REVIEW 1 cited by
Distinguishing between $\Lambda$CDM and modified gravity with future observations of cosmic growth rate
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
abstract
A probability of distinguishing between $\Lambda$CDM model and modified gravity is studied by using the future observations for the growth rate of cosmic structure (Euclid redshift survey). Adopting extended DGP model, Kinetic Gravity Braiding model, and Galileon model as modified gravity, we compare predicted cosmic growth rate by models to the mock observational data. The growth rate $f\sigma_8$ in the original DGP model is suppressed compared with the $\Lambda$CDM case, for the same value of the current density parameter of matter $\Omega_{m,0}$, because of the suppression of effective gravitational constant. In case of the kinetic gravity braiding model and the Galileon model, the growth rate $f\sigma_8$ is enhanced compared with the $\Lambda$CDM case, for the same value of $\Omega_{m,0}$, because of the enhancement of effective gravitational constant. For future observational data of the cosmic growth rate (Euclid), compatible value of $\Omega_{m,0}$ are different by models, furthermore $\Omega_{m,0}$ can be stringently constrained. Thus, we find the $\Lambda$CDM model is distinguishable from modified gravity by combining the growth rate data of the Euclid with other observations.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Is $\omega_0 \omega_a$CDM a good model for the clumpy Universe?
Against a Gaussian-process reconstruction of 15 sigma8(z) measurements, the DESI w0waCDM model fits slightly better than LambdaCDM, but the difference is tiny and the comparison metric is biased.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.