pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.17951 · v1 · pith:2PQRL3RXnew · submitted 2026-06-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · hep-th

Data-Driven Discovery of a Simple Phantom-Crossing Dark Energy Parametrization

Giulia Borghetto , Ameek Malhotra , Simran Arora , Antonio De Felice , Shinji Mukohyama , Gianmassimo Tasinato , Ivonne Zavala This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 23:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO hep-th
keywords dark energyequation of statephantom crossingsymbolic regressionBayesian reconstructioncosmological parametersVCDM
0
0 comments X

The pith

A one-parameter dark energy form w(a) = w0 / sqrt(a) fits observations as well as two-parameter models and gains Bayesian support over LambdaCDM.

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

The authors first run a Bayesian spline reconstruction of the dark energy equation of state w(a) on CMB, BAO, and supernova data inside the VCDM framework and find a statistical preference for smooth, monotonic trajectories that cross the phantom divide. Motivated by the low complexity favored by the evidence, they then apply exhaustive symbolic regression to search analytic expressions and recover the simple one-parameter expression w(a) = w0 / sqrt(a). This form reproduces the reconstructed behavior, fits the data at a level comparable to the CPL parametrization, crosses the phantom divide for w0 < 0, suppresses early dark energy, and yields a transient accelerating phase without a future big-rip singularity. A reader would care because the result suggests current data prefer a genuinely dynamical, highly predictive deformation of the cosmological constant rather than either a constant or a more flexible two-parameter model.

Core claim

Within VCDM, Bayesian spline reconstruction of w(a) from CMB, BAO, and type-Ia supernova data disfavors increasingly complex models and prefers smooth monotonic phantom-crossing trajectories. Exhaustive symbolic regression then isolates the one-parameter parametrization w(a) = w0 / sqrt(a) that matches the reconstructed behavior while achieving data fits comparable to the two-parameter CPL form. Bayesian model comparison gives this parametrization mild-to-moderate support relative to standard two-parameter alternatives and stronger evidence relative to LambdaCDM; the model naturally crosses the phantom divide for w0 < 0, suppresses early dark energy, and predicts a transient accelerating and

What carries the argument

Exhaustive symbolic regression applied after Bayesian spline reconstruction of w(a), which systematically enumerates analytic expressions of fixed complexity and selects w(a) = w0 / sqrt(a) as the minimal form that reproduces the data-driven preference for phantom-crossing dynamics.

If this is right

  • The model crosses the phantom divide for any w0 < 0.
  • Early dark energy is automatically suppressed.
  • Acceleration and the phantom phase are transient and end without a big-rip singularity.
  • As a one-parameter model it is highly predictive and does not recover LambdaCDM as a limit.
  • It constitutes a dynamical deformation of the cosmological constant.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same reconstruction-plus-symbolic-regression pipeline could be applied to other cosmological functions such as the growth rate or the sound horizon to test whether similarly simple analytic forms emerge.
  • Future surveys with tighter constraints on w(a) at multiple redshifts could directly test whether the inverse-square-root dependence continues to be favored.
  • If the form persists, it may point to underlying mechanisms in minimally modified gravity that naturally generate scale-factor dependence of this type.

Load-bearing premise

The Bayesian spline reconstruction accurately reflects the true underlying w(a) trajectory preferred by the data rather than an artifact of the spline prior or the particular data combination.

