arxiv: 2512.20832 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Recognition: no theorem link

Thawing Quintessence: Priors, evidence, and likely trajectories

David Shlivko

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 19:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

keywords thawing quintessencedark energyBayesian evidenceDESIsupernovaecosmological constantPadé parameters

0 comments

The pith

Thawing quintessence is preferred over a cosmological constant when supernovae are added to DESI and CMB data.

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

The paper runs a Bayesian model comparison between thawing quintessence and a fixed cosmological constant, using theoretically motivated priors on the Padé-w parameters that parametrize the evolution of dark energy. It reports that the thawing models are favored by the combination of DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, Planck and ACT cosmic microwave background data, and any of the major supernova samples. The preference disappears if supernovae are omitted but is insensitive to the exact choice of prior, and the analysis also maps which specific thawing trajectories remain compatible with the likelihoods.

Core claim

Bayesian evidence ratios with priors on the Padé-w parameters show that thawing quintessence is consistently preferred over a cosmological constant in fits that combine DESI DR2 BAO, Planck+ACT CMB, and any major supernova compilation. The preference requires the supernova data but is robust to prior choice. The Deviance Information Criterion tracks the Bayesian evidence more closely than AIC or BIC, and the observational likelihoods identify a subset of thawing trajectories allowed by the data.

What carries the argument

Phenomenological Padé-w parameters that encode the dynamics of thawing quintessence, equipped with theoretically motivated priors.

If this is right

Current data indicate that dark energy density is likely increasing with time rather than remaining fixed.
Supernova observations are required to distinguish thawing quintessence from a cosmological constant.
Only a limited set of thawing trajectories remain compatible with the combined likelihoods.
The Deviance Information Criterion can be used as a reliable proxy for full Bayesian evidence in dark-energy model comparisons.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If the preference persists in future data, it would point toward a scalar field that began thawing only recently.
Apparent tensions between probes might be alleviated by allowing dark energy to evolve according to the favored trajectories.
Independent cross-checks with upcoming surveys could test whether the current signal survives without the present supernova compilations.

Load-bearing premise

The Padé-w parametrization with the chosen priors adequately captures the full range of thawing quintessence behavior, and the supernova, BAO, and CMB datasets can be combined without significant unaccounted systematic offsets.

What would settle it

A new supernova sample or refined BAO measurement that, when added to the existing CMB data, produces a Bayesian evidence ratio favoring the cosmological constant instead.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.20832 by David Shlivko.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. High-likelihood evolutions of the dark energy equation of state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. MCMC results showing marginalized posteriors and joint 68% and 95% credible regions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We perform a Bayesian comparison between thawing quintessence and a cosmological constant, incorporating theoretically motivated priors on the phenomenological Pad\'e-w parameters used to model thawing dynamics. We find that thawing quintessence is consistently preferred over a cosmological constant when combining BAO data from DESI DR2 and CMB data from Planck+ACT with any of the major supernova compilations, including the recently updated DES-Dovekie sample. This preference is not sensitive to our choice of prior, but it is contingent on the inclusion of supernovae in the analysis. We comment on the consistency between various information criteria and Bayesian evidence ratios, finding that the Deviance Information Criterion (DIC) tracks the Bayesian evidence more reliably than either the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) or the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). Finally, we use observational likelihoods to identify which thawing trajectories are compatible with the available data, independently of theoretical priors.

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

Recent DESI DR2 BAO plus supernovae data favor thawing quintessence over Lambda in this Bayesian setup, but the Padé-w parametrization may not fully cover the model space.

read the letter

The main point is that this analysis finds thawing quintessence preferred over a cosmological constant once DESI DR2 BAO, Planck+ACT CMB, and supernova samples are combined, and the preference survives changes in the priors on the Padé-w parameters. The result disappears without the supernovae, which is worth noting up front. The paper applies standard Bayesian evidence calculations to these newer datasets and checks that the outcome is not driven by prior volume. It also maps out which thawing trajectories remain compatible with the data on their own, separate from the prior choice, and compares information criteria, finding that DIC follows the evidence ratio more closely than AIC or BIC. That last part is a small but practical contribution for people who do model selection in cosmology. The work is timely because it folds in the latest DESI release and the updated DES-Dovekie supernovae, and the prior robustness checks are done explicitly rather than asserted. The trajectory identification step adds something beyond a single evidence number. The soft spot is the parametrization. A two-parameter Padé form for w(a) is convenient, but it is not obvious that every plausible thawing solution from scalar-field potentials sits inside the prior or is approximated well enough by that shape. If a non-negligible fraction of inverse-power-law or exponential-potential trajectories fall outside, the evidence ratios could shift systematically. The abstract states the result is prior-insensitive, yet without a direct coverage test against explicit field solutions the claim rests on the assumption that the chosen form is representative. The dependence on supernovae also hints that dataset tensions may be doing some of the work. This paper is for cosmologists who track dark-energy model comparisons and DESI results. A reader who already works with thawing models or information criteria will get concrete numbers and trajectory plots to think about. It is worth sending to peer review. The data combination is current, the methods are standard, and the parametrization question is the sort of issue referees can address with targeted revisions rather than a reason to desk-reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript performs a Bayesian evidence comparison between a cosmological constant and thawing quintessence, the latter represented by a two-parameter Padé approximant to w(a) equipped with theoretically motivated priors. Using DESI DR2 BAO, Planck+ACT CMB, and multiple supernova compilations (including DES-Dovekie), the authors report a consistent preference for the thawing model. This preference is insensitive to prior choice but requires supernova data; the work also compares information criteria (noting DIC tracks evidence better than AIC/BIC) and identifies observationally favored trajectories independent of priors.

Significance. If the Padé parametrization faithfully spans the space of thawing quintessence trajectories from explicit potentials, the reported data-driven preference would indicate that current observations favor dynamical dark energy, with direct implications for model building and survey design. The information-criteria comparison provides a useful empirical benchmark for future analyses.

major comments (2)

[Padé-w parametrization and priors] The section introducing the Padé-w parametrization and priors: no explicit coverage test or mapping is provided between the two-parameter Padé form and the w(a) trajectories arising from standard thawing potentials (e.g., inverse-power-law or exponential). Without this, the evidence ratios could be biased if a non-negligible fraction of physically plausible thawing solutions lie outside the prior volume or are poorly approximated, undermining the central claim of a robust preference.
[Data combination and likelihood] The data-combination and likelihood sections: the analysis assumes supernova, BAO, and CMB datasets can be combined without unaccounted systematic offsets, yet no quantitative assessment of cross-dataset consistency (e.g., via tension metrics or nuisance-parameter marginalization) is shown. This assumption is load-bearing for the reported preference, which is stated to be contingent on supernova inclusion.

minor comments (2)

[Figures] Figure captions and axis labels could more explicitly state the prior ranges used for the Padé parameters to aid reproducibility.
[Results] A short table summarizing the evidence ratios and information criteria across all dataset combinations would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. These have highlighted areas where additional clarification and supporting material will strengthen the manuscript. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below, indicating the revisions we will implement.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The section introducing the Padé-w parametrization and priors: no explicit coverage test or mapping is provided between the two-parameter Padé form and the w(a) trajectories arising from standard thawing potentials (e.g., inverse-power-law or exponential). Without this, the evidence ratios could be biased if a non-negligible fraction of physically plausible thawing solutions lie outside the prior volume or are poorly approximated, undermining the central claim of a robust preference.

Authors: We agree that an explicit mapping would further solidify the physical grounding of the parametrization. The two-parameter Padé approximant was adopted because prior work has shown it reproduces the thawing trajectories of common potentials (inverse power-law, exponential) to high accuracy under slow-roll conditions, with the priors directly derived from the expected ranges of w0 and wa in those models. In the revised manuscript we will add an appendix containing explicit coverage tests: we will numerically integrate the equations of motion for representative potentials (V ∝ φ^{-n} and V ∝ exp(-λφ)), map the resulting w(a) trajectories onto the Padé parameters, and demonstrate that the prior volume fully encompasses the physically allowed region with negligible truncation or approximation error. This will confirm that the reported evidence ratios are not biased by the choice of parametrization. revision: yes
Referee: The data-combination and likelihood sections: the analysis assumes supernova, BAO, and CMB datasets can be combined without unaccounted systematic offsets, yet no quantitative assessment of cross-dataset consistency (e.g., via tension metrics or nuisance-parameter marginalization) is shown. This assumption is load-bearing for the reported preference, which is stated to be contingent on supernova inclusion.

Authors: We acknowledge that a quantitative consistency check is necessary to support the claim that the preference is driven by the data rather than hidden systematics. In the revised manuscript we will include a dedicated subsection that quantifies inter-dataset consistency using both parameter-shift tension metrics and evidence-based tension measures between the CMB+BAO combination and each supernova sample. We will also show the impact of marginalizing over additional supernova nuisance parameters and demonstrate that the Bayesian evidence ratios remain stable (within the reported uncertainties) across all combinations, with no indication that unaccounted offsets are responsible for the preference for thawing quintessence. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper performs a Bayesian model comparison between a cosmological constant and thawing quintessence using a phenomenological Padé-w parametrization equipped with theoretically motivated priors. The central claim of consistent preference for thawing quintessence is driven by external observational likelihoods from DESI DR2 BAO, Planck+ACT CMB, and supernova compilations, and is explicitly stated to be prior-insensitive. No load-bearing step reduces a prediction or result to a fitted input by construction, relies on self-citation for uniqueness, or renames a known result; the identification of compatible trajectories is performed independently using observational likelihoods. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim depends on the validity of Bayesian evidence ratios for model selection, the adequacy of the Padé parametrization for thawing dynamics, and the assumption that the chosen datasets are mutually consistent without unmodeled systematics.

free parameters (1)

Padé-w parameters
Phenomenological parameters modeling the thawing equation-of-state evolution; priors are placed on them but their specific functional form and range constitute model choices.

axioms (2)

standard math Bayesian evidence provides a reliable measure for comparing thawing quintessence to Lambda
Invoked throughout the model comparison; standard in cosmology but assumes correct likelihoods and priors.
domain assumption The Padé approximation accurately represents thawing quintessence trajectories
Central modeling choice stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5446 in / 1414 out tokens · 33529 ms · 2026-05-16T19:48:05.017439+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages · 14 internal anchors

[1]

unit-information

to compute dark energy perturbations, and we modify the 2016HMcodealgorithm [52, 53] for computing non-linear matter power spectra to be compatible with a non-CPL equation- of-state parameterization. For accurate estimates of maximum likelihood, we run multiple parallel iterations of theiminuitmaximizer [54]. To compute posterior-weighted averages of the ...

work page
[2]

Broutet al., The Astrophysical Journal938, 110 (2022)

D. Broutet al., The Astrophysical Journal938, 110 (2022)

work page 2022
[3]

Rubin, G

D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, X. Huang, A. G. Kim, C. Lidman, E. Linder, S. Perlmutter, P. Ruiz-Lapuente, and N. Suzuki, The Astrophysical Journal986, 231 (2025)

work page 2025
[4]

T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal Letters973, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f 2041
[5]

Adameet al.(DESI Collaboration), Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025 (02), 021

A. Adameet al.(DESI Collaboration), Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025 (02), 021

work page
[6]

M. A. Karimet al.(DESI Collaboration), DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[7]

B. Popovicet al.(DES Collaboration), The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration (2025), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[8]

Lodhaet al.(DESI Collaboration), Physical Review D112, 083511 (2025)

K. Lodhaet al.(DESI Collaboration), Physical Review D112, 083511 (2025)

work page 2025
[9]

Shlivko, P

D. Shlivko, P. J. Steinhardt, and C. L. Steinhardt, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(06), 054

work page
[10]

Alestas, M

G. Alestas, M. Caldarola, I. Ocampo, S. Nesseris, and S. Tsujikawa, DESI constraints on two-field quintessence with exponential potentials (2025), arXiv:2510.21627 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[11]

J. M. Cline and V. Muralidharan, Physical Review D112, 063539 (2025)

work page 2025
[12]

Akrami, G

Y. Akrami, G. Alestas, and S. Nesseris, Has DESI detected exponential quintessence? (2025), arXiv:2504.04226 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[13]

de Souza, G

R. de Souza, G. Rodrigues, and J. Alcaniz, Physical Review D112, 083533 (2025)

work page 2025
[14]

R. Chen, J. M. Cline, V. Muralidharan, and B. Salewicz, Quintessential dark energy crossing the phantom divide (2025), arXiv:2508.19101 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[15]

Goldstein, M

S. Goldstein, M. Celoria, and F. Schmidt, Monodromic Dark Energy and DESI (2025), 19 arXiv:2507.16970 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[16]

W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira, Physical Review Letters135, 081001 (2025)

work page 2025
[17]

W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, Cosmological constraints on Galileon dark energy with broken shift symmetry (2025), arXiv:2509.17586 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[18]

Brax, Weinberg’s theorem, phantom crossing and screening (2025), arXiv:2507.16723 [astro- ph]

P. Brax, Weinberg’s theorem, phantom crossing and screening (2025), arXiv:2507.16723 [astro- ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[19]

H. Adam, M. P. Hertzberg, D. Jim´ enez-Aguilar, and I. Khan, Comparing Minimal and Non- Minimal Quintessence Models to 2025 DESI Data (2025), arXiv:2509.13302 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[20]

Andriot, Physics of the Dark Universe49, 102000 (2025)

D. Andriot, Physics of the Dark Universe49, 102000 (2025)

work page 2025
[21]

Khoury, M.-X

J. Khoury, M.-X. Lin, and M. Trodden, Apparent$w<-1$and a Lower$S 8$from Dark Axion and Dark Baryons Interactions (2025), arXiv:2503.16415 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[22]

Bedroya, G

A. Bedroya, G. Obied, C. Vafa, and D. H. Wu, Evolving Dark Sector and the Dark Dimension Scenario (2025), arXiv:2507.03090 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[23]

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

work page arXiv 2023
[24]

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

work page 2024
[25]

R. N. Cahn, R. de Putter, and E. V. Linder, JCAP11, 015

work page
[26]

Distance and de Sitter Conjectures on the Swampland

H. Ooguri, E. Palti, G. Shiu, and C. Vafa, Phys. Lett. B788, 180 (2019), arXiv:1810.05506 [hep-th]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[27]

S. K. Garg and C. Krishnan, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 75 (2019)

work page 2019
[28]

Agrawal and G

P. Agrawal and G. Obied, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 103 (2019)

work page 2019
[29]

Alho and C

A. Alho and C. Uggla, Physical Review D111, 083549 (2025)

work page 2025
[30]

Shlivko and P

D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, Physics Letters B855, 138826 (2024)

work page 2024
[31]

Shlivko, Physics Letters B846, 138251 (2023)

D. Shlivko, Physics Letters B846, 138251 (2023)

work page 2023
[32]

V. M. Mehta, M. Demirtas, C. Long, D. J. Marsh, L. McAllister, and M. J. Stott, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021(07), 033

work page
[33]

Aghanimet al.(Planck Collaboration), Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A5 (2020)

N. Aghanimet al.(Planck Collaboration), Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A5 (2020)

work page 2020
[34]

Pagano, J.-M

L. Pagano, J.-M. Delouis, S. Mottet, J.-L. Puget, and L. Vibert, Astronomy & Astrophysics 635, A99 (2020). 20

work page 2020
[35]

J., et al

S. Naesset al.(ACT Collaboration), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Maps (2025), arXiv:2503.14451 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[36]

The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and $\Lambda$CDM Parameters

T. Louiset al.(ACT Collaboration), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods andλCDM Parameters (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[37]

F. J. Quet al.(ACT Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal962, 112 (2024)

work page 2024
[38]

MacCrannet al.(ACT Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal966, 138 (2024)

N. MacCrannet al.(ACT Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal966, 138 (2024)

work page 2024
[39]

M. S. Madhavacherilet al.(ACT Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal962, 113 (2024)

work page 2024
[40]

Carron, M

J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022(09), 039

work page 2022
[41]

M. A. Karimet al.(DESI Collaboration), DESI DR2 Results I: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest (2025), arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph]

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

Andradeet al.(DESI) (2025), arXiv:2503.14742 [astro-ph.CO]

U. Andradeet al.(DESI Collaboration), Validation of the DESI DR2 Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from Galaxies and Quasars (2025), arXiv:2503.14742 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[43]

Casaset al.(DESI Collaboration), Validation of the DESI DR2 LyαBAO analysis using synthetic datasets (2025), arXiv:2503.14741 [astro-ph]

L. Casaset al.(DESI Collaboration), Validation of the DESI DR2 LyαBAO analysis using synthetic datasets (2025), arXiv:2503.14741 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[44]

Brodzelleret al.(DESI Collaboration), Construction of the Damped LyαAbsorber Catalog for DESI DR2 LyαBAO (2025), arXiv:2503.14740 [astro-ph]

A. Brodzelleret al.(DESI Collaboration), Construction of the Damped LyαAbsorber Catalog for DESI DR2 LyαBAO (2025), arXiv:2503.14740 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[45]

B. O. S´ anchezet al.(DES Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal975, 5 (2024)

work page 2024
[46]

Vincenziet al.(DES Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal975, 86 (2024)

M. Vincenziet al.(DES Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal975, 86 (2024)

work page 2024
[47]

T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal Letters973, L14 (2024)

work page 2024
[48]

Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models

J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP05, 057, arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[49]

Torrado and A

J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Astrophysics Source Code Library , ascl:1910.019 (2019)

work page 1910
[50]

Efficient Computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models

A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J.538, 473 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911177 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000
[51]

CMB power spectrum parameter degeneracies in the era of precision cosmology

C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall, and A. Challinor, JCAP1204, 027, arXiv:1201.3654 [astro- ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[52]

W. Fang, W. Hu, and A. Lewis, Physical Review D78, 087303 (2008)

work page 2008
[53]

Mead, Astrophysics Source Code Library , ascl:1508.001 (2015)

A. Mead, Astrophysics Source Code Library , ascl:1508.001 (2015)

work page 2015
[54]

A. J. Mead, C. Heymans, L. Lombriser, J. A. Peacock, O. I. Steele, and H. A. Winther, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society459, 1468 (2016). 21

work page 2016
[55]

Dembinski, P

H. Dembinski, P. Ongmongkolkul,et al.10.5281/zenodo.3949207 (2020)

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3949207 2020
[56]

Lewis and S

A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Physical Review D66, 103511 (2002)

work page 2002
[57]

Lewis, Physical Review D87, 103529 (2013)

A. Lewis, Physical Review D87, 103529 (2013)

work page 2013
[58]

R. M. Neal, Taking Bigger Metropolis Steps by Dragging Fast Variables (2005), arXiv:math/0502099

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[59]

Gelman and D

A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Statistical Science7, 457 (1992)

work page 1992
[60]

GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples

A. Lewis, GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[61]

W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters450, L61 (2015), arXiv:1502.01856 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[62]

W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society453, 4385 (2015), arXiv:1506.00171 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[63]

A. R. Liddle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters377, L74 (2007)

work page 2007
[64]

Akaike, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19, 716 (1974)

H. Akaike, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19, 716 (1974)

work page 1974
[65]

Schwarz, The Annals of Statistics6, 461 (1978)

G. Schwarz, The Annals of Statistics6, 461 (1978)

work page 1978
[66]

D. J. Spiegelhalter, N. G. Best, B. P. Carlin, and A. van der Linde, J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B64, 583 (2002)

work page 2002
[67]

D. J. Spiegelhalter, N. G. Best, B. P. Carlin, and A. Linde, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology76, 485 (2014)

work page 2014
[68]

Handley and P

W. Handley and P. Lemos, Physical Review D100, 023512 (2019)

work page 2019
[69]

A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano, D. O. Jones, Y. Mu- rakami, G. S. Anand, L. Breuval, T. G. Brink, A. V. Filippenko, S. Hoffmann, S. W. Jha, W. D’arcy Kenworthy, J. Mackenty, B. E. Stahl, and W. Zheng, The Astrophysical Journal Letters934, L7 (2022)

work page 2022
[70]

The Local Distance Network: a community consensus report on the measurement of the Hubble constant at 1% precision

H. Collaboration, S. Casertano, G. Anand, R. I. Anderson, R. Beaton, A. Bhardwaj, J. P. Blakeslee, P. Boubel, L. Breuval, D. Brout, M. Cantiello, M. C. Reyes, G. Cs¨ ornyei, T. d. Jaeger, S. Dhawan, E. D. Valentino, L. Galbany, H. Gil-Mar´ ın, D. Graczyk, C. Huang, J. B. Jensen, P. Kervella, B. Leibundgut, B. Lengen, S. Li, L. Macri, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, D. W. ...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[71]

W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, T. J. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, A. J. Lee, and K. A. Owens, The Astrophysical Journal985, 203 (2025)

work page 2025
[72]

de Putter and E

R. de Putter and E. V. Linder, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2008(10), 042. 23

work page