pith. sign in

arxiv: 2411.03773 · v3 · submitted 2024-11-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Model-independent calibration of Gamma-Ray Bursts with neural networks

Purba Mukherjee , Maria Giovanna Dainotti , Konstantinos F. Dialektopoulos , Jackson Levi Said , Jurgen Mifsud This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 17:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords gamma-ray burstsDainotti relationsneural networksmodel-independent calibrationHubble diagramcosmological parametersPlatinum sample
0
0 comments X

The pith

Artificial neural networks calibrate Dainotti relations for Gamma-Ray Bursts to produce a model-independent Hubble diagram.

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

The paper aims to establish that GRBs can serve as cosmological distance indicators at high redshifts without assuming the LambdaCDM model. It applies artificial neural networks inside a Markov Chain Monte Carlo procedure to calibrate both the 2D and 3D Dainotti relations on the Platinum sample of long GRBs. The calibration minimizes scatter in the parameters and yields a stable Hubble diagram. The method is positioned as an improvement over Gaussian processes by removing kernel dependence and lowering overfitting risk. A sympathetic reader would care because the approach extends the cosmic distance ladder to higher redshifts while addressing redshift evolution and systematic uncertainties in GRB data.

Core claim

Using an ANN-driven MCMC approach on the Platinum compilation of long GRBs, the 2D and 3D Dainotti relations are calibrated to minimize scatter in the parameters, thereby achieving a stable Hubble diagram independent of the LambdaCDM cosmological model.

What carries the argument

The ANN-driven Markov Chain Monte Carlo procedure that minimizes scatter in the calibration parameters of the Dainotti relations.

If this is right

  • GRBs become usable as reliable high-redshift distance indicators.
  • The calibration addresses redshift evolution and reduces systematic uncertainties in GRB luminosity variability.
  • The approach avoids kernel function dependence and overfitting that affect Gaussian process methods.
  • The cosmic distance ladder is extended in a model-independent manner.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Larger GRB samples at high redshift could tighten constraints on the Hubble constant tension.
  • The same ANN calibration pipeline could be applied to other empirical GRB relations to test consistency.

Load-bearing premise

The Dainotti relations remain valid after neural-network adjustment and the procedure does not introduce new redshift-dependent biases.

What would settle it

Detection of significant residual redshift-dependent bias in the calibrated GRB distances after the ANN+MCMC step would falsify the stability of the model-independent Hubble diagram.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.03773 by Jackson Levi Said, Jurgen Mifsud, Konstantinos F. Dialektopoulos, Maria Giovanna Dainotti, Purba Mukherjee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A two-layer ANN architecture is shown, where the input is the redshift of a cosmological parameter Υ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. ANN reconstruction of the Pantheon+ SNIa logarithmic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. 1D posteriors and 2D contours at 68% and 95% confidence levels (C.L.) for the analysis of the 3D Dainotti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. 1D posteriors and 2D contours at 68% and 95% confidence levels (C.L.) for the analysis of the 2D Dainotti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. 1D posteriors and 2D contours at 68% and 95% confidence levels (C.L.) for the analysis of the 3D Dainotti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. 1D posteriors and 2D contour plots at 68% and 95% C.L. for GRB calibration parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. 1D posteriors and 2D contour plots at 68% and 95% C.L. for GRB the evolutionary coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. 1D posteriors and 2D contour plots at 68% and 95% C.L. for GRB the evolutionary coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Whisker plots with mean and 68% C.L. for GRB calibration parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Comparison between the constraints obtained on the GRB calibration parameters employing neural networks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The $\Lambda$ Cold Dark Matter ($\Lambda$CDM) cosmological model has been highly successful in predicting cosmic structure and evolution, yet recent precision measurements have highlighted discrepancies, especially in the Hubble constant inferred from local and early-Universe data. Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) present a promising alternative for cosmological measurements, capable of reaching higher redshifts than traditional distance indicators. This work leverages GRBs to refine cosmological parameters independently of the $\Lambda$CDM framework. Using the Platinum compilation of long GRBs, we calibrate the Dainotti relations-empirical correlations among GRB luminosity properties-as standard candles through artificial neural networks (ANNs). We analyze both the 2D and 3D Dainotti calibration relations, leveraging an ANN-driven Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach to minimize scatter in the calibration parameters, thereby achieving a stable Hubble diagram. This ANN-based calibration approach offers advantages over Gaussian processes, avoiding issues such as kernel function dependence and overfitting. Our results emphasize the need for model-independent calibration approaches to address systematic challenges in GRB luminosity variability, ultimately extending the cosmic distance ladder in a robust way. By addressing redshift evolution and reducing systematic uncertainties, GRBs can serve as reliable high-redshift distance indicators, offering critical insights into current cosmological tensions.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims that artificial neural networks combined with MCMC can calibrate the 2D and 3D Dainotti relations on the Platinum GRB sample to produce a stable, model-independent Hubble diagram that addresses redshift evolution, reduces scatter, and avoids the kernel dependence and overfitting issues of Gaussian processes.

Significance. If the calibration procedure can be shown to yield unbiased distances without introducing new redshift-dependent systematics, the method would offer a useful model-independent route to extend the cosmic distance ladder with GRBs at high redshift, potentially informing cosmological tensions such as the Hubble constant discrepancy.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the ANN+MCMC procedure addresses redshift evolution lacks any reported quantitative validation (e.g., binned residual trends versus redshift, Spearman rank correlation on calibrated distances, or redshift-stratified k-fold tests). Without such checks the stability of the Hubble diagram cannot be distinguished from the ANN absorbing or masking evolution.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the calibration explicitly minimizes scatter via ANN+MCMC on the same Platinum GRB sample later used to construct the Hubble diagram; this procedure risks circularity because the parameters are tuned to the very data interpreted as cosmological distances, undermining the model-independent interpretation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and insightful comments, which have identified key areas for strengthening the manuscript. We address each major comment in detail below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the ANN+MCMC procedure addresses redshift evolution lacks any reported quantitative validation (e.g., binned residual trends versus redshift, Spearman rank correlation on calibrated distances, or redshift-stratified k-fold tests). Without such checks the stability of the Hubble diagram cannot be distinguished from the ANN absorbing or masking evolution.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative validation is necessary to substantiate the claim that redshift evolution is addressed rather than masked. The current manuscript relies on the non-parametric flexibility of the ANN to capture potential evolution but does not report binned residual trends, Spearman correlations, or stratified cross-validation tests. In the revised version we will add these analyses, including residual-vs-redshift plots and correlation statistics on the calibrated distances, to provide the requested evidence. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the calibration explicitly minimizes scatter via ANN+MCMC on the same Platinum GRB sample later used to construct the Hubble diagram; this procedure risks circularity because the parameters are tuned to the very data interpreted as cosmological distances, undermining the model-independent interpretation.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's concern about potential circularity. The ANN+MCMC step optimizes only the empirical Dainotti relation parameters to minimize intrinsic scatter using observed GRB quantities, without any cosmological model input or distance information. The resulting relation is then applied to derive the Hubble diagram. This is the standard empirical calibration approach for standard candles. Nevertheless, we will add explicit clarification in the methods and discussion sections to distinguish the calibration stage from the subsequent cosmological use of the diagram, thereby addressing the risk of misinterpretation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

ANN+MCMC scatter minimization on Platinum sample forces stable Hubble diagram by construction

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "leveraging an ANN-driven Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach to minimize scatter in the calibration parameters, thereby achieving a stable Hubble diagram"

    The minimization of scatter in calibration parameters via ANN+MCMC is performed on the Platinum GRB sample; the resulting stable Hubble diagram is therefore produced by construction from this fitting procedure on the identical data, rather than emerging as a separate prediction or validation.

full rationale

The paper's central result—a stable model-independent Hubble diagram—is obtained directly from applying ANN-driven MCMC to minimize scatter in the Dainotti calibration parameters on the same Platinum GRB sample used to build the diagram. This matches the fitted_input_called_prediction pattern, as the stability is a statistical outcome of the optimization rather than an independent test. The abstract explicitly connects the minimization step to the achieved stability. No self-citation load-bearing, uniqueness theorems, or other patterns are evident from the provided text; the method is presented as addressing redshift evolution but the diagram construction reduces to the fit.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the empirical validity of the Dainotti relations after ANN adjustment and on the assumption that the Platinum sample selection does not introduce unaccounted biases; no explicit free parameters or invented entities are named in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Dainotti relations hold as distance indicators once calibrated by ANN
    Invoked throughout the abstract as the basis for using GRBs as standard candles.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5770 in / 1290 out tokens · 31311 ms · 2026-05-23T17:52:53.285369+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 115 canonical work pages · 44 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The Malta Council for Science and Technology

    Thus, on examining the 3D and 2D Dainotti relations, we can elucidate the strengths and weaknesses of both the approaches, offering insights into their applicability in field of GRB research. • Parameter a: In the context of the 3D Dainotti relation, the ANN estimates the parameter a as −0.961+0.451 −0.480. This substantial uncertainty reflects the model’...

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207347

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  3. [3]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    Baudis, J

    L. Baudis, J. Phys. G 43, 044001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Dark Matter Search Results from a One Tonne$\times$Year Exposure of XENON1T

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111302 (2018), arXiv:1805.12562 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae

    S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  8. [8]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973)

    work page 1973

  9. [9]

    Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1972)

    S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1972)

    work page 1972

  10. [10]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

    work page 1989

  11. [11]

    Addazi et al

    A. Addazi et al. , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 125, 103948 (2022), arXiv:2111.05659 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 021303 (2017), arXiv:1608.07648 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    R. J. Gaitskell, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 54, 315 (2004)

    work page 2004

  14. [14]

    Challenges for $\Lambda$CDM: An update

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev. 95, 101659 (2022), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    A. G. Riess et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    J. P. Blakeslee, J. B. Jensen, C.-P. Ma, P. A. Milne, and J. E. Greene, Astrophys. J. 911, 65 (2021), arXiv:2101.02221 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    M. S. Madhavacheril et al. (ACT), Astrophys. J. 962, 113 (2024), arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Sch¨ oneberg, L

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, L. Verde, H. Gil-Mar´ ın, and S. Brieden, JCAP11, 039 (2022), arXiv:2209.14330 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    V. F. Cardone, S. Capozziello, and M. G. Dainotti, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 400, 775 (2009), arXiv:0901.3194 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  21. [21]

    V. F. Cardone, M. G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, and R. Willingale, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 408, 1181 (2010), arXiv:1005.0122 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  22. [22]

    M. G. Dainotti, V. F. Cardone, E. Piedipalumbo, and S. Capozziello, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 436, 82 (2013), arXiv:1308.1918 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  23. [23]

    Postnikov, M

    S. Postnikov, M. G. Dainotti, X. Hernandez, and S. Capozziello, The Astrophysical Journal 783, 126 (2014)

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    M. G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, G. Montani, E. Rinaldi, M. Bogdan, K. Mohammed Islam, and A. Gangopad- hyay, PoS ICRC2023, 1367 (2023), arXiv:2309.05876 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    M. G. Dainotti, G. Bargiacchi, B. Malgorzata, A. Lenart, K. Iwasaki, S. Capozziello, B. Zhang, and N. Fraija, apjs (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    An 800-million-solar-mass black hole in a significantly neutral Universe at redshift 7.5

    E. Banados et al. , Nature 553, 473 (2018), arXiv:1712.01860 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Constraining GRB Emission Physics with Extensive Early-Time, Multiband Follow-up

    A. Cucchiara, S. B. Cenko, J. S. Bloom, A. Melandri, A. Morgan, S. Kobayashi, R. J. Smith, D. A. Perley, 19 W. Li, J. L. Hora, R. L. da Silva, J. X. Prochaska, P. A. Milne, N. R. Butler, B. Cobb, G. Worseck, C. G. Mundell, I. A. Steele, A. V. Filippenko, M. Fumagalli, C. R. Klein, A. Stephens, A. Bluck, and R. Mason, Astrophys. J. 743, 154 (2011), arXiv:1...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  28. [28]

    D. Q. Lamb and D. E. Reichart, AIP Conf. Proc. 526, 658 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0002035

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  29. [29]

    J. S. Bloom et al. , Astrophys. J. 691, 723 (2009), arXiv:0803.3215 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  30. [31]

    M. G. Dainotti, R. Willingale, S. Capozziello, V. Fabrizio Cardone, and M. Ostrowski, Astrophys. J. 722, L215 (2010), arXiv:1009.1663 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  31. [33]

    M. G. Dainotti, R. Del Vecchio, N. Shigehiro, and S. Capozziello, Astrophys. J. 800, 31 (2015), arXiv:1412.3969 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [35]

    M. G. Dainotti, S. Nagataki, K. Maeda, S. Postnikov, and E. Pian, A&A 600, A98 (2017), arXiv:1612.02917 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [37]

    M. G. Dainotti et al. , Astrophys. J. Supp. 261, 25 (2022), arXiv:2203.12908 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  34. [38]

    S. Cao, M. Dainotti, and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 512, 439 (2022), arXiv:2201.05245 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  35. [39]

    M. G. Dainotti, V. F. Cardone, and S. Capozziello, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 391, L79 (2008), arXiv:0809.1389 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  36. [42]

    D’Avanzo, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics 7, 73 (2015)

    P. D’Avanzo, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics 7, 73 (2015)

    work page 2015

  37. [43]

    N. Rea, M. Gullon, J. A. Pons, R. Perna, M. G. Dainotti, J. A. Miralles, and D. F. Torres, Astrophys. J. 813, 92 (2015), arXiv:1510.01430 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  38. [44]

    On the magnetar origin of the GRBs presenting X-ray afterglow plateaus

    G. Stratta, M. G. Dainotti, S. Dall’Osso, X. Hernandez, and G. De Cesare, Astrophys. J. 869, 155 (2018), arXiv:1804.08652 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [45]

    Dall’Osso, G

    S. Dall’Osso, G. Stratta, R. Perna, G. de Cesare, and L. Stella, Astrophys. J. Lett. 949, L32 (2023), arXiv:2305.00029 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  40. [48]

    M. G. Dainotti, A. Lenart, G. Sarracino, S. Nagataki, S. Capozziello, and N. Fraija, Astrophys. J. 904, 97 (2020), arXiv:2010.02092 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  41. [49]

    Reconstruction of dark energy and expansion dynamics using Gaussian processes

    M. Seikel, C. Clarkson, and M. Smith, JCAP 2012, 036 (2012), arXiv:1204.2832 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  42. [50]

    Gaussian Process Cosmography

    A. Shafieloo, A. G. Kim, and E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D 85, 123530 (2012), arXiv:1204.2272 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  43. [51]

    Optimising Gaussian processes for reconstructing dark energy dynamics from supernovae

    M. Seikel and C. Clarkson, (2013), arXiv:1311.6678 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  44. [52]

    M. K. Yennapureddy and F. Melia, JCAP 11, 029 (2017), arXiv:1711.03454 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [53]

    $H_0$ from cosmic chronometers and Type Ia supernovae, with Gaussian Processes and the novel Weighted Polynomial Regression method

    A. G´ omez-Valent and L. Amendola, JCAP04, 051 (2018), arXiv:1802.01505 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [54]

    E.-K. Li, M. Du, Z.-H. Zhou, H. Zhang, and L. Xu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 501, 4452 (2021), arXiv:1911.12076 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  47. [55]

    K. Liao, A. Shafieloo, R. E. Keeley, and E. V. Linder, Astrophys. J. Lett. 886, L23 (2019), arXiv:1908.04967 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  48. [56]

    R. E. Keeley, A. Shafieloo, G.-B. Zhao, J. A. Vazquez, and H. Koo (eBOSS), Astron. J. 161, 151 (2021), arXiv:2010.03234 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  49. [57]

    Renzi and A

    F. Renzi and A. Silvestri, Phys. Rev. D 107, 023520 (2023), arXiv:2011.10559 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  50. [58]

    ´O Colg´ ain and M

    E. ´O Colg´ ain and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 892 (2021), arXiv:2101.08565 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  51. [59]

    Favale, M

    A. Favale, M. G. Dainotti, A. G´ omez-Valent, and M. Migliaccio, (2024), arXiv:2402.13115 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [60]

    Hwang, B

    S.-g. Hwang, B. L’Huillier, R. E. Keeley, M. J. Jee, and A. Shafieloo, JCAP 02, 014 (2023), arXiv:2206.15081 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  53. [61]

    Levi Said, J

    J. Levi Said, J. Mifsud, J. Sultana, and K. Z. Adami, JCAP 06, 015 (2021), arXiv:2103.05021 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  54. [62]

    Briffa, S

    R. Briffa, S. Capozziello, J. Levi Said, J. Mifsud, and E. N. Saridakis, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 055007 (2020), arXiv:2009.14582 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  55. [63]

    R. C. Bernardo and J. Levi Said, JCAP 09, 014 (2021), arXiv:2105.12970 [astro-ph.CO]. 20

    work page arXiv 2021

  56. [64]

    Benisty, Phys

    D. Benisty, Phys. Dark Univ. 31, 100766 (2021), arXiv:2005.03751 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  57. [65]

    Perenon, M

    L. Perenon, M. Martinelli, S. Ili´ c, R. Maartens, M. Lochner, and C. Clarkson, Phys. Dark Univ. 34, 100898 (2021), arXiv:2105.01613 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  58. [66]

    R. C. Bernardo, D. Grand´ on, J. Said Levi, and V. H. C´ ardenas, Phys. Dark Univ. 36, 101017 (2022), arXiv:2111.08289 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  59. [67]

    R. C. Bernardo and J. Levi Said, JCAP 08, 027 (2021), arXiv:2106.08688 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  60. [68]

    R. C. Bernardo, D. Grand´ on, J. Levi Said, and V. H. C´ ardenas, Phys. Dark Univ. 40, 101213 (2023), arXiv:2211.05482 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  61. [69]

    Aggarwal, Neural Networks and Deep Learning: A Textbook (Springer International Publishing, 2018)

    C. Aggarwal, Neural Networks and Deep Learning: A Textbook (Springer International Publishing, 2018)

    work page 2018

  62. [70]

    Wang, Y.-B

    Y.-C. Wang, Y.-B. Xie, T.-J. Zhang, H.-C. Huang, T. Zhang, and K. Liu, Astrophys. J. Supp. 254, 43 (2021), arXiv:2005.10628 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  63. [71]

    G´ omez-Vargas, R

    I. G´ omez-Vargas, R. M. Esquivel, R. Garc´ ıa-Salcedo, and J. A. V´ azquez, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 304 (2023), arXiv:2104.00595 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  64. [72]

    Wang, X.-J

    G.-J. Wang, X.-J. Ma, S.-Y. Li, and J.-Q. Xia, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 246, 13 (2020), arXiv:1910.03636 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  65. [73]

    Dialektopoulos, J

    K. Dialektopoulos, J. L. Said, J. Mifsud, J. Sultana, and K. Z. Adami, JCAP 02, 023 (2022), arXiv:2111.11462 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  66. [74]

    K. F. Dialektopoulos, P. Mukherjee, J. Levi Said, and J. Mifsud, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 956 (2023), arXiv:2305.15499 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  67. [75]

    Mukherjee, J

    P. Mukherjee, J. Levi Said, and J. Mifsud, JCAP 12, 029 (2022), arXiv:2209.01113 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  68. [76]

    K. F. Dialektopoulos, P. Mukherjee, J. Levi Said, and J. Mifsud, Phys. Dark Univ. 43, 101383 (2024), arXiv:2305.15500 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  69. [77]

    Mukherjee, K

    P. Mukherjee, K. F. Dialektopoulos, J. Levi Said, and J. Mifsud, JCAP 09, 060 (2024), arXiv:2402.10502 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  70. [78]

    Zuckerman and L

    E. Zuckerman and L. A. Anchordoqui, JHEAp 33, 10 (2022), arXiv:2110.05346 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  71. [79]

    Camarena and V

    D. Camarena and V. Marra, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013028 (2020), arXiv:1906.11814 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  72. [80]

    Camarena and V

    D. Camarena and V. Marra, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504, 5164 (2021), arXiv:2101.08641 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  73. [81]

    Marra and L

    V. Marra and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 104, L021303 (2021), arXiv:2102.06012 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  74. [82]

    Alestas, L

    G. Alestas, L. Kazantzidis, and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083517 (2021), arXiv:2012.13932 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  75. [83]

    Alestas and L

    G. Alestas and L. Perivolaropoulos, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504, 3956 (2021), arXiv:2103.04045 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  76. [84]

    Alestas, D

    G. Alestas, D. Camarena, E. Di Valentino, L. Kazantzidis, V. Marra, S. Nesseris, and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063538 (2022), arXiv:2110.04336 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  77. [85]

    M. G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, T. Schiavone, G. Montani, E. Rinaldi, and G. Lambiase, Astrophys. J. 912, 150 (2021), arXiv:2103.02117 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  78. [86]

    Camarena and V

    D. Camarena and V. Marra, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 495, 2630 (2020), arXiv:1910.14125 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  79. [87]

    Mukherjee and A

    P. Mukherjee and A. Mukherjee, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.504, 3938 (2021), arXiv:2104.06066 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  80. [88]

    Mukherjee and N

    P. Mukherjee and N. Banerjee, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 36 (2021), arXiv:2007.10124 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.