Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Evidence of dynamical dark energy found via the DESI DR2 Lyman$\alpha$ forest

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DESI DR2 Lyman-α forest BAO, combined with CMB and galaxy BAO, favors a dynamical dark energy with Quintom-B signature over the cosmological constant, at up to ~3.1σ significance.

desk verdict Overclaimed 3.1σ headline aside, this is a reproducible DR2 Lyα fit whose 2–2.5σ dynamical-DE hints are 1D ω0 pulls, not joint evidence for Quintom-B. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.21976 v3 pith:7MOLLJBD submitted 2025-10-24 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

Salvatore Capozziello , Himanshu Chaudhary , G. Mustafa , S. K. J. Pacif This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th
keywords darkenergyLyman-alphaforestbaryonacousticoscillationsDESIDR2equationofstateQuintom-BcosmologicalconstantBayesianevidence
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

This paper asks whether the expansion of the universe is driven by a constant dark energy (the cosmological constant) or by a dark energy whose equation of state changes with time. The authors combine DESI DR2 Lyman-α forest BAO measurements at redshift ~2.3 with galaxy BAO, three supernova samples, and a compressed CMB likelihood, fitting six redshift-dependent dark-energy parameterizations. Across all parameterizations they find the same pattern: the present-day equation-of-state parameter w0 is greater than −1, its time-derivative wa is negative, and w0+wa is less than −1, signaling dark energy that crosses from quintessence-like to phantom-like behavior as the universe evolves. They report a moderate preference for this dynamical dark energy over ΛCDM, reaching about 3.1σ for the Lyman-α+CMB+galaxy BAO combination and weakening to ≲2σ when supernovae are added. If the result holds, the highest-redshift BAO probe currently available is pointing toward an evolving dark-energy sector rather than the cosmological constant.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dark-energy equation-of-state parameterization w(z) = w0 + wa·f(z), with f(z) defined for each model (z/(1+z), ln(1+z), etc.); it turns the Friedmann expansion history into a two-parameter family. The 'Quintom-B' region is the corner of the (w0, wa) plane where w0>−1, wa<0, and w0+wa<−1, corresponding to an equation of state that crosses w=−1 from above at late times. The analysis is anchored by the two DESI DR2 Lyman-α BAO distance ratios at z=2.33 — DH/rd and DM/rd with correlation ρ=−0.43 — and by a compressed CMB likelihood on the shift parameter, acoustic scale, and baryon density, so the high-redshift BAO measurements directly constrain the dark-energy paramet

What would settle it

A concrete check: re-run the same model comparison replacing the compressed CMB likelihood with the full Planck CMB likelihood (or removing the DESI DR2 galaxy BAO). If the Quintom-B signature and the >2σ deviation persist, the claim survives; if the w0–wa contours relax to include w0=−1, wa=0, the signal is an artifact of the compression. Alternatively, a future Lyman-α BAO measurement at a second effective redshift that lands on the ΛCDM prediction would falsify the extrapolated Quintom-B trajectory.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central finding is that DESI DR2 Lyman-α forest BAO measurements, when combined with a compressed CMB likelihood and galaxy BAO, favor a dynamical dark-energy scenario over the cosmological constant. Every redshift-dependent equation-of-state parameterization considered yields posteriors with w0>−1, wa<0, and w0+wa<−1, which the authors identify as Quintom-B behavior: dark energy behaves as quintessence at high redshift and as phantom at low redshift, crossing the cosmological-constant line w=−1 in the recent past. The claimed deviations from ΛCDM are up to ~3.1σ (using Lyman-α+CMB+galaxy BAO) and about 2–2.5σ for most parameterizations, while Bayes-factor evide

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the compressed three-parameter CMB likelihood, together with the two DESI DR2 Lyman-α BAO distance ratios at z=2.33, captures all the information needed to constrain the dark-energy equation of state without biasing the result toward or away from a cosmological constant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the cosmological constant is disfavored at roughly 2–3σ by the highest-redshift BAO probe, and the dark-energy equation of state is not constant in time.
  • The consistent Quintom-B signature across six independent parameterizations suggests the crossing of w=−1 is a property of the data, not an artifact of a particular functional form.
  • Spatial curvature stays consistent with flatness, so the dynamical signal is not absorbed by curvature.
  • Adding supernova data weakens the dynamical-dark-energy preference to ≲2σ, indicating the signal is driven mainly by the Lyman-α BAO and compressed CMB, not by the low-redshift distance ladder.
  • No model attains decisive Bayesian evidence, so the result is a moderate hint that future data must confirm or refute.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's reliance on a compressed CMB likelihood means the dynamical-DE preference could shift if the full Planck likelihood — including the low-ℓ power deficit and lensing anomalies — is used; the authors themselves note that Planck-alone prefers phantom dark energy, so a cross-check with the full CMB likelihood is a natural next test.
  • The timing of the phantom crossing is not tightly constrained; a redshift-resolved reconstruction of w(z) from the same datasets could test whether the crossing happens at a specific epoch or is a smooth, monotonic trend.
  • If the hint is real, it would discriminate among some dark-energy models, but the paper does not distinguish between quintom fields, nonminimally coupled gravity, or modified gravity; that would require extended parameter spaces or distinct observational signatures.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same analysis pipeline to mock Lyman-α BAO data generated from known ΛCDM input, to quantify how much of the ~2σ deviation could arise from systematics in the compressed CMB likelihood or in the correlation model.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper fits a suite of dark-energy equation-of-state parameterizations (CPL, logarithmic, exponential, JBP, BA, GEDE, plus wCDM and non-flat extensions) to DESI DR2 Lyα BAO measurements combined with DESI DR2 galaxy BAO, three SNe Ia compilations, and a compressed CMB likelihood. Using SimpleMC and MCEvidence, it reports parameter constraints, deviations from ΛCDM, and Bayes factors. The central claim is that all redshift-dependent models favor a dynamical dark-energy scenario with w0 > −1, wa < 0, and w0 + wa < −1 (Quintom-B), with deviations from ΛCDM reaching ~2–3σ in some combinations. The paper is an observational-fitting analysis; it does not claim a new derivation, and it explicitly reports dataset-dependent and model-dependent evidence.

Significance. If the Quintom-B claim were robust, this would be an important high-redshift probe of dark-energy dynamics. The paper usefully extends DESI DR2 Lyα BAO constraints to several parameterizations and clearly tabulates parameter means and Bayes factors. However, the headline significance is not supported by the paper's own outputs: the abstract's ~3.10σ figure contradicts the body's 0.24–2.60σ range and Table II's maximum 2.46σ. More importantly, the 'deviation' statistic is a 1D marginalized pull on w0 alone, not a joint test of dynamical behavior or of the w0+wa<−1 crossing condition. The compressed CMB likelihood choice is also acknowledged by the authors to affect dark-energy conclusions. These issues make the central claim currently unsubstantiated, though the underlying fitting pipeline and reported parameter constraints are a useful contribution if reinterpreted more cautiously.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section V] The abstract states deviations 'reaching up to ~3.10σ for Lyα + CMB + galaxy BAO', but Section IV and Table II report maximum deviations of 2.46σ (Exponential) and an overall range 0.24–2.60σ. The 3.1σ figure appears to belong to Ref. [8]'s DR1 analysis, not to this paper's results. This is a direct internal inconsistency in the paper's leading claim and must be corrected.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. for tension and Table II] The 'Deviation from ΛCDM' row is computed as a 1D marginalized pull on ω0, e.g., for CPL with Lyα+CMB+Galaxy BAO: (−0.547+1)/0.190 ≈ 2.38. This does not measure evidence for dynamical dark energy: in CPL-type parameterizations ω0 and ωa are strongly anti-correlated, so a 1D pull in ω0 can be large while the joint (ω0, ωa) posterior still contains the ΛCDM point (ω0=−1, ωa=0). The paper never reports a 2D joint exclusion contour or a formal test of the crossing condition ω0+ωa<−1. The headline 'Quintom-B' conclusion therefore rests on a statistic that is not a valid test of the claim.
  3. [Section III, compressed CMB likelihood] The analysis uses the Wang–Wang 3×3 compressed likelihood on (R, ℓa, ωb) rather than a full CMB likelihood. The authors justify this by citing possible biases in the full Planck likelihood (Section III), but this choice is load-bearing: the paper itself notes that different CMB treatments change dark-energy conclusions (Ref. [56]). No robustness test is provided, e.g., repeating a key combination with a full likelihood (CamSpec or Planck PR4) to show the Quintom-B preference persists. The abstract's mention of 'CamSpec likelihood' is also inconsistent with the body's 'compressed CMB likelihood.'
  4. [Section II.B, GEDE model] The GEDE parameterization contains a transition redshift z_t, but z_t never appears in Table I's priors or in the text. The model is therefore not fully specified: the reported GEDE constraints depend on an unstated choice of z_t. This must be specified or the model should be described as having z_t fixed with a stated value.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table II] The column header 'ωaω0CDM' is confusing; the text refers to these as CPL. Use a consistent model name throughout.
  2. [Section IV, h and Ωm discussion] The tension formula for shared parameters (h, Ωm) omits the covariance between the model and ΛCDM fits. For parameters that are common to both, the deviation should use the combined posterior or a matched-pair difference; otherwise the quoted 'tension' is overestimated. This is secondary because the main dynamical-DE claim is based on ω0, not h or Ωm.
  3. [General] The paper states convergence with R−1<0.01 but does not report chain lengths, number of walkers, or acceptance rates. A brief reproducibility note would strengthen the analysis.
  4. [Section I] The introduction cites DESI DR2 deviations of 2.8σ, 3.8σ, 4.2σ with Pantheon+, Union3, DES-SN5Y, respectively, but these are the DESI collaboration's DR2 results, not this paper's; make clear that these are prior results and not the present analysis.
  5. [References] Ref. [8] is a preprint on DESI DR1 Lyα full-shape; the text should not attribute the DR1 3.1σ value to the current DR2 analysis without explicit context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dynamical-DE conclusion is read off from MCMC posteriors against external data, not derived from the models' own definitions.

full rationale

This paper is an observational parameter-estimation exercise, not a derivation. The dark-energy parameterizations in Sec. II B are independent functional ansatze for w(z); the expansion histories are obtained by inserting them into Eq. (9) and the Friedmann equation, and the data sets in Sec. III (DESI DR2 Ly-alpha BAO, galaxy BAO, SNe Ia, compressed CMB) are external. The posteriors in Table II are produced by MCMC and are not recycled as predictions: the 'Quintom-B' statement is only a classification of the fitted inequalities w0 > -1, wa < 0, w0 + wa < -1, borrowed from prior literature [61]. The 'Deviation from LambdaCDM' row is a standardized 1D posterior pull computed with the paper's stated tension formula T = |x_model - x_LCDM| / sqrt(sigma_model^2 + sigma_LCDM^2); this is a post-fit statistic, not a circular step. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the only self-citation ([11], Capozziello et al.) is a contextual citation in a list of related work and is not load-bearing. The choice of the compressed Wang-Wang CMB likelihood is explicitly motivated and acknowledged as a modeling choice; it may influence conclusions but does not make the inference circular. Potential statistical concerns (e.g., 1D pulls versus a joint (w0, wa) test) are matters of evidence strength, not of circular reasoning.

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

The paper's contribution is entirely a fit of known parameterizations to public likelihoods. The free parameters are the model parameters themselves; the conclusions (dynamical DE, Quintom-B, flatness) are read off fitted means. The load-bearing external inputs are the compressed Wang–Wang CMB likelihood and the two DESI DR2 Lyα BAO numbers — if either is biased, the DE conclusions shift. No new entities are postulated; 'Quintom-B' is a classification label for (ω0, ωa) sign patterns taken from cited literature [61], with no falsifiable handle beyond the fitted parameters that define it.

free parameters (6)
  • ω0 (present-day dark-energy EoS) = −0.55 to −0.99 across models/datasets (Table II)
    Fitted to combined likelihoods for CPL, Logarithmic, Exponential, JBP, BA, wCDM; the dynamical-DE conclusion is read directly off these fitted means.
  • ωa (EoS time-variation) = −0.13 to −1.90 across models/datasets (Table II)
    Fitted; the w0+wa<−1 Quintom-B classification is a direct restatement of the fitted (ω0, ωa) pair, with no independent falsifiable content.
  • Ωm, h = Ωm≈0.30–0.37; h≈0.63–0.69 (Table II)
    Standard fitted background parameters for every model/dataset combination.
  • Ωk (oΛCDM, oωCDM) = −0.0025…0.005 (Table II)
    Fitted curvature; the flatness conclusion is the fit result.
  • GEDE Δ = −0.32…0.10 (Table II)
    Fitted transition amplitude; values near zero indicate GEDE collapses to the ΛCDM/PEDE limit.
  • GEDE z_t (transition redshift) = not stated
    Appears in the GEDE EoS formula (Section II.B) but Table I gives a prior only for Δ; the fixed value of z_t is never specified.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math FLRW background + GR (Friedmann equations, Eqs. 4–8)
    The entire expansion-history analysis assumes a homogeneous isotropic metric and GR; standard in the field, stated in Section II.
  • domain assumption DESI DR2 Lyα BAO values (DH/rd=8.63±0.10, DM/rd=38.98±0.53, ρ=−0.43) are a faithful summary of the DR2 Lyα forest
    The paper uses only these two compressed numbers at z=2.33 (Section III), discarding the broadband/AP information used in ref [8]; any bias or correlation mis-modeling propagates directly into the DE constraints.
  • domain assumption Wang–Wang 3×3 Gaussian CMB likelihood (R, ℓa, ωb) is an unbiased proxy for full Planck CMB in the DE plane
    Load-bearing for all w0–wa contours and Bayes factors; the paper itself cites [56] showing full Planck+CMB alone prefers phantom DE, i.e., CMB-likelihood choice changes the answer (Section III).
  • domain assumption Fixed Neff=3.04 and Ωr=2.469e−5 h−2(1+0.2271Neff)
    Radiation density is fixed from the standard formula (Section III); variation of Neff is not explored, a minor but real assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The GEDE transition redshift z_t is fixed at some unstated value
    Table I lists only the Δ prior; without a stated z_t the GEDE constraints are not fully reproducible.
  • domain assumption Wide uniform priors (ω0∈[−3,1], ωa∈[−3,2], etc., Table I) do not drive the Quintom-B preference
    Posteriors are interior to the priors, so this is reasonable, but the bounded priors exclude phantom w<−3 and can shape evidence ratios.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence of dynamical dark energy found via the DESI DR2 Lyman$\alpha$ forest." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7MOLLJBD

@misc{pith2026251021976,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence of dynamical dark energy found via the DESI DR2 Lyman$\alpha$ forest},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7MOLLJBD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.21976}
}
abstract

We present a comprehensive analysis of the cosmological implications of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Data Release 2 (DR2) Lyman-$\alpha$ forest baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements, combined with DESI DR2 galaxy BAO, Type Ia supernova samples (Pantheon$^+$, DES-Dovekie, and Union3), and the cosmic microwave background CamSpec likelihood. We consider several dark-energy parameterizations, including Chevallier-Polarski-Linder, logarithmic, exponential, Jassal-Bagla-Padmanabhan, Barboza-Alcaniz, and generalized emergent dark energy, as well as the $w$CDM model and non-flat extensions of $\Lambda$CDM and $w$CDM. Using the Metropolis-Hastings MCMC algorithm, we constrain cosmological parameters and compute Bayesian evidence with \texttt{MCEvidence}. We find that non-flat extensions remain consistent with spatial flatness, with $\Omega_k \approx 0$. All parameterizations favor a dynamical dark-energy scenario with $w_0 > -1$, $w_a < 0$, and $w_0 + w_a < -1$, consistent with a Quintom-B behavior. A moderate preference for dynamical dark-energy models is found relative to $\Lambda$CDM, reaching up to $\sim3.10\sigma$ for Ly$\alpha$ + CMB + galaxy BAO. When combined with SNe~Ia datasets, the deviations decrease to $\lesssim2\sigma$, corresponding to inconclusive preference. The Bayes factor ($\ln B_{ij}$) shows that model preference depends strongly on the dataset combination: $w$CDM and o$w$CDM exhibit moderate evidence for Ly$\alpha$ + CMB + galaxy BAO, while most other models show weak or inconclusive evidence. With Pantheon$^{+}$ or DES-Dovekie, o$w$CDM shows strong evidence, whereas other models remain moderately favored.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.21976 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: 2D Posterior distributions of different planes of the o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Cosmological constraints and standard sirens forecasts for non-dynamical dark energy in Horndeski gravity

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Standard sirens from third-generation detectors could measure H0 to 0.21% in Extended Cuscuton models, but the forecast omits the modified GW luminosity distance.

  2. Exponential $f(R)$ cosmology with massive neutrinos as a dynamical dark energy framework

    gr-qc 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Exponential f(R) gravity with massive neutrinos fits current expansion data about as well as ΛCDM and yields slightly different H0 and Σmν constraints, but does not eliminate the Hubble tension.

  3. No preference for generalized emergent dark energy from current cosmological data

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    GEDE dark energy is observationally indistinguishable from ΛCDM once supernova data are included, with no phantom crossing and no resolution of the H0 and S8 tensions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [8]

    Slosar, V

    A. Slosar, V . Irˇsiˇc, D. Kirkby, S. Bailey, T. Delubac, J. Rich, ´E. Aubourg, J. E. Bautista, V . Bhardwaj, M. Blomqvist, et al., Measurement of baryon acoustic oscillations in the lyman-αforest fluctuations in boss data release 9, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013 (04) (2013) 026

    2013

  2. [56]

    Rubin, G

    D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, X. Huang, A. G. Kim, C. Lidman, E. Linder, S. Perlmutter, P . Ruiz- Lapuente, et al., Union through unity: Cosmology with 2000 sne using a unified bayesian framework, The Astro- physical Journal 986 (2) (2025) 231

    2000

  3. [1]

    Non-flatΛCDM Incorporating a curvature component, the dimension- less expansion rate becomes E2(z) =Ωm(1+z) 3 +Ω k(1+z) 2 +Ω DE, (10) whereΩ k quantifies the present curvature contribution

  4. [2]

    tensions

    Non-flatωCDM If dark energy has a constant EoSω̸=−1, the corre- sponding expansion rate generalizes to E2(z) =Ωm(1+z) 3 +Ω k(1+z) 2 +Ω DE(1+z) 3(1+ω) . (11) This model highlights the degeneracy between curva- ture and the dark energy EoS parameter, emphasizing the importance of includingΩ k when constraining cos- mic acceleration. III. DATASET AND METHODO...

    2025

  5. [3]

    A. G. Adame, et al., DESI 2024 VI: cosmological con- straints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscil- lations, JCAP 02 (2025) 021.arXiv:2404.03002,doi: 9 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021

    arXiv 2024

  6. [4]

    M. A. Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C. Al- lende Prieto, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armen- gaud, et al., Desi dr2 results ii: Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints, arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv–2503

    2025

  7. [5]

    Adame, J

    A. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. Alexander, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armen- gaud, et al., Desi 2024 iv: Baryon acoustic oscillations from the lyman alpha forest, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025 (01) (2025) 124

    2024

  8. [6]

    Cuceu, A

    A. Cuceu, A. Font-Ribera, S. Nadathur, B. Joachimi, P . Martini, Constraints on the cosmic expansion rate at redshift 2.3 from the lyman-αforest, Physical Review Let- ters 130 (19) (2023) 191003

    2023

Show all 71 references
  1. [7]

    Delubac, J

    T. Delubac, J. Rich, S. Bailey, A. Font-Ribera, D. Kirkby, J.-M. Le Goff, M. M. Pieri, A. Slosar, ´E. Aubourg, J. E. Bautista, et al., Baryon acoustic oscillations in the lyαfor- est of boss quasars, Astronomy & Astrophysics 552 (2013) A96

    2013

  2. [9]

    H. D. M. Des Bourboux, J. Rich, A. Font-Ribera, V . de Sainte Agathe, J. Farr, T. Etourneau, J.-M. Le Goff, A. Cuceu, C. Balland, J. E. Bautista, et al., The completed sdss-iv extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: baryon acoustic oscillations with lyαforests, The A...

    2020

  3. [10]

    Cuceu, H

    A. Cuceu, H. K. Herrera-Alcantar, C. Gordon, C. Ram´ırez- P´erez, E. Armengaud, A. Font-Ribera, J. Guy, B. Joachimi, P . Martini, S. Nadathur, et al., Desi dr1 lyαforest: 3d full-shape analysis and cosmological constraints, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.15308 (2025)

    2025

  4. [11]

    S. D. Odintsov, V . K. Oikonomou, G. S. Sharov, Dynamical dark energy from F(R) gravity models unifying inflation with dark energy: Confronting the latest observational data, JHEAp 50 (2026) 100471.arXiv:2506.02245, doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100471

    2026

  5. [12]

    S. D. Odintsov, D. S ´aez-Chill´on G ´omez, G. S. Sharov, Modified gravity/dynamical dark energy vsΛCDM: is the game over?, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (3) (2025) 298.arXiv:2412.09409,doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-025-14013-3

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Capozziello, G

    S. Capozziello, G. Sarracino, A. D. A. M. Spallicci, Ques- tioning the H0 tension via the look-back time, Phys. Dark Univ. 40 (2023) 101201.arXiv:2302.13671,doi:10. 1016/j.dark.2023.101201

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    R. C. Bernardo, D. Grand ´on, J. Said Levi, V . H. C´ardenas, Parametric and nonparametric methods hint dark energy evolution, Phys. Dark Univ. 36 (2022) 101017.arXiv: 2111.08289,doi:10.1016/j.dark.2022.101017

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Di Valentino, et al., The CosmoVerse White Paper: Ad- dressing observational tensions in cosmology with sys- tematics and fundamental physics, Phys

    E. Di Valentino, et al., The CosmoVerse White Paper: Ad- dressing observational tensions in cosmology with sys- tematics and fundamental physics, Phys. Dark Univ. 49 (2025) 101965.arXiv:2504.01669,doi:10.1016/j. dark.2025.101965

    2025 arXiv

  9. [16]

    S. Alam, M. W. Hossain, Beyond cpl: Evidence for dy- namical dark energy in three-parameter models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.03779 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  10. [17]

    van der Westhuizen, D

    M. van der Westhuizen, D. Figueruelo, R. Thubisi, S. Sahlu, A. Abebe, A. Paliathanasis, Compartmentaliza- tion in the dark sector of the universe after desi dr2 bao data, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23306 (2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    B. R. Dinda, R. Maartens, C. Clarkson, Calibration- independent consistency test of desi dr2 bao and snia, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19899 (2025)

    2025

  12. [19]

    T. Liu, X. Li, T. Xu, M. Biesiada, J. Wang, Torsion cos- mology in the light of desi, supernovae and cmb observa- tional constraints, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.04265 (2025)

    2025

  13. [20]

    S. R. Choudhury, T. Okumura, Updated cosmological constraints in extended parameter space with planck pr4, desi baryon acoustic oscillations, and supernovae: Dy- namical dark energy, neutrino masses, lensing anomaly, and the hubble tension, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 97...

    2024

  14. [21]

    S. R. Choudhury, Cosmology in extended parameter space with desi dr2 bao: A 2σ+ detection of non-zero neu- trino masses with an update on dynamical dark energy and lensing anomaly, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15340 (2025)

    2025

  15. [22]

    S. R. Choudhury, T. Okumura, K. Umetsu, Cosmological constraints on non-phantom dynamical dark energy with desi data release 2 baryon acoustic oscillations: A 3σ+ lensing anomaly, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.26144 (2025)

    2025

  16. [23]

    Lee, Constrainingλcdm,ωcdm, andω 0ωacdm models with desi dr2 bao: Redshift-resolved diagnostics and the role ofr d, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01380 (2025)

    S. Lee, Constrainingλcdm,ωcdm, andω 0ωacdm models with desi dr2 bao: Redshift-resolved diagnostics and the role ofr d, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01380 (2025)

    2025

  17. [24]

    Vagnozzi, New physics in light of theh 0 tension: An alternative view, Physical Review D 102 (2) (2020) 023518

    S. Vagnozzi, New physics in light of theh 0 tension: An alternative view, Physical Review D 102 (2) (2020) 023518

    2020

  18. [25]

    Jiang, D

    J.-Q. Jiang, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, S. Vagnozzi, Nonparametric late-time expansion history reconstruc- tion and implications for the hubble tension in light of recent desi and type ia supernovae data, Physical Review D 110 (12) (2024) 123519

    2024

  19. [26]

    Pedrotti, L

    D. Pedrotti, L. A. Escamilla, V . Marra, L. Perivolaropou- los, S. Vagnozzi, Bao miscalibration cannot rescue late- time solutions to the hubble tension, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01974 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  20. [27]

    E. ´O. Colg´ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, L. Yin, Can dark en- ergy be dynamical?, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2) (2021) 023510. arXiv:2104.01930,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104. 023510

    2021 arXiv

  21. [28]

    E. ´O. Colg´ain, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, On the Analysis Dependence of DESI Dynamical Dark Energy (5 2025).arXiv:2505.19029

    2025

  22. [29]

    E. ´O. Colg´ain, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, L. Yin, How much has DESI dark energy evolved since DR1? (4 2025).arXiv:2504.04417

    2025

  23. [30]

    Demianski, E

    M. Demianski, E. Piedipalumbo, D. Sawant, L. Amati, High redshift constraints on dark energy models from the 10 Ep,i -E iso correlation in GRBs, Mem. Soc. Ast. It. 89 (2) (2018) 197–204.arXiv:1802.01694

    2018 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Lovelock, The einstein tensor and its generalizations, Journal of Mathematical Physics 12 (3) (1971) 498–501

    D. Lovelock, The einstein tensor and its generalizations, Journal of Mathematical Physics 12 (3) (1971) 498–501

    1971

  25. [32]

    Chevallier, D

    M. Chevallier, D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, International Journal of Modern Physics D 10 (02) (2001) 213–223

    2001

  26. [33]

    E. V . Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the uni- verse, Physical review letters 90 (9) (2003) 091301

    2003

  27. [34]

    G. Efstathiou, Constraining the equation of state of the universe from distant type ia supernovae and cosmic mi- crowave background anisotropies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 310 (3) (1999) 842–850

    1999

  28. [35]

    Silva, R

    R. Silva, R. Goncalves, J. Alcaniz, H. Silva, Thermody- namics and dark energy, Astronomy & Astrophysics 537 (2012) A11

    2012

  29. [36]

    S. Pan, W. Yang, A. Paliathanasis, Imprints of an extended chevallier–polarski–linder parametrization on the large scale of our universe, The European Physical Journal C 80 (3) (2020) 274

    2020

  30. [37]

    Dimakis, A

    N. Dimakis, A. Karagiorgos, A. Zampeli, A. Paliathana- sis, T. Christodoulakis, P . A. Terzis, General analytic so- lutions of scalar field cosmology with arbitrary potential, Physical Review D 93 (12) (2016) 123518

    2016

  31. [38]

    Najafi, S

    M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, J. T. Firouzjaee, Dynam- ical dark energy confronted with multiple cmb missions, Physics of the Dark Universe 45 (2024) 101539

    2024

  32. [39]

    Jassal, J

    H. Jassal, J. Bagla, T. Padmanabhan, Wmap constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 356 (1) (2005) L11–L16

    2005

  33. [40]

    Barboza Jr, J

    E. Barboza Jr, J. Alcaniz, A parametric model for dark en- ergy, Physics Letters B 666 (5) (2008) 415–419

    2008

  34. [41]

    X. Li, A. Shafieloo, Evidence for emergent dark energy, The Astrophysical Journal 902 (1) (2020) 58

    2020

  35. [42]

    Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results. vi. cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys 641 (2020) A6

    2018

  36. [43]

    Handley, Curvature tension: evidence for a closed uni- verse, Physical Review D 103 (4) (2021) L041301

    W. Handley, Curvature tension: evidence for a closed uni- verse, Physical Review D 103 (4) (2021) L041301

    2021

  37. [44]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, J. Silk, Planck evidence for a closed universe and a possible crisis for cosmology, Na- ture Astronomy 4 (2) (2020) 196–203

    2020

  38. [45]

    P .-J. Wu, X. Zhang, Measuring cosmic curvature with non- cmb observations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06356 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  39. [46]

    W. K. Hastings, Monte carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications (1970)

    1970

  40. [47]

    Vazquez, I

    J. Vazquez, I. Gomez-Vargas, A. Slosar, Updated version of a simple mcmc code for cosmological parameter esti- mation where only expansion history matters,https: //github.com/ja-vazquez/SimpleMC(2020)

    2020

  41. [48]

    Aubourg, S

    ´E. Aubourg, S. Bailey, J. E. Bautista, F. Beutler, V . Bhard- waj, D. Bizyaev, M. Blanton, M. Blomqvist, A. S. Bolton, J. Bovy, et al., Cosmological implications of baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, Physical Review D 92 (12) (2015) 123516.doi:https://doi.org/10. 1103/...

    2015

  42. [49]

    Gelman, D

    A. Gelman, D. B. Rubin, Inference from iterative simu- lation using multiple sequences, Statistical science 7 (4) (1992) 457–472

    1992

  43. [50]

    Lewis, Getdist: a python package for analysing monte carlo samples, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025 (08) (2025) 025

    A. Lewis, Getdist: a python package for analysing monte carlo samples, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025 (08) (2025) 025

    2025

  44. [51]

    Heavens, Y

    A. Heavens, Y. Fantaye, A. Mootoovaloo, H. Eggers, Z. Hosenie, S. Kroon, E. Sellentin, Marginal likeli- hoods from monte carlo markov chains, arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.03472 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  45. [52]

    R. E. Kass, A. E. Raftery, Bayes factors, Journal of the american statistical association 90 (430) (1995) 773–795

    1995

  46. [53]

    Abdul Karim, J

    M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, C. Allende Pri- eto, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, A. Aviles, S. Bailey, et al., Desi dr2 results. i. baryon acous- tic oscillations from the lyman alpha forest, Physical Re- view D 112 (8) (2025) 083514

    2025

  47. [54]

    Brout, D

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A. G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz, R. Kessler, T. M. Davis, S. Hinton, D. Jones, et al., The pantheon+ analysis: cosmological constraints, The Astrophysical Journal 938 (2) (2022) 110

    2022

  48. [55]

    Abbott, M

    T. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. Annis, P . Arm- strong, et al., The dark energy survey: Cosmology results with˜ 1500 new high-redshift type ia supernovae using the full 5-year dataset, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401...

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Goliath, R

    M. Goliath, R. Amanullah, P . Astier, A. Goobar, R. Pain, Supernovae and the nature of the dark energy, Astron- omy & Astrophysics 380 (1) (2001) 6–18

    2001

  50. [58]

    L. A. Escamilla, W. Giar `e, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi, The state of the dark energy equation of state circa 2023, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024 (05) (2024) 091

    2023

  51. [59]

    Y. Wang, P . Mukherjee, Observational constraints on dark energy and cosmic curvature, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 76 (10) (2007) 103533

    2007

  52. [60]

    Komatsu, J

    E. Komatsu, J. Dunkley, M. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, B. Gold, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, D. Larson, M. Limon, L. Page, et al., Five-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe* observations: cosmological interpretation, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series 180 (2) (2009) 330

    2009

  53. [61]

    Hinshaw, J

    G. Hinshaw, J. Weiland, R. Hill, N. Odegard, D. Larson, C. Bennett, J. Dunkley, B. Gold, M. Greason, N. Jarosik, et al., Five-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe* observations: data processing, sky maps, and basic results, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 180 ...

    2009

  54. [62]

    de Bernardis, P

    P . de Bernardis, P . A. Ade, J. J. Bock, J. Bond, J. Bor- rill, A. Boscaleri, K. Coble, B. Crill, G. De Gasperis, P . Farese, et al., A flat universe from high-resolution maps of the cosmic microwave background radiation, Nature 11 404 (6781) (2000) 955–959

    2000

  55. [63]

    Y. Cai, X. Ren, T. Qiu, M. Li, X. Zhang, The quin- tom theory of dark energy after desi dr2, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24732 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, A. Silvestri, Hints of nonmin- imally coupled gravity in desi 2024 baryon acoustic os- cillation measurements, Physical Review Letters 134 (18) (2025) 181002

    2024

  57. [65]

    Lodha, A

    K. Lodha, A. Shafieloo, R. Calderon, E. Linder, W. Sohn, J. Cervantes-Cota, A. De Mattia, J. Garc ´ıa-Bellido, M. Ishak, W. Matthewson, et al., Desi 2024: Constraints on physics-focused aspects of dark energy using desi dr1 bao data, Physical Review D 111 (2) (2025) 023532

    2024

  58. [66]

    Lodha, R

    K. Lodha, R. Calderon, W. Matthewson, A. Shafieloo, M. Ishak, J. Pan, C. Garcia-Quintero, D. Huterer, G. Val- ogiannis, L. Ure ˜na-L´opez, et al., Extended dark energy analysis using desi dr2 bao measurements, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14743 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    P . Ade, J. Aguirre, Z. Ahmed, S. Aiola, A. Ali, D. Alonso, M. A. Alvarez, K. Arnold, P . Ashton, J. Austermann, et al., The simons observatory: science goals and fore- casts, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019 (02) (2019) 056

    2019

  60. [68]

    Laureijs, J

    R. Laureijs, J. Amiaux, S. Arduini, J.-L. Augueres, J. Brinchmann, R. Cole, M. Cropper, C. Dabin, L. Du- vet, A. Ealet, et al., Euclid definition study report, arXiv preprint arXiv:1110.3193 (2011)

    2011 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Takada, R

    M. Takada, R. S. Ellis, M. Chiba, J. E. Greene, H. Aihara, N. Arimoto, K. Bundy, J. Cohen, O. Dor´e, G. Graves, et al., Extragalactic science, cosmology, and galactic archaeol- ogy with the subaru prime focus spectrograph, Publica- tions of the Astronomical Society of Japan 66...

    2014

  62. [70]

    Spergel, N

    D. Spergel, N. Gehrels, C. Baltay, D. Bennett, J. Breckin- ridge, M. Donahue, A. Dressler, B. S. Gaudi, T. Greene, O. Guyon, et al., Wide-field infrarred survey telescope- astrophysics focused telescope assets wfirst-afta 2015 re- port, arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.03757 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Dawson, A

    K. Dawson, A. Hearin, K. Heitmann, M. Ishak, J. U. Lange, M. White, R. Zhou, Snowmass2021 cosmic frontier white paper: High density galaxy clustering in the regime of cosmic acceleration, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07291 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.