Paper detail

Probing non-standard gravity with the growth index: a background independent analysis

Measurements of the growth index $γ(z)$ provide a clue as to whether Einstein's field equations encompass gravity also on large cosmic scales, those where the expansion of the universe accelerates. We show that the information encoded in this function can be satisfactorily parameterized using a small set of coefficients $γ_i$ in such a way that the true scaling of the growth index is recovered to better than $1\%$ in most dark energy and dark gravity models. We find that the likelihood of current data is maximal for $γ_0=0.74\pm 0.44$ and $γ_1=0.01\pm0.46$, a measurement compatible with the $Λ$CDM predictions. Moreover data favor models predicting slightly less growth of structures than the Planck LambdaCDM scenario. The main aim of the paper is to provide a prescription for routinely calculating, in an analytic way, the amplitude of the growth indices $γ_i$ in relevant cosmological scenarios, and to show that these parameters naturally define a space where predictions of alternative theories of gravity can be compared against growth data in a manner which is independent from the expansion history of the cosmological background. As the standard $Ω$-plane provides a tool to identify different expansion histories $H(t)$ and their relation to various cosmological models, the $γ$-plane can thus be used to locate different growth rate histories $f(t)$ and their relation to alternatives model of gravity. As a result, we find that the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati gravity model is rejected with a $95\%$ confidence level. By simulating future data sets, such as those that a Euclid-like mission will provide, we also show how to tell apart LambdaCDM predictions from those of more extreme possibilities, such as smooth dark energy models, clustering quintessence or parameterized post-Friedmann cosmological models.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

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.