Measurements of $$H_0$$ and reconstruction of the dark energy properties from a model-independent joint analysis

Bonilla, Alexander; Kumar, Suresh; Nunes, Rafael C.

doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08925-z

Cited by 68 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 94 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In reference [264], it has been argued that the Hubble tension can be interpreted as an evidence for a non-constant dynamical DE at 3.5σ (see also reference [265]). A different approach aimed at reconstructing the DE properties using Gaussian processes constrains the Hubble constant as H 0 = 73.78 ± 0.84 km s −1 Mpc −1 at 68% CL, using a joint analysis of the geometrical cosmological probes such as SNIa, CC, BAO, and the H0LiCOW lenses sample [266]. Finally, a reconstruction of the dynamical DE using the latest measurements has been studied also in reference [267].…”

Section: Late Dark Energymentioning

confidence: 99%

In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions ^*

Valentino

Mena²,

Pan³

et al. 2021

Class. Quantum Grav.

1,414

760

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The simplest ΛCDM model provides a good fit to a large span of cosmological data but harbors large areas of phenomenology and ignorance. With the improvement of the number and the accuracy of observations, discrepancies among key cosmological parameters of the model have emerged. The most statistically significant tension is the 4σ to 6σ disagreement between predictions of the Hubble constant, H 0, made by the early time probes in concert with the ‘vanilla’ ΛCDM cosmological model, and a number of late time, model-independent determinations of H 0 from local measurements of distances and redshifts. The high precision and consistency of the data at both ends present strong challenges to the possible solution space and demands a hypothesis with enough rigor to explain multiple observations—whether these invoke new physics, unexpected large-scale structures or multiple, unrelated errors. A thorough review of the problem including a discussion of recent Hubble constant estimates and a summary of the proposed theoretical solutions is presented here. We include more than 1000 references, indicating that the interest in this area has grown considerably just during the last few years. We classify the many proposals to resolve the tension in these categories: early dark energy, late dark energy, dark energy models with 6 degrees of freedom and their extensions, models with extra relativistic degrees of freedom, models with extra interactions, unified cosmologies, modified gravity, inflationary models, modified recombination history, physics of the critical phenomena, and alternative proposals. Some are formally successful, improving the fit to the data in light of their additional degrees of freedom, restoring agreement within 1–2σ between Planck 2018, using the cosmic microwave background power spectra data, baryon acoustic oscillations, Pantheon SN data, and R20, the latest SH0ES Team Riess, et al (2021 Astrophys. J. 908 L6) measurement of the Hubble constant (H 0 = 73.2 ± 1.3 km s−1 Mpc−1 at 68% confidence level). However, there are many more unsuccessful models which leave the discrepancy well above the 3σ disagreement level. In many cases, reduced tension comes not simply from a change in the value of H 0 but also due to an increase in its uncertainty due to degeneracy with additional physics, complicating the picture and pointing to the need for additional probes. While no specific proposal makes a strong case for being highly likely or far better than all others, solutions involving early or dynamical dark energy, neutrino interactions, interacting cosmologies, primordial magnetic fields, and modified gravity provide the best options until a better alternative comes along.

show abstract

Section: Late Dark Energymentioning

confidence: 99%

In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions ^*

Valentino

Mena²,

Pan³

et al. 2021

Class. Quantum Grav.

1,414

760

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature already hosts a number of examples of the possible uses of Gaussian processes to test certain aspects of the present cosmological paradigm in model-agnostic ways. For example, one can find tests for the model dependence of the 𝐻 0 (Gómez-Valent & Amendola 2018; Cai et al 2020;Liao et al 2020;Bonilla et al 2021) and 𝑆 8 (Benisty 2021) tensions, for the non-zero curvature of space-time (Vagnozzi et al 2021;Yang & Gong 2021), as well as tests for the density and the equation of state of dark energy (Gerardi et al 2019;Zhang & Li 2018). More closely related to the topic of this work, in Perenon et al (2021) Gaussian processes were used to study the statistical correlations between the expansion history, cosmological distances, and the linear growth rate without appealing to the physical relationships between the three functions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model-independent constraints on $Ω_m$ and $H(z)$ from the link between geometry and growth

Ruiz-Zapatero,

García-García,

Alonso

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We constrain the expansion history of the Universe and the cosmological matter density fraction in a model-independent way by exclusively making use of the relationship between background and perturbations under a minimal set of assumptions. We do so by employing a Gaussian process to model the expansion history of the Universe from present time to the recombination era. The expansion history and the cosmological matter density are then constrained using recent measurements from cosmic chronometers, Type-Ia supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, and redshift-space distortion data. Our results show that the evolution in the reconstructed expansion history is compatible with the Planck 2018 prediction at all redshifts. The current data considered in this study can constrain a Gaussian process on 𝐻 (𝑧) to an average 9.4% precision across redshift. We find Ω 𝑚 = 0.224 ± 0.066, lower but statistically compatible with the Planck 2018 cosmology. Finally, the combination of future DESI measurements with the CMB measurement considered in this work holds the promise of 8% average constraints on a model-independent expansion history as well as a five-fold tighter Ω 𝑚 constraint using the methodology developed in this work.

show abstract

“…respectively. Here µ(z) is the a prior mean function, which is commonly set to zero, µ(z) = 0 (Yu et al 2018;Seikel et al 2012;Bonilla et al 2021;Renzi & Silvestri 2020). The µ(z) in our work is set to zero as well.…”

Section: Gaussian Processes (Gp)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of the Bounds of the Hyperparameters on the Reconstruction of Hubble Constant with Gaussian Process

Sun,

Jiao,

Zhang

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cosmological model-independent method Gaussian process (GP) has been widely used in the reconstruction of Hubble constant H 0 , and the hyperparameters inside GP influence the reconstructed result derived from GP. Different hyperparameters inside GP are used in the constraint of H 0 derived from GP with observational Hubble parameter H(z) data (OHD), and the influence of the hyperparameters inside GP on the reconstruction of H 0 with GP is discussed. The discussion about the hyperparameters inside GP and the forecasts for future data show that the consideration of the lower and upper bounds on the GP's hyperparameters are necessary in order to get an extrapolated result of H 0 from GP reliably and robustly.

show abstract

Measurements of $$H_0$$ and reconstruction of the dark energy properties from a model-independent joint analysis

Cited by 68 publications

References 94 publications

In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions ^*

In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions ^*

Model-independent constraints on $Ω_m$ and $H(z)$ from the link between geometry and growth

Influence of the Bounds of the Hyperparameters on the Reconstruction of Hubble Constant with Gaussian Process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Measurements of $$H_0$$ and reconstruction of the dark energy properties from a model-independent joint analysis

Cited by 68 publications

References 94 publications

In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions *

In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions *

Model-independent constraints on $Ω_m$ and $H(z)$ from the link between geometry and growth

Influence of the Bounds of the Hyperparameters on the Reconstruction of Hubble Constant with Gaussian Process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions ^*

In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions ^*