2018
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty1922
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Constraints on dark energy dynamics and spatial curvature from Hubble parameter and baryon acoustic oscillation data

Abstract: We use all available baryon acoustic oscillation distance measurements and Hubble parameter data to constrain the cosmological constant Λ, dynamical dark energy, and spatial curvature in simple cosmological models. We find that the consensus spatially flat ΛCDM model provides a reasonable fit to the data, but depending on the Hubble constant prior and cosmological model, it can be a little more than 1σ away from the best-fit model, which can favor mild dark energy dynamics or non-flat spatial hypersurfaces.

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

9
118
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

5
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 121 publications
(127 citation statements)
references
References 86 publications
9
118
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The marginalized one-dimensional best-fit parameter values with 1σ error bars are given in Table 3. These results are consistent with those of Ryan et al (2018). The slight differences between the two sets of results are the consequence of the different analysis techniques used.…”
Section: H(z) + Bao Constraintssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The marginalized one-dimensional best-fit parameter values with 1σ error bars are given in Table 3. These results are consistent with those of Ryan et al (2018). The slight differences between the two sets of results are the consequence of the different analysis techniques used.…”
Section: H(z) + Bao Constraintssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…This is very similar to the methods employed in Refs. [14,15]; see those papers for details regarding the form that the χ 2 function takes when it is computed within each model and for each data set. The prior function, π(p n ), is necessary to deal with the nuisance parameters Ω m0 and Ω b h 2 that enter the analysis through the calculation of the sound horizon r S (see above).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main difference between this first analysis method and the analyses of [14,15] is that I do not compare the best-fitting value of H 0 or the minimum value of χ 2 in Ryskin's model directly to any other models (although the best-fitting H 0 can be compared to the measurements of H 0 made by Refs. [11] and [13]; see below).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations