• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Constraints on Dark Energy from the CSST Galaxy Clusters

    2023-05-29 10:13:04YufeiZhangMingjingChenZhonglueWenandWenjuanFang

    Yufei Zhang, Mingjing Chen, Zhonglue Wen, and Wenjuan Fang

    1 CAS Key Laboratory for Research in Galaxies and Cosmology, Department of Astronomy, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026,China; wjfang@ustc.edu.cn

    2 School of Astronomy and Space Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China

    3 National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; zhonglue@nao.cas.cn

    4 CAS Key Laboratory of FAST, NAOC, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

    Abstract We study the potential of the galaxy cluster sample expected from the Chinese Space Station Telescope (CSST)survey to constrain dark energy properties.By modeling the distribution of observed cluster mass for a given true mass to be log-normal and adopting a selection threshold in the observed mass M200m ≥0.836×1014 h-1 M⊙,we find about 4.1×105 clusters in the redshift range 0 ≤z ≤1.5 can be detected by the CSST.We construct the Fisher matrix for the cluster number counts from CSST, and forecast constraints on dark energy parameters for models with constant(w0CDM)and time dependent(w0waCDM)equation of state.In the self-calibration scheme,the dark energy equation of state parameter w0 of the w0CDM model can be constrained to Δw0=0.036.If wa is added as a free parameter,we obtain Δw0=0.077 and Δwa=0.39 for the w0waCDM model,with a Figure of Merit for(w0,wa) of 68.99.Should we have perfect knowledge of the observable-mass scaling relation (“known SR”scheme),we would obtain Δw0=0.012 for the w0CDM model, and Δw0=0.062 and Δwa=0.24 for the w0waCDM model.The dark energy Figure of Merit of (w0, wa) increases to 343.25.This indicates again the importance of calibrating the observable-mass scaling relation for optically selected galaxy clusters.By extending the maximum redshift of the clusters from zm ax ~ 1.5to zm ax ~ 2,the dark energy Figure of Merit for(w0,wa)increases to 89.72(self-calibration scheme) and 610.97 (“known SR”scheme), improved by a factor of ~1.30 and ~1.78,respectively.We find that the impact of clusters’redshift uncertainty on the dark energy constraints is negligible as long as the redshift error of clusters is smaller than 0.01, achievable by CSST.We also find that the bias in logarithm mass must be calibrated to be 0.30 or better to avoid significant dark energy parameter bias.

    Key words: (cosmology:) dark energy – galaxies: clusters: general – (cosmology:) cosmological parameters

    1.Introduction

    The concordance Λ cold dark matter (ΛCDM) model has proven to provide an accurate description of the universe(Planck Collaboration et al.2020).Nevertheless, the main constituents in the model, namely dark energy (DE) and dark matter (DM), still need explanations from fundamental physics.Questions such as whether DE is indeed the cosmological constant (Zel’dovich 1967, 1968), or whether modified gravity theory rather than DE and DM actually explains the observable universe (Hu & Sawicki 2007;Capozziello & de Laurentis 2011), remain unsolved.These questions provide motivations to look for alternatives to the ΛCDM model.Future high precision cosmological surveys will constrain various such models and clarify many unsolved fundamental questions.

    DE, unlike other known forms of matter or energy, is a component postulated to cause the late time accelerated expansion of the universe with a negative pressure (Riess et al.1998;Perlmutter et al.1999).Multiple observational evidences point to the existence of DE.However, to date there are no compelling theoretical explanations yet.The most popular model of DE is the cosmological constant whose equation of state(EoS)is-1.There are other models in which the EoS of DE is not -1 or even not constant but time-dependent, for example, quintessence (Ratra &Peebles 1988),phantom(Caldwell 2002)and quintom(Feng et al.2005).The accelerated expansion of the universe may even imply that gravity should be described by a modified theory of gravity, rather than the standard theory of General Relativity(Heisenberg 2019).Different models of DE leave different signatures in the expansion rate of the universe and the growth rate of structure.Thus surveys that observe the universe’s supernovae, galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc., can potentially reveal the nature of DE (e.g., Zhao et al.2017).

    In the hierarchical structure formation scenario,small density fluctuations generated in the primordial universe act as the seeds for the formation of the universe’s structure.Overdensities in the early universe grow through gravitational instability and hierarchically form larger and larger structures(Peebles 1980;Colberg et al.1999).Galaxy clusters are the largest virialized objects in the universe.Searches for galaxy clustershave been carried out for decades from multiwavelength data,such as the millimeter wave bands (e.g., de Haan et al.2016;Planck Collaboration et al.2016; Bleem et al.2020), the optical wave bands(e.g.,Wen et al.2009;Rozo et al.2010;Oguri et al.2018;Costanzi et al.2019;DES Collaboration et al.2020;Wen&Han 2021)and the X-ray wave bands(e.g.,Vikhlinin et al.2009;Clerc et al.2012; Rapetti et al.2013; B?hringer et al.2017;Pacaud et al.2018).The abundance and spatial distribution of galaxy clusters are sensitive to the universe’s expansion and growth rate and hence underlying cosmological model (Allen et al.2011; Kravtsov & Borgani 2012; Weinberg et al.2013).Clusters have been used to constrain the matter density parameter Ωmand the present day root mean square (rms) of linear density fluctuations within a sphere of radius 8 h-1Mpc, σ8(e.g., Rozo et al.2007, 2010; Rapetti et al.2013; de Haan et al.2016;Costanzi et al.2019; DES Collaboration et al.2020, 2021).Moreover,since massive neutrinos suppress matter fluctuations on small scales,this impact on the growth of structure manifests itself in cluster observables, which can be used to constrain neutrino mass (Costanzi et al.2013; Mantz et al.2015; Planck Collaboration et al.2016).Clusters have also been demonstrated to provide tight constraints on DE from their abundance (Mantz et al.2010; Rozo et al.2010; Mantz et al.2015; de Haan et al.2016), spatial clustering (Schuecker et al.2003; Abbott et al.2019; DES Collaboration et al.2021) and gas mass fractions(Allen et al.2008; Mantz et al.2014, 2021).However, the precision on cosmological parameters derived from cluster observables is affected by both theoretical and observational systematic uncertainties.

    Table 1 Key Parameters of the CSST Photometric Imaging Survey and Spectroscopic Survey (Zhan 2021)

    Forthcoming large surveys, for example the Vera Rubin Observatory (LSST Science Collaboration et al.2009;Ivezi? 2019), Euclid space mission (Laureijs et al.2011) and Chinese Space Station Telescope(CSST)(Zhan 2011;Cao et al.2018; Gong et al.2019), have the potential to find a large number of clusters.Specifically, the CSST is a 2 m space telescope planned to be launched in the early 2020s.It will operate in the same orbit as the China Manned Space Station.The CSST aims at surveying 17,500 deg2of sky area over 10 yr of operation.Both photometric imaging and slitless grating spectroscopic observations will be conducted.With the unique combination of a large field of view (~1 deg2), high-spatial resolution(~0 15),faint magnitude limits and wide wavelength coverage, CSST has great potential to investigate many fundamental problems, such as properties of DE and DM,validity of General Relativity on cosmic scales,etc.(Zhan 2011).In particular,CSST will detect a large number of clusters through photometric imaging, spectroscopic observation and weak gravitational lensing, thanks to its large sky coverage and wide redshift range, which will be valuable for cosmological studies.

    We list the key parameters of the CSST survey in Table 1.There are seven photometric and three spectroscopic bands from near-ultraviolet (near-UV) to near-infrared (near-IR), namely,NUV, u, g, r, i, z and y bands for the photometric survey, and GU, GV and GI bands for the spectroscopic survey.The CSST photometric survey can reach a 5σ magnitude limit of ~26 AB mag for point sources, while for spectroscopic survey, the magnitude limit can reach ~23 AB mag.The 4000 ? break,Lyman break and 1.6 μm bump are distinct features to determine photometric redshifts of galaxies.The photometric redshifts of galaxies can be well determined up to the redshift of z ~1.4,at which the 4000 ? break moves to the y band.At higher redshifts,the Lyman break begins to move into the CSST filters.Considering the relatively shallow survey depth in the NUV band, it is expected that the photometric redshifts have a larger bias and uncertainty at 1.4 <z <2.5 (even with the presence of NUV, the photometric redshift is not much improved in the redshift range,Rafelski et al.2015).They can be improved with the help of other surveys whose band coverage extends to midinfrared and near-IR bands, such as Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE, Wright et al.2010) and Euclid (Laureijs et al.2011; Sartoris et al.2016).

    In this paper, we explore the power of the CSST cluster sample in constraining DE parameters.We consider two DE models.The first one is the model in which the EoS parameter w of DE is allowed to deviate from -1 in a time independent fashion (w0CDM).In the second model, the EoS of DE is varying with time (w0waCDM), with the phenomenological parameterization w(a)=w0+(1-a)wa, where a is the scale factor of the universe (Chevallier & Polarski 2001; Linder &Jenkins 2003).We estimate the abundance of galaxy clusters expected from CSST and forecast its constraints on cosmological parameters by using the Fisher matrix technique.To calculate galaxy cluster number counts, we first compute the halo mass function by adopting the fitting function from Tinker et al.(2008).Then the number counts in an observed mass bin can be computed once the probability to assign an observed mass to a cluster’s true mass is given.Finally, we can evaluate cluster number counts as a function of the estimated mass and redshift.By combining the number of clusters in bins of estimated mass and redshift, we construct the Fisher matrix and then derive the forecasted constraints on cosmological parameters.

    This paper is organized as follows.In Section 2, we detail our estimation for the galaxy cluster abundance expected for the CSST, and present the Fisher matrix we use to forecast parameter constraints.In Section 3, we give our results and discuss the effects of several systematics.Finally,we conclude in Section 4.

    2.Calculational Methods

    2.1.Mass Estimation for CSST Clusters

    Cluster mass is of fundamental importance for studies on cluster properties and cluster cosmology.Regardless of how clusters are detected at different wavelengths,the main concern is that halo mass is not directly observable,so we have to employ a suitable observable quantity that scales with mass.In the case of optical surveys, a commonly used mass proxy is the optical richness λ,which corresponds to the count or total luminosity of member galaxies above some luminosity threshold in a given cluster(Rozo et al.2009;Wen et al.2012).The calibration of the relation between richness and halo mass for optically selected clusters can be performed through cluster number counts,clustering and stacked weak-lensing measurements (e.g., Murata et al.2018; Costanzi et al.2019; Murata et al.2019; Chiu et al.2020a,2020b;DES Collaboration et al.2020;Wen&Han 2021).

    For the CSST survey,each galaxy cluster is identified with an optical richness estimated.Mean mass of clusters can be measured directly through weak lensing for a sample of stacked clusters within a given richness and redshift bin.Then, one can get an“accurate”richness-mass scaling relation and its evolution with redshift.In the regime where the weak lensing method is not applicable, e.g., very high redshifts, cluster mass can be estimated according to the derived richness-mass relation.

    2.2.Calculation for Cosmological Constraints

    A fundamental quantity for cluster cosmology is the halo mass function, which is defined as the differential number density of halos.In this paper,we adopt the halo mass function obtained by Tinker et al.(2008)

    where f(σ) is the fitting function given by Equation (3) in Tinker et al.(2008), ρmis the present matter density of the universe and σ is the rms of linear matter fluctuation within a sphere of radius R that contains mass M given mean density of

    In the above expression, P(zob|z) is the probability distribution function to assign a galaxy cluster at true redshift z to the observed photometric redshift zob, which we model as a Gaussian distribution with expectation value z and scatter σz.

    The comoving space number density of clusters〈n|Mob,z〉is related to halo mass function by

    where P(Mob|M, z) is the probability distribution function to assign a galaxy cluster with true mass M and at true redshift z to the observed mass Mob.

    The survey volume element dV/(dzdΩ) is given by

    where H(z) is the Hubble parameter and χ(z) is the comoving radial distance to redshift z.

    The key ingredient in our analysis is the probability distribution function of the observed mass for halos with a given true mass M and redshift z, P(Mob|M, z).Following Sartoris et al.(2016), we assume a log-normal distribution function, namely

    HerelnMbiasandσlnMare the bias and scatter of mass estimation in logarithm space, respectively.Following Sartoris et al.(2016), we parameterize the bias as

    We assume the following parameterization for the variance oflnM

    Here the first term comes from the fact that cluster mass commonly scales with optical richness.The variance of lnλis composed of a constant intrinsic scatter Dλand a Poisson-like term (Costanzi et al.2021)

    where the term 1/〈λ〉is a function of cluster mass and redshift.The fiducial values ofσlnλand B can be obtained from the scaling relation fitted by Costanzi et al.(2021)

    Here,A is the normalization,B is the slope with respect to halo mass and Bzdescribes the evolution with redshift.The constants Mpivotand zpivotare pivot halo mass and redshift respectively.We emphasize that Equation (10) is not used for cluster mass estimation, but for the scatter of mass estimation.

    The second term κ(1+z)2in Equation (8) characterizes the projection effects that depend on redshift.The reason for the chosen form of the projection effects is as follows.The photometric redshift error of galaxies usually increases with redshift.In the algorithms of cluster identification,the width of color cut or photometric redshift slice increases with redshift for both the color-based and photometric redshift-based methods (Wen et al.2009; Rykoff et al.2014).As is wellknown, the dispersion of photometric redshift generally increases with redshift in the form of 1+z (Cao et al.2018).From the perspective of identifying galaxy clusters,in order to obtain the majority of member galaxies, the width of the photometric redshift slice used to find galaxy clusters also increases as 1+z, resulting in the corresponding increase of field galaxies projecting into cluster regions as member galaxies.In Wen et al.(2009), the authors adopted a photometric redshift slice of z±0.04(1+z) for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey(SDSS)clusters and found a contamination rate of ~20%for member galaxies due to the projection effect.The CSST will have a more accurate photometric redshift than the SDSS (Cao et al.2018), which will enable us to set a narrower photometric redshift slice for selecting member galaxies of clusters.In addition, the slitless spectroscopic survey provides accurate redshifts for bright galaxies.It is possible to have a contamination rate of about 10% at low redshift for massive clusters.Therefore,we assume κ=0.12as a fiducial choice.

    We forecast the constraints on cosmological parameters using the Fisher matrix technique, which is based on a Gaussian approximation of the likelihood function around the maximum (Tegmark et al.1997).The Fisher matrix is defined as

    where pα, pβrepresent model parameters,L is the likelihood function and angle brackets represent ensemble average.The marginalized 1σ constraint on parameter pαcan then be obtained by

    In our analysis we choose the galaxy cluster number counts Nm,ias observable.The likelihood of Nm,ican be modeled as a Poisson distribution with the expectation valueNˉm,i,

    Thus the Fisher matrix for cluster number counts is

    Here, the sums over m and i run over mass and redshift bins,respectively.

    We adopt the Figure of Merit(FoM,Albrecht et al.2006)for DE to quantify the information gains from given probes and experiments, which is inversely proportional to the area encompassed by an ellipse representing the 68.3 percent confidence level

    where Cov(w0, wa) is the marginalized covariance matrix for the DE EoS parameters w0and wa.

    In our Fisher matrix analysis, both cosmological parameters and the parameters modeling bias and scatter in the scaling relation between the observed and true cluster masses are treated as free parameters, and are constrained simultaneously.We assume a flat universe and choose our cosmological parameter set as: {h, Ωbh2, Ωch2, σ8, ns, w0, wa}.Fiducial values of these parameters are listed in Table 2, which are the best-fit values from Planck 2018 results (Planck Collaboration et al.2020).We marginalize over the set of scaling relation parameters {BM,0, α, A, B, Bz, Dλ, κ} given above, referred to as nuisance parameters henceforth, whose fiducial values are listed in Table 2.The values of BM,0and α are chosen according to Sartoris et al.(2016),while the values of A,B,Bzand Dλare the best-fit values obtained in Costanzi et al.(2021).The pivot values for halo mass and redshift(Mpivotand zpivot)inEquation (10) are taken to be 3×1014h-1M⊙a(bǔ)nd 0.45,respectively, following Costanzi et al.(2021).

    Table 2 The Fiducial Values of Cosmological Parameters (Upper Section) and Nuisance Parameters (Lower Section) Adopted in this Work

    3.Results and Discussions

    In this section, we present the main results of this paper:constraints on the DE EoS parameters from galaxy cluster number counts of CSST, forecasted with the Fisher matrix formalism.Several systematics are also discussed simultaneously.We consider DE models with constant (w0CDM) and time dependent(w0waCDM)DE EoS.We assume that CSST is capable of detecting clusters up to z ~1.5 by either the redshiftbased method (e.g., Wen & Han 2021; Yang et al.2021) or color-based method (e.g., Rykoff et al.2014).We divide the CSST cluster sample into bins both in redshift and halo mass.For redshift, we consider equal-sized bins of width Δz=0.05 in the range 0 ≤z ≤1.5.For observed halo mass, we take equal-sized logarithmic bins of width Δln (MobM⊙) =0.2.We ignore the covariance between different redshift and mass bins.We assume 17,500 deg2sky coverage for the CSST optical wide survey.Most CSST galaxies will have photometric redshift uncertainties of about 0.02 (Gong et al.2019).Moreover, CSST will perform a slitless grating spectroscopic survey for bright sources in addition to a photometric imaging survey.Taking into account that clusters have multiple bright member galaxies whose spectroscopic redshifts are probably available from CSST slitless or existing spectroscopic surveys,we expect CSST clusters will have an accurate redshift.In this work, we assume CSST clusters’redshift uncertainty to be σz/(1+z)=0.001.

    Figure 1.Redshift distribution of galaxy clusters expected for CSST; mass threshold is set to M200m ≥0.836×1014 h-1 M⊙(M500c ≥0.7×1014 M⊙).

    3.1.Mass Limit and Number Counts

    The lower limit of cluster mass corresponds to a given detection threshold in the observed quantity.The limit is adopted to ensure that the cluster sample obtained has a high completeness and also a high purity.According to the analysis based on mock galaxy redshift survey data (Yang et al.2021),we adopt a lower mass limit of M200m≥0.836×1014h-1M⊙for the CSST cluster sample in order to get a completeness of≥90% and a purity of ≥90%.This mass limit roughly corresponds to an equivalent mass limit of M500c≥0.7×1014M⊙(Wen & Han 2021).

    In Figure 1,we plot the expected number of clusters that can be detected by CSST as a function of redshift, obtained by adopting the observed halo mass limit M200m≥0.836×1014h-1M⊙a(bǔ)nd assuming the fiducial values of cosmological and nuisance parameters.We find that CSST can detect~414,669 clusters in total in the redshift range 0 ≤z ≤1.5,with a peak at z ~0.6, and there are ~103,069 clusters at z ≥1.0.These high redshift clusters are sensitive to the growth rate of perturbations and DE properties.A catalog of uniformly selected high-redshift clusters will be ideal to study structure growth and the underlying cosmological model.

    3.2.Constraints from Cluster Number Counts

    Since besides cosmological parameters, there are also nuisance parameters which model bias and scatter in the scaling relation between the observed and true cluster masses,we forecast constraints on DE EoS parameters from galaxy cluster number counts of CSST with two schemes: a selfcalibration scheme in which we take both cosmological parameters and nuisance parameters as parameter entries for the Fisher matrix(Majumdar&Mohr 2004),and the ideal caseNote.The column labeled“Self-calibration”corresponds to the self-calibration scheme without any priors on the nuisance parameters.The column “Known SR”refers to the ideal case in which the nuisance parameters are perfectly known.Constraints shown are the marginalized 1σ errors.The DE FoM is presented in the last row.in which the nuisance parameters are fixed, which means that scaling relations are perfectly known in advance(referred to as the “known SR”scheme in the following).

    Table 3 Constraints on the Cosmological Parameters and Nuisance Parameters from the Number Counts of CSST Galaxy Clusters

    It is challenging to constrain the cosmological parameters and nuisance parameters simultaneously by using the number counts of galaxy clusters alone.In the following analysis we include the Gaussian priors on the Hubble parameter and the cosmic baryon density from the Planck collaboration (Planck Collaboration et al.2020) to help break parameter degeneracies.

    The constraints on the cosmological parameters from CSST galaxy cluster number counts are presented in Table 3 for the two schemes.In the self-calibration scheme, the DE EoS parameters can be constrained to Δw0=0.036 for the w0CDM model, and Δw0=0.077 and Δwa=0.39 for the w0waCDM model,corresponding to a DE FoM for(w0,wa)of 68.99.In the“known SR”scheme,cluster mass has no bias and the scatter of cluster mass is known.The constraint on w0is as good as Δw0=0.012 for the w0CDM model, an improvement by a factor of ~3 compared to the results of the self-calibration scheme, while for the w0waCDM model, we obtain Δw0=0.062 and Δwa=0.24.The DE FoM is as high as 343.25, an improvement by a factor of ~5 compared to the results of the self-calibration scheme.It is apparent that knowledge of the observable-mass scaling relation is essential to get tighter cosmological parameter constraints.The analysis here highlights the importance of the calibration of the observable-mass scaling relation for optically selected galaxy clusters in order to obtain tight DE constraints.We postpone a comparison with other optical cluster surveys to Section 3.6.

    It is known that besides DE parameters, clusters can also place tight constraints on DM related parameters.The 1σ uncertainties on Ωch2and σ8are about 1%~2%with the selfcalibration scheme, while 0.1%–0.2% with the “known SR”scheme.The improvements from better knowledge of the observable-mass scaling relation are more pronounced for constraints on Ωch2and σ8than for w0and wa.Comparing the constraints from the self-calibration scheme and those from the“known SR”scheme, the constraint on Ωch2is improved by a factor of 12.5 for the w0CDM model and a factor of 6.4 for the w0waCDM model, while the constraint on σ8is improved by a factor of 20 for the w0CDM model and a factor of 12 for the w0waCDM model.Thus better calibration of the observablemass scaling relation is more helpful to tighten the constraints on DM related parameters than DE parameters.We show contours of constraints(1σ)on cosmological parameters for the w0waCDM model in the Appendix.

    We point out that in this analysis we assume a possible configuration of CSST.In the following we analyze the impact of two key parameters on our derived constraints, i.e., the maximum redshift and the clusters’redshift uncertainty.We also compute the requirement for the calibration of bias in cluster mass.

    3.3.Increasing zmax of CSST Clusters

    In the above analysis for the CSST clusters,we have adopted a maximum redshift ofzmax~ 1.5.Higher redshift is potentially achievable with an improved cluster selection algorithm, better data quality or joint analysis with the Euclid survey by the European Space Agency (Laureijs et al.2011),which can detect clusters up to redshift as high as ~2 thanks to the use of near-IR bands (Sartoris et al.2016).

    In this section, we study the impact of including higher redshift clusters in our forecast by increasing the maximum redshift of the CSST cluster sample.Specifically, when we extend zmaxto ~2, we find that 28,492 clusters between 1.5 ?z ?2 can be additionally detected, ~7% more than before.The DE constraints obtained by extending the maximum redshift of the clusters tozmax~ 2are presented in Table 4.By extending the maximum redshift of the survey fromzmax~ 1.5tozmax~ 2, the DE constraints are tightened for both the w0CDM model and w0waCDM model.The constraint on w0for the w0CDM model is improved by a factor of ~1.06 for the self-calibration scheme,and a factor of ~1.28 for the “known SR”scheme.While for the w0waCDM model,the DE FoM is improved by a factor of ~1.30 for the selfcalibration scheme, and a factor of ~1.78 for the “known SR”scheme.As can be seen,even moderate detection of clusters at high redshift can tighten the constraints by an appreciable amount.The reason is that the behavior of DE deviates morefrom the ΛCDM model in the earlier universe.Therefore if the survey can cover a large redshift range, a comparison of the behavior of DE at different redshifts helps to break parameter degeneracies.

    Table 4 Constraints on DE EoS Parameters by Extending the Maximum Redshift of the CSST Clusters tozm ax ~2

    In Figure 2,we show how the FoM for DE parameters in the w0waCDM model changes as the maximum redshift of the CSST clusters increases continuously.For both the self-calibration and“known SR”schemes,the DE FoM increases steadily with zmax.Thus it is important to search for clusters at high redshift for stringent constraints on DE properties.It is also interesting to note that the FoM obtained from the “known SR”scheme increases more rapidly than that from the self-calibration scheme.Thus high redshift clusters are more helpful to constrain DE if clusters have a well calibrated scaling relation.

    3.4.The Impact of Redshift Uncertainty

    The constraints above are obtained by assuming a somewhat optimistic redshift uncertainty of σz/(1+z)=0.001, which we expect to be achievable under the assumption that spectroscopic redshifts are available for all clusters from CSST.In this section,we study the impact of less accurate redshifts for clusters on the cosmological constraints by assuming the CSST clusters have redshift accuracy of σz/(1+z)=0.03, 0.02 and 0.01.In Figures 3 and 4, we show how the constraints on DE EoS parameters change with respect to clusters’redshift accuracy.The error ellipses in Figure 3 are obtained with the selfcalibration scheme, while those in Figure 4 are obtained by the“known SR”scheme.In both figures, the DE constraints get tighter as CSST clusters’redshift uncertainty becomes smaller.However, the improvement in DE constraints is tiny from σz/(1+z)=0.01 to σz/(1+z)=0.001.For the self-calibration scheme, the DE FoM improves from 68.44 to 68.99, while for the “known SR”scheme, the FoM improves from 340.09 to 343.25.In both cases, the improvement is less than 1 per cent.We conclude that the impact of CSST clusters’redshift uncertainty is negligible as long as the rms of redshift uncertainties is better than 0.01.According to Wen & Han(2022),the redshift uncertainty of DES clusters is about 0.013 at redshifts z ≤0.9.Since CSST has two more wave bands than DES, we expect σz/(1+z)=0.01 is achievable by the CSST optical survey.We also find that if the clusters’redshift error degrades further to 0.03,FoM decreases only by a small amount of ~9%for both the self-calibration and “known SR”schemes.

    Figure 2.The DE FoM as a function of the maximum redshift zmax of the CSST clusters.Orange line stands for constraints obtained by the selfcalibration scheme.Red line represents constraints obtained by the “known SR”scheme.

    Figure 3.Impact on DE constraints from the CSST clusters’redshift uncertainty.The contours are obtained with the self-calibration scheme.Orange, blue, black and red lines are for σz/(1+z) equating 0.03, 0.02, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively.

    3.5.Mass Bias Calibration

    In our analysis,the fiducial value of bias in observed mass is set to zero.However,if the observed cluster mass is biased,the derived DE parameter constraints will also be biased.It is interesting to ask that given the statistical accuracy achievable by the CSST clusters, what is the requirement for the calibration of bias in cluster mass.

    Figure 4.Impact on the DE constraints from the CSST clusters’redshift uncertainty.The contours are obtained with the “known SR”scheme.Orange,blue, black and red lines are for σz/(1+z) equating to 0.03, 0.02, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively.

    Consider data vectorD={Dα} with covariance matrix C.The data bias ΔD induces bias in the ith parameter pias(Bernstein & Huterer 2010)

    The bias calibration requirement is set by requiring the induced parameter bias to be smaller than the expected statistical variation in the cosmological parameters.The likelihood of the bias for a subset of interested parameters ΔpAis determined by Bernstein & Huterer (2010)

    3.6.Comparison with Other Optical Cluster Surveys

    In this section,we make a comparison between our results of CSST and those of other optical cluster surveys,such as LSST and Euclid.First,we compare our results for the CSST clusters to those of LSST clusters by Fang&Haiman(2007)utilizing a shear-selected cluster sample.The halo mass definition adopted by Fang & Haiman (2007) is based on identification of DM halos as spherical regions with a mean overdensity of 180 with respect to the background matter density at the time of identification.With a sky coverage of 18,000 deg2,they found that LSST can detect 276,794 clusters in the redshift range 0.1 ≤z ≤1.4,above the limiting halo mass of ~(0.6–4)×1014M⊙.This number count is less than our result, since Fang &Haiman (2007) do not take into account uncertainties in the observable-mass scaling relation.Using cluster number counts alone, the forecasted FoM of DE EoS parameters (w0, wa) is 14.1,weaker than our result.This is due to less cluster number count obtained by Fang & Haiman (2007), and the WMAP priors adopted by them are much weaker than the Planck priors we adopt.

    We also compare our results for the CSST to those of Euclid by Sartoris et al.(2016).The detection threshold of Euclid clusters is chosen such that N500,c/σfield, the ratio between the number of cluster galaxies N500,cand the rms of field galaxies σfield, is greater than 3 (or 5).The lowest limiting cluster mass for N500,c/σfield=3 is M200c~8×1013M⊙.With selection threshold N500,c/σfield=5,Euclid can detect ~2×105clusters up to redshift z ~2, with about ~4×104objects at z ≥1.By lowering the detection threshold down to N500,c/σfield=3, the total number of clusters rises up to ~2×106, with ~4×105objects at z ≥1.Our total number of clusters is between their estimated results for these two cases.Using cluster number counts alone, Euclid obtained DE FoM of ~30 for N500,c/σfield≥3 in the self-calibration scheme.Though the abundance of Euclid clusters is greater than ours, the constraints we obtained are more competitive than theirs,since Sartoris et al.(2016) also include curvature parameter Ωkin their Fisher matrix analysis.We also note that the parameterization for the mass scatter in Sartoris et al.(2016) is different from ours.

    Finally, we notice that during the preparation of this paper,another result on DE constraints forecasted using the CSST galaxy clusters appeared in Miao et al.(2022).The cluster redshift range adopted by them is the same as ours.However,the limiting mass of clusters adopted by them (M ≥1014h-1M⊙) is higher than ours, and they do not take into account uncertainties in the observable-mass scaling relation, resulting in less clusters (~170,000) than ours.They obtain the forecasted DE constraints of Δw0=0.13 and Δwa=0.46 using the CSST cluster number counts, which are worse than ours, due to their much lower number of clusters and the fact that no Planck priors on the Hubble parameter and the cosmic baryon density are adopted in their analysis.

    4.Conclusions

    In this paper, we perform a comprehensive analysis of the constraints on DE for both constant (w0CDM) and timedependent (w0waCDM) EoS expected from the CSST galaxy clusters.We make our forecast by adopting the Fisher matrix formalism tailored for measurements of cluster abundance.In the self-calibration scheme, we consider 14 parameters, seven of which characterize the cosmological model, while the remaining seven model bias and scatter in the scaling relation between the observed and true cluster masses for optically selected clusters.With the selection threshold in the observed halo mass of M200m≥0.836×1014h-1M⊙, 414,669 clusters in the redshift range 0 ≤z ≤1.5 can be detected by the CSST,whose distribution peaks at z ~0.6.There are 103,069 clusters at z ≥1.0.The DE can be constrained to Δw0=0.036 for the w0CDM model, and Δw0=0.077 and Δwa=0.39 for the w0waCDM model, with a FoM of 68.99.

    The self-calibration procedure would largely benefit from the fixed scaling relation.By fixing the seven nuisance parameters in our analysis, we get much tighter cosmological parameter constraints.We find that for the w0CDM model, the constraint on w0is as good as Δw0=0.012, an improvement by a factor of ~3 compared to the self-calibration scheme.If wais added as a free parameter, we obtain Δw0=0.062 and Δwa=0.24 for the w0waCDM model.The DE FoM for (w0,wa) is as high as 343.25,a great improvement by a factor of ~5 compared to the result of the self-calibration scheme.These results again highlight the importance of securing good knowledge of the observable-mass scaling relation.

    We investigate the possibility of tightening the DE constraints further by increasing the redshift extension of the CSST clusters.We extend the maximum redshift of the CSST clusters out toz2 max~ and find that an extra 28,492 clusters between 1.5 ?z ?2 can be detected.The DE FoM for(w0,wa)increases to 89.72 and 610.97, for the self-calibration and“known SR”schemes, respectively, approximately improved by a factor of ~1.30 and ~1.78 from the results ofzmax~ 1.5.Thus,a small number of clusters at high redshift can tighten the cosmological constraints considerably, and high redshift clusters are more helpful to constrain DE with a better calibrated observable-mass scaling relation.

    We find that the impact of the redshift uncertainty of clusters on the constraints of DE is negligible as long as the accuracy of redshift is better than 0.01, achievable by the current DES survey.If the clusters’redshift error degrades further to 0.03,FoM decreases only by a small amount of 9%.We also find that the logarithm mass bias must be calibrated to|BM,0|<0.30 or better to avoid significant DE parameter bias.

    In this work, we have focused on constraining DE parameters using cluster number counts alone.One can surely add in other cluster statistics to tighten the constraints with complementary information or better knowledge of systematics, for example the cluster power spectrum and the stacked lensing of clusters.On the other hand, various other fundamental problems can be investigated by using the CSST cluster sample,e.g.,neutrino mass,primordial non-Gaussianity or modified gravity.We plan to investigate these prospects in future study.

    Acknowledgments

    This work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China grants Nos.2022YFF0503404 and 2021YFC2203102,by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC,Grant Nos.12173036, 11773024, 11653002, 11421303 and 12073036),by the China Manned Space Project grant No.CMSCSST-2021-B01, by the Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities Grant Nos.WK3440000004 and WK3440000005, and by the CAS Interdisciplinary Innovation Team.

    Appendix

    Constraints on Cosmological Parameters

    In this Appendix, for completeness and comparison with other work, we display the constraint contours for all cosmological parameters for the w0waCDM model, see Figure A1.We do not show the contours for the Hubble parameter or the cosmic baryon density since we have used the Planck priors on these two parameters.The constraints are obtained by the self-calibration scheme(blue)and“known SR”scheme (red), respectively, assumingzmax~ 1.5and clusters’redshift uncertainty of 0.001.It is clear from these contours that the constraining power from the CSST galaxy cluster survey will become much more powerful if the scaling relation sector is better understood.The improvements from better knowledge of the observable-mass scaling relation are more pronounced for constraints on other cosmological parameters(Ωch2,σ8and ns) than for w0and wa.The degeneracy directions of some cosmological parameters are different for the two schemes since the inclusion of observable-mass scaling relation parameters in the self-calibration scheme will alter the degeneracy directions of the cosmological parameters in the“known SR”scheme.

    Figure A1.The contours of constraints (1σ) on cosmological parameters for the w0waCDM model obtained by the self-calibration scheme (blue) and “known SR”scheme (red), respectively.

    黄片大片在线免费观看| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 校园春色视频在线观看| 不卡av一区二区三区| ponron亚洲| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 亚洲五月天丁香| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 国产免费男女视频| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 电影成人av| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 在线播放国产精品三级| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 久久这里只有精品19| 成人18禁在线播放| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三 | 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 91成年电影在线观看| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 一区在线观看完整版| 大码成人一级视频| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 国产成人精品无人区| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 久久青草综合色| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 日韩有码中文字幕| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 不卡一级毛片| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 在线国产一区二区在线| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 精品人妻1区二区| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 制服诱惑二区| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 午夜两性在线视频| 黄色 视频免费看| 18禁观看日本| 欧美在线黄色| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 亚洲av成人av| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 一区福利在线观看| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 天天添夜夜摸| 日本 欧美在线| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 91麻豆av在线| 无限看片的www在线观看| 午夜激情av网站| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 日韩av在线大香蕉| svipshipincom国产片| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| av在线天堂中文字幕| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 天天一区二区日本电影三级 | 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 国产成人av教育| 99国产精品99久久久久| 免费少妇av软件| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 多毛熟女@视频| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 美女大奶头视频| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 亚洲 国产 在线| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 久久草成人影院| 成年版毛片免费区| 天堂√8在线中文| 久久香蕉激情| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 欧美色视频一区免费| 看片在线看免费视频| 亚洲精品国产区一区二| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 操出白浆在线播放| 精品久久久精品久久久| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 中文字幕久久专区| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| av网站免费在线观看视频| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 很黄的视频免费| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 99久久国产精品久久久| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 一级毛片精品| 亚洲片人在线观看| 日韩有码中文字幕| 亚洲最大成人中文| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 操出白浆在线播放| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 国产三级在线视频| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 黄色a级毛片大全视频| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 嫩草影院精品99| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 长腿黑丝高跟| 精品久久久久久成人av| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 多毛熟女@视频| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 露出奶头的视频| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 中国美女看黄片| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看 | 男女午夜视频在线观看| 午夜福利18| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 亚洲,欧美精品.| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 9色porny在线观看| 欧美日韩精品网址| 午夜影院日韩av| 极品教师在线免费播放| 国产成人av教育| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 一本久久中文字幕| 9色porny在线观看| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 香蕉久久夜色| 天堂√8在线中文| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 电影成人av| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av | 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 亚洲av美国av| 香蕉国产在线看| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 午夜久久久在线观看| 国产精品免费视频内射| 香蕉丝袜av| 九色国产91popny在线| 午夜福利18| 一区二区三区精品91| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 免费不卡黄色视频| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 69av精品久久久久久| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 超碰成人久久| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 嫩草影视91久久| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 精品高清国产在线一区| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 老司机靠b影院| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清 | 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3 | 久久中文看片网| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 久热这里只有精品99| 久久香蕉国产精品| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 88av欧美| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 99热只有精品国产| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡 | 91麻豆av在线| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影 | 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 免费不卡黄色视频| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 亚洲av熟女| 国产高清videossex| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 午夜久久久久精精品| 999久久久国产精品视频| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| avwww免费| 久9热在线精品视频| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 不卡一级毛片| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 午夜久久久在线观看| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 嫩草影院精品99| www.精华液| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 香蕉丝袜av| 国产片内射在线| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡 | 超碰成人久久| 午夜免费观看网址| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 香蕉久久夜色| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 日韩欧美三级三区| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 美女午夜性视频免费| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 窝窝影院91人妻| 日本欧美视频一区| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 久久 成人 亚洲| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| www.www免费av| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3 | 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 国产高清有码在线观看视频 | 一夜夜www| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 大香蕉久久成人网| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 精品电影一区二区在线| 久久中文看片网| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 欧美色视频一区免费| 校园春色视频在线观看| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看 | 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看 | 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 欧美午夜高清在线| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 88av欧美| 欧美色视频一区免费| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 日本五十路高清| 亚洲av成人av| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 十八禁网站免费在线| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 久久九九热精品免费| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 9热在线视频观看99| 91字幕亚洲| 久久中文字幕人妻熟女| 91麻豆av在线| 精品福利观看| 亚洲第一青青草原| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 露出奶头的视频| 国产亚洲欧美98| 亚洲最大成人中文| 日本欧美视频一区| 香蕉丝袜av| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 9热在线视频观看99| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 亚洲无线在线观看| 两个人看的免费小视频| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 人人澡人人妻人| 午夜免费观看网址| 脱女人内裤的视频| 十八禁网站免费在线| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 国产片内射在线| 午夜激情av网站| 美女午夜性视频免费| 国产成人精品久久二区二区91| 91大片在线观看| 嫩草影视91久久| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 日韩欧美免费精品| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 国产免费男女视频| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| avwww免费| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 精品久久久久久,| 日韩有码中文字幕| 悠悠久久av| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| www国产在线视频色| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 操出白浆在线播放| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 在线av久久热| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 欧美日韩黄片免| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 久久九九热精品免费| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 在线播放国产精品三级| 久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 一级毛片精品| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看 | 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 伦理电影免费视频| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 亚洲九九香蕉| 99国产精品99久久久久| 亚洲第一av免费看| www.www免费av| av视频在线观看入口| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 看片在线看免费视频| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女 | 在线观看日韩欧美| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 不卡av一区二区三区| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 午夜两性在线视频| av视频在线观看入口| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 亚洲国产看品久久| 91麻豆av在线| 此物有八面人人有两片| 久99久视频精品免费| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 伦理电影免费视频| 午夜福利18| 中文字幕色久视频| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 无限看片的www在线观看| 亚洲av美国av| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3 | 国产亚洲欧美98| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 十八禁网站免费在线| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡 | 久久久久国内视频| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 99riav亚洲国产免费| www日本在线高清视频| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 久久久久亚洲av毛片大全| 91成人精品电影| 中国美女看黄片| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 最好的美女福利视频网| 最好的美女福利视频网| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 老司机福利观看| 亚洲第一电影网av| 此物有八面人人有两片| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区| 国产成人精品久久二区二区91| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 国产片内射在线| 午夜福利18| 日本 欧美在线| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 美国免费a级毛片| 免费av毛片视频| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 午夜精品在线福利| 国产熟女xx| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 看黄色毛片网站| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 香蕉国产在线看| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 精品电影一区二区在线| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 久久中文字幕一级| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频 | 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 国产高清激情床上av| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 美女大奶头视频| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 午夜免费鲁丝| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 热re99久久国产66热| 成在线人永久免费视频| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 日本免费a在线| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 一本久久中文字幕| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频 | 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3 | 丝袜人妻中文字幕| www.精华液| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 一级片免费观看大全| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 不卡av一区二区三区| 国产高清有码在线观看视频 | 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人|