- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Matching current observational constraints with nonminimally coupled dark energy

William J. Wolf*, Pedro G. Ferreira†, and Carlos García-García‡

  • *Contact author: william.wolf@stx.ox.ac.uk
  • †Contact author: pedro.ferreira@physics.ox.ac.uk
  • ‡Contact author: carlos.garcia-garcia@physics.ox.ac.uk
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 111, L041303 – Published 7 February, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.L041303

Abstract

We show that a Universe with a nonminimally coupled scalar field can fit current measurements of the expansion rate of the Universe better than the standard Λ-cold dark matter model or other minimally coupled dark energy models. In particular, the nonminimal coupling in this model allows for the dark energy model to exhibit stable phantom crossing behavior, which seems to be suggested by the constraints on the dark energy equation of state coming from the most recent data. While we find a clear improvement in the goodness of fit for this dark energy model with respect to others that have been considered in the recent literature, using information theoretic criteria, we show that the evidence for it is still inconclusive.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (105)

  1. A. G. Adame et al. (DESI Collaboration), DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, .
  2. D. Rubin et al., Union through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe using a unified Bayesian framework, arXiv:2311.12098.
  3. D. Scolnic et al., The Pantheon+Analysis: The full data set and light-curve release, Astrophys. J. 938, 113 (2022).
  4. T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES Collaboration), The dark energy survey: Cosmology results with ∼1500 new high-redshift type Ia supernovae using the full 5-year dataset, Astrophys. J. Lett. 973, L14 (2024).
  5. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020); 652, C4(E) (2021).
  6. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020).
  7. M. S. Madhavacheril et al. (ACT Collaboration), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 gravitational lensing map and cosmological parameters, Astrophys. J. 962, 113 (2024).
  8. F. J. Qu et al. (ACT Collaboration), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: A measurement of the DR6 CMB lensing power spectrum and its implications for structure growth, Astrophys. J. 962, 112 (2024).
  9. W. J. Wolf, C. García-García, D. J. Bartlett, and P. G. Ferreira, Scant evidence for thawing quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083528 (2024).
  10. G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, and A. Silvestri, Non-minimally coupled gravity as a physically viable fit to DESI 2024 BAO, arXiv:2407.15832.
  11. Y. Tada and T. Terada, Quintessential interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI observations, Phys. Rev. D 109, L121305 (2024).
  12. C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz Perez, and B. Ratra, Using non-DESI data to confirm and strengthen the DESI 2024 spatially-flat w0waCDM cosmological parameterization result, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123533 (2024).
  13. D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, Assessing observational constraints on dark energy, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138826 (2024).
  14. M. Cortês and A. R. Liddle, Interpreting DESI’s evidence for evolving dark energy, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2024) 007.
  15. K. Lodha et al. (DESI Collaboration), DESI 2024: Constraints on physics-focused aspects of dark energy using DESI DR1 BAO data, arXiv:2405.13588.
  16. B. R. Dinda, A new diagnostic for the null test of dynamical dark energy in light of DESI 2024 and other BAO data, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2024) 062.
  17. Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, Does dark energy really revive using DESI 2024 data?, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023512 (2025).
  18. D. Wang, The self-consistency of DESI analysis and comment on “Does DESI 2024 Confirm ΛCDM?,” arXiv:2404.13833.
  19. P. Mukherjee and A. A. Sen, Model-independent cosmological inference post DESI DR1 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123502 (2024).
  20. N. Roy, Dynamical dark energy in the light of DESI 2024 data, arXiv:2406.00634.
  21. H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, Dark energy in light of recent DESI BAO and Hubble tension, arXiv:2404.18579.
  22. I. D. Gialamas, G. Hütsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar, and H. Veermäe, Interpreting DESI 2024 BAO: late-time dynamical dark energy or a local effect?, arXiv:2406.07533.
  23. A. Notari, M. Redi, and A. Tesi, Consistent theories for the DESI dark energy fit, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2024) 025.
  24. H. Wang, G. Ye, and Y.-S. Piao, Impact of evolving dark energy on the search for primordial gravitational waves, arXiv:2407.11263.
  25. H. Wang, Z.-Y. Peng, and Y.-S. Piao, Can recent DESI BAO measurements accommodate a negative cosmological constant?, arXiv:2406.03395.
  26. W. Giarè, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, Robust preference for dynamical dark energy in DESI BAO and SN measurements, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2024) 035.
  27. B. R. Dinda and R. Maartens, Model-agnostic assessment of dark energy after DESI DR1 BAO, arXiv:2407.17252.
  28. J.-Q. Jiang, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, Non-parametric late-time expansion history reconstruction and implications for the Hubble tension in light of DESI, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123519 (2024).
  29. B. Ghosh and C. Bengaly, Consistency tests between SDSS and DESI BAO measurements, Phys. Dark Universe 46, 101699 (2024).
  30. O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Model independent cosmographic constraints from DESI 2024, Astron. Astrophys. 690, A40 (2024).
  31. A. C. Alfano, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, Cosmological constraints from calibrated Ep−Eiso gamma-ray burst correlation by using DESI 2024 data release, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2024) 055.
  32. J. a. Rebouças, D. H. F. de Souza, K. Zhong, V. Miranda, and R. Rosenfeld, Investigating late-time dark energy and massive neutrinos in light of DESI Y1 BAO, arXiv:2408.14628.
  33. Y.-H. Pang, X. Zhang, and Q.-G. Huang, Constraints on redshift-binned dark energy using DESI BAO data, arXiv:2408.14787.
  34. G. Efstathiou, Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?, arXiv:2408.07175.
  35. S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, Cosmological constraints on curved quintessence, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2024) 073.
  36. S. Roy Choudhury and T. Okumura, Updated cosmological constraints in extended parameter space with Planck PR4, DESI BAO, and SN: Dynamical dark energy, neutrino masses, lensing anomaly, and the Hubble tension, Astrophys. J. Lett. 976, L11 (2024).
  37. R. Arjona and S. Nesseris, A Swampland conjecture DESIderátum?, arXiv:2409.14990.
  38. D. Andriot, S. Parameswaran, D. Tsimpis, T. Wrase, and I. Zavala, Exponential quintessence: Curved, steep and stringy?, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2024) 117.
  39. R. Calderon et al. (DESI Collaboration), DESI 2024: Reconstructing dark energy using crossing statistics with DESI DR1 BAO data, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2024) 048.
  40. H. Wang, G. Ye, J.-Q. Jiang, and Y.-S. Piao, Towards primordial gravitational waves and ns=1 in light of BICEP/Keck, DESI BAO and Hubble tension, arXiv:2409.17879.
  41. K. V. Berghaus, J. A. Kable, and V. Miranda, Quantifying scalar field dynamics with DESI 2024 Y1 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103524 (2024).
  42. G. Alestas, M. Caldarola, S. Kuroyanagi, and S. Nesseris, DESI constraints on α-attractor inflationary models, arXiv:2410.00827.
  43. Y. Carloni and O. Luongo, Stability of non-minimally coupled dark energy in the geometrical trinity of gravity, arXiv:2410.10935.
  44. C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz Perez, and B. Ratra, Is the w0waCDM cosmological parameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck CMB anisotropy data?, arXiv:2410.13627.
  45. A. Aboubrahim and P. Nath, Transmutation of interacting quintessence in the late universe, arXiv:2411.11177.
  46. G. Ye, Bridge the cosmological tensions with Thawing gravity, arXiv:2411.11743.
  47. D. Andriot, Quintessence: An analytical study, with theoretical and observational applications, arXiv:2410.17182.
  48. A. Chudaykin and M. Kunz, Modified gravity interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI data, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123524 (2024).
  49. E. O. Colgáin, S. Pourojaghi, and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Implications of DES 5YR SNe dataset for ΛCDM, arXiv:2406.06389.
  50. E. O. Colgáin and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, DESI and SNe: Dynamical dark energy, Ωm tension or systematics?, arXiv:2412.12905.
  51. E. O. Colgáin, M. G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and D. Stojkovic, Does DESI 2024 confirm ΛCDM?, arXiv:2404.08633.
  52. P. R. Mello, M. Quartin, B. M. Schaefer, and B. Schosser, On the full non-Gaussian surprise statistic and the cosmological concordance between DESI, SDSS and Pantheon+, arXiv:2408.08385.
  53. D. Sapone and S. Nesseris, Outliers in DESI BAO: Robustness and cosmological implications, arXiv:2412.01740.
  54. X. T. Tang, D. Brout, T. Karwal, C. Chang, V. Miranda, and M. Vincenzi, Uniting the observed dynamical dark energy preference with the discrepancies in Ωm and H0 across cosmological probes, arXiv:2412.04430.
  55. E. V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003).
  56. M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213 (2001).
  57. W. J. Wolf and P. G. Ferreira, Underdetermination of dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103519 (2023).
  58. V. A. Rubakov, The null energy condition and its violation, Phys. Usp. 57, 128 (2014).
  59. W. J. Wolf and M. Lagos, Cosmological instabilities and the role of matter interactions in dynamical dark energy models, Phys. Rev. D 100, 084035 (2019).
  60. F. Sbisà, Classical and quantum ghosts, Eur. J. Phys. 36, 015009 (2015).
  61. E. Bellini and I. Sawicki, Maximal freedom at minimum cost: Linear large-scale structure in general modifications of gravity, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2014) 050.
  62. V. Errasti Díez, J. Gaset Rifà, and G. Staudt, Foundations of ghost stability, arXiv:2408.16832.
  63. S. Nesseris and L. Perivolaropoulos, Crossing the phantom divide: Theoretical implications and observational status, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2007) 018.
  64. L. Boubekeur and D. H. Lyth, Hilltop inflation, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2005) 010.
  65. W. J. Wolf, Minimizing the tensor-to-scalar ratio in single-field inflation models, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043521 (2024).
  66. R. Kallosh and A. Linde, On hilltop and brane inflation after Planck, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2019) 030.
  67. S. Dutta and R. J. Scherrer, Hilltop quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 78, 123525 (2008).
  68. T. Chiba, Slow-roll Thawing quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 79, 083517 (2009); 80, 109902(E) (2009).
  69. P. J. Steinhardt and N. Turok, A cyclic model of the universe, Science 296, 1436 (2002).
  70. M. Cicoli, C. P. Burgess, and F. Quevedo, Fibre inflation: Observable gravity waves from IIB string compactifications, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2009) 013.
  71. A. Ijjas and P. J. Steinhardt, A new kind of cyclic universe, Phys. Lett. B 795, 666 (2019).
  72. M. Zumalacárregui, E. Bellini, I. Sawicki, J. Lesgourgues, and P. G. Ferreira, hi_class: Horndeski in the cosmic linear anisotropy solving system, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2017) 019.
  73. E. Bellini, I. Sawicki, and M. Zumalacárregui, hi_class background evolution, initial conditions and approximation schemes, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2020) 008.
  74. D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, The cosmic linear anisotropy solving system (CLASS). Part II: Approximation schemes, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2011) 034.
  75. A. G. Riess et al., Type Ia supernova distances at redshift >1.5 from the Hubble Space Telescope multi-cycle treasury programs: The early expansion rate, Astrophys. J. 853, 126 (2018).
  76. L. Chen, Q.-G. Huang, and K. Wang, Distance priors from Planck final release, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2019) 028.
  77. J. Torrado and A. Lewis, cobaya: Code for Bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2021) 057.
  78. J. Torrado and A. Lewis, cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019 (2019).
  79. A. G. Adame et al. (DESI Collaboration), DESI 2024 III: Baryon acoustic oscillations from galaxies and quasars, arXiv:2404.03000.
  80. A. G. Adame et al. (DESI Collaboration), DESI 2024 IV: Baryon acoustic oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest, arXiv:2404.03001.
  81. D. Brout et al., The Pantheon+Analysis: Cosmological constraints, Astrophys. J. 938, 110 (2022).
  82. R. E. Smith, J. A. Peacock, A. Jenkins, S. D. M. White, C. S. Frenk, F. R. Pearce, P. A. Thomas, G. Efstathiou, and H. M. P. Couchman, Stable clustering, the halo model and non-linear cosmological power spectra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 341, 1311 (2003).
  83. R. Takahashi, M. Sato, T. Nishimichi, A. Taruya, and M. Oguri, Revising the halofit model for the nonlinear matter power spectrum, Astrophys. J. 761, 152 (2012).
  84. N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087 (1953).
  85. W. K. Hastings, Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications, Biometrika 57, 97 (1970).
  86. A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: A Monte Carlo approach, Phys. Rev. D 66, 103511 (2002).
  87. A. Lewis, Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters, Phys. Rev. D 87, 103529 (2013).
  88. A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences, Stat. Sci. 7, 457 (1992).
  89. A. R. Liddle, Information criteria for astrophysical model selection, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 377, L74 (2007).
  90. H. Akaike, A new look at the statistical model identification, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 19, 716 (1974).
  91. G. Schwarz, Estimating the dimension of a model, Ann. Stat. 6, 461 (1978).
  92. P. G. Ferreira, Cosmological tests of gravity, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 57, 335 (2019).
  93. E. J. Ruiz and D. Huterer, Testing the dark energy consistency with geometry and growth, Phys. Rev. D 91, 063009 (2015).
  94. D. Alonso, E. Bellini, P. G. Ferreira, and M. Zumalacárregui, Observational future of cosmological scalar-tensor theories, Phys. Rev. D 95, 063502 (2017).
  95. Y. Wen, N.-M. Nguyen, and D. Huterer, Sweeping Horndeski canvas: New growth-rate parameterization for modified-gravity theories, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2023) 028.
  96. J. Ruiz-Zapatero, D. Alonso, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garcia-Garcia, Impact of the Universe’s expansion rate on constraints on modified growth of structure, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083523 (2022).
  97. T. Baker, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Skordis, A fast route to modified gravitational growth, Phys. Rev. D 89, 024026 (2014).
  98. P. G. Ferreira and C. Skordis, The linear growth rate of structure in parametrized post Friedmannian universes, Phys. Rev. D 81, 104020 (2010).
  99. T. Baker, E. Bellini, P. G. Ferreira, M. Lagos, J. Noller, and I. Sawicki, Strong constraints on cosmological gravity from GW170817 and GRB 170817A, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 251301 (2017).
  100. J. M. Ezquiaga and M. Zumalacárregui, Dark energy in light of multi-messenger gravitational-wave astronomy, Front. Astron. Space Sci. 5, 44 (2018).
  101. C. Dalang, P. Fleury, and L. Lombriser, Horndeski gravity and standard sirens, Phys. Rev. D 102, 044036 (2020).
  102. W. J. Wolf and M. Lagos, Standard sirens as a novel probe of dark energy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 061101 (2020).
  103. J. M. Ezquiaga and M. Zumalacárregui, Dark energy after GW170817: Dead ends and the road ahead, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 251304 (2017).
  104. C. Burrage and J. Sakstein, Tests of Chameleon gravity, Living Rev. Relativity 21, 1 (2018).
  105. A. Joyce, B. Jain, J. Khoury, and M. Trodden, Beyond the cosmological standard model, Phys. Rep. 568, 1 (2015).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 111, L041303– Published 7 February, 2025
  • Received 26 September 2024
  • Revised 18 December 2024
  • Accepted 9 January 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation