1: \documentclass[prd,a4,twocolumn,superscriptaddress,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,epsfig,natbib}

3: \usepackage{hyperref}

4: %\usepackage{showlabels}

5: \usepackage{ifthen}

6: 

7: 

8: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}

9: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}

10: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

11: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

12: \def\({\left(}

13: \def\){\right)}

14: \def\[{\left[}

15: \def\]{\right]}

16: \def\lagrange {{\cal L}}

17: \def\del {\nabla}

18: \def\d {\partial}

19: \def\Tr{{\rm Tr}}

20: \def\half{{1\over 2}}

21: \def\fourth{{1\over 8}}

22: \def\bibi{\bibitem}

23: \def\S{{\cal S}}

24: \def\H{{\cal H}}

25: \def\K{{\cal K}}

26: \def\xx{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}

27: \newcommand{\phpr} {\phi'}

28: \newcommand{\gam}{\gamma_{ij}}

29: \newcommand{\sqgam}{\sqrt{\gamma}}

30: \newcommand{\delk}{\Delta+3{\cal K}}

31: \newcommand{\dph}{\delta\phi}

32: \newcommand{\om} {\Omega}

33: \newcommand{\dom}{\delta^{(3)}\left(\Omega\right)}

34: \newcommand{\rar}{\rightarrow}

35: \newcommand{\Rar}{\Rightarrow}

36: \newcommand{\labeq}[1] {\label{eq:#1}}

37: \newcommand{\eqn}[1] {(\ref{eq:#1})}

38: \newcommand{\labfig}[1] {\label{fig:#1}}

39: \newcommand{\fig}[1] {Fig.~\ref{fig:#1}}

40: \newcommand{\upot}{U_{\mathrm{pot}}}

41: \newcommand{\haph}{\frac{\H}{a \phpr}}

42: 

43: \newcommand{\wmap}{\textsc{wmap}}

44: \newcommand{\sdla}{\textsc{sdsslya}}

45: \newcommand{\sdss}{\textsc{sdss}}

46: \newcommand{\twodf}{\textsc{2}d\textsc{fgrs}}

47: \newcommand{\planck}{Planck}

48: \newcommand{\camb}{\textsc{camb}}

49: \newcommand{\cosmomc}{\textsc{c}osmo\textsc{mc}}

50: \newcommand{\cmb}{\textsc{cmb}}

51: \newcommand{\lya}{Lyman-$\alpha$}

52: \newcommand{\lamcmb}{\textsc{lambda}}

53: 

54: \newcommand{\nsum}{\ensuremath{\sum m_\nu}}

55: \newcommand{\nrun}{\ensuremath{n_\text{run}}}

56: 

57: 

58: \begin{document}

59: 

60: \renewcommand{\eprint}[1]{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/#1}{#1}}

61: \newcommand{\adsurl}[1]{\href{#1}{ADS}}

62: \renewcommand{\bibinfo}[2]{\ifthenelse{\equal{#1}{isbn}}{%

63: \href{http://cosmologist.info/ISBN/#2}{#2}}{#2}}

64: 

65: 

66: 

67: 

68: \title{Prospects for Constraining Neutrino Mass Using Planck and

69: Lyman-Alpha Forest Data}

70: 

71: \date{May 22, 2007}

72: \author{Steven Gratton}

73: \email{stg20@cam.ac.uk}

74: \affiliation{Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, UK}

75: \author{Antony Lewis}

76: \affiliation{Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, UK}

77: \author{George Efstathiou}

78: \affiliation{Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, UK}

79: 

80: \begin{abstract}

81: 

82: In this paper we investigate how well Planck and Lyman-Alpha forest

83: data will be able to constrain the sum of the neutrino masses, and

84: thus, in conjunction with flavour oscillation experiments, be able to

85: determine the absolute masses of the neutrinos.  It seems possible

86: that Planck, together with a \lya\ survey, will be able to put

87: pressure on an inverted hierarchial model for the neutrino masses. However,

88: even for optimistic assumptions of the precision of future \lya\

89: datasets, it will not be possible  to confirm a minimal-mass normal hierarchy.

90: 

91: 

92: \end{abstract}

93: 

94: \maketitle

95: 

96: \section{Introduction}

97: \label{sec:introduction}

98: 

99: The determination of absolute neutrino masses is a key scientific goal

100: for the coming decade.  Neutrino flavour oscillation detections have

101: shown that neutrinos do indeed have mass but unfortunately cannot

102: determine their absolute masses. Particle physics experiments (e.g.\ tritium beta decay or neutrinoless double beta decay) offer the most

103: direct probe of neutrino masses, but reaching limits of less than 1 eV

104: is formidably challenging \cite{Eitel:2005hg}.  Sub-eV neutrino masses

105: can also be probed indirectly via their effects on the energy density

106: of the Universe and large scale structure. For this reason there has

107: been considerable interest on constraints on neutrino masses from

108: various current and future cosmological probes (see

109: \cite{Lesgourgues:2006nd} for an excellent and comprehensive review).

110: 

111:  In this paper we perform a detailed  Markov Chain Monte Carlo

112: analysis to assess the sensitivity of the \planck\

113: satellite~\cite{unknown:2006uk} to neutrino masses. This problem is

114: topical because \planck\ is scheduled for launch in late 2008 and should

115: provide all-sky maps of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) of

116: unprecedented precision.  \planck\ will operate at nine frequencies

117: from 30 to 857 GHz, seven of which will be sensitive to polarization.

118: The sensitivity and frequency coverage of \planck\ should allow

119: accurate subtraction of foregrounds resulting in an essentially complete

120: reconstruction of the CMB temperature signal over a large area of the sky

121: together with   significant new information on its polarization. For a summary of the

122: \planck\ instruments and its scientific programme, including constraints on

123: neutrino masses, see~\cite{unknown:2006uk}. For assessments of Planck

124: constraints on neutrino masses from different perspectives

125: and using a variety of complementary astrophysical data

126: see~\cite{Eisenstein:1998hr,Hannestad:2002cn,Kaplinghat:2003bh,Lesgourgues:2005yv,Abdalla:2007ut}.

127: 

128: 

129: 

130: Neutrino masses affect both the cosmic history and structure

131: formation.  One main effect is a reduction of power below a characteristic

132: wavenumber corresponding to the Hubble scale when the neutrinos

133: become non-relativistic\footnote{Where $m_\nu$ is the neutrino mass,

134: $\Omega_m$ is the mass density in units of the critical density and

135: $h$ is the Hubble constant in units of 100 km s${}^{-1}$

136: Mpc${}^{-1}$.}

137: \begin{equation}

138:    k_\nu \sim 0.026  \left( \frac{m_\nu}{1 \text{~eV}} \right)^{1/2}

139: \Omega_m^{1/2} h \; \text{Mpc}^{-1}, \labeq{Nu1}

140: \end{equation}

141:  (e.g.\ \cite{Bond:1983hb, Ma:1995ey,Hu:1997mj}).  Planck will not

142: directly probe the damping of fluctuations caused by massive eV-scale

143: neutrinos (except possibly via weak lensing of the CMB). Nevertheless

144: \planck\ will be vital since it will break  parameter

145: degeneracies that would otherwise exist in other cosmological datasets.

146: 

147: 

148: Observations of \lya\ absorption in quasar spectra constrain the

149: amplitude and slope of the cosmological matter power spectrum at redshifts

150: between two and four on comoving megaparsec scales.  Compared to

151: galaxy redshift surveys \lya\ surveys probe the matter power spectrum

152: closer to the linear regime and sample smaller scales, giving a long

153: lever arm when combined with observations of the CMB. Furthermore, the

154: galaxy power spectrum is difficult to relate to the matter power

155: spectrum on small scales where the fluctuations are highly non-linear

156: and the damping effects of eV-mass neutrinos are most significant.

157: Hence it is natural to consider combining \planck\ with a \lya\ survey

158: in an effort to assess what cosmology might contribute to to the

159: determination of neutrino masses over the next decade. Already, the

160: tightest cosmological limits on neutrino masses come from combining

161: \lya\ datasets with CMB and other datasets (e.g.\ \cite{Spergel:2006hy,Seljak:2006bg}). In principle an ultra-large galaxy redshift survey,

162: as anticipated from the Square Kilometer Array (SKA), might be able to

163: measure the small effects of sub-eV scale neutrinos on the galaxy

164: power spectrum on scales $\agt 0.02 h \, \text{Mpc}^{-1}$

165: (see~\cite{Abdalla:2007ut}). This is discussed further in Sections

166: \ref{sec:planckpercent} and \ref{sec:conclusions}.

167: 

168: 

169: 

170:   We first consider constraints on neutrino masses from the current

171: Sloan Digital Sky Survey \lya\ data (denoted \sdla\ below). We then

172: consider the improvement in these contraints arising from a

173: hypothetical percent-level determination of the power spectrum from a

174: future \lya\ survey.  Neutrino flavour oscillation experiments are

175: consistent with one of two minimal values for the sum of neutrino

176: masses, either 0.056 eV or 0.095 eV.  The former value comes from

177: assuming the neutrinos fall into a normal hierarchy, with the mass of

178: the intermediate-mass neutrino closer to that of the lightest neutrino

179: than that of the heaviest one. The latter value comes from

180: assuming the neutrinos fall into an inverted hierarchy, with the mass

181: of the intermediate-mass neutrino closer to that of the heaviest

182: neutrino than that of the lightest one (see e.g.\

183: \cite{Lesgourgues:2006nd}).  For a total mass significantly greater

184: than these values, the mass splittings are much smaller than the

185: individual masses and the neutrinos are said to be degenerate.  These

186: observations suggests two clear goals for a cosmological determination

187: of neutrino mass: firstly to see whether neutrino masses are

188: degenerate or not and secondly to differentiate between a normal and

189: an inverted hierarchy.  In addition, it may be possible to put useful

190: constraints on physics beyond the standard model that impinges on

191: neutrino mass; e.g.\ the study of thermal leptogenesis

192: in~\cite{Buchmuller:2004tu} that gives an upper bound on the mass of a

193: light neutrino of 0.1~eV.

194: 

195: 

196: \section{Cosmological Implications of Neutrino Mass}

197: \label{sec:cosimp}

198: 

199: The evolution of both the background universe and perturbations within

200: it are sensitive to the neutrino mass spectrum.  For reviews

201: see~\cite{Elgaroy:2004rc,Lesgourgues:2006nd}.  One main effect of

202: massive neutrinos is a suppression of power on small scales (Eq.~\eqn{Nu1}) that is roughly proportional to the neutrino fraction of the matter

203: content of the universe.  However the effect can be partially

204: degenerate with changes in other cosmological parameters, so for

205: robust results uncertainties in other parameters should be

206: marginalized out.

207: 

208: 

209: \section{Massive Neutrinos in CAMB and COSMOMC}

210: \label{sec:cambcosmomc}

211: 

212: Our analysis makes use of the software packages

213: \camb\footnote{\url{http://camb.info}}~\cite{Lewis:1999bs} and

214: \cosmomc\footnote{\url{http://cosmologist.info/cosmomc/}}~\cite{Lewis:2002ah}.

215: \camb\ calculates the linear-theory \cmb\ power spectrum and

216: optionally multiple matter power spectra for a given cosmological

217: model.  \cosmomc\ uses Markov Chain Monte Carlo to sample from the

218: posterior distribution of cosmological parameters from a given

219: likelihood function. The likelihood function uses theoretical

220: calculations from CAMB in combination with real (or mock) datasets.

221: 

222: The standard set of six parameters commonly used is $\{\Omega_\text{b}

223: h^2,\Omega_\text{dm} h^2,\theta,\tau,n_\text{s},\ln(10^{10}

224: A_\text{s})\}$, where $\Omega_\text{b}$ is the baryon density divided

225: by the critical density, $\Omega_\text{dm}$ is the dark matter density

226: (including potential massive neutrinos) divided by the critical

227: density, $h$ is the Hubble constant in units of 100 km s${}^{-1}$

228: Mpc${}^{-1}$, $\theta$ is the acoustic horizon angular scale, $\tau$

229: is the optical depth from reionization, $A_\text{s}$ and $n_\text{s}$ are the

230: amplitude and spectral index (at a fiducial wavenumber of

231: $0.05$~Mpc${}^{-1}$) of the primordial adiabatic scalar curvature

232: perturbation power spectrum ${\cal P}(k)$.  We follow this usage here,

233: and use the shorthand $\{6\}$ to denote these six parameters. In this

234: paper, the dark energy is assumed to be a cosmological constant.

235: Massive neutrinos are introduced via the parameter $f_\nu \equiv

236: \Omega_\nu / \Omega_\text{dm}$, where $ \Omega_\nu$ is the massive

237: neutrino density divided by the critical density today.  The sum

238: \nsum\ of the neutrino masses is related to $f_\nu$

239: by~\cite{Lesgourgues:2006nd} \ba \nsum \approx 93.12 \:

240: \Omega_\text{dm} h^2 \, f_\nu \ \text{eV}.  \ea Throughout this paper

241: we assume only the usual three neutrino species.  We either take them

242: all to have the same mass $\nsum /3$, or take two of them to be

243: massless and one to be massive with mass $m$ ($=\nsum$ in this case).

244: In the first case we denote the standard six parameters along with

245: $\nsum$ by $\{6+\Sigma\}$ and in the second case we write $\{6+m\}$.

246: We shall also sometimes consider a running scalar spectral index, with

247: running $\nrun \equiv (d/d\ln k)^2 \ln {\cal P}(k)$ and assumed constant

248: in $k$.

249: 

250: The publically available version of \camb\ has

251: recently been upgraded by one of us (AL) to handle

252: arbitrary mass splittings. \fig{power} shows how the matter power

253: spectrum is sensitive to assumptions about the neutrino masses.

254:  For this work we have also modified  \cosmomc\ to  allow two

255: neutrinos to be massless and one to be massive.  In all cases

256: \cosmomc\ uses $f_\nu$ as its base parameter, with $m$ or $\nsum$ as

257: derived parameters.

258: 

259: \begin{figure}

260: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{nu_pk.ps}

261: \caption{\labfig{power}

262: A plot illustrating the dependence of the matter power spectrum on the

263: neutrino mass spectrum.  The power spectra of three models are

264: illustrated relative to the power spectrum for three equal-mass

265: neutrinos with $\nsum =0.059$~eV.  The upper solid blue curve

266: corresponds to massless neutrinos, the dotted curve corresponds to the

267: minimal normal hierarchy, and the lower curve corresponds to the

268: minimal inverted hierarchy.  Also shown is a model with $\nsum = 0.13$~eV and other cosmological parameters changed so that the model is nearly degenerate in likelihood with the

269: fiducial one against future Planck and \lya\ datasets. }

270: \end{figure}

271: 

272: 

273: \section{WMAP3 and Massive Neutrinos}

274: \label{sec:wmap}

275: 

276: In Ref.~\cite{Spergel:2006hy} the \wmap\ team present constraints on

277: neutrino properties based on the 3-year \wmap\

278: data~\cite{Hinshaw:2006ia,Page:2006hz} either with or without other

279: datasets.  Using \wmap\ data alone, they find $\nsum < 1.8$~eV at

280: 95\% confidence.  Along with either \sdss\ or \twodf\ galaxy redshift

281: data, they find $\nsum < 1.3$~eV or $0.9$~eV at 95\% confidence

282: respectively.  We ran seven-parameter $\{6+\Sigma\}$ chains against

283: \wmap\ and found $\nsum < 1.7$~eV at 95\% confidence (using version 2

284: of the \wmap\ team likelihood code) in good agreement with

285: ~\cite{Spergel:2006hy}.

286: 

287: 

288: \section{WMAP3 and SDSSLYA}

289: \label{sec:wmapsdsslya}

290: 

291: A recent paper obtains an impressive 95\% upper bound for \nsum\ of

292: only $0.17$~eV, using a combination of \cmb, galaxy and \lya\

293: data~\cite{Seljak:2006bg}.  Their routine to calculate the likelihood

294: for a model in light of the \sdla\ data has been made publicly

295: available at~\cite{Slosar:code}.  The \cmb\ and other data are

296: somewhat in tension, the small-scale data favouring a higher overall

297: normalization of the power spectrum than the \cmb.  Since adding

298: neutrino mass only lowers the power on small scales, the combined

299: datasets prefer no neutrino mass at all. The tension between the

300: datasets could be merely a statistical fluctuation: the two datasets

301: happen to give a tighter mass constraint than expected from most a

302: priori possible realizations of the data. Alternatively it could

303: indicate that there is some inconsistency in the datasets, for example

304: one, or both, having some unaccounted-for systematic error.  Or it

305: could indicate that our modelling is too

306: simplified, e.g.\ the primordial power spectrum varies strongly

307: with wavenumber.

308: 

309: 

310: We performed a seven-parameter $\{6+\Sigma\}$ joint analysis of the

311: \wmap\ and \sdla\ data, and obtained a 95\% upper bound on \nsum\ of

312: $0.39$~eV (v2 \wmap\ code) or $0.35$~eV (v1 \wmap\ code), intermediate

313: between that of~\cite{Seljak:2006bg} and those of the \wmap\ team

314: using galaxy survey data mentioned above.  Note that we used the same

315: \wmap\ and \lya\ forest data and code as~\cite{Seljak:2006bg}. However

316: we did not use the additional \cmb\, galaxy survey and supernovae data

317: used by Ref.~\cite{Seljak:2006bg}; including these datasets gives them

318: a significantly tighter constraint than from just \lya\ and \wmap\

319: alone.

320: 

321: \begin{figure}

322: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{newwmapfig.ps}

323: \caption{\labfig{wmapfig} A 2-D marginalized likelihood contour plot

324: indicating the possible inconsistency of the \wmap\ and \sdla\

325: data. 68\% and 95\% confidence intervals are illustrated for the

326: following four datasets (from broadest to tightest): blue, \wmap\ data

327: alone; yellow, ``faked'' \wmap\ data alone; green, \sdla\ and \wmap\ data;

328:  red, \sdla\ and ``faked'' \wmap\ data.}

329: \end{figure}

330: 

331: To investigate the possible inconsistency of the \wmap\ and \sdla\

332: data, we constructed a fake \wmap\ dataset, keeping the noise the same

333: as for the real data but replacing the $C_l$'s themselves by those of

334: the {6}-parameter model that is the best fit to the \wmap\ and \sdla\

335: datasets taken together.  With $\{6+\Sigma\}$ chains, faked \wmap\

336: alone gives a 95\% upper limit to \nsum\ of $1.5$~eV, comparable to

337: that from real \wmap.  However, faked \wmap\ with \sdla\ gives a 95\%

338: upper limit to \nsum\ of $0.70$~eV, double that of real \wmap\ with

339: \sdla; see~\fig{wmapfig}. A possible interpretation of this result is

340: that the \wmap\ + \sdla\ limit on the neutrino mass is spuriously low,

341: by a factor of about two, because of some unidentified systematic

342: error in one or both datasets. However, as mentioned above,  the tension between the

343: two datasets seen in \fig{wmapfig} could be a statistical fluke or

344: an inadequacy in the theoretical model.

345: 

346: 

347: 

348: \section{Mock Planck data for Cosmomc}

349: \label{sec:mockplanck}

350: 

351: In this section we describe how we construct very simplified mock

352: Planck data for \cosmomc, used for forecasting future constraints on

353: the neutrino masses. We consider only the linear-theory CMB power

354: spectrum. If the CMB lensing signal (via the power-spectrum of the

355: weak lensing deflection field) can also be used, significantly better

356: constraints might be obtainable than by using the CMB power spectrum

357: alone. This is discussed by Lesgourgues et al.\

358: in~\cite{Lesgourgues:2005yv}, who find that including the weak lensing

359: deflection field from an idealised Planck experiment (unlikely to be

360: realised in practice) leads to limits on the neutrino masses

361: comparable to those discussed below from combining Planck with

362: Ly$\alpha$ data.

363: 

364: 

365: First of all we assume an underlying cosmology, taking parameters from

366: the best-fit six-parameter models coming from either \wmap\ alone or

367: \wmap\ and \sdla.  Next we run the \camb\ software to generate a

368: theoretical ``prior'' power spectrum distribution with mean

369: $C_l^\text{pr}$ based on the input cosmological parameters.  For

370: comparison purposes we sometimes include one non-zero  neutrino  mass

371: $0.06$~eV when generating this power spectrum.

372: 

373: The log-likelihood for some model with power spectrum $C_l$ averaged

374: over sky realizations turns out, up to an irrelevant constant, just to

375: be the log-likelihood of those $C_l$'s evaluated taking the sky power

376: spectrum to be its ensemble average $C_l^\text{pr}$.  Hence we do not

377: need to make a specific realization of the sky or numerically average

378: over many of them for our forecasting; we just imagine the data to

379: have exactly the ensemble average power spectrum. This procedure gives

380: error bars consistent with those obtained from most actual

381: realizations, but has the advantage that the maximum likelihood

382: parameters should be at their true values rather than moving around

383: between different realizations. (See \cite{Bucher:2000kb,Lewis:2006ym}

384: for related discussions.)

385: 

386: We then create the mock dataset for use with

387: \cosmomc~\cite{cosmocoffee:01}.  The sky power spectrum $\hat{C}_l$ is

388: set to be the prior spectrum described in the previous paragraph. We

389: work on the full sky and convolve with a beam window function and add

390: noise (see e.g.~\cite{Tegmark:1995pn} for the procedure).  The beam is

391: assumed to be Gaussian and symmetric, and the noise is assumed to be

392: white and uniform across the sky (we neglect any foregrounds).  The

393: beam width and pixel noise are chosen to approximate those of the

394: Planck 143 GHz High Frequency Instrument

395: channel~\cite{unknown:2006uk}.

396: 

397: 

398: We label the prior power spectra derived from current data as follows:

399: $C^\text{W}$ from the six-parameter fit to \wmap\ alone assuming

400: massless neutrinos, $C^\text{WS}$ from the

401: six-parameter fit to \wmap\ and \sdla\ assuming massless neutrinos,

402: $C^\text{W}_{0.06}$ from the six-parameter fit to \wmap\

403: assuming one neutrino mass of $0.06$~eV and

404: $C^\text{WS}_{0.06}$ from the six-parameter fit to \wmap\ and \sdla\

405:  with one neutrino mass of 0.06~eV.

406: 

407: 

408: \section{Planck Alone}

409: \label{sec:planckalone}

410: 

411: Running \cosmomc\ for seven-parameter chains $\{6+\Sigma\}$ against

412:   the no-neutrino-mass, WMAP-only model $C^\text{W}$ yields $\nsum <

413:   0.71$~eV at 95\% confidence.  Thus Planck by itself should do at

414:   least twice as well as \wmap\ in constraining the sum of

415:   neutrino masses.  Of course we have assumed an idealized beam and

416:   noise model for Planck\footnote{Residual `striping' noise for Planck

417:   should be ignorable in comparison to white noise,

418:   see~\cite{Efstathiou:2006wt}.}, but on the other hand we have assumed

419:   the

420:   sensitivity for only one frequency channel. The precision from CMB

421:   data alone (without CMB lensing) is limited since neutrinos light

422:   enough to be effectively massless at recombination have almost no

423:   effect on the CMB power spectrum.

424: 

425: We also ran eight-parameter $\{6+\Sigma+\nrun \}$ chains with both

426: neutrino mass \nsum\ and scalar spectral index running \nrun.  Despite

427: thoughts that both might affect the power spectrum on small scales in

428: a qualitatively similar way, we found that these two parameters were

429: not in fact degenerate and that the 95\% upper limit on \nsum\ was

430: only moderately weakened to 0.87~eV.

431: 

432: \section{Planck and SDSSLYA}

433: \label{sec:plancksdsslya}

434: 

435: We now consider how well Planck might do in conjunction with \sdla\

436: data.  Running $\{6+\Sigma \}$ chains against $C^\text{W}$ and \sdla,

437: we obtain the tight constraint $\nsum < 0.10$~eV at 95\% confidence,

438: three times tighter than \wmap\ and \sdla\ suggesting that Planck data

439: together with {\it existing} \lya\ data may be capable of placing severe

440: pressure on an inverted hierarchy.  The same constraint on \nsum\ is

441: obtained using $C^\text{W}_{0.06}$ in place of $C^\text{W}$.

442: 

443: However, there is a concern that this constraint might be

444: artificially tight simply because of the possible discrepancy between the

445: \wmap\ and \sdla\ datasets discussed in Section~\ref{sec:wmapsdsslya}.  To

446: address this, we ran $\{6+\Sigma \}$ chains against $C^\text{WS}$ and

447: \sdla, rather than $C^\text{W}$ and \sdla.  Although the \sdla\ data

448: effectively enters twice, this procedure  should give an indication of

449: what might happen if the tension between the \wmap\ and \sdla\ data is

450: caused by systematic errors.  This yields $\nsum < 0.27$~eV, a significantly

451: weaker constraint.  Thus we see that that bound on the neutrino mass

452: is highly sensitive to the assumed input model.  The ability of \planck\ and

453: \sdla\ to constrain an inverted hierarchy therefore depends on which

454: of these input models is closer to the truth.

455: 

456: 

457: \section{Planck and percent level measures of the matter power spectrum}

458: \label{sec:planckpercent}

459: 

460: In this Section we analyse what might be learned from \planck\ and new

461: \lya\ surveys of greater statistical power than \sdla.  For example,

462: \cite{McDonald:2006qs} investigates how an extended Ly$\alpha$ survey

463: might perform in constraining dark energy and curvature, assuming an

464: experimental configuration with characteristics similar to that

465: proposed for galaxy baryonic acoustic oscillation surveys.  Here we take

466: a very simple approach and consider a survey that would be able to

467: measure the matter power spectrum at one or more effective redshifts

468: and at one or more scales to better than  five percent accuracy.

469: 

470: Since \lya\ surveys effectively measure distances in velocity units

471: (see e.g.~\cite{McDonald:2004xn}), we choose our scales likewise.  We

472: consider the following hypothetical datasets:

473: \begin{enumerate}

474: \item $P^{1@1}_{1\%}$, consisting of a single data point at an

475: effective redshift of 3 and wavenumber 0.009 s/km, with a 1\%

476: fractional error,

477: \item $P^{3@1}_{1\%}$, consisting of three data points at an

478: effective redshift of 3 at wavenumbers 0.002 s/km,

479: 0.009 s/km and 0.02 s/km, with 1\% fractional errors,

480: \item $P^{3@1}_{1\%}$, consisting of three data points at each of three

481: redshifts of 2, 3 and 3.5 at wavenumbers of 0.002 s/km, 0.009 s/km

482: and 0.02 s/km, with 1\% fractional errors, and

483: \item $P^{3@1}_{5\%}$, consisting of three data points at each of three

484: redshifts of 2, 3 and 3.5 at wavenumbers of 0.002 s/km, 0.009 s/km

485: and 0.02 s/km, with 5\% fractional errors.

486: \end{enumerate}

487: 

488: 

489: The datasets are constructed by evolving the $z=0$ matter power

490: spectrum output from \camb\ at the appropriate scale back to the

491: appropriate redshift using the standard formula for the growth of

492: linear inhomogeneities with the appropriate parameters for the assumed

493: background model.  This ``data'' is fed into a version of the

494: \texttt{lya.f90} module of \cosmomc\ in order to perform the likelihood

495: calculation for models.

496: 

497: Running $\{ 6 +m+\nrun \}$-parameter chains against

498: $C^\text{W}_{0.06}$ and faked \lya\ datasets yields the limits shown in Table~\ref{tab:pc} for \nsum\ at 95\%

499: confidence.

500: \begin{table}[p]

501: \caption{\label{tab:pc}A Table showing the limits on \nsum\ obtained

502:   using the assumed futuristic \lya\ datasets (denoted by the $P$'s)

503:   and Planck dataset (denoted by the $C$).

504: }

505: \begin{ruledtabular}

506: \begin{tabular}{lllll}

507:  & $P^{1@ 1}_{1\%}$ & $P^{3@1}_{1\%}$ &

508: $P^{3@ 3}_{1\%}$ & $P^{3@ 3}_{5\%} $ \\

509: % $C^\text{W}$ &  & &  &\\

510:  $C^\text{W}_{0.06}$ & 0.13~eV &0.12~eV &0.11~eV  & 0.14~eV \\

511: \end{tabular}

512: \end{ruledtabular}

513: \end{table}

514: 

515: Corresponding one-dimensional likelihood plots are shown in

516: \fig{neutlike}.  Note that all curves peak in the vicinity of the

517: added neutrino mass of $0.06$~eV.  \fig{planckfig} shows how adding

518: future \lya\ data to Planck data breaks degeneracies and thus

519: substantially improves the limits shown in \fig{wmapfig}.  However,

520: none of the curves in \fig{neutlike} tend to zero as the neutrino mass tends

521: to zero and thus none of the dataset combinations is capable of

522: unambiguously detecting neutrino mass in the minimal normal hierarchy

523: model.

524: 

525: \begin{figure}

526: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{modifiednew050407makefig.ps}

527: \caption{\labfig{neutlike} A plot of the marginalized likelihoods

528:   for a single neutrino of mass   $m $ with assumed future datasets

529:   as discussed in the text.  All curves use the

530:   $C^\text{W}_{0.06}$ Planck dataset.  As for the \lya\ dataset used,

531:   black (solid)

532:   corresponds to $P^{3@ 3}_{5\%} $, red (dot-dash) to $P^{1@

533:   1}_{1\%}$, green (short-dash) to  $P^{3@

534:   1}_{1\%}$ and blue (long-dash) to  $P^{3@ 3}_{1\%}$.}

535: \end{figure}

536: 

537: \begin{figure}

538: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{newplanckcontoursfig.ps}

539: \caption{\labfig{planckfig}

540: A 2D contour plot indicating how a partial parameter degeneracy using only Planck

541: data is lifted when \lya\ data is added.  68\% and 95\% confidence

542: intervals are illustrated for the following three datasets (from

543: broadest to tightest): blue, Planck alone; green, Planck with $P^{3@

544:   3}_{5\%} $; red, Planck with $P^{3@ 3}_{1\%} $.}

545: \end{figure}

546: 

547: In this paper we have focussed on combining \cmb\ and \lya\ data for

548:     the reasons given in the introduction. In light of the above

549:     results we also considered the additional degeneracy-breaking

550:     effects that a future galaxy survey might provide.  Combined with

551:     our most optimistic $P^{3@ 3}_{1\%}$ \lya\ dataset along with

552:     \planck, such a galaxy survey would have to effectively measure

553:     $\Omega_m h$ to better than 2\% in order to yield a 95\%

554:     confidence positive detection of neutrino mass for the minimal

555:     hierarchy (assuming the improved constraint comes from

556:     degeneracy-breaking alone). For comparison, the SDSS and 2dF galaxy

557:     surveys constrain $\Omega_m h$  to an accuracy of about

558:     10\% \cite{Tegmark:2003uf,Percival:2006gt}

559:     and so substantially larger redshift surveys would be required to

560:     constrain the shape of the matter power spectrum to the level

561:     required to constrain a minimal hierarchy. At present, the best

562: prospect seems to be a large-scale galaxy survey of $\sim 10^9$ galaxies

563:  detected with the SKA over the redshift range $0 -

564:     1.5$~\cite{Abdalla:2007ut}.

565: 

566: \section{Conclusions}

567: \label{sec:conclusions}

568: 

569: In this paper we have studied how Planck, in combination with a \lya\

570: based measure of power on megaparsec scales, might perform in

571: constraining neutrino masses.

572: 

573: We find that Planck, in combination with existing \lya\ data, should

574: be able to put significant pressure on the inverted hierarchy model.

575: Some of the allowed parameter space for thermal leptogenesis models

576: should also be constrained. These limits can be tightened by using

577: more powerful \lya\ data. However, even for the ambitious \lya\

578: datasets assumed in Section~\ref{sec:planckpercent}, we conclude that

579: it is unlikely that \planck\ will be able to positively detect a

580: minimal-mass normal hierarchy.

581: 

582: Other cosmological data, in particular lensing of the the CMB, may

583: improve the neutrino mass constraints, though extracting an accurate

584: lensing signal from realistic \planck\ data is likely to be

585: challenging and needs further investigation. For idealized \planck\

586: data, \cite{Lesgourgues:2005yv} conclude that the weak lensing

587: deflection field can improve the neutrino mass limits from \planck\

588: alone to a 1$\sigma$ limit of $0.13$ eV, comparable to our forecasts

589: for \planck\ combined with \sdla.  In principal, a sufficiently large

590: galaxy redshift survey, such as envisaged for the SKA, in combination

591: with \planck\ could probe a minimal-mass normal hierarchy. This has

592: been considered in some detail in~\cite{Abdalla:2007ut}.  Apart from

593: the long timescale involved for such a survey (probably well beyond

594: the next decade) it may prove difficult to relate the galaxy power

595: spectrum to the underlying matter power spectrum to the required

596: accuracy. (See~\cite{Percival:2006gt} for empirical evidence of scale

597: dependent bias in the galaxy distribution over the wavenumber range

598: $0.01 < k < 0.15 h \, \text{Mpc}^{-1}$.) Whether the precision

599: envisaged by~\cite{Abdalla:2007ut} can be achieved remains to be seen.

600: 

601: 

602: The absolute values of the neutrino masses would offer important

603: insights into physics beyond the standard model. There is a widespread

604: hope that cosmological probes will be able to constrain neutrino

605: masses to a precision  better than the normal hierarchy characteristic mass of

606: $0.06$ eV. However, the detailed calculations presented here suggest

607: that we should be more sanguine. The cosmological detection of $0.06$

608: eV neutrinos would require extremely large cosmological datasets, free

609: of systematic errors, in addition to Planck. Furthermore, the

610: cosmological limits are dependent on physical assumptions (e.g.\

611: featureless varying power spectrum, and fixed dark energy) that may be

612: difficult to justify experimentally. A convincing detection of a

613: neutrinos mass $\alt 0.1$ eV will require, at the very least,

614: consistency between a number of independent cosmological datasets.

615: 

616: \vspace*{-4mm}

617: 

618: \begin{acknowledgments}

619: 

620: \vspace*{-4mm}

621: 

622: We thank M. Haehnelt, P. McDonald, A. Slosar and M. Viel for useful

623: discussions and correspondence.  We additionally thank P. McDonald for

624: a thorough reading and comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

625: Our research was conducted in cooperation with SGI/Intel using the

626: Altix 3700 supercomputer at the UK-CCC facility, which is supported by

627: HEFCE and STFC.  We acknowledge the use of the Legacy Archive for

628: Microwave Background Data Analysis (LAMBDA). Support for LAMBDA is

629: provided by the NASA Office of Space Science.  SG is supported by

630: STFC. AL acknowledges a PPARC Advanced Fellowship.

631: 

632: \end{acknowledgments}

633: 

634: %\bibliography{pl.bib}

635: \begin{thebibliography}{29}

636: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

637: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax

638:   \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi

639: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax

640:   \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi

641: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax

642:   \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi

643: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

644:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

645: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

646: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}

647: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}

648: 

649: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Eitel}(2005)}]{Eitel:2005hg}

650: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Eitel}},

651:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{143}},

652:   \bibinfo{pages}{197} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}).

653: 

654: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lesgourgues and Pastor}(2006)}]{Lesgourgues:2006nd}

655: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Lesgourgues}} \bibnamefont{and}

656:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Pastor}},

657:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rept.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{429}},

658:   \bibinfo{pages}{307} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \eprint{astro-ph/0603494}.

659: 

660: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{The Planck Collaboration}}(2006)}]{unknown:2006uk}

661: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{{The Planck Collaboration}}}

662:   (\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \eprint{astro-ph/0604069}.

663: 

664: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Eisenstein et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Eisenstein, Hu,

665:   and Tegmark}}]{Eisenstein:1998hr}

666: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~J.} \bibnamefont{Eisenstein}},

667:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Hu}}, \bibnamefont{and}

668:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Tegmark}},

669:   \bibinfo{journal}{Astrophys. J.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{518}},

670:   \bibinfo{pages}{2} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}), \eprint{astro-ph/9807130}.

671: 

672: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hannestad}(2003)}]{Hannestad:2002cn}

673: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Hannestad}},

674:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D67}},

675:   \bibinfo{pages}{085017} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{astro-ph/0211106}.

676: 

677: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kaplinghat et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Kaplinghat, Knox,

678:   and Song}}]{Kaplinghat:2003bh}

679: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Kaplinghat}},

680:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Knox}}, \bibnamefont{and}

681:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.-S.} \bibnamefont{Song}},

682:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{91}},

683:   \bibinfo{pages}{241301} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{astro-ph/0303344}.

684: 

685: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lesgourgues et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Lesgourgues,

686:   Perotto, Pastor, and Piat}}]{Lesgourgues:2005yv}

687: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Lesgourgues}},

688:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Perotto}},

689:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Pastor}}, \bibnamefont{and}

690:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Piat}},

691:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D73}},

692:   \bibinfo{pages}{045021} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \eprint{astro-ph/0511735}.

693: 

694: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Abdalla and Rawlings}(2007)}]{Abdalla:2007ut}

695: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.~B.} \bibnamefont{Abdalla}} \bibnamefont{and}

696:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Rawlings}}

697:   (\bibinfo{year}{2007}), \eprint{astro-ph/0702314}.

698: 

699: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bond and Szalay}(1983)}]{Bond:1983hb}

700: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~R.} \bibnamefont{Bond}} \bibnamefont{and}

701:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~S.} \bibnamefont{Szalay}},

702:   \bibinfo{journal}{Astrophys. J.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{274}},

703:   \bibinfo{pages}{443} (\bibinfo{year}{1983}).

704: 

705: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ma and Bertschinger}(1995)}]{Ma:1995ey}

706: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.-P.} \bibnamefont{Ma}} \bibnamefont{and}

707:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Bertschinger}},

708:   \bibinfo{journal}{Astrophys. J.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{455}},

709:   \bibinfo{pages}{7} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}), \eprint{astro-ph/9506072}.

710: 

711: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hu et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Hu, Eisenstein, and

712:   Tegmark}}]{Hu:1997mj}

713: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Hu}},

714:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~J.} \bibnamefont{Eisenstein}},

715:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Tegmark}},

716:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{80}},

717:   \bibinfo{pages}{5255} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}), \eprint{astro-ph/9712057}.

718: 

719: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Spergel et~al.}(2006)}]{Spergel:2006hy}

720: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~N.} \bibnamefont{Spergel}}

721:   \bibnamefont{et~al.} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \eprint{astro-ph/0603449}.

722: 

723: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Seljak et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Seljak, Slosar, and

724:   McDonald}}]{Seljak:2006bg}

725: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.}~\bibnamefont{Seljak}},

726:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Slosar}}, \bibnamefont{and}

727:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{McDonald}}

728:   (\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \eprint{astro-ph/0604335}.

729: 

730: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Buchmuller et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Buchmuller,

731:   Di~Bari, and Plumacher}}]{Buchmuller:2004tu}

732: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Buchmuller}},

733:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Di~Bari}}, \bibnamefont{and}

734:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Plumacher}},

735:   \bibinfo{journal}{New J. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{6}},

736:   \bibinfo{pages}{105} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}), \eprint{hep-ph/0406014}.

737: 

738: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Elgaroy and Lahav}(2005)}]{Elgaroy:2004rc}

739: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Elgaroy}} \bibnamefont{and}

740:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Lahav}},

741:   \bibinfo{journal}{New J. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{7}},

742:   \bibinfo{pages}{61} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}), \eprint{hep-ph/0412075}.

743: 

744: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lewis et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Lewis, Challinor, and

745:   Lasenby}}]{Lewis:1999bs}

746: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Lewis}},

747:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Challinor}},

748:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Lasenby}},

749:   \bibinfo{journal}{Astrophys. J.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{538}},

750:   \bibinfo{pages}{473} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}), \eprint{astro-ph/9911177}.

751: 

752: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lewis and Bridle}(2002)}]{Lewis:2002ah}

753: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Lewis}} \bibnamefont{and}

754:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Bridle}},

755:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D66}},

756:   \bibinfo{pages}{103511} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}), \eprint{astro-ph/0205436}.

757: 

758: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hinshaw et~al.}(2006)}]{Hinshaw:2006ia}

759: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Hinshaw}} \bibnamefont{et~al.}

760:   (\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \eprint{astro-ph/0603451}.

761: 

762: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Page et~al.}(2006)}]{Page:2006hz}

763: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Page}} \bibnamefont{et~al.}

764:   (\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \eprint{astro-ph/0603450}.

765: 

766: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Slosar}(2006)}]{Slosar:code}

767: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Slosar}}

768:   (\bibinfo{year}{2006}),

769:   \urlprefix\url{http://www.slosar.com/aslosar/lya.html}.

770: 

771: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bucher et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Bucher, Moodley, and

772:   Turok}}]{Bucher:2000kb}

773: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Bucher}},

774:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Moodley}}, \bibnamefont{and}

775:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Turok}},

776:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D66}},

777:   \bibinfo{pages}{023528} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}), \eprint{astro-ph/0007360}.

778: 

779: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lewis et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Lewis, Weller, and

780:   Battye}}]{Lewis:2006ym}

781: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Lewis}},

782:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Weller}}, \bibnamefont{and}

783:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Battye}},

784:   \bibinfo{journal}{Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.}

785:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{373}}, \bibinfo{pages}{561} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}),

786:   \eprint{astro-ph/0606552}.

787: 

788: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lewis}(2005)}]{cosmocoffee:01}

789: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Lewis}} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}),

790:   \urlprefix\url{http://cosmocoffee.info/viewtopic.php?t=231}.

791: 

792: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tegmark and Efstathiou}(1996)}]{Tegmark:1995pn}

793: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Tegmark}} \bibnamefont{and}

794:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Efstathiou}},

795:   \bibinfo{journal}{Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.}

796:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{281}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1297} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}),

797:   \eprint{astro-ph/9507009}.

798: 

799: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Efstathiou}(2006)}]{Efstathiou:2006wt}

800: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Efstathiou}}

801:   (\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \eprint{astro-ph/0611814}.

802: 

803: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{McDonald and Eisenstein}(2006)}]{McDonald:2006qs}

804: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{McDonald}} \bibnamefont{and}

805:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Eisenstein}}

806:   (\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \eprint{astro-ph/0607122}.

807: 

808: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{McDonald et~al.}(2005)}]{McDonald:2004xn}

809: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{McDonald}}

810:   \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{Astrophys. J.}

811:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{635}}, \bibinfo{pages}{761} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}),

812:   \eprint{astro-ph/0407377}.

813: 

814: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tegmark et~al.}(2004)}]{Tegmark:2003uf}

815: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Tegmark}} \bibnamefont{et~al.}

816:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{SDSS}), \bibinfo{journal}{Astrophys. J.}

817:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{606}}, \bibinfo{pages}{702} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}),

818:   \eprint{astro-ph/0310725}.

819: 

820: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Percival et~al.}(2007)}]{Percival:2006gt}

821: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~J.} \bibnamefont{Percival}}

822:   \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{Astrophys. J.}

823:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{657}}, \bibinfo{pages}{645} (\bibinfo{year}{2007}),

824:   \eprint{astro-ph/0608636}.

825: 

826: \end{thebibliography}

827: 

828: 

829: \end{document}

830: 

831: 

832: