AG-2024.08-076·astro-ph.CO·cross-listed: gr-qc
Cosmological constraints from calibrated $E_p-E_{iso}$ gamma-ray burst correlation by using DESI 2024 data release
Authors
- Anna Chiara Alfano
- Orlando Luongo
- Marco Muccino
Abstract
Recent outcomes by the DESI Collaboration have shed light on a possible slightly evolving dark energy, challenging the standard $Λ$CDM paradigm. To better understand dark energy nature, high-redshift observations like gamma-ray burst data become essential for mapping the universe expansion history, provided they are calibrated with other probes. To this aim, we calibrate the $E_p-E_{iso}$ (or Amati) correlation through model-independent Bézier interpolations of the updated Hubble rate and the novel DESI data sets. More precisely, we provide two Bézier calibrations: i) handling the entire DESI sample, and ii) excluding the point at $z_{eff}=0.51$, criticized by the recent literature. In both the two options, we let the comoving sound horizon at the drag epoch, $r_d$, vary in the range $r_d \in [138, 156]$ Mpc. The Planck value is also explored for comparison. By means of the so-calibrated gamma-ray bursts, we thus constrain three dark energy frameworks, namely the standard $Λ$CDM, the $ω_0$CDM and the $ω_0ω_1$CDM models, in both spatially flat and non-flat universes. To do so, we worked out Monte Carlo Markov chain analyses, making use of the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. Further, we adopt model selection criteria to check the statistically preferred cosmological model finding a preference towards the concordance paradigm only whether the spatial curvature is zero. Conversely, and quite interestingly, the flat $ω_0$CDM and both the cases, flat/non-flat, $ω_0ω_1$CDM model, leave evidently open the chance that dark energy evolves at higher redshifts.
Submitted
5 August 20241 year ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2408.02536
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.