Studies on the dark sector interaction from joint analysis of cosmological probes

Bohao Wang; Jianfeng Meng; Jingze Li; Kang Jiao; Xiaofeng Yang; Xiongwei Liu; Yunliang Ren

REVIEW

Studies on the dark sector interaction from joint analysis of cosmological probes

Jianfeng Meng, Xiaofeng Yang, Yunliang Ren, Bohao Wang, Jingze Li, Kang Jiao, Xiongwei Liu

Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics · Submitted 4 Sep 2026 · 79 references

Pith's verdict: Solid, honest null result on dark-sector interaction; deserves a proper referee and will be a useful citation for the non-detection.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on September 8, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2609.04746 (version 1)

Pith IDETLTKC73, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationBohao Wang, Jianfeng Meng, Jingze Li, Kang Jiao, Xiaofeng Yang, Xiongwei Liu, Yunliang Ren. "Studies on the dark sector interaction from joint analysis of cosmological probes." arXiv:2609.04746 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ETLTKC73

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

This is a solid, honest paper. The central claim is that the ξIDE interaction parameter γ is not excluded at 68% credibility under either SN calibration route, and non-interacting models achieve comparable likelihood improvements. That is a well-supported null result.

What's new: they apply the calibration-sensitivity test (following Benisty et al.) to the ξIDE model, use an updated CC compilation, and fit the Amati relation jointly with cosmology rather than pre-calibrating. The dual SN route comparison is clean and shows the inferred sign of interaction flips with the absolute calibration, which is an important caution for the field.

The paper does several things right: joint GRB likelihood, MCMC with physicality checks, explicit discussion of the induced prior on γ, redshift-evolution diagnostics for the Amati slope, and model comparison showing wCDM and CPL do just as well. The negative conclusions are stated without overreach.

Soft spots are minor. The induced prior on γ from the uniform (w, ξ) box is non-uniform, and while the paper plots it, the posterior of γ is moderately prior-informed in the PantheonPlus-only case (the 95% interval closely matches the prior 95% range). This is acknowledged but could be discussed more. The Amati redshift-evolution diagnostic uses a fixed ΛCDM cosmology to compute Eiso; if the true cosmology differs, the recovered trends could shift. However, the interaction constraints are driven by SNe+BAO+CC, not GRBs, so the central claim is robust to this. The paper's bin-wise test is underpowered (123 GRBs in 6 bins) and detects trends in intercept and scatter, which they attribute to selection effects—that is fair.

This is a paper for cosmologists working on interacting dark energy or late-universe probes. It is not revolutionary, but it is careful, reproducible, and the null result will be a useful benchmark. A serious referee should engage with it; the paper is ready for journal submission after minor clarifications on the induced prior sensitivity.

I would cite this in my own work as a reference for the non-detection of interaction under the ξIDE model.

Referee report

Minor objections (5)

[Section 3.3] The text writes "pantheonPlus-only" with a lowercase 'p'; please capitalize consistently as "PantheonPlus-only" throughout the manuscript.
[Section 3.5, sentence after Eq. (3.20)] "we sampler d" should be "we sample r_d" (missing space).
[Table 1] The entry at z=0.09 (marked with an asterisk) cites Jimenez et al. 2003, but the caption states this is a revised value. Consider adding a brief footnote or sentence in the text explaining the revision (e.g., that the original 69±12 has been updated to 72±13).
[Section 4.2, discussion of induced prior] The induced prior on γ is shown in Figure 2, which is very helpful. Consider reporting the 68% credible interval of the induced prior in the text (e.g., alongside the 95% interval given) to facilitate comparison with the posterior width.
[Section 5, Conclusions] The conclusion that the results are "broadly consistent with Figueruelo et al. [26]" is useful. Consider adding a brief quantitative comparison (e.g., whether their reported γ values are consistent within the quoted uncertainties).

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Joint analysis of cosmological probes finds no compelling evidence for dark sector interaction that is robust to supernova calibration choice.

The reading

The paper tests whether constraints on the nonlinear interacting dark energy model $\xi$IDE are stable under different treatments of the Type Ia supernova absolute magnitude calibration. Combining Fermi gamma-ray burst data with PantheonPlus supernovae, DESI BAO, and cosmic chronometers, the authors find that the interaction parameter $\gamma \equiv \xi + 3w$ does not exclude zero at 68% credibility for either calibration route. The direction of energy transfer reverses between the two calibration treatments, and non-interacting dark energy models ($w$CDM, CPL) achieve likelihood improvements comparable to $\xi$IDE. The authors conclude that there is no compelling evidence for a dark sector interaction that is robust to the choice of supernova calibration or specifically favored over non-interacting extensions.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the $\xi$IDE model, in which the ratio of dark energy to dark matter densities evolves as $(1+z)^{-\xi}$, implying an interaction term $Q = -H(\xi+3w)\rho_c\rho_{de}/(\rho_c+\rho_{de})$. The combined parameter $\gamma = \xi+3w$ controls the sign and magnitude of the interaction; $\gamma=0$ recovers $w$CDM without interaction. The Amati relation $E_p\!-\!E_{\rm iso}$ is fitted jointly with cosmological parameters, and the GRB data are included directly in the likelihood without pre-calibrating a Hubble diagram.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that the apparent interaction signal in the $\xi$IDE model is not robust: the posterior median of $\gamma$ flips sign depending on whether the supernova absolute magnitude $M$ is left fixed (PantheonPlus-SH0ES) or analytically marginalized (PantheonPlus-only), and $0$ is contained within the 68% credible interval in both cases. The reconstructed interaction rate $I(z) = Q/[H(\rho_c + \rho_{de})]$ remains consistent with zero over the full redshift range $0<z<5$, and neither the Akaike nor Bayesian information criteria consistently favor $\xi$IDE over $w$CDM or CPL when the extra parameter is penalized.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest assumption is that the Amati relation connecting gamma-ray burst peak energy and isotropic energy is redshift-independent, and that any residual trends in the intercept and intrinsic scatter are due to selection effects rather than intrinsic evolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Future searches for dark sector interactions must test robustness to the supernova absolute magnitude treatment, as the inferred direction and significance of energy transfer can reverse under apparently minor calibration choices.
The $w$CDM and CPL non-interacting models achieve likelihoods comparable to $\xi$IDE, indicating that additional freedom in the dark energy equation of state captures the same late-time expansion data equally well.
The lack of redshift evolution in the Amati slope (within current GRB samples) supports continued use of gamma-ray bursts as standardizable distance indicators out to $z\sim8$, provided selection effects are controlled.

Reading between the lines

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

The sign flip in $\gamma$ between calibration routes may reflect systematic offsets in the absolute distance scale rather than true coupling: when $M$ is marginalized, $H_0$ decreases and $r_d$ increases, shifting the expansion history relative to the fixed-calibration case.
If the $\xi$IDE model had been preferred over $w$CDM/CPL, it would have been a strong hint of new physics; the fact that the data do not distinguish them suggests that the current combination of late-time probes lacks the statistical power to discriminate interaction from a time-varying equation of state.
The trends observed in the Amati intercept and intrinsic scatter with redshift, though not statistically significant for the slope, warrant a more dedicated selection-function analysis to verify that the relation is genuinely standardizable.

Original abstract

We test whether constraints on the nonlinear interaction $\xi$IDE are stable under different treatments of the Type Ia supernovae absolute calibration. \textit{Fermi} GRBs measurements and the Amati-relation parameters are fitted jointly with PantheonPlus SNe Ia, DESI DR2 BAO, and an updated cosmic-chronometer compilation. We compare the PantheonPlus-SH0ES route, which retains the SN absolute calibration, with the PantheonPlus-only route, in which the SN absolute magnitude is analytically marginalized. The GOLD GRB sample is adopted for the main analysis, while the FULL GRB sample is used to assess sample dependence. For the interaction parameter $\gamma\equiv\xi+3w$, where $\gamma=0$ denotes the non-interacting limit, the GOLD sample gives $\gamma=1.453^{+1.297}_{-1.597}$ for the PantheonPlus-SH0ES and $\gamma=-0.634^{+1.668}_{-2.486}$ for the PantheonPlus-only. Although the posterior medians correspond to opposite directions of energy transfer, neither route excludes $\gamma=0$ at 68\% credibility, and the reconstructed interaction rate remains consistent with zero over the redshift range considered. Replacing the GOLD sample with the FULL sample produces negligible changes in the interaction constraints. Moreover, $w$CDM and CPL achieve likelihood improvements comparable to that of $\xi$IDE, while the information criteria do not consistently favor the interacting model. A redshift-bin diagnostic finds no significant redshift evolution of the Amati relation. We find no compelling evidence for a dark sector interaction that is robust to the choice of SN calibration or specifically favored over noninteracting dark energy extensions.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 7,838 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.88 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.74 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.91 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We test whether constraints on the nonlinear interaction $\xi$IDE are stable under different treatments of the Type Ia supernovae absolute calibration. \textit{Fermi} GRBs measurements and the Amati-relation parameters are fitted jointly with PantheonPlus SNe Ia, DESI DR2 BAO, and an updated cosmic-chronometer compilation. We compare the PantheonPlus-SH0ES route, which retains the SN absolute calibration, with the PantheonPlus-only route, in which the SN absolute magnitude is analytically marginalized. The GOLD GRB sample is adopted for the main analysis, while the FULL GRB sample is used to assess sample dependence. For the interaction parameter $\gamma\equiv\xi+3w$, where $\gamma=0$ denotes the non-interacting limit, the GOLD sample gives $\gamma=1.453^{+1.297}_{-1.597}$ for the PantheonPlus-SH0ES and $\gamma=-0.634^{+1.668}_{-2.486}$ for the PantheonPlus-only. Although the posterior medians correspond to opposite directions of energy transfer, neither route excludes $\gamma=0$ at 68\% credibility, and the reconstructed interaction rate remains consistent with zero over the redshift range considered. Replacing the GOLD sample with the FULL sample produces negligible changes in the interaction constraints. Moreover, $w$CDM and CPL achieve likelihood improvements comparable to that of $\xi$IDE, while the information criteria do not consistently favor the interacting model. A redshift-bin diagnostic finds no significant redshift evolution of the Amati relation. We find no compelling evidence for a dark sector interaction that is robust to the choice of SN calibration or specifically favored over noninteracting dark energy extensions.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We test whether constraints on the nonlinear interaction $\xi$IDE are stable under different treatments of the Type Ia supernovae absolute calibration.	contribution 0.94	0.79	0.04	unclear 0.53
s1	\textit{Fermi} GRBs measurements and the Amati-relation parameters are fitted jointly with PantheonPlus SNe Ia, DESI DR2 BAO, and an updated cosmic-chronometer compilation.	method 0.99	0.89	0.02	asserted 0.98
s2	We compare the PantheonPlus-SH0ES route, which retains the SN absolute calibration, with the PantheonPlus-only route, in which the SN absolute magnitude is analytically marginalized.	method 0.97	0.86	0.02	asserted 0.93
s3	The GOLD GRB sample is adopted for the main analysis, while the FULL GRB sample is used to assess sample dependence.	method 1.00	0.84	0.02	asserted 0.99
s4	For the interaction parameter $\gamma\equiv\xi+3w$, where $\gamma=0$ denotes the non-interacting limit, the GOLD sample gives $\gamma=1.453^{+1.297}_{-1.597}$ for the PantheonPlus-SH0ES and $\gamma=-0.634^{+1.668}_{-2.486}$ for the PantheonPlus-only.	result 1.00	0.95	0.06	asserted 1.00
s5	Although the posterior medians correspond to opposite directions of energy transfer, neither route excludes $\gamma=0$ at 68\% credibility, and the reconstructed interaction rate remains consistent with zero over the redshift range considered.	interpretation 0.56	0.94	0.24	asserted 0.71
s6	Replacing the GOLD sample with the FULL sample produces negligible changes in the interaction constraints.	result 1.00	0.95	0.04	asserted 1.00
s7	Moreover, $w$CDM and CPL achieve likelihood improvements comparable to that of $\xi$IDE, while the information criteria do not consistently favor the interacting model.	result 0.94	0.92	0.11	asserted 1.00
s8	A redshift-bin diagnostic finds no significant redshift evolution of the Amati relation.	result 0.98	0.94	0.03	asserted 1.00
s9	We find no compelling evidence for a dark sector interaction that is robust to the choice of SN calibration or specifically favored over noninteracting dark energy extensions.	interpretation 0.59	0.97	0.96	asserted 0.99

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 0.91 · evidence from analysis of existing data 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (79)

[1]

A.G. Riess, A.V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P.M. Garnavich et al., Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant,Astron. J.116(1998) 1009 [astro-ph/9805201]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[2]

S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R.A. Knop, P. Nugent, P.G. Castro et al., Measurements ofΩandΛfrom 42 High-Redshift Supernovae,Astrophys. J.517(1999) 565 [astro-ph/9812133]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[3]

Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]. – 14 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[4]

S. Weinberg,The cosmological constant problem,Reviews of Modern Physics61(1989) 1

View on Pith 1989
[5]

L.P. Chimento, A.S. Jakubi, D. Pav´ on and W. Zimdahl,Interacting quintessence solution to the coincidence problem,Phys. Rev. D67(2003) 083513 [astro-ph/0303145]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[6]

A.G. Riess, W. Yuan, L.M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,Astrophys. J. Lett.934(2022) L7 [2112.04510]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[7]

E. Di Valentino, J.L. Said, A. Riess, A. Pollo, V. Poulin, A. G´ omez-Valent et al.,The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics,Physics of the Dark Universe49(2025) 101965 [2504.01669]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[8]

M. Chevallier and D. Polarski,Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter,International Journal of Modern Physics D10(2001) 213 [gr-qc/0009008]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[9]

E.V. Linder,Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 091301 [astro-ph/0208512]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[10]

L. Amendola,Coupled quintessence,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 043511 [astro-ph/9908023]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[11]

G. Caldera-Cabral, R. Maartens and L.A. Ure˜ na-L´ opez,Dynamics of interacting dark energy, Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 063518 [0812.1827]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[12]

B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela and D. Pav´ on,Further understanding the interaction between dark energy and dark matter: current status and future directions,Reports on Progress in Physics87(2024) 036901 [2402.00819]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[13]

A.A. Costa, X.-D. Xu, B. Wang, E.G.M. Ferreira and E. Abdalla,Testing the interaction between dark energy and dark matter with Planck data,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 103531 [1311.7380]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[14]

S. Pan, W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, E.N. Saridakis and S. Chakraborty,Interacting scenarios with dynamical dark energy: Observational constraints and alleviation of the H 0 tension,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 103520 [1907.07540]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[15]

E. Di Valentino, L.A. Anchordoqui, ¨O. Akarsu, Y. Ali-Haimoud, L. Amendola, N. Arendse et al.,Cosmology Intertwined III: fσ 8 and S 8,Astroparticle Physics131(2021) 102604 [2008.11285]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[16]

E. Abdalla, G.F. Abell´ an, A. Aboubrahim, A. Agnello, ¨O. Akarsu, Y. Akrami et al.,Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies,Journal of High Energy Astrophysics34(2022) 49 [2203.06142]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[17]

A. Heavens, R. Jimenez and L. Verde,Standard Rulers, Candles, and Clocks from the Low-Redshift Universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 241302 [1409.6217]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[18]

E.-K. Li, M. Du and L. Xu,General cosmography model with spatial curvature,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.491(2020) 4960 [1903.11433]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[19]

R. Jimenez and A. Loeb,Constraining Cosmological Parameters Based on Relative Galaxy Ages,Astrophys. J.573(2002) 37 [astro-ph/0106145]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[20]

M. Moresco, L. Amati, L. Amendola, S. Birrer, J.P. Blakeslee, M. Cantiello et al.,Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes,Living Reviews in Relativity25(2022) 6 [2201.07241]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[21]

D. Benisty, S. Pan, D. Staicova, E. Di Valentino and R.C. Nunes,Late-time constraints on interacting dark energy: Analysis independent of H 0, r d, and M B,Astron. Astrophys.688 (2024) A156 [2403.00056]. – 15 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[22]

N. Liang, W.K. Xiao, Y. Liu and S.N. Zhang,A Cosmology-Independent Calibration of Gamma-Ray Burst Luminosity Relations and the Hubble Diagram,Astrophys. J.685(2008) 354 [0802.4262]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[23]

H. Wang and N. Liang,Constraints from Fermi observations of long gamma-ray bursts on cosmological parameters,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.533(2024) 743 [2405.14357]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[24]

X.-D. Nong and N. Liang,Testing the Phenomenological Interacting Dark Energy Model with Gamma-Ray Bursts and Pantheon+ type Ia Supernovae,Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics24(2024) 125003 [2407.16644]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[25]

Z. Zhu, Q. Jiang, Y. Liu, P. Wu and N. Liang,Cosmological constraints on the phenomenological interacting dark energy model with Fermi gamma-ray bursts and DESI DR2, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics51(2026) 100534 [2511.16032]

View on Pith arXiv 2026
[26]

D. Figueruelo, M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe and E. Di Valentino,Late-time background constraints on linear and non-linear interacting dark energy after DESI DR2,Physics of the Dark Universe52(2026) 102238 [2601.03122]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[27]

J. Meng, X. Yang, Y. Ren, Y. Shi, B. Wang, J. Li et al.,Interacting dark energy constraints from Fermi GRBs and Pantheon+ SNe Ia with full GRB covariance,arXiv e-prints(2026) arXiv:2606.00549 [2606.00549]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[28]

N. Dalal, K. Abazajian, E. Jenkins and A.V. Manohar,Testing the Cosmic Coincidence Problem and the Nature of Dark Energy,Phys. Rev. Lett.87(2001) 141302 [astro-ph/0105317]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[29]

N. Khadka and B. Ratra,Constraints on cosmological parameters from gamma-ray burst peak photon energy and bolometric fluence measurements and other data,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.499(2020) 391 [2007.13907]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[30]

S. Cao and B. Ratra,Testing the standardizability of, and deriving cosmological constraints from, a new Amati-correlated gamma-ray burst data compilation,JCAP2024(2024) 093 [2404.08697]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[31]

L. Amati, C. Guidorzi, F. Frontera, M. Della Valle, F. Finelli, R. Landi et al.,Measuring the cosmological parameters with the E p,i-Eiso correlation of gamma-ray bursts,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.391(2008) 577 [0805.0377]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[32]

N. Khadka, O. Luongo, M. Muccino and B. Ratra,Do gamma-ray burst measurements provide a useful test of cosmological models?,JCAP2021(2021) 042 [2105.12692]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[33]

D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A.G. Riess, T.M. Davis, A. Dwomoh et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release,Astrophys. J.938(2022) 113 [2112.03863]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[34]

D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A.G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,Astrophys. J.938(2022) 110 [2202.04077]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[35]

M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C. Allende Prieto et al.,DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 083515 [2503.14738]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[36]

W. Zimdahl, D. Pav´ on, L.P. Chimento and A.S. Jakubi,Interacting Quintessence and the Coincidence Problem, inThe Tenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting. On recent developments in theoretical and experimental general relativity, gravitation and relativistic field theories, M. Novello, S. Perez Bergliaffa and R. Ruffini, eds., p. 1794, Feb., 2006, DOI [astro-ph/0404122]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[37]

L.P. Chimento,Linear and nonlinear interactions in the dark sector,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 043525 [0911.5687]. – 16 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[38]

M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe and E. Di Valentino,II. Non-linear interacting dark energy: Analytical solutions and theoretical pathologies,Physics of the Dark Universe50(2025) 102120 [2509.04494]

View on Pith arXiv 2025
[39]

M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe and E. Di Valentino,III. Interacting Dark Energy: Summary of models, Pathologies, and Constraints,Physics of the Dark Universe50(2025) 102121 [2509.04496]

View on Pith arXiv 2025
[40]

L. Amati, F. Frontera, M. Tavani, J.J.M. in’t Zand, A. Antonelli, E. Costa et al.,Intrinsic spectra and energetics of BeppoSAX Gamma-Ray Bursts with known redshifts,Astron. Astrophys.390(2002) 81 [astro-ph/0205230]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[41]

G. D’Agostini,Fits, and especially linear fits, with errors on both axes, extra variance of the data points and other complications,arXiv e-prints(2005) physics/0511182 [physics/0511182]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[42]

M. Goliath, R. Amanullah, P. Astier, A. Goobar and R. Pain,Supernovae and the nature of the dark energy,Astron. Astrophys.380(2001) 6 [astro-ph/0104009]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[43]

E. di Pietro and J.-F. Claeskens,Future supernovae data and quintessence models,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.341(2003) 1299 [astro-ph/0207332]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[44]

R. Lazkoz, S. Nesseris and L. Perivolaropoulos,Exploring cosmological expansion parametrizations with the gold SnIa data set,JCAP2005(2005) 010 [astro-ph/0503230]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[45]

A. Conley, J. Guy, M. Sullivan, N. Regnault, P. Astier, C. Balland et al.,Supernova Constraints and Systematic Uncertainties from the First Three Years of the Supernova Legacy Survey,Astrophys. J. Suppl.192(2011) 1 [1104.1443]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[46]

N. Arendse, R.J. Wojtak, A. Agnello, G.C.-F. Chen, C.D. Fassnacht, D. Sluse et al.,Cosmic dissonance: are new physics or systematics behind a short sound horizon?,Astron. Astrophys. 639(2020) A57 [1909.07986]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[47]

R. Nagpal, S.K.J. Pacif, F. Atamurotov and R. Pati,Dark sector interactions: Probing the Hubble parameter and the sound horizon,Annals of Physics483(2025) 170249 [2503.06319]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[48]

M. Moresco,Measuring the expansion history of the Universe with cosmic chronometers,arXiv e-prints(2024) arXiv:2412.01994 [2412.01994]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[49]

K. Jiao, T.-J. Zhang, L. Gao and Y. Chen,FLRW kinematic-induced measurement of the Hubble constant from Cosmic Chronometer and redshift drift observations,Physics of the Dark Universe50(2025) 102143 [2506.16669]

View on Pith arXiv 2025
[50]

M. Lopez-Hernandez and J. De-Santiago,Is there a dynamical tendency in H 0 with late time measurements?,JCAP2025(2025) 026 [2411.00095]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[51]

S.I. Loubser, A.B. Alabi, M. Hilton, Y.-Z. Ma, X. Tang, N. Hatamkhani et al.,An independent estimate of H(z) at z = 0.5 from the stellar ages of brightest cluster galaxies,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.540(2025) 3135 [2506.03836]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[52]

R. Jimenez, M. Moresco, L. Verde and B.D. Wandelt,Cosmic chronometers with photometry: a new path to H(z),JCAP2023(2023) 047 [2306.11425]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[53]

Z.-f. Wang, L. Lei and Y.-z. Fan,New H(z) Measurement at Redshift = 0.12 with DESI Data Release 1,Astrophys. J.1003(2026) 81 [2601.07345]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[54]

E. Tomasetti, M. Moresco, G. Granata, M. D’Addona, P. Bergamini, C. Grillo et al.,Cosmic chronometers with galaxy clusters: A new avenue for multi-probe cosmology,Astron. Astrophys. 708(2026) A145 [2512.02109]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[55]

S. Pradhan, P. Renard, E. Gaztanaga, M. Siudek and T. Moutard,Towards Bayesian Photometric Cosmic Chronometers: Application to VIPERS,arXiv e-prints(2026) arXiv:2606.07298 [2606.07298]. – 17 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[56]

C. Zhang, H. Zhang, S. Yuan, S. Liu, T.-J. Zhang and Y.-C. Sun,Four new observational H(z) data from luminous red galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data release seven,Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics14(2014) 1221 [1207.4541]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[57]

R. Jimenez, L. Verde, T. Treu and D. Stern,Constraints on the Equation of State of Dark Energy and the Hubble Constant from Stellar Ages and the Cosmic Microwave Background, Astrophys. J.593(2003) 622 [astro-ph/0302560]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[58]

M. Moresco, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, L. Pozzetti, G. Zamorani, M. Bolzonella et al.,Improved constraints on the expansion rate of the Universe up to z ˜1.1 from the spectroscopic evolution of cosmic chronometers,JCAP2012(2012) 006 [1201.3609]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[59]

M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, L. Verde et al.,A 6% measurement of the Hubble parameter at z ˜0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration,JCAP2016(2016) 014 [1601.01701]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[60]

A.L. Ratsimbazafy, S.I. Loubser, S.M. Crawford, C.M. Cress, B.A. Bassett, R.C. Nichol et al., Age-dating luminous red galaxies observed with the Southern African Large Telescope,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.467(2017) 3239 [1702.00418]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[61]

D. Stern, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, M. Kamionkowski and S.A. Stanford,Cosmic chronometers: constraining the equation of state of dark energy. I: H(z) measurements,JCAP2010(2010) 008 [0907.3149]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[62]

E. Tomasetti, M. Moresco, N. Borghi, K. Jiao, A. Cimatti, L. Pozzetti et al.,A new measurement of the expansion history of the Universe at z = 1.26 with cosmic chronometers in VANDELS,Astron. Astrophys.679(2023) A96 [2305.16387]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[63]

M. Moresco,Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z ˜2.,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.450(2015) L16 [1503.01116]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[64]

X. Zhang, Q.-G. Huang and X.-D. Li,Tight H 0 constraint from galaxy redshift surveys: combining baryon acoustic oscillation measurements and Alcock-Paczynski test with a CMB prior,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.483(2019) 1655 [1801.07403]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[65]

W. Lin and M. Ishak,Cosmological discordances. II. Hubble constant, Planck and large-scale-structure data sets,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 083532 [1708.09813]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[66]

A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander, M. Alvarez et al.,DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape galaxy clustering from galaxies and quasars,JCAP2025(2025) 008 [2411.12021]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[67]

D. Foreman-Mackey, D.W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman,emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125(2013) 306 [1202.3665]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[68]

G. Ghirlanda, L. Nava, G. Ghisellini, C. Firmani and J.I. Cabrera,The E peak-Eiso plane of long gamma-ray bursts and selection effects,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.387(2008) 319 [0804.1675]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[69]

F.-Y. Wang, S. Qi and Z.-G. Dai,The updated luminosity correlations of gamma-ray bursts and cosmological implications,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.415(2011) 3423 [1105.0046]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[70]

Y. Dai, X.-G. Zheng, Z.-X. Li, H. Gao and Z.-H. Zhu,Redshift evolution of the Amati relation: Calibrated results from the Hubble diagram of quasars at high redshifts,Astron. Astrophys.651 (2021) L8 [2111.05544]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[71]

Y. Han, J. Gao, G. Liu and L. Xu,Detection of gamma-ray burst Amati relation based on Hubble data set and Pantheon+ samples,European Physical Journal C84(2024) 934 [2408.13466]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[72]

D. Singh, M. Singh, D. Verma, K.L. Pandey and S. Gupta,Does the Amati correlation exhibit redshift-driven heterogeneity in long GRBs?,Physics Letters B866(2025) 139500 [2406.15993]. – 18 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[73]

A.M. Hasan and W.J. Azzam,Do the Amati and Yonetoku Relations Evolve with Redshift for Swift GRBs?,arXiv e-prints(2026) arXiv:2603.08884 [2603.08884]

View on Pith arXiv 2026
[74]

B. Efron,Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife,The Annals of Statistics7(1979) 1

View on Pith 1979
[75]

D.A. Freedman,Bootstrapping regression models,The Annals of Statistics9(1981) 1218

View on Pith 1981
[76]

E.D. Feigelson and G.J. Babu,Linear Regression in Astronomy. II.,Astrophys. J.397(1992) 55

View on Pith 1992
[77]

R. Andrae,Error estimation in astronomy: A guide,arXiv e-prints(2010) arXiv:1009.2755 [1009.2755]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[78]

T.J. DiCiccio and B. Efron,Bootstrap confidence intervals,Statistical Science11(1996) 189

View on Pith 1996
[79]

V. Heussaff, J.-L. Atteia and Y. Zolnierowski,The E peak - E iso relation revisited with Fermi GRBs. Resolving a long-standing debate?,Astron. Astrophys.557(2013) A100 [1306.1757]. A Joint constraints onH 0 andr d The two SN routes also produce anticorrelated shifts inH0 andrd. ForξIDE, the PantheonPlus- SH0ES givesH 0 = 72.61+0.27 −0.26 km s−1 Mpc−1 andr...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

How the literature uses it

Papers whose main result relates to this one's

How each label was checked · JSON

Found among the papers closest to this one by title and main claim. Pith's classifier compared each pair's main results and a second model family confirmed the relation; checked against two further families, shown conflicts agreed 118 times in 120 and shown same results 218 times in 239. The quoted sentence is the other paper's main claim.

