Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Cosmological Constraints on $Λ$(t)CDM Models

H. A. P. Macedo, L. S. Brito, J. F. Jesus, M. E. S. Alves

TL;DR

This work tests time-varying vacuum energy within Λ(t)CDM, focusing on the class $\Lambda_g = \frac{\alpha'}{a^2} + \beta H^2 + \lambda_*$ and its three reduced models. The authors derive the background dynamics, including radiation, and obtain analytic $E(z)$ solutions and the vacuum–matter interaction term $\mathcal{Q}(z)$. They constrain the models with Pantheon SNe Ia, cosmic chronometers, and $H_0$ priors from Planck and SH0ES, finding that $\Lambda_1$ is strongly disfavored by Planck priors while $\Lambda_2$ and $\Lambda_3$ remain viable; SH0ES priors provide weaker exclusion of $\Lambda_1$. When applying Planck distance priors to the full $\Lambda_g$ model, the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are tightly constrained around zero, indicating little time variation of $\Lambda$ and implying compatibility with the standard $\Lambda$CDM scenario within current uncertainties.

Abstract

Problems with the concordance cosmology $Λ$CDM as the cosmological constant problem, coincidence problems and Hubble tension has led to many proposed alternatives, as the $Λ(t)$CDM, where the now called $Λ$ cosmological term is allowed to vary due to an interaction with pressureless matter. Here, we analyze one class of these proposals, namely, $Λ=α'a^{-2}+βH^2+λ_*$, based on dimensional arguments. Using SNe Ia, cosmic chronometers data plus constraints on $H_0$ from SH0ES and Planck satellite, we constrain the free parameters of this class of models. By using the Planck prior over $H_0$, we conclude that the $λ_*$ term can not be discarded by this analysis, thereby disfavouring models only with the time-variable terms. The SH0ES prior over $H_0$ has an weak evidence in this direction. The subclasses of models with $α'=0$ and with $β=0$ can not be discarded by this analysis. Finally, by using distance priors from CMB, the $Λ$ time-dependence was quite restricted.

Cosmological Constraints on $Λ$(t)CDM Models

TL;DR

This work tests time-varying vacuum energy within Λ(t)CDM, focusing on the class and its three reduced models. The authors derive the background dynamics, including radiation, and obtain analytic solutions and the vacuum–matter interaction term . They constrain the models with Pantheon SNe Ia, cosmic chronometers, and priors from Planck and SH0ES, finding that is strongly disfavored by Planck priors while and remain viable; SH0ES priors provide weaker exclusion of . When applying Planck distance priors to the full model, the parameters and are tightly constrained around zero, indicating little time variation of and implying compatibility with the standard CDM scenario within current uncertainties.

Abstract

Problems with the concordance cosmology CDM as the cosmological constant problem, coincidence problems and Hubble tension has led to many proposed alternatives, as the CDM, where the now called cosmological term is allowed to vary due to an interaction with pressureless matter. Here, we analyze one class of these proposals, namely, , based on dimensional arguments. Using SNe Ia, cosmic chronometers data plus constraints on from SH0ES and Planck satellite, we constrain the free parameters of this class of models. By using the Planck prior over , we conclude that the term can not be discarded by this analysis, thereby disfavouring models only with the time-variable terms. The SH0ES prior over has an weak evidence in this direction. The subclasses of models with and with can not be discarded by this analysis. Finally, by using distance priors from CMB, the time-dependence was quite restricted.
Paper Structure (9 sections, 32 equations, 9 figures, 9 tables)

This paper contains 9 sections, 32 equations, 9 figures, 9 tables.

Figures (9)

  • Figure 1: SNe Ia, $H(z)$ and Planck $H_0$ constraints for $\lambda_* = 0$ ($\Lambda_1$ model), at 1 and 2$\sigma$ c.l., $H_0$ units are km/s/Mpc. Left: SNe Ia, $H(z)$+Planck $H_0$ and SNe Ia+$H(z)$+Planck $H_0$ constraints. Right: Joint constraints from SNe Ia+$H(z)$+Planck $H_0$.
  • Figure 2: SNe Ia, $H(z)$ and Planck $H_0$ constraints for $\beta = 0$ ($\Lambda_2$ model), at 1 and 2$\sigma$ c.l., $H_0$ units are km/s/Mpc. Left: SNe Ia, $H(z)$+Planck $H_0$ and SNe Ia+$H(z)$+Planck $H_0$ constraints. Right: Joint constraints from SNe Ia+$H(z)$+Planck $H_0$.
  • Figure 3: SNe Ia, $H(z)$ and Planck $H_0$ constraints for $\alpha = 0$ ($\Lambda_3$ model), at 1 and 2$\sigma$ c.l., $H_0$ units are km/s/Mpc. Left: SNe Ia, $H(z)$+Planck $H_0$ and SNe Ia+$H(z)$+ Planck $H_0$ constraints. Right: SNe Ia+$H(z)$+Planck $H_0$ joint constraints.
  • Figure 4: Interaction Term $\mathcal{Q}(z)$ for the best fit parameters from SNe Ia+$H(z)$+$H_0$ from Planck. Upper panel:$\lambda_* = 0$ ($\Lambda_1$ model). Bottom Left:$\beta = 0$ ($\Lambda_2$ model). Bottom right:$\alpha = 0$ ($\Lambda_3$ model).
  • Figure 5: SNe Ia+$H(z)$+$H_0$ from SH0ES for $\lambda_{*} = 0$ ($\Lambda_1$ model), at 1 and 2$\sigma$ c.l., $H_0$ units are km/s/Mpc. Left: SNe Ia, $H(z)$+SH0ES $H_0$ and SNe Ia+$H(z)$+$H_0$ from SH0ES constraints. Right: SNe Ia+$H(z)$+$H_0$ from SH0ES joint constraints.
  • ...and 4 more figures