SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

B. L. Lago

Publications and source records attributed to B. L. Lago.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

From cosmic deceleration to acceleration: new constraints from SN Ia and BAO/CMB

We use type Ia supernovae (SN Ia) data in combination with recent baryonic acoustic oscillations (BAO) and cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations to constrain a kink-like parametrization of the deceleration parameter ($q$). This $q$-parametrization can be written in terms of the initial ($q_i$) and present ($q_0$) values of the deceleration parameter, the redshift of the cosmic transition from deceleration to acceleration ($z_t$) and the redshift width of such transition ($τ$). By assuming a flat space geometry, $q_i=1/2$ and adopting a likelihood approach to deal with the SN Ia data we obtain, at the 68% confidence level (C.L.), that: $z_t=0.56^{+0.13}_{-0.10}$, $τ=0.47^{+0.16}_{-0.20}$ and $q_0=-0.31^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$ when we combine BAO/CMB observations with SN Ia data processed with the MLCS2k2 light-curve fitter. When in this combination we use the SALT2 fitter we get instead, at the same C.L.: $z_t=0.64^{+0.13}_{-0.07}$, $τ=0.36^{+0.11}_{-0.17}$ and $q_0=-0.53^{+0.17}_{-0.13}$. Our results indicate, with a quite general and model independent approach, that MLCS2k2 favors Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati-like cosmological models, while SALT2 favors $Λ$CDM-like ones. Progress in determining the transition redshift and/or the present value of the deceleration parameter depends crucially on solving the issue of the difference obtained when using these two light-curve fitters.

astro-ph.CO

Type Ia supernova parameter estimation: a comparison of two approaches using current datasets

By using the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) first year type Ia supernova (SN Ia) compilation, we compare two different approaches (traditional χ^2 and complete likelihood) to determine parameter constraints when the magnitude dispersion is to be estimated as well. We consider cosmological constant + Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) and spatially flat, constant w Dark Energy + Cold Dark Matter (FwCDM) cosmological models and show that, for current data, there is a small difference in the best fit values and $\sim$ 30% difference in confidence contour areas in case the MLCS2k2 light-curve fitter is adopted. For the SALT2 light-curve fitter the differences are less significant ($\lesssim$ 13% difference in areas). In both cases the likelihood approach gives more restrictive constraints. We argue for the importance of using the complete likelihood instead of the χ^2 approach when dealing with parameters in the expression for the variance.

astro-ph.CO