States the same result 3 papers

Our results show no significant indications for the interaction between dark energy and dark matter.

Constraining interacting dark energy models with latest cosmological observations · 0.98
These results suggest that, while a weak dark-sector interaction is permitted by the data, present observations do not provide compelling evidence for departures from the standard $\Lambda$CDM model.

Investigating the coincidence problem with Interacting Dark Energy Models · 0.93
We find no compelling evidence for an interaction within the dark sector of the Universe.

Searching for dark matter - dark energy interactions: going beyond the conformal case · 0.90

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

A.G. Riess, A.V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P.M. Garnavich et al., Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant,Astron. J.116(1998) 1009 [astro-ph/9805201]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[2] [2]

S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R.A. Knop, P. Nugent, P.G. Castro et al., Measurements ofΩandΛfrom 42 High-Redshift Supernovae,Astrophys. J.517(1999) 565 [astro-ph/9812133]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[3] [3]

Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]. – 14 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[4] [4]

S. Weinberg,The cosmological constant problem,Reviews of Modern Physics61(1989) 1

View on Pith 1989

[5] [5]

L.P. Chimento, A.S. Jakubi, D. Pav´ on and W. Zimdahl,Interacting quintessence solution to the coincidence problem,Phys. Rev. D67(2003) 083513 [astro-ph/0303145]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[6] [6]

A.G. Riess, W. Yuan, L.M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,Astrophys. J. Lett.934(2022) L7 [2112.04510]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[7] [7]

E. Di Valentino, J.L. Said, A. Riess, A. Pollo, V. Poulin, A. G´ omez-Valent et al.,The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics,Physics of the Dark Universe49(2025) 101965 [2504.01669]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[8] [8]

M. Chevallier and D. Polarski,Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter,International Journal of Modern Physics D10(2001) 213 [gr-qc/0009008]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[9] [9]

E.V. Linder,Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 091301 [astro-ph/0208512]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[10] [10]

L. Amendola,Coupled quintessence,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 043511 [astro-ph/9908023]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[11] [11]

G. Caldera-Cabral, R. Maartens and L.A. Ure˜ na-L´ opez,Dynamics of interacting dark energy, Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 063518 [0812.1827]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[12] [12]

B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela and D. Pav´ on,Further understanding the interaction between dark energy and dark matter: current status and future directions,Reports on Progress in Physics87(2024) 036901 [2402.00819]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[13] [13]

A.A. Costa, X.-D. Xu, B. Wang, E.G.M. Ferreira and E. Abdalla,Testing the interaction between dark energy and dark matter with Planck data,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 103531 [1311.7380]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[14] [14]

S. Pan, W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, E.N. Saridakis and S. Chakraborty,Interacting scenarios with dynamical dark energy: Observational constraints and alleviation of the H 0 tension,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 103520 [1907.07540]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[15] [15]

E. Di Valentino, L.A. Anchordoqui, ¨O. Akarsu, Y. Ali-Haimoud, L. Amendola, N. Arendse et al.,Cosmology Intertwined III: fσ 8 and S 8,Astroparticle Physics131(2021) 102604 [2008.11285]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[16] [16]

E. Abdalla, G.F. Abell´ an, A. Aboubrahim, A. Agnello, ¨O. Akarsu, Y. Akrami et al.,Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies,Journal of High Energy Astrophysics34(2022) 49 [2203.06142]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[17] [17]

A. Heavens, R. Jimenez and L. Verde,Standard Rulers, Candles, and Clocks from the Low-Redshift Universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 241302 [1409.6217]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[18] [18]

E.-K. Li, M. Du and L. Xu,General cosmography model with spatial curvature,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.491(2020) 4960 [1903.11433]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[19] [19]

R. Jimenez and A. Loeb,Constraining Cosmological Parameters Based on Relative Galaxy Ages,Astrophys. J.573(2002) 37 [astro-ph/0106145]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[20] [20]

M. Moresco, L. Amati, L. Amendola, S. Birrer, J.P. Blakeslee, M. Cantiello et al.,Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes,Living Reviews in Relativity25(2022) 6 [2201.07241]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[21] [21]

D. Benisty, S. Pan, D. Staicova, E. Di Valentino and R.C. Nunes,Late-time constraints on interacting dark energy: Analysis independent of H 0, r d, and M B,Astron. Astrophys.688 (2024) A156 [2403.00056]. – 15 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[22] [22]

N. Liang, W.K. Xiao, Y. Liu and S.N. Zhang,A Cosmology-Independent Calibration of Gamma-Ray Burst Luminosity Relations and the Hubble Diagram,Astrophys. J.685(2008) 354 [0802.4262]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[23] [23]

H. Wang and N. Liang,Constraints from Fermi observations of long gamma-ray bursts on cosmological parameters,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.533(2024) 743 [2405.14357]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[24] [24]

X.-D. Nong and N. Liang,Testing the Phenomenological Interacting Dark Energy Model with Gamma-Ray Bursts and Pantheon+ type Ia Supernovae,Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics24(2024) 125003 [2407.16644]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[25] [25]

Z. Zhu, Q. Jiang, Y. Liu, P. Wu and N. Liang,Cosmological constraints on the phenomenological interacting dark energy model with Fermi gamma-ray bursts and DESI DR2, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics51(2026) 100534 [2511.16032]

View on Pith arXiv 2026

[26] [26]

D. Figueruelo, M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe and E. Di Valentino,Late-time background constraints on linear and non-linear interacting dark energy after DESI DR2,Physics of the Dark Universe52(2026) 102238 [2601.03122]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[27] [27]

J. Meng, X. Yang, Y. Ren, Y. Shi, B. Wang, J. Li et al.,Interacting dark energy constraints from Fermi GRBs and Pantheon+ SNe Ia with full GRB covariance,arXiv e-prints(2026) arXiv:2606.00549 [2606.00549]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[28] [28]

N. Dalal, K. Abazajian, E. Jenkins and A.V. Manohar,Testing the Cosmic Coincidence Problem and the Nature of Dark Energy,Phys. Rev. Lett.87(2001) 141302 [astro-ph/0105317]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[29] [29]

N. Khadka and B. Ratra,Constraints on cosmological parameters from gamma-ray burst peak photon energy and bolometric fluence measurements and other data,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.499(2020) 391 [2007.13907]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[30] [30]

S. Cao and B. Ratra,Testing the standardizability of, and deriving cosmological constraints from, a new Amati-correlated gamma-ray burst data compilation,JCAP2024(2024) 093 [2404.08697]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[31] [31]

L. Amati, C. Guidorzi, F. Frontera, M. Della Valle, F. Finelli, R. Landi et al.,Measuring the cosmological parameters with the E p,i-Eiso correlation of gamma-ray bursts,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.391(2008) 577 [0805.0377]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[32] [32]

N. Khadka, O. Luongo, M. Muccino and B. Ratra,Do gamma-ray burst measurements provide a useful test of cosmological models?,JCAP2021(2021) 042 [2105.12692]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[33] [33]

D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A.G. Riess, T.M. Davis, A. Dwomoh et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release,Astrophys. J.938(2022) 113 [2112.03863]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[34] [34]

D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A.G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,Astrophys. J.938(2022) 110 [2202.04077]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[35] [35]

M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C. Allende Prieto et al.,DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 083515 [2503.14738]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[36] [36]

W. Zimdahl, D. Pav´ on, L.P. Chimento and A.S. Jakubi,Interacting Quintessence and the Coincidence Problem, inThe Tenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting. On recent developments in theoretical and experimental general relativity, gravitation and relativistic field theories, M. Novello, S. Perez Bergliaffa and R. Ruffini, eds., p. 1794, Feb., 2006, DOI [astro-ph/0404122]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[37] [37]

L.P. Chimento,Linear and nonlinear interactions in the dark sector,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 043525 [0911.5687]. – 16 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[38] [38]

M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe and E. Di Valentino,II. Non-linear interacting dark energy: Analytical solutions and theoretical pathologies,Physics of the Dark Universe50(2025) 102120 [2509.04494]

View on Pith arXiv 2025

[39] [39]

M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe and E. Di Valentino,III. Interacting Dark Energy: Summary of models, Pathologies, and Constraints,Physics of the Dark Universe50(2025) 102121 [2509.04496]

View on Pith arXiv 2025

[40] [40]

L. Amati, F. Frontera, M. Tavani, J.J.M. in’t Zand, A. Antonelli, E. Costa et al.,Intrinsic spectra and energetics of BeppoSAX Gamma-Ray Bursts with known redshifts,Astron. Astrophys.390(2002) 81 [astro-ph/0205230]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[41] [41]

G. D’Agostini,Fits, and especially linear fits, with errors on both axes, extra variance of the data points and other complications,arXiv e-prints(2005) physics/0511182 [physics/0511182]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[42] [42]

M. Goliath, R. Amanullah, P. Astier, A. Goobar and R. Pain,Supernovae and the nature of the dark energy,Astron. Astrophys.380(2001) 6 [astro-ph/0104009]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[43] [43]

E. di Pietro and J.-F. Claeskens,Future supernovae data and quintessence models,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.341(2003) 1299 [astro-ph/0207332]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[44] [44]

R. Lazkoz, S. Nesseris and L. Perivolaropoulos,Exploring cosmological expansion parametrizations with the gold SnIa data set,JCAP2005(2005) 010 [astro-ph/0503230]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[45] [45]

A. Conley, J. Guy, M. Sullivan, N. Regnault, P. Astier, C. Balland et al.,Supernova Constraints and Systematic Uncertainties from the First Three Years of the Supernova Legacy Survey,Astrophys. J. Suppl.192(2011) 1 [1104.1443]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[46] [46]

N. Arendse, R.J. Wojtak, A. Agnello, G.C.-F. Chen, C.D. Fassnacht, D. Sluse et al.,Cosmic dissonance: are new physics or systematics behind a short sound horizon?,Astron. Astrophys. 639(2020) A57 [1909.07986]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[47] [47]

R. Nagpal, S.K.J. Pacif, F. Atamurotov and R. Pati,Dark sector interactions: Probing the Hubble parameter and the sound horizon,Annals of Physics483(2025) 170249 [2503.06319]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[48] [48]

M. Moresco,Measuring the expansion history of the Universe with cosmic chronometers,arXiv e-prints(2024) arXiv:2412.01994 [2412.01994]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[49] [49]

K. Jiao, T.-J. Zhang, L. Gao and Y. Chen,FLRW kinematic-induced measurement of the Hubble constant from Cosmic Chronometer and redshift drift observations,Physics of the Dark Universe50(2025) 102143 [2506.16669]

View on Pith arXiv 2025

[50] [50]

M. Lopez-Hernandez and J. De-Santiago,Is there a dynamical tendency in H 0 with late time measurements?,JCAP2025(2025) 026 [2411.00095]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[51] [51]

S.I. Loubser, A.B. Alabi, M. Hilton, Y.-Z. Ma, X. Tang, N. Hatamkhani et al.,An independent estimate of H(z) at z = 0.5 from the stellar ages of brightest cluster galaxies,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.540(2025) 3135 [2506.03836]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[52] [52]

R. Jimenez, M. Moresco, L. Verde and B.D. Wandelt,Cosmic chronometers with photometry: a new path to H(z),JCAP2023(2023) 047 [2306.11425]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[53] [53]

Z.-f. Wang, L. Lei and Y.-z. Fan,New H(z) Measurement at Redshift = 0.12 with DESI Data Release 1,Astrophys. J.1003(2026) 81 [2601.07345]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[54] [54]

E. Tomasetti, M. Moresco, G. Granata, M. D’Addona, P. Bergamini, C. Grillo et al.,Cosmic chronometers with galaxy clusters: A new avenue for multi-probe cosmology,Astron. Astrophys. 708(2026) A145 [2512.02109]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[55] [55]

S. Pradhan, P. Renard, E. Gaztanaga, M. Siudek and T. Moutard,Towards Bayesian Photometric Cosmic Chronometers: Application to VIPERS,arXiv e-prints(2026) arXiv:2606.07298 [2606.07298]. – 17 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[56] [56]

C. Zhang, H. Zhang, S. Yuan, S. Liu, T.-J. Zhang and Y.-C. Sun,Four new observational H(z) data from luminous red galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data release seven,Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics14(2014) 1221 [1207.4541]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[57] [57]

R. Jimenez, L. Verde, T. Treu and D. Stern,Constraints on the Equation of State of Dark Energy and the Hubble Constant from Stellar Ages and the Cosmic Microwave Background, Astrophys. J.593(2003) 622 [astro-ph/0302560]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[58] [58]

M. Moresco, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, L. Pozzetti, G. Zamorani, M. Bolzonella et al.,Improved constraints on the expansion rate of the Universe up to z ˜1.1 from the spectroscopic evolution of cosmic chronometers,JCAP2012(2012) 006 [1201.3609]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[59] [59]

M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, L. Verde et al.,A 6% measurement of the Hubble parameter at z ˜0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration,JCAP2016(2016) 014 [1601.01701]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[60] [60]

A.L. Ratsimbazafy, S.I. Loubser, S.M. Crawford, C.M. Cress, B.A. Bassett, R.C. Nichol et al., Age-dating luminous red galaxies observed with the Southern African Large Telescope,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.467(2017) 3239 [1702.00418]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[61] [61]

D. Stern, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, M. Kamionkowski and S.A. Stanford,Cosmic chronometers: constraining the equation of state of dark energy. I: H(z) measurements,JCAP2010(2010) 008 [0907.3149]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[62] [62]

E. Tomasetti, M. Moresco, N. Borghi, K. Jiao, A. Cimatti, L. Pozzetti et al.,A new measurement of the expansion history of the Universe at z = 1.26 with cosmic chronometers in VANDELS,Astron. Astrophys.679(2023) A96 [2305.16387]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[63] [63]

M. Moresco,Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z ˜2.,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.450(2015) L16 [1503.01116]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[64] [64]

X. Zhang, Q.-G. Huang and X.-D. Li,Tight H 0 constraint from galaxy redshift surveys: combining baryon acoustic oscillation measurements and Alcock-Paczynski test with a CMB prior,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.483(2019) 1655 [1801.07403]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[65] [65]

W. Lin and M. Ishak,Cosmological discordances. II. Hubble constant, Planck and large-scale-structure data sets,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 083532 [1708.09813]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[66] [66]

A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander, M. Alvarez et al.,DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape galaxy clustering from galaxies and quasars,JCAP2025(2025) 008 [2411.12021]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[67] [67]

D. Foreman-Mackey, D.W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman,emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125(2013) 306 [1202.3665]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[68] [68]

G. Ghirlanda, L. Nava, G. Ghisellini, C. Firmani and J.I. Cabrera,The E peak-Eiso plane of long gamma-ray bursts and selection effects,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.387(2008) 319 [0804.1675]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[69] [69]

F.-Y. Wang, S. Qi and Z.-G. Dai,The updated luminosity correlations of gamma-ray bursts and cosmological implications,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.415(2011) 3423 [1105.0046]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[70] [70]

Y. Dai, X.-G. Zheng, Z.-X. Li, H. Gao and Z.-H. Zhu,Redshift evolution of the Amati relation: Calibrated results from the Hubble diagram of quasars at high redshifts,Astron. Astrophys.651 (2021) L8 [2111.05544]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[71] [71]

Y. Han, J. Gao, G. Liu and L. Xu,Detection of gamma-ray burst Amati relation based on Hubble data set and Pantheon+ samples,European Physical Journal C84(2024) 934 [2408.13466]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[72] [72]

D. Singh, M. Singh, D. Verma, K.L. Pandey and S. Gupta,Does the Amati correlation exhibit redshift-driven heterogeneity in long GRBs?,Physics Letters B866(2025) 139500 [2406.15993]. – 18 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[73] [73]

A.M. Hasan and W.J. Azzam,Do the Amati and Yonetoku Relations Evolve with Redshift for Swift GRBs?,arXiv e-prints(2026) arXiv:2603.08884 [2603.08884]

View on Pith arXiv 2026

[74] [74]

B. Efron,Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife,The Annals of Statistics7(1979) 1

View on Pith 1979

[75] [75]

D.A. Freedman,Bootstrapping regression models,The Annals of Statistics9(1981) 1218

View on Pith 1981

[76] [76]

E.D. Feigelson and G.J. Babu,Linear Regression in Astronomy. II.,Astrophys. J.397(1992) 55

View on Pith 1992

[77] [77]

R. Andrae,Error estimation in astronomy: A guide,arXiv e-prints(2010) arXiv:1009.2755 [1009.2755]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[78] [78]

T.J. DiCiccio and B. Efron,Bootstrap confidence intervals,Statistical Science11(1996) 189

View on Pith 1996

[79] [79]

V. Heussaff, J.-L. Atteia and Y. Zolnierowski,The E peak - E iso relation revisited with Fermi GRBs. Resolving a long-standing debate?,Astron. Astrophys.557(2013) A100 [1306.1757]. A Joint constraints onH 0 andr d The two SN routes also produce anticorrelated shifts inH0 andrd. ForξIDE, the PantheonPlus- SH0ES givesH 0 = 72.61+0.27 −0.26 km s−1 Mpc−1 andr...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013