Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-frp75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T00:22:06.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Value of H0 from Gaussian Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2015

Vinicius C. Busti ,
Chris Clarkson  and
Marina Seikel
Vinicius C. Busti
Affiliation:
Astrophysics, Cosmology & Gravity Centre (ACGC), and Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, Cape Town, South Africa email: vinicius.busti@iag.usp.br
Chris Clarkson
Affiliation:
Astrophysics, Cosmology & Gravity Centre (ACGC), and Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, Cape Town, South Africa email: vinicius.busti@iag.usp.br
Marina Seikel
Affiliation:
Astrophysics, Cosmology & Gravity Centre (ACGC), and Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, Cape Town, South Africa email: vinicius.busti@iag.usp.br Physics Department, University of Western Cape, Cape Town 7535, South Africa
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A new non-parametric method based on Gaussian Processes (GP) was proposed recently to measure the Hubble constant H0. The freedom in this approach comes in the chosen covariance function, which determines how smooth the process is and how nearby points are correlated. We perform coverage tests with a thousand mock samples within the ΛCDM model in order to determine what covariance function provides the least biased results. The function Matérn(5/2) is the best with sligthly higher errors than other covariance functions, although much more stable when compared to standard parametric analyses.

Keywords

methods: statistical(cosmology:) cosmological parameters(cosmology:) large-scale structure of universecosmology: observationscosmology: theory(cosmology:) distance scale

References

Busti, V. C., Clarkson, C., & Seikel, M. 2014, MNRAS (Letters) 441, L11 [preprint(arXiv:1402.5429)]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, C., Umeh, O., Maartens, R., & Durrer, R. 2014, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 11, 36Google Scholar
Efstathiou, G. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holanda, R. F. L., Busti, V. C., & Pordeus da Silva, G. 2014, MNRAS (Letters), 443, L74Google Scholar
Marra, V., Amendola, L., Sawicky, I., & Walkenburg, W. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 241305Google Scholar
Moresco, M.et al. 2012, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 8, 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R.et al. 2014, A&A 571, A16Google Scholar
Riess, A. G.et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seikel, M., Clarkson, C., & Smith, M. 2012, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 6, 36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seikel, M. & Clarkson, C. 2013, preprint(arXiv:1311.6678)Google Scholar
Simon, J., Verde, L., & Jimenez, R. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 123001Google Scholar
Spergel, D., Flauger, R., & Hlozek, R., 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 023518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, D., Jimenez, R., Verde, L., Kamionkowski, M., & Stanford, S. A. 2010, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 2, 8Google Scholar
Wyman, M., Rudd, D. H., Vanderveld, A., & Hu, W. 2014, Phys. Rev. Lett., 112, 051302Google Scholar