2015
DOI: 10.1103/physrevd.91.123515
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Can modified gravity models reconcile the tension between the CMB anisotropy and lensing maps in Planck-like observations?

Abstract: Planck-2015 data seem to favour a large value of the lensing amplitude parameter, AL = 1.22 ± 0.10, in CMB spectra. This result is in 2σ tension with the lensing reconstruction result, A φφ L = 0.95 ± 0.04. In this paper, we simulate several CMB anisotropy and CMB lensing spectra based on Planck-2015 best-fit cosmological parameter values and Planck blue book beam and noise specifications. We analyse several modified gravity models within the effective field theory framework against these simulations and find … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Intriguingly, the simplest cosmological framework of the concordance ΛCDM cosmology has always been found to be in an excellent agreement with these cosmological observations, and its parameters have now been determined to an impressive accuracy [1]. Thus, given that this model has survived this avalanche of high precision data, robust constraints on new physics beyond the ΛCDM model are always getting tighter [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Nevertheless, there have been indications in the data that are not well described by the ΛCDM model.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Intriguingly, the simplest cosmological framework of the concordance ΛCDM cosmology has always been found to be in an excellent agreement with these cosmological observations, and its parameters have now been determined to an impressive accuracy [1]. Thus, given that this model has survived this avalanche of high precision data, robust constraints on new physics beyond the ΛCDM model are always getting tighter [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Nevertheless, there have been indications in the data that are not well described by the ΛCDM model.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…The linear EFT model has also been explored to gauge whether this proposal could reconcile the tension between Planck CMB estimation of the lensing amplitude parameter A L and the result from the lensing reconstruction [203]. Simulations of CMB anisotropy and CMB lensing spectra, assuming Planck 2015's best-fit values and Planck blue book on beam and noise specifications, show that models with an effective Newton constant stronger than G N can have a modulating effect similar to that of A L [204]. Nevertheless, this induces higher values of σ 8,0 making the tension with WL surveys more severe [13,15,14,16,180,181].…”
Section: Running Planck Massmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With respect to the original Horndeski formulation that describes different DE/MG models with several free functions of the scalar field and its kinetic energy, the EFT approach, gets rid of possible redundancies by compressing the freedom in defining them in a limited set of functions of time only [26,27]. This makes the EFT language especially suited to efficiently explore the observational implications of such models from an EFT perspective [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] while at the same time retaining the possibility to test specific models once they are mapped to the EFT of DE [40][41][42][43][44][45].…”
Section: Parametrized Dark Energy and Gravitymentioning
confidence: 99%