Constraining constant and tomographic coupled dark energy with low-redshift and high-redshift probes

We consider coupled dark energy (CDE) cosmologies, where dark matter particles feel a force stronger than gravity, due to the fifth force mediated by a scalar field which plays the role of dark energy. We perform for the first time a tomographic analysis of coupled dark energy, where the coupling strength is parametrized and constrained in different redshift bins. This allows us to verify which data can better constrain the strength of the coupling and how large the coupling can be at different epochs. First, we employ cosmic microwave background data from Planck, the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) and South Pole Telescope (SPT), showing the impact of different choices that can be done in combining these datasets. Then, we use a range of low redshift probes to test CDE cosmologies, both for a constant and for a tomographic coupling. In particular, we use for the first time data from weak lensing (the KiDS-1000 survey), galaxy clustering (BOSS survey), and their combination, including 3x2pt galaxy-galaxy lensing cross-correlation data. We do not find evidence for nonzero coupling, either for a constant or tomographic case. A nonzero coupling is however still in agreement with current data. For CMB and background datasets, a tomographic coupling allows for /3 values up to one order of magnitude larger than in previous works, in particular at z < 1. The use of 3x2pt analysis then becomes important to constrain /3 at low redshifts, even when coupling is allowed to vary: for 3x2pt we find, at 0.5 < z < 1, /3 = 0.018 thorn 0.007 -0.011 , comparable to what CMB and background datasets would give for a constant coupling. This makes upcoming galaxy surveys potentially powerful probes to test CDE models at low redshifts. We find a smaller tension in H0 and S8 when the coupling is allowed to vary, although this is rather due to an increase in their uncertainties. We also see that our model is penalized by a Bayesian ratio model comparison with respect to ?CDM, which is still favored by current data.