An overview of what current data can (and cannot yet) say about evolving dark energy

Eleonora Di Valentino; Supriya Pan; Tariq Mahassen; William Giar\`e

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 18 cited by

An overview of what current data can (and cannot yet) say about evolving dark energy

T0 review · 4 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 The evidence that dark energy's equation of state changes over time reaches 3.9σ in the most favorable dataset combination but nearly vanishes when SDSS BAO and PantheonPlus supernovae are used together, so the hint is dataset-dependent…

desk verdict Useful systematic map of where the DESI dark-energy hint lives, but the sigma ladder is unreliable where wa hits the prior boundary and the 'independent SN' framing overstates the cross-checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10264 v2 pith:P7W5TI7B submitted 2025-02-14 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

William Giarè , Tariq Mahassen , Eleonora Di Valentino , Supriya Pan This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COgr-qc

keywords dynamicaldarkenergyChevallier-Polarski-LinderparametrizationbaryonacousticoscillationsTypeIasupernovaecosmicmicrowavebackgroundcosmologicalconstantdatasetcombinationrobustnessequationofstate

topics Dark Energy

open problems Dark Energy

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

Recent DESI baryon acoustic oscillation data, combined with supernova distances, have hinted that dark energy's equation of state changes with time. This paper tests how robust that hint is by reanalyzing more than 35 combinations of Planck CMB, DESI and SDSS BAO, three Type Ia supernova catalogs (PantheonPlus, Union3, DESY5), and cosmic chronometer $H(z)$ measurements under the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder ansatz $w(a)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$. The authors find that the preference for evolving dark energy appears in most combinations and peaks at $3.9\sigma$ for CMB$+$DESI$+$DESY5, always with the same qualitative pattern: a phantom-like past and a quintessence-like present. The single configuration that systematically erases the preference is SDSS BAO paired with PantheonPlus supernovae, which drops the significance to $1.6\sigma$ or below. The paper's message is that the preference is consistent across most combinations yet dataset-dependent, not a universal feature of current data.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder (CPL) parametrization, $w(a)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$, a two-parameter linear model of how the dark energy equation of state varies with scale factor, where $w_0$ is the present value and $w_a$ encodes its evolution, with $w_a=0$ reducing to the cosmological constant. The paper quantifies the evidence for a nonzero $w_a$ by taking the difference in minimum $\chi^2$ between the CPL model and $\Lambda$CDM on identical datasets, converting the resulting $p$-value into a $\sigma$ scale. The second piece of machinery is the dataset grid itself: two BAO surveys (DESI and SDSS), three supernova catalogs (PantheonPlus, Union3, DESY5), Planck CMB, and cosmic chronometers, combined in over 35 configurations so that every probe's contribution to the signal can be isolated.

What would settle it

Recompute the CMB$+$DESI$+$DESY5 significance using only the DESY5 supernovae that are not shared with PantheonPlus; if the $3.9\sigma$ preference for evolving dark energy drops below $2\sigma$ once the shared low-redshift objects are excluded, then the headline signal is carried by PantheonPlus overlap rather than by independent DESY5 data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' own terms, the central result is a map of where the dynamical dark energy signal does and does not appear. Across nearly all of the 35-plus combinations, the CPL fit drives $w_0$ toward values above $-1$ (quintessence today) and $w_a$ below $0$ (phantom in the past), and this trend alone is remarkably consistent. The statistical strength, however, splits along two axes: the choice of supernova catalog (DESY5 and Union3 give strong evidence; PantheonPlus weakens it) and the choice of BAO survey (DESI strengthens, SDSS softens). The strongest case is CMB$+$DESI$+$DESY5 at $3.9\sigma$; CMB$+$DESI$+$Union3 gives $3.5\sigma$; and CMB$+$SDSS$+$DESY5 gives $2.6\sigma$. The exception that stands out is any combination containing both SDSS BAO and PantheonPlus supernovae, where the deviation from $\Lambda$CDM falls to $1.6\sigma$ and below, even to $1.0\sigma$ with cosmic chronometers added. That single configuration is what prevents the paper from declaring the DDE preference robust across all current data.

Load-bearing premise

The three supernova catalogs are treated as independent probes in the robustness argument, yet they substantially overlap—Union3 shares 1,363 of its 2,087 supernovae with PantheonPlus and DESY5 includes 194 low-redshift supernovae in common with PantheonPlus—so the agreement across catalogs is partly the same data counted multiple times.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the pattern holds, the DESI-reported DDE hint is not a single-survey fluke: it survives when DESI is replaced by SDSS if the supernova catalog is Union3 or DESY5.
Any claim that data favor evolving dark energy should carry a footnote about which combination is being quoted, since the same model ranges from $3.9\sigma$ to $0.1\sigma$ across the grid.
The consistent sign pattern ($w_0>-1$, $w_a<0$) means that even weak configurations move parameter estimates in the same direction, which is what one expects if a real effect is being diluted rather than manufactured.
Cosmic chronometer $H(z)$ data add little constraining power once CMB, BAO, and supernovae are included, so future gains in settling this question will come from new BAO or supernova data, not additional chronometers.
A maximum of $3.9\sigma$ is suggestive but not discovery-level; the spread across combinations is itself the headline uncertainty.

Reading between the lines

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

The three supernova catalogs are not independent measurements of the same sky: Union3 shares roughly 1,363 of its 2,087 supernovae with PantheonPlus, and DESY5 includes 194 low-redshift supernovae that also live in PantheonPlus, so the cross-catalog agreement is partly the same objects appearing twice.
If the shared supernovae were removed and each catalog analyzed only on its unique objects, the spread in significance between PantheonPlus and the other two catalogs might shrink—or grow, depending on which objects actually drive the signal.
The paper's grid cannot distinguish a genuinely evolving dark energy from a low-redshift distance systematic that tilts supernova magnitudes in a redshift-dependent way, because both would produce the same $w_0$-$w_a$ pattern.
A natural extension would be to repeat the full 35-combination grid with a non-parametric reconstruction of $w(a)$ or a different two-parameter ansatz; if the dataset-dependence persists across parametrizations, it likely reflects real tension in the data rather than the shape of the CPL curve.

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

Here's the short version: this is a useful, honestly written systematic map of where the DESI dynamical dark energy preference lives, but its headline significance ladder is unreliable in exactly the rows where the wa posterior hits the prior boundary, and the 'independent SN catalogs' framing is contradicted by the paper's own dataset description. The qualitative conclusion — dataset dependence, with SDSS+PantheonPlus weakening the hint — probably survives. The specific sigma map does not.

What's actually new: Table II and the cross-combination synthesis. The individual constraints reproduce earlier work (refs. [191,192,203,219,220]), and the paper says so; the CMB-alone results are explicitly not new. That's an acceptable contribution for a focused review: the field needs a clear map of which data choices drive the hint, and this paper provides it using standard public likelihoods.

I checked the statistical concern about prior boundaries and it's real. The paper converts Δχ² = min χ²_CPL − min χ²_ΛCDM to significance using a χ²_2 null. That holds only when the CPL best fit is in the interior of the parameter space. In several rows of Table II the wa limit is truncated by the prior edge: CMB+DESI gives wa < −1.05, CMB+DESI+CC gives wa < −0.991, DESI+CC gives wa < −0.197, and CMB alone and CMB+U3 are also upper limits. For boundary maxima, the null distribution is a mixture with heavier tails, so the quoted 2.3σ and 2.6σ for CMB+DESI and CMB+DESI+CC are inflated. The statement 'the preference for DDE remains robust across most dataset combinations' depends partly on those inflated entries. It's fixable with a proper boundary-robust calculation or a profile-likelihood treatment, and I'd want that before relying on the detailed sigma map.

Second soft spot: the paper calls the three SN catalogs 'independent' in the abstract and conclusions, but the dataset section openly states that Union3 shares 1363 of its 2087 SNe with PantheonPlus, and DESY5 contains 194 low-redshift SNe that overlap with PantheonPlus. So the cross-catalog agreement is not an independent check; shared objects can inflate consistency. They disclose this, so it's not hidden, but the framing overstates the robustness.

Third, no chains or scripts are provided, so Table II cannot be independently verified. Minor, but worth noting.

Overall: this is a serious, useful paper for someone who wants the bird's-eye view of the current DDE evidence. I'd send it to a competent referee with specific request to fix the boundary significance analysis and re-frame the SN independence claim. The qualitative message will likely stand.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a systematic analysis of the preference for dynamical dark energy (CPL parametrization) over ΛCDM, using Planck CMB, three Type Ia supernova catalogs (PantheonPlus, Union3, DESY5), DESI and SDSS BAO measurements, and cosmic chronometers, across 35 dataset combinations. For each combination the authors compute Δχ² between the best-fit CPL model and ΛCDM and convert it to a Gaussian significance via a χ²_2 approximation. They report that the preference is strongest for CMB+DESI+DESY5 (3.9σ), is weakened when PantheonPlus or SDSS BAO are used, and is otherwise robust across most combinations. The paper concludes that the current DDE hint is dataset-dependent rather than a universal feature of the data.

Significance. If the significance map were reliable, this would be a valuable synthesis: it organizes a large number of publicly available likelihoods and clearly demonstrates that the DDE preference depends on the choice of SN catalog and BAO survey. The paper uses standard codes and data, reports constraints in a transparent table, and explicitly discloses the overlap between SN catalogs, which is a strength. The central qualitative conclusion—that combining PantheonPlus with SDSS BAO substantially weakens the DDE preference—is plausible and consistent with the broader literature. However, several of the headline significance values are not trustworthy because they are derived from a likelihood-ratio approximation that fails for prior-boundary cases, and the repeated use of 'independent' for overlapping SN catalogs overstates the robustness argument.

major comments (4)

[Section III, Eqs. (8)–(10); Table II] The conversion Δχ² → χ²_2 in Eqs. (8)–(10) is invalid for rows where the CPL best fit lies on the flat prior boundary. Table II reports such cases: CMB+DESI has wa < −1.05 (68% CL), CMB+DESI+CC has wa < −0.991, CMB alone has wa < −0.197, and DESI+U3+CC has wa < −0.906, all with the lower end of the posterior truncated by the prior boundary at wa = −2. For boundary maxima, Wilks' theorem does not apply: the null distribution of the likelihood-ratio statistic is not χ²_2 but a mixture with lower effective degrees of freedom. The quoted significances for these rows (e.g., 2.3σ for CMB+DESI, 2.6σ for CMB+DESI+CC, 1.9σ for CMB) are therefore inflated. This is load-bearing for the claim in Section V that 'the preference for DDE remains robust across most dataset combinations,' since the CMB+DESI and CMB+DESI+CC entries are used to support that claim without SN data. The authors should either recompute significances with a boundary-aware null distribution (e.g., profile likelihood over the full prior, or a posterior-based evidence ratio), or explicitly mark these rows as unreliable and redraw the significance map. Reporting the raw Δχ² values would also allow readers to check the conversion.
[Section III dataset bullets; Section V] The paper repeatedly calls PantheonPlus, Union3, and DESY5 'independent' Type Ia supernova catalogs (abstract, Section I, Section V), but its own dataset bullets state that Union3 shares 1363 of its 2087 supernovae with PantheonPlus, and that DESY5 includes 194 low-redshift supernovae overlapping with PantheonPlus. The robustness argument in Section V, which treats agreement among these catalogs as evidence from independent probes, is therefore overstated. The text should replace 'independent' with 'distinct' or 'different compilations,' and should either quantify the impact of the overlap (for example, by rerunning the analysis with the shared supernovae removed) or explicitly state that no quantitative correction for the overlap is made.
[Abstract; Section V bullet list] The abstract and the final bullet list state that 'SDSS-BAO combined with SN from Union3 and DESY5 (with and without CMB) support the preference for DDE.' Table II gives only 1.9σ for CMB+SDSS+U3 and 1.8σ for CMB+SDSS+U3+CC, both below the conventional 2σ threshold. The wording should be softened to 'weakly favor' or 'show a mild trend' for the Union3+CMB cases, and the distinction between >2σ and <2σ evidence should be made explicit.
[Section V bullet list] The statement that 'the only scenario where this preference is significantly weakened is when SDSS BAO and PantheonPlus SN are considered simultaneously' is contradicted by other rows in Table II, including CMB+PP (0.1σ), CMB+SDSS (0.3σ), and DESI+PP+CC (0.0σ). If the claim is meant to apply only to a subset of combinations (e.g., only CMB+BAO+SN combinations), that qualification must be stated in the sentence; otherwise the conclusion is factually incorrect as written.

minor comments (5)

[Section III, Eq. (8)] Since Δχ² = min(χ²_CPL) − min(χ²_ΛCDM) is non-positive by construction (the CPL model has two extra parameters), the use of |Δχ²| in Eq. (8) should be motivated and the sign convention stated explicitly.
[Section III, methodology paragraph] The convergence criterion R−1 < 0.02 is given, but no chain lengths, numbers of walkers, or thinning details are reported. Adding these would improve reproducibility.
[Table II and Section IV.B.3] For rows with upper limits, the table lists two numbers in parentheses (e.g., '< −1.05 (< −0.238)'); the caption says '68% CL (95% CL)' for parameters with errors, but the convention for upper-limit entries is not explicitly defined and should be clarified.
[Section IV.A.1] The text says DESI+CC 'fails to constrain wa within the considered flat prior,' while Table II lists an upper limit for wa. This is contradictory; the intended meaning is presumably that wa is not constrained from below and the posterior is prior-dominated. Please rephrase.
[Figure 2] The whisker plots show only 68% CL intervals. For rows with upper limits or open contours, the plots should use arrows or a different symbol to indicate that the 68% interval is truncated by the prior boundary.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DDE preference is obtained from independent model fits, not from an input assumption or self-cited result.

full rationale

The paper's central quantity is the Δχ² between CPL and ΛCDM fits to each dataset combination (Sec. III, Eqs. 8–10), computed from MCMC chains run for this review with CAMB and Cobaya. The claim that DDE is preferred is not equivalent to any input: the CPL parametrization is adopted explicitly (Sec. II, Eq. 6) as an assumption, and ΛCDM is the null model; the significance is a posteriori. Combinations without DESI (SDSS, CC, CMB) serve as external checks, so the conclusion is not forced by reusing the DESI likelihood. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [128, 191, 192]) appear in the literature review and are not used to justify the numerical results, which are computed in this paper. The Wilks-theorem/boundary concern raised by the skeptic is a statistical validity issue (a boundary maximum makes the χ²_2 conversion approximate), not a circularity; the overlap among supernova catalogs is a data-independence issue, not a definitional reduction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz result is imported from the authors' prior work to force the choice. The derivation chain is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central DDE claim rests on two fitted CPL parameters and on standard cosmological parameters sampled jointly. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main additional axioms are the CPL ansatz, the sound speed choice, the flat-ΛCDM background, and the assumption that the three SN catalogs are independent despite overlapping samples.

free parameters (3)

w0 (present-day dark energy equation of state) = For example, -0.735 plus or minus 0.067 for CMB+DESI+DESY5, with values varying by combination.
Central parameter of the CPL model; its fitted value relative to -1 drives the DDE preference.
wa (dark energy evolution parameter) = For example, -0.999 with asymmetric uncertainties for CMB+DESI+DESY5, with values varying by combination.
Non-zero wa indicates dynamical dark energy; the significance is computed from the joint fit of w0 and wa.
Standard ΛCDM parameters (Ωbh2, Ωch2, As, ns, τ, 100θMC) = Varied with flat priors listed in Table I; not individually reported as table entries.
Sampled jointly with the dark energy parameters; their degeneracies can affect the inferred w0 and wa.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The universe is spatially flat and described by the FLRW metric with GR as the gravitational theory.
Invoked in Section II, where the flat FLRW line element and GR are assumed.
domain assumption The CPL parametrization w(a)=w0+wa(1-a) is an adequate description of any dark energy dynamics for detecting evolution.
Adopted in Section II following DESI [195]; it is a linear truncation and could miss other dynamical behaviors.
domain assumption The dark energy sound speed c_s,DE^2 is set to unity.
Section II, perturbation equations; affects growth and CMB lensing, not purely background.
domain assumption Neutrino masses are fixed to Σmν=0.06 eV and Neff=3.044.
Section II footnote; simplifying assumption that can shift CMB constraints.
domain assumption The Δχ2 between CPL and ΛCDM follows a chi-square distribution with 2 degrees of freedom.
Section III, Eqs. (8)-(10); standard but can fail when posteriors hit prior boundaries (e.g., wa upper limits).
domain assumption The three supernova catalogs can be treated as independent probes.
Section III dataset bullets; Union3 shares 1363 SNe with PantheonPlus and DESY5 shares 194 low-z SNe, so the catalogs are not fully independent.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An overview of what current data can (and cannot yet) say about evolving dark energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P7W5TI7B

@misc{pith2026250210264,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An overview of what current data can (and cannot yet) say about evolving dark energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P7W5TI7B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10264}
}

abstract

Recent measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) and distance moduli from Type Ia supernovae suggest a preference for Dynamical Dark Energy (DDE) scenarios characterized by a time-varying equation of state (EoS). This focused review assesses its robustness across independent measurements and surveys. Using the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder (CPL) parametrization to describe the evolution of the DE EoS, we analyze over 35 dataset combinations, incorporating Planck Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies, three independent Type Ia supernova (SN) catalogs (PantheonPlus, Union3, DESY5), BAO measurements from DESI and SDSS, and expansion rate measurements $H(z)$ inferred from the relative ages of massive, passively evolving galaxies at early cosmic times known as Cosmic Chronometers (CC). This review has two main objectives: first, to evaluate the statistical significance of the DDE preference across different dataset combinations, which incorporate varying sources of information. Specifically, we consider cases where only low-redshift probes are used in different combinations, others where individual low-redshift probes are analyzed together with CMB data, and finally, scenarios where high- and low-redshift probes are included in all possible independent combinations. Second, we provide a reader-friendly synthesis of what the latest cosmological and astrophysical probes can (and cannot yet) reveal about DDE. Overall, our findings highlight that combinations that \textit{simultaneously} include PantheonPlus SN and SDSS BAO significantly weaken the preference for DDE. However, intriguing hints supporting DDE emerge in combinations that do not include DESI-BAO measurements: SDSS-BAO combined with SN from Union3 and DESY5 (with and without CMB) support the preference for DDE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10264 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Whisker plots with the 68% CL constraints on the DE parameters, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Evolution of the CPL EoS w(z) considering various combined astronomical probes. The blue dashed lines correspond to the mean values of w(z) and the solid lines are denoting its 1σ and 2σ uncertainties. On the other hand, the mean values of H0 and Ωm for DESI+CC are almost identical to the Planck 2018 estimations (assuming the ΛCDM model in the background) [6], though they exhibit significantly larger error bars. Th… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Whisker plot showing the 68% CL constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Radar plot quantifying the preference for the CPL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 18 Pith papers

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

General Relativistic Entropic Acceleration at the perturbation level: a CLASS implementation and first Boltzmann-code constraints
gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

First full Boltzmann-code implementation of entropic dark energy, with MCMC constraints from CMB+BAO+SN, yields α≈1 and a fit statistically indistinguishable from ΛCDM.
Hubble tension: the shape wall
astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Late-time modifications to the expansion history can raise H0 by at most about 2% (conservative) to 3.7% (permissive) if the CMB acoustic scale is fixed.
Evaporating cosmologically coupled black holes
astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

If a black hole's mass grows with cosmic expansion, Hawking evaporation is slowed or reversed, weakening gamma-ray bounds on primordial black holes.
Sound Mode and Scale-Dependent Growth in Two-Fluid Dynamical Dark Energy
astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

DDE sound modes induce scale-dependent growth and halo bias comparable to massless neutrinos; multi-tracer P+B forecasts detect it for c_s^{2} ~ 10^{-2}–10^{-4}, while lower speeds produce ~10% drag on cluster growth-...
Towards a unified quantum field theory of dark energy and inflation: unstable de Sitter vacuum and running vacuum
gr-qc 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The vacuum energy of quantum fields, computed exactly in de Sitter spacetime and then allowed to decay into radiation, can drive H^4-powered inflation and leave a slowly running dark energy δρ_vac ~ m_Pl^2 H^2, unifyi...
BAO miscalibration cannot rescue late-time solutions to the Hubble tension
astro-ph.CO 2025-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Even after rescaling BAO data to prefer H0≈73 km/s/Mpc, none of six tested late-time dark-energy models can resolve the Hubble tension once unanchored SNeIa and CMB geometry are included.
Dark Energy Crosses the Line: Quantifying and Testing the Evidence for Phantom Crossing
astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Using CPL fits to six data combinations, the paper finds 3.1-5.2 sigma preference for a phantom-to-quintessence crossing of the dark energy equation of state, and shows that modified non-crossing models generally fit ...
Examining Quintessence Models with DESI Data
astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

NEC-obeying hilltop and exponential quintessence models give at most marginal improvement over the cosmological constant against DESI 2024 data, and the prominent k=10 hilltop 'excellent mimic' claim is an artifact of...
Background-level reconstruction of scalar-field potentials from dark-energy histories and comparison with analytic potential families
astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

A background reconstruction maps prescribed ρ_de(z) histories to V(φ) and ranks analytic potentials by Bayesian evidence, with exponential preferred for CPL and shifted-tanh for sign-switching targets.
Signatures of Modified Gravity on Linear Scales in a Dynamical Dark Energy Background
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

Using Planck, DESI, supernovae, and redshift-space distortions, the authors infer that modified gravity, if present, must act only below ~30 Mpc and cannot modify the large scales previously considered.
Robust Preference for Dark Sector Interactions
astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Interacting dark matter–dark energy models fit DESI BAO and CMB data as well as evolving-dark-energy (CPL) models, with a coupling preference that persists under DES-Dovekie supernova recalibration.
Direct detection of solar chameleons with electron recoil data from XENONnT
hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

XENONnT electron-recoil data bound solar chameleons to log10 β_eff < −6.9, independent of the potential index n for inverse power-law chameleons at the dark-energy scale.
Bayesian and frequentist perspectives agree on dynamical dark energy
astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Frequentist profile-likelihood constraints on the CPL dark-energy parameters w0 and wa agree with Bayesian posteriors across DESI, CMB, and SN datasets, corroborating the evidence for dynamical dark energy.
Can the universe experience an AdS landscape since matter-radiation equality?
gr-qc 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A universe with an AdS (negative cosmological constant) phase at recombination and another at low redshift is compatible with Planck, DESI, Pantheon Plus and SH0ES data, though not preferred by them.
Challenging $\Lambda$CDM: 5$\sigma$ Evidence for a Dynamical Dark Energy Late-Time Transition
astro-ph.CO 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Fitting a step transition in dark energy's equation of state to Planck+DESI DR2+DESY5 data gives a reported ~5 sigma preference for a phantom-to-quintessence transition at z about 0.49.
Updated Constraints on Omnipotent Dark Energy: A Comprehensive Analysis with CMB and BAO Data
gr-qc 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Updated constraints on the DMS20 dark energy model from CMB, BAO, and Pantheon+ data keep it consistent with Lambda CDM while generically producing two phantom-divide crossings; the H0 tension is reduced only with enl...
Neutrino mass constraints in the Schwarzschild-de Sitter black-hole dark energy model with ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 data
astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5 of 10

SdSDE dark energy yields a ~0.16–0.21 eV positive neutrino-mass preference with DESI+ACT data, but χ² strongly favors extended ΛCDM and the shift is likely compensation.
Present Day Cosmic Acceleration from SDSS and DESI BAO: A Call for Finer Tomography of the DESI Bright Galaxy Survey
astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

DESI BAO+CMB yielding a positive present-day deceleration parameter q0≈0.10 (vs SDSS's q0≈−0.22) is explained by DESI's higher lowest effective redshift (0.295 vs 0.15), not by new physics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

268 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 18 Pith papers

[1]

According to the results, we note that only for the SDSS+CC dataset,wa is constrained, while DESI+CC fails to constrain it within the considered flat prior, i.e., wa ∈ [−2, 2]

BAO+CC We include CC with two versions of the BAO data, and specifically performe the analyses with DESI+CC and SDSS+CC. According to the results, we note that only for the SDSS+CC dataset,wa is constrained, while DESI+CC fails to constrain it within the considered flat prior, i.e., wa ∈ [−2, 2]. In both cases, no significant evi- dence for a non-zerowa i...

2018
[2]

Addi- tionally, the same cases have been tested with the inclu- sion of CC data

BAO+SN We consider six distinct combinations of data, involv- ing two different versions of BAO (DESI and SDSS) and three different samples of SN (DESY5, PP, U3). Addi- tionally, the same cases have been tested with the inclu- sion of CC data. From the plots in Fig. 1, in the first two columns, it is evident that the cosmological constant is ruled out at ...

2018
[3]

The results for CMB alone are not new, as they have al- ready been presented in several works (see, for example, Refs

CMB and CMB+CC In the first row of Table II, we present the con- straints obtained from the CMB alone dataset. The results for CMB alone are not new, as they have al- ready been presented in several works (see, for example, Refs. [6, 128, 129]). In this case,w0 lies in the phantom regimeatslightlymorethan68%CL( w0 = −1.36+0.24 −0.53 at 68% CL), but it is ...
[4]

CMB+SN CMB in combination with any of the three SN sam- ples (e.g., DESY5, PP, U3) influences the parameter space quite significantly. In all three cases, as shown in Table II,w0 is consistently found in the quintessence regime, while wa is non-null.9 The strength of the evi- dence depends on the specific dataset:w0 remains in the quintessence regime at m...

