Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 10 cited by

Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from a Different Angle

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In rotated coordinates, DESI DR2 BAO data move into line with Planck ΛCDM; no significant evidence for evolving dark energy remains.

desk verdict A clean rotated-coordinate diagnostic shows DESI DR2 BAO are more Planck-ΛCDM-friendly than DR1, but the paper's stronger 'no evidence for evolving dark energy' conclusion is a prior-dependent judgment, not an empirical fact. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02658 v2 pith:QWK7OHJE submitted 2025-05-05 astro-ph.CO

George Efstathiou This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x
keywords baryonacousticoscillationsdarkenergyequationofstateevolvingcosmologicalconstantDESIDR2PlanckΛCDMBAOdistanceratiosBayesianevidence
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) distance measurements from DESI's second data release, when rotated into a coordinate frame aligned with the predictions of the standard Planck ΛCDM model, are consistent with that model across the whole redshift range of the survey, and are substantially closer to it than the first DESI release was. In the orthogonal direction, the rotated variable gives a measure of the physical matter density that also remains consistent with Planck. The paper then applies the same rotation idea to the dark-energy equation-of-state parameters $w_0$ and $w_a$, finding that the combination of DESI BAO and CMB data constrains the pivot value $w(z=0.5) = -0.996 \pm 0.046$, essentially the cosmological constant value. It concludes that there is no significant evidence for evolving dark energy in the present data, and argues that the DESI collaboration's higher significance claims rest on a statistical measure that fails to account for model complexity and prior assumptions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a rotation of the two BAO observables $D_M/r_d$ and $D_H/r_d$ into orthogonal combinations $D_{\rm perp}$ and $D_{\rm par}$, with a rotation angle $\gamma(z)$ chosen at each effective redshift so that the Planck ΛCDM degeneracy line (fixed by the tight constraint on $\Omega_m h^3$) becomes horizontal. In this frame $D_{\rm perp}$ is predicted by Planck with negligible error, so agreement with ΛCDM is settled by a single number with no nuisance parameters or priors, while $D_{\rm par}$ maps linearly onto the physical matter density through $\omega_m = 0.14205 + \beta\,(D_{\rm par} - D_{\rm par}^{\rm Planck})$. A second rotation acts in theory space: replacing $(w_0, w_a)$ by $(w_{\rm piv}, w_a)$ with $w_{\rm piv} = w(z_{\rm piv})$ at $z_{\rm piv}\approx 0.5$ decorrelates the two dark-energy parameters, showing that the pivot equation-of-state is tightly constrained and consistent with a cosmological constant.

What would settle it

If a future BAO data set (e.g., DESI DR3) finds the LRG1 $D_{\rm perp}$ value falling below its DR2 value of $5.08\pm0.37$ and the pivot equation-of-state $w(z=0.5)$ moving more than about 2σ away from $-1$ in a joint BAO+CMB fit, the paper's conclusion that DR2 moved toward Planck ΛCDM with no evidence for evolving dark energy would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the DESI DR2 BAO measurements 'move closer towards the expectations of Planck ΛCDM' compared with DR1, and that from the comparison of Planck and DESI BAO measurements 'we find no significant evidence in support of evolving dark energy.' The analysis defines the two rotated distance ratios $D_{\rm perp}$ and $D_{\rm par}$, chosen so that Planck's ΛCDM prediction for $D_{\rm perp}$ is essentially a delta function at every effective redshift. For the two low-redshift luminous-red-galaxy samples that showed the largest DR1 discrepancy, the $D_{\rm perp}$ residuals shift from 2.5σ and -0.5σ in DR1 to 1.8σ and 1.4σ in DR2. The $D_{\rm par}$ data translate into a matter density $\omega_m = 0.13909 \pm 0.00073$ averaged over all redshifts, about 2.1σ below the Planck value, and the extension to the $w_0$–$w_a$ parametrization yields $w(z=0.5) = -0.996 \pm 0.046$ when DESI BAO and the compressed CMB likelihood are combined. The paper also shows that reparameterizing the dark-energy model to a pivot redshift decorrelates $w_0$ and $w_a$, exposing why the DESI collaboration's quoted significance, based on $\Delta\chi^2_{\rm MAP}=-8.0$, overstates the case for evolving dark energy.

Load-bearing premise

The central conclusion rests on a subjective prior that judges evolving-dark-energy models as much less plausible than the cosmological constant before the data are examined; the paper explicitly concedes that the size of this penalty is entirely subjective, and without it the DESI data improve the fit by $\Delta\chi^2 = -8.0$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the rotated-variable analysis is correct, DESI DR2 BAO data are consistent with the Planck ΛCDM cosmology at all effective redshifts from $z\approx 0.5$ to $z\approx 2.3$, with the two LRG samples that previously showed tension moving into line.
  • The matter density inferred from $D_{\rm par}$, averaged over all DESI samples, is $\omega_m = 0.13909 \pm 0.00073$, about 2.1σ below Planck, implying mild tension remains only in the parallel direction.
  • In the $w_0$–$w_a$ extension, the pivot equation-of-state is $w(z=0.5) = -0.996 \pm 0.046$, so the data are compatible with a cosmological constant at the pivot despite the large $w_a$ uncertainty.
  • The DESI team's '3.1σ' preference for evolving dark energy from DESI BAO + CMB is not a robust probability: it follows from $\Delta\chi^2_{\rm MAP}=-8.0$ treated as a chi-squared statistic without a prior penalty, and the paper argues a physically motivated prior would eliminate the preference.
  • Adding alternative CMB data (ACT) does not strengthen the case for evolving dark energy, and some Planck+ACT combinations weaken it (as the paper cites from Garcia-Quintero et al. 2025).

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the trend: if the DESI DR3 release finds the LRG1 $D_{\rm perp}$ central value below its DR2 value of $5.08\pm0.37$, the convergence toward Planck seen in DR2 would look like a statistical fluctuation rather than a systematic improvement.
  • The same rotation construction depends only on the Planck-ΛCDM degeneracy direction, so it can be applied unchanged to future BAO surveys to provide a near-model-free consistency check with the CMB.
  • If the paper's Bayesian-prior argument is right, the burden shifts to dark-energy model builders: to make a convincing case for evolving dark energy, the combined data would need to produce a much larger $\Delta\chi^2$ improvement than $-8$, or the field would need a principled theoretical prior for $w_0$–$w_a$ models.
  • The appendix's worsening DES5Y-versus-DESI/Planck tension suggests that the '4σ' claims quoted from combining DES5Y supernovae with DESI BAO are dominated by the supernova sample rather than by dark energy; recalibrating the DES5Y low-redshift photometry should remove or confirm that tension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a rotated-coordinate analysis of DESI BAO distance measurements, defining orthogonal quantities D_perp and D_par from DM/rd and DH/rd. The author argues that, under Planck LCDM, D_perp is predicted with negligible uncertainty, allowing a clean consistency test of DESI DR1 and DR2 against Planck. The paper reports that DESI DR2 D_perp measurements are in better agreement with Planck LCDM than DR1, that D_par converts to constraints on omega_m that remain consistent with Planck, and that a rotated w0-wa analysis gives w(z=0.5) = -0.996 +/- 0.046. The paper further critiques the DESI collaboration's use of Delta-chi^2_MAP as evidence for evolving dark energy, arguing that the evidence is prior-dependent, and includes an appendix comparing DES5Y supernova constraints with DESI and Planck.

Significance. The D_perp statistic is a useful, transparent consistency test, and the analytic Gaussian marginalization is straightforward and reproducible from the quoted DESI and Planck results. The paper also makes a valid and important methodological point: Delta-chi^2_MAP with a uniform prior in (w0, wa) is not a model-independent measure of evidence for evolving dark energy. If the quantitative claims are brought in line with the tables, the rotated-coordinate framework could be a valuable addition to the BAO literature. However, the paper's headline statements currently outrun the tabulated results in a few places, and the omega_m conversion needs an error-propagation check.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 and Table 1] The statement that the 2025 DESI data are 'more consistent with LCDM' for both LRG samples is not supported by Table 1. For LRG2, D_perp moves from 9.54 +/- 0.60 (DR1) to 8.76 +/- 0.34 (DR2), with the Planck value at 9.22; the absolute residual grows from 0.32 to 0.46 and the two-tailed p-value worsens from 0.60 to 0.16. The abstract and Section 4 should either restrict the 'moves closer' claim to LRG1 and to the full redshift set, or explicitly justify why the worsening LRG2 p-value is not the relevant comparison.
  2. [Section 3 and Abstract] The conclusion that there is 'no significant evidence in support of evolving dark energy' is prior-dependent rather than an empirical finding. The paper reports Delta-chi^2_MAP = -8.0 for w0waCDM relative to LCDM, and the rotated posterior gives wa = -1.78 +/- 0.79, about 2.3 sigma from zero; the conclusion relies on a subjective prior penalty whose size is conceded in the text to be 'entirely subjective.' The abstract and conclusions should state this conditionality explicitly, for example by saying 'under the Bayesian prior penalty adopted here.'
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (7), and Table 2] The conversion of D_par measurements into omega_m constraints does not propagate the uncertainty in the slope beta or in the Planck reference value D_par^Planck. Table 2 lists Planck D_par uncertainties of order 0.1, which, when multiplied by beta ~ 0.009, contribute about 0.001 to omega_m, comparable to the quoted DESI omega_m errors of ~0.0015. The reported omega_m errors and the ~2.1 sigma average tension with Planck should be revised to include these terms, or the paper should justify that they are negligible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 4 caption] The caption describes red and blue contours as 'Pantheon+ (red) and DES5Y (blue) SN compilations,' but the text in Section 3 describes the red contours as DESI-DR2 BAO and DESI+QCMB; the caption should be corrected to match the text.
  2. [Section 4] The phrase 'as shown in the lower panel of Fig. 2' refers to the D_par results, but the lower panel of Fig. 3 contains the omega_m plot; the figure reference should be corrected.
  3. [Table 1] The table should state the sign convention for N_sigma; the listed values are consistent with N_sigma = (D_perp^Planck - D_perp^DESI)/sigma, but this is not stated explicitly in the caption.
  4. [Throughout] There are minor typographical errors, including 'perpendiclular' for 'perpendicular' and 'distrbution' for 'distribution,' which should be corrected in a revised version.
  5. [Eq. (5)] The exponent is printed as -a11 + a12^2/(4a22); while this is algebraically correct after marginalization, the plus sign inside the exponent may confuse readers, so a one-line derivation or a clarifying note would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the D_perp/D_par rotated-coordinate comparison is a self-contained consistency test against external DESI and Planck data, and the 'no evolving dark energy' conclusion is prior-dependent but not forced by construction.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. Dperp and Dpar are orthogonal linear combinations of the standard DESI observables DM/rd and DH/rd (Eqs. 4a-4b), with rotation angles gamma(z) fixed by the effective redshift and by the requirement that the Planck LCDM degeneracy line be horizontal. The Planck predictions for Dperp come from the external Planck TTTEEE chains, while the DESI Dperp values come from the external DESI DR1/DR2 measurements; the comparison is a projection of independent data onto a direction chosen from Planck, not an input recycled as a prediction. The Dpar-to-omega_m conversion (Eq. 7) is a calibration on the Planck chains, but the DESI Dpar values are independent, so agreement or tension is informative and not guaranteed by construction. The w0-wa pivot analysis is a standard reparameterization of the same DESI+QCMB likelihood; reporting wpiv = -0.996 +/- 0.046 is a faithful summary of the fit, not a hidden re-importation of the conclusion. The paper's 'no significant evidence for evolving dark energy' wording does depend on a subjective Bayesian penalty ('How big a penalty is entirely subjective', Sec. 3) and on Delta chi2_MAP = -8.0 being reinterpreted; that is a statistical-philosophy limitation, not circularity. Some claims, such as the LRG2 Dperp 'moving closer' (Table 1 shows the p-value worsening from 0.60 to 0.16), are stronger than the tabulated numbers support, but this is an internal-consistency and robustness concern, not a circular-derivation concern. Minor self-citations (Efstathiou & Gratton 2021 for the Planck degeneracy line; Efstathiou 2025 for priors and DES5Y photometry) are not load-bearing: the degeneracy line can be verified from the Planck chains, and the priors can be replaced without changing the geometric comparison.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physics entities. The free parameters are calibration constants from Planck chains. The central D_perp test depends mainly on the Gaussian likelihood assumption and flatness; the no-EvDE conclusion depends on the subjective prior penalty.

free parameters (2)
  • Rotation angles gamma(z) = 0.816, 0.500, 0.243, 0.0274, -0.0177, -0.0991 rad (Table 1)
    Chosen to orient the Planck degeneracy line horizontally; derived from Planck LCDM chains, not fitted to DESI data, but they define the frame for all D_perp/D_par tests.
  • Calibration slope beta(z) in Eq. 7 = 0.00836 to 0.00975 (Table 2)
    Calibrated from Planck TTTEEE chains to convert D_par to omega_m; no uncertainty in beta is propagated into the reported omega_m errors.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Spatial flatness (Omega_K = 0)
    Footnote 6 states 'We assume a spatially flat Universe throughout this paper.' The D_perp/D_par test and the omega_m mapping are computed in flat LCDM.
  • domain assumption DESI likelihood is approximately Gaussian
    Eq. 5 marginalizes the DESI posterior over D_par assuming a 2D Gaussian; DESI provides covariance matrices, but non-Gaussian tails are not checked.
  • domain assumption Compressed CMB likelihood QCMB from DESI-DR2 is adequate
    Sec. 3 states QCMB is 'perfectly adequate for our purposes', but it contains only theta_star, omega_b, and omega_m and may miss ISW and other effects; the author defers ISW analysis to another paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Subjective prior penalty for w0-wa models
    Sec. 3 argues EvDE models should be given a substantial prior penalty relative to LCDM; the paper states the penalty is 'entirely subjective'. This is load-bearing for the conclusion of no significant evidence for EvDE.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from a Different Angle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QWK7OHJE

@misc{pith2026250502658,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from a Different Angle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QWK7OHJE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02658}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents an alternative way of analysing Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) distance measurements via rotations to define new quantities Dperp and Dpar. These quantities allow simple tests of consistency with the Planck LCDM cosmology. The parameter Dperp is determined with negligible uncertainty from Planck under the assumption of LCDM. Comparing with measurements from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), we find that the measurements of Dperp from Data Release 2 (DR2) move into significantly better agreement with the Planck LCDM cosmology compared to DESI Data Release 1 (DR1). The quantity in the orthogonal direction Dpar provides a measure of the physical matter density omega_m in the LCDM cosmology. The DR2 measurements of Dpar remain consistent with Planck LCDM despite the substantial improvement in their accuracy compared to the earlier DR1 results. From the comparison of Planck and DESI BAO measurements, we find no significant evidence in support of evolving dark energy. We also investigate a rotation in the theory space of the w_0 and w_a parameterization of the dark energy equation-of-state w(z). We show that the combination of DESI BAO measurements and the CMB constrain w(z=0.5) = -0.996 pm 0.046, i.e. very close to the value expected for a cosmological constant. We present a critique of the statistical methodology employed by the DESI collaboration and argue that it gives a misleading impression of the evidence in favour of evolving dark energy. An Appendix shows that the cosmological parameters determined from the Dark Energy Survey 5 Year supernova sample are in tension with those from DESI DR2 and parameters determined by Planck.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02658 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 68% and 95% contours for the rotated BAO parameters Dperp and Dpar. We show results for the LRG1 and LRG2 surveys for the 2024 DESI DR1 and 2025 DESI DR2 analyses. Samples from the Planck base ΛCDM chains are shown by the dots: green for samples from the TT chains and purple for the TTTEEE chains. The spread along the Dpardirection is determined to high accuracy by the value of the physical matter density parameter … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Posterior distributions of Dperp for the DESI DR1 and DR2 LRG1 and LRG2 samples. The Planck ΛCDM values (which have negligible error) are shown by the thick red lines. Note the ∼ 2.5σ tension between the Planck value and Dperp measured from the DR1 LRG1 sample, which becomes less significant in DR2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The upper panel shows the residual ∆D perp DESI −Dperp Planck as a function of effective redshift for the DESI DR1 and DR2 sam￾ples. Note how the DR2 measurements shift closer to the Planck values. The lower panel shows the matter density parameter ωm inferred from the DESI measurements of Dpar. The horizontal bands show the 1 and 2σ ranges allowed by Planck for the base ΛCDM cosmology. As in the upper panel, the DR… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The left hand panel shows 68% and 95% contours for the marginalized posterior parameters in the w0 − wa, w0 − Ωm and wa − Ωm planes for the Pantheon+ (red) and DES5Y (blue) SN compilations. The dashed lines show the values for the best fit Planck ΛCDM cosmology. The gr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

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

  1. A low value of $H_0$ in tension with the distance ladder from Megamasers using peculiar velocity reconstruction

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

    Reanalyzing six megamaser galaxies with the M25 peculiar velocity reconstruction yields H0 ≈ 68.7 km/s/Mpc, consistent with the CMB and about 2.2σ below the local distance ladder.

  2. Cosmological tensions in Proca-Nuevo theory

    hep-th 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fitting a one-parameter vector-tensor dark energy model to CMB, BAO, and supernova data reduces the Hubble tension to about 1.5–2σ, but the preference over ΛCDM is weak and disappears once full perturbations are included.

  3. 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.

  4. Do we really need alternatives to the $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM parameterization after the DESI DR2?

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

    In a common physically motivated pivot basis, the standard CPL parameterization is mildly preferred over the fafbCDM density expansion and reproduces quintessence backgrounds at least as well.

  5. Cosmological constraints on Galileon dark energy with broken shift symmetry

    astro-ph.CO 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A broken shift symmetric cubic Galileon with a quadratic potential, fitted to DESI DR2, supernova and CMB data, is strongly favored over ΛCDM for DESY5/Union3 supernovae and reproduces the phantom-crossing equation of...

  6. Weinberg's theorem, phantom crossing and screening

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Graviton-loop-induced screening forces single-field dilaton and chameleon dark energy models to keep their equation of state near -1, making observable phantom crossing impossible in this class.

  7. Bayesian and frequentist perspectives agree on dynamical dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Frequentist profile-likelihood constraints on the CPL dark-energy parameters w0 and wa agree with Bayesian posteriors across DESI, CMB, and SN datasets, corroborating the evidence for dynamical dark energy.

  8. The matter with(in) CPL

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A model where ordinary matter acquires a negative effective pressure below z_t about 1.1 matches current cosmological data as well as the standard CPL dark energy model, without phantom crossing.

  9. Late Time Dynamical Dark Energy and the CMB-Distance Ladder Tension

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

    The SNIa absolute-magnitude tension between the distance ladder (−19.204) and CMB+ΛCDM (−19.430) is independent of late-time expansion history, and DESI's w0–wa dark-energy hints shift H0 by only ~0.3–0.4 km/s/Mpc.

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

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    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

50 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 10 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    G., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...04..012A 2025, 012

    Adame A. G., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...04..012A 2025, 012

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/012 2025

  2. [2]

    Alam S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.2617A 470, 2617

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx721 2017

  3. [3]

    arXiv:2503.17659

    Brandenberger R., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.17659 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250317659B p. arXiv:2503.17659

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.17659 2025

  4. [4]

    Chevallier M., Polarski D., 2001, @doi [International Journal of Modern Physics D] 10.1142/S0218271801000822 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001IJMPD..10..213C 10, 213

    doi:10.1142/s0218271801000822 2001

  5. [5]

    Cole S., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09318.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362..505C 362, 505

    arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.08056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240408056C p

    Cort \^e s M., Liddle A. R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.08056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240408056C p. arXiv:2404.08056

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.08056 2024

  7. [7]

    R., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.15336 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250415336C p

    Cort \^e s M., Liddle A. R., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.15336 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250415336C p. arXiv:2504.15336

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.15336 2025

  8. [8]

    arXiv:2401.02929

    DES Collaboration et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.02929 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240102929D p. arXiv:2401.02929

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.02929 2024

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv:2404.03002

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240403002D p. arXiv:2404.03002

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    arXiv:2503.14738

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14738 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314738D p. arXiv:2503.14738

    2025 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Efstathiou G., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/274.1.L73 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.274L..73E 274, L73

    1995 doi

  4. [12]

    Efstathiou G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13498.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.388.1314E 388, 1314

    2008

  5. [13]

    Efstathiou G., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538..875E 538, 875

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    Efstathiou G., Gratton S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496L..91E 496, L91

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Efstathiou G., Gratton S., 2021, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.1910.00483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021OJAp....4E...8E 4, 8

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    J., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/466512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633..560E 633, 560

    Eisenstein D. J., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/466512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633..560E 633, 560

    2005 doi

  9. [17]

    P., Bridges M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1601F 398, 1601

    Feroz F., Hobson M. P., Bridges M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1601F 398, 1601

    2009

  10. [18]

    P., Bridges M., 2011, MultiNest: Efficient and Robust Bayesian Inference ( @eprint ascl 1109.006 )

    Feroz F., Hobson M. P., Bridges M., 2011, MultiNest: Efficient and Robust Bayesian Inference ( @eprint ascl 1109.006 )

    2011

  11. [19]

    arXiv:2504.18464

    Garcia-Quintero C., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18464 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250418464G p. arXiv:2504.18464

    2025 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    u tsi G., Kannike K., Racioppi A., Raidal M., Vasar M., Veerm \

    Gialamas I. D., H \"u tsi G., Kannike K., Racioppi A., Raidal M., Vasar M., Veerm \"a e H., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.043540 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PhRvD.111d3540G 111, 043540

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    T., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JCAP...10..035G 2024, 035

    Giar \`e W., Najafi M., Pan S., Di Valentino E., Firouzjaee J. T., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JCAP...10..035G 2024, 035

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Maltoni M., Schwetz T., 2021, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe7120459 , 7

    Gonzalez-Garcia M. C., Maltoni M., Schwetz T., 2021, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe7120459 , 7

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    arXiv:2502.04212

    Huang L., Cai R.-G., Wang S.-J., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.04212 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250204212H p. arXiv:2502.04212

    2025 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    T., 2003, Probability theory: The logic of science

    Jaynes E. T., 2003, Probability theory: The logic of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    2003

  17. [25]

    Kessler R., Scolnic D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/56 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836...56K 836, 56

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    V., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhRvL..90i1301L 90, 091301

    Linder E. V., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhRvL..90i1301L 90, 091301

    2003 doi

  19. [27]

    arXiv:2503.14743

    Lodha K., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14743 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314743L p. arXiv:2503.14743

    2025 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    arXiv:2503.14452

    Louis T., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314452L p. arXiv:2503.14452

    2025 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    MacKay D. J. C., 2003, Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms. Copyright Cambridge University Press

    2003

  22. [30]

    Notari A., Redi M., Tesi A., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/048 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...04..048N 2025, 048

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    Perlmutter S., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...517..565P 517, 565

    1999 doi

  24. [32]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A...6P 641, A6

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    L., Karwal T., 2023, @doi [Physics of the Dark Universe] 10.1016/j.dark.2023.101348 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PDU....4201348P 42, 101348

    Poulin V., Smith T. L., Karwal T., 2023, @doi [Physics of the Dark Universe] 10.1016/j.dark.2023.101348 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PDU....4201348P 42, 101348

    2023

  26. [34]

    J., Sciama D

    Rees M. J., Sciama D. W., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1038/217511a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968Natur.217..511R 217, 511

    1968 doi

  27. [35]

    G., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....116.1009R 116, 1009

    Riess A. G., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....116.1009R 116, 1009

    1998 doi

  28. [36]

    arXiv:2311.12098

    Rubin D., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2311.12098 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231112098R p. arXiv:2311.12098

    2023 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    K., Wolfe A

    Sachs R. K., Wolfe A. M., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148982 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...147...73S 147, 73

    1967 doi

  30. [38]

    O., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.05046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240605046S p

    S \'a nchez B. O., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.05046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240605046S p. arXiv:2406.05046

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Scolnic D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938..113S 938, 113

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Frieman J

    Shajib A. J., Frieman J. A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.06929 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250206929S p. arXiv:2502.06929

    2025 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    J., 2024, @doi [Physics Letters B] 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138826 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhLB..85538826S 855, 138826

    Shlivko D., Steinhardt P. J., 2024, @doi [Physics Letters B] 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138826 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhLB..85538826S 855, 138826

    2024

  34. [42]

    J., Steinhardt C

    Shlivko D., Steinhardt P. J., Steinhardt C. L., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.02028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250402028S p. arXiv:2504.02028

    2025 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    arXiv:2401.02945

    Vincenzi M., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.02945 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240102945V p. arXiv:2401.02945

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    arXiv:2501.06664

    Vincenzi M., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.06664 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250106664V p. arXiv:2501.06664

    2025 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    Weinberg S., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2607 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987PhRvL..59.2607W 59, 2607

    1987 doi

  38. [46]

    Weinberg S., 1989, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989RvMP...61....1W 61, 1

    1989 doi

  39. [47]

    H., Mortonson M

    Weinberg D. H., Mortonson M. J., Eisenstein D. J., Hirata C., Riess A. G., Rozo E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2013.05.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhR...530...87W 530, 87

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Garc \' a-Garc \' a C., Ferreira P

    Wolf W. J., Garc \' a-Garc \' a C., Ferreira P. G., 2025a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.04929 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250204929W p. arXiv:2502.04929

    doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    J., Garc \' a-Garc \' a C., Anton T., Ferreira P

    Wolf W. J., Garc \' a-Garc \' a C., Anton T., Ferreira P. G., 2025b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.07679 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250407679W p. arXiv:2504.07679

    doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.