the first data system requiring dark energy ( de ) concerned cosmic acceleration , detected through high - redshift supernovae  @xcite .
cmb  @xcite and deep sample  @xcite data supported also the de case , showing that the density parameter for non  relativistic matter @xmath1 , while the total density parameter @xmath2    in the most popular scenario , de is ascribed to a cosmological constant @xmath3 .
alternative options include a self  interacting scalar field , @xmath4 ( quintessence or dynamical de  @xcite ) and modifications of general relativity  @xcite .
it is known that models with @xmath3 ( @xmath5cdm ) apparently accommodate all available data systems .
the problem is the physical origin of @xmath6 which can be a false vacuum ; this however causes well known _
fine tuning _ and _ coincidence _ problems .
the former problem is partially eased in dynamical de ( dde ) scenarios , when self interaction is due to a _ tracking _
potential @xmath7  @xcite .
if @xmath7 is sugra @xcite , the fit with data is at least as good as for @xmath3cdm @xcite .    in the attempt to ease the coincidence problem , dm
 de interaction  ( e.g. ,  @xcite ) was also considered , yielding an energy transfer between the dark components , so allowing a ( quasi)parallel scaling of dm and de from a fairly high redshift until the present . while laboratory data set no significant constraint on dm
de interaction strength , parametrized by @xmath8 ( see below ) , recent works placed constraints on possible couplings , by using snia data  @xcite or the redshift evolution of the hubble parameter , @xmath9  @xcite .
accordingly , @xmath100.15  @xcite is hardly consistent with observations .
unfortunately , such a low coupling level no longer eases the coincidence problem  @xcite , but , once the genie has come out from the lamp , it is hard to put it back inside .
the point is whether low values of @xmath8 , as allowed by current data , can interfere with future data analysis . in particular , when we allow for non
zero @xmath8 , how do errors on other parameters behave ?    in this work we tried to answer this question by using a fisher matrix technique .
we considered two different models , set by similar values of cosmological parameters , without and with coupling . in the latter case
, we took @xmath11 starting from these models , we evaluated the expected errors on cosmological parameters , as obtained when data concern just cmb anisotropy and polarization or include tomographic weak lensing ( wl ) .    as a matter of fact , in coupled models ,
the time evolution of the dark components is non  standard .
if such models are considered in a newtonian approximation , it is as though dm particles had a @xmath4dependent mass .
also for quite low @xmath8 s , this anomalous scaling leaves an imprint on both the expansion history of the universe , and the growth of ( matter ) fluctuations , at the linear and non  linear levels ( e.g.  @xcite ) .
however , any detected evolution of @xmath9 can be reproduced through a suitable redshift dependence of de density @xmath12 and state parameter @xmath13 , when @xmath4 approaches @xmath14 ( the planck mass ) .
a risk is that , if matter and dark energy are coupled , fitting observations leads to an estimate of a phantom equation of state ( @xmath15 ) , even if @xmath16 at all redshifts  @xcite .    in principle
, this risk can be excluded if the redshift dependence of the growth factor @xmath17 is also tested , through the increase in number and concentration of bound systems .
data providing information both on @xmath18 and @xmath17 are therefore able to discriminate between coupled and uncoupled models . experiments , or combinations of experiments , probing @xmath18 and @xmath17 are then needed .
cmb data , used to constrain coupling  @xcite , place only upper limits on @xmath8 .
the analysis of ly@xmath19 and the matter power spectrum of the 2df and sdss surveys  @xcite does not lead to great improvements . at the available sensitivity level ,
such data systems provide just weighted integrals of @xmath18 and @xmath17 , which remain consistent with a rather wide set of options .    on the contrary , gravitational lensing , alone or in combination with cmb data ,
was already shown to be a powerful tool for the analysis of de .
wl tomography probes the power spectrum @xmath20 at different redshifts and is thus well suited to constrain @xmath21    in this work we aim to put these conceptual points on a more quantitative basis and to deepen the case of coupling , by performing a fisher analysis of future wl surveys and cmb experiments .
the outline of this work is as follow . in sec .
[ sec : def ] we review the basic properties and definitions of dde models and wl , in sec .
[ sec : fore ] we show the results of the fisher analysis , in sec .  [ sec : discu ] we discuss them and in sec .
[ sec : summ ] we summarize our findings and draw our conclusions .
we consider a cosmological model where the de field @xmath4 interacts with the cold dm component .
the model requires the specification of the potential @xmath7 and the function @xmath22 characterizing the coupling .
the equation of motion for @xmath4 then reads @xmath23 here dots denote ordinary time differentiation , @xmath24 and @xmath25 is dm energy density . in turn , its evolution is governed by @xmath26 this equation can be integrated and gives : @xmath27 for @xmath28 eqs .
( [ eq1 ] ) , ( [ eq : rho ] ) return ordinary dde equations .
the equations for the other components remain unchanged . in a generic coupled model , then , the ratio between the energy densities of cold dm and baryons is not fixed , but evolves in time according to @xmath22 .
however , it is always possible to define an effective de component of density @xmath29 + \rho_{de } ( a)~.\ ] ] in general , @xmath30 is not guaranteed to be positive and detecting @xmath31 would be a clear indication that our description of the dark sector is not adequate .
lacking such clear giveaway , however , experiments probing @xmath18 can hardly discriminate between de
dm interaction and an _ ad hoc _ de component .
if its effective state parameter @xmath32 is @xmath33 , data may appear to require phantom de ( see  @xcite for discussion ) .
