text:
# Early acceleration and adiabatic matter perturbations in a class of dilatonic dark-energy models

## I Introduction

Independent cosmological observations have recently pointed out the existence of a significant fraction of critical density in the form of unclustered matter, possibly characterized by a negative pressure rie ; perl ; lee ; net . Such a component of the cosmic fluid, conventionally denoted dark energy, is believed to drive the accelerated evolution of our present Universe, as suggested by the study of the Supernovae Ia (SNIa) Hubble diagram. While the simplest explanation of the dark-energy component is probably a cosmological constant, it might be neither the most motivated, nor the best fit to the data.

The existence of a (presently dominating) dark-energy component raises at least three important questions: *a*) what is the physical origin of such a new component? *b*) why its energy density today is just comparable to the matter energy density? *c*) did the acceleration start only very recently in the cosmological history?

The first question refers to the fundamental physical mechanism able to generate a cosmic and universal dark-energy distribution. So far, most models of dark energy have adopted a purely phenomenological approach, even if a few proposal concerning the possible role of the dark-energy field in the context of fundamental physics have already appeared fri ; wet90 ; albre ; MG01 ; GPV01 ; pie .

The other questions concern two distinct (although possibly related) aspects of the so-called “coincidence problem” Ste . The first aspect refers to the density of the dark-energy and of the dark-matter component. Since in most models the two components have different equations of state, they scale with time in a different way, and their densities should be widely different for essentially all the cosmological history: by contrast, current data are strongly pointing at a comparable proportion of the two components just at the present epoch.

The second aspect of the coincidence problem may arise if the epoch of accelerated evolution started only very recently, say at $`z1`$. There are reasons to suspect that this may be the case because, in most models, the growth of structures is forbidden after the beginning of the accelerated expansion, so that the acceleration cannot be extended too far into the past. It has also been recently claimed that the supernova SN1997ff super ; super1  at $`z1.7`$ provides an additional indication that the acceleration is a relatively recent phenomenon.

A promising approach for a possible simultaneous answer to the above questions has been recently provided by a dilatonic interpretation of the dark energy based on the infinite bare-coupling limit of the superstring effective action GPV01 , whose cosmological solutions are characterized by a late-time global attractor where dark-matter and (dilatonic) dark-energy densities have an identical scaling with time. A very similar cosmological scenario has been studied also in amtoc ; bias . The respective amount of dark-matter and dark-energy density is eventually determined by the fundamental constants of the model, and it is expected to be of the same order, so that their ratio keeps frozen around unity for the whole duration of such an asymptotic regime. In such a context, the today approximate equality of dark-matter and dark-energy density would be no longer a coincidence of the present epoch, but a consequence of the fact that our Universe has already entered the asymptotic regime (actually, for a region of parameter space allowed by observations, it is also possible that the ratio of dark-energy to dark-matter density is close to unity not only in the asymptotic regime, but already after the equivalence epoch). Finally, the cosmic field responsible for the observed large-scale acceleration would be no longer introduced *ad hoc*, being identified with a fundamental ingredient of superstring/M-theory models of high-energy physics.

In this paper we will focus our discussion on the possible constraints imposed by structure formation on the above model of dilatonic dark energy, by studying the growth of matter perturbations in the two relevant post-equivalence epochs: a first decelerated epoch, dubbed *dragging phase*, and a second accelerated epoch, dubbed *freezing phase*. We will then reconstruct the behavior of the cosmological gravitational potential, evaluate the Sachs-Wolfe and integrated Sachs-Wolfe contributions to the spectrum of CMB anisotropies, and estimate the present level of matter fluctuations (in particular, the so-called variance $`\sigma _8`$, smoothed out over spheres of radius 8 Mpc $`h^1`$). Finally, we will compare it with observations.

The results that we find are interesting, and might help answering the third question posed at the beginning of this section: among the range of parameters compatible with a phenomenologically acceptable $`\sigma _8`$ we find indeed values allowing a long epoch of acceleration, starting as far in the past as at $`z5`$. By contrast, the models of dark energy uncoupled to dark matter, with frozen (or slowly varying) equation of state, cannot accelerate before $`z1`$ . It seems appropriate to anticipate here that the production of an acceptable level of fluctuations even in the case of an early start of the accelerated epoch is due to two concurrent factors: the first is that, during the freezing phase, perturbations do not stop growing like in other models of accelerating dark energy; the second is that the horizon at equivalence in our model shifts at larger scales with respect to a standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. It is also important to stress that such an early acceleration is by no means in contrast with the recently observed supernova SN1997ff at $`z1.7`$.

For the model of dilatonic dark energy considered in this paper the coincidence problem can thus be alleviated by the fact that the ratio of dark-matter to dark-energy density is of order one not only at present, not only in the course of the future evolution but (at least in principle) also in the past, long before the present epoch. It should be clear, however, that this possibility could be strongly constrained by future observations of supernovae at high redshift.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. II we present the details of our late-time, dilaton-driven cosmological scenario, and define the (theoretical and phenomenological) parameters relevant to our computation. In Sect. III we discuss the growth of matter perturbations and compute the variance $`\sigma _8`$. In Sect. IV we impose the observational constraints on our set of parameters, and determine the maximal possible extension towards the past of the phase of accelerated evolution. We also find, as a byproduct of our analysis, interesting experimental constraints on the fundamental parameters of the string effective action used for a dilatonic interpretation of the dark-energy field. In Sect. V we compare our model with the constraints provided by the farthest observed supernova at $`z1.7`$. Our conclusions are finally summarized in Sect. VI.

## II The model

The model we consider is based on the gravi-dilaton string effective action GSW87  which, to lowest order in the higher-derivative expansion, but including dilaton-dependent loop corrections and a non-perturbative potential, can be written in the String-frame as follows GPV01

$$S=\frac{1}{2\lambda _s^2}d^4x\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\left[e^{\psi \left(\varphi \right)}\stackrel{~}{R}+Z\left(\varphi \right)\left(\stackrel{~}{}\varphi \right)^2+2\lambda _s^2\stackrel{~}{V}\left(\varphi \right)\right]+S_m(\stackrel{~}{g},\varphi ,\text{matter}).$$
(1)
Here $`\lambda _s`$ is the fundamental string-length parameter, and the tilde refers to the String-frame metric. The functions $`\psi (\varphi ),Z(\varphi )`$ are appropriate “form factors" encoding the dilatonic loop corrections and reducing, in the weak coupling limit, to the well known tree-level expressions GSW87  $`Z=\mathrm{exp}(\psi )=\mathrm{exp}(\varphi )`$.

In this paper we are interested in a “late-time", post-big bang cosmological scenario, in which the dilaton is free to run to infinity rolling down an exponentially suppressed potential, and the loop form factors approach a finite limit as $`\varphi +\mathrm{}`$. Assuming the validity of an asymptotic Taylor expansion Ven01 , and following the spirit of “induced-gravity" models in which the gravitational and gauge couplings saturate at small values because of the large number ($`N10^2`$) of fundamental GUT gauge bosons entering the loop corrections, we can write, for $`\varphi +\mathrm{}`$,

$`e^{\psi \left(\varphi \right)}=c_1^2+b_1e^\varphi +𝒪\left(e^{2\varphi }\right),Z\left(\varphi \right)=c_2^2+b_2e^\varphi +𝒪\left(e^{2\varphi }\right),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{V}\left(\varphi \right)=V_0e^\varphi +𝒪\left(e^{2\varphi }\right).`$ (2)
The dimensionless coefficients $`c_1^2,c_2^2`$ are typically of order $`10^2`$, because of their quantum-loop origin. We may note, in particular, that $`c_1^2`$ asymptotically controls the fundamental ratio between the (dimensionally reduced) string and Planck scales GPV01 , $`c_1^2=\lambda _s^2/\lambda _P^2`$, which is indeed expected to be in the range Kap85  $`\lambda _P/\lambda _s0.30.03`$.

To complete the model we have to specify the matter action $`S_m`$ of eq. (1), containing the coupling (possibly renormalized by loop corrections) of the matter fields to the dilaton. The variation of $`S_m`$ with respect to $`\varphi `$ defines the (String-frame) dilatonic charge density $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$, whose appearance is a peculiar string theory effect Gas99 , and represents the crucial difference from conventional (Brans-Dicke) scalar-tensor models of gravity.

For the cosmological scenario of this paper we shall assume, as in GPV01 , that $`S_m`$ contains radiation, baryons and cold dark matter, and that the dilatonic charge of the dark matter component switches on at sufficiently large couplings, being proportional (through a time-dependent factor $`q(\varphi )`$) to its energy density $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_c`$. Also, $`q(\varphi )`$ is assumed to approach a constant (positive) value $`q_0`$ as $`\varphi +\mathrm{}`$,

$$q\left(\varphi \right)=q_0+𝒪\left(e^{q_0\varphi }\right).$$
(3)
The dilatonic charge of radiation and of ordinary baryonic matter are instead exponentially suppressed in the strong coupling regime GPV01 , and this guarantees the absence of unacceptably large corrections to macroscopic gravity, since in the model we are considering the dilaton is asymptotically massless and leads to long-range scalar interactions (see however DPV02  for possible testable violations of the equivalence principle, and other non-standard effects, possibly observable in such a context).

By considering an isotropic, spatially flat metric background, and a perfect fluid model of matter sources, it is now convenient to write the cosmological equations for the action (1) directly in the Einstein frame, defined by the conformal transformation $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }=c_1^2g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{exp}(\psi )`$. In the cosmic-time gauge (and in units $`2\lambda _P^216\pi G=1`$) the equations are GPV01

$`6H^2=\rho +\rho {}_{\varphi }{}^{},4\dot{H}+6H^2=pp_\varphi ,`$ (4)
$`k^2\left(\varphi \right)(\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi })+k\left(\varphi \right)k^{}\left(\varphi \right)\dot{\varphi }^2+V^{}\left(\varphi \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\psi ^{}\left(\varphi \right)(\rho _b+\rho {}_{c}{}^{})+q\left(\varphi \right)\rho {}_{c}{}^{}]=0,`$ (5)
where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`\varphi `$, and

$`k^2\left(\varphi \right)=3\psi ^22e^{2\psi }Z,`$ $`V=c_1^4e^{2\psi }\stackrel{~}{V},`$ $`q\left(\varphi \right)=\sigma _c/\rho {}_{c}{}^{},`$ (6)
$`\rho {}_{\varphi }{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k^2\left(\varphi \right)\dot{\varphi }^2+V\left(\varphi \right),`$ $`p_\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k^2\left(\varphi \right)\dot{\varphi }^2V\left(\varphi \right),`$ (7)
$`\rho =\rho {}_{r}{}^{}+\rho {}_{b}{}^{}+\rho {}_{c}{}^{},`$ $`p=\rho {}_{r}{}^{}/3.`$ (8)
We have explicitly separated the radiation, baryon and cold dark matter components ($`\rho {}_{r}{}^{},\rho {}_{b}{}^{},\rho _c`$), and introduced the (Einstein-frame) dilatonic charge per unit of gravitational mass, $`q(\varphi )`$, which is non-vanishing (at large enough $`\varphi `$) only for the dark-matter component. The combination of the above equations leads to the separate energy conservation equations:

$`\dot{\rho }{}_{r}{}^{}+4H\rho {}_{r}{}^{}=0,`$ (9)
$`\dot{\rho }{}_{b}{}^{}+3H\rho {}_{b}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }\psi ^{}\rho {}_{b}{}^{}=0,`$ (10)
$`\dot{\rho }{}_{c}{}^{}+3H\rho {}_{c}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }(\psi ^{}+q)\rho {}_{c}{}^{}=0,`$ (11)
$`\dot{\rho }{}_{\varphi }{}^{}+3H\left(\rho {}_{\varphi }{}^{}+p_\varphi \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }[\psi ^{}(\rho _b+\rho {}_{c}{}^{})+q\rho {}_{c}{}^{}]=0.`$ (12)
With the above assumptions on $`\psi ,Z`$ and $`q`$, and for appropriate values of the parameters of the loop functions (in particular, for a sufficiently small value of $`V_0`$), it has been shown in GPV01  that the phase of standard, matter-dominated evolution is modified by the non-minimal, direct coupling of dark matter and dilatonic dark energy. After the equivalence epoch, in particular, the Universe may enter a phase of “dragging", followed by an accelerated phase of asymptotic “freezing". For the reader’s convenience we recall here the main properties of such two phases, referring to GPV01 ; amtoc  for a more detailed discussion (see also ame3  for a general study of the dynamical system).

(1) “Dragging" phase. The potential $`V(\varphi )`$ is negligible, the evolution is decelerated, $`\rho _\varphi `$ is still subdominant (as well as $`\rho _b`$), but $`\rho _\varphi `$ evolves in time like the dominant component $`\rho _c`$, so that the dilaton dark energy is “dragged" along by the dark matter density.

In this phase $`k(\varphi )`$ can be approximated by a constant, $`k(\varphi )=k_1`$, and it is thus convenient to define the rescaled field $`\widehat{\varphi }=k_1\varphi `$ which has canonical kinetic term in the action, and which satisfies with $`\rho _c`$ the system of coupled equations

$`\ddot{\widehat{\varphi }}+3H\dot{\widehat{\varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}+q}{k}}\right)\rho {}_{c}{}^{}=0,`$ (13)
$`\dot{\rho }{}_{c}{}^{}+3H\rho {}_{c}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}+q}{k}}\right)\rho {}_{c}{}^{}\dot{\widehat{\varphi }}=0,`$ (14)
We can then define the canonical effective coupling of the dilaton to dark matter by the function $`\beta (\varphi )`$, defined by:

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\beta \left(\varphi \right)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\psi ^{}\left(\varphi \right)+q\left(\varphi \right)}{k\left(\varphi \right)}$$
(15)
which, in the dragging phase, is also approximated by a constant, $`\beta (\varphi )=\beta _11`$ (the conventional factor $`1/\sqrt{3}`$ has been introduced here to adapt the notations of this paper to previous studies of the dark-matter-scalar system ame3 ).

Using eqs. (4), (13) we find, in the dragging phase GPV01 ,

$$\dot{\widehat{\varphi }}=4H\beta _1/\sqrt{3},$$
(16)
so that, from eq. (14),

$$\rho {}_{c}{}^{}H^2\rho {}_{\varphi }{}^{}a^{\left(3+4\beta _1^2/3\right)}.$$
(17)
Because of the dragging the time evolution of the dark matter density deviates from the typical behaviour of dust sources, in such a way that $`\rho _c`$ decays slightly faster than energy density of baryons, $`\rho {}_{b}{}^{}a^3`$. It is however unlikely that this effect may lead the Universe to a baryon-dominated phase, because this trend is soon inverted in the subsequent, freezing phase.

(2) “Freezing" phase. The asymptotic dilaton potential $`V(\varphi )=V_0\mathrm{exp}(\varphi )`$ comes into play, the evolution (for large enough values of $`q`$) is accelerated, the dark matter, potential and (dilatonic) kinetic energy densities evolve in the same way, so that the ratio $`\rho {}_{\varphi }{}^{}/\rho _c`$ is frozen to an arbitrary constant value. The critical fraction of dark matter, potential and kinetic energy densities are also separately constant throughout this phase GPV01 ; ame3 .

In such a phase, asymptotically approached when $`\varphi +\mathrm{}`$, one has $`q(\varphi )=q_0`$, $`\psi ^{}=0`$, and the parameters $`k(\varphi ),\beta (\varphi )`$ can be again approximated by constant values $`k_2,\beta _2`$ (in general different from the previous ones), related by $`k_2\beta _2=\sqrt{3}q_0/2`$. The coupled equations for the canonically rescaled field $`\widehat{\varphi }=k_2\varphi `$ are modified by the presence of the potential

$`\ddot{\widehat{\varphi }}+3H\dot{\widehat{\varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\widehat{\varphi }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{\sqrt{3}}}\rho {}_{c}{}^{}=0,`$ (18)
$`\dot{\rho }{}_{c}{}^{}+3H\rho {}_{c}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{\sqrt{3}}}\rho {}_{c}{}^{}\dot{\widehat{\varphi }}=0,`$ (19)
and, together with eq. (4), are solved by the following configuration GPV01 :

$$V=V_0e^{\widehat{\varphi }/k_2}\left(\dot{\widehat{\varphi }}\right)^2\rho {}_{\varphi }{}^{}\rho {}_{c}{}^{}H^2a^{6/\left(2+q_0\right)}.$$
(20)
In units of critical energy density we find, in particular,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_V={\displaystyle \frac{V}{6H^2}}=\mathrm{\Omega }_k+{\displaystyle \frac{q_0}{2+q_0}},`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k={\displaystyle \frac{\left(\dot{\widehat{\varphi }}\right)^2}{12H^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{3k_2^2}{\left(2+q_0\right)^2}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =\mathrm{\Omega }_V+\mathrm{\Omega }_k,`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi .`$ (21)
Note that, from eq. (20),

$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{aH^2}=1+\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}=\frac{q_01}{q_0+2},$$
(22)
so that the freezing phase is accelerated for $`q_0>1`$. In that case, according to eq. (20), the dark matter density tends to be strongly enhanced (as time goes on) with respect to the baryon density, which on the contrary is uncoupled to the dilaton and thus evolves in the standard way, $`\rho {}_{b}{}^{}a^3`$. As already pointed out in GPV01 ; AT01a , it is tempting to speculate, in such a context, that the present smallness of the ratio $`\rho {}_{b}{}^{}/\rho _c`$ could then emerge as an artifact of a long enough freezing phase, started before the present epoch.

In this paper, in order to discuss the possible bounds imposed by present observations on the above scenario, we will consider a simplified model of late-time (i.e., after-equivalence) cosmology, consisting of two phases. More precisely, we will drastically approximate the background evolution by assuming that the Universe performs a sudden transition from the radiation-dominated to the dragging phase at the equivalence epoch $`a=a_{\text{eq}}`$, and from the dragging to the freezing phase at the transition epoch $`a=a_f`$. We will discuss in this context the phenomenological constraints on the parameters of the string effective action, and in particular their possible consistency with an early beginning of the freezing epoch, $`z_f=(a_0/a_f)11`$, which (as already mentioned) may be relevant for a truly satisfactory solution of the coincidence problem.

To make contact with previous results we will use here the following explicit model of dilaton potential, charge and loop corrections (already adopted in GPV01 ):

$`e^{\psi \left(\varphi \right)}=e^\varphi +c_1^2,Z\left(\varphi \right)=e^\varphi c_2^2,q\left(\varphi \right)=q_0{\displaystyle \frac{e^{q_0\varphi }}{c^2+e^{q_0\varphi }}},`$ (23)
$`V\left(\varphi \right)=c_1^4m_V^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}e^{2\psi }\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(e^\varphi /\alpha _1\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(e^\varphi /\alpha _2\right)\right],0<\alpha _2<\alpha _1.`$ (24)
Here $`c_1^2,c_2^2,c^2`$ are numbers of order $`10^2`$, the asymptotic charge satisfies $`q_0>1`$ to guarantee a final accelerated regime, and the dilaton potential reduces asymptotically to the exponential form of eq. (2), with $`V_0=m_V^2(\alpha _1\alpha _2)/\alpha _1\alpha _2`$ (in units $`2\lambda _P^2=1`$). It is worth noting that the mass scale $`m_V`$, controlling asymptotically the amplitude of the potential (and thus the beginning of the freezing phase), is possibly expected to be of non-perturbative origin, and thus related to the fundamental string scale in a typical instantonic way,

$$m_V=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2}{\beta ^{}\alpha _{\text{GUT}}}\right]M_s,$$
(25)
where $`\alpha _{\text{GUT}}1/25`$ is the asymptotic value of the GUT gauge coupling, and $`\beta ^{}`$ is some model-dependent loop coefficient. As noted in GPV01 , a value of $`\beta ^{}`$ slightly smaller than the usual coefficient of the QCD beta-function is already enough to move $`m_V`$ from the QCD scale down to the scale relevant for a realistic scenario of dark-energy domination; a typical reference value is, for instance, $`\beta ^{}0.36`$, which corresponds to $`m_VH_010^{61}M_P`$, and thus to a freezing phase starting around the present epoch.

With the above explicit forms of the loop corrections we can now compute the constant parameters for the dragging ($`k_1,\beta _1`$) and the freezing ($`k_2,\beta _2`$) eras. By setting $`\mu _2=\sqrt{3}c_1/(\sqrt{2}c_2)`$ we find

$$k_1=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{\mu _2},\beta _1=\frac{q_0\mu _2}{2c^2},k_2=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{\mu _2},\beta _2=\frac{q_0\mu _2}{2}.$$
(26)
The constant $`\mu _2/\sqrt{3}`$ represents the slope of the dilaton potential $`V(\widehat{\varphi })`$ during freezing. With these definitions, $`q_0=2\beta {}_{2}{}^{}/\mu _2,c^2=\beta {}_{2}{}^{}/\beta _1`$.

For our model of background we can finally express the phenomenological variables, required for the subsequent computations, in terms of the above set of parameters. From eqs. (17), (20) we get the barotropic parameter $`w=(p_{tot}/\rho _{tot})+1`$ relative to the effective equation of state of cold dark matter,

$$w_1=1+\frac{4}{9}\beta _1^2,w_2=\frac{2}{2+q_0}=\frac{\mu _2}{\mu _2+\beta _2},$$
(27)
in the dragging and freezing eras, respectively. Another useful parameter is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$: in the dragging phase, from eq. (16),

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_c=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =1\frac{\left(\dot{\widehat{\varphi }}\right)^2}{12H^2}=1\frac{4}{9}\beta {}_{1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.$$
(28)
In the freezing phase, from eq. (21),

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_c=\frac{2\mu _2^2+2\beta {}_{2}{}^{}\mu _{2}^{}9}{2\left(\beta {}_{2}{}^{}+\mu _2\right)^2}.$$
(29)
(this is therefore to be identified to the value observed today).

Note that the ratio of dark-energy to dark-matter density may be close to unity throughout the cosmic evolution after equivalence, if the constants $`\beta _1,\beta _2,\mu _2`$ are of the order of unity. In this sense, in such a model, it is even possible that a serious coincidence problem never really arises. By contrast, dark-energy models *without* a stationary phase in which $`\rho {}_{m}{}^{}\rho _\varphi `$ (see e.g. cald ; kessence ) have to explain the today value (or order one) of ratios $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi /\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ which range from extremely small values in the past to unboundedly large values in the future amtoc .

We end this section with the computation of three useful red-shift parameters $`z_e,z_f,z_b`$ corresponding, respectively, to the radiation-matter equivalence, to the beginning of the freezing epoch, and to the baryon epoch (associated to a possible baryon-dominated phase). From the behaviour of $`\rho _\varphi `$ and $`\rho _b`$ in the freezing phase,

$$\rho {}_{\varphi }{}^{}=\rho {}_{\varphi }{}^{}\left(a_0\right)\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^{3w_2},\rho {}_{b}{}^{}=\rho {}_{b}{}^{}\left(a_0\right)\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^3,$$
(30)
we can determine the baryon red-shift epoch $`a_b`$, such that $`\rho {}_{\varphi }{}^{}=\rho _b`$, as follows AT01a :

$$1+z_b=\frac{a_0}{a_b}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }{\mathrm{\Omega }_b}\right)_0^{\frac{\mu _2+\beta _2}{3\beta _2}}.$$
(31)
The present ratio $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi /\mathrm{\Omega }_b)_0`$ is a known observational input. Our model excludes the possibility of a baryon-dominated phase and thus requires, for consistency, $`z_b>z_f`$ (see AT01a  for a dark-energy model with a baryonic epoch).

The equivalence scale can be obtained by rescaling $`\rho _c`$ and $`\rho _r`$ from $`a_e`$ down to $`a_0`$, i.e.

$$\rho {}_{c}{}^{}\left(a_0\right)=\rho {}_{c}{}^{}\left(a_e\right)\left(\frac{a_e}{a_f}\right)^{3w_1}\left(\frac{a_f}{a_0}\right)^{3w_2},\rho {}_{r}{}^{}\left(a_0\right)=\rho {}_{r}{}^{}\left(a_e\right)\left(\frac{a_e}{a_f}\right)^4\left(\frac{a_f}{a_0}\right)^4,$$
(32)
from which

$$1+z_e=\frac{a_0}{a_e}=\left[\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{\mathrm{\Omega }_c}\right)_0\left(\frac{a_f}{a_0}\right)^{3\left(w_2w_1\right)}\right]^{\frac{1}{3w_14}},$$
(33)
where, again, $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_r/\mathrm{\Omega }_c)_0`$ is an observational input. Similarly, we can determine the freezing epoch by rescaling the dilaton potential energy,

$$\rho {}_{V}{}^{}\left(a_f\right)=V_0e^{\varphi _f}=\rho {}_{V}{}^{}\left(a_0\right)\left(\frac{a_0}{a_f}\right)^{3w_2}.$$
(34)
Here $`\rho {}_{V}{}^{}(a_0)=6H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$ is determined by eq. (21), and $`\varphi _f`$ is the transition scale between small and large values of the dilaton charge, namely $`\varphi _f=(2/q_0)\mathrm{ln}c`$, from eq. (23). We thus obtain

$`1+z_f={\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{a_f}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{6H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_V}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _2}}\right)^{\frac{\mu _2}{2\beta _2}}\right]^{\frac{\mu _2+\beta _2}{3\mu _2}},`$ (35)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9+4\beta {}_{2}{}^{}(\mu _2+\beta {}_{2}{}^{})}{4(\mu _2+\beta {}_{2}{}^{})^2}},`$ (36)
where $`H_0`$ is the value of the Hubble parameter provided by present observations.

In conclusion, we have a four-parameter model of background, spanned by two possible (related) sets of independent variables: the phenomenological variables $`\{\beta {}_{1}{}^{},\beta {}_{2}{}^{},\mu _2,z_f\}`$ or, equivalently, the fundamental variables $`\{c_1/c_2,c^2,q_0,V_0\}`$, referred to the $`\varphi +\mathrm{}`$ limit of the string effective action of eq. (1). The mapping between the two sets is defined by eqs. (26) and (36). Note that two of the four parameters can be in principle determined by fitting the observational data relative to the present fraction of cold dark matter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$, and the dark-energy equation of state, $`w_2`$: we can determine, for instance, $`\mu _2`$ and $`\beta _2`$ through eqs. (26), (29). In the following sections we will discuss the allowed regions left by various phenomenological constraints in such a parameter space.

## III Constraints from structure formation

In this Section we will compute the r.m.s. dark-matter density contrast $`\sigma _8`$ for the model presented in Sect. II, combining it with the CMB angular power spectrum (at low multipoles) in order to eliminate the dependence on the normalization factor. Another analytical computation of $`\sigma _8`$ including dark energy has recently been presented in doran e schwindt , but only for models in which dark energy and dark matter are uncoupled.

Before starting the computation, let us recall some preliminary condition to be imposed (for consistency) on our model of background.

### III.1 Consistency conditions on the background

As illustrated in Sect. II, the evolution of our cosmological background is characterized by two stationary ($`\rho _c\rho _\varphi `$) stages: the dragging era (labelled by the subscript $`1`$), and the final accelerated freezing era (labelled by $`2`$). This scenario can be consistently implemented provided the parameters are chosen in such a way as to satisfy the following conditions.

First, the dragging era exists, and is a saddle point of our dynamical system, only if ame3 :

$$\left|\beta _1\right|<\sqrt{3}/20.87.$$
(37)
Second, in order for the baryons not to dominate (in the past) over the dark-matter component, it is necessary to impose (as anticipated):

$$z_b>z_f.$$
(38)
Third, the final freezing phase is accelerated only if:

$$\mu _2<2\beta _2.$$
(39)
The current SNIa observations, however, require more than simply an acceleration, as shown by a recent analysis Dalal  of SNIa data in models which include a freezing epoch. The result is that only models with an effective equation of state $`w_20.4`$ (best fit) or $`w_2<0.5`$ (at one sigma) are consistent with the SNIa Hubble diagram.

In the following discussion we will reduce, for simplicity, our set of free parameters by using the observed CDM fraction of critical density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c0.3`$, as a fixed observational input. This can be used to eliminate $`\mu _2`$ through eq. (29), in such a way that we are left with three parameters only, $`\beta {}_{1}{}^{},\beta _2`$ and $`z_f`$. In that case, the above limits on $`w_2=\mu _2/\left(\mu _2+\beta _2\right)`$ define two reference values for $`\beta _2`$,

$`\beta _2`$ $`=`$ $`4.02,\left(\text{best fit }\right)`$ (40)
$`\beta _2`$ $`=`$ $`2.35,\left(\text{one sigma }\right),`$ (41)
which will be used in our subsequent analysis. For future reference, note that the lower limit at 95% c.l. is $`\beta _2>1.55`$. We note, finally, that pushing back in time the transition between the dragging and freezing eras, that is increasing $`z_f,`$ implies a decrease of $`z_e`$. The condition

$$z_f<100$$
(42)
prevents the unwanted crossing of these two quantities.

All the above constraints will be imposed on our subsequent computations.

### III.2 Angular power spectrum at low multipoles

In this subsection we will extend the treatment of the Sachs-Wolfe effect presented in HuW  (to which we refer for the notation) in such a way as to include the case of coupled dark energy and dark matter. We shall assume a conformally flat metric, $`ds^2=a^2\left(d\tau ^2dx^idx_i\right)`$, and we shall exploit the fact that, in the absence of anisotropic stress, the two scalar potentials $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ defined in the longitudinal gauge turn out to be equal and to coincide, in the Newtonian limit, with the usual gravitational potential. The general expressions for the Sachs-Wolfe (SW) and integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) parts of the angular power spectrum, for adiabatic scalar perturbations, can then be written as HuW :

$`C_{\mathrm{}}^{SW}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑kk^2\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(k,\tau _d)\right|^2j_{\mathrm{}}^2\left[k\left(\tau _0\tau _d\right)\right]},`$ (43)
$`C_{\mathrm{}}^{ISW}`$ $`=`$ $`2G_2^2\left(\mathrm{}\right){\displaystyle 𝑑k\left|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(k,\tau _{\mathrm{}})\right|^2},`$ (44)
where $`G_2\left(\mathrm{}\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\left(\mathrm{}+1\right)/2\right]/\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\left(\mathrm{}+2\right)/2\right]`$, $`j_{\mathrm{}}`$ are the spherical Bessel functions, the prime denotes differentiation with respect to conformal time, and $`\tau _d`$ is the conformal time at decoupling, while $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}=\tau _0\left(\mathrm{}+1/2\right)/k`$ (notice that the above expression for the ISW coefficient has been already integrated over $`\tau `$).

Let us denote with $`\delta _k`$ the CDM density contrast for the wavemode $`k`$, and with $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ and $`\chi \delta \widehat{\varphi }`$, respectively, the values of the background scalar field and of its fluctuation. The label $`0`$ will denote the present time $`t_0`$, and it is to be understood that all the density parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c,\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, etc. are always referred to the present time, unless otherwise stated. Finally, all perturbation variables will be expressed in terms of their Fourier components. The potential $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is then determined by the relativistic Poisson equation (in units $`16\pi G=1`$)

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\left(a\right)=\frac{3}{2k^2}H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_c\delta _k\left(a_0\right)s(k,a)\frac{1}{4k^2}\chi ^{}\widehat{\varphi }^{}\frac{3aH}{4k^2}\chi \widehat{\varphi }^{}\frac{a^2}{4k^2}\chi \frac{dV}{d\widehat{\varphi }},$$
(45)
where we have introduced the (possibly $`k`$-dependent) function $`s(k,a)`$, which accounts for the time-evolution of the dark matter and of its density contrast, according to the equations

$`\rho _c\left(a\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _c\left(a_0\right)f\left(a\right),`$ (46)
$`\delta _k\left(a\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _k\left(a_0\right)D(k,a),`$ (47)
$`s(k,a)`$ $`=`$ $`D(k,a)f\left(a\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{a_0}}\right)^2.`$ (48)
The quantities appearing in the r.h.s. of eq. (45) are evaluated in the synchronous gauge, while the potential $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is calculated in the longitudinal gauge HuW , since this helps extending the validity of the Poisson equation to all scales. Note that we have dropped from the Poisson equation the contribution of the dark-matter velocity fluctuations, since it can be shown that they are negligible bias . The baryon contribution has been neglected as well. Defining the matter power spectrum $`P\left(k\right)=\left|\delta _k\left(a_0\right)\right|^2`$, it follows that

$`C_{\mathrm{}}^{SW}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}H_0^4\mathrm{\Omega }_c^2\left(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }\right){\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k^2}P\left(k\right)\left|s(k,a_d)\right|^2j_{\mathrm{}}^2\left[k\left(\tau _0\tau _d\right)\right]},`$ (49)
$`C_{\mathrm{}}^{ISW}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}H_0^4\mathrm{\Omega }_c^2G_2^2\left(\mathrm{}\right)\left(1+\mathrm{\Pi }\right){\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k^4}P\left(k\right)\left|s^{}[k,a\left(\tau _{\mathrm{}}\right)]\right|^2}.`$ (50)
The functions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ represent corrections due to the scalar field contribution. In the next few paragraphs we will neglect these effects, concentrating the attention only on the dark-matter part of the power spectrum, while the scalar contribution will be reconsidered at the end of our calculation. The convenience of this procedure will become apparent later on.

