An Evaluation of Cosmological Models from the Expansion and Growth of Structure Measurements

Abstract

We compare a large suite of theoretical cosmological models to observational data from the cosmic microwave background, baryon acoustic oscillation measurements of expansion, Type Ia SNe measurements of expansion, redshift space distortion measurements of the growth of structure, and the local Hubble constant. Our theoretical models include parametrizations of dark energy as well as physical models of dark energy and modified gravity. We determine the constraints on the model parameters, incorporating the redshift space distortion data directly in the analysis. To determine whether models can be ruled out, we evaluate the p-value (the probability under the model of obtaining data as bad or worse than the observed data). In our comparison, we find the well known tension of H 0 with the other data; no model resolves this tension successfully. Among the models we consider, the large scale growth of structure data does not affect the modified gravity models as a category particularly differently than dark energy models; it matters for some modified gravity models but not others, and the same is true for dark energy models. We compute predicted observables for each model under current observational constraints, and identify models for which future observational constraints will be particularly informative.

Measuring the Hubble constant and spatial curvature from supernova apparent magnitude, baryon acoustic oscillation, and Hubble parameter data

“…Here we want to examine the constraints on cosmological parameters that follow from the non-CMB observations alone, to avoid having to assume an energy density inhomogeneity power spectrum, and to examine whether the non-CMB data constraints are consistent with the CMB ones. In this paper, we constrain the flat and nonflat ΛCDM, XCDM, and φCDM dark energy models 4 For earlier discussions of cosmological constraints on the φCDM model see Samushia et al (2007), Yashar et al (2009), Samushia & Ratra (2010, Chen & Ratra (2011b), Campanelli et al (2012), Avsajanishvili et al (2015), Solà et al (2017a), Solà et al (2017b), Zhai et al (2017), Sangwan et al (2018), and references therein. 5 This result differs from the Planck Collaboration (2016, 2018) finding.…”

Observational Constraints on the Tilted Spatially Flat and the Untilted Nonflat ϕCDM Dynamical Dark Energy Inflation Models

“…These analyses made a number of simplifying assumptions, either ignoring CMB anisotropy data, or only approximately accounting for it, or using it in the context of a generalized XCDM parameterization of dynamical dark energy. Some of 4 Many cosmological data sets have been used to place constraints on the φCDM model (see, e.g., Samushia et al 2007;Yashar et al 2009;Samushia & Ratra 2010;Chen & Ratra 2011b;Campanelli et al 2012;Avsajanishvili et al 2015;Solà et al 2017b,c;Zhai et al 2017;Sangwan et al 2018, and references therein). these analyses also include a high H 0 value determined from the local expansion rate in the data collections they use to investigate dark energy dynamics.…”

On the viability of Planck scale cosmology with quartessence

“…While, regarding the maximum momentum (µ 0 > 0) within the FRW background, only shows a stable static universe with closed spatially geometry. As a consequence, our results are essentially independent of the free parameters of equation-of-states of Chaplygin gas models, which are constrained by experiments [22][23][24][25][26].…”