Lost in the Log-Polynomial Expansion: Comment on arXiv:2101.08278
Aritra Banerjee, Eoin ? Colgáin, Misao Sasaki, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari
LLost in the Log-Polynomial Expansion:Comment on arXiv:2101.08278
A. Banerjee a , E. ´O Colg´ain b,c , M. Sasaki d,e,f , M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari g a Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology, 1919-1 Tancha, Onna-son, Okinawa 904-0495, Japan b Center for Quantum Spacetime, Sogang University, Seoul 121-742, Korea c Department of Physics, Sogang University, Seoul 121-742, Korea d Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (WPI),UTIAS, The University of Tokyo, Chiba 277-8583, Japan e CGP, Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan f LeCosPA, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan g School of Physics, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM),P.O.Box 19395-5531, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
In [1] we highlighted the fact that the log polynomial expansion employed in NatureAstron. , no.3, 272-277 (2019) [2] is a poor approximation to flat ΛCDM, so using it toinfer deviations from flat ΛCDM is not well-motivated. The “orthogonalized logarithmicpolynomials” recently presented in arXiv:2101.08278 [3] are an attempt to respond tothe earlier criticism [1]. Here we demonstrate that this new technique [3] - interestingthough it may be - fails to address the fundamental problem raised in [1]. Unfortunately,the claim made in [2] may still be lost in the expansion. a r X i v : . [ a s t r o - ph . C O ] F e b he problem revisited In [1] we mocked up data consistent with flat ΛCDM. We followed the methodology outlined in [2]and showed that even when the data is consistent with flat ΛCDM (by construction), fits of thethird-order log polynomial for the luminosity distance [2]: d log poly L ( z ) = c ln(10) H (cid:2) log (1 + z ) + a log (1 + z ) + a log (1 + z ) (cid:3) , (1)fail to recover the flat ΛCDM model. This is shown in Figure (1) on the left for matter densityΩ m = 0 . a , a ), while the bluecurves correspond to the flat ΛCDM family of cosmological models for Ω m ∈ [0 , m in the expressions for a i [2], a = ln(10) (cid:18) −
34 Ω m (cid:19) , a = ln (10) (cid:18)
98 Ω m − m + 76 (cid:19) . (2)We have highlighted the segment consistent with the mock data in red. There is a glaring mismatchbetween the centre of the ellipses and the red segment, which can be traced to the fact that theexpansion (1) only approximates flat ΛCDM well in z (cid:46)
1, as can be seen from Figure 1 of [1]. Figure 1: Confidence ellipses corresponding to best-fits of the log polynomial (1) (left) and orthog-onal log polynomial (3) (right) to the same mock flat ΛCDM data with Ω m = 0 .
1. The blue curvedenotes the flat ΛCDM family, inferred from (2) and (4), respectively, while the best-fit values arehighlighted by the red segments.Let us come to the crux of this comment. Ref. [3], while not acknowledging [1], recognises theproblem with the log polynomial expansion. However, the approach advocated in [3] is to employan orthogonal logarithmic polynomial expansion: D log poly L ( z ) = c ln(10) H (cid:2) log (1 + z ) + a log (1 + z ) + a [ k log (1 + z ) + log (1 + z )] (cid:3) , (3)where the additional constant parameter k is highlighted. Note, we have simply restricted ourattention to the third-order polynomial [2], which is sufficient to make a point. While one can It is well documented that cosmographic expansions in z are trouble beyond the radius of convergence | z | = 1 [4]. Observe that Figure 3 [3] is a close reproduction of Figure 1 from [1], again reproduced without credit. k as outlined in [3], this term is motivated on the grounds that it removes correlationsin the ( a , a ) plane. This leads to a change in expressions (2) used to make contact with flatΛCDM [3]: a = − k a + ln(10) (cid:18) −
34 Ω m (cid:19) , a = ln (10) (cid:18)
98 Ω m − m + 76 (cid:19) . (4)Note that the third-order term in the orthogonal log polynomial expansion (3) is unchanged from(1). Thus, whether we fit (1) or (3), the best-fit a term is the same. To get the new a one justredefines a → a − k a . This will affect our ellipses in Figure (1), and since we know the outcome,i. e. a and a should be uncorrelated, we can easily infer it via trial and error. The result is shownon the right hand side. Evidently, our ellipses are not tilted, the flat ΛCDM curve has also changedand moved to higher a , but the the key message is that the red segment is no closer to the centreof the ellipses. Note that claims of Xσ tension with flat ΛCDM [2] cannot be trusted if the expansion is unreliableand this is typically the case beyond z ∼ . In particular, if the approximation to flat ΛCDMvaries with redshift, as is the case here, then one is in trouble. As argued here, [3] cannot addressthe problem and questions hang over earlier work [2]. The community is better served by fitting thesame data directly to the flat ΛCDM model and any discrepancy from the Planck value Ω m ≈ . References [1] A. Banerjee, E. ´O Colg´ain, M. Sasaki, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and T. Yang, “On cosmographyin the cosmic dark ages: are we still in the dark?,” [arXiv:2009.04109 [astro-ph.CO]].[2] G. Risaliti and E. Lusso, “Cosmological constraints from the Hubble diagram of quasars athigh redshifts,” Nature Astron. , no.3, 272-277 (2019) [arXiv:1811.02590 [astro-ph.CO]].[3] G. Bargiacchi, G. Risaliti, M. Benetti, S. Capozziello, E. Lusso, A. Saccardi and M. Signorini,“Cosmography by orthogonalized logarithmic polynomials,” [arXiv:2101.08278 [astro-ph.CO]].[4] C. Cattoen and M. Visser, Class. Quant. Grav. (2007), 5985-5998 [arXiv:0710.1887 [gr-qc]].[5] N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. As-trophys. (2020), A6 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]].[6] T. Yang, A. Banerjee and E. ´O Colg´ain, “Cosmography and flat ΛCDM tensions at highredshift,” Phys. Rev. D (2020), 123532 [arXiv:1911.01681 [astro-ph.CO]]. For this mock, we found the value k = − . As is clear from Figure 4 of [3], the tension can be 2 σ , 4 σ , potentially even 6 or 8 σ depending on the a i planebeing presented. How does one determine X with any confidence?with any confidence?