Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Probing the distance-duality relation with high-z data

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1611.09426 v3 pith:6PVS7NKA submitted 2016-11-28 astro-ph.CO

Probing the distance-duality relation with high-z data

classification astro-ph.CO
keywords cddrdatalensingredshifttestvaliditydistancedistances
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Measurements of strong gravitational lensing jointly with type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) observations have been used to test the validity of the cosmic distance duality relation (CDDR), $D_L(z)/[(1+z)^2D_A(z)]=\eta=1$, where $D_L(z)$ and $D_A(z)$ are the luminosity and the angular diameter distances to a given redshift $z$, respectively. However, several lensing systems lie in the interval $1.4 \leq z \leq 3.6$ i.e., beyond the redshift range of current SNe Ia compilations ($z \approx 1.50$), which prevents this kind of test to be fully explored. In this paper, we circumvent this problem by testing the CDDR considering observations of strong gravitational lensing along with SNe Ia and { a subsample from} the latest gamma-ray burst distance modulus data, whose redshift range is $0.033 \leq z \leq 9.3$. { We parameterize their luminosity distances with a second degree polynomial function and search for possible deviations from the CDDR validity by using four different $\eta(z)$ functions: $\eta(z)=1+\eta_0z$, $\eta(z)=1+\eta_0z/(1+z)$, $\eta(z)=(1+z)^{\eta_0}$ and $\eta(z)=1+\eta_0\ln(1+z)$. Unlike previous tests done at redshifts lower than $1.50$, the likelihood for $\eta_0$ depends strongly on the $\eta(z)$ function considered, but we find no significant deviation from the CDDR validity ($\eta_0=0$). However, our analyses also point to the fact that caution is needed when one fits data in higher redshifts to test the CDDR as well as a better understanding of the mass distribution of lenses also is required for more accurate results.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Investigating the cosmic distance duality relation with gamma-ray bursts

    astro-ph.CO 2025-09 reject novelty 5.0

    Combined gamma-ray burst and multi-probe data show no significant violation of the cosmic distance duality relation and prefer a Planck-like Hubble constant.