Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Measuring the Hubble Constant with cosmic chronometers: a machine learning approach

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2209.09017 v3 pith:5DVPKKGE submitted 2022-09-19 astro-ph.CO

classification astro-ph.CO
keywords differentmachineregressionalgorithmsanalysisconstantdatahubble
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Local measurements of the Hubble constant ($H_0$) based on Cepheids e Type Ia supernova differ by $\approx 5 \sigma$ from the estimated value of $H_0$ from Planck CMB observations under $\Lambda$CDM assumptions. In order to better understand this $H_0$ tension, the comparison of different methods of analysis will be fundamental to interpret the data sets provided by the next generation of surveys. In this paper, we deploy machine learning algorithms to measure the $H_0$ through a regression analysis on synthetic data of the expansion rate assuming different values of redshift and different levels of uncertainty. We compare the performance of different regression algorithms as Extra-Trees, Artificial Neural Network, Gradient Boosting, Support Vector Machines, and we find that the Support Vector Machine exhibits the best performance in terms of bias-variance tradeoff in most cases, showing itself a competitive cross-check to non-supervised regression methods such as Gaussian Processes.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Reconstructing Cosmic History with Machine Learning: A Study Using CART, MLPR, and SVR

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A benchmark of CART, MLPR, and SVR on simulated galaxy ages shows SVR has the lowest error and recovers the fiducial Omega_m and w values used to generate the data.

Pith tools