Is Dark Matter Really Matter?

Arman Shafieloo; Jun-Qian Jiang

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Is Dark Matter Really Matter?

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that allowing a tiny positive dark-matter equation of state to vary jointly with dark energy removes the need for phantom crossing and disfavors both standard dark-sector values at about 2 sigma.

desk verdict Careful joint wDM-wDE analysis with a real 2-sigma preference, but the Ly-alpha AP compression for nonzero wDM is asserted, not validated, so treat the result as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04763 v1 pith:GAQ4N3YS submitted 2026-08-05 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

Jun-Qian Jiang , Arman Shafieloo This is my paper

classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th

keywords darkmatterequationofstateenergycosmologicalconstantphantomcrossingbaryonacousticoscillationsAlcock-PaczynskieffectLyman-alphaforestmatter-eradistanceinterval

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 tests the two standard assumptions of the dark sector at once: that dark matter is pressureless ($w_{\mathrm{DM}}=0$) and that dark energy is a cosmological constant ($w_{\mathrm{DE}}=-1$). Using DESI DR2 BAO and Lyman-$\alpha$ full-shape Alcock\u2013Paczynski distances, DES supernovae, and two complementary CMB treatments, it finds that when both parameters are freed together, the data favor $w_{\mathrm{DM}}=0.000968^{+0.000501}_{-0.000496}$ and $w_{\mathrm{DE}}=-0.9380^{+0.0259}_{-0.0262}$, with both standard values disfavored at about $2\sigma$. The point of the exercise is that the apparent preference for phantom crossing in dark energy may be a projection of departures in the dark-matter sector rather than dark-energy dynamics alone. If correct, future high-redshift distance and structure-growth measurements could distinguish the two interpretations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the matter-era distance interval $\mathrm{DME} = [D_M(z_d)-D_M(z_m)]/r_d$ with $z_m=2.33$, the difference between the CMB acoustic-scale distance and the Lyman-$\alpha$ BAO/AP distance. Because it subtracts late-time distance, DME is governed by matter-era expansion, and a positive $w_{\mathrm{DM}}$ reduces the dark-matter density at $z_m$ relative to a pressureless extrapolation by $(a_m/a_d)^{-3w_{\mathrm{DM}}}$, lowering the expansion rate and raising DME. The CMB lensing-marginalized treatment splines the lensing potential to avoid relying on a nonlinear matter-power prescription calibrated for Lambda-CDM.

What would settle it

A mock-catalog test of the same Lyman-$\alpha$ AP pipeline: generate simulated quasar spectra from cosmologies with $w_{\mathrm{DM}}\approx0.001$ and vanishing dark-matter sound speed, run the full compression, and check whether recovery of $D_M/r_d$ and $D_H/r_d$ is unbiased at the $\sim0.1\%$ level.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a joint dark-sector degeneracy: late-time BAO and supernova distances prefer $w_{\mathrm{DE}}>-1$, while the CMB fixes the early-Universe matter density around last scattering; a positive $w_{\mathrm{DM}}$ changes how that early density maps to the present, lowering the dark-matter density at $z=2.33$ and increasing the matter-era distance interval by about 0.2%, which relieves a tension with the high-redshift acoustic scale. In the constant-$w$ extension this yields $w_{\mathrm{DM}}\sim0.001$ and $w_{\mathrm{DE}}\sim-0.94$, with both standard values outside the 95% contour, while releasing only one parameter at a time gives no comparable departure. With dynamical dark energy, allowing phantom crossing absorbs this geometric freedom and makes $w_{\mathrm{DM}}=0$ consistent; when phantom crossing is forbidden, the positive $w_{\mathrm{DM}}$ preference returns. A non-phantom Pad\'e-$w$+$w_{\mathrm{DM}}$ model is mildly preferred over the phantom-crossing $w_0w_a$ model by best-fit $\chi^2$ and DIC, leading the authors to conclude that the apparent phantom-crossing preference may instead reflect deviations in the dark-matter sector.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Lyman-$\alpha$ Alcock\u2013Paczynski compression at $z=2.33$ returns unbiased geometric distances when the dark-matter equation of state is nonzero; if the compression is biased by as little as $\sim0.2\%$, roughly the size of the shift that produces the $2\sigma$ preference, the central result is weakened.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the joint preference is real, the standard cold-dark-matter plus cosmological-constant cosmology is too restrictive: the data prefer $w_{\mathrm{DM}}\approx+0.001$ and $w_{\mathrm{DE}}\approx-0.94$ when both are free, which implies a small positive dark-matter pressure.
The DESI phantom-crossing signal would not require dark energy to cross $w=-1$; a non-phantom quintessence-type model with a mildly positive $w_{\mathrm{DM}}$ fits at least as well.
The high-redshift acoustic-scale excess that motivated dynamical dark energy is absorbed by a roughly 0.2% increase in the matter-era distance interval, predicting a specific shift that future Lyman-alpha observations can measure.
Parameter constraints that fix $w_{\mathrm{DM}}=0$ could be biased in the $w_{\mathrm{DE}}$ direction, so future analyses should free both equations of state together.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the required $w_{\mathrm{DM}}\sim0.001$ corresponds to an effective dark-matter pressure of roughly a tenth of a percent of its energy density, a scale that simple warm or self-interacting dark-matter models could produce; the paper does not identify a microphysical candidate.
Editorial inference: because the geometric data used here are largely blind to perturbations, a growth-rate or lensing measurement that responds differently to $w_{\mathrm{DM}}$ and $w_{\mathrm{DE}}$ could break the degeneracy and confirm or exclude the 0.2% DME shift.
Editorial inference: a dedicated mock validation of the Lyman-alpha Alcock\u2013Paczynski compression for nonzero $w_{\mathrm{DM}}$ is the most direct next step; if the compression is biased at the ~0.1\u20130.2% level, the $2\sigma$ preference could disappear.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The paper is a careful, transparent test of joint constant dark-matter and dark-energy equations of state against DESI DR2 BAO/AP, DES Dovekie SNe, and two CMB treatments. The headline result is that wDM is pushed to about +0.001 (2 sigma) and wDE to about -0.94 when both vary, while each alone is consistent with standard values. It also finds that a non-phantom Pade-w plus free wDM mildly beats unrestricted w0wa, giving a clean way to say the DESI phantom-crossing preference could be a projection of a small positive wDM. That framing is the real contribution, and it is well argued.

What I like: the analysis is unusually careful about systematics. The two CMB treatments bracket nonlinear modeling uncertainty, full posterior tables are provided, and the alternative SNe tests in Appendix B show the wDM shift is not SNe-driven. The physical explanation via the matter-era distance interval is clear and not circular. The nonlinear diagnostic in Appendix C is honest about being a sensitivity check, not a precision prediction.

The soft spot is where the stress-test note lands. The entire weight of the DME anchor sits on the DESI DR2 Ly-alpha full-shape AP compression at z=2.33, and the paper's defense of using that compression for wDM≠0 is a footnote: because the sound speed is zero, no Jeans scale appears. That is true at linear level, but the AP pipeline is calibrated on mocks built with wDM=0. A wDM of 0.001 changes transfer and clustering amplitude at the 0.1-0.2% level, and the claimed DME shift is only about 0.2%. A small template-misspecification systematic could plausibly produce the signal. No mock-injection or self-calibration test for nonzero wDM is shown, and the alternative SNe share the same Ly-alpha compression.

The other gap is that the analysis tests only expansion history. Growth measurements (RSD, clustering, lensing amplitude) would constrain wDM independently, and the paper says so. So this is a geometric preference, not a robust detection.

Overall, it is a competently executed, honest paper with a marginal result that depends on an unvalidated assumption. It should go to referees, and I expect they will ask for the Ly-alpha mock validation. I would not cite it as evidence for nonzero wDM until that is done, but it is worth citing for the dark-sector degeneracy it exposes.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper tests the joint hypothesis wDM=0 and wDE=-1 using DESI DR2 BAO and AP distances, including the recent Lyman-alpha full-shape Alcock-Paczynski compression at z=2.33, DES 5-year supernovae, and two complementary CMB treatments. In the constant-w model (wwDM) it reports wDM=0.000968+0.000501-0.000496 and wDE=-0.9380+0.0259-0.0262, with both standard values outside the 95% joint contour; the mechanism is an increase of the matter-era distance interval DME by about 0.2% at the best fit. It then considers dynamical dark energy (w0wa and Pade-w) and finds that the positive wDM preference persists only when phantom crossing is forbidden, with Pade-w+wDM mildly favored over w0wa in DIC. The paper concludes that the apparent DESI phantom-crossing preference may be a projection of a small positive dark-matter equation of state.

Significance. If the result holds, it is an interesting and timely reframing of the DESI dark-energy hints: a tiny wDM>0 could relieve the tension between early-universe matter density and late-time geometry, potentially removing the need for phantom crossing. The analysis is notably transparent: two CMB treatments are used, alternative supernova compilations are tested in Appendix B, posterior means and best fits are fully tabulated, and a nonlinear diagnostic is included as a sensitivity check. The central claim is not circular, because the DME diagnostic is computed from fitted parameters and is not used to define the likelihood. The main caveat is that the headline preference is only about 2 sigma and its high-redshift anchor, the Lyman-alpha AP compression, has not been validated for nonzero wDM.

major comments (2)

[Section III, footnote 1; Eq. (11)] The central claim rests on the validity of the DESI DR2 Lyman-alpha full-shape AP compression [24] for wDM != 0. Eq. (11) shows that the wwDM best fit changes DME by only 0.18-0.21%, an order of magnitude smaller than typical full-shape systematic uncertainties. The footnote's defense (cs,DM^2 = 0 eliminates the Jeans scale and leaves only geometric information) is an assertion, not a validation, and it is not strictly correct: with cs,DM^2 = 0 and constant wDM, the adiabatic sound speed is ca^2 = wDM, so Eq. (2) retains a scale-dependent term -9H^2(1+w)(cs^2 - ca^2) theta/k^2 = 9H^2(1+w) wDM theta/k^2. A nonzero wDM therefore does alter the full-shape template at a small, k-dependent level. The manuscript should include a mock-injection or self-calibration test showing that the AP compression recovers DM/rd and DH/rd without bias for wDM ~ 0.001, or it should quantify the systematic error budget. Without such a test, the headline statement that the standard Lambda-CDM values are disfavored at approximately 2 sigma in the joint extension is not yet supported.
[Section III, CMB lensing-marginalized likelihood, Eq. (7)] The lensing-marginalized treatment is one of the two pillars supporting the results, but the spline marginalization is not fully validated. The six nodes end at L = 3100, while the same C_phi^phi is used in the four-point reconstruction likelihood through L = 4000; the paper does not specify how the spline is extrapolated beyond the last node. A log-cubic spline extrapolated beyond its final control point is not controlled, and the flat priors on ln D_phi^phi do not guarantee a physical lensing spectrum. Please clarify the extrapolation, restrict the spline to the fitted range with a prior that suppresses unphysical behavior, or provide a sensitivity test with different node numbers and placements. This is needed to confirm that the agreement between the two CMB treatments is not an artifact of the marginalization.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Section I] The phrase 'two complementary CMB treatment' should be 'two complementary CMB treatments'; the abstract also contains the ungrammatical 'Allowing dynamical dark energy clarify further on complexity of the situation'.
[Section IV] In the paragraph following Eq. (8), 'can also modfied' should be 'can also modify'.
[Figure 2] The color-bar label appears as '104aeq' in the preprint; this should be typeset as 10^4 a_eq.
[Appendix B] The alternative-supernova tests are run only with CMB-1000; repeating at least one alternative-SN case with the lensing-marginalized CMB likelihood would strengthen the robustness claim.
[References] Reference [24] is cited without an arXiv identifier; if one is available it should be added for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central wDM/wDE constraint is an external-data fit, and the DME diagnostic is a post-fit interpretation, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a joint fit of constant (and dynamical) dark-matter and dark-energy equations of state to external DESI DR2, DES supernova, and CMB likelihoods; no parameter is defined in terms of the target conclusion. The matter-era distance interval (DME) is introduced only after the fit (Eqs. 9-11) to explain why positive wDM relieves a high-redshift distance tension; it is a diagnostic computed from the fitted parameters and is not used as a likelihood term or as an independent prediction, so it does not reduce to the fit by construction. The assumption that the DESI DR2 Ly-alpha AP compression remains valid for wDM != 0 is a systematic/robustness assumption about an external data product, not a circular derivation; the paper explicitly states that dedicated simulations and calibrated emulators will be required for a complete test. Self-citations [10,6] appear only as background on dark-sector degeneracies and emergent dark energy, and are not load-bearing for the 2-sigma preference. The model comparison and posterior constraints stand on the external data and the stated model equations, so there is no self-definitional or fitted-input-called-prediction step.

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

No new physical entities are introduced; the analysis operates within the standard fluid description of the dark sector. The main inputs the central claim rests on are the fitted dark-sector equations of state and the empirical CMB lensing spline used to marginalize nonlinear information.

free parameters (5)

wDM (constant dark-matter equation of state) = 0.000968+0.000501-0.000496 (CMB-1000); 0.000870+0.000408-0.000410 (lensing-marginalized)
Free parameter in the wwDM model; the posterior mean from the joint fit is the central result.
wDE (constant dark-energy equation of state) = -0.9380+0.0259-0.0262 (CMB-1000); -0.9353+0.0258-0.0254 (lensing-marginalized)
Free parameter co-varied with wDM; the joint displacement from -1 drives the approximately 2-sigma result.
w0,DE and wa,DE (CPL parameters) = w0=-0.8395+0.0562-0.0562, wa=-0.543+0.231-0.230 (w0wa, CMB-1000); values for other models in Table V
Free parameters in the dynamical dark-energy models; used to test phantom crossing in w0wa and non-phantom w0wa.
epsilon0 and eta0 (Pade-w parameters) = epsilon0=1.134+0.550-0.554, eta0=64.49+26.35-27.35 (Pade-w+wDM, CMB-1000)
Free parameters of the non-phantom Pade parameterization; priors 0<epsilon0<3 and 0<eta0<100 are chosen by hand.
Six CMB lensing spline amplitudes lnD_phi^phi at L=(7,44,125,600,1600,3100) = not reported (marginalized)
Ad hoc empirical replacement for the theoretical lensing spectrum in the lensing-marginalized CMB likelihood; flat priors -22<lnD<-14, sampled and marginalized.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Dark matter and dark energy are noninteracting fluids with constant or parameterized equations of state, with rho_i proportional to a^{-3(1+w_i)} as in Eq. (1).
Sec. II.A; this is the tested model, not derived from microphysics.
domain assumption Perturbations obey synchronous-gauge Ma-Bertschinger equations with c_s,DM^2 = 0 and c_s,DE^2 = 1.
Sec. II.A; the sound-speed choices keep DM pressure-free at perturbation level despite nonzero background wDM, a non-adiabatic setup that is not observationally validated.
ad hoc to paper The DESI DR2 Ly-alpha full-shape AP compression [24] is unbiased for geometric distances when wDM is nonzero.
Footnote 1 asserts validity because c_s,DM = 0; no mock validation is provided. This is load-bearing for the DME mechanism.
ad hoc to paper The CMB lensing spectrum can be marginalized by replacing D_phi^phi with a log-cubic spline over six nodes with flat priors.
Sec. III; motivated by [35], but the spline's adequacy for nonzero wDM is not demonstrated.
standard math The variance-based DIC (DIC_V, Eq. 12) is a reliable model-comparison criterion for these dark-sector models.
Sec. VI; the statistic is from the literature, but its use with posterior variance has known limitations for non-nested and multimodal posteriors.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Is Dark Matter Really Matter?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GAQ4N3YS

@misc{pith2026260804763,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Is Dark Matter Really Matter?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GAQ4N3YS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04763}
}

abstract

In the standard model of cosmology, it is assumed that dark matter is pressureless with equation of state $w=0$ and dark energy has $w=-1$. We test these assumptions jointly using DESI DR2 distance measurements, including the recent Lyman-$\alpha$ full-shape Alcock-Paczynski (AP) information, DES supernovae, and two complementary CMB treatment. When constant $w_{dm}$ and $w_{de}$ are varied together, we find $w_{dm}=0.000968^{+0.000501}_{-0.000496}$ and $w_{de}=-0.9380^{+0.0259}_{-0.0262}$ (68%). With an alternative CMB treatment that marginalizes over the lensing spectrum, the corresponding constraints are $w_{dm}=0.000870^{+0.000408}_{-0.000410}$ and $w_{de}=-0.9353^{+0.0258}_{-0.0254}$. Both standard $\Lambda$CDM values are disfavored at approximately $2\sigma$ in the joint extension. Neither parameter departs significantly from its standard value when only that parameter is varied. This behavior arises because late-time distances favor $w_{de}>-1$, while maintaining the early-Universe physical matter density requires a compensating positive $w_{dm}$, which changes the mapping to the matter density today. Allowing dynamical dark energy clarify further on complexity of the situation: phantom crossing for dark energy makes $w_{dm}=0$ consistent with the data, whereas a positive $w_{dm}$ preference persists when crossing is forbidden. Interestingly, the Pad'e-$w$ parameterization that provides a flexible description of a class of quintessence models (with no phantom crossing), along with $w_{dm}$ free, is even mildly favored over the phantom-crossing $w_0w_a$ model according to both the best-fit $\chi^2$ and the DIC under both CMB treatments. One can conclude that the apparent preference for phantom crossing may instead reflect deviations in the dark-matter sector rather than dark-energy dynamics alone. [abridged]

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04763 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Marginalized constraints for the constant dark-sector models. The left triangle uses CMB-1000 and the right triangle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The equality epoch in the constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Dynamical dark-energy results for the two CMB treatments. The panels compare marginalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Expansion-history comparison for selected CMB-1000 best fits. The first three panels show every measured DESI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Alternative-supernova constraints using DESI DR2 and CMB-1000. The panels show the marginalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Nonlinear diagnostic at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[24]

DESI Collaboration, DESI DR2 Results IV: Full-Shape Alcock–Paczynski Measurements from the Lyman Alpha Forest and Cosmological Constraints (2026)

work page 2026
[1]

A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), DESI 2024 VI: cosmologi- cal constraints from the measurements of baryon acous- tic oscillations, JCAP02, 021, arXiv:2404.03002 [astro- ph.CO]

arXiv 2024
[2]

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]

arXiv 2025
[3]

R. Calderonet al.(DESI), DESI 2024: reconstruct- ing dark energy using crossing statistics with DESI 12 10 1 100 101 102 103 104 PNL(k) [(Mpc/h)3] wwDM CDM 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 k [h Mpc 1] 0.0 0.2 PwwDM NL /P CDM NL 1 FIG. 6. Nonlinear diagnostic atz= 0 for draws from the current CMB-1000wwDM chain. Thin curves show individual posterior draws and the lo...

arXiv 2024
[4]

Lodhaet al.(DESI), DESI 2024: Constraints on physics-focused aspects of dark energy using DESI DR1 BAO data, Phys

K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), DESI 2024: Constraints on physics-focused aspects of dark energy using DESI DR1 BAO data, Phys. Rev. D111, 023532 (2025), arXiv:2405.13588 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025
[5]

Lodhaet al.(DESI), Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Phys

K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025
[6]

X. Li, T. Liu, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, A. Shafieloo, and M. Biesiada, Metastability in Emergent Dark Energy: A New Framework Confronting Cosmological Observations, Astrophys. J. Lett.1001, L21 (2026), arXiv:2606.05723 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2026
[7]

Vikman, Can dark energy evolve to the phantom?, Phys

A. Vikman, Can dark energy evolve to the phantom?, Phys. Rev. D71, 023515 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0407107

arXiv 2005

Show all 56 references

[8]

R. R. Caldwell and M. Doran, Dark-energy evolution across the cosmological-constant boundary, Phys. Rev. D72, 043527 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501104

2005 arXiv
[9]

W. Fang, W. Hu, and A. Lewis, Crossing the Phantom Divide with Parameterized Post-Friedmann Dark Energy, Phys. Rev. D78, 087303 (2008), arXiv:0808.3125 [astro- ph]

2008 arXiv
[10]

Shafieloo and E

A. Shafieloo and E. V. Linder, Cosmographic Degener- acy, Phys. Rev. D84, 063519 (2011), arXiv:1107.1033 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[11]

Kunz, The dark degeneracy: On the number and nature of dark components, Phys

M. Kunz, The dark degeneracy: On the number and nature of dark components, Phys. Rev. D80, 123001 (2009), arXiv:astro-ph/0702615

2009 arXiv
[12]

Kou and A

R. Kou and A. Lewis, Unified dark fluid with null sound speed as an alternative to phantom dark energy, JCAP 01, 014, arXiv:2509.16155 [astro-ph.CO]
[13]

Xu and Y

L. Xu and Y. Chang, Equation of State of Dark Mat- ter after Planck Data, Phys. Rev. D88, 127301 (2013), arXiv:1310.1532 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[14]

Kumar and L

S. Kumar and L. Xu, Observational constraints on vari- able equation of state parameters of dark matter and dark energy after Planck, Phys. Lett. B737, 244 (2014), arXiv:1207.5582 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[15]

Hu, Structure formation with generalized dark matter, Astrophys

W. Hu, Structure formation with generalized dark matter, Astrophys. J.506, 485 (1998), arXiv:astro- ph/9801234

1998
[16]

M. Kopp, C. Skordis, D. B. Thomas, and S. Ili´ c, Dark Matter Equation of State through Cosmic History, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 221102 (2018), arXiv:1802.09541 [astro- ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[17]

Yadav, S

V. Yadav, S. K. Yadav, and A. K. Yadav, Observational Constraints on generalized dark matter properties in the presence of neutrinos with the final Planck release, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101363 (2023), arXiv:2307.05155 [astro- ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[18]

Yao, J.-C

Y.-H. Yao, J.-C. Wang, and X.-H. Meng, Observational constraints on noncold dark matter and phenomenolog- ical emergent dark energy, Phys. Rev. D109, 063502 (2024), arXiv:2303.00961 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[19]

Liu, Y.-H

J.-Q. Liu, Y.-H. Yao, Y. Su, and J.-W. Wu, Ob- servational Constraints on Phenomenological Emergent Dark Energy and Barotropic Dark Matter Characterized by a Constant Equation of State Parameter, Res. As- tron. Astrophys.25, 10.1088/1674-4527/addd7d (2025), arXiv:2507.16147 [a...

2025 arXiv
[20]

Giani, R

L. Giani, R. Von Marttens, and O. F. Piat- tella, The matter with(in) CPL, Open J. Astrophys. 10.33232/001c.142699 (2025), arXiv:2505.08467 [astro- ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[21]

Braglia, X

M. Braglia, X. Chen, and A. Loeb, Exotic dark matter and the DESI anomaly, JCAP11, 064, arXiv:2507.13925 [astro-ph.CO]. 13
[22]

Li, P.-J

T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Yao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Exploring non-cold dark matter in the scenario of dynamical dark energy with DESI DR2 data, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102068 (2025), arXiv:2507.07798 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[23]

Li, Y.-M

T.-N. Li, Y.-M. Zhang, Y.-H. Yao, G.-H. Du, P.-J. Wu, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Revisiting the phenomenolog- ically emergent dark energy model: is non-zero equation of state of dark matter favored by DESI DR2?, JCAP 12, 048, arXiv:2506.09819 [astro-ph.CO]
[25]

Ma and E

C.-P. Ma and E. Bertschinger, Cosmological perturba- tion theory in the synchronous and conformal Newto- nian gauges, Astrophys. J.455, 7 (1995), arXiv:astro- ph/9506072

1995
[26]

D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes, JCAP07, 034, arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[27]

Chevallier and D

M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

2001 arXiv
[28]

E. V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the uni- verse, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0208512

2003
[29]

B. Popovicet al.(DES), The Dark Energy Survey Super- nova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 10.1093/mnras/stag632 (2025), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[30]

Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods, Astron. Astrophys.641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[31]

Rosenberg, S

E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton, and G. Efstathiou, CMB power spectra and cosmological parameters from Planck PR4 with CamSpec, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517, 4620 (2022), arXiv:2205.10869 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[32]

H. T. Jense, M. Vi˜ na, E. Calabrese, and J. C. Hill, Choice of Planck CMB likelihood in cosmological analy- ses, Phys. Rev. D113, 043551 (2026), arXiv:2510.09430 [astro-ph.CO]

2026
[33]

Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods and ΛCDM parameters, JCAP11, 062, arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

T. Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods and ΛCDM parameters, JCAP11, 062, arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[34]

Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), SPT-3G D1: CMB tem- perature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G main field, Phys

E. Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), SPT-3G D1: CMB tem- perature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G main field, Phys. Rev. D113, 083504 (2026), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

2026 arXiv
[35]

Lemos and A

P. Lemos and A. Lewis, CMB constraints on the early Universe independent of late-time cosmology, Phys. Rev. D107, 103505 (2023), arXiv:2302.12911 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[36]

F. J. Quet al.(ACT, SPT-3G), Unified and Consistent Structure Growth Measurements from Joint ACT, SPT, and Planck CMB Lensing, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 021001 (2026), arXiv:2504.20038 [astro-ph.CO]

2026
[37]

Carron, M

J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps, JCAP09, 039, arXiv:2206.07773 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[38]

MacCrannet al.(ACT), The Atacama Cosmol- ogy Telescope: Mitigating the Impact of Extragalac- tic Foregrounds for the DR6 Cosmic Microwave Back- ground Lensing Analysis, Astrophys

N. MacCrannet al.(ACT), The Atacama Cosmol- ogy Telescope: Mitigating the Impact of Extragalac- tic Foregrounds for the DR6 Cosmic Microwave Back- ground Lensing Analysis, Astrophys. J.966, 138 (2024), arXiv:2304.05196 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[39]

F. J. Quet al.(ACT), The Atacama Cosmology Tele- scope: A Measurement of the DR6 CMB Lensing Power Spectrum and Its Implications for Structure Growth, Astrophys. J.962, 112 (2024), arXiv:2304.05202 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[40]

M. S. Madhavacherilet al.(ACT), The Atacama Cos- mology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing Map and Cosmological Parameters, Astrophys. J.962, 113 (2024), arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[41]

Geet al.(SPT-3G), Cosmology from CMB lensing and delensed EE power spectra using 2019–2020 SPT- 3G polarization data, Phys

F. Geet al.(SPT-3G), Cosmology from CMB lensing and delensed EE power spectra using 2019–2020 SPT- 3G polarization data, Phys. Rev. D111, 083534 (2025), arXiv:2411.06000 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[42]

Torrado and A

J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models, JCAP05, 057, arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

2005 arXiv
[43]

Gelman and D

A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences, Statist. Sci.7, 457 (1992)

1992
[44]

Cartis, J

C. Cartis, J. Fiala, B. Marteau, and L. Roberts, Improving the Flexibility and Robustness of Model- Based Derivative-Free Optimization Solvers, (2018), arXiv:1804.00154 [math.OC]

2018 arXiv
[45]

Cartis, L

C. Cartis, L. Roberts, and O. Sheridan-Methven, Escap- ing local minima with local derivative-free methods: a numerical investigation, Optimization71, 2343 (2021), arXiv:1812.11343 [math.OC]

2021 arXiv
[46]

Hu and N

W. Hu and N. Sugiyama, Small scale cosmological per- turbations: An Analytic approach, Astrophys. J.471, 542 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9510117

1996 arXiv
[47]

Hu and S

W. Hu and S. Dodelson, Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.40, 171 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0110414

2002 arXiv
[48]

Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[49]

Z. J. Weiner, High-redshift physics from the acoustic scale, (2026), arXiv:2603.18131 [astro-ph.CO]

2026
[50]

D. J. Spiegelhalter, N. G. Best, B. P. Carlin, and A. van der Linde, Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit, J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B64, 583 (2002)

2002
[51]

Gelman, J

A. Gelman, J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, and D. B. Ru- bin,Bayesian Data Analysis, 2nd ed. (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2004)

2004
[52]

Broutet al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmo- logical Constraints, Astrophys

D. Broutet al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmo- logical Constraints, Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[53]

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

D. Rubinet al., Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework, Astrophys. J.986, 231 (2025), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro- ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[54]

F. Pace, Z. Sakr, and I. Tutusaus, Spherical collapse in Generalized Dark Matter models, Phys. Rev. D102, 043512 (2020), arXiv:1912.12250 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[55]

W. H. Press and P. Schechter, Formation of galaxies and clusters of galaxies by selfsimilar gravitational condensa- tion, Astrophys. J.187, 425 (1974)

1974
[56]

Cooray and R

A. Cooray and R. K. Sheth, Halo Models of Large Scale Structure, Phys. Rept.372, 1 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0206508

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [24]

DESI Collaboration, DESI DR2 Results IV: Full-Shape Alcock–Paczynski Measurements from the Lyman Alpha Forest and Cosmological Constraints (2026)

work page 2026

[2] [1]

A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), DESI 2024 VI: cosmologi- cal constraints from the measurements of baryon acous- tic oscillations, JCAP02, 021, arXiv:2404.03002 [astro- ph.CO]

arXiv 2024

[3] [2]

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]

arXiv 2025

[4] [3]

R. Calderonet al.(DESI), DESI 2024: reconstruct- ing dark energy using crossing statistics with DESI 12 10 1 100 101 102 103 104 PNL(k) [(Mpc/h)3] wwDM CDM 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 k [h Mpc 1] 0.0 0.2 PwwDM NL /P CDM NL 1 FIG. 6. Nonlinear diagnostic atz= 0 for draws from the current CMB-1000wwDM chain. Thin curves show individual posterior draws and the lo...

arXiv 2024

[5] [4]

Lodhaet al.(DESI), DESI 2024: Constraints on physics-focused aspects of dark energy using DESI DR1 BAO data, Phys

K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), DESI 2024: Constraints on physics-focused aspects of dark energy using DESI DR1 BAO data, Phys. Rev. D111, 023532 (2025), arXiv:2405.13588 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025

[6] [5]

Lodhaet al.(DESI), Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Phys

K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025

[7] [6]

X. Li, T. Liu, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, A. Shafieloo, and M. Biesiada, Metastability in Emergent Dark Energy: A New Framework Confronting Cosmological Observations, Astrophys. J. Lett.1001, L21 (2026), arXiv:2606.05723 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2026

[8] [7]

Vikman, Can dark energy evolve to the phantom?, Phys

A. Vikman, Can dark energy evolve to the phantom?, Phys. Rev. D71, 023515 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0407107

arXiv 2005