2018
[5]

We have explored two versions of the BAO data, specifically DESI and SDSS

CMB+BAO WhenCMBiscombinedwithBAO,significantchanges in the constraints on the parameters are observed. We have explored two versions of the BAO data, specifically DESI and SDSS. Notably, CMB+DESI fails to constrain wa within the considered range [−2, 2], providing only an upper limit, while CMB+SDSS does constrainwa—a distinguishing feature between these ...
[6]

Fund for Improvement of S&T Infrastructure (FIST)

CMB+BAO+SN In this case, we consider six different combined anal- yses involving two BAO datasets (DESI and SDSS) and three SN samples (DESY5, PP, U3). We can im- mediately observe that the indication for DDE seen in the BAO+SN and CMB+SN combinations is fur- ther strengthened when considering the full combination CMB+BAO+SN. The 2D contour plots shown in...

2019
[7]

Obser- vational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant,

Adam G. Riesset al. (Supernova Search Team), “Obser- vational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant,” Astron. J.116, 1009–1038 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

arXiv 1998
[8]

Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Red- shift Supernovae,

S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), “Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Red- shift Supernovae,” Astrophys. J. 517, 565–586 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

arXiv 1999

Show all 268 references

[9]

Evidence for dark energy from the cosmic microwave background alone using the Atacama Cosmology Telescope lensing measurements,

Blake D. Sherwin et al., “Evidence for dark energy from the cosmic microwave background alone using the Atacama Cosmology Telescope lensing measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 021302 (2011), arXiv:1105.0419 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[10]

A 6% measurement of the Hubble pa- rameter at z ∼ 0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration,

Michele Moresco, Lucia Pozzetti, Andrea Cimatti, Raul Jimenez, Claudia Maraston, Licia Verde, Daniel Thomas, Annalisa Citro, Rita Tojeiro, and David Wilkinson, “A 6% measurement of the Hubble pa- rameter at z ∼ 0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration,” JCA...

2016 arXiv
[11]

Is the expansion of the universe accelerating? All signs point to yes,

David Rubin and Brian Hayden, “Is the expansion of the universe accelerating? All signs point to yes,” Astro- phys. J. Lett.833, L30 (2016), arXiv:1610.08972 [astro- ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[12]

Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[13]

Testing Low-Redshift Cosmic Ac- celeration with Large-Scale Structure,

Seshadri Nadathur, Will J. Percival, Florian Beutler, and Hans Winther, “Testing Low-Redshift Cosmic Ac- celeration with Large-Scale Structure,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 221301 (2020), arXiv:2001.11044 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[14]

Evidence for Cosmic Acceleration is Ro- bust to Observed Correlations Between Type Ia Super- nova Luminosity and Stellar Age,

B. M. Rose, D. Rubin, A. Cikota, S. E. Deustua, S. Dixon, A. Fruchter, D. O. Jones, A. G. Riess, and D. M. Scolnic, “Evidence for Cosmic Acceleration is Ro- bust to Observed Correlations Between Type Ia Super- nova Luminosity and Stellar Age,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, L4 (2020...

2020 arXiv
[15]

Completed SDSS-IV ex- tended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cos- mological implications from two decades of spectro- scopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory,

Shadab Alamet al. (eBOSS), “Completed SDSS-IV ex- tended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cos- mological implications from two decades of spectro- scopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2007.08991 [astro- ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[16]

The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy,

P. J. E. Peebles and Bharat Ratra, “The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy,” Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 559– 606 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207347

2003 arXiv
[17]

Introduction to modified gravity and gravitational alternative for dark energy,

Shin’ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov, “Introduction to modified gravity and gravitational alternative for dark energy,” eConf C0602061, 06 (2006), arXiv:hep- th/0601213

2006
[18]

Dynamics of dark energy,

Edmund J. Copeland, M. Sami, and Shinji Tsujikawa, “Dynamics of dark energy,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 1753–1936 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057

2006 arXiv
[19]

Dark Energy and Dark Gravity,

Ruth Durrer and Roy Maartens, “Dark Energy and Dark Gravity,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 301–328 (2008), arXiv:0711.0077 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[20]

Dark energy and gravity,

T. Padmanabhan, “Dark energy and gravity,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 529–564 (2008), arXiv:0705.2533 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[21]

Dark tor- sion as the cosmic speed-up,

Gabriel R. Bengochea and Rafael Ferraro, “Dark tor- sion as the cosmic speed-up,” Phys. Rev. D79, 124019 (2009), arXiv:0812.1205 [astro-ph]

2009 arXiv
[22]

Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe,

Joshua Frieman, Michael Turner, and Dragan Huterer, “Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 46, 385–432 (2008), arXiv:0803.0982 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[23]

f(R) Theo- ries Of Gravity,

Thomas P. Sotiriou and Valerio Faraoni, “f(R) Theo- ries Of Gravity,” Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 451–497 (2010), arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[24]

f(R) theories,

Antonio De Felice and Shinji Tsujikawa, “f(R) theories,” Living Rev. Rel.13, 3 (2010), arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[25]

Modified Gravity and Cosmology,

Timothy Clifton, Pedro G. Ferreira, Antonio Padilla, and Constantinos Skordis, “Modified Gravity and Cosmology,” Phys. Rept. 513, 1–189 (2012), arXiv:1106.2476 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[26]

Dark Energy,

Miao Li, Xiao-Dong Li, Shuang Wang, and Yi Wang, “Dark Energy,” Commun. Theor. Phys. 56, 525–604 (2011), arXiv:1103.5870 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[27]

Dark energy cosmology: 14 the equivalent description via different theoretical mod- els and cosmography tests,

Kazuharu Bamba, Salvatore Capozziello, Shin’ichi No- jiri, and Sergei D. Odintsov, “Dark energy cosmology: 14 the equivalent description via different theoretical mod- els and cosmography tests,” Astrophys. Space Sci.342, 155–228 (2012), arXiv:1205.3421 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[28]

Cosmological Tests of Modified Gravity,

Kazuya Koyama, “Cosmological Tests of Modified Gravity,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, 046902 (2016), arXiv:1504.04623 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[29]

Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations,

Emanuele Bertiet al., “Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations,” Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 243001 (2015), arXiv:1501.07274 [gr- qc]

2015 arXiv
[30]

Dark Energy Versus Modified Gravity,

Austin Joyce, Lucas Lombriser, and Fabian Schmidt, “Dark Energy Versus Modified Gravity,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 66, 95–122 (2016), arXiv:1601.06133 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[31]

Dark Matter and Dark Energy Interac- tions: Theoretical Challenges, Cosmological Implica- tions and Observational Signatures,

B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon, “Dark Matter and Dark Energy Interac- tions: Theoretical Challenges, Cosmological Implica- tions and Observational Signatures,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, 096901 (2016), arXiv:1603.08299 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[32]

Holo- graphic Dark Energy,

Shuang Wang, Yi Wang, and Miao Li, “Holo- graphic Dark Energy,” Phys. Rept. 696, 1–57 (2017), arXiv:1612.00345 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[33]

Modified Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: Inflation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution,

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, “Modified Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: Inflation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution,” Phys. Rept.692, 1– 104 (2017), arXiv:1705.11098 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[34]

Dynamical systems applied to cosmology: dark energy and modified gravity,

Sebastian Bahamonde, Christian G. Böhmer, Sante Carloni, Edmund J. Copeland, Wei Fang, and Nicola Tamanini, “Dynamical systems applied to cosmology: dark energy and modified gravity,” Phys. Rept. 775- 777, 1–122 (2018), arXiv:1712.03107 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[35]

Telepar- allel gravity: from theory to cosmology,

Sebastian Bahamonde, Konstantinos F. Dialektopoulos, Celia Escamilla-Rivera, Gabriel Farrugia, Viktor Gakis, Martin Hendry, Manuel Hohmann, Jackson Levi Said, Jurgen Mifsud, and Eleonora Di Valentino, “Telepar- allel gravity: from theory to cosmology,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 86, 02...

2023 arXiv
[36]

Coupled quintessence,

Luca Amendola, “Coupled quintessence,” Phys. Rev. D 62, 043511 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908023

2000 arXiv
[37]

Probing the dark energy: Methods and strategies,

Dragan Huterer and Michael S. Turner, “Probing the dark energy: Methods and strategies,” Phys. Rev. D 64, 123527 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0012510

2001 arXiv
[38]

Spintessence! New models for dark matter and dark energy,

Latham A. Boyle, Robert R. Caldwell, and Marc Kamionkowski, “Spintessence! New models for dark matter and dark energy,” Phys. Lett. B 545, 17–22 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0105318

2002 arXiv
[39]

Can the Chaplygin gas be a plausible model for dark energy?

Vittorio Gorini, Alexander Kamenshchik, and Ugo Moschella, “Can the Chaplygin gas be a plausible model for dark energy?” Phys. Rev. D 67, 063509 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0209395

2003 arXiv
[40]

Cosmology with tachyon field as dark en- ergy,

J. S. Bagla, Harvinder Kaur Jassal, and T. Pad- manabhan, “Cosmology with tachyon field as dark en- ergy,” Phys. Rev. D 67, 063504 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0212198

2003
[41]

Can the dark energy equation-of-state parameter w be less than −1?

Sean M. Carroll, Mark Hoffman, and Mark Trodden, “Can the dark energy equation-of-state parameter w be less than −1?” Phys. Rev. D 68, 023509 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0301273

2003 arXiv
[42]

Is cosmic speed - up due to new gravitational physics?

Sean M. Carroll, Vikram Duvvuri, Mark Trodden, and Michael S. Turner, “Is cosmic speed - up due to new gravitational physics?” Phys. Rev. D70, 043528 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0306438

2004 arXiv
[43]

Modified grav- ity with negative and positive powers of the curvature: Unification of the inflation and of the cosmic accel- eration,

Shin’ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov, “Modified grav- ity with negative and positive powers of the curvature: Unification of the inflation and of the cosmic accel- eration,” Phys. Rev. D 68, 123512 (2003), arXiv:hep- th/0307288

2003
[44]

Brane world models of dark energy,

Varun Sahni and Yuri Shtanov, “Brane world models of dark energy,” JCAP 11, 014 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0202346

2003
[45]

Variable cosmological constant as a Planck scale effect,

Ilya L. Shapiro, Joan Sola, Cristina Espana-Bonet, and Pilar Ruiz-Lapuente, “Variable cosmological constant as a Planck scale effect,” Phys. Lett. B574, 149–155 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0303306

2003 arXiv
[46]

Testing the running of the cosmological constant with type Ia supernovae at high z,

Cristina Espana-Bonet, Pilar Ruiz-Lapuente, Ilya L. Shapiro, and Joan Sola, “Testing the running of the cosmological constant with type Ia supernovae at high z,” JCAP 02, 006 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311171

2004 arXiv
[47]

Cosmological evolution of a quin- tom model of dark energy,

Zong-Kuan Guo, Yun-Song Piao, Xin-Min Zhang, and Yuan-Zhong Zhang, “Cosmological evolution of a quin- tom model of dark energy,” Phys. Lett. B608, 177–182 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0410654

2005 arXiv
[48]

Con- straints on the redshift dependence of the dark energy potential,

Joan Simon, Licia Verde, and Raul Jimenez, “Con- straints on the redshift dependence of the dark energy potential,” Phys.Rev.D 71,123001(2005),arXiv:astro- ph/0412269

2005
[49]

A Model of holographic dark energy,

Miao Li, “A Model of holographic dark energy,” Phys. Lett. B 603, 1 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0403127

2004 arXiv
[50]

The Case for dynamical dark energy revisited,

Ujjaini Alam, Varun Sahni, and A. A. Starobinsky, “The Case for dynamical dark energy revisited,” JCAP 06, 008 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0403687

2004 arXiv
[51]

Gravity as- sisted dark energy dominance and cosmic accelera- tion,

Shin’ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov, “Gravity as- sisted dark energy dominance and cosmic accelera- tion,” Phys. Lett. B599, 137–142 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0403622

2004
[52]

What is needed of a tachyon if it is to be the dark energy?

EdmundJ.Copeland, MohammadR.Garousi, M.Sami, and Shinji Tsujikawa, “What is needed of a tachyon if it is to be the dark energy?” Phys. Rev. D71, 043003 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0411192

2005 arXiv
[53]

Cosmology with in- teraction between phantom dark energy and dark mat- ter and the coincidence problem,

Rong-Gen Cai and Anzhong Wang, “Cosmology with in- teraction between phantom dark energy and dark mat- ter and the coincidence problem,” JCAP03, 002 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0411025

2005 arXiv
[54]

Hessence: A New view of quintom dark energy,

Hao Wei, Rong-Gen Cai, and Ding-Fang Zeng, “Hessence: A New view of quintom dark energy,” Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 3189–3202 (2005), arXiv:hep- th/0501160

2005
[55]

Gauss-Bonnet dark energy,

Shin’ichi Nojiri, Sergei D. Odintsov, and Misao Sasaki, “Gauss-Bonnet dark energy,” Phys. Rev. D71, 123509 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0504052

2005 arXiv
[56]

Observational con- straints on dark energy with generalized equations of state,

Salvatore Capozziello, V. F. Cardone, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, “Observational con- straints on dark energy with generalized equations of state,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 043512 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0508350

2006
[57]

Dark energy models in the w-w’ plane,

Robert J. Scherrer, “Dark energy models in the w-w’ plane,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 043502 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0509890

2006
[58]

Cosmologies with energy exchange,

John D. Barrow and T. Clifton, “Cosmologies with energy exchange,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 103520 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0604063

2006 arXiv
[59]

Modified f(R) gravity consistent with realistic cosmology: From mat- ter dominated epoch to dark energy universe,

Shin’ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov, “Modified f(R) gravity consistent with realistic cosmology: From mat- ter dominated epoch to dark energy universe,” Phys. Rev. D 74, 086005 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0608008

2006 arXiv
[60]

Conditions for the cosmological viability of f(R) dark energy models,

Luca Amendola, Radouane Gannouji, David Polarski, and Shinji Tsujikawa, “Conditions for the cosmological viability of f(R) dark energy models,” Phys. Rev. D75, 15 083504 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0612180

2007 arXiv
[61]

Can f(R) Modified Gravity Theories Mimic a LCDM Cos- mology?

S. Fay, S. Nesseris, and L. Perivolaropoulos, “Can f(R) Modified Gravity Theories Mimic a LCDM Cos- mology?” Phys. Rev. D 76, 063504 (2007), arXiv:gr- qc/0703006

2007
[62]

Observational signatures of f (R) dark energy models that satisfy cosmological and local gravity constraints,

Shinji Tsujikawa, “Observational signatures of f (R) dark energy models that satisfy cosmological and local gravity constraints,” Phys. Rev. D 77, 023507 (2008), arXiv:0709.1391 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[63]

A New Model of Age- graphic Dark Energy,

Hao Wei and Rong-Gen Cai, “A New Model of Age- graphic Dark Energy,” Phys. Lett. B 660, 113–117 (2008), arXiv:0708.0884 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[64]

Construction ofcosmologicallyviablef(G)darkenergymodels,

Antonio De Felice and Shinji Tsujikawa, “Construction ofcosmologicallyviablef(G)darkenergymodels,” Phys. Lett. B 675, 1–8 (2009), arXiv:0810.5712 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[65]

Cosmological Constraints onf (G) Dark Energy Models,

Shuang-Yong Zhou, Edmund J. Copeland, and Paul M. Saffin, “Cosmological Constraints onf (G) Dark Energy Models,” JCAP 07, 009 (2009), arXiv:0903.4610 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[66]

The Dilaton and Mod- ified Gravity,

Philippe Brax, Carsten van de Bruck, Anne-Christine Davis, and Douglas Shaw, “The Dilaton and Mod- ified Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 82, 063519 (2010), arXiv:1005.3735 [astro-ph.CO]

2010 arXiv
[67]

f (R, T) gravity,

Tiberiu Harko, Francisco S. N. Lobo, Shin’ichi Nojiri, and Sergei D. Odintsov, “f (R, T) gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 84, 024020 (2011), arXiv:1104.2669 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[68]

“Teleparallel

Chao-Qiang Geng, Chung-Chi Lee, Emmanuel N. Sari- dakis, and Yi-Peng Wu, ““Teleparallel” dark energy,” Phys. Lett. B 704, 384–387 (2011), arXiv:1109.1092 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[69]

Discrimination between Lambda- CDM, quintessence, and modified gravity models using wide area surveys,

Houri Ziaeepour, “Discrimination between Lambda- CDM, quintessence, and modified gravity models using wide area surveys,” Phys. Rev. D 86, 043503 (2012), arXiv:1112.6025 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[70]

Dissipation of dark matter,

Hermano Velten and Dominik Schwarz, “Dissipation of dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 86, 083501 (2012), arXiv:1206.0986 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[71]

Dark energy or modified gravity? An effective field theory approach,

Jolyon K. Bloomfield, Éanna É. Flanagan, Minjoon Park, and Scott Watson, “Dark energy or modified gravity? An effective field theory approach,” JCAP08, 010 (2013), arXiv:1211.7054 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[72]

New Cosmic Accelerating Scenario without Dark Energy,

J. A. S. Lima, S. Basilakos, and F. E. M. Costa, “New Cosmic Accelerating Scenario without Dark Energy,” Phys. Rev. D86, 103534 (2012), arXiv:1205.0868 [astro- ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[73]

Reconstruction of Scalar Potentials in Modified Gravity Models,

A. Yu. Kamenshchik, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi, and S. Yu. Vernov, “Reconstruction of Scalar Potentials in Modified Gravity Models,” Phys. Rev. D 87, 063503 (2013), arXiv:1211.6272 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[74]

Complete Cosmic History with a dynami- cal Λ = Λ( H) term,

E. L. D. Perico, J. A. S. Lima, Spyros Basilakos, and Joan Sola, “Complete Cosmic History with a dynami- cal Λ = Λ( H) term,” Phys. Rev. D88, 063531 (2013), arXiv:1306.0591 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[75]

Cosmological dynamics and dark energy from nonlocal infrared modifications of gravity,

Stefano Foffa, Michele Maggiore, and Ermis Mitsou, “Cosmological dynamics and dark energy from nonlocal infrared modifications of gravity,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29, 1450116 (2014), arXiv:1311.3435 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[76]

Coupled dark energy with perturbed Hubble expansion rate,

Weiqiang Yang and Lixin Xu, “Coupled dark energy with perturbed Hubble expansion rate,” Phys. Rev. D 90, 083532 (2014), arXiv:1409.5533 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[77]

Is the Effective Field Theory of Dark Energy Effective?

Eric V. Linder, Gizem Sengör, and Scott Watson, “Is the Effective Field Theory of Dark Energy Effective?” JCAP 05, 053 (2016), arXiv:1512.06180 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[78]

An analytic model for interacting dark energy and its observational constraints,

Supriya Pan, Subhra Bhattacharya, and Subenoy Chakraborty, “An analytic model for interacting dark energy and its observational constraints,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 452, 3038–3046 (2015), arXiv:1210.0396 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[79]

Dynamical vacuum energy in the expanding Uni- verse confronted with observations: a dedicated study,

Adrià Gómez-Valent, Joan Solà, and Spyros Basi- lakos, “Dynamical vacuum energy in the expanding Uni- verse confronted with observations: a dedicated study,” JCAP 01, 004 (2015), arXiv:1409.7048 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[80]

Dynamics of inter- acting quintessence,

M. Shahalam, S. D. Pathak, M. M. Verma, M. Yu. Khlopov, and R. Myrzakulov, “Dynamics of inter- acting quintessence,” Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 395 (2015), arXiv:1503.08712 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[81]

Hints of dynamical vacuum en- ergy in the expanding Universe,

Joan Sola, Adria Gomez-Valent, and Javier de Cruz Pérez, “Hints of dynamical vacuum en- ergy in the expanding Universe,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 811, L14 (2015), arXiv:1506.05793 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[82]

Cosmological constraints on induced gravity dark energy models,

Mario Ballardini, Fabio Finelli, Caterina Umiltà, and Daniela Paoletti, “Cosmological constraints on induced gravity dark energy models,” JCAP 05, 067 (2016), arXiv:1601.03387 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[83]

First evidence of running cosmic vac- uum: challenging the concordance model,

Joan Solà, Adria Gómez-Valent, and Javier de Cruz Pérez, “First evidence of running cosmic vac- uum: challenging the concordance model,” Astrophys. J. 836, 43 (2017), arXiv:1602.02103 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[84]

Viscous Cos- mologyforEarly-andLate-TimeUniverse,

Iver Brevik, Øyvind Grøn, Jaume de Haro, Sergei D. Odintsov, and Emmanuel N. Saridakis, “Viscous Cos- mologyforEarly-andLate-TimeUniverse,” Int.J.Mod. Phys. D 26, 1730024 (2017), arXiv:1706.02543 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[85]

Constraints to Dark Energy Using PADE Parameterizations,

Mehdi Rezaei, Mohammad Malekjani, Spyros Basilakos, Ahmad Mehrabi, and David F. Mota, “Constraints to Dark Energy Using PADE Parameterizations,” As- trophys. J. 843, 65 (2017), arXiv:1706.02537 [astro- ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[86]

Vacuum phase transition solves the H0 tension,

Eleonora Di Valentino, Eric V. Linder, and Alessan- dro Melchiorri, “Vacuum phase transition solves the H0 tension,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 043528 (2018), arXiv:1710.02153 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[87]

Ricci-Gauss-Bonnet holo- graphic dark energy,

Emmanuel N. Saridakis, “Ricci-Gauss-Bonnet holo- graphic dark energy,” Phys. Rev. D97, 064035 (2018), arXiv:1707.09331 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[88]

Novel approach toward the large-scale stable interact- ing dark-energy models and their astronomical bounds,

Weiqiang Yang, Supriya Pan, and David F. Mota, “Novel approach toward the large-scale stable interact- ing dark-energy models and their astronomical bounds,” Phys. Rev. D 96, 123508 (2017), arXiv:1709.00006 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[89]

Searching fordarkmatter-darkenergyinteractions: goingbeyond the conformal case,

Carsten Van De Bruck and Jurgen Mifsud, “Searching fordarkmatter-darkenergyinteractions: goingbeyond the conformal case,” Phys. Rev. D97, 023506 (2018), arXiv:1709.04882 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[90]

Possible signals of vacuum dynamics in the Universe,

Joan Solà Peracaula, Javier de Cruz Pérez, and Adria Gomez-Valent, “Possible signals of vacuum dynamics in the Universe,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.478, 4357– 4373 (2018), arXiv:1703.08218 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[91]

The H0 tension in light of vac- uum dynamics in the Universe,

Joan Solà, Adrià Gómez-Valent, and Javier de Cruz Pérez, “The H0 tension in light of vac- uum dynamics in the Universe,” Phys. Lett. B 774, 317–324 (2017), arXiv:1705.06723 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[92]

Dynamical dark energy vs.Λ = const in light of observations,

Joan Solà Peracaula, Javier de Cruz Pérez, and Adrià Gómez-Valent, “Dynamical dark energy vs.Λ = const in light of observations,” EPL121, 39001 (2018), arXiv:1606.00450 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[93]

Scalar-tensor theories and modified grav- ity in the wake of GW170817,

David Langlois, Ryo Saito, Daisuke Yamauchi, and Karim Noui, “Scalar-tensor theories and modified grav- ity in the wake of GW170817,” Phys. Rev. D97, 061501 (2018), arXiv:1711.07403 [gr-qc]. 16

2018 arXiv
[94]

Signs of Dynamical Dark Energy in Current Observations,

Joan Sola Peracaula, Adria Gomez-Valent, and Javier de Cruz Pérez, “Signs of Dynamical Dark Energy in Current Observations,” Phys. Dark Univ. 25, 100311 (2019), arXiv:1811.03505 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[95]

Can dark energy be expressed as a power series of the Hubble parameter?

Mehdi Rezaei, Mohammad Malekjani, and Joan Sola, “Can dark energy be expressed as a power series of the Hubble parameter?” Phys. Rev. D100, 023539 (2019), arXiv:1905.00100 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[96]

Revisiting Metastable Dark Energy and Tensions in the Estimation of Cosmo- logical Parameters,

Xiaolei Li, Arman Shafieloo, Varun Sahni, and Alexei A. Starobinsky, “Revisiting Metastable Dark Energy and Tensions in the Estimation of Cosmo- logical Parameters,” Astrophys. J. 887, 153 (2019), arXiv:1904.03790 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[97]

Constraining the Asymptotically Safe Cosmology: cosmic acceler- ation without dark energy,

Fotios K. Anagnostopoulos, Spyros Basilakos, Geor- gios Kofinas, and Vasilios Zarikas, “Constraining the Asymptotically Safe Cosmology: cosmic acceler- ation without dark energy,” JCAP 02, 053 (2019), arXiv:1806.10580 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[98]

Cosmology in f (Q) geometry,

Jose Beltrán Jiménez, Lavinia Heisenberg, Tomi Se- bastian Koivisto, and Simon Pekar, “Cosmology in f (Q) geometry,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 103507 (2020), arXiv:1906.10027 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[99]

Bayesian evidence forα-attractor dark energy models,

Francisco X. Linares Cedeño, Ariadna Montiel, Juan Carlos Hidalgo, and Gabriel Germán, “Bayesian evidence forα-attractor dark energy models,” JCAP08, 002 (2019), arXiv:1905.00834 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[100]

Constraints on quintessence scalar field models using cosmological observations,

Weiqiang Yang, M. Shahalam, Barun Pal, Supriya Pan, and Anzhong Wang, “Constraints on quintessence scalar field models using cosmological observations,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 023522 (2019), arXiv:1810.08586 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[101]

Interacting scenarios with dynamical dark energy: Observational constraints and alleviation of the H0 tension,

Supriya Pan, Weiqiang Yang, Eleonora Di Valentino, Emmanuel N. Saridakis, and Subenoy Chakraborty, “Interacting scenarios with dynamical dark energy: Observational constraints and alleviation of the H0 tension,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 103520 (2019), arXiv:1907.07540 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[102]

Looking for interactions in the cosmological dark sector,

Micol Benetti, Welber Miranda, Humberto A. Borges, Cassio Pigozzo, Saulo Carneiro, and Jailson S. Al- caniz, “Looking for interactions in the cosmological dark sector,” JCAP 12, 023 (2019), arXiv:1908.07213 [astro- ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[103]

Graduated dark energy: Observa- tional hints of a spontaneous sign switch in the cos- mological constant,

Özgür Akarsu, John D. Barrow, Luis A. Escamilla, and J. Alberto Vazquez, “Graduated dark energy: Observa- tional hints of a spontaneous sign switch in the cos- mological constant,” Phys. Rev. D101, 063528 (2020), arXiv:1912.08751 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[104]

Interacting dark energy in the early 2020s: A promising solution to theH0 and cosmic shear tensions,

Eleonora Di Valentino, Alessandro Melchiorri, Olga Mena, and Sunny Vagnozzi, “Interacting dark energy in the early 2020s: A promising solution to theH0 and cosmic shear tensions,” Phys. Dark Univ. 30, 100666 (2020), arXiv:1908.04281 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[105]

Metastable dark energy models in light ofP lanck2018 data: Alleviating the H0 tension,

Weiqiang Yang, Eleonora Di Valentino, Supriya Pan, Spyros Basilakos, and Andronikos Paliathanasis, “Metastable dark energy models in light ofP lanck2018 data: Alleviating the H0 tension,” Phys. Rev. D 102, 063503 (2020), arXiv:2001.04307 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[106]

Modified gravity with disappear- ing cosmological constant,

L. N. Granda, “Modified gravity with disappear- ing cosmological constant,” JHEP 12, 205 (2021), arXiv:2007.13956 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[107]

Chameleon dark energy can resolve the Hubble tension,

Rong-Gen Cai, Zong-Kuan Guo, Li Li, Shao-Jiang Wang, and Wang-Wei Yu, “Chameleon dark energy can resolve the Hubble tension,” Phys. Rev. D103, 121302 (2021), arXiv:2102.02020 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[108]

Running vacuum against the H0 and σ8 tensions,

Joan Solà Peracaula, Adrià Gómez-Valent, Javier de Cruz Perez, and Cristian Moreno-Pulido, “Running vacuum against the H0 and σ8 tensions,” EPL 134, 19001 (2021), arXiv:2102.12758 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[109]

Taxonomy of Dark Energy Models,

Verónica Motta, Miguel A. García-Aspeitia, Alberto Hernández-Almada, Juan Magaña, and Tomás Ver- dugo, “Taxonomy of Dark Energy Models,” Universe7, 163 (2021), arXiv:2104.04642 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[110]

The cosmological constant prob- lem and running vacuum in the expanding universe,

Joan Sola Peracaula, “The cosmological constant prob- lem and running vacuum in the expanding universe,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A380, 20210182 (2022), arXiv:2203.13757 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[111]

Cosmological effects of the Galileon term in scalar-tensor theories,

Angelo G. Ferrari, Mario Ballardini, Fabio Finelli, Daniela Paoletti, and Nicoletta Mauri, “Cosmological effects of the Galileon term in scalar-tensor theories,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 063520 (2023), arXiv:2307.02987 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[112]

Exploring bulk viscous unified scenarios with gravita- tional waves standard sirens,

Weiqiang Yang, Supriya Pan, Eleonora Di Valentino, Celia Escamilla-Rivera, and Andronikos Paliathanasis, “Exploring bulk viscous unified scenarios with gravita- tional waves standard sirens,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 520, 1146–1154 (2023), arXiv:2301.03969 [astro- ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[113]

Phase space analysis of sign-shifting in- teracting dark energy models,

Sudip Halder, Jaume de Haro, Tapan Saha, and Supriya Pan, “Phase space analysis of sign-shifting in- teracting dark energy models,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 083522 (2024), arXiv:2403.01397 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[114]

Run- ning Vacuum in the Universe: Phenomenological Sta- tus in Light of the Latest Observations, and Its Impact on the σ8 and H0 Tensions,

Joan Sola Peracaula, Adria Gomez-Valent, Javier de Cruz Perez, and Cristian Moreno-Pulido, “Run- ning Vacuum in the Universe: Phenomenological Sta- tus in Light of the Latest Observations, and Its Impact on the σ8 and H0 Tensions,” Universe 9, 262 (2023), arXiv:2304.11157 [ast...

2023 arXiv
[115]

Interacting Dark Energy after DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurements,

William Giarè, Miguel A. Sabogal, Rafael C. Nunes, and Eleonora Di Valentino, “Interacting Dark Energy after DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 251003 (2024), arXiv:2404.15232 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[116]

Phan- tom Matter: A Challenging Solution to the Cos- mological Tensions,

Adria Gomez-Valent and Joan Solà Peracaula, “Phan- tom Matter: A Challenging Solution to the Cos- mological Tensions,” Astrophys. J. 975, 64 (2024), arXiv:2404.18845 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[117]

Can Baby Universe Absorption Explain Dark Energy?

Varun Muralidharan and James M. Cline, “Can Baby Universe Absorption Explain Dark Energy?” (2024), arXiv:2408.13306 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[118]

Tightening the reins on non-minimal dark sec- tor physics: Interacting Dark Energy with dynam- ical and non-dynamical equation of state,

William Giarè, Yuejia Zhai, Supriya Pan, Eleonora Di Valentino, Rafael C. Nunes, and Carsten van de Bruck, “Tightening the reins on non-minimal dark sec- tor physics: Interacting Dark Energy with dynam- ical and non-dynamical equation of state,” (2024), arXiv:2404.02110 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[119]

Hubble tension in a nonminimally coupled curvature-matter gravity model,

Miguel Barroso Varela and Orfeu Bertolami, “Hubble tension in a nonminimally coupled curvature-matter gravity model,” JCAP06, 025 (2024), arXiv:2403.11683 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[120]

Is cosmo- logical data suggesting a nonminimal coupling between matter and gravity?

Miguel Barroso Varela and Orfeu Bertolami, “Is cosmo- logical data suggesting a nonminimal coupling between matter and gravity?” (2024), arXiv:2412.09348 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[121]

Redshift-space distortions corner interacting dark energy,

Pietro Ghedini, Rasmi Hajjar, and Olga Mena, “Redshift-space distortions corner interacting dark energy,” Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101671 (2024), arXiv:2409.02700 [astro-ph.CO]. 17

2024 arXiv
[122]

Unexplored regions in teleparallel f (T ) gravity: Sign-changing dark energy density,

Ozgur Akarsu, Bilal Bulduk, Antonio De Felice, Nihan Katırcı, and N. Merve Uzun, “Unexplored regions in teleparallel f (T ) gravity: Sign-changing dark energy density,” (2024), arXiv:2410.23068 [gr-qc]

2024
[123]

Observational con- straints on a generalized equation of state model,

M. Koussour, S. Bekov, A. Syzdykova, S. Muminov, I. Ibragimov, and J. Rayimbaev, “Observational con- straints on a generalized equation of state model,” Phys. Dark Univ.47, 101799 (2025), arXiv:2412.20073 [astro- ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[124]

Modified gravity/Dynamical Dark Energy vs ΛCDM: is the game over?

Sergei D. Odintsov, Diego Sáez-Chillón Gómez, and German S. Sharov, “Modified gravity/Dynamical Dark Energy vs ΛCDM: is the game over?” (2024), arXiv:2412.09409 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[125]

Interacting phantom dark energy: new accelerating scaling attractors,

SudipHalder, S.D.Odintsov, SupriyaPan, TapanSaha, and Emmanuel N. Saridakis, “Interacting phantom dark energy: new accelerating scaling attractors,” (2024), arXiv:2411.18300 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[126]

Scalar-Tensor Gravity and DESI 2024 BAO data,

Angelo G. Ferrari, Mario Ballardini, Fabio Finelli, and Daniela Paoletti, “Scalar-Tensor Gravity and DESI 2024 BAO data,” (2025), arXiv:2501.15298 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[127]

Phase space anal- ysis of CCDM cosmologies,

Sudip Halder, Jaume de Haro, Supriya Pan, Tapan Saha, and Subenoy Chakraborty, “Phase space anal- ysis of CCDM cosmologies,” (2025), arXiv:2502.03256 [gr-qc]

2025
[128]

The Cosmological Constant Prob- lem,

Steven Weinberg, “The Cosmological Constant Prob- lem,” Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1–23 (1989)

1989
[129]

Quintessence, cosmic coincidence, and the cosmolog- ical constant,

Ivaylo Zlatev, Li-Min Wang, and Paul J. Steinhardt, “Quintessence, cosmic coincidence, and the cosmolog- ical constant,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 896–899 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9807002

1999 arXiv
[130]

The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR4 Maps and Cosmological Parameters,

Simone Aiolaet al. (ACT), “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR4 Maps and Cosmological Parameters,” JCAP 12, 047 (2020), arXiv:2007.07288 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[131]

Measurements of the E- mode polarization and temperature-E-mode correlation of the CMB from SPT-3G 2018 data,

D. Dutcheret al. (SPT-3G), “Measurements of the E- mode polarization and temperature-E-mode correlation of the CMB from SPT-3G 2018 data,” Phys. Rev. D 104, 022003 (2021), arXiv:2101.01684 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[132]

Measurement of the CMB temperature power spectrum and constraints on cosmology from the SPT-3G 2018 TT, TE, and EE dataset,

L. Balkenhol et al. (SPT-3G), “Measurement of the CMB temperature power spectrum and constraints on cosmology from the SPT-3G 2018 TT, TE, and EE dataset,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 023510 (2023), arXiv:2212.05642 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[133]

CMB Anomalies and the Hubble Ten- sion,

William Giarè, “CMB Anomalies and the Hubble Ten- sion,” (2023), arXiv:2305.16919 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[134]

The state of the dark energy equation of state circa 2023,

Luis A. Escamilla, William Giarè, Eleonora Di Valentino, Rafael C. Nunes, and Sunny Vagnozzi, “The state of the dark energy equation of state circa 2023,” JCAP 05, 091 (2024), arXiv:2307.14802 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[135]

Dynamical dark en- ergy after Planck CMB final release andH0 tension,

Weiqiang Yang, Eleonora Di Valentino, Supriya Pan, Yabo Wu, and Jianbo Lu, “Dynamical dark en- ergy after Planck CMB final release andH0 tension,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 501, 5845–5858 (2021), arXiv:2101.02168 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[136]

Gravitational lensing as a probe of quintessence,

Asantha R. Cooray and Dragan Huterer, “Gravitational lensing as a probe of quintessence,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 513, L95–L98 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9901097

1999 arXiv
[137]

Constraining the equation of state of the universe from distant type Ia supernovae and cos- mic microwave background anisotropies,

G. Efstathiou, “Constraining the equation of state of the universe from distant type Ia supernovae and cos- mic microwave background anisotropies,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 310, 842–850 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9904356

1999
[138]

Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter,

Michel Chevallier and David Polarski, “Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213–224 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

2001 arXiv
[139]

Exploring the expansion history of the universe,

Eric V. Linder, “Exploring the expansion history of the universe,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208512

2003 arXiv
[140]

Phenomenological parameteriza- tion of quintessence,

Christof Wetterich, “Phenomenological parameteriza- tion of quintessence,” Phys. Lett. B594, 17–22 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0403289

2004 arXiv
[141]

Oscillating quintom and the recurrent uni- verse,

Bo Feng, Mingzhe Li, Yun-Song Piao, and Xinmin Zhang, “Oscillating quintom and the recurrent uni- verse,” Phys. Lett. B634, 101–105 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0407432

2006
[142]

Cosmologi- cal constraints on the dark energy equation of state and its evolution,

Steen Hannestad and Edvard Mortsell, “Cosmologi- cal constraints on the dark energy equation of state and its evolution,” JCAP 09, 001 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0407259

2004
[143]

Con- straints on oscillating quintom from supernova, mi- crowave background and galaxy clustering,

Jun-Qing Xia, Bo Feng, and Xin-Min Zhang, “Con- straints on oscillating quintom from supernova, mi- crowave background and galaxy clustering,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 20, 2409–2416 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0411501

2005 arXiv
[144]

Probing the curvature and dark energy,

Yun-gui Gong and Yuan-Zhong Zhang, “Probing the curvature and dark energy,” Phys. Rev. D72, 043518 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0502262

2005 arXiv
[145]

Observational constraints on low redshift evolu- tion of dark energy: How consistent are different obser- vations?

Harvinder Kaur Jassal, J. S. Bagla, and T. Padmanab- han, “Observational constraints on low redshift evolu- tion of dark energy: How consistent are different obser- vations?” Phys. Rev. D72, 103503 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0506748

2005
[146]

Compari- son of the legacy and gold snia dataset constraints on dark energy models,

S. Nesseris and Leandros Perivolaropoulos, “Compari- son of the legacy and gold snia dataset constraints on dark energy models,” Phys. Rev. D72, 123519 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0511040

2005 arXiv
[147]

Revisiting the parametrization of Equation of State of Dark Energy via SNIa Data,

Dao-Jun Liu, Xin-Zhou Li, Jiangang Hao, and Xing- Hua Jin, “Revisiting the parametrization of Equation of State of Dark Energy via SNIa Data,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 388, 275 (2008), arXiv:0804.3829 [astro- ph]

2008 arXiv
[148]

A parametric model for dark energy,

E. M. Barboza, Jr. and J. S. Alcaniz, “A parametric model for dark energy,” Phys. Lett. B 666, 415–419 (2008), arXiv:0805.1713 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[149]

A generalized equation of state for dark energy,

E. M. Barboza, J. S. Alcaniz, Z. H. Zhu, and R. Silva, “A generalized equation of state for dark energy,” Phys. Rev. D 80, 043521 (2009), arXiv:0905.4052 [astro- ph.CO]

2009 arXiv
[150]

Probing the dynamics of dark energy with novel parametrizations,

Jing-Zhe Ma and Xin Zhang, “Probing the dynamics of dark energy with novel parametrizations,” Phys. Lett. B 699, 233–238 (2011), arXiv:1102.2671 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[151]

SN and BAO con- straints on (new) polynomial dark energy parametriza- tions: current results and forecasts,

Irene Sendra and Ruth Lazkoz, “SN and BAO con- straints on (new) polynomial dark energy parametriza- tions: current results and forecasts,” Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 422, 776–793 (2012), arXiv:1105.4943 [astro- ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[152]

A new equation of state for dark energy model,

Lei Feng and Tan Lu, “A new equation of state for dark energy model,” JCAP 11, 034 (2011), arXiv:1203.1784 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[153]

Probing the time dependence of dark energy,

E. M. Barboza, Jr. and J. S. Alcaniz, “Probing the time dependence of dark energy,” JCAP02, 042 (2012), arXiv:1103.0257 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[154]

Observational constraints on dark energy with a fast varying equation of state,

Antonio De Felice, Savvas Nesseris, and Shinji Tsu- jikawa, “Observational constraints on dark energy with a fast varying equation of state,” JCAP05, 029 (2012), arXiv:1203.6760 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[155]

A New Class of Parametrization for Dark Energy without Divergence,

Chao-Jun Feng, Xian-Yong Shen, Ping Li, and Xin- Zhou Li, “A New Class of Parametrization for Dark Energy without Divergence,” JCAP 09, 023 (2012), 18 arXiv:1206.0063 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[156]

Cosmo- logical Applications of Padé Approximant,

Hao Wei, Xiao-Peng Yan, and Ya-Nan Zhou, “Cosmo- logical Applications of Padé Approximant,” JCAP01, 045 (2014), arXiv:1312.1117 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[157]

Cosmic slowing down of acceleration for several dark energy parametrizations,

Juan Magaña, Victor H. Cárdenas, and V. Motta, “Cosmic slowing down of acceleration for several dark energy parametrizations,” JCAP 10, 017 (2014), arXiv:1407.1632 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[158]

A divergence-free parametrization for dynamical dark energy,

Özgur Akarsu, Tekin Dereli, and J. Alberto Vazquez, “A divergence-free parametrization for dynamical dark energy,” JCAP 06, 049 (2015), arXiv:1501.07598 [astro- ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[159]

Evolution and Dynamics of a Matter creation model,

Supriya Pan, Jaume de Haro, Andronikos Paliathanasis, and Reinoud Jan Slagter, “Evolution and Dynamics of a Matter creation model,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 460, 1445–1456 (2016), arXiv:1601.03955 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[160]

Reconciling Planck with the local value of H0 in extended parameter space,

Eleonora Di Valentino, Alessandro Melchiorri, and Joseph Silk, “Reconciling Planck with the local value of H0 in extended parameter space,” Phys. Lett. B761, 242–246 (2016), arXiv:1606.00634 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[161]

Observational Constraints on f (T ) gravity from varying fundamental constants,

Rafael C. Nunes, Alexander Bonilla, Supriya Pan, and Emmanuel N. Saridakis, “Observational Constraints on f (T ) gravity from varying fundamental constants,” Eur. Phys. J. C77, 230 (2017), arXiv:1608.01960 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[162]

New observational con- straints on f (R) gravity from cosmic chronometers,

Rafael C. Nunes, Supriya Pan, Emmanuel N. Saridakis, and Everton M. C. Abreu, “New observational con- straints on f (R) gravity from cosmic chronometers,” JCAP 01, 005 (2017), arXiv:1610.07518 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[163]

Testing cosmic acceleration forw(z) param- eterizations using fgas measurements in galaxy clus- ters,

Juan Magana, V. Motta, Victor H. Cardenas, and G. Foex, “Testing cosmic acceleration forw(z) param- eterizations using fgas measurements in galaxy clus- ters,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.469, 47–61 (2017), arXiv:1703.08521 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[164]

Latest astronomical constraints on some non-linear parametric dark energy models,

Weiqiang Yang, Supriya Pan, and Andronikos Paliathanasis, “Latest astronomical constraints on some non-linear parametric dark energy models,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 475, 2605–2613 (2018), arXiv:1708.01717 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[165]

Observational Constraints on Oscillating Dark- Energy Parametrizations,

Supriya Pan, Emmanuel N. Saridakis, and Weiqiang Yang, “Observational Constraints on Oscillating Dark- Energy Parametrizations,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 063510 (2018), arXiv:1712.05746 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[166]

Growth index and statefinder diagnostic of Oscillating Dark Energy,

Grigoris Panotopoulos and Ángel Rincón, “Growth index and statefinder diagnostic of Oscillating Dark Energy,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 103509 (2018), arXiv:1804.11208 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[167]

Observational constraints on one-parameter dynami- cal dark-energy parametrizations and theH0 tension,

Weiqiang Yang, Supriya Pan, Eleonora Di Valentino, Emmanuel N. Saridakis, and Subenoy Chakraborty, “Observational constraints on one-parameter dynami- cal dark-energy parametrizations and theH0 tension,” Phys. Rev. D 99, 043543 (2019), arXiv:1810.05141 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[168]

New parametrized equation of state for dark energy surveys,

Luisa G. Jaime, Mariana Jaber, and Celia Escamilla- Rivera, “New parametrized equation of state for dark energy surveys,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 083530 (2018), arXiv:1804.04284 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[169]

Perfect Fluid Cosmological Uni- verses: One equation of state and the most general solu- tion,

Anadijiban Das, Asit Banerjee, Subenoy Chakraborty, and Supriya Pan, “Perfect Fluid Cosmological Uni- verses: One equation of state and the most general solu- tion,” Pramana 90, 19 (2018), arXiv:1706.08145 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[170]

Observational constraints on dynamical dark energy with pivoting redshift,

Weiqiang Yang, Supriya Pan, Eleonora Di Valentino, and Emmanuel N. Saridakis, “Observational constraints on dynamical dark energy with pivoting redshift,” Uni- verse 5, 219 (2019), arXiv:1811.06932 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[171]

A Simple Phenomeno- logical Emergent Dark Energy Model can Resolve the Hubble Tension,

Xiaolei Li and Arman Shafieloo, “A Simple Phenomeno- logical Emergent Dark Energy Model can Resolve the Hubble Tension,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 883, L3 (2019), arXiv:1906.08275 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[172]

Observational con- straints of a new unified dark fluid and theH0 tension,

Weiqiang Yang, Supriya Pan, Andronikos Paliathana- sis, Subir Ghosh, and Yabo Wu, “Observational con- straints of a new unified dark fluid and theH0 tension,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 490, 2071–2085 (2019), arXiv:1904.10436 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[173]

Recon- ciling H0 tension in a six parameter space?

Supriya Pan, Weiqiang Yang, Eleonora Di Valentino, Arman Shafieloo, and Subenoy Chakraborty, “Recon- ciling H0 tension in a six parameter space?” JCAP06, 062 (2020), arXiv:1907.12551 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[174]

Fourier- series expansion of the dark-energy equation of state,

David Tamayo and J. Alberto Vazquez, “Fourier- series expansion of the dark-energy equation of state,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 487, 729–736 (2019), arXiv:1901.08679 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[175]

Imprints of an extended Cheval- lier–Polarski–Linder parametrization on the large scale of our universe,

Supriya Pan, Weiqiang Yang, and Andronikos Paliathanasis, “Imprints of an extended Cheval- lier–Polarski–Linder parametrization on the large scale of our universe,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 274 (2020), arXiv:1902.07108 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[176]

Dark Energy with Phantom Cross- ing and the H0 Tension,

Eleonora Di Valentino, Ankan Mukherjee, and An- jan A. Sen, “Dark Energy with Phantom Cross- ing and the H0 Tension,” Entropy 23, 404 (2021), arXiv:2005.12587 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[177]

A Bayesian comparison between ΛCDM and phe- nomenologically emergent dark energy models,

M. Rezaei, T. Naderi, M. Malekjani, and A. Mehrabi, “A Bayesian comparison between ΛCDM and phe- nomenologically emergent dark energy models,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 374 (2020), arXiv:2004.08168 [astro- ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[178]

Barotropicfluid compatibleparametrizationsofdarkenergy,

DaliborPerkovicandHrvojeStefancic,“Barotropicfluid compatibleparametrizationsofdarkenergy,” Eur.Phys. J. C 80, 629 (2020), arXiv:2004.05342 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[179]

Dark energy as a critical phenomenon: a hint from Hubble tension,

Abdolali Banihashemi, Nima Khosravi, and Arman Shafieloo, “Dark energy as a critical phenomenon: a hint from Hubble tension,” JCAP 06, 003 (2021), arXiv:2012.01407 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[180]

Imprint of a Steep Equation of State in the growth of structure,

Mariana Jaber-Bravo, Erick Almaraz, and Axel de la Macorra, “Imprint of a Steep Equation of State in the growth of structure,” Astropart. Phys.115, 102388 (2020), arXiv:1906.09522 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[181]

Modified emergent dark energy and its astronomical constraints,

H. B. Benaoum, Weiqiang Yang, Supriya Pan, and Eleonora Di Valentino, “Modified emergent dark energy and its astronomical constraints,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 31, 2250015 (2022), arXiv:2008.09098 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[182]

Generalized emergent dark energy model and the Hubble con- stant tension,

Weiqiang Yang, Eleonora Di Valentino, Supriya Pan, Arman Shafieloo, and Xiaolei Li, “Generalized emergent dark energy model and the Hubble con- stant tension,” Phys. Rev. D 104, 063521 (2021), arXiv:2103.03815 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[183]

A single parameteriza- tionfordarkenergyandmodifiedgravitymodels,

MarianaJaber, GustavoArciniega, LuisaG.Jaime, and Omar Abel Rodríguez-López, “A single parameteriza- tionfordarkenergyandmodifiedgravitymodels,” Phys. Dark Univ.37, 101069 (2022), arXiv:2102.08561 [astro- ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[184]

Late- transition versus smooth H(z)-deformation models for the resolution of the Hubble crisis,

George Alestas, David Camarena, Eleonora Di Valentino, Lavrentios Kazantzidis, Valerio Marra, Savvas Nesseris, and Leandros Perivolaropoulos, “Late- transition versus smooth H(z)-deformation models for the resolution of the Hubble crisis,” Phys. Rev. D105, 063538 (2022), arXiv...

2022 arXiv
[185]

Latest Data Constraint of Some Parameter- 19 ized Dark Energy Models,

Jing Yang, Xin-Yan Fan, Chao-Jun Feng, and Xiang- Hua Zhai, “Latest Data Constraint of Some Parameter- 19 ized Dark Energy Models,” Chin. Phys. Lett.40, 019801 (2023), arXiv:2211.15881 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[186]

Kee- ley, and Kevork N

Helena García Escudero, Jui-Lin Kuo, Ryan E. Kee- ley, and Kevork N. Abazajian, “Early or phantom dark energy, self-interacting, extra, or massive neutrinos, pri- mordial magnetic fields, or a curved universe: An explo- ration of possible solutions to the H0 andσ8 problems,” P...

2022 arXiv
[187]

An ex- ponential equation of state of dark energy in the light of 2018 CMB Planck data,

Mónica N. Castillo-Santos, A. Hernández-Almada, Miguel A. García-Aspeitia, and Juan Magaña, “An ex- ponential equation of state of dark energy in the light of 2018 CMB Planck data,” Phys. Dark Univ.40, 101225 (2023), arXiv:2212.01974 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[188]

Revealing the effects of curvature on the cosmo- logical models,

Weiqiang Yang, William Giarè, Supriya Pan, Eleonora Di Valentino, Alessandro Melchiorri, and Joseph Silk, “Revealing the effects of curvature on the cosmo- logical models,” Phys. Rev. D 107, 063509 (2023), arXiv:2210.09865 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[189]

Smoothing the H0 tension with a phantom dynamical dark en- ergy model,

Safae Dahmani, Amine Bouali, Imad El Bojaddaini, Ahmed Errahmani, and Taoufik Ouali, “Smoothing the H0 tension with a phantom dynamical dark en- ergy model,” Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101266 (2023), arXiv:2301.04200 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[190]

Evidence of dynamical dark energy in a non-flat universe: current and future observations,

Mehdi Rezaei, Supriya Pan, Weiqiang Yang, and David F. Mota, “Evidence of dynamical dark energy in a non-flat universe: current and future observations,” JCAP 01, 052 (2024), arXiv:2305.18544 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[191]

Omnipotent dark energy: A phenomenological answer to the Hubble tension,

Shahnawaz A. Adil, Özgür Akarsu, Eleonora Di Valentino, Rafael C. Nunes, Emre Özülker, Anjan A. Sen, and Enrico Specogna, “Omnipotent dark energy: A phenomenological answer to the Hubble tension,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 023527 (2024), arXiv:2306.08046 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[192]

Generalized emergent dark energy in the late-time Universe,

Jose Agustin Lozano Torres, “Generalized emergent dark energy in the late-time Universe,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 533, 1865–1873 (2024)

2024
[193]

New Parametrization of the Dark-Energy Equation of StatewithaSingleParameter,

Jainendra Kumar Singh, Preeti Singh, Emmanuel N. Saridakis, Shynaray Myrzakul, and Harshna Balhara, “New Parametrization of the Dark-Energy Equation of StatewithaSingleParameter,” Universe 10,246(2024), arXiv:2304.03783 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[194]

Oscillating Dark Energy in Light of the Latest Observations and Its Impact on the Hubble Ten- sion,

Mehdi Rezaei, “Oscillating Dark Energy in Light of the Latest Observations and Its Impact on the Hubble Ten- sion,” Astrophys. J. 967, 2 (2024), arXiv:2403.18968 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[195]

Structureformationinvari- ous dynamical dark energy scenarios,

Masoume Reyhani, Mahdi Najafi, Javad T. Firouzjaee, andEleonoraDiValentino,“Structureformationinvari- ous dynamical dark energy scenarios,” Phys. Dark Univ. 44, 101477 (2024), arXiv:2403.15202 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[196]

Dynamical dark energy con- fronted with multiple CMB missions,

Mahdi Najafi, Supriya Pan, Eleonora Di Valentino, and Javad T. Firouzjaee, “Dynamical dark energy con- fronted with multiple CMB missions,” Phys. Dark Univ. 45, 101539 (2024)

2024
[197]

Robust prefer- ence for Dynamical Dark Energy in DESI BAO and SN measurements,

William Giarè, Mahdi Najafi, Supriya Pan, Eleonora Di Valentino, and Javad T. Firouzjaee, “Robust prefer- ence for Dynamical Dark Energy in DESI BAO and SN measurements,” JCAP10,035(2024),arXiv:2407.16689 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[198]

Dynamical Dark Energy Beyond Planck? Constraints from multiple CMB probes, DESI BAO and Type-Ia Supernovae,

William Giarè, “Dynamical Dark Energy Beyond Planck? Constraints from multiple CMB probes, DESI BAO and Type-Ia Supernovae,” (2024), arXiv:2409.17074 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[199]

DESI 2024 III: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from Galaxies and Quasars,

A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), “DESI 2024 III: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from Galaxies and Quasars,” (2024), arXiv:2404.03000 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[200]

DESI 2024: Constraints on Physics-Focused Aspects of Dark Energy using DESI DR1 BAO Data,

K. Lodha et al. (DESI), “DESI 2024: Constraints on Physics-Focused Aspects of Dark Energy using DESI DR1 BAO Data,” (2024), arXiv:2405.13588 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[201]

DESI 2024 VI: Cosmo- logical Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations,

A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), “DESI 2024 VI: Cosmo- logical Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations,” (2024), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[202]

Interpreting DESI’s evidence for evolving dark energy,

Marina Cortês and Andrew R. Liddle, “Interpreting DESI’s evidence for evolving dark energy,” JCAP12, 007 (2024), arXiv:2404.08056 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[203]

Assessing obser- vational constraints on dark energy,

David Shlivko and Paul J. Steinhardt, “Assessing obser- vational constraints on dark energy,” Phys. Lett. B855, 138826 (2024), arXiv:2405.03933 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[204]

Model inde- pendent cosmographic constraints from DESI 2024,

Orlando Luongo and Marco Muccino, “Model inde- pendent cosmographic constraints from DESI 2024,” (2024), arXiv:2404.07070 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[205]

Cosmic clues: DESI, dark energy, and the cosmological constant problem,

Wen Yin, “Cosmic clues: DESI, dark energy, and the cosmological constant problem,” JHEP05, 327 (2024), arXiv:2404.06444 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[206]

Interpreting DESI 2024 BAO: late- time dynamical dark energy or a local effect?

Ioannis D. Gialamas, Gert Hütsi, Kristjan Kannike, Antonio Racioppi, Martti Raidal, Martin Vasar, and Hardi Veermäe, “Interpreting DESI 2024 BAO: late- time dynamical dark energy or a local effect?” (2024), arXiv:2406.07533 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[207]

A new diagnostic for the null test of dynamical dark energy in light of DESI 2024 and other BAO data,

Bikash R. Dinda, “A new diagnostic for the null test of dynamical dark energy in light of DESI 2024 and other BAO data,” JCAP 09, 062 (2024), arXiv:2405.06618 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[208]

Dark energy in light of recent DESI BAO and Hubble tension,

Hao Wang and Yun-Song Piao, “Dark energy in light of recent DESI BAO and Hubble tension,” (2024), arXiv:2404.18579 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[210]

Tuning the cosmic instrument: ro- bust cosmology through combined probes,

Alexander Reeves, Andrina Nicola, and Alexan- dre Refregier, “Tuning the cosmic instrument: ro- bust cosmology through combined probes,” (2025), arXiv:2502.01722 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[211]

Quintessential in- terpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI observations,

Yuichiro Tada and Takahiro Terada, “Quintessential in- terpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI observations,” Phys. Rev. D109, L121305 (2024), arXiv:2404.05722 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[212]

Does dark energy really revive using DESI 2024 data?

Youri Carloni, Orlando Luongo, and Marco Muccino, “Does dark energy really revive using DESI 2024 data?” (2024), arXiv:2404.12068 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[213]

Using non-DESI data to confirm and strengthen the DESI 2024 spatially flat w0waCDM cosmologi- cal parametrization result,

Chan-Gyung Park, Javier de Cruz Pérez, and Bharat Ratra, “Using non-DESI data to confirm and strengthen the DESI 2024 spatially flat w0waCDM cosmologi- cal parametrization result,” Phys. Rev. D110, 123533 (2024), arXiv:2405.00502 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[214]

Cosmological constraints on curved quintessence,

Sukannya Bhattacharya, Giulia Borghetto, Ameek Mal- hotra, Susha Parameswaran, Gianmassimo Tasinato, and Ivonne Zavala, “Cosmological constraints on curved quintessence,” JCAP 09, 073 (2024), arXiv:2405.17396 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[215]

DESI Constraints on Exponential Quintessence,

Omar F. Ramadan, Jeremy Sakstein, and David Ru- bin, “DESI Constraints on Exponential Quintessence,” (2024), arXiv:2405.18747 [astro-ph.CO]. 20

2024 arXiv
[216]

Con- sistent Theories for the DESI dark energy fit,

Alessio Notari, Michele Redi, and Andrea Tesi, “Con- sistent Theories for the DESI dark energy fit,” (2024), arXiv:2406.08459 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[217]

Probing Dark Energy Evolution Post-DESI 2024,

Lili Orchard and Víctor H. Cárdenas, “Probing Dark Energy Evolution Post-DESI 2024,” (2024), arXiv:2407.05579 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[218]

Phe- nomenological emergent dark energy in the light of DESI Data Release 1,

A. Hernández-Almada, M. L. Mendoza-Martínez, Miguel A. García-Aspeitia, and V. Motta, “Phe- nomenological emergent dark energy in the light of DESI Data Release 1,” (2024), arXiv:2407.09430 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[219]

Cos- mological constraints on dark energy parametrizations after DESI 2024: Persistent deviation from standard ΛCDM cosmology,

S. Pourojaghi, M. Malekjani, and Z. Davari, “Cos- mological constraints on dark energy parametrizations after DESI 2024: Persistent deviation from standard ΛCDM cosmology,” (2024), arXiv:2407.09767 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[220]

Investigating Late-Time Dark Energy and Massive Neutrinos in Light of DESI Y1 BAO,

João Rebouças, Diogo H. F. de Souza, Kunhao Zhong, Vivian Miranda, and Rogerio Rosenfeld, “Investigating Late-Time Dark Energy and Massive Neutrinos in Light of DESI Y1 BAO,” (2024), arXiv:2408.14628 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[221]

Isthe w0waCDMcosmologicalparameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck CMB anisotropy data?

Chan-Gyung Park, Javier de Cruz Perez, and Bharat Ratra,“Isthe w0waCDMcosmologicalparameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck CMB anisotropy data?” (2024), arXiv:2410.13627 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[222]

The Excess of JWST Bright Galaxies: A Possible Origin in the Ground State of Dynamical Dark Energy in the Light of DESI 2024 Data,

Nicola Menci, Anjan Ananda Sen, and Marco Castel- lano, “The Excess of JWST Bright Galaxies: A Possible Origin in the Ground State of Dynamical Dark Energy in the Light of DESI 2024 Data,” Astrophys. J.976, 227 (2024), arXiv:2410.22940 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[223]

Revisit- ing holographic dark energy after DESI 2024,

Tian-Nuo Li, Yun-He Li, Guo-Hong Du, Peng-Ju Wu, Lu Feng, Jing-Fei Zhang, and Xin Zhang, “Revisit- ing holographic dark energy after DESI 2024,” (2024), arXiv:2411.08639 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[224]

A comprehensive nu- merical study on four categories of holographic dark en- ergy models,

Jun-Xian Li and Shuang Wang, “A comprehensive nu- merical study on four categories of holographic dark en- ergy models,” (2024), arXiv:2412.09064 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[225]

BAO vs. SN evidence for evolving dark energy,

Alessio Notari, Michele Redi, and Andrea Tesi, “BAO vs. SN evidence for evolving dark energy,” (2024), arXiv:2411.11685 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[226]

On the evidence of dynamical dark energy,

Qing Gao, Zhiqian Peng, Shengqing Gao, and Yun- gui Gong, “On the evidence of dynamical dark energy,” (2024), arXiv:2411.16046 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[227]

A preference for dynamical phan- tom dark energy using one-parameter model with Planck, DESI DR1 BAO and SN data,

Ramy Fikri, Esraa ElKhateeb, El Sayed Lashin, and Waleed El Hanafy, “A preference for dynamical phan- tom dark energy using one-parameter model with Planck, DESI DR1 BAO and SN data,” (2024), arXiv:2411.19362 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[228]

Nonparametric late- time expansion history reconstruction and implications for the Hubble tension in light of recent DESI and type Ia supernovae data,

Jun-Qian Jiang, Davide Pedrotti, Simony Santos da Costa, and Sunny Vagnozzi, “Nonparametric late- time expansion history reconstruction and implications for the Hubble tension in light of recent DESI and type Ia supernovae data,” Phys. Rev. D110, 123519 (2024), arXiv:2408.0236...

2024 arXiv
[229]

Cos- mological constraints on dark energy models using DESI BAO 2024,

Jie Zheng, Da-Chun Qiang, and Zhi-Qiang You, “Cos- mological constraints on dark energy models using DESI BAO 2024,” (2024), arXiv:2412.04830 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[230]

Com- posite Dark Energy and the Cosmological Tensions,

Adria Gómez-Valent and Joan Solà Peracaula, “Com- posite Dark Energy and the Cosmological Tensions,” (2024), arXiv:2412.15124 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[231]

Shouvik Roy Choudhury and Teppei Okumura, “Up- dated Cosmological Constraints in Extended Param- eter Space with Planck PR4, DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, and Supernovae: Dynamical Dark En- ergy, Neutrino Masses, Lensing Anomaly, and the Hub- ble Tension,” Astrophys. J. L...

2024 arXiv
[232]

Understanding acoustic scale observations: the one-sided fight against Λ,

Antony Lewis and Ewan Chamberlain, “Understanding acoustic scale observations: the one-sided fight against Λ,” (2024), arXiv:2412.13894 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[233]

Scant evidence for thawing quintessence,

William J. Wolf, Carlos García-García, Deaglan J. Bartlett, and Pedro G. Ferreira, “Scant evidence for thawing quintessence,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 083528 (2024), arXiv:2408.17318 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[234]

Matching current observational constraints with nonminimally coupled dark energy,

William J. Wolf, Pedro G. Ferreira, and Carlos García- García, “Matching current observational constraints with nonminimally coupled dark energy,” Phys. Rev. D 111, L041303 (2025), arXiv:2409.17019 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[235]

Robustness of Dark Energy Phenomenol- ogy Across Different Parameterizations,

William J. Wolf, Carlos García-García, and Pedro G. Ferreira, “Robustness of Dark Energy Phenomenol- ogy Across Different Parameterizations,” (2025), arXiv:2502.04929 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[236]

Gaussian-process reconstructions and model building of quintom dark energy from latest cosmological obser- vations,

Yuhang Yang, Qingqing Wang, Chunyu Li, Peibo Yuan, Xin Ren, Emmanuel N. Saridakis, and Yi-Fu Cai, “Gaussian-process reconstructions and model building of quintom dark energy from latest cosmological obser- vations,” (2025), arXiv:2501.18336 [astro-ph.CO]

2025
[237]

Uncovering the bias in the evidence for dy- namical dark energy through minimal and generalized modeling approaches,

Ziad Sakr, “Uncovering the bias in the evidence for dy- namical dark energy through minimal and generalized modeling approaches,” (2025), arXiv:2501.14366 [astro- ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[238]

Evolving dark energy models: Current and forecast constraints,

Anowar J. Shajib and Joshua A. Frieman, “Evolving dark energy models: Current and forecast constraints,” (2025), arXiv:2502.06929 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[239]

A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Tele- scope and the SH0ES Team,

Adam G. Riesset al., “A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Tele- scope and the SH0ES Team,” Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[240]

Cosmologi- cal perturbation theory in the synchronous and confor- malNewtonian gauges,

Chung-Pei Ma and Edmund Bertschinger, “Cosmologi- cal perturbation theory in the synchronous and confor- malNewtonian gauges,” Astrophys. J.455,7–25 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9506072

1995 arXiv
[241]

Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods,

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), “Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods,” Astron. Astro- phys. 641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[242]

Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck,

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), “Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck,” Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[243]

Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravitational lensing,

N. Aghanimet al. (Planck), “Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravitational lensing,” Astron. Astrophys. 641, A8 (2020), arXiv:1807.06210 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[244]

The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing Map and Cosmological Parameters,

Mathew S. Madhavacherilet al. (ACT), “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing Map and Cosmological Parameters,” Astrophys. J.962, 113 (2024), arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[245]

The Atacama Cosmol- ogy Telescope: A Measurement of the DR6 CMB Lensing Power Spectrum and Its Implications for Structure Growth,

Frank J. Qu et al. (ACT), “The Atacama Cosmol- ogy Telescope: A Measurement of the DR6 CMB Lensing Power Spectrum and Its Implications for Structure Growth,” Astrophys. J. 962, 112 (2024), arXiv:2304.05202 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[246]

DESI 2024 IV: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest,

A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), “DESI 2024 IV: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest,” (2024), arXiv:2404.03001 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[247]

The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release,

Dan Scolnicet al., “The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release,” Astrophys. J.938, 21 113 (2022), arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[248]

The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cos- mological Constraints,

Dillon Brout et al., “The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cos- mological Constraints,” Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[249]

The Dark Energy Sur- vey: Cosmology Results With ~1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using The Full 5-year Dataset,

T. M. C. Abbottet al. (DES), “The Dark Energy Sur- vey: Cosmology Results With ~1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using The Full 5-year Dataset,” (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[250]

The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: Light curves and 5-Year data re- lease,

B. O. Sánchezet al. (DES), “The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: Light curves and 5-Year data re- lease,” (2024), arXiv:2406.05046 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[251]

The Dark Energy Survey Su- pernova Program: Cosmological Analysis and System- atic Uncertainties,

M. Vincenziet al. (DES), “The Dark Energy Survey Su- pernova Program: Cosmological Analysis and System- atic Uncertainties,” (2024), arXiv:2401.02945 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[252]

Union Through UNITY: Cosmol- ogy with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Frame- work,

David Rubinet al., “Union Through UNITY: Cosmol- ogy with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Frame- work,” (2023), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[253]

Constrainingcosmo- logical parameters based on relative galaxy ages,

RaulJimenezandAbrahamLoeb,“Constrainingcosmo- logical parameters based on relative galaxy ages,” As- trophys. J. 573, 37–42 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0106145

2002 arXiv
[254]

Improved constraints on the expan- sion rate of the Universe up to z~1.1 from the spectro- scopic evolution of cosmic chronometers,

M. Morescoet al., “Improved constraints on the expan- sion rate of the Universe up to z~1.1 from the spectro- scopic evolution of cosmic chronometers,” JCAP08, 006 (2012), arXiv:1201.3609 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[255]

Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z∼ 2,

Michele Moresco, “Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z∼ 2,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.450, L16–L20 (2015), arXiv:1503.01116 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[256]

Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models,

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

2000 arXiv
[257]

Cosmological param- eters from CMB and other data: A Monte Carlo ap- proach,

Antony Lewis and Sarah Bridle, “Cosmological param- eters from CMB and other data: A Monte Carlo ap- proach,” Phys. Rev. D66, 103511 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0205436

2002
[258]

CMB power spectrum parameter degenera- cies in the era of precision cosmology,

Cullan Howlett, Antony Lewis, Alex Hall, and Anthony Challinor, “CMB power spectrum parameter degenera- cies in the era of precision cosmology,” JCAP04, 027 (2012), arXiv:1201.3654 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[259]

Efficient sampling of fast and slow cos- mological parameters,

Antony Lewis, “Efficient sampling of fast and slow cos- mological parameters,” Phys. Rev. D87, 103529 (2013), arXiv:1304.4473 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[260]

Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences,

Andrew Gelman and Donald B. Rubin, “Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences,” Statist. Sci. 7, 457–472 (1992)

1992
[261]

Investigating the Hubble Constant Tension – Two Numbers in the Standard Cosmological Model,

Weikang Lin, Katherine J. Mack, and Liqiang Hou, “Investigating the Hubble Constant Tension – Two Numbers in the Standard Cosmological Model,” Astro- phys. J. Lett.904, L22 (2020), arXiv:1910.02978 [astro- ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[262]

Why reducing the cosmic sound horizon alone can not fully resolve the Hubble tension,

Karsten Jedamzik, Levon Pogosian, and Gong-Bo Zhao, “Why reducing the cosmic sound horizon alone can not fully resolve the Hubble tension,” Commun. in Phys. 4, 123 (2021), arXiv:2010.04158 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[263]

Early Universe Physics Insensitive and Uncalibrated Cosmic Standards: Constraints onΩm and Implications for the Hubble Tension,

Weikang Lin, Xingang Chen, and Katherine J. Mack, “Early Universe Physics Insensitive and Uncalibrated Cosmic Standards: Constraints onΩm and Implications for the Hubble Tension,” Astrophys. J.920, 159 (2021), arXiv:2102.05701 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[264]

Cosmology with varying fundamental con- stants from hyperlight, coupled scalars,

Masha Baryakhtar, Olivier Simon, and Zachary J. Weiner, “Cosmology with varying fundamental con- stants from hyperlight, coupled scalars,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 083505 (2024), arXiv:2405.10358 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[265]

Ontheimplicationsofthe‘cosmiccalibra- tion tension’ beyondH0 and the synergy between early- and late-time new physics,

VivianPoulin, TristanL.Smith, RodrigoCalderón, and ThéoSimon,“Ontheimplicationsofthe‘cosmiccalibra- tion tension’ beyondH0 and the synergy between early- and late-time new physics,” (2024), arXiv:2407.18292 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[266]

Multidi- mensionalityoftheHubbletension: Therolesof Ωmand ωc,

Davide Pedrotti, Jun-Qian Jiang, Luis A. Escamilla, Si- mony Santos da Costa, and Sunny Vagnozzi, “Multidi- mensionalityoftheHubbletension: Therolesof Ωmand ωc,” Phys.Rev.D 111,023506(2025),arXiv:2408.04530 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[267]

Evolving Dark Energy or Super- novae Systematics?

George Efstathiou, “Evolving Dark Energy or Super- novae Systematics?” (2024), arXiv:2408.07175 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[268]

The DESI 2024 hint for dynamical dark energy is biased by low-redshift supernovae,

Lu Huang, Rong-Gen Cai, and Shao-Jiang Wang, “The DESI 2024 hint for dynamical dark energy is biased by low-redshift supernovae,” (2025), arXiv:2502.04212 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[269]

The axis of systematic bias in SN~Ia cosmol- ogy and implications for DESI 2024 results,

Suhail Dhawan, Brodie Popovic, and Ariel Goo- bar, “The axis of systematic bias in SN~Ia cosmol- ogy and implications for DESI 2024 results,” (2024), arXiv:2409.18668 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

According to the results, we note that only for the SDSS+CC dataset,wa is constrained, while DESI+CC fails to constrain it within the considered flat prior, i.e., wa ∈ [−2, 2]

BAO+CC We include CC with two versions of the BAO data, and specifically performe the analyses with DESI+CC and SDSS+CC. According to the results, we note that only for the SDSS+CC dataset,wa is constrained, while DESI+CC fails to constrain it within the considered flat prior, i.e., wa ∈ [−2, 2]. In both cases, no significant evi- dence for a non-zerowa i...

2018

[2] [2]

Addi- tionally, the same cases have been tested with the inclu- sion of CC data

BAO+SN We consider six distinct combinations of data, involv- ing two different versions of BAO (DESI and SDSS) and three different samples of SN (DESY5, PP, U3). Addi- tionally, the same cases have been tested with the inclu- sion of CC data. From the plots in Fig. 1, in the first two columns, it is evident that the cosmological constant is ruled out at ...

2018

[3] [3]

The results for CMB alone are not new, as they have al- ready been presented in several works (see, for example, Refs

CMB and CMB+CC In the first row of Table II, we present the con- straints obtained from the CMB alone dataset. The results for CMB alone are not new, as they have al- ready been presented in several works (see, for example, Refs. [6, 128, 129]). In this case,w0 lies in the phantom regimeatslightlymorethan68%CL( w0 = −1.36+0.24 −0.53 at 68% CL), but it is ...

[4] [4]

CMB+SN CMB in combination with any of the three SN sam- ples (e.g., DESY5, PP, U3) influences the parameter space quite significantly. In all three cases, as shown in Table II,w0 is consistently found in the quintessence regime, while wa is non-null.9 The strength of the evi- dence depends on the specific dataset:w0 remains in the quintessence regime at m...

2018

[5] [5]

We have explored two versions of the BAO data, specifically DESI and SDSS

CMB+BAO WhenCMBiscombinedwithBAO,significantchanges in the constraints on the parameters are observed. We have explored two versions of the BAO data, specifically DESI and SDSS. Notably, CMB+DESI fails to constrain wa within the considered range [−2, 2], providing only an upper limit, while CMB+SDSS does constrainwa—a distinguishing feature between these ...

[6] [6]

Fund for Improvement of S&T Infrastructure (FIST)

CMB+BAO+SN In this case, we consider six different combined anal- yses involving two BAO datasets (DESI and SDSS) and three SN samples (DESY5, PP, U3). We can im- mediately observe that the indication for DDE seen in the BAO+SN and CMB+SN combinations is fur- ther strengthened when considering the full combination CMB+BAO+SN. The 2D contour plots shown in...

2019

[7] [7]

Obser- vational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant,

Adam G. Riesset al. (Supernova Search Team), “Obser- vational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant,” Astron. J.116, 1009–1038 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

arXiv 1998

[8] [8]

Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Red- shift Supernovae,

S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), “Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Red- shift Supernovae,” Astrophys. J. 517, 565–586 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

arXiv 1999