In this week’s summaries I look at vector-tensor Horndeski gravity (the lesser known sibling of scalar-tensor Horndeski gravity), the (im)possibility of solving the Hubble tension with late-time transitions in the dark energy, and a reconstruction of the time-dependent interaction between cold dark matter and vacuum energy. Note the possibility that next week’s entry might be cancelled or in the best case delayed (see my away note).
#1 2002.11932: Bounds on the Horndeski Gauge-Gravity Coupling by Alireza Allahyari, Mohammad Ali Gorji, and Shinji Mukohyama
In previous blog posts (e.g. the Week 3 post and the Week 6 post) I wrote about Horndeski gravity, the most general 4D scalar-tensor theory with second-order equations of motion (thus avoiding the Ostrogradsky ghost). The Horndeski action has an interesting history, in that it was written down in the 70s and basically went unnoticed until the late 2000s (Horndeski himself left physics to become a very successful painter, before eventually partially returning to physics in the last years). The paper belongs to a class we refer to as “sleeping beauty”, i.e. a paper which goes unnoticed (=uncited) for a long time, before suddenly awakening and having a huge impact on the field: the citation graph of Horndeski’s paper from INSPIRE makes this very clear. To a minor extent also Weinberg’s “Model of leptons” paper which got him the Nobel Prize shared a similar fate initially - some people are simply too ahead of their times. But what is unknown to most (at least to me it was until today) is that Horndeski gravity or, more precisely, scalar-tensor Horndeski gravity (STHG), has a lesser known vector-tensor sibling, which I will call vector-tensor Horndeski gravity (VTHG), also written down in the 70s. The philosophy is the same as that of STHG: to write down the most general 4D theory coupling gravity this time to a vector field such that the equations of motion are second-order, making the theory free from the Ostrogradsky ghost, and respecting the relevant symmetries. On a flat space-time, the field equations return the usual Maxwell equations if the vector field is the gauge field of an U(1) symmetry. VTHG is interesting if one wants to couple gauge fields to gravity in a non-minimal way. In fact, with a number of precautions, one can generalize the original setting to couple gravity to an arbitrary number of gauge fields. One natural choice is to couple gravity to all the SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) gauge fields of the Standard Model. Perhaps unsurprisingly, VTHG suffered the same fate as its better known STHG brother, i.e. escaped attention for many years, while only being briefly mentioned in a couple of works (notably 0912.0481 and 1211.5403), despite having potentially interesting applications such as inflation and magnetogenesis. VTHG is still, to date, quite unknown, having accumulated “only” barely over 100 citations as opposed to STHG’s nearly 1500 citations (VTHG’s citation graph from INSPIRE naïvely looks like that of STHG, but the overall scale is suppressed by one order of magnitude).
Anyway, in this week’s paper, Allahyari and collaborators revisit VTHG and address the issue of placing constraints on the dimensionless couplings of the theory, which they refer to as λ. The only previous work I am aware of which looked at placing constraints on λ, specifically from Earth-based precision gravity and electromagnetism tests (in the case where gravity is only coupled to the photon), is 1211.5403 by John Barrow and collaborators, which found extremely weak bounds of order λ<10^90. This week’s paper revisits various other sources of constraints on λ, including black hole shadows, the physics of neutron stars and white dwarfs, modifications to the gravitational Poisson equation, and the multi-messenger gravitational wave event GW170817/GRB170817A. The tightest bound they find is λ<10^70, which improves the previous one by Barrow et al. by 20 orders of magnitude, and arises from neutron stars (it is worth mentioning that both the BH shadow and white dwarfs bound are respectively 2 and 9 orders of magnitude stronger than the previous bounds, whereas the Poisson equation and GW bounds are weaker). The way these bounds are derived are in what one could call an “order of magnitude” fashion, i.e. determining a curvature radius associated to each of the physical phenomena they are considering, and imposing that λ be less than the square of this curvature scale in units of the Planck length. This condition, in conjunction with a further one, ensures that corrections to the Yang-Mills and Einstein equations are small. It is then quite clear why the bounds on λ, while improving over the earlier ones (because systems in a higher curvature regime have been studied here), are still very weak: since the extra Horndeski interactions are higher-order in space-time curvature, and the latter is tiny in units of the Planck mass even in the high-curvature systems studied here, a huge value of λ would be required to see a visible effect. Given the comparatively weak bounds obtained, the order of magnitude approach followed by the authors is definitely more than justified. I really enjoyed reading this paper by Allahyari and collaborators which, if anything, made me aware of this very interesting vector-tensor theory of Horndeski. While I don’t know whether VTHG will be another “sleeping beauty” (although I don’t think it will become one), I can definitely see VTHG holding potentially interesting applications for cosmology which, to date, remain completely unexplored. In this sense this week’s paper might help re-awakening this theory.
#2 2002.11707: Can Late Dark Energy Transitions Raise the Hubble constant? by Giampaolo Benevento, Wayne Hu, and Marco Raveri
As a rule of thumb, when the title of a paper is a question, the answer is “No”, and this week’s paper is no exception! Except, that the reason why the answer is “No” is very interesting and not obvious (it took me a while to convince myself I understood this paper and I’m still not 100% sure I understand it). Anyway (and the following lines are shamelessly self-plagiarizing the Week 8 post), there is a general understanding within the community that a solution to the H0 tension likely has to come from early (i.e. pre-recombination) physics which lowers the sound horizon by about 9% (in the form for instance of early dark energy), rather than late-time physics which increases the distance to last-scattering (e.g. phantom dark energy), for a comprehensive discussion see this paper by Knox and Millea. The reason is that an inverse distance ladder constructed from BAO and SNe data and analyzed in a quasi-model-independent way leaves little room for deviations from LCDM in the late-time expansion rate H(z), see e.g. this paper. But SNe distance moduli data only go down to a certain redshift, of about 0.01 for the Pantheon sample. Therefore, one could in principle imagine the Universe conspiring to suddenly speed up drastically for z<0.01 so as to dramatically raise H0 and restore consistency between early and late Universe. A 2009 paper by Mortonson, Hu (the same Hu as in this week’s paper), and Huterer looked precisely at this possibility, dubbed late dark energy (LDE), which this week’s paper aims at revisiting using new data and phrasing it in terms of the H0 tension, which of course was not around in 2009.
Usually when assessing the potential of a model to solve the H0 tension, one throws in all available data (CMB, BAO, SNe, local H0 prior) to constrain such a model and see what value of H0 one’s MCMC spits out. The crucial thing Benevento and collaborators realize is that for LDE models, and more generically models with strong transitions in the very recent Universe, naïvely using the H0 prior this way is misleading. Rather, one should properly re-calibrate the absolute magnitude of high-redshift SNe using the local distance ladder information, which now accounts for this higher H0. In other words, this amounts to not considering a naive SNe+H0 combination, but constructing a self-consistent joint likelihood of the two, very much along the lines of this paper by Dhawan et al. of which I wrote in the Week 5 post. While the naïve analysis (what the authors call baseline+H0) would suggest that LDE can raise H0 to ~73 km/s/Mpc and completely solve the H0 tension, the proper analysis (what the authors call baseline+M) shows that this is not the case and one recovers H0 of about 69 km/s/Mpc. The reason boils down to the fact that to completely solve the H0 tension one would require a magnitude calibration offset which is too large to be allowed by data. These results can in some way be seen as reinforcing from the opposite side of the ladder the results of Dhawan et al., who find that the local value of H0 is insensitive to the assumptions of the underlying dark energy model when calibrator and Hubble-flow SNe are self-consistently analysed jointly. The take-away message of this paper is that if you have a dark energy model which presents strong transitions in the very recent Universe, you should follow the self-consistent analysis presented here, rather than just adding a prior on H0. And so, another week has gone and no convincing late-time solution to the H0 tension is found…yet.
#3 2002.10499: Latest evidence for a late time vacuum-geodesic CDM interaction by Natalie B. Hogg et al.
This week’s paper led by Natalie Hogg (whose blog I really recommend, and also has a semi-technical summary of this paper) looks at a well-motivated class of interacting dark energy (IDE) models. In IDE models generically dark matter (DM) and dark energy (DE) interact. Historically such an interaction was introduced to alleviate the coincidence problem, although that is no longer the case (the amount of energy exchange required to do so is by far excluded by cosmological data), and the strongest motivation for these models nowadays is that they might have something to say on the H0 tension (although it is very hard to solve the H0 tension changing the late-time Universe as I already wrote above, and IDE is no exception to the statement). The model Hogg and collaborators look at features interactions between vacuum energy (i.e. the cosmological constant) and geodesic DM, where the “geodesic” bit means that the energy-momentum flow 4-vector between DE and DM is parallel to the DM 4-velocity, so that there is no extra non-geodesic DM acceleration due to the DM-DE interaction. When studying IDE models one has to make an ansatz for the energy exchange (usually denoted Q), and the authors make the usual choice of Q~H*rhoDE, with H the expansion rate and rhoDE the vacuum energy density (although a common choice, this raises the question of how microsopic DM-DE interactions should know about the overall expansion rate H - post-publication edit: in fact there is a very good reason why H should be there, meaning that the only thing that the conservation equations know about is the change in scale or volume, not the specific cosmology and theory of gravity; in other words this should reflect the first principle of thermodynamics. Thanks Marco for the clarification!). While the proportionality factor in the previous relation, i.e. the vacuum-DM coupling which the authors call “q”, is usually taken to be a constant across the expansion history, what Hogg and collaborators try to do this week is to reconstruct the coupling as a function of redshift, q(z), by binning it in redshift. Another novel aspect of this analysis is the introduction of a so-called correlation prior (first introduced in this paper), whose aim is to control eventual rapid oscillations in q(z), and basically amounts to the statement that q(z) should be relatively smooth across bins.
Hogg and collaborators explore two different reconstruction schemes for q(z), namely cubic spline reconstruction and Gaussian process reconstruction. As far as I know, this is one of the first times (if not the first time altogether) that somebody tries to reconstruct the DM-DE coupling from data non-parametrically. The overall results are not surprising in that within 1 sigma the reconstruction is basically always consistent with q=0 (uncoupled LCDM case, which is favoured over the interacting vacuum-CDM model from the Bayesian evidence point of view). There is, however, an interesting hint of a bump at z~1 in both reconstructions (albeit more evident in the spline one), and a trough around redshift 3 in the Gaussian process reconstruction. While none of these are statistically significant, I was particularly intrigued by the trough feature: there are no data points at z=3 (SNe data go at most up to z=2.3), so I’m very curious as to what is driving that trough. The authors also perform some sanity check tests to make sure that the correlation prior is not dominating over the results, which fortunately it isn’t. They then also perform a principal component analysis, although it would have been interesting to see explicitly how the most important principal components looked like: this should give an idea of what are the most important features in q(z) one can constrain with current data, and could be used to construct data-driven ansätze for q(z), the same way e.g. this paper does it for the equation of state w(z). Overall, this was a very well-written paper with very sound results, and I really like the idea of the correlation prior as a means of speeding up MCMC runs without dominating over the data.