Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

Constraints on the varying electron mass and early dark energy in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 and the implications for inflation

Yo Toda, Osamu Seto

Abstract

Primarily motivated by the Hubble tension, we analyze the varying electron mass model and axionlike early dark energy model (EDE) using baryon acoustic oscillation data from DESI DR2 data and including the recent results from ACT DR6. Our analysis indicates that $m_{e} / m_{e0} = 1.0081 \pm 0.0046 $ and the energy fraction of EDE is constrained as $f_\mathrm{EDE} < 0.016$. Since those cosmological models fit with different spectral index $n_s$, we show the posterior of those models on the ($n_s-r$) plane and point out that, for example, Starobinsky inflation works for varying electron mass model while the standard supersymmetric hybrid inflation is preferred in the EDE model.

Constraints on the varying electron mass and early dark energy in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 and the implications for inflation

Abstract

Primarily motivated by the Hubble tension, we analyze the varying electron mass model and axionlike early dark energy model (EDE) using baryon acoustic oscillation data from DESI DR2 data and including the recent results from ACT DR6. Our analysis indicates that and the energy fraction of EDE is constrained as . Since those cosmological models fit with different spectral index , we show the posterior of those models on the () plane and point out that, for example, Starobinsky inflation works for varying electron mass model while the standard supersymmetric hybrid inflation is preferred in the EDE model.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 10 sections, 14 equations, 7 figures, 3 tables.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Models
  3. Varying electron mass
  4. Early Dark Energy
  5. datasets and methodology
  6. Results and Discussion
  7. Varying electron mass
  8. Early Dark Energy
  9. Implication for the inflation
  10. Conclusions

Figures (7)

  • Figure 1: Posterior distributions of selected parameters for the varying $m_e$ model. Gray and red contours correspond to the different datasets indicated in the legend, while blue contours represent the $\Lambda$CDM baseline for comparison.
  • Figure 2: Posterior distributions of selected parameters for the varying $m_e$&$\alpha$ model. Gray and red contours correspond to the different datasets indicated in the legend, while blue contours represent the $\Lambda$CDM baseline for comparison.
  • Figure 3: Posterior distributions of selected parameters for the EDE model. Gray and red contours correspond to the different datasets indicated in the legend, while blue contours represent the $\Lambda$CDM baseline for comparison.
  • Figure 4: The CMB power spectrum difference relative to the $\Lambda$CDM model. The upper green curve shows the case with only a $2\%$ increase in the electron mass. The blue curve additionally includes variations in $H_0$, $\omega_c$, and $\omega_b$ and the red curve further includes a variation in $n_s$ according to Eq. (\ref{['eq.mefit']}). The bottom panel shows the same comparison but for the EDE model according to Eq. (\ref{['eq.EDEfit']}).
  • Figure 5: Same figure as Fig. \ref{['fig:TT']} for $C_{l, TE}$
  • ...and 2 more figures