coupling affects also fluctuation growth . in the newtonian limit , _
i.e. _ well below the horizon , and neglecting the contribution of radiation , baryons and dm fluctuations grow according to the equations ( e.g.  @xcite ) : @xmath34 , \end{array } \label{eq : delta}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where we defined @xmath8 so that @xmath35 while @xmath36 .
therefore , baryons and dm perturbations grow at different rates and , even soon after recombination , a growing mode @xmath37 no longer exists ( see fig .  [
fig : lingrowth ] ) , leading to a bias between baryon and dm perturbations .
analytical models of spherical collapse have shown that this differential growth results in a baryon  dm segregation , with baryons occupying the outer regions of collapsed objects  @xcite .
eqs  ( [ eq : delta ] ) also show that the growth equations explicitly depend on both @xmath9 and @xmath25 ; therefore , if we measure the growth from data , a possible anomalous scaling can no longer be masked though an _ ad  hoc _ definition of an effective de density .
it is then licit to conclude that experiments probing the rate of growth of fluctuations are in principle well suited to test coupling between the dark components .
the growth suppression rate @xmath38 for cdm ( solid line ) and baryons ( dashed line ) in a coupled model .
curves refer to a sugra potential with exponential coupling .
it can be noticed that the cold dark matter evolution rapidly diverges from the standard cold dark matter solution , @xmath39 ( dotted line ) , even well into the matter dominated era . for comparison , we also plot @xmath40 for the same sugra model with coupling turned off ( dot  dashed line).,width=377 ]    in this work we are interested to combining wl and cmb data , which can not be accurately described using current parametrisations @xcite .
therefore , we follow a more conventional approach and choose the functional forms @xmath41 the sugra @xcite potential @xmath7 depends on the slope @xmath19 and the energy scale @xmath3 . fixing de density today and @xmath5 ( @xmath19 )
, however , determines a unique value of @xmath19 ( @xmath3 ) .
cmb , snia and deep sample data yield @xmath42gev  @xcite , in the absence of coupling . here
we focus on the sugra potential as it naturally arises in the context of supergravity theories and is an example of tracking potential characterized by a rapid time variation of the equation of state , when de becomes dominant . therefore , assuming a constant @xmath43 for this class of potential may lead to misleading results .
different choices for the potential are clearly possible .
the coupling function @xmath22 depends on @xmath8 , and @xmath44 is the field value today . in this work
we assume a constant @xmath45 ( see however  @xcite for a different approach ) ; data place the upper limit @xmath46  @xcite . for reasonable values of the cosmological parameters and of @xmath3
, we expect coupling effects not to be relevant for @xmath47 , so that the dynamically interesting values for the coupling lies in the range @xmath48 .      among the cosmological probes allowing the analysis of the nature of de , the cosmological wl has been earning a fundamental role ( see @xcite for a thorough review ) .
in fact , next generation wl surveys will cover a significant fraction of the sky and observe galaxies at deeper redshift , making wl a powerful tool to study the properties of the universe .
furthermore , wl tomography will allow to significantly increase the cosmological information that can be recovered from such surveys ( see @xcite and @xcite for details about lensing tomography ) .
the power spectrum for the wl convergence between the @xmath49th and @xmath50th redshift bin is given by : @xmath51 here @xmath52 is the non  linear matter power spectrum , at the redshift @xmath53 and wave number @xmath54 ; the quantity @xmath55 is the radial comoving distance between @xmath53 and @xmath56 , @xmath57 while @xmath58 is the window function which weights different redshift bins according to the factor @xmath59 , @xmath60 being @xmath61 the i  th redshift bin .
the function @xmath62 is the normalized redshift distribution of the source galaxies falling in the @xmath49-th photometric redshift bin , per unit solid angle , @xmath63^{-1},\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath64 the last expression codifies the effect of errors in photometric redshifts of source galaxies @xcite .
in fact , due to the large number of observed galaxies with future surveys , one needs to refer to their photometric redshifts , even if the determination of these redshifts may be not so accurate as the spectroscopic ones . in the model given by ,
the mapping between the photometric @xmath65 and the spectroscopic redshift @xmath53 is obtained convolving the overall galaxy distribution per unit solid angle , @xmath66 , with a probability distribution @xmath67 in @xmath65 at a given @xmath53 .
we choose a gaussian function at each redshift for the distribution of photometric redshifts , i.e. @xmath68}\end{aligned}\ ] ] while the overall distribution of source galaxies is chosen to have the parametrized form : @xmath69 } ,    \label{eq : distro}\ ] ] where @xmath70 , @xmath71 and @xmath72 are the parameters .
one can easily check that equation turns into : @xmath73,\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath74 and @xmath75 the error function .
the cosmic shear power spectrum will receive a shot - noise contribution from the random intrinsic ellipticities of source galaxies and measurement error @xcite .
thus , the observed power spectrum between redshift bins @xmath49 and @xmath50 can be expressed as : @xmath76 where @xmath77 is the rms shear due to intrinsic ellipticity and measurement noise ( we assume @xmath78 @xcite ) and @xmath79    \left(\frac1{60}\frac{\pi}{180}\right)^{-2}\hat{n}_i\end{aligned}\ ] ] is the average number density of galaxies per steradians in the @xmath49-th redshift bin , @xmath80 being the number of galaxies per square arcminute and @xmath81 the fraction of sources belonging to the bin .
the covariance between the power spectra @xmath82 and @xmath83 is approximately given by @xmath84=        \frac{\delta_{\ell\ell ' } } { ( 2\ell+1)\delta\ell f_{sky } }        \left[p^{\rm obs}_{(im)}(\ell)\,p^{\rm obs}_{(jn)}(\ell ' ) +      p^{\rm obs}_{(in)}(\ell)\,p^{\rm obs}_{(mj)}(\ell ' ) \right ]        \label{covar}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath85 is the sky fraction covered by the survey and @xmath86 is the bin width centred at @xmath87 .
