pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22362 · v1 · pith:TRTDHELLnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc· hep-th

Constraining Spatial Curvature with Priors from Swampland Conjectures

Simran Arora , Hun Jang , Shinji Mukohyama This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 04:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th
keywords priorscurvaturelambdapriorswamplandvaluesanalysisconjecture
0
0 comments X

The pith

Swampland-motivated priors on the slope and field range of an exponential quintessence potential in a curved universe produce a mild shift in the best-fit value of spatial curvature Ω_k from Planck, DESI BAO, and supernova observations.

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

Dark energy can be modeled as a scalar field slowly rolling down an exponential potential. String theory ideas known as swampland conjectures suggest this potential cannot be too flat and the field cannot travel too far. The authors include the possibility of a slightly curved universe and simulate its expansion history. They then use the string theory limits as starting assumptions, called priors, when analyzing real data from the cosmic microwave background, galaxy surveys, and type Ia supernovae. Compared with neutral wide priors, these theory-based assumptions produce a small change in the estimated spatial curvature of the universe.

Core claim

Our analysis indicates that the swampland-motivated prior mildly shifts the values of Ω_k.

Load-bearing premise

The de Sitter swampland conjecture can be directly translated into a prior on λ that excludes the curved ΛCDM limit, and the distance conjecture correctly restricts field excursion, with no additional model-dependent uncertainties affecting the parameter inference.

read the original abstract

We study a string-motivated theoretical prior on the quintessential dark energy model with exponential potential, \( V(\phi) = V_0 e^{-\lambda \phi} \), allowing for non-zero spatial curvature. First, we formulate the corresponding dynamical system and investigate its cosmological evolution numerically, illustrating the phase-space behaviour and the influence of curvature on the background dynamics. In open universes (\( \Omega_k > 0 \)), it has been suggested that a curvature-related fixed point may support accelerated expansion even for relatively steep potentials compatible with swampland considerations. Next, we explicitly impose swampland-motivated priors on the slope parameter $\lambda$, restricting it to values consistent with the de Sitter conjecture that excludes the (curved) $\Lambda$CDM limit. Furthermore, we restrict our considerations to the range of field excursion that is consistent with the swampland distance conjecture. Our primary interest is the possibility that such theoretically-motivated priors may shift values of cosmological parameters inferred by observational data, compared with the standard analysis based on theory-agnostic priors such as a sufficiently wide flat prior. We examine this possibility using a combination of Planck CMB data, DESI BAO measurements, and recent Type Ia supernova samples, performing a Bayesian inference of the model parameters. Our analysis indicates that the swampland-motivated prior mildly shifts the values of $\Omega_k$.

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 manuscript studies a quintessence model with exponential potential V(φ)=V0 exp(−λφ) in the presence of spatial curvature. It formulates the corresponding dynamical system, performs numerical evolution to illustrate phase-space behavior and the role of curvature fixed points in supporting acceleration, imposes swampland-motivated priors on λ (lower bound from the de Sitter conjecture excluding the λ→0 limit and upper bound on field excursion from the distance conjecture), and performs Bayesian inference on Planck CMB + DESI BAO + Type Ia supernova data. The central result is that these priors produce a mild shift in the posterior for Ωk relative to a wide flat prior.

Significance. If the mapping from swampland conjectures to the λ prior is robust and free of unaccounted model dependence introduced by curvature, the work provides a concrete example of how string-theory-motivated theoretical constraints can be folded into cosmological parameter estimation and potentially influence inferences about spatial curvature. The dynamical-system analysis and use of current data sets are positive features, but the reported mildness of the shift limits the immediate observational impact.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 and §4.1] §3 (phase-space analysis) and §4.1 (prior construction): the de Sitter conjecture is mapped to a hard lower cutoff on λ that explicitly excludes the λ→0 (curved ΛCDM) limit, yet the text notes that a curvature-related fixed point can support accelerated expansion even for relatively steep potentials. It is not shown whether this fixed point remains accessible under the adopted λ cutoff or whether the cutoff introduces an artificial tension that drives the reported Ωk shift.
  2. [§4.2 and results] §4.2 and results section: the claim that the swampland prior produces a data-driven mild shift in Ωk requires that the prior itself does not already force the shift by construction. No explicit comparison of the full posterior chains (or at least the marginal Ωk posteriors) with and without the λ cutoff is provided, making it impossible to separate prior volume effects from genuine data constraints.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the curvature density parameter is occasionally written as Ωk and occasionally as Ω_K; consistent use throughout would improve readability.
  2. The numerical evolution plots in the phase-space figures would benefit from explicit annotation of the curvature fixed point and the location of the swampland cutoff in λ.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive report. We address the two major comments point by point below. We agree that additional material will strengthen the manuscript and will incorporate revisions accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 and §4.1] §3 (phase-space analysis) and §4.1 (prior construction): the de Sitter conjecture is mapped to a hard lower cutoff on λ that explicitly excludes the λ→0 (curved ΛCDM) limit, yet the text notes that a curvature-related fixed point can support accelerated expansion even for relatively steep potentials compatible with swampland considerations. It is not shown whether this fixed point remains accessible under the adopted λ cutoff or whether the cutoff introduces an artificial tension that drives the reported Ωk shift.

    Authors: The de Sitter conjecture supplies a lower bound λ ≳ O(1), which excludes the λ → 0 limit while retaining the steeper potentials for which the curvature fixed point in open universes is known to permit acceleration. Because the fixed point is precisely relevant for the larger-λ regime allowed by the prior, it remains accessible; the prior does not remove the dynamical channel that supports acceleration. The reported mild shift in Ωk occurs because the prior removes the near-flat potentials that would otherwise permit Ωk closer to zero while still fitting the data. We will add a short discussion and an illustrative phase-space trajectory for λ values inside the adopted prior range to make this accessibility explicit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2 and results] §4.2 and results section: the claim that the swampland prior produces a data-driven mild shift in Ωk requires that the prior itself does not already force the shift by construction. No explicit comparison of the full posterior chains (or at least the marginal Ωk posteriors) with and without the λ cutoff is provided, making it impossible to separate prior volume effects from genuine data constraints.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit side-by-side comparison of the Ωk marginal posteriors (and ideally the full chains) obtained with the swampland-motivated prior versus a broad flat prior on λ is the clearest way to separate prior-volume effects from data-driven shifts. In the revised manuscript we will include these marginal posteriors together with a brief quantitative discussion of the difference. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external conjectures and data.

full rationale

The paper's chain begins with an independent formulation of the dynamical system for the exponential quintessence model including curvature, followed by numerical phase-space analysis. It then adopts swampland conjectures (de Sitter and distance) as external theoretical priors on λ and field range, explicitly chosen to exclude the λ→0 limit. These priors are imposed before performing Bayesian inference on Planck CMB, DESI BAO, and supernova data. The reported mild shift in Ω_k is a direct, non-circular consequence of the prior choice combined with the likelihood; no step reduces by construction to a fitted input, self-citation, or renamed ansatz. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the direct applicability of two swampland conjectures as priors and on the numerical stability of the curvature-related fixed point; these are external domain assumptions rather than quantities derived inside the paper.

free parameters (1)
  • λ prior bounds
    The slope parameter λ is restricted to a range consistent with the de Sitter conjecture; the precise numerical bounds chosen constitute a modeling choice that affects the posterior on Ω_k.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption de Sitter swampland conjecture: |∇V|/V ≥ c with c of order unity, excluding flat potentials such as the curved ΛCDM limit
    Invoked to set the prior on λ and to exclude the standard cosmological constant case.
  • domain assumption swampland distance conjecture: field excursion Δφ remains O(1)
    Used to further restrict the allowed range of the scalar field in the model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5783 in / 1440 out tokens · 52003 ms · 2026-05-22T04:10:16.933348+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess. Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe.Nature Astron., 3: 891, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0 2019

  2. [2]

    Mota, Adam G

    Eleonora Di Valentino, Olga Mena, Supriya Pan, Luca Visinelli, Weiqiang Yang, Alessandro Melchiorri, David F. Mota, Adam G. Riess, and Joseph Silk. In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions.Class. Quant. Grav., 38(15):153001, 2021. doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d 2021

  3. [3]

    2022, NewAR, 95, 101659, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659

    Leandros Perivolaropoulos and Foteini Skara. Challenges forΛCDM: An update.New Astron. Rev., 95: 101659, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659 2022

  4. [4]

    Cosmology Intertwined: A Review of the Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology Associated with the Cosmological Tensions and Anomalies

    Elcio Abdalla et al. Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies.JHEAp, 34:49–211, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 2022

  5. [5]

    A Step in understanding the Hubble tension.Phys

    Daniel Aloni, Asher Berlin, Melissa Joseph, Martin Schmaltz, and Neal Weiner. A Step in understanding the Hubble tension.Phys. Rev. D, 105(12):123516, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.123516

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.123516 2022

  6. [6]

    Smith, and Tanvi Karwal

    Vivian Poulin, Tristan L. Smith, and Tanvi Karwal. The Ups and Downs of Early Dark Energy solutions to the Hubble tension: A review of models, hints and constraints circa 2023.Phys. Dark Univ., 42:101348,

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2023.101348

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101348 2023

  8. [8]

    Seven Hints That Early-Time New Physics Alone Is Not Sufficient to Solve the Hubble Tension.Universe, 9(9):393, 2023

    Sunny Vagnozzi. Seven Hints That Early-Time New Physics Alone Is Not Sufficient to Solve the Hubble Tension.Universe, 9(9):393, 2023. doi: 10.3390/universe9090393

    work page doi:10.3390/universe9090393 2023

  9. [9]

    Marc Kamionkowski and Adam G. Riess. The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy.Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 73:153–180, 2023. doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-111422-024107

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-111422-024107 2023

  10. [10]

    G., et al., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b , 934, L7

    Adam G. Riess, Wenlong Yuan, Lucas M. Macri, Dillon Brout, Dan Scolnic, Stefano Casertano, et al. A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team.Astrophys. J. Lett., 934:L7, 2022. doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b 2022

  11. [11]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters.Astron. Astrophys., 641:A6, 2020. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. [Erratum: Astron. Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2018

  12. [14]

    L. F. Secco, S. Samuroff, E. Krause, B. Jain, J. Blazek, M. Raveri, et al. Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Cosmology from Cosmic Shear and Robustness to Modeling Uncertainty.Phys. Rev. D, 105(2):023515,

    work page

  13. [15]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023515

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023515

  14. [16]

    KiDS-1000 Cosmology: Cosmic shear constraints and comparison between two point statistics.Astron

    Marika Asgari, Chieh-An Lin, Benjamin Joachimi, Benjamin Giblin, Catherine Heymans, Hendrik Hildebrandt, et al. KiDS-1000 Cosmology: Cosmic shear constraints and comparison between two point statistics.Astron. Astrophys., 645:A104, 2021. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039070

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039070 2021

  15. [17]

    A. G. Adame et al. DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations.JCAP, 02:021, 2025. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 2024

  16. [18]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints.Phys. Rev. D, 112(8):083515, 2025. doi: 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

    work page doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 2025

  17. [19]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski. Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter.Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 10: 213–224, 2001. doi: 10.1142/S0218271801000822

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271801000822 2001

  18. [20]

    Eric V . Linder. Exploring the expansion history of the universe.Phys. Rev. Lett., 90:091301, 2003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301. – 20 –

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.091301 2003

  19. [21]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. Dark Energy Survey: Implications for cosmological expansion models from the final DES baryon acoustic oscillation and supernova data.Phys. Rev. D, 113(6):063530, 2026. doi: 10.1103/z2q4-qcdq

    work page doi:10.1103/z2q4-qcdq 2026

  20. [22]

    Probing the dynamics of Gaussian dark energy equation of state using DESI BAO.Mon

    Saddam Hussain, Simran Arora, Anzhong Wang, and Benjamin Rose. Probing the dynamics of Gaussian dark energy equation of state using DESI BAO.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 545(2):staf1924, 2025. doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1924

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1924 2025

  21. [23]

    Firouzjaee

    William Giar `e, Mahdi Najafi, Supriya Pan, Eleonora Di Valentino, and Javad T. Firouzjaee. Robust preference for Dynamical Dark Energy in DESI BAO and SN measurements.JCAP, 10:035, 2024. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/035

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/035 2024

  22. [24]

    Dynamical dark energy parametrizations in VCDM.Phys

    Simran Arora, Antonio De Felice, and Shinji Mukohyama. Dynamical dark energy parametrizations in VCDM.Phys. Rev. D, 112(12):123518, 2025. doi: 10.1103/l5bx-snl3

    work page doi:10.1103/l5bx-snl3 2025

  23. [25]

    Aleksandr Chatrchyan, Florian Niedermann, Vivian Poulin, and Martin S. Sloth. Confronting cold new early dark energy and its equation of state with updated CMB, supernovae, and BAO data.Phys. Rev. D, 111(4):043536, 2025. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.043536

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.043536 2025

  24. [26]

    Dynamical dark energy implies a coupled dark sector: Insights from DESI DR2 via a data-driven approach.Phys

    Changyu You, Dan Wang, and Tao Yang. Dynamical dark energy implies a coupled dark sector: Insights from DESI DR2 via a data-driven approach.Phys. Rev. D, 112(4):043503, 2025. doi: 10.1103/f6v7-n9fr

    work page doi:10.1103/f6v7-n9fr 2025

  25. [27]

    Sabogal, Rafael C

    Mateus Scherer, Miguel A. Sabogal, Rafael C. Nunes, and Antonio De Felice. Challenging theΛCDM model: 5σevidence for a dynamical dark energy late-time transition.Phys. Rev. D, 112(4):043513, 2025. doi: 10.1103/n86r-sjgm

    work page doi:10.1103/n86r-sjgm 2025

  26. [28]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a

    Dan Scolnic, Dillon Brout, Anthony Carr, Adam G. Riess, Tamara M. Davis, Arianna Dwomoh, David O. Jones, Noor Ali, Pranav Charvu, Rebecca Chen, et al. The pantheon+ analysis: The full dataset and light-curve release.The Astrophysical Journal, 938(2):113, 2022. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a 2022

  27. [29]

    2022, title The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints , , 938, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    Dillon Brout, Dan Scolnic, Brodie Popovic, Adam G. Riess, Joe Zuntz, Rick Kessler, Anthony Carr, Tamara M. Davis, Samuel Hinton, David O. Jones, et al. The pantheon+ analysis: Cosmological constraints.The Astrophysical Journal, 938(2):110, 2022. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 2022

  28. [31]

    Marina Cort ˆes and Andrew R. Liddle. Interpreting DESI’s evidence for evolving dark energy.JCAP, 12: 007, 2024. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/007

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/007 2024

  29. [32]

    Efstathiou

    G. Efstathiou. Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 538(2):875, 2025

    work page 2025

  30. [34]

    Escamilla, William Giar `e, Eleonora Di Valentino, Rafael C

    Luis A. Escamilla, William Giar `e, Eleonora Di Valentino, Rafael C. Nunes, and Sunny Vagnozzi. The state of the dark energy equation of state circa 2023.JCAP, 05:091, 2024. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/091

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/091 2023

  31. [35]

    Measuring cosmic curvature with non-CMB observations.Phys

    Peng-Ju Wu and Xin Zhang. Measuring cosmic curvature with non-CMB observations.Phys. Rev. D, 112 (6):063514, 2025. doi: 10.1103/sn3q-q589

    work page doi:10.1103/sn3q-q589 2025

  32. [36]

    K. Lehnert. Hitchhiker’s guide to the swampland: The cosmologist’s handbook to the string-theoretical swampland programme. 2025

    work page 2025

  33. [37]

    N. B. Agmon, A. Bedroya, M. J. Kang, and C. Vafa. Lectures on the string landscape and the swampland. 2022

    work page 2022

  34. [38]

    Obied, H

    G. Obied, H. Ooguri, L. Spodyneiko, and C. Vafa. De sitter space and the swampland. 2018. – 21 –

    work page 2018

  35. [39]

    Hyperbolic field space and swampland conjecture for DBI scalar.JCAP, 09:072, 2019

    Shuntaro Mizuno, Shinji Mukohyama, Shi Pi, and Yun-Long Zhang. Hyperbolic field space and swampland conjecture for DBI scalar.JCAP, 09:072, 2019. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/09/072

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/09/072 2019

  36. [40]

    de Sitter swampland conjecture and the Higgs potential.Phys

    Frederik Denef, Arthur Hebecker, and Timm Wrase. de Sitter swampland conjecture and the Higgs potential.Phys. Rev. D, 98(8):086004, 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.086004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.086004 2018

  37. [41]

    Yanagida

    Hitoshi Murayama, Masahito Yamazaki, and Tsutomu T. Yanagida. Do We Live in the Swampland? JHEP, 12:032, 2018. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2018)032

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2018)032 2018

  38. [42]

    Andriot and C

    D. Andriot and C. Roupec. Further refining the de sitter swampland conjecture.Fortsch. Phys., 67(1-2): 1800105, 2019

    work page 2019

  39. [43]

    Sun and Y

    S. Sun and Y. L. Zhang. Notes on quantum corrections of swampland and trans-planckian censorship conjectures.Phys. Lett. B, 816:136245, 2021

    work page 2021

  40. [44]

    G. F. Casas and I. Ruiz. Cosmology of light towers and swampland constraints.JHEP, 12:193, 2024

    work page 2024

  41. [45]

    Laliberte and R

    S. Laliberte and R. Brandenberger. String gases and the swampland.JCAP, 07:046, 2020

    work page 2020

  42. [46]

    Supersymmetric hybrid inflation in light of CMB experiments and swampland conjectures.Chin

    Waqas Ahmed and Shabbar Raza. Supersymmetric hybrid inflation in light of CMB experiments and swampland conjectures.Chin. Phys. C, 49(1):013106, 2025. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad7c27

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ad7c27 2025

  43. [47]

    Universal Upper Bound on the Inflationary Energy Scale from the Trans-Planckian Censorship Conjecture.Phys

    Shuntaro Mizuno, Shinji Mukohyama, Shi Pi, and Yun-Long Zhang. Universal Upper Bound on the Inflationary Energy Scale from the Trans-Planckian Censorship Conjecture.Phys. Rev. D, 102(2):021301,

    work page

  44. [48]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.021301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.021301

  45. [49]

    Exponential quintessence: curved, steep and stringy?JHEP, 08:117, 2024

    David Andriot, Susha Parameswaran, Dimitrios Tsimpis, Timm Wrase, and Ivonne Zavala. Exponential quintessence: curved, steep and stringy?JHEP, 08:117, 2024. doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2024)117

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2024)117 2024

  46. [50]

    Dynamical Analysis of Scalar Field Cosmologies with Spatial Curvature

    Mateja Gosenca and Peter Coles. Dynamical Analysis of Scalar Field Cosmologies with Spatial Curvature.Open J. Astrophys., 1(1):1, 2016. doi: 10.21105/astro.1502.04020

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.21105/astro.1502.04020 2016

  47. [51]

    R. J. van den Hoogen, Alan A. Coley, and David Wands. Scaling solutions in Robertson-Walker space-times.Class. Quant. Grav., 16:1843–1851, 1999. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/16/6/317

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/16/6/317 1999

  48. [52]

    Accelerated expansion of an open universe and string theory realizations.Phys

    David Andriot, Dimitrios Tsimpis, and Timm Wrase. Accelerated expansion of an open universe and string theory realizations.Phys. Rev. D, 108(12):123515, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123515

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123515 2023

  49. [53]

    Is curvature-assisted quintessence observationally viable?Phys

    George Alestas, Matilda Delgado, Ignacio Ruiz, Yashar Akrami, Miguel Montero, and Savvas Nesseris. Is curvature-assisted quintessence observationally viable?Phys. Rev. D, 110(10):106010, 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.106010

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.106010 2024

  50. [54]

    Steinhardt, and Cumrun Vafa

    Prateek Agrawal, Georges Obied, Paul J. Steinhardt, and Cumrun Vafa. On the Cosmological Implications of the String Swampland.Phys. Lett. B, 784:271–276, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.07.040

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.07.040 2018

  51. [55]

    The Landscape, the Swampland and the Era of Precision Cosmology.Fortsch

    Yashar Akrami, Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, and Valeri Vardanyan. The Landscape, the Swampland and the Era of Precision Cosmology.Fortsch. Phys., 67(1-2):1800075, 2019. doi: 10.1002/prop.201800075

    work page doi:10.1002/prop.201800075 2019

  52. [56]

    Swampland Conjectures and Late-Time Cosmology.Phys

    Marco Raveri, Wayne Hu, and Savdeep Sethi. Swampland Conjectures and Late-Time Cosmology.Phys. Rev. D, 99(8):083518, 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083518

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.083518 2019

  53. [57]

    James M. Cline. Quintessence, cosmological horizons, and self-tuning.JHEP, 08:035, 2001. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2001/08/035

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2001/08/035 2001

  54. [58]

    On the geometry of the string landscape and the swampland.Nuclear Physics B, 766:21–33, 2007

    Hirosi Ooguri and Cumrun Vafa. On the geometry of the string landscape and the swampland.Nuclear Physics B, 766:21–33, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.10.033

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.10.033 2007

  55. [59]

    The swampland: Introduction and review.Fortschritte der Physik, 67(6):1900037, 2019

    Eran Palti. The swampland: Introduction and review.Fortschritte der Physik, 67(6):1900037, 2019. doi: 10.1002/prop.201900037

    work page doi:10.1002/prop.201900037 2019

  56. [60]

    Distance and de sitter conjectures on the swampland.Physics Letters B, 788:180–184, 2019

    Hirosi Ooguri, Eran Palti, Gary Shiu, and Cumrun Vafa. Distance and de sitter conjectures on the swampland.Physics Letters B, 788:180–184, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.11.018. – 22 –

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.11.018 2019

  57. [61]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. V . CMB power spectra and likelihoods.Astron. Astrophys., 641:A5,

    work page 2018

  58. [62]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936386

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936386

  59. [63]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodha et al. Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements.Phys. Rev. D, 112(8): 083511, 2025. doi: 10.1103/w4c6-1r5j

    work page doi:10.1103/w4c6-1r5j 2025

  60. [64]

    Andrade et al

    U. Andrade et al. Validation of the DESI DR2 Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from Galaxies and Quasars.Phys. Rev. D, 112(8):083512, 2025. doi: 10.1103/kdys-w8vl

    work page doi:10.1103/kdys-w8vl 2025

  61. [65]

    DES Collaboration, T. M. C. Abbott, et al. The dark energy survey: Cosmology results with ˜1500 new high-redshift type ia supernovae using the full 5-year dataset.Astrophys. J. Lett., 973(1):L14, 2024. doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f 2024

  62. [66]

    B. O. S ´anchez, D. Brout, M. Vincenzi, M. Sako, K. Herner, R. Kessler, et al. The dark energy survey supernova program: Light curves and 5 yr data release.Astrophys. J., 975(1):5, 2024. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad739a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad739a 2024

  63. [67]

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

    David Rubin et al. Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework.Astrophys. J., 986(2):231, 2025. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc0a5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc0a5 2025

  64. [68]

    GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples.JCAP, 08:025, 2025

    Antony Lewis. GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples.JCAP, 08:025, 2025. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/025

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/025 2025

  65. [69]

    H. Akaike. A new look at the statistical model identification.IEEE T rans. Automatic Control, 19(6):716–723,

    work page

  66. [70]

    doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 1974

  67. [71]

    Estimating the Dimension of a Model.Annals Statist., 6:461–464, 1978

    Gideon Schwarz. Estimating the Dimension of a Model.Annals Statist., 6:461–464, 1978. – 23 –

    work page 1978