abstract: Solar Atmosphere, Corona, Magnetic Fields, Coronal Heating Magnetic fields permeate the entire solar atmosphere weaving an extremely complex pattern on both local and global scales. In order to understand the nature of this tangled web of magnetic fields, its magnetic skeleton, which forms the boundaries between topologically-distinct flux domains, may be determined. The magnetic skeleton consists of null points, separatrix surfaces, spines and separators. The skeleton is often used to clearly visualise key elements of the magnetic configuration, but parts of the skeleton are also locations where currents and waves may collect and dissipate.
  .
  In this review, the nature of the magnetic skeleton on both global and local scales, over solar cycle time scales, is explained. The behaviour of wave pulses in the vicinity of both nulls and separators are discussed and so too is the formation of current layers and reconnection at the same features. Each of these processes leads to heating of the solar atmosphere, but collectively do they provide enough heat, spread over a wide enough area, to explain the energy losses throughout the solar atmosphere? Here, we consider this question for the three different solar regions: active regions, open-field regions and the quiet-Sun.
  .
  We find that the heating of active regions and open-field regions are highly unlikely to be due to reconnection or wave dissipation at topological features, but it is possible that these may play a role in the heating of the quiet-Sun. In active regions, the absence of a complex topology may play an important role in allowing large energies to build up and then, subsequently, be explosively released in the form of a solar flare. Additionally, knowledge of the intricate boundaries of open-field regions (which the magnetic skeleton provides) could be very important in determining the main acceleration mechanism(s) of the solar wind.
author: Clare E. Parnell$^1$, Julie E.H. Stevenson$^1$, James Threlfall$^1$ and Sarah J. Edwards$^{1,2}$
bibliography: references.bib
title: Is Magnetic Topology Important for Heating the Solar Atmosphere?

# Introduction

The question of how the solar corona (or indeed any stellar object with a hot corona) may be heated has been considered for many decades , but still remains unanswered. One significant advance has been the recognition that explaining simply how the corona alone is heated is insufficient; the real question is how does the whole solar atmospheric system (the photosphere, chromosphere, transition region and corona) interact and interlink in order to sustain a hot corona? Throughout this volume there are many articles that look to address different aspects of this problem. In this article, we focus on magnetic topology and the role it plays (if any) in the heating of the solar atmosphere.

Magnetic topology incorporates all properties of a magnetic field that are preserved by ideal displacements. For instance, examples of topological features are: the linkage and knottedness of field lines, null points, their associated separatrix surfaces and spines, as well as separators (see Sec. ). The topology of a magnetic field is not changed by stretching it; it can only change through the process of reconnection. Indeed, a change in topology implies reconnection.

Almost a decade ago a review article was published on aspects of magnetic topology . Since then, there have been many developments on two fronts: (i) our understanding of the nature of the topology of both global and local coronal magnetic fields and (ii) the role particular topological features play in processes such as magnetic reconnection or wave dissipation. Before reviewing these developments, the basic elements of 3D magnetic topology are outlined in Sec. . Then, in Sec. , we investigate the nature of the magnetic skeleton of the global coronal magnetic field, and how it varies over the solar cycle, as well as consider how the magnetic skeleton may evolve under magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) conditions.

The energy required to heat the solar atmosphere is injected through the photosphere from the convection zone below. This energy arrives in two main forms: rapid motions which incite waves to travel up into the atmosphere or slow motions that cause a gradual stressing of the magnetic field. In Sec. , we discuss the impact these different driving motions have on the elements of the magnetic skeleton. Finally, in Sec. , we discuss what the consequences of these results are for heating the solar atmosphere and, thus, address the question: is magnetic topology important for coronal heating?

# Basic Elements of the 3D Magnetic Skeleton

In order to determine the complexity of a magnetic field in 3D, it is beneficial to determine its magnetic skeleton; this comprises of several features. Magnetic *null points* are locations where all three components of the magnetic field equal zero. An infinite number of field lines extend from(/to) a null point forming a surface, known as a *separatrix surface*, and a pair of lines extend into(/out from) the null, known as *spines*. If the field lines in the separatrix surface are directed out of the null, then the spine field lines will be directed inward, and the null is known as a 'positive null'. If these field line orientations are reversed, the null is said to be 'negative'. For true 3D magnetic null points no other scenarios are possible, as the magnetic field must be divergence-free . Both the local magnetic field near the null and field lines in the separatrix surfaces can take on a range of geometries; these were categorised by .

Special field lines, called *separators*, may link connecting pairs of null points. These can be formed in several different ways, but the only generic type of separator is that formed by the intersection of two separatrix surfaces from opposite-polarity null points. Fig. a illustrates each of these features in a simple magnetic field involving two null points (one positive, the other negative), their associated separatrix surfaces and spines, and a separator linking the two nulls.

Fig. b illustrates the same magnetic configuration as that shown in Fig. a, but only for several field lines which do not approach the separator. It is interesting to note that these field lines map out a feature, which, if viewed from above, would look like the field about a 2D X-point. There are a number of observations of coronal loops that may be/are interpreted as X-point like; an early example from TRACE is shown in Fig. . In general, similar coronal loop formations have been attributed to there being a null point at the 'X' , however, it is possible that a separator may be present instead.

The local separator magnetic field in planes perpendicular to separators is not always X-type, but may be O-type, if there is a sufficiently large component of current parallel to the separator . In such cases, any magnetic field lines that have undergone separator reconnection (thus having presumably been heated) and so are potentially visible in coronal images, would not show an O-type form. This is because these field lines are actually helical in nature (with a much stronger magnetic field component along the separator than the O-type component perpendicular to it) and, therefore, twist about the separator. So in these cases the expected signature would be a narrow, long, twisted loop-like structure.

Null points in the corona are, of course, 3D not 2D, but in many instances they may appear 2D, if the field lines in the separatrix surface are strongly aligned along one line . More importantly, null points are local magnetic structures that are identified by determining where ${\bf B}={\bf 0}$. So, by definition, they are single points. Separators, on the other hand, are global magnetic structures and cannot be identified directly by local measurements of the magnetic field. They form lines and, thus, have a far greater spatial extent than null points. In particular, as shown in Sec. , there are many large-scale separators that arch through the solar atmosphere achieving lengths that are longer than a solar radius.

In the recent work of , the location of coronal null points, identified from low-resolution potential field source surface (PFSS) extrapolations, are compared with AIA observations of the Sun's coronal field. In about 31% of the cases, found that the AIA observations showed structures, such as X-type loop patterns, that could be interpreted as the configuration associated with a null point. However, since separators are field lines that generally extend from or to a null point, it is not unreasonable to imagine that in a proportion of the above cases, the coronal signature may reveal the location of a separator, rather than a null point. It would be interesting to redo this analysis with the locations of the separators also identified.

# 3D Coronal Topologies: Global & Local

All topological features are fundamentally associated with magnetic null points[^1]. The numbers of coronal null points that exist in potential magnetic field configurations, created by direct extrapolation from observed quiet-Sun regions, have been determined exactly by locating all the nulls or estimated using a spectral method . Recently, the nulls that occur in PFSS models of the global coronal magnetic field have been counted.

Studies, whose focus is the determination of the number of separators or even the complete magnetic skeleton, are uncommon. investigated the

separators found in regions of quiet-Sun, but the most comprehensive survey to date of magnetic skeletons is by .

## Topological Structures of Global Coronal Fields

determined the numbers of coronal null points and separators in 496 global coronal potential fields, taken once every Carrington rotation (CR), spanning three solar cycles. The potential fields were constructed from spherical harmonics (with a maximum harmonic number $l=81$) using a PFSS model, where synoptic magnetograms, taken at Kitt Peak by the NSO Vacuum Telescope and SOLIS (low resolution), were used to define the magnetic field on the solar surface and the source surface was taken at $R=2.5R_\odot$. Two example magnetic skeletons of global fields constructed from high-resolution SOLIS magnetographs are shown in Fig. .

The study by revealed a number of interesting features. (i) Null points above active regions occur at much higher heights than quiet-Sun nulls. (ii) The number of coronal nulls varies out-of-phase with the solar cycle. In the two examples shown in Fig. , there are 1964 nulls in the solar-minimum case, CR2083, and almost half that number, 1131 nulls, in the solar-maximum case, CR2130. This result is the opposite of that found by and who find that null-point numbers vary in phase with the solar cycle. However, neither of these studies consider small-scale magnetic features. In , simulated (rather than observed) magnetograms are used from a flux transport model in which only active regions (i.e. large-scale structures) are emerged into an otherwise smooth magnetic field. In , the global extrapolations are from observed magnetograms and have a maximum harmonic number of just $l=30$, so small-scale structures are missed. This means these two studies can only reliably find nulls at high altitudes, which preferentially occur above active regions. (iii) More null points are found during solar minima with weak polar fields than minima with strong polar fields.

During solar minima, there are large expanses of quiet-Sun photospheric field that are filled with small-scale magnetic features of both polarities. These produce a complex tangled network of closed coronal field which contains many null points (see Fig. e). These quiet-Sun fields are surrounded by the dipolar field originating from the Sun's polar regions. If the polar fields are strong then the dipole field will dominate, providing a strong confinement of the quiet-Sun fields and thus limiting quiet-Sun nulls to low heights. On the other hand, if the polar fields are weak, then the dipolar field does not constrain the quiet-Sun field allowing the nulls within it to reside at higher heights above the solar surface. This indicates that during weak polar-field minima (such as the minimum period between cycles 23 and 24) nulls are likely to occur at higher altitudes. Nulls at higher altitudes are more reliably identified, hence, in the work of more nulls are found during the weakest polar-field minimum investigated.

The separators found in global PFSS models come in two forms : those that connect pairs of coronal nulls (called null-null separators) and those that connect a coronal null to the ring of nulls that forms the base of the heliospheric current sheet (HCS) on the outer boundary (source surface) of the model. Figs. c and d show cuts at the source surface, through the magnetic skeleton of the two global fields shown in Figs. a and b. The HCS null line is the thick green line in these cuts. There are more null-null separators found during solar minimum than during solar maximum. For instance, 1997 separators are found in CR2083 (solar minimum) of which 1946 are null-null and 51 are null-HCS and just 808 separators, in CR2130 (solar maximum) of which 765 are null-null and 43 null-HCS. The number of null-HCS separators is not strongly dependent on the solar cycle.

Finally, we note that not only do separatrix surfaces emanate from individual coronal nulls, but they also extend out from the HCS null line (green lines in Figs. a, b, e and f) separating regions of open field from regions of closed field . At solar minimum, the HCS null line is approximately equatorial, however, at solar maximum, it is highly warped and may cross the poles (Fig. d). Furthermore, it can split into two or more disconnected loops .

The HCS null line arises because the magnetic field outside the source surface is assumed to be purely radial: where the radial field changes direction a null line forms. In reality, the magnetic field of the solar atmosphere does not all become purely radial at a single radius above the surface and so a null line will never occur in practice. Instead, additional coronal nulls will occur with their associated separatrix surfaces. This means that in reality there will be no null-HCS separators, just additional null-null separators connecting nulls low down in the solar atmosphere to nulls lying above $2.5 R_\odot$. It is not immediately clear how many null-HCS separators currently found will become null-null separators, as opposed to simply disappearing, nor is it clear whether additional null-null separators will be created between nulls above $2.5 R_\odot$ and nulls below $2.5 R_\odot$ that currently do not have null-HCS separators. Further work is required to understand the nature of far coronal magnetic field.

## Topological Structures in MHD Experiments

Studies of magnetic topology and null point numbers typically focus on potential magnetic fields. However, there have been a small number of studies investigating the magnetic skeletons of magnetic fields created in highly-dynamic numerical MHD experiments . By highly dynamic, we mean that the magnetic fields undergo significant changes, rather than they evolve at a particularly fast rate.

The experiment considered by and involved the emergence of a twisted flux rope from below the solar surface up into an overlying horizontal coronal magnetic field angled at 135$^o$ to the axis of the flux tube . In the experiment, the centre of the flux tube was made buoyant such that it rose up and interacted with the overlying field. Initially there were no nulls within the system, but the interaction between the flux tube and coronal field led to the creation of two null clusters, each containing multiple null points, either side of the emerged flux tube . The null points within each null cluster were linked together by single short separators, like beads on a string. All but four nulls were short lived, with the associated cluster separators being equally short lived as the nulls they connect. The long-lived nulls (two of the same sign inside each null cluster) were connected by a multitude of long separators (up to several hundred) that link from one null cluster to the other arching up over the emerged flux tube (Fig. a). Each separator lies at the interface between four topological domains containing: overlying field, flux-tube field and field that connects from the flux tube to the overlying field and vice-versa. These long separators, called intercluster separators, typically survived much longer than the short-lived nulls and cluster separators, but only a few had lifetimes comparable to that of the long lived nulls.

undertook a thorough analysis of the topology, quasi-separatrix layers , and the primary sites of reconnection in this 3D numerical experiment. QSLs are geometrical rather than topological features of the magnetic field. Neighbouring field lines within a QSL will have foot points that are far apart. The extent of the separation of the foot points is measured by the squashing factor, $Q$, which is designed, such that in a given plane, each end of the same field line has the same value of $Q$ . Regions of high $Q$ have been associated with reconnection .

Several field lines (seen in pink/blue in Fig. a) form a twisted flux rope that, at the time of this frame, had emerged and partially reconnected with the overlying field. This is illustrated in Fig. a by the few flux-tube field lines that are open and extend up into the solar atmosphere above. Also seen in Fig. a are the null points (red/blue spheres) in the two null clusters and the separators connecting the nulls within the same null cluster (thick black lines) and connecting nulls in different null clusters (thick multicoloured lines).

To compare the magnetic skeleton, QSLs and sites of reconnection specific quantities were calculated on the plane that cuts through the flux tube at right angles, half-way along its length: this plane was chosen because it intersects all the field lines in the volume. Separatrix surfaces denote the boundaries between regions of different connectivity. In Fig. b, the intersection points of field lines with this plane are coloured one of four colours according to their connectivity: overlying field (red), flux rope (blue), flux rope-overlying (yellow), overlying-flux rope (cyan). The sites of reconnection (Fig. c) were identified by plotting contours of the integral along a field line of the electric field parallel to the field line . Finally, in Fig. d, the value of $Q$ on each field line is indicated, to identify sites where field lines, that start out close to one another, diverge away significantly from each other. Note, to determine Q, both ends of the field line must intersect the photosphere of the model. So, Q is undefined for all overlying field lines, or field lines connected, at one end or the other, to the overlying field.

Comparing Figs. b, c and d, it is clear that the sites of reconnection coincide well with boundaries between different connectivities, i.e., they coincide with topological features. However, even though there are regions of high $Q$ in these locations, there are also several other large regions of high $Q$. In these additional high-$Q$ regions, there is no reconnection. By a careful analysis of the magnetic field in these regions, found that they coincided with significant changes in field line geometry. Therefore, it is important to be cautious about the interpretation of QSLs.

Not all QSLs are sites of reconnection. But it is also the case that elements in the magnetic skeleton are not always sites of reconnection. In order for reconnection to occur, both a favourable magnetic field configuration and favourable plasma conditions are required to create the non-zero parallel electric field that is essential for 3D reconnection. A key question, therefore, is: Can magnetic field conditions favourable for reconnection arise in the absence of either QSLs or elements of the magnetic skeleton?

Firstly, from a practical point of view, in order to determine $Q$ on a field line, both ends must pass through the surface upon which the separation of originally nearby footprints is measured. This is not always the case, as seen in where $Q$ was only defined for field lines that crossed the photosphere at both ends, i.e., $Q$ was found for flux rope field lines, but was undefined for flux rope-overlying, overlying-flux rope or purely overlying field lines. Some of these field lines, for which $Q$ could not be defined, are associated with reconnection (as evidenced by the wings in Fig. c). In this experiment, this reconnection is associated with topological features, but it is possible that, in a different situation where there are no topological features, similar field lines where $Q$ can not be defined may undergo reconnection.

Secondly, there are many reconnection experiments, which have not been analysed to determine one or all of the QSLs, the magnetic skeleton or the $\int E_{||} dl$. Therefore, it is not possible to say where exactly the reconnection is occurring and what it is associated with. In one reconnection experiment by , a very detailed analysis was undertaken. They found that although $Q$ and $\int E_{||} dl$ both had a similar form, the regions of highest $Q$ and highest $\int E_{||} dl$ did not coincide. Further studies of reconnection experiments undertaking similar detailed analysis are required before the exact relationship between $Q$ and $\int E_{||} dl$ may be properly understood.

# Responses to Photospheric Driving

It is well known that the source of energy that heats the solar atmosphere and powers events, large and small, from solar flares and coronal mass ejections down to X-ray bright points and nanoflares, comes from convective motions below the solar surface, which either inject energy during the process of flux emergence, or inject energy by driving photospheric magnetic footpoints. The footpoints may be driven at two different rates. Motions that are faster than the Alfvén speed generate waves which may propagate into the solar atmosphere, whereas motions that are slower than the Alfvén speed cause a stressing of the magnetic field, throughout the atmosphere, that can lead to the generation of current layers. Below, we focus on what happens at elements of the magnetic skeleton in response to these motions.

## Behaviour of Wave Pulses at Topological Features

In recent years, the advent of telescopes with both high spatial and temporal resolution, as well as high sensitivity, such as SoHO/EIT, Hinode/XRT, Hinode/EIS, SDO/AIA and CoMP, have enabled a vast number of wave observations to be made. What happens to waves when they come across features such as nulls, separators or separatrix surfaces? What happens to these topological features when they are hit by waves?

Firstly, we note that the waves which travel across the magnetic field are fast-magnetoacoustic waves. This type of wave travels at a speed, $c_f = \sqrt{v_A^2+c_s^2}$, where $v_A = B/\sqrt{\mu \rho}$ is the Alfvén speed ($B$ is the magnitude of the magnetic field, $\rho$ is the plasma density and $\mu$ is the permeability of free space) and $c_s = \sqrt{p/\rho}$ is the sound speed ($p$ is the plasma pressure).

The solar corona is a low plasma-beta environment, where the magnetic pressure dominates over the plasma pressure, so $v_A\gg c_s$; thus, $c_f\approx v_A$. At a coronal null point, $B = 0$, therefore $v_A=0$ suggesting that a fast-mode wave will be unable to propagate across a null.

explored the behaviour of fast-wave pulses in the vicinity of a 2D null, in a zero-beta plasma, and showed that the wave essentially becomes trapped. However, the speed of the wave also depends on the sound speed. At a coronal null point $c_f = c_s$, which, although small, is non zero and, hence, a fast-mode wave never actually gets trapped at the null. Instead, the wave undergoes mode coupling. This is investigated in the MHD regime by and and in the Hall MHD regime by . In all cases, the trapping or mode coupling of the fast-mode wave gives rise to localised oscillatory reconnection at the null itself, as well as shocks. Both of these cause heating along the field lines that pass close to the null.

Recently, , have studied the behaviour of Alfvén waves (which travel at the Alfvén speed parallel to the field), in the vicinity of both 2D and 3D nulls. Their work suggests that these waves may become phase-mixed near null points, again causing heating.

As discussed above, both Alfvén and fast-magnetoacoustic waves can be affected by the presence of null points . But what happens to waves as they approach separators or separatrix surfaces? This question has never been addressed before, but since the magnetic field does not reduce in strength near a separator or separatrix surface, it is quite possible that these waves simply cross these features without any change in behaviour. It would still, though, be interesting to investigate what, if any, modification in behaviour is found across separators and separatrix surfaces to confirm or deny the above hypothesis.

In this section, we have so far addressed the behaviour of just single wave pulses interacting with null points. However, analytical and numerical modelling has shown us that single pulses in MHD and in Hall MHD are often limiting cases of full wave trains. So these works may be seen, in some sense, as special cases of the situations we discuss below that undergo continuous driving on the boundary.

## Effects of Boundary Driving on Topological Features

The work discussed above considers what happens when a single wave pulse arrives at a null. How do topological features respond to continuous stressing as opposed to a single wave? In situations where the local field about the null is driven slowly away from its initial potential state, waves are created that lead to the collapse of the null, creating a localised current layer and triggering reconnection. An enormous body of work exists studying reconnection at 2D null points triggered by boundary driving . Similarly, reconnection at 3D null points has, in recent years, received quite a bit of attention.

Due to the additional complexity that the third dimension brings, in 3D, the specifics of the boundary perturbation can cause a variety of different current accumulations, that are associated with different types of reconnection . In particular, a 3D potential null point's spine is orthogonal to its separatrix surface. If the angle between the separatrix surface and spine is decreased then this can precipitate a collapse of the null, in the same manner as a 2D null collapses, with a component of current created perpendicular to the plane of the collapse. This causes spine-fan reconnection. If, instead, the separatrix surface is perturbed in such a way that the spine and separatrix surface remain perpendicular, but the field about the spine or about the plane of the separatrix surface is twisted, then instead a current component parallel to the spine is formed. Here, either torsional spine or torsional fan reconnection occurs. The reconnection triggered is different in all three cases. A comprehensive review of 3D null-point reconnection can be found in and . Examples of solar scenarios in which reconnection has been triggered at null points by boundary driving includes work by and , but these cases are all aimed at modelling coronal mass ejections (CMEs) or eruptive events, such as solar flares, rather than studying coronal heating.

The response of magnetic separators and separatrix surfaces to similar boundary driving has received less attention than that for null points (probably because separators and separatrix surfaces are harder to find). However, and study the evolution of the whole magnetic skeleton in driven MHD experiments. showed that boundary driving leads to the build up of currents about the separator and that the resulting reconnection triggered in the current layer naturally leads to the creation of multiple separators connecting the same pair of nulls. also found this behaviour in a completely different system. In both cases, the increase in complexity was required to enable a rapid rate of reconnection, and thus, was also connected with the most intense period of heating. As the reconnection rate decreases, so too does the complexity of the magnetic skeleton. This enhancement in complexity/mixing appears to be a generic feature of fast 3D reconnection and has been found in other MHD reconnection experiments, in the absence of null points , as well as at null points and also in a kinetic reconnection experiment .

## Energy Partitioning due to Reconnection at Topological Features

In the above studies, reconnection was triggered by boundary driving. Here, we consider the studies that have taken a different approach and start instead from force-free and non-force-free MHS equilibria involving current layers where reconnection is initiated by micro-instabilities (in MHD experiments, an anomalous reconnection is applied to mimic the triggering of reconnection by micro-instabilities).

Large Lorentz forces are created within the strong current layers found in non-force-free equilibria. These are counter-balanced by gradients in pressure, providing overall force balance.[^2]

One interesting aspect of these reconnection studies is the ability to follow, in great detail, the energy partitioning and transport resulting from the reconnection. and considered what happens following reconnection in a force-free equilibria with a current sheet located at a 2D null point. They analytically determined that the proportion of magnetic energy going directly into Ohmic heating was much smaller than that converted into kinetic energy and ultimately released by viscous dissipation. Thus, they found that 2D magnetic reconnection (in an initially force-free system) could cause significant heating over a wide region, potentially far from the null point.

On the other-hand, investigations of the energy partitioning resulting from reconnection in non-force-free MHS equilibria with a current sheet at a 2D null point by and find that the kinetic energy created in the system is an order of magnitude less than the changes in magnetic and internal energy. In these studies, Ohmic heating, directly in the vicinity of the null point, dominates over all other forms of heating.

Both high and low plasma-beta cases have been considered[^3], with more energy going into the waves in the low-beta case, than the high-beta case. These waves are created by the sudden loss of force balance and emanate out from the edge of the diffusion region. They are magnetoacoustic in nature and travel at the fast-mode speed everywhere except, along the separatrices (which are field lines), where they travel at the slow-mode speed.

considered a system involving a non-force-free 3D MHS equilibria in which a separator current layer exists with current parallel to the separator. Only high-beta cases have been considered thus far; in all cases the waves and flows generated by the reconnection carry just a fraction of the magnetic energy converted during the reconnection away from the reconnection site. It would be interesting to investigate a low-beta case of separator reconnection, where, there would be no issues about the plasma beta becoming infinite, instead remaining low throughout the reconnection site and surrounding region.

The reconnection proceeds in essentially the same way as it does at a 2D null point. Rapid reconnection occurs within the separator current layer, converting most of the released magnetic energy directly into internal energy via Ohmic heating at the separator. This causes a loss of force balance which generates waves that are launched from the edges of the diffusion region. In planes perpendicular to the separator, these waves behave in a very similar fashion to that seen in the 2D null point case (Fig. ).

In the wake of these waves, the system tries to regain force balance and so flows are generated. These flows drive slow, steady reconnection at the separator, which lasts much longer than the initial fast-reconnection stage. From , it is clear that the separator reconnection does not occur at the 3D null points that lie at either end of the separator, but occurs at some position along its length. The initial seed location of the reconnection is likely to be where the separator current reaches a peak. This could be anywhere along the length of the separator, depending on the nature of the surrounding magnetic field and plasma.

The partitioning of magnetic energy released by reconnection is still an unanswered question, even in the relatively simple MHD regime where the magnetic energy can only become kinetic or internal energy. In reality, it could also be converted into non-thermal energy producing accelerated particles and thus even less will then go into internal or kinetic energy. In order to explain the solar atmospheric heating problem, it is essential that the energy partitioning due to reconnection is properly understood, whether the reconnection occurs at topological features or in their absence.

# Discussion & Conclusions

In this paper, we have given a brief review of both the nature of the topology throughout the corona, as well as discussing the different energy release mechanisms associated with the elements of the magnetic skeleton. Here, we consider the question posed in the title: is magnetic topology important for coronal heating? The answer to this is not straightforward and depends on a number of things, (i) how the question is interpreted, (ii) for what location in the solar atmosphere, and for what period during the solar cycle, the question is posed.

Let us first consider whether the trapping, coupling and dissipation of waves at null points or reconnection at null points, separators and on separatrix surfaces is likely to be important for solar atmospheric heating. As already mentioned, several thousand null points and separators have been found in a single PFSS extrapolation made from high-resolution SOLIS data. Using HMI data even more nulls and associated separators are found . At even higher resolution, we are likely to find millions of nulls and separators in the solar atmosphere at any one time. Additionally, due to the highly-dynamic nature of the solar atmosphere, there will be many more topological features than those identified in potential or (non-)linear force-free magnetic fields. However, the majority of these additional nulls will be located in quiet-Sun regions where the surface magnetic field is immensely complex. In active regions, the surface magnetic field is relatively simple, since it is dominated by just a few large-scale sunspots or pores. Thus, the magnetic field above active regions contains considerably fewer topological features than the equivalent sized region of quiet Sun.

From our current level of understanding, direct heating at topological features is unlikely to be important in active regions, the warmest coronal regions on the Sun. Instead, within large (active-region) scale volumes of the solar atmosphere possible heating mechanisms (in no particular order) are (i) reconnection associated with the complex driving of simple fields , (ii) reconnection triggered by local instabilities in, for example, twisted flux tubes and (iii) the dissipation of waves via phase mixing , resonant absorption or mode coupling .

In open-field regions, at present it is very difficult to get reliable measurements of the magnetic fields. Initial results suggest that isolated coronal nulls that are not connected to any separators are fairly common-place in open-field regions . Until there are more reliable polar-field measurements, the numbers of coronal nulls and associated features will remain largely unknown. Thus, it is not possible to speculate on whether reconnection at topological features plays a major role in the acceleration of the fast solar wind.

In order to produce a wind that emanates out over the entire area of an open-field region, there would have to be an extremely large number of coronal nulls: indeed most probably an unfeasably large number. Therefore wave dissipation without null points remains the most likely heating/acceleration mechanism in coronal holes .

The topology of the quiet-Sun magnetic field is extremely complex. As the resolution and sensitivity of magnetographs increases so too will levels of observable mixed polarity field. This will not continue indefinitely and, although not reached yet, there is likely to be a limit at which increased resolution does not lead to additional small-scale features. So it is possible (depending upon the size, which is as yet unknown, of the finest scale features) that there are sufficient numbers of topological features to enable heat due to reconnection and wave dissipation mechanisms at topological features to spread over a sufficient area to explain the (apparently uniform) heating of the so-called background corona. The question then arises: can enough energy be dissipated, by reconnection or waves, at these features? Considerably more investigation and theoretical modelling needs to be undertaken to answer this. At the moment, numerical models cannot replicate the appropriate plasma parameters found on the Sun, so determining the correct energies is difficult.

The magnetic skeleton associated with the finest-scale photospheric features is likely to be on a scale much larger than that found, for instance, in the case where (through dynamic reconnection) the local structures about a single separator cascade to small-scales producing many hundreds of separators . In such dynamical cascades that approach/reach a turbulent state, the magnetic skeleton may become overly complex and evolve too rapidly for detailed knowledge of each and every null point and separator to be of use. However, knowledge of the skeleton before and after this turbulent behaviour could help to identify the location of where the turbulent reconnection will occur and the consequences of the resulting heating.

The energy built up over even a relatively short period of slow stressing of the field (shearing) and conversion to heat by rapid reconnection (as a result of micro-instabilities) is likely to be greater than any heating due to wave pulses dissipated at topological features. Furthermore, since waves are trapped only at nulls and not at other topological features, the spread of energy through wave dissipation at coronal nulls is unlikely to be as great as that from reconnection at coronal nulls, separators and separatrix surfaces combined.

It is worth noting here that, although reconnection leads to localised direct Ohmic dissipation, it also launches waves. The energy partitioning of the magnetic energy released during reconnection is still a major unanswered question. As already mentioned, this question has been tackled from an MHD point of view to ascertain whether Ohmic or viscous heating dominates ; there is currently no definitive answer to this question. Nonetheless, it is clear that waves can drive reconnection and reconnection can launch waves and, therefore, the discussion as to whether waves or reconnection is the key heating mechanism is difficult to disentangle, as these mechanisms are completely interlinked.

The question regarding the importance of topological features as the major heating sites in the solar atmosphere very much depends on the nature of the magnetic field within a given region. What the topological features (such as nulls, separators and, in particular, separatrix surfaces) do is reveal the likely nature of the field. Using global models, the boundaries of open-field regions can be identified. Furthermore, the volumes of closed field within the open-field regions can be identified, enabling a much better understanding of the true expanse of the open-field volume and also the nature of the magnetic fields within the volume. Both the location and geometry of the boundaries of large-scale closed field regions (such as those associated with active regions) can also be determined, as can the boundaries of the multitude of small-scale closed-field regions that make up the quiet Sun. Thus, in terms of coronal heating, knowledge of the magnetic topology is crucial in order to identify the nature of the solar atmosphere where different atmospheric heating mechanisms are likely to dominate.

In this article, we have simply considered whether topological features are important for coronal heating. Thus, we have not considered whether other features, such as QSLs, which are principally geometrical in nature, are important for coronal heating. It is certainly clear that reconnection can occur in the absence of nulls and separators , as can the dissipation of waves . Furthermore, we have not addressed the question of whether topological features are important for other solar events, such as solar flares, CMEs, X-ray jets or X-ray bright points. There are at present a number of published works which strongly suggest that they are indeed important .

## Acknowledgements

CEP and JT acknowledge the support of STFC through the St Andrew's SMTG consolidated grant. JEHS is supported by STFC as a PhD student. SJE is supported STFC through the Durham University Impact Acceleration Account.

[^1]: In domains where the magnetic field is not closed, separators may instead connect to bald patches . This type of behaviour occurs where there is a null point lying outside the domain.

[^2]: Null points and separators undergo an infinite time collapse, therefore, it is not possible to reach a perfect force balance about such features. Instead, a state is reached in which the total force is zero everywhere, except at the nulls and separators themselves, where it is very small .

[^3]: Exactly at the magnetic null point the plasma beta will be infinite no matter what value the plasma pressure is there.


abstract: We present a framework for experimenting with secure multi-party computation directly in TensorFlow. By doing so we benefit from several properties valuable to both researchers and practitioners, including tight integration with ordinary machine learning processes, existing optimizations for distributed computation in TensorFlow, high-level abstractions for expressing complex algorithms and protocols, and an expanded set of familiar tooling. We give an open source implementation of a state-of-the-art protocol and report on concrete benchmarks using typical models from private machine learning.
author: Morten Dahl Jason Mancuso Yann Dupis Ben DeCoste Morgan Giraud Ian Livingstone Justin Patriquin Gavin Uhma *Dropout Labs*
bibliography: references.bib
title: Private Machine Learning in TensorFlow
  using Secure Computation

# Introduction

Several fields come together in private machine learning: cryptography, machine learning, distributed systems, and high-performance computing. As a result, researchers and practitioners developing scalable solutions may find themselves faced with a task requiring many diverse skill sets and expertise.

Adapting machine learning models in a way that allows for privacy-preserving prediction and training is complex and non-trivial on its own, and often requires deeper insight into cryptography or machine learning than experts from either field have about the other. For instance, one may want to mix secure computation protocols with complementary properties and experiment with various cryptographic optimizations such as vectorization and other specializations. Simultaneously, one may want to find variants of machine learning components that give sufficient accuracy yet utilize the fact that some secure operations are significantly faster than others. Thus, modularity and extensibility are crucial for effective experimentation.

One may additionally be faced with a large implementation challenge, potentially having to stitch together several otherwise independent systems or re-implement complex methods from both fields. One must not only optimize local computations by taking advantage of diverse multi-core architectures, but also the distributed processes inherent in secure computation, including how best to orchestrate the joint execution on multiple machines and minimize the overhead of sending large amounts of data across the network. Building all of this at the right level of abstraction can be overwhelming, and often comes at the cost of extensibility and code readability. This makes experimentation harder, potentially harming accessibility and correctness.

Finally, for even small-scale solutions it is highly valuable to have access to tools for visual inspection, debugging, and profiling such as TensorBoard in order to identify issues and bottlenecks in both the protocol and the machine learning model. Lack of such tools represents an additional barrier to entry.

In this paper we illustrate the benefits of embedding protocols directly into TensorFlow in order to show that it can serve as a platform for easily experimenting with secure computation for private machine learning.

```latex
\begin{wrapfigure}{R}{0.38\textwidth}
\centering
\lstset{
    language=Python,
    morekeywords={with},
    basicstyle=\fontsize{6}{7}\selectfont\ttfamily,
    keywordstyle=\color{blue}\ttfamily,
    stringstyle=\color{red}\ttfamily,
    commentstyle=\color{darkgreen}\ttfamily,
    breaklines=false,
}
\vspace{-5px}
\lstinputlisting{pred.txt}
\caption{Example using \texttt{tf-encrypted} for private prediction,
%mixing ordinary and secure computation, and
with the prediction input known only in plaintext by the client and the model weights only by the owner.}
\label{fig:pred}
\vspace{-5px}
\end{wrapfigure}
```

## Contributions

We present `tf-encrypted`, an open source library built on top of TensorFlow with the aim of making private machine learning more accessible to researchers and practitioners coming from either cryptography or machine learning, and without the need to be an expert in distributed systems or high-performance computing. A small example is given in Figure , where a logistic regression model is used for making private predictions. Note that the methods processing input and output specify on which party they should run, and that usual TensorFlow operations may be used within to perform local plaintext operations.

To this end we adapt and implement a state-of-the-art secure computation protocol for tensor oriented applications (Section ). We report on benchmarks using common models from the literature (Section ) and highlight additional properties of this approach that we find of value: **usability:** by leveraging TensorFlow we obtain a familiar and comprehensive platform for building scalable solutions; **integration:** by reducing all secure computations to TensorFlow graphs, it becomes straight-forward to mix these with ordinary computations for hybrid approaches; **extensibility:** using TensorFlow's high-level abstractions makes it easier to experiment with and develop new secure protocols on top of optimized primitives while maintaining code readability; **performance:** we reach high runtime efficiency without sacrificing other properties via TensorFlow's distributed execution engine heavily optimized for networking, parallel execution, and scalability; **benchmarking:** combining all of the above we obtain a common framework for comparable private machine learning.

## Related Work

Several freely available implementations of secure computation protocols exist, including those of , yet all of these are standalone frameworks that do not provide integration with existing machine learning platforms, and arguably aim more at general purpose secure computation than our focus on private machine learning. As a result, users are faced with a lower level interface and may have to implement basic machine learning components. We are furthermore not aware of any development tools for these frameworks outside of general purpose debuggers. To the best of our knowledge no machine learning support tools exist for these platforms.

The works of  focus on adapting secure computation protocols to private machine learning, in some cases using similar optimizations as the protocol presented in Section . However, to the best of our knowledge none of these have openly available implementations and hence require a significant investment from anyone wanting to apply them. To a large extent our aim is to provide a common platform based on TensorFlow for implementing and experimenting with protocols such as these. The concurrent work of  takes a somewhat similar approach yet currently focuses on PyTorch as opposed to TensorFlow.

Another line of work has focused on using differential privacy for privacy-preserving machine learning , with reference implementations available in TensorFlow. These works remain orthogonal to our approach and do not employ any form of secure computation.

# Secure Computations in TensorFlow

TensorFlow as described by  is among the leading frameworks for constructing and deploying machine learning models, offering an optimized engine for executing local and distributed computations as well as a high-level interface for expressing these. Importantly, the latter abstracts away lower-level operations such as networking while remaining powerful enough to succinctly express computations with operations and tensors pinned to specified machines (see for example Figure ). This combines for a powerful platform for giving efficient implementations of distributed computations, including complex secure computations where it is crucial for privacy that some data remain known only on select machines.

Moreover, the link between TensorFlow's engine and high-level interface takes the form of stateful dataflow graphs, with nodes for performing tensor operations in the distributed setting. This means that the engine can not only take advantage of optimizations such as lazy evaluation and multi-core processing tailored for the specific runtime environment, but also optimize the graph itself and chose a node execution order based on both static and runtime information (see e.g. ). For instance, we observe that large network transfers from Beaver triple generation are often automatically batched and moved to the beginning of the execution.

As an example of a secure computation protocol implemented in TensorFlow, we here outline our variant of the well-known SPDZ protocol by  with two servers $\ensuremath{ S_{0} }$ and $\ensuremath{ S_{1} }$ that is used for benchmarking in Section . The protocol is vectorized to improve performance of applications relying heavily on tensor operations and we use generalized triples produced by an independent third server[^1] to avoid sending redundant data when possible. Any number of input providers and output receivers are supported, holding e.g. training data or prediction inputs. We currently ensure passive (honest-but-curious) security under a single corruption and rely on two cryptographic primitives, namely additive secret sharing and secure channels between all players.

```latex
\begin{wrapfigure}{R}{0.42\textwidth}
\centering
\lstset{
    language=Python,
    morekeywords={with},
    basicstyle=\fontsize{6}{7}\selectfont\ttfamily,
    keywordstyle=\color{blue}\ttfamily,
    stringstyle=\color{red}\ttfamily,
    commentstyle=\color{darkgreen}\ttfamily,
    breaklines=false,
}
\vspace{-5px}
\lstinputlisting{mul.txt}
\caption{Secure multiplication implemented in TensorFlow: \texttt{tf.device} pin data and operations to specific machines to multiply two masked tensors, and takes care of implicitly adding nodes for transmitting \texttt{ab0} and \texttt{ab1}.}
\label{fig:mul}
\vspace{-5px}
\end{wrapfigure}
```

Following typical practice we use a fixed point encoding for the floating point numbers commonly used in machine learning, i.e. we scale by a fixed factor and treat the result as an integer. To represent these we support both a fixed `int64` and a CRT-based `int100` tensor type, the former offering higher performance and the latter higher precision. To maintain precision after multiplications we implement both the conservative truncation protocol of  requiring one round of communication, as well as the optimistic non-interactive protocol of  that may fail with a small probability.

As in other SPDZ variants, *private tensors* $\ensuremath{ \langle x \rangle }$ are secret shared into two tensors $\ensuremath{ {x}_{0} }$ and $\ensuremath{ {x}_{1} }$, held by server $\ensuremath{ S_{0} }$ and $\ensuremath{ S_{1} }$ respectively, such that $x = \ensuremath{ {x}_{0} } + \ensuremath{ {x}_{1} }$ yet either share on its own reveals nothing about $x$. However, unlike other variants, we also rely on a *masked tensor* $\ensuremath{ \langle \! \langle x \rangle \! \rangle }$ which in addition to $\ensuremath{ {x}_{0} }$ and $\ensuremath{ {x}_{1} }$ also includes a random tensor $a$ held by $\ensuremath{ S_{2} }$, shares $\ensuremath{ {a}_{0} }$ and $\ensuremath{ {a}_{1} }$ of it held by $\ensuremath{ S_{0} }$ and $\ensuremath{ S_{1} }$, and an $\alpha$ held by both $\ensuremath{ S_{0} }$ and $\ensuremath{ S_{1} }$ such that $\alpha = x - a$. While this is simply an explicit representation of the intermediate state of a SPDZ multiplication, having it in this form allows us to easily extend and generalize triples in order to reduce computation and networking. Converting a tensor from private to masked takes one round of *offline* communication where $a$ is sampled by $\ensuremath{ S_{2} }$ and shares $\ensuremath{ {a}_{0} }$ and $\ensuremath{ {a}_{1} }$ of it are sent to $\ensuremath{ S_{0} }$ and $\ensuremath{ S_{1} }$, and one round of *online* communication where $\ensuremath{ {x}_{i} } - \ensuremath{ {a}_{i} }$ is sent by $\ensuremath{ S_{i} }$ to $\ensuremath{ S_{1-i} }$ for $i \in \{0, 1\}$ and $(\ensuremath{ {x}_{0} } - \ensuremath{ {a}_{0} }) + (\ensuremath{ {x}_{1} } - \ensuremath{ {a}_{1} }) = \alpha$ is computed by both.

Secure computation on tensors proceed as in other SPDZ variants, albeit with some operations first converting private tensors into masked tensors. For instance, multiplication is only implemented for masked tensors as $\ensuremath{ \langle z \rangle } = \mathsf{mul}(\ensuremath{ \langle \! \langle x \rangle \! \rangle }, \ensuremath{ \langle \! \langle y \rangle \! \rangle })$ with $\ensuremath{ {z}_{i} } = i \alpha^x \alpha^y + \alpha^x \ensuremath{ {a}_{i} }^y + \ensuremath{ {a}_{i} }^x \alpha^y + \ensuremath{ {a^x a^y}_{i} }$ and where $a^x a^y$ is computed and shared by $\ensuremath{ S_{2} }$ (see Figure ). Note that the result of a multiplication is a private tensor, meaning $z$ will have to be masked before it can be used as input to another multiplication; however, both $\ensuremath{ \langle \! \langle x \rangle \! \rangle }$ and $\ensuremath{ \langle \! \langle y \rangle \! \rangle }$ can readily be used again as is, meaning every tensor only needs to be masked once. While special triples for squaring are no longer needed with explicit masking, we can still optimize e.g. matrix multiplications and convolutions via specialized triples and avoid reducing everything to (scalar) multiplications, in turn reducing networking further. Finally, operations such as transposing and stacking are done locally without interaction by letting all three servers operate on the values associated with private and masked tensors.

# Experiments

We benchmark the protocol of Section  for private inference on the typical MNIST handwritten digit classification task. Using TensorFlow we train each of the neural networks[^2] in Figure  on the plaintext training set and then run private inferences on the remaining test set, keeping both prediction input and model weights private. We perform all experiments on the Google Cloud Platform using instances in the same region (`us-east1`) and with 36 vCPUs/60 GB memory each. We note that TensorBoard was invaluable in this process for picking the right approximation intervals for activation functions and inspecting overall correctness, and that performing all operations in TensorFlow simplified the process of model handling significantly.

```latex
\begin{wrapfigure}{L}{0.55\textwidth}
\small
\centering
\input{experiments-networks}
\caption{Neural network architectures. The convolutional layers are denoted by $(\textit{field size}, \textit{channels}, \textit{stride}, \textit{padding})$ and average pooling layers by $\textit{window size}$}
\label{fig:networks}
\end{wrapfigure}
```

The left part of Table  summarizes the combined offline and online runtime averaged over 100 inferences. As seen we get reasonable performance that may already be adequate for concrete applications. The fact that `int100` also achieves good performance suggests that we are not limited by the lower precision of `int64` when looking at larger models. Additional experiments furthermore indicate sub-linearly scaling with respect to typical batch sizes, leading to an interesting trade-off between latency and through-put; for instance, Network C with batch sizes 1, 10, and 100 take respectively 124, 182, and 541ms.

We also compare our accuracy over the entire testing set against plaintext TensorFlow. As seen in the right part of Table  we obtain almost identical accuracy using both `int64` and `int100`, with indications that the latter may give a slightly better output distribution according to the mean KL divergence, in turn potentially justifying its higher runtime cost. We note that these models achieve good performance despite using approximations, further underlining the importance of being able to adapt models to the encrypted setting.

Based on the above we conjecture that our approach scales to larger models, and is at least within an order of magnitude of related work in terms of runtime performance (at what we believe to be a lower implementation cost). We defer proper exploration of both topics to the full version of this paper.

# Conclusion

We have proposed an open source framework for experimenting with secure computation in TensorFlow, and illustrated how implementation of such protocols can be easily expressed using high level abstractions (Figure ). This additionally allows private machine learning to be expressed in an interface similar to ordinary TensorFlow (Figure ) while maintaining good performance.

In the full version of this paper we elaborate on these results, and present a modular extension of the concrete protocol presented here that adds features from  in order to compute exact ReLU and MaxPooling.

[^1]: This server is essentially the crypto producer as used in e.g.  that can run entirely offline as long as the function to compute is known, which can be fully determined at compile time due to TensorFlow's use of static dataflow graphs.

[^2]: These are variants of models studied in . We use polynomials interpolated to fit ReLU on the interval $[-3,3]$ for activation functions and perform the final argmax and softmax on logits in plaintext to avoid computing these securely.


abstract: I discuss several issues that arise when trying to constrain the dark energy equation of state using correlations of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect with galaxy counts and lensing of the cosmic microwave background. These techniques are complementary to others such as galaxy shear surveys, and can use data that will already be obtained from currently planned observations. In regimes where cosmic variance and shot noise are the dominant sources of error, constraints could be made on the mean equation of state to $\pm 0.33$ and its first derivative to $\pm 1.0$. Perhaps more interesting is that the determination of dark energy parameters by these types of experiments depends strongly on the presence or absence of perturbations in the dark energy fluid.
author: Benjamin Gold
bibliography: darkmodes.bib
date: 2024-10-01
title: Limits of dark energy measurements from CMB lensing-ISW-galaxy count correlations

# Introduction

Understanding cosmic acceleration is one of the largest problems facing physics today. So far the most direct measurements of acceleration have come from distance-redshift measurements . This acceleration is thought to be due to the effect of dark energy, a new form of energy density that dominates the current universe. However, a universe with dark energy exhibits a different evolution for density perturbations, and this has observable consequences.

In this paper, I will discuss how well certain measurements of growth can constrain the expansion history of the universe, and thus dark energy. In particular I will discuss the lensing of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) by intervening structure combined with measurements of galaxy number density correlations from surveys. These types of measurements are attractive since they can be obtained essentially "for free" from experiments already planned. I will also discuss the sensitivity of these measurements to the presence of perturbations in the dark energy fluid, which can have an important effect on the results . In this paper "lensing" refers specifically to lensing of the CMB by foreground structure, rather than the extremely productive research area of studying the shape distortion of background galaxies due to lensing from foreground galaxies (covered extensively in ).

# Background theory

## The ISW effect and dark energy

As photons travel from the last scattering surface (LSS) to us, they fall into and climb out of potential wells that lie along their path. If the gravitational potential $\Phi$ does not change with time, then the accompanying blueshifts and redshifts will cancel each other out, leaving no net effect. However, if the potential does change over time there may be some overall change in each photon's wavelength, and hence the observed temperature. This is the integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect, with the change in temperature $\Delta T^\mathrm{ISW}$ observed in a direction $\hat\mathbf{n}$ expressed simply as $$\Delta T^\mathrm{ISW} (\hat\mathbf{n}) = -2 \int dD\, \dot \Phi(x(\hat\mathbf{n}),D)   ,$$ where the gravitational potential is written as a function of position $x$ and lookback distance $D$ (used as a proxy for conformal time).

For a flat, matter-dominated universe, the potential remains constant over time even though the density perturbations themselves do not. This means that any ISW effect originates either from early times, when the density of radiation was still significant enough to affect the expansion rate, or from late times when dark energy became dominant. Thus if the late ISW signal can be separated out from others, it provides a clean measurement of dark energy.

Normally the ISW effect itself is buried by the primary temperature anisotropies from the LSS. However, the primary anisotropies are set at the last scattering surface, at a completely different epoch and at different length scales than those of the structure growth responsible for the ISW effect. The primary anisotropy should thereby be uncorrelated with the ISW effect and other measurements of growth. Thus cross-correlating other measurements with CMB temperature maps can be a useful tool for bringing out information about growth, as has been discussed recently by and demonstrated by .

## Lensing correlations

The first measurement I will consider correlating with the temperature map is a measurement of gravitational lensing of the CMB. The microwave background is gravitationally lensed by matter that lies between us and the LSS. The map of photon deflection angles over the sky can be written as the gradient of a scalar field $\phi$ called the projected potential, which depends on the 3D gravitational potential $\Phi$ as $$\phi(\hat \mathbf{n}) = -2 \int dD\, \frac{D_\mathrm{LSS} - D}{D\, D_\mathrm{LSS}} \Phi \left(
    \mathbf{x}(\hat\mathbf{n}), D \right)   ,$$ where $D_\mathrm{LSS}$ is the distance to the last scattering surface.

Just as with CMB temperature maps, the map of the projected potential can be decomposed into spherical harmonics. Then a two-point function of the modes can be put together to construct an angular power spectrum. The expression for the power spectrum can be written as a line-of-sight integral over the 3D gravitational potential $$C_\ell^{\phi\phi} \sim \int \left. dD \, D \, \Phi^2(k,D) \left( \frac{D_S-D}{D\,D_S} \right)^2
    P^2_\delta(k) \right|_{k=\ell \frac{H_0}D}   .$$ While this equation is only exact in the flat-sky (large $\ell$) limit, the important feature is that it captures the physics of how the angular power spectrum depends on a line-of-sight integral of the gravitational potential multiplied by a kind of window function and the *primordial* (i.e. the growth function has been separated out) power spectrum $P^2_\delta(k)$. The exact expressions and further details can be found in ; they are used for the computations in this paper for multipole moments where the difference is important. However, for the remainder of this section I will write only the Limber-approximated integrals for clarity. The cross correlation between the temperature and lensing is due to the presence of the ISW effect in the temperature, and thus its power spectrum has the simple flat-sky form $$C_\ell^{T\phi} \sim \int \left. dD \, D \, \Phi(k,D) \dot\Phi(k,D) \frac{D_S-D}{D\,D_S} P^2_\delta(k)
    \right|_{k=\ell \frac{H_0}D}  .$$

## Galaxy correlations

The second type of observation I will consider is counting galaxies projected on the sky. On large scales, fluctuations in the number density of galaxies should track fluctuations in the gravitational potential (possibly with some bias). From the map of number density over the sky, we can obtain the auto-correlation power spectrum $$C_\ell^{gg} \sim \int \left. dD \, D \, \Phi^2(k,D) n_g^2(D) P_\delta^2(k) \right|_{k=\ell\frac{H_0}D}
      ,$$ which depends on the potential as viewed by some window function $n_g(D)$ describing the distribution of galaxies that are actually observed. The galaxy spectrum should be correlated both with the ISW part of the temperature spectrum $$C_\ell^{Tg} \sim \int \left. dD \, D \, \Phi(k,D)\dot\Phi(k,D) n_g(D) P_\delta^2(k)
    \right|_{k=\ell\frac{H_0}D}   ,$$ and with the lensing potential power spectrum $$C_\ell^{g\phi} \sim \int \left. dD \, D \, \Phi^2(k,D) n_g(D) \frac{D_S-D}{D\,D_S}
    P_\delta^2(k) \right|_{k=\ell\frac{H_0}D}   .$$ Again, in the calculations described later these Limber-approximated integrals are used only for high multipole moments. The exact expressions are used for low multipole moments ($\ell < 100$).

# Calculating the sensitivity to dark energy

The power spectra themselves are computed numerically using the techniques described in the previous section and a version of the cmbfast code which I modified to output lensing spectra and other information.

The basis for all the analysis is the Fisher information matrix. Given a fiducial model, the Fisher matrix describes how sensitive the model is to changes in its parameters. First, all the power spectra are put together into a covariance matrix $$\mathbf{C}_\ell \equiv \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
        C_\ell^{TT} + N_\ell^T & C_\ell^{T\phi} & C_\ell^{Tg} \\
        C_\ell^{T\phi} & C_\ell^{\phi\phi} + N_\ell^\phi & C_\ell^{\phi g} \\
        C_\ell^{Tg} & C_\ell^{\phi g} & C_\ell^{gg} + N_\ell^g\\
    \end{array}
    \right)   .$$ Experimental noise can be modeled as a contribution to the diagonal terms of this matrix. In our case I take the noise contribution to the primary temperature anisotropy $N_\ell^T$ to be negligible. However, even a small amount of noise is significant when reconstructing lensing information, and I take this into account using the derivations for lensing error as a function of temperature noise found in and shown in Fig. . I take the primary contribution to the noise for galaxy surveys $N_\ell^g$ to be shot noise (bias for each survey is treated as a free model parameter). Some other possible noise sources are discussed in section .

When I consider combining three galaxy surveys at different redshifts, each galaxy survey gets its own row and column, resulting in a $5\times5$ covariance matrix. The Fisher matrix is then constructed as a sum over multipole moments, $$\label{eq:fish}
    F_{ij} \equiv \sum_\ell \textrm{Tr} \left[ \mathbf{C}_\ell^{-1} \frac{\partial \mathbf{C}_\ell}{\partial s_i}
        \mathbf{C}_\ell^{-1} \frac{\partial \mathbf{C}_\ell}{\partial s_j} \right]   ,$$ where the $s_i$ are labels for the actual model parameters.

The model parameters actually varied are the dark energy parameters discussed in the next section, plus an angular scale parameter $\ell_A$, baryon density $\Omega_b h^2$, matter density $\Omega_m h^2$, primordial power amplitude $A_S$ and tilt $n_S$, optical depth $\tau$, and a bias parameter $b_i$ for each galaxy survey. All models were constrained to be flat. I investigated two fiducial models; both had parameters equivalent to a modern concordance cosmology ($\Omega_\mathrm{d.e.} = 0.75$, $\Omega_b = 0.04$, $\Omega_\mathrm{cdm} = 0.21$, $h=0.65$, $\tau = 0.1$, $n_S = 0.9$). The difference between the two was in the dark energy evolution; one model had a "pure $\Lambda$" equation of state of $w = -1$, whereas the other used a quintessence-type model with $w=-0.9$ today running smoothly to $w = -1$ at high redshift. The latter has a somewhat enhanced sensitivity to dark energy parameters due to the evolution of dark energy at low redshifts, and is used for reporting the final constraints on dark energy parameters in section . Using the "pure $\Lambda$" model instead degrades the dark energy parameter constraints by about 20% overall.

## Choosing a form for dark energy

Different experiments have differing sensitivities to dark energy. With no knowledge of the fundamental physics behind cosmic acceleration, there is little reason to favor one functional form for the equation of state $w(z)$ over another. In that light, principal mode analysis is useful for revealing what the experiments can actually constrain. In such an analysis one chooses some basis set of eigenfunctions (cut off to a finite set size), and then expresses the fundamental modes for each experiment as combinations of basis functions. In our case the basis functions will simply be a set of 25 boxcar functions covering the redshift range from $z=0$ to $z=5$.

A few example eigenvectors are shown in Fig. . In general, dark energy information is mixed with other cosmological parameters so that the eigenmodes are complicated combinations of several parameters. However, with the Fisher matrix in hand not only can one perform principal mode analysis, one can also marginalize over some parameters and switch to more familiar dark energy parameters with simple matrix operations. For example, it is simple to switch from the 25 $w(z)$ parameters to the "$w_a$" parametrization , which takes the form $$w(z) = w_0 + w_a \frac{z}{1+z}% + w_{2a} \left( \frac{z}{1+z} \right)^2
      .$$ The full eigenmode analysis shows that even for ideal experiments, no more than two or three dark energy parameters will be well-constrained, so for the rest of this paper the "$w_a$" parameterization will be assumed.

## Galaxy survey characteristics

My intent is to approximate the behavior of galaxy surveys which do not include spectra, but are able to obtain approximate photometric redshifts through color information. I therefore consider the situation where one has a large number of galaxies that can be assigned to one of three redshift bins, centered around $z=0.5$, $z=1.0$, and $z=1.5$. Each of these bins is approximated as a rounded boxcar function similar to the technique of Hu and Scranton . This approximation is best for survey slices that are not severely magnitude or volume limited. For those cases the overall effect is to smear out the edges of the bins, weakening the advantage of having several redshift bins.

Galaxy surveys may contain numerous systematics. Stellar contamination should not be a big problem since for faint surveys the majority of observed objects are galaxies anyway. More worrisome is that the analysis presumes knowledge of the redshift distribution of galaxies in the sample, which of course could be in error. We can estimate how small the overall redshift calibration error needs to be by converting the redshift error into an error in the angular scale of galaxy correlations, and examining the change in the correlation power spectrum compared to the shot noise. Because of the large angular scales we're interested in, it turns out that even for galaxy surveys with $10^{12}$ galaxies (corresponding to roughly $10^4$ per square arcminute), shot noise at these scales is still large enough that an overall redshift calibration error of up to a percent is tolerable. For the remainder of this paper I will assume any systematics in the galaxy correlations are below the shot noise level, but new experiments may well reveal important new systematics not considered here.

# Results

In the absence of noise, over 40% of the improvement in dark energy constraints gained by adding CMB lensing data to the temperature information comes from the $C_\ell^{T\phi}$ cross-correlation channel. Even though in the ideal case the noise in the CMB and lensing potential anisotropies is uncorrelated, the inversion of the covariance matrix in equation means that noise in the auto-correlation spectra will find its way into the cross-correlation channel. This then means that the noise in the reconstructed $C_\ell^{\phi\phi}$ spectrum will be the limiting factor as to how well CMB lensing can constrain dark energy.

In Fig.  I have calculated the noise in the reconstructed $C_\ell^{\phi\phi}$ lensing power spectrum for several different types of experiments. At small enough temperature noise levels (a bit above $10\,nK$ per pixel for $4'$ pixels) all of the noise in the lensing $C_\ell^{\phi\phi}$ is in fact coming from cosmic variance in the temperature $C_\ell^{TT}$. Note that even at this limit, the noise in the lensing spectrum is still roughly the same order of magnitude as the signal. Part of the low signal-to-noise ratio appears to be related to the choice of a red tilt ($n_S < 1$) in the primordial spectrum of the fiducial model. This reduces CMB power at the small scales from which the lensing signal is reconstructed, leading to more relative noise in the lensing power spectrum. The total noise in the lensing power spectrum can also be reduced further by combining several polarization modes as per , which results in an improvement by a factor of a few, so it may not be necessary to drive the detector temperature all the way down to $10 nK$ to get the desired precision. In any case cosmic variance is the ultimate limit that I will consider here, and we shall see that it is a fairly restrictive one, at least as far as $w(z)$ constraints are concerned.

How about cross-correlating galaxies with the ISW effect in order to augment our information about dark energy? This can provide interesting results, especially with the possibility of adding even very limited redshift information into the mix. I show the results in Fig. . Galaxy information, especially that coming from high redshift galaxies, can tighten the dark energy constraints by more than a factor of two.

Finally, the constraint contours in the $w_0$–$w_a$ plane are shown in Fig. . These are constraints made on $w(z)$ simultaneously with constraints on all the other cosmological parameters described above. In the absence of any other experiments, CMB lensing and galaxy counts combined can realistically constrain (contour b) $w_0$ to a precision of about $\pm 0.33$ when all other parameters are marginalized over.

## Dark energy perturbations

The above results were obtained assuming the absence of perturbations in the dark energy fluid. A true cosmological constant has $w=-1$ and is perfectly smooth with no perturbations. However, many quintessence models are built with some sort of scalar field which in general can have its own density fluctuations. These density fluctuations become important at late times when the structure formation responsible for the ISW effect is occurring, and thus significantly affect the above results. This effect is shown in Fig. . Note that including perturbations mostly increases the uncertainties along the degeneracy direction, especially for experiments limited only by cosmic variance, with the result that limits on both dark energy parameters are degraded by nearly a factor of three.

# Conclusion

Cross-correlating the ISW effect with CMB lensing and galaxy counts can in principle place limits on dark energy; ideally (if cosmic variance were the only limitation) one could measure $w_0$ to $\pm 0.093$ and $w_a$ to $\pm 0.32$, though in practice realistic limits are probably worse by about a factor of three. These measurements depend on dark energy's effect on the growth of structure, and thus have a dependence on the equation of state quite different from distance-redshift measurements. Observation of such growth effects would bolster the case for dark energy as the source of cosmic acceleration. Also, these measurements are strongly sensitive to perturbations in the dark energy fluid (which do not affect distance observations) and thus may ultimately be more useful as a measurement of perturbations than as a precise determination of the equation of state.

There is certainly room for improvement for these kinds of measurements. The amount of lensing being measured is small, so cosmic variance and the finite resolution of experiments become important. In this work I have used the CMB temperature map to reconstruct the lensing spectrum; this method essentially makes use of four-point correlations in the original temperature map. The three-point correlation function (known as the bispectrum) also contains contributions from lensing which are known to be significant and potentially less noisy, although how well dark energy information can be extracted from realistic data is still under investigation.

The scales on which galaxy densities correlate with the ISW effect are very large (degree scale or larger), so the deviations from a smooth background are small and even for large numbers of galaxies shot noise is significant. One way of overcoming this problem is simply to use more information from galaxies than merely their number density. Dedicated telescopes that can find galaxy shapes and redshifts are predicted to put good constraints on dark energy . In the future a wide array of complementary observations will be available to determine the nature of cosmic acceleration, each with their own sensitivity and limitations.

# Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Andreas Albrecht and Lloyd Knox for providing much useful advice during the completion of this research. I would also like to thank Manoj Kaplinghat and Mario Santos for productive discussions, and the anonymous referee for some extremely helpful corrections. I was partially supported in this research by DOE grant DE-FG03-91ER40674.