Testing gravity with EG: mapping theory onto observations
Open accessAbstract
We present a complete derivation of the observationally motivated definition of the modified gravity statistic E G . Using this expression, we investigate how variations to theory and survey parameters may introduce uncertainty in the general relativistic prediction of E G . We forecast errors on E G for measurements using two combinations of upcoming surveys, and find that theoretical uncertainties may dominate for a futuristic measurement. Finally, we compute predictions of E G under modifications to general relativity in the quasistatic regime, and comment on the pros and cons of using E G to test gravity with future surveys.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Leonard et al. (2015) observed a difference between E_G as given by Eq. (111) and E_G as given by Eq. (113).
“Second, when considering the measure at nonlinear scales, it was observed in Leonard et al. (2015) that there was a difference between as given by Eq. (111) and as given by Eq. (113).”
From Testing general relativity in cosmology (2019) · cites this paper as Leonard et al. (2015)
Leonard et al. attribute the cancellation to nonlinearities entering Upsilon_gm and Upsilon_gg via the same combination of correlation function terms, so they cancel from the ratio.
“They attribute this to fact that nonlinearities enter into and (i.e., the galaxy-matter and galaxy-galaxy annular differential surface densities) via the same combination of correlation function terms, so they effectively cancel out from the ratio.”
From Testing general relativity in cosmology (2019) · cites this paper as Leonard et al. (2015)
Leonard et al. found that including non-linearities in the correlation function used in E_G does not cause the measure to deviate from the expected GR value at small scales.
“They found that the inclusion of non-linearities in the correlation function used into do not cause the measure to deviate from the expected GR value at small scales.”
From Testing general relativity in cosmology (2019) · cites this paper as Leonard et al. (2015)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 47 · Cited by 34
- Authors
- Leonard, C. D., Ferreira, P. G., & Heymans, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2015-12-29
- Volume
- 2015
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 051-051
- ISSN
- 1475-7508 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-7516
- OpenAlex
- W2192569094
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 7
- FWCI
- 2.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Science and Technology Facilities Council (ST/M001229/1, ST/K00106X/1, ST/J001422/1)
- H2020 European Research Council (647112)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Pulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
- Keywords
- modified gravity, tests of general relativity, large-scale structure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
