pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.27221 · v2 · pith:ZYQNBIUZnew · submitted 2026-05-26 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Constraints on Dynamical Dark Energy from Multiple Probes in the Full Dark Energy Survey

DES Collaboration: T. M. C. Abbott , M. Adamow , M. Aguena , A. Alarcon , S. Allam , O. Alves , A. Amon , D. Anbajagane
show 160 more authors
F. Andrade-Oliveira P. Armstrong S. Avila J. Beas-Gonzalez K. Bechtol M. R. Becker G. M. Bernstein E. Bertin J. Blazek S. Bocquet D. Brooks D. Brout D. L. Burke H. Camacho G. Camacho-Ciurana R. Camilleri G. Campailla A. Campos A. Carnero Rosell A. Carr J. Carretero F. J. Castander R. Cawthon K. C. Chan C. Chang R. Chen J.M. Coloma-Nadal C. Conselice M. Costanzi M. Crocce W. d'Assignies L. N. da Costa M. E. da Silva Pereira T. M. Davis J. De Vicente D. L. DePoy J. DeRose S. Desai H. T. Diehl S. Dodelson P. Doel C. Doux A. Drlica-Wagner T. F. Eifler J. Elvin-Poole S. Everett A. E. Evrard I. Ferrero A. Fert\'e B. Flaugher P. Fosalba D. Francis de Souza J. Frieman L. Galbany J. Garc\'ia-Bellido M. Gatti G. Giannini P. Giles K. Glazebrook D. Gruen R. A. Gruendl G. Gutierrez I. Harrison W. G. Hartley K. Herner S. R. Hinton D. L. Hollowood K. Honscheid E. M. Huff D. Huterer B. Jain D. J. James M. Jarvis N. Jeffrey T. Jeltema S. Kent R. Kessler A. Kovacs K. Koyama E. Krause R. Kron K. Kuehn O. Lahav J. Lee S. Lee E. Legnani T. S. Li A. R. Liddle C. Lidman H. Lin M. Lin N. MacCrann J. L. Marshall S. Mau R. G. McMahon J. Mena-Fern\'andez F. Menanteau R. Miquel J. J. Mohr J. Muir J. Myles A. M\"oller R. C. Nichol R. L. C. Ogando W. J. Percival D. Petravick A. Pieres A. A. Plazas Malag\'on B. Popovic A. Porredon J. Prat H. Qu M. Raveri J. Rebou\c{c}as W. Riquelme M. Rodriguez-Monroy P. Rogozenski A. K. Romer A. Roodman R. Rosenfeld A. J. Ross E. S. Rykoff M. Sako S. Samuroff C. S\'anchez E. Sanchez D. Sanchez Cid T. Schutt D. Scolnic I. Sevilla-Noarbe N. Shah P. Shah E. Sheldon M. Smith M. Soares-Santos E. Suchyta M. Sullivan M. E. C. Swanson B. O. S\'anchez M. Tabbutt G. Tarle G. Taylor D. Thomas C. To L. Toribio San Cipriano M. Toy M. A. Troxel D. L. Tucker V. Vikram M. Vincenzi N. Weaverdyck J. Weller A. Whyley R.D. Wilkinson P. Wiseman M. Yamamoto B. Yanny B. Yin Y. Zhang J. Zuntz
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 15:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords dark energyequation of stateDark Energy Surveycosmological parameterssupernovaebaryon acoustic oscillationsweak gravitational lensinggalaxy clustering
0
0 comments X

The pith

DES multi-probe analysis yields w0 = -0.84 and wa = -0.44 with 2.2 sigma deviation from a cosmological constant.

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

The paper combines type Ia supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, and weak lensing plus galaxy clustering from the full six-year Dark Energy Survey to constrain the dark energy equation of state. It reports the tightest single-survey bounds yet on the parameters w0 and wa in the linear time-dependent model, with a 2.2 sigma deviation from the constant dark energy case. Adding data from DESI and the CMB increases the deviation to as much as 3.0 sigma while the best-fit values remain in the quadrant where dark energy becomes less negative at late times. The work demonstrates the power of using both growth and geometric probes from the same experiment to test whether dark energy evolves.

Core claim

Using the full DES dataset, the joint analysis of SN Ia, BAO, and 3×2pt probes under the assumption w(a) = w0 + wa(1 − a) produces w0 = −0.84+0.10−0.10 and wa = −0.44+0.60−0.55. This combination deviates from a cosmological constant at 2.2σ. Inclusion of DESI DR2 BAO data tightens the errors and yields a 2.3σ deviation, while adding primary CMB data raises the tension to 3.0σ. The best-fit parameters stay consistently in the region w0 > −1 and wa < 0 across different probe combinations.

What carries the argument

The linear parametrization of the dark energy equation-of-state w(a) = w0 + wa(1-a) applied to the combined likelihood from supernovae, BAO, and 3x2pt measurements.

If this is right

  • The deviation significance varies between 2.3σ and 3.2σ depending on which probes are included.
  • Excluding the supernova sample still produces a 2.6σ departure from Lambda CDM.
  • Adding the 3x2pt probe to SN+DESI+CMB improves the figure of merit by about 10 percent without altering the significance much.
  • These results support the weak preference for dynamical dark energy seen in other recent cosmological analyses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If correct, this would imply that dark energy density has decreased more slowly than in the Lambda CDM model at recent epochs.
  • Independent cross-checks excluding supernovae suggest the signal is not driven by photometric calibration issues in the SN sample.
  • Future analyses could test whether a different functional form for w(a) alters the apparent deviation.
  • Consistency of the signal across growth and geometry probes reduces the likelihood that unmodeled systematics are responsible.

Load-bearing premise

That the assumed linear form w(a)=w0+wa(1-a) captures the true time variation of dark energy and that all systematic errors in the three probes are correctly accounted for without leaving residual biases that mimic the deviation.

