Model comparison of $$\Lambda $$CDM vs $$R_h=ct$$ using cosmic chronometers

Abstract

In 2012, Bilicki and Seikel (Mon Not R Astron Soc 425:1664, 2012) showed that H(z) data reconstructed using Gaussian Process Regression from cosmic chronometers and baryon acoustic oscillations, conclusively rules out the $$R_h=ct$$Rh=ct model. These results were disputed by Melia and collaborators in two different works (Melia and Maier in Mon Not R Astron Soc 432:2669, 2013; Melia and Yennapureddy in JCAP 2018:034, 2018), who showed using both an unbinned analysis and Gaussian Process reconstructed H(z) data from chronometers, that $$R_h=ct$$Rh=ct is favored over $$\Lambda $$ΛCDM model. To resolve this imbroglio, we carry out model comparison of $$\Lambda $$ΛCDM versus $$R_h=ct$$Rh=ct by independently reproducing the above claims using the latest chronometer data. We perform model selection between these two models using Bayesian model comparison. We find that no one model between $$\Lambda $$ΛCDM and $$R_h=ct$$Rh=ct is decisively favored when uniform priors on $$\Lambda $$ΛCDM parameters are used. However, if we use priors centered around the Planck best-fit values, then $$\Lambda $$ΛCDM is very strongly preferred over $$R_h=ct$$Rh=ct.

A model-independent test of the evolution of gas depletion factor for SPT-SZ and Planck ESZ clusters

“…Cosmic chronometers provide a model-independent measurement of H (z), based on the age difference between two passively evolving galaxies [61]. Therefore, they have been widely used for a variety of tests of the standard cosmological model, as well as a whole suite of cosmological measurements [62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72]. For this work, we used cosmic chronometer data to provide a non-parametric estimate of the expansion history, needed to evaluate Eq.…”

“…The data points represent the 31 H (z) cosmic chronometer measurements taken from Li et al [60]. The blue line indicates the best GP fit to data along with 1σ and 2σ error bands shown by two different shades of green bands in [72]) in the redshift range 0.07 z 1.965 to obtain non-parametric estimates of H (z) at any redshift. Figure 2 shows the GP reconstructed H (z) from cosmic chronometers along with 1σ and 2σ uncertainties.…”

A test of the standard dark matter density evolution law using galaxy clusters and cosmic chronometers

“…Cosmic chronometers (CC) are one of the most widely used probes in Cosmology for deducing the observational value of the Hubble parameter at different redshifts (see [44] and references therein). According to Jimenez and Loeb [45], if passively evolving galaxies at different redshifts are considered, then computing the age difference of the galaxies yields the Hubble parameter based on the following equation:…”

“…In order to derive the angular diameter distance to each galaxy cluster, we use 31 cosmic chronometer H (z) data from Li et al [46] in the redshift range 0.07 z 1.965. For this purpose, we choose Gaussian Processes Regression [59] to reconstruct the angular diameter distance at each cluster's redshift(for more details, see [58,60,61]). The reconstructed angular diameter distance is obtained via,…”

Neural Network Reconstruction of Late-Time Cosmology and Null Tests

“…There have been a number of works on using GP to reconstruct the Hubble diagram using a variety of data sets as reported in Refs. [34][35][36][37][38][39]. In light of the current disagreement between the inferred values of the Hubble constant (H 0 ), primarily between the local and early-time determinations of H 0 , we shall be analysing the impacts of H 0 priors on our ANN reconstructions of the cosmic expansion in this work.…”