Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 3 cited by

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

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that with fixed $\theta_*$ and standard early-universe physics, the null energy condition forces BAO distances to stay on the $\Lambda$CDM side of one-sided inequalities, so current acoustic data favor $\Lambda$CDM…

desk verdict A clean, useful systematization of NEC-based one-sided BAO inequalities, with a caveat about early-universe physics that should be made explicit. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13894 v3 pith:TGFOBBMA submitted 2024-12-18 astro-ph.CO

Antony Lewis , Ewan Chamberlain This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k98.80.Es95.36.+x
keywords nullenergyconditionbaryonacousticoscillationscosmicmicrowavebackgroundscaledarkLambda-CDMCPLparameterizationDESIDR2BAOcomovingdistances
topics 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 argues that the null energy condition (NEC) turns the cosmic microwave background angular scale $\theta_*$ into a one-sided constraint on low-redshift BAO measurements. For any non-interacting dark energy model that respects the NEC and has the same early-universe physics as $\Lambda$CDM, the comoving distance $D_M(z)$ must be at least as large as the $\Lambda$CDM prediction at every redshift, the Alcock-Paczynski parameter $F_{\rm AP}(z)$ must be at least as large, and $D_H(z)$ can cross the $\Lambda$CDM curve only once. Because current DESI DR2 BAO points with $D_M$ below the $\Lambda$CDM prediction lie exactly where no NEC-respecting model can go, the acoustic data do not prefer dynamical dark energy: they prefer $\Lambda$CDM, or else require a violation of the NEC or a change in early-universe physics. The same logic gives a map of which regions of the $(w_0,w_a)$ CPL parameterization are physically allowed.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Friedmann equation plus the null energy condition applied to a non-interacting dark energy fluid. For fixed $\theta_*$, the comoving distance to last scattering is the same in every model, giving the integral constraint $\int_0^{z_*} D_H\,dz = \int_0^{z_*} D_H^\Lambda\,dz$. The NEC implies $d\rho_{\rm de}/dz \ge 0$, which turns into the differential bound $dD_H/dz \le (D_H/D_H^\Lambda)^3\, dD_H^\Lambda/dz$. Integrating this bound yields the one-sided inequalities; the key derived object is the ratio $D_H/D_H^\Lambda$, which starts above 1 at $z=0$, decreases monotonically, crosses once at $z=z_c$, and asymptotes to 1 at high $z$. The paper also uses the CPL parameterization $w(a) = w_0 + w_a(1-a)$ to map consistency lines, notably $w_a \approx -4(1+w_0)$, below which the predicted sign of the deviation from $\Lambda$CDM is NEC-inconsistent at all redshifts.

What would settle it

Measure $D_M(z)$ and $D_H(z)$ from a future high-precision BAO survey at a redshift where the central value of $D_M(z)$ falls below the $\Lambda$CDM prediction by more than the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty, after marginalising over the allowed shifts in $\Lambda$CDM parameters from CMB data. That observation would sit inside the excluded region and, within the paper's assumptions, would falsify the claim that every NEC-respecting non-interacting dark energy model has $D_M \ge D_M^\Lambda$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a set of exact inequalities. Fix the non-dark-energy parameters (matter densities, neutrino masses, curvature) and the CMB scale $\theta_*$, and assume dark energy is negligible at recombination; then for any homogeneous non-interacting dark energy fluid with $\rho_{\rm de} \ge 0$ and the NEC, the following hold for all relevant $z$: $D_M(z) \ge D_M^\Lambda(z)$; $F_{\rm AP}(z) \ge F_{\rm AP}^\Lambda(z)$; $D_H(z)/D_H^\Lambda(z) \le D_M(z)/D_M^\Lambda(z)$; $D_H(0) \ge D_H^\Lambda(0)$; and $D_H(z)$ crosses the $\Lambda$CDM curve exactly once, from above at low $z$ to below at high $z$. The paper then shows that the region $D_M < D_M^\Lambda$, which several DESI DR2 BAO central values fall into, is excluded by these inequalities, and that the best-fit CPL dark energy model ($w_0 = -0.50$, $w_a = -1.47$) requires phantom-like behaviour to fit those points. It concludes that, under the stated assumptions, current acoustic-scale data favour $\Lambda$CDM over any NEC-consistent non-interacting dark energy model, and that apparent tension in the $(w_0,w_a)$ plane is a sign of NEC inconsistency rather than evidence for dynamical dark energy.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument assumes the comoving sound horizon and the distance to last scattering are the same in every model, so anything that changes early-universe physics — early dark energy, extra relativistic species, modified recombination, interacting dark energy, or a different curvature parameter — takes the conclusion outside the theorem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Hubble parameter today must satisfy $H_0 < H_0^\Lambda$ at fixed $\theta_*$, so NEC-consistent dark energy cannot resolve the distance-ladder Hubble tension; it can only make it worse.
  • Any future BAO point with $D_M/D_M^\Lambda < 1$, if robust, is either a NEC violation, a systematics error, or evidence for non-standard early-universe physics rather than evidence for ordinary quintessence.
  • The excluded region in the $(w_0,w_a)$ plane gives a direct test of whether a CPL fit to BAO data is physically interpretable; contours centred below the $w_a \approx -4(1+w_0)$ line are NEC-inconsistent.
  • Uncalibrated supernova distance ratios inherit the monotonicity of $D_M/D_M^\Lambda$, so a measured ratio increase at low $z$ consistent with thawing-like behaviour is allowed by the NEC but still worsens the absolute-distance tension.
  • The inequalities apply to $F_{\rm AP}$ and $D_V$ as well, so a measured Alcock-Paczynski parameter below the $\Lambda$CDM value at any $z$ would be forbidden under the same assumptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If future data robustly occupy the excluded region, the most economical ways out are early dark energy, extra radiation, or interacting dark energy — models that change the sound horizon $r_*$ — rather than a simple late-time quintessence field.
  • The one-sided inequalities suggest a simple model-independent statistic for acoustic data: the count of independent BAO redshift bins with $D_M$ more than $1\sigma$ below the $\Lambda$CDM prediction, which should be near zero under the NEC.
  • The same $\theta_*$-anchored reasoning could be applied to high-redshift distance measurements from other standard rulers, such as gravitational-wave standard sirens, to test whether the excluded region is populated.
  • Because the CPL best-fit lies in the NEC-violating region, CPL contours from BAO data are not a reliable guide to physical dark energy behaviour until the NEC is imposed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper derives one-sided inequalities for BAO observables relative to Lambda-CDM under the assumptions of flat FRW, non-interacting dark energy satisfying the null energy condition (NEC), fixed theta_* and fixed non-dark-energy parameters (Omega_m h^2, Omega_b h^2, neutrino masses, curvature), and negligible dark energy at recombination. Starting from the Friedmann equation and d rho_de/dz >= 0, the authors prove Eq. (2.6) and then a chain of results: DH(0) > D^Lambda_H(0), a single crossing of DH/D^Lambda_H, DM(z) >= D^Lambda_M(z) for all z, DH/D^Lambda_H <= DM/D^Lambda_M, F_AP >= F^Lambda_AP, and corresponding bounds on DV. The inequalities are applied to the CPL parameterization, producing consistency lines in the (w0, wa) plane, and to DESI DR2 BAO data, where several central data points lie in the NEC-forbidden region. The paper concludes that acoustic-scale data favour Lambda-CDM over NEC-consistent alternatives unless the NEC is violated, conditional on standard early-universe physics.

