Simple quintessence models in light of DESI-BAO observations

James M. Cline; Varun Muralidharan

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 8 cited by

Simple quintessence models in light of DESI-BAO observations

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DESI evidence for evolving dark energy hinges on supernova choice

desk verdict A solid, clarifying update on quintessence versus DESI DR2: the dataset-dependence claim holds up, with the thawing initial condition as a legitimate but not fatal caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13047 v1 pith:ZHYDQJMB submitted 2025-06-16 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

James M. Cline , Varun Muralidharan This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COhep-ph PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x

keywords quintessencedynamicaldarkenergyDESIBAOTypeIasupernovaeHubbletensionthawingscalarfieldequationofstateLambda-CDM

topics Dark Energy The Hubble Tension

open problems Dark Energy The Hubble Tension

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

The paper tests whether the DESI collaboration's evidence for dark energy that changes with time survives when the dark energy is described not by a flexible equation-of-state ansatz but by a simple scalar field rolling on a linear or quadratic potential. Fitting Planck, DESI BAO, DES, and one of three supernova catalogs, the authors find a strong preference for evolving dark energy with the DESY5 sample (improvement in $\chi^2$ of roughly $8$–$10$ over $\Lambda$CDM) but only an insignificant improvement of about $3$ in $\chi^2$ with Pantheon+ or Union3, which the Akaike Information Criterion does not reward given two extra parameters. The DESY5 preference comes at the cost of slightly worsening the Hubble tension. The paper concludes that the evidence for dynamical dark energy is not yet reliable because it depends so strongly on which supernova dataset is used, and it shows that common parametrizations of $w(a)$ such as CPL do not actually mimic these quintessence models.

What carries the argument

The central object is the thawing quintessence field: a scalar field held frozen by Hubble friction at early times, with its potential Taylor-expanded to at most quadratic order, $V(\varphi)=V_0+V_1\varphi+\tfrac12 V_2\varphi^2$, yielding three model classes (linear, hilltop, hill-bottom). The field equations are integrated forward from rest at initial scale factor $a_i=0.001$, with the initial field value tuned to give today's dark energy density; the resulting energy-density history is fed into the CAMB Boltzmann code through the parametrized post-Friedmann framework to include dark-energy perturbations. The evidence comparison is made with the Akaike Information Criterion, applied to the $\chi^2$ differences relative to $\Lambda$CDM across the three supernova catalogs.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a high-redshift measurement of the dark energy equation of state or expansion history that distinguishes $w=-1$ at $z\gtrsim1$ from the thawing prediction: if $w$ deviates from $-1$ at high redshift, the frozen initial condition is wrong. On the dataset side, an independent supernova sample sharing DESY5's characteristics but with different systematics that yields $\Delta\chi^2 > -4$ relative to $\Lambda$CDM for these potentials would confirm the dataset-dependence claim, while a reproduction of $\Delta\chi^2\simeq -10$ would support a robust signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the significance of DESI's dynamical dark energy signal is set by the choice of Type Ia supernova data. For the three thawing-quintessence potentials—linear, hilltop ($V_2<0$), and hill-bottom ($V_2>0$)—the best-fit gain over $\Lambda$CDM is $\Delta\chi^2 \simeq -2.7$ to $-3.6$ with Pantheon+ or Union3, which is not statistically significant for models with two extra parameters. With DESY5 the gain is $\Delta\chi^2 \simeq -8.1$ to $-10.0$, and $\Delta\mathrm{AIC}\simeq -4.1$ to $-6.0$, a substantial preference, but the inferred $H_0$ of about $67$ km/s/Mpc moderately exacerbates the Hubble tension relative to the local distance ladder. The paper therefore finds that claims of evolving dark energy depend on the supernova calibration, and that greater consistency across datasets is required before concluding that $w$ is evolving.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the quintessence field sat motionless in the early universe and began rolling only recently; if it had substantial initial velocity, the inferred potential parameters and the resulting equation of state would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the DESY5 calibration is correct, DESI BAO plus Planck and DES favor quintessence potentials whose $w(z)$ rises (less negative) toward the future, eventually halting acceleration and leading to a collapsing universe for the best-fit linear and hilltop models.
If Pantheon+ or Union3 are the more reliable supernova samples, the DESI dynamical dark energy signal is not statistically significant and $\Lambda$CDM remains the preferred model.
Parametrizations of $w(z)$ commonly used to search for dynamical dark energy, such as $w_0$-$w_a$ (CPL) and the Barboza-Alcaniz form, do not accurately represent thawing quintessence, so claims based on those ansätze may not reflect physical scalar-field models.
Including Planck CMB and DES clustering data weakens the preference that appears from BAO plus supernovae alone, so the signal is sensitive to the assumed combination of datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct way to test the paper's conclusion would be to calibrate the DESY5 supernova sample with Pantheon+ systematics and rerun the same quintessence fits; the paper implies the $\Delta\chi^2$ would drop but does not perform that recalibration.
Because the Taylor expansion is only valid over the redshifts probed, an exponential or pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone potential that remains valid at higher $z$ could change the conclusions at $z>2.3$; this is a natural extension the paper leaves implicit.
The frozen-at-rest initial condition is a prior, not a measurement; replacing it with a kinetic-energy-dominated start would shift the posteriors on $V_0$, $V_1$, and $V_2$, and could quantify how much of the DESY5 preference comes from the thawing assumption itself.
The paper's finding that PADE-$w$ reproduces quintessence while CPL does not suggests future DESI analyses should adopt PADE-style parametrizations if they want sensitivity to scalar-field dark energy.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper does what it says: tests simple linear and quadratic quintessence potentials against DESI DR2 BAO plus Planck, DES, and three supernova catalogs. The main result — that the dynamical dark energy preference hinges on the SN dataset — is real and clearly presented. Pantheon+ and Union3 give Δχ² under 4, which is not significant with two extra parameters; DESY5 gives Δχ² of −8 to −10 and ΔAIC around −4 to −6. That dataset dependence is the genuinely useful outcome, and it is consistent with other recent literature. The forward-from-rest integration is a reasonable choice that avoids the divergent backward solutions of Refs. 12 and 44, and including Planck and DES is a real improvement over those earlier analyses. The paper is honest about the Hubble tension trade-off and about what the AIC does and does not say.

The soft spots are real but not load-bearing. The thawing initial condition (π_φ=0 at a_i=0.001) is an explicit model assumption, and the stress-test note is right that the hilltop best fit V2≈−3.2 makes the potential tachyonic, so the resting start is special. A robustness check with a small initial kinetic term would strengthen the paper and should be requested, but the conclusion is explicitly about this model class, not about all quintessence. The radiation neglect at a_i=0.001 is a minor technical point; it shifts H by ~14% at the start epoch, but the field is deeply frozen there, so the effect on the late-time w(z) should be small. Missing chains and configurations is a reproducibility gap — the field would benefit from release artifacts — but the numerical pipeline is standard enough that this is an inconvenience, not a red flag. The self-citation to Refs. 21 and prior work is appropriate and not load-bearing.

This paper is for cosmologists working on dark energy phenomenology and DESI interpretation. It deserves a serious referee: the dataset-dependence claim is timely and supported by the numbers, and the caveats are addressable rather than fatal. I would send it to review, with a request for an initial-conditions robustness test and the release of MCMC chains.

My own verdict is a qualified accept: the central claim holds for the stated model class, and the paper is a useful reference point for future quintessence and w(z) analyses.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper tests three simple thawing-quintessence potentials (linear, hilltop, and hill-bottom) against a combination of Planck 2018, CMB lensing, DESI DR2 BAO, DES Y1, and one of three supernova datasets (Pantheon+, DESY5, Union3). The central result is that the evidence for dynamical dark energy depends strongly on the supernova choice: DESY5 yields improvements of Δχ²≈−8 to −10 relative to ΛCDM and negative ΔAIC, while Pantheon+ and Union3 yield only Δχ²≈−3 and positive ΔAIC, so ΛCDM remains preferred. The paper also compares the predicted w(z) for the three potentials with the PADE, CPL, and Barboza-Alcaniz parametrizations, finding that the latter two do not reproduce the thawing-quintessence behavior.

Significance. If the numerical results are robust, the paper makes a useful contribution to the current debate about the DESI dynamical-dark-energy signal. It demonstrates that the signal is not universal across supernova samples when tested with concrete, theoretically motivated quintessence potentials, and it quantifies the dataset tension in a way that goes beyond w(a) parametrizations. The analysis uses publicly available codes (CAMB, Cobaya), reports internally consistent Δχ² and ΔAIC values, and the w(z) comparison is a post-fit diagnostic rather than an input. The main weakness is that all reported numbers depend on an untested early-time boundary condition for the scalar field and on an inconsistent treatment of radiation at the initial integration epoch; until robustness checks are provided, the quantitative conclusions should be treated as conditional on those choices.

major comments (2)

[Sec. III, Eq. (4), Table I] The central results in Table I all assume the thawing boundary condition π_φ(a_i)=0 at a_i=0.001. Because the scalar-field equations are first-order in π_φ, this condition selects a unique trajectory for each point in (V0,V1,V2) and therefore controls every Δχ² value. The paper justifies the condition by appeal to Hubble damping and contrasts it with the backward-integration approach of Refs. [12,44], but it provides no data-based test that the field was at rest at the initial epoch. In particular, the hilltop best fit has V2≈−3.2, so the potential is tachyonic and the resting initial condition is a special point; a small initial kinetic energy could shift the best-fit parameters and the predicted w(z). I request a robustness test that allows a range of initial π_φ(a_i) or starts the integration at a_i≪a_eq with radiation included, and that reports whether the DESY5 versus Pantheon+/Union3 separation (currently about 6–7 units in Δχ²) survives. Without such a test, the conclusion that DESY5 gives 'substantial evidence' for quintessence is conditional on an untested assumption.
[Sec. III, Eq. (4)] The integration begins at a_i=0.001, i.e. z≈999, which is not in the low-redshift regime, yet the Hubble parameter in Eq. (4) includes only matter and the scalar field; radiation is dropped with the statement that 'we are interested in low redshifts.' At a=0.001 the radiation energy density is a non-negligible fraction of the matter density (of order 20–30%), so the approximation is not justified at the starting epoch. A larger early Hubble parameter changes the early evolution of π_φ and hence the predicted w(z). The authors should either include radiation in H or start at a_i well below a_eq with radiation included, and demonstrate that the Δχ² and AIC values in Table I change negligibly.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. III.A] There is a typo 'shown shown' in the text, and the sentence 'with Pantheon+ and Union3 datasets give only a marginal improvement' is ungrammatical; please revise.
[Sec. III.B] The phrase 'a linear term can be absorbed removed' should be corrected to 'absorbed/removed' or 'eliminated by a shift in φ'.
[Sec. IV] The statement that BAO+SN-only analysis gives Δχ²≲−5, −12, and −8 for Pantheon+, DESY5, and Union3 is not supported by a table or figure in the manuscript; please add a small table or appendix with these values.
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'Pantheon+ best fit (ΛCDM),' which is misleading because the horizontal line is simply w=−1; please clarify that this line represents ΛCDM and not a fit to a particular supernova dataset.
[General] The paper does not provide a public release of the MCMC chains or the custom code used to evolve the quintessence field; given the numerical nature of the central claim, making these available would substantially aid reproducibility and verification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: fitted quintessence parameters are compared against external data, and the thawing condition is a stated assumption rather than an output.

full rationale

The paper fits the potential parameters V0, V1, V2 in Eq. (3) to external data (Planck, DES, DESI BAO, and one of three supernova datasets) using CAMB and Cobaya. No parameter is defined in terms of the target quantity (Delta chi^2 or w(z)); the reported Delta chi^2 values in Table I come from likelihood comparisons, and the w(z) curves in Fig. 2 are derived best-fit outputs rather than inputs. The comparison with PADE-w uses an external parametrization from Ref. [11], which is independent of the authors. The only self-citation, Ref. [21], appears in a list of related work on negative cosmological constant plus evolving dark energy and is not load-bearing for the central dataset-dependence conclusion. The thawing boundary condition pi_phi(a_i)=0 in Eq. (4) is a physical modeling assumption, not a circular one: it is not derived from, or defined by, the predicted w(z), and the paper explicitly contrasts it with the backward-integration approach of Refs. [12, 44]. Whether the conclusion is robust to this initial condition is a model-dependence and robustness question, not a circularity. Therefore no step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or dimensions. Its new content is three simple quintessence potentials with two fitted parameters each, plus standard cosmological parameters. The main assumptions are the thawing initial condition, the truncation of the potential, and the neglect of radiation despite starting integration at z near 999.

