Here comes the third installment of my “Top arXiv papers of the week” column. Remember the warnings I pointed out in the first entry, that comments and criticisms are always appreciated, and enjoy!
#1 2001.05503: The Subhalo Mass Function and Ultralight Bosonic Dark Matter by Katelin Schutz
Here is by far the most interesting paper I read this week! To give some context, there seem to be severe discrepancies between observed (sub)halo density profiles, number counts, and abundances, and the same quantities as seen in cold dark matter (CDM) simulations. These are collectively referred to as “small-scale structure issues” (see e.g. this nice review). While it is unclear whether these problems are actually there (see e.g. this paper), or whether they are solved by baryonic physics (an umbrella term for messy gas and feedback physics!), an interesting possibility is that they might be solved by DM being able through some mechanism to suppress structure formation on small scales (I too worked on this scenario with Robert Foot a couple of years ago, see our paper in JCAP). One interesting possibility is warm dark matter (WDM), a relic which decoupled while relativistic and whose free-streaming is responsible for suppressing small-scale power. Another possibility is fuzzy dark matter (FDM), ultralight bosons so light (mass around 10^-22 eV) that they have galaxy-scale de Broglie wavelengths, below which quantum effects would solve the small-scale structure issues. You would expect WDM and FDM to be constrainable by a variety of probes, and recent strong lower limits of about 6 keV on the WDM mass have been derived using strongly lensed images of 8 quasars (see Gilman et al. 2019) and fluctuations in the linear density of stellar streams (see Banik et al. 2019).
In this week’s paper, Schutz, a Pappalardo Fellow at MIT who last year was named a Rising Star in Physics by MIT and Stanford, makes the interesting point that these WDM limits should be translatable into equally constraining FDM limits (btw, Schutz does an amazing job at compactly describing stellar streams and strong lensing constraints on WDM, I really recommend anyone interested reads her sections IIA and IIB!). The translation process is not so straightforward, but after making several assumptions Schutz reaches the lower limit on the FDM mass of about 2.1*10^-21 eV. This is a very interesting limit, because it rules out the value of the FDM mass required to solve the small-scale structure issues, of about 10^-22 eV. The other very interesting point is that Schutz’s limit is in the same ball-park as recent limits FDM limits from the Lyman-alpha forest power spectrum (see e.g. Irsic et al. 2017). However, the three probes (Lyman-alpha, strong lensing, and stellar streams) are competely independent and come with completely different systematics, meaning that these limits are very robust. One very minor point I would raise is that the analysis is perhaps a bit over-simplistic (e.g. instead of directly re-analyzing the strong lensing and stellar streams data - which would be highly challenging! - the quoted limit on the FDM mass is such that the resulting subhalo mass function is always below the WDM subhalo mass function at the WDM mass limit, for any mass bin), and several simplifying assumptions e.g. on the FDM mass-concentration relation had to be made. On the other hand, Schutz argues quite convincingly that these assumptions are fairly motivated, and most importantly they overall result in a more conservative limit [post-publication edit: the stellar streams limit is indeed very robust to FDM assumptions, see Ref. [71]. Thanks Katelin!]. Being also this very interesting paper a first of its kind, I tend to agree that the simplified approach adopted here is more than justified. Moving forward, it would definitely be worth applying the method proposed in this paper to many other motivated DM scenarios.
#2 2001.04466: Precision Early Universe Thermodynamics made simple: Neff and Neutrino Decoupling in the Standard Model and beyond by Miguel Escudero Abenza
This is one of those brilliant technical papers where the text is so well organized and the author smoothly guides the reader through difficult concepts that the end result is a very serene and enjoyable reading. This week’s paper also comes with a public code (kudos!), with Mathematica and Python versions. The paper builds up on another solo paper by Escudero alone, where he looked at whether we can simplify the system of equations describing neutrino decoupling (which are usually very technical and computationally expensive) without giving up too much on precision. Basically Escudero makes a set of well-argued approximations (among which those of considering equilibrium distributions for all particles involved, neglecting the electron mass, as well as chemical potentials; I recommend reading pages 3 and 4 of the older paper, which are very illuminating) which end up with a set of two coupled ODEs for the neutrino and photon temperatures, in a form which easily allows one to include BSM physics provided you can compute the rates for the relevant processes in whatever BSM model you are interested in. The result is that one can compute the number of effective relativistic species Neff in order 10s, with a good precision. This week’s paper improves this earlier work and ties a number of loose ends thereof, including improving what above I called a “good” precision (remember, we want to do %-level cosmology in the next years, so good is likely not enough).
Among the key approximations Escudero improves on, the influence of spin-statistics and the electron mass on the relevant reaction rates are included, as well as next-to-leading order finite temperature QED corrections and the possibility of allowing for non-negligible chemical potentials. The goodness of the work is confirmed by Escudero’s reproducing the prediction of Neff=3.045 in the Standard Model (with the code still taking order 10s to run!), with a precision of 0.001, which is below the sensitivity of Stage-3 and Stage-4 CMB experiments. The earlier work had not managed to, nor attempted to, reproduce this value, so from my point of view this is one of the successes of this week’s paper. Escudero then tests his code on a concrete and well-motivated BSM model given by a weakly interacting neutrinophilic scalar, for which he compares the approximated results with the full solution to the Liouville equation, finding excellent agreement, again confirming the goodness of the work (of course the code takes longer to run in this case, but only order one minute). Escudero’s step-by-step recipe for including your favorite BSM model in the code on pages 21-22 is also extremely well written, and I would highly recommend it to anyone working on these topics. I can definitely think of many interesting applications of the results, and I most certainly think the code that comes with it might be extremely useful for both particle physicists and cosmologists.
#3 2001.05469: Cosmological constraints on dark energy in light of gravitational wave bounds by Johannes Noller
It is possible, if not likely altogether, that the role of dark energy (DE) might be played by a new scalar degree of freedom (possibly light). In this case, one could expect that gravitational waves (GWs) could severely constrain DE models, including those based on modifications to Einstein’s General Relativity. In fact, most readers probably know that the multi-messenger event GW170817 placed severe constraints on models of DE and modified gravity attempting to address cosmic acceleration, as shown in 4 seminal papers which appeared on the same day in October 2017, one of which featured Johannes Noller, this paper’s author, among its authors. This week Noller studies in more detail how the use of information from GWs can improve constraints on the parameters of cosmologically relevant DE theories, in particular improving over constraints obtained using only CMB or large-scale structure (LSS) data. Noller doesn’t work with just any theory, but focuses on Horndeski gravity, the most general 4D scalar-tensor theory with second-order equations of motion (thus avoiding the Ostrogradsky ghost). To deal with linear perturbations in Horndeski gravity, Noller makes us of the formalism developed in a seminal paper by Bellini & Sawicki, where all the dynamical freedom in the perturbation equations is condensed into four functions called alphaM (running of the Planck mass), alphaB (braiding), alphaT (tensor speed excess), and alphaK (kineticity).
In this weeks’s paper Noller considers the effect of GW constraints (both observational and theoretical) on these alphas. It turns out that alphaK is for all intents and purposes cosmologically irrelevant, whereas GW170817 basically sets alphaT=0, and further considerations regarding instabilities in DE perturbations on GW backgrounds (as explained in this paper by Creminelli et al.) further set alphaM~-alphaB. After all these considerations, of the initial four free functions one is left with only one, which Noller chooses to be the running of the Planck mass. He then shows (see Fig. 1) that including the GW-related information considerably improves on the CMB and CMB+LSS-only constraints by over an order of magnitude. One thing worth pointing out is that the word “improvement” in relation to the use of GW-related information should be interpreted with caution, since part of the “GW” bit is actually a theoretical prior (related to the absence of instabilities) which strongly restricts the available parameter space (hence the “improvement”). I enjoyed reading this paper, although I have some very minor comment/concerns in that I would have liked more details on the LSS data used (for instance, what is the k-range of the matter power spectrum data used and how are mild non-linearities treated in case the upper k-limit is in the mildly non-linear regime? Or since Horndeski theories predict a small amount of scale-dependent growth, how is this taken into account when using RSD data given that the measurement of f*sigma8 is not performed at any specific wavenumber?), but on the other hand these details are probably irrelevant given that the use (or not) of LSS data has no effect on Noller’s conclusions, as he shows in Fig. 3 [post-publication edit: most of these issues are in fact addressed in Noller & Nicola 2018. Thanks Johannes!]. I think it would be worth looking at a potential similar follow-up work on so-called beyond Horndeski theories (scalar-tensor theories with higher-than-second-order derivatives and yet safe from the Ostrogradsky ghost) and more generally in Degenerate Higher-Order Scalar-Tensor (DHOST) theories (I am not 100% sure whether these are coded up in the hi_class code yet, though).
#4 2001.03176: 3%-accurate predictions for the clustering of dark matter, haloes and subhaloes, over a wide range of cosmologies and scales by Sergio Contreras et al.
N-body simulations are becoming ever-more important in current and especially future cosmological analyses, particularly when it comes to galaxy clustering (think of Euclid, DESI, VRO formerly LSST, and so on). Needless to say that while it’s relatively easy to perform dark matter (DM)-only N-body simulations, the question of how to populate the resulting halos with galaxies in a realistic way is much more complex. To understand how galaxies cluster as a function of cosmology (=cosmological parameters), we typically run many (hundreds or even thousand) such N-body simulations over a grid of parameters and then interpolate across these simulations (using e.g. Gaussian processes). Trouble is that computational resources are limited, so the catch is that if you want to run so many simulations you have to give up on these simulations being high-resolution. Poor resolution means that your galaxy modelling can’t be that sophisticated (e.g. HOD or something slightly more complicated) and therefore you can’t capture all relevant effects (e.g. assembly bias) with the risk of biasing cosmological analyses. The question then is: can we instead run only a handful of high-resolution N-body simulations and then extrapolate those to the rest of the parameter space? The answer is yes, thanks to so-called “cosmology-rescaling” algorithms (CRAs), pioneered among the others by Raul Angulo, one of the authors of the present paper (see e.g. Angulo & White 2010, with White being the W in NFW).
This week’s paper is the latest of a series by the Donostia group which keep improving these CRAs. They focus on extended models with massive neutrinos and dynamical dark energy (DDE), and study in detail both the uncertainty in the scaling, the optimal set of parameters to rescale, as well as the optimal number of simulations to run, which is a trade-off between how much resources you use and what precision you can achieve. In their case, they find that the optimal number is 3 (!!! if you are unimpressed, pause for a moment and think better), which incidentally is what allows them to name the simulations after the three rings of power from the Lord of the Rings (Vilya, Nenya, and Narya, which I find to be hardly a coincidence given that the original Angulo & White 2010 paper has a clear LOTR reference in the title). LOTR aside, another interesting aspect explored is the so-called “concentration correction”, which accounts for differences in the concentration-mass relation in the rescaled and target cosmologies (although how this relation is modified in DDE models is something which is not yet well understood and should be addressed for this week’s results to be completely reliable). The method studied in today’s paper achieves a 3% accuracy, which is certainly excellent for current probes, although probably for future surveys the target accuracy should be even better (after all, we want to do %-level cosmology!). As far as I can tell, this week’s paper only looked at the galaxy power spectrum, but in principle their method should be directly applicable to other probes of galaxy clustering (such as RSD or the bispectrum). I definitely enjoyed reading this paper, and I look forward to seeing further progress on CARs by this group.
#5 2001.03995: CMB Cold Spot in the Planck light by Marzieh Farhang and Seyed Mohammad Sadegh Movahed
The so-called “Cold Spot” (CS) is a region in the bottom-right corner of the CMB sky which is significantly colder than average. In certain points it is up to 140 µK colder than average, which is very surprising given that the rms of temperature variations in the CMB is just below 20 µK. The CS is also very large as it subtends about 5° on the sky. What is the reason for the CS is unclear, and explanations range from somewhat likely (a huge void) to very speculative (parallel Universes). Today’s paper looks at two of the leading explanations: the aforementioned supervoid, and cosmic textures. A cosmic texture is a topological defect, much as magnetic monopoles (0D), cosmic strings (1D), and domain walls (2D). In fact, you can think of cosmic textures as the 3D version of these, although it is very hard to visualize them.
The point of this week’s very interesting paper is that if either a supervoid or a cosmic texture are responsible for the CS, they should leave an imprint in the Rees-Sciama effect or the lensing of the CMB, which contribute to the CMB anisotropies in that region. If these imprints can be modelled, they can be searched for, which is what the authors do, i.e. they fit the CMB anisotropies in the CS for both models including the Rees-Sciama and lensing contributions, and fit for the amplitude of such contributions. Unfortunately, these amplitudes are found to be consistent with zero, so the results do not hint at either a cosmic texture or a supervoid explaining the CS. While the analysis method makes a number of simplifying assumptions which might be more-or-less justified (chief among these Gaussianity, in more than one point), it does highlight some possible issues with the Planck FFP10 covariance matrices when it comes to looking for anomalous signals. I am not an expert, but I think this is not totally unexpected and is not a failure of Planck in any way. Rather, if one wants to look for anomalous signals which deviate various sigmas from theoretical expectations, then it might be that the simulations one uses to construct the covariance matrix should be re-done from scratch (which of course is highly non-trivial).