Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 154 references

Cosmo-Learn: code for learning cosmology using different methods and mock data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cosmo_learn is a Python package that generates mock versions of five late-universe probes and validates them by recovering the input wCDM cosmology.

desk verdict A clean, useful software package for generating wCDM mocks and running several inference methods, but the 'benchmarking' label outruns the evidence: the method comparisons rest on one realization and the default noise model is too simple to support the 'realistic noise' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20971 v2 pith:7LXMOWDX submitted 2025-08-28 astro-ph.CO

Reginald Christian Bernardo , Daniela Grandón , Jackson Levi Said , Víctor H. Cárdenas , Gene Carlo Belinario , Reinabelle Reyes This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmologicalinferencemockdatagenerationwCDMMarkovchainMonteCarlogeneticalgorithmsGaussianprocessregressionneuralnetworksstandardsirens
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

Cosmo_learn is an open-source Python package that builds mock versions of five late-universe datasets—cosmic chronometers, type Ia supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, redshift-space distortions, and gravitational-wave bright sirens—starting from a user-chosen 'true' cosmology. The paper argues that the generated mock data are statistically consistent with that input cosmology: over 100 simulated realizations, Markov-chain Monte Carlo parameter inference recovers the fiducial wCDM parameters, with stacked posteriors centered on the true values. The same pipeline then benchmarks five inference strategies—MCMC, genetic algorithms, Gaussian processes, Bayesian ridge regression, and neural networks—under identical noise assumptions. The motivating frame is the growing difficulty of comparing cosmological models amid observational tensions, so a standardized, transparent mock-data and inference environment would give the community a common test bed.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the mock-data recipe: fix redshifts to the observed sample, draw a Gaussian mean around the true cosmology with variance set by each observed error bar, and keep the observed error bar as the mock error. This turns a real catalog into an ensemble of synthetic catalogs with known underlying parameters. Around this core, analytic wCDM background and linear perturbation solutions supply the theory predictions, and a built-in likelihood enables parameter recovery via MCMC and GA-Fisher. The validation loop—generate, infer, compare to input—is what carries the paper's central consistency claim.

What would settle it

Take a benchmark question the package is meant to answer: run MCMC on mock catalogs generated with a realistic full covariance matrix or a non-Gaussian error model and compare the recovered posterior coverage. If the fraction of experiments in which the true parameters fall within the 68% credible interval departs from ~68%, the claim that the mocks are statistically consistent with the input cosmology fails for that noise model. A simpler check: the residuals of the mock data should behave as standard normal draws, so a chi-square test of residuals aggregated over realizations would expose no

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that cosmo_learn provides a standardized and flexible framework for benchmarking cosmological inference methods, and that the mock data it generates are internally consistent with the input cosmology. Consistency is established by construction and by validation: each mock point inherits an observed redshift, draws its value from a normal distribution centered on the true wCDM prediction with variance fixed by the real error bar, and the resulting residuals are white across realizations. MCMC over 100 realizations recovers the injected H0, Ωm0, w, S8, and rD, with stacked posteriors centered on the true values, including sub-1σ recovery of the sound horizon. The paper doe

Load-bearing premise

The default mock generator assumes that the real observed error bars are the correct noise amplitudes, that Gaussian noise is sufficient, and that data points are uncorrelated; for bright sirens it additionally assumes forecast mission sensitivities. If those noise assumptions do not match a real survey, benchmark conclusions drawn on the mocks may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the validation claim is correct, any inference method run inside cosmo_learn can be tested directly against a known truth, making reported biases or successes interpretable without appeal to external datasets.
  • The five built-in probes span the late-universe expansion and growth history out to high redshift, so the package can serve as a common benchmark for comparing models and methods under identical noise assumptions.
  • Because the wCDM step uses analytic background and perturbation solutions, generation and likelihood evaluation are fast enough for 100-realization ensemble tests in teaching or research settings.
  • The mock-generation function is deliberately exposed and modifiable, so the same framework can accommodate full covariance matrices, different redshift draws, and additional probes without changing the inference interface.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test, left implicit by the paper, is to run the same 100-realization recovery with a full covariance matrix between data points; if parameter recovery stays centered on truth, the default no-covariance assumption is benign, if not, the benchmarks would need their own error bars.
  • The bright-siren noise model relies on forecast mission sensitivity curves rather than actual detections, so the package's gravitational-wave benchmarks are best read as forecasts for future missions rather than statements about current data.
  • The same mock-generation core could be extended to measure reconstruction bias directly: comparing Gaussian-process or neural-network reconstructions to the true input functions per realization would quantify how each non-parametric method trades smoothness for accuracy.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents cosmo_learn, an open-source Python package for generating mock cosmological data for five late-universe probes (cosmic chronometers, SNe Ia, BAO, RSD, and GW bright sirens) under a fiducial wCDM cosmology, and for performing inference with MCMC, genetic algorithm plus Fisher forecast, Gaussian processes, Bayesian ridge regression, and neural networks. The authors validate the mock generation by showing white residuals over 100 realizations and by recovering the input wCDM parameters with MCMC. The package is modular, extensible, and accompanied by a public GitHub repository with tutorials. The central claim is that cosmo_learn provides a standardized framework for benchmarking cosmological inference methods with realistic noise modeling.

