27.

Dark energy 1
27. Dark Energy
Revised September 2019 by D. H. Weinberg (OSU) and M. White (UCB, LBL)

27.1. Repulsive Gravity and Cosmic Acceleration

In the first modern cosmological model, Einstein [1] modified his field equation of
General Relativity (GR), introducing a “cosmological term” that enabled a solution with
time-independent, spatially homogeneous matter density ρm and constant positive space
curvature. Although Einstein did not frame it this way, one can view the “cosmological
constant” Λ as representing a constant energy density of the vacuum [2], whose repulsive
gravitational effect balances the attractive gravity of matter and thereby allows a static
solution. After the development of dynamic cosmological models [3,4] and the discovery
of cosmic expansion [5], the cosmological term appeared unnecessary, and Einstein and
de Sitter [6] advocated adopting an expanding, homogeneous and isotropic, spatially
flat, matter-dominated Universe as the default cosmology until observations dictated
otherwise. Such a model has matter density equal to the critical density, Ωm ≡ ρm /ρc = 1,
and negligible contribution from other energy components [7].
By the mid-1990s, the Einstein-de Sitter model was showing numerous cracks,
under the combined onslaught of data from the cosmic microwave background (CMB),
large-scale galaxy clustering, and direct estimates of the matter density, the expansion
rate (H0 ), and the age of the Universe. As noted in a number of papers from this
time, introducing a cosmological constant offered a potential resolution of many of these
tensions, yielding the most empirically successful version of the inflationary cold dark
matter scenario. In the late 1990s, supernova surveys by two independent teams provided
direct evidence for accelerating cosmic expansion [8,9], establishing the cosmological
constant model (with Ωm ≃ 0.3, ΩΛ ≃ 0.7) as the preferred alternative to the Ωm = 1
scenario. Shortly thereafter, CMB evidence for a spatially flat Universe [10,11], and
thus for Ωtot ≃ 1, cemented the case for cosmic acceleration by firmly eliminating the
free-expansion alternative with Ωm ≪ 1 and ΩΛ = 0. Today, the accelerating Universe
is well established by multiple lines of independent evidence from a tight web of precise
cosmological measurements.
As discussed in the Big Bang Cosmology article of this Review (Sec. 21), the scale
factor R(t) of a homogeneous and isotropic Universe governed by GR grows at an
accelerating rate if the pressure p < − 31 ρ (in c = 1 units). A cosmological constant has
ρΛ = constant and pressure pΛ = −ρΛ (see Eq. 21.10), so it will drive acceleration if it
dominates the total energy density. However, acceleration could arise from a more general
form of “dark energy” that has negative pressure, typically specified in terms of the
equation-of-state-parameter w = p/ρ (= −1 for a cosmological constant). Furthermore,
the conclusion that acceleration requires a new energy component beyond matter and
radiation relies on the assumption that GR is the correct description of gravity on
cosmological scales. The title of this article follows the common but inexact usage of
“dark energy” as a catch-all term for the origin of cosmic acceleration, regardless of
whether it arises from a new form of energy or a modification of GR. Our account here
draws on the much longer review of cosmic acceleration by Ref. [12], which provides
background explanation and extensive literature references for the discussion in Secs.
27.2 and 27.3.
M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018) and 2019 update
December 6, 2019 12:03
2 27. Dark energy
Below we will use the abbreviation ΛCDM to refer to a model with cold dark matter,
a cosmological constant, inflationary initial conditions, standard radiation and neutrino
content, and a flat Universe with Ωtot = 1 (though we will sometimes describe this model
as “flat ΛCDM” to emphasize this last restriction). We will use wCDM to denote a model
with the same assumptions but a free, constant value of w. Models with the prefix “o”
(e.g., owCDM) allow non-zero space curvature.

27.2. Theories of Cosmic Acceleration

27.2.1. Dark Energy or Modified Gravity? :
A cosmological constant is the mathematically simplest, and perhaps the physically
simplest, theoretical explanation for the accelerating Universe. The problem is explaining
its unnaturally small magnitude, as discussed in Sec. 21.4.7 of this Review. An alternative
(which still requires finding a way to make the cosmological constant zero or at least
negligibly small) is that the accelerating cosmic expansion is driven by a new form of
energy such as a scalar field [13] with potential V (φ). The energy density and pressure of
the field φ(x) take the same forms as for inflationary scalar fields, given in Eq. (21.52) of
the Big Bang Cosmology article. In the limit that 21 φ̇2 ≪ |V (φ)|, the scalar field acts like
a cosmological constant, with pφ ≃ −ρφ . In this scenario, today’s cosmic acceleration is
closely akin to the epoch of inflation, but with radically different energy and timescale.
More generally, the value of w = pφ /ρφ in scalar field models evolves with time in a
way that depends on V (φ) and on the initial conditions (φi , φ̇i ); some forms of V (φ) have
attractor solutions in which the late-time behavior is insensitive to initial values. Many
forms of time evolution are possible, including ones where w is approximately constant
and broad classes where w “freezes” towards or “thaws” away from w = −1, with the
transition occurring when the field comes to dominate the total energy budget. If ρφ is
even approximately constant, then it becomes dynamically insignificant at high redshift,
because the matter density scales as ρm ∝ (1 + z)3 . “Early dark energy” models are ones
in which ρφ is a small but not negligible fraction (e.g., a few percent) of the total energy
throughout the matter- and radiation-dominated eras, tracking the dominant component
before itself coming to dominate at low redshift.
Instead of introducing a new energy component, one can attempt to modify gravity
in a way that leads to accelerated expansion [14]. One option is to replace the Ricci
scalar R with a function R + f (R) in the gravitational action [15]. Other changes can
be more radical, such as introducing extra dimensions and allowing gravitons to “leak”
off the brane that represents the observable Universe (the “DGP” model [16]) . The
DGP example has inspired a more general class of “galileon” and massive gravity models.
Constructing viable modified gravity models is challenging, in part because it is easy to
introduce theoretical inconsistencies (such as “ghost” fields with negative kinetic energy),
but above all because GR is a theory with many high-precision empirical successes on
solar system scales [17]. Modified gravity models typically invoke screening mechanisms
that force model predictions to approach those of GR in regions of high density or strong
gravitational potential. Screening offers potentially distinctive signatures, as the strength

December 6, 2019 12:03

 27. Dark energy 3
of gravity (i.e., the effective value of GN ) can vary by order unity in environments with
different gravitational potentials.
More generally, one can search for signatures of modified gravity by comparing the
history of cosmic structure growth to the history of cosmic expansion. Within GR, these
two are linked by a consistency relation, as described below (Eq. (27.2)). Modifying
gravity can change the predicted rate of structure growth, and it can make the growth
rate dependent on scale or environment. In some circumstances, modifying gravity alters
the combinations of potentials responsible for gravitational lensing and the dynamics of
non-relativistic tracers (such as galaxies or stars) in different ways (see Sec. 21.4.7 in this
Review), leading to order unity mismatches between the masses of objects inferred from
lensing and those inferred from dynamics in unscreened environments.
At present there are no fully realized and empirically viable modified gravity theories
that explain the observed level of cosmic acceleration. The constraints on f (R) models
now force them so close to GR that they cannot produce acceleration without introducing
a separate dark energy component [18]. The DGP model is empirically ruled out
by several tests, including the expansion history, the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect,
and redshift-space distortion measurements of the structure growth rate [19]. The
near-simultaneous arrival of gravitational waves and electromagnetic signals from the
neutron star merger event GW170817, which shows that gravitational waves travel at
almost exactly the speed of light, is a further strong constraint on modified gravity
theories [20]. The elimination of models should be considered an important success of
the program to empirically test theories of cosmic acceleration. However, it is worth
recalling that there was no fully realized gravitational explanation for the precession of
Mercury’s orbit prior to the completion of GR in 1915, and the fact that no complete
and viable modified gravity theory exists today does not mean that one will not arise in
the future. In the meantime, we can continue empirical investigations that can tighten
restrictions on such theories or perhaps point towards the gravitational sector as the
origin of accelerating expansion.