free parameters (4)

V0 = 0.79 (linear, DESY5); 0.9 (hilltop, DESY5)
Constant term in the scalar potential, equivalent to a dynamical cosmological constant offset; fitted to the combined data.
V1 = 1.05 absolute value (linear, DESY5)
Linear slope of the potential; sign is irrelevant because it only sets the rolling direction.
V2 = -3.2 (hilltop, DESY5); positive for hill-bottom
Quadratic curvature of the potential; sign determines hilltop versus hill-bottom behavior.
Standard cosmological parameters (Omega_m, H0, etc.)
Varied in the MCMC within LambdaCDM priors; needed for the likelihood but not specific to the quintessence model.

assumptions (6)

standard math Friedmann equations and Klein-Gordon equation for a minimally coupled scalar field
Used to evolve phi(a) and compute H(a); standard cosmology.
domain assumption Spatially flat universe and negligible radiation at the redshifts of interest
Assumed in the Friedmann equation (Sec. II). Radiation neglect is inconsistent with a_i = 0.001 as noted in the report.
domain assumption Thawing initial condition: field starts at rest (pi_phi = 0) at a_i = 0.001
Sec. III; load-bearing for all three potentials. If the field had initial kinetic energy, constraints would change.
domain assumption Taylor expansion of V(phi) truncated at linear or quadratic order is valid for z in [0,2.3]
Sec. II; higher-order terms or different UV completions could change the results.
ad hoc to paper Potential restricted to linear, hilltop, and hill-bottom forms
Motivated by string and EFT arguments for Lambda <= 0, but the specific forms are chosen for this study.
domain assumption Parametrized post-Friedmann (PPF) prescription for dark energy perturbations
Used to compute CMB and lensing likelihoods; a standard approximation for non-standard dark energy.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simple quintessence models in light of DESI-BAO observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZHYDQJMB

@misc{pith2026250613047,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simple quintessence models in light of DESI-BAO observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZHYDQJMB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13047}
}

abstract

Recent analyses from the DESI collaboration suggest that the dark energy density of the Universe may be decreasing with time, slowing the acceleration of the scale factor $a$. Typically these studies are performed assuming an ansatz for the equation of state $w(a)$. In this work, we instead consider simple models of a scalar quintessence potential with linear and quadratic behavior, which could be more representative of real models than particular parametrizations of $w(a)$. We observe a significant preference for dynamical dark energy when using supernova data from DESY5 along with DESI BAO and Planck data, at the cost of slightly exacerbating the Hubble tension. However, when using supernova data from Pantheon+ or Union3, we find only a mild preference for dynamical dark energy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13047 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Marginalized posterior on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Marginalized posterior on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

Phantom-divide crossing and suppressed structure growth in kinetically braided dark energy with momentum exchange
astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A linearly stable kinetic-braiding dark-energy model with CDM momentum exchange realizes upward phantom-divide crossing and weak CDM gravitational clustering, altering matter and CMB spectra.
Realizing the phantom-divide crossing with vector and scalar fields
astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A scalar-vector-tensor dark-energy model crosses the phantom divide at low redshift with no ghost or Laplacian instabilities and growth signatures close to LCDM.
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...
Observational Constraints on Scalar Field--Matter Interaction in Weyl Integrable Spacetime
gr-qc 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A Weyl Integrable Spacetime model with one extra parameter fits current late-time cosmological data slightly better than Lambda-CDM, with weak to moderate statistical preference.
Imprint of swampland-inspired coupled early dark energy
astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A swampland-inspired DM-EDE coupling is tested against DESI DR2 BAO data, showing the EDE potential construction affects late-time dark energy constraints.
Observational constraints on early time non-phantom behaviour of dynamical dark energy
astro-ph.CO 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Early scaling dark energy is constrained to be less than about one percent at matter-radiation equality and is disfavored by model selection, while late-time CPL dynamics show only a weak preference away from ΛCDM.
The Lifespan of our Universe
hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

If the axion dark energy model with a negative cosmological constant is the true explanation of DES/DESI data, the universe will end in a big crunch at a total age of about 33 billion years.
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

43 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

[2]

DESI constraints on exponential quintessence,

O. F. Ramadan, J. Sakstein, and D. Rubin, “DESI constraints on exponential quintessence,”Phys. Rev. D 110no. 4, (2024) L041303,arXiv:2405.18747 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2024
[3]

Has DESI detected exponential quintessence?,

Y. Akrami, G. Alestas, and S. Nesseris, “Has DESI detected exponential quintessence?,”arXiv:2504.04226 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[4]

Kick it like DESI: PNGB quintessence with a dynamically generated initial velocity,

M. Berbig, “Kick it like DESI: PNGB quintessence with a dynamically generated initial velocity,”JCAP03 (2025) 015,arXiv:2412.07418 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025
[5]

Thawing quintessence and transient cosmic acceleration in light of DESI,

R. de Souza, G. Rodrigues, and J. Alcaniz, “Thawing quintessence and transient cosmic acceleration in light of DESI,”arXiv:2504.16337 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[6]

Model-independent cosmological inference after the DESI DR2 data with improved inverse distance ladder,

J.-L. Ling, G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, J.-F. Zhang, S.-J. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Model-independent cosmological inference after the DESI DR2 data with improved inverse distance ladder,”arXiv:2505.22369 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[7]

Early time solution as an alternative to the late time evolving dark energy with DESI DR2 BAO,

E. Chaussidonet al., “Early time solution as an alternative to the late time evolving dark energy with DESI DR2 BAO,”arXiv:2503.24343 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[8]

One-parameter dynamical dark energy: Hints for oscillations,

D. A. Kessler, L. A. Escamilla, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, “One-parameter dynamical dark energy: Hints for oscillations,”arXiv:2504.00776 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[9]

Dynamical Dark Energy at Late Time ΛCDM,

J. W. Moffat and E. J. Thompson, “Dynamical Dark Energy at Late Time ΛCDM,”arXiv:2505.18900 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv

Show all 43 references

[10]

Robustness of dark energy phenomenology across different parameterizations,

W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, and P. G. Ferreira, “Robustness of dark energy phenomenology across different parameterizations,”JCAP05(2025) 034, 6 arXiv:2502.04929 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[11]

Optimal parameterizations for observational constraints on thawing dark energy,

D. Shlivko, P. J. Steinhardt, and C. L. Steinhardt, “Optimal parameterizations for observational constraints on thawing dark energy,” arXiv:2504.02028 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[12]

Suggestions of decreasing dark energy from supernova and BAO data,

M. Van Raamsdonk and C. Waddell, “Suggestions of decreasing dark energy from supernova and BAO data,” JCAP06(2024) 047,arXiv:2305.04946 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[13]

De Sitter vacua in string theory,

S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, and S. P. Trivedi, “De Sitter vacua in string theory,”Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 046005,arXiv:hep-th/0301240

2003 arXiv
[14]

Systematics of moduli stabilisation in Calabi-Yau flux compactifications,

V. Balasubramanian, P. Berglund, J. P. Conlon, and F. Quevedo, “Systematics of moduli stabilisation in Calabi-Yau flux compactifications,”JHEP03(2005) 007,arXiv:hep-th/0502058

2005 arXiv
[15]

What if string theory has a de Sitter excited state?,

J. Chakravarty and K. Dasgupta, “What if string theory has a de Sitter excited state?,”JHEP10(2024) 065,arXiv:2404.11680 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[16]

Brief overview of Candidate de Sitter Vacua,

A. Schachner, “Brief overview of Candidate de Sitter Vacua,” in24th Hellenic School and Workshops on Elementary Particle Physics and Gravity. 4, 2025. arXiv:2505.00149 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[17]

Moduli Stabilization in String Theory,

L. McAllister and F. Quevedo, “Moduli Stabilization in String Theory,”arXiv:2310.20559 [hep-th]

arXiv
[18]

Do cosmological observations allow a negative Λ?,

A. A. Sen, S. A. Adil, and S. Sen, “Do cosmological observations allow a negative Λ?,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.518no. 1, (2022) 1098–1105, arXiv:2112.10641 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[19]

Quintessential Implications of the presence of AdS in the Dark Energy sector,

P. Mukherjee, D. Kumar, and A. A. Sen, “Quintessential Implications of the presence of AdS in the Dark Energy sector,”arXiv:2501.18335 [astro-ph.CO]
[20]

Can the universe experience an AdS landscape since matter-radiation equality?,

H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, “Can the universe experience an AdS landscape since matter-radiation equality?,” arXiv:2506.04306 [gr-qc]

arXiv
[21]

Can baby universe absorption explain dark energy?,

V. Muralidharan and J. M. Cline, “Can baby universe absorption explain dark energy?,”Phys. Rev. D111 no. 2, (2025) 023516,arXiv:2408.13306 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[22]

Quintessence: A Review,

S. Tsujikawa, “Quintessence: A Review,”Class. Quant. Grav.30(2013) 214003,arXiv:1304.1961 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[23]

Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FR W models,

A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, “Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FR W models,”Astrophys. J.538(2000) 473–476, arXiv:astro-ph/9911177 [astro-ph]

2000 arXiv
[24]

Crossing the phantom divide with parametrized post-friedmann dark energy,

W. Fang, W. Hu, and A. Lewis, “Crossing the phantom divide with parametrized post-friedmann dark energy,” Phys. Rev. D78(Oct, 2008) 087303.https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.087303

2008 doi
[25]

Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models,

J. Torrado and A. Lewis, “Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models,”JCAP05 (2021) 057,arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

2021 arXiv
[26]

requiringR−1≤0.02. We considered the following data in our analysis: •BAO:Baryon acoustic oscillation measurements of distances, using Data Release 2 of DESI [27]; •SN:Type Ia supernova distance determinations, using the Dark Energy Survey year 5 (DESY5) data release [28], Uni...

2018
[27]

Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences,

A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, “Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences,”Statist. Sci.7 (1992) 457–472. [27]DESICollaboration, M. Abdul Karimet al., “DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints,” arXiv:2503.14...

1992 arXiv
[29]

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

D. Rubinet al., “Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework,” arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[30]

The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,

D. Broutet al., “The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,”Astrophys. J.938no. 2, (2022) 110,arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]. [31]DESCollaboration, T. M. C. Abbottet al., “Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensin...

2022 arXiv
[35]

Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements,

four-point temperature correlator. Likelihoods were computed by combining the different datasets, except that we do not simultaneously use all the SN data, since some of them are in tension with each other so far as the determination of dark energy param- eters is concerned. I...

arXiv
[36]

Cosmic Distances Calibrated to 1% Precision with Gaia EDR3 Parallaxes and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry of 75 Milky Way Cepheids Confirm Tension with ΛCDM,

A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, J. B. Bowers, L. Macri, J. C. Zinn, and D. Scolnic, “Cosmic Distances Calibrated to 1% Precision with Gaia EDR3 Parallaxes and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry of 75 Milky Way Cepheids Confirm Tension with ΛCDM,” Astrophys. J. Lett.908no. 1...

2021 arXiv
[37]

New simple and accurate quintessence approximations,

A. Alho and C. Uggla, “New simple and accurate quintessence approximations,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 8, (2025) 083549,arXiv:2407.14378 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[38]

Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter,

M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, “Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10 (2001) 213–224,arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

2001 arXiv
[39]

Exploring the expansion history of the universe,

E. V. Linder, “Exploring the expansion history of the universe,”Phys. Rev. Lett.90(Mar, 2003) 091301. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90. 091301

2003 doi
[40]

A parametric model for dark energy,

E. M. Barboza, Jr. and J. S. Alcaniz, “A parametric model for dark energy,”Phys. Lett. B666(2008) 415–419,arXiv:0805.1713 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[41]

On the tension between DESI DR2 BAO and CMB,

G. Ye and S.-J. Lin, “On the tension between DESI DR2 BAO and CMB,”arXiv:2505.02207 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[42]

On DESI’s DR2 exclusion of ΛCDM,

M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle, “On DESI’s DR2 exclusion of ΛCDM,”arXiv:2504.15336 [astro-ph.CO]
[43]

Did DESI DR2 truly reveal dynamical dark energy?,

D. Wang and D. Mota, “Did DESI DR2 truly reveal dynamical dark energy?,”arXiv:2504.15222 [astro-ph.CO]
[44]

Suggestions of decreasing dark energy from supernova and BAO data: an update,

M. Van Raamsdonk and C. Waddell, “Suggestions of decreasing dark energy from supernova and BAO data: an update,”arXiv:2505.10662 [astro-ph.CO]
[45]

General parametrization for energy density of quintessence field,

S. Akthar and M. W. Hossain, “General parametrization for energy density of quintessence field,”JCAP04(2025) 024,arXiv:2411.15892 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[46]

Do Observations Prefer Thawing Quintessence?,

G. Payeur, E. McDonough, and R. Brandenberger, “Do Observations Prefer Thawing Quintessence?,” 7 arXiv:2411.13637 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[47]

Examining Quintessence Models with DESI Data,

Z. Bayat and M. P. Hertzberg, “Examining Quintessence Models with DESI Data,” arXiv:2505.18937 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[48]

Model-agnostic assessment of dark energy after DESI DR1 BAO,

B. R. Dinda and R. Maartens, “Model-agnostic assessment of dark energy after DESI DR1 BAO,” JCAP01(2025) 120,arXiv:2407.17252 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[49]

Model-Independent Dark Energy Measurements from DESI DR2 and Planck 2015 Data,

Y. Wang and K. Freese, “Model-Independent Dark Energy Measurements from DESI DR2 and Planck 2015 Data,”arXiv:2505.17415 [astro-ph.CO]

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [2]

DESI constraints on exponential quintessence,

O. F. Ramadan, J. Sakstein, and D. Rubin, “DESI constraints on exponential quintessence,”Phys. Rev. D 110no. 4, (2024) L041303,arXiv:2405.18747 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2024

[2] [3]

Has DESI detected exponential quintessence?,

Y. Akrami, G. Alestas, and S. Nesseris, “Has DESI detected exponential quintessence?,”arXiv:2504.04226 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv

[3] [4]

Kick it like DESI: PNGB quintessence with a dynamically generated initial velocity,

M. Berbig, “Kick it like DESI: PNGB quintessence with a dynamically generated initial velocity,”JCAP03 (2025) 015,arXiv:2412.07418 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025

[4] [5]

Thawing quintessence and transient cosmic acceleration in light of DESI,

R. de Souza, G. Rodrigues, and J. Alcaniz, “Thawing quintessence and transient cosmic acceleration in light of DESI,”arXiv:2504.16337 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv

[5] [6]

Model-independent cosmological inference after the DESI DR2 data with improved inverse distance ladder,

J.-L. Ling, G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, J.-F. Zhang, S.-J. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Model-independent cosmological inference after the DESI DR2 data with improved inverse distance ladder,”arXiv:2505.22369 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv

[6] [7]

Early time solution as an alternative to the late time evolving dark energy with DESI DR2 BAO,

E. Chaussidonet al., “Early time solution as an alternative to the late time evolving dark energy with DESI DR2 BAO,”arXiv:2503.24343 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv

[7] [8]

One-parameter dynamical dark energy: Hints for oscillations,

D. A. Kessler, L. A. Escamilla, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, “One-parameter dynamical dark energy: Hints for oscillations,”arXiv:2504.00776 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv

[8] [9]

Dynamical Dark Energy at Late Time ΛCDM,

J. W. Moffat and E. J. Thompson, “Dynamical Dark Energy at Late Time ΛCDM,”arXiv:2505.18900 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv