Results from Hubble parameter data using a model independent method

∗1, †
Rong-Jia Yang
1
College of Physics Science and Technology, Hebei University, Baoding 071002, China
Using a model-independent analysis method, we analyze H(z) parameter data with some restric-
tive conditions. We find that: (a) the Universe may experience an accelerated expansion with a
confidence level greater than 5 σ at redshift z101 ∈ (0, 0.36) and greater than 1.9 σ at redshifts
z3835 ∈ (1.3, 1.53) and z3836 ∈ (1.43, 1.53); (b) the Universe may experience a decelerated expansion
with a confidence level greater than 1.5 σ at redshift z2012 ∈ (0.40, 0.52); (c) wx ≤ wt < −1 with
confidence level great than 1.6 σ at redshift z3836 ∈ (1.43, 1.53).
Keywords: dark energy, H(z) parameter data, equation of state, deceleration parameter
arXiv:2505.00058v1 [gr-qc] 30 Apr 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

Numerous independent cosmological observations have confirmed that the Universe is experiencing an accelerated
expansion [1–5]. An unknown energy component, dubbed as dark energy, usually has been introduced in the framework
of general relativity to explain this phenomenon. Vacuum energy is the simplest and most theoretically sound scenario
of dark energy with an equation of state (EoS) wx = px /ρx = −1. If adding in cold dark matter, this model (ΛCDM)
is consistent with the current astronomical observations, however, it suffers from the cosmological constant problem
[6] and may age problem [7] as well. Recently, Hubble tension suggests that ΛCDM [8] may face new puzzles.
In the analysis of observational data, statistical methods, such as the maximum likelihood [7, 9–12], are generally
used to fit the model parameters. With statistical methods, we can obtain the best-fit values of model parameters.
However, it is easy to count some interesting (possibly important) data off. In [13], a model-independent method by
using the Lagrange mean value theorem was proposed to analyze H(z) parameter data. When getting the deceleration
parameter, a mid-value approximate method was adopted, but the errors caused by the method were also considered
approximatively, which may have impacts on the results. Here, we further improve the model-independent analysis
method proposed in [13] and consider the errors caused by mid-value approximate method accurately to obtain the
deceleration parameter. We find that the Universe may experience an accelerated expansion at higher redshifts
(1.3 < z < 1.53), confirming the results obtained in [13].
The paper is organized as follows. In the next Section, we will present H(z) parameter data and derive the equations
needed to analyze these data. In Sec. III, We will provide the data and results obtained from the analysis. Finally,
we will briefly summarize and discuss our results in Sec. IV.

II. H(z) PARAMETER DATA AND METHODOLOGY

In this Section, we will present 63 H(z) parameter data obtained recently and improve the model-independent
analysis method proposed in [13] which is needed in the process of analyzing H(z) parameter data, so as to try to
explore the nature of dark energy.

A. H(z) parameter data

H(z) parameter data are widely used to constrain the parameters of dark energy models, see for example [14–24].
The data set we use consists of 1 H0 measurement from supernova Ia (SNIa) observation, whose error is smaller than
that used in [13], 27 H(z) measurements inferred from the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) peak in the galaxy power
spectrum, and 15 H(z) measurements obtained by calculating the differential ages of galaxies, which is called cosmic
chronometer. In three cases, the datasets are given with their 1 σ confidence interval, as listed in Table I.

∗ Corresponding author
† Electronicaddress: [email protected]
 2

index z Ho (z)[km s−1 Mpc−1 ] σH Reference Method index z Ho (z) σH Reference Method
z1 0 73.29 0.09 [25] SN Ia/Cepheid z23 0.59 98.48 3.19 [26] Clustering
z2 0.17 83 8 [27] DA z24 0.5929 104 13 [28] DA
z3 0.1797 75 4 [28] DA z25 0.6 87.9 6.1 [29] Clustering
z4 0.1993 75 5 [28] DA z26 0.61 97.3 2.1 [30] Clustering
z5 0.24 79.69 2.65 [31] Clustering z27 0.64 98.82 2.99 [26] Clustering
z6 0.3 81.7 6.22 [32] Clustering z28 0.6797 92 8 [28] DA
z7 0.31 78.17 4.74 [26] Clustering z29 0.73 97.3 7 [29] Clustering
z8 0.34 83.8 3.66 [31] Clustering z30 0.7812 105 12 [28] DA
z9 0.35 82.7 8.4 [33] Clustering z31 0.8754 125 17 [28] DA
z10 0.36 79.93 3.39 [26] Clustering z32 0.978 113.72 14.63 [34] Clustering
z11 0.38 81.5 1.9 [30] Clustering z33 1.037 154 20 [28] DA
z12 0.40 82.04 2.03 [26] DA z34 1.23 131.44 12.42 [34] Clustering
z13 0.4293 91.8 5.3 [35] DA z35 1.3 168 17 [27] DA
z14 0.43 86.45 3.68 [31] Clustering z36 1.43 177 18 [27] DA
z15 0.44 82.6 7.8 [29] Clustering z37 1.526 148.11 12.71 [34] Clustering
z16 0.44 84.81 1.83 [26] Clustering z38 1.53 140 14 [27] DA
z17 0.4783 80.9 9 [35] DA z39 1.944 172.63 14.79 [34] Clustering
z18 0.48 87.79 2.03 [26] DA z40 2.3 224 8 [36] Clustering
z19 0.51 90.4 1.9 [30] Clustering z41 2.33 224 8 [37] Clustering
z20 0.52 94.35 2.65 [26] Clustering z42 2.34 222 7 [38] Clustering
z21 0.56 93.33 2.32 [26] Clustering z43 2.36 226 8 [39] Clustering
z22 0.57 92.9 7.8 [40] Clustering

TABLE I: Hubble parameter data from SNIa observations, cosmic chronometers (DA), and BAO surveys (Clustering).

B. Methodology.

According to the Planck 2018 results, the spacetime is spatially flat: ΩK0 = 0.001 ± 0.002 [5]. Here we consider a
spatially flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker-Lemaı̂tre (FRWL) metric
ds2 = −dt2 + a2 (t) dr2 + r2 (dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2 ) ,
 
(1)
where a(t) is the scale factor and the unit c = 1 is used. The Friedmann equations take the form
8πG
H2 = ρ, (2)
3
ä 4πG
=− (ρ + 3p) , (3)
a 3
where the H ≡ ȧ/a is the Hubble parameter and the dot denotes the derivative with respect to the cosmic time t.
The total energy density ρ and pressure p contain contributions coming from the nonrelativistic matter, radiation,
and other components. The Friedmann equations can be equivalently rewritten as
Ḣ = −4πG(ρ + p). (4)
With dz = −(1 + z)Hdt, we derive [13]
dH 4πG(ρ + p) 4πGρ(1 + wt )
= = , (5)
dz (1 + z)H (1 + z)H
where wt is the total EoS. From this equation, one has wx ≤ wt ≤ −1 if dH/dz ≤ 0, meaning that the Universe
experiences an accelerated expansion. If dH/dz > 0, however, we can’t judge whether the Universe speeds up. At
this moment, we need another physical quantity, the deceleration parameter, which is defined as
1 dH
q = −1 + (1 + z) . (6)
H dz
 3

Now if we have some Hubble parameter data Ho (zi ), a question naturally rise: how can we use them to directly
determine dH/dz or q? Supposing that H(z) is the actual theoretical curve of the evolution of the Universe, we use
a datum Ho (zi ) at redshift zi to approximate the value of H(zi ) at 1 σHi (zi ) confidence level.
Thinking of Lagrange mean value theorem in Calculus, we have
dH H(zi ) − H(zj )
H ′ (zij ) ≡ z=zij
= , (7)
dz zi − zj

where zj < zij < zi . Then we can approximate H ′ (zij ) as

Ho (zi ) − Ho (zj )
H ′ (zij ) ≃ , (8)
zi − zj
at 1 σH′ confidence level, where σH′ is given by
q
2 + σ2
σH i Hj
σH′ = . (9)
zi − zj

Now considering the approximation of Eq. (10)

1 + zij ′ 1 + zij Ho (zi ) − Ho (zj )
q(zij ) = −1 + H (zij ) ≃ −1 + , (10)
H(zij ) H(zij ) zi − zj

where zij and H(zij ) are unknown. Here we adopt mid-value approximate method proposed in [13]: zij ≃ (zi + zj )/2
and H(zij ) ≃ [H(zi ) + H(zj )]/2 ≃ [Ho (zi ) + Ho (zj )]/2, leading to

(2 + zi + zj ) Ho (zi ) − Ho (zj )
q(zij ) ≃ −1 + , (11)
Ho (zi ) + Ho (zj ) zi − zj
at 1 σq confidence level, where σq is given by
q
2 + H 2 (z )σ 2
Ho2 (zj )σH
2(2 + zi + zj ) i o i Hj
σq = . (12)
[Ho (zi ) + Ho (zj )]2 zi − zj

This error formula is slightly difference from the Eq. (12) in [13] where an approximation Ho (zi ) ≃ Ho (zj ) was
taken for the sake of simplicity in calculations. Similar approximate methods, like the mid-value approximation, were
used in the literatures [41, 42]. To explain the credibility of this method, we take ΛCDM as an example: (1) taking
Ωm = 0.3, H0 = 73 km s−1 Mpc−1 , and zi = 0.1, and zj = 0.6, we find [H(zi ) + H(zj )]/2 ≃ 88.96 km s−1 Mpc−1 and
H((zi + zj )/2) ≃ 87.54 km s−1 Mpc−1 ; (2) taking zi = 1.8, and zj = 2.36, we find [H(zi ) + H(zj )]/2 ≃ 225.38 km
s−1 Mpc−1 and H((zi + zj )/2) ≃ 224.59 km s−1 Mpc−1 . We see that the differences between those corresponding two
values is much smaller than either of them: ∆H = [H(zi ) + H(zj )]/2 − H((zi + zj )/2) ≪ H(zi ) < H(zj ).
Other methods, such as weighted average method [15, 43] and Bayesian non-parametric method [44–47], were
also used to analyze Hubble parameter data. If there is summation or averaging in these methods, the errors will
accumulate. The errors will not be accumulated when using mid-value approximate method, but they would be
enlarged in general if zi − zj is large. However, if the difference between zi and zj and the difference between Ho (zi )
and Ho (zj ) are reasonable, this approximate method in general is credible.

III. APPLICATIONS

Now using Eqs. (7), (11), (9), and (12), we analyze the observational Hubble parameter data. According to
Eq. (7), if zi − zj ≪ 1, H ′ (zij ) would be large, implying that the systematic errors will be amplified. So in the
process of analyzing the Hubble parameter data, we consider the following limitations to make the results credible:
0.1 . zi − zj . 0.5, σH ≤ 10 if H ≤ 100, and σH ≤ 20 if H ≥ 100. Compared to the limitations taken in [13], the
scope of data analyzed here has been expanded. The obtained H ′ and q data with 1 σ confidence level are listed
in Table II. The results are consistent with those obtained in Ref. [13]. However, Comparing with the 78 data (39
H ′ (z) data and 39 q(z) data) obtained in [13], here we present 204 data (102 H ′ (z) data and 102 q(z) data) with
considerations of the errors caused by mid-value approximate method, which makes the obtained data more reliable.
From these data, we emphasize the following results:
 4

index zm H ′ (z) σH ′ q(z) σq index zm H ′ (z) σH′ q(z) σq

z31 ∈ (0, 0.1797) 0.0899 9.52 22.26 -0.86 0.32 z125 ∈ (0.24, 0.40) 0.32 14.69 20.86 -0.76 0.34
z41 ∈ (0, 0.1993) 0.0997 8.58 25.09 -0.87 0.37 z145 ∈ (0.24, 0.43) 0.335 35.58 23.87 -0.43 0.38
z51 ∈ (0, 0.24) 0.12 26.67 11.05 -0.61 0.16 z155 ∈ (0.24, 0.44) 0.34 14.55 41.19 -0.76 0.67
z61 ∈ (0, 0.3) 0.15 28.03 20.74 -0.58 0.29 z165 ∈ (0.24, 0.44) 0.34 25.6 16.1 -0.58 0.27
z71 ∈ (0, 0.31) 0.155 15.74 15.29 -0.76 0.23 z175 ∈ (0.24, 0.4783) 0.3592 5.08 39.37 -0.91 0.66
z81 ∈ (0, 0.34) 0.17 30.91 10.77 -0.54 0.15 z185 ∈ (0.24, 0.48) 0.36 33.75 13.91 -0.45 0.23
z91 ∈ (0, 0.35) 0.175 26.89 24 -0.59 0.34 z195 ∈ (0.24, 0.51) 0.375 39.67 12.08 -0.36 0.20
z101 ∈ (0, 0.36) 0.18 18.44 9.42 -0.72 0.14 z215 ∈ (0.24, 0.56) 0.4 42.625 11.01 -0.31 0.18
z111 ∈ (0, 0.38) 0.19 21.61 5.01 -0.67 0.07 z225 ∈ (0.24, 0.57) 0.405 40.03 24.96 -0.35 0.38
z121 ∈ (0, 0.4) 0.2 21.88 5.08 -0.66 0.07 z255 ∈ (0.24, 0.6) 0.42 22.81 18.47 -0.61 0.3
z131 ∈ (0.0, 0.4293) 0.2147 43.12 12.35 -0.37 0.16 z265 ∈ (0.24, 0.61) 0.425 47.59 9.14 -0.23 0.11
z141 ∈ (0.0, 0.43) 0.215 30.6 8.56 -0.53 0.12 z275 ∈ (0.24, 0.64) 0.44 47.83 9.99 -0.23 0.16
z151 ∈ (0.0, 0.44) 0.22 21.16 17.73 -0.67 0.26 z285 ∈ (0.24, 0.6797) 0.4599 28 19.17 -0.52 0.31
z161 ∈ (0.0, 0.44) 0.22 26.18 4.16 -0.6 0.06 z295 ∈ (0.24, 0.73) 0.485 35.94 15.28 -0.4 0.24
z171 ∈ (0.0, 0.4783) 0.2392 15.91 18.82 -0.74 0.29 z176 ∈ (0.3, 0.4783) 0.3892 -4.49 61.36 -1.08 1.05
z181 ∈ (0.0, 0.48) 0.24 30.21 4.23 -0.53 0.06 z256 ∈ (0.3, 0.6) 0.45 20.67 29.04 -0.65 0.50
z191 ∈ (0.0, 0.51) 0.255 33.55 3.73 -0.49 0.05 z286 ∈ (0.3, 0.6797) 0.4899 27.13 26.69 -0.53 0.45
z201 ∈ (0.0, 0.52) 0.26 40.5 5.1 -0.39 0.07 z296 ∈ (0.3, 0.73) 0.515 36.28 21.78 -0.39 0.37
z72 ∈ (0.17, 0.31) 0.24 -34.5 66.42 -1.53 1 z168 ∈ (0.34, 0.44) 0.39 10.1 40.92 -0.83 0.68
z82 ∈ (0.17, 0.34) 0.255 4.71 51.75 -0.93 0.78 z178 ∈ (0.34, 0.4783) 0.4092 -20.97 70.25 -1.36 1.22
z92 ∈ (0.17, 0.35) 0.26 -1.67 64.44 -1.03 0.98 z188 ∈ (0.34, 0.48) 0.41 28.5 29.89 -0.53 0.5
z102 ∈ (0.17, 0.36) 0.265 -16.16 45.73 -1.25 0.7 z258 ∈ (0.34, 0.6) 0.47 15.77 27.36 -0.73 0.46
z112 ∈ (0.17, 0.38) 0.275 -7.14 39.15 -1.11 0.6 z288 ∈ (0.34, 0.6797) 0.5099 24.14 25.9 -0.59 0.43
z122 ∈ (0.17, 0.40) 0.285 -4.17 35.88 -1.06 0.56 z298 ∈ (0.34, 0.73) 0.535 34.62 20.25 -0.41 0.33
z142 ∈ (0.17, 0.43) 0.3 13.26 33.87 -0.8 0.53 z2010 ∈ (0.36, 0.52) 0.44 90.13 26.89 0.49 0.45
z152 ∈ (0.17, 0.44) 0.305 -1.48 41.38 -1.02 0.65 z2011 ∈ (0.38, 0.52) 0.45 91.79 23.29 0.51 0.38
z162 ∈ (0.17, 0.44) 0.305 6.7 30.39 -0.9 0.48 z2311 ∈ (0.38, 0.59) 0.485 80.86 17.68 0.33 0.28
z172 ∈ (0.17, 0.4783) 0.3242 -6.81 39.06 -1.11 0.63 z2012 ∈ (0.40, 0.52) 0.46 102.58 27.82 0.7 0.45
z182 ∈ (0.17, 0.48) 0.325 15.45 26.62 -0.76 0.42 z2312 ∈ (0.40, 0.59) 0.495 86.53 19.9 0.43 0.32
z192 ∈ (0.17, 0.51) 0.34 21.76 24.18 -0.66 0.39 z2316 ∈ (0.44, 0.59) 0.515 91.13 24.52 0.51 0.39
z202 ∈ (0.17, 0.52) 0.345 32.43 24.08 -0.51 0.38 z2318 ∈ (0.48, 0.59) 0.535 97.18 34.37 0.6 0.55
z212 ∈ (0.17, 0.56) 0.365 26.49 21.36 -0.59 0.35 z3321 ∈ (0.56, 1.037) 0.7985 127.19 42.21 0.85 0.47
z222 ∈ (0.17, 0.57) 0.37 24.75 27.93 -0.61 0.44 z3323 ∈ (0.59, 1.037) 0.8135 124.21 45.31 0.78 0.52
z232 ∈ (0.17, 0.59) 0.38 36.86 20.51 -0.44 0.33 z3326 ∈ (0.61, 1.037) 0.8235 132.79 47.1 0.93 0.53
z252 ∈ (0.17, 0.6) 0.385 11.4 23.4 -0.82 0.38 z3327 ∈ (0.64, 1.037) 0.8385 138.99 50.94 1.02 0.59
z262 ∈ (0.17, 0.61) 0.39 32.5 18.8 -0.5 0.31 z3330 ∈ (0.7812, 1.037) 0.9091 191.56 91.18 1.82 1.24
z272 ∈ (0.17, 0.64) 0.405 33.66 18.17 -0.48 0.3 z3532 ∈ (0.978, 1.3) 1.139 168.57 69.65 1.56 1.05
z103 ∈ (0.1797, 0.36) 0.2699 27.34 29.08 -0.55 0.48 z3632 ∈ (0.978, 1.43) 1.204 140 51.32 1.12 0.76
z113 ∈ (0.1797, 0.38) 0.2799 32.45 22.11 -0.47 0.37 z3433 ∈ (1.037, 1.23) 1.1335 -116.89 121.98 -2.75 1.76
z123 ∈ (0.1797, 0.40) 0.2899 31.96 20.36 -0.48 0.34 z3733 ∈ (1.037, 1.526) 1.2815 -12.05 48.46 -1.18 0.73
z163 ∈ (0.1797, 0.44) 0.3099 37.69 16.9 -0.38 0.29 z3833 ∈ (1.037, 1.53) 1.2835 -28.4 49.52 -1.44 0.76
z173 ∈ (0.1797, 0.4783) 0.329 19.76 32.98 -0.66 0.55 z3634 ∈ (1.23, 1.43) 1.33 227.8 109.35 2.44 1.58
z183 ∈ (0.1797, 0.48) 0.3299 42.59 14.94 -0.3 0.26 z3735 ∈ (1.3, 1.526) 1.413 -88.01 93.92 -2.34 1.41
z193 ∈ (0.1797, 0.51) 0.3449 46.62 13.41 -0.24 0.23 z3835 ∈ (1.3, 1.53) 1.415 -121.74 95.75 -2.91 1.48
z253 ∈ (0.1797, 0.6) 0.3899 30.69 17.36 -0.48 0.29 z3736 ∈ (1.43, 1.526) 1.478 -300.94 229.53 -5.59 3.41
z283 ∈ (0.1797, 0.6797) 0.4297 34 17.89 -0.42 0.29 z3836 ∈ (1.43, 1.53) 1.48 -370 228.04 -6.79 3.49
z174 ∈ (0.1993, 0.4783) 0.3388 21.15 36.9 -0.64 0.62 z3934 ∈ (1.43, 1.944) 1.687 -8.52 45.32 -1.13 0.70
z254 ∈ (0.1993, 0.6) 0.3997 32.19 19.68 -0.45 0.33 z4039 ∈ (1.944, 2.3) 2.122 144.3 47.23 1.27 0.8
z284 ∈ (0.1993, 0.6797) 0.4395 35.39 19.64 -0.39 0.32 z4139 ∈ (1.944, 2.33) 2.137 133.08 43.56 1.11 0.74
z105 ∈ (0.24, 0.36) 0.3 2 35.86 -0.97 0.58 z4239 ∈ (1.944, 2.34) 2.142 124.67 41.32 0.99 0.71
z115 ∈ (0.24, 0.38) 0.31 12.93 23.29 -0.79 0.38 z4339 ∈ (1.944, 2.36) 2.152 128.29 40.42 1.03 0.69

TABLE II: H ′ (z) and q(z) data obtained from H(z) parameter data, where zm = (zi + zj )/2.
 5

(a) The Universe may experience an accelerated expansion during the period 0 < z < 0.36: see for example, the
expansion of the Universe may speed up with a confidence level greater than 3.8 σ at redshift z51 ∈ (0, 0.24); greater
than 3.6 σ at z81 ∈ (0, 0.34); greater than 5 σ at redshifts z101 ∈ (0, 0.36) and z201 ∈ (0, 0.52).
(b) The Universe may experience a decelerated expansion during the period 0.36 < z < 1.037: see for example, the
expansion of the Universe may speed down with a confidence level greater than 1.5 σ at redshift z2012 ∈ (0.40, 0.52)
(greater than the confidence level obtained from the corresponding data z3420 in [13]); greater than 1.8 σ at redshift
z3321 ∈ (0.56, 1.037); greater than 1.7 σ at redshifts z3326 ∈ (0.61, 1.037) and z3327 ∈ (0.64, 1.037).
(c) The Universe may experience an accelerated expansion during the period 1.037 < z < 1.944: see for example,
the expansion of the Universe may speed up with a confidence level greater than 1.5 σ at redshift z3433 ∈ (1.037, 1.23);
greater than 1.6 σ at redshifts z3733 ∈ (1.037, 1.526), z3735 ∈ (1.3, 1.526), z3736 ∈ (1.43, 1.526), and z3934 ∈ (1.43, 1.944);
greater than 1.8 σ at redshift z3833 ∈ (1.037, 1.53); greater than 1.9 σ at redshifts z3835 ∈ (1.3, 1.53) and z3836 ∈
(1.43, 1.53). These confidence levels are slightly lower than those obtained in [13].
(d) Since H ′ (z) < 0, we find wx ≤ wt < −1 with a confidence level greater than 1.2 σ at redshifts z3835 ∈ (1.3, 1.53)
and z3736 ∈ (1.43, 1.526). However, we infer that wx ≤ wt < −1 with confidence level great than 1.6 σ at redshift
z3836 ∈ (1.43, 1.53). These confidence levels are the same obtained in [13].

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

Using a model-independent analysis method improved from that proposed in [13] and taking into account the errors
caused by mid-value approximation to increase the credibility of data, we have analyzed H(z) parameter data with
some restrictive conditions. Comparing with the 78 data obtained in [13], we have presented 204 data here. In order
to make our conclusion more credible, we have provided the corresponding confidence levels which had not been
calculated out in [13].
From obtained data, we have found that: (a) the Universe may experience an accelerated expansion during the
period 0 < z < 0.36; (b) the Universe may experience a decelerated expansion during the period 0.36 < z < 1.037;
(c) the Universe may experience an accelerated expansion during the period 1.037 < z < 1.944; (d) The EoS of dark
energy may be less than −1 during the period 1.3 < z < 1.53. Other studies have also reached similar conclusions,
see for example [13, 48–55].
The q(z) data and some H ′ data obtained here could be used to constrain cosmological models. The reliability of
the results obtained here depends on the H(z) parameter data. More and more accurate H(z) data are needed to
validate our results in future researches. The data and the method presented here could be helpful in exploring the
nature of dark energy.

Acknowledgments

This study is supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 12333008) and Hebei
Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. A2021201034).

[1] A. G. Riess et al., “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant,”
Astron. J., vol. 116, pp. 1009–1038, 1998.
[2] S. Perlmutter et al., “Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 high redshift supernovae,” Astrophys. J., vol. 517,
pp. 565–586, 1999.
[3] M. Tegmark et al., “Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP,” Phys. Rev., vol. D69, p. 103501, 2004.
[4] G. Hinshaw et al., “Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter
Results,” Astrophys. J. Suppl., vol. 208, p. 19, 2013.
[5] N. Aghanim et al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys., vol. 641, p. A6, 2020. [Erratum:
Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)].
[6] S. M. Carroll, “The Cosmological constant,” Living Rev.Rel., vol. 4, p. 1, 2001.
[7] R.-J. Yang and S. N. Zhang, “The age problem in ΛCDM model,” Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc., vol. 407, pp. 1835–1841,
2010.
[8] A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, and D. Scolnic, “Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide
a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyond ΛCDM,”
Astrophys. J., vol. 876, no. 1, p. 85, 2019.
[9] R. J. Yang, S. N. Zhang, and Y. Liu, “Constraints on the generalized tachyon field models from latest observational data,”
JCAP, vol. 01, p. 017, 2008.
 6

[10] R. Yang, B. Chen, H. Zhao, J. Li, and Y. Liu, “Test of conformal gravity with astrophysical observations,” Phys. Lett. B,
vol. 727, pp. 43–47, 2013.
[11] S. Nesseris and L. Perivolaropoulos, “Comparison of the legacy and gold snia dataset constraints on dark energy models,”
Phys. Rev. D, vol. 72, p. 123519, 2005.
[12] R. Lazkoz, S. Nesseris, and L. Perivolaropoulos, “Exploring Cosmological Expansion Parametrizations with the Gold SnIa
Dataset,” JCAP, vol. 11, p. 010, 2005.
[13] R.-J. Yang, “Possible evidences from H(z) parameter data for physics beyond ΛCDM,” New Astron., vol. 108, p. 102180,
2024.
[14] M. Koussour, A. Altaibayeva, S. Bekov, O. Donmez, S. Muminov, and J. Rayimbaev, “Observational constraints on the
equation of state of viscous fluid in f(R,T) gravity,” Phys. Dark Univ., vol. 46, p. 101577, 2024.
[15] J.-J. Wei, Z. Li, H. Gao, and X.-F. Wu, “Constraining the Evolution of the Baryon Fraction in the IGM with FRB and
H(z) data,” JCAP, vol. 09, p. 039, 2019.
[16] J.-Z. Qi, P. Meng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, “Model-independent measurement of cosmic curvature with the latest H(z)
and SNe Ia data: A comprehensive investigation,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 108, no. 6, p. 063522, 2023.
[17] Z. Li, B. Zhang, and N. Liang, “Testing dark energy models with gamma-ray bursts calibrated from the observational H(z)
data through a Gaussian process,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 521, no. 3, pp. 4406–4413, 2023.
[18] M. Koussour, A. Errehymy, O. Donmez, K. Myrzakulov, M. A. Khan, B. Çil, and E. Güdekli, “Constraints on bulk
viscosity in f(Q,T) gravity from H(z)/Pantheon+ data,” Phys. Dark Univ., vol. 45, p. 101527, 2024.
[19] T.-Y. He, J.-J. Yin, Z.-Y. Wang, Z.-W. Han, and R.-J. Yang, “A new parametrization of Hubble function and Hubble
tension,” JCAP, vol. 09, p. 028, 2024.
[20] Y.-L. Li, S.-Y. Li, T.-J. Zhang, and T.-P. Li, “Model-independent determination of curvature parameter by using H(z)
and DA (z) data pairs from BAO measurements,” Astrophys. J. Lett., vol. 789, p. L15, 2014.
[21] Z.-Y. Yin and H. Wei, “Non-parametric Reconstruction of Growth Index via Gaussian Processes,” Sci. China Phys. Mech.
Astron., vol. 62, no. 9, p. 999811, 2019.
[22] D. G. Figueroa, L. Verde, and R. Jimenez, “Improved Cosmological Parameter Constraints from CMB and H(z) Data,”
JCAP, vol. 10, p. 038, 2008.
[23] A. Al Mamon and K. Bamba, “Observational constraints on the jerk parameter with the data of the Hubble parameter,”
Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 78, no. 10, p. 862, 2018.
[24] G. K. Goswami, R. Rani, J. K. Singh, and A. Pradhan, “FLRW cosmology in Weyl type f(Q) gravity and observational
constraints,” JHEAp, vol. 43, pp. 105–113, 2024.
[25] Y. S. Murakami, A. G. Riess, B. E. Stahl, W. D. Kenworthy, D.-M. A. Pluck, A. Macoretta, D. Brout, D. O. Jones, D. M.
Scolnic, and A. V. Filippenko, “Leveraging SN Ia spectroscopic similarity to improve the measurement of H 0 ,” JCAP,
vol. 11, p. 046, 2023.
[26] Y. Wang et al., “The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: tomo-
graphic BAO analysis of DR12 combined sample in configuration space,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 469, no. 3,
pp. 3762–3774, 2017.
[27] D. Stern, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, M. Kamionkowski, and S. Stanford, “Cosmic Chronometers: Constraining the Equation
of State of Dark Energy. I: H(z) Measurements,” JCAP, vol. 02, p. 008, 2010.
[28] M. Moresco et al., “Improved constraints on the expansion rate of the Universe up to z˜1.1 from the spectroscopic evolution
of cosmic chronometers,” JCAP, vol. 08, p. 006, 2012.
[29] C. Blake et al., “The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: Joint measurements of the expansion and growth history at z < 1,”
Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 425, pp. 405–414, 2012.
[30] S. Alam et al., “The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological
analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 470, no. 3, pp. 2617–2652, 2017.
[31] E. Gaztanaga, A. Cabre, and L. Hui, “Clustering of Luminous Red Galaxies IV: Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Line-of-Sight
Direction and a Direct Measurement of H(z),” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 399, pp. 1663–1680, 2009.
[32] A. Oka, S. Saito, T. Nishimichi, A. Taruya, and K. Yamamoto, “Simultaneous constraints on the growth of structure and
cosmic expansion from the multipole power spectra of the SDSS DR7 LRG sample,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 439,
pp. 2515–2530, 2014.
[33] C.-H. Chuang and Y. Wang, “Modeling the Anisotropic Two-Point Galaxy Correlation Function on Small Scales and
Improved Measurements of H(z), DA (z), and β(z) from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR7 Luminous Red Galaxies,” Mon.
Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 435, pp. 255–262, 2013.
[34] G.-B. Zhao et al., “The clustering of the SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey DR14 quasar sample:
a tomographic measurement of cosmic structure growth and expansion rate based on optimal redshift weights,” Mon. Not.
Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 482, no. 3, pp. 3497–3513, 2019.
[35] M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, L. Verde, D. Thomas, A. Citro, R. Tojeiro, and D. Wilkin-
son, “A 6% measurement of the Hubble parameter at z ∼ 0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration,”
JCAP, vol. 05, p. 014, 2016.
[36] N. G. Busca et al., “Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in the Ly-α forest of BOSS quasars,” Astron. Astrophys., vol. 552, p. A96,
2013.
[37] J. E. Bautista et al., “Measurement of baryon acoustic oscillation correlations at z = 2.3 with SDSS DR12 Lyα-Forests,”
Astron. Astrophys., vol. 603, p. A12, 2017.
[38] T. Delubac et al., “Baryon acoustic oscillations in the Lyα forest of BOSS DR11 quasars,” Astron. Astrophys., vol. 574,
p. A59, 2015.
 7

[39] A. Font-Ribera et al., “Quasar-Lyman α Forest Cross-Correlation from BOSS DR11 : Baryon Acoustic Oscillations,”
JCAP, vol. 05, p. 027, 2014.
[40] L. Anderson et al., “The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: measuring DA
and H at z = 0.57 from the baryon acoustic peak in the Data Release 9 spectroscopic Galaxy sample,” Mon. Not. Roy.
Astron. Soc., vol. 439, no. 1, pp. 83–101, 2014.
[41] Y. Yang and Y. Gong, “Measurement on the cosmic curvature using the Gaussian process method,” Mon. Not. Roy.
Astron. Soc., vol. 504, no. 2, pp. 3092–3097, 2021.
[42] Z. Li, J. E. Gonzalez, H. Yu, Z.-H. Zhu, and J. S. Alcaniz, “Constructing a cosmological model-independent Hubble
diagram of type Ia supernovae with cosmic chronometers,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 93, no. 4, p. 043014, 2016.
[43] J. Zheng, F. Melia, and T.-J. Zhang, “A Model-Independent Measurement of the Spatial Curvature using Cosmic
Chronometers and the HII Hubble Diagram,” 1 2019.
[44] A. Shafieloo, U. Alam, V. Sahni, and A. A. Starobinsky, “Smoothing Supernova Data to Reconstruct the Expansion History
of the Universe and its Age,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 366, pp. 1081–1095, 2006.
[45] A. Shafieloo, “Model Independent Reconstruction of the Expansion History of the Universe and the Properties of Dark
Energy,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 380, pp. 1573–1580, 2007.
[46] A. Shafieloo and C. Clarkson, “Model independent tests of the standard cosmological model,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 81,
p. 083537, 2010.
[47] V. C. Busti, C. Clarkson, and M. Seikel, “Evidence for a Lower Value for H0 from Cosmic Chronometers Data?,” Mon.
Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 441, p. 11, 2014.
[48] H. Wei and S. N. Zhang, “Observational H(z) Data and Cosmological Models,” Phys. Lett. B, vol. 644, pp. 7–15, 2007.
[49] H. Wei and S. N. Zhang, “Interacting Energy Components and Observational H(z) Data,” Phys. Lett. B, vol. 654, pp. 139–
147, 2007.
[50] H. Zhang and Z.-H. Zhu, “Natural Phantom Dark Energy, Wiggling Hubble Parameter H(z) and Direct H(z) Data,” JCAP,
vol. 03, p. 007, 2008.
[51] Y. Yang, X. Ren, Q. Wang, Z. Lu, D. Zhang, Y.-F. Cai, and E. N. Saridakis, “Quintom cosmology and modified gravity
after DESI 2024,” Sci. Bull., vol. 69, pp. 2698–2704, 2024.
[52] G.-B. Zhao et al., “Dynamical dark energy in light of the latest observations,” Nature Astron., vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 627–632,
2017.
[53] R. Calderon et al., “DESI 2024: Reconstructing Dark Energy using Crossing Statistics with DESI DR1 BAO data,” 5
2024.
[54] A. G. Adame et al., “DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations,”
4 2024.
[55] B. Feng, X.-L. Wang, and X.-M. Zhang, “Dark energy constraints from the cosmic age and supernova,” Phys. Lett. B,
vol. 607, pp. 35–41, 2005.