gravity after DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillation and DES Supernovae 2024 data
Abstract
In this work, we investigate new constraints on gravity using the recent Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) data released by the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) and the Type Ia supernovae (SNIa) catalog from the full 5-years of the Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program (DES-SN5YR). The cosmological models considered are characterised by power law late-time accelerated expansion. Our results show that the combination DESI BAO + CMB Planck suggests a Bayesian preference for late-time cosmological models over CDM, obtaining a value of [km/s/Mpc] in agreement with SH0ES collaboration, however, due to a bigger uncertainty.
The Hubble tension has reached a statistical significance of 5, strongly proven a mismatch between the cosmic late-time expansion rate measured through the local distance ladder method using Type Ia supernovae measurements Riess et al. (2022); Breuval et al. (2024) [km/s/Mpc], and the inferred value from observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, [km/s/Mpc] Aghanim et al. (2020). While cautious studies on a possible systematic origin of this mismatch have been performed by the SH0ES collaboration Riess et al. (2022), there is no signal that this could be the reason for this tension issue. This result has brought interesting opportunities to change the view on how the standard cosmological model is designed, allowing us to introduce a path beyond the -Cold Dark Matter(CDM) model.
Current BAO measurements released by the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Adame et al. (2024a, b) seem to point towards new physics in the dark energy cosmological scheme Collaboration (2024). Additionally, the Dark Energy Survey 5-year SNIa (DES-SN5YR) release Abbott et al. (2024), suggest a preference for a time-varying dark energy. More discussions on this aspect have been presented in Yin (2024); Cortês and Liddle (2024). As part of the efforts to find well-constrained proposals with these releases and also, that can address the cosmological tensions, some studies have been developing in these short period, e.g. new constraints on axion-early dark energy model Qu et al. (2024) which are not tighten even after the inclusion of DESI BAO data, interacting dark energy models Wang (2024); Giarè et al. (2024) which shows a value of in good agreement with SH0ES collaboration, for quintessence scalar field model Berghaus et al. (2024); Tada and Terada (2024) showing a preference within 2-4% for a kinetic scalar field energy, for dark energy models inspired in thermodynamics and parametrised equation-of-state in Taylor expansions Carloni et al. (2024); Wang and Piao (2024), the first one finding that log-corrected parameterisation could alleviate the tension, and finally Gaussian reconstructions on quintom modified cosmology Yang et al. (2024). All these studies aim to increase the value of inferred. On one hand, the main challenge in the early CMB measurements seems to be settled in computing the angular scale of the CMB acoustic peaks Aghanim et al. (2020). Therefore, increasing the value of without modifying the acoustic scale requires a different post-recombination epoch Knox and Millea (2020). On the other hand, late-time cosmic proposals require new physics that can change cosmic distances to compensate for the higher value of , taking into account the preservation of the CMB history.
Within these efforts, extended theories of gravity have been proposed as a good description of a fundamental theory of gravity that allows addressing theoretical and observational issues with viable solutions in the observed mismatch Bahamonde et al. (2021); Aguilar et al. (2024); Briffa et al. (2023); Sandoval-Orozco et al. (2024); Nunes et al. (2018); Kumar et al. (2023); Nunes (2018); dos Santos et al. (2022); Hashim et al. (2021). To formulate an extension to General Relativity, we consider a construction through the metric-affine gravity Beltrán Jiménez et al. (2019), where teleparallel gravity (TG) has a curvature-free connection Bahamonde et al. (2021); Krssak et al. (2019) with a scenario that include a teleparallel equivalent of general relativity (TEGR). This theory has described a set of field equations which are dynamically equivalent to the GR ones. Within this scheme, gravity emerges as a generalisation of the TEGR Lagrangian with a function of the torsion as .
In this work, we show that the new DESI BAO plus CMB Planck data release gives a slight Bayesian preference for extended cosmologies, despite the fact that the parameters are within 2 confidence level (C.L) from CDM. In addition, it is noted that high/low-z observations could be better explained in these models in comparison to CDM and with first principle reasons. In such a scheme, we also consider baseline with DES-SN5YR, which gives a lower value of for this kind of supernovae catalog.
Parameter | DESI+BBN | DESI+CMB111CMB Distance priors. | DESI+CC | DESI+CMB +CC+ | DESI+CC +PN+ | DESI+CC +SNYR5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[km/s/Mpc] | ||||||
[Mpc] | ||||||
Parameter | DESI+BBN | DESI+CMB222CMB Distance priors | DESI+CC | DESI+CMB +CC+ | DESI+CC +PN+ | DESI+CC +SNYR5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[km/s/Mpc] | ||||||
[Mpc] | ||||||
Parameter | DESI+BBN | DESI+CMB333CMB Distance priors. | DESI+CC | DESI+CMB +CC+ | DESI+CC +PN+ | DESI+CC +SNYR5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[km/s/Mpc] | ||||||
[Mpc] | ||||||
To derive our extended cosmology, we start with the the action Ferraro and Fiorini (2007); Linder (2010); Rezaei Akbarieh and Izadi (2019):
(1) |
where and the tetrad determinant is calculated as . When , we recover the concordance CDM model. As it is oftentimes, we consider a flat homogeneous and isotropic geometry as Krššák and Saridakis (2016); Tamanini and Boehmer (2012), where is the scale factor. Using the relationship between the metric and the tetrad , we can write the flat Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric as
(2) |
with . Subsequently, we can derive the Friedmann equations:
(3) | |||||
(4) |
where and , are the energy density and pressure, respectively. We selected cases where it is possible to reproduce naturally a late-time cosmic acceleration:
-
•
Power Law Model ()Bengochea and Ferraro (2009). – This model is of the form: where is a constant. We can recover CDM model when . Otherwise, if , the extra term gives a re-scaled gravitational constant related to the GR limit. Furthermore, when gives an accelerating universe. To compare the new constraints for this model using DESI 2024, in (Xu et al., 2018) was considered BAO measurements from Two-Degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS) and SDSS DR7, where it was found that [km/s/Mpc], and , where it is suggested that a deviation from the CDM model is present in the datasets.
-
•
Linder Model ()Linder (2010). – This model is described as: where is a constant and . Notice that this model recovers CDM in the limit . As in the latter case, this model was tested using BAO from 2dFGRS and SDSS obtaining [km/s/Mpc], and (Xu et al., 2018), again, denoting an interesting deviation, yet small deviation from the standard cosmological model.
We implement each of cosmological model described and test them using the constraining parameters method through MCMC analysis using emcee 444emcee.readthedocs.io for the cosmology and the baselines with the extract of constraints using GetDist555getdist.readthedocs.io. Additionally, we assume flat priors on the set of {, , }. The baselines considered in our analysis are: (a) DESI(BAO) release obtained from observations of galaxies and quasars Adame et al. (2024a), and Lyman- Adame et al. (2024b) measurements. These trasers are described through the transverse comoving distance , the angle-averaged distance , where is the comoving sound horizon at the drag epoch, and the Hubble horizon . (b) CMB Planck-2018 distant priors, which provide information on three parameters: the shift parameter that measures the peak spacing of the temperature in the CMB spectrum, the acoustic scale from we can measure the temperature in the transverse direction, and finally the combination Chen et al. (2019). (c) Cosmic Chronometers CC, which are measurements of from the relative ages of passively-evolving galaxies Jimenez and Loeb (2002). We conservatively use the galactic spectra to obtain (Moresco et al., 2016). The final sample contains 31 data points up to with the covariance matrix generated given in (Moresco et al., 2020). (d) PN+ Pantheon-plus catalog Brout et al. (2022), with SH0ES Cepheid host distances calibrators Riess et al. (2022), and (e) DES-SN5YR Type Ia supernovae measured during the full 5-years of DES Supernova Program, which includes 1635 SNIa in the redshift range Abbott et al. (2024).
We divide our analysis into these baselines since and are degenerate in the DESI BAO release. Due to this degeneracy, we will test the set in different schemes: (i) Using the combination of parameters and in Mpc to avoid the degeneracy between and . This yields the results with the 95% confidence intervals for the CDM model:
which is in interval from the results reported by the DESI collaboration (Collaboration, 2024). Meanwhile, for the model:
we can notice that the data prefers a slightly lower fractional matter density with a similar product and that the free parameter for the power-law model is within region. This recovers CDM with a minor positive deviation. In this case, the model contains a Bayes factor of , which indicates a slight preference for the CDM. For the model:
Contrary to the previous model, here the fractional matter exhibits an increase and a diminution in the parameter. For the free Linder model parameter this dataset alone recovers the CDM model as in limit. The Bayes factor must be compared to the tested one for the CDM model which results in , this favours the standard cosmological model. (ii) By using a prior on from Planck 2018 (Aghanim et al., 2020) of [Mpc] it is possible to break the degeneracy with . The results within 95% confidence interval for the CDM model are:
Remarkably interesting, these results have a high value even though we are using a from the Planck estimations. For the model, the parameters are:
where the value shows a compatibility in with the value obtained by the SH0ES collaboration (Riess et al., 2022). However, it is important to note that this result is originated due to the increased error bar in the parameter. This model returns a confirmation of CDM for the value with a significant error bars, probably because this dataset alone can not constrain the parameter solely. In this case the Bayes factor which suggests that using a prior to the dataset and the power-law model is slightly favoured over the cosmological standard model. For the model the results are:
that, similarly to the previous model, confirm CDM at level. In this case, the value of presents a higher value that is a tendency using this specific model. This model presents a Bayes factor that, again, suggests that the model is preferred over CDM. However, it is important to notice that in each of these models the value of the evidence between the models and the standard cosmology is not strong enough. (iii) Using a prior on using the results of BBN presented in (Collaboration, 2024) of to break the degeneracy. In this case, we calculate as a derived parameter. This analysis is presented in Tables 1, 2, 3 including DESI + BBN. (iv) Finally, since the uncertainties on this release are substantial we will consider other datasets without the necessity to introduce a prior on as the baselines are sufficient enough to constraint the cosmological parameters. These results are reported in Tables 1, 2, 3 in combination with other baselines including DESI BNN measurements.
In conclusion, cosmologies constrained by new BAO measurements from DESI 2024 (and another dataset that allow us to constraint as the prior from the CMB Planck, BBN, Pantheon+ or CMB Distance Priors) can be a good alternative to explain the current tension as the results using this dataset combinations show an improvement in the alleviation on the value closer to the SH0ES collaboration. Furthermore, it is important to notice that the mentioned combinations of DESI BAO with other datasets such as CC, Pantheon+, and even the CMB Distance Priors, the statistics show a slight preference for the model. This preference is in addition to the aforementioned advantage of alleviating the Hubble tension.
New analyses will be conducted using the data released in the coming months, employing these extended gravity models. Finally, this result from DESI BAO 2024 measurements could be a hint that the cosmological tension needs new physics to be solved.
Acknowledgements.
—
Acknowledgments.- CE-R is supported by the CONACyT Network Project No. 376127 and acknowledges the Royal Astronomical Society as Fellow FRAS 10147. RS is supported by the CONACyT National Grant. This research has been carried out using computational facilities procured through the Cosmostatistics National Group ICN UNAM project. This article is based upon work from COST Action CA21136 Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics (CosmoVerse) supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).
References
- Riess et al. (2022) A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Breuval et al. (2024) L. Breuval, A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, M. Romaniello, Y. S. Murakami, D. Scolnic, G. S. Anand, and I. Soszyński, (2024), arXiv:2404.08038 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Aghanim et al. (2020) N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Adame et al. (2024a) A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), (2024a), arXiv:2404.03000 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Adame et al. (2024b) A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), (2024b), arXiv:2404.03001 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Collaboration (2024) D. Collaboration, “Desi 2024 vi: Cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,” (2024), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Abbott et al. (2024) T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Yin (2024) W. Yin, (2024), arXiv:2404.06444 [hep-ph] .
- Cortês and Liddle (2024) M. Cortês and A. R. Liddle, (2024), arXiv:2404.08056 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Qu et al. (2024) F. J. Qu, K. M. Surrao, B. Bolliet, J. C. Hill, B. D. Sherwin, and H. T. Jense, (2024), arXiv:2404.16805 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Wang (2024) D. Wang, (2024), arXiv:2404.06796 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Giarè et al. (2024) W. Giarè, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and E. Di Valentino, (2024), arXiv:2404.15232 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Berghaus et al. (2024) K. V. Berghaus, J. A. Kable, and V. Miranda, (2024), arXiv:2404.14341 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Tada and Terada (2024) Y. Tada and T. Terada, (2024), arXiv:2404.05722 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Carloni et al. (2024) Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, (2024), arXiv:2404.12068 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Wang and Piao (2024) H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, “Dark energy in light of recent desi bao and hubble tension,” (2024), arXiv:2404.18579 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Yang et al. (2024) Y. Yang, X. Ren, Q. Wang, Z. Lu, D. Zhang, Y.-F. Cai, and E. N. Saridakis, (2024), arXiv:2404.19437 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Knox and Millea (2020) L. Knox and M. Millea, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043533 (2020), arXiv:1908.03663 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Bahamonde et al. (2021) S. Bahamonde, K. F. Dialektopoulos, C. Escamilla-Rivera, G. Farrugia, V. Gakis, M. Hendry, M. Hohmann, J. L. Said, J. Mifsud, and E. Di Valentino, (2021), arXiv:2106.13793 [gr-qc] .
- Aguilar et al. (2024) A. Aguilar, C. Escamilla-Rivera, J. Levi Said, and J. Mifsud, (2024), arXiv:2403.13708 [gr-qc] .
- Briffa et al. (2023) R. Briffa, C. Escamilla-Rivera, J. Levi Said, and J. Mifsud, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 522, 6024 (2023), arXiv:2303.13840 [gr-qc] .
- Sandoval-Orozco et al. (2024) R. Sandoval-Orozco, C. Escamilla-Rivera, R. Briffa, and J. Levi Said, Phys. Dark Univ. 43, 101407 (2024), arXiv:2309.03675 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Nunes et al. (2018) R. C. Nunes, S. Pan, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104055 (2018), arXiv:1810.03942 [gr-qc] .
- Kumar et al. (2023) S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, and P. Yadav, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063529 (2023), arXiv:2209.11131 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Nunes (2018) R. C. Nunes, JCAP 05, 052 (2018), arXiv:1802.02281 [gr-qc] .
- dos Santos et al. (2022) F. B. M. dos Santos, J. E. Gonzalez, and R. Silva, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 823 (2022), arXiv:2112.15249 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Hashim et al. (2021) M. Hashim, A. A. El-Zant, W. El Hanafy, and A. Golovnev, JCAP 07, 053 (2021), arXiv:2104.08311 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Beltrán Jiménez et al. (2019) J. Beltrán Jiménez, L. Heisenberg, and T. S. Koivisto, Universe 5, 173 (2019), arXiv:1903.06830 [hep-th] .
- Krssak et al. (2019) M. Krssak, R. J. van den Hoogen, J. G. Pereira, C. G. Böhmer, and A. A. Coley, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 183001 (2019), arXiv:1810.12932 [gr-qc] .
- Ferraro and Fiorini (2007) R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini, Phys. Rev. D 75, 084031 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0610067 .
- Linder (2010) E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D 81, 127301 (2010), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 82, 109902 (2010)], arXiv:1005.3039 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Rezaei Akbarieh and Izadi (2019) A. Rezaei Akbarieh and Y. Izadi, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 366 (2019), arXiv:1812.06649 [gr-qc] .
- Krššák and Saridakis (2016) M. Krššák and E. N. Saridakis, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 115009 (2016), arXiv:1510.08432 [gr-qc] .
- Tamanini and Boehmer (2012) N. Tamanini and C. G. Boehmer, Phys. Rev. D 86, 044009 (2012), arXiv:1204.4593 [gr-qc] .
- Bengochea and Ferraro (2009) G. R. Bengochea and R. Ferraro, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124019 (2009), arXiv:0812.1205 [astro-ph] .
- Xu et al. (2018) B. Xu, H. Yu, and P. Wu, Astrophys. J. 855, 89 (2018).
- Chen et al. (2019) L. Chen, Q.-G. Huang, and K. Wang, JCAP 02, 028 (2019), arXiv:1808.05724 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Jimenez and Loeb (2002) R. Jimenez and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. 573, 37 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0106145 .
- Moresco et al. (2016) M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, L. Verde, D. Thomas, A. Citro, R. Tojeiro, and D. Wilkinson, JCAP 05, 014 (2016), arXiv:1601.01701 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Moresco et al. (2020) M. Moresco, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, A. Cimatti, and L. Pozzetti, Astrophys. J. 898, 82 (2020), arXiv:2003.07362 [astro-ph.GA] .
- Brout et al. (2022) D. Brout et al., Astrophys. J. 938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO] .