text:
# Optimal Weighting Scheme in Redshift-space Power Spectrum Analysis and a Prospect for Measuring the Cosmic Equation of State

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The clustering of the cosmological objects like galaxies, clusters of galaxies and QSOs, is the fundamental to probe the Universe because it directly reflects properties of dark components and the primordial density fluctuations. The power spectrum is a simple but very useful tool to characterize their spatial distribution. Actually, useful constraints on the cosmological parameters are obtained from the power spectrum analyses of the Two Degree Field (2df) Galaxy Redshift Survey (Percival et al. 2001) and the 2df QSO Redshift Survey (Hoyle et al. 2002). In such power spectrum analyses, many authors base their methods on the seminal paper by Feldman, Kaiser & Peacock (1994, Hereafter FKP).

For redshift surveys such as the 2df survey and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), however, several observational effects on the power spectrum analysis can be very important. Because cosmological observations are feasible only on the light-cone hypersurface defined by the current observer, the effect of the redshift evolution of the luminosity function, the clustering amplitude, and the bias, contaminates the observational data. We call this the light-cone effect (Matarrese et al. 1997; Matsubara, Suto & Szapudi 1997; de Laix & Starkman 1998; Yamamoto & Suto 1999). On the other hand it is well known that the distribution of the sources in redshift sapce is different from that in the real space due to the redshift-space distortions. The linear redshift distortion is the effect of the bulk motion of the sources within the linear theory of density perturbation (Kaiser 1987; Hamilton 1998 and references therein). The finger of Got effect is the redshift distortion due to the random motion of the sources in the nonlinear regime (Mo, Jing & Boerner 1997; Magira, Jing & Suto 2000). The geometric distortion is the effect caused by a choice of the distance-redshift relation to plot a map of the sources (Ballinger, Peacock & Heavens 1996; Matsubara & Suto 1996).

The LRG sample of the SDSS spectroscopic survey will provide a sample of $`10^5`$ intrinsically luminous early-type galaxies to $`z0.5`$ (Eisenstein et al. 2001). In the analysis of clustering statistics of such a sample, the light-cone effect and the redshift-space distortions can be substantial. Fortunately these observational effects have been well investigated and we can model the power spectrum incorporating them (see section 3.1). The primary purpose of the present paper is to extend the formulas in FKP in order to incorporate these observational effects and to derive a generalized expression of the optimal weight factor in the power spectrum analysis (cf. Tegmark 1995).

The results of the 2df galaxy survey (Peacock et al. 2001), weak lensing surveys (Refregier et al. 2002; Bacon et al. 2002; and references therein), cosmic microwave background anisotropy measurements (e.g., Ruhl et al. 2002) and type Ia supernovae measurements (Perlmutter et al. 1999; Riess et al. 1998), support the concordance model (Wang et al. 2000): A spatially flat universe dominated by the dark energy component and, with respect to structure formation, cold dark matter with the primordial density fluctuations predicted in the inflationary scenario. The very recent result by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) strongly supports the concordance model (Spergel et al. 2003). Now the mystery of the dark energy component has become one of the most important issues in cosmology, which has led to recent activity in investigating the dark energy (See e.g. Peebles & Ratra 2003, for a recent review, and references therein). The dark energy can be characterized by its equation of state $`w_X=p_X/\rho _X`$, where $`p_X`$ is the pressure and $`\rho _X`$ is the energy density. For the cosmological constant, $`w_X=1`$. However, if the dark energy originates from the vacuum energy of a variable scalar field, like the quintessence model, $`w_X`$ can take values $`w_X>1`$, and can in general be a function of redshift. Thus constraints on the equation of state is quite important in considering the origin of the dark energy. Then various strategies for probing the equation of state have been investigated (e.g. Newman & Davis 2000, Saini, et al. 2000, Wang, et al. 2000, Chiba & Nakamura 2000, Huterer & Turner 2001 , Yamamoto & Nishioka 2001, Kujat et al. 2002, and references therein).

Second purpose of this paper is to assess the feasibility of measuring the equation of state using the power spectrum analysis. 111After completing this work, a similar investigation by Matsubara & Szalay (2003) has been announced. Recently, Matsubara & Szalay have discussed the usefulness of the LRG sample in SDSS for measuring the cosmological parameters (2002). Their method is based on maximum likelyhood analysis in redshift space. They demonstrated the usefulness of various SDSS samples to constrain cosmological parameters by estimating the Fisher matrix element. Motivated by their work, we assess the feasibility of the method with the power spectrum analysis of the LRG sample in SDSS to probe the equation of state based on the Fisher matrix formalism for power spectrum analysis (Tegmark 1997, Tegmark et al. 1998a). The advantage of our method is that the formulae are simple and analytic, which allows us to evaluate the formulae easily and to understand meaning of results clearly.

This paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we derive formulae for the power spectrum analysis taking the light-cone effect and the redshift-space distortions into account. In section 3, the Fisher matrix element is evaluated using an approximate method. There we focus on the matrix elements relevant to a measurement of dark energy, especially the equation of state. In section 4, we discuss optimizing the strategy, for a sample with a fixed total number of objects, using the power spectrum to probe the equation of state. Section 5 is devoted to summary and conclusions. Throughout this paper we use a system of units in which the velocity of light $`c`$ equals $`1`$.

## 2 FORMALISM

In this section we present an optimal weighting scheme of the power spectrum analysis for redshift surveys taking the redshift-space distortions and the light-cone effect into account. We obtain the generalized optimal weight factor, which minimizes errors of a power spectrum estimator, as a simple extension of the scheme developed by FKP. On the basis of this result, we derive the expression of the Fisher matrix element in subsection 2.2.

In a redshift survey, the redshift $`z`$ is the indicator of the distance, therefore, we need to assume a distance-redshift relation to plot a map of objects. For this distance, in the present paper, we adopt the following expression, which is the comoving distance in spatially flat universes

$$s(z)=\frac{1}{H_0}_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z^{})^3+1\mathrm{\Omega }_0}},$$
(1)
where $`H_0=100h\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{Mpc}`$ is the Hubble parameter and we fix $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$. Our formula presented below is general, and it does not depend on this choice of $`s(z)`$.

### 2.1 Optimal Weight Factor

The derivation of the optimal weight factor in this subsection is essentially same as that of FKP. Some parts of equations here can be found in FKP, which we have not omitted for being self-contained of the present paper. We denote the number density field of sources (real catalog) by $`n_g(𝐬)`$, where $`𝐬(=s(z)\gamma )`$ is the three dimensional coordinate in the (cosmological) redshift space and $`\gamma `$ is the unit directional vector. We use $`\overline{n}(𝐬)`$ to denote the expected mean number density. We define the fluctuation field to be

$`F(𝐬)=n_g(𝐬)\alpha n_s(𝐬),`$ (2)
where $`n_g(𝐬)=_i\delta (𝐬𝐬_i)`$, with $`𝐬_i`$ being the location of the $`i`$th object, similarly $`n_s(𝐬)`$ is the density of a synthetic catalog which has mean number density $`1/\alpha `$ times that of the real catalog. For $`n_g(𝐬)`$ and $`n_s(𝐬)`$, following FKP, we assume

$`n_g(𝐬_1)n_g(𝐬_2)=\overline{n}(𝐬_1)\overline{n}(𝐬_2)(1+\xi (𝐬_1,𝐬_2))+\overline{n}(𝐬_1)\delta (𝐬_1𝐬_2),`$ (3)
$`n_s(𝐬_1)n_s(𝐬_2)=\alpha ^2\overline{n}(𝐬_1)\overline{n}(𝐬_2)+\alpha ^1\overline{n}(𝐬_1)\delta (𝐬_1𝐬_2),`$ (4)
$`n_g(𝐬_1)n_s(𝐬_2)=\alpha ^1\overline{n}(𝐬_1)\overline{n}(𝐬_2),`$ (5)
where $`\xi (𝐬_1,𝐬_2)`$ denotes the correlation function.

We define the Fourier coefficient of $`F(𝐬)`$, with a conventional weight factor, to be

$`(𝐤)={\displaystyle \frac{𝑑𝐬w(𝐬,𝐤)F(𝐬)e^{i𝐤𝐬}}{[𝑑𝐬\overline{n}(𝐬)^2w(𝐬,𝐤)^2]^{1/2}}},`$ (6)
where $`w(𝐬,𝐤)`$ is the weight function which can be adjusted to optimize the power spectrum estimator below. Then the expectation value of the square $`|(𝐤)|^2`$ is written,

$`|(𝐤)|^2={\displaystyle \frac{𝑑𝐬_1𝑑𝐬_2w(𝐬_1,𝐤)w(𝐬_2,𝐤)F(𝐬_1)F(𝐬_2)e^{i𝐤(𝐬_1𝐬_2)}}{𝑑𝐬\overline{n}(𝐬)^2w(𝐬,𝐤)^2}}.`$
Using equations (3)-(5), we have

$`F(𝐬_1)F(𝐬_2)=\overline{n}(𝐬_1)\overline{n}(𝐬_2)\xi (𝐬_1,𝐬_2)+(1+\alpha )\overline{n}(𝐬_1)\delta (𝐬_1𝐬_2).`$ (8)
Under the distant observer approximation, $`|𝐬_1𝐬_2||𝐬_1|,|𝐬_2|`$, the correlation function can be expressed as

$`\xi (𝐬_1,𝐬_2)={\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{𝐤}}{(2\pi )^3}P(\stackrel{~}{𝐤},|\overline{𝐬}|)e^{i\stackrel{~}{𝐤}(𝐬_1𝐬_2)}},`$ (9)
where $`P(\stackrel{~}{𝐤},|\overline{𝐬}|)`$ is the redshift-space power spectrum at the distance $`|\overline{𝐬}|`$, where we defined $`\overline{𝐬}=(𝐬_1+𝐬_2)/2`$. We also adopt the approximation

$`w(𝐬_1,𝐤)w(𝐬_2,𝐤)\overline{n}(𝐬_1)\overline{n}(𝐬_2)w(\overline{𝐬},𝐤)^2\overline{n}(\overline{𝐬})^2,`$ (10)
which yields

$`|(𝐤)|^2={\displaystyle \frac{𝑑\overline{𝐬}\overline{n}(\overline{𝐬})^2w(\overline{𝐬},𝐤)^2P(𝐤,|\overline{𝐬}|)+(1+\alpha )𝑑𝐬\overline{n}(𝐬)w(𝐬,𝐤)^2}{𝑑𝐬\overline{n}(𝐬)^2w(𝐬,𝐤)^2}}.`$ (11)
The last term of the right hand side of equation (11) corresponds to the shot-noise, therefore the estimator of the power spectrum should be defined as

$`𝒫(𝐤)=|(𝐤)|^2P_{\mathrm{shot}}(𝐤),`$ (12)
where $`P_{\mathrm{shot}}`$ is defined

$`P_{\mathrm{shot}}(𝐤)={\displaystyle \frac{(1+\alpha )𝑑𝐬\overline{n}(𝐬)w(𝐬,𝐤)^2}{𝑑𝐬\overline{n}(𝐬)^2w(𝐬,𝐤)^2}}.`$ (13)
The angular average of $`𝒫(𝐤)`$ over a thin shell of the radius $`k(=|𝐤|)`$ in the Fourier space gives the estimator of the angular averaged power spectrum

$`𝒫_0(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_k}}{\displaystyle _{V_k}}𝑑𝐤𝒫(𝐤),`$ (14)
where $`V_k`$ denotes the volume of the shell. Thus the expectation value of $`𝒫_0(k)`$ gives the angular averaged power spectrum incorporating the light-cone effect

$`𝒫_0(k)={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐬\overline{n}(𝐬)^2w(𝐬,𝐤)^2P_0(k,|𝐬|)}}{{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐬\overline{n}(𝐬)^2w(𝐬,𝐤)^2}}},`$ (15)
where

$`P_0(k,|𝐬|)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_k}}{\displaystyle _{V_k}}𝑑𝐤P(𝐤,|𝐬|).`$ (16)
Next we consider the variance of $`𝒫(𝐤)`$, defined by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫(𝐤)\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫(𝐤^{})`$ $`=`$ $`[𝒫(𝐤)𝒫(𝐤)][𝒫(𝐤^{})𝒫(𝐤^{})]`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`𝒫(𝐤)𝒫(𝐤^{})𝒫(𝐤)𝒫(𝐤^{}),`$
which is rephrased, by using (12),

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫(𝐤)\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫(𝐤^{})=|(𝐤)|^2|(𝐤^{})|^2|(𝐤)|^2|(𝐤^{})|^2.`$ (18)
Substituting (6) into equation (18), we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫(𝐤)\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫(𝐤^{})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}[𝑑𝐬_iw(𝐬_i,𝐤)]\underset{j=3}{\overset{4}{}}[𝑑𝐬_jw(𝐬_j,𝐤^{})]F(𝐬_1)F(𝐬_3)F(𝐬_2)F(𝐬_4)e^{i𝐤(𝐬_1𝐬_2)}e^{i𝐤^{}(𝐬_3𝐬_4)}}{[𝑑𝐬\overline{n}(𝐬)^2w(𝐬,𝐤)^2][𝑑𝐬^{}\overline{n}(𝐬^{})^2w(𝐬^{},𝐤^{})^2]}},`$
(19)
where we assumed the following relation, which is exact when $`F(𝐬)`$ follows the statistics of the Gaussian random field,

$`F(𝐬_1)F(𝐬_2)F(𝐬_3)F(𝐬_4)`$ $`=`$ $`F(𝐬_1)F(𝐬_2)F(𝐬_3)F(𝐬_4)`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`F(𝐬_1)F(𝐬_3)F(𝐬_2)F(𝐬_4)`$
$`+`$ $`F(𝐬_1)F(𝐬_4)F(𝐬_3)F(𝐬_2).`$
In a similar way to derive equation (11), using the distant observer approximation, one can have the relation

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐬_1𝑑𝐬_3w(𝐬_1,𝐤)w(𝐬_3,𝐤^{})F(𝐬_1)F(𝐬_3)e^{i𝐤𝐬_1i𝐤^{}𝐬_3}}`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{𝐬}\overline{n}(\overline{𝐬})^2w(\overline{𝐬},𝐤)w(\overline{𝐬},𝐤^{})e^{i\overline{𝐬}(𝐤𝐤^{})}\left[P(\frac{𝐤+𝐤^{}}{2},|\overline{𝐬}|)+\frac{\alpha +1}{\overline{n}(\overline{𝐬})}\right]}.`$ (21)
Then, with a repeated use of the distant observer approximation, we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫(𝐤)\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫(𝐤^{}){\displaystyle \frac{2𝑑\overline{𝐬}\overline{n}(\overline{𝐬})^4w(\overline{𝐬},𝐤)^4\left(P(𝐤,\overline{𝐬})+(1+\alpha )/\overline{n}(\overline{𝐬})\right)^2(2\pi )^3\delta ^{(3)}(𝐤𝐤^{})}{[𝑑𝐬\overline{n}(𝐬)^2w(𝐬,𝐤)^2]^2}}.`$
(22)
From (14), the variance of $`𝒫_0(k)`$ is obtained by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫_0(k)^2`$ $``$ $`[𝒫_0(k)𝒫_0(k)]^2`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_k^2}}{\displaystyle _{V_k}}𝑑𝐤{\displaystyle _{V_k}}𝑑𝐤^{}\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫(𝐤)\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫(𝐤^{}),`$
which reduces to

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫_0(k)^2=2{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^3}{V_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑑\overline{𝐬}\overline{n}(\overline{𝐬})^4w(\overline{𝐬},𝐤)^4Q^2(k,\overline{𝐬})}{[𝑑𝐬\overline{n}(𝐬)^2w(𝐬,𝐤)^2]^2}},`$ (24)
where we defined

$`Q^2(k,\overline{𝐬})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_k}}{\displaystyle _{V_k}}𝑑𝐤\left[P(𝐤,|\overline{𝐬}|)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +1}{\overline{n}(\overline{𝐬})}}\right]^2.`$ (25)
The optimal weight factor $`w(𝐬,𝐤)`$ which minimizes $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫_0(k)^2`$ is found from the stationary solution against the variation $`ww+\delta w`$, to be

$`w(𝐬,k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{n}(𝐬)Q(k,𝐬)}}.`$ (26)
This generalized formula incorporates the redshift distortions. In general, the redshift space power spectrum $`P(𝐤,s)`$ is written, in terms of the multipole expansion,

$`P(𝐤,s)={\displaystyle \underset{l=0,2,\mathrm{}}{}}P_l(k,s)_l(\mu ),`$ (27)
where $`\mu `$ is the directional cosine between the line of sight $`\gamma `$ and the wave number vector, $`\mu =\mathrm{cos}(\gamma 𝐤/k)`$, $`_l(x)`$ is the Legendre polynomial of the $`l`$-th order, and $`P_l(k,s)`$ are the expansion coefficients. Then (25) reduces to

$`Q^2(k,\overline{𝐬})=\left(P_0(k,|\overline{𝐬}|)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{n}(\overline{𝐬})}}\right)^2+P_2(k,|\overline{𝐬}|)^2+P_4(k,|\overline{𝐬}|)^2+\mathrm{},`$ (28)
where we considered the limit $`\alpha 1`$. In practice, the contribution of higher moments $`l2`$ is not large (cf. Yamamoto 2003). Neglecting this higher moments and the redshift dependence of the power spectrum, (26) reduces to the similar expression by FKP (cf. Peebles 1980),

$`w(𝐬,k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\overline{n}(𝐬)P_0(k,|𝐬|)}},`$ (29)
then, from equation (24), we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫_0(k)^2=2{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^3}{V_k}}\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐬\frac{\overline{n}(𝐬)^2}{(1+\overline{n}(𝐬)P_0(k,|𝐬|))^2}}\right]^1.`$ (30)
Here we mention a technical problem of the above optimal weight factor. Namely, this weight factor contains the power spectrum at each redshift, i.e. $`P_0(k,s[z])`$. It might be difficult to evaluate it with a sufficient accuracy from a observational data set. A possible alternation is to adopt the weight factor:

$`w(𝐬,k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\overline{n}(𝐬)𝒫_0(k)}}.`$ (31)
This modified weight factor does not minimize the errors, however, it might be useful in a realistic situation of data analysis. The weight factor contains $`𝒫_0(k)`$, then it must be solved with equation (15) as a coupled system. However, we can easily solve the coupled equation numerically by iterations. In this case the amplitude of the covariance matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫_0(k)^2`$ is different from the expression (30). It is obtained by substituting (31) into (24), but the expression is rather complicated than (30). As we show below, the use of the modified weight factor alters the expression of the Fisher matrix element. However, the difference is not significant. For example, the use of the modified weight factor increases the $`1\sigma `$ error of the equation of state $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{w}`$ (see below) by 10 % level. Then our conclusion does not depend on the choice of the above weight factors.

### 2.2 Fisher Matrix Element

In order to estimate the accuracy to which we can constrain cosmological parameters with a measurement of the power spectrum, we employ the Fisher matrix approach. With the Fisher-matrix analysis, one can estimate the best statistical errors on parameters from a given data set (Kendall & Stuart 1969). For this reason, this approach is widely used to estimate how accurately cosmological parameters are determined from large surveys, such as the large scale structure of galaxies, cosmic microwave background anisotropy measurement and supernova data sets. (See e.g. Tegmark, Taylor, & Heavens 1997, Jungman et al. 1996a, 1996b, Zaroubi et al. 1995, Fisher et al. 1995, Tegmark et al. 1998b). In general, the Fisher matrix is defined by

$`F_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{ln}L}{\theta _i\theta _j}},`$ (32)
where $`L`$ is the probability distribution function of a data set, given model parameters $`\theta _i`$. For a measurement of galaxy power spectrum, the Fisher matrix is presented using a suitable approximation in the references (Tegmark 1997, Tegmark et al. 1998a). Here we briefly review a derivation of the Fisher matrix: For simplicity, we adopt the approximation of the Gaussian probability distribution function for $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫(𝐤)`$,

$`L\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐤𝑑𝐤^{}\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫(𝐤)C(𝐤,𝐤^{})\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫(𝐤^{})}\right],`$ (33)
where $`C(𝐤,𝐤^{})`$ is the inverse matrix of the covariance matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫(𝐤)\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫(𝐤^{})`$. Then, using (25), we have

$`F_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{k_{\mathrm{min}}}^{k_{\mathrm{max}}}}\kappa (k){\displaystyle \frac{𝒫_0(k)}{\theta _i}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒫_0(k)}{\theta _j}}k^3d\mathrm{ln}k,`$ (34)
where $`\kappa (k)`$ is

$`\kappa (k)^1={\displaystyle \frac{𝑑\overline{𝐬}\overline{n}(\overline{𝐬})^4w(\overline{𝐬},k)^4\left(P_0(k,\overline{𝐬})+1/\overline{n}(\overline{𝐬})\right)^2}{[𝑑𝐬\overline{n}(𝐬)^2w(𝐬,k)^2]^2}},`$ (35)
and $`𝒫_0(k)`$ is the expectation value of the power spectrum, i.e. expression (15). The Fisher matrix depends on the weight factor, and we have

$`\kappa (k)=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle 𝑑ss^2\frac{\overline{n}(s)^2}{(1+\overline{n}(s)P_0(k,s))^2}}`$ (36)
for the optimal weight factor (29), and

$`\kappa (k)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }[𝑑ss^2\overline{n}(s)^2(1+\overline{n}(s)𝒫_0(k))^2]^2}{𝑑ss^2\overline{n}(s)^4(P_0(k,s)+1/\overline{n}(s))^2(1+\overline{n}(s)𝒫_0(k))^4}}`$ (37)
for the modified weight factor (31), respectively, where we assumed that the mean number density is a function of the distance $`s(=|𝐬|)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the survey area. The result is consistent with the previous work: In the limit that the linear redshift distortion, the geometric distortion, and the light-cone effect are switched off, the above results reproduce the previous work (e.g., Tegmark 1997). By using the Bayes theorem, the probability distribution in the parameter space can be written

$`p(\theta _i)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(\theta _i\theta _i^{\mathrm{tr}})F_{ij}(\theta _j\theta _j^{\mathrm{tr}})\right],`$ (38)
where we have assumed that errors in the target model parameters $`\theta _i^{\mathrm{tr}}`$ are small. Thus the Fisher matrix gives the uncertainties in the parameter spaces, which are described by a Gaussian distribution function around $`\theta _i^{\mathrm{tr}}`$.

## 3 CONSTRAINTS

In this section we investigate a prospect of the power spectrum analysis of the LRG sample in the SDSS. As pointed out by Matsubara & Szalay (2002), the LRG sample can be a useful tool to constrain the cosmological parameters. Here we assess the potential of the LRG sample to constrain the equation of state of the dark energy. Because the LRG sample is distributed out to a redshift $`0.5`$, the geometric distortion is substantial. This is the reason why the power spectrum analysis of the LRG sample can constrain the equation of state $`w_X`$ even if the original matter power spectrum (or the transfer function) does not depend on $`w_X`$. In comparison to the LRG sample, the SDSS quasars are distributed out to $`z5`$, however, the spatial distribution is very sparse. Then the constraint from the quasar sample will not be very tight due to the large shot-noise contribution (Matsubara & Szalay 2002, Yamamoto 2002).

The clustering properties of the LRG sample have not been analyzed so far, then we here assume simple linear bias models for the clustering. (See equation (46) and section 3.3 for a luminosity dependent bias model). To evaluate the Fisher matrix element, the number density of the sample $`\overline{n}(z)`$ is an important factor. In the present paper, we adopt the LRG sample with the comoving number density in the reference by Eisenstein et al. (2001, Figure 12 in their paper), as a function of the redshift in the range $`0.2z0.55`$. The typical number density of LRGs is $`\overline{n}10^4[h^1\mathrm{Mpc}]^3`$. The peak value of the power spectrum is $`10^5[h^1\mathrm{Mpc}]^3`$. Thus $`\overline{n}(z)P_0(k,z)`$ does not exceed $`10`$.

### 3.1 Modeling the Power Spectrum

We restrict ourselves to a spatially flat universe for modeling the cosmology. This assumption can be justified by the inflationary universe scenario and the recent results of the cosmic microwave anisotropy measurements. We consider a cosmological model with the dark energy component with the equation of state which is variable in time. We assume that the time variation of the equation of state $`w_X(z)=p_X/\rho _X`$ is slow. The equation of motion, $`d(\rho _XV(z))+p_XdV(z)=0`$ with a volume $`V(z)(1+z)^3`$, yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _X(z)}{\rho _X(z=0)}}=(1+z)^3\mathrm{exp}\left[3{\displaystyle _0^z}{\displaystyle \frac{w_X(z^{})}{1+z^{}}}𝑑z^{}\right]f_X(z).`$ (39)
With the parameters $`\overline{w}`$ and $`\nu `$, we assume $`w_X`$ can be parametrized by

$$w_X(z)=\overline{w}\left(\frac{1+z}{1+z_{}}\right)^\nu ,$$
(40)
where $`z_{}`$ is a constant, then we have

$`f_X(z)=(1+z)^3\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3\overline{w}}{(1+z_{})^\nu }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1+z)^\nu 1}{\nu }}\right)\right].`$ (41)
Denoting the matter density parameter by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, the comoving distance is

$$r(z)=\frac{1}{H_0}_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z^{})^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)f_X(z^{})}}.$$
(42)
We can model the power spectrum in redshift space $`s(z)`$ as (Ballinger, Peacock, & Heavens 1996)

$`P_0(k,s(z))={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_{}(z)c_{}(z)^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\mu P_{\mathrm{gal}}\left(q_{}{\displaystyle \frac{k\mu }{c_{}}},q_{}{\displaystyle \frac{k\sqrt{1\mu ^2}}{c_{}}},z\right),`$ (43)
where $`P_{\mathrm{gal}}(q_{},q_{},z)`$ is the galaxy power spectrum, $`q_{}`$ and $`q_{}`$ are the wave number components parallel and perpendicular to the line-of-sight direction in real space with $`r(z)`$, and we define

$`c_{}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{dr(z)}{ds(z)}}\mathrm{and}c_{}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{r(z)}{s(z)}}.`$ (44)
The geometric distortion is described by scaling the wave number by $`c_{}(z)`$ and $`c_{}(z)`$. Then, even if the original matter power spectrum or the transfer function does not depend on the parameter of the dark energy $`w_X`$, the power spectrum observed in redshift-space can depend on $`w_X`$. Thus we can test the nature of dark energy. This idea traces back to the geometric test pointed out by Alcock & Paczynski (1979). We model the power spectrum in the distribution of galaxy by

$`P_{\mathrm{gal}}(q_{},q_{},z)=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{f(z)}{b(z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{q_{}^2}{q^2}}\right)^2b(z)^2P_{\mathrm{mass}}(q,z),`$ (45)
where $`q^2=q_{}^2+q_{}^2`$, $`b(z)`$ is a scale independent bias factor, $`P_{\mathrm{mass}}(q,z)`$ is the CDM mass power spectrum, and we defined $`f(z)=d\mathrm{ln}D(z)/d\mathrm{ln}a(z)`$ with the linear growth rate $`D(z)`$ and the scale factor $`a(z)`$. The term in proportion to $`f(z)`$ describes the linear distortion (Kaiser 1987). Following the work by Matsubara & Szalay (2002), we work within the linear theory of density perturbation, adopting the fitting formula of the transfer function by Eisenstein & Hu (1998). Here we consider a simple bias model parametrized by,

$`b(z)=1+(b_01){\displaystyle \frac{1}{D(z)^p}},`$ (46)
where $`b_0`$ and $`p`$ are constants. For $`f(z)`$ we adopt the fitting formula developed by Wang and Steinhardt (1998)

$`f(z)\mathrm{\Omega }(z)^{\alpha (w_X)},`$ (47)
with

$`\alpha (w_X)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{5w_X/(1w_X)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{125}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1w_X)(13w_X/2)}{(16w_X/5)^3}}(1\mathrm{\Omega }(z)),`$ (48)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{\mathrm{\Omega }_m+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)(1+z)^3f_X(z)}}.`$ (49)
In the present paper, we work within the linear theory of density perturbations and we do not consider the nonlinear and the finger of Got effects. The nonlinear effect is substantial on small scales in the nonlinear regime (Mo, Jing & Boerner 1997; Magira, Jing & Suto 2000). The inclusion of the nonlinear effect will not alter our result significantly, however, any uncertainty of modeling the nonlinear effect reduces the capability to determine cosmological parameters precisely (cf. Watkins et al. 2002).

### 3.2 Constraints on $`w_X`$

In our analysis we focus on the sensitivity of the power spectrum analysis on the nature of the dark energy, then we consider the parameters $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\overline{w},\nu ,b_0,p)`$. We assume that other cosmological parameters such as the baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, $`\sigma _8`$ and the index of the initial density power spectrum $`n`$ are well determined. We might expect to obtain such information in the near future from other observations of the cosmic microwave background anisotropies and the large scale structure of the main galaxy sample in SDSS, etc. Actually the WMAP result have demonstrated the cosmological parameters can be determined from the cosmic microwave background anisotropies. In the present paper, we take $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.28`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.024`$, $`h=0.7`$, $`\sigma _8=0.9`$ and $`n=1`$ (Spergel et al. 2003). On the other hand, the bias is an annoying problem, though the physical mechanism has been extensively investigated (e.g. Mo & White 1996). Recent investigation reports that the bias depends on the luminosity and galaxy type (Norberg et al. 2001, 2002). Thus the bias depends on sample, and it should be determined from the same data simultaneously. In our investigation, we here consider the marginalized probability function integrating over the bias parameters $`b_0`$ and $`p`$ in (38).

Figure 1 shows the contour of the marginalized probability function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m\overline{w}`$ space, which is obtained by integrating (38) with respect to $`(\nu ,b_0,p)`$. Here, we adopted the target parameters $`(\theta _i^{\mathrm{tr}})`$ as follows: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.28`$, $`\overline{w}=1`$, $`\nu =0`$, $`b_0=1.5`$ and $`p=1`$. The target parameter of the equation of state corresponds to the cosmological constant. The dependence of the bias modeling is discussed in more detail in section 3.3. In (40), we here set $`z_{}=0.13`$. We also assume the survey area $`10^4\mathrm{deg}^2`$, which corresponds to the complete SDSS sample.222 The dependence on the survey area will be discussed in the final section. We adopted the range of the integration in (34) being $`k_{\mathrm{min}}=0.001h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ and $`k_{\mathrm{max}}=1h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. Our results do not depend on $`k_{\mathrm{min}}`$ as long as $`k_{\mathrm{min}}\stackrel{<}{}0.01h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, while depending slightly on $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$, but our conclusions are not significantly altered as long as $`k_{\mathrm{max}}\stackrel{>}{}0.3h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. It is clear from Figure 1 that the power spectrum is more sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ than $`\overline{w}`$. In our modeling the transfer function depends on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, but not on $`w_X`$. The effect of $`w_X`$ on the power spectrum comes from the geometric distortion. The weaker dependence of the power spectrum on $`\overline{w}`$ than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ originates from this fact.

Figure 2 shows the contour of the marginalized probability function on $`\overline{w}\nu `$ space obtained by integrating (38) with respect to $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,b_0,p)`$. The target parameters are same as those in Figure 1. Similarly, we set $`z_{}=0.13`$ in (40). In this case, it is clear from Figure 2 that the degeneracy between $`\overline{w}`$ and $`\nu `$ is broken. Note that $`\overline{w}=w_X(z_{})`$. Thus the power spectrum analysis of the LRG sample gives the equation of state around $`z=0.13`$, almost independently from $`\nu `$. Conversely, the LRG sample is not very sensitive to probe $`\nu `$.

The minimum error in determining the equation of state is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{w}0.1`$, which is given by integrating the probability function over the other parameters $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\nu ,b_0,p)`$. The error can be reduced, when $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is determined from other observation independently. The result depends on the target parameters. Figure 3 shows the $`1\sigma `$ error $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{w}`$ as function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{\mathrm{tr}}`$. The solid curves assume $`\overline{w}^{\mathrm{tr}}=1`$, while the dashed curves assume $`\overline{w}^{\mathrm{tr}}=0.8`$. The other target parameters are same as those in Figure 1. The error is sensitive to the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{\mathrm{tr}}`$, however, is not sensitive to $`\overline{w}^{\mathrm{tr}}`$. The sensitivity to the equation of state deteriorates in higher matter density universes. This is because the fraction of the dark energy to the total energy decreases as the matter density becomes higher. As long as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{\mathrm{tr}}\stackrel{<}{}0.3`$, however, the minimum error is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{w}\stackrel{<}{}0.1`$.

### 3.3 A Luminosity Dependent Bias Model

Here we consider a more realistic bias model. Recent investigations with the 2df galaxy redshift survey report that the clustering amplitude depends on galaxy type and luminosity (Norberg et al. 2001, 2002). The selection effect from an apparent limiting magnitude can have significant influences on the redshift evolution of the bias. Denoting the luminosity dependent bias by $`b(z,L)`$, we define the luminosity-averaged bias as

$`\overline{b}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{_{L_{\mathrm{min}}(z)}^{\mathrm{}}\varphi (L)b(z,L)𝑑L}{_{L_{\mathrm{min}}(z)}^{\mathrm{}}\varphi (L)𝑑L}},`$ (50)
where $`\varphi (L)`$ is the luminosity function. In modeling $`b(z,L)`$, we assume that $`b(z,L)`$ can be approximately written as $`b(z,L)=\widehat{b}(z)b(z=0,L)`$. Namely, the luminosity dependence of the bias does not depend on the redshift. Here we also assume $`\widehat{b}(z)`$ to be described by (cf. Mo & White 1996)

$`\widehat{b}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_0}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{b_01}{D(z)}}\right),`$ (51)
which is normalized to yield $`1`$ at $`z=0`$, i.e. $`\widehat{b}(0)=1`$. For $`b(z=0,L)`$, we adopt the result by Norberg et al. (2002), who found that the luminosity dependence can be fitted by

$`b(z=0,L)A+(1A){\displaystyle \frac{L}{L_{}}},`$ (52)
where $`A`$ is constant. Norberg et al. report $`A=0.8`$ for early-type galaxy (2002). Combining (51) and (52), we assume $`b(z,L)`$ can be written in the form

$`b(z,L)=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{b_01}{D(z)}}\right)\left(A+(1A){\displaystyle \frac{L}{L_{}}}\right).`$ (53)
Then, expression (50) yields

$`\overline{b}(z)=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{b_01}{D(z)}}\right)\left(A+(1A){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +2,x(z))}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +1,x(z))}}\right),`$ (54)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta ,x)`$ is the incomplete Gamma function and $`x(z)=L_{\mathrm{lim}}(z)/L_{}`$, and we assumed the Schechter luminosity function

$`\varphi (L)dL=\varphi ^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{L_{}}}\right)^\alpha \mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{L}{L_{}}}\left)d\right({\displaystyle \frac{L}{L_{}}}).`$ (55)
In the present paper, we adopt the fitting formula for the luminosity function in the reference by Madgwick et al. (2002) for early-type galaxies ($`\alpha =0.54`$ and $`M_{}5\mathrm{log}_{10}h=19.58`$), and $`m=19.5`$ for the apparent limiting magnitude. Figure 4 shows $`\overline{b}(z)`$ as a function of $`z`$, where we set $`b_0=1.2`$ and $`A=0.8`$, and we have not considered the luminosity evolution and the k-correction for simplicity.

We consider the bias parameterized by (54) with $`b_0`$ and $`A`$, instead of (46) with $`b_0`$ and $`p`$, and repeat the evaluation of the Fisher matrix. Here we fix the target parameters, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.28`$, $`\overline{w}=1`$ and $`\nu =0`$. Figure 5 shows the marginalized best statistical error $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{w}`$, integrating over the parameters except for $`\overline{w}`$ as function of the target parameters $`b_0`$ with $`A`$ fixed $`A=0.6`$ (short-dashed curve), $`A=0.8`$ (solid curve), $`A=0.9`$ (long-dashed curve) and $`A=1`$ (dot-dashed curve). Thus, when the bias evolution can be fitted in the form of (54), $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{w}0.1`$, which is almost the same level as that in Figure 3 for $`A\stackrel{<}{}0.9`$. However, for the case $`A=1`$, the error $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{w}`$ increases out to 0.15, depending on $`b_0`$. This suggests that modeling of the redshift-evolution of the bias can be problematic to constrain the equation of state of dark energy using the LRGs.

## 4 OPTIMIZED SAMPLE

In this section, we address the problem of determining the optimized sample in order to best constrain the equation of state. This problem might be only of theoretical interest, but having such information could be useful in planning a survey of galaxies or clusters of galaxies. The same problem has been considered with regard to supernova data and lensing systems by several authors (Huterer & Turner 2001, Spergel & Starkman 2002, Yamamoto et al. 2001). To address the problem stated above, we introduce the Fisher matrix element per object as follows: When a survey volume is small enough so that the light-cone (redshift evolution) effect is negligible, (34) is written

$`F_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{k_{\mathrm{min}}}^{k_{\mathrm{max}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }V\overline{n}^2}{(1+\overline{n}P_0(k,s))^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_0(k,s)}{\theta _i}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_0(k,s)}{\theta _j}}k^3d\mathrm{ln}k,`$ (56)
where we assumed $`\overline{n}`$ to be constant, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ is the survey volume. Then $`F_{ij}/\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ can be regarded as the Fisher matrix element per unit volume, and similarly $`F_{ij}/(\mathrm{\Delta }V\overline{n})`$ is regarded as the Fisher matrix element per object. In a strict sense we must choose $`k_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ depending on $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ and $`\overline{n}`$. However, we here fix $`k_{\mathrm{min}}=0.01h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ and $`k_{\mathrm{max}}=1h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. Then we investigate $`F_{ij}/(\mathrm{\Delta }V\overline{n})`$ as a function of $`z`$ and $`\overline{n}`$. Here note that $`s`$ is the function of the redshift, i.e. $`s=s(z)`$.

In this section, for simplicity, we consider the model in which the equation of state is constant $`w_X(z)=\overline{w}`$, which is equivalent to the assumption $`f_X(z)=(1+z)^{3(1+\overline{w})}`$. Regarding the Fisher matrix as the $`2\times 2`$ matrix corresponding to the elements $`\overline{w}`$ and $`b_0`$, we consider the marginalized Fisher matrix element integrating the probability function over $`b_0`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{\overline{w}\overline{w}}=F_{\overline{w}\overline{w}}\frac{F_{\overline{w}b_0}^2}{F_{b_0b_0}}.$$
(57)
Figure 6 shows $`[\mathrm{\Delta }V\overline{n}/\stackrel{~}{F}_{\overline{w}\overline{w}}]^{1/2}`$ as a function of $`z`$ with $`\overline{n}`$ fixed as $`\overline{n}=10^2h^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ (dashed curve), $`10^4h^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ (solid curve), and $`10^6h^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ (long dashed curve). Figure 6 indicates that objects in the range $`0.4\stackrel{<}{}z\stackrel{<}{}1`$ are most efficient for measuring $`\overline{w}`$, because $`[\mathrm{\Delta }V\overline{n}/\stackrel{~}{F}_{\overline{w}\overline{w}}]^{1/2}`$ is regarded as the error in determining $`\overline{w}`$ per object at the redshift $`z`$. Note that the error using the total objects $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{w}`$ scales as $`1/\sqrt{N}=1/\sqrt{\overline{n}\mathrm{\Delta }V}`$. Figure 7 shows $`[\mathrm{\Delta }V\overline{n}/\stackrel{~}{F}_{\overline{w}\overline{w}}]^{1/2}`$ as a function of $`\overline{n}`$ with the redshift fixed at $`z=0.6`$. This figure indicates that the number density around $`\overline{n}=10^4h^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ is most efficient for measuring $`\overline{w}`$. For very sparse samples, like quasars, which have a typical number density $`\overline{n}=10^6h^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$, the errors in measuring parameters using the power spectrum is large due to the shot-noise. On the other hand, for a sample with high number density, the shot-noise is of minor importance, but the efficiency in constraining $`\overline{w}`$ per object decreases as well. Thus the objects in the range of redshift $`0.4\stackrel{<}{}z\stackrel{<}{}1`$ with the number density $`\overline{n}10^4h^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ are the optimized sample.

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

In summary we derived a rigorous optimal weighting scheme for power spectrum analysis, which is useful for samples in which the light-cone effect and the redshift-space distortions are substantial. Our result is a simple extension of the work by FKP, and we obtained a generalized optimal weight factor which minimizes the errors of the power spectrum estimator. As an application of our formula, we investigated the capability of the LRG sample in SDSS to constrain the equation of state parameters by evaluating Fisher matrix elements. Even if the transfer function for the matter power spectrum does not depend on $`w_X`$, the power spectrum analysis of the redshift-space sample can constrain $`w_X`$ due to the geometric distortion. To incorporate uncertainties of redshift evolution of the clustering bias, we considered the marginalized probability function by integrating over the parameters of the bias models. This analysis shows that the LRG sample in SDSS has a serviceable potential for constraining the equation of state around $`z=0.13`$ with $`1`$ sigma errors at the $`10`$ % level, if other fundamental parameters are well determined in an independent fashion. We also showed that this conclusion is not altered in the case of a bias model incorporating the redshift-evolution due to selection effect depending on luminosity. However, even in our realistic treatment of the bias, we made simplifications: Uncertainties including the stochasticity and the nonlinearity in modeling the bias are not considered in our investigation. Then, tests on the bias properties will be required for more definite conclusions.

In the present paper, we assumed $`10^4`$ deg2 as the complete SDSS survey area. When the planed survey area are not achieved, the capability to constrain the equation of state reduces. As the Fisher matrix element is in proportion to the survey area $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then the statistical error $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{w}`$ increases in proportion to $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. For example, when we assume $`5\times 10^3`$ deg2 and $`7.5\times 10^3`$ deg2 as the final SDSS survey area, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{w}`$ increases by $`30`$ % and $`15`$ %, respectively, as long as the inhomogeneity of the incomplete survey area does not cause additional systematic errors.

In section 4, we considered the optimized sample to constrain $`w_X`$ using power spectrum analysis. We found that it is most advantageous to have the sample with the comoving number density $`\overline{n}10^4h^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ in the range of redshift $`0.4\stackrel{<}{}z\stackrel{<}{}1`$. For such a sample, the efficiency per object to constrain $`w_X`$ is optimized. Information from anisotropic power spectrum would improve the capability of constraining the parameters, as demonstrated in the 2df QSO sample (Outram et al. 2001).

This work was supported by fellowships for Japan Scholar and Researcher Abroad from Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. The author thanks Prof. S. D. M. White for important comments, which helped improve the paper. Parts of section 3 are based on the valuable communications with him. The author is also grateful to the people at Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA) for their hospitality during his stay. He thanks P. A. Popowski, N. Sugiyama, S. Zaroubi, J. Brinchmann and T. Matsubara for useful discussions and comments. He is also grateful to B. M. Schäfer and K. Basu for reading manuscript and useful comments.


format: text

text:
# To circularize or not to circularize? — Orbital evolution of satellite galaxies

## 1 Introduction

Recent observations have revealed that there are many satellite galaxies around the Milky Way. In the hierarchical clustering scenario, it is expected many of such dwarf satellites are formed. In fact, one of the most serious problems with the present hierarchical clustering scenario is that it predict too many satellite galaxies, about a factor of 10 more than the number observed in the Local group (e.g., Moore et al., 1999). A number of explanations, including exotic theories which relies on hot or self-interacting dark matter, have been proposed.

In this paper, we go back to the basic problem: how long are the satellites lives ? In other words, how do the orbits of satellites evolve through interaction with the gravitational field of its parent galaxy? The dominant driving force of the evolution is the dynamical friction. For satellites like the LMC-SMC pair and the Sagittarius dwarf, there are many detailed studies of their orbital evolution, in which the dynamical friction is included as the external force operating on the center-of-mass motion of the satellite. Well known works include Murai and Fujimoto (MCs, 1980) and Ibata and Lewis (Sagittarius, 1998). In both of these studies, and in all other studies where the dynamical friction formula is used, significant circularization of the orbit of the satellite was observed. This circularization is the natural result of the fact that the dynamical friction is proportional to the local density of the background stars, and therefore the strongest at the perigalacticon.

However, recent $`N`$-body simulations of the orbital evolution of satellites resulted in rather counter-intuitive result. Van den Bosch et al (1999, hereafter BLLS) performed the $`N`$-body simulation of the satellite, where the parent galaxy was modeled directly as self-consistent $`N`$-body system. The satellite is modeled as one massive particle with spline potential softening used in PKDGRAV (Dikaiakos & Stadel, 1996). They investigated the evolution of the orbit for wide variety of model parameters such as the mass of the satellite and initial orbital eccentricity. They observed practically no circularization in any of their simulations.

Jiang and Binney (2000, hereafter JB) performed fully self-consistent simulation of the satellite, where both the parent galaxy and the satellite are modeled as self-consistent $`N`$-body systems. They compared their result with the result of approximate model in which the usual dynamical friction formula is used. Though they argued that the agreement is good, from their figure 3 it is clear that approximate models suffer stronger circularization and evolve faster than their $`N`$-body counterpart.

Neither of above two papers discussed the reason of this rather serious discrepancy between the result of $`N`$-body simulations and previous analytic prediction. The purpose of this paper is to understand its cause. In section 2, we describe our model experiment designed to reproduce the discrepancy observed by BLLS and JB. In section 3 we show our result. Our result is consistent with both of the previous works. $`N`$-body simulation showed only marginal circularization but approximate calculation using dynamical friction formula showed strong circularization. In section 4, we investigate the reason. There are several possible candidates for the reason. We consider a few of them, and found that a simple modification of the conventional form of the dynamical friction formula results in a quite remarkable improvement of the agreement between $`N`$-body and approximate calculations. In section 5 we apply our formalism to the LMC. We found that the orbital evolution becomes significantly slower than prediction by previous calculations using conventional formula. For example, the lifetime of LMC was 7 Gyr with conventional formula, but is 14 Gyr with our formalism. We also discuss the implication of our result to the so-called “dwarf problem”.

## 2 Numerical Simulation

We carried out a set of numerical simulations to see whether the results obtained by BLLS and JB are really true or not. In this section, we describe the models we used.

### 2.1 $`N`$-body simulation

We performed $`N`$-body simulations of the evolution of a satellite orbiting in a massive dark halo of a galaxy.

The massive halo is composed of $`N`$ equal mass particles, while the satellite dwarf is modeled by a single particle with a certain softening length. The softening is used to mimic the finite size of the satellite.

We adopted a King model of the concentration ratio $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0=9`$ as a model of the galactic halo. The system of units is the Heggie unit (Heggie and Mathieu (1986)) where the gravitational constant $`G`$ is $`1`$, the mass and the binding energy are $`1`$ and $`0.25`$, respectively.

JB used a composite disk+halo model in which the halo is expressed by particles and the disk is assumed to be rigid. BLLS used a single spherical halo. In both works, the halo density profile has the form

$$\rho =\rho _0\frac{r_c^2\mathrm{exp}[(r/r_t)^k]}{r_c^2+r^2},$$
(1)
where $`r_c`$ and $`r_t`$ are the core radius and the outer scale radius of the halo and $`\rho _0`$ is the central density of the halo. BLLS adopted $`k=2`$ while JB adopted $`k=1`$.

We did not follow the models. The standard dynamical friction formula is derived for the case of field stars with the Maxwell distribution. However, the distribution function associated with eq. (1) is rather different from the Maxwell distribution. This may cause difference in the effect of the dynamical friction. Also, the distribution function would relax to the Maxwellian through two-body relaxation, causing a small change in both the distribution function and the density profile.

In addition, the range of radius for which the density slope is approximately $`2`$ is rather narrow with this model, since the slope is noticeably shallower than $`2`$ for $`r10r_c`$.

The distribution function of the King model is a simple lowered Maxwellian. Therefore the agreement with the true Maxwellian is very good within the half-mass radius. Also, since the distribution function is practically as close as the true Maxwellian as we can make, thermal relaxation is minimized, though it still presents (see e.g., Quinlan 1996). Also, the King model with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0=9`$ has fairly wide range of radius in which the slope of the density is approximately $`2`$. So it is a fairly good model for a spherical halo with flat rotation.

The satellite galaxy is modeled by a single particle with mass $`M_\mathrm{s}`$ and softening length $`ϵ_\mathrm{s}`$. The force on the satellite from a particle in the halo is calculated as follows

$`𝐅`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{GmM_\mathrm{s}(𝐫_{\mathrm{sat}}𝐫_{\mathrm{halo}})}{(|𝐫_{\mathrm{sat}}𝐫_{\mathrm{halo}}|^2+ϵ_\mathrm{s}^2+ϵ_{\mathrm{halo}}^2)^{3/2}}}.`$ (2)
Here $`ϵ_{\mathrm{halo}}`$ is the softening length for the particle in the galactic halo. The value of the gravitational constant $`G`$ is $`1`$ in the standard units.

In table 1 we summarized the model parameters and initial conditions of our $`N`$-body simulations.

In our simulations, equations of motions of all particles in a dark halo and the satellite, i.e., $`N+1`$ particles, are integrated self-consistently. In other words, the dynamical friction effect from halo particles to the satellite is included naturally.

The number of halo particles $`N`$ used in the simulations shown in this paper is 32768. We varied $`N`$ from $`8192`$ to $`65536`$, and found any noticeable difference in the orbit of the satellite.

We used GRAPE6 to calculate the acceleration. We adopted simple $`O(N^2)`$ direct summation, to avoid any possible numerical artifact caused by the approximations made in force calculation. BLLS used the treecode and JB used a composite grid-based code. We do not think the numerical method caused the difference, but we want to be absolutely sure that our $`N`$-body simulation is as accurate as possible.

We integrated the orbits of the satellites and halo particles using the standard leapfrog scheme with a shared stepsize, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.03125`$. The error in total energy within $`10^3`$, which is small enough to observe the orbit evolution of satellites (Hashimoto et al., 2002).

### 2.2 Semi-analytic Integration

We performed semi-analytic calculations to follow the evolution of satellite orbits.

In these calculations, the model of the satellite is the same as in the $`N`$-body simulations, i.e., a single particle with mass $`M_\mathrm{s}`$ and the softening length $`ϵ_\mathrm{s}`$.

Instead of being represented by $`N`$ particles, the potential of the galactic halo is evaluated by using the gravitational potential of King 9 model with the same mass and scales as those adopted in $`N`$-body simulations.

In this integration, the force to the satellite due to the dynamical friction from the halo is evaluated by using an analytical formula, too.

For the dynamical friction formula, we follow JB (and also Murai and Fujimoto) to use the standard “Chandrasekhar’s dynamical friction formula”. It is expressed as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐯}{dt}}=16\pi ^2G^2m(M_\mathrm{s}+m)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{_0^{v_{\mathrm{max}}}f(v)𝑑𝐯}{|𝐯|^3}}𝐯,`$ (3)
where $`m`$ and $`M_\mathrm{s}`$ are the masses of a component of host galaxy and its satellite galaxy (Chandrasekhar, 1943; Binney and Tremaine, 1987). Here $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the Coulomb logarithm

$$\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{ln}(R_{\mathrm{halo}}/ϵ_\mathrm{s}V_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}),$$
(4)
where $`R_{\mathrm{halo}}`$ is the scale length of the galactic halo. This formula has been adopted by many semi-analytic studies of the orbital evolution of satellite galaxies (e.g., Murai and Fujimoto 1980; Helmi and White, 1999; Johnston et al., 1995). It is also used in cosmological studies of galaxy formation in order to estimate the merging time scale of satellite galaxies (e.g., Kauffmann, et al., 1994).

## 3 Result

Figure 1 shows the orbital evolution of a model satellite galaxy. The ordinate and abscissa are the distance of the satellite from the center of the galaxy and time in the $`N`$-body units. The solid and dashed curves correspond to the result of $`N`$-body simulation and that of semi-analytic model with standard dynamical friction formula (3).

In Figure 1 two curves are in good agreement only for a first few dynamical times. After a few orbits, two curves deviate from each other. Figure 1 shows that the orbital decay calculated with formula (3) is faster than that obtained by $`N`$-body simulation. If one measure the orbital eccentricity, it is clear that $`N`$-body result shows only a small change in the eccentricity, while semi-analytic result shows significant circularization.

Thus, even though we used completely different initial models and numerical method, we confirmed previous results by BLLS and JB that $`N`$-body simulation shows little circularization while semi-analytical calculation with standard dynamical friction formula shows strong circularization. In the next section, we discuss the possible causes of this discrepancy.

## 4 Possible causes of discrepancy

Since we have obtained quite different results with $`N`$-body and semi-analytic models, at least one of them must be wrong. Since $`N`$-body calculation can suffer many numerical problems due to limited resolution and particle noise, one might think $`N`$-body result is probably wrong. However, additional tests with different number of particles and different sizes of timestep showed very good agreement (Hashimoto et al., 2002). Therefore it seems our $`N`$-body result is sound. In addition, as we stated in the previous section, our $`N`$-body result is in good agreement with BLLS and JB. Though it is not impossible, it is certainly unlikely that all of these three works are wrong.

So let us now consider the possibility that the standard dynamical friction formula is wrong.

The standard dynamical friction formula is obtained under the assumption that the massive object moves straight in a uniform and isotropic distribution of field particles. Field particles are also assumed to be moving straight, and any interaction between field particles is ignored. Clearly, the satellite does not move straight, but circle around the center of the parent galaxy. The distribution of field stars within the parent galaxy is far from uniform, and field stars also circle around in the parent galaxy. Thus, it is not really surprising that the naive use of the dynamical friction formula gives rather bad result.

One obvious way to improve the accuracy of the dynamical friction formula is to calculate the linear response of the global distribution function of the parent galaxy to the presence and the orbit of the satellite (Weinberg, 1995). This approach would certainly give accurate and reliable result which agrees well with $`N`$-body result (Hernquist and Weinberg 1989). However, since the global response depends on the distribution function itself, the result cannot be expressed in a compact and form. So here we consider the possibility to improve the standard formula.

As we noted above, there are at least two problems with the standard formula. First, it assumes that both the satellite and field stars move straight. Second, it assumes that the density of the field star is the same everywhere.

The first assumption is clearly wrong, but its effect is difficult to estimate. Let us consider the effect of the second assumption, which is much easier to evaluate. In previous works, the outer cutoff radius of the Coulomb logarithm is taken to be the scale length of the halo, while the representative density of the field stars is taken to be the local density around the satellite. This would clearly cause an overestimate of the Coulomb integral, for the case of the singular isothermal sphere (or the King model we used), since the stellar density drops off as fast as $`1/r^2`$. This means the logarithmic divergence of the Coulomb integral does not actually occur if we takes into account the effect of the density gradient.

To correctly take into account the effect of the density gradient is a tricky problem. We cannot really use the straight line approximation for encounters with impact parameter comparable to or larger than $`R_s`$, the distance to the center of the galaxy. On the other hand, it might not be too bad an assumption just to ignore any encounter with impact parameters comparable to or larger than $`R_s`$. The density drops off rapidly and realistic effect is unlikely to enhance the effect of the encounter (except for the small fraction of the orbits in resonance with the orbit of satellite).

Thus, it might be more sensible to use $`R_s`$ as the outer cutoff radius for the Coulomb logarithm, that to use the traditional $`R_{halo}`$. In fact, this use of $`R_s`$ is first proposed by a pioneering work by Tremaine (1976) on the effect of the dynamical friction to the orbit of LMC-SMC pair.

To use $`ϵ_s`$ as the inner cutoff is okay as an order-of-magnitude estimate, but can be improved by actually integrating the effect of all encounters with small impact parameters for Plummer potential, following the treatment by White (1976). For Plummer model, the integration can be performed analytically and the result is that inner cutoff radius is $`r_{in}=1.6ϵ_s`$.

Figure 2 shows the result of the $`N`$-body simulation compared to that of our improved (both outer and inner cutoffs) semi-analytic treatment. Figure 2 is the same as Figure 1 but for the choice of the Coulomb logarithm

$$\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{R_\mathrm{s}}{1.4ϵ_\mathrm{s}}\right).$$
(5)
During our semi-analytic integration using (5), when the $`R_\mathrm{s}`$ becomes smaller than $`1.4ϵ_\mathrm{s}`$, we simply put the dynamical friction term to be zero, since it is clearly unphysical to apply dynamical “acceleration”.

Figure 2 shows that the results of the $`N`$-body simulation and semi-analytic treatment agree quite well.

The coefficient appeared in the denominator of the right-hand side of equation (5) is chosen in order to fit the curve of our semi-analytic model to that of $`N`$-body simulations. The Coulomb logarithm which we used to fit the result of direct $`N`$-body simulation is in good agreement with the that proposed by White (1976). Strictly speaking, there is a slight difference between the value of the coefficient in the denominator we used in Figure 2 and that estimated by the method proposed in White (1976) : the former is 1.4, while the latter is 1.6. It is not serious. The latter value is estimated using straight-line approximation so that the value should be overestimated a little. (In other words, the straight-line approximation tends to underestimate the effect of dynamical friction.) We will discuss this problem elsewhere (Hashimoto, et al., 2002).

The agreement between the $`N`$-body result and semi-analytic treatment is quite remarkable. Figure 2 shows that the discrepancy shown in Figure 1 is caused by an inadequate estimate of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Other possible reasons, such as the effect of the global response of the distribution function, might still exists, but they are clearly not the prime reason of the discrepancy between $`N`$-body and semi-analytic works which we discussed in the introduction and section 3.

The improved agreement with the $`N`$-body result is explained as follows. With $`b_{max}=R_{cut}`$, the semi-analytical treatment causes strong circularization and faster orbital evolution. This implies that the the semi-analytical treatment overestimated the dynamical friction around the perigalacticon. Around the apogalacticon, the error might exist, but relatively small compared to that at the perigalacticon. The use of variable $`b_{max}`$ reduces the value of $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ both at perigalacticon and apogalacticon, but by a much larger factor at the perigalacticon simply because $`R_s`$ is smaller. Thus, effectively we reduced the dynamical friction around the perigalacticon, which resulted in the improvement in the agreement with the $`N`$-body result.

In hindsight, it looks too obvious that the traditional use of the dynamical friction formula was inappropriate. Theoretically, it is clearly not justifiable to assume that the stellar density is the same up to the outer cutoff radius of the halo. From comparison between the $`N`$-body result and those of semi-analytic treatment, it also is clear that previous semi-analytic treatment overestimates deceleration due to the dynamical friction around the perigalacticon.

To summarize our result, the orbital decay of satellites is slower than ever estimated, the eccentricity of orbit of revolution of a satellite around the host galaxy is almost constant. The reason why previous estimates are wrong is that previous studies overestimated the effect of dynamical friction at the perigalacticon.

## 5 Summary and Applications

We performed $`N`$-body simulations of satellite orbits. We found that the circularization of the orbit due to the dynamical friction is much slower than commonly believed. This discrepancy was also reported by BLLS, and we can see the same tendency from the numerical result reported by JB.

Previous studies of satellite orbits used the outer cutoff radius of the dark halo as $`b_{max}`$. We found that the effective $`b_{max}`$ should be of the order of $`R_s`$, the distance of the satellite from the center of the galaxy, which varies as the satellite orbits around the galaxy. Our formula results in a greatly improved agreement with the $`N`$-body result.

### 5.1 the Large Magellanic Cloud

The Large Magellanic Cloud is the most famous satellite of Milky Way. Its orbit has been investigated from both observation and numerical simulations (e.g., Toomre, 1970; Tremaine, 1976; Lin and Lynden-Bell, 1977; Murai and Fujimoto, 1980). The importance of the effect of dynamical friction from the galactic halo on the orbit evolution LMC is first emphasized by Tremaine (1976).

By using numerical simulation, Murai and Fujimoto (1980) (hereafter MF) determined the orbital elements and the present phase of the LMC. They performed a number of backward numerical integrations of the orbits of the LMC and SMC from various initial conditions, and integrated orbits of test particles in the LMC and SMC for each condition. Comparing the result of distribution of test particles and the observed Magellanic stream, they chose the initial condition which gives the best fit.

In their numerical integration, they assumed a halo expressed by a singular isothermal sphere, which is a simple flat-rotation halo. In their paper, it is not clear either what assumption or what exact value is adopted for $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, since there is no discussion on how they determined $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ though it appeared in their equation (13).

In order to see the effect of changing $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we integrated the orbit of LMC both forward and backward in time, using both the constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and variable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`b_{max}=R_s`$). In this study, we express LMC as a single Plummer-softened particle with mass $`2\times 10^{10}M_{}`$ and softening length $`5`$ kpc. The rotation velocity of the halo is $`250`$ km/s, same as what is used by MF. We simulated the orbit of the LMC only, since our purpose here is to demonstrate the effect of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and not the accurate determination of the orbits of the Clouds.

The solid curve in Figure 3 corresponds to the orbit obtained when the dynamical friction is calculated using equation (5). The dashed curve Figure 3 correspond to the orbit obtained using the formula (3) and (4). Note that the backward part of this dashed curve is in very good agreement with the result of MF. This agreement strongly suggests that what MF used is indeed a constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Figure 3 shows that real evolution of the orbit of LMC (with variable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) is significantly smaller than what is obtained by MF. 10 Gyrs ago, the “true” apogalacticon was only $`160`$ kpc, while the solution by MF was $`180`$ kpc.

A more remarkable difference is in the future of the LMC. With the constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The LMC will fall to the galactic center in only 7 Gyrs with constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, while our result suggests that it will take more than 14 G years for the LMC to fall to the galactic center.

### 5.2 Statistical Evolution of Faint Galaxies

In semi-anaritic studies of galaxy formation, it has been assumed that the orbits of satellite galaxies evolve through dynamical friction following Chandrasekhar’s formula with constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In this section, we discuss how our result might change our understanding of the statistical evolution of the satellite galaxies.

Our study shows that the time evolution of the eccentricity of satellites is rather small. Thus, we may assume that the distribution of eccentricities of satellite galaxies at present directly reflects that at the formation epoch of the Galaxy. Therefore the distribution of eccentricities of satellites galaxies can be an important clue to the formation of the Galaxy.

The lifetime of the satellite is estimated using the dynamical friction timescale with $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ taken to be $`M_H/M_s`$ (Lacey and Cole, 1993; Kauffmann et al., 1994). This would cause a quite serious overestimate in the dynamical friction timescale, since the factor one should use is the ratio between the size of the halo and the size of the satellite. If we assume $`M\sigma ^4`$, we have $`RM^{1/2}`$. Thus, there is at least a factor of two difference in the value of $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Since there are too many other uncertainties in the semi-analytic modeling of the galaxy number evolution, how serious this difference is not clear. However, it certainly affects the estimate of presently observed satellites rather strongly. A more detailed study on this aspect is clearly necessary.

We thank Toshi Fukushige and Sadanori Okamura on stimulating discussions. We also thank Rainer Spurzem, T, Tsuchiya, and Andrea Just for helpful discussions. This work is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research B (13440058) of the Ministry of Eduaction, Culture, Culture, Science and Technology, Japan.


text:
# Final state interaction in lepton scattering off deuterons

## I Introduction

One of the most challenging aspects of the nowadays hadronic physics is the experimental and theoretical investigation of effects of Final State Interaction (FSI) in electromagnetic processes off nuclei at high energy and momentum transfers. As a matter of fact, these processes are viewed as a useful tool for studying several features of strong interactions at short distances and for checking the predictions of perturbative QCD. At high moment transfer, when the electron probes extremely short distances, the strong interaction is expected to be screened in the same way as the atomic Coulomb field is screened at short distances in QED. In other words, in the quark-gluon debris, produced by the target quark which absorbed the highly virtual photon, the color forces are screened (”switched off”) in the neighbourhood of the interaction spot. Only at a certain distance from the interaction point, known as the Formation or Hadronization Length (or, equivalently, the Finite Formation Time), the reaction products become able to interact. Moreover, the magnitude of the Hadronization Length strongly depends upon the kinematics of the process and, at least theoretically, there can exist situations when the strong interaction may completely vanish, a phenomenon known as Color Transparency (see for detail Refs. zam ; ct  and references therein quoted). From the point of view of nuclear physics this means that after absorbtion of $`\gamma ^{}`$ the quark system is able to produce many physical states which, due to their coherent interaction in the final state, manifest a strong attenuation of the cross section with respect to the prediction of the usual eikonal theory. In the presence of CT, the ratio of the experimentally observed cross section to the one calculated theoretically within the Plane Wave Impulse Approximation (PWIA) is predicted to approach unity as $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$. However, at finite $`Q^2`$ one should investigate the ratio of experimentally measured quantities to the ones computed taking into account the FSI effects; an observed deviation of such a ratio from unity, in agreement with the $`Q^2`$ dependence predicted by CT, would be unambiguous signal of the latter. Presently, evidence from the experimental study of proton production in $`eA`$ collisions seems to indicate that the CT effects are not yet visible up to $`Q^2`$ of the order $`20GeV^2/c^2`$, which means that in this region the experimental data can satisfactorily be described within usual theoretical approaches. Since CT corrections are predicted to be small at finite $`Q^2`$, and because of the required theoretical difficulties in the treatment of FSI and CT effects, the choice of the processes and kinematics to be investigated, as well as of the theoretical frameworks for the interpretation of the data, is of great importance.

Another noteworthy aspect of FSI effects is its tight connection with the problem of the experimental investigation of Ground State Correlations (GSC) in nuclei, particulary those which originate from the $`NN`$-correlations at short distances. There is a renewed interest in this topic in view of new experimental possibilities in the investigation of electro disintegration of light nuclei in semi inclusive and exclusive reactions (about the present status of experimental and theoretical investigations of GSC in nuclei see, e.g., Ref lund ). A detailed study of GSC would allow to obtain additional information about the nuclear wave function and to directly check the validity of the Standard Model of nuclei as systems of non relativistic nucleons interacting via known $`NN`$ forces. Unfortunately, contrary to elastic processes, these inelastic electromagnetic reactions are affected by several effects ( Final State Interaction among the reaction products, Meson Exchange Currents effects etc.), which may mask the effects of GSC. Therefore one needs reliable methods of calculations of the FSI corrections in these processes as well. Besides, since the study of GSC at short distances requires probes with relatively high momentum transfer, the question of the role of relativistic corrections cannot be neglected in theoretical treatments of the mechanism of the electro disintegration of nuclei.

In this context, the problem of a reliable theoretical calculations of relativistic effects, FSI and FFT effects appears to be of a great interest. In the present talk a study of the mentioned effects in the inclusive process of electro disintegration of the deuteron $`D(e,e^{})X`$, is presented. Investigations of the semi inclusive reactions of the type $`A(e,e^{}p)`$ for deuterons and light nuclei is in progress and will be reported elsewhere tolpa .

## II Kinematics and cross section

The invariant cross section for the electro disintegration of the target $`A`$ into the final hadron system $`H`$, can be written in a general form as

$`d\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4kp_A}}\left|_{e+Ae^{}+H}\right|^2(2\pi )^4\delta ^{(4)}\left(k+p_Ak^{}p_H\right){\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤^{}}{(2\pi )^32^{}}}d\tau _H,`$ (1)
where the square of the invariant matrix element $`\left|_{e+Ae^{}+H}\right|^2`$ in the one-photon-exchange approximation can be written as

$`\left|_{e+Ae^{}+H}\right|^2(2\pi )\delta ^{(4)}((p_1+q)^2m^2)={\displaystyle \frac{e^4}{Q^4}}L^{\mu \nu }(k,q)W_{\mu \nu }^A(p_A,q),`$ (2)
with the known electromagnetic leptonic tensor $`L^{\mu \nu }(k,q)`$, $`L^{\mu \nu }(k,q)=2\left(2k_\mu k_\nu (k_\mu q_\nu +k_\nu q_\mu )+g_{\mu \nu }\frac{q^2}{2}\right)`$. The (generally unknown) hadronic tensor $`W_{\mu \nu }^A`$ besides electromagnetic interaction also involves information about the strong structure of the interaction currents. So, in case of elastic electron scattering from nucleons the electromagnetic nucleon vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{eN}(Q^2)`$ is usually parametrized in terms of two elastic form factors

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{eN}(Q^2)=\gamma _\mu F_1(Q^2)+i{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mu \alpha }q^\alpha }{2m}}\kappa F_2(Q^2),`$ (3)
with the resulting tensor $`W_{\mu \nu }^N`$

$`W_{\mu \nu }^N(p_1,q)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{𝖳𝗋}\left\{(\widehat{p}_1+m)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{eN}(Q^2)(\widehat{p}_1+\widehat{q}+m)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^{eN}(Q^2)\right\}(2\pi )\delta \left((p_1+q)^2m^2\right),`$ (4)
which being contracted with the leptonic tensor provides the well known Rosenbluth formula for the cross section.

In the case of a complex system the form of the hadronic tensor cannot be unambiguously defined and some theoretical models have to be used to relate the nuclear tensor via the known nucleon one. In what follows, for the sake of simplicity we concentrate attention on the simplest nucleus, the deuteron. However, all results and conclusions hold for complex nuclei as well.

### II.1 PWIA

The simplest theoretical approach to calculate the hadronic tensor is the plane wave impulse approximation (PWIA) which assumes that i) the nuclear electromagnetic current is a sum of solely one-nucleon currents ii) the final state interaction between the struck nucleon and the residual nucleus does not contribute to the cross section (see fig. 1a). The neglect of FSI implies that the state vector describing the final system can be presented as a tensor product of the corresponding vectors of the struck nucleon and the residual nucleus. This immediately allows to separately compute the matrix elements of nucleon currents and the part describing the nuclear $`A1`$ structure. A direct calculation of the diagram on fig.1a (in both non relativistic ck  and relativistic farrali ) approaches leads to the following form of the inclusive cross section

$$\left(\frac{d\sigma }{d^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_k^{}}\right)_{eD}^{PWIA}=(2\pi )\underset{p_{min}}{\overset{p_{max}}{}}|𝐩|d|𝐩|n^D(𝐩)\frac{E_{\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}}}{|𝐪|}\left(\overline{\sigma }_{ep}+\overline{\sigma }_{en}\right),$$
(5)
where $`\left(\overline{\sigma }_{ep}+\overline{\sigma }_{en}\right)`$ represents the cross section of electron scattering from an isoscalar nucleon; the quantity $`n_D`$ in the non relativistic limit is the familiar deuteron momentum distribution related with the deuteron wave function as follows

$$n^D(|𝐩|)=\frac{1}{3(2\pi )^3}\underset{_D}{}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,_D}(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐩𝐫})𝑑𝐫\right|^2.$$
(6)
In the relativistic case an analogue of the momentum distribution can be introduced as well, and in terms of the Bethe-Salpeter partial amplitudes reads as farrali

$$n_D^{BS}(p_0,𝐩)=\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_S^2(p_0,|𝐩|)+\mathrm{\Psi }_D^2(p_0,|𝐩|)\right)+\frac{|𝐩|}{E_𝐩}\delta \mathrm{N}(p_0,𝐩),$$
(7)
where the contribution from pure relativistic corrections (”negative” P-waves) is

$`\delta n(p_0,𝐩)=\{{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{3}}{3}}[\mathrm{\Psi }_S(p_0,|𝐩|)(\mathrm{\Psi }_{P_1}(p_0,|𝐩|)\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_{P_3}(p_0,|𝐩|))+`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_D(p_0,|𝐩|)(\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_{P_1}(p_0,|𝐩|)+\mathrm{\Psi }_{P_3}(p_0,|𝐩|))]\}.`$ (8)
Now the problem of whether the relativistic corrections play a role in the considered processes reduces to a comparison of the momentum distributions, computed within relativistic and the non relativistic approaches. In Fig. 2 the non relativistic deuteron momentum distribution predicted by realistic potentials (RSC and Paris-group) are compared with the ones obtained within the covariant BS formalism with a realistic one-boson-exchange kernel ku . It can be seen that the relativistic corrections (8) are negligibly small so that in the kinematical region of our interests the two approaches provide basically identical results. Thus one can conclude that relativistic correction are irrelevant in the considered kinematical region and, for the sake of simplicity, all further analysis can be safely performed within the non relativistic limit. It is also worth emphasizing that corrections like relativistic meson exchange currents can be neglected as well, for in the covariant BS calculations of the momentum distribution the $`N\overline{N}`$\- pair production is already taken into account within the PWIA semikh .

## III The rescattering contribution

### III.1 The Schroedinger Approach

At moderate momentum transfer $`Q^2`$ the total energy of the ejectile and the $`A1`$ system can be relatively small, below the pion production threshold. In this case the most reliable method to take into account the FSI effects is to use the solution of the Schroedinger equation in the continuum for the final system. The corresponding cross section for the longitudinal current is ck

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma ^L}{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}d^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2\sigma _{Mott}}{2\pi }}V_LG_E(Q^2)^2{\displaystyle \underset{J_f}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}|J_D||\widehat{O}_\lambda (|𝐪|)||p_{rel};J_fL_fS_f|^2{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩_{rel}|}{\sqrt{s}}}.`$ (9)
where $`𝐩_{rel}`$ is the relative momentum of the $`np`$-pair which is defined by the Mandelstam variable $`s=4(𝐩_{rel}^2+M^2)`$; $`\widehat{\mathrm{O}}_{\lambda \mu }=i^\lambda j_\lambda (qr/2)Y_{\lambda \mu }(\widehat{r})`$ and the scattering state $`|p_{rel};J_fL_fS_f`$ describes the interaction of the two nucleons in the continuum.

It can be seen that equation (9) differs from the PWIA result (5). However, by using the identity $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|𝐪|}}{\displaystyle \underset{|y|}{\overset{p_{max}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|d|𝐩|}{E}}={\displaystyle \frac{p_{rel}}{\sqrt{s}}}`$ one may cast the cross section in the form of eq. (5) by formally replacing the momentum distribution $`n_D(|𝐩|)`$ with the quantity $`n_S^D(|𝐩|,|\text{q}|,\nu )`$,

$$n_S^D(|𝐩|,|\text{q}|,\nu )=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{3}\underset{J_f}{}\underset{\lambda }{}|J_D||\widehat{O}_\lambda (|𝐪|)||p_{rel};J_fL_fS_f|^2,$$
(10)
which can be called the distorted momentum distribution within the Schroedinger approach. Note, that in absence of FSI, the state vector $`|p_{rel};J_fL_fS_f`$ is nothing but the multipole decomposition of the $`np`$ plane wave and eq. (10) coincides exactly with the usual PWIA momentum distribution , eq. (6).

### III.2 The Glauber Approach

In the Glauber approach the exact two-nucleon continuum wave function $`|f>`$ is approximated by its eikonal form. Then the cross section can be written in the same form as equation (5) with the deuteron momentum distribution (6) replaced by the Glauber distorted momentum distribution $`n_G^D`$ ck ,

$$n^D(𝐩)n_G^D(𝐩_m)=\frac{1}{3}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{_D}{}\left|𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,_D}^{}(𝐫)S(𝐫)\chi _f\mathrm{exp}(i𝐩_m𝐫)\right|^2,$$
(11)
where $`𝐩_m=𝐪𝐩_1^{}`$ is the missing momentum, $`\chi _f`$ the spin wave function of the final $`np`$-pair and $`S(𝐫)`$ the $`S`$-matrix describing the final state interaction between the hit nucleon and the spectator,

$$S(𝐫)=1\theta (z)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}(𝐛),$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}(𝐛)`$ is the elastic profile function, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}(𝐛)={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{tot}(1i\alpha )}{4\pi b_0^2}}\mathrm{exp}(b^2/2b_0^2)`$, and $`𝐫=𝐛+z𝐪/|𝐪|`$ defines the longitudinal, $`z`$, and the perpendicular, $`𝐛`$, components of the relative coordinate r, $`\sigma _{tot}=\sigma _{el}+\sigma _{in}`$, $`\alpha `$ is the ratio of the real to the imaginary part of the forward elastic $`pn`$ scattering amplitude, and, eventually, the step function $`\theta (z)`$ originates from the Glauber’s high energy approximation, according to which the struck nucleon propagates along a straight-line trajectory and can interact with the spectator only provided $`z>0`$.

It should be stressed, first, that in absence of any FSI, the distorted momentum distribution $`n_G^D(𝐩_m)`$ reduces to the undistorted momentum distribution $`n^D(𝐩)`$ ($`𝐩_m=𝐩_1`$) and, secondly, that unlike $`n^D(𝐩)`$, $`n_G^D(𝐩_m)`$ depends also upon the orientation of $`𝐩_m`$ with respect to the momentum transfer $`𝐪`$, with the angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{𝐪𝐩}_m}`$ being fixed by the energy conserving $`\delta `$-function, namely $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{𝐪𝐩}_m}=[(2(M_D+\nu )\sqrt{|\text{p}_m|^2+M^2}s)]/(2|\text{q}||\text{p}_m|)`$; thus $`n_G^D(𝐩_m)`$ depends implicitly on the kinematics of the process, and the values of $`p_{min}`$ and $`|𝐪|`$ fix the value of the total energy of the final $`np`$ pair, i.e. the relative energy of the nucleons in the final states. Consequently, the quantities $`\sigma _{tot}`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`b_0`$ in also depend upon the kinematics of the process. In this sense, the distorted momentum distribution $`n_G^D(𝐩_m)`$ implicitly depends upon $`|𝐪|`$ and $`p_{min}`$ as well.

### III.3 Schroedinger vs Glauber: numerical results

A formal comparative analysis of FSI effects can be performed by comparing the corresponding momentum distributions eqs.( 10), (11) with the PWIA results, eq. (6). However such a direct comparison may not be quite enlightening, for in the considered processes besides the momentum distribution, $`n^D`$, the cross section is also determined by other kinematical factors and restrictions, which can strongly influence the magnitude of FSI effects. For this reason it is more convenient to present the results of calculation in terms of the scaling function $`F(𝐪,y)`$, which is obtained from the cross section by eliminating all the irrelevant kinematical factors. In Fig. 3 the PWIA (dotted curves) is compared with the results which include FSI effects within the Schroedinger approach (dashed curves) and the Glauber approximation (solid curves). The quantity $`|y|=p_{min}`$, eq. (5), determines which part of the intrinsic nucleon momenta contributes to the cross section. At low total energies $`\sqrt{s}`$ of the $`np`$ pair ($`s=2m^2+2m\sqrt{m^2+p_{lab}^2}`$) the Schroedinger approach provides a rather good description of the data, while the Glauber approximation is not valid at such relative energies. With increasing momentum transfer, the FSI contribution, computed within both approaches, decreases. Note that above the pion production threshold the use of the Schroedinger approach becomes questionable. Note also that, as seen from fig.3, at high momentum transfer the FSI corrections computed within the Glauber approximation remain almost constant.

## IV Finite Formation Time

As illustrated in the previous section, there is only a limited interval of momentum transfer $`Q^2`$ where the Glauber approximation holds: at low relative energy of the interacting $`NN`$ pair the use of the eikonal approximation is not justified,whereas at very high $`Q^2`$ the energy transfer may be too large to consider the struck nucleon as a real one. In this case, after the absorbtion of the virtual photon, the hadron state can be viewed as a superposition of many coherently interacting states. Obviously, this interaction can lead to a strong cancellation of the amplitudes and, as a result, one can expect a strong dilution of the FSI effects. Moreover, one may expect that while the usual nuclear shadowing, predicted by the eikonal approach, becomes almost $`Q^2`$-independent as $`Q^2`$ increases, the suppression of the FSI effects due to coherent interaction of many intermediate hadronic states should increase with increasing $`Q^2`$, leading asymptotically to the vanishing FSI effects. The propagation of the hadronic debris in the residual nucleus can be taken into account by various effective theoretical models. At large values of the three-momentum transfer, one can modify the Glauber approach by adding another channel with an excited, effective hadronic state propagating trough the nucleus, the two-channels generalization of the Glauber theory (see, e.g. fskoleliovich ). Another possibility is to compute directly the Feynman diagram on fig.1 bearing in mind that in the intermediate state the propagator of the hit nucleon in the loop integration can be very far off mass-shell so that the secondary interaction of highly virtual nucleons (the second blob in the diagram, fig.1b) cannot be approximated by the real $`NN`$ scattering amplitude. It is known that the cross section of scattering of virtual particles should decrease with increasing virtuality. This is equivalent to the known fact that after a particle has undergone an interaction, it should elapse a finite amount of time before it can be ready for a new one. During this time the virtual particle propagates without any interaction. Theoretically this can be taken into account by introducing suppressing form factors at each end of the nucleon line in the corresponding Feynman diagram, which formally consists in changing the ejectile propagatorsbraun :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2(p+Q)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2(p+Q)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(p+Q)^2}}`$ (13)
where the subtracted term may be considered as an effective contribution from the excited ejectile states, which makes the rescattering contribution to vanish at superhigh energies (equivalent to the colour transparency effect)111A similar procedure to take into account the virtuality in the nucleon propagator has been proposed by F. Gross and D. Riska (Phys. Rev. C36 (1987) 1928 ) to restore the gauge invariance in electro disintegration of the deuteron..

With the assumption (13) the rescattering contribution (Fig. 1) has been calculated within the assumptions of spinless active nucleon, i.e. the electromagnetic vertex (3) has been considered to depend only on one elastic form factor, which can be justified by the fact that in the ratios of relative contributions of rescattering terms to the PWIA amplitudes, uncertainties arising from neglecting the spin dependence of electromagnetic vertices are expected to be significantly reduced and one may be able to reliable estimate the contribution of FFT corrections in the total cross section. Notice, that in general, the computation of Feynman diagrams with rescattering effects (fig. 1b) produces extremely lengthy and cumbersome expressions and even in the simplest case, the deuteron target, a compact analytical form of results is not feasible. However, at high enough $`Q^2`$ and at $`x_{Bj}1`$ one may drastically simplify the results and finally to represent the amplitude in an exactly eikonal form by formally replacing the $`\theta (z)`$ function in (12) with braun

$`\theta (z)\theta (z)[1exp((i{\displaystyle \frac{z}{l(Q^2)}})],`$ (14)
where $`l(Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{x_{Bj}mm^2}}`$ is the formation length. As expected, the formation length increases with $`Q^2`$ and, as seen from eq. (14), at $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ it completely cancels the contribution from the usual eikonal rescattering term. Note that the result (14) holds not only for the deuteron target, but it is a more general result valid for any nuclear target, provided the multiple rescattering terms are much smaller than the single rescattering contribution. At $`x_{Bj}1`$ the inclusive quasi elastic reaction $`D(e,e^{})X`$ has been studied in Ref. braun  , whereas recently tolpa  the theoretical approach has been extended to the so-called cumulative region ($`x_{Bj}>1`$) where calculations, due to the effects of GSC, which provide high momentum components, are much more involved. The results are presented in Fig.4. It can be seen that at moderate values of the momentum transfer FSI effects are visible and, generally, improve the description of the cross section (the PWIA, dotted curves in Fig.4, are to be compared with rescattering contribution, dashed curves, and FFT effects, the full lines). At $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$, as expected, FFT effects cancel the effects of elastic rescattering and the results are close to the PWIA predictions (see the right panel in fig.4). Unfortunately, present experimental data are far from the asymptotic region.

## V Conclusions

1. In the kinematical region of interest ($`y<0.8GeV/c`$, $`s`$-below the pion production threshold) the relativistic corrections (P-waves) may be disregarded and a covariant, relativistic momentum distribution in the deuteron may be defined which resembles the non relativistic distribution.

2. FSI corrections in inclusive electro disintegration of the deuteron may be reliably estimated in a large kinematical region of $`Q^2`$ and $`\nu `$ by the Schroedinger, Glauber and FFT approaches

3. FFT effects play an important role in the considered reactions and, at high enough $`Q^2`$, they lead to an almost total cancellation of the rescattering corrections predicted by the one channel Glauber approximation.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been done in collaboration with Profs. C. Ciofi degli Atti and M.A. Braun whose contribution is gratefully acknowledged.