Significance. The central theoretical contribution is valuable and clean: it converts the NEC into directly testable, model-independent one-sided constraints on distance observables, with no fitted constants entering the inequalities. The crossing argument, the l'Hopital limit at z=0, and the derived DM, F_AP, and DV bounds are internally consistent and clearly presented. The application to DESI DR2 is transparent, and the authors are explicit that the results depend on dark energy being negligible at recombination and on non-interacting dark energy; they also list early-universe modifications, interacting dark energy, and modified gravity as possible escape routes. The CPL consistency lines provide a practical diagnostic for interpreting apparent deviations from Lambda-CDM. The paper is a useful addition to the literature even though some of its broad conclusions overlap with earlier work.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Sec. V] The abstract's final phrase '... unless the null-energy condition is violated' should be qualified by 'assuming standard early-universe physics and non-interacting dark energy, as assumed in Sec. II.' The paper itself notes in Sec. III and the Conclusions that changes around recombination (e.g., early dark energy or modified recombination) could also move the data out of the forbidden region without any NEC violation; carrying that qualifier into the abstract would prevent the advertised conclusion from being read as stronger than the theorem.
  2. [Sec. II.D, Eq. (2.22)] The displayed equality is a typo: d(DM^3)/d(D^Lambda_M^3) equals (DV/D^Lambda_V)^3, not DV/D^Lambda_V. The correct relation is DV/D^Lambda_V = [d(DM^3)/d(D^Lambda_M^3)]^{1/3}. The subsequent crossing argument is unaffected once the exponent is corrected, but the equation should be fixed.
  3. [Sec. IV / Fig. 3] The data-interpretation claim that acoustic data 'favour Lambda-CDM' is qualitative. A quantitative statement, such as the posterior probability mass in the NEC-forbidden region from the chains used for Fig. 4 or an effective significance for the preference, would make the conclusion more precise and easier to compare with future analyses.
  4. [Sec. III / Fig. 2] The approximate consistency line wa = -4(1+w0) is presented without derivation. A brief derivation or a comment on its domain of validity would help readers apply the CPL consistency criterion to other fixed values of theta_* and matter densities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NEC inequalities are derived from Friedmann plus NEC with fixed theta*, and the DESI conclusion is conditional on the stated standard-early-physics assumption.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The one-sided inequalities in Table I follow analytically from the Friedmann equation (2.4), the null-energy-condition differential constraint (2.5)-(2.6), and the integral constraint (2.3) that fixes D_M(z*) from fixed theta* and fixed non-dark-energy parameters. No fitted constants enter the inequalities; the reference LambdaCDM model is defined by the same theta* and non-dark-energy parameters, so the comparison is not a fit to the data being interpreted. The CPL consistency lines in Sec. III are forward model mappings at fixed theta*, not fits. The DESI application uses Planck early-LambdaCDM Gaussian constraints from Ref. [2] (Lemos & Lewis, co-authored by the first author), but this is a published, Planck-data-based external anchor and is not load-bearing for the analytic results; under the review rules, such a citation is independent support and does not raise the circularity score. The paper explicitly states the conditional assumption that dark energy is negligible at recombination (Sec. II), so the DESI conclusion is a conditional statement rather than a circular reduction. No equation reduces to its own inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The Table I inequalities require only standard FRW fluid dynamics, the null energy condition, fixed theta*, and standard pre-recombination physics. The DESI interpretation adds fitted CPL parameters and a minimal neutrino mass assumption, all stated explicitly. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • w0 = -0.50 (best-fit CPL from DESI BAO + Early Planck, Sec. IV); prior U[-3,0] from Table II
    CPL equation-of-state parameter today; fitted to DESI+CMB+SN data for the interpretation section, but not needed to derive the inequalities.
  • wa = -1.47 (best-fit CPL from DESI BAO + Early Planck, Sec. IV); prior U[-3,2] from Table II
    CPL equation-of-state evolution parameter; fitted to data for the interpretation section, but not needed to derive the inequalities.
  • m_nu = 0.06 eV (assumed)
    Approximation of the minimal neutrino mass hierarchy in the Planck early-Lambda-CDM likelihood; enters the DESI interpretation but is not part of the analytic derivation.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Flat FRW geometry with a non-interacting dark energy component
    Sec. II opening defines the framework and excludes interactions, modified gravity, and beyond-FRW geometry.
  • domain assumption Null energy condition for dark energy: p_de >= -rho_de, so rho_de(z) is nondecreasing with z
    Sec. II, Eq. (2.5); the central physical premise behind all the inequalities.
  • domain assumption Dark energy is negligible at recombination and baryon decoupling
    Sec. II: 'We assume that dark energy is negligible at high redshift...' fixes r_drag and r* in all models compared.
  • domain assumption CMB fixes theta* and non-dark-energy densities independently of late-time cosmology
    Sec. II and Ref. [2]; supplies the integral constraint Eq. (2.3).
  • domain assumption Positive dark energy density today
    Footnote after Eq. (2.6); makes NEC equivalent to the weak energy condition for the dark energy fluid.
  • domain assumption Curvature, if present, is held fixed as part of the non-dark-energy parameters
    Footnote 1 in Sec. II; allows the inequalities to extend to non-flat models with fixed K.
  • domain assumption CPL parameterization w(a) = w0 + wa(1 - a) as a proxy for dark energy models
    Sec. III and Eq. (1.1); used to map allowed regions of parameter space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Understanding acoustic scale observations: the one-sided fight against $\Lambda$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TGFOBBMA

@misc{pith2026241213894,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Understanding acoustic scale observations: the one-sided fight against $\Lambda$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TGFOBBMA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13894}
}
abstract

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) and baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) provide precise measurements of the cosmic expansion history through the comoving acoustic scale. The CMB angular scale measurement $\theta_*$ is particularly robust, constraining the ratio of the sound horizon to the angular diameter distance to last scattering independently of the late-time cosmological model. For models with standard early-universe physics, this measurement strongly constrains possible deviations from $\Lambda$CDM at late times. We show that the null energy condition imposes strict inequalities on the BAO observables $D_H(z)$, $D_M(z)$, $D_V(z)$ and $F_{\rm AP}(z)$ relative to $\Lambda$CDM predictions. These inequalities demonstrate that certain deviations from $\Lambda$CDM are impossible for any physical non-interacting dark energy model that respects the null energy condition within the context of FRW cosmological models. We also identify the regions of parameter space in the CPL parameterization $w(a) = w_0 + w_a(1-a)$ that can give predictions consistent with both the null energy condition and the observed CMB scale. While current DESI DR2 BAO measurements exhibit some joint-constraint parameter tensions with $\Lambda$CDM, this tension arises primarily in directions that are inconsistent with the null-energy condition, so $\Lambda$CDM is favoured by current acoustic scale measurements unless the null-energy condition is violated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13894 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Null-energy condition exclusion regions from Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Regions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The null-energy exclusion regions assuming [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Posterior distributions of ratios of the DESI observables in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the joint CPL constraints in the w0–wa plane. The joint constraints with uncalibrated supernovae are separately adding the same data constraints from Pantheon Plus [39], Union 3 [23] and DES Y5 [22] as in the DESI pa￾pers. With the addition of the supernova const…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Posterior distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Defocusing dark energy: Raychaudhuri diagnostics beyond $w<-1/3$ and the phantom divide

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    For sign-changing effective dark energy, smooth negative-to-positive density crossings make ρ+3p and ρ+p the correct diagnostics, give w=p/ρ a universal pole n(1+z†)/3, and force repulsion onset z_rep>z† while ρ<0.

  2. Robustness of dark energy phenomenology across different parameterizations

    astro-ph.CO 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The viability of minimally and non-minimally coupled quintessence models is robust across CPL, JBP, BA, and EXP parameterizations, with all four reproducing the models' predicted observables accurately.

  3. An overview of what current data can (and cannot yet) say about evolving dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The apparent preference for evolving dark energy depends strongly on which supernova catalog and which BAO survey are used, and is not robust across all independent data combinations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    (2.3) combined with the Friedmann equation implies: Z z∗ 0 dzp ρm(z) + ρde(z) = Z z∗ 0 dzp ρm(z) + ρΛ

    Hubble parameter today Since the comoving distance to the last scattering surface DM (z∗) is fixed (due to the fixedθ∗) in both models, Eq. (2.3) combined with the Friedmann equation implies: Z z∗ 0 dzp ρm(z) + ρde(z) = Z z∗ 0 dzp ρm(z) + ρΛ . (2.7) The null energy condition requires that the dark energy den- sity increases with redshift, which implies th...

    work page

  2. [2]

    2.3) implies that DH (z) and DΛ H (z) must cross at some redshift zc: DH (zc) = DΛ H (zc) for some 0 < zc < z∗

    Intersection point The integral constraint that DM (z∗) = DΛ M (z∗) (Eq. 2.3) implies that DH (z) and DΛ H (z) must cross at some redshift zc: DH (zc) = DΛ H (zc) for some 0 < zc < z∗. (2.9) Physically, this crossing point corresponds to the redshift where the dark energy densities in both models are equal, ρde(zc) = ρΛ. The null energy condition then imp...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (2.12) At low redshift before the crossing point, z < zc, we have DH (z) > DΛ H (z), which implies that DM (z) = Z z 0 DH (z′) dz′ > Z z 0 DΛ H (z′) dz′ = DΛ M (z)

