Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 36 cited by

DESI's deviations from standard cosmology can be explained by dark matter–dark energy interactions at 3–5 sigma, matching or beating evolving-dark-energy fits without requiring a time-varying equation of state.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 11:06 UTC pith:JOLIOAJ3

load-bearing objection CQ is a credible CPL rival; the CF half of the 'robust both-scenarios' claim sits in a corner that structure-growth data would likely reject. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.07361 v2 pith:JOLIOAJ3 submitted 2026-01-12 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Robust Preference for Dark Sector Interactions

Tian-Nuo Li , William Giar\`e , Guo-Hong Du , Yun-He Li , Eleonora Di Valentino , Jing-Fei Zhang , Xin Zhang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th PACS 95.35.+d95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords interacting dark energydark matter-dark energy couplingDESI BAOdynamical dark energyCPL parametrizationcoupled quintessencecoupled fluidcosmological perturbations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

DESI baryon acoustic oscillation measurements deviate from the standard ΛCDM cosmology, and the usual interpretation is that dark energy's equation of state changes over time. This paper tries to establish a different physical explanation: dark matter and dark energy exchange energy and momentum, and that interaction reshapes the expansion history in a way that mimics dynamical dark energy. Using a unified treatment of perturbations for two interacting models (coupled quintessence and coupled fluid), the authors find a 3–5 sigma preference for a nonzero coupling across all data combinations. They claim these models fit the CMB, BAO, and supernova data as well as, or better than, the standard CPL parametrization with the same number of free parameters, even after a supernova recalibration that weakens the evidence for dynamical dark energy. If correct, the DESI results do not require dark energy to evolve; a dark-sector interaction is a statistically competitive physical alternative.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the apparent DESI preference for dynamical dark energy is not unique. Two interacting dark-energy (IDE) realizations—coupled quintessence, defined at the Lagrangian level, and a phenomenological coupled fluid with a constant equation of state—both produce a background expansion that departs from ΛCDM in the redshift range probed by BAO and supernovae while fitting the data at least as well as CPL. The authors report that the coupling parameter is constrained away from zero at roughly 3–5 sigma, that the coupled fluid model gives the largest improvement over ΛCDM in both Δχ² and DIC, and that the preference survives the DES-Dovekie recal

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a unified parameterization of IDE perturbations, in which the energy and momentum transfer rates are written as linear combinations of the density and velocity perturbations of the two dark components, with model-specific mapping coefficients. This lets both the coupled-quintessence and coupled-fluid scenarios be evolved with the same treatment. For the coupled fluid, the extended parameterized post-Friedmann (ePPF) framework replaces the ill-defined large-scale pressure condition with a parametrized momentum relation, preventing the instabilities that normally plague constant-equation-of-state interacting fluids. The same number of free parameters as the CPL paramet

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on the perturbation framework being reliable for the coupled-fluid model in the exact region the data prefer (w≈-1.5, Ωm≈0.6, σ8≈0.48), while weak-lensing and galaxy-clustering data that would directly test that region are omitted from the analysis.

What would settle it

Include weak-lensing and galaxy-clustering measurements in the same MCMC analysis. The coupled-fluid model predicts S8≈0.68, while current lensing data cluster near S8≈0.76–0.82; if adding those data pulls the coupled-fluid posterior back toward ΛCDM, or worsens its Δχ² enough to remove the preference, then the paper's claim that both interacting models robustly beat ΛCDM at 3–5 sigma is falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, the DESI BAO deviations can be explained without introducing a time-dependent dark-energy equation of state; an interaction between dark matter and dark energy is a viable alternative.
  • The coupled-quintessence model achieves its fit while remaining quintessence-like at all redshifts, so a phantom-crossing equation of state is not required by the data.
  • The coupled-fluid model predicts a distinctive structure-formation signature: low σ8 and S8 (about 0.48 and 0.68) with high matter density, meaning future weak-lensing and galaxy-clustering data can directly discriminate it from ΛCDM and CPL.
  • Even after the supernova recalibration that weakens dynamical-dark-energy evidence, the interaction preference persists, so the result is not an artifact of a single supernova compilation.
  • Because the background distances are highly degenerate between IDE and CPL, distinguishing the paradigms requires perturbation-level observations rather than more distance measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I infer that the paper's two-model claim is not symmetric: the coupled-fluid model lives in a corner of parameter space (w≈-1.5, Ωm≈0.6, S8≈0.68) that existing weak-lensing measurements would likely penalize, so its competitive fit may degrade once those data are included.
  • I infer the strongest near-term test is not better BAO or supernova distances but structure growth: measuring S8 and the growth rate at z<1 should separate the coupled-fluid model from ΛCDM and from coupled quintessence.
  • I draw a non-obvious consequence: if future data favor an interacting scenario, coupled quintessence offers a less radical cosmology (H0 and Ωm close to ΛCDM) than the coupled fluid, so the two IDE realizations have very different implications for the Hubble tension and matter clustering.
  • I infer from the parameter correlations that the model rankings are partly driven by the lowest-redshift supernova bin; a systematic shift in that anchor would likely reorder CPL, CQ, and CF.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses CMB (Planck+ACT+SPT), DESI DR2 BAO, and three SN compilations (PantheonPlus, DESY5, DES-Dovekie) to constrain two interacting dark-energy models: coupled quintessence (CQ) and a phenomenological coupled fluid (CF). The authors report a robust preference for non-vanishing dark-sector interactions at the 3–5σ level in both models, with fit quality comparable to or better than the CPL dynamical-dark-energy parametrization for the same number of free parameters. They use profile-likelihood checks to argue that the interaction signal is likelihood-driven, and they emphasize that the preference survives the DES-Dovekie recalibration that weakens the CPL evidence. The CF model achieves its best fits only in an extreme parameter region (Ωm≈0.6, σ8≈0.48, w≈−1.5), a point the authors acknowledge.

Significance. The CQ analysis is a potentially significant contribution: it shows that a Lagrangian-based interacting dark-energy model with the same number of parameters as CPL can reproduce the DESI-driven preference for deviations from ΛCDM, with a profile-likelihood minimum away from β=0 and consistent results across several SN compilations. The paper also includes careful methodological choices, such as sampling H0 and computing θ* numerically rather than using the Hu–Sugiyama approximation, and it makes model-comparison tables transparent. However, the headline claim that 'both IDE scenarios' show robust evidence depends critically on the CF model, whose extreme parameter region is supported by an ePPF perturbation treatment that is not cross-validated and whose low S8 prediction is in tension with existing weak-lensing and galaxy-clustering data. As presented, the CF result is not yet on the same evidential footing as the CQ result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplementary Sec. I; Table IV] The ePPF framework is asserted to 'effectively eliminate the instability while preserving accurate small-scale dynamics' (Supplementary Sec. I), but no validation is shown for the CF best-fit region: Table IV gives w≈−1.4 to −1.6, β≈−2.3 to −3.1, Ωm≈0.6, σ8≈0.48. This is far from the ΛCDM-like regime in which such approximate perturbation schemes are normally calibrated. Because CF provides the largest Δχ² and ΔDIC improvements in Table II, the central claim that 'both' IDE models robustly beat ΛCDM rests on the reliability of ePPF in this untested phantom/strong-coupling regime. A cross-check against a full perturbation solver, or at least a demonstration that the conclusions are insensitive to the ePPF closure, is needed.
  2. [Supplementary Sec. III; Table II] The paper explicitly states that a comprehensive assessment against weak-lensing and LSS measurements is beyond its scope, but the CF model predicts S8≈0.68 (σ8≈0.48) with Ωm≈0.6 (Table IV), values that are in strong tension with current galaxy-lensing and clustering data. Since CF is the model that gives the best Δχ² and ΔDIC in Table II, the broad claim that interacting dark energy is statistically competitive with CPL and “robustly” preferred over ΛCDM is conditional on a scenario whose growth predictions appear to conflict with existing probes. Please include representative WL/LSS likelihoods (e.g., DES Y3, KiDS, or an equivalent) or explicitly restrict the robustness claim to the CQ model.
  3. [Fig. 2 (lower panel); text near profile-likelihood discussion] The lower panel of Fig. 2 plots Δχ² only over β∈[−4,−1.5]. This range excludes β=0, the non-interacting ΛCDM limit. The accompanying text states that the CF profile likelihood is 'significantly displaced from the non-interacting limit,' but the plotted curve does not show Δχ² at β=0 and therefore does not directly support a significance claim for CF. Please extend the x-axis to β=0 or explicitly report Δχ²(β=0) for the CF model. Without this, the profile-likelihood argument against prior-volume effects is incomplete for the CF scenario.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Conclusion] The conclusion says the marginalized constraints and profile likelihood reach 'the 5σ level.' Table I shows that 5σ is reached for CQ, but for CF the significance varies by dataset (e.g., β=−2.37±0.82 for CMB+DESI is roughly 3σ). Please be precise about which model and dataset support which significance.
  2. [Fig. 7 caption and Supplementary Sec. III text] The caption states the CQ panel is on the right and the CF panel on the left, but the text in Supplementary Sec. III refers to 'the left panel of Fig. 7' in the CQ discussion. Please correct this cross-reference or the panel ordering.
  3. [Fig. 5] The binned distance-modulus residuals would be easier to interpret if the error bars on the bins were shown explicitly, or if the binning prescription were stated in the caption; currently the visual weight per point is unclear.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The phrase 'robust evidence for non-vanishing interactions at the 3–5σ level' is used before the CF caveats are introduced. Consider stating in the abstract that the CF scenario lives in an extreme corner of parameter space and that its viability depends on perturbation physics and structure-growth data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction: fits are likelihood-driven against external public data; self-reliance on IDECAMB/ePPF is a tool-dependence caveat, not a definitional loop.

full rationale

The claimed results — non-zero coupling β, the CF model's extreme corner (w≈-1.5, Ωm≈0.6, σ8≈0.48), and the Δχ²/DIC comparisons — are all outputs of MCMC fits to external Planck/ACT/SPT/DESI/SN likelihoods, not quantities defined in terms of each other. The CQ and CF perturbation equations and the ePPF mapping are computational frameworks imported from the authors' prior work (refs [115,118]); the CF stability claim and its low-σ8 signature depend on that framework, and the authors explicitly defer weak-lensing/LSS validation: 'A comprehensive assessment of the viability of this scenario in light of WL and LSS measurements is therefore beyond the scope of the present work' (Supplementary Sec. III). This is a validation/robustness limitation, not a circular reduction: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its input by construction (e.g., σ8 is derived from the fitted model, not fitted to σ8 data). The self-citation is real but methodological; the central comparative claim retains independent statistical content. Score 2 reflects the minor self-reliance on IDECAMB/ePPF, not actual circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis is a Bayesian fit, so the central claim rests on the chosen interaction Lagrangians/transfer functions, the perturbation framework used to stabilize CF, and the prior ranges. No new physical entity is introduced; the freedom is in coupling parameters and potential shape.

free parameters (4)
  • β (CQ coupling) = 0.0527 ± 0.0087 (CMB+DESI+DES-Dovekie)
    Dark-sector coupling strength for coupled quintessence; the fitted non-zero value is the main evidence for interaction.
  • α (CQ inverse power-law exponent) = 0.46 ± 0.18 (Dovekie); <0.39 (CMB+DESI only)
    Slope of the inverse power-law quintessence potential; fitted rather than derived.
  • w (CF dark-energy EoS) = -1.52 ± 0.16 (Dovekie)
    Constant equation-of-state parameter for the coupled fluid; fitted to phantom values.
  • β (CF coupling) = -2.59 +0.76/-0.62 (Dovekie)
    Phenomenological coupling Q=βH0ρ_de; negative value drives energy transfer from DE to DM.
axioms (7)
  • standard math FLRW background and linear scalar perturbations with standard metric potentials.
    Used in Eqs. (1)-(10) and in the IDECAMB perturbation solver.
  • domain assumption Dark sector energy-momentum tensors are not separately conserved; exchange is described by Qμ (Eq. 1).
    Central premise of IDE; physical motivation from scalar-tensor theories is cited, not derived here.
  • domain assumption CQ: DM mass depends on scalar field as m(ϕ)∝e^{-β√κϕ} and potential U(ϕ)=U0(√κϕ)^{-α}.
    Eqs. (4)-(5) and Supp. Eq. (12); chosen from the literature, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption CF: DE is a perfect fluid with constant w and interaction Q=βH0ρ_de.
    Eq. (6); the paper says this is phenomenological, 'lacking a fundamental Lagrangian'.
  • domain assumption The perturbation mappings Eqs. (2)-(3) with the stated C_i, D_i coefficients reproduce the CQ and CF perturbation dynamics.
    Parameterization adopted from ref [115]; load-bearing for the reliability of the inferred constraints.
  • domain assumption The extended parameterized post-Friedmann (ePPF) framework removes large-scale instabilities while preserving small-scale dynamics in CF.
    Supp. Sec. I; the fitted CF region (w≈-1.5, Ωm≈0.6) is exactly where instabilities otherwise appear.
  • ad hoc to paper Flat priors over the ranges in Table III, including β_CQ∈[0,0.15] and α∈[0,1.4], β_CF∈[-5,1], w∈[-3,1].
    Prior choices shape the posteriors; notably the CQ prior excludes negative couplings, so the sign of β in CQ is partly imposed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24224 in / 14650 out tokens · 153748 ms · 2026-08-03T11:06:28.188566+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent DESI baryon acoustic oscillation data reveal deviations from $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, conventionally attributed to dynamical dark energy (DE). We demonstrate that these deviations are equally, if not better, explained by interactions between dark matter and dark energy (IDE), without requiring a time-varying DE equation of state. Using a unified framework, we analyze two IDE models - coupled quintessence and coupled fluid - against the latest CMB (Planck, ACT, SPT), DESI BAO, and SN (including DES-Dovekie recalibrated) data. Both IDE scenarios show robust evidence for non-vanishing interactions at the 3-5$\sigma$ level, with marginalized constraints significantly deviating from the $\Lambda$CDM limit. This preference persists even under DES-Dovekie SN recalibration, which weakens dynamical DE evidence. Crucially, for the same number of free parameters, IDE models provide fits to low- and high-redshift data that match or exceed the performance of the CPL dynamical DE parametrization. Our results establish IDE as a physically motivated alternative to dynamical DE, highlighting the necessity of future cosmological perturbation measurements (e.g., weak lensing, galaxy clustering) to distinguish between these paradigms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.07361 by Eleonora Di Valentino, Guo-Hong Du, Jing-Fei Zhang, Tian-Nuo Li, William Giar\`e, Xin Zhang, Yun-He Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two-dimensional marginalized contours (68.3% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Using the CMB+DESI+DES-Dovekie data, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of the temperature power spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Best-fit predictions for (rescaled) distance-redshift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Observables from the best-fit ΛCDM, CPL, CQ, and CF models are compared with the distance modulus µ, normalized to the Planck 2018 best-fit ΛCDM cosmology. The binned distance modulus residuals for DES-Dovekie and DESY5 are shown, represented by black squares and gray cir￾cles, respectively. The bin edges for the SN bins are indicated by vertical gray dashed lines, and the SN binning method is described in… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The marginalized one-dimensional posterior distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Constraints on cosmological parameters from the CMB+DESI, CMB+DESI+PantheonPlus, CMB+DESI+DESY5, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left panel: Evolution of the DM (dashed lines) and the DE (solid lines) density fractions in the ΛCDM, CPL, CQ, and CF models. Right panel: Evolution of the DE EoS (dashed lines) and the effective EoS (solid lines) in the ΛCDM, CPL, CQ, and CF models. For all models, the curves are computed using the best-fit parameters for CMB+DESI+DES-Dovekie. present-day expansion rate. On the other hand, recent analyse… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 36 Pith papers

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

  1. Unifying Early and Late Dark Energy: Dynamical Requirements and Obstructions

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Any unified early and late dark energy scenario with a single tracking scalar field requires a potential with three distinct slopes arranged in a steep-steeper-shallow hierarchy.

  2. Contrastive self-supervised convolutional autoencoder for core-collapse supernova gravitational-wave detection

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A contrastive self-supervised convolutional autoencoder detects core-collapse supernova gravitational waves with performance comparable to supervised CNNs, better generalization to unseen waveforms, and ~120 kpc sensi...

  3. Hubble tension: the shape wall

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    Late-time modifications to the expansion history can raise H0 by at most about 2% (conservative) to 3.7% (permissive) if the CMB acoustic scale is fixed.

  4. Cosmological Evidence for Dark Axion-Dark Baryon Interactions from Apparent Phantom Crossing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Dark axion–dark baryon interactions improve the fit to CMB+DESI+SNe by Δχ²=-14.5 over ΛCDM, via a non-monotonic dark-matter mass that mimics phantom crossing, while leaving the Hubble tension unresolved.

  5. HIcosmo: a differentiable JAX-based framework for cosmology inference

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    HIcosmo is a new JAX-based differentiable framework for background cosmology inference that matches Cobaya results while delivering 8.7x CPU and up to 20x GPU speedups.

  6. Non-linear Structure Formation in Planck+DESI Favoured Interacting Dark Energy Cosmologies

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    N-body simulations of IDE with Q=ξHρ_x show scale-dependent deviations in the matter power spectrum, density morphology, and halo abundance that standard ΛCDM-calibrated prescriptions cannot reproduce.

  7. Non-minimally coupled quintessence with sign-switching interaction

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new quintessence model with non-minimal coupling produces an effective sign-switching interaction that fits current data better than LambdaCDM or w0waCDM and accounts for late-time dark energy weakening without phan...

  8. Model-Independent Reconstruction of Quintessence Potential and Kinetic Energy from DESI DR2 and Pantheon+ Supernovae

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    Quintessence potential decreases monotonically with redshift while kinetic energy crosses zero near z=1, with negative values at intermediate redshifts being statistical artifacts from derivative reconstruction.

  9. Evidence for deviation in gravitational light deflection from general relativity at cosmological scales with KiDS-Legacy and CMB lensing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    KiDS-Legacy weak lensing plus CMB data yields a 3 sigma deviation in light deflection from GR in a Lambda CDM background, with the signal driven by large-scale CMB lensing amplitudes.

  10. Realization of quintom dark energy after DESI DR2 in Nieh-Yan modified teleparallel gravity

    gr-qc 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0

    Coupling a single fluid or scalar dark energy to the Nieh-Yan density removes its unstable perturbation, allowing a healthy quintom-B crossing and predicting gravitational-wave velocity birefringence.

  11. Exploring the interplay of late-time dynamical dark energy and new physics before recombination

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.5

    Under standard recombination, phantom-crossing dynamical dark energy is preferred at ~97–98.5% probability; early-time fixes to the Hubble tension erase that preference while creating severe ω_m tension with CMB.

  12. Running into tension: primordial black holes from ultra-slow-roll inflation, spectral running, and the Hubble tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    EDE models increase inferred α_s from CMB data, strengthening tension with USR PBH models that predict negative running.

  13. Dissipative Dark Energy can explain the DESI phantom crossing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Weakly dissipative quintessence explains DESI phantom crossing in dark energy without pathological dynamics.

  14. Signatures of Modified Gravity on Linear Scales in a Dynamical Dark Energy Background

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Modified gravity below O(10) Mpc in a CPL dynamical dark energy background is required to suppress structure growth at low redshifts while satisfying CMB constraints from ISW and lensing.

  15. Signatures of Modified Gravity on Linear Scales in a Dynamical Dark Energy Background

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

    Using Planck, DESI, supernovae, and redshift-space distortions, the authors infer that modified gravity, if present, must act only below ~30 Mpc and cannot modify the large scales previously considered.

  16. Coupled quintessence with a potential from supergravity exhibits sign-changing interaction

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Coupled SUGRA quintessence is preferred by current data at >4σ over the uncoupled case, with sign-changing interaction producing phantom-crossing behavior statistically similar to the CPL parametrization.

  17. Non-minimal fluid Lagrangian couplings

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Derives modified Einstein and fluid equations for non-minimal matter-Lagrangian-curvature couplings and demonstrates non-equivalence of Schutz and Brown fluid formulations.

  18. Cosmological intercept tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Tensions in the supernova intercept a_B at z~0.01 in PantheonPlus and z~0.1 in DES-Y5 point to data systematics or inter-survey inconsistencies rather than new physics, aligning H0 measurements and reducing support fo...

  19. Exploring the interplay of late-time dynamical dark energy and new physics before recombination

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Model-independent reconstruction finds 96.7-98.5% probability of phantom crossing if recombination is standard, but early new physics to ease Hubble tension weakens this preference while requiring unrealistically high...

  20. Measuring neutrino mass in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    New ACT and DESI data yield model-dependent upper limits on sum of neutrino masses, with holographic dark energy giving the tightest bounds and a consistent preference for degenerate hierarchy.

  21. Probing Dynamical Dark Energy with Late-Time Data: Evidence, Tensions, and the Limits of the $w_0w_a$CDM Framework

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Evidence for dynamical dark energy in the w0waCDM framework is strongly dataset-dependent, driven by mismatches in low-redshift BAO distance ratios that produce divergent expansion histories and inconsistent Hubble te...

  22. $\Lambda$XCDM: a running vacuum strategy for crossing the phantom divide

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    The ΛXCDM model—running vacuum plus a phantom-matter cosmon—fits Planck, DESI, and supernova data and produces a phantom-divide crossing at z≈0.4–0.8, but at the cost of three fitted parameters and an unspecified cosmon.

  23. Cosmological Viability of Exponential Infrared $f(T)$ Gravity

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Exponential IR f(T) gravity Model I alleviates Hubble tension but is disfavoured by combined Planck/ACT/SPT+DESI+Pantheon+ data; Model II is ruled out because background constraints force unphysical shifts in CMB parameters.

  24. Unifying the Dark Sector with the New Generalized Chaplygin Gas: Observational Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A generalized Chaplygin gas with redshift-dependent exponent unifies the dark sector but is statistically equivalent to ΛCDM after penalizing for extra parameters in Bayesian fits to late-time data.

  25. Phantom-Divide Crossing in