MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198841425 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.123536

Atacama Cosmology Telescope: Constraints on prerecombination early dark energy

2022· article· en· W3198841425 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Colin Hill, Erminia Calabrese, Simone Aiola, Nicholas Battaglia, Boris Bolliet, Steve K. Choi, Mark J. Devlin, Adriaan J. Duivenvoorden, Jo Dunkley, Simone Ferraro, Patricio A. Gallardo, Vera Gluscevic, Matthew Hasselfield, Matt Hilton, Adam D. Hincks, Renée Hložek, Brian J. Koopman, Arthur Kosowsky, Adrien La Posta, Thibaut Louis, Mathew S. Madhavacheril, J. J. McMahon, Kavilan Moodley, Sigurd Næss, Umberto Natale, F. Nati, Laura Newburgh, Michael D. Niemack, Lyman A. Page, Bruce Partridge, Frank J. Qu, Maria Salatino, A. Schillaci, Neelima Sehgal, Blake D. Sherwin, Cristóbal Sifón, David N. Spergel, Suzanne T. Staggs, Émilie Storer, Alexander van Engelen, Eve M. Vavagiakis, Edward J. Wollack, Zhilei Xu

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersFondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y TecnológicoScience and Technology Facilities CouncilHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeGordon and Betty Moore FoundationNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloIndustry CanadaUniversity of TorontoNational Research FoundationUniversity of British ColumbiaEuropean CommissionInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueH2020 European Research CouncilFlatiron HealthPrinceton UniversityAspen Center for PhysicsNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationUniversity of PennsylvaniaCanada Foundation for InnovationSimons FoundationGerald R. Ford Presidential FoundationMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesGovernment of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDark energyCosmologyPhysicsTelescopeAstronomyAstrophysicsObservational cosmologyDark matter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The early dark energy (EDE) scenario aims to increase the value of the Hubble constant (H 0 ) inferred from cosmic microwave background (CMB) data over that found in the standard cosmological model (CDM), via the introduction of a new form of energy density in the early Universe. The EDE component briefly accelerates cosmic expansion just prior to recombination, which reduces the physical size of the sound horizon imprinted in the CMB. Previous work has found that nonzero EDE is not preferred by Planck CMB power spectrum data alone, which yield a 95% confidence level (C.L.) upper limit f EDE < 0.087 on the maximal fractional contribution of the EDE field to the cosmic energy budget. In this paper, we fit the EDE model to CMB data from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) data release 4. We find that a combination of ACT, large-scale Planck TT (similar to WMAP), Planck CMB lensing, and BAO data prefers the existence of EDE at >99.7% C:L:: f EDE 0.091 0.020 -0.036 , with H 0 70.9 1.0 -2.0 km=s=Mpc (both 68% C.L.). From a model-selection standpoint, we find that EDE is favored over CDM by these data at roughly 3 significance. In contrast, a joint analysis of the full Planck and ACT data yields no evidence for EDE, as previously found for Planck alone. We show that the preference for EDE in ACT alone is driven by its TE and EE power spectrum data. The tight constraint on EDE from Planck alone is driven by its high-l TT power spectrum data. Understanding whether these differing constraints are physical in nature, due to systematics, or simply a rare statistical fluctuation is of high priority. The best-fit EDE models to ACT and Planck exhibit coherent differences across a wide range of multipoles in TE and EE, indicating that a powerful test of this scenario is anticipated with near-future data from ACT and other ground-based experiments.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations130
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207