pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04886 · v1 · pith:QY4N3DGUnew · submitted 2026-06-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc· hep-ph· hep-th

Dissipative Dark Energy can explain the DESI phantom crossing

Prolay Chanda , Subinoy Das , Suratna Das This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 04:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords dark energyquintessenceDESIphantom crossingdissipationcosmology
0
0 comments X

The pith

A weak dissipative term added to quintessence allows dark energy to cross the phantom divide and match DESI data.

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

The paper establishes that quintessence dark energy with a simple dissipation term can reproduce the evolving behavior and recent phantom crossing indicated by DESI observations. This occurs without needing to invoke unstable phantom fields that violate standard energy conditions. A sympathetic reader would care because the approach keeps the underlying field stable while fitting new data that standard non-dissipative quintessence struggles to explain. The central result is that even weak levels of dissipation are sufficient to account for the observations.

Core claim

The authors claim that a dissipative dark energy scenario based on quintessence with an added dissipation term can explain both the evolving nature of dark energy and its crossing of the phantom divide without invoking any pathological phantom-like dynamics for the field.

What carries the argument

The dissipation term added to the quintessence evolution equation, which alters the effective equation of state to permit crossing w = -1.

If this is right

  • Even weak dissipation suffices to fit the current DESI observations of evolving dark energy.
  • The model reproduces the phantom crossing while keeping the quintessence field stable.
  • No pathological phantom dynamics are required to match the data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same dissipative mechanism could be checked against combined constraints from large-scale structure growth.
  • If confirmed, this would suggest dissipation as a generic feature worth including in other scalar-field dark energy models.

Load-bearing premise

The quintessence field remains the correct starting point and the added dissipation term does not spoil other cosmological constraints or introduce new instabilities.

What would settle it

Future combined datasets from CMB, supernovae, and DESI successors showing that the phantom crossing is absent or that dissipation is ruled out at the required strength would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.04886 by Prolay Chanda, Subinoy Das, Suratna Das.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Dynamics of the dissipative quintessential model with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Evolutions of effective EoS ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

DESI results preferring an evolving dark energy component that appears to cross the phantom-divide in the recent past has raised a lot of interest in exploring the nature of dark energy. We present here a simple dissipative dark energy scenario that can explain both the evolving nature of dark energy as well as its crossing of the phantom-divide without invoking any pathological phantom-like dynamics for the quintessence field. We show that even weak dissipation of the quintessence is enough to explain the current DESI observations.

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 proposes a dissipative quintessence model in which a weak dissipation term allows the effective dark-energy equation of state to evolve and cross the phantom divide (w = −1) in the recent past, thereby accommodating the DESI preference for dynamical dark energy without requiring the underlying scalar field to exhibit phantom behavior.

Significance. If the background evolution and perturbation stability can be shown to hold for the dissipation strengths needed to match DESI, the scenario supplies a minimal extension of standard quintessence that avoids the usual pathologies of phantom fields while remaining compatible with existing cosmological constraints.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and model definition] The central claim that weak dissipation suffices to produce a phantom crossing rests on the unexamined assumption that the perturbation sector remains stable. No derivation or numerical check of the effective sound speed or gradient stability is presented when the effective w crosses −1; this is load-bearing because many dissipative models develop c_s² < 0 precisely in that regime.
  2. [Results section (implied by abstract)] The manuscript does not quantify how the chosen dissipation coefficient affects the growth of perturbations or the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, both of which are directly constrained by DESI and Planck data; without this, it is unclear whether the parameter values that fit the background also satisfy perturbation-level bounds.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the dissipation term should be defined explicitly (e.g., as a friction coefficient Γ or energy-transfer rate) rather than left implicit.
  2. The abstract states that 'even weak dissipation' explains the data; a quantitative statement of the required range for the dissipation coefficient relative to the Hubble rate would strengthen the claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The two major comments correctly identify that the original manuscript focused on background evolution and did not provide explicit checks on perturbation stability or observational constraints from the perturbation sector. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and model definition] The central claim that weak dissipation suffices to produce a phantom crossing rests on the unexamined assumption that the perturbation sector remains stable. No derivation or numerical check of the effective sound speed or gradient stability is presented when the effective w crosses −1; this is load-bearing because many dissipative models develop c_s² < 0 precisely in that regime.

    Authors: We agree that stability of the perturbation sector must be demonstrated explicitly for the claim to be robust. The revised manuscript will include a derivation of the effective sound speed squared for the weakly dissipative quintessence model, followed by numerical evaluation of c_s² and the gradient stability condition throughout the phantom-crossing epoch for the dissipation strengths that reproduce the DESI background evolution. We expect the weak-dissipation regime to remain stable, but the explicit check will be added. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section (implied by abstract)] The manuscript does not quantify how the chosen dissipation coefficient affects the growth of perturbations or the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, both of which are directly constrained by DESI and Planck data; without this, it is unclear whether the parameter values that fit the background also satisfy perturbation-level bounds.

    Authors: The original analysis was limited to background quantities. In the revision we will add a section quantifying the effect of the dissipation coefficient on the linear growth rate and on the ISW contribution to the CMB temperature power spectrum. We will compare the resulting predictions against Planck constraints for the same parameter values that fit the DESI background data, thereby confirming or adjusting the viable range of the dissipation strength. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; model derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper proposes adding a dissipation term to quintessence dynamics, solves the modified background equations to obtain an effective w that can cross -1 for small dissipation strengths, and compares to DESI data. This forward derivation from the altered equations of motion is independent of the target observations and does not reduce to a fit or self-definition by construction. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes imported from prior author work are indicated; the central claim rests on explicit solution of the dissipative model rather than renaming or circular fitting. The result is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only; cannot enumerate parameters or axioms beyond the high-level modeling choice stated in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • dissipation coefficient
    Likely adjusted to match DESI data, though value not stated.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Quintessence scalar field plus phenomenological dissipation term reproduces observed dark-energy evolution
    Core modeling premise invoked to explain DESI results.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5609 in / 997 out tokens · 24708 ms · 2026-06-28T04:58:10.091239+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 31 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    reheated

    that this effective EoS,w eff, appears to have crossed the phantom-divide for an observer oblivious of the inter- actions between DM and DE. After the publication of the DESI results, such models were explored with renewed in- terest [14, 39–44], and the interacting dark sector models were shown to be more robust than the non-interacting scenarios given t...

    2025

  2. [2]

    A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J.826, 56 (2016), arXiv:1604.01424 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich, A. Krasinski, and Y. B. Zeldovich, Sov. Phys. Usp.11, 381 (1968)

    1968

  5. [5]

    Weinberg, Rev

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

    1989

  6. [6]

    Aghanim et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Chevallier and D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  8. [8]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  9. [9]

    P. S. Corasaniti and E. J. Copeland, Phys. Rev. D67, 063521 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0205544

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  10. [10]

    R. K. Sharma, K. L. Pandey, and S. Das, Astrophys. J. 934, 113 (2022), arXiv:2202.01749 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), JCAP04, 012 (2025), arXiv:2404.03000 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), JCAP01, 124 (2025), arXiv:2404.03001 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Abdul Karim et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    J. M. Cline and V. Muralidharan, Phys. Rev. D112, 063539 (2025), arXiv:2506.13047 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    de Cruz P´ erez, A

    J. de Cruz P´ erez, A. G´ omez-Valent, and J. Sol` a Peracaula, Phys. Rev. D113, 083521 (2026), arXiv:2512.20616 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Ratra and P

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

    1988

  17. [17]

    Tsujikawa, Class

    S. Tsujikawa, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 214003 (2013), arXiv:1304.1961 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Lett. B545, 23 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/9908168

    arXiv 2002

  19. [19]

    Tada and T

    Y. Tada and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D109, L121305 (2024), arXiv:2404.05722 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    R. R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski, and N. N. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 071301 (2003)

    2003

  21. [21]

    K. J. Ludwick, Mod. Phys. Lett. A32, 1730025 (2017), arXiv:1708.06981 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, D. J. Bartlett, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D110, 083528 (2024), arXiv:2408.17318 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    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]

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    S. S. Mishra, W. L. Matthewson, V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, and Y. Shtanov, JCAP11, 018 (2025), arXiv:2507.07193 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

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

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    S. D. Odintsov, D. S´ aez-Chill´ on G´ omez, and G. S. Sharov, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 298 (2025), arXiv:2412.09409 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Pan and G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Z. Yao, G. Ye, and A. Silvestri, JCAP10, 078 (2025), arXiv:2508.01378 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Y. Yang, Q. Wang, X. Ren, E. N. Saridakis, and Y.- F. Cai, Astrophys. J.988, 123 (2025), arXiv:2504.06784 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D112, 104035 (2025), arXiv:2506.21010 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Tsujikawa, Phys

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

    arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Efstratiou, E

    D. Efstratiou, E. A. Paraskevas, and L. Perivolaropoulos, (2025), arXiv:2511.04610 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Gonz´ alez-Fuentes and A

    A. Gonz´ alez-Fuentes and A. G´ omez-Valent, (2026), arXiv:2603.26560 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    G´ omez-Valent and A

    A. G´ omez-Valent and A. Gonz´ alez-Fuentes, Phys. Lett. B872, 140096 (2026), arXiv:2508.00621 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Gonz´ alez-Fuentes and A

    A. Gonz´ alez-Fuentes and A. G´ omez-Valent, JCAP12, 049 (2025), arXiv:2506.11758 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Tsujikawa, (2026), arXiv:2601.21274 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Tsujikawa, (2026), arXiv:2601.21274 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D62, 043511 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  38. [38]

    Amendola and C

    L. Amendola and C. Quercellini, Phys. Rev. D68, 023514 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0303228

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  39. [39]

    S. Das, P. S. Corasaniti, and J. Khoury, Phys. Rev. D 73, 083509 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0510628

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  40. [40]

    Chakraborty, T

    A. Chakraborty, T. Ray, S. Das, A. Banerjee, and V. Ganesan, Astrophys. J.998, 83 (2026), arXiv:2403.14247 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    Chakraborty, P

    A. Chakraborty, P. K. Chanda, S. Das, and K. Dutta, JCAP11, 047 (2025), arXiv:2503.10806 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    G´ omez-Valent, Z

    A. G´ omez-Valent, Z. Zheng, and L. Amendola, (2026), arXiv:2604.12032 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Antusch, S

    S. Antusch, S. F. King, and X. Wang, (2026), arXiv:2604.08449 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    R. Chen, J. M. Cline, V. Muralidharan, and B. Salewicz, JCAP03, 044 (2026), arXiv:2508.19101 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    Wang, R.-G

    J.-Q. Wang, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, Y.-H. Li, S.-J. Wang, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2604.02204 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    T.-N. Li, W. Giar` e, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, E. Di Valentino, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2601.07361 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Wang and Y.-S

    H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, (2026), arXiv:2601.06656 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    Scherer, M

    M. Scherer, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and A. De Fe- lice, Phys. Rev. D112, 043513 (2025), arXiv:2504.20664 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Silva, M

    E. Silva, M. A. Sabogal, M. Scherer, R. C. Nunes, E. Di Valentino, and S. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D111, 123511 (2025), arXiv:2503.23225 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Berera, Phys

    A. Berera, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 3218 (1995), arXiv:astro- ph/9509049

    arXiv 1995

  51. [51]

    Baumann, arXiv:0907.5424 [hep-th]

    D. Baumann, arXiv:0907.5424 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    Kamali, M

    V. Kamali, M. Motaharfar, and R. O. Ramos, Universe 9, 124 (2023), arXiv:2302.02827 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    Berera, Universe9, 272 (2023), arXiv:2305.10879 [hep- ph]

    A. Berera, Universe9, 272 (2023), arXiv:2305.10879 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    Creminelli, S

    P. Creminelli, S. Kumar, B. Salehian, and L. Santoni, JCAP08, 076 (2023), arXiv:2305.07695 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    L. H. Ford, Phys. Rev. D35, 2955 (1987)

    1987

  56. [56]

    E. J. Chun, S. Scopel, and I. Zaballa, JCAP07, 022 (2009), arXiv:0904.0675 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  57. [57]

    G. N. Felder, L. Kofman, and A. D. Linde, Phys. Rev. D59, 123523 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9812289

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  58. [58]

    A. H. Campos, H. C. Reis, and R. Rosenfeld, Phys. Lett. B575, 151 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0210152. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  59. [59]

    Feng and M.-z

    B. Feng and M.-z. Li, Phys. Lett. B564, 169 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212213

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  60. [60]

    J. C. Bueno Sanchez and K. Dimopoulos, JCAP11, 007 (2007), arXiv:0707.3967 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  61. [61]

    Dimopoulos and T

    K. Dimopoulos and T. Markkanen, JCAP06, 021 (2018), arXiv:1803.07399 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  62. [62]

    Bettoni and J

    D. Bettoni and J. Rubio, Phys. Lett. B784, 122 (2018), arXiv:1805.02669 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  63. [63]

    Opferkuch, P

    T. Opferkuch, P. Schwaller, and B. A. Stefanek, JCAP 07, 016 (2019), arXiv:1905.06823 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  64. [64]

    Dimopoulos and L

    K. Dimopoulos and L. Donaldson-Wood, Phys. Lett. B 796, 26 (2019), arXiv:1906.09648 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [65]

    J. G. Rosa and L. B. Ventura, Phys. Lett. B798, 134984 (2019), arXiv:1906.11835 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  66. [66]

    G. B. F. Lima and R. O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D100, 123529 (2019), arXiv:1910.05185 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

  67. [67]

    S. Das, S. Hussain, D. Nandi, R. O. Ramos, and R. Silva, Phys. Rev. D108, 083517 (2023), arXiv:2306.09369 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    K. V. Berghaus, P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, G. D. Moore, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D104, 083520 (2021), arXiv:2012.10549 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    K. V. Berghaus, T. Karwal, V. Miranda, and T. Brinckmann, Phys. Rev. D110, 063557 (2024), arXiv:2311.08638 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    S. Das, U. Kumar, S. S. Mishra, and V. Sahni, Phys. Rev. D113, 063522 (2026), arXiv:2511.23219 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  71. [71]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, R. O. Ramos, and J. G. Rosa, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 151301 (2016), arXiv:1604.08838 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  72. [72]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, R. O. Ramos, and J. G. Rosa, Phys. Lett. B813, 136055 (2021), arXiv:1907.13410 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2021