Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Distinguishing interacting dark energy from wCDM with CMB, lensing, and baryon acoustic oscillation data

Jussi Valiviita, Elina Palmgren

TL;DR

This paper investigates whether Planck 2013 CMB data, including lensing and BAO, can distinguish interacting dark energy from a non-interacting $w$CDM model by introducing a phenomenological background coupling $Q_c=-\Gamma\rho_c$ and a time-varying dark-energy equation of state $w_{\mathrm{de}}(t)$. Using full perturbation theory and MCMC with CosmoMC, the authors find that non-phantom models ( $w_{\mathrm{de}}> -1$ ) show no evidence for interaction, with $-0.14<\Gamma/H_0<0.02$ at 95% CL after CMB+BAO+lensing; BAO is crucial to break the CMB degeneracy. In phantom models ($w_{\mathrm{de}}<-1$), energy transfer from DE to DM is modestly favored by CMB+BAO data ($-0.57<\Gamma/H_0<-0.10$), and lensing shifts this to $-0.46<\Gamma/H_0<-0.01$, while also inducing strong shifts in $\omega_c$ and $\Omega_{\mathrm{de}}$. Overall, lensing data enhance the ability to discriminate between interacting and non-interacting scenarios, highlighting the potential of future surveys to probe dark-sector couplings through growth and ISW-related observables.

Abstract

We employ the Planck 2013 CMB temperature anisotropy and lensing data, and baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) data to constrain a phenomenological $w$CDM model, where dark matter and dark energy interact. We assume time-dependent equation of state parameter for dark energy, and treat dark matter and dark energy as fluids whose energy-exchange rate is proportional to the dark-matter density. The CMB data alone leave a strong degeneracy between the interaction rate and the physical CDM density parameter today, $ω_c$, allowing a large interaction rate $|Γ| \sim H_0$. However, as has been known for a while, the BAO data break this degeneracy. Moreover, we exploit the CMB lensing potential likelihood, which probes the matter perturbations at redshift $z \sim 2$ and is very sensitive to the growth of structure, and hence one of the tools for discerning between the $Λ$CDM model and its alternatives. However, we find that in the non-phantom models ($w_{\mathrm{de}}>-1$), the constraints remain unchanged by the inclusion of the lensing data and consistent with zero interaction, $-0.14 < Γ/H_0 < 0.02$ at 95\% CL. On the contrary, in the phantom models ($w_{\mathrm{de}}<-1$), energy transfer from dark energy to dark matter is moderately favoured over the non-interacting model; $-0.57 < Γ/H_0 < -0.10$ at 95\% CL with CMB+BAO, while addition of the lensing data shifts this to $-0.46 < Γ/H_0 < -0.01$.

Distinguishing interacting dark energy from wCDM with CMB, lensing, and baryon acoustic oscillation data

TL;DR

This paper investigates whether Planck 2013 CMB data, including lensing and BAO, can distinguish interacting dark energy from a non-interacting CDM model by introducing a phenomenological background coupling and a time-varying dark-energy equation of state . Using full perturbation theory and MCMC with CosmoMC, the authors find that non-phantom models ( ) show no evidence for interaction, with at 95% CL after CMB+BAO+lensing; BAO is crucial to break the CMB degeneracy. In phantom models (), energy transfer from DE to DM is modestly favored by CMB+BAO data (), and lensing shifts this to , while also inducing strong shifts in and . Overall, lensing data enhance the ability to discriminate between interacting and non-interacting scenarios, highlighting the potential of future surveys to probe dark-sector couplings through growth and ISW-related observables.

Abstract

We employ the Planck 2013 CMB temperature anisotropy and lensing data, and baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) data to constrain a phenomenological CDM model, where dark matter and dark energy interact. We assume time-dependent equation of state parameter for dark energy, and treat dark matter and dark energy as fluids whose energy-exchange rate is proportional to the dark-matter density. The CMB data alone leave a strong degeneracy between the interaction rate and the physical CDM density parameter today, , allowing a large interaction rate . However, as has been known for a while, the BAO data break this degeneracy. Moreover, we exploit the CMB lensing potential likelihood, which probes the matter perturbations at redshift and is very sensitive to the growth of structure, and hence one of the tools for discerning between the CDM model and its alternatives. However, we find that in the non-phantom models (), the constraints remain unchanged by the inclusion of the lensing data and consistent with zero interaction, at 95\% CL. On the contrary, in the phantom models (), energy transfer from dark energy to dark matter is moderately favoured over the non-interacting model; at 95\% CL with CMB+BAO, while addition of the lensing data shifts this to .

Paper Structure

This paper contains 8 sections, 11 equations, 5 figures, 5 tables.

Figures (5)

  • Figure 1: The $w_e$ volume effect in the non-phantom models ($w_{\mathrm{de}} > -1$). The points indicate samples from our Monte Carlo Markov Chains with the data combination CMB+BAO. The colour scale shows the value of $w_0$ for each sample. Whilst marginalizing (integrating) over the $w_e$ direction, the models with a positive $\Gamma$ (energy transfer from CDM to dark energy) receive much less weight than the ones with a negative $\Gamma$ (energy transfer from dark energy to CDM).
  • Figure 2: The non-phantom interacting model ($w_{\mathrm{de}} > -1$). 68% and 95% CL regions with CMB (gray), CMB+BAO (red), and CMB+BAO+lensing (blue) data.
  • Figure 3: Comparison of the non-phantom models ($w_{\mathrm{de}} > -1$). 1d marginalized posterior probability densities for the interacting dark-sector model (solid lines) and for the non-interacting "standard" $w$CDM model (dashed lines). In the non-interacting model, with the CMB and CMB+BAO data, we allow the early-time dark energy equation of state parameter, $w_e$, to vary between -1 and +1/3, whereas with the CMB+BAO+lensing data we allow only the same range, $w_e\in(-0.8,+1/3)$, which is possible in the interacting model (see figure \ref{['w0_we_Gamma_CMBandBAO_3D']}), in order to provide a different perspective for comparing the models.
  • Figure 4: The phantom interacting model ($w_{\mathrm{de}} < -1$) with CMB, BAO, and lensing data.
  • Figure 5: The phantom model ($w_{\mathrm{de}} < -1$) with CMB, BAO, and lensing data.