arxiv: v1 [astro-ph.co] 13 Oct 2017

Transcription

1 . Article. SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy?? 7 Vol.?? No.?:?? doi:?? Diagnosing holographic type dark energy models ith the Statefinder hierarchy, composite null diagnostic and pair arxiv:7.88v [astro-ph.co] Oct 7 Ze Zhao, & Shuang Wang CAS Key Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 9, P. R. China; School of Physical Science, University of Chinese Academy of Science, No.9A Yuquan Road, Beijing 9, P. R. China; School of Astronomy and Space Science, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guanghou 7, P. R. China The main purpose of this ork is to distinguish various holographic type dark energy (DE) models, including the,, NADE and RDE model, by using various diagnostic tools. The first diagnostic tool is the Statefinder hierarchy, in hich the evolution of Statefinder hierarchy parmeter S () () () and S () are studied. The second is composite null diagnostic (CND), in hich the trajectories of {S () (), ɛ} and {S, ɛ} are investigated, here ɛ is the fractional groth parameter. The last is analysis, here is the equation of state for DE and the prime denotes derivative ith respect to lna. In the analysis e consider to cases: varying current fractional DE density Ω de and varying DE model parameter C. We find that: () Both the Statefinder hierarchy and the CND have qualitative impact on, but only have quantitative impact on. () S () can lead to larger differences than S (), hile the CND pair has a stronger ability to distinguish different models than the Statefinder hierarchy. () For the case of varying C, the {, } pair has qualitative impact on ; for the case of varying Ω de, the {, } pair only has quantitative impact; these results are different from the cases of, RDE and NADE, in hich the {, } pair only has quantitative impact on these models. In conclusion, compared ith, RDE and NADE, the model can be easily distinguished by using these diagnostic tools. Key ords: dark Energy, cosmology, cosmological constant PACS number(s): 9.6.+x, 98.8.Ck, 98.8.Es. Citation: Ze Zhao, & Shuang Wang Diagnosing models. Sci China-Phys Mech Astron, 7,??:??, doi:?? Introduction Various astronomical observations, such as Type Ia Supernovae (SN Ia) [, ], cosmic microave background (CMB) [ 6] and baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) [7, 8], all imply that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. Dark energy (DE) [9 ] is the most promising ay to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. So far, although vast amounts of theoretical DE models have been proposed [ ], the nature of DE is still in dark. In essence, DE problem may be an issue of quantum gravity. It is commonly believed that the holographic principle (HP) [, ] is one of fundamental principles in quantum gravity. In, Li proposed the so-called holographic dark energy () model [6], hich is the first DE model inspired by the HP. This model is in very good agreement ith current observational data [7 ] and has dran a lot of attention in recent years [ ]. In addition to, some other HP-inspired DE models have also been proposed, such as the ne agegraphic dark energy (NADE) model [] and the Ricci dark energy (RDE) model []. For a latest revie about the DE models inspired by the HP, see Ref. [] As is ell knon, baryonic matter contains various components. In addition, dark matter can be mixed by diverse constituents []. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider dark energy as a combination of various components. In a recent angshuang@mail.sysu.edu.cn c Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 7 phys.scichina.com link.springer.com

2 Ze Zhao, et al. Sci China-Phys Mech Astron?? (7) Vol.?? No.???- ork [6], a ne DE model called as proposed, in hich DE consists of to parts: cosmological constant Λ and. As far as e kno, this is the first theoretical attempt to explore the possibility that DE contains multiple components. Making use of observational data, Wang et al. constrained parameter space of, and [7], and found that it is difficult to verify hether DE contains one constituent only or not. Hence, in this paper, e adopt various diagnostic tools to discriminate from other DE models. In detail, e diagnose holographic type DE models ith three diagnostic tools including the Statefinder hierarchy, composite null diagnostic (CND) and analysis. The Statefinder hierarchy [8] is an upgraded version of the original Statefinder diagnostic [9,] due to taking higher derivatives of the cosmic scale factor a(t) into account. CND is a combination of the Statefinder hierarchy and the fractional groth parameter. analysis is proposed in [], in hich the evolution of versus the equation of state is studied. These three diagnostic tools have been employed to diagnose various DE and modified gravity models [ ]. Hoever, these research orks didn t discuss the model. Although Zhou and Wang diagnosed ith the Statefinder hierarchy and CND [], they didn t compare the results of ith other holographic type DE models. Besides, previous orks didn t make use of analysis, hich is also effective on distinguishing different DE models. Therefore, in this paper, e diagnose the model and other holographic type DE models by using not only the Statefinder hierarchy and CND, but also analysis. Moreover, e also consider to different cases in diagnostic: one is adopting different values of Ω de, and the other is varying an numerical parameter C, for the corresponding models. This paper is organied as follos. In Sec. and Sec., e briefly revie a series of holographic type DE models and various diagnostic tools, respectively. In Sec., e present the results of diagnosing the model compared ith different holographic type DE models. Conclusions and discussions are given in Sec.. Holographic type dark energy models For all the diagnostic methods mentioned in this paper, e only focus on the lo-redshift region, so e can neglect the eak effects of radiation and curvature terms from the Hubble parameter. Namely, e consider a spatially flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe containing matter and DE only. Then, the Friedmann equation takes the form H = (ρ M m + ρ de ), () p here H = ȧ/a is the Hubble parameter (the dot denotes the derivative ith respect to time t), M p = (8πG) / is the reduced Planck mass, ρ m and ρ de are the energy densities for matter and DE, respectively. According to the holographic principle, the density of is defined as ρ de = C M p L, () here C is a numerical parameter, and L is the largest infrared (IR) cutoff. Choosing different L ill yield different holographic type DE models, and e mainly introduce four types, including the,, NADE and RDE models, as belo.. The model In the original model [6], the density of is ρ de = C M pl, and the IR cutoff is taken as the future event horion given by + L = a t dt a(t) = a a da. () Ha The fractional density of satisfies the differential equation belo. ( Ω de = Ω de( Ω de ) + ) Ωde, () C here the prime denotes derivative ith respect to ln a. And the equation of state (EoS) of is given by. The model p de = ρ de Ωde. () C As mentioned above, the [6] model consists to constituents. One is the cosmological constant Λ, the other is the original part. Accordingly the energy density of is given by ρ de = ρ Λ + ρ hde = M pl Λ + C M pl, (6) here the IR cut-off length scale L takes the same form as the model. The fractional density of is the solution of the folloing differential equation: d dx ln Ω hde Ω hde = Ωhde d ln g(a), (7) C dx here g(a) defined by g(a) Ω m H a + Ω Λ H a, Ω Λ = ρ Λ /ρ c is the initial fractional cosmological constant density, Ω m = ρ m /ρ c is the initial fractional matter density, and ρ c = M ph is the present critical density of the universe.

3 Ze Zhao, et al. Sci China-Phys Mech Astron?? (7) Vol.?? No.???- According to Dalton s la of partial pressures, the EoS of is given by de = p de ρ de = p hde + p Λ ρ hde + ρ Λ = hdeω hde Ω Λ Ω hde + Ω Λ. (8) here the EoS of the takes the original form (Eq. ), namely, hde = C Ωhde. We Taylor-expand the the cosmic scale factor around the present epoch t aimed at deriving the expression of the Statefinder hierarchy: a(t) a = + n= A n (t ) [H (t t )] n, () n!. The NADE model The density of NADE [] is ρ de = n M pη, here n is a numerical constant introduced, and the IR cutoff is chosen as the conformal time given by η = a da. (9) Ha The fractional density of NADE is described by the folloing differential equation: ( Ω de = Ω de( Ω de ) ) Ωde, () na here the prime denotes derivative ith respect to ln a ith the initial condition Ω de ( ini ) = n ( + ini ) / at ini =. And the EoS of NADE is given by. The RDE model = + Ωde. () na The density of RDE [] is ρ de = αm p( H +H ), here α is a dimensionless parameter, and the IR cutoff is related to Ricci scalar curvature given by 6 L = R, () here the Ricci scalar curvature is R = 6( H +H ). THe fractional density of RDE is Ω de = ( α ) E α Ω me x + f e ( α )x, () here E = Ω m e x + α α Ω me x + f e ( α )x and f = α Ω m is an integration constant calculated by using the initial condition E =. And the EoS of RDE is given by = α α f e ( α )x α α Ω. () me x + f e ( α )x The diagnostic methodology. The Statefinder hierarchy The Statefinder hierarchy is an impactful geometry diagnostic, hich extends and improves the original Statefinder diagnostic by using high-order derivatives of scale factor in order to distinguish diverse DE models more effectively. here A n = a(t)(n), n N, (6) a(t)hn ith a(t) (n) = d n a(t)/dt n. Note that A = q is the negative value of the deceleration parameter and A represents the original Statefinder parameter r [6] For the model, e can easily get: A = Ω m, (7) A =, (8) A = 9 Ω m, (9) A = + Ω m + 7 Ω m, etc., () In order to let every parameter of the Statefinder hierarchy S n remain unity in model during hole cosmic evolution (S n = ), e redefine S n as S = A + Ω m, () S = A, () S = A + 9 Ω m, () S = A Ω m 7 Ω m, etc. () Since hen the hierarchy number n is greater than or equal to three, Ω m = ( + q) for. The expression of Statefinder hierarchy can be reritten in the folloing form: S () = A, () S () = A + ( + q) (6) S () = A ( + q)( + q), etc., (7) here the superscript () is to distinguish S n () from S n. It is obvious that S n () is equivalent to one for the model (S n () = ). S () and S () are the main objects to study in this paper. We discriminate and diagnose various holographic type DE models by analying the evolution of S () and S () ith redshift.

4 Ze Zhao, et al. Sci China-Phys Mech Astron?? (7) Vol.?? No.???-. Composite null diagnostic Results The composite null diagnostic is a combination (CND) of the Statefinder hierarchy S n () and the fractional groth parameter ɛ() [7] hich can also be used as a null diagnostic defined as f () ɛ() = f (), (8) here f () = d ln δ m /d ln a is the groth rate of the linear density perturbation [8]. And δ m is e called the perturbation of the matter density defined as δ m = δρ m /ρ m hich satisfies the folloing differential equation [9]: δ m + ȧ a δ m ρ M m δ m =, (9) p here the dot denotes the derivative ith respect to time t. We can rite don the one-order and to-order derivatives of δ m ith respect to time t into the folloing form: δ m = f Hδ m, () δ m = ( f H + f Ḣ + f H )δ m. () Substituting Eqs. () and () into Eq. (9), e can have the first-order differential equation of f : d f d = f + f f () dh/d f, () + H here f () = ρ m /H = Ω m(+), and the present-day fractional matter density Ω m = Ω de. Combing ith the E initial assumed condition f ( = ) =, this equation can be numerically solved for different DE models. And after substituting the expression of f back to Eq. (8), e get the the fractional groth parameter. In this paper, e mainly analye to CND pairs hich is {S () (), ɛ} and {S, ɛ}. We plot the trajectories of S n () (ɛ) for diverse DE models and in the S n () ɛ plane, e can directly measure the difference of different DE models.. analysis The function is a state parameter characteriing the dark energy model defined as p de /ρ de. and after taking derivative of ith respect to lna, e get = d dlna. () We analye the evolution of and, and then study the influence of different model parameters on the evolution trajectories of {, } []. In plane, the model is a single point at (-,) due to the fact that the state of cosmological constant is equivalent to minus one. As mentioned before, e use the Statefinder hierarchy, composite null diagnostic and analysis to distinguish different holographic type DE models. In addition, e also compare the evolutionary results of ith,, NADE and RDE. In particular, We consider to different cases: () varying Ω de among.,.6,.7 and.8 hile fixing C =.6; () varying C among.,.,.6 and.8 hile fixing Ω de =.7 (for, also need fixing Ω Λ =.).. Analysis of the Statefinder hierarchy In this section, e mainly focus on diagnosing ith the Statefinder hierarchy. Moreover, e give the corresponding results of for comparison. Fig. shos the evolutionary trajectories of S () () for (left panels) and (right panels), ith varying Ω de (upper panels) and varying C (loer panels). For the evolution of S () () in the model, the differentiation of curvilinear shape is more distinct than the original. Specifically, for the case of varying Ω de or C in (left panels), all the curves of S () () have similar evolutionary trajectories, and the trend of curves S () () is monotonic decreasing at the beginning of region of redshift and then closely degenerate into together. These results indicate that adopting different values of Ω de or C only has quantitative impacts on the cosmic evolution of S () for. As for, hen Ω de equals to.7 and.8, the curves of S () () still have similar evolutionary trend, but for Ω de =.,.6, the curves of S () () evolves toards an opposite direction (upper-right panel). In addition, hen C increase from.6 to.8, the evolutions of S () () change into the opposite direction (loer-right panel). This means that, adopting different values of Ω de or C has qualitative impacts on the evolution of S () () for. In Fig., e plot the evolutions of S () versus redshift for the model (left panels) and the model (right panels), ith varying Ω de (upper panels) and varying C (loer panels). The evolutionary trajectories of S () () sho similar characteristic as the curves of S () (). These results sho that adopting different values of Ω de has qualitative impacts on the cosmic evolution of the model. Therefore, as can be seen in Fig. and Fig., the differentiation of curvilinear shape beteen different values of parameters for the model is more distinct than the original model. Table and Table sho the present values of the Statefinder hierarchy pairs, S () t and S () t, and their maximum differences, S () t and S () t, for and ith varying Ω de and varying C. Note that S () t = S () t (max) S () t (min) and S () t = S () t (max) S () t (min) ithin each model. As shoing in Table, for the case of adopting different values of Ω de, e have S () t =. > S () t =. for and S () t =. > S () t =.9 for. Shoing in

5 Ze Zhao, et al. Sci China-Phys Mech Astron?? (7) Vol.?? No.???- (C=.6).. (Ω Λ=., C=.6) S (). Ω de=. Ω de=.6 Ω de=.7 Ω de=.8 S ()... Ω de=. Ω de=.6 Ω de=.7 Ω de=.8. S () (Ω de=.7) C=. C=. C=.6 C=.8 S ().9.9 (Ω Λ=., Ω hde=.).8.6. C=. C=. C=.6 C=.8..8 Figure Evolutions of S () versus redshift for the model (left panels) and the model (right panels), ith varying Ω de (upper panels) and varying C (loer panels). Note that the result of the is also plotted as a solid horiontal line for comparison. (C =.6) (Ω Λ =., C =.6) Ω de S () t S () t S () t..9 S () t.. Table The present values of the Statefinder hierarchy pairs S () t, S () t and their maximum differences, S () t and S () t, for and ith varying Ω de, here S () t = S () t (max) S () t (min) and S () t = S () t (max) S () t (min) for each model. (Ω de =.7) (Ω Λ =., Ω hde =.) C S () t S () t S () t..9 S () t Table The present values of the Statefinders hierarchy pairs S () t, S () t and their maximum differences, S () t and S () t for and ith varying C, here S () t = S () t (max) S () t (min) and S () t = S () t (max) S () t (min) for each model.

6 Ze Zhao, et al. Sci China-Phys Mech Astron?? (7) Vol.?? No.???-6 S () 7 6 (C=.6) Ωde=. Ωde=.6 Ωde=.7 Ωde=.8 S ()..... (ΩΛ=., C=.6) Ωde=. Ωde=.6 Ωde=.7 Ωde=.8 S () 8 6 (Ωde=.7) C=. C=. C=.6 C=.8 S () (ΩΛ=., Ωhde=.) C=. C=. C=.6 C=.8 Figure Evolutions of S () versus redshift for the model (left panels) and model (right panels), ith varying Ω de (upper panels) and varying C (loer panels). Note that the result of the model is also plotted as a solid horiontal line for comparison. Table, for the case of varying C, S () t = 76.8 > S (). for and S () t = 7.7 > S () t t = =.9 for. The data from these tables and all indicates that S () t is remarkably larger than S () t. Therefore, compared ith S (), S () can give larger differences among the cosmic evolutions of the holographic type DE models associated ith different Ω Λ or different C hich makes us easier to distinguish different theoretical models.. Analysis of the composite null diagnostic Since using one single diagnostic tool can analye and present one-side information of cosmic evolution only, applying CND can make use of both geometrical and matter perturbational information of cosmic evolution. To diagnose diverse theoretical DE models ith the CND pairs, {S (), ɛ} and {S (), ɛ}, first e analyse the evolution of the fractional groth parameter ɛ(). Fig. is the evolutionary trajectories of ɛ versus redshift for (left panels) and (right panels), ith varying Ω de (upper panels) and varying C (loer panels). The evolutionary trajectories of ɛ() has similar characteristic as the curves of S () () () and S (). For instance, hile adopting different Ω de, all the curves ɛ() of have convex vertices at lo-redshift region and descend monotonically at higher-redshift (left panels), but for, the curves of ɛ() change from the shape of having convex and concave vertices to having concave vertices only hile decreasing the values of Ω de (right panels). These results sho that adopting different values of Ω de or C has qualitative impacts on the cosmic evolution of the model. As can be seen in Fig., Fig. and Fig., for, the differentiation of curvilinear shape beteen different values of parameters is more distinct than the original model. Fig. and Fig. are using the CND method to distinguish different DE models. Except analysing the Statefinder hierarchy pairs S () and S (), CND method make use of fractional groth parameter ɛ at the same time. As e have shon before, the trajectories of ɛ() have different evolution hile adopting different values of Ω de or C. This means that, during the cosmic evolution, CND method contains more information of difference beteen varying parameter. Compared ith S () () () (Fig. ), S () (Fig. ) and ɛ()(fig.), CND pairs have significantly different evolutionary trajectories (Fig. and Fig. ), hich can be used to distinguish various DE models more evidently. In Fig., e plot the evolution of the CND pair {S (), ɛ} for (left panels) and (right panels), ith varying

7 Ze Zhao, et al. Sci China-Phys Mech Astron?? (7) Vol.?? No.??? (Ωde=.7).97 (C=.6) Ωde=. Ωde=.6 Ωde=.7 Ωde= (ΩΛ=., C=.6) Ωde=. Ωde=.6 Ωde=.7 Ωde=.8.99 (ΩΛ=., Ωhde=.).9 C=. C=. C=.6 C= C=. C=. C=.6 C= Figure Evolutions of ɛ versus redshift for the model (left panels) and model (right panels), ith varying Ω de (upper panels) and varying C (loer panels). Note that the result of the model is also plotted as a solid horiontal line for comparison. Ω Λ (upper panels) and varying C (loer panels). Specifically, for the cases of varying Ω de or C in (right panels), the curves of CND pairs only have quantitative differences: at high-redshift region, all curves of {S (), ɛ} are close to the shape of reverse spiral hich starts from the neighbourhood of the hexagram symbol for, then evolves toards the direction of the decrease of ɛ and S (), after passing a turning point, it continues evolving toards the direction of the increase of ɛ and the increase of S () (left panels). On the other side, for, the curves of CND pairs {S (), ɛ} have qualitative differences: the curve for Ω de =.8 (upper-right panel) has an analogous shape of evolutionary trajectory in. In contrast, hile Ω de decreasing to. and.6, the trajectories evolve toards to the direction of increase eplison and decrease of S () after passing the turning point; For the case of varying C in (loer-right panel), the curves {S (), ɛ} also have the similar characteristic as the case of varying Ω de. These results further verify that for, the curves of CND pairs {S (), ɛ} have qualitative differences hile varying the values of Ω de or C. Fig. is the the evolutionary trajectories of the CND pair {S (), ɛ} for (left panels) and (right panels), ith varying Ω Λ (upper panels) and varying C (loer panels). Similarly, the same characteristic is still orkable for the evolutionary trajectories of CND pairs {S (), ɛ}: for the model, the curves of CND pairs {S (), ɛ} ith varying Ω de or C have qualitative differences, hich is more distinct than the differentiation of curvilinear shape in. For particluar analysis of Statefinder hierarchy for NADE and RDE, see []. To sho the relative trend and location of evolution trajectories for compared ith other holographic type DE models, e add NADE and RDE for comparison. As shon in Fig. 6, e compare the evolution trajectories of {S () (), ɛ} and {S, ɛ} for,, NADE and RDE. For all models except single-parameter NADE model, e fix Ω de =.7 and choose typical values of the parameters hich are close to the current observational constraints of each model. In, the parameter C takes.6 [6]. In, Ω Λ is. and C takes.6 [6]. For NADE hich is a single-parameter model ith the initial condition Ω de ( ini ) = n ( + ini ) / at ini = [6], e choose n =.6 [6]. In RDE, α takes. [6]. For, e can also vary the value of Ω Λ and meanhile fix the values of Ω de and C. For detailed analysis of Statefinder hierarchy for this case, see previous ork of our group, and analysis for this case see Sec...

8 Ze Zhao, et al. Sci China-Phys Mech Astron?? (7) Vol.?? No.???-8 S () S () (C=.6) (Ωde=.7) Ωde=. Ωde=.6 Ωde=.7 Ωde=.8 C=. C=. C=.6 C= S ()...9 S () (ΩΛ=., C=.6) Ωde=. Ωde=.6 Ωde=.7 Ωde= (ΩΛ=., Ωhde=.) C=. C=. C=.6 C= Figure The evolutionary trajectories of the CND pair {S (), ɛ} for the model (left panels) and the model (right panels), ith varying Ω de (upper panels) and varying C (loer panels). The current values of {S () (), ɛ} for the and are marked by solid dots. For the model, {S, ɛ} = {, } is marked by hexagram for comparison. Note that the arros indicate the time directions of cosmic evolution ( ).. Analysis of the diagnostic We sho in Fig. 7 the evolutionary trajectories of the analysis for holographic type DE models, ith varying Ω de and other parameters fixed. Since NADE is a singleparameter model by applying the initial condition Ω de ( ini ) = n ( + ini ) / at ini = [6], hen parameter n takes different particular values, Ω de get different values respectively. Unlike the other to-parameter holographic type model, NADE can t fix parameter Ω de and meanhile vary parameter n or vice versa. Note that n takes.,.6,.7 and.8 approximately correspond to the Ω de.66,.68,.7 and.7 respectively. Therefore e only plot the case of varying parameter n for NADE in loer-left panel of Fig. 8 hich can also represent the result of varying parameter Ω de. In addition, e also plot the evolutionary trajectories of the analysis for the case of varying the value of Ω Λ among,.,. and.6 and meanhile fixing the values of Ω de =.7 and C =.6 in FIg. 7 (loer-right panel). For, NADE and RDE, the trajectories of {, } overlap together substantially during the hole evolution history hile varying Ω de In contrast, as shon in upper-right panel of Fig. 7, adopting different values of Ω de has quantitative impacts on the cosmic evolution of the model hich is significantly different ith other holographic type DE models. Specifically, the trajectories of {, } have a trend of coincidence in high-redshift region but this trend of coincidence is separated ith the decrease of redshift. As for the case of varying Ω Λ, the curves of {, } has quantitative impacts during the cosmic evolution for (loer-right panels). Note that the {, } curves of associated ith Ω Λ is clearly distinguished from the particular curve ith Ω Λ = in hich degenerate into. Therefore, these results sho the uniqueness of in analysis compared ith other mono-component holographic type DE models. As shon in Fig.8, e plot the evolution of versus for the (left panels) and (right panels), ith varying numerical parameter (C for and ; n for NADE; α for RDE) and other parameters fixed. Since NADE is a single-parameter model, the evolutionary trajectories of NADE are overlap together substantially hich is similar to the case of adopting different Ω de for and RDE in Fig.7. For both and RDE, the curves have a trend of coincidence in high-redshift region, but have quantitative differences in lo-redshift region (loer panels). For (upper-right panel), the evolution also degenerate in high-

9 Ze Zhao, et al. Sci China-Phys Mech Astron?? (7) Vol.?? No.???-9 S () S () (C=.6) Ωde=. Ωde=.6 Ωde=.7 Ωde=.8.. (Ωde=.7) C=. C=. C=.6 C= S () S ()..... (ΩΛ=., C=.6) Ωde=. Ωde=.6 Ωde=.7 Ωde= (ΩΛ=., Ωhde=.) C=. C=. C=.6 C= Figure The evolutionary trajectories of the CND pair {S (), ɛ} for the (left panels) and (right panels), ith varying Ω de (upper panels) and varying C (loer panels). The current values of {S (), ɛ} for the model and the model are marked by solid dots. For the model, {S (), ɛ} = {, } is marked by hexagram for comparison. Note that the arros indicate the time directions of cosmic evolution ( ). S ().. Ωde=.7 (C=.6) (ΩΛ=., C=.) NADE (n=.6) RDE (α=.) S () Ωde=.7 (C=.6) (ΩΛ=., C=.) NADE (n=.6) RDE (α=.) Figure 6 Comparisons of the evolutionary trajectories of {S () () (), ɛ} and {S, ɛ} for the,, NADE and RDE models in the S ɛ plane. The current values of {S () () () (), ɛ} and {S, ɛ} for the holographic type DE models are marked by the round dots. {S, ɛ} = {, } and {S, ɛ} = {, } for the model is also shon as hexagram for comparison. The arros indicate the evolution directions of the models.

