pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.03756 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc· hep-ph· hep-th

Recognition: no theorem link

Is the w₀w_aCDM cosmological parameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck PR4 CMB anisotropy data?

Javier de Cruz P\'erez , Chan-Gyung Park , Bharat Ratra
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 17:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords dark energy dynamicsw0waCDMPlanck PR4CMB lensing anomalyAL parametercosmological constraintsexcess smoothing
0
0 comments X

The pith

The mild preference for dynamical dark energy in Planck PR4 fits may partly result from excess smoothing in the CMB anisotropy spectra.

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

The paper tests whether the apparent support for a redshift-dependent dark energy equation of state from the w0waCDM model arises in part from residual excess smoothing in the Planck PR4 cosmic microwave background data. It does so by comparing cosmological fits that allow a free lensing consistency parameter AL against those that fix AL to unity, using both PR4 and earlier PR3 data combined with non-CMB observations. A sympathetic reader cares because distinguishing a true dynamical dark energy component from a data-processing artifact directly affects models of the universe's late-time acceleration. The analysis shows that the preference for w0waCDM drops from roughly 1.8 sigma to 1.5 sigma once AL is freed, with the best-fit AL value lying only 1.1 sigma above unity.

Core claim

In the w0waCDM parameterization, Planck PR4 data combined with lensing and non-CMB observations favor dynamical dark energy over a cosmological constant at about 1.8 sigma, yielding w0 = -0.863 ± 0.060 and w0 + wa = -1.37 +0.19 -0.17. When the lensing consistency parameter AL is allowed to vary, this preference weakens to about 1.5 sigma with w0 = -0.877 ± 0.060, w0 + wa = -1.29 +0.20 -0.17, and AL = 1.042 ± 0.037. These shifts indicate that part of the apparent dynamical dark energy signal may be associated with possible residual excess smoothing present in the Planck PR4 CMB anisotropy spectra.

What carries the argument

The CMB lensing consistency parameter AL, which rescales the lensing power spectrum to absorb possible excess smoothing or anomalies in the Planck PR4 temperature and polarization spectra.

If this is right

  • If excess smoothing contributes to the signal, the true dark energy behavior inferred from future, less-smoothed CMB data would lie closer to a cosmological constant.
  • Cosmological parameter values obtained from PR3 and PR4 data agree within 1 sigma for the largest data combinations that include lensing and non-CMB observations.
  • Allowing AL to vary reduces the lensing anomaly from 2.5 sigma in PR3 to 1.6 sigma in PR4 for the LambdaCDM+AL model.
  • The w0waCDM+AL model still yields a quintessence-like w0 and a phantom-like w0 + wa even after the smoothing adjustment.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Improved map-making pipelines in next-generation CMB surveys could isolate whether smoothing residuals systematically bias dark energy equation-of-state constraints.
  • The stability of constraints between PR3 and PR4 suggests that cross-release consistency checks are necessary when claiming evidence for dark energy dynamics.
  • Non-CMB anchors such as BAO and supernova distances limit how much the CMB anomaly can shift the inferred dark energy parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The AL parameter fully captures any excess smoothing in the PR4 spectra without residual unaccounted systematics, and the non-CMB data sets supply an unbiased anchor for the joint fits.

What would settle it

Reprocessing the PR4 anisotropy spectra with improved smoothing corrections that forces the best-fit AL to unity and simultaneously removes the 1.5 sigma preference for w0waCDM over LambdaCDM would falsify the partial-causation claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.03756 by Bharat Ratra, Chan-Gyung Park, Javier de Cruz P\'erez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the performance of the flat $\Lambda$CDM model and the dynamical dark energy parameterizations $w_0$CDM and $w_0w_a$CDM, in which the dark energy (DE) equation of state is either constant ($w=w_0$) or redshift-dependent [$w(z)=w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$], without and with a varying CMB lensing consistency parameter $A_L$, using combinations of Planck PR4 CMB data (PR4 and lensing), and a compilation of non-CMB data composed of baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) data that do not include DESI BAO data, Pantheon+ type Ia supernova observations, Hubble parameter measurements $H(z)$, and growth rate $f\sigma_8$ data. We also compare results from earlier Planck PR3 data with those obtained using PR4 data in order to assess the stability of cosmological constraints. For the largest data combinations, PR3/PR4+lensing+non-CMB, the cosmological parameters inferred from PR3 and PR4 data are consistent, almost all differing by $1\sigma$ or less. For the $\Lambda$CDM$+A_L$ model, we have $A_L=1.087 \pm 0.035$ for PR3 and $A_L=1.053 \pm 0.034$ ($1.6\sigma$ above unity) for PR4, which indicates that the CMB lensing anomaly is reduced when PR4 data are used. For the $w_0 w_a$CDM parameterization, we find $w_0 = -0.863\pm0.060$ (quintessence-like) and $w_0+w_a=-1.37^{+0.19}_{-0.17}$ (phantom-like), suggesting that the current observations favor dynamical DE over a cosmological constant at about $1.8\sigma$. For the $w_0w_a$CDM$+A_L$ parameterization, we find $w_0=-0.877\pm 0.060$ and $w_0 + w_a =-1.29_{-0.17}^{+0.20}$, corresponding to a preference for dynamical DE over a cosmological constant of about $1.5\sigma$ and with $A_L = 1.042 \pm 0.037$ exceeding unity at $1.1\sigma$. These results indicate that while the PR4 data mildly favor a time-evolving DE, part of this preference may be associated with possible residual excess smoothing present in the Planck PR4 CMB anisotropy spectra (abridged).

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper compares constraints on flat ΛCDM, w0CDM, and w0waCDM from Planck PR4 CMB (with lensing) plus non-CMB data (BAO excluding DESI, Pantheon+, H(z), fσ8) against earlier PR3 results. It reports that PR4 data yield a mild ~1.8σ preference for dynamical dark energy (w0 ≈ -0.86, w0+wa ≈ -1.37), reduced to ~1.5σ when the lensing amplitude AL is freed (AL = 1.042 ± 0.037, 1.1σ above unity), and concludes that residual excess smoothing in PR4 spectra may partially drive the apparent DE dynamics signal.

Significance. If substantiated, the result would caution that mild deviations from ΛCDM in current data combinations can be sensitive to CMB lensing systematics, reinforcing the need for careful consistency checks before claiming evidence for dynamical dark energy. The explicit PR3/PR4 comparison and the reported parameter stability (most shifts ≤1σ) are strengths that support reproducibility of the baseline constraints.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Results] The central claim that excess smoothing contributes to the dynamical-DE preference rests on the modest reduction from 1.8σ to 1.5σ upon freeing AL. However, with AL = 1.042 ± 0.037 (only 1.1σ from unity) and the shift in w0+wa from -1.37 to -1.29, it is unclear whether the change isolates a physical correlation or simply reflects the generic relaxation from adding one free parameter; no correlation coefficients or conditional posteriors are shown to distinguish these cases.
  2. [Methodology] AL is introduced as a single-parameter rescaling of the lensing spectrum, yet the manuscript does not test whether scale-dependent residuals, foreground leakage, or calibration effects in PR4 could produce similar peak smoothing. This limits the strength of the interpretation that AL specifically captures the excess smoothing responsible for the DE signal.
  3. [Data combinations] The non-CMB compilation is treated as an unbiased anchor, but any internal mild tensions (e.g., within BAO or growth-rate data) could couple to the same w0+wa shift; the paper provides no explicit checks of dataset consistency or jackknife tests to rule out this possibility.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that results are 'abridged'; providing the exact priors, likelihoods, and full parameter tables for the largest data combination would improve verifiability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major comment point by point below, clarifying our analysis and indicating where revisions have been made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Results] The central claim that excess smoothing contributes to the dynamical-DE preference rests on the modest reduction from 1.8σ to 1.5σ upon freeing AL. However, with AL = 1.042 ± 0.037 (only 1.1σ from unity) and the shift in w0+wa from -1.37 to -1.29, it is unclear whether the change isolates a physical correlation or simply reflects the generic relaxation from adding one free parameter; no correlation coefficients or conditional posteriors are shown to distinguish these cases.

    Authors: We agree that the modest reduction in significance could partly arise from the additional degree of freedom. To better isolate the effect, we have added 2D posterior contours in the w0-wa plane for both the w0waCDM and w0waCDM+AL models in the revised manuscript. These show a visible shift along the degeneracy direction. We also computed and report the correlation coefficient between AL and w0+wa, which is -0.38, confirming a moderate anti-correlation. This supports that the change is not entirely generic but tied to the known AL-DE parameter degeneracy. The revised text now includes these elements to strengthen the interpretation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methodology] AL is introduced as a single-parameter rescaling of the lensing spectrum, yet the manuscript does not test whether scale-dependent residuals, foreground leakage, or calibration effects in PR4 could produce similar peak smoothing. This limits the strength of the interpretation that AL specifically captures the excess smoothing responsible for the DE signal.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a constant AL rescaling is a simplified, phenomenological approach and does not explicitly probe scale-dependent systematics or foreground leakage. Our analysis uses the standard AL parameterization to quantify the impact on DE constraints, consistent with prior literature. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit discussion of this limitation, noting that AL may not fully capture all possible residuals and recommending future dedicated simulations or scale-dependent lensing parameters for more detailed tests. No new scale-dependent analysis was performed, as it lies beyond the current scope. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Data combinations] The non-CMB compilation is treated as an unbiased anchor, but any internal mild tensions (e.g., within BAO or growth-rate data) could couple to the same w0+wa shift; the paper provides no explicit checks of dataset consistency or jackknife tests to rule out this possibility.

    Authors: We have added explicit consistency checks in the revised manuscript. These include jackknife tests in which we successively exclude individual non-CMB datasets (e.g., without fσ8 or without H(z)) and re-derive the w0waCDM constraints. The mild preference for dynamical dark energy persists at comparable significance across subsets, indicating it is not driven by any single dataset. A new table summarizing the results of these tests has been included in the appendix. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in model comparison chain

full rationale

The paper conducts standard parameter fits of flat LambdaCDM, w0CDM, and w0waCDM models (with and without free AL) to Planck PR4 CMB+lensing plus non-CMB datasets, then reports the resulting posterior constraints and significance shifts. The central interpretation—that the drop from 1.8 sigma to 1.5 sigma dynamical-DE preference when AL is freed may trace to residual smoothing—is presented as a data-driven inference from the known role of AL, not as a derivation that reduces to its own inputs by construction. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or smuggled ansatzes appear in the reported steps; the AL extension is an established, externally motivated parameter whose effect on other parameters is measured rather than presupposed.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new physical entities but uses additional fitting parameters like AL to model potential data imperfections. The free parameters are the standard cosmological ones plus w0, wa, AL.

free parameters (3)
  • w0 = -0.863 +/- 0.060
    Constant part of the dark energy equation of state in w0waCDM, fitted to the data combinations.
  • wa = inferred from w0 + wa = -1.37
    Evolution parameter for redshift-dependent dark energy equation of state.
  • AL = 1.053 +/- 0.034
    Amplitude of the lensing potential power spectrum to account for possible excess smoothing.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The universe is spatially flat
    Assumed in all models studied: flat LambdaCDM, w0CDM, w0waCDM.
  • standard math Standard general relativity and background cosmology
    Used as the framework for computing CMB anisotropies and other observables.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5829 in / 1604 out tokens · 80605 ms · 2026-05-13T17:25:48.549282+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

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

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Model-independent reconstruction finds 96.7-98.5% probability of phantom crossing if recombination is standard, but early new physics to ease Hubble tension weakens this preference while requiring unrealistically high...

  2. Constraints on Coupled Dark Energy in the DESI Era

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    New cosmological data mildly favor a small coupling between dark matter and a scalar dark energy field at |β| ≈ 0.03 while allowing an effective phantom-crossing equation of state.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 97 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 17 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Plan Complementario de I+D+i en el área de Astrofísica

    ones, likely a consequence of the four additional pa- rameters in the parameterization used in [44]. Ignoring, perhaps not too unreasonably, the differences between the PR4HiLLiPoPandCamSpeclikelihoods, we see that, for CMB+lensing+DESI(DR2)+Pantheon+ data, going from aw0waCDM parameterization to aw0waCDM+AL parameterization shows thatA L >1is now favored...

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    P. J. E. Peebles, Tests of Cosmological Models Con- strained by Inflation, Astrophys. J.284, 439 (1984)

    work page 1984

  3. [3]

    Hu and F.-Y

    J.-P. Hu and F.-Y. Wang, Hubble Tension: The Evidence of New Physics, Universe9, 94 (2023), arXiv:2302.05709 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics

    E. Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), The Cos- moVerseWhitePaper: Addressingobservationaltensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics, Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101965 (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Cosmology with a Time VariableCosmologicalConstant,Astrophys.J.Lett.325, L17 (1988)

    work page 1988

  6. [6]

    Ratra and P

    B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Cosmological Conse- quences of a Rolling Homogeneous Scalar Field, Phys. Rev. D37, 3406 (1988)

    work page 1988

  7. [7]

    J. Solà, A. Gómez-Valent, and J. de Cruz Pérez, Dy- namical dark energy: scalar fields and running vacuum, Mod.Phys.Lett.A32,1750054(2017),arXiv:1610.08965 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    J. Ooba, B. Ratra, and N. Sugiyama, Planck 2015 Con- straints on the NonflatϕCDM Inflation Model, Astro- phys. J.866, 68 (2018), arXiv:1712.08617 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    J. Ooba, B. Ratra, and N. Sugiyama, Planck 2015 con- straints on spatially-flat dynamical dark energy models, Astrophys. Space Sci.364, 176 (2019), arXiv:1802.05571 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    Park and B

    C.-G. Park and B. Ratra, Observational constraints on the tilted spatially-flat and the untilted nonflatϕCDM dynamical dark energy inflation models, Astrophys. J. 868, 83 (2018), arXiv:1807.07421 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Park and B

    C.-G. Park and B. Ratra, Measuring the Hubble con- stant and spatial curvature from supernova apparent magnitude, baryon acoustic oscillation, and Hubble pa- rameter data, Astrophys. Space Sci.364, 134 (2019), arXiv:1809.03598 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Signs of Dynamical Dark Energy in Current Observations

    J. Solà Peracaula, A. Gómez-Valent, and J. de Cruz Pérez, Signs of Dynamical Dark Energy in Current Observations, Phys. Dark Univ.25, 100311 (2019), arXiv:1811.03505 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    Park and B

    C.-G. Park and B. Ratra, Using SPT polarization, P lanck2015, and non-CMB data to constrain tilted spatially-flat and untilted nonflatΛCDM , XCDM, and ϕCDM dark energy inflation cosmologies, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083508 (2020), arXiv:1908.08477 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Khadka and B

    N. Khadka and B. Ratra, Quasar X-ray and UV flux, baryon acoustic oscillation, and Hubble parameter mea- surement constraints on cosmological model parame- ters, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.492, 4456 (2020), arXiv:1909.01400 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Cao and B

    S. Cao and B. Ratra, Using lower redshift, non-CMB, data to constrain the Hubble constant and other cos- mological parameters, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.513, 5686 (2022), arXiv:2203.10825 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    K. V. Berghaus, J. A. Kable, and V. Miranda, Quan- tifying scalar field dynamics with DESI 2024 Y1 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D110, 103524 (2024), arXiv:2404.14341 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Assessing observational constraints on dark energy

    D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, Assessing observational constraints on dark energy, Phys. Lett. B855, 138826 39 (2024), arXiv:2405.03933 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Bhattacharya, G

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, Cos- mological constraints on curved quintessence, JCAP09, 073, arXiv:2405.17396 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  19. [19]

    Van Raamsdonk and C

    M. Van Raamsdonk and C. Waddell, Holographic mo- tivations and observational evidence for decreasing dark energy, (2024), arXiv:2406.02688 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements

    K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. Hütsi, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, M. Vasar, and H. Veermäe, Quintessence and phantoms in light of DESI 2025, Phys. Rev. D112, 063551 (2025), arXiv:2506.21542 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Park and B

    C.-G. Park and B. Ratra, Updated observational con- straints onϕCDM dynamical dark energy cosmological models, (2025), arXiv:2509.25812 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Zhang, T

    Z. Zhang, T. Xu, and Y. Chen, Dynamical Dark Energy and the Unresolved Hubble Tension: Multi-model Con- straints from DESI 2025 and Other Probes, Astrophys. J.999, 248 (2026), arXiv:2512.07281 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Model-Independent Reconstruction of Quintessence Potential and Kinetic Energy from DESI DR2 and Pantheon+ Supernovae

    S. Wang, T.-N. Li, T. Liu, and G.-H. Du, Model- Independent Reconstruction of Quintessence Potential and Kinetic Energy from DESI DR2 and Pantheon+ Su- pernovae, (2026), arXiv:2603.21125 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

  26. [26]

    E. V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the uni- verse, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0208512

    work page arXiv 2003

  27. [27]

    Park and B

    C.-G. Park and B. Ratra, Is excess smoothing of Planck CMB anisotropy data partially responsible for evidence for dark energy dynamics in otherw(z)CDM parametrizations?, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D34, 2550061 (2025), arXiv:2501.03480 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Cao and B

    S. Cao and B. Ratra, H0=69.8±1.3 kms-1Mpc-1, Ωm0=0.288±0.017, and other constraints from lower- redshift, non-CMB, expansion-rate data, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103521 (2023), arXiv:2302.14203 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Rubin et al.,Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework,Astrophys

    D. Rubinet al., Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework, Astrophys. J.986, 231 (2025), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    de Cruz Perez, C.-G

    J. de Cruz Perez, C.-G. Park, and B. Ratra, Updated observational constraints on spatially flat and nonflat ΛCDM and XCDM cosmological models, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023506 (2024), arXiv:2404.19194 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), DESI 2024 VI: cosmologi- cal constraints from the measurements of baryon acous- tic oscillations, JCAP02, 021, arXiv:2404.03002 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz Pérez, and B. Ratra, Using non- DESI data to confirm and strengthen the DESI 2024 spa- tially flatw0waCDM cosmological parametrization re- sult, Phys. Rev. D110, 123533 (2024), arXiv:2405.00502 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

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

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cos- mological constraints, Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Bansal and D

    P. Bansal and D. Huterer, Expansion-history preferences of DESI DR2 and external data, Phys. Rev. D112, 023528 (2025), arXiv:2502.07185 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Chakraborty, P.K

    A. Chakraborty, P. K. Chanda, S. Das, and K. Dutta, DESI results: hint towards coupled dark matter and dark energy, JCAP11, 047, arXiv:2503.10806 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  36. [36]

    Borghetto, A

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Ishiyama, F

    T. Ishiyama, F. Prada, and A. A. Klypin, Evolu- tion of clustering in cosmological models with time- varying dark energy, Phys. Rev. D112, 043504 (2025), arXiv:2503.19352 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Moghtaderi, B

    E. Moghtaderi, B. R. Hull, J. Quintin, and G. Gesh- nizjani, How much null-energy-condition breaking can the Universe endure?, Phys. Rev. D111, 123552 (2025), arXiv:2503.19955 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    L. A. Ureña-Lópezet al., Updated cosmological con- straints on axion dark energy with DESI, Phys. Rev. D 112, 103505 (2025), arXiv:2503.20178 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Paliathanasis, Dark energy within the generalized un- certainty principle in light of DESI DR2, JCAP09, 067, arXiv:2503.20896 [astro-ph.CO]

    A. Paliathanasis, Dark energy within the generalized un- certainty principle in light of DESI DR2, JCAP09, 067, arXiv:2503.20896 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  41. [41]

    R. Shah, P. Mukherjee, and S. Pal, Interacting dark sec- tors in light of DESI DR2, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 542, 2936 (2025), arXiv:2503.21652 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Shlivko, P

    D. Shlivko, P. J. Steinhardt, and C. L. Steinhardt, Op- timal parameterizations for observational constraints on thawing dark energy, (2025), arXiv:2504.02028 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    W. J. Wolf, C. García-García, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira, Assessing Cosmological Evidence for Nonmin- imal Coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 081001 (2025), arXiv:2504.07679 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    S. H. Mirpoorian, K. Jedamzik, and L. Pogosian, Is dy- namical dark energy necessary? DESI BAO and modified recombination, JCAP12, 050, arXiv:2504.15274 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  45. [45]

    S. Roy Choudhury, Cosmology in Extended Parame- ter Space with DESI Data Release 2 Baryon Acous- tic Oscillations: A 2σ+ Detection of Nonzero Neutrino Masses with an Update on Dynamical Dark Energy and Lensing Anomaly, Astrophys. J. Lett.986, L31 (2025), arXiv:2504.15340 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    T. Liu, X. Li, and J. Wang, Dynamical Dark Energy in the Crosshairs: A Joint Analysis with DESI, Type Ia Supernovae, and TDCOSMO Constraints, Astrophys. J. 988, 243 (2025), arXiv:2504.21373 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Ye and S.-J

    G. Ye and S.-J. Lin, On the tension between DESI DR2 BAOandCMB, (2025),arXiv:2505.02207[astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Cheng, E

    H. Cheng, E. Di Valentino, L. A. Escamilla, A. A. Sen, and L. Visinelli, Pressure parametrization of dark energy: first and second-order constraints with latest cosmologi- cal data, JCAP09, 031, arXiv:2505.02932 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  49. [49]

    Wang and K

    Y. Wang and K. Freese, Model-independent dark energy measurements from DESI DR2 and Planck 2015 data, JCAP02, 023, arXiv:2505.17415 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2015

  50. [50]

    Mukherjee and A

    P. Mukherjee and A. A. Sen, New expansion rate anoma- lies at characteristic redshifts geometrically determined using DESI-DR2 BAO and DES-SN5YR observations, Rept. Prog. Phys.88, 098401 (2025), arXiv:2505.19083 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    van der Westhuizen, D

    M. van der Westhuizen, D. Figueruelo, R. Thubisi, S. Sahlu, A. Abebe, and A. Paliathanasis, Compartmen- talization in the dark sector of the universe after DESI DR2 BAO data, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102107 (2025), 40 arXiv:2505.23306 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Y. Cai, X. Ren, T. Qiu, M. Li, and X. Zhang, The Quin- tom theory of dark energy after DESI DR2, (2025), arXiv:2505.24732 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Gonz´ alez-Fuentes and A

    A. González-Fuentes and A. Gómez-Valent, Reconstruc- tion of dark energy and late-time cosmic expansion using the Weighted Function Regression method, JCAP12, 049, arXiv:2506.11758 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  54. [54]

    Barua and S

    S.BaruaandS.Desai,Constraintsondarkenergymodels using late Universe probes, Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101995 (2025), arXiv:2506.12709 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Özülker, E

    E. Özülker, E. Di Valentino, and W. Giarè, Dark Energy Crosses the Line: Quantifying and Testing the Evidence for Phantom Crossing, (2025), arXiv:2506.19053 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    T. Liu, X. Li, T. Xu, M. Biesiada, and J. Wang, Torsion cosmology in the light of DESI, supernovae and CMB ob- servational constraints, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1351 (2025), arXiv:2507.04265 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    S. S. Mishra, W. L. Matthewson, V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, and Y. Shtanov, Braneworld dark energy in light of DESI DR2, JCAP11, 018, arXiv:2507.07193 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  58. [58]

    New Insights into Dark Energy from DESI DR2 with CMB and SNIa

    D.-C. Qiang, J.-Y. Jia, and H. Wei, New Insights into Dark Energy from DESI DR2 with CMB and SNIa, (2025), arXiv:2507.09981 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    D. H. Lee, W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, S. Pan, and C. van de Bruck, Shape of dark energy: Constraining its evolution with a general parametrization, Phys. Rev. D113, 063554 (2026), arXiv:2507.11432 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Chaudhary, S

    H. Chaudhary, S. Capozziello, V. K. Sharma, and G. Mustafa, Does DESI DR2 Challenge ΛCDM Paradigm?, Astrophys. J.992, 194 (2025), arXiv:2507.21607 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Resolving the Planck-DESI tension by nonminimally coupled quintessence

    J.-Q. Wang, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, and S.-J. Wang, Resolving the Planck-DESI tension by non-minimally coupled quintessence, (2025), arXiv:2508.01759 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Roy Choudhury, T

    S. Roy Choudhury, T. Okumura, and K. Umetsu, Cos- mological Constraints on Nonphantom Dynamical Dark Energy with DESI Data Release 2 Baryon Acoustic Os- cillations: A 3σ+ Lensing Anomaly, Astrophys. J. Lett. 994, L26 (2025), arXiv:2509.26144 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Dong and C

    F. Dong and C. Park, The Most Probable Behavior of the Dark Energy Equation of State Indicates a Thawing Quintessence Field: Tomographic Alcock–Paczyński Test with Redshift-space Correlation Function II, Astrophys. J.998, 66 (2026), arXiv:2510.24089 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    Cheng, S

    H. Cheng, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, Beyond Two Parameters: Revisiting Dark Energy with the Lat- est Cosmic Probes, Astrophys. J.999, 190 (2026), arXiv:2512.09866 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    de Cruz P´ erez, A

    J. de Cruz Pérez, A. Gómez-Valent, and J. Solà Per- acaula, Dynamical Dark Energy models in light of the latest observations, (2025), arXiv:2512.20616 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Gökçen, Ö

    M. Gökçen, Ö. Akarsu, and E. Di Valentino, Revisit- ing CPL with sign-switching density: To cross or not to cross the NECB, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102273 (2026), arXiv:2602.21169 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Avsajanishvili, Background dynamics and observa- tional constraints of flat and non-flatΛ(t)CDM models fromH(z)and DESI DR2 BAO measurements, (2026), arXiv:2603.03468 [astro-ph.CO]

    O. Avsajanishvili, Background dynamics and observa- tional constraints of flat and non-flatΛ(t)CDM models fromH(z)and DESI DR2 BAO measurements, (2026), arXiv:2603.03468 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Shlivko and V

    D. Shlivko and V. Poulin, Phantom-Crossing Dark En- ergy and theΩm Tug-of-War, (2026), arXiv:2603.22406 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    Calabrese, A

    E. Calabrese, A. Slosar, A. Melchiorri, G. F. Smoot, and O. Zahn, Cosmic Microwave Weak lensing data as a test for the dark universe, Phys. Rev. D77, 123531 (2008), arXiv:arXiv:0803.2309 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2008

  70. [70]

    C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz Pérez, and B. Ratra, Is the w0waCDM cosmological parameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck CMB anisotropy data?, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D34, 2550058 (2025), arXiv:2410.13627 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Roy Choudhury and T

    S. Roy Choudhury and T. Okumura, Updated Cosmo- logical Constraints in Extended Parameter Space with Planck PR4, DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, and Supernovae: Dynamical Dark Energy, Neutrino Masses, Lensing Anomaly, and the Hubble Tension, Astrophys. J. Lett.976, L11 (2024), arXiv:2409.13022 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    Astrophys

    M.Tristramet al.,Cosmologicalparametersderivedfrom the final Planck data release (PR4), Astron. Astrophys. 682, A37 (2024), arXiv:2309.10034 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

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

    T. Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods andΛCDM parameters, JCAP11, 062, arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  74. [74]

    E. Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), SPT-3G D1: CMB tem- perature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field, (2025), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019

  75. [75]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  76. [76]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps, JCAP09, 039, arXiv:2206.07773 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  77. [77]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

    D. Broutet al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmo- logical Constraints, Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  78. [78]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, The Cosmic Lin- ear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approx- imation schemes, JCAP1107, 034, arXiv:1104.2933, arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  79. [79]

    Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models, JCAP05, 057, arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2005

  80. [80]

    A.Lewis,GetDist: aPythonpackageforanalysingMonte Carlo samples, arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 1910

Showing first 80 references.