Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Quasar cosmology II: joint analyses with Cosmic Microwave Background

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Only interacting dark matter and vacuum energy reconcile quasar, CMB, and galaxy data.

desk verdict A careful new data combination that overclaims: the quasar+CMB+DES analysis is useful, but the interacting-dark-energy resolution is not robust to the paper's own numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21477 v1 pith:SRKSHTKC submitted 2025-06-26 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

M. Benetti , G. Bargiacchi , G. Risaliti , S. Capozziello , E. Lusso , M. Signorini This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords quasarstandardcandlesHubbletensioninteractingdarkenergygeneralizedChaplygingasX-ray/UVluminosityrelationcosmologicalparameterestimationCMBlikelihoodsbaryonacousticoscillations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that quasars can be used as a high-redshift distance probe in joint cosmological fits, and that the disagreements between quasar, supernova, CMB, BAO, and dark-energy-survey data disappear only if dark matter and vacuum energy interact. It shows that simple extensions of the standard cosmological model, such as a free dark-energy equation of state or a two-parameter evolving equation of state, leave the probes inconsistent beyond $3\sigma$. In the interacting generalized Chaplygin gas model, one parameter measures the transfer between vacuum energy and dark matter, and a positive value captures the extra dark-matter density that quasars prefer. With that physics, all five data sets fit together within $3\sigma$, and the combined Hubble-constant estimates move toward the higher late-Universe values. If true, this would make the Hubble tension a signature of a real dark-sector interaction rather than a data disagreement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quasar distance estimator built from the nonlinear X-ray/ultraviolet luminosity relation, with slope $\gamma=0.591$ and intercept $\beta=-31.475$ fixed from a joint cosmographic fit, producing 2014 distance moduli after $3\sigma$ clipping. Around this, the paper wraps a consistency protocol: each probe is first fitted alone in the full multi-dimensional parameter space of a model, and only probes that agree within $3\sigma$ are combined. The interacting-dark-energy model is a decomposed generalized Chaplygin gas with equation of state $p=-A/\rho^{\alpha}$, which interpolates between cold matter and a cosmological constant and modifies both the Hubble rate and matter growth through $\alpha$. The fits are run with a Markov-Chain Monte Carlo sampler interfaced to a Boltzmann solver, so perturbation-level effects of the interaction are included.

What would settle it

Measure the slope $\gamma$ of the X-ray/UV relation in several narrow redshift bins above $z=2$ without assuming a cosmology; if $\gamma$ departs from $0.591$ by more than its quoted uncertainty, the quasar distance scale feeding all the joint fits is biased and the $\alpha$ reconciliation is an artifact. A second, independent check is to re-run the CMB-plus-quasar fit with a supernova absolute magnitude from a different calibration, such as the tip of the red-giant branch, and see whether $\alpha$ moves by more than the reported errors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the X-ray/UV relation of quasars, calibrated to supernovae through a model-independent cosmographic fit, extends the Hubble diagram to $z\sim7.6$ and forces a specific conclusion when combined with full CMB likelihoods: no one- or two-parameter extension of $\Lambda$CDM can make the data sets compatible, but the decomposed generalized Chaplygin gas interacting dark-energy model can. The interaction parameter $\alpha$ enters both the background expansion and the growth of perturbations; quasars alone prefer $\alpha=-0.34^{+0.15}_{-0.06}$, meaning vacuum energy decays into dark particles, while the CMB alone prefers $\alpha\approx-0.08$. In the joint CMB-plus-quasar fit $\alpha$ becomes $-0.03\pm0.05$ with $H_0=67.79\pm0.91\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, and in the quasar-plus-BAO fit $\alpha$ stays negative with $H_0\approx74$, matching local measurements. The paper's stated conclusion is that only more complex dark-sector interaction models can solve the discrepancies of probes at all scales.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on quasars being standardizable candles whose X-ray/UV relation does not change with redshift, with the slope and intercept fixed once from a joint fit to quasars and supernovae; if that relation evolves or the supernova anchor is biased, the quasar distances and every joint constraint built on them would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the interacting-model result holds, the five individually discordant data sets can legitimately be combined, removing the statistical objection that joint quasar-plus-CMB constraints were built from incompatible probes.
  • A positive $\alpha$ preferred by quasars absorbs the high matter density that quasars see, so the dark-matter density inferred from the CMB and from quasars no longer conflicts.
  • The combined quasar-plus-BAO fit yields $H_0\approx74\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, consistent with local distance-ladder measurements, while CMB-plus-quasar gives $H_0\approx67.8$; the tension is redistributed into $\alpha$ rather than appearing as a direct $H_0$ inconsistency.
  • Models with $w\neq-1$ or with an evolving $w$ cannot rescue the joint analysis, so if the claim is right they should be set aside in favor of interacting scenarios.
  • Future high-redshift quasar samples should tighten $\alpha$ and discriminate between the Chaplygin mechanism and other dark-sector interaction models.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the X-ray/UV relation evolves with redshift, the positive $\alpha$ claimed here could be a distance-calibration artifact rather than physical dark-sector physics; this is testable by measuring $\gamma$ in independent narrow redshift bins above $z\sim2$.
  • A more direct test of the interaction would use large-scale structure growth data, since $\alpha$ suppresses or enhances the growth rate; the paper's own CMB fits already include perturbation-level effects, but redshift-space-distortion measurements would provide an independent check.
  • The paper fixes the supernova absolute magnitude through a particular calibration; if that anchor shifts, all quasar distance moduli rescale and the preferred $\alpha$ would shift too, so the claim should be re-run with a differently calibrated supernova sample.
  • One could extend the same consistency protocol to the gamma-ray-burst Hubble diagram, which also reaches high redshift and might either confirm the $\alpha$ preference or reveal that both high-redshift probes share a common calibration bias.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a joint cosmological analysis of a quasar Hubble diagram (2014 QSOs with fixed X-ray/UV relation parameters gamma=0.591 and beta=-31.475) with Planck CMB, DES Y1 3x2pt, BAO, and Pantheon SNe Ia, using the Cobaya MCMC framework with CLASS. Six models are considered: flat/non-flat LCDM, flat/non-flat wCDM, flat CPL, and a flat interacting dark energy (iDE) model based on the decomposed generalized Chaplygin gas. The authors first test compatibility of the probes in each model and only combine datasets that agree within 3 sigma. They find that simple DE extensions cannot reconcile QSOs with CMB or DES, while the iDE model yields combined constraints compatible at 3 sigma; from this they conclude that only dark-sector interaction models can resolve the discrepancies.

Significance. The paper's technical contribution is real: it implements the QSO likelihood in Cobaya with a Boltzmann solver, releases the QSO data repository, and applies a disciplined consistency-before-combining protocol. If the iDE conclusion were robust, it would be an interesting step toward explaining the Hubble tension with a physical dark-sector interaction. However, the headline claim is currently undermined by an internal sign contradiction for alpha and by the fact that the combined CMB+QSO fit does not prefer a nonzero interaction; the calibration of the QSO distance scale is also not tested for redshift evolution, which is the load-bearing assumption of the analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.4, Table 1] The sign of alpha is presented inconsistently. The text says 'A value of alpha less than zero would indicate the creation of DM from DE', but two paragraphs later it says 'the high positive values of alpha means dissipation of vacuum energy into dark particles', and the conclusions state that the model reconciles CMB and Pth+QSO 'by preferring an interaction that generates DM particles from vacuum energy'. Table 1 shows that the Pth+QSO fit gives alpha=-0.34 (+0.15/-0.06), i.e., negative, and the combined Pth+QSO+CMB fit gives alpha=0.03+/-0.05, consistent with zero; only Pth+QSO+BAO prefers a nonzero (negative) alpha. The claim that the iDE model reconciles all probes through a preferred interaction is therefore not supported by the quoted numbers: the combined CMB+QSO analysis does not prefer a nonzero alpha, and the apparent reconciliation comes from a broadening of the parameter uncertainties rather than from an actually favored interaction. The text in the same section that the CMB+Pth+QSO joint analysis 'lies on CMB but alpha is restricted in the negative values as shown by Pth+QSO' is also inconsistent with the reported alpha=0.03+/-0.05. The conclusions and abstract should be revised to state which datasets actually prefer a nonzero interaction and at what significance.
  2. [Sec. 2.3] The QSO distance moduli are derived from Eq. (1) with gamma and beta fixed to 0.591+/-0.011 and -31.475+/-0.008, calibrated via a joint cosmographic fit with SNe Ia after a 3-sigma clipping that removes 22 of 2036 sources. No test of the redshift dependence of gamma or beta is presented in this manuscript, even though step 1 states that gamma can be measured in narrow redshift bins. The only reference to such a test is a citation to [84] without indicating the outcome. Because the claimed deviation of the QSO Hubble diagram from flat LCDM at z>=1.5 is the tension that the iDE model is invoked to resolve, a redshift-dependent X-ray/UV relation would bias the QSO distance moduli and could remove the iDE preference. The authors should either report a bin-wise consistency test for gamma and beta or explicitly quote the result of [84] before the central conclusion can be supported.
  3. [Sec. 4, Figs. 1-3] The compatibility criterion is a qualitative comparison of 2D contours at the 3-sigma level. This leads to an asymmetric treatment: in the flat wCDM model, CMB and Pth+QSO are considered incompatible and are not combined, while in the iDE model they are combined even though the interaction parameter is consistent with zero in the joint fit (Table 1: alpha=0.03+/-0.05). To substantiate the claim that the iDE model 'succeeds' where simpler models fail, a quantitative tension assessment (e.g., Delta-chi^2, suspiciousness, or Bayes factor) should be reported for each model and dataset combination. Without such a metric, the central conclusion rests on a visual intersection of posterior contours, which is not a statistically rigorous basis for claiming reconciliation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.3, point 3] 'otain' is a typo for 'obtained'.
  2. [Sec. 4.4] The phrase 'whilst a positive value the opposite' is incomplete; it should specify what physical process a positive alpha corresponds to, especially in light of the sign contradiction noted in the major comments.
  3. [Sec. 4] The reference to 'Appendix Appendix A' should be 'Appendix A'.
  4. [Eq. (6)] Eq. (6) is written for the flat case but is presented in the general model section before curvature is discussed; the flat-space assumption should be indicated explicitly.
  5. [Table 2 caption] The caption says 'When upper limit values are indicated' but does not clarify the direction of the limit in the Omega_k column (e.g., '< -0.061' appears to be a 95% upper limit); please define the convention and the confidence level.
  6. [Sec. 4.3] The phrase 'the CMB is proved to be not very sensitive to these degrees of freedom' should be rephrased, e.g., 'the CMB is not very sensitive to these parameters'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QSO calibration is explicit and anchors only the distance scale, while the high-redshift shape and the CMB/DES/BAO constraints are independent inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The quasar distance moduli come from Eq. (1) with gamma and beta fixed in Sec. 2.3. The paper explicitly states that beta is fixed by matching the quasar and SNe Ia Hubble diagrams in the common redshift interval and that QSOs alone cannot constrain cosmological parameters. This is an acknowledged calibration, not a hidden fit dressed as a prediction. The central iDE claim rests on the compatibility of the combined Pth+QSO probe with CMB, DES, and BAO. The CMB and DES likelihoods are external Planck and DES-Y1 data, and the BAO measurements are standard public compilations; none of these are derived from the quasar calibration. The high-redshift deviation that motivates the iDE comparison originates in the QSO flux ratios and the high-z extension of the Hubble diagram, not in the SNe-anchored intercept. The paper's own Tables show alpha consistent with zero for Pth+QSO+CMB and Pth+QSO+DES, so the interpretation that only interacting models succeed is broader than the numbers strictly imply, but that is a statistical-strength issue rather than a circular reduction. Self-citations to Refs. [49, 66, 70, 84] support the QSO methodology and sample, but the present fits are performed with CLASS and Cobaya on public likelihoods, so the central result is not equivalent to a prior self-citation. The sign inconsistency in the discussion of alpha in Sec. 4.4 is a physical-interpretation slip, not a circular step. No quoted equation reduces to its own inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on free cosmological parameters of the dark-energy models, on QSO calibration parameters inherited from earlier work, and on domain assumptions about the validity of the QSO standard-candle relation and the CLASS implementation of the interacting dark-energy perturbations. The interaction entity is fitted to the same data and is not independently evidenced.

free parameters (7)
  • alpha (GCG interaction parameter) = -0.34 +0.15 -0.06 (Pth+QSO, flat iDE)
    Free parameter of the interacting dark-energy model; the central claim that iDE reconciles the probes depends on this parameter's ability to shift Omega_m and H0. Its combined-fit value is compatible with zero.
  • w0 (dark energy equation of state today) = -1.87 +/- 0.28 (Pth+QSO, flat wCDM)
    Free parameter in wCDM and CPL; its value determines whether simple DE extensions can fit the data. The paper finds w0 far from -1 for Pth+QSO, driving the incompatibility with CMB.
  • wa (dark energy EoS time variation) = unconstrained (all data sets)
    Free parameter in CPL; the paper finds it is unconstrained, so CPL effectively reduces to wCDM. This supports the conclusion that adding DE dynamics does not help.
  • Omega_k (spatial curvature density) = < -0.433 (Pth+QSO, owCDM); -0.010 +/- 0.007 (CMB, oLambdaCDM)
    Free parameter in the non-flat models; the Pth+QSO constraint is prior-driven and the authors themselves call these analyses unreliable. It affects whether non-flat models can reconcile probes.
  • gamma (QSO X-ray/UV luminosity slope) = 0.591 +/- 0.011
    Fixed from a cosmographic fit in prior work; enters Eq. (1) to convert QSO fluxes into distances. The central result depends on this calibration being correct and redshift-independent.
  • beta (QSO X-ray/UV luminosity intercept) = -31.475 +/- 0.008
    Fixed by matching the QSO and SNe Ia Hubble diagrams in the common redshift range; anchors the QSO distance scale to Pantheon. Any bias here propagates into all joint constraints.
  • delta (intrinsic dispersion of X-ray/UV relation) = 0.209 +/- 0.004
    Used in the QSO distance-modulus uncertainties; affects the weights of QSOs in the likelihood. It is fixed from the cosmographic calibration rather than marginalized in the MCMC.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The QSO X-ray/UV luminosity relation is redshift-independent and standardizable up to z=7.64.
    Section 2.3 and Eq. (1) treat gamma and beta as constants. If they evolve with redshift, the QSO distances and all resulting constraints are biased.
  • domain assumption The decomposed generalized Chaplygin gas model, with the perturbation equations for the growth rate, is correctly implemented in CLASS.
    Section 4.4 and references [27,76]. The reconciliation claim rests on the theory predictions for CMB and matter growth in the iDE model; no code or validation of this module is provided.
  • domain assumption Probes must agree within 3 sigma in the full parameter space before a joint analysis is statistically meaningful.
    Section 4, after [109]. This criterion determines which data combinations are reported and is essential to the statement that only iDE allows combination. It is a modeling choice, not a theorem.
  • domain assumption The cosmographic orthogonalized logarithmic polynomial fit used to fix gamma, beta, and delta is cosmology-independent and unbiased.
    Section 2.3, step 1. The authors claim independence from a cosmological model, but this is an unproved modeling assumption about the fitting function and the 3 sigma clipping of 2036 to 2014 sources.
  • standard math BBN consistency and the D/H abundance prior on Omega_b h^2 are valid for all models considered.
    Section 4. This is a standard physical prior, though for the iDE model with dark-sector interaction the BBN relation may need scrutiny; the paper applies it uniformly.
invented entities (1)
  • Dark-sector interaction (dissipation mechanism) in the decomposed generalized Chaplygin gas
    purpose: To reconcile the high-redshift QSO/SNe Hubble diagram with CMB, DES, and BAO by allowing vacuum energy to convert into dark matter particles.
    The interaction parameter alpha is fitted to the same data and the combined fits give alpha consistent with zero; the paper provides no independent prediction (e.g., a specific growth-rate signature) that is tested outside this dataset. The entity is thus not independently evidenced in this work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasar cosmology II: joint analyses with Cosmic Microwave Background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRKSHTKC

@misc{pith2026250621477,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasar cosmology II: joint analyses with Cosmic Microwave Background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRKSHTKC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21477}
}
abstract

Currently, the increasing availability of accurate cosmological probes leads to the emergence of tensions between data on the one hand and between theoretical predictions and direct observations on the other. Moreover, after 25 years since the discovery of the accelerated expansion of the Universe has elected the $\Lambda$CDM model as the reference model, resolving shortcomings of the standard cosmological model seems to be an unpostponed priority. Hence, it is key to test alternative models and investigate new cosmological probes at distances that range from the late to the early Universe, namely between the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and type Ia supernovae and baryonic acoustic oscillations (BAO) data. Bargiacchi et al. (2022) for the first time analysed dark energy (DE) models using quasars (QSOs) while also testing their consistency with BAO. Here, we carry on by exploring the compatibility of QSOs with both CMB data and dark energy survey measurements against the standard cosmological model and some DE extensions, such as the $w$CDM and Chevallier-Polarski-Linder parameterisations. We also consider an interacting dark matter and vacuum energy scenario, where vacuum energy perturbations affect the evolution of the matter growth rate in a decomposed Chaplygin gas model. We implement the QSO probe in Cobaya Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm, using Botzmann solver codes as Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) for the theory predictions. Our work shows that simple DE deviations from $\Lambda$CDM model do not reconcile the data and that only more complex models of interaction in the dark sector can succeed in solving the discrepancies of probes at all scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21477 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Bi-dimensional contour plot (Ω𝑚, 𝑤) at 1, 2 and 3 𝜎 confidence levels obtained from each data set in the legend for the flat 𝑤CDM model analysis. flat geometry of the Universe (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Bi-dimensional contour plot at 1, 2 and 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bi-dimensional contour plot at 1, 2 and 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. BAO miscalibration cannot rescue late-time solutions to the Hubble tension

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Even after rescaling BAO data to prefer H0≈73 km/s/Mpc, none of six tested late-time dark-energy models can resolve the Hubble tension once unanchored SNeIa and CMB geometry are included.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [84]

    Lusso, G

    E. Lusso, G. Risaliti, E. Nardini, Are quasars reliable standard candles?, A&A697(2025)A108.arXiv:2504.02040,doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 202453504

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, R. L. Gilliland, C. J. Hogan, S. Jha, R. P. Kirshner, B. Lei- bundgut, M. M. Phillips, D. Reiss, B. P. Schmidt, R. A. Schommer, R. C. Smith, J. Spyromilio, C. Stubbs, N. B. Suntzeff, J. Tonry, Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Co...

    arXiv 1998

  3. [2]

    S.Perlmutter,G.Aldering,G.Goldhaber,R.A.Knop,P.Nugent,P.G.Cas- tro,S.Deustua,S.Fabbro,A.Goobar,D.E.Groom,I.M.Hook,A.G.Kim, M. Y. Kim, J. C. Lee, N. J. Nunes, R. Pain, C. R. Pennypacker, R. Quimby, C. Lidman, R. S. Ellis, M. Irwin, R. G. McMahon, P. Ruiz-Lapuente, 23 N. Walton, B. Schaefer, B. J. Boyle, A. V. Filippenko, T. Matheson, A. S. Fruchter, N. Pan...

    arXiv 1999

  4. [3]

    D. M. Scolnic, D. O. Jones, A. Rest, Y. C. Pan, R. Chornock, R. J. Foley, M. E. Huber, R. Kessler, G. Narayan, A. G. Riess, S. Rodney, E. Berger, D.J.Brout,P.J.Challis,M.Drout,D.Finkbeiner,R.Lunnan,R.P.Kirshner, N.E.Sanders, E.Schlafly, S.Smartt, C.W.Stubbs, J.Tonry, W.M.Wood- Vasey, M. Foley, J. Hand, E. Johnson, W. S. Burgett, K. C. Chambers, P. W. Drap...

    arXiv 2018

  5. [4]

    A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano, D. O. Jones, Y. Murakami, G. S. Anand, L. Breuval, T. G. Brink, A. V. Filippenko, S. Hoffmann, S. W. Jha, W. D’arcy Kenworthy, J. Mackenty, B. E. Stahl, W. Zheng, A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space...

    arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S.Basak,R.Battye,K.Benabed,J.P.Bernard,M.Bersanelli,P.Bielewicz, J. J. Bock, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, F. R. Bouchet, F. Boulanger, M. Bucher, C.Burigana,R.C.Butler,E.Calabrese,J.F.Cardoso,J.Carron,A.Challi- nor, H. C....

    arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    Hinshaw, et al., Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results, Astrophys

    G. Hinshaw, et al., Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208 (2013) 19.arXiv:1212.5226,doi:10.1088/0067-0049/ 208/2/19

    arXiv 2013

  8. [7]

    S. Alam, M. Aubert, S. Avila, C. Balland, J. E. Bautista, M. A. Bershady, D. Bizyaev, M. R. Blanton, A. S. Bolton, J. Bovy, J. Brinkmann, J. R. Brownstein, E. Burtin, S. Chabanier, M. J. Chapman, P. D. Choi, C.-H. Chuang, J. Comparat, M.-C. Cousinou, A. Cuceu, K. S. Dawson, S. de la Torre, A. de Mattia, V. d. S. Agathe, H. d. M. des Bourboux, S. Escoffier...

    arXiv 2021

Show all 121 references
  1. [8]

    M. Ata, F. Baumgarten, J. Bautista, F. Beutler, D. Bizyaev, M. R. Blanton, J. A. Blazek, A. S. Bolton, J. Brinkmann, J. R. Brownstein, E. Burtin, C.- H. Chuang, J. Comparat, K. S. Dawson, A. de la Macorra, W. Du, H. du Mas des Bourboux, D. J. Eisenstein, H. Gil-Marín, K. Grabo...

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Beutler, C

    F. Beutler, C. Blake, M. Colless, D. H. Jones, L. Staveley-Smith, L. Camp- bell, Q. Parker, W. Saunders, F. Watson, The 6dF Galaxy Survey: baryon acousticoscillationsandthelocalHubbleconstant,MNRAS416(4)(2011) 3017–3032.arXiv:1106.3366,doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011. 19250.x

    2011 arXiv

  3. [10]

    A 4 per cent distance measure at z = 0.15, MNRAS449 (1) (2015) 835–847.arXiv: 1409.3242,doi:10.1093/mnras/stv154

    A.J.Ross,L.Samushia,C.Howlett,W.J.Percival,A.Burden,M.Manera, The clustering of the SDSS DR7 main Galaxy sample - I. A 4 per cent distance measure at z = 0.15, MNRAS449 (1) (2015) 835–847.arXiv: 1409.3242,doi:10.1093/mnras/stv154. 26

    2015 arXiv

  4. [11]

    S.Alam,M.Ata,S.Bailey,F.Beutler,D.Bizyaev,J.A.Blazek,A.S.Bolton, J. R. Brownstein, A. Burden, C.-H. Chuang, J. Comparat, A. J. Cuesta, K. S. Dawson, D. J. Eisenstein, S. Escoffier, H. Gil-Marín, J. N. Grieb, N. Hand, S. Ho, K. Kinemuchi, D. Kirkby, F. Kitaura, E. Malanushenko,...

    2017 arXiv

  5. [12]

    S. M. Carroll, The Cosmological Constant, Living Reviews in Rela- tivity 4 (1) (2001) 1.arXiv:astro-ph/0004075,doi:10.12942/ lrr-2001-1

    2001 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Reviews of Modern Physics 61 (1) (1989) 1–23.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

    S. Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Reviews of Modern Physics 61 (1) (1989) 1–23.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

    1989 doi

  7. [14]

    de Carlos, J

    B. de Carlos, J. A. Casas, One loop analysis of the electroweak break- ing in supersymmetric models and the fine tuning problem, Phys. Lett. B 309 (1993) 320–328.arXiv:hep-ph/9303291,doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(93)90940-J

    1993 arXiv

  8. [15]

    J. M. Gaskins, A review of indirect searches for particle dark matter, Contemp. Phys. 57 (4) (2016) 496–525.arXiv:1604.00014,doi: 10.1080/00107514.2016.1175160

    2016 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Frusciante, L

    N. Frusciante, L. Perenon, Effective field theory of dark energy: A review, Phys. Rept. 857 (2020) 1–63.arXiv:1907.03150,doi:10.1016/j. physrep.2020.02.004. 27

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    C.-G. Park, B. Ratra, Using the tilted flat-ΛCDM and the untilted non- flatΛCDM inflation models to measure cosmological parameters from a compilation of observational data, Astrophys. J. 882 (2019) 158.arXiv: 1801.00213,doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3641

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    arXiv:1911.02087,doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0906-9

    E.DiValentino,A.Melchiorri,J.Silk,PlanckevidenceforaclosedUniverse and a possible crisis for cosmology, Nature Astronomy 4 (2020) 196–203. arXiv:1911.02087,doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0906-9

    2020 arXiv

  12. [19]

    103.L041301

    W.Handley,Curvaturetension: evidenceforacloseduniverse,Phys.Rev.D 103(4)(2021)L041301.arXiv:1908.09139,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 103.L041301

    2021 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, J. Silk, Investigating Cosmic Discordance, Astrophys.J.Lett.908(1)(2021)L9.arXiv:2003.04935,doi:10.3847/ 2041-8213/abe1c4

    2021 arXiv

  14. [21]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, A. Melchiorri, 2021-H0 odyssey: closed, phantom and interacting dark energy cosmologies, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2021 (10) (2021) 008.arXiv:2101.03129, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/10/008

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Dhawan, J

    S. Dhawan, J. Alsing, S. Vagnozzi, Non-parametric spatial curvature in- ference using late-Universe cosmological probes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.506(1)(2021)L1–L5.arXiv:2104.02485,doi:10.1093/mnrasl/ slab058

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Vagnozzi, E

    S. Vagnozzi, E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, J. Silk, The galaxy power spectrum take on spatial curvature and cosmic con- cordance, Phys. Dark Univ. 33 (2021) 100851.arXiv:2010.02230, doi:10.1016/j.dark.2021.100851

    2021 arXiv

  17. [26]

    E.DiValentino,O.Mena,S.Pan,L.Visinelli,W.Yang,A.Melchiorri,D.F. Mota, A. G. Riess, J. Silk, In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions,Class.Quant.Grav.38(15)(2021)153001.arXiv:2103.01183, doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d

    2021 arXiv

  18. [27]

    M.Benetti,W.Miranda,H.A.Borges,C.Pigozzo,S.Carneiro,J.S.Alcaniz, Looking for interactions in the cosmological dark sector, JCAP 12 (2019) 023.arXiv:1908.07213,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/12/023

    2019 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Salzano, et al., J-PAS: forecasts on interacting vacuum energy models, JCAP 09 (2021) 033.arXiv:2102.06417,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2021/09/033

    V. Salzano, et al., J-PAS: forecasts on interacting vacuum energy models, JCAP 09 (2021) 033.arXiv:2102.06417,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2021/09/033

    2021 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Abdalla, G

    E. Abdalla, G. F. Abellán, A. Aboubrahim, A. Agnello, Ö. Akarsu, Y. Akrami, G. Alestas, D. Aloni, L. Amendola, L. A. Anchordoqui, R. I. Anderson, N. Arendse, M. Asgari, M. Ballardini, V. Barger, S. Basilakos, R. C. Batista, E. S. Battistelli, R. Battye, M. Benetti, D. Benisty,...

    2022 arXiv

  21. [30]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, Large Mag- ellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the De- termination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyondΛCDM, ApJ876 (1) (2019) 85.arXiv:1903.07603,doi: 10.3847/1538-...

    2019 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Camarena, V

    D. Camarena, V. Marra, Local determination of the Hubble constant and thedecelerationparameter,PhysicalReviewResearch2(1)(2020)013028. arXiv:1906.11814,doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.013028

    2020 arXiv

  23. [32]

    K. C. Wong, S. H. Suyu, G. C. F. Chen, C. E. Rusu, M. Millon, D. Sluse, V. Bonvin, C. D. Fassnacht, S. Taubenberger, M. W. Auger, S. Birrer, J. H. H. Chan, F. Courbin, S. Hilbert, O. Tihhonova, T. Treu, A. Agnello, X. Ding, I. Jee, E. Komatsu, A. J. Shajib, A. Sonnenfeld, R. D...

    2020 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Cosmology Astropart

    A.Gómez-Valent,L.Amendola,H 0 fromcosmicchronometersandTypeIa supernovae, with Gaussian Processes and the novel Weighted Polynomial Regression method, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2018 (4) (2018) 051. arXiv:1802.01505,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/051. 30

    2018 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Favale, A

    A. Favale, A. Gómez-Valent, M. Migliaccio, Cosmic chronometers to cal- ibrate the ladders and measure the curvature of the Universe. A model- independentstudy,Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.523(3)(2023)3406–3422. arXiv:2301.09591,doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1621

    2023 arXiv

  26. [35]

    K. Liao, A. Shafieloo, R. E. Keeley, E. V. Linder, A Model-independent Determination of the Hubble Constant from Lensed Quasars and Su- pernovae Using Gaussian Process Regression, ApJ886 (1) (2019) L23. arXiv:1908.04967,doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5308

    2019 arXiv

  27. [36]

    A. Ł. Lenart, G. Bargiacchi, M. G. Dainotti, S. Nagataki, S. Capozziello, A Bias-free Cosmological Analysis with Quasars Alleviating H0 Tension, ApJS264 (2) (2023) 46.doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aca404

    2023 doi

  28. [37]

    W. L. Freedman, Measurements of the Hubble Constant: Tensions in Per- spective, ApJ919 (1) (2021) 16.arXiv:2106.15656,doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/ac0e95

    2021 arXiv

  29. [38]

    V.F.Cardone,S.Capozziello,M.G.Dainotti,Anupdatedgamma-raybursts Hubble diagram, MNRAS400 (208) (2009) 775–790.arXiv:0901.3194, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15456.x

    2009 arXiv

  30. [39]

    S.Postnikov,M.G.Dainotti,X.Hernandez,S.Capozziello,Nonparametric Study of the Evolution of the Cosmological Equation of State with SNeIa, BAO, and High-redshift GRBs, ApJ783 (2014) 126.arXiv:1401.2939, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/126

    2014 arXiv

  31. [40]

    M. G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, T. Schiavone, G. Montani, E. Rinaldi, G.Lambiase,M.Bogdan,S.Ugale,OntheevolutionoftheHubbleconstant with the SNe Ia Pantheon Sample and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations: a feasibility study for GRB-cosmology in 2030, Galaxies 10 (1) (2022) 24– 66.arXi...

    2022 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Capozziello, M

    M.G.Dainotti,A.L.Lenart,A.Chraya,G.Sarracino,S.Nagataki,N.Fraija, S. Capozziello, M. Bogdan, The Gamma-ray Bursts Fundamental Plane correlation as a cosmological tool, MNRAS(Oct. 2022).arXiv:2209. 08675,doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2752

    2022 doi

  33. [42]

    M. G. Dainotti, G. Sarracino, S. Capozziello, Gamma-ray bursts, super- novaeIa,andbaryonacousticoscillations: Abinnedcosmologicalanalysis, PASJ(Aug. 2022).arXiv:2206.07479,doi:10.1093/pasj/psac057. 31

    2022 arXiv

  34. [43]

    A.Aviles,A.Bravetti,S.Capozziello,O.Luongo,Precisioncosmologywith Padérationalapproximations: Theoreticalpredictionsversusobservational limits, Phys. Rev. D90 (4) (2014) 043531.arXiv:1405.6935,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.90.043531

    2014 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Capozziello, R

    S. Capozziello, R. D’Agostino, O. Luongo, Cosmographic analysis with Chebyshevpolynomials,Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.476(3)(2018)3924– 3938.arXiv:1712.04380,doi:10.1093/mnras/sty422

    2018 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Demianski, E

    M. Demianski, E. Piedipalumbo, D. Sawant, L. Amati, Cosmology with gamma-raybursts.II.Cosmographychallengesandcosmologicalscenarios fortheacceleratedUniverse,A&A598(2017)A113.arXiv:1609.09631, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628911

    2017 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Zamora Munõz, C

    C. Zamora Munõz, C. Escamilla-Rivera, Inverse Cosmography: testing the effectiveness of cosmographic polynomials using machine learning, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2020 (12) (2020) 007.arXiv:2005.02807, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/007

    2020 arXiv

  38. [48]

    Risaliti, E

    G. Risaliti, E. Lusso, Cosmological constraints from the Hubble diagram of quasars at high redshifts, Nature Astronomy (2019) 195doi:10.1038/ s41550-018-0657-z

    2019

  39. [49]

    Signorini, Cosmography by orthogonalized logarithmic polynomials, A&A649 (2021) A65.arXiv:2101.08278,doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 202140386

    G.Bargiacchi,G.Risaliti,M.Benetti,S.Capozziello,E.Lusso,A.Saccardi, M. Signorini, Cosmography by orthogonalized logarithmic polynomials, A&A649 (2021) A65.arXiv:2101.08278,doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 202140386

    2021 arXiv

  40. [50]

    Benetti, S

    M. Benetti, S. Capozziello, Connecting early and late epochs by f(z)CDM cosmography, JCAP 1912 (2019) 008.arXiv:1910.09975,doi:10. 1088/1475-7516/2019/12/008

    2019 arXiv

  41. [51]

    S.Capozziello,R.D’Agostino,O.Luongo,ExtendedGravityCosmography, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D28 (10) (2019) 1930016.arXiv:1904.01427,doi: 10.1142/S0218271819300167. 32

    2019 arXiv

  42. [52]

    S.Capozziello,M.Benetti,A.D.A.M.Spallicci,Addressingthecosmolog- ical𝐻 0 tension by the Heisenberg uncertainty, Found. Phys. 50 (9) (2020) 893–899.arXiv:2007.00462,doi:10.1007/s10701-020-00356-2

    2020 arXiv

  43. [53]

    Dhawan, D

    S. Dhawan, D. Brout, D. Scolnic, A. Goobar, A. G. Riess, V. Mi- randa, Cosmological Model Insensitivity of Local H0 from the Cepheid Distance Ladder, ApJ894 (1) (2020) 54.arXiv:2001.09260,doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7fb0

    2020 arXiv

  44. [54]

    Alestas, L

    G. Alestas, L. Kazantzidis, L. Perivolaropoulos, A𝑤phantom transition at𝑧 𝑡 <0.1as a resolution of the Hubble tension, arXiv e-prints (2020) arXiv:2012.13932arXiv:2012.13932

    2020 arXiv

  45. [55]

    Alestas, L

    G. Alestas, L. Kazantzidis, L. Perivolaropoulos, H0 tension, phantom dark energy, and cosmological parameter degeneracies, Phys. Rev. D101 (12) (2020) 123516.arXiv:2004.08363,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101. 123516

    2020 arXiv

  46. [56]

    Renzi, A

    F. Renzi, A. Silvestri, A look at the Hubble speed from first principles, arXiv e-prints (2020) arXiv:2011.10559arXiv:2011.10559

    2020 arXiv

  47. [57]

    M. G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, T. Schiavone, G. Montani, E. Rinaldi, G. Lambiase, On the Hubble Constant Tension in the SNe Ia Pantheon Sample, ApJ912 (2) (2021) 150.arXiv:2103.02117,doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/abeb73

    2021 arXiv

  48. [58]

    arXiv:2211.16737,doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad041

    T.Schiavone,G.Montani,F.Bombacigno,f(R)gravityintheJordanframe as a paradigm for the Hubble tension, MNRAS522 (1) (2023) L72–L77. arXiv:2211.16737,doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad041

    2023 arXiv

  49. [59]

    Capozziello, G

    S. Capozziello, G. Sarracino, A. D. A. M. Spallicci, Questioning the H0 tensionviathelook-backtime,Phys.DarkUniv.40(2023)101201.arXiv: 2302.13671,doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101201

    2023 arXiv

  50. [60]

    S. A. Rodney, A. G. Riess, D. M. Scolnic, D. O. Jones, S. Hemmati, A.Molino,C.McCully,B.Mobasher,L.-G.Strolger,O.Graur,B.Hayden, S. Casertano, Two SNe Ia at Redshift∼2: Improved Classification and Redshift Determination with Medium-band Infrared Imaging, AJ150 (5) (2015) 156.d...

    2015 doi

  51. [61]

    F. Wang, J. Yang, X. Fan, J. F. Hennawi, A. J. Barth, E. Banados, F. Bian, K. Boutsia, T. Connor, F. B. Davies, R. Decarli, A.-C. Eilers, E. P. Farina, R. Green, L. Jiang, J.-T. Li, C. Mazzucchelli, R. Nanni, J.- T. Schindler, B. Venemans, F. Walter, X.-B. Wu, M. Yue, A Lumino...

    2021 arXiv

  52. [62]

    A.T.Steffen,I.Strateva,W.N.Brandt,D.M.Alexander,A.M.Koekemoer, B.D.Lehmer,D.P.Schneider,C.Vignali,TheX-Ray-to-OpticalProperties of Optically Selected Active Galaxies over Wide Luminosity and Redshift Ranges, AJ131 (2006) 2826–2842.arXiv:arXiv:astro-ph/0602407, doi:10.1086/503627

    2006 arXiv

  53. [63]

    D. W. Just, W. N. Brandt, O. Shemmer, A. T. Steffen, D. P. Schneider, G. Chartas, G. P. Garmire, The X-Ray Properties of the Most Luminous Quasars from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, ApJ665 (2007) 1004–1022. arXiv:0705.3059,doi:10.1086/519990

    2007 arXiv

  54. [64]

    Lusso, et al., The X-ray to optical-UV luminosity ratio of X-ray selected type 1 AGN in XMM-COSMOS, A&A512 (2010) A34.arXiv:0912

    E. Lusso, et al., The X-ray to optical-UV luminosity ratio of X-ray selected type 1 AGN in XMM-COSMOS, A&A512 (2010) A34.arXiv:0912. 4166,doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913298

    2010 doi

  55. [65]

    Lusso, G

    E. Lusso, G. Risaliti, The Tight Relation between X-Ray and Ultraviolet Luminosity of Quasars, ApJ819 (2016) 154.arXiv:1602.01090,doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/154

    2016 arXiv

  56. [66]

    Lusso, G

    E. Lusso, G. Risaliti, E. Nardini, G. Bargiacchi, M. Benetti, S. Bisogni, S. Capozziello, F. Civano, L. Eggleston, M. Elvis, G. Fabbiano, R. Gilli, A. Marconi, M. Paolillo, E. Piedipalumbo, F. Salvestrini, M. Signorini, C. Vignali, Quasars as standard candles. III. Validation ...

    2020 arXiv

  57. [67]

    Bisogni, E

    S. Bisogni, E. Lusso, F. Civano, E. Nardini, G. Risaliti, M. Elvis, G. Fab- biano,TheChandraviewoftherelationbetweenX-rayandUVemissionin quasars, arXiv e-prints (2021) arXiv:2109.03252arXiv:2109.03252

    2021 arXiv

  58. [68]

    Melia, The high-z quasar Hubble Diagram, J

    F. Melia, The high-z quasar Hubble Diagram, J. Cosmology As- tropart. Phys.2014 (1) (2014) 027.arXiv:1312.5798,doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2014/01/027. 34

    2014 arXiv

  59. [69]

    Lusso, E

    E. Lusso, E. Piedipalumbo, G. Risaliti, M. Paolillo, S. Bisogni, E. Nardini, L. Amati, Tension with the flatΛCDM model from a high-redshift Hubble diagram of supernovae, quasars, and gamma-ray bursts, A&A628 (2019) L4.arXiv:1907.07692,doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936223

    2019 arXiv

  60. [70]

    Bargiacchi, M

    G. Bargiacchi, M. Benetti, S. Capozziello, E. Lusso, G. Risaliti, M. Sig- norini, Quasar cosmology: dark energy evolution and spatial curva- ture, MNRAS515 (2) (2022) 1795–1806.arXiv:2111.02420,doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1941

    2022 arXiv

  61. [71]

    M. G. Dainotti, G. Bargiacchi, A. Ł. Lenart, S. Nagataki, S. Capozziello, Quasars: StandardCandlesuptoz=7.5withthePrecisionofSupernovaeIa, ApJ950 (1) (2023) 45.arXiv:2305.19668,doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ accea0

    2023 arXiv

  62. [72]

    Bargiacchi, M

    G. Bargiacchi, M. G. Dainotti, S. Nagataki, S. Capozziello, Gamma-ray bursts, quasars, baryonic acoustic oscillations, and supernovae Ia: new statistical insights and cosmological constraints, MNRAS521 (3) (2023) 3909–3924.arXiv:2303.07076,doi:10.1093/mnras/stad763

    2023 arXiv

  63. [73]

    M. G. Dainotti, G. Bargiacchi, M. Bogdan, A. L. Lenart, K. Iwasaki, S.Capozziello,B.Zhang,N.Fraija,ReducingtheUncertaintyontheHubble Constantupto35%withanImprovedStatisticalAnalysis: DifferentBest-fit LikelihoodsforTypeIaSupernovae,BaryonAcousticOscillations,Quasars, andGamma-...

    2023 arXiv

  64. [74]

    S.Vagnozzi,A.Loeb,M.Moresco,Eppurèpiatto? TheCosmicChronome- tersTakeonSpatialCurvatureandCosmicConcordance,ApJ908(1)(2021) 84.arXiv:2011.11645,doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd4df

    2021 arXiv

  65. [76]

    Benetti, H

    M. Benetti, H. Borges, C. Pigozzo, S. Carneiro, J. Alcaniz, Dark sector interactionsandthecurvatureoftheUniverseinlightofPlanck’s2018data, JCAP 08 (2021) 014.arXiv:2102.10123,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2021/08/014. 35

    2021 arXiv

  66. [77]

    H. A. Borges, C. Pigozzo, P. Hepp, L. O. Baraúna, M. Benetti, Test- ing the growth rate in homogeneous and inhomogeneous interacting vac- uum models, JCAP 06 (2023) 009.arXiv:2303.04793,doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2023/06/009

    2023 arXiv

  67. [78]

    H. A. Borges, S. Carneiro, J. C. Fabris, W. Zimdahl, Non-adiabatic Chaplygin gas, Phys. Lett. B 727 (2013) 37–42.arXiv:1306.0917, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.10.032

    2013 arXiv

  68. [79]

    S.Carneiro,C.Pigozzo,Observationaltestsofnon-adiabaticChaplygingas, JCAP 10 (2014) 060.arXiv:1407.7812,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2014/10/060

    2014 arXiv

  69. [80]

    Torrado, A

    J. Torrado, A. Lewis, Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models, JCAP 05 (2021) 057.arXiv:2005.05290,doi:10. 1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057

    2021 arXiv

  70. [81]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S.Basak,K.Benabed,J.P.Bernard,M.Bersanelli,P.Bielewicz,J.J.Bock, J.R.Bond,J.Borrill,F.R.Bouchet,F.Boulanger,M.Bucher,C.Burigana, R.C.But...

    2020 arXiv

  71. [82]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S.Basak,K.Benabed,J.P.Bernard,M.Bersanelli,P.Bielewicz,J.J.Bock, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, F. R. Bouchet, F. Boulanger, M. Bucher, C. Buri...

    2020 arXiv

  72. [83]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, J. B. Bowers, L. Macri, J. C. Zinn, D. Scolnic, Cosmic Distances Calibrated to 1% Precision with Gaia EDR3 Parallaxes and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry of 75 Milky Way Cepheids Confirm Tension withΛCDM, Astrophys. J. Lett. 908 (1) (2021)...

    2021 arXiv

  73. [85]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, J. Goodman, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, PASP125 (2013) 306–312.arXiv:1202.3665,doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 arXiv

  74. [86]

    Risaliti, E

    G. Risaliti, E. Lusso, A Hubble Diagram for Quasars, ApJ815 (2015) 33. arXiv:1505.07118,doi:10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/33

    2015 arXiv

  75. [87]

    T. M. C. Abbott, et al., Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmolog- ical constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing, Phys. Rev. D 98 (4) (2018) 043526.arXiv:1708.01530,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 98.043526

    2018 arXiv

  76. [88]

    Krause, T

    E. Krause, T. F. Eifler, J. Zuntz, O. Friedrich, M. A. Troxel, S. Dodel- son, J. Blazek, L. F. Secco, N. MacCrann, E. Baxter, C. Chang, N. Chen, M.Crocce,J.DeRose,A.Ferte,N.Kokron,F.Lacasa,V.Miranda,Y.Omori, A.Porredon,R.Rosenfeld,S.Samuroff,M.Wang,R.H.Wechsler,T.M.C. Abbott, ...

    2017 doi arXiv

  77. [89]

    M. A. Troxel, et al., Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: Cosmological constraintsfromcosmicshear,Phys.Rev.D98(4)(2018)043528.arXiv: 1708.01538,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043528

    2018 arXiv

  78. [90]

    M.Chevallier,D.Polarski,Acceleratinguniverseswithscalingdarkmatter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10 (2001) 213–224.arXiv:gr-qc/0009008,doi: 10.1142/S0218271801000822

    2001 arXiv

  79. [91]

    E. V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 091301.arXiv:astro-ph/0208512,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.90.091301

    2003 arXiv

  80. [92]

    J. C. Fabris, S. V. B. Goncalves, P. E. de Souza, Density perturbations in a universedominatedbytheChaplygingas,Gen.Rel.Grav.34(2002)53–63. arXiv:gr-qc/0103083,doi:10.1023/A:1015266421750

    2002 arXiv

  81. [93]

    M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, A. A. Sen, Generalized Chaplygin gas, ac- celerated expansion and dark energy matter unification, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 043507.arXiv:gr-qc/0202064,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66. 043507

    2002 arXiv

  82. [94]

    Sandvik, M

    H. Sandvik, M. Tegmark, M. Zaldarriaga, I. Waga, The end of unified dark matter?, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 123524.arXiv:astro-ph/0212114, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.123524

    2004 arXiv

  83. [95]

    M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, A. A. Sen, Generalized Chaplygin gas model: Dark energy - dark matter unification and CMBR constraints, Gen. Rel. Grav. 35 (2003) 2063–2069.arXiv:gr-qc/0305086,doi:10.1023/A: 1026207312105

    2003 arXiv

  84. [96]

    R. F. vom Marttens, L. Casarini, W. Zimdahl, W. S. Hipólito-Ricaldi, D. F. Mota,DoesageneralizedChaplygingascorrectlydescribethecosmological 39 dark sector?, Phys. Dark Univ. 15 (2017) 114–124.arXiv:1702.00651, doi:10.1016/j.dark.2017.02.001

    2017 arXiv

  85. [97]

    von Marttens, L

    R. von Marttens, L. Casarini, D. F. Mota, W. Zimdahl, Cosmological con- straintsonparametrizedinteractingdarkenergy,Phys.DarkUniv.23(2019) 100248.arXiv:1807.11380,doi:10.1016/j.dark.2018.10.007

    2019 arXiv

  86. [98]

    J. S. Alcaniz, D. Jain, A. Dev, High - redshift objects and the general- ized Chaplygin gas, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 043514.arXiv:astro-ph/ 0210476,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.67.043514

    2003 doi

  87. [99]

    Bilic, G

    N. Bilic, G. B. Tupper, R. D. Viollier, Unification of dark matter and dark energy: TheInhomogeneousChaplygingas,Phys.Lett.B535(2002)17–21. arXiv:astro-ph/0111325,doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01716-1

    2002 arXiv

  88. [100]

    A. Dev, D. Jain, J. S. Alcaniz, Constraints on Chaplygin quartessence from the CLASS gravitational lens statistics and supernova data, Astron. Astrophys. 417 (2004) 847–852.arXiv:astro-ph/0311056,doi:10. 1051/0004-6361:20035627

    2004 arXiv

  89. [101]

    Y. Wang, D. Wands, L. Xu, J. De-Santiago, A. Hojjati, Cosmological constraints on a decomposed Chaplygin gas, Phys. Rev. D 87 (8) (2013) 083503.arXiv:1301.5315,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.083503

    2013 arXiv

  90. [102]

    M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, A. A. Sen, The Revival of the unified dark energy - dark matter model?, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 083519.arXiv: astro-ph/0407239,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.083519

