Constraining dark energy dynamics in extended parameter space

By E. di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, Eric Linder, J. Silk. 2017

171 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Dynamical dark energy has been recently suggested as a promising and physical way to solve the 3.4 sigma tension on the value of the Hubble constant $H_0$ between the direct measurement of Riess et al. (2016) (R16, hereafter) and the indirect constraint from Cosmic Microwave Anisotropies obtained by the Planck satellite under the assumption of a $\Lambda$CDM model. In this paper, by parameterizing dark energy evolution using the $w_0$-$w_a$ approach, and considering a $12$ parameter extended scenario, we find that: a) the tension on the Hubble constant can indeed be solved with dynamical dark energy, b) a cosmological constant is ruled out at more than $95 \%$ c.l. by the Planck+R16 dataset, and c) all of the standard quintessence and half of the "downward going" dark energy model space (characterized by an equation of state that decreases with time) is also excluded at more than $95 \%$ c.l. These results are further confirmed when cosmic shear, CMB lensing, or SN~Ia luminosity distance data are also included. However, tension remains with the BAO dataset. A cosmological constant and small portion of the freezing quintessence models are still in agreement with the Planck+R16+BAO dataset at between 68\% and 95\% c.l. Conversely, for Planck plus a phenomenological $H_0$ prior, both thawing and freezing quintessence models prefer a Hubble constant of less than 70 km/s/Mpc. The general conclusions hold also when considering models with non-zero spatial curvature.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a0a9ac90e49f35893922db45381a76da1d196ec6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Citations in the corpus

Cosmology Intertwined II: The Hubble Constant Tension (2020, unknown): “[49] E.”
Refined bounds on MeV-scale thermal dark sectors from BBN and the CMB (2019, methodology): “Illustration of the parameter range for the baryon density we consider in the BBN+Ωbh 2 analysis as compared to the best-fit values and errors given in Table II of [131].”
Early Dark Energy can Resolve the Hubble Tension. (2018, background): “However, these resolutions are tightly constrained [1, 14, 20, 21] by late-time observables, especially those from baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) [22–24].”
Robust preference for Dynamical Dark Energy in DESI BAO and SN measurements (2024, background): “From an observational standpoint, CMB data alone have limited capacity to constrain DDE models due to minimal effects left at the epoch of the last scattering surface and the increased number of cosmological parameters [345–347].”
Updated results on neutrino mass and mass hierarchy from cosmology with Planck 2018 likelihoods (2019, unknown): “lead to a more relaxed bound on ∑ mν [23, 25, 34, 35, 54–60].”
Nonminimal dark sector physics and cosmological tensions (2019, background): “[45–119] for an incomplete list of recent papers).”
Alleviating the H0 and σ8 anomalies with a decaying dark matter model (2019, background): “As found by numerous models that aim to resolve the Hubble tension through modifications of the late universe, late-universe datasets such as JLA and BAO strongly constrain expansion history and keep such models from fully resolving the Hubble tension [7, 24–26].”
Can the H0 tension be resolved in extensions to ΛCDM cosmology? (2018, background): “J C A P 0 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 0 5 4 value [22, 31, 43], relieving the H0 tension to a great extent, but this does not mean that such an extension is favored by current observations.”
New physics in light of the H0 tension: An alternative view (2019, background): “[60–209] for what is inevitably an incomplete list of works examining these possibilities.”