1
Maria Giovanna Dainotti
26/02/2025, NCfA Multimessenger Symposium
SNe Ia, BAO, and GRB cosmology to tackle the Hubble constant tension
National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Sokendai Advanced Studies
University of Nevada Las Vegas
M. G. Dainotti, et al., 2021, ApJ, 912, 150
From M. G. Dainotti et al. 2025 (JHEAP submitted)
The Hubble constant and its tension
2
The Hubble constant and its tension
HUBBLE’S LAW
3
M. G. Dainotti, et al., 2021, ApJ, 912, 150.
� Dainotti et al. 2023, Galaxies, vol. 10, issue 1, 24.
Montani, Carlevaro, Dainotti, PDU, 44, 2024, 101486
JHEAP submitted
~ 500 citations listed in top 1% papers in web of Science
Montani, Carlevaro, Dainotti, PDU, 480, 1847M
The observed distance moduli of SNe Ia can be expressed through the modified Tripp formula (Scolnic et al. 2018):
Peak magnitude (B-band)
Absolute magnitude (B-band)
Stretch
Color
Host galaxy mass correction
Bias correction
From the Philipp’s relation to the 3-parameter relation
M is the absolute magnitude of a reference SN (in B band) with stretch = 0 and color = 0
4
M is degenerate with H0
Theory vs. Data
5
The BAO contribution
6
Rs= sound horizon
COSMOLOGICAL MODELS Adopted
The cosmological models
Curvature is neglected
Radiation is neglected
7
w(z)=wo+ wa*(z/(1+z))
Results for ΛCDM and wowaCDM model (3, 4 bins)
M. G. Dainotti, et al., 2021, ApJ, 912, 150
8
The evolution of the Ho is similar to the evolution of the MB parameter
(L. Kazantzidis and L. Perivolaropoulos
Phys. Rev. D 102, 023520)
M.G. Dainotti, et al., 2022, Galaxies, 10, 1, 24
M.G. Dainotti, et al., 2022, Galaxies, 10, 1, 24
9
Results due to:
10
Discussion of the results
SNe Ia ANALYSIS: POSSIBLE ASTROPHYSICAL EFFECTS
POSSIBLE EVOLUTIONARY EFFECTS ON THE OBSERVABLES LIKE COLOR, STRETCH AND MASS CORRECTION OR STATISTICAL FLUCTUATIONS OR EVEN HIDDEN BIASES
N. Nicolas, et al., 2021, A&A, 649, A74
Asymmetric distribution
11
Now including the GRB probes
12
GRB cosmology:� What are the solutions to allow for an� independent calibration?
13
La-Ta correlation first discovered by Dainotti, et al. (2008), MNRAS, 391, L 79D, later updated by Dainotti et al. (2010), ApJL, 722, L 215; Dainotti et al. (2011a), ApJ, 730, 135; Dainotti et al. (2015a), ApJ, 800, 1, 31. The La-Lpeak first discovered by Dainotti et al., MNRAS, 2011b, 418, 2202. Later confirmed by Xu & Huang 2012, Zhao et al. 2019, Tang et al. 2019, Wang et al. 2020, Cao et al. 2022, Xu et al. 2021, Deng et al. 2025 etc.
For GRB standardization, the La-Ta and Lpeak-La -Lpeak correlations
Black -> z < 0.89
Magenta -> 0.89 ≤ z ≤ 1.68 Blue -> 1.68 < z ≤ 2.45 Green -> 2.45 < z ≤ 3.45
Red -> z ≥ 3.45.
To account for selection biases Dainotti et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 157 and Dainotti et al. 2015b, MNRAS, 451, 4 showed that both these correlations are intrinsic to GRB physics and not to selection biases.
�
b=-1.0 -> Energy reservoir of the plateau is constant
Log Lx(Ta)= log A +B log Lpeak
Blue -> z ≤ 0.84
Magenta -> 0.84 ≤ z ≤ 1.8 Green -> 1.8 < z ≤ 2.9
Red -> z ≥ 2.9.
14
Similarly to SNe Ia the GRB fundamental plane relation
15
Dainotti et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, issue 2, 97, 13
Kx, Kpeak= the k-correction for the plateau and peak prompt luminosity
Combining GRBs + SNe Ia + BAO
“The Gamma-ray Bursts fundamental plane correlation as a cosmological tool”,Dainotti M.G. et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2.
16
compatibility with standard
cosmological model
Simultaneous fitting
Are you ready to look at the tension with high-z probes?
16
Besides the simultaneous fitting, we use the CCH as calibrators for the fundamental plane correlations
With evolutionary effects we have
This is comparable with the fundamental plane relation
σ=0.18 +/0.09
Thus, we have consistently reached the smallest scatter for the GRB relations in the literature with this sample
Currently the Epeak-Eiso correlation has a scatter of 0.20 (Amati et al. 2022), but depending on the sample size reaches 0.55 (Liu et al. 2022, Liang et al. 2022, Li et al. 2023)
17
Favale, Dainotti, Gomez, Migliaccio , JHEP, 44, 323
17
We strive to reach precision cosmology
BUT
What about the assumptions of the likelihood?
Common assumption: Gaussian likelihood of the SNe Ia, BAO, Quasars and GRBs.
Are all this valid?
18
18
NO! SNe Ia, BAO and QSOs do not fulfill. Only GRBs�fulfil the Gaussianity assumptions�the Gaussian likelihoods. Starting with SNe Ia�
19
Dainotti, M.G., Bargiacchi, G., Bogdan M., Capozziello, S. and Nagataki S, ”Reduced uncertainties up to 43% on the Hubble constant and the matter density with the SNe Ia with a new statistical analysis”, JHEAP, 41, 30-41.
19
The two different Cosmological analysis
20
20
Results on Ω𝑀 and 𝐻0 within a flat ΛCDM model
Both Ω𝑀 and 𝐻0 are free parameters,
The L𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 for the Pantheon
L𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 for the Pantheon +
significantly reduce the uncertainties on both parameters.
L𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 on Ω𝑀 by 43% (from 0.021 to 0.012) and 41% (from 0.34 to 0.20) for H0, respectively,
L𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 by 42% (from 0.019 to 0.011) for Ω𝑀 and 33% (from 0.24 to 0.16) for H0.
21
21
New statistics: Non-Gaussianity likelihoods for SNe Ia and QSOs -> reduced uncertainties
In All configurations we have reduction of the scatter on all parameters
H0 central values are higher when probes are combined together 🡪 73!
Dainotti et al. 2023 2303.06974.pdf (arxiv.org)
Bargiacchi, Dainotti,..Nagataki.. et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3909
Dainotti et al. 2023, .. B. Zhang, N. Fraija, ApJS, 2023arXiv230510030D, 951, 63, press release from NAOJ
30
22
How many GRBs with optical plateaus are needed to achieve the SNe Ia precision?
67
134
390
Conley et al. 2011 precision σΩM =0.10
When?
Now
How?
With Machine learning (ML), errors on the parameters halved (n=2), and Lightcurve reconstruction (LCR)
M. G. Dainotti, Nielson, V.; Sarracino, G.; Rinaldi, E.; Nagataki, S.; Capozziello, S.; Gnedin, O. Y.; Bargiacchi, G.
2022, MNRAS, 514, 2, 1828-1856
Betoule et al. 2014 precision σΩM =0.042
2026
Scolnic et al. 2018 precision σΩM =0.022
2042
23
What else do we need for GRB cosmology?
New or tighter Reliable correlations
How?
Increase the sample size, having a cosmology independent approach via low-z probes
24
Physical interpretation, connection with theory
In the quest for the standard set�
With machine learning
For redshift inference, regression:
1) Dainotti, al. 2021, ApJ,920, 2, 118.
2) Narendra, Gibson, Dainotti, et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 2, 55.
3) Gibson, Narendra, Dainotti, et al. 2022, Frontiers, 9, 836215.
4) Dainotti, ApJS, 267, 2, id 42, Lightcurve Reconstruction,
5) Dainotti et al. 2024, Inferring the Redshift of More than 150 GRBs with a Machine-learning Ensemble Model, ApJS, 271, 1, id.22, 15.
6) Dainotti, et al. 2024, ApJL, 967L,30D, press from UNLV and Facebook post from Swift, Cosmic Leap: NASA Swift Satellite and AI Unravel the Distance of the Farthest Gamma-Ray Bursts | University of Nevada, Las Vegas (unlv.edu); (20+) Facebook
�7) Narendra, Dainotti,..Zhang, et al. 2024, arXiv 241013985.
25
14 GRBs from Subaru,
1 from Kiso at z=3.6, and
other Japanese Telescopes.
web-app
The largest GRB Optical Repository: GRB LC package affiliated with NAOJ
Dainotti et al., including Y. Niino, T. Moriya, ..., 2024, MNRAS, 2024, 533, 4023.
26
Announcements:�Calls for papers on special issue
The aim is to gather mini-review on any topics on GRBs or regular papers. There is no page limits, and I have several waivers to allow the publication to be free of charge.
Deadline for submission: 15th of March 2024🡪 with possibility of extension.
So far, we have 10 published papers and 5 to be submitted, so we will publish an online book.
If you are interested, please contact me.
27
Special Issue "Gamma-Ray Bursts in Multiwavelength: Theory, Observational Correlations and GRB Cosmology“
Now Impact factor=3.2