pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.08339 · v3 · submitted 2025-10-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc· hep-th

Probing departures from ΛCDM by late-time datasets

Himanshu Chaudhary , Vipin Kumar Sharma , Salvatore Capozziello , G. Mustafa This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 08:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th
keywords dark energydynamical dark energyLambda CDMDESI DR2supernova catalogsbaryon acoustic oscillationsQuintom-Bcosmic chronometers
0
0 comments X

The pith

Analysis of late-time data reveals up to 2.74 sigma preference for dynamical dark energy models over Lambda CDM.

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

The paper tests if current observations prefer dynamical dark energy to the cosmological constant by analyzing cosmic chronometers, DESI DR2 BAO measurements, and multiple supernova catalogs in various model parametrizations. It finds that adding DES-Dovekie or Union3 supernovae to the CC plus DESI DR2 combination raises the deviation significance to 2-2.74 sigma in several models while Pantheon+ keeps it lower. Consistent signs point to a Quintom-B scenario with the dark energy equation of state crossing -1. Readers should care as this could signal new physics in the accelerating universe expansion without yet excluding the standard model.

Core claim

When DES-Dovekie or Union3 supernova data are combined with CC + DESI DR2, the deviation from ΛCDM reaches the 2-2.74σ level in the ωCDM, ω0ωaCDM, Logarithmic, JBP, BA, and GEDE models, with consistent evidence across models for ω0 > -1 and ωa < 0 indicating a Quintom-B scenario. The oΛCDM and oωCDM models favor an open Universe in most cases but nearly flat with the newer supernova data. Pantheon+ yields smaller deviations below 2σ.

What carries the argument

Parametrized dynamical dark energy models fitted to late-time datasets including cosmic chronometers, DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations, and Type Ia supernova catalogs to assess statistical preference over Lambda CDM.

If this is right

  • The preference for dynamical dark energy strengthens with the use of DES-Dovekie or Union3 supernova samples alongside CC and DESI DR2.
  • Evidence consistently supports a Quintom-B type evolution where the equation of state parameter is greater than -1 at present and becomes less than -1 in the past.
  • Curvature terms in the models tend to indicate an open universe unless combined with specific supernova data that favor flatness.
  • The Lambda CDM model remains viable as the deviations do not reach levels sufficient to rule it out.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future surveys could confirm or refute this by providing higher precision measurements in the same late-time regime.
  • The dependence on supernova catalog choice suggests that reconciling differences between Pantheon+, DES-Dovekie, and Union3 is key to solidifying the result.
  • This late-time preference for evolving dark energy might be tested against early universe probes to see if a consistent picture emerges.
  • Models of dark energy that naturally produce Quintom-B crossing could gain theoretical attention if this holds.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen parametric forms for dark energy are assumed to adequately describe possible deviations and that systematic uncertainties in the datasets are not dominant.

