 quantities is limited since it is highly dependent on the smoothing technique as, e.g., smoothing linear splines has always zero second derivative, and top-hat moving average filters are non-continuous. Therefore, any analysis about kinematic quantities, different of the reconstructed one, requires new assumptions [@Daly2004; @Shafieloo2012].

Gaussian Process {#sec:GP}
----------------

In this approach, instead of modeling a kinematic function, one chooses to model a probability distribution for the curve as a Gaussian probability distribution. This assumption dictates the data probability distribution by relating both the curve and observable probability distributions. In this sense, this approach unifies the two aspects of the model, the data distribution and the curve reconstruction. All the assumptions are comprised in the mean curve and the two-point covariance, which define the Gaussian distribution of the curve.

The drawback is similar to the parametric procedure. In general, one has to assume a function to describe the mean of the GP and a two-point function to describe the variance. If the considered mean function differs from the true one, it will impose a bias in the reconstruction. See, for example, references [@Holsclaw2010; @Seikel2012], where they assume a constant mean function. Since the GP determines the observable statistical distribution, it is also necessary to include the data distribution to calculate the joint probability distribution of both curve and data. In this case, one has a model-independent but parametric method in the sense that one is assuming a particular distribution for the data. The GP validation also has to be performed for a number of realizations of the data, since the indirect curve determination through a Gaussian distribution can lead to bias in an unpredictable way.

Reconstruction of $q(z)$ {#sec:reconst}
========================

Broadly speaking each strategy described in section \[sec:review\] has a better suited application. As a rule of thumb, to use less hypothesis it is necessary to have more data. Therefore, if the amount of data is limited, the generality of GP and soothing methods, for example, are restricted, leading to underdetermined problems. Besides that, including natural hypothesis can also be considerably difficult in those non-parametric studies, e.g., after the determination of the cosmological distances through a smoothing method it is necessary to add new assumptions to describe the Hubble function.

Therefore, in this work we adopted a model-independent parametric approach. Nonetheless, to be conservative we reconstruct the kinematic
quantities is limited since it is highly dependent on the smoothing technique as, for example, smooth linear splines has constantly zero second derivative instrument, and top - hat moving average filter are non - continuous. consequently, any analysis about kinematic quantities, different of the reconstructed one, requires new assumption   [ @Daly2004; @Shafieloo2012 ]. 

 Gaussian Process { # sec: GP } 
 ---------------- 

 In this approach, instead of model a kinematic affair, one chooses to model a probability distribution for the curve as a Gaussian probability distribution. This assumption dictates the data probability distribution by associate both the curve and observable probability distributions. In this common sense, this approach unifies the two expression of the model, the datum distribution and the curve reconstruction. All the assumption are comprised in the mean curve and the two - distributor point covariance, which define the Gaussian distribution of the curve. 

 The drawback is similar to the parametric procedure. In general, one has to assume a function to describe the mean of the GP and a two - point function to describe the variance. If the considered mean function differs from the truthful one, it will impose a bias in the reconstruction. visit, for case, references   [ @Holsclaw2010; @Seikel2012 ], where they assume a constant hateful affair. Since the GP determines the observable statistical distribution, it is besides necessary to include the data distribution to calculate the joint probability distribution of both curve and data. In this case, one has a model - independent but parametric method in the sense that one is assuming a especial distribution for the data. The GP establishment besides have to be performed for a number of realizations of the datum, since the indirect curve determination through a Gaussian distribution can lead to bias in an unpredictable way. 

 Reconstruction of $ q(z)$ { # sec: reconst } 
 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

 Broadly speaking each strategy identify in section   \[sec: review\ ] have a better suitable application. As a rule of thumb, to use less guess it is necessary to have more data. consequently, if the amount of data is limited, the generality of GP and soothing method acting, for example, are restricted, leading to underdetermined problems. Besides that, including natural hypothesis can also be considerably unmanageable in those non - parametric studies, e.g., after the decision of the cosmological distances through a smoothing method it is necessary to add new assumptions to describe the Hubble routine. 

 Therefore, in this work we adopted a model - independent parametric approach. however, to be conservative we reconstruct the kinematic
 quwntities is limited sinct it is highly dekebdent mn the smoothivg technique as, e.g., smoothing lunear splines has always zefo second derivatuve, end top-hat movinj averagc filfcrs axe non-continuous. Therefore, any analysis dbuuc kinematic quantities, different of ehe recpndtructed one, rgquirts gew zssumptions [@Daly2004; @Shafieloo2012].

Gaussian Lrocess {#sec:GP}
----------------

In this approach, instead of modellng w kinematic functiln, one choowes ei model a prubability distribution for the curve as a Gaussian prubabikity distrubytilt. This assunptiog dictates tmv data [robabikity distributlon bb reoating both the curve and observable prjbability dnstributions. In this webse, tvis dppruqch unjfmes the tao espects of fhe model, tye data distributiom wbd the curve deconsertction. All the assumptions are compriseg ih the mean curve and thw two-point covariance, which desine the Gaussian distribution of the curve.

The drdwbaci is slmilxe ho the parametric procedure. In general, one haf tp sssume a functlon to describe thr lesg of the GP avd a tck-pkint function to dfscribe the cariance. Yf tne considered mean function differs froi the true one, it wnll impose a biax in yhe reconstruction. See, yor exzmple, referfnces [@Holsduaw2010; @Seikel2012], where thvy avsume a constant mean funceion. Sincx the GP detdrmimes thq observabpe statistical distributlon, ij is anso necesswry to include the data distribnvion to calcukade nhe joint probsbility distrybution of botk curve cnd daga. In this case, oie has a modql-independent hut parametrmc method in rhe wense tfxt one is assuking a pagtncular diwtribution for the daja. The GP validatnub also has to br pdrfjrlev for d number of sealkzagoons uf the data, rincr the indirect curve detsrmination through a Gaussiab distrifution can lesd to bias in an ujpredmctablx way.

Rrcogstruction of $q(z)$ {#sec:reconst}
========================

Brozdly speaninn each stratedy dcscrybed in seetion \[sec:review\] has a better suited appliration. As a rule of thomb, to use less hypotkexis it is nxcessawy to hava more data. Thereforw, if the amount on data is limited, the feneranity lf GP and soothing methods, for example, are restricted, leading to underdetwrminev [roblems. Beaidex than, iuclbding nwturel hypothesis can slso be considerably difficult mn those nmn-'arametric studies, e.g., after tne determinatiov of the cosmological diatances yhrough a smoothing method it ix necessary to add new axsumptiobs to descrpge the Hubble functipn.

Therzfore, un this worn we adopted x mpdcl-independfnt karajetric approach. Nonetheless, to bw conswrgative we reconsvruct the kikeoatic
quantities is limited since it is highly the technique as, smoothing linear splines and moving average filters non-continuous. Therefore, any about kinematic quantities, different of the one, requires new assumptions [@Daly2004; @Shafieloo2012]. Gaussian Process {#sec:GP} ---------------- In this approach, of modeling a kinematic function, one chooses to model a probability distribution for curve a probability This assumption dictates the data probability distribution by relating both the curve and observable probability distributions. this sense, this approach unifies the two aspects the model, the data and the curve reconstruction. All assumptions comprised in mean and two-point covariance, which the Gaussian distribution of the curve. The drawback is similar to the parametric procedure. In general, one to assume to describe mean the and a two-point describe the variance. If the considered from the true one, it will impose a in the See, for example, references [@Holsclaw2010; @Seikel2012], they assume a constant mean function. Since the determines the observable statistical distribution, it is also necessary to include the data distribution to joint probability distribution of curve and data. this one a but parametric in the sense that one is assuming a particular distribution for data. The GP validation also has to be performed for of of the data, the indirect curve determination a distribution can lead to an way. {#sec:reconst} Broadly each strategy described in \[sec:review\] has a better suited As a rule of it is necessary to have more data. Therefore, the amount of data is limited, the of GP and soothing methods, for example, are restricted, leading to underdetermined Besides that, hypothesis can also be considerably difficult in those studies, e.g., after the of the cosmological distances through a smoothing method it necessary add new to describe the function. Therefore, in work we adopted parametric approach. to conservative kinematic
 quantities is limited since iT is highly dEpendEnt On tHe SmooThinG technique as, e.g., SMootHing linear splines has alWays zErO SecoND dErivaTive, and TOp-HAT moViNg AveRaGE fIlterS arE non-conTinuous. TheRefOrE, any analysis ABoUt kinematiC quAntities, diffEreNt of thE rEcoNStrucTed One, reQuires NEw assuMptions [@DaLy2004; @sHafielOO2012].

GaussiAN prOcesS {#sec:GP}
----------------

In this approACh, INstead of modeliNg a kinEmATiC FUncTioN, one chooseS tO modeL A probabILiTY DIstRIbution for the Curve as a GauSSiaN probaBiLitY DistriButioN. THIs aSsumption diCtatEs the data ProbabILity disTRibutioN by relAtiNg bOth tHE cUrVe aNd OBseRVaBle PRobAbility dIsTrIbutiOns. IN THIS senSe, tHis aPproaCh unifies the tWo aSpecTS of The moDel, thE datA dIstriBution And thE cUrve reconstructIon. ALl the assuMptIoNs aRe ComprISed in tHe mEan Curve anD the two-POinT cOVARiAnce, which define the gaUSSiAn distriBution OF tHe CUrve.

The dRaWbaCk is SIMilar To thE PaRametric ProcedURe. in General, OnE has to AsSumE a fUnctiON to dEscribE the mean Of the gp and a two-point fUNction to descrIBe THE vARianCe. IF the consideRed mEAn fuNctiON dIffERs froM the tRuE OnE, It will impose a bias in ThE reconStrucTion. See, for exaMple, refereNCES [@HolsclaW2010; @SeiKEl2012], WHere they assume A consTant mean fuNCtion. SinCe the gP determInes the obSERvable stAtiStiCal DisTRIbUtion, it is also NECessArY to inclUde The data DisTriButIon To Calculate The joint PrObAbIlIty DistrIBution of BoTh cUrVe aNd datA. in this Case, oNe haS a MoDEl-iNdependENt BUT parAmEtRic mEthOd In the SensE ThaT one is aSsuming a pArtICulaR dIsTributiOn for the data. THe gP validatiOn AlsO has to BE PerformeD for a number of realizatioNS of the dAta, Since The iNdirect cuRve DetermInaTIon thrOugh a GAussiAn DisTRIbutiON CaN leAd To bias in an UNPreDictaBlE way.

reconstRuction of $q(z)$ {#sec:recoNSt}
========================

BRoadly speakinG eaCh stRATeGy dEScRIbeD iN SecTIOn \[sec:review\] has a Better suitEd APpLication. As A RulE oF thumb, tO use lesS hypoTHesis it Is necessaRy to have mOrE datA. tHerEfore, if the Amount of Data is limITed, thE GeNeralIty Of GP anD sOotHing mEthods, FOr eXamplE, are reStRicted, LeadiNg To underdEtermined problems. BesideS that, iNcludIng Natural hyPotHEsiS can also bE conSiderably dIffIcuLt in tHosE Non-paRameTRiC stUDies, e.G., aftER the deterMInAtiON Of The cosmologICAL diStancEs tHRough a SmooThing method it is neCEssary to add new AssuMPTioNs tO DescRiBe the Hubble funCtiOn.

tHErefore, iN tHis work we adOpted a moDeL-IndepEndent ParameTric appROAcH. nonethElesS, to Be conservAtiVe WE reconsTrUcT The kinEmatIc
 quantities is limited sin ce it is h ighly  de pen de nt o n th e smoothing te c hniq ue as, e.g., smoothing  line ar spli n es  hasalwaysz er o sec on dder iv a ti ve, a ndtop-hat  moving av era ge  filters are no n-continuo us.  Therefore,any  analy si s a b out k ine matic  quant i ties,different  o f  the r e constru c t ed  one , requires new as s um p tions [@Daly20 04; @S ha f ie l o o20 12] .

Gaussia nProce s s {#sec : GP } - --- - -----------
In this app r oac h, ins te ado f mode lingak ine matic funct ion,  one choo ses to model a probabi lity d ist rib utio n  f or  th ec urv e  a s a Gau ssian pr ob ab ility  dis t r i b utio n.This  assu mption dictat esthed ata  prob abili ty d is tribu tion b y rel at ing both the cu rveand obser vab le  pr ob abili t y dist rib uti ons. In  this s e nse ,t h i sapproach unifies t he t wo  aspects  of th e  m od e l, the d at a d istr i b ution  and th e curverecons t ru ct ion. Al lthe as su mpt ion s are comp risedin the m ean c u rve and the tw o -point covari a nc e ,  w h ichdef ine the Gau ssia n  dis trib u ti ono f the  curv e. 
T h e drawback is simil ar  to th e par ametric proce dure. In g e n e ral, one  has to assume a funct ion t o describe the mean  of t he GP an d a two-p o i nt funct ion  to  de scr i b ethe variance. I f th econside red  mean f unc tio n d iff er s from th e true o ne ,it  w ill  impo s e a bias  i n t he  re const r uction . See , fo rex a mpl e, refe r en c e s [@ Ho ls claw 201 0;  @Sei kel2 0 12] , where  they ass ume a co ns ta nt mean  function. Si nc e the GP d et erm ines t h e  observa ble statistical distrib u tion, i t i s als o ne cessary t o i nclude  th e  datadistri butio ntoc a lcula t e  t hejo int probab i l ity  dist ri buti on of b oth curve and data .  In  this case, o nehasa mo del - in d epe nd e ntb u t parametric me thod in th es en se that on e  is  a ssuming  a part icula r  distri bution fo r the dat a.  The G P v alidationalso has  to be pe r forme d  f or anum ber of  r eal izati ons of the  data , sinc ethe in direc tcurve de termination through a G aussia n dis tri bution ca n l e adto bias i n an  unpredict abl e w ay.
Rec o nstru ctio n  o f $ q (z)${#se c :reconst} == === = = == =========== = = = =
Broad lys peakin g ea ch strategy descr i bed in section  \[s e c :re vie w \] h as  a better suit edap p l ication.  A s a rule of  thumb,to use l ess hy pothes is it i s ne c essary  tohav e more da ta.  T h erefore ,if the am ount  o f data  is li m ited , the generality o f GPa n d soo t hin g met ho ds, for exam ple, are r estricted,leadin g to  unde rdeterm in ed pro ble ms . Besidest hat, incl uding  natura lhypo the sis ca n al s o  be c onsi de rab ly diffic u l ti nth o senon- param et ricstudies,e .g., aft ert he dete rm ina t i on oft he c osmologica l d istan c e s througha  smo o th i ng me thod i t is n ecessar y  to  a dd newass u m ptions to  describe the  H ubbl e functi on .

T he ref or e, in this work  we adop ted a mo d e l-inde pen d entp aramet ri c approach.Nonet he l ess, to b e c onserva t ive  we  re cons tru ct t h e kinematic
 quantities_is limited_since it is highly_dependent on_the_smoothing technique_as,_e.g., smoothing linear_splines has always_zero second derivative, and_top-hat moving average_filters_are non-continuous. Therefore, any analysis about kinematic quantities, different of the reconstructed one, requires_new_assumptions [@Daly2004; @Shafieloo2012].

Gaussian_Process_{#sec:GP}
----------------

In_this approach, instead of modeling_a kinematic function, one chooses_to model_a probability distribution for the curve as a_Gaussian_probability distribution. This_assumption dictates the data probability distribution by relating both_the curve and observable probability distributions._In this sense,_this_approach_unifies the two aspects_of the model, the data distribution_and the curve reconstruction. All the_assumptions are comprised in the mean curve_and the two-point covariance, which define_the Gaussian distribution of the_curve.

The drawback_is similar to the parametric_procedure. In general,_one has_to assume a_function to describe the mean of_the GP and_a two-point function to describe the_variance._If the considered_mean_function_differs from_the true one,_it_will impose_a_bias in the reconstruction. See, for_example,_references [@Holsclaw2010; @Seikel2012], where they assume a constant_mean function. Since the_GP_determines the observable statistical_distribution, it is also necessary_to include the data distribution to_calculate the_joint probability_distribution of both curve and data. In this case, one has_a model-independent but parametric method in_the sense that one_is assuming_a_particular distribution for_the_data. The_GP validation also has to be performed_for a_number of realizations of the data,_since the indirect curve_determination_through a Gaussian distribution can lead_to bias in an unpredictable way.

Reconstruction_of $q(z)$ {#sec:reconst}
========================

Broadly speaking each_strategy_described_in section \[sec:review\] has a better_suited application. As a rule of_thumb, to use_less hypothesis it is necessary to have_more_data. Therefore, if the amount of_data_is limited, the generality of GP_and_soothing_methods, for example, are restricted,_leading to underdetermined problems. Besides that,_including natural hypothesis can also be considerably difficult in_those non-parametric studies,_e.g., after the determination of_the_cosmological_distances through a smoothing method it is necessary to add_new assumptions_to describe the_Hubble function.

Therefore, in this work we adopted a model-independent parametric_approach. Nonetheless, to be conservative we reconstruct_the kinematic