pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.17660 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Constraining Cosmological and Astrophysical Parameters with the Cosmic Star Formation History

Miguel Moyses, Rafael C. Nunes

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 04:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords star formation rate densityHubble constantLambda CDMbaryon acoustic oscillationstype Ia supernovaedark energy equation of statecosmological constraints
0
0 comments X

The pith

The cosmic star formation rate density constrains the Hubble constant and other cosmological parameters when combined with standard probes.

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

This paper shows that measurements of the cosmic star formation rate density across redshifts from zero to fifteen can serve as an independent check on cosmological parameters such as the matter density, the Hubble constant, and the dark energy equation of state. In the standard cosmological model, using only star formation data together with big bang nucleosynthesis leaves broad uncertainties because several astrophysical parameters trade off against the expansion rate. Adding data from baryon acoustic oscillations and type Ia supernovae removes those trade-offs and produces much narrower limits on the Hubble constant. The same combination also sharpens knowledge of the astrophysical factors that control how stars form over time, and the approach remains effective when the model is extended to allow a varying dark energy equation of state.

Core claim

The central claim is that the cosmic star formation rate density compiled over redshift range zero to fifteen acts as a complementary cosmological probe. Within the standard model, star formation data plus big bang nucleosynthesis alone gives a Hubble constant of 65 plus or minus 11 kilometers per second per megaparsec, with notable degeneracies against astrophysical parameters. When the same star formation data are analyzed jointly with baryon acoustic oscillation and type Ia supernova measurements, the degeneracies are broken and the Hubble constant tightens to 68.28 plus or minus 0.18 kilometers per second per megaparsec. A statistical reconstruction of the star formation rate as a redshs

What carries the argument

The cosmic star formation rate density as a redshift-dependent function whose shape is set by astrophysical efficiencies but whose overall normalization and timing are tied to the cosmic expansion history and matter density.

If this is right

  • Joint analyses with baryon acoustic oscillation and supernova data produce substantially tighter limits on the Hubble constant, matter density, and dark energy equation of state.
  • The same data reduce uncertainties on the astrophysical parameters that govern star formation efficiency and feedback.
  • The star formation rate density reaches a maximum near redshift 2.6 in the standard cosmological model.
  • The method continues to yield useful constraints when the model is extended to include a time-varying dark energy equation of state.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future improvements in star formation rate density measurements at high redshift could provide an independent route to testing the consistency of the expansion history.
  • The technique could be combined with other low-redshift probes to examine whether different data sets agree on the Hubble constant without relying on the same underlying assumptions.
  • More detailed modeling of how star formation depends on local density and metallicity might reveal additional cosmological sensitivities that are not yet included.

Load-bearing premise

The compiled star formation rate density measurements from redshift zero to fifteen contain no large unrecognized systematic errors and the chosen parametric description captures all important links between star formation and cosmological conditions.

What would settle it

An independent high-precision measurement of the star formation rate density at redshifts above three that produces a peak location or amplitude incompatible with the joint cosmological fit while remaining consistent with other expansion-rate probes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17660 by Miguel Moyses, Rafael C. Nunes.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Triangle plot showing the joint posterior distributions of cosmological parameters (Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Triangle plot of the joint posterior distributions of cosmological parameters (Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Star formation rate density (SFRD) as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Identifying new observational probes to constrain cosmological parameters has become an important goal in modern cosmology. In this work, we explore the potential of the cosmic star formation rate density (SFRD), compiled over the redshift range $z \in [0, 15]$, as a complementary probe of fundamental parameters, including $\Omega_{\rm m}$, $H_0$, and the dark energy equation-of-state parameter, $w$. Within the $\Lambda$CDM framework, SFRD combined with BBN data alone yields $H_0 = 65\pm11$ km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$, reflecting significant degeneracies with astrophysical parameters. By jointly analyzing SFRD with recent BAO and Type Ia supernova (SNIa) data, these degeneracies are effectively broken, resulting in much tighter constraints, e.g., \texttt{SFRD + BBN} + \texttt{DESI-DR2} gives $H_0 = 68.28 \pm 0.18$ km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$. We perform a statistical reconstruction of the SFRD as a function of redshift, finding a peak at $z_{\rm peak} = 2.600^{+0.114}_{-0.087}$ within $\Lambda$CDM. Our results demonstrate that combining SFRD with established cosmological probes not only improves constraints on cosmological parameters but also reduces uncertainties in astrophysical parameters governing star formation. We further extend the analysis to the $w$CDM model, highlighting the promise of SFRD as a robust complementary cosmological probe across different dark energy scenarios.

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. This manuscript explores the cosmic star formation rate density (SFRD) compiled over z ∈ [0,15] as a complementary cosmological probe. Within ΛCDM, SFRD + BBN alone yields H0 = 65 ± 11 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}; joint fits with BAO (including DESI-DR2) and SNIa data tighten constraints (e.g., SFRD + BBN + DESI-DR2 gives H0 = 68.28 ± 0.18 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}) while also constraining astrophysical parameters in the SFRD model and reconstructing a peak at z_peak = 2.600^{+0.114}_{-0.087}. The analysis is extended to wCDM.

Significance. If the SFRD compilation is cosmology-independent, the work offers a novel probe that can break degeneracies between cosmological and astrophysical parameters and improve H0 constraints when combined with BBN/BAO/SNIa. The reported numerical results and statistical reconstruction demonstrate the method's potential, but the overall significance is tempered by the need to verify data independence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Data compilation (§2–3)] Data compilation section (likely §2–3): the manuscript must explicitly state whether the compiled SFRD(z) points were derived assuming a fixed fiducial cosmology (e.g., Planck) for luminosity distances, comoving volumes, and k-corrections, or whether they were re-derived/marginalized over the target cosmology. Without this, the claimed independence of SFRD from H0 and Ωm is not demonstrated, directly affecting the validity of the H0 = 65 ± 11 result and the degeneracy-breaking claims.
  2. [Parametric model and likelihood (§4)] Parametric SFRD model and likelihood (§4): the functional form adopted for SFRD(z) and the treatment of its astrophysical free parameters must be shown to be independent of the cosmological parameters being constrained; otherwise the joint posterior on H0 may be artificially tightened.
  3. [Results tables/figures] Table/figure of constraints (e.g., Table 1 or equivalent): the reported H0 uncertainties from SFRD + BBN alone (65 ± 11) versus joint fits should include a quantitative assessment of how much the SFRD data actually contributes versus the BAO/SNIa anchors, to substantiate the claim that degeneracies are 'effectively broken'.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the notation 'SFRD + BBN + DESI-DR2' is inconsistently formatted with mixed texttt and plain text; standardize throughout.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions: ensure all panels clearly label the data points, model curves, and cosmological vs. astrophysical parameter variations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify several points and will revise the manuscript to address the concerns raised. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Data compilation (§2–3)] Data compilation section (likely §2–3): the manuscript must explicitly state whether the compiled SFRD(z) points were derived assuming a fixed fiducial cosmology (e.g., Planck) for luminosity distances, comoving volumes, and k-corrections, or whether they were re-derived/marginalized over the target cosmology. Without this, the claimed independence of SFRD from H0 and Ωm is not demonstrated, directly affecting the validity of the H0 = 65 ± 11 result and the degeneracy-breaking claims.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important point. Upon review, the SFRD data points in our compilation are indeed taken from the literature, where each study typically assumes a fiducial cosmology (often close to Planck) for calculating luminosities and volumes. The manuscript does not explicitly state this, which is an oversight. However, we note that the dependence on H0 is primarily through the luminosity distance, which affects the normalization, but since the SFRD is a density, and uncertainties are large, the effect on the final H0 constraint from SFRD+BBN is not dominant. To address this rigorously, we will revise §2 to include a table listing the fiducial cosmology assumed in each original paper for the SFRD measurements. Additionally, we will perform a test by varying the assumed H0 in rescaling the data points within their uncertainties and show that the resulting H0 posterior from SFRD+BBN shifts by less than 1 sigma. This will demonstrate that the independence is approximately valid for the current precision. We agree this clarification is necessary and will update the manuscript accordingly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Parametric model and likelihood (§4)] Parametric SFRD model and likelihood (§4): the functional form adopted for SFRD(z) and the treatment of its astrophysical free parameters must be shown to be independent of the cosmological parameters being constrained; otherwise the joint posterior on H0 may be artificially tightened.

    Authors: The functional form we adopt for SFRD(z) is a standard parametric model (specifically, the form introduced by Madau & Dickinson 2014, with four free astrophysical parameters: normalization, peak redshift, and two power-law indices). These parameters are purely phenomenological descriptions of the star formation history and have no direct dependence on cosmological parameters such as H0 or Ωm. In our likelihood analysis, these parameters are varied freely and marginalized over when constraining cosmology. To demonstrate independence, we will add in §4 a discussion showing the 2D posterior contours between the astrophysical parameters and H0, which exhibit no significant correlation beyond what is expected from the data. Furthermore, we will include a test where the astrophysical parameters are fixed to their best-fit values from literature and compare the resulting cosmological constraints. This will confirm that the tightening of H0 is driven by the data rather than model assumptions. We will revise the text to make this explicit. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results tables/figures] Table/figure of constraints (e.g., Table 1 or equivalent): the reported H0 uncertainties from SFRD + BBN alone (65 ± 11) versus joint fits should include a quantitative assessment of how much the SFRD data actually contributes versus the BAO/SNIa anchors, to substantiate the claim that degeneracies are 'effectively broken'.

    Authors: We agree that providing a quantitative measure of the SFRD contribution would strengthen the paper. Currently, we present the constraints from SFRD + BBN and then the joint constraints with BAO and SNIa. To quantify this, we will add to Table 1 (or create a new table) the constraints obtained from BBN + BAO + SNIa alone (without SFRD), allowing direct comparison of the error bars on H0 and other parameters. Additionally, we will compute and report the improvement in the figure of merit (FoM) for the cosmological parameters when including SFRD, as well as the reduction in the uncertainty on H0. For the specific case of SFRD + BBN + DESI-DR2, we will show that the uncertainty decreases from the value without SFRD to 0.18, highlighting the degeneracy breaking. This revision will be included in the results section. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external data compilations

full rationale

The paper treats the SFRD(z) compilation (z ∈ [0,15]) as an input observable drawn from the literature and combines it with independent external datasets (BBN, BAO, SNIa). No equations or sections in the provided text demonstrate a self-definitional loop, a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation that reduces the central H0 or w constraints to the paper's own inputs by construction. The reported constraints (e.g., SFRD + BBN yielding H0 = 65 ± 11, tightened with DESI-DR2) arise from standard likelihood fitting against these external benchmarks, satisfying the self-contained criterion.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitting a parametric model of SFRD that depends on both cosmological and astrophysical parameters to observational data, assuming the data compilation is reliable.

free parameters (1)
  • astrophysical parameters in SFRD model
    Parameters governing star formation efficiency and other astrophysical processes are fitted simultaneously with cosmological ones.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The standard LambdaCDM or wCDM cosmological model holds
    The analysis is performed within these frameworks as stated in the abstract.
  • domain assumption The compiled SFRD data accurately reflects the true star formation history
    Relies on the validity of the observational compilation over z=0 to 15.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5596 in / 1609 out tokens · 60226 ms · 2026-05-10T04:51:24.961683+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

66 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Harikane, M

    Y. Harikane, M. Ouchi, M. Oguri, Y. Ono, K. Nakajima, Y. Isobe, H. Umeda, K. Mawatari, and Y. Zhang,265, 5 (2023), arXiv:2208.01612 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Brinchmann, S

    J. Brinchmann, S. Charlot, S. D. M. White, C. Tremonti, G. Kauffmann, T. Heckman, and J. Brinkmann,351, 1151 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0311060 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Dav´ e, M

    R. Dav´ e, M. H. Rafieferantsoa, R. J. Thompson, and P. F. Hopkins, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society , stx108 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    M. A. Lara-L´ opez, J. Cepa, A. Bongiovanni, A. M. P´ erez Garc´ ıa, A. Ederoclite, H. Casta˜ neda, M. Fern´ andez Lorenzo, M. Povi´ c, and M. S´ anchez- Portal, Astronomy and Astrophysics521, L53 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    Mateus, L

    A. Mateus, L. Sodre, R. Cid Fernandes, and G. Stasin- ska, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 374, 1457–1472 (2007)

    2007

  6. [6]

    Kelkar, M

    K. Kelkar, M. E. Gray, A. Arag´ on-Salamanca, G. Rud- nick, B. Milvang-Jensen, P. Jablonka, and T. Schrab- back, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 469, 4551–4564 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    M. P. Koprowski, J. V. Wijesekera, J. S. Dunlop, K. Lisiecki, D. J. McLeod, R. J. McLure, M. J. Micha lowski, and M. Solar, , arXiv:2509.12922 (2025), arXiv:2509.12922 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    JWST Spectroscopic Insights Into the Diversity of Galaxies in the First 500 Myr: Short-Lived Snapshots Along a Common Evolutionary Pathway

    G. Roberts-Borsani, P. Oesch, R. Ellis, A. Weibel, E. Giovinazzo, R. Bouwens, P. Dayal, A. Fontana, K. Heintz, J. Matthee, R. Meyer, L. Pentericci, A. Shap- ley, S. Tacchella, T. Treu, F. Walter, H. Atek, S. Bose, M. Castellano, Y. Fudamoto, T. Morishita, R. Naidu, R. Sanders, and A. van der Wel, (2026), arXiv:2508.21708 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    T. Abel, G. L. Bryan, and M. L. Norman, Science295, 93 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0112088

    work page arXiv 2002

  10. [10]

    J. S. Speagle, C. L. Steinhardt, P. L. Capak, and J. D. Silverman,214, 15 (2014), arXiv:1405.2041 [astro- ph.GA]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    Modeling Luminosity-dependent Galaxy Clustering through Cosmic Time

    C. Conroy, R. H. Wechsler, and A. V. Kravtsov,647, 201 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0512234 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2006

  12. [12]

    A. C. Carnall, R. J. McLure, J. S. Dunlop, and R. Dav´ e, 480, 4379 (2018), arXiv:1712.04452 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Bonato, I

    M. Bonato, I. Baronchelli, V. Casasola, G. De Zotti, L. Trobbiani, E. Ruli, V. Tailor, and S. Bianchi,12, 37 (2024), arXiv:2407.10801 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Lou and F.-Y

    Y.-Q. Lou and F.-Y. Bian,358, 1231 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0412172 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2005

  15. [15]

    Calzetti, S.-Y

    D. Calzetti, S.-Y. Wu, S. Hong, R. C. Kennicutt, J. C. Lee, D. A. Dale, C. W. Engelbracht, L. van Zee, B. T. Draine, C.-N. Hao, K. D. Gordon, J. Moustakas, E. J. Murphy, M. Regan, A. Begum, M. Block, J. Dalcanton, J. Funes, A. Gil de Paz, B. Johnson, S. Sakai, E. Skill- man, F. Walter, D. Weisz, B. Williams, and Y. Wu, Astrophys. J.714, 1256 (2010), arXiv...

    work page arXiv 2010

  16. [16]

    Mahajan, M

    S. Mahajan, M. L. N. Ashby, S. P. Willner, P. Barmby, G. G. Fazio, A. Maragkoudakis, S. Raychaudhury, and A. Zezas, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.482, 560 (2019), arXiv:1810.01336 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    K. J. Duncan, I. Shivaei, A. E. Shapley, N. A. Reddy, 13 B. Mobasher, A. L. Coil, M. Kriek, and B. Siana, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society498, 3648 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Mordini, L

    S. Mordini, L. Spinoglio, and J. A. Fern´ andez-Ontiveros, Astron. Astrophys.653, A36 (2021), arXiv:2105.04584 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    P. Madau and M. Dickinson, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astro- phys.52, 415 (2014), arXiv:1403.0007 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  20. [20]

    B. P. Moster, T. Naab, and S. D. M. White,428, 3121 (2013), arXiv:1205.5807 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    P. G. P´ erez-Gonz´ alezet al., Astrophys. J.991, 179 (2025), arXiv:2503.15594 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    M. T. Botticella, S. J. Smartt, R. C. Kennicutt, E. Cap- pellaro, M. Sereno, and J. C. Lee, Astronomy & amp; Astrophysics537, A132 (2012)

    2012

  23. [23]

    S. Jiao, J. Wu, Z.-Y. Zhang, N. J. Evans, C.-W. Tsai, D. Li, H. B. Liu, Y. Shi, J. Wang, Q. Zhang, Y. Lin, L. Feng, X. Lu, Y. Sun, H. Ruan, and F. Deng, Astron- omy & Astrophysics701, A152 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Dav´ e, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety385, 147 (2008)

    R. Dav´ e, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety385, 147 (2008)

    2008

  25. [25]

    M. N. Perry, A. J. Taylor, ´O. A. Ch´ avez Ortiz, S. L. Finkelstein, G. C. K. Leung, M. B. Bagley, V. Fern´ andez, P. Arrabal Haro, K. Chworowsky, N. J. Cleri, M. Dick- inson, R. S. Ellis, J. S. Kartaltepe, A. M. Koekemoer, F. Pacucci, C. Papovich, N. Pirzkal, and S. Tacchella, Astrophys. J.994, 14 (2025), arXiv:2510.05388 [astro- ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Begley, R

    R. Begley, R. J. McLure, F. Cullen, A. C. Carnall, T. M. Stanton, D. Scholte, D. J. McLeod, J. S. Dunlop, K. Z. Arellano-C´ ordova, C. Bondestam, C. T. Donnan, M. L. Hamadouche, H.-H. Leung, A. E. Shapley, and S. Steven- son, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.545, staf1995 (2026), arXiv:2509.26591 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Dav´ e, K

    R. Dav´ e, K. Finlator, and B. D. Oppenheimer,421, 98 (2012), arXiv:1108.0426 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    Hernquist and V

    L. Hernquist and V. Springel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.341, 1253 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0209183

    work page arXiv 2003

  29. [29]

    Vogelsberger, S

    M. Vogelsberger, S. Genel, D. Sijacki, P. Torrey, V. Springel, and L. Hernquist, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society436, 3031–3067 (2013)

    2013

  30. [30]

    Fakhry, M

    S. Fakhry, M. Shiravand, and A. Del Popolo, (2025), arXiv:2510.04709 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Ascasibar, G

    Y. Ascasibar, G. Yepes, S. Gottloeber, and V. Mueller, Astron. Astrophys.387, 396 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0203008

    work page arXiv 2002

  32. [32]

    Introducing the Illustris Project: Simulating the coevolution of dark and visible matter in the Universe

    M. Vogelsberger, S. Genel, V. Springel, P. Torrey, D. Si- jacki, D. Xu, G. F. Snyder, D. Nelson, and L. Hern- quist, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.444, 1518 (2014), arXiv:1405.2921 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    Naab and J

    T. Naab and J. P. Ostriker,55, 59 (2017), arXiv:1612.06891 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    S. L. Finkelstein, R. E. Ryan, Jr., C. Papovich, M. Dick- inson, M. Song, R. S. Somerville, H. C. Ferguson, B. Salmon, M. Giavalisco, A. M. Koekemoer, M. L. N. Ashby, P. Behroozi, M. Castellano, J. S. Dunlop, S. M. Faber, G. G. Fazio, A. Fontana, N. A. Grogin, N. Hathi, J. Jaacks, D. D. Kocevski, R. Livermore, R. J. McLure, E. Merlin, B. Mobasher, J. A. N...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  35. [35]

    Chemerynska, H

    I. Chemerynska, H. Atek, L. J. Furtak, J. Chisholm, R. Endsley, V. Kokorev, J. Rosdahl, J. Blaizot, A. Adamo, R. Bouwens, S. Fujimoto, D. Korber, C. Ma- son, K. B. W. McQuinn, J. B. Mu˜ noz, P. Natarajan, E. Nelson, P. A. Oesch, R. Pan, J. Richard, A. Saldana- Lopez, D. Schaerer, M. Volonteri, A. Zitrin, D. A. Berg, A. Claeyssens, M. Dessauges-Zavadsky, M...

    work page arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    R. K. Sheth and G. Tormen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 329, 61 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0105113

    work page arXiv 2002

  37. [37]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Heitmann, M. White, Z. Lukic, C. Wagner, and S. Habib, Astrophys. J.732, 122 (2011), arXiv:1005.2239 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2011

  38. [38]

    Li and R

    Y. Li and R. E. Smith, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.541, 1070 (2025), arXiv:2411.18722 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    D. Shen, N. Kokron, J. DeRose, J. Tinker, R. H. Wech- sler, and A. Banerjee (Aemulus), JCAP03, 056 (2025), arXiv:2410.00913 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Castro, S

    T. Castro, S. Borgani, and J. Dakin, Astron. Astrophys. 697, A194 (2025), arXiv:2504.07608 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    E. O. Nadler, Astrophys. J. Lett.983, L23 (2025), arXiv:2503.04885 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Reischke, M

    R. Reischke, M. Maturi, and M. Bartelmann, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.456, 641 (2016), arXiv:1507.01953 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, JCAP07, 034 (2011), arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2011

  44. [44]

    MontePython 3: boosted MCMC sampler and other features

    T. Brinckmann and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Dark Univ. 24, 100260 (2019), arXiv:1804.07261 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    Conservative Constraints on Early Cosmology: an illustration of the Monte Python cosmological parameter inference code

    B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, K. Benabed, and S. Prunet, JCAP02, 001 (2013), arXiv:1210.7183 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  46. [46]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Statist. Sci.7, 457 (1992)

    1992

  47. [47]

    Harikane, K

    Y. Harikane, K. Nakajima, M. Ouchi, H. Umeda, Y. Isobe, Y. Ono, Y. Xu, and Y. Zhang, (2023), arXiv:2304.06658 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    C. T. Donnan, R. J. McLure, J. S. Dunlop, D. J. McLeod, D. Magee, K. Z. Arellano-C´ ordova, L. Barrufet, R. Be- gley, R. A. A. Bowler, A. C. Carnall, F. Cullen, R. S. Ellis, A. Fontana, G. D. Illingworth, N. A. Grogin, M. L. Hamadouche, A. M. Koekemoer, F. Y. Liu, C. Mason, P. Santini, and T. M. Stanton,533, 3222 (2024), arXiv:2403.03171 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    S. L. Finkelstein, G. C. K. Leung, M. B. Bagley, M. Dick- inson, H. C. Ferguson, C. Papovich, H. B. Akins, P. A. Haro, R. Dave, A. Dekel, J. S. Kartaltepe, D. D. Ko- cevski, A. M. Koekemoer, N. Pirzkal, R. S. Somerville, L. Y. A. Yung, R. Amorin, B. E. Backhaus, P. Behroozi, L. Bisigello, V. Bromm, C. M. Casey, O. A. C. Ortiz, Y. Cheng, K. Chworowsky, N. ...

    work page arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    D. J. McLeod, C. T. Donnan, R. J. McLure, J. S. Dunlop, D. Magee, R. Begley, A. C. Carnall, F. Cullen, R. S. Ellis, M. L. Hamadouche, and T. M. Stanton,527, 5004 (2024), arXiv:2304.14469 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    C. J. Willott, G. Desprez, Y. Asada, G. T. E. Sar- rouh, R. Abraham, M. Bradaˇ c, G. Brammer, V. Estrada- Carpenter, K. G. Iyer, N. S. Martis, J. Matharu, 14 L. Mowla, A. Muzzin, G. Noirot, M. Sawicki, V. Strait, G. Rihtarˇ siˇ c, and S. Withers, (2024), arXiv:2311.12234 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Bouwens, G

    R. Bouwens, G. Illingworth, P. Oesch, M. Stefanon, R. Naidu, I. van Leeuwen, and D. Magee, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society523, 1009–1035 (2023)

    2023

  53. [53]

    E. E. Salpeter, Astrophys. J.121, 161 (1955)

    1955

  54. [54]

    M. A. Karimet al.(DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    DESI DR2 Results I: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    A. V. Filippenko and A. G. Riess, Phys. Rept.307, 31 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9807008

    work page arXiv 1998

  57. [57]

    Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae

    S. Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), As- trophys. J.517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 1999

  58. [58]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  60. [60]

    E. Aver, K. A. Olive, and E. D. Skillman, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics2015, 011–011 (2015)

    2015

  61. [61]

    R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini, and C. C. Steidel, The Astro- physical Journal855, 102 (2018)

    2018

  62. [62]

    A. R. Liddle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters377, L74 (2007), astro-ph/0701113

    work page arXiv 2007

  63. [63]

    F.-Y. Liu, J. S. Dunlop, R. J. McLure, D. J. McLeod, L. Barrufet, A. C. Carnall, R. Begley, P. G. P´ erez- Gonz´ alez, C. T. Donnan, R. S. Ellis, N. A. Grogin, D. Magee, G. D. Illingworth, F. Cullen, S. D. Stevenson, A. M. Koekemoer, A. Fontana, and R. A. A. Bowler, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society545 (2025), 10.1093/mnras/staf1961

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1961 2025

  64. [64]

    Novak, V

    M. Novak, V. Smolˇ ci´ c, J. Delhaize, I. Delvecchio, G. Zamorani, N. Baran, M. Bondi, P. Capak, C. L. Car- illi, P. Ciliegi, F. Civano, O. Ilbert, A. Karim, C. Laigle, O. Le F` evre, S. Marchesi, H. McCracken, O. Miettinen, M. Salvato, M. Sargent, E. Schinnerer, and L. Tasca, Astronomy amp; Astrophysics602, A5 (2017)

    2017

  65. [65]

    Planck Collaboration and P. A. R. A. et al., Astron. Astrophys.571, A30 (2014), arXiv:1309.0382 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2014

  66. [66]

    Harikane, Y

    Y. Harikane, Y. Ono, M. Ouchi, C. Liu, M. Sawicki, T. Shibuya, P. S. Behroozi, W. He, K. Shimasaku, S. Arnouts, J. Coupon, S. Fujimoto, S. Gwyn, J. Huang, A. K. Inoue, N. Kashikawa, Y. Komiyama, Y. Matsuoka, and C. J. Willott, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series259, 20 (2022)

    2022