Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Using a model-independent calibration of the X-ray–ultraviolet luminosity relation for 2038 quasars, this paper finds that quasars currently fail as reliable cosmological distance indicators when added to supernova, BAO, and CMB data.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 19:52 UTC pith:CWQKTPNA

load-bearing objection The 'quasars fail' claim is likely an artifact of an understated error budget and an unvalidated Bezier extrapolation, though the paper reports the analysis honestly and deserves a revision, not a desk rejection. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.08983 v2 pith:CWQKTPNA submitted 2025-09-10 astro-ph.CO

On the Reliability of Quasars as Cosmological Distance Indicators

Ariadna Montiel , Sofia Samario-Nava , Juan Carlos Hidalgo , Jose Ignacio Cabrera This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords quasarsstandard candlesdark energydistance indicatorscosmological calibrationX-ray/UV luminosity relationcosmic chronometersHubble diagram
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper sets out to decide whether quasars—objects visible out to z≈7.5—can be trusted as high-redshift distance indicators. It calibrates the empirical correlation between quasars' X-ray and ultraviolet luminosities without assuming a cosmology, anchoring distances to chronometer H(z) measurements at z≤1.43, then pushes the resulting Hubble diagram to z≈7.5. The calibration parameters are stable and match earlier work, but when the calibrated quasars are combined with Type Ia supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, and CMB distance priors, the inferred matter density and dark-energy equation of state move far from the values those probes give on their own. The paper's conclusion is that, with current data and this calibration route, quasars fail as reliable distance indicators. It also notes the result is not definitive: a future-work passage explicitly lists Bézier-degree cross-validation, alternative smoothing methods, and mock-catalog calibration checks as still to be done.

Core claim

The central discovery is negative. After calibrating the log-LX–log-LUV relation with a Bézier polynomial fit to 28 cosmic-chronometer Hubble-parameter measurements at z≤1.43, the authors build distance moduli for the full 2038-quasar sample and fit flat ΛCDM and ωCDM models. Adding the quasars to otherwise standard combinations shifts Ω_m from about 0.28–0.33 to about 0.52–0.72 and, in the ωCDM case, moves the dark-energy equation of state from near −1 to values like −0.7 to −0.9, depending on the dataset. Because the luminosity-relation slope and intercept remain statistically consistent with earlier determinations, the paper attributes the failure to the calibration-to-cosmology step rath

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a degree-2 Bézier polynomial, a smooth polynomial curve used to represent the Hubble parameter H(z). It is fitted to 28 chronometer H(z) measurements at z≤1.43, fixing H0 as its zeroth coefficient. That polynomial is then integrated to produce calibrated luminosity distances out to z≈7.5, and those distances are inserted into the flux form of the log-LX–log-LUV relation to obtain quasar distance moduli. The same relation's slope and intercept, fitted with a Bayesian regression that handles measurement errors and intrinsic scatter, carry the calibration. The entire high-redshift quasar signal flows through the extrapolation of this quadratic curve beyond the redshif

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the quadratic Bézier curve fitted to H(z) data at z≤1.43 remains the true expansion history when integrated out to z≈7.5; if that extrapolation is wrong, the high-z quasar distances, the calibration parameters, and every cosmological constraint built on them are biased.

What would settle it

Re-run the full analysis with the H(z) reconstruction replaced by a nonparametric smoother or a higher-order Bézier curve, and with the calibration tested on mock quasar catalogs of known cosmology. If Ω_m and ω0 return to standard values, the failure is an artifact of the quadratic extrapolation; if they stay shifted, quasars genuinely fail.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If quasars are unreliable at these high redshifts, then reported high-z quasar tensions with standard cosmology should not be interpreted as evidence for new physics until the calibration anchor is checked.
  • Low-redshift quasar parameters remain stable, so the sample can still serve as a consistency check, but not as a primary distance indicator.
  • Jointly sampling calibration and cosmological parameters propagates uncertainties more fully than fixing the calibration first; the stepwise route should be treated as a diagnostic, not as final.
  • Reducing intrinsic scatter—through better X-ray/UV data or sample cuts—is a prerequisite for quasars to constrain dark energy.
  • Cosmological fits that include quasars remain sensitive to the choice of H(z) anchor, so the anchor must be varied as a systematic.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the high-z shift persists when the H(z) reconstruction is replaced by a more flexible smoother, then the failure is intrinsic to the calibration rather than an artifact of the quadratic extrapolation; if it disappears, the paper's strong conclusion weakens.
  • A mock-catalog test with known input cosmology would quantify whether the stepwise route is biased and whether the joint fit actually recovers the input parameters; the paper lists this as future work.
  • The abstract's softer framing—self-consistent constraints with limitations driven by scatter—sits uneasily beside the full-text conclusion that quasars fail. Readers should treat the strong claim as conditional on the Bézier anchor.
  • The same calibration machinery could be applied to other high-redshift standardizable candles to see whether the systematics are shared across different astrophysical sources.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper calibrates the non-linear X-ray/UV luminosity relation of 2038 quasars using cosmic-chronometer H(z) data at z≤1.43 through a degree-2 Bézier fit, and then builds a quasar Hubble diagram extending to z≈7.5. The calibrated sample is combined with Pantheon+SH0ES supernovae, DESI DR2 BAO, and Planck compressed CMB data to fit flat ΛCDM and ωCDM models. The authors report that low-redshift calibration parameters agree with previous work, but that adding quasars shifts cosmological parameters strongly (e.g., Ωm≈0.63 and w0≈−0.70 in Tables 5–7), leading them to conclude that quasars fail as reliable distance indicators. The full text does not present the joint QSO+SN calibration–cosmology framework advertised in the arXiv abstract; it mentions such a simultaneous fit only as future work.

Significance. The question addressed is important: quasars are the main extragalactic probes of the z≈2–7 expansion history, and a robust reliability assessment would be a valuable contribution. The calibration is externally anchored to cosmic-chronometer H(z) data, so the analysis is not circular by construction; the paper also uses recent PPS, DESI DR2, and compressed Planck likelihoods, compares BCES and Linmix regressions, and is candid that its conclusion is not definitive. However, the central negative claim is not established by the analysis as presented. Two load-bearing problems—unvalidated high-redshift extrapolation of the Bézier H(z) fit and omission of the estimated intrinsic scatter from the quasar distance-modulus variance—directly affect the results in Tables 5–8. These issues are fixable, but the conclusion cannot be accepted until they are addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (5)–(8)] The degree-2 Bézier polynomial H2(z) is fitted to 28 cosmic-chronometer H(z) measurements at z≤1.43, but Eq. (8) integrates H2(z) to z≈7.5 to obtain quasar luminosity distances. The Bernstein basis is positive only on [0, z_m]; outside that interval the quadratic extrapolation is uncontrolled and is never validated against alternative smoothers or mocks. The high-z part of the Hubble diagram and the full-sample γ,β calibration therefore rest on an unvalidated functional choice, so the conclusion that quasars fail cannot be separated from this extrapolation. Section 6 lists cross-validation with splines/GPs as future work, confirming that this test is currently missing.
  2. [Section 5.3, Eq. (21), Tables 5–8] The quasar distance-modulus variance in Eq. (21) omits the intrinsic scatter δ estimated by Linmix. Table 3 gives δ≈0.237 for the low-z sample and δ≈0.231 for the full sample. Through Eq. (4) this contributes |5/[2(γ−1)]|δ ≈ 1.5 mag, which is an order of magnitude larger than the flux and parameter terms included in Eq. (21). The likelihood therefore overweights quasars relative to their actual scatter; the large parameter shifts in Tables 5–7 (e.g., Ωm=0.630 with PPS+DESI+low-z quasars) are likely an artifact of this understated error budget. The claim that quasars fail as distance indicators cannot be assessed until δ is added in quadrature or marginalized over consistently.
  3. [Section 2.2 and Eq. (21)] The covariance matrix of the Bézier coefficients β0, β1, β2 is displayed after Eq. (7) but is never propagated into the quasar distance moduli. The calibrated luminosity distance in Eq. (8) is used to determine γ and β, so the H(z) anchor uncertainty should enter σ_μ; Eq. (21) contains only γ, β, and flux uncertainties. This is a second omission in the error budget and weakens the claim of a fully model-independent calibration with reliably propagated uncertainties.
  4. [Abstract vs Sections 5–6] The abstract at the head of the arXiv record advertises a joint QSO+SN calibration–cosmology framework that yields self-consistent constraints, while the full text's abstract and conclusions state that quasars fail as distance indicators. The body does not present the joint framework; it is only mentioned as a future direction in Section 6. The central claim of the paper is therefore ambiguous, and the reader cannot tell which analysis is being reported. The abstract and main text must be reconciled, and the actual analysis presented in Sections 5–6 should be stated as the paper's result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] Typo: "we binning the sample" should be "we bin the sample"; also "discrepances" in Section 5.1 should be "discrepancies."
  2. [Section 5.2, Eq. (20)] Equation (20) is written as a forward relation for F_X^cal given d_L^cal, but the text says the calibrated luminosity distance is obtained from it. Please clarify the inversion used to compute d_L^cal from observed fluxes.
  3. [Figure 2] The caption refers to "binned quasar DM" but DM is not defined; use the full phrase "distance modulus."
  4. [Section 5.3, Table 5] The text says H0 cannot be constrained once quasars are included, but Tables 5–7 leave H0 blank. Consider adding an explicit dash or statement in the table caption so the reader knows H0 is fixed by the calibration.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Partial circularity: quasar distances are calibrated and tested on the same sample; the paper defers the circularity problem to future work.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sections 5.1–5.3, Eq. (20), Tables 3 and 5–8]
    "The cosmological analysis is conducted only after this fitting procedure and relies exclusively on the low-redshift quasar sample and the full dataset."