Focusing our attention on the background evolution after the epoch of matter-radiation equivalence, we can now specify the evolution of the CMB energy density by setting

$`f\left(a\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(a/a_0\right)^{3w_2},a>a_f`$ (51)
$`=`$ $`\left(a_f/a_0\right)^{3w_2}\left(a/a_f\right)^{3w_1},a<a_f.`$ (52)
where $`w_{1,2}`$ were defined in eqs. (27). For what concerns the growth of matter perturbations, since we are interested in the low-multipole branch of the spectrum, it is reasonable to consider only scales that reenter the horizon after equivalence (and before freezing, as in the accelerated stage no reenter is possible). The growth of $`\delta _k`$ has been derived in bias  as a function of the parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\mu `$ of the dragging and freezing epochs. It turns out that the evolution is the same for all modes:

$`D(k,a)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(a/a_0\right)^{m_2},a>a_f`$
$`=`$ $`\left(a/a_f\right)^{m_1}\left(a_f/a_0\right)^{m_2},a<a_f,`$
where

$$m_1=1+\frac{4}{3}\beta _1^2,m_2=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }10\beta _2\mu _2}{4\left(\beta _2+\mu _2\right)},$$
(53)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2=108+44\beta _2\mu _2+32\beta _2^3\mu _2+25\mu _2^2+\beta _2^2\left(32\mu _2^244\right)$$
(54)
(in the dragging phase the same exponent $`m_1`$ describes the growth of perturbations both inside and outside the horizon). Considering scales with $`k<k_d`$, where the subscript $`d`$ stands for decoupling, the relevant function for the computation of the ordinary SW effect can thus be parametrized by a $`k`$-independent function as follows:

$$s\left(a_f\right)=\left(a_d/a_f\right)^{m_13w_1}\left(a_f/a_0\right)^{m_23w_2}\left(a_d/a_0\right)^2=\left(a_f/a_0\right)^{\alpha _2}.$$
(55)
where $`\alpha _2m_23w_2+2`$ (note that $`\alpha _1m_13w_1+2=0`$).

Some comments are now in order, concerning the evolution of perturbations described by the above equations. First we notice that in the dragging phase $`m_1>1`$, i.e. that the perturbations growth is faster than in a standard CDM model. This is due to an extra pull on dark matter arising from the dark-energy coupling, that act as an additional (scalar) gravity force bias . Secondly, the growth in the accelerated freezing regime does not vanish asymptotically, like in other dark-energy models. This is again an effect of the dark energy-dark matter coupling and of the fact that the dark-matter density is not driven to zero by the acceleration. Finally, since the baryons are decoupled from the dilaton, they evolve differently, and a bias between the baryons and the dark-matter distribution is expected. The constraints from this effect have been discussed in ref. bias .

It is important to stress that the matter power spectrum, calculated today for scales $`k<k_e`$, where $`k_e`$ is the scale that reenter the horizon at equivalence,

$$k_e=a_eH_e=a_eH_0\left[\left(a_f/a_0\right)^{3w_2}\left(a_e/a_f\right)^{3w_1}\right]^{1/2},$$
(56)
does not change respect to the primordial shape

$$P\left(k\right)=Ak^n,$$
(57)
where $`A`$ is the usual normalization factor (see e.g. ref. KT ). This is due to a peculiarity of the dragging phase, i.e. to the fact that the perturbation growth is identical inside and outside the horizon, just like in the case of standard CDM models (although, as already mentioned, the growth rate $`m_1`$ is larger than unity). The dragging phase, in addition, leads to a time-independent gravitational potential (again, like in standard CDM models), and thus it does not contribute to the ISW effect, which is entirely produced in the subsequent freezing phase.

From the integration of eq. (49), with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$ we then easily obtain

$$C_{\mathrm{}}^{SW}=\frac{\gamma ^{1n}}{16}AH_0^{n+3}\mathrm{\Omega }_c^2s^2\left(a_f\right)G(\mathrm{},n),$$
(58)
where

$$G(\mathrm{},n)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(3n\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\left(2\mathrm{}+n1\right)/2\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\left(4n\right)/2\right)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\left(2\mathrm{}+5n\right)/2\right)},$$
(59)
and where the factor $`\gamma `$ appears by eliminating $`\tau _0`$ (from the result of the SW integral) in terms of the present Hubble scale $`H_0`$, according to the definition

$$\tau _0=\frac{da}{a^2H}=\frac{2}{a_0H_0}\gamma .$$
(60)
This integral can be finally estimated by considering the separate contributions from the two phases of our model, and we obtain:

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{2\lambda _2}\left[1+\frac{3\mathrm{\Delta }w\left(a_f/a_0\right)^{\lambda _2}}{2\lambda _1}\right],\lambda _1=\frac{3}{2}w_11,\lambda _2=\frac{3}{2}w_21,\mathrm{\Delta }w=w_2w_1$$
(61)
(the usual result for the standard cosmological model is instead $`\gamma =1`$).

It is appropriate to reconsider at this point the scalar-field corrections to the SW effect, represented by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The scalar field fluctuations which are outside the horizon during the dragging phase grow proportionally to the CDM density contrast (see ame3 ; AT01a ). Since $`\rho {}_{c}{}^{}\rho _\varphi `$, it is found that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a constant, and depends only on $`\beta _1`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{64\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{3}}\beta _1^2\left(3+\beta _1^2\right)\left(15+4\beta _1^2\right)}{405+252\beta _1^2336\beta _1^4+64\beta _1^6}$$
(62)
(the contribution coming from the scalar-field potential has been neglected, since in the dragging phase the dilaton kinetic energy is dominant with respect to $`V`$).

For what concerns the ISW effect, the scalar field contribution on sub-horizon scales is negligible AT01a , and we can consistently set $`\mathrm{\Pi }=0.`$ If we define the variable $`y=k\tau _0`$, and we use the result that, in the accelerated epoch,

$$s\left(a\right)=\left(a/a_0\right)^{\alpha _2},$$
(63)
then we are lead to

$$C_{\mathrm{}}^{ISW}=\frac{9}{2}A\mathrm{\Omega }_c^2G_2^2\left(\mathrm{}\right)H_0^{n+3}\alpha _2^2_{y_{min}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yy^{n4}a(\mathrm{},y)^{2\alpha _22\lambda _2}.$$
(64)
The lower limit of integration,

$$y_{min}=\frac{\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{1r},r=\frac{\tau _f}{\tau _0}=\frac{\left(a_f/a_0\right)^{\lambda _2}}{2\gamma \lambda _1},$$
(65)
has been obtained by imposing $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}>\tau _f`$, since only in the second (freezing) stage there is a significant ISW contribution. The time-dependence of the freezing scale-factor, on the other hand, can be parametrized by

$$a=a_0\left[\lambda _2\left(H_0\tau +B\right)\right]^{1/\lambda _2},$$
(66)
where

$$B=\left(\frac{a_f}{a_0}\right)^{\lambda _2}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda _2}\frac{1}{\lambda _1}\right).$$
(67)
By using all the above results the ISW integral can be finally performed and, in the case $`n=1`$, the result is

$$C_{\mathrm{},ISW}=\frac{9}{4}A\mathrm{\Omega }_c^2G_2^2\left(\mathrm{}\right)H_0^4\alpha _2\frac{\left[\left(B+2\gamma \right)\lambda _2\right]^{2\frac{\alpha _2}{\lambda _2}}+\left[\left(B+2\gamma r\right)\lambda _2\right]^{2\frac{\alpha _2}{\lambda _2}1}\left[4\gamma \alpha _2\left(r1\right)\left(B+2\gamma r\right)\lambda _2\right]}{\gamma ^2\left(2\mathrm{}+1\right)^2\left(2\alpha _2\lambda _2\right)}.$$
(68)
For a generic, primordial spectral index with $`n1`$ a much more complicated (but still analytic) expression may be obtained.

In conclusion, the dimensionless, angular power-spectrum at low multipoles $`\left(\mathrm{}10\right)`$ can be approximated by

$$C_{\mathrm{}}=C_{\mathrm{},SW}+C_{\mathrm{},ISW}=AF,$$
(69)
where, for $`n=1`$,

$`F(\mathrm{};a_f,\beta _1,\beta _2,\mu _2)=H_0^4\mathrm{\Omega }_c^2[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \mathrm{}\left(\mathrm{}+1\right)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_f}{a_0}}\right)^{2\alpha _2}(1+\mathrm{\Sigma })`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}G_2^2\left(\mathrm{}\right)\alpha _2{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\left(B+2\gamma \right)\lambda _2\right]^{2\frac{\alpha _2}{\lambda _2}}+\left[\left(B+2\gamma r\right)\lambda _2\right]^{2\frac{\alpha _2}{\lambda _2}1}\left[4\gamma \alpha _2\left(r1\right)\left(B+2\gamma r\right)\lambda _2\right]}{\gamma ^2\left(2\mathrm{}+1\right)^2\left(2\alpha _2\lambda _2\right)}}].`$ (70)
The variable $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$, representing the experimentally observed angular power spectrum, measured in units of $`\left(\mu K\right)^2`$, can thus be finally written in the form

$$C_{\mathrm{}}^{}=\frac{T_0^2\mathrm{}\left(\mathrm{}+1\right)AF}{2\pi },$$
(71)
where $`T_0=2.726\times 10^6\mu `$K.

### III.3 Calculation of $`\sigma _8`$

The (dimensionless) variance of the CMB density fluctuations, in spheres of radius $`R_8=8h^1`$ Mpc, where $`h=H_0/\left(100\text{kmsec}^1\text{Mpc}^1\right)`$, is defined by KT

$$\sigma _8^2=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}P\left(k\right)W_8^2\left(k\right)k^2𝑑k=\frac{A}{2\pi ^2}R_8^{\left(3+n\right)}I_1,$$
(72)
where $`W_8\left(k\right)`$ is the spherical top-hat window function of radius $`R_8`$, and

$$I_1=x^{2+n}T^2\left(x\right)W^2\left(x\right)𝑑x.$$
(73)
Note that we are using the full power spectrum corrected by the transfer function $`T\left(k\right)`$, i.e. $`P\left(k\right)=Ak^nT^2\left(k\right)`$, since in the definition of $`\sigma _8`$ it is necessary to include also scales with $`k>k_e`$.

It is important to stress, at this point, that the above transfer function is identical to the one of the usual $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. During the dragging phase, in fact, the perturbation growth does not depend on the wavenumber, while during the freezing phase only sub-horizon perturbations have to be taken into account, so that no distortion of the power spectrum occurs after the equivalence epoch. Therefore, the transfer function only expresses the usual correction to the primordial spectrum due to the different growth of perturbations in the radiation epoch (those entering the horizon before equivalence are depressed with respect to those entering later). Since, in our model, the cosmological evolution before equivalence is standard, we can safely adopt the transfer function of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model *for which the wavenumber $`k_e`$ crossing the horizon at equivalence is the same as in our model*. For a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with present density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }cdm\right)}`$ one has, in particular,

$$k_{e\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }cdm\right)}=a_0H_0\mathrm{\Omega }_{c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }cdm\right)}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_r}}.$$
(74)
By equating to $`k_{e\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }cdm\right)}`$ the value of $`k_e`$ determined in our model (see eq. 56), we thus obtain the effective density parameter

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }cdm\right)}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{a_f}{a_0}\right)^{\frac{3\mathrm{\Delta }w}{2}}\left(\frac{a_e}{a_0}\right)^{\frac{23w_1}{2}}$$
(75)
to be used for the determination of the equivalent transfer function (we shall of course restrict our analysis to the case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }cdm\right)}<1`$). For the final numerical integration of eq. (73) we shall use the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }CDM`$ transfer function proposed in Hu e Su 96 .

Combining eq. (71) and eq. (72), in order to eliminate the normalization factor $`A`$, we finally obtain

$$\sigma _8^2=\frac{C_{\mathrm{}}^{}I_1}{\pi T_0^2R_8^4\mathrm{}\left(\mathrm{}+1\right)F},$$
(76)
where $`I_1`$ depends on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }cdm\right)}`$. The observed $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ has been obtained by fitting the COBE data as in Bunn . The comparison of eq. (76) with the experimental value of $`\sigma _8`$,

$$\sigma _8=\left(0.56\pm 0.1\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_c^{0.47},$$
(77)
taken from data on clusters abundances vialid , will eventually give the sought-for constraint on the parameters of the dilaton model introduced in Sect. II.

## IV Results

In order to implement the constraints imposed by $`\sigma _8`$ we shall first eliminate $`\mu _2`$ from our set of parameters (as already anticipated), by using eq. (29) and fixing the CDM density at the value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=0.3`$, suggested by present observation (see e. g. lahav ). Also, we shall assume for the baryon density the value predicted by standard nucleosynthesis burles , $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.02h^2`$, and we set $`h=0.65`$.

The value of $`\beta _2`$, at given $`\mu _2`$, should be unambiguously determined by $`q_0`$, and then by the observed value of the cosmic acceleration through eqs. (22) and (26). However, in view of the present experimental uncertainties, we have accepted here an open range of possibilities and we have illustrated the constraints at two (rather different) values of $`\beta _2`$: $`\beta _2=2.35`$ (the minimum value allowed at one sigma by SNIa Dalal ), and $`\beta {}_{2}{}^{}=4.02`$ (the best fit to the SNIa data Dalal )). These two reference values will be used in all the following discussion.

We shall first illustrate the $`\sigma _8`$ constraint in Fig. 1 by plotting the curves corresponding to the experimental values (77) (with a $`3`$ sigma error band) in the plane $`\{z_f,\beta _1\}`$ with $`\beta _2`$ fixed . The upper curves (and the darker regions) corresponds to lower values of $`\sigma _8.`$ In this figure (and in the next one) the white region has been excluded because the transfer function parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }cdm\right)}`$ becomes larger than unity. The dashed horizontal lines represent the upper bound on $`z_f`$ imposed by the baryon constraint (38). The allowed region is below the dashed line, and within the upper and lower white curves. In the left panel of Fig. 1 we have used $`\beta _2=2.35`$, and we obtain that the maximum past-extension of the accelerated regime is

$$z_fz_b5.07.$$
(78)
In the right panel, for $`\beta {}_{2}{}^{}=4.02`$, we obtain $`z_fz_b3.47.`$ At the two-sigma lower limit, $`\beta _2=1.55`$, the acceleration extends to $`z_f8.`$

By contrast, it is easy to see that in dark-energy models of more conventional type, i.e. uncoupled to dark matter, with frozen equation of state $`w_\varphi `$ and matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, the acceleration starts at the redshift

$$z_{acc}=\left[\left(3w_\varphi 2\right)\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_m1\right)/\mathrm{\Omega }_m\right]^{1/\left(33w_\varphi \right)}1.$$
(79)
This value, for all $`w_\varphi <2/3`$ (i.e. for a present accelerated regime), is always smaller than unity if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3\pm 0.1`$. Therefore, a (future) unambiguous measurement of the expansion rate at $`z>1`$ could be a powerful method to distinguish between coupled and uncoupled models of dark energy.

The plots of Fig. 1 refer to our “phenomenological” set of parameters, and in particular to the duration of the freezing epoch (possibly relevant to the solution of the coincidence problem). The $`\sigma _8`$ constraint provides however interesting information also on the set of “fundamental” parameters of the string effective action (1), used for our model of dilatonic dark energy.

By eliminating $`c_1/c_2=\sqrt{2/3}\mu _2`$, and fixing $`q_0`$, i.e. $`\beta _2`$, as before, we can plot indeed the $`\sigma _8`$ constraint in the plane spanned by the variables $`c^2`$ and $`V_0`$. The result is shown in Fig. 2, again for $`\beta {}_{2}{}^{}=2.35`$ (left panel) and for $`\beta {}_{2}{}^{}=4.02`$ (right panel). We have restored the required Planck length factors, and given the potential $`V_0`$ in units of $`\text{eV}^4`$. The allowed region is within the upper and lower white curves, as before. The lower bound on $`c^2`$ derived from $`\beta _1`$, at fixed $`\beta _2`$, is satisfied for all the range of values illustrated in the picture.

We note that the values of parameters used in GPV01  for a particular numerical integration of the string cosmology equations are well compatible with the above bounds. It is also important to stress that, since the value of $`c^2`$ is naturally expected in the range $`10^2`$$`10^3`$ GPV01 , the allowed mass scale of the dilaton potential, $`V_0^{1/4}`$, turns out to be fixed in a rather narrow region around ($`10^2`$$`10^3`$) eV, even in the case of an early start of the freezing epoch. This result confirms that, as already pointed out in GPV01 , a realistic dark-energy scenario seems to require a rather high degree of accuracy in determining the scale of the dilaton potential. This (fine-tuning?) aspect of the potential is however a common problem of all scalar-field models of dark energy.

It should be mentioned, to conclude this section, that we have performed an additional observational test of our class of dilatonic dark-energy models by comparing with the COBE data the slope of the low-multipole $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ spectrum induced by the SW and ISW effect. Using a simple Gaussian likelihood distribution we have concluded that, at the confidence level of two sigma, the predicted slopes are compatible with the data for all the allowed region of parameter space, so that no (significant) additional constraints are generated.

## V The farthest supernova

As a last check on the viability of the present dilatonic dark-energy model we have considered the constraints imposed by the most distant Type Ia supernova super  known so far, SN1997ff, for which a very recent assessment of lensing magnification has increased the apparent magnitude by $`0.34\pm 0.12`$ mag super1 . This leads to a final distance modulus (i.e. to a difference of apparent and absolute magnitude) of $`mM=45.49\pm 0.34`$ mag.

Using the definition adopted in super  , this result can be expressed in the following way. The luminosity distance is

$$d_L=\left(1+z\right)_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{H\left(z^{}\right)},$$
(80)
from which one defines

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(mM\right)=5\left[\mathrm{log}_{10}\left(d_L\left(z\right)\right)\mathrm{log}_{10}\left(d_L\left(z\right)\right)\right],$$
(81)
where $`d_L\left(z\right)=z\left(z+2\right)/\left(2H_0\right)`$ is the luminosity distance for Milne’s model, i.e. an hyperbolic empty universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$). For the supernova SN1997ff one obtains $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(mM\right)0.15\pm 0.34`$ at $`z1.755`$, in good agreement with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model characterized today by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.35,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.65`$ super1 . For such a model, the Universe at $`z=1.755`$ is already well within the decelerated epoch, which starts around $`z=0.548`$ (see eq. 79).

This does not imply, however, that all models which are accelerated at large $`z`$ are ruled out (even without mentioning the still unclear experimental uncertainties of such a supernova detection). Let us calculate indeed the luminosity-distance along a stationary regime $`\rho _m\rho _\varphi `$, for a spatially flat geometry. Neglecting for the moment the baryon contribution, the Friedmann equation is

$$H^2=H_0^2\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_m\left(a/a_0\right)^{3w}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi \left(a/a_0\right)^{3w}\right]=H_0^2\left(a/a_0\right)^{3w},$$

where, in particular, $`w=w_2`$ (see eq. 27) for our freezing regime. The corresponding luminosity-distance (for $`w2/3)`$ is:

$$d_L=\left(1+z\right)_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{H\left(z^{}\right)}=\frac{2\left(1+z\right)}{\left(23w\right)H_0}\left[\left(1+z\right)^{\frac{3w}{2}+1}1\right].$$
(82)
For an accelerated evolution with $`w<2/3`$ (i.e., in our case, $`q_0>1`$), and for large $`z`$, we have $`d_Lz^{23w/2}`$, while for Milne’s cosmology $`d_Lz^2.`$ It follows that, at large $`z`$ and for any $`w>0`$, the Milne model always provides larger distances (and thus larger apparent magnitudes) than a model of stationary evolution. As a consequence, a negative value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(mM\right)`$, referred to Milne, does not necessarily corresponds to deceleration.

For a more precise illustration of this important point we have plotted in Fig. 3 the distance modulus $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(mM\right)`$ for the accelerated freezing phase of our dilatonic dark-energy model. We have numerically integrated the luminosity-distance functions, including baryons, for the two particular values $`\beta _2=2.35,\beta _2=4.02`$ already used in the previous figures (it may be useful to recall that, when $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ is fixed to $`0.3`$, these two values of $`\beta _2`$ correspond to $`w_2=0.5`$ and $`w_2=0.4`$, respectively). It can be seen from the picture that, in both cases, the curves representing the cosmic evolution of our model, *although deeply inside the accelerating regime*, remain well within one sigma from the (lensing-corrected) SN1997ff data, while providing, at the same time, a reasonable fit of the binned data of all the other supernovae.

## VI Conclusion

In this paper we have considered a phenomenological model of dark-energy-dark-matter interactions based on the infinite bare-coupling limit of the superstring effective action. The dilaton, rolling down an exponentially suppressed potential, plays the role of the cosmic field responsible for the observed acceleration, and drives the Universe towards a final configuration dominated by a comparable amount of kinetic, potential and CDM energy density.

The effective dilatonic coupling to dark matter switches on at late enough times (i.e., large enough bare coupling), and affects in a significant way the post-equivalence cosmological evolution. The time-dilution of the dark-matter density, in particular, is first slightly enhanced (during the dragging phase) and then considerably damped (during the freezing phase) with respect to the standard $`a^3`$ decay law. The large-angle fluctuation scales relevant to the observed CMB anisotropies reenter the horizon during the dragging epoch, and exit the horizon again during the freezing epoch. In spite of this unconventional evolution, the growth of the matter-density perturbations may be large enough to match consistently present observations.

The predicted value of the (smoothed out) density contrast $`\sigma _8`$, compared with data obtained from cluster abundance, defines a significant allowed region in the parameter space of the given class of dilatonic dark-energy models. The analysis of such an allowed region provides two main results.

The first is that the bounds on the past-time extension of the accelerated (freezing) epoch are significantly weaker than in conventional dark-energy models (uncoupled to dark matter, with frozen equation of state). The establishment of the freezing regime, in our class of dilatonic models, is allowed long before the present epoch (up to $`z5`$), thus providing (in principle) a further relaxation of the coincidence problem, by extending the present cosmological configuration not only in the far future, but also towards the past.

The possibility of very early ($`z>1`$) accelerated evolution is indeed a typical signature of such a class of dilatonic models, useful in principle to discriminate it from other (uncoupled) dark energy models, hopefully on the grounds of future observational data. It is important to stress, to this respect, that the farthest type Ia supernova so far observed is at $`z1.7`$, and is perfectly compatible with an accelerated Universe already at that epoch, provided the data of the magnitude-redshift diagram are consistently fitted by the accelerated kinematics of dilatonic models.

The second results concerns the parameters of the (non-perturbative) dilaton potential appearing in the strong-bare-coupling regime of the string effective action. The dilaton mass scale $`V_0`$, for an efficient and realistic dark energy scenario, appears in such a context to be tightly anchored to a value very near to the present Hubble curvature scale. A small deviation of $`V_0`$ from the required value is enough to remove the predictions of the dilatonic model from the region of parameter space allowed by the $`\sigma _8`$ data.

This means that, under the assumption that the dilatonic models discussed in this paper provide the correct explanation of the observed cosmic acceleration, the measurements of the density contrast $`\sigma _8`$, besides their obvious astrophysical importance, would also acquire an interesting high-energy significance for providing an indirect (parameter-dependent) measurements of the dilaton mass scale.

We note, finally, that astrophysical observations may provide several additional constraints on dilatonic dark-energy models. For instance, the clustering evolution of sources at high redshifts may constrain directly the freezing growth exponent $`m_2`$; as already mentioned, the baryon bias that develops during freezing is also observable, at least in principle bias ; finally, further constraints can be derived from a computation of the full multipole spectrum of the CMB radiation (see e.g. aqtp  for a recent study of the CMB constraints on coupled dark-energy models with power-law potentials). Preliminary results seem to confirm the conclusions of this paper, but a detailed discussion of these new constraints is postponed to a future work.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to thank Gabriele Veneziano for useful discussions. CU is supported by the PPARC grant PPA/G/S/2000/00115.


format: text

text:
# Higher-order moments of the cosmic shear and other spin-2 fields

## 1. Introduction

Gravitational lensing is quickly becoming a major tool for doing cosmology. Mass determinations of cluster of galaxies are now routine, there are several detections of weak lensing by the large scale structure of the universe and measurements of galaxy-galaxy lensing. Detections of weak lensing (Bacon et al. 2000; Kaiser et al. 2000; Van Waerbeke et al. 2000; Wittman et al. 2000) are particularly important as they will provide constraints on the matter budget of the universe and an independent determination of the power spectrum of the dark matter fluctuations over a wide range of scales that can be then compared with other measurements such as those from galaxy clustering or the anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).

As a result of non-linear gravitational evolution, the projected mass density field on the sky ($`\kappa `$), which is responsible for the deflections that lead to the measured shear, is expected to be highly non-Gaussian even if the initial seeds of density perturbations were perfectly Gaussian. The aim of observations that attempt to make projected mass maps is not only to measure the projected mass power spectrum, but also higher-order moments which contain additional information. It has been stressed that valuable constraints on cosmological parameters are expected to come from a joint measurement of the variance and higher-order moments such as the skewness of the weak lensing convergence field because the variance is strongly dependent on both the amplitude of the mass power spectrum and the density of the Universe, while the skewness (properly normalized) is essentially a measure of the latter (Bernardeau, Van Waerbeke & Mellier 1997; Jain & Seljak 1997; Schneider et al. 1998; Van Waerbeke, Bernardeau & Mellier 1999; Van Waerbeke et al. 2000).

The non-linear growth of structure is very important on the length scales relevant for weak lensing, so estimates for the level of non-Gaussianity in $`\kappa `$ come from two different techniques: N-body simulations (Couchman, Barber & Thomas 1999; Jain, Seljak & White 2000; White & Hu 2000) and semi-analytic models (Jain & Seljak 1997; Schneider et al. 1998; Van Waerbeke et al 2001). N-body simulations have been used to create mock $`\kappa `$ maps from which higher-order moments have been measured. Semi-analytic techniques such as the halo model (see Cooray & Sheth 2002 for a recent review) or proposals about the behavior of higher-order correlations in the non-linear regime (Scoccimarro & Frieman 1999) have also been used to make weak lensing predictions (Hui 1999; Cooray, Hu & Miralda-Escudé 2000; Cooray & Hu 2001).

So far most of these theoretical approaches have dealt with $`\kappa `$; however the quantity that is directly measured is the shear $`\gamma `$111What is actually measured is the reduced shear $`\gamma /(1\kappa )`$, thus on sufficiently small scales this may change theoretical predictions. The spin properties of the three-point function we will discuss apply both to the shear and the reduced shear. The crucial difference between $`\kappa `$ and $`\gamma `$ is that the shear is a spin-2 field on the sky while $`\kappa `$ is just a scalar. Thus the shear has two components at each position on the sky so when designing any statistics for the shear one has to make sure that the statistic does not depend on some arbitrary choice of coordinate system. Moreover the transformation from shear to $`\kappa `$ cannot be done exactly if one only has a shear map over a finite region on the sky and only at the position of the background galaxies. To circumvent this issue, measures of the shear at different points on the sky can be combined to form statistics that are invariant under rotation and can be expressed as weighted averages of $`\kappa `$; the best example being the aperture mass (Kaiser et al. (1994); Schneider, van Waerbeke, Jain, & Kruse (1998)). We will show that the amplitude of the three-point function varies with triangle configuration and can be both positive or negative. As a result not all combinations of the three-point function are optimal from a signal to noise perspective.

A natural way to look for non-Gaussianity is then to look at statistics of the aperture mass. In this paper we will focus on another approach, directly defining higher-order statistics in terms of the shear field that are independent of the coordinate system. Any statistic of the shear can ultimately be written as a linear combination of the statistics we present in this paper. We will show however that not all the possible higher-order moments are expected to have the same level of cosmological signal and, moreover, the sign of these statistics can be positive or negative depending on the configuration of the points. The advantage of our approach is that it will allow us to isolate the configurations that have most cosmological signal and avoid suppression of signal to noise in the measurements or cancellations that would result from an arbitrary linear combination.

A first attempt has been made to define a three-point function for the shear field in Bernardeau et al (2002a). Their prescription corresponds to integrating over a particular linear combination of the four different shear three-point functions that we define in this work. They have applied their statistic to a cosmic shear survey and reported a detection at approximately $`5\sigma `$ level (Bernardeau et al. 2002b). Given these encouraging results it is worth to consider in more detail how to construct shear three-point functions and what is expected theoretically about their order of magnitude and sign depending on the particular configuration of the points.

This paper will be written using weak lensing language, but identical issues arise if one wants to define higher-order moments of the CMB polarization field. The analogue of the shear components are the $`Q`$ and $`U`$ Stokes parameters and the analogue of the projected mass density is usually called the $`E`$ field. Even if the initial conditions are Gaussian, higher-order moments of the CMB polarization can be generated by secondary effects such as lensing so the statistics presented here will be equally applicable for the CMB.

## 2. Defining higher-order moments for spin-2 fields

In this section we will show how to define higher-order moments of the weak lensing shear or CMB polarization fields in a way that is geometrically meaningful. The problem is that the shear is a spin-2 field and thus at each point on the sky it has two components. Just as in the case of a vector field the values of these components depend on the choice of coordinate system. If at any given point one rotates the coordinate system used to define the shear components by an angle $`\alpha `$ (anticlockwise in our convention) the shear field has to be transformed as,

$`\gamma _1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}2\alpha \gamma _1+\mathrm{sin}2\alpha \gamma _2`$
$`\gamma _2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha \gamma _1+\mathrm{cos}2\alpha \gamma _2`$ (1)
Any meaningful statistic of the shear measured in a set of points has to depend only on the distances and relative orientation of these points and not on their absolute position on the sky or their orientation with respect to some fiducial origin. For example the two point function has to depend only on the distance between the two points and the three-point function only on the size and shape of the triangle formed by the three points.

The way to overcome this problem of definition for the second moment is well known, one uses the separation vector to define a “natural” coordinate system. The idea is to align the coordinate system so that one of the axis lies on the great circle joining the two points and uses that coordinate system to define the two components of the shear (Miralda-Escudé (1991); Kaiser (1992); Kamionkowski, Kosowsky & Stebbins (1997)).

In general the way to define higher-order moments that are invariant under rotation is by contracting the measured shear at the three points with suitable combinations of the vectors that define the sides of the triangle, are invariant under translation and have the correct spin to compensate for the spin of the shear. Clearly this procedure is not unique as there are many such combinations. In this paper we will propose a simple, intuitive but at the same time geometrically meaningful way to define higher-order moments.

An N-point function is characterized by the set of points $`X=\{þ_i\}`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{}N`$) where the shear or the CMB polarization is measured. We denote $`2D`$ vectors on the sky with boldface. We then define the “center of mass” of $`X`$,

$$ø=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}þ_i$$
(2)
and use $`ø`$ as the origin when defining the shear at each of the points in $`X`$. At every point we can define a component of the shear along the direction that separates $`ø`$ and $`þ_i`$ which we can call $`\gamma _+`$ and a component which is measured in the coordinate system that is rotated by $`45^o`$, which we call $`\gamma _\times `$. Figure 1 illustrates how the $`\gamma _+`$ and $`\gamma _\times `$ are defined. This is totally analogous to the procedure for the two point function, but now the two points used in the definition of $`\gamma _+`$ and $`\gamma _\times `$ are $`ø`$ and $`þ_i`$ instead of the two points in the two point function. The key to our procedure is that by defining an origin based only on the points in $`X`$ we make sure that our statistic depends only on intrinsic properties of $`X`$ and not on a fiducial origin.

Another important property of spin-2 fields is that they can be decomposed into two scalar potentials, one that is even under parity ($`E`$) and one that is odd ($`B`$) (Kamionkowski, Kosowsky & Stebbins (1997); Zaldarriaga & Seljak (1997); Crittenden et al. (2001); Schneider et al. (2002)). In fact for finite sky coverage or for maps with holes, there is a third family of modes, the ambiguous modes for which one does not have enough information to decide whether the contribution is coming from $`E`$ or from $`B`$ (Lewis, Challinor, & Turok (2002); Bunn, Zaldarriaga, Tegmark, & de Oliveira-Costa (2002)). Weak gravitational lensing only produces $`E`$ modes ($`E`$ is nothing but the projected mass density $`\kappa `$).

The properties under parity transformation of $`\gamma _+`$ and $`\gamma _\times `$ are different. As is clear from the definition, to obtain $`\gamma _\times `$ one has to rotate the coordinate system anticlockwise. This rotation changes direction when we do a parity transformation. This means that under parity $`\gamma _+^{}\gamma _+`$ but $`\gamma _\times ^{}\gamma _\times `$.

As a consequence of the difference in behavior of $`\gamma _+`$ and $`\gamma _\times `$ any estimator that contains an odd number of $`\gamma _\times `$ is odd under parity. The difference in their parity behavior will make some of the three-point functions vanish. To illustrate what this means we can consider the case of the three-point function for equilateral triangles. In principle there are 8 different combinations of the two shear components at the three points, however only four of them: $`\gamma _+\gamma _+\gamma _+`$, $`\gamma _+\gamma _\times \gamma _\times `$, $`\gamma _\times \gamma _+\gamma _\times `$, $`\gamma _\times \gamma _\times \gamma _+`$ contain any signal from weak lensing because they are the only four that are even under parity. We show patterns that produce positive values for these correlations in Fig. 2. For a discussion on how the difference in behavior under parity of the three-point functions of general configurations constraints their possible values see Takada & Jain 2002b .

Being able to separate combinations that have signal from those that do not is very important not to dilute the signal one is trying to measure when combining or binning the measured statistics to obtain a detection. Moreover for equilateral triangles for example the four odd combinations: $`\gamma _\times \gamma _\times \gamma _\times `$, $`\gamma _+\gamma _+\gamma _\times `$, $`\gamma _\times \gamma _+\gamma _+`$, $`\gamma _+\gamma _\times \gamma _+`$ may prove useful to monitor systematic problems in the data or to identify interesting physical effects such as clustering of the background sources, the effects of multiple scatterings, etc. (Bernardeau (1998); Jain, Seljak & White (2000)).

Any connected N-point function of the shear can be written as a linear combination of the connected N-point functions of the two potential $`E`$ and $`B`$. It is worth noting that in the case of connected N-point functions with odd number of legs there will be some configurations (such as those where the lenghts of all sides are equal) that can be separated into a set that only depends on the higher-order correlations of $`E`$ and a set that only depends on the higher moments of $`B`$ (assuming $`E`$ and $`B`$ are independent). We can argue this only on the basis of their bahavir under parity. The product of an odd number of $`E`$’s is even under parity while a product of an odd number of $`B`$’s is odd, thus the even parity N-point functions of the shear receive contributions only from $`E`$ and the odd ones only from $`B`$. For an N-point function with an even number of legs this is not true because the product of an even number of $`E`$s or $`B`$s is even under parity. The clearest example of this is the two-point correlation function where $`\gamma _+\gamma _+`$ and $`\gamma _\times \gamma _\times `$ receive contributions from both $`EE`$ and $`BB`$ while $`\gamma _\times \gamma _+`$ is zero if there is no $`EB`$ cross-correlation.

As we mentioned above the way to make a three-point function (or an N-point function for that matter) that is scalar is to contract the shear at the three points with some combination of the vectors that form the sides that transforms appropriately under rotations to cancel the spin of shear. That is we need to construct spin$`2`$ combinations of these vectors. Our proposed scheme is easy to understand. For each member of $`X`$ we define $`\stackrel{~}{þ}=þø`$ and we construct two spin$`2`$ quantities,

$`\overline{𝐏}_+`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{\theta }_x^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }_y^2,2\stackrel{~}{\theta }_x\stackrel{~}{\theta }_y)/\stackrel{~}{\theta }^2`$
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$
$`\overline{𝐏}_\times `$ $`=`$ $`(2\stackrel{~}{\theta }_x\stackrel{~}{\theta }_y,\stackrel{~}{\theta }_x^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }_y^2)/\stackrel{~}{\theta }^2`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }).`$
The statistics we proposed are obtained by contracting the above quantities with the shear three-point function. For example,

$$\gamma _+\gamma _+\gamma _+=\overline{P}_+^{\mu _1}\overline{P}_+^{\mu _2}\overline{P}_+^{\mu _3}\gamma _{\mu _1}\gamma _{\mu _2}\gamma _{\mu _3},$$
(4)
where the index $`\mu `$ runs over the two components of the shear. The other three-point functions that we define are obtained by replacing some of the $`\overline{P}_+`$ by $`\overline{P}_\times `$. Finally we note that the vector $`\stackrel{~}{þ}_1`$ is nothing but $`\stackrel{~}{þ}_1=[(þ_1þ_2)+(þ_1þ_3)]/3`$, i.e. basically the sum of the vectors that define the sides of the triangle that cross at $`þ_1`$. The same is true for the other vertices.

## 3. Worked Examples

Our objective in this section is to get some intuition into how these higher-order correlations behave. To keep things simple we will just focus on the three-point function. To get some idea of how these functions behave we will work in the context of the halo model, i.e. the dark matter is assumed to be distributed in a collection of halos of different mass. Although analytic approximations and fits to numerical simulations exist for the profile of these halos and their mass function, this modeling is clearly simplistic to model the shear field as in reality halos are not spherical. This particularly is bound to affect the configuration dependence of the three-point function. Thus definite predictions will need more detailed modeling and comparison with direct measurements using numerical simulations.

Our aim in this paper is more modest, we only want to gain some insight into how these different three-point functions behave, if they are positive or negative for example. We will start by considering the simple case of lensing by a singular isothermal sphere. We do this because the calculation of the three-point function can be done analytically, and it provides a useful check on the numerical code used to do the same calculations in the halo model, presented in 3.2.

### 3.1.  The Singular Isothermal Sphere

In this section we will calculate the three-point function that results from a single halo with a power-law density run. For definiteness we will write down formulas for a singular isothermal sphere (SIS), but other power laws can be calculated in analogous way. For a SIS the density $`\rho (r)`$ depends on distance from the center $`r`$ as $`\rho (r)r^2`$; therefore, both the projected mass density $`\kappa `$ and the shear $`\gamma `$ scale with projected separation as $`r_{}^1`$.

The shear pattern around a spherical halo is tangential centered at the origin of the halo which we will call $`𝐮`$. When defining the shear components at a point $`þ`$, we will need to rotate the shear elements so as to define them relative to the vector $`þø`$. We will call this angle of rotation $`\alpha `$. We can write

$$\gamma _+(þ)=\frac{\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha )}{|þ𝐮|}\gamma _\times (þ)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )}{|þ𝐮|}.$$
(5)
The cosine and sine of $`2\alpha `$ can be calculated in terms of

$`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(þ𝐮)(þø)}{|þ𝐮||þø|}}`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{z}[(þ𝐮)\times (þø)]}{|þ𝐮||þø|}},`$ (7)
where $`\widehat{z}`$ is the unit vector perpendicular to the plane of the sky. The three-point function $`\zeta `$ is obtained by integrating over the position of the center of the halo $`𝐮`$,

$`\zeta _\gamma ^{+++}(l_1,l_2,l_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2𝐮\frac{\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha _1)}{|þ_1𝐮|}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha _2)}{|þ_2𝐮|}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha _3)}{|þ_3𝐮|}}`$ (8)
$`\zeta _\gamma ^{+\times \times }(l_1,l_2,l_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2𝐮\frac{\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha _1)}{|þ_1𝐮|}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _2)}{|þ_2𝐮|}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _3)}{|þ_3𝐮|}},`$ (9)
where $`l_1,l_2,l_3`$ are the lengths of the triangle sides, $`l_1^2=|þ_2þ_1|^2`$, $`l_2^2=|þ_3þ_2|^2`$, $`l_3^2=|þ_1þ_3|^2`$. There are two permutations of the second equation which give the remaining three-point correlators, $`\zeta _\gamma ^{\times +\times }`$ and $`\zeta _\gamma ^{\times \times +}`$.

To calculate Eqs. (8-9), we proceed as follows. First, for simplicity, we take the origin of coordinates to coincide with the center of mass, so $`ø`$ vanishes. We then write the $`𝐮`$ dependence inside the cosine and sine in Eqs. (6-7) in terms of $`𝐝_iþ_i𝐮`$. This can be done simply using that

$$𝐮þ_i=\frac{1}{2}\left(u^2+|þ_i|^2d_i^2\right),$$
(10)
whereas the magnitude of $`𝐮`$ can be conveniently written as

$$u^2=\frac{1}{3}(d_1^2+d_2^2+d_3^2)\frac{1}{9}(l_1^2+l_2^2+l_3^2).$$
(11)
Similarly we have $`|þ_1|^2=(2l_3^2+2l_1^2l_2^2)/9`$ and cyclic permutations. In this way, after appropriate translation in $`𝐮`$ the integrals in Eqs. (8-9) are of the form,

$$J(\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3)=\frac{d^2𝐮}{(u^2)^{\nu _1}[(𝐥_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐮)^2]^{\nu _2}[(𝐥_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐮)^2]^{\nu _3}}$$
(12)
which can be evaluated by using dimensional regularization techniques (see Scoccimarro 1997 and references therein) in terms of Apell’s hypergeometric function of two variables, $`\mathrm{F}_4`$, with the series expansion:

$$\mathrm{F}_4(a,b;c,d;x,y)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x^iy^j}{i!j!}\frac{(a)_{i+j}(b)_{i+j}}{(c)_i(d)_j},$$
(13)
where $`(a)_i\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+i)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)`$. In our case, the arguments of $`F_4`$ have a special symmetry that allows us to write them in terms of regular hypergeometric functions,

$`F_4[\alpha ,\gamma +\gamma ^{}\alpha 1,\gamma ,\gamma ^{};x(x1),y(y1)]=`$
$`F(\alpha ,\gamma +\gamma ^{}\alpha 1,\gamma ,x)\times F(\alpha ,\gamma +\gamma ^{}\alpha 1,\gamma ^{},y),`$
which can be easily evaluated on the computer using MATHEMATICA. Figure 3 shows the results for different triangle configurations. Since the SIS is scale-free, the overall size of the triangle scales the results by a factor, so we take $`l_11`$. The top panel shows the four $`\zeta _\gamma `$’s for $`l_2=l_1`$ as a function of the angle $`\varphi `$ between $`𝐥_1`$ and $`𝐥_2`$. We see that for most of the triangles ($`\varphi 0.3\pi `$), the signal is dominated by $`\zeta _\gamma ^{+++}`$, with a maximum close to equilateral triangles ($`\varphi =2\pi /3`$)222The divergence of $`\zeta _\gamma ^{+++}`$ as $`\varphi \pi `$ is a peculiarity of the SIS when $`l_30`$. $`\zeta _\gamma ^{\times +\times }`$ is regular in that limit despite what Fig. 3 suggests.. On the other hand, the three contributions involving $`\gamma _\times `$ are generally smaller in magnitude.

This can be understood geometrically from Fig. 4. Let us consider the halo center to be inside the triangle, which minimizes the distances to the vertices and thus maximizes the signal. Since $`\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha )>0`$ for $`|\alpha |<\pi /4`$, as long as the internal angles of the triangle are smaller than $`\pi /2`$, $`\zeta _\gamma ^{+++}`$ is positive. As $`\varphi \pi `$, $`\alpha _20`$, whereas $`|\alpha _1|=|\alpha _3|`$ cannot be larger than $`\pi /2`$; thus $`\zeta _\gamma ^{+++}`$ remains positive as $`\varphi \pi `$. On the other hand, as $`\varphi 0`$, $`\alpha _1=\alpha _30`$, whereas $`|\alpha _2|\pi `$ if $`𝐮`$ is off center; that explains why $`\zeta _\gamma ^{+++}`$ becomes negative as $`\varphi 0`$.

For the three other three-point functions involving $`\gamma _\times `$, things are more subtle. Since $`\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )`$ changes sign at $`\alpha =0`$, $`\gamma _\times `$ can be positive or negative depending on the location of $`𝐮`$ relative to the bisector of the vertex. As a result moving $`𝐮`$ inside the triangle leads to cancellations, and thus smaller amplitude for $`\zeta _\gamma `$’s. The bottom panel in Fig. 3 shows results for configurations in which $`l_2=2l_1`$. A similar pattern is seen, where for isosceles triangles $`\varphi 0.6\pi `$ the $`\zeta _\gamma ^{+++}`$ is positive and maximum, whereas the remaining three contributions are smaller, becoming comparable only for collapsed triangles which can avoid cancellations.

The physical interpretation of the different amplitudes is sketched in Fig. 5. In the top (bottom) row we show patterns that would produce positive (negative) values for $`\zeta _\gamma ^{+++}`$, $`\zeta _\gamma ^{\times \times +}`$, $`\zeta _\gamma ^{\times +\times }`$, and $`\zeta _\gamma ^{+\times \times }`$ from left to right, respectively. It is clear from the figure that the top examples correspond to patters that would be produced by overdensities and the bottom patterns would be produced by underdensities. We indicate with a square the region where the overdensity (underdensity) should be located to produce such pattern.

### 3.2. Superposition of NFW profiles

In this section we will calculate the three-point functions using the halo model (Peacock & Smith 2000, Seljak 2000, Ma & Fry 2000, Scoccimarro et al. 2001). For simplicity we will restrict ourselves to the one-halo term which dominates on the small scales where the three-point function of the shear is easiest to measure in observations. For examples of calculations of weak gravitational lensing higher-order moments in the context of the halo model see Cooray & Hu (2001) and Takada & Jain 2002a . Measurements of higher-order moments of the convergence field in numerical simulations are given in Jain, Seljak & White (2000), White & Hu (2000); Van Waerbeke et al (2001) also present results for aperture mass statistics which is directly related to the cosmic shear.

Under our assumptions the averaged shear can be written as an integral over radial distance ($`d\chi =cdt/a`$), mass ($`M`$) and angular location ($`𝐮`$) of halos,

$`\zeta _\gamma (l_1,l_2,l_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\chi d_A^2(\chi )𝑑M\frac{dn}{dM}d^2𝐮}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(𝐮,þ_1,M,\chi )`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(𝐮,þ_2,M,\chi )\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(𝐮,þ_3,M,\chi ),`$ (15)
where $`a`$ is the expansion factor of the universe, $`d_A`$ is the comoving angular diameter distance, $`dn/dM`$ is the mass function of halos. We have introduced the notation $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(𝐮,þ,M,\chi )`$ to indicate the shear produced at position $`þ`$ by a halo at radial distance $`\chi `$ and angular position $`𝐮`$. Note that for convenience we are using the same symbol regardless of whether $`\gamma _+`$ or $`\gamma _\times `$ is involved.

To obtain an estimate for the three-point function we will evaluate Eq. (3.2) assuming that the background sources used to measure the shear are all at redshift $`z_s=1`$ and that the cosmological model is the so called LCDM model ( $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`h=0.7`$, $`\sigma _8=0.9`$ and $`n=1`$). We will assume that the mass function of halos is that given by Sheth & Tormen (1999); Jenkins et al. (2001) and that dark matter halos have an NFW profile nfw (Navarro, Frenk & White 1997). In particular, we use

$$\rho (r)=\frac{\rho _s}{r/r_s(1+r/r_s)^2}$$
(16)
where $`r`$ is measured in comoving coordinates and $`r_s`$ is related to the virial radius of the halo by the concentration parameter $`c`$, $`r_s=r_{vir}/c`$. The mass of the halo is given by $`M=4\pi \rho _sr_{vir}^3(\mathrm{ln}(1+c)c/(1+c))/c^3`$. The virial radius is calculated using that $`M=4\pi /3r_{vir}^3\overline{\rho }_0\mathrm{\Delta }(z)`$ with $`\overline{\rho }_0`$ the mean density of the universe today and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z)`$ the overdensity of collapse as a function of redshift (ie. $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z=0)340`$ for LCDM). For the concentration we take $`c(M,z)=9/(1+z)(M/M_{})^{0.13}`$ bullock (Bullock et al. 2001), where $`M_{}`$ is the mass contained in a sphere of radius $`R_{}`$ at which the variance of the density is one ($`R_{}3.14h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ for LCDM).

The shear produced by an NFW profile at the origin is calculated as follows. The shear is expressed in terms of second derivatives of the gravitational potential $`\psi `$, $`\gamma _1=1/2(\psi _{xx}\psi _{yy})`$ and $`\gamma _2=\psi _{xy}`$. The gravitational potential satisfies

$`_𝐮^2\psi `$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa (u)`$
$`\kappa (u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{crit}}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑z\rho (\sqrt{u^2d_A^2(\chi )+z^2})}`$ (17)
where $`1/\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{crit}=4\pi Gd_A(\chi )d_A(\chi \chi _s)/c^2d_A(\chi _s)`$, $`\chi `$ gives the radial position of the halo and $`\chi _s`$ that of the background sources333In this equation $`c`$ is the speed of light not the concentration parameter of dark matter halos. Equation (3.2) is easily integrated to obtain $`\psi `$ because $`\kappa `$ is only a function of $`u`$. Once the shear is obtained for a halo at the origin, we obtain $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(𝐮,þ,M,\chi )`$ with a coordinate transformation. A similar evaluation for the SIS to compare with the results obtained by the method of the previous section gives a useful check to our numerical integration code.

Figure 6 shows the results of our calculation for some specific triangles. In the top panel $`l_1=l_2=2^{}`$ and in the bottom panel the case $`l_1=2^{}`$ and $`l_2=4^{}`$. The similarities with the results for the SIS are striking, thus we can understand the dependence of each of the curves with $`\varphi `$ in exactly the same way.

The expected level of $`\zeta _\gamma `$ on arcminute scales is $`\zeta _\gamma 10^6`$. We estimate the number of triangles ($`N_T`$) needed to detect the three-point function in a particular configuration above the noise produced by the intrinsic ellipticity of the background galaxies as follows. If the typical ellipticity of the background galaxies is $`0.3`$ then the typical noise added to each components of the intrinsic shear is $`\sigma 0.3/\sqrt{2}0.2`$. The expected noise in the three-point function is then $`\sigma ^3/\sqrt{N}_T`$. This implies that one needs roughly $`N_T6.5\times 10^7`$ triangles of a particular shape to estimate the three-point function. In a survey covering a solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with a mean desity of galaxies $`\overline{n}`$ there are roughly $`N_T=\overline{n}\mathrm{\Omega }(\pi R^2\overline{n})^2/6`$ triangles with sides of scale $`R`$. Current surveys have about 20 galaxies/$`\mathrm{arcmin}^2`$ implying that in a few square degrees there are enough triangles with sides of order an arcminute to detect this signal.

## 4. Summary and Discussion

In this paper we have introduced a new way of defining higher-order correlation functions of a spin-2 field such as the weak lensing shear or the CMB polarization by using the “center of mass” of the configuration as the origin from which the components of the shear are defined. In principle for an $`N`$-point function there are $`2^N`$ different statistics of the shear. We have shown that these statistics can be divided according to their behavior under parity transformation and that one does not expect a cosmological signal in the odd ones for some configurations, such as for equilateral triangles.

In order to gain intuition about the behavior of these statistics we calculated the four even three-point functions under some simple assumptions. We calculated analytically what would be expected to be produced by an ensemble of singular isothermal spheres. We showed that $`\zeta _\gamma ^{+++}`$ is positive and expected to carry the bulk of the signal for triangles that are not too elongated. For elongated triangles we showed that all four three-point functions have similar values but some of them are positive and others are negative. If two of the points are very close to each another $`\zeta _\gamma ^{+++}`$ and $`\zeta _\gamma ^{\times +\times }`$ carry most of the signal.

We estimated the three-point functions in the context of the halo model using the contributions from the one-halo term, which should be a reasonable approximation at small angular scales. We showed that the configuration dependence in this case is almost identical to that found for the SIS. We estimated that in order to detect a signal above the noise (due to the intrinsic ellipticity of galaxies) at scales of order of one arcminute a survey of a few square degrees is necessary.

Clearly both the fact that we restricted ourselves to the one-halo term and that we assumed the halos to be spherical will affect the behavior of the three-point function. A detailed study using numerical simulations will be needed to improve upon the calculation presented here (Benabed, Scoccimarro & Zaldarriaga, in preparation). The potential rewards of detecting a non-Gaussian signal in the shear maps are enourmous and the tantalizing detections reported so far (Bernardeau, Mellier & Van Waerbeke 2002b ) make this a very exciting time to study these issues in detail.

When this paper was under completion, a similar proposal for calculating the shear three-point function was put forward by Schneider & Lombardi (2002).

Acknowledgments: We thank Mashiro Takada and Bhuvnesh Jain for pointing out an error in the first version of the manuscript. MZ is supported by David and Lucille Packard Foundation Fellowship for Science and Engeneering and NSF grant AST-0098506. RS is supported by NASA ATP grant NAG5-12100. MZ and RS are supported by NSF grant PHY-0116590.