27.2.2. Expansion History and Growth of Structure :

The main line of empirical attack on dark energy is to measure the history of cosmic
expansion and the history of matter clustering with the greatest achievable precision
over a wide range of redshift. Within GR, the expansion rate H(z) is governed by
the Friedmann equation (see the articles on Big Bang Cosmology and Cosmological
Parameters—Secs. 21 and 24 in this Review). For dark energy with an equation of state
w(z), the cosmological constant contribution to the expansion, ΩΛ , is replaced by a
redshift-dependent contribution. The evolution of the dark energy density follows from
Eq. (21.10),
 Z z
dz ′

ρde (z)
Ωde = Ωde exp 3 ′
[1 + w(z )] = Ωde (1 + z)3(1+w) , (27.1)
ρde (z = 0) 0 1+z ′

where the second equality holds for constant w. If Ωm , Ωr , and the present value of Ωtot
are known, then measuring H(z) pins down w(z). (Note that Ωde is the same quantity

December 6, 2019 12:03

4 27. Dark energy
denoted Ωv in Sec. 21, but we have adopted the ‘de’ subscript to avoid implying that
dark energy is necessarily a vacuum effect.)
While some observations can probe H(z) directly, others measure the distance-redshift
relation. The basic relations between angular diameter distance or luminosity distance
and H(z) are given in Ch. 21 —and these are generally unaltered in time-dependent dark
energy or modified gravity models. For convenience, in later sections, we will sometimes
refer to the comoving angular distance, DA,c (z) = (1 + z)DA (z).
In GR-based linear perturbation theory, the density contrast δ(x, t) ≡ ρ(x, t)/ρ̄(t) − 1
of pressureless matter grows in proportion to the linear growth function G(t) (not to be
confused with the gravitational constant GN ), which follows the differential equation

3
G̈ + 2H(z)Ġ − Ωm H02 (1 + z)3 G = 0 . (27.2)
2
To a good approximation, the logarithmic derivative of G(z) is

2 γ
3 H0

d ln G
f (z) ≡ − ≃ Ωm (1 + z) , (27.3)
d ln(1 + z) H 2 (z)

where γ ≃ 0.55 for relevant values of cosmological parameters [21]. In an Ωm = 1

Universe, G(z) ∝ (1 + z)−1 , but growth slows when Ωm drops significantly below unity.
One can integrate Eq. (27.3) to get an approximate integral relation between G(z)
and H(z), but the full (numerical) solution to Eq. (27.2) should be used for precision
calculations. Even in the non-linear regime, the amplitude of clustering is determined
mainly by G(z), so observations of non-linear structure can be used to infer the linear
G(z), provided one has good theoretical modeling to relate the two.
In modified gravity models the growth rate of gravitational clustering may differ from
the GR prediction. A general strategy to test modified gravity, therefore, is to measure
both the expansion history and the growth history to see whether they yield consistent
results for H(z) or w(z).

27.2.3. Parameters :
Constraining a general history of w(z) is nearly impossible, because the dark energy
density, which affects H(z), is given by an integral over w(z), and distances and the
growth factor involve a further integration over functions of H(z). Oscillations in w(z)
over a range ∆z/(1 + z) ≪ 1 are therefore extremely difficult to constrain. It has become
conventional to phrase constraints or projected constraints on w(z) in terms of a linear
evolution model,
w(a) = w0 + wa (1 − a) = wp + wa (ap − a), (27.4)
where a ≡ (1 + z)−1 , w0 is the value of w at z = 0, and wp is the value of w at a “pivot”
redshift zp ≡ a−1
p − 1, where it is best constrained by a given set of experiments. For
typical data combinations, zp ≃ 0.5. This simple parameterization can provide a good
approximation to the predictions of many physically motivated models for observables
measured with percent-level precision. A widely used “Figure of Merit” (FoM) for

December 6, 2019 12:03

 27. Dark energy 5
dark energy experiments [22] is the projected combination of errors [σ(wp )σ(wa )]−1 .
Ambitious future experiments with 0.1–0.3% precision on observables can constrain richer
descriptions of w(z), which can be characterized by principal components.
There has been less convergence on a standard parameterization for describing modified
gravity theories. Deviations from the GR-predicted growth rate can be described by
a deviation ∆γ in the index of Eq. (27.3), together with an overall multiplicative
offset relative to the G(z) expected from extrapolating the CMB-measured fluctuation
amplitude to low redshift. However, these two parameters may not accurately capture
the growth predictions of all physically interesting models. Another important parameter
to constrain is the ratio of the gravitational potentials governing space curvature and the
acceleration of non-relativistic test particles. The possible phenomenology of modified
gravity models is rich, which enables many consistency tests but complicates the task of
constructing parameterized descriptions.
The more general set of cosmological parameters is discussed elsewhere in this Review
(Sec. 24), but here we highlight a few that are particularly important to the dark energy
discussion.
• The dimensionless Hubble parameter h ≡ H0 /100 km s−1 Mpc−1 determines the
present day value of the critical density and the overall scaling of distances inferred
from redshifts.
• Ωm and Ωtot affect the expansion history and the distance-redshift relation.
• The sound horizon rs = 0trec cs (t)dt/a(t), the comoving distance that pressure waves
R

can propagate between t = 0 and recombination, determines the physical scale of

the acoustic peaks in the CMB and the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) feature in
low-redshift matter clustering [23].
• The amplitude of matter fluctuations, conventionally represented by the quantity
σ8 (z), scales the overall amplitude of growth measures such as weak lensing or
redshift-space distortions (discussed in the next section).
Specifically, σ8 (z) refers to the rms fluctuation of the matter overdensity ρ/ρ̄ in spheres
of radius 8 h−1 Mpc, computed from the linear theory matter power spectrum at redshift
z, and σ8 on its own refers to the value at z = 0 (just like our convention for Ωm ).
While discussions of dark energy are frequently phrased in terms of values and errors
on quantities like wp , wa , ∆γ, and Ωtot , parameter precision is the means to an end,
not an end in itself. The underlying goal of empirical studies of cosmic acceleration is to
address two physically profound questions:
1. Does acceleration arise from a breakdown of GR on cosmological scales or from a
new energy component that exerts repulsive gravity within GR?
2. If acceleration is caused by a new energy component, is its energy density constant
in space and time, as expected for a fundamental vacuum energy, or does it show
variations that indicate a dynamical field?
Substantial progress towards answering these questions, in particular any definitive
rejection of the cosmological constant “null hypothesis,” would be a major breakthrough
in cosmology and fundamental physics.

December 6, 2019 12:03

6 27. Dark energy
27.3. Observational Probes
We briefly summarize the observational probes that play the greatest role in current
constraints on dark energy. Further discussion can be found in other articles of this
Review, in particular Secs. 24 (Cosmological Parameters) and 28 (The Cosmic Microwave
Background), and in Ref. [12], which provides extensive references to background
literature. Recent observational results from these methods are discussed in Sec. 27.4.
27.3.1. Methods, Sensitivity, Systematics :
Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies: Although CMB anisotropies provide limited
information about dark energy on their own, CMB constraints on the geometry, matter
content, and radiation content of the Universe play a critical role in dark energy studies
when combined with low-redshift probes. In particular, CMB data supply measurements
of θs = rs /DA,c (zrec ), the angular size of the sound horizon at recombination, from
the angular location of the acoustic peaks, measurements of Ωm h2 and Ωb h2 from the
heights of the peaks, and normalization of the amplitude of matter fluctuations at zrec
from the amplitude of the CMB fluctuations themselves. Planck data yield a 0.18%
determination of rs , which scales as (Ωm h2 )−0.25 for cosmologies with standard matter
and radiation content. The uncertainty in the matter fluctuation amplitude at the epoch
of recombination is 0.5%. Secondary anisotropies, including the integrated Sachs-Wolfe
effect, the Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ, [24]) effect, and weak lensing of primary anisostropies,
provide additional information about dark energy by constraining low-redshift structure
growth.
Type Ia Supernovae (SN): Type Ia supernovae, produced by the thermonuclear explosions
of white dwarfs, exhibit 10–15% scatter in peak luminosity after correction for light curve
duration (the time to rise and fall) and color (which is a diagnostic of dust extinction).
Since the peak luminosity is not known a priori, supernova surveys constrain ratios of
luminosity distances at different redshifts. If one is comparing a high-redshift sample to
a local calibrator sample measured with much higher precision (and distances inferred
from Hubble’s law), then one essentially measures the luminosity distance in h−1 Mpc,
constraining the combination hDL (z). With distance uncertainties of 5–8% per well
observed supernova, a sample of around 100 SNe is sufficient to achieve sub-percent
statistical precision. The 1–2% systematic uncertainties in current samples are dominated
by uncertainties associated with photometric calibration and dust extinction corrections
plus the observed dependence of luminosity on host galaxy properties. Another potential
systematic is redshift evolution of the supernova population itself, which can be tested by
analyzing subsamples grouped by spectral properties or host galaxy properties to confirm
that they yield consistent results.
Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO): Pressure waves that propagate in the pre-
recombination photon-baryon fluid imprint a characteristic scale in the clustering of
matter and galaxies, which appears in the galaxy correlation function as a localized peak
at the sound horizon scale rs , or in the power spectrum as a series of oscillations. Since
observed galaxy coordinates consist of angles and redshifts, measuring this “standard
ruler” scale in a galaxy redshift survey determines the angular diameter distance
DA (z) and the expansion rate H(z), which convert coordinate separations to comoving

December 6, 2019 12:03

 27. Dark energy 7
distances. Errors on the two quantities are correlated, and in existing galaxy surveys
the best determined combination is approximately DV (z) = [czDA,c 2 (z)/H(z)]1/3 . As an
approximate rule of thumb, a survey that fully samples structures at redshift z over
a comoving volume V , and is therefore limited by cosmic variance rather than shot
noise, measures DA,c (z) with a fractional error of 0.005(V /10 Gpc3 )−1/2 and H(z) with
a fractional error 1.6–1.8 times higher. The most precise BAO measurements to date
come from large galaxy redshift surveys probing z < 0.8, and these will be extended to
higher redshifts by future projects. At redshifts z > 2, BAO can also be measured in the
Lyman-α forest of intergalactic hydrogen absorption towards background quasars, where
the fluctuating absorption pattern provides tens or hundreds of samples of the density
field along each quasar sightline. For Lyman-α forest BAO, the best measured parameter
combination is more heavily weighted towards H(z) because of strong redshift-space
distortions that enhance clustering in the line-of-sight direction. Radio intensity mapping,
which maps large-scale structure in redshifted 21-cm hydrogen emission without resolving
individual galaxies, offers a potentially promising route to measuring BAO over large
volumes at relatively low cost, but the technique is still under development. Photometric
redshifts in optical imaging surveys can be used to measure BAO in the angular direction,
though the typical distance precision is a factor of 3–4 lower compared to a well sampled
spectroscopic survey of the same area, and angular BAO measurements do not directly
constrain H(z). BAO distance measurements complement SN distance measurements by
providing absolute rather than relative distances (with precise calibration of rs from the
CMB) and by having greater achievable precision at high redshift thanks to the increasing
comoving volume available. Theoretical modeling suggests that BAO measurements
from even the largest feasible redshift surveys will be limited by statistical rather than
systematic uncertainties.

Weak Gravitational Lensing: Gravitational light bending by a clustered distribution

of matter shears the shapes of higher redshift background galaxies in a spatially
coherent manner, producing a correlated pattern of apparent ellipticities. By studying
the weak lensing signal for source galaxies binned by photometric redshift (estimated
from broad-band colors), one can probe the history of structure growth. “Cosmic
shear” weak lensing uses the correlation of source ellipticities to deduce the clustering
of intervening matter. “Galaxy-galaxy lensing” (GGL) uses the correlation between a
shear map and a foreground galaxy sample to measure the average mass profile around
the foreground galaxies, which can be combined with galaxy clustering to constrain
total matter clustering. For a specified expansion history, the predicted signals scale
approximately as σ8 Ωα m , with α ≃ 0.3–0.5. The predicted signals also depend on the
distance-redshift relation, so weak lensing becomes more powerful in concert with SN or
BAO measurements that can pin this relation down independently. The most challenging
systematics are shape measurement biases, biases in the distribution of photometric
redshifts, and intrinsic alignments of galaxy orientations that could contaminate the
lensing-induced signal. Weak lensing of CMB anisotropies is an increasingly powerful
tool, in part because it circumvents many of these observational and astrophysical
systematics. Predicting the large-scale weak lensing signal is straightforward in principle,
but the number of independent modes on large scales is small, and the inferences are

December 6, 2019 12:03

8 27. Dark energy
therefore dominated by sample variance. Exploiting small-scale measurements, for tighter
constraints, requires modeling the effects of complex physical processes such as star
formation and feedback on the matter power spectrum. Strong gravitational lensing can
also provide constraints on dark energy, either through time delay measurements that
probe the absolute distance scale, or through measurements of multiple-redshift lenses
that constrain distance ratios. The primary uncertainty for strong lensing constraints is
modeling the mass distribution of the lens systems.
Clusters of Galaxies: Like weak lensing, the abundance of massive dark-matter halos
probes structure growth by constraining σ8 Ωα m , where α ≃ 0.3–0.5. These halos can be
identified as dense concentrations of galaxies or through the signatures of hot (107 –108 K)
gas in X-ray emission or SZ distortion of the CMB. The critical challenge in cluster
cosmology is calibrating the relation P (Mhalo |O) between the halo mass as predicted
from theory and the observable O used for cluster identification. Measuring the stacked
weak lensing signal from clusters has emerged as a promising approach to achieve
percent-level accuracy in calibration of the mean relation, which is required for clusters to
remain competitive with other growth probes. This method requires accurate modeling
of completeness and contamination of cluster catalogs, projection effects on cluster
selection and weak lensing measurements, and possible baryonic physics effects on the
mass distribution within clusters.
Redshift-Space Distortions (RSD) and the Alcock-Paczynksi (AP) Effect: Redshift-space
distortions of galaxy clustering, induced by peculiar motions, probe structure growth
by constraining the parameter combination f (z)σ8 (z), where f (z) is the growth rate
defined by Eq. (27.3). Uncertainties in theoretical modeling of non-linear gravitational
evolution and the non-linear bias between the galaxy and matter distributions currently
limit application of the method to large scales (comoving separations r > −1
∼ 10 h Mpc or
wavenumbers k < −1
∼ 0.2h Mpc ). A second source of anisotropy arises if one adopts the
wrong cosmological metric to convert angles and redshifts into comoving separations,
a phenomenon known as the Alcock-Paczynksi effect [25]. Demanding isotropy of
clustering at redshift z constrains the parameter combination H(z)DA (z). The main
challenge for the AP method is correcting for the anisotropy induced by peculiar velocity
RSD.
Low Redshift Measurement of H0 : The value of H0 sets the current value of the critical
density ρc = 3H02 /8πGN , and combination with CMB measurements provides a long
lever arm for constraining the evolution of dark energy. The challenge in conventional H0
measurements is establishing distances to galaxies that are “in the Hubble flow,” i.e., far
enough away that their peculiar velocities are small compared to the expansion velocity
v = H0 d. This can be done by building a ladder of distance indicators tied to stellar
parallax on its lowest rung, or by using gravitational-lens time delays or geometrical
measurements of maser data to circumvent this ladder.

December 6, 2019 12:03

 27. Dark energy 9
27.3.2. Dark Energy Experiments :
Most observational applications of these methods now take place in the context of large
cosmological surveys, for which constraining dark energy and modified gravity theories
is a central objective. Table 27.1 lists a selection of current and planned dark-energy
experiments, taken originally from the Snowmass 2013 Dark Energy Facilities review [26],
which focused on projects in which the U.S. has either a leading role or significant
participation. References and links to further information about these projects can be
found in Ref. [26]. We have adjusted some of the dates in this Table relative to those
in Ref. [26] and added the European-led KiloDegree Survey (KiDS). Dates in the Table
correspond to the duration of survey observations, and the final cosmological results
frequently require 1–3 years of analysis and modeling beyond the end of data taking.

Table 27.1: A selection of major dark-energy experiments, based on Ref. [26].

Abbreviations in the “Data” column refer to optical (Opt) or near-infrared (NIR)
imaging (I) or spectroscopy (S). For spectroscopic experiments, the “Spec-z”
column lists the primary redshift range for galaxies (gals), quasars (QSOs), or the
Lyman-α forest (LyαF). Abbreviations in the “Methods” column are weak lensing
(WL), clusters (CL), supernovae (SN), baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), and
redshift-space distortions (RSD).

Project Dates Area/deg2 Data Spec-z Range Methods

BOSS 2008–2014 10,000 Opt-S 0.3–0.7 (gals) BAO/RSD

2–3.5 (LyαF)
KiDS 2011–2019 1500 Opt-I —— WL/CL
DES 2013–2019 5000 Opt-I —— WL/CL
SN/BAO
eBOSS 2014–2018 7500 Opt-S 0.6–2.0 (gal/QSO) BAO/RSD
2–3.5 (LyαF)
SuMIRE 2014–2024 1500 Opt-I WL/CL
Opt/NIR-S 0.8–2.4 (gals) BAO/RSD
HETDEX 2017–2023 450 Opt-S 1.9 < z < 3.5 (gals) BAO/RSD
DESI 2020–2025 14,000 Opt-S 0–1.7 (gals) BAO/RSD
2–3.5 (LyαF)
LSST 2022–2032 20,000 Opt-I —— WL/CL
SN/BAO
Euclid 2022–2028 15,000 Opt-I WL/CL
NIR-S 0.7–2.2 (gals) BAO/RSD
WFIRST 2025–2030 2200 NIR-I WL/CL/SN
NIR-S 1.0–3.0 (gals) BAO/RSD

December 6, 2019 12:03

10 27. Dark energy
Beginning our discussion with imaging surveys, the Dark Energy Survey (DES)
has observed 1/8 of the sky to a depth roughly 2 magnitudes deeper than the Sloan
Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), enabling weak lensing measurements with much greater
statistical precision, cluster measurements calibrated by weak lensing, and angular BAO
measurements based on photometric redshifts. With repeat imaging over a smaller area,
DES has identified thousands of Type Ia SNe, which together with spectroscopic follow-up
data enable significant improvements on the current state-of-the-art for supernova (SN)
cosmology. Cosmological results from weak lensing and galaxy clustering analyses of the
first year DES data are presented in Ref. [27] and discussed further below, while the
first cosmological results from the DES supernova survey are presented in Ref. [28]. The
Hyper-Suprime Camera (HSC) on the Subaru 8.2-m telescope is carrying out a similar
type of optical imaging survey, probing a smaller area than DES but to greater depth.
First cosmological results from HSC weak lensing are reported in Refs. [29,30]. The
HSC survey is one component of the Subaru Measurement of Images and Redshifts
(SuMIRE) project. Beginning in the early 2020s, the dedicated Large Synoptic Survey
Telescope (LSST) will scan the southern sky to SDSS-like depth every four nights. LSST
imaging co-added over its decade-long primary survey will reach extraordinary depth,
enabling weak lensing, cluster, and photometric BAO studies from billions of galaxies.
Additionally, LSST time-domain monitoring will identify and measure light curves for
thousands of Type Ia SNe per year.
Turning to spectroscopic surveys, the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS)
and its successor eBOSS used fiber-fed optical spectrographs to map the redshift-space
distributions of millions of galaxies and quasars. These 3-dimensional maps enable BAO
and RSD measurements, and Lyman-α forest spectra of high-redshift quasars extend
these measurements to redshifts z > 2. As discussed below, the BOSS Collaboration has
now published BAO and RSD analyses of its final data sets, and eBOSS has released
BAO measurements from quasar clustering at z = 1–2. The Hobby-Eberly Telescope
Dark Energy Experiment (HETDEX) uses integral field spectrographs to detect Lyman-α
emission-line galaxies at z ≃ 1.9–3.5, probing a small sky area but a substantial comoving
volume. The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instument (DESI) will follow a strategy similar
to BOSS/eBOSS but on a much grander scale, using a larger telescope (4-m vs. 2.5-m)
and a much higher fiber multiplex (5000 vs. 1000) to survey an order-of-magnitude more
galaxies. A new Prime Focus Spectrograph (PFS) for the Subaru telescope will enable the
spectroscopic component of SuMIRE, with the large telescope aperture and wavelength
sensitivity that extends to the near-infrared (NIR) allowing it to probe a higher redshift
galaxy population than DESI, over a smaller area of sky.
Compared to ground-based observations, space observations afford higher angular
resolution and a far lower NIR sky background. The Euclid and WFIRST (Wide Field
Infrared Survey Telescope) missions will exploit these advantages, conducting large area
imaging surveys for weak lensing and cluster studies and slitless spectroscopic surveys
of emission-line galaxies for BAO and RSD studies. WFIRST will also incorporate an
imaging and spectrophotometric supernova (SN) survey, extending to redshift z ≃ 1.7.
Survey details are likely to evolve prior to launch, but in the current designs one
can roughly characterize the difference between the Euclid and WFIRST dark-energy

December 6, 2019 12:03

 27. Dark energy 11
experiments as “wide vs. deep,” with planned survey areas of 15,000 deg2 and 2200
deg2 , respectively. For weak lensing shape measurements, Euclid will use a single wide
optical filter, while WFIRST will use three NIR filters. The Euclid galaxy redshift survey
will cover a large volume at relatively low space density, while the WFIRST survey will
provide denser sampling of structure in a smaller volume. There are numerous synergies
among the LSST, Euclid, and WFIRST dark energy programs, as discussed in Ref. [31].

27.4. Current Constraints on Expansion, Growth, and Dark

Energy
The last decade has seen dramatic progress in measurements of the cosmic expansion
history and structure growth, leading to much tighter constraints on the parameters of
dark energy models. CMB data from the WMAP and Planck satellites and from higher
resolution ground-based experiments have provided an exquisitely detailed picture of
structure at the recombination epoch and the first CMB-based measures of low-redshift
structure through lensing and SZ cluster counts. Cosmological supernova samples have
increased in size from tens to many hundreds, with continuous coverage from z = 0 to
z ≃ 1.4, alongside major improvements in data quality, analysis methods, and detailed
understanding of local populations. BAO measurements have advanced from the first
detections to 1–2% precision at multiple redshifts, with increasingly sophisticated methods
for testing systematics, fitting models, and evaluating statistical errors. Advances in
X-ray, SZ, and weak-lensing observations of large samples of galaxy clusters allow a
multi-faceted approach to mass calibration, improving statistical precision but also
revealing sources of astrophysical uncertainty. Cluster constraints have been joined
by the first precise matter-clustering constraints from cosmic-shear weak lensing and
galaxy-galaxy lensing, and by redshift-space distortion measurements that probe different
aspects of structure growth at somewhat lower precision. The precision of low-redshift
H0 measurements has sharpened from the roughly 10% error of the HST Key Project
[32] to 2–4% in recent analyses.
As an illustration of current measurements of the cosmic expansion history, Fig. 27.1
compares distance-redshift measurements from SN and BAO data to the predictions for a
flat Universe with a cosmological constant. SN cosmology relies on compilation analyses
that try to bring data from different surveys probing distinct redshift ranges to a common
scale. Here we use the “joint light curve analysis” (JLA) sample of Ref. [35], who carried
out a careful intercalibration of the 3-year Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS3, [36]) and
the full SDSS-II Supernova Survey [37] data in combination with several local supernova
samples and high-redshift supernovae from HST. Results from the Union2.1 sample [38],
which partly overlaps JLA but has different analysis procedures, would be similar. Other
state-of-the-art supernova data sets include the Pan-STARRS1 sample incorporated in
the PANTHEON compilation [39] and the first sample of spectroscopically confirmed
supernovae from DES [28]. For illustration purposes, we have binned the JLA data
in redshift and plotted the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix as error bars,
and we have converted the SN luminosity distances to an equivalent comoving angular
diameter distance. Because the peak luminosity of a fiducial SN Ia is an unknown free
parameter, the SN distance measurements could all be shifted up and down by a constant

December 6, 2019 12:03

12 27. Dark energy

Figure 27.1: Distance-redshift relation measured from Type Ia SNe and BAO
compared to the predictions (black curve) of a flat ΛCDM model with Ωm = 0.315
and h = 0.674, the best-fit parameters inferred from Planck CMB data [33]. Circles
show binned luminosity distances from the JLA SN sample [35], multiplied by
(1 + z)−1 to convert to comoving angular diameter distance. Red squares show BAO
distance measurements from the 6dFGS, SDSS-II, BOSS, and eBOSS surveys (see
text for details and references). The lower panel plots residuals from the ΛCDM
prediction, with dashed and dotted curves that show the effect of changing w by
±0.1 while all other parameters are held fixed. Note that the SN data points can
be shifted up or down by a constant factor to account for freedom in the peak
luminosity, while the BAO points are calibrated to 0.2% precision by the sound
horizon scale computed from Planck data. The errors on the BAO data points
are approximately independent. In the upper panel, error bars are plotted only at
z > 0.7 to avoid visual confusion.

multiplicative factor; cosmological information resides in the relative distances as a

function of redshift. The normalization used here corresponds to a Hubble parameter
h = 0.674.
The z < 2 BAO data points come from the 6-degree-Field Galaxy Survey 6dFGS
survey [40], the SDSS-II Main Galaxy Sample [41], the final galaxy clustering data set

December 6, 2019 12:03

 27. Dark energy 13
from BOSS [42], and the first BAO measurement from quasar clustering in eBOSS [43].
For the 6dFGS, SDSS-II, and eBOSS data points, values of DV have been converted
to DA,c . The BOSS analysis measures DA,c directly; we have taken values from the
“BAO only” column of table 7 of Ref. [42]. At z = 2.34 we plot DA,c measured from
the BAO analysis of the eBOSS Lyman-α forest auto-correlation and cross-correlation
with quasars [44]. The BAO measurements are converted to absolute distances using
the sound horizon scale rs = 147.09 Mpc from Planck 2018 CMB data, whose 0.18%
uncertainty is small compared to the current BAO measurement errors. The BOSS galaxy
and eBOSS Lyman-α forest analyses also measure H(z) at the same redshifts, providing
further leverage on expansion history that is not captured in Fig. 27.1.
The plotted cosmological model has Ωm = 0.315 and h = 0.674, the best-fit values
from Planck (TT+TE+EE+lowE+lensing) assuming w = −1 and Ωtot = 1 [33]. The
SN, BAO, and CMB data sets, probing a wide range of redshifts with radically different
techniques, are for the most part mutually consistent with the predictions of a flat
ΛCDM cosmology. The eBOSS Lyman-α forest BAO measurements lie about 1.7σ from
the Planck ΛCDM prediction [44], notably closer than the 2.3σ difference obtained with
earlier BOSS data and discussed in the 2018 edition of this Review. Dotted and dashed
curves in the lower panel of Fig. 27.1 show the effect of changing w by ±0.1 with all
other parameters held fixed, which leads to significantly worse agreement with the data.
However, such a single-parameter comparison does not capture the impact of parameter
degeneracies or the ability of complementary data sets to break them, and if one instead
forced a match to CMB data by changing h and Ωm when changing w then the predicted
BAO distances would diverge at z = 0 rather than converging there.
Figure 27.2, taken from Ref. [42], presents constraints on models that allow a free
but constant value of w with non-zero space curvature (owCDM, left panel) or the evolving
equation of state of Eq. (27.4) in a flat Universe (w0 wa CDM, right panel). Green contours
show constraints from the combination of Planck 2015 CMB data and the JLA supernova
sample. Gray contours show the combination of Planck with BAO measurements from
BOSS, 6dFGS, and SDSS-II. Red contours adopt a more aggressive analysis of the BOSS
galaxy data that uses the full shape (FS) of the redshift-space power spectrum and
correlation function, modeled via perturbation theory, in addition to the measurement of
the BAO scale itself. The full shape analysis improves the constraining power of the data,
primarily because measurement of the Alcock-Paczynski effect on sub-BAO scales helps
to break the degeneracy between DA,c (z) and H(z). Blue contours show constraints from
the full combination of CMB, BAO+FS, and SN data. Supernovae provide fine-grained
relative distance measurements with good bin-by-bin precision at z < 0.7 (see Fig. 27.1),
which is complementary to BAO for constraining redshift evolution of w. In both classes
of model, the flat ΛCDM parameters (w = w0 = −1, ΩK = wa = 0) lie within the 68%
confidence contour.
The precision on dark energy parameters depends, of course, on both the data being
considered and the flexibility of the model being assumed. For the owCDM model and the
Planck+BAO+FS+SN data combination, Ref. [42] finds w = −1.01 ± 0.04. Assuming
a flat Universe and incorporating Planck 2018 data and DES Year 1 weak lensing, in