the above expression assumes that the power spectrum in each multipole bin is very flat , in order to replace the value of the spectrum evaluated at the bin center with the average of spectrum over each bin ( see [ append : a ] for the complete expression ) .
in addition , we have not included the non - gaussian term , due to the contribution of the shear trispectrum  @xcite .
the fisher matrix formalism @xcite provides lower limits to the error bars of the cosmological parameters one wishes to measure .
the basic tool in fisher s method is the likelihood function , yielding the probability that a model gives the set of data @xmath88 .
suppose we want to test an hypothesis , _
i.e. _ a cosmological model set by @xmath89 parameters @xmath90 . the likelihood function @xmath91 $ ] is often a complicated function of @xmath92 ; the value @xmath93 corresponding to the peak of @xmath94 defines the _ maximum likelihood estimator _ which , in the limit of large data sets , becomes the _ best unbiased estimator _ of the actual parameter set .
thus , the likelihood can be taylor expanded to second order ( the first non  vanishing term ) around @xmath93 , being so approximated with a multivariate gaussian distribution @xmath95 here @xmath96 is a positive semi - definite non - singular matrix , dubbed _ covariance matrix _ of the @xmath97 .
we remind that holds just in a sufficiently small neighborhood around the maximum @xmath93 . in turn , the _ fisher information matrix _ reads @xmath98 the average @xmath99 is taken over all possible data realizations , given the model parameters .
the feature making fisher s formalism so significant is the cramr - rao theorem .
it states that the parameter variance about any unbiased estimator value owns a lower bound : @xmath100 , if the other parameters are estimated from the data as well , @xmath101 , if all the other parameters are known .
therefore , the fisher information matrix components are the expectation values of @xmath102 . accordingly
, the inverse of the fisher matrix is an estimate of the covariance matrix of the parameters @xmath103 .    a convenient way to re
write the fisher matrix is computing the derivatives of the likelihood function using the following chain rule @xcite : @xmath104 thus , the fisher matrix can be expressed as : @xmath105 where @xmath106 and @xmath107 , respectively , are the fisher and the covariance matrix for the observables @xmath88 .
the region in the @xmath89dimensional space of the parameters , defined by @xmath108 , is a hyper  ellipsoid of constant probability density for the function .
marginalizing over the other parameters , one can project this ellipsoid in the two
parameter subspace , yielding a two  dimensional ellipse .
the analytical expression for the projected ellipse for the two parameters @xmath109 and @xmath110 is given by @xcite : @xmath111^{-1 }    \left (    \begin{array}{c }      \delta\theta_{\alpha}\\\delta\theta_{\beta }    \end{array }    \right)=\delta\chi^2(n=2,\sigma)\end{aligned}\ ] ] this can be interpreted as an estimate of the confidence region within a given confidence level @xmath112 for the two parameters @xmath109 and @xmath110 .
we present here the results of the fisher analysis of future experiments , considering both wl and cmb measurements . for definiteness
we assume a fiducial wl survey with characteristics similar to those of the recently proposed dune project @xcite .
we assume a redshift distribution of the form with @xmath113 , @xmath114 and @xmath115 , corresponding to a median redshift of the survey @xmath116 ( see @xcite ) , and a mean surface density of galaxies @xmath117 .
the full survey , covering half of the sky ( @xmath118 ) , is divided into @xmath119 redshift bins , with @xmath67 given by equation   and @xmath120 .
we consider lensing multipoles up to @xmath121 , since we find that results do not depend significantly on larger @xmath87 .
however , one should bear in mind that when considering scales @xmath122 there could be some non  linear and baryonic effects on the matter power spectrum , and so on the wl spectrum @xcite .
these effects , not yet well understood , could be important for forecasts . however , in this work we suppose these effects to be negligible .    for cmb data
, we consider an ideal experiment with characteristics based on the 143ghz planck channel : angular resolution @xmath123 and sensitivity @xmath124 , @xmath125 .
the cosmological model we consider is characterized by 7 parameters with fiducial values : @xmath126 here @xmath127 represents the current total ( cdm + baryons ) matter density in units of the critical density ; @xmath128 and @xmath129 are the physical baryons and total matter densities , respectively ; @xmath130 is the slope of the primordial power  law spectral index of density fluctuations ; @xmath131 is the rms mass fluctuation in spheres of 8@xmath132  mpc radius while @xmath133 and @xmath8 were defined in sec .  [
sec : de ] .
let us notice that the class of de models considered here reduces to @xmath3cdm for @xmath134 and @xmath135 .
moreover , the fiducial values of de parameters @xmath136 and @xmath137 are chosen in order to reproduce at @xmath138 an effective equation of state which mimics the case of @xmath3cdm model , @xmath139 . finally , when dealing with cmb data , we also need to fix the value of the optical depth to reionization , @xmath140 .
we compute the cmb anisotropies ( temperature and polarisation ) power spectra and the transfer functions , used to calculate linear matter power spectrum , using a modified version of camb  @xcite . to evaluate the non  linear matter power spectrum , @xmath141
, we employ the prescription by smith _
this is only tested for model with a cosmological constant ; as we are concerned here with fisher matrix estimates assume that the results of  @xcite can be extended to coupled models simply by taking into account the non
standard scaling of @xmath25 ( eq .  [ eq : rho ] ) .
numerical derivatives were evaluated considering a @xmath142 stepsize , except for @xmath143 , where we adopted a @xmath142 stepsize on @xmath144 .
@lllllll & & & + & & & & & & + & & & & & & + 100@xmath145 & 0.016 & 0.019 & 0.5 & 0.9 & 0.011 & 0.012 + @xmath146 & 0.002 & 0.006 & 0.016 & 0.03 & 0.0004 & 0.0005 + @xmath127 & 0.05 & 0.12 & 0.002 & 0.0014 & 0.0011 & 0.0014 + @xmath147 & 0.004 & 0.005 & 0.012 & 0.018 & 0.0014 & 0.0021 + @xmath131 & 0.07 & 0.13 & 0.0026&0.0029 & 0.0017 & 0.0016 + @xmath148 & 7.2 & 9.5 & 0.89 & 1.1 & 0.28 & 0.28 + @xmath8 &  & 0.04 &  & 0.018 &  & 0.0016 + @xmath149 & 0.005 & 0.006 &  &  &  &
 +    table  [ tab : errors ] lists the estimated errors on the various parameters considered . for each data
set , we compare forecasts for the target model with results for a sugra model with the same values of the relevant parameters .
the table clearly shows that a planck  like experiment is able to provide a measurement of a direct de
dm interaction at 68% confidence level , even for moderate values of the coupling strength @xmath8 .
however , we expect that at 90% confidence level data will still be compatible with @xmath135 .    in any case
, allowing for a direct interaction strongly degrades the experimental sensitivity on the parameters characterizing the matter density and the normalization of the primordial spectrum of density fluctuations .
errors on these quantities increase by a significant amount .
figure  [ fig : cmb ] shows the joint @xmath150 confidence regions between @xmath8 and each of the other parameters , except for @xmath149 , considering only cmb data . in each plot we marginalized over the parameters not shown .
@xmath8 is strongly correlated with most parameters considered here , with the exception of @xmath151 ( and @xmath149 ) , thus introducing additional degeneracies in actual data analysis .
forecasts of joint 1@xmath112 confidence regions on the coupling parameter @xmath137 and selected parameters , for a planck  like experiments , after full marginalization over the remaining parameters.,width=377 ]    a detailed characterization of these degeneracies would require a different approach than that followed here ( e.g. monte carlo markov chains simulations ) . we just point out that they can be understood recalling that the heights of the acoustic peaks of cmb spectra are sensitive to the total matter density and to baryon / dark matter ratio at last scattering . in coupled models ,
these quantities are not univocally determined by their present day value , but strongly depend on @xmath8 . in addition , the total growth between the last scattering epoch and today is strongly sensitive to @xmath8 , resulting in a clear degeneracy between @xmath8 and @xmath131 .
let us notice that , as we are concerned with a combination of cmb and wl data , the parameter set is not optimized for cmb experiments . using a different parametrisation can alter error estimates and/or the degeneracies between the various parameters .
in particular , cmb data are better described in terms of the angle subtended by the acoustic horizon at recombination , @xmath152 , and the amplitude of the primordial spectrum of density fluctuations @xmath153 , rather than in terms of @xmath154 and @xmath131 .
this results in large errors on the latter parameters , when cmb data alone are considered . adopting a set of parameters
better suited to the analysis of cmb data results in slightly lower error estimates overall , but the effects of coupling are largely unchanged .
forecasts of joint 1@xmath112 confidence regions on the coupling parameter @xmath137 and selected parameters , for a dune  like experiments , after full marginalization over the remaining parameters .
notice the change of scales with respect to , width=377 ]     comparison between the 1@xmath112 confidence regions of a coupled sugra model with @xmath137 ( red ) and a non  coupled sugra model with @xmath135 ( blue ) for a wl experiment .
it is clearly possible to distinguish between the two models.,width=245 ]     joint 1@xmath112 confidence regions on @xmath8 and @xmath143 after marginalization over the remaining parameters , for different number of galaxies @xmath80 . on the left sugra
coupled model with @xmath137 , on the right sugra coupled model with @xmath135 and @xmath8 derivatives calculated only on one side , for positive values of the parameter.,title="fig:",width=245 ]   joint 1@xmath112 confidence regions on @xmath8 and @xmath143 after marginalization over the remaining parameters , for different number of galaxies @xmath80 . on the left sugra coupled model with @xmath137 , on the right sugra coupled model with @xmath135 and @xmath8 derivatives calculated only on one side , for positive values of the parameter.,title="fig:",width=245 ]     inverse error as a function of the maximum multipole for the wl survey , for different numbers of redshift bins .
left panes show results for @xmath8 , right panel refers to @xmath148.,title="fig:",width=245 ]   inverse error as a function of the maximum multipole for the wl survey , for different numbers of redshift bins .
left panes show results for @xmath8 , right panel refers to @xmath148.,title="fig:",width=245 ]    is analogous to for our target weak lensing survey .
together with table  [ tab : errors ] , these results show the great potential of wl surveys in constraining interacting de models .
marginalized errors on @xmath8 and @xmath148 are of the order of @xmath155 and @xmath156 ; these figures represent a factor of 2 , or more , improvement over planck estimates .
wl data alone can clearly distinguish the target model from a non  coupled model or a cosmological constant even at the 3@xmath112-level , _ viceversa _ assuming a reference sugra model with @xmath135 , we can expect to put an upper limit @xmath157 , at the same confidence level ( see  ) .
as expected , wl surveys perform significantly better than cmb experiments also with respect to parameters specifying the current matter density , @xmath154 and @xmath131 .
moreover , constraints on these parameters are not significantly affected by the coupling degrees of freedom .
errors on the remaining parameters , instead , increase by a factor of @xmath158 .
finally , we consider a combination of cmb and wl data .
cmb and wl probe very different epoch of the universe and are sensitive to different combination of cosmological parameters .
considering both cmb and wl data allows to constrain the de parameters with a few percent accuracy , and significantly reduces the degeneracies introduced by de coupling . in this case , the errors on the cosmological parameters are very similar in both models considered , with the exception of @xmath147 .
next we considered how our results depend on the characteristic assumed for the target survey . in the impact of mean surface density of galaxies on the determination of @xmath8 and @xmath148 . with @xmath159 constraints on @xmath8
degrades by @xmath160 , while @xmath161 gives only a marginal improvement on expected errors ; constraints on @xmath148 are similarly affected . however , even in the worst case considered here , next generations wl survey will provide an improvement over the information that we are likely to obtain from planck data .
lastly , we consider the dependence of our results on the number of bins and the multipoles range considered . in we plot the inverse of the expected variance on @xmath8 and @xmath148 as a function of the maximum multipole considered in the analysis and for different number of bins . with 3 redshift bins ,
the precision on both parameters depends mostly on multipole up to a few thousands ; smaller scales do not provide a significant contribution .
dividing the survey in 5 bins strongly improves the constraints on both parameters and allows to exploit information from multipoles up to @xmath162 . for a dune  like survey , a further increase in the number of bins does not lead to significant improvements on the constrains on coupled models parameters .
it must be outlined that these results assume that the theoretical framework used to predict the matter power spectrum on intermediate ( @xmath163 ) and small ( @xmath164 ) scales can accurately account for the effects of baryons on non  linear structures . in general , the fitting formulas used to predict the non  linear power spectrum are calibrated using dissipationless n  body simulations and , therefore , do not properly describe baryonic structures . while baryons make up @xmath165 of the matter in the universe and on large scales are expected to trace the dm field , their distribution inside halos is significantly different from dm . in turn , this alters the shape of the non  linear power spectrum on the corresponding scales , and the possibility of extracting precision constraints from @xmath166 hinges on our capability of accurately modeling baryon physics  @xcite .
however , simulations do not yet have the accuracy required for precision constraints and the problem is even more serious for the coupled models considered in this work . modelling non linear stages though spherical growth , mainini @xcite shew that baryons and dm will be however differently distributed , even independently of the onset of gas dynamics .
n  body simulations of cde models were performed @xcite , by using a ratra
peebles @xcite potential ; hydro simulations , instead , were never produced .
should accurate prediction be still unavailable for the analysis of a dune  like experiment , a more conservative cutoff of @xmath167 would be required .
shows that in this case the expected errors on @xmath3 and @xmath8 would increase by a factor @xmath158 .
all previous analysis shows that , even if we admit quite a little dm  de coupling , we open a pandora s box , leading to a severe degradation in our capacity to deduce cosmological parameters from a given set of measures .    as a matter of fact
, coupling destroys our trust that the period between the recombination and the start of de relevance is under control .
if coupling is absent , during such period scdm is a fair approximation .
let us then remind what happens to the growth factor , as soon as coupling is onset : figure [ fig : lingrowth ] shows that : ( i ) deviations from scdm are significant already when @xmath168 ; ( ii ) they are then different for dm and baryons ; ( iii ) they work in the opposite direction , in respect to the effects of a de components .    as far as the growth factor is concerned , a tiny coupling is able to overwhelm a huge de amount , with compensation occurring for @xmath1690.4@xmath170 , however keeping always @xmath40 at values
greater by @xmath17115@xmath172 .
altogether , growth is faster in coupled models .
hence , if we do not include the information that coupling is zero in the fit , we can find an agreement between data and a wider range of de amounts .
scale dependence of comoving distances in coupled or uncoupled sugra cosmologies , compared with @xmath3cdm . the case @xmath173 , corresponding to a rather strong dm  de coupling is also shown.,width=321 ]    similar points can be made for the comoving radial distance @xmath174 ( see eq .
[ rzzs ] ) . in figure
[ fig : distar ] we compare comoving distances for @xmath3cdm with various cosmologies .
the figure shows that dde , in the absence of other parameter shifts , sets the last scattering band ( lsb ) closer to the observer . once again
, a mild coupling acts in the opposite direction and tends to re - set the lsb at the distance it had in @xmath175 . in the figure we consider the behavior of distances also for a rather strong coupling , @xmath173 .
then the distance behavior is different in the period when de density can be neglected , in respect to the epoch when de and dm have similar densities .
the key point , however , is that the lsb becomes then farther from the observer .
when fitting cmb data to such models , in order to compensate such effect , the value of @xmath176 tends to be increased .
strong coupling therefore yields a large hubble parameter estimate .
figures [ fig : omega ] finally show the scale dependence of the density parameters in the different models . once again
, when de is mildly coupled , a behavior more similar to @xmath175 is recovered . on the contrary ,
when considering a greater coupling strength , we see that de and dm keep similar densities up to a fairly large redshift .
this was indeed the initial motivation of cde cosmologies .
scale dependence of the density parameters of the various components in @xmath3cdm . compared with other models . in the upper panel uncoupled and weakly coupled sugra models are considered . for the sake of comparison , in the lower panel
we also show the effects of choosing a stronger coupling .
, title="fig : " ] .6truecm   scale dependence of the density parameters of the various components in @xmath3cdm . compared with other models . in the upper panel uncoupled and weakly coupled sugra models are considered . for the sake of comparison , in the lower panel
we also show the effects of choosing a stronger coupling .
, title="fig : " ]    altogether , these figures indicate that adding a small coupling reduces the effects of the very passage from @xmath175 to dde ; owing to the excellent fit that @xmath175 cosmologies have with data , this tells us that only highly refined cmb data will be able to test the possibility that a mild dm  de coupling exists .    on the contrary , a stronger coupling , although easing the coincidence problem , displaces several observables in a unacceptable way .
forecasts of joint 1@xmath112 confidence regions on the coupling parameter @xmath137 and selected parameters , for a combination of a planck  like and a dune  like experiment , after full marginalization over the remaining parameters .
, width=377 ]    future wl surveys will certainly put more stringent constraints on cosmological parameters and will be crucial to break quite a few degeneracies between parameters .    within this context , in this paper
we focus on coupled de models with a twofold aim .
detecting a signal of dm  de coupling would be certainly decisive to fix the nature of the dark components . henceforth determining the level of sensitivity needed to appreciate such an effect is crucial in setting the appeal of forthcoming projects .
there is however a complementary aspect which deserves much attention . in order to convert raw data into physical information ,
a set of parameters , spanning a variety of models , is to be fixed ; a bias on parameter selection , however , can lead to an optimistic estimate of the confidence level for the best fitting model , far from reality .    in this paper , we focused on this kind of danger , when we open the option of dm  de coupling .
even if such coupling is absent or quite weak , we showed that just considering its possibility may widen the error bars for a number of parameters , also apparently unrelated to the coupling itself . in a sense ,
when a new degree of freedom is opened , such an effect is natural and expected .
coupling , however , has really a major impact , affecting different parameters for the different observables considered here ; moreover , its impact is drastically reduced when we work out parameter values by using simultaneously both observables .    before outlining our main conclusions it is however worth reminding a technical limit we had to face .
while cmb predictions depend on linear spectra , the wl spectrum is limited to its non  linear shape .
for the purpose of the present analysis , we assumed that prescription for @xmath3cdm models @xcite can be trivially extrapolated to coupled models , so enabling us to estimate the non linear spectrum once the linear spectrum is known .
let us however remark that the shift was estimated from quite a wide set of @xmath3cdm simulations .
simulations of cosmological models with state parameters @xmath177 , although performed by several authors , are still not so extensively studied as @xmath3cdm ; let alone coupled de simulations : in this case the only available simulations are due to @xcite and deal with a potential @xmath7 different from sugra .
however , differences between prescriptions for @xmath3cdm and dde are small @xcite and it seems however clear that model differences can most affect the rate of evolution of halo concentration , slightly shifting the scale where non  linearity effects become significant .
the use of more precise prescriptions can therefore only cause minor variation on the estimated errors and , although welcome , such simulations are not expected to interfere substantially with our conclusions .
our estimates were based on assuming that a photometric survey is available , with @xmath120 and a median redshift @xmath178 , covering half of the sky ( @xmath118 ) .
these features are similar to the recently proposed dune experiment @xcite .
we also compared and combined results from wl with the constraints expected for an ideal planck  like experiment .
the basic results of our calculations are quoted in table  [ tab : errors ] which is one of the main results of this work .    a first set of conclusions concerns an ideal cmb experiment considered by itself .
in this case , introducing coupling degrees of freedom is crucial for the error estimates on some of parameters , also apparently unrelated to coupling . in particular , while the error on @xmath179 keeps @xmath1801% , the errors on @xmath181 and @xmath131 increase from 1.3% to 3.9% and from 9% to 16% , respectively .    from a physical point of view
, the option opened by coupling is that expansion rate and fluctuation growth , from the last scattering band to the observer s site , is non  standard ( _ e.g. _ , the proportionality law @xmath182 could be mildly violated ) . although cmb data themselves set stringent limits on such deviations , this widens the volume of the parameter space consistent with a given data set ; in particular , it increases the likelihood of values of @xmath183 that would otherwise be negligible and , because of the intercorrelation amongst parameters , this reflects immediately on @xmath181 and @xmath154 estimates .
similar effects occur in wl experiments , although involving different parameters .
such experiments are a direct test of @xmath154 , whose estimated error is reduced by a factor @xmath184 in respect to a cmb experiment .
when the coupling option is opened , the error on @xmath154 does not increase ; on the contrary , it becomes easier to attribute raw data uncertainties to other parameters and , although marginally , the error on @xmath154 becomes somehow smaller .
a completely new situation occurs if both cmb and wl measurements are simultaneously used . in this case
, the opening of the coupling option causes just a marginal increase of the errors on most parameters .
this is a clear indication of the complementarity of the cmb and wl measurements , as described in @xcite and one of our conclusion is that the combination of these observables , besides of providing parameter values independent of @xmath8 , can set a ( nearly)final word on the coupling option .    as a matter of fact , by comparing , and , we see that , when joining cmb and wl results , the degeneracies , between @xmath8 and @xmath131 , as well as between @xmath8 and @xmath154 , disappear . breaking degeneracies is the main aim when different observables are simultaneously considered .
we see that , from this point of view , the efficiency of using both cmb and wl measures can be hardly overestimated .
let us then focus on the case of the spectral index of scalar fluctuations . when both cmb and wl data are used to constrain @xmath147 , a sharp reduction of errors occurs .
no surprise that cmb data , by themselves , reflecting the state of the universe before the onset of non linear processes , were more efficient to constrain @xmath147 , with or without coupling , than wl measures .
joining together the two observables , we then see errors to decrease from 0.4% and 1.2% down to 0.16% , in the uncoupled case ; in the presence of coupling we have a similar behavior , with errors passing from 0.5% and 1.8% down to 0.25% .
the error level achieved , in both cases , is exceptional , even for precision cosmology , and clearly suggests to relieve the constraint of a single @xmath147 value , so inspecting its possible scale dependence , with realistic possibilities to find a direct insight into the nature of the inflationary potential .    in conclusion , future wl surveys could really allow a significant step forward in the comprehension of the dark cosmic side ; we can adfirm that , when they will be available , the endeavour to put the genie back inside the lamp will approach a full success .
lplc is supported by nasa grant nnx07ah59
g and jpl  planck subcontract no . 1290790 .
we acknowledge the use of the camb package .
lplc and glv thank s. bonometto for insightful discussion and help with the preparation of the manuscript .
in order to determine the convergence power spectrum covariance , one can introduce the so called `` flat - sky '' approximation and treat the sky as flat , replacing spherical harmonic sums with fourier transforms ( ft ) .
of course , this approximation is acceptable just for small angular scales we also consider the tomographic case and use greek letters as superscripts to denote quantities belonging to different redshift bins .
the ft of the convergence field can be defined as : @xmath185 while the convergence power spectrum and trispectrum are , respectively : @xmath186 @xmath187 here @xmath188 is the dirac function .
the value of the lensing power spectrum in correspondence of a multipole @xmath189 can be estimated as the mean over a multipole bin of width @xmath190 , centered at @xmath189 : @xmath191 where @xmath192 is the area of the shell of width @xmath190 corresponding to @xmath189 , while @xmath193 is the area of the survey .
quite in the same way , for the trispectrum we have : @xmath194 let us then consider the following expression : @xmath195 the 4-point function at the r.h.s .
can be decomposed in its connected parts : @xmath196 replacing their expression in eq .
, one can easily recognize the contribution of the trispectrum , using eq .
: @xmath197 where @xmath198 .
owing to the definition of covariance , @xmath199 \equiv    \langle \mathcal{p}^{\alpha\beta}_{\it{l } }    \mathcal{p}^{\gamma\delta}_{\it{l ' } } \rangle     -\langle \mathcal{p}^{\alpha\beta}_{\it{l}}\rangle    \langle\mathcal{p}^{\gamma\delta}_{\it{l ' } } \rangle,\label{eq : a.10}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and using , one can then argue that the integrals in make sense only if they correspond to the same @xmath189bin ; the same can be claimed for .
this property can be described introducing a kronecker delta function @xmath200 .
thus , the expression becomes : @xmath201   & = &     \frac{1}{a}\mathcal{t}_{\it{ll'}}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta }    + \delta_{\it{ll'}}\frac{\left ( 2\pi \right)^2}{a^2 }     \int_{s_{\it{l}}}\frac{\rmd^2\mathbf{l}_1}{a_{\it{l}}^2 }    \left [ p_{l_{1}}^{\alpha\gamma }    \langle\kappa^{\beta}\left ( -\mathbf{l}_{1 } \right )    \kappa^{\delta } \left ( \mathbf{l}_{1 } \right ) \rangle    + p_{l_{1}}^{\alpha\delta } \langle\kappa^{\gamma }    \left ( \mathbf{l}_{1 } \right )    \kappa^{\beta } \left ( -\mathbf{l}_{1 } \right ) \rangle
\right]\nonumber\\     & = & \frac{1}{a}\left\{\mathcal{t}_{\it{ll'}}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta } +      \delta_{\it{ll ' } } \frac{\left ( 2\pi \right)^2}{a_{s_{\it{l } } } }    \int_{s_{\it{l}}}\frac{\rmd^2\mathbf{l}_1}{a_{s_{\it{l } } } }     \left [ p_{l_{1}}^{\alpha\gamma}p_{l_{1}}^{\beta\delta }       + p_{l_{1}}^{\alpha\delta}p_{l_{1}}^{\gamma\beta}\right]\right\}\\    & \thickapprox&\frac{1}{4\pi\,f_{sky } }    \mathcal{t}_{\it{ll'}}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}+    \frac{\delta_{\it{ll'}}}{2l\delta l f_{sky } }    \left [ p_{l}^{\alpha\gamma}p_{l}^{\beta\delta }       + p_{l}^{\alpha\delta}p_{l}^{\gamma\beta}\right].\end{aligned}\ ] ] in the last line , we have supposed the lensing power spectrum to be smooth enough to treat it as a constant within each bin width .
50    riess a g , kirshner r p , schmidt b p , jha s , et al . 1998 _ astrophys .
j. _ * 116 * 1009 ; perlmutter s , aldering g , goldhaber g , et al .
1999 _ astrophys .
j. _ * 517 * 565 ; riess a g , strolger l - g , tonry j , et al .
2004 _ astrophys .
j. _ * 607 * 665 de  bernardis p , ade p a r , bock j j , et al .
2000 _ nature _ * 404 * 955 ; padin s , cartwright j k , mason b s , et al .
2001 _ astrophys .
j. _ * 549 * l1 ; kovac j , leitch e m , pryke c , et al .
2002 _ nature _ * 420 * 772 ; scott p f , carreira p , cleary k , et al . 2003 _ mon . not .
soc . _ * 341 * 1076 ; spergel d n , bean r , dor et al .
2007 _ astrophys .
j. _ * 170 * 377 _ preprint _ astro  ph/0603449 colless m m , dalton g b , maddox s j , et al .
2001 _ mon . not .
_ * 329 * 1039 ; colless m m , peterson b a , jackson c , et al .
2003 _ preprint _ astro
ph/0306581 ; loveday j ( the sdss collaboration ) 2002 _ contemporary phys . _ * 43 * 437 ; tegmark m , blanton m , strauss m et al .
2004 _ astrophys .
j. _ * 606 * 702740 ; adelman
mccarthy j k , agueros m a , allam s s , et al .
2006 _ astrophys .
j. suppl . _
* 162 * 3848 caldwell r r , dave r and steinhardt p j 1998 1582 ; wetterich c 1988 b*302 * 668 brax p and martin j 1999 b*468 * 40 ; brax p and martin j 2000 d*61 * 103502 ; brax p , martin j and riazuelo a 2000 d*62 * 103505 carroll s m , duvvuri v , trodden m , et al .
2004 d*70 * 043528 ; nojiri s and odintsov s d 2003 d*68 * 123512 zlatev i , wang l and steinhardt p j 1999 896899 ; steinhardt p j , wang l and zlatev i 1999 d*59 * 123504 schimd c et al a&a * 463 * ( 2007 ) 405 colombo l p l and gervasi m jcap * 10 * ( 2006 ) 001 ellis j. , kalara s. , olive k.a .
& wetterich c. , 1989 , phys .
b228 , 264 ; wetterich c. , 1995 , a&a 301 , 321 ; amendola l. , 2000 , phys.rev .
d62 , 043511 ; gasperini m. , piazza f. & veneziano g. , 2002 , phys.rev .
d65 , 023508 ; comelli , d. pietroni m. amd riotto , phys .
b * 571 * ( 2003 ) 115 ; chimento l.p .
, jakubi a.s . , pavon d. & zimdahl w.,2003 , phys.rev d67 , 083513 guo z k , ohta n and tsujikawa s 2007 phys .  rev .
d * 76 * 023508 ; abdalla e , abramo l r w , sodre l j and wang b _ preprint _ arxiv:0710.1198 [ astro - ph ] ; manera m and mota d f 2006 _ mon . not
soc . _ * 371 * 1373 j.  khoury and a.  weltman , phys.rev.lett .
* 93 * ( 2004 ) 17110 ; s.s .
gubser and j.khoury , phys.rev.d * 70 * ( 2004 ) 104001 ; p.  brax et al .
, phys.rev.d * 70 * ( 2004 ) 123518 majerotto e , sapone d and amendola l ( 200 ) astro - ph/0410543 amendola l , campos g.c . and rosenfeld r ( 2006 ) astro - ph/0610806 wei h and zhang s n 2006 phys .
lett . b*644 * 7 wei h and zhang s n 2007 phys .
lett . b*654
* 139 _ preprint _ astro - ph/0704.3330 mainini r , colombo l
p l and bonometto s a _ astrophys .
j. _ * 632 * ( 2005 ) 691 di porto c and amendola l ( 2007 ) astro - ph/0707.2686 m. doran , j. jaeckel , phys.rev .
d * 66 * ( 2002 ) 043519 ; amendola l , quartin m , tsujikawa s , and waga i , phys.rev .
d * 74 * ( 2006 ) 023525 amendola l phys.rev .
d * 62 * ( 2000 ) 043511 ; amendola l phys.rev .
d * 69 * ( 2004 ) 103524 huey g and wandelt b d phys.rev .
d * 74 * ( 2006 ) 023519 ; das s , corasaniti p s and khoury j , phys.rev .
d * 73 * ( 2006 ) 083509 amendola l and quercellini c phys.rev .
d*68 * ( 2003 ) 023514 olivares g , atrio - barandela f and pavon d ( 2007 ) astro - ph/0706.3860 das s , corasaniti p s and khoury j phys.rev .
d*73 * ( 2006 ) 083509 mainini r and bonometto s a jcap ( 2007 ) astro - ph/0703303 mainini r phys.rev.d 72 ( 2005 ) 083514      bartelmann m and schneider p 2001 phys.rept .
* 340 * 291 refregier a _ ann .  rev .
_ 2003 * 41 * 645 van waerbeke l and mellier y _ preprint _ astro - ph/0305089 schneider p _ preprint _ astro - ph/0509252 amara a and refregier a _ preprint _ astro - ph/0610127 hu w 1999 _ astrophys
. j. _ * 522 * l21 huterer d 2002 _ phys .
_  d * 65 * 063001 hu w and jain b 2004 _ phys .
_  d * 70 * 043009 ma z m , hu w and huterer d 2005 _ astrophys . j. _ * 636 * 21 kaiser n 1998 _ astrophys . j. _ * 498 * 26 cooray a and hu w 2001_astrophys
. j. _ * 554 * 56 takada m and jain b 2004 _ mon . not .
* 348 * 897 sivia d s 1996 _ data analysis : a bayesian tutorial _
( oxford : oxford university press ) fisher r a 1935 _ j. roy .
* 98 * 39 tegmark m , taylor a and heavens a 1997 _ astrophys .
j. _ * 480 * 22 oh s p , spergel d n and hinshaw g 1999 _ astrophys .
j. _ * 510 * 551 matsubara t and szalay a s _ preprint _ astro - ph/0203358 .
refregier a et al .
_ preprint _ astro - ph/0610062 rudd d h , zentner a r and kravtsov a v _ preprint _ astro - ph/0703741 .
zentner a r , rudd d h and hu w 2008 _ phys .
_  d * 77 * 043507 http://www.camb.info/ smith
r e , et al .
2003 _ mon . not .
* 1311 mainini r 2005 _ phys .  rev .
_  d * 72 * 083514 maccio a v quercellini c mainini r amendola l and bonometto s a 2004 _ phys .
_  d * 69 * 123516 ratra b and peebles p j e 1998 _ phys
_  d * 37 * 3406 ma z m _ preprint _ arxiv : astro - ph/0610213 .
eisenstein  d  j hu w and tegmark m 1999 _ astrophys .
j. _ * 518 * 2