Modified gravity constraints from the full shape modeling of clustering measurements from DESI 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present cosmological constraints on deviations from general relativity (GR) from the first-year of clustering observations from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) in combination with other available datasets including the CMB data from Planck with CMB-lensing from Planck and ACT, BBN constraints on the physical baryon density, the galaxy weak lensing and clustering from DESY3 and supernova data from DESY5. We first consider the μ(a,k)–Σ(a,k) modified gravity (MG) parameterization (as well as η(a,k)) in a ΛCDM and a w 0 wa CDM cosmological backgrounds. Using a functional form for time-only evolution gives μ 0 = 0.11+0.44 -0.54 from DESI(FS+BAO)+BBN and a wide prior on ns . Using DESI(FS+BAO)+CMB+DESY3+DESY5-SN, we obtain μ 0 = 0.05 ± 0.22 and Σ0 = 0.008 ± 0.045 and similarly μ 0 = 0.02+0.19 -0.24 and η 0 = 0.09+0.36 -0.60, in an ΛCDM background. In w 0 wa CDM we obtain μ 0 = -0.24+0.32 -0.28 and Σ0 = 0.006 ± 0.043, consistent with GR, and we still find a preference of the data for a dynamical dark energy with w 0 > -1 and wa < 0. Using functional dependencies in both time and scale gives μ 0 and Σ0 with a same level of precision as above but other scale MG parameters remain hard to constrain. We then move to binned parameterizations in a ΛCDM background starting with two bins in redshift and obtain, μ 1 = 1.02 ± 0.13, μ 2 = 1.04 ± 0.11, Σ1 = 1.021 ± 0.029 and Σ2 = 1.022+0.027 -0.023, all consistent with the unity value of GR in the binning formalism. We then extend the analysis to combine two bins in redshift and two in scale giving 8 MG parameters that we find all consistent with GR. We note that we find here that the tension reported in previous studies about Σ0 being inconsistent with GR when using Planck PR3 data goes away when we use the recent LoLLiPoP+HiLLiPoP likelihoods. As noted in previous studies, this seems to indicate that the tension is indeed related to the CMB lensing anomaly in PR3 which is also resolved when using the recent likelihoods. We then constrain the class of Horndeski theory in the effective field theory of dark energy approach. We consider both EFT-basis and α-basis in the analysis. Assuming a power law parameterization for the EFT function Ω, which controls non-minimal coupling, we obtain Ω0 = 0.012+0.001 -0.012 and s 0 = 0.996+0.54 -0.20 from the combination of DESI(FS+BAO)+DESY5SN+CMB in a ΛCDM background, which are consistent with GR. Similar results are obtained when using the α-basis and assuming no-braiding (αB = 0) giving cM < 1.14 at 95% CL in a ΛCDM background, also in agreement with GR. However, we see a mild yet consistent indication for cB > 0 when αB is allowed to vary which will require further study to determine whether this is due to systematics or new physics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".