MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597358371 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.103522

Effects of neutrino mass hierarchies on dynamical dark energy models

2017· article· en· W2597358371 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Weiqiang Yang, Rafael C. Nunes, Supriya Pan, David F. Mota

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Engineering Research BoardFoundation of Henan Educational CommitteeNorges ForskningsrådNational Youth Foundation of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDark energyPhysicsPlanckNeutrinoWeak gravitational lensingCosmic microwave backgroundAstrophysicsHubble's lawSupernovaBaryon acoustic oscillationsBaryonRedshiftObservational cosmologyParticle physicsNeutrino oscillationCosmologyGalaxyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate how three different possibilities of neutrino mass hierarchies, namely normal, inverted, and degenerate, can affect the observational constraints on three well-known dynamical dark energy models, namely the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder, logarithmic, and the Jassal-Bagla-Padmanabhan parametrizations. In order to impose the observational constraints on the models, we performed a robust analysis using Planck 2015 temperature and polarization data, supernovae type Ia from the joint light curve analysis, baryon acoustic oscillation distance measurements, redshift space distortion characterized by $f(z){\ensuremath{\sigma}}_{8}(z)$ data, weak gravitational lensing data from the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey, and cosmic chronometer data plus the local value of the Hubble parameter. We find that different neutrino mass hierarchies return similar fits on almost all model parameters and mildly change the dynamical dark energy properties.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.368 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207