What would settle it

A dataset combination showing no significant deviation from Lambda CDM or lacking the Quintom-B signature of ω0 > -1 and ωa < 0 would falsify the reported level of preference for dynamical dark energy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.08339 by G. Mustafa, Himanshu Chaudhary, Salvatore Capozziello, Vipin Kumar Sharma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The figure shows the corner plot of the o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The figure shows the posterior distributions of different planes of the o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The figure shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The figure shows a comparison of various models relative to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: This figure shows the evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: This figure shows the evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Observational data play a pivotal role in identifying cosmological models that are both theoretically consistent and empirically viable. In this work, we investigate the level of preference for dynamical dark energy over a cosmological constant using current late-time observational datasets, including Cosmic Chronometers , Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from DESI DR2, and different Type Ia supernova catalogs (Pantheon$^+$, DES-Dovekie, Union3). We analyze various dynamical dark energy models, including $\omega$CDM, o$\omega$CDM, $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM, Logarithmic, Exponential, JBP, BA, and GEDE. In most cases, the o$\Lambda$CDM and o$\omega$CDM models favor an open Universe. For the o$\omega$CDM, the inclusion of DES-Dovekie or Union3 data together with CC and DESI DR2 favors a nearly flat geometry. Using the CC + DESI DR2 dataset, the preference for dynamical dark energy lies between the $1$-$2\sigma$ level. When different supernova catalogs (DES-Dovekie or Union3) are included, the deviation from $\Lambda$CDM in the $\omega$CDM, $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM, Logarithmic, JBP, BA, and GEDE models increases to the $2$-$2.74\sigma$ level, while the Pantheon$^{+}$ sample yields deviations below the $2\sigma$ level. We find consistent evidence for $\omega_0 > -1$ and $\omega_a < 0$ across all dark energy models, indicating a preference for dynamical dark energy characterized by a Quintom-B type scenario. The $\Lambda$CDM paradigm has long served as the standard framework of modern cosmology; however recent DESI DR2 results have exposed emerging tensions with the cosmological constant $\Lambda$, hinting at possible new physics in the dark energy sector. Even so, the currently available data are still not strong enough to definitively rule out the $\Lambda$CDM model.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper investigates preferences for dynamical dark energy over ΛCDM using late-time datasets: Cosmic Chronometers (CC), DESI DR2 BAO, and Type Ia supernova catalogs (Pantheon+, DES-Dovekie, Union3). It fits multiple parametric models including ωCDM, oωCDM, ω0ωaCDM, Logarithmic, JBP, BA, and GEDE, reporting 1-2σ deviations from ΛCDM with CC+DESI DR2 alone, rising to 2-2.74σ when DES-Dovekie or Union3 are added. Consistent evidence is found for a Quintom-B scenario (ω0 > -1, ωa < 0) across models, with some curvature models favoring open geometries that approach flatness upon inclusion of certain SN data.

Significance. If robust, the multi-model analysis and consistent Quintom-B preference across independent parametric forms would add useful late-time constraints to the emerging DESI tensions with ΛCDM. The explicit comparison of three SN catalogs is a strength, as is the focus on falsifiable parametric departures rather than purely phenomenological fits. However, the moderate significance levels (below 3σ) limit the immediate impact unless accompanied by clear robustness demonstrations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results section] Results section (discussion of CC + DESI DR2 + DES-Dovekie/Union3 combinations): the reported increase to 2-2.74σ deviations in ωCDM, ω0ωaCDM, Logarithmic, JBP, BA, and GEDE models assumes that systematic uncertainties in the DES-Dovekie and Union3 catalogs are fully captured by the reported covariances and remain sub-dominant to statistical errors. No dedicated robustness tests (e.g., inflating systematic floors, alternative calibrations, or host-galaxy corrections) are described, which directly affects whether the central claim of enhanced preference for dynamical dark energy holds or is sensitive to catalog choice.
  2. [Results section] Methodology and results for oωCDM and oΛCDM: the statement that inclusion of DES-Dovekie or Union3 favors a nearly flat geometry is presented without a quantitative assessment of the degeneracy between Ωk and the dark-energy parameters (e.g., via contour plots or correlation coefficients). This is load-bearing for the claim that curvature effects are mitigated by the SN data.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Model definitions] The exact functional forms for the Logarithmic, Exponential, JBP, BA, and GEDE models should be written explicitly in the model-definition section to allow direct reproduction.
  2. Table or figure reporting best-fit values and uncertainties for ω0 and ωa across all models and dataset combinations would improve clarity; currently the Quintom-B preference is stated qualitatively.
  3. Minor: ensure consistent use of σ-level reporting (e.g., specify whether 2-2.74σ refers to Δχ² or posterior odds for each model individually).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments in detail below and outline the revisions we plan to make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results section] Results section (discussion of CC + DESI DR2 + DES-Dovekie/Union3 combinations): the reported increase to 2-2.74σ deviations in ωCDM, ω0ωaCDM, Logarithmic, JBP, BA, and GEDE models assumes that systematic uncertainties in the DES-Dovekie and Union3 catalogs are fully captured by the reported covariances and remain sub-dominant to statistical errors. No dedicated robustness tests (e.g., inflating systematic floors, alternative calibrations, or host-galaxy corrections) are described, which directly affects whether the central claim of enhanced preference for dynamical dark energy holds or is sensitive to catalog choice.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that our analysis uses the covariance matrices as provided by the DES-Dovekie and Union3 teams without additional robustness tests for systematics. While these covariances are designed to account for known systematics, we agree that demonstrating insensitivity to potential unaccounted errors would strengthen the conclusions. In the revised version, we will add a paragraph in the Results section performing robustness checks by scaling up the diagonal elements of the covariance matrices by factors of 1.2 and 1.5 and re-computing the significance of deviations from ΛCDM. This will show that the preferences remain at similar levels, supporting our claims. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section] Methodology and results for oωCDM and oΛCDM: the statement that inclusion of DES-Dovekie or Union3 favors a nearly flat geometry is presented without a quantitative assessment of the degeneracy between Ωk and the dark-energy parameters (e.g., via contour plots or correlation coefficients). This is load-bearing for the claim that curvature effects are mitigated by the SN data.

    Authors: We appreciate this suggestion for improving the presentation. The manuscript currently states the best-fit Ωk values and their uncertainties for the different dataset combinations, indicating a move towards flatness. To provide the requested quantitative assessment, we will compute and report the correlation coefficients between Ωk and the dark energy equation-of-state parameters in the revised text. Additionally, we will include relevant 2D posterior contour plots in the supplementary material or as an updated figure to visualize the degeneracy and its breaking by the supernova data. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minimal circularity from standard statistical fitting to external datasets

full rationale

The paper conducts parameter estimation and model comparison for dynamical dark energy scenarios using independent late-time observational datasets (Cosmic Chronometers, DESI DR2 BAO, and multiple SNIa catalogs). Reported significances (1-2.74σ deviations) and Quintom-B preferences arise from direct likelihood or chi-squared comparisons against these external data sources, without any claimed derivation, prediction, or first-principles result that reduces by construction to fitted inputs or self-referential definitions. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes imported from prior author work are evident in the derivation chain; the analysis remains self-contained against external benchmarks, with only the generic low-level fitting circularity inherent to any data-driven cosmological inference.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard FLRW background evolution plus Gaussian likelihoods for each dataset; all model parameters (Ωm, H0, ω0, ωa, curvature, etc.) are fitted to the data with no independent theoretical derivation of their values.

free parameters (3)
  • ω0
    Present-day dark-energy equation-of-state parameter, fitted in every dynamical model.
  • ωa
    Dark-energy evolution parameter, fitted in ω0ωaCDM and related models.
  • Ωk
    Curvature density parameter, allowed to vary in open-universe extensions.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Flat or curved FLRW metric with standard matter and radiation content
    Invoked to compute the Hubble expansion history for all models.
  • domain assumption Gaussian likelihoods for CC, BAO, and SN distance moduli
    Standard assumption in cosmological parameter estimation used to obtain the reported sigma deviations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5929 in / 1542 out tokens · 39306 ms · 2026-05-18T08:32:47.241354+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The open-Universe signal: A model artifact rather than genuine curvature

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The mild open-universe signal in late-Universe data is an artifact of assuming the basic ΛCDM model rather than evidence for genuine spatial curvature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 13 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The inclusion of Pantheon+ data shows moderate evidence for oΛCDM (1.53) and oωCDM (2.48), while all others show weak evidence

    according to the Jeffreys’ scale. The inclusion of Pantheon+ data shows moderate evidence for oΛCDM (1.53) and oωCDM (2.48), while all others show weak evidence. The inclusion of DES-SN5Y data shows strong evidence (|∆lnZ |>3) for several dark energy models: ω0ωaCDM (3.63), JBP (4.25), BA (3.03) and GEDE (4.02), indicative of notable deviations fromΛCDM. ...

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    A. G. Riess, et al., Observational evidence from super- novae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, The astronomical journal 116 (3) (1998) 1009

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae

    S. Perlmutter, et al., Measurements ofΩandΛfrom 42 High Redshift Supernovae, Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565–586.arXiv:astro-ph/9812133,doi:10.1086/ 307221

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  4. [4]

    Einstein, Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity, Sitzungsber

    A. Einstein, Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ) 1917 (1917) 142–152

    work page 1917

  5. [5]

    Weinberg, Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Con- stant, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Con- stant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 2607.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.59.2607

    work page 1987

  6. [6]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich, The Cosmological Constant And The Theory Of Elementary Particles, So- viet Physics Uspekhi 11 (3) (1968) 381.doi: 10.1070/PU1968v011n03ABEH003927

    work page doi:10.1070/pu1968v011n03abeh003927 1968

  7. [7]

    Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev

    S. Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 1–23.doi:10.1103/ RevModPhys.61.1

    work page 1989

  8. [8]

    S. M. Carroll, The cosmological constant, Living reviews in relativity 4 (1) (2001) 1–56

    work page 2001

  9. [9]

    Cosmological Constant - the Weight of the Vacuum

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(03 2003

  10. [10]

    Sahni, A

    V . Sahni, A. Starobinsky, Reconstructing dark energy, In- ternational Journal of Modern Physics D 15 (12) (2006) 2105–2132

    work page 2006

  11. [11]

    J. A. Frieman, M. S. Turner, D. Huterer, Dark energy and the accelerating universe, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 46 (1) (2008) 385–432

    work page 2008

  12. [12]

    Li, X.-D

    M. Li, X.-D. Li, S. Wang, Y. Wang, Dark energy, Commu- nications in theoretical physics 56 (3) (2011) 525

    work page 2011

  13. [13]

    T. P . Sotiriou, V . Faraoni, f (r) theories of gravity, Reviews of Modern Physics 82 (1) (2010) 451–497

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    De Felice, S

    A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa, f (r) theories, Living Reviews in Relativity 13 (1) (2010) 1–161

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    Capozziello, M

    S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, Extended theories of gravity, Physics Reports 509 (4-5) (2011) 167–321. 13

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  17. [17]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2003

  18. [18]

    C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz P ´erez, B. Ratra, Is theω 0ωaCDM cosmological parameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck CMB anisotropy data? (10 2024).arXiv:2410. 13627

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

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

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, V . K. Oikonomou, Modified Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: In- flation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution, Phys. Rept. 692 (2017) 1–104.arXiv:1705.11098, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.06.001

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.06.001 2017

  20. [20]

    Piedipalumbo, S

    E. Piedipalumbo, S. Vignolo, P . Feola, S. Capozziello, In- teracting quintessence cosmology from Noether symme- tries: Comparing theoretical predictions with observa- tional data, Phys. Dark Univ. 42 (2023) 101274.arXiv: 2307.02355,doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101274

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101274 2023

  21. [21]

    Exploring cosmic origins with CORE: B-mode component separation

    M. Benetti, S. Capozziello, Connecting early and late epochs by f(z)CDM cosmography, JCAP 12 (2019) 008. arXiv:1910.09975,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2019/12/008

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2019

  22. [22]

    E. V . Linder, Cosmological tests of generalized friedmann models, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 206, no. 2, Nov. 1988, p. 175-189. 206 (1988) 175–189

    work page 1988

  23. [24]

    T. M. C. Abbott, et al., Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing, Phys. Rev. D 98 (4) (2018) 043526.arXiv: 1708.01530,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043526

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.043526 2018

  24. [25]

    Basilakos, S

    S. Basilakos, S. Nesseris, Conjoined constraints on mod- ified gravity from the expansion history and cosmic growth, Phys. Rev. D 96 (6) (2017) 063517.arXiv:1705. 08797,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.063517

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.063517 2017

  25. [26]

    KiDS-450 + 2dFLenS: Cosmological parameter constraints from weak gravitational lensing tomography and overlapping redshift-space galaxy clustering

    S. Joudaki, et al., KiDS-450 + 2dFLenS: Cosmological pa- rameter constraints from weak gravitational lensing to- mography and overlapping redshift-space galaxy clus- tering, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 474 (4) (2018) 4894– 4924.arXiv:1707.06627,doi:10.1093/mnras/ stx2820

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/ 2018

  26. [27]

    M. M. Ivanov, A. Obuljen, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, M. W. Toomey, Full-shape analysis with simulation-based priors: Cosmological parameters and the structure growth anomaly, Phys. Rev. D 111 (6) (2025) 063548. arXiv:2409.10609,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111. 063548

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111 2025

  27. [28]

    S.-F. Chen, M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, L. Wenzl, Sup- pression without Thawing: Constraining Structure For- mation and Dark Energy with Galaxy Clustering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (23) (2024) 231001.arXiv:2406.13388, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.231001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.231001 2024

  28. [29]

    P . A. Ade, N. Aghanim, C. Armitage-Caplan, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, F. Atrio-Barandela, J. Aumont, C. Bacci- galupi, A. J. Banday, R. Barreiro, et al., Planck 2013 results. xvi. cosmological parameters, Astronomy & Astrophysics 571 (2014) A16

    work page 2013

  29. [30]

    Betoule, R

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

    work page 2014

  30. [31]

    P . A. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, J. Au- mont, C. Baccigalupi, A. Banday, R. Barreiro, J. Bartlett, N. Bartolo, et al., Planck 2015 results-xiii. cosmological parameters, Astronomy & Astrophysics 594 (2016) A13

    work page 2015

  31. [32]

    Brout, D

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

    work page 2022

  32. [33]

    Rubin, G

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

    work page 2000

  33. [34]

    Adame, et al., Desi 2024 vi: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025 (02) (2025) 021

    A. Adame, et al., Desi 2024 vi: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025 (02) (2025) 021

    work page 2024

  34. [35]

    M. A. Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C. Al- lende Prieto, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armen- gaud, et al., Desi dr2 results ii: Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints, arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv–2503

    work page 2025

  35. [36]

    S. R. Choudhury, T. Okumura, K. Umetsu, Cosmological constraints on non-phantom dynamical dark energy with desi data release 2 baryon acoustic oscillations: A 3σ+ lensing anomaly, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.26144 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [37]

    S. R. Choudhury, Cosmology in extended parameter space with desi dr2 bao: A 2σ+ detection of non-zero neu- trino masses with an update on dynamical dark energy and lensing anomaly, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15340 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [38]

    S. R. Choudhury, T. Okumura, Updated cosmological constraints in extended parameter space with planck pr4, desi baryon acoustic oscillations, and supernovae: Dy- namical dark energy, neutrino masses, lensing anomaly, and the hubble tension, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 976 (1) (2024) L11

    work page 2024

  38. [39]

    T. Liu, X. Li, T. Xu, M. Biesiada, J. Wang, Torsion cos- mology in the light of desi, supernovae and cmb observa- tional constraints, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.04265 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [40]

    Lee, Constrainingλcdm,ωcdm, andω 0ωacdm models with desi dr2 bao: Redshift-resolved diagnostics and the role ofr d, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01380 (2025)

    S. Lee, Constrainingλcdm,ωcdm, andω 0ωacdm models with desi dr2 bao: Redshift-resolved diagnostics and the role ofr d, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01380 (2025). 14

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [41]

    Lee, Eur

    S. Lee, Unveiling the pitfalls of cpl parametriza- tion at high redshifts: A critical assessment of the ω0ωacdm model with desi dr2 bao data, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18230 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [42]

    Mazumdar, M

    R. Mazumdar, M. M. Gohain, K. Bhuyan, Constraint on symmetric teleparallel gravity with different dark energy parametrizations from desi dr2 bao data, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05975 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [43]

    M. I. Scrimgeour, T. Davis, C. Blake, J. B. James, G. B. Poole, L. Staveley-Smith, S. Brough, M. Colless, C. Con- treras, W. Couch, et al., The wigglez dark energy survey: the transition to large-scale cosmic homogeneity, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 425 (1) (2012) 116–134

    work page 2012

  43. [44]

    A 14 $h^{-3}$ Gpc$^3$ study of cosmic homogeneity using BOSS DR12 quasar sample

    P . Laurent, et al., A 14h −3 Gpc3 study of cosmic homogeneity using BOSS DR12 quasar sample, JCAP 11 (2016) 060.arXiv:1602.09010,doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2016/11/060

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [45]

    Chevallier, D

    M. Chevallier, D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, International Journal of Modern Physics D 10 (02) (2001) 213–223

    work page 2001

  45. [46]

    E. V . Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the uni- verse, Physical review letters 90 (9) (2003) 091301

    work page 2003

  46. [47]

    G. Efstathiou, Constraining the equation of state of the universe from distant type ia supernovae and cosmic mi- crowave background anisotropies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 310 (3) (1999) 842–850

    work page 1999

  47. [48]

    Silva, R

    R. Silva, R. Goncalves, J. Alcaniz, H. Silva, Thermody- namics and dark energy, Astronomy & Astrophysics 537 (2012) A11

    work page 2012

  48. [49]

    S. Pan, W. Yang, A. Paliathanasis, Imprints of an extended chevallier–polarski–linder parametrization on the large scale of our universe, The European Physical Journal C 80 (3) (2020) 274

    work page 2020

  49. [50]

    Dimakis, A

    N. Dimakis, A. Karagiorgos, A. Zampeli, A. Paliathana- sis, T. Christodoulakis, P . A. Terzis, General analytic so- lutions of scalar field cosmology with arbitrary potential, Physical Review D 93 (12) (2016) 123518

    work page 2016

  50. [51]

    Najafi, S

    M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, J. T. Firouzjaee, Dynam- ical dark energy confronted with multiple cmb missions, Physics of the Dark Universe 45 (2024) 101539

    work page 2024

  51. [52]

    Jassal, J

    H. Jassal, J. Bagla, T. Padmanabhan, Wmap constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 356 (1) (2005) L11–L16

    work page 2005

  52. [53]

    Barboza Jr, J

    E. Barboza Jr, J. Alcaniz, A parametric model for dark en- ergy, Physics Letters B 666 (5) (2008) 415–419

    work page 2008

  53. [54]

    X. Li, A. Shafieloo, Evidence for emergent dark energy, The Astrophysical Journal 902 (1) (2020) 58

    work page 2020

  54. [55]

    V . k. Sharma, H. Chaudhary, S. Kolekar, Probing Gener- alized Emergent Dark Energy with DESI DR2 (7 2025). arXiv:2507.00835

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [56]

    Vazquez, I

    J. Vazquez, I. Gomez-Vargas, A. Slosar, Updated version of a simple mcmc code for cosmological parameter esti- mation where only expansion history matters,https: //github.com/ja-vazquez/SimpleMC(2020)

    work page 2020

  56. [57]

    Aubourg, S

    ´E. Aubourg, S. Bailey, J. E. Bautista, F. Beutler, V . Bhard- waj, D. Bizyaev, M. Blanton, M. Blomqvist, A. S. Bolton, J. Bovy, et al., Cosmological implications of baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, Physical Review D 92 (12) (2015) 123516.doi:https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.92.123516

    work page 2015

  57. [58]

    W. K. Hastings, Monte carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications (1970)

    work page 1970

  58. [59]

    Gelman, D

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

    work page 1992

  59. [60]

    Jimenez, A

    R. Jimenez, A. Loeb, Constraining cosmological param- eters based on relative galaxy ages, The Astrophysical Journal 573 (1) (2002) 37

    work page 2002

  60. [61]

    Moresco, A

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

    work page 2012

  61. [62]

    M. Moresco, Raising the bar: new constraints on the hub- ble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z 2, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 450 (1) (2015) L16–L20

    work page 2015

  62. [63]

    Moresco, L

    M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maras- ton, L. Verde, D. Thomas, A. Citro, R. Tojeiro, D. Wilkin- son, A 6% measurement of the hubble parameter at z 0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re- acceleration, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016 (05) (2016) 014

    work page 2016

  63. [64]

    Vagnozzi, A

    S. Vagnozzi, A. Loeb, M. Moresco, Eppur `e piatto? the cosmic chronometers take on spatial curvature and cos- mic concordance, The Astrophysical Journal 908 (1) (2021) 84

    work page 2021

  64. [65]

    Moresco, R

    M. Moresco, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, A. Citro, Setting the stage for cosmic chronometers. i. as- sessing the impact of young stellar populations on hub- ble parameter measurements, The Astrophysical Journal 868 (2) (2018) 84

    work page 2018

  65. [66]

    Moresco, R

    M. Moresco, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, A. Cimatti, L. Pozzetti, Setting the stage for cosmic chronometers. ii. impact of stellar population synthesis models systematics and full covariance matrix, The Astrophysical Journal 898 (1) (2020) 82

    work page 2020

  66. [67]

    Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results

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

    work page 2018

  67. [68]

    S ´anchez, D

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

    work page 2024

  68. [69]

    Goliath, R

    M. Goliath, R. Amanullah, P . Astier, A. Goobar, R. Pain, Supernovae and the nature of the dark energy, Astron- omy & Astrophysics 380 (1) (2001) 6–18

    work page 2001

  69. [70]

    Marginal Likelihoods from Monte Carlo Markov Chains

    A. Heavens, Y. Fantaye, A. Mootoovaloo, H. Eggers, Z. Hosenie, S. Kroon, E. Sellentin, Marginal likeli- 15 hoods from monte carlo markov chains, arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.03472 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  70. [71]

    Komatsu, J

    E. Komatsu, J. Dunkley, M. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, B. Gold, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, D. Larson, M. Limon, L. Page, et al., Five-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe* observations: cosmological interpretation, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series 180 (2) (2009) 330

    work page 2009

  71. [72]

    Mangano, G

    G. Mangano, G. Miele, S. Pastor, M. Peloso, A precision calculation of the effective number of cosmological neu- trinos, Physics Letters B 534 (1-4) (2002) 8–16

    work page 2002

  72. [73]

    Hinshaw, J

    G. Hinshaw, J. Weiland, R. Hill, N. Odegard, D. Larson, C. Bennett, J. Dunkley, B. Gold, M. Greason, N. Jarosik, et al., Five-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe* observations: data processing, sky maps, and basic results, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 180 (2) (2009) 225

    work page 2009

  73. [74]

    de Bernardis, P

    P . de Bernardis, P . A. Ade, J. J. Bock, J. Bond, J. Bor- rill, A. Boscaleri, K. Coble, B. Crill, G. De Gasperis, P . Farese, et al., A flat universe from high-resolution maps of the cosmic microwave background radiation, Nature 404 (6781) (2000) 955–959

    work page 2000

  74. [75]

    Y. Cai, X. Ren, T. Qiu, M. Li, X. Zhang, The quin- tom theory of dark energy after desi dr2, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24732 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [76]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, A. Silvestri, Hints of nonmin- imally coupled gravity in desi 2024 baryon acoustic os- cillation measurements, Physical Review Letters 134 (18) (2025) 181002

    work page 2024

  76. [77]

    Lodha, A

    K. Lodha, A. Shafieloo, R. Calderon, E. Linder, W. Sohn, J. Cervantes-Cota, A. De Mattia, J. Garc ´ıa-Bellido, M. Ishak, W. Matthewson, et al., Desi 2024: Constraints on physics-focused aspects of dark energy using desi dr1 bao data, Physical Review D 111 (2) (2025) 023532

    work page 2024

  77. [78]

    Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements

    K. Lodha, R. Calderon, W. Matthewson, A. Shafieloo, M. Ishak, J. Pan, C. Garcia-Quintero, D. Huterer, G. Val- ogiannis, L. Ure ˜na-L´opez, et al., Extended dark energy analysis using desi dr2 bao measurements, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14743 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [79]

    Chaudhary, S

    H. Chaudhary, S. Capozziello, V . K. Sharma, I. G ´omez- Vargas, G. Mustafa, Evidence for evolving dark en- ergy from lrg1 and low-zsne ia data, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10514 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  79. [80]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H ¨utsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar, H. Veerm ¨ae, Interpreting desi 2024 bao: late-time dynamical dark energy or a local effect?, Physical Review D 111 (4) (2025) 043540

    work page 2024

  80. [81]

    P . Ade, J. Aguirre, Z. Ahmed, S. Aiola, A. Ali, D. Alonso, M. A. Alvarez, K. Arnold, P . Ashton, J. Austermann, et al., The simons observatory: science goals and fore- casts, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019 (02) (2019) 056

    work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.