Astro2020 Science White Paper

Inflation and Dark Energy from spectroscopy

at z > 2
Thematic Areas: Cosmology and Fundamental Physics
arXiv:1903.09208v1 [astro-ph.CO] 21 Mar 2019

Principal Authors:
Name: Simone Ferraro
Institution: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, One Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720,
USA
Email: sferraro@lbl.gov

Name: Michael J. Wilson

Institution: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, One Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720,
USA
Email: mjwilson@lbl.gov

Co-authors / Endorsers:
Muntazir Abidi1 , David Alonso2 , Behzad Ansarinejad3 , Robert Armstrong4 , Jacobo Asorey5 ,
Arturo Avelino6 , Carlo Baccigalupi7,8,9 , Kevin Bandura10,11 , Nicholas Battaglia12 , Chetan
Bavdhankar13 , José Luis Bernal14,15 , Florian Beutler16 , Matteo Biagetti17 , Guillermo A. Blanc18 ,
Jonathan Blazek19,20 , Adam S. Bolton21 , Julian Borrill22 , Brenda Frye23 , Elizabeth
Buckley-Geer24 , Philip Bull25 , Cliff Burgess26 , Christian T. Byrnes27 , Zheng Cai28 , Francisco J
Castander29 , Emanuele Castorina32 , Tzu-Ching Chang30 , Jonás Chaves-Montero31 , Shi-Fan
Chen32 , Xingang Chen6 , Christophe Balland33 , Christophe Yèche34 , J.D. Cohn35 , William
Coulton36,37 , Helene Courtois100 , Rupert A. C. Croft38 , Francis-Yan Cyr-Racine39,40 , Guido
D’Amico41 , Kyle Dawson42 , Jacques Delabrouille43,44 , Arjun Dey21 , Olivier Doré30 , Kelly A.
Douglass45 , Duan Yutong46 , Cora Dvorkin39 , Alexander Eggemeier3 , Daniel Eisenstein6 , Xiaohui
Fan23 , Pedro G. Ferreira2 , Andreu Font-Ribera47 , Simon Foreman48 , Juan Garcı́a-Bellido49,50 ,
Martina Gerbino31 , Vera Gluscevic51 , Satya Gontcho A Gontcho45 , Daniel Green52 , Julien Guy22 ,
ChangHoon Hahn22 , Shaul Hanany53 , Will Handley37,54 , Nimish Hathi101 , Adam J. Hawken55 ,
César Hernández-Aguayo56 , Renée Hložek57,58 , Dragan Huterer59 , Mustapha Ishak60 , Marc
Kamionkowski61 , Dionysios Karagiannis62 , Ryan E. Keeley5 , Robert Kehoe63 , Rishi Khatri64 ,
Alex Kim22 , Jean-Paul Kneib19 , Juna A. Kollmeier18 , Ely D. Kovetz65 , Elisabeth Krause23 , Alex
Krolewski66,22 , Benjamin L’Huillier5 , Martin Landriau22 , Michael Levi22 , Michele Liguori62 , Eric
Linder35 , Zarija Lukić22 , Axel de la Macorra67 , Andrés A. Plazas68 , Jennifer L. Marshall69 , Paul
Martini20 , Kiyoshi Masui70 , Patrick McDonald22 , P. Daniel Meerburg37,1,71 , Joel Meyers63 ,
Mehrdad Mirbabayi72 , John Moustakas73 , Adam D. Myers74 , Nathalie Palanque-Delabrouille34 ,
Laura Newburgh75 , Jeffrey A. Newman76 , Gustavo Niz77 , Hamsa Padmanabhan48,78 , Povilas
Palunas18 , Will J. Percival79,80,26 , Francesco Piacentini81,82 , Matthew M. Pieri55 , Anthony L.
Piro18 , Abhishek Prakash83 , Jason Rhodes30 , Ashley J. Ross20 , Graziano Rossi84 , Gwen C.

1
Rudie18 , Lado Samushia85 , Misao Sasaki86 , Emmanuel Schaan22,32 , David J. Schlegel22 , Marcel
Schmittfull87 , Michael Schubnell59 , Neelima Sehgal88 , Leonardo Senatore89 , Hee-Jong Seo90 ,
Arman Shafieloo5 , Huanyuan Shan91 , Joshua D. Simon18 , Sara Simon59 , Zachary Slepian51,22 ,
Anže Slosar92 , Srivatsan Sridhar5 , Albert Stebbins24 , Stephanie Escoffier55 , Eric R. Switzer93 ,
Gregory Tarlé59 , Mark Trodden94 , Cora Uhlemann1 , L. Arturo Urenña-López77 , Eleonora Di
Valentino95 , M. Vargas-Magaña67 , Yi Wang96 , Scott Watson97 , Martin White66,22 , Weishuang
Xu39 , Byeonghee Yu32 , Gong-Bo Zhao98,16 , Yi Zheng99 , Hong-Ming Zhu32,22
1
DAMTP, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, UK, CB3 0WA
2
The University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RH, UK
3
Department of Physics, Lower Mountjoy, South Rd, Durham DH1 3LE, United Kingdom
4
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 94550
5
Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute, Daejeon 34055, Korea
6
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, MA 02138
7
SISSA - International School for Advanced Studies, Via Bonomea 265, 34136 Trieste, Italy
8
IFPU - Institute for Fundamental Physics of the Universe, Via Beirut 2, 34014 Trieste, Italy
9
INFN – National Institute for Nuclear Physics, Via Valerio 2, I-34127 Trieste, Italy
10
CSEE, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA
11
Center for Gravitational Waves and Cosmology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV
26505, USA
12
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
13
National Center for Nuclear Research, Ul.Pasteura 7,Warsaw, Poland
14
ICC, University of Barcelona, IEEC-UB, Martı́ i Franquès, 1, E08028 Barcelona, Spain
15
Dept. de Fı́sica Quàntica i Astrofı́sica, Universitat de Barcelona, Martı́ i Franquès 1, E08028
Barcelona, Spain
16
Institute of Cosmology & Gravitation, University of Portsmouth, Dennis Sciama Building,
Burnaby Road, Portsmouth PO1 3FX, UK
17
Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
18
The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution for Science, 813 Santa Barbara St., Pasadena, CA
91101, USA
19
Institute of Physics, Laboratory of Astrophysics, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
(EPFL), Observatoire de Sauverny, 1290 Versoix, Switzerland
20
The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43212
21
National Optical Astronomy Observatory, 950 N. Cherry Ave., Tucson, AZ 85719 USA
22
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720
23
Department of Astronomy/Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
24
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL 60510
25
Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, United Kingdom
26
Perimeter Institute, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 2Y5, Canada
27
Astronomy Centre, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Sussex,
Brighton BN1 9QH, United Kingdom
28
University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064
29
Institute of Space Sciences (ICE, CSIC), Campus UAB, Carrer de Can Magrans, s/n, 08193
Barcelona, Spain
30
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA

2
31
HEP Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL 60439, USA
32
Department of Physics, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
33
Sorbonne Université, Université Paris Diderot, CNRS/IN2P3, Laboratoire de Physique
Nucléaire et de Hautes Energies, LPNHE, 4 Place Jussieu, F-75252 Paris, France
34
IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
35
Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
36
Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge,Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK
37
Kavli Institute for Cosmology, Cambridge, UK, CB3 0HA
38
Department of Physics, McWilliams Center for Cosmology, Carnegie Mellon University
39
Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
40
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131
41
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
42
University of Utah, Department of Physics and Astronomy, 115 S 1400 E, Salt Lake City, UT
84112, USA
43
Laboratoire Astroparticule et Cosmologie (APC), CNRS/IN2P3, Université Paris Diderot, 10,
rue Alice Domon et Léonie Duquet, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France
44
Département d’Astrophysique, CEA Saclay DSM/Irfu, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
45
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, 500 Joseph C. Wilson
Boulevard, Rochester, NY 14627, USA
46
Boston University, Boston, MA 02215
47
University College London, WC1E 6BT London, United Kingdom
48
Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3H8,
Canada
49
Instituto de Fisica Teorica UAM/CSIC, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid,
Spain
50
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049, Madrid, Spain
51
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
52
University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093
53
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
54
Astrophysics Group, Cavendish Laboratory, J.J.Thomson Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 0HE, UK
55
Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS/IN2P3, CPPM, Marseille, France
56
Institute for Computational Cosmology, Department of Physics, Durham University, South
Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK
57
Dunlap Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Toronto, ON, M5S3H4
58
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Toronto, ON, M5S3H4
59
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
60
University of Texas at Dallas, Texas 75080
61
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218
62
Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia “G. Galilei”,Università degli Studi di Padova, via Marzolo
8, I-35131, Padova, Italy
63
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275
64
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400005 India
65
Department of Physics, Ben-Gurion University, Be’er Sheva 84105, Israel
66
Department of Astronomy, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
67
IFUNAM - Instituto de Fı́sica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mético, 04510 CDMX,

3
México
68
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
69
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
70
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139
71
Van Swinderen Institute for Particle Physics and Gravity, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh
4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands
72
International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Strada Costiera, 11, I-34151 Trieste, Italy
73
Siena College, 515 Loudon Road, Loudonville, NY 12211, USA
74
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA
75
Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520
76
University of Pittsburgh and PITT PACC, Pittsburgh, PA 15260
77
División de Ciencias e Ingenierı́as, Universidad de Guanajuato, León 37150, México
78
ETH Zurich, Institute for Particle Physics, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
79
Centre for Astrophysics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
80
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave W,
Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
81
Dipartimento di Fisica, Università La Sapienza, P. le A. Moro 2, Roma, Italy
82
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma, 00185 Roma, Italy
83
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125
84
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Sejong University, Seoul, 143-747, Korea
85
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
86
Kavli Insitute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (WPI), University of Tokyo,
277-8583 Kashiwa , Japan
87
Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540
88
Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794
89
Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford 94305
90
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Ohio University, Clippinger Labs, Athens, OH 45701,
USA
91
Shanghai Astronomical Observatory (SHAO), Nandan Road 80, Shanghai 200030, China
92
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
93
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA
94
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19104, USA
95
Jodrell Bank Center for Astrophysics, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of
Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
96
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, China
97
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244
98
National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, PR China
99
School of Physics, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, 85 Hoegiro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul
130-722, Korea
100
Université de Lyon, F-69622, Lyon, France; Université de Lyon 1, Villeurbanne;
CNRS/IN2P3, Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon
101
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218

4
The expansion of the Universe is understood to have accelerated during two epochs: in its very first
moments during a period of ‘Inflation’ and much more recently, at z < 1, when Dark Energy is
hypothesized to drive cosmic acceleration. The undiscovered mechanisms behind these two epochs
represent some of the most important open problems in fundamental physics.
Most of the processes involved during Inflation impact observations on the very largest spatial
scales [1, 2]. Traditionally, these have been accessed through observations of the Cosmic Mi-
crowave Background (CMB). While very powerful, the CMB originates from a 2D surface and
the finite number of modes that it contains will largely be measured by experiments over the next
decade.1 Observations of large 3D volumes with large-scale structure (LSS) access similar scales
and will dramatically increase the number of available modes. For example, LSS observations in
the range 2 . z . 5 can more than triple the volume surveyed at z . 2, and, together with the suf-
ficiently high galaxy number in this interval, strongly motivates a future spectroscopic survey that
exploits this opportunity. In addition, tomography allows mapping the growth of structure with
redshift, which provides robust constraints on Dark Energy and neutrino masses while relaxing
restrictive assumptions such as a power-law primordial power spectrum [7].
Finally, cross-correlation with external tracers, such as CMB lensing, Intensity Mapping or
the Lyman-α forest, immunises the constraints to the systematics that make measurement chal-
lenging and further improves the precision through ‘sample variance cancellation’ [8, 9, 10] and
degeneracy breaking.

1 Science Case
Inflation Simple theories of inflation, involving a single non-interacting field, predict that the pri-
mordial fluctuations are extremely close to Gaussian distributed [11, 12]. However, very large
classes of inflationary models produce levels of non-Gaussianity that are detectable by the next
generation of spectroscopic surveys [1]. Measurements of primordial non-Gaussianity probe the
dynamics and field content of the very early Universe, at energy scales far above particle colliders.
Deviations from Gaussianity leave a particular imprint on the galaxy three-point correlation func-
tion or bispectrum [13] (and of the CMB), and can also produce a characteristic scale-dependence
in the galaxy bias [14]. Depending on the physical process responsible for these deviations from
Gaussianity, different configurations in the three-point function are generated. These are typically
described by a number of dimensionless parameters, fN L [15], and common examples include
the local, equilateral and orthogonal types. The local type is generically produced in multi-field
inflation, while the equilateral type often indicates self-interaction of the inflaton.
Pushing the observational frontier to the threshold typically expected from ‘non-minimal’ infla-
tion (fN L & 1, see [2]) provides a compelling opportunity for future large-scale structure surveys.
In summary, capturing the full picture of inflation requires measuring primordial non-Gaussianity
to an unprecedented level, complementing the search for primordial gravitational waves and in-
forming us about the Universe’s first moments.

1
Cosmologically relevant modes of CMB temperature anisotropies have been measured to the cosmic-variance
limit by Planck [3] and upcoming or proposed experiments will achieve the same for polarization [4, 5, 6].

5
 Dark Energy Many theories have been put forward to explain the late time cosmic acceleration.
They range from a cosmological constant to some dynamical forms of Dark Energy or modification
to General Relativity on large scales [16, 17]. By mapping expansion and growth at z > 1.5 – deep
into matter domination – we can ease parameter degeneracies, better constrain potential theories of
Dark Energy, and test posited modifications to General Relativity, e.g. by comparing measurements
of growth to the amplitude of gravitational lensing of the CMB.
Curvature A measurement of the global value of the Universe’s curvature can potentially have
important implications for Inflation. Slow-roll eternal inflation predicts |ΩK | < 10−4 , while false-
vacuum models would be ruled out by a measurement of ΩK < −10−4 [18, 19]. Moreover,
the current bound ΩK < 2 × 10−3 [3] relies on the strong assumption that Dark Energy is a
cosmological constant. If this is relaxed, large degeneracies with the time evolution of Dark Energy
arise, significantly degrading the constraints on both. Measurements at high redshift can break this
degeneracy and, at the same time, approach the threshold σ(ΩK ) ≈ 10−4 that is crucial for a better
understanding of Inflation [20].
Neutrino Masses Massive neutrinos suppress the growth of structure on small scales in a time-
dependent manner [21]. Measuring the amplitude of structure over a long lever-arm in redshift,
z ∼ 0 − 5, better constrains the neutrino masses and breaks important degeneracies with the time
evolution of Dark Energy and the primordial power spectrum [22, 23].

1.1 High-z Lyman-break galaxies and Lyman-α emitters

Lyman-break galaxies are young, star forming galaxies that comprise the majority population at
z > 1.5. Their characteristic spectral energy density exhibits a sharp drop in the optical flux
blue-wards of the redshifted Lyman limit, (1 + z) × 912Å, due to absorption by neutral hydrogen,
in an otherwise shallow Fν spectrum. As such, they are efficiently selected with a search for
galaxies bright in a detection band, mU V – chosen to correspond to the rest-frame UV for ease
– but otherwise undetected in all bluer filters (see Refs. [24, 25] for reviews). In this manner,
convenient target populations (BX, u-dropouts, g-dropouts and r-dropouts) spanning ∆z ' 1.0
at z ' 2, 3, 4 and 5 are obtained by enforcing these criteria for increasingly red detection bands.
Selection on photometric redshift largely yields the same ends [26, 27].
While of great interest for providing very large populations at high redshift, to achieve the nec-
essary spectroscopic success rate in a baseline exposure typically requires refinement to those with
significant Lyman-α emission (LAEs). This is traditionally achieved with narrow-band selection,
but large volumes and sufficient depth are not obtainable in this manner. Accepting some degree of
increased contamination or lower completeness, broad-band selection based on the bluer continua
of strong emitters has been shown to provide very encouraging results [28, 29, 30]. Alternatively,
one may limit oneself to only the brightest galaxies, for which secure absorption line redshifts are
also possible.

1.2 Survey strategy

We identify two galaxy surveys that we use as a baseline for forecasts of an airmass-limited 14,000
square degree survey. Following Ref. [10], we first consider the idealised mU V = 24.5 sample
in Table 1. This informs what conclusions may ultimately be drawn for this science case with
minimal assumptions on the required facilities and survey details.

6
 Conversely, assuming a next generation survey speed, we posit a fiducial survey to approximate
the properties shown in Table 2 – assuming completion of LSST Year 10 by first light.

z n(z) [10−4 h3 Mpc−3 ] b(z) z n(z) [10−4 h3 Mpc−3 ] b(z)

2.0 25 2.5 4.0 1.5 5.8
2.5 12 3.3 4.5 0.8 6.6
3.0 6.0 4.1 5.0 0.4 7.4
3.5 3.0 4.9
Table 1: Our ‘idealised’ sample: a mU V = 24.5 magnitude-limited dropout sample as defined by Ref. [10].
Here n(z) and b(z) correspond to the expected number density and linear galaxy bias with redshift.

z n(z) [10−4 h3 Mpc−3 ] b(z) z n(z) [10−4 h3 Mpc−3 ] b(z)

2.0 9.8 2.5 4.0 1.0 3.5
3.0 1.2 4.0 5.0 0.4 5.5
Table 2: Our ‘fiducial’ sample achievable with next generation facilities. The number density and galaxy
bias estimates derive from Refs. [10, 30, 31, 32, 33] and [34]. We find the limiting factors are efficient
pre-selection of LAEs based on broad-band imaging, LSST u-band depth and our posited survey speed for
z = 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

2 Forecasts
2.1 Primordial non-Gaussianity
We follow Ref. [13] in order to forecast the constraints on primordial non-Gaussianity achievable
with these samples. The results are shown in Table 3 when including both the power spectrum
and bispectrum. We find that local fN L sees the largest improvement, achieving σ(fNlocal L ) ≈ 0.1
for the fiducial sample. This represents a factor of ' 50 improvement over current surveys and
achieves the precision necessary for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the early Universe.
No planned survey can deliver this at such a redshift, which would be entirely complementary to
lower z studies [35]. When including the external CMB and LSS data expected to be available
by first light, the constraints on equilateral and orthogonal fNlocal
L see additional improvements of
∼ 2 and 3 over current estimates. Given this achievable precision, the measurement will likely be
systematics-dominated and the survey should be designed accordingly.
The importance of spectroscopy is clear from the sharp degradation in constraints – a factor of
3 for both local and orthogonal, and a factor of 4 for equilateral – if only photometric redshifts are
available.

2.2 Dark Energy

The galaxy power spectrum yields measurements of the expansion and growth rates. In turn, these
can be used to infer the energy content at a particular redshift. In Figure 1, we show that both
potential surveys constrain the fraction of Dark Energy to percent, or even sub-percent, precision

7
 σ(fN L ) Current Photo-z
Fiducial / Idealised P +B + External (Planck) degradation
Local 0.75 / 0.63 0.11 / 0.073 0.11 / 0.073 5 ×3
Equilateral – 43 / 23 23 / 18 43 ×4
Orthogonal 50 / 33 8.8 / 5.0 7.5 / 4.7 21 ×3
Table 3: Constraints on fN L for the two samples considered. P denotes those derived from the power
spectrum, while +B includes additional constraints from the bispectrum. External datasets include con-
straints on fN L coming from Planck [36], DESI [37] and Simons Observatory [4], which are expected
to complete by our first light. In the last column, we illustrate a photo-z degradation corresponding to
σ(z)/(1 + z) = 2 × 10−2 .

to z ∼ 5. This would represent a tremendous increase in precision over DESI, especially for z > 3.
In the standard parametrization, these correspond to a Dark Energy Figure of Merit (FoM) of 398
and 441 for the fiducial and idealised samples respectively. This is an improvement of a factor of
2.7 over DESI [37] when combined with the current Planck constraints. Spectroscopy is essential
in this respect, with a degradation of over ∼ 60% for photometric redshifts (σ(z)/(1 + z) = 0.01).
DE fraction [%, radial BAO + RSD, dz=1]
DE fraction [%, radial BAO + RSD, dz=1]

10 10

DESI
1 σz /(1 + z) = 0.05 1
σz /(1 + z) = 0.01
σz /(1 + z) = 0.005
σz /(1 + z) = 0.002
σz /(1 + z) = 0

2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
z z
Figure 1: The absolute error on the fraction of Dark Energy ΩDE at a given redshift for the fiducial (left)
and idealised (right) samples. This is obtained from a combination of radial Baryon Acoustic Oscillation
(BAO) and Redshift-Space Distortions (RSD). If Dark Energy is a cosmological constant, its fraction is
forecasted to be 7%, 3%, 2% and 1% at z = 2, 3, 4, 5 to a very high degree of accuracy, which motivates
facilities capable of challenging this prediction.

Table 4 shows forecasts for the (beyond) Standard Model parameters. In addition to the Dark
Energy FoM, large improvements are found for the curvature ΩK (with errors decreasing by over
a factor of 2), together with the sum of neutrino masses.
While not explored in great detail here, it has been shown that cross-correlation with the CMB
and Intensity mapping experiments can greatly reduce systematics and break several astrophysical
and cosmological degeneracies. As an example, Figure 2 shows constraints on the amplitude of
fluctuations σ8 (z) as a function of redshift by cross-correlating CMB lensing with galaxy surveys.
With this potential for synergy with future CMB surveys, we can extract sub-percent constraints
on the growth that are relatively insensitive to the z < 2 universe and hence a powerful probe of

8
 σ(parameter) 1.02
DESI S3
Fiducial Future exp.
Parameter Fid./Ideal. DESI Idealized
Curvature ΩK /10−4 6.6 / 5.2 12.0 1.01

σ8(z)/σ8(z),fiducial
P
Neutrinos mν 0.028 / 0.026 0.032
Spectral index ns 0.0026 / 0.0026 0.0029 1.0

Running αs 0.003 / 0.003 0.004

0.99
Rel. species Nef f 0.069 / 0.069 0.078
Gravitational slip 0.008 / 0.008 0.01
0.98
D.E. FoM 398 / 441 162
0 1 2 3 4 5
z

Table 4: Forecasts on cosmological parameters from Figure 2: Constraints on σ8 (z) from cross-
our samples, combined with Planck priors. Gravita- correlation with CMB lensing. ‘S3’ and ‘Future exp.’
tional slip is defined as the ratio between the two po- refer to CMB experiments with map noise of 7 and 1
tentials describing the metric, in combination with a µK-arcmin respectively.
CMB experiment with map noise of 1 µK-arcmin.

non-standard physics.

3 Challenges
Further development of efficient pre-selection of LAEs from broad-band photometry is a require-
ment for this case as presented. The success of this pre-selection will largely determine the neces-
sary facilities and achievable samples. Some of the measurements outlined above – especially local
fN L – also require complete understanding of e.g. the parent photometry and the galaxy selection
function generally [2, 38, 39]. Percent-level sky subtraction with fibers and exposures approaching
an hour, together with mitigation of line confusion, are also technical challenges to be overcome.
Potential strategies have already been proposed and are under active study, but future surveys will
require careful consideration of these points during any design phase.

4 Conclusions
The colossal, relatively uncharted, volume at z > 2 and known means of efficiently selecting
high-z galaxies grants a tremendous opportunity to study the beginning and fate of our Universe,
namely Inflation and Dark Energy. We have shown potential surveys can test the early Universe
(Gaussianity) up to a factor of ∼ 50 better than our current bounds and cross the highly significant
threshold of fN L ' 1 that would separate single-field from multi-field models of Inflation. Such
measurements would be entirely complementary to low-z studies. This is enabled by spectroscopic
redshift precision, with the lesser precision of photometric redshifts degrading these constraints by
a factor of three or greater.
Such a dataset would leave an important legacy for the science cases we have presented, to-
gether with a wealth of opportunities for the fields of galaxy formation as well as many others.

9
References
[1] N. Bartolo, E. Komatsu, Sabino Matarrese, and A. Riotto. Non-Gaussianity from inflation:
Theory and observations. Phys. Rept., 402:103–266, 2004.

[2] Marcelo Alvarez et al. Testing Inflation with Large Scale Structure: Connecting Hopes with
Reality. 2014.

[3] Y. Akrami et al. Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck.
2018.

[4] James Aguirre et al. The Simons Observatory: Science goals and forecasts. 2018.

[5] Kevork N. Abazajian et al. CMB-S4 Science Book, First Edition. 2016.

[6] Shaul Hanany et al. PICO: Probe of Inflation and Cosmic Origins. 2019, arXiv 1902.10541.

[7] Roland de Putter, Eric V. Linder, and Abhilash Mishra. Inflationary Freedom and Cosmolog-
ical Neutrino Constraints. Phys. Rev., D89(10):103502, 2014.

[8] Marcel Schmittfull and Uros Seljak. Parameter constraints from cross-correlation of CMB
lensing with galaxy clustering. Phys. Rev., D97(12):123540, 2018.

[9] Moritz Münchmeyer, Mathew S. Madhavacheril, Simone Ferraro, Matthew C. Johnson, and
Kendrick M. Smith. Constraining local non-Gaussianities with kSZ tomography. 2018.

[10] Shi-Fan Chen, Emanuele Castorina, Martin White, and Anže Slosar. Synergies between
radio, optical and microwave observations at high redshift. 2018.

[11] Juan Martin Maldacena. Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field
inflationary models. JHEP, 05:013, 2003.

[12] Paolo Creminelli and Matias Zaldarriaga. Single field consistency relation for the 3-point
function. JCAP, 0410:006, 2004.

[13] Dionysios Karagiannis, Andrei Lazanu, Michele Liguori, Alvise Raccanelli, Nicola Bartolo,
and Licia Verde. Constraining primordial non-Gaussianity with bispectrum and power spec-
trum from upcoming optical and radio surveys. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 478(1):1341–
1376, 2018.

[14] Neal Dalal, Olivier Dore, Dragan Huterer, and Alexander Shirokov. The imprints of pri-
mordial non-gaussianities on large-scale structure: scale dependent bias and abundance of
virialized objects. Phys. Rev., D77:123514, 2008.

[15] Eiichiro Komatsu and David N. Spergel. Acoustic signatures in the primary microwave back-
ground bispectrum. Phys. Rev., D63:063002, 2001.

[16] Timothy Clifton, Pedro G. Ferreira, Antonio Padilla, and Constantinos Skordis. Modified
Gravity and Cosmology. Phys. Rept., 513:1–189, 2012.

10
[17] Michael J. Mortonson, David H. Weinberg, and Martin White. Dark Energy: A Short Review.
2013.

[18] C. Danielle Leonard, Philip Bull, and Rupert Allison. Spatial curvature endgame: Reaching
the limit of curvature determination. Phys. Rev., D94(2):023502, 2016.

[19] Matthew Kleban and Marjorie Schillo. Spatial Curvature Falsifies Eternal Inflation. JCAP,
1206:029, 2012.

[20] Mikhail Denissenya, Eric V. Linder, and Arman Shafieloo. Cosmic Curvature Tested Directly
from Observations. JCAP, 1803(03):041, 2018.

[21] Julien Lesgourgues and Sergio Pastor. Massive neutrinos and cosmology. Phys. Rept.,
429:307–379, 2006.

[22] R. Allison, P. Caucal, E. Calabrese, J. Dunkley, and T. Louis. Towards a cosmological neu-
trino mass detection. Phys. Rev., D92(12):123535, 2015.

[23] Byeonghee Yu, Robert Z. Knight, Blake D. Sherwin, Simone Ferraro, Lloyd Knox, and Mar-
cel Schmittfull. Towards Neutrino Mass from Cosmology without Optical Depth Information.
2018.

[24] M. Giavalisco. Lyman-Break Galaxies. Ann. Rev. Astron.& Astrophys. , 40:579–641, 2002.

[25] Alice E. Shapley. Physical Properties of Galaxies from z = 2-4. Annual Review of Astronomy
and Astrophysics, 49:525–580, Sep 2011.

[26] R. J. McLure, L. Pentericci, A. Cimatti, J. S. Dunlop, D. Elbaz, A. Fontana, K. Nandra,

R. Amorin, M. Bolzonella, A. Bongiorno, A. C. Carnall, M. Castellano, M. Cirasuolo,
O. Cucciati, F. Cullen, S. De Barros, S. L. Finkelstein, F. Fontanot, P. Franzetti, M. Fumana,
A. Gargiulo, B. Garilli, L. Guaita, W. G. Hartley, A. Iovino, M. J. Jarvis, S. Juneau, W. Kar-
man, D. Maccagni, F. Marchi, E. Mármol-Queraltó, E. Pompei, L. Pozzetti, M. Scodeggio,
V. Sommariva, M. Talia, O. Almaini, I. Balestra, S. Bardelli, E. F. Bell, N. Bourne, R. A. A.
Bowler, M. Brusa, F. Buitrago, K. I. Caputi, P. Cassata, S. Charlot, A. Citro, G. Cresci,
S. Cristiani, E. Curtis-Lake, M. Dickinson, G. G. Fazio, H. C. Ferguson, F. Fiore, M. Franco,
J. P. U. Fynbo, A. Galametz, A. Georgakakis, M. Giavalisco, A. Grazian, N. P. Hathi, I. Jung,
S. Kim, A. M. Koekemoer, Y. Khusanova, O. Le Fèvre, J. M. Lotz, F. Mannucci, D. T.
Maltby, K. Matsuoka, D. J. McLeod, H. Mendez-Hernandez, J. Mendez- Abreu, M. Mignoli,
M. Moresco, A. Mortlock, M. Nonino, M. Pannella, C. Papovich, P. Popesso, D. P. Rosario,
M. Salvato, P. Santini, D. Schaerer, C. Schreiber, D. P. Stark, L. A. M. Tasca, R. Thomas,
T. Treu, E. Vanzella, V. Wild, C. C. Williams, G. Zamorani, and E. Zucca. The VANDELS
ESO public spectroscopic survey. MNRAS, 479:25–42, September 2018.

[27] N. P. Hathi, O. Le Fèvre, O. Ilbert, P. Cassata, L. A. M. Tasca, B. C. Lemaux, B. Garilli,

V. Le Brun, D. Maccagni, L. Pentericci, R. Thomas, E. Vanzella, G. Zamorani, E. Zucca,
R. Amorı́n, S. Bardelli, L. P. Cassarà, M. Castellano, A. Cimatti, O. Cucciati, A. Durkalec,
A. Fontana, M. Giavalisco, A. Grazian, L. Guaita, A. Koekemoer, S. Paltani, J. Pforr,

11
 B. Ribeiro, D. Schaerer, M. Scodeggio, V. Sommariva, M. Talia, L. Tresse, D. Vergani, P. Ca-
pak, S. Charlot, T. Contini, J. G. Cuby, S. de la Torre, J. Dunlop, S. Fotopoulou, C. López-
Sanjuan, Y. Mellier, M. Salvato, N. Scoville, Y. Taniguchi, and P. W. Wang. The VIMOS
Ultra Deep Survey: Lyα emission and stellar populations of star-forming galaxies at 2 ¡ z ¡
2.5. A&A, 588:A26, April 2016.
[28] Jeff Cooke. Broadband Imaging Segregation of z ∼ 3 Lyα Emitting and Lyα Absorbing
Galaxies. ApJ, 704:L62–L65, October 2009.
[29] Daniel P. Stark, Richard S. Ellis, Kuenley Chiu, Masami Ouchi, and Andrew Bunker. Keck
spectroscopy of faint 3 &lt; z &lt; 7 Lyman break galaxies - I. New constraints on cosmic
reionization from the luminosity and redshift-dependent fraction of Lyman α emission. MN-
RAS, 408:1628–1648, November 2010.
[30] X. Du, A. E. Shapley, N. A. Reddy, T. Jones, D. P. Stark, C. C. Steidel, A. L. Strom, G. C.
Rudie, D. K. Erb, R. S. Ellis, and M. Pettini. The Redshift Evolution of Rest-UV Spectro-
scopic Properties in Lyman-break Galaxies at z =2-4. ApJ, 860:75, June 2018.
[31] N. A. Reddy, C. C. Steidel, M. Pettini, K. L. Adelberger, A. E. Shapley, D. K. Erb, and
M. Dickinson. Multiwavelength Constraints on the Cosmic Star Formation History from
Spectroscopy: The Rest-Frame Ultraviolet, Ha, and Infrared Luminosity Functions at Red-
shifts 1.9 lesssim z lesssim 3.4. ApJS, 175:48–85, March 2008.
[32] H. Hildebrandt, J. Pielorz, T. Erben, L. van Waerbeke, P. Simon, and P. Capak. CARS: the
CFHTLS-Archive-Research Survey. II. Weighing dark matter halos of Lyman-break galaxies
at z = 3-5. A&A, 498:725–736, May 2009.
[33] M. A. Malkan, D. P. Cohen, M. Maruyama, N. Kashikawa, C. Ly, S. Ishikawa, K. Shimasaku,
M. Hayashi, and K. Motohara. Lyman-break Galaxies at z 3̃ in the Subaru Deep Field: Lumi-
nosity Function, Clustering, and [O III] Emission. ApJ, 850:5, November 2017.
[34] Y. Harikane, M. Ouchi, Y. Ono, S. Saito, P. Behroozi, S. More, K. Shimasaku, J. Toshikawa,
Y.-T. Lin, M. Akiyama, J. Coupon, Y. Komiyama, A. Konno, S.-C. Lin, S. Miyazaki, A. J.
Nishizawa, T. Shibuya, and J. Silverman. GOLDRUSH. II. Clustering of galaxies at z =4-
6 revealed with the half-million dropouts over the 100 deg2 area corresponding to 1 Gpc3 .
PASJ, 70:S11, January 2018.
[35] Olivier Doré et al. Cosmology with the SPHEREX All-Sky Spectral Survey. 2014.
[36] P. A. R. Ade et al. Planck 2015 results. XVII. Constraints on primordial non-Gaussianity.
Astron. Astrophys., 594:A17, 2016.
[37] Andreu Font-Ribera, Patrick McDonald, Nick Mostek, Beth A. Reid, Hee-Jong Seo, and
An Slosar. DESI and other dark energy experiments in the era of neutrino mass measure-
ments. JCAP, 1405:023, 2014.
[38] Anthony R. Pullen and Christopher M. Hirata. Systematic effects in large-scale angular power
spectra of photometric quasars and implications for constraining primordial nongaussianity.
Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 125:705–718, 2013.

12
[39] Dragan Huterer, Carlos E. Cunha, and Wenjuan Fang. Calibration errors unleashed: effects
on cosmological parameters and requirements for large-scale structure surveys. Mon. Not.
Roy. Astron. Soc., 432:2945, 2013.

13