Paper detail

Can modified gravity models reconcile the tension between CMB anisotropy and lensing maps in Planck-like observations?

Planck-2015 data seem to favour a large value of the lensing amplitude parameter, $A_{\rm L}=1.22\pm0.10$, in CMB spectra. This result is in $2σ$ tension with the lensing reconstruction result, $A_{\rm L}^{ϕϕ}=0.95\pm0.04$. In this paper, we simulate several CMB anisotropy and CMB lensing spectra based on Planck-2015 best-fit cosmological parameter values and Planck blue book beam and noise specifications. We analyse several modified gravity models within the effective field theory framework against these simulations and find that models whose effective Newton constant is enhanced can modulate the CMB anisotropy spectra in a way similar to that of the $A_{\rm L}$ parameter. However, in order to lens the CMB anisotropies sufficiently, like in the Planck-2015 results, the growth of matter perturbations is substantially enhanced and gives a high $σ_8$ value. This in turn proves to be problematic when combining these data to other probes, like weak lensing from CFHTLenS, that favour a smaller amplitude of matter fluctuations.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.