Evidence for interacting dark energy from BOSS

Elisa G. M. Ferreira,1, ∗ Jerome Quintin†,1, ‡ Andre A. Costa,2, § E. Abdalla,2, ¶ and Bin Wang3, ∗∗

1Department of Physics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 2T8, Canada2Instituto de Fısica, Universidade de Sao Paulo, C.P. 66318, 05315-970, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil

3Department of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 200240 Shanghai, China(Dated: February 24, 2017)

The result presented by the BOSS-SDSS Collaboration measuring the baryon acoustic oscillationsof the Lyman-alpha forest from high-redshift quasars indicates a 2.5σ departure from the standardΛ-cold-dark-matter model. This is the first time that the evolution of dark energy at high redshiftshas been measured, and the current results cannot be explained by simple generalizations of thecosmological constant. We show here that a simple phenomenological interaction in the dark sectorprovides a good explanation for this deviation, naturally accommodating the Hubble parameterobtained by BOSS, H(z = 2.34) = 222±7 km s−1 Mpc−1. By performing a global fit of the param-eters with the inclusion of this new data set together with the Planck data for the interacting model,we are able to show that some interacting models have constraints for H(2.34) and DA(2.34) thatare compatible with the ones obtained by the BOSS Collaboration, showing a better concordancethan ΛCDM. We also show that the interacting models that have a small positive coupling constant,which helps alleviate the coincidence problem, are compatible with the cosmological observations.Adding the likelihood of these new baryon acoustic oscillations data shows an improvement in theglobal fit, although it is not statistically significant. The coupling constant could not be fully con-strained by the data sets used, but the dark energy equation of state shows a slight preference fora value different from a cosmological constant.

PACS numbers: 98.80.-k, 95.36.+x, 98.80.Es, 95.30.Sf, 98.80.Jk

I. INTRODUCTION

One of the biggest challenges in cosmology and astro-physics nowadays is to understand the nature of the twomost abundant components of the Universe: dark energyand dark matter. These are usually described as two in-dependent components where dark matter is responsiblefor most of the nonrelativistic matter in the Universe andwhere dark energy is responsible for the late time acceler-ation of our Universe, which is described by a cosmolog-ical constant in the Λ-cold-dark-matter (ΛCDM) model.This standard model is widely used to describe the cos-mological evolution of the Universe [1], and it fits verywell the current observational data. However, this modelhas some theoretical and observational challenges (see,e.g., Ref. [2]) that open the way for alternative models ofdark energy.

Recently, the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Sur-vey (BOSS) experiment of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey(SDSS) Collaboration presented new evidence againstthe ΛCDM model [3] based on the measurements ofthe baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) flux-correlationfunction of the Lyman-alpha (Ly-α) forest from 158, 401quasars at high redshifts (2.1 ≤ z ≤ 3.5). Compara-

†Vanier Canada Graduate Scholar.∗Electronic address: elisa.ferreira@mail.mcgill.ca‡Electronic address: jquintin@physics.mcgill.ca§Electronic address: alencar@if.usp.br¶Electronic address: eabdalla@usp.br∗∗Electronic address: wang b@sjtu.edu.cn

tively to previous experiments, they provide the line ofsight and tangential BAO components, and this allowsone to determine the angular distance and the Hubbledistance independently. Their results indicate a devia-tion from ΛCDM of the Hubble parameter and of an-gular distance at an average redshift of 2.34 (roughly2.5σ and 2.2σ deviations from Planck+Wilkinson Mi-crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) polarization dataand WMAP9+ACT+SPT, respectively). Assuming aΛCDM Universe, this implies a negative energy density

for the dark energy component, ρDE(z=2.34)ρDE(0) = −1.2±0.8,

which is 2.5σ away from the expected value. We point outthat BOSS is not optimized to observe quasars at suchhigh redshifts. However, if more data or other experi-ments show that this discrepancy stands, then it wouldindicate that ΛCDM needs to be revised. Its simplestgeneralization would consist in allowing for dynamicaldark energy (see Ref. [4] for a review), but this wouldnot be enough to fix this discrepancy. In dynamicaldark energy models, all matter contents are individu-ally conserved, and so, agreeing with the BOSS resultfor H(z = 2.34) would require a negative energy densityfor dark energy [3]. This may lead one to study veryexotic forms of dark energy.

A simpler solution is to consider interacting dark en-ergy. Indeed, dark energy could couple to gravity, neu-trinos, or dark matter since its effects have only been de-tected gravitationally. Interaction with baryonic matter(or radiation) has very tight constraints from observa-tions [5] and must be very small or negligible. In thissense, we are interested in models in which dark energyinteracts with the dark matter component. In a field the-

arX

iv:1

412.

2777

v4 [

astr

o-ph

.CO

] 2

3 Fe

b 20

17

2

ory description of those components, this interaction isallowed and even mandatory [6, 7]. However, the mainmotivation to introduce such an interaction is to allevi-ate the coincidence problem, which can be done given anappropriate interaction.

Since the nature of the dark sector is unknown, thestudy of these coupled dark energy models is challeng-ing. Many different models of this interaction have beenstudied in the literature from the point of view of eitherinteracting field theory or phenomenology (for a classi-fication of those models, see Ref. [8]). As an exampleof phenomenological study, one can consider holographicdark energy or a quintessence field interacting with a darkmatter fluid [9–13]. There are also attempts to developLagrangian models where one postulates an interactionbetween the scalar field, playing the role of dark energy,and a fermionic field, playing the role of dark matter[6, 14–16] (see, however, Ref. [17]).

Recently, there have been studies of interacting darkenergy models in light of new probes [18–21]. However,we note that there has been only little exploration ofthe consequences of the results from BOSS in the liter-ature [22–24], and these studies do not explore the ideaof interacting dark energy and dark matter. Thus, itwould be interesting to see what the phenomenologicalimplications from BOSS for interacting dark energy are.Since this model allows for one of the components todecay into the other, we claim that energy flow fromdark energy to dark matter implies a smaller amountof dark matter in the past, thus accommodating for thevalue of the Hubble parameter at z = 2.34 found byBOSS and still maintaining the cosmology today closeto ΛCDM. For a first test, we perform a comparisonby showing that the observational value of the Hubbleparameter from quasars given by the BOSS Collabora-tion, H(2.34) = 222 ± 7 km s−1 Mpc−1, is consistentwith the interacting model with a small positive couplingconstant. This comparison serves to indicate that the in-teraction is able to accommodate the BOSS Collabora-tion result. After that, we perform a full Markov chainMonte Carlo (MCMC) analysis using the new BOSSdata together with the Planck data for the interactingmodel. We show that the constraints on H(z = 2.34)and DA(z = 2.34) for the interacting model are compati-ble with the values obtained by the BOSS team, showinga slightly better concordance when compared to ΛCDM.

II. MODEL

A. Theoretical setup

Given the energy conservation of the full energy-momentum tensor, we can suppose that the fluid equa-tions representing dark energy (DE) and dark matter(DM) are not conserved separately. In a Friedmann-

Robertson-Walker Universe, we take

ρDM + 3HρDM = QDM = +Q ,

ρDE + 3H (1 + ωDE) ρDE = QDE = −Q , (1)

and all other components follow the standard conserva-tion equations. In the above equations, ρDM and ρDE arethe energy densities for dark matter and dark energy, re-spectively; ωDE = pDE/ρDE is the equation of state (EoS)of dark energy, considered constant in this work; and Qindicates the interaction between dark energy and darkmatter. One can take the Taylor expansion of the generalinteraction term Q(ρDM, ρDE), and thus, it can be repre-sented phenomenologically as Q ' 3H(ξ1ρDM + ξ2ρDE),where the coefficients ξ1 and ξ2 are to be determined byobservations [13, 25]. Following our definition, if Q > 0,then dark energy decays into dark matter, and for Q < 0,the energy flow is in the opposite direction. The first caseis consistent with the requirement that the energy den-sity for dark energy must be of the same order as the onefor dark matter for a longer period of time in order toalleviate the coincidence problem.

The validity of the phenomenological interacting darkenergy model was studied in Ref. [11], where it was foundthat the curvature perturbations can always be stablewhen the interaction is proportional to the energy densityof dark energy, i.e. when ξ1 = 0 while ξ2 6= 0, exceptwhen ω = −1, which represents a central singularity inthe cosmological perturbation equations. This is true fora constant EoS within the ranges −1 < ωDE < 0 (wecall this model I) and ωDE < −1 (we call this modelII). If the interaction term is proportional to the darkmatter energy density, i.e. ξ1 6= 0 while ξ2 = 0, then thecurvature perturbations are only stable when ωDE < −1(we call this model III). The models are summarized inTable I.

TABLE I: Interacting dark energy models considered in thispaper.

Model Q DE EoSI 3ξ2HρDE −1 < ω < 0II 3ξ2HρDE ω < −1III 3ξ1HρDM ω < −1

In this framework, the Friedmann equations can bewritten as

H2(z) =8πG

3[ρDE(z) + ρDM(z) + ρb(z)] , (2)

H = −4πG [ρDM(z) + ρb(z) + (1 + ωDE)ρDE(z)] , (3)

where we are considering a Universe composed of onlydark energy, dark matter, and baryons (ρb). We will usethese equations to construct the Hubble parameter foreach of the interacting models and compare it with theHubble parameter inferred from the BOSS quasar datain the next subsection.

3

For models I and II, the energy densities for dark en-ergy and dark matter behave as [12]

ρDE = (1 + z)3(1+ωDE+ξ2)ρ0DE ,

ρDM = (1 + z)3

×ξ2[1− (1 + z)3(ξ2+ωDE)

]ρ0

DE

ξ2 + ωDE+ ρ0

DM

, (4)

where the superscript 0 indicates quantities measured to-day. The baryonic density is given by the standard ex-pression, proportional to (1 + z)3. For model III, theevolution of the energy densities is given by [12]

ρDE = (1 + z)3(1+ωDE)

(ρ0

DE +ξ1ρ

0DM

ξ1 + ωDE

)− ξ1ξ1 + ωDE

(1 + z)3(1−ξ1)ρ0DM ,

ρDM = ρ0DM(1 + z)3−3ξ1 . (5)

One can see from these equations that if there is anenergy flow from dark energy to dark matter (i.e., if thecoupling constant is positive), then the energy density fordark matter is always smaller than what one would ex-pect in the standard ΛCDM model. Since ρDM is thedominant contribution in the Friedmann equations athigher redshifts and since observations indicate that theUniverse is well explained by the ΛCDM model at lowredshifts (e.g., Ref. [1]), one can see from Eq. (3) thatthe interaction implies a smaller Hubble parameter inthe past in comparison with ΛCDM, when H0 is heldfixed and for a positive coupling constant.

Furthermore, this mildly helps alleviate the coinci-dence problem (the fact that we do not understand whythe energy densities of dark energy and dark matter areso close today). As it can be seen in Ref. [26], a positivecoupling constant implies that the quantity r ≡ ρDM/ρDE

decreases at a slower rate in the interacting model thanin the ΛCDM model. This makes the energy density ofdark energy closer to that of dark matter in the past,giving us a better understanding of their closer valuestoday.

B. Hubble parameter at z = 2.34

In order to gain some intuition before performing theproper statistical analysis, let us see whether the mea-sured value of the Hubble parameter by the BOSS Col-laboration, H(2.34) = 222±7 km s−1 Mpc−1, can be ac-commodated by the phenomenological interacting mod-els introduced above. From this perspective, we comparethe Hubble parameter constructed theoretically with itsobservational value at z = 2.34.

In order to compute the value of the Hubble parameterfrom Eqs. (2), (4), and (5), one needs several cosmologicalparameters such as H0, Ω0

DE, Ω0DM, and Ω0

b. The stan-dard ΛCDM parameters found from the Planck analysis

were used by the BOSS Collaboration (listed in TableII). We first use these parameters and the dark energyEoS set to1 ωDE = −1 to construct H(z), and we showthe resulting Hubble parameter at z = 2.34 with respectto the coupling constant ξ in the left panel of Fig. 1.Alternatively, in the right panel of Fig. 1, we use theadjusted cosmological parameters found in Ref. [27] (in-cluding ωDE 6= −1) from the analysis of the interactingmodels using Planck, BAO, type Ia supernovae (SnIa),and H0 data. The goal of using different sets of cosmo-logical parameters is to see if the parameters adjusted tothe interacting models yield a different prediction thanthe parameters adjusted to ΛCDM.

TABLE II: Cosmological parameters used by the BOSS Col-laboration [3].

Parameter Best fit σh 0.706 0.032

Ω0DMh

2 0.143 0.003Ω0

DE 0.714 0.020Ω0

bh2 0.02207 0.00033

We recall that the BOSS Collaboration measuredH(2.34) = 222 ± 7 km s−1 Mpc−1, and this is indicatedby the dashed gray line and by the 1σ and 2σ shadedareas in Fig. 1. In comparison, standard ΛCDM cosmol-ogy predicts H(2.34) ≈ 238 km s−1 Mpc−1 when usingthe cosmological parameters of Table II. This is repre-sented by the green star in Fig. 1, which lies outside the2σ measurement from BOSS. In the left panel of Fig. 1,all the curves that correspond to interacting dark energypass through the green star at ξ = 0. This is becausewhen the coupling constant vanishes there is no interac-tion left, and we recover ΛCDM (since we set ωDE = −1).We also note that model I and model II correspond tothe same curve, because in the limit where ωDE = −1,they correspond to the same model (recall Table I). In theright panel, we see that allowing for ωDE different than−1 can significantly alter the prediction for H(z = 2.34).Yet, all the curves can be in accordance with the Hub-ble parameter inferred by BOSS given a nonzero cou-pling constant. Comparing the left and right panels formodel I, we notice that different cosmological parame-ters require a different sign for the coupling constant ξin order to match the BOSS result. This indicates thatmodel I may not be fully robust at explaining the ob-served value of H(z = 2.34) from BOSS. For modelsII and III, we see that the theory can easily be withinthe 1σ shaded area for a positive coupling constant inboth panels. We notice that in order for the H(2.34)theoretical value to match the BOSS measurement, thevalues of the coupling constant have to be larger in the

1 The interacting models are not well defined at the perturbativelevel if ωDE = −1, so we view ωDE = −1 as a limit in this case.

4

−0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

ξ

205

210

215

220

225

230

235

240H

(z=

2.34

)Models I and II

Model III

ΛCDM

−0.10 −0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

ξ

205

210

215

220

225

230

235

240

H(z

=2.

34)

Model I

Model II

Model III

ΛCDM

FIG. 1: We plot H(z = 2.34) as a function of the coupling ξ (corresponding to ξ2 for models I and II and to ξ1 for model III).The interacting models correspond to the colored lines since they depend on the free parameter ξ, the coupling constant. Theleft panel represents the Hubble parameter calculated using the cosmological parameters from Table II and with ωDE = −1.The right panel represents H(2.34) using the parameters found in Ref. [27] (including ωDE 6= −1; see Table X for model I,Table XI for model II, and Table XII for model III) obtained from Planck+BAO+SnIa+H0. The dashed gray line is the BOSSmeasured value of H(2.34) = 222± 7 km s−1 Mpc−1, and the shaded areas represent 1σ and 2σ deviations from this average.For the sake of comparison, the green star represents H(2.34) = 238 km s−1 Mpc−1, the value expected for ΛCDM given thecosmological parameters in Table II.

right panel where the cosmological parameters were ad-justed to Planck+BAO+SnIa+H0 data using the inter-acting models.

At this point, Fig. 1 provides us with indications thata positive coupling constant allows one to explain in avery simple way a smaller value of the Hubble param-eter in the past, which is not possible with ΛCDM ordynamical dark energy and without requiring a very ex-otic dark energy component. The fact that we obtain apositive coupling constant for some models is interesting,since it is precisely positive values that help alleviate thecoincidence problem. Thus, this model gives a naturalexplanation for the energy densities of the dark compo-nents at low redshifts and also at high redshifts since theymay explain the BOSS data.

This gives us evidence that the interacting dark energymodel has the required features to be able to explain thedifferent cosmological evolution shown by the BOSS Col-laboration at higher redshifts. However, this differencefrom ΛCDM dynamics is also encoded in the angular dis-tances, as inferred by the BAO measurement. We nowcompare the results for these parameters by performinga global fit analysis of the interacting model with thecurrently available data.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Methodology

Now that we see some evidence that the interact-ing dark energy models can explain the deviation from

ΛCDM observed by BOSS, we perform a Bayesian statis-tical analysis of those models with the Planck and BOSSLy-α quasar data. We wish to compare the interactingdark energy models presented here against ΛCDM andtest their predictions with the addition of the new BOSSdata. In order to achieve this, we perform a global fitby running the CosmoMC package [28], a publicly avail-able code that performs an MCMC parameter sampling.To include the interaction between dark energy and darkmatter, we modify the Boltzmann code CAMB [29] byadding the coupling constants ξ2 for model II and ξ1 formodel III and by adding the constant dark energy EoS tothe baseline ΛCDM parameters used by Planck [1]. Fromnow on, we will omit model I from the analysis since thismodel showed us it was not very good to explain the newBOSS data. Also, this model does not help alleviate thecoincidence problem. Model I will be explored in moredetail in a follow-up paper.

The goal of this work is to compare the results of ourglobal fit of the cosmic distances and expansion rates forthe interacting models with the results obtained by theBOSS Collaboration. We also want to derive parameterconstraints using cosmic microwave background (CMB)and BAO data, testing the sensitivity of the parametersand in the total goodness of fit when we include the newBAO data from higher redshifts. The novelty of this workis in the BAO data that we use. The BOSS Collaborationwas the first team to measure the BAO from the auto-correlation of the quasar Ly-α forest for higher redshifts.We use the autocorrelation measurements from the DR11catalog from the BOSS experiment of SDSS which con-tains 158, 401 quasars in the redshift range 2.1 ≤ z ≤ 3.5

5

[3]. From the same volume, cross-correlation of quasarswith the Ly-α absorption forest [30] was obtained for thesame redshift range. We are able to use both sets of data,since those can be considered as independent, given thatthe fluctuations in the measurements are dominated bydifferent sources of systematics and not by cosmic vari-ance. This analysis can be made by using the baofit soft-ware provided by the BOSS Collaboration and the χ2

surfaces provided for each one of those measurements2.

For our global fit of the interacting dark energy models,we used the Planck 2013 TT power spectrum in both thelow-` (2 ≤ ` < 50) and high-` (50 ≤ ` ≤ 2500) regimes.Together with the Planck data, we include the polariza-tion measurements from the nine-year WMAP [31], thelow-` (` < 32) TE, EE, and BB likelihoods. In our firstanalysis, to illustrate the tension in the distance measure-ments between the BOSS measurement and our global fitusing Planck data, we combine the autocorrelation andcross-correlation χ2 surfaces provided by the BOSS Col-laboration.

We also perform a joint analysis, where we includein the CosmoMC analysis the likelihood of the BOSSquasar Ly-α forest at z = 2.34. We can combine thisnew BAO data set with the CMB data sets since theyare completely independent. This was made in a veryconservative way by inserting the two sets of Gaus-sian likelihoods constructed with the best fit values of(DA(z = 2.34)/rd, DH(z = 2.34)/rd) for the autocorre-lation and cross-correlation given in Refs. [3, 30]. Thisappears to be a good choice, given that the study of BAOfrom Ly-α is a novel field3.

We used flat priors within the Planck 2013 ranges forall the “vanilla” ΛCDM parameters [1]. The couplingconstants4 and dark energy EoS also received flat priorswith ξ2 ∈ [0, 0.4[ for model II, ξ1 ∈ [0, 0.01] for modelIII, and ω ∈ [−2.5, −1.001] for both models. We recallthat we cannot allow for ω = −1 since this represents asingularity in the perturbation equations. The priors aresummarized in Table III.

TABLE III: Priors for the parameters of the interacting darkenergy models. We recall that the definition of the differentmodels is summarized in Table I.

Model Prior on ω Prior on ξII [-2.5 , -1.001] [0 , 0.4[III [-2.5 , -1.001] [0 , 0.01]

2 Available at http://github.com/deepzot/baofit/.3 Although this is a novel field, Ref. [3] claims that the results are

robust according to a consistency check using mock catalogs.4 The coupling constants are expected to be small and positive,

for models II and III, from the previous analysis of Ref. [27].This was also indicated by the analysis in Fig. 1. These resultsmotivated our choice of priors for the interacting dark energyparameters.

B. Results

We wish to compare the constraints in DA(z =2.34)/rd×DH(z = 2.34)/rd found by the BOSS Collabo-ration with the global fits of the interacting dark energymodels. We present these results in Fig. 2. The blackcontour curves show the combined contours from theBOSS data for the autocorrelation and cross-correlation5,given that those data are independent.

First, we perform the analysis using only CMB datafor the ΛCDM and interacting dark energy models. Theconstraints are shown by the blue contours in Fig. 2 formodels II and III. We show for comparison the ΛCDMbest fit values (green lines), where we obtain results com-patible with Ref. [3], which confirms that ΛCDM dif-fers from the BOSS combined contours by at least 2σ.When we test the interacting models (blue contours), thisdifference is reduced, and we can see that the contoursoverlap with the 2σ region of the BOSS combined data.Model II, for which we find6 DH/rd = 8.72(8.73)0.09

0.05 andDA/rd = 11.69(11.63) ± 0.08, shows the biggest overlapwith the BOSS results (1.5σ and 1.7σ for DH/rd andDA/rd, respectively). The very elongated contours ofmodel III imply that this conclusion is less strong in thiscase.

Although we show an apparent better concordancein comparison with the marginal overlap that ΛCDMpresents for DA(z = 2.34)/rd × DH(z = 2.34)/rd, thisdoes not represent an improvement in the fit, since theaddition of extra parameters in the model can be theresponsible for that. We can see the same type ofnot-statistically-significant improvement for ωCDM andother dynamical dark energy models in Ref. [22]. If youcompare the constraints of our model II with the onesfor ωCDM at z = 2.34 (see Fig. 7 of Ref. [22]), you cansee that those contours almost overlap, showing a similarconcordance with the new BOSS data.

Following that, we perform a joint analysis of the BOSSquasar Ly-α data together with the CMB data. We wishto compare the improvement of the fit when including thenew BOSS data. Our results indicate that ΛCDM is notsensitive to the inclusion of this data set (BOSS quasarLy-α data), and therefore it cannot accommodate thechange in the Hubble parameter at high redshift. Thisshows a tension between those data sets.

The global fit of all the parameters of the interact-ing models reveals that the best fit values of the sixvanilla ΛCDM parameters are compatible with the onesobtained by Planck [1], except for model I, where thevalues for the density of matter show they are not inagreement with the Planck value. We use ∆χ2

eff to quan-tify the improvement in the maximum likelihood of the

5 These contours are the same as the black contour curves thatone can find in Fig. 13 of Ref. [3].

6 Best fit values are presented inside brackets.

6

DA (z = 2.34) /rd

DH(z

=2.34)/r

d

11.4 12.0 12.6

9.25

9.00

8.75

8.50

10.8

Model II

DA (z = 2.34) /rd

DH(z

=2.34)/r

d

11.4 12.0 12.6

9.00

8.75

8.50

10.8

9.25Model III

FIG. 2: Plot of the 68.3% and 95.5% likelihood contours in DA(z = 2.34)/rd×DH(z = 2.34)/rd comparing the BOSS combined(autocorrelation and cross-correlation) contour in black with the results for the interacting models from the runs using Planckdata in blue. Interacting model II is shown in the left panel and model III in the right panel. The green lines show the best fitvalues for ΛCDM.

interacting dark energy models using only Planck datain comparison to when we combine it with the likelihoodfrom the BOSS team quasar data. We found ∆χ2

eff to be−0.04, −2.88, and −1.85, for models I, II and III, respec-tively. Although these improvements are not statisticallysignificant, they indicate that the interacting models, andespecially model II, are mildly favored by the data. An-other test that also shows that the improvement betweenthe runs is not statistically significant is the reduced χ2,computed for all models. This test takes into accountthat the interacting dark energy models have two ex-tra degrees of freedom, in comparison with the ΛCDMmodel. The difference in the reduced χ2 between theinteracting models and ΛCDM is not significant; e.g.,model II presents the biggest “improvement” of the or-der of 10−5. However, one needs to be very careful whenusing an improvement diagnostic like ∆χ2

eff since the bestfit values in CosmoMC may not be fully trustworthy andsince this result could come from statistics overfitting thenoisy data [32].

In the MCMC analysis of the interacting models, wealso obtained the adjusted values of the coupling con-stants. As was shown in Ref. [27], using only the Planckdata is not sufficient to fully constrain the coupling con-stants. We note that we obtain the same result here,even with the inclusion of the BOSS quasar data: we findξ2 < 0.045 (0.048) for model II and ξ1 < 0.0016 (0.0015)for model III. The upper bound on the coupling con-stant for model II is close to the ones predicted in

Sec. II-B (see Fig. 1). Indeed, the corresponding Hub-ble parameters that result from the MCMC analysis areH(2.34) = 232(231) ± 2 km/s/Mpc for model II andH(2.34) = 234(234)2

3 km/s/Mpc for model III, a littlebit more than 1σ away from the BOSS result7, resultingin a reduced tension compared to ΛCDM. This indicatesthat the interacting models are good candidates to ex-plain the observed deviation from ΛCDM from high-zBAO probes. The upper bound on the coupling constantfor model III is much smaller than expected from Fig. 1.Still, it represents an improvement over ΛCDM in ex-plaining the BOSS results as seen from Fig. 2, althoughto a smaller extent than model II.

The upper bounds found for the coupling constantsare compatible with small positive values. Although wecannot exclude the possibility that the coupling constantsare zero with the data set used, we can see from theconstraints obtained for the EoS of dark energy that ourmodels are not consistent with ΛCDM. The EoS for darkenergy obtained in the MCMC analysis are the following:

7 We would like to stress that H(z) is a model-dependent quantity,while DH/rd is not. It is in this context that we compare ourresults with BOSS. However, since we find that the fitted valuesfor rd are approximately equal to what one expects in ΛCDM(given the use of the Planck data), we can still compare the Hub-ble parameter values for the interacting models with the BOSSresult.

7

FIG. 3: Contour plot of the EoS for dark energy (ω) vs thecoupling constant between dark energy and dark matter (ξ).In purple, we present the interacting model II, and in gray,we present the interacting model III fitted to the Planck data.The cosmological constant Λ of ΛCDM corresponds to ω =−1, and it is depicted by the dashed black horizontal line.

considering only Planck data, ω = −1.51(−1.55)+0.32−0.30 for

model II and ω = −1.75(−1.668)+0.46−0.29 for model III. We

can also see the constraints in the ω × ξ plot, presentedin Fig. 3. The dashed black horizontal line representsthe value of the dark energy EoS for ΛCDM, ω = −1.These contours show a small preference for ω < −1 ratherthan ω = −1 given the priors, ω = [−2.5 , −1.001], withmodel II showing a slightly tighter constraint than theprior range. This result should be interpreted carefullysince our prior is very close to −1 (but it is not including−1), and there can be boundary effects that might notbe taken into account. Also, we have a large degeneracybetween ω and ξ.

A more detailed analysis will be presented in a follow-up paper where we will combine this analysis with differ-ent cosmological probes, aiming at fully constraining thecoupling constant of the interacting models.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we explored the consequences of interact-ing dark energy in light of the recent results by the BOSSexperiment. The BOSS data indicate that the Hubbleparameter at z = 2.34 is smaller than what one wouldexpect from the standard ΛCDM model, something thatcannot be explained by simple dynamical dark energymodels such as quintessence. Our results suggest thatinteracting dark energy can naturally explain the BOSS

data without introducing exotic forms of dark energy.,although further studies are necessary.

We tested three different phenomenological models ofinteracting dark energy. First, we computed the theo-retical value of the Hubble parameter at z = 2.34 fordifferent sets of cosmological parameters. Models II andIII showed they were in good agreement with the obser-vations for a small positive coupling constant. Further-more, such a positive coupling constant can help alleviatethe coincidence problem. Model I was omitted from theanalysis since it did not contribute to reducing the ten-sion with the BOSS data, and also, in general, it doesnot help relieve the coincidence problem.

We then performed a global fit of those models giventhe Planck 2013 and BOSS quasar Ly-α data. Thisshowed that models II and III present a bigger overlapwith the BOSS Collaboration results than what ΛCDMachieves. However, this improvement and also the im-provement in the χ2 when we made the joint analysiswith CMB and BOSS likelihoods do not seem to justifythe inclusion of extra parameters in the model as done bythe interacting models. In this analysis, we can also seefrom the EoS obtained that those models are marginallydifferent than ΛCDM. Yet, the results still suggest thatthe interacting dark energy models presented in this pa-per can be used to explain the deviations from ΛCDMfound in high-z BAO, and they represent a simpler solu-tion than invoking exotic dark energy models.

In order to further constrain interacting dark energymodels, one could refine the analysis done in this workby using more data sets and by combining the BOSSdata with other observations. A more detailed analy-sis of the global fit of those models with the inclusionof BOSS data is the topic of a follow-up paper that iscurrently in preparation. We also need improvements inthe BAO data at high redshifts. For models that allowthe Hubble parameter to change with time such as in-teracting dark energy and other dynamical dark energymodels (e.g., see Ref. [22]), we can see that the inclusionof the BAO data set changes considerably the results, in-dicating that this new data set is robust. However, withthe use of only high-redshift BAO data, we are still notable to statistically differentiate between models of darkenergy. New large scale structure surveys, like the JPAStelescope [33], will be able to reproduce and improve theBAO measurements at high redshifts since this instru-ment is supposed to be optimized to measure quasarsat high redshifts compared to previous experiments [34].Other large scale structure new windows of observation,like the 21 cm emission line from neutral hydrogen, willalso contribute in the future for constraining dark energy[35]. Interacting dark energy models might also help alle-viate the tension between other large-scale structure datasets and Planck such as, for example, cosmic shear probesfrom CFHTLenS [36, 37].

8

Acknowledgments

We thank Gil Holder for useful discussions. E. F.and E. A. acknowledge financial support from ConselhoNacional de Desenvolvimento Cientıfico e Tecnologico(CNPq) and from Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa doEstado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP). J. Q. acknowledges thesupport, throughout the completion of this work, of theFonds de Recherche du Quebec — Nature et Technolo-gies (FRQNT), the Walter C. Sumner Foundation, andthe Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council(NSERC) of Canada via the Vanier Canada GraduateScholarships program. A. C. thanks FAPESP and Coor-dination for the Improvement of Higher Education Per-

sonnel (CAPES) for the financial support under GrantNo. 2013/26496-2 (FAPESP). B. W. is supported by theNational Basic Research Program of China (973 Pro-gram No. 2013CB834900) and by the National Natu-ral Science Foundation of China. This work has madeuse of the computing facilities of the Laboratory of As-troinformatics (IAG/USP, NAT/Unicsul), the purchaseof which was made possible by the Brazilian agencyFAPESP (2009/54006-4) and the INCT-A. Computa-tions were also made in part on the supercomputer Guil-limin from McGill University, managed by Calcul Quebecand Compute Canada. The operation of this supercom-puter is funded by the Canada Foundation for Innovation(CFI), NanoQuebec, RMGA, and FRQNT.

[1] P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], “Planck 2013results. XVI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astro-phys. 571, A16 (2014) [arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO]].

[2] P. Bull et al., “Beyond ΛCDM: Problems, solutions,and the road ahead,” Phys. Dark Univ. 12, 56 (2016)[arXiv:1512.05356 [astro-ph.CO]].

[3] T. Delubac et al. [BOSS Collaboration], “Baryon acous-tic oscillations in the Lyα forest of BOSS DR11 quasars,”Astron. Astrophys. 574, A59 (2015) [arXiv:1404.1801[astro-ph.CO]].

[4] E. J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa, “Dynamicsof dark energy,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006)[hep-th/0603057].

[5] T. Damour, G. W. Gibbons and C. Gundlach, “DarkMatter, Time Varying G, and a Dilaton Field,” Phys.Rev. Lett. 64, 123 (1990).

[6] S. Micheletti, E. Abdalla and B. Wang, “A Field TheoryModel for Dark Matter and Dark Energy in Interaction,”Phys. Rev. D 79, 123506 (2009) [arXiv:0902.0318 [gr-qc]].

[7] S. M. R. Micheletti, “Observational constraints on holo-graphic tachyonic dark energy in interaction with darkmatter,” JCAP 1005, 009 (2010) [arXiv:0912.3992 [gr-qc]].

[8] K. Koyama, R. Maartens and Y. S. Song, “Velocities asa probe of dark sector interactions,” JCAP 0910, 017(2009) [arXiv:0907.2126 [astro-ph.CO]].

[9] L. Amendola, “Coupled quintessence,” Phys. Rev. D 62,043511 (2000) [astro-ph/9908023].

[10] B. Wang, Y. g. Gong and E. Abdalla, “Transition ofthe dark energy equation of state in an interacting holo-graphic dark energy model,” Phys. Lett. B 624, 141(2005) [hep-th/0506069].

[11] J. H. He, B. Wang and E. Abdalla, “Stability of the cur-vature perturbation in dark sectors’ mutual interactingmodels,” Phys. Lett. B 671, 139 (2009) [arXiv:0807.3471[gr-qc]].

[12] J. H. He and B. Wang, “Effects of the interaction betweendark energy and dark matter on cosmological parame-ters,” JCAP 0806, 010 (2008) [arXiv:0801.4233 [astro-ph]].

[13] J. H. He, B. Wang and E. Abdalla, “Testing the in-teraction between dark energy and dark matter vialatest observations,” Phys. Rev. D 83, 063515 (2011)[arXiv:1012.3904 [astro-ph.CO]].

[14] A. B. Pavan, E. G. M. Ferreira, S. Micheletti, J. C. C. deSouza and E. Abdalla, “Exact cosmological solutions ofmodels with an interacting dark sector,” Phys. Rev. D86, 103521 (2012) [arXiv:1111.6526 [gr-qc]].

[15] E. Abdalla, L. L. Graef and B. Wang, “A Model forDark Energy decay,” Phys. Lett. B 726, 786 (2013)[arXiv:1202.0499 [gr-qc]].

[16] A. A. Costa, L. C. Olivari and E. Abdalla, “Quintessencewith Yukawa Interaction,” Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 10,103501 (2015) [arXiv:1411.3660 [astro-ph.CO]].

[17] V. Faraoni, J. B. Dent and E. N. Saridakis, “Co-variantizing the interaction between dark energy anddark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 6, 063510 (2014)[arXiv:1405.7288 [gr-qc]].

[18] V. Salvatelli, N. Said, M. Bruni, A. Melchiorri andD. Wands, “Indications of a late-time interaction in thedark sector,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, no. 18, 181301 (2014)[arXiv:1406.7297 [astro-ph.CO]].

[19] R. C. Nunes, S. Pan and E. N. Saridakis, “Newconstraints on interacting dark energy from cosmicchronometers,” Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 2, 023508 (2016)[arXiv:1605.01712 [astro-ph.CO]].

[20] A. A. Costa, X. D. Xu, B. Wang and E. Abdalla, “Con-straints on interacting dark energy models from Planck2015 and redshift-space distortion data,” JCAP 1701,no. 01, 028 (2017) [arXiv:1605.04138 [astro-ph.CO]].

[21] R. J. F. Marcondes, R. C. G. Landim, A. A. Costa,B. Wang and E. Abdalla, “Analytic study of the ef-fect of dark energy-dark matter interaction on thegrowth of structures,” JCAP 1612, no. 12, 009 (2016)[arXiv:1605.05264 [astro-ph.CO]].

[22] E. Aubourg et al., “Cosmological implications of baryonacoustic oscillation measurements,” Phys. Rev. D 92, no.12, 123516 (2015) [arXiv:1411.1074 [astro-ph.CO]].

[23] V. H. Cardenas, “Exploring hints for dark energy densityevolution in light of recent data,” Phys. Lett. B 750, 128(2015) [arXiv:1405.5116 [astro-ph.CO]].

[24] V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo and A. A. Starobinsky, “Modelindependent evidence for dark energy evolution fromBaryon Acoustic Oscillations,” Astrophys. J. 793, no.2, L40 (2014) [arXiv:1406.2209 [astro-ph.CO]].

[25] C. Feng, B. Wang, E. Abdalla and R. K. Su, “Obser-vational constraints on the dark energy and dark mat-ter mutual coupling,” Phys. Lett. B 665, 111 (2008)

9

[arXiv:0804.0110 [astro-ph]].[26] P. C. Ferreira, D. Pavon and J. C. Carvalho, “On detect-

ing interactions in the dark sector with H(z) data,” Phys.Rev. D 88, 083503 (2013) [arXiv:1310.2160 [gr-qc]].

[27] A. A. Costa, X. D. Xu, B. Wang, E. G. M. Ferreira andE. Abdalla, “Testing the Interaction between Dark En-ergy and Dark Matter with Planck Data,” Phys. Rev.D 89, no. 10, 103531 (2014) [arXiv:1311.7380 [astro-ph.CO]].

[28] A. Lewis and S. Bridle, “Cosmological parameters fromCMB and other data: A Monte Carlo approach,” Phys.Rev. D 66, 103511 (2002) [astro-ph/0205436].

[29] A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby, “Efficient com-putation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models,”Astrophys. J. 538, 473 (2000) [astro-ph/9911177].

[30] A. Font-Ribera et al. [BOSS Collaboration], “Quasar-Lyman α Forest Cross-Correlation from BOSS DR11 :Baryon Acoustic Oscillations,” JCAP 1405, 027 (2014)[arXiv:1311.1767 [astro-ph.CO]].

[31] C. L. Bennett et al. [WMAP Collaboration], “Nine-YearWilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Obser-vations: Final Maps and Results,” Astrophys. J. Suppl.208, 20 (2013) [arXiv:1212.5225 [astro-ph.CO]].

[32] P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], “Planck 2013

results. XXII. Constraints on inflation,” Astron. Astro-phys. 571, A22 (2014) [arXiv:1303.5082 [astro-ph.CO]].

[33] N. Benitez et al. [J-PAS Collaboration], “J-PAS: TheJavalambre-Physics of the Accelerated Universe Astro-physical Survey,” arXiv:1403.5237 [astro-ph.CO].

[34] L. R. Abramo et al., “Measuring large-scale struc-ture with quasars in narrow-band filter surveys,” Mon.Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 423, no. 4, 3251 (2012)[arXiv:1108.2657 [astro-ph.CO]].

[35] R. A. Battye, I. W. A. Browne, C. Dickinson, G. Heron,B. Maffei and A. Pourtsidou, “HI intensity mapping : asingle dish approach,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 434,1239 (2013) [arXiv:1209.0343 [astro-ph.CO]].

[36] S. Joudaki et al., “CFHTLenS revisited: assessing con-cordance with Planck including astrophysical systemat-ics,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 465, no. 2, 2033 (2016)[arXiv:1601.05786 [astro-ph.CO]].

[37] N. MacCrann, J. Zuntz, S. Bridle, B. Jain andM. R. Becker, “Cosmic Discordance: Are Planck CMBand CFHTLenS weak lensing measurements out oftune?,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 451, no. 3, 2877(2015) [arXiv:1408.4742 [astro-ph.CO]].