Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 6 cited by

Revisiting cosmic acceleration with DESI BAO

T0 review · 4 major / 7 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 DESI BAO data, alone and with CMB and supernova samples, support a negative present-day jerk parameter, implying cosmic acceleration has already peaked and is slowing.

desk verdict Competent reanalysis, but 'strong evidence' for a cosmic acceleration peak overstates a ~1σ, CPL-dependent result. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22575 v2 pith:QV3DJ2GX submitted 2025-07-30 astro-ph.CO

Jincheng Wang , Hongwei Yu , Puxun Wu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmicaccelerationdecelerationparameterjerkCPLparametrizationw0waCDMmodeldarkenergyequationofstateDESIbaryonacousticoscillationsOm(z)diagnostic
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 the expansion of the universe is still speeding up or has already begun to slow down. Working inside a spatially flat $w_0w_a$CDM model whose dark energy equation of state is the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder form $w(z) = w_0 + w_a z/(1+z)$, the authors use DESI first-year BAO measurements alone and combined with Planck CMB and three type Ia supernova catalogs to constrain the deceleration parameter $q(z)$ and the jerk parameter $j(z)$. They find that DESI BAO, DESI BAO+CMB, DESI BAO+CMB+Union3, and DESI BAO+CMB+DESY5 all place $j(0)$ below zero at more than $1\sigma$, which they read as evidence that cosmic acceleration peaked at a small positive redshift and is now declining. The one exception is DESI BAO+CMB+PantheonPlus, which still allows $j(0)=0$ within $1\sigma$. If the central claim is right, the universe is not approaching a de Sitter-like phase of ever-stronger acceleration; instead it has passed a turning point, a direct contradiction of the $\Lambda$CDM prediction of monotonically growing acceleration.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through three kinematic diagnostics built from the scale factor: the deceleration parameter $q(z)$, the jerk parameter $j(z)$, and the $\mathrm{Om}(z)$ diagnostic. The jerk, defined as $j \equiv \dddot{a}/(aH^3)$, is constant and equal to $1$ in flat $\Lambda$CDM at every redshift, so $j(0)<0$ is a direct signature that the acceleration has started to wane. The CPL equation of state $w(z)=w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$ is the two-parameter model that converts the observed Hubble-rate data into these derivatives, and the paper derives an explicit inequality in the $w_0$--$w_a$ plane separating the $j(0)<0$ region from the $j(0)>0$ region. The $\mathrm{Om}(z)$ diagnostic provides a consistency check that does not require derivatives beyond $H(z)$.

What would settle it

Recompute the jerk parameter from the same DESI, CMB, and supernova data using a non-parametric reconstruction of $H(z)$ that does not assume $w(z)=w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$; if that reconstruction yields $j(0)$ consistent with unity, the claimed slowdown is an artifact of the CPL parametrization rather than a feature of the data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the $w_0w_a$CDM model, the paper's central discovery is that the present-day jerk parameter is negative: $j(0)<0$ at more than $1\sigma$ for the DESI BAO, DESI BAO+CMB, DESI BAO+CMB+Union3, and DESI BAO+CMB+DESY5 combinations. Because $\Lambda$CDM fixes $j=1$ at all redshifts, a negative jerk means the third derivative of the scale factor is negative and the deceleration parameter is currently moving upward, so the acceleration that began in the past has reached a maximum and is decreasing. The crossing redshifts where $j(z)=0$ are all positive in those three CMB-based combinations, placing the peak of acceleration in the recent past. The authors cross-check with the $\mathrm{Om}(z)$ diagnostic, whose low-redshift evolution independently favors a dark-energy equation of state close to but greater than $-1$ today, and they give an analytic condition, $w_a < \frac{-3w_0(w_0+1)-2}{3(1-\Omega_{m0})}$, under which $j(0)$ is negative. They also note that a short follow-up with DESI DR2 data leaves the conclusion unchanged.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the true dark energy equation of state is exactly $w(z)=w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$, so the negative jerk is derived inside that two-parameter family; if the real $w(z)$ has a different shape, the reported slowdown could be a parametrization artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Within the assumed $w_0w_a$CDM model, DESI BAO+CMB and the Union3 and DESY5 combinations place the redshift where $j(z)=0$ in the range $z\approx 0.07$--$0.52$, so the peak of cosmic acceleration lies in the recent past rather than at the present day.
  • The same fits prefer $q(0)$ larger than $\Lambda$CDM predicts and a present-day dark-energy equation of state $w_0>-1$, meaning the current expansion is accelerating less strongly than a cosmological constant would produce.
  • The $\mathrm{Om}(z)$ diagnostic evolves with redshift at $z\ll 1$ in the preferred fits, which independently points to dynamical dark energy rather than a constant $w=-1$.
  • The best-fit $j(0)$ is negative in every dataset combination, but the PantheonPlus combination keeps $j(0)=0$ inside $1\sigma$, so the evidence for a slowdown is not uniform across supernova compilations.
  • If the central claim is correct, the $\Lambda$CDM prediction of monotonically increasing cosmic acceleration is falsified inside this parametrization, and dark energy must be evolving.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper is right, the cleanest direct test is to reconstruct $H(z)$ from the same DESI, CMB, and supernova data with a non-parametric method that does not assume the CPL form, and then compute $j(0)$; a positive or unity-compatible value would show the slowdown is a parametrization artifact.
  • Because PantheonPlus, Union3, and DESY5 overlap heavily yet pull in different directions on $j(0)$, the discrepancy is likely a product of each sample's treatment of systematics; a joint reanalysis with one common covariance model would show which compilation is driving the negative jerk.
  • If the peak of acceleration sits near $z\approx 0.1$--$0.3$, as the preferred fits suggest, the highest-value new observations for settling the question are dense low-redshift expansion measurements, such as cosmic chronometers, gravitational-wave standard sirens, or a low-$z$ supernova survey, rather than higher-redshift BAO.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper constrains a spatially flat w0waCDM model with the CPL dark-energy equation of state (Eq. 4) using DESI BAO DR1, Planck CMB, and three SN Ia samples (PantheonPlus, Union3, DESY5). From the MCMC posteriors of (w0, wa, Omega_m0), the authors compute the deceleration parameter q(z), the jerk parameter j(z), and the Om(z) diagnostic (Eqs. 1-3). They report that j(0) < 0 at more than 1 sigma for DESI BAO, DESI BAO+CMB, DESI BAO+CMB+Union3, and DESI BAO+CMB+DESY5, while DESI BAO+CMB+PantheonPlus gives j(0) = -0.14 +/- 0.4. The paper interprets these results as evidence that cosmic acceleration has already peaked and is now declining, and notes without showing details that DESI DR2 does not change the conclusions.

Significance. The analysis is clean and uses standard public tools and data, and the explicit relation between the sign of j(0) and the model parameters (Eq. 6) is a useful presentation. The central claim, however, rests on a weak statistical preference (more than 1 sigma) and on the assumed CPL form of w(z). Because j(0) and Om(z) are deterministic transforms of the fitted (w0, wa, Omega_m0), the paper does not provide an independent falsifiable test of the actual expansion history. If the authors reframe the claim as a statement about the CPL model, or add a parametrization-robustness test, the paper would be a modest but acceptable contribution to the ongoing discussion of DESI data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II.A, Eq. (2)] The jerk parameter is defined as j = d^3 a/dt^3 / (a H^2), which is dimensionally inconsistent (units of inverse time) and does not equal unity in Lambda CDM. The standard definition is j = d^3 a/dt^3 / (a H^3). If the numerical analysis was performed with the standard definition, then Eq. (2) is a typo that must be corrected; otherwise the reported j(0) values do not correspond to the jerk parameter as defined.
  2. [Abstract and Section III (Table II, Fig. 2)] The phrase 'strong evidence' for j(0) < 0 at 'more than 1 sigma' overstates the significance of the results. The DESI BAO-only case is explicitly described as marginal, and DESI BAO+CMB+PantheonPlus yields j(0) = -0.14 +/- 0.4, which is fully consistent with zero at 1 sigma. A >1 sigma preference is conventionally weak evidence; the abstract and conclusions should be reworded to 'hints' or 'moderate evidence', or supplemented with quantitative posterior probabilities for j(0) < 0.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (6) and Om(z) diagnostic] The sign of j(0) is a deterministic function of the fitted parameters (w0, wa, Omega_m0) under the CPL parametrization (Eq. 4), so the conclusion that cosmic acceleration has already peaked is a property of the model posterior rather than an independent measurement. The Om(z) diagnostic is derived from the same fitted H(z) and therefore does not provide independent validation. To support the physical claim, the authors should test an alternative dark-energy parametrization (e.g., w(z) = w0 + wa z/(1+z)^2, or a binned w(z)) and report whether j(0) < 0 persists.
  4. [Section IV, last sentence] The statement 'We have verified that incorporating the DESI DR2 data does not alter the main results' is unsupported, since no DR2 analysis, table, figure, or numerical result is shown. The authors should either include this verification explicitly or remove the claim.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section II.B] The symbols 'omega_0' and 'omega_a' in the text should be 'w_0' and 'w_a' to match the notation used throughout the paper.
  2. [Section II.A] The sentence 'Any deviation of of j(z) from unity' contains a duplicated 'of' and should be corrected.
  3. [Section II.B] The lowercase 'planck' in 'the planck 2018 lowl.TT' should be capitalized as 'Planck'.
  4. [References] Reference [112] appears to be mis-cited: it attributes the Astrophysics Source Code Library entry ascl-1910 to E. V. Linder, but the Cobaya code is by Torrado and Lewis (reference [113]). The reference should be corrected to the appropriate Cobaya entry.
  5. [Section III, Eq. (6)] The term '-2/3(1 - Omega_m0)' in Eq. (6) is ambiguous; it should be written as a fraction, e.g., '-2/[3(1 - Omega_m0)]', to avoid confusion.
  6. [Section III, Fig. 1 caption] The caption says 'red lines represent the median value' but the figure shows red curves with shaded regions; please clarify that the red curves are the medians.
  7. [Section III, text near Fig. 2] The phrase 'the best-fitting value of j(0) is negative' should be 'the median value of j(0) is negative' to be consistent with Table II, which reports median values.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The reported 'slowing of cosmic acceleration' is a re-labelling of the fitted CPL parameter posterior, and the Om(z) cross-check is a tautology.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section III, Eq. (6) and surrounding text]
    "all provide strong evidence for a slowing down of cosmic acceleration at late times, as indicated by j(0) < 0 at more than 1σ confidence level, within the framework of w0waCDM model. ... We find that when w0 and wa satisfy the condition wa < −3w0(w0 + 1) − 2/[3(1 − Ωm0)] (6) the value of j(0) becomes j(0) < 0."

    Within the assumed CPL model, j(0) is a deterministic function of the fitted parameters (w0, wa, Ωm0), and Eq. (6) gives exactly the parameter-space region that produces j(0) < 0. The MCMC analysis constrains only (w0, wa, Ωm0); the reported 'evidence' for slowing acceleration is just the posterior probability mass in that region. No direct measurement of j(0) or model-independent expansion history is used. The headline conclusion is therefore a re-parametrization of the fit rather than an independent prediction.

  2. self definitional [Section III, Eq. (3) and paragraph 'To verify these findings...']
    "To verify these findings, we apply the Om(z) diagnostic. ... At low redshift region (z ≪ 1), we have w ≈ [Om(z) − 1]/(1 − Ωm0)). However, the right column of Fig. 1 represents clearly that Om(z) evolves with redshift in the z ≪ 1 region, which means that the Om(z) diagnostic may favor a dynamical dark energy. These results are well consistent with those obtained from the left and middle columns of Fig. 1."

    Om(z) is defined in Eq. (3) directly from h(z) = H(z)/H0, and the H(z) used in the figures is the fitted CPL expression of Eq. (5). Consequently the redshift evolution of Om(z) and its consistency with the q(z) and j(z) panels are guaranteed by construction—it is the same fitted function rewritten in a different variable. Presenting this as a verification of the inferred slowdown is tautological; it provides no independent check.

full rationale

The paper performs a legitimate MCMC fit of the CPL parameters (w0, wa, Ωm0) to DESI BAO, CMB, and SN data, so the posterior constraints themselves are data-driven. However, the paper's central physical claim—that cosmic acceleration has already peaked and is now slowing—is presented through j(0) < 0. Under the assumed CPL Hubble law, j(0) is an algebraic function of the fitted parameters, and Eq. (6) makes the reduction explicit: j(0) < 0 is exactly the posterior mass in a particular region of the (w0, wa) plane. Thus the headline 'evidence' does not come from a direct kinematic measurement; it is a re-expression of the fit. The paper even calls this framework-dependence in the abstract, but the conclusion is still framed as evidence about the actual cosmic expansion. The Om(z) diagnostic is not an independent cross-check either, since Om(z) is defined from the same H(z) and therefore must agree with the q and j panels by construction. The model dependence on the untested CPL ansatz is a separate concern from circularity, but combined with the tautological Om validation and the re-parametrized jerk claim, the central result partially reduces to the fitted inputs. A score of 6 reflects this partial circularity: the data are real and external, but the claimed 'slowing of acceleration' is a transformed version of the fitted parameters, and the validating diagnostic is definitionally tied to the same fitted Hubble rate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests entirely on the fitted parameters w0, wa, Omega_m0; the derived jerk and Om diagnostics are algebraic functions of these parameters, and no independent observable is predicted.

free parameters (3)
  • w0 = e.g., -0.73 ± 0.07 for DESI+CMB+DESY5
    Equation of state offset parameter fitted to the datasets; the j(0)<0 claim depends on its posterior.
  • wa = e.g., -1.01 ± 0.30 for DESI+CMB+DESY5
    Slope parameter of the CPL equation of state; the condition Eq. (6) is essentially wa < f(w0, Omega_m0).
  • Omega_m0 = e.g., 0.3160 ± 0.0067 for DESI+CMB+DESY5
    Present matter density parameter; enters the j(0) condition via Eq. (6).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Dark energy equation of state is w(z) = w0 + wa z/(1+z) (CPL).
    Adopted in Eq. (4); all derived q, j, Om are conditional on this functional form.
  • domain assumption Universe is spatially flat and contains only matter and CPL dark energy at the redshifts of interest.
    Eq. (5) omits curvature and radiation; standard for late-time BAO/SN analyses.
  • domain assumption Priors w0 in [-3,1], wa in [-3,2], and w0+wa < 0.
    Stated in Section II.B; the inequality enforces early matter domination and truncates parameter space, affecting posterior tails for j(0).
  • domain assumption The published likelihoods for DESI BAO, Planck, and each SN sample are correctly implemented in Cobaya/CAMB.
    The inferences inherit any approximations or systematics in these external likelihoods.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting cosmic acceleration with DESI BAO." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QV3DJ2GX

@misc{pith2026250722575,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting cosmic acceleration with DESI BAO},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QV3DJ2GX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22575}
}
abstract

We revisit the evolution of cosmic acceleration in a spatially flat $w_0w_a$CDM universe, in which the equation of state of dark energy takes the CPL parametrization, using the latest baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), in combination with Planck cosmic microwave background (CMB) data and several type Ia supernova datasets, including PantheonPlus, Union3, and DESY5. We analyze the deceleration parameter $q(z)$ and the jerk parameter $j(z)$ and further validate our results using the $Om(z)$ diagnostic. Our findings indicate significant deviations from the predictions of the $\Lambda$CDM model. Specifically, DESI BAO, DESI BAO + CMB, DESI BAO + CMB + Union3, and DESI BAO + CMB + DESY5 all provide strong evidence for a slowing down of cosmic acceleration at late times, as indicated by $j(0) < 0$ at more than 1$\sigma$ confidence level, within the framework of $w_0w_a$CDM model. These results suggest that in the $w_0w_a$CDM universe cosmic acceleration has already peaked and is now in a phase of decline.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22575 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Evolutions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Constraints of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 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 of 10

    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. The potential broader complex linked to the key Cepheid SV Vul

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    SV Vul and its host cluster Alicante 13 lie at 2.30 ± 0.13 kpc and may share a common origin with the nearby cluster Liu-Pang 1738.

  3. Measuring neutrino mass in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    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.

  4. Model-independent late-universe measurements of $H_0$ and $\Omega_K$ with the parametrization based on cosmic age-improved inverse distance ladder

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

    A cosmic-age-based inverse distance ladder with DESI DR2, DESY5, SGL, CC and GRB data gives H0=71.59±0.94 km/s/Mpc and ΩK=0.001±0.038.

  5. Imprint of swampland-inspired coupled early dark energy

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

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

  6. Alleviating the $H_0$ tension through the interacting dark energy model from quantum gravitational field theory in light of DESI DR2

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

    With DESI DR2 BAO plus CMB and a SH0ES prior, the two-parameter eeΛCDM model gives δΛ=-0.41±0.14 and H0=71.9±1.0, easing the Hubble tension to 0.8σ, but SN datasets erase the signal.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, et al., Astrophys. J. 116, 1009 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhabe, et al., Astron. J. 517, 565 (1999)

    1999

  3. [3]

    D. J. Eisenstein, I. Zehavi, D. W. Hogg, et al., Astrophys. J. 633, 560 (2005)

    2005

  4. [4]

    Hinshaw, D

    G. Hinshaw, D. Larson, E. Komatsu, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208, 19 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, et al., Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    shafieloo, V

    A. shafieloo, V. Sahni, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D 80, 101301 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Hicken, W

    M. Hicken, W. M. Wood-Vasey, S. Blondin, et al., Astrophys. J. 700, 1097 (2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    Hicken, P

    M. Hicken, P. Challis, S. Jha, et al., Astrophys. J. 700, 331 (2009)

    2009

Show all 122 references
  1. [9]

    W. J. Percival, B. A. Reid, D. J. Eisenstein, et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 401, 2148 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Komatsu, J

    E. Komatsu, J. Dunkley, M.R. Nolta, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 180, 330 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    J. C. Fabris, B. Fraga, N. P. Neto and W. Zimdahl, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2010) 008

    2010

  4. [12]

    Y. Gong, B. Wang, and R. Cai, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2010) 019

    2010

  5. [13]

    A. C. C. Guimar˜ aes and J. A. S. Lima, Class. Quantum Grav. 28, 125026 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Z. Li, P. Wu and H. Yu, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2010) 031

    2010

  7. [15]

    Z. Li, P. Wu and H. Yu, Phys. Lett. B 695, 1 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    X. D. Li, S. Li, S. Wang, W. S. Zhang, Q. G. Huang and M. Li, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2011) 011

    2011

  9. [17]

    R. G. Cai and Z. L. Tuo, Phys. Lett. B 706, 116 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    Y. L. Bolotin, O. A. Lemets, and D. A. Yerokhin, Phys. Usp. 55, 876 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    C. Z. Vargas, W. S. Hipolito-Ricaldi, and W. Zimdahl, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2012) 032

    2012

  12. [20]

    V. H. Cardenas and M. Rivera, Phys. Lett. B 710, 251 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    J. Lin, P. Wu and H. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 87, 043502 (2013). 12

    2013

  14. [22]

    Maga˜ na, V

    J. Maga˜ na, V. H. Cadenas and V. Motta, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2014) 017

    2014

  15. [23]

    Shahalam, S

    M. Shahalam, S. Sami and A. Agarwal, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 448, 2948 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Bernal, V

    C. Bernal, V. H. C´ ardenas, V. Motta, Phys. Lett. B 765, 163 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    M. J. Zhang, J. Q. Xia, Nucl. Phys. B 929, 438 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Velten, S

    H. Velten, S. Gomes, and V. C. Busti, Phys. Rev. D 97, 083516 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    B. S. Haridasu, V. V. Lukovic, M. Moresco, and N. Vittorio, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2018) 015

    2018

  20. [28]

    J. A. S. Fortunato, W. S. Hipolito-Ricaldi, N. Videla, and J. R. Villanueva, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 274 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    D. Wang, K. Bamba, arXiv:2506.23029

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, et. al., Astron. J. 168, 58 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2025) 021

    2025

  24. [32]

    Brout, D

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, et al., Astrophys. J. 938, 110 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Rubin, G

    D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, et al., arXiv: 2311.12098

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    T. M. C. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 973, L14 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Calderon et.al, J

    R. Calderon et.al, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2024) 048

    2024

  28. [36]

    M. V. Raamsdonk and C. Waddell, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06 (2024) 047

    2024

  29. [37]

    Tada and T

    Y. Tada and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D 109, L121305 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Yin, JHEP 05 (2024) 327

    W. Yin, JHEP 05 (2024) 327

    2024

  31. [39]

    Luongo and M

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Astron. Astrophys. 690, A40 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Cortes and A

    M. Cortes and A. R. Liddle, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2024) 007

    2024

  33. [41]

    Wang, arXiv: 2404.06796

    D. Wang, arXiv: 2404.06796

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    E. O. Colgain, M. G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, et. al., arXiv:2404.08633

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    K. V. Berghaus, J. A. Kable, and V. Miranda, Phys. Rev. D 100, 103524 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Giare, M

    W. Giare, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and E. Di Valentin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 251003 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Wang and Y

    H. Wang and Y. Piao, arXiv: 2404.18579

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Y. Yang, X. Ren, Q. Wang, Z. Lu, D. Zhang, Y. Cai, and E. N. Saridakis, Science Bulletin 69, 2698 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    C. Park, J. de Cruz Perez, and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123533 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Z. Wang, S. Lin, Z. Ding, and B. Hu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 534, 3869 (2024). 13

    2024

  41. [49]

    Huang, J

    Z. Huang, J. Liu, J. Mo, et al., Phys. Rev. D 110, 123512 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    B. R. Dinda, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2024) 062

    2024

  43. [51]

    Bousis and L

    D. Bousis and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103546 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Lodha, A

    K. Lodha, A. Shafieloo, R. Calderon, et al., Phys. Rev. D 111, 023532 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    O. F. Ramadan and J. Sakstein, Phys. Rev. D 110, L041303 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Roy, Phys

    N. Roy, Phys. Dark Universe 48, 101912 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    H. Wang, Z. Peng, Y. Piao, arXiv: 2406.0339

  48. [56]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. Hutsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, and M. Raidal, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043540 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Chudaykin and M

    A. Chudaykin and M. Kunz, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123524 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Orchard and V

    L. Orchard and V. H. Cardenas, Phys. Dark Univ. 46 101678 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    T. Li, P. J. Wu, G. Du, S. Jin, H. Li, J. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Astrophys. J. 976, 1 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    G. Du, P. J. Wu, T. Li, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 392 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Giare, M

    W. Giare, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, J. T. Firouzjaee, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2024) 035

    2024

  54. [62]

    B. R. Dinda and R. Maarten, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2025) 120

    2025

  55. [63]

    Y. Pang, X. Zhang and Q. Huang, arXiv: 2408.14787

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    Shlivko and P

    D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138826 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    W. J. Wolf, C. G. Garc ´ ıa, D. J. Bartlett and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D110, 083528 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    A. H. Almada, M.L. M. Mart ´ ınez, M. A. G. Aspeitia and V. Motta, Phys. Dark Universe 46, 101668 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    T. Li, Y. Li, G. Du, P. Wu, L. Feng, J. Zhang, and X. Zhang, arXiv: 2411.0863

  60. [68]

    E. O. Colgain and M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari, arXiv: 2412.12905

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    Zheng, D

    J. Zheng, D. Qiang, and Z. You, arXiv: 2412.04830

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Q. Gao, Z. Peng, S. Gao, and Y. Gong, Universe 11, 10 (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

    Notari, M

    A. Notari, M. Redi, and A. Tesi, arXiv: 2411.11685

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    S. D. Odintsov, D. S. C. G´ omez, G. S. Sharov, arXiv:2412.09409

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, G. S. Sharov, arXiv:2503.17946

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, G. S. Sharov, arXiv:2506.02245

  67. [75]

    H¨ og ˚ as, E

    M. H¨ og ˚ as, E. M¨ ortsell, arXiv:2507.03743

  68. [76]

    S. S. Mishra, W. L. Matthewson, V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, Y. Shtanov arXiv:2507.07193. 14

  69. [77]

    Sousa-Neto, C

    A. Sousa-Neto, C. Bengaly, J. E. Gonzalez, and J. Alcaniz, arXiv: 2502.10506

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    Huang, R

    L. Huang, R. Cai, and S. Wang, arXiv: 2502.04212

    arXiv

  71. [79]

    T. Li, G. Du, Y. Li, P. Wu, S. Jin, J. Zhang, and X. Zhang, arXiv: 2501.07361

  72. [80]

    Giar` e, T

    W. Giar` e, T. Mahassen, E. D. Valentino and S. Pan, Phys. Dark Universe48, 101906 (2025)

    2025

  73. [81]

    Efstathiou, Mon

    G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 538, 875–882 (2025)

    2025

  74. [82]

    Y. Liu, Y. Zhang, H. Yu, and P. Wu, arXiv: 2506.03536

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    Carloni, O

    Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023512 (2025)

    2025

  76. [84]

    Notari, M

    A. Notari, M. Redi and A. Tesi, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 04 (2025) 048

    2025

  77. [85]

    A. G. Valent and J. S. Peracaula, Phys. Lett. B 864, 139391 (2025)

    2025

  78. [86]

    Y. H. Pang, X. Zhang and Q. G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123504 (2025)

    2025

  79. [87]

    Chatrchyan, F

    A. Chatrchyan, F. Niedermann, V. Poulin and M. S. Sloth, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043536 (2025)

    2025

  80. [88]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira and C. G. Garc ´ ıa, Phys. Rev. D111, L041303 (2025)

    2025

  81. [89]

    Shlivko, P

    D. Shlivko, P. J. Steinhardt and C. L. Steinhardt, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 06 (2025) 054

    2025

  82. [90]

    T. N. Li, Y. H. Li, G. H. Du, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 02, 608 (2025)

    2025

  83. [91]

    Taule, M

    P. Taule, M. Marinucci, G. Biselli, M. Pietroni and F. Vernizzi, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 03 (2025) 036

    2025

  84. [92]

    F. J. Qu, K. M. Surrao, B. Bolliet, et al., Phys. Rev. D 111, 123507 (2025)

    2025

  85. [93]

    TZ Tang, D

    X. TZ Tang, D. Brout, T. Karwal, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 983, L27 (2025)

    2025

  86. [94]

    Carloni and O

    Y. Carloni and O. Luongo, Class. Quantum Grav. 42, 075014 (2025)

    2025

  87. [95]

    D. A. Kessler, L. A. Escamilla, S. Pan and E. D. Valentino, arXiv:2504.00776

    arXiv

  88. [96]

    C. Li, J. Wang, D. Zhang, E. N. Saridakis and Y. F. Cai, arXiv:2504.07791

    arXiv

  89. [97]

    Chakraborty, P

    A. Chakraborty, P. K. Chanda, S. Das and K. Dutta, arXiv:2503.10806

  90. [98]

    Wang, arXiv:2504.15635

    D. Wang, arXiv:2504.15635

    arXiv

  91. [99]

    Braglia, X

    M. Braglia, X. Chen, A. Loeb, arXiv:2507.13925

  92. [100]

    E. ´O. Colg´ ain, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. S. Jabbari, L. Yin, arXiv:2504.04417

  93. [101]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, M. Raidal, et al., arXiv:2506.21542

  94. [102]

    Shafieloo, J

    A. Shafieloo, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 08 (2012) 002

    2012

  95. [103]

    U. Alam, V. Sahni, T. D. Saini, A. A. Starobinsky, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 344, 1057 (2003)

    2003

  96. [104]

    Visser, Class

    M. Visser, Class. Quantum Grav. 21, 2603 (2004). 15

    2004

  97. [105]

    Rapetti, S

    D. Rapetti, S. W. Allen, M. A. Amin, R. D. Blandford, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 375, 1510 (2007)

    2007

  98. [106]

    R. D. Blandford, M. Amin, E. A. Baltz, K. Mandel, P. J. Marshall, arXiv:astro-ph/0408279

    arXiv

  99. [107]

    Sahni, T

    V. Sahni, T. D. Saini, A. A. Starobinsky, and U. Alam, Jetp Lett. 77, 201 (2003)

    2003

  100. [108]

    Sahni, A

    V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D 78, 103502 (2008)

    2008

  101. [109]

    Zunckel, and C

    C. Zunckel, and C. Clarkson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 181301 (2008)

    2008

  102. [110]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213 (2001)

    2001

  103. [111]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003)

    2003

  104. [112]

    E. V. Linder, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl-1910 (2019)

    2019

  105. [113]

    Torrado, A

    J. Torrado, A. Lewis, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2021) 057

    2021

  106. [114]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J. 538, 473 (2000)

    2000

  107. [115]

    Howlett, A

    C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall and A. Challinor, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2012) 027

    2012

  108. [116]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Statist. Sci., 7, 457 (1992)

    1992

  109. [117]

    Lewis, arXiv:1910.13970

    A. Lewis, arXiv:1910.13970

    1910 arXiv

  110. [118]

    A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04, (2025) 012

    2025

  111. [119]

    A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2025) 124

    2025

  112. [120]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein and A. Lewis, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2022) 039

    2022

  113. [121]

    E. R. Peterson, W. D’Arcy Kenworthy, D. Scolnic, et al., Astrophys. J. 938, 112 (2022)

    2022

  114. [122]

    Abdul Karim, J

    M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, et al., arXiv:2503.14738 16

    arXiv

Pith tools

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