PROBING FOR THE COSMOLOGICAL PARAMETERS WITH PLANCK MEASUREMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we investigate the constraints on the cosmological parameters, especially the equation of state of dynamical dark energy w DE , the inflationary parameters ns, αs and r, the total neutrino mass ∑ mν and the curvature of the universe ΩK, using the simulated data of future Planck measurement. First, we determine the cosmological parameters with the current observations, including ESSENCE (192 samples), Three-Year WMAP (WMAP3), Boomerang-2K2, CBI, VSA, ACBAR, SDSS LRG and 2dFGRS, and then we take the best-fit model as the fiducial model in the ensuing simulations. In the simulations we pay particular attention to the effects of the dynamical dark energy in the determination of the cosmological parameters. For this reason, in order to make our constraints more robust, we have added the simulated SNAP data to our simulations. Using the present data, we find that the Quintom dark energy model is mildly favored, while the ΛCDM model remains a good fit. In the framework of the dynamical dark energy model, the constraints on the inflationary parameters, ∑ mν and ΩK, become weak, compared with the constraints in the ΛCDM model. Intriguingly, we find that the inflationary models with a "blue" tilt, which are excluded about 2σ in the ΛCDM model, are well within the 2σ region with the presence of the dynamics of dark energy. The upper limits of neutrino mass are weakened by a factor of 2 (95% CL) — say, ∑ mν < 1.59 eV and ∑ mν < 1.53 eV for two forms of parametrization of the equation of state of dark energy. The flat universe is a good fit to the current data, namely |ΩK| < 0.03 (95% CL). With the simulated Planck and SNAP data, the dynamical dark energy model and the ΛCDM model might be distinguished at the 4σ confidence level. And the uncertainties of the inflationary parameters, ∑ mν and ΩK, can be reduced significantly in the framework of the dynamical dark energy model. We also constrain the rotation angle Δα, denoting the possible CPT violation, from the simulated Planck and CMBpol data and find that our results are much more stringent than the current constraint and will be used to verify the CPT symmetry with a higher precision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".