A Dark Matter Model with Quadratic Equation of State: Background Evolution and Structure Formation

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2509.11138
• Title: A Dark Matter Model with Quadratic Equation of State: Background Evolution and Structure Formation
• Authors: K. Rezazadeh, E. Yusofi, A. Talebian (Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences, Tehran)
• Classification: astro-ph.CO (Cosmology), astro-ph.GA, gr-qc, hep-ph
• Publication Date: November 7, 2025 (arXiv v2)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11138

Abstract

This paper proposes that dark matter possesses a quadratic equation of state, which becomes significant in high-density environments and thereby alters the evolution of the early universe. The study derives corrected background evolution equations for the Hubble parameter H(z) and dark matter density parameter Ω_dm(z), investigates the linear growth of matter perturbations through perturbation analysis, and calculates the observable growth factor fσ_8(z). Comparison with the latest cosmological data (including H(z) measurements and fσ_8(z) data up to z=3) demonstrates that this quadratic model, while remaining consistent with background observations, leaves a unique imprint on structure growth, providing a new phenomenological pathway for addressing cosmological tensions and revealing the nature of dark matter.

Research Background and Motivation

1. Core Problems to Address

This research targets multiple major tensions in modern cosmology:

• Hubble Tension: Approximately 5σ discrepancy between early-universe CMB measurements and late-time distance ladder measurements
• S8 Tension: Inconsistency between CMB inference and weak gravitational lensing surveys regarding the amplitude of matter perturbations
• JWST Observational Puzzle: Unexpectedly abundant massive galaxies at extremely high redshifts (z≳10), suggesting higher structure formation efficiency in the early universe than ΛCDM predictions
• DESI Results: Evidence for dark energy evolution, conflicting with pure cosmological constant scenarios

2. Importance of the Problem

These tensions may point toward new physics beyond the standard ΛCDM model and are crucial for understanding the fundamental composition and evolution of the universe. As the dominant matter component of the universe, subtle changes in dark matter properties can produce significant effects on cosmological observations.

3. Limitations of Existing Approaches

• Traditional ΛCDM assumes dark matter is completely pressureless (P_dm = 0), an extreme simplification
• Existing modified models (such as gravitational particle creation, constant equations of state) fail to adequately explore density-dependent nonlinear effects
• Most dark matter correction models focus primarily on background evolution or the dark energy sector, with insufficient investigation of structure formation impacts

4. Research Motivation of This Work

To propose a phenomenologically rich dark matter model by introducing a quadratic equation of state: $P_{dm} = \alpha\rho_{dm} + \beta\frac{\rho_{dm}^2}{\rho_0}$

where the quadratic term becomes significant at high densities (early universe) and negligible at low densities (late times), providing unique redshift-dependent effects.

Core Contributions

1. Proposes the QDDM Model: For the first time systematically applies a quadratic equation of state to dark matter (rather than dark energy), establishing the Quadratic Density-dependent Dark Matter (QDDM) theoretical framework
2. Derives Modified Evolution Equations:
   • Obtains analytical solution for dark matter density: $\rho_{dm}(z) = \rho_{dm0}F(z)$, where $F(z) = \frac{(1+\alpha)}{(1+\alpha+\beta\Omega_{dm0})(1+z)^{-3(1+\alpha)} - \beta\Omega_{dm0}}$
   • Establishes modified Hubble parameter evolution equations and density parameter evolution
3. Linear Perturbation Theory: Derives complete linear perturbation equations under the QDDM model, including coupled evolution equations for baryonic and dark matter components
4. Structure Growth Predictions: Calculates the observable fσ_8(z), revealing how the quadratic equation of state suppresses late-time structure growth through a dual mechanism (background correction + pressure support)
5. Observational Comparison: Compares with multi-source data including H(z) and fσ_8(z), demonstrating that the model maintains consistency with background observations while providing a unique imprint on structure formation

Methodology Details

Task Definition

The research investigates cosmological effects when dark matter possesses non-zero pressure, specifically including:

• Inputs: Quadratic equation of state parameters α and β, standard cosmological parameters (Ω_dm0, Ω_b0, h, etc.)
• Outputs: Background evolution H(z), Ω_dm(z), and structure growth factor fσ_8(z)
• Constraints: Must converge to ΛCDM in the late universe (when β→0), satisfy thermodynamic stability (c²_s ≥ 0)

Model Architecture

1. Background Evolution Framework

Starting from the flat FLRW metric, the Friedmann equations are: $H^2 = \frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho_{tot}$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a} = -\frac{4\pi G}{3}(\rho_{tot} + 3P_{tot})$

The energy conservation equation for dark matter becomes: $\dot{\rho}_{dm} + 3H\rho_{dm}\left(1 + \alpha + \beta\frac{\rho_{dm}}{\rho_0}\right) = 0$

2. Analytical Solution Derivation

By integrating the energy conservation equation, the exact solution for dark matter density is obtained (Equation 5): $\rho_{dm}(z) = \rho_{dm0}F(z)$

where the function F(z) encodes deviations from standard ΛCDM.

The corrected Hubble parameter (Equation 7): $H(z) = H_0\sqrt{\Omega_{dm0}F(z) + \Omega_{b0}(1+z)^3 + \Omega_{r0}(1+z)^4 + \Omega_{\Lambda0}}$

3. Linear Perturbation Equations

In the Newtonian gauge, coupled perturbation equations are established for baryonic and dark matter components (Equations 15-18):

Baryonic Component: $\delta'_b + \frac{\tilde{\theta}_b}{a} = 0$$\tilde{\theta}'_b + \left(\frac{H'}{H} + \frac{2}{a}\right)\tilde{\theta}_b + \frac{3}{2a}\left[\Omega_b\delta_b + (3c^2_{s,dm}+1)\Omega_{dm}\delta_{dm}\right] = 0$

Dark Matter Component: $\delta'_{dm} + \frac{3}{a}(c^2_{s,dm} - w_{dm})\delta_{dm} + \frac{(w_{dm}+1)}{a}\tilde{\theta}_{dm} = 0$$\tilde{\theta}'_{dm} + \left(\frac{2}{a} + \frac{H'}{H}\right)\tilde{\theta}_{dm} - \frac{k^2c^2_{s,dm}}{a^3H^2(w_{dm}+1)}\delta_{dm} + \frac{3}{2a}\left[\Omega_b\delta_b + (3c^2_{s,dm}+1)\Omega_{dm}\delta_{dm}\right] = 0$

where the equation of state parameter and sound speed are: $w_{dm} = \alpha + \beta\Omega_{dm0}F(z)$$c^2_{s,dm} = \alpha + 2\beta\Omega_{dm0}F(z)$

Technical Innovations

1. Density-Dependent Nonlinear Pressure

Unlike constant equations of state, the quadratic term $\beta\rho^2_{dm}/\rho_0$ provides a natural redshift-dependent mechanism:

• High redshift (high density): Quadratic term dominates, significantly altering evolution
• Low redshift (low density): Quadratic term negligible, approaching ΛCDM

2. Dual Suppression Mechanism

Structure growth suppression arises from two synergistic effects:

• Background Correction: Modified expansion history H(z) affects perturbation growth rate
• Pressure Support: Non-zero sound speed $c^2_{s,dm}$ introduces scale-dependent pressure waves that resist gravitational collapse

3. Thermodynamic Consistency

By requiring $c^2_{s,dm} \geq 0$, parameter constraints are established: when α > 0, β < 0 is required, ensuring physical reasonableness of the model

4. Precise Initial Condition Setting

Initial conditions are set deep in the matter-dominated era (Equations 20-24), utilizing the approximation $\delta_m \approx C_m a$ to derive complete initial condition expressions incorporating QDDM effects

Experimental Setup

Datasets

The paper employs multi-source cosmological observational data:

1. Hubble Parameter H(z) Measurements:
   • SH0ES (local distance ladder)
   • BOSS DR12 and DR14 quasars
   • DR14 Lyman-α forest
   • Redshift range: 0 < z < 3
2. Structure Growth fσ_8(z) Data:
   • WiggleZ survey
   • BOSS DR12
   • DR14 quasars
   • 6dFGS
   • FastSound
   • GAMA
   • SDSS LRG and MGS
   • VIPERS
   • Redshift range: 0 < z < 2

Evaluation Metrics

1. Background Evolution Metrics:
   • Normalized Hubble parameter: H(z)/(1+z)
   • Dark matter density parameter: Ω_dm(a)
2. Structure Formation Metrics:
   • Growth rate: $f(a) = \frac{d\ln\delta_m}{d\ln a}$
   • Growth factor: $f\sigma_8(z) = \frac{\sigma_8(z=0)}{\delta_m(z=0)}\left(a\frac{d\delta_m}{da}\right)$

Comparison Methods

• ΛCDM Model: Standard cosmological model as baseline
• Parameter settings: α = 0, β = 0 corresponds to standard cold dark matter

Implementation Details

Baseline Cosmological Parameters (from Planck):

• h = 0.6732
• Ω_b0 = 0.04939
• Ω_dm0 = 0.265
• Ω_r0 = 9.267×10⁻⁵
• σ_8(z=0) = 0.812

QDDM Parameter Exploration:

• Figure 1 left: {α, |β|} = {10⁻³, 10⁻²}
• Figure 1 right: {α, |β|} = {10⁻³, 10⁻⁴}
• Figure 3: {α, β} = {2×10⁻⁴, -10⁻⁵}

Numerical Solution:

• Initial scale factor: a_i (deep in matter-dominated era)
• Fourth-order Runge-Kutta method for solving coupled ODE systems
• Wave number k selected according to observational scales

Experimental Results

Main Results

1. Background Evolution (Figure 1)

Normalized Hubble Parameter H(z)/(1+z) Evolution:

• β > 0 (red curves): At high redshift, effective positive pressure resists gravity, leading to faster expansion than ΛCDM
  • For {α, |β|} = {10⁻³, 10⁻²}: At z=3, H(z)/(1+z) is approximately 2-3 km/s/Mpc higher than ΛCDM
  • For {α, |β|} = {10⁻³, 10⁻⁴}: Smaller deviation, approximately 0.5-1 km/s/Mpc
• β < 0 (blue curves): Negative pressure enhances gravitational attraction, leading to slower early expansion
  • At z=3, H(z)/(1+z) is approximately 1-2 km/s/Mpc lower than ΛCDM
• Late-time Convergence: All models converge to Λ-dominated accelerated expansion as z→0, consistent with observations

2. Dark Matter Density Evolution (Figure 2)

Ω_dm(a) Variation with Scale Factor:

• ΛCDM (black dashed line): Standard evolution Ω_dm ∝ (1+z)³
• β = 10⁻⁴ (red): Effective pressure suppresses density at high redshift, Ω_dm relatively lower than ΛCDM
• β = -10⁻⁴ (blue): Negative pressure enhances clustering, Ω_dm higher in early times
• Significant Deviation Region: a < 10⁻² (z > 100), showing maximum deviation during matter-dominated era

3. Structure Growth (Figure 3)

Growth Factor fσ_8(z) Comparison:

• QDDM Model (blue, {α, β} = {2×10⁻⁴, -10⁻⁵}):
  • z < 1: fσ_8 significantly lower than ΛCDM, suppression of approximately 5-10%
  • z ≈ 0.5: fσ_8(QDDM) ≈ 0.42, fσ_8(ΛCDM) ≈ 0.46
• ΛCDM (black): Standard growth curve
• Comparison with Observational Data:
  • QDDM curve at low redshift is closer to certain observational points weaker than ΛCDM predictions (e.g., some VIPERS data)
  • At z > 1.5, differences between the two models diminish, both agreeing well with observations

Ablation Study Analysis

Although the paper does not conduct standard ablation experiments, it demonstrates the role of each component through parameter variations:

1. Effect of β Sign:
   • β > 0: Suppresses structure growth, reduces fσ_8
   • β < 0: May enhance growth (but must satisfy thermodynamic constraints)
2. Effect of β Magnitude:
   • |β| = 10⁻²: Significant deviation from ΛCDM, potentially conflicting with observations
   • |β| = 10⁻⁴: Moderate deviation, maintains consistency with background observations
3. Role of α:
   • Controls linear pressure term, affecting overall equation of state
   • Cooperates with β to determine thermodynamic stability

Experimental Findings

Key Physical Insights:

1. Scale-Dependent Suppression: The term $\frac{k^2c^2_{s,dm}}{a^3H^2(w_{dm}+1)}\delta_{dm}$ in the perturbation equations indicates that small-scale (large k) modes experience stronger suppression
2. Epoch-Dependent Effects: The quadratic term's influence decays as $F(z) \propto (1+z)^{-3(1+\alpha)}$, naturally implementing significant early effects and negligible late effects
3. Tension Alleviation Potential:
   • fσ_8 suppression may alleviate S8 tension (excessive late-time structure amplitude problem)
   • Modified H(z) evolution may affect Hubble tension (requires complete MCMC analysis)
4. Possible Explanation for JWST Observations: Negative β values might enhance structure formation at extremely high redshift, but require more detailed nonlinear analysis

Related Work

1. Dark Matter Correction Models

Gravitational Particle Creation Models (Lima et al., 1996; Safari et al., 2022):

• Treat the universe as an open thermodynamic system
• Introduce effective pressure corrections to continuity equations
• Present model provides more direct phenomenological description

Constant/Dynamic Equation of State (Davari et al., 2024):

• Study within spherical collapse framework
• Primarily focus on halo abundance and early structure formation
• Present work extends to linear perturbation theory and observables

Other Dark Matter Candidates:

• Axions (Briaud et al., 2024)
• Primordial Black Holes (Talebian et al., 2023)
• Present work provides phenomenological complementary perspective

2. Nonlinear Equations of State

Applications in Dark Energy (Chavanis, 2014; Nojiri & Odintsov, 2005):

• Implement phantom divide crossing
• Address Hubble tension (Moshafi et al., 2024)
• Present work first systematically applies to dark matter

Dynamical Systems Analysis (Mohammadi et al., 2023):

• Reveal stable attractors
• Quadratic parameters control cosmic energy sources/sinks
• Provide theoretical foundation for present model

3. Unique Contributions of This Work

• Application Object Shift: From dark energy to dark matter
• Complete Theoretical Framework: Background + perturbations + observational predictions
• Clear Physical Mechanism: Explicit identification of dual suppression mechanism
• Observation-Oriented: Direct calculation of observable fσ_8(z)

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Theory Establishment: Successfully constructs a dark matter model with quadratic equation of state (QDDM), providing a minimal yet powerful ΛCDM extension
2. Background Evolution:
   • Sign and magnitude of β control early universe expansion rate
   • Naturally converges to Λ-dominated accelerated expansion at late times
   • Basically consistent with existing H(z) observations
3. Structure Formation:
   • Suppresses fσ_8 through dual mechanisms of background correction and pressure support
   • Provides natural pathway for alleviating S8 tension
   • Scale-dependent effects may be more pronounced at nonlinear scales
4. Parameter Sensitivity: Minute fundamental parameters (β ~ 10⁻⁵ - 10⁻⁴) can produce significant cosmological effects

Limitations

1. Missing Parameter Constraints:
   • No complete MCMC parameter fitting performed
   • No precise constraint ranges for α and β provided
   • Requires joint analysis with Planck CMB, BAO, SNIa data
2. Linear Approximation:
   • Only considers linear perturbation theory
   • For JWST high-redshift massive galaxy problem, requires nonlinear spherical collapse or N-body simulations
3. Unclear Physical Origin:
   • Quadratic equation of state as phenomenological assumption
   • Lacks microscopic physical theory support (field theory, particle physics)
   • No discussion of connection to dark matter particle candidates
4. Limited Observational Data:
   • Only qualitative comparison of H(z) and fσ_8 data
   • Does not include CMB power spectrum, matter power spectrum and other key constraints
   • Redshift range limited to z < 3
5. Thermodynamic Stability:
   • Constraint β < 0 when α > 0 only briefly mentioned
   • Lacks detailed discussion of parameter space stability boundaries

Future Directions

The paper explicitly proposes the following follow-up work:

1. Complete Statistical Analysis:
   • Use full dataset including Planck CMB, BAO, SNIa, H(z), fσ_8
   • MCMC method for precise constraint of α and β
   • Bayesian model comparison with ΛCDM
2. Extension to Nonlinear Regime:
   • Spherical collapse model
   • N-body numerical simulations
   • Verify explanation for JWST high-redshift galaxies
3. Theory Deepening:
   • Explore possible field theory implementations
   • Establish connection with dark matter particle models
   • Investigate quantum or statistical mechanics origins
4. Other Observational Probes:
   • Galaxy cluster mass function
   • Weak gravitational lensing shear
   • 21cm cosmology

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Methodological Innovation

• Novel Concept: Transfers quadratic equation of state from dark energy to dark matter, opening new research direction
• Complete Theory: Rigorous mathematical derivation from background to perturbations
• Clear Mechanism: Explicitly identifies dual suppression mechanism (background + pressure), intuitive physical picture

2. Phenomenological Richness

• Natural Redshift Dependence: Quadratic term's $\rho^2_{dm}/\rho_0$ structure automatically implements significant early effects and negligible late effects
• Multiple Observable Predictions: Simultaneously predicts H(z), Ω_dm(z), fσ_8(z), allowing multi-faceted testing
• Tension Alleviation Potential: Provides unified framework for Hubble and S8 tensions

3. Technical Execution

• Analytical Solutions Obtained: Equation (5)'s exact solution facilitates rapid calculation and physical understanding
• Rigorous Initial Conditions: Equations (20-24) derivation considers QDDM effect self-consistency
• Clear Numerical Implementation: Perturbation equation numerical solution method explicit

4. Writing Quality

• Clear logic, well-structured from motivation to conclusion
• High-quality figures effectively displaying key results
• Intuitive comparison with observational data

Weaknesses

1. Insufficient Quantitative Analysis

• Lacks Statistical Fitting: Only shows curves for specific parameter values, no posterior distribution provided
• No Error Bar Analysis: Theoretical prediction uncertainties not calculated
• Missing χ² Tests: No quantitative evaluation of model-data fit quality

2. Incomplete Observational Constraints

• CMB Missing: CMB provides strongest constraints but not discussed for CMB power spectrum impact
• Matter Power Spectrum Uncalculated: P(k) is key observable, only σ_8 computed
• Limited Datasets: Only H(z) and fσ_8 used, BAO and SNIa not included

3. Weak Theoretical Foundation

• Phenomenological Assumption: Quadratic equation of state lacks microscopic theory support
• Unclear Parameter Physical Meaning: Physical sources and typical values of α and β not discussed
• Disconnected from Particle Physics: No connection established with dark matter candidate particles

4. Limited Applicability

• Linear Range Only: Applicable only to large-scale linear perturbations, no predictions for small-scale nonlinear structures
• Late Universe: z < 3 limitation makes direct explanation of JWST z > 10 observations difficult
• Scale Dependence Insufficiently Explored: Sound speed-induced k dependence only appears in equations, not detailed in results

5. Insufficient Model Comparison

• Only ΛCDM Comparison: No quantitative comparison with other dark matter correction models (self-interacting dark matter, fuzzy dark matter)
• Advantages Not Quantified: Specific improvements relative to other models not stated

Impact Assessment

Contribution to the Field

• Moderate Innovation: Novel concept but conventional technical methods, provides new tool for phenomenological research
• Inspirational Value: May stimulate more research on non-trivial dark matter properties
• Theoretical Supplement: Enriches dark matter model library, but not breakthrough progress

Practical Value

• Strong Observational Testability: Predicted fσ_8(z) directly comparable with redshift-space distortion data
• High Computational Efficiency: Analytical solutions and simple numerical equations facilitate rapid parameter space exploration
• Expandable Framework: Easily incorporated into more complex cosmological analysis pipelines

Reproducibility

• High: Complete equation derivation, explicit numerical methods, clear parameter settings
• However: Code not publicly available, complete reproduction requires self-implementation of solver
• Data Accessible: Observational data used are all publicly available datasets

Applicable Scenarios

Suitable Research Scenarios

1. Cosmological Tension Research: Provides possible explanation framework for S8 tension
2. Dark Matter Phenomenology: Rapidly explores parameter space of non-standard dark matter properties
3. Observational Predictions: Provides testable predictions for next-generation surveys (Euclid, LSST)
4. Teaching Example: Clear case study showing how equation of state affects cosmic evolution

Unsuitable Scenarios

1. Precision Cosmology: Lacks complete MCMC analysis, unsuitable as standard model replacement
2. Nonlinear Structures: Cannot predict galaxy formation, galaxy clusters and other small-scale phenomena
3. Extremely High Redshift: Linear theory may fail at z >> 10
4. Particle Physics Connection: Cannot provide direct guidance for dark matter detection experiments

Potential Improvement Directions

1. Immediately Feasible:
   • Perform complete MCMC analysis, fit with existing data
   • Calculate CMB and matter power spectrum corrections
   • Quantitative comparison with other dark matter models
2. Medium-term Goals:
   • Extend to nonlinear spherical collapse
   • Explore field theory implementations (scalar fields, perfect fluids)
   • Study impact on cosmic phase transitions
3. Long-term Vision:
   • N-body simulation verification
   • Connect with dark matter direct/indirect detection
   • Unified explanation of multiple cosmological tensions

Selected Key References

1. Planck Collaboration (2020) - A&A 641, A6: Planck 2018 cosmological parameters, providing baseline ΛCDM parameters
2. Riess et al. (2021) - ApJL 908, L6: SH0ES project H0 measurement, key evidence for Hubble tension
3. DESI Collaboration (2024) - arXiv:2404.03002: Evidence for dark energy evolution, motivating present research
4. Davari et al. (2024) - MNRAS 534, 2848: Spherical collapse study of dynamic dark matter equation of state, direct comparison work
5. Moshafi et al. (2024) - Phys. Dark Univ. 45, 101524: Quadratic equation of state application to dark energy, theoretical foundation of present method

Summary

This paper proposes an innovative dark matter phenomenological model that, by introducing a quadratic equation of state, provides new perspective for understanding cosmological tensions. The theoretical framework is complete, derivations rigorous, and predictions testable. However, as a preliminary exploratory work, lack of quantitative statistical fitting with observational data and microscopic physical theory support are main shortcomings. The paper establishes solid foundation for subsequent research, particularly clearly indicating key next steps such as MCMC analysis and nonlinear extensions. The model demonstrates that subtle changes in dark matter properties can produce significant effects on cosmic large-scale structure, an insight of important significance for modern cosmology. Readers are advised to view this as the starting point of a promising research direction rather than a mature standard model replacement.