    The distance moduli used in the cosmological fits (Tables 5–8) are computed from the same quasar sample and the same best-fit gamma, beta that were obtained by fitting that sample (Table 3, Eq. 20). Thus the quasar 'data' are not independent predictions: they are in-sample reconstructions from the fitted LX-LUV relation. Using the same objects to calibrate and then to constrain cosmology double-counts the quasar fluxes and can force the cosmological parameters to absorb calibration residuals. The authors implicitly concede this by deferring a strategy to 'tackle the circularity problem' to a follow-up study.

  2. other [Section 6, Conclusions]
    "We shall perform these alternative routes and compare strategies to tackle the circularity problem in a follow-up study."

    This is an explicit acknowledgment that the present analysis contains a circularity that is not resolved here. In the context of the paper, the circularity is the reuse of the same quasar data for calibration and cosmological inference (Step 1). The admission supports the finding of partial circularity: the paper's central claim that quasars fail as distance indicators is not established until this circularity is addressed.

full rationale

The calibration is anchored to external cosmic-chronometer H(z) data (Capozziello et al. 2018), which is independent of the quasar fluxes and of the cosmological models tested, so there is no self-definitional circularity at the level of the distance scale. The main circularity is that the same 2038 quasars are used first to fit gamma and beta (Table 3) and then the fitted relation is inverted to assign distance moduli to those same objects (Eq. 20), which are then used as data in cosmological fits (Tables 5–8). This is an in-sample calibration: the predicted distances are not independent of the calibration, and the quasar likelihood can be artificially overconfident. The paper explicitly defers a strategy to tackle the circularity problem to a follow-up study. The omission of the intrinsic scatter delta (estimated ~0.237 dex for the low-z sample) from the distance-modulus variance in Eq. (21) is a serious statistical issue that amplifies the impact of the in-sample calibration, but it is not itself a circularity; it is an error-budget problem. The stepwise results supporting the 'quasars fail' conclusion also conflict with the arXiv abstract, which reports that the joint calibration-cosmology framework gives self-consistent constraints; this inconsistency weakens the reliability of the central negative claim, but it is not a circularity. The self-citation to Montiel et al. (2020) for the Bezier calibration method is load-bearing for the functional form, but that prior work applied the method to GRBs and is externally falsifiable, so it does not by itself make the derivation circular. Overall, the derivation has partial circularity because the quasar data used for cosmological inference are not independent of the calibration fit, but the external H(z) anchor provides independent content, preventing a higher score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calibration depends on three Bezier coefficients fitted to cosmic-chronometer data and on two LX-LUV parameters fitted to quasars, plus an intrinsic-scatter estimate that is not used. The main assumptions are constant LX-LUV parameters with no redshift evolution, a degree-2 Bezier shape that is extrapolated far beyond its data range, and spatial flatness. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • beta0 (H0 anchor) = 70.81 km/s/Mpc
    Zero-order Bezier coefficient fitted to 28 cosmic-chronometer H(z) points; sets the distance scale for the whole calibration.
  • beta1 = 81.99
    Linear Bezier coefficient from the cosmic-chronometer fit; controls the low-z shape of H(z).
  • beta2 = 179.02
    Quadratic Bezier coefficient from the cosmic-chronometer fit; controls curvature and dominates the extrapolated high-z behavior.
  • gamma (low-z) = 0.618 +/- 0.017
    Slope of the LX-LUV relation fitted with Linmix to the z < 1.43 quasar subsample; used to compute distance moduli.
  • beta (low-z intercept) = 7.824 +/- 0.522
    Intercept of the LX-LUV relation from the same low-z Linmix fit.
  • gamma (full sample) = 0.688 +/- 0.009
    Slope fitted to the full 2038-quasar sample; used for the full-sample distance moduli.
  • beta (full sample intercept) = 5.747 +/- 0.264
    Intercept fitted to the full quasar sample.
  • delta (intrinsic scatter) = 0.237 +/- 0.006 (low-z)
    Intrinsic dispersion estimated by Linmix in the LX-LUV relation. Estimated but not propagated into sigma_mu in Eq. (21), which is a key soundness problem.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The LX-LUV relation has no redshift evolution; gamma and beta are constants.
    Stated in Sections 1 and 2.1 as a first-order choice supported by Lusso et al. (2025). If false, high-z distance moduli are biased and the high-z cosmological constraints are invalid.
  • ad hoc to paper H(z) is well described by a degree-2 Bezier polynomial over the full calibration and extrapolation range.
    The polynomial is fitted to CC data at z <= 1.43 but used in Eq. (8) up to z about 7.5. No independent justification for n=2 or for the extrapolation is given.
  • domain assumption Spatial flatness, Omega_K = 0, holds for the calibration and for all cosmological models.
    Used in Eq. (8) and in the Friedmann equations. Motivated by Planck constraints, but it restricts the generality of the 'model-independent' calibration.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15263 in / 15820 out tokens · 178429 ms · 2026-08-04T19:52:21.888986+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Reliability of Quasars as Cosmological Distance Indicators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CWQKTPNA

