REVIEW 8 cited by
Inferring $S_8(z)$ and $\gamma(z)$ with cosmic growth rate measurements using machine learning
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
abstract
Measurements of the cosmological parameter $S_8$ provided by cosmic microwave background and large scale structure data reveal some tension between them, suggesting that the clustering features of matter in these early and late cosmological tracers could be different. In this work, we use a supervised learning method designed to solve Bayesian approach to regression, known as Gaussian Processes regression, to quantify the cosmic evolution of $S_8$ up to $z \sim 1.5$. For this, we propose a novel approach to find firstly the evolution of the function $\sigma_8(z)$, then we find the function $S_8(z)$. As a sub-product we obtain a minimal cosmological model-dependent $\sigma_8(z=0)$ and $S_8(z=0)$ estimates. We select independent data measurements of the growth rate $f(z)$ and of $[f\sigma_8](z)$ according to criteria of non-correlated data, then we perform the Gaussian reconstruction of these data sets to obtain the cosmic evolution of $\sigma_8(z)$, $S_8(z)$, and the growth index $\gamma(z)$. Our statistical analyses show that $S_8(z)$ is compatible with Planck $\Lambda$CDM cosmology; when evaluated at the present time we find $\sigma_8(z=0) = 0.766 \pm 0.116$ and $S_8(z=0) = 0.732 \pm 0.115$. Applying our methodology to the growth index, we find $\gamma(z=0) = 0.465 \pm 0.140$. Moreover, we compare our results with others recently obtained in the literature. In none of these functions, i.e. $\sigma_8(z)$, $S_8(z)$, and $\gamma(z)$, do we find significant deviations from the standard cosmology predictions.
Forward citations
Cited by 8 Pith papers
-
Early- and late-time constraints on Wald-Gauss-Bonnet topological dark energy and implications for the $H_0$ and $S_8$ tensions
A joint CMB, BAO, and supernova fit mildly prefers a non-zero Wald-Gauss-Bonnet dark-energy term (~3σ with SH0ES included), raising H0 from 68.5 to 69.8 km/s/Mpc and easing the Hubble tension by ~0.9σ at the cost of a...
-
Hubble tension: the shape wall
Late-time modifications to the expansion history can raise H0 by at most about 2% (conservative) to 3.7% (permissive) if the CMB acoustic scale is fixed.
-
Breaking the Dark Sector Degeneracy with Nonparametric Expansion--Growth Reconstruction
Joint nonparametric expansion–growth reconstruction finds no significant dark-sector interaction or dark-energy dynamics, remaining consistent with ΛCDM over 0≲z≲2.
-
Alleviating the Hubble Tension with Smooth Sign-Switching Dark Energy: Full CMB Constraints with DESI and PantheonPlus
Smooth ECDM dark energy remains compatible with Planck+ACT+SPT, DESI DR2 and Pantheon+/SH0ES while alleviating the Hubble tension through a controlled late-time density transition.
-
Observational constraints on 3-forms dark energy
Fitting a Gaussian-potential 3-form dark-energy model to Planck, DESI, Pantheon+, Cepheid and DES data shifts H0 up by only ~0.4 km/s/Mpc and yields a weak statistical preference over ΛCDM.
-
Cosmological tensions in Proca-Nuevo theory
Fitting a one-parameter vector-tensor dark energy model to CMB, BAO, and supernova data reduces the Hubble tension to about 1.5–2σ, but the preference over ΛCDM is weak and disappears once full perturbations are included.
-
Revisiting the temperature evolution law of the CMB with gaussian processes
Gaussian Process reconstruction of CMB temperature data yields mild (~2 sigma) hints of deviation from T(z)=T0(1+z) at low redshift and a slight tension with COBE/FIRAS.
-
Is $\omega_0 \omega_a$CDM a good model for the clumpy Universe?
Against a Gaussian-process reconstruction of 15 sigma8(z) measurements, the DESI w0waCDM model fits slightly better than LambdaCDM, but the difference is tiny and the comparison metric is biased.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.