Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The paper claims that DESI's preference for evolving dark energy can be partly reinterpreted as a late-time negative dark-matter equation of state, with up to 3σ evidence.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 15:36 UTC pith:DOCDLTV7

load-bearing objection A transparent MCMC analysis of a phenomenological dynamical dark matter EoS; the negative w0 is a real but modest hint, and the perturbation treatment is the main soft spot. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18234 v1 pith:DOCDLTV7 submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Cosmological consequences of a dynamical dark matter in the light of DESI DR2 measurements

Abhijith Ajith , Utkarsh Kumar This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qc PACS 98.80.-k95.35.+d95.36.+x
keywords dynamical dark matterdark matter equation of stateDESI DR2baryon acoustic oscillationsdark energyS8 tensionviscous dark mattercosmological parameter constraints
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper is trying to show that the DESI hint for dynamical dark energy may not require dark energy at all: a modest, late-time negative pressure on the dark-matter side can absorb a large share of the signal. The authors introduce a four-parameter form for the dark-matter equation of state that is pressureless at early times and smoothly becomes slightly negative today, then fit it to CMB, galaxy-survey BAO, supernova, and growth-rate data. They find the present-day dark-matter equation of state is negative at between 0.42σ and 3.02σ depending on the data combination, while the early-time value remains consistent with zero. If correct, this would mean part of the cosmic acceleration attributed to dark energy is actually dark-matter pressure, the predicted S8 value drops closer to weak-lensing measurements, and no NEC-violating phantom physics is needed. The model beats ΛCDM on fit quality but still loses to a flexible two-parameter dark-energy model.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the dark-matter equation of state is not exactly zero today. It stays consistent with pressureless CDM at early times but becomes mildly negative at late times; the strongest dataset combination gives w0 = -0.060 with 68% errors +0.013/-0.028, a deviation from zero at about 2.3σ, rising to about 3.0σ when growth-rate data are added. The transition occurs at scale factor a_t = 0.41, i.e. redshift around 1.4. Interpreting the negative late-time pressure as an effective bulk-viscous dark matter, the paper argues that a substantial part of the DESI preference for phantom-like dynamical dark energy can be absorbed by dark-matter physics rather than by new physics

What carries the argument

The central object is a two-asymptote transition formula for the dark-matter equation of state: w_dm(a) = w_a + (w_0 - w_a)/(1 + (a_t/a)^n), with the transition sharpness n fixed to 3. This function is inserted into the Friedmann and continuity equations and into the synchronous-gauge perturbation equations, with the effective sound speed and shear set to zero. It carries the argument by letting a small negative pressure switch on only at late times, which slightly shifts the distance-redshift relation and suppresses late-time structure growth, producing the lower S8.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that dark matter remains a perfect pressureless-clustering fluid with zero sound speed and zero shear even after its equation of state turns negative; if the viscous mechanism motivating the negative pressure also generates a sound speed or shear, the growth predictions that produce the signal would change.

What would settle it

A percent-level measurement of the growth rate fσ8 at several redshifts between 0.3 and 1.0 that matches the ΛCDM prediction, or a refit with a nonzero dark-matter sound speed, would settle whether the negative late-time equation of state is real.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The DESI preference for evolving, phantom-like dark energy would not force NEC-violating physics; a viscous or dynamical dark-matter fluid can absorb much of the signal.
  • The model predicts σ8 and S8 below ΛCDM, moving them into closer agreement with weak-lensing measurements.
  • H0 remains near 68 km/s/Mpc, so the Hubble tension is left essentially unchanged.
  • Against the same datasets the model improves over ΛCDM (Δχ²_MAP from about -6.6 to -14.1) but is less favored than a flexible two-parameter dark-energy model (Δχ²_MAP positive by about 1.8 to 7.9).
  • The early-time dark-matter equation of state is consistent with zero, preserving CDM-era structure formation and CMB fits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A hybrid model with both this late-time dark-matter pressure and a less extreme dark-energy equation of state may outperform either alone, since the current comparison penalizes the dark-matter model against a two-parameter dark-energy model with more freedom.
  • Because the transition lands near z≈1.4, the distinguishing signature is concentrated in the redshift range that next-generation BAO and redshift-space-distortion surveys will map densely; those data should separate the dynamical-dark-matter and dynamical-dark-energy distance shapes without functional-form assumptions.
  • The assumed zero sound speed means the same negative pressure should leave an imprint on the small-scale matter power spectrum and on the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, providing independent tests of the fluid assumption.
  • Varying the transition sharpness n, which is fixed to 3 here, is the most direct stress test; the significance of the negative w0 could shift once n is sampled.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a phenomenological dynamical-dark-matter (DDM) model in which the dark-matter equation of state evolves smoothly between an early-time value w_dm^a and a late-time value w_dm^0 across a transition scale factor a_t, following Eq. (6). The model is implemented in a modified CAMB and analyzed with COBAYA against Planck CMB (including ACT DR6 lensing), DESI DR2 BAO, three SNe compilations (PantheonPlus, Union3, DESY5), and f_sigma8 growth data. The main finding is that the early-time EoS is consistent with zero while the present-day value w0 is negative, with quoted significance 0.42-3.02 sigma depending on the dataset combination; the strongest case is CMB+DESI+DESY5, giving w0 = -0.060+0.013/-0.028 and a_t = 0.41+0.088/-0.13 at 68% CL. The DDM model improves over Lambda-CDM in Delta-chi2_MAP and Delta-DIC for all combinations but is disfavored relative to the CPL parametrization. The model also predicts lower sigma8 and S8 than Lambda-CDM, which the authors interpret as better agreement with weak-lensing measurements.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper offers a nontrivial reinterpretation of the DESI DR2 preference for dynamical dark energy: the same data can be partially absorbed by late-time dynamics in the dark-matter sector, without invoking phantom dark energy. The paper is careful to report all dataset combinations and to compare with both Lambda-CDM and CPL, and it uses standard, publicly available MCMC/Boltzmann tools. However, the quantitative claims — especially the 3-sigma negative w0 and the S8 relief — are conditional on several assumptions that are not derived from the microphysical model used to motivate the negative pressure. The perturbation sector that controls growth and lensing predictions is not connected to the viscous dark-matter model of Appendix B; the transition sharpness n is fixed rather than sampled; and the headline significance is selected over many combinations. These issues do not invalidate the analysis as a parameter-estimation exercise, but they make the central evidence weaker than the abstract suggests.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II (Eqs. 9-10) and Appendix B] The perturbation equations used for all growth and lensing predictions assume a perfect fluid with effective sound speed c_s^2=0, zero shear, and adiabatic initial conditions. The physical motivation for late-time negative pressure is the bulk-viscous model in Appendix B, but that model is implemented only at the background level. A bulk-viscous fluid has pressure perturbations and viscous stress contributions that are not captured by setting c_s^2=0 and sigma_dm=0. Since the lower S8 and part of the Delta-chi2 advantage come from the growth and lensing predictions of Eqs. (9)-(10), the central result is conditional on an assumption not derived from the motivating microphysics. The conclusion explicitly defers c_s^2 to future work, confirming this gap. Please derive or justify the perturbation sector from the viscous model, or marginalize over a free c_s^2.
  2. [Section III, sampling paragraph] The transition sharpness n is fixed to 3 rather than sampled. Eq. (6) shows that n controls how rapidly w_dm changes around a_t, directly affecting the redshift dependence of the expansion history and linear growth, and hence the BAO, SNe, and f_sigma8 fits. No physical argument or sensitivity test is given for n=3. The reported significances and model-selection Deltas are therefore conditional on this choice. A robustness check with n sampled, or evidence that the w0/a_t posteriors and DIC differences are stable under variation of n, is needed.
  3. [Abstract and Tables I-II] The headline significance is the maximum over eight dataset combinations and three SNe compilations. The paper does not account for the multiplicity of tests. Because the combinations are strongly correlated, the 3.02-sigma value is not the significance of a pre-specified hypothesis. The paper should either state which combination was pre-specified or provide a multiple-comparison-corrected significance (e.g., a false-discovery-rate or look-elsewhere correction). Without this, the abstract's emphasis on 3.02 sigma overstates the evidence.
  4. [Section IV, sigma8/S8 discussion] The claimed better agreement with KiDS-1000 and DES-Y3 is an out-of-sample comparison because weak-lensing data are not included in the likelihood. The DDM posterior for S8 is not constrained by those measurements, so overlap in central values does not by itself establish that the model relieves the S8 tension in a joint analysis. A quantitative posterior predictive check or a fit that includes a weak-lensing likelihood would be needed to support the relief claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Tables I-II] The sampled parameter w_dm^0 and the derived present-day w0 are both reported, but the distinction is easy to miss. Please add a footnote explaining that w0 is computed from Eq. (6) at a=1, and state the confidence level for the upper limits (e.g., '95% upper limit') explicitly.
  2. [Fig. 2] The legend uses 'WDM' while the text and abstract use 'DDM'. Please make the notation consistent.
  3. [Section III, growth-rate data] In Eqs. (12)-(14), the notation f_sigma8,i is used for both the data value and the theoretical prediction, which is confusing. Use separate symbols for observed and predicted quantities.
  4. [Reproducibility] The modified CAMB implementation is not released. For a parameter-estimation paper of this type, providing a patch or repository would substantially improve reproducibility and allow independent checks of the perturbation-sector implementation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No meaningful circularity: the negative late-time EoS is a fitted parameter, the S8 suppression is an out-of-sample model prediction, and the self-citation [102] is motivational rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The central result is a Bayesian parameter constraint on the phenomenological EoS parameters in Eq. (6), obtained by fitting to external cosmological data (Planck CMB, ACT DR6 lensing, DESI DR2 BAO, SNeIa compilations, growth data). The reported negative w0 is the posterior of a fitted parameter, not a prediction derived from the same data used to define it; ordinary parameter estimation is not circular. The lower sigma8/S8 is an out-of-sample model prediction because the weak-lensing measurements quoted for comparison (KiDS-1000, DES-Y3) were not included in the likelihood; ACT DR6 lensing is included, but that is a different dataset from the weak-lensing S8 values. The only self-citation with overlapping authorship, [102], appears in the introduction as motivation and is not used to support any equation, prior, or posterior, so it is not load-bearing. The Appendix B viscous model is presented as physical motivation and is not implemented in the perturbation equations, so it does not feed back into the likelihood. The c_s^2=0 assumption affects growth predictions but is a modeling assumption, not a circular reduction; no equation or fitted value reduces to its own input by construction. Score 2 reflects only the presence of a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central analysis adds three fitted dark-matter parameters (w0, wa, a_t) plus a hand-fixed sharpness n, and marginalizes over the six standard Lambda-CDM parameters. The Appendix B viscous model introduces additional hand-chosen parameters purely for illustration. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated beyond a phenomenological equation of state for the existing dark-matter component.

free parameters (6)
  • w_0^dm (present-day dark-matter EoS) = -0.060 +0.013/-0.028 (68%, PL-B-DES)
    This is the central fitted parameter; negative values drive the claimed deviation from CDM.
  • w_a^dm (early-time dark-matter EoS) = ~0.001 (consistent with 0)
    Fitted with prior [-0.1, 0.1]; posteriors are consistent with zero, so the early-time asymptote does not carry the signal.
  • a_t (transition scale factor) = 0.411 +0.088/-0.13 (68%, PL-B-DES)
    Sets the redshift of the EoS transition; posteriors push it to late times.
  • n (transition sharpness) = fixed to 3
    Chosen by hand, not sampled; the width of the transition affects how much of the expansion and perturbation history feels the negative EoS.
  • standard Lambda-CDM parameters (Omega_b h^2, Omega_c h^2, ln(10^10 A_s), n_s, tau_reio, theta*) = marginalized (reported in Tables I-II)
    Fitted nuisance parameters; not part of the new model but required for the likelihood.
  • Viscous model parameters rho_c, m, b (Appendix B) = rho_c=100, m=3, b=0.02 (chosen, not fitted)
    Chosen by hand to illustrate that a bulk-viscosity dark-matter model can mimic Eq. (6); not constrained by data.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption FLRW metric with spatial flatness k=0.
    Stated in Section II; the analysis does not test curvature.
  • domain assumption General relativity with cosmological constant Lambda as the only dark-energy component.
    Eq. (2); the model keeps the Lambda-CDM background but modifies the dark-matter EoS.
  • ad hoc to paper Dark matter can be described as a perfect fluid with effective sound speed c_s^2=0, zero shear, and adiabatic initial conditions.
    Section II after Eqs. (9)-(10); essential for the growth and S8 predictions and not derived from the viscous model in Appendix B.
  • ad hoc to paper The phenomenological interpolation Eq. (6) with fixed n=3 captures the physical dark-matter behavior.
    Section II Eq. (6); no microphysical derivation in the main analysis; Appendix B only motivates a similar background w_dm.
  • domain assumption Prior ranges [-0.1, 0.1] for w0 and wa and [0.0001, 1] for a_t are sufficiently broad.
    Section III; could truncate the posterior if true values exceed the priors, though the posteriors lie within the ranges.
  • domain assumption The f_sigma8 growth-data compilation and its fiducial-model correction are reliable.
    Appendix A and Eqs. (12)-(14); the compilation is old and partly correlated, and the assumed covariance can affect constraints.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21784 in / 13932 out tokens · 124912 ms · 2026-08-01T15:36:11.992658+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent DESI results exhibit preference for a Null Energy Condition violating dynamical dark energy, with early phantom behaviour. We explore an alternative interpretation in which this preference arises from unconventional dark matter dynamics rather than from dynamical dark energy. We propose a dynamical dark matter (DDM) model, with a non-zero equation of state (EoS) that smoothly interpolates between early time and late time asymptotes across a transition scale factor $a_t$, and study its consequences against cosmological datasets including CMB, DESI DR2 BAO, SNeIa (PantheonPlus, Union3, and DESY5) and growth rate data. We find the early time EoS to be consistent with zero, while the present day value is negative at a significance ranging from $0.42\sigma$ to $3.02\sigma$ depending on the dataset combination. The strongest preference occurs from the combination of CMB, DESI, and DESY5 giving the present day EoS to be $-0.060^{+0.013}_{-0.028}$ and $a_t = 0.41^{+0.088}_{-0.13}$ at 68\% CL. This preference for a non-zero, late time DM EoS persists when growth rate data are included and across all three SNeIa compilations considered, while the matter density $\Omega_m$ mildly shifts to higher values relative to $\Lambda$CDM. The model also predicts a lower $\sigma_8$ and $S_8$ than $\Lambda$CDM, in better agreement with weak-lensing data, while $H_0$ remains unchanged and in tension with local distance-ladder measurements. The DDM model is preferred over $\Lambda$CDM ($\Delta \chi^2_{\rm MAP} = -14.093$, $\Delta {\rm DIC} = -7.838$ for Planck+DESI+DESY5) but disfavored relative to the CPL parameterization of DE ($\Delta \chi^2_{\rm MAP} = 6.755$, $\Delta {\rm DIC} = 7.966$). This preference is consistent among other combination of datasets as well.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18234 by Abhijith Ajith, Utkarsh Kumar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Corner plots of 1D and 2D marginalized posterior distributions for the DDM model, based on BAO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Hubble diagrams showing comparisons of DESI BAO and SNe data to models. In the top panels, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Reconstruction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The left panel shows the evolution of the EoS parameter while the right panel displays the evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Hubble tension: the shape wall

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    Late-time modifications to the expansion history can raise H0 by at most about 2% (conservative) to 3.7% (permissive) if the CMB acoustic scale is fixed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters.Astron. Astrophys., 641:A6,

    2018

  2. [2]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods.Astron. Astrophys., 641:A5, 2020

    2018

  3. [3]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravitational lensing.Astron. Astrophys., 641:A8, 2020

    2018

  4. [4]

    Dutcher et al

    D. Dutcher et al. Measurements of the E-mode polarization and temperature-E-mode correlation of the CMB from SPT-3G 2018 data.Phys. Rev. D, 104(2):022003, 2021

    2018

  5. [5]

    Choi et al

    Steve K. Choi et al. The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: a measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background power spectra at 98 and 150 GHz.JCAP, 12:045, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Hinshaw et al

    G. Hinshaw et al. Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cos- mological Parameter Results.Astrophys. J. Suppl., 208:19, 2013

    2013

  7. [7]

    Aghanim et al

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

    2018

  8. [8]

    The Cosmic Microwave Background andH 0

    Pablo Lemos and Paul Shah. The Cosmic Microwave Background andH 0. 7 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    Data analysis methods for the cosmic microwave background

    Matthieu Tristram and Ken Ganga. Data analysis methods for the cosmic microwave background. Rept. Prog. Phys., 70:899, 2007

    2007

  10. [10]

    The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spec- troscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample.Mon

    Shadab Alam et al. The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spec- troscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 470(3):2617–2652, 2017

    2017

  11. [11]

    The Completed SDSS-IV Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectro- scopic Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations with LyαForests.Astrophys

    Helion du Mas des Bourboux et al. The Completed SDSS-IV Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectro- scopic Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations with LyαForests.Astrophys. J., 901(2):153, 2020

    2020

  12. [12]

    Jiamin Hou et al. The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: BAO and RSD measurements from anisotropic clustering analysis of the Quasar Sample in configuration space between redshift 0.8 and 2.2.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 500(1):1201–1221, 2020

    2020

  13. [13]

    Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmo- logical implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory.Phys

    Shadab Alam et al. Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmo- logical implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory.Phys. Rev. D, 103(8):083533, 2021

    2021

  14. [14]

    Hector Gil-Marin et al. The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: measurement of the BAO and growth rate of structure of the luminous red galaxy sample from the anisotropic power spectrum between redshifts 0.6 and 1.0.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 498(2):2492– 2531, 2020

    2020

  15. [15]

    Bautista et al

    Julian E. Bautista et al. The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: measurement of the BAO and growth rate of structure of the luminous red galaxy sample from the anisotropic correlation function between redshifts 0.6 and 1.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 500(1):736– 762, 2020. 22

    2020

  16. [16]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument. 3 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    A. G. Adame et al. DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations.JCAP, 02:021, 2025

    2024

  18. [18]

    D. M. Scolnic et al. The Complete Light-curve Sample of Spectroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan-STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combined Pantheon Sample.Astrophys. J., 859(2):101, 2018

    2018

  19. [19]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release.Astrophys

    Dan Scolnic et al. The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release.Astrophys. J., 938(2):113, 2022

    2022

  20. [20]

    Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework

    David Rubin et al. Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework. 11 2023

    2023

  21. [21]

    A. C. Bailey, M. Vincenzi, D. Scolnic, J. C. Cuillandre, J. Rhodes, I. Hook, E. R. Peterson, and B. Popovic. Type Ia supernova observations combining data from the Euclid mission and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 524(4):5432–5441, 2023

    2023

  22. [22]

    Type Ia supernovae

    St´ ephane Blondin. Type Ia supernovae. 11 2024

    2024

  23. [23]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set.Astrophys. J. Lett., 973(1):L14, 2024

    2024

  24. [24]

    H. K. Fakhouri et al. Improving Cosmological Distance Measurements Using Twin Type Ia Supernovae. Astrophys. J., 815(1):58, 2015

    2015

  25. [25]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess. Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe.Nature Astron., 3:891, 2019

    2019

  26. [26]

    Hildebrandt et al

    H. Hildebrandt et al. KiDS-450: Cosmological parameter constraints from tomographic weak gravi- tational lensing.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 465:1454, 2017

    2017

  27. [27]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing.Phys. Rev. D, 98(4):043526, 2018

    2018

  28. [28]

    Escamilla, Simony Santos da Costa, and Sunny Vagnozzi

    Davide Pedrotti, Jun-Qian Jiang, Luis A. Escamilla, Simony Santos da Costa, and Sunny Vagnozzi. Multidimensionality of the Hubble tension: The roles of Ωm andωc.Phys. Rev. D, 111(2):023506, 2025

    2025

  29. [29]

    Implications for the Hubble tension from the ages of the oldest astrophysical objects.JHEAp, 36:27–35, 2022

    Sunny Vagnozzi, Fabio Pacucci, and Abraham Loeb. Implications for the Hubble tension from the ages of the oldest astrophysical objects.JHEAp, 36:27–35, 2022

    2022

  30. [30]

    Sherwin, and Elisa G

    Alexander Reeves, Laura Herold, Sunny Vagnozzi, Blake D. Sherwin, and Elisa G. M. Ferreira. Restor- ing cosmological concordance with early dark energy and massive neutrinos?Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 520(3):3688–3695, 2023

    2023

  31. [31]

    New physics in light of theH 0 tension: An alternative view.Phys

    Sunny Vagnozzi. New physics in light of theH 0 tension: An alternative view.Phys. Rev. D, 102(2):023518, 2020

    2020

  32. [32]

    Riess et al

    Adam G. Riess et al. A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team.Astrophys. J. Lett., 934(1):L7, 2022. 23

    2022

  33. [33]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing.Phys. Rev. D, 105(2):023520, 2022

    2022

  34. [34]

    Wright et al

    Angus H. Wright et al. KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo-Degree Survey.Astron. Astrophys., 703:A158, 2025

    2025

  35. [35]

    Bharat Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles. Cosmological consequences of a rolling homogeneous scalar field. Phys. Rev. D, 37:3406–3427, Jun 1988

    1988

  36. [36]

    Cosmology with x matter.Mon

    Takeshi Chiba, Naoshi Sugiyama, and Takashi Nakamura. Cosmology with x matter.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 289:L5–L9, 1997

    1997

  37. [37]

    Kinetically driven quintessence.Phys

    Takeshi Chiba, Takahiro Okabe, and Masahide Yamaguchi. Kinetically driven quintessence.Phys. Rev. D, 62:023511, Jun 2000

    2000

  38. [38]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. Mukhanov, and Paul J. Steinhardt. Essentials of k-essence.Phys. Rev. D, 63:103510, Apr 2001

    2001

  39. [39]

    Sotiriou and Valerio Faraoni

    Thomas P. Sotiriou and Valerio Faraoni. f(R) Theories Of Gravity.Rev. Mod. Phys., 82:451–497, 2010

    2010

  40. [40]

    Manoharan, N

    Manosh T. Manoharan, N. Shaji, and Titus K. Mathew. Holographic dark energy from the laws of thermodynamics with R´ enyi entropy.Eur. Phys. J. C, 83(1):19, 2023

    2023

  41. [41]

    Higgs Dark Energy.Class

    Massimiliano Rinaldi. Higgs Dark Energy.Class. Quant. Grav., 32:045002, 2015

    2015

  42. [42]

    Models of f(R) Cosmic Acceleration that Evade Solar-System Tests

    Wayne Hu and Ignacy Sawicki. Models of f(R) Cosmic Acceleration that Evade Solar-System Tests. Phys. Rev. D, 76:064004, 2007

    2007

  43. [43]

    Mimicking dark matter and dark energy in a mimetic model compatible with GW170817.Phys

    Alessandro Casalino, Massimiliano Rinaldi, Lorenzo Sebastiani, and Sunny Vagnozzi. Mimicking dark matter and dark energy in a mimetic model compatible with GW170817.Phys. Dark Univ., 22:108, 2018

    2018

  44. [44]

    Swampland criteria in the slotheon field dark energy

    Upala Mukhopadhyay and Debasish Majumdar. Swampland criteria in the slotheon field dark energy. Phys. Rev. D, 100(2):024006, 2019

    2019

  45. [45]

    Adil, Koushik Dutta, Ankan Mukherjee, and Anjan A

    Ruchika, Shahnawaz A. Adil, Koushik Dutta, Ankan Mukherjee, and Anjan A. Sen. Observational constraints on axion(s) dark energy with a cosmological constant.Phys. Dark Univ., 40:101199, 2023

    2023

  46. [46]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, and Tanmoy Paul. From a Bounce to the Dark Energy Era with F(R) Gravity.Class. Quant. Grav., 37(23):235005, 2020

    2020

  47. [47]

    An Effective Sign Switching Dark Energy: Lotka–Volterra Model of Two Interacting Fluids.Universe, 9(10):437, 2023

    Yen Chin Ong. An Effective Sign Switching Dark Energy: Lotka–Volterra Model of Two Interacting Fluids.Universe, 9(10):437, 2023

    2023

  48. [48]

    Saez–Ballester gravity in Kantowski–Sachs Universe: A new reconstruc- tion paradigm for Barrow Holographic Dark Energy.Phys

    Giuseppe Gaetano Luciano. Saez–Ballester gravity in Kantowski–Sachs Universe: A new reconstruc- tion paradigm for Barrow Holographic Dark Energy.Phys. Dark Univ., 41:101237, 2023

    2023

  49. [49]

    Tyagi, Sandeep Haridasu, and Soumen Basak

    Udit K. Tyagi, Sandeep Haridasu, and Soumen Basak. Constraints on Generalized Gravity- Thermodynamic Cosmology from DESI DR2. 4 2025

    2025

  50. [50]

    Has DESI detected exponential quintessence? 4 2025

    Yashar Akrami, George Alestas, and Savvas Nesseris. Has DESI detected exponential quintessence? 4 2025

    2025

  51. [51]

    A New Window on Dynamical Dark Energy: Combining DESI-DR2 BAO with future Gravitational Wave Observations

    Felipe Bruno Medeiros dos Santos, Jonathan Morais, Supriya Pan, Weiqiang Yang, and Eleonora 24 Di Valentino. A New Window on Dynamical Dark Energy: Combining DESI-DR2 BAO with future Gravitational Wave Observations. 4 2025

    2025

  52. [52]

    Colg´ ain, Saeed Pourojaghi, M

    Eoin ´O. Colg´ ain, Saeed Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and Lu Yin. How much has DESI dark energy evolved since DR1? 4 2025

    2025

  53. [53]

    Emergent dark energy from unparticles

    Michal Artymowski, Ido Ben-Dayan, and Utkarsh Kumar. Emergent dark energy from unparticles. Phys. Rev. D, 103(12):L121303, 2021

    2021

  54. [54]

    More on emergent dark energy from un- particles.Phys

    Micha l Artymowski, Ido Ben-Dayan, and Utkarsh Kumar. More on emergent dark energy from un- particles.Phys. Rev. D, 106(8):083502, 2022

    2022

  55. [55]

    Emergent Unparticles Dark Energy can restore cosmological concordance.JCAP, 12:047, 2023

    Ido Ben-Dayan and Utkarsh Kumar. Emergent Unparticles Dark Energy can restore cosmological concordance.JCAP, 12:047, 2023

    2023

  56. [56]

    Theoretical priors and the dark energy equation of state.Eur

    Ido Ben-Dayan and Utkarsh Kumar. Theoretical priors and the dark energy equation of state.Eur. Phys. J. C, 84(2):167, 2024

    2024

  57. [57]

    Inter- acting Dark Energy in a closed universe.Mon

    Eleonora Di Valentino, Alessandro Melchiorri, Olga Mena, Supriya Pan, and Weiqiang Yang. Inter- acting Dark Energy in a closed universe.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 502(1):L23–L28, 2021

    2021

  58. [58]

    Double the axions, half the tension: multi-field early dark energy eases the Hubble tension

    Marco Bella, Vivian Poulin, Sunny Vagnozzi, and Lloyd Knox. Double the axions, half the tension: multi-field early dark energy eases the Hubble tension. 4 2026

    2026

  59. [59]

    Interacting dark energy in the early 2020s: A promising solution to theH 0 and cosmic shear tensions.Phys

    Eleonora Di Valentino, Alessandro Melchiorri, Olga Mena, and Sunny Vagnozzi. Interacting dark energy in the early 2020s: A promising solution to theH 0 and cosmic shear tensions.Phys. Dark Univ., 30:100666, 2020

    2020

  60. [60]

    Constraints on the sum of the neutrino masses in dynamical dark energy models withw(z)≥ −1 are tighter than those obtained in ΛCDM.Phys

    Sunny Vagnozzi, Suhail Dhawan, Martina Gerbino, Katherine Freese, Ariel Goobar, and Olga Mena. Constraints on the sum of the neutrino masses in dynamical dark energy models withw(z)≥ −1 are tighter than those obtained in ΛCDM.Phys. Rev. D, 98(8):083501, 2018

    2018

  61. [61]

    Dark Energy in the DESI Era: A Brief Review of Evidence, Beyond-ΛCDM Interpretations, and Tensions.Res

    Tian-Nuo Li, Guo-Hong Du, Hao Wang, Yun-He Li, Jing-Fei Zhang, and Xin Zhang. Dark Energy in the DESI Era: A Brief Review of Evidence, Beyond-ΛCDM Interpretations, and Tensions.Res. Astron. Astrophys., 26(8):084002, 2026

    2026

  62. [62]

    Resolving the Hubble Tension in the Early Dark Energy Framework with JWST and DESI Data

    Guo-Hong Du, Tian-Nuo Li, Lu Yin, Sheng-Han Zhou, Hao Wang, Jing-Fei Zhang, and Xin Zhang. Resolving the Hubble Tension in the Early Dark Energy Framework with JWST and DESI Data. 6 2026

    2026

  63. [63]

    Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik J

    Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik J. Schwarz, and Glenn D. Starkman. Lack of large-angle TT correlations persists in WMAP and Planck.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 451(3):2978–2985, 2015

    2015

  64. [64]

    The Uncorrelated Universe: Statistical Anisotropy and the Vanishing Angular Correlation Function in WMAP Years 1-3.Phys

    Craig Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik Schwarz, and Glenn Starkman. The Uncorrelated Universe: Statistical Anisotropy and the Vanishing Angular Correlation Function in WMAP Years 1-3.Phys. Rev. D, 75:023507, 2007

    2007

  65. [65]

    Bullock and Michael Boylan-Kolchin

    James S. Bullock and Michael Boylan-Kolchin. Small-Scale Challenges to the CDM Paradigm.Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 55:343–387, 2017

    2017

  66. [66]

    Impact of low ell’s on large scale structure anomalies.JCAP, 02:069, 2025

    Ido Ben-Dayan, Utkarsh Kumar, Meir Shimon, and Amresh Verma. Impact of low ell’s on large scale structure anomalies.JCAP, 02:069, 2025. 25

    2025

  67. [67]

    H. J. de Vega, P. Salucci, and N. G. Sanchez. Observational rotation curves and density profiles versus the Thomas Fermi galaxy structure theory.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 442(3):2717–2727, 2014

    2014

  68. [68]

    Klypin, Andrey V

    Anatoly A. Klypin, Andrey V. Kravtsov, Octavio Valenzuela, and Francisco Prada. Where are the missing Galactic satellites?Astrophys. J., 522:82–92, 1999

    1999

  69. [69]

    Moore, S

    B. Moore, S. Ghigna, F. Governato, G. Lake, Thomas R. Quinn, J. Stadel, and P. Tozzi. Dark matter substructure within galactic halos.Astrophys. J. Lett., 524:L19–L22, 1999

    1999

  70. [70]

    Bullock, and Manoj Kaplinghat

    Michael Boylan-Kolchin, James S. Bullock, and Manoj Kaplinghat. Too big to fail? The puzzling darkness of massive Milky Way subhaloes.mnras, 415(1):L40–L44, July 2011

    2011

  71. [71]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodha et al. Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements. 3 2025

    2025

  72. [72]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints. 3 2025

    2025

  73. [73]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. DESI DR2 Results I: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest. 3 2025

    2025

  74. [74]

    A. G. Adame et al. DESI 2024 VII: cosmological constraints from the full-shape modeling of clustering measurements.JCAP, 07:028, 2025

    2024

  75. [75]

    Calderon et al

    R. Calderon et al. DESI 2024: reconstructing dark energy using crossing statistics with DESI DR1 BAO data.JCAP, 10:048, 2024

    2024

  76. [76]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodha et al. DESI 2024: Constraints on physics-focused aspects of dark energy using DESI DR1 BAO data.Phys. Rev. D, 111(2):023532, 2025

    2024

  77. [77]

    Ishak et al

    M. Ishak et al. Modified gravity constraints from the full shape modeling of clustering measurements from DESI 2024.JCAP, 09:053, 2025

    2024

  78. [78]

    Smith, Rodrigo Calder´ on, and Th´ eo Simon

    Vivian Poulin, Tristan L. Smith, Rodrigo Calder´ on, and Th´ eo Simon. Implications of the cosmic calibration tension beyond H0 and the synergy between early- and late-time new physics.Phys. Rev. D, 111(8):083552, 2025

    2025

  79. [79]

    Hawking and George F

    Stephen W. Hawking and George F. R. Ellis.The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2 2023

    2023

  80. [80]

    Crossing the phantom divide: Dark energy internal degrees of freedom.Phys

    Wayne Hu. Crossing the phantom divide: Dark energy internal degrees of freedom.Phys. Rev. D, 71:047301, 2005

    2005

Showing first 80 references.