Paper detail

Planck Constraints on Holographic Dark Energy

We perform a detailed investigation on the cosmological constraints on the holographic dark energy (HDE) model by using the Planck data. HDE can provide a good fit to Planck high-l (l>40) temperature power spectrum, while the discrepancy at l=20-40 found in LCDM remains unsolved in HDE. The Planck data alone can lead to strong and reliable constraint on the HDE parameter c. At 68% CL, we get c=0.508+-0.207 with Planck+WP+lensing, favoring the present phantom HDE at > 2sigma CL. Comparably, by using WMAP9 alone we cannot get interesting constraint on c. By combining Planck+WP with the BAO measurements from 6dFGS+SDSS DR7(R)+BOSS DR9, the H0 measurement from HST, the SNLS3 and Union2.1 SNIa data sets, we get 68% CL constraints c=0.484+-0.070, 0.474+-0.049, 0.594+-0.051 and 0.642+-0.066. Constraints can be improved by 2%-15% if we further add the Planck lensing data. Compared with the WMAP9 results, the Planck results reduce the error by 30%-60%, and prefer a phantom-like HDE at higher CL. We find no evident tension between Planck and BAO/HST. Especially, the strong correlation between Omegam h^3 and dark energy parameters is helpful in relieving the tension between Planck and HST. The residual chi^2_{Planck+WP+HST}-chi^2_{Planck+WP} is 7.8 in LCDM, and is reduced to 1.0 or 0.3 if we switch dark energy to the w model or the holographic model. We find SNLS3 is in tension with all other data sets; for Planck+WP, WMAP9 and BAO+HST, the corresponding Delta chi^2 is 6.4, 3.5 and 4.1, respectively. Comparably, Union2.1 is consistent with these data sets, but the combination Union2.1+BAO+HST is in tension with Planck+WP+lensing, corresponding to a Delta chi^2 8.6 (1.4% probability). Thus, it is not reasonable to perform an all-combined (CMB+SNIa+BAO+HST) analysis for HDE when using the Planck data. Our tightest self-consistent constraint is c=0.495+-0.039 obtained from Planck+WP+BAO+HST+lensing.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.