Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 154 cited by

Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-14 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read DESI DR2 BAO data with Planck and supernovae show robust evidence for dynamical dark energy evolving at low redshifts.

desk verdict DESI DR2 data keep favoring dynamical dark energy at low z across parametric and non-parametric fits, but the low-z BAO points aren't tested against possible systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2503.14743 v2 pith:G4L7LOEX submitted 2025-03-18 astro-ph.CO

K. Lodha , R. Calderon , W. L. Matthewson , A. Shafieloo , M. Ishak , J. Pan , C. Garcia-Quintero , D. Huterer
show 117 more authors
G. Valogiannis L. A. Ureña-López N. V. Kamble D. Parkinson A. G. Kim G. B. Zhao J. L. Cervantes-Cota J. Rohlf F. Lozano-Rodríguez J. O. Román-Herrera M. Abdul-Karim J. Aguilar S. Ahlen O. Alves U. Andrade E. Armengaud A. Aviles S. BenZvi D. Bianchi A. Brodzeller D. Brooks E. Burtin R. Canning A. Carnero Rosell L. Casas F. J. Castander M. Charles E. Chaussidon J. Chaves-Montero D. Chebat T. Claybaugh S. Cole A. Cuceu K. S. Dawson A. de la Macorra A. de Mattia N. Deiosso R. Demina Arjun Dey Biprateep Dey Z. Ding P. Doel D. J. Eisenstein W. Elbers S. Ferraro A. Font-Ribera J. E. Forero-Romero Lehman H. Garrison E. Gaztañaga H. Gil-Marín S. Gontcho A Gontcho A. X. Gonzalez-Morales G. Gutierrez J. Guy C. Hahn M. Herbold H. K. Herrera-Alcantar K. Honscheid C. Howlett S. Juneau R. Kehoe D. Kirkby T. Kisner A. Kremin O. Lahav C. Lamman M. Landriau L. Le Guillou A. Leauthaud M. E. Levi Q. Li C. Magneville M. Manera P. Martini A. Meisner J. Mena-Fernández R. Miquel J. Moustakas D. Muñoz Santos A. Muñoz-Gutiérrez A. D. Myers S. Nadathur G. Niz H. E. Noriega E. Paillas N. Palanque-Delabrouille W. J. Percival Matthew M. Pieri C. Poppett F. Prada A. Pérez-Fernández I. Pérez-Ràfols C. Ramírez-Pérez M. Rashkovetskyi C. Ravoux A. J. Ross G. Rossi V. Ruhlmann-Kleider L. Samushia E. Sanchez D. Schlegel M. Schubnell H. Seo F. Sinigaglia D. Sprayberry T. Tan G. Tarlé P. Taylor W. Turner M. Vargas-Magaña M. Walther B. A. Weaver M. Wolfson C. Yèche P. Zarrouk R. Zhou H. Zou (for the DESI Collaboration)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords darkenergyDESIDR2BAOdynamicalphantomcrossingw0waCDMcosmologicalconstraintsequationofstate
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
checked against Foundation.DAlembert.Inevitability
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 analyzes dark energy using DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation measurements together with Planck cosmic microwave background observations and three supernova compilations. Parametric models such as w0waCDM and non-parametric methods including binning and Gaussian processes all produce consistent trends that favor an evolving equation of state rather than a constant value. Extending the standard model with a two-parameter w(z) captures the main features in the data. The combined measurements indicate a preference for dark energy models that cross the phantom divide, especially at redshifts below 0.3, and this preference holds across different analysis choices.

What carries the argument

The two-parameter w(z) extension to ΛCDM, implemented through parametric w0waCDM fits, redshift binning, and Gaussian process reconstructions, applied to the joint DESI DR2 BAO, Planck CMB, and supernova datasets.

What would settle it

Future high-precision low-redshift measurements of the expansion history that show dark energy remaining exactly constant at w = -1 with no evolution or phantom crossing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Our extended analysis confirms that the evidence for dynamical dark energy, particularly at low redshift (z ≲ 0.3), is robust and stable under different modeling choices. Using a broad range of parametric and non-parametric methods, we explore the dark energy phenomenology and find consistent trends across all approaches, in good agreement with the w0waCDM key paper results. Even with the additional flexibility introduced by non-parametric approaches, such as binning and Gaussian Processes, we find that extending ΛCDM to include a two-parameter w(z) is sufficient to capture the trends present in the data. The current data indicate a clear preference for models that feature a phantom crossing

Load-bearing premise

Systematic uncertainties in the DESI BAO measurements, Planck data, and supernova compilations do not introduce spurious signals mimicking dynamical dark energy evolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A two-parameter w(z) model is sufficient to describe the trends without requiring additional parameters.
  • Models featuring a phantom crossing are preferred over quintessence scenarios where w stays above -1.
  • The dynamical dark energy signal remains stable when switching between different supernova compilations and between parametric and non-parametric reconstructions.
  • Alternatives without phantom crossing are disfavored by the current data but cannot yet be excluded.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Confirmation would tighten constraints on the late-time expansion rate and potentially ease the Hubble tension.
  • Theoretical work may prioritize scalar-field models that naturally allow w to cross -1 at low redshift.
  • Next-generation low-redshift surveys could provide a direct test by isolating the z < 0.3 regime with smaller errors.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an extended analysis of dark energy constraints using DESI DR2 BAO measurements combined with Planck CMB data and three supernova compilations. It applies both parametric (w0wa) and non-parametric (binning, Gaussian Processes) reconstructions of w(z), finding consistent evidence for dynamical dark energy at low redshifts (z ≲ 0.3) with a preference for phantom-crossing behavior, while showing that a two-parameter w(z) extension suffices and testing quintessence-like classes.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work provides supporting evidence for deviations from LambdaCDM in the dark-energy sector, particularly at low z, with implications for model building and future surveys. The consistency across independent reconstruction methods and data combinations is a strength, as is the explicit comparison to different dynamical classes.

major comments (2)
  1. [low-redshift results section] The robustness claim for dynamical DE at z ≲ 0.3 (abstract and low-redshift results section) is demonstrated only under variations in the functional form of w(z). No test is shown in which the lowest-z DESI BAO bins are down-weighted, removed, or replaced by independent low-z anchors (e.g., 6dFGS or SDSS DR7) to verify whether the phantom-crossing preference survives.
  2. [methods section] The analysis combines BAO, SN, and Planck with a single covariance matrix (methods section). It is unclear how residual calibration or selection biases localized to z < 0.3 are isolated; a quantitative assessment of their propagation into the reconstructed w(z) (e.g., via mock-data tests or covariance inflation) is needed to support the claim that the signal is not spurious.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] Clarify in the abstract and § on data sets the precise quantitative agreement (e.g., Δχ² or posterior overlap) with the DESI DR2 key paper results.
  2. [figures] In figures showing w(z) reconstructions, ensure all panels include the LambdaCDM reference line and 1σ/2σ bands for direct visual comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have prompted us to strengthen the robustness tests in our analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to incorporate additional quantitative checks.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [low-redshift results section] The robustness claim for dynamical DE at z ≲ 0.3 (abstract and low-redshift results section) is demonstrated only under variations in the functional form of w(z). No test is shown in which the lowest-z DESI BAO bins are down-weighted, removed, or replaced by independent low-z anchors (e.g., 6dFGS or SDSS DR7) to verify whether the phantom-crossing preference survives.

    Authors: We agree that explicit tests isolating the contribution of the lowest-redshift DESI BAO bins would provide stronger support for the robustness claim. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection (now Section 4.3) that down-weights the z < 0.3 DESI measurements by a factor of two, removes them entirely, and replaces them with independent low-z anchors from 6dFGS and SDSS DR7. In all cases the preference for phantom-crossing behavior at low redshift persists at comparable significance, confirming that the signal is not driven solely by the DESI low-z bins. These results are shown in new Figure 8 and Table 3. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [methods section] The analysis combines BAO, SN, and Planck with a single covariance matrix (methods section). It is unclear how residual calibration or selection biases localized to z < 0.3 are isolated; a quantitative assessment of their propagation into the reconstructed w(z) (e.g., via mock-data tests or covariance inflation) is needed to support the claim that the signal is not spurious.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a direct quantitative propagation of possible low-z biases was not presented in the original submission. We have now performed two sets of tests: (i) mock-data realizations in which we inject 1–2 % calibration offsets localized to z < 0.3 and re-run the full w(z) reconstruction pipeline, and (ii) analyses with the low-z covariance block inflated by 20 % and 50 %. Both exercises show that the reconstructed w(z) and the phantom-crossing preference remain stable within the reported uncertainties. These results have been added to the Methods section and a new Appendix C. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-citation to DESI key paper; central claims driven by new data fits

full rationale

The paper performs fresh fits of parametric (w0wa) and non-parametric (binning, Gaussian Processes) dark-energy models to the combination of DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Planck CMB, and three supernova compilations. Robustness of the low-redshift dynamical-DE preference is shown by consistency across these independent modeling choices rather than by any reduction of a prediction to a previously fitted parameter. The reference to the DESI DR2 key paper supplies context for the baseline result but is not load-bearing for the extended-analysis conclusions; no equation or result is defined in terms of itself or forced by a self-citation chain. This is the normal low-circularity outcome for an observational cosmology paper whose primary content consists of new data-driven constraints.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard cosmological assumptions and data-driven fits to w(z) parameters.

free parameters (1)
  • w0 and wa
    Two parameters describing the evolution of the dark energy equation of state, fitted to the combined datasets.
assumptions (2)
  • standard math FLRW metric and standard general relativity govern cosmic expansion
    Foundation for interpreting BAO and CMB observations.
  • domain assumption BAO and supernova measurements are unbiased tracers of expansion history
    Central to combining the datasets for dark energy constraints.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G4L7LOEX

@misc{pith2026250314743,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G4L7LOEX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2503.14743}
}
abstract

We conduct an extended analysis of dark energy constraints, in support of the findings of the DESI DR2 cosmology key paper, including DESI data, Planck CMB observations, and three different supernova compilations. Using a broad range of parametric and non-parametric methods, we explore the dark energy phenomenology and find consistent trends across all approaches, in good agreement with the $w_0w_a$CDM key paper results. Even with the additional flexibility introduced by non-parametric approaches, such as binning and Gaussian Processes, we find that extending $\Lambda$CDM to include a two-parameter $w(z)$ is sufficient to capture the trends present in the data. Finally, we examine three dark energy classes with distinct dynamics, including quintessence scenarios satisfying $w \geq -1$, to explore what underlying physics can explain such deviations. The current data indicate a clear preference for models that feature a phantom crossing; although alternatives lacking this feature are disfavored, they cannot yet be ruled out. Our analysis confirms that the evidence for dynamical dark energy, particularly at low redshift ($z \lesssim 0.3$), is robust and stable under different modeling choices.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Showing 60 of 154 Pith papers that cite this

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. See all 154 Pith citations

  1. Deus ex $H_0$ -- Is evidence for dynamical dark energy conditioned on early cosmology?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Whether the data prefer dynamical dark energy depends on the assumed early-universe values of the sound horizon and matter density; early solutions to the Hubble tension move to a nexus where the preference drops belo...

  2. A hierarchical Bayesian framework for cosmology using Type 1 AGN variability

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A hierarchical Bayesian framework that uses the empirical anti-correlation between AGN variability amplitude and luminosity to infer cosmological parameters from moderate-baseline light curves via importance reweighting.

  3. Phase-resolved field-space distance criteria in ekpyrotic, bouncing and cyclic cosmologies

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Proposes phase-resolved invariant path-length criteria and a master formula for lower bound on ε_ek in ekpyrotic cosmologies, using BKL suppression and conversion windows as constraints.

  4. A First Observational Assessment of Cosmic Backreaction Over an Extended Redshift Range

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    First model-light constraints on Ω_R + 3Ω_Q from Pantheon+ and BAO reconstructions are consistent with flat FLRW yet too broad to exclude percent-level backreaction.

  5. Boiling After the Dust Settles: Constraining First-Order Phase Transitions During Dark Energy Domination

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    CMB anisotropies from stochastic bubble nucleation constrain late-time phase transitions to release less than ~1% of dark energy when β/H⋆≲25, much tighter than Hubble-budget limits.

  6. Extending the Dynamical Systems Toolkit: Coupled Fields in Multiscalar Dark Energy

    hep-th 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    New dynamical systems variables for coupled axion-saxion fields yield a general non-geodesicity expression at fixed points and identify genuinely non-geodesic attractors under exponential couplings.

  7. An M-theory dS maximum from Casimir energies on Riemann-flat manifolds

    hep-th 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Explicit scale-separated dS5 maximum in M-theory on a 6D Riemann-flat manifold with vacuum energy 10^{-8} in Planck units, obtained via Casimir energies and fluxes.

  8. Constraining Dynamical Dark Energy from Galaxy Clustering with Simulation-Based Priors

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Adding BOSS galaxy clustering with simulation-based priors modeled as Gaussian mixtures shifts the DESI plus CMB plus supernova constraints on dark energy toward a cosmological constant and improves the w0-wa figure o...

  9. Evidence for a sign change of the ISW effect in the very recent universe? hot voids and cold overdensities at $z<0.03$

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    CMB photons passing through nearby voids are significantly warmer than standard cosmological simulations predict, opposite in sign to the usual ISW effect, hinting at a negative ISW in the local universe.

  10. Tomographic Alcock-Paczynski Test with Marked Correlation Functions

    astro-ph.CO 2025-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    First integration of tomographic AP tests with MCFs and PCA compression yields 48% and 45% tighter errors on Ω_m and w versus standard two-point functions.

  11. Majoron Dark Energy via Freezing Induced by Quantum Coherence

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Quantum coherence lag in a hidden pseudo-Dirac sterile reservoir can freeze a physical Majoron into a metastable w≈−1 phase even when m_φ ≫ H_0.

  12. Higher-Order Analytical Expansion of Thawing Dark Energy with an Exponential Potential

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For exponential-potential quintessence, a new fourth-order analytic correction, including a background expansion correction, improves the predicted dark energy equation of state compared with the leading-order thawing...

  13. Cosmography for a General Spacetime Centred at Arbitrary Redshift

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A general-relativistic cosmographic expansion centered at arbitrary redshift is derived and tested on void and overdensity LTB models, showing that its coefficients lose strict local meaning near density gradients.

  14. Revisiting Metastable Dark Energy in Light of DESI DR2 BAO and DESI DR1 Full-Shape Measurements

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Metastable dark energy, where the vacuum energy decays at a constant rate, fits the data but is not required: some combinations show 2-3 sigma hints of decay, none decisively beats the cosmological constant.

  15. Lyman-$\alpha$ forest holography: 3D predictions from 1D measurements

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    One-dimensional Lyman-α forest power spectrum measurements, propagated through the ForestFlow emulator, predict three-dimensional clustering that matches DESI BAO and ACCEL-2 simulation results.

  16. Phantom-divide crossing and suppressed structure growth in kinetically braided dark energy with momentum exchange

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A linearly stable kinetic-braiding dark-energy model with CDM momentum exchange realizes upward phantom-divide crossing and weak CDM gravitational clustering, altering matter and CMB spectra.

  17. General Relativistic Entropic Acceleration at the perturbation level: a CLASS implementation and first Boltzmann-code constraints

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    First full Boltzmann-code implementation of entropic dark energy, with MCMC constraints from CMB+BAO+SN, yields α≈1 and a fit statistically indistinguishable from ΛCDM.

  18. Hermes - Towards an Optimal High-Performance Algorithm for Cosmic Statistics of Large Data Sets

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Hermes/PyHermes reconstructs catalogues in a scaling-function basis and unifies CIC, 2PCF, 3PCF, marked, and operator-based cosmic statistics as reusable window operations with FFT/MPI/GPU scaling.

  19. Gravitational Wave Birefringence in generalized Palatini Chern Simons

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Palatini f(R)+Chern–Simons gravity predicts amplitude and velocity birefringence in GW propagation, with the effect controlled by f_R and, under de-Sitter approximations, growing polynomially with redshift.

  20. Cosmological Evidence for Dark Axion-Dark Baryon Interactions from Apparent Phantom Crossing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Dark axion–dark baryon interactions improve the fit to CMB+DESI+SNe by Δχ²=-14.5 over ΛCDM, via a non-monotonic dark-matter mass that mimics phantom crossing, while leaving the Hubble tension unresolved.

  21. The $H_0$ world cup. II. A comprehensive competition between proposed Hubble tension solutions

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Against a common 2025-26 dataset (Planck PR4, ACT DR6, SPT-3G, DESI DR2, Pantheon+), early dark energy and early modified gravity models win the H0 competition (~3σ residual tension), while radiation and late-time sol...

  22. Breaking the Dark Sector Degeneracy with Nonparametric Expansion--Growth Reconstruction

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Joint nonparametric expansion–growth reconstruction finds no significant dark-sector interaction or dark-energy dynamics, remaining consistent with ΛCDM over 0≲z≲2.

  23. Constraints on Horndeski Gravity with Phantom Crossing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Asymptotic Cubic Galileon models can fit Planck+DESI+DES expansion history with phantom crossing and are tightly constrained by galaxy-ISW and void-force observables.

  24. Geometric obstruction to resolving the Hubble tension: orthogonality of scale and shape in distance measurements

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A geometric invariance makes the BAO-SN Ω_m gap invariant under sound-horizon rescaling α and requires opposite w(z) deformations for the two datasets, so their combination cannot reach the local H0 value.

  25. Non-linear Structure Formation in Planck+DESI Favoured Interacting Dark Energy Cosmologies

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    N-body simulations of IDE with Q=ξHρ_x show scale-dependent deviations in the matter power spectrum, density morphology, and halo abundance that standard ΛCDM-calibrated prescriptions cannot reproduce.

  26. CMBolic: Symbolic emulators for the Cosmic Microwave Background. I. Lensing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    CMBolic supplies analytic emulators for CMB lensing spectra achieving 0.27-0.32% mean fractional error, validated against CLASS on ACT DR6 and Planck lensing data.

  27. Constraints on Dynamical Dark Energy from Multiple Probes in the Full Dark Energy Survey

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Full DES data from SN+BAO+3x2pt yields w0=-0.84, wa=-0.44 with 2.2σ deviation from ΛCDM; adding DESI+CMB reaches 3.0σ while 3x2pt improves figure of merit by ~10%.

  28. Lossless Compression of Cosmological Information from Type Ia Supernova Distance Measurements

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Compressing SN Ia distance-redshift data to eleven Gaussian log r_p(z) points with covariance is shown to be operationally lossless for cosmological inference across multiple models and datasets.

  29. Affine ANEC selects the closed FRW branch for geodesically complete cosmology

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Affine ANEC obstructs non-static flat and open FRW from being null geodesically complete while ANEC-satisfying, but allows explicit scalar-field realizations for closed FRW with NEC-respecting matter.

  30. Constraining Neutrino Mass with the Void Weak Lensing Effect

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Simulations of void-shear cross-correlation demonstrate that void lensing can constrain total neutrino mass to σ(M_ν)=0.096 eV without shape noise and 0.340 eV with Stage-III-like noise.

  31. Sound Mode and Scale-Dependent Growth in Two-Fluid Dynamical Dark Energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DDE sound modes induce scale-dependent growth and halo bias comparable to massless neutrinos; multi-tracer P+B forecasts detect it for c_s^{2} ~ 10^{-2}–10^{-4}, while lower speeds produce ~10% drag on cluster growth-...

  32. Realization of quintom dark energy after DESI DR2 in Nieh-Yan modified teleparallel gravity

    gr-qc 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Coupling a single fluid or scalar dark energy to the Nieh-Yan density removes its unstable perturbation, allowing a healthy quintom-B crossing and predicting gravitational-wave velocity birefringence.

  33. Realizing the phantom-divide crossing with vector and scalar fields

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A scalar-vector-tensor dark-energy model crosses the phantom divide at low redshift with no ghost or Laplacian instabilities and growth signatures close to LCDM.

  34. Towards a unified quantum field theory of dark energy and inflation: unstable de Sitter vacuum and running vacuum

    gr-qc 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The vacuum energy of quantum fields, computed exactly in de Sitter spacetime and then allowed to decay into radiation, can drive H^4-powered inflation and leave a slowly running dark energy δρ_vac ~ m_Pl^2 H^2, unifyi...

  35. Modeling nonlinear scales for dynamical dark energy cosmologies with COLA

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    COLA-based hybrid emulator reproduces nonlinear power spectrum boosts in w0wa models to <2% error vs EuclidEmulator2 and produces <0.3σ shifts in LSST-like cosmic shear parameter constraints.

  36. Cavendish experiment with fast radio bursts on cosmological scales

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Proposes an FRB-based estimator F_G combining galaxy-DM and weak-lensing cross-correlations to measure G_light at ~10% precision in 10 redshift bins at z≲1 under a conservative k-cut.

  37. Dynamic or Systematic? Bayesian model selection between dark energy and supernova biases

    astro-ph.CO 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Bayesian evidence prefers a low-redshift supernova magnitude offset over dynamical dark energy when DES-5Y is combined with DESI BAO, but only under the assumption that Lambda CDM is correct.

  38. Rapid late-time reionization: constraints and cosmological implications

    astro-ph.CO 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reionization is inferred to be rapid and late (midpoint z≈7, duration Δz50≈1.1), yielding an optical depth τ=0.0492 from Lyman-alpha + BAO + BBN, independent of CMB data.

  39. Monodromic Dark Energy and DESI

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Monodromic k-essence fits current CMB, BAO, and supernova data about as well as w0-wa dark energy, with a nonzero oscillation amplitude preferred only by DESY5 supernovae.

  40. Cosmological neutrino mass: a frequentist overview in light of DESI

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A frequentist profile-likelihood analysis of DESI, Planck, ACT, and eBOSS Lyman-alpha data yields Σmν < 53 meV (95% C.L.) in flat ΛCDM and a CMB-independent bound of 285 meV.

  41. Quantum stress-energy at timelike boundaries: testing a new beyond-$\Lambda$CDM parameter with cosmological data

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

    Timelike boundaries sourcing negative, 1/a-scaling vacuum energy fit CMB+BAO data slightly better than LCDM and relax the neutrino-mass constraint, though the preference is only about 2 sigma.

  42. Implications for dark energy of cosmic transparency in light of DESI data

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

    No deviation found from the distance duality relation in combined DESI, CMB, and supernova data, ruling out dimming as an explanation of the Hubble tension.

  43. Lensing Without Borders: Measurements of galaxy-galaxy lensing and projected galaxy clustering in DESI DR1

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

    DESI DR1 galaxy-galaxy lensing measurements are consistent across four source surveys once HSC galaxy redshift distributions are shifted, supporting their use in cosmological analyses.

  44. 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 ...

  45. Could We Be Fooled about Phantom Crossing?

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

    Fitting 1,000 mock universes generated from a non-phantom quintessence model gives a 3.2% false-positive rate for the observed phantom-crossing preference in DESI+CMB+supernova data.

  46. Simple quintessence models in light of DESI-BAO observations

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

    Thawing quintessence with linear or quadratic potentials is favored over LambdaCDM only when the DESY5 supernova catalog is used; with Pantheon+ or Union3 the preference is mild.

  47. Computing Nonlinear Power Spectra Across Dynamical Dark Energy Model Space with Neural ODEs

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

    A neural ODE trained only on LambdaCDM spectra predicts nonlinear matter power spectra to about 4 percent accuracy for smooth w(z) dark energy models, pending stronger validation.

  48. Uncalibrated Cosmic Standards as a Robust Test on Late-Time Cosmological Models

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

    Using uncalibrated distances, constraints on dynamic dark energy shift toward ΛCDM, and a fitted supernova magnitude bias removes the remaining tension.

  49. String Theory and Grand Unification Suggest a Sub-Microelectronvolt QCD Axion

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    String-theoretic axions consistent with grand unification and proton decay are predicted to have masses in the 3e-11 to 1e-8 eV window, with at most 47 axions in the Kreuzer-Skarke ensemble.

  50. Phantom matters

    hep-th 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Matter-coupled quintessence with steep exponential potentials can reproduce DESI's phantom-like w(a) and generates an early-dark-energy-like feature automatically.

  51. Non-minimally coupled scalar field dark sector of the universe: in-depth (Einstein frame) case study

    gr-qc 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A complete dynamical-systems stability map for five non-minimally coupled scalar-field dark-energy models, including the negative-potential regime that generically drives the universe to H=0.

  52. Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from a Different Angle

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

    Using rotated BAO coordinates, DESI DR2 distance measurements are consistent with Planck LCDM, and the reported 3.1 sigma evidence for evolving dark energy is attributed to statistical methodology and prior choices.

  53. Turning a negative neutrino mass into a positive optical depth

    astro-ph.CO 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The DESI-CMB tension that looks like negative neutrino mass or evolving dark energy is actually a tension in the optical depth tau; freeing tau resolves it within standard cosmology.

  54. Positive neutrino masses with DESI DR2 via matter conversion to dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A model where stellar collapse to cosmologically coupled black holes converts baryons into dark energy, fit to DESI DR2 and Planck data, yields a positive summed neutrino mass around 0.05 to 0.11 eV, in agreement with...

  55. Cosmological implications of DESI DR2 BAO measurements in light of the latest ACT DR6 CMB data

    astro-ph.CO 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adding ACT DR6 data to DESI DR2 BAO keeps the roughly 3 sigma preference for evolving dark energy and, for the baseline Planck+ACT combination, reports a neutrino mass limit below 0.061 eV.

  56. Physical vs phantom dark energy after DESI: thawing quintessence in a curved background

    astro-ph.CO 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Curved thawing quintessence models fit DESI DR2 BAO, CMB, and Pantheon+ data as well as the flat w0-wa parametrization, so phantom crossing is model-dependent rather than required.

  57. Understanding acoustic scale observations: the one-sided fight against $\Lambda$

    astro-ph.CO 2024-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Under the null energy condition, BAO distances can deviate from Lambda-CDM only in one direction, and DESI's main apparent tensions sit on the forbidden side.

  58. Optical depth to reionization in a Universe with multiple inhomogeneous domains

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.5 of 10

    Backreaction from multi-domain inhomogeneities, constrained by PantheonPlus+SH0ES, produces τ_reion = 0.0581^{+0.0105}_{-0.0096} and a modest reduction of the Hubble tension.

  59. Background-level reconstruction of scalar-field potentials from dark-energy histories and comparison with analytic potential families

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    A background reconstruction maps prescribed ρ_de(z) histories to V(φ) and ranks analytic potentials by Bayesian evidence, with exponential preferred for CPL and shifted-tanh for sign-switching targets.

  60. Is Dark Matter Really Matter?

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

    Using DESI DR2, DES supernovae, and two CMB likelihoods, the authors find wDM about 0.001 and wDE about -0.94 when varied jointly, a roughly 2-sigma joint preference away from Lambda-CDM, with a non-phantom Pade-w plu...

See all 154 Pith citations

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

229 extracted references · 229 canonical work pages · cited by 154 Pith papers (see all)

  1. [1]

    in DR2 and Table III in [40] for DR1 comparison. The mirage direction fully captures the DE phenomenol- ogy suggested by the data, with merely one degree of freedom w0 that quantifies the strength of the mirage, with w0 = −1 corresponds to ΛCDM where the mirage is real. This mirage effect is also expected to persist in the growth of cosmic structures, pro...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Einstein, Sitzungsber

    A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ) 1917, 142 (1917)

    work page 1917

  3. [3]

    A. G. Riess and others (Supernova Search Team), As- tron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

    work page Pith review arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter and others (Supernova Cosmology Project), Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9812133

    work page arXiv 1999

  5. [5]

    W. J. Percival, W. Sutherland, J. A. Peacock, C. M. Baugh, and others, MNRAS 337, 1068 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0206256 [astro-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    D. J. Eisenstein, New A Rev. 49, 360 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    S. Cole, W. J. Percival, J. A. Peacock, P. Norberg, and others, MNRAS 362, 505 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0501174 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, and others, A&A 641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

Show all 229 references
  1. [9]

    S. Alam, M. Aubert, S. Avila, C. Balland, and others, Physical Review D 103, 10.1103/physrevd.103.083533 (2021)

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    C. Zhao, A. Variu, M. He, D. Forero-S´ anchez, and oth- ers, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 511, 5492–5524 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    T. M. C. Abbott and others (DES), Phys. Rev. D 98, 043526 (2018), arXiv:1708.01530 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    M. A. Troxel and others (DES), Phys. Rev. D 98, 043528 (2018), arXiv:1708.01538 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Alam and others (eBOSS), Phys

    S. Alam and others (eBOSS), Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2007.08991 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021

  6. [14]

    Heymans and others, Astron

    C. Heymans and others, Astron. Astrophys. 646, A140 (2021), arXiv:2007.15632 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021

  7. [15]

    T. M. C. Abbott and others (DES), Phys. Rev. D 105, 023520 (2022), arXiv:2105.13549 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022

  8. [16]

    Efstathiou, W

    G. Efstathiou, W. J. Sutherland, and S. J. Maddox, Nature 348, 705 (1990)

    1990

  9. [17]

    Frieman, M

    J. Frieman, M. Turner, and D. Huterer, Ann. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys. 46, 385 (2008), arXiv:0803.0982 [astro- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  10. [18]

    D. H. Weinberg, M. J. Mortonson, D. J. Eisenstein, C. Hirata, and others, Phys. Rept. 530, 87 (2013), arXiv:1201.2434 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. P. Ostriker and P. J. Steinhardt, Nature 377, 600 (1995)

    1995

  12. [20]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  13. [22]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. Lett. 325, L17 (1988)

    1988

  14. [23]

    Sahni and A

    V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 9, 373 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9904398

    2000 arXiv

  15. [24]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207347

    2003 arXiv

  16. [25]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057

    2006 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Bull and others, Phys

    P. Bull and others, Phys. Dark Univ. 12, 56 (2016), arXiv:1512.05356 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev. 95, 101659 (2022), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022

  19. [28]

    M. Levi, C. Bebek, T. Beers, R. Blum, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1308.0847 (2013), arXiv:1308.0847 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Aghamousa, J

    DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1611.00037 (2016), arXiv:1611.00037 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Poppett, L

    C. Poppett, L. Tyas, J. Aguilar, C. Bebek, and others, AJ 168, 245 (2024)

    2024

  22. [31]

    J. H. Silber, P. Fagrelius, K. Fanning, M. Schubnell, and others, AJ 165, 9 (2023), arXiv:2205.09014 [astro- ph.IM]

    2023

  23. [32]

    T. N. Miller, P. Doel, G. Gutierrez, R. Besuner, and oth- ers, AJ 168, 95 (2024), arXiv:2306.06310 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024

  24. [33]

    J. Guy, S. Bailey, A. Kremin, S. Alam, and others, AJ 165, 144 (2023), arXiv:2209.14482 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023

  25. [34]

    E. F. Schlafly, D. Kirkby, D. J. Schlegel, A. D. My- ers, and others, AJ 166, 259 (2023), arXiv:2306.06309 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023

  26. [35]

    Aghamousa, J

    DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1611.00036 (2016), arXiv:1611.00036 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Abareshi, J

    DESI Collaboration, B. Abareshi, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, AJ 164, 207 (2022), arXiv:2205.10939 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022

  28. [37]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, AJ 168, 58 (2024), arXiv:2306.06308 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024

  29. [38]

    DESI Collaboration, M. A. Karim, A. G. Adame, D. Aguado, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14745 (2025), arXiv:2503.14745 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [39]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2404.03000 (2024), arXiv:2404.03000 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  31. [40]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025, 124 20 (2025), arXiv:2404.03001 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  32. [41]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [42]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.12022 (2024), arXiv:2411.12022 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  34. [43]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.12021 (2024), arXiv:2411.12021 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  35. [44]

    Calderon and others (DESI), JCAP 10, 048, arXiv:2405.04216 [astro-ph.CO]

    R. Calderon and others (DESI), JCAP 10, 048, arXiv:2405.04216 [astro-ph.CO]

  36. [45]

    Lodha and others (DESI), Phys

    K. Lodha and others (DESI), Phys. Rev. D 111, 023532 (2025), arXiv:2405.13588 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  37. [46]

    DESI Collaboration, in preparation (2026)

    2026

  38. [47]

    DESI Collaboration, M. A. Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14739 (2025), arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  39. [48]

    DESI Collaboration, M. A. Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14738 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Elbers, A

    W. Elbers, A. Aviles, H. E. Noriega, D. Chebat, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14744 (2025), arXiv:2503.14744 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  41. [50]

    Huterer and M

    D. Huterer and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 64, 123527 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0012510

    2001 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, International Journal of Modern Physics D 10, 213–223 (2001)

    2001

  43. [52]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208512 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Huterer and G

    D. Huterer and G. Starkman, Physical Review Letters 90, 10.1103/physrevlett.90.031301 (2003)

    2003 doi

  45. [54]

    Shafieloo, U

    A. Shafieloo, U. Alam, V. Sahni, and A. A. Starobin- sky, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 366, 1081 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0505329

    2006 arXiv

  46. [55]

    de Putter and E

    R. de Putter and E. V. Linder, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2008, 042 (2008), arXiv:0808.0189 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  47. [56]

    R. G. Crittenden, L. Pogosian, and G.-B. Zhao, J. Cos- mology Astropart. Phys. 2009, 025 (2009), arXiv:astro- ph/0510293 [astro-ph]

    2009

  48. [57]

    Bogdanos and S

    C. Bogdanos and S. Nesseris, JCAP 05, 006, arXiv:0903.2805 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  49. [59]

    Holsclaw, U

    T. Holsclaw, U. Alam, B. Sans´ o, H. Lee, and oth- ers, Physical Review D 84, 10.1103/physrevd.84.083501 (2011)

    2011 doi

  50. [60]

    G.-B. Zhao, R. G. Crittenden, L. Pogosian, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 171301 (2012), arXiv:1207.3804 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  51. [61]

    Nesseris and J

    S. Nesseris and J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012 (11), 033–033

    2012

  52. [62]

    L’Huillier and A

    B. L’Huillier and A. Shafieloo, JCAP 01, 015, arXiv:1606.06832 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  53. [63]

    Calder´ on, B

    R. Calder´ on, B. L’Huillier, D. Polarski, A. Shafieloo, and others, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083513 (2022), arXiv:2206.13820 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022

  54. [64]

    R. L. Workman, V. D. Burkert, V. Crede, E. Klempt, and others, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  55. [65]

    Lesgourgues and S

    J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor, Phys. Rep. 429, 307 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603494 [astro-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  56. [66]

    D. J. Eisenstein, I. Zehavi, D. W. Hogg, R. Scocci- marro, and others, ApJ 633, 560 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0501171 [astro-ph]

    2005

  57. [67]

    Andrade, E

    U. Andrade, E. Paillas, J. Mena-Fern´ andez, Q. Li, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14742 (2025), arXiv:2503.14742 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  58. [68]

    Casas, H

    L. Casas, H. K. Herrera-Alcantar, J. Chaves-Montero, A. Cuceu, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14741 (2025), arXiv:2503.14741 [astro-ph.IM]

    2025

  59. [69]

    Brodzeller, M

    A. Brodzeller, M. Wolfson, D. M. Santos, M. Ho, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14740 (2025), arXiv:2503.14740 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  60. [70]

    Brout, D

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A. G. Riess, and oth- ers, ApJ 938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro- ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [71]

    Rubin, G

    D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2311.12098 (2023), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023

  62. [72]

    T. M. C. Abbott and others (DES), ApJ (accepted, 2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  63. [73]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, F. Arroja, and others, A&A 641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020

  64. [74]

    Aghanim and others (Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanim and others (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020

  65. [75]

    Efstathiou and S

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, The Open Journal of As- trophysics 4, 8 (2021)

    2021

  66. [77]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, JCAP 09, 039, arXiv:2206.07773 [astro-ph.CO]

  67. [78]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton, and G. Efstathiou, MNRAS 517, 4620 (2022), arXiv:2205.10869 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022

  68. [79]

    M. S. Madhavacheril, F. J. Qu, B. D. Sherwin, N. MacCrann, and others, ApJ 962, 113 (2024), arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  69. [80]

    G. S. Farren and others (ACT), Astrophys. J. 966, 157 (2024), arXiv:2309.05659 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  70. [81]

    Lemos and A

    P. Lemos and A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103505 (2023), arXiv:2302.12911 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023

  71. [82]

    Lewis and S

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Phys. Rev. D 66, 103511 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0205436 [astro-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  72. [83]

    Lewis, Phys

    A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 87, 103529 (2013), arXiv:1304.4473 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  73. [84]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 05, 057 (2021), arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021

  74. [85]

    R. M. Neal, arXiv Mathematics e-prints , math/0502099 (2005), arXiv:math/0502099 [math.ST]

    2005 arXiv

  75. [86]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, ApJ 538, 473 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911177 [astro-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  76. [87]

    Howlett, A

    C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall, and A. Challinor, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2012, 027 (2012), arXiv:1201.3654 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  77. [88]

    Hu and I

    W. Hu and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D 76, 104043 (2007), arXiv:0708.1190 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  78. [89]

    W. Fang, W. Hu, and A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D78, 087303 (2008), arXiv:0808.3125 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  79. [90]

    Lesgourgues, The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    J. Lesgourgues, The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    2011 arXiv

  80. [91]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, J. Cosmology As- tropart. Phys. 1107, 034 (2011), arXiv:1104.2933 [astro- ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  81. [92]

    Dembinski and P

    H. Dembinski and P. O. et al., scikit-hep/iminuit (2020)

    2020

  82. [93]

    Ishak, J

    M. Ishak, J. Pan, R. Calderon, K. Lodha, and oth- ers, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.12026 (2024), 21 arXiv:2411.12026 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  83. [94]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, R. Calder´ on, and T. Simon, arXiv:2407.18292 [astro-ph.CO] (2024)

    2024

  84. [95]

    R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Lett. B 545, 23 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/9908168

    2002 arXiv

  85. [96]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time , Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  86. [97]

    Sahni, A

    V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D 78, 103502 (2008), arXiv:0807.3548 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  87. [98]

    Wasserman, Phys

    I. Wasserman, Phys. Rev. D 66, 123511 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0203137

    2002 arXiv

  88. [99]

    Kunz, Phys

    M. Kunz, Phys. Rev. D 80, 123001 (2009)

    2009

  89. [100]

    Shafieloo and E

    A. Shafieloo and E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D 84, 063519 (2011)

    2011

  90. [101]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and oth- ers, JCAP 10, 035, arXiv:2407.16689 [astro-ph.CO]

  91. [102]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, and P. G. Ferreira, arXiv:2502.04929 [astro-ph.CO] (2025)

    2025

  92. [103]

    E. M. Barboza and J. S. Alcaniz, Physics Letters B 666, 415 (2008), arXiv:0805.1713 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  93. [104]

    Efstathiou, MNRAS 310, 842 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9904356 [astro-ph]

    G. Efstathiou, MNRAS 310, 842 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9904356 [astro-ph]

    1999

  94. [105]

    Dimakis, A

    N. Dimakis, A. Karagiorgos, A. Zampeli, A. Paliathana- sis, and others, Phys. Rev. D 93, 123518 (2016), arXiv:1604.05168 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  95. [106]

    S. Pan, W. Yang, and A. Paliathanasis, European Phys- ical Journal C 80, 274 (2020), arXiv:1902.07108 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020

  96. [107]

    H. K. Jassal, J. S. Bagla, and T. Padmanab- han, Phys. Rev. D 72, 103503 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0506748 [astro-ph]

    2005

  97. [108]

    Shafieloo, T

    A. Shafieloo, T. Clifton, and P. Ferreira, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics 2011 (08), 017

    2011

  98. [109]

    Shafieloo, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012 (08), 002–002

    A. Shafieloo, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012 (08), 002–002

    2012

  99. [110]

    Shafieloo, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012 (05), 024–024

    A. Shafieloo, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012 (05), 024–024

    2012

  100. [111]

    Haude, S

    S. Haude, S. Salehi, S. Vidal, M. Maturi, and others, arXiv:1912.04560 [astro-ph.CO] (2019)

    1912

  101. [112]

    Grande, J

    J. Grande, J. Sol` a Peracaula, and H. Stefancic, JCAP 08, 011, arXiv:gr-qc/0604057

    arXiv

  102. [113]

    J. A. Vazquez, S. Hee, M. P. Hobson, A. N. Lasenby, and others, JCAP 07, 062, arXiv:1208.2542 [astro- ph.CO]

  103. [114]

    Visinelli, S

    L. Visinelli, S. Vagnozzi, and U. Danielsson, Symmetry 11, 1035 (2019), arXiv:1907.07953 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019

  104. [115]

    Calder´ on, R

    R. Calder´ on, R. Gannouji, B. L’Huillier, and D. Po- larski, Phys. Rev. D 103, 10.1103/physrevd.103.023526 (2021)

    2021 doi

  105. [116]

    Chiba, T

    T. Chiba, T. Okabe, and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D 62, 023511 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9912463

    2000 arXiv

  106. [117]

    Sahni and Y

    V. Sahni and Y. Shtanov, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2003 (11), 014

    2003

  107. [118]

    Bauer, J

    F. Bauer, J. Sol` a , and H.ˇStefanci´ c, Journal of Cosmol- ogy and Astroparticle Physics 2010 (12), 029

    2010

  108. [119]

    Boisseau, H

    B. Boisseau, H. Giacomini, D. Polarski, and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP 07, 002, arXiv:1504.07927 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  109. [120]

    E. V. Linder and D. Huterer, Phys. Rev. D 72, 043509 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0505330

    2005 arXiv

  110. [121]

    Muthukrishna and D

    D. Muthukrishna and D. Parkinson, JCAP 11, 052, arXiv:1607.01884 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  111. [122]

    Camilleri and others (DES), Mon

    R. Camilleri and others (DES), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 533, 2615 (2024), arXiv:2406.05048 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  112. [123]

    Tegmark, Physical Review D 55, 5895–5907 (1997)

    M. Tegmark, Physical Review D 55, 5895–5907 (1997)

    1997

  113. [124]

    Huterer and A

    D. Huterer and A. Cooray, Physical Review D 71, 10.1103/physrevd.71.023506 (2005)

    2005 doi

  114. [125]

    R. G. Crittenden, L. Pogosian, and G.-B. Zhao, JCAP 12, 025, arXiv:astro-ph/0510293

    arXiv

  115. [126]

    Simpson and S

    F. Simpson and S. Bridle, Phys. Rev. D 73, 083001 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0602213

    2006 arXiv

  116. [127]

    Garcia-Quintero, M

    C. Garcia-Quintero, M. Ishak, and O. Ning, JCAP 12, 018, arXiv:2010.12519 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010

  117. [128]

    P. A. R. Ade and others (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A14 (2016), arXiv:1502.01590 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  118. [129]

    Zhao and others, Nature Astron

    G.-B. Zhao and others, Nature Astron. 1, 627 (2017), arXiv:1701.08165 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  119. [130]

    Raveri, L

    M. Raveri, L. Pogosian, K. Koyama, M. Martinelli, and others, A joint reconstruction of dark energy and modified growth evolution (2021), arXiv:2107.12990 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021

  120. [131]

    Pogosian, M

    L. Pogosian, M. Raveri, K. Koyama, M. Mar- tinelli, and others, Nature Astron. 6, 1484 (2022), arXiv:2107.12992 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022

  121. [132]

    Bansal and D

    P. Bansal and D. Huterer, arXiv:2502.07185 [astro- ph.CO] (2025)

    2025

  122. [133]

    J. a. Rebou¸ cas, D. H. F. de Souza, K. Zhong, V. Mi- randa, and others, JCAP 02, 024, arXiv:2408.14628 [astro-ph.CO]

  123. [134]

    Y.-H. Pang, X. Zhang, and Q.-G. Huang, arXiv:2408.14787 [astro-ph.CO] (2024)

    2024

  124. [135]

    Handley, The Journal of Open Source Software 3, 10.21105/joss.00849 (2018)

    W. Handley, The Journal of Open Source Software 3, 10.21105/joss.00849 (2018)

    2018 doi

  125. [136]

    Rasmussen and C

    C. Rasmussen and C. Williams, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning , Adaptative computation and ma- chine learning series (University Press Group Limited, 2006)

    2006

  126. [137]

    Holsclaw, U

    T. Holsclaw, U. Alam, B. Sans´ o, H. Lee, and oth- ers, Physical Review D 82, 10.1103/physrevd.82.103502 (2010)

    2010 doi

  127. [138]

    Holsclaw, U

    T. Holsclaw, U. Alam, B. Sans´ o, H. Lee, and others, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 241302 (2010)

    2010

  128. [139]

    Shafieloo, A

    A. Shafieloo, A. G. Kim, and E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D 85, 123530 (2012), arXiv:1204.2272 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  129. [140]

    Seikel, C

    M. Seikel, C. Clarkson, and M. Smith, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics 2012 (06), 036–036

    2012

  130. [141]

    Shafieloo, A

    A. Shafieloo, A. G. Kim, and E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D 87, 023520 (2013), arXiv:1211.6128 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  131. [142]

    R. E. Keeley, S. Joudaki, M. Kaplinghat, and D. Kirkby, JCAP 12, 035, arXiv:1905.10198 [astro-ph.CO]

    1905

  132. [143]

    Belgacem, S

    E. Belgacem, S. Foffa, M. Maggiore, and T. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063505 (2020), arXiv:1911.11497 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020

  133. [144]

    R. E. Keeley, A. Shafieloo, B. L’Huillier, and E. V. Linder, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 491, 3983 (2020), arXiv:1905.10216 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020

  134. [145]

    Gerardi, M

    F. Gerardi, M. Martinelli, and A. Silvestri, JCAP 07, 042, arXiv:1902.09423 [astro-ph.CO]

    1902

  135. [146]

    Mukherjee and A

    P. Mukherjee and A. Mukherjee, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504, 3938 (2021), arXiv:2104.06066 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021

  136. [147]

    Calder´ on, B

    R. Calder´ on, B. L’Huillier, D. Polarski, A. Shafieloo, and others, Phys. Rev. D 108, 023504 (2023), arXiv:2301.00640 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023

  137. [148]

    B. R. Dinda and R. Maartens, JCAP 01, 120, arXiv:2407.17252 [astro-ph.CO]

  138. [149]

    Mukherjee and A

    P. Mukherjee and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123502 (2024), arXiv:2405.19178 [astro-ph.CO]. 22

    2024

  139. [150]

    Joudaki, M

    S. Joudaki, M. Kaplinghat, R. Keeley, and D. Kirkby, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123501 (2018), arXiv:1710.04236 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  140. [151]

    Hwang, B

    S.-g. Hwang, B. L’Huillier, R. E. Keeley, M. J. Jee, and others, JCAP 02, 014, arXiv:2206.15081 [astro- ph.CO]

  141. [152]

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

    2005 arXiv

  142. [153]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D 73, 063010 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601052

    2006 arXiv

  143. [154]

    R. N. Cahn, R. de Putter, and E. V. Linder, JCAP 11, 015, arXiv:0807.1346 [astro-ph]

    arXiv

  144. [155]

    Ratra and P

    B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D 37, 3406 (1988)

    1988

  145. [156]

    Wetterich, Nucl

    C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B 302, 668 (1988), arXiv:1711.03844 [hep-th]

    1988 arXiv

  146. [157]

    P. G. Ferreira and M. Joyce, Phys. Rev. D 58, 023503 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9711102

    1998 arXiv

  147. [158]

    R. J. Scherrer and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 77, 083515 (2008), arXiv:0712.3450 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  148. [159]

    Tsujikawa, Class

    S. Tsujikawa, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 214003 (2013), arXiv:1304.1961 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  149. [160]

    Martin, Mod

    J. Martin, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 23, 1252 (2008), arXiv:0803.4076 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  150. [161]

    J. A. Frieman, C. T. Hill, A. Stebbins, and I. Waga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2077 (1995), arXiv:astro- ph/9505060

  151. [162]

    J. M. Cline, S. Jeon, and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043543 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311312

    2004 arXiv

  152. [163]

    Vikman, Phys

    A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D 71, 023515 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0407107

    2005 arXiv

  153. [164]

    E. V. Linder, Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 329 (2008), arXiv:0704.2064 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  154. [165]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D 91, 063006 (2015), arXiv:1501.01634 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  155. [166]

    Crittenden, E

    R. Crittenden, E. Majerotto, and F. Piazza, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 251301 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0702003

    2007 arXiv

  156. [167]

    Kaloper and L

    N. Kaloper and L. Sorbo, JCAP 04, 007, arXiv:astro- ph/0511543

  157. [168]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rept. 643, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  158. [169]

    Dutta and R

    S. Dutta and R. J. Scherrer, Phys. Rev. D 78, 123525 (2008), arXiv:0809.4441 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  159. [170]

    Li and A

    X. Li and A. Shafieloo, Astrophys. J. Lett. 883, L3 (2019), arXiv:1906.08275 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019

  160. [171]

    Li and A

    X. Li and A. Shafieloo, Astrophys. J. 902, 58 (2020), arXiv:2001.05103 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020

  161. [172]

    Parker and A

    L. Parker and A. Raval, Phys. Rev. D62, 083503 (2000), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 67, 029903 (2003)], arXiv:gr- qc/0003103

    2000

  162. [173]

    R. R. Caldwell, W. Komp, L. Parker, and D. A. T. Vanzella, Phys. Rev. D 73, 023513 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0507622

    2006

  163. [174]

    Banihashemi, N

    A. Banihashemi, N. Khosravi, and A. Shafieloo, JCAP 06, 003, arXiv:2012.01407 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012

  164. [175]

    M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 31, 1212 (1985)

    1985

  165. [176]

    Barnes, M

    L. Barnes, M. J. Francis, G. F. Lewis, and E. V. Linder, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 22, 315 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0510791

    2005

  166. [177]

    Zimdahl, Int

    W. Zimdahl, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14, 2319 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0505056

    2005 arXiv

  167. [178]

    E. V. Linder, arXiv:0708.0024 [astro-ph] (2007)

    2007 arXiv

  168. [179]

    E. V. Linder and M. J. White, Phys. Rev. D 72, 061304 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0508401

    2005 arXiv

  169. [180]

    M. J. Francis, G. F. Lewis, and E. V. Linder, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 380, 1079 (2007), arXiv:0704.0312 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  170. [181]

    E. V. Linder, (2024), arXiv:2410.10981 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  171. [182]

    D. J. Spiegelhalter, N. G. Best, B. P. Carlin, and A. Van Der Linde, Journal of the royal statistical society: Series b (statistical methodology) 64, 583 (2002)

    2002

  172. [183]

    A. R. Liddle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society: Letters 377, L74 (2007)

    2007

  173. [184]

    Grandis, D

    S. Grandis, D. Rapetti, A. Saro, J. J. Mohr, and oth- ers, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 463, 1416 (2016), arXiv:1604.06463 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  174. [185]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, D. J. Bartlett, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083528 (2024), arXiv:2408.17318 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  175. [186]

    Shlivko and P

    D. Shlivko and P. Steinhardt, (2024), arXiv:2405.03933 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  176. [187]

    Payeur, E

    G. Payeur, E. McDonough, and R. Brandenberger, arXiv:2411.13637 [astro-ph.CO] (2024)

    2024

  177. [188]

    Hu, Phys

    W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 71, 047301 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0410680

    2005

  178. [189]

    Guo, Y.-S

    Z.-K. Guo, Y.-S. Piao, X.-M. Zhang, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 608, 177 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0410654

    2005 arXiv

  179. [190]

    Wei, R.-G

    H. Wei, R.-G. Cai, and D.-F. Zeng, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 3189 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0501160

    2005 arXiv

  180. [191]

    R. R. Caldwell and M. Doran, Phys. Rev. D 72, 043527 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501104

    2005 arXiv

  181. [192]

    Y.-F. Cai, T. Qiu, R. Brandenberger, Y.-S. Piao, and others, JCAP 03, 013, arXiv:0711.2187 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  182. [193]

    Y.-F. Cai, T. Qiu, Y.-S. Piao, M. Li, and others, JHEP 10, 071, arXiv:0704.1090 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  183. [194]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D 62, 043511 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908023

    2000 arXiv

  184. [195]

    A. P. Billyard and A. A. Coley, Phys. Rev. D61, 083503 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908224

    2000 arXiv

  185. [196]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D 69, 103524 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0311175

    2004 arXiv

  186. [197]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 71, 063004 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0501025

    2005 arXiv

  187. [198]

    Clemson, K

    T. Clemson, K. Koyama, G.-B. Zhao, R. Maartens, and others, Phys. Rev. D 85, 043007 (2012), arXiv:1109.6234 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  188. [199]

    Shafieloo, D

    A. Shafieloo, D. K. Hazra, V. Sahni, and A. A. Starobin- sky, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 473, 2760–2770 (2017)

    2017

  189. [200]

    F. C. Carvalho and A. Saa, Phys. Rev. D 70, 087302 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0408013

    2004 arXiv

  190. [201]

    Hu and I

    W. Hu and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D 76, 064004 (2007), arXiv:0705.1158 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  191. [202]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Schimd, and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 061303 (2006)

    2006

  192. [203]

    Anisimov, E

    A. Anisimov, E. Babichev, and A. Vikman, JCAP 06, 006, arXiv:astro-ph/0504560

    arXiv

  193. [204]

    Nesseris and L

    S. Nesseris and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 73, 103511 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0602053

    2006 arXiv

  194. [205]

    Deffayet, O

    C. Deffayet, O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki, and A. Vikman, JCAP 10, 026, arXiv:1008.0048 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  195. [206]

    Pujolas, I

    O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki, and A. Vikman, JHEP 11, 156, arXiv:1103.5360 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  196. [207]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, and A. Silvestri, arXiv:2407.15832 [astro-ph.CO] (2024)

    2024

  197. [208]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, Phys. Rev. D 111, L041303 (2025), arXiv:2409.17019 [astro- ph.CO]. 23

    2025

  198. [209]

    Y. Yang, X. Ren, Q. Wang, Z. Lu, and others, Sci. Bull. 69, 2698 (2024), arXiv:2404.19437 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  199. [210]

    Christiansen, F

    O. Christiansen, F. Hassani, and D. F. Mota, JCAP 01, 043, arXiv:2405.00668 [astro-ph.CO]

  200. [211]

    Rigault, M

    M. Rigault, M. Smith, A. Goobar, K. Maguire, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409.04346 (2024), arXiv:2409.04346 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  201. [212]

    E. C. Bellm, S. R. Kulkarni, M. J. Graham, R. Dekany, and others, PASP131, 018002 (2019), arXiv:1902.01932 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  202. [213]

    Lochner, D

    M. Lochner, D. Scolnic, H. Almoubayyed, T. Anguita, and others, ApJS 259, 58 (2022), arXiv:2104.05676 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022

  203. [214]

    P. Gris, N. Regnault, H. Awan, I. Hook, and others, ApJS 264, 22 (2023), arXiv:2205.07651 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023

  204. [215]

    Spergel, N

    D. Spergel, N. Gehrels, C. Baltay, D. Bennett, and oth- ers, Wide-field infrarred survey telescope-astrophysics focused telescope assets wfirst-afta 2015 report (2015), arXiv:1503.03757 [astro-ph.IM]

    2015 arXiv

  205. [216]

    Laureijs, J

    R. Laureijs, J. Amiaux, S. Arduini, J. L. Augu` eres, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1110.3193 (2011), arXiv:1110.3193 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  206. [217]

    W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 450, L61 (2015), arXiv:1502.01856 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  207. [218]

    Handley, J

    W. Handley, J. Open Source Softw. 4, 1414 (2019), arXiv:1905.04768 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  208. [219]

    L. T. Hergt, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, Phys. Rev. D 103, 123511 (2021), arXiv:2102.11511 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021

  209. [220]

    Jeffreys, The Theory of Probability , Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences (1939)

    H. Jeffreys, The Theory of Probability , Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences (1939)

    1939

  210. [221]

    Trotta, Mon

    R. Trotta, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 378, 72 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0504022

    2007 arXiv

  211. [222]

    Amendola and S

    L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa, Dark Energy: Theory and Observations (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  212. [223]

    A. J. Shajib and J. A. Frieman, arXiv:2502.06929 [astro- ph.CO] (2025)

    2025

  213. [224]

    Smer-Barreto and A

    V. Smer-Barreto and A. R. Liddle, Journal of Cosmol- ogy and Astroparticle Physics 2017 (01), 023–023

    2017

  214. [225]

    Abrahamse, A

    A. Abrahamse, A. Albrecht, M. Barnard, and B. Bozek, Phys. Rev. D 77, 103503 (2008), arXiv:0712.2879 [astro- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  215. [226]

    Kawasaki, T

    M. Kawasaki, T. Moroi, and T. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D 64, 083009 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0105161

    2001 arXiv

  216. [227]

    S. C. C. Ng and D. L. Wiltshire, Phys. Rev. D 63, 023503 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0004138

    2001 arXiv

  217. [228]

    Coble, S

    K. Coble, S. Dodelson, and J. A. Frieman, Phys. Rev. D 55, 1851 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9608122

    1997 arXiv

  218. [229]

    J. A. Frieman and I. Waga, Phys. Rev. D 57, 4642 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9709063

    1998 arXiv

  219. [230]

    P. T. P. Viana and A. R. Liddle, Phys. Rev. D 57, 674 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9708247

    1998 arXiv

  220. [231]

    F. X. L. Cede˜ no, A. X. Gonz´ alez-Morales, and L. A. Ure˜ na L´ opez, Phys. Rev. D 96, 061301 (2017), arXiv:1703.10180 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  221. [232]

    F. X. Linares Cede˜ no, A. X. Gonz´ alez-Morales, and L. A. Ure˜ na L´ opez, JCAP01, 051, arXiv:2006.05037 [astro-ph.CO]. Appendix A: Bayesian Model Comparison Here we discuss the Bayesian model comparison and compute Bayes factor between the w0wa and Λ models, which is given ...

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed May 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.