CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 123Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories

Atacama Cosmology Telescope: Constraints on prerecombination early dark energy

Open access
Hill, J. Colin, Calabrese, Erminia, Aiola, Simone, Battaglia, Nicholas, Bolliet, Boris, Choi, Steve K., Devlin, Mark J., Duivenvoorden, Adriaan J. +35 more·2022·Physical Review D
DOI 10.1103/physrevd.105.123536
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The early dark energy (EDE) scenario aims to increase the value of the Hubble constant (${H}_{0}$) inferred from cosmic microwave background (CMB) data over that found in the standard cosmological model ($\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}\mathrm{CDM}$), via the introduction of a new form of energy density in the early Universe. The EDE component briefly accelerates cosmic expansion just prior to recombination, which reduces the physical size of the sound horizon imprinted in the CMB. Previous work has found that nonzero EDE is not preferred by Planck CMB power spectrum data alone, which yield a 95% confidence level (C.L.) upper limit ${f}_{\mathrm{EDE}}<0.087$ on the maximal fractional contribution of the EDE field to the cosmic energy budget. In this paper, we fit the EDE model to CMB data from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) data release 4. We find that a combination of ACT, large-scale Planck TT (similar to WMAP), Planck CMB lensing, and BAO data prefers the existence of EDE at $>99.7%\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.$: ${f}_{\mathrm{EDE}}=0.09{1}_{\ensuremath{-}0.036}^{+0.020}$, with ${H}_{0}={70.9}_{\ensuremath{-}2.0}^{+1.0}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{Mpc}$ (both 68% C.L.). From a model-selection standpoint, we find that EDE is favored over $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}\mathrm{CDM}$ by these data at roughly $3\ensuremath{\sigma}$ significance. In contrast, a joint analysis of the full Planck and ACT data yields no evidence for EDE, as previously found for Planck alone. We show that the preference for EDE in ACT alone is driven by its TE and EE power spectrum data. The tight constraint on EDE from Planck alone is driven by its high-$\ensuremath{\ell}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{TT}$ power spectrum data. Understanding whether these differing constraints are physical in nature, due to systematics, or simply a rare statistical fluctuation is of high priority. The best-fit EDE models to ACT and Planck exhibit coherent differences across a wide range of multipoles in TE and EE, indicating that a powerful test of this scenario is anticipated with near-future data from ACT and other ground-based experiments.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.105.123536

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Considering ACT-only data or combined with Planck TT up to multipoles 650, there is evidence for EDE > 3σ, which completely solves the Hubble tension.

    “considering ACT-only data or combined with Planck TT up to multipoles 650, there is evidence for EDE > 3σ, which completely solves the Hubble tension [96,97].”

    From Challenges of the Standard Cosmological Model (2022) · cites this paper as [97]

    The paper reports a 3.2σ preference for EDE with ACT plus Planck TT through multipole 650, but its ACT-only analysis reports 2.1σ, not more than 3σ. The Summary of main results says the combined-data H₀ estimate is consistent with local measurements, albeit with large error bars; the Discussion and Outlook says differences among CMB probes must be understood before a quantitative comparison with local H₀ measurements. Thus the paper does not establish that EDE completely solves the Hubble tension. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The evidence for EDE > 3σ persists with inclusion of Planck lensing and BAO data, but disappears completely once full Planck multipoles data are considered, with H0 in tension again with SH0ES.

    “the evidence for EDE > 3σ persists with the inclusion of Planck lensing and BAO data (shifting H 0 towards a lower value, but still able to alleviate the tension), but it disappears completely once the full Planck multipoles data are considered, with H 0 in tension again with SH0ES.”

    From Challenges of the Standard Cosmological Model (2022) · cites this paper as [97]

    The Summary of main results (page not supplied) says Planck lensing and BAO lower the inferred H₀ while EDE remains a better fit, but it reports a 2.8σ preference—not the claimed >3σ. The same section reports no model-selection preference for EDE when full Planck data are included (1.8σ). The Analysis section (page not supplied) reports that the Planck-inferred H₀ remains 3.3σ from SH0ES. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hill, J. C., Calabrese, E., Aiola, S., Battaglia, N., Bolliet, B., Choi, S. K., Devlin, M. J., Duivenvoorden, A. J., Dunkley, J., Ferraro, S., Gallardo, P. A., Gluscevic, V., Hasselfield, M., Hilton, M., Hincks, A. D., Hložek, R., Koopman, B. J., Kosowsky, A., La Posta, A., Louis, T., Madhavacheril, M. S., McMahon, J., Moodley, K., Naess, S., Natale, U., Nati, F., Newburgh, L., Niemack, M. D., Page, L. A., Partridge, B., Qu, F. J., Salatino, M., Schillaci, A., Sehgal, N., Sherwin, B. D., Sifón, C., Spergel, D. N., Staggs, S. T., Storer, E. R., van Engelen, A., Vavagiakis, E. M., Wollack, E. J., & Xu, Z.
Affiliations
  • Flatiron Institute (US)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of KwaZulu-Natal (ZA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • University of Milano-Bicocca (IT)
  • Haverford College (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (US)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • Goddard Space Flight Center (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
Physical Review D
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2022-06-30
Volume
105
Issue
12
Pages
123536
ISSN
  • 2470-0010 (ISSN-L)
  • 2470-0029
DOI
10.1103/physrevd.105.123536
OpenAlex
W3198841425
Cited by
122
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 3
FWCI
11.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
link.aps.org/licenses/aps-default-license (vor)
Locations
  • Physical review. D/Physical review. D. (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (acceptedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Simons Foundation
  • Science and Technology Facilities Council (ST/M004856/2, ST/S00033X/1)
  • H2020 European Research Council
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (849169)
  • National Science Foundation (AST-1814971, AST-1907657, PHY-2013951, AST-2001866, DGE-1650441, PHY-1607611, AST-0408698, AST-0965625, AST-1440226, PHY-0355328, PHY-0855887, PHY-1214379)
  • National Research Foundation
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  • Institut Périmètre de physique théorique
  • Government of Canada
  • Ministry of Colleges and Universities
  • University of Toronto
  • Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo
  • Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (11191125)
  • Aspen Center for Physics
  • Princeton University
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • Canada Foundation for Innovation
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NNX13AE56G, NNX14AB58G)
  • Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation
  • University of British Columbia
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology
  • Department of Innovation, Science, and Industry Canada
  • Province of Ontario
  • Sutton Family Chair in Science, Christianity, and Cultures
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Keywords
early dark energy, Hubble constant, cosmic microwave background, Atacama Cosmology Telescope, sound horizon, CMB power spectrum, CMB lensing, baryon acoustic oscillations, model comparison, LambdaCDM model, early universe expansion, multipoles, cosmological constraints

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review