Tension with the flat ΛCDM model from a high-redshift Hubble diagram of supernovae, quasars, and gamma-ray bursts

In the current framework, the standard parametrization of our Universe is the so-called Lambda Cold Dark Matter ({\Lambda}CDM) model. Recently, Risaliti & Lusso (2019) have shown a ~4{\sigma} tension with the {\Lambda}CDM model through a model-independent parametrization of a Hubble Diagram of supernovae Ia (SNe Ia) from the JLA survey and quasars. Model-independent approaches and independent samples over a wide redshift range are key to testing this tension and any possible systematics. Here we present an analysis of a combined Hubble Diagram of SNe Ia, quasars, and gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) to check the agreement of the quasar and GRB cosmological parameters at high redshifts (z>2) and to test the concordance flat {\Lambda}CDM model with improved statistical accuracy. We build a Hubble diagram with SNe Ia from the Pantheon sample (Scolnic et al. 2018), quasars from the Risaliti & Lusso (2019) sample, and GRBs from the Demianski et al. (2017a) sample, where quasars are standardised through the observed non-linear relation between their ultraviolet and X-ray emission and GRBs through the correlation between the spectral peak energy and the isotropic-equivalent radiated energy (the so-called "Amati relation"). We fit the data with cosmographic models consisting of a fourth-order logarithmic polynomial and a fifth-order linear polynomial, and compare the results with the expectations from a flat {\Lambda}CDM model. We confirm the tension between the best fit cosmographic parameters and the {\Lambda}CDM model at ~4{\sigma} with SNe Ia and quasars, at ~2{\sigma} with SNe Ia and GRBs, and at >4{\sigma} with the whole SNe Ia+quasars+GRB data set. The completely independent high-redshift Hubble diagrams of quasars and GRBs are fully consistent with each other, strongly suggesting that the deviation from the standard model is not due to unknown systematic effects but to new physics.
Comment: 5 pages, 5 figures, amended typos in equations 7 and 8