Paper detail

The observational status of Galileon gravity after Planck

We use the latest CMB data from Planck, together with BAO measurements, to constrain the full parameter space of Galileon gravity. We constrain separately the three main branches of the theory known as the Cubic, Quartic and Quintic models, and find that all yield a very good fit to these data. Unlike in $Λ{\rm CDM}$, the Galileon model constraints are compatible with local determinations of the Hubble parameter and predict nonzero neutrino masses at over $5σ$ significance. We also identify that the low-$l$ part of the CMB lensing spectrum may be able to distinguish between $Λ{\rm CDM}$ and Galileon models. In the Cubic model, the lensing potential deepens at late times on sub-horizon scales, which is at odds with the current observational suggestion of a positive ISW effect. Compared to $Λ$CDM, the Quartic and Quintic models predict less ISW power in the low-$l$ region of the CMB temperature spectrum, and as such are slightly preferred by the Planck data. We illustrate that residual local modifications to gravity in the Quartic and Quintic models may render the Cubic model as the only branch of Galileon gravity that passes Solar System tests.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.