No evidence for phantom crossing: local goodness-of-fit improvements do not persist under global Bayesian model comparison

Bikash R. Dinda; Roy Maartens; Shun Saito

arxiv: 2605.13546 · v2 · pith:6ECEZWK6new · submitted 2026-05-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

No evidence for phantom crossing: local goodness-of-fit improvements do not persist under global Bayesian model comparison

Bikash R. Dinda , Roy Maartens , Shun Saito This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 08:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

keywords dark energyphantom crossingBayesian evidencemodel comparisonw0wa parametrizationLambda CDMcosmological data

0 comments

The pith

Cosmological data yield no statistical preference for phantom crossing or dynamical dark energy once global Bayesian evidence replaces local fit measures.

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

The paper examines whether recent cosmological observations support deviations from Lambda CDM in the form of dynamical dark energy or phantom crossing. It applies both the Deviance Information Criterion for local fit quality and the Bayesian evidence for global model comparison across Lambda CDM, the w0wa parametrization, and thawing quintessence. Any modest local improvement from w0wa is confined to narrow regions of parameter space and disappears when the full prior volume enters the evidence calculation, producing cases where Delta DIC is negative yet Delta ln Z is also negative. The result is that the models remain statistically indistinguishable with no consistent evidence for phantom crossing across the datasets examined.

Core claim

The authors show that all models are statistically indistinguishable, and that there is no statistically consistent evidence across different datasets for either dynamical dark energy or phantom crossing. Local goodness-of-fit improvements in the w0wa parametrization do not survive the global Bayesian evidence comparison once the entire prior volume is accounted for.

What carries the argument

Global Bayesian evidence ln Z compared against local Deviance Information Criterion when ranking Lambda CDM against the w0wa dark-energy parametrization and thawing quintessence models.

If this is right

Current observations do not require dynamical dark energy or phantom crossing.
Model preference must be evaluated with full prior volume rather than local fit alone.
Thawing quintessence remains statistically equivalent to Lambda CDM under the same evidence metric.
Claims of deviation from the cosmological constant based on parametrization fits need re-examination with global evidence.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same local-versus-global discrepancy could appear in other cosmological analyses that scan large parameter spaces.
Tighter future constraints might reduce prior-volume sensitivity and allow clearer separation if deviations exist.
Careful prior choice on dark-energy parameters can alter which model appears preferred even when data quality is fixed.

Load-bearing premise

The selected priors on the w0wa parameters together with the specific datasets examined are representative enough for the global evidence to distinguish models without being dominated by prior volume effects.

What would settle it

A new independent dataset combination that yields both a negative Delta DIC and a positive Delta ln Z favoring w0wa over Lambda CDM across multiple probes would falsify the indistinguishability result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13546 by Bikash R. Dinda, Roy Maartens, Shun Saito.

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3: Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Best-fit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Dependence of ∆ ln [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Recent cosmological data have been interpreted as indicating deviations from $\Lambda$CDM within the standard $w_0w_a$ parametrization, including hints of phantom crossing and dynamical dark energy. However, such inferences can be parametrization-dependent and need not imply a statistically robust detection. We test these claims by comparing $\Lambda$CDM, $w_0w_a$, and thawing quintessence models, using the Deviance Information Criterion (DIC) and the Bayesian evidence $\ln \mathcal{Z}$. We find that $w_0w_a$ can provide a slightly improved local fit; however, this improvement is confined to a limited region of the parameter space. The global Bayesian evidence does not support it once the full prior volume is accounted for. In particular, cases with $\Delta{\rm DIC}<0$ but $\Delta \ln \mathcal{Z}<0$ indicate that these improvements are not statistically significant. We show that all models are statistically indistinguishable, and that there is no statistically consistent evidence across different datasets for either dynamical dark energy or phantom crossing.

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

Local fit gains for w0wa models do not survive global Bayesian evidence, leaving LambdaCDM, dynamical dark energy, and quintessence statistically indistinguishable on the datasets checked.

read the letter

The core takeaway is that apparent hints of phantom crossing or dynamical dark energy from recent data do not hold up once you move from local goodness-of-fit to full Bayesian evidence that accounts for prior volume. The paper applies DIC and ln Z to compare LambdaCDM against w0wa and thawing quintessence on public cosmological datasets. It shows that negative Delta DIC in limited parameter regions is outweighed by negative Delta ln Z, so the models end up indistinguishable with no consistent preference across datasets for anything beyond LambdaCDM. This is a straightforward application of standard tools that usefully cautions against over-reading parametrization-dependent signals. The multi-dataset consistency check is the part that adds some weight. The soft spot is the reliance on specific priors for w0 and wa. Broad ranges can make the evidence ratio sensitive to prior volume rather than data, and the work does not report explicit robustness tests such as prior variation or Savage-Dickey ratios at the phantom boundary. That leaves the strength of the indistinguishability claim somewhat dependent on the prior choice. Cosmologists interpreting dark energy constraints from surveys like DESI would find this a useful sanity check on existing claims. It is not a new method or framework, but the question is timely and the execution is clear enough to merit referee time. I would send it for peer review with a request that reviewers examine the prior sensitivity.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares ΛCDM, the w0wa parametrization, and thawing quintessence models on cosmological datasets using the Deviance Information Criterion (DIC) and Bayesian evidence ln Z. It reports that w0wa yields modest local fit improvements confined to limited parameter regions, but these do not persist under global Bayesian model comparison once prior volume is accounted for. The central conclusion is that all three models are statistically indistinguishable, with no consistent evidence across datasets for dynamical dark energy or phantom crossing.

Significance. If the central claim holds after addressing prior robustness, the work usefully illustrates how local goodness-of-fit gains can be outweighed by Occam penalties in Bayesian evidence calculations for dark-energy models. It reinforces the importance of global evidence ratios over isolated DIC improvements when assessing parametrization-dependent hints in current cosmological data.

major comments (1)

[Results and discussion of Bayesian evidence (near the abstract claim and global comparison paragraphs)] The interpretation that ΔlnZ < 0 outweighs ΔDIC < 0 and demonstrates prior-volume suppression (rather than data-driven preference) is load-bearing for the claim of model indistinguishability. The manuscript does not report prior-sensitivity tests (e.g., varying the width of the w0 ∈ [-3,1], wa ∈ [-3,3] ranges) or Savage-Dickey ratios evaluated at the phantom-crossing boundary w = −1. Without these, it remains possible that the evidence ratios are dominated by the arbitrary prior measure rather than the likelihood improvement in the limited region where local fits improve.

minor comments (1)

[Methods] The description of the exact datasets, likelihoods, and prior ranges used for each model comparison could be consolidated into a single table for clarity and reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the importance of prior robustness in the Bayesian evidence analysis. We address the major comment point by point below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The interpretation that ΔlnZ < 0 outweighs ΔDIC < 0 and demonstrates prior-volume suppression (rather than data-driven preference) is load-bearing for the claim of model indistinguishability. The manuscript does not report prior-sensitivity tests (e.g., varying the width of the w0 ∈ [-3,1], wa ∈ [-3,3] ranges) or Savage-Dickey ratios evaluated at the phantom-crossing boundary w = −1. Without these, it remains possible that the evidence ratios are dominated by the arbitrary prior measure rather than the likelihood improvement in the limited region where local fits improve.

Authors: We agree that explicit tests of prior sensitivity would strengthen the presentation of the evidence results. The priors on w0 and wa are the conventional broad ranges employed throughout the literature precisely to minimize artificial truncation effects while still allowing the data to determine the posterior. The observed pattern of ΔDIC < 0 accompanied by ΔlnZ < 0 is the expected signature of an Occam penalty arising from the enlarged prior volume when the likelihood improvement is localized; this is already visible in the reported evidence values across multiple datasets. To make this explicit, the revised manuscript will include a short subsection reporting lnZ under modestly narrowed and widened prior ranges for w0 and wa. Savage-Dickey ratios at w = −1 are most directly applicable to nested-model tests of the phantom boundary itself; our primary comparison is between non-nested models (ΛCDM versus the full w0wa parametrization), for which the global evidence ratio already marginalizes over the entire prior. We will nevertheless add a brief discussion of the Savage-Dickey approach and its relation to our global results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Standard Bayesian model comparison applies established criteria without definitional reduction

full rationale

The paper computes DIC and Bayesian evidence ln Z for ΛCDM, w0wa, and thawing quintessence models on public datasets. These are pre-existing statistical tools whose definitions and application do not depend on quantities fitted or defined inside the present work. The reported distinction between local fit improvement (ΔDIC < 0) and global evidence penalty (Δ ln Z < 0) follows directly from the standard decomposition of the evidence integral over the chosen prior volume; no equation or result is shown to equal its own input by construction. No self-citation is invoked as the sole justification for the central claim, and the analysis remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the appropriateness of the three models compared and the reliability of Bayesian evidence for penalizing extra parameter volume in the w0wa case.

free parameters (1)

Priors on w0 and wa
Bayesian evidence depends on the width of priors chosen for the dark energy parameters.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The standard LambdaCDM, w0wa parametrization, and thawing quintessence models are sufficient to test for dynamical dark energy and phantom crossing.
Invoked throughout the model comparison described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5726 in / 1164 out tokens · 65713 ms · 2026-05-21T08:15:15.912794+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · 25 internal anchors

[1]

A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), JCAP02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[2]

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. Calderon et al. (DESI), JCAP10, 048 (2024), arXiv:2405.04216 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[3]

Lodha et al

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

work page arXiv 2025
[4]

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

M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[5]

Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements

K. Lodha et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[6]

Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

N. Aghanim et 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
[7]

M. S. Madhavacheril et al. (ACT), Astrophys. J.962, 113 (2024), arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[8]

The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

D. Brout et al., Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[9]

Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework

D. Rubin et al., Astrophys. J.986, 231 (2025), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[10]

T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), Astrophys. J. Lett.973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[11]

The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration

B. Popovic et al. (DES), (2025), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro- ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[12]

Shlivko and V

D. Shlivko and V. Poulin, (2026), arXiv:2603.22406 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[13]

R. E. Keeley, A. Shafieloo, and W. L. Matthewson, (2025), arXiv:2506.15091 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[14]

G´ omez-Valent and A

A. G´ omez-Valent and A. Gonz´ alez-Fuentes, Phys. Lett. B872, 140096 (2026), arXiv:2508.00621 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[15]

S. L. Guedezounme, B. R. Dinda, and R. Maartens, (2025), arXiv:2507.18274 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[16]

Coupled Dark Energy and Dark Matter for DESI: An Effective Guide to the Phantom Divide

S. Antusch, S. F. King, and X. Wang, (2026), arXiv:2604.08449 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[17]

Roy and S

N. Roy and S. Chakrabarti, (2025), arXiv:2508.13740 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[18]

Silva and R

E. Silva and R. C. Nunes, JCAP11, 078 (2025), arXiv:2507.13989 [astro-ph.CO] . 7

work page arXiv 2025
[19]

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
[20]

Challenges to the cosmological constant model following results from the Dark Energy Survey

S. Avila, J. Mena-Fern´ andez, and M. Vincenzi, Nature Astron.9, 1129 (2025), arXiv:2605.09560 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[21]

Wang and K

Y. Wang and K. Freese, JCAP02, 023 (2026), arXiv:2505.17415 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[22]

Model-Independent Analysis of Type Ia Supernova Datasets and Implications for Dark Energy

Z. Wang and Y. Wang, (2026), arXiv:2604.11883 [astro- ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[23]

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
[24]

Resolving the Planck-DESI tension by nonminimally coupled quintessence

J.-Q. Wang, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, and S.-J. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2508.01759 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[25]

Non-minimally coupled quintessence with sign-switching interaction

J.-Q. Wang, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, Y.-H. Li, S.-J. Wang, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2604.02204 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[26]

Li and S

J.-X. Li and S. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1308 (2025), arXiv:2506.22953 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[27]

F. J. Qu et al. (ACT), Astrophys. J.962, 112 (2024), arXiv:2304.05202 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[28]

Distance Priors from Planck Final Release

L. Chen, Q.-G. Huang, and K. Wang, JCAP02, 028 (2019), arXiv:1808.05724 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[29]

Zhai, C.-G

Z. Zhai, C.-G. Park, Y. Wang, and B. Ratra, JCAP07, 009 (2020), arXiv:1912.04921 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[30]

B. R. Dinda, JCAP09, 062 (2024), arXiv:2405.06618 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[31]

B. R. Dinda, R. Maartens, S. Saito, and C. Clarkson, JCAP08, 018 (2025), arXiv:2504.09681 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[32]

Do equation of state parametrizations of dark energy faithfully capture the dynamics of the late universe?

¨O. Akarsu, M. Caruana, K. F. Dialektopoulos, L. A. Escamilla, E. O. Kahya, and J. Levi Said, (2026), arXiv:2604.12987 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[33]

Montefalcone and R

G. Montefalcone and R. Stiskalek, (2026), arXiv:2603.25735 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[34]

Nesseris, Y

S. Nesseris, Y. Akrami, and G. D. Starkman, (2025), arXiv:2503.22529 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[35]

T. Xu, S. Kumar, Y. Chen, A. J. S. Capistrano, and ¨O. Akarsu, (2026), arXiv:2602.11936 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[36]

D. D. Y. Ong, D. Yallup, and W. Handley, (2026), arXiv:2603.05472 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[37]

L. T. Hergt, S. Henrot-Versill´ e, M. Tristram, and D. Scott, (2026), arXiv:2602.06115 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[38]

emcee: The MCMC Hammer

D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125, 306 (2013), arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[39]

MultiNest: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics

F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, and M. Bridges, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.398, 1601 (2009), arXiv:0809.3437 [astro- ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
[40]

Lee, Eur

S. Lee, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 191 (2026), arXiv:2506.18230 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[41]

B. R. Dinda and R. Maartens, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.542, L31 (2025), arXiv:2504.15190 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[42]

Cosmological Dynamics of Exponential Quintessence Constrained by BAO, Cosmic Chronometers, and DES-SN5YR/Pantheon+ Data

S. Sultana and S. Chattopadhyay, (2026), arXiv:2604.06941 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[43]

R. E. Ouardi, A. Bouali, A. Errahmani, R. E. Keeley, A. Shafieloo, and T. Ouali, (2026), arXiv:2604.04056 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[44]

Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology

R. Trotta, Contemp. Phys.49, 71 (2008), arXiv:0803.4089 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[45]

Amendola, V

L. Amendola, V. Patel, Z. Sakr, E. Sellentin, and K. Wolz, Phys. Rev. D110, 123522 (2024), arXiv:2404.00744 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[46]

Patel, A

V. Patel, A. Chakraborty, and L. Amendola, (2024), arXiv:2407.06586 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[47]

Exploring the interplay of late-time dynamical dark energy and new physics before recombination

A. Gonz´ alez-Fuentes and A. G´ omez-Valent, (2026), arXiv:2603.26560 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[48]

Gonz´ alez-Fuentes and A

A. Gonz´ alez-Fuentes and A. G´ omez-Valent, JCAP12, 049 (2025), arXiv:2506.11758 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025

[1] [1]

A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), JCAP02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[2] [2]

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. Calderon et al. (DESI), JCAP10, 048 (2024), arXiv:2405.04216 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

Lodha et al

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

work page arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

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

M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[5] [5]

Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements

K. Lodha et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[6] [6]

Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

N. Aghanim et 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

[7] [7]

M. S. Madhavacheril et al. (ACT), Astrophys. J.962, 113 (2024), arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

D. Brout et al., Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

[9] [9]

Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework

D. Rubin et al., Astrophys. J.986, 231 (2025), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[10] [10]

T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), Astrophys. J. Lett.973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[11] [11]

The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration

B. Popovic et al. (DES), (2025), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro- ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[12] [12]

Shlivko and V

D. Shlivko and V. Poulin, (2026), arXiv:2603.22406 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026

[13] [13]

R. E. Keeley, A. Shafieloo, and W. L. Matthewson, (2025), arXiv:2506.15091 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025

[14] [14]

G´ omez-Valent and A

A. G´ omez-Valent and A. Gonz´ alez-Fuentes, Phys. Lett. B872, 140096 (2026), arXiv:2508.00621 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026

[15] [15]

S. L. Guedezounme, B. R. Dinda, and R. Maartens, (2025), arXiv:2507.18274 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025

[16] [16]

Coupled Dark Energy and Dark Matter for DESI: An Effective Guide to the Phantom Divide

S. Antusch, S. F. King, and X. Wang, (2026), arXiv:2604.08449 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[17] [17]

Roy and S

N. Roy and S. Chakrabarti, (2025), arXiv:2508.13740 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025

[18] [18]

Silva and R

E. Silva and R. C. Nunes, JCAP11, 078 (2025), arXiv:2507.13989 [astro-ph.CO] . 7

work page arXiv 2025

[19] [19]

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

[20] [20]

Challenges to the cosmological constant model following results from the Dark Energy Survey

S. Avila, J. Mena-Fern´ andez, and M. Vincenzi, Nature Astron.9, 1129 (2025), arXiv:2605.09560 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[21] [21]

Wang and K

Y. Wang and K. Freese, JCAP02, 023 (2026), arXiv:2505.17415 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026

[22] [22]

Model-Independent Analysis of Type Ia Supernova Datasets and Implications for Dark Energy

Z. Wang and Y. Wang, (2026), arXiv:2604.11883 [astro- ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[23] [23]

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

[24] [24]

Resolving the Planck-DESI tension by nonminimally coupled quintessence

J.-Q. Wang, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, and S.-J. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2508.01759 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[25] [25]

Non-minimally coupled quintessence with sign-switching interaction

J.-Q. Wang, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, Y.-H. Li, S.-J. Wang, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2604.02204 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[26] [26]

Li and S

J.-X. Li and S. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1308 (2025), arXiv:2506.22953 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025

[27] [27]

F. J. Qu et al. (ACT), Astrophys. J.962, 112 (2024), arXiv:2304.05202 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

[28] [28]

Distance Priors from Planck Final Release

L. Chen, Q.-G. Huang, and K. Wang, JCAP02, 028 (2019), arXiv:1808.05724 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

[29] [29]

Zhai, C.-G

Z. Zhai, C.-G. Park, Y. Wang, and B. Ratra, JCAP07, 009 (2020), arXiv:1912.04921 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020

[30] [30]

B. R. Dinda, JCAP09, 062 (2024), arXiv:2405.06618 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024

[31] [31]

B. R. Dinda, R. Maartens, S. Saito, and C. Clarkson, JCAP08, 018 (2025), arXiv:2504.09681 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025

[32] [32]

Do equation of state parametrizations of dark energy faithfully capture the dynamics of the late universe?

¨O. Akarsu, M. Caruana, K. F. Dialektopoulos, L. A. Escamilla, E. O. Kahya, and J. Levi Said, (2026), arXiv:2604.12987 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[33] [33]

Montefalcone and R

G. Montefalcone and R. Stiskalek, (2026), arXiv:2603.25735 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026

[34] [34]

Nesseris, Y

S. Nesseris, Y. Akrami, and G. D. Starkman, (2025), arXiv:2503.22529 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025

[35] [35]

T. Xu, S. Kumar, Y. Chen, A. J. S. Capistrano, and ¨O. Akarsu, (2026), arXiv:2602.11936 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[36] [36]

D. D. Y. Ong, D. Yallup, and W. Handley, (2026), arXiv:2603.05472 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[37] [37]

L. T. Hergt, S. Henrot-Versill´ e, M. Tristram, and D. Scott, (2026), arXiv:2602.06115 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026

[38] [38]

emcee: The MCMC Hammer

D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125, 306 (2013), arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

[39] [39]

MultiNest: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics

F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, and M. Bridges, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.398, 1601 (2009), arXiv:0809.3437 [astro- ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

[40] [40]

Lee, Eur

S. Lee, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 191 (2026), arXiv:2506.18230 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026

[41] [41]

B. R. Dinda and R. Maartens, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.542, L31 (2025), arXiv:2504.15190 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025

[42] [42]

Cosmological Dynamics of Exponential Quintessence Constrained by BAO, Cosmic Chronometers, and DES-SN5YR/Pantheon+ Data

S. Sultana and S. Chattopadhyay, (2026), arXiv:2604.06941 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[43] [43]

R. E. Ouardi, A. Bouali, A. Errahmani, R. E. Keeley, A. Shafieloo, and T. Ouali, (2026), arXiv:2604.04056 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[44] [44]

Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology

R. Trotta, Contemp. Phys.49, 71 (2008), arXiv:0803.4089 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

[45] [45]

Amendola, V

L. Amendola, V. Patel, Z. Sakr, E. Sellentin, and K. Wolz, Phys. Rev. D110, 123522 (2024), arXiv:2404.00744 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024

[46] [46]

Patel, A

V. Patel, A. Chakraborty, and L. Amendola, (2024), arXiv:2407.06586 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024

[47] [47]

Exploring the interplay of late-time dynamical dark energy and new physics before recombination

A. Gonz´ alez-Fuentes and A. G´ omez-Valent, (2026), arXiv:2603.26560 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[48] [48]

Gonz´ alez-Fuentes and A

A. Gonz´ alez-Fuentes and A. G´ omez-Valent, JCAP12, 049 (2025), arXiv:2506.11758 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025