Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 85 references

Data show no preference for emergent dark energy over the standard ΛCDM cosmology across the combined DESI, CMB, and supernova datasets.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 02:07 UTC pith:L3MKCG6Y

load-bearing objection A competent null result on GEDE that is probably right but hard to fully verify because the likelihood stack and chains aren't public; the undefined Nσ column is a fixable wart, not a load-bearing flaw. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25539 v1 pith:L3MKCG6Y submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

No preference for generalized emergent dark energy from current cosmological data

Vipin Kumar Sharma , Himanshu Chaudhary , Salvatore Capozziello , Dhruba Jyoti Gogoi , G. Mustafa This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th
keywords generalized emergent dark energyDESI DR2 BAOdark energy equation of statecosmological tensionsBayesian model comparisonΛCDMsupernova cosmologyCMB constraints
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Testing the generalized emergent dark energy (GEDE) model against the latest observations — DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations, the joint ACT/SPT/Planck CMB data, and three Type Ia supernova compilations — this paper finds that GEDE does not improve on the standard ΛCDM cosmology. The model's one free parameter Δ stays consistent with its ΛCDM value of zero within 2σ once supernovae are included, and Bayesian evidence remains inconclusive. The model does not reproduce the phantom crossing hinted at by DESI DR2: its dark energy equation of state stays either fully phantom or fully quintessence depending on the dataset, never crossing w=-1. The inferred Hubble constant, sound horizon, and S8 amplitude all remain consistent with ΛCDM, so the H0 and S8 tensions persist. The authors conclude that GEDE is observationally indistinguishable from ΛCDM and cannot be the source of the dynamical dark energy signal claimed by DESI DR2.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the GEDE extension is not favored by current data. For the CMB+DESI DR2 combination alone, the preferred Δ is 0.46±0.25, about 1.8σ from ΛCDM; adding any of the three supernova samples pulls Δ to within 0.06–0.33σ of zero. The Hubble constant comes out at 67.9–69.8 km/s/Mpc, the sound horizon at 147.4–147.6 Mpc, and S8 at about 0.821, all consistent with ΛCDM. The equation-of-state parameter w(z) never crosses -1; it stays phantom-like or quintessence-like depending on the dataset, and with Pantheon+ it approaches w≈-1. The authors read this as evidence that the dynamical dark energy suggested by DESI DR2 is not of the generalized emergent form, a

What carries the argument

The central object is the normalized dark-energy density f_DE(z) = [1 − tanh(Δ log10((1+z)/(1+z_t)))]/[1 + tanh(Δ log10(1+z_t))], which defines the GEDE model with a single free parameter Δ. Setting Δ=0 reduces the expansion history exactly to ΛCDM, while Δ=1 gives the 'PEDE' limit. The equation of state w(z) derived from this density is monotonic and never crosses the phantom divide w=-1 for any Δ, which is why the model cannot exhibit the quintom behavior some DESI DR2 analyses favor. The model is inserted into the standard Boltzmann and MCMC parameter-estimation pipeline; model selection uses both Gaussian significance levels and Bayesian evidence (the log Bayes factor), with the priors l

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the joint ACT DR6, SPT-3G, and Planck NPIPE CMB likelihoods and the DESI DR2 compressed BAO likelihoods are correctly implemented in the MCMC pipeline; the paper does not release its parameter files or chains, so any configuration error would propagate into every reported constraint and Bayes factor.

What would settle it

A reproduction using independent software and published chains, or a re-analysis with the full (uncompressed) DESI DR2 covariance, that yields Δ more than 2σ from zero with ln B > 1 would overturn the null conclusion. Alternatively, a measurement of the dark-energy equation of state crossing w=-1 at high significance in the same dataset combination would show that GEDE's lack of crossing is a genuine failure.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If GEDE is truly indistinguishable from ΛCDM, the extra parameter Δ is not justified by current data, so Occam's razor keeps ΛCDM as the baseline.
  • The DESI DR2 dynamical-dark-energy signal, if real, must be of a different form than the emergent family, because GEDE cannot produce the w=-1 crossing.
  • Late-time modifications to the expansion history alone cannot resolve the Hubble tension: GEDE leaves the sound horizon essentially unchanged and inherits the full tension with the local distance-ladder measurement.
  • The S8 tension also persists, since GEDE does not alter the growth of structure relative to ΛCDM.
  • Future supernova samples with tighter low-redshift anchoring will further shrink the allowed range of Δ and either confirm or decisively exclude the emergence scenario.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The consistency of the null result across three independent supernova compilations suggests the DESI DR2 dynamical signal may be sensitive to the supernova calibration choice, a possibility the paper keeps implicit.
  • The Bayes factor depends on the prior chosen for Δ; the authors use a wide uniform prior, and a prior better motivated by physical emergence timescales could shift the evidence, though the Gaussian significance would not change.
  • A sharp test of the model's distinctiveness would be to compare the allowed (w0, wa) region of GEDE with the Chevalier–Polarski–Linder region on the same data; GEDE's failure to cross w=-1 would then appear as a disjoint region in the parameter plane.
  • The paper's conclusion that late-time physics cannot fix the Hubble tension reinforces the case that early-universe solutions (changing the sound horizon) are needed, or that some systematics are at play.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constrains the generalized emergent dark energy (GEDE) model, which adds a single parameter Δ to ΛCDM, using DESI DR2 BAO data, a joint CMB likelihood stack (Planck NPIPE, ACT DR6, SPT-3G, and CMB lensing), and three SNe Ia compilations (Pantheon+, DES-Dovekie, Union3). The central claim is that GEDE is observationally indistinguishable from ΛCDM: Δ is consistent with the ΛCDM value Δ=0 within 2σ once SNe Ia data are included, the Bayes factors satisfy ln B < 1 for all dataset combinations, and the model does not resolve the H0 or S8 tensions. The paper further notes that GEDE cannot produce the Quintom-B phantom crossing suggested by DESI DR2, and instead is either phantom or quintessence depending on the sign of Δ. Sections II–IV present the model equations, the likelihoods and priors, and the resulting parameter constraints, with Table II summarizing the main numerical results.

Significance. If the numerical analysis is correct, this is a useful negative result: it shows that a well-motivated one-parameter dark-energy extension remains consistent with ΛCDM when confronted with the current high-quality combination of CMB, BAO, and SNe Ia data. The use of the publicly released likelihood stacks and the explicit reporting of H0, rd, S8, and the Bayes factors are strengths. The model equations are internally consistent, and the conclusion that GEDE does not cross w=-1 follows directly from the model form, which the paper correctly identifies. However, the paper's statistical-significance reporting contains an internal inconsistency (the Nσ column), and the central numerical results are presented without the code, parameter files, or chains needed to verify the custom GEDE implementation and the MCEvidence calculations. These issues must be fixed before the quantitative conclusions can be fully trusted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table II and Section IV (Nσ definition)] The column Nσ is never defined, and its values are internally inconsistent with the text. For CMB+DESI DR2, the text states Δ=0.46±0.25 is a ~1.8σ deviation, but the table lists Nσ=0.61. For CMB+DESI DR2+Pantheon+ the text says 0.06σ while the table gives 0.00; for DES-Dovekie the text says 0.33σ while the table gives 1.41. The tabulated numbers equal sqrt(|Δχ²_MAP|) when Δχ²_MAP is negative and 0 otherwise, not a Gaussian significance. Since the paper's no-preference conclusion is explicitly summarized using Nσ<2, this column must be defined, corrected, and reconciled with the reported Δ/σ values.
  2. [Section III (reproducibility)] No code, parameter files, chains, or likelihood configuration files are provided for the Cobaya/CAMB analyses with the ACT DR6 + SPT-3G + Planck NPIPE + DESI DR2 BAO stack. The GEDE background is a nonstandard modification to CAMB, and the Bayesian evidence is computed from MCMC chains with MCEvidence. Without the pipeline or at least the chains, the reported posteriors, Δχ²_MAP, and lnB values cannot be independently checked. The authors should make the analysis scripts and chains publicly available or provide a detailed implementation note, including how the GEDE equations are implemented in CAMB.
  3. [Section II.B, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The parameter z_t is described as 'the transition redshift at which ρ_m(z_t)=ρ_de(z_t)', but z_t is not included in the prior list and no equation or algorithm is given for computing it from Ω_m, Ω_DE, and Δ. Since z_t appears both in the argument of tanh and in the normalization denominator of Eq. (5), the posterior for Δ depends on how this consistency condition is implemented. The authors must specify whether z_t is solved from the equality condition, fixed to a constant, or treated as a derived quantity, and show that the equality is satisfied by the reported best-fit values.
  4. [Section III (Bayesian evidence)] The Bayes factors are computed with MCEvidence from MCMC chains, an approximate method that can be sensitive to chain length, sampling settings, and prior boundaries. The paper reports lnB values between 0.14 and 0.65 but gives no uncertainty estimates or convergence diagnostics for lnZ. Because the central 'no preference' claim relies directly on lnB < 1, the authors should quantify the expected error of MCEvidence for this problem, or cross-check at least one dataset combination with a nested-sampling calculation using PolyChord.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV, phantom-crossing discussion] The statement that GEDE 'does not exhibit the phantom crossing suggested by DESI DR2' is a property of the model form: for any fixed Δ not equal to 0, w(z) from Eq. (7) lies entirely above or below -1. The paper should state this explicitly and avoid framing it as an independent empirical finding.
  2. [Fig. 3] The shaded regions are described in the caption as 1σ and 2σ confidence intervals, but the figure contains multiple curves. It is unclear which shaded region corresponds to GEDE and which to ΛCDM for each panel. Add explicit labels or a legend.
  3. [Section II.B heading] The heading contains a typo: 'Genralized Emergent Dark Energy framework' should be 'Generalized'.
  4. [Eq. (7)] The factor in the denominator is ambiguous in the text: it appears as 'Δ/3 ln(10)', which could be read as (Δ/3)·ln(10). Please write it as Δ/(3 ln 10) or use a clear fraction.
  5. [Section IV, posterior-mean statements] For the DES-Dovekie combination, Δ=-0.05±0.15, so the sign is not significant. The statement that the mean prediction shows 'full quintessence behavior' should be softened or accompanied by the posterior probability that Δ is negative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Δ is fitted to external data and the model comparison is a standard statistical inference.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that GEDE is not preferred over ΛCDM with current data—is obtained by fitting the free parameter Δ to external cosmological datasets (DESI DR2, CMB, and SNe Ia) and then using posterior constraints and Bayesian evidence for model comparison. There is no step where a fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction: the statement that Δ is consistent with zero is a fitting result, not an output derived from the model alone. Likewise, the discussion of phantom crossing is based on Eq. (7), where the sign of the fitted Δ determines whether w(z) is below or above −1; the paper does not present this as an independent prediction, so the functional-form relation is not circular. The self-citations (e.g., refs. [27–30,35]) are used for motivation and context, not as the load-bearing evidence for the quantitative constraints; the likelihoods and MCMC sampling are external and standard. The absence of scripts and the undefined Nσ column in Table II are reproducibility/reporting concerns, not circularity. The derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to the circularity charge.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physics entities; the GEDE model and its Δ parameter are from prior literature. The only new free parameter is Δ; the standard ΛCDM parameters are fitted but are part of the baseline framework, not introduced by this paper.

