Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 10 cited by

Examining Quintessence Models with DESI Data

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that when quintessence models are compared with DESI data using an accurate linearization of their equation of state, none improves on a cosmological constant beyond about 2.8 sigma, and the previously touted k=10 hilltop…

desk verdict A useful correction to the k=10 hilltop claim, but the pnull statistic is too fragile to carry the quantitative conclusions. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18937 v2 pith:QW4NMQBF submitted 2025-05-25 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Zahra Bayat , Mark P. Hertzberg This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-phhep-th PACS 95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords darkenergyquintessenceDESIcosmologicalconstantCPLparametrizationnullconditionhilltoppotentialbaryonacousticoscillations
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

This paper takes the DESI 2024 preference for evolving dark energy, reported as 2.5--3.9$\sigma$ against a cosmological constant in the free $\{w_0,w_a\}$ plane, and asks whether the most conservative scalar-field models can actually explain it. The authors numerically evolve hilltop and exponential quintessence potentials, project each model onto the Chevallier--Polarski--Linder form $w(a)=w_0+(1-a)w_a$ by fitting only over the redshift window where DESI is sensitive, and then compare with the DESI likelihood. They find at most a modest improvement over a cosmological constant, with the largest tension about 2.8$\sigma$ (hilltop $k\simeq 2$ with the DESY5 supernova data), far below the headline DESI values. Steep hilltops with $k\ge 8$ are statistically indistinguishable from $\Lambda$, and the $k=10$ "great mimic" of an earlier analysis is attributed to an inaccurate linearization of $w(a)$. The stakes are simple: if the paper is right, the DESI hint does not provide compelling evidence for evolving dark energy or for abandoning the null energy condition.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the CPL parameterization treated as a local summary rather than a global truth: for each potential the authors evolve the scalar field, compute $w(a)$, and fit a straight line over the window $0.295\le z\le 1.73$, where dark energy is a non-negligible fraction of the universe; the relative integrated error of this linear fit is typically $\lesssim 1\%$. The statistical carrier is the reduced one-dimensional density $p(w_0)\propto P(w_0,w_a(w_0))$ formed from the Gaussian DESI likelihood and the model relation, truncated at the model's maximum $w_0$, with the null probability $p_{\rm null}$ defined by extending $p$ below $w_0=-1$ and integrating. That two-part construction, local linearization plus boundary-extrapolated null probability, is what produces the corrected significance table.

What would settle it

Recompute the null probability with no interpolation below $w_0=-1$, for example by treating $w_0=-1$ as a hard boundary and using a one-sided test or a Bayes factor with zero prior support for $w<-1$. If the best hilltop and exponential tensions remain at or above $3\sigma$ under that treatment, the paper's quantitative conclusion fails; if a fully nonlinear $w(a)$ likelihood analysis instead places the $k=10$ hilltop at the center of the DESI contours, the paper's correction of Ref. [2] is overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that when quintessence predictions are mapped into the same $\{w_0,w_a\}$ plane used by DESI through a linear fit to $w(a)$ valid only in the DESI-sensitive redshift interval, hilltop and exponential potentials stay close to the cosmological-constant corner. For the hilltop model, the maximum present-day deviation is $w_{0,\rm max}=-0.624$ at $k=1$, and it approaches $-1$ rapidly as $k$ grows; for $k=10$ the field must start within $2.27\times 10^{-6} M_{\rm Pl}$ of the top of the potential, so it remains frozen throughout the observed window. Conditioning the DESI likelihood on each model curve $w_a(w_0)$, truncating at the model's maximal $w_0$, and assigning the null probability by extending the model density below $w_0=-1$ gives $p_{\rm null}>0.5$ for $k\ge 8$ in all three data sets, and a maximum tension of $2.77\sigma$ (hilltop $k=2$ with DESY5). The paper therefore reads the DESI preference as not requiring evolving dark energy within NEC-respecting quintessence, and treats the claimed $k=10$ success as an artifact of a bad linearization.

Load-bearing premise

The reported tensions depend on an unspecified interpolation that places probability below $w_0=-1$, even though every model considered has zero probability there because all of them keep $w\ge -1$; change that extrapolation and the quoted significances change, though the qualitative statement about steep hilltops does not.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the corrected linearization is right, the $k=10$ hilltop model is statistically indistinguishable from $\Lambda$CDM ($p_{\rm null}>0.5$ for all three data sets), so it should not be quoted as a great mimic of DESI data.
  • The maximum tension any NEC-obeying hilltop or exponential quintessence model can currently claim is about $2.8\sigma$ with DESY5, and less with PantheonPlus or Union3; parameter-count penalties would weaken this further.
  • The larger DESI tensions in the free $\{w_0,w_a\}$ plane are mostly driven by the phantom region $w<-1$; restricting to $w\ge -1$ removes most of the preference for evolving dark energy.
  • Future DESI DR2 data can be analyzed with the same local-CPL projection, and the authors expect it to sharpen, not automatically confirm, the current marginal preference.
  • Within NEC-respecting scalar-field dark energy, a cosmological constant remains the simplest viable explanation, so evidence for dynamical dark energy, if it emerges, would point toward phantom-like or non-minimal theories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves open which interpolation was used to push $p(w_0)$ below $-1$; since all studied models have strictly zero support there, an equally plausible extension could shift the quoted $N_\sigma$ values by several tenths, so the stability of Table II under alternative tail treatments is a direct test the authors do not perform.
  • The local-linearization recipe applies to any thawing scalar potential, so the same audit could be run on PNGB, power-law, or nonminimally coupled models; the $k=10$ result suggests that other reported DESI "good fits" may be parameterization artifacts rather than genuine data preferences.
  • If future DESI DR2 data harden the preference for $w_0\simeq -0.7$, $w_a\simeq -1$ while staying NEC-compatible, this paper implies single-field quintessence cannot carry that signal, pointing instead to interacting dark energy, modified gravity, or phantom-like behavior.
  • The paper's $p_{\rm null}$ statistic applies no penalty for the extra parameter $k$ or $\beta$; a full Bayesian model comparison would disfavor the large-$k$ hilltop even more strongly than the paper states.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies whether hilltop and exponential quintessence potentials, which obey the null energy condition, can explain the DESI 2024 preference for evolving dark energy. The authors numerically integrate the scalar-field and Friedmann equations, map the resulting w(a) onto the CPL parameters (w0, wa) over a redshift window, and compare the resulting one-dimensional model curves with the DESI BAO+CMB+PantheonPlus/Union3/DESY5 contours. Their central findings are that these quintessence models improve the fit only modestly over a cosmological constant, that steep hilltop potentials with large k are statistically indistinguishable from LambdaCDM, and that the prominent k=10 hilltop 'mimic' claimed by Shlivko and Steinhardt (Ref. [2]) is an artifact of an inaccurate linearization. The paper presents Table I of allowed model parameters, Table II of null-hypothesis probabilities and N_sigma values, and Figure 4 showing the model curves against the DESI contours.

Significance. If the analysis were fully sound, the paper would be a useful correction to the literature: it would show that the DESI 2024 dark-energy preference can be accommodated by NEC-respecting quintessence only at modest significance, and that steep hilltop potentials are actually degenerate with a cosmological constant over the DESI redshift window. The paper's strengths are that the dynamics are computed by direct numerical integration of Eqs. (4) and (9), the linearization error is explicitly quantified as about 1%, and no model parameter is fit to the DESI likelihood, so the comparison is not circular. The qualitative geometric result in Figure 4, that increasing k moves the allowed model curve to the upper-left corner near (w0,wa)=(-1,0), is clear and well supported. However, the quantitative statistical claims in Table II and Section IV currently rest on an unspecified extrapolation of the model posterior into the phantom region and on an implicit prior over phi_i, so the headline significance statements are not yet reliable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (15)-(16) and Table II] The statistic pnull is defined by integrating p(w0) from -infinity to -1, with the region w0<-1 supplied by 'a simple interpolation' that is never specified. This is load-bearing, not cosmetic: every physical model in the paper has w>=-1, so the model posterior has zero support below w0=-1. For the k=10 hilltop model, Table I gives w0,max=-0.998, so the physical model occupies only the interval [-1,-0.998] in w0. Over such a tiny interval the Gaussian likelihood of Eq. (13) is nearly constant, so any smooth continuation below -1 contributes roughly half of the normalization in Eq. (16), forcing pnull ~ 0.5 regardless of the DESI data. The 'pnull > 0.5' rows for k=8,9,10 are therefore normalization artifacts of the unspecified interpolation, not evidence that those models are 'statistically indistinguishable from a cosmological constant' as claimed in Section IV. A different continuation would change the headline numbers.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (14) and Table II] The N_sigma values in Table II are not interpretable as standard deviations without specifying a prior over the model parameter phi_i (or beta) and without specifying how the one-dimensional density p(w0) is derived from the two-dimensional likelihood. Equation (14) sets p(w0) proportional to P(w0, wa(w0)) with no Jacobian or prior weight for phi_i, yet the mapping phi_i -> w0 is strongly nonlinear (Table I shows phi_i,max varying by five orders of magnitude as k goes from 1 to 10). The reported pnull values are posterior quantiles under an implicit, unspecified prior, and Eq. (17) then converts them to Gaussian sigmas; this conversion is explicitly acknowledged as non-standard, but the underlying posterior measure is not well defined. The claim in the abstract and Section V that the improvement over a cosmological constant is 'modest' at a specific sigma level therefore needs to be rederived with a stated prior or with a prior-independent statistic such as a profile likelihood.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (13)] The Gaussian likelihood in Eq. (13) is used with coefficients c1 through c5 that are said to be 'properties of the particular data set', but the paper never gives their values, never states how they were obtained from the contours of Ref. [1], and never validates the Gaussian tail behavior below w0=-1. Since pnull in Eq. (15) integrates to -infinity, it is sensitive precisely to the unmeasured tail of the likelihood in the phantom region. A reader cannot reproduce Table II from the information provided, and the reported significances depend on the unverified assumption that the DESI contours are exactly Gaussian with those coefficients.
  4. [Section III.A and Section IV] The paper claims that Ref. [2]'s linearization of w(a) is 'highly inaccurate' and that the improved procedure moves the k=10 hilltop model to the upper-left corner of the (w0,wa) plane, but it does not show the actual linearization used in Ref. [2] or demonstrate quantitatively where that procedure fails. The claimed 1% relative integrated error of the linear fit is also not connected to the statistical comparison: for the very steep hilltop cases (k=8,9,10) the allowed w0 range is only ~10^-3 wide, so a 1% error in w(a) could easily be large compared with the model's separation from LambdaCDM. The authors should present the comparison to Ref. [2] explicitly and translate the linearization error into an error on w0 and wa, ideally showing that it is negligible compared with the DESI contour widths for every model row in Table II.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Figure 5] The dotted-line region below w0=-1 is labeled an 'extrapolation' but its functional form is never given; at minimum the functional form should be stated in the caption or text so that the pnull integral is reproducible.
  2. [Section II.B and Section III.A] Several typos and grammatical slips should be corrected, including 'assumed too be' and 'inn dark energy' in Section II.B, 'differet' in Table II's caption text, and the inconsistent labeling of the NEC-limit curve as 'black dashed' in the text of Section IV versus 'Black dotted' in the caption of Figure 4.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (17)] The conversion pnull -> N_sigma via the inverse error function is called non-standard, and the authors correctly suppress N_sigma when pnull>0.5; however, for the small-k rows the same conversion is applied to a truncated, non-Gaussian distribution, so the column headers 'N_sigma' could mislead readers into interpreting these as standard deviations of a Gaussian posterior.
  4. [Section V] The outlook mentions the updated DESI DR2 data [36] but does not state whether the analysis here would change qualitatively; a brief comment on how the DR2 contours compare with the model curves in Figure 4 would help the reader assess the current status.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The high-k pnull>0.5 rows are built into Eq. (15) by the unspecified w0<-1 interpolation; the model dynamics themselves are otherwise self-contained.

  1. other [Section IV, Eqs. (15)-(16); Table II (Hilltop k=8,9,10 rows)]
    "we effectively extend the probability distribution to values lower than w0 = −1 (through a simple interpolation) and assign a probability to the null hypothesis w0 = −1 of pnull = (1/N) ∫_{−∞}^{−1} dw0 p(w0) (15) ... N = ∫_{−∞}^{w0,max} dw0 p(w0) (16). ... Importantly, we see that for sufficiently large k our above statistic has pnull > 0.5, meaning that in such a regime there is no tension whatsoever. This includes the case k = 10."

    For k=10, Table I gives w0,max = −0.998, so the physical model support in w0 is only the 0.002-wide interval [−1, −0.998]. Over this tiny interval the Gaussian likelihood of Eq. (13) is nearly constant, so the unspecified 'simple interpolation' below w0 = −1 contributes about half of the normalization N in Eq. (16), forcing pnull ≈ 0.5 regardless of the DESI coefficients c1...c5 or the actual likelihood values. The headline 'no tension whatsoever' and 'statistically indistinguishable from a cosmological constant' for k=10 is therefore a consequence of the chosen continuation at the NEC boundary, not an inference from the data. The pnull > 0.5 entries in Table II are equivalent to the statistic's definition by construction.

full rationale

The model side of the paper is not circular: the w(a) predictions are obtained by integrating the equations of motion, Eqs. (4) and (9), with scanned parameters (β, k, φi), and no model parameter is fit to the DESI likelihood. The curves in Fig. 4 and the qualitative statement that steep hilltops sit near (w0,wa) = (−1,0) follow from the dynamics. The Gaussian likelihood coefficients c1–c5 in Eq. (13) are a data-encoding representation of the DESI contours, not a fit of the quintessence models, so that step is also not circular. There are no load-bearing self-citations and no imported uniqueness theorems. The circular step is confined to the pnull statistic: for high-k hilltop models the physical w0-support is a tiny sliver adjacent to −1, so the arbitrary interpolation below −1 controls the normalization in Eq. (16) and forces pnull > 0.5 independently of the data. Thus the specific claim that k=10 is statistically indistinguishable from a cosmological constant reduces to the statistic's construction, while the broader conclusion of only modest preference retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on numerically solving the Klein-Gordon and Friedmann equations for two standard potentials with scanned parameters (k, phi_i, beta), then mapping each solution to the CPL plane via a linear fit over a chosen redshift window, and comparing to Gaussian approximations of DESI contours. The genuinely author-controlled inputs are the scan ranges, the z-cut, the Gaussian likelihood fit, and the extrapolation used for the null-hypothesis test. No new entities are postulated. The main statistical conclusions (Table II) depend on the extrapolation and likelihood representation, which are not fully specified.

free parameters (6)
  • k (hilltop curvature) = scanned over 1, 1.2, ..., 10
    Controls the curvature of Vhill = V0(1 - k^2 phi^2 / (2 MPl^2)); larger k forces smaller phi_i and smaller deviations from LambdaCDM. Scanned, not fitted to data.
  • phi_i (initial hilltop field value) = 0 < phi_i < phi_i,max, e.g. 0.148 MPl for k = 2
    Initial position on the hilltop determines how much w deviates from -1; the prior over phi_i is uniform, which shapes the model posterior used in Table II.
  • beta (exponential steepness) = 0 < beta < 2.18
    Steepness of Vexp = V0 exp(beta phi / MPl); beta_max is fixed by requiring that Omega_DE,0 = 0.69 is actually reached.
  • z_cut for linearization window = 1.73
    Upper edge of the redshift window (0.295 <= z <= 1.73) over which w(a) is linearly fit to CPL; chosen where dark energy is about 10 percent of the universe. The resulting w0, wa values depend on this cut.
  • Gaussian likelihood coefficients c1...c5 (per dataset) = not reported; fit to the 68% and 95% contours of Figure 6 in Ref [1]
    Coefficients of the joint Gaussian posterior P(w0, wa) for the PantheonPlus, Union3, and DESY5 data combinations; extracted from the plotted DESI contours and never reported numerically.
  • V0 (potential prefactor) = m^2 MPl^2 with m chosen so t0 is about 13.8 Gyr and Omega_DE,0 is about 0.69
    Normalization of the potential; fixed by matching the observed matter and dark energy fractions, not fitted to the DESI BAO likelihood.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption FLRW background with only pressureless matter and dark energy; radiation neglected
    Section III Eq. (9): H = (1/(sqrt(3) MPl)) sqrt(rho_M + rho_DE). Adequatefor z <= 2.33 but not exact at early times; initial conditions are imposed when matter dominates.
  • domain assumption Canonical, minimally coupled scalar with negligible matter coupling
    Section II Eq. (3): the action is GR plus a standard kinetic term; coupling to matter is assumed negligible to evade fifth-force constraints.
  • ad hoc to paper CPL parametrization w(a) = w0 + (1-a) wa is an adequate summary of model predictions over the DESI window
    Section III: linear fit over 0.295 <= z <= 1.73 with integrated error about 1 percent for most parameters; the cut at z = 1.73 is chosen by the authors.
  • domain assumption DESI likelihood is an exact Gaussian in {w0, wa} of the form of Eq. (13)
    Section IV Eq. (13): contours of Ref [1] are approximated as ellipses; stated as approximate, but no check of Gaussianity or tail shape is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Model posterior is extrapolated below w0 = -1 by an unspecified interpolation to compute pnull
    Section IV Eqs. (15)-(16): all models have w >= -1, so the null-hypothesis probability is computed from invented probability mass in the phantom region.
  • domain assumption Omega_M,0 about 0.31 and Omega_DE,0 about 0.69 are held fixed when defining today
    Section III: the authors assume these values remain roughly correct for dynamical dark energy models; a full analysis would marginalize over them.
  • domain assumption Null energy condition holds, so w >= -1 at all times considered
    Section I and IV: models violating the NEC are excluded on theoretical grounds; this is the prior that places LambdaCDM at the boundary of the model space.
  • ad hoc to paper The hilltop potential is not evolved into the region where V < 0; higher-order terms are available but unused
    Section II.B: 'we will not evolve to such late times, so this will not directly be a problem. In any case, one could add higher order terms.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Examining Quintessence Models with DESI Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QW4NMQBF

@misc{pith2026250518937,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Examining Quintessence Models with DESI Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QW4NMQBF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18937}
}
read the original abstract

We examine data from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) collaboration which has implications for the nature of dark energy. We consider classes of models that manifestly obey the null energy condition, with a focus on quintessence models. We find that hilltop potentials and exponential potentials provide modest improvement compared to a cosmological constant, but the statistical evidence is only marginal at this stage. We correct some analyses in the existing literature which attempted to compare some quintessence models to the data, giving an overly positive result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18937 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The evolution of the fractional energy density Ω ver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Equation of state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Blue is the maximum value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Probability density versus equation of state today [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

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

  1. Phantom-divide crossing and suppressed structure growth in kinetically braided dark energy with momentum exchange

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A linearly stable kinetic-braiding dark-energy model with CDM momentum exchange realizes upward phantom-divide crossing and weak CDM gravitational clustering, altering matter and CMB spectra.

  2. Realizing the phantom-divide crossing with vector and scalar fields

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A scalar-vector-tensor dark-energy model crosses the phantom divide at low redshift with no ghost or Laplacian instabilities and growth signatures close to LCDM.

  3. Simple quintessence models in light of DESI-BAO observations

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Thawing quintessence with linear or quadratic potentials is favored over LambdaCDM only when the DESY5 supernova catalog is used; with Pantheon+ or Union3 the preference is mild.

  4. Accelerated expansion of the universe purely driven by scalar field fluctuations

    gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In a closed Friedmann universe, scalar field fluctuations with Compton wavelength exceeding the scale factor produce negative pressure and cosmic acceleration.

  5. Observational Constraints on Scalar Field--Matter Interaction in Weyl Integrable Spacetime

    gr-qc 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Weyl Integrable Spacetime model with one extra parameter fits current late-time cosmological data slightly better than Lambda-CDM, with weak to moderate statistical preference.

  6. Constraints on Barrow and Tsallis Holographic Dark Energy from DESI DR2 BAO data

    gr-qc 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Barrow and Tsallis holographic dark energy models fit DESI DR2 data but are disfavored by information criteria versus LambdaCDM and do not ease the Hubble tension.

  7. The Status of Single Scalar Field Dark Energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5 of 10

    Cosmological data can constrain only a handful of EFT parameters for single-scalar dark energy; extended models show modest preference over Λ but remain underdetermined and challenged by fifth forces and screening.

  8. Constraint on Symmetric Teleparallel Gravity with Different Dark energy Parametrizations from DESI DR2 BAO Data

    gr-qc 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    MCMC fits of CPL and BA dark energy parametrizations in power-law f(Q) gravity to DESI DR2 and prior BAO H(z) data find statistically competitive or better fits than Lambda-CDM.

  9. Topological defects as effective dynamical dark energy

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A few percent domain-wall component gives a mild (Δχ² = -1.72) improvement over ΛCDM when fitting DESI DR2 BAO and DESY5 supernovae, but the evidence is inconclusive.

  10. Breaking Free from the Swampland of Impossible Universes through the DESI Portal

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    DESI data indicating evolving dark energy may allow string theory to describe observed universes without violating swampland constraints on constant dark energy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 30 linked inside Pith · cited by 10 Pith papers

  1. [2]

    Assessing observational constraints on dark energy,

    D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, “Assessing observational constraints on dark energy,” Phys. Lett. B 855, 138826 (2024) [arXiv:2405.03933 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    DESI 2024 VI: cosmologi- cal constraints from the measurements of baryon acous- tic oscillations,

    A. G. Adame et al. [DESI], “DESI 2024 VI: cosmologi- cal constraints from the measurements of baryon acous- tic oscillations,” JCAP 02, 021 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2025/02/021 [arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    DESI con- straints on exponential quintessence,

    O. F. Ramadan, J. Sakstein and D. Rubin, “DESI con- straints on exponential quintessence,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.4, L041303 (2024) [arXiv:2405.18747 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Kick it like DESI: PNGB quintessence with a dynamically generated initial velocity,

    M. Berbig, “Kick it like DESI: PNGB quintessence with a dynamically generated initial velocity,” JCAP 03, 015 (2025) [arXiv:2412.07418 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    S-dual Quintessence, the Swampland, and the DESI DR2 Re- sults,

    L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis and D. Lust, “S-dual Quintessence, the Swampland, and the DESI DR2 Re- sults,” [arXiv:2503.19428 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Has DESI detected exponential quintessence?,

    Y. Akrami, G. Alestas and S. Nesseris, “Has DESI detected exponential quintessence?,” [arXiv:2504.04226 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Physical vs phantom dark energy after DESI: thawing quintessence in a curved background,

    B. R. Dinda and R. Maartens, “Physical vs phantom dark energy after DESI: thawing quintessence in a curved background,” [arXiv:2504.15190 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Thawing quintessence and transient cosmic acceleration in light of DESI,

    R. de Souza, G. Rodrigues and J. Alcaniz, “Thawing quintessence and transient cosmic acceleration in light of DESI,” [arXiv:2504.16337 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Interpreting DESI’s evi- dence for evolving dark energy,

    M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle, “Interpreting DESI’s evi- dence for evolving dark energy,” JCAP 12, 007 (2024) [arXiv:2404.08056 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Exponential quintessence: curved, steep and stringy?,

    D. Andriot, S. Parameswaran, D. Tsimpis, T. Wrase and I. Zavala, “Exponential quintessence: curved, steep and stringy?,” JHEP 08, 117 (2024) [arXiv:2405.09323 [hep- th]]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Dynamical dark energy in the light of DESI 2024 data,

    N. Roy, “Dynamical dark energy in the light of DESI 2024 data,” Phys. Dark Univ. 48, 101912 (2025) [arXiv:2406.00634 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Consistent theories for the DESI dark energy fit,

    A. Notari, M. Redi and A. Tesi, “Consistent theories for the DESI dark energy fit,” JCAP 11, 025 (2024) [arXiv:2406.08459 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    New simple and accurate quintessence approximations,

    A. Alho and C. Uggla, “New simple and accurate quintessence approximations,” Phys. Rev. D 111, no.8, 083549 (2025) [arXiv:2407.14378 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Robust preference for Dy- namical Dark Energy in DESI BAO and SN mea- surements,

    W. Giar` e, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino and J. T. Firouzjaee, “Robust preference for Dy- namical Dark Energy in DESI BAO and SN mea- surements,” JCAP 10, 035 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2024/10/035 [arXiv:2407.16689 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Scant evidence for thawing quintessence,

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, D. J. Bartlett and P. G. Ferreira, “Scant evidence for thawing quintessence,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.8, 083528 (2024) [arXiv:2408.17318 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Quintessence: an analytical study, with theoretical and observational applications,

    D. Andriot, “Quintessence: an analytical study, with theoretical and observational applications,” [arXiv:2410.17182 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Do Observations Prefer Thawing Quintessence?,

    G. Payeur, E. McDonough and R. Brandenberger, “Do Observations Prefer Thawing Quintessence?,” [arXiv:2411.13637 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    On the Evidence of Dynamical Dark Energy,

    Q. Gao, Z. Peng, S. Gao and Y. Gong, “On the Evidence of Dynamical Dark Energy,” Universe11, no.1, 10 (2025) 8 [arXiv:2411.16046 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Evolving dark energy models: Current and forecast constraints,

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

    arXiv

  13. [21]

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

    W. Giar` e, 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, 101906 (2025) [arXiv:2502.10264 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    DESI results: Hint towards coupled dark matter and dark energy,

    A. Chakraborty, P. K. Chanda, S. Das and K. Dutta, “DESI results: Hint towards coupled dark matter and dark energy,” [arXiv:2503.10806 [astro-ph.CO]]

  15. [23]

    How Much NEC Breaking Can the Universe En- dure?,

    E. Moghtaderi, B. R. Hull, J. Quintin and G. Geshniz- jani, “How Much NEC Breaking Can the Universe En- dure?,” [arXiv:2503.19955 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Op- timal parameterizations for observational constraints on thawing dark energy,

    D. Shlivko, P. J. Steinhardt and C. L. Steinhardt, “Op- timal parameterizations for observational constraints on thawing dark energy,” [arXiv:2504.02028 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Testing Quintessence Axion Dark Energy with Recent Cosmo- logical Results,

    W. Lin, L. Visinelli and T. T. Yanagida, “Testing Quintessence Axion Dark Energy with Recent Cosmo- logical Results,” [arXiv:2504.17638 [astro-ph.CO]]

  18. [26]

    The matter with(in) CPL,

    L. Giani, R. Von Marttens and O. F. Piattella, “The matter with(in) CPL,” [arXiv:2505.08467 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Phantom matters,

    D. Andriot, “Phantom matters,” [arXiv:2505.10410 [hep- th]]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Robustness of dark energy phenomenology across different parameterizations,

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa and P. G. Ferreira, “Robustness of dark energy phenomenology across different parameterizations,” JCAP 05, 034 (2025) [arXiv:2502.04929 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Match- ing current observational constraints with nonminimally coupled dark energy,

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira and C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, “Match- ing current observational constraints with nonminimally coupled dark energy,” Phys. Rev. D 111, no.4, L041303 (2025) [arXiv:2409.17019 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Roy Choudhury and T

    S. Roy Choudhury and T. Okumura, “Updated Cosmo- logical Constraints in Extended Parameter Space with Planck PR4, DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, and Supernovae: Dynamical Dark Energy, Neutrino Masses, Lensing Anomaly, and the Hubble Tension,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 976, no.1,...

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    S. Roy Choudhury, “Cosmology in Extended Parame- ter Space with DESI Data Release 2 Baryon Acous- tic Oscillations: A 2 σ+ Detection of Nonzero Neutrino Masses with an Update on Dynamical Dark Energy and Lensing Anomaly,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 986, L31 [arXiv:2504.15340 [astro-ph.CO]]

  24. [32]

    Challenging ΛCDM: 5σ Evidence for a Dynamical Dark Energy Late-Time Transition,

    M. Scherer, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes and A. De Felice, “Challenging ΛCDM: 5σ Evidence for a Dynamical Dark Energy Late-Time Transition,” [arXiv:2504.20664 [astro- ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Cos- mological constraints on curved quintessence,

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato and I. Zavala, “Cos- mological constraints on curved quintessence,” JCAP 09, 073 (2024) [arXiv:2405.17396 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Cos- mological tests of quintessence in quantum gravity,

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato and I. Zavala, “Cos- mological tests of quintessence in quantum gravity,” JCAP 04, 086 (2025) [arXiv:2410.21243 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025

  27. [35]

    Pressure Parametrization of Dark En- ergy: First and Second-Order Constraints with Latest Cosmological Data,

    H. Cheng, E. Di Valentino, L. A. Escamilla, A. A. Sen and L. Visinelli, “Pressure Parametrization of Dark En- ergy: First and Second-Order Constraints with Latest Cosmological Data,” [arXiv:2505.02932 [astro-ph.CO]]

  28. [36]

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints,

    M. Abdul Karim et al. [DESI], “DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints,” [arXiv:2503.14738 [astro- ph.CO]]. 9 Model Pan-Plus pnull Pan-Plus Nσ Union3 pnull Union3 Nσ DESY5 pnull DESY5 Nσ Hilltop k = 1 0.115 1.20 0.038 1.77...

    arXiv

Pith tools

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