Impacts of dark energy on constraining neutrino mass after Planck 2018

Ming Zhang; Jing-Fei Zhang; Xin Zhang

doi:10.1088/1572-9494/abbb84

Abstract

Considering the mass splittings of three active neutrinos, we investigate how the properties of dark energy affect the cosmological constraints on the total neutrino mass $\sum m_{ν}$ using the latest cosmological observations. In this paper, several typical dark energy models, including ΛCDM, wCDM, CPL, and HDE models, are discussed. In the analysis, we also consider the effects from the neutrino mass hierarchies, i.e. the degenerate hierarchy (DH), the normal hierarchy (NH), and the inverted hierarchy (IH). We employ the current cosmological observations to do the analysis, including the Planck 2018 temperature and polarization power spectra, the baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), the type Ia supernovae (SNe), and the Hubble constant H₀ measurement. In the ΛCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model, we obtain the upper limits of the neutrino mass $\sum m_{ν} < 0.123 e V$ (DH), $\sum m_{ν} < 0.156 e V$ (NH), and $\sum m_{ν} < 0.185 e V$ (IH) at the 95% C.L., using the Planck+BAO+SNe data combination. For the wCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model and the CPL+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model, larger upper limits of $\sum m_{ν}$ are obtained compared to those of the ΛCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model. The most stringent constraint on the neutrino mass, $\sum m_{ν} < 0.080 e V$ (DH), is derived in the HDE+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model. In addition, we find that the inclusion of the local measurement of the Hubble constant in the data combination leads to tighter constraints on the total neutrino mass in all these dark energy models.

Key words

neutrino mass / mass hierarchies of neutrinos / dark energy / cosmological constraints / Planck 2018

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Ming Zhang, Jing-Fei Zhang, Xin Zhang. Impacts of dark energy on constraining neutrino mass after Planck 2018[J]. Communications in Theoretical Physics, 2020, 72(12): 125402 https://doi.org/10.1088/1572-9494/abbb84

1. Introduction

Neutrino oscillation experiments [1, 2] indicate that the three neutrino flavor eigenstates (ν_e, ν_μ, ν_τ) are actually quantum superpositions of the three mass eigenstates (ν₁, ν₂, ν₃) with masses m₁, m₂, and m₃. However, neutrino oscillation experiments cannot measure the absolute neutrino masses, but can only give the squared mass differences between the different mass eigenstates of neutrino. The solar and reactor experiments gave the result of Δm₂₁² ≃ 7.54 × 10⁻⁵eV² and the atmospheric and accelerator beam experiments gave the result of

| Δ m_{31}^{2} | ≃ 2.46 \times 10^{- 3}

eV² [3, 4], which indicates that there are two possible neutrino mass hierarchies, i.e. the normal hierarchy (NH) with m₁ < m₂ ≪ m₃ and the inverted hierarchy (IH) with m₃ ≪ m₁ < m₂. The case of neglecting the neutrino mass splitting, namely m₁ = m₂ = m₃, is called the degenerate hierarchy (DH).

Nevertheless, cosmological observations could provide a useful tool to measure the absolute neutrino total mass. With the decrease of the neutrino temperature, neutrino becomes non-relativistic at T ∼ 0.15 eV in the evolution of the Universe. Then the mass effect of neutrinos begins to appear, which leads to a non-negligible influence on the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and large-scale structure [5-11]. Therefore, we could extract much useful information about neutrino from cosmological observations.

Recently, the observational data of Planck 2018 have been released by the Planck collaboration, and according to the latest data the upper limit of the total neutrino mass is

\sum m_{ν} < 0.24 e V

(95% C.L., TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing) [12]. Since the baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) data at low redshifts can break the geometric degeneracy inherent in CMB, the combination of the acoustic scales measured by the CMB and BAO data can determine the background geometry sufficiently. Combining BAO data with CMB data, the neutrino mass can be constrained to be

\sum m_{ν} < 0.12 e V

(95% C.L., TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing+BAO). Adding the Pantheon type Ia supernovae (SNe) luminosity distance measurements, the constraint only becomes slightly better, with the result still roughly

\sum m_{ν} < 0.11 e V

(95% C.L., TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing+BAO+SNe). It is noted that these results are based on the ΛCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model.

Therefore, we wish to investigate the impacts of dark energy on constraining the total neutrino mass. In this work, we consider some typical dark energy models, including the ΛCDM model, the wCDM model, the w₀w_aCDM model (also known as the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder model or the CPL model) [13, 14], and the holographic dark energy (HDE) model [15-22]. In addition, we also consider the effects from the neutrino mass hierarchies (i.e. DH, NH, and IH) in our analysis.

More recently, some related studies of constraints on the total neutrino mass have been made; see, e.g. [23-67]. The cosmological constraints on the total neutrino mass in dynamical dark energy models have been discussed in, e.g. [46, 47], which indicates that the nature of dark energy can have a significant influence on the measurement of the total neutrino mass. As the latest CMB data have been released by the Planck collaboration, the results need to be updated. In this work, we employ the latest cosmological observations, including the CMB, BAO, SNe, and H₀ data to make a new analysis.

In this work, we will use the recent local measurement of the Hubble constant H₀, with the result of H₀ = 74.03 ± 1.42 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹ (68% C.L.), by Riess et al [68]. Note that this local measurement result is in more than 4σ tension with the result of the Planck 2018 observation assuming a six-parameter base-Λ CDM model. Thus, we also wish to investigate how the inclusion of the H₀ local measurement would affect the measurement of the total neutrino mass in these dark energy models.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we describe the methodology in our analysis. In section 3, we show the results and make some discussions. Finally, the conclusion is given in section 4.

2. Methodology

We take into account the neutrino mass splittings between the three active neutrinos. We employ the measurement results of neutrino oscillation experiments [3]

\begin{array}{rcl} Δ m_{21}^{2} \equiv m_{2}^{2} - m_{1}^{2} = 7.54 \times 10^{- 5} {e V}^{2}, \end{array}

(1)

\begin{array}{rcl} | Δ m_{31}^{2} | \equiv | m_{3}^{2} - m_{1}^{2} | = 2.46 \times 10^{- 3} {e V}^{2} . \end{array}

(2)

The total neutrino mass

\sum m_{ν}

is the sum of three active neutrino mass. For the NH case,

\sum m_{ν}

is written as

\begin{array}{rcl} \sum m_{ν}^{N H} = m_{1} + \sqrt{m_{1}^{2} + Δ m_{21}^{2}} + \sqrt{m_{1}^{2} + Δ m_{31}^{2}}, \end{array}

(3)

where m₁ is a free parameter. For the IH case,

\sum m_{ν}

is written as

\begin{array}{rcl} \sum m_{ν}^{I H} = \sqrt{m_{3}^{2} + | Δ m_{31}^{2} |} + \sqrt{m_{3}^{2} + | Δ m_{31}^{2} | + Δ m_{21}^{2}} + m_{3}, \end{array}

(4)

where m₃ is a free parameter. For the DH case, ignoring the neutrino mass splittings,

\sum m_{ν}

can be written as

\begin{array}{rcl} \sum m_{ν}^{D H} = m_{1} + m_{2} + m_{3} = 3 m, \end{array}

(5)

where m is a free parameter. Therefore, the lower bounds of

\sum m_{ν}

are 0 eV, 0.06 eV and 0.1 eV for DH, NH and IH, respectively. In this way, the total neutrino mass

\sum m_{ν}

as an additional parameter will be considered in our analysis.

In this paper, we make a global fit analysis on the different dark energy models, i.e. the ΛCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model, the wCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model, the CPL+

\sum m_{ν}

model, and the HDE+

\sum m_{ν}

model. We modify the publicly available Markov chain Monte-Carlo package CosmoMC [69] (that uses the Boltzmann solver CAMB [70]) to do the numerical calculations.

Here, we give a brief introduction to these dark energy models.

•	• The ΛCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model: The model containing a cosmological constant Λ and cold dark matter is called the ΛCDM model, which can fit various cosmological observations well. For the ΛCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model, the parameter space vector is: $\begin{array}{rcl} P_{1} \equiv (ω_{b}, ω_{c}, Θ_{s}, τ, n_{s}, l n [10^{10} A_{s}], \sum m_{ν}), \end{array}$ (6) where $ω_{b} \equiv Ω_{b} h^{2}$ and $ω_{c} \equiv Ω_{c} h^{2}$ represent baryon and cold dark matter densities, respectively, Θ_s is the ratio between sound horizon r_s and angular diameter distance D_A at the time of photon decoupling, τ is the optical depth to the reionization of the universe, n_s and A_s are the power-law spectral index and amplitude of the power spectrum of primordial curvature perturbations, respectively, and $\sum m_{ν}$ is the total neutrino mass.
•	• The wCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model: The wCDM model is the simplest dynamical dark energy model, in which the equation-of-state (EoS) parameter w(z) is assumed to be a constant. For the wCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model, the parameter space vector is: $\begin{array}{rcl} P_{2} \equiv (ω_{b}, ω_{c}, Θ_{s}, τ, n_{s}, l n [10^{10} A_{s}], w, \sum m_{ν}) . \end{array}$ (7)
•	• The CPL+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model: For probing the evolution of w(z), the most widely used parameterization model is the CPL model [13, 14]. The form of w(z) in this model is given by $\begin{array}{rcl} w (z) = w_{0} + w_{a} (1 - a) = w_{0} + w_{a} \frac{z}{1 + z}, \end{array}$ (8) where w₀ and w_a are free parameters. So, for the CPL+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model, the parameter space vector is: $\begin{array}{rcl} P_{3} \equiv (ω_{b}, ω_{c}, Θ_{s}, τ, n_{s}, l n [10^{10} A_{s}], w_{0}, w_{a}, \sum m_{ν}) . \end{array}$ (9)
•	• The HDE+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model: The HDE model is built based on the the effective quantum field theory together with the holographic principle of quantum gravity. We can put an energy bound on the vacuum energy density, $ρ_{d e} L^{3} ⩽ M_{P l}^{2} L$ , where M_Pl is the reduced Planck mass, which means that the total energy in a spatial region with size L should not exceed the mass of a black hole with the same size [71]. The largest length size that is compatible with this bound is the infrared cutoff size of this effective quantum field theory. An infrared scale can saturate that bound, and thus the dark energy density can be written as [15] $\begin{array}{rcl} ρ_{d e} = 3 c^{2} M_{P l}^{2} L^{- 2}, \end{array}$ (10) where c is a dimensionless phenomenological parameter (note that here c is not the speed of light), which plays an important role in determining the properties of the HDE. The value of c determines the evolution of w. In the HDE model, the EoS can be expressed as $\begin{array}{rcl} w = - \frac{1}{3} - \frac{2}{3} \frac{\sqrt{Ω_{d e}}}{c} . \end{array}$ (11) According to this equation, we can find that in the early times $w \to - 1 / 3$ (since $Ω_{d e} \to 0$ ) and in the far future $w \to - 1 / 3 - 2 / (3 c)$ (since $Ω_{d e} \to 1$ ). Thus, when c < 1, we can find that the EoS parameter w crosses −1 during the cosmological evolution. For the HDE+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model, the parameter space vector is: $\begin{array}{rcl} P_{4} \equiv (ω_{b}, ω_{c}, Θ_{s}, τ, n_{s}, l n [10^{10} A_{s}], c, \sum m_{ν}) . \end{array}$ (12)

The observational data sets used in this work include CMB, BAO, SNe, and H₀. Here we also briefly describe these observational data.

•	• The CMB data: We employ the CMB likelihood including the TT, TE, and EE spectra at ℓ ≥ 30, the low-ℓ temperature Commander likelihood, and the low-ℓ SimAll EE likelihood, from the Planck 2018 release [12].
•	• The BAO data: We employ the measurements of the BAO signals from different galaxy surveys, including the DR7 Main Galaxy Sample at the effective redshift of z_eff = 0.15 [72], the six-degree-field Galaxy Survey (6dFGS) at z_eff = 0.106 [73], and the latest BOSS data release 12 (DR12) in three redshift slices of z_eff = 0.38, 0.51, and 0.61 [74].
•	• The SNe data: We use the latest SNe data given the Pantheon Sample [75], which contains 1048 SNe data in the redshift range of 0.01 < z < 2.3.
•	• The Hubble constant: We use the result of the direct measurement of the Hubble constant, with the result of H₀ = 74.03 ± 1.42 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹, given by Riess et al [68].

In this study, our basic data combination is Planck+BAO+SNe. In addition, in order to investigate the impacts of the H₀ measurement on constraints on the neutrino mass, we also consider the data combination of Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀.

Figure 1. Left: the one-dimensional marginalized posterior distributions for $\sum m_{ν}$ using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations in the ΛCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model. Right: the two-dimensional marginalized contours (1σ and 2σ) in the $\sum m_{ν}$ -H₀ plane for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, by using Planck+BAO+SNe data combination in the ΛCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model.

Full size|PPT slide

3. Results and discussion

In this section, we report the results of constraining the total neutrino mass from the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations. In our analysis, several typical dark energy models, i.e. the ΛCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model, the wCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model, the CPL+

\sum m_{ν}

model, and the HDE+

\sum m_{ν}

model, are investigated. In the meantime, we compare the results of the three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case. The main results are listed in tables 1-4 and shown in figures 1-4. The best-fit values of χ² in the various cases are also listed. The fit values of parameters are given at 68% C.L. (1σ), and the upper limits of the neutrino mass are given at 95% C.L. (2σ).

Figure 2. The two-dimensional marginalized contours (1σ and 2σ) in the $\sum m_{ν}$ -w and H₀-w planes for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, by using Planck+BAO+SNe data combination in the wCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model.

Full size|PPT slide

Table 1. Fitting results of the cosmological parameters in the ΛCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations.

Data	Planck+BAO+SNe			Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀
Mass ordering	DH	NH	IH	DH	NH	IH
H₀ (km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹)	67.75 ± 0.49	67.48 ± 0.47	67.26 ± 0.45	68.40 ± 0.44	68.11 ± 0.43	67.88 ± 0.43
Ω_m	0.3097 ± 0.0063	0.3126 ± 0.0063	0.3150 ± 0.0060	0.3015 ± 0.0056	0.3044 ± 0.0056	0.3069 ± 0.0056
σ₈	${0.812}_{- 0.008}^{+ 0.013}$	${0.801}_{- 0.008}^{+ 0.011}$	${0.793}_{- 0.008}^{+ 0.010}$	${0.813}_{- 0.008}^{+ 0.010}$	${0.801}_{- 0.008}^{+ 0.009}$	${0.792}_{- 0.008}^{+ 0.009}$
$\sum m_{ν}$ (eV)	$< 0.123$	<0.156	<0.185	<0.082	<0.125	<0.160

χ²	3805.133	3807.205	3809.012	3821.466	3825.557	3828.810

3.1. Cases in different dark energy models

Firstly, we compare the constraint results in the different dark energy models from the Planck+BAO+SNe data combination. In table 1, we can obtain

\sum m_{ν} < 0.123 e V

for the DH case,

\sum m_{ν} < 0.156 e V

for the NH case,

\sum m_{ν} < 0.185 e V

for the IH case in the ΛCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model (see figure 1). For the wCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model, we have

\sum m_{ν} < 0.155 e V

(DH),

\sum m_{ν} < 0.195 e V

(NH), and

\sum m_{ν} < 0.220 e V

(IH) corresponding to w = −1.029 ± 0.035 (DH), w = −1.042 ± 0.035 (NH), and w = −1.051 ± 0.035 (IH), respectively (see table 2 and figure 2), and we find that the upper limits of

\sum m_{ν}

become larger, compared to the ΛCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model. In the CPL+

\sum m_{ν}

model, the neutrino mass bounds are greatly relaxed (see table 3 and figure 3), and they are

\sum m_{ν} < 0.247 e V

(DH),

\sum m_{ν} < 0.290 e V

(NH), and

\sum m_{ν} < 0.305 e V

(IH). As is showed in figure 3, we find that a phantom dark energy (i.e. w < −1) or an early phantom dark energy (i.e. the quintom evolving from w < −1 to w > −1) is slightly more favored by current cosmological observations, which leads to the fact that a larger upper limit of

\sum m_{ν}

is obtained in the wCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

and CPL+

\sum m_{ν}

models. For the HDE+

\sum m_{ν}

model, an early quintessence dark energy with c < 1 (i.e. the quintom eVolving from w < −1 to w > −1) is favored, and we could obtain the most stringent upper limits of the neutrino mass with

\sum m_{ν} < 0.080 e V

(DH),

\sum m_{ν} < 0.129 e V

(NH),

\sum m_{ν} < 0.163 e V

(IH), as also shown in table 4 and figure 4.

Figure 3. The two-dimensional marginalized contours (1σ and 2σ) in the w₀-w_a plane for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, by using Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations in the CPL+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model.

Full size|PPT slide

Table 2. Fitting results of the cosmological parameters in the wCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations.

Data	Planck+BAO+SNe			Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀
Mass ordering	DH	NH	IH	DH	NH	IH
w	−1.029 ± 0.035	−1.042 ± 0.035	−1.051 ± 0.035	−1.078 ± 0.033	−1.090 ± 0.033	$- {1.100}_{- 0.031}^{+ 0.034}$
H₀ (km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹)	68.27 ± 0.83	68.23 ± 0.83	68.21 ± 0.81	69.79 ± 0.73	69.74 ± 0.73	69.70 ± 0.74
Ω_m	0.3064 ± 0.0078	0.3076 ± 0.0078	0.3084 ± 0.0076	0.2932 ± 0.0066	0.2945 ± 0.0066	0.2954 ± 0.0067
σ₈	0.819 ± 0.015	${0.811}_{- 0.014}^{+ 0.015}$	0.805 ± 0.014	${0.834}_{- 0.013}^{+ 0.015}$	${0.826}_{- 0.013}^{+ 0.014}$	0.820 ± 0.014
$\sum m_{ν}$ (eV)	<0.155	<0.195	<0.220	<0.145	<0.183	<0.210

χ²	3805.053	3806.381	3807.724	3817.072	3818.757	3819.912

Table 3. Fitting results of the cosmological parameters in the CPL+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations.

Data	Planck+BAO+SNe			Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀
Mass ordering	DH	NH	IH	DH	NH	IH
w₀	−0.945 ± 0.087	−0.933 ± 0.089	−0.923 ± 0.089	−1.003 ± 0.082	−0.988 ± 0.086	−0.978 ± 0.088
w_a	$- {0.41}_{- 0.30}^{+ 0.44}$	$- {0.52}_{- 0.32}^{+ 0.46}$	$- {0.61}_{- 0.33}^{+ 0.46}$	$- {0.38}_{- 0.31}^{+ 0.41}$	$- {0.50}_{- 0.33}^{+ 0.44}$	$- {0.60}_{- 0.34}^{+ 0.45}$
H₀ (km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹)	68.22 ± 0.83	68.19 ± 0.83	68.14 ± 0.84	69.78 ± 0.73	69.71 ± 0.74	69.69 ± 0.73
Ω_m	0.3087 ± 0.0082	0.3102 ± 0.0083	0.3113 ± 0.0083	0.2948 ± 0.0068	0.2965 ± 0.0070	0.2976 ± 0.0069
σ₈	${0.819}_{- 0.015}^{+ 0.018}$	${0.813}_{- 0.015}^{+ 0.018}$	${0.808}_{- 0.015}^{+ 0.018}$	${0.835}_{- 0.015}^{+ 0.017}$	${0.828}_{- 0.014}^{+ 0.017}$	${0.823}_{- 0.014}^{+ 0.017}$
$\sum m_{ν}$ (eV)	<0.247	<0.290	<0.305	<0.216	<0.255	<0.281

χ²	3804.644	3805.938	3806.531	3816.716	3817.806	3818.809

Table 4. Fitting results of the cosmological parameters in the HDE+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations.

Data	Planck+BAO+SNe			Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀
Mass ordering	DH	NH	IH	DH	NH	IH
c	${0.645}_{- 0.031}^{+ 0.027}$	${0.632}_{- 0.030}^{+ 0.026}$	${0.623}_{- 0.029}^{+ 0.025}$	${0.608}_{- 0.025}^{+ 0.023}$	0.595 ± 0.024	${0.587}_{- 0.024}^{+ 0.022}$
H₀ (km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹)	67.85 ± 0.81	67.79 ± 0.79	67.74 ± 0.80	69.38 ± 0.72	69.33 ± 0.71	69.27 ± 0.71
Ω_m	0.3061 ± 0.0077	0.3077 ± 0.0076	0.3087 ± 0.0076	0.2927 ± 0.0065	0.2939 ± 0.0065	0.2951 ± 0.0065
σ₈	0.797 ± 0.013	0.789 ± 0.013	0.783 ± 0.013	0.811 ± 0.013	0.803 ± 0.012	0.796 ± 0.12
$\sum m_{ν}$ (eV)	<0.080	<0.129	<0.163	<0.075	<0.123	<0.159

χ²	3822.977	3828.219	3830.980	3838.467	3845.127	3845.289

In addition, we can compare the best-fit χ² values of these models, which are listed in tables 1-4. For the wCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model, the χ² values in the same neutrino mass hierarchy are slightly smaller than those of the ΛCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model, at the price of adding one more parameter. We obtain the smallest χ² values in the CPL+

\sum m_{ν}

model, since this model has the most free parameters. For the HDE+

\sum m_{ν}

model, the most stringent upper limits of

\sum m_{ν}

can be obtained, but the χ² values are much larger than those of the ΛCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model.

Figure 4. The two-dimensional marginalized contours (1σ and 2σ) in the H₀-c and $\sum m_{ν}$ -c planes for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, by using Planck+BAO+SNe data combination in the HDE+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model.

Full size|PPT slide

For all these models, we discuss the fitting results in the different neutrino mass hierarchies. The prior of the lower bounds of

\sum m_{ν}

are 0 eV, 0.06 eV and 0.1 eV for DH, NH and IH, respectively, which can affect the constraint results of

\sum m_{ν}

significantly. In tables 1-4, the upper limits of

\sum m_{ν}

for the NH case are smaller than those for the IH case in these dark energy models. What's more, we find that the χ² values in the NH case is slightly smaller than those in the IH case for all these models, which indicates that the NH case fits the current observations better than the IH case. This conclusion is still consistent with the previous studies [23, 44, 46, 49, 53, 54, 60, 61].

3.2. Adding the H₀ measurement in data combination

In this subsection, we report the constraint results from the Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combination and investigate the impact of the H₀ measurement on the fit results of

\sum m_{ν}

. As is shown in table 1, we have

\sum m_{ν} < 0.082 e V

for the DH case,

\sum m_{ν} < 0.125 e V

for the NH case,

\sum m_{ν} < 0.160 e V

for the IH case in the ΛCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model. Adding the H₀ data leads to a higher H₀ value in the cosmological fit. From the right panel of figure 1, we can see that

\sum m_{ν}

is anti-correlated with H₀ in the ΛCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model. Therefore, we obtain a smaller upper limit of

\sum m_{ν}

with the Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combination than that with the Planck+BAO+SNe data combination, which can be clearly seen in the left panel of figure 1.

With the Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combination, we have

\sum m_{ν} < 0.145 e V

(DH),

\sum m_{ν} < 0.183 e V

(NH),

\sum m_{ν} < 0.210 e V

(IH) in the wCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model (see table 2); we have

\sum m_{ν} < 0.216 e V

(DH),

\sum m_{ν} < 0.255 e V

(NH),

\sum m_{ν} < 0.281 e V

(IH) in the CPL+

\sum m_{ν}

model (see table 3); we have

\sum m_{ν} < 0.075 e V

(DH),

\sum m_{ν} < 0.123 e V

(NH),

\sum m_{ν} < 0.159 e V

(IH) in the HDE+

\sum m_{ν}

model (see table 4). In all these models, we find that the inclusion of the H₀ data gives a tighter constraint on

\sum m_{ν}

4. Conclusion

In this paper, using the latest cosmological observations (including the Planck 2018 CMB data), we have obtained

\sum m_{ν} < 0.123 e V

(DH),

\sum m_{ν} < 0.156 e V

(NH), and

\sum m_{ν} < 0.185 e V

(IH) in the ΛCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model with the Planck+BAO+SNe data combination. In addition, we also consider the influence of dynamical dark energy on the constraint results of

\sum m_{ν}

. We investigate the cases of the wCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model, the CPL+

\sum m_{ν}

model, and the HDE+

\sum m_{ν}

model, and we find that the nature of dark energy could significantly affect the constraints on the total neutrino mass. Compared to the ΛCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

model, the upper limits of the total neutrino mass become larger in the wCDM+

\sum m_{ν}

and CPL+

\sum m_{ν}

models. Using the Planck+BAO+SNe data combination, the most stringent upper limits of the neutrino mass, i.e.

\sum m_{ν} < 0.080 e V

(DH),

\sum m_{ν} < 0.129 e V

(NH), and

\sum m_{ν} < 0.163 e V

(IH), are obtained in the HDE+

\sum m_{ν}

model.

Comparing the values of χ² between the NH and IH cases, it is found that the NH case fits the current cosmological observations better than the IH case, indicating that the neutrino mass hierarchy is more likely to be the NH case according to the current cosmological data. In addition, it is also found that the inclusion of the local measurement of the Hubble constant in the data combination will lead to a tighter constraint on the total neutrino mass for all the dark energy models considered in this work.

References

List( Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within ) Chart analysis

1	Fukuda Y (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration) 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 1562 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1562 Cited in this article [1]

2	Ahmad Q R (SNO Collaboration) 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 011301 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.011301 Cited in this article [1]

3	Olive K A (Particle Data Group) 2014 Chin. Phys. C 38 090001 https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/38/9/090001 Cited in this article [2]

4	Xing Z Z 2020 Phys. Rep. 854 1 147 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2020.02.001 Cited in this article [1]

5	Abazajian K N (Topical Conveners: K.N. Abazajian, J.E. Carlstrom, A.T. Lee Collaboration) 2015 Astropart. Phys. 63 66 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.05.014 Cited in this article [1]

6	Lesgourgues J Pastor S 2006 Phys. Rep. 429 307 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2006.04.001

7	Wong Y Y Y 2011 Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 61 69 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102010-130252

8	Lesgourgues J Pastor S 2012 Adv. High Energy Phys. 2012 608515 https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/608515

9	Lesgourgues J Pastor S 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065002 https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065002

10	Archidiacono M Brinckmann T Lesgourgues J Poulin V 2017 J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP02(2017)052 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2017/02/052

11	Lattanzi M Gerbino M 2018 Front. Phys. 5 70 https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2017.00070 Cited in this article [1]

12	Aghanim N (Planck) 2020 Astron. Astrophys. 641A6 Cited in this article [2]

13	Chevallier M Polarski D 2001 Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10 213 https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271801000822 Cited in this article [2]

14	Linder E V 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 091301 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301 Cited in this article [2]

15	Li M 2004 Phys. Lett. B 603 1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2004.10.014 Cited in this article [2]

16	Huang Q G Li M 2004 J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP08(2004)013 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2004/08/013

17	Zhang J F Zhao M M Cui J L Zhang X 2014 Eur. Phys. J. C 74 3178 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3178-7

18	Wang S Wang Y Li M 2017 Phys. Rep. 696 1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2017.06.003

19	Wang S Geng J J Hu Y L Zhang X 2015 Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 58 019801

20	Cui J Xu Y Zhang J Zhang X 2015 Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 58 110402 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-015-5734-z

21	He D Z Zhang J F Zhang X 2017 Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 60 039511 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-016-0472-1

22	Xu Y Y Zhang X 2016 Eur. Phys. J. C 76 588 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4446-5 Cited in this article [1]

23	Roy Choudhury S Hannestad S 2019 JCAP JCAP07(2020)03 Cited in this article [2]

24	Reid B A Verde L Jimenez R Mena O 2010 J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP01(2010)003 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2010/01/003

25	Thomas S A Abdalla F B Lahav O 2010 Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 031301 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.031301

26	Carbone C Verde L Wang Y Cimatti A 2011 J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP03(2011)030 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2011/03/030