free parameters (1)
  • Δ (GEDE emergence parameter) = 0.46±0.25 (CMB+DESI), 0.01±0.16 (+Pantheon+), -0.05±0.15 (+DES-Dovekie), 0.03±0.19 (+Union3)
    Single additional parameter of the GEDE model controlling the onset of dark energy; fitted jointly with the six baseline ΛCDM parameters.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Spatially flat FLRW metric
    Section II assumes flatness in E²(z) without testing curvature.
  • domain assumption GEDE parameterization fDE(z) as in Eq. (4), from Li & Shafieloo 2020
    The model's functional form, with zt fixed by the transition condition and Ωm and Δ, is taken as given.
  • standard math Standard Friedmann and continuity equations
    Used to derive the GEDE equation of state in Eq. (6)-(7).
  • domain assumption Public likelihoods are correctly implemented
    The inference depends on correct implementation of DESI DR2 BAO, Pantheon+/DES-Dovekie/Union3 SNe, and ACT+SPT+Planck CMB likelihoods in Cobaya/CAMB.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16598 in / 14279 out tokens · 135544 ms · 2026-08-01T02:07:36.964126+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we revisit the generalized emergent dark energy model by confronting it with DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, in combination with joint CMB data from ACT, SPT, and Planck, as well as Type Ia supernova samples including Pantheon$^+$, DES-Dovekie, and Union3. We find that the GEDE model remains compatible with the $\Lambda$CDM paradigm, with no statistically significant preference for deviations when all datasets are combined. In particular, the key model parameter $\Delta$ is consistent with the $\Lambda$CDM value $\Delta = 0$ within $2\sigma$ once SNe Ia data are included. Despite this overall agreement, the GEDE model does not exhibit the phantom crossing suggested by DESI DR2. Instead, the evolution of the dark energy equation of state $w(z)$ indicates that the model behaves either as a full phantom ($w < -1$) or quintessence ($w > -1$), depending on the dataset combination, without a clear transition across $w = -1$. When Pantheon$^+$ data are included, the model converges closely to $\Lambda$CDM with $w \simeq -1$. The GEDE model does not alleviate the existing cosmological tensions. The inferred values of $H_0$ remain in the range $67.9$-$69.8\ \mathrm{km,s^{-1},Mpc^{-1}}$, while the sound horizon $r_d$ and clustering parameter $S_8$ remain consistent with $\Lambda$CDM, failing to resolve the $H_0$ and $S_8$ tensions. Finally, both Gaussian significance levels ($<2\sigma$) and Bayesian evidence ($\ln B_{i,j} < 1$) indicate no statistically significant preference for GEDE over $\Lambda$CDM. We conclude that, although DESI DR2 hints at dynamical dark energy, the GEDE model remains observationally indistinguishable from $\Lambda$CDM and does not support the Quintom-B-type behavior suggested by DESI DR2.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25539 by Dhruba Jyoti Gogoi, G. Mustafa, Himanshu Chaudhary, Salvatore Capozziello, Vipin Kumar Sharma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The figure shows the corner plot of the GEDE model at 68% (1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The figure shows the 2D marginalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The figure shows the evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    indicate no statistically significant preference for GEDE overΛCDM. We conclude that, although DESI DR2 hints at dynamical dark energy, the GEDE model remains observationally indistinguishable fromΛCDM and does not support the Quintom-B–type behavior suggested by DESI DR2. I. INTRODUCTION The release of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instru- ment Data Rele...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Abdul Karim, J

    M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C. A. Prieto, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armen- gaud, et al., Desi dr2 results. ii. measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints, Physi- cal Review D 112 (8) (2025) 083515

    2025

  3. [3]

    Popovic, P

    B. Popovic, P . Shah, W. Kenworthy, R. Kessler, T. Davis, A. Goobar, D. Scolnic, M. Vincenzi, P . Wiseman, R. Chen, et al., The dark energy survey supernova program: A re- analysis of cosmology results and evidence for evolving dark energy with an updated type ia supernova calibra- tion, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07517 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Zhao, et al., Dynamical dark energy in light of the latest observations, Nature Astron

    G.-B. Zhao, et al., Dynamical dark energy in light of the latest observations, Nature Astron. 1 (9) (2017) 627–632.arXiv:1701.08165, 9 doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0216-z

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Cort ˆes, A

    M. Cort ˆes, A. R. Liddle, Interpreting DESI’s evidence for evolving dark energy, JCAP 12 (2024) 007

    2024

  6. [6]

    Capozziello, H

    S. Capozziello, H. Chaudhary, T. Harko, G. Mustafa, Is dark energy dynamical in the DESI era? A critical review, Phys. Dark Univ. 51 (2026) 102196.arXiv:2512.10585, doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.102196

    arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Calderon, et al., DESI 2024: reconstructing dark energy using crossing statistics with DESI DR1 BAO data, JCAP 10 (2024) 048

    R. Calderon, et al., DESI 2024: reconstructing dark energy using crossing statistics with DESI DR1 BAO data, JCAP 10 (2024) 048

    2024

  8. [8]

    Nesseris, L

    S. Nesseris, L. Perivolaropoulos, Crossing the Phantom Divide: Theoretical Implications and Observational Sta- tus, JCAP 01 (2007) 018.arXiv:astro-ph/0610092, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2007/01/018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  9. [9]

    Betoule, R

    M. Betoule, R. Kessler, J. Guy, J. Mosher, D. Hardin, R. Biswas, P . Astier, P . El-Hage, M. Konig, S. Kuhlmann, et al., Improved cosmological constraints from a joint analysis of the sdss-ii and snls supernova samples, As- tronomy & Astrophysics 568 (2014) A22

    2014

  10. [10]

    Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results. vi. cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys 641 (2020) A6

    2018

  11. [11]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, F. Arroja, M. Ashdown, J. Au- mont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. Bar- reiro, N. Bartolo, et al., Planck 2018 results-i. overview and the cosmological legacy of planck, Astronomy & As- trophysics 641 (2020) A1

    2018

  12. [12]

    W. J. Wolf, P . G. Ferreira, Underdetermination of dark en- ergy, Phys. Rev. D 108 (10) (2023) 103519

    2023

  13. [13]

    Efstathiou, J

    G. Efstathiou, J. R. Bond, Cosmic confusion: degeneracies among cosmological parameters derived from measure- ments of microwave background anisotropies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 304 (1) (1999) 75–97

    1999

  14. [14]

    Kosowsky, M

    A. Kosowsky, M. Milosavljevic, R. Jimenez, Efficient cos- mological parameter estimation from microwave back- ground anisotropies, Physical Review D 66 (6) (2002) 063007

    2002

  15. [15]

    Y. Wang, L. Pogosian, G.-B. Zhao, A. Zucca, Evolution of dark energy reconstructed from the latest observations, Astrophys. J. Lett. 869 (2018) L8.arXiv:1807.03772, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf238

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Sahni, A

    V . Sahni, A. A. Starobinsky, The Case for a positive cos- mological Lambda term, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 9 (2000) 373–444.arXiv:astro-ph/9904398,doi:10.1142/ S0218271800000542

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  17. [17]

    Padmanabhan, Cosmological constant: The Weight of the vacuum, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Cosmological constant: The Weight of the vacuum, Phys. Rept. 380 (2003) 235–320.arXiv: hep-th/0212290,doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(03) 00120-0

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  18. [18]

    J. S. Bagla, T. Padmanabhan, J. V . Narlikar, Crisis in cos- mology: Observational constraints on omega and h(0), Comments Astrophys. 18 (1996) 275.arXiv:astro-ph/ 9511102

    1996

  19. [19]

    Di Valentino, et al., Snowmass2021 - Letter of interest cosmology intertwined II: The hubble constant tension, Astropart

    E. Di Valentino, et al., Snowmass2021 - Letter of interest cosmology intertwined II: The hubble constant tension, Astropart. Phys. 131 (2021) 102605.arXiv:2008.11284, doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2021.102605

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    K. L. Pandey, T. Karwal, S. Das, Alleviating theH 0 and σ8 anomalies with a decaying dark matter model, JCAP 07 (2020) 026.arXiv:1902.10636,doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2020/07/026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Bhattacharyya, U

    A. Bhattacharyya, U. Alam, K. L. Pandey, S. Das, S. Pal, AreH 0 andσ 8 tensions generic to present cosmological data?, Astrophys. J. 876 (2) (2019) 143.arXiv:1805. 04716,doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab12d6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab12d6 2019

  22. [22]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, J. Silk, In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions, Class. Quant. Grav. 38 (15) (2021) 153001.arXiv:2103.01183, doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Di Valentino, et al., Cosmology Intertwined III:fσ 8 andS 8, Astropart

    E. Di Valentino, et al., Cosmology Intertwined III:fσ 8 andS 8, Astropart. Phys. 131 (2021) 102604.arXiv:2008.11285,doi:10.1016/j. astropartphys.2021.102604

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Chevallier, D

    M. Chevallier, D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10 (2001) 213–224.arXiv:gr-qc/0009008,doi:10.1142/ S0218271801000822

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  25. [25]

    E. V . Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 091301.arXiv: astro-ph/0208512,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 90.091301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  26. [26]

    H. K. Jassal, J. S. Bagla, T. Padmanabhan, WMAP con- straints on low redshift evolution of dark energy, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 356 (2005) L11–L16.arXiv: astro-ph/0404378,doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933. 2005.08577.x

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  27. [27]

    Joyce, L

    A. Joyce, L. Lombriser, F. Schmidt, Dark Energy Ver- sus Modified Gravity, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 66 (2016) 95–122.arXiv:1601.06133,doi:10.1146/ annurev-nucl-102115-044553

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [28]

    Chaudhary, S

    H. Chaudhary, S. Capozziello, V . K. Sharma, G. Mustafa, Does DESI DR2 ChallengeΛCDM Paradigm?, Astrophys. J. 992 (2) (2025) 194.arXiv:2507.21607,doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/ae0458

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Chaudhary, S

    H. Chaudhary, S. Capozziello, S. Praharaj, S. K. J. Pacif, G. Mustafa, Is theΛCDM model in crisis?, JHEAp 50 (2026) 100507.arXiv:2509.17124,doi:10.1016/j. jheap.2025.100507

    arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Chaudhary, V

    H. Chaudhary, V . K. Sharma, S. Capozziello, G. Mustafa, Probing Departures fromΛCDM by Late-time Datasets, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 283 (2) (2026) 73.arXiv:2510. 08339,doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae4b3f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae4b3f 2026

  31. [31]

    Capozziello, H

    S. Capozziello, H. Chaudhary, G. Mustafa, S. K. J. Pacif, Evidence for Dynamical Dark Energy using DESI DR2 LyαForest (10 2025).arXiv:2510.21976

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Y. Cai, X. Ren, T. Qiu, M. Li, X. Zhang, The Quintom theory of dark energy after DESI DR2 (5 2025).arXiv: 2505.24732,doi:10.1093/nsr/nwag115

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Malekjani, S

    M. Malekjani, S. Pourojaghi, Z. Davari, How Complex is Dark Energy? A Bayesian Analysis of CPL Exten- sions with Recent DESI BAO Measurements (11 2025). arXiv:2511.18657. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, S. Pan, A. Shafieloo, X. Li, Generalized emergent dark energy model and the Hub- ble constant tension, Phys. Rev. D 104 (6) (2021) 063521. arXiv:2103.03815,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104. 063521

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    X. Li, A. Shafieloo, Evidence for Emergent Dark Energy, Astrophys. J. 902 (1) (2020) 58.arXiv:2001.05103, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb3d0

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    V . k. Sharma, H. Chaudhary, S. Kolekar, Probing gener- alized emergent dark energy with DESI DR2, JHEAp 51 (2026) 100518.arXiv:2507.00835,doi:10.1016/j. jheap.2025.100518

    arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Torrado, A

    J. Torrado, A. Lewis, Cobaya: Code for bayesian analy- sis of hierarchical physical models, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (05) (2021) 057

    2021

  38. [38]

    W. J. Handley, M. P . Hobson, A. N. Lasenby, Polychord: next-generation nested sampling, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 453 (4) (2015) 4384–4398

    2015

  39. [39]

    Handley, M

    W. Handley, M. Hobson, A. Lasenby, Polychord: nested sampling for cosmology, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 450 (1) (2015) L61–L65

    2015

  40. [40]

    Lewis, S

    A. Lewis, S. Bridle, Cosmological parameters from cmb and other data: A monte carlo approach, Physical Review D 66 (10) (2002) 103511

    2002

  41. [41]

    Lewis, Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmo- logical parameters, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 87 (10) (2013) 103529

    A. Lewis, Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmo- logical parameters, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 87 (10) (2013) 103529

    2013

  42. [42]

    R. M. Neal, Taking bigger metropolis steps by dragging fast variables, arXiv preprint math/0502099 (2005)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  43. [43]

    Gelman, D

    A. Gelman, D. B. Rubin, Inference from iterative simu- lation using multiple sequences, Statistical science 7 (4) (1992) 457–472

    1992

  44. [44]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, A. Lasenby, Efficient computation of cosmic microwave background anisotropies in closed friedmann-robertson-walker models, The Astrophysical Journal 538 (2) (2000) 473–476

    2000

  45. [45]

    Howlett, A

    C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall, A. Challinor, Cmb power spectrum parameter degeneracies in the era of preci- sion cosmology, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012 (04) (2012) 027–027

    2012

  46. [46]

    Lewis, Getdist: a python package for analysing monte carlo samples, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025 (08) (2025) 025

    A. Lewis, Getdist: a python package for analysing monte carlo samples, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025 (08) (2025) 025

    2025

  47. [47]

    Heavens, Y

    A. Heavens, Y. Fantaye, A. Mootoovaloo, H. Eggers, Z. Hosenie, S. Kroon, E. Sellentin, Marginal likeli- hoods from monte carlo markov chains, arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.03472 (2017)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    Heavens, Y

    A. Heavens, Y. Fantaye, E. Sellentin, H. Eggers, Z. Ho- senie, S. Kroon, A. Mootoovaloo, No evidence for exten- sions to the standard cosmological model, Physical re- view letters 119 (10) (2017) 101301

    2017

  49. [49]

    R. E. Kass, A. E. Raftery, Bayes factors, Journal of the american statistical association 90 (430) (1995) 773–795

    1995

  50. [50]

    Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology, Contemporary Physics 49 (2) (2008) 71–104

    R. Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology, Contemporary Physics 49 (2) (2008) 71–104

    2008

  51. [51]

    Scolnic, D

    D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A. G. Riess, T. M. Davis, A. Dwomoh, D. O. Jones, N. Ali, P . Charvu, R. Chen, et al., The pantheon+ analysis: the full data set and light-curve release, The Astrophysical Journal 938 (2) (2022) 113

    2022

  52. [52]

    Brout, D

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A. G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz, R. Kessler, T. M. Davis, S. Hinton, D. Jones, et al., The pantheon+ analysis: cosmological constraints, The Astrophysical Journal 938 (2) (2022) 110

    2022

  53. [53]

    Hicken, P

    M. Hicken, P . Challis, S. Jha, R. P . Kirshner, T. Matheson, M. Modjaz, A. Rest, W. Michael Wood-Vasey, G. Bakos, E. J. Barton, et al., Cfa3: 185 type ia supernova light curves from the cfa, The Astrophysical Journal 700 (1) (2009) 331– 357

    2009

  54. [54]

    Hicken, P

    M. Hicken, P . Challis, R. P . Kirshner, A. Rest, C. E. Cramer, W. M. Wood-Vasey, G. Bakos, P . Berlind, W. R. Brown, N. Caldwell, et al., Cfa4: light curves for 94 type ia su- pernovae, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 200 (2) (2012) 12

    2012

  55. [55]

    Foley, Foundation supernova survey, Keck Observa- tory Archive U079 (2017) 39

    R. Foley, Foundation supernova survey, Keck Observa- tory Archive U079 (2017) 39

    2017

  56. [56]

    D. C. T. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. An- nis, P . Armstrong, et al., The dark energy survey: Cos- mology results with 1500 new high-redshift type ia su- pernovae using the full 5 yr data set, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 973 (1) (2024) L14

    2024

  57. [57]

    S ´anchez, D

    B. S ´anchez, D. Brout, M. Vincenzi, M. Sako, K. Herner, R. Kessler, T. Davis, D. Scolnic, M. Acevedo, J. Lee, et al., The dark energy survey supernova program: light curves and 5 yr data release, The Astrophysical Journal 975 (1) (2024) 5

    2024

  58. [58]

    Vincenzi, D

    M. Vincenzi, D. Brout, P . Armstrong, B. Popovic, G. Tay- lor, M. Acevedo, R. Camilleri, R. Chen, T. Davis, J. Lee, et al., The dark energy survey supernova program: Cos- mological analysis and systematic uncertainties, The As- trophysical Journal 975 (1) (2024) 86

    2024

  59. [59]

    Rubin, G

    D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, X. Huang, A. G. Kim, C. Lidman, E. Linder, S. Perlmutter, P . Ruiz- Lapuente, et al., Union through unity: cosmology with 2000 sne using a unified bayesian framework, The Astro- physical Journal 986 (2) (2025) 231

    2000

  60. [60]

    Efstathiou, S

    G. Efstathiou, S. Gratton, A Detailed Description of the CAMSPEC Likelihood Pipeline and a Reanalysis of the Planck High Frequency Maps, The Open Journal of Astro- physics 4 (aug 17 2021).doi:10.21105/astro.1910. 00483

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.1910 2021

  61. [61]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton, G. Efstathiou, Cmb power spec- tra and cosmological parameters from planck pr4 with camspec, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety 517 (3) (2022) 4620–4636

    2022

  62. [62]

    Camphuis, W

    E. Camphuis, W. Quan, L. Balkenhol, A. Khalife, F. Ge, F. Guidi, N. Huang, G. Lynch, Y. Omori, C. Trendafilova, et al., Spt-3g d1: Cmb temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the spt-3g main field, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.20707 (2025). 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    MacCrann, B

    N. MacCrann, B. D. Sherwin, F. J. Qu, T. Namikawa, M. S. Madhavacheril, I. Abril-Cabezas, R. An, J. E. Austermann, N. Battaglia, E. S. Battistelli, et al., The atacama cosmol- ogy telescope: Mitigating the impact of extragalactic fore- grounds for the dr6 cosmic microwave background lens- ing analysis, The Astrophysical Journal 966 (1) (2024) 138

    2024

  64. [64]

    F. J. Qu, B. D. Sherwin, M. S. Madhavacheril, D. Han, K. T. Crowley, I. Abril-Cabezas, P . A. Ade, S. Aiola, T. Al- ford, M. Amiri, et al., The atacama cosmology telescope: A measurement of the dr6 cmb lensing power spectrum and its implications for structure growth, The Astrophys- ical Journal 962 (2) (2024) 112

    2024

  65. [65]

    M. S. Madhavacheril, F. J. Qu, B. D. Sherwin, N. Mac- Crann, Y. Li, I. Abril-Cabezas, P . A. Ade, S. Aiola, T. Al- ford, M. Amiri, et al., The atacama cosmology telescope: Dr6 gravitational lensing map and cosmological parame- ters, The Astrophysical Journal 962 (2) (2024) 113

    2024

  66. [66]

    F. J. Qu, F. Ge, W. K. Wu, I. Abril-Cabezas, M. S. Mad- havacheril, M. Millea, Z. Ahmed, E. Anderes, A. J. An- derson, B. Ansarinejad, et al., Unified and consistent structure growth measurements from joint act, spt, and planck cmb lensing, Physical Review Letters 136 (2) (2026) 021001

    2026

  67. [67]

    F. Ge, M. Millea, E. Camphuis, C. Daley, N. Huang, Y. Omori, W. Quan, E. Anderes, A. Anderson, B. Ansarinejad, et al., Cosmology from cmb lensing and delensed ee power spectra using 2019–2020 spt-3g polarization data, Physical Review D 111 (8) (2025) 083534

    2019

  68. [68]

    A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano, D. O. Jones, Y. Murakami, G. S. Anand, L. Breuval, 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, The Astrophysical journal letters 934 (1) (2022) L7

    2022

  69. [69]

    L. Knox, M. Millea, Hubble constant hunter’s guide, Physical Review D 101 (4) (2020) 043533

    2020

  70. [70]

    Vagnozzi, Seven hints that early-time new physics alone is not sufficient to solve the hubble tension, Uni- verse 9 (9) (2023) 393

    S. Vagnozzi, Seven hints that early-time new physics alone is not sufficient to solve the hubble tension, Uni- verse 9 (9) (2023) 393

    2023

  71. [71]

    Jedamzik, L

    K. Jedamzik, L. Pogosian, G.-B. Zhao, Why reducing the cosmic sound horizon alone can not fully resolve the hub- ble tension, Communications Physics 4 (1) (2021) 123

    2021

  72. [72]

    J. L. Bernal, L. Verde, A. G. Riess, The trouble withH 0, JCAP 10 (2016) 019.arXiv:1607.05617,doi:10. 1088/1475-7516/2016/10/019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  73. [73]

    Aylor, M

    K. Aylor, M. Joy, L. Knox, M. Millea, S. Raghunathan, W. L. K. Wu, Sounds Discordant: Classical Distance Lad- der &ΛCDM -based Determinations of the Cosmological Sound Horizon, Astrophys. J. 874 (1) (2019) 4.arXiv: 1811.00537,doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0898

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  74. [74]

    L. Knox, M. Millea, Hubble constant hunter’s guide, Phys. Rev. D 101 (4) (2020) 043533.arXiv:1908.03663,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043533

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  75. [75]

    Efstathiou, To H0 or not to H0?, Mon

    G. Efstathiou, To H0 or not to H0?, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 505 (3) (2021) 3866–3872.arXiv:2103.08723, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1588

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  76. [76]

    Jiang, D

    J.-Q. Jiang, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, S. Vagnozzi, Nonparametric late-time expansion history reconstruc- tion and implications for the Hubble tension in light of recent DESI and type Ia supernovae data, Phys. Rev. D 110 (12) (2024) 123519.arXiv:2408.02365,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.110.123519

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    T. M. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. Annis, S. Avila, D. Ba- con, et al., Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmolog- ical constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing, Physical Review D 105 (2) (2022) 023520

    2022

  78. [78]

    Asgari, C.-A

    M. Asgari, C.-A. Lin, B. Joachimi, B. Giblin, C. Heymans, H. Hildebrandt, A. Kannawadi, B. St¨olzner, T. Tr¨oster, J. L. van den Busch, et al., Kids-1000 cosmology: Cosmic shear constraints and comparison between two point statistics, Astronomy & Astrophysics 645 (2021) A104

    2021

  79. [79]

    Pedrotti, L

    D. Pedrotti, L. A. Escamilla, V . Marra, L. Perivolaropou- los, S. Vagnozzi, BAO miscalibration cannot rescue late- time solutions to the Hubble tension, Phys. Rev. D 113 (4) (2026) 043507.arXiv:2510.01974,doi:10.1103/ pn9j-8whx

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  80. [80]

    Moresco, A

    M. Moresco, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, L. Pozzetti, G. Zamorani, M. Bolzonella, J. Dunlop, F. Lamareille, M. Mignoli, H. Pearce, et al., Improved constraints on the expansion rate of the universe up to z 1.1 from the spectroscopic evolution of cosmic chronometers, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012 (08) (2012) 006

    2012

Showing first 80 references.