pith. sign in

arxiv: 2408.10560 · v4 · pith:YK5EKVAYnew · submitted 2024-08-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Redshift Evolution of the HII Galaxy L-σ Relation: Gaussian Process Analysis and Cosmological Implications

Jiaze Gao , Yun Chen , Lixin Xu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 22:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords HII galaxiesL-sigma relationredshift evolutionGaussian process regressionstandard candlesMalmquist biasintrinsic dispersionBayesian model comparison
0
0 comments X

The pith

HIIG data favor a redshift-dependent L-σ relation when intrinsic dispersion is modeled explicitly.

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

This paper tests whether the empirical correlation between H-beta luminosity and ionized gas velocity dispersion in HII galaxies changes with redshift. It uses distance estimates derived independently of any assumed cosmology to compare the standard relation against three versions that add redshift-dependent terms. Bayesian model comparison shows that a logarithmic redshift correction is statistically preferred when the relation's intrinsic dispersion is included in the likelihood, improving the description of high-redshift observations. The preference for evolution weakens if dispersion is ignored in the model or if samples are adjusted to reduce luminosity selection bias. Clarifying whether the relation evolves matters for deciding if these galaxies can function as reliable distance indicators at large look-back times.

Core claim

Using cosmology-independent distances up to z ~ 1.8 obtained from Gaussian Process regression of Type Ia supernovae data, the standard L-σ relation is compared to three redshift-dependent extensions through Bayesian model comparison. A logarithmic redshift correction is statistically preferred when the intrinsic dispersion of the relation is explicitly modeled, significantly improving the fit to high-z data. The evidence for evolution strongly depends on how the likelihood function accounts for this intrinsic dispersion and is weaker if it is ignored. Malmquist bias significantly affects comparisons between low- and high-z samples, reducing though not eliminating the statistical preference.

What carries the argument

Bayesian model comparison of the L-σ relation against redshift-dependent extensions, using cosmology-independent distance estimates to test evolution.

If this is right

  • Explicitly modeling intrinsic dispersion strengthens the statistical preference for a redshift-dependent L-σ relation.
  • Matching luminosity ranges to mitigate Malmquist bias reduces but does not remove the evidence for evolution.
  • HIIGs can serve as precise cosmological probes only when selection effects and intrinsic dispersion are properly incorporated.
  • Ignoring intrinsic dispersion in the likelihood function weakens support for redshift evolution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The apparent redshift dependence could trace physical changes in the star-forming regions of galaxies at earlier epochs.
  • The same independent-distance approach could be applied to other candidate standard candles to test whether evolution appears in multiple tracers.
  • If the corrected relation holds, it would allow HIIGs to extend distance measurements into redshift ranges where current supernovae samples are sparse.

Load-bearing premise

That Gaussian Process regression applied to the Type Ia supernovae Hubble diagram yields reliable cosmology-independent distance estimates up to z ~ 1.8 that can be directly compared to HIIG samples.

What would settle it

A new set of HIIG observations at z > 1 with luminosity distributions matched to low-z samples that shows the standard L-σ relation fits the data as well as or better than the logarithmic redshift correction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2408.10560 by Jiaze Gao, Lixin Xu, Yun Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Distance moduli [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison of the classic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Cosmological constraints in the ΛCDM framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The empirical correlation between the H$\beta$ luminosity ($L$) and the ionized gas velocity dispersion ($\sigma$) in HII starburst galaxies (HIIGs) provides a foundation for using them as cosmological standard candles. A key unresolved issue is whether this $L$-$\sigma$ relation changes with redshift, which would impact its application at high redshifts. We test for possible evolution using cosmology-independent distance estimates up to $z \sim 1.8$, obtained from Gaussian Process regression of the Pantheon+ Type Ia supernovae Hubble diagram. These distances allow us to compare the standard $L$-$\sigma$ relation with three redshift-dependent extensions through Bayesian model comparison. We find that a logarithmic redshift correction is statistically preferred when the intrinsic dispersion of the relation is explicitly modeled, significantly improving the fit to high-$z$ data. However, the evidence for evolution strongly depends on how the likelihood function accounts for this intrinsic dispersion and is weaker if it is ignored. We also show that Malmquist bias significantly affects comparisons between low- and high-$z$ samples, reducing -- though not eliminating -- the statistical preference for redshift evolution after matching luminosity ranges. These results indicate that current HIIG data favor a redshift-dependent modification of the standard $L$-$\sigma$ relation, while highlighting the critical role of selection effects and intrinsic dispersion modeling in establishing HIIGs as precise cosmological probes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the L-σ relation in HII galaxies (HIIGs) for possible redshift evolution up to z~1.8. Cosmology-independent distances are obtained via Gaussian Process regression on the Pantheon+ Type Ia supernova Hubble diagram. Bayesian model comparison is performed between the standard L-σ relation and three redshift-dependent extensions; a logarithmic redshift correction is statistically preferred when intrinsic dispersion is explicitly modeled in the likelihood, though the preference weakens or vanishes under alternative dispersion treatments or after Malmquist bias corrections that match luminosity ranges between low- and high-z samples.

Significance. If the central result holds after addressing modeling sensitivities, the work would indicate that current HIIG samples favor a redshift-dependent modification to the L-σ relation and would underscore the necessity of rigorous treatment of intrinsic scatter and selection effects before HIIGs can serve as precise high-redshift cosmological probes. The use of GP regression on an external SNIa sample to derive distances is a methodological strength that avoids direct circularity with the cosmological model under test.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results / likelihood modeling] The abstract and results section note that the preference for redshift evolution 'strongly depends on how the likelihood function accounts for this intrinsic dispersion'; the specific functional forms of the likelihoods (with vs. without explicit dispersion term) and the resulting Bayes factors or evidence ratios must be reported quantitatively to allow assessment of the robustness of the model ranking.
  2. [Malmquist bias analysis] The Malmquist bias correction is stated to reduce but not eliminate the statistical preference for evolution after 'matching luminosity ranges'; the exact procedure for range matching, the resulting change in sample size at z>1, and the updated model-comparison statistics after correction need to be shown explicitly, as this directly affects the load-bearing claim.
  3. [Gaussian Process distance estimation] The central claim relies on GP regression outputs from Pantheon+ providing reliable, unbiased distances up to z~1.8 for direct comparison with the HIIG sample; tests for kernel choice sensitivity, extrapolation bias in sparsely sampled redshift intervals, and consistency with alternative distance indicators should be added, given that any redshift-dependent GP artifact could mimic the reported evolution signal.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Clarify in the methods section whether the GP hyperparameters were optimized jointly with the HIIG fit or held fixed from the Pantheon+ regression alone.
  2. [Abstract / model definitions] The abstract mentions 'three redshift-dependent extensions'; a brief enumeration of these functional forms (e.g., linear, logarithmic, power-law in z) would aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive review. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested details and tests.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results / likelihood modeling] The abstract and results section note that the preference for redshift evolution 'strongly depends on how the likelihood function accounts for this intrinsic dispersion'; the specific functional forms of the likelihoods (with vs. without explicit dispersion term) and the resulting Bayes factors or evidence ratios must be reported quantitatively to allow assessment of the robustness of the model ranking.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative reporting of the likelihood forms and Bayes factors is required for full transparency. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit subsection (or table) giving the functional forms of the likelihoods with and without the intrinsic dispersion term, together with the computed evidence ratios for all model comparisons. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Malmquist bias analysis] The Malmquist bias correction is stated to reduce but not eliminate the statistical preference for evolution after 'matching luminosity ranges'; the exact procedure for range matching, the resulting change in sample size at z>1, and the updated model-comparison statistics after correction need to be shown explicitly, as this directly affects the load-bearing claim.

    Authors: We accept that the Malmquist bias section requires more explicit documentation. The revision will describe the precise luminosity-range matching procedure, report the resulting change in the z>1 sample size, and tabulate the updated model-comparison statistics after the correction. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Gaussian Process distance estimation] The central claim relies on GP regression outputs from Pantheon+ providing reliable, unbiased distances up to z~1.8 for direct comparison with the HIIG sample; tests for kernel choice sensitivity, extrapolation bias in sparsely sampled redshift intervals, and consistency with alternative distance indicators should be added, given that any redshift-dependent GP artifact could mimic the reported evolution signal.

    Authors: We agree that additional validation of the GP distances is warranted. The revised manuscript will include an appendix presenting kernel-sensitivity tests, an assessment of extrapolation bias in the sparsely sampled intervals up to z~1.8, and comparisons with alternative distance indicators where feasible. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: external Pantheon+ GP distances enable independent model comparison

full rationale

The derivation obtains cosmology-independent distances from Gaussian Process regression applied to the external Pantheon+ SNIa Hubble diagram, then uses those distances as fixed inputs for Bayesian model comparison of the standard L-σ relation against three redshift-dependent extensions on the HIIG sample. No equation or step defines a quantity in terms of itself, renames a fitted parameter as a prediction, or reduces the central claim to a self-citation chain; the intrinsic dispersion modeling and Malmquist bias corrections are applied to the HIIG data after the distances are taken as given. The result is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the reliability of GP-derived distances and the specific form of the likelihood that includes intrinsic dispersion; these are domain assumptions rather than new entities.

free parameters (1)
  • logarithmic redshift correction coefficient
    Fitted parameter in the redshift-dependent extension of the L-σ relation.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Gaussian Process regression on Pantheon+ SNIa data produces accurate cosmology-independent distances up to z~1.8
    Invoked to enable direct comparison of low- and high-z HIIG samples without assuming a cosmological model.
  • domain assumption The intrinsic dispersion of the L-σ relation can be explicitly modeled in the likelihood function
    The abstract states that evidence for evolution depends on this modeling choice.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5789 in / 1445 out tokens · 23499 ms · 2026-05-23T22:15:50.072311+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · 20 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    has discovered redshift evolution in theL−σ relation. Their analysis reveals systematic variations in the rela- tion’s slope between local (z < 0.2) and distant (z > 0.6) populations, suggesting evolutionary effects that must be accounted for in cosmological applications. The analysis of Cao and Ratra [29] simultaneously con- strained both the L − σ relat...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    (1) and the three correction forms in Eqs

    Model comparison for the L − σ relation Observational constraints for the L–σ relation param- eters are summarized in the upper portion of Table I, where a joint sample with 36 GEHRs and 145 HIIGs 2 is employed, and four options for the L–σ relation, in- cluding the classic scaling form in Eq. (1) and the three correction forms in Eqs. (8)–(10), are taken...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Specifically, we constrain the ΛCDM model using a joint sample of 36 GEHRs and all 181 HIIGs, adopting the Correction II L–σ relation, which has been demon- 5 TABLE I

    Cosmological application Furthermore, we evaluate the constraining power of the HIIGs and GEHRs data on cosmological parameters. Specifically, we constrain the ΛCDM model using a joint sample of 36 GEHRs and all 181 HIIGs, adopting the Correction II L–σ relation, which has been demon- 5 TABLE I. Observational constraints on L − σ relation parameters with ...

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Searle and W

    L. Searle and W. L. W. Sargent, Astrophys. J. 173, 25 (1972)

    work page 1972

  5. [5]

    Bergeron, Astrophys

    J. Bergeron, Astrophys. J. 211, 62 (1977)

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    Terlevich and J

    R. Terlevich and J. Melnick, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 195, 839 (1981)

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

    Melnick, M

    J. Melnick, M. Moles, R. Terlevich, and J.-M. Garcia- Pelayo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 226, 849 (1987)

    work page 1987

  8. [8]

    Terlevich et al

    R. Terlevich et al. , Astron. Astrophys. Rev. Suppl. Ser. 91, 285 (1991)

    work page 1991

  9. [9]

    The most metal-poor galaxies

    D. Kunth and G. ¨Ostlin, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 10, 1 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911094 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  10. [10]

    Bordalo and E

    V. Bordalo and E. Telles, Astrophys. J. 735, 52 (2011), arXiv:1104.4719 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2011

  11. [11]

    The $L - \sigma$ relation for massive bursts of star formation

    R. Ch´ avezet al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 442, 3565 (2014), arXiv:1405.4010 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  12. [12]

    A. L. Gonz´ alez-Mor´ anet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 505, 1441 (2021), arXiv:2105.04025 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Melnick, R

    J. Melnick, R. Terlevich, and M. Moles, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 235, 297 (1988)

    work page 1988

  14. [14]

    E. R. Siegel et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.356, 1117 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0410612

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  15. [15]

    A Strategy to Measure the Dark Energy Equation of State using the HII galaxy Hubble Relation & X-ray AGN Clustering: Preliminary Results

    M. Plionis et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 416, 2981 (2011), arXiv:1106.4558 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  16. [16]

    Determining the Hubble constant using Giant extragalactic HII regions and HII galaxies

    R. Chavez et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 425, 56 (2012), arXiv:1203.6222 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  17. [17]

    On the road to precision cosmology with high redshift HII galaxies

    R. Terlevich et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 451, 3001 (2015), arXiv:1505.04376 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    An independent determination of the local Hubble constant

    D. Fern´ andez Arenaset al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 474, 1250 (2018), arXiv:1710.05951 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    A. L. Gonz´ alez-Mor´ anet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 487, 4669 (2019), arXiv:1906.02195 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Ch´ avezet al

    R. Ch´ avezet al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 538, 1264 (2025), arXiv:2404.16261 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Sandage, in Problems of Extra-Galactic Research , Vol

    A. Sandage, in Problems of Extra-Galactic Research , Vol. 15, edited by G. C. McVittie (1962) p. 359

    work page 1962

  22. [22]

    Melnick, Astrophys

    J. Melnick, Astrophys. J. 213, 15 (1977)

    work page 1977

  23. [23]

    Melnick, Astron

    J. Melnick, Astron. Astrophys. 70, 157 (1978)

    work page 1978

  24. [24]

    Kennicutt, R

    J. Kennicutt, R. C., Astrophys. J. 228, 394 (1979)

    work page 1979

  25. [25]

    M. V. F. Copetti, M. G. Pastoriza, and H. A. Dottori, Astron. Astrophys. 156, 111 (1986)

    work page 1986

  26. [26]

    Melnick, R

    J. Melnick, R. Terlevich, and E. Terlevich, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 311, 629 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/9908346 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2000

  27. [27]

    A Two-point Diagnostic for the HII Galaxy Hubble Diagram

    K. Leaf and F. Melia, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 474, 4507 (2018), arXiv:1711.10793 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Hern´ andez-Almadaet al., Mon

    A. Hern´ andez-Almadaet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 512, 5122 (2022), arXiv:2112.04615 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Mehrabi et al

    A. Mehrabi et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 509, 224 (2022), arXiv:2107.08820 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Cao and B

    S. Cao and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103521 (2023), arXiv:2302.14203 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    K. Ravi, A. Chatterjee, B. Jana, and A. Bandyopad- hyay, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527, 7626 (2024), arXiv:2306.12585 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Cao and B

    S. Cao and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123527 (2024), arXiv:2310.15812 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    D. C. Koo et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 440, L49 (1995)

    work page 1995

  34. [34]

    Guzman et al

    R. Guzman et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 460, L5 (1996)

    work page 1996

  35. [35]

    Wu et al

    Y. Wu et al. , Astrophys. J. 888, 113 (2020), arXiv:1911.10959 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    Williams et al

    H. Williams et al. , Astrophys. J. 969, 54 (2024), arXiv:2309.16767 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

    D. Brout et al. , Astrophys. J. 938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    M. Kunz, B. A. Bassett, and R. A. Hlozek, Phys. Rev. D 75, 103508 (2007)

    work page 2007

  39. [39]

    The Supernova Legacy Survey 3-year sample: Type Ia Supernovae photometric distances and cosmological constraints

    J. Guy et al. (SNLS), Astron. Astrophys. 523, A7 (2010), arXiv:1010.4743 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  40. [40]

    Correcting Type Ia Supernova Distances for Selection Biases and Contamination in Photometrically Identified Samples

    R. Kessler and D. Scolnic, Astrophys. J. Lett. 836, 56 (2017), arXiv:1610.04677 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Brout et al

    D. Brout et al. , Astrophys. J. 938, 111 (2022), arXiv:2112.03864 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    A. G. Riess et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams, Gaussian Pro- cesses for Machine Learning (The MIT Press, 2005)

    work page 2005

  44. [44]

    Reconstruction of dark energy and expansion dynamics using Gaussian processes

    M. Seikel, C. Clarkson, and M. Smith, J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys. 2012 (6), 036, arXiv:1204.2832 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  45. [45]

    Gaussian Process Cosmography

    A. Shafieloo, A. G. Kim, and E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D 85, 123530 (2012), arXiv:1204.2272 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  46. [46]

    J. P. Hu and F. Y. Wang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517, 576 (2022), arXiv:2203.13037 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Liang, Z

    N. Liang, Z. Li, X. Xie, and P. Wu, Astrophys. J. 941, 84 (2022), arXiv:2211.02473 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    J.-Z. Qi, P. Meng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 063522 (2023), arXiv:2302.08889 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Liu and K

    T. Liu and K. Liao, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 528, 1354 (2024), arXiv:2309.13608 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Y. Mu, B. Chang, and L. Xu, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2023 (9), 041, arXiv:2302.02559 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Y. Chen, S. Kumar, B. Ratra, and T. Xu, Astrophys. J. Lett. 964, L4 (2024), arXiv:2401.13187 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    J. Buchner et al. , Astron. Astrophys. 564, A125 (2014), arXiv:1402.0004 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  53. [53]

    Feroz, M

    F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, and M. Bridges, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 398, 1601 (2009)

    work page 2009

  54. [54]

    Skilling, AIP Conf

    J. Skilling, AIP Conf. Proc. 735, 395 (2004)

    work page 2004

  55. [55]

    GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples

    A. Lewis, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1910.13970 (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  56. [56]

    R. E. Kass and A. E. Raftery, J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 90, 773 (1995)

    work page 1995

  57. [57]

    Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology

    R. Trotta, Contemp. Phys. 49, 71 (2008), arXiv:0803.4089 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  58. [58]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astro- phys. 641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    Wang, Astrophys

    Y. Wang, Astrophys. J. 536, 531 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/9907405 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2000