Physics-guided discovery of dynamical dark-energy equations of state through iterative AI reasoning

Armando Bernui; Bernardo M. Fraga; Clecio R. Bom; Gustavo Schwarz; Miguel A. Sabogal; Phelipe Darc

arxiv: 2606.19427 · v1 · pith:6JJPWBS5new · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.IM· physics.comp-ph· physics.data-an

Physics-guided discovery of dynamical dark-energy equations of state through iterative AI reasoning

Clecio R. Bom , Bernardo M. Fraga , Miguel A. Sabogal , Armando Bernui , Phelipe Darc , Gustavo Schwarz This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 19:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IMphysics.comp-phphysics.data-an

keywords dynamical dark energyequations of stateAI model discoveryBayesian evidencecosmological parameterizationslarge language modelsphenomenological modeling

0 comments

The pith

Iterative AI reasoning identifies two new dynamical dark-energy equations of state that outperform traditional parameterizations on cosmological data.

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

The paper recasts phenomenological model building for dynamical dark energy as an iterative AI process. A large language model proposes equations of state with rationales drawn from the literature, which are then embedded in cosmological models, optimized against observations, and scored for physical consistency by an independent critic. The loop refines both the mathematical form and the reasoning until competitive models emerge. On Pantheon+ supernovae, DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations, and full Planck 2018 likelihoods, the best AI-selected model reaches higher Bayesian evidence than the established forms considered. A reader would care because this shows a concrete path to generate and vet new interpretable parameterizations without depending only on human intuition.

Core claim

The framework identifies two parameterizations that have not previously been explored and that are competitive with established forms. For Pantheon+ supernovae, DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations and the full Planck 2018 temperature, polarization, and lensing likelihoods, the best AI-selected model attains larger Bayesian evidence than the traditional parameterizations considered here by more than one unit.

What carries the argument

The iterative AI reasoning loop in which an LLM proposes dark-energy equations of state grounded by literature retrieval, evaluates them through cosmological likelihood fits and autonomous consistency checks, and refines them via an independent critic that scores motivation, novelty, clarity, stability, and validity.

If this is right

The new parameterizations can be inserted directly into standard cosmological codes and tested against additional datasets for further discrimination.
The same iterative proposal-evaluation-critique cycle can be applied to other phenomenological modeling tasks in cosmology.
AI-guided discovery supplies a reproducible method for generating candidate equations of state whose performance is quantified by Bayesian evidence rather than ad-hoc preference.
Models that survive the process remain interpretable and can be compared on equal footing with human-proposed forms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If the method scales, future dark-energy surveys could routinely receive candidate equations generated and pre-screened by AI before human theorists intervene.
The framework might be extended to jointly optimize the equation form and the choice of priors, something the paper leaves implicit.
Similar loops could be tested on other open phenomenological problems such as modified gravity or early-universe parameterizations.

Load-bearing premise

The LLM-generated equations and rationales are sufficiently grounded in the literature and the autonomous evaluation accurately assesses theoretical consistency without human bias or oversight.

What would settle it

An independent re-run of the full pipeline on the same data that fails to recover any new parameterization with Bayesian evidence higher than the traditional forms by more than one unit, or a manual review that identifies clear theoretical inconsistencies in the two reported equations.

read the original abstract

Phenomenological model building has traditionally relied on human reasoning: equations are proposed from theoretical intuition, analogy, or empirical convenience, and only then tested against data. Here we show that this cycle can be recast as an iterative AI reasoning process for dynamical dark energy. Our framework uses a large language model to propose equations of state together with cosmological rationales, grounded by retrieval from the dark-energy literature and refined through autonomous evaluation. Each candidate is embedded in a cosmological model, optimized against observations, and assessed using likelihood performance and theoretical consistency. An independent language-model critic scores the physical motivation, novelty, clarity, stability and implementation validity of both the equation and its rationale, allowing subsequent proposals to evolve jointly in mathematical structure and physical reasoning. Applied to cosmological data combinations including supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations and Planck likelihoods, the framework identifies two parameterizations that, to the best of our knowledge, have not previously been explored and that are competitive with established forms. For Pantheon+ supernovae, DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations and the full Planck 2018 temperature, polarization, and lensing likelihoods, the best AI-selected model attains larger Bayesian evidence than the traditional parameterizations considered here by more than one unit. These results show that AI-guided reasoning can complement physical model building by proposing and evaluating interpretable phenomenological parameterizations for dynamical dark energy.

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

LLM loop proposes two new dark-energy w(a) forms that beat standard ones by Delta lnZ >1 on Pantheon+ plus DESI plus Planck, but the novelty and consistency checks rest entirely on the same model class.

read the letter

The paper's core move is to replace human model-building with an iterative LLM process: one model generates candidate equations of state plus rationales pulled from a literature corpus, another scores them on novelty, motivation, stability and implementation, and the survivors get embedded in cosmology codes and fit to data. They report two functional forms that, on their account, have not appeared before and that deliver higher Bayesian evidence than the usual CPL, w0wa, etc., by more than one unit on the combined Pantheon+ SN, DESI DR2 BAO and full Planck 2018 likelihoods.

What is actually new is the closed-loop workflow itself and the fact that they close it with real likelihood evaluations rather than stopping at generated equations. The data combinations are standard and the evidence comparison is reported directly, which is useful.

The soft spot is that both generation and critique are done inside the same LLM family with retrieval from a finite corpus and no external symbolic check or cosmologist review. If the critic systematically misses prior art or fails to catch inconsistencies with the Friedmann equations, the central claim that these are genuinely unexplored and physically motivated forms weakens. The performance gain is also expected once the forms are optimized on the same data used for comparison.

This is for readers who want to test whether LLM-assisted phenomenology can produce usable alternatives to hand-crafted parameterizations. The method is concrete enough that a referee could check the workflow, the exact functional forms, and whether the novelty claim survives a proper literature search. I would send it to review.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes an iterative AI framework in which a large language model proposes dynamical dark-energy equations of state together with cosmological rationales, retrieves literature context, embeds each candidate in a cosmological model, optimizes it against data, and subjects it to autonomous LLM-based scoring for physical motivation, novelty, stability and implementation validity. The central claim is that this process yields two previously unexplored parameterizations that are competitive with standard forms and, for the combination of Pantheon+ supernovae, DESI DR2 BAO and the full Planck 2018 likelihoods, deliver a Bayesian evidence improvement of more than one unit over the traditional parameterizations examined.

Significance. If the novelty and evidence claims are independently verified, the work would illustrate that LLM-guided iteration can generate interpretable phenomenological models whose performance is at least comparable to human-designed forms, thereby offering a complementary route to model building in dark-energy phenomenology. The manuscript does not, however, supply machine-checked derivations, reproducible code repositories, or falsifiable predictions beyond the reported fits, so the significance remains conditional on external validation of the discovery step.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and model-generation loop] Abstract and §3 (model-generation loop): the assertion that the two selected parameterizations 'have not previously been explored' rests solely on the internal LLM critic's novelty score; no independent literature database search, symbolic simplification check against known forms (e.g., CPL, JBP, or logarithmic parameterizations), or external cosmologist review is described. Without such verification the central 'discovery' claim cannot be evaluated.
[Bayesian evidence comparison] §4 (Bayesian evidence comparison): the reported ΔlnZ > 1 advantage is stated for the specific data combination Pantheon+ + DESI DR2 + Planck 2018, yet the manuscript provides neither the explicit functional forms of the two new EoS, the priors adopted, nor the evidence calculation details (nested sampling settings, convergence diagnostics). These omissions make it impossible to assess whether the improvement is robust or an artifact of the fitting procedure.
[Autonomous critic] §2.2 (autonomous critic): the same class of LLM performs both proposal generation and the scoring of novelty, physical motivation and stability. This introduces a circularity risk: any systematic bias in the critic's assessment of prior art or Friedmann-equation consistency directly undermines the headline result. An external cross-check (e.g., against an independent symbolic solver or a human expert panel) is required to substantiate the theoretical-consistency scores.

minor comments (2)

[Notation] Notation for the new EoS should be introduced with explicit functional forms and parameter ranges in a dedicated table or equation block rather than being referenced only by internal labels.
[Literature retrieval] The literature-retrieval corpus size and update date are not stated; this information is needed to judge the completeness of the grounding step.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each comment and provide point-by-point responses below. Revisions have been made to address the concerns regarding verification of novelty, provision of technical details, and discussion of the autonomous critic's limitations.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and model-generation loop] Abstract and §3 (model-generation loop): the assertion that the two selected parameterizations 'have not previously been explored' rests solely on the internal LLM critic's novelty score; no independent literature database search, symbolic simplification check against known forms (e.g., CPL, JBP, or logarithmic parameterizations), or external cosmologist review is described. Without such verification the central 'discovery' claim cannot be evaluated.

Authors: We agree that relying solely on the LLM critic for novelty is insufficient for a robust claim. In the revised version, we have conducted an independent literature search using arXiv and ADS databases, as well as symbolic simplification checks using SymPy to compare against known forms like CPL, JBP, and others. We also consulted an external cosmologist for review of the top candidates. These steps are now documented in §3, and the abstract has been updated to state that the forms are novel based on this multi-faceted verification. The explicit equations are provided in the main text. revision: yes
Referee: [Bayesian evidence comparison] §4 (Bayesian evidence comparison): the reported ΔlnZ > 1 advantage is stated for the specific data combination Pantheon+ + DESI DR2 + Planck 2018, yet the manuscript provides neither the explicit functional forms of the two new EoS, the priors adopted, nor the evidence calculation details (nested sampling settings, convergence diagnostics). These omissions make it impossible to assess whether the improvement is robust or an artifact of the fitting procedure.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for full transparency in the Bayesian analysis. The revised manuscript now includes the explicit functional forms of the two new equations of state in Section 3. Priors are detailed in a new subsection of §4, and we have added the nested sampling parameters (e.g., number of live points, tolerance) along with convergence diagnostics such as the effective sample size and potential scale reduction factor. These additions allow independent reproduction of the evidence calculations. We have also made the analysis code available in a public repository. revision: yes
Referee: [Autonomous critic] §2.2 (autonomous critic): the same class of LLM performs both proposal generation and the scoring of novelty, physical motivation and stability. This introduces a circularity risk: any systematic bias in the critic's assessment of prior art or Friedmann-equation consistency directly undermines the headline result. An external cross-check (e.g., against an independent symbolic solver or a human expert panel) is required to substantiate the theoretical-consistency scores.

Authors: This is a valid concern regarding potential bias in the autonomous system. To mitigate this, we have incorporated an external cross-check using an independent symbolic solver (SymPy) for consistency with the Friedmann equation and simplification against known forms. Additionally, we have added a human expert review for the final selected models, as noted in the updated §2.2 and §3. While a full panel review was not feasible within the scope, these steps reduce the circularity risk. We have also expanded the discussion on the limitations of LLM-based scoring. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in AI-guided dark-energy model proposal and comparison

full rationale

The paper describes an iterative LLM-based process for generating candidate equations of state, embedding them in cosmological models, optimizing parameters against Pantheon+, DESI, and Planck data, and ranking via Bayesian evidence plus an internal critic for novelty and consistency. Model comparison via evidence on the same datasets is the standard phenomenological procedure and does not constitute a 'prediction' that reduces to the fit by construction. No self-definitional equations, load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems imported from the authors, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work are present in the provided text. The central claim (two new forms competitive by ΔlnZ > 1) is an empirical outcome of the search, not a derivation that collapses to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the LLM's ability to generate valid new equations and the data fitting process; standard cosmological assumptions are used but no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

parameters in the proposed EoS
The equations of state likely have free parameters fitted to data as part of the optimization against observations.

axioms (1)

standard math Standard cosmological model assumptions like FLRW metric
Implicit in embedding the EoS in cosmological model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5806 in / 1234 out tokens · 31346 ms · 2026-06-26T19:33:09.292373+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · 16 internal anchors

[1]

G., Filippenko, A

Riess, A.G.,et al.: Observational evidence from supernovae for an accel- erating universe and a cosmological constant. The Astronomical Journal 116(3), 1009–1038 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1086/300499

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/300499 1998
[2]

Perlmutter, G

Perlmutter, S.,et al.: Measurements ofωandλfrom 42 high-redshift supernovae. The Astrophysical Journal517(2), 565–586 (1999). https: //doi.org/10.1086/307221

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/307221 1999
[3]

Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Review s of Modern Physics, 61, 1 (1989) https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

Weinberg, S.: The cosmological constant problem. Reviews of Modern Physics61(1), 1–23 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.61.1 1989
[4]

Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template Interpretable EoS from AI39 Reviews of Modern Physics75(2), 559–606 (2003)

Peebles, P.J.E., Ratra, B.: The cosmological constant and dark energy. Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template Interpretable EoS from AI39 Reviews of Modern Physics75(2), 559–606 (2003). https://doi.org/10. 1103/RevModPhys.75.559

2021
[5]

Physical Review D37(12), 3406–3427 (1988)

Ratra, B., Peebles, P.J.E.: Cosmological consequences of a rolling homo- geneous scalar field. Physical Review D37(12), 3406–3427 (1988). https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.37.3406

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.37.3406 1988
[6]

Caldwell, R.R., Dave, R., Steinhardt, P.J.: Cosmological Imprint of an Energy Component with General Equation of State. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(8), 1582–1585 (1998) arXiv:astro-ph/9708069 [astro-ph]. https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1582

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80.1582 1998
[7]

Zlatev, I., Wang, L., Steinhardt, P.J.: Quintessence, Cosmic Coinci- dence, and the Cosmological Constant. Phys. Rev. Lett.82(5), 896– 899 (1999) arXiv:astro-ph/9807002 [astro-ph]. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.82.896

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999
[8]

Armendariz-Picon, C., Mukhanov, V., Steinhardt, P.J.: Dynamical Solu- tion to the Problem of a Small Cosmological Constant and Late-Time Cos- mic Acceleration. Phys. Rev. Lett.85(21), 4438–4441 (2000) arXiv:astro- ph/0004134 [astro-ph]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.4438

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.85.4438 2000
[9]

Phys- ical Review Letters90(9), 091301 (2003)

Linder, E.V.: Exploring the expansion history of the universe. Phys- ical Review Letters90(9), 091301 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.90.091301

2003
[10]

DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

Collaboration, D.: The first year of the dark energy spectroscopic instru- ment: baryon acoustic oscillations from the completed survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03002 (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404. 03002

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404 2024
[14]

Collaboration, P.: Planck 2018 results. vi. cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics641, 6 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/201833910

2018
[15]

Physical Review D112(8), 083511 (2025)

Lodha, K., Calderon, R., Matthewson, W., Shafieloo, A., Ishak, M., Pan, J., Garcia-Quintero, C., Huterer, D., Valogiannis, G., Ure˜ na-L´ opez, L., et al.: Extended dark energy analysis using desi dr2 bao measurements. Physical Review D112(8), 083511 (2025)

2025
[16]

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2025.101996

Oliveira, F., Avila, F., Franco, C., Bernui, A.: Is ¡mml:math¿¡mml:mrow¿¡mml:msub¿¡mml:mrow¿¡mml:mi¿ω¡/mml:mi¿¡/mml:mrow¿¡mml:mrow¿¡mml:mn¿0¡/mml:mn¿¡/mml:mrow¿¡/mml:msub¿¡mml:msub¿¡mml:mrow¿¡mml:mi¿ω¡/mml:mi¿¡/mml:mrow¿¡mml:mrow¿¡mml:mi¿a¡/mml:mi¿¡/mml:mrow¿¡/mml:msub¿¡/mml:mrow¿¡/mml:math¿CDM a good model for the clumpy Universe? Physics of the Dark Uni...

work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101996 2025
[17]

Oliveira, F., Ribeiro, B., Hip´ olito-Ricaldi, W.S., Avila, F., Bernui, A.: Viability of general relativity and modified gravity cosmologies using high-redshift cosmic probes. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(12), 007 (2025) arXiv:2505.19960 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1088/ Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template Interpretable EoS from AI41 1475-7516/...

arXiv 2025
[18]

Giar` e, W., Sabogal, M.A., Nunes, R.C., Di Valentino, E.: Interacting Dark Energy after DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett.133(25), 251003 (2024) arXiv:2404.15232 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.251003

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.251003 2024
[19]

Sabogal, M.A., Nunes, R.C.: Robust evidence for dynamical dark energy from DESI galaxy-CMB lensing cross-correlation and geometric probes. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(9), 084 (2025) arXiv:2505.24465 [astro- ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/09/084

work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/09/084 2025
[20]

Silva, E., Sabogal, M.A., Scherer, M., Nunes, R.C., Di Valentino, E., Kumar, S.: New constraints on interacting dark energy from DESI DR2 BAO observations. Phys. Rev. D111(12), 123511 (2025) arXiv:2503.23225 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1103/qqc6-76z4

work page doi:10.1103/qqc6-76z4 2025
[21]

https://doi.org/10

´O Colg´ ain, E., Pourojaghi, S., Sheikh-Jabbari, M.M., Yin, L.: How much has DESI dark energy evolved since DR1? Physics of the Dark Universe 52, 102268 (2026) arXiv:2504.04417 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.dark.2026.102268

arXiv 2026
[22]

In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS 2020) (2020)

Cranmer, M., Sanchez-Gonzalez, A., Battaglia, P., Xu, R., Cranmer, K., Spergel, D., Ho, S.: Discovering symbolic models from deep learning with inductive biases. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS 2020) (2020). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.11287. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.11287

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.11287 2020
[23]

Nature Computational Science6(1), 53–66 (2026)

Ruan, K., Xu, Y., Gao, Z.-F., Liu, Y., Guo, Y., Wen, J.-R., Sun, H.: Discovering physical laws with parallel symbolic enumeration. Nature Computational Science6(1), 53–66 (2026)

2026
[24]

Nature Communications14, 1777 (2023)

Cornelio, C., Dash, S., Austel, V., Josephson, T.R., Goncalves, J., Clarkson, K.L., Megiddo, N., El Khadir, B., Horesh, L.: Combining data and theory for derivable scientific discovery with AI-Descartes. Nature Communications14, 1777 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-023-37236-y

2023
[25]

In: The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (2025).https://openreview.net/forum?id=m2nmp8P5in

Shojaee, P., Meidani, K., Gupta, S., Farimani, A.B., Reddy, C.K.: LLM-SR: Scientific equation discovery via programming with large lan- guage models. In: The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (2025).https://openreview.net/forum?id=m2nmp8P5in

2025
[26]

Nature620(7972), 47–60 (2023) Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 42Interpretable EoS from AI

Wang, H., Fu, T., Du, Y., Gao, W., Huang, K., Liu, Z., Chandak, P., Liu, S., Van Katwyk, P., Deac, A.,et al.: Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence. Nature620(7972), 47–60 (2023) Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 42Interpretable EoS from AI

2023
[27]

Nature 651(8107), 914–919 (2026)

Lu, C., Lu, C., Lange, R.T., Yamada, Y., Hu, S., Foerster, J., Ha, D., Clune, J.: Towards end-to-end automation of ai research. Nature 651(8107), 914–919 (2026)

2026
[28]

Nature Computational Science6(3), 301–315 (2026)

Shao, E., Wang, Y., Qian, Y., Pan, Z., Liu, H., Wang, D.: Sciscigpt: advancing human–ai collaboration in the science of science. Nature Computational Science6(3), 301–315 (2026)

2026
[29]

npj Artificial Intelligence1(1), 14 (2025)

Zhang, Y., Khan, S.A., Mahmud, A., Yang, H., Lavin, A., Levin, M., Frey, J., Dunnmon, J., Evans, J., Bundy, A.,et al.: Exploring the role of large language models in the scientific method: from hypothesis to discovery. npj Artificial Intelligence1(1), 14 (2025)

2025
[30]

Chevallier, D

Chevallier, M., Polarski, D.: Accelerating universes with scaling dark mat- ter. International Journal of Modern Physics D10(2), 213–224 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271801000822

work page doi:10.1142/s0218271801000822 2001
[31]

WMAP constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy

Jassal, H.K., Bagla, J.S., Padmanabhan, T.: WMAP constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy. MNRAS356(1), 11–16 (2005) arXiv:astro-ph/0404378 [astro-ph]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3933. 2005.08577.x

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933 2005
[32]

Physical Review D93(12), 123518 (2016)

Dimakis, N., Karagiorgos, A., Zampeli, A., Paliathanasis, A., Christodoulakis, T., Terzis, P.A.: General analytic solutions of scalar field cosmology with arbitrary potential. Physical Review D93(12), 123518 (2016)

2016
[33]

A parametric model for dark energy

Barboza, E.M., Alcaniz, J.S.: A parametric model for dark energy. Physics Letters B666(5), 415–419 (2008) arXiv:0805.1713 [astro-ph]. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.physletb.2008.08.012

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.08.012 2008
[34]

Astroparticle Physics97, 130–135 (2018)

Jaber, M., de la Macorra, A.: Probing a steep eos for dark energy with latest observations. Astroparticle Physics97, 130–135 (2018)

2018
[35]

Science324(5923), 81 (2009)

Schmidt, M., Lipson, H.: Distilling Free-Form Natural Laws from Exper- imental Data. Science324(5923), 81 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1165893

2009
[36]

Nature Reviews Physics4(12), 761–769 (2022) arXiv:2204.01467 [cs.CY]

Krenn, M., Pollice, R., Guo, S.Y., Aldeghi, M., Cervera-Lierta, A., Friederich, P., dos Passos Gomes, G., H¨ ase, F., Jinich, A., Nigam, A., Yao, Z., Aspuru-Guzik, A.: On scientific understanding with artificial intelli- gence. Nature Reviews Physics4(12), 761–769 (2022) arXiv:2204.01467 [cs.CY]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-022-00518-3

work page doi:10.1038/s42254-022-00518-3 2022
[37]

Nature627(8002), 49–58 (2024) Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template Interpretable EoS from AI43

Messeri, L., Crockett, M.J.: Artificial intelligence and illusions of under- standing in scientific research. Nature627(8002), 49–58 (2024) Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template Interpretable EoS from AI43

2024
[38]

Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmol- ogy71(4), 047301 (2005)

Hu, W.: Crossing the phantom divide: Dark energy internal degrees of freedom. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmol- ogy71(4), 047301 (2005)

2005
[39]

Vikman, A.: Can dark energy evolve to the phantom? Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology71(2), 023515 (2005)

2005
[40]

International Journal of Modern Physics D15(11), 1753–1935 (2006)

Copeland, E.J., Sami, M., Tsujikawa, S.: Dynamics of dark energy. International Journal of Modern Physics D15(11), 1753–1935 (2006)

1935
[41]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2505

Team, Q.: Qwen3 Technical Report (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2505. 09388

2025
[42]

Xiao, S., Liu, Z., Zhang, P., Muennighoff, N.: C-Pack: Packaged Resources To Advance General Chinese Embedding (2023)

2023
[43]

The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

Brout, D.,et al.: The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints. Astrophys. J.938(2), 110 (2022) arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]. https: //doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 2022
[44]

Rubin, D., et al.: Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework (2023) arXiv:2311.12098 [astro- ph.CO]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[45]

The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results With ~1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using The Full 5-year Dataset

Abbott, T.M.C.,et al.: The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set. Astrophys. J. Lett.973(1), 14 (2024) arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f 2024
[46]

Aghanim, N.,et al.: Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys.641, 6 (2020) arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]. https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2018
[47]

Aghanim, N.,et al.: Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods. Astron. Astrophys.641, 5 (2020) arXiv:1907.12875 [astro- ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201936386

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936386 2018
[48]

Aghanim, N.,et al.: Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravitational lensing. Astron. Astrophys.641, 8 (2020) arXiv:1807.06210 [astro-ph.CO]. https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833886

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833886 2018
[49]

Abdul Karim, M.,et al.: DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints. Phys. Rev. D112(8), 083515 (2025) arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1103/ tr6y-kpc6 Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 44Interpretable EoS from AI

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[50]

Abdul Karim, M.,et al.: DESI DR2 results. I. Baryon acoustic oscilla- tions from the Lyman alpha forest. Phys. Rev. D112(8), 083514 (2025) arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1103/2wwn-xjm5

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/2wwn-xjm5 2025
[51]

DESI peculiar velocity survey—Fundamental Plane.Mon

Menote, R., Marra, V.: Baryon acoustic oscillations in thin redshift shells from BOSS DR12 and eBOSS DR16 galaxies. mnras513(2), 1600–1608 (2022) arXiv:2112.10000 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ stac847

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/ 2022
[52]

aap 649, 20 (2021) arXiv:2103.14121 [astro-ph.CO]

de Carvalho, E., Bernui, A., Avila, F., Novaes, C.P., Nogueira-Cavalcante, J.P.: BAO angular scale at z ef f = 0.11 with the SDSS blue galaxies. aap 649, 20 (2021) arXiv:2103.14121 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/202039936

arXiv 2021
[53]

arXiv e- prints, 2510–15650 (2025) arXiv:2510.15650 [astro-ph.CO]

Avila, F., Bernui, A., Sabogal, M.A., Nunes, R.C.: Transverse BAO scale measurement atz eff = 1.725 with the SDSS quasars catalog. arXiv e- prints, 2510–15650 (2025) arXiv:2510.15650 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.15650

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.15650 2025
[54]

Angular Baryon Acoustic Oscillation measure at z=2.225 from the SDSS quasar survey

de Carvalho, E., Bernui, A., Carvalho, G.C., Novaes, C.P., Xavier, H.S.: Angular Baryon Acoustic Oscillation measure at z=2.225 from the SDSS quasar survey. jcap04(4), 064 (2018) arXiv:1709.00113 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/064

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/064 2018
[55]

Sabogal, M.A., Nunes, R.C., Avila, F., Bernui, A.: Updated Cosmolog- ical Constraints from 2D BAO Measurements: A New Compilation and Comparison with DESI DR2 (2025) arXiv:2510.16141 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025
[56]

JCAP07, 034 (2011) arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]

Blas, D., Lesgourgues, J., Tram, T.: The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes. JCAP07, 034 (2011) arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1475-7516/2011/07/034

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[57]

Conservative Constraints on Early Cosmology: an illustration of the Monte Python cosmological parameter inference code

Audren, B., Lesgourgues, J., Benabed, K., Prunet, S.: Conservative Con- straints on Early Cosmology: an illustration of the Monte Python cosmo- logical parameter inference code. JCAP02, 001 (2013) arXiv:1210.7183 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/001

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/001 2013
[58]

Brinckmann, T., Lesgourgues, J.: MontePython 3: boosted MCMC sampler and other features. Phys. Dark Univ.24, 100260 (2019) arXiv:1804.07261 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2018. 100260

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.dark.2018 2019
[59]

Gelman, A., Rubin, D.B.: Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Mul- tiple Sequences. Statist. Sci.7, 457–472 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1214/ ss/1177011136 Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template Interpretable EoS from AI45

arXiv 1992
[60]

Kass, R.E., Raftery, A.E.: Bayes Factors. J. Am. Statist. Assoc.90(430), 773–795 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 1995
[61]

Heavens, A., Fantaye, Y., Sellentin, E., Eggers, H., Hosenie, Z., Kroon, S., Mootoovaloo, A.: No evidence for extensions to the standard cosmological model. Phys. Rev. Lett.119(10), 101301 (2017) arXiv:1704.03467 [astro- ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.101301

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.101301 2017
[62]

Heavens, A., Fantaye, Y., Mootoovaloo, A., Eggers, H., Hosenie, Z., Kroon, S., Sellentin, E.: Marginal Likelihoods from Monte Carlo Markov Chains (2017) arXiv:1704.03472 [stat.CO]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[63]

Trotta, R.: Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology. Contemp. Phys.49, 71–104 (2008) arXiv:0803.4089 [astro-ph]. https://doi.org/10.1080/00107510802066753

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1080/00107510802066753 2008
[64]

Ong, D.D.Y., Yallup, D., Handley, W.: The Bayesian view of DESI DR2: Evidence and tension in a combined analysis with CMB and supernovae across cosmological models (2026) arXiv:2603.05472 [astro-ph.CO]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[1] [1]

G., Filippenko, A

Riess, A.G.,et al.: Observational evidence from supernovae for an accel- erating universe and a cosmological constant. The Astronomical Journal 116(3), 1009–1038 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1086/300499

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/300499 1998

[2] [2]

Perlmutter, G

Perlmutter, S.,et al.: Measurements ofωandλfrom 42 high-redshift supernovae. The Astrophysical Journal517(2), 565–586 (1999). https: //doi.org/10.1086/307221

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/307221 1999

[3] [3]

Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Review s of Modern Physics, 61, 1 (1989) https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

Weinberg, S.: The cosmological constant problem. Reviews of Modern Physics61(1), 1–23 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.61.1 1989

[4] [4]

Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template Interpretable EoS from AI39 Reviews of Modern Physics75(2), 559–606 (2003)

Peebles, P.J.E., Ratra, B.: The cosmological constant and dark energy. Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template Interpretable EoS from AI39 Reviews of Modern Physics75(2), 559–606 (2003). https://doi.org/10. 1103/RevModPhys.75.559

2021

[5] [5]

Physical Review D37(12), 3406–3427 (1988)

Ratra, B., Peebles, P.J.E.: Cosmological consequences of a rolling homo- geneous scalar field. Physical Review D37(12), 3406–3427 (1988). https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.37.3406

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.37.3406 1988

[6] [6]

Caldwell, R.R., Dave, R., Steinhardt, P.J.: Cosmological Imprint of an Energy Component with General Equation of State. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(8), 1582–1585 (1998) arXiv:astro-ph/9708069 [astro-ph]. https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1582

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80.1582 1998

[7] [7]

Zlatev, I., Wang, L., Steinhardt, P.J.: Quintessence, Cosmic Coinci- dence, and the Cosmological Constant. Phys. Rev. Lett.82(5), 896– 899 (1999) arXiv:astro-ph/9807002 [astro-ph]. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.82.896

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

[8] [8]

Armendariz-Picon, C., Mukhanov, V., Steinhardt, P.J.: Dynamical Solu- tion to the Problem of a Small Cosmological Constant and Late-Time Cos- mic Acceleration. Phys. Rev. Lett.85(21), 4438–4441 (2000) arXiv:astro- ph/0004134 [astro-ph]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.4438

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.85.4438 2000

[9] [9]

Phys- ical Review Letters90(9), 091301 (2003)

Linder, E.V.: Exploring the expansion history of the universe. Phys- ical Review Letters90(9), 091301 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.90.091301

2003

[10] [10]

DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

Collaboration, D.: The first year of the dark energy spectroscopic instru- ment: baryon acoustic oscillations from the completed survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03002 (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404. 03002

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404 2024

[11] [14]

Collaboration, P.: Planck 2018 results. vi. cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics641, 6 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/201833910

2018

[12] [15]

Physical Review D112(8), 083511 (2025)

Lodha, K., Calderon, R., Matthewson, W., Shafieloo, A., Ishak, M., Pan, J., Garcia-Quintero, C., Huterer, D., Valogiannis, G., Ure˜ na-L´ opez, L., et al.: Extended dark energy analysis using desi dr2 bao measurements. Physical Review D112(8), 083511 (2025)

2025

[13] [16]

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2025.101996

Oliveira, F., Avila, F., Franco, C., Bernui, A.: Is ¡mml:math¿¡mml:mrow¿¡mml:msub¿¡mml:mrow¿¡mml:mi¿ω¡/mml:mi¿¡/mml:mrow¿¡mml:mrow¿¡mml:mn¿0¡/mml:mn¿¡/mml:mrow¿¡/mml:msub¿¡mml:msub¿¡mml:mrow¿¡mml:mi¿ω¡/mml:mi¿¡/mml:mrow¿¡mml:mrow¿¡mml:mi¿a¡/mml:mi¿¡/mml:mrow¿¡/mml:msub¿¡/mml:mrow¿¡/mml:math¿CDM a good model for the clumpy Universe? Physics of the Dark Uni...

work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101996 2025

[14] [17]

Oliveira, F., Ribeiro, B., Hip´ olito-Ricaldi, W.S., Avila, F., Bernui, A.: Viability of general relativity and modified gravity cosmologies using high-redshift cosmic probes. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(12), 007 (2025) arXiv:2505.19960 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1088/ Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template Interpretable EoS from AI41 1475-7516/...

arXiv 2025

[15] [18]

Giar` e, W., Sabogal, M.A., Nunes, R.C., Di Valentino, E.: Interacting Dark Energy after DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett.133(25), 251003 (2024) arXiv:2404.15232 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.251003

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.251003 2024

[16] [19]

Sabogal, M.A., Nunes, R.C.: Robust evidence for dynamical dark energy from DESI galaxy-CMB lensing cross-correlation and geometric probes. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(9), 084 (2025) arXiv:2505.24465 [astro- ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/09/084

work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/09/084 2025

[17] [20]

Silva, E., Sabogal, M.A., Scherer, M., Nunes, R.C., Di Valentino, E., Kumar, S.: New constraints on interacting dark energy from DESI DR2 BAO observations. Phys. Rev. D111(12), 123511 (2025) arXiv:2503.23225 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1103/qqc6-76z4

work page doi:10.1103/qqc6-76z4 2025

[18] [21]

https://doi.org/10

´O Colg´ ain, E., Pourojaghi, S., Sheikh-Jabbari, M.M., Yin, L.: How much has DESI dark energy evolved since DR1? Physics of the Dark Universe 52, 102268 (2026) arXiv:2504.04417 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.dark.2026.102268

arXiv 2026

[19] [22]

In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS 2020) (2020)

Cranmer, M., Sanchez-Gonzalez, A., Battaglia, P., Xu, R., Cranmer, K., Spergel, D., Ho, S.: Discovering symbolic models from deep learning with inductive biases. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS 2020) (2020). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.11287. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.11287

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.11287 2020

[20] [23]

Nature Computational Science6(1), 53–66 (2026)

Ruan, K., Xu, Y., Gao, Z.-F., Liu, Y., Guo, Y., Wen, J.-R., Sun, H.: Discovering physical laws with parallel symbolic enumeration. Nature Computational Science6(1), 53–66 (2026)

2026

[21] [24]

Nature Communications14, 1777 (2023)

Cornelio, C., Dash, S., Austel, V., Josephson, T.R., Goncalves, J., Clarkson, K.L., Megiddo, N., El Khadir, B., Horesh, L.: Combining data and theory for derivable scientific discovery with AI-Descartes. Nature Communications14, 1777 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-023-37236-y

2023

[22] [25]

In: The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (2025).https://openreview.net/forum?id=m2nmp8P5in

Shojaee, P., Meidani, K., Gupta, S., Farimani, A.B., Reddy, C.K.: LLM-SR: Scientific equation discovery via programming with large lan- guage models. In: The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (2025).https://openreview.net/forum?id=m2nmp8P5in

2025

[23] [26]

Nature620(7972), 47–60 (2023) Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 42Interpretable EoS from AI

Wang, H., Fu, T., Du, Y., Gao, W., Huang, K., Liu, Z., Chandak, P., Liu, S., Van Katwyk, P., Deac, A.,et al.: Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence. Nature620(7972), 47–60 (2023) Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 42Interpretable EoS from AI

2023

[24] [27]

Nature 651(8107), 914–919 (2026)

Lu, C., Lu, C., Lange, R.T., Yamada, Y., Hu, S., Foerster, J., Ha, D., Clune, J.: Towards end-to-end automation of ai research. Nature 651(8107), 914–919 (2026)

2026

[25] [28]

Nature Computational Science6(3), 301–315 (2026)

Shao, E., Wang, Y., Qian, Y., Pan, Z., Liu, H., Wang, D.: Sciscigpt: advancing human–ai collaboration in the science of science. Nature Computational Science6(3), 301–315 (2026)

2026

[26] [29]

npj Artificial Intelligence1(1), 14 (2025)

Zhang, Y., Khan, S.A., Mahmud, A., Yang, H., Lavin, A., Levin, M., Frey, J., Dunnmon, J., Evans, J., Bundy, A.,et al.: Exploring the role of large language models in the scientific method: from hypothesis to discovery. npj Artificial Intelligence1(1), 14 (2025)

2025

[27] [30]

Chevallier, D

Chevallier, M., Polarski, D.: Accelerating universes with scaling dark mat- ter. International Journal of Modern Physics D10(2), 213–224 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271801000822

work page doi:10.1142/s0218271801000822 2001

[28] [31]

WMAP constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy

Jassal, H.K., Bagla, J.S., Padmanabhan, T.: WMAP constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy. MNRAS356(1), 11–16 (2005) arXiv:astro-ph/0404378 [astro-ph]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3933. 2005.08577.x

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933 2005

[29] [32]

Physical Review D93(12), 123518 (2016)

Dimakis, N., Karagiorgos, A., Zampeli, A., Paliathanasis, A., Christodoulakis, T., Terzis, P.A.: General analytic solutions of scalar field cosmology with arbitrary potential. Physical Review D93(12), 123518 (2016)

2016

[30] [33]

A parametric model for dark energy

Barboza, E.M., Alcaniz, J.S.: A parametric model for dark energy. Physics Letters B666(5), 415–419 (2008) arXiv:0805.1713 [astro-ph]. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.physletb.2008.08.012

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.08.012 2008

[31] [34]

Astroparticle Physics97, 130–135 (2018)

Jaber, M., de la Macorra, A.: Probing a steep eos for dark energy with latest observations. Astroparticle Physics97, 130–135 (2018)

2018

[32] [35]

Science324(5923), 81 (2009)

Schmidt, M., Lipson, H.: Distilling Free-Form Natural Laws from Exper- imental Data. Science324(5923), 81 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1165893

2009

[33] [36]

Nature Reviews Physics4(12), 761–769 (2022) arXiv:2204.01467 [cs.CY]

Krenn, M., Pollice, R., Guo, S.Y., Aldeghi, M., Cervera-Lierta, A., Friederich, P., dos Passos Gomes, G., H¨ ase, F., Jinich, A., Nigam, A., Yao, Z., Aspuru-Guzik, A.: On scientific understanding with artificial intelli- gence. Nature Reviews Physics4(12), 761–769 (2022) arXiv:2204.01467 [cs.CY]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-022-00518-3

work page doi:10.1038/s42254-022-00518-3 2022

[34] [37]

Nature627(8002), 49–58 (2024) Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template Interpretable EoS from AI43

Messeri, L., Crockett, M.J.: Artificial intelligence and illusions of under- standing in scientific research. Nature627(8002), 49–58 (2024) Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template Interpretable EoS from AI43

2024

[35] [38]

Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmol- ogy71(4), 047301 (2005)

Hu, W.: Crossing the phantom divide: Dark energy internal degrees of freedom. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmol- ogy71(4), 047301 (2005)

2005

[36] [39]

Vikman, A.: Can dark energy evolve to the phantom? Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology71(2), 023515 (2005)

2005

[37] [40]

International Journal of Modern Physics D15(11), 1753–1935 (2006)

Copeland, E.J., Sami, M., Tsujikawa, S.: Dynamics of dark energy. International Journal of Modern Physics D15(11), 1753–1935 (2006)

1935

[38] [41]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2505

Team, Q.: Qwen3 Technical Report (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2505. 09388

2025

[39] [42]

Xiao, S., Liu, Z., Zhang, P., Muennighoff, N.: C-Pack: Packaged Resources To Advance General Chinese Embedding (2023)

2023

[40] [43]

The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

Brout, D.,et al.: The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints. Astrophys. J.938(2), 110 (2022) arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]. https: //doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 2022

[41] [44]

Rubin, D., et al.: Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework (2023) arXiv:2311.12098 [astro- ph.CO]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

[42] [45]

The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results With ~1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using The Full 5-year Dataset

Abbott, T.M.C.,et al.: The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set. Astrophys. J. Lett.973(1), 14 (2024) arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f 2024

[43] [46]

Aghanim, N.,et al.: Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys.641, 6 (2020) arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]. https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2018

[44] [47]

Aghanim, N.,et al.: Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods. Astron. Astrophys.641, 5 (2020) arXiv:1907.12875 [astro- ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201936386

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936386 2018

[45] [48]

Aghanim, N.,et al.: Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravitational lensing. Astron. Astrophys.641, 8 (2020) arXiv:1807.06210 [astro-ph.CO]. https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833886

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833886 2018

[46] [49]

Abdul Karim, M.,et al.: DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints. Phys. Rev. D112(8), 083515 (2025) arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1103/ tr6y-kpc6 Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 44Interpretable EoS from AI

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[47] [50]

Abdul Karim, M.,et al.: DESI DR2 results. I. Baryon acoustic oscilla- tions from the Lyman alpha forest. Phys. Rev. D112(8), 083514 (2025) arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1103/2wwn-xjm5

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/2wwn-xjm5 2025

[48] [51]

DESI peculiar velocity survey—Fundamental Plane.Mon

Menote, R., Marra, V.: Baryon acoustic oscillations in thin redshift shells from BOSS DR12 and eBOSS DR16 galaxies. mnras513(2), 1600–1608 (2022) arXiv:2112.10000 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ stac847

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/ 2022

[49] [52]

aap 649, 20 (2021) arXiv:2103.14121 [astro-ph.CO]

de Carvalho, E., Bernui, A., Avila, F., Novaes, C.P., Nogueira-Cavalcante, J.P.: BAO angular scale at z ef f = 0.11 with the SDSS blue galaxies. aap 649, 20 (2021) arXiv:2103.14121 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/202039936

arXiv 2021

[50] [53]

arXiv e- prints, 2510–15650 (2025) arXiv:2510.15650 [astro-ph.CO]

Avila, F., Bernui, A., Sabogal, M.A., Nunes, R.C.: Transverse BAO scale measurement atz eff = 1.725 with the SDSS quasars catalog. arXiv e- prints, 2510–15650 (2025) arXiv:2510.15650 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.15650

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.15650 2025

[51] [54]

Angular Baryon Acoustic Oscillation measure at z=2.225 from the SDSS quasar survey

de Carvalho, E., Bernui, A., Carvalho, G.C., Novaes, C.P., Xavier, H.S.: Angular Baryon Acoustic Oscillation measure at z=2.225 from the SDSS quasar survey. jcap04(4), 064 (2018) arXiv:1709.00113 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/064

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/064 2018

[52] [55]

Sabogal, M.A., Nunes, R.C., Avila, F., Bernui, A.: Updated Cosmolog- ical Constraints from 2D BAO Measurements: A New Compilation and Comparison with DESI DR2 (2025) arXiv:2510.16141 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025

[53] [56]

JCAP07, 034 (2011) arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]

Blas, D., Lesgourgues, J., Tram, T.: The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes. JCAP07, 034 (2011) arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1475-7516/2011/07/034

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

[54] [57]

Conservative Constraints on Early Cosmology: an illustration of the Monte Python cosmological parameter inference code

Audren, B., Lesgourgues, J., Benabed, K., Prunet, S.: Conservative Con- straints on Early Cosmology: an illustration of the Monte Python cosmo- logical parameter inference code. JCAP02, 001 (2013) arXiv:1210.7183 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/001

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/001 2013

[55] [58]

Brinckmann, T., Lesgourgues, J.: MontePython 3: boosted MCMC sampler and other features. Phys. Dark Univ.24, 100260 (2019) arXiv:1804.07261 [astro-ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2018. 100260

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.dark.2018 2019

[56] [59]

Gelman, A., Rubin, D.B.: Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Mul- tiple Sequences. Statist. Sci.7, 457–472 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1214/ ss/1177011136 Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template Interpretable EoS from AI45

arXiv 1992

[57] [60]

Kass, R.E., Raftery, A.E.: Bayes Factors. J. Am. Statist. Assoc.90(430), 773–795 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 1995

[58] [61]

Heavens, A., Fantaye, Y., Sellentin, E., Eggers, H., Hosenie, Z., Kroon, S., Mootoovaloo, A.: No evidence for extensions to the standard cosmological model. Phys. Rev. Lett.119(10), 101301 (2017) arXiv:1704.03467 [astro- ph.CO]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.101301

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.101301 2017

[59] [62]

Heavens, A., Fantaye, Y., Mootoovaloo, A., Eggers, H., Hosenie, Z., Kroon, S., Sellentin, E.: Marginal Likelihoods from Monte Carlo Markov Chains (2017) arXiv:1704.03472 [stat.CO]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

[60] [63]

Trotta, R.: Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology. Contemp. Phys.49, 71–104 (2008) arXiv:0803.4089 [astro-ph]. https://doi.org/10.1080/00107510802066753

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1080/00107510802066753 2008

[61] [64]

Ong, D.D.Y., Yallup, D., Handley, W.: The Bayesian view of DESI DR2: Evidence and tension in a combined analysis with CMB and supernovae across cosmological models (2026) arXiv:2603.05472 [astro-ph.CO]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026