Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 119 references

Illuminating Dark Energy with Bright Standard Sirens from Future Detectors

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bright standard sirens alone can map dark energy evolution to sub-percent precision

desk verdict A useful bright-siren forecast for dark energy, but the headline precision rests on a likelihood that ignores the SNR-threshold selection function, and the hilltop result fixes K by hand. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06340 v1 pith:O4C3PYDN submitted 2025-07-08 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Samsuzzaman Afroz , Suvodip Mukherjee , Gianmassimo Tasinato This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords darkenergybrightstandardsirensgravitationalwavecosmologyEinsteinTelescopeCosmicExplorerequationofstatehilltopquintessenceBayesianparameterinference
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

The paper asks whether gravitational wave mergers with electromagnetic counterparts—bright standard sirens—can measure the evolution of dark energy's equation of state on their own. Using simulated five-year catalogs from next-generation ground-based detectors such as the Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer, it reports that binary neutron star and neutron star–black hole events alone constrain the Barboza–Alcaniz parameters to $\sigma(w_0) \sim 0.002$ and $\sigma(w_a) \sim 0.004$ for NSBH sources, and constrain hilltop quintessence parameters (with the curvature $K$ fixed) to $\sigma(w_0) \sim 0.004$ and $\sigma(\Omega_{\phi 0}) \sim 0.002$. The claim matters because it provides a distance-ladder-free, independent route to testing whether dark energy deviates from a cosmological constant.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the standard-siren distance–redshift relation: each detected merger yields a luminosity distance $D_L$ from the gravitational waveform and a spectroscopic redshift from its electromagnetic counterpart, and the joint posterior $P(H_0, \boldsymbol{\theta} \mid \{D_L^i, z^i\})$ compares these data against the $D_L(z)$ predicted by the Friedmann equation with the dark energy sector entering through $w(z)$. Three model classes are implemented: the Barboza–Alcaniz parametrization $w(z) = w_0 + w_a z(1+z)/(1+z^2)$, the analytic hilltop quintessence equation of state $1+w(a)$ of Eq. (2.14) with curvature parameter $K$, and an evolving dark matter scenario with matter density scaling as $\Omega_{m,0}(1+z)^{3+\alpha}$. Simulated catalogs use astrophysical mass and merger-rate models, a matched-filter signal-to-noise threshold, and a weak lensing term added in quadrature to the distance error.

What would settle it

One decisive test is to inject a simulated catalog with a known, strongly evolving equation of state (for instance $w_0=-0.9$, $w_a=0.3$) and re-run the same inference; if the recovered posteriors are centered away from the injected values by more than the quoted uncertainties, the claim fails. A more direct version is to recompute the likelihood with a selection term accounting for the probability of passing the SNR>20 cut as a function of luminosity distance and inclination, and compare the resulting posteriors with those of Eq. (4.1).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that bright standard sirens alone, observed by a future Cosmic Explorer plus Einstein Telescope network, can map the dark energy equation of state with sub-percent to percent precision. Its simulated analysis covers five years with a 75% duty cycle, retaining events with network SNR above 20; the surviving catalog contains roughly 76,000 BNS and 152,000 NSBH events. Jointly inferring $H_0$ and the model parameters from luminosity distances and spectroscopic redshifts, it finds $\sigma(w_0) \sim 0.002$ and $\sigma(w_a) \sim 0.004$ for the Barboza–Alcaniz parametrization using NSBH sources, and $\sigma(w_0) \sim 0.004$, $\sigma(\Omega_{\phi 0}) \sim 0.002$ for hilltop quintessence with $K$ fixed. Even a five-parameter evolving dark matter model is constrained at the level of $\sigma(w_0) \sim 0.03$ and $\sigma(\alpha) \sim 0.002$. The paper concludes that multi-messenger gravitational wave cosmology can stand on its own as a probe of dark energy dynamics, bridging phenomenological and physically motivated models.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the signal-to-noise threshold used to build the catalog does not need a selection-function correction in the likelihood, because the probability of an event appearing in the catalog is treated as independent of the cosmological parameters being inferred.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NSBH bright sirens alone recover the Barboza–Alcaniz $w_0$, $w_a$ with $\sigma(w_0)\sim 0.002$ and $\sigma(w_a)\sim 0.004$, at the level needed to distinguish mild dark energy evolution from a cosmological constant.
  • With $K$ fixed, hilltop quintessence can be tested at $\sigma(w_0)\sim 0.004$ and $\sigma(\Omega_{\phi 0})\sim 0.002$; however, the appendix shows that freeing $K$ introduces degeneracies and broadens the posteriors.
  • Even a five-parameter evolving dark matter model is informative: $\sigma(w_0)\sim 0.03$, $\sigma(w_a)\sim 0.18$, $\sigma(w_b)\sim 0.33$, and $\sigma(\alpha)\sim 0.002$.
  • The same events also pin down $H_0$ to about $\pm 0.04$ km/s/Mpc for NSBH and $\pm 0.07$ km/s/Mpc for BNS, competitive with distance-ladder measurements.
  • Figure 9 shows that even a modest EM counterpart detection fraction yields percent-level precision on $H_0$ and $w_0$, so the dark energy science does not require perfect follow-up.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The likelihood in Eq. (4.1) analyzes every event that passed the SNR>20 cut as though selection did not depend on the inferred parameters; a selection-aware version of the likelihood is a direct, testable extension that would show whether the quoted sub-percent uncertainties are biased.
  • The weak lensing uncertainty model is calibrated to a $\Lambda$CDM fiducial cosmology, so applying the same formula inside an evolving-dark-energy analysis is an approximation; recomputing the distance error budget in each tested model is a natural follow-up.
  • The tightest hilltop quintessence numbers assume the curvature $K$ is fixed; a forecast that marginalizes over $K$ would probe the shape of the potential rather than the thawing trajectory alone, and the paper's appendix already indicates the constraints loosen substantially in that case.
  • Bright siren catalogs of this size could be combined with dark-siren cross-correlation statistics to push the equation-of-state constraints further, but the paper's contribution is establishing that the bright-only channel alone is already a competitive probe.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents forecasts for dark-energy constraints from bright standard sirens observed by a future CE+ET network. It simulates BNS and NSBH catalogs over five years with a 75% duty cycle, applies an SNR>20 detection threshold, obtains per-event luminosity-distance posteriors with Bilby, and jointly infers H0 and model-specific parameters using product likelihoods. Three model families are considered: the Barboza-Alcaniz parametrization, hilltop quintessence, and an evolving dark matter model. The headline results are sigma(w0)~0.002 and sigma(wa)~0.004 for BA with NSBH, and sigma(w0)~0.004 with fixed K for hilltop quintessence. An appendix studies the full four-parameter hilltop inference.

Significance. If the forecasts are valid, they would provide a useful demonstration that bright sirens alone can constrain DE evolution at percent-level precision and discriminate among several model classes. The paper has genuine strengths: a detailed mock-catalog construction with a merger-rate model and mass distributions, inclusion of weak-lensing noise, per-event parameter estimation with Bilby, and an honest appendix documenting the degeneracies in the full hilltop-quintessence inference. However, the headline quantitative claims are not yet established because the inference likelihood omits the SNR-threshold selection function, and the main-text hilltop constraints are conditional on fixing K. The internal consistency of the injection-recovery tests is a useful code validation but cannot by itself demonstrate that the forecast is unbiased.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 and §4.1, Eq. (4.1)] Section 3 constructs the catalog by retaining events with network SNR >= 20, where the SNR in Eq. (3.8) depends on luminosity distance and hence on the cosmological parameters being inferred. The likelihood in Eq. (4.1), and analogously Eqs. (4.4), (4.5), and (A.1), is a simple product over the surviving events and contains no factor conditioning on detection. For an SNR-thresholded catalog the correct likelihood must include P(det | H0, w0, wa, z), or an equivalent selection term; without it, the posterior is not the detection-conditioned posterior. Because the threshold preferentially removes high-DL events, the observed DL distribution is truncated in a cosmology-dependent way, and omitting the selection term can bias the recovered H0 and DE parameters even when the injected and recovered models are identical. This bias is not revealed by the paper's injection-recovery check, because the mock generation and the analysis pipeline share the same omission. The authors should include a selection function in the likelihood, or demonstrate numerically that its omission changes the quoted sigma(w0) ~ 0.002 and sigma(wa) ~ 0.004 by a negligible amount. As it stands, the headline precision for the Barboza-Alcaniz model is not established.
  2. [§4.2 and Appendix A] The main-text hilltop-quintessence forecast fixes K = 1.2 by hand. Appendix A shows that when K is free, the posterior is strongly non-Gaussian and there are substantial degeneracies among K, w0, and Omega_phi0; the constraints on w0 and Omega_phi0 broaden considerably relative to the fixed-K case. The abstract and conclusions nevertheless present hilltop quintessence as one of the models for which bright sirens yield competitive constraints, and the text quotes sigma(w0) ~ 0.004 for the fixed-K analysis. This is a conditional forecast, not a constraint on the full hilltop parameter space. The paper should either state in the abstract and conclusions that the hilltop constraints are conditional on the assumed value of K, or report the marginal widths from the four-parameter inference. The appendix is a good start, but the conditional precision should not remain the headline for this model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4.2)] The weak-lensing variance formula in Eq. (4.2) is garbled in the typeset text; please verify that the expression matches the cited Hirata, Holz, and Cutler result.
  2. [§4.1, Eq. (4.1)] The likelihood is not written explicitly; please state whether it is a Gaussian in DL with sigma_DL from Eq. (4.3), since asymmetric distance posteriors could require a more careful treatment.
  3. [§4.4 and Figure 9] The text describing Figure 9 does not explain how the EM counterpart fraction is implemented, for example whether it is a random subsampling of detected events or an additional selection term; this should be clarified because it interacts with the selection-function issue.
  4. [Eq. (2.15)] The definition of F(a) appears garbled, with unclear exponents and subscripts on Omega_phi0; please correct the typesetting.
  5. [General] The analysis is described as hierarchical Bayesian, but the displayed likelihoods are simple products of independent single-event terms; if a population-level hierarchical model is intended, the population priors and selection terms should be written out explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the forecast pipeline is internally consistent, though its headline precision is an idealized Fisher-like forecast against a LambdaCDM fiducial.

full rationale

The paper's central exercise is a self-contained forecast: it simulates mock bright-siren catalogs from a fiducial LambdaCDM cosmology, injects those distances into a hierarchical Bayesian likelihood, and recovers the injected parameters. Recovery of the injected values on mock data is the standard validation step for a forecast pipeline and is not a circular derivation of new physics; the claimed result is the forecasted precision, not a measurement of nature. The model-specific parameters (w0, wa, K, Omega_phi0, alpha) enter the analysis through the distance-redshift relation and are inferred from the simulated distances; nothing in the likelihood is defined in terms of the posterior, and the reported uncertainties come from the actual sampled posteriors rather than from an assumed covariance. Self-citations are present (e.g., refs. [47], [61]-[63], [75]) but are contextual and not load-bearing for the forecasting machinery; the core simulation and likelihood are described in the paper itself. The main scientific caveats, such as the omission of a selection-function term in the likelihood for the SNR>=20 catalog and the use of a LambdaCDM-derived lensing uncertainty, are accuracy concerns that could bias real-world application, but they are not circularity: the paper does not claim to have derived its input cosmology from the data. Because the forecast validates an internal pipeline rather than testing nature, the honest finding is mild skepticism, but under the circularity rubric this does not reduce to a 4 or higher; the correct score is 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on a stack of hand-chosen population and survey parameters, with the fiducial LambdaCDM simulation providing the data. The parameters being inferred are legitimate targets, but the quoted precision is conditional on these inputs. No new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • H0 (inferred in all models) = 67.4 with posterior widths from 0.04 to 0.35 km/s/Mpc depending on model and source type
    The Hubble constant is jointly inferred from the simulated distance-redshift relation; its posterior width is part of the claimed result.
  • w0 (Barboza-Alcaniz) = -1.0 +- 0.002 to +- 0.003
    Present-day equation of state, fitted to mock bright sirens; primary target parameter.
  • wa (Barboza-Alcaniz) = 0.0 +- 0.004 to +- 0.006
    Slope of equation of state evolution; fitted to mock data.
  • Omega_phi0 (hilltop quintessence) = 0.685 +- 0.002 to +- 0.003
    Present-day scalar field density parameter, inferred with K fixed.
  • K (hilltop curvature parameter) = 1.2 fixed by hand in main text
    Curvature of the hilltop potential is fixed rather than fitted in Sections 4.2; it is free in Appendix A where degeneracies appear.
  • wb (evolving dark matter model) = 0.013 +- 0.33 to +- 0.54
    Quadratic term in the extended equation of state; fitted in the five-parameter evolving dark matter analysis.
  • alpha (evolving dark matter coupling) = 0.0 +- 0.002 to +- 0.004
    Deviation of matter density scaling from (1+z)^3; fitted in the evolving dark matter model.
  • Local merger rate R0 = 20 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 for BNS, NSBH, and BBH
    Chosen from the broad allowed range (BNS 10 to 1700, NSBH 7.8 to 140); sets the simulated catalog size and hence all quoted precisions.
  • Observation parameters = 5 years, 75% duty cycle, SNR threshold 20, min delay 500 Myr, delay index d=1
    Hand-chosen survey assumptions that determine the event count and redshift distribution.
  • EM counterpart fraction = 100% for main catalog; 1%, 10%, 50%, 100% in Figure 9
    Bright siren analysis assumes host redshift identification; varying this fraction changes the constraints.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Spatially flat FLRW cosmology with the Friedmann equation (Eq. 2.2).
    Standard background, but flatness is assumed without a curvature parameter; the paper notes curved quintessence work in ref [72].
  • domain assumption Fiducial cosmology is Planck 2015 LambdaCDM and the mock data are generated under it.
    Section 4 states: 'The fiducial model in all cases is taken to be LambdaCDM, with cosmological parameters fixed to the Planck 2015 best-fit values.'
  • domain assumption Weak lensing uncertainty is modeled with a LambdaCDM-calibrated formula (Eq. 4.2).
    Footnote 1 in Section 4.1 acknowledges that non-LambdaCDM DE could modify the lensing uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Spectroscopic redshifts from EM counterparts have negligible uncertainty and are treated as delta functions.
    Section 4 states: 'For bright sirens, spectroscopic redshifts are assumed, allowing the redshift posterior to be modeled as a delta function.'
  • ad hoc to paper The detected catalog can be analyzed without an explicit selection function.
    Eq. (4.1) is a product over detected events with no selection term, while Section 3 applies an SNR greater than 20 detection threshold that depends on luminosity distance.
  • domain assumption Merger rate, delay time, mass distribution, and detector noise curves are representative of future ET plus CE.
    Section 3 sets R0, mass models, delay parameters, and CEET configuration; changes would shift event counts and constraints.
  • domain assumption Bilby with IMRPhenomHM and non-spinning systems yields unbiased luminosity distance posteriors.
    Section 3 uses this setup for parameter estimation without a systematics budget for waveform model choices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Illuminating Dark Energy with Bright Standard Sirens from Future Detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O4C3PYDN

@misc{pith2026250706340,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Illuminating Dark Energy with Bright Standard Sirens from Future Detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O4C3PYDN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06340}
}
abstract

Understanding the nature and evolution of dark energy (DE) is a central challenge in modern cosmology. In this work, we explore the constraining power of bright standard sirens -- gravitational wave (GW) events with electromagnetic counterparts - for probing the DE equation of state as function of redshift. Focusing on future GW observations from next-generation ground-based GW detectors such as the Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer, we perform a comprehensive analysis using simulated binary neutron star (BNS) and neutron star-black hole (NSBH) events over five years of observation with a $75\%$ duty cycle. We consider three broad classes of DE models: (i) phenomenological parametrizations, specifically the Barboza-Alcaniz extension to the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder model; (ii) physically motivated scalar field scenarios, specifically hilltop quintessence; and (iii) evolving dark matter setup in which the matter density evolves as $(1+z)^{3+\alpha}$. For each case, we jointly infer the Hubble constant $H_0$ and model-specific DE parameters from the observed GW luminosity distances and spectroscopic redshifts. Our results demonstrate that bright sirens alone can yield competitive and independent constraints on the time evolution of DE indicating that multi-messenger cosmology has the potential to test a wide range of DE theories, bridging phenomenological and physically motivated models, and paving the way for precision cosmology in the era of GW astronomy.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [75]

    Multi-messenger cosmology: A route to accurate inference of dark energy beyond CPL parametrization from XG detectors.JCAP, 03:070, 2025

