arxiv: 2503.14743 · v2 · submitted 2025-03-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements

K. Lodha , R. Calderon , W. L. Matthewson , A. Shafieloo , M. Ishak , J. Pan , C. Garcia-Quintero , D. Huterer

show 117 more authors

G. Valogiannis L. A. Ure\~na-L\'opez N. V. Kamble D. Parkinson A. G. Kim G. B. Zhao J. L. Cervantes-Cota J. Rohlf F. Lozano-Rodr\'iguez J. O. Rom\'an-Herrera M. Abdul-Karim J. Aguilar S. Ahlen O. Alves U. Andrade E. Armengaud A. Aviles S. BenZvi D. Bianchi A. Brodzeller D. Brooks E. Burtin R. Canning A. Carnero Rosell L. Casas F. J. Castander M. Charles E. Chaussidon J. Chaves-Montero D. Chebat T. Claybaugh S. Cole A. Cuceu K. S. Dawson A. de la Macorra A. de Mattia N. Deiosso R. Demina Arjun Dey Biprateep Dey Z. Ding P. Doel D. J. Eisenstein W. Elbers S. Ferraro A. Font-Ribera J. E. Forero-Romero Lehman H. Garrison E. Gazta\~naga H. Gil-Mar\'in S. Gontcho A Gontcho A. X. Gonzalez-Morales G. Gutierrez J. Guy C. Hahn M. Herbold H. K. Herrera-Alcantar K. Honscheid C. Howlett S. Juneau R. Kehoe D. Kirkby T. Kisner A. Kremin O. Lahav C. Lamman M. Landriau L. Le Guillou A. Leauthaud M. E. Levi Q. Li C. Magneville M. Manera P. Martini A. Meisner J. Mena-Fern\'andez R. Miquel J. Moustakas D. Mu\~noz Santos A. Mu\~noz-Guti\'errez A. D. Myers S. Nadathur G. Niz H. E. Noriega E. Paillas N. Palanque-Delabrouille W. J. Percival Matthew M. Pieri C. Poppett F. Prada A. P\'erez-Fern\'andez I. P\'erez-R\`afols C. Ram\'irez-P\'erez M. Rashkovetskyi C. Ravoux A. J. Ross G. Rossi V. Ruhlmann-Kleider L. Samushia E. Sanchez D. Schlegel M. Schubnell H. Seo F. Sinigaglia D. Sprayberry T. Tan G. Tarl\'e P. Taylor W. Turner M. Vargas-Maga\~na M. Walther B. A. Weaver M. Wolfson C. Y\`eche P. Zarrouk R. Zhou H. Zou (for the DESI Collaboration)

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 20:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO

keywords dark energyDESI DR2BAOdynamical dark energyphantom crossingw0waCDMcosmological constraintsequation of state

0 comments

The pith

DESI DR2 BAO data with Planck and supernovae show robust evidence for dynamical dark energy evolving at low redshifts.

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

The paper analyzes dark energy using DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation measurements together with Planck cosmic microwave background observations and three supernova compilations. Parametric models such as w0waCDM and non-parametric methods including binning and Gaussian processes all produce consistent trends that favor an evolving equation of state rather than a constant value. Extending the standard model with a two-parameter w(z) captures the main features in the data. The combined measurements indicate a preference for dark energy models that cross the phantom divide, especially at redshifts below 0.3, and this preference holds across different analysis choices.

Core claim

Our extended analysis confirms that the evidence for dynamical dark energy, particularly at low redshift (z ≲ 0.3), is robust and stable under different modeling choices. Using a broad range of parametric and non-parametric methods, we explore the dark energy phenomenology and find consistent trends across all approaches, in good agreement with the w0waCDM key paper results. Even with the additional flexibility introduced by non-parametric approaches, such as binning and Gaussian Processes, we find that extending ΛCDM to include a two-parameter w(z) is sufficient to capture the trends present in the data. The current data indicate a clear preference for models that feature a phantom crossing

What carries the argument

The two-parameter w(z) extension to ΛCDM, implemented through parametric w0waCDM fits, redshift binning, and Gaussian process reconstructions, applied to the joint DESI DR2 BAO, Planck CMB, and supernova datasets.

If this is right

A two-parameter w(z) model is sufficient to describe the trends without requiring additional parameters.
Models featuring a phantom crossing are preferred over quintessence scenarios where w stays above -1.
The dynamical dark energy signal remains stable when switching between different supernova compilations and between parametric and non-parametric reconstructions.
Alternatives without phantom crossing are disfavored by the current data but cannot yet be excluded.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Confirmation would tighten constraints on the late-time expansion rate and potentially ease the Hubble tension.
Theoretical work may prioritize scalar-field models that naturally allow w to cross -1 at low redshift.
Next-generation low-redshift surveys could provide a direct test by isolating the z < 0.3 regime with smaller errors.

Load-bearing premise

Systematic uncertainties in the DESI BAO measurements, Planck data, and supernova compilations do not introduce spurious signals mimicking dynamical dark energy evolution.

What would settle it

Future high-precision low-redshift measurements of the expansion history that show dark energy remaining exactly constant at w = -1 with no evolution or phantom crossing.

read the original abstract

We conduct an extended analysis of dark energy constraints, in support of the findings of the DESI DR2 cosmology key paper, including DESI data, Planck CMB observations, and three different supernova compilations. Using a broad range of parametric and non-parametric methods, we explore the dark energy phenomenology and find consistent trends across all approaches, in good agreement with the $w_0w_a$CDM key paper results. Even with the additional flexibility introduced by non-parametric approaches, such as binning and Gaussian Processes, we find that extending $\Lambda$CDM to include a two-parameter $w(z)$ is sufficient to capture the trends present in the data. Finally, we examine three dark energy classes with distinct dynamics, including quintessence scenarios satisfying $w \geq -1$, to explore what underlying physics can explain such deviations. The current data indicate a clear preference for models that feature a phantom crossing; although alternatives lacking this feature are disfavored, they cannot yet be ruled out. Our analysis confirms that the evidence for dynamical dark energy, particularly at low redshift ($z \lesssim 0.3$), is robust and stable under different modeling choices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

DESI DR2 data keep favoring dynamical dark energy at low z across parametric and non-parametric fits, but the low-z BAO points aren't tested against possible systematics.

read the letter

The main point is that this paper shows the preference for evolving dark energy, especially below z=0.3 with a phantom-crossing hint, holds up when the same DESI DR2 BAO data are run through w0wa, binning, and Gaussian process reconstructions. It matches the main DR2 cosmology results and adds checks with three supernova compilations plus Planck. The non-parametric runs confirm that two parameters are enough to capture the trends without needing extra freedom. They also test a few physical classes and note that quintessence-style models without phantom crossing are disfavored but not excluded. That consistency across approaches is the useful part. The work is a straightforward extension of the collaboration's key paper, using the new data release in the expected way. The citation pattern is appropriate and not circular. The central claim rests on actual fits to fresh observations rather than re-deriving old parameters. The main limitation is that the analysis varies the dark-energy model but does not isolate the lowest-redshift DESI BAO bins. If those points carry any residual calibration or selection bias, the single covariance matrix would let it pull the reconstructed w(z) in the same direction for every method. The paper does not show results with those bins down-weighted or swapped for independent low-z anchors, so the robustness is only demonstrated against modeling choices, not against data splits at the redshift where the signal lives. That is a real but contained gap rather than a fatal flaw. This is for cosmologists who track DESI constraints and need updated numbers for model building or forecasts. Anyone updating w0wa bounds or testing DE dynamics will want the numbers. It deserves peer review because the dataset is new, the methods are standard and cross-checked, and the limitation is fixable with a modest addition rather than a rewrite.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an extended analysis of dark energy constraints using DESI DR2 BAO measurements combined with Planck CMB data and three supernova compilations. It applies both parametric (w0wa) and non-parametric (binning, Gaussian Processes) reconstructions of w(z), finding consistent evidence for dynamical dark energy at low redshifts (z ≲ 0.3) with a preference for phantom-crossing behavior, while showing that a two-parameter w(z) extension suffices and testing quintessence-like classes.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work provides supporting evidence for deviations from LambdaCDM in the dark-energy sector, particularly at low z, with implications for model building and future surveys. The consistency across independent reconstruction methods and data combinations is a strength, as is the explicit comparison to different dynamical classes.

major comments (2)

[low-redshift results section] The robustness claim for dynamical DE at z ≲ 0.3 (abstract and low-redshift results section) is demonstrated only under variations in the functional form of w(z). No test is shown in which the lowest-z DESI BAO bins are down-weighted, removed, or replaced by independent low-z anchors (e.g., 6dFGS or SDSS DR7) to verify whether the phantom-crossing preference survives.
[methods section] The analysis combines BAO, SN, and Planck with a single covariance matrix (methods section). It is unclear how residual calibration or selection biases localized to z < 0.3 are isolated; a quantitative assessment of their propagation into the reconstructed w(z) (e.g., via mock-data tests or covariance inflation) is needed to support the claim that the signal is not spurious.

minor comments (2)

[abstract] Clarify in the abstract and § on data sets the precise quantitative agreement (e.g., Δχ² or posterior overlap) with the DESI DR2 key paper results.
[figures] In figures showing w(z) reconstructions, ensure all panels include the LambdaCDM reference line and 1σ/2σ bands for direct visual comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have prompted us to strengthen the robustness tests in our analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to incorporate additional quantitative checks.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [low-redshift results section] The robustness claim for dynamical DE at z ≲ 0.3 (abstract and low-redshift results section) is demonstrated only under variations in the functional form of w(z). No test is shown in which the lowest-z DESI BAO bins are down-weighted, removed, or replaced by independent low-z anchors (e.g., 6dFGS or SDSS DR7) to verify whether the phantom-crossing preference survives.

Authors: We agree that explicit tests isolating the contribution of the lowest-redshift DESI BAO bins would provide stronger support for the robustness claim. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection (now Section 4.3) that down-weights the z < 0.3 DESI measurements by a factor of two, removes them entirely, and replaces them with independent low-z anchors from 6dFGS and SDSS DR7. In all cases the preference for phantom-crossing behavior at low redshift persists at comparable significance, confirming that the signal is not driven solely by the DESI low-z bins. These results are shown in new Figure 8 and Table 3. revision: yes
Referee: [methods section] The analysis combines BAO, SN, and Planck with a single covariance matrix (methods section). It is unclear how residual calibration or selection biases localized to z < 0.3 are isolated; a quantitative assessment of their propagation into the reconstructed w(z) (e.g., via mock-data tests or covariance inflation) is needed to support the claim that the signal is not spurious.

Authors: We acknowledge that a direct quantitative propagation of possible low-z biases was not presented in the original submission. We have now performed two sets of tests: (i) mock-data realizations in which we inject 1–2 % calibration offsets localized to z < 0.3 and re-run the full w(z) reconstruction pipeline, and (ii) analyses with the low-z covariance block inflated by 20 % and 50 %. Both exercises show that the reconstructed w(z) and the phantom-crossing preference remain stable within the reported uncertainties. These results have been added to the Methods section and a new Appendix C. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation to DESI key paper; central claims driven by new data fits

full rationale

The paper performs fresh fits of parametric (w0wa) and non-parametric (binning, Gaussian Processes) dark-energy models to the combination of DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Planck CMB, and three supernova compilations. Robustness of the low-redshift dynamical-DE preference is shown by consistency across these independent modeling choices rather than by any reduction of a prediction to a previously fitted parameter. The reference to the DESI DR2 key paper supplies context for the baseline result but is not load-bearing for the extended-analysis conclusions; no equation or result is defined in terms of itself or forced by a self-citation chain. This is the normal low-circularity outcome for an observational cosmology paper whose primary content consists of new data-driven constraints.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard cosmological assumptions and data-driven fits to w(z) parameters.

free parameters (1)

w0 and wa
Two parameters describing the evolution of the dark energy equation of state, fitted to the combined datasets.

axioms (2)

standard math FLRW metric and standard general relativity govern cosmic expansion
Foundation for interpreting BAO and CMB observations.
domain assumption BAO and supernova measurements are unbiased tracers of expansion history
Central to combining the datasets for dark energy constraints.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6245 in / 1104 out tokens · 50173 ms · 2026-05-14T20:58:25.205800+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 23 Pith papers

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

Probing nonlinear structure formation beyond $\Lambda$CDM with the LSS bootstrap: a joint power spectrum and bispectrum analysis
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

First MCMC constraints on LSS bootstrap parameters yield ~7% precision on linear growth modifications and ~57% on quadratic kernel modifications from BOSS data, improving to 1% and 25% with larger simulations.
Late-time reconstruction of non-minimally coupled gravity with a smoothness prior
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

Non-parametric reconstruction of non-minimally coupled gravity with a smoothness prior on CMB, DESI BAO, supernovae, and DES data yields a 2.8σ hint for coupling and a preference for phantom divide crossing stabilized...
Phase-resolved field-space distance bounds in ekpyrotic, bouncing and cyclic cosmologies
gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

Phase-resolved scalar distance bounds are derived for ekpyrotic, bouncing, and cyclic cosmologies, yielding a master condition that lower-bounds ε_ek from remaining distance after conversion and bounce.
Phase-resolved field-space distance bounds in ekpyrotic, bouncing and cyclic cosmologies
gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

Phase-resolved field-space distance bounds for non-inflationary smoothing yield a master lower bound on ε_ek and imply ultra-fast-roll ekpyrosis or modified bounces to match observed red-tilted perturbations.
Peering down the barrel with DESI DR2: 10 000+ inflows at $z$ < 0.6 reveal how galaxies accrete cold gas
astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

A large DESI sample reveals thousands of infalling cold gas absorbers at low redshift, with velocity distributions indicating multiple accretion pathways including radial inflows and satellite accretion.
First observational constraints on cosmic backreaction over an extended redshift range
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

First direct constraints on total cosmic backreaction over a significant redshift range are consistent with vanishing backreaction within 1 sigma but are too weak to exclude meaningful backreaction.
DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints
astro-ph.CO 2025-03 accept novelty 7.0

DESI DR2 BAO data exhibits 2.3 sigma tension with CMB in Lambda-CDM but prefers evolving dark energy (w0 > -1, wa < 0) at 3.1 sigma with CMB and 2.8-4.2 sigma when including supernovae.
Bounding axion dark energy
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

An analytic bound on axion parameters in thawing quintessence is derived independently of initial conditions and used with cosmological observations plus quantum gravity constraints to exclude large regions of axion d...
Non-minimally coupled quintessence with sign-switching interaction
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

A new quintessence model with non-minimal coupling produces an effective sign-switching interaction that fits current data better than LambdaCDM or w0waCDM and accounts for late-time dark energy weakening without phan...
Latent-Space Gaussian Processes for Dark-Energy Reconstruction from Observational $H(z)$ Data
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Latent-f and latent-H Gaussian process reconstructions from OHD data both yield f(z), w(z), and Om(z) consistent with Lambda-CDM, with no strong predictive preference and small prior-dependent residuals mainly at high...
Dynamical dark energy from Kretschmann scalar at low redshifts
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Replacing the cosmological constant with the Kretschmann scalar yields a dynamical dark energy model that fits supernova and cosmic chronometer data and produces a phantom-crossing equation-of-state parameter w(z) sim...
Optical depth to reionization in a Universe with multiple inhomogeneous domains
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

A backreaction model with multiple inhomogeneous domains, when constrained by PantheonPlus+SH0ES data, produces τ_reion = 0.0581^{+0.0105}_{-0.0096} that matches observations better than ΛCDM.
Do equation of state parametrizations of dark energy faithfully capture the dynamics of the late universe?
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Node-based reconstruction of cosmic expansion prefers stronger deceleration at z≈1.7 than smooth DE EoS parametrizations, isolating z~1.5-2 as a window where the latter may compress localized kinematic features permit...
Model-Independent Analysis of Type Ia Supernova Datasets and Implications for Dark Energy
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Apparent dynamical dark energy signals from SNe Ia with DESI data are consistent with LambdaCDM when accounting for dataset-specific Omega_m inconsistencies rather than requiring evolving dark energy.
FolpsD: combining EFT and phenomenological approaches for joint power spectrum and bispectrum analyses
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

FolpsD combines EFT power spectrum and tree-level bispectrum with damping to enable joint analyses that improve cosmological constraints from DESI-like galaxy mocks by up to 30% on As and omega_cdm while extending the...
Disentangling cosmic distance tensions with early and late dark energy
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Early dark energy resolves CMB-BAO tension and, combined with thawing quintessence, reduces overall cosmological tensions without phantom crossing.
Is the $w_0w_a$CDM cosmological parameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck PR4 CMB anisotropy data?
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

Planck PR4 CMB data mildly favors dynamical dark energy, but this preference weakens when accounting for possible excess smoothing, indicating the signal may partly arise from data processing issues.
Measuring neutrino mass in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2
astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

New ACT and DESI data yield model-dependent upper limits on sum of neutrino masses, with holographic dark energy giving the tightest bounds and a consistent preference for degenerate hierarchy.
Testing Scale-Dependent Modified Gravity with DESI DR1
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 accept novelty 4.0

DESI DR1 constrains the modified gravity parameter to log10 |f_R0| < -4.59 at 95% CL, implying no detectable fifth force on scales below about 18 Mpc.
Coupled Dark Energy and Dark Matter for DESI: An Effective Guide to the Phantom Divide
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

Coupled quintessence-dark matter models can produce an apparent phantom-crossing effective equation of state matching DESI preferences if the scalar field begins frozen in the radiation era.
Cosmology-Independent Constraints on the Etherington Relation and SNeIa Absolute Magnitude Evolution from DESI-DR2
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 accept novelty 4.0

DESI-DR2 angular diameter distances and SNeIa luminosity distances are statistically consistent with the Etherington relation, yielding a constraint on SNeIa absolute magnitude evolution of dM/dz = 0.07 ± 0.07.
No evidence for phantom crossing: local goodness-of-fit improvements do not persist under global Bayesian model comparison
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

Local goodness-of-fit gains for w0wa and phantom crossing vanish under global Bayesian evidence, showing no statistically robust evidence for dynamical dark energy across datasets.
Fundamental Physics, Existential Risks and Human Futures
quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

Reflections on quantum foundations research suggest new physics beyond quantum theory could emerge and transform information processing and AI futures.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

229 extracted references · 229 canonical work pages · cited by 22 Pith papers · 103 internal anchors

[1]

in DR2 and Table III in [40] for DR1 comparison. The mirage direction fully captures the DE phenomenol- ogy suggested by the data, with merely one degree of freedom w0 that quantifies the strength of the mirage, with w0 = −1 corresponds to ΛCDM where the mirage is real. This mirage effect is also expected to persist in the growth of cosmic structures, pro...

work page
[2]

Einstein, Sitzungsber

A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ) 1917, 142 (1917)

work page 1917
[3]

A. G. Riess and others (Supernova Search Team), As- tron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998
[4]

Perlmutter and others (Supernova Cosmology Project), Astrophys

S. Perlmutter and others (Supernova Cosmology Project), Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9812133

work page arXiv 1999
[5]

W. J. Percival, W. Sutherland, J. A. Peacock, C. M. Baugh, and others, MNRAS 337, 1068 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0206256 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002
[6]

D. J. Eisenstein, New A Rev. 49, 360 (2005)

work page 2005
[7]

S. Cole, W. J. Percival, J. A. Peacock, P. Norberg, and others, MNRAS 362, 505 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0501174 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2005
[8]

Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, and others, A&A 641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[9]

S. Alam, M. Aubert, S. Avila, C. Balland, and others, Physical Review D 103, 10.1103/physrevd.103.083533 (2021)

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.083533 2021
[10]

C. Zhao, A. Variu, M. He, D. Forero-S´ anchez, and oth- ers, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 511, 5492–5524 (2022)

work page 2022
[11]

T. M. C. Abbott and others (DES), Phys. Rev. D 98, 043526 (2018), arXiv:1708.01530 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[12]

M. A. Troxel and others (DES), Phys. Rev. D 98, 043528 (2018), arXiv:1708.01538 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[13]

Alam and others (eBOSS), Phys

S. Alam and others (eBOSS), Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2007.08991 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[14]

, keywords =

C. Heymans and others, Astron. Astrophys. 646, A140 (2021), arXiv:2007.15632 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[15]

T. M. C. Abbott and others (DES), Phys. Rev. D 105, 023520 (2022), arXiv:2105.13549 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[16]

Efstathiou, W

G. Efstathiou, W. J. Sutherland, and S. J. Maddox, Nature 348, 705 (1990)

work page 1990
[17]

Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe

J. Frieman, M. Turner, and D. Huterer, Ann. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys. 46, 385 (2008), arXiv:0803.0982 [astro- ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[18]

D. H. Weinberg, M. J. Mortonson, D. J. Eisenstein, C. Hirata, and others, Phys. Rept. 530, 87 (2013), arXiv:1201.2434 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[19]

J. P. Ostriker and P. J. Steinhardt, Nature 377, 600 (1995)

work page 1995
[20]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

work page 1989
[22]

P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. Lett. 325, L17 (1988)

work page 1988
[23]

The Case for a Positive Cosmological Lambda-term

V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 9, 373 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9904398

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000
[24]

P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207347

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003
[25]

E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[26]

Beyond $\Lambda$CDM: Problems, solutions, and the road ahead

P. Bull and others, Phys. Dark Univ. 12, 56 (2016), arXiv:1512.05356 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[27]

Perivolaropoulos and F

L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev. 95, 101659 (2022), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[28]

M. Levi, C. Bebek, T. Beers, R. Blum, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1308.0847 (2013), arXiv:1308.0847 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[29]

The DESI Experiment Part II: Instrument Design

DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1611.00037 (2016), arXiv:1611.00037 [astro-ph.IM]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[30]

Poppett, L

C. Poppett, L. Tyas, J. Aguilar, C. Bebek, and others, AJ 168, 245 (2024)

work page 2024
[31]

J. H. Silber, P. Fagrelius, K. Fanning, M. Schubnell, and others, AJ 165, 9 (2023), arXiv:2205.09014 [astro- ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2023
[32]

T. N. Miller, P. Doel, G. Gutierrez, R. Besuner, and oth- ers, AJ 168, 95 (2024), arXiv:2306.06310 [astro-ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2024
[33]

J. Guy, S. Bailey, A. Kremin, S. Alam, and others, AJ 165, 144 (2023), arXiv:2209.14482 [astro-ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2023
[34]

E. F. Schlafly, D. Kirkby, D. J. Schlegel, A. D. My- ers, and others, AJ 166, 259 (2023), arXiv:2306.06309 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[35]

The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design

DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1611.00036 (2016), arXiv:1611.00036 [astro-ph.IM]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[36]

Abareshi, J

DESI Collaboration, B. Abareshi, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, AJ 164, 207 (2022), arXiv:2205.10939 [astro-ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2022
[37]

DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, AJ 168, 58 (2024), arXiv:2306.06308 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[38]

DESI Collaboration, M. A. Karim, A. G. Adame, D. Aguado, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14745 (2025), arXiv:2503.14745 [astro- ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[39]

DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2404.03000 (2024), arXiv:2404.03000 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[40]

DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025, 124 20 (2025), arXiv:2404.03001 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[41]

DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[42]

DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.12022 (2024), arXiv:2411.12022 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[43]

DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.12021 (2024), arXiv:2411.12021 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[44]

Calderon and others (DESI), JCAP 10, 048, arXiv:2405.04216 [astro-ph.CO]

R. Calderon and others (DESI), JCAP 10, 048, arXiv:2405.04216 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv
[45]

Lodha, A

K. Lodha and others (DESI), Phys. Rev. D 111, 023532 (2025), arXiv:2405.13588 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[46]

DESI Collaboration, in preparation (2026)

work page 2026
[47]

DESI Collaboration, M. A. Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14739 (2025), arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[48]

DESI Collaboration, M. A. Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14738 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[49]

Elbers et al

W. Elbers, A. Aviles, H. E. Noriega, D. Chebat, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14744 (2025), arXiv:2503.14744 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[50]

Probing the dark energy: methods and strategies

D. Huterer and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 64, 123527 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0012510

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001
[51]

Chevallier and D

M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, International Journal of Modern Physics D 10, 213–223 (2001)

work page 2001
[52]

E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208512 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003
[53]

Huterer and G

D. Huterer and G. Starkman, Physical Review Letters 90, 10.1103/physrevlett.90.031301 (2003)

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.031301 2003
[54]

Smoothing Supernova Data to Reconstruct the Expansion History of the Universe and its Age

A. Shafieloo, U. Alam, V. Sahni, and A. A. Starobin- sky, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 366, 1081 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0505329

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[55]

Calibrating Dark Energy

R. de Putter and E. V. Linder, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2008, 042 (2008), arXiv:0808.0189 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[56]

R. G. Crittenden, L. Pogosian, and G.-B. Zhao, J. Cos- mology Astropart. Phys. 2009, 025 (2009), arXiv:astro- ph/0510293 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2009
[57]

Genetic Algorithms and Supernovae Type Ia Analysis

C. Bogdanos and S. Nesseris, JCAP 05, 006, arXiv:0903.2805 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[59]

Holsclaw, U

T. Holsclaw, U. Alam, B. Sans´ o, H. Lee, and oth- ers, Physical Review D 84, 10.1103/physrevd.84.083501 (2011)

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.84.083501 2011
[60]

G.-B. Zhao, R. G. Crittenden, L. Pogosian, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 171301 (2012), arXiv:1207.3804 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[61]

Nesseris and J

S. Nesseris and J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012 (11), 033–033

work page 2012
[62]

Model-independent test of the FLRW metric, the flatness of the Universe, and non-local measurement of $H_0r_\mathrm{d}$

B. L’Huillier and A. Shafieloo, JCAP 01, 015, arXiv:1606.06832 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[63]

Calder´ on, B

R. Calder´ on, B. L’Huillier, D. Polarski, A. Shafieloo, and others, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083513 (2022), arXiv:2206.13820 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[64]

R. L. Workman, V. D. Burkert, V. Crede, E. Klempt, and others, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2022, 083C01 (2022)

work page 2022
[65]

Massive neutrinos and cosmology

J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor, Phys. Rep. 429, 307 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603494 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[66]

D. J. Eisenstein, I. Zehavi, D. W. Hogg, R. Scocci- marro, and others, ApJ 633, 560 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0501171 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2005
[67]

Andrade, E

U. Andrade, E. Paillas, J. Mena-Fern´ andez, Q. Li, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14742 (2025), arXiv:2503.14742 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[68]

Casas, H

L. Casas, H. K. Herrera-Alcantar, J. Chaves-Montero, A. Cuceu, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14741 (2025), arXiv:2503.14741 [astro-ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2025
[69]

Brodzeller, M

A. Brodzeller, M. Wolfson, D. M. Santos, M. Ho, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14740 (2025), arXiv:2503.14740 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[70]

The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A. G. Riess, and oth- ers, ApJ 938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro- ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[71]

Rubin et al.,Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework,Astrophys

D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2311.12098 (2023), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[72]

T. M. C. Abbott and others (DES), ApJ (accepted, 2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[73]

Efstathiou, J.R

Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, F. Arroja, and others, A&A 641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[74]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim and others (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[75]

Efstathiou and S

G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, The Open Journal of As- trophysics 4, 8 (2021)

work page 2021
[77]

Carron, M

J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, JCAP 09, 039, arXiv:2206.07773 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv
[78]

Rosenberg, S

E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton, and G. Efstathiou, MNRAS 517, 4620 (2022), arXiv:2205.10869 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[79]

M. S. Madhavacheril, F. J. Qu, B. D. Sherwin, N. MacCrann, and others, ApJ 962, 113 (2024), arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[80]

G. S. Farren and others (ACT), Astrophys. J. 966, 157 (2024), arXiv:2309.05659 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[81]

Lemos and A

P. Lemos and A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103505 (2023), arXiv:2302.12911 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[82]

Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: a Monte-Carlo approach

A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Phys. Rev. D 66, 103511 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0205436 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002
[83]

Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters

A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 87, 103529 (2013), arXiv:1304.4473 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

Showing first 80 references.