Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

Model-independent test of the cosmic distance duality relation with recent observational data

Xing Wu

Abstract

We test the cosmic distance duality relation (CDDR) using two model-independent methods. Method I is based on the PAge parametrization, which characterizes the expansion history in terms of the cosmic age. Parametrizations of possible CDDR violations are constrained using observational data from Type Ia supernovae (SN), baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), cosmic chronometers, and gamma-ray bursts (GRB), including the latest PantheonPlus and DES Dovekie SN samples and DESI DR2 BAO data. The results support the validity of the CDDR within $1σ$. Different combinations of data sets are further explored to assess the impact of various probes and calibration choices, demonstrating the robustness of this conclusion. Although GRB data extend to higher redshifts, their constraining power is significantly weaker than that of the other low-redshift probes. The PantheonPlus and DES Dovekie samples yield consistent results. Method II uses a non-parametric Gaussian process reconstruction of the luminosity distance from SN data, combined with BAO measurements to construct the observed CDDR violation and constrain its parametrizations. The results are consistent with those from Method I, and we find no evidence for a violation of the CDDR.

Model-independent test of the cosmic distance duality relation with recent observational data

Abstract

We test the cosmic distance duality relation (CDDR) using two model-independent methods. Method I is based on the PAge parametrization, which characterizes the expansion history in terms of the cosmic age. Parametrizations of possible CDDR violations are constrained using observational data from Type Ia supernovae (SN), baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), cosmic chronometers, and gamma-ray bursts (GRB), including the latest PantheonPlus and DES Dovekie SN samples and DESI DR2 BAO data. The results support the validity of the CDDR within . Different combinations of data sets are further explored to assess the impact of various probes and calibration choices, demonstrating the robustness of this conclusion. Although GRB data extend to higher redshifts, their constraining power is significantly weaker than that of the other low-redshift probes. The PantheonPlus and DES Dovekie samples yield consistent results. Method II uses a non-parametric Gaussian process reconstruction of the luminosity distance from SN data, combined with BAO measurements to construct the observed CDDR violation and constrain its parametrizations. The results are consistent with those from Method I, and we find no evidence for a violation of the CDDR.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 17 sections, 33 equations, 11 figures, 8 tables.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. PAge parametrization
  3. Observational data
  4. Type Ia supernovae
  5. Baryon Acoustic Oscillations
  6. Cosmic Chronometers
  7. Gamma-Ray Bursts
  8. Method I
  9. Comparison of constraints with and without GRB data
  10. Comparison of distance ladder and inverse distance ladder calibrations
  11. Comparison between PantheonPlus and DES Dovekie
  12. Method II
  13. Conclusions
  14. Constant CDDR violation as a recalibration of $M_B$
  15. Effect of large intrinsic scatter in the Amati relation
  16. ...and 2 more sections

Figures (11)

  • Figure 1: Illustration of the weak constraints from the GRB data set A118 (grey) compared to PantheonPlus+BAO+CC (red), in the linear $\eta(z)$ case of P1. The combined results from PantheonPlus+BAO+CC+A118 are essentially the same as the red plots, and therefore are not shown for the sake of visual clarity.
  • Figure 2: Comparison of the constraints from PantheonPlus+BAO+CC (red) and DES Dovekie+BAO+CC (blue), in the linear $\eta(z)$ case of P1.
  • Figure 3: Comparison of the constraints from PantheonPlus+BAO+CC (red) and DES Dovekie+BAO+CC (blue), in the $y$-redshift $\eta(z)$ case of P2.
  • Figure 4: Comparison of the constraints from PantheonPlus+BAO+CC (red) and DES Dovekie+BAO+CC (blue), in the logarithmic $\eta(z)$ case of P3.
  • Figure 5: GP reconstruction of $\tilde{d}_L(z)$ from PantheonPlus (left) and DES Dovekie (right). The mean value and $1\sigma$ range are shown in blue. The reconstructed $\tilde{d}_L(z)$ values at the BAO redshifts are plotted in red. The SN data points are shown in grey. The extremely large error bars of some DES Dovekie data points in the right panel correspond to possible non-type Ia contaminants whose uncertainties are weighted by the BEAMS probability and thus get inflated, as is discussed in Section \ref{['subsection:SN']}.
  • ...and 6 more figures