|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|

**Phase Retrieval Problem.
Application to VLBI Mapping of Active Galactic Nuclei**

A.T. Bajkova

*Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, Russian Academy of Sciences, St.-Petersburg, Russia*

**Abstract**—The well-known phase problem which means image reconstruction from only spectrum magnitude without using any spectrum phase information is considered basically in application to VLBI mapping of compact extragalactic radio sources (active galactic nuclei). The method proposed for phaseless mapping is based on the reconstruction of the spectrum magnitude on the entire $UV$ plane from the measured visibility magnitude on a limited set of points and the reconstruction of the sought-for image of the source by Fienup's error-reduction iterative algorithm from the spectrum magnitude reconstructed at the first stage. It is shown that the technique used ensures unique solution (within a class of equivalent functions) for AGNs with typical structure morphology "bright core + week jet". The method proposed can be used, for example, for imaging with ultra-high resolution using a space–ground radio interferometer with a space antenna in a very high orbit ("RadioAstron"). In this case, a multi-element interferometer essentially degenerates into a two-element interferometer and the degeneracy of the close-phase relations prevents the use of standard methods for hybrid mapping and self-calibration. The capabilities and restrictions of the method are demonstrated on a number of model experiments. For a few selected AGNs the images are obtained from VLBA observations.

# Introduction to phase retrieval problem

In this paper we consider the problem of image reconstruction from only spectral magnitude when spectral phase of an object is totally unknown.

Why this problem is important? In general case, as was shown by many authors, phase information is more important than magnitude information, because phase information is responsible for positions of details of image. Importance of spectral phase is clear from Fig.1. In Fig.1(a) the picture of a man is shown. The image (b), reconstructed using original Fourier spectrum phase information of the model image and uniform spectral magnitude allows us to recognize the features of the portrait. The image (c) reconstructed from original spectral magnitude and zero-valued spectral phase does not give anything common with original portrait (a).

Let us formulate the phase problem in discrete form. Let the discretization in spatial and spectrum domains of an object be fulfilled in accordance with Kotel'nikov-Shannon theorem and size of two-dimensional maps be equal to $N\times N$ samples.

Spectrum of an object is calculated as discrete two-dimensional Fourier transform of two-dimensional sequence $x_{ml},
m,l=0,...,N$ as follows:

$$X_{nk}=\frac{1}{N}\sum^{N-1}_{m=0}\sum^{N-1}_{l=0}x_{ml}\exp(-\frac{j2\pi}{n}(nm+kl))=A_{nk}+jB_{nk}=M_{nk}\exp(j\Phi_{nk}),$$ where $n,k=1,...,N$, $A_{nk}, B_{nk}, M_{nk}$ and $\Phi_{nk}$ are real part, imaginary part, magnitude and phase of spectrum correspondingly.

We consider the case of image formation systems when data are delivered not directly on an object but on its Fourier spectrum. If data are complete, i.e. we have both magnitude and phase of spectrum, then the image sought-for can be obtained by simple inverse Fourier transform of data:

$$x_{ml}=\frac{1}{N}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\sum^{N-1}_{k=0}M_{nk}\exp(j\Phi_{nk})\exp(\frac{j2\pi}{n}(nm+kl)),$$

But if the data are not complete, i.e. we have information only about magnitude or only about phase of the spectrum, the problem of retrieval of missing information arises, because only presence of both components gives correct representation of an object. Here we consider a typical for many fields problem of phase or, equivalently, image $x_{ml}$ retrieval from its Fourier spectrum magnitude $M_{nk}$. Such a problem is called "phase problem". The most significant works devoted to phase problem are published by Gerchberg and Saxton (1972), Fienup (1978, 10982, 1983), Fienup,Crimmins and Holsztynski (1982), Fienup et al (2006, 2009), Huang, Bruck and Sodin (1979), Hayes (1982), Oppenheim and Lim (1981), Dainty and Fiddy (1984),Sanz and Huang (1983).

# The uniqueness of the solution

In the most general formulation where constraints are imposed only on the spectrum magnitude, the problem of reconstructing the function has an infinite set of solutions. Indeed, any function that has a given spectrum magnitude and an arbitrary spectral phase satisfies these constraints, and, if at least one solution is known, the other can be obtained by convolving this solution with a function that has an arbitrary phase and a spectrum magnitude equal to unity at all frequencies.

However, a significant narrowing of the set of solutions is possible for certain constraints imposed on the function being reconstructed in the spatial domain (Stark 1987). One of these is the constraint imposed on the spatial extent of an object; i.e., the sought-for function must have a finite carrier. Another severe constraint in the spatial domain is the requirement of real valuedness and nonnegativity. Below, in solving the phase retrieval problem, we assume that the sought-for function satisfies these constraints; i.e., it is real and nonnegative and has a finite extent. Further we always will assume that sought-for solution to $x_{ml}$ is non-negative and has rectangular support $R(m,l): m=M_1,...,M_2, l=L1,...,L_2$, where $|M_2-M_1|\le N/2,
|L_2-L_1|\le N/2$ in order to compute spectrum modulus without aliasing.

The finite extent of an object (the finiteness of the function) ensures that the Fourier spectrum is analytic in accordance with the Wiener-Paley theorem (Khurgin and Yakovlev 1971). As a result, this spectrum can be reconstructed from the known part of it, which is used to reconstruct images from the visibility function measured on a limited set of points in the $UV$ plane.

If we determine the class of equivalent functions to within a linear shift and reversal of the argument (rotation through $180^o$), then all of the functions that belong to this class have the same spectrum magnitude. The solution of the phase retrieval problem is assumed to be unique if it was determined to within the class of equivalent functions.

In the case of one-dimensional functions, even these severe constraints on finiteness and nonnegativity do not guarantee a unique reconstruction from the spectrum magnitude. As the dimensionality of the function increases ($n\ge 2$), a unique (to within the class of equivalent functions) solution becomes possible, except for the degenerate cases defined on the set of measure zero (Bruck and Sodin 1979; Hayes 1982). This follows from the qualitative difference between the properties of the $z$ -transformations of one-dimensional and multidimensional sequences.

For a unique solution to exist,the $z$-transformation must be irreducible, which is not achievable in principle in the one-dimensional case and almost always holds in the multidimensional case. Since we deal with two-dimensional images in VLBI, we assume that the solution of the phase retrieval problem exists and is unique. However, the existence of a unique solution does not yet guarantee that the retrieval algorithms converge. The papers by Gerchberg and Saxton (1972)and Fienup (1978) are of greatest importance in developing the theory and algorithms of solving the phase retrieval problem.

# Fienup's error-reduction phase retrieval algorithm

Here we consider one of the most efficient algorithm for image reconstruction from the spectrum magnitude of an object, proposed by Fienup, so called error-reduction algorithm.

Recall that Fienup's error-reduction algorithm (Fig.2) is an iterative process of the passage from the spatial domain of an object to the spatial frequency domain and back (using the direct and inverse Fourier transforms) in an effort to use the input constraints on the spectrum magnitude of the object in the frequency domain and the constraints on its nonnegativity and finite extent in the spatial domain. The finite carrier within which the source is expected to be localized should be specified in the form of a rectangle. Fienup et al.(1982) estimated the size of the carrier from the autocorrelation function equal to the inverse Fourier transform of the square of the spectrum magnitude for the object. Very important advantages of Fienup's algorithm are its high stability against noise (Sanz and Huang 1983) (stability means that a small change in input data causes the solution to change only slightly) and high speed (due to the application of fast Fourier transform algorithms) compared to other algorithms.

In practice, the error-reduction algorithm usually decreases the error rapidly for the first few iterations but much more slowly for later iterations. In all our further experiments we used 100 iterations. But this algorithm does not guarantee conversion to the true solution having stagnation problem and depending on the initial approximation. The problem of convergence is hard particular in case of complicated images. One of examples of stagnation is shown in Fig.3, from which we can see that phase retrieval algorithm did not give true solution. Note that in all experiments dealing with the Fienup's error-reduction algorithm we used $\delta$-function as an initial approximation.

# The role of a reference point

In this section we demonstrate the essential role of a reference point, which may be introduced into the image. As it is seen from Fig.3, in case of absence of some dominated point in the object the phase retrieval algorithm can fail. Fig.4 shows results of phase retrieval for different values of the reference point which is located at the edge of the image as it is shown in Fig.3 (a). We can see from Fig.4 that the increase of the reference point value leads to improving the reconstruction quality. With increase of the reference point value the structure of the object becomes more and more apparent in the images shown in the left column of Fig.4, which are obtained using inverse Fourier transform from original spectral magnitude and zero-valued spectral phase. We can conclude that spectral magnitude contains more information on spectral phase for images with higher reference point values. Therefore Fienup's error-reduction algorithm for such images works much better ensuring unique true solution. Location of a reference point may be arbitrary: outside, at the edge or inside of image. In Fig.5 the case of location of the reference point inside of image is shown.

# Application of Fienup's error-reduction algorithm to imaging AGNs

Above we established that presence in the image of a strong dominated point leads to unique solution of phase retrieval problem. Most of extragalactic radio sources (active galactic nuclei) characterizing by structure morphology "bright compact core + week jet" meet this requirement. Results of modelling of phase retrieval problem for a few sources with different positions and amplitudes of gaussian components are shown in Fig.6. We can see that images obtained from original spectral magnitude and zero-valued spectral phase (column(c)) contain information about real structure (equivalently spectral phase) of an object. Output images of Fienup's phase retrieval algorithm visually do not differ from model images shown in column (a). In all considered cases compact core of sources (at the center of maps) strongly dominate over other components. In case of less dominating of core the result of reconstruction is much worse, as it is demonstrated in Fig.7. So, requirement of strong dominating of compact core over more week components of the source is very important for reliable phase retrieval (equivalently image reconstruction) from only spectral magnitude. Fortunately, practically all AGNs meet this requirement.

# "Phaseless" mapping in VLBI

The algorithms for image reconstruction from the spectral magnitude of an object, the most efficient of which are Fienup's algorithm and its various modifications, require knowledge of the entire input two-dimensional sequence of sampled points. In VLBI, however, the visibility function is measured only on a limited set of points in the $UV$ plane, revealing large unfilled areas and a diffraction-limited constraint. Therefore, prior reconstruction of the visibility magnitude on the entire $UV$ plane from a limited data set is required to successfully use existing reconstruction algorithms like Fienup's algorithm.

Thus,the suggested phaseless aperture synthesis method consists of the following steps:(1)prior reconstruction of the visibility magnitude (the object 's spectrum)on the entire $UV$ plane, and (2)reconstruction of the sought-for image using Fienup's algorithm or its modifications (Fienup 1978,1982; Bajkova 2004,2005) from the spectrum magnitude reconstructed at the first step of the method. The first step is performed through the reconstruction of an intermediate image that satisfies the measured visibility magnitude and a zero phase. Clearly, the intermediate image is symmetric relative to the phase center of the map. The Fourier transform of the image obtained yields the spectrum magnitude of the source extrapolated to the region of the $UV$ plane where there are no measurements.

The intermediate image can be reconstructed from the visibility magnitude by the standard method of analytic continuation of the spectrum using the non-linear CLEAN deconvolution procedures or the maximum entropy method (MEM)(Cornwell et al.1999). Therefore, an important requirement for the visibility magnitude is its analyticity. As we noted in the previous section, this condition is satisfied for most of the compact extragalactic radio sources if the flux from the central compact component dominates over the flux from the remaining fainter components.

Note an important point concerning the use of the maximum entropy method. In contrast to the CLEAN method: the solution based on the standard MEM is strictly positive, while the sought-for intermediate image with a zero spectral phase is generally alternating, taking on both positive and negative values.

For reconstruction of images of real sign-variable and complex functions the generalized maximum entropy method has been developed by Baikova (1992) (see also Frieden, Bajkova (1994)). This method is implemented in the Pulkovo VLBI data reduction software package VLBImager.

Note also that because the GMEM is designed for the reconstruction of sign-variable functions, it allows one to obtain unbiased solutions. The bias of the solution is one of the problems of the conventional MEM (Cornwell et al. 1999), which may lead to a substantial nonlinear distortion of the final image if the data contain errors.

For the GMEM, the Shannon-entropy functional has the form $$\begin{aligned}
E(\alpha) = -\int(x^p(t) ln(\alpha x^p(t)) + x^n(t) ln(\alpha
x^n(t))) dt,\\
x^p(t)> 0, x^n(t) > 0,
\end{aligned}$$ where $x^p(t)$ and $x^n(t)$ are the positive and negative components of the sought-for image $x(t)$ (Fig.8), i.e. the equation $x(t) = x^p(t) - x^n(t)$ holds. $\alpha$ \> 0 is a parameter responsible for the accuracy of the separation of the negative and positive components of the solution $x(t)$, and therefore critical for the resulting image fidelity.

It is easy to show (Baikova 1992) that solutions for $x^p(t)$ and $x^n(t)$ obtained with the Lagrange optimization method are connected by the expression $x^p(t)\times x^n(t) = exp(-2 - 2
ln\alpha) = K(\alpha)$, which depends only on the parameter $\alpha$. This parameter is responsible for dividing the positive and negative parts of the solution: the larger $\alpha$ is, the more accurate is the discrimination. On the other hand, the value of $\alpha$ is constrained by computational limitations.

Results of modelling of "phaseless" VLBI mapping using the GMEM and Fienup's phase retrieval algorithm for three model sources are shown in Fig.9. As can be seen, the results obtained are of quite satisfactory quality. It is necessary to note, that solution of the phase problem in case of incomplete magnitude data significantly depend on accuracy of GMEM intermediate images. Result of the GMEM reconstruction depends on quality of data. We investigated quality of imaging for typical level of additive noise and different level of amplitude errors in visibility data. Results are shown in Fig.10. We can see that the reconstruction method is very stable to errors in data and even in the case of large amplitude errors we have output images which adequately reflect basic features of the source.

The proposed technique was used for mapping seven selected AGNs characterized by complicated structure of jets. We used VLBA data from NRAO archive. Corresponding $UV$ coverages, intermediate GMEM images and final images obtained using Fienup's phase retrieval procedure are shown in Fig.11-17. These Figures contain all basic information on both input data and images obtained. We can see, that all intermediate images contain true information about structure of jets what led to easy reconstruction of spectral phase of sources on the final stage of reconstruction using Fienup's algorithm. The images obtained are in good agreement with ones published in literature what indicates high reliability of our approach for VLBI imaging.

# Modelling of "phaseless" mapping for "RadioAstron" mission

Here we consider the problem of mapping with ultra-high angular resolution using a space–ground radio interferometer with a space antenna in a high orbit, whose apogee height exceeds the radius of the Earth by a factor of tens. "RadioAstron" mission (Kardashev 1997) represents such a system. Its basic parameters (http:// www. asc. rssi. ru/radioastron/description/
orbit_eng.htm) are presented in Fig.18.

In this case, a multi-element interferometer essentially degenerates into a two-element interferometer (Fig.19(a)). The degeneracy of the close-phase relations prevents the use of standard methods for hybrid mapping and self-calibration for the correct reconstruction of images. We suggest that our "phaseless" mapping approach based on methods for the reconstruction of images from only visibility magnitudes (in the complete absence of phase information) can be used in order to achieve the highest resolution of the system.

In Fig.19(b-c) results of modelling of the "phaseless" mapping of compact radio source having week jet component is shown. Nevertheless the $UV$ coverage of the system is very poor (see Fig.19(a)) the main featured of the source structure were recovered.

# Conclusions

1.AGNs with structure "bright core + weak jet" are quite suitable objects for "phaseless" VLBI mapping based on standard reconstruction procedures (MEM or CLEAN for deconvolution and Fienup's iterative algorithm for phase retrieval).

2."Phaseless" mapping is urgent for "RadioAstron" mission because of degenerate closure phases. In order to realize the highest resolution ensured by high-orbit space-ground radio interferometer, it is necessary to use methods for retrieving phase information directly from visibility magnitude measurements.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the "Nonstationary Phenomena in Objects of the Universe" Program of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences and by the "Multiwavelength Astrophysical Research" grant no. NSh–16245.2012.2 from the President of the Russian Federation.


abstract: The 'Little Bangs' made in particle collider experiments reproduce the conditions in the Big Bang when the age of the Universe was a fraction of a second. It is thought that matter was generated, the structures in the Universe were formed and cold dark matter froze out during this very early epoch when the equation of state of the Universe was dominated by the quark-gluon plasma (QGP). Future Little Bangs may reveal the mechanism of matter generation and the nature of cold dark matter. Knowledge of the QGP will be an essential ingredient in quantitative understanding of the very early Universe.
address: Theory Division, Physics Department, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
author: John Ellis
title: From Little Bangs to the Big Bang

.

# The Universe is Expanding

The expansion of the Universe was first established by Hubble's discovery that distant galaxies are receding from us, with redshifts proportional to their relative distances from us. Extrapolating the present expansion backwards, there is good evidence that the Universe was once 3000 times smaller and hotter than today, provided by the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. This has a thermal distribution and is very isotropic, and is thought to have been released when electrons combined with ions from the primordial electromagnetic plasma to form atoms. The observed small dipole anisotropy is due to the Earth's motion relative to this cosmic microwave background, and the very small anisotropies found by the COBE satellite are thought to have led to the formation of structures in the Universe, as discussed later .

Extrapolating further back in time, there is good evidence that the Universe was once a billion times smaller and hotter than today, provided by the abundances of light elements cooked in the Big Bang . The Universe contains about 24 $\%$ by mass of $^4$He, and somewhat less Deuterium, $^3$He and $^7$Li. These could only have been cooked by nuclear reactions in the very early Universe, when it was a billion times smaller and hotter than today. The detailed light-element abundances depend on the amount of matter in the Universe, and comparison between observations and calculations suggests that there is not enough matter to stop the present expansion, or even to explain the amount of matter in the galaxies and their clusters. The calculations of the light-element abundances also depend on the number of particle types, and in particular on the number of different neutrino types. This is now known from particle collider experiments to be three , with a corresponding number of charged leptons and quark pairs.

# The Very Early Universe and the Quark-Gluon Plasma

When the Universe was very young: $t \to 0$, also the scale factor $a$ characterizing its size would have been very small: $a \to 0$, and the temperature $T$ would have been very large, with characteristic relativistic particle energies $E \sim T$. In normal adiabatic expansion, $T \sim 1/a$, and, while the energy density of the Universe was dominated by relativistic matter, $t \sim 1/T^2$. The following are some rough orders of magnitude: when the Universe had an age $t \sim 1$ second, the temperature was $T \sim 10,000,000,000$ degrees, and characteristic thermal energies were $E \sim 1$ MeV, comparable with the mass of the electron. It is clear that one needs particle physics to describe the earlier history of the Universe .

The very early Universe was presumably filled with primordial quark-gluon plasma (QGP). When the Universe was a few microseconds old, it is thought to have exited from this QGP phase, with the available quarks and gluons combining to make mesons and baryons. The primordial QGP would have had a very low baryon chemical potential $\mu$. Experiments with RHIC reproduce cosmological conditions more closely than did previous SPS experiments, as seen in Fig. , and the LHC will provide  an even closer approximation to the primordial QGP. I shall not discuss here the prospects for discovering quark matter inside dense astrophysical objects such as neutron stars, which would have a much larger baryon chemical potential.

To what extent can information about the early Universe cast light on the quark-hadron phase transition? The latest lattice simulations of QCD with two light flavours $u, d$ and one moderately heavy flavour $s$ suggest that there was no strong first-order transition. Instead, there was probably a cross-over between the quark and hadron phases, see, for example, Fig.  , during which the smooth expansion of the Universe is unlikely to have been modified substantially. Specifically, it is not thought that this transition would have induced inhomogeneities large enough to have detectable consequences today.

# Open Cosmological Questions

The Standard Model of cosmology leaves many important questions unanswered. *Why is the Universe so big and old?* Measurements by the WMAP satellite, in particular, indicate that its age is about 14,000,000,000 years . *Why is its geometry nearly Euclidean?* Recent data indicate that it is almost flat, close to the borderline for eternal expansion. *Where did the matter come from?* The cosmological nucleosynthesis scenario indicates that there is approximately one proton in the Universe today for every 1,000,000,000 photons, and no detectable amount of antimatter. *How did cosmological structures form?* If they did indeed form from the ripples observed in the CMB, how did these originate? *What is the nature of the invisible dark matter thought to fill the Universe?* Its presence is thought to have been essential for the amplification of the primordial perturbations in the CMB.

It is clear that one needs particle physics to answer these questions, and that their solutions would have operated in a Universe filled with QGP.

# A Strange Recipe for a Universe

According to the 'Concordance Model' suggested by a multitude of astrophysical and cosmological observations, the total density of the Universe is very close to the critical value: $\Omega_{Tot} = 1.02 \pm
0.02$, as illustrated in Fig.  . The theory of cosmological inflation suggests that the density should be indistinguishable from the critical value, and this is supported by measurements of the CMB. On the other hand, the baryon density is small, as inferred not only from Big-Bang nucleosynthesis but also and independently from the CMB: $\Omega_{Baryons} \sim \rm{few} \%$. The CMB information on these two quantities comes from observations of peaks in the fluctuation spectrum in specific partial waves corresponding to certain angular scales: the position of the first peak is sensitive to $\Omega_{Tot}$, and the relative heights of subsequent peaks are sensitive to $\Omega_{Baryons}$. The fraction $\Omega_m$ of the critical density provided by all forms of matter is not very well constrained by the CMB data alone, but is quite tightly constrained by combining them with observations of high-redshift supernovae  and/or large-scale structures , each of which favours $\Omega_{Matter} \sim 0.3$, as also seen in Fig. .

As seen in Fig. , there is good agreement between BBN calculations and astrophysical observations for the Deuterium and $^4$He abundances . The agreement for $^7$Li is less striking, though not disastrously bad [^1]. The good agreement between the corresponding determinations of $\Omega_{Baryons}$ obtained from CMB and Big-Bang nucleosynthesis calculations in conventional homogeneous cosmology imposes important constraints on inhomogeneous models of nucleosynthesis. In particular, they exclude the possibility that $\Omega_{Baryons}$ might constitute a large fraction of $\Omega_{Tot}$. Significant inhomogeneities might have been generated at the quark-hadron phase transition, if it was strongly first-order . Although, as already discussed, lattice calculations suggest that this is rather unlikely, heavy-ion collision experiments must be the final arbiter on the nature of the quark-hadron phase transition.

# Generating the Matter in the Universe

As was pointed out by Sakharov , there are three essential requirements for generating the matter in the Universe via microphysics. First, one needs a difference between matter and antimatter interactions, as has been observed in the laboratory in the forms of violations of C and CP in the weak interactions. Secondly, one needs interactions that violate the baryon and lepton numbers, which are present as non-perturbative electroweak interactions and in grand unified theories, but have not yet been seen. Finally, one needs a breakdown of thermal equilibrium, which is possible during a cosmological phase transition, for example at the GUT or electroweak scale, or in the decays of heavy particles, such as a heavy singlet neutrino $\nu_R$ . The issue then is whether we will be able to calculate the resulting matter density in terms of laboratory measurements. Unfortunately, the Standard Model C and CP violation measured in the quark sector seem unsuitable for baryogenesis, and the electroweak phase transition in the Standard Model would have been second order. However, additional CP violation and a first-order phase transition in an extended electroweak Higgs sector might have been able to generate the matter density , and could be testable at the LHC and/or ILC. An alternative is CP violation in the lepton sector, which could be probed in neutrino oscillation experiments, albeit indirectly, or possibly in the charged-lepton sector, which might be related more directly to the matter density .

In any case, detailed knowledge of the QGP equation of state would be necessary if one were ever to hope to be able to calculate the baryon-to-entropy ratio with an accuracy of a few percent.

# The Formation of Structures in the Universe

The structures seen in the Universe - clusters, galaxies, stars and eventually ourselves - are all thought to have developed from primordial fluctuations in the CMB. This idea is supported visually by observations of galaxies, which look smooth at the largest scales at high redshifts, but cluster at smaller scales at low redshifts . This scenario requires amplification of the small fluctuations observed in the CMB, which is possible with massive non-relativistic weakly-interacting particles. On the other hand, relativistic light neutrinos would have escaped from smaller structures, and so are disfavoured as amplifiers. Non-relativistic 'cold dark matter' is preferred, as seen in a comparison of the available data on structures in the Universe with the cosmological Concordance Model .

The hot news in the observational tests of this scenario has been the recent detection of baryonic ripples from the Big Bang , as seen in Fig. . These are caused by sound waves spreading out from irregularities in the CMB, which show up in the correlation function between structures in the (near-)contemporary Universe as features with a characteristic size. In addition to supporting the scenario of structure formation by amplification of CMB fluctuations, these observations provide measurements of the expansion history and equation of state of the Universe.

# Do Neutrinos Matter?

Oscillation experiments tell us that neutrinos have very small but non-zero masses , and so must make up at least some of the dark matter. As already mentioned, since such light neutrinos move relativistically during the epoch of structure formation, they would have escaped from galaxies and not contributed to their formation, whereas they could have contributed to the formation of clusters. Conversely, the success of the cosmological Concordance Model enables one to set a cosmological upper limit on the sum of light neutrino masses, as seen in Fig. : $\Sigma_\nu m_\nu < 0.7$ eV , which is considerably more sensitive than direct laboratory searches. In the future, this cosmological sensitivity might attain the range indicated by atmospheric neutrino data .

However, even if no dark matter effect of non-zero light neutrino masses is observed, this does not mean that neutrinos have no cosmological role, since unstable heavier neutrinos might have generated matter via the Sakharov mechanism .

# Particle Dark Matter Candidates

Candidates for the non-relativistic cold dark matter required to amplify CMB fluctuations include the *axion* , TeV-scale *weakly-interacting massive particles* (WIMPs) produced thermally in the early Universe, such as the lightest supersymmetric partner of a Standard Model particle (probably the lightest neutralino $\chi$), the *gravitino* (which is likely mainly to have been produced in the very early Universe, possibly thermally), and *superheavy relic particles* that might have been produced non-thermally in the very early Universe  (such as the 'cryptons' predicted in some string models ).

# Supersymmetric Dark Matter

Supersymmetry is a very powerful symmetry relating fermionic 'matter' particles to bosonic 'force' particles . Historically, the original motivations for supersymmetry were purely theoretical: its intrinsic beauty, its ability to tame infinities in perturbation theory, etc. The first phenomenological motivation for supersymmetry at some accessible energy was that it might also help explain the electroweak mass scale, by stabilizing the hierarchy of mass scales in physics . It was later realized also that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) would be stable in many models . Moreover, it should weigh below about 1000 GeV, in order to stabilize the mass hierarchy, in which case its relic density would be similar to that required for cold dark matter . As described below, considerable effort is now put into direct laboratory searches for supersymmetry, as well as both direct and indirect astrophysical searches.

Here I concentrate on the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM), in which the Standard Model particles acquire superpartners and there are two doublets of Higgs fields. The interactions in the MSSM are completely determined by supersymmetry, but one must postulate a number of soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters, in order to accommodate the mass differences between conventional particles and their superpartners. These parameters include scalar masses $m_0$, gaugino masses $m_{1/2}$, and trilinear soft couplings $A_0$. It is often assumed that these parameters are universal, so that there is a single $m_0$, a single $m_{1/2}$, and a single $A_0$ parameter at the input GUT scale, a scenario called the constrained MSSM (CMSSM). However, there is no deep theoretical justification for this universality assumption, except in minimal supergravity models. These models also make a prediction for the gravitino mass: $m_{3/2} = m_0$, which is not necessarily the case in the general CMSSM.

As already mentioned, the lightest supersymmetric particle is stable in many models, this because of the multiplicative conservation of $R$ parity, which is a combination of spin $S$, lepton number $L$ and baryon number $B$: $R = (-1)^{2S - L + 3B}$. It is easy to check that conventional particles have $R = +1$ and sparticles have $R = -1$. As a result, sparticles are always produced in pairs, heavier sparticles decay into lighter ones, and the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is stable.

The LSP cannot have strong or electromagnetic interactions, because these would bind it to conventional matter, creating bound states that would be detectable as anomalous heavy nuclei. Among the possible weakly-interacting scandidates for the LSP, one finds the *sneutrino*, which has been excluded by a combination of LEP and direct searches for astrophysical dark matter, the lightest *neutralino* $\chi$, and the *gravitino*. There are good prospects for detecting the neutralino or gravitino in collider experiments, and neutralino dark matter may also be detectable either directly or indirectly, but gravitino dark matter would be a nightmare for detection.

# Constraints on Supersymmetry

Important constraints on supersymmetry are imposed by the absences of sparticles at LEP and the Tevatron collider, implying that sleptons and charginos should weigh $> 100$ GeV , and that squarks and gluinos should weigh $> 250$ GeV, respectively. Important indirect constraints are imposed by the LEP lower limit on the mass of the lightest Higgs boson, 114 GeV , and the experimental measurement of $b \to s \gamma$ decay , which agrees with the Standard Model. The measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, $g_\mu - 2$, also has the potential to constrain supersymmetry, but the significance of this constraint is uncertain, in the absence of agreement between the $e^+ e^-$ annihilation and $\tau$ decay data used to estimate the Standard Model contribution to $g_\mu - 2$ . Finally, one of the strongest constraints on the supersymmetric parameter space is that imposed by the density of dark matter inferred from astrophysical and cosmological observations. If this is composed of the lightest neutralino $\chi$, one has $0.094 < \Omega_\chi h^2 <
0.129$ , and it cannot in any case be higher than this. For generic domains of the supersymmetric parameter space, this range constrains $m_0$ with an accuracy of a few per cent as a function of $m_{1/2}$, as seen in Fig.  .

# The Relic Density and the Quark-Gluon Plasma

The accurate calculation of the relic density depends not only on the supersymmetric model parameters, but also on the effective Hubble expansion rate as the relic particles annihilate and freeze out of thermal equilibrium : $$\dot{n} + 3 Hn = - <\sigma_{ann} v > \, (n^2 - n^2_{eq}).$$ This is, in turn, sensitive to the effective number of particle species: $$Y_0 \simeq \left ( \frac{45}{\pi} \right )^{\frac{1}{2}} \;
\frac{1}{m M_P <\sigma_{ann} v >_{T_f} g_*^{1/2} (T_f)}$$ where $$g_*^{1/2} (T) =
\frac{H_{eff}}{g_{eff}}^{\frac{1}{2}} \left ( 1 + \frac{T}{3} \frac{d
{\rm ln} h_{eff}}{dT} \right ).$$ To calculate this at the per-cent level, one needs to understand with comparable accuracy the equation of state of hot QCD around the freeze-out temperature , which is typically $\sim m_\chi / 20
\sim$ a few GeV. Fig.  the comparison between the predictions of different equations of state for $h_{eff}$: it would be good to reach consensus on at the per-cent level.

# Supersymmetry Searches at the LHC

A 'typical' CMSSM event should be relatively 'easy' to see at the LHC, as it should have a lot of 'missing' transverse energy carried away by invisible neutralinos, accompanied by several jets and/or leptons. Many studies have shown that the LHC should be able to cover most of the region of parameter space allowed by cosmology , as seen in Fig.  . Moreover, the LHC should be able to see several species of supersymmetric particles, which might make possible the *a priori* calculation of the relic density with an uncertainty comparable to that provided by astrophysical and cosmological data . Minimal supergravity models might be even easier to discover, since in generic domains of parameter space the next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle would live a long time before it decayed into the gravitino , liberating a large amount of energy that could be measured in a dedicated detector .

# Strategies for Detecting Supersymmetric Dark Matter

These include searches for the annihilations of relic particles in the galactic halo:$\chi \chi \to$ antiprotons or positrons, annihilations in the galactic centre: $\chi \chi \to \gamma + \dots$, annihilations in the core of the Sun or the Earth: $\chi \chi \to \nu + \cdots \to \mu +
\cdots$ , and scattering on nuclei in the laboratory: $\chi A \to chi A$.

After some initial excitement, recent observations of cosmic-ray antiprotons are consistent with production by primary matter cosmic rays. Moreover, the spectra of annihilation positrons calculated in a number of CMSSM benchmark models  seem to fall considerably below the cosmic-ray background . Some of the spectra of photons from annihilations in Galactic Centre, as calculated in the same set of CMSSM benchmark scenarios, may rise above the expected cosmic-ray background, albeit with considerable uncertainties due to the unknown enhancement of the cold dark matter density. In particular, the GLAST experiment may have the best chance of detecting energetic annihilation photons , as seen in the left panel of Fig. . Annihilations in the Solar System also offer detection prospects in some of the benchmark scenarios, particularly annihilations inside the Sun, which might be detectable in experiments such as AMANDA, NESTOR, ANTARES and particularly IceCUBE, as seen in the right panel of Fig.  .

The rates for elastic dark matter scattering cross sections calculated in the CMSSM are typically considerably below the present upper limit imposed by the CDMS II experiment, in both the benchmark scenarios and the global fit to CMSSM parameters based on present data . However, if the next generation of direct searches for elastic scattering can reach a sensitivity of $10^{-10}$ pb, they should be able to detect supersymmetric dark matter in many supersymmetric scenarios. Fig.  compares the cross sections calculated under a relatively optimistic assumption for the relevant hadronic matrix element $\sigma_{\pi N} =
64$ MeV, for choices of CMSSM parameters favoured at the 68 % (90 %) confidence level in a recent analysis using the observables $m_W, \sin^2
\theta_W, b \to s \gamma$ and $g_\mu - 2$ .

# Connections between the Big Bang and Little Bangs

Astrophysical and cosmological observations during the past few years have established a Concordance Model of cosmology, whose matter content is quite accurately determined. Most of the present energy density of the Universe is in the form of dark vacuum energy, with about 25 $\%$ in the form of dark matter, and only a few $\%$ in the form of conventional baryonic matter. Two of the most basic questions raised by this Concordance Model are the nature of the dark matter and the origin of matter.

Only experiments at particle colliders are likely to be able to answer these and other fundamental questions about the early Universe. In particular, experiments at the LHC will recreate quark-gluon plasma conditions similar to those when the Universe was less than a microsecond old , and will offer the best prospects for discovering whether the dark matter is composed of supersymmetric particles . LHC experiments will also cast new light on the cosmological matter-antimattter asymmetry . Moreover, discovery of the Higgs boson will take us closer to the possibilities for inflation and dark energy.

There are many connections between the Big Bang and the little bangs we create with particle colliders. These connections enable us both to learn particle physics from the Universe, and to use particle physics to understand the Universe.

# References

[^1]: It seems unlikely that the low abundance of $^7$Li observed could have been modified significantly by the decays of heavy particles : it would be valuable to refine the astrophysical determinations.