Exploring an early dark energy solution to the Hubble tension with Planck and SPTPol data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A promising idea to resolve the long standing Hubble tension is to postulate a new subdominant dark-energy-like component in the prerecombination Universe which is traditionally termed as the early dark energy (EDE). However, as shown in the Refs. [J. C. Hill et al., Early dark energy does not restore cosmological concordance, Phys. Rev. D 102, 043507 (2020), M. M. Ivanov et al.,Constraining early dark energy with large-scale structure, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103502 (2020).] the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and large-scale structure (LSS) data impose tight constraints on this proposal. Here, we revisit these strong bounds considering the Planck CMB temperature anisotropy data at large angular scales and the SPTPol polarization and lensing measurements. As advocated in [A. Chudaykin et al., Combined analysis of Planck and SPTPol data favors the early dark energy models, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2020) 013.] another paper, this combined data approach predicts the CMB lensing effect consistent with the $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}\mathrm{CDM}$ expectation and allows one to efficiently probe both large and small angular scales. Combining Planck and SPTPol CMB data with the full-shape BOSS likelihood and information from photometric LSS surveys in the EDE analysis we found for the Hubble constant ${H}_{0}=69.79\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.99\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{km}\text{ }{\mathrm{s}}^{\ensuremath{-}1}\text{ }{\mathrm{Mpc}}^{\ensuremath{-}1}$ and for the EDE fraction ${f}_{\mathrm{EDE}}<0.094(2\ensuremath{\sigma})$. These bounds obtained without including a local distance ladder measurement of ${H}_{0}$ (SH0ES) alleviate the Hubble tension to a $2.5\ensuremath{\sigma}$ level. Including further the SH0ES data we obtain ${H}_{0}=71.81\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}1.19\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{km}\text{ }{\mathrm{s}}^{\ensuremath{-}1}\text{ }{\mathrm{Mpc}}^{\ensuremath{-}1}$ and ${f}_{\mathrm{EDE}}=0.088\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.034$ in full accordance with SH0ES. We also found that a higher value of ${H}_{0}$ does not significantly deteriorate the fit to the LSS data. Overall, the EDE scenario is (though weakly) favored over $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}\mathrm{CDM}$ even after accounting for unconstrained directions in the cosmological parameter space. We conclude that the large-scale Planck temperature and SPTPol polarization measurements along with LSS data do not rule out the EDE model as a resolution of the Hubble tension. This paper underlines the importance of the CMB lensing effect for robust constraints on the EDE scenario.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".