Paper detail

Constraints and tensions in testing general relativity from Planck and CFHTLenS including intrinsic alignment systematics

We present constraints on testing general relativity (GR) at cosmological scales using recent data sets and assess the impact of galaxy intrinsic alignment (IA) in the CFHTLenS lensing data on those constraints. We consider CMB temperature data from Planck, the galaxy power spectrum from WiggleZ, weak lensing tomography from the CFHTLenS, ISW-galaxy cross correlations, and BAO data from 6dF, SDSS DR7, and BOSS DR9. We use a parameterization of the modified gravity (MG) that is binned in redshift and scale, a parameterization that evolves monotonically in scale but is binned in redshift, and a functional parameterization that evolves only in redshift. We present the results in terms of the MG parameters $Q$ and $Σ$. We employ an IA model with an amplitude $A_{CFHTLenS}$ that is included in the parameter analysis. We find an improvement in the constraints on the MG parameters corresponding to $40-53\%$ increase on the figure of merit compared to previous studies, and GR is found consistent with the data at the $95\%$ CL. The bounds found on $A_{CFHTLenS}$ are sensitive to the MG parameterization used, and the correlations between $A_{CFHTLenS}$ and MG parameters are found to be weak to moderate. For all 3 MG parameterizations $A_{\rm CFHTLenS}$ is found consistent with zero when the whole lensing sample is used, however, when using the optimized early-type galaxy sample a significantly non-zero $A_{\rm CFHTLenS}$ is found for GR and the third MG parameterization. We find that the tensions observed in previous studies persist, and there is an indication that CMB data and lensing data prefer different values for MG parameters, particularly for the parameter $Σ$. The analysis of the confidence contours and probability distributions suggest that the bimodality found follows that of the known tension in the $σ_8$ parameter. (Abridged)

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors3 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.