arXiv:astro-ph/0601163v2 25 Apr 2006 rpittpstuigL using typeset Preprint 2018 25, August version Draft 1 2 M aafo MP(ent ta.20;Seglet Spergel 2003; al. by et scale (Bennett ruler WMAP standard from possible the data made & of CMB 2003), (Blake determination Eisenstein accurate energy & by dark Seo probe acoustic cos- 2003; to a baryonic Glazebrook as ruler spectrum the standard power use galaxy mological development the to in important (BAO) is An oscillations complementarity this Wang, (1999)). et and in Strauss Bahcall (1999), Tegmark example, & & for Spergel, Hu, (see Eisenstein, noted (1999), been al. cos- long precision has in data mology survey galaxy and (CMB) anisotropy re- contain models. (2003) many Ratra of Pad- & views Peebles & & (2005). and Matarrese, Brandenberger Gong, (2003) Kolb, & manabhan Cai, & (2005); Martineau (2005); al. Onemli (2005); et Riotto (2004); Sahni Cardone al. & (2005); et Wang Alam (2001); Carroll (2004); Kanti (2002); & Woodard Lewis Bastero-Gil, & Gabadadze, Mersini, Freese Dvali, (2000); (1999); Porrati Raval & & & Sahni Parker (1998); Linde Steinhardt (1998); (1987); & Habib Dave al. Caldwell, (1995); et Frieman al. (1988); Freese Wetterich et (1988); example, Ratra & for Peebles mod- See (1987); energy dark abound. Jassal, viable & els other (2005); (2005)), Wang Djorgovski Padmanabhan and example, & & 1999) Bagla, for Daly 2005); (see (2004, constant al. consistent Tegmark cosmological are et acceler- data a Perlmutter observational the with current 1998; driving Although supernova by is data. al. evidenced that as et universe energy (Riess the of dark expansion the ated of nature 3 eateto hsc srnm,Ui.o kaoa 4 B W 440 Oklahoma, of Univ. Astronomy, & Physics of Department e lnkmsinbu oka http://www.rssd.esa.int/S at book blue mission Planck See o Ω For h oeflcmlmnaiyo h omcmicrowave cosmic the of complementarity powerful The the is today cosmology in mystery intriguing most The b h 2 H σ estv oteasmdlna cl fmte lseigadtere the and clustering 0 matter with of survey scale BAO linear assumed a the to sensitive A opoedr nry efidta suigafltuies,an universe, flat a assuming that find We var energy. examine We dark probe stand data. to cosmological anisotropy BAO a background microwave recombination, cosmic at the horizon sound comoving the essepywt uvyae hn(area) than area survey with steeply less sepce rmtePac iso,tecntanso akener dark on constraints the mission, Planck the from expected as nrydensity energy 00 (deg) 10000 ln mle n poiei in h eut rmti ae ilb useful detectio be energy will dark paper optimal this of headings: from design Subject results the guiding The and sign. surveys in BAO opposite and smaller odrv eibedr nrycntans o 00(00)squ (10000) 1000 a For constraints. energy dark reliable derive to z . ( aynaosi siltos(A)i h aaypwrsetu allow spectrum power galaxy the in (BAO) oscillations acoustic Baryon H / z 0 1+ (1 n Ω and ) . ( 3 h rgeohflostels cteigo h photons the of scattering last the follows epoch drag the 03, z ed oa2 a to leads ) z AKEEG OSRIT RMBRO CUTCOSCILLATIONS ACOUSTIC BARYON FROM CONSTRAINTS ENERGY DARK 0 = ) A 1. T 2 m E tl mltajv 11/12/01 v. emulateapj style X epciey efidta ti rtclt iiieteba ntesaees scale the in bias the minimize to critical is it that find We respectively. introduction wihrdcsteeeto roso Ω on priors of effect the reduces (which . ρ 0,( 001, X Cosmology ( z σ ,hwvr osaeruhywt (area) with roughly scale do however, ), (3 σ . 5 w σ 0 ≤ isin bias ) σ , z w ′ ≤ (.1,013 n 009 .0)frsre ra f10 (deg 1000 of areas survey for 0.104) (0.069, and 0.183) =(0.115, ) 2, w σ ′ h isin bias The . ( R rf eso uut2,2018 25, August version Draft 0 = ) − 1 A/PLANCK/docs/Bluebook-ESA-SCI(2005)1.pdf / 2 . ABSTRACT u Wang Yun crepnigto (corresponding 4 o ie esitrne h osrit ntedark the on constraints The range. redshift given a for w ok t,Nra,O 31;eal agnno.d Jn8, (Jan [email protected] email: 73019; OK Norman, St., rooks 1 ′ u otesm cl isfo ln from bias scale same the to due H is parameter Hubble the and r eesdfo h opo rgo h photons the of drag baryons Compton (when the epoch from drag released the are at horizon sound comoving hr d n e”rfrt h rgeohadmatter- and epoch drag the with to respectively, refer equality “eq” radiation and “d” where Ω iyfnto.Fracsooia constant, cosmological a For function. sity l 03 n Planck and 2003) al. in with h on pe is speed sound The 2 ftebroi siltosdpnsvr togyo Ω on strongly very depends oscillations baryonic the of m . X .Dr nrycntansfo A r very are BAO from constraints energy Dark ). 5 1 ( Esnti u1998). Hu & (Eisenstein h wvlnt”o h ayncaosi oscillations acoustic baryonic the of “wavelength” The k z s × R Ω = = ) saei eemndby determined is -space c ≃ = X s b 10 − = = p √ ( 1 H p Λ 4 z / Ω Ω 2 ) Since . 4 p 0 Ω 3 − Ω ρ m ρ s m ≡ u otesrn orlto between correlation strong the to due 1 1 m ( + 3(1 γ m b k r ereBOsre,a1 a survey, BAO degree are h = H max Z ρ 1+ (1 r ue cuaeydtrie by determined accurately ruler ard yprmtr ( parameters gy 2 31 = osise motn nteueof use the in important issues ious strategies. n sitacrc ftesre.For survey. the of accuracy dshift 0 X 0 1 ( Z 2 a roso Ω on priors d T 0 ( d q ( z CMB z t R z d da d ) nassigdffrn proposed different assessing in z . 3 /ρ Ω 5 c b ) ≫ )=0 = 0) = z s ) 2 3 √ eq st xrc h cl of scale the extract to us s 2 dt/a , X c / Ω + . b ,w have we 1, a R 2 0 eoigtedr nryden- energy dark the denoting (0) h . c + 2 eq b 7K) s ( rad = T a ln CMB eq − H 1+ (1 m k . w 4 q 086 0 A − Ω , ec h “wavelength” the Hence . 0 1 D + 1 w , / iae norder in timates 2 = Z z m 2 h A z ) . ′ h ( 7K) Mpc d 4 ∞ cl much scale ) R z z + 1 2 π/s Ω + d sslightly is ) n Ω and , d b dz ∼ − + σ − q where , 4 H k 1 09 and 1089, q ( isin bias ) 1+ (1 ,and ), c z/ R 2 ( X s z R eq b and 1000) ) b ( d b h z z + and 1 = ) 2 ) 2 s R − Ω + 2006) 3 eq b sthe is z 1 ), , eq , (2) (4) (3) (1) X m = X , ( z ) , 2 Yun Wang but has negligible dependence on dark energy (which only “wavelength” of the baryonic oscillations can be recovered. became important recently, at redshifts a few and less). It Note that in our calculation, Eq.