@misc{pith2026250908983,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Reliability of Quasars as Cosmological Distance Indicators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CWQKTPNA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08983}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We assess the viability of quasars as cosmological distance indicators based on the non-linear $L_X$--$L_{\rm UV}$ relation. We calibrate this relation in a model-independent way by anchoring quasar luminosity distances to cosmic-chronometer $H(z)$ measurements over $z\leq 1.43$, and construct a quasar Hubble diagram extending up to $z\simeq 7.5$. We compare a traditional stepwise approach, in which the calibration is fixed before cosmological inference, with a joint QSO+SN calibration--cosmology framework where calibration and cosmological parameters are sampled simultaneously. The stepwise analysis, supplemented with DESI DR2 BAO measurements and Planck compressed CMB distance priors, is used as a diagnostic benchmark, while the joint framework, with and without the SH0ES $H_0$ information, provides our main cosmological results. We selected a low-$z$ quasar subsample ($z<1.43$), matching the redshift range of the cosmic-chronometer calibration, and found calibration parameters consistent with previous studies. However, the stepwise cosmological constraints can become unstable once quasars are included, reflecting the incomplete propagation of calibration uncertainties and calibration--cosmology degeneracies. In contrast, the joint analysis yields self-consistent constraints because the quasar calibration parameters are fitted simultaneously with the cosmological parameters, allowing these uncertainties and degeneracies to be propagated into the final posteriors. Our results indicate that the current limitations of quasar cosmology are driven mainly by intrinsic scatter and possible sample-dependent effects in the $L_X$--$L_{\rm UV}$ relation, rather than by a fundamental inconsistency with standard cosmology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08983 by Ariadna Montiel, Jose Ignacio Cabrera, Juan Carlos Hidalgo, Sofia Samario-Nava.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Rest-frame monochromatic luminosities log(𝐿𝑋 ) against log(𝐿𝑈𝑉 ) for the final sample of 2038 quasars (blue circles) as described in Sect. 2.1. The results from the BCES fit (dashed red line) and from the Linmix fit (black solid line) are also reported. On the other hand, we further clarify that the binned results are not employed in the cosmological analysis, since binning can smooth out intrinsic scatter… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Hubble diagram of Pantheon+ supernovae (orange points) and quasars in the redshift range 0.009 < 𝑧 < 7.541 (blue points). The black points are the binned quasar DM. The dotted line in red is the flat ΛCDM model with Ω𝑚 = 0.315 and 𝐻0 = 67.66 km/s/Mpc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

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

55 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ade P. A. R., et al., 2016, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525814 , 594, A14

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525814 2016

  2. [2]

    G., Bershady M

    Akritas M. G., Bershady M. A., 1996, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/177901 , 470, 706

    doi:10.1086/177901 1996

  3. [3]

    Andreon S., Hurn M., 2013, @doi [Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal] 10.1002/sam.11173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013SADM....6...15A 9, 15

    doi:10.1002/sam.11173 2013

  4. [4]

    Audren B., Lesgourgues J., Benabed K., Prunet S., 2013, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/001 , 2013, 001

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/001 2013

  5. [5]

    A., 1977, @doi [APJ] 10.1086/155294 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...214..679B 214, 679

    Baldwin J. A., 1977, @doi [APJ] 10.1086/155294 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...214..679B 214, 679

    doi:10.1086/155294 1977

  6. [6]

    Dark Univ.] 10.1016/j.dark.2025.101983 , 49, 101983

    Benetti M., Bargiacchi G., Risaliti G., Capozziello S., Lusso E., Signorini M., 2025, @doi [Phys. Dark Univ.] 10.1016/j.dark.2025.101983 , 49, 101983

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 , 938, 110

    Brout D., et al., 2022, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 , 938, 110

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 2022

  8. [8]

    Capozziello S., D'Agostino R., Luongo O., 2018, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/sty422 , 476, 3924

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty422 2018

  9. [9]

    Chen L., Huang Q.-G., Wang K., 2019, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/028 , 1902, 028

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/028 2019

  10. [10]

    arXiv:2503.14738

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14738 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314738D p. arXiv:2503.14738

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.14738 2025

  11. [11]

    L., Bianchi S., Ponti G., Branchini E., Matt G., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/L12 , 787, L12

    Franca F. L., Bianchi S., Ponti G., Branchini E., Matt G., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/L12 , 787, L12

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/l12 2014

  12. [12]

    B., 1992, @doi [Statist

    Gelman A., Rubin D. B., 1992, @doi [Statist. Sci.] 10.1214/ss/1177011136 , 7, 457

    arXiv 1992

  13. [13]

    A., Tanaka M., Hillebrandt W., Benetti S., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13645.x , 389, 1087

    Hachinger S., Mazzali P. A., Tanaka M., Hillebrandt W., Benetti S., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13645.x , 389, 1087

    arXiv 2008

  14. [14]

    K., 1970, @doi [Biometrika] 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97 , 57, 97

    Hastings W. K., 1970, @doi [Biometrika] 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97 , 57, 97

    doi:10.1093/biomet/57.1.97 1970

  15. [15]

    arXiv:2506.12004

    Herold L., Karwal T., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.12004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250612004H p. arXiv:2506.12004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.12004 2025

  16. [16]

    Jimenez R., Loeb A., 2002, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/340549 , 573, 37

    doi:10.1086/340549 2002

  17. [17]

    C., 2007, @doi [Astrophys

    Kelly B. C., 2007, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/519947 , 665, 1489

    doi:10.1086/519947 2007

  18. [18]

    Khadka N., Ratra B., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab486 , 502, 6140

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab486 2021

  19. [19]

    Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.063007 , D66, 063007

    Kosowsky A., Milosavljevic M., Jimenez R., 2002, @doi [Phys. Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.063007 , D66, 063007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.063007 2002

  20. [20]

    arXiv:1104.2932

    Lesgourgues J., 2011, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1104.2932 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1104.2932L p. arXiv:1104.2932

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1104.2932 2011

  21. [21]

    E., Shafieloo A., Zheng X., Cao S., Biesiada M., Zhu Z.-H., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2154 , 507, 919

    Li X., Keeley R. E., Shafieloo A., Zheng X., Cao S., Biesiada M., Zhu Z.-H., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2154 , 507, 919

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2154 2021

  22. [22]

    Li Z., Huang L., Wang J., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac2735 , 517, 1901

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2735 2022

  23. [23]

    Lusso E., 2020, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2020.00008 , Volume 7 - 2020

    arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Lusso E., Risaliti G., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/154 , 819, 154

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/2/154 2016

  25. [25]

    Risaliti, G

    Lusso, E. Risaliti, G. 2017, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630079 , 602, A79

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630079 2017

  26. [26]

    et al., 2010, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913298 , 512, A34

    Lusso, E. et al., 2010, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913298 , 512, A34

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913298 2010

  27. [27]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038899 , 642, A150

    Lusso E., et al., 2020, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038899 , 642, A150

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038899 2020

  28. [28]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202453504 , 697, A108

    Lusso E., Risaliti G., Nardini E., 2025, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202453504 , 697, A108

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453504 2025

  29. [29]

    W., Rosenbluth M

    Metropolis N., Rosenbluth A. W., Rosenbluth M. N., Teller A. H., Teller E., 1953, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.1699114 , 21, 1087

    doi:10.1063/1.1699114 1953

  30. [30]

    I., Hidalgo J

    Montiel A., Cabrera J. I., Hidalgo J. C., 2020, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/staa3926

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3926 2020

  31. [31]

    Moresco M., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv037 , 450, L16

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv037 2015

  32. [32]

    arXiv:2003.07362

    Moresco M., Jimenez R., Verde L., Cimatti A., Pozzetti L., 2020, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200307362M p. arXiv:2003.07362

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature10159 , 474, 616–619

    Mortlock D. J., et al., 2011, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature10159 , 474, 616–619

    doi:10.1038/nature10159 2011

  34. [34]

    Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.083529 , D78, 083529

    Mukherjee P., Kunz M., Parkinson D., Wang Y., 2008, @doi [Phys. Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.083529 , D78, 083529

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.083529 2008

  35. [35]

    B., 2006, An Introduction to Copulas

    Nelsen R. B., 2006, An Introduction to Copulas. Springer Series in Statistics

    2006

  36. [36]

    B., Ingargiola A., 2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.11813 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11813

    Newville M., Stensitzki T., Allen D. B., Ingargiola A., 2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.11813 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11813

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.11813 2014

  37. [37]

    S., Shields J

    Osmer P. S., Shields J. C., 1999, ASP Conf. Ser., 162, 235

    1999

  38. [38]

    arXiv:1807.06209

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2018, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180706209P p. arXiv:1807.06209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    G., et al., 1998, @doi [Astron

    Riess A. G., et al., 1998, @doi [Astron. J.] 10.1086/300499 , 116, 1009

    doi:10.1086/300499 1998

  40. [40]

    G., et al., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/510378 , 659, 98

    Riess A. G., et al., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/510378 , 659, 98

    doi:10.1086/510378 2007

  41. [41]

    G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934L...7R 934, L7

    Riess A. G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934L...7R 934, L7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b 2022

  42. [42]

    Risaliti G., Lusso E., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/815/1/33 , 815, 33

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/1/33 2015

  43. [43]

    Nachr.] 10.1002/asna.201713351 , 338, 329

    Risaliti G., Lusso E., 2017, @doi [Astron. Nachr.] 10.1002/asna.201713351 , 338, 329

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.201713351 2017

  44. [44]

    Risaliti G., Lusso E., 2019, @doi [Nature Astron.] 10.1038/s41550-018-0657-z , 3, 272

    doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0657-z 2019

  45. [45]

    et al., 2022, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243411 , 663, L7

    Sacchi, A. et al., 2022, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243411 , 663, L7

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243411 2022

  46. [46]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [Astrophys

    Scolnic D. M., et al., 2018, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb , 859, 101

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb 2018

  47. [47]

    Scolnic D., et al., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a , 938, 113

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a 2022

  48. [48]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348941 , 687, A32

    Signorini M., Risaliti G., Lusso E., Nardini E., Bargiacchi G., Sacchi A., Trefoloni B., 2024, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348941 , 687, A32

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348941 2024

  49. [49]

    Tananbaum H., et al., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/183100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234L...9T 234, L9

    doi:10.1086/183100 1979

  50. [50]

    Turriziani, S

    Vagnetti, F. Turriziani, S. Trevese, D. Antonucci, M. 2010, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014320 , 519, A17

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014320 2010

  51. [51]

    Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.103533 , D76, 103533

    Wang Y., Mukherjee P., 2007, @doi [Phys. Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.103533 , D76, 103533

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.103533 2007

  52. [52]

    Wang J.-M., Du P., Valls-Gabaud D., Hu C., Netzer H., 2013, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.081301 , 110, 081301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.081301 2013

  53. [53]

    Wang B., Liu Y., Yuan Z., Liang N., Yu H., Wu P., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9df8 , 940, 174

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9df8 2022

  54. [54]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ab5 , 962, 103

    Wang B., Liu Y., Yu H., Wu P., 2024, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ab5 , 962, 103

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ab5 2024

  55. [55]

    Zamorani G., et al., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158815 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...245..357Z 245, 357

    doi:10.1086/158815 1981