End of the week wrap-up, which discusses how early dark energy runs into trouble when confronted against large-scale structure full-shape galaxy power spectrum data (with a social injustice metaphor related to bad practices when trying to solve the H0 tension), the puzzling origin of GW190814, and a good ambulance chasing paper which turns XENON1T into a machine to set precise constraints on non-standard neutrino interactions.
#1 2006.11235: Constraining Early Dark Energy with Large-Scale Structure by Misha Ivanov et al.
This paper is essentially a merger of two papers I wrote about in earlier entries of my blog: 2002.04035 which I discussed in my Week 7 entry and studied full-shape (FS) galaxy power spectrum data from BOSS DR12 and 2003.07355 which I discussed in my Week 12 entry and pointed out that the early dark energy model is at odds with large-scale structure (LSS) data. In fact, the author list is basically the sum of the two minus Philcox. I wrote about early dark energy (EDE) quite a bit in this blog. In its essence, EDE consists of an axion-like field whose energy density contributes ~10% to the energy budget around matter-radiation equality, but in fact one can think of EDE more generally as any DE-like component (even potentially coming from modified gravity, as in 2003.06396) which contributes to the energy density around matter-radiation equality before dying away sufficiently fast. The EDE energy density boosts the expansion rate enough to reduce the sound horizon at a level which could prove interesting in terms of resolving the H0 tension. Now, the problem pointed out in 2003.07355 is that in order to maintain a good fit to CMB data, the introduction of EDE requires shifts in other parameters, notably the amount of dark matter (DM), OmegaCDM. The reason is that EDE makes the growth of perturbations at the time of the CMB less efficient, which can be compensated by increasing OmegaCDM. However, while EDE then dies off, the large amount of DM remains and enhances structure formation at late times. The resulting prediction is a higher value of sigma8 and an enhancement of power in the matter power spectrum on small scales. This enhancement of the DM energy density was shown to be at odds with DES data in 2003.07355, but arguably an even cleaner probe of this would come from FS galaxy power spectrum measurements, which is why the two groups teamed up to constrain EDE against FS galaxy power spectrum data from BOSS DR12, discussing the results in this week’s paper.
In short, it turns out that the earlier results reached with DES data are not only confirmed but strengthened by BOSS DR12 FS data, which really do not like the shifts in cosmological parameters brought upon by the EDE model when trying to fit CMB data well. The result is a very tight upper limit on the fraction of EDE energy density, which results in the EDE having a too small effect on the sound horizon and consequently on H0, with the authors finding H0=68.73 (since this is a blog and not a paper, I’m going to suppress the H0 units until further notice, anyhow I’m guessing you know what the units are!). This number was obtained without even using Pantheon SNeIa data, so I suspect including the latter would lower H0 even more. This result confirms the earlier claim in 2003.07355 that EDE “is, at best, no more likely to be concordant with all current cosmological data sets than ΛCDM, and appears unlikely to resolve the H0 tension.” (verbatim from the abstract). Besides confirming this important conclusion, there were three other important messages I really appreciated in this week’s paper: 1) to claim a good solution to the H0 tension your model must fit a wide plethora of precision cosmological data (including LSS data), not just a subset thereof - a common mistake many people make or have made, myself included (mea culpa). 2) do NOT combine the previous “plethora of precision cosmological data” with the local SH0ES prior until you are sure your model can go a good way towards solving the H0 tension. This is an obvious point, and one I always strongly make in my referee reports, but again surprisingly one where many people fail. Before combining two datasets together you should make sure they are consistent, i.e. they plausibly come from the same realization, or as a rule of thumb that their 2 sigma contours for a meaningful set of parameters (which includes H0) at the very least touch. 3) The BOSS FS likelihood is much more powerful than the “compressed” f*sigma8 version many people have used, but I do not find this surprising. For the record, it is also worth looking at the very similar West Coast version of this paper which appeared the day after in 2006.12420, with similar conclusions but looking at additional EDE models.
Point 2), which is something Julien Lesgourgues has always told me, is worth a further comment. Combining one’s datasets with the SH0ES prior artificially raises H0 regardless of how good one’s model is at solving the H0 tension, and makes one claim a better solution to the H0 tension than one truly has. This combination is only legit if the initial dataset combination already led to a high enough H0, which is consistent with SH0ES within at least 2ish sigma. In practice, no model I know of can achieve this when “initial dataset combination” is intended as CMB+BAO+Pantheon. Still in practice, this means that a good model can be made to look even better by combining with the SH0ES prior, whereas a bad model stays bad. I always think of this in terms of the opposite of social justice. Imagine a world where rich people, once they are rich above a given threshold, can stop paying their taxes. That means that rich people become super-rich, and poor people remain poor, and there will be somewhat of a “richness gap”. It’s kind of the same here, if you substitute rich with high H0, and not paying taxes with adding the SH0ES prior. Beyond a certain threshold, a good model becomes awesome, and all models below that threshold remain crappy. Anyway, digressions aside, the point is that in my humble opinion no model so far passes that threshold and therefore we should all pay taxes (and not add the SH0ES prior). I hope this metaphor helped to explain my point of view concerning using the SH0ES prior.
#2 2006.12611: GW190814: Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 23 M⊙ Black Hole with a 2.6 M⊙ Compact Object by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the VIRGO Collaboration
The third observing run (O3) with Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo keeps delivering surprises. The first surprise was GW190425, first reported in 2001.01761. This was a system with an unusually large chirp mass and total mass, if interpreted as a binary neutron star merger. These observations had prompted a lot of speculation into whether GW190425 might actually be the first black hole (BH)-neutron star (NS) merger ever observed (as I discussed for instance in my Week 4 entry). The jury is still out on this question. The second surprise was GW190412, first reported in 2004.08342. This was a system with the first unequivocally unequal (i.e. !=1) mass ratio, with the mass ratio being q~0.28, and was also the first system for which higher multipoles beyond the usual (l,m)=(2,2) were detected with high significance. The third surprise, GW190814, is the subject of this week’s paper, and might significantly influence the way we understand NSs or BHs.
To begin with, the first peculiar thing about GW190814 is its extremely low mass ratio, with q~0.11, the lowest ever measured to date! The primary component of GW190814 is a BH with mass 23 M⊙ (M⊙ indicates solar masses), whereas the mass of the secondary component is the second peculiar thing about GW190814. With a mass of about 2.6M⊙, this is either the heaviest NS or the lightest BH ever discovered in a compact system. If interpreted as a NS, it lies in the lower mass gap between 2.5M⊙ and 5M⊙, which is between the heaviest NSs and the lightest BHs. To date, no electromagnetic counterpart to GW190814 has been found. The collaborations performed a few basic tests of GR on GW190814, including deviations from the Kerr quadrupole, with no deviation found and GR passing yet another test. Moreover, higher-order multipoles were detected at high significance, with important evidence for the (l,m)=(3,3) multipole. This measurement of higher-order multipoles allows one to break the distance-inclination degeneracy, which should be beneficial towards using such systems as standard sirens and getting better constraints on the expansion history and H0. However, GW190814 represents a conundrum for all current models for the formation of compact-object binaries, both due to its very low mass ratio and the puzzling mass of the secondary component. On the bright side, it was estimated that many more of these systems should be detected after a year at design sensitivity. This should, hopefully, help shed light on the puzzling origin of GW190814 and possibly refine our understanding of NSs and BHs.
#3 2006.11250: Light new physics in XENON1T by Céline Bœhm et al.
I’m guessing everyone here has heard about the XENON1T excess in the ~1-7 keV region reported in 2006.09721. If not, I strongly recommend Natalie Wolchover's piece on Quanta Magazine. The official collaboration interpretations include solar axions, an enhanced neutrino magnetic moment, and an enhanced tritium background. However, as always with these tentative excesses, a lot of ambulance chasing activity has followed, see e.g. here. If you are unfamiliar with the term “ambulance chasing” Wikipedia in this context refers to it as “a socio-scientific phenomenon manifest as a surge in the number of preprint papers […] published quickly after a new anomalous measurement has been produced”. Now, “published quickly” doesn’t exactly scream quality, so most of these preprints are as good as anything produced by monkeys typing at random (or, as Anne Green put it on Twitter, anything produced by a very particular dinosaur organ). But, amidst this pile of junk, a few papers stick out, and this week’s one by Bœhm and collaborators is one of them (for the record, other two papers which I think stick out are 2006.12487 and 2006.14521). Their paper is somewhat of a follow-up on their earlier 1604.01025 (it has the same authors minus Jubb, in alphabetical order), where they pointed out that experiments such as XENON1T could detect new physics in the neutrino sector, including new light force carriers mediating interactions between solar neutrinos and electrons in the XENON1T target. In this week’s paper, Bœhm and collaborators basically repeat their earlier forecast, only this time on real XENON1T data.
Bœhm and collaborators take three models mediating interactions between solar neutrinos and electrons, either through a scalar mediator, through a vector mediator with vector couplings, or through a vector mediator with axial vector couplings. Among the other things, such types of couplings would also introduce new neutrino-neutrino interactions, which in principle could have something to say about the H0 tension, although such a large coupling is excluded by stellar constraints. When they try to interpret the XENON excess in terms of these couplings, they run into all sorts of problems with astrophysical constraints, in particular from Supernovae and Red Giants, which are precisely the same constraints that would seem to rule out the axion and enhanced neutrino magnetic moment interpretations of the XENON excess (see e.g. a complete discussion in 2006.12487). However, and here is what I really liked of this paper, the authors then say “OK, we can’t explain XENON1T while satisfying astrophysics, but we can turn this around and use the number of events seen by XENON1T as an upper limit to whatever contribution new physics can give compatibly with astrophysical constraints”. And when one takes this point of view, XENON1T becomes a powerful machine for constraining new non-standard neutrino interactions, going beyond what the experiment was initially planned for, as expressed in the final sentence of the abstract: “If they are rather viewed as a constraint on new couplings, they herald the start of an era of novel precise probes of physics beyond the standard model with dark matter detectors”. This, in my opinion, is a very valuable message which should have been emphasized more. Importantly, I think this shows that there is a “good” side to this ambulance chasing business. And that, fundamentally, is why I decided to blog about this paper.
POST-PUBLICATION EDIT: actually a connection between a related model of renormalizable long-range vector-mediated neutrino self-interactions, the XENON excess, and the H0 tension, was made in 2006.11919, based on an UV complete model discussed earlier in the context of the H0 tension e.g. in 2004.13039. However, the coupling strength needed to explain XENON precludes a solution to the H0 tension. Thanks Andreas Trautner for pointing this out!