Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Exploring Coupled Quintessence in light of CMB and DESI DR2 measurements

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Coupled quintessence with warm dark matter improves the fit to CMB, BAO, and supernovae data, but Bayesian model comparison still prefers LambdaCDM.

desk verdict Competent re-analysis of a known coupled quintessence model with DESI DR2 and full Planck; the Bayesian-evidence conclusion favoring ΛCDM is credible, but the WDM perturbation treatment is incomplete and the 5σ ω_dm detection is likely an artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09624 v1 pith:RFTVSUV6 submitted 2025-09-11 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Atul Ashutosh Samanta , Abhijith Ajith , Sukanta Panda This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO MSC 83F0585A40 PACS 95.35.+d95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords coupledquintessencedarkenergy-darkmatterinteractionwarmBayesianmodelselectionDESIDR2PlanckCMBsupernovaeequationofstate
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 a dark energy scalar field that exchanges energy with dark matter (coupled quintessence) can survive contact with the latest cosmological data: Planck CMB, DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations, and three independent supernova compilations. Its main result is that when the dark matter is allowed to be warm (a small, non-zero equation of state), the model fits the data much better than LambdaCDM does, improving the maximum-likelihood chi-square by up to about 24 units and yielding a 4-5 sigma hint of a warm component with omega_dm ~ 0.0025. Yet when model complexity is penalized via Bayesian evidence, LambdaCDM is preferred in every dataset combination, with the coupled-cold-dark-matter version decisively disfavored and the warm version only moderately or weakly disfavored. A secondary point is that the simpler DIC criterion would have declared the warm coupled model a strong winner, illustrating how the choice of model-selection statistic changes the verdict.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through a dynamical system for a canonical scalar field with exponential potential V proportional to e^{-lambda phi}, coupled to dark matter via the interaction Q_nu = F_{,phi} rho_dm grad_nu phi with F(phi) = F0 e^{m phi}. In the synchronous gauge the dark matter density perturbation obeys delta_c' = -(1+omega_dm) h'/2 + m phi' delta_c, which translates the coupling into a modified growth rate. The warm dark matter enters as a barotropic fluid with constant equation of state omega_dm and adiabatic sound speed c_s^2 = omega_dm. Solving these background and perturbation equations inside a Boltzmann solver and sampling the 8-9 parameters lets the paper compute chi^2, DIC, and

What would settle it

Compute the full linear matter power spectrum with a proper warm-dark-matter transfer function (free-streaming with finite velocity dispersion) for the same parameters; if the chi-square improvement over LambdaCDM disappears or the inferred omega_dm becomes consistent with zero, the paper's warmness detection is an artifact of the fluid approximation. Alternatively, a direct independent measurement of omega_dm from 21-cm or Lyman-alpha forest data at high significance would settle the question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is quantitative: across all dataset combinations considered, the log Bayes factor lnB for the coupled quintessence model relative to LambdaCDM is negative, ranging from -2.05 (Planck+DESI+DESY5, warm dark matter) to -12.5 (Planck+DESI, cold dark matter). LambdaCDM is therefore preferred, though the warm-dark-matter version comes close to being competitive. The paper also reports a positive dark matter equation of state, omega_dm = 0.0025 +/- 0.0005 at about 5-sigma for Planck+DESI+DESY5, and shows that warmth is what drives the improved fit: adding the WDM parameter lowers chi^2_MAP by roughly 24 relative to LambdaCDM while CDM versions of the

Load-bearing premise

The warm dark matter is modeled as a perfect barotropic fluid with constant equation of state and adiabatic sound speed c_s^2 = omega_dm, so the reported nonzero warmness and fit improvement assume that dark matter behaves as such a fluid rather than as a free-streaming particle.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the Bayesian evidence is taken at face value, the combined CMB+BAO+SN data do not require a dark-energy-dark-matter interaction; LambdaCDM remains the simplest viable description.
  • The warm dark matter equation of state is consistently positive and away from zero at 4-5 sigma for combined datasets, which is the strongest internal hint of a non-cold component, even though the full model is disfavored.
  • The cold dark matter branch of the coupled model is decisively disfavored once BAO data are added, ruling out substantial interaction strengths for CDM.
  • The DIC-versus-Bayes disagreement in the WDM branch implies that claims of a preferred interacting model should be checked with Bayesian evidence, since the two criteria disagree sharply.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A microphysical warm-dark-matter implementation with free-streaming would likely change both the sound speed and the small-scale power spectrum, so the 4-5 sigma omega_dm detection should be re-tested with a non-fluid treatment before being interpreted as physical warmness.
  • The paper's prior keeps lambda non-negative so that the field stays quintessent; allowing the phantom side might remove the prior wall and change the Bayesian comparison, which is a natural extension not covered by the paper.
  • The same datasets could be used to score the alternative interaction forms the paper lists as future work; given the Bayes penalty for extra parameters, only interactions that deliver a large chi-square gain per parameter would plausibly beat LambdaCDM.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript constrains an exponential-potential quintessence field coupled to dark matter through F(φ)=F0 e^{mφ}, considering both cold dark matter and a constant-EoS 'warm' dark matter fluid. The analysis uses Planck CMB likelihoods (including PR4 lensing), DESI DR2 BAO, and three SNe compilations (PantheonPlus, Union3, DESY5), implemented in a modified CAMB with Cobaya. The paper reports parameter constraints (Table II), goodness-of-fit and DIC comparisons (Table III), and Bayesian evidence ratios from MCEvidence (Table IV). The central quantitative results are: by DIC, the coupled-quintessence+warm-dark-matter model is strongly preferred over ΛCDM for combined datasets (ΔDIC ≈ −14 to −20), whereas by Bayesian evidence ΛCDM is preferred (lnB between −2.05 and −5.86 for WDM, and between −10.7 and −12.5 for CDM). The authors also report a ~5σ nonzero ω_dm for Pl+DESI+DESY5. The discrepancy between DIC and Bayesian evidence is acknowledged and discussed transparently.

Significance. If the warm-dark-matter modeling were complete, this would be a timely and useful test of a theoretically motivated interacting dark energy model against the latest CMB, BAO, and SN data, and the explicit comparison of DIC versus Bayesian evidence is a valuable cautionary exercise. The computational setup (modified CAMB, Cobaya, MCEvidence, GetDist) is standard, and the paper is transparent about priors, convergence criteria, and the model-selection discrepancy. However, the perturbation equations used for the warm dark matter fluid are incomplete (see major comments), so the quantitative WDM claims — including the 5σ ω_dm detection and the DIC preference for CQ+WDM — are not yet supported. The cold-dark-matter part is less affected, but the advertised WDM results need substantive revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (10)] The perturbation equation used for the WDM fluid is incomplete. For a barotropic fluid with ω_dm ≠ 0 and c_s^2 = ω_dm, the synchronous-gauge density and velocity perturbations obey δ'_c = −(1+ω_dm)(θ_c + h'/2) + coupling terms and θ'_c = −H(1−3ω_dm)θ_c + c_s^2 k^2 δ_c/(1+ω_dm) + coupling terms. Equation (10) drops the (1+ω_dm)θ_c term and provides no Euler equation for θ_c. Setting θ_c = 0 is only valid for pressureless CDM, not for a finite-sound-speed fluid; pressure gradients source θ_c at finite k, which then feeds back into δ_c and the CMB spectra. The Δχ², ΔDIC, and ω_dm constraints in Tables II–III and the reported 5σ detection in Section IV may therefore be artifacts of the incomplete fluid treatment. The full coupled fluid equations, or a proper WDM treatment with free-streaming, should be implemented and the WDM analysis redone.
  2. [Section II, after Eq. (10); Section IV] The statement 'In this gauge, the velocity perturbation vanishes [108]' mischaracterizes the synchronous gauge of Ma & Bertschinger; in that gauge only pressureless CDM can be comoving, while a fluid with ω_dm ≠ 0 and nonzero sound speed generally has a nonvanishing velocity divergence. Thus the citation to [108] does not justify omitting θ_c. Relatedly, the interpretation of the constrained constant EoS ω_dm as 'warm dark matter' overreaches: a barotropic fluid with constant ω_dm is not a warm dark matter particle model and ignores free-streaming and viscosity. The authors should either adopt a microphysically motivated WDM description or clearly frame the result as constraints on a phenomenological dark matter fluid.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (10)] The equation is attributed to Ref. [109], but the equations in that reference include the θ_c terms; please verify that the reproduction is accurate or clarify which simplified limit is intended.
  2. [Throughout] Typos and notation: 'Chaplyn gas' should be 'Chaplygin gas'; 'CamSpeclikelihood' should be 'CamSpec'; the symbol for the dark matter equation of state appears as both ω_dm and w_dm; please harmonize.
  3. [Section IV, Table II] For the Pl dataset the posterior for λ hits the lower boundary of the prior; this is mentioned but the robustness of the constraints under an extended prior (e.g., negative λ) is not discussed beyond the phantom-divide argument. A short comment on the effect of the chosen prior range would be useful.
  4. [Section III] The paper states initial conditions are chosen 'in accordance with the values for the same obtained from a ΛCDM description' at lna=−7. A brief justification of the consistency of these initial conditions with the coupled model's Friedmann constraint would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper constrains an existing coupled-quintessence model against external cosmological datasets; self-citations supply model equations, not the evidential content of the claims.

full rationale

The central claims — Bayesian evidences (Table IV), DIC comparisons (Table III), and parameter constraints including the nonzero warm-dark-matter equation of state — are fits to Planck, DESI DR2, PantheonPlus, Union3, and DESY5 data. None of these quantities is defined in terms of another fitted quantity in a way that would make the inference tautological. The self-cited references ([71], [95], [96], [107], and [44]) provide the model framework, dimensionless variables, or background context; they are not used as the evidence for the reported constraints, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from a same-author paper to forbid alternatives. The exponential potential and exponential coupling are explicitly stated as assumptions (Section II), not smuggled in via citation. The perturbation equation (10) and its sound-speed assignment are taken from Ma–Bertschinger [108] and Valiviita et al. [109]; whether that fluid treatment of WDM is physically complete is a modeling-validity/correctness concern, not a circularity. The self-citations are therefore not load-bearing in the circularity sense, and the paper's model-comparison results derive from external data and numerical sampling rather than from its own definitions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three model-specific fitted parameters (lambda, m, omega_dm) plus the standard LambdaCDM parameters. The key assumptions are the exponential forms of the potential and coupling, the barotropic fluid treatment of warm dark matter, and the choice of initial conditions. No new entities are introduced; the interaction is a parametrized coupling between known dark components.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda (exponential potential slope) = 0.10-0.67 depending on dataset; lower bound at 0 for several cases
    Controls the quintessence self-interaction; fitted to CMB+BAO+SNe data.
  • m (coupling strength) = 0.05-0.075
    Sets the DE-DM interaction strength in F=F0 e^{m phi}.
  • omega_dm (dark matter equation of state) = 0.0014-0.0025
    Sets the warmness of dark matter; the reported 5 sigma value drives the WDM preference in DIC.
  • LambdaCDM baseline parameters (Omega_b h^2, Omega_c h^2, ln(10^10 A_s), n_s, tau_reio, H_0) = See Table II; e.g., H0 ~= 67-68 for combined datasets
    Standard cosmological parameters fitted in the MCMC; included for completeness.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Flat FLRW metric (k=0)
    Adopted in Section II; standard background for cosmological parameter estimation.
  • domain assumption Exponential potential V(phi) proportional to e^{-lambda phi}
    Chosen at the end of Section II to reduce dimensionality of the autonomous system; a common but not unique quintessence potential.
  • ad hoc to paper Exponential coupling F(phi)=F0 e^{m phi}
    Introduced in Section II eq. (5); motivated by previous work [71] but not derived from a more fundamental theory.
  • domain assumption WDM as a barotropic fluid with c_s^2 = omega_dm
    Stated in Section II after eq. (10), citing [108]; ignores free-streaming and viscosity.
  • domain assumption No coupling between dark sector and baryons/radiation
    Justified in Section II by local gravity constraints for baryons and conformal invariance for radiation.
  • ad hoc to paper Initial conditions at ln a = -7 from LambdaCDM (gamma=0.0001, Omega_phi=1.2e-9, Omega_r=0.15)
    Set in Section III; assumes the quintessence field is negligible at early times.
  • standard math Three-neutrino model with m_nu=0.06 eV
    Assumed in Section III; standard treatment of neutrino masses in Planck analyses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring Coupled Quintessence in light of CMB and DESI DR2 measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RFTVSUV6

@misc{pith2026250909624,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring Coupled Quintessence in light of CMB and DESI DR2 measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RFTVSUV6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09624}
}
abstract

We perform a detailed analysis of a theoretically motivated dark energy quintessence model which interacts with the dark matter sector of the universe. Utilising the current observational datasets from the Cosmic Microwave Background, Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Type Ia Supernovae, we constrain the parameters that characterise the strength of the time dependent interaction. We also look at the effect of a warm dark matter component in the context of coupled quintessence. Analysis using Deviance Information Criterion indicates strong preference for the quintessence model coupled with warm dark matter. However, Bayesian evidence analysis shows favor in the direction of $\Lambda$CDM model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09624 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Corner plots of 1D and 2D marginalized posterior distributions for the coupled quintessence model in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Variation of the Eos for dark energy, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Neutrino mass constraints in the Schwarzschild-de Sitter black-hole dark energy model with ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 data

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

    SdSDE dark energy yields a ~0.16–0.21 eV positive neutrino-mass preference with DESI+ACT data, but χ² strongly favors extended ΛCDM and the shift is likely compensation.

  2. Alleviating the $H_0$ tension through the interacting dark energy model from quantum gravitational field theory in light of DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    With DESI DR2 BAO plus CMB and a SH0ES prior, the two-parameter eeΛCDM model gives δΛ=-0.41±0.14 and H0=71.9±1.0, easing the Hubble tension to 0.8σ, but SN datasets erase the signal.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

135 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [108]

    Cosmological perturbation theory in the synchronous and conformal Newtonian gauges,

    C.-P. Ma and E. Bertschinger, “Cosmological perturbation theory in the synchronous and conformal Newtonian gauges,” Astrophys. J., vol. 455, pp. 7–25, 1995

    1995

  2. [1]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanimet al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,”Astron. Astrophys., vol. 641, p. A6, 2020. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2018

  3. [2]

    Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods,

    N. Aghanimet al., “Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods,”Astron. Astrophys., vol. 641, p. A5, 2020

    2018

  4. [3]

    Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravitational lensing,

    N. Aghanimet al., “Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravitational lensing,”Astron. Astrophys., vol. 641, p. A8, 2020

    2018

  5. [4]

    Measurements of the E-mode polarization and temperature-E-mode correlation of the CMB from SPT-3G 2018 data,

    D. Dutcheret al., “Measurements of the E-mode polarization and temperature-E-mode correlation of the CMB from SPT-3G 2018 data,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 104, no. 2, p. 022003, 2021

    2018

  6. [5]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: a measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background power spectra at 98 and 150 GHz,

    S. K. Choiet al., “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: a measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background power spectra at 98 and 150 GHz,”JCAP, vol. 12, p. 045, 2020

    2020

  7. [6]

    Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results,

    G. Hinshawet al., “Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results,”Astrophys. J. Suppl., vol. 208, p. 19, 2013

    2013

  8. [7]

    Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck,

    N. Aghanimet al., “Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck,”Astron. Astrophys., vol. 641, p. A1, 2020

    2018

Show all 135 references
  1. [8]

    The Cosmic Microwave Background andH 0,

    P. Lemos and P. Shah, “The Cosmic Microwave Background andH 0,” 7 2023

    2023

  2. [9]

    Data analysis methods for the cosmic microwave background,

    M. Tristram and K. Ganga, “Data analysis methods for the cosmic microwave background,”Rept. Prog. Phys., vol. 70, p. 899, 2007

    2007

  3. [10]

    The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmo- logical analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample,

    S. Alamet al., “The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmo- logical analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 470, no. 3, pp. 2617–2652, 2017. 11

    2017

  4. [11]

    The Completed SDSS-IV Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations with LyαForests,

    H. du Mas des Bourbouxet al., “The Completed SDSS-IV Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations with LyαForests,”Astrophys. J., vol. 901, no. 2, p. 153, 2020

    2020

  5. [12]

    J. Houet al., “The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: BAO and RSD measurements from anisotropic clustering analysis of the Quasar Sample in configuration space between redshift 0.8 and 2.2,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 500, no. 1, pp. 1201...

    2020

  6. [13]

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

    S. Alamet al., “Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 103, no. 8, p. 083533, 2021

    2021

  7. [14]

    H. Gil-Marinet al., “The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: measurement of the BAO and growth rate of structure of the luminous red galaxy sample from the anisotropic power spectrum between redshifts 0.6 and 1.0,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vo...

    2020

  8. [15]

    J. E. Bautistaet al., “The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: measurement of the BAO and growth rate of structure of the luminous red galaxy sample from the anisotropic correlation function between redshifts 0.6 and 1,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. So...

    2020

  9. [16]

    Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,

    M. Abdul Karimet al., “Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,” 3 2025

    2025

  10. [17]

    DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,

    A. G. Adameet al., “DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,” JCAP, vol. 02, p. 021, 2025

    2024

  11. [18]

    The Complete Light-curve Sample of Spectroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan-STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combined Pantheon Sample,

    D. M. Scolnicet al., “The Complete Light-curve Sample of Spectroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan-STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combined Pantheon Sample,”Astrophys. J., vol. 859, no. 2, p. 101, 2018

    2018

  12. [19]

    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., vol. 938, no. 2, p. 113, 2022

    2022

  13. [20]

    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,” 11 2023

    2023

  14. [21]

    Type Ia supernova observations combining data from the Euclid mission and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory,

    A. C. Bailey, M. Vincenzi, D. Scolnic, J. C. Cuillandre, J. Rhodes, I. Hook, E. R. Peterson, and B. Popovic, “Type Ia supernova observations combining data from the Euclid mission and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 524, no. 4, pp. 5432–5441, 2023

    2023

  15. [22]

    Type Ia supernovae,

    S. Blondin, “Type Ia supernovae,” 11 2024

    2024

  16. [23]

    The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set,

    T. M. C. Abbottet 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., vol. 973, no. 1, p. L14, 2024

    2024

  17. [24]

    Improving Cosmological Distance Measurements Using Twin Type Ia Supernovae,

    H. K. Fakhouriet al., “Improving Cosmological Distance Measurements Using Twin Type Ia Supernovae,”Astrophys. J., vol. 815, no. 1, p. 58, 2015

    2015

  18. [25]

    The Dark Energy Survey: more than dark energy – an overview,

    T. Abbottet al., “The Dark Energy Survey: more than dark energy – an overview,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 460, no. 2, pp. 1270–1299, 2016

    2016

  19. [26]

    Cosmological Constraints from Multiple Probes in the Dark Energy Survey,

    T. M. C. Abbottet al., “Cosmological Constraints from Multiple Probes in the Dark Energy Survey,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 122, no. 17, p. 171301, 2019

    2019

  20. [27]

    The Dark Energy Survey Data Release 2,

    T. M. C. Abbottet al., “The Dark Energy Survey Data Release 2,”Astrophys. J. Supp., vol. 255, no. 2, p. 20, 2021

    2021

  21. [28]

    KiDS-450: Cosmological parameter constraints from tomographic weak gravitational lensing,

    H. Hildebrandtet al., “KiDS-450: Cosmological parameter constraints from tomographic weak gravitational lensing,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 465, p. 1454, 2017

    2017

  22. [29]

    KiDS+VIKING-450: Cosmic shear tomography with optical and infrared data,

    H. Hildebrandtet al., “KiDS+VIKING-450: Cosmic shear tomography with optical and infrared data,”Astron. Astro- phys., vol. 633, p. A69, 2020

    2020

  23. [30]

    Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam first-year data,

    C. Hikageet al., “Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam first-year data,”Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap., vol. 71, no. 2, p. 43, 2019

    2019

  24. [31]

    Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Constraints on extensions to ΛCDM with weak lensing and galaxy clustering,

    T. M. C. Abbottet al., “Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Constraints on extensions to ΛCDM with weak lensing and galaxy clustering,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 107, no. 8, p. 083504, 2023. 12

    2023

  25. [32]

    Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,

    T. M. C. Abbottet al., “Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 105, no. 2, p. 023520, 2022

    2022

  26. [33]

    Formation of Galaxies and Large Scale Structure with Cold Dark Matter,

    G. R. Blumenthal, S. M. Faber, J. R. Primack, and M. J. Rees, “Formation of Galaxies and Large Scale Structure with Cold Dark Matter,”Nature, vol. 311, pp. 517–525, 1984

    1984

  27. [34]

    Large scale background temperature and mass fluctuations due to scale invariant primeval perturba- tions,

    P. J. E. Peebles, “Large scale background temperature and mass fluctuations due to scale invariant primeval perturba- tions,”Astrophys. J. Lett., vol. 263, pp. L1–L5, 1982

    1982

  28. [35]

    The cosmological constant and cold dark matter,

    G. Efstathiou, W. J. Sutherland, and S. J. Maddox, “The cosmological constant and cold dark matter,”Nature, vol. 348, pp. 705–707, 1990

    1990

  29. [36]

    Tests of Cosmological Models Constrained by Inflation,

    P. J. E. Peebles, “Tests of Cosmological Models Constrained by Inflation,”Astrophys. J., vol. 284, pp. 439–444, 1984

    1984

  30. [37]

    Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe,

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, “Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe,”Nature Astron., vol. 3, p. 891, 2019

    2019

  31. [38]

    Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,

    T. M. C. Abbottet al., “Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 98, no. 4, p. 043526, 2018

    2018

  32. [39]

    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,

    A. G. Riesset 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., vol. 934, no. 1, p. L7, 2022

    2022

  33. [40]

    Weakly interacting massive particle dark matter and radiative neutrino mass from peccei-quinn symmetry,

    B. Dasgupta, E. Ma, and K. Tsumura, “Weakly interacting massive particle dark matter and radiative neutrino mass from peccei-quinn symmetry,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 89, p. 041702, Feb 2014

    2014

  34. [41]

    Cosmology of axion dark matter,

    C. A. J. O’Hare, “Cosmology of axion dark matter,”PoS, vol. COSMICWISPers, p. 040, 2024

    2024

  35. [42]

    Sterile neutrino Dark Matter,

    A. Boyarsky, M. Drewes, T. Lasserre, S. Mertens, and O. Ruchayskiy, “Sterile neutrino Dark Matter,”Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., vol. 104, pp. 1–45, 2019

    2019

  36. [43]

    Primordial black holes as dark matter,

    B. Carr, F. K¨ uhnel, and M. Sandstad, “Primordial black holes as dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 94, p. 083504, Oct. 2016

    2016

  37. [44]

    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,” 4 2025

    2025

  38. [45]

    Interpreting DESI’s evidence for evolving dark energy,

    M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle, “Interpreting DESI’s evidence for evolving dark energy,”JCAP, vol. 12, p. 007, 2024

    2024

  39. [46]

    Cosmological consequences of a rolling homogeneous scalar field,

    B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, “Cosmological consequences of a rolling homogeneous scalar field,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 37, pp. 3406–3427, Jun 1988

    1988

  40. [47]

    Cosmology with x matter,

    T. Chiba, N. Sugiyama, and T. Nakamura, “Cosmology with x matter,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 289, pp. L5–L9, 1997

    1997

  41. [48]

    Kinetically driven quintessence,

    T. Chiba, T. Okabe, and M. Yamaguchi, “Kinetically driven quintessence,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 62, p. 023511, Jun 2000

    2000

  42. [49]

    Essentials of k-essence,

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. Mukhanov, and P. J. Steinhardt, “Essentials of k-essence,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 63, p. 103510, Apr 2001

    2001

  43. [50]

    f(R) Theories Of Gravity,

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, “f(R) Theories Of Gravity,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 82, pp. 451–497, 2010

    2010

  44. [51]

    Holographic dark energy from the laws of thermodynamics with R´ enyi entropy,

    M. T. Manoharan, N. Shaji, and T. K. Mathew, “Holographic dark energy from the laws of thermodynamics with R´ enyi entropy,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 83, no. 1, p. 19, 2023

    2023

  45. [52]

    Higgs Dark Energy,

    M. Rinaldi, “Higgs Dark Energy,”Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 32, p. 045002, 2015

    2015

  46. [53]

    Models of f(R) Cosmic Acceleration that Evade Solar-System Tests,

    W. Hu and I. Sawicki, “Models of f(R) Cosmic Acceleration that Evade Solar-System Tests,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 76, p. 064004, 2007

    2007

  47. [54]

    Mimicking dark matter and dark energy in a mimetic model compatible with GW170817,

    A. Casalino, M. Rinaldi, L. Sebastiani, and S. Vagnozzi, “Mimicking dark matter and dark energy in a mimetic model compatible with GW170817,”Phys. Dark Univ., vol. 22, p. 108, 2018

    2018

  48. [55]

    Swampland criteria in the slotheon field dark energy,

    U. Mukhopadhyay and D. Majumdar, “Swampland criteria in the slotheon field dark energy,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 100, no. 2, p. 024006, 2019

    2019

  49. [56]

    Observational constraints on axion(s) dark energy with a cosmological constant,

    Ruchika, S. A. Adil, K. Dutta, A. Mukherjee, and A. A. Sen, “Observational constraints on axion(s) dark energy with a cosmological constant,”Phys. Dark Univ., vol. 40, p. 101199, 2023. 13

    2023

  50. [57]

    From a Bounce to the Dark Energy Era withF(R) Gravity,

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, and T. Paul, “From a Bounce to the Dark Energy Era withF(R) Gravity,”Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 37, no. 23, p. 235005, 2020

    2020

  51. [58]

    An Effective Sign Switching Dark Energy: Lotka–Volterra Model of Two Interacting Fluids,

    Y. C. Ong, “An Effective Sign Switching Dark Energy: Lotka–Volterra Model of Two Interacting Fluids,”Universe, vol. 9, no. 10, p. 437, 2023

    2023

  52. [59]

    Saez–Ballester gravity in Kantowski–Sachs Universe: A new reconstruction paradigm for Barrow Holo- graphic Dark Energy,

    G. G. Luciano, “Saez–Ballester gravity in Kantowski–Sachs Universe: A new reconstruction paradigm for Barrow Holo- graphic Dark Energy,”Phys. Dark Univ., vol. 41, p. 101237, 2023

    2023

  53. [60]

    Constraints on Generalized Gravity-Thermodynamic Cosmology from DESI DR2,

    U. K. Tyagi, S. Haridasu, and S. Basak, “Constraints on Generalized Gravity-Thermodynamic Cosmology from DESI DR2,” 4 2025

    2025

  54. [61]

    Has DESI detected exponential quintessence?,

    Y. Akrami, G. Alestas, and S. Nesseris, “Has DESI detected exponential quintessence?,” 4 2025

    2025

  55. [62]

    A New Window on Dynamical Dark Energy: Combining DESI-DR2 BAO with future Gravitational Wave Observations,

    F. B. M. d. Santos, J. Morais, S. Pan, W. Yang, and E. Di Valentino, “A New Window on Dynamical Dark Energy: Combining DESI-DR2 BAO with future Gravitational Wave Observations,” 4 2025

    2025

  56. [63]

    How much has DESI dark energy evolved since DR1?,

    E. O. Colg´ ain, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and L. Yin, “How much has DESI dark energy evolved since DR1?,” 4 2025

    2025

  57. [64]

    Emergent dark energy from unparticles,

    M. Artymowski, I. Ben-Dayan, and U. Kumar, “Emergent dark energy from unparticles,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 103, no. 12, p. L121303, 2021

    2021

  58. [65]

    Emergent Unparticles Dark Energy can restore cosmological concordance,

    I. Ben-Dayan and U. Kumar, “Emergent Unparticles Dark Energy can restore cosmological concordance,”JCAP, vol. 12, p. 047, 2023

