Cosmology-informed Neural Networks to infer dark energy equation-of-state

Anshul Verma; David F. Mota; Pavan K. Aluri; Shashwat Sourav

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Cosmology-informed Neural Networks to infer dark energy equation-of-state

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A physics-informed neural network can stand in for the Friedmann equation inside a supernova likelihood, and when it does, the Pantheon+ data still point to a cosmological constant.

desk verdict Competent extension of bundle-PINN to five EoS forms with real validation, but prior/domain mismatch and overstated speedup need fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.12032 v1 pith:YQZE6XVS submitted 2025-08-16 astro-ph.CO

Anshul Verma , Shashwat Sourav , Pavan K. Aluri , David F. Mota This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.CO

keywords physics-informedneuralnetworksdarkenergyequationofstatePantheon+supernovaeMarkovChainMonteCarlocosmologicalconstantbundlesolutiondistancemodulusFriedmann

topics Dark Energy

open problems Dark Energy

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 tries to establish that a physics-informed neural network can replace the usual numerical integration of the Friedmann equation when fitting dark energy models to Type Ia supernova data, and that this replacement does not bias the inferred parameters. The authors train one surrogate per equation-of-state parameterization—CPL, BA, JBP, linear-in-$z$, and logarithmic-in-$z$—so that a single network returns the dark-energy density factor $x_{\rm de}(z;w_0,w_a)$ across the parameter box. Embedding the surrogates in an MCMC likelihood with the Pantheon+ supernova sample, they report distance-modulus errors below 0.1 mag out to $z=2.5$ and posterior constraints in which all five models keep $w_0=-1$, $w_a=0$ inside the 95% credible region. A reader should care because the result suggests the latest supernova compilation does not require dynamical dark energy, and because a validated, differentiable surrogate makes repeated or expensive cosmological likelihood analyses cheaper.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bundle PINN solution: a network $u_\phi(z,w_0,w_a)$ trained to satisfy the logarithmic form of the dark-energy continuity equation $du/dz=3[1+w(z)]/(1+z)$ over a box of redshifts and equation-of-state parameters, with $x_{\rm de}(z)=\exp(u(z))$ encoding the boundary condition $x_{\rm de}(0)=1$. This exponential reparametrization is what makes the boundary condition exact and the learning target smooth. The bundle solution carries the argument because every quantity in the likelihood—$E(z)$, the comoving distance, and the distance modulus—is a cheap, differentiable function of the network output, so no Friedmann-equation integration is needed during sampling.

What would settle it

Evaluate the published surrogate at $(w_0,w_a,z)=(-1.8,0,1.5)$ and compare its distance modulus with exact quadrature of the Friedmann equation; if $|\Delta\mu|$ exceeds about 0.1 mag, the claimed prior coverage fails and the posterior bounds in that region are not trustworthy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core claim is that a bundle-style physics-informed neural network, trained once on the continuity equation for dark energy, can replace numerical ODE integration in an MCMC likelihood without measurably biasing parameter inference. For each of five two-parameter equation-of-state forms, the network learns the dark-energy density factor $x_{\rm de}(z;w_0,w_a)$ across the whole prior box, while a companion network reproduces the analytic matter factor $\Omega_{m,0}(1+z)^3$, so the dimensionless Hubble rate $E(z)=\sqrt{\Omega_{m,0}(1+z)^3+(1-\Omega_{m,0})x_{\rm de}(z)}$ is fully differentiable and batch-evaluable. Validation against the analytic solutions gives fractional errors in $E(z)$ below $10^{-4}$ and distance-modulus bias below 0.1 mag out to $z=2.5$. With the Pantheon+ data and an ensemble MCMC sampler, all five parameterizations return $w_0=-1$, $w_a=0$ inside their 95% credible regions, the tightest from the CPL form ($w_0=-0.85\pm0.14$, $w_a=-0.36^{+0.53}_{-0.24}$), and the inferred Hubble constant stays near 72 km/s/Mpc in every model. The authors read this as evidence that current supernova data are consistent with a cosmological constant, and that the surrogate's practical payoff is for repeated analyses of the same model or for models with expensive likelihood evaluations.

Load-bearing premise

The inference rests on the assumption that the trained surrogate is accurate over the entire MCMC prior volume, but the prior allows $w_0$ down to $-2$ while the published training grid starts at $w_0=-1.6$, so samples below that edge are extrapolations whose error is uncharacterized.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Pantheon+ Type Ia supernova sample alone does not prefer any of the five evolving-dark-energy parameterizations over a cosmological constant at 95% confidence.
The trained surrogates can be reused for other datasets whose redshifts lie within the training range $z\le2.5$ without retraining, making the same network applicable to future SN samples.
For simple models such as CPL, the surrogate only saves wall-clock time after roughly four independent analyses of the same model; for models with expensive background evaluations, the break-even point can drop below a single run.
Because the background is differentiable and GPU-batchable, the surrogate enables gradient-based samplers and large parameter surveys that are impractical with per-sample numerical integration.
All five dynamical-dark-energy fits return an $H_0$ in the late-universe range of about 71.8 to 72.7 km/s/Mpc, so the choice of $w(z)$ parameterization does not change the Hubble-tension picture.

Reading between the lines

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

A reader reusing the published surrogate should treat the prior region $w_0<-1.6$ as unvalidated, because the stated prior allows $w_0$ down to $-2$ while the published training grid starts at $w_0=-1.6$; comparing surrogate distance moduli with exact quadrature in that region would settle whether the quoted bounds are affected.
The same bundle surrogate could be dropped into a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo or other gradient-based sampler, where its exact derivatives would remove the need for finite-difference tuning of the likelihood.
The method's clearest testbed is a model class whose background equations are expensive, such as modified gravity or anisotropic cosmologies; a natural extension is to train one bundle for such a model and measure the actual break-even number of runs.
The five parameterizations differ in how strongly $w(z)$ can evolve at high redshift, so their similar posteriors suggest that SN data constrain mostly the low-redshift average of $w(z)$ rather than its functional shape.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version: this is a competent, honest extension of the Chantada et al. bundle-PINN pipeline to five dark-energy EoS forms, with better validation than most ML-inference papers. It has one real internal inconsistency—the MCMC priors extend outside the trained surrogate's validated domain—and it oversells the computational savings for models that have closed-form x_de.

What's actually new: applying the bundle-PINN approach to BA, JBP, Linear, and Logarithmic EoS in addition to CPL, plus a dedicated matter surrogate and a clear error-propagation chain (matter net → E(z) → distance modulus). The accuracy checks are real: |ΔE|/E < 1e-4 for representative parameter pairs, and |Δμ| < 0.1 mag to z=2.5. The posterior constraints match the Pantheon+ team's CPL results and the paper correctly concludes no significant preference for dynamical dark energy. The paper is also honest about the lack of speedup for a single run and gives a break-even estimate (~4 runs).

The main problem is the prior/domain mismatch. Section 4 claims the uniform priors lie entirely within the valid domain of the trained PINNs, but Fig. 4 shows w0 training on [-1.6, 0] while the prior goes to -2, and Fig. 5 shows the matter surrogate trained for Ωm,0 ∈ [0.1, 0.4] while the prior is [0.05, 0.6]. The Table 1 posteriors have support in the excluded region—ΛCDM gives Ωm,0 = 0.408 ± 0.021, above 0.4. So part of the quoted posterior volume is built on unvalidated extrapolation. The stress-test note is right that this is directly testable, because the x_de factors are closed-form (Eqs. 6-10) and the matter term is analytic. In fact, once you notice that, the surrogate looks unnecessary for these specific models: the exact likelihood can be evaluated with the analytic expressions at essentially no cost. The paper's computational comparison is against numerical ODE integration, not against the analytic forms, which makes the cost argument somewhat strawman. The honest framing is that the surrogate is a proof-of-concept for models where no closed form exists (e.g., modified gravity), not a practical speedup here.

Minor issues: no code or trained artifacts are provided, and there are numerous typos, but those don't affect the conclusions. If the authors fix the domain inconsistency (either narrow the priors or extend the training grid) and reframe the computational claim, this becomes a solid contribution. I'd send it to peer review.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a cosmology-informed neural network (CINN) framework for background cosmological inference. A physics-informed neural network is trained as a bundle solution for the dark-energy density factor x_de(z; w0, wa) for five equation-of-state parameterizations (CPL, BA, JBP, Linear-z, Logarithmic-z), and an auxiliary network reproduces the matter term. These surrogates are embedded in a Gaussian likelihood for the Pantheon+SH0ES distance moduli, and MCMC is run over (h0, Omega_m,0, w0, wa, M0). The paper's central claims are that the surrogate introduces negligible bias (distance-modulus error below 0.1 mag out to z=2.5) and that all five dynamical dark energy models remain consistent with a cosmological constant at the 95% credible level, with the tightest constraints from CPL. The analytic forms for x_de are derived in Eqs. (6)-(10), validation diagnostics are presented for the matter net, the Hubble rate, and the distance modulus, and a break-even analysis of computational cost is included.

Significance. If the surrogate accuracy is valid over the entire MCMC prior volume, the paper demonstrates a useful and reusable technique: after a one-time training cost, likelihood evaluations become differentiable, GPU-batched, and independent of repeated ODE integration. The honest break-even analysis (about four repeated runs for CPL) and the explicit acknowledgement that the surrogate is not faster for a single simple run are commendable. The derivation of closed-form dark-energy factors for all five parameterizations and the explicit surrogate-error validation are strengths, as is the broad agreement of the CPL constraints with the Pantheon+ team's analysis. The main weakness is that the validation domain documented in Figs. 4 and 5 is narrower than the MCMC prior box stated in Section 4, so the paper's own evidence does not currently establish the central accuracy premise over the full sampled volume.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 4; Sec. 5.2 (Figs. 4-5)] The uniform priors in Section 4 are said to 'lie entirely within the valid domain of the trained PINNs,' but this is contradicted by the validation grids reported in Section 5.2. Figure 4 validates the dark-energy surrogate on w0 in [-1.6, 0], while the MCMC prior is w0 in [-2, 0]; Figure 5 trains the matter surrogate on Omega_m,0 in [0.1, 0.4], while the MCMC prior is Omega_m,0 in [0.05, 0.6]. The posterior constraints in Table 1 have support outside these ranges, for example Omega_m,0 = 0.408 +/- 0.021 for LambdaCDM and Omega_m,0 = 0.339 +0.089/-0.088 for BA, so the likelihood is being evaluated in unvalidated extrapolation regions. Even if most posterior mass lies inside the validated box, the claim of domain nesting is false and the extrapolation error is uncharacterized. Because the matter term is analytic, the authors should use the closed form Omega_m,0(1+z)^3 in the likelihood, and should retrain or revalidate the dark-energy PINN over the full w0 prior, or alternatively restrict the priors to the validated domain.
[Sec. 3.1; Sec. 5.2 (Fig. 5)] The accuracy claims for the matter surrogate are internally inconsistent. Section 3.1 states that the matter net 'reaches machine-precision (< 10^-6 MSE)' and is 'accurate to less than 10^-5', while Section 5.2 and Figure 5 report relative errors 'at most a few x 10^-2' over the validation grid. A few percent relative error in x_m(z) is not negligible when propagated into E^2(z), and it is incompatible with the sub-per-mille accuracy claimed elsewhere. The authors should report a single consistent error metric (for example, the maximum relative error over the domain) and propagate that error into the E(z) and distance-modulus budgets.
[Sec. 5.2 (Fig. 4); Conclusions] The paper overstates the surrogate accuracy relative to its own Figure 4. The text accompanying Fig. 4 says the surrogate reproduces E(z) with 'percent level accuracy' and that the largest deviations reach 'a few percent' or up to '0-6%' at the edges, yet the Conclusions state that 'the surrogate model achieves sub-per-mille precision across the (w0, wa, z) space for all parametrizations.' These statements cannot both be true unless the sub-per-mille claim is restricted to a subregion of the domain. The accuracy claims should be restricted to the region actually validated, or the training/validation density should be improved so that the 0-6% edge errors do not occur within the prior volume.
[Abstract; Sec. 5.1 (Table 1)] The universal claim that all parameterizations are consistent with a cosmological constant at the 95% credible level should be demonstrated quantitatively in the joint (w0, wa) plane. For example, the JBP marginal in Table 1, w0 = -0.68 +0.14/-0.10, appears to exclude w0 = -1 at more than 2 sigma if interpreted as roughly Gaussian, so the abstract's blanket statement needs support from the 2D contours explicitly containing (-1, 0) at 95% for each model. If the statement refers only to the joint 2D posterior, that should be stated, since the 1D JBP marginal is in apparent tension with it.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] The phrase 'reusable with different datasets' is missing a noun; it should read 'reusable as a tool' or 'reusable module'.
[Sec. 1] The sentence referring to 'five different omega_a omega_b CDM assumptions' appears garbled; the intended notation is likely w0 wa CDM or similar.
[Sec. 3.1] The cross-reference 'solves 16' should refer to Eq. (16) explicitly; as written it is unclear.
[Table 1] The table header gives H0 in km/s/Mpc, but the values listed are 0.7219 etc.; the table should consistently report either h0 (dimensionless) or H0 in km/s/Mpc with values near 72.2.
[Sec. 5.2 (Fig. 4 caption)] The caption says the error is obtained by combining 'the ANN-based matter term with analytic dark-energy factors,' while the text describes the dark-energy term as a PINN surrogate; please clarify which quantity is actually used in Fig. 4.
[Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'tolrerance', 'cost effectivemenss', 'anisotorpic', and 'cephied'; a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: ODE-residual PINN validated against independently integrated analytic x_de; MCMC consistency with LCDM is data-driven.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The dark-energy density factor xde is obtained by integrating the continuity equation: Eq. (4) is the formal solution and Eqs. (6)-(10) are its closed-form evaluations for the five EoS forms. The PINN is trained to minimize the residual of Eq. (16) (equivalently Eq. (12)) with xde(0)=1, i.e., it learns the solution of the same ODE without using the analytic xde as a training label; the analytic expressions then serve as an independent validation target in Figs. 4, 6, and 7. Because the training target is the ODE residual and the validation target is the directly integrated continuity equation, the surrogate accuracy test is a genuine consistency check rather than a tautology. The MCMC step is also non-circular: the likelihood (Eq. 21) compares the model distance moduli, built from E(z) via Eq. (5) and Eqs. (23)-(24), to the externally supplied Pantheon+ covariance and magnitudes, and the claim that all EoS forms are consistent with (w0=-1, wa=0) at 95% follows from the resulting posteriors, not from any prior or training constraint. The priors in Sec. 4 are broad and include, but are not conditioned on, the LambdaCDM point. The self-citations are not load-bearing: Ref. [10] is a non-overlapping prior CINN study, and Ref. [50] is cited only as an example of an expensive model class in the efficiency discussion. The paper itself flags precision caveats and the need to retrain outside the training redshift range. One non-circular internal inconsistency should be noted for correctness: Eq. (9) for the Linear-z model does not match the stated EoS w(z)=w0+wa z; direct integration gives (1+z)^{3(1+w0-wa)} exp(3wa z). This is a typo or integration error in the reported analytic form, not a circular input-output relation, and it does not affect the PINN training, which is based on the ODE residual. Overall circularity score: 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The fit parameters (h0, Omega_m,0, w0, wa, M0) are the targets of inference and are not counted as free parameters of the method. The load-bearing choices are the ML training domain bounds and the domain assumptions above. The training domain for w0 is narrower than the prior, which is the main inconsistency.

free parameters (2)

PINN training domain bounds (w0, wa, z) = w0 in [-1.6, 0], wa in [-8, 3], z in [0, 2.5]
Figure 4 defines the surrogate's valid domain. The MCMC prior on w0 extends to -2, outside this domain. The bounds are hand-chosen and affect which parameter region is validated.
Boundary penalty weight lambda_BC = not reported
Eq. (19) includes a tunable weight balancing the boundary penalty against the interior residual; the paper says it is adjusted by hand until boundary error matches interior residual.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Spatially flat FRW metric with two components: pressureless matter and dark energy.
Eqs. (1)-(5) assume flatness and neglect radiation, which is standard for low-redshift SNe analysis.
standard math The dark energy density evolves according to the continuity equation d(rho_de)/dz = 3 rho_de (1+w(z))/(1+z).
Eq. (3) is the standard energy-momentum conservation for a perfect fluid with no interaction between matter and dark energy.
domain assumption The Pantheon+ corrected magnitudes m_b_corr can be modeled with a single absolute magnitude M0 and the full covariance C.
Section 4, Eq. (22): the analysis uses m_b_corr directly for all SNe and Cepheid distances for calibrators. This matches the Pantheon+SH0ES public data usage but assumes the corrections and covariance are correctly propagated.
ad hoc to paper The PINN surrogate remains accurate over the entire MCMC prior volume.
Section 4 claims priors are within the valid PINN domain, but Fig. 4 shows the w0 training range is [-1.6, 0] while the prior allows w0 down to -2. The posterior near w0 below -1.6 therefore relies on extrapolation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmology-informed Neural Networks to infer dark energy equation-of-state." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YQZE6XVS

@misc{pith2026250812032,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmology-informed Neural Networks to infer dark energy equation-of-state},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YQZE6XVS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.12032}
}

read the original abstract

We present a framework that combines physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) with Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) inference to constrain dynamical dark energy models using the Pantheon+ Type Ia supernova compilation. First, we train a physics-informed neural network to learn the solution of the Friedmann equation and accurately reproduce the matter density term x_m(z) = Omega_m,0 (1+z)^3 across a range of Omega_m,0. For each of five two-parameter equation-of-state (EoS) forms: Chevallier-Polarski-Linder (CPL), Barboza-Alcaniz (BA), Jassal-Bagla-Padmanabhan (JBP), Linear-z, and Logarithmic-z, we derive the analytic dark energy factor x_de(z), embed the trained surrogate within a GPU-accelerated likelihood pipeline, and sample the posterior of (h0, Omega_m,0, w0, wa, M0) using the emcee ensemble sampler with the full Pantheon+ covariance. All parameterizations remain consistent with a cosmological constant (w0 = -1, wa = 0) at the 95% credible level, with the tightest bounds from the CPL form. While the surrogate does not reduce computation time for a single run in simple models, it becomes advantageous for repeated analyses of the same EoS or for models with expensive likelihood evaluations, and can be shared as a reusable tool with different datasets within the training range of SNe redshifts. This flexibility makes the approach a scalable tool for future cosmological inference, especially in regimes where conventional ODE-based methods are computationally prohibitive.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.12032 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** PINN–MCMC pipeline. Left: The PINN takes redshift z and EoS parameters θ as inputs, passes them through two hidden layers to output u(z, θ), from which xde(z, θ) = exp(u) is reconstructed. The residual R(z, θ) = ∂zu − 3[1 + w(z; θ)]/(1 + z) is minimized. Right: The trained surrogate feeds into the Friedmann equation to compute H(z), which is used in the cosmological likelihood. MCMC is then performed to infer the … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Left: Redshift distribution of SNe Ia in the Pantheon+ sample, binned in 100 intervals. Right: Sky distribution of the same sample, with colour bar denoting redshift. The comoving distance is computed by numerically evaluating the integral χ(z; ϕ) = Z z 0 dz′ E(z ′ ; ϕ) , (23) from which the theoretical distance modulus follow as µth(z; ϕ) = 5 log10 (1 + z)χ(z; ϕ) h0 + 42.3841. (24) For supernovae in Cepheid-cal… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** 2D contour plots for all cosmological parameters considered in all five equation of state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Three-dimensional view of the percent error in the dimensionless Hubble rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Absolute and relative errors of the surrogate matter term [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Fractional error in the dimensionless Hubble rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Distance-modulus error ∆µ(z) = µANN(z) − µexact(z) for the same parameter triplet as Fig. [6]. Even at z ≃ 2.5 the bias stays below 0.1 mag. below 10−4 across all redshifts, which is well within tolerance for current SN-based cosmology. Finally, we compute the induced …

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Cosmo-PINN: A Physics-Informed Neural Network for Cosmological Reconstruction
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

Using a physics-informed neural network, the paper reconstructs a dark energy equation of state that crosses the phantom divide at z ≈ 0.27–0.42 from DESI DR2, cosmic chronometer, and supernova data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Deep Learning

Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. Deep Learning. MIT Press, 2016. http: //www.deeplearningbook.org

2016
[2]

Artificial neural networks

Bayya Yegnanarayana. Artificial neural networks. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2009

work page 2009
[3]

R.E. Uhrig. Introduction to artificial neural networks. In Proceedings of IECON ’95 - 21st Annual Conference on IEEE Industrial Electronics , volume 1, pages 33–37 vol.1, 1995

work page 1995
[4]

Introduction to the artificial neural networks

Andrej Krenker, Janez Beˇ ster, and Andrej Kos. Introduction to the artificial neural networks. Artificial Neural Networks: Methodological Advances and Biomedical Applications. InTech, pages 1–18, 2011

work page 2011
[5]

Raissi, P

M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G.E. Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learn- ing framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics , 378:686–707, 2019

2019
[6]

M. P. Bento, H. B. Cˆ amara, and J. F. Seabra. Unraveling particle dark matter with Physics- Informed Neural Networks. Physics Letters B , 868:139690, September 2025

work page 2025
[7]

S. D. P. Vitenti and M. Penna-Lima. A general reconstruction of the recent expansion history of the universe. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2015(9):045–045, September 2015

work page 2015
[8]

Spurio Mancini and A

A. Spurio Mancini and A. Pourtsidou. KiDS-1000 cosmology: machine learning - accelerated constraints on interacting dark energy with COSMOPOWER. MNRAS, 512(1):L44–L48, May 2022

work page 2022

Show all 61 references

[9]

Solving Differential Equations Using Neural Network Solution Bundles

Cedric Flamant, Pavlos Protopapas, and David Sondak. Solving Differential Equations Using Neural Network Solution Bundles. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2006.14372, June 2020

2006 arXiv
[10]

Chantada, Susana J

Augusto T. Chantada, Susana J. Landau, Pavlos Protopapas, Claudia G. Sc´ occola, and Cecilia Garraffo. Cosmology-informed neural networks to solve the background dynamics of the Universe. Phys. Rev. D, 107(6):063523, March 2023

2023
[11]

Perlmutter et al

S. Perlmutter et al. Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae. Astrophys. J., 517:565–586, 1999

1999
[12]

Riess et al

Adam G. Riess et al. A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team. Astrophys. J. Lett., 934(1):L7, 2022

2022
[13]

The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

Dillon Brout et al. The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints. Astrophys. J., 938(2):110, 2022

2022
[14]

Carroll, William H

Sean M. Carroll, William H. Press, and Edwin L. Turner. The cosmological constant. ARA&A, 30:499–542, January 1992

1992
[15]

The Cosmological Constant Problems (Talk given at Dark Matter 2000, Febru- ary, 2000)

Steven Weinberg. The Cosmological Constant Problems (Talk given at Dark Matter 2000, Febru- ary, 2000). arXiv e-prints, pages astro–ph/0005265, May 2000

2000
[16]

Sean M. Carroll. The Cosmological Constant. Living Reviews in Relativity , 4(1):1, December 2001

2001
[17]

P. J. Peebles and Bharat Ratra. The cosmological constant and dark energy. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75(2):559–606, April 2003

2003
[18]

C. P. Burgess. The Cosmological Constant Problem: Why it’s hard to get Dark Energy from Micro-physics. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1309.4133, September 2013. 18

2013 arXiv
[19]

J. W. Moffat. Quantum Gravity and the Cosmological Constant Problem. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1407.2086, July 2014

2014 arXiv
[20]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys., 641:A6,

2018
[21]

Efstathiou

G. Efstathiou. A Lockdown Perspective on the Hubble Tension (with comments from the SH0ES team). arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2007.10716, July 2020

2007 arXiv
[22]

Freedman

Wendy L. Freedman. Measurements of the Hubble Constant: Tensions in Perspective. ApJ, 919(1):16, September 2021

2021
[23]

Mota, Adam G

Eleonora Di Valentino, Olga Mena, Supriya Pan, Luca Visinelli, Weiqiang Yang, Alessandro Melchiorri, David F. Mota, Adam G. Riess, and Joseph Silk. In the realm of the Hubble tension- a review of solutions. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 38(15):153001, July 2021