What would settle it

Finding that the best-fit w0 and wa move closer to -1 and 0 respectively when using an independent dataset or a different dark energy parametrization, or identifying a specific unaccounted systematic that shifts the combined constraint by more than 2 sigma.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27221 by A. Alarcon, A. Amon, A. A. Plazas Malag\'on, A. Campos, A. Carnero Rosell, A. Carr, A. Drlica-Wagner, A. E. Evrard, A. Fert\'e, A. J. Ross, A. Kovacs, A. K. Romer, A. M\"oller, A. Pieres, A. Porredon, A. R. Liddle, A. Roodman, A. Whyley, B. Flaugher, B. Jain, B. O. S\'anchez, B. Popovic, B. Yanny, B. Yin, C. Chang, C. Conselice, C. Doux, C. Lidman, C. S\'anchez, C. To, D. Anbajagane, D. Brooks, D. Brout, DES Collaboration: T. M. C. Abbott, D. Francis de Souza, D. Gruen, D. Huterer, D. J. James, D. L. Burke, D. L. DePoy, D. L. Hollowood, D. L. Tucker, D. Petravick, D. Sanchez Cid, D. Scolnic, D. Thomas, E. Bertin, E. Krause, E. Legnani, E. M. Huff, E. Sanchez, E. Sheldon, E. S. Rykoff, E. Suchyta, F. Andrade-Oliveira, F. J. Castander, F. Menanteau, G. Camacho-Ciurana, G. Campailla, G. Giannini, G. Gutierrez, G. M. Bernstein, G. Tarle, G. Taylor, H. Camacho, H. Lin, H. Qu, H. T. Diehl, I. Ferrero, I. Harrison, I. Sevilla-Noarbe, J. Beas-Gonzalez, J. Blazek, J. Carretero, J. DeRose, J. De Vicente, J. Elvin-Poole, J. Frieman, J. Garc\'ia-Bellido, J. J. Mohr, J. Lee, J. L. Marshall, J.M. Coloma-Nadal, J. Mena-Fern\'andez, J. Muir, J. Myles, J. Prat, J. Rebou\c{c}as, J. Weller, J. Zuntz, K. Bechtol, K. C. Chan, K. Glazebrook, K. Herner, K. Honscheid, K. Koyama, K. Kuehn, L. Galbany, L. N. da Costa, L. Toribio San Cipriano, M. Adamow, M. Aguena, M. A. Troxel, M. Costanzi, M. Crocce, M. E. C. Swanson, M. E. da Silva Pereira, M. Gatti, M. Jarvis, M. Lin, M. Raveri, M. R. Becker, M. Rodriguez-Monroy, M. Sako, M. Smith, M. Soares-Santos, M. Sullivan, M. Tabbutt, M. Toy, M. Vincenzi, M. Yamamoto, N. Jeffrey, N. MacCrann, N. Shah, N. Weaverdyck, O. Alves, O. Lahav, P. Armstrong, P. Doel, P. Fosalba, P. Giles, P. Rogozenski, P. Shah, P. Wiseman, R. A. Gruendl, R. Camilleri, R. Cawthon, R. Chen, R. C. Nichol, R.D. Wilkinson, R. G. McMahon, R. Kessler, R. Kron, R. L. C. Ogando, R. Miquel, R. Rosenfeld, S. Allam, S. Avila, S. Bocquet, S. Desai, S. Dodelson, S. Everett, S. Kent, S. Lee, S. Mau, S. R. Hinton, S. Samuroff, T. F. Eifler, T. Jeltema, T. M. Davis, T. Schutt, T. S. Li, V. Vikram, W. d'Assignies, W. G. Hartley, W. J. Percival, W. Riquelme, Y. Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Constraints on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The best-constrained values of the pivot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present results on dark energy evolution, assuming a time-dependent equation of state $w(a)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$, from growth and geometric probes using the full six-year Dark Energy Survey dataset: type Ia supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, and weak gravitational lensing and galaxy clustering (3$\times$2pt). The combination yields $w_0=-0.84^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$ and $w_a=-0.44^{+0.60}_{-0.55}$, the tightest constraints ever obtained from a single survey, with $2.2\sigma$ deviation from a cosmological constant. Adding the DESI DR2 BAO data yields $w_0=-0.84^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ and $w_a=-0.53^{+0.33}_{-0.28}$, representing the most stringent low-redshift-only test of dynamical dark energy to date, with a $2.3\sigma$ deviation. In this combination, adding 3$\times$2pt doubles the constraining power. Finally, when combined with primary CMB information, we obtain $w_0=-0.82^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$, $w_a=-0.63^{+0.21}_{-0.18}$, with a $3.0\sigma$ deviation. We find that including 3$\times$2pt in the previously studied SN + DESI BAO + CMB combination leaves the significance essentially unchanged ($3.2 \sigma$ to $3.0\sigma$) while improving the figure of merit by $\sim$10\%. We systematically investigate the impact of leaving out each one of the probes and find that the significance of the deviation from a cosmological constant ranges from 2.3 to 3.2$\sigma$, with best-fit parameters consistently in the region $w_0 >-1$ and $w_a <0$. Excluding SN from the all data combination yields a $2.6\sigma$ departure from $\Lambda$CDM, providing a cross-check independent of supernova photometric calibration. These results support the weak preference for evolving dark energy reported by several recent cosmological analyses. By combining growth and geometric probes from a single survey, this work realizes the multi-probe dark energy program envisioned at the inception of DES.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports constraints on dynamical dark energy in the CPL parametrization w(a)=w0+wa(1-a) from the full six-year DES dataset, combining SNIa, BAO, and 3×2pt probes. The DES-only combination yields w0=-0.84+0.10-0.10 and wa=-0.44+0.60-0.55 with a 2.2σ deviation from ΛCDM; adding DESI DR2 BAO tightens this to 2.3σ, and further inclusion of CMB data reaches 3.0σ. Leave-one-out tests show the deviation significance ranges from 2.3–3.2σ with best-fit values consistently in the w0>-1, wa<0 region. The work emphasizes the multi-probe combination from a single survey.

Significance. If the central results hold after addressing model assumptions and systematics, this would constitute the tightest single-survey constraints on dynamical dark energy to date and provide a valuable cross-check independent of supernova calibration when SN are excluded. The reported improvement in figure of merit when adding 3×2pt to SN+DESI+CMB is a concrete strength of the multi-probe approach.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and results section: The reported 2.2–3.0σ deviations from (w0,wa)=(-1,0) are obtained exclusively within the linear CPL model. The leave-one-out tests vary only the data combinations, not the functional basis for w(a). If the true dark-energy evolution is non-linear (e.g., a step function or different low-z slope), the best-fit point in the CPL plane can shift away from ΛCDM even when the underlying model is exactly ΛCDM. This directly affects the interpretation of the deviation significance and is load-bearing for the claim of support for evolving dark energy.
  2. [Methods] Methods and likelihood analysis (inferred from abstract description of probe combinations): The abstract states consistent best-fit values across combinations but provides no explicit details on the joint covariance matrix construction, treatment of cross-probe systematics, or validation of the likelihood. Without these, it is not possible to assess whether residual biases could produce the observed shift; this is required to substantiate the robustness claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief statement on the number of free parameters and any priors used in the fits.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions (assumed present) should explicitly state the data combinations shown in each panel to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and insightful comments, which help clarify the interpretation and robustness of our results. We address each major comment below and describe the planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results section: The reported 2.2–3.0σ deviations from (w0,wa)=(-1,0) are obtained exclusively within the linear CPL model. The leave-one-out tests vary only the data combinations, not the functional basis for w(a). If the true dark-energy evolution is non-linear (e.g., a step function or different low-z slope), the best-fit point in the CPL plane can shift away from ΛCDM even when the underlying model is exactly ΛCDM. This directly affects the interpretation of the deviation significance and is load-bearing for the claim of support for evolving dark energy.

    Authors: We agree that the reported deviation significance is conditional on the CPL parametrization and that a non-linear true w(a) could induce an apparent shift in the CPL plane even under exact ΛCDM. This is a substantive limitation of the model choice. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion section that (i) explicitly states the results are obtained within CPL, (ii) discusses the possibility of model-misspecification bias with references to alternative parametrizations (e.g., principal-component or step-function forms), and (iii) qualifies the claim of support for evolving dark energy as holding within the linear CPL framework. We will also note that CPL remains the community standard for such multi-probe analyses. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods and likelihood analysis (inferred from abstract description of probe combinations): The abstract states consistent best-fit values across combinations but provides no explicit details on the joint covariance matrix construction, treatment of cross-probe systematics, or validation of the likelihood. Without these, it is not possible to assess whether residual biases could produce the observed shift; this is required to substantiate the robustness claims.

    Authors: The full manuscript contains a Methods section that describes the joint likelihood, covariance construction for the SN+BAO+3×2pt combination, cross-probe systematic marginalization, and validation via simulated catalogs and consistency tests. To make these elements immediately visible from the abstract and to directly address the concern, we will (i) expand the abstract with one sentence summarizing the joint-covariance and validation approach and (ii) add a short “Robustness and validation” subsection that explicitly references the covariance treatment and cross-probe checks. These additions will allow readers to assess residual-bias risks without altering the core results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct multi-probe parameter fits to data

full rationale

The paper reports posterior constraints on w0 and wa obtained by fitting the CPL parametrization w(a)=w0+wa(1-a) to independent observational datasets (SN, BAO, 3x2pt) from DES. The quoted values, deviations (2.2–3.0σ), and leave-one-out tests are direct outputs of the likelihood analysis on the data; no step reduces a reported result to a previously fitted quantity or self-citation by construction. Self-citations to prior DES analyses exist but are not load-bearing for the central constraints, which remain externally falsifiable against the raw survey data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the w0-wa parametrization and the assumption that the three probes provide independent, unbiased measurements of expansion and growth after marginalization over systematics.

free parameters (2)
  • w0 = -0.84
    Present-day dark energy equation of state value fitted to the combined DES and external datasets.
  • wa = -0.44
    Dark energy evolution parameter fitted to the combined DES and external datasets.
axioms (2)
  • standard math The universe follows the FLRW metric and standard general relativity.
    Implicit background framework required to interpret all geometric and growth probes.
  • domain assumption The linear parametrization w(a)=w0 + wa(1-a) is sufficient to capture any dynamical dark energy behavior.
    Used to model time-dependent dark energy throughout the analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6918 in / 1783 out tokens · 65456 ms · 2026-06-29T15:46:55.159732+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 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Evolving Dark Energy Is Vacuum Energy After All

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A QCD-vacuum-based model of dynamical dark energy fits Planck+ACT+SPT, DESI DR2, and supernova data while reproducing the late-time evolution favored by DESI.

  2. Consistency of DES and DESI distances and the Standard Cosmological Model

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    DESI recovers the CMB-constrained parameter combination at sub-percent precision; high-redshift DES supernovae fit flat Lambda CDM while a 0.05 mag offset in the low-redshift anchor sample may be systematic, supportin...

  3. Matter influence on large-scale scalar dynamics

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Matter modeled as stochastic sources induces stochastic noise and new interactions in the large-scale EFT for light scalars, yielding corrections to the Klein-Gordon equation that can mimic dynamical dark energy or pr...

  4. On the potential for inhomogeneities to mimic an evolving dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Numerical simulations show that inhomogeneities in a LambdaCDM universe can lead some observers to infer evolving dark energy parameters consistent with DESI at 2-sigma.

  5. The stability of voids in the Local Universe: The role of the cosmological constant

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Cosmological constant repulsion stabilizes voids in the Local Universe by suppressing collapse modes through Landau damping and driving residual matter outward to void boundaries.

  6. A short review on Quintom dark energy theory

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted

    Quintom dark energy models permit the equation of state to cross w=-1, supporting bouncing cosmologies and CMB-based tests of dark energy nature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers · 31 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    DES Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D98, 043526 (2018), arXiv:1708.01530 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    DES Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D105, 023520 (2022), arXiv:2105.13549 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    DES Collaboration, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2601.14559 (2026), arXiv:2601.14559 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    DES Collaboration, ApJ973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Popovicet al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.05471 (2025), arXiv:2506.05471 [astro-ph.CO]

    B. Popovicet al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.05471 (2025), arXiv:2506.05471 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic,et al., ApJ938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    T. J. Hoyt, D. Rubin, G. Aldering, S. Perlmutter, A. Cuceu, and R. Gupta, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2601.19424 (2026), arXiv:2601.19424 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Planck Collaboration, A&A641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

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

    T. Louiset al.(ACT), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14452 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field

    E. Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.20707 (2025), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Weinberg, Rev

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

    1989

  12. [12]

    Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Cosmological Constant Problem (But Were Afraid To Ask)

    J. Martin, Comptes Rendus Physique13, 566 (2012), arXiv:1205.3365 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  13. [13]

    J. A. Frieman, C. T. Hill, A. Stebbins, and I. Waga, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 2077 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9505060 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2077

  14. [14]

    Ratra and P

    B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D37, 3406 (1988)

    1988

  15. [15]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1582 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9708069 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  16. [16]

    Kinetically Driven Quintessence

    T. Chiba, T. Okabe, and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D62, 023511 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9912463 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  17. [17]

    R. R. Caldwell, Physics Letters B545, 23 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/9908168 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2002

  18. [18]

    Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, International Journal of Modern Physics D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  19. [19]

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

    work page arXiv 2003

  20. [20]

    The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration

    B. Popovicet al.(DES), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2511.07517 (2025), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    DES Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D110, 063515 (2024), arXiv:2402.10696 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    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 Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements

    K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    DES Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D113, 063530 (2026), arXiv:2503.06712 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Hu, Phys

    W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D71, 047301 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0410680

    work page arXiv 2005

  27. [27]

    Cosmological Evolution of a Quintom Model of Dark Energy

    Z.-K. Guo, Y .-S. Piao, X.-M. Zhang, and Y .-Z. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B608, 177 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0410654

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  28. [28]

    Khoury, M.-X

    J. Khoury, M.-X. Lin, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 181001 (2025), arXiv:2503.16415 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Evolving Dark Sector and the Dark Dimension Scenario

    A. Bedroya, G. Obied, C. Vafa, and D. H. Wu, (2025), arXiv:2507.03090 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, and A. Silvestri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 181002 (2025), arXiv:2407.15832 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Non-minimally coupled gravity constraints from DESI DR2 data

    J. Pan and G. Ye, Phys. Rev. D113, L041304 (2026), arXiv:2503.19898 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ıa-Garc´ıa, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 081001 (2025), arXiv:2504.07679 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc ´ıa-Garc´ıa, Phys. Rev. D 113, 023551 (2026), arXiv:2509.17586 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Tsujikawa, Phys

    S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D113, L041301 (2026), arXiv:2508.17231 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Cataneo and K

    M. Cataneo and K. Koyama, (2025), arXiv:2512.13691 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    DES Collaborationet al.(DES), MNRAS460, 1270 (2016), arXiv:1601.00329 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  37. [37]

    DES Collaboration, ApJS255, 20 (2021), arXiv:2101.05765 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Bechtolet al.(DES), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2501.05739 (2025), arXiv:2501.05739 [astro-ph.CO]

    K. Bechtolet al.(DES), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2501.05739 (2025), arXiv:2501.05739 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Anbajagane, M

    D. Anbajagane, M. Tabbutt,et al.(DES), The Open Journal of Astrophysics8, 65 (2025), arXiv:2501.05683 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Schuttet al.(DES), The Open Journal of Astrophysics8, 26 (2025), arXiv:2501.05781 [astro-ph.CO]

    T. Schuttet al.(DES), The Open Journal of Astrophysics8, 26 (2025), arXiv:2501.05781 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Weaverdyck, M

    N. Weaverdyck, M. Rodr ´ıguez-Monroy,et al.(DES), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2601.14484 (2026), arXiv:2601.14484 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    S. Mau, M. Becker,et al.(DES),in prep(2026)

    2026

  43. [43]

    Yamamoto, M

    M. Yamamoto, M. R. Becker,et al.(DES), MNRAS543, 4156 (2025), arXiv:2501.05665 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Rodr ´ıguez-Monroy, N

    M. Rodr ´ıguez-Monroy, N. Weaverdyck,et al.(DES), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.07943 (2025), arXiv:2509.07943 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Dark Energy Survey Year 6 Results: Redshift Calibration of the Weak Lensing Source Galaxies

    B. Yinet al.(DES), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.23566 (2025), arXiv:2510.23566 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Gianniniet al.(DES), Phys

    G. Gianniniet al.(DES), Phys. Rev. D , arXiv:2509.07964 (2025), arXiv:2509.07964 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    d’Assignieset al.(DES), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.23565 (2025), arXiv:2510.23565 [astro-ph.CO]

    W. d’Assignieset al.(DES), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.23565 (2025), arXiv:2510.23565 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Dimensional reduction for sampled priors and application to photometric redshift distributions

    G. Bernsteinet al.(DES), ApJ1002, 95 (2026), arXiv:2506.00758 [astro-ph.IM]. 10

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    Legnaniet al.(DES), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2601.14833 (2026), arXiv:2601.14833 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Legnaniet al.(DES), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2601.14833 (2026), arXiv:2601.14833 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Toet al.(DES), Phys

    C.-H. Toet al.(DES), Phys. Rev. D112, 063537 (2025), arXiv:2503.13631 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Gianniniet al.(DES), Phys

    G. Gianniniet al.(DES), Phys. Rev. D113, 103503 (2026), arXiv:2601.15175 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    Sanchez-Cid, A

    D. Sanchez-Cid, A. Fert ´e,et al.(DES), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2601.14859 (2026), arXiv:2601.14859 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    C. Doux, J. Muir,et al.(DES),in prep(2026)

    2026

  54. [54]

    DES Collaboration, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2602.10065 (2026), arXiv:2602.10065 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  55. [56]

    DES Collaboration,in prep(2026)

    2026

  56. [57]

    B. O. S ´anchezet al.(DES), ApJ975, 5 (2024), arXiv:2406.05046 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  57. [58]

    CfA3: 185 Type Ia Supernova Light Curves from the CfA

    M. Hickenet al., ApJ700, 331 (2009), arXiv:0901.4787 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  58. [59]

    CfA4: Light Curves for 94 Type Ia Supernovae

    M. Hickenet al., ApJS200, 12 (2012), arXiv:1205.4493 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  59. [60]

    Optical and Infrared Photometry of SN 2005df

    K. Krisciunas, N. B. Suntzeff, J. Espinoza, D. Gonzalez, A. Mi- randa, and P. Sanhueza, Research Notes of the American Astro- nomical Society1, 36 (2017), arXiv:1711.10345 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  60. [61]

    R. J. Foleyet al., MNRAS475, 193 (2018), arXiv:1711.02474 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  61. [62]

    Camilleriet al.(DES),in prep(2026)

    R. Camilleriet al.(DES),in prep(2026)

    2026

  62. [63]

    Mena-Fern ´andezet al.(DES), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2601.14864 (2026), arXiv:2601.14864 [astro-ph.CO]

    J. Mena-Fern ´andezet al.(DES), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2601.14864 (2026), arXiv:2601.14864 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  63. [64]

    J. U. Lange, MNRAS525, 3181 (2023), arXiv:2306.16923 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2023

  64. [65]

    Report of the Dark Energy Task Force

    A. Albrecht and Others, arXiv e-prints , astro-ph/0609591 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0609591 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  65. [66]

    Figure of Merit for Dark Energy Constraints from Current Observational Data

    Y . Wang, Phys. Rev. D77, 123525 (2008), arXiv:0803.4295 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  66. [67]

    DES Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D107, 083504 (2023), arXiv:2207.05766 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  67. [68]

    Ishak and L

    M. Ishak and L. Medina-Varela, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2507.22856 (2025), arXiv:2507.22856 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [69]

    Probing the dark energy: methods and strategies

    D. Huterer and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D64, 123527 (2001), astro-ph/0012510

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  69. [70]

    Ohio supercomputer center,

    Ohio Supercomputer Center, “Ohio supercomputer center,” (1987)

    1987

  70. [71]

    J. D. Hunter, Computing in Science & Engineering9, 90 (2007)

    2007

  71. [72]

    Douxet al., MNRAS515, 1942 (2022), arXiv:2203.07128 [astro-ph.CO]

    C. Douxet al., MNRAS515, 1942 (2022), arXiv:2203.07128 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 1942

  72. [73]

    DES and KiDS Collaborations, The Open Journal of Astro- physics6, 36 (2023), arXiv:2305.17173 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  73. [74]

    Asgariet al., A&A645, A104 (2021), arXiv:2007.15633 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Asgariet al., A&A645, A104 (2021), arXiv:2007.15633 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  74. [75]

    Liet al., A&A679, A133 (2023), arXiv:2306.11124 [astro-ph.CO]

    S.-S. Liet al., A&A679, A133 (2023), arXiv:2306.11124 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  75. [76]

    Heymanset al., A&A646, A140 (2021), arXiv:2007.15632 [astro-ph.CO]

    C. Heymanset al., A&A646, A140 (2021), arXiv:2007.15632 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  76. [77]

    A. H. Wrightet al., A&A703, A158 (2025), arXiv:2503.19441 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [78]

    Liet al., Phys

    X. Liet al., Phys. Rev. D108, 123518 (2023), arXiv:2304.00702 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  78. [79]

    Dalalet al., Phys

    R. Dalalet al., Phys. Rev. D108, 123519 (2023), arXiv:2304.00701 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  79. [80]

    Sugiyamaet al., Phys

    S. Sugiyamaet al., Phys. Rev. D108, 123521 (2023), arXiv:2304.00705 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  80. [81]

    Miyatakeet al., Phys

    H. Miyatakeet al., Phys. Rev. D108, 123517 (2023), arXiv:2304.00704 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.