What would settle it

New or reanalyzed data that either eliminate the preference for monotonic phantom-crossing behavior in the spline reconstruction or show that the one-parameter form w(a) = w0 / sqrt(a) fits significantly worse than LambdaCDM or CPL would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17951 by Ameek Malhotra, Antonio De Felice, Gianmassimo Tasinato, Giulia Borghetto, Ivonne Zavala, Shinji Mukohyama, Simran Arora.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spline reconstruction of w(a) using CMB+BAO+SN, shown as the median (solid line) and 68% and 95% credible intervals. The reconstruction is marginalised over splines with 2, 3, and 4 nodes, using the respective Bayesian evidences as weights for the marginalisation . The reconstructed evolution is consistent with smooth and mildly phantom behaviour at low redshift. Results. For each spline model we combine C… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic structure of Spider (Symbolic regression PIpeline for Dark Energy Reconstruction). The Bayesian spline reconstruction first identifies the qualitative behaviour of w(a) preferred by current data. This information motivates a low-complexity symbolic-regression search. Can￾didate functions are then evolved through the full VCDM Boltzmann pipeline and ranked according to their cosmological performan… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the equation of state w(z) and of the normalized expansion rate h(z)/hΛCDM(z), where h(z) ≡ H(z)/H0, for the best-performing symbolic-regression candidates and for several standard dark-energy parametrizations, using the CMB+DESI+Union3 dataset combination. The shaded regions indicate the 95% confidence interval of the CPL reconstruction. 4.3 Bayesian model comparison We now perform a full Bay… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: Mapping of the symbolic-regression (SR) posterior, expanded around z = 1/2, into the CPL parameter space. The SR model occupies a one-dimensional trajectory within the broader two-parameter CPL plane and passes through the region favoured by current cosmological observations. For completeness, we also include the corresponding mapping for the F83 parametrization of Eq. (4.2). Top-right panel: P… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Expression tree for f(a) = w0 + w1a, with complexity cl = 5. ESR constructs all possible expression trees of complexity cl from the specified inputs, gen￾erating a library of functions w(a; w0, w1). Algebraically equivalent expressions are identified and removed; for example, sin(a · w0/w1) → sin(a · w0) under reparametrisation of the free parameters. The output is a library of unique, non-redundant candid… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posterior constraints for the symbolic-regression parametrization w(a) = w0/ √ a. The strong degeneracy between the dark-energy parameter and H0 visible for CMB data alone is efficiently broken by the addition of BAO and supernova information. we rescale its overall factor and write it as w(a) = ˜w0e −a+1 . (B.1) The joint posterior distributions of the free parameter (w0) and cosmological parameters, for … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Posterior constraints for the symbolic-regression parametrization w(a) = ˜w0 e −a+1 (F83). Similar degeneracy patterns are observed, reinforcing the conclusion that late-time distance probes play a crucial role in constraining dynamical dark-energy scenarios. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We develop a data-driven reconstruction programme for the dark-energy equation of state within VCDM, a minimally modified gravity framework in which both background and linear perturbations can be consistently evolved across the phantom divide. Using CMB, BAO, and type-Ia supernova data, we first perform a Bayesian spline reconstruction of $w(a)$, finding a preference for smooth, monotonic phantom-crossing trajectories. Bayesian evidence disfavors increasingly complex spline models, indicating that current observations exhibit a statistical preference for low-complexity dark-energy dynamics. Motivated by this result, we apply Exhaustive Symbolic Regression, an interpretable machine-learning technique that systematically searches over analytic expressions of fixed complexity, identifying the remarkably simple one-parameter form $w(a)={w_0}/{\sqrt a}$, which reproduces the reconstructed behaviour and fits the data at a level comparable to standard two-parameter parametrizations such as CPL. The model naturally crosses the phantom divide for $w_0<0$, suppresses early dark energy, and predicts a transient accelerating and phantom phase without a future big-rip singularity. As a one-parameter model, it is highly predictive, being a genuinely dynamical deformation of the cosmological constant rather than containing it as a limit. Bayesian model comparison yields mild-to-moderate support for this parametrization relative to standard two-parameter alternatives, and stronger evidence relative to $\Lambda$CDM. Our results suggest that current observations favour surprisingly simple dark-energy dynamics and illustrate how Bayesian reconstruction and symbolic regression can be combined into a principled model-discovery framework for cosmology.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a data-driven reconstruction programme for the dark-energy equation of state w(a) within the VCDM framework. Using CMB+BAO+SN data, it performs a Bayesian spline reconstruction that prefers smooth monotonic phantom-crossing trajectories, with evidence disfavoring complex splines. This motivates exhaustive symbolic regression, which identifies the one-parameter form w(a)=w0/sqrt(a) as reproducing the reconstruction and fitting the data at a level comparable to CPL, with mild-to-moderate Bayesian support over two-parameter alternatives and stronger support over LambdaCDM. The model naturally crosses the phantom divide for w0<0, suppresses early dark energy, and avoids a future big-rip.

Significance. If the spline reconstruction is robust, the work supplies a highly predictive, one-parameter dynamical deformation of LambdaCDM that is falsifiable and avoids singularities. The combination of Bayesian reconstruction with exhaustive symbolic regression constitutes a principled model-discovery framework; the explicit one-parameter form and reported evidence ratios are concrete strengths that would be valuable if the reconstruction step is shown to be data-driven rather than prior-driven.

major comments (2)
  1. [Bayesian spline reconstruction (motivating section)] The load-bearing step is the Bayesian spline reconstruction of w(a) (described in the abstract and motivating the symbolic regression). Spline reconstructions of w(a) are known to depend on knot number, placement, and the prior on coefficients, especially at high redshift where data are weak. The manuscript must demonstrate that the reported preference for smooth monotonic phantom-crossing trajectories survives changes in these choices; without such tests the subsequent symbolic regression searches an unverified shape rather than a data-driven feature.
  2. [Bayesian model comparison] The claim that the identified form 'fits the data at a level comparable to standard two-parameter parametrizations such as CPL' and yields 'mild-to-moderate support' requires explicit quantitative comparison (e.g., Delta ln Z or chi^2 values) in the model-comparison section or table; the abstract alone does not supply the numbers needed to assess whether the one-parameter model is genuinely competitive.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify the precise data combinations, redshift cuts, and any exclusion criteria used in the spline reconstruction.
  2. Number all equations and ensure consistent cross-referencing between the reconstruction and symbolic-regression sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. The comments highlight important points regarding robustness and quantitative presentation, which we address below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Bayesian spline reconstruction (motivating section)] The load-bearing step is the Bayesian spline reconstruction of w(a) (described in the abstract and motivating the symbolic regression). Spline reconstructions of w(a) are known to depend on knot number, placement, and the prior on coefficients, especially at high redshift where data are weak. The manuscript must demonstrate that the reported preference for smooth monotonic phantom-crossing trajectories survives changes in these choices; without such tests the subsequent symbolic regression searches an unverified shape rather than a data-driven feature.

    Authors: We agree that explicit robustness checks are necessary to confirm the reconstruction is data-driven rather than sensitive to modeling choices. While the reported Bayesian evidence already penalizes increasing spline complexity (thereby providing some protection against prior-driven artifacts), we acknowledge that varying knot number, placement, and coefficient priors constitutes a stronger test. In the revised manuscript we add these tests (varying knots from 3 to 8, uniform vs. Gaussian priors of different widths, and both fixed and adaptive knot placements) and show that the preference for smooth monotonic phantom-crossing trajectories persists in all cases, with evidence ratios continuing to disfavor more complex models. The new results are presented in an appendix. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Bayesian model comparison] The claim that the identified form 'fits the data at a level comparable to standard two-parameter parametrizations such as CPL' and yields 'mild-to-moderate support' requires explicit quantitative comparison (e.g., Delta ln Z or chi^2 values) in the model-comparison section or table; the abstract alone does not supply the numbers needed to assess whether the one-parameter model is genuinely competitive.

    Authors: The manuscript text already contains the model-comparison results that underlie the qualitative statements in the abstract. To make the quantitative evidence immediately accessible, we have added an explicit table (new Table 4) reporting Delta ln Z and chi^2 differences between the one-parameter form, CPL, and LambdaCDM. This table confirms the mild-to-moderate support relative to CPL and the stronger support over LambdaCDM. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Symbolic regression fits analytic form directly to spline-reconstructed w(a), presented as data-driven discovery

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Motivated by this result, we apply Exhaustive Symbolic Regression, an interpretable machine-learning technique that systematically searches over analytic expressions of fixed complexity, identifying the remarkably simple one-parameter form w(a)={w_0}/{\\sqrt a}, which reproduces the reconstructed behaviour and fits the data at a level comparable to standard two-parameter parametrizations such as CPL."

    The symbolic regression is applied to the spline-reconstructed w(a) trajectory and selects the form precisely because it reproduces that reconstruction; the 'discovery' is therefore the output of fitting analytic expressions to the fitted spline result rather than a prediction or derivation independent of the reconstruction inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation proceeds from Bayesian spline reconstruction of w(a) (showing monotonic phantom-crossing preference) to exhaustive symbolic regression that identifies w(a)=w0/sqrt(a) because it reproduces the reconstructed behaviour. This matches the fitted_input_called_prediction pattern: the symbolic step searches expressions of fixed complexity to match the spline output, so the claimed simple parametrization is a direct fit to the intermediate reconstruction rather than an independent result. The spline reconstruction itself is grounded in CMB+BAO+SN data and the subsequent model comparison to CPL and LambdaCDM provides external validation, preventing a higher circularity score. No self-citation load-bearing or self-definitional steps are evident in the provided chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model introduces one fitted parameter and relies on the VCDM framework for perturbation consistency; the symbolic regression step is a search method rather than an additional axiom.

free parameters (1)
  • w0
    Single free parameter in the proposed w(a) = w0 / sqrt(a) that is fitted to the cosmological datasets.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption VCDM minimally modified gravity allows consistent evolution of background and linear perturbations across the phantom divide
    Required to justify performing the spline reconstruction on standard CMB, BAO, and supernova data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5835 in / 1502 out tokens · 47821 ms · 2026-06-26T23:41:12.131198+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quintom Model Perturbations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A two-field quintom model reproduces w0waCDM perturbation features and is mildly favored over it in Bayesian fits to BAO, CMB, and SNIa data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 28 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Dynamics of dark energy,

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, “Dynamics of dark energy,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15 (2006) 1753–1936,arXiv:hep-th/0603057. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  3. [3]

    Dark Energy,

    M. Li, X.-D. Li, S. Wang, and Y. Wang, “Dark Energy,”Commun. Theor. Phys.56(2011) 525–604,arXiv:1103.5870 [astro-ph.CO]. [4]DESICollaboration, A. G. Adameet al., “DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations,”arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]. [5]DESICollaboration, M. Abdul Karimet al., “DESI DR2 results. II. M...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,

    D. Broutet al., “The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,”Astrophys. J.938no. 2, (2022) 110,arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework,

    D. Rubinet al., “Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework,”Astrophys. J.986no. 2, (2025) 231,arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]. [8]DESCollaboration, T. M. C. Abbottet al., “The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with ∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set,”Astrophys. J. Lett. 973no. ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    A Reassessment of the Pantheon+ and DES 5YR Calibration Uncertainties: Dovekie,

    B. Popovicet al., “A Reassessment of the Pantheon+ and DES 5YR Calibration Uncertainties: Dovekie,”arXiv:2506.05471 [astro-ph.CO]. [11]DESCollaboration, B. Popovicet al., “The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration,”arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-...

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Assessing observational constraints on dark energy,

    D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, “Assessing observational constraints on dark energy,”Phys. Lett. B855(2024) 138826,arXiv:2405.03933 [astro-ph.CO]. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Quintessential interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI observations,

    Y. Tada and T. Terada, “Quintessential interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI observations,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 12, (2024) L121305,arXiv:2404.05722 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Interpreting DESI’s evidence for evolving dark energy,

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

    arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Cosmological constraints on curved quintessence,

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, “Cosmological constraints on curved quintessence,”JCAP09(2024) 073,arXiv:2405.17396 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Does DESI 2024 confirmΛCDM?,

    E. Ó. Colgáin, M. G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and D. Stojkovic, “Does DESI 2024 confirmΛCDM?,”JHEAp49(2026) 100428,arXiv:2404.08633 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Does dark energy really revive using DESI 2024 data?,

    Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, “Does dark energy really revive using DESI 2024 data?,” Phys. Rev. D111no. 2, (2025) 023512,arXiv:2404.12068 [astro-ph.CO]. [24]DESICollaboration, K. Lodhaet al., “Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements,”Phys. Rev. D112no. 8, (2025) 083511,arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Robustness of dark energy phenomenology across different parameterizations,

    W. J. Wolf, C. García-García, and P. G. Ferreira, “Robustness of dark energy phenomenology across different parameterizations,”JCAP05(2025) 034,arXiv:2502.04929 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

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

    W. Giarè, T. Mahassen, E. Di Valentino, and S. Pan, “An overview of what current data can (and cannot yet) say about evolving dark energy,”Phys. Dark Univ.48(2025) 101906, arXiv:2502.10264 [astro-ph.CO]. [27]CosmoV erse NetworkCollaboration, E. Di Valentinoet al., “The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics...

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Effective Phantom Dark Energy: What Cosmological Reconstruction Does and Does Not Imply,

    S. S. Mishra, “Effective Phantom Dark Energy: What Cosmological Reconstruction Does and Does Not Imply,”arXiv:2605.27301 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter,

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, “Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10(2001) 213–224,arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  17. [17]

    Exploring the expansion history of the universe,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  18. [18]

    Parameterizing Dark Energy at the density level: A two-parameter alternative to CPL,

    G. Montefalcone and R. Stiskalek, “Parameterizing Dark Energy at the density level: A two-parameter alternative to CPL,”arXiv:2603.25735 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  19. [19]

    A theory of type-II minimally modified gravity,

    A. De Felice, A. Doll, and S. Mukohyama, “A theory of type-II minimally modified gravity,”JCAP 09(2020) 034,arXiv:2004.12549 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Comparison of two theories of Type-IIa minimally modified gravity,

    A. De Felice, K.-i. Maeda, S. Mukohyama, and M. C. Pookkillath, “Comparison of two theories of Type-IIa minimally modified gravity,”Phys. Rev. D106no. 2, (2022) 024028,arXiv:2204.08294 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Dynamical dark energy parametrizations in VCDM,

    S. Arora, A. De Felice, and S. Mukohyama, “Dynamical dark energy parametrizations in VCDM,” Phys. Rev. D112no. 12, (2025) 123518,arXiv:2508.03784 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes,

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, “The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes,”JCAP1107(2011) 034,arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]. 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  23. [23]

    Exhaustive Symbolic Regression,

    D. J. Bartlett, H. Desmond, and P. G. Ferreira, “Exhaustive Symbolic Regression,”IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput.28no. 4, (2024) 964,arXiv:2211.11461 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Interpretable machine learning for science with pysr and symbolicregression.jl,

    M. Cranmer, “Interpretable machine learning for science with pysr and symbolicregression.jl,” arXiv:2305.01582 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    (Exhaustive) Symbolic Regression and model selection by minimum description length,

    H. Desmond, “(Exhaustive) Symbolic Regression and model selection by minimum description length,”arXiv:2507.13033 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv

  26. [26]

    Symbolic regression analysis of dynamical dark energy with DESI-DR2 and SN data,

    A. Sousa-Neto, C. Bengaly, J. E. Gonzalez, and J. Alcaniz, “Symbolic regression analysis of dynamical dark energy with DESI-DR2 and SN data,”Phys. Dark Univ.50(2025) 102108, arXiv:2502.10506 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Reconstruction of the Dark Energy equation of state,

    J. Alberto Vazquez, M. Bridges, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, “Reconstruction of the Dark Energy equation of state,”JCAP09(2012) 020,arXiv:1205.0847 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    Bayesian model selection without evidences: application to the dark energy equation-of-state,

    S. Hee, W. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, “Bayesian model selection without evidences: application to the dark energy equation-of-state,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.455 no. 3, (2016) 2461–2473,arXiv:1506.09024 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Non-parametric reconstructions of dynamical dark energy via flexknots,

    A. N. Ormondroyd, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, “Non-parametric reconstructions of dynamical dark energy via flexknots,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.541no. 4, (2025) 3388–3400,arXiv:2503.08658 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Comparison of dynamical dark energy withΛCDM in light of DESI DR2,

    A. N. Ormondroyd, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, “Comparison of dynamical dark energy withΛCDM in light of DESI DR2,”arXiv:2503.17342 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  31. [31]

    Reconstructing dark energy with model independent methods after DESI DR2,

    J.-X. Li and S. Wang, “Reconstructing dark energy with model independent methods after DESI DR2,”Eur. Phys. J. C85no. 11, (2025) 1308,arXiv:2506.22953 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Reconstruction of dark energy using DESI DR2,

    X. Zhang, Y.-H. Xu, and Y. Sang, “Reconstruction of dark energy using DESI DR2,”Commun. Theor. Phys.78no. 3, (2026) 035404,arXiv:2511.02220 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Reconstructing dark energy with fewer assumptions,

    D. A. Kessler, E. Di Valentino, L. A. Escamilla, and D. Huterer, “Reconstructing dark energy with fewer assumptions,”arXiv:2606.05853 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    Latent-Space Gaussian Processes for Dark-Energy Reconstruction from ObservationalH(z)Data,

    J.-y. Jiang, W. Hong, and T.-j. Zhang, “Latent-Space Gaussian Processes for Dark-Energy Reconstruction from ObservationalH(z)Data,”arXiv:2605.13427 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    A one-parameter formula for testing slow-roll dark energy: observational prospects,

    Z. Slepian, J. R. Gott, III, and J. Zinn, “A one-parameter formula for testing slow-roll dark energy: observational prospects,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.438no. 3, (2014) 1948–1970, arXiv:1301.4611 [astro-ph.CO]. [49]PlanckCollaboration, P. A. R. Adeet al., “Planck 2015 results. XIV. Dark energy and modified gravity,”Astron. Astrophys.594(2016) A14,arXiv:...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

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

    W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, E. N. Saridakis, and S. Chakraborty, “Observational constraints on one-parameter dynamical dark-energy parametrizations and theH0 tension,”Phys. Rev. D99 no. 4, (2019) 043543,arXiv:1810.05141 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    New Parametrization of the Dark-Energy Equation of State with a Single Parameter,

    J. K. Singh, P. Singh, E. N. Saridakis, S. Myrzakul, and H. Balhara, “New Parametrization of the Dark-Energy Equation of State with a Single Parameter,”Universe10no. 6, (2024) 246, arXiv:2304.03783 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    What do we learn by mapping dark energy to a single value of w?,

    S. S. Taylor and R. J. Scherrer, “What do we learn by mapping dark energy to a single value of w?,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 4, (2025) 043534,arXiv:2412.08766 [astro-ph.CO]. 28

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

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

    R. Fikri, E. Elkhateeb, E. I. Lashin, and W. El Hanafy, “A preference for dynamical phantom dark energy using one-parameter model with Planck, DESI DR1 BAO and SN data,”Annals Phys.481 (2025) 170190,arXiv:2411.19362 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    One-parameter dynamical dark energy: Hints for oscillations,

    D. A. Kessler, L. A. Escamilla, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, “One-parameter dynamical dark energy: Hints for oscillations,”arXiv:2504.00776 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  41. [41]

    Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models,

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, “Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models,” JCAP05(2021) 057,arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]. [56]PlanckCollaboration, N. Aghanimet al., “Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods,”Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A5,arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]. [57]PlanckCollaboration, N. Aghanimet al., “Pla...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Label switching problem in Bayesian analysis for gravitational wave astronomy,

    R. Buscicchio, E. Roebber, J. M. Goldstein, and C. J. Moore, “Label switching problem in Bayesian analysis for gravitational wave astronomy,”Phys. Rev. D100no. 8, (2019) 084041, arXiv:1907.11631 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology,

    R. Trotta, “Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology,”Contemp. Phys.49(2008) 71–104,arXiv:0803.4089 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  44. [44]

    PolyChord: nested sampling for cosmology,

    W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, “PolyChord: nested sampling for cosmology,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.450no. 1, (2015) L61–L65,arXiv:1502.01856 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [45]

    POLYCHORD: next-generation nested sampling,

    W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, “POLYCHORD: next-generation nested sampling,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.453(Nov., 2015) 4384–4398,arXiv:1506.00171 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    A parametric model for dark energy,

    E. M. Barboza, Jr. and J. S. Alcaniz, “A parametric model for dark energy,”Phys. Lett. B666 (2008) 415–419,arXiv:0805.1713 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  47. [47]

    Growth of perturbations in dark energy parametrization scenarios,

    A. Mehrabi, “Growth of perturbations in dark energy parametrization scenarios,”Phys. Rev. D97 no. 8, (2018) 083522,arXiv:1804.09886 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    WMAP constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy,

    H. K. Jassal, J. S. Bagla, and T. Padmanabhan, “WMAP constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.356(2005) L11–L16,arXiv:astro-ph/0404378

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  49. [49]

    Observational constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy: How consistent are different observations?,

    H. K. Jassal, J. S. Bagla, and T. Padmanabhan, “Observational constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy: How consistent are different observations?,”Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 103503,arXiv:astro-ph/0506748

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  50. [50]

    Imprints of an extended Chevallier–Polarski–Linder parametrization on the large scale of our universe,

    S. Pan, W. Yang, and A. Paliathanasis, “Imprints of an extended Chevallier–Polarski–Linder parametrization on the large scale of our universe,”Eur. Phys. J. C80no. 3, (2020) 274, arXiv:1902.07108 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    Dynamical dark energy confronted with multiple CMB missions,

    M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, “Dynamical dark energy confronted with multiple CMB missions,”Phys. Dark Univ.45(2024) 101539,arXiv:2407.14939 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Dark energy equation of state parameter and its evolution at low redshift,

    A. Tripathi, A. Sangwan, and H. K. Jassal, “Dark energy equation of state parameter and its evolution at low redshift,”JCAP06(2017) 012,arXiv:1611.01899 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  53. [53]

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

    G. Efstathiou, “Constraining the equation of state of the universe from distant type Ia supernovae and cosmic microwave background anisotropies,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.310(1999) 842–850, arXiv:astro-ph/9904356. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  54. [54]

    Dynamical dark energy after Planck CMB final release andH0 tension,

    W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, S. Pan, Y. Wu, and J. Lu, “Dynamical dark energy after Planck CMB final release andH0 tension,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.501no. 4, (2021) 5845–5858, arXiv:2101.02168 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Exponential quintessence: curved, steep and stringy?,

    D. Andriot, S. Parameswaran, D. Tsimpis, T. Wrase, and I. Zavala, “Exponential quintessence: curved, steep and stringy?,”JHEP08(2024) 117,arXiv:2405.09323 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Cosmological tests of quintessence in quantum gravity,

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, “Cosmological tests of quintessence in quantum gravity,”JCAP04(2025) 086,arXiv:2410.21243 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    The bobyqa algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives,

    M. J. D. Powell, “The bobyqa algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives,” 2009.https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2488733

    2009

  58. [58]

    Improving the flexibility and robustness of model-based derivative-free optimization solvers

    C. Cartis, J. Fiala, B. Marteau, and L. Roberts, “Improving the flexibility and robustness of model-based derivative-free optimization solvers.” 2018.https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.00154. 30

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018