(6) is only used to get an can therefore be used as a standard ruler to probe dark estimate of how accurately the power spectrum is deter- energy. mined, and not used to derive constraints on dark energy The systematic effects of BAO as a standard ruler are: and cosmological parameters. bias between luminous matter and matter distributions, Assuming that the likelihood function for the band pow- nonlinear effects, and redshift distortions (Blake & Glaze- ers of a galaxy redshift survey is Gaussian, the Fisher ma- brook 2003; Seo & Eisenstein 2003). Cosmological N-body trix can be approximated as (Tegmark 1997) simulations are required to quantify these effects (Angulo kmax ∂ ln P (k) ∂ ln P (k) dk3 et al. 2005; Seo & Eisenstein 2005; Springel et al. 2005; k Fij = Veff ( ) 3 (7) White 2005). Fisher matrix formalism is useful in investi- kmin ∂pi ∂pj 2 (2π) gating the impact of various effects and assumptions that Z can be parametrized in the observed galaxy power spec- where the derivatives are evaluated at parameter values of trum (Seo & Eisenstein 2003). the fiducial model and Veff is the effective volume of the In this paper, we examine various issues important in survey the use of baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) to probe 2 n(r)P (k,µ) dark energy using the Fisher matrix formalism. In par- V (k,µ)= dr3 eff n(r)P (k,µ)+1 ticular, we extend the work of Seo & Eisenstein (2003) Z   ′ 2 by deriving the biases in dark energy parameters (w0, w ) nP (k,µ) = V , (8) due to systematic errors in the estimated scales. Through- nP (k,µ)+1 survey out this paper, we assume spatial flatness as motivated by   inflation and consistent with current CMB data. where the comoving number density n has been taken to Sec.2 describes the method used in our calculations. We be constant in position. Here µ = k ˆr/k, with ˆr denoting present results in Sec.3 and summarize in Sec.4. the unit vector along the line of sight;· k is the wavevec- tor with k = k. Following Blake & Glazebrook (2003) 2. | | the method and Seo & Eisenstein (2003), we take kmin = 0, and kmax 2.1. Error estimation using Fisher matrix given by requiring that σ(R) . 0.5 for R = π/(2kmax) (to ensure that we are only considering the linear regime). In estimating the expected errors in dark energy param- The observed power spectrum is reconstructed using a eters, we follow Seo & Eisenstein (2003) in using the Fisher particular reference cosmology, including the effects of bias matrix formalism (see discussion in Sec.4). We provide de- and redshift distortions (Seo & Eisenstein 2003): tails from our calculations for the convenience of readers 2 2 who wish to reproduce our results. [D (z) ]2 H(z) k The comoving sizes of an object or feature at redshift P (k , k )= A ref b2 1+ β k obs ref⊥ refk 2 k2 + k2 · z in line-of-sight (rk) and transverse (r⊥) directions are [DA(z)] H(z)ref ⊥ k ! related to the observed sizes ∆z and ∆θ by the Hubble G(z) 2 parameter H(z) and angular diameter distance DA(z): P (k z =0)+ P .(9) · G(z = 0) matter | shot c∆z   r = , r =(1+ z)D (z)∆θ, (5) k H(z) ⊥ A The values in the reference cosmology are denoted by the The true scale of the baryonic acoustic oscillations (the co- subscript “ref”, while those in the true cosmology have no moving sound horizon at recombination) is known. Hence subscript. Note that if we can measure the “wavelength” of the baryonic acous- kref⊥ = k⊥DA(z)/DA(z)ref , krefk = kkH(z)ref /H(z). tic oscillations in the radial direction in successive redshift (10) slices, we obtain estimates of the cosmic expansion history The linear redshift distortion β is computed from the as a free function of z. While the measurement of the bias b for fiducial values of the observed galaxy cluster- “wavelength” of the baryonic acoustic oscillations in the 0.6 ing, β = Ωm /b. G(z) is the linear growth factor. We transverse direction gives us an estimate of the angular normalize the power spectrum to CMB data from COBE diameter distance DA(z) as a free function of z. (Eisenstein & Hu 1998). The accuracy of the power spectrum measurement Care needs to be taken in using Eq.(9) to compute the (Feldman, Kaiser, & Peacock 1994; Tegmark 1997) is derivatives of P (k) needed for the Fisher matrix in Eq.(7). Note that P (k z = 0) depends on H(z) and D (z) σP 2 1 matter A =2π 1+ , (6) through k (see Eq.(10)).| P V k2∆k∆µ nP s survey   For a redshift slice with mean redshift z, the estimated where P is the average band power, Vsurvey is the total parameters (assumed to be constant in the redshift slice) survey volume, ∆k is the range of wavenumber k averaged are the Hubble parameter H(z), angular diameter distance over, ∆µ is the range of the cosine of the angle between the DA(z), linear redshift distortion β, linear growth function 4 wavevector k and the line of sight, and n is the comoving G(z), and an unknown shot noise Pshot. These are es- 2 2 number density of observed galaxies. It is reasonable to timated simultaneously with Ωm, Ωmh , and Ωbh . The assume nP 3 (Blake & Glazebrook 2003; Seo & Eisen- total number of parameters is 5N + 3 for a BAO survey stein 2003).∼ This gives an estimate of how accurately the divided into N redshift slices. 4 This shot noise is the unknown white shot noise that remains even after the conventional shot noise of inverse number density has been subtracted (Seo & Eisenstein 2003). These could arise from galaxy clustering bias even on large scales due to local bias (Seljak 2000). Dark Energy and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations 3

