arxiv: 2603.15178 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-16 · 🌀 gr-qc · hep-th

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Viaggiu holographic dark energy in light of DESI DR2

Amlan K. Halder , Andronikos Paliathanasis , Stefano Viaggiu , Abdulla Al Mamon , Subhajit Saha

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 10:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc hep-th

keywords holographic dark energyViaggiu modelDESI DR2cosmological constraintslate-time accelerationLambda CDM comparisonsupernovaebaryon acoustic oscillations

0 comments

The pith

The Viaggiu holographic dark energy model fits late-time data as well as or better than Lambda CDM across multiple supernova and DESI DR2 combinations.

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

The paper constrains the Viaggiu holographic dark energy model with PantheonPlus, Union3.0, DES-Dovekie supernovae, cosmic chronometers, and DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations. It reports that the model matches or exceeds Lambda CDM in goodness of fit for every dataset combination examined, while returning a Hubble constant similar to the standard value and a lower present-day matter density near 0.24. The model's characteristic parameter settles in the range 0.27-0.33. AIC finds the two models statistically indistinguishable, though Bayesian evidence shows a mild preference for Lambda CDM in most cases.

Core claim

When the Viaggiu holographic dark energy density is confronted with the combined late-time data, its free parameters are bounded such that the model reproduces the observed expansion history at least as well as Lambda CDM, with Omega_m0 approximately 0.24 and the auxiliary parameter pi/3 delta squared between 0.27 and 0.33; statistical tests confirm consistency with current observations while leaving the two scenarios difficult to separate on information criteria.

What carries the argument

The Viaggiu holographic dark energy density, a functional form that introduces a single free parameter delta into the holographic cutoff prescription for the dark energy component.

If this is right

The present-day matter density is constrained to a lower value than the Lambda CDM best fit.
The Hubble constant remains compatible with the Lambda CDM range.
The auxiliary parameter stays within 0.27-0.33 for all dataset combinations.
AIC indicates the models cannot be distinguished, while Bayesian evidence mildly favors Lambda CDM.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the model continues to fit future data, it supplies a concrete way to embed holographic ideas into the late-time expansion without altering early-universe predictions.
Higher-resolution BAO or supernova samples could tighten the Omega_m0 bound enough to produce a decisive statistical preference between the two models.
The lower matter density may ease certain tensions with direct H0 measurements if the same parameter region survives when early-universe data are added.

Load-bearing premise

The specific functional form chosen for the Viaggiu holographic dark energy density is assumed to correctly describe the late-time universe without independent derivation from quantum gravity or other first principles.

What would settle it

A future high-precision measurement that places Omega_m0 more than two standard deviations away from 0.24 while keeping the same supernova and BAO data would rule out the best-fit region reported for the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.15178 by Abdulla Al Mamon, Amlan K. Halder, Andronikos Paliathanasis, Stefano Viaggiu, Subhajit Saha.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2: Qualitative evolution deceleration parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We test the cosmological viability of the Viaggiu holographic dark energy (VHDE) model by using late-time observational data. In particular, we place constraints on the free parameters of the model using Type Ia supernovae from the PantheonPlus, Union3.0, and DES-Dovekie catalogues, the Cosmic Chronometers, and the Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the DESI DR2. Our analysis suggests that the VHDE model fits the observational data better or similar to the $\Lambda$CDM for all dataset combinations considered. The value obtained for $H_0$ is similar to the $\Lambda$CDM, while the current matter density parameter is constrained around $\Omega_{m0}\simeq 0.24$, smaller to that obtained by the $\Lambda$CDM. Moreover, the parameter introduced by the VHDE is found to have a mean value within the range $\frac{\pi}{3} \delta^2 \sim 0.27-0.33$. Finally, we used Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian evidence to test the VHDE model against the $\Lambda$CDM scenario. The AIC demonstrates that the two models are statistically indistinguishable, while Bayesian evidence reveals that the data have a mild preference for the $\Lambda$CDM model for most of the dataset combinations considered. Nevertheless, the VHDE model remains consistent with current late-time cosmological observations and offers a feasible mechanism for describing the late-time accelerating scenario.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

VHDE fits DESI DR2 data about as well as Lambda CDM but is just another fitted parametrization with no new theory.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper takes the existing Viaggiu holographic dark energy parametrization and shows it remains consistent with the latest DESI DR2 BAO data plus supernovae and chronometers, while producing parameter values that overlap with Lambda CDM in most respects. AIC says the models are indistinguishable, but Bayesian evidence leans mildly toward Lambda CDM for most combinations. Omega_m0 comes out around 0.24 and the extra parameter sits between 0.27 and 0.33, with H0 similar to the standard model. That is the concrete output. The paper does the straightforward job of running the constraints on a fresh dataset release and reporting both selection criteria side by side. That part is useful for anyone who wants to see how this particular holographic form behaves with the new BAO measurements. The analysis appears competent on the surface and covers multiple supernova catalogs without obvious red flags in the abstract. The soft spots are the usual ones for this style of work. The model has one free parameter that is fitted directly to the same data used to declare viability, so the result is largely a statement about fit quality rather than an independent test. The functional form itself is assumed rather than derived from quantum gravity or any first-principles argument, which limits how much weight the consistency claim can carry. The abstract's phrasing that the model fits “better or similar” downplays the Bayesian preference for Lambda CDM, and without the explicit Delta AIC or lnZ numbers it is hard to judge how mild that preference actually is. This is a paper for readers who follow holographic dark energy variants and need an update on how they perform against DESI DR2. It will not move the field or solve any deeper problems. It deserves peer review because the data handling and dual model-selection approach are solid enough to warrant referee checks on the priors, data cuts, and exact evidence ratios.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript constrains the single free parameter of the Viaggiu holographic dark energy (VHDE) model using PantheonPlus, Union3.0, DES-Dovekie Type Ia supernovae, cosmic chronometers, and DESI DR2 BAO data. It reports that VHDE yields Ω_m0 ≈ 0.24 and π/3 δ² ≈ 0.27–0.33, fits the data similarly to or better than ΛCDM, and is statistically indistinguishable from ΛCDM by AIC while Bayesian evidence mildly favors ΛCDM.

Significance. If the fits and model-selection statistics are robust, the work shows that VHDE remains a viable one-parameter alternative to ΛCDM when tested against the latest DESI DR2 measurements, adding to the catalog of holographic dark-energy scenarios that can reproduce late-time acceleration without a cosmological constant.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the headline statement that VHDE 'fits the observational data better or similar to the ΛCDM' is not supported by the model-selection results described in the same paragraph (AIC indistinguishability plus mild Bayesian preference for ΛCDM). Explicit ΔAIC values and ln Z ratios (or Bayes factors) for each dataset combination must be reported in the results section to allow readers to assess the quantitative strength of the claim.
[Results] The single free parameter (π/3 δ²) is fitted directly to the same late-time datasets used both to constrain the model and to perform the AIC/Bayesian comparison against ΛCDM. This renders the 'viability' conclusion partly tautological; the manuscript should clarify whether any out-of-sample test or independent prior on the parameter was applied.

minor comments (2)

The abstract lists three supernova catalogues but does not state which combinations were used for each reported constraint; a table summarizing the dataset combinations and corresponding best-fit values would improve clarity.
Notation for the VHDE parameter is given as 'π/3 δ²' in the abstract; ensure consistent use of this symbol (or an equivalent) throughout the text and in all tables/figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and valuable comments on our manuscript. We have addressed each of the major comments below and revised the manuscript where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the headline statement that VHDE 'fits the observational data better or similar to the ΛCDM' is not supported by the model-selection results described in the same paragraph (AIC indistinguishability plus mild Bayesian preference for ΛCDM). Explicit ΔAIC values and ln Z ratios (or Bayes factors) for each dataset combination must be reported in the results section to allow readers to assess the quantitative strength of the claim.

Authors: We agree with the referee that the abstract phrasing should more accurately reflect the model-selection outcomes. We will revise the abstract to state that the VHDE model fits the data similarly to ΛCDM, with the AIC indicating statistical indistinguishability and Bayesian evidence showing a mild preference for ΛCDM. Furthermore, we will add explicit reporting of ΔAIC and ln Z values for each dataset combination in the results section to provide the quantitative details requested. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] The single free parameter (π/3 δ²) is fitted directly to the same late-time datasets used both to constrain the model and to perform the AIC/Bayesian comparison against ΛCDM. This renders the 'viability' conclusion partly tautological; the manuscript should clarify whether any out-of-sample test or independent prior on the parameter was applied.

