The Santiago–Harvard–Edinburgh–Durham void comparison – I. SHEDding light on chameleon gravity tests

Cautun, Marius; Paillas, Enrique; Cai, Yan Chuan; Bose, Sownak; Armijo, Joaquín; Li, Baojiu; Padilla, Nelson

doi:10.1093/mnras/sty463

Cited by 125 publications

(179 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

172

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this section, we briefly introduce the N-body simulations we will use to assess the performance of our analytical model, which is a crucial step for our analysis. The first set of simulations, that we will refer to from now on as Group I simulations, are the Extended LEnsing PHysics using ANalaytic ray Tracing (ELEPHANT) simulations [94], that were performed with two modified versions of the GR code (RAMSES): the ECOSMOG module [95,96] produced snapshots for the F6, F5 and F4 cases at a cosmological redshift of z = 0.5, while ECOSMOG-V [97][98][99] was used to produce the nDGP N1 and N5 realizations, also at z = 0.5. 1024 3 dark matter particles were evolved, in a simulation box with a side L box = 1024M pc/h and a cosmology specified by the following parameters:…”

Section: N-body Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An accurate perturbative approach to redshift space clustering of biased tracers in modified gravity

Valogiannis

Bean

Avilés

2020

J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We extend the scale-dependent Gaussian Streaming Model (GSM) to produce analytical predictions for the anisotropic redshift-space correlation function for biased tracers in modified gravity models.Employing the Convolution Lagrangian Perturbation Theory (CLPT) re-summation scheme, with a local Lagrangian bias schema provided by the peak-background split formalism, we predict the necessary ingredients that enter the GSM, the real-space halo pairwise velocity and the pairwise velocity dispersion. We apply our method on two widely-considered modified gravity models, the chameleon-screened f (R) Hu-Sawicki model and the nDGP Vainshtein model and compare our predictions against state-of-the-art N-body simulations for these models.We demonstrate that the GSM approach to predict the monopole and the quadrupole of the redshift-space correlation function for halos, gives very good agreement with the simulation data, for a wide range of screening mechanisms, levels of screening and halo masses at z = 0.5 and z = 1. Our work shows the applicability of the GSM, for cosmologies beyond GR, demonstrating that it can serve as a powerful predictive tool for the next stage of cosmological surveys like DESI, Euclid, LSST and WFIRST. arXiv:1909.05261v1 [astro-ph.CO]

show abstract

Section: N-body Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An accurate perturbative approach to redshift space clustering of biased tracers in modified gravity

Valogiannis

Bean

Avilés

2020

J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the choice is not yet completely ruled out by cosmological observations, and for the GGL analysis we would like to choose a model that can maximize the difference from GR (see e.g. Cai, Padilla & Li 2015;Cataneo et al 2015;Liu et al 2016;Shirasaki, Hamana & Yoshida 2016;Shirasaki et al 2017;Peirone et al 2017;Cautun et al 2017, for some recent studies on the current and potential constraints f(R) gravity).…”

Section: The Choice Of F(r) Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For GGL, we have assumed the lens galaxies are at z lens = 0.30. as LSST (see e.g. Cautun et al 2017, for some relevant S/N analysis but for void lensing using Euclid and LSST). For simplicity, let us assume that there are overlapping spectroscopic surveys which can provide galaxy catalogues with a number density at least as high as the ones used in our lensing galaxies, between 0.16 z 0.43.…”

Section: The Excess Surface Density Profilesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, we will focus on the lensing of background (source) galaxies by foreground (lens) galaxies, or galaxy-galaxy lensing (GGL; Brainerd, Blandford & Smail 1996;Hudson et al 1998;Guzik & Seljak 2002;Hoekstra, Yee & Gladders 2004;Mandelbaum et al 2006;Clampitt et al 2017). For some recent works on testing cosmological models with cluster or void lensing, see Cai, Padilla & Li (2015), Cautun et al (2017), and Barreira et al (2015aBarreira et al ( ,b, 2017.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Galaxy–galaxy weak gravitational lensing in f(R) gravity

