Bayesian reconstruction and exhaustive symbolic regression on CMB, BAO, and supernova data yield the one-parameter dark energy parametrization w(a) = w0 / sqrt(a) that fits observations comparably to CPL and better than LambdaCDM.
Canonical reference
Dynamical dark energy confronted with multiple CMB missions,
Canonical reference. 83% of citing Pith papers cite this work as background.
7
Pith papers citing it
Background
83% of classified citations
citation-role summary
background 5
baseline 1
citation-polarity summary
fields
astro-ph.CO 7verdicts
UNVERDICTED 7representative citing papers
Relativistic N-body simulations of Lambda_s CDM produce a redshift-dependent crest in the matter power spectrum ratio, peaking at 20-25% near the transition and leaving a 15-20% uplift at z=0 on group scales.
Bin-wise uncorrelated reconstruction from DESI/SDSS BAO and Pantheon+/Union3.1/DES-Dovekie supernovae yields dark energy density peaking then declining and equation of state oscillating with phantom crossing near z~0.7, consistent across datasets at moderate significance.
A sign-switching dark energy model (Λ_s CDM) recovers positive effective neutrino masses (0.055 ± 0.050 eV) consistent with oscillation data, unlike ΛCDM which prefers negative values (-0.075 eV), for DESI DR2 + CMB + supernova fits with z_† > 2.4.
Node-based reconstruction of cosmic expansion prefers stronger deceleration at z≈1.7 than smooth DE EoS parametrizations, isolating z~1.5-2 as a window where the latter may compress localized kinematic features permitted by current data.
Evidence for dynamical dark energy in the w0waCDM framework is strongly dataset-dependent, driven by mismatches in low-redshift BAO distance ratios that produce divergent expansion histories and inconsistent Hubble tension relief.
Exponential IR f(T) gravity Model I alleviates Hubble tension but is disfavoured by combined Planck/ACT/SPT+DESI+Pantheon+ data; Model II is ruled out because background constraints force unphysical shifts in CMB parameters.
citing papers explorer
-
Data-Driven Discovery of a Simple Phantom-Crossing Dark Energy Parametrization
Bayesian reconstruction and exhaustive symbolic regression on CMB, BAO, and supernova data yield the one-parameter dark energy parametrization w(a) = w0 / sqrt(a) that fits observations comparably to CPL and better than LambdaCDM.
-
Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum from relativistic $N$-body Simulations: $\Lambda_{\rm s}$CDM versus $\Lambda$CDM
Relativistic N-body simulations of Lambda_s CDM produce a redshift-dependent crest in the matter power spectrum ratio, peaking at 20-25% near the transition and leaving a 15-20% uplift at z=0 on group scales.
-
Reconstructing dark energy with fewer assumptions
Bin-wise uncorrelated reconstruction from DESI/SDSS BAO and Pantheon+/Union3.1/DES-Dovekie supernovae yields dark energy density peaking then declining and equation of state oscillating with phantom crossing near z~0.7, consistent across datasets at moderate significance.
-
Negative neutrino mass or negative dark energy?
A sign-switching dark energy model (Λ_s CDM) recovers positive effective neutrino masses (0.055 ± 0.050 eV) consistent with oscillation data, unlike ΛCDM which prefers negative values (-0.075 eV), for DESI DR2 + CMB + supernova fits with z_† > 2.4.
-
Do equation of state parametrizations of dark energy faithfully capture the dynamics of the late universe?
Node-based reconstruction of cosmic expansion prefers stronger deceleration at z≈1.7 than smooth DE EoS parametrizations, isolating z~1.5-2 as a window where the latter may compress localized kinematic features permitted by current data.
-
Probing Dynamical Dark Energy with Late-Time Data: Evidence, Tensions, and the Limits of the $w_0w_a$CDM Framework
Evidence for dynamical dark energy in the w0waCDM framework is strongly dataset-dependent, driven by mismatches in low-redshift BAO distance ratios that produce divergent expansion histories and inconsistent Hubble tension relief.
-
Cosmological Viability of Exponential Infrared $f(T)$ Gravity
Exponential IR f(T) gravity Model I alleviates Hubble tension but is disfavoured by combined Planck/ACT/SPT+DESI+Pantheon+ data; Model II is ruled out because background constraints force unphysical shifts in CMB parameters.