Note that the same cutoff scales kmax(z) need to be A known example of BAO systematic bias is a bias in used for computing all the Fisher matrix elements, in- the dilation parameter α = kref /ktrue for spherically aver- 2 2 cluding those of Ωm, Ωmh , and Ωbh . To implement aged galaxy power spectrum. Seo & Eisenstein (2005) has this, calculate Fij in each redshift slice using the appro- shown that α is biased slightly above 1 in currently used priate kmax(z), then sum over all the redshift slices for methods for accounting the erasure of baryonic features 2 2 Ωm, Ωmh , and Ωbh . If a fixed cutoff scale is used for due to nonlinear effects (see also White (2005)). computing Fij for the cosmological parameters, the de- generacy between (H(z), DA(z)) from the redshift slices 3. results and the cosmological parameters (especially Ω ) will be m We consider a BAO survey in the redshift range of artificially broken, leading to significant under-estimates of 0.5 z 2, which can be carried out by obtaining errors in (H(z), D (z)) and the dark energy parameters. A the≤ spectra≤ of Hα emission line galaxies with spectro- To obtain constraints on (w , w′, Ω , Ω h2), the pa- 0 m m graphs covering the wavelength range of 1-2 µm. Note that rameters of interest are p = (ln Hi, ln Di , i=1,2, ..., N; A 0.5 z 2 is the redshift range with the most sensitivity Ω , Ω h2). First marginalize over (β, G(z), P ) in m m shot to the≤ time≤ variation of dark energy (Glazebrook & Blake each redshift slice as well as Ω h2 by taking the submatrix b 2005), and easily accessible by a space mission with sim- (of the parameters of interest) of the inverse of the full ple spectroscopic instrumentation. Examples include the Fisher matrix, then invert it to obtain the Fisher matrix BOP MIDEX concept (Glazebrook et al. 2005), and the of the parameters of interest, F sub. The Fisher matrix JEDI mission concept for JDEM (Wang et al. 2004; Crotts of q = (w , w′, Ω , Ω h2) is obtained by equating the 0 m m et al. 2005). log likelihood functions (ln (p) = ln (q)), then taking Note that our results should qualitatively apply to derivatives with respect to qLon both sides.L This gives other BAO surveys, in particular, ground based surveys. ∂pα sub ∂pβ Ground based BAO surveys, for example, HETDEX (Hill FDE,ij = F αβ (11) ∂qi ∂qj et al. 2004) and WFMOS (Glazebrook et al. 2005), have α,β X
been planned and will likely occur before a BAO survey 2.2. Bias in dark energy parameters from space. Both ground and space BAO surveys will be needed to establish BAO as a dark energy probe, and We now extend the work of Seo & Eisenstein (2003) by to obtain accurate and high precision dark energy con- deriving the bias in dark energy parameters due to system- straints. atic errors that bias the extracted standard ruler scale. The fiducial cosmological model we have assumed is The standard ruler scale is measured using H(z) and nS = 1, h =0.65, Ωm =0.3, ΩΛ =0.7, Ωb =0.05. We as- DA(z) in each redshift slice. First, we marginalize over i i sume the following priors as expected from CMB data from all other parameters by taking the (ln H , ln D , i=1,2, 2 2 A the Planck mission: σΩm = 0.01, σΩmh /(Ωmh )=0.01, ..., N) submatrix of the inverse of the full Fisher matrix, 2 2 and σΩb h /(Ωbh )=0.01. These parameters are estimated then invert it to obtain the Fisher matrix relevant for scale simultaneously with H(z), DA(z), β, G(z), and Pshot from determination, F scale. ′ i seven redshift slices. Each redshift slice has the thick- To compute the bias in (w0, w ) due to biases in (ln H , ness ∆z =0.2, except for the first redshift slice which has ln Di , i=1,2, ..., N), find the (w , w′) Fisher matrix by A 0 ∆z =0.3 (0.5 1 as found by (Wang & Garnavich 2001; Tegmark 2002; Wang & Freese Seo & Eisenstein (2005). 2004). If the dilation is assumed to be uniform in all directions, The BAO constraints on the dark energy equation of ′ then the bias in ln H(z) and ln DA(z) will be equal and op- state parameters (w0,w ) are very sensitive to the assumed ′ 6 posite in sign, leading to minimized biases in w0 and w . linear scale of matter clustering kmax(z) and the redshift However, the bias in the estimated ln H(z) should depend accuracy of the survey σz/(1 + z) (see Figs.2-3). This is on the modeling of redshift distortions and on the redshift important to note since different proposed BAO surveys ′ accuracy of the survey. Hence it is likely that dilation in are often compared by their expected errors in (w0,w ). wavenumber will not be uniform in all directions. For this Such comparisons are not appropriate unless the same reason, we give the biases due to ln H(z) and ln DA(z) sep- assumptions are made about kmax(z), and the claimed 6 Once realistic N-body simulations are available for calibrating the analysis of real data, we will be able to extract additional information on dark energy parameters by using the data from the quasi-linear regime. Dark Energy and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations 5

σz/(1 + z) can be demonstrated to be feasible. The lat- metric redshifts are used. It is important to quantify the ter is a key issue for surveys using photometric redshifts expected bias in ln H(z) and ln DA(z) using cosmologi- (Blake & Glazebrook 2003; Seo & Eisenstein 2003; Zhan cal N-body simulations. Note that H(z) and DA(z) are & Knox 2005). measured as independent parameters. Since DA(z) is re- It should be noted that the radial BAO are not observ- lated to H(z) through an integral for a given cosmological able for photometric redshift accuracies. The H(z) mea- model in the absence of systematic biases, comparing the surement from using photometric redshifts is derived from directly measured DA(z) to the DA(z) derived from the the degree of damping of broad-band power in the radial H(z) measurement provides us with a cross-check to help direction on very large scales (k < 0.05hMpc−1). Hence model unknown systematic effects. this measurement is much less robust (more susceptible to The planned BAO surveys from both ground and space systematic error) than the spectroscopic case, where the telescopes will play an important role in unraveling the radial BAO are detectable and give H(z) measurements nature of dark energy. The results from in this paper will directly. be useful in assessing different proposed BAO surveys and We find that it is critical to minimize the bias in the guiding the design of optimal dark energy detection strate- scale estimates (ln H(z) and ln DA(z)) in order to derive gies. reliable dark energy constraints. For a 1000 (10000) sq deg BAO survey, a 1σ bias in ln H(z) leads to a 2σ (3σ) bias in w′. The bias in w′ due to the same scale bias Acknowledgements I am grateful to Chris Blake for from ln DA(z) is slightly smaller and opposite in sign. In making his Monte Carlo results available to me for com- addition to the scale bias due to the inaccurate model- parisons, and for useful discussions. I thank Max Tegmark, ing of nonlinear effects (which impacts the results in the Dan Eisenstein, and Hee-Jong Seo for helpful discussions. linear regime, see Seo & Eisenstein (2005)), systematic This work was supported in part by NSF CAREER grants biases in the H(z) measurement could arise when photo- AST-0094335.

REFERENCES

Alam, U., & Sahni, V. 2005, astro-ph/0511473 Linde A D, “Inflation And Quantum Cosmology,” in Three hundred Angulo, R., et al. 2005, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.Lett., 362, L25-L29 years of gravitation, (Eds.: Hawking, S.W. and Israel, W., Bahcall,N., Ostriker, J.P., Perlmutter, S., & Steinhardt, P.J. 1999, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987), 604-630. Science, 284, 1481 Martineau, P., & Brandenberger, R., astro-ph/0510523 Blake, C.; and Glazebrook, K. 2003, ApJ, 594, 665 Mersini, L., Bastero-Gil, M., & Kanti, P. 2001 Phys.Rev. D64, 043508 Bennett, C. L., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 1 Onemli, V. K., & Woodard, R. P. 2004, Phys.Rev. D70, 107301 Caldwell, R., Dave, R., & Steinhardt, P.J., 1998, PRL, 80, 1582 Padmanabhan, T., 2003, Phys. Rep., 380, 235 Cardone, V.F., Tortora, C., Troisi, A., & Capozziello, S. 2005, astro- Parker, L., and Raval, A., 1999, PRD, 60, 063512 ph/0511528, Phys.Rev.D, in press Peacock, J.A., 1999, “Cosmological Physics”, Cambridge University Carroll, S M, de Felice, A, Duvvuri, V, Easson, D A, Trodden, M & Press Turner, M S, astro-ph/0410031 Peebles, P.J.E., and Ratra, B., 1988, ApJ, 325, L17 Cai, R., Gong, Y., & Wang, B. 2005, hep-th/0511301 Peebles, P.J.E., & Ratra, B., 2003, Rev. Mod. Phys., 75, 559 Crotts, A. et al. 2005, astro-ph/0507043, JEDI white paper Perlmutter, S. et al., 1999, ApJ, 517, 565 submitted to the Dark Energy Task Force. Riess, A. G, et al., 1998, Astron. J., 116, 1009 Daly,R. A.,& Djorgovski, S. G. 2005, astro-ph/0512576. Sahni,V., & Habib, S. 1998, Phys.Rev.Lett. 81, 1766 Dvali, G., Gabadadze, G., & Porrati, M. 2000, Phys.Lett. B485, 208 Seljak, U. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 203 Eisenstein, D. & Hu, W. 1998, ApJ, 496, 605 Seo, H., Eisenstein, D.J. 2003, ApJ, 598, 720 Eisenstein, D., Hu, W., & Tegmark, M. 1999, ApJ, 518, 2 Seo, H., Eisenstein, D.J. 2003, ApJ, 633, 575 Feldman, H.A.; Kaiser, N.; & Peacock, J.A. 1994, ApJ, 426, 23 Spergel, D.N., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175 Freese, K., et al., 1987, Nucl. Phys., B287, 797 Springel, V., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629 Freese, K., Lewis, M. 2002, Phys.Lett. B540, 1 Tegmark, M. 1997, PRL, 79, 3806 Frieman, J.A., Hill, C.T., Stebbins, A., and Waga, I., 1995, PRL, 75, Tegmark, M. 2002, Phys. Rev. D66, 103507 2077 Wang, Y., and Garnavich, P. 2001, ApJ, 552, 445 Glazebrook, K. et al. 2005, astro-ph/0410037, New Astron.Rev. 49, Wang, Y., et al. 2004 (the JEDI Team), BAAS, 36, 5, AAS205, 1328. 374 See also http://jedi.nhn.ou.edu/. Glazebrook, K., & Blake, C. 2005, ApJ, 631, 1 Wang, Y., and Freese, K., astro-ph/0402208 Glazebrook, K., et al. 2005, astro-ph/0507457, WFMOS white paper Wang, Y., Spergel, D.N., & Strauss, M. 1999, ApJ, 510, 20 submitted to the Dark Energy Task Force. Wang, Y., & Tegmark, M. 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 241302 Hill, G.J., et al. 2004, in proceedings of the Mitchell symposium. Wang, Y., & Tegmark, M. 2005, Phys. Rev. D 71, 103513 Jassal, H.K., Bagla, J.S., Padmanabhan, T. 2005, Wetterich, C., 1988, Nucl.Phys., B302, 668 Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.Letters, 356, L11 White, M. 2005, Astropart.Phys. 24, 334 Kolb, E.W., Matarrese, S., & Riotto, A. 2005, astro-ph/0506534 Zhan, H., & Knox, L., astro-ph/0509260 6 Yun Wang

Table 1 ′ ln i ln i Biases in (w0,w ) due to biases in ( H , DA).

′ ′ survey area bias in ln DA(z) bias in ln H(z) σz/(1 + z) bias in w0 (σw0 ) bias in w (σw ) 1000 (deg)2 -1σ 0. 0.001 0.082 (0.115) -0.375 (0.183) 0.01 0.255 (0.266) -0.930 (0.727) 0.02 0.273 (0.396) -1.021 (1.169) 0. 1σ 0.001 -0.181 (0.115) 0.317 (0.183) 0.01 -0.303 (0.266) 0.491 (0.727) 0.02 -0.421 (0.396) 0.742 (1.169) 10000 (deg)2 -1σ 0. 0.001 0.033 (0.069) -0.291 (0.104) 0.01 0.085 (0.133) -0.311 (0.251) 0.02 0.089 (0.167) -0.317 (0.386) 0. 1σ 0.001 -0.078 (0.069) 0.263 (0.104) 0.01 -0.137 (0.133) 0.172 (0.251) 0.02 -0.157 (0.167) 0.198 (0.386) Dark Energy and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations 7

′ Fig. 1.— The 1σ errors in w0 and w as function of survey area (0.5 ≤ z ≤ 2). Note that the constraints on dark energy parameters scale much less steeply with survey area (for a given redshift range) than (area)−1/2 (which holds in the absence of the priors). 8 Yun Wang

[h/Mpc]

′ Fig. 2.— The 1σ errors in w0 and w as function of σ(R) for survey areas of 1000 and 10000 square degrees. The lowest panel gives the correspondence between σ(R) and the cutoff wavenumber kmax at z = 0. Dark Energy and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations 9

′ Fig. 3.— The 1σ errors in w0 and w as function of σz/(1 + z) for survey areas of 1000 and 10000 square degrees. 10 Yun Wang

Fig. 4.— The estimated σH /H and σDA /DA in each of the redshift slices, for σz/(1 + z) = 0.001, 0.01, and 0.02 for survey areas of 1000 and 10000 square degrees. Dark Energy and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations 11

Fig. 5.— The estimated dark energy density X(z) = ρX (z)/ρX (0) corresponding to Fig.4 (with the same assumptions and the same line types).