• DOI:10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d
• Corpus ID: 232092525

In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions * * In honor of the seminal work by E Hubble [1]

@article{DiValentino2021InTR,
  title={In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions * * In honor of the seminal work by E Hubble [1]},
  author={Eleonora Di Valentino and Olga Mena and Supriya Pan and Luca Visinelli and Weiqiang Yang and Alessandro Melchiorri and David F. Mota and Adam G. Riess and Joseph I. Silk},
  journal={Classical and Quantum Gravity},
  year={2021},
  volume={38}
}

• E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, +6 authors J. Silk
• Published 1 March 2021
• Physics
• Classical and Quantum Gravity

 The simplest ΛCDM model provides a good fit to a large span of cosmological data but harbors large areas of phenomenology and ignorance. With the improvement of the number and the accuracy of observations, discrepancies among key cosmological parameters of the model have emerged. The most statistically significant tension is the 4σ to 6σ disagreement between predictions of the Hubble constant, H 0, made by the early time probes in concert with the ‘vanilla’ ΛCDM cosmological model, and a number of late time, model-independent determinations of H 0 from local measurements of distances and redshifts. The high precision and consistency of the data at both ends present strong challenges to the possible solution space and demands a hypothesis with enough rigor to explain multiple observations—whether these invoke new physics, unexpected large-scale structures or multiple, unrelated errors. A thorough review of the problem including a discussion of recent Hubble constant estimates and a summary of the proposed theoretical solutions is presented here. We include more than 1000 references, indicating that the interest in this area has grown considerably just during the last few years. We classify the many proposals to resolve the tension in these categories: early dark energy, late dark energy, dark energy models with 6 degrees of freedom and their extensions, models with extra relativistic degrees of freedom, models with extra interactions, unified cosmologies, modified gravity, inflationary models, modified recombination history, physics of the critical phenomena, and alternative proposals. Some are formally successful, improving the fit to the data in light of their additional degrees of freedom, restoring agreement within 1–2σ between Planck 2018, using the cosmic microwave background power spectra data, baryon acoustic oscillations, Pantheon SN data, and R20, the latest SH0ES Team Riess, et al (2021 Astrophys. J. 908 L6) measurement of the Hubble constant (H 0 = 73.2 ± 1.3 km s−1 Mpc−1 at 68% confidence level). However, there are many more unsuccessful models which leave the discrepancy well above the 3σ disagreement level. In many cases, reduced tension comes not simply from a change in the value of H 0 but also due to an increase in its uncertainty due to degeneracy with additional physics, complicating the picture and pointing to the need for additional probes. While no specific proposal makes a strong case for being highly likely or far better than all others, solutions involving early or dynamical dark energy, neutrino interactions, interacting cosmologies, primordial magnetic fields, and modified gravity provide the best options until a better alternative comes along.