pith. sign in

arxiv: 2412.08627 · v3 · submitted 2024-12-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Testing the equivalence principle across the Universe: a model-independent approach with galaxy multi-tracing

Sveva Castello , Ziyang Zheng , Camille Bonvin , Luca Amendola This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 07:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords equivalence principlegalaxy cross-correlationrelativistic correctionsdark mattermulti-tracernull testcosmology
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cross-correlations of two galaxy populations test the equivalence principle model-independently

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a quantity E_P measured from the cross-power spectrum of two different galaxy tracers. This quantity equals one if the weak equivalence principle holds for all matter including dark matter and deviates otherwise. The measurement uses relativistic corrections on large scales that are independent of bias and growth rate. The approach requires no assumptions about the matter power spectrum, cosmic expansion history, structure growth, or how the principle might be broken. Forecasts indicate that the Square Kilometre Array could measure E_P to 7-15 percent accuracy at redshifts below 0.6, while the relativistic signal itself is detectable by both DESI and SKA.

Core claim

We construct a measurable quantity E_P that acts as a null test, i.e. it deviates from unity whenever the weak equivalence principle is violated. This quantity can be directly measured from the cross-correlation of two different galaxy populations, thanks to the inclusion of large-scale relativistic corrections. A key feature of our approach is that it only involves minimal assumptions, without the need to specify the power spectrum shape, the background evolution, the growth rate of cosmic structure, the galaxy bias function or a model for the potential violation of the equivalence principle.

What carries the argument

The quantity E_P constructed as a ratio from the relativistic contributions to the galaxy cross-power spectrum between two tracers that equals one if the equivalence principle holds

If this is right

  • The relativistic corrections can be detected with high significance by both DESI and SKA.
  • E_P can be constrained up to 7-15% precision within the redshift range z < 0.6 by SKA.
  • The test applies without specifying the power spectrum shape, background evolution, growth rate, galaxy bias or a model for any violation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A null result from this test would provide an independent check that dark matter responds to gravity in the same way as ordinary matter on cosmic scales.
  • The approach could be extended to other pairs of tracers such as galaxies and neutral hydrogen to increase statistical power.
  • Combining this large-scale null test with smaller-scale laboratory tests could narrow the range of allowed modifications to gravity.

Load-bearing premise

The relativistic corrections to galaxy clustering on large scales are both accurately calculable and sufficiently large to isolate E_P without requiring knowledge of the power spectrum shape, background evolution, growth rate, galaxy bias, or a model for the violation itself.

What would settle it

A measurement of the cross-correlation between two galaxy populations showing E_P significantly different from one at low redshift would indicate a violation of the equivalence principle for dark matter

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08627 by Camille Bonvin, Luca Amendola, Sveva Castello, Ziyang Zheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: SKA2 1σ relative error on EP as a function of redshift, for various bias schemes. The black dashed line represents the fiducial value EP = 1, while the green shaded region indicates the constraints for the baseline survey. . P∆F∆B . The quantity τ1 is not part of our set of param￾eters, but we can replace EP by τ1 using Eq. (12). As we see from Table I, with DESI we obtain a constraint for τ1 of 5.7% in th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Corner plot for the baseline SKA2 survey at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fiducial linear power spectrum at present time and error bars for the baseline SKA2 survey. Here, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a test of the equivalence principle on cosmological scales. This cornerstone of general relativity has been tested with high precision for standard matter, but its validity for the unknown dark matter remains a crucial open question. We construct a measurable quantity $E_P$ that acts as a null test, i.e. it deviates from unity whenever the weak equivalence principle is violated. This quantity can be directly measured from the cross-correlation of two different galaxy populations, thanks to the inclusion of large-scale relativistic corrections. A key feature of our approach is that it only involves minimal assumptions, without the need to specify the power spectrum shape, the background evolution, the growth rate of cosmic structure, the galaxy bias function or a model for the potential violation of the equivalence principle. We provide forecasts for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument and the Square Kilometre Array (SKA). While the relativistic corrections can be detected with high significance by both surveys, $E_P$ can be constrained up to an interesting level only by SKA, with a precision around 7-15$\%$ within the redshift range $z < 0.6$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a quantity E_P as a null test for violations of the weak equivalence principle on cosmological scales. E_P is formed from combinations of auto- and cross-power spectra of two distinct galaxy populations; inclusion of standard-GR relativistic corrections (Doppler, gravitational redshift, etc.) is claimed to cancel all Newtonian contributions, leaving a ratio that equals unity under the EP and deviates otherwise. The construction is asserted to require no assumptions on the power-spectrum shape, background cosmology, growth rate, galaxy bias, or the functional form of any EP violation. Forecasts indicate that SKA can constrain E_P to 7-15% precision at z<0.6 while DESI detects the relativistic corrections but not E_P at interesting levels.

Significance. If the isolation of E_P is robust, the approach supplies a genuinely model-independent cosmological probe of the EP for dark matter, a regime inaccessible to laboratory tests. The strategy of turning relativistic corrections from a systematic into the signal carrier is conceptually economical and could be applied to other consistency tests. The explicit forecasts for Stage-IV surveys provide a concrete benchmark for future analyses.

major comments (2)
  1. [derivation of E_P and relativistic kernels (main text, around the definition of the cross-power spectrum)] The central claim that E_P is measurable without a model for the EP violation rests on the assumption that the relativistic kernels retain their standard-GR expressions (involving velocity divergence, gravitational potentials, and bias) even when the EP is violated for dark matter. If the violation modifies geodesic motion or metric sourcing, the functional form of the Doppler and gravitational-redshift terms changes, so the cancellation that isolates E_P no longer holds without additional parameters. This assumption is load-bearing for the 'model-independent' assertion yet is not justified in the derivation of the kernels.
  2. [Abstract and § on construction of E_P] The abstract states that E_P 'can be directly measured' once relativistic corrections are included, but the provided text supplies neither an explicit algebraic expression for E_P nor a step-by-step demonstration that the ratio reduces to a constant independent of the power spectrum and bias. Without these, it is impossible to verify that the measurement is not self-referential or degenerate with the very quantities it is supposed to test.
minor comments (2)
  1. [early sections] Notation for the two galaxy populations and the precise combination of P_gg, P_g1g2, etc. that defines E_P should be introduced with an equation number at first use.
  2. [forecasts] The forecast section would benefit from a table listing the assumed survey specifications (number density, bias, redshift bins) used for both DESI and SKA.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of the significance of our work and for the constructive comments. We address each major comment below, indicating the revisions we will implement.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [derivation of E_P and relativistic kernels (main text, around the definition of the cross-power spectrum)] The central claim that E_P is measurable without a model for the EP violation rests on the assumption that the relativistic kernels retain their standard-GR expressions (involving velocity divergence, gravitational potentials, and bias) even when the EP is violated for dark matter. If the violation modifies geodesic motion or metric sourcing, the functional form of the Doppler and gravitational-redshift terms changes, so the cancellation that isolates E_P no longer holds without additional parameters. This assumption is load-bearing for the 'model-independent' assertion yet is not justified in the derivation of the kernels.

    Authors: We acknowledge this is a substantive point on the scope of the claimed model-independence. Our derivation treats the EP violation as a difference in the effective response of the two galaxy populations to the underlying gravitational potentials (i.e., a modified bias relation), while the relativistic correction kernels themselves are derived from the standard GR metric perturbations and geodesic motion for photons and baryons. We will add an explicit paragraph in the derivation section stating this modeling choice and its limitations, including a note that more radical violations altering the metric or photon geodesics would require additional parameters. This is a partial revision focused on clarification rather than a change to the core calculation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract and § on construction of E_P] The abstract states that E_P 'can be directly measured' once relativistic corrections are included, but the provided text supplies neither an explicit algebraic expression for E_P nor a step-by-step demonstration that the ratio reduces to a constant independent of the power spectrum and bias. Without these, it is impossible to verify that the measurement is not self-referential or degenerate with the quantities it is supposed to test.

    Authors: We agree that the explicit algebraic form and cancellation steps should be more prominent for verifiability. In the revised manuscript we will insert the defining expression for E_P immediately after the cross-power spectrum definition and provide the step-by-step cancellation of the Newtonian terms, demonstrating independence from the power-spectrum shape, growth rate, and bias functions. We will also ensure the abstract phrasing is consistent with this explicit construction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

E_P null-test construction is self-contained; no reduction to inputs by definition or self-citation

full rationale

The paper defines E_P explicitly as a ratio of auto- and cross-spectra that equals unity under the equivalence principle (standard GR relativistic kernels) and deviates otherwise. This is the intended design of a null test rather than a circular reduction. No equations are shown reducing E_P to a fitted parameter, and the abstract states the approach requires no model for the violation itself. No self-citation load-bearing steps or ansatz smuggling are present in the provided text. The derivation remains independent of the target result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the central claim rests on the premise that relativistic corrections to observed galaxy clustering are both calculable and dominant enough to isolate E_P without additional modeling assumptions. No free parameters, invented entities, or explicit axioms are stated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5736 in / 1263 out tokens · 18679 ms · 2026-05-23T07:28:26.780344+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Prospects for multi-messenger discovery of the gravitational-wave background anisotropies via cross-correlation with galaxies

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    New simulations show that cross-correlating gravitational wave background anisotropies with galaxy distributions can enable discovery at angular scales of 4-6 degrees with next-generation observatories.

  2. Diagnostic Consistency Tests of the Concordance Cosmology

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A framework combining derivatives of angular diameter distance with line-of-sight expansion rate enables model-independent tests of FLRW consistency and yields a nonparametric estimator for the cosmic density field in...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Testing the law of gravity with novel large- scale structure observables

    and for Horndeski theories in [13]. Our objective is to develop a test indicating whether the functionsΘ and Γ take a nonzero value in our Uni- verse. In the spirit of being fully model-independent, we also allow for generic deviations from standard gravity encoded in a functionµG in the Poisson equation, Ψ = −3 2µG(k,z ) (H k )2 Ωmδm, (2) where Ωm(z)isth...

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Torsion-balance tests of the weak equivalence principle,

    T. A. Wagner, S. Schlamminger, J. H. Gundlach, and E. G. Adelberger, “Torsion-balance tests of the weak equivalence principle,”Class. Quant. Grav. , vol. 29, p. 184002, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Experimental limits on any long range nongravitational interaction between dark matter and ordinary matter,

    C. W. Stubbs, “Experimental limits on any long range nongravitational interaction between dark matter and ordinary matter,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 70, pp. 119–122, Jan 1993

    work page 1993

  4. [4]

    Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes,

    M. Moresco et al., “Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes,”Living Rev. Rel. , vol. 25, no. 1, p. 6, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Cosmology and fundamental physics with the Euclid satellite,

    Euclid Collaboration, “Cosmology and fundamental physics with the Euclid satellite,”Living Rev. Rel., vol. 21, no. 1, p. 2, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space,

    G. W. Horndeski, “Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space,”Int. J. Theor. Phys. , vol. 10, pp. 363–384, 1974

    work page 1974

  7. [7]

    Modified Gravity Constraints from the Full Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements from DESI 2024,

    M. Ishak et al., “Modified Gravity Constraints from the Full Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements from DESI 2024,” 11 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Testing the equivalence principle on cosmological scales,

    C. Bonvin and P. Fleury, “Testing the equivalence principle on cosmological scales,”JCAP, vol. 05, p. 061, 2018

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    A null test of the equivalence principle using relativistic effects in galaxy surveys,

    C. Bonvin, F. O. Franco, and P. Fleury, “A null test of the equivalence principle using relativistic effects in galaxy surveys,”JCAP, vol. 08, p. 004, 2020

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Rescuing constraints on modified gravity using gravitational redshift in large- scale structure,

    S. Castello, N. Grimm, and C. Bonvin, “Rescuing constraints on modified gravity using gravitational redshift in large- scale structure,”Phys. Rev. D , vol. 106, no. 8, p. 083511, 2022

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Modified Einstein versus modified Euler for dark matter,

    C. Bonvin and L. Pogosian, “Modified Einstein versus modified Euler for dark matter,”Nature Astron., vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 1127–1134, 2023

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Disentangling modified gravity from a dark force with gravitational redshift,

    S. Castello, Z. Wang, L. Dam, C. Bonvin, and L. Pogosian, “Disentangling modified gravity from a dark force with gravitational redshift,”Phys. Rev. D , vol. 110, no. 10, p. 103523, 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Linear and non-linear perturbations in dark energy models,

    L. Amendola, “Linear and non-linear perturbations in dark energy models,”Phys. Rev. D , vol. 69, p. 103524, 2004

    work page 2004

  14. [14]

    Gravitational Redshift Constraints on the Effective Theory of Interacting Dark Energy,

    S. Castello, M. Mancarella, N. Grimm, D. S. Blanco, I. Tutusaus, and C. Bonvin, “Gravitational Redshift Constraints on the Effective Theory of Interacting Dark Energy,”JCAP, vol. 05, p. 003, 2024

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Coupled quintessence,

    L. Amendola, “Coupled quintessence,”Phys. Rev. D , vol. 62, p. 043511, 2000

    work page 2000

  16. [16]

    What galaxy surveys really measure,

    C. Bonvin and R. Durrer, “What galaxy surveys really measure,”Phys. Rev. D , vol. 84, p. 063505, 2011

    work page 2011

  17. [17]

    The linear power spectrum of observed source number counts,

    A. Challinor and A. Lewis, “The linear power spectrum of observed source number counts,”Phys. Rev. D , vol. 84, p. 043516, 2011

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    A New Perspective on Galaxy Clustering as a Cosmological Probe: General Relativistic Effects,

    J. Yoo, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and M. Zaldarriaga, “A New Perspective on Galaxy Clustering as a Cosmological Probe: General Relativistic Effects,”Phys. Rev. D , vol. 80, p. 083514, 2009

    work page 2009

  19. [19]

    Clustering in real space and in redshift space,

    N. Kaiser, “Clustering in real space and in redshift space,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , vol. 227, pp. 1–27, 1987

    work page 1987

  20. [20]

    Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological impli- cations from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory,

    eBOSS Collaboration, “Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological impli- cations from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory,”Phys. Rev. D , vol. 103, no. 8, p. 083533, 2021

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    On the importance of lensing for galaxy clustering in photometric and spectroscopic surveys,

    G. Jelic-Cizmek, F. Lepori, C. Bonvin, and R. Durrer, “On the importance of lensing for galaxy clustering in photometric and spectroscopic surveys,”JCAP, vol. 04, p. 055, 2021

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Euclid preparation - XIX. Impact of magnification on photometric galaxy clustering,

    F. Lepori et al., “Euclid preparation - XIX. Impact of magnification on photometric galaxy clustering,”Astron. Astro- phys., vol. 662, p. A93, 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    The full-sky relativistic correlation function and power spectrum of galaxy number counts. Part I: theoretical aspects,

    V. Tansella, C. Bonvin, R. Durrer, B. Ghosh, and E. Sellentin, “The full-sky relativistic correlation function and power spectrum of galaxy number counts. Part I: theoretical aspects,”JCAP, vol. 03, p. 019, 2018

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Principal reconstructed modes of dark energy and gravity,

    M. Raveri, L. Pogosian, M. Martinelli, K. Koyama, A. Silvestri, and G.-B. Zhao, “Principal reconstructed modes of dark energy and gravity,”JCAP, vol. 02, p. 061, 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Gravitational redshift and other redshift-space distortions of the imaginary part of the power spectrum,

    P. McDonald, “Gravitational redshift and other redshift-space distortions of the imaginary part of the power spectrum,” JCAP, vol. 11, p. 026, 2009

    work page 2009

  26. [26]

    Asymmetric galaxy correlation functions,

    C. Bonvin, L. Hui, and E. Gaztanaga, “Asymmetric galaxy correlation functions,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 89, no. 8, p. 083535, 2014

    work page 2014

  27. [27]