Shirasaki

2017

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present an analysis of galaxy-galaxy weak gravitational lensing (GGL) in chameleon f (R) gravity -a leading candidate of non-standard gravity models. For the analysis we have created mock galaxy catalogues based on dark matter haloes from two sets of numerical simulations, using a halo occupation distribution (HOD) prescription which allows a redshift dependence of galaxy number density. To make a fairer comparison between the f (R) and ΛCDM models, their HOD parameters are tuned so that the galaxy two-point correlation functions in real space (and therefore the projected two-point correlation functions) match. While the f (R) model predicts an enhancement of the convergence power spectrum by up to ∼ 30% compared to the standard ΛCDM model with the same parameters, the maximum enhancement of GGL is only half as large and less than 5% on separations above ∼ 1-2h −1 Mpc, because the latter is a cross correlation of shear (or matter, which is more strongly affected by modified gravity) and galaxy (which is weakly affected given the good match between galaxy auto correlations in the two models) fields. We also study the possibility of reconstructing the matter power spectrum by combination of GGL and galaxy clustering in f (R) gravity. We find that the galaxy-matter cross correlation coefficient remains at unity down to ∼ 2-3h −1 Mpc at relevant redshifts even in f (R) gravity, indicating joint analysis of GGL and galaxy clustering can be a powerful probe of matter density fluctuations in chameleon gravity. The scale dependence of the model differences in their predictions of GGL can potentially allow to break the degeneracy between f (R) gravity and other cosmological parameters such as Ω m and σ 8 .

show abstract

“…Our basic concept is to (1) split the sky by the count of tracer galaxies in a top-hat aperture and extended redshift range into quantiles of density, and to (2) measure the gravitational shear around each of the quantiles to reconstruct the matter density PDF. These measurements are a generalization of trough lensing, introduced in Gruen et al [23] (see also [24][25][26]). They are also closely related to the galaxy-matter aperture statistics of Simon et al [27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Density split statistics: Cosmological constraints from counts and lensing in cells in DES Y1 and SDSS data

Gruen¹,

Friedrich²,

Krause³

et al. 2018

Phys. Rev. D

113

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We derive cosmological constraints from the probability distribution function (PDF) of evolved large-scale matter density fluctuations. We do this by splitting lines of sight by density based on their count of tracer galaxies, and by measuring both gravitational shear around and counts-in-cells in overdense and underdense lines of sight, in Dark Energy Survey (DES) First Year and Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) data. Our analysis uses a perturbation theory model [O. Friedrich et al., Phys. Rev. D 98, 023508 (2018)] and is validated using N-body simulation realizations and log-normal mocks. It allows us to constrain cosmology, bias and stochasticity of galaxies with respect to matter density and, in addition, the skewness of the matter density field. From a Bayesian model comparison, we find that the data weakly prefer a connection of galaxies and matter that is stochastic beyond Poisson fluctuations on ≤ 20 arcmin angular smoothing scale. The two stochasticity models we fit yield DES constraints on the matter density Ω m ¼ 0.26 −0.07 for the two stochasticity models), but consistent with each other and with the 3 x 2pt results if stochasticity is at the low end of the posterior range. As an additional test of gravity, counts and lensing in cells allow to compare the skewness S 3 of the matter density PDF to its ΛCDM prediction. We find no evidence of excess skewness in any model or data set, with better than 25 per cent relative precision in the skewness estimate from DES alone.

show abstract

The Santiago–Harvard–Edinburgh–Durham void comparison – I. SHEDding light on chameleon gravity tests

Cited by 125 publications

References 69 publications

An accurate perturbative approach to redshift space clustering of biased tracers in modified gravity

An accurate perturbative approach to redshift space clustering of biased tracers in modified gravity

Galaxy–galaxy weak gravitational lensing in f(R) gravity

Density split statistics: Cosmological constraints from counts and lensing in cells in DES Y1 and SDSS data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About