field behavior in truncated mean-field spin glasses and corrections to the idealized MCT suggest that MCT should always yield quantitative results for the $`\beta `$-relaxation regime. The remarkable scaling predictions of MCT in this regime should be unaffected by the mean-field nature of the approximations inherent in the MCT approachGötze (1999). While MCT is able to account for properties such as time-temperature superposition in the long-time $`\alpha `$-relaxation regime, finite corrections to MCT should be noticeable here. These corrections are connected to activated (trap-like) behavior that occurs in the range $`T_o>T`$. Note that the Gaussian trap model also displays time-temperature superposition in the $`\alpha `$-relaxation regime. Clear signs of dynamic heterogeneities occur in simulations for temperatures in the range $`T_o>TT_c`$Kob et al. (1997). This localized heterogeneous motion is likely connected to activated, trap-like behavior.

While we have shown in this work that there are interesting physical connections between the temperature $`T_o`$ and the breakdown of mean-field theory that have not been previously discussed, an open question still remains regarding the nature of $`T_c`$ as a sharp dynamical crossover temperature. It is instructive to note that in the p-spin model, $`T_c`$ and $`T_o`$ lie very near each other. Non-mean-field effects tend to push these temperatures apart. A scaled parameter $`\tau =\frac{T_0T_c}{T_c}`$ may provide a measure of how strong the corrections to mean-field behavior are. In the binary soft-sphere mixture of Barrat et al. at unit density $`\tau 0.25`$ while for the Lennard-Jones mixture of Kob and Andersen studied at unit density $`\tau 1`$. Interestingly, dynamical effects such as the appearance of prominent “hopping” peaks in the van Hove correlation function $`G(r,t)`$ Yamamoto and Onuki (1998) and short-time secondary maxima in the non-Gaussian parameter $`\alpha _2(t)`$ and the nonlinear succeptability $`\chi _4(t)`$ occur near $`T_c`$ for the soft-sphere mixture but not for the Lennard-Jones systemDenny and Reichman . Perhaps remnants of the behavior expected at $`T_c`$ are only noticeable in systems with small $`\tau `$ values that are in some sense closer to idealized mean-field systemsGrigera et al. (2002). Furthermore, it would be interesting to determine if the value of $`\tau `$ decreases as the physical dimension of the system increases. A systematic study of such open questions is underway.

We gratefully acknowledge useful discussions with G. Biroli, J.-P. Bouchaud, J.P. Garrahan, P.L. Geissler, A. Heuer and S. Sastry. We would like to acknowledge NSF support through grant #CHE-0134969 and an NSF Fellowship to Y.B.. D.R.R. is an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Fellow and a Camille Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar.