1:
2: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
3: \usepackage{iopams,graphicx}
4: %____________________________________________________________________
5: \begin{document}
6:
7:
8: \title{Constraints on non-thermal Dark Matter from {\sc Planck} lensing extraction}
9:
10: \author{L.A. Popa and A. Vasile
11: \footnote[3]{To whom correspondence should be addressed: lpopa@venus.nipne.ro} }
12:
13:
14:
15: \address{ISS Institute for Space Sciences
16: Bucharest-Magurele, Ro-76900 Romania}
17:
18: \eads{\mailto{lpopa@venus.nipne.ro} and
19: \mailto{avasile@venus.nipne.ro}}
20:
21: \date{\today}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: Distortions of CMB temperature and polarization anisotropy maps caused by gravitational lensing,
25: observable with high angular resolution and sensitivity, can be used to constrain the
26: sterile neutrino mass, offering
27: several advantages against the analysis based on the combination of CMB, LSS and Ly$\alpha$ forest power spectra. As the gravitational lensing effect depends on the matter distribution, no
28: assumption on light-to-mass bias is required. In addition, unlike the galaxy clustering
29: and Ly$\alpha$ forest power spectra, the projected gravitational potential power spectrum probes a larger range of angular scales, the non-linear corrections being required only at very small scales. \\
30: Taking into account the changes in the time-temperature relation of the primordial plasma and
31: the modification of the neutrino thermal potential, we compute the projected gravitational
32: potential power spectrum and its correlation with the temperature in
33: the presence of DM sterile neutrino. \\
34: We show that the cosmological parameters are generally not biased when DM sterile neutrino is included.
35: From this analysis we found a lower limit on DM sterile neutrino mass $m_{\nu_s}>2.08$ keV at 95\% CL,
36: consistent with the lower mass limit obtained from the combined analysis of CMB, SDSS 3D power spectrum and SDSS Ly$\alpha$ forest power spectrum ($m_{\nu_s}>1.7$ keV).\\
37: We conclude that although the information that can be obtained
38: from lensing extraction is rather limited due to the high level of the lensing noise of {\sc Planck} experiment, weak lensing of CMB offers a valuable alternative
39: to constrain the dark matter sterile neutrino mass.
40: \end{abstract}
41:
42:
43: \pacs{CMBR theory, dark matter, cosmological neutrinos}
44:
45: \maketitle
46:
47: \section*{Introduction}
48:
49: The latest results of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature and polarization
50: anisotropies from WMAP 3-year observations \cite{Nolta,Page} combined with other tracers
51: such as large-scale structure (LSS) galaxy surveys, supernovae luminosity distance
52: and Ly$\alpha$ forest, have lead in specifying the $\Lambda$CDM model as the cosmological concordance model \cite{Spergel06,Seljak07}.
53:
54: The direct confirmation of the $\Lambda$CDM theory is the detection of the acoustic Doppler peaks
55: structure of the CMB angular power spectrum. Further successes are related to the correct
56: prediction of the hierarchical structure formation via gravitational instability,
57: the abundance of clusters at small redshifts, the spatial distribution and the number
58: density of galaxies, the LSS matter power spectrum, the Ly$\alpha$ forest
59: amplitude and spectrum \cite{Turner00}.
60: Despite its successes on large scales, the $\Lambda$CDM model produces too much
61: power on small scales. In general, the observed structures have softer cores, lower concentrations and are less clumped than those predicted by the
62: $\Lambda$CDM model (see Ref. \cite{Prim01} and references therein).
63:
64: A possibility to alleviate the accumulating contradiction between the $\Lambda$CDM model
65: predictions on small scales and the observations is to add properties to the dark matter (DM) sector,
66: relaxing the hypothesis on dark matter as being cold.
67: Free streaming due to the thermal motion of the DM particles is the simplest known
68: mechanism for smearing out small scale structure.
69: Between the large free streaming distance of Hot Dark Matter (HDM) particles
70: and the small free streaming distance of Cold Dark Matter (CDM) particles lies the intermediate scale
71: of Warm Dark Matter (WDM) particles \cite{Colombi,Bode}.
72: The velocity dispersion of WDM particles is sufficient to alleviate some contradictions between the $\Lambda$CDM model predictions and observations
73: such as: the predicted number of halos compared with the observed number of satellite galaxies in the Local Group \cite{Bode,Padm95}, the prediction of $1/r^{\alpha}$ ($1 < \alpha < 1.2$) behavior for galaxy rotation curves
74: compared with the observed linearly rising behavior \cite{Dal,Bosch,Zen}, the prediction of
75: too much baryonic material with low angular momentum to form the observed rotationally disk galaxies \cite{Dolgov01}.
76:
77: On the other hand, in addition to the evidence for mixing of active neutrinos from solar and atmospheric oscillation experiments, there are indications for another oscillation with larger mass-squared
78: difference coming from short base-line neutrino oscillation experiments
79: \cite{Atha,Miniboone} that can be explained
80: by adding one or two sterile neutrinos with eV-scale mass to the standard scheme with three
81: active neutrinos (see Ref.\cite{Maltoni} for a recent analysis).\\
82: Such results have impact on cosmology because sterile neutrinos can contribute
83: to the number of relativistic degrees of freedom at the Big Bang nucleosynthesis \cite{Cirelli}.
84: These models are subject to strong bounds on the sum of active neutrino masses
85: from the combination of various cosmological data sets \cite{Rafelt,Find} that
86: rule out a thermalized sterile neutrino component with eV mass-scale \cite{Seljak07,Mel}.
87:
88: However, there is the possibility to accommodate the cosmological observations
89: with data from short base-line neutrino oscillation experiments by postulating
90: that sterile neutrino is not thermalized and has a phase-space distribution
91: significantly suppressed relative to the thermal distribution.
92: It is already known that sterile neutrino with mass of few keV
93: - the Tremaine-Gunn \cite{Tremaine} bound - provides a
94: valuable DM candidate \cite{DodWidr,Dol,Aba01,Sha06}.
95: In the standard non-resonant production mechanism
96: (small lepton number of the order of baryon number, $L \sim 10^{-10}$) sterile neutrinos are produced
97: via small mixing angle oscillation conversion of thermal active neutrinos \cite{Aba02}.
98:
99: Sterile neutrino with the mass in keV range has a radiative decay channel
100: emitting a photon with an energy that is half of its mass eigenstate.
101: The width of the decay line increases as the fifth power of its mass eigenstate and
102: as square of its mixing angle, being potentially detectable in various X-ray spectra
103: of the astrophysical objects \cite{Pal,Tuck}.
104: The strategy to search for dark matter particles possesing a radiative decay channel and to derive
105: the constraints on their parameters from X-ray observations applied to sterile neutrino
106: is discussed in Ref.\cite{Boy06,Riemer}.\\
107: The analysis of the observed X-ray background from HEAO-1 and XMM-Newton \cite{Boy1}
108: leads to an upper mass limit for sterile neutrino of $m_{\nu_s} < 8.9$ keV
109: \footnote{Throughout the paper the sterile neutrino mass is quoted at 95\% CL.} improved
110: to $m_{\nu_s} < 6.3$ keV
111: from the combined analysis of XMM-Newton observations of the Virgo and Coma clusters \cite{Boy2}.
112: Also, the constraints on the rate
113: of sterile neutrino radiative decay obtained from
114: the analysis of the diffuse X-ray spectrum of
115: Andromeda galaxy leads to $m_{\nu_s} < 3.5$ keV,
116: which is a significant improvement over previous upper limits \cite{Watson}.\\
117: Although prone to uncertainties due to the estimate of DM distribution in
118: dwarf galaxy \cite{AbaKou}, interesting constraints on the parameters of radiative DM decay
119: are obtained from XMM-Newton observations of the
120: DM halo of the Milky Way and Ursa Minor \cite{Boy3}.
121: The recent spectral analysis of the unresolved component of the cosmic X-Ray background in
122: the {\sc Chandra} North and South Deep Fields provides limits on the sterile neutrino mass \cite{Aba07}.
123: The highest Milky Way halo mass estimate provides a
124: limit on sterile neutrino mass of $m_{\nu_s} < 2.9$ keV
125: in Dodelson-Widrow production model \cite{DodWidr}, while the lowest halo mass estimates provides a more conservative limit of $m_{\nu_s} < 5.7$ keV.
126:
127: The radiative decay of the sterile neutrino can also augment the
128: ionization fraction of the primordial gas at high redshifts
129: leading to the increase of the temperature of the primordial gas, the enhancement molecular hydrogen formation and of the star formation rate \cite{Kus06,Mapelli,Pierpa}.
130:
131: The combined analysis of the Ly$\alpha$ forest
132: power spectrum measured by SDSS, the CMB anisotropy and the galaxy
133: clustering power spectra yielded
134: to the lower limits for sterile neutrino mass, $m_{\nu_s} >14$ keV \cite{Sel06}
135: and $m_{\nu_s} > 10$ keV \cite{Viel06} in Dodelson-Widrow production model \cite{DodWidr},
136: excluding sterile neutrino as DM candidate.
137: However, the method based on the combined analysis of angular power spectra
138: gives direct limits for the free streaming lengths of DM particles,
139: the limits on their masses
140: depending on their momentum distribution functions and therefore
141: on their production mechanisms.
142:
143: Taking into account the deviations from the thermal spectrum of DM particles produced due to
144: the variation of the number of degrees of freedom leading to changes in the time-temperature relation
145: of the primordial plasma and the modification of the neutrino thermal potential
146: \cite{Aba01, Aba02, AbaPrd}, the combination of CMB, LSS and Ly$\alpha$ forest
147: angular power spectra leads to $m_{\nu_s} > 1.7$ keV with a further improvement to $m_{\nu_s} > 3$ keV when
148: high-resolution Ly$\alpha$ forest power spectra are considered \cite{AbaPrd}.
149:
150: In this paper we explore an alternative method to constrain the sterile neutrino
151: mass based on the CMB weak lensing extraction.
152: Distortions of CMB temperature and polarization maps caused by the gravitational
153: lensing potential, observable with high angular resolution and sensitivity,
154: have impact on cosmological parameter degeneracies when non-minimal cosmological scenarios
155: are considered \cite{AbaDod,Song,Julien,SelZal}. \\
156: The CMB weak lensing offers several advantages against
157: the method based on the combination of angular power spectra.
158: As the gravitational lensing effect depends on the dark matter distribution in the Universe,
159: no assumption on light-to-mass bias is required.
160: The projected gravitational potential
161: is sensitive to the matter distribution out to high redshifts,
162: preventing from non-linear corrections required only at very small scales.
163: In addition, unlike the galaxy clustering and the Ly$\alpha$ forest,
164: the projected gravitational potential probes a larger range of angular scales,
165: most of the signature comming from large scales.
166:
167: The paper is organized as follows. In Section~1 we compute the energy density evolution
168: of the dark matter sterile neutrino in the expanding Universe,
169: incorporating the time-temperature relation
170: and the modification of the neutrino thermal potential.
171: In Section~2 we compute the deflection angle power spectrum and its cross-corelation
172: with the temperature when sterile neutrino dark matter energy density is considered.
173: In Section~3 we derive limits on the sterile neutrino mass from {\sc Planck} weak lensing
174: extraction. We draw our main conclusions in Section~4.
175: %======================
176:
177: Throughout we assume a background cosmology consistent
178: with the most recent cosmological measurements \cite{Spergel06} with
179: energy density of $\Omega_m=0.3$ in matter, $\Omega_b=0.05$ in baryons,
180: $\Omega_{\nu}=0.01$ in three active neutrino flavors,
181: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ in cosmological constant, a Hubble constant of
182: $H_0$=72 km s$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$, a reionization redshift $z_{re}$=13 (assuming
183: a sharp reionization history) and adiabatic initial conditions with
184: a power-law scalar spectral index $n_s=1$.
185: %==========================================
186:
187: \section{Sterile neutrino dark matter production and density evolution}
188:
189: \subsection{Non-resonant production}
190:
191: Sterile neutrinos dark matter candidates are produced in the early Universe through
192: oscillation with active neutrinos, at temperatures close to QCD phase transition
193: \cite{Aba01,Aba02}.
194: The oscillation process takes place due to the fact that
195: the neutrino mass eigenstate components propagate differently
196: as they have different energies, momenta and masses.
197: Eigenstates of neutrino interaction include the active neutrinos, $\nu_a$
198: (a=$e$, $\mu$, $\tau$), which are created and destroyed in
199: the standard model by weak interactions as well as the sterile neutrinos, $\nu_s$,
200: which do not participate in weak interactions.
201: For oscillations occurring in vacuum between two neutrino flavors $\nu_{a}$ and
202: $\nu_s$, the mixing can be written as:
203: \begin{eqnarray}
204: \vert \nu_{a}>=\cos\theta_0 \vert \nu_1 > + \sin \theta_0 \vert \nu_2> \nonumber \\
205: \vert \nu_s>=-\sin \theta_0 \vert \nu_1 > + \cos \theta_0 \vert \nu_2>\, ,
206: \end{eqnarray}
207: where $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ are the neutrino mass eigenstate components and $\theta_0$
208: is the vacuum mixing angle. The mixing of antineutrinos can be obtained from the above equation by performing the transformation $\nu_a \rightarrow {\bar \nu}_a$
209: and $\nu_s \rightarrow {\bar \nu}_s$.
210: It is usual to consider that each neutrino/antineutrino of a definite flavor is dominantly one mass eigenstate. In this circumstance we refer to the dominant mass
211: eigenstate component of $\nu_a/{\bar \nu}_a$ as $\nu_1$ to that of $\nu_s/{\bar \nu}_s$ as
212: $\nu_2$ and to their difference of squared masses as
213: $\delta m^2= m^2_{\nu_s}-m^2_{\nu_a}$.
214:
215: The mixing of the mass eigenstate components are modified in the presence of the
216: finite temperature background either in the case of small active neutrino lepton number, $L_{\nu_a}\sim10^{-10}$ (of the order of baryon number), driving non-rezonant sterile neutrino production \cite {DodWidr},
217: or in the case of several orders of magnitude larger lepton number \cite {Aba01,shi99}.
218: The lepton number is defined as the difference between the active
219: neutrino and antineutrino number densities normalized by the photon number density:
220: $L_{\nu_a}=(n_{\nu_a}-n_{{\bar \nu}_a})/n_{\gamma}$.
221:
222: The matter mixing angle, $\theta_M$, is related to the vacuum mixing angle, $\theta_0$, through (see e.g.
223: Ref. \cite{Aba01} and references therein):
224: \begin{equation}
225: \sin^2 2\theta_M
226: =\frac{\Delta^2(p) \sin^2 2\theta_0}
227: {\Delta^2(p) \sin^2 2\theta+ D^2(p)+
228: [ \Delta(p)\cos 2\theta+V^L-V^T(p) ] ^2}.
229: \end{equation}
230: In the above equation $\Delta(p)=\delta m^2/2p$ is the vacuum oscillation factor, $V^L$ is the asymmetric lepton potential, $V^T(p)$ is the thermal potential, $D(p)=\Gamma_{\nu_a}(p)/2$ is the quantum damping rate and $\Gamma_{\nu_a}$ is the collision rate defined as:
231: \begin{displaymath}
232: \Gamma_{\nu_a}(p,T)\approx
233: \left\{
234: \begin{array}{ll}
235: 1.27 G^2_F p T^4, & a=e\\
236: 0.92 G^2_F p T^4, & a=\mu,\tau
237: \end{array} \right.
238: \end{displaymath}
239: The asymmetric lepton potential, $V^L$, and the thermal potential
240: $V^T(p)$ read as \cite{Aba01,Aba02}:
241: \begin{eqnarray}
242: V^L=\sqrt{2}G_F \left[ 2 ( n_{\nu_a}-n_{{\bar \nu}_a})
243: +\sum_{ a \neq a^{'} }
244: ( n_{\nu_{a^{'}}}-n_{{\bar \nu}_{a^{'}}})-\frac{n_n}{2}\right]\,,& \nonumber \\
245: V^T=-\frac{8\sqrt{2}G_Fp}{3m^2_Z}( <E_{\nu_a}>n_{\nu_a}+
246: <E_{\bar{\nu}_a}>n_{{\bar \nu}_a}) \nonumber \\
247: -\frac{8\sqrt{2}G_Fp}{3m^2_W}( <E_{\nu_a}>n_{\nu_a}+
248: <E_{\bar{\nu}_a}>n_{{\bar \nu}_a}) \,,
249: \end{eqnarray}
250: where: $E_{\nu_a}$ is the active neutrino total energy, $n_{\nu_a}/n_{\bar{\nu}_a}$ are neutrino/antineutrino number densities,cosmological
251: $n_n$ is the baryon number density,
252: $m_Z$ is $Z^0$ boson mass and $m_W$ is $W^{\pm}$ boson mass.
253: The number density of the thermally distributed active neutrinos, $n_{\nu_a}$ is given by:
254: \begin{equation}
255: n_{\nu_a}=\frac{3}{8}n_{\gamma} \left( \frac{T_{\nu_a}}{T_{\gamma}}\right)^3\,,
256: \end{equation}
257: where $n_{\gamma}=2 \zeta(3)T_{\gamma}^3/\pi^2$ is the photon number density and $\zeta(3)$ is the Riemann zeta function of 3.\\
258: Throughout we will consider a lepton symmetric Universe
259: ($n_{\nu_a}\simeq n_{{\bar \nu}_a}$) and neglect the contribution to the asymmetric potential due to
260: the baryon number which is very small at the temperatures of interest \cite{Aba02}.
261: In this case the contribution of asymmetric lepton potential $V^L$ in eq. (2) is negligible.
262:
263: \subsection{Energy density evolution}
264:
265: \begin{figure}
266: \begin{center}
267: \includegraphics[height=10cm,width=14cm]{fig1.ps}
268: \caption{Panel a): The evolution with the scale factor of the temperature
269: obtained by the integration of the time-temperature relation
270: considering the variation of the statistical weight in relativistic particles $g^*$,
271: compared with the linear evolution of the temperature, $T_{lin}=T_{CMB}(1+z)$.
272: Panel b): The evolution with the temperature of the statistical weight in relativistic
273: particles $g^*$ used in the computation of the time-temperature relation.
274: Panel~c): The temperature dependence on sterile neutrino comoving momentum obtained for the same sterile neutrino mass values as in Panel~a).}
275: \label{fig1}
276: \end{center}
277: \end{figure}
278: Since sterile neutrinos/antineutrinos are produced non-thermally,
279: their mean energy density and pressure must be computed by
280: the direct integration of their phase-space distributions:
281: \begin{eqnarray}
282: \rho_{\nu_s}+\rho_{\bar{\nu}_s}=\frac{T^4}{2 \pi^2}\int_0^{\infty} dq \, q^2E_{\nu_s}
283: [f_{\nu_s}(q)+f_{{\bar\nu}_s}(q)] \,, \nonumber \\
284: p_{\nu_s}+p_{{\bar \nu_{s} }}=\frac{T^4}{2 \pi^2}\int_0^{\infty} dq \frac{q^2} {E_{\nu_s}}
285: [f_{\nu_s}(q)+f_{{\bar\nu}_s}(q)] \,,
286: \end{eqnarray}
287: where: $f_{\nu_s}$ and $f_{{\bar\nu}_s}$
288: are the neutrino/antineutrino phase-space distribution functions and $E_{\nu_s}=\sqrt{q^2+a^2m^2_{\nu_s}}$
289: is the total energy of sterile neutrino having a mass $m_{\nu_s}$ and a comoving momentum
290: $q=E/T$; $a=(1+z)^{-1}$ is the scale factor ($a_0$=1 today).
291: The temporal evolution of sterile neutrino energy density affects the
292: Hubble expansion rate that reads as:
293: \begin{equation}
294: H(a)=\sqrt{\frac{8 \pi G}{3}}[\Omega_m/a^3+\Omega_r/a^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}]^{1/2}\,.
295: \end{equation}
296: In the above equation $G$ is the gravitational constant, $\Omega_m=\Omega_b+\Omega_{cdm}+\Omega_{\nu_a}+\Omega_{\nu_s}$
297: is the matter energy density parameter where
298: $\Omega_b$, $\Omega_{cdm}$, $\Omega_{\nu_a}$ and $\Omega_{\nu_s}$ are the energy
299: density parameters for baryons, cold dark matter, active and sterile
300: neutrinos respectively, $\Omega_r$ is the radiation energy density parameter and
301: $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ is the vacuum energy density parameter.
302:
303: \begin{figure}
304: \begin{center}
305: \includegraphics[height=10cm,width=14cm]{fig2.ps}
306: \caption{ Left: The dependence on the scale factor of the energy density parameters
307: of sterile neutrinos expressed in units of the mean energy density of one mass eigenstate of massless neutrinos for different sterile neutrino mass values.
308: Right: The evolution with the scale factor of the energy density parameters for matter,
309: radiation and vacuum obtained for fiducial model when
310: the corresponding sterile neutrino energy density parameters are included.}
311: \label{fig1}
312: \end{center}
313: \end{figure}
314: Depending on the mass, the maximum rate production of sterile neutrino occurs at \cite{DodWidr,Barbi}:
315: \begin{eqnarray}
316: T_{max}\approx 133 \, {\rm MeV} \left( \frac{m_{\nu_s}}{1 {\rm keV}}\right)^{1/3}\,.\nonumber
317: \end{eqnarray}
318: For sterile neutrino with mass in the range of interest,
319: the time evolution of the temperature-dependent thermal potential
320: and of the collision rate require the
321: knowledge of the time-temperature relation in the expanding
322: Universe:
323: \begin{equation}
324: \frac{da}{dT}=\frac{d\rho_{tot}}{dT}(\rho_{tot}+p_{tot})^{-1}\,,
325: \end{equation}
326: where $\rho_{tot}$ and $p_{tot}$ are the total density and pressure, including
327: the contribution of sterile neutrino/antineutrino as given in equation (5).
328: The time-temperature relation takes into account
329: the variation of statistical weight in relativistic particles
330: that is changed by nearly an order of magnitude
331: since $T_{max}$ \cite{Aba01, AbaPrd}.
332: A general treatment of the time-temperature relation,
333: whose approach we have incorporated, is given in the Appendix of Ref. \cite{Aba01}. \\
334: Left panel of Figure~1 presents the evolution with the scale factor of the temperature
335: obtained by the intergration of the time-temperature relation taking into account
336: the variation of the statistical weight in relativistic particles $g^*$,
337: compared with the linear evolution of the temperature $T_{lin}=T_{CMB}(1+z)$.
338: We also show, in the right panel of the same figure, the dependence of the temperature
339: on sterile neutrino comoving momentum.
340: % obtained for $g_*=10.75$ as in Dodelson-Widrow production model \cite{DodWidr}.
341:
342: The time evolution of the sterile neutrino phase-space distribution, $f_{\nu_s}$, can be described by the semiclasical Boltzmann equation \cite{DodWidr,Aba01}:
343: \begin{eqnarray}
344: \frac{\partial }{\partial t}f_{\nu_s}(q)-H(t)\,q\,\frac{\partial}{\partial q}f_{\nu_s}(q)
345: \approx \Gamma(\nu_a \rightleftharpoons \nu_s)[f_{\nu_a}(q)-f_{\nu_s}(q)]\,,
346: \end{eqnarray}
347: where: $dt=da/aH(a)$, $f_{\nu_a}$ is the active neutrino phase-space distribution and $\Gamma(\nu_a \rightleftharpoons \nu_s)$ is the effective production/annihilation rate of sterile neutrinos:
348: \begin{eqnarray}
349: \Gamma(\nu_a \rightleftharpoons \nu_s)\approx
350: 0.25 \Gamma_{\nu_a}(p,T) \sin^2 2 \theta_M . %\nonumber
351: \end{eqnarray}
352: We use the set of equations (5)-(9) to compute the temporal evolution of the energy density
353: of sterile neutrinos in the expanding Universe.
354: For sterile neutrino with the mass in the range of interest,
355: the flavor dependence is almost negligible \cite{Aba02}, implying that similar results
356: can be obtained for all $\nu_a \rightleftharpoons \nu_s$ mixings.
357: Throughout we consider $\nu_{\tau} \rightleftharpoons \nu_s$ mixing. \\
358: Left panel of Figure~2 presents the dependence on the scale factor of the energy density parameter
359: of sterile neutrino expressed in units of the mean energy density of one mass eigenstate of massless neutrinos for three different mass values. We also show the same dependence for the case $m_{\nu_s}=0$.
360: The right panel of the same figure shows the evolution with the scale factor of the energy density parameters for matter, radiation and vacuum obtained for our flat
361: $\Lambda$CDM background cosmology when the corresponding sterile neutrino masses are included.
362: The production of DM sterile neutrino affects the radiation and matter evolution through
363: the Hubble expansion rate, altering the time-temperature relation and redshifting the relativistic species.
364:
365: \section{CMB lensing extraction with {\sc Planck} experiment}
366:
367: \subsection{Deflection angle power spectrum}
368:
369: The CMB photons from the last scattering surface are subject to the cumulative effects
370: of the large scale structure gravitational potential \cite{Hu00}.
371: The net result is that the CMB temperature anisotropy and polarization patterns measured in the direction ${\bf n}$ in the sky provides information on the photons emerging from the last scattering surface from the direction ${\bf{\tilde n}}={\bf n}+\delta {\bf n}$. The intensity and the linear polarization of the lensed CMB are completely specified by the Stokes parameters $I$, $Q$ and $U$ which are related with the unlensed Stokes parameters through: $X({\bf n})= {{\tilde X}( {\bf{\tilde n}}})$, where $X({\bf n})$ stands for the lensed $I$, $Q$ and $U$. The deflection field is defined as the gradient of the lensing potential
372: $ \delta{\bf n}={\bf \nabla} \Psi({\bf n})$, where ${\bf \nabla}$ is the covariant derivative on the sphere.\\
373: The deflection map and the lesnsing potential map can be expanded in spherical harmonics \cite{Hirata,Cha}, so that the relation between
374: the deflection angle power spectrum $C^{dd}_l$ and the lensing
375: potential power spectrum $C^{\Psi \Psi}_l$ is given by \cite{Hu02}:
376: \begin{equation}
377: C^{dd}_l=l(l+1)C^{\Psi \Psi}_l\,.
378: \end{equation}
379:
380: The power spectra of the lensing potential, $C^{\Psi \Psi}_l$ and the correlation with the temperature anisotropy, $C^{\Psi T}_l$, can be numeriacally computed by using the Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background (CAMB) \cite{Hu00,Cha,Lewis} in the linear theory as well
381: as by including the non-linear corrections from HALOFIT \cite{Smith}.
382: We recall that $C^{\Psi T}_l$ does not vanish because the temperature map includes information on
383: the time variation of the gravitational potential though the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. \\
384: We modified the CMB anisotropy code CAMB to compute the CMB angular power spectra in
385: the presence of a DM sterile neutrino component.
386: We include in the computation the momentum-dependent sterile neutrino phase-space distribution function, as described in the previous section, its unperturbed and perturbed energy density and pressure, energy flux and shear stress.
387:
388: \begin{figure}
389: \begin{center}
390: \includegraphics[height=9cm,width=12cm]{fig3.ps}
391: \caption{Top panel: The deflection angle power spectrum, $C^{dd}_l$, obtained
392: in the our fiducial model ($m_{\nu_s}=0$) and the minimum variance noise power spectrum (dashed line)
393: for {\sc Planck} experimental characteristics given in Table~1.
394: Bottom panel: The relative percentual differences between the fiducial model ($m_{\nu_s}$=0) and exactly the same model with $m_{\nu_s}$=~1.7, 3.5 and 8.3 keV. }
395: \end{center}
396: \end{figure}
397: Figure~3 presents in the top panel the deflection angle power spectrum, $C^{dd}_l$, obtained
398: in our fiducial model ($m{\nu_s}=0$). The bottom panel of Figure~3 shows the relative percentual differences between the fiducial model and exact the same model but with $m_{\nu_s}$= 1.7, 3.5 and 8.3 keV.\\
399: The signature of sterile neutrino mass on the deflection angle power spectrum is the suppression
400: of its amplitude relative to the fiducial model. The net suppression
401: is scale dependent and the relevant length scale is
402: the free-streaming scale \cite{Bond}, which increases with the mean
403: dark matter sterile neutrino velocity and decreases with its mass.
404:
405: \section{Constraints on sterile neutrino mass from {\sc Planck}
406: lensing extraction}
407:
408: \subsection{Gaussian Likelihood function}
409: \begin{figure}
410: \begin{center}
411: \includegraphics[height=8cm,width=12cm]{fig4.ps}
412: \caption{ The CMB angular power spectra for the fiducial model.
413: The error bars include the Planck experiment instrumental noise and the cosmic variance.
414: For graphical representation convenience, the error bars assume a multipole binning
415: of $\Delta l=7$ until $l\sim 70$ and then $\Delta l\sim l/10$ \cite{Blue,Perotto1}. }
416: \end{center}
417: \end{figure}
418:
419: In the standard inflationary cosmology, the spherical harmonic coefficients of the unlensed
420: temperature and polarization field in the sky obey the the Gaussian statistics and can be used
421: to define the estimators of the covariance:
422: \begin{eqnarray}
423: {\hat C^{ab}_l=\frac{1}{2l+1} \sum_m}W^*_{lm}X_{lm} \hspace{0.3cm} a,b \in \{T, E, B \} \,,
424: \end{eqnarray}
425: where $W_{lm}$ and $X_{lm}$ are the harmonic coefficients of the CMB temperature and polarization anisotropy maps.
426: The corresponding full-sky likelihood function is given by:
427: \begin{equation}
428: \chi^2 =-2 \ln {\cal L} ( {\bf \hat C}| {\bf C} ) =
429: (2l+1)\{ {\rm Tr} [{\bf \hat C} {\bf C^{-1}}] +\ln|{\bf C}| \} \,,
430: \end{equation}
431: where {\bf C} is the covariance matrix of the observations and ${\bf \hat C}$ is the corresponding covariance matrix of estimators.
432: The covariance matrix of the observations reads as:
433: \begin{eqnarray}
434: {\bf C}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
435: {\tilde C}^{TT}_l+N^{TT}_l & {\tilde C}^{TE}_l & 0 \\
436: {\tilde C}^{TE}_l & {\tilde C}^{EE}_l+N^{EE}_l & 0 \\
437: 0 & 0 & {\tilde C}^{BB}_l+N^{BB}_l
438: \end{array}\right) \,.
439: \end{eqnarray}
440: In the above equation ${\tilde C}^{ab}_l$, $a,b=\{ T,E, B\}$ are the unlensed power spectra
441: of primary anisotropies, $N^{ab}_l$ are the corresponding instrumental noise variances and
442: the parity invariance ($C^{BT}_l=C^{BE}_l=0$) it is assumed.
443:
444: Weak lensing correlates the lensed multipoles and the lensed sky is not any more Gaussian \cite{Seljak96}.
445: However, as shown in Ref.\cite{Lewis05}, at least up to {\sc Planck} resolutions and sensitivities, equation (11) remains approximately correct if the B-mode, that is noise dominated, is not included in the covariance matrix.
446: The non-Gaussian corrections can be however important for the future high sensitivity CMB polarization experiments having a signal dominated B-mode power spectrum \cite{Kapli}. \\
447: In this paper we consider a fiducial model with no significant amplitude of the primordial
448: gravitational waves, omitting the B-mode from the parameter estimation analysis.
449: In this case, the data covariance matrix read as:
450: \begin{eqnarray}
451: {\bf C}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
452: C^{TT}_l+N^{TT}_l & C^{TE}_l & C^{Td}_l \\
453: C^{TE}_l & C^{EE}_l+N^{EE}_l & 0 \\
454: C^{Td}_l & 0 & C^{dd}_l+N^{dd}_l
455: \end{array}\right) \,,
456: \end{eqnarray}
457: where $C^{ab}_l$, $a,b=\{ T,E \}$, are the lensed CMB power spectra, $N^{ab}_l$ are the corresponding detector noise power spectra, $C^{dd}_l$ is deflection angle power spectrum, $N^{dd}_l$ the noise power spectrum associated to the lensing extraction and $C^{Td}_l$ is the power spectrum of the cross-correlation between the temperature and deflection angle. \\
458: The weak lensing does not change the total variance in the CMB temperature anisotropy and polarization maps and hence lensed observations have the same variance as
459: if there were no lensing \cite{Lewis05,Kapli}.
460:
461: \begin{table}
462: \begin{center}
463: \caption{The expected experimental characteristics for the {\sc Planck} frequency channels considered in this work \cite{Blue}: $\nu$ is the frequency of the channel, $\theta_b$ is the FWHM,
464: $\Delta_T$ and $\Delta_P$ are the sensitivities per pixel for temperature and polarization
465: maps.}
466: \end{center}
467: \vspace{0.3cm}
468: \begin{center}
469: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
470: \hline \hline
471: $\nu $ & FWHM & $\Delta_T $ & $\Delta_P $ \\
472: (GHz)&(arc-minutes)& ($\mu$ K)& ($\mu$ K) \\
473: \hline \hline
474: 100 & 9.5 &6.8 & 10.9 \\
475: 143 & 7.1 &6.0 & 11.4 \\
476: 217 & 5.0& 13.1 & 26.7 \\
477: \hline \hline
478: \end{tabular}
479: \end{center}
480: \end{table}
481: For each frequency channel we consider an homogeneous detector noise with the power spectrum, $N^{ab}_{l,\nu}$, given by \cite{Knox}:
482: \begin{eqnarray}
483: N^{ab}_{l,\nu}=(\theta_b \Delta_c)^2 \exp^{ l(l+1) \theta^2_b / 8 \ln 2}\,,
484: \end{eqnarray}
485: where $\nu$ is the frequency of the channel, $\theta_b$ is the FWHM of the beam and
486: $\Delta_c$, where $c \in(T,P)$, are the sensitivities per pixel for the temperature and polarization maps. The global noise of the experiment, $N^{XX}_l$, can be written as:
487: \begin{equation}
488: N^{ab}_l=\left[ \sum_{\nu} (N^{ab}_{l,\nu})^{-1} \right]^{-1} \, .
489: \end{equation}
490: The expected experimental performances of the {\sc Planck} frequency channels considered in this paper \cite{Blue} are presented in Table~1.
491:
492: The lensing noise power spectrum, $N^{dd}_l$, was numerically computed by using the minimum variance quadratic estimator of Okamoto and Hu \cite{Oka03}.
493: By definition, the quadratic estimator is build from pairs
494: $(a,b)$ of observed temperature or polarization modes and its multipoles are given in the quadratic form:
495: \begin{equation}
496: d(a,b)^M_L=N^{ab}_L \sum_{ll{'}mm^{'}}
497: {{\cal G}(a,b)^{mm^{'}}_{l \,\,\, l^{'}}}^M_L
498: a^m_l b^{m^{'}}_{l^{'}} \,,
499: \end{equation}
500: where $a^m_l$ and $b^m_l$ correspond to the lensed CMB fields. The minimum variance estimator is obtained by finding the weights ${\cal G}^{a,b}_{l_{1}l_{2}}(L)$ that minimize the Gaussian variance:
501: \begin{equation}
502: <{d(a,b)}^{M^{*}}_{L}{d(a^{'},b^{'}})^{M}_{L}>\equiv \delta_{L,L^{'}}\delta_{M,M^{'}}[C^{dd}_L +{\cal N}^{aba^{'}b^{'}}_L]\,.
503: \end{equation}
504: For the minimum variance estimator the lensing noise reads as:
505: \begin{eqnarray}
506: N^{dd}_{l}=\left[ \sum_{aba^{'}b^{'}} ({\cal N}^{aba^{'}b^{'}})^{-1} \right]^{-1} \, .
507: \end{eqnarray}
508: In the top panel of Figure~3 we show the lensing noise power spectrum, $N^{dd}_l$,
509: for {\sc Planck} experiment, obtained by using the minimum variance estimator method.\\
510: Figure~4 presents the CMB angular power spectra for the fiducial model.
511: The error bars, $\Delta C^{\alpha}_l$, include the instrumental noise and the cosmic variance:
512: \begin{eqnarray}
513: \hspace{-1cm}\Delta C^{\alpha}_l=\sqrt{ \frac{2}{ (2l+1) \Delta l f_{sky}} }
514: ( C^{\alpha}_l+ N^{\alpha}_l)\,
515: \hspace{0.3cm}\alpha=[TT,EE,TE,dd,Td] \,.&
516: \end{eqnarray}
517: In the above equation $f_{sky}$ represents the fraction of the sky covered by the observations. For the purpose of this work we take $f_{sky}$=0.8 and assume a perfect cleaning of all the astrophysical foregrounds. For graphical representation convenience, the error bars presented in Figure~4 assume a multipole binning of $\Delta l=7$ until $l\sim 70$ and then $\Delta l\sim l/10$ \cite{Blue,Perotto1}:
518:
519: \subsection{Parameters estimation}
520:
521: \begin{figure}
522: \begin{tabular}{cc}
523: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{fig5.ps}
524: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{fig6.ps}
525: \end{tabular}
526: \caption{Left: The marginalized likelihood probabilities for {\sc Planck}-like
527: observations obtained by using the lensing extraction
528: with (solid red line) and without (dashed black line) DM sterile neutrino component.
529: Right: The marginalized likelihood probabilities for the (inverse) mass of DM
530: sterile neutrino obtained for the {\sc Planck}-like
531: observations with lensing extraction (solid red line) compared with the marginalized likelihoods obtained from \cite{AbaPrd}: CMB plus SDSS 3D power spectrum (dashed line), plus SDSS Ly$\alpha$ forest power spectrum (dotted line), plus VHS high-resolution $Ly{\alpha}$ forest power spectrum (dash-dotted line).}
532: \end{figure}
533: We assume a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model with the following set of parameters to
534: be determined from the {\sc Planck}-like observations:
535: \begin{eqnarray}
536: {\bf \Theta}=(\Omega_bh^2,\Omega_ch^2, \theta_s, z_{re}, f_{\nu},m_{\nu_s}, n_s) \, \nonumber
537: \end{eqnarray}
538: where $\Omega_b$ and $\Omega_c$ are the fractions of critical density in baryons and cold dark matter, $\theta_s$ is the angular acoustic peak scale of the CMB, $z_{re}$ is the reionization redshift
539: (we assume a sharp reionization history), $f_{\nu}$ is the fraction of massive neutrinos, $m_{\nu_s}$ is the
540: sterile neutrino mass and $n_s$ is the spectral index of primordial adiabatic perturbations.
541:
542: We use the {\sc CosmoMC} \cite{Bridle} Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) public package
543: with the modification of the function {\sc ChiSqExact}
544: \cite{Perotto1} required to compute the likelihood function when the deflection angle
545: power spectrum is included,
546: to sample for the posterior distribution of parameters space ${\bf \Theta}$,
547: giving the {\sc Planck}-like data.
548: For graphical representation convenience, the error bars in Figure~4 assume a multipole binning of $\Delta l=7$ until $l\sim 70$ and then $\Delta l\sim l/10$ \cite{Blue,Perotto1}:
549:
550: Left panel from Figure~5 presents the marginalized likelihood probabilities
551: of the cosmological parameters for {\sc Planck}-like observations obtained from lensing extraction
552: with and without the DM sterile neutrino component, showing that the cosmological parameters
553: are generally not biased when including DM sterile neutrino. \\
554: In the right panel of Figure~5 we present the marginalized likelihood probability for
555: the inverse mass, $m^{-1}_s$, of sterile neutrino obtained for {\sc Planck}-like
556: observations by using the lensing extraction.
557: We find a lower limit on the sterile neutrino dark matter $m_{\nu_s}>2.08$ keV at 95\% CL, in agreement
558: with our previous result \cite{popa} obtained from {\sc Planck} lensing extraction by using the Fisher information matrix ($m_{\nu_s}>1.75$ keV). \\
559: For comparison we also show in the same figure the marginalized likelihoods
560: for $m^{-1}_{\nu_s}$ obtained in Ref. \cite{AbaPrd} from: CMB plus SDSS 3D power spectrum, plus SDSS Ly$\alpha$ forest power spectrum, plus VHS high-resolution Ly${\alpha}$ forest power spectrum.
561: Our result is in agreement with the result from the combined
562: analysis of CMB, SDSS 3D power spectrum and SDSS Ly$\alpha$ forest power spectrum ($m_{\nu_s} > 1.7$ keV)
563: but is less constrained than the limit obtained when VHS high-resolution Ly$\alpha$ forest data are included ($m_{\nu_s} > 3$ keV).
564:
565:
566: \section{Conclusions}
567:
568: From the future high precision observations of the {\sc Planck} satellite
569: we would like to
570: extract information about both unlensed and lensed CMB anisotropies.
571: The weak lensing effects of the CMB induced by the neighbouring galaxy clustering
572: will have a significant effect on the statistics of the observed CMB
573: and must be take into account in order to obtain reliable parameter estimates, offering
574: several advantages against the cosmological parameter extraction based on the combination of CMB,
575: LSS and Ly$\alpha$ power spectra.
576: As the gravitational lensing effect depends on the matter distribution, no
577: assumption on light-to-mass bias is required. In addition,
578: unlike the galaxy clustering and Ly$\alpha$ forest power spectra,
579: the projected gravitational potential power spectrum probes
580: a larger range of angular scales, the non-linear corrections being
581: required only on very small scales.
582:
583: However, the amount of information that can be obtained from the CMB weak lensing extraction
584: depends on the lensing noise level. \\
585: In this paper we address the possibility to constrain
586: the DM sterile neutrino mass from {\sc Planck}-like observations by using the CMB lensing extraction.
587: We use the minimum variance estimator of Okamoto and Hu \cite{Oka03} to compute
588: the lensing noise power spectrum for {\sc Planck} experimental configuration. \\
589: Taking into account the changes in the time-temperature relation of the primordial plasma and
590: the modification of the neutrino thermal potential, we compute the projected gravitational
591: potential power spectrum and its correlation with the temperature in the presence of DM sterile neutrino componet that together with the lensed CMB temperature and polarization anisotropy power spectra
592: are used to constrain the cosmological parameters including sterile neutrino mass, from
593: {\sc Planck}-like observations. \\
594: We show that the cosmological parameters are generally not biased when DM sterile neutrino is included.
595: From this analysis we found a lower limit on DM sterile neutrino mass $m_{\nu_s}>2.08$ keV at 95\% CL,
596: consistent with the lower mass limit obtained from the combined analysis of CMB, SDSS 3D power spectrum and SDSS Ly$\alpha$ forest power spectrum
597: ($m_{\nu_s}>1.7$ keV) \cite{AbaPrd}.\\
598: We conclude that, although the information that can be extracted is rather limited due to the high level of the lensing noise of {\sc Planck} experiment, the weak lensing of CMB offers a valuable alternative to constrain the dark matter sterile neutrino mass.
599:
600:
601: \vspace{0.5cm}
602: {\bf Acknowledgements} \\
603:
604: We thank to Oleg Ruchayskiy and Alexey Boyarsky for the useful comments.\\
605: We acknowledge the use of the GRID computing system facility at
606: the Institute for Space Sciences Bucharest and the staff working there.
607:
608: \section*{References}
609:
610: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
611:
612: \bibitem{Nolta} Hinshaw G et al (WMAP Collaboration), 2007
613: {\it Astrophys. J. Suppl.} {\bf 170} 288 [astro-ph/0603451]
614:
615: \bibitem{Page} Page L et al (WMAP Collaboration), 2007
616: {\it Astrophys. J. Suppl.} {\bf 170} 335 [astro-ph/0603450]
617:
618: \bibitem{Spergel06} Spergel D N et al (WMAP Collaboration), 2007
619: {\it Astophys. J. Suppl.} {\bf 170} 377 [astro-ph/0603449]
620:
621: \bibitem{Seljak07} Seljak U, Solsar A and McDonald P, 2006
622: {\it J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.} JCAP10(2006)014 [astro-ph/0604335]
623:
624: \bibitem{Turner00} Turner M S, 2000 {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 333} 619 ;
625: Wang X, Tegmark M, and Zaldarriaga M (2002) {\it Phys. Rev} {\bf D 65} 123001 [astro-ph/0105091];
626: Bachall N A, Ostriker J P, Perlmutter S and Steinhardt P J, 1999
627: {\it Science} {\bf 284} 1481 [astro-ph/9906463]
628:
629: \bibitem{Prim01} Primack J R, 2001
630: {\it Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute} Kluwer Academic Publishers {\bf 34} 349
631:
632: \bibitem{Colombi} Colombi S, Dodelson S and Widrow L M, 1996
633: {\it Astophys. J.} {\bf 458} 1 [astro-ph/9505029]
634:
635: \bibitem{Bode} Bode P, Ostriker J P and Turok N , 2001
636: {Astrophys. J.} {\bf 556} 93 [astro-ph/0010389]
637:
638: \bibitem{Padm95} Padmanabhan T, 1995
639: {\it Space science reviews} {\bf 73} 436
640:
641: \bibitem{Dal} Dalcanton J J and
642: Hogan C J, 2001 {Astophys. J.} {\bf 561} 35 [astro-ph/0004381]
643:
644: \bibitem{Bosch} van den Bosch F C and Swaters R A, 2001
645: {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 325} 1017 [astro-ph/0006048]
646:
647: \bibitem{Zen} Zentner A N and Bullock J S, 2002
648: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 66} 043003 [astro-ph/0205216]
649:
650: \bibitem{Dolgov01} Dolgov A D and Sommer-Larsen J, 2001
651: {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 551}, 608 [astro-ph/9912166]
652:
653: \bibitem{Atha} Athanassopoulos C et al, 1996
654: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 77} 3082 [nucl-ex/9605003]
655:
656: \bibitem{Miniboone} Aguilar-Arevalo A A et al (MiniBooNE Collaboration) 2007
657: [hep-ex/0704.1500]
658:
659: \bibitem{Maltoni} Maltoni M. ans Schwets T, 2007
660: [hep-ex/0705.0107]
661:
662: \bibitem{Cirelli} Cirelli M , Marandella G, Strumia S, Vissani F, 2005
663: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 708} 215 [hep-ph/0403158]
664:
665: \bibitem{Rafelt} Hannestad S and Raffelt G G, 2006
666: {\it J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.} JCAP11(2006)016 [astro-ph/0607101]
667:
668: \bibitem{Mel} Dodelson S, Melchiorri A and Slosar A, 2006
669: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 97} 041301 [astro-ph/0511500]
670:
671: \bibitem{Find} Kristiansen J, Eriksen H K and Elgarøy Ø, 2006
672: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 74} 123005 [astro-ph/0608017]
673:
674: \bibitem{Tremaine} Tremaine S and Gunn J E, 1979
675: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 42} 407
676:
677: \bibitem{DodWidr} Dodelson S, Widrow L M, 1994
678: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 72}, 17 [hep-ph/9303287]
679:
680: \bibitem{Dol} Dolgov A D and Hansen S H, 2002
681: {\it Astropart. Phys.} {\bf 16} 339 [hep-ph/0009083]
682:
683: \bibitem{Aba01} Abazajian K, Fuller G M, Patel M, 2001
684: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 64} 023501 [astro-ph/0101524]
685:
686: \bibitem{Sha06} Asaka T, Sahaposhnikov M and Kusenko A, 2006
687: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 638} 401 [hep-ph/0602150]
688:
689: \bibitem{Aba02} Abazajian K N and Fuller G M, 2002
690: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 66} 023526 [astro-ph/0204293]
691:
692: \bibitem{Pal} Pal P B and Wolfenstain L, 1982
693: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 25}, 766
694:
695: \bibitem{Tuck} Abazajian K, Fuller G M and Tucker W H, 2001
696: {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 562} 593 [astro-ph/0106002]
697:
698: \bibitem{Boy06} Boyarsky A, Neronov A, Ruchayskiy O, Shaposhnikov M, Tkachev I, 2006
699: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 97} 261302 [astro-ph/0603660]
700:
701: \bibitem{Riemer} Riemer-Sørensen S, Hansen S H, Pedersen K, 2006
702: {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 644} L33 [astro-ph/0603661]
703:
704: \bibitem{Boy1} Boyarsky A, Neronov A , Ruchayskiy O and Shaposhnikov M, 2006
705: {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 370} 213 [astro-ph/0512509]
706:
707: \bibitem{Boy2} Boyarsky A, Neronov A, Ruchayskiy O and Shaposhnikov M, 2006
708: {\it Phys. Rev} {\bf D 74} 103506 [astro-ph/0603368]
709:
710: \bibitem{Watson} Watson C R, Beacom J F, Y$\ddot{u}$ksel H, Walker T, 2006
711: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 74} 033009 [astro-ph/0605424]
712:
713: \bibitem{AbaKou} Abazajian K and Koushiappas S, 2006
714: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 74} 023527 [astro-ph/0605271]
715:
716: \bibitem{AbaApJ} Abazajian K, Fuller G M, Tucker W H, 2001
717: {\it Astophys. J.} {\bf 562} 593 [astro-ph/0106002]
718:
719: \bibitem{Boy3} Boyarsky A, Nevalainen J, Ruchayskiy O, 2007
720: {\it Astron. Astophys.} {\bf 471} 51 [astro-ph/0610961]
721:
722: \bibitem{Aba07} K. Abazajian, M. Markevitch, S. M. Koushiappas, R. C. Hickox, 2007
723: {\it Phys. Rev. } {\bf D 75} 063511 [astro-ph/0611144]
724:
725: \bibitem{Kus06} Biermann P L and Kusenko A, 2006
726: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 96} 091301 [astro-ph/0601004]
727:
728: \bibitem{Mapelli} Ripamonti E, Mapelli M and Ferrara A, 2007
729: {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 375}, 1399 [astro-ph/0606483]
730:
731: \bibitem{Pierpa} Mapelli M, Ferrara A and Perpaoli E, 2006
732: {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 369} 1719 [astro-ph/0603237]
733:
734: \bibitem{Sel06} Seljak U, Makarov A, McDonald P, Trac H, 2006
735: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 97} 191303 [astro-ph/0602430]
736:
737: \bibitem{Viel06} Viel M, Lesgourgues J, Haehnelt M G, S. Matarrese, A. Riotto, 2006
738: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 97}, 071301 [astro-ph/0605706]
739:
740: \bibitem{AbaPrd} Abazajian K, 2006
741: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 73}, 063513 [astro-ph/0512631]
742:
743: \bibitem{AbaDod} Abazajian K and Dodelson S, 2003
744: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 91} 041301 [astro-ph/0212216]
745:
746: \bibitem{Song} Kaplinghat M, Knox L, Song Y S, 2003
747: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\ bf 91} 241301 [astro-ph/0303344]
748:
749: \bibitem{Julien} Lesgourgues J, Perotto L, Pastor S, Piat M, 2006
750: {\it Phys. Rev} {\bf D 73} 045021 [astro-ph/0511735]
751:
752: \bibitem{SelZal} Seljak, U and Zaldarriaga M, 1998
753: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 60} 15 [astro-ph/9811123]
754:
755: \bibitem{shi99} Shi X and Fuller G M, 1999
756: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 82} 2832 [astro-ph/9810076]
757:
758: \bibitem{Barbi} Barbieri R and Dolgov A D, 1990 {\it Phys. Lett. } {\bf B 237} 440 ;
759: Kainulainen K, 1990 {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B244} 191
760:
761: \bibitem{Hu00} Hu W, 2000
762: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 62} 043007 [astro-ph/0002238]
763:
764: \bibitem{Hirata} Hirata C M and Seljak U, 2003
765: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 68} 083002 [astro-ph/0306354]
766:
767: \bibitem{Cha} Challinor A and Lewis A, 2005
768: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 71} 103010 [astro-ph/0502425]
769:
770: \bibitem{Hu02} Hu W and Okamoto T, 2002
771: {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 574 } 566 [astro-ph/0111606]
772:
773: \bibitem{Lewis} Lewis A, Challinor A and Lasenby A, 2000
774: {Astrophys. J.} {\bf 538} 473 [astro-ph/9911177]
775: \footnote{fttp://camb.info}
776:
777: \bibitem{Smith} Smith R E et al., 2003
778: {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 341} 1311 [astro-ph/0207664]
779:
780: \bibitem{Bond} Bond J R and Szalay A S, 1983 {\bf 274} 443;
781: Ma C, 1996 {\it Astrophys. J} {\bf 471} 13;
782: Hu W and Eisenstein D J, 1998 {\it Astrophys. J} {\bf 498} 497
783:
784: \bibitem{Seljak96} Seljak U, 1996
785: {\it Astrophys. J} {\bf 463} 1 [astro-ph/9505109]
786:
787: \bibitem{Lewis05} Lewis A, 2005
788: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 71} 3008 [astro-ph/0502469]
789:
790: \bibitem{Kapli} Smith K M, Hu W and Kaplinghat M, 2004
791: {\it Phys. Rev} {\bf D 70} 3002 [astro-ph/0402442]
792:
793: \bibitem{Knox} Knox L, 1995
794: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 52} 4307 [astro-ph/9504054]
795:
796: \bibitem{Blue} The {\sc Planck} Consortia, 2005
797: "The Scientific Programme of {\sc Planck}"
798: {\it ESA-SCI} 1 [astro-ph/0604069 ]
799:
800: \bibitem{Oka03} Okamoto T and Hu W, 2003
801: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 67} 083002 [astro-ph/0301031]
802:
803: \bibitem{Perotto1} Perotto L, Lesgourgues J, Hannestad S, Tu H, Wong Y, 2006
804: {\it J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.} JCAP10(2006)013 [astro-ph/0606227]
805: \footnote{http://lappweb.in2p3.fr/~perotto/FUTURCMB}
806:
807: \bibitem{Bridle} Lewis A and Bridle S, 2002
808: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 66} 103511 [astro-ph/0205436]
809: \footnote{http://cosmologist.info/cosmomc}
810:
811: \bibitem{popa} Popa, L A and Vasile A, 2007 [astro-ph/0701331]
812:
813: %======================================================
814:
815: %\bibitem{Slosar} Slosar A, 2006
816: %{\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 73} 123501 [astro-ph/0602133]
817:
818: \end{thebibliography}
819: \end{document}
820:
821:
822:
823:
824:
825:
826:
827:
828:
829: