AG-2024.07-1106·astro-ph.CO·cross-listed: hep-ph
Modified gravity interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI data
Authors
- Anton Chudaykin
- Martin Kunz
Abstract
The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) collaboration has recently released measurements of baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) from the first year of observations. A joint analysis of DESI BAO, CMB, and SN Ia probes indicates a preference for time-evolving dark energy. We evaluate the robustness of this preference by replacing the DESI distance measurements at $z<0.8$ with the SDSS BAO measurements in a similar redshift range. Assuming the $w_0w_a$CDM model, we find an evolution of the dark energy equation of state parameters consistent with $Λ$CDM. Our analysis of $χ^2$ statistics across various BAO datasets shows that DESI's preference for evolving dark energy is primarily driven by the two LRG samples at $z_{\rm eff}=0.51$ and $z_{\rm eff}=0.71$, with the latter having the most significant impact. Taking this preference seriously, we study a general Horndeski scalar-tensor theory, which provides a physical mechanism to safely cross the phantom divide, $w=-1$. Utilizing the Effective Field Theory of dark energy and adopting the $w_0w_a$CDM background cosmological model, we derive constraints on the parameters $w_0=-0.856\pm0.062$ and $w_a=-0.53_{-0.26}^{+0.28}$ at $68\%$ CL from Planck CMB, Planck and ACT CMB lensing, DESI BAO, and Pantheon+ datasets, showing good consistency with the standard $w_0w_a$CDM model. The modified gravity model gives results discrepant with $Λ$CDM at the $2.4σ$ level, while for $w_0w_a$CDM it is at $2.5σ$, based on the best-fit $χ^2$ values. We conclude that modified gravity offers a viable physical explanation for DESI's preference for evolving dark energy.
Submitted
2 July 20241 year ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2407.02558
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.