pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.03779 · v3 · submitted 2025-10-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Beyond CPL: Evidence for dynamical dark energy in three-parameter models

Sonej Alam , Md. Wali Hossain This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 10:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords dynamical dark energydark energy parametrizationLambdaCDMDESI BAOsupernova Iacosmological constraintsequation of state
0
0 comments X

The pith

Three-parameter dark energy models show consistent 2-5 sigma deviations from LambdaCDM in combined data analyses.

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

The paper develops two new three-parameter extensions to a minimal dark energy parametrization that allow for a time-varying equation of state while recovering the cosmological constant as a special case. When these models are tested against combined observations from the cosmic microwave background, baryon acoustic oscillations from DESI, Hubble parameter measurements, redshift space distortions, and three different supernova surveys, they provide modestly better fits to the data than the standard LambdaCDM model. The improvements are particularly notable with the DESY5 supernova sample, reaching delta chi squared values around -38. Statistical measures show deviations from LambdaCDM at the level of two to five sigma, suggesting the data may prefer dynamical dark energy over a constant one.

Core claim

The modified minimal Akhtar-Hossain parametrizations MmAH1 and MmAH2, along with the CPL model, yield the most stable and coherent descriptions of dynamical dark energy among the tested extensions, maintaining moderate tensions with LambdaCDM and well-behaved parameter correlations while delivering consistent evidence for departures from the standard model.

What carries the argument

The MmAH1 and MmAH2 three-parameter dark energy equation-of-state parametrizations, which extend the two-parameter mAH model to provide smooth and bounded evolution of w.

If this is right

  • Standard cosmological parameters remain stable across LambdaCDM, wCDM, mAH, CPL, and the new three-parameter models.
  • Fit quality improves by Delta chi squared of approximately -6 to -12 for PantheonPlus and Union3, and -38 for DESY5.
  • Mahalanobis distances quantify mild to moderate deviations from LambdaCDM, ranging from 2-2.5 sigma with PantheonPlus to 4-5 sigma with DESY5.
  • CPL, MmAH1, and MmAH2 emerge as the most physically coherent among the extensions tested.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the deviations persist, future large-scale structure surveys could tighten constraints on the time evolution of dark energy density.
  • The observed stability of background parameters suggests the signal arises primarily from the dark energy sector rather than from shifts in other quantities.
  • Cross-checks with independent data releases or alternative supernova calibrations would test whether the preference for dynamical dark energy is robust to sample choice.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen data combinations from CMB, DESI BAO, H(z), RSD, and the three supernova samples are statistically independent and free of unmodeled systematics that could mimic dynamical dark energy signals.

What would settle it

A joint re-analysis of the same data combinations that yields Mahalanobis distances below 1 sigma from LambdaCDM across all parameter subspaces would falsify the reported deviations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.03779 by Md. Wali Hossain, Sonej Alam.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the evolution of the cosmological parame￾ters in different parametrizations. To compare among the models, the figure is plotted using the same val￾ues of w0 and wa for all cases. The top-left figure shows the evolution of the energy density of dark en- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Lensed CMB temperature (top) and E-mode po [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Evolution of the EoS for the CPL (top left), CPL- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We introduce two three-parameter extensions of the minimal Akhtar-Hossain (mAH) dark energy parametrization, termed modified minimal AH (MmAH1 and MmAH2), which provide a smooth and bounded evolution of the dark energy equation of state while retaining $\Lambda$CDM as a limiting case. Using a joint analysis of the CMB compressed likelihood, DESI DR2 BAO, $H(z)$, redshift space distortions, and three SNeIa samples (PantheonPlus, Union3, and DESY5), we compare these models with $\Lambda$CDM, $w$CDM, mAH, CPL, and the three-parameter CPL-$w_{\rm b}$ extension. The standard cosmological parameters remain stable across all models, while CPL, MmAH1 and MmAH2 parametrizations yield modest but consistent improvements in fit ($\Delta\chi^2\simeq-6$ to $-12$ for PantheonPlus and Union3, and $\simeq-38$ for DESY5). Statistical consistency with $\Lambda$CDM, quantified via the Mahalanobis distance in one, two, and three dimensional parameter subspaces, reveals mild to moderate deviations, $\sim2$--$2.5\sigma$ for $+$PantheonPlus, $2$--$3\sigma$ for $+$Union3, and up to $4$--$5\sigma$ for $+$DESY5 combination, depending on model complexity. Among all extensions CPL, MmAH1 and MmAH2 provide the most stable and physically coherent representations of dynamical dark energy, maintaining moderate tensions with $\Lambda$CDM and well behaved parameter correlations. Overall, these results indicate consistent evidence for departures from $\Lambda$CDM.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces two three-parameter extensions (MmAH1 and MmAH2) of the minimal Akhtar-Hossain dark energy parametrization. These models allow for a smooth, bounded evolution of w(z) with ΛCDM as a special case. The authors perform joint fits to compressed CMB, DESI DR2 BAO, H(z), RSD, and three SNIa samples (PantheonPlus, Union3, DESY5), comparing to ΛCDM, wCDM, mAH, CPL, and CPL-w_b. They report Δχ² improvements of -6 to -12 for PantheonPlus/Union3 and -38 for DESY5, along with Mahalanobis distances indicating 2-5σ deviations from ΛCDM, concluding consistent evidence for dynamical dark energy.

Significance. If the central results hold after addressing dataset-specific systematics, the work supplies two new bounded parametrizations that recover ΛCDM as a limit and remain well-behaved across the explored data combinations. The reported stability of the standard cosmological parameters and the explicit comparison of fit improvements across multiple SNIa samples are useful contributions to the ongoing discussion of dynamical dark energy.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.2, Table 4] §5.2, Table 4: The Δχ² ≈ -38 reported for the DESY5 combination is substantially larger than the -6 to -12 values obtained with PantheonPlus and Union3. Because the paper already notes the sample dependence and because DESY5 systematics remain under active discussion in the literature, this outlier improvement risks being driven by unmodeled calibration or selection effects rather than a cosmological signal; the claim of “consistent evidence” therefore rests on a dataset whose robustness is not yet established.
  2. [§4.3] §4.3: The Mahalanobis distances (1D–3D) are computed directly from the posterior means and covariances of the same joint fits used to obtain the Δχ² values. While these distances correctly quantify the shift of the best-fit point away from the ΛCDM origin, they do not constitute an independent test or prediction; the reported 4–5σ deviations for DESY5 combinations are therefore measures of fit quality rather than external corroboration of dynamical dark energy.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrasing “consistent evidence for departures from ΛCDM” is stronger than the quantitative results, which show only mild (∼2–3σ) deviations for two of the three SN samples; a qualifier noting the sample dependence would improve accuracy.
  2. [§3.1] §3.1: The explicit parameter limits that recover mAH and ΛCDM for MmAH1 and MmAH2 are stated in the text but would be clearer if collected in a short table.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major comment below and indicate the planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§5.2, Table 4] The Δχ² ≈ -38 reported for the DESY5 combination is substantially larger than the -6 to -12 values obtained with PantheonPlus and Union3. Because the paper already notes the sample dependence and because DESY5 systematics remain under active discussion in the literature, this outlier improvement risks being driven by unmodeled calibration or selection effects rather than a cosmological signal; the claim of “consistent evidence” therefore rests on a dataset whose robustness is not yet established.

    Authors: We agree that the larger Δχ² improvement with DESY5 warrants caution, given ongoing discussions of its systematics in the literature. The manuscript already presents results for all three SNIa samples separately and notes the sample dependence explicitly. The improvement direction remains consistent across samples. In the revised manuscript we will expand the discussion in §5.2 to include further references to DESY5 systematics and to qualify the phrasing of “consistent evidence” so that it more clearly reflects the dataset variation while preserving the full set of results for transparency. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4.3] The Mahalanobis distances (1D–3D) are computed directly from the posterior means and covariances of the same joint fits used to obtain the Δχ² values. While these distances correctly quantify the shift of the best-fit point away from the ΛCDM origin, they do not constitute an independent test or prediction; the reported 4–5σ deviations for DESY5 combinations are therefore measures of fit quality rather than external corroboration of dynamical dark energy.

    Authors: We concur that the Mahalanobis distances are derived from the same posterior distributions as the Δχ² statistics and therefore quantify the parameter-space shift rather than providing an independent test. We will revise the text in §4.3 to state this explicitly, clarifying that the distances serve as a complementary metric for the multi-dimensional tension with ΛCDM and are not presented as external corroboration. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard model comparison via data fits

full rationale

The paper introduces MmAH1 and MmAH2 as explicit three-parameter extensions of the mAH parametrization, retains ΛCDM as a limit case by construction, and then performs joint χ² fits to external datasets (CMB compressed likelihood, DESI DR2 BAO, H(z), RSD, PantheonPlus/Union3/DESY5). Reported Δχ² values and Mahalanobis distances are direct outputs of those same fits and quantify goodness-of-fit and parameter-space deviation; they are not presented as independent predictions or first-principles derivations. No step in the provided text reduces a claimed result to a self-definition, a fitted parameter renamed as a forecast, or a load-bearing self-citation whose validity is assumed without external verification. The analysis remains self-contained against the cited cosmological observables.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on standard cosmological assumptions plus the specific functional forms chosen for the dark-energy equation of state. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • w0, wa, wb (or equivalent) in MmAH1/MmAH2
    Three free parameters per model are fitted to the data; their best-fit values and uncertainties are the primary output of the analysis.
axioms (2)
  • standard math The universe is described by a flat FLRW metric with standard matter and radiation content.
    Invoked throughout the background cosmology and perturbation equations.
  • domain assumption The chosen supernova, BAO, and CMB compressed likelihoods can be combined without additional covariance terms beyond those already published.
    Central to the joint chi-squared calculation and Mahalanobis distance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5851 in / 1711 out tokens · 33698 ms · 2026-05-18T10:41:36.006938+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Evidence for deviation in gravitational light deflection from general relativity at cosmological scales with KiDS-Legacy and CMB lensing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    KiDS-Legacy weak lensing plus CMB data yields a 3 sigma deviation in light deflection from GR in a Lambda CDM background, with the signal driven by large-scale CMB lensing amplitudes.

  2. 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.

  3. Probing the sensitivity of dark energy dynamics to equation of state parametrization flexibility

    astro-ph.CO 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0

    Flexible dark energy equation of state parametrizations mildly favor dynamical phantom-like behavior at z~1-2, but the preference is only ~2 sigma and sensitive to the model form and extrapolation.

  4. Cosmological constraints on the big bang quantum cosmology model

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The JCDM model yields H0 of 66.95 plus or minus 0.51 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m of 0.3419 plus or minus 0.0065 in a flat universe, rising to H0 of 69.13 plus or minus 0.56 with slight positive curvature, fitting late-time d...

  5. Evidence of dynamical dark energy found via the DESI DR2 Lyman$\alpha$ forest

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    DESI DR2 Lyman-alpha forest data combined with other probes yields up to 3.1 sigma preference for dynamical dark energy parameterizations over LambdaCDM, with w0 > -1 and wa < 0.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 111 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers · 24 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    For +Union3, both MmAH models again outper- form ΛCDM with ∆χ2 ≈ −11.5 and ∆AIC≈ −5.5, while maintaining similar BIC penalties. For +DESY5, the im- provement is most pronounced, with ∆χ 2 ≈ −37.6 and ∆AIC≈ −31.7 for both MmAH1 and MmAH2, marking these models almost as good as the CPL parametrization in terms of ∆χ 2 and ∆AIC. VII. EVIDENCE OF DDE AND QUAN...

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    A. G. Riesset al., Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Challenges for $\Lambda$CDM: An update

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(Kilo-Degree Survey, Dark En- ergy Survey), Open J. Astrophys.6, 2305.17173 (2023), arXiv:2305.17173 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy

    M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73, 153 (2023), arXiv:2211.04492 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    W. L. Freedman and B. F. Madore, JCAP11, 050, arXiv:2309.05618 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  8. [8]

    J. L. Bernal, L. Verde, and A. G. Riess, JCAP10, 019, arXiv:1607.05617 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Knox and M

    L. Knox and M. Millea, Phys. Rev. D101, 043533 (2020), arXiv:1908.03663 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), JCAP02, 021, arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI) (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 12 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Gu, et al., Dynamical dark energy in light of the DESI DR2 baryonic acoustic oscillations measurements, Nature Astron

    G. Guet al.(DESI) (2025), arXiv:2504.06118 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Calderon, et al., DESI 2024: reconstructing dark en- ergy using crossing statistics with DESI DR1 BAO data, JCAP 10 (2024) 048.arXiv:2405.04216,doi:10

    R. Calderonet al.(DESI), JCAP10, 048, arXiv:2405.04216 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  14. [14]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D111, 023532 (2025), arXiv:2405.13588 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 251003 (2024), arXiv:2404.15232 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    K. V. Berghaus, J. A. Kable, and V. Miranda, Phys. Rev. D110, 103524 (2024), arXiv:2404.14341 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, and P. G. Ferreira, JCAP 05, 034, arXiv:2502.04929 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  18. [18]

    D. H. Lee, W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, S. Pan, and C. van de Bruck (2025), arXiv:2507.11432 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Zhong and B

    K. Zhong and B. Jain (2025), arXiv:2509.26480 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Z. Yao, G. Ye, and A. Silvestri (2025), arXiv:2508.01378 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    F. J. Qu, K. M. Surrao, B. Bolliet, J. C. Hill, B. D. Sherwin, H. T. Jense, and A. La Posta, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123507 (2025), arXiv:2404.16805 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Wang and Y.-S

    H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao (2024), arXiv:2404.18579 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Giarè, M

    W. Giar` e, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, JCAP10, 035, arXiv:2407.16689 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  24. [24]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043540 (2025), arXiv:2406.07533 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Assessing observational constraints on dark energy

    D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Lett. B855, 138826 (2024), arXiv:2405.03933 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, and A. Silvestri, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 181002 (2025), arXiv:2407.15832 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Bhattacharya, G

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, JCAP 09, 073, arXiv:2405.17396 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  28. [28]

    O. F. Ramadan, J. Sakstein, and D. Rubin, Phys. Rev. D110, L041303 (2024), arXiv:2405.18747 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Jiang, D

    J.-Q. Jiang, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D110, 123519 (2024), arXiv:2408.02365 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Payeur, E

    G. Payeur, E. McDonough, and R. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D111, 123541 (2025), arXiv:2411.13637 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Malekjani, Z

    M. Malekjani, Z. Davari, and S. Pourojaghi (DESI), Phys. Rev. D111, 083547 (2025), arXiv:2407.09767 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    W. J. Wolf and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D108, 103519 (2023), arXiv:2310.07482 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, D. J. Bartlett, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D110, 083528 (2024), arXiv:2408.17318 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, Phys. Rev. D111, L041303 (2025), arXiv:2409.17019 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [36]

    C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz P´ erez, and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D110, 123533 (2024), arXiv:2405.00502 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  36. [37]

    C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz P´ erez, and B. Ratra (2024), arXiv:2410.13627 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  37. [38]

    B. R. Dinda, JCAP09, 062, arXiv:2405.06618 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  38. [39]

    B. R. Dinda and R. Maartens, JCAP01, 120, arXiv:2407.17252 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  39. [40]

    Jiang, W

    J.-Q. Jiang, W. Giar` e, S. Gariazzo, M. G. Dainotti, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, JCAP01, 153, arXiv:2407.18047 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  40. [41]

    E. O. Colg´ ain, M. G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pouro- jaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and D. Stojkovic (2024), arXiv:2404.08633 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [42]

    Bhattacharya, G

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, JCAP 04, 086, arXiv:2410.21243 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  42. [43]

    Akthar and M

    S. Akthar and M. W. Hossain, JCAP04, 024, arXiv:2411.15892 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  43. [44]

    Park and B

    C.-G. Park and B. Ratra (2025), arXiv:2501.03480 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [45]

    A. G. Ferrari, M. Ballardini, F. Finelli, and D. Paoletti (2025), arXiv:2501.15298 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [46]

    Peng and Y.-S

    Z.-Y. Peng and Y.-S. Piao (2025), arXiv:2502.04641 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [47]

    E. O. Colg´ ain and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari (2024), arXiv:2412.12905 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [48]

    Mukherjee, A

    P. Mukherjee and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D110, 123502 (2024), arXiv:2405.19178 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  48. [49]

    Mukherjee, D

    P. Mukherjee, D. Kumar, and A. A. Sen (2025), arXiv:2501.18335 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [50]

    Mukherjee and A

    P. Mukherjee and A. A. Sen, Rept. Prog. Phys.88, 098401 (2025), arXiv:2505.19083 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [51]

    Updated Cosmological Constraints in Extended Parameter Space with Planck PR4, DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, and Supernovae: Dynamical Dark Energy, Neutrino Masses, Lensing Anomaly, and the Hubble Tension

    S. Roy Choudhury and T. Okumura, Astrophys. J. Lett. 976, L11 (2024), arXiv:2409.13022 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  51. [52]

    Berbig, JCAP03, 015, arXiv:2412.07418 [astro- ph.CO]

    M. Berbig, JCAP03, 015, arXiv:2412.07418 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  52. [53]

    Li, P.-J

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, S.-J. Jin, H.-L. Li, J.- F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Astrophys. J.976, 1 (2024), arXiv:2407.14934 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [54]

    Li, Y.-H

    T.-N. Li, Y.-H. Li, G.-H. Du, P.-J. Wu, L. Feng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 608 (2025), arXiv:2411.08639 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [55]

    Li, G.-H

    T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, P.-J. Wu, S.-J. Jin, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang (2025), arXiv:2501.07361 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [56]

    Borghetto, A

    G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, Phys. Rev. D112, 023521 (2025), arXiv:2503.11628 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [57]

    Carloni, O

    Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023512 (2025), arXiv:2404.12068 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [58]

    T. Liu, X. Li, and J. Wang, Astrophys. J.988, 243 (2025), arXiv:2504.21373 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [59]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, T. Anton, and P. G. Fer- reira (2025), arXiv:2504.07679 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [60]

    Chudaykin and M

    A. Chudaykin and M. Kunz, Phys. Rev. D110, 123524 (2024), arXiv:2407.02558 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  60. [61]

    Sohail, S

    S. Sohail, S. Alam, S. Akthar, and M. W. Hossain, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101948 (2025), arXiv:2408.03229 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [62]

    M. W. Hossain and A. Maqsood, Phys. Rev. D112, 083504 (2025), arXiv:2502.19274 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [63]

    Cheng, E

    H. Cheng, E. Di Valentino, L. A. Escamilla, A. A. Sen, and L. Visinelli, JCAP09, 031, arXiv:2505.02932 [astro- 13 ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  63. [64]

    Scherer, M

    M. Scherer, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and A. De Fe- lice, Phys. Rev. D112, 043513 (2025), arXiv:2504.20664 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [65]

    Pedrotti, L

    D. Pedrotti, L. A. Escamilla, V. Marra, L. Perivolaropoulos, and S. Vagnozzi (2025), arXiv:2510.01974 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  65. [66]

    L. A. Escamilla, W. Giar` e, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, and S. Vagnozzi, JCAP05, 091, arXiv:2307.14802 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  66. [67]

    T. Liu, X. Li, T. Xu, M. Biesiada, and J. Wang (2025), arXiv:2507.04265 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [68]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa (2025), arXiv:2509.17586 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [69]

    J. M. Cline and V. Muralidharan, Phys. Rev. D112, 063539 (2025), arXiv:2506.13047 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [70]

    Wang and Y.-S

    H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao (2025), arXiv:2506.04306 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  70. [71]

    Van Raamsdonk and C

    M. Van Raamsdonk and C. Waddell (2025), arXiv:2505.10662 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  71. [72]

    Testingn s = 1 in light of the latest ACT and SPT data,

    Z.-Y. Peng, J.-Q. Jiang, H. Wang, and Y.-S. Piao (2025), arXiv:2509.11902 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  72. [73]

    Yang (2025), arXiv:2508.17848 [astro-ph.CO]

    Y. Yang (2025), arXiv:2508.17848 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [74]

    Jiang, Phys

    J.-Q. Jiang, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101902 (2025), arXiv:2502.15541 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [75]

    Ishak and L

    M. Ishak and L. Medina-Varela (2025), arXiv:2507.22856 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  75. [76]

    Shlivko, P

    D. Shlivko, P. J. Steinhardt, and C. L. Steinhardt, JCAP2025(06), 054, arXiv:2504.02028 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  76. [77]

    Silva and R

    E. Silva and R. C. Nunes (2025), arXiv:2507.13989 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  77. [78]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, M. Vasar, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Phys. Rev. D112, 063551 (2025), arXiv:2506.21542 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  78. [79]

    Cortˆ es and A

    M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle (2025), arXiv:2504.15336 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  79. [80]

    Artola, I

    M. Artola, I. Ayuso, R. Lazkoz, and V. Salzano (2025), arXiv:2510.04191 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  80. [81]

    B. R. Dinda, R. Maartens, and C. Clarkson (2025), arXiv:2509.19899 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.