REVIEW 2 cited by
Bayesian model selection on Scalar $\epsilon$-Field Dark Energy
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
The main aim of this paper is to analyse minimally-coupled scalar-fields -- quintessence and phantom -- as the main candidates to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe and compare its observables to current cosmological observations; as a byproduct we present its python module. This work includes a parameter $\epsilon$ which allows to incorporate both quintessence and phantom fields within the same analysis. Examples of the potentials, so far included, are $V(\phi)=V_0\phi^{\mu}e^{\beta \phi^\alpha}$ and $V(\phi)=V_0(\cosh(\alpha \phi)+\beta)$ with $\alpha$, $\mu$ and $\beta$ being free parameters, but the analysis can be easily extended to any other scalar field potential. Additional to the field component and the standard content of matter, the study also incorporates the contribution from spatial curvature ($\Omega_k$), as it has been the focus in recent studies. The analysis contains the most up-to-date datasets along with a nested sampler to produce posterior distributions along with the Bayesian evidence, that allows to perform a model selection. In this work we constrain the parameter-space describing the two generic potentials, and among several combinations, we found that the best-fit to current datasets is given by a model slightly favouring the quintessence field with potential $V(\phi)=V_0\phi^\mu e^{\beta \phi}$ with $\beta=0.22\pm 1.56$, $\mu = -0.41\pm 1.90$, and slightly negative curvature $\Omega_{k,0}=-0.0016\pm0.0018$, which presents deviations of $1.6\sigma$ from the standard $\Lambda$CDM model. Even though this potential contains three extra parameters, the Bayesian evidence $\mathcal{B}_{\Lambda, \phi} =2.0$ is unable to distinguish this model compared to the $\Lambda$CDM with curvature ($\Omega_{k,0}=0.0013\pm0.0018$). The potential that provides the minimal Bayesian evidence corresponds to $V(\phi)=V_0 \cosh(\alpha \phi)$ with $\alpha=-0.61\pm 1.36$.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Background-level reconstruction of scalar-field potentials from dark-energy histories and comparison with analytic potential families
A background reconstruction maps prescribed ρ_de(z) histories to V(φ) and ranks analytic potentials by Bayesian evidence, with exponential preferred for CPL and shifted-tanh for sign-switching targets.
-
How Holographic is the Dark Energy? A Spline Nodal reconstruction approach
A three-node spline reconstruction of holographic dark energy improves chi-squared over LambdaCDM by about 10 to 12, but Bayesian evidence gives no clear preference.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.