Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 114 references

Gamma-Ray Bursts Calibrated by Using Artificial Neural Networks from the Pantheon+ Sample

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that an ANN+BNN calibration of the Amati relation from Pantheon+ supernovae yields a GRB Hubble diagram whose flat-CPL fit prefers evolving dark energy, with $w_a=-0.98^{+0.58}_{-0.58}$ and $w_0=-1.02^{+0.67}_{-0.50}$, in…

desk verdict Solid incremental ML calibration paper whose wa≠0 headline is undercut by its own model selection and an untested redshift-evolution assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08929 v2 pith:A6YK6REZ submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.CO

Zhen Huang , Xin Luo , Bin Zhang , Jianchao Feng , Puxun Wu , Yu Liu , Nan Liang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords gamma-rayburstsAmatirelationartificialneuralnetworksBayesianPantheon+sampledarkenergycosmologicalparameterconstraintsHubblediagram
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

Gamma-ray bursts reach redshifts far beyond supernovae, but their luminosity relations must be calibrated without assuming a cosmology. This paper uses a hybrid artificial-neural-network/Bayesian-neural-network reconstruction of the Pantheon+ supernova apparent-magnitude relation to calibrate the Amati relation (the correlation between a burst's spectral peak energy and its isotropic energy) from low-redshift GRBs, then builds a GRB Hubble diagram at higher redshift. Combined with 32 observational Hubble data points, the resulting constraints favor a dark-energy equation of state that may evolve with redshift, with $\Omega_m = 0.321^{+0.078}_{-0.069}$, $h = 0.654^{+0.053}_{-0.071}$, $w_0 = -1.02^{+0.67}_{-0.50}$, and $w_a = -0.98^{+0.58}_{-0.58}$ for a flat CPL model, though model-selection criteria still favor $\Lambda$CDM. The ANN-based results are consistent with Gaussian-process calibrations and do not require the Gaussian error assumption that such reconstructions usually impose.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Amati relation written in apparent-magnitude form, $y' = a' + b x$, where $y' = \log_{10}[(1+z)^{-1}S_{\rm bolo}] + \frac{2}{5}m$ and $x = \log_{10}(E_p/300\,\mathrm{keV})$; rewriting the relation this way lets the supernova absolute magnitude be absorbed into the free intercept $a'$, so calibration is cosmology-independent. The ANN+BNN framework first reconstructs the supernova apparent magnitude $m(z)$ from Pantheon+ data, with dropout-based Bayesian averaging over 1000 forward passes supplying the uncertainty, and then Markov-chain Monte Carlo fitting with an unbinned likelihood that incorporates intrinsic scatter fixes $a'$, $b$, and $\sigma_{\rm int}$. This calibrated relation, extrapolated from $z<1.4$ to higher redshifts, produces the GRB Hubble diagram used with 32 OHD points to constrain $\Lambda$CDM and CPL dark-energy parameters.

What would settle it

Calibrate the Amati relation separately in redshift bins of the A219 sample (for example $z<2$, $2<z<4$, $z>4$) with the same ANN+BNN pipeline and check whether the fitted intercept $a'$ and slope $b$ drift beyond their $1\sigma$ uncertainties; a measurable drift would show the calibration does not extend unchanged to high redshift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that an ANN+BNN framework trained on Pantheon+ supernovae can replace Gaussian-process interpolation for the model-independent calibration of the Amati relation, and that the calibrated GRB Hubble diagram, when combined with OHD, gives $\Omega_m = 0.321^{+0.078}_{-0.069}$, $h = 0.654^{+0.053}_{-0.071}$, $w_0 = -1.02^{+0.67}_{-0.50}$, and $w_a = -0.98^{+0.58}_{-0.58}$ for the flat CPL model. The paper interprets the non-zero $w_a$ as a $1\sigma$ preference for dark energy with redshift evolution, and notes that these constraints closely track earlier Gaussian-process calibrations, supporting the use of non-Gaussian machine-learning calibrators in high-redshift cosmology.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the correlation between a burst's spectral peak energy and its total radiated energy, calibrated from bursts at $z<1.4$, holds unchanged at $z>1.4$; if that correlation evolves with redshift, the high-redshift distances and the derived dark-energy parameters are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GRB distance measurements calibrated this way extend the Hubble diagram to $z \approx 8.2$, probing dark energy at redshifts far beyond the Pantheon+ supernova range.
  • The ANN+BNN constraints agree with Gaussian-process calibrations at the $1\sigma$ level, giving independent evidence that machine-learning calibration does not introduce a large systematic shift.
  • Combining high-redshift GRBs with OHD substantially tightens the parameter constraints compared with GRBs alone.
  • The fitted $H_0$ from GRBs plus OHD in a flat $\Lambda$CDM model is closer to the CMB-based estimate than to the local distance-ladder value, while $\Omega_m$ agrees with CMB-based estimates at $1\sigma$.
  • The flat CPL fit yields $w_a = -0.98^{+0.58}_{-0.58}$ at $1\sigma$, a hint of evolving dark energy, though AIC and BIC still favor $\Lambda$CDM as the simpler model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that applying the same pipeline to the newer GBM long-GRB catalog mentioned in the conclusion would provide a direct test of whether the $w_a\neq0$ hint strengthens with larger statistics.
  • The paper's own note that its uncertainty estimates are not perfectly calibrated suggests one extension: add the covariance-aware KL-divergence term to the loss function, as earlier studies did, and check whether the $w_a$ shift survives.
  • I infer that the ANN+BNN reconstructed $m(z)$ could also calibrate other gamma-ray burst luminosity relations, and comparing the resulting dark-energy constraints would test whether the evolving-dark-energy hint is relation-specific.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper calibrates the Ep–Eiso (Amati) relation of gamma-ray bursts using a hybrid ANN+BNN trained on Pantheon+ type Ia supernova apparent magnitudes in a cosmology-independent way, then applies the calibrated relation to the A219 GRB sample to construct a Hubble diagram at z ≥ 1.4. Cosmological parameters are fit to 140 high-redshift GRBs and 32 observational Hubble data points using MCMC, for flat ΛCDM and CPL dark-energy models. The reported CPL constraints (Ωm = 0.321+0.078−0.069, h = 0.654+0.053−0.071, w0 = −1.02+0.67−0.50, wa = −0.98+0.58−0.58 at 1σ) are interpreted in the abstract as 'a preference for dark energy with potential redshift evolution (wa ≠ 0)', although the paper's own AIC/BIC comparison favors ΛCDM. The results are compared with Gaussian-process calibrations and found to be consistent.

Significance. If the assumptions hold, the paper offers a useful machine-learning alternative to Gaussian-process calibration of GRB luminosity relations, with the practical advantage of not assuming Gaussian errors and with an explicit treatment of the Pantheon+ covariance. The authors are commendably transparent about the calibration's limitations, including the poor calibration of the ANN+BNN uncertainty estimates and the debated redshift evolution of the Amati relation. However, the headline cosmological claim is only a 1σ hint, it conflicts with the reported model-selection criteria, and it rests on an untested extrapolation from z < 1.4 to z ≈ 8.2. The paper is therefore better read as a proof-of-technique than as a robust new constraint on dark energy; with the current presentation, its significance is moderate and the conclusions need re-scoping.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] The extrapolation of the Amati relation calibrated at z < 1.4 to the high-redshift sample (z ≥ 1.4, up to z ≈ 8.2) is the load-bearing step for all cosmological results in Table 3. The paper acknowledges in Section 4 that 'the redshift dependence of GRB relations remains debated' and that 'evolutionary effects warrant further scrutiny,' but it provides no internal test of this assumption. A small redshift dependence in the slope b or intercept a' would bias the reconstructed distance moduli and propagate directly into Ωm, w0, and wa. I request an explicit test (e.g., a redshift-dependent term in b or a', or a bin-by-bin calibration) or, at minimum, a prominent caveat stating that the quoted constraints are conditional on no redshift evolution, with the abstract's claim adjusted accordingly.
  2. [Section 2 / Table 3] There is an unexplained discrepancy in the high-redshift sample size. Section 2 states that the A219 sample is divided into 79 GRBs at z < 1.4 and 182 GRBs at z ≥ 1.4, but Table 3 and the MCMC fits use 140 GRBs at z > 1.4. The paper does not give the selection criteria that reduce 182 to 140. This is essential for reproducibility and can affect the χ2 values and the parameter constraints. Please specify which GRBs are excluded and why.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5 / Table 3] The claim of a 'preference for dark energy with potential redshift evolution (wa ≠ 0)' is based on 1σ intervals (e.g., wa = −0.96+0.58−0.58 for the ANN+OHD fit), and the same table reports ΔAIC = 3.622 and ΔBIC = 9.917 relative to ΛCDM, which favor the simpler model. At 1σ, zero is only marginally excluded for wa, and the information criteria point in the opposite direction. The abstract and conclusions should be reworded to state that this is a weak, model-dependent hint rather than a preference, or the stronger claim must be supported by additional evidence such as a 2σ detection or a model-comparison test that does not penalize the additional parameters so heavily.
  4. [Section 4, Eq. (2)] The covariance matrix C_GRB is invoked in the χ2 definition for GRBs but is never defined. The GRB distance moduli inherit uncertainties from the calibrated parameters a', b, σint, from the measured Ep and Sbolo, and from the ANN reconstruction, and the likelihood depends on how these are combined. Please provide the explicit expression for C_GRB (or a reference where it is defined) so that the χ2 is reproducible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2 / Section 5] The conclusions state that the results were obtained with 'GRBs at 0.8 < z < 8.2', while the analysis in Table 3 uses GRBs at z > 1.4; please correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Section 3, Table 2] The ANN and GaPP fits give b = 1.99+0.12−0.15 and b = 2.25+0.16−0.21, respectively; the text says these are consistent at 1σ, but the difference is about 1.3σ even with the asymmetric errors. Please clarify the statement or quantify the agreement more carefully.
  3. [Note 6] The expression for σm contains the factor (5/2) multiplying σy' in the first term; please verify that the units and prefactors are correct, since this directly affects the reported distance-modulus uncertainties.
  4. [Abstract] The sentence 'which indicating a preference' contains a grammatical error; it should read 'which indicates a preference'.
  5. [Data Availability Statement] The statement 'Data are contained within the article' is insufficient for a calibration paper that relies on the A219 GRB sample, the Pantheon+ covariance matrix, and the OHD covariance matrix. Consider providing a link to a repository or a detailed description of how the data were obtained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the high-redshift GRB sample used for cosmology is disjoint from the low-redshift sample that fixes the Amati relation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: train an ANN+BNN on Pantheon+ apparent magnitudes; fit the Amati parameters a', b, and sigma_int to 79 GRBs with z < 1.4; then apply the fixed relation to 140 GRBs with z >= 1.4 and combine with 32 OHD to constrain cosmology. Because the high-redshift GRBs are not used in the calibration, the cosmological constraints are not statistically forced by the fitted relation. The absolute SN magnitude M is absorbed into the fitted offset a' through y' = a' + b x, so no SN distance calibration is smuggled into the derived GRB distances. The paper's own caveat that 'the redshift dependence of GRB relations remains debated... we apply the calibrated Amati relation' is an explicit physical assumption, not a result derived from the input data; an extrapolation assumption can be wrong without being circular. The self-citations (A219 sample from [55], the KL-divergence correction from [80] that the paper states it did not implement, and GP consistency checks [40,55,94]) are not used to forbid alternatives or to define the claimed result. Moreover, the reported Delta AIC and Delta BIC values favor LambdaCDM over the CPL model, so the wa != 0 statement is a weak 1-sigma tendency rather than an enforced output. The analysis is therefore self-contained with respect to external Pantheon+, OHD, and GRB observations, and no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper fits several parameters to data: the Amati relation intercept and slope, intrinsic scatter, and cosmological parameters. It assumes flatness, the CPL form, the empirical Amati relation, the validity of cosmic chronometer data, and the redshift independence of the Amati relation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • a' (Amati intercept) = 4.89+0.05−0.05 (ANN)
    Intercept of the Amati relation in the y' vs x form, fitted to 79 low-z GRBs using the Reichart likelihood.
  • b (Amati slope) = 1.99+0.12−0.15 (ANN)
    Slope of the Amati relation, fitted to low-z GRBs.
  • σ_int (intrinsic scatter) = 0.55 (ANN)
    Intrinsic scatter parameter in the Reichart likelihood, fitted to data.
  • Ωm (matter density) = 0.321+0.078−0.069 (CPL joint)
    Matter density parameter constrained by MCMC for the flat CPL model.
  • h (dimensionless Hubble constant) = 0.654+0.053−0.071 (CPL joint)
    Dimensionless Hubble constant constrained by MCMC.
  • w0 (dark energy EoS at z=0) = −1.02+0.67−0.50 (CPL joint)
    Dark energy equation of state at z=0.
  • wa (dark energy EoS evolution) = −0.98+0.58−0.58 (CPL joint)
    Dark energy equation of state evolution parameter.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Flatness of the universe
    Both ΛCDM and CPL models assume a flat universe (Ωm + ΩDE = 1), stated in Section 4.
  • domain assumption CPL parameterization w(z) = w0 + wa z/(1+z)
    The dark energy equation of state is assumed to follow this form, stated in Section 4.
  • domain assumption Amati relation is linear in log-space: y = a + bx
    The empirical correlation between Ep and Eiso is assumed to hold, stated in Section 3.
  • domain assumption The Reichart likelihood correctly models the data
    The likelihood with √(1+b²) and intrinsic scatter is used for fitting; this is a standard but non-rigorous statistical model, referenced in [92].
  • domain assumption Cosmic chronometer H(z) data are model-independent
    OHD from CC rely on stellar population synthesis models, as discussed in Section 4.
  • domain assumption The ANN+BNN reconstruction of m(z) from Pantheon+ is accurate
    If the reconstruction is biased, the calibration is biased. The paper notes that uncertainty estimates are not well-calibrated.
  • domain assumption The Amati relation does not evolve with redshift
    The low-redshift calibration is applied to high-redshift GRBs, which requires no redshift evolution. The paper flags this as debated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gamma-Ray Bursts Calibrated by Using Artificial Neural Networks from the Pantheon+ Sample." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A6YK6REZ

@misc{pith2026250608929,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gamma-Ray Bursts Calibrated by Using Artificial Neural Networks from the Pantheon+ Sample},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A6YK6REZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08929}
}
abstract

In this paper, we calibrate the luminosity relation of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) by Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) which is employed to analyze the Pantheon+ sample of type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) in a manner independent of cosmological assumptions. The A219 GRB dataset are used to calibrate the Amati relation (\(E_{\rm p}\)-\(E_{\rm iso}\)) at low redshift with the ANN framework, facilitating the construction of the Hubble diagram at higher redshifts. Cosmological models are constrained with GRBs at high-redshift and the latest observational Hubble data (OHD) via a Markov Chain Monte Carlo numerical approach. For the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder (CPL) model within a flat universe, we obtain \(\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.321^{+0.078}_{-0.069}\), \(h = 0.654^{+0.053}_{-0.071}\), \(w_0 = -1.02^{+0.67}_{-0.50}\), and \(w_a = -0.98^{+0.58}_{-0.58}\) at the 1-\(\sigma\) confidence level, which indicating a preference for dark energy with potential redshift evolution (\(w_a \neq 0\)). These findings by using ANN align closely with those derived from GRBs calibrated by using Gaussian Processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08929 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture of the ANN+BNN framework for fitting Pantheon+ SNe Ia apparent magni￾tudes m(zi ). The left panel depicts the ANN structure, which maps the redshift zi to m(zi ). The right panel shows the BNN simulation, where the ANN with dropout is executed over 1000 iterations for a given zi . The mean of these predictions provides m(zi ), while the standard deviation yields the uncertainty σm(zi) . Effective model … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Reconstruction of the relation between the apparent magnitude and the redshift from the Pantheon+ dataset using the proposed ANN+BNN. Green dots indicate Pantheon+ data points with 1σ error bars. The black line represents the reconstructed central value, with shaded regions denoting 1σ and 2σ uncertainties. 3. Calibration of Amati Relation The Amati relation linking the spectral peak energy (Ep) to the isotropic equ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. GRB Hubble diagram for the A219 dataset. Purple points denote GRBs at z < 1.4 derived from Pantheon+ using the proposed ANN+BNN. Blue points denote GRBs with the Amati relation calibrated using the likelihood method [92], including low−redshift (z < 1.4) and high−redshift (z ≥ 1.4) GRBs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Constraints on Ωm for the flat ΛCDM model using 140 GRBs (z > 1.4) by ANN and GaPP methods, with H0 fixed at 70 km/s/Mpc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Constraints on Ωm, w0, and wa for the flat CPL model using 140 GRBs (z > 1.4) by ANN and GaPP methods, with H0 fixed at 70 km/s/Mpc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Joint constraints on Ωm and h for the flat ΛCDM model using 140 GRBs (z > 1.4) + 32 OHD by the ANN and GaPP methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Joint constraints on Ωm, h, w0, and wa for the flat CPL model using 140 GRBs (z > 1.4) + 32 OHD by the ANN and GaPP methods. We also compare models using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). The values of ∆AIC and ∆BIC relati…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Constraining ΩM and Dark Energy with Gamma-Ray Bursts

    Dai, Z.; Liang, E.; Xu, D. Constraining ΩM and Dark Energy with Gamma-Ray Bursts. Astrophys. J. 2004, 612, L101. https://doi.org/10.1086/424694

    doi:10.1086/424694 2004

  2. [2]

    A new method optimized to use gamma-ray bursts as cosmic rulers

    Firmani, C.; Ghisellini, G.; Ghirlanda, G.; Avila-Reese, V . A new method optimized to use gamma-ray bursts as cosmic rulers. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2005, 360, L1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00023.x

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Gamma-Ray Bursts: New Rulers to Measure the Universe

    Ghirlanda, G.; Ghisellini, G.; Lazzati, D.; Firmani, C. Gamma-Ray Bursts: New Rulers to Measure the Universe. Astrophys. J. 2004, 613, L13. https://doi.org/10.1086/424915

    doi:10.1086/424915 2004

  4. [4]

    Gamma-ray bursts as standard candles to constrain the cosmological parameters

    Ghirlanda, G.; Ghisellini, G.; Firmani, C. Gamma-ray bursts as standard candles to constrain the cosmological parameters. New J. Phys. 2006, 8, 123. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/8/7/123

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/8/7/123 2006

  5. [5]

    Calibration of gamma-ray burst luminosity indicators

    Liang, E.; Zhang, B. Calibration of gamma-ray burst luminosity indicators. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2006, 369, L37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00169.x

    arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    Gamma-Ray Burst Hubble Diagram to z = 4.5

    Schaefer, B.E. Gamma-Ray Burst Hubble Diagram to z = 4.5. Astrophys. J. 2003, 583, L67. https://doi.org/10.1086/368104

    work page doi:10.1086/368104 2003

  7. [7]

    The Hubble Diagram to Redshift >6 from 69 Gamma-Ray Bursts

    Schaefer, B.E. The Hubble Diagram to Redshift >6 from 69 Gamma-Ray Bursts. Astrophys. J. 2007, 660, 16. https://doi.org/10.1086/511742. Universe 2025, 1, 0 11 of 15

    doi:10.1086/511742 2007

  8. [8]

    Constraining the cosmological parameters and transition redshift with gamma-ray bursts and supernovae

    Wang, F.; Dai, Z.G. Constraining the cosmological parameters and transition redshift with gamma-ray bursts and supernovae. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2006, 368, 371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10108.x

    arXiv 2006

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    Can Gamma-Ray Bursts Be Used to Measure Cosmology? A Further Analysis

    Xu, D.; Dai, Z.; Liang, E. Can Gamma-Ray Bursts Be Used to Measure Cosmology? A Further Analysis. Astrophys. J. 2005, 633,

    2005

  2. [10]

    A Cosmology-Independent Calibration of Gamma-Ray Burst Luminosity Relations and the Hubble Diagram

    Liang, N.; Xiao, W.K.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, S.N. A Cosmology-Independent Calibration of Gamma-Ray Burst Luminosity Relations and the Hubble Diagram. Astrophys. J. 2008, 685, 354. https://doi.org/10.1086/590903

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    Addressing the circularity problem in the Ep-Eiso correlation of gamma-ray bursts

    Amati, L.; D’Agostino, R.; Luongo, O.; Muccino, M.; Tantalo, M. Addressing the circularity problem in the Ep-Eiso correlation of gamma-ray bursts. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2019, 486, L46. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slz056

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Intrinsic spectra and energetics of BeppoSAX Gamma-Ray Bursts with known redshifts

    Amati, L.; Frontera, F.; Tavani, M.; in’t Zand, J.J.M.; Antonelli, A.; Costa, E.; Feroci, M.; Guidorzi, C.; Heise, J.; Masetti, N.; et al. Intrinsic spectra and energetics of BeppoSAX Gamma-Ray Bursts with known redshifts. Astron. Astrophys. 2002, 390, 81. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2002 doi

  5. [14]

    Cosmography by GRBs: Gamma Ray Bursts as possible distance indicators

    Capozziello, S.; Izzo, L. Cosmography by GRBs: Gamma Ray Bursts as possible distance indicators. Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 2009, 194, 206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2009.07.024

    2009 doi

  6. [15]

    Cosmology with gamma-ray bursts

    Demianski, M.; Piedipalumbo, E.; Sawant, D.; Amati, L. Cosmology with gamma-ray bursts. I. The Hubble diagram through the calibrated Ep,I-Eiso correlation. Astron. Astrophys. 2017, 598, A112. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201628909

    2017 doi

  7. [16]

    Cosmology with gamma-ray bursts

    Demianski, M.; Piedipalumbo, E.; Sawant, D.; Amati, L. Cosmology with gamma-ray bursts. II. Cosmography challenges and cosmological scenarios for the accelerated Universe. Astron. Astrophys. 2017, 598, A113. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004- 6361/201628911

    2017 doi

  8. [17]

    Constraints on cosmological models and reconstructing the acceleration history of the Universe with gamma-ray burst distance indicators

    Liang, N.; Wu, P .; ; Zhang, S.N. Constraints on cosmological models and reconstructing the acceleration history of the Universe with gamma-ray burst distance indicators. Phys. Rev. D 2010, 81, 083518. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.083518

    2010 doi

  9. [18]

    Constraints on the generalized Chaplygin gas model including gamma-ray bursts via a Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach

    Liang, N.; Xu, L.; ; Zhu, Z.H. Constraints on the generalized Chaplygin gas model including gamma-ray bursts via a Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach. Astron. Astrophys. 2011, 527, A11. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201015919

    2011 doi

  10. [19]

    Reconstructing the cosmic expansion history up to redshift z = 6.29 with the calibrated gamma-ray bursts

    Wei, H.; Zhang, S.N. Reconstructing the cosmic expansion history up to redshift z = 6.29 with the calibrated gamma-ray bursts. Eur. Phys. J. C 2009, 63, 139. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-1086-z

    2009 doi

  11. [20]

    Observational constraints on cosmological models with the updated long gamma-ray bursts

    Wei, H. Observational constraints on cosmological models with the updated long gamma-ray bursts. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2010, 8, 020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2010/08/020

    2010 doi

  12. [21]

    Intermediate redshift calibration of gamma-ray bursts and cosmic constraints in non-flat cosmology

    Luongo, O.; Muccino, M. Intermediate redshift calibration of gamma-ray bursts and cosmic constraints in non-flat cosmology. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2023, 518, 2247. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2925

    2023 doi

  13. [22]

    Improving sampling and calibration of gamma-ray bursts as distance indicators

    Montiel, A.; Cabrera, J.I.; ; Hidalgo, J.C. Improving sampling and calibration of gamma-ray bursts as distance indicators. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2021, 467, 3239. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa3926

    2021 doi

  14. [23]

    Measuring dark energy with the Eiso - Ep correlation of gamma-ray bursts using model-independent methods

    Wang, J.S.; Wang, F.Y.; Cheng, K.S.; Dai, Z.G. Measuring dark energy with the Eiso - Ep correlation of gamma-ray bursts using model-independent methods. Astron. Astrophys. 2016, 585, A68. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201526485

    2016 doi

  15. [24]

    Calibration of Gamma-Ray Burst Luminosity Correlations Using Gravitational Waves as Standard Sirens

    Wang, Y.Y.; Wang, F.Y. Calibration of Gamma-Ray Burst Luminosity Correlations Using Gravitational Waves as Standard Sirens. Astrophys. J. 2019, 873, 39. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab037b

    2019 doi

  16. [25]

    Redshift evolution of the Amati relation: Calibrated results from the Hubble diagram of quasars at high redshifts

    Dai, Y.; Zheng, X.-G.; Li, Z.-X.; Gao, H.; Zhu, Z.-H. Redshift evolution of the Amati relation: Calibrated results from the Hubble diagram of quasars at high redshifts. Astron. Astrophys. 2021, 651, L8. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202140895

    2021 doi

  17. [26]

    Calibration of Luminosity Correlations of Gamma-Ray Bursts Using Quasars

    Purohit, S.; Desai, S. Calibration of Luminosity Correlations of Gamma-Ray Bursts Using Quasars. Galaxies 2024, 12, 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies12060069

    2024 doi

  18. [27]

    Low redshift calibration of the Amati relation using galaxy clusters

    Gowri, G.; Shantanu, D. Low redshift calibration of the Amati relation using galaxy clusters. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2022, 10,

    2022

  19. [28]

    Measuring the cosmological parameters with the E p,i-Eiso correlation of gamma-ray bursts

    Amati, L.; Guidorzi, C.; Frontera, F.; Della Valle, M.; Finelli, F.; Landi, F.; Montanari, E. Measuring the cosmological parameters with the E p,i-Eiso correlation of gamma-ray bursts. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2008, 391, 577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2008.13943.x

    2008

  20. [29]

    Standardizing Platinum Dainotti-correlated gamma-ray bursts, and using them with standardized Amati-correlated gamma-ray bursts to constrain cosmological model parameters

    Cao, S.; Dainotti, M.; Ratra, B. Standardizing Platinum Dainotti-correlated gamma-ray bursts, and using them with standardized Amati-correlated gamma-ray bursts to constrain cosmological model parameters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2022, 512, 439. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac517

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    Standardizing Dainotti-correlated gamma-ray bursts, and using them with standardized Amati- correlated gamma-ray bursts to constrain cosmological model parameters

    Cao, S.; Khadka, N.; Ratra, B. Standardizing Dainotti-correlated gamma-ray bursts, and using them with standardized Amati- correlated gamma-ray bursts to constrain cosmological model parameters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2022, 510, 2928. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab3559

    2022 doi

  22. [31]

    Constraints on cosmological parameters from gamma-ray burst peak photon energy and bolometric fluence measurements and other data

    Khadka, N.; Ratra, B. Constraints on cosmological parameters from gamma-ray burst peak photon energy and bolometric fluence measurements and other data. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2020, 499, 391. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa2779

    2020 doi

  23. [32]

    Do gamma-ray burst measurements provide a useful test of cosmological models? J

    Khadka, N.; Luongo, O.; Muccino, M.; Ratra, B. Do gamma-ray burst measurements provide a useful test of cosmological models? J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2021, 09, 042. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/09/042. Universe 2025, 1, 0 12 of 15

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    Using lower redshift, non-CMB, data to constrain the Hubble constant and other cosmological parameters

    Cao, S.; Ratra, B. Using lower redshift, non-CMB, data to constrain the Hubble constant and other cosmological parameters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2022, 513, 5686. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac1184

    2022 doi

  25. [34]

    Do high redshift QSOs and GRBs corroborate JWST?Phys

    Colgáin, E.O.; Sheikh-Jabbari, M.M.; Yin, L. Do high redshift QSOs and GRBs corroborate JWST?Phys. Dark Universe 2025, 49, 101975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2025.101975

    2025

  26. [35]

    Towards a new model-independent calibration of Gamma-Ray Bursts

    Favale, A.; Dainotti, M.G.; Gómez-Valent, A.; Migliaccio, M. Towards a new model-independent calibration of Gamma-Ray Bursts. J. High Energy Astrophys. 2024, 44, 323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2024.10.010

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

    Detection of gamma-ray burst Amati relation based on Hubble data set and Pantheon+ samples

    Han, Y.; Gao, J.; Liu, G.; Xu, L. Detection of gamma-ray burst Amati relation based on Hubble data set and Pantheon+ samples. Eur. Phys. J. C 2024, 84, 934. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13304-5

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    Measuring cosmological parameters with a luminosity-time correlation of gamma-ray bursts.Mon

    Hu, J.P .; Wang, F.Y.; Dai, Z.G. Measuring cosmological parameters with a luminosity-time correlation of gamma-ray bursts.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2021, 507, 730. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2180

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    Standardizing the gamma-ray burst as a standard candle and applying it to cosmological probes: Constraints on the two-component dark energy model

    Li, J.-L.; Yang, Y.-P .; Yi, S.-X.; Hu, J.-P .; Qu, Y.-K.; Wang, F.-Y. Standardizing the gamma-ray burst as a standard candle and applying it to cosmological probes: Constraints on the two-component dark energy model. Astron. Astrophys. 2024, 689, A165. https://doi.org/10.1051...

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    The Improved Amati Correlations from Gaussian Copula.Astrophys

    Liu, Y.; Chen, F.; Liang, N.; Yuan, Z.; Yu, H.; Wu, P . The Improved Amati Correlations from Gaussian Copula.Astrophys. J. 2022, 931, 50. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac66d3

    2022 doi

  31. [40]

    Gamma-Ray Burst Constraints on Cosmological Models from the Improved Amati Correlation

    Liu, Y.; Liang, N.; Xie, X.; Yuan, Z.; Yu, H.; Wu, P . Gamma-Ray Burst Constraints on Cosmological Models from the Improved Amati Correlation. Astrophys. J. 2022, 935, 7. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac7de5

    2022 doi

  32. [41]

    Testing Non-Coincident f (Q)-gravity with DESI DR2 BAO and GRBs

    Paliathanasis, A. Testing Non-Coincident f (Q)-gravity with DESI DR2 BAO and GRBs. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2504.11132. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.11132

    2025 doi

  33. [42]

    Radio Plateaus in Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows and Their Application in Cosmology

    Tian, X.; Li, J.-L.; Yi, S.-X.; Yang, Y.-P .; Hu, J.-P .; Qu, Y.-K.; Wang, F.-Y. Radio Plateaus in Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows and Their Application in Cosmology. Astrophys. J. 2023, 958, 74. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acfed8

    2023 doi

  34. [43]

    High-redshift cosmology by Gamma-Ray Bursts: An overview

    Bargiacchi, G.; Dainotti, M.G.; Hernandez, X. High-redshift cosmology by Gamma-Ray Bursts: An overview. New Astron. Rev. 2025, 100, 101712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2024.101712

    2025

  35. [44]

    The Observed Luminosity Correlations of Gamma-Ray Bursts and Their Applications

    Deng, C.; Huang, Y.-F.; Xu, F.; Kurban, A. The Observed Luminosity Correlations of Gamma-Ray Bursts and Their Applications. Galaxies 2025, 13, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies13020015

    2025 doi

  36. [45]

    Cosmology-Independent Distance Moduli of 42 Gamma-Ray Bursts between Redshift of 1.44 and 6.60

    Liang, N.; Zhang, S. Cosmology-Independent Distance Moduli of 42 Gamma-Ray Bursts between Redshift of 1.44 and 6.60. AIP Conf. Proc. 2008, 1065, 367–372. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3027949

    2008 doi

  37. [47]

    An updated gamma-ray bursts Hubble diagram.Mon

    Cardone, V .F.; Capozziello, S.; Dainotti, M.G. An updated gamma-ray bursts Hubble diagram.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2009, 400,

    2009

  38. [48]

    A cosmographic calibration of the Ep,i - Eiso (Amati) relation for GRBs

    Capozziello, S.; Izzo, L. A cosmographic calibration of the Ep,i - Eiso (Amati) relation for GRBs. Astron. Astrophys. 2010, 519, A73. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201014522

    2010 doi

  39. [49]

    Calibration of GRB Luminosity Relations with Cosmography

    Gao, H.; Liang, N.; Zhu, Z.-H. Calibration of GRB Luminosity Relations with Cosmography. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2012, 21, 1250016. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271812500162

    2012 doi

  40. [50]

    Cosmological models and gamma-ray bursts calibrated by using Padé method

    Liu, J.; Wei, H. Cosmological models and gamma-ray bursts calibrated by using Padé method. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 2015, 47, 141

    2015

  41. [51]

    New measurements of Ωm from gamma-ray bursts

    Izzo, L.; Muccino, M.; Zaninoni, E.; Amati, L.; Della Valle, M. New measurements of Ωm from gamma-ray bursts. Astron. Astrophys. 2015, 582, A115. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201526461

    2015 doi

  42. [52]

    B.; Zaninoni, E

    Muccino, M.; Izzo, L.; Luongo, O.; Boshkayev, K.; Amati, L.; Della Valle, M.; Pisani, G. B.; Zaninoni, E. Tracing Dark Energy History with Gamma-Ray Bursts. Astrophys. J. 2021, 908, 181. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abd254

    2021 doi

  43. [53]

    Reconstruction of dark energy and expansion dynamics using Gaussian processes

    Seikel, M.; Clarkson, C.; Smith, M. Reconstruction of dark energy and expansion dynamics using Gaussian processes. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2012, 6, 036. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2012/06/036

    2012 doi

  44. [54]

    Constraints on the Cosmological Parameters with Three-Parameter Correlation of Gamma-Ray Bursts

    Li, J.-L.; Yang, Y.-P .; Yi, S.-X.; Hu, J.-P .; Wang, F.-Y.; Qu, Y.-K. Constraints on the Cosmological Parameters with Three-Parameter Correlation of Gamma-Ray Bursts. Astrophys. J. 2023, 953, 58. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ace107

    2023 doi

  45. [55]

    Calibrating Gamma-Ray Bursts by Using a Gaussian Process with Type Ia Supernovae.Astrophys

    Liang, N.; Li, Z.; Xie, X.; Wu, P . Calibrating Gamma-Ray Bursts by Using a Gaussian Process with Type Ia Supernovae.Astrophys. J. 2022, 941, 84. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aca08a

    2022 doi

  46. [56]

    Cosmography via Gaussian process with gamma ray bursts

    Mu, Y.; Chang, B.; Xu, L. Cosmography via Gaussian process with gamma ray bursts. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2023, 9, 041. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2023/09/041

    2023 doi

  47. [57]

    Testing the Phenomenological Interacting Dark Energy Model with Gamma-Ray Bursts and Pantheon+ type Ia Supernovae

    Nong, X.-D.; Liang, N. Testing the Phenomenological Interacting Dark Energy Model with Gamma-Ray Bursts and Pantheon+ type Ia Supernovae. Res. Astron. Astrophys. 2024, 24, 125003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/ad8a07

    2024 doi

  48. [58]

    Constraining the emergent dark energy models with observational data at intermediate redshift

    Wang, G.Z.; ; Li, X.L.; Liang, N. Constraining the emergent dark energy models with observational data at intermediate redshift. Astrophys. Space Sci. 2024, 369, 74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-024-04340-4

    2024 doi

  49. [59]

    Constraints from Fermi observations of long gamma-ray bursts on cosmological parameters

    Wang, H.; Liang, N. Constraints from Fermi observations of long gamma-ray bursts on cosmological parameters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2024, 533, 743. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae1825. Universe 2025, 1, 0 13 of 15

    2024 doi

  50. [60]

    Constraints on cosmological models with gamma-ray bursts in cosmology-independent way

    Xie, H.; Nong, X.; Wang, H.; Zhang, B.; Li, Z.; Liang, N. Constraints on cosmological models with gamma-ray bursts in cosmology-independent way. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2025, 20, 2450073. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271824500731

    2025 doi

  51. [61]

    Using H(z) data as a probe of the concordance model

    Seikel, M.; Yahya, S.; Maartens, R.; ; Clarkson, C. Using H(z) data as a probe of the concordance model. Phys. Rev. D 2012, 86, 083001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.083001

    2012 doi

  52. [62]

    An Improved Method to Measure the Cosmic Curvature

    Wei, J.-J.; Wu, X.-F. An Improved Method to Measure the Cosmic Curvature. Astrophys. J. 2017, 838, 160w. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa674b

    2017 doi

  53. [63]

    Testing the fidelity of Gaussian processes for cosmography

    Zhou, H.; Li, Z. Testing the fidelity of Gaussian processes for cosmography. Chin. Phys. 2019, 43, 035103. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/43/3/035103

    2019 doi

  54. [64]

    Model-independent calibrations of gamma-ray bursts using machine learning

    Luongo, O.; Muccino, M. Model-independent calibrations of gamma-ray bursts using machine learning. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2021, 503, 4581. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab795

    2021 doi

  55. [65]

    Measuring the Hubble constant with cosmic chronometers: A machine learning approach

    Bengaly, C.; Dantas, ; M.A.; ; Casarini, L.; Alcaniz, J. Measuring the Hubble constant with cosmic chronometers: A machine learning approach. Eur. Phys. J. 2023, 83, 548. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11734-1

    2023 doi

  56. [66]

    Model-independent gamma-ray bursts constraints on cosmological models using machine learning

    Zhang, B.; Wang, H.; Nong, X.; Wang, G.; Wu, P .; Liang, N. Model-independent gamma-ray bursts constraints on cosmological models using machine learning. Astrophys. Space Sci. 2025, 370, 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-025-04401-2

    2025 doi

  57. [67]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release

    Scolnic, D.; Brout, D.; Carr, A.; Riess, A.G.; Davis, T.M.; Dwomoh, A.; Jones, D.O.; Ali, N.; Charvu, P .; Chen, R.; et al. The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release. Astrophys. J. 2022, 938, 113. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a

    2022 doi

  58. [68]

    Estimating Cosmological Parameters and Reconstructing Hubble Constant with Artificial Neural Networks: A Test with covariance matrix and mock H(z)

    Chen, J.F.; Zhang, T.J.; He, P .; Zhang, T.; Zhang, J. Estimating Cosmological Parameters and Reconstructing Hubble Constant with Artificial Neural Networks: A Test with covariance matrix and mock H(z). arXiv 2024, arXiv:2410.08369. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.08369

    2024 doi

  59. [69]

    https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2022/10/069

    2022 doi

  60. [70]

    The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics

    Di Valentino, E.; Levi Said, J.; Riess, A.; Pollo, A.; Poulin, V .; Gómez-Valent, A.; Weltman, A.; Palmese, A.; Huang, C.; van de Bruck, C.; et al. The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics. arXiv 2025, ...

    2025 doi arXiv

  61. [71]

    A deep learning approach to cosmological dark energy models

    Escamilla-Rivera, C.; Quintero, M.A.C.; Capozziello, S. A deep learning approach to cosmological dark energy models. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2020, 3, 008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/008

    2020 doi

  62. [72]

    Neural network reconstruction of late-time cosmology and null tests

    Dialektopoulos, K.; Said, J.L.; Mifsud, J.; Sultana, J.; Adami, K.Z. Neural network reconstruction of late-time cosmology and null tests. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2022, 2, 023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2022/02/023

    2022 doi

  63. [73]

    Constraining the Hubble Constant with a Simulated Full Covariance Matrix Using Neural Networks

    Niu, J.; He, P .; Zhang, T.-J. Constraining the Hubble Constant with a Simulated Full Covariance Matrix Using Neural Networks. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2502.11443. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.11443

    2025 doi

  64. [74]

    Reconstructing Functions and Estimating Parameters with Artificial Neural Networks: A Test with a Hubble Parameter and SNe Ia

    Wang, G.-J.; Ma, X.-J.; Li, S.-Y.; Xia, J.-Q. Reconstructing Functions and Estimating Parameters with Artificial Neural Networks: A Test with a Hubble Parameter and SNe Ia. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2020, 246, 13. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ab620b

    2020 doi

  65. [75]

    Neural network reconstructions for the Hubble parameter, growth rate and distance modulus

    Gómez-Vargas, I.; Medel-Esquivel, R.; García-Salcedo, R.; Vázquez, J.A. Neural network reconstructions for the Hubble parameter, growth rate and distance modulus. Eur. Phys. J. C 2023, 83, 304. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11435-9

    2023 doi

  66. [76]

    LADDER: Revisiting the Cosmic Distance Ladder with Deep Learning Approaches and Exploring Its Applications

    Shah, R.; Saha, S.; Mukherjee, P .; Garain, U.; Pal, S. LADDER: Revisiting the Cosmic Distance Ladder with Deep Learning Approaches and Exploring Its Applications. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2024, 273, 27. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ad5558

    2024 doi

  67. [77]

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

    Mukherjee, P .; Dainotti, M.; Dialektopoulos, K.F.; Levi, Said, J.; Mifsud, J. Model-independent calibration of Gamma-Ray Bursts with neural networks. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2411.03773. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.03773

    2024 doi arXiv

  68. [78]

    A Nonparametric Reconstruction of the Hubble Parameter H(z) Based on Radial Basis Function Neural Networks

    Zhang, J.C.; Hu, Y.; Jiao, K.; Wang, H.F.; Xie, Y.B.; Yu, B.; Zhao, L.L.; Zhang, T.J. A Nonparametric Reconstruction of the Hubble Parameter H(z) Based on Radial Basis Function Neural Networks. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2024, 270, 23. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ad0f1e

    2024 doi

  69. [79]

    A Fundamental Plane for Long Gamma-Ray Bursts with X-Ray Plateaus

    Dainotti, M.G.; Postnikov, S.; Hernandez, X.; Ostrowski M. A Fundamental Plane for Long Gamma-Ray Bursts with X-Ray Plateaus. Astrophys. J. 2016, 825, L20. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/825/2/L20

    2016 doi

  70. [80]

    Gamma-ray bursts calibrated from the observational H(z) data in artificial neural network framework

    Huang, Z.; Xiong, Z.; Luo, X.; Wang, G.; Liu, Y.; Liang, N. Gamma-ray bursts calibrated from the observational H(z) data in artificial neural network framework. J. High Energy Astrophys. 2025, 47, 100337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100377

    2025

  71. [81]

    A time-luminosity correlation forγ-ray bursts in the X-rays

    Dainotti, M.G.; Cardone, V .F.; Capozziello, S. A time-luminosity correlation forγ-ray bursts in the X-rays. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2008, 391, L79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00560.x

    2008

  72. [82]

    E iso-Ep correlation of gamma-ray bursts: Calibration and cosmological applications

    Jia, X.D.; Hu, J.P .; Yang, J.; Zhang, B.B.; Wang, F.Y. E iso-Ep correlation of gamma-ray bursts: Calibration and cosmological applications. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2022, 516, 2575. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2356

    2022 doi

  73. [83]

    Neural networks and standard cosmography with newly calibrated high redshift GRB observations

    Escamilla-Rivera, C.; Carvajal, M.; Zamora, C.; Hendry, M. Neural networks and standard cosmography with newly calibrated high redshift GRB observations. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2022, 4, 016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2022/04/016

    2022 doi

  74. [84]

    Testing the standardizability of, and deriving cosmological constraints from, a new Amati-correlated gamma-ray burst data compilation

    Cao, S.; Ratra, B. Testing the standardizability of, and deriving cosmological constraints from, a new Amati-correlated gamma-ray burst data compilation. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2024, 10, 093. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/093

    2024 doi

  75. [85]

    Reconstructing the Hubble diagram of gamma-ray bursts using deep learning

    Tang, L.; Lin, H.-N.; Li, X.; Liu, L. Reconstructing the Hubble diagram of gamma-ray bursts using deep learning. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2022, 509, 1194. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2932. Universe 2025, 1, 0 14 of 15

    2022 doi

  76. [86]

    Learning representations by back-propagating errors

    Rumelhart, D.E.; Hinton, G.E.; Williams, R.J. Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature 1986, 323, 533. https://doi.org/10.1038/323533a0

    1986 doi

  77. [87]

    Model-independently Calibrating the Luminosity Correlations of Gamma-Ray Bursts Using Deep Learning

    Tang, L.; Li, X.; Lin, H.-N.; Liu, L. Model-independently Calibrating the Luminosity Correlations of Gamma-Ray Bursts Using Deep Learning. Astrophys. J. 2021, 907, 121. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abcd92

    2021 doi

  78. [88]

    Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Appendix

    Gal, Y.; Ghahramani, Z. Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Appendix. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1506.02157. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1506.02157

    2016 doi arXiv

  79. [89]

    Dropout: A Simple Way to Prevent Neural Networks from Overftting

    Srivastava, N.; Hinton, G.; Krizhevsky, A.; Sutskever, I.; Salakhutdinov, R. Dropout: A Simple Way to Prevent Neural Networks from Overftting. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2014, 15, 1929. http://jmlr.org/papers/v15/srivastava14a.html

    2014

  80. [90]

    Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learning

    Gal, Y.; Ghahramani, Z. Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learning. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1506.02142. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1506.02142

    2016 doi arXiv

  81. [91]

    emcee: The MCMC Hammer

    Foreman-Mackey, D.; Hogg, D.W.; Lang, D.; Goodman, J. emcee: The MCMC Hammer. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 2013, 125, 306. https://doi.org/10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  82. [92]

    Dust Extinction Curves and Lyα Forest Flux Deficits for Use in Modeling Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows and All Other Extragalactic Point Sources

    Reichart, D.E. Dust Extinction Curves and Lyα Forest Flux Deficits for Use in Modeling Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows and All Other Extragalactic Point Sources. Astrophys. J. 2001, 553, 57. https://doi.org/10.1086/320630

    2001 doi

  83. [93]

    Constraints on cosmological models from quasars calibrated with type Ia supernova by a Gaussian process

    Zhang, H.; Liu, Y.; Yu, H.; Nong, X.; Liang, N.; ; Wu, P . Constraints on cosmological models from quasars calibrated with type Ia supernova by a Gaussian process. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2024, 530, 4493. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae1120

    2024 doi

  84. [94]

    Testing dark energy models with gamma-ray bursts calibrated from the observational H(z) data through a Gaussian process

    Li, Z.; Zhang, B.; ; Liang, N. Testing dark energy models with gamma-ray bursts calibrated from the observational H(z) data through a Gaussian process. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2023, 521, 4406. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad838

    2023 doi

  85. [95]

    Prospects of high redshift constraints on dark energy models with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation in long gamma ray bursts

    Demianski, M.; Piedipalumbo, E.; Sawant, D.; Amati, L. Prospects of high redshift constraints on dark energy models with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation in long gamma ray bursts. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2021, 506, 903. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab1669

    2021 doi

  86. [96]

    Measuring Cosmological Parameters with Gamma Ray Bursts

    Amati, L.; Della Valle, M. Measuring Cosmological Parameters with Gamma Ray Bursts. Int. J. Mod. Phys. 2013, 22, 1330028. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271813300280

    2013 doi

  87. [97]

    Model-independent distance calibration of high-redshift gamma-ray bursts and constrain on the ΛCDM model

    Lin, H.N.; Li, X.; Chang, Z. Model-independent distance calibration of high-redshift gamma-ray bursts and constrain on the ΛCDM model. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2016, 455, 2131. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv2471

    2016 doi

  88. [98]

    Model-independent Constraints on Cosmic Curvature and Opacity.Astrophys

    Wang, G.-J.; Wei, J.-J.; Li, Z.-X.; Xia, J.-Q.; Zhu, Z.-H. Model-independent Constraints on Cosmic Curvature and Opacity.Astrophys. J. 2017, 847, 45. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa8725

    2017 doi

  89. [99]

    Gamma rays bursts: A viable cosmological probe? J

    Kumar, D.; Rani, N.; Jain, D.; Mahajan, S.; Mukherjee, A. Gamma rays bursts: A viable cosmological probe? J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2023, 07, 021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/021

    2023 doi

  90. [100]

    Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe

    Linder, E.V . Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003, 90, 091301

    2003

  91. [101]

    Improved constraints on the expansion rate of the Universe up to z ~1.1 from the spectroscopic evolution of cosmic chronometers

    Moresco, M.; Cimatti, A.; Jimenez, R.; Pozzetti, L.; Zamorani, G.; Bolzonella, M.; Dunlop, J.; Lamareille, F.; Mignoli, M.; Pearce, H.; et al. Improved constraints on the expansion rate of the Universe up to z ~1.1 from the spectroscopic evolution of cosmic chronometers. J. Co...

    2012 doi

  92. [102]

    Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter

    Chevallier, M.; Polarski, D. Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2001, 10, 213. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271801000822

    2001 doi

  93. [103]

    A 6% measurement of the Hubble parameter at z~0.45: Direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration

    Moresco, M.; Pozzetti, L.; Cimatti, A.; Jimenez, R.; Maraston, C.; Verde, L.; Thomas, D.; ; Citro, A.; Tojeiro, R.; Wilkinson, D. A 6% measurement of the Hubble parameter at z~0.45: Direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2016, 2016,...

    2016 doi

  94. [104]

    Age-dating lu- minous red galaxies observed with the Southern African Large Telescope

    Ratsimbazafy, A.L.; Loubser, S.I.; Crawford, S.M.; Cress, C.M.; Bassett, B.A.; Nichol, R.C.; Väisänen, P . Age-dating lu- minous red galaxies observed with the Southern African Large Telescope. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2017, 467, 3239. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx301

    2017 doi

  95. [105]

    Raising the bar: New constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z ~2

    Moresco, M. Raising the bar: New constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z ~2. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2015, 450, L16. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slv037

    2015 doi

  96. [106]

    Four new observational H(z) data from luminous red galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data release seven

    Zhang, C.; Zhang, H.; Yuan, S.; Liu, S.; Zhang, T.; Sun, Y. Four new observational H(z) data from luminous red galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data release seven. Res. Astron. Astrophys. 2014, 14, 1221. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/14/10/002

    2014 doi

  97. [107]

    New Observational H(z) Data from Full-spectrum Fitting of Cosmic Chronometers in the LEGA-C Survey

    Jiao, K.; Borghi, N.; Moresco, M.; Zhang, T.-J. New Observational H(z) Data from Full-spectrum Fitting of Cosmic Chronometers in the LEGA-C Survey. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2023, 265, 48. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/acbc77

    2023 doi

  98. [108]

    Cosmic chronometers: Constraining the equation of state of dark energy

    Stern, D.; Jimenez, R.; Verde, L.; Kamionkowski, M.; Starford, S.A. Cosmic chronometers: Constraining the equation of state of dark energy. I: H(z) measurements. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2010, 2010, 008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2010/02/008

    2010 doi

  99. [109]

    Setting the Stage for Cosmic Chronometers

    Moresco, M.; Jimenez, R.; Verde, L.; Cimatti, A.; Pozzetti, L. Setting the Stage for Cosmic Chronometers. II. Impact of Stellar Population Synthesis Models Systematics and Full Covariance Matrix. Astrophys. J. 2020, 898, 82. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538- 4357/ab9eb0

    2020 doi

  100. [110]

    Planck 2018 results

    Aghanim, N.; Akrami, Y.; Arroja, F.; Ashdown, M.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.; Ballardini, M.; Banday, A.J.; Barreiro, R.B.; et al. Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck. Astron. Astrophys. 2020, 641, A1. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/20183...

    2018 doi

  101. [111]

    Toward a Better Understanding of Cosmic Chronometers: A New Measurement of H(z) at z∼0.7

    Borghi, N.; Moresco, M.; Cimatti, A. Toward a Better Understanding of Cosmic Chronometers: A New Measurement of H(z) at z∼0.7. Astrophys. J. 2022, 928, L4. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac3fb2

    2022 doi

  102. [112]

    Broadband Time-resolved E p,i-L iso Correlation in Gamma-Ray Bursts

    Frontera, F.; Amati, L.; Guidorzi, C.; Landi, R.; in’t Zand, J. Broadband Time-resolved E p,i-L iso Correlation in Gamma-Ray Bursts. Astrophys. J. 2012, 754, 138. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/138

    2012 doi

  103. [113]

    Testing the consistency of new Amati-correlated gamma-ray burst dataset cosmological constraints with those from better-established cosmological data

    Cao, S.; Ratra, B. Testing the consistency of new Amati-correlated gamma-ray burst dataset cosmological constraints with those from better-established cosmological data. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2502.08429. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.08429. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The s...

    2025 doi

  104. [114]

    An Upscattering Spectral Formation Model for the Prompt Emission of Gamma-Ray Bursts

    Titarchuk, L.; Farinelli, R.; Frontera, F.; Amati, L. An Upscattering Spectral Formation Model for the Prompt Emission of Gamma-Ray Bursts. Astrophys. J. 2012, 752, 116. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/116

    2012 doi

  105. [603]

    https://doi.org/10.1086/466509

    doi

  106. [775]

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15456.x

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.