Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Beyond $j=1$: Observational Constraints on Almost-$\Lambda$CDM Cosmologies

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that current geometric observations confine the cosmic jerk parameter to a small neighbourhood of j=1, driving the reconstructed dark-energy equation of state to freeze near w=-1 without crossing the phantom divide.

desk verdict Useful constraints on deviations from j=1, but the 'no phantom crossing' conclusion is closure-dependent and the model-comparison text contradicts Table IV. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20348 v1 pith:7U3RUUWQ submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Jess Worsley , Saikat Chakraborty , Peter Dunsby This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc PACS 95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords cosmographyjerkparameterLambda-CDMdarkenergyequationofstatebaryonacousticoscillationscosmicmicrowavebackgroundsupernovaestatefinder
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks how strongly current observations rule out versions of the standard cosmological model in which the cosmic jerk parameter—a kinematic third-derivative quantity—is not exactly one. It considers three phenomenological 'almost-ΛCDM' closures where jerk deviates from unity by a small parameter ε, and fits them to baryon acoustic oscillation, cosmic microwave background, and type Ia supernova data. It finds that all three closures are pushed to within a small neighbourhood of the ΛCDM cosmographic fixed point (j0 ≈ 1, w_DE,0 ≈ -1), and that the reconstructed dark-energy equation of state shows a smooth freezing evolution near w=-1 without crossing the phantom divide. If right, recent hints of evolving dark energy from parameterized fits are not required by geometric observations; the expansion history is more robustly constrained than the detailed trajectory of w(z).

What carries the argument

The central object is the cosmic jerk parameter j(z) = (1/H^3)(d^3 a/dt^3)/a, whose value j=1 at all redshifts is the kinematic signature of spatially flat ΛCDM. The machinery is a set of three 'almost-ΛCDM' jerk closures—j = 1 + 3ε(q+1), j = 1 + ε, and j = 1 + 3ε(q-1/2)—together with analytic formulas that solve for h^2(z), q(z), Ωm(z), and the derived w_DE(z). A four-parameter Markov Chain Monte Carlo fit over H0, q0, j0, and Ωm0 maps the allowed deformation ε and the reconstructed equation of state, and Akaike and Bayesian information criteria compare the closures against a standard CPL parameterization.

What would settle it

Fit a different near-ΛCDM jerk closure—for example j(z) = 1 + εz or j(z) = 1 + ε/(1+z)—to the same BAO, CMB, and supernova likelihoods; if the resulting 95% interval on ε spans O(0.1) or larger, or if the reconstructed w_DE(z) crosses -1, then the paper's conclusion that geometric data confine jerk to a small ΛCDM neighbourhood is an artifact of the chosen functional forms.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that current geometric observations tightly constrain the cosmic jerk to be close to 1, and correspondingly constrain the effective dark-energy equation of state to be close to -1 today and to freeze towards -1 toward the future, regardless of which of the three almost-ΛCDM closures is used. The argument is that this conclusion is model-independent in a specific sense: no explicit w(z) parameterization is assumed; the expansion history is fit directly through cosmographic relations with H0, q0, j0, and Ωm0 as free parameters, and w_DE(z) is derived afterward. Hence the paper concludes that the evidence for dynamical dark energy is not uniquely determined by curre

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the three particular jerk closures span the space of plausible near-ΛCDM kinematics, so the tight ε limits and the freezing w_DE(z) behavior may not apply to other jerk trajectories.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, current BAO, CMB, and supernova data do not require any departure from the j=1 kinematic condition that defines flat ΛCDM.
  • The reconstructed dark-energy equation of state consistently freezes near w=-1 without crossing the phantom divide, so reported evidence for a phantom-to-non-phantom transition may be an artifact of assuming a specific w(z) form.
  • Constraints on the expansion history are more robust than constraints on w(z): the same data allow different w_DE(z) trajectories depending on the assumed jerk closure.
  • Three kinematically distinct almost-ΛCDM closures remain statistically competitive with standard dark-energy parameterizations while relying on fewer assumptions about the functional form of w(z).
  • The reconstructed evolutions are compatible with freezing quintessence and freezing tachyon dark-energy models, suggesting that mild kinematic departures from ΛCDM can be embedded in physically viable dynamical scenarios.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: The tight ε bounds are conditional on the three chosen jerk closures; a different near-ΛCDM functional form for j(z) might admit larger departures with the same data, so the 'data force j≈1' conclusion should be read as applying to this family of closures.
  • Inference: Since the reconstructed w(z) is methodology-dependent, a natural next test is to apply the same cosmographic reconstruction to perturbation-level observables such as growth rate or weak lensing, where almost-ΛCDM models may be more easily distinguished from ΛCDM.
  • Inference: The absence of phantom crossing in the cosmographic reconstruction, in contrast to CPL fits, suggests that 'evolving dark energy' claims from DESI-era data should be validated with reconstruction methods before being interpreted as evidence for new physics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constrains three phenomenological 'almost-LambdaCDM' cosmographic closures, in which the cosmic jerk j(z) is displaced from unity by a small deformation parameter epsilon. Using MCMC fits to DESI DR2 BAO, a compressed Planck CMB likelihood, and the Union3, Pantheon+, and DESY5 supernova compilations, the authors report that all three closures are tightly confined to j0 ~ 1 and w_DE,0 ~ -1 when Planck data are included, and that the reconstructed dark-energy equation of state shows freezing behavior without phantom crossing. They also compare the closures with the CPL w0-wa parameterization using AIC/BIC and Akaike weights, and argue that the almost-LambdaCDM models remain statistically competitive.

Significance. If the central results hold, the paper provides a useful model-independent check on the DESI-driven claims of dynamical dark energy, showing that geometric data alone remain consistent with the cosmographic LambdaCDM condition j=1. The work has clear strengths: the analytic cosmographic formulas are explicit, the MCMC code is made available on GitHub, the compressed CMB treatment is transparent, and the w-w' embedding in freezing quintessence/tachyon models is a nice physical cross-check. However, the headline interpretive claims about the no-phantom-crossing/freezing behavior are conditional on the three chosen closures, and at least one explicit model-comparison claim is contradicted by the paper's own table. These issues are local and fixable, but they require revision before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI, Table IV] The statement that 'the Akaike weights favor model III over CPL for the dataset combinations considered here' is not supported by Table IV for the combinations without Planck. For example, in the DESI row AIC_CPL = 13.638 while AIC_Model III = 17.119; in the Pantheon+ row AIC_CPL = 1763.953 vs AIC_Model III = 1767.547; and in the SN row AIC_CPL = 3419.626 vs AIC_Model III = 3425.968. The claim holds only for Planck-containing combinations (e.g., the Planck+SN row, where Model III has AIC 3445.503 vs CPL 3461.335). Please revise the text to state precisely which dataset combinations favor which model, and temper the abstract's 'statistically competitive' wording accordingly.
  2. [Section III and Section IX, Fig. 2] The conclusion that the reconstructed dark-energy equation of state 'consistently exhibits a smooth freezing behaviour close to w=-1, without crossing the phantom divide' is an output of the three ad hoc j(z) closures defined in Section III. No argument is given that these closures span the space of near-LambdaCDM kinematics, and the CPL fit to the same data in Fig. 2 does show a phantom crossing. The authors themselves concede in Section IX that the equation of state 'depends non-trivially on the reconstruction methodology adopted.' The abstract and Section VII should either restrict the no-crossing/freezing claim explicitly to Models I-III or test robustness against a broader closure family, for example linear or quadratic perturbations in j(q) with free coefficients. As written, this claim likely does not generalize.
  3. [Section V, Eq. (10); Section IV] The combined 'SN' likelihood is constructed by summing the log-likelihoods of Union3, Pantheon+, and DESY5, which effectively treats these datasets as statistically independent. The paper itself notes in Section IV that these samples overlap and are not independent. No joint covariance or overlap correction is implemented apart from analytic marginalization over M. This double-counting directly affects the 'DESI+Planck+SN' constraints and the AIC/BIC numbers that support the paper's main conclusions. Please either use a proper joint covariance matrix, analyze the SN compilations separately (as is already done in the individual table rows), or quantitatively assess how much the double-counting alters the reported constraints and model-comparison results.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] The phrase 'model-independent' is used repeatedly, but the w_DE reconstruction requires Omega_m0 and assumes flatness and a fixed sound horizon; Section V acknowledges this, but the abstract and Section IX should carry the same caveat.
  2. [Table V] For the DESI and SN rows, w0 and wa are reported as '–', yet Table IV still lists AIC/BIC values for the CPL model. Please state explicitly how the CPL benchmark was fitted in those cases and whether the unconstrained parameters were marginalized or held fixed.
  3. [Section VI, after Eq. (13)] There is a typographical/formatting issue: 'Note thatwhere refers to the Akaike weight' should be 'Note that w here refers to the Akaike weight defined in (13), not the dark-energy equation of state.'
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The word 'Recreated' in the caption should likely be 'Reconstructed' to match the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the w_DE reconstruction is an algebraic transform of fitted cosmographic parameters, and the self-citation lineage for the three closures is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative results are posterior constraints on free parameters (H0, q0, j0, Omega_m0) sampled with broad uniform priors against external DESI, Planck, and SNe data. The derived dark-energy equation of state is obtained from the fitted parameters through the explicit algebraic relations in Eqs. (8)-(9) and the Appendix B expressions for each jerk closure; this is a legitimate parameter conversion rather than a hidden fit or a prediction of an input. The three almost-LCDM closures are admittedly phenomenological ansatze adopted from the authors' prior work ([12], [20]), and the no-phantom-crossing/freezing behavior is conditional on those closures, but the paper explicitly acknowledges this in Section V ('the reconstruction of wDE is not completely model-independent') and Section IX ('the inferred evolution of the dark-energy equation of state is not uniquely determined by current observations alone, but depends non-trivially on the reconstruction methodology adopted'). The j0 ~ 1 and w_DE,0 ~ -1 results are not enforced by the priors, which are stated to be broad so that 'the data, rather than the priors, drive the constraints.' The self-citations supply the model family and theoretical context, but the observational constraints are independently computed against standard external datasets, so no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation or to the paper's own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central constraints rest on four fitted parameters (H0, q0, j0, Omega_m0), the three assumed jerk closures, the flat-GR Friedmann background, a fixed Planck sound horizon and compressed CMB distance priors, and the assumption that BAO/CMB/SN likelihoods are independent. No new physical entities are introduced; the almost-LambdaCDM closures are phenomenological parameterizations.

free parameters (4)
  • H0 = 67.0-69.9 km/s/Mpc depending on dataset
    Hubble constant sampled with a uniform prior 50-72; it sets the overall distance scale and is one of the four fitted parameters.
  • q0 = about -0.48 to -0.64
    Present-day deceleration parameter, fitted directly; enters the reconstruction of w_DE(0).
  • j0 = about 0.62-1.31 depending on model/dataset
    Present-day jerk; the central parameter measuring departure from the LambdaCDM condition j=1.
  • Omega_m0 = about 0.29-0.32 with Planck data
    Present-day matter density parameter, needed to reconstruct w_DE(z); strongly constrained by compressed Planck priors.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spatial flatness (Omega_k = 0)
    Used in Section IV.A in the distance formulas, e.g. 'DM = chi for Omega_k = 0'.
  • domain assumption Flat Friedmann background with matter and dark energy in GR
    The h^2(z) forms in Appendix B and the w_DE reconstruction assume a standard Friedmann framework with no modified gravity.
  • ad hoc to paper The three jerk closures (Models I-III) span near-LambdaCDM kinematics
    Section III introduces three specific functional forms j = 1 + f(epsilon, q); the resulting constraints on epsilon and w_DE are conditional on this choice.
  • domain assumption Fixed Planck sound horizon and compressed CMB distance priors
    Section IV.A fixes rd ~ 147.2 Mpc and Section IV.C uses only R and l_A from Planck, inheriting early-universe LambdaCDM assumptions.
  • domain assumption Statistical independence of BAO, CMB, and SN likelihoods
    Section V Eq. (10) sums log-likelihoods; the text acknowledges that overlapping supernova compilations make this imperfect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond $j=1$: Observational Constraints on Almost-$\Lambda$CDM Cosmologies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7U3RUUWQ

@misc{pith2026260720348,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond $j=1$: Observational Constraints on Almost-$\Lambda$CDM Cosmologies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7U3RUUWQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20348}
}
abstract

The cosmographic condition $j(z)=1$ provides the kinematical signature of the spatially flat $\Lambda$CDM model independently of any specific dark-energy or modified-gravity theory. We investigate the extent to which current observations permit departures from this condition by considering three phenomenological ``almost-$\Lambda$CDM'' cosmographic closures, in which the cosmic jerk differs slightly from unity through a small deformation parameter $\epsilon$. The models are constrained using Markov Chain Monte Carlo analyses of recent DESI baryon acoustic oscillation measurements together with compressed Planck cosmic microwave background likelihoods and the Union3, Pantheon+, and DESY5 Type Ia supernova compilations. Rather than assuming a parameterized dark-energy equation of state, our cosmographic framework reconstructs the expansion history directly from observations, with the effective dark-energy equation of state emerging as a derived quantity. We find that all three closures are tightly constrained to the vicinity of the $\Lambda$CDM cosmographic fixed point, with Planck data driving the preferred evolution toward $j_0\simeq1$ and $w_{\rm DE,0}\simeq-1$. Despite their distinct kinematical constructions, the reconstructed dark-energy evolution consistently exhibits smooth freezing behaviour close to $w=-1$, without crossing the phantom divide. Model comparison using the Akaike and Bayesian information criteria shows that the almost-$\Lambda$CDM models remain statistically competitive with standard dark-energy parameterizations while requiring fewer assumptions about the functional form of $w(z)$. These results demonstrate the power of model-independent cosmography for constraining the cosmic expansion history and provide a natural framework for future studies of cosmological perturbations and structure formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20348 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The characteristic evolutionary tracts of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Equation of state parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Recreated H(z) for each model using DESI + SNIa data (blue), DESI + SNIa + Planck data (pink), and DESI + Planck data (yellow), alongside ΛCDM (black dashed line). Cosmic chronometer (black circles) and BAO (black squares) data points have also been included. 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 h(z) Model I Model II Model III ΛCDM 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 z 0.0 0.1 ∆ h −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 q(z) Model I Model II Model III ΛCDM 0.0 0.5 1… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the density abundance parameters for the almost ΛCDM evolutionary model-I (left panel), model-II (middle panel), and model-III (right panel). The plots are made for the best fit value of ϵ for the combination of data sets DESI+Planck+SN (the last columns i…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Confidence contours for the parameters {H0, q0, j0, Ωm0, ϵ, c1, c2, wDE(z)|z=0, w′ DE(z)|z=0} at 68% and 95% confidence levels for each model obtained with the DESI + Union3 + Pantheon+ + DESY5 + Planck dataset combination. B. Evolution of various quantities for the th…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, R. L. Gilliland, C. J. Hogan, S. Jha, R. P. Kirshner, B. Leibundgut, M. M. Phillips, D. Reiss, B. P. Schmidt, R. A. Schommer, R. C. Smith, J. Spyromilio, C. Stubbs, N. B. Suntzeff, and J. Tonry, Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Acceler- ating Universe and ...

    1998

  2. [2]

    Interestingly, the dark energy equation of state parameter evolution does not show any phantom crossing

    The plots in Fig.2 also show the freezing nature of the dark energy equation of state (w DE → −1 or to a value close to−1 asymptotically in the future). Interestingly, the dark energy equation of state parameter evolution does not show any phantom crossing. We discuss about this observation in§IX. VIII. Embedding the almostΛCDM evolutionary models within ...

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P. Nugent, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goo- bar, D. E. Groom, I. M. Hook, A. G. Kim, M. Y. Kim, J. C. Lee, N. J. Nunes, R. Pain, C. R. Penny- packer, R. Quimby, C. Lidman, R. S. Ellis, M. Irwin, R. G. McMahon, P. Ruiz-Lapuente, N. Walton, B. Schae- fer, B. J. Boyle, A. V. Filippenko, T. Mat...

    1999

  4. [4]

    Ratra and P

    B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Cosmological consequences of a rolling homogeneous scalar field, Physical Review D 37, 3406 (1988)

    1988

  5. [5]

    P. J. Steinhardt, L. Wang, and I. Zlatev, Cosmological tracking solutions, Physical Review D59, 123504 (1999)

    1999

  6. [6]

    R. R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski, and N. N. Weinberg, Phantom Energy: Dark Energy with$w<\ensuremath{- }1$Causes a Cosmic Doomsday, Physical Review Letters 91, 071301 (2003)

    2003

  7. [7]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. Mukhanov, and P. J. Stein- hardt, Essentials of k-essence, Physical Review D63, 103510 (2001)

    2001

  8. [8]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Bar- reiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, K. Benabed, J.-P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, J. J. Bock, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, F. R. Bouchet, F. Boulanger, M. Bucher, C. Burigana, R. C. Butler, E. Calabrese, J.-F. Car- doso, J. Carron, B. Casaponsa, A. Challino...

    2018

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    D. J. Eisenstein, I. Zehavi, D. W. Hogg, R. Scoccimarro, M. R. Blanton, R. C. Nichol, R. Scranton, H.-J. Seo, M. Tegmark, Z. Zheng, S. F. Anderson, J. Annis, N. Bah- call, J. Brinkmann, S. Burles, F. J. Castander, A. Con- nolly, I. Csabai, M. Doi, M. Fukugita, J. A. Frieman, K...

    2005

  2. [10]

    D. C. T. M. C. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, A. Alar- con, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. Annis, P. Armstrong, J. Asorey, S. Avila, D. Bacon, B. A. Bassett, K. Bechtol, P. H. Bernardinelli, G. M. Bernstein, E. Bertin, J. Blazek, S. Bocquet, D. Brooks, D....

    2024

  3. [11]

    P. K. S. Dunsby and O. Luongo, On the theory and ap- plications of modern cosmography, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics13, 1630002 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    U. Alam, V. Sahni, T. Deep Saini, and A. A. Starobinsky, Exploring the expanding Universe and dark energy using the statefinder diagnostic, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society344, 1057 (2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

    Chakraborty, C

    S. Chakraborty, C. Louw, P. K. S. Dunsby, K. MacDe- vette, and A. d. l. C. Dombriz, Dynamical dark en- ergy in models with evolution close toλCDM (2025), arXiv:2508.09813 [gr-qc]

    2025

  6. [14]

    MacDevette, J

    K. MacDevette, J. Worsley, P. Dunsby, and S. Chakraborty, A model-independent approach to the study of structure growth in f(R) gravity, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society537, 2471 (2025), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/537/3/2471/61722571/staf168.pdf

    2025

  7. [15]

    Roy and S

    N. Roy and S. Chakrabarti, Is phantom barrier crossing inevitable? A cosmographic analysis, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 586 (2026), arXiv:2508.13740 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Fazzari, W

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

    2026

  9. [17]

    Carloni, O

    Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Biesiada, Challenging the ω0ωaCDM parametrization through rational expansions in view of the DESI DR2, Phys. Rev. D113, 103525 (2026), arXiv:2511.15472 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  10. [18]

    Dunajski and G

    M. Dunajski and G. Gibbons, Cosmic jerk, snap and be- yond, Classical and Quantum Gravity25, 235012 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    Luongo and H

    O. Luongo and H. Quevedo, A unified dark energy model from a vanishing speed of sound with emergent cosmolog- ical constant, International Journal of Modern Physics D 23, 1450012 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Chakraborty, D

    S. Chakraborty, D. Gregoris, and B. Mishra, On the uniqueness of ΛCDM-like evolution for homogeneous and isotropic cosmology in General Relativity, Phys. Lett. B 842, 137962 (2023), arXiv:2208.04596 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Chakraborty and P

    S. Chakraborty and P. Burikham, Theory space and sta- bility analysis of General Relativistic cosmological solu- tions in modified gravity (2026), arXiv:2509.15762 [gr-qc] version: 2

    2026

  14. [22]

    Adame, J

    A. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. Alexan- der, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H. Awan, B. Bahr- Kalus, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, A. Bault, J. Behera, S. BenZvi, A. Bera, F. Beutler, D. Bianchi, C. Blake, R. Blum, S. Brieden...

    2024

  15. [23]

    M. S. Madhavacheril, F. J. Qu, B. D. Sherwin, N. Mac- Crann, Y. Li, I. Abril-Cabezas, P. A. R. Ade, S. Aiola, T. Alford, M. Amiri, S. Amodeo, R. An, Z. Atkins, J. E. Austermann, N. Battaglia, E. S. Battistelli, J. A. Beall, R. Bean, B. Beringue, T. Bhandarkar, E. Biermann, B. ...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Collaboration, M

    D. Collaboration, M. Abdul Karim, A. G. Adame, D. Aguado, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, G. Aldering, D. M. Alexander, R. Alfarsy, L. Allen, C. Allende Pri- eto, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H. Awan, S. Bailey, A. Baleato Lizan- cos, O. Ba...

    2026

  17. [25]

    Lodha, R

    K. Lodha, R. Calderon, W. L. Matthewson, A. Shafieloo, M. Ishak, J. Pan, C. Garcia-Quintero, D. Huterer, G. Val- ogiannis, L. A. Ure˜ na-L´ opez, N. V. Kamble, D. Parkin- son, A. G. Kim, G. B. Zhao, J. L. Cervantes-Cota, J. Rohlf, F. Lozano-Rodr ´ ıguez, J. O. Rom´ an-Herrera,...

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Rubin, G

    D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, X. Huang, A. G. Kim, C. Lidman, E. Linder, S. Perl- mutter, P. Ruiz-Lapuente, and N. Suzuki, Union through UNITY: Cosmology with 2000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework, The Astrophysical Journal986, 231 (2025)

    2000

  19. [27]

    Scolnic, D

    D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A. G. Riess, T. M. Davis, A. Dwomoh, D. O. Jones, N. Ali, P. Charvu, R. Chen, E. R. Peterson, B. Popovic, B. M. Rose, C. M. Wood, P. J. Brown, K. Chambers, D. A. Coulter, K. G. Dettman, G. Dimitriadis, A. V. Filippenko, R. J. Foley, S. W. Jha, C....

    2022

  20. [28]

    Brout, D

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A. G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz, R. Kessler, T. M. Davis, S. Hinton, D. Jones, W. D. Kenworthy, E. R. Peterson, K. Said, G. Taylor, N. Ali, P. Armstrong, P. Charvu, A. Dwomoh, C. Mel- dorf, A. Palmese, H. Qu, B. M. Rose, B. Sanchez, C. W. Stubb...

    2022

  21. [29]

    B. O. S´ anchez, D. Brout, M. Vincenzi, M. Sako, K. Herner, R. Kessler, T. M. Davis, D. Scolnic, M. Acevedo, J. Lee, A. M¨ oller, H. Qu, L. Kelsey, P. Wiseman, P. Armstrong, B. Rose, R. Camilleri, R. Chen, L. Galbany, E. Kovacs, C. Lidman, B. Popovic, M. Smith, P. Shah, M. Sul...

    2024

  22. [30]

    The BAO and SN datasets used in this paper can be found on the Cobaya GitHub

  23. [31]

    Cortˆ es and A

    M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle, On DESI’s DR2 exclusion of λCDM, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety: Letters544, L121 (2025), arXiv:2504.15336 [astro- ph]

    2025

  24. [32]

    S. Alam, M. Ata, S. Bailey, F. Beutler, D. Bizyaev, J. A. Blazek, A. S. Bolton, J. R. Brownstein, A. Burden, C.-H. Chuang, J. Comparat, A. J. Cuesta, K. S. Daw- son, D. J. Eisenstein, S. Escoffier, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, J. N. Grieb, N. Hand, S. Ho, K. Kinemuchi, D. Kirkby, F. Ki- t...

    2017

  25. [33]

    Adame, J

    A. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. Alexan- der, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. An- drade, E. Armengaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H. Awan, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, A. Bault, J. Bautista, J. Be- hera, S. BenZvi, F. Beutler, D. Bianchi, C. Blake, R. Blum, S. Brieden, A. Bro...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Bar- reiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, R. Battye, K. Benabed, J.-P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, J. J. Bock, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, F. R. Bouchet, F. Boulanger, M. Bucher, C. ...

    2018

  27. [35]

    Tripp, A two-parameter luminosity correction for Type IA supernovae, Astronomy and Astrophysics331, 815 (1998), aDS Bibcode: 1998A&A...331..815T

    R. Tripp, A two-parameter luminosity correction for Type IA supernovae, Astronomy and Astrophysics331, 815 (1998), aDS Bibcode: 1998A&A...331..815T

    1998

  28. [36]

    Camilleri, T

    R. Camilleri, T. M. Davis, M. Vincenzi, P. Shah, J. Frie- man, R. Kessler, P. Armstrong, D. Brout, A. Carr, R. Chen, L. Galbany, K. Glazebrook, S. R. Hinton, J. Lee, C. Lidman, A. M¨ oller, B. Popovic, H. Qu, M. Sako, D. Scolnic, M. Smith, M. Sullivan, B. O. S´ anchez, G. Tayl...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Conley, J

    A. Conley, J. Guy, M. Sullivan, N. Regnault, P. Astier, C. Balland, S. Basa, R. G. Carlberg, D. Fouchez, D. Hardin, I. M. Hook, D. A. Howell, R. Pain, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, K. M. Perrett, C. J. Pritchet, J. Rich, V. Ruhlmann-Kleider, D. Balam, S. Baumont, R. S. Ellis, S. F...

    2010

  30. [38]

    Betoule, R

    M. Betoule, R. Kessler, J. Guy, J. Mosher, D. Hardin, R. Biswas, P. Astier, P. El-Hage, M. Konig, S. Kuhlmann, J. Marriner, R. Pain, N. Regnault, C. Balland, B. A. Bassett, P. J. Brown, H. Campbell, R. G. Carl- berg, F. Cellier-Holzem, D. Cinabro, A. Conley, C. B. D’Andrea, D....

    2014

  31. [39]

    A. N. Taylor and T. D. Kitching, Analytic methods for cosmological likelihoods, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society408, 865 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    S. Alam, M. Aubert, S. Avila, C. Balland, J. E. Bautista, M. A. Bershady, D. Bizyaev, M. R. Blanton, A. S. Bolton, J. Bovy, J. Brinkmann, J. R. Brownstein, E. Burtin, S. Chabanier, M. J. Chapman, P. D. Choi, C.-H. Chuang, J. Comparat, M.-C. Cousinou, A. Cuceu, K. S. Dawson, S....

    2021

  33. [41]

    Vincenzi, R

    M. Vincenzi, R. Kessler, P. Shah, J. Lee, T. M. Davis, D. Scolnic, P. Armstrong, D. Brout, R. Camilleri, R. Chen, L. Galbany, C. Lidman, A. M¨ oller, B. Popovic, B. Rose, M. Sako, B. O. S´ anchez, M. Smith, M. Sulli- van, P. Wiseman, T. M. C. Abbott, M. Aguena, S. Al- lam, F. ...

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    N. S. Kavya, S. S. Mishra, and P. K. Sahoo, Model-Independent Cosmography with Logarith- mic Polynomial using Recent Observational Data, Fortschritte der Physik74, e70078 (2026), eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/prop.70078

    2026 doi

  35. [43]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, F. Arroja, M. Ashdown, J. Au- mont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, R. Battye, K. Benabed, J.-P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, J. J. Bock, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, F. R. Bouchet, F. Boulanger, M. ...

    2018

  36. [44]

    Wang and P

    Y. Wang and P. Mukherjee, Observational constraints on dark energy and cosmic curvature, Physical Review D76, 103533 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    Chen, Q.-G

    L. Chen, Q.-G. Huang, and K. Wang, Distance pri- ors from Planck final release, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019, 028, aDS Bibcode: 2019JCAP...02..028C

  38. [46]

    Rodrigues, R

    G. Rodrigues, R. de Souza, and J. Alcaniz, Cosmography with DESI DR2 and SN data, Phys. Rev. D112, 103519 (2025), arXiv:2506.22373 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  39. [47]

    Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian infer- ence and model selection in cosmology, Con- temporary Physics49, 71 (2008), eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/00107510802066753

    R. Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian infer- ence and model selection in cosmology, Con- temporary Physics49, 71 (2008), eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/00107510802066753

    2008 doi

  40. [48]

    Lewis and S

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: a Monte-Carlo approach, Physical Review D66, 103511 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0205436

    2002 arXiv

  41. [49]

    D. W. Hogg, Distance measures in cosmology (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9905116

    2000 arXiv

  42. [50]

    D. H. Weinberg, M. J. Mortonson, D. J. Eisenstein, C. Hi- rata, A. G. Riess, and E. Rozo, Observational probes of cosmic acceleration, Physics Reports Observational Probes of Cosmic Acceleration,530, 87 (2013)

    2013

  43. [51]

    Goodman and J

    J. Goodman and J. Weare, Ensemble samplers with affine invariance, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science5, 65 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Good- man, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific125, 306 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics D10, 213 (2001)

    2001

  46. [54]

    E. V. Linder, Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe, Physical Review Letters90, 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.90.091301 (2003)

    2003 doi

  47. [55]

    Akaike, A new look at the statistical model identifica- tion, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19, 716 (1974)

    H. Akaike, A new look at the statistical model identifica- tion, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19, 716 (1974)

    1974

  48. [56]

    Schwarz, Estimating the Dimension of a Model, Annals of Statistics6, 461 (1978), aDS Bibcode: 1978AnSta...6..461S

    G. Schwarz, Estimating the Dimension of a Model, Annals of Statistics6, 461 (1978), aDS Bibcode: 1978AnSta...6..461S

    1978

  49. [57]

    S. S. Mishra, N. S. Kavya, P. K. Sahoo, and K. Bamba, DESI DR2 meets cosmography: a comparative study of Pad´ e, Chebyshev, and Taylor expansions, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society546, stag197 (2026)

    2026

  50. [58]

    A. R. Liddle, Information criteria for astrophysical model selection, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety: Letters377, L74 (2007)

    2007

  51. [59]

    Wagenmakers and S

    E.-J. Wagenmakers and S. Farrell, AIC model selection using Akaike weights, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11, 192 (2004)

    2004

  52. [60]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), DESI DR2 results

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

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    R. R. Caldwell and E. V. Linder, The Limits of quintessence, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 141301 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0505494

    2005 arXiv

  54. [62]

    R. J. Scherrer, Dark energy models in the w-w’ plane, Phys. Rev. D73, 043502 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0509890

    2006 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Chiba, W and w’ of scalar field models of dark energy, Phys

    T. Chiba, W and w’ of scalar field models of dark energy, Phys. Rev. D73, 063501 (2006), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 80, 129901 (2009)], arXiv:astro-ph/0510598

    2006 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Chen and Y

    X. Chen and Y. Gong, The limit onw ′ for tachyon dark energy (2013), arXiv:1309.2044 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.