Paper detail

Viability tests of \textit{f(R)}-gravity models with Supernovae Type 1A data

In this work, we will be testing four different general \textit{f(R)}-gravity models, two of which are the more realistic models (namely the Starobinsky and the Hu-Sawicki models), to determine if they are viable alternative models to pursue a more vigorous constraining test upon them. For the testing of these models, we use 359 low- and intermediate-redshift Supernovae Type 1A data obtained from thRede SDSS-II/SNLS2 Joint Light-curve Analysis (JLA). We develop a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation to find a best-fitting function within reasonable ranges for each \textit{f(R)}-gravity model, as well as for the Lambda Cold Dark Matter ($Λ$CDM) model. For simplicity, we assume a flat universe with a negligible radiation density distribution. Therefore, the only difference between the accepted $Λ$CDM model and the \textit{f(R)}-gravity models will be the dark energy term and the arbitrary free parameters. By doing a statistical analysis and using the $Λ$CDM model as our "true model", we can obtain an indication whether or not a certain \textit{f(R)}-gravity model shows promise and requires a more in-depth view in future studies. In our results, we found that the Starobinsky model obtained a larger likelihood function value than the $Λ$CDM model, while still obtaining the cosmological parameters to be $Ω_{m} = 0.268^{+0.027}_{-0.024}$ for the matter density distribution and $\bar{h} = 0.690^{+0.005}_{-0.005}$ for the Hubble uncertainty parameter. We also found a reduced Starobinsky model that are able to explain the data, as well as being statistically significant.

preprint2020arXivOpen 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.