Euclid: Constraints on f(R) cosmologies from the spectroscopic and photometric primary probes

Le résumé fourni par la source

$\textit{Euclid}$ will provide a powerful compilation of data including spectroscopic redshifts, the angular clustering of galaxies, weak lensing cosmic shear, and the cross-correlation of these last two photometric observables. In this study we extend recently presented $\textit{Euclid}$ forecasts into the Hu-Sawicki $f(R)$ cosmological model, a popular extension of the Hilbert-Einstein action that introduces an universal modified gravity force in a scale-dependent way. Our aim is to estimate how well future $\textit{Euclid}$ data will be able to constrain the extra parameter of the theory, $f_{R0}$, for the range in which this parameter is still allowed by current observations. For the spectroscopic probe, we use a phenomenological approach for the scale dependence of the growth of perturbations in the terms related to baryon acoustic oscillations and redshift-space distortions. For the photometric observables, we use a fitting formula that captures the modifications in the non-linear matter power spectrum caused by the $f(R)$ model. We show that, in an optimistic setting, and for a fiducial value of $f_{R0} = 5 \times 10^{-6}$, $\textit{Euclid}$ alone will be able to constrain the additional parameter $\log f_{R0}$ at the $3\%$ level, using spectroscopic galaxy clustering alone; at the $1.4\%$ level, using the combination of photometric probes on their own; and at the $1\%$ level, using the combination of spectroscopic and photometric observations. This last constraint corresponds to an error of the order of $6 \times 10^{-7}$ at the $1σ$ level on the model parameter $f_{R0} = 5 \times 10^{-6}$. We report also forecasted constraints for $f_{R0} = 5 \times 10^{-5}$ and $f_{R0} = 5 \times 10^{-7}$ and show that in the optimistic scenario, $\textit{Euclid}$ will be able to distinguish these models from $Λ\mathrm{CDM}$ at more than 3$σ$. (abridged)

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.