10 Ze Zhao, et al. Sci China-Phys Mech Astron?? (7) Vol.?? No.???-.. ' (C=.6) Ωde=. Ωde=.6 Ωde=.7 Ωde=.8 ' (ΩΛ=., C=.6) Ωde=. Ωde=.6 Ωde=.7 Ωde=.8.. '. RDE (α=.) Ωde=.. Ωde=.6 Ωde=.7 Ωde= ' (C=.6) ΩΛ=., Ωhde=.7 ΩΛ=., Ωhde=. ΩΛ=., Ωhde=. ΩΛ=.6, Ωhde= Figure 7 The evolutionary trajectories of the analysis for holographic type DE models, ith varying Ω Λ and other parameters fixed. The current values of {, } are marked by the round dots. For the model, {, } = {, } is marked by hexagram for comparison. Note that the arros indicate the time directions of cosmic evolution ( ). redshift but shoing qualitative differences beteen different values of C in lo-redshift, hich can be a specific property to distinguish other mono-component DE models. In detail, the curves associated ith C =. and C =. are in different evolutionary shape compared ith the curves of C =.6 and C =.8 in lo-redshift region. Conclusion and Discussion In this paper, e diagnose holographic type DE models ith the Statefinder hierarchy, composite null diagnostic and analysis. In particular, e diagnose hich is a bi-component DE model compared ith other monocomponent DE models. Specifically, for the case of varying Ω de or C in, all the trajectories of S () () () () (), S (), ɛ(), {S, ɛ} and {S, ɛ} have same shape and similar evolutionary trend. In contrast, adopting different values of Ω de or C has qualitative impacts for. This means that, the differentiation of curvilinear shape beteen different values of parameters for is more distinct than the original model. In addition, S () can alays give larger differences among the cosmic evolutions of the holographic type DE models than S (), hich makes us easier to distinguish different theoretical models. Moreover, compared ith S () () (), S () and ɛ(), CND pair has significantly different evolutionary trajectories, hich are more effective on diagnosing diverse theoretical DE models. Moreover, the results of analysis for holographic type DE models sho the special feature of. To be specific, for, NADE and RDE,the trajectories of {, } overlap together substantially during the hole evolution history hile varying Ω de. In contrast, adopting different values of Ω de or Ω Λ has quantitative impacts on the cosmic evolution of, hich is significantly different ith other mono-component holographic type DE models. For the case of varying numerical parameter, the evolutionary trajectories of NADE are overlap together. For both and RDE, the curves have quantitative differences in lo-redshift region. As for, the evolution shos qualitative differences in lo-redshift, hich can be vieed as a specific property to distinguish other mono-component DE models. Therefore, e can conclude that compared ith, RDE and NADE, the model can be easily distinguished by using these diagnostic tools. Recently, it is found that the redshift-evolution of supernova color-luminosity parameter β [6, 6] may change the fitting-results of parameter estimation for various cosmolog-

11 Ze Zhao, et al. Sci China-Phys Mech Astron?? (7) Vol.?? No.???-. (ΩΛ=., Ωhde=.) C=. C=. C=.6 C=.8. ' (Ωde=.7) ' C=. C=. C=.6 C= ' NADE n=. (Ωde=.66) n=.6 (Ωde=.68) n=.7 (Ωde=.7) n=.8 (Ωde=.7) '. RDE (Ωde=.7) α=. α=.. α=. α= DE Λ=., Ω hde=. c=. c=. c=.6 c=.8 Figure 8 The evolutionary trajectories of the analysis for holographic type DE models, ith varying numerical parameter (C for and ; n for NADE; α for RDE) and other parameters fixed. The current values of {, } are marked by the round dots. For the model, {, } = {, } is marked by hexagram for comparison. Note that the arros indicate the time directions of cosmic evolution ( ). ical models [66 69]; moreover, this systematic error of supernova may have significant effect on the studies of various cosmological problems [7 7]. Therefore, it ould be interesting to revisit the model by taking into account this ne factor. This ill be studied in future orks. Acknoledgements We thank Lanjun Zhou and Nan Li for valuable suggestions SW is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant No. 6lgpy and technological supports. A. G. Riess et al. [Supernova Search Team Collaboration], Astron. J. 6, 9 (998). S. Perlmutter et al. [Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration], Astrophys. J. 7, 6 (999). D. N. Spergel et al. [WMAP Collaboration], Astrophys. J. Suppl. 8, 7 (). D. N. Spergel et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 7, 77 (6). P. A. R. Ade et al., Astron. Astrophys. 7, A6 (). 6 P. A. R. Ade et al., Astron. Astrophys. 9, A (6). 7 D. J. Eisenstein et al., Astrophys. J. 6, 6 (). 8 W. J. Percival et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 8 (). 9 E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikaa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 7 (6). J. A. Frieman, S. M. Turner, and D. Huterer, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 6, 8 (8). M. Li, X. D. Li, S. Wang, and Y. Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 6, (). M. Li, X. D. Li, S. Wang, and Y. Wang, Frontiers of Physics 8, 88 (). I. Zlatev, L. M. Wang, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 896 (999). C. Armendari-Picon, T. Damour, and V. F. Mukhanov, Phys. Lett. B 8, 9 (999). A. Y. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, and V. Pasquier, Phys. Lett. B, 6 (). 6 R. R. Caldell, Phys. Lett. B, (). 7 T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D 66, (). 8 R. R. Caldell, M. Kamionkoski, and N. N. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, 7 (). 9 B. Feng, X. L. Wang, and X. M. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 67, (). H. Wei, R. G. Cai, and D. F. Zeng, Class. Quant. Grav., 89 (). T. Y. Xia, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 66, 9 (7). S. Wang, Y. Zhang, and T. Y. Xia, JCAP 7 (8). S. Wang, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 669, (8). G. t Hooft, arxiv:gr-qc/96 (99).

12 Ze Zhao, et al. Sci China-Phys Mech Astron?? (7) Vol.?? No.???- L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys. 6, 677 (99). 6 M. Li, Phys. Lett. B 6, (). 7 Q. G. Huang and Y. G. Gong JCAP 8 6 (). 8 X. Zhang and F. Q. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 7 (). 9 M. Li, X. D. Li, S. Wang, and X. Zhang, JCAP 96, 6 (9). M. Li, X. D. Li, S. Wang, Y. Wang, and X. Zhang, JCAP 9, (9). Q. G. Huang, M. Li, X. D. Li, and S. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 8, 8 (9). S. Wang, X. D. Li, and M. Li, Phys. Rev. D 8, 6 (). X. D. Li, S. Li, S. Wang, W. S. Zhang, Q. G. Huang, and M. Li, JCAP 7, (). Q. G. Huang, and M. Li, JCAP 8, (). B. Wang, Y. G. Gong, and E. Abdalla, Phys. Lett. B 6, (). 6 D. Pavon, and W. Zimdahl, Phys. Lett. B 68, 6 (). 7 S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, Gen. Rel. Grav. 8, 8 (6). 8 X. D. Li, S. Wang, Q. G. Huang, X. Zhang and M. Li, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., - (). 9 J. L. Cui, Y. Y. Xu, J. F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 8, (). D. Z. He, and J. F. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 6, 9 (7). S. Wang, M. Li, Y. Hu. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 6, (7). H. Wei, and R. G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B 6, (8). C. Gao, F. Q. Wu, X. Chen, and Y. G. Shen, Phys. Rev. D 79, (9). S. Wang, Y. Wang, and M. Li, Phys. Rept. 696, (7). G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept., 79 (). 6 Y. Z. Hu, M. Li, N. Li, and Z. H. Zhang, JCAP 8, (). 7 S. Wang, S. X. Wen, L. J. Zhou, and M. Li, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 67, (7). 8 M. Arabsalmani, and V. Sahni, Phys. Rev. D 8, (). 9 V. Sahni, T. D. Saini, A. A. Starobinsky, and U. Alam, JETP Lett 77, (). U. Alam, V. Sahni, T. D. Saini, and A. A. Starobinsky, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 7 (). R. R. Caldell, and E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, (). R. Myrakulov, and M. Shahalam, JCAP, 7 (). F. Yu, J. L. Cui, J. F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 7, 7 (). J. F. Zhang, J. L. Cui, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 7, (). L. J. Zhou, and S. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 9, 67 (6). 6 T. Chiba, and T. Nakamura, Prog. Theor. Phys., 77 (998). 7 V. Acquaviva, A. Hajian, D. N. Spergel, and S. Das, Phys. Rev. D 78, (8). 8 L. M. Wang, and P. J. Steinhardt, Astrophys. J. 8, 8 (998). 9 A. Pavlov, O. Farooq, and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D 9, 6 (). 6 Y. H. Li, S. Wang, X. D. Li, and X. Zhang, JCAP, (). 6 H. Wei, and R. G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B 66, (8). 6 J. F. Zhang, Y. H. Li and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 7, 8 (). 6 X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 79, 9 (9). 6 S. Wang, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 88, (). 6 Y. Wang, and S. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 88, (). 66 S. Wang, Y. H. Li, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 89, 6 (). 67 S. Wang, Y. Z. Wang, J. J. Geng, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 7, 8 (). 68 S. Wang, Y. Z. Wang, and X. Zhang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 6, 97 (). 69 S. Wang, J. J. Geng, Y. L. Hu, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 8, 98 (). 7 S. Wang, Y.Z. Hu, M. Li, and N. Li, Astrophys. J. 8, 6 (6). 7 M. Li, N. Li, S. Wang, and L. J. Zhou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 6, 86 (6). 7 Y.Z. Hu, M. Li, N. Li, and S. Wang, Astron. Astrophys. 9, A (6). 7 S. Wang, S. X. Wen, and M. Li, JCAP, 7 (7). 7 S. X. Wen, and S. Wang, arxiv:78. (7).