pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.27173 · v1 · pith:U5DTOZWGnew · submitted 2026-06-25 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Redshift-Dependent Intrinsic Dispersion in the Quasar UV/X-ray Luminosity Relation

Jiaze Gao , Jianping Hu , Yun Chen , Bowen Zhao , Lixin Xu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 03:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords quasar UV/X-ray luminosity relationintrinsic dispersionredshift dependenceGaussian process regressionBayesian model comparisoncosmological inferenceLambda CDM
0
0 comments X

The pith

The intrinsic dispersion in the quasar UV/X-ray luminosity relation decreases above redshift 1.6

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

The paper tests whether the scatter around the quasar UV/X-ray luminosity relation stays constant or varies with redshift between 0.7 and 2.6. It uses luminosity distances calibrated independently from cosmic chronometers and baryon acoustic oscillations through Gaussian-process regression to compare models. The data indicate that dispersion stays roughly constant up to z=1.6 but trends downward at higher redshifts, where the redshift-dependent model is decisively favored by Bayesian evidence. This choice of model shifts the inferred matter density in flat LambdaCDM by about 0.025, showing that dispersion modeling belongs in the systematic error budget for quasar cosmology.

Core claim

Bayesian model comparison and posterior constraints show that the intrinsic dispersion is not well described by a single redshift-independent constant over 0.7<z<2.6. It remains approximately constant at 0.7<z<1.6, but shows an overall decreasing trend in the higher-redshift interval 1.6<z<2.6, where the redshift-dependent intrinsic-dispersion model is decisively favored. This conclusion remains qualitatively robust against changes in the scaling-relation parameterization, GP kernel, and redshift binning scheme. Under the adopted calibration setup, the redshift-dependent model shifts the posterior median of Omega_m0 by Delta Omega_m0 simeq 0.025 in the flat LambdaCDM model.

What carries the argument

Bayesian evidence comparison between constant and redshift-dependent models for intrinsic dispersion, using luminosity distances reconstructed via Gaussian-process regression on cosmic chronometer and BAO data as an independent calibration.

If this is right

  • Dispersion remains approximately constant over 0.7<z<1.6
  • Dispersion shows a decreasing trend over 1.6<z<2.6 and the dependent model is decisively favored there
  • The modeling choice shifts the posterior median of Omega_m0 by approximately 0.025 in flat LambdaCDM
  • Intrinsic-dispersion modeling forms a non-negligible part of the systematic-error budget for quasar cosmology

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The observed decrease may trace changes in quasar emission mechanisms or selection effects that become important at higher redshifts
  • Variable dispersion modeling may be required for other high-redshift distance indicators to keep cosmological inferences unbiased
  • Next-generation quasar surveys should test whether the downward trend continues or stabilizes beyond z=2.6

Load-bearing premise

The luminosity distances reconstructed from cosmic chronometer and baryon acoustic oscillation measurements through Gaussian-process regression provide an unbiased, independent calibration set for the quasar relation.

What would settle it

Independent distance measurements or an alternative reconstruction method that instead favors a single constant dispersion across the full 0.7<z<2.6 range would falsify the redshift dependence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.27173 by Bowen Zhao, Jianping Hu, Jiaze Gao, Lixin Xu, Yun Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Reconstructed Hubble parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Evolution of the intrinsic dispersion in the quasar UV/X-ray luminosity relation. The red solid curve shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Posterior distributions obtained under the con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Accurate modeling of the intrinsic dispersion in the quasar UV/X-ray luminosity relation is essential for reliable cosmological inference. We investigate its redshift dependence using luminosity distances reconstructed from cosmic chronometer and baryon acoustic oscillation measurements through Gaussian-process (GP) regression. Bayesian model comparison and posterior constraints show that the intrinsic dispersion is not well described by a single redshift-independent constant over $0.7<z<2.6$. It remains approximately constant at $0.7<z<1.6$, but shows an overall decreasing trend in the higher-redshift interval $1.6<z<2.6$, where the redshift-dependent intrinsic-dispersion model is decisively favored. This conclusion remains qualitatively robust against changes in the scaling-relation parameterization, GP kernel, and redshift binning scheme. We further examine its impact on cosmological inference in the flat $\Lambda$CDM model and find that, under the adopted calibration setup, the redshift-dependent intrinsic-dispersion model shifts the posterior median of $\Omega_{\rm m0}$ by $\Delta\Omega_{\rm m0}\simeq 0.025$. This indicates that intrinsic-dispersion modeling is a non-negligible component of the systematic-error budget for quasar cosmology and should be accounted for in future precision analyses.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims that luminosity distances reconstructed via Gaussian-process regression from cosmic chronometer and BAO data reveal a redshift-dependent intrinsic dispersion in the quasar UV/X-ray luminosity relation over 0.7<z<2.6. The dispersion is approximately constant at 0.7<z<1.6 but shows a decreasing trend at 1.6<z<2.6, where Bayesian model comparison decisively favors the redshift-dependent model over a constant-dispersion alternative. The result is stated to be robust to changes in scaling-relation parameterization, GP kernel, and redshift binning, and it shifts the posterior median of Omega_m0 by ~0.025 in flat LambdaCDM.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work is significant for quasar cosmology because it quantifies how unmodeled redshift dependence in intrinsic scatter enters the systematic-error budget and biases cosmological parameters at a level comparable to current statistical uncertainties. The use of independent GP-reconstructed distances from CC+BAO as an external anchor is a methodological strength that avoids circularity with the quasar sample itself.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract (method paragraph) and robustness discussion] Abstract (method paragraph) and robustness discussion: the conclusion that the decreasing dispersion trend at z>1.6 is intrinsic to the quasars rests on the GP-reconstructed distances being free of redshift-dependent systematics. While robustness to GP kernel choice is reported, the manuscript does not test or discuss how redshift-dependent modeling assumptions in the input CC (stellar population synthesis) or BAO (sound-horizon, bias) data could propagate through the GP mean distance and be absorbed into the fitted dispersion parameters, potentially mimicking the reported trend.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for this constructive comment highlighting a potential source of systematic uncertainty. We address the point below and agree that additional discussion is warranted.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract (method paragraph) and robustness discussion] Abstract (method paragraph) and robustness discussion: the conclusion that the decreasing dispersion trend at z>1.6 is intrinsic to the quasars rests on the GP-reconstructed distances being free of redshift-dependent systematics. While robustness to GP kernel choice is reported, the manuscript does not test or discuss how redshift-dependent modeling assumptions in the input CC (stellar population synthesis) or BAO (sound-horizon, bias) data could propagate through the GP mean distance and be absorbed into the fitted dispersion parameters, potentially mimicking the reported trend.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not explicitly test or discuss the propagation of redshift-dependent systematics from the input CC (e.g., stellar population synthesis models) or BAO (e.g., sound-horizon calibration and bias) datasets through the GP reconstruction. Such effects could in principle introduce redshift-dependent biases in the mean distance function that are then absorbed into the fitted dispersion parameters. While the GP is non-parametric and data-driven, and we have demonstrated robustness to kernel choice, we acknowledge this as a limitation not addressed in the current analysis. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the robustness section (and a brief note in the abstract/methods) acknowledging this possibility, noting that the adopted CC and BAO compilations are standard in the literature, and stating that future work could vary the underlying modeling assumptions to quantify any residual impact. We maintain that the reported trend is unlikely to be entirely mimicked by these effects given the consistency across independent datasets, but we accept that an explicit caveat improves the paper. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation grounded in independent external distances

full rationale

The paper reconstructs luminosity distances from cosmic chronometer ages and BAO measurements via GP regression, then uses those distances to fit and compare dispersion models on the quasar sample. This calibration chain relies on external data sources whose assumptions (stellar populations for CC, sound horizon for BAO) are independent of the quasar UV/X-ray relation itself. The Bayesian model comparison favoring redshift-dependent dispersion is therefore a statistical outcome on the quasar data given the external anchor, not a self-definitional or fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction result. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes imported from prior author work appear in the provided text. The central claim remains falsifiable against the independent distance posterior.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Analysis rests on GP reconstruction of distances and Bayesian comparison; free parameters are the dispersion model coefficients and GP kernel hyperparameters; no new entities postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • redshift-dependent dispersion parameters
    Coefficients describing how dispersion varies with redshift are fitted to the quasar data.
  • GP kernel hyperparameters
    Hyperparameters of the Gaussian process used to reconstruct luminosity distances.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Gaussian-process regression on cosmic chronometer and BAO data yields unbiased luminosity distances independent of the quasar relation
    Invoked to calibrate the UV/X-ray relation without circularity from the same sample.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5766 in / 1411 out tokens · 44180 ms · 2026-06-26T03:53:20.819757+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

91 extracted references · 48 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    D. J. Mortlocket al., Nature474, 616 (2011), arXiv:1106.6088 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  2. [2]

    Risaliti and E

    G. Risaliti and E. Lusso, Astron. Nachr.338, 329 (2017), arXiv:1612.02838 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Banadoset al., Nature553, 473 (2018), arXiv:1712.01860 [astro-ph.GA]

    E. Banadoset al., Nature553, 473 (2018), arXiv:1712.01860 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Lussoet al., Astron

    E. Lussoet al., Astron. Astrophys.642, A150 (2020), arXiv:2008.08586 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    W. L. Freedman, Astrophys. J.919, 16 (2021), arXiv:2106.15656 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, J. B. Bowers, L. Macri, J. C. Zinn, and D. Scolnic, Astrophys. J. Lett. 908, L6 (2021), arXiv:2012.08534 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Wanget al., Astrophys

    F. Wanget al., Astrophys. J. Lett.907, L1 (2021), arXiv:2101.03179 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Broutet al., Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Bogd´ an, A

    ´A. Bogd´ an, A. D. Goulding, P. Natarajan, O. E. Kov´ acs, G. R. Tremblay, U. Chadayammuri, M. Volon- teri, R. P. Kraft, W. R. Forman, C. Jones, E. Chura- zov, and I. Zhuravleva, Nature Astronomy8, 126 (2024), arXiv:2305.15458 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    J. A. Baldwin, Astrophys. J.214, 679 (1977)

    1977

  12. [12]

    P. S. Osmer and J. C. Shields, ASP Conf. Ser.162, 235 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9811459

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  13. [13]

    Elvis and M

    M. Elvis and M. Karovska, Astrophys. J. Lett.581, L67 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0211385

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  14. [14]

    Watson, K

    D. Watson, K. D. Denney, M. Vestergaard, and T. M. Davis, Astrophys. J. Lett.740, L49 (2011), arXiv:1109.4632 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  15. [15]

    J. M. Wang, P. Du, D. Valls-Gabaud, C. Hu, and H. Netzer, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 081301 (2013), arXiv:1301.4225 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [16]

    Marziani and J

    P. Marziani and J. W. Sulentic, Adv. Space Res.54, 1331 (2014), arXiv:1310.3143 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [17]

    La Franca, S

    F. La Franca, S. Bianchi, G. Ponti, E. Branchini, and G. Matt, Astrophys. J. Lett.787, L12 (2014), arXiv:1404.2607 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    Kilerci Eser, M

    E. Kilerci Eser, M. Vestergaard, B. M. Peterson, K. D. Denney, and M. C. Bentz, Astrophys. J.801, 8 (2015), arXiv:1411.2977 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  19. [19]

    Tananbaum, Y

    H. Tananbaum, Y. Avni, G. Branduardi, M. Elvis, G. Fabbiano, E. Feigelson, R. Giacconi, J. P. Henry, J. P. Pye, A. Soltan, and G. Zamorani, Astrophys. J. Lett. 234, L9 (1979)

    1979

  20. [20]

    Zamorani, J

    G. Zamorani, J. P. Henry, T. Maccacaro, H. Tananbaum, A. Soltan, Y. Avni, J. Liebert, J. Stocke, P. A. Strittmat- ter, R. J. Weymann, M. G. Smith, and J. J. Condon, Astrophys. J.245, 357 (1981)

    1981

  21. [21]

    Avni and H

    Y. Avni and H. Tananbaum, Astrophys. J.305, 83 (1986)

    1986

  22. [22]

    Risaliti and E

    G. Risaliti and E. Lusso, Astrophys. J.815, 33 (2015), arXiv:1505.07118 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    Lusso and G

    E. Lusso and G. Risaliti, Astrophys. J.819, 154 (2016), arXiv:1602.01090 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    M. G. Dainotti, G. Bargiacchi, A. L. Lenart, S. Capozziello, E. ´O Colg´ ain, R. Solomon, D. Sto- jkovic, and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Astrophys. J.931, 106 (2022), arXiv:2203.12914 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Sacchi, G

    A. Sacchi, G. Risaliti, M. Signorini, E. Lusso, E. Nardini, G. Bargiacchi, S. Bisogni, F. Civano, M. Elvis, G. Fab- biano, R. Gilli, B. Trefoloni, and C. Vignali, Astron. As- trophys.663, L7 (2022), arXiv:2206.13528 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Lusso, G

    E. Lusso, G. Risaliti, and E. Nardini, Astron. Astrophys. 697, A108 (2025), arXiv:2504.02040 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Sacchi, G

    A. Sacchi, G. Risaliti, M. Signorini, E. Nardini, E. Lusso, and B. Trefoloni, Astron. Astrophys.703, A273 (2025), arXiv:2508.00732 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Li, Z.-H

    G.-X. Li, Z.-H. Li, N. Song, C. Chen, C. Dong, J.-W. Tian, Z.-C. Zhang, J.-Y.-H. Li, H.-L. Tian, and M.-Y.- N. Ma, Astron. Astrophys.706, A337 (2026)

    2026

  29. [29]

    Svensson and A

    R. Svensson and A. A. Zdziarski, Astrophys. J.436, 599 (1994)

    1994

  30. [30]

    Merloni and A

    A. Merloni and A. C. Fabian, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 332, 165 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0112451 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  31. [31]

    Lusso and G

    E. Lusso and G. Risaliti, Astron. Astrophys.602, A79 (2017), arXiv:1703.05299 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    Kubota and C

    A. Kubota and C. Done, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.480, 1247 (2018), arXiv:1804.00171 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Signorini, G

    M. Signorini, G. Risaliti, E. Lusso, E. Nardini, G. Bar- giacchi, A. Sacchi, and B. Trefoloni, Astron. Astrophys. 676, A143 (2023), arXiv:2306.16438 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Marriner, J

    J. Marriner, J. P. Bernstein, R. Kessler, H. Lampeitl, R. Miquel, J. Mosher, R. C. Nichol, M. Sako, D. P. Schneider, and M. Smith, Astrophys. J.740, 72 (2011), arXiv:1107.4631 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  35. [35]

    Mosher, J

    J. Mosher, J. Guy, R. Kessler, P. Astier, J. Marriner, M. Betoule, M. Sako, P. El-Hage, R. Biswas, R. Pain, S. Kuhlmann, N. Regnault, J. A. Frieman, and D. P. Schneider, Astrophys. J.793, 16 (2014), arXiv:1401.4065 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

    Scolnic and R

    D. Scolnic and R. Kessler, Astrophys. J. Lett.822, L35 (2016), arXiv:1603.01559 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  37. [37]

    Kessler and D

    R. Kessler and D. Scolnic, Astrophys. J.836, 56 (2017), arXiv:1610.04677 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    Brout and D

    D. Brout and D. Scolnic, Astrophys. J.909, 26 (2021), arXiv:2004.10206 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Lusso, Astronomische Nachrichten340, 267 (2019), arXiv:1812.03179 [astro-ph.HE]

    E. Lusso, Astronomische Nachrichten340, 267 (2019), arXiv:1812.03179 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    Signorini, G

    M. Signorini, G. Risaliti, E. Lusso, E. Nardini, G. Bar- giacchi, A. Sacchi, and B. Trefoloni, Astron. Astrophys. 687, A32 (2024), arXiv:2312.08448 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    S. A. Prokhorenko, S. Y. Sazonov, M. R. Gilfanov, S. A. Balashev, I. F. Bikmaev, A. V. Ivanchik, P. S. Medvedev, A. A. Starobinsky, and R. A. Sunyaev, Mon. Not. R. 11 Astron. Soc.528, 5972 (2024), arXiv:2401.12860 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Prokhorenko, S

    S. Prokhorenko, S. Sazonov, M. Gilfanov, S. Balashev, A. Meshcheryakov, A. Ivanchik, I. Bikmaev, and R. Sun- yaev, JHEAp53, 100611 (2026), arXiv:2512.05807 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    T. Yang, A. Banerjee, and E. ´O Colg´ ain, Phys. Rev. D 102, 123532 (2020), arXiv:1911.01681 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    ´O Colg´ ain, M

    E. ´O Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, R. Solomon, G. Bargiacchi, S. Capozziello, M. G. Dainotti, and D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. D106, L041301 (2022), arXiv:2203.10558 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    ´O Colg´ ain, M

    E. ´O Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, R. Solomon, M. G. Dainotti, and D. Stojkovic, Physics of the Dark Universe 44, 101464 (2024), arXiv:2206.11447 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    ´O Colg´ ain, M

    E. ´O Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and L. Yin, Physics of the Dark Universe49, 101975 (2025), arXiv:2405.19953 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Khadka and B

    N. Khadka and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.497, 263 (2020), arXiv:2004.09979 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Khadka and B

    N. Khadka and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.502, 6140 (2021), arXiv:2012.09291 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    Z. Li, L. Huang, and J. Wang, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 517, 1901 (2022), arXiv:2210.02816 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 1901

  50. [50]

    Zhang, Y

    H. Zhang, Y. Liu, H. Yu, X. Nong, N. Liang, and P. Wu, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.530, 4493 (2024), arXiv:2404.15913 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    J. Wu, Y. Liu, H. Yu, and P. Wu, Chinese Physics C49, 075101 (2025), arXiv:2504.10862 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    X. Li, R. E. Keeley, and A. Shafieloo, Astrophys. J.983, 141 (2025), arXiv:2408.15547 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    J. Gao, Y. Chen, L. Xu, J. Hu, and X. Cao, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2606.12265 (2026), arXiv:2606.12265 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    J. P. Hu, X. D. Jia, D. H. Gao, J. Z. Gao, B. Q. Gao, and F. Y. Wang, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.542, 1063 (2025), arXiv:2508.05389 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Simon, L

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  56. [56]

    Morescoet al., JCAP2012, 006 (2012), arXiv:1201.3609 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Morescoet al., JCAP2012, 006 (2012), arXiv:1201.3609 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  57. [57]

    Zhang, H

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  58. [58]

    Moresco, L

    M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, L. Verde, D. Thomas, A. Citro, R. To- jeiro, and D. Wilkinson, JCAP2016, 014 (2016), arXiv:1601.01701 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  59. [59]

    Borghi, M

    N. Borghi, M. Moresco, and A. Cimatti, Astrophys. J. Lett.928, L4 (2022), arXiv:2110.04304 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  60. [60]

    Moresco, Mon

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  61. [61]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

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

    arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    Jimenez, M

    R. Jimenez, M. Moresco, L. Verde, and B. D. Wan- delt, JCAP2023, 047 (2023), arXiv:2306.11425 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    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]

    arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    Jimenez and A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  66. [66]

    Morescoet al., Living Reviews in Relativity25, 6 (2022), arXiv:2201.07241 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Morescoet al., Living Reviews in Relativity25, 6 (2022), arXiv:2201.07241 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  67. [67]

    Moresco, R

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

    arXiv 2020

  68. [68]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI Collaboration), JCAP2025, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI Collaboration), JCAP2025, 124 (2025), arXiv:2404.03001 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI Collaboration), JCAP2025, 012 (2025), arXiv:2404.03000 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Gazta˜ naga, A

    E. Gazta˜ naga, A. Cabr´ e, and L. Hui, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc.399, 1663 (2009), arXiv:0807.3551 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  72. [72]

    Wanget al., Mon

    Y. Wanget al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.469, 3762 (2017), arXiv:1607.03154 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  73. [73]

    Alamet al., Mon

    S. Alamet al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  74. [74]

    Chuang, F

    C.-H. Chuang, F. Prada, A. J. Cuesta, D. J. Eisen- stein, E. Kazin, N. Padmanabhan, A. G. S´ anchez, X. Xu, F. Beutler, M. Manera, D. J. Schlegel, D. P. Schneider, D. H. Weinberg, J. Brinkmann, J. R. Brownstein, and D. Thomas, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.433, 3559 (2013), arXiv:1303.4486 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  75. [75]

    Andersonet al., Mon

    L. Andersonet al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.441, 24 (2014), arXiv:1312.4877 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  76. [76]

    Blakeet al., Mon

    C. Blakeet al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.425, 405 (2012), arXiv:1204.3674 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  77. [77]

    Neveuxet al., Mon

    R. Neveuxet al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.499, 210 (2020), arXiv:2007.08999 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  78. [78]

    N. G. Buscaet al., Astron. Astrophys.552, A96 (2013), arXiv:1211.2616 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  79. [79]

    Delubacet al., Astron

    T. Delubacet al., Astron. Astrophys.574, A59 (2015), arXiv:1404.1801 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  80. [80]

    Font-Riberaet al., JCAP2014, 027 (2014), arXiv:1311.1767 [astro-ph.CO]

    A. Font-Riberaet al., JCAP2014, 027 (2014), arXiv:1311.1767 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

Showing first 80 references.