Significance. If the claims are fully supported, cosmo_learn would be a useful community tool for cosmology education and for controlled comparisons of inference methods. The paper's strengths include open-source code, a clear explanation of the mock-generation recipe, and a sensible internal-consistency check: the 100-realization MCMC recovery is a clean way to show that the generated data are statistically consistent with the input cosmology. The reconstruction modules (GP, BRR, ANN) are also demonstrated on concrete mock data. However, the validity of the broader benchmarking and 'realistic noise modeling' claims depends on whether the default noise treatment and the single-realization reconstruction demonstrations are sufficient; in the current form these aspects are not quantitatively established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, §3] The default mock generation draws y1 = N(y_true, (Δy_obs)^2) and assigns the same diagonal Δy_obs as the final uncertainty. The MCMC validation in §3 uses the same independent-Gaussian likelihood. This is a closed loop: it verifies internal self-consistency, not that the mocks reproduce the error structure of real observations. For Pantheon+ a published systematic covariance exists, DESI DR1 BAO bins are correlated, and RSD compilations include non-Gaussian uncertainties. The text notes that users can supply a full covariance, but all default figures and the 100-realization validation use independent errors. This undercuts the abstract's 'realistic noise modeling' claim and should be either demonstrated with covariance/non-Gaussian tests or explicitly softened.
  2. [§4.3–§4.5, Figs. 7 and 10] The GP, BRR, and ANN reconstructions are shown for a single realization only, with no quantitative recovery metrics such as bias, root-mean-square error, or credible-interval coverage over an ensemble of mocks. Visual inspection of one realization is insufficient to support the claim that cosmo_learn provides a framework for benchmarking inference methods. I recommend adding a quantitative comparison over many realizations, e.g., reporting the mean and scatter of the reconstructed functions versus the true input, and coverage probabilities of the 1σ/2σ bands.
  3. [§3, Fig. 3] The MCMC validation says parameters are recovered 'within ~1–2σ' and that stacked posteriors are Gaussian, but no quantitative coverage statistics are provided. For a validation claim, the paper should report, for the 100 realizations, the fraction of runs where the true parameter lies inside the 68% and 95% credible intervals. This would turn a qualitative statement into a falsifiable test of consistency.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2] There is a syntax typo: `my_cl.ga_params['parents_portion'=0.3` is missing the closing bracket; should be `['parents_portion']=0.3`.
  2. [§2.2] Eqs. (2.10)–(2.12) use forecast eLISA sensitivity and simulated lensing/peculiar-velocity errors; the paper should note more explicitly that the GW mock is forward-modeled from forecasts, not current detections, so results using it are forecast-oriented.
  3. [References] Several references are duplicated (e.g., Planck 2018 appears as [23] and [90]; emcee as [75] and [108]). This should be cleaned up.
  4. [§4.1] The description that MCMC 'draws random samples from a normal distribution' is imprecise; the sampler draws from the proposal distribution, not from a normal in general. The text would benefit from a more careful wording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the recovery test is an intentional self-consistency check, not an independent derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central validation is not a derivation of new physics but an internal calibration of mock data. Section 2.1 constructs mock measurements as y1 = N(ytrue, (dely_obs)^2), and Section 3 fits the same wCDM model with the same diagonal Gaussian likelihood to recover ytrue. This is a deliberate closed loop, explicitly described as showing that the mock data are 'statistically consistent with the input cosmology.' The paper does not present this recovery as an external prediction; it says the white residuals are 'as expected since they were drawn from a Gaussian distribution.' The load-bearing contribution of the paper is the open-source, modular software framework for generating mocks and comparing inference methods, not a cosmological claim that depends on this self-consistency test. Self-citations to the authors' earlier GA, GP, and ANN papers are background references and are not used to forbid alternatives or to justify the validity of the central framework. The abstract's phrase 'realistic noise modeling' may overstate what the default independent-Gaussian mock generator validates, especially for datasets with known covariances, but that is an accuracy/scope concern rather than circularity. No specific reduction of a claimed result to its own inputs was found, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central validation rests on standard wCDM expressions from the literature and on stated mock noise assumptions. The package itself adds no new physical postulates or fitted constants beyond method hyperparameters; the main assumptions are the Gaussian, error-bar-sized noise model and forecast-based GW noise models.

free parameters (3)
  • GP kernel hyperparameters (amplitude and length scale) per probe = not reported
    Trained on mock data via marginal likelihood maximization (Eq. 4.8); part of the reconstruction methods, not the central validation claim.
  • BRR polynomial degree = 3
    Hand-chosen default for the Bayesian ridge regression reconstruction (Section 4.4).
  • ANN hidden layer size = 4096
    Hand-chosen default ReFANN architecture (Section 4.5).
assumptions (5)
  • standard math wCDM background equations (Eq. 2.16) and analytical growth expressions from Nesseris and Sapone (2015)
    Used to generate mock data and compute observables; accepted from literature.
  • domain assumption Gaussian noise model for mock data (Section 2.1)
    Assumes observed error bars are the correct noise variance and that noise is Gaussian and independent; this is the core realism assumption.
  • domain assumption GW lensing, peculiar velocity, and LISA error models (Eqs. 2.10 to 2.12)
    Based on eLISA forecasts from cited works, not on actual detections.
  • domain assumption Redshift distribution of GW events from eLISA configuration L6A2M5N2 (Figure 2)
    Assumed event distribution for simulated bright siren catalogs.
  • domain assumption Spatial flatness and constant dark energy equation of state (wCDM)
    The fiducial model used throughout; a standard phenomenological choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmo-Learn: code for learning cosmology using different methods and mock data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7LXMOWDX

@misc{pith2026250820971,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmo-Learn: code for learning cosmology using different methods and mock data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7LXMOWDX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20971}
}
abstract

We present cosmo_learn, an open-source python-based software package designed to simulate cosmological data and perform data-driven inference using a range of modern statistical and machine learning techniques. Motivated by the growing complexity of cosmological models and the emergence of observational tensions, cosmo_learn provides a standardized and flexible framework for benchmarking cosmological inference methods. The package supports realistic noise modeling for key observables in the late Universe, including cosmic chronometers, supernovae Ia, baryon acoustic oscillations, redshift space distortions, and gravitational wave bright sirens. We demonstrate the internal consistency of the simulated data with the input cosmology via residuals and parameter recovery using a fiducial $w$CDM model. Built-in learning and inference modules include traditional Markov Chain Monte Carlo, as well as more recent approaches such as genetic algorithms, Gaussian processes, Bayesian ridge regression, and artificial neural networks. These methods are implemented in a modular and extensible architecture designed to facilitate comparisons across inference strategies in a common pipeline. By providing a flexible and transparent simulation and learning environment, cosmo_learn supports both educational and research efforts at the intersection of cosmology, statistics, and machine learning.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

154 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Supernov a Search Team collaboration, Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009 [astro-ph/9805201]

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Supernov a Cosmology Project collaboration, Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae, Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565 [astro-ph/9812133]

    arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri et al.,In the Realm of the Hubble tension− a Review of Solutions, 2103.01183

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Baudis,Dark matter detection, J

    L. Baudis,Dark matter detection, J. Phys. G43 (2016) 044001

    2016

  5. [5]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk,Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints, Phys. Rept. 405 (2005) 279 [hep-ph/0404175]

    arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    Gaitskell,Direct detection of dark matter, Ann

    R. Gaitskell,Direct detection of dark matter, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.54 (2004) 315

    2004

  7. [7]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra,The Cosmological constant and dark energy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (2003) 559 [astro-ph/0207347]

    arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa,Dynamics of dark energy, Int. J. Mod. Phys.D15 (2006) 1753 [hep-th/0603057]

    arXiv 2006

Show all 154 references
  1. [9]

    Baumann, D

    D. Baumann, D. Green and R. A. Porto,B-modes and the Nature of Inflation, JCAP 01 (2015) 016 [1407.2621]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    LiteBIRD collaboration, Probing Cosmic Inflation with the LiteBIRD Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization Survey, PTEP 2023 (2023) 042F01 [2202.02773]. – 25 –

    2023 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Di Valentino et al.,Snowmass2021 - Letter of interest cosmology intertwined II: The hubble constant tension, Astropart

    E. Di Valentino et al.,Snowmass2021 - Letter of interest cosmology intertwined II: The hubble constant tension, Astropart. Phys.131 (2021) 102605 [2008.11284]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Di Valentino et al.,Cosmology intertwined III:f σ8 and S8, Astropart

    E. Di Valentino et al.,Cosmology intertwined III:f σ8 and S8, Astropart. Phys.131 (2021) 102604 [2008.11285]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Benisty,Quantifying the S8 tension with the Redshift Space Distortion data set, Phys

    D. Benisty,Quantifying the S8 tension with the Redshift Space Distortion data set, Phys. Dark Univ. 31 (2021) 100766 [2005.03751]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Poulin, J

    V. Poulin, J. L. Bernal, E. D. Kovetz and M. Kamionkowski,Sigma-8 tension is a drag, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 123538 [2209.06217]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Levi Said, J

    J. Levi Said, J. Mifsud, J. Sultana and K. Z. Adami,Reconstructing teleparallel gravity with cosmic structure growth and expansion rate data, JCAP 06 (2021) 015 [2103.05021]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Dark Univ

    CosmoVerse Network collaboration, The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics, Phys. Dark Univ. 49 (2025) 101965 [2504.01669]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [18]

    E. Abdalla et al.,Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies, JHEAp 34 (2022) 49 [2203.06142]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [19]

    A. G. Riess et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km/s/Mpc Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys. J. Lett.934 (2022) L7 [2112.04510]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [20]

    K. C. Wong et al.,H0LiCOW – XIII. A 2.4 per cent measurement of H0 from lensed quasars: 5.3σ tension between early- and late-Universe probes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.498 (2020) 1420 [1907.04869]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [21]

    R. I. Anderson, N. W. Koblischke and L. Eyer,Small-amplitude Red Giants Elucidate the Nature of the Tip of the Red Giant Branch as a Standard Candle, Astrophys. J. Lett.963 (2024) L43 [2303.04790]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [22]

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, T. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, R. Beaton, M. G. Lee et al.,Calibration of the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB), Astrophysical Journal 891 (2020)

    2020

  14. [24]

    DES collaboration, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Galaxy Clustering and Weak Lensing, 2105.13549

    arXiv

  15. [25]

    eBOSS collaboration, Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 083533 [2007.08991]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [26]

    Zhang, G

    P. Zhang, G. D’Amico, L. Senatore, C. Zhao and Y. Cai,BOSS Correlation Function analysis from the Effective Field Theory of Large-Scale Structure, JCAP 02 (2022) 036 [2110.07539]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [27]

    R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini and C. C. Steidel,One Percent Determination of the Primordial Deuterium Abundance, Astrophys. J. 855 (2018) 102 [1710.11129]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith and T. Karwal,The Ups and Downs of Early Dark Energy solutions to the Hubble tension: A review of models, hints and constraints circa 2023, Phys. Dark Univ.42 (2023) 101348 [2302.09032]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [29]

    Di Valentino and A

    E. Di Valentino and A. Melchiorri,Neutrino Mass Bounds in the Era of Tension Cosmology, Astrophys. J. Lett.931 (2022) L18 [2112.02993]. – 26 –

    2022 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Addazi et al.,Quantum gravity phenomenology at the dawn of the multi-messenger era—A review, Prog

    A. Addazi et al.,Quantum gravity phenomenology at the dawn of the multi-messenger era—A review, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.125 (2022) 103948 [2111.05659]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Akrami et al.,Modified Gravity and Cosmology

    CANTATAcollaboration, Y. Akrami et al.,Modified Gravity and Cosmology. An Update by the CANTATA Network. Springer, 2021, 10.1007/978-3-030-83715-0, [2105.12582]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Bahamonde, K

    S. Bahamonde, K. F. Dialektopoulos, C. Escamilla-Rivera, G. Farrugia, V. Gakis, M. Hendry et al.,Teleparallel Gravity: From Theory to Cosmology, 2106.13793

    arXiv

  23. [33]

    Bamba, S

    K. Bamba, S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov,Dark energy cosmology: the equivalent description via different theoretical models and cosmography tests, Astrophys. Space Sci. 342 (2012) 155 [1205.3421]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov,Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: from F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models, Phys. Rept. 505 (2011) 59 [1011.0544]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [35]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. Odintsov and V. Oikonomou,Modified Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: Inflation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution, Phys. Rept. 692 (2017) 1 [1705.11098]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [36]

    Shafieloo and C

    A. Shafieloo and C. Clarkson,Model independent tests of the standard cosmological model, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 083537 [0911.4858]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [37]

    Seikel, C

    M. Seikel, C. Clarkson and M. Smith,Reconstruction of dark energy and expansion dynamics using Gaussian processes, JCAP 2012 (2012) 036 [1204.2832]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [38]

    Yahya, M

    S. Yahya, M. Seikel, C. Clarkson, R. Maartens and M. Smith,Null tests of the cosmological constant using supernovae, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 023503 [1308.4099]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Zhao et al.,Dynamical dark energy in light of the latest observations, Nature Astron.1 (2017) 627 [1701.08165]

    G.-B. Zhao et al.,Dynamical dark energy in light of the latest observations, Nature Astron.1 (2017) 627 [1701.08165]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [40]

    R. C. Bernardo, D. Grandón, J. Said Levi and V. H. Cárdenas,Parametric and nonparametric methods hint dark energy evolution, Phys. Dark Univ.36 (2022) 101017 [2111.08289]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [41]

    Stern, R

    D. Stern, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, M. Kamionkowski and S. A. Stanford,Cosmic chronometers: constraining the equation of state of dark energy. I: H(z) measurements, JCAP 2010 (2010) 008 [0907.3149]

    2010 arXiv

  32. [42]

    Moresco et al.,Improved constraints on the expansion rate of the Universe up to z~1.1 from the spectroscopic evolution of cosmic chronometers, JCAP 2012 (2012) 006 [1201.3609]

    M. Moresco et al.,Improved constraints on the expansion rate of the Universe up to z~1.1 from the spectroscopic evolution of cosmic chronometers, JCAP 2012 (2012) 006 [1201.3609]

    2012 arXiv

  33. [43]

    Zhang, H

    C. Zhang, H. Zhang, S. Yuan, S. Liu, T.-J. Zhang and Y.-C. Sun,Four new observational H(z) data from luminous red galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data release seven, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics14 (2014) 1221 [1207.4541]

    2014 arXiv

  34. [44]

    Moresco,Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z∼ 2, Mon

    M. Moresco,Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z∼ 2, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.450 (2015) L16 [1503.01116]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [45]

    Moresco, L

    M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, L. Verde et al.,A 6% measurement of the Hubble parameter atz ∼ 0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration, JCAP 05 (2016) 014 [1601.01701]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [46]

    A. L. Ratsimbazafy, S. I. Loubser, S. M. Crawford, C. M. Cress, B. A. Bassett, R. C. Nichol et al.,Age-dating Luminous Red Galaxies observed with the Southern African Large Telescope, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.467 (2017) 3239 [1702.00418]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [47]

    Scolnic et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys

    D. Scolnic et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys. J. 938 (2022) 113 [2112.03863]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [48]

    Brout et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints, Astrophys

    D. Brout et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints, Astrophys. J. 938 (2022) 110 [2202.04077]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [49]

    Kazantzidis and L

    L. Kazantzidis and L. Perivolaropoulos,Evolution of thef σ8 tension with the Planck15/ΛCDM determination and implications for modified gravity theories, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 103503 [1803.01337]. – 27 –

    2018 arXiv

  40. [50]

    DESI collaboration, DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, JCAP 02 (2025) 021 [2404.03002]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [51]

    D. W. Hogg and D. Foreman-Mackey,Data analysis recipes: Using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, Astrophys. J. Suppl.236 (2018) 11 [1710.06068]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [52]

    G. L. Jones and Q. Qin,Markov chain monte carlo in practice, Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application9 (2022) 557 [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040220-090158]

    2022 doi

  43. [53]

    Sharma,Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods for Bayesian Data Analysis in Astronomy, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics55 (2017) 213 [1706.01629]

    S. Sharma,Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods for Bayesian Data Analysis in Astronomy, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics55 (2017) 213 [1706.01629]

    2017 arXiv

  44. [54]

    Medel-Esquivel, I

    R. Medel-Esquivel, I. Gómez-Vargas, A. A. M. Sánchez, R. García-Salcedo and J. Alberto Vázquez,Cosmological Parameter Estimation with Genetic Algorithms, Universe 10 (2024) 11 [2311.05699]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [55]

    R. C. Bernardo, E. A. Enriquez, R. Mendoza, R. Reyes and A. C. Velasco,Nature-inspired optimization, the Philippine Eagle, and cosmological parameter estimation, 2505.10299

  46. [56]

    R. C. Bernardo and Y. Chen,Genetic algorithm demystified for cosmological parameter estimation, 2505.10450

  47. [57]

    D. J. C. MacKay,Information Theory, Inference & Learning Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, USA, 2002

    2002

  48. [58]

    C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams,Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning). The MIT Press, 2005

    2005

  49. [59]

    C. M. Bishop and N. M. Nasrabadi,Pattern recognition and machine learning, vol. 4. Springer, 2006

    2006

  50. [60]

    R. M. Neal,Bayesian learning for neural networks, vol. 118. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  51. [61]

    Mukherjee, J

    P. Mukherjee, J. Levi Said and J. Mifsud,Neural network reconstruction of H’(z) and its application in teleparallel gravity, JCAP 12 (2022) 029 [2209.01113]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [62]

    Dialektopoulos, J

    K. Dialektopoulos, J. L. Said, J. Mifsud, J. Sultana and K. Z. Adami,Neural network reconstruction of late-time cosmology and null tests, JCAP 02 (2022) 023 [2111.11462]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [63]

    Benisty, J

    D. Benisty, J. Mifsud, J. Levi Said and D. Staicova,On the robustness of the constancy of the Supernova absolute magnitude: Non-parametric reconstruction & Bayesian approaches, Phys. Dark Univ. 39 (2023) 101160 [2202.04677]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [64]

    Escamilla-Rivera, J

    C. Escamilla-Rivera, J. Levi Said and J. Mifsud,Performance of non-parametric reconstruction techniques in the late-time universe, JCAP 10 (2021) 016 [2105.14332]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [65]

    Grandón and E

    D. Grandón and E. Sellentin,Bayesian error propagation for neural-net based parameter inference, Open J. Astrophys.5 (2022) astro.2205.11587 [2205.11587]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [66]

    Astrophys

    Astropy collaboration, Astropy: A Community Python Package for Astronomy, Astron. Astrophys. 558 (2013) A33 [1307.6212]

    2013 arXiv

  57. [67]

    Astropy collaboration, The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package, Astron. J. 156 (2018) 123 [1801.02634]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [68]

    Astropy collaboration, The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package*, Astrophys. J. 935 (2022) 167 [2206.14220]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [69]

    Pedregosa et al.,Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python, Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 (2011) 2825 [1201.0490]

    F. Pedregosa et al.,Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python, Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 (2011) 2825 [1201.0490]. – 28 –

    2011 arXiv

  60. [70]

    Wang, X.-J

    G.-J. Wang, X.-J. Ma, S.-Y. Li and J.-Q. Xia,Reconstructing Functions and Estimating Parameters with Artificial Neural Networks: A Test with a Hubble Parameter and SNe Ia, Astrophys. J. Suppl.246 (2020) 13 [1910.03636]

    2020 arXiv

  61. [71]

    Paszke et al.,PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library, 1912.01703

    A. Paszke et al.,PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library, 1912.01703

    1912 arXiv

  62. [72]

    Ferreira, T

    J. Ferreira, T. Barreiro, J. Mimoso and N. J. Nunes,Forecasting F(Q) cosmology withΛCDM background using standard sirens, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 123531 [2203.13788]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [73]

    Ferreira,Constraining f(Q) Cosmology with Standard Sirens, 2303.12674

    J. Ferreira,Constraining f(Q) Cosmology with Standard Sirens, 2303.12674

    arXiv

  64. [74]

    Ferreira, T

    J. Ferreira, T. Barreiro, J. P. Mimoso and N. J. Nunes,Testing Λ-free f(Q) cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 063521 [2306.10176]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [76]

    C. R. Harris et al.,Array programming with NumPy, Nature 585 (2020) 357

    2020

  66. [77]

    Virtanen et al.,SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python, Nature Methods 17 (2020) 261

    P. Virtanen et al.,SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python, Nature Methods 17 (2020) 261

    2020

  67. [78]

    J. D. Hunter,Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment, Computing in Science & Engineering9 (2007) 90

    2007

  68. [79]

    Foreman-Mackey,corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in python, The Journal of Open Source Software 1 (2016) 24

    D. Foreman-Mackey,corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in python, The Journal of Open Source Software 1 (2016) 24

    2016

  69. [80]

    Moresco,Measuring the expansion history of the Universe with cosmic chronometers, 2412.01994

    M. Moresco,Measuring the expansion history of the Universe with cosmic chronometers, 2412.01994

    arXiv

  70. [81]

    Jimenez, L

    R. Jimenez, L. Verde, T. Treu and D. Stern,Constraints on the equation of state of dark energy and the Hubble constant from stellar ages and the CMB, Astrophys. J. 593 (2003) 622 [astro-ph/0302560]

    2003 arXiv

  71. [82]

    Simon, L

    J. Simon, L. Verde and R. Jimenez,Constraints on the redshift dependence of the dark energy potential, Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 123001 [astro-ph/0412269]

    2005 arXiv

  72. [83]

    Jimenez and A

    R. Jimenez and A. Loeb,Constraining cosmological parameters based on relative galaxy ages, Astrophys. J. 573 (2002) 37 [astro-ph/0106145]

    2002 arXiv

  73. [84]

    Pastén and V

    E. Pastén and V. H. Cárdenas,Testing ΛCDM cosmology in a binned universe: Anomalies in the deceleration parameter, Phys. Dark Univ.40 (2023) 101224 [2301.10740]

    2023 arXiv

  74. [85]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara,On the homogeneity of SnIa absolute magnitude in the Pantheon+ sample, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.520 (2023) 5110 [2301.01024]

    2023 arXiv

  75. [86]

    Silveira and I

    V. Silveira and I. Waga,Decaying Lambda cosmologies and power spectrum, Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 4890

    1994

  76. [87]

    W. J. Percival,Cosmological structure formation in a homogeneous dark energy background, Astron. Astrophys.443 (2005) 819 [astro-ph/0508156]

    2005 arXiv

  77. [88]

    Bueno Belloso, J

    A. Bueno Belloso, J. García-Bellido and D. Sapone,A parametrization of the growth index of matter perturbations in various Dark Energy models and observational prospects using a Euclid-like survey, JCAP 2011 (2011) 010 [1105.4825]

    2011 arXiv

  78. [89]

    Nesseris and D

    S. Nesseris and D. Sapone,Accuracy of the growth index in the presence of dark energy perturbations, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 023013 [1505.06601]

    2015 arXiv

  79. [90]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [1807.06209]. – 29 –

    2018 arXiv

  80. [91]

    Sesana, F

    A. Sesana, F. Haardt, P. Madau and M. Volonteri,The gravitational wave signal from massive black hole binaries and its contribution to the LISA data stream, Astrophys. J. 623 (2005) 23 [astro-ph/0409255]

    2005 arXiv

  81. [92]

    Sesana, M

    A. Sesana, M. Volonteri and F. Haardt,The imprint of massive black hole formation models on the LISA data stream, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.377 (2007) 1711 [astro-ph/0701556]

    2007 arXiv

  82. [93]

    B. S. Sathyaprakash and B. F. Schutz,Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology with Gravitational Waves, Living Rev. Rel.12 (2009) 2 [0903.0338]

    2009 arXiv

  83. [94]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer and G. Servant,The stochastic gravitational wave background from turbulence and magnetic fields generated by a first-order phase transition, JCAP 12 (2009) 024 [0909.0622]

    2009 arXiv

  84. [95]

    Caprini et al.,Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA

    C. Caprini et al.,Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. II: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions, JCAP 04 (2016) 001 [1512.06239]

    2016 arXiv

  85. [96]

    Tamanini, C

    N. Tamanini, C. Caprini, E. Barausse, A. Sesana, A. Klein and A. Petiteau,Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. III: Probing the expansion of the Universe using gravitational wave standard sirens, JCAP (2016) [ 1601.07112]

    2016 arXiv

  86. [97]

    LISA collaboration, Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, 1702.00786

    arXiv

  87. [98]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa,Cosmological Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves, Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) 163001 [1801.04268]

    2018 arXiv

  88. [99]

    Rel.26 (2023) 5 [2204.05434]

    LISA Cosmology Working Group collaboration, Cosmology with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Living Rev. Rel.26 (2023) 5 [2204.05434]

    2023 arXiv

  89. [100]

    D. E. Holz and S. A. Hughes,Using gravitational-wave standard sirens, Astrophys. J. 629 (2005) 15 [astro-ph/0504616]

    2005 arXiv

  90. [101]

    Tamanini,Late time cosmology with LISA: probing the cosmic expansion with massive black hole binary mergers as standard sirens, J

    N. Tamanini,Late time cosmology with LISA: probing the cosmic expansion with massive black hole binary mergers as standard sirens, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.840 (2017) 012029 [1612.02634]

    2017 arXiv

  91. [102]

    C. M. Hirata, D. E. Holz and C. Cutler,Reducing the weak lensing noise for the gravitational wave Hubble diagram using the non-Gaussianity of the magnification distribution, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 124046 [1004.3988]

    2010 arXiv

  92. [103]

    Shapiro, D

    C. Shapiro, D. Bacon, M. Hendry and B. Hoyle,Delensing Gravitational Wave Standard Sirens with Shear and Flexion Maps, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.404 (2010) 858 [0907.3635]

    2010 arXiv

  93. [104]

    Kocsis, Z

    B. Kocsis, Z. Frei, Z. Haiman and K. Menou,Finding the electromagnetic counterparts of cosmological standard sirens, Astrophys. J. 637 (2006) 27 [astro-ph/0505394]

    2006 arXiv

  94. [105]

    Li,Extracting physics from gravitational waves, Springer Thesis (2015)

    T. Li,Extracting physics from gravitational waves, Springer Thesis (2015)

    2015

  95. [106]

    Dahlen et al.,A Critical Assessment of Photometric Redshift Methods: A CANDELS Investigation, Astrophys

    T. Dahlen et al.,A Critical Assessment of Photometric Redshift Methods: A CANDELS Investigation, Astrophys. J. 775 (2013) 93 [1308.5353]

    2013 arXiv

  96. [107]

    E. V. Linder,Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett.90 (2003) 091301 [astro-ph/0208512]

    2003 arXiv

  97. [108]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman,emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific125 (2013) 306 [1202.3665]

    2013 arXiv

  98. [109]

    Cambridge University Press, 2018, 10.1017/9781316182406

    Bayesian Astrophysics, Canary Islands Winter School of Astrophysics. Cambridge University Press, 2018, 10.1017/9781316182406

    2018 doi

  99. [110]

    Trotta,Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology, Contemporary Physics 49 (2008) 71 [0803.4089]

    R. Trotta,Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology, Contemporary Physics 49 (2008) 71 [0803.4089]

    2008 arXiv

  100. [111]

    Rudolph,Convergence analysis of canonical genetic algorithms, IEEE transactions on neural networks 5 (1994) 96

    G. Rudolph,Convergence analysis of canonical genetic algorithms, IEEE transactions on neural networks 5 (1994) 96. – 30 –

    1994

  101. [112]

    Akrami, P

    Y. Akrami, P. Scott, J. Edsjo, J. Conrad and L. Bergstrom,A Profile Likelihood Analysis of the Constrained MSSM with Genetic Algorithms, JHEP 04 (2010) 057 [0910.3950]

    2010 arXiv

  102. [113]

    Crowder, N

    J. Crowder, N. J. Cornish and L. Reddinger,Darwin meets Einstein: LISA data analysis using genetic algorithms, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 063011 [gr-qc/0601036]

    2006 arXiv

  103. [114]

    Bogdanos and S

    C. Bogdanos and S. Nesseris,Genetic Algorithms and Supernovae Type Ia Analysis, JCAP 05 (2009) 006 [0903.2805]

    2009 arXiv

  104. [115]

    Nesseris and A

    S. Nesseris and A. Shafieloo,A model independent null test on the cosmological constant, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.408 (2010) 1879 [1004.0960]

    2010 arXiv

  105. [116]

    Nesseris and J

    S. Nesseris and J. Garcia-Bellido,A new perspective on Dark Energy modeling via Genetic Algorithms, JCAP 11 (2012) 033 [1205.0364]

    2012 arXiv

  106. [117]

    R. C. Bernardo and J. Levi Said,Towards a model-independent reconstruction approach for late-time Hubble data, JCAP 08 (2021) 027 [2106.08688]

    2021 arXiv

  107. [118]

    Gómez-Vargas, J

    I. Gómez-Vargas, J. B. Andrade and J. A. Vázquez,Neural networks optimized by genetic algorithms in cosmology, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 043509 [2209.02685]

    2023 arXiv

  108. [119]

    M. B. Bainbridge and J. K. Webb,Artificial intelligence applied to the automatic analysis of absorption spectra. Objective measurement of the fine structure constant, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.468 (2017) 1639 [1606.07393]

    2017 arXiv

  109. [120]

    M. B. Bainbridge and J. K. Webb,Evaluating the New Automatic Method for the Analysis of Absorption Spectra Using Synthetic Spectra, Universe 3 (2017) 34 [1704.08710]

    2017 arXiv

  110. [121]

    C.-C. Lee, J. K. Webb, R. F. Carswell and D. Milaković,Artificial intelligence and quasar absorption system modelling; application to fundamental constants at high redshift, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.504 (2021) 1787 [2008.02583]

    2021 arXiv

  111. [122]

    J. K. Webb, C.-C. Lee, R. F. Carswell and D. Milaković,Getting the model right: an information criterion for spectroscopy, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.501 (2021) 2268 [2009.08336]

    2021 arXiv

  112. [123]

    Shafieloo, A

    A. Shafieloo, A. G. Kim and E. V. Linder,Gaussian Process Cosmography, Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 123530 [1204.2272]

    2012 arXiv

  113. [124]

    Seikel and C

    M. Seikel and C. Clarkson,Optimising Gaussian processes for reconstructing dark energy dynamics from supernovae, 1311.6678

    arXiv

  114. [125]

    Ó Colgáin and M

    E. Ó Colgáin and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari,Elucidating cosmological model dependence withH0, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 892 [2101.08565]

    2021 arXiv

  115. [126]

    M. K. Yennapureddy and F. Melia,Reconstruction of the HII Galaxy Hubble Diagram using Gaussian Processes, JCAP 11 (2017) 029 [1711.03454]

    2017 arXiv

  116. [127]

    Belgacem, S

    E. Belgacem, S. Foffa, M. Maggiore and T. Yang,Gaussian processes reconstruction of modified gravitational wave propagation, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 063505 [1911.11497]

    2020 arXiv

  117. [128]

    C. J. Moore, C. P. L. Berry, A. J. K. Chua and J. R. Gair,Improving gravitational-wave parameter estimation using Gaussian process regression, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 064001 [1509.04066]

    2016 arXiv

  118. [129]

    Cañas Herrera, O

    G. Cañas Herrera, O. Contigiani and V. Vardanyan,Learning How to Surf: Reconstructing the Propagation and Origin of Gravitational Waves with Gaussian Processes, Astrophys. J. 918 (2021) 20 [2105.04262]

    2021 arXiv

  119. [130]

    Briffa, S

    R. Briffa, S. Capozziello, J. Levi Said, J. Mifsud and E. N. Saridakis,Constraining teleparallel gravity through Gaussian processes, Class. Quant. Grav.38 (2020) 055007 [2009.14582]

    2020 arXiv

  120. [131]

    Y.-F. Cai, M. Khurshudyan and E. N. Saridakis,Model-independent reconstruction off (T ) gravity from Gaussian Processes, Astrophys. J. 888 (2020) 62 [1907.10813]. – 31 –

    2020 arXiv

  121. [132]

    Yang, Z.-K

    T. Yang, Z.-K. Guo and R.-G. Cai,Reconstructing the interaction between dark energy and dark matter using Gaussian Processes, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 123533 [1505.04443]

    2015 arXiv

  122. [133]

    Reyes and C

    M. Reyes and C. Escamilla-Rivera,Improving data-driven model-independent reconstructions and updated constraints on dark energy models from Horndeski cosmology, JCAP 07 (2021) 048 [2104.04484]

    2021 arXiv

  123. [134]

    Wang and X.-H

    D. Wang and X.-H. Meng,Improved constraints on the dark energy equation of state using Gaussian processes, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 023508 [1708.07750]

    2017 arXiv

  124. [135]

    Gómez-Valent and L

    A. Gómez-Valent and L. Amendola,H0 from cosmic chronometers and Type Ia supernovae, with Gaussian Processes and the novel Weighted Polynomial Regression method, JCAP 04 (2018) 051 [1802.01505]

    2018 arXiv

  125. [136]

    Zhang and H

    M.-J. Zhang and H. Li,Gaussian processes reconstruction of dark energy from observational data, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 460 [1806.02981]

    2018 arXiv

  126. [137]

    Mukherjee and N

    P. Mukherjee and N. Banerjee,Revisiting a non-parametric reconstruction of the deceleration parameter from combined background and the growth rate data, Phys. Dark Univ.36 (2022) 100998 [2007.15941]

    2022 arXiv

  127. [138]

    Aljaf, D

    M. Aljaf, D. Gregoris and M. Khurshudyan,Constraints on interacting dark energy models through cosmic chronometers and Gaussian process, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 544 [2005.01891]

    2021 arXiv

  128. [139]

    E.-K. Li, M. Du, Z.-H. Zhou, H. Zhang and L. Xu,Testing the effect ofH0 on f σ8 tension using a Gaussian process method, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.501 (2021) 4452 [1911.12076]

    2021 arXiv

  129. [140]

    K. Liao, A. Shafieloo, R. E. Keeley and E. V. Linder,A model-independent determination of the Hubble constant from lensed quasars and supernovae using Gaussian process regression, Astrophys. J. Lett.886 (2019) L23 [1908.04967]

    2019 arXiv

  130. [141]

    V. C. Busti, C. Clarkson and M. Seikel,The Value ofH0 from Gaussian Processes, IAU Symp. 306 (2014) 25 [1407.5227]

    2014 arXiv

  131. [142]

    Cai, Z.-K

    R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo and T. Yang,Null test of the cosmic curvature usingH(z) and supernovae data, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 043517 [1509.06283]

    2016 arXiv

  132. [143]

    Renzi and A

    F. Renzi and A. Silvestri,Hubble speed from first principles, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 023520 [2011.10559]

    2023 arXiv

  133. [144]

    D. J. MacKay,Bayesian interpolation, Neural computation 4 (1992) 415

    1992

  134. [145]

    M. E. Tipping,Sparse bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine, Journal of machine learning research1 (2001) 211

    2001

  135. [146]

    Clevert, T

    D.-A. Clevert, T. Unterthiner and S. Hochreiter,Fast and Accurate Deep Network Learning by Exponential Linear Units (ELUs), arXiv e-prints (2015) arXiv:1511.07289 [1511.07289]

    2015 arXiv

  136. [147]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba,Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization, arXiv e-prints (2014) arXiv:1412.6980 [1412.6980]

    2014 arXiv

  137. [148]

    Wang, Y.-B

    Y.-C. Wang, Y.-B. Xie, T.-J. Zhang, H.-C. Huang, T. Zhang and K. Liu,Likelihood-free Cosmological Constraints with Artificial Neural Networks: An Application on Hubble Parameters and SNe Ia, Astrophys. J. Supp.254 (2021) 43 [2005.10628]

    2021

  138. [149]

    Gómez-Vargas, R

    I. Gómez-Vargas, R. M. Esquivel, R. García-Salcedo and J. A. Vázquez,Neural network reconstructions for the Hubble parameter, growth rate and distance modulus, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 304 [2104.00595]

    2023 arXiv

  139. [150]

    K. F. Dialektopoulos, P. Mukherjee, J. Levi Said and J. Mifsud,Neural network reconstruction of scalar-tensor cosmology, Phys. Dark Univ.43 (2024) 101383 [2305.15500]

    2024 arXiv

  140. [151]

    K. F. Dialektopoulos, P. Mukherjee, J. Levi Said and J. Mifsud,Neural network reconstruction of cosmology using the Pantheon compilation, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 956 [2305.15499]. – 32 –

    2023 arXiv

  141. [152]

    Wang and P

    Y. Wang and P. M. Garnavich,Measuring time dependence of dark energy density from type Ia supernova data, Astrophys. J. 552 (2001) 445 [astro-ph/0101040]

    2001 arXiv

  142. [153]

    V. H. Cardenas,Exploring hints for dark energy density evolution in light of recent data, Phys. Lett. B750 (2015) 128 [1405.5116]

    2015 arXiv

  143. [154]

    S. Pan, W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, E. N. Saridakis and S. Chakraborty,Interacting scenarios with dynamical dark energy: Observational constraints and alleviation of theH0 tension, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 103520 [1907.07540]

    2019 arXiv

  144. [155]

    Grandon and V

    D. Grandon and V. H. Cardenas,Studies on dark energy evolution, Class. Quant. Grav.38 (2021) 145008 [2107.04876]

    2021 arXiv

  145. [156]

    R. C. Bernardo and Y.-R. Lee,Hubble constant by natural selection: Evolution chips in the Hubble tension, Astron. Comput. 44 (2023) 100740 [2212.02203]

    2023 arXiv

  146. [157]

    R. C. Bernardo, D. Grandón, J. Levi Said and V. H. Cárdenas,Dark energy by natural evolution: Constraining dark energy using Approximate Bayesian Computation, Phys. Dark Univ. 40 (2023) 101213 [2211.05482]. – 33 –

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.