Cited by 1,182Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaStellar, planetary, and galactic studies

A 6% measurement of the Hubble parameter at z∼0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration

Open access
Moresco, Michele, Pozzetti, Lucia, Cimatti, Andrea, Jimenez, Raul, Maraston, Claudia, Verde, Licia, Thomas, Daniel, Citro, Annalisa +2 more·2016·Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics

Abstract

Deriving the expansion history of the Universe is a major goal of modern cosmology. To date, the most accurate measurements have been obtained with Type Ia Supernovae (SNe) and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO), providing evidence for the existence of a transition epoch at which the expansion rate changes from decelerated to accelerated. However, these results have been obtained within the framework of specific cosmological models that must be implicitly or explicitly assumed in the measurement. It is therefore crucial to obtain measurements of the accelerated expansion of the Universe independently of assumptions on cosmological models. Here we exploit the unprecedented statistics provided by the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS, [1-3]) Data Release 9 to provide new constraints on the Hubble parameter H ( z ) using the cosmic chronometers approach. We extract a sample of more than 130000 of the most massive and passively evolving galaxies, obtaining five new cosmology-independent H ( z ) measurements in the redshift range 0.3 < z < 0.5, with an accuracy of ∼11–16% incorporating both statistical and systematic errors. Once combined, these measurements yield a 6% accuracy constraint of H ( z = 0.4293) = 91.8 ± 5.3 km/s/Mpc. The new data are crucial to provide the first cosmology-independent determination of the transition redshift at high statistical significance, measuring z t = 0.4 ± 0.1, and to significantly disfavor the null hypothesis of no transition between decelerated and accelerated expansion at 99.9% confidence level. This analysis highlights the wide potential of the cosmic chronometers approach: it permits to derive constraints on the expansion history of the Universe with results competitive with standard probes, and most importantly, being the estimates independent of the cosmological model, it can constrain cosmologies beyond—and including—the ΛCDM model.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/05/014

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Using Gaussian-process regression with a Matérn 5/2 kernel constrained by BAO nodes from eBOSS DR16 yields β=1.97±0.05 and γ0=(3.6±0.4)×10^97 kB.

    “Using Gaussian-process regression with a Matérn 5/2 kernel constrained by BAO nodes from the eBOSS DR16 catalog [43], we obtainβ=1.97±0.05,γ0=(3.6±0.4)×1097kB.”

    From Counting Cosmic Cycles: Past Big Crunches, Future Recurrence Limits, and the Age of the Quantum Memory Matrix Universe (2025) · cites this paper as [41]

    The citation is attached to the identification of the BAO data as coming from the eBOSS DR16 catalog, not to the citing authors’ β and γ₀ estimates. In the H(z) measurement passage (page unavailable), the source instead identifies the BAO results it discusses as coming from final BOSS DR12; its Data and sample selection section describes BOSS data, not eBOSS DR16. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 78

  1. D. Schlegel, M. White and D. Eisenstein, The Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: precision measurements of the absolute cosmic distance scale, in astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, arXiv:0902.4680 [INSPIRE]. · arXiv
  2. SDSS collaboration, D.J. Eisenstein et al., SDSS-III: massive spectroscopic surveys of the distant universe, the Milky Way galaxy and extra-solar planetary systems, Astron. J. 142 (2011) 72 [arXiv:1101.1529] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  3. BOSS collaboration, K.S. Dawson et al., The Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey of SDSS-III, Astron. J. 145 (2013) 10 [arXiv:1208.0022] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  4. D.H. Weinberg et al., Observational probes of cosmic acceleration, Phys. Rept. 530 (2013) 87 [arXiv:1201.2434] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  5. SDSS collaboration, D.J. Eisenstein et al., Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies, Astrophys. J. 633 (2005) 560 [astro-ph/0501171] [INSPIRE]. JCAP05(2016)014 · DOI
  6. S. Cole et al., The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: power-spectrum analysis of the final data set and cosmological implications, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 362 (2005) 505 [astro-ph/0501174]. · DOI
  7. Planck collaboration, P.A.R. Ade et al., Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters, arXiv:1502.01589 [INSPIRE]. · arXiv
  8. R. Jimenez and A. Loeb, Constraining cosmological parameters based on relative galaxy ages, Astrophys. J. 573 (2002) 37 [astro-ph/0106145] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  9. 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 08 (2012) 006 [arXiv:1201.3609] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  10. J. Simon, L. Verde and R. Jimenez, Constraints on the redshift dependence of the dark energy potential, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 123001 [astro-ph/0412269] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  11. 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 02 (2010) 008 [arXiv:0907.3149] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  12. M. Moresco, L. Verde, L. Pozzetti, R. Jimenez and A. Cimatti, New constraints on cosmological parameters and neutrino properties using the expansion rate of the Universe to z ∼ 1.75, JCAP 07 (2012) 053 [arXiv:1201.6658] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  13. G.-B. Zhao, R.G. Crittenden, L. Pogosian and X. Zhang, Examining the evidence for dynamical dark energy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 171301 [arXiv:1207.3804] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  14. X. Wang et al., Observational constraints on cosmic neutrinos and dark energy revisited, JCAP 11 (2012) 018 [arXiv:1210.2136] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  15. S. Riemer-Sorensen, D. Parkinson, T.M. Davis and C. Blake, Simultaneous constraints on the number and mass of relativistic species, Astrophys. J. 763 (2013) 89 [arXiv:1210.2131] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  16. C. Maraston et al., Stellar masses of SDSS-III BOSS galaxies at z ∼ 0.5 and constraints to galaxy formation models, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 435 (2013) 2764 [arXiv:1207.6114] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  17. J.A.S. Lima, J.F. Jesus, R.C. Santos and M.S.S. Gill, Is the transition redshift a new cosmological number?, arXiv:1205.4688 [INSPIRE]. · arXiv
  18. S. Capozziello, O. Farooq, O. Luongo and B. Ratra, Cosmographic bounds on the cosmological deceleration-acceleration transition redshift in f (R) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 044016 [arXiv:1403.1421] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  19. S. Capozziello, O. Luongo and E.N. Saridakis, Transition redshift in f (T ) cosmology and observational constraints, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 124037 [arXiv:1503.02832] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  20. T. Treu et al., The assembly history of field spheroidals: evolution of mass-to-light ratios and signatures of recent star formation, Astrophys. J. 633 (2005) 174 [astro-ph/0503164] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  21. A. Renzini, Stellar population diagnostics of elliptical galaxy formation, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 44 (2006) 141 [astro-ph/0603479]. · DOI
  22. D. Thomas, C. Maraston, R. Bender and C.M. de Oliveira, The epochs of early-type galaxy formation as a function of environment, Astrophys. J. 621 (2005) 673 [astro-ph/0410209] [INSPIRE]. JCAP05(2016)014 · DOI
  23. D. Thomas et al., Environment and self-regulation in galaxy formation, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 404 (2010) 1775 [arXiv:0912.0259]. · DOI
  24. L. Pozzetti et al., zCOSMOS -10k-bright spectroscopic sample. The bimodality in the Galaxy Stellar Mass Function: exploring its evolution with redshift, Astron. Astrophys. 523 (2010) A13 [arXiv:0907.5416] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  25. C. Conroy, G. Graves and P. van Dokkum, Early-type galaxy archeology: ages, abundance ratios and effective temperatures from full-spectrum fitting, Astrophys. J. 780 (2014) 33 [arXiv:1303.6629] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  26. R.M. McDermid et al., The ATLAS 3D Project -XXX. Star formation histories and stellar population scaling relations of early-type galaxies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 448 (2015) 3484 [arXiv:1501.03723] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  27. R. Bender et al., Exploring cluster ellipticals as cosmological standard rods, Astrophys. J. 493 (1998) 529 [astro-ph/9708237] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  28. D.P. Carson and R.C. Nichol, The age-redshift relation for luminous red galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 408 (2010) 213 [arXiv:1006.2830]. · DOI
  29. M. Moresco, R. Jimenez, A. Cimatti and L. Pozzetti, Constraining the expansion rate of the Universe using low-redshift ellipticals as cosmic chronometers, JCAP 03 (2011) 045 [arXiv:1010.0831] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  30. G. Liu et al., Quiescent Luminous Red Galaxies (LRGs) as cosmic chronometers: on the significance of the mass and environmental dependence, arXiv:1509.08046. · arXiv
  31. M. Franx and P.G. van Dokkum, Measuring the evolution of the M/L ratio from the fundamental plane in CL 0024+16 at z = 0.39, in New light on galaxy evolution, R. Bender and R.L. Davies eds., Springer (1996), astro-ph/9603029 [INSPIRE]. · arXiv
  32. P.G. van Dokkum, M. Franx, D. Fabricant, G.D. Illingworth and D.D. Kelson, HST photometry and Keck spectroscopy of the rich cluster MS1054-03: Morphologies, Butcher-Oemler effect and the color-magnitude relation at z = 0.83, Astrophys. J. 541 (2000) 95 [astro-ph/0002507] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  33. M. Moresco et al., Spot the difference. Impact of different selection criteria on observed properties of passive galaxies in zCOSMOS 20-k sample, Astron. Astrophys. 558 (2013) A61 [arXiv:1305.1308] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  34. A.G. Bruzual, Spectral evolution of galaxies. 1. Early-type systems, Astrophys. J. 273 (1983) 105 [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  35. D. Hamilton, The spectral evolution of galaxies. I -an observational approach, Astrophys. J. 297 (1985) 371. · DOI
  36. M.L. Balogh, S.L. Morris, H.K.C. Yee, R.G. Carlberg and E. Ellingson, Differential galaxy evolution in cluster and field galaxies at z = 0.3, Astrophys. J. 527 (1999) 54 [astro-ph/9906470] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  37. M. White et al., The clustering of massive galaxies at z ∼ 0.5 from the first semester of BOSS data, Astrophys. J. 728 (2011) 126 [arXiv:1010.4915] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  38. D. Thomas et al., Stellar velocity dispersions and emission line properties of SDSS-III/BOSS galaxies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 431 (2013) 1383 [arXiv:1207.6115] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  39. K. L. Masters et al., The morphology of galaxies in the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 418 (2011) 1055 [arXiv:1106.3331]. · DOI
  40. A. Citro, L. Pozzetti, M. Moresco and A. Cimatti, Inferring the star formation histories of the most massive and passive early-type galaxies at z < 0.3, accepted for publication in Astron. Astrophys., arXiv:1604.07826. JCAP05(2016)014 · arXiv
  41. C. Maraston and G. Strömbäck, Stellar population models at high spectral resolution, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 418 (2011) 2785 [arXiv:1109.0543]. · DOI
  42. R. Cid Fernandes et al., Semi-empirical analysis of Sloan Digital Sky Survey galaxies -I. Spectral synthesis method, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 358 (2005) 363 [astro-ph/0412481]. · DOI
  43. R. Tojeiro, A.F. Heavens, R. Jimenez and B. Panter, Recovering galaxy star formation and metallicity histories from spectra using VESPA, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 381 (2007) 1252 [arXiv:0704.0941]. · DOI
  44. D.M. Wilkinson et al., P-MaNGA: full spectral fitting and stellar population maps from prototype observations, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 449 (2015) 328 [arXiv:1503.01124] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  45. G. Bruzual and S. Charlot, Stellar population synthesis at the resolution of 2003, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 344 (2003) 1000 [astro-ph/0309134]. · DOI
  46. C. Maraston et al., Evidence for TP-AGB stars in high redshift galaxies and their effect on deriving stellar population parameters, Astrophys. J. 652 (2006) 85 [Erratum ibid. 656 (2007) 1241] [astro-ph/0604530] [INSPIRE]. · DOI · Paper page
  47. J. Falcon-Barroso et al., An updated MILES stellar library and stellar population models, Astron. Astrophys. 532 (2011) A95 [arXiv:1107.2303] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  48. J.-F. Le Borgne et al., STELIB: a library of stellar spectra at R ∼ 2000, Astron. Astrophys. 402 (2003) 433 [astro-ph/0302334] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  49. A. Beifiori, C. Maraston, D. Thomas and J. Johansson, On the spectral resolution of the MILES stellar library, Astron. Astrophys. 531 (2011) A109 [arXiv:1012.3428] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  50. S. Smee et al., The multi-object, fiber-fed spectrographs for SDSS and the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey, Astron. J. 146 (2013) 32 [arXiv:1208.2233] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  51. R. Cid Fernandes et al., The star formation history of Seyfert 2 nuclei, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 355 (2004) 273 [astro-ph/0408483]. · DOI
  52. R. Tojeiro, S. Wilkins, A.F. Heavens, B. Panter and R. Jimenez, A public catalogue of stellar masses, star formation and metallicity histories and dust content from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey using VESPA, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 185 (2009) 1 [arXiv:0904.1001] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  53. S. Charlot and S.M. Fall, A simple model for the absorption of starlight by dust in galaxies, Astrophys. J. 539 (2000) 718 [astro-ph/0003128] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  54. B. Panter, A.F. Heavens and R. Jimenez, Star formation and metallicity history of the SDSS galaxy survey: unlocking the fossil record, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 343 (2003) 1145 [astro-ph/0211546]. · DOI
  55. A. Gallazzi et al., The ages and metallicities of galaxies in the local universe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 362 (2005) 41 [astro-ph/0506539]. · DOI
  56. R. Jimenez, M. Bernardi, Z. Haiman, B. Panter and A.F. Heavens, The ages, metallicities and star formation histories of early-type galaxies in SDSS, Astrophys. J. 669 (2007) 947 [astro-ph/0610724] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  57. B. Panter, R. Jimenez, A.F. Heavens and S. Charlot, The cosmic evolution of metallicity from the SDSS fossil record, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 391 (2008) 1117 [arXiv:0804.3091]. · DOI
  58. S. Toft et al., Deep absorption line studies of quiescent galaxies at z ∼ 2: the dynamical mass-size relation and first constraints on the fundamental plane, Astrophys. J. 754 (2012) 3 [arXiv:1204.3099] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  59. M. Onodera et al., The ages, metallicities and element abundance ratios of massive quenched galaxies at z 1.6, Astrophys. J. 808 (2015) 161 [arXiv:1411.5023] [INSPIRE]. JCAP05(2016)014 · DOI
  60. D.C. Hoaglin, F. Mosteller and J.W. Tukey, Understanding robust and exploratory data anlysis, Wiley, U.S.A. (1983).
  61. A. Fontana et al., The K20 survey. 6. The distribution of the stellar masses in galaxies up to z 2, Astron. Astrophys. 424 (2004) 23 [astro-ph/0405055] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  62. A. Cimatti, The cosmic evolution of early-type galaxies, in IAU symposium, F. Combes and J. Palouš eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K. (2007). · DOI
  63. A. Cimatti, The formation and evolution of early-type galaxies: solid results and open questions, AIP Conf. Proc. 1111 (2009) 191 [arXiv:0901.1457] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  64. C. Zhang, H. Zhang, S. Yuan, 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, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 14 (2014) 1221 [arXiv:1207.4541] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  65. 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 [arXiv:1503.01116] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  66. A.G. Riess et al., A 3% solution: determination of the Hubble constant with the Hubble Space Telescope and Wide Field Camera 3, Astrophys. J. 730 (2011) 119 [Erratum ibid. 732 (2011) 129] [arXiv:1103.2976] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  67. E.M.L. Humphreys, M.J. Reid, J.M. Moran, L.J. Greenhill and A.L. Argon, Toward a new geometric distance to the active galaxy NGC 4258. III. Final results and the Hubble constant, Astrophys. J. 775 (2013) 13 [arXiv:1307.6031] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  68. A.J. Cuesta et al., The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in the correlation function of LOWZ and CMASS galaxies in Data Release 12, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 457 (2016) 1770 [arXiv:1509.06371] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  69. N.G. Busca et al., Baryon acoustic oscillations in the Ly-α forest of BOSS quasars, Astron. Astrophys. 552 (2013) A96 [arXiv:1211.2616] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  70. O. Farooq and B. Ratra, Hubble parameter measurement constraints on the cosmological deceleration-acceleration transition redshift, Astrophys. J. Lett. 766 (2013) L7 [arXiv:1301.5243]. · DOI
  71. O. Farooq, S. Crandall and B. Ratra, Binned Hubble parameter measurements and the cosmological deceleration-acceleration transition, Phys. Lett. B 726 (2013) 72 [arXiv:1305.1957]. · DOI
  72. N. Rani, D. Jain, S. Mahajan, A. Mukherjee and N. Pires, Transition Redshift: New constraints from parametric and nonparametric methods, JCAP 12 (2015) 045 [arXiv:1503.08543] [INSPIRE]. · DOI
  73. A.R. Liddle, Information criteria for astrophysical model selection, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 377 (2007) L74 [astro-ph/0701113]. · DOI
  74. H. Jeffreys, Theory of probability, Oxford University Press, Oxford U.K. (1961).
  75. EUCLID collaboration, R. Laureijs et al., Euclid definition study report, arXiv:1110.3193 [INSPIRE]. JCAP05(2016)014 · arXiv
  76. D. Spergel et al., Wide-Field InfraRed survey telescope-astrophysics focused telescope assets WFIRST-AFTA final report, arXiv:1305.5422 [INSPIRE]. · arXiv
  77. DESI collaboration, M. Levi et al., The DESI experiment, a whitepaper for Snowmass 2013, arXiv:1308.0847 [INSPIRE]. · arXiv
  78. LSST Science, LSST Project collaboration, P.A. Abell et al., LSST Science Book, Version 2.0, arXiv:0912.0201 [INSPIRE]. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moresco, M., Pozzetti, L., Cimatti, A., Jimenez, R., Maraston, C., Verde, L., Thomas, D., Citro, A., Tojeiro, R., & Wilkinson, D.
Affiliations
  • Osservatorio astronomico di Bologna (IT)
  • University of Bologna (IT)
  • Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ES)
  • University of Portsmouth (GB)
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
Venue
Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics
Published
2016-05-01
Volume
2016
Issue
05
Pages
014-014
ISSN
  • 1475-7508 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-7516
OpenAlex
W2235685666
Cited by
1,182
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 153 · 2025: 197 · 2024: 169 · 2023: 131 · 2022: 105 · 2021: 105 · 2020: 97 · 2019: 82 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 21
FWCI
35.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (publishedVersion)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • Yale University
  • Vanderbilt University
  • Princeton University
  • Ohio State University
  • Harvard University
  • University of Washington
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Carnegie Mellon University
  • University of Portsmouth
  • New Mexico State University
  • York University
  • Imperial College London
  • Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (2010-2011)
  • Office of Science
  • College of Engineering, Michigan State University
  • Science and Technology Facilities Council (ST/N000668/1, ST/K00090X/1)
  • Institut de Ciències del Cosmos (MDM-2014-0369)
  • Brookhaven National Laboratory
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (240117)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Keywords
Hubble parameter, cosmic chronometers, transition redshift, cosmic expansion history, dark energy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review