How Holographic is the Dark Energy? A Spline Nodal reconstruction approach

Gabriela Garcia-Arroyo; J. Alberto Vazquez; Miguel A. Zapata; Shahnawaz A. Adil

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 105 references

How Holographic is the Dark Energy? A Spline Nodal reconstruction approach

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a generalized holographic dark energy with a redshift-dependent entropy exponent, reconstructed with up to three spline nodes, fits DESI BAO, supernova, and local-H0 data better than ΛCDM (Δχ² ≈ 12) and better than…

desk verdict A clean spline-node reconstruction of the HDE entropy exponent, with real chi-squared gains, but the abstract's claim of strong evidence is undercut by the paper's own Bayes factors. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22292 v2 pith:OSZHWNWS submitted 2025-07-29 astro-ph.CO

Miguel A. Zapata , Gabriela Garcia-Arroyo , Shahnawaz A. Adil , J. Alberto Vazquez This is my paper

classification astro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x

keywords holographicdarkenergyequationofstatenon-parametricreconstructionsplinenodalinterpolationDESIBAOBayesianmodelcomparisonfutureeventhorizonquintessence-phantomtransition

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether holographic dark energy can survive the DESI-era evidence that dark energy is dynamical. It replaces the fixed exponent in the holographic density $\rho_{\mathrm{de}} = K L^{f(a)}$ with a free function reconstructed from data using splines through up to three redshift nodes, keeping the future event horizon as the characteristic length. The analysis of DESI DR1 BAO, two supernova compilations, and the local $H_0$ prior finds the standard holographic model ($f=-2$) strongly disfavored, while the three-node reconstruction fits the combined data better than $\Lambda$CDM by $\Delta\chi^2 \approx 12$ and better than standard holographic dark energy by $\Delta\chi^2 \approx 20$. The reconstructed equation of state crosses from quintessence to phantom near $z \approx 0.25$, and the best fit moves $H_0$ closer to the local measurement. The paper's own Bayes factors, however, do not show a decisive preference for the holographic model over $\Lambda$CDM.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized entropy exponent $f(a)$ in $S_G = \gamma A^{2+f(a)/2}$, which converts the holographic density into $\rho_{\mathrm{de}} = K L^{f(a)}$ with $K = 3c^2 M_p^2 H_0^{f+2}$ and $L$ the future event horizon. The paper reconstructs $f(z)$ by spline interpolation through fixed redshift nodes, using linear splines for the one- and two-node cases and a quadratic spline for the three-node case, with node amplitudes $f_i$ as free parameters. The derived equation of state, Eq. (12), depends on $f(z)$, its derivative, the holographic parameter $c$, and $\Omega_{\mathrm{de}}$; setting $f=0$ recovers $\Lambda$CDM with $\omega_{\mathrm{de}}=-1$, and $f=-2$ recovers standard holographic dark energy with $\omega_{\mathrm{de}} = -1/3 - (2/(3c))\sqrt{\Omega_{\mathrm{de}}}$. Allowing $f(z)$ to vary is the mechanism that lets the equation of state cross the phantom divide near $z \approx 0.25$ and absorb the DESI preference for dynamical dark energy.

What would settle it

Remove the two DESI BAO points the paper flags as least well fitted (LRG1 and the QSO point) and recompute $\Delta\chi^2$ for the three-node model; if the gain over $\Lambda$CDM drops below roughly 2, the claimed preference rests on a couple of bins. The cleaner test is DESI DR2 BAO: if a non-parametric reconstruction of $\omega_{\mathrm{de}}(z)$ from the newer data does not cross $-1$ near $z \approx 0.25$, the central dynamical claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that letting the entropy exponent in generalized holographic dark energy vary with redshift turns a model that fails against DESI-era data into one that fits better than the cosmological constant. With $f=-2$ (standard holographic dark energy, zero nodes), $\chi^2$ is about 8 units worse than $\Lambda$CDM for both data combinations; with a constant $f$ (one node) the model effectively collapses back to $\Lambda$CDM behavior ($\Delta\chi^2 \approx 0.2$); with a linear $f(z)$ (two nodes) the fit improves by $\Delta\chi^2 \approx 5.3$ to $6.4$; and with a quadratic spline $f(z)$ (three nodes) the gain is $\Delta\chi^2 \approx 10.5$ to $12.6$ over $\Lambda$CDM and about 20 over standard holographic dark energy. The best-fit node amplitudes sit near $(-1.6, -1.8, -2.5)$ and drive an equation of state that crosses $\omega_{\mathrm{de}} = -1$ around $z \approx 0.25$, from quintessence at low redshift to phantom at higher redshift. The three-node model also beats the CPL $w_0$-$w_a$ parameterization by $\Delta\chi^2 \approx 1.8$ with Union3 and $\approx 5.2$ with Pantheon+, and it reduces the $H_0$ discrepancy with the local measurement to about $0.2$ to $0.3\sigma$. Despite this, nested-sampling evidence leaves $\Lambda$CDM competitive: the log Bayes factor against the three-node model is 0.12 with Union3 and 2.25 with Pantheon+, so the paper's claim is a better fit, not a decisive model choice.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dark-energy density really has the holographic form $\rho_{\mathrm{de}} = K L^{f(a)}$ with a freely varying exponent $f(a)$; if the entropy-area relation cannot be promoted to such a scale-dependent exponent, the reconstructed $\omega_{\mathrm{de}}(z)$ is just a flexible fit wearing holographic language.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The DESI dynamical-dark-energy signal can be accommodated by a holographic dark energy with a scale-dependent entropy exponent, without invoking a CPL-style parametric equation of state.
Standard holographic dark energy with $f=-2$ and the future event horizon is statistically disfavored against current late-universe data, so viable holographic models must allow the entropy–area relation to run with redshift.
The predicted quintessence-to-phantom crossing near $z \approx 0.25$ is a sharp signature: higher-redshift BAO and supernova samples can confirm or erase it.
Flexible holographic dark energy pulls the inferred $H_0$ toward the local SH0ES value by roughly $0.6\sigma$ compared to $\Lambda$CDM, suggesting a possible partial resolution of the Hubble tension if CMB data are added.
The three-node model outperforms the $w_0$-$w_a$ parameterization by $\Delta\chi^2 \approx 1.8$ to $5.2$ with the same data, so a flexible holographic model is at least as good a description as the standard dynamical-dark-energy benchmark.

Reading between the lines

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

Much of the three-node $\chi^2$ gain may be generic flexibility rather than holography: a similarly flexible $\omega(z)$ reconstruction with the same number of knots would likely achieve a comparable $\Delta\chi^2$, so the paper is better read as evidence that the data want a crossing equation of state than as evidence for the entropy-exponent ansatz.
Because $K$ in Eq. (9) carries dimensions that shift with $f(a)$, the inferred $f(z)$ depends on the adopted normalization $H_0^{f+2}$; a renormalization-invariant formulation could change the posteriors, especially the weakly constrained high-redshift node $f_3$.
A decisive follow-up would be a CMB-inclusive joint analysis: the three-node model's high $H_0$ prediction must survive Planck's acoustic-scale constraints, otherwise the Hubble-tension improvement identified here would not persist.
If the crossing is real, the model predicts a specific non-monotonic shape of $\omega_{\mathrm{de}}(z)$ at $z<1$; comparing the three-node spline against Gaussian-process reconstructions of $\omega_{\mathrm{de}}$ with the same data would show whether the crossing is a spline artefact or a data-driven feature.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick read for you: this paper applies an established spline-nodal reconstruction trick to the entropy exponent in holographic dark energy, fitting the resulting f(a) to DESI DR1 BAO plus Union3/PantheonPlus and SH0ES. The genuinely new bit is that specific application, and the model is set up so standard HDE, Barrow-like HDE, and LambdaCDM all sit inside the family. That nesting is clean, and the 3-node reconstruction does fit the DESI dynamical-DE preference with a quintessence-to-phantom crossing near z ~ 0.25. The chi-squared improvements are real (about 12.6 and 10.5 over LambdaCDM), and the claimed H0-tension reduction to 0.2-0.3 sigma is honest progress if you care about HDE phenomenology.

The soft spots are mostly in the statistical framing. The abstract and Section IV call this strong evidence, but the paper's own Bayes factors in Table IV say LambdaCDM is comparable or preferred (B_LambdaCDM,3-Node = 0.12 +/- 0.27 for Union3; 2.25 +/- 0.30 for PantheonPlus). The text even notes in Table III that their Delta-chi-squared labels have no formal significance interpretation, then proceeds to use those labels to claim decisiveness. That contradiction needs to be fixed, and the conclusions should be written around the Bayes factors, not the Delta-chi-squared. Also, with four extra parameters, Delta-chi-squared ~ 12 is about Delta-AIC 4, suggestive, not decisive.

Two more items. The generalized density rho_de = K L^f(a) with K defined using H0^(f+2) makes K implicitly time-dependent once f varies; the paper does not address that consistency point. And c saturates the U(0,3) prior in the 3-node case, which suggests a degeneracy that deserves exploration. Node positions are fixed, so there is no test of sensitivity to placement. The code link is missing, as "HDENodalRec" is not a URL.

The paper is competent, and the reconstruction machinery is a legitimate extension of the Vazquez et al. approach. It deserves a serious referee, but the authors need to correct the statistical language, supply the repository, and explore the prior and degeneracy issue before publication. Worth reading if you work on DESI dark-energy interpretations or HDE variants.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a generalized holographic dark energy model in which the entropy-area exponent f(a) is reconstructed non-parametrically using spline nodes, with the dark-energy density given by rho_de = K L^f(a) and L the future event horizon. The authors analyze DESI DR1 BAO, Union3 or PantheonPlus supernovae, and SH0ES H0 data, comparing 0- to 3-node reconstructions with LambdaCDM and CPL. They report that the standard 0-node HDE is strongly disfavored and that the 3-node model improves the best-fit chi-squared over LambdaCDM by about 12, with an equation of state crossing from quintessence to phantom near z ~ 0.25. However, the paper's own Bayes factors show LambdaCDM remains comparable or preferred, and the abstract's 'strong statistical preference' is not supported by the evidence tables.

Significance. If the central claim were robust, the paper would provide a useful data-driven extension of holographic dark energy that can accommodate the DESI dynamical-dark-energy preference. The code and data are public, the analysis uses two independent supernova compilations, and the spline framework generalizes several known HDE models in a single setup. The main positive result is the demonstration that standard HDE is strongly disfavored by current data. The significance of the claimed preference over LambdaCDM is weakened by the paper's own Bayesian evidence and by the scale-dependent normalization issue in the model definition; the work is best viewed as a proof-of-concept reconstruction rather than a detection of dynamical dark energy.

major comments (3)

[Abstract; Section IV.B; Table IV] The abstract and Section IV.B claim a strong statistical preference for the 3-Node HDE model over LambdaCDM based on Delta chi^2 of about 12 or greater than 10, but the paper's own Bayes factors in Table IV do not support this claim. For the Union3 combination, B_LambdaCDM,3-Node = 0.12 +/- 0.27, meaning LambdaCDM is slightly preferred, and for PantheonPlus, B = 2.25 +/- 0.30, which is positive evidence for LambdaCDM on the Jeffreys scale defined in Table III. With four additional parameters (c, f1, f2, f3), a Delta chi^2 of 12 corresponds to Delta AIC of about 4 and a p-value of about 0.017 for 4 degrees of freedom, not to the 'decisive' category used in Table III. The authors should present AIC/BIC or the Bayes factors as the primary model-selection criterion and revise the abstract and conclusions to remove the phrase 'strong statistical preference'.
[Section II, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The density ansatz rho_de = K L^f(a) with K = 3c^2 M_p^2 H0^(f+2) is not dimensionally consistent when f(a) varies with scale factor, because the exponent on H0 depends on a and hence K becomes scale-dependent. The paper notes that the units of K depend on f(a) but does not address that a scale-dependent K changes the Friedmann equation and the interpretation of c. Please clarify whether the f in Eq. (9) is intended to be evaluated at a fixed reference value or justify the scale-dependent normalization; otherwise the reconstructed omega_de(z) is a phenomenological flexible fit rather than a holographic derivation.
[Section IV.A; Section IV.B; Table IV] The text states that c is only well constrained in the 0- and 1-Node cases and that its posterior saturates the prior range in higher-order models. With c = 1.54 +/- 0.80 (Union3) and 1.49 +/- 0.80 (PantheonPlus) under a U(0,3) prior, c is essentially unconstrained in the 2- and 3-Node models, so the reconstructed crossing of omega_de(z) near z = 0.25 is driven by the spline amplitudes and the priors rather than by the holographic parameter. The authors should quantify this degeneracy with profile likelihoods or prior-sensitivity tests before presenting the crossing as a robust feature.

minor comments (4)

[Section IV.B] The sentence listing the 3-Node amplitudes for the PantheonPlus dataset is garbled and appears to drop f1; please correct the list of parameter values.
[Table IV] In the Union3 panel, the entry B_LambdaCDM,3-Node is printed as '0.12 +/- 27' and should be '0.12 +/- 0.27'.
[Section V] The statement that all multi-node reconstructions except the 1-Node satisfy thermodynamic requirements is contradicted later in the same paragraph by the discussion of decreasing dark-energy density and possibly decreasing entropy at high redshift; please reconcile these statements.
[Section II, around Eq. (13)] The symbol Delta in 'the Barrow holographic model is obtained when f = Delta - 2' is not defined; please define it as the Barrow entropy exponent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: the spline amplitudes are fitted parameters, the reconstructed omega_de(z) is presented as a posterior fit rather than an out-of-sample prediction, and the central model-comparison claim rests on a standard, if over-interpreted, Delta chi-squared statistic rather than on a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain from the generalized holographic ansatz (Eqs. 7-9) through the Friedmann equation, the EoS formula (Eq. 12), the spline reconstruction, and the likelihood analysis. The entropy-exponent function f(a) is stipulated as an assumption, not derived from data, but an assumed input is not a circular step: the paper's claims are about fit quality and reconstructed posteriors, not about deriving the ansatz from the observations. The nodal amplitudes f_i are free parameters fitted to DESI+SH0ES+Union3 and DESI+SH0ES+PP; the resulting omega_de(z) is explicitly labeled a reconstruction in Figures 4-5, so presenting it as a description of the fit is ordinary Bayesian inference rather than a fitted-input-called-prediction. The Delta chi-squared comparison is computed from the same best-fit chi-squared values used to constrain the model, which is standard model comparison for flexible models; the paper even notes in Table III that the Delta chi-squared labels are 'reference indicators, without formal significance interpretation.' The abstract's 'strong statistical preference' wording is overstated relative to the paper's own Bayes factors (Table IV: B_LCDM,3-Node = 0.12 +/- 0.27 for Union3 and 2.25 +/- 0.30 for Pantheon+), but that is an internal model-comparison inconsistency and an over-interpretation of a fit statistic, not a circular reduction by construction. Self-citations (e.g., refs. [66]-[68], [94]) motivate the reconstruction methodology and earlier phenomenological results, but the present constraints are independently computed with dynesty/SimpleMC and none of the load-bearing conclusions reduces to an unverified self-citation. I therefore find no construction-level circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model adds four holographic parameters (c and three node amplitudes) plus a stipulated entropy-exponent function. The standard cosmological parameters are fitted as usual. No independent observable beyond the fitted datasets fixes f(a), so the reconstruction is data-driven rather than a first-principles derivation.

free parameters (5)

c (holographic parameter) = 0.78+0.06-0.07 (0-Node, Union3); 1.54 +/- 0.80 (3-Node, Union3)
Coefficient in the HDE density; in 3-Node fits it is weakly constrained and saturates the uniform prior U(0,3).
f1 (first spline node amplitude) = -1.62+0.50-0.32 (3-Node, Union3)
Nodal value of the entropy exponent f(a); fitted, controls low-redshift equation of state.
f2 (second spline node amplitude) = -1.84+0.30-0.56 (3-Node, Union3)
Fitted nodal value; together with f1 and f3 defines the quadratic spline.
f3 (third spline node amplitude) = -2.45+0.50-0.80 (3-Node, Union3)
Fitted nodal value at the highest redshift; least constrained of the three nodes.
Standard cosmological parameters (Omega_m, Omega_b h^2, h) = Omega_m=0.35 +/- 0.02, 100 Omega_b h^2=2.22 +/- 0.04, H0=72.90 +/- 0.93 km/s/Mpc (3-Node, Union3)
Marginalized in the fit; not specific to HDE but affect all distance predictions.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Spatially flat FLRW background with radiation neglected
Used in the Friedmann equations (Eqs. 1-3) and justified for late-time data.
domain assumption Holographic principle and Cohen-Kaplan-Nelson entropy bound can be saturated to yield dark energy
Standard HDE motivation from refs 70-76; the paper builds on it without new derivation.
ad hoc to paper Generalized entropy-area relation S_G = gamma A^(2+f(a)/2) and rho_de = K L^f(a) with K = 3 c^2 M_p^2 H0^(f+2)
The central new model ingredient (Eqs. 7-9); no derivation is given and f(a) is a free function.
domain assumption Future event horizon is the characteristic length L
Adopted from Li's HDE model (Eq. 6 and surrounding text); alternative cutoffs are not tested.

invented entities (1)

Scale-factor-dependent entropy exponent f(a)
purpose: Generalizes HDE so constant f recovers Barrow and Tsallis models and f=0 recovers LambdaCDM; its spline shape is the object reconstructed from data.
Postulated in Eq. 7. It is a new function rather than a particle or force, but it is not independently measured; its values are fitted to the same data used for model comparison, so it provides no out-of-sample falsification.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Holographic is the Dark Energy? A Spline Nodal reconstruction approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OSZHWNWS

@misc{pith2026250722292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Holographic is the Dark Energy? A Spline Nodal reconstruction approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OSZHWNWS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22292}
}

abstract

In this work, we explore the generalized holographic dark energy (HDE) scenario. We relate the HDE density to the future-horizon scale via a non-parametric function, which is reconstructed via spline-based nodal interpolation. We perform a Bayesian analysis to assess the model consistency with current observations, including baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) DR1, Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) from the Union3 and Pantheon+ compilations, and local measurements of the Hubble constant, $H_0$, from SH0ES. We show that under specific conditions, the model reduces to $\Lambda$CDM with one node. We find strong statistical evidence against the standard HDE model, and in contrast, the reconstructed HDE model, with three nodes, provides a better fit to the data than the $\Lambda$CDM model, indicating a strong statistical preference for the reconstructed model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22292 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Examples of reconstructions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Triangle plot for marginalized posterior distributions using the DESI+SH0ES+Union3 (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Functional posterior probability of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Posterior reconstruction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Functional posterior energy density ratio for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

The holographic principle can be applied to the entire universe, implying that the characteristic length L must be connected to a cosmological hori- zon scale
[2]

As a result, the formulation and dynamics of HDE models critically depend on the choice of this scale length L

DE originates from quantum vacuum energy. As a result, the formulation and dynamics of HDE models critically depend on the choice of this scale length L. A. F uture event horizon as the characteristic length scale The choice of the characteristic length scale L is a nontrivial aspect and forms one of the foundational el- ements of the HDE framework, as it...
[3]

Type Ia Supernovae In our analysis, we use two SNe Ia datasets:
[4]

These 2087 SNe Ia are then compressed to 22 redshift bins

Union3: The updated ’Union’ compilation of 2,087 cosmologically useful SNe Ia from 24 datasets (’Union3’). These 2087 SNe Ia are then compressed to 22 redshift bins. In our analysis, we use these binned modulus distance observations of Union3 compilations [81]
[5]

This data set comprises 1,701 light curves from 1,550 distinct SNe Ia, covering a redshift range of 0 .01 < z <2.26 and with CovSN, which includes statistical and systematic errors

PantheonPlus (PP): Supernova data from the Pantheon+ dataset, which provides the most recent measurements of the distance modulus [82]. This data set comprises 1,701 light curves from 1,550 distinct SNe Ia, covering a redshift range of 0 .01 < z <2.26 and with CovSN, which includes statistical and systematic errors
[6]

Baryon Acoustic Oscillations Throughout the analysis, we incorporate DESI BAO measurements [15] listed in Table I. These are based on four different classes of extragalactic targets which are: the Bright Galaxy Sample ( BGS) over 5.5 million re- liable redshifts were measured for BGS targets, cover- ing a redshift range of 0 .1 < z < 0.4, the Luminous Red...
[7]

P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, The Cosmological Con- stant and Dark Energy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003), astro-ph/0207347

arXiv 2003
[8]

Frieman, M

J. Frieman, M. Turner, and D. Huterer, Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 46, 385 (2008), 0803.0982

arXiv 2008

Show all 105 references

[9]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Modi- fied Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: Inflation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution, Phys. Rept. 692, 1 (2017), 1705.11098

2017 arXiv
[10]

A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), Observa- tional evidence from supernovae for an accelerating uni- verse and a cosmological constant, Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), astro-ph/9805201

1998 arXiv
[11]

Perlmutter et al

S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high redshift super- novae, Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999), astro-ph/9812133

1999 arXiv
[12]

S. M. Carroll, The Cosmological constant, Living Rev. Rel. 4, 1 (2001), astro-ph/0004075

2001 arXiv
[13]

Perivolaropoulos and F

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

2022 arXiv
[14]

E. Abdalla et al., Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies, JHEAp 34, 49 (2022), 2203.06142. 14

2022 arXiv
[15]

Di Valentino et al

E. Di Valentino et al. , Cosmology Intertwined III: f σ8 and S8, Astropart. Phys. 131, 102604 (2021), 2008.11285

2021 arXiv
[16]

R. C. Nunes and S. Vagnozzi, Arbitrating the S8 dis- crepancy with growth rate measurements from redshift- space distortions, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 505, 5427 (2021), 2106.01208

2021 arXiv
[17]

Di Valentino, Challenges of the Standard Cosmological Model, Universe 8, 399 (2022)

E. Di Valentino, Challenges of the Standard Cosmological Model, Universe 8, 399 (2022)

2022
[18]

Di Valentino, O

E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 153001 (2021), 2103.01183

2021 arXiv
[19]

Vagnozzi, Seven hints that early-time new physics alone is not sufficient to solve the Hubble tension, Uni- verse 9, 393 (2023), 2308.16628

S. Vagnozzi, Seven hints that early-time new physics alone is not sufficient to solve the Hubble tension, Uni- verse 9, 393 (2023), 2308.16628

2023 arXiv
[20]

Vagnozzi, New physics in light of the H0 tension: An alternative view, Phys

S. Vagnozzi, New physics in light of the H0 tension: An alternative view, Phys. Rev. D 102, 023518 (2020), 1907.07569

2020 arXiv
[21]

A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, JCAP 02, 021, 2404.03002

2024 arXiv
[22]

Calderon et al

R. Calderon et al. (DESI), DESI 2024: reconstructing dark energy using crossing statistics with DESI DR1 BAO data, JCAP 10, 048, 2405.04216

2024 arXiv
[23]

A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape Galaxy Clustering from Galaxies and Quasars (2024), 2411.12021

2024 arXiv
[24]

Abdul-Karim, J

M. Abdul-Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C. A. Prieto, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armen- gaud, et al., Desi dr2 results ii: Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14738 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[25]

Lodha et al

K. Lodha et al. (DESI), Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements (2025), 2503.14743

2025 arXiv
[26]

T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with ∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set, Astrophys. J. Lett. 973, L14 (2024), 2401.02929

2024 arXiv
[27]

T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), Dark Energy Survey: im- plications for cosmological expansion models from the fi- nal DES Baryon Acoustic Oscillation and Supernova data (2025), 2503.06712

2025
[28]

Akarsu, T

¨O. Akarsu, T. Dereli, and J. A. Vazquez, A divergence- free parametrization for dynamical dark energy, JCAP 06, 049, 1501.07598

arXiv
[29]

A. R. Cooray and D. Huterer, Gravitational lensing as a probe of quintessence, The Astrophysical Journal 513, L95 (1999)

1999
[30]

Astier, Can luminosity distance measurements probe the equation of state of dark energy?, Physics Letters B 500, 8 (2001)

P. Astier, Can luminosity distance measurements probe the equation of state of dark energy?, Physics Letters B 500, 8 (2001)

2001
[31]

Weller and A

J. Weller and A. Albrecht, Future supernovae observa- tions as a probe of dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 65, 103512 (2002)

2002
[32]

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

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

1999 arXiv
[33]

Chevallier and D

M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics D 10, 213 (2001), (uses Latex, 12 pages, 6 Figures) Minor corrections, Figures 4, 6 revised. Conclu- sions unchanged

2001
[34]

E. V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the uni- verse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003)

2003
[35]

H. K. Jassal, J. S. Bagla, and T. Padmanabhan, Ob- servational constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy: How consistent are different observations?, Phys. Rev. D 72, 103503 (2005)

2005
[36]

Barboza and J

E. Barboza and J. Alcaniz, A parametric model for dark energy, Physics Letters B 666, 415–419 (2008)

2008
[37]

R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave, and P. J. Steinhardt, Cosmologi- cal imprint of an energy component with general equation of state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1582 (1998)

1998
[38]

P. J. Steinhardt, L. Wang, and I. Zlatev, Cosmological tracking solutions, Phys. Rev. D 59, 123504 (1999)

1999
[39]

Chiba, T

T. Chiba, T. Okabe, and M. Yamaguchi, Kinetically driven quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 62, 023511 (2000)

2000
[40]

R. R. Caldwell, A phantom menace? cosmological conse- quences of a dark energy component with super-negative equation of state, Physics Letters B 545, 23 (2002)

2002
[41]

R. R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski, and N. N. Weinberg, Phantom energy: Dark energy with w ¡ -1 causes a cosmic doomsday, Physical Review Letters 91, 10.1103/phys- revlett.91.071301 (2003)

2003 doi
[42]

J. A. V´ azquez, D. Tamayo, A. A. Sen, and I. Quiros, Bayesian model selection on scalar ϵ-field dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043506 (2021), 2009.01904

2021 arXiv
[43]

Bouhmadi-L´ opez, K

M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, K. S. Kumar, J. Marto, J. Morais, and A. Zhuk, K-essence model from the mechanical ap- proach point of view: coupled scalar field and the late cosmic acceleration, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics 2016 (07), 050

2016
[44]

Bose and A

N. Bose and A. S. Majumdar, Unified model of k- inflation, dark matter, and dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 80, 103508 (2009)

2009
[45]

B. R. Dinda and N. Banerjee, Constraints on the speed of sound in the k-essence model of dark energy, The Eu- ropean Physical Journal C 84, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024- 12547-6 (2024)

2024 doi
[46]

T. L. Smith, V. Poulin, and M. A. Amin, Oscillating scalar fields and the hubble tension: A resolution with novel signatures, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063523 (2020)

2020
[47]

Poulin, T

V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, Early dark energy can resolve the hubble tension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 221301 (2019)

2019
[48]

T. Adi, J. Flitter, and E. D. Kovetz, Early dark energy effects on the 21cm signal (2024), 2410.22424

2024 arXiv
[49]

Simon, T

T. Simon, T. Adi, J. L. Bernal, E. D. Kovetz, V. Poulin, and T. L. Smith, Towards alleviating the h0 and s8 ten- sions with early dark energy - dark matter drag (2024), 2410.21459

2024 arXiv
[50]

J. A. V´ azquez, D. Tamayo, G. Garcia-Arroyo, I. G´ omez- Vargas, I. Quiros, and A. A. Sen, Coupled multiscalar field dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023511 (2024), 2305.11396

2024 arXiv
[51]

Mishra and S

S. Mishra and S. Chakraborty, Dynamical system analy- sis of quintom dark energy model, The European Physical Journal C 78, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6405-9 (2018)

2018 doi
[52]

Marciu, Dynamical description of a quintom cosmo- logical model nonminimally coupled with gravity, The European Physical Journal C 80, 10.1140/epjc/s10052- 020-08476-9 (2020)

M. Marciu, Dynamical description of a quintom cosmo- logical model nonminimally coupled with gravity, The European Physical Journal C 80, 10.1140/epjc/s10052- 020-08476-9 (2020)

2020 doi
[53]

Panpanich, P

S. Panpanich, P. Burikham, S. Ponglertsakul, and L. Tannukij, Resolving hubble tension with quintom dark energy model (2020), 1908.03324. 15

2020 arXiv
[54]

Garcia-Arroyo, L

G. Garcia-Arroyo, L. A. Ure˜ na-L´ opez, and J. A. V´ azquez, Interacting scalar fields: Dark matter and early dark en- ergy, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023529 (2024), 2402.08815

2024 arXiv
[55]

Huang and M

Q.-G. Huang and M. Li, The Holographic dark energy in a non-flat universe, JCAP 08, 013, astro-ph/0404229

arXiv
[56]

Zhang, S

Z. Zhang, S. Li, X.-D. Li, X. Zhang, and M. Li, Re- visit of the interaction between holographic dark energy and dark matter, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012 (06), 009

2012
[57]

Y.-H. Li, S. Wang, X.-D. Li, and X. Zhang, Holographic dark energy in a universe with spatial curvature and mas- sive neutrinos: a full markov chain monte carlo explo- ration, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013 (02), 033–033

2013
[58]

M. Li, C. Lin, and Y. Wang, Some issues concerning holo- graphic dark energy, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics 2008 (05), 023

2008
[59]

Jamil, E

M. Jamil, E. N. Saridakis, and M. R. Setare, Holographic dark energy with varying gravitational constant, Phys. Lett. B 679, 172 (2009), 0906.2847

2009 arXiv
[60]

J. Lu, E. N. Saridakis, M. Setare, and L. Xu, Observa- tional constraints on holographic dark energy with vary- ing gravitational constant, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics 2010 (03), 031–031

2010
[61]

B. Chen, M. Li, and Y. Wang, Inflation with holographic dark energy, Nuclear Physics B 774, 256 (2007)

2007
[62]

Gong, Extended holographic dark energy, Phys

Y.-g. Gong, Extended holographic dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 70, 064029 (2004), hep-th/0404030

2004 arXiv
[63]

Guberina, R

B. Guberina, R. Horvat, and H. ˇStefanˇ ci´ c, Hint for quintessence-like scalars from holographic dark energy, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2005 (05), 001–001

2005
[64]

Zhang, Dynamical vacuum energy, holographic quin- tom, and the reconstruction of scalar-field dark energy, Phys

X. Zhang, Dynamical vacuum energy, holographic quin- tom, and the reconstruction of scalar-field dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 74, 103505 (2006)

2006
[65]

Li and S

J.-X. Li and S. Wang, A comprehensive numerical study on four categories of holographic dark energy models (2024), 2412.09064

2024 arXiv
[66]

Li, Y.-H

T.-N. Li, Y.-H. Li, G.-H. Du, P.-J. Wu, L. Feng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Revisiting holographic dark energy after desi 2024 (2024), 2411.08639

2024 arXiv
[67]

E. N. Saridakis, Barrow holographic dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 102, 123525 (2020), 2005.04115

2020 arXiv
[68]

Tavayef, A

M. Tavayef, A. Sheykhi, K. Bamba, and H. Moradpour, Tsallis holographic dark energy, Physics Letters B 781, 195 (2018)

2018
[69]

K. K. Chokyi and S. Chattopadhyay, Cosmology of tsallis and kaniadakis holographic dark energy in saez–ballester theory and consideration of viscous van der waals fluid, Annals of Physics 463, 169611 (2024)

2024
[70]

Basilakos, A

S. Basilakos, A. Lymperis, M. Petronikolou, and E. N. Saridakis, Barrow holographic dark energy with varying exponent (2023), 2312.15767

2023 arXiv
[71]

L. A. Escamilla, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, A. Paliathana- sis, J. A. V´ azquez, and W. Yang, Testing an oscilla- tory behavior of dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023531 (2025), 2404.00181

2025 arXiv
[72]

Alberto Vazquez, M

J. Alberto Vazquez, M. Bridges, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, Reconstruction of the Dark Energy equation of state, JCAP 09, 020, 1205.0847

arXiv
[73]

S. Hee, J. A. V´ azquez, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, Constraining the dark energy equation of state using Bayes theorem and the Kullback–Leibler divergence, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.466, 369 (2017), 1607.00270

2017 arXiv
[74]

L. A. Escamilla and J. A. Vazquez, Model selection ap- plied to reconstructions of the dark energy, The European Physical Journal C 83, 17 (2023)

2023
[75]

L. A. Escamilla, O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, and J. A. Vazquez, Model-independent reconstruction of the inter- acting dark energy kernel: Binned and Gaussian process, JCAP 11, 051, 2305.16290

arXiv
[76]

’t Hooft, Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity (2009), gr-qc/9310026

G. ’t Hooft, Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity (2009), gr-qc/9310026

2009 arXiv
[77]

J. M. Maldacena, The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998), hep-th/9711200

1998 arXiv
[78]

Susskind, The world as a hologram, Journal of Math- ematical Physics 36, 6377 (1995)

L. Susskind, The world as a hologram, Journal of Math- ematical Physics 36, 6377 (1995)

1995
[79]

Chang, F.-Q

Z. Chang, F.-Q. Wu, and X. Zhang, Constraints on holo- graphic dark energy from x-ray gas mass fraction of galaxy clusters, Physics Letters B 633, 14 (2006)

2006
[80]

J. D. Bekenstein, Entropy bounds and black hole rem- nants, Phys. Rev. D 49, 1912 (1994)

1994
[81]

A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, Effective field theory, black holes, and the cosmological constant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4971 (1999)

1999
[82]

Li, A model of holographic dark energy, Physics Let- ters B 603, 1 (2004)

M. Li, A model of holographic dark energy, Physics Let- ters B 603, 1 (2004)

2004
[83]

Dai, Y.-Z

W.-M. Dai, Y.-Z. Ma, and H.-J. He, Reconciling hub- ble constant discrepancy from holographic dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 102, 121302 (2020)

2020
[84]

S. D. Hsu, Entropy bounds and dark energy, Physics Let- ters B 594, 13 (2004)

2004
[85]

Fischler and L

W. Fischler and L. Susskind, Holography and cosmology (1998), hep-th/9806039

1998 arXiv
[86]

Oliveros, M

A. Oliveros, M. A. Sabogal, and M. A. Acero, Barrow holographic dark energy with granda–oliveros cutoff, The European Physical Journal Plus 137, 783 (2022)

2022
[87]

Rubin, G

D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, X. Huang, A. G. Kim, C. Lidman, E. Linder, S. Perlmut- ter, P. Ruiz-Lapuente, and N. Suzuki, Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2311.12098 (2023), 2311.12098

2023 arXiv
[88]

Brout et al

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

2022 arXiv
[89]

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

2022 arXiv
[90]

R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini, and C. C. Steidel, One Percent Determination of the Primordial Deuterium Abundance, Astrophys. J. 855, 102 (2018), 1710.11129

2018 arXiv
[91]

L. E. Padilla, L. O. Tellez, L. A. Escamilla, and J. A. Vazquez, Cosmological Parameter Inference with Bayesian Statistics, Universe 7, 213 (2021), 1903.11127

2021 arXiv
[92]

A. R. Liddle, Information criteria for astrophysical model selection, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 377, L74 (2007), astro-ph/0701113

2007 arXiv
[93]

J. S. Speagle, dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling pack- age for estimating bayesian posteriors and evidences, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 493, 3132–3158 (2020)

2020
[94]

Aubourg et al

E. Aubourg et al. (BOSS), Cosmological implications of baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, Phys. Rev. D 92, 123516 (2015), 1411.1074. 16

2015 arXiv
[95]

D. R. A. Kenneth P. Burnham, Model Selection and Mul- timodel Inference (Springer New York, 2004)

2004
[96]

Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology, Contemporary Physics 49, 71–104 (2008)

R. Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology, Contemporary Physics 49, 71–104 (2008)

2008
[97]

Berti, E

M. Berti, E. Bellini, C. Bonvin, M. Kunz, M. Viel, and M. Zumalacarregui, Reconstructing the dark energy den- sity in light of desi bao observations (2025), 2503.13198

2025 arXiv
[98]

Malekjani, Z

M. Malekjani, Z. Davari, and S. Pourojaghi (DESI), Cos- mological constraints on dark energy parametrizations after DESI 2024: Persistent deviation from standard ΛCDM cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 111, 083547 (2025), 2407.09767

2025 arXiv
[99]

A. N. Ormondroyd, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, Nonparametric reconstructions of dynam- ical dark energy via flexknots (2025), 2503.08658

2025 arXiv
[100]

Akarsu, J

¨O. Akarsu, J. D. Barrow, L. A. Escamilla, and J. A. Vazquez, Graduated dark energy: Observational hints of a spontaneous sign switch in the cosmological constant, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063528 (2020), 1912.08751

2020 arXiv
[101]

Abedin, G.-J

M. Abedin, G.-J. Wang, Y.-Z. Ma, and S. Pan, In search of an interaction in the dark sector through gaussian pro- cess and ann approaches (2025), 2505.04336

2025 arXiv
[102]

E. N. Saridakis and S. Basilakos, The generalized second law of thermodynamics with Barrow entropy, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 644 (2021), 2005.08258

2021 arXiv
[103]

Elbers et al

W. Elbers et al. (DESI), Constraints on Neutrino Physics from DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 Full Shape (2025), 2503.14744

2025 arXiv
[104]

Kumar, A

D. Kumar, A. Mitra, S. A. Adil, and A. A. Sen, Exploring alternative cosmologies with the LSST: Simulated fore- casts and current observational constraints, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043503 (2025), 2406.06757

2025 arXiv
[105]

S. A. Adil, M. G. Dainotti, and A. A. Sen, Revisiting the concordance ΛCDM model using Gamma-Ray Bursts together with supernovae Ia and Planck data, JCAP 08, 015, 2405.01452

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The holographic principle can be applied to the entire universe, implying that the characteristic length L must be connected to a cosmological hori- zon scale

[2] [2]

As a result, the formulation and dynamics of HDE models critically depend on the choice of this scale length L

DE originates from quantum vacuum energy. As a result, the formulation and dynamics of HDE models critically depend on the choice of this scale length L. A. F uture event horizon as the characteristic length scale The choice of the characteristic length scale L is a nontrivial aspect and forms one of the foundational el- ements of the HDE framework, as it...

[3] [3]

Type Ia Supernovae In our analysis, we use two SNe Ia datasets:

[4] [4]

These 2087 SNe Ia are then compressed to 22 redshift bins

Union3: The updated ’Union’ compilation of 2,087 cosmologically useful SNe Ia from 24 datasets (’Union3’). These 2087 SNe Ia are then compressed to 22 redshift bins. In our analysis, we use these binned modulus distance observations of Union3 compilations [81]

[5] [5]

This data set comprises 1,701 light curves from 1,550 distinct SNe Ia, covering a redshift range of 0 .01 < z <2.26 and with CovSN, which includes statistical and systematic errors

PantheonPlus (PP): Supernova data from the Pantheon+ dataset, which provides the most recent measurements of the distance modulus [82]. This data set comprises 1,701 light curves from 1,550 distinct SNe Ia, covering a redshift range of 0 .01 < z <2.26 and with CovSN, which includes statistical and systematic errors

[6] [6]

Baryon Acoustic Oscillations Throughout the analysis, we incorporate DESI BAO measurements [15] listed in Table I. These are based on four different classes of extragalactic targets which are: the Bright Galaxy Sample ( BGS) over 5.5 million re- liable redshifts were measured for BGS targets, cover- ing a redshift range of 0 .1 < z < 0.4, the Luminous Red...

[7] [7]

P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, The Cosmological Con- stant and Dark Energy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003), astro-ph/0207347

arXiv 2003

[8] [8]

Frieman, M

J. Frieman, M. Turner, and D. Huterer, Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 46, 385 (2008), 0803.0982

arXiv 2008