Paper detail

Singling out modified gravity parameters and datasets reveals a dichotomy between Planck and lensing

An important route to testing General Relativity (GR) at cosmological scales is usually done by constraining modified gravity (MG) parameters added to the Einstein perturbed equations. Most studies have analyzed so far constraints on pairs of MG parameters, but here, we explore constraints on one parameter at a time while fixing the other at its GR value. This allows us to analyze various models while benefiting from a stronger constraining power from the data. We also explore which specific datasets are in tension with GR. We find that models with ($μ=1$, $η$) and ($μ$, $η=1$) exhibit a 3.9-$σ$ and 3.8-$σ$ departure from GR when using Planck18+SNe+BAO, while ($μ$, $η$) shows a tension of 3.4-$σ$. We find no tension with GR for models with the MG parameter $Σ$ fixed to its GR value. Using a Bayesian model selection analysis, we find that some one-parameter MG models are moderately favored over $Λ$CDM when using all dataset combinations except Planck CMB Lensing and DES data. Namely, Planck18 shows a moderate tension with GR that only increases when adding any combination of RSD, SNe, or BAO. However, adding lensing diminishes or removes these tensions, which can be attributed to the ability of lensing in constraining the MG parameter $Σ$. The two overall groups of datasets are found to have a dichotomy when performing consistency tests with GR, which may be due to systematic effects, lack of constraining power, or modelling. These findings warrant further investigation using more precise data from ongoing and future surveys.

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.

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 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.