Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 371

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of the legacy and gold type Ia supernovae dataset constraints on dark energy models

Open access
Nesseris, S., Perivolaropoulos, L.·2005·Physical Review D

Abstract

We have performed a comparative analysis of three recent and reliable SnIa datasets available in the literature: the Full Gold (FG) dataset (157 data points $0<z<1.75$), a Truncated Gold (TG) dataset (140 data points $0<z<1$) and the most recent Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS) dataset (115 data points $0<z<1$). We have analyzed and compared the likelihood of cosmological constant and dynamical dark energy parametrizations allowing for crossing of the phantom divide line (PDL). We find that, even though the constraints obtained using the three datasets are consistent with each other at the 95% confidence level, the latest (SNLS) dataset shows distinct trends which are not shared by the Gold datasets. We find that the best fit dynamical $w(z)$ obtained from the SNLS dataset does not cross the PDL $w=\ensuremath{-}1$ and remains above and close to the $w=\ensuremath{-}1$ line for the whole redshift range $0<z<1$ showing no evidence for phantom behavior. The $\ensuremath{\Lambda}+\mathrm{\text{Cold}}\text{ }\mathrm{\text{Dark}}\text{ }\mathrm{\text{Matter}}$ (LCDM) parameter values (${w}_{0}=\ensuremath{-}1$, ${w}_{1}=0$) almost coincide with the best fit parameters of the dynamical $w(z)$ parametrizations. In contrast, the best fit dynamical $w(z)$ obtained from the Gold datasets (FG and TG) clearly crosses the PDL and departs significantly from the PDL $w=\ensuremath{-}1$ line while the LCDM parameter values are about $2\ensuremath{\sigma}$ away from the best fit $w(z)$. In addition, the $({\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{0m},{\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{\ensuremath{\Lambda}})$ parameters in a LCDM parametrization without a flat prior, fit by the SNLS dataset, favor the minimal flat LCDM concordance model. The corresponding fit with the Gold datasets mildly favors a closed universe and the flat LCDM parameter values are $1\ensuremath{\sigma}--2\ensuremath{\sigma}$ away from the best fit $({\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{0m},{\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{\ensuremath{\Lambda}})$.

Overview

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 · 10.1103/physrevd.72.123519

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 371

Metadata

Authors
Nesseris, S., & Perivolaropoulos, L.
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
2005-12-22
Volume
72
Issue
12
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
OpenAlex
W1516162938
Cited by
371
References
6
FWCI
15.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of the legacy and gold type Ia supernovae dataset constraints on dark energy models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1103/physrevd.72.123519
The paper
Nesseris, S., & Perivolaropoulos, L. (2005). Comparison of the legacy and gold type Ia supernovae dataset constraints on dark energy models. Physical Review D. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.72.123519

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.