2021
[24]

Marc Kamionkowski and Adam G. Riess. The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science , 73:153–180, September 2023

2023
[25]

Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter

Michel Chevallier and David Polarski. Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter. Inter- national Journal of Modern Physics D , 10(2):213–223, January 2001

2001
[26]

Eric V. Linder. Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe. Phys. Rev. Lett., 90(9):091301, March 2003

2003
[27]

Redshift-space distortions, pairwise velocities, and nonlinearities

Rom´ an Scoccimarro. Redshift-space distortions, pairwise velocities, and nonlinearities. Phys. Rev. D, 70(8):083007, October 2004

2004
[28]

Test of the chevallier-polarski-linder parametrization for rapid dark energy equation¡? format?¿ of state transitions

Sebastian Linden and Jean-Marc Virey. Test of the chevallier-polarski-linder parametrization for rapid dark energy equation¡? format?¿ of state transitions. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 78(2):023526, 2008

2008
[29]

Reconstructing gravity on cosmological scales

Marco Raveri. Reconstructing gravity on cosmological scales. Physical Review D, 101(8):083524, 2020

2020
[30]

Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Obser- vatory

Shadab Alam et al. Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Obser- vatory. Phys. Rev. D , 103(8):083533, 2021

2021
[31]

Lodha et al

K. Lodha et al. Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements. 3 2025

2025
[32]

E. M. Barboza and J. S. Alcaniz. A parametric model for dark energy. Physics Letters B , 666(5):415–419, September 2008

2008
[33]

J. S. Bagla, H. K. Jassal, and T. Padmanabhan. Cosmology with tachyon field as dark energy. Phys. Rev. D, 67(6):063504, March 2003

2003
[34]

H. K. Jassal, J. S. Bagla, and T. Padmanabhan. WMAP constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy. MNRAS, 356(1):L11–L16, January 2005

2005
[35]

Dragan Huterer and Michael S. Turner. Probing dark energy: Methods and strategies. Phys. Rev. D, 64(12):123527, December 2001

2001
[36]

Future supernovae observations as a probe of dark energy

Jochen Weller and Andreas Albrecht. Future supernovae observations as a probe of dark energy. Phys. Rev. D, 65(10):103512, May 2002

2002
[37]

New parametrization for unified dark matter and dark energy

Zahra Davari, Mohammad Malekjani, and Michal Artymowski. New parametrization for unified dark matter and dark energy. Phys. Rev. D, 97(12):123525, June 2018

2018
[38]

A new equation of state for dark energy model

Lei Feng and Tan Lu. A new equation of state for dark energy model. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2011(11):034–034, November 2011. 19

2011
[39]

Probing the dynamics of dark energy with novel parametrizations

Jing-Zhe Ma and Xin Zhang. Probing the dynamics of dark energy with novel parametrizations. Physics Letters B , 699(4):233–238, May 2011

2011
[40]

Ashutosh Tripathi, Archana Sangwan, and H. K. Jassal. Dark energy equation of state parameter and its evolution at low redshift. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2017(6):012, June 2017

2017
[41]

Automatic Differentiation is Es- sential in Training Neural Networks for Solving Differential Equations

Chuqi Chen, Yahong Yang, Yang Xiang, and Wenrui Hao. Automatic Differentiation is Es- sential in Training Neural Networks for Solving Differential Equations. arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:2405.14099, May 2024

2024 arXiv
[42]

L2 Regularization for Learning Kernels

Corinna Cortes, Mehryar Mohri, and Afshin Rostamizadeh. L2 Regularization for Learning Kernels. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1205.2653, May 2012

2012 arXiv
[43]

The pantheon+ analysis: the full data set and light-curve release

Dan Scolnic, Dillon Brout, Anthony Carr, Adam G Riess, Tamara M Davis, Arianna Dwomoh, David O Jones, Noor Ali, Pranav Charvu, Rebecca Chen, et al. The pantheon+ analysis: the full data set and light-curve release. The Astrophysical Journal, 938(2):113, 2022

2022
[44]

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

Dan Scolnic et al. The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release. ApJ, 938(2):113, October 2022

2022
[45]

Coughlin, Susana Deustua, Augustin Guyonnet, Nicholas Mondrik, Joseph P

Michael W. Coughlin, Susana Deustua, Augustin Guyonnet, Nicholas Mondrik, Joseph P. Rice, Christopher W. Stubbs, and John T. Woodward. Testing of the LSST’s photometric calibration strategy at the CTIO 0.9 meter telescope. In Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and ...

