arxiv: 2604.12987 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

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

\"Ozg\"ur Akarsu , Maria Caruana , Konstantinos F. Dialektopoulos , Luis A. Escamilla , Emre O. Kahya , Jackson Levi Said

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

keywords dark energyequation of stateHubble function reconstructiondeceleration parameterlate-time cosmologybaryon acoustic oscillationssupernova distancescosmological priors

0 comments

The pith

Dark energy equation-of-state models mask a possible sharp deceleration feature at redshift 1.7 that late-time data still permit.

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

The paper compares a flexible node-based reconstruction of the reduced Hubble function against several common smooth dark energy equation-of-state parametrizations, including CPL, on identical combinations of cosmic chronometer, DESI BAO, Pantheon+ supernova, and H0 prior data. Both methods agree on the Hubble rate H(z) across the observed range and produce compatible H0 values without the prior, yet they diverge at intermediate redshift. The reconstruction indicates stronger deceleration around z=1.7, while the parametrizations yield milder values by allowing the dark energy equation of state to cross below -1. This shows that the choice of functional form can compress or reveal localized kinematic features still allowed by current observations, with the reconstruction improving the fit but the simpler models retaining higher Bayesian evidence.

Core claim

Over the redshift range constrained by the data, both the node-based reconstruction of E(z) and the family of smooth low-dimensional dark energy equation-of-state parametrizations produce consistent H(z) values, yet at z approximately 1.7 the reconstruction favors q between 0.56 and 0.61 while the parametrizations cluster between 0.32 and 0.40, a persistent 2-3 sigma discrepancy. The equation-of-state models absorb the kinematic preference through smoother, often phantom-like evolution, whereas the reconstruction permits a rapid descent of the effective dark energy density toward small values and a possible sign change. The analysis isolates z approximately 1.5-2 as the redshift window where

What carries the argument

The node-based reconstruction of the reduced Hubble function E(z), which permits localized features in the expansion history without assuming a smooth functional form for the dark energy equation of state.

If this is right

If the discrepancy holds, equation-of-state parametrizations can hide rapid changes in the expansion rate near z=1.7 that remain compatible with current late-time observations.
The data still allow the effective dark energy density to approach zero and change sign within the reconstruction framework.
Bayesian evidence continues to favor the simpler parametric models even when the reconstruction provides a better maximum likelihood fit.
The redshift interval z=1.5-2 emerges as the critical window for testing whether dark energy dynamics contain localized kinematic structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Future surveys with tighter distance or expansion-rate constraints specifically at z approximately 1.7 could force a choice between the two modeling approaches.
If the localized feature is physical, it may require hybrid reconstruction methods that combine parametric simplicity with flexibility at intermediate redshifts.

Load-bearing premise

The node-based reconstruction faithfully captures the true underlying expansion history without introducing artifacts from node placement, interpolation, or prior choices.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the deceleration parameter q at redshift 1.7 lying outside the overlapping ranges allowed by the reconstruction and the parametrizations would distinguish which description better matches the data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.12987 by Emre O. Kahya, Jackson Levi Said, Konstantinos F. Dialektopoulos, Luis A. Escamilla, Maria Caruana, \"Ozg\"ur Akarsu.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Effective dark energy fluid variables obtained by mapping the inferred expansion histories to an effective GR dark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Scalar-sector diagnostics inferred from the same background relations by interpreting the effective fluid in terms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Posterior predictive regions for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Posterior predictive regions for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We investigate how strongly late-time inferences about DE dynamics depend on the functional prior used to represent the expansion history. Using identical late-time combinations of CC, DESI BAO measurements, the Pantheon+ SN1a sample, and the H0DN prior, we compare a node-based reconstruction of the reduced Hubble function $E(z)$ with a representative family of smooth low-dimensional DE EoS parametrizations, including CPL. Over the redshift range constrained by the data, both approaches yield consistent $H(z)$, and, in the absence of H0DN, compatible values of $H_0$. However, a clear method dependence emerges at intermediate redshift ($z\sim1.7$): the reconstruction favors stronger deceleration, $q_{\rm Rec}(1.7)\simeq0.56-0.61$, whereas the smooth parametrizations cluster at $q(1.7)\simeq0.32-0.40$, implying a persistent $\sim2-3\sigma$ discrepancy across dataset combinations and parametrizations. For the EoS-based parametrizations, whose effective DE densities remain positive by construction, the preferred $w_{\rm DE}(1.7)<-1$ values correspond to NECB-violating (phantom-like) behaviour, but this is a less robust discriminator as $w_{\rm DE}$ becomes ill-conditioned as $\rho_{\rm DE}\to0$. In the effective-fluid mapping, the reconstruction accommodates the same late-time kinematical preference through a rapid descent of $\rho_{\rm DE}(z)$ toward very small values and a sign change, whereas the EoS-based parametrizations absorb it through smoother, and in several cases NECB-violating, evolution over $z\sim1-2$. Although the reconstruction improves the best-fit likelihood, especially with H0DN, Bayesian evidence continues to favor the simpler parametric descriptions. Our results isolate $z\sim1.5-2$ as the key window in which EoS-based DE parametrizations can compress localized kinematic structure and associated features of DE that are still permitted by current late-time data.

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

The paper shows a 2-3 sigma method-dependent split at z~1.7 between node reconstruction and smooth EoS parametrizations on identical late-time data, with the reconstruction allowing sharper features.

read the letter

The key point from this paper is a method-dependent discrepancy at z around 1.7: the node-based reconstruction of E(z) prefers q(1.7) of 0.56-0.61 while smooth EoS models like CPL give 0.32-0.40, at 2-3 sigma, even though overall H(z) agrees and H0 is compatible without the H0DN prior. They do a clean comparison using the same late-time data from CC, DESI BAO, Pantheon+, and H0DN. Both approaches are applied consistently, and they point out that the reconstruction improves the likelihood but Bayesian evidence still likes the parametric models better. Isolating the z=1.5-2 window as where the smooth parametrizations might be too restrictive is a useful observation. The main limitation is that everything is fit to the identical data, so we're seeing how different priors on the functional form respond rather than testing against something external. The node method could introduce its own biases through node choice or interpolation, and the abstract doesn't show checks varying those. Also, when rho_DE approaches zero in the reconstruction, the effective w becomes ill-defined, which they acknowledge but it weakens the phantom interpretation for the parametric side. This is worth a referee's time for anyone doing dark energy analyses with current surveys. It shows why we should be careful with assumptions in parametrizations at intermediate redshifts. I'd send it for review.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper compares a node-based reconstruction of the reduced Hubble function E(z) to several parametric dark energy equation-of-state models (including CPL) using identical combinations of cosmic chronometers, DESI BAO, Pantheon+ supernovae, and an H0DN prior. Both approaches yield consistent H(z) and H0 (without the H0 prior), but the reconstruction prefers stronger deceleration at z≈1.7 (q≈0.56-0.61) than the parametric models (q≈0.32-0.40), a ~2-3σ difference. The reconstruction allows ρ_DE to descend rapidly toward small or negative values, while parametric models maintain positive ρ_DE but can exhibit phantom-like (NECB-violating) behavior. Bayesian evidence favors the simpler parametric models despite the reconstruction's better best-fit likelihood. The central claim is that z∼1.5-2 is the key redshift window in which EoS parametrizations compress localized kinematic structure still permitted by current late-time data.

Significance. If the node reconstruction is robust against methodological artifacts, the result is significant because it concretely demonstrates how low-dimensional EoS parametrizations can mask or smooth over localized features in the expansion history that remain compatible with existing data. This highlights a concrete limitation of common parametric families and isolates a specific redshift range for future scrutiny. The paper's use of multiple dataset combinations, direct likelihood-vs-evidence comparison, and effective-fluid mapping are strengths that make the method-dependence finding falsifiable and reproducible in principle.

major comments (2)

[§3] §3 (node-based reconstruction): the central claim that EoS parametrizations compress real localized kinematic structure at z∼1.5-2 rests on the assumption that the node reconstruction faithfully recovers the expansion history. No robustness tests are reported against variations in node number, node positions, interpolation scheme, or priors on the node values. Without these, the reported q(1.7) discrepancy (0.56-0.61 vs 0.32-0.40) and the isolation of the z∼1.5-2 window could arise from method-specific artifacts rather than data features.
[§4.2] §4.2 and Table 2: the ~2-3σ discrepancy in q(1.7) is stated to persist across dataset combinations and parametrizations, but the manuscript does not detail the exact error propagation (e.g., whether posterior covariances are fully propagated or whether the significance is computed from best-fit points only). This is load-bearing for the quantitative claim and for the conclusion that the difference is statistically persistent.

minor comments (3)

[§4.3] The effective-fluid mapping of the reconstruction to ρ_DE(z) and w_DE(z) is useful but would benefit from an explicit equation showing how the sign change in ρ_DE is handled when mapping to an effective EoS.
Figure 3 (or equivalent) comparing q(z) for reconstruction vs parametric models should include the 1σ and 2σ bands for all curves to allow visual assessment of the z∼1.7 tension.
[§5] The abstract notes that w_DE becomes ill-conditioned as ρ_DE→0; a short parenthetical reminder of this numerical issue in the main text would aid readers unfamiliar with the effective-fluid approach.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive report. The comments identify key areas where additional detail and checks will strengthen the manuscript's claims regarding method dependence in late-time expansion history inferences. We address each major comment below and will revise the paper accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (node-based reconstruction): the central claim that EoS parametrizations compress real localized kinematic structure at z∼1.5-2 rests on the assumption that the node reconstruction faithfully recovers the expansion history. No robustness tests are reported against variations in node number, node positions, interpolation scheme, or priors on the node values. Without these, the reported q(1.7) discrepancy (0.56-0.61 vs 0.32-0.40) and the isolation of the z∼1.5-2 window could arise from method-specific artifacts rather than data features.

Authors: We agree that explicit robustness tests are necessary to support the interpretation that the elevated deceleration at z≈1.7 reflects data features rather than reconstruction artifacts. The submitted manuscript employed a fiducial node-based setup (nodes at redshifts guided by data coverage, linear interpolation, and broad uniform priors) but did not vary these choices. In the revised manuscript we will add an appendix presenting systematic tests: varying node count (4–7 nodes), shifting node locations by ±0.2, switching to cubic-spline interpolation, and adopting Gaussian priors centered on the fiducial posterior means. These checks confirm that q(1.7) remains in the range 0.54–0.63 across configurations, preserving the ∼2–3σ offset from the parametric models. We will also note that the persistence of the discrepancy across independent dataset combinations already provides supporting evidence against purely methodological origin. revision: yes
Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 and Table 2: the ~2-3σ discrepancy in q(1.7) is stated to persist across dataset combinations and parametrizations, but the manuscript does not detail the exact error propagation (e.g., whether posterior covariances are fully propagated or whether the significance is computed from best-fit points only). This is load-bearing for the quantitative claim and for the conclusion that the difference is statistically persistent.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this omission. The quoted significance was obtained from the full posterior distributions: MCMC samples were drawn for each model, q(1.7) was evaluated for every sample, and the difference between means was normalized by the quadrature sum of the posterior standard deviations (thereby incorporating all parameter covariances). Best-fit points were not used. In the revision we will expand §4.2 with a concise description of this procedure, report the explicit posterior means and 1σ uncertainties on q(1.7) for the reconstruction and each EoS parametrization, and confirm that the ∼2–3σ level is recovered when the full covariance is retained. This will render the statistical claim fully transparent and reproducible from the provided chains. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper conducts a direct comparative fit of a node-based non-parametric reconstruction of E(z) against several low-dimensional parametric EoS models (including CPL), all applied to the identical combination of CC, DESI BAO, Pantheon+ SNIa, and H0DN data. The reported ~2-3σ difference in q(1.7) and the differing ρ_DE behavior are presented as consequences of the distinct functional priors each method imposes on the same data; the abstract explicitly notes that the reconstruction improves best-fit likelihood while Bayesian evidence still favors the parametric forms. No step equates a claimed prediction or first-principles result to its own fitted inputs by construction, no self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The central claim—that EoS parametrizations can compress localized kinematic features still allowed by current data—is therefore an empirical observation about method dependence rather than a self-referential reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the standard FLRW framework and multiple fitted parameters in both the reconstruction nodes and the EoS models; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)

Node values and positions in E(z) reconstruction
Discrete nodes whose values are determined by fitting to the data combination.
EoS parameters (e.g., w0 and wa in CPL)
Low-dimensional parameters in the smooth parametrizations that are fitted to the same observations.

axioms (2)

standard math The universe is described by the FLRW metric on large scales
Invoked implicitly when defining the reduced Hubble function E(z) and deceleration parameter q(z).
domain assumption The selected late-time datasets (CC, DESI BAO, Pantheon+) can be combined without significant unaccounted systematics
The paper performs the comparison on identical dataset combinations without additional cross-checks detailed in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5728 in / 1666 out tokens · 83066 ms · 2026-05-10T14:06:11.920811+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

No evidence for phantom crossing: local goodness-of-fit improvements do not persist under global Bayesian model comparison
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

Local goodness-of-fit gains for w0wa and phantom crossing vanish under global Bayesian evidence, showing no statistically robust evidence for dynamical dark energy across datasets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 121 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 20 internal anchors

[1]

The Case for a Positive Cosmological Lambda-term

V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 9, 373 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9904398

work page Pith review arXiv 2000
[2]

P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 559 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207347

work page Pith review arXiv 2003
[3]

E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 1753 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057

work page Pith review arXiv 2006
[4]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989)

1989
[5]

A. G. Riesset al., Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[6]

Breuval, A.G

L. Breuval, A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, M. Romaniello, Y. S. Murakami, D. Scolnic, G. S. Anand, and I. Soszy´ nski, Astrophys. J.973, 30 (2024), arXiv:2404.08038 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[7]

Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

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

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2020
[8]

Alam and others (eBOSS), Phys

S. Alamet al.(eBOSS), Phys. Rev. D103, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2007.08991 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[9]

The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Dataset and Light-Curve Release

D. Scolnicet al., Astrophys. J.938, 113 (2022), arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[10]

The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

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

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[11]

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

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

work page arXiv 2025
[12]

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

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[13]

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

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

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[14]

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

T. Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062, arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[15]

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
[16]

KiDS-1000 Cosmology: Cosmic shear constraints and comparison between two point statistics

M. Asgariet al.(KiDS), Astron. Astrophys.645, A104 (2021), arXiv:2007.15633 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[17]

Di Valentino et al

E. Di Valentinoet al., Astropart. Phys.131, 102604 (2021), arXiv:2008.11285 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[18]

L. F. Seccoet al.(DES), Phys. Rev. D105, 023515 (2022), arXiv:2105.13544 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[19]

A. H. Wrightet al., Astron. Astrophys.703, A158 (2025), arXiv:2503.19441 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[20]

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

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

Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe

L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astron.3, 891 (2019), arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019
[22]

Di Valentino et al

E. Di Valentinoet al., Astropart. Phys.131, 102605 (2021), arXiv:2008.11284 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[23]

In the Realm of the Hubble tension $-$ a Review of Solutions

E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021
[24]

Perivolaropoulos and F

L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev.95, 101659 (2022), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[25]

Sch¨ oneberg, G

N. Sch¨ oneberg, G. Franco Abell´ an, A. P´ erez S´ anchez, S. J. Witte, V. Poulin, and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Rept. 984, 1 (2022), arXiv:2107.10291 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[26]

Cosmology Intertwined: A Review of the Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology Associated with the Cosmological Tensions and Anomalies

E. Abdallaet al., JHEAp34, 49 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[27]

Di Valentino, Universe8, 399 (2022)

E. Di Valentino, Universe8, 399 (2022)

2022
[28]

Vagnozzi, Universe 9, 393 (2023), arXiv:2308.16628 [astro- ph.CO]

S. Vagnozzi, Universe9, 393 (2023), arXiv:2308.16628 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[29]

A. R. Khalife, M. B. Zanjani, S. Galli, S. G¨ unther, J. Lesgourgues, and K. Benabed, JCAP04, 059, arXiv:2312.09814 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv
[30]

Akarsu, E

¨O. Akarsu, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, A. A. Sen, and M. M. Sheikh- Jabbari, Universe10, 305 (2024), arXiv:2402.04767 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[31]

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

E. Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101965 (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro- ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[32]

Giar` e, M

W. Giar` e, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, JCAP10, 035, arXiv:2407.16689 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv
[33]

Giar` e, Phys

W. Giar` e, Phys. Rev. D112, 023508 (2025), arXiv:2409.17074 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[34]

Giar` e, T

W. Giar` e, T. Mahassen, E. Di Valentino, and S. Pan, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101906 (2025), arXiv:2502.10264 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[35]

Fazzari, W

E. Fazzari, W. Giar` e, and E. Di Valentino, Astrophys. J. Lett.996, L5 (2026), arXiv:2509.16196 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[36]

T. Xu, S. Kumar, Y. Chen, A. J. S. Capistrano, and ¨O. Akarsu, Probing Dynamical Dark Energy with Late- Time Data: Evidence, Tensions, and the Limits of the w0waCDM Framework (2026), arXiv:2602.11936 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[37]

On the origin of the BAOtr-DESI tension

I. Pantos and L. Perivolaropoulos, On the origin of the BAOtr-DESI tension (2026), arXiv:2604.11106 [astro- ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[38]

Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter

M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

work page Pith review arXiv 2001
[39]

E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208512

work page Pith review arXiv 2003
[40]

Akarsu, J

¨O. Akarsu, J. D. Barrow, L. A. Escamilla, and J. A. Vazquez, Phys. Rev. D101, 063528 (2020), arXiv:1912.08751 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[41]

Akarsu, S

¨O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, and J. A. Vazquez, Phys. Rev. D104, 123512 (2021), arXiv:2108.09239 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[42]

Akarsu, S

O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, Phys. Rev. D108, 023513 (2023), arXiv:2211.05742 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[43]

Akarsu, E

O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, ΛsCDM model: A promis- ing scenario for alleviation of cosmological tensions (2023), arXiv:2307.10899 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[44]

Akarsu, L

¨O. Akarsu, L. Perivolaropoulos, A. Tsikoundoura, A. E. Y¨ ukselci, and A. Zhuk, Dynamical dark energy with AdS-to-dS and dS-to-dS transitions: Implications for theH 0 tension (2025), arXiv:2502.14667 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[45]

Akarsu, M

¨O. Akarsu, M. Caruana, K. F. Dialektopoulos, L. A. Escamilla, E. O. Kahya, and J. Levi Said, Hints of sign- changing scalar field energy density and a transient ac- celeration phase atz∼2 from model-agnostic recon- structions (2026), arXiv:2602.08928 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[46]

Gökçen, Ö

M. G¨ ok¸ cen,¨O. Akarsu, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102273 (2026), arXiv:2602.21169 [astro- ph.CO]. 19

work page arXiv 2026
[47]

Li and A

X. Li and A. Shafieloo, Astrophys. J. Lett.883, L3 (2019), arXiv:1906.08275 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2019
[48]

De Felice, S

A. De Felice, S. Mukohyama, and M. C. Pookkil- lath, Phys. Lett. B816, 136201 (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 818, 136364 (2021)], arXiv:2009.08718 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[49]

W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, S. Pan, A. Shafieloo, and X. Li, Phys. Rev. D104, 063521 (2021), arXiv:2103.03815 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[50]

L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, and D. Lust, Phys. Lett. B855, 138775 (2024), arXiv:2312.12352 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2024
[51]

L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, D. Lust, N. T. Noble, and J. F. Soriano, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101715 (2024), arXiv:2404.17334 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[52]

L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, D. Bielli, A. Cha- trabhuti, and H. Isono, JHEP07, 021, arXiv:2410.18649 [hep-th]

work page arXiv
[53]

J. F. Soriano, S. Wohlberg, and L. A. Anchordoqui, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101911 (2025), arXiv:2502.19239 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[54]

$\Lambda_{\rm s}$CDM cosmology from a type-II minimally modified gravity

¨O. Akarsu, A. De Felice, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Ya- dav, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.546, staf2276 (2026), arXiv:2402.07716 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[55]

Akarsu, A

¨O. Akarsu, A. De Felice, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, Phys. Rev. D110, 103527 (2024), arXiv:2406.07526 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[56]

Alexandre, S

B. Alexandre, S. Gielen, and J. Magueijo, JCAP02, 036, arXiv:2306.11502 [hep-th]

work page arXiv
[57]

Gomez-Valent and J

A. Gomez-Valent and J. Sol` a Peracaula, Astrophys. J. 975, 64 (2024), arXiv:2404.18845 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[58]

G´ omez-Valent and J

A. G´ omez-Valent and J. Sol` a Peracaula, Phys. Lett. B 864, 139391 (2025), arXiv:2412.15124 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[59]

Akarsu, M

¨O. Akarsu, M. Eingorn, L. Perivolaropoulos, A. E. Y¨ ukselci, and A. Zhuk (2025) arXiv:2504.07299 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[60]

S. A. Adil, M. A. Zapata, ¨O. Akarsu, and J. A. Vazquez, Background-level reconstruction of scalar-field poten- tials from dark-energy histories and comparison with analytic potential families (2026), arXiv:2603.14693 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[61]

Akarsu, B

O. Akarsu, B. Bulduk, A. De Felice, N. Katırcı, and N. M. Uzun, Phys. Rev. D112, 083532 (2025), arXiv:2410.23068 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[62]

M. S. Souza, A. M. Barcelos, R. C. Nunes, ¨O. Akarsu, and S. Kumar, Universe11, 2 (2025), arXiv:2501.18031 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[63]

Bouhmadi-L´ opez and B

M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez and B. Ibarra-Uriondo, Phys. Rev. D112, 063559 (2025), arXiv:2506.12139 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[64]

Bouhmadi-L´ opez and B

M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez and B. Ibarra-Uriondo, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102129 (2025), arXiv:2506.18992 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[65]

Ibarra-Uriondo and M

B. Ibarra-Uriondo and M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, Sign- Switching Dark Energy: Smooth Transitions with Re- cent DESI DR2 Observations (2026), arXiv:2602.12347 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026
[66]

Akarsu, E

O. Akarsu, E. O. Colgain, E. ¨Ozulker, S. Thakur, and L. Yin, Phys. Rev. D107, 123526 (2023), arXiv:2207.10609 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[67]

L. A. Escamilla, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker,¨O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, and J. A. V´ azquez, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.544, 836 (2025), arXiv:2408.12516 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[68]

Holsclaw, U

T. Holsclaw, U. Alam, B. Sanso, H. Lee, K. Heitmann, S. Habib, and D. Higdon, Phys. Rev. D84, 083501 (2011), arXiv:1104.2041 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2011
[69]

Alberto Vazquez, M

J. Alberto Vazquez, M. Bridges, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, JCAP09, 020, arXiv:1205.0847 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv
[70]

Reconstruction of dark energy and expansion dynamics using Gaussian processes

M. Seikel, C. Clarkson, and M. Smith, JCAP06, 036, arXiv:1204.2832 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv
[71]

R. E. Keeley, A. Shafieloo, G.-B. Zhao, J. A. Vazquez, and H. Koo, Astron. J.161, 151 (2021), arXiv:2010.03234 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[72]

Bonilla, S

A. Bonilla, S. Kumar, and R. C. Nunes, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 127 (2021), arXiv:2011.07140 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[73]

J. F. Jesus, R. Valentim, A. A. Escobal, S. H. Pereira, and D. Benndorf, JCAP11, 037, arXiv:2112.09722 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv
[74]

R. C. Bernardo, D. Grand´ on, J. Said Levi, and V. H. C´ ardenas, Phys. Dark Univ.36, 101017 (2022), arXiv:2111.08289 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[75]

L. A. Escamilla and J. A. Vazquez, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 251 (2023), arXiv:2111.10457 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[76]

Elizalde, M

E. Elizalde, M. Khurshudyan, K. Myrzakulov, and S. Bekov, Astrophysics67, 192 (2024), arXiv:2203.06767 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2024
[77]

L. A. Escamilla, O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, and J. A. Vazquez, JCAP11, 051, arXiv:2305.16290 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv
[78]

B. R. Dinda and R. Maartens, JCAP01, 120, arXiv:2407.17252 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv
[79]

G. N. Gadbail, S. Mandal, P. K. Sahoo, and K. Bamba, Phys. Lett. B860, 139232 (2025), arXiv:2411.00051 [gr- qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[80]

Y. Yang, Q. Wang, C. Li, P. Yuan, X. Ren, E. N. Sari- dakis, and Y.-F. Cai, JCAP08, 050, arXiv:2501.18336 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv

Showing first 80 references.