    Modeling relativistic contributions to the halo power spectrum dipole,

    F. Beutler and E. Di Dio, “Modeling relativistic contributions to the halo power spectrum dipole,”JCAP, vol. 07, no. 07, p. 048, 2020

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    The 6× 2pt method: supernova velocities meet multiple tracers,

    M. Quartin, L. Amendola, and B. Moraes, “The 6× 2pt method: supernova velocities meet multiple tracers,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , vol. 512, no. 2, pp. 2841–2853, 2022

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Are peculiar velocity surveys competitive as a cosmological probe?,

    J. Koda, C. Blake, T. Davis, C. Magoulas, C. M. Springob, M. Scrimgeour, A. Johnson, G. B. Poole, and L. Staveley- Smith, “Are peculiar velocity surveys competitive as a cosmological probe?,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , vol. 445, no. 4, pp. 4267–4286, 2014

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Measuring the growth rate of structure with Type IA Supernovae from LSST,

    C. Howlett, A. S. G. Robotham, C. D. P. Lagos, and A. G. Kim, “Measuring the growth rate of structure with Type IA Supernovae from LSST,”Astrophys. J., vol. 847, no. 2, p. 128, 2017

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    Cosmological Redshift-Space Distortion on Clustering of High-Redshift Objects: Correction for Nonlinear Effects in the Power Spectrum and Tests with N-Body Simulations,

    H. Magira, Y. P. Jing, and Y. Suto, “Cosmological Redshift-Space Distortion on Clustering of High-Redshift Objects: Correction for Nonlinear Effects in the Power Spectrum and Tests with N-Body Simulations,”Astrophys. J., vol. 528, pp. 30–50, Jan 2000

    work page 2000

  32. [32]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,

    D. Brout et al., “The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,”Astrophys. J., vol. 938, no. 2, p. 110, 2022

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Extending cosmological tests of General Relativity with the Square Kilometre Array,

    P. Bull, “Extending cosmological tests of General Relativity with the Square Kilometre Array,”Astrophys. J., vol. 817, no. 1, p. 26, 2016

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design,

    A. Aghamousa et al., “The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design,” 10 2016

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    A case study for measuring the relativistic dipole of a galaxy cross-correlation with the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,

    C. Bonvin, F. Lepori, S. Schulz, I. Tutusaus, J. Adamek, and P. Fosalba, “A case study for measuring the relativistic dipole of a galaxy cross-correlation with the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , 9 vol. 525, no. 3, pp. 4611–4627, 2023

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    Planck Collaboration VI, “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,”Astron. Astrophys., vol. 641, p. A6, 2020. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Detecting relativistic Doppler by multi-tracing a single galaxy population,

    F. Montano and S. Camera, “Detecting relativistic Doppler by multi-tracing a single galaxy population,”Phys. Dark Univ., vol. 46, p. 101634, 2024

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Redshift-space distortions with split densities,

    E. Paillas, Y.-C. Cai, N. Padilla, and A. G. Sánchez, “Redshift-space distortions with split densities,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 505, no. 4, pp. 5731–5752, 2021

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    ep-testing: Fisher matrix code to test the equivalence principle

    “ep-testing: Fisher matrix code to test the equivalence principle.” Available athttps://github.com/itpamendola/ ep-testing

    work page

  40. [40]

    Cosmological performance of SKA HI galaxy surveys,

    S. Yahya, P. Bull, M. G. Santos, M. Silva, R. Maartens, P. Okouma, and B. Bassett, “Cosmological performance of SKA HI galaxy surveys,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , vol. 450, no. 3, pp. 2251–2260, 2015

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    Probing primordial non-Gaussianity with SKA galaxy redshift sur- veys: a fully relativistic analysis,

    S. Camera, M. G. Santos, and R. Maartens, “Probing primordial non-Gaussianity with SKA galaxy redshift sur- veys: a fully relativistic analysis,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , vol. 448, no. 2, pp. 1035–1043, 2015. [Erratum: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 467, 1505–1506 (2017)]

    work page 2015