We gratefully acknowledge support from
the Simons Foundation and member institutions.
Full-text links:


Current browse context:


Change to browse by:

References & Citations


(what is this?)
CiteULike logo BibSonomy logo Mendeley logo del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo ScienceWISE logo

Astrophysics > Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics

Title: Arbitrating the $S_8$ discrepancy with growth rate measurements from Redshift-Space Distortions

Abstract: Within the $\Lambda$CDM model, measurements from recent Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and weak lensing (WL) surveys have uncovered a $\sim 3\sigma$ disagreement in the inferred value of the parameter $S_8 \equiv \sigma_8\sqrt{\Omega_m/0.3}$, quantifying the amplitude of late-time matter fluctuations. Before questioning whether the $S_8$ discrepancy calls for new physics, it is important to assess the view of measurements other than CMB and WL ones on the discrepancy. Here, we examine the role of measurements of the growth rate $f(z)$ in arbitrating the $S_8$ discrepancy, considering measurements of $f\sigma_8(z)$ from Redshift-Space Distortions (RSD). Our baseline analysis combines RSD measurements with geometrical measurements from Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) and Type Ia Supernovae (SNeIa), given the key role of the latter in constraining $\Omega_m$. From this combination and within the $\Lambda$CDM model we find $S_8 = 0.762^{+0.030}_{-0.025}$, and quantify the agreement between RSD+BAO+SNeIa and \textit{Planck} to be at the $2.2\sigma$ level: the mild disagreement is therefore compatible with a statistical fluctuation. We discuss combinations of RSD measurements with other datasets, including the $E_G$ statistic. This combination increases the discrepancy with \textit{Planck}, but we deem it significantly less robust. Our earlier results are stable against an extension where we allow the dark energy equation of state $w$ to vary. We conclude that, from the point of view of combined growth rate and geometrical measurements, there are hints, but no strong evidence yet, for the \textit{Planck} $\Lambda$CDM cosmology over-predicting the amplitude of matter fluctuations at redshifts $z \lesssim 1$. From this perspective, it might therefore still be premature to claim the need for new physics from the $S_8$ discrepancy.
Comments: 13 pages, 1 table, 3 figures. Accepted for publication in MNRAS
Subjects: Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO)
Journal reference: Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 505 (2021) 5427
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stab1613
Cite as: arXiv:2106.01208 [astro-ph.CO]
  (or arXiv:2106.01208v1 [astro-ph.CO] for this version)

Submission history

From: Rafael Nunes [view email]
[v1] Wed, 2 Jun 2021 14:52:25 GMT (536kb,D)

Link back to: arXiv, form interface, contact.