T. M. Davis et al. 2007 ApJ 666 716 doi:10.1086/519988
T. M. Davis1, E. Mörtsell2, J. Sollerman1,2, A. C. Becker3, S. Blondin4, P. Challis4, A. Clocchiatti5, A. V. Filippenko6, R. J. Foley6, P. M. Garnavich7, S. Jha8, K. Krisciunas7,9, R. P. Kirshner4, B. Leibundgut10, W. Li6, T. Matheson11, G. Miknaitis12, G. Pignata5, A. Rest13, A. G. Riess14,15, B. P. Schmidt16, R. C. Smith13, J. Spyromilio10, C. W. Stubbs4,17, N. B. Suntzeff9,13, J. L. Tonry18, W. M. Wood-Vasey4 and A. Zenteno19
Show affiliationsThe first cosmological results from the ESSENCE supernova survey (Wood-Vasey and coworkers) are extended to a wider range of cosmological models including dynamical dark energy and nonstandard cosmological models. We fold in a greater number of external data sets such as the recent Higher-z release of high-redshift supernovae (Riess and coworkers), as well as several complementary cosmological probes. Model comparison statistics such as the Bayesian and Akaike information criteria are applied to gauge the worth of models. These statistics favor models that give a good fit with fewer parameters. Based on this analysis, the preferred cosmological model is the flat cosmological constant model, where the expansion history of the universe can be adequately described with only one free parameter describing the energy content of the universe. Among the more exotic models that provide good fits to the data, we note a preference for models whose best-fit parameters reduce them to the cosmological constant model.
Issue 2 (2007 September 10)
Received 2007 January 18, accepted for publication 2007 May 2
T. M. Davis et al. 2007 ApJ 666 716
J S Gardner et al 2005 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 17 7089
W. M. Wood-Vasey et al. 2007 ApJ 666 694
David W Dreisigmeyer and Peter M Young 2003 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36 8297
Lior Shamir and Robert J. Nemiroff 2005 The Astronomical Journal 129 539
David Bowdley 2003 Phys. Educ. 38 406
A P Gibson et al 2005 Phys. Med. Biol. 50 R1
Alejandro Clocchiatti et al. 2006 ApJ 642 1
Fabien Silly et al 2004 New J. Phys. 6 16
Takaaki Kajita 2004 New J. Phys. 6 194