December 6, 2019 12:03

14 27. Dark energy

Figure 27.2: Constraints on dark energy model parameters from combinations

of CMB, BAO, galaxy clustering, and supernova (SN) data, taken from Ref. [42].
The left panel shows 68% and 95% confidence contours in the owCDM model, with
constant equation-of-state parameter w and non-zero space curvature ΩK ≡ 1 −Ωtot .
Green and gray contours show the combination of Planck CMB data with SN or
BAO data, respectively. Red contours combine CMB, BAO, and the full shape (FS)
of redshift-space galaxy clustering. Blue contours add SN data to this combination.
The right panel shows confidence contours for the same data combinations in the
w0 wa CDM model, which assumes a flat Universe and an evolving equation of state
with w(a) = w0 + wa (1 − a).

addition to BAO and SN, Ref. [33] finds

w = −1.028 ± 0.031 . (27.5)

We consider either of these results to be a reasonable characterization of current

knowledge about the dark energy equation of state. In the w0 wa CDM model there is strong
degeneracy between w0 and wa , as one can see in Fig. 27.2. However, the value of w
at the pivot redshift zp = 0.29 is well constrained by the Planck+BAO+FS+SN data
combination, with wp = −1.05 ± 0.06 [42]. The constraint on the evolution parameter,
by contrast, remains poor even with this data combination, wa = −0.39 ± 0.34. For
examinations of a wide range of dark energy, dark matter, neutrino content, and modified
gravity models, see Refs. [33,42,46].
A flat ΛCDM model fit to Planck CMB data alone predicts H0 = 67.4 ±
0.5 km s−1 Mpc−1 (see Chapter 28 of this Review). This prediction and its error bar
are sensitive to the assumptions of constant dark energy and a flat Universe. However,
by adding BAO and supernova data one can construct an “inverse distance ladder” to
measure H0 precisely, even with a general dark energy model and free curvature [45].
Ref. [47] applies this approach to obtain H0 = 67.8 ± 1.3 km s−1 Mpc−1 . As discussed

December 6, 2019 12:03

 27. Dark energy 15
in Sec. 24.3.1 of this Review, recent measurements from low-redshift data yield higher
values of H0 . Figure 27.3 compares the CMB-anchored H0 estimates cited above to
distance-ladder estimates that use Cepheid [48] or tip-of-the-red-giant-branch (TRGB) [49]
stars to calibrate SNe Ia luminosities, and to an entirely independent estimate that uses
gravitational-lens time delays [50]. The Cepheid and lensing estimates are discrepant
with the CMB-anchored estimates at a statistically significant level (Ref. [48] quotes 4.4σ
relative to Planck ΛCDM), while the TRGB calibration yields an intermediate result that
is consistent with either the “high” or “low” values of H0 .
The tension in H0 could reflect some combination of statistical flukes and systematic
errors in one or more of the data sets employed in these analyses. However, if the
resolution lies in new physics rather than measurement errors, then this is probably
physics that operates in the pre-recombination Universe, rescaling the BAO standard
ruler in a way that shifts the ΛCDM and inverse-distance-ladder values upward. Models
with extra relativistic degrees of freedom or dark energy that is dynamically significant in
the early Universe can achieve this effect by increasing the early expansion rate, but they
are tightly constrained by the damping tail of CMB anisotropies. A finely tuned model
in which early dark energy decays rapidly after recombination can mitigate the tension
between CMB data and local H0 measurements [51], though it still prefers H0 values
below those of Ref. [48].
The amplitude of CMB anisotropies is proportional to the amplitude of density
fluctuations present at recombination, and by assuming GR and a specified dark energy
model one can extrapolate the growth of structure forward to the present day to predict
σ8 . Probes of low-redshift structure yield constraints in the (σ8 , Ωm ) plane, which can
be summarized in terms of the parameter combination S8 ≡ σ8 (Ωm /0.3)0.5 . As discussed
in earlier editions of this Review, many but not all weak-lensing and cluster studies to
date yield S8 values lower than those predicted for Planck-normalized ΛCDM. The right
panel of Fig. 27.3 illustrates the current state-of-play, comparing a selection of recently
published S8 estimates to the Planck+ΛCDM prediction of S8 = 0.832 ± 0.013.
The first four points show cosmic-shear weak-lensing estimates from the Deep Lens
Survey [52], KiDS [53], DES [54], and HSC [29]. All of these estimates lie below the
Planck central value, though only the KiDS estimate is discrepant by ∼ 2σ. The next
four points use galaxy-galaxy lensing in combination with galaxy clustering. Ref. [55]
used weak-lensing data from SDSS imaging and the SDSS main galaxy redshift catalog,
restricting the analysis to scales well described by perturbation theory. Refs. [56] and [57]
used the same weak-lensing data but the BOSS LOWZ galaxy sample, and they employed
two quite different approaches to model the clustering and lensing signals into the strongly
non-linear regime (r ≈ 1 h−1 Mpc) so that they could fully exploit the constraining
power of the data. Ref. [58] found a strong discrepancy on these non-linear scales
between the predictions of a Planck-normalized ΛCDM model and the galaxy-galaxy
lensing of BOSS CMASS galaxies, measured from 250 deg2 of deep imaging from the
Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope. Ref. [59], plotted in Figure 27.3, revisited these data
with a more general modeling approach and showed that the discrepancy persists over a
range of redshift and galaxy stellar mass.
The third set of points in this panel shows S8 estimates that combine cosmic shear

December 6, 2019 12:03

16 27. Dark energy

Figure 27.3: Tensions between low-redshift cosmological measurements and the

predictions of a CMB-normalized ΛCDM model. All error bars are 1σ; see text for
observational references. (Left) Open circles show values of H0 for flat ΛCDM with
Planck parameters or a general dark energy model constrained by a combination of
CMB, BAO, and supernova data. Filled circles show distance-ladder estimates based
on Cepheid or TRGB calibration or an independent estimate using gravitational-lens
time delays. (Right) Matter clustering characterized by the parameter combination
σ8 (Ωm /0.3)0.5 , as predicted by a Planck-normalized ΛCDM model (vertical dotted
lines, black hexagon) and estimated from weak gravitational lensing using cosmic
shear, galaxy-galaxy lensing and galaxy clustering, or a combination of the two
constraints. Points of the same color are based on the same weak-lensing data. The
“CMB lensing” point shows the value of σ8 for Ωm = 0.3 inferred from Planck CMB
lensing, a measurement that is independent of the “Planck+ΛCDM” prediction and
weighted to somewhat higher redshift than the other weak-lensing points.

with galaxy-galaxy lensing and galaxy clustering (a.k.a. “3 × 2” analyses because they
combine three 2-point correlations), restricted to fairly large scales in the perturbative
regime. Refs. [60] and [61] use KiDS weak-lensing data but two different galaxy samples;
although they are statistically consistent with each other, the difference of their central
values illustrates the sensitivity to external data and analysis choices. Ref. [27] presents
constraints from the 3 × 2 analysis of the Year 1 DES data, which yields an S8 value
lower than the Planck prediction but consistent at the ∼ 2σ level.
The “CMB lensing” point shows the matter-clustering amplitude inferred from Planck
CMB lensing; we have evaluated Eq. (38) of Ref. [62] at Ωm = 0.3 and adopted the same
fractional error. It is important to emphasize that this is a measurement of low-redshift
clustering even though the background being lensed is the CMB. The CMB lensing kernels
peak at z <∼ 1, with tails to z ∼ 5, so the effective redshift of the S8 measurement is

December 6, 2019 12:03

 27. Dark energy 17
somewhat higher than that of the other weak-lensing data points. The result is consistent
with the Planck+ΛCDM prediction at 1σ, and it is also consistent with the lower value
corresponding to the mean or median of the optical weak-lensing measurements.
No one of these analyses provides convincing evidence of a conflict with the ΛCDM
cosmological model. However, the case for such a conflict has grown stronger as the
low inferred clustering amplitude has persisted across multiple statistically independent
weak-lensing surveys and multiple analysis methods. One possible explanation is that
several of the weak lensing surveys are affected by a common, unrecognized, systematic
bias. Another possibility is a true deviation between the clustering growth extrapolated
forward from the early Universe and the clustering of matter at late times. The
consistency of CMB lensing and Lyman-α forest measurements with ΛCDM clustering
predictions suggests that any such deviation sets in mainly at z < 1, coinciding with the
era of cosmic acceleration. Because the expansion history is well constrained by BAO
and supernova data, it is difficult to change low-redshift matter clustering by simply
changing the equation of state of dark energy. Instead, a deviation between predicted
and observed clustering might point towards modified gravity, decaying dark matter, or
coupling between dark matter and dark energy.
The next 2–3 years should see rapid progress on this conundrum. As the KiDS,
DES, and HSC data sets grow in size, their statistical uncertainties will shrink, which
will in turn enable more stringent internal cross-checks that test for consistent results
from different redshift ranges, different scales, and different lens and source populations.
Modeling methods that exploit non-linear scales will also be more stringently tested.
Clusters of galaxies with weak-lensing mass calibration provide an alternative route to S8
measurement, with competitive statistical precision. Recent cluster-based S8 estimates
span a wide range, some of them consistent with Planck+ΛCDM and others implying
lower matter clustering, and we have not quoted results here because it is difficult to decide
which are most reliable. However, the opportunity to combine multiple cluster samples
with multiple weak-lensing surveys may lead to consistent and convincing measurements
in the near future. CMB lensing constraints will improve with higher angular resolution
data from the South Pole Telescope and the Atacama Cosmology Telescope and their
successors. Finally, the DESI survey will soon allow the first RSD-based measurements
of structure growth at the 1–2% level, providing an entirely distinct route to probe the
clustering tension hinted at in Fig. 27.3.

27.5. Summary and Outlook

Figure 27.2 focuses on model parameter constraints, but to describe the observational
situation it is more useful to characterize the precision, redshift range, and systematic
uncertainties of the basic expansion and growth measurements. At present, supernova
surveys constrain distance ratios at the 1–2% level in redshift bins of width ∆z = 0.1 over
the range 0 < z < 0.6, with larger but still interesting error bars out to z ≃ 1.3. These
measurements are currently limited by systematics tied to photometric calibration, dust
reddening, host-galaxy correlations, and possible evolution of the SN population. BAO
surveys have measured the absolute distance scale (calibrated to the sound horizon rs )
to 4% at z = 0.15, 1% at z = 0.38 and z = 0.61, and 2% at z = 2.3. Multiple studies

December 6, 2019 12:03

18 27. Dark energy
have used clusters of galaxies or weak-lensing cosmic shear or galaxy-galaxy lensing to
measure a parameter combination σ8 Ωα m with α ≃ 0.3–0.5. The estimated errors of the
most recent studies, including both statistical contributions and identified systematic
uncertainties, are 3–5%. RSD measurements constrain the combination f (z)σ8 (z), and
recent determinations span the redshift range 0 < z < 0.9 with typical estimated errors
of about 10%. These errors are dominated by statistics, but shrinking them further will
require improvements in modeling non-linear effects on small scales. Distance-ladder
estimates of H0 now span a small range, using overlapping data but distinct treatments
of key steps; individual studies quote uncertainties of 2–5%, with similar statistical and
systematic contributions. Planck data and higher resolution ground-based experiments
now measure CMB anisotropies with exquisite precision; for example, CMB measurements
now constrain the physical size of the BAO sound horizon to 0.2% and the angular scale
of the sound horizon to 0.01%.
A flat ΛCDM model with standard radiation and neutrino content can fit the CMB
data and the BAO and SN distance measurements to within their estimated uncertainties.
The CMB+BAO parameters for this model are in significant tension with some but
not all recent measurements of H0 determined from low-redshift data. The discrepancy
could reflect underestimated systematic errors in one or more of the input data sets. If
the conflict is real, then it may point to new physics in the pre-recombination Universe
that rescales the sound horizon, such as early dark energy or extra relativistic degrees
of freedom. Many measurements of low-redshift matter clustering from weak lensing lie
below the predictions of a ΛCDM model extrapolated forward from the Planck CMB
anisotropies. No one analysis presents a convincing conflict, but the difference persists
across several independent data sets and analysis methods. If real, this discrepancy
could point towards modified gravity, decaying dark matter, or coupling between dark
matter and dark energy. However, none of the tensions present in the data yet provides
compelling evidence for new physics.
Analyses of the final KiDS and DES weak-lensing data sets and the expanding HSC
weak-lensing data set should yield measurements of matter clustering that have sharper
statistical precision and more stringent tests of internal consistency. Fully exploiting these
data will require further development of accurate models of matter clustering, galaxy
clustering, and weak lensing by galaxy clusters into the fully non-linear regime, including
robust methods of accounting for uncertainties in the baryonic mass distribution. It will
also require further progress on the thorny challenge of photometric redshift calibration
so that these uncertainties do not dominate the error budget. Higher signal-to-noise
CMB lensing maps cross-correlated with galaxies will provide independent tests that
avoid some of the systematic uncertainties of optical weak lensing. H0 measurements
will improve with increasing numbers of Cepheid or TRGB distances to supernova
host galaxies, improving Gaia parallaxes of Galactic Cepheids, increasing numbers
of strong gravitational-lens time delays, and continued attention to the systematic
uncertainties in each method. Improving measurements of the CMB damping tail from
ground-based experiments will provide increasingly strong constraints on solutions
involving pre-recombination physics.
After beginning operations in early 2020, the DESI galaxy redshift survey will quickly

December 6, 2019 12:03

 27. Dark energy 19
exceed the size of the existing SDSS and BOSS surveys, enabling high precision BAO
measurements of expansion history at z ≈ 0.7–1.4 and, for the first time, percent-level
measurements of structure growth through RSD. Precise BAO and RSD measurements
at higher redshifts will come from DESI Lyman-α forest maps and the HETDEX and
Subaru PFS galaxy surveys. The BAO measurements will complement increasingly
precise measurements of the relative distance scale at z < 1 from the DES photometric
supernova sample and from improved local supernova samples (z < 0.1) that provide a
low-redshift anchor. Large galaxy samples will also enable more powerful applications of
the Alcock-Paczynski effect, which can amplify the power of BAO and supernova distance
measurements by converting them to constraints on the expansion rate H(z).
The early-to-mid 2020s will see another major leap in observational capabilities with
the advent of LSST, Euclid, and WFIRST. LSST will be the ultimate ground-based
optical weak-lensing experiment, measuring several billion galaxy shapes over 20,000 deg2
of the southern hemisphere sky, and it will detect and monitor many thousands of SNe
per year. Euclid and WFIRST also have weak lensing as a primary science goal, taking
advantage of the high angular resolution and extremely stable image quality achievable
from space. Both missions plan large spectroscopic galaxy surveys, which will provide
better sampling at high redshifts than DESI or PFS because of the lower infrared sky
background above the atmosphere. WFIRST is also designed to carry out what should
be the ultimate supernova cosmology experiment, with deep, high resolution, near-IR
observations and the stable calibration achievable with a space platform. The 2020s will
also see dramatic advances in CMB lensing from the Simons Observatory and, potentially,
CMB-S4 and/or a space-based probe; cross-correlation with galaxy surveys allows precise
tomographic measurements of clustering as a function of redshift.
If the anomalies suggested in Fig. 27.3 are real, then the experiments of the 2020s
will map out their redshift, scale, and environment dependence in great detail, providing
detailed empirical constraints on dynamical dark energy or modified gravity models. If
these tensions dissipate with improved measurements, then the experiments of the 2020s
will achieve much more stringent tests of the ΛCDM paradigm, with the potential to
reveal deviations that are within the statistical uncertainties of current data. The critical
clue to the origin of cosmic acceleration could also come from a surprising direction, such
as laboratory or solar-system tests that challenge GR, time variation of fundamental
“constants,” or anomalous behavior of gravity in some astronomical environments.
Experimental advances along these multiple axes could confirm today’s relatively simple,
but frustratingly incomplete, “standard model” of cosmology, or they could force yet
another radical revision in our understanding of energy, or gravity, or the spacetime
structure of the Universe.
References:
1. A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.), 142 (1917).
2. Y.B. Zeldovich, Soviet Physics Uspekhi 11, 381 (1968).
3. A. Friedmann, On the curvature of space. Z. Phys. 10, 377 (1922).
4. G. Lemaı̂tre, Annales de la Societe Scietifique de Bruxelles 47, 49 (1927).
5. E. Hubble, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15, 168 (1929).
6. A. Einstein and W. de Sitter, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 18, 213 (1932).

December 6, 2019 12:03

20 27. Dark energy
7. For background and definitions, see Big-Bang Cosmology – Sec. 21 of this Review.
8. A.G. Riess et al. [Supernova Search Team Collab.], Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998).
9. S. Perlmutter et al. [Supernova Cosmology Project Collab.], Astrophys. J. 517, 565
(1999).
10. P. de Bernardis et al. [Boomerang Collab.], Nature 404, 955 (2000).
11. S. Hanany et al., Astrophys. J. 545, L5 (2000).
12. D.H. Weinberg et al., Phys. Reports 530, 87 (2013).
13. B. Ratra and P.J.E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D37, 3406 (1988) C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys.
B302, 668 (1988).
14. Excellent overviews of the theory and phenomenology of modified gravity models
can be found in the review articles of B. Jain and J. Khoury, Ann. Phys. 325,
1479 (2010), A. Joyce et al., Phys. Reports 568, 1 (2015), and L. Amendola
et al., Living Reviews in Relativity, 1, 2 (2018); a new review by T. Baker et al.,
arXiv:1908.03430, focuses on novel observational tests..
15. S.M. Carroll et al., Phys. Rev. D70, 043528 (2004).
16. G.R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B485, 208 (2000).
17. C.M. Will, Living Reviews in Relativity, 9, 3 (2006). See also the chapter on
Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theory — in this Review.
18. B. Jain, V. Vikram, and J. Sakstein, Astrophys. J. 779, 39 (2013) J. Wang, L. Hui,
and J. Khoury, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 241301 (2012).
19. Multiple investigations including M. Fairbairn and A. Goobar, Phys. Lett. B642,
432 (2006); Y.-S. Song, I. Sawicki, and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D75, 064003 (2007);
C. Blake et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 415, 2876 (2011).
20. T. Baker, E. Bellini, P.G. Ferreira, M. Lagos, J. Noller, I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. Lett.
119, 251301 (2017).
21. E.V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D72, 043529 (2005).
22. This is essentially the FoM proposed in the Dark Energy Task Force (DETF) report,
A. Albrecht et al., astro-ph/0609591,though they based their FoM on the area of
the 95% confidence ellipse in the w0 − wa plane.
23. For high accuracy, the impact of acoustic oscillations must be computed with a full
Boltzmann code, but the simple integral for rs captures the essential physics and
the scaling with cosmological parameters.
24. R.A. Sunyaev and Y.B. Zeldovich, Astrophys. Space Sci. 7, 3 (1970).
25. C. Alcock and B. Paczynski, Nature 281, 358 (1979).
26. D. Weinberg et al., Snowmass 2013 report on Facilities for Dark Energy
Investigations, arXiv:1309.5380.
27. DES Collaboration, T. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. D98, 043526 (2018).
28. DES Collaboration, T. Abbott et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 872, L30 (2019).
29. C. Hikage et al., Pub. Astr. Soc. Jap. 71, 43 (2019).
30. T. Hamana, et al., arXiv:1906.06041.
31. B. Jain et al., The Whole is Greater than the Sum of the Parts: Optimizing the
Joint Science Return from LSST, Euclid and WFIRST, arXiv:1501.07897.
32. W.L. Freedman et al., Astrophys. J. 553, 47 (2001).
33. Planck Collab. 2018 Results VI, arXiv:1807.06209.

December 6, 2019 12:03

 27. Dark energy 21
34. Planck Collab. 2015 Results XIII, Astron. & Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016).
35. M. Betoule et al., Astron. & Astrophys. 568, 22 (2014).
36. M. Sullivan et al., Astrophys. J. 737, 102 (2011).
37. A. Friedmann, Z. Phys. 10, 377 (1922).
38. N. Suzuki et al., Astrophys. J. 746, 85 (2012).
39. D.M. Scolnic et al., Astrophys. J. 859,101(2018).
40. F. Beutler et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 416, 3017 (2011).
41. A.J. Ross et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 449, 835 (2015).
42. S. Alam et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, 2617 (2017).
43. M. Ata et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 473, 4773 (2018).
44. M. Blomqvist et al., Astron. & Astrophys. 629, A86 (2019); V. de Sainte Agathe
et al., Astron. & Astrophys. 629, A85 (2019).
45. E. Aubourg et al., Phys. Rev. D 92, 123516 (2015).
46. Planck Collab. 2015 Results XIV, Astron. & Astrophys. 594, A14 (2016).
47. E. Macaulay et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 486, 2184 (2019).
48. A.G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. 876, 85 (2019).
49. W.L. Freedman et al., Astrophys. J. 882, 34 (2019).
50. K.C. Wong et al., arXiv:1907.04869.
51. V. Poulin, T.L. Smith, T. Karwal, M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 221301
(2019).
52. M.J. Jee et al., Astrophys. J. 824,77(2016).
53. H. Hildebrandt et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 465, 1454 (2017).
54. M.A. Troxel et al., Phys. Rev. D 98,043528(2018).
55. R. Mandelbaum et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 432, 1544 (2013).
56. S. Singh, R. Mandelbaum, U. Seljak, U., S. Rodrguez-Torres, & A. Slosar,
arXiv:1811.06499.
57. B.D. Wibking et al., arXiv:1907.06293.
58. A. Leauthaud et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 467, 3024 (2017).
59. J.U. Lange, X. Yang, H. Guo, W. Luo, & F.C. van den Bosch, Mon. Not. Roy.
Astron. Soc. 488, 5771 (2019).
60. S. Joudaki et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 474, 4894 (2018).
61. E. van Uitert et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 476, 4662 (2018).
62. Planck Collab. 2018 Results VIII, arXiv:1807.06210.

December 6, 2019 12:03