Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 9 cited by

On the evidence of dynamical dark energy

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fitting DESI BAO data with a one-parameter thawing-field model largely removes the preference for dynamical dark energy that appears in the two-parameter CPL fit.

desk verdict A useful model-dependence check on DESI's dynamical dark energy evidence, but the headline comparison rests on a compressed CMB likelihood not validated for the model that drives the conclusion. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16046 v1 pith:26CPDEPP submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Qing Gao , Zhiqian Peng , Shengqing Gao , Yungui Gong This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords dynamicaldarkenergyDESIBAOCPLparameterizationSSLCPLmodelthawingscalarfieldsAkaikeinformationcriterionselectionspatialcurvature
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
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

The paper asks whether the DESI baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) data really support a dark energy that changes over time, or whether that impression depends on the dark-energy model chosen for the fit. It compares the standard two-parameter Chevallier–Polarski–Linder (CPL) parametrization with the one-parameter SSLCPL parametrization, which is designed to approximate slowly rolling (thawing) scalar fields. The central finding is that in the SSLCPL model, adding DESI BAO data barely shifts the inferred present-day equation of state $w_0$, and the tension with the cosmological-constant model $\Lambda$CDM is reduced relative to CPL. The authors conclude that the evidence for dynamical dark energy from DESI BAO is model-dependent, and that allowing spatial curvature does not change that conclusion.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is the SSLCPL parametrization, a one-parameter version of the CPL model built from the slow-roll approximation to thawing scalar fields. In CPL, the dark-energy equation of state is $w(z)=w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$; in SSLCPL, $w_a$ is not free but is fixed by the degeneracy relation (the paper's equation 15) involving $w_0$ and the dark-energy density parameter $\Omega_{\phi 0}$, leaving only $w_0$ as a dark-energy parameter. This relation is what redistributes the DESI BAO constraint: with only one free parameter, the data no longer push $w_0$ away from $-1$ as strongly as they do in the two-parameter CPL fit. The statistical comparison uses the Akaike information criterion, $\mathrm{AIC}=\chi^2_{\min}+2m$, to quantify the evidence difference between CPL, SSLCPL and $\Lambda$CDM across nine data combinations.

What would settle it

Recompute the CPL and SSLCPL fits with the 26 radial BAO points removed from the $H(z)$ set whenever DESI BAO is included in the likelihood; if the SSLCPL $\Delta\mathrm{AIC}$ then drops below $-10$ or the DESI-induced shift in $w_0$ becomes as large as in CPL, the conclusion that DESI BAO has little influence in SSLCPL would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the DESI BAO data by themselves do not robustly establish dynamical dark energy, because the apparent preference for $w_0>-1$ and $w_a<0$ is not stable when the dark-energy parametrization is changed. In the flat CPL model, adding DESI BAO to a combination of Planck compressed data, cosmic-chronometer $H(z)$ data, and supernova samples tightens the constraints on the parameters and deepens the tension with $\Lambda$CDM, with the Akaike information criterion difference reaching $\Delta\mathrm{AIC}=-10$ when the DES five-year supernovae are used. Repeating the identical fits with the SSLCPL model, where the second CPL parameter $w_a$ is fixed by a thawing-field degeneracy relation rather than fitted freely, the DESI BAO data have only a small effect on $w_0$, and the best fit stays near $w_0\simeq-0.90$; the tension with $\Lambda$CDM is correspondingly weaker, with $\Delta\mathrm{AIC}=-6$ for the same supernova sample. Opening the curvature parameter $\Omega_k$ changes the results only marginally. The conclusion is that the evidence for dynamical dark energy from DESI BAO is contingent on the assumed cosmological model.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the 26 radial BAO measurements included inside the $H(z)$ compilation are statistically independent of the DESI BAO measurements when both are used in the same combined likelihood; if they share information, the reported $\chi^2$ and $\Delta\mathrm{AIC}$ values would be biased and the model comparison could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the SSLCPL model is the right description of dark energy, the DESI BAO data are consistent with $\Lambda$CDM at about the $1\sigma$ level for Pantheon+ and about the $2\sigma$ level for DES and Union3 supernovae, so the widely quoted preference for evolving dark energy does not persist.
  • Model-comparison measures like $\Delta\mathrm{AIC}$ penalize extra parameters, so a two-parameter model will always show more 'evidence' for dynamics than a one-parameter model fitted to the same data; the SSLCPL result quantifies how much of the DESI hint is just parameter freedom.
  • The outlying DESI BAO point at $z=0.51$ is not the driver: excluding it (the BAO$^-$ datasets) leaves the model-dependence conclusion intact.
  • Allowing spatial curvature does not rescue the dynamical dark energy preference; the constraints and $\Delta\mathrm{AIC}$ values barely move when $\Omega_k$ is freed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct next step would be to repeat the analysis with the full Planck likelihood rather than the three compressed parameters; the paper validates the compressed approximation only for $\Lambda$CDM and CPL, not for SSLCPL, so the SSLCPL posteriors could shift in a full-likelihood fit.
  • The same degeneracy argument implies that the DESI 'dynamical dark energy' significance is likely to shrink further in any model with a theoretically motivated relation between $w_0$ and $w_a$, such as thawing or freezing quintessence, so claims of evolving dark energy should be reported together with the model prior that produced them.
  • A robust resolution would come from model-independent reconstructions of $w(z)$ from BAO+SNe; if the reconstructed $w(z)$ is consistent with a constant $w=-1$ at low redshift, the CPL-based evidence would be exposed as a parametrization artifact.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper assesses whether the DESI BAO evidence for dynamical dark energy is robust to the choice of dark-energy parameterization. Using MCMC fits to DESI BAO (with and without the z=0.51 point), compressed Planck distance priors, H(z) data, and three SN Ia compilations, the authors compare flat and non-flat CPL models with the single-parameter SSLCPL thawing model. They find that adding DESI BAO has a small effect on the SSLCPL w0 constraint, that the tension with ΛCDM is reduced relative to CPL, and that spatial curvature has little impact. The central claim is that the DESI dynamical-dark-energy signal is model-dependent rather than a robust model-independent result.

Significance. The question addressed is timely and relevant: the DESI 2024 BAO results have been interpreted as evidence for evolving dark energy, and this paper argues that this evidence weakens in a physically motivated one-parameter thawing model. If the result holds, it is a useful counterweight to CPL-based claims and would strengthen the case that DESI BAO data alone do not yet single out dynamical dark energy. The analysis uses standard likelihoods and public MCMC machinery, and the paper reports complete posterior tables and ΔAIC values for many data combinations, which is helpful. However, the two load-bearing data-handling assumptions described in the major comments—the independence of H(z) radial BAO points from DESI BAO, and the validity of the compressed Planck likelihood for the SSLCPL model—are neither justified nor tested. Because both assumptions enter directly into the SSLCPL rows of Tables II and III that drive the conclusion, the paper in its current form is conditional.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II A / II B] The H(z) compilation used in every combined dataset includes 26 radial BAO measurements (refs. [39–49], covering z ~ 0.07–2.36). These are combined with the DESI BAO data in Section II B without any discussion of possible double counting or of correlations between the two BAO datasets. If the radial-BAO H(z) points at overlapping redshifts and the DESI BAO measurements are not independent, the reported χ2_min and ΔAIC values in Tables II and III (e.g., ΔAIC = −6 for SSLCPL with BAO+P18+H+D5) would be biased, and the central CPL-versus-SSLCPL comparison could shift. Please test this explicitly, for example by dropping the 26 radial BAO points from H(z) or by constructing a joint covariance, and report how ΔAIC and the w0 posteriors change.
  2. [Section III / Table I] The compressed Planck likelihood P18 is validated against the full Planck spectra only for ΛCDM, flat CPL, and CPL+Ωk. The SSLCPL model that carries the paper's main conclusion has a different early-time equation of state: Eq. (15) combined with w(a)=w0+wa(1−a) gives w(a→0)=w0+wa, which is not −1 at the best-fit values. Therefore the statement in Section III that 'These results confirm that we can use the three compressed data points to represent the full power spectra' is not supported for SSLCPL, and the SSLCPL entries in Tables II and III and Figures 3–5 rest on an unvalidated approximation. Please validate the compressed P18 likelihood for SSLCPL (for instance by comparing with a Planck full-likelihood fit for a representative SSLCPL case) or, if that is not feasible, explicitly present the conclusions as conditional on the compressed-CMB approximation being unbiased for SSLCPL.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I] The word 'dengeneracy' should be 'degeneracy' in the sentence describing the CPL parameterization.
  2. [Section II A] The phrase 'transverse comoving angular diameter distance' should be simplified to 'transverse comoving distance' DM(z).
  3. [Section II B] The AIC criterion sentence 'If −6 ≤ ∆AIC, then the evidence in favor of the model is positive' is missing an upper bound; as written it overlaps with the following 'If −10 ≤ ∆AIC' sentence and is internally inconsistent.
  4. [Table I] The rows labeled 'DESI' are copied from Ref. [6], not fits performed in this paper; the caption should state this more explicitly so that the comparison between compressed and full-spectra results is not confused with a comparison between datasets.
  5. [Section IV] The phrase 'non-flat flat CPL model' appears twice in the conclusion and should be corrected to 'non-flat CPL model'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SSLCPL is adopted from prior self-cited work, but the model comparison is empirical and no fitted quantity is recycled as evidence.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a model-comparison statement: DESI BAO data tighten constraints and increase tension with LCDM in the CPL model, while in the SSLCPL model the influence on w0 is small and the tension is reduced. This conclusion is read directly from MCMC posteriors and AIC values in Tables II and III. The SSLCPL parameterization, including Eq. (15) relating wa to w0 and Omega_phi0, is adopted from the authors' earlier papers [23, 24] as the model under test; it is an external input to the analysis, not an output derived from the present data. No fitted parameter from this paper is renamed as a prediction, and no quantity used to define the model is fitted to the DESI BAO evidence that the paper then interprets. The self-citation for SSLCPL is present but not load-bearing in a circular sense: the argument does not rely on proving SSLCPL from first principles here, and the comparison between CPL and SSLCPL is an empirical exercise conditional on that prior model choice. The lack of validation of the compressed Planck likelihood P18 for SSLCPL is a correctness or assumption concern, not a circularity, because the compression is checked externally for other models and no fitted output of the SSLCPL fit is used to justify the compression. Overall, the paper is self-contained in its statistical procedure and its conclusions do not reduce to their inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on treating several published formulas and datasets as reliable: the Hu-Sugiyama distance calibrations, the compressed Planck representation, the H(z) data including radial BAO, and the authors' SSLCPL relation. The most fragile load-bearing inputs are the compressed Planck sufficiency for SSLCPL and the independence of the H(z) radial BAO points from DESI BAO.

free parameters (6)
  • Ω_m0 = ~0.318 for SSLCPL with BAO+P18+H+D5
    Matter density fitted to all datasets; enters every distance and Hubble expression and the SSLCPL relation Eq. (15).
  • Ω_b = ~0.050 for BAO+P18+H+D5 fits
    Baryon density fitted jointly; affects the sound horizon through Eqs. (1)-(8).
  • h = ~0.67
    Dimensionless Hubble constant fitted jointly; scales distances in the likelihood.
  • w0 = -0.897 ± 0.037 for flat SSLCPL with BAO+P18+H+D5
    Present-day dark energy equation of state; central parameter whose deviation from -1 measures tension with ΛCDM.
  • wa = -0.70+0.27/-0.23 for flat CPL with BAO+P18+H+D5; determined by Eq. (15) in SSLCPL
    Dark energy equation of state slope; free in CPL, derived in SSLCPL from w0 and Ωφ0.
  • Ω_k = not tabulated in Tables II and III
    Spatial curvature density fitted in non-flat variants; the paper reports only that posteriors broaden, not numerical constraints.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Hu-Sugiyama fitting formulas for the drag epoch and recombination redshift are sufficiently accurate for these dark energy models.
    Invoked in Eqs. (1)-(8) to compute rd and z*; standard in BAO and CMB analyses.
  • domain assumption The three compressed Planck parameters (R, θ*, ωb) reproduce the full Planck likelihood for the models considered.
    Verified in Table I only for ΛCDM and CPL against DESI 2024 results; not verified for SSLCPL, the model central to the conclusion.
  • domain assumption The 26 radial BAO measurements in the H(z) compilation can be combined with the DESI BAO data without double-counting shared information.
    Section II A lists these radial BAO points in H; Section II B adds DESI BAO to H. The independence of these BAO measurements is assumed but not tested.
  • domain assumption The SSLCPL parametrization, Eq. (15), approximates general thawing scalar fields with one free parameter w0.
    Taken from the authors' earlier papers Refs. [23,24]; if the approximation fails for the fields probed by DESI, the comparison to ΛCDM would not generalize.
  • domain assumption Each supernova compilation is internally calibrated and can be combined with Planck and BAO as an independent probe.
    The paper uses PP, D5, and U3 as three alternative supernova samples and does not model systematic correlations between them and H(z).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the evidence of dynamical dark energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/26CPDEPP

@misc{pith2026241116046,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the evidence of dynamical dark energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/26CPDEPP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16046}
}
abstract

To elucidate the robustness of the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) data measured by the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) in capturing the dynamical behavior of dark energy, we assess the model dependence of the evidence for dynamical dark energy inferred from the DESI BAO data. While the DESI BAO data slightly tightens the constraints on model parameters and increases the tension between the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder (CPL) model and the $\Lambda$CDM model, we find that the influence of DESI BAO data on the constraint of $w_0$ is small in the SSLCPL model. In comparison to the CPL model, the tension with the $\Lambda$CDM model is reduced for the SSLCPL model, suggesting that the evidence for dynamical dark energy from DESI BAO data is dependent on cosmological models. The inclusion of spatial curvature has little impact on the results in the SSLCPL model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16046 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Marginalized 68% and 95% posteriors on Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. 68% and 95% confidence contours of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Marginalized 68% and 95% posteriors on Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Marginalized 68% and 95% posteriors on Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The marginalized 1D posteriors on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

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

  1. Dark Energy Crosses the Line: Quantifying and Testing the Evidence for Phantom Crossing

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using CPL fits to six data combinations, the paper finds 3.1-5.2 sigma preference for a phantom-to-quintessence crossing of the dark energy equation of state, and shows that modified non-crossing models generally fit ...

  2. Examining Quintessence Models with DESI Data

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    NEC-obeying hilltop and exponential quintessence models give at most marginal improvement over the cosmological constant against DESI 2024 data, and the prominent k=10 hilltop 'excellent mimic' claim is an artifact of...

  3. Updated Constraints on Omnipotent Dark Energy: A Comprehensive Analysis with CMB and BAO Data

    gr-qc 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Updated constraints on the DMS20 dark energy model from CMB, BAO, and Pantheon+ data keep it consistent with Lambda CDM while generically producing two phantom-divide crossings; the H0 tension is reduced only with enl...

  4. Robustness of dark energy phenomenology across different parameterizations

    astro-ph.CO 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The viability of minimally and non-minimally coupled quintessence models is robust across CPL, JBP, BA, and EXP parameterizations, with all four reproducing the models' predicted observables accurately.

  5. The DESI DR1/DR2 evidence for dynamical dark energy is biased by low-redshift supernovae

    astro-ph.CO 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The DESI dynamical dark energy preference drops below 2 sigma after correcting a 0.043 mag intercept discrepancy in the low-redshift supernovae of DESY5.

  6. Is excess smoothing of Planck CMB ansiotropy data partially responsible for evidence for dark energy dynamics in other $w(z)$CDM parametrizations?

    astro-ph.CO 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In three new w(z)CDM parametrizations, Planck CMB plus non-CMB data favor evolving dark energy over a cosmological constant at roughly 2 sigma when the Planck lensing anomaly parameter is fixed, and at roughly 1 sigma...

  7. Observational and Thermodynamic aspects of one-dimensional Dark Energy EoS parametrization models

    gr-qc 2026-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Gong–Zhang Type I/II dark-energy parametrizations remain competitive with ΛCDM under late-time probes, with GZ2 preferred and configuration entropy sensitive to late-time clustering.

  8. An overview of what current data can (and cannot yet) say about evolving dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The apparent preference for evolving dark energy depends strongly on which supernova catalog and which BAO survey are used, and is not robust across all independent data combinations.

  9. DESI and SNe: Dynamical Dark Energy, $\Omega_m$ Tension or Systematics?

    astro-ph.CO 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Reconstructing Ωm from DESI's w0waCDM fits shows an SNe-driven low-redshift departure from ΛCDM, with a 3.4σ disagreement between a DES supernova subsample and DESI full-shape clustering at the same effective redshift.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 9 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998)

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae, Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999)

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev

    S. Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  4. [4]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. As- trophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    A. G. Riess, L. Breuval, W. Yuan, S. Casertano, L. M. Macri, J. B. Bowers, D. Scolnic, T. Cantat-Gaudin, R. I. Anderson, and M. C. Reyes, Cluster Cepheids with High Precision Gaia Parallaxes, Low Zero-point Uncertainties, and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry, Astrophys. J. 938, 36 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    A. G. Adame et al.(DESI), DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, arXiv:2404.03002

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213 (2001)

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    E. V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003)

    work page 2003

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Scolnic et al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys

    D. Scolnic et al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys. J. 938, 113 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Rubin et al., Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework, arXiv:2311.12098

    D. Rubin et al., Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework, arXiv:2311.12098

    arXiv

  3. [12]

    Cortˆ es and A

    M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle, Interpreting DESI’s evidence for evolving dark energy, arXiv:2404.08056

    arXiv

  4. [13]

    Shlivko and P

    D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, Assessing observational constraints on dark energy, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138826 (2024). 14

    2024

  5. [14]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, Robust preference for Dynamical Dark Energy in DESI BAO and SN measurements, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2024) 035

    2024

  6. [15]

    de Cruz Perez, C.-G

    J. de Cruz Perez, C.-G. Park, and B. Ratra, Updated observational constraints on spatially flat and nonflat ΛCDM and XCDM cosmological models, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023506 (2024)

    2024

  7. [16]

    C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz P´ erez, and B. Ratra, Using non-DESI data to confirm and strengthen the DESI 2024 spatially-flat w0waCDM cosmological parameterization result, arXiv:2405.00502

    2024 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Roy, Dynamical dark energy in the light of DESI 2024 data, arXiv:2406.00634

    N. Roy, Dynamical dark energy in the light of DESI 2024 data, arXiv:2406.00634

    2024 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Chatrchyan, F

    A. Chatrchyan, F. Niedermann, V. Poulin, and M. S. Sloth, Confronting Cold New Early Dark Energy and its Equation of State with Updated CMB and Supernovae Data, arXiv:2408.14537

    arXiv

  10. [19]

    Perivolaropoulos, Hubble Tension or Distance Ladder Crisis?, arXiv:2408.11031

    L. Perivolaropoulos, Hubble Tension or Distance Ladder Crisis?, arXiv:2408.11031

    arXiv

  11. [20]

    X. Lu, S. Gao, and Y. Gong, The model-independent evidence of cosmic acceleration revisited, arXiv:2409.13399

  12. [21]

    E. V. Linder, Interpreting Dark Energy Data Away from Λ, arXiv:2410.10981

    arXiv

  13. [22]

    Payeur, E

    G. Payeur, E. McDonough, and R. Brandenberger, Do Observations Prefer Thawing Quintessence?, arXiv:2411.13637

    arXiv

  14. [23]

    Gao and Y

    Q. Gao and Y. Gong, Constraints on slow-roll thawing models from fundamental constants, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 22, 1350035 (2013)

    2013

  15. [24]

    Gong and Q

    Y. Gong and Q. Gao, On the effect of the degeneracy among dark energy parameters, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2729 (2014)

    2014

  16. [25]

    Hu and N

    W. Hu and N. Sugiyama, Small scale cosmological perturbations: An Analytic approach, Astrophys. J. 471, 542 (1996)

    1996

  17. [26]

    E. O. Colg´ ain, M. G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and D. Stojkovic, Does DESI 2024 Confirm ΛCDM?, arXiv:2404.08633

    2024 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020)

    2020

  19. [28]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al.(DES), 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, L14 (2024)

    2024

  20. [29]

    G. N. Gadbail, S. Mandal, and P. K. Sahoo, Gaussian Process Approach for Model- 15 independent Reconstruction of f(Q) Gravity with Direct Hubble Measurements, Astrophys. J. 972, 174 (2024)

    2024

  21. [30]

    Jimenez and A

    R. Jimenez and A. Loeb, Constraining cosmological parameters based on relative galaxy ages, Astrophys. J. 573, 37 (2002)

    2002

  22. [31]

    Simon, L

    J. Simon, L. Verde, and R. Jimenez, Constraints on the redshift dependence of the dark energy potential, Phys. Rev. D 71, 123001 (2005)

    2005

  23. [32]

    Stern, R

    D. Stern, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, M. Kamionkowski, and S. A. Stanford, Cosmic Chronome- ters: Constraining the Equation of State of Dark Energy. I: H(z) Measurements, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2010) 008

    2010

  24. [33]

    Zhang, H

    C. Zhang, H. Zhang, S. Yuan, T.-J. Zhang, and Y.-C. Sun, Four new observational H(z) data from luminous red galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data release seven, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 14, 1221 (2014)

    2014

  25. [34]

    Moresco et al., Improved constraints on the expansion rate of the Universe up to z˜1.1 from the spectroscopic evolution of cosmic chronometers, J

    M. Moresco et al., Improved constraints on the expansion rate of the Universe up to z˜1.1 from the spectroscopic evolution of cosmic chronometers, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2012) 006

    2012

  26. [35]

    Moresco, Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronome- ters at z ∼ 2, Mon

    M. Moresco, Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronome- ters at z ∼ 2, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 450, L16 (2015)

    2015

  27. [36]

    Moresco, L

    M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, L. Verde, D. Thomas, A. Citro, R. Tojeiro, and D. Wilkinson, A 6% measurement of the Hubble parameter at z ∼ 0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2016) 014

    2016

  28. [37]

    A. L. Ratsimbazafy, S. I. Loubser, S. M. Crawford, C. M. Cress, B. A. Bassett, R. C. Nichol, and P. V¨ ais¨ anen, Age-dating Luminous Red Galaxies observed with the Southern African Large Telescope, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 467, 3239 (2017)

    2017

  29. [38]

    Borghi, M

    N. Borghi, M. Moresco, and A. Cimatti, Toward a Better Understanding of Cosmic Chronome- ters: A New Measurement of H(z) at z ∼ 0.7, Astrophys. J. Lett. 928, L4 (2022)

    2022

  30. [39]

    Gaztanaga, A

    E. Gaztanaga, A. Cabre, and L. Hui, Clustering of Luminous Red Galaxies IV: Baryon Acous- tic Peak in the Line-of-Sight Direction and a Direct Measurement of H(z), Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 399, 1663 (2009)

    2009

  31. [40]

    Chuang and Y

    C.-H. Chuang and Y. Wang, Modeling the Anisotropic Two-Point Galaxy Correlation Function on Small Scales and Improved Measurements of H(z), DA(z), and β(z) from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR7 Luminous Red Galaxies, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 435, 255 (2013)

    2013

  32. [41]

    Blake et al., The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: Joint measurements of the expansion and 16 growth history at z < 1, Mon

    C. Blake et al., The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: Joint measurements of the expansion and 16 growth history at z < 1, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 425, 405 (2012)

    2012

  33. [42]

    N. G. Busca et al. (BOSS), Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in the Ly- α forest of BOSS quasars, Astron. Astrophys. 552, A96 (2013)

    2013

  34. [43]

    Anderson et al

    L. Anderson et al. (BOSS), The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations in the Data Releases 10 and 11 Galaxy samples, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 441, 24 (2014)

    2014

  35. [44]

    A. Oka, S. Saito, T. Nishimichi, A. Taruya, and K. Yamamoto, Simultaneous constraints on the growth of structure and cosmic expansion from the multipole power spectra of the SDSS DR7 LRG sample, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 439, 2515 (2014)

    2014

  36. [45]

    Font-Ribera et al

    A. Font-Ribera et al. (BOSS), Quasar-Lyman α Forest Cross-Correlation from BOSS DR11 : Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2014) 027

    2014

  37. [46]

    Delubac et al

    T. Delubac et al. (BOSS), Baryon acoustic oscillations in the Ly α forest of BOSS DR11 quasars, Astron. Astrophys. 574, A59 (2015)

    2015

  38. [47]

    Wang et al

    Y. Wang et al. (BOSS), The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscilla- tion Spectroscopic Survey: tomographic BAO analysis of DR12 combined sample in configu- ration space, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 469, 3762 (2017)

    2017

  39. [48]

    Alam et al.(BOSS), The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample, Mon

    S. Alam et al.(BOSS), The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 470, 2617 (2017)

    2017

  40. [49]

    J. E. Bautista et al.(BOSS), Measurement of baryon acoustic oscillation correlations atz = 2.3 with SDSS DR12 Ly α-Forests, Astron. Astrophys. 603, A12 (2017)

    2017

  41. [50]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306 (2013)

    2013

  42. [51]

    Lewis, GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples, arXiv:1910.13970

    A. Lewis, GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples, arXiv:1910.13970. 17 Model/Data Ω m0 ΩΛ w0 wa Flat ΛCDM BAO+P18 0 .3023 ± 0.0054 − − − DESI 0.3069 ± 0.0050 − − − ΛCDM+Ωk BAO+P18 0 .2999 ± 0.0056 0 .6968 ± 0.0055 − − DESI 0.3049 ± 0.0051 0 .6927 ± 0.0053 ...

    1910 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.