Issue 
A&A
Volume 628, August 2019



Article Number  L4  
Number of page(s)  5  
Section  Letters to the Editor  
DOI  https://doi.org/10.1051/00046361/201936223  
Published online  06 August 2019 
Letter to the Editor
Tension with the flat ΛCDM model from a highredshift Hubble diagram of supernovae, quasars, and gammaray bursts
^{1}
Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Università di Firenze, Via G. Sansone 1, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Firenze, Italy
email: elisabeta.lusso@unifi.it
^{2}
INAF–Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, 50125 Florence, Italy
^{3}
Dipartimento di Fisica, Università degli studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Cinthia, 80126 Napoli, Italy
^{4}
INFN – Sezione di Napoli, Via Cinthia 9, 80126 Napoli, Italy
^{5}
INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, Via Moiariello 16, 80131 Napoli, Italy
^{6}
INAF – Osservatorio di Astrofisica e Scienza dello Spazio, Via P. Gobetti 93/3, Bologna, Italy
Received:
2
July
2019
Accepted:
17
July
2019
In the current framework, the standard parametrization of our Universe is the socalled Lambda cold dark matter (ΛCDM) model. Recently, a ∼4σ tension with the ΛCDM model was shown to exist via a modelindependent parametrization of a Hubble diagram of type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) from the JLA survey and quasars. Modelindependent approaches and independent samples over a wide redshift range are key to testing this tension and any possible systematic errors. Here we present an analysis of a combined Hubble diagram of SNe Ia, quasars, and gammaray bursts (GRBs) to check the agreement of the quasar and GRB cosmological parameters at high redshifts (z > 2) and to test the concordance flat ΛCDM model with improved statistical accuracy. We build a Hubble diagram with SNe Ia, quasars, and GRBs, where quasars are standardised through the observed nonlinear relation between their ultraviolet and Xray emission and GRBs through the correlation between the spectral peak energy and the isotropicequivalent radiated energy (the socalled Amati relation). We fit the data with cosmographic models consisting of a fourthorder logarithmic polynomial and a fifthorder linear polynomial, and compare the results with the expectations from a flat ΛCDM model. We confirm the tension between the bestfit cosmographic parameters and the ΛCDM model at ∼4σ with SNe Ia and quasars, at ∼2σ with SNe Ia and GRBs, and at > 4σ with the whole SNe Ia+quasars+GRB data set. The completely independent highredshift Hubble diagrams of quasars and GRBs are fully consistent with each other, strongly suggesting that the deviation from the standard model is not due to unknown systematic effects but to new physics.
Key words: cosmological parameters / cosmology: observations / quasars: general / gammaray burst: general / supernovae: general
© ESO 2019
1. Introduction
Diverse sets of cosmological probes have now established that our Universe is undergoing an accelerated expansion: from local type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia; e.g. Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999; Suzuki et al. 2012) to the combined constraints of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), baryonic acoustic oscillations (BAO), SNe Ia, and lensing provided by the Planck Collaboration VI (2018). The observed accelerated expansion is ascribed to the socalled dark energy (Ω_{Λ}), which is found to be ∼70% (within the standard concordance model) of the energy budget, thus the dominant component of today’s Universe. In the basic concordance model (i.e. ΛCDM), acceleration is driven by a cosmological constant, Λ, with an additional cold dark matter (Ω_{M}) component in a flat Universe. Although this model has been overall successful in fitting the data, observational evidence suggesting a deep revision of its underlying assumptions is now mounting. For example, the determination of the Hubble constant (H_{0}), which represents the normalisation of the Hubble parameter H(z), from local sources (Cepheids, supernovae Ia) is in tension at 4.4σ with respect to the one from the sound horizon observed from the CMB (Riess et al. 2019). If systematic uncertainties are not the main driver of this discrepancy, a significant disagreement would call for fundamental physics beyond the standard model (e.g. timedependent dark energy equation of state, modified gravity, additional relativistic particles).
Recently, modelindependent measurements of the distance modulus–redshift relation (the socalled Hubble diagram) of quasars combined with SNe Ia from the Sloan Digital Sky SurveyII/Supernova Legacy Survey 3 (SDSSII/SNLS3) Joint Lightcurve Analysis (JLA; Betoule et al. 2014) have shown a deviation from the ΛCDM model emerging at high redshifts (z > 1.4) with a statistical significance of ∼4σ (Risaliti & Lusso 2019; hereafter RL19).
In the present work, we present improved measurements of the Hubble diagram leveraging on the analysis presented by RL19. By combining the quasar sample of these latter authors with the most updated compilation of SNe Ia from the Pantheon survey (Scolnic et al. 2018) and publicly available gammaray burst (GRB) data (Demianski et al. 2017a), we are now finding a tension between the bestfit cosmographic parameters and the ΛCDM model at > 4σ.
2. The data set
To compute the cosmological parameters, we built a Hubble diagram by combining three samples:
1. Pantheon. A SNe Ia sample consisting of 1048 objects in the range 0.01 < z < 2.26, significantly extending the redshift coverage at z > 1 with respect to JLA (i.e. maximum redshift z ≃ 1.3). This sample is a combination of 365 spectroscopically confirmed SNe Ia discovered by the PanSTARRS1 (PS1) Medium Deep Survey together with the subset of 279 PS1 SN Ia (0.03 < z < 0.68) with distance estimates from SDSS, SNLS, and various lowredshift and HST samples (see Table 4 in Scolnic et al. 2018). For further details on photometry, astrometry, calibration, and systematic uncertainties on SN Ia distances we refer the interested reader to Scolnic et al. (2018).
2. Quasars. The quasar sample is composed of 1598 sources in the redshift range 0.04 < z < 5.1 with highquality UV and Xray flux measurements. Distance moduli are computed from the nonlinear relation between the ultraviolet and the Xray emission observed in quasars (Risaliti & Lusso 2015; Lusso & Risaliti 2016). All the details on sample selection, Xray, and UV flux computation and the analysis of the nonlinear relation, calibration, and a discussion on systematic errors are provided in RL19.
3. Gamma ray bursts. This sample is a compilation of 162 GRBs ranging from 0.03 < z < 6.67. Due to convergency issues of the standard cosmographic approach (Capozziello et al. 2011), we limited the GRB redshift range to z = 6.67, thus excluding the two highest redshift objects at z = 8.1 and z = 9.3. The Hubble diagram is constructed by calibrating the correlation between the peak photon energy, E_{p, i}, and the isotropic equivalent radiated energy, E_{iso} (Amati et al. 2008). We refer to Demianski et al. (2017a,b) and Amati & Della Valle (2013) for details on the data set and on the calibration of the distance modulus–redshift relation, as well as for discussion and analysis of possible instrumental and selection effects (see also Amati 2006; Ghirlanda et al. 2008; Nava et al. 2012; Amati et al. 2019).
Figure 1 shows the redshift distribution of the three samples used to build the Hubble diagram. The combination of GRBs and quasars is such that we can probe a redshift range better suited for studying dark energy than the one covered by SNe Ia. Nevertheless, SNe Ia are necessary to crosscalibrate both quasars and GRBs to compute absolute distances.
Fig. 1. Redshift distribution of the Pantheon SNe Ia sample (green, Scolnic et al. 2018), the quasars sample (yellow, Risaliti & Lusso 2019), and the GRB sample (open black, Demianski et al. 2017a). 

Open with DEXTER 
3. Fitting the Hubble diagram: a cosmographic approach
In this analysis, our goal is to use the Hubble diagram obtained by combining SNe Ia, quasars, and GRBs to test the concordance flat ΛCDM model through a modelindependent cosmographic method. The cosmographic approach to cosmology is receiving increasing interest as it can be used to obtain a direct fit of the Hubble diagram without any hypothesis concerning the type of dark energy and dark matter required to satisfy the Einstein equation, and simply assuming the minimal priors of isotropy and homogeneity. Here we describe two cosmographic techniques we applied to the data in order to measure the cosmological parameters and test the concordance model.
3.1. Traditional cosmographic approach
To compute cosmological parameters, we followed the standard cosmographic procedure which is fully described in Sect. 2 of Demianski et al. (2017b). We briefly summarise the main steps. We parametrized the spacetime geometry described by the Friedmann–Robertson–Lemaître–Walker (FLRW) metric by a Taylor series of the scale factor a(t) and its higherorder derivatives. This expansion leads to a distance–redshift relation that only relies on the assumption of the FLRW metric and is therefore fully model independent. From the cosmographic functions (Visser 2004 and Eqs. from (2) to (6) in Demianski et al. 2017b), we can compute the series expansion to the fifth order in time of the scale factor
where q_{0}, j_{0}, s_{0}, and l_{0} are commonly indicated as the deceleration, jerk, snap, and lerk parameters, corresponding to the functions evaluated at the present time t_{0} (Sahni et al. 2003). With this metric, it is possible to express all the observational quantities, like the luminosity distance d_{L}, as a power series in the redshift parameter z. From Eq. (2), we can construct the series for the luminosity distance as
where
To mitigate the usual convergence problems of the cosmographic series expansion at high redshifts, we consider the expansion in the improved parameter y = z/(1 + z) (the socalled yparameter), which has the great advantage of also holding for z > 1 and is therefore the appropriate tool for handling highredshift sources such quasars and GRBs (Cattoën & Visser 2007; Vitagliano et al. 2010; Demianski et al. 2012, 2017b).
3.2. Cosmographic parameters from a logarithmic polynomial function
Following a procedure first described in RL19, we fitted the data with a fourthgrade polynomial of log(1 + z) and compare the best fit parameters with the expectations from the standard model. In particular, we define a cosmographic function of the luminosity distance as:
where k, a_{2}, a_{3}, and a_{4} are free parameters. The parameter k is fitted separately for SNe Ia, quasars, and GRBs in order to crosscalibrate the samples. We note that the Hubble constant H_{0} is degenerate with the k parameter, so we can fix it to an arbitrary value (H_{0} = 70 km s^{−1} Mpc^{−1}). The bestfit parameters and their uncertainties were obtained through the Python package emcee (ForemanMackey et al. 2013), which is a purePython implementation of Goodman & Weare’s affine invariant Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) ensemble sampler.
Within the standard model, the only free parameter beyond H_{0} is the matter density, Ω_{M}. Therefore, we can expand the function D_{L}(Ω_{M}, z) in a series of log(1 + z), and obtain the coefficients of each term as a function of Ω_{M}. This procedure is discussed in detail by RL19 for a thirdorder expansion, which is shown to reproduce a flat ΛCDM model up to z > 5, with only a few per cent difference at the upper end of the redshift range (see their Supplementary Fig. 5). Since the inclusion of GRBs requires a precise fit up to z ∼ 6.7, here we extend the expansion to the fourth order. In this way, our logarithmic expansion can match the standard model in the whole redshift range with a maximum difference below 2%. After simple algebra we obtain
The above equations describe a curve in the (a_{2}, a_{3}, a_{4}) parameter space that we can directly compare with the results of the MCMC technique applied to the SNe+quasars+GRBs Hubble diagram.
4. Statistical analysis
4.1. Cosmological parameters from the standard cosmographic approach
To provide statistical constraints on the cosmological parameters, we followed the same procedure as outlined in Demianski et al. (2012, 2017b). Specifically, we used the MCMC method and ran three parallel chains. We tested the convergence through the Gelman–Rubin diagnostic approach, which uses as a test probe the reduction factor R, i.e. the square root of the ratio of the variance betweenchain and the variance withinchain. A large R indicates that the former is substantially greater than the latter, meaning that a longer simulation is needed. We required that R converge to 1 for each parameter. We set R − 1 of the order of 0.05, which is more restrictive than the often used and recommended value R − 1 < 0.1 for standard cosmological investigations. Moreover, since methods like the MCMC are based on an algorithm that moves randomly in the parameter space, we a priori imposed some basic consistency controls in the code to reduce the uncertainties of the cosmographic parameters, requiring that all of the (numerically) evaluated values of d_{L}(z) be positive. We discarded the first 30% of the point iterations at the beginning of each MCMC run, and thinned the chains that were run many times. We finally extracted the constraints on cosmographic parameters by coadding the thinned chains and inferred the median values and the confidence ranges from the marginalisation of the posterior probability distributions of the parameters.
The Hubble diagram resulting from the combination of SNe Ia (cyan points), quasars (yellow points), and GRBs (black points) is presented in Fig. 2. The dashed magenta line corresponds to a flat ΛCDM model fit with Ω_{M} = 0.3, whilst the green dotted line represents the regression fit (Eq. (2)) with the inclusion of GRBs and the most updated SNe Ia sample.
Fig. 2. Hubble diagram of SNe Ia (cyan points), quasars (yellow points), and GRBs (black points) with the 1σ uncertainties. Red points are the mean (also with 1σ uncertainties) of the distance modulus in narrow redshift bins for quasars only (shown for visualisation purposes). The dashed magenta line shows a flat ΛCDM model fit with Ω_{M} = 0.3. The green dotted line is the best MCMC fit using the standard cosmographic approach (Sect. 3.1) with the inclusion of GRBs and Pantheon, whilst the blue dotdashed line represents the new regression fit (Sect. 3.2). The black solid line is the best MCMC regression curve of the thirdorder expansion of log(1 + z) published by RL19 and obtained by fitting the quasars and the SNe Ia from the JLA survey (Betoule et al. 2014). 

Open with DEXTER 
A summary of the results is provided in Table 1, whilst in Fig. 3 we present the resulting confidence regions for q_{0} and j_{0}. Our statistical MCMC analysis shows that the jerk parameter, j_{0}, is significantly different from its ΛCDM value j_{0} = 1 at more than 4σ.
Fig. 3. Confidence regions in the (q_{0} − j_{0}) plane as provided by the standard cosmography. The value j_{0} = 1 (i.e. ΛCDM) is off at > 4σ, thus strengthening the results of RL19 using an independent approach. 

Open with DEXTER 
4.2. Our new cosmographic approach
Figure 2 shows the results obtained with the new regression fit (Eq. (8)) considering quasars, GRBs and the Pantheon sample. A discrepancy between the ΛCDM model of lowredshift data and the modelindependent cosmographic MCMC regression curve obtained with the full data set is observed, in agreement with the findings presented in Sect. 4.1.
For comparison, we also present with the black solid line the best MCMC regression curve of the thirdorder expansion in log(1 + z) published by RL19 and obtained by fitting the approximately 1600 quasars and the SNe Ia from the JLA survey (Betoule et al. 2014). Our new analysis that considers the updated SNe Ia sample and the GRBs further supports this tension with increased statistics.
In Fig. 4 we show the 1σ (dark colours) and 4σ (light colours) error contours in the (a_{2}, a_{3}, a_{4}) parameter space resulting from fitting the data using Eq. (8) for the samples Pantheon+quasars and Pantheon+quasars+GRBs, whilst we plot the 1σ and 2σ error contours for the Pantheon+GRBs. The black solid line represents a flat ΛCDM model with Ω_{M} in the interval 0.1–0.9, where the black point marks the value Ω_{M} = 0.3 (i.e. Eqs. (9)–(11)). For visualisation purposes, the orientation is chosen to better visualise the discrepancy between the contours and the flat ΛCDM model. From this figure, it is apparent that the tension of our cosmographic fit with the standard model is at 4σ for Pantheon+quasars, and remains significant even with the inclusion of the GRBs (bottom panel of Fig. 4). A summary of the results obtained from the MCMC regression analysis of the fourth order is provided in Table 2.
Fig. 4. 1σ (dark colours) and 4σ (light colours) error contours in the (a_{2}, a_{3}, a_{4}) parameter space resulting from fitting the data using Eq. (8) for the samples Pantheon+quasars and Pantheon+quasars+GRBs. We plot the 1σ and 2σ error contours for the Pantheon+GRBs. The black solid line represents a flat ΛCDM model with Ω_{M} in the interval 0.1–0.9, where the black point marks the value Ω_{M} = 0.3 (i.e. Eqs. (9)–(11)). From top to bottom: result from the cosmographic technique described in Sects. 3.2 and 4.2. 

Open with DEXTER 
Cosmographic results using the logarithmic polynomial function.
As these results reflect an average deviation from the flat ΛCDM over the redshift probed by the different data sets, we can investigate what redshift range drives this tension.
Figure 5 shows how the deviation from a ΛCDM (with Ω_{M} = 0.3 and normalized to the Pantheon SNe sample up to z = 1) evolves with redshift for the three samples taken singularly. In the top panel we plot the average difference in distance modulus (DM) between the observed DM and the fit assuming a flat ΛCDM model (Δ(DM) = DM − DM_{ΛCDM}) in log z intervals, whilst the bottom panel represents the same deviation in σ units. Interestingly, all the three samples show that the deviation from the flat ΛCDM becomes increasingly statistically significant at redshifts higher than 1, with with 23 SNe Ia at z > 1 at more than 3σ tension with the flat ΛCDM model.
Fig. 5. Deviation of the distance modulus from the ΛCDM with Ω_{M} = 0.3 and normalized to the Pantheon SNe sample up to z = 1 (Δ(DM) = DM−DM_{ΛCDM}) for SNe Ia (blue), quasars (yellow), and GRBs (red). Top panel: Points represent the averages of Δ(DM) in logarithmic redshift intervals. Bottom panel: Deviations in σ. We note that the statistical significance of the discrepancy from the ΛCDM in Fig. 4 is not directly comparable to the one plotted here since the MCMC fits in the former are computed over the entire redshift range. 

Open with DEXTER 
As a final comment, we mention that the tension with the flat ΛCDM has a peak at z ≃ 3 (where we have excellent pointed observations from our XMMNewton large program), but it seems to decrease at z > 3 where the data quality reduces. Pointed observations of quasars at z ≃ 4 are required to verify this trend.
5. Conclusions
The spatially flat ΛCDM cosmology is still the most commonly assumed representation of our Universe within the scientific community, yet there is mounting evidence that the standard ΛCDM model (or its simplest extension, e.g. wCDM) is in tension at more than 4σ with local direct measurements of the Hubble constant (e.g. Riess et al. 2019 and references therein).
Recently, RL19 also reported on a ∼4σ tension with the ΛCDM model through a modelindependent parametrization of a Hubble Diagram of SNe Ia and quasars. Since this tension could be subject to some level of systematic error, it is paramount to test the ΛCDM model by making use of modelindependent approaches and independent samples over a wide redshift range.
To this aim, we present a joint statistical analysis of the Hubble diagram from SNe Ia, quasars, and GRBs, thus using three completely independent samples of standardisable candles spanning a wide redshift interval, from local objects up to z ≃ 6.7. The statistical analysis was performed in two ways: (1) assuming a traditional cosmographic approach and (2) through a cosmographic fourthorder polynomial fit in log(1 + z) of the Hubble diagram, following RL19.
From the standard approach, we found that j_{0} is significantly different from its ΛCDM value, j_{0} = 1, at more than 4σ.
Pursuing the cosmographic approach, we again confirmed the tension between the bestfit cosmographic parameters and the ΛCDM model with the joint SNe Ia, quasar, and GRB data set at more than the 4σ statistical level. We also performed the same analysis by considering the SNe Ia+quasar and the SNe Ia+GRB samples separately, finding that the tension is still statistically significant at the ∼4σ and ∼2σ level, respectively. Moreover, we also confirm that this tension becomes statistically significant (above 3σ) only at high redshifts (z > 1) for SNe Ia and quasars taken independently, whilst this is at ∼2σ for GRBs alone.
Summarising, these two complementary (and independent) statistical analyses both confirm a tension with the flat ΛCDM model at 4σ emerging at high redshifts. Moreover, as the completely independent highredshift Hubble diagrams of quasars and GRBs are fully consistent with each other, this strongly suggests that the deviation from the standard model is not due to unknown systematic effects but to new physics. Possible extensions of the standard cosmological model will be explored in future works.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge financial contribution from the agreement ASIINAF n.201714H.O. SB is supported by NASA through the Chandra award no. AR718013X (NAS803060) and by the grant HSTAR13240.009. EN acknowledges funding from the EU Horizon 2020 Marie SkłodowskaCurie grant no. 664931.
References
 Amati, L. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 233 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Amati, L., & Della Valle, M. 2013, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 22, 1330028 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Amati, L., Guidorzi, C., Frontera, F., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 577 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
 Amati, L., D’Agostino, R., Luongo, O., Muccino, M., & Tantalo, M. 2019, MNRAS, 486, L46 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Betoule, M., Kessler, R., Guy, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A22 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Capozziello, S., Lazkoz, R., & Salzano, V. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 124061 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Cattoën, C., & Visser, M. 2007, Class. Quant. Grav., 24, 5985 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
 Demianski, M., Piedipalumbo, E., Rubano, C., & Scudellaro, P. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1396 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Demianski, M., Piedipalumbo, E., Sawant, D., & Amati, L. 2017a, A&A, 598, A112 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Demianski, M., Piedipalumbo, E., Sawant, D., & Amati, L. 2017b, A&A, 598, A113 [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 ForemanMackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., Ghisellini, G., Firmani, C., & Cabrera, J. I. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 319 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Lusso, E., & Risaliti, G. 2016, ApJ, 819, 154 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Nava, L., Salvaterra, R., Ghirlanda, G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1256 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
 Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Planck Collaboration VI. 2018, A&A, submitted [arXiv:1807.06209] [Google Scholar]
 Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., & Scolnic, D. 2019, ApJ, 876, 85 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V., Challis, P., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Risaliti, G., & Lusso, E. 2015, ApJ, 815, 33 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Risaliti, G., & Lusso, E. 2019, Nat. Astron., 195 [Google Scholar]
 Sahni, V., Saini, T. D., Starobinsky, A. A., & Alam, U. 2003, Sov. J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett., 77, 201 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Scolnic, D. M., Jones, D. O., Rest, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 101 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Suzuki, N., Rubin, D., Lidman, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 85 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Visser, M. 2004, Class. Quant. Grav., 21, 2603 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
 Vitagliano, V., Xia, J.Q., Liberati, S., & Viel, M. 2010, JCAP, 2010, 005 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
All Tables
All Figures
Fig. 1. Redshift distribution of the Pantheon SNe Ia sample (green, Scolnic et al. 2018), the quasars sample (yellow, Risaliti & Lusso 2019), and the GRB sample (open black, Demianski et al. 2017a). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 2. Hubble diagram of SNe Ia (cyan points), quasars (yellow points), and GRBs (black points) with the 1σ uncertainties. Red points are the mean (also with 1σ uncertainties) of the distance modulus in narrow redshift bins for quasars only (shown for visualisation purposes). The dashed magenta line shows a flat ΛCDM model fit with Ω_{M} = 0.3. The green dotted line is the best MCMC fit using the standard cosmographic approach (Sect. 3.1) with the inclusion of GRBs and Pantheon, whilst the blue dotdashed line represents the new regression fit (Sect. 3.2). The black solid line is the best MCMC regression curve of the thirdorder expansion of log(1 + z) published by RL19 and obtained by fitting the quasars and the SNe Ia from the JLA survey (Betoule et al. 2014). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 3. Confidence regions in the (q_{0} − j_{0}) plane as provided by the standard cosmography. The value j_{0} = 1 (i.e. ΛCDM) is off at > 4σ, thus strengthening the results of RL19 using an independent approach. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 4. 1σ (dark colours) and 4σ (light colours) error contours in the (a_{2}, a_{3}, a_{4}) parameter space resulting from fitting the data using Eq. (8) for the samples Pantheon+quasars and Pantheon+quasars+GRBs. We plot the 1σ and 2σ error contours for the Pantheon+GRBs. The black solid line represents a flat ΛCDM model with Ω_{M} in the interval 0.1–0.9, where the black point marks the value Ω_{M} = 0.3 (i.e. Eqs. (9)–(11)). From top to bottom: result from the cosmographic technique described in Sects. 3.2 and 4.2. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 5. Deviation of the distance modulus from the ΛCDM with Ω_{M} = 0.3 and normalized to the Pantheon SNe sample up to z = 1 (Δ(DM) = DM−DM_{ΛCDM}) for SNe Ia (blue), quasars (yellow), and GRBs (red). Top panel: Points represent the averages of Δ(DM) in logarithmic redshift intervals. Bottom panel: Deviations in σ. We note that the statistical significance of the discrepancy from the ΛCDM in Fig. 4 is not directly comparable to the one plotted here since the MCMC fits in the former are computed over the entire redshift range. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (fulltext article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 4896 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.