2018
[46]

Ma´ ız Apell´ aniz and M

J. Ma´ ız Apell´ aniz and M. Weiler. Reanalysis of the Gaia Data Release 2 photometric sensitivity curves using HST/STIS spectrophotometry. A&A, 619:A180, November 2018

2018
[47]

Hogg, Dustin Lang, and Jonathan Goodman

Daniel Foreman-Mackey, David W. Hogg, Dustin Lang, and Jonathan Goodman. emcee: The MCMC Hammer. PASP, 125(925):306, March 2013

2013
[48]

A. G. Adame et al. DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations. JCAP, 02:021, 2025

2024
[49]

Shankaranarayanan and Joseph P

S. Shankaranarayanan and Joseph P. Johnson. Modified theories of gravity: Why, how and what? General Relativity and Gravitation , 54(5), May 2022

2022
[50]

Aluri, and David F

Anshul Verma, Pavan K. Aluri, and David F. Mota. Anisotropic universe with anisotropic dark energy. Physical Review D, 111(8), April 2025

2025
[51]

T. M. C. Abbott et al. The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with ∼1500 New High- redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set. Astrophys. J. Lett., 973(1):L14, 2024

2024
[52]

Ricky T. Q. Chen, Yulia Rubanova, Jesse Bettencourt, and David Duvenaud. Neural Ordinary Differential Equations. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1806.07366, June 2018

2018 arXiv
[53]

Cobaya: code for Bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models

Jes´ us Torrado and Antony Lewis. Cobaya: code for Bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2021(5):057, May 2021

2021
[54]

GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples

Antony Lewis. GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples. 2019

2019
[55]

SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python

Pauli Virtanen et al. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17:261–272, 2020

2020
[56]

Harris et al

Charles R. Harris et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature, 585(7825):357–362, September 2020

2020
[57]

T. P. Robitaille et al. Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy. A&A, 558:A33, October 2013. 20

2013
[58]

A. M. Price-Whelan et al. The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package. AJ, 156(3):123, September 2018

2018
[59]

Price-Whelan et al

Adrian M. Price-Whelan et al. The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community- oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package. apj, 935(2):167, August 2022

2022
[60]

J. D. Hunter. Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment. Computing in Science & Engineering , 9(3):90–95, 2007. 21

2007
[2020]

652, C4 (2021)]

[Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Deep Learning

Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. Deep Learning. MIT Press, 2016. http: //www.deeplearningbook.org

2016

[2] [2]

Artificial neural networks

Bayya Yegnanarayana. Artificial neural networks. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2009

work page 2009

[3] [3]

R.E. Uhrig. Introduction to artificial neural networks. In Proceedings of IECON ’95 - 21st Annual Conference on IEEE Industrial Electronics , volume 1, pages 33–37 vol.1, 1995

work page 1995

[4] [4]

Introduction to the artificial neural networks

Andrej Krenker, Janez Beˇ ster, and Andrej Kos. Introduction to the artificial neural networks. Artificial Neural Networks: Methodological Advances and Biomedical Applications. InTech, pages 1–18, 2011

work page 2011

[5] [5]

Raissi, P

M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G.E. Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learn- ing framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics , 378:686–707, 2019

2019

[6] [6]

M. P. Bento, H. B. Cˆ amara, and J. F. Seabra. Unraveling particle dark matter with Physics- Informed Neural Networks. Physics Letters B , 868:139690, September 2025

work page 2025

[7] [7]

S. D. P. Vitenti and M. Penna-Lima. A general reconstruction of the recent expansion history of the universe. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2015(9):045–045, September 2015

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Spurio Mancini and A

A. Spurio Mancini and A. Pourtsidou. KiDS-1000 cosmology: machine learning - accelerated constraints on interacting dark energy with COSMOPOWER. MNRAS, 512(1):L44–L48, May 2022

work page 2022