Exploring the cosmic microwave background dipole direction using gamma-ray bursts

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2508.04304
• Title: Exploring the cosmic microwave background dipole direction using gamma-ray bursts
• Authors: Orlando Luongo (Università di Camerino, et al.), Marco Muccino (Università di Camerino, et al.), Francesco Sorrenti (Université de Genève)
• Classification: astro-ph.CO (Cosmology and Non-Galactic Astrophysics), gr-qc (General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology)
• Publication Date: August 7, 2025 (arXiv preprint)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.04304

Abstract

This study searches for dipole anisotropy in the Hubble constant $H_0$ using gamma-ray burst (GRB) data, which may provide clues to the Hubble tension problem. The research employs the latest reliable GRB catalogs based on $E_{p}-E_{iso}$ and $L_0-E_{p}-T$ correlations. Despite large uncertainties, GRBs are particularly suitable for this analysis due to their redshift coverage reaching $z\sim9$, isotropic sky distribution, and the property that correlation normalization parameters serve as $H_0$ proxies. By partitioning GRB data into hemispheres through all-sky scanning and fitting relevant GRB correlations and cosmological parameters, the dipole direction is defined. Statistical significance is assessed through differences in normalization parameters between hemispheres and compared with the CMB dipole direction. The method is validated through Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) simulations. Results show no significant dipole detection, consistent with the expected isotropy of GRBs.

Research Background and Motivation

Core Problems

This research addresses two key issues in cosmology:

1. Hubble Tension: A 4.1σ discrepancy exists between local universe measurements (SH0ES: $H_0 = 73.04 \pm 1.04$ km/s/Mpc) and early universe CMB measurements (Planck: $H_0 = 67.36 \pm 0.54$ km/s/Mpc).
2. Cosmic Dipole: The CMB temperature dipole $\Delta T/T \sim 10^{-3}$ may reflect the observer's peculiar velocity relative to the CMB reference frame, but dipole amplitudes and directions measured by different cosmological probes (SNe Ia, quasars, radio sources) show inconsistencies with the CMB dipole.

Significance

• Cosmological Principle Testing: Dipole anisotropy may indicate breakdown of the cosmological principle (homogeneity and isotropy) at large scales
• Hubble Tension Mechanism: Directional variations in $H_0$ may provide new physics clues for resolving the Hubble tension
• Dark Energy Nature: Anisotropy may originate from backreaction of cosmological perturbations, mimicking dark energy effects

Limitations of Existing Methods

1. SNe Ia: Exhibit clustering in sky distribution and are significantly affected by local peculiar velocity
2. Quasars: Inconsistent results across studies, with some showing 4.9σ tension with CMB dipole
3. Radio Galaxies: Dipole amplitude several times larger than CMB (0.010-0.070 vs 0.001), raising concerns about systematic errors
4. Previous GRB Studies: Ref.27 applied weights and directional filtering to GRB data, potentially introducing bias

Research Motivation

GRBs serve as ideal probes for dipole searches with unique advantages:

• High Redshift Coverage: $z \sim 0.03-9.4$, enabling tests of large-scale cosmological principles
• Isotropic Distribution: Uniform sky distribution reduces directional bias
• $H_0$ Proxy: Correlation normalization parameters correlate with $\log H_0$ and are degenerate with it

Core Contributions

1. Unbiased Methodology: Developed a dipole search method based on all-sky scanning using complete GRB catalogs without artificial weights or directional filtering, avoiding artificial dipole introduction
2. Dual Catalog Verification: Employed two independent GRB correlation catalogs (A118: $E_p-E_{iso}$ correlation, 118 GRBs; C182: $L_0-E_p-T$ correlation, 182 GRBs) for cross-validation
3. Simulation Verification Pipeline: Constructed mock catalogs with artificial dipoles to verify the method's reliable detection of known dipole signals
4. Null Result Reporting: Systematically reported results of non-detection of significant $H_0$ dipole, providing a benchmark for future studies with larger datasets
5. Methodological Contribution: Provided a complete analysis pipeline directly applicable to future GRB data

Detailed Methods

Task Definition

Input:

• GRB sky positions (right ascension α, declination δ)
• Redshift $z$
• Observables: Boltzmann flux $S_b$ and peak energy $E_p$ (A118 catalog), or X-ray plateau flux $F_0$, peak energy $E_p$, and duration $T$ (C182 catalog)

Output:

• All-sky $H_0$ dipole significance map
• Maximum dipole direction and its statistical significance
• Comparison with CMB dipole direction

Constraints:

• Maintain GRB correlation consistency across full sample and hemispheres
• Fix $H_0 = 70$ km/s/Mpc to eliminate circular dependencies

Model Architecture

1. GRB Correlation Models

Ep-Eiso (Amati) Correlation: $\log E_{iso} = a + b \log E_p$

where:

• $E_{iso}$: Isotropic energy, calculated through cosmology-dependent relationship: $\log E_{iso} = \log(4\pi) + 2\log D_L(z) + \log S_b - \log(1+z)$
• Luminosity distance (flat ΛCDM): $D_L(z) = \frac{c}{H_0}(1+z)\int_0^z \frac{dz'}{\sqrt{1-\Omega_m + \Omega_m(1+z')^3}}$
• Parameters: $a$ (normalization, $H_0$ proxy), $b$ (slope), $\sigma_{ex}$ (intrinsic scatter), $\Omega_m$ (matter density parameter)

L0-Ep-T (Combo) Correlation: $\log L_0 = a + b \log E_p - \log T$

where:

• $L_0$: Plateau luminosity, calculated through: $\log L_0 = \log(4\pi) + 2\log D_L(z) + \log F_0$

2. Dipole Search Algorithm

All-Sky Grid Scanning:

• Grid covering right ascension α and declination δ with $12° \times 12°$ angular resolution
• For each grid point $j$, define orthogonal vector: $\vec{v}_j = (\cos\delta\cos\alpha, \cos\delta\sin\alpha, \sin\delta)$

Hemisphere Division: Based on sign of $\vec{v}_j \cdot \vec{v}_{GRB,i}$:

• Northern hemisphere (N): $\vec{v}_j \cdot \vec{v}_{GRB,i} > 0$
• Southern hemisphere (S): $\vec{v}_j \cdot \vec{v}_{GRB,i} < 0$

Parameter Fitting: For each hemisphere, fix $b$ and $\sigma_{ex}$ to full-sky fit values, freely fit $a$ and $\Omega_m$

Likelihood Functions:

A118 catalog: $\mathcal{F}_A = -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N_A}\left[\frac{(\log E_{iso,i} - \log \hat{E}_{iso,i})^2}{\sigma_A^2} + \ln(2\pi\sigma_A^2)\right]$

where $\sigma_A^2 = \sigma_{\log S_b,i}^2 + b^2\sigma_{\log E_p,i}^2 + \sigma_{ex}^2$

C182 catalog: $\mathcal{F}_C = -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N_C}\left[\frac{(\log L_{0,i} - \log \hat{L}_{0,i})^2}{\sigma_C^2} + \ln(2\pi\sigma_C^2)\right]$

where $\sigma_C^2 = \sigma_{\log F_0,i}^2 + b^2\sigma_{\log E_p,i}^2 + \sigma_{\log T_i}^2 + \sigma_{ex}^2$

Significance Calculation: $\sigma_j = \frac{a_{N,j} - a_{S,j}}{\sqrt{\sigma_{a_{N,j}}^2 + \sigma_{a_{S,j}}^2}}$

Technical Innovations

1. Normalization Parameter as $H_0$ Proxy:
   • From equations, $a$ correlates positively with $\log H_0$ and is degenerate with it
   • Normalization difference $\Delta a$ directly corresponds to $\Delta H_0/H_0$
   • Fixing $H_0=70$ km/s/Mpc introduces no bias, as only relative variations matter
2. Unbiased Hemisphere Comparison:
   • No prior assumption of dipole direction
   • All-sky scanning avoids selection bias
   • Maintains correlation parameters ($b$, $\sigma_{ex}$) consistency across hemispheres
3. Simulation Verification Strategy:
   • Generate mock catalogs with known dipoles ($\delta\bar{q} = 1.5\sigma_A$, $\delta\bar{a} = 1.5\sigma_C$)
   • Verify method reliably detects dipole signals at expected direction and significance level
   • Injection direction: $(α_0, δ_0) = (240°, 30°)$
4. Error Propagation Scheme: Weighted errors in mock catalogs: $\sigma_{\log E_{iso,k}} = \langle\sigma_{\log E_{iso,i}}\rangle \frac{\log E_{iso,k}}{\langle\log E_{iso,i}\rangle}$

Experimental Setup

Datasets

A118 Catalog (Ep-Eiso Correlation):

• Size: 118 GRBs
• Redshift Range: $z \in [0.3399, 8.2]$
• Observables: Peak energy $E_p$ (keV), Boltzmann flux $S_b$ (erg)
• Source: Based on Amati correlation with small intrinsic scatter 47

C182 Catalog (L0-Ep-T Correlation):

• Size: 182 GRBs
• Redshift Range: $z \in [0.0368, 9.4]$
• Observables: Peak energy $E_p$ (keV), X-ray plateau flux $F_0$ (erg/cm²/s), duration $T$ (s)
• Source: Combining rapid decay and X-ray afterglow observations 48,49

Data Characteristics:

• GRBs isotropically distributed across sky (unlike quasars and SNe Ia)
• Cover intermediate-to-high redshifts, avoiding local peculiar velocity effects
• Large errors but unique redshift coverage

Evaluation Metrics

1. Dipole Significance: $\sigma_j$ value (in standard deviation units)
   • $|\sigma_j| > 3$: Significant dipole
   • $|\sigma_j| < 1$: No significant dipole
2. Directional Consistency: Angular distance between maximum $\sigma$ direction and CMB dipole direction
   • CMB dipole: $(α_⋆, δ_⋆) = (167.942°, -6.944°)$
   • Grid resolution: $12° \times 12°$
3. Parameter Constraints:
   • Hemisphere differences in normalization parameter $a$ and errors
   • Constraints on matter density parameter $\Omega_m$

Comparison Methods

1. Luongo et al. 2022 27:
   • Used similar GRB data but applied weights and directional filtering
   • Reported dipole signal at CMB direction
   • Present method more conservative, avoiding artificial bias
2. Dipole Studies with Other Probes:
   • SNe Ia (Pantheon+): Dipole amplitude consistent with CMB but directional offset 3σ
   • Quasars: Some studies show 4.9σ tension with CMB
   • Radio Galaxies: Dipole amplitude 0.010-0.070, far exceeding CMB's 0.001

Implementation Details

MCMC Settings:

• Sampler: Standard MCMC (specific type not explicitly stated)
• Priors: Flat priors on $a$, $\Omega_m$
• Convergence Criterion: Standard Gelman-Rubin statistic

Grid Scanning:

• Right Ascension: $0° - 360°$, step $12°$
• Declination: $-90° - 90°$, step $12°$
• Total Grid Points: ~900 directions

Fixed Parameters:

• $H_0 = 70$ km/s/Mpc
• Full-sky fit values of $b$ and $\sigma_{ex}$ fixed in hemisphere fits

Mock Catalog Generation:

• Preserved observation counts: $N_A=118$, $N_C=182$
• Redshift distribution: Fitted as normal distribution ($\mu_z=0.359$, $\sigma_z=0.214$ for A118)
• Artificial Dipole: Normalization parameter increased by $1.5\sigma$ in northern hemisphere, decreased by $1.5\sigma$ in southern hemisphere

Experimental Results

Main Results

Table I: Real Data Fitting Results

Key Findings:

1. No Significant Dipole at CMB Direction:
   • A118: $\sigma = -0.03$ (complete absence of signal)
   • C182: $\sigma = 0.13$ (negligible)
2. Low Significance of Maximum Dipole Direction:
   • A118: $(144°, -54°)$ with $\sigma = 0.79$ (< 1σ)
   • C182: $(270°, -6°)$ with $\sigma = 0.42$ (< 1σ)
3. Directional Inconsistency:
   • A118 maximum direction offset from CMB: $|\Delta\alpha| = 24°$, $|\Delta\delta| = 47°$
   • C182 maximum direction offset from CMB: $|\Delta\alpha| = 102°$, $|\Delta\delta| = 1°$
   • Maximum directions between two catalogs mutually inconsistent

Simulation Verification Results

Table II: Mock Data Fitting Results

Successful Verification:

1. Accurate Dipole Detection:
   • Injected direction: $(240°, 30°)$
   • A118 detection: $(252°, 30°)$ - angular distance $12°$ (within grid resolution)
   • C182 detection: $(240°, 18°)$ - angular distance $12°$ (within grid resolution)
2. Significance Matches Expectations:
   • Injected strength: $1.5\sigma$
   • A118 detection: $1.85\sigma$ ✓
   • C182 detection: $1.81\sigma$ ✓
3. No Signal at CMB Direction: Mock data shows low significance at CMB direction, proving method does not produce spurious signals

All-Sky Dipole Maps

Figure 1 Analysis:

• A118 Map: Significance randomly distributed within $[-1.5, 1.5]$ range, no obvious dipole structure
• C182 Map: Significance within $[-0.8, 0.8]$ range, more uniform
• CMB Direction: No prominent signal at CMB location in either map
• Maximum Value Locations: Clearly separated from CMB direction with no statistical significance

Figure 2 Analysis (Mock Data):

• Clear dipole structure: Positive significance peak near $(240°, 30°)$
• Anti-dipole: Negative significance in opposite direction
• Validates method's detection capability for genuine dipoles

Experimental Findings

1. Robustness of Null Result:
   • Two independent catalogs consistently show no dipole
   • Simulation verification confirms method effectiveness
   • Consistent with isotropic GRB distribution
2. Comparison with Literature:
   • Dipole signal reported by Luongo et al. 27 not reproduced
   • Possible cause: Weight application and directional filtering introduce bias
   • Present method more conservative and unbiased
3. Data Limitations:
   • A118 and C182 samples relatively small (118 and 182)
   • Large errors ($\sigma_a \sim 0.15-0.20$)
   • May mask weak dipole signals
4. Redshift Coverage Advantage:
   • GRBs lack low-redshift sources, unaffected by local peculiar velocity
   • Probe intrinsic anisotropy at intermediate-to-high redshift scales

Related Work

Main Directions in Dipole Research

1. SNe Ia Dipole:

• Pantheon+ Sample 51: 1701 SNe Ia
• Finding: Dipole amplitude consistent with CMB, but directional offset ~3σ
• Interpretation: Local peculiar motion, requires prior correction 28
• Limitation: Low-redshift sources significantly affected by peculiar velocity, non-uniform sky distribution

2. Quasar Dipole:

• Positive Results:
  • CatWISE2020: Amplitude $1.5\times10^{-2}$, 4.9σ tension with CMB 36
  • Quaia sample: Bayesian analysis shows inconsistency with CMB 56
• Negative Results:
  • Hemisphere comparison method: 1.23σ significance, likely statistical fluctuation 29
  • Other studies: Consistent with CMB dipole 55
• Issues: Sky distribution clustered, particularly near CMB direction

3. Radio Galaxy Dipole:

• TGSS, NVSS, WENSS: Amplitude 0.010-0.070 30-34,37,38,57-62
• Issues: 5-70 times larger than CMB dipole, directionally consistent
• Controversy: Possible unidentified systematic errors 63

4. Previous GRB Studies:

• Luongo et al. 27:
  • Used $H_0$ as anisotropy probe
  • Reported dipole signal at CMB direction
  • Method Difference: Applied weights, excluded GRBs near CMB direction
• Zhao & Xia 64,66:
  • Dipole-modulated ΛCDM and Finsler cosmology models
  • Weak anisotropy direction consistent with Pantheon
• Lopes et al. 39,65:
  • FERMI/GBM flux analysis shows dipole pattern
  • May point to astrophysical processes

Relative Advantages of This Work

1. Unbiased Method: No pre-filtering or weighting of data
2. Dual Catalog Verification: Independent correlation cross-validation
3. Simulation Verification: Systematic testing of method effectiveness
4. Transparent Reporting: Explicit null result reporting, avoiding publication bias
5. Isotropic Sample: GRB sky distribution superior to quasars and SNe Ia

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. No Significant H0 Dipole:
   • Both GRB catalogs show no dipole detection at CMB direction
   • Full-sky maximum dipole significance < 1σ
   • Results consistent with isotropic GRB distribution
2. Method Effectiveness:
   • Simulation verification confirms method can detect 1.5σ dipoles
   • Detection directional accuracy within grid resolution (~12°)
   • No spurious signal production
3. Cosmological Implications:
   • Supports cosmological principle validity in GRB redshift range ($z \sim 0.04-9$)
   • Indirectly excludes intrinsic dipole existence
   • Consistent with ΛCDM expectations
4. Literature Discrepancy:
   • Dipole signal from Ref.27 not reproduced
   • More conservative method avoids artificial bias
   • Emphasizes data processing impact on results

Limitations

1. Sample Size Constraints:
   • A118 (118) and C182 (182) relatively small
   • Insufficient statistical power to detect weak dipoles (<1σ)
   • Smaller than SNe Ia (~1700) and quasars (~millions)
2. Observational Errors:
   • Large GRB correlation intrinsic scatter ($\sigma_{ex} \sim 0.37-0.41$)
   • Normalization parameter errors $\sigma_a \sim 0.15-0.20$
   • May mask genuine but weak signals
3. Redshift Coverage Defects:
   • Lacks low-redshift GRBs ($z < 0.04$)
   • Cannot probe local peculiar velocity effects
   • Cannot directly compare with SNe Ia
4. Grid Resolution:
   • $12° \times 12°$ may miss small-scale structures
   • Directional uncertainty ~12°
   • No adaptive fine scanning performed
5. Systematic Errors:
   • GRB physical model uncertainties insufficiently discussed
   • Redshift evolution effects not explicitly handled
   • Selection effects (observational bias) not quantified

Future Directions

1. Larger Samples:
   • Await new missions: SVOM, Einstein Probe
   • Expected sample doubling in 5-10 years
   • May achieve ~0.5σ dipole detection capability
2. Improved Correlations:
   • Reduce intrinsic scatter
   • Multi-parameter correlations
   • Machine learning standardization of GRBs
3. Joint Analysis:
   • Combined constraints with SNe Ia, quasars
   • Multi-probe cross-validation
   • Redshift-dependent dipole evolution
4. Theoretical Models:
   • Test specific anisotropic cosmology models
   • Finsler geometry, dipole-modulated ΛCDM
   • Distinguish kinematic from intrinsic dipoles
5. Systematic Error Studies:
   • Quantify selection effects
   • Redshift evolution corrections
   • GRB physical model uncertainty propagation

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Methodological Rigor:

• ✓ Unbiased all-sky scanning avoids confirmation bias
• ✓ Dual catalog independent verification enhances credibility
• ✓ Systematic simulation verification tests method effectiveness
• ✓ Transparent null result reporting aligns with scientific integrity

2. Technical Innovation:

• ✓ Clever application of normalization parameter as $H_0$ proxy
• ✓ Hemisphere comparison method maintains correlation consistency
• ✓ Mock catalog generation pipeline reproducible

3. Physical Insights:

• ✓ GRB isotropy natural advantage for dipole searches
• ✓ High redshift coverage probes intrinsic anisotropy
• ✓ Null result supports cosmological principle

