On the day the UK leaves the EU and I get to live in a non-EU country again after 5 years (yeah!), here comes the fifth installment of my “Top arXiv papers of the week“ column. From this week, I will be reviewing 3 papers instead of 5 (for more info, please see this post). You might also have noticed that my blog now has a name (again, see this post for more info). Enjoy!
#1 2001.09149: Signals of a Quantum Universe by Daniel Green and Rafael A. Porto
It is widely believed that the structure we see in the Universe today originated from quantum zero-point vacuum fluctuations amplified by a phase of early accelerated expansion (inflation), which stretched these fluctuations to superhorizon scales. Once they re-entered the horizon, these modes then started to grow under the effect of gravity. While this picture is consistent with observations, can we tell whether the fluctuations amplified by inflation were actually quantum zero-point vacuum fluctuations instead of classical statistical fluctuations? It turns out that current observations have nothing to say on the matter. From a heuristic-mathematical point of view, what does it mean that these fluctuations were quantum vs classical? We can expand the adiabatic density perturbation field arising during inflation in terms of plane waves, the coefficients of each of which are the familiar “a” and “a dagger”s (a+). At this point, it is the interpretation of these a and a+ which makes the quantum vs classical difference. In the former case, these are operators on a Hilbert space satisfying certain commutation relations, whereas in the latter they are stochastic parameters obeying certain statistical properties defined by the ensemble average of their product. It turns out that for the computation of equal-time 2-point correlators, the Fourier transform of which gives the primordial matter power spectrum we know and love, the choice of quantum vs classical gives the same result (although for unequal-time correlators it does make a difference). This week’s paper addresses the question of instead finding a cosmological observable which would provide a clear distinction between the two scenarios.
The key observation is that, in Fourier space, the pole structure of n-point correlators with n>2 carries information about the particles being created out of the vacuum. For instance, the pole structure of the 3-point function can carry information about the creation of three virtual particles out of the vacuum. However, for classical fluctuations the particles involved are real, i.e. on-shell, and this leads to additional poles in the n-point correlators. Loosely speaking, you can think of this as being analogous to why at the LHC there was a bump in the invariant mass distribution of two photons around 125 GeV when looking for the Higgs boson: despite one can produce virtual Higgs bosons off-shell, getting close to the true mass of the Higgs leads to a resonance which shows up as the bump. In the case of classical fluctuations, these additional poles appear in the so-called folded limit of the bispectrum, where one of the three wavevectors is half as large as the other two. The take-away message is that if the folded limit of n-point correlators of the large-scale structure is not enhanced, fluctuations have to be quantum in nature, else the scattering of real particles present in the initial state would necessarily have led to a pole. There is a caveat in that these results hold assuming locality (in hindsight a somewhat obvious caveat, but still Green and Porto provide an illuminating example in this regard). While this is more an “ideas paper”, I really enjoyed reading it, especially given the many excellent analogies and simplifying examples Green and Porto come up with to make otherwise tough concepts accessible. The paper in some way rephrases something already known (i.e. that non-Bunch-Davies vacua lead to a bispectrum peaking in the folded configuration) in the intriguing language of this classical vs quantum distinction. It would really be worth following up on this idea doing a realistic forecast of whether one would truly be able to distinguish at high signal-to-noise the classical vs quantum origin of fluctuations in future observations (e.g. because physical particles have a non-zero decay width the signal is broadened, much as the Higgs bump is not infinitely high but has a finite width and height).
#2 2001.09260: Cosmological model insensitivity of local H_0 from the Cepheid distance ladder by Suhail Dhawan et al.
Type Ia Supernovae (SNeIa) have been instrumental in establishing the fact that the Universe is currently accelerating, an observation which requires a component of dark energy (DE) or something similar. To determine the expansion rate from SNeIa one looks at the magnitude-redshift relation using SNeIa in the Hubble flow. In this case one only cares about the shape of the magnitude-redshift relation, not its absolute scale. Determining the absolute scale is instead required to determine the Hubble constant H0, around which there has been lots of debate in recent years (for more info read this paper). The usual analysis method, adopted for instance by the SH0ES team, is to estimate H0 using SNeIa with redshifts z<0.15 calibrated with Cepheid variables. SNeIa at higher redshifts (e.g. in the Pantheon sample, which spans the redshift range 0.01<z<2.3) are instead used to constrain the acceleration of the expansion and hence set limits for instance on DE models. Now, this raises a few questions. First of all, coming from the same sample, the “calibrator” (low-z) and “Hubble flow” (high-z) SNeIa are clearly correlated. One should take this correlation into account if using both the magnitude-redshift relation and the local value of H0 to constrain DE models, but this had never been done before. A down-to-earth way of phrasing this question to someone who runs MCMC chains to constrain models of DE is: what is the covariance between the local H0 measurement and the Pantheon sample, and does it depend on the assumed model of DE? A related question is what happens if one does a joint fit of calibrator and Hubble flow SNeIa assuming a DE model which is not a cosmological constant: does this change the inferred value of H0, possibly saying something new on the H0 tension?
This week’s paper by Dhawan et al. makes significant progress in three directions, by: 1) establishing a methodology for robustly combining calibrator and Hubble flow SNeIa (where “robustly combining” means robustly estimating the off-diagonal terms of the combined covariance matrix) 2) significantly improving the treatment of systematics (by performing the first ever simulations of the calibrator sample) and determining their impact on the final uncertainty of H0, and 3) explicitly fitting beyond-Lambda DE models to assess their impact on H0. The take away messages are that: 1) carefully accounting for the covariance between calibrator and Hubble flow SNeIa is important, 2) systematics contribute at most ~1% to the total uncertainty budget on H0, but this is clearly important as we move towards percent-level cosmology, 3) systematics shift the central value of H0 by at most 1%, and these shifts are due to non-zero and non-constant covariance between the calibrator bins and individual Hubble flow bins (i.e. basically relative weights of the different SNe against each other), and 4) the DE models tested shift the inferred value of H0 by ~0.5% at most. I am very happy someone finally tackled this issue of how to properly combine calibrator and Hubble flow SNeIa, and I can think of few people better suited than this team to do this (Dhawan and Goobar mentored me on one paper during my PhD and I really enjoyed working with them). As for the DE model-dependence conclusions, Dhawan et al. only test 5 specific well-motivated models, so strictly speaking one cannot make a sweeping statement about the results holding for all models (although honestly I am of the opinion that, if you think you have a crazy DE model which might bypass the conclusions by making a significant different in estimating H0, the onus is on you to show that it does make a difference). As an aside, I would love it if the authors could make their joint SH0ES-Pantheon likelihood/covariance public once the paper is accepted!
#3 2001.11024: Using the Marked Power Spectrum to Detect the Signature of Neutrinos in Large-Scale Structure by Elena Massara et al.
The observation following from neutrino oscillations that neutrinos have mass is the only direct evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model (yes I mean it, neither dark matter nor dark energy are direct evidence for BSM physics because in principle you could - with difficulty in the case of DE - get them with only SM ingredients…), and therefore determining the sum of the neutrino masses (Mnu) is a key goal of the current decade. There has been much activity in the last 3 years studying new powerful cosmological probes for measuring Mnu. Voids are vast empty regions in the large-scale structure of the Universe, containing little or no galaxies. The neutrino-to-matter density in voids is among the highest in the Universe, making them a promising probe for Mnu, as shown in this paper from a couple of years ago. A very important quantity in cosmology is that of the correlation function, which basically tells you how much clustering you have as a function of separation, and whose Fourier transform gives the power spectrum (Shirley Ho, one of the authors of this week’s paper, as well as a close collaborator of mine during my PhD, has two wonderful slides explaining what a correlation function is through a Family Guy example - see pages 14-15 of these slides). The usual way of computing the correlation function of an overdensity field weighs all regions equally, regardless of whether they are very overdense or slightly underdense. However, one can choose to instead upweigh certain regions instead of others (or more generally have environment-dependent weights), which makes sense if you are thinking about models which give a stronger signal in regions of a certain density: the result is a marked correlation function, whose Fourier transform gives you a marked power spectrum (PS).
In this week’s paper, Massara and collaborators realize that one might want to go about using a marked PS which upweighs voids, given their usefulness for constraning Mnu. In fact, with some caveats (which I will get back to later), in the most optimistic case considered (using two marks) they forecast a sensitivity of 0.01 eV (!!!) on Mnu, which should allow at least a 6 sigma detection (recall the minimum value of Mnu allowed by oscillations data is 0.06 eV). While the focus of the paper is on Mnu, the sensitivity to many other parameters (such as sigma8) is also dramatically improved by this approach. As far as I know, this is the first time marked PS have been proposed in cosmology to study massive neutrinos. I did mention a few caveats earlier. I think the results might be a bit optimistic, in that they are based on matter-only simulations at redshift 0: doing this for a real galaxy survey, where “gastrophysics”, bias, RSD, and so on, become relevant, will broaden these constraints, possibly by quite a bit (in this sense reference [39] is quite important I would say :) but the authors are very well aware of that). In addition, I am generally cautious about Fisher forecasts, more so in this case because the marked PS is the PS of a non-linear transformation of the original overdensity field. In other words, information from higher-order correlators such as the bispectrum and the trispectrum has been transferred into the marked PS, thus making me at least question whether the marked PS likelihood is close to Gaussian (usually necessary condition for Fisher forecasts to be reliable, together with there not being strange correlations between the parameters). Also, the most optimistic forecast would require one to distinguish the total matter vs cold dark matter+baryons field (for why this is important with massive neutrinos, see this paper I wrote with Julien Lesgourgues’ group), which can be done by combining clustering and weak lensing measurements, but is less straightforward than what one would think. Nonetheless, I definitely think this paper is really cool, very interesting and motivated! I think it would be very interesting to apply the proposed marks upweighing voids to study models of dark energy or modified gravity, which generally leave very interesting signatures in underdense regions (where screening mechanisms can shut off) such as voids, or more generally environmental-dependent dark energy models (for examples, see e.g. Spolyar et al. 2013 or Falck et al. 2015).