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 2012, Bilicki and Seikel (arXiv:1206.5130) showed that $H(z)$ datareconstructed using Gaussian Process Regression from cosmic chronometers andBAO, conclusively rules out the $R_h=ct$ model. These results were disputed byMelia and collaborators in two different works (arXiv:1304.1802 andarXiv:1802.02255), who showed using both an unbinned analysis and GaussianProcess reconstructed $H(z)$ data from chronometers, that $R_h=ct$ is favoredover $\Lambda$CDM model. To resolve this imbroglio, we carry out modelcomparison of $\Lambda$CDM versus $R_h=ct$ by independently reproducing theabove claims using latest chronometer data. We perform model selection betweenthese two models using Bayesian model comparison. We find that no one modelbetween $\Lambda$CDM and $R_h=ct$ is decisively favored when uniform priors on$\Lambda$CDM parameters are used. However, if we use priors centered around thePlanck best-fit values, then $\Lambda$CDM is very strongly preferred over$R_h=ct$.

Model Comparison of $\Lambda$CDM vs $R_h=ct$ using Cosmic Chronometers