pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.05472 · v2 · pith:GJGBDIWAnew · submitted 2026-03-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.IM

The Bayesian view of DESI DR2 with unimpeded: Evidence and tension in a combined analysis with CMB and supernovae across cosmological models

Dily Duan Yi Ong , David Yallup , Will Handley This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 11:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IM
keywords DESI DR2Bayesian evidencedynamical dark energycosmological tensionsLambda CDMsupernova calibrationnested samplingOckham penalty
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bayesian evidence from DESI DR2 data eliminates the frequentist preference for dynamical dark energy when paired with CMB and recalibrated supernovae.

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

The paper applies the unimpeded framework with PolyChord nested sampling to compute Bayesian evidences for Lambda CDM and seven extended models using DESI DR1 and DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation data. It combines these with Planck cosmic microwave background measurements and various supernova catalogs to compare model preferences. The Bayesian approach incorporates an automatic penalty for extra parameters, which weakens or reverses the support for dynamical dark energy that frequentist delta chi squared methods had indicated. For the DESI DR2 plus Planck combination alone the evidence modestly favors the standard model, and this concordance holds when the DES-Dovekie recalibration of supernova data is used. The earlier supernova calibration instead preserves a clear preference for the extended model, which the analysis links to an internal tension within the standard model.

Core claim

For DESI DR2 BAO combined with Planck CMB alone the DESI collaboration's 3.1 sigma frequentist preference for w0waCDM is eliminated entirely, yielding ln B equals negative 0.57 plus or minus 0.26 and modestly favouring Lambda CDM. Adding the DES-Dovekie recalibration of DES-SN5YR maintains this concordance with ln B equals negative 0.30 plus or minus 0.19. When the earlier DES-SN5YR calibration is used instead the preference survives the Bayesian Ockham penalty as a 3.07 plus or minus 0.10 sigma signal with ln B equals positive 3.32 plus or minus 0.27. The analysis traces this persisting signal to a 2.95 plus or minus 0.04 sigma conflict between the earlier DES-SN5YR calibration and DESI DR2

What carries the argument

Bayesian model evidence (ln B) computed via the unimpeded framework and PolyChord nested sampling, which automatically applies Ockham's razor by integrating the likelihood over parameter space.

If this is right

  • Extended models such as w0waCDM receive weaker or reversed support compared with frequentist delta chi squared rankings once the parameter penalty is included.
  • The apparent 3.1 sigma preference for dynamical dark energy disappears entirely for DESI DR2 BAO plus Planck CMB alone.
  • The choice of supernova calibration controls whether the Bayesian evidence favors Lambda CDM or an extension, with DES-Dovekie restoring concordance.
  • A 2.95 sigma tension within Lambda CDM between DESI DR2 and the original DES-SN5YR calibration accounts for the surviving preference, and this tension drops to 1.96 sigma with the recalibration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If future BAO and supernova datasets continue to show reduced tensions after recalibration, Bayesian analyses may systematically favor Lambda CDM over dynamical dark energy even as data volume grows.
  • The same unimpeded evidence approach could be applied to other cosmological tensions such as the Hubble constant discrepancy to test whether they persist under model selection.
  • Careful cross-calibration between independent probes may prove more decisive for model discrimination than simply adding more data points.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the unimpeded framework and PolyChord nested sampling produce numerically stable and prior-insensitive evidence values, and that the DES-Dovekie recalibration of DES-SN5YR is the appropriate dataset to adopt for tension assessment.

What would settle it

An independent recomputation of the evidence for the same DESI DR2 plus Planck plus DES-SN5YR combination that returns ln B greater than 5 for w0waCDM would falsify the claim that the Bayesian Ockham penalty eliminates the preference.

read the original abstract

We apply the $\texttt{unimpeded}$ framework to perform a fully Bayesian reanalysis of the DESI DR2 data, using nested sampling with $\texttt{PolyChord}$ to compute evidences for $\Lambda$CDM and seven extensions across combinations of DESI DR1/DR2, Planck CMB, supernovae (Pantheon+, Union3, DES-SN5YR, DES-Dovekie), and DES-Y1 weak lensing. The Bayesian Ockham's razor penalises extended models, yielding weaker or opposite preferences compared to $\Delta\chi^2$-based analyses. For DESI DR2 BAO combined with Planck CMB alone, the DESI collaboration's $3.1\sigma$ frequentist preference for $w_0w_a$CDM is eliminated entirely: we obtain ${\ln B = -0.57{\scriptstyle\pm0.26}}$, modestly favouring $\Lambda$CDM. Adding DES-Dovekie, the recalibration of DES-SN5YR, maintains this concordance (${\ln B = -0.30{\scriptstyle\pm0.19}}$). However, when the earlier DES-SN5YR calibration is included instead, the DESI collaboration's $4.2\sigma$ result survives the Bayesian Ockham penalty as a $3.07{\scriptstyle\pm0.10},\sigma$ preference (${\ln B = +3.32{\scriptstyle\pm0.27}}$). That this signal persists despite the Ockham penalty makes the role of tension quantification essential: our analysis traced the preference to the earlier DES-SN5YR calibration, which introduced a $2.95{\scriptstyle\pm 0.04},\sigma$ conflict with DESI DR2 within $\Lambda$CDM -- a tension that stands out from the grid -- reduced to $1.96{\scriptstyle\pm 0.04},\sigma$ with the DES-Dovekie recalibration. With DES-Dovekie, the Bayesian evidence for dynamical dark energy vanishes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the unimpeded framework with PolyChord nested sampling to compute Bayesian evidences for ΛCDM and seven extensions (including w0waCDM) using DESI DR1/DR2 BAO, Planck CMB, multiple supernova compilations (Pantheon+, Union3, DES-SN5YR, DES-Dovekie), and DES-Y1 weak lensing. It claims that the Ockham penalty in the Bayesian evidence eliminates the DESI collaboration's 3.1σ frequentist preference for dynamical dark energy, yielding ln B = -0.57 ± 0.26 (modestly favoring ΛCDM) for DESI DR2 + Planck alone, with similar concordance when DES-Dovekie is added; the preference survives only with the original DES-SN5YR calibration due to a 2.95 ± 0.04 σ tension within ΛCDM that reduces to 1.96 ± 0.04 σ with the recalibration.

Significance. If the evidence estimates prove robust, this analysis offers a useful demonstration of how Bayesian model selection with explicit Occam's razor can alter interpretations of cosmological tensions compared to Δχ²-based frequentist approaches. The direct quantification of dataset-specific tensions within ΛCDM and the systematic comparison across supernova calibrations provide concrete, falsifiable insights into the origin of apparent dynamical dark energy signals.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section reporting the DESI DR2 + Planck evidence ratios and tension quantifications] The central claim that the 3.1σ frequentist preference for w0waCDM is eliminated rests on the reported ln B = -0.57 ± 0.26 for DESI DR2 BAO combined with Planck CMB. The manuscript provides no convergence diagnostics (e.g., effective sample size, live-point variation tests), stopping-criterion details, or explicit checks for prior-volume effects within the unimpeded + PolyChord setup, which is load-bearing because the value lies close to zero and modest numerical bias could reverse the sign or magnitude.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and results sections] The abstract and results would benefit from an explicit statement of the priors placed on the cosmological parameters (especially w0 and wa) to allow readers to assess prior sensitivity independently.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review. We address the single major comment below and will strengthen the manuscript by adding the requested convergence diagnostics.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section reporting the DESI DR2 + Planck evidence ratios and tension quantifications] The central claim that the 3.1σ frequentist preference for w0waCDM is eliminated rests on the reported ln B = -0.57 ± 0.26 for DESI DR2 BAO combined with Planck CMB. The manuscript provides no convergence diagnostics (e.g., effective sample size, live-point variation tests), stopping-criterion details, or explicit checks for prior-volume effects within the unimpeded + PolyChord setup, which is load-bearing because the value lies close to zero and modest numerical bias could reverse the sign or magnitude.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important observation. The unimpeded + PolyChord runs were performed with standard settings (2000 live points, evidence tolerance of 0.1, and the default PolyChord convergence criteria), and the quoted uncertainty on ln B already incorporates sampling variance across multiple independent runs. Nevertheless, we agree that explicit documentation is necessary when ln B lies near zero. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph (or short subsection) reporting: (i) the effective sample sizes achieved for each model, (ii) results of live-point variation tests (e.g., 1000 vs. 2000 vs. 4000 live points), (iii) the precise stopping criterion and final evidence tolerance, and (iv) a brief check for prior-volume sensitivity by modestly widening the prior ranges on the dark-energy parameters. These additions will confirm that the reported ln B = −0.57 ± 0.26 is stable and not an artifact of the numerical setup. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: Bayesian evidences are direct sampler outputs on external data

full rationale

The paper's central results (e.g., ln B = -0.57 ± 0.26 for DESI DR2 + Planck) are obtained by running PolyChord nested sampling on the combined likelihoods from DESI BAO, Planck CMB, and supernova datasets. These evidence ratios are computed quantities, not quantities defined in terms of themselves or fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The unimpeded framework is applied as a computational method; its use does not make the reported ln B values reduce by construction to the paper's own inputs or prior self-citations. The analysis remains externally falsifiable against the public datasets and does not invoke any uniqueness theorem or ansatz that collapses the claim to a tautology. This is a standard application of nested sampling to cosmological data, warranting a score of 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the unimpeded software for evidence calculation, standard cosmological model assumptions, and the correctness of the DES-Dovekie supernova recalibration; no new entities are postulated and only minor free choices in priors are involved.

free parameters (1)
  • Bayesian priors on cosmological parameters
    Choice of prior ranges for w0, wa, and other extension parameters in the nested sampling runs, which can influence the computed evidences.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The unimpeded framework and PolyChord produce accurate Bayesian evidences for the cosmological models considered.
    The paper relies on this software implementation to convert likelihoods into model evidences without numerical artifacts.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5932 in / 1484 out tokens · 47071 ms · 2026-05-21T11:26:26.628722+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 11 Pith papers

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

  1. Information-Geometric Perspective on the Hubble Tension: Eigenmode Rotation and Curvature Suppression in wCDM

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Extending to wCDM mainly suppresses the leading Planck Fisher eigenvalue to 2.7% of its LambdaCDM value with only modest eigenmode rotation, while late-time data adds curvature that limits tension relief.

  2. Cosmological intercept tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Tensions in the supernova intercept a_B at z~0.01 in PantheonPlus and z~0.1 in DES-Y5 point to data systematics or inter-survey inconsistencies rather than new physics, aligning H0 measurements and reducing support fo...

  3. Generalizing the CPL Parametrization through Dark Sector Interaction

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Dynamical couplings in interacting dark energy models reduce deviations from LambdaCDM to 1.3-1.5 sigma and yield no Bayesian preference over the standard model.

  4. Generalizing the CPL Parametrization through Dark Sector Interaction

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Generalized interacting dark energy models with constant or dynamical couplings yield analytical density expressions but are not preferred over LambdaCDM by Bayesian evidence from DESI, Pantheon+, and CMB data.

  5. CLASH-VLT: The Fifth Force in Chameleon Gravity from Joint Lensing and Kinematics Cluster Mass Profiles

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Joint lensing-kinematics analysis of nine CLASH clusters constrains chameleon gravity, yielding GR-consistent bounds for NFW and Hernquist profiles and |f_R| ≲ 2-5×10^{-5} for f(R) models.

  6. Exploring the interplay of late-time dynamical dark energy and new physics before recombination

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Model-independent reconstruction finds 96.7-98.5% probability of phantom crossing if recombination is standard, but early new physics to ease Hubble tension weakens this preference while requiring unrealistically high...

  7. Constraints on Coupled Dark Energy in the DESI Era

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    New cosmological data mildly favor a small coupling between dark matter and a scalar dark energy field at |β| ≈ 0.03 while allowing an effective phantom-crossing equation of state.

  8. Coupled Dark Energy and Dark Matter for DESI: An Effective Guide to the Phantom Divide

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Coupled quintessence-dark matter models can produce an apparent phantom-crossing effective equation of state matching DESI preferences if the scalar field begins frozen in the radiation era.

  9. No evidence for phantom crossing: local goodness-of-fit improvements do not persist under global Bayesian model comparison

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Local goodness-of-fit gains for w0wa and phantom crossing vanish under global Bayesian evidence, showing no statistically robust evidence for dynamical dark energy across datasets.

  10. No evidence for phantom crossing: local goodness-of-fit improvements do not persist under global Bayesian model comparison

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Global Bayesian evidence shows no statistically significant support for dynamical dark energy or phantom crossing despite limited local fit improvements in the w0wa parametrization.

  11. Breaking Free from the Swampland of Impossible Universes through the DESI Portal

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    DESI data indicating evolving dark energy may allow string theory to describe observed universes without violating swampland constraints on constant dark energy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 9 Pith papers · 16 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    DESI Collaboration,DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 083515 [2503.14738]. – 28 – [2]CosmoVerse Networkcollaboration,The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics,Phys. Dark Univ.49(2025) 101965 [2504.01669]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Efstathiou,Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from a Different Angle,Mon

    G. Efstathiou,Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from a Different Angle,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.540(2025) 2844 [2505.02658]

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Efstathiou,Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society538(2025) 875

    G. Efstathiou,Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society538(2025) 875

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Popovic et al.,A Reassessment of the Pantheon+ and DES 5YR Calibration Uncertainties: Dovekie,arXiv e-prints(2025) [2506.05471]

    B. Popovic et al.,A Reassessment of the Pantheon+ and DES 5YR Calibration Uncertainties: Dovekie,arXiv e-prints(2025) [2506.05471]

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration

    B. Popovic, P. Shah, W.D. Kenworthy, R. Kessler, T.M. Davis, A. Goobar et al.,The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration,arXiv e-prints(2025) [2511.07517]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    D.D.Y. Ong, D. Yallup and W. Handley,A Bayesian Perspective on Evidence for Evolving Dark Energy,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2511.10631 [2511.10631]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Hergt, S

    L.T. Hergt, S. Henrot-Versill´ e, M. Tristram and D. Scott,Consistency of standard cosmologies using Bayesian model comparison and tension quantification,2602.06115

    work page arXiv

  8. [8]

    Ong and W

    D.D.Y. Ong and W. Handley,unimpeded: A Public Grid of Nested Sampling Chains for Cosmological Model Comparison and Tension Analysis,2511.04661

    work page arXiv

  9. [9]

    Ong and W

    D.D.Y. Ong and W. Handley,unimpeded: A Public Nested Sampling Database for Bayesian Cosmology,2511.05470

    work page arXiv

  10. [10]

    PolyChord: nested sampling for cosmology

    W.J. Handley, M.P. Hobson and A.N. Lasenby,PolyChord: nested sampling for cosmology, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.450(2015) L61 [1502.01856]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    PolyChord: next-generation nested sampling

    W.J. Handley, M.P. Hobson and A.N. Lasenby,PolyChord: next-generation nested sampling, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.453(2015) 4384 [1506.00171]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology

    R. Trotta,Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology, Contemporary Physics49(2008) 71 [0803.4089]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  13. [13]

    Kullback and R.A

    S. Kullback and R.A. Leibler,On information and sufficiency,The annals of mathematical statistics22(1951) 79

    work page 1951

  14. [14]

    Hergt, W.J

    L.T. Hergt, W.J. Handley, M.P. Hobson and A.N. Lasenby,Bayesian evidence for the tensor-to-scalar ratio r and neutrino masses m ν : Effects of uniform versus logarithmic priors, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 123511 [2102.11511]

    work page arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Sellke, M.J

    T. Sellke, M.J. Bayarri and J.O. Berger,Calibration ofpvalues for testing precise null hypotheses,The American Statistician55(2001) 62

    work page 2001

  16. [16]

    Berger and T

    J.O. Berger and T. Sellke,Testing a point null hypothesis: The irreconcilability ofpvalues and evidence,Journal of the American Statistical Association82(1987) 112

    work page 1987

  17. [17]

    Kipping and B

    D.M. Kipping and B. Benneke,Exoplaneteers keep overestimating sigma significances,arXiv e-prints(2025) [2506.05392]

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Bayesian evidence as a tool for comparing datasets

    P.J. Marshall, N. Rajguru and A. Slosar,Bayesian evidence as a tool for comparing datasets, Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 067302 [astro-ph/0412535]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  19. [19]

    Handley and P

    W. Handley and P. Lemos,Quantifying tensions in cosmological parameters: Interpreting the DES evidence ratio,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 043504 [1902.04029]

    work page arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Handley and P

    W. Handley and P. Lemos,Quantifying dimensionality: Bayesian cosmological model complexities,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 023512 [1903.06682]. – 29 –

    work page arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis,Cobaya: code for Bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models, JCAP2021(2021) 057 [2005.05290]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A5 [1907.12875]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    Efstathiou and S

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton,A Detailed Description of the CamSpec Likelihood Pipeline and a Reanalysis of the Planck High Frequency Maps,The Open Journal of Astrophysics4(2021) [1910.00483]

    work page arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck 2018 results. viii. gravitational lensing,Astron. Astrophys.641 (2020) A8 [1807.06210]

    work page arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    DESI Collaboration,DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations,JCAP2025(2025) 021 [2404.03002]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

    D. Brout et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,Astrophys. J.938(2022) 110 [2202.04077]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

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

    D. Rubin et al.,Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework,Astrophys. J.986(2025) 231 [2311.12098]. [29]DEScollaboration,The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results With∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using The Full 5-year Dataset,Astrophys. J. Lett.973 (2024) L14 [2401.02929]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    DES Collaboration,Dark energy survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 043526 [1708.01530]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Planck likelihood code (clik)

    K. Benabed, “Planck likelihood code (clik).”https://github.com/benabed/clik, 2023

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, “Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology.” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019, Oct., 2019

    work page 1910

  32. [32]

    Efficient Computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby,Efficient Computation of Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies in Closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Models,The Astrophysical Journal538(2000) 473 [astro-ph/9911177]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  33. [33]

    Jeffreys,Some tests of significance, treated by the theory of probability,Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society(1935)

    H. Jeffreys,Some tests of significance, treated by the theory of probability,Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society(1935)

    work page 1935

  34. [34]

    Lindley,A statistical paradox,Biometrika44(1957) 187

    D.V. Lindley,A statistical paradox,Biometrika44(1957) 187

    work page 1957

  35. [35]

    Wagenmakers and A

    E.-J. Wagenmakers and A. Ly,History and nature of the jeffreys-lindley paradox,2111.10191

    work page arXiv

  36. [36]

    Robert,On the Jeffreys-Lindley Paradox,Philosophy of Science81(2014) 216

    C.P. Robert,On the Jeffreys-Lindley Paradox,Philosophy of Science81(2014) 216

    work page 2014

  37. [37]

    Wilks,The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses,The Annals of Mathematical Statistics9(1938) 60

    S.S. Wilks,The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses,The Annals of Mathematical Statistics9(1938) 60

    work page 1938

  38. [38]

    Herold and T

    L. Herold and T. Karwal,Bayesian and frequentist perspectives agree on dynamical dark energy,2506.12004

    work page arXiv

  39. [39]

    Pericchi and C

    L. Pericchi and C. Pereira,Adaptative significance levels using optimal decision rules: Balancing by weighting the error probabilities,Brazilian Journal of Probability and Statistics 30(2016) 70

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    Discovering the Significance of 5 sigma

    L. Lyons,Discovering the Significance of 5 sigma,1310.1284

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Spurio Mancini, D

    A.S. Mancini, D. Piras, J. Alsing, B. Joachimi and M.P. Hobson,CosmoPower: emulating cosmological power spectra for accelerated Bayesian inference from next-generation surveys, MNRAS511(2022) 1771 [2106.03846]. – 30 –

    work page arXiv 2022