27	Li H Zhang X 2012 Phys. Lett. B 713 160 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.06.030

28	Li Y H Wang S Li X D Zhang X 2013 J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP02(2013)033 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/033

29	Audren B Lesgourgues J Bird S Haehnelt M G Viel M 2013 J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP01(2013)026 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2013/01/026

30	Riemer-Sørensen S Parkinson D Davis T M 2014 Phys. Rev. D 89 103505 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.103505

31	Zhang J F Li Y H Zhang X 2015 Phys. Lett. B 740 359 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.012

32	Zhang J F Li Y H Zhang X 2014 Eur. Phys. J. C 74 2954 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2954-8

33	Zhang J F Geng J J Zhang X 2014 J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP10(2014)044

34	Palanque-Delabrouille N 2015 J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP02(2015)045 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2015/02/045

35	Li Y H Zhang J F Zhang X 2015 Phys. Lett. B 744 213 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2015.03.063

36	Zhang J F Zhao M M Li Y H Zhang X 2015 J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP04(2015)038 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2015/04/038

37	Geng C Q Lee C C Myrzakulov R Sami M Saridakis E N 2016 J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP01(2016)049 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/01/049

38	Chen Y Xu L 2016 Phys. Lett. B 752 66 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2015.11.022

39	Allison R Caucal P Calabrese E Dunkley J Louis T 2015 Phys. Rev. D 92 123535 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.123535

40	Cuesta A J Niro V Verde L 2016 Phys. Dark Univ. 13 77 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2016.04.005

41	Chen Y Ratra B Biesiada M Li S Zhu Z H 2016 Astrophys. J. 829 61 https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/61

42	Lu J Liu M Wu Y Wang Y Yang W 2016 Eur. Phys. J. C 76 679 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4525-7

43	Kumar S Nunes R C 2016 Phys. Rev. D 94 123511 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.123511

44	Xu L Huang Q G 2018 Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 61 039521 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-017-9125-0 Cited in this article [1]

45	Vagnozzi S Giusarma E Mena O Freese K Gerbino M Ho S Lattanzi M 2017 Phys. Rev. D 96 123503 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.123503

46	Zhang X 2017 Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 60 060431 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-017-9025-7 Cited in this article [2]

47	Zhang X 2016 Phys. Rev. D 93 083011 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.083011 Cited in this article [1]

48	Lorenz C S Calabrese E Alonso D 2017 Phys. Rev. D 96 043510 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.043510

49	Zhao M M Zhang J F Zhang X 2018 Phys. Lett. B 779 473 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.042 Cited in this article [1]

50	Vagnozzi S Dhawan S Gerbino M Freese K Goobar A Mena O 2018 Phys. Rev. D 98 083501 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083501

51	Wang L F Zhang X N Zhang J F Zhang X 2018 Phys. Lett. B 782 87 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.05.027

52	Zhang J F Wang B Zhang X 2020 Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63 280411 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-019-1516-y

53	Guo R Y Zhang J F Zhang X 2018 Chin. Phys. C 42 095103 https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/42/9/095103 Cited in this article [1]

54	Zhao M Guo R He D Zhang J Zhang X 2020 Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63 230412 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-019-1474-8 Cited in this article [1]

55	Loureiro A 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 081301 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.081301

56	Huang Q G Wang K Wang S 2016 Eur. Phys. J. C 76 489 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4334-z

57	Bellomo N Bellini E Hu B Jimenez R Pena-Garay C Verde L 2017 J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP02(2017)043 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2017/02/043

58	Hu B Torrado J 2015 Phys. Rev. D 91 064039 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.064039

59	Xu L 2016 J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP08(2016)059 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/08/059

60	Wang S Wang Y F Xia D M Zhang X 2016 Phys. Rev. D 94 083519 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.083519 Cited in this article [1]

61	Feng L Li H L Zhang J F Zhang X 2020 Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63 220401 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-019-9431-9 Cited in this article [1]

62	Diaz Rivero A Miranda V Dvorkin C 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 063504 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.063504

63	Miranda V Dvorkin C 2018 Phys. Rev. D 98 043537 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043537

64	Ballardini M Braglia M Finelli F Paoletti D Starobinsky A A Umiltš C 2020 arXiv:2004.14349 [astro-ph.CO]

65	Hagstotz S de Salas P F Gariazzo S Gerbino M Lattanzi M Vagnozzi S Freese K Pastor S 2020 arXiv:2003.02289 [astro-ph.CO]

66	Vagnozzi S 2019 arXiv:1907.08010 [astro-ph.CO]

67	Giusarma E Vagnozzi S Ho S Ferraro S Freese K Kamen-Rubio R Luk K B 2018 Phys. Rev. D 98 123526 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123526 Cited in this article [1]

68	Riess A G Casertano S Yuan W Macri L M Scolnic D 2019 Astrophys. J. 876 85 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422 Cited in this article [2]

69	Lewis A Bridle S 2002 Phys. Rev. D 66 103511 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.66.103511 Cited in this article [1]

70	Lewis A Challinor A Lasenby A 2000 Astrophys. J. 538 473 https://doi.org/10.1086/309179 Cited in this article [1]

71	Cohen A G Kaplan D B Nelson A E 1999 Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 4971 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.4971 Cited in this article [1]

72	Ross A J Samushia L Howlett C Percival W J Burden A Manera M 2015 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 449 835 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv154 Cited in this article [1]

73	Beutler F 2011 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 416 3017 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19250.x Cited in this article [1]

74	Alam S (BOSS Collaboration) 2017 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 470 2617 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx721 Cited in this article [1]

75	Scolnic D M 2018 Astrophys. J. 859 101 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb Cited in this article [1]

Acknowledgments

We thank Hai-Li Li, Jing-Zhao Qi, and Yun-He Li for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11975072, 11875102, 11835009, and 11690021), the Liaoning Revitalization Talents Program (Grant No. XLYC1905011), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. N2005030), and the Top- Notch Young Talents Program of China (Grant No. W02070050).

Received	Accepted	Published
2020-09-04	2020-09-21	2020-12-01
Issue Date
2020-12-16

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export

Abstract

Key words

Cite this article

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Results and discussion

Figure 2. The two-dimensional marginalized contours (1σ and 2σ) in the $\sum m_{ν}$ -w and H₀-w planes for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, by using Planck+BAO+SNe data combination in the wCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model.

Table 1. Fitting results of the cosmological parameters in the ΛCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations.

3.1. Cases in different dark energy models

Figure 3. The two-dimensional marginalized contours (1σ and 2σ) in the w₀-w_a plane for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, by using Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations in the CPL+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model.

Table 2. Fitting results of the cosmological parameters in the wCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations.

Table 3. Fitting results of the cosmological parameters in the CPL+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations.

Table 4. Fitting results of the cosmological parameters in the HDE+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations.

Figure 4. The two-dimensional marginalized contours (1σ and 2σ) in the H₀-c and $\sum m_{ν}$ -c planes for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, by using Planck+BAO+SNe data combination in the HDE+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model.

3.2. Adding the H₀ measurement in data combination

4. Conclusion

{{custom_sec.title}}

{{custom_sec.title}}

References

{{custom_fnGroup.title_en}}

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

{{custom_ack.title_en}}

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

模态框（Modal）标题

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export

Abstract

Key words

Cite this article

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Results and discussion

Figure 2. The two-dimensional marginalized contours (1σ and 2σ) in the ∑mν-w and H0-w planes for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, by using Planck+BAO+SNe data combination in the wCDM+∑mν model.

Table 1. Fitting results of the cosmological parameters in the ΛCDM+∑mν model for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H0 data combinations.

3.1. Cases in different dark energy models

Figure 3. The two-dimensional marginalized contours (1σ and 2σ) in the w0-wa plane for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, by using Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H0 data combinations in the CPL+∑mν model.

Table 2. Fitting results of the cosmological parameters in the wCDM+∑mν model for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H0 data combinations.

Table 3. Fitting results of the cosmological parameters in the CPL+∑mν model for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H0 data combinations.

Table 4. Fitting results of the cosmological parameters in the HDE+∑mν model for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H0 data combinations.

Figure 4. The two-dimensional marginalized contours (1σ and 2σ) in the H0-c and ∑mν-c planes for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, by using Planck+BAO+SNe data combination in the HDE+∑mν model.

3.2. Adding the H0 measurement in data combination

4. Conclusion

{{custom_sec.title}}

{{custom_sec.title}}

References

{{custom_fnGroup.title_en}}

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

{{custom_ack.title_en}}

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Figure 2. The two-dimensional marginalized contours (1σ and 2σ) in the $\sum m_{ν}$ -w and H₀-w planes for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, by using Planck+BAO+SNe data combination in the wCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model.

Table 1. Fitting results of the cosmological parameters in the ΛCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations.

Figure 3. The two-dimensional marginalized contours (1σ and 2σ) in the w₀-w_a plane for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, by using Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations in the CPL+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model.

Table 2. Fitting results of the cosmological parameters in the wCDM+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations.

Table 3. Fitting results of the cosmological parameters in the CPL+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations.

Table 4. Fitting results of the cosmological parameters in the HDE+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, using the Planck+BAO+SNe and Planck+BAO+SNe+H₀ data combinations.

Figure 4. The two-dimensional marginalized contours (1σ and 2σ) in the H₀-c and $\sum m_{ν}$ -c planes for three neutrino mass hierarchy cases, i.e. the DH case, the NH case, and the IH case, by using Planck+BAO+SNe data combination in the HDE+ $\sum m_{ν}$ model.

3.2. Adding the H₀ measurement in data combination