    2023

  59. [66]

    Theoretical priors and the dark energy equation of state,

    I. Ben-Dayan and U. Kumar, “Theoretical priors and the dark energy equation of state,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 84, no. 2, p. 167, 2024

    2024

  60. [67]

    Coupled quintessence,

    L. Amendola, “Coupled quintessence,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 62, p. 043511, 2000

    2000

  61. [68]

    Relieving the Tension between Weak Lensing and Cosmic Microwave Background with Interacting Dark Matter and Dark Energy Models,

    R. An, C. Feng, and B. Wang, “Relieving the Tension between Weak Lensing and Cosmic Microwave Background with Interacting Dark Matter and Dark Energy Models,”JCAP, vol. 02, p. 038, 2018

    2018

  62. [69]

    Constraining a dark matter and dark energy interaction scenario with a dynamical equation of state,

    W. Yang, N. Banerjee, and S. Pan, “Constraining a dark matter and dark energy interaction scenario with a dynamical equation of state,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 95, no. 12, p. 123527, 2017. [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 96, 089903 (2017)]

    2017

  63. [70]

    Interacting dark energy in the early 2020s: A promising solution to theH 0 and cosmic shear tensions,

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and S. Vagnozzi, “Interacting dark energy in the early 2020s: A promising solution to theH 0 and cosmic shear tensions,”Phys. Dark Univ., vol. 30, p. 100666, 2020

    2020

  64. [71]

    Coupled quintessence scalar field model in light of observational datasets,

    T. Patil, Ruchika, and S. Panda, “Coupled quintessence scalar field model in light of observational datasets,”JCAP, vol. 05, p. 033, 2024

    2024

  65. [72]

    Interacting dark energy: clarifying the cosmological implications and viability conditions,

    M. A. van der Westhuizen and A. Abebe, “Interacting dark energy: clarifying the cosmological implications and viability conditions,”JCAP, vol. 01, p. 048, 2024

    2024

  66. [73]

    Constructing viable interacting dark matter and dark energy models: a dynamical systems approach,

    Ashmita, K. Banerjee, and P. K. Das, “Constructing viable interacting dark matter and dark energy models: a dynamical systems approach,”JCAP, vol. 11, p. 034, 2024

    2024

  67. [74]

    Dark energy with the help of interacting dark sectors,

    J. M. Gomes, E. Hardy, and S. Parameswaran, “Dark energy with the help of interacting dark sectors,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 110, no. 2, p. 023533, 2024

    2024

  68. [75]

    Cosmology with a Time-Variable Cosmological “Constant

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, “Cosmology with a Time-Variable Cosmological “Constant”,”Astrophys. J. Lett., vol. 325, p. L17, Feb. 1988

    1988

  69. [76]

    Gamma-Ray Bursts and Dark Energy - Dark Matter interaction,

    T. Barreiro, O. Bertolami, and P. Torres, “Gamma-Ray Bursts and Dark Energy - Dark Matter interaction,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 409, pp. 750–754, 2010

    2010

  70. [77]

    Cosmological constraints on an exponential interaction in the dark sector,

    W. Yang, S. Pan, and A. Paliathanasis, “Cosmological constraints on an exponential interaction in the dark sector,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 482, no. 1, pp. 1007–1016, 2019

    2019

  71. [78]

    Testing coupled dark energy with large scale structure observation,

    W. Yang and L. Xu, “Testing coupled dark energy with large scale structure observation,”JCAP, vol. 08, p. 034, 2014

    2014

  72. [79]

    Constraints from growth-rate data on some coupled dark energy models mimicking a ΛCDM expansion,

    S. Fay, “Constraints from growth-rate data on some coupled dark energy models mimicking a ΛCDM expansion,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 460, no. 2, pp. 1863–1868, 2016. 14

    2016

  73. [80]

    Linear Perturbation constraints on Multi-coupled Dark Energy,

    A. Piloyan, V. Marra, M. Baldi, and L. Amendola, “Linear Perturbation constraints on Multi-coupled Dark Energy,” JCAP, vol. 02, p. 045, 2014

    2014

  74. [81]

    Large-scale stable interacting dark energy model: Cosmological perturbations and observational constraints,

    Y.-H. Li and X. Zhang, “Large-scale stable interacting dark energy model: Cosmological perturbations and observational constraints,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 89, no. 8, p. 083009, 2014

    2014

  75. [82]

    Tale of stable interacting dark energy, observational signatures, and theH 0 tension,

    W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi, and D. F. Mota, “Tale of stable interacting dark energy, observational signatures, and theH 0 tension,”JCAP, vol. 09, p. 019, 2018

    2018

  76. [83]

    Interacting Dark Energy in a closed universe,

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, S. Pan, and W. Yang, “Interacting Dark Energy in a closed universe,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 502, no. 1, pp. L23–L28, 2021

    2021

  77. [84]

    Coupled and uncoupled early dark energy, massive neutrinos, and the cosmological tensions,

    A. G´ omez-Valent, Z. Zheng, L. Amendola, C. Wetterich, and V. Pettorino, “Coupled and uncoupled early dark energy, massive neutrinos, and the cosmological tensions,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 106, no. 10, p. 103522, 2022

    2022

  78. [85]

    On the large-scale instability in interacting dark energy and dark matter fluids,

    B. M. Jackson, A. Taylor, and A. Berera, “On the large-scale instability in interacting dark energy and dark matter fluids,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 79, p. 043526, 2009

    2009

  79. [86]

    Interacting quintessence,

    W. Zimdahl and D. Pavon, “Interacting quintessence,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 521, pp. 133–138, 2001

    2001

  80. [87]

    Variable sound speed in interacting dark energy models,

    M. S. Linton, A. Pourtsidou, R. Crittenden, and R. Maartens, “Variable sound speed in interacting dark energy models,” JCAP, vol. 04, p. 043, 2018

    2018

  81. [88]

    Matter density perturbations in interacting quintessence models,

    G. Olivares, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon, “Matter density perturbations in interacting quintessence models,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 74, p. 043521, 2006

    2006

  82. [89]

    Instability in interacting dark energy and dark matter fluids,

    J. Valiviita, E. Majerotto, and R. Maartens, “Instability in interacting dark energy and dark matter fluids,”JCAP, vol. 07, p. 020, 2008

    2008

  83. [90]

    Probing the imprint of interacting dark energy on very large scales,

    D. G. A. Duniya, D. Bertacca, and R. Maartens, “Probing the imprint of interacting dark energy on very large scales,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 91, p. 063530, 2015

    2015

  84. [91]

    Maps of CMB lensing deflection from N-body simulations in Coupled Dark Energy Cosmologies,

    C. Carbone, M. Baldi, V. Pettorino, and C. Baccigalupi, “Maps of CMB lensing deflection from N-body simulations in Coupled Dark Energy Cosmologies,”JCAP, vol. 09, p. 004, 2013

    2013

  85. [92]

    Coupled Quintessence and the Halo Mass Function,

    E. R. M. Tarrant, C. van de Bruck, E. J. Copeland, and A. M. Green, “Coupled Quintessence and the Halo Mass Function,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 85, p. 023503, 2012

    2012

  86. [93]

    Effects of the interaction between dark energy and dark matter on cosmological parameters,

    J.-H. He and B. Wang, “Effects of the interaction between dark energy and dark matter on cosmological parameters,” JCAP, vol. 06, p. 010, 2008

    2008

  87. [94]

    Model for a universe described by a non-minimally coupled scalar field and interacting dark matter,

    J. B. Binder and G. M. Kremer, “Model for a universe described by a non-minimally coupled scalar field and interacting dark matter,”Gen. Rel. Grav., vol. 38, pp. 857–870, 2006

    2006

  88. [95]

    Coupled scalar field cosmology with effects of curvature,

    T. Patil and S. Panda, “Coupled scalar field cosmology with effects of curvature,”Eur. Phys. J. Plus, vol. 138, no. 7, p. 583, 2023

    2023

  89. [96]

    Dynamics of interacting scalar field model in the realm of chiral cosmology,

    T. Patil, S. Panda, M. Sharma, and Ruchika, “Dynamics of interacting scalar field model in the realm of chiral cosmology,” Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 83, no. 2, p. 131, 2023

    2023

  90. [97]

    Generalized dark energy interactions with multiple fluids,

    C. van de Bruck, J. Mifsud, J. P. Mimoso, and N. J. Nunes, “Generalized dark energy interactions with multiple fluids,” JCAP, vol. 11, p. 031, 2016

    2016

  91. [98]

    Three-form cosmology,

    T. S. Koivisto and N. J. Nunes, “Three-form cosmology,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 685, pp. 105–109, 2010

    2010

  92. [99]

    Inflation and dark energy from three-forms,

    T. S. Koivisto and N. J. Nunes, “Inflation and dark energy from three-forms,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 80, p. 103509, 2009

    2009

  93. [100]

    Coupled three-form dark energy,

    T. S. Koivisto and N. J. Nunes, “Coupled three-form dark energy,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 88, no. 12, p. 123512, 2013

    2013

  94. [101]

    Three-form inflation in type II Randall-Sundrum,

    B. J. Barros and N. J. Nunes, “Three-form inflation in type II Randall-Sundrum,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 93, no. 4, p. 043512, 2016

    2016

  95. [102]

    The general form of the coupled Horndeski Lagrangian that allows cosmological scaling solutions,

    A. R. Gomes and L. Amendola, “The general form of the coupled Horndeski Lagrangian that allows cosmological scaling solutions,”JCAP, vol. 02, p. 035, 2016. 15

    2016

  96. [103]

    III. Interacting Dark Energy: Summary of Models, Pathologies, and Constraints,

    M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino, “III. Interacting Dark Energy: Summary of Models, Pathologies, and Constraints,” 9 2025

    2025

  97. [104]

    Nucleosynthesis constraints on an extended Jordan-Brans-Dicke theory,

    T. Damour and C. Gundlach, “Nucleosynthesis constraints on an extended Jordan-Brans-Dicke theory,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 43, pp. 3873–3877, 1991

    1991

  98. [105]

    Scattering of dark matter and dark energy,

    F. Simpson, “Scattering of dark matter and dark energy,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 82, p. 083505, 2010

    2010

  99. [106]

    Dark Matter and Dark Energy Interactions: Theoretical Challenges, Cosmological Implications and Observational Signatures,

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon, “Dark Matter and Dark Energy Interactions: Theoretical Challenges, Cosmological Implications and Observational Signatures,”Rept. Prog. Phys., vol. 79, no. 9, p. 096901, 2016

    2016

  100. [107]

    Scalar and vector modes in inflation with antisymmetric tensor field,

    A. Ajith and S. Panda, “Scalar and vector modes in inflation with antisymmetric tensor field,” 8 2025

    2025

  101. [109]

    Large-scale instability in interacting dark energy and dark matter fluids,

    J. V¨ aliviita, E. Majerotto, and R. Maartens, “Large-scale instability in interacting dark energy and dark matter fluids,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, vol. 2008, no. 07, p. 020, 2008

    2008

  102. [110]

    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., vol. 538, pp. 473–476, 2000

    2000

  103. [111]

    CMB power spectrum parameter degeneracies in the era of precision cosmology,

    C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall, and A. Challinor, “CMB power spectrum parameter degeneracies in the era of precision cosmology,”jcap, vol. 2012, p. 027, Apr. 2012

    2012

  104. [112]

    Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models,

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, “Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models,”JCAP, vol. 05, p. 057, 2021

    2021

  105. [113]

    Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, “Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology.” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019, Oct. 2019

    1910

  106. [114]

    GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,

    A. Lewis, “GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,” 10 2019

    2019

  107. [115]

    Improving the Flexibility and Robustness of Model-Based Derivative- Free Optimization Solvers,

    C. Cartis, J. Fiala, B. Marteau, and L. Roberts, “Improving the Flexibility and Robustness of Model-Based Derivative- Free Optimization Solvers,”arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1804.00154, Mar. 2018

    2018 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Escaping local minima with derivative-free methods: a numerical investigation,

    C. Cartis, L. Roberts, and O. Sheridan-Methven, “Escaping local minima with derivative-free methods: a numerical investigation,”arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1812.11343, Dec. 2018

    2018 arXiv

  109. [117]

    A Detailed Description of the CamSpec Likelihood Pipeline and a Reanalysis of the Planck High Frequency Maps,

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, “A Detailed Description of the CamSpec Likelihood Pipeline and a Reanalysis of the Planck High Frequency Maps,” 10 2019

    2019

  110. [118]

    CMB power spectra and cosmological parameters from Planck PR4 with CamSpec,

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton, and G. Efstathiou, “CMB power spectra and cosmological parameters from Planck PR4 with CamSpec,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 517, no. 3, pp. 4620–4636, 2022

    2022

  111. [119]

    CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps,

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, “CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps,”JCAP, vol. 09, p. 039, 2022

    2022

  112. [120]

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Con- straints,

    M. Abdul Karimet al., “DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Con- straints,” 3 2025

    2025

  113. [121]

    DESI DR2 Results I: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest,

    M. Abdul Karimet al., “DESI DR2 Results I: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest,” 3 2025

    2025

  114. [122]

    CfA3: 185 Type Ia Supernova Light Curves from the CfA,

    M. Hickenet al., “CfA3: 185 Type Ia Supernova Light Curves from the CfA,”Astrophys. J., vol. 700, pp. 331–357, July 2009

    2009

  115. [123]

    CfA4: Light Curves for 94 Type Ia Supernovae,

    M. Hickenet al., “CfA4: Light Curves for 94 Type Ia Supernovae,”Astrophys. J. Lett., vol. 200, p. 12, June 2012

    2012

  116. [124]

    The Carnegie Supernova Project I: Third Photometry Data Release of Low-Redshift Type Ia Supernovae and Other White Dwarf Explosions,

    K. Krisciunaset al., “The Carnegie Supernova Project I: Third Photometry Data Release of Low-Redshift Type Ia Supernovae and Other White Dwarf Explosions,”Astron. J., vol. 154, no. 5, p. 211, 2017

    2017

  117. [125]

    The Foundation Supernova Survey: Motivation, Design, Implementation, and First Data Release,

    R. J. Foleyet al., “The Foundation Supernova Survey: Motivation, Design, Implementation, and First Data Release,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 475, no. 1, pp. 193–219, 2018

    2018

  118. [126]

    Exploring non-cold dark matter in the scenario of dynamical dark energy with DESI DR2 data,

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Yao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, “Exploring non-cold dark matter in the scenario of dynamical dark energy with DESI DR2 data,”Phys. Dark Univ., vol. 50, p. 102068, 2025. 16

    2025

  119. [127]

    Marginal Likelihoods from Monte Carlo Markov Chains,

    A. Heavens, Y. Fantaye, A. Mootoovaloo, H. Eggers, Z. Hosenie, S. Kroon, and E. Sellentin, “Marginal Likelihoods from Monte Carlo Markov Chains,” 4 2017

    2017

  120. [128]

    No evidence for extensions to the standard cosmological model,

    A. Heavens, Y. Fantaye, E. Sellentin, H. Eggers, Z. Hosenie, S. Kroon, and A. Mootoovaloo, “No evidence for extensions to the standard cosmological model,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 119, no. 10, p. 101301, 2017

    2017

  121. [129]

    Bayes factors,

    R. E. Kass and A. E. Raftery, “Bayes factors,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 90, no. 430, pp. 773– 795, 1995

    1995

  122. [130]

    Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology,

    R. Trotta, “Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology,”Contemp. Phys., vol. 49, pp. 71–104, 2008

    2008

  123. [131]

    I. Linear Interacting Dark Energy: Analytical Solutions and Theoretical Pathologies,

    M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino, “I. Linear Interacting Dark Energy: Analytical Solutions and Theoretical Pathologies,” 9 2025

    2025

  124. [132]

    II. Non-Linear Interacting Dark Energy: Analytical Solutions and Theoretical Pathologies,

    M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino, “II. Non-Linear Interacting Dark Energy: Analytical Solutions and Theoretical Pathologies,” 9 2025

    2025

  125. [133]

    Interacting dark sector from Horndeski theories and beyond: Mapping fields and fluids,

    P. Bansal, J. P. Johnson, and S. Shankaranarayanan, “Interacting dark sector from Horndeski theories and beyond: Mapping fields and fluids,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 111, no. 2, p. 024071, 2025

    2025

  126. [134]

    Quintessence model with double exponential potential,

    A. A. Sen and S. Sethi, “Quintessence model with double exponential potential,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 532, pp. 159–165, 2002

    2002

  127. [135]

    An effective quintessence field with a power-law potential,

    M. Khurshudyan, B. Pourhassan, R. Myrzakulov, and S. Chattopadhyay, “An effective quintessence field with a power-law potential,”Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 356, pp. 383–391, Apr. 2015

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.