English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In this article, we elaborate further on the $\Lambda$CDM "tension",suggested recently by the authors \cite{Lusso:2019akb,Risaliti:2018reu}. Wecombine Supernovae type Ia (SNIa) with quasars (QSO) and Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB)data in order to reconstruct a model independent Hubble diagram to as highredshifts as possible. Specifically, in the case of either SNIa or SNIa/QSOdata, we find that current values of the cosmokinetic parameters extracted fromthe Gaussian process are consistent with those of $\Lambda$CDM. Including GRBs,in the analysis, we find a tension, which however is not as significant as thatmentioned in \cite{Lusso:2019akb, Risaliti:2018reu}. Finally, we argue that thechoice of the kernel function used in extracting the luminosity distance mightaffect the amount of tension.

Does $\Lambda$CDM really be in tension with the Hubble diagram data?