Paper detail

Euclid: Forecast constraints on consistency tests of the $Λ$CDM model

The standard cosmological model is based on the fundamental assumptions of a spatially homogeneous and isotropic universe on large scales. An observational detection of a violation of these assumptions at any redshift would immediately indicate the presence of new physics. We quantify the ability of the Euclid mission, together with contemporary surveys, to improve the current sensitivity of null tests of the canonical cosmological constant $Λ$ and the cold dark matter (LCDM) model in the redshift range $0<z<1.8$. We considered both currently available data and simulated Euclid and external data products based on a LCDM fiducial model, an evolving dark energy model assuming the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder (CPL) parameterization or an inhomogeneous Lema\^ıtre-Tolman-Bondi model with a cosmological constant $Λ$ (LLTB), and carried out two separate but complementary analyses: a machine learning reconstruction of the null tests based on genetic algorithms, and a theory-agnostic parametric approach based on Taylor expansion and binning of the data, in order to avoid assumptions about any particular model. We find that in combination with external probes, Euclid can improve current constraints on null tests of the LCDM by approximately a factor of three when using the machine learning approach and by a further factor of two in the case of the parametric approach. However, we also find that in certain cases, the parametric approach may be biased against or missing some features of models far from LCDM. Our analysis highlights the importance of synergies between Euclid and other surveys. These synergies are crucial for providing tighter constraints over an extended redshift range for a plethora of different consistency tests of some of the main assumptions of the current cosmological paradigm.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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.

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 graph slice

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.