Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 8 cited by

General parametrization for energy density of quintessence field

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A universal parametrization of quintessence energy density reproduces scaling-freezing, tracker, and thawing dynamics at any redshift with at most 0.4% error in the Hubble rate, and fits to current data still favour ΛCDM.

desk verdict Useful new quintessence density parametrization with honest numerical checks, but the 'all classes, any redshift' claim overreaches the tested potentials. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15892 v2 pith:WWJRBBCD submitted 2024-11-24 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Shiriny Akthar , Md. Wali Hossain This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc PACS 95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords quintessencedarkenergyparametrizationscaling-freezingdynamicstrackerthawingcosmologicalconstraintsDESIBAOBayesianreasoning
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that a single functional form for the energy density of a quintessence field—a sum of terms that each freeze at high redshift and then decay as a power law below a transition redshift—can reproduce all three recognized classes of scalar-field dark energy dynamics: scaling-freezing, tracker, and thawing, at every redshift. If the claim holds, it gives cosmologists a cheap and model-agnostic replacement for integrating the scalar-field equations: the authors report the parametrization matches the full numerical solution to within about $0.4\%$ in $H(z)$ on the potentials they test, and their MCMC runs take roughly seven times less wall-clock time. The paper also confronts the parametrization with current cosmological data and finds that $\Lambda$CDM remains preferred, that a phantom extension of the thawing case is preferred over its non-phantom version, and that the only hint of dynamical dark energy appears in the CPL parametrization.

What carries the argument

The central object is the building block $$\rho_i(z)=\frac{\rho_{0i}}{1+\left(\frac{1+z_i}{1+z}\right)^{\alpha_i}},$$ a 'frozen-then-decay' step in $\ln(1+z)$ space: it is nearly constant for $z>z_i$ and decays as a power law for $z<z_i$, with $\alpha_i$ setting the decay rate ($\alpha=0$ for a cosmological constant, $3$ for matter-like, $4$ for radiation-like, $6$ for stiff). The full ansatz stacks $f$ such terms plus the kinetic term $\rho_{KE}(1+z)^6$; the transition redshifts are not independent but are fixed by the $\rho_{0i}$ through the matching condition of Eq. (3.8), and the Friedmann constraint reduces the parameter count further, leaving only the $\rho_{0i}$ and $\alpha_i$ as free parameters (two for thawing, four for scaling-freezing/tracker). This ansatz does the work of replacing the scalar-field Klein-Gordon equation: the equation of state follows from the continuity equation via Eqs. (3.17)–(3.18), so the Hubble rate and the linear matter perturbations can be computed without evolving the field.

What would settle it

Numerically solve the Klein-Gordon and Friedmann equations for a quintessence potential with a non-monotonic slope $\lambda$ or two distinct tracking phases and try to fit the resulting $\rho_\phi(z)$ with the claimed two- or four-parameter ansatz over $0<z<10^4$; if the error in $H(z)$ exceeds the reported $\sim 0.4\%$, or if $f>3$ is needed to capture the radiation-matter transition, the 'any dynamics, any redshift' claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the energy density of any quintessence field—a minimally coupled canonical scalar field rolling slowly at late times—can be written as $$\rho_\$\varphi$(z)=\sum_{i=1}^{f}\frac{\rho_{0i}}{1+\left(\frac{1+z_i}{1+z}\right)^{\alpha_i}}+\rho_{KE}(1+z)^6,$$ where each term is nearly constant for $z>z_i$ and decays as $(1+z)^{-\alpha_i}$ for $z<z_i$, and the kinetic term captures an initial $a^{-6}$ fall when the field is not frozen. With $f=1$ (two free parameters) the form reproduces thawing dynamics; with $f=2$ (four free parameters) it reproduces scaling-freezing and tracker dynamics; and an $f=3$ version captures the oscillatory equation of state around the radiation-matter transition. The paper demonstrates that this ansatz matches the numerically evolved background and linear perturbations for double-exponential, inverse-power-law, inverse-axionlike, and exponential potentials, with maximum error in the normalized Hubble rate $E(z)=H(z)/H_0$ of about $0.4\%$ (and $0.15\%$ for the thawing case), and that it reproduces the matter power spectrum and $f\sigma_8(z)$. Fitting the parametrizations to Planck 2018 distance priors, DESI 2024 DR1 BAO, PantheonPlus, cosmic chronometers, and RSD data, the paper finds ΛCDM is preferred over all the parametrized models, a phantom extension of the $f=1$ model is preferred over its non-phantom version, and no dynamical dark energy is favoured except within the CPL parametrization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every quintessence energy-density history can be represented as a sum of terms that are each constant above a transition redshift and then decay as a power law below it; the paper demonstrates this on four potentials but does not derive it from the scalar-field equations, and the 'any dynamics, any redshift' phrasing leaves open whether potentials with non-monotonic behaviour would require more terms or fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The parametrization replaces direct scalar-field evolution in cosmological pipelines, cutting MCMC iteration time by roughly a factor of seven in the authors' implementation (about 10 s versus 70 s per iteration) while keeping the same background and perturbation predictions.
  • It offers a model-agnostic description of dark energy: fitting the $f=1$ and $f=2$ variants distinguishes thawing-like from scaling-freezing/tracker-like dynamics without assuming a specific potential.
  • It reproduces the matter power spectrum and $f\sigma_8(z)$ of the full scalar-field solutions, so growth data can be analysed with the cheap form.
  • With $f=3$, or using the averaged equation of state, it also captures the oscillatory behaviour of the scalar-field equation of state around the radiation-matter transition, extending coverage to any redshift.
  • Fitted to current data (Planck 2018 distance priors, DESI DR1 BAO, PantheonPlus, cosmic chronometers, RSD), the parametrized models do not beat ΛCDM; only CPL shows any preference for dynamical dark energy.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The ansatz is effectively a sum of logistic steps in $\ln(1+z)$ space, which suggests a broader principle: slowly rolling field energy densities are generically superpositions of soft transitions; this connects the parametrization to non-parametric reconstruction methods and emulator-based pipelines that the paper does not discuss.
  • The fitted parameters could in principle be inverted to characterise the underlying potential's slope and curvature, since $\alpha_i$ and $z_i$ track the epochs where the field thaws or scales; the paper leaves this potential-reconstruction step implicit.
  • A natural stress test for the 'any dynamics' claim is a potential with a non-monotonic $\Gamma$ (for instance, one producing two separate tracking phases); the paper's demonstrations use only monotonic-slope potentials, so whether $f=2$ still suffices there is open.
  • Because the $f=1$ phantom variant is preferred over non-phantom thawing while ΛCDM remains best, the parametrization could serve as a diagnostic for the phantom-versus-quintessence question once higher-precision data arrive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a parametric form for the quintessence energy density, Eq. (3.7), as a sum of smooth step-like terms plus a stiff kinetic term, and claims that it can mimic all classes of quintessence dynamics (scaling-freezing, tracker, thawing) at any redshift. The authors derive relations that reduce the number of free parameters, validate the parametrization against numerical scalar-field solutions for four example potentials by comparing E(z), the matter power spectrum, and fσ8(z), and then use the f=1 and f=2 versions of the parametrization in an MCMC analysis with CMB, DESI DR1 BAO, PantheonPlus, Hubble, and RSD data. They find that ΛCDM remains preferred, that CPL is the only model showing a preference for dynamical dark energy, and that allowing a phantom region for the thawing parametrization is less disfavored than the non-phantom version.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the parametrization would be a useful model-agnostic tool for scalar-field dark energy, with a genuine computational advantage over full field evolution. The paper's quantitative checks are a real strength: for the tested potentials the maximum percentage error in E(z) is about 0.4% (Fig. 3), 0.3% (Fig. 5), and 0.15% (Fig. 7), and the power spectrum and fσ8(z) are reproduced. The observational analysis is also reasonably thorough and the finding that ΛCDM is preferred over the new parametrizations is clearly presented. The main weakness is that the universal 'all classes / any redshift' claim rests on only a few example potentials and on an unproven representational assumption about Eq. (3.6), with explicit concessions in the text about oscillatory and phantom cases.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. 3, Eq. (3.6)] The central claim that Eq. (3.7) can mimic all classes of quintessence dynamics 'for any redshift' is not established by the evidence in the paper. Each term in Eq. (3.6) is positive and non-increasing in (1+z), and any finite sum of such terms is also monotone non-increasing; this cannot represent non-monotone or oscillatory energy-density histories that can arise for oscillatory potentials. The validation covers only the double exponential potential (Sec. 4), the inverse power-law and inverse axionlike potentials (Sec. 5), and the exponential potential (Sec. 6), at chosen parameter values. The text itself concedes in Sec. 4 that the oscillatory equation-of-state feature is reproduced only on average unless an additional term is added, and Sec. 8 says the phantom case at higher redshift 'has to be investigated properly.' No completeness proof, error bound, or scan over potentials is provided. The wording 'all classes' and 'any redshift' should therefore be restricted, or the claim should be supported by additional mathematical or numerical evidence.
  2. [Sec. 7.2, P f1+P hantom; Sec. 8] The conclusion that allowing the phantom region makes the thawing parametrization more preferred by the data (Abstract and Sec. 8) is based on a model whose validity is explicitly limited. Eq. (3.7) was introduced for a canonical quintessence field with wφ≥-1; the phantom case is obtained by taking α1<0, and Sec. 8 states that for higher redshifts this case 'has to be investigated properly.' The data combination in Sec. 7 includes CMB distance priors and Ly-α BAO data at z>4, so the fit to P f1+P hantom uses the parametrization outside the domain for which its behavior is known. The comparison between P f1 and P f1+P hantom is therefore not a clean test of phantom quintessence, and this observational conclusion should either be removed or redone with a properly extended parametrization.
  3. [Secs. 4-6, perturbation results] The perturbation-level validation is not reproducible from the text. Figures 3, 6, and 7 show that the parametrized model reproduces the matter power spectrum and fσ8(z) of the numerical field, but the manuscript does not state how perturbations of the parametrized energy density are evolved (for example, the dark-energy sound speed, the choice of gauge, or the Boltzmann code used). Since RSD data are used in Sec. 7 and the perturbation agreement is one of the advertised advantages of the parametrization, this missing information should be added.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors and formatting issues, including 'Firedmann' for 'Friedmann' in Sec. 2, missing spaces such as 'the standardΛCDM', and 'usd' for 'used' in the Table 1 caption.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 is difficult to read: the columns are visually misaligned and some entries, such as '>−0.3 >1.37' for Ωδ, are ambiguous. A cleanly formatted table with separate rows for each model and parameter would resolve this.
  3. [Sec. 7, priors for P f1+P hantom] With the priors Ωδ∈[-0.9,1000] and α1∈[-2,2], Eq. (6.4) allows w0 values much smaller than -1 when Ωδ is close to -1. Since the paper calls this a 'phantom' extension of a quintessence parametrization, the resulting range of w0 should be stated explicitly so that the reader can interpret the quoted w0 constraint.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the parametrization of Eq. (3.7) is an explicit ansatz that is fitted to numerical solutions, and the paper does not present the fitted agreement as an independent prediction; the one self-citation [41] is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim is that the ansatz in Eq. (3.7), a sum of step-like logistic terms plus a stiff (1+z)^6 term, can mimic quintessence energy densities. This is introduced as a parametrization, not derived from the field potential, and the validations in Secs. 4-6 are fit-and-compare exercises: parameter values are chosen (e.g., 'For the parametrized curves we have taken Omega_KE = 10^-31, Omega_01 = 10^8, ...') and then the parametrized curves are compared with the numerical ones. The reported 0.4%, 0.3%, and 0.15% errors in E(z) are therefore fit residuals, not predictions, and the paper does not label them as independent predictions. Equation (3.8) is a matching condition that fixes z_i from the continuity of the constituent terms, and Eqs. (6.2) and (6.4) merely reparametrize the fitted parameters (alpha_1 and Omega_delta) into w0; neither injects the target result by construction. The only self-citation is Ref. [41] (M.W. Hossain, a coauthor here), used to relate V0 to Omega_DE0 for the inverse axionlike potential and to justify the late-time CC-like term in Eq. (5.7). That relation concerns a specific test potential and is not the load-bearing step for the parametrization's generality, so it does not make the derivation circular. The paper itself records limitations that bear on the strength of the 'any redshift' claim: Sec. 4 and Fig. 4 note that the oscillatory EoS during the radiation-matter transition is only 'almost mimicked' with f = 3, and Sec. 8 concedes that phantom behavior 'for higher redshifts has to be investigated properly.' Those are representational-completeness or correctness concerns, not circularity. On balance, the derivation chain is self-contained: the model is fitted to data in Sec. 7 and compared with LambdaCDM, wCDM, and CPL without any equation reducing to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The novel content is the ansatz (3.7). Its expressiveness (axiom 3) and the matching relations (axioms 4-5) carry the mimicry claim; the fitted parameters Ωδ, α1, α2, Ω01, and z1 are the price of that generality. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Ωδ (Omega_delta) = unconstrained in Pf1; > -0.3 (1σ) in Pf1+Phantom; > 1.37 in Pf2; 1.018 in Fig. 3 example
    Sets the present transition redshift z_f via Eqs. (3.13) and (6.2); a free parameter, poorly constrained by current data.
  • α1 = 0.033 ± 0.083 (Pf1+Phantom); < 0.1 in Pf1; > 0 in Pf2; 0.9 in Fig. 7
    Determines the late-time decay slope of ρ_φ and hence w0 through Eq. (6.4); free parameter.
  • α2 = 0.082 +0.028 -0.076 (Pf2); 0.01 in Fig. 3
    Second transition slope for scaling-freezing and tracker dynamics; weakly constrained.
  • Ω01 = unconstrained (Pf2); 10^8 (Fig. 3); 10^3 (Fig. 6); 0.8 (Fig. 7)
    Amplitude of the early frozen/scaling segment; free in models with f ≥ 2.
  • ΩKE = 10^-31 (fixed in examples)
    Initial kinetic energy density; assumed negligible at late times and not included in the MCMC.
  • z1 (inverse power law tracker) = 9000 (Fig. 5)
    In the tracker case for the inverse power law potential (5.1), z1 must be treated as a free parameter (Sec. 5).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard FLRW background equations and scalar field equation of motion (2.6)-(2.8) describe the universe.
    Used to generate the numerical solutions the parametrization is compared with.
  • domain assumption Quintessence dynamics fall into exactly three classes: scaling-freezing, tracker, and thawing (Sec. 3).
    Taken from prior literature; the parametrization is built to mimic these classes.
  • ad hoc to paper Any quintessence energy density can be represented as a sum of terms that are constant for z > z_i and decay as (1+z)^α_i for z < z_i (Eq. 3.6).
    Central ansatz, not derived from the potential; supports the 'any redshift' mimicry claim.
  • ad hoc to paper The i=f term dominates the dark energy density at z=0 (Eq. 3.12).
    Used to eliminate z_f as a free parameter; the authors concede it fails for the inverse power law tracker and replace it with Eq. (5.3).
  • ad hoc to paper Consecutive transition terms are matched at z_i via Eq. (3.8): ρ_{i-1}(z_i) = ρ_i(z_i).
    Adopted to reduce the number of free parameters; imposes 2ρ0(i-1) > ρ0i and may exclude valid dynamics.
  • domain assumption ΩKE is negligible for late-time evolution and can be fixed independently.
    Applied with tiny values (e.g., 10^-31) in the examples; reasonable but asserted in Sec. 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of General parametrization for energy density of quintessence field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WWJRBBCD

@misc{pith2026241115892,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: General parametrization for energy density of quintessence field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WWJRBBCD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15892}
}
abstract

We present a general parametrization for energy density of a quintessence field, a minimally coupled canonical scalar field which rolls down slowly during the late time. This parametrization can mimic all classes of quintessence dynamics, namely scaling-freezing, tracker and thawing dynamics for any redshift. For thawing dynamics the parametrization needs two free parameters while for scaling-freezing and tracker dynamics it needs at least four free parameters. More parameters make the model less interesting from the observational data analysis point of view but as we expect more precise data in future it may be possible to constrain the models with multiple free parameters which can tell about the dynamics more precisely. One of the main advantage of this parametrization is that it reduces the computational time to significant amount while mimicking the actual scalar field dynamics for all redshifts which may not be possible with other existing parametrizations. We compare the parametrization with two and four parameters with the standard $\Lambda$CDM model, $w$CDM and Chevallier-Polarski-Linder (CPL) parametrizations using cosmological observational data from Planck 2018 (distance priors), DESI $2024$ DR1, PantheonPlus, Hubble parameter measurements and the redshift space distortion. We find that the observational data prefers standard $\Lambda$CDM model over other models. If we allow phantom region then it is more preferred by the data compared to non-phantom thawing quintessence. Our analysis does not show any preference of the dynamical dark energy over a cosmological constant except for the CPL parametrization.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Simple quintessence models in light of DESI-BAO observations

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Thawing quintessence with linear or quadratic potentials is favored over LambdaCDM only when the DESY5 supernova catalog is used; with Pantheon+ or Union3 the preference is mild.

  2. Physical vs phantom dark energy after DESI: thawing quintessence in a curved background

    astro-ph.CO 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Curved thawing quintessence models fit DESI DR2 BAO, CMB, and Pantheon+ data as well as the flat w0-wa parametrization, so phantom crossing is model-dependent rather than required.

  3. Can the universe experience an AdS landscape since matter-radiation equality?

    gr-qc 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A universe with an AdS (negative cosmological constant) phase at recombination and another at low redshift is compatible with Planck, DESI, Pantheon Plus and SH0ES data, though not preferred by them.

  4. Robustness of dark energy phenomenology across different parameterizations

    astro-ph.CO 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The viability of minimally and non-minimally coupled quintessence models is robust across CPL, JBP, BA, and EXP parameterizations, with all four reproducing the models' predicted observables accurately.

  5. Is excess smoothing of Planck CMB ansiotropy data partially responsible for evidence for dark energy dynamics in other $w(z)$CDM parametrizations?

    astro-ph.CO 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In three new w(z)CDM parametrizations, Planck CMB plus non-CMB data favor evolving dark energy over a cosmological constant at roughly 2 sigma when the Planck lensing anomaly parameter is fixed, and at roughly 1 sigma...

  6. Imprint of swampland-inspired coupled early dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A swampland-inspired DM-EDE coupling is tested against DESI DR2 BAO data, showing the EDE potential construction affects late-time dark energy constraints.

  7. Observational constraints on early time non-phantom behaviour of dynamical dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Early scaling dark energy is constrained to be less than about one percent at matter-radiation equality and is disfavored by model selection, while late-time CPL dynamics show only a weak preference away from ΛCDM.

  8. Dark energy and lensing anomaly in Planck CMB data

    astro-ph.CO 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    When the Planck lensing amplitude AL is fitted freely, DESI+CMB+SN data no longer prefer evolving dark energy, and DESI BAO's lower matter density worsens the lensing anomaly in LambdaCDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 571 (2014) A16 [1303.5076]

    arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    Copeland, M

    E.J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa,Dynamics of dark energy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15 (2006) 1753 [hep-th/0603057]

    arXiv 2006

  3. [3]

    Bahamonde, C.G

    S. Bahamonde, C.G. Böhmer, S. Carloni, E.J. Copeland, W. Fang and N. Tamanini,Dynamical systems applied to cosmology: dark energy and modified gravity, Phys. Rept. 775-777 (2018) 1 [1712.03107]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Riess et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys

    A.G. Riess et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys. J. Lett.934 (2022) L7 [2112.04510]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Kamionkowski and A.G

    M. Kamionkowski and A.G. Riess,The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73 (2023) 153 [2211.04492]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Freedman and B.F

    W.L. Freedman and B.F. Madore,Progress in Direct Measurements of the Hubble Constant, 2309.05618

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Bernal, L

    J.L. Bernal, L. Verde and A.G. Riess,The trouble withH0, JCAP 10 (2016) 019 [1607.05617]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Knox and M

    L. Knox and M. Millea,Hubble constant hunter’s guide, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 043533 [1908.03663]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara,Challenges for ΛCDM: An update, New Astron. Rev.95 (2022) 101659 [2105.05208]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Astrophys.6 (2023) 2305.17173 [2305.17173]

    Kilo-Degree Sur vey, Dark Energy Sur vey collaboration, DES Y3 + KiDS-1000: Consistent cosmology combining cosmic shear surveys, Open J. Astrophys.6 (2023) 2305.17173 [2305.17173]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    DESI collaboration, DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, 2404.03002

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    DESI collaboration, DESI 2024: Reconstructing Dark Energy using Crossing Statistics with DESI DR1 BAO data, 2405.04216

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    DESI collaboration, DESI 2024: Constraints on Physics-Focused Aspects of Dark Energy using DESI DR1 BAO Data, 2405.13588. – 23 –

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Giarè, M.A

    W. Giarè, M.A. Sabogal, R.C. Nunes and E. Di Valentino,Interacting Dark Energy after DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillation measurements, 2404.15232

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Berghaus, J.A

    K.V. Berghaus, J.A. Kable and V. Miranda,Quantifying Scalar Field Dynamics with DESI 2024 Y1 BAO measurements, 2404.14341

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    F.J. Qu, K.M. Surrao, B. Bolliet, J.C. Hill, B.D. Sherwin and H.T. Jense,Accelerated inference on accelerated cosmic expansion: New constraints on axion-like early dark energy with DESI BAO and ACT DR6 CMB lensing, 2404.16805

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Wang and Y.-S

    H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao,Dark energy in light of recent DESI BAO and Hubble tension, 2404.18579

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Giarè, M

    W. Giarè, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino and J.T. Firouzjaee,Robust Preference for Dynamical Dark Energy in DESI BAO and SN Measurements, 2407.16689

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Shlivko and P.J

    D. Shlivko and P.J. Steinhardt,Assessing observational constraints on dark energy, Phys. Lett. B 855 (2024) 138826 [2405.03933]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu and A. Silvestri,Non-minimally coupled gravity as a physically viable fit to DESI 2024 BAO, 2407.15832

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ramadan, J

    O.F. Ramadan, J. Sakstein and D. Rubin,DESI Constraints on Exponential Quintessence, 2405.18747

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Jiang, D

    J.-Q. Jiang, D. Pedrotti, S.S. da Costa and S. Vagnozzi,Non-parametric late-time expansion history reconstruction and implications for the Hubble tension in light of DESI, 2408.02365

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Payeur, E

    G. Payeur, E. McDonough and R. Brandenberger,Do Observations Prefer Thawing Quintessence?, 2411.13637

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Pourojaghi, M

    S. Pourojaghi, M. Malekjani and Z. Davari,Cosmological constraints on dark energy parametrizations after DESI 2024: Persistent deviation from standardΛCDM cosmology, 2407.09767

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Wolf and P.G

    W.J. Wolf and P.G. Ferreira,Underdetermination of dark energy, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 103519 [2310.07482]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    W.J. Wolf, C. García-García, D.J. Bartlett and P.G. Ferreira,Scant evidence for thawing quintessence, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 083528 [2408.17318]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Wolf, P.G

    W.J. Wolf, P.G. Ferreira and C. García-García,Matching current observational constraints with nonminimally coupled dark energy, 2409.17019

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz Pérez and B. Ratra,Using non-DESI data to confirm and strengthen the DESI 2024 spatially-flatw0waCDM cosmological parameterization result, 2405.00502

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz Perez and B. Ratra,Is the w0waCDM cosmological parameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck CMB anisotropy data?, 2410.13627

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Colgáin, M.G

    E.O. Colgáin, M.G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pourojaghi, M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari and D. Stojkovic,Does DESI 2024 ConfirmΛCDM?, 2404.08633

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ratra and P.J.E

    B. Ratra and P.J.E. Peebles,Cosmological Consequences of a Rolling Homogeneous Scalar Field, Phys. Rev. D37 (1988) 3406

    1988

  25. [33]

    Wetterich,Cosmologies With Variable Newton’s ’Constant’, Nucl

    C. Wetterich,Cosmologies With Variable Newton’s ’Constant’, Nucl. Phys. B 302 (1988) 645

    1988

  26. [34]

    Wetterich,Cosmology and the Fate of Dilatation Symmetry, Nucl

    C. Wetterich,Cosmology and the Fate of Dilatation Symmetry, Nucl. Phys. B 302 (1988) 668 [1711.03844]

    1988 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Copeland, A.R

    E.J. Copeland, A.R. Liddle and D. Wands,Exponential potentials and cosmological scaling solutions, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 4686 [gr-qc/9711068]. – 24 –

    1998 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Barreiro, E.J

    T. Barreiro, E.J. Copeland and N.J. Nunes,Quintessence arising from exponential potentials, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 127301 [astro-ph/9910214]

    2000 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Sahni and L.-M

    V. Sahni and L.-M. Wang,A New cosmological model of quintessence and dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 103517 [astro-ph/9910097]

    2000 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Steinhardt, L.-M

    P.J. Steinhardt, L.-M. Wang and I. Zlatev,Cosmological tracking solutions, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 123504 [astro-ph/9812313]

    1999 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Zlatev, L.-M

    I. Zlatev, L.-M. Wang and P.J. Steinhardt,Quintessence, cosmic coincidence, and the cosmological constant, Phys. Rev. Lett.82 (1999) 896 [astro-ph/9807002]

    1999 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Scherrer and A.A

    R.J. Scherrer and A.A. Sen,Thawing quintessence with a nearly flat potential, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 083515 [0712.3450]

    2008 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Hossain and A

    M.W. Hossain and A. Maqsood,Comparison between axionlike and power law potentials in a cosmological background, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 103512 [2311.17825]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski,Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10 (2001) 213 [gr-qc/0009008]

    2001 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Linder,Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys

    E.V. Linder,Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett.90 (2003) 091301 [astro-ph/0208512]

    2003 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Efstathiou,Constraining the equation of state of the universe from distant type Ia supernovae and cosmic microwave background anisotropies, Mon

    G. Efstathiou,Constraining the equation of state of the universe from distant type Ia supernovae and cosmic microwave background anisotropies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.310 (1999) 842 [astro-ph/9904356]

    1999 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Jassal, J.S

    H.K. Jassal, J.S. Bagla and T. Padmanabhan,Observational constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy: How consistent are different observations?, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 103503 [astro-ph/0506748]

    2005 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Barboza, Jr

    E.M. Barboza, Jr. and J.S. Alcaniz,A parametric model for dark energy, Phys. Lett. B666 (2008) 415 [0805.1713]

    2008 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Caldwell and E.V

    R.R. Caldwell and E.V. Linder,The Limits of quintessence, Phys. Rev. Lett.95 (2005) 141301 [astro-ph/0505494]

    2005 arXiv

  40. [48]

    L. Jarv, T. Mohaupt and F. Saueressig,Quintessence cosmologies with a double exponential potential, JCAP 08 (2004) 016 [hep-th/0403063]

    2004 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Turner,Coherent Scalar Field Oscillations in an Expanding Universe, Phys

    M.S. Turner,Coherent Scalar Field Oscillations in an Expanding Universe, Phys. Rev. D28 (1983) 1243

    1983

  42. [50]

    Nesseris, G

    S. Nesseris, G. Pantazis and L. Perivolaropoulos,Tension and constraints on modified gravity parametrizations of Geff(z) from growth rate and Planck data, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 023542 [1703.10538]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Marsh,Axion Cosmology, Phys

    D.J.E. Marsh,Axion Cosmology, Phys. Rept. 643 (2016) 1 [1510.07633]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Poulin, T.L

    V. Poulin, T.L. Smith, T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski,Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension, Phys. Rev. Lett.122 (2019) 221301 [1811.04083]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Poulin, T.L

    V. Poulin, T.L. Smith, D. Grin, T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski,Cosmological implications of ultralight axionlike fields, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 083525 [1806.10608]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Poulin, T.L

    V. Poulin, T.L. Smith and T. Karwal,The Ups and Downs of Early Dark Energy solutions to the Hubble tension: A review of models, hints and constraints circa 2023, Phys. Dark Univ.42 (2023) 101348 [2302.09032]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Smith, V

    T.L. Smith, V. Poulin and M.A. Amin,Oscillating scalar fields and the Hubble tension: a resolution with novel signatures, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 063523 [1908.06995]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Hlozek, D

    R. Hlozek, D. Grin, D.J.E. Marsh and P.G. Ferreira,A search for ultralight axions using precision cosmological data, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 103512 [1410.2896]. – 25 –

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Akaike,A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19 (1974) 716

    H. Akaike,A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19 (1974) 716

    1974

  50. [58]

    Liddle, P

    A.R. Liddle, P. Mukherjee and D. Parkinson,Cosmological model selection, astro-ph/0608184

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Trotta,Bayesian Methods in Cosmology, 1701.01467

    R. Trotta,Bayesian Methods in Cosmology, 1701.01467

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    K. Shi, Y. Huang and T. Lu,A comprehensive comparison of cosmological models from latest observational data, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.426 (2012) 2452 [1207.5875]

    2012 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Foreman-Mackey, D.W

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D.W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman,emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125 (2013) 306 [1202.3665]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Lewis,GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples, 1910.13970

    A. Lewis,GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples, 1910.13970

    1910 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Gelman and D.B

    A. Gelman and D.B. Rubin,Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences, Statist. Sci. 7 (1992) 457

    1992

  56. [64]

    Chen, Q.-G

    L. Chen, Q.-G. Huang and K. Wang,Distance priors from Planck final release, jcap 2019 (2019) 028 [1808.05724]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    DESI collaboration, DESI 2024 III: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from Galaxies and Quasars, 2404.03000

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    DESI collaboration, DESI 2024 IV: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest, 2404.03001

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Scolnic et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys

    D. Scolnic et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys. J. 938 (2022) 113 [2112.03863]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Brout et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints, Astrophys

    D. Brout et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints, Astrophys. J. 938 (2022) 110 [2202.04077]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Gómez-Valent and L

    A. Gómez-Valent and L. Amendola,H0 from cosmic chronometers and Type Ia supernovae, with Gaussian Processes and the novel Weighted Polynomial Regression method, jcap 2018 (2018) 051 [1802.01505]

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Sakr,Uncovering the bias in the evidence for dynamical dark energy through minimal and generalized modeling approaches, 2501.14366

    Z. Sakr,Uncovering the bias in the evidence for dynamical dark energy through minimal and generalized modeling approaches, 2501.14366

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Vagnozzi,New physics in light of theH0 tension: An alternative view, Phys

    S. Vagnozzi,New physics in light of theH0 tension: An alternative view, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 023518 [1907.07569]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Vagnozzi, S

    S. Vagnozzi, S. Dhawan, M. Gerbino, K. Freese, A. Goobar and O. Mena,Constraints on the sum of the neutrino masses in dynamical dark energy models withw(z) ≥ −1 are tighter than those obtained inΛCDM, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 083501 [1801.08553]

    2018 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Y.-P. Teng, W. Lee and K.-W. Ng,Constraining the dark-energy equation of state with cosmological data, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 083519 [2105.02667]. – 26 –

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.