    2004 arXiv

  91. [103]

    S.Carneiro,H.A.Borges,Dynamicalsystemanalysisofinteractingmodels, Gen. Rel. Grav. 50 (10) (2018) 129.arXiv:1704.07825,doi:10.1007/ s10714-017-2322-8

    2018 arXiv

  92. [104]

    Aurich, S

    R. Aurich, S. Lustig, On the concordance of cosmological data in the case of the generalized Chaplygin gas, Astropart. Phys. 97 (2018) 118–129. arXiv:1704.01749,doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.11.002

    2018 arXiv

  93. [105]

    Ferreira, C

    T. Ferreira, C. Pigozzo, S. Carneiro, J. S. Alcaniz, Interaction in the dark sector: a Bayesian analysis with latest observations, arXiv e-prints (2017) arXiv:1712.05428arXiv:1712.05428,doi:10.48550/arXiv. 1712.05428. 40

    2017 doi arXiv

  94. [106]

    28 (2020) 100490.arXiv:1911.02618,doi:10.1016/j.dark.2020

    R.vonMarttens,L.Lombriser,M.Kunz,V.Marra,L.Casarini,J.Alcaniz, DarkdegeneracyI:Dynamicalorinteractingdarkenergy?,Phys.DarkUniv. 28 (2020) 100490.arXiv:1911.02618,doi:10.1016/j.dark.2020. 100490

    2020 arXiv

  95. [107]

    Zhu, Generalized Chaplygin gas as a unified scenario of dark matter/energy: Observational constraints, Astron

    Z.-H. Zhu, Generalized Chaplygin gas as a unified scenario of dark matter/energy: Observational constraints, Astron. Astrophys. 423 (2004) 421–426.arXiv:astro-ph/0411039,doi:10.1051/0004-6361: 20040236

    2004 arXiv

  96. [108]

    Efstathiou, S

    G. Efstathiou, S. Gratton, The evidence for a spatially flat Universe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 496 (1) (2020) L91–L95.arXiv:2002.06892, doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa093

    2020 arXiv

  97. [109]

    J. E. Gonzalez, M. Benetti, R. von Marttens, J. Alcaniz, Testing the consistency between cosmological data: the impact of spatial curvature and the dark energy EoS, arXiv e-prints (2021) arXiv:2104.13455arXiv: 2104.13455

    2021 arXiv

  98. [110]

    Moresco, et al., Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes, Living Rev

    M. Moresco, et al., Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes, Living Rev. Rel. 25 (1) (2022) 6.arXiv:2201.07241,doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00040-z

    2022 arXiv

  99. [111]

    L.-M. Wang, R. R. Caldwell, J. P. Ostriker, P. J. Steinhardt, Cosmic con- cordance and quintessence, Astrophys. J. 530 (2000) 17–35.arXiv: astro-ph/9901388,doi:10.1086/308331

    2000 arXiv

  100. [112]

    R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini, C. C. Steidel, One Percent Determination of the Primordial Deuterium Abundance, Astrophys. J. 855 (2) (2018) 102. arXiv:1710.11129,doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaab53

    2018 arXiv

  101. [113]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, T. Tram, The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System(CLASS)II:Approximationschemes,JCAP07(2011)034.arXiv: 1104.2933,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/07/034

    2011 arXiv

  102. [114]

    A.Lewis,S.Bridle,CosmologicalparametersfromCMBandotherdata: A MonteCarloapproach,Phys.Rev.D66(2002)103511.arXiv:astro-ph/ 0205436,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.103511

    2002 doi

  103. [115]

    B.Audren,J.Lesgourgues,K.Benabed,S.Prunet,ConservativeConstraints on Early Cosmology: an illustration of the Monte Python cosmological 41 parameter inference code, JCAP 02 (2013) 001.arXiv:1210.7183,doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/001

    2013 arXiv

  104. [116]

    Ó Colgáin, M

    E. Ó Colgáin, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, R. Solomon, G. Bargiacchi, S.Capozziello,M.G.Dainotti,D.Stojkovic,RevealingintrinsicflatΛCDM biases with standardizable candles, Phys. Rev. D106 (4) (2022) L041301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L041301

    2022 doi

  105. [117]

    Z.-W.Zhao,Z.-X.Li,J.-Z.Qi,H.Gao,J.-F.Zhang,X.Zhang,Cosmological parameter estimation for dynamical dark energy models with future fast radio burst observations, Astrophys. J. 903 (2) (2020) 83.arXiv:2006. 01450,doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb8ce

    2020 doi

  106. [118]

    Brout, et al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints, As- trophys

    D. Brout, et al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints, As- trophys. J. 938 (2) (2022) 110.arXiv:2202.04077,doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/ac8e04

    2022 arXiv

  107. [119]

    01794,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/05/022

    C.Pigozzo, S.Carneiro, J.S.Alcaniz, H.A.Borges, J.C.Fabris, Evidence for cosmological particle creation?, JCAP 05 (2016) 022.arXiv:1510. 01794,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/05/022

    2016 doi

  108. [120]

    von Marttens, H

    R. von Marttens, H. A. Borges, S. Carneiro, J. S. Alcaniz, W. Zimdahl, Unphysical properties in a class of interacting dark energy models, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (12) (2020) 1110.arXiv:1909.10336,doi:10.1140/ epjc/s10052-020-08682-5

    2020 arXiv

  109. [121]

    Zheng, S

    J. Zheng, S. Cao, Y. Lian, T. Liu, Y. Liu, Z.-H. Zhu, Revisiting Chaplygin gas cosmologies with the recent observations of high-redshift quasars, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (7) (2022) 582.arXiv:2208.06167,doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-022-10517-4

    2022 arXiv

  110. [122]

    Fanelli, G.Risaliti, M

    L.Giambagli, D. Fanelli, G.Risaliti, M. Signorini, Nonparametric analysis oftheHubblediagramwithneuralnetworks,A&A678(2023)A13.arXiv: 2302.12582,doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346236

    2023 arXiv

  111. [123]

    I.Tutusaus,J.G.Sorce,A.Troja,Euclid: performanceonmaincosmologi- cal parameter science, PoS ICHEP2022 (2022) 095.arXiv:2211.08913, doi:10.22323/1.414.0095

    2022 arXiv

  112. [124]

    Matt, The advanced telescope for high energy astrophysics, Astron

    G. Matt, The advanced telescope for high energy astrophysics, Astron. Nachr. 340 (1-3) (2019) 35–39.doi:10.1002/asna.201913555. 42

    2019 doi

  113. [125]

    Aubourg, S

    É. Aubourg, S. Bailey, J. E. Bautista, F. Beutler, V. Bhardwaj, D. Bizyaev, M. Blanton, M. Blomqvist, A. S. Bolton, J. Bovy, H. Brewington, J.Brinkmann,J.R.Brownstein,A.Burden,N.G.Busca,W.Carithers,C.-H. Chuang,J.Comparat,R.A.C.Croft,A.J.Cuesta,K.S.Dawson,T.Delubac, D. J. Eise...

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.