REVIEW 6 cited by
Uniting the Observed Dynamical Dark Energy Preference with the Discrepancies in $\Omega_m$ and $H_0$ Across Cosmological Probes
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
Recent results from Type Ia Supernovae (SNe), baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) indicate 1) potentially discrepant measurements of the matter density $\Omega_m$ and Hubble constant $ H_0 $ in $\Lambda$CDM model when analyzed individually, and 2) hints of dynamical dark energy in a $w_0w_a$CDM model when data are combined in a joint analysis. We examine whether underlying dynamical dark energy cosmologies favored by data would result in biases in $\Omega_m$ and $ H_0 $ for each probe when analyzed individually under $\Lambda$CDM. We generate mock datasets in $w_0w_a$CDM cosmologies, fit the individual probes under the $\Lambda$CDM model, and find expected biases in $\Omega_m$ are $\sim 0.03$. Notably, the $\Omega_m$ differences between probes are consistent with values observed in real datasets. We also observe that mock DESI-BAO datasets generated in the $w_0w_a$CDM cosmologies will lead to a biased measurement of $H_0$ higher by ($\sim1.2$km/s/Mpc) when fitted under $\Lambda$CDM, appearing to mildly improve the Hubble tension, but as the true underlying $H_0$ is lower, the tension is in fact worsened. We find that the $\Omega_m$ discrepancies, the high BAO $ H_0 $ relative to CMB, and the joint dynamical dark energy signal are all related effects that could be explained \textit{simultaneously} with either new physics or new systematics. While it is possible to unite many of the discrepancies seen in recent analyses along a single axis, our results underscore the importance of understanding systematic differences in datasets, as they have unique impacts in different cosmological parameter spaces.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
Constraining Dynamical Dark Energy from Galaxy Clustering with Simulation-Based Priors
Adding BOSS galaxy clustering with simulation-based priors modeled as Gaussian mixtures shifts the DESI plus CMB plus supernova constraints on dark energy toward a cosmological constant and improves the w0-wa figure o...
-
No way ou$\tau$: Epoch of Reionization Observations Do not Support Large Values of the Optical Depth to Reionization
Epoch-of-reionization hydrogen probes, combined with CMB and BAO data but no CMB polarization, yield tau_reio = 0.067 +/- 0.011 and leave the dynamical-dark-energy preference at ~2 sigma.
-
Controlled Tension Forecasting: Quantifying Cross-Probe Biases in $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM
Controlled mock analyses show that cross-probe calibration tensions — in matter density, H0, supernova brightness, or sound horizon — can fake 3–10σ apparent dynamical-dark-energy signals while the true cosmology is ΛCDM.
-
Bayesian and frequentist perspectives agree on dynamical dark energy
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.
-
Robustness of dark energy phenomenology across different parameterizations
The viability of minimally and non-minimally coupled quintessence models is robust across CPL, JBP, BA, and EXP parameterizations, with all four reproducing the models' predicted observables accurately.
-
Dark energy and lensing anomaly in Planck CMB data
When the Planck lensing amplitude AL is fitted freely, DESI+CMB+SN data no longer prefer evolving dark energy, and DESI BAO's lower matter density worsens the lensing anomaly in LambdaCDM.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.