Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 74 references

Topological defects as effective dynamical dark energy

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 proposes that a few-percent population of frustrated domain walls can mimic the evolving dark energy hinted at by DESI DR2 and modestly improve the fit over the standard cosmological model, while cosmic strings are not favored.

desk verdict Clean, honest fit of a w=-2/3 fluid to DESI DR2 that finds a weak, dataset-dependent preference for domain walls; the missing CMB anisotropy calculation means the 'viable' claim is not actually tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10075 v1 pith:XTSOSGYJ submitted 2025-06-11 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Haipeng An , Chengcheng Han , Borui Zhang This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x
keywords domainwallscosmicstringstopologicaldefectsdynamicaldarkenergyDESIDR2baryonacousticoscillationstypeIasupernovaeequationofstate
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

The paper asks whether the dynamical dark energy hinted at by DESI's second data release is really a new fluid, or the effect of a missing ingredient in the universe's composition: topological defects left over from phase transitions in the early universe. It argues that a few-percent population of domain walls—sheet-like defects whose equation of state is $w = -2/3$—redshifts more slowly than matter but faster than a cosmological constant, so its fractional energy density peaks in exactly the redshift band $z \simeq 0.4$–$0.8$ where DESI DR2 measures the expansion rate above the $\Lambda$CDM prediction. Fitting DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations, a compressed CMB likelihood on $(\theta_*, \omega_b, \omega_{bc})$, and three supernova samples, the paper finds a domain wall fraction around $\Omega_{\rm dw} \simeq 5\%$ improves the fit by $\Delta\chi^2 = -1.72$ over $\Lambda$CDM when combined with the DESY5 supernovae, with a slightly negative DIC and a Bayes factor consistent with mild preference. Cosmic strings ($w = -1/3$) are not preferred by any dataset combination. If the paper is right, the apparent evolving dark energy is a gravitational bookkeeping effect—the fingerprint of an early phase transition—rather than a modification of dark energy physics itself.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the extra term $\Omega_{\rm td}(1+z)^{3(1+w_{\rm td})}$ in the Hubble expansion rate, with the topological-defect fraction $\Omega_{\rm td}$ as the only new parameter. What carries the argument is the equation-of-state value $w_{\rm td} = -2/3$ for a frustrated domain wall network and $-1/3$ for cosmic strings: this intermediate scaling makes the defect contribution's fractional energy density peak in the band $z \sim 0.4$–$0.8$, reproducing the DESI DR2 deviation as a bump in $H(z)$ rather than as time-varying dark energy. The paper justifies percent-level fractions by arguing that frustrated defects redshift more slowly than scaling-regime defects, do not cluster into structures, and may enter the horizon only at late times, each of which weakens the standard CMB bounds of $\Omega_{\rm dw} \lesssim 10^{-4}$; the early-universe anchor of the fit is a compressed Gaussian CMB likelihood on $(\theta_*, \omega_b, \omega_{bc})$ rather than a full power-spectrum computation.

What would settle it

A full Boltzmann-level computation of the domain wall network's contribution to CMB temperature and polarization power spectra, normalized to $\Omega_{\rm dw} \simeq 0.05$, would settle the claim: if the predicted anisotropy exceeds the measured Planck spectra on the scales where the compressed $(\theta_*, \omega_b, \omega_{bc})$ likelihood is blind, then the few-percent fraction is excluded and the $\Delta\chi^2 = -1.72$ improvement is an artifact of the simplified CMB treatment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that a homogeneous component of frustrated domain walls can make the universe expand as if dark energy were evolving, without any such evolution. Adding the term $\Omega_{\rm td}(1+z)^{3(1+w_{\rm td})}$ to the Friedmann equation with $w_{\rm td} = -2/3$ produces a bump in $H(z)$ relative to $\Lambda$CDM whose peak lands near $z \simeq 0.4$–$0.8$, the redshift range where the DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation measurements run high. With $\Omega_{\rm dw}$ as the sole new parameter and the CMB compressed to the late-time-insensitive set $(\theta_*, \omega_b, \omega_{bc})$, the fit with DESY5 supernovae returns $\Omega_{\rm dw} = 0.052^{+0.026}_{-0.033}$, $\Delta\chi^2_{\rm MAP} = -1.72$, $\Delta{\rm DIC} = -0.94$, and $\ln B = 0.32 \pm 0.32$ relative to $\Lambda$CDM: a mild preference, not a detection. The same analysis finds no preference for cosmic strings, with $\Delta\chi^2_{\rm MAP}$ between about $+0.04$ and $+0.2$ across the three supernova samples, and reports that this null result is consistent with a companion analysis of cosmic strings as dark energy. The paper's conclusion is that percent-level domain walls remain a viable extension of $\Lambda$CDM that future data should settle.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on an untested premise: a frustrated network of domain walls can be treated as a smooth fluid with equation of state $w = -2/3$ and still stay nearly invisible in the CMB's temperature and polarization maps, so that a few-percent fraction is not excluded by existing anisotropy bounds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the domain wall model is correct, no evolving dark energy component is needed: the DESI DR2 deviation at $z \sim 0.4$–$0.8$ is a defect-network signature, and sharper BAO or supernova measurements in that redshift band will either confirm or erase the bump.
  • The model is supernova-calibration dependent: with DESY5 the preference is mild ($\Delta\chi^2 = -1.72$, $\Delta{\rm DIC} = -0.94$), while with Pantheon+ and Union3 the data are essentially indifferent, so the explanation stands or falls on which supernova sample is right.
  • Cosmic strings are disfavored as the source of the anomaly: the analysis finds positive $\Delta\chi^2_{\rm MAP}$, positive DIC, and negative Bayes factors across all three supernova samples.
  • The defect explanation competes with spatial curvature: the $\Omega_k + \Lambda$CDM comparison fits better on $\Delta\chi^2$ and DIC but not on the Bayes factor, so the two geometric alternatives to dynamical dark energy must be separated by future data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: the paper never computes the domain-wall contribution to the CMB power spectrum, so the central viability premise—that frustrated walls evade the $\Omega_{\rm dw} \lesssim 10^{-4}$ bound—is asserted rather than demonstrated; a full Boltzmann-code run with the defect source term against the CMB power spectra is the single most direct test of the model.
  • My inference: the mechanism is a template, not a special case. Any component with $-1 < w < 0$ produces a bump in $H(z)/H_{\Lambda\rm CDM}(z)$ at some intermediate redshift, so the same fitting logic applies to other 'missing component' candidates; domain walls win here only because $w = -2/3$ places the bump at $z \sim 0.4$–$0.8$.
  • My inference: a supernova-independent probe of the expansion history around $z \sim 0.5$–$0.7$, such as strong-lensing time delays or gravitational-wave standard sirens, would test the model without relying on the DESY5-versus-Pantheon+ calibration disagreement that currently decides the preference.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper considers replacing a dynamical dark-energy component by a subdominant population of topological defects, modeled as homogeneous perfect fluids with equations of state w=-2/3 (domain walls) and w=-1/3 (cosmic strings) in a flat LambdaCDM background. Using DESI DR2 BAO data, a compressed Gaussian CMB prior on (theta*, omega_b, omega_bc), and three supernova samples (Pantheon+, Union3, DESY5), the authors run MCMC and nested-sampling analyses with Cobaya, CAMB, GetDist, and PolyChord. They report that cosmic strings are not preferred, while a few-percent domain-wall component improves the best-fit chi^2 by -1.72 relative to LambdaCDM when DESY5 is included, with a weakly negative DIC and a Bayes factor consistent with zero. The paper concludes that topological defects remain a viable and interesting extension of LambdaCDM. The central issue is that the fitted component is a background fluid, while the CMB likelihood used is explicitly marginalized over the late-time ISW and lensing signals that a defect network would produce.

Significance. If taken as a background-level fit, the paper provides a useful, transparent check that a w=-2/3 fluid can mimic the DESI DR2 Hubble-rate bump. The use of multiple public likelihoods and three SNe datasets, together with the reporting of chi^2, DIC, and Bayes factors, is a strength. However, the significance for topological-defect physics is presently limited: the defect network is never evolved at the perturbation level, and the only CMB information used is blind to the late-time anisotropic-stress and ISW signatures. The statistical preference is also weak and dataset-dependent. The paper is therefore more convincingly a claim about a phenomenological fluid than about domain walls.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (3)-(4); Introduction] The CMB information is a compressed Gaussian on (theta*, omega_b, omega_bc) that, as the text states, was obtained by marginalizing over ISW, lensing, and other late-time effects. A domain-wall network has nonzero anisotropic stress and sources late-time ISW, so its leading CMB signature is removed from the likelihood by construction. The paper never computes the defect contribution to the CMB TT/TE/EE spectra and does not use a full Planck likelihood. The fitted component is therefore a homogeneous perfect fluid with w=-2/3, not a topological-defect network, and the Abstract and Conclusion claim that topological defects 'remain a viable and interesting extension' is not supported by the analysis as presented. At minimum, the authors should either implement the defect stress-energy (or a perturbed fluid with appropriate sound speed and anisotropic stress) and test against a full CMB likelihood, or restrict all claims to the homogeneous fluid.
  2. [Table II; Abstract] The headline Delta chi^2 = -1.72 is obtained only for the DESY5 combination. For Pantheon+ and Union3, Delta chi^2_MAP is -0.064 and -0.014, Delta DIC is +0.62 and +0.73, and ln B is -0.69 +/- 0.34 and -0.31 +/- 0.33; even for DESY5, ln B = 0.32 +/- 0.32 is within 1 sigma of zero. The Abstract's unqualified statement that 'a domain wall contribution at the percent level can improve the fit' overstates the evidence. The conclusion of a 'mild preference' is defensible only for DESY5, and the word 'viable' carries the additional burden of the perturbation-level issue raised above.
  3. [Introduction, paragraph before Eq. (1)] The argument that frustrated domain walls redshift more slowly, do not cluster, and enter the horizon late is purely qualitative; no model for the correlation length or horizon-entry epoch is given, and no perturbed stress-energy tensor is derived. Because Eq. (1) is then used as an exact, constant equation of state, the analysis does not test whether the proposed physical network is consistent with CMB constraints; it only tests a background fluid. This missing step is load-bearing for the paper's stated goal of assessing topological defects.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section I] There are several typographical and grammatical issues, e.g., 'the most mystery' should be 'the greatest mystery', and 'Also, We adopt' in Section II should be 'We also adopt'.
  2. [Table I and Fig. 3] The sampling parameter is called omega_dw in Table I but Omega_dw in Fig. 3 and the text. If omega_dw = Omega_dw h^2, the prior [0, 0.05] maps to Omega_dw up to about 0.11 and the posterior mode at Omega_dw ~ 0.052 is within the prior; if the sampled parameter is Omega_dw, the posterior mode lies outside the prior. This ambiguity should be resolved.
  3. [Eq. (5)] The definition of Delta chi^2_MAP is typeset confusingly; it should be written as -2 (ln L_MAP_model - ln L_MAP_LambdaCDM) with a clear statement of which parameters are profiled.
  4. [Section III] The sentence 'the domain wall model yields a best-fit improvement of Delta chi^2 = -1.72 over LambdaCDM' should specify that this applies to the DESY5 combination, not to all datasets.
  5. [Fig. 1] The legend label 'CDM H(z)' should read 'LambdaCDM H(z)' to match the text and model being compared.
  6. [Table I] The Omega_k prior is one-sided, U[0, 0.05], allowing only positive Omega_k. For a fair model-comparison statement, the prior should generally allow negative Omega_k as well, unless a theoretical prior for an open universe is intended and stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper performs an ordinary model fit of Ω_td to BAO+SNe+compressed CMB data, and the central Δχ² result is not forced by a prior definition or by self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard likelihood analysis. The model is defined by Eq. (2), which adds a fluid with fixed equation of state w = -2/3 (domain wall) or w = -1/3 (cosmic string) and one free parameter Ω_td. The reported Δχ² = -1.72 is the maximum-likelihood improvement obtained by fitting that one parameter to DESI DR2 BAO, a compressed CMB likelihood, and three supernova datasets. There is no step in which the outcome is forced by a definition or by the prior equations: Ω_td is not defined in terms of the distance indicators, and the likelihood gain is simply the standard statistical consequence of adding one free parameter. The CMB information is used only as a correlated Gaussian prior on (θ*, ωb, ωbc) with mean and covariance given in Eqs. (3)-(4); the paper explicitly notes that this compressed likelihood is obtained by marginalizing over ISW and lensing contributions and other late-time effects. This limits the physical fidelity of the defect interpretation, but it is a limitation of the analysis, not a circularity: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. The Introduction's claim that frustrated defects can evade CMB constraints is qualitative and flagged as 'plausible' rather than demonstrated, which again is a completeness/validity issue rather than circular reasoning. All code and likelihoods are external (Cobaya, CAMB, DESI, Pantheon+, Union3, DESY5), and the comparison metrics (Δχ², DIC, Bayes factor) are applied consistently to the model, ΛCDM, and an Ω_k+ΛCDM control. Therefore no circular step is present, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on one fitted parameter (Ω_td) plus standard cosmological parameters, and on the untested assumption that background-only fluid evolution approximates a realistic defect network while CMB anisotropy constraints are evaded.

free parameters (2)
  • Ω_dw (domain wall fraction) = 0.052 +0.026 -0.033 (DESY5 combination)
    Present-day fractional energy density of domain walls, fitted to DESI DR2 BAO plus compressed CMB plus supernovae; this is the parameter whose value drives the Δχ² improvement.
  • Ω_cs (cosmic string fraction) = 0.0084 +0.012 -0.0077 (DESY5 combination)
    Present-day fractional energy density of cosmic strings; fitted but not preferred by data.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Friedmann equation with flat geometry (Ω_k=0) and a fluid with equation of state w_td = -2/3 (domain walls) or -1/3 (cosmic strings).
    Used throughout; Eq. (2) and Eq. (1). Standard defect scaling is assumed, but realistic defect networks have scale-dependent behavior.
  • ad hoc to paper CMB constraints on defects can be relaxed because frustrated defects redshift more slowly, do not cluster, and may enter the horizon late.
    Introduction, paragraph before Eq. (1); used to justify percent-level Ω_td but never implemented in the likelihood.
  • domain assumption The compressed Gaussian likelihood on (θ*, ωb, ωbc) from CamSpec captures all relevant CMB information for this analysis.
    Section II, Eqs. (3)-(4); this allows the fit to avoid full CMB power spectra, but it omits defect-induced CMB anisotropies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Topological defects as effective dynamical dark energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XTSOSGYJ

@misc{pith2026250610075,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Topological defects as effective dynamical dark energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XTSOSGYJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10075}
}
abstract

In this work, we consider the possibility that the dynamical dark energy hinted at by recent DESI data may be mimicked by the effects of additional components in the universe, potentially arising from topological defects. We find that the data does not show a particular preference for the existence of cosmic strings. However, a domain wall contribution at the percent level can improve the fit, yielding a $\Delta \chi^2= -1.72$ compared to the $\Lambda \rm{CDM}$ model. The improvement indicates that topological defects remain a viable and interesting extension to $\Lambda\rm{CDM}$, meriting further investigation with future cosmological data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10075 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hubble expansion rate measured by the DESI-2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. From the plot, a bump appears whose peak is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The figure illustrating the difference of log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Posterior distributions of parameters in the domain wall model combined with DESI, CMB and supernovae. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior distributions of parameters in the cosmic string model combined with DESI, CMB and supernovae. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    Cosmological evolution of a quintom model of dark energy,

    Z.-K. Guo, Y.-S. Piao, X.-M. Zhang, and Y.-Z. Zhang, “Cosmological evolution of a quintom model of dark energy,”Phys. Lett. B608(2005) 177–182, arXiv:astro-ph/0410654

    arXiv 2005

  2. [5]

    Crossing the phantom divide: Dark energy internal degrees of freedom,

    W. Hu, “Crossing the phantom divide: Dark energy internal degrees of freedom,”Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 047301,arXiv:astro-ph/0410680

    arXiv 2005

  3. [6]

    The DESI DR1/DR2 evidence for dynamical dark energy is biased by low-redshift supernovae,

    L. Huang, R.-G. Cai, and S.-J. Wang, “The DESI DR1/DR2 evidence for dynamical dark energy is biased by low-redshift supernovae,”arXiv:2502.04212 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  4. [7]

    Late-time cosmic acceleration from quantum gravity,

    D. Oriti and X. Pang, “Late-time cosmic acceleration from quantum gravity,”arXiv:2502.12419 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  5. [8]

    Comparison of dynamical dark energy with ΛCDM in light of DESI DR2,

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

    arXiv

  6. [9]

    Dynamical dark energy from an ultralight axion,

    H. N. Luu, Y.-C. Qiu, and S. H. H. Tye, “Dynamical dark energy from an ultralight axion,” arXiv:2503.18120 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  7. [10]

    Isotropic cosmic birefringence from string axion domain walls without cosmic strings, and DESI results,

    J. Lee, K. Murai, F. Takahashi, and W. Yin, “Isotropic cosmic birefringence from string axion domain walls without cosmic strings, and DESI results,” arXiv:2503.18417 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  8. [11]

    Interpreting Cosmic Birefringence and DESI Data with Evolving Axion in ΛCDM,

    S. Nakagawa, Y. Nakai, Y.-C. Qiu, and M. Yamada, “Interpreting Cosmic Birefringence and DESI Data with Evolving Axion in ΛCDM,”arXiv:2503.18924 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

Show all 74 references
  1. [12]

    S-dual Quintessence, the Swampland, and the DESI DR2 Results,

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

    arXiv

  2. [13]

    Dynamical Dark Energy, Dual Spacetime, and DESI,

    S. Hur, V. Jejjala, M. J. Kavic, D. Minic, and T. Takeuchi, “Dynamical Dark Energy, Dual Spacetime, and DESI,”arXiv:2503.20854 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  3. [14]

    The Impact of the Hubble Tension on the Evidence for Dynamical Dark Energy,

    Y.-H. Pang, X. Zhang, and Q.-G. Huang, “The Impact of the Hubble Tension on the Evidence for Dynamical Dark Energy,”arXiv:2503.21600 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  4. [15]

    To CPL, or not to CPL? What we have not learned about the dark energy equation of state,

    S. Nesseris, Y. Akrami, and G. D. Starkman, “To CPL, or not to CPL? What we have not learned about the dark energy equation of state,”arXiv:2503.22529 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  5. [16]

    Early time solution as an alternative to the late time evolving dark energy with DESI DR2 BAO,

    E. Chaussidonet al., “Early time solution as an alternative to the late time evolving dark energy with DESI DR2 BAO,”arXiv:2503.24343 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  6. [17]

    Dynamical Dark Energy Implies a Coupled Dark Sector: Insights from DESI DR2 via a Data-Driven Approach,

    C. You, D. Wang, and T. Yang, “Dynamical Dark Energy Implies a Coupled Dark Sector: Insights from DESI DR2 via a Data-Driven Approach,” arXiv:2504.00985 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  7. [18]

    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

  8. [19]

    Has DESI detected exponential quintessence?,

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

    arXiv

  9. [20]

    Whyw̸=−1? Anthropic Selection in a Λ + Axion Dark Energy Model,

    K. Murai and F. Takahashi, “Whyw̸=−1? Anthropic Selection in a Λ + Axion Dark Energy Model,” arXiv:2504.12852 [hep-ph]

  10. [21]

    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]

  11. [22]

    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

  12. [23]

    Implications of distance duality violation for theH 0 tension and evolving dark energy,

    E. M. Teixeira, W. Giar` e, N. B. Hogg, T. Montandon, A. Poudou, and V. Poulin, “Implications of distance duality violation for theH 0 tension and evolving dark energy,”arXiv:2504.10464 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  13. [24]

    The Cosmological Evidence for Non-Minimal Coupling,

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira, “The Cosmological Evidence for Non-Minimal Coupling,”arXiv:2504.07679 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  14. [25]

    Quantum Gravity Meets DESI: Dynamical Dark Energy in Light of the Trans-Planckian Censorship Conjecture,

    C. Li, J. Wang, D. Zhang, E. N. Saridakis, and Y.-F. Cai, “Quantum Gravity Meets DESI: Dynamical Dark Energy in Light of the Trans-Planckian Censorship Conjecture,”arXiv:2504.07791 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  15. [26]

    Testing Quintessence Axion Dark Energy with Recent Cosmological Results,

    W. Lin, L. Visinelli, and T. T. Yanagida, “Testing Quintessence Axion Dark Energy with Recent Cosmological Results,”arXiv:2504.17638 7 [astro-ph.CO]

  16. [27]

    Screened Axio-dilaton Cosmology: Novel Forms of Early Dark Energy,

    A. Smith, P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, C. P. Burgess, and A.-C. Davis, “Screened Axio-dilaton Cosmology: Novel Forms of Early Dark Energy,”arXiv:2505.05450 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  17. [28]

    Quintessence Dark Matter,

    D. Wang, “Quintessence Dark Matter,” arXiv:2505.08154 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  18. [29]

    Geometric formulation of k-essence and late-time acceleration,

    L. Csillag and E. Jensko, “Geometric formulation of k-essence and late-time acceleration,” arXiv:2505.15975 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  19. [30]

    Examining Quintessence Models with DESI Data,

    Z. Bayat and M. P. Hertzberg, “Examining Quintessence Models with DESI Data,” arXiv:2505.18937 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  20. [31]

    Dynamical Dark Energy at Late Time ΛCDM,

    J. W. Moffat and E. J. Thompson, “Dynamical Dark Energy at Late Time ΛCDM,”arXiv:2505.18900 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  21. [32]

    The Quintom theory of dark energy after DESI DR2,

    Y. Cai, X. Ren, T. Qiu, M. Li, and X. Zhang, “The Quintom theory of dark energy after DESI DR2,” arXiv:2505.24732 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  22. [33]

    Evidence for non-cold dark matter from DESI DR2 measurements,

    U. Kumar, A. Ajith, and A. Verma, “Evidence for non-cold dark matter from DESI DR2 measurements,” arXiv:2504.14419 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  23. [34]

    When Dark Matter Heats Up: A Model-Independent Search for Non-Cold Behavior,

    M. Abedin, L. A. Escamilla, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and W. Yang, “When Dark Matter Heats Up: A Model-Independent Search for Non-Cold Behavior,” arXiv:2505.09470 [astro-ph.CO]

  24. [35]

    Evidence for Dynamical Dark Matter,

    D. Wang, “Evidence for Dynamical Dark Matter,” arXiv:2504.21481 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  25. [36]

    Evolving Dark Energy or Evolving Dark Matter?,

    X. Chen and A. Loeb, “Evolving Dark Energy or Evolving Dark Matter?,”arXiv:2505.02645 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  26. [37]

    Interacting quintessence. The Coincidence problem and cosmic acceleration,

    G. Huey and B. D. Wandelt, “Interacting quintessence. The Coincidence problem and cosmic acceleration,” Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 023519, arXiv:astro-ph/0407196

    2006 arXiv

  27. [38]

    Super-acceleration as signature of dark sector interaction,

    S. Das, P. S. Corasaniti, and J. Khoury, “Super-acceleration as signature of dark sector interaction,”Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 083509, arXiv:astro-ph/0510628

    2006 arXiv

  28. [39]

    Upper limits on dark energy-dark matter interaction from DESI DR2 in a field-theoretic analysis,

    A. Aboubrahim and P. Nath, “Upper limits on dark energy-dark matter interaction from DESI DR2 in a field-theoretic analysis,”arXiv:2411.11177 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  29. [40]

    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]

  30. [41]

    Apparent w <−1 and a LowerS 8 from Dark Axion and Dark Baryons Interactions,

    J. Khoury, M.-X. Lin, and M. Trodden, “Apparent w <−1 and a LowerS 8 from Dark Axion and Dark Baryons Interactions,”arXiv:2503.16415 [astro-ph.CO]

  31. [42]

    Interacting dark sectors in light of DESI DR2,

    R. Shah, P. Mukherjee, and S. Pal, “Interacting dark sectors in light of DESI DR2,”arXiv:2503.21652 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  32. [43]

    New Constraints on Interacting Dark Energy from DESI DR2 BAO Observations,

    E. Silva, M. A. Sabogal, M. S. Souza, R. C. Nunes, E. Di Valentino, and S. Kumar, “New Constraints on Interacting Dark Energy from DESI DR2 BAO Observations,”arXiv:2503.23225 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  33. [44]

    Interacting dark energy after DESI DR2: a challenge for ΛCDM paradigm?,

    S. Pan, S. Paul, E. N. Saridakis, and W. Yang, “Interacting dark energy after DESI DR2: a challenge for ΛCDM paradigm?,”arXiv:2504.00994 [astro-ph.CO]

  34. [45]

    Optimal parameterizations for observational constraints on thawing dark energy,

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

    arXiv

  35. [46]

    Modified gravity realizations of quintom dark energy after DESI DR2,

    Y. Yang, Q. Wang, X. Ren, E. N. Saridakis, and Y.-F. Cai, “Modified gravity realizations of quintom dark energy after DESI DR2,”arXiv:2504.06784 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  36. [47]

    Forecasts for interacting dark energy with time-dependent momentum exchange,

    N. Cruickshank, R. Crittenden, K. Koyama, and M. Bruni, “Forecasts for interacting dark energy with time-dependent momentum exchange,” arXiv:2504.03555 [astro-ph.CO]

  37. [48]

    Compartmentalization in the Dark Sector of the Universe after DESI DR2 BAO data,

    M. van der Westhuizen, D. Figueruelo, R. Thubisi, S. Sahlu, A. Abebe, and A. Paliathanasis, “Compartmentalization in the Dark Sector of the Universe after DESI DR2 BAO data,” arXiv:2505.23306 [astro-ph.CO]

  38. [49]

    Cosmic curvature on large-scale structures with homogeneous dark energy,

    B. R. Dinda, “Cosmic curvature on large-scale structures with homogeneous dark energy,” arXiv:2312.01393 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  39. [50]

    Bumblebee cosmology: Tests using distance- and time-redshift probes,

    X. Zhu, R. Xu, and D. Xu, “Bumblebee cosmology: Tests using distance- and time-redshift probes,” arXiv:2411.18559 [astro-ph.CO]

  40. [51]

    Non-minimally coupled gravity constraints from DESI DR2 data,

    J. Pan and G. Ye, “Non-minimally coupled gravity constraints from DESI DR2 data,”arXiv:2503.19898 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  41. [52]

    Dark Energy within the Generalized Uncertainty Principle in Light of DESI DR2,

    A. Paliathanasis, “Dark Energy within the Generalized Uncertainty Principle in Light of DESI DR2,” arXiv:2503.20896 [astro-ph.CO]

  42. [53]

    Statistical Analysis of Cosmologies in f (R) Theories with DESI DR2 2025 Data,

    F. Plaza and L. Kraiselburd, “Statistical Analysis of Cosmologies in f (R) Theories with DESI DR2 2025 Data,”arXiv:2504.05432 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [54]

    Testing Non-Coincidentf(Q)-gravity with DESI DR2 BAO and GRBs,

    A. Paliathanasis, “Testing Non-Coincidentf(Q)-gravity with DESI DR2 BAO and GRBs,”arXiv:2504.11132 [gr-qc]

  44. [55]

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

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

    arXiv

  45. [56]

    Dynamical Dark Energy Emerges from Massive Gravity,

    J. Smirnov, “Dynamical Dark Energy Emerges from Massive Gravity,”arXiv:2505.03870 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  46. [57]

    Non-minimally coupled scalar field dark sector of the universe: in-depth (Einstein frame) case study,

    M. Postolak, “Non-minimally coupled scalar field dark sector of the universe: in-depth (Einstein frame) case study,”arXiv:2505.07456 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  47. [58]

    Testing the local void hypothesis using baryon acoustic oscillation measurements over the last twenty years,

    I. Banik and V. Kalaitzidis, “Testing the local void hypothesis using baryon acoustic oscillation measurements over the last twenty years,” arXiv:2501.17934 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  48. [59]

    Void and Density Walls Inhomogeneous Cosmic Web And Dark Energy,

    J. W. Moffat, “Void and Density Walls Inhomogeneous Cosmic Web And Dark Energy,”arXiv:2503.20912 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  49. [60]

    Is Dynamical Dark Energy Necessary? DESI BAO and Modified Recombination,

    S. H. Mirpoorian, K. Jedamzik, and L. Pogosian, “Is Dynamical Dark Energy Necessary? DESI BAO and Modified Recombination,”arXiv:2504.15274 [astro-ph.CO]. [61]PlanckCollaboration, P. A. R. Adeet al., “Planck 2013 results. XXV. Searches for cosmic strings and other topological d...

    2014

  50. [62]

    Contribution of domain wall networks to the CMB power spectrum,

    A. Lazanu, C. J. A. P. Martins, and E. P. S. Shellard, “Contribution of domain wall networks to the CMB power spectrum,”Phys. Lett. B747(2015) 426–432, arXiv:1505.03673 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  51. [63]

    Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies generated by domain wall networks,

    L. Sousa and P. P. Avelino, “Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies generated by domain wall networks,”Phys. Rev. D92no. 8, (2015) 083520, arXiv:1507.01064 [astro-ph.CO]. 8

    2015 arXiv

  52. [64]

    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]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [65]

    Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FR W models,

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

    2000 arXiv

  54. [66]

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

    D. Scolnicet al., “The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release,”Astrophys. J.938 no. 2, (2022) 113,arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [67]

    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]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [68]

    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,” arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]. [69]DESCollaboration, T. M. C. Abbottet al., “The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the ...

    2024 arXiv

  57. [70]

    CMB constraints on the early Universe independent of late-time cosmology,

    P. Lemos and A. Lewis, “CMB constraints on the early Universe independent of late-time cosmology,”Phys. Rev. D107no. 10, (2023) 103505,arXiv:2302.12911 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [71]

    Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences,

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, “Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences,”Statist. Sci.7 (1992) 457–472. [72]PlanckCollaboration, N. Aghanimet al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,”Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6,arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]....

    1992 arXiv

  59. [73]

    GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,

    A. Lewis, “GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,”arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    1910 arXiv

  60. [74]

    scikit-hep/iminuit,

    H. Dembinski and P. O. et al., “scikit-hep/iminuit,”. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3949207

    doi

  61. [75]

    Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit,

    D. J. Spiegelhalter, N. G. Best, B. P. Carlin, and A. van der Linde, “Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit,”J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B64no. 4, (2002) 583–639

    2002

  62. [76]

    Information criteria for astrophysical model selection,

    A. R. Liddle, “Information criteria for astrophysical model selection,”Mon Not R Astron Soc Lett377 no. 1, (2007) L74–L78

    2007

  63. [77]

    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]

    2015 arXiv

  64. [78]

    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.453no. 4, (2015) 4385–4399, arXiv:1506.00171 [astro-ph.IM]

    2015 arXiv

  65. [79]

    anesthetic: nested sampling visualisation,

    W. Handley, “anesthetic: nested sampling visualisation,”J. Open Source Softw.4no. 37, (2019) 1414,arXiv:1905.04768 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [80]

    Cosmic Strings as Dynamical Dark Energy: Novel Constraints,

    H. Cheng, E. Di Valentino, and L. Visinelli, “Cosmic Strings as Dynamical Dark Energy: Novel Constraints,” arXiv:2505.22066 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

Pith tools

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