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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V., Challis, P., Clocchiatti, A., Diercks, A., Garnavich, P. M., Gilliland, R. L., Hogan, C. J., Jha, S., Kirshner, R. P., et al. (1998) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.1086/300499 · Cited by 19,704
Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High‐Redshift Supernovae
Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., Knop, R. A., Nugent, P., Castro, P. G., Deustua, S., Fabbro, S., Goobar, A., Groom, D. E., et al. (1999) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/307221 · Cited by 18,062
Spergel, D. N., Verde, L., Peiris, H. V., Komatsu, E., Nolta, M. R., Bennett, C. L., Halpern, M., Hinshaw, G., Jarosik, N., Kogut, A., et al. (2003) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.1086/377226 · Cited by 10,976
Riess, A. G., Strolger, L., Tonry, J., Casertano, S., Ferguson, H. C., Mobasher, B., Challis, P., Filippenko, A. V., Jha, S., Li, W., et al. (2004) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/383612 · Cited by 4,315
Cosmological consequences of a rolling homogeneous scalar field
Ratra, B., & Peebles, P. J. E. (1988) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.37.3406 · Cited by 4,310
THE CASE FOR A POSITIVE COSMOLOGICAL Λ-TERM
SAHNI, V., & STAROBINSKY, A. (2000) · International Journal of Modern Physics D · doi:10.1142/s0218271800000542 · Cited by 2,767
Cited by
Bamba, K., Capozziello, S., Nojiri, S., & Odintsov, S. D. (2012) · Astrophysics and Space Science · doi:10.1007/s10509-012-1181-8 · Cited by 2,387
In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions *
Di Valentino, E., Mena, O., Pan, S., Visinelli, L., Yang, W., Melchiorri, A., Mota, D. F., Riess, A. G., & Silk, J. (2021) · Classical and Quantum Gravity · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d · Cited by 2,065
SAHNI, V., & STAROBINSKY, A. (2006) · International Journal of Modern Physics D · doi:10.1142/s0218271806009704 · Cited by 734
Two new diagnostics of dark energy
Sahni, V., Shafieloo, A., & Starobinsky, A. A. (2008) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.103502 · Cited by 709
Deser, S., & Woodard, R. P. (2007) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.99.111301 · Cited by 425
Metadata
- Authors
- Nesseris, S., & Perivolaropoulos, L.
- Venue
- Physical Review D
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- 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.