    Samsuzzaman Afroz and Suvodip Mukherjee. Multi-messenger cosmology: A route to accurate inference of dark energy beyond CPL parametrization from XG detectors.JCAP, 03:070, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Riess et al

    Adam G. Riess et al. Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant.Astron. J., 116:1009–1038, 1998

    1998

  3. [2]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. Measurements ofΩ and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae.Astrophys. J., 517:565–586, 1999

    1999

  4. [3]

    Dark energy two decades after: Observables, probes, consistency tests

    Dragan Huterer and Daniel L Shafer. Dark energy two decades after: Observables, probes, consistency tests. Rept. Prog. Phys., 81(1):016901, 2018

    2018

  5. [4]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. Measurements of the cosmological parameters Omega and Lambda from the first 7 supernovae at z>=0.35. Astrophys. J., 483:565, 1997

    1997

  6. [5]

    Schmidt et al

    Brian P. Schmidt et al. The High Z supernova search: Measuring cosmic deceleration and global curvature of the universe using type Ia supernovae.Astrophys. J., 507:46–63, 1998

    1998

  7. [6]

    Sean M. Carroll. The Cosmological constant.Living Rev. Rel., 4:1, 2001

    2001

  8. [7]

    D. N. Spergel et al. First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmological parameters.Astrophys. J. Suppl., 148:175–194, 2003

    2003

Show all 119 references
  1. [8]

    Eisenstein et al

    Daniel J. Eisenstein et al. Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies.Astrophys. J., 633:560–574, 2005

    2005

  2. [9]

    Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP.Phys

    Max Tegmark et al. Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP.Phys. Rev. D, 69:103501, 2004

    2004

  3. [10]

    Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Cosmological Constant Problem (But Were Afraid To Ask).Comptes Rendus Physique, 13:566–665, 2012

    Jerome Martin. Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Cosmological Constant Problem (But Were Afraid To Ask).Comptes Rendus Physique, 13:566–665, 2012

    2012

  4. [11]

    Modified Gravity Approaches to the Cosmological Constant Problem

    Heliudson Bernardo, Benjamin Bose, Guilherme Franzmann, Steffen Hagstotz, Yutong He, Aliki Litsa, and Florian Niedermann. Modified Gravity Approaches to the Cosmological Constant Problem. Universe, 9(2):63, 2023

    2023

  5. [12]

    The Cosmological constant problem and quintessence.Class

    Varun Sahni. The Cosmological constant problem and quintessence.Class. Quant. Grav., 19:3435–3448, 2002

    2002

  6. [13]

    The Cosmological constant problems

    Steven Weinberg. The Cosmological constant problems. In4th International Symposium on Sources and Detection of Dark Matter in the Universe (DM 2000), pages 18–26, 2 2000

    2000

  7. [14]

    Salvatore Capozziello, Ruchika, and Anjan A. Sen. Model independent constraints on dark energy evolution from low-redshift observations.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 484:4484, 2019. – 25 –

    2019

  8. [15]

    Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies.JHEAp, 34:49–211, 2022

    Elcio Abdalla et al. Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies.JHEAp, 34:49–211, 2022

    2022

  9. [16]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set.Astrophys. J. Lett., 973(1):L14, 2024

    2024

  10. [17]

    A. G. Adame et al. DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations. JCAP, 02:021, 2025

    2024

  11. [18]

    A. G. Adame et al. DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements.arXiv e-prints, 11 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. Dark Energy Survey: implications for cosmological expansion models from the final DES Baryon Acoustic Oscillation and Supernova data.arXiv e-prints, 3 2025

    2025

  13. [20]

    Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter.Int

    Michel Chevallier and David Polarski. Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter.Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 10:213–224, 2001

    2001

  14. [21]

    Eric V. Linder. Exploring the expansion history of the universe.Phys. Rev. Lett., 90:091301, 2003

    2003

  15. [22]

    Roland de Putter and Eric V. Linder. Calibrating Dark Energy.JCAP, 10:042, 2008

    2008

  16. [23]

    Wolf, Carlos García-García, and Pedro G

    William J. Wolf, Carlos García-García, and Pedro G. Ferreira. Robustness of dark energy phenomenology across different parameterizations.JCAP, 05:034, 2025

    2025

  17. [24]

    Copeland, M

    Edmund J. Copeland, M. Sami, and Shinji Tsujikawa. Dynamics of dark energy.Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 15:1753–1936, 2006

    1936

  18. [25]

    Steinhardt

    Ivaylo Zlatev, Li-Min Wang, and Paul J. Steinhardt. Quintessence, cosmic coincidence, and the cosmological constant.Phys. Rev. Lett., 82:896–899, 1999

    1999

  19. [26]

    Armendariz-Picon, Viatcheslav F

    C. Armendariz-Picon, Viatcheslav F. Mukhanov, and Paul J. Steinhardt. Essentials of k essence. Phys. Rev. D, 63:103510, 2001

    2001

  20. [27]

    Quintessence and supergravity.Phys

    Philippe Brax and Jerome Martin. Quintessence and supergravity.Phys. Lett. B, 468:40–45, 1999

    1999

  21. [28]

    Scherrer

    Sourish Dutta and Robert J. Scherrer. Hilltop Quintessence.Phys. Rev. D, 78:123525, 2008

    2008

  22. [29]

    Slow-Roll Thawing Quintessence.Phys

    Takeshi Chiba. Slow-Roll Thawing Quintessence.Phys. Rev. D, 79:083517, 2009. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 80, 109902 (2009)]

    2009

  23. [30]

    Cosmological tests of quintessence in quantum gravity

    Sukannya Bhattacharya, Giulia Borghetto, Ameek Malhotra, Susha Parameswaran, Gianmassimo Tasinato, and Ivonne Zavala. Cosmological tests of quintessence in quantum gravity. JCAP, 04:086, 2025

    2025

  24. [31]

    Evolving Dark Energy or Evolving Dark Matter?arXiv e-prints, 5 2025

    Xingang Chen and Abraham Loeb. Evolving Dark Energy or Evolving Dark Matter?arXiv e-prints, 5 2025

    2025

  25. [32]

    Evidence for non-cold dark matter from DESI DR2 measurements.arXiv e-prints, 4 2025

    Utkarsh Kumar, Abhijith Ajith, and Amresh Verma. Evidence for non-cold dark matter from DESI DR2 measurements.arXiv e-prints, 4 2025

    2025

  26. [33]

    Evidence for Dynamical Dark Matter.arXiv e-prints, 4 2025

    Deng Wang. Evidence for Dynamical Dark Matter.arXiv e-prints, 4 2025

    2025

  27. [34]

    Probing Time-Varying Dark Energy with DESI: The Crucial Role of Precision Matter Density (Ωm0) Measurements

    Seokcheon Lee. Probing Time-Varying Dark Energy with DESI: The Crucial Role of Precision Matter Density (Ωm0) Measurements. arXiv e-prints, 5 2025

    2025

  28. [35]

    Beyond the Cosmological Standard Model

    Austin Joyce, Bhuvnesh Jain, Justin Khoury, and Mark Trodden. Beyond the Cosmological Standard Model. Phys. Rept., 568:1–98, 2015

    2015

  29. [36]

    Dark Energy in light of Multi-Messenger Gravitational-Wave astronomy.Front

    Jose María Ezquiaga and Miguel Zumalacárregui. Dark Energy in light of Multi-Messenger Gravitational-Wave astronomy.Front. Astron. Space Sci., 5:44, 2018. – 26 –

    2018

  30. [37]

    Hint towards inconsistency between BAO and Supernovae Dataset: The Evidence of Redshift Evolving Dark Energy from DESI DR2 is Absent

    Samsuzzaman Afroz and Suvodip Mukherjee. Hint towards inconsistency between BAO and Supernovae Dataset: The Evidence of Redshift Evolving Dark Energy from DESI DR2 is Absent. arXiv e-prints, 4 2025

    2025

  31. [38]

    Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?Mon

    George Efstathiou. Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 538(2):875–882, 2025

    2025

  32. [39]

    Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from a Different Angle.arXiv e-prints, 5 2025

    George Efstathiou. Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from a Different Angle.arXiv e-prints, 5 2025

    2025

  33. [40]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Phys. Rev. Lett., 116(6):061102, 2016

    2016

  34. [41]

    B. P. Abbott et al. GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119(16):161101, 2017

    2017

  35. [42]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. GW190521: A Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of150M⊙. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125(10):101102, 2020

    2020

  36. [43]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. GW190814: Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 23 Solar Mass Black Hole with a 2.6 Solar Mass Compact Object.Astrophys. J. Lett., 896(2):L44, 2020

    2020

  37. [44]

    B. P. Abbott et al. A Gravitational-wave Measurement of the Hubble Constant Following the Second Observing Run of Advanced LIGO and Virgo.Astrophys. J., 909(2):218, 2021

    2021

  38. [45]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. Constraints on the Cosmic Expansion History from GWTC–3.Astrophys. J., 949(2):76, 2023

    2023

  39. [46]

    B. P. Abbott et al. A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant. Nature, 551(7678):85–88, 2017

    2017

  40. [47]

    A New Gravitational Wave Probe to the Nature of Dark Energy from the Aging of the Universe: Can Future Detectors Achieve it?arXiv e-prints, 6 2024

    Suvodip Mukherjee. A New Gravitational Wave Probe to the Nature of Dark Energy from the Aging of the Universe: Can Future Detectors Achieve it?arXiv e-prints, 6 2024

    2024

  41. [48]

    Bernard F. Schutz. Determining the Hubble Constant from Gravitational Wave Observations. Nature, 323:310–311, 1986

    1986

  42. [49]

    Holz and Scott A

    Daniel E. Holz and Scott A. Hughes. Using gravitational-wave standard sirens.Astrophys. J., 629:15–22, 2005

    2005

  43. [50]

    Holz, Scott A

    Neal Dalal, Daniel E. Holz, Scott A. Hughes, and Bhuvnesh Jain. Short grb and binary black hole standard sirens as a probe of dark energy.Phys. Rev. D, 74:063006, 2006

    2006

  44. [51]

    Reconstructing the properties of dark energy using standard sirens.Phys

    Maryam Arabsalmani, Varun Sahni, and Tarun Deep Saini. Reconstructing the properties of dark energy using standard sirens.Phys. Rev. D, 87(8):083001, 2013

    2013

  45. [52]

    Mota, and David Parkinson

    Ayan Mitra, Jurgen Mifsud, David F. Mota, and David Parkinson. Cosmology with the Einstein Telescope: No Slip Gravity Model and Redshift Specifications.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 502(4):5563–5575, 2021

    2021

  46. [53]

    Measuring the Hubble constant with neutron star black hole mergers

    Salvatore Vitale and Hsin-Yu Chen. Measuring the Hubble constant with neutron star black hole mergers. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121(2):021303, 2018

    2018

  47. [54]

    Testing modified gravity at cosmological distances with LISA standard sirens

    Enis Belgacem et al. Testing modified gravity at cosmological distances with LISA standard sirens. JCAP, 07:024, 2019

    2019

  48. [55]

    Science Case for the Einstein Telescope.JCAP, 03:050, 2020

    Michele Maggiore et al. Science Case for the Einstein Telescope.JCAP, 03:050, 2020

    2020

  49. [56]

    Wandelt, Samaya M

    Suvodip Mukherjee, Benjamin D. Wandelt, Samaya M. Nissanke, and Alessandra Silvestri. Accurate precision Cosmology with redshift unknown gravitational wave sources.Phys. Rev. D, 103(4):043520, 2021

    2021

  50. [57]

    Mapping the cosmic expansion history from LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA in synergy with DESI and SPHEREx.Mon

    Cristina Cigarran Diaz and Suvodip Mukherjee. Mapping the cosmic expansion history from LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA in synergy with DESI and SPHEREx.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 511(2):2782–2795, 2022. – 27 –

    2022

  51. [58]

    Model-independent cosmology with joint observations of gravitational waves andγ-ray bursts

    Andrea Cozzumbo, Ulyana Dupletsa, Rodrigo Calderón, Riccardo Murgia, Gor Oganesyan, and Marica Branchesi. Model-independent cosmology with joint observations of gravitational waves andγ-ray bursts. arXiv e-prints, 11 2024

    2024

  52. [59]

    Modified gravitational-wave propagation and standard sirens.Phys

    Enis Belgacem, Yves Dirian, Stefano Foffa, and Michele Maggiore. Modified gravitational-wave propagation and standard sirens.Phys. Rev. D, 98(2):023510, 2018

    2018

  53. [60]

    Wandelt, and Joseph Silk

    Suvodip Mukherjee, Benjamin D. Wandelt, and Joseph Silk. Testing the general theory of relativity using gravitational wave propagation from dark standard sirens.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 502(1):1136–1144, 2021

    2021

  54. [61]

    Prospect of precision cosmology and testing general relativity using binary black holes – galaxies cross-correlation.Mon

    Samsuzzaman Afroz and Suvodip Mukherjee. Prospect of precision cosmology and testing general relativity using binary black holes – galaxies cross-correlation.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 534(2):1283–1298, 2024

    2024

  55. [62]

    A New Model-Independent Precision Test of General Relativity using LISA Bright Standard Sirens.JCAP, 6 2024

    Samsuzzaman Afroz and Suvodip Mukherjee. A New Model-Independent Precision Test of General Relativity using LISA Bright Standard Sirens.JCAP, 6 2024

    2024

  56. [63]

    A Model-Independent Precision Test of General Relativity using Bright Standard Sirens from ongoing and upcoming detectors.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 12 2023

    Samsuzzaman Afroz and Suvodip Mukherjee. A Model-Independent Precision Test of General Relativity using Bright Standard Sirens from ongoing and upcoming detectors.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 12 2023

    2023

  57. [64]

    Punturo et al

    M. Punturo et al. The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory. Class. Quant. Grav., 27:194002, 2010

    2010

  58. [65]

    Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs

    Marica Branchesi et al. Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs. JCAP, 07:068, 2023

    2023

  59. [66]

    The Science of the Einstein Telescope.arXiv e-prints, 3 2025

    Adrian Abac et al. The Science of the Einstein Telescope.arXiv e-prints, 3 2025

    2025

  60. [67]

    Cosmic Explorer: The U.S

    David Reitze et al. Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO.Bull. Am. Astron. Soc., 51(7):035, 2019

    2019

  61. [68]

    A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community

    Matthew Evans et al. A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community. 2109.09882, 9 2021

    2021 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Cosmography with next-generation gravitational wave detectors.Class

    Hsin-Yu Chen, Jose María Ezquiaga, and Ish Gupta. Cosmography with next-generation gravitational wave detectors.Class. Quant. Grav., 41(12):125004, 2024

    2024

  63. [70]

    Caldwell, and Nicola Tamanini

    Alberto Mangiagli, Chiara Caprini, Sylvain Marsat, Lorenzo Speri, Robert R. Caldwell, and Nicola Tamanini. Massive black hole binaries in LISA: Constraining cosmological parameters at high redshifts.Phys. Rev. D, 111(8):083043, 2025

    2025

  64. [71]

    Listening Across the Cosmic Time: Standard Sirens from Ground- and Space-Based Missions in the Next Decade

    Alberto Salvarese, Hsin-Yu Chen, Alberto Mangiagli, and Nicola Tamanini. Listening Across the Cosmic Time: Standard Sirens from Ground- and Space-Based Missions in the Next Decade. arXiv e-prints, 6 2025

    2025

  65. [72]

    Cosmological constraints on curved quintessence

    Sukannya Bhattacharya, Giulia Borghetto, Ameek Malhotra, Susha Parameswaran, Gianmassimo Tasinato, and Ivonne Zavala. Cosmological constraints on curved quintessence. JCAP, 09:073, 2024

    2024

  66. [73]

    Harvinder Kaur Jassal, J. S. Bagla, and T. Padmanabhan. Observational constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy: How consistent are different observations?Phys. Rev. D, 72:103503, 2005

    2005

  67. [74]

    E. M. Barboza, Jr. and J. S. Alcaniz. A parametric model for dark energy.Phys. Lett. B, 666:415–419, 2008

    2008

  68. [76]

    Wetterich

    C. Wetterich. Cosmology and the Fate of Dilatation Symmetry.Nucl. Phys. B, 302:668–696, 1988. – 28 –

    1988

  69. [77]

    Bharat Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles. Cosmological Consequences of a Rolling Homogeneous Scalar Field. Phys. Rev. D, 37:3406, 1988

    1988

  70. [78]

    R. R. Caldwell, Rahul Dave, and Paul J. Steinhardt. Cosmological imprint of an energy component with general equation of state.Phys. Rev. Lett., 80:1582–1585, 1998

    1998

  71. [79]

    Ferreira, Dina Traykova, and Miguel Zumalacárregui

    Carlos García-García, Emilio Bellini, Pedro G. Ferreira, Dina Traykova, and Miguel Zumalacárregui. Theoretical priors in scalar-tensor cosmologies: Thawing quintessence.Phys. Rev. D, 101(6):063508, 2020

    2020

  72. [80]

    Wolf, Carlos García-García, Deaglan J

    William J. Wolf, Carlos García-García, Deaglan J. Bartlett, and Pedro G. Ferreira. Scant evidence for thawing quintessence.Phys. Rev. D, 110(8):083528, 2024

    2024

  73. [81]

    Quintessential interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI observations.Phys

    Yuichiro Tada and Takahiro Terada. Quintessential interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI observations.Phys. Rev. D, 109(12):L121305, 2024

    2024

  74. [82]

    Wolf and Pedro G

    William J. Wolf and Pedro G. Ferreira. Underdetermination of dark energy.Phys. Rev. D, 108(10):103519, 2023

    2023

  75. [83]

    Steinhardt

    David Shlivko and Paul J. Steinhardt. Assessing observational constraints on dark energy. Phys. Lett. B, 855:138826, 2024

    2024

  76. [84]

    Bounded Dark Energy

    Giulia Borghetto, Ameek Malhotra, Gianmassimo Tasinato, and Ivonne Zavala. Bounded Dark Energy. arXiv preprint, 3 2025

    2025

  77. [85]

    Hsin-Yu Chen, Maya Fishbach, and Daniel E. Holz. A two per cent Hubble constant measurement from standard sirens within five years.Nature, 562(7728):545–547, 2018

    2018

  78. [86]

    LISA Definition Study Report.arXiv e-prints, 2 2024

    Monica Colpi et al. LISA Definition Study Report.arXiv e-prints, 2 2024

    2024

  79. [87]

    Measuring the binary black hole mass spectrum with an astrophysically motivated parameterization.The Astrophysical Journal, 856(2):173, 2018

    Colm Talbot and Eric Thrane. Measuring the binary black hole mass spectrum with an astrophysically motivated parameterization.The Astrophysical Journal, 856(2):173, 2018

    2018

  80. [88]

    Binary black hole population properties inferred from the first and second observing runs of advanced ligo and advanced virgo.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 882(2):L24, 2019

    BP Abbott, R Abbott, TD Abbott, S Abraham, Fausto Acernese, K Ackley, C Adams, Rana X Adhikari, VB Adya, C Affeldt, et al. Binary black hole population properties inferred from the first and second observing runs of advanced ligo and advanced virgo.The Astrophysical Journal Le...

    2019

  81. [89]

    Population of merging compact binaries inferred using gravitational waves through gwtc-3.Physical Review X, 13(1):011048, 2023

    R Abbott, TD Abbott, F Acernese, K Ackley, C Adams, N Adhikari, RX Adhikari, VB Adya, C Affeldt, D Agarwal, et al. Population of merging compact binaries inferred using gravitational waves through gwtc-3.Physical Review X, 13(1):011048, 2023

    2023

  82. [90]

    Binary compact object coalescence rates: The role of elliptical galaxies.The Astrophysical Journal, 716(1):615, 2010

    R O’shaughnessy, V Kalogera, and Krzysztof Belczynski. Binary compact object coalescence rates: The role of elliptical galaxies.The Astrophysical Journal, 716(1):615, 2010

    2010

  83. [91]

    Double compact objects

    Michal Dominik, Emanuele Berti, Richard O’Shaughnessy, Ilya Mandel, Krzysztof Belczynski, Christopher Fryer, Daniel E Holz, Tomasz Bulik, and Francesco Pannarale. Double compact objects. iii. gravitational-wave detection rates.The Astrophysical Journal, 806(2):263, 2015

    2015

  84. [92]

    Binary black holes population and cosmology in new lights: Signature of pisn mass and formation channel in gwtc-3

    Christos Karathanasis, Suvodip Mukherjee, and Simone Mastrogiovanni. Binary black holes population and cosmology in new lights: Signature of pisn mass and formation channel in gwtc-3. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523(3):4539–4555, 2023

    2023

  85. [93]

    Cosmic star-formation history.Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52:415–486, 2014

    Piero Madau and Mark Dickinson. Cosmic star-formation history.Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52:415–486, 2014

    2014

  86. [94]

    Gwsim: Python package for creating mock gw samples for different astrophysical populations and cosmological models of binary black holes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.05724, 2022

    Karathanasis et al. Gwsim: Python package for creating mock gw samples for different astrophysical populations and cosmological models of binary black holes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.05724, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Gravitational waves: Volume 1: Theory and experiments

    Michele Maggiore. Gravitational waves: Volume 1: Theory and experiments. OUP Oxford, 2007. – 29 –

    2007

  88. [96]

    Choice of filters for the detection of gravitational waves from coalescing binaries.Physical Review D, 44(12):3819, 1991

    Bangalore Suryanarayana Sathyaprakash and SV Dhurandhar. Choice of filters for the detection of gravitational waves from coalescing binaries.Physical Review D, 44(12):3819, 1991

    1991

  89. [97]

    Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral waveform?Physical Review D, 49(6):2658, 1994

    Curt Cutler and Eanna E Flanagan. Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral waveform?Physical Review D, 49(6):2658, 1994

    1994

  90. [98]

    Gravitational waves from coalescing binaries: Detection strategies and monte carlo estimation of parameters.Physical Review D, 53(6):3033, 1996

    Ramachandran Balasubramanian, Bangalore Suryanarayana Sathyaprakash, and SV Dhurandhar. Gravitational waves from coalescing binaries: Detection strategies and monte carlo estimation of parameters.Physical Review D, 53(6):3033, 1996

    1996

  91. [99]

    Gravitational Waves

    Michele Maggiore. Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments. Oxford University Press, 2007

    2007

  92. [100]

    Template bank for gravitational waveforms from coalescing binary black holes: Nonspinning binaries

    Ajith et al. Template bank for gravitational waveforms from coalescing binary black holes: Nonspinning binaries. Physical Review D, 77(10):104017, 2008

    2008

  93. [101]

    Observing binary inspiral in gravitational radiation: One interferometer

    Lee Samuel Finn and David F Chernoff. Observing binary inspiral in gravitational radiation: One interferometer. Physical Review D, 47(6):2198, 1993

    1993

  94. [102]

    Binary inspiral, gravitational radiation, and cosmology.Physical Review D, 53(6):2878, 1996

    Lee Samuel Finn. Binary inspiral, gravitational radiation, and cosmology.Physical Review D, 53(6):2878, 1996

    1996

  95. [103]

    Bilby: A user-friendly bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy.The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 241(2):27, 2019

    Gregory Ashton, Moritz Hübner, Paul D Lasky, Colm Talbot, Kendall Ackley, Sylvia Biscoveanu, Qi Chu, Atul Divakarla, Paul J Easter, Boris Goncharov, et al. Bilby: A user-friendly bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy.The Astrophysical Journal Supplement S...

    2019

  96. [104]

    Parameter estimation with a spinning multimode waveform model.Physical Review D, 101(10):103004, 2020

    Chinmay Kalaghatgi, Mark Hannam, and Vivien Raymond. Parameter estimation with a spinning multimode waveform model.Physical Review D, 101(10):103004, 2020

    2020

  97. [105]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters.Astron. Astrophys., 594:A13, 2016

    2015

  98. [106]

    Mpetha, Giuseppe Congedo, and Andy Taylor

    Charlie T. Mpetha, Giuseppe Congedo, and Andy Taylor. Future prospects on testing extensions to ΛCDM through the weak lensing of gravitational waves.Phys. Rev. D, 107(10):103518, 2023

    2023

  99. [107]

    Hirata, Daniel E

    Christopher M. Hirata, Daniel E. Holz, and Curt Cutler. Reducing the weak lensing noise for the gravitational wave hubble diagram using the non-gaussianity of the magnification distribution. Physical Review D, 81(12):124046, 2010

    2010

  100. [108]

    Dependence of peculiar velocity on the host properties of the gravitational wave sources and its impact on the measurement of Hubble constant

    Harshank Nimonkar and Suvodip Mukherjee. Dependence of peculiar velocity on the host properties of the gravitational wave sources and its impact on the measurement of Hubble constant. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 527(2):2152–2164, 2023

    2023

  101. [109]

    W. Zhao, C. Van Den Broeck, D. Baskaran, and T. G. F. Li. Determination of Dark Energy by the Einstein Telescope: Comparing with CMB, BAO and SNIa Observations.Phys. Rev. D, 83:023005, 2011

    2011

  102. [110]

    Scherrer

    Sourish Dutta and Robert J. Scherrer. Evolution of Oscillating Scalar Fields as Dark Energy. Phys. Rev. D, 78:083512, 2008

    2008

  103. [111]

    R. R. Caldwell and Eric V. Linder. The Limits of quintessence.Phys. Rev. Lett., 95:141301, 2005

    2005

  104. [112]

    Astropy: A community python package for astronomy.arXiv preprint arXiv:1307.6212, 2013

    Thomas P Robitaille, Erik J Tollerud, Perry Greenfield, Michael Droettboom, Erik Bray, Tom Aldcroft, Matt Davis, Adam Ginsburg, Adrian M Price-Whelan, Wolfgang E Kerzendorf, et al. Astropy: A community python package for astronomy.arXiv preprint arXiv:1307.6212, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  105. [113]

    The astropy project: building an – 30 – open-science project and status of the v2

    Adrian M Price-Whelan, BM Sipőcz, HM Günther, PL Lim, SM Crawford, S Conseil, DL Shupe, MW Craig, N Dencheva, A Ginsburg, et al. The astropy project: building an – 30 – open-science project and status of the v2. 0 core package.The Astronomical Journal, 156(3):123, 2018

    2018

  106. [114]

    pandas: a foundational python library for data analysis and statistics

    Wes McKinney et al. pandas: a foundational python library for data analysis and statistics. Python for high performance and scientific computing, 14(9):1–9, 2011

    2011

  107. [115]

    Array programming with numpy.Nature, 585(7825):357–362, 2020

    Charles R Harris, K Jarrod Millman, Stéfan J Van Der Walt, Ralf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau, Eric Wieser, Julian Taylor, Sebastian Berg, Nathaniel J Smith, et al. Array programming with numpy.Nature, 585(7825):357–362, 2020

    2020

  108. [116]

    Scipy/scipy: Scipy 0.19

    Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E Oliphant, Evgeni Burovski, David Cournapeau, Warren Weckesser, Pearu Peterson, Stefan van der Walt, Denis Laxalde, Matthew Brett, et al. Scipy/scipy: Scipy 0.19. 0.Zenodo, 2020

    2020

  109. [117]

    Dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating bayesian posteriors and evidences.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493(3):3132–3158, 2020

    Joshua S Speagle. Dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating bayesian posteriors and evidences.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493(3):3132–3158, 2020

    2020

  110. [118]

    emcee: the mcmc hammer

    Daniel Foreman-Mackey, David W Hogg, Dustin Lang, and Jonathan Goodman. emcee: the mcmc hammer. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125(925):306, 2013

    2013

  111. [119]

    J. D. Hunter. Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment.Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(3):90–95, 2007. – 31 –

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.