    DM (z) ≥ DΛ M (z) Near zero redshift, DM approaches zero, but by l’Hˆopital’s rule for the ratio we have DM (0) DΛ M (0) → DH (0) DΛ H (0) > 1. (2.12) At low redshift before the crossing point, z < zc, we have DH (z) > DΛ H (z), which implies that DM (z) = Z z 0 DH (z′) dz′ > Z z 0 DΛ H (z′) dz′ = DΛ M (z). (2.13) Therefore, at z < zc, we have DM /DΛ M ≥ ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (2.11) that DH /DΛ H ≤ 1

    DH DΛ H ≤ DM DΛ M For high redshifts, where z ≥ zc, we know from Eq. (2.11) that DH /DΛ H ≤ 1. Hence, since DM > DΛ M , the inequality in the subtitle is immediately satisfied. For lower redshifts where z ≤ zc, define the ratio R(z) ≡ DH DΛ H . (2.16) The comoving distances are given by DM (z) = Z z 0 DH (z′) dz′, D Λ M (z) = Z z 0 DΛ H (z′) dz′. (2.17) W...

    work page

  5. [5]

    (2.21) Hence, DM (z)/DΛ M (z) decreases monotonically towards one at high redshift

    Monotonic decrease of DM (z)/DΛ M (z) This result also implies that the ratio DM (z)/DΛ M (z) is a decreasing function of z at all times: d dz DM DΛ M = DH DΛ M − DM (DΛ M )2 DΛ H < 0. (2.21) Hence, DM (z)/DΛ M (z) decreases monotonically towards one at high redshift. C. Properties of FAP ≡ DM DH Since DH DΛ H ≤ DM DΛ M , it follows immediately that FAP ≥...

    work page

  6. [6]

    However, we know DM (0) = DΛ M (0) = 0 and that at high redshift DM (z∗)3 = DΛ M (z∗)3, so we infer that the derivative must cross below one at some point if it starts above one

    , (2.22) this cubic derivative starts larger than one at z = 0. However, we know DM (0) = DΛ M (0) = 0 and that at high redshift DM (z∗)3 = DΛ M (z∗)3, so we infer that the derivative must cross below one at some point if it starts above one. Hence, DV /DΛ V must cross below one at some point at z > zc. While DV /DΛ V is not always larger than one, it typ...

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmo- logical parameters, A&A 641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Lemos and A

    P. Lemos and A. Lewis, CMB constraints on the early Universe independent of late-time cosmology, Phys. Rev. D107, 103505 (2023), arXiv:2302.12911 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), DESI 2024 VI: cosmological con- straints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, JCAP 02, 021, arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), DESI DR2 Results II: Measure- ments of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Con- straints, (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Calderon et al

    R. Calderon et al. (DESI), DESI 2024: reconstructing dark en- ergy using crossing statistics with DESI DR1 BAO data, JCAP 10, 048, arXiv:2405.04216 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodha et al. (DESI), DESI 2024: Constraints on physics- focused aspects of dark energy using DESI DR1 BAO data, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023532 (2025), arXiv:2405.13588 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cort ˆes and A

    M. Cort ˆes and A. R. Liddle, Interpreting DESI’s evidence for evolving dark energy, JCAP 12, 007, arXiv:2404.08056 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    E. V . Linder, Interpreting Dark Energy Data Away from Λ, (2024), arXiv:2410.10981 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Fikri, E

    R. Fikri, E. ElKhateeb, E. S. Lashin, and W. El Hanafy, A pref- erence for dynamical phantom dark energy using one-parameter model with Planck, DESI DR1 BAO and SN data, (2024), arXiv:2411.19362 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodha et al. (DESI), Extended Dark Energy analysis us- ing DESI DR2 BAO measurements, (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A. A. Sen and R. J. Scherrer, The Weak Energy Condition and the Expansion History of the Universe, Phys. Lett. B 659, 457 (2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0703416

    2008 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    2001 arXiv

  11. [19]

    E. V . Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208512

    2003 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Shlivko and P

    D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, Assessing observational con- straints on dark energy, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138826 (2024), arXiv:2405.03933 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

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

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Payeur, E

    G. Payeur, E. McDonough, and R. Brandenberger, Do Observations Prefer Thawing Quintessence?, (2024), arXiv:2411.13637 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A. G. Riess, L. Breuval, W. Yuan, S. Casertano, L. M. Macri, J. B. Bowers, D. Scolnic, T. Cantat-Gaudin, R. I. Ander- son, and M. C. Reyes, Cluster Cepheids with High Precision Gaia Parallaxes, Low Zero-point Uncertainties, and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry, Astrophys. J. ...

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, I. S. Jang, T. J. Hoyt, A. J. Lee, and K. A. Owens, Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hub- ble Program (CCHP): Three Independent Astrophysical Deter- minations of the Hubble Constant Using the James Webb Space Telescope, (2024), arXiv:2408.061...

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A. G. Riess et al. , JWST Validates HST Distance Measure- ments: Selection of Supernova Subsample Explains Differences in JWST Estimates of Local H0, Astrophys. J. 977, 120 (2024), arXiv:2408.11770 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Y . S. Murakami, A. G. Riess, B. E. Stahl, W. D. Kenworthy, D.-M. A. Pluck, A. Macoretta, D. Brout, D. O. Jones, D. M. Scolnic, and A. V . Filippenko, Leveraging SN Ia spectroscopic similarity to improve the measurement of H 0, JCAP 11, 046, arXiv:2306.00070 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Breuval, A

    L. Breuval, A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, M. Romaniello, Y . S. Murakami, D. Scolnic, G. S. Anand, and I. Soszy ´nski, Small Magellanic Cloud Cepheids Observed with the Hubble Space Telescope Provide a New Anchor for the SH0ES Distance Ladder, Astrophys. J. ...

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), The Dark Energy Survey: Cos- mology Results with ∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Super- novae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set, Astrophys. J. Lett.973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rubin et al

    D. Rubin et al. , Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework, (2023), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    de Putter and E

    R. de Putter and E. V . Linder, Calibrating Dark Energy, JCAP 10, 042, arXiv:0808.0189 [astro-ph]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    W. J. Wolf and P. G. Ferreira, Underdetermination of dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103519 (2023), arXiv:2310.07482 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravita- tional lensing, A&A 641, A8 (2020), arXiv:1807.06210 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Con- straints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measure- ments, (2024), arXiv:2411.12022 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Akrami et al

    Y . Akrami et al. (Planck), P lanckintermediate results. LVII. Joint Planck LFI and HFI data processing, A&A 643, A42 (2020), arXiv:2007.04997 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton, and G. Efstathiou, CMB power spectra and cosmological parameters from Planck PR4 with CamSpec, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517, 4620 (2022), arXiv:2205.10869 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Anal- ysis of hierarchical physical models, JCAP 05, 057 (2021), arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models, Astrophys. J.538, 473 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911177 [astro-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Lewis, GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples, (2019), https://getdist.readthedocs.io, arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Lewis, GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples, (2019), https://getdist.readthedocs.io, arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H ¨utsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar, and H. Veerm¨ae, Interpreting DESI 2024 BAO: Late- time dynamical dark energy or a local effect?, Phys. Rev. D111, 043540 (2025), arXiv:2406.07533 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Efstathiou, Evolving dark energy or supernovae system- atics?, MNRAS 538, 875 (2025), arXiv:2408.07175 [astro- ph.CO]

    G. Efstathiou, Evolving dark energy or supernovae system- atics?, MNRAS 538, 875 (2025), arXiv:2408.07175 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Dhawan, B

    S. Dhawan, B. Popovic, and A. Goobar, The axis of system- atic bias in SN Ia cosmology and implications for DESI 2024 results, (2024), arXiv:2409.18668 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Notari, M

    A. Notari, M. Redi, and A. Tesi, BAO vs. SN evidence for evolving dark energy, (2024), arXiv:2411.11685 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Vincenzi et al

    M. Vincenzi et al. (DES), Comparing the DES-SN5YR and 12 Pantheon+ SN cosmology analyses: Investigation based on ”Evolving Dark Energy or Supernovae systematics?”, (2025), arXiv:2501.06664 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Huang, R.-G

    L. Huang, R.-G. Cai, and S.-J. Wang, The DESI 2024 hint for dynamical dark energy is biased by low-redshift supernovae, (2025), arXiv:2502.04212 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Brout et al

    D. Brout et al. , The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Con- straints, Astrophys. J. 938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kaplinghat and S

    M. Kaplinghat and S. Bridle, Testing for a superaccelera- tion phase of the universe, Phys. Rev. D 71, 123003 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0312430

    2005 arXiv

  39. [47]

    A. J. Shajib and J. A. Frieman, Evolving dark energy mod- els: Current and forecast constraints (2025), arXiv:2502.06929 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.