This week’s post covers a new measurement of H0 from fast radio bursts, a new compressed low-multipole Planck likelihood, and the first detailed study of the impact of the mass-sheet degeneracy in gravitational wave lensing. Enjoy!
#1 2104.04538: A new measurement of the Hubble constant using Fast Radio Bursts by Steffen Hagstotz, Robert Reischke, and Robert Lilow
With the Hubble tension gradually increasing in significance, it is becoming ever more important to come up with independent measurements/inferences of H0, particularly from late-time probes, which can at least try to arbitrate the tension. One often discussed example in this sense (with an eye to the future) are gravitational wave (GW) standard sirens. In this week’s paper, Hagstotz and collaborators propose to use Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) to measure H0. FRBs are transient radio pulses, whose length ranges from a fraction of a millisecond to a few milliseconds. To date, there is no clear explanation for their origin. Magnetars are a possibility, but other explanations, ranging from black hole-neutron star collisions to more speculative explanations involving technosignatures of intelligent extraterrestrial distant civilizations, are also contemplated.
The idea to use FRBs to measure H0 is really clever and leverages on the fact that FRBs undergo dispersion as they travel to us through the ionised intergalactic medium. This results in a characteristic time delay between the arrival times of radio pulses of different frequencies, directly related (up to a factor of frequency squared) to a quantity known as dispersion measure (DM), which of course depends on the redshift of the source. The key point is that the DM essentially depends on the integral of the free electron fraction along the line-of-sight, and can be used to estimate the distance to the source. There are of course other contributions to the DM which need to be taken into account, besides the “cosmological” one. But the point is that one can construct a DM-redshift diagram DM(z), and try to use that to infer H0 (or, more precisely, a value of H0 extrapolated to z=0 from the lowest redshift of the FRB sample, in this case z=0.0337 - similar to the minimum redshift of z=0.023 from which SH0ES extrapolates H0). Therefore, this method is similar in spirit to using the calibrated luminosity-redshift relation of SNeIa to measure H0.
Up to date, there are 118 publicly available verified FRBs, but only 9 have a localised host galaxy and therefore a reliable redshift estimate. Using the measured DMs for these FRBs, and a likelihood which is Gaussian in the individual DM measurements, Hagstotz and collaborators apply their methodology to infer H0, finding H0=62.3±9.1 km/s/Mpc. The error bar is, of course, too large to have any bearings on the Hubble tension (although it’s intriguing that the central value is tantalizingly low - but the error bar is so large that the measurement is formally in 1.3σ agreement with the R19 SH0ES measurement). However, and here is the important point, the authors argue that the main limitation to the error bar is statistical, and therefore with a few hundred FRBs with measured redshifts, one could obtain a percent-level measurement of H0. This should be possible with the upcoming CHIME telescope, which should find several hundreds, if not thousands, of FRBs (or at least that’s what I always hear). If you enjoyed this paper on cosmological uses of FRBs, you might also enjoy two earlier papers by the same German trio on using FRBs to probe primordial non-Gaussianity (2007.04054) and the equivalence principle (2102.11554).
#2 2104.05715: A Python compressed low-ℓ Planck likelihood for temperature and polarization by Heather Prince and Jo Dunkley
Anyone who has at least once used the full Planck likelihoods to run MCMCs will have appreciated how these are slower than most other likelihoods (though still extremely fast! - the bottleneck for cosmological MCMCs can often be Boltzmann code computations, particularly for complicated models, rather than the Planck likelihood computation). This should not come as a surprise, given how complicated the Planck likelihood is, and how many nuisance parameters are involved. Any lossless compression of the Planck likelihood is therefore welcome (and here lossless is really the keyword). For the high-ell temperature and polarization likelihoods (at least for the Plik implementation, I don’t think this is true for the CamSpec one?), a “lite” likelihood is available: this marginalizes over foreground parameters, effectively reduced to a single parameter y_cal, and is significantly faster than the non-compressed TTTEEE likelihood. When is it safe to use the lite likelihood in place of the non-lite one? Well, whenever you expect your cosmological parameters to not exhibit strong correlations with the foreground parameters…which should always be the case, unless you have a very strange new physics model in mind! In their earlier 1909.05869, Prince and Dunkley applied the massively optimized parameter estimation and data compression technique (MOPED) to the public Planck 2015 temperature likelihood.
This week’s paper extends their previous work, but focusing on the Planck 2018 large-scale (ell<30) temperature and polarization Commander and SimAll likelihoods (also referred to as lowl and lowE). These likelihoods are notoriously non-Gaussian. For example, Commander uses Gibbs sampling to explore the joint distribution of CMB temperature map, angular power spectrum, and foreground parameters, whereas SimAll is a simulation-based likelihood. Prince and Dunkley show that this information can be well captured by a log-normal distribution for D_ell = ell*(ell+1)*C_ell/2*pi (i.e. it is ln(D_ell) that is normally distributed), with two bins in temperature and three in E-mode polarization (recall we are just talking about ell<30 spectra). You can see their binning below (TT to the left, EE to the right). They then show that the resulting constraints on cosmological parameters agree with those obtained from Commander+SimAll, confirming that the compression is lossless. If you are wondering what cosmological information is contained in these measurements, the low-E data is mostly useful for constraining the optical depth to reionization τ (responsible for the bump you see at low multipoles), whereas the low-T data is mostly useful in providing a lever arm to constrain the tilt of the primordial power spectrum, n_s. The resulting compressed Planck-low-py likelihood is available on GitHub, as is Planck-lite-py, their Python implementation of Planck’s Plik_lite likelihood. If you are wondering when you are allowed to use Planck-low-py in place of Commander, the answer is basically whenever you have a model without strange large-scale features. The way I read this basically amounts to you not having a crazy dark energy model which gives a strange late-integrated Sachs-Wolfe (LISW) effect, which isn’t well captured by two log-normal bins (perhaps some oscillations in between?) - needless to say such models would probably be excluded by probes other than the LISW effect anyway.
Credits: Prince & Dunkley, arXiv:2104.05715
Credits: Prince & Dunkley, arXiv:2104.05715
#3 2104.07055: Breaking the mass-sheet degeneracy with gravitational wave interference in lensed events by Paolo Cremonese, Jose María Ezquiaga, and Vincenzo Salzano
Much as electromagnetic (EM) observations, GWs are lensed by intervening matter. If unaccounted for, lensing effectively results in one inferring the incorrect luminosity distance and source mass, due to the changes induced by lensing magnification. Given the present sensitivity, the probability of detecting a lensed GW is very low (~0.06/yr - this still means it shouldn’t be crazy to think we might already have detected one, see below), but this should be significantly higher with future detectors (e.g. ~80/yr with the Einstein Telescope). There is an “intriguing” hint of possible lensed events related to GW170104 and GW170814 (for more information see 2007.12709) but, to date, a first convincing detection of a lensed GW event is still lacking. Once one has detected this, there is another important problem that must be dealt with: the so-called mass-sheet degeneracy (MSD). This problem is best known in the case of EM lensing, and in fact I covered it in this context in one of the very first posts of this blog, my 2020 Week 4 post, in the context of H0LiCOW strong lensing’s events. The point of the MSD is that the lensing reconstruction problem, or more precisely the geometrical lensing outputs, remain unchanged by a simultaneous scaling of the lens mass (or density profile) and source plane. In the context of H0LiCOW, this means that one can infer the wrong H0 if one gets the density profile of the lenses wrong, a problem which is currently quite hotly debated (see e.g. my 2020 Week 28 post).
In this week’s paper, Cremonese and collaborators provide the first explicit study of the MSD in the context of GW lensing in as general a setting as possible. For EM lensing, one is always within the so-called geometrical optics (GO) regime, where the wavelength of the lensed signal is much smaller than the size of the lens. For GWs, given the wide range of frequencies we can probe, one may be in the GO regime, or in the antipodal wave optics (WO) regime, or even in an intermediate GO-to-WO regime, which the authors refer to as the interference regime. The results of this week’s paper can therefore be discussed according to the impact of the MSD, and how much this can be broken, in each of these three regimes:
GO regime: same problem as with EM lensing. The MSD only acts on the magnification of the lensed waveform, without impacting its shape, so it cannot be broken. One needs multiple detections of the same source, having the same objects lens multiple sources, independent mass/density profile estimates for the lens, or combinations of astrophysical/cosmological geometrical data to make further progress;
interference regime: the MSD can be broken. Both in the time and frequency domains, there are characteristic features which are intrinsically different depending on whether one is playing around with the MSD using source position or lens mass. If these effects are strong enough, the MSD can be broken;
WO regime: the MSD can still be broken. This is similar to the interference regime, in that the MSD does not just rescale the waveform but changes its shape. However, these features are much weaker than in the interference regime, so that the MSD breaking is not as efficient.
Overall, this was a very interesting paper which provided the first detailed discussion of the MSD in the context of GW lensing, spelling out several issues and constructing several tools which will be important for GW detections in the not-too-distant future. In particular, as the authors acknowledge, their study warrants a more detailed study of the WO regime, in order to identify limits wherein the MSD can be broken more efficiently.