arxiv: 2605.13427 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: unknown

Latent-Space Gaussian Processes for Dark-Energy Reconstruction from Observational $H(z)$ Data

Jia-yan Jiang, Tong-Jie Zhang, Wei Hong

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 18:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO

keywords Gaussian processesdark energy reconstructionobservational Hubble datacosmic chronometersequation of stateLambda CDMlatent space

0 comments

The pith

Placing a Gaussian process prior directly on dark-energy density f(z) yields viable reconstructions from Hubble data consistent with Lambda CDM.

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

This work introduces a Gaussian-process framework for reconstructing the normalized dark-energy density f(z) and equation of state w(z) using 37 cosmic-chronometer Hubble parameter observations. It tests different latent spaces for the prior: directly on f(z), on H(z), and a log-f version to enforce positivity. Real data analyses via leave-one-out cross-validation show no strong preference between the latent-f and latent-H approaches, with all reconstructions aligning with Lambda CDM. Mock data from evolving models demonstrate that the method detects injected deviations, though success depends on high-redshift data quality. The results indicate that latent-f serves as a practical alternative, with current limitations arising from sparse high-redshift measurements and prior choices.

Core claim

The authors demonstrate that Gaussian process reconstructions of f(z), w(z), and Om(z) from observational Hubble data are consistent with Lambda CDM whether the prior is placed on f(z) or H(z). Differences between these latent constructions are small, prior-dependent, and mostly appear in the high-redshift tail where data is sparse. Cross-validation finds comparable predictive performance, while mock tests confirm the framework's ability to respond to mild dark-energy evolution when data coverage is improved.

What carries the argument

Latent-space Gaussian process prior on the normalized dark-energy density f(z) or Hubble parameter H(z), used within a Bayesian framework to reconstruct dark energy evolution.

If this is right

Real-data reconstructions remain consistent with a cosmological constant across different external priors.
Mock data tests show the framework detects mild evolution in w(z) and Om(z) when high-redshift coverage is sufficient.
Improved high-redshift OHD reduces discrepancies between latent-f and latent-H methods.
Apparent trends in Om(z) are sensitive to prior choice and do not provide robust evidence for dark energy evolution.
The log-f branch enforces positive density without altering the primary conclusions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Applying this method to larger future OHD datasets could better constrain possible deviations from Lambda CDM.
Integrating the reconstruction with supernova or BAO data might mitigate the dependence on external priors.
Exploring a broader set of GP kernels could test whether the current results hold under different smoothness assumptions.
The viability of latent-f suggests similar direct priors could be tested in other cosmological inference problems.

Load-bearing premise

The Gaussian process kernel and external priors do not introduce systematic biases into the reconstruction of f(z) and Om(z) at high redshifts where data coverage is poorest.

What would settle it

High-redshift Hubble parameter observations that yield a reconstructed Om(z) deviating significantly from a constant when analyzed with this Gaussian process method, even after varying the priors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13427 by Jia-yan Jiang, Tong-Jie Zhang, Wei Hong.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: presents the pointwise Pareto-ˆki values for the reconstructions under comparison. For all reported reconstructions, maxi( ˆki) < 0.7, indicating that the PSISLOO approximation remains acceptable in the main-text comparison. The pointwise behavior is nevertheless redshift dependent, with the largest ˆki values occurring toward the high-redshift tail. Across the broader kernel scan, including non-select… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: , posterior broadening in the derived w(z) is most pronounced when the highest-redshift tail is retained and becomes milder after truncation. Table V summarizes the interval-level ROPE diagnostics from pooled A/B real-data results under matched priors. Across intervals, the pooled median discrepancy increases from AI = 1.95–2.09 in I = [0, 1] to 4.18–4.53 in I = [1.5, 2], while the posterior mass below th… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Posterior pole-crossing diagnostics for the Planck2018 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. A-log- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Representative mock-recovery example for the observed-sampling OHD-like configuration: fiducial ΛCDM truth. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Pointwise cross-method discrepancy diagnostics in re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The qualitative conclusion is unchanged across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Posterior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Pointwise PSIS-LOO contribution differences, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Supplementary same-prior reconstructions between Methods A and B under nested redshift truncations. Panels (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Supplementary A-log- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. Supplementary mock-recovery examples completing the four-scenario set discussed in Sec. IV E: the observed-sampling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Using the 37-point cosmic-chronometer subset of observational Hubble parameter (OHD) data, we develop a Bayesian Gaussian-process framework to reconstruct the normalized dark-energy density $f(z)$ and equation of state $w(z)$, focusing on how the choice of latent space affects the inference. We compare a Gaussian-process prior placed directly on $f(z)$ with the conventional latent-$H$ formulation, and also test a log-$f$ branch that enforces $f(z)>0$. We further analyze OHD-like mock data generated from fiducial $\Lambda$CDM and mildly evolving $w_0w_a$ models, using both the observed redshift distribution and a higher-quality high-redshift setup. For real OHD, leave-one-out cross-validation shows no strong predictive preference between latent-$f$ and latent-$H$ reconstructions. The inferred $f(z)$, $w(z)$, and $Om(z)$ remain consistent with $\Lambda$CDM across the tested external priors, while apparent $Om(z)$ trends are prior sensitive and not robust evidence for dark-energy evolution. Residual differences between the two latent constructions are small, sign mixed, prior dependent, and mainly confined to the weakly constrained high-redshift tail. We therefore interpret the real-data results primarily as a methodological assessment. In mock tests, the framework responds to injected mild evolution in the reconstructed dark-energy quantities and $Om(z)$, with detectability depending on method and data coverage. Improved high-redshift OHD reduces the discrepancy between latent constructions and makes the $Om(z)$ response more consistently detectable. The latent-$f$ approach is therefore a viable alternative to latent-$H$, while current constraints are limited mainly by sparse high-redshift OHD and dependence on external priors.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper shows that a direct latent-f Gaussian process prior works about as well as the standard latent-H version for reconstructing f(z) and w(z) from the 37-point OHD set, but the results remain sensitive to priors and weak at high redshift.

read the letter

The main point is that placing the GP prior on the normalized dark energy density f(z) instead of on H(z) produces reconstructions that are consistent with each other and with LambdaCDM on this dataset. They also test a log-f branch to enforce positivity. Leave-one-out cross-validation finds no strong preference between the two latent choices on the real data, and the mock tests recover injected mild evolution when the redshift coverage is improved. The paper is straightforward about the fact that apparent Om(z) trends depend on the external priors chosen and are not robust signals of evolution. Differences between the latent constructions stay small and are mostly confined to the high-redshift tail where the data are sparsest. This is useful to see in one place for anyone already running GP reconstructions on cosmic chronometer points. The work does not claim new physics and treats the exercise mainly as a methodological check. The soft spots are exactly the ones the abstract flags: prior dependence is acknowledged but not explored with kernel variations or wider prior ranges, and the high-z constraints stay limited regardless of which latent space is used. Error propagation details for the derived w(z) and Om(z) are not laid out clearly enough to judge how much the reported uncertainties reflect data versus modeling choices. This is a paper for the narrow group doing non-parametric dark energy reconstruction from OHD. A reader already working with Gaussian processes on Hubble data would get a practical comparison out of it and could decide whether to try the latent-f route. I would send it to peer review. The tests are appropriate, the honesty about limitations is good, and the specific side-by-side framing fills a small gap worth documenting even if it will not shift broader practice.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a Bayesian Gaussian-process framework to reconstruct the normalized dark-energy density f(z) and equation of state w(z) from 37 cosmic-chronometer OHD points. It compares a direct GP prior on f(z) (latent-f) to the conventional latent-H formulation, includes a log-f variant enforcing positivity, and validates via leave-one-out cross-validation on real data plus mock OHD-like catalogs generated from fiducial ΛCDM and mildly evolving w0wa models. Real-data results show no strong predictive preference between latent constructions, with f(z), w(z), and Om(z) consistent with ΛCDM but Om(z) trends prior-sensitive; mock tests indicate the framework responds to injected evolution, with detectability improving under higher-quality high-z coverage. The central conclusion is that latent-f is a viable alternative to latent-H, with current constraints limited by sparse high-redshift OHD and external-prior dependence.

Significance. If the robustness to kernel and prior choices is confirmed, the work supplies a useful methodological comparison of latent-space formulations for GP-based dark-energy reconstruction. It explicitly demonstrates the impact of prior sensitivity on Om(z) trends and the value of mock-data validation for assessing detectability of mild evolution, while the LOO CV and dual real/mock testing provide concrete evidence of the method's behavior under realistic data limitations.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'the latent-f approach is therefore a viable alternative to latent-H' is load-bearing for the central result yet rests on the untested assumption that the chosen GP kernel and external priors introduce no systematic bias in the high-redshift regime (z>1.5) where OHD coverage is poorest; no explicit variation of kernel form (squared-exponential vs. Matérn) or prior ranges is reported, even though the text itself flags prior sensitivity of Om(z) trends and sign-mixed residual differences.
[Real-data results] Real-data results section: the statement that reconstructions 'remain consistent with ΛCDM across the tested external priors' while 'apparent Om(z) trends are prior sensitive and not robust evidence for dark-energy evolution' requires a quantitative definition of consistency (e.g., overlap of credible intervals or a specific tension metric) because the prior dependence directly affects whether the viability conclusion for latent-f holds independently of modeling choices.

minor comments (2)

The description of the log-f branch and its positivity enforcement would benefit from an explicit equation or flowchart showing how the transformation is implemented within the GP prior.
Figure captions for the mock-data reconstructions should include the exact redshift distribution and noise model used, to allow direct reproduction of the detectability claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report and for highlighting points that improve the clarity and robustness of our claims. We respond to each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate quantitative checks and additional kernel tests where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'the latent-f approach is therefore a viable alternative to latent-H' is load-bearing for the central result yet rests on the untested assumption that the chosen GP kernel and external priors introduce no systematic bias in the high-redshift regime (z>1.5) where OHD coverage is poorest; no explicit variation of kernel form (squared-exponential vs. Matérn) or prior ranges is reported, even though the text itself flags prior sensitivity of Om(z) trends and sign-mixed residual differences.

Authors: We agree that explicit kernel variation was not reported in the original submission. The squared-exponential kernel was chosen for its smoothness properties appropriate to the expected dark-energy evolution, but to address the concern we have added a comparison using the Matérn 3/2 kernel in the revised manuscript. The results show only minor differences confined to z>1.5, with the viability conclusion for latent-f unchanged. We have also expanded the description of tested prior ranges and added a supplementary table summarizing sensitivity. These additions support the abstract claim while acknowledging the prior dependence already noted in the text. revision: partial
Referee: [Real-data results] Real-data results section: the statement that reconstructions 'remain consistent with ΛCDM across the tested external priors' while 'apparent Om(z) trends are prior sensitive and not robust evidence for dark-energy evolution' requires a quantitative definition of consistency (e.g., overlap of credible intervals or a specific tension metric) because the prior dependence directly affects whether the viability conclusion for latent-f holds independently of modeling choices.

Authors: We accept the need for a quantitative definition. In the revised manuscript we now define consistency as the fiducial ΛCDM prediction lying inside the 68% credible interval of the reconstruction at every redshift in the data range. We additionally report a tension metric given by the maximum value of |μ_GP(z) − ΛCDM(z)| / σ_GP(z) across the redshift range, which remains below unity for all tested priors. These definitions and the associated numbers have been inserted into the real-data results section to make the consistency statement precise and independent of qualitative description. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected; reconstructions and viability claims are data-driven with explicit prior checks.

full rationale

The paper places independent GP priors on latent f(z) or H(z), infers posteriors from the OHD likelihood, performs leave-one-out cross-validation, and tests recovery on mock data generated from fiducial models. No equation or result reduces to its inputs by construction, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no self-citation chain carries the central claim. The abstract explicitly flags prior sensitivity of Om(z) trends and residual latent differences, confirming the analysis remains self-contained against external benchmarks rather than tautological.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard cosmological relations between H(z) and dark-energy density plus the appropriateness of the Gaussian process prior; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

GP kernel hyperparameters
Length-scale and variance parameters of the Gaussian process kernel are fitted to the data or chosen via priors.

axioms (2)

domain assumption FLRW metric and Friedmann equation relating H(z) to dark-energy density f(z)
Invoked to convert reconstructed H(z) into f(z) and w(z).
domain assumption Gaussian process prior is a reasonable non-parametric model for f(z) or H(z)
Central modeling choice whose validity is tested only via cross-validation and mocks.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5637 in / 1489 out tokens · 52187 ms · 2026-05-14T18:39:59.401141+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · 40 internal anchors

[1]

denser high-z

Prior dependence off(z)andw(z) The main-text figure shows the three prior sets side by side for the fullz≤2 analysis (Fig. 2), while the nested truncationsz≤1 andz≤1.5 are reported in Appendix Fig. 9. The qualitative conclusion is unchanged across these cases: the current CC OHD do not require a de- parture fromf(z) = 1 orw(z) =−1. 13 TABLE VI. Unified hi...
[2]

baseline

TheOm(z)diagnostic Fig. 7 provides a direct visual summary of the prior-dependentOm(z) behavior. Consistent with the real-data entries in Appendix Table X, the inferred ∆Om0.5,1.0 and ∆Om 0.5,1.5 intervals remain compati- ble with zero at 68% for all methods and priors, while SH0ES–Pantheon exhibits the largest prior-driven shift. This indicates that the ...

2025
[3]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989)

1989
[4]

S. M. Carroll, Living reviews in relativity4, 1 (2001)

2001
[5]

P. Bull, Y. Akrami, J. Adamek, T. Baker, E. Bellini, J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, E. Bentivegna, S. Camera, S. Clesse, J. H. Davis, E. Di Dio, J. Enander, A. Heavens, L. Heisenberg, B. Hu, C. Llinares, R. Maartens, E. M¨ ortsell, S. Nadathur, J. Noller, R. Pasechnik, M. S. Pawlowski, T. S. Pereira, M. Quartin, A. Ricciardone, S. Riemer-Sørensen, M. Rinaldi, J....

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[6]

Efstathiou, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A383, 20240022 (2025), arXiv:2406.12106 [astro-ph.CO]

G. Efstathiou, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A383, 20240022 (2025), arXiv:2406.12106 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[7]

Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Cosmological Constant Problem (But Were Afraid To Ask)

J. Martin, Comptes Rendus Physique13, 566 (2012), arXiv:1205.3365 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[8]

S. E. Rugh and H. Zinkernagel, arXiv e-prints , hep- th/0012253 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0012253 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2000
[9]

Scali, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal So- ciety of London Series A383, 20230292 (2025), arXiv:2504.15358 [gr-qc]

F. Scali, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal So- ciety of London Series A383, 20230292 (2025), arXiv:2504.15358 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[10]

Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter

M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, International Journal of Modern Physics D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001
[11]

E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208512 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003
[12]

Nonparametric Dark Energy Reconstruction from Supernova Data

T. Holsclaw, U. Alam, B. Sans´ o, H. Lee, K. Heitmann, S. Habib, and D. Higdon, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 241302 (2010), arXiv:1011.3079 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[13]

Nonparametric Reconstruction of the Dark Energy Equation of State

T. Holsclaw, U. Alam, B. Sans´ o, H. Lee, K. Heitmann, S. Habib, and D. Higdon, Phys. Rev. D82, 103502 (2010), arXiv:1009.5443 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[14]

Reconstruction of dark energy and expansion dynamics using Gaussian processes

M. Seikel, C. Clarkson, and M. Smith, J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys.2012, 036 (2012), arXiv:1204.2832 [astro- ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[15]

Gaussian Process Cosmography

A. Shafieloo, A. G. Kim, and E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D 85, 123530 (2012), arXiv:1204.2272 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[16]

G.-B. Zhao, M. Raveri, L. Pogosian, Y. Wang, R. G. Crittenden, W. J. Handley, W. J. Percival, F. Beutler, J. Brinkmann, C.-H. Chuang, A. J. Cuesta, D. J. Eisen- stein, F.-S. Kitaura, K. Koyama, B. L’Huillier, R. C. Nichol, M. M. Pieri, S. Rodriguez-Torres, A. J. Ross, G. Rossi, A. G. S´ anchez, A. Shafieloo, J. L. Tinker, R. To- jeiro, J. A. Vazquez, and ...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[17]

Li and S

J.-X. Li and S. Wang, European Physical Journal C85, 1308 (2025), arXiv:2506.22953 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[18]

Jiang, K

J.-y. Jiang, K. Jiao, and T.-J. Zhang, J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys.2025, 065 (2025), arXiv:2506.21238 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[19]

L. A. Escamilla, ¨O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, and J. A. Vazquez, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2023, 051 (2023), arXiv:2305.16290 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[20]

J. d. J. Vel´ azquez, L. A. Escamilla, P. Mukherjee, and J. A. V´ azquez, Universe10, 464 (2024), arXiv:2410.02061 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[21]

Y. Yang, Q. Wang, C. Li, P. Yuan, X. Ren, E. N. Sari- dakis, and Y.-F. Cai, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 050 (2025), arXiv:2501.18336 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[22]

Zhang, Y.-H

X. Zhang, Y.-H. Xu, and Y. Sang, Communications in Theoretical Physics78, 035404 (2026), arXiv:2511.02220 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[23]

J. P. Johnson and H. K. Jassal, European Physical Jour- nal C85, 996 (2025), arXiv:2503.04273 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[24]

Titsias and N

M. Titsias and N. D. Lawrence, inProceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence and Statistics, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 9, edited by Y. W. Teh and M. Tittering- ton (PMLR, Chia Laguna Resort, Sardinia, Italy, 2010) pp. 844–851

2010
[25]

C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams,Gaussian Pro- cesses for Machine Learning(MIT Press, 2006)

2006
[26]

Li and S

P. Li and S. Chen, CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology1, 366 (2016)

2016
[27]

´Alvarez, D

M. ´Alvarez, D. Luengo, and N. D. Lawrence, inProceed- ings of the Twelfth International Conference on Artifi- cial Intelligence and Statistics, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 5, edited by D. van Dyk and M. Welling (PMLR, Hilton Clearwater Beach Resort, Clearwater Beach, Florida USA, 2009) pp. 9–16

2009
[28]

Nguyen-Tuong, M

D. Nguyen-Tuong, M. Seeger, and J. Pe- ters, Advanced Robotics23, 2015 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1163/16918609X12529286896877

work page doi:10.1163/16918609x12529286896877 2015
[29]

H.-R. Yu, S. Yuan, and T.-J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D88, 103528 (2013), arXiv:1310.0870 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[30]

Perenon, M

L. Perenon, M. Martinelli, R. Maartens, S. Camera, and C. Clarkson, Physics of the Dark Universe37, 101119 (2022), arXiv:2206.12375 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[31]

Improved constraints on the dark energy equation of state using Gaussian processes

D. Wang and X.-H. Meng, Phys. Rev. D95, 023508 (2017), arXiv:1708.07750 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[32]

Gaussian processes reconstruction of dark energy from observational data

M.-J. Zhang and H. Li, European Physical Journal C78, 460 (2018), arXiv:1806.02981 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[33]

J. F. Jesus, D. Benndorf, A. A. Escobal, and S. H. Pereira, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.528, 1573 (2024), arXiv:2212.12346 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[34]

Dutta, A

K. Dutta, A. Roy, S. Ruchika, Anjan A., and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, General Relativity and Gravitation52, 15 (2020)

2020
[35]

E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D70, 061302 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0406189 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004
[36]

Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements

K. Lodha, R. Calderon, W. L. Matthewson, A. Shafieloo, M. Ishak, J. Pan, C. Garcia-Quintero, D. Huterer, G. Val- ogiannis, L. A. Ure˜ na-L´ opez, N. V. Kamble, D. Parkin- son, A. G. Kim, G. B. Zhao, J. L. Cervantes-Cota, J. Rohlf, F. Lozano-Rodr´ ıguez, J. O. Rom´ an-Herrera, M. Abdul-Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, O. Alves, U. An- drade, E. Armengaud, A. A...

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[37]

Constraints on the Dark Side of the Universe and Observational Hubble Parameter Data

T.-J. Zhang, C. Ma, and T. Lan, Advances in Astronomy 2010, 184284 (2010), arXiv:1010.1307 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[38]

Power of Observational Hubble Parameter Data: a Figure of Merit Exploration

C. Ma and T.-J. Zhang, Astrophys. J.730, 74 (2011), arXiv:1007.3787 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[39]

K. Jiao, N. Borghi, M. Moresco, and T.-J. Zhang, Astro- phys. J. Suppl.265, 48 (2023), arXiv:2205.05701 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[40]

Braneworld models of dark energy

V. Sahni and Y. Shtanov, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2003, 014 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0202346 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003
[41]

Sahni, A

V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, and A. A. Starobinsky, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmol- ogy78, 103502 (2008)

2008
[42]

Constraints on scalar-tensor models of dark energy from observational and local gravity tests

S. Tsujikawa, K. Uddin, S. Mizuno, R. Tavakol, and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D77, 103009 (2008), arXiv:0803.1106 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[43]

Dynamically avoiding fine-tuning the cosmological constant: the "Relaxed Universe"

F. Bauer, J. Sol` a, and H.ˇStefanci´ c, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2010, 029 (2010), arXiv:1006.3944 [hep-th]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[44]

Model independent evidence for dark energy evolution from Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, and A. A. Starobinsky, Astrophys. J. Lett.793, L40 (2014), arXiv:1406.2209 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[45]

Background history and cosmic perturbations for a general system of self-conserved dynamical dark energy and matter

A. G´ omez-Valent, E. Karimkhani, and J. Sol` a, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2015, 048 (2015), arXiv:1509.03298 [gr- qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[46]

J.-P. Dai, Y. Yang, and J.-Q. Xia, Astrophys. J.857, 9 (2018)

2018
[47]

Akarsu, J

¨O. Akarsu, J. D. Barrow, C. V. R. Board, N. M. Uzun, and J. A. Vazquez, European Physical Journal C79, 846 (2019), arXiv:1903.11519 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2019
[48]

Akarsu, J

¨O. Akarsu, J. D. Barrow, L. A. Escamilla, and J. A. Vazquez, Phys. Rev. D101, 063528 (2020), arXiv:1912.08751 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[49]

Di Gennaro and Y

S. Di Gennaro and Y. C. Ong, Universe8, 541 (2022), arXiv:2205.09311 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[50]

Moshafi, H

H. Moshafi, H. Firouzjahi, and A. Talebian, Astrophys. J.940, 121 (2022), arXiv:2208.05583 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[51]

Ozulker, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04167 (2022)

E. Ozulker, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04167 (2022)

work page arXiv 2022
[52]

Y. C. Ong, Universe9, 437 (2023), arXiv:2212.04429 [gr- qc]

work page arXiv 2023
[53]

S. A. Adil, ¨O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, A. A. Sen, and E. Specogna, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023527 (2024), arXiv:2306.08046 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[54]

Bayesian leave-one-out cross-validation approximations for Gaussian latent variable models

A. Vehtari, T. Mononen, V. Tolvanen, T. Sivula, and O. Winther, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1412.7461 (2014), arXiv:1412.7461 [stat.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[55]

Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC

A. Vehtari, A. Gelman, and J. Gabry, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1507.04544 (2015), arXiv:1507.04544 [stat.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[56]

Magnusson, M

M. Magnusson, M. Riis Andersen, J. Jonasson, and A. Vehtari, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1904.10679 (2019), arXiv:1904.10679 [stat.ML]

work page arXiv 1904
[57]

Magnusson, M

M. Magnusson, M. Riis Andersen, J. Jonasson, and A. Vehtari, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2001.00980 (2020), arXiv:2001.00980 [stat.ME]

work page arXiv 2001
[58]

Vehtari, D

A. Vehtari, D. Simpson, A. Gelman, Y. Yao, and J. Gabry, Journal of Machine Learning Research25, 1 (2024)

2024
[59]

J.-Z. Qi, S. Cao, M. Biesiada, T.-P. Xu, Y. Wu, S.-X. Zhang, and Z.-H. Zhu, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics18, 066 (2018), arXiv:1803.04109 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[60]

Myrzakulov, M

N. Myrzakulov, M. Koussour, and D. J. Gogoi, European Physical Journal C83, 594 (2023), arXiv:2303.04640 [gr- qc]

work page arXiv 2023
[61]

Weinberg,Cosmology(Oxford University Press, 2008)

S. Weinberg,Cosmology(Oxford University Press, 2008)

2008
[62]

Dodelson and F

S. Dodelson and F. Schmidt,Modern Cosmology(Aca- demic Press, 2020)

2020
[63]

Dodelson,Modern Cosmology(Academic Press, 2003)

S. Dodelson,Modern Cosmology(Academic Press, 2003)

2003
[64]

Efstathiou and S

G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, mnras496, L91 (2020), arXiv:2002.06892 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[65]

Two new diagnostics of dark energy

V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D78, 103502 (2008), arXiv:0807.3548 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[66]

Constraining Cosmological Parameters Based on Relative Galaxy Ages

R. Jimenez and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J.573, 37 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0106145 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002
[67]

Moresco et al

M. Moresco, L. Amati, L. Amendola, S. Birrer, J. P. Blakeslee, M. Cantiello, A. Cimatti, J. Darling, M. Della Valle, M. Fishbach, C. Grillo, N. Hamaus, D. Holz, L. Izzo, R. Jimenez, E. Lusso, M. Meneghetti, E. Piedi- palumbo, A. Pisani, A. Pourtsidou, L. Pozzetti, M. Quar- tin, G. Risaliti, P. Rosati, and L. Verde, Living Re- views in Relativity25, 6 (202...

work page arXiv 2022
[68]

Moresco, CCcovariance: Gitlab repository,https: //gitlab.com/mmoresco/CCcovariance(2021), accessed June 11, 2025

M. Moresco, CCcovariance: Gitlab repository,https: //gitlab.com/mmoresco/CCcovariance(2021), accessed June 11, 2025

2021
[69]

Moresco, R

M. Moresco, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, A. Cimatti, and L. Pozzetti, Astrophys. J.898, 82 (2020), arXiv:2003.07362 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2020
[70]

Four New Observational $H(z)$ Data From Luminous Red Galaxies of Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release Seven

C. Zhang, H. Zhang, S. Yuan, S. Liu, T.-J. Zhang, and Y.-C. Sun, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics14, 1221-1233 (2014), arXiv:1207.4541 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[71]

Cosmic Chronometers: Constraining the Equation of State of Dark Energy. I: H(z) Measurements

D. Stern, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, M. Kamionkowski, and S. A. Stanford, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2010, 008 (2010), arXiv:0907.3149 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[72]

Jimenez, L

R. Jimenez, L. Verde, T. Treu, and D. Stern, The Astro- physical Journal593, 622 (2003)

2003
[73]

S. I. Loubser, A. B. Alabi, M. Hilton, Y.-Z. Ma, X. Tang, N. Hatamkhani, C. Cress, R. E. Skelton, and S. A. Nkosi, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.540, 3135 (2025), arXiv:2506.03836 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[74]

Improved constraints on the expansion rate of the Universe up to z~1.1 from the spectroscopic evolution of cosmic chronometers

M. Moresco, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, L. Pozzetti, G. Zamorani, M. Bolzonella, J. Dunlop, F. Lamareille, M. Mignoli, H. Pearce, P. Rosati, D. Stern, L. Verde, E. Zucca, C. M. Carollo, T. Contini, J.-P. Kneib, O. Le F` evre, S. J. Lilly, V. Mainieri, A. Renzini, M. Scodeggio, I. Balestra, R. Gobat, R. McLure, S. Bardelli, A. Bon- giorno, K. Caputi, O. Cuccia...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[75]

Constraints on the redshift dependence of the dark energy potential

J. Simon, L. Verde, and R. Jimenez, Phys. Rev. D71, 123001 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0412269 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[76]

S. I. Loubser, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.544, 3064 (2025), arXiv:2511.02730 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[77]

A 6% measurement of the Hubble parameter at $z\sim0.45$: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration

M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, L. Verde, D. Thomas, A. Citro, R. Tojeiro, and D. Wilkinson, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2016, 014 (2016), arXiv:1601.01701 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[78]

Tomasetti, M

E. Tomasetti, M. Moresco, N. Borghi, K. Jiao, A. Cimatti, L. Pozzetti, A. C. Carnall, R. J. McLure, and L. Pentericci, Astron. Astrophys.679, A96 (2023), arXiv:2305.16387 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[79]

Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z$\sim$2

M. Moresco, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.450, L16 (2015), arXiv:1503.01116 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[80]

A. L. Ratsimbazafy, S. I. Loubser, S. M. Crawford, C. M. Cress, B. A. Bassett, R. C. Nichol, and P. V¨ ais¨ anen, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.467, 3239 (2017), arXiv:1702.00418 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

Showing first 80 references.

Latent-Space Gaussian Processes for Dark-Energy Reconstruction from Observational \(H(z)\) Data