Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 45 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 52 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 30 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 24 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 96 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 206 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 457 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 36 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Several parametrization dark energy models comparison with Statefinder hierarchy (1510.02633v1)

Published 9 Oct 2015 in gr-qc

Abstract: We employ the Statefinder hierarchy and the growth rate of matter perturbations to explore the discrimination of $\Lambda$CDM and some parametrization dark energy models including the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder (CPL), the Jassal-Bagla-Padmanabhan (JBP), the Pad\'{e}(\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}), (\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2}). We find that the statefinder $S_3{(m)}$ containing third derivatives of $a(t)$ can differentiate CPL and JBP from $\Lambda$CDM and Pad\'{e}(\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}), (\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2}). While the statefinder $S_4{(1)}$ involving fourth order derivatives of $a(t)$ has more powerful discrimination that it can distinguish the Pad\'{e}(\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}), (\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2}) from $\Lambda$CDM. In addition, we show that the growth rate of matter perturbations does not play a significant role for discrimination of such parametrization dark energy models.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-Up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.