Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 71 references

Is $\omega_0 \omega_a$CDM a good model for the clumpy Universe?

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the DESI-preferred $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM dark energy model fits the reconstructed $\sigma_8(z)$ clustering data better than $\Lambda$CDM with Planck or DESI parameters, making it a competitive model for the clumpy…

desk verdict A routine σ8(z) model comparison whose central preference for w0waCDM is an artifact of an error-inflated statistic and tiny, insignificant differences. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00779 v1 pith:PBSSEJTF submitted 2025-07-01 astro-ph.CO

Fernanda Oliveira , Felipe Avila , Camila Franco , Armando Bernui This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x98.80.Es
keywords w0waCDMdarkenergysigma8cosmicstructuregrowthGaussianprocessesLambdaBAOcosmologicalmodelcomparison
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 asks whether the dark-energy model that DESI prefers from expansion data, the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder parametrization usually written $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM, also accounts for how matter clusters, as encoded in the amplitude $\sigma_8(z)$ of density fluctuations. The authors compile 15 measurements of $\sigma_8(z)$ over $z\in[0.013,3.8]$, reconstruct the function $\sigma_8(z)$ without assuming a model using Gaussian Process regression, and compare that reconstruction with the model predictions for $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM using DESI best-fit parameters and for $\Lambda$CDM using both Planck and DESI best-fit parameters. Their quantitative comparison, based on the statistic in Eq. (9), gives $\chi^2=3.257$ for $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM, against $3.475$ for $\Lambda$CDM with Planck parameters and $3.784$ for $\Lambda$CDM with DESI parameters, so they conclude that the evolving dark energy model fits the clustering data best. The conclusion matters because it would mean a model preferred purely by the background expansion history, not tuned to structure data, is also a viable description of the clumpy, perturbed Universe. The paper also runs GP robustness tests (mean function and kernel choice) and reports a consistency check in which the relative difference between reconstruction and models stays within about $3\sigma$.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a three-step comparison pipeline. First, each model's Hubble parameter $H(a)$, Eq. (5) for $\Lambda$CDM and Eq. (6) for $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM (with the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder equation of state $\omega(a)=\omega_0+\omega_a(1-a)$), is fed into the linear growth equation (4), solved numerically to obtain the growing mode $D(z)$, and converted to the model amplitude $\sigma_8^{\mathrm{mod}}(z)=\sigma_{8,0}D(z)/D(0)$ with $\sigma_{8,0}=0.8120$. Second, the 15 data points are reconstructed non-parametrically into $\sigma_8^{\mathrm{rec}}(z)$ with Gaussian Process regression, a method that returns a mean function and covariance without assuming a cosmology. Third, the two curves are compared with Eq. (9), a bin-averaged $\chi^2$ over $N=1000$ bins in which the denominator adds the model's parameter-uncertainty variance to the GP reconstruction variance; lower values mean better agreement.

What would settle it

Recompute the comparison using only the 15 original data points (or a full covariance for the 1000 bins) and remove the parameter-variance term from the denominator of Eq. (9); if either $\Lambda$CDM variant then has the lowest $\chi^2$, the reported preference for $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM is an artefact of the statistic rather than a property of the data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the DESI-preferred model $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM is not ruled out by the current $\sigma_8(z)$ data from the clustered Universe; in fact, among the three models tested, it is the best fit. Using 15 $\sigma_8(z)$ measurements over $z\in[0.013,3.8]$ and a Gaussian Process reconstruction $\sigma_8^{\mathrm{rec}}(z)$, the authors compute the model-to-reconstruction agreement with their Eq. (9) and obtain $\chi^2_{\omega_0\omega_a\mathrm{CDM}_{DESI}}=3.257$, $\chi^2_{\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}_{Planck}}=3.475$, and $\chi^2_{\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}_{DESI}}=3.784$. On this basis they answer the title question affirmatively: the DESI evolving dark energy model is a competitive description of the clumpy Universe, even though its free parameters were fixed by BAO+CMB+SNIa data rather than by clustering data.

Load-bearing premise

The entire ranking depends on the assumption that adding each model's parameter-uncertainty variance into the denominator of Eq. (9) is a fair way to compare models whose parameters were fixed by other datasets; if that error-inflation is not appropriate, the preference for $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The DESI-favoured evolving dark energy model would pass a structure-growth consistency test, not just background-expansion tests.
  • The two $\Lambda$CDM variants score worse under the same statistic, so nothing in the $\sigma_8(z)$ dataset clearly disfavours $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM relative to the standard model.
  • The $\Delta(z)$ test showing agreement within about $3\sigma$ over $z\in[0,4]$ supports interpreting the comparison as model viability rather than model exclusion.
  • The GP checks against zero-mean bias and kernel choice indicate that the reconstructed curve is stable enough for the comparison to be meaningful.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: a decisive test would be to perform the same three-model comparison directly on the 15 individual $\sigma_8(z_i)$ measurements, with a full covariance, avoiding GP smoothing; the ordering may or may not survive.
  • Editorial inference: the same pipeline is transferable, so any model with published best-fit parameters (modified gravity, interacting dark energy) could be ranked on the same $\sigma_8(z)$ dataset.
  • Editorial inference: because all models are normalized through the same $\sigma_{8,0}$ in Eq. (8), the comparison mostly tests the shape of the growth function, which means low-redshift clustering data carry the least discriminating power.
  • Editorial inference: if the preference is real, it should sharpen as more $\sigma_8(z)$ measurements at $z\gtrsim1$ arrive, since the models diverge most at high redshift.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper addresses whether the DESI-preferred w0waCDM dark-energy model, when extended to the perturbed Universe, can account for a compilation of 15 sigma8(z) measurements over z in [0.013, 3.8]. The authors reconstruct sigma8(z) with Gaussian processes, compare the reconstruction against LambdaCDM (with Planck and DESI parameter choices) and w0waCDM (with DESI parameters) using a chi-squared-like statistic defined in Eq. (9), and conclude that w0waCDM_DESI fits the reconstructed curve better. Appendices A and B test the GP reconstruction against mean-function and kernel choices.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide an important growth-side consistency check for the DESI dark-energy results, connecting BAO/CMB/SN evidence to structure formation. The paper has clear strengths: it compiles a useful set of heterogeneous sigma8(z) measurements, uses the public GaPP code for a model-independent GP reconstruction, and includes explicit robustness tests for the GP mean and kernel. These features make the dataset and reconstruction potentially reusable. However, the statistical comparison on which the central claim rests is biased and does not currently establish a preference; with the present analysis the result is at most that w0waCDM is not ruled out relative to LambdaCDM, not that it is preferred. The significance of the paper therefore depends on a revised statistical treatment.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eq. (9)] The denominator sigma_mod^2 + sigma_rec^2 adds the propagated parameter uncertainty of each model to the GP reconstruction variance, so models with less precisely determined parameters automatically receive smaller chi-square values for the same residual. The w0waCDM_DESI row in Table 2 carries much larger parameter errors (omega0 = -0.752 +/- 0.057, omega_a = -0.86^{+0.23}_{-0.20}) than either LambdaCDM row, so its lower value 3.257 versus 3.475 and 3.784 is at least partly a variance-inflation artifact. This directly undermines the Section 4 claim that w0waCDM_DESI fits the sigma8_rec data better. Parameter uncertainties should be propagated to the model prediction and accounted for in a covariance matrix, not added to the denominator of a point-by-point chi-square.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (9), footnote 4] The sum over N=1000 GP-reconstructed bins treats these as independent, but the bins are strongly correlated because the GP produces a smooth curve. The statistic's sampling distribution is therefore not that of a chi-square with N degrees of freedom, and the differences in Table 2 cannot be assigned significance. The statement that the result is independent of N for N>100 does not resolve this: a smooth reconstruction will yield correlated residuals at any binning. The authors should use the full GP covariance in the comparison, or at least report the effective number of independent degrees of freedom.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eq. (10), Delta(z) test] The authors report that the relative difference Delta(z) is 'around 3 sigma' for all three models studied. If all three models deviate from the reconstruction at about the 3 sigma level, the Delta(z) test indicates comparable tension rather than a preference for w0waCDM. Moreover, no Delta(z) curve or numerical values are shown, so the claim cannot be checked. This test, as described, is inconsistent with the conclusion that w0waCDM_DESI is preferred.
  4. [Sec. 3, Table 2] The three chi2_mod/rec values are 3.257, 3.475 and 3.784. Even taking Eq. (9) at face value, these values are close and no uncertainties, p-values, or Delta chi-square with associated degrees of freedom are provided, so they do not establish a statistically meaningful preference. A model-comparison statement of this strength requires a proper likelihood ratio or information criterion applied to the reconstructed function with its covariance.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The typesetting of the model name, e.g., 'Isomega0omegaaCDM' in the title and 'TheDESI model' in the abstract, contains missing spaces and math-mode artifacts; please correct.
  2. [Table 1] The z=0.013 measurement is converted from Mpc to Mpc/h using h=0.6727 from Planck. Since the DESI model parameters correspond to a different h, the comparison should propagate the h uncertainty or use a consistent h for all models.
  3. [Sec. 2] Please state explicitly which mean function is used for the main GP reconstruction; Appendix A tests a zero-mean function, but the main reconstruction procedure is not described in the same detail.
  4. [Appendix A] The hyperparameters theta=[sigma_f, l]=[0.5, 2] are fixed in the Monte Carlo test; please clarify whether the main reconstruction similarly fixes or optimizes hyperparameters, and how this choice enters the reconstruction variance.
  5. [Fig. 1] The three model curves are visually almost indistinguishable, so the figure would benefit from an inset or residuals panel to show the differences that the chi-square statistic is designed to measure.
  6. [References] There are multiple reference formatting issues, such as missing spaces after 'doi:' and corrupted author initials (e.g., 'V .d.S.'); these should be cleaned before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the comparison is carried by externally fitted DESI/Planck parameters and a model-independent GP reconstruction; the reported preference is statistically fragile but not derived from its inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any cosmological parameter to the sigma8(z) data. The model curves in Eqs. (5)-(6) and (8) use only best-fit parameters and errors published by DESI (DESI Collaboration et al., 2025) and Planck (Aghanim et al., 2020), and the reconstructed sigma8,rec(z) is obtained with a Gaussian Process (GaPP) from the 15 external measurements in Table 1. Thus the central comparison in Eq. (9) and Table 2 is not equivalent to the input by construction: the chi2_mod/rec values depend on actual residuals as well as on the denominator. The denominator does include sigma_mod^2 propagated from published parameter errors, which numerically favors the less tightly constrained w0waCDM parameters; this is a statistical robustness concern, not a circular reduction. The Appendices test GP mean-function and kernel dependence, and the conclusions also report a 3-sigma consistency test for all models, which further shows the preference claim is not manufactured by a fit. Self-citations (Franco et al. 2025a,b; Oliveira et al. 2024) supply one low-z data point and GP methodology, but that data point is an observational measurement and the rest of the data set is external; removing it would not make the derivation circular. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the choice of w0waCDM. Therefore no step in the claimed derivation reduces to its own input.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities; its free parameters are external best-fit parameters and GP hyperparameters. The assumptions are standard for growth analyses, but the independence of the 15 measurements is questionable given survey overlaps.

free parameters (8)
  • omega0 (DESI w0waCDM) = -0.752 +/- 0.057
    Dark energy equation-of-state parameter from DESI DR2 best fit, used with omega_a to compute the model growth curve.
  • omega_a (DESI w0waCDM) = -0.86 +0.23/-0.20
    Dark energy equation-of-state slope from DESI DR2, controls time evolution of dark energy.
  • Omega_m (DESI w0waCDM) = 0.3191 +/- 0.0056
    Matter density parameter from DESI DR2 best fit, enters the Hubble parameter and growth equation.
  • Omega_m (Planck LambdaCDM) = 0.315 +/- 0.0073
    Matter density from Planck 2018, used for the LambdaCDM_Planck model curve.
  • sigma8,0 normalization = 0.8120
    Present-day fluctuation amplitude from Planck 2018, used to normalize all model curves; not varied.
  • GP kernel hyperparameters = sigma_f, l (not stated for main fit; Appendix A uses [0.5, 2])
    Kernel amplitude and length scale for the squared-exponential GP; chosen or optimized, affects the reconstruction.
  • N=1000 bins = 1000
    Number of bins in the chi-squared comparison; verified to be independent of N for N>100, but the grid itself is not specified.
  • h for z=0.013 data conversion = 0.6727
    Hubble constant from Planck 2018, assumed to convert the Franco et al. (2025b) measurement at 8 Mpc to Mpc/h units.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Linear perturbation equation for matter density contrast at sub-horizon scales
    Section 3, Eq. (4); assumes Newtonian sub-horizon growth and no modified gravity.
  • standard math Growing mode dominates and initial conditions delta(z>>1)=1/(1+z), delta_dot=1
    Section 3, after Eq. (6); standard for solving the growth equation.
  • standard math sigma8(z) = sigma8,0 D(z)/D(0)
    Section 3, Eq. (8); standard relation between fluctuation amplitude and growth factor.
  • domain assumption GP with zero mean and chosen kernel provides an unbiased reconstruction of sigma8(z)
    Appendix A tests this for a fiducial model; the test uses fixed hyperparameters and 700 realizations, not the actual data.
  • domain assumption The 15 sigma8 measurements are independent and Gaussian
    Section 2, Table 1; several measurements come from the same surveys (Garcia-Garcia et al. 2021, DES Y3+KiDS) and are likely correlated, but no covariance is applied.
  • domain assumption Model parameter values and uncertainties from DESI and Planck are reliable inputs
    Table 2; the comparison uses these external fits as fixed inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Is $\omega_0 \omega_a$CDM a good model for the clumpy Universe?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PBSSEJTF

@misc{pith2026250700779,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Is $\omega_0 \omega_a$CDM a good model for the clumpy Universe?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PBSSEJTF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00779}
}
abstract

The DESI collaboration just obtained a set of precise BAO measurements, that combined with CMB and SNIa datasets show that the $\omega_0 \omega_a$CDM model is preferred over $\Lambda$CDM, at more than $4\,\sigma$, to describe the dynamics of the expanding Universe. This raises the question whether this model also suitably describes the clumpy Universe. Also lately, detailed analyses of diverse cosmic tracers resulted in a new dataset of measurements of an observable from the clumpy Universe: $\sigma_8(z)$, spanning a high-redshift data $z \in [0.013, 3.8]$. In this work we use this dataset of 15 $\sigma_8(z_i)$ measurements to study the viability of the $\omega_0 \omega_a$CDM cosmological model to explain the clustered Universe. Our analyses compare the $\omega_0 \omega_a$CDM model with the $\sigma_8(z)$ function reconstructed from the data points using Gaussian Process. Moreover, we perform a similar evaluation of the $\Lambda$CDM model considering Planck and~DESI best-fit parameters. In addition, we implemented robustness tests regarding Gaussian Process reconstruction to support our results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00779 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gaussian Process reconstruction for the {σ8(zi)} dataset displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  2. [2]

    author Aghanim, N. , et al. ( collaboration Planck ), year 2020 . title Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters . journal Astron. Astrophys. volume 641 , pages A6 . :10.1051/0004-6361/201833910, http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209 arXiv:1807.06209 . note [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    , year 1974

    author Akaike , H. , year 1974 . title A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification . journal IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control volume 19 , pages 716--723

    work page 1974

  4. [4]

    , author C am , A

    author Akarsu , \"O . , author C am , A. , author Paraskevas , E.A. , author Perivolaropoulos , L. , year 2025 . title Linear matter density perturbations in the _ s CDM model: Examining growth dynamics and addressing the S_8 tension . journal arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv:2502.20384 :10.48550/arXiv.2502.20384, http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.20384 arXiv:2502.20384

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.20384 2025

  5. [5]

    , author Aubert , M

    author Alam , S. , author Aubert , M. , author Avila , S. , author Balland , C. , author Bautista , J.E. , author Bershady , M.A. , author Bizyaev , D. , author Blanton , M.R. , author Bolton , A.S. , author Bovy , J. , author Brinkmann , J. , author Brownstein , J.R. , author Burtin , E. , author Chabanier , S. , author Chapman , M.J. , author Choi , P.D...

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    , author Bernui , A

    author Avila , F. , author Bernui , A. , author Bonilla , A. , author Nunes , R.C. , year 2022 a. title Inferring S _ 8 (z ) and (z ) with cosmic growth rate measurements using machine learning . journal European Physical Journal C volume 82 , pages 594 . :10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10561-0, http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.07829 arXiv:2201.07829

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    , author Bernui , A

    author Avila , F. , author Bernui , A. , author de Carvalho , E. , author Novaes , C.P. , year 2021 . title The growth rate of cosmic structures in the local Universe with the ALFALFA survey . journal volume 505 , pages 3404--3413 . :10.1093/mnras/stab1488, http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10583 arXiv:2105.10583

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    , author Bernui , A

    author Avila , F. , author Bernui , A. , author Nunes , R.C. , author de Carvalho , E. , author Novaes , C.P. , year 2022 b. title The homogeneity scale and the growth rate of cosmic structures . journal mnras volume 509 , pages 2994--3003 . :10.1093/mnras/stab3122, http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.08541 arXiv:2111.08541

    arXiv 2022

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    , author Bonilla Rivera , A

    author Avila , F. , author Bonilla Rivera , A. , author Nunes , R.C. , author Holanda , R.F.L. , author Bernui , A. , year 2025 . title Revisiting the temperature evolution law of the CMB with gaussian processes . journal arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv:2505.24543 :10.48550/arXiv...

    2025 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    , author Nesseris, S

    author Basilakos, S. , author Nesseris, S. , year 2017 . title Conjoined constraints on modified gravity from the expansion history and cosmic growth . journal Phys. Rev. D volume 96 , pages 063517 . :10.1103/PhysRevD.96.063517, http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.08797 arXiv:1705.08797

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    , author Di Valentino , E

    author Bernui , A. , author Di Valentino , E. , author Giar \`e , W. , author Kumar , S. , author Nunes , R.C. , year 2023 . title Exploring the H _ 0 tension and the evidence for dark sector interactions from 2D BAO measurements . journal volume 107 , pages 103531 . :10.1103/...

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    , author Campista, M

    author Bessa, P. , author Campista, M. , author Bernui, A. , year 2022 . title Observational constraints on Starobinsky f(R) cosmology from cosmic expansion and structure growth data . journal Eur. Phys. J. C volume 82 , pages 506 . :10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10457-z, http://arx...

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    , year 2011

    author Brandenberger , R.H. , year 2011 . title Introduction to Early Universe Cosmology . journal arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv:1103.2271 :10.48550/arXiv.1103.2271, http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.2271 arXiv:1103.2271

    2011 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    , year 2011

    author Capozziello , S. , year 2011 . title f (R)-Gravity Matched With Large Scale Structure and Cosmological Observations , in: editor Odintsov , S.D. , editor S \'a ez-G \'o mez , D. , editor Xamb \'o -Descamps , S. (Eds.), booktitle Cosmology, Quantum Vacuum and Zeta Functi...

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    , author De Laurentis, M

    author Capozziello, S. , author De Laurentis, M. , year 2011 . title Extended Theories of Gravity . journal Phys. Rept. volume 509 , pages 167--321 . :10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003, http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.6266 arXiv:1108.6266

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    , author Polarski, D

    author Chevallier, M. , author Polarski, D. , year 2001 . title Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter . journal Int. J. Mod. Phys. D volume 10 , pages 213--224 . :10.1142/S0218271801000822, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009008 arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    2001 arXiv

  9. [17]

    , author Alonso , D

    author Chisari , N.E. , author Alonso , D. , author Krause , E. , author Leonard , C.D. , author Bull , P. , author Neveu , J. , author Villarreal , A.S. , author Singh , S. , author McClintock , T. , author Ellison , J. , author Du , Z. , author Zuntz , J. , author Mead , A. ...

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    , author Ferreira, P.G

    author Clifton, T. , author Ferreira, P.G. , author Padilla, A. , author Skordis, C. , year 2012 . title Modified Gravity and Cosmology . journal Phys. Rept. volume 513 , pages 1--189 . :10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.001, http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2476 arXiv:1106.2476

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    , year 1996

    author Coles , P. , year 1996 . title The large-scale structure of the Universe. journal Contemporary Physics volume 37 , pages 429--440 . :10.1080/00107519608217534

    1996 doi

  12. [20]

    author Colg \'a in , E. \'O . , author Dainotti , M.G. , author Capozziello , S. , author Pourojaghi , S. , author Sheikh-Jabbari , M.M. , author Stojkovic , D. , year 2024 . title Does DESI 2024 Confirm CDM? journal arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv:2404.08633 :10.48550/arXiv.2404...

    2024 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    , author Acevedo , M

    author DES Collaboration , author Abbott , T.M.C. , author Acevedo , M. , author Aguena , M. , author Alarcon , A. , author Allam , S. , author Alves , O. , author Amon , A. , author Andrade-Oliveira , F. , author Annis , J. , author Armstrong , P. , author Asorey , J. , autho...

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    o lzner , B. , author Suchyta , E. , author Swanson , M.E.C. , author Tarle , G. , author Thomas , D. , author To , C. , author Troxel , M.A. , author Tr \

    author DES Y3+KiDS , author Abbott , T.M.C. , author Aguena , M. , author Alarcon , A. , author Alves , O. , author Amon , A. , author Andrade-Oliveira , F. , author Asgari , M. , author Avila , S. , author Bacon , D. , author Bechtol , K. , author Becker , M.R. , author Berns...

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    , author Aguilar, J

    author DESI Collaboration , author Abdul-Karim, M. , author Aguilar, J. , author Ahlen, S. , author Alam, S. , author Allen, L. , author Prieto, C.A. , author Alves, O. , author Anand, A. , author Andrade, U. , author Armengaud, E. , author Aviles, A. , author Bailey, S. , aut...

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    , year 2018

    author Diemer , B. , year 2018 . title COLOSSUS: A Python Toolkit for Cosmology, Large-scale Structure, and Dark Matter Halos . journal volume 239 , pages 35 . :10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c, http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.04512 arXiv:1712.04512

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    , author Banerjee , N

    author Dinda , B.R. , author Banerjee , N. , year 2023 . title Model independent bounds on type Ia supernova absolute peak magnitude . journal prd volume 107 , pages 063513 . :10.1103/PhysRevD.107.063513, http://arxiv.org/abs/2208.14740 arXiv:2208.14740

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    , author Akarsu , \"O

    author Escamilla , L.A. , author Akarsu , \"O . , author Di Valentino , E. , author Vazquez , J.A. , year 2023 . title Model-independent reconstruction of the interacting dark energy kernel: Binned and Gaussian process . journal jcap volume 2023 , pages 051 . :10.1088/1475-751...

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    , author Krolewski , A

    author Farren , G.S. , author Krolewski , A. , author MacCrann , N. , author Ferraro , S. , author Abril-Cabezas , I. , author An , R. , author Atkins , Z. , author Battaglia , N. , author Bond , J.R. , author Calabrese , E. , author Choi , S.K. , author Darwish , O. , author ...

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    , author Bamba , K

    author Felegary , F. , author Bamba , K. , year 2024 . title Observational constraints on thawing quintessence scalar field model . journal Physics of the Dark Universe volume 44 , pages 101435 . :10.1016/j.dark.2024.101435, http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04444 arXiv:2406.04444

    2024

  21. [29]

    , author Avila , F

    author Franco , C. , author Avila , F. , author Bernui , A. , year 2025 a. title Probing large-scale structures with the 2-point function and the power spectrum: insights into cosmic clustering evolution . journal arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv:2502.02574 :10.48550/arXiv.2502.02...

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    , author Oliveira , J

    author Franco , C. , author Oliveira , J. , author Lopes , M. , author Avila , F. , author Bernui , A. , year 2025 b. title Measuring the matter fluctuations in the Local Universe with the ALFALFA catalogue . journal volume 537 , pages 897--908 . :10.1093/mnras/staf088, http:/...

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    , author Ruiz-Zapatero , J

    author Garc \' a-Garc \' a , C. , author Ruiz-Zapatero , J. , author Alonso , D. , author Bellini , E. , author Ferreira , P.G. , author Mueller , E.M. , author Nicola , A. , author Ruiz-Lapuente , P. , year 2021 . title The growth of density perturbations in the last 10 billi...

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    , author Amendola , L

    author G \'o mez-Valent , A. , author Amendola , L. , year 2018 . title H _ 0 from cosmic chronometers and Type Ia supernovae, with Gaussian Processes and the novel Weighted Polynomial Regression method . journal jcap volume 2018 , pages 051 . :10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/051, h...

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    , year 2015

    author Hirano , K. , year 2015 . title Distinguishing between CDM and modified gravity with future observations of cosmic growth rate . journal arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv:1512.09077 :10.48550/arXiv.1512.09077, http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.09077 arXiv:1512.09077

    2015 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    , author L'Huillier , B

    author Hwang , S.g. , author L'Huillier , B. , author Keeley , R.E. , author Jee , M.J. , author Shafieloo , A. , year 2023 . title How to use GP: effects of the mean function and hyperparameter selection on Gaussian process regression . journal jcap volume 2023 , pages 014 . ...

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    , author Valentim , R

    author Jesus , J.F. , author Valentim , R. , author Escobal , A.A. , author Pereira , S.H. , year 2020 . title Gaussian process estimation of transition redshift . journal jcap volume 2020 , pages 053 . :10.1088/1475-7516/2020/04/053, http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.00090 arXiv:1909.00090

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    , author Bebek , C

    author Levi , M. , author Bebek , C. , author Beers , T. , author Blum , R. , author Cahn , R. , author Eisenstein , D. , author Flaugher , B. , author Honscheid , K. , author Kron , R. , author Lahav , O. , author McDonald , P. , author Roe , N. , author Schlegel , D. , autho...

    2013 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    , author Shafieloo, A

    author L'Huillier, B. , author Shafieloo, A. , author Polarski, D. , author Starobinsky, A.A. , year 2020 . title Defying the laws of Gravity I: Model-independent reconstruction of the Universe expansion from growth data . journal Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. volume 494 , pages...

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    , year 2003

    author Linder, E.V. , year 2003 . title Exploring the expansion history of the universe . journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 90 , pages 091301 . :10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208512 arXiv:astro-ph/0208512

    2003 arXiv

  31. [39]

    , author Fu , X

    author Liu , K. , author Fu , X. , author Xu , B. , author Ding , C. , author Huang , Y. , author Qing , X. , year 2025 . title The growth of linear perturbations in the interacting dark energy models and observational constraints . journal arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv:2503.05...

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    , author Calderon , R

    author Lodha , K. , author Calderon , R. , author Matthewson , W.L. , author Shafieloo , A. , author Ishak , M. , author Pan , J. , author Garcia-Quintero , C. , author Huterer , D. , author Valogiannis , G. , author Ure \ n a-L \'o pez , L.A. , author Kamble , N.V. , author P...

    2025 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    , author Bernui , A

    author Marques , G.A. , author Bernui , A. , year 2020 . title Tomographic analyses of the CMB lensing and galaxy clustering to probe the linear structure growth . journal volume 5 , pages 052 . :10.1088/1475-7516/2020/05/052, http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.04854 arXiv:1908.04854

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    , author Liu , J

    author Marques , G.A. , author Liu , J. , author Shirasaki , M. , author Thiele , L. , author Grand \'o n , D. , author Huffenberger , K.M. , author Cheng , S. , author Harnois-D \'e raps , J. , author Osato , K. , author Coulton , W.R. , year 2024 . title Cosmology from weak ...

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    , author Harikane , Y

    author Miyatake , H. , author Harikane , Y. , author Ouchi , M. , author Ono , Y. , author Yamamoto , N. , author Nishizawa , A.J. , author Bahcall , N. , author Miyazaki , S. , author Malag \'o n , A.A.P. , year 2022 . title First Identification of a CMB Lensing Signal Produc...

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    , author Li, E.K

    author Mu, Y. , author Li, E.K. , author Xu, L. , year 2023 . title Model-independent reconstruction of growth index via gaussian process . journal Classical and Quantum Gravity volume 40 , pages 225003 . https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/acfb6c, :10.1088/1361-6382/acfb6c

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    , author Feldman , H.A

    author Mukhanov , V.F. , author Feldman , H.A. , author Brandenberger , R.H. , year 1992 . title Theory of cosmological perturbations . journal volume 215 , pages 203--333 . :10.1016/0370-1573(92)90044-Z

    1992 doi

  38. [46]

    , author Mukherjee , A

    author Mukherjee , P. , author Mukherjee , A. , year 2021 . title Assessment of the cosmic distance duality relation using Gaussian process . journal mnras volume 504 , pages 3938--3946 . :10.1093/mnras/stab1054, http://arxiv.org/abs/2104.06066 arXiv:2104.06066

    2021

  39. [47]

    , author Akrami , Y

    author Nesseris , S. , author Akrami , Y. , author Starkman , G.D. , year 2025 . title To CPL, or not to CPL? What we have not learned about the dark energy equation of state . journal arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv:2503.22529 :10.48550/arXiv.2503.22529, http://arxiv.org/abs/250...

    2025 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    , author Pantazis, G

    author Nesseris, S. , author Pantazis, G. , author Perivolaropoulos, L. , year 2017 . title Tension and constraints on modified gravity parametrizations of G_ eff (z) from growth rate and Planck data . journal Phys. Rev. D volume 96 , pages 023542 . :10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023542...

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    , author Thiele , L

    author Novaes , C.P. , author Thiele , L. , author Armijo , J. , author Cheng , S. , author Cowell , J.A. , author Marques , G.A. , author Ferreira , E.G.M. , author Shirasaki , M. , author Osato , K. , author Liu , J. , year 2025 . title Cosmology from HSC Y1 weak lensing dat...

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    , author Sheikh-Jabbari, M.M

    author \'O Colg\'ain, E. , author Sheikh-Jabbari, M.M. , year 2021 . title Elucidating cosmological model dependence with H_0 . journal Eur. Phys. J. C volume 81 , pages 892 . :10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09708-2, http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.08565 arXiv:2101.08565

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    , author Avila, F

    author Oliveira, F. , author Avila, F. , author Bernui, A. , author Bonilla, A. , author Nunes, R.C. , year 2024 . title Reconstructing the growth index with Gaussian processes . journal Eur. Phys. J. C volume 84 , pages 636 . :10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12953-w, http://arxiv.org...

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    , author Ribeiro , B

    author Oliveira , F. , author Ribeiro , B. , author Hip \'o lito-Ricaldi , W.S. , author Avila , F. , author Bernui , A. , year 2025 . title Viability of general relativity and modified gravity cosmologies using high-redshift cosmic probes . journal arXiv e-prints , pages arXi...

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    , author Paul , S

    author Pan , S. , author Paul , S. , author Saridakis , E.N. , author Yang , W. , year 2025 . title Interacting dark energy after DESI DR2: a challenge for CDM paradigm? journal arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv:2504.00994 :10.48550/arXiv.2504.00994, http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.00994...

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    , author P \'e rez , J.d.C

    author Park , C.G. , author P \'e rez , J.d.C. , author Ratra , B. , year 2024 . title Using non-DESI data to confirm and strengthen the DESI 2024 spatially flat w0waCDM cosmological parametrization result . journal volume 110 , pages 123533 . :10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123533, htt...

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    , author Bel, J

    author Perenon, L. , author Bel, J. , author Maartens, R. , author de la Cruz-Dombriz, A. , year 2019 . title Optimising growth of structure constraints on modified gravity . journal JCAP volume 06 , pages 020 . :10.1088/1475-7516/2019/06/020, http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.11063 a...

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    , author Skara , F

    author Perivolaropoulos , L. , author Skara , F. , year 2022 . title Challenges for CDM: An update . journal nar volume 95 , pages 101659 . :10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659, http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.05208 arXiv:2105.05208

    2022

  49. [57]

    , author Fabbian , G

    author Piccirilli , G. , author Fabbian , G. , author Alonso , D. , author Storey-Fisher , K. , author Carron , J. , author Lewis , A. , author Garc \' a-Garc \' a , C. , year 2024 . title Growth history and quasar bias evolution at z < 3 from Quaia . journal volume 2024 , pag...

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    , author Williams, C.K.I

    author Rasmussen, C.E. , author Williams, C.K.I. , year 2006 . title Gaussian processes for machine learning. Adaptive computation and machine learning, publisher MIT Press

    2006

  51. [59]

    , author Bernui , A

    author Ribeiro , B. , author Bernui , A. , author Campista , M. , year 2023 . title Cosmological constraints on R2-AB model . journal arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv:2305.06392 :10.48550/arXiv.2305.06392, http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.06392 arXiv:2305.06392

    2023 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    , author Akarsu , \"O

    author Sabogal , M.A. , author Akarsu , \"O . , author Bonilla , A. , author Di Valentino , E. , author Nunes , R.C. , year 2024 . title Exploring new physics in the late Universe's expansion through non-parametric inference . journal European Physical Journal C volume 84 , pa...

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    , author Alfedeel , A.H.A

    author Sahlu , S. , author Alfedeel , A.H.A. , author Abebe , A. , year 2024 . title The cosmology of f(R, L_m) gravity: constraining the background and perturbed dynamics . journal European Physical Journal C volume 84 , pages 982 . :10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13307-2, http://ar...

    2024

  54. [62]

    , author Clarkson , C

    author Seikel , M. , author Clarkson , C. , year 2013 . title Optimising Gaussian processes for reconstructing dark energy dynamics from supernovae . journal arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv:1311.6678 :10.48550/arXiv.1311.6678, http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.6678 arXiv:1311.6678

    2013 doi arXiv

  55. [63]

    , author Clarkson , C

    author Seikel , M. , author Clarkson , C. , author Smith , M. , year 2012 . title Reconstruction of dark energy and expansion dynamics using Gaussian processes . journal jcap volume 2012 , pages 036 . :10.1088/1475-7516/2012/06/036, http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2832 arXiv:1204.2832

    2012 arXiv

  56. [64]

    , author G \'o mez-Valent , A

    author Toda , Y. , author G \'o mez-Valent , A. , author Koyama , K. , year 2024 . title Efficient compression of redshift-space distortion data for late-time modified gravity models . journal volume 2024 , pages 033 . :10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/033, http://arxiv.org/abs/2408....

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    , year 2010

    author Tsujikawa , S. , year 2010 . title Modified Gravity Models of Dark Energy , in: editor Wolschin , G. (Ed.), booktitle Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag . volume volume 800 , pp. pages 99--145 . :10.1007/978-3-642-10598-2_3

    2010 doi

  58. [66]

    , author Vanzan , E

    author Vanetti , E. , author Vanzan , E. , author Bellomo , N. , author Raccanelli , A. , year 2025 . title Testing the growth of cosmic structures during the Dark Ages . journal arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv:2502.08562 :10.48550/arXiv.2502.08562, http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.0856...

    2025 doi

  59. [67]

    , author Abdalla , E

    author Wang , B. , author Abdalla , E. , author Atrio-Barandela , F. , author Pav \'o n , D. , year 2016 . title Dark matter and dark energy interactions: theoretical challenges, cosmological implications and observational signatures . journal Reports on Progress in Physics vo...

    2016 arXiv

  60. [68]

    , author Guo , Z.K

    author Yang , T. , author Guo , Z.K. , author Cai , R.G. , year 2015 . title Reconstructing the interaction between dark energy and dark matter using Gaussian processes . journal prd volume 91 , pages 123533 . :10.1103/PhysRevD.91.123533, http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04443 arXiv:...

    2015 arXiv

  61. [69]

    , author Tyson , J.A

    author Zhan , H. , author Tyson , J.A. , year 2018 . title Cosmology with the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope: an overview . journal Reports on Progress in Physics volume 81 , pages 066901 . :10.1088/1361-6633/aab1bd, http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06948 arXiv:1707.06948

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    , author Wang , Y.C

    author Zhang , H. , author Wang , Y.C. , author Zhang , T.J. , author Zhang , T. , year 2023 . title Kernel Selection for Gaussian Process in Cosmology: With Approximate Bayesian Computation Rejection and Nested Sampling . journal apjs volume 266 , pages 27 . :10.3847/1538-436...

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    2015, , 579, A101

    Aladro, R., Martín, S., Riquelme, D., et al. 2015, , 579, A101

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.