pith. sign in

arxiv: 2409.13022 · v2 · pith:O3YX67RTnew · submitted 2024-09-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · hep-ph

Updated Cosmological Constraints in Extended Parameter Space with Planck PR4, DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, and Supernovae: Dynamical Dark Energy, Neutrino Masses, Lensing Anomaly, and the Hubble Tension

Shouvik Roy Choudhury , Teppei Okumura This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 16:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO hep-ph
keywords cosmologydark energyneutrino masslensingHubble tensionPlanck dataBAOsupernovae
0
0 comments X p. Extension
pith:O3YX67RT Add to your LaTeX paper What is a Pith Number? 
\usepackage{pith}
\pithnumber{O3YX67RT}

Prints a linked pith:O3YX67RT badge after your title and writes the identifier into PDF metadata. Compiles on arXiv with no extra files. Learn more

The pith

Planck PR4 CMB data with DESI BAO and supernovae include a cosmological constant within 2 sigma for some samples but show persistent Hubble tension at 3 sigma.

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

This paper examines an extended 12-parameter cosmological model that adds dynamical dark energy, neutrino mass sum, effective number of relativistic species, lensing amplitude, and running of spectral index to the standard Lambda CDM. Using updated Planck PR4 likelihoods along with DESI baryon acoustic oscillations and two different supernova samples, the authors find that evidence for dynamical dark energy is not robust and depends on which supernova catalog is used. The lensing anomaly is alleviated as A_lens equals 1 within 2 sigma, but the Hubble tension remains unresolved at 3.2 to 3.9 sigma. Bounds on neutrino masses are provided with a possible hint of non-zero value in some data combinations.

Core claim

In the extended parameter space, CMB+BAO+SNe data from Planck PR4, DESI, and Pantheon+ include a cosmological constant within 2 sigma, while using DESY5 excludes it at over 2 sigma. With CMB+BAO+SNe, A_lens = 1 is included at 2 sigma, showing no significant lensing anomaly, and the Hubble tension persists at 3.2 to 3.9 sigma. A robust upper bound of sum m_nu less than 0.3 eV at 95% CL is obtained, with some combinations showing 1 sigma detection of non-zero sum.

What carries the argument

The 12-parameter extended cosmological model with parameters for dynamical dark energy (w0, wa), sum of neutrino masses, Neff, A_lens, and alpha_s, constrained using Planck PR4 HiLLiPoP, LoLLiPoP, lensing, low-l TT, DESI DR1 BAO, and Pantheon+ or DESY5 SNe likelihoods.

If this is right

  • The dynamical nature of dark energy is not yet robust as it depends on the supernova sample used.
  • Some data combinations indicate a possible 1 sigma+ detection of non-zero sum of neutrino masses.
  • The Hubble tension is not resolved by these simple extensions and remains at 3.2-3.9 sigma.
  • The S8 tension with DES Year 3 weak lensing is reduced to 1.4 sigma due to additional parameters and PR4 likelihoods.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Differences between supernova samples likely point to systematics in DESY5 rather than new physics.
  • Future precise measurements could confirm a non-zero neutrino mass sum.
  • Joint analysis of these data sets assumes no unaccounted calibration offsets between datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that differences between Pantheon+ and DESY5 supernova samples arise from systematics in DESY5 rather than from new physics.

What would settle it

A future analysis with improved supernova data that reconciles or further diverges the results from Pantheon+ and DESY5 on the dark energy parameters would test the robustness of the conclusions.

read the original abstract

We present updated constraints on cosmological parameters in a 12-parameter model, extending the standard six-parameter $\Lambda$CDM by including dynamical dark energy (DE: $w_0$, $w_a$), the sum of neutrino masses ($\sum m_{\nu}$), the effective number of non-photon radiation species ($N_{\rm eff}$), the lensing amplitude scaling ($A_{\rm lens}$), and the running of the scalar spectral index ($\alpha_s$). For CMB data, we use the Planck PR4 (2020) HiLLiPoP and LoLLiPoP likelihoods, Planck PR4+ACT DR6 lensing, and Planck 2018 low-$l$ TT likelihoods, along with DESI DR1 BAO and Pantheon+ and DESY5 uncalibrated type Ia Supernovae (SNe) likelihoods. Key findings are the following: i) Contrary to DESI results, CMB+BAO+Pantheon+ data include a cosmological constant within $2\sigma$, while CMB+BAO+DESY5 excludes it at over $2\sigma$, indicating the dynamical nature of dark energy is not yet robust. Potential systematics in the DESY5 sample may drive this exclusion. ii) Some data combinations show a $1\sigma$+ detection of non-zero $\sum m_{\nu}$, indicating possible future detection. We also provide a robust upper bound of $\sum m_{\nu} \lesssim 0.3$ eV (95% confidence limit (C.L.)). iii) With CMB+BAO+SNe, $A_{\rm lens} = 1$ is included at $2\sigma$ (albeit not at $1\sigma$), indicating no significant lensing anomaly in this extended cosmology with Planck PR4 likelihoods. iv) The Hubble tension persists at $3.2$ to $3.9\sigma$, suggesting these simple extensions do not resolve it. v) The $S_8$ tension with DES Year 3 weak lensing is reduced to $1.4\sigma$, likely due to additional parameters and the Planck PR4 likelihoods.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper updates constraints on a 12-parameter extended cosmological model (adding w0, wa for dynamical DE, sum m_nu, Neff, A_lens, and alpha_s) using Planck PR4 HiLLiPoP/LoLLiPoP and low-l TT likelihoods, Planck PR4+ACT DR6 lensing, DESI DR1 BAO, and uncalibrated Pantheon+ or DESY5 SNe. It reports that a cosmological constant is consistent within 2σ for CMB+BAO+Pantheon+ but excluded at >2σ for CMB+BAO+DESY5 (suggesting dynamical DE is not robust and may be driven by DESY5 systematics), provides an upper bound sum m_nu ≲ 0.3 eV (95% CL) with some 1σ+ hints for non-zero mass, finds A_lens=1 included at 2σ (no significant lensing anomaly), Hubble tension persisting at 3.2–3.9σ, and S8 tension with DES Y3 reduced to 1.4σ.

Significance. If the results hold, the work provides timely updates on extended cosmologies with newer Planck PR4 and DESI data, quantifying how simple extensions fail to resolve the Hubble tension while reducing the S8 tension and showing sensitivity of dynamical DE claims to SNe sample choice. Explicit tension quantifications and robust neutrino mass bounds are useful for the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, points i and v] Abstract point i and v: the interpretation that differences between Pantheon+ and DESY5 drive the dynamical DE exclusion (and allow joint-analysis conclusions on A_lens and Hubble tension to stand) rests on the assumption of no unaccounted calibration offsets or sample-specific biases; this is load-bearing for the headline claims on A_lens=1 at 2σ and Hubble tension at 3.2–3.9σ but lacks explicit tests (e.g., free offset parameters or cross-calibration checks) in the reported fits.
  2. [Abstract, point iii] Abstract point iii: the claim that A_lens=1 is included at 2σ (but not 1σ) with CMB+BAO+SNe does not specify which SNe sample enters the posterior; given the sample dependence shown for w0/wa in point i, this ambiguity affects whether the 'no significant lensing anomaly' conclusion is robust across the data combinations used for the other results.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify in the methods or results section the exact data combinations (e.g., which SNe sample) for each quoted sigma tension or bound to remove ambiguity between Pantheon+ and DESY5 results.
  2. The abstract notes 'uncalibrated' SNe likelihoods; add a brief statement on how calibration is handled or why it does not impact the reported posteriors.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the text to improve clarity regarding supernova sample dependence while maintaining the integrity of our reported results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, points i and v] Abstract point i and v: the interpretation that differences between Pantheon+ and DESY5 drive the dynamical DE exclusion (and allow joint-analysis conclusions on A_lens and Hubble tension to stand) rests on the assumption of no unaccounted calibration offsets or sample-specific biases; this is load-bearing for the headline claims on A_lens=1 at 2σ and Hubble tension at 3.2–3.9σ but lacks explicit tests (e.g., free offset parameters or cross-calibration checks) in the reported fits.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's emphasis on potential calibration offsets between supernova samples. The manuscript already highlights that the difference in dynamical dark energy constraints is likely driven by systematics in the DESY5 sample, as Pantheon+ remains consistent with a cosmological constant. The results for A_lens and the Hubble tension are derived and reported separately for each supernova sample (Pantheon+ and DESY5), with the quoted ranges (3.2–3.9σ for Hubble tension) encompassing both combinations; these conclusions do not rely on a joint Pantheon++DESY5 analysis. While we did not introduce additional free offset parameters (which would further expand the already 12-parameter space and require new MCMC runs), we reference existing cross-calibration studies in the literature. We will add clarifying text in the revised manuscript to explicitly state that the A_lens and Hubble tension results hold independently for each sample, constituting a partial revision. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract, point iii] Abstract point iii: the claim that A_lens=1 is included at 2σ (but not 1σ) with CMB+BAO+SNe does not specify which SNe sample enters the posterior; given the sample dependence shown for w0/wa in point i, this ambiguity affects whether the 'no significant lensing anomaly' conclusion is robust across the data combinations used for the other results.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract statement for A_lens should be unambiguous. The claim refers to the CMB+BAO combined with either Pantheon+ or DESY5, as both data combinations yield A_lens consistent with unity at the 2σ level (detailed in Section 4 and Table 2 of the manuscript). To eliminate any potential confusion arising from the w0/wa sample dependence, we will revise the abstract to explicitly note the supernova samples used and confirm the robustness of the A_lens result across them. This is a straightforward clarification that does not alter the scientific content. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: constraints are direct outputs of likelihood fits to external data

full rationale

The paper performs standard Bayesian parameter estimation via MCMC on a 12-parameter extended cosmology using independent external likelihoods (Planck PR4 HiLLiPoP/LoLLiPoP, ACT DR6 lensing, DESI DR1 BAO, Pantheon+ and DESY5 SNe). No equations, ansatze, or self-citations reduce any reported 'prediction' or central result to a fitted input by construction. Claims about A_lens inclusion at 2σ, Hubble tension significance, and dynamical DE robustness are direct posterior outputs; interpretations of DESY5 vs. Pantheon+ differences are post-hoc and do not alter the fitting procedure itself. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard cosmological assumptions plus the choice of which supernova catalog to trust when they disagree. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • w0, wa (dynamical DE parameters)
    Fitted to data in the 12-parameter space; central to the dynamical DE claim.
  • sum m_nu
    Fitted neutrino mass sum; upper bound reported but detection is only 1 sigma in some combinations.
  • A_lens
    Lensing amplitude scaling parameter; fitted and compared to 1.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Flat universe and standard recombination history
    Implicit in all LambdaCDM extensions; invoked when combining CMB and BAO likelihoods.
  • ad hoc to paper No unmodeled systematics between Pantheon+ and DESY5 samples
    The paper attributes differing DE conclusions to possible DESY5 systematics without quantifying the offset.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5964 in / 1554 out tokens · 44517 ms · 2026-05-18T16:08:10.356264+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 21 Pith papers

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

  1. Probing the small-scale primordial power spectrum via relic neutrinos and acoustic reheating

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Dissipation of small-scale primordial perturbations after neutrino decoupling cools relic neutrinos and reduces their abundance, enabling PTOLEMY to constrain the primordial curvature power spectrum to O(0.1) on scale...

  2. Geometric Constraints on the Pre-Recombination Expansion History from the Hubble Tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Model-independent reconstruction shows that early-universe modifications resolving the Hubble tension exist at the background level, requiring a smooth ~15% pre-recombination expansion rate enhancement.

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

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Two-field axion-like early dark energy reduces Hubble tension to 1.5 sigma residual and improves high-ell CMB fits over single-field models.

  4. Evidence for deviation in gravitational light deflection from general relativity at cosmological scales with KiDS-Legacy and CMB lensing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    KiDS-Legacy weak lensing plus CMB data yields a 3 sigma deviation in light deflection from GR in a Lambda CDM background, with the signal driven by large-scale CMB lensing amplitudes.

  5. Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum from relativistic $N$-body Simulations: $\Lambda_{\rm s}$CDM versus $\Lambda$CDM

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Relativistic N-body simulations of Lambda_s CDM produce a redshift-dependent crest in the matter power spectrum ratio, peaking at 20-25% near the transition and leaving a 15-20% uplift at z=0 on group scales.

  6. Multimodal axion emissions from Abelian-Higgs cosmic strings

    hep-ph 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Lattice simulations of Abelian-Higgs cosmic strings with axion-gauge coupling show multimodal axion production that can account for GeV-scale dark matter while predicting observable dark radiation.

  7. DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements

    astro-ph.CO 2024-11 accept novelty 6.0

    DESI DR1 full-shape clustering yields Ω_m = 0.2962 ± 0.0095 and σ_8 = 0.842 ± 0.034 in flat ΛCDM, tightening to H_0 = 68.40 ± 0.27 km/s/Mpc with CMB and DESY3, while favoring w_0 > -1, w_a < 0 and limiting neutrino ma...

  8. Is the $w_0w_a$CDM cosmological parameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck PR4 CMB anisotropy data?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    Planck PR4 CMB data mildly favors dynamical dark energy, but this preference weakens when accounting for possible excess smoothing, indicating the signal may partly arise from data processing issues.

  9. 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...

  10. Measuring neutrino mass in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    New ACT and DESI data yield model-dependent upper limits on sum of neutrino masses, with holographic dark energy giving the tightest bounds and a consistent preference for degenerate hierarchy.

  11. Joint Constraints on Neutrinos and Dynamical Dark Energy in Minimally Modified Gravity

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The w†VCDM model shows a statistically significant preference for late-time quintessence-phantom crossing dark energy, raises the Hubble constant, and satisfies neutrino mass and Neff constraints from current cosmolog...

  12. Resolving the Planck-DESI tension by nonminimally coupled quintessence

    astro-ph.CO 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Non-minimally coupled quintessence resolves the Planck-DESI Ω_m tension at >3σ while the effective equation of state stays above w=-1 and other tensions on neutrino mass and growth rate are relieved.

  13. Type II Seesaw Leptogenesis in a Majoron background

    hep-ph 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Spontaneous wash-in leptogenesis in Type II Seesaw with Majoron pNGB background enables baryon asymmetry generation alongside dark matter cogenesis for specific v_T, v_sigma and m_j ranges.

  14. Constraints on Neutrino Physics from DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 Full Shape

    astro-ph.CO 2025-03 conditional novelty 5.0

    DESI DR2 BAO and full-shape data plus CMB yield ∑m_ν < 0.0642 eV (95% CL) under ΛCDM, in 3σ tension with oscillation lower limits, relaxed to <0.163 eV in w0waCDM.

  15. 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.

  16. Revisiting the Hubble tension problem in the framework of holographic dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    HDE models with future event horizon IR cutoff partially ease the Hubble tension while Hubble-scale cutoffs do not, consistent across six models and multiple BAO/SN/CMB combinations.

  17. Beyond CPL: Evidence for dynamical dark energy in three-parameter models

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0

    Two three-parameter extensions of the mAH dark energy parametrization are compared to LambdaCDM, wCDM, CPL and others using CMB, DESI BAO, H(z), RSD and three SNIa samples, yielding Delta chi-squared improvements of 6...

  18. New Insights into Dark Energy from DESI DR2 with CMB and SNIa

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Systematic dataset swaps show DESY5 low-redshift SNIa, Planck CMB plus lensing, and DESI-DR2 BAO as the dominant sources of w0waCDM tension with ΛCDM, while other combinations remain consistent.

  19. Off-diagonal solutions in Einsteingravity modeling f(R) gravity and dynamical darkenergy vs Lambda CDM cosmology

    physics.gen-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Off-diagonal Einstein solutions constructed via the anholonomic frame and connection deformation method can mimic f(R) gravity and dynamical dark energy effects inside GR and Lambda CDM cosmology.

  20. Comparing Minimal and Non-Minimal Quintessence Models to 2025 DESI Data

    astro-ph.CO 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Quintessence models with standard potentials give only modest improvements over Lambda to DESI data on evolving dark energy, while non-minimal couplings allow temporary phantom behavior but face tight gravity constrai...

  21. The Quintom theory of dark energy after DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    This review traces the history of dynamical dark energy, presents the no-go theorem against single-field crossing of w = -1, and surveys viable Quintom constructions including multi-field models and modified gravity i...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 21 Pith papers · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023520 —. 2024, arXiv:2401.02929

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

    Adame, A. G., et al. 2024, arXiv:2404.03002

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    2020a, Astron

    Aghanim, N., et al. 2020a, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A1 —. 2020b, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    2020, JCAP, 08, 012

    Akita, K., & Yamaguchi, M. 2020, JCAP, 08, 012

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    2020, Astron

    Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 643, A42

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    J., & Notari, A

    Allali, I. J., & Notari, A. 2024, arXiv:2406.14554

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    2020, JCAP, 09, 021

    Archidiacono, M., Hannestad, S., & Lesgourgues, J. 2020, JCAP, 09, 021

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    2018, PoS, TASI2017, 009

    Baumann, D. 2018, PoS, TASI2017, 009

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    J., Buldgen, G., De Salas, P

    Bennett, J. J., Buldgen, G., De Salas, P. F., et al. 2021, JCAP, 04, 073

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    V., Kable, J

    Berghaus, K. V., Kable, J. A., & Miranda, V. 2024, arXiv:2404.14341

    work page arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    2024, JCAP, 09, 073

    Bhattacharya, S., Borghetto, G., Malhotra, A., et al. 2024, JCAP, 09, 073

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    2024, JCAP, 07, 032

    Bostan, N., & Roy Choudhury, S. 2024, JCAP, 07, 032

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    P., & Gelman, A

    Brooks, S. P., & Gelman, A. 1998, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 7, 434

    work page 1998

  14. [14]

    2022, Astrophys

    Brout, D., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 938, 110

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    2008, Phys

    Zahn, O. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 123531

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

    Carloni, O

    Carloni, Y., Luongo, O., & Muccino, M. 2024, arXiv:2404.12068

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    2022, JCAP, 09, 039

    Carron, J., Mirmelstein, M., & Lewis, A. 2022, JCAP, 09, 039

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    2001, Int

    Chevallier, M., & Polarski, D. 2001, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 10, 213

    work page 2001

  19. [19]

    Chung, D. J. H., Shiu, G., & Trodden, M. 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 063501 Cortˆ es, M., & Liddle, A. R. 2024, arXiv:2404.08056

    work page arXiv 2003

  20. [20]

    S., Tarl´ e, G., Ahlen, S

    Croker, K. S., Tarl´ e, G., Ahlen, S. P., et al. 2024, arXiv:2405.12282 Di Valentino, E., Gariazzo, S., & Mena, O. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 083504 Di Valentino, E., Melchiorri, A., Linder, E. V., & Silk, J. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 023523 Di Valentino, E., Melchiorri, A., & Silk, J. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 121302 —. 2016, Phys. Lett. B, 761, 242 —. 2019, N...

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Dinda and R

    Dinda, B. R., & Maartens, R. 2024, arXiv:2407.17252

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    2006, JCAP, 09, 010

    Easther, R., & Peiris, H. 2006, JCAP, 09, 010

    work page 2006

  23. [23]

    Efstathiou,Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?,Mon

    Efstathiou, G. 2024, arXiv:2408.07175

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Efstathiou, G., & Bond, J. R. 1999, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 304, 75

    work page 1999

  25. [25]

    C., Maltoni, M., Schwetz, T., & Zhou, A

    Esteban, I., Gonzalez-Garcia, M. C., Maltoni, M., Schwetz, T., & Zhou, A. 2020, JHEP, 09, 178

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Froustey, J., Pitrou, C., & Volpe, M. C. 2020, JCAP, 12, 015

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    2014, Phys

    Garcia-Bellido, J., & Roest, D. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 103527

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    2022, JCAP, 10, 010 12 Roy Choudhury & Okumura

    Gariazzo, S., et al. 2022, JCAP, 10, 010 12 Roy Choudhury & Okumura

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Gialamas, G

    Gialamas, I. D., H¨ utsi, G., Kannike, K., et al. 2024, arXiv:2406.07533 Giar` e, W., Najafi, M., Pan, S., Di Valentino, E., &

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Firouzjaee, J. T. 2024, arXiv:2407.16689

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    2016, Phys

    Giusarma, E., Gerbino, M., Mena, O., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 083522

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    2018, Phys

    Giusarma, E., Vagnozzi, S., Ho, S., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 123526

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    2021, Phys

    Handley, W. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, L041301

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    2005, Phys

    Hannestad, S. 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 221301

    work page 2005

  35. [35]

    2012, JCAP, 04, 027

    Howlett, C., Lewis, A., Hall, A., & Challinor, A. 2012, JCAP, 04, 027

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    Jiang, D

    Jiang, J.-Q., Pedrotti, D., da Costa, S. S., & Vagnozzi, S. 2024a, arXiv:2408.02365

    work page arXiv

  37. [37]

    2024b, arXiv:2407.18047

    Jiang, J.-Q., Giar` e, W., Gariazzo, S., et al. 2024b, arXiv:2407.18047

    work page arXiv

  38. [38]

    2015, JCAP, 02, 019

    Kohri, K., & Matsuda, T. 2015, JCAP, 02, 019

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    2012, Adv

    Lesgourgues, J., & Pastor, S. 2012, Adv. High Energy Phys., 2012, 608515

    work page 2012

  40. [40]

    GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples

    Lewis, A. 2019, arXiv:1910.13970

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    2000, Astrophys

    Lewis, A., Challinor, A., & Lasenby, A. 2000, Astrophys. J., 538, 473

    work page 2000

  42. [42]

    Linder, E. V. 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 091301

    work page 2003

  43. [43]

    Lodha, et al., DESI 2024: Constraints on physics-focused aspects of dark energy using DESI DR1 BAO data, Phys

    Lodha, K., et al. 2024, arXiv:2405.13588

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    2024, Astrophys

    MacCrann, N., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 966, 138

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    S., et al

    Madhavacheril, M. S., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 962, 113

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Mukherjee, P., & Sen, A. A. 2024, arXiv:2405.19178

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Naredo-Tuero, M

    Marcano, X., & Poulin, V. 2024, arXiv:2407.13831

    work page arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    C., & Vagnozzi, S

    Nunes, R. C., & Vagnozzi, S. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 505, 5427

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Orchard, L., & C´ ardenas, V. H. 2024, arXiv:2407.05579

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    2024, arXiv:2408.14787

    Pang, Y.-H., Zhang, X., & Huang, Q.-G. 2024, arXiv:2408.14787

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    2024, arXiv:2405.00502 Planck Team

    Park, C.-G., de Cruz Perez, J., & Ratra, B. 2024, arXiv:2405.00502 Planck Team. 2020, Planck Public Data Release 3 Mission Ancillary Data, doi:10.26131/IRSA559

    work page doi:10.26131/irsa559 2024

  52. [52]

    K., Bird, S., & Kamionkowski, M

    Poulin, V., Boddy, K. K., Bird, S., & Kamionkowski, M. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 123504

    work page 2018

  53. [53]

    F., Sakstein, J., & Rubin, D

    Ramadan, O. F., Sakstein, J., & Rubin, D. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, L041303 Rebou¸ cas, J. a., de Souza, D. H. F., Zhong, K., Miranda, V., & Rosenfeld, R. 2024, arXiv:2408.14628

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    G., et al

    Riess, A. G., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 934, L7

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    Roy, Dynamical dark energy in the light of DESI 2024 data, Phys

    Roy, N. 2024, arXiv:2406.00634 Roy Choudhury, S. 2020, PhD thesis, HBNI, Mumbai Roy Choudhury, S., & Choubey, S. 2018, JCAP, 09, 017 Roy Choudhury, S., & Hannestad, S. 2020, JCAP, 07, 037 Roy Choudhury, S., Hannestad, S., & Tram, T. 2021, JCAP, 03, 084 —. 2022, JCAP, 10, 018 Roy Choudhury, S., & Naskar, A. 2019, Eur. Phys. J. C, 79, 262

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    2022, Astrophys

    Scolnic, D., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 938, 113

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    J., Dunkley, J., et al

    Shao, H., Givans, J. J., Dunkley, J., et al. 2024, arXiv:2409.02295

    work page arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Shlivko, D., & Steinhardt, P. J. 2024, Phys. Lett. B, 855, 138826

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    2024, Phys

    Tada, Y., & Terada, T. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, L121305

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    2019, Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019

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

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    2021, JCAP, 05, 057

    Torrado, J., & Lewis, A. 2021, JCAP, 05, 057

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    2024, Astron

    Tristram, M., et al. 2024, Astron. Astrophys., 682, A37

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    2020, Phys

    Vagnozzi, S. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 023518 —. 2023, Universe, 9, 393

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    2018, Phys

    Vagnozzi, S., Dhawan, S., Gerbino, M., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 083501

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    2017, Phys

    Vagnozzi, S., Giusarma, E., Mena, O., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 123503

    work page 2017

  66. [66]

    2024, arXiv:2405.03368

    Wang, D., Mena, O., Di Valentino, E., & Gariazzo, S. 2024, arXiv:2405.03368

    work page arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Wang, Y.-S

    Wang, H., & Piao, Y.-S. 2024, arXiv:2404.18579

    work page arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    J., Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, C., Bartlett, D

    Wolf, W. J., Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, C., Bartlett, D. J., & Ferreira, P. G. 2024, arXiv:2408.17318

    work page arXiv 2024