4. Writing Clarity:

• ✓ Detailed method description, strong reproducibility
• ✓ Comprehensive literature comparison
• ✓ Honest limitation discussion

Weaknesses

1. Statistical Power:

• ✗ Sample size limits detection threshold to ~1σ
• ✗ No power analysis (power analysis) performed
• ✗ Cannot exclude <0.5σ weak dipoles

2. Systematic Error Analysis:

• ✗ Insufficient GRB physical model uncertainty discussion
• ✗ Selection effects (Malmquist bias, etc.) not quantified
• ✗ Redshift evolution impact on correlations not explicitly handled

3. Methodological Details:

• ✗ MCMC convergence diagnostics not shown
• ✗ Prior selection insufficiently justified
• ✗ Grid resolution choice ($12°$) lacks optimization justification

4. Result Presentation:

• ✗ Complete posterior distributions not provided
• ✗ Parameter correlation analysis missing
• ✗ Mock catalog results show only maximum direction, not full-sky maps

5. Physical Interpretation:

• ✗ Shallow theoretical implications of null result
• ✗ Insufficient analysis of inconsistency with other probes
• ✗ Alternative anisotropy models not explored

Impact

Contributions to Field:

1. Benchmark Null Result: Provides control for future GRB dipole research
2. Methodological Contribution: Unbiased all-sky scanning + simulation verification becomes standard procedure
3. Cosmological Principle Testing: Supports large-scale isotropy assumption

Practical Value:

• Analysis pipeline directly applicable to future data
• Simulation verification method generalizable to other probes
• Sets realistic expectations for dipole signal detection

Reproducibility:

• ✓ Datasets publicly available (A118, C182)
• ✓ Methods described in detail
• ✗ Code not publicly released (may affect exact reproduction)
• ✓ Parameters explicitly specified

Potential Impact:

• Short-term: Questions Ref.27 dipole signal, promotes methodological reflection
• Medium-term: Drives GRB observation missions to increase sample sizes
• Long-term: Provides high-redshift constraints for cosmological principle testing

Applicable Scenarios

Suitable Applications:

1. Future GRB Missions: SVOM, Einstein Probe data dipole searches
2. Multi-Probe Joint Analysis: High-redshift constraints complementary to SNe Ia/quasars
3. Anisotropic Cosmology: Observational constraints on dipole-modulated models
4. Methodological Research: Reference implementation for unbiased dipole searches

Unsuitable Scenarios:

1. Local peculiar velocity studies (lacks low-redshift sources)
2. High-precision $H_0$ measurements (errors too large)
3. Small-scale anisotropy (grid resolution limitations)

Generalization Potential:

• Method generalizable to other standard candles/rulers
• Hemisphere comparison framework applicable to any sky distribution data
• Simulation verification strategy universally applicable

References

Key Citations:

1. 15 Planck Collaboration (2020): CMB dipole measurement benchmark
2. 14 Riess et al. (2022): SH0ES $H_0$ measurement, Hubble tension
3. 27 Luongo et al. (2022): Previous GRB dipole study, main comparison target
4. 47 Khadka et al. (2021): A118 catalog source
5. 48,49 Izzo et al. (2015), Muccino et al. (2021): C182 catalog sources
6. 51 Brout et al. (2022): Pantheon+ SNe Ia sample
7. 36 Secrest et al. (2021): Quasar dipole 4.9σ tension

Theoretical Background:

• 43,44: Anisotropy may originate from cosmological perturbation backreaction
• 66: Dipole models in Finsler cosmology

Summary

Through rigorous unbiased methodology, this paper systematically searches for $H_0$ dipole using two independent GRB catalogs and finds no significant anisotropy. Simulation verification confirms method effectiveness; null result consistent with GRB isotropy, supporting the cosmological principle. Main contributions lie in methodological innovation and honest null result reporting, establishing foundation for future larger-sample studies. Limitations primarily stem from sample size and observational errors, requiring next-generation GRB missions to provide more data for improved detection sensitivity.