Authors: This is a valid point. The parameter fitting and model comparison are performed on the same datasets, which is standard in cosmological analyses for assessing model viability. No out-of-sample test was conducted, and the priors on the parameter are the default flat priors in the Bayesian analysis. We will include a clarification in the text explaining this standard procedure and that the viability is demonstrated through consistency with the data and the model selection metrics. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in VHDE observational constraints

full rationale

The paper adopts the VHDE functional form from prior literature and constrains its single free parameter plus standard cosmological parameters against independent external datasets (PantheonPlus, Union3.0, DES-Dovekie, Cosmic Chronometers, DESI DR2). Model comparison uses standard AIC and Bayesian evidence, with explicit statements that AIC finds the models indistinguishable while Bayesian evidence mildly prefers ΛCDM. No derivation step reduces by construction to a self-fit, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation; the viability assessment is externally benchmarked and does not rename or smuggle an ansatz as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on one fitted parameter whose value is determined by the data and on the background assumption of a flat FLRW universe with late-time acceleration driven by a holographic component.

free parameters (1)

VHDE parameter (pi/3 delta^2)
Single free parameter of the Viaggiu holographic dark energy density; its posterior mean is reported in the range 0.27-0.33 after fitting to the combined datasets.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Standard flat FLRW metric and late-time cosmic acceleration driven by dark energy
Invoked throughout the parameter fitting and model comparison sections as the background cosmology.

invented entities (1)

Viaggiu holographic dark energy density no independent evidence
purpose: To supply a holographic expression for the dark energy component that replaces the cosmological constant
Postulated functional form introduced by the model; no independent falsifiable prediction outside the fit is provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5589 in / 1393 out tokens · 58799 ms · 2026-05-15T10:26:01.470455+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

SΣ = kB A/4Lp² + 3kB/2c Lp² V H (Viaggiu entropy with volume term); ρd = δ²/8π L^{-4}(πL² + 2π H L³)
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/DimensionForcing reality_from_one_distinction contradicts

?

contradicts
CONTRADICTS: the theorem conflicts with this paper passage, or marks a claim that would need revision before publication.

ζ = π/3 δ² constrained to 0.27-0.33; one free parameter beyond ΛCDM

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

83 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

Viaggiu holographic dark energy in light of DESI DR2

INTRODUCTION It is evident from observational probes [1–5] that our cosmos is experiencing an accelerated expansion at present. Several models have been proposed in the literature to explain this unexpected cosmic phenomenon. Nevertheless, none of them have been found to be fully consistent with all astronomical observations available to us. Cosmologists ...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[2]

Section 4 discusses the results of our study, where we perform the observational tests for the VHDE model

The modified cosmological equations of the model are presented in Section 3. Section 4 discusses the results of our study, where we perform the observational tests for the VHDE model. We present our conclusions in Section 5. 3

work page
[3]

Therefore, from (1) we obtain the well known Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formulaSBH =S max =k B Ah 4L2p , Ah = 4πR2

VIAGGIU ENTROPY AND THE VHDE MODEL The Bekenstein argument [55] states that in an asymptotically flat spacetime there exists an universal upper bound (Smax) on the entropySof a spherical region of areal radiusRand energyEgiven by S≤S max = 2πkBRE cℏ .(1) Since [23] the maximum energyE max allowed in the aforementioned spherical region is the one provided ...

work page
[4]

−RE( ˙H+H 2) + 1 RE − ˙H H # .(11) 5 It is more convenient to consider the above derivative with respect to lna, which gives Ω ′ d = 2πδ2 3H2R2 E

MAIN FORMULAS IN THE VHDE MODEL WITH FUTURE EVENT HORIZON AS THE IR CUT-OFF The future event horizon, which exists only in an accelerating universe, is defined mathematically as follows [60] RE =a(t) Z ∞ t dt a(t) =a Z ∞ a da Ha2 =a Z ∞ x dx Ha .(7) From a physical perspective, the future event horizon represents the proper distance to the farthest event ...

work page
[5]

In the following, we summarize the data sets considered in this work and the methodology adopted for the statistical analysis

OBSER V A TIONAL DA T A ANAL YSIS The observational constraints are reported in this Section. In the following, we summarize the data sets considered in this work and the methodology adopted for the statistical analysis. 6 TABLE I: Priors of the Free Parameters for the PolyChord sampler. Priors VHDEΛCDM H0 [60,80] [60,80] Ωm0 [0.1,0.5] [0.1,0.5] rdrag [12...

work page
[6]

Each catalogue provides measurements of the distance modulusµ obs as a function of the redshift

and DES-Dovekie (DESD) [63]. Each catalogue provides measurements of the distance modulusµ obs as a function of the redshift. The PP dataset comprises 1550 SNIa observations at 10 −3 < z <2.27. The U3 compilation contains 2087 events covering a comparable redshift range. While these two catalogues share 1363 common SNIa events, they employ different photo...

work page 2087
[7]

CONCLUSIONS The present work dealt with the study of the VHDE model as a dark energy candidate for describing the late-time accelerated expansion of the Universe. We considered six different combinations of Type Ia supernova data, Cosmic Chronometers, and BAO measurements from the DESI DR2, in order to place constraints on the free parameters of the model...

work page 2022
[8]

A. G. Riesset al.[Supernova Search Team], Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998)

work page 1998
[9]

Perlmutteret al.[Supernova Cosmology Project], Astrophys

S. Perlmutteret al.[Supernova Cosmology Project], Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999)

work page 1999
[10]

de Bernardiset al.(BOOMERanG), Nature 404, 955 (2000)

P. de Bernardiset al.(BOOMERanG), Nature 404, 955 (2000)

work page 2000
[11]

W. J. Percivalet al.(2dFGRS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 327, 1297 (2001)

work page 2001
[12]

Aghanim, Y

N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdownet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020) [Erratum: Astron. Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

work page 2020
[13]

Bahcall, J

N. Bahcall, J. P. Ostriker, S. Permutter, and P. Steinhardt, Science 284, 1481 (1999) 10

work page 1999
[14]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

work page 1989
[15]

P. J. Steinhardt, L. Wang, and I. Zlatev, Phys. Rev. D 59, 123504 (1999)

work page 1999
[16]

P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003)

work page 2003
[17]

Padmanabhan, Phys

T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rep. 380, 235 (2003)

work page 2003
[18]

Verde, T

L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astron. 3, 891 (2019)

work page 2019
[19]

A. G. Riess, Nature Rev. Phys. 2, 10 (2019)

work page 2019
[20]

Di Valentinoet al., Astropart

E. Di Valentinoet al., Astropart. Phys. 131, 102604 (2021)

work page 2021
[21]

A. G. Riess, W. -L. Yuan, L. M. Macriet al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L7 (2022)

work page 2022
[22]

Perivolaropoulos and F

L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev. 95, 101659 (2022)

work page 2022
[23]

N. E. Mavromatos, The Fifteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting, 1114 (2022)

work page 2022
[24]

E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006)

work page 2006
[25]

Frieman, M

J. Frieman, M. Turner, and D. Huterer, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 46, 385 (2008)

work page 2008
[26]

R. R. Caldwell and M. Kamionkowski, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 59, 397 (2009)

work page 2009
[27]

Silvestri and M

A. Silvestri and M. Trodden, Rep. Prog. Phys. 72, 096901 (2009)

work page 2009
[28]

M. Li, X. -D. Li, S. Wang, and Y. Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 56, 325 (2011)

work page 2011
[29]

Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity

G. ’t Hooft, arXiv: gr-qc/9310026

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[30]

Susskind, J

L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys. 36, 6377 (1995)

work page 1995
[31]

J. M. Maldacena, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, 1113 (1999)

work page 1999
[32]

Li, Phys

M. Li, Phys. Lett. B 603, 1 (2004)

work page 2004
[33]

Akramiet al.,Modified Gravity and Cosmology: An Update by the CANTATA Network,Springer, 2021

Y. Akramiet al.,Modified Gravity and Cosmology: An Update by the CANTATA Network,Springer, 2021

work page 2021
[34]

Tsallis, J

C. Tsallis, J. Stat. Phys. 52, 479 (1988)

work page 1988
[35]

Kaniadakis, Phys

G. Kaniadakis, Phys. Rev. E 66, 056125 (2002)

work page 2002
[36]

Kaniadakis, Phys

G. Kaniadakis, Phys. Rev. E 72, 036108 (2005)

work page 2005
[37]

S. Das, S. Shankarnarayanan, and S. Sur, Phys. Rev. D 77, 064013 (2008)

work page 2008
[38]

Radicella and D

N. Radicella and D. Pav´ on, Phys. Lett. B 691, 121 (2010)

work page 2010
[39]

J. D. Barrow, Phys. Lett. B 808, 135643 (2020)

work page 2020
[40]

E. N. Saridakis, K. Bamba, R. Myrzakulov and F. K. Anagnostopoulos, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12, 012 (2018)

work page 2018
[41]

Sadri, Eur

E. Sadri, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 762 (2019)

work page 2019
[42]

Drepanou, A

N. Drepanou, A. Lymperis, E. N. Saridakis, and K. Yesmakhanova, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 449 (2022)

work page 2022
[43]

Hern´ andez-Almadaet al., Mon

A. Hern´ andez-Almadaet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 511, 4147 (2022)

work page 2022
[44]

G. G. Luciano and A. Paliathanasis, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1384 (2025)

work page 2025
[45]

E. C. Telali and E. N. Saridakis, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 466 (2022)

work page 2022
[46]

E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D 102, 123525 (2020)

work page 2020
[47]

Moradpouret al., Eur

H. Moradpouret al., Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 829 (2018)

work page 2018
[48]

Sahayan Jahromiet al., Phys

A. Sahayan Jahromiet al., Phys. Lett. B 780, 21 (2018)

work page 2018
[49]

G. G. Luciano, A. Paliathanasis, G. Leon, A. Sheykhi, and M. Motaghi, Phys. Lett. B 873, 140154 (2026)

work page 2026
[50]

S. Wang, Y. Wang, and M. Li, Phys. Rep. 696, 1 (2017)

work page 2017
[51]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and T. Paul, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043532 (2024)

work page 2024
[52]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and T. Paul, Universe 10, 352 (2024)

work page 2024
[53]

S. D. Odintsov, T. Paul, and S. SenGupta, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043544 (2025)

work page 2025
[54]

G. G. Luciano and A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Lett. B 870, 139954 (2025)

work page 2025
[55]

G. G. Luciano and E. N. Saridakis, arXiv:2602.20004 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv
[56]

Leizerovich, S

M. Leizerovich, S. J. Landau, G. G. Luciano, A. Papatriantafyllou and E. N. Saridakis, arXiv: 2603.03568 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv
[57]

S. Saha, S. Saha, and N. Mahata, Nucl. Phys. B 1025, 117368 (2026)

work page 2026
[58]

Viaggiu, Mod

S. Viaggiu, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29, 1450091 (2014)

work page 2014
[59]

Viaggiu, Gen

S. Viaggiu, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 47, 86 (2015)

work page 2015
[60]

X. Tang, Y. -Z. Ma, W. -M. Dai, and H. -J. He, Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101568 (2024)

work page 2024
[61]

Mandal, S

G. Mandal, S. Biswas, and S. K. Biswas, Phys. Dark Univ. 48, 101891 (2025)

work page 2025
[62]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 23, 287 (1981)

work page 1981
[63]

Cruz and S

M. Cruz and S. Lepe, Nucl. Phys. B 956, 115017 (2020)

work page 2020
[64]

Cimdiker, M

I. Cimdiker, M. P. Dabrowski, and V. Salzano, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 775 (2025)

work page 2025
[65]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov. and T. Paul, Phys. Lett. B 831, 137189 (2022)

work page 2022
[66]

S. D. Odintsov and T. Paul, Phys. Dark Univ. 39, 101159 (2023)

work page 2023
[67]

Faraoni,Cosmological and black hole apparent horizons,Springer, 2015

V. Faraoni,Cosmological and black hole apparent horizons,Springer, 2015

work page 2015
[68]

Broutet al., Astrophys

D. Broutet al., Astrophys. J. 938, 110 (2022)

work page 2022
[69]

Rubinet al., Astrophys

D. Rubinet al., Astrophys. J. 986, 231 (2025)

work page 2025
[70]

The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration

B. Popovicet al.(DES Collaboration), arXiv:2511.07517 (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[71]

Abdul Karimet al.(DESI Collaboration), Phys

M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 112, 083514 (2025)

work page 2025
[72]

Abdul Karimet al.(DESI Collaboration), Phys

M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 112, 083515 (2025)

work page 2025
[73]

Lodhaet al.(DESI Collaboration), Phys

K. Lodhaet al.(DESI Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 112, 083511 (2025)

work page 2025
[74]

Vagnozzi, A

S. Vagnozzi, A. Loeb, and M. Moresco, Astrophys. J. 908, 84 (2021)

work page 2021
[75]

Moresco, R

M. Moresco, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, A. Cimatti, and L. Pozzetti, Astrophys. J. 898, 82 (2020)

work page 2020
[76]

Torrado and A

J. Torrado and A. Lewis, ascl:1910.019 (2019)

work page 1910
[77]

Torrado and A

J. Torrado and A. Lewis, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05, 057 (2021) 11

work page 2021
[78]

W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 450, L61 (2015)

work page 2015
[79]

W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 453, 4384 (2015)

work page 2015
[80]

Lewis, J

A. Lewis, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08, 025 (2019)

work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.