Dark EnergyTask Force.ppt

DETF Membership Members Andy Albrecht, Davis Gary Bernstein, Penn Bob Cahn, LBNL Wendy Freedman, OCIW Jackie Hewitt, MIT Wayne Hu, Chicago John Huth, Harvard Mark Kamionkowski, Caltech Rocky Kolb, Fermilab/Chicago Lloyd Knox, Davis John Mather, GSFC Suzanne Staggs, Princeton Nick Suntzeff, NOAO Agency Representatives DOE: Kathy Turner NASA: Michael Salamon NSF: Dana Lehr What we calculate A solution to the cosmological equations (FRW+Growth) Another solution to the cosmological equations What we do: 2) Basic Fisher Matrix Tools i) Having mapped into the natural parameter space for calculations equations, we make another transformation: 2) Basic Fisher Matrix Tools 1-2-3-4 “sigma” contours 1-2-3-4 “sigma” contours “∞×∞” numbers 3 numbers 2) Basic Fisher Matrix Tools Inverse covariance matrix represents data on observables 2) Case study: SNLS data Freedman Suntzeff 2) Case study: SNLS data “Nuisance parameters” (can be used to parameterize aspects of the expt, including systematics). Example (SNe): Includes info about M and H ? poorly determined Data Additional parameters in Fisher Matrix Priors on express different systematic uncertainties 2) Case study: SNLS data “Nuisance parameters” (can be used to parameterize aspects of the expt, including systematics). Example (SNe): Includes info about M and H ? poorly determined Data Additional parameters in Fisher Matrix Priors on express different systematic uncertainties Other features: Near sample of 500 SNe also assumed (“Suntzeff step”) Other simulated data with photo-z’s has nuisance parameters for the z’s 2) Case study: SNLS data Simplifications due to Fisher not likely to make a bad figure of merit. We’ve been keeping an eye out for possibly misleading aspects of w0-wa ansatz. It’s turning out fine. How well can we forecast systematics etc with untested methods? Our expert group worked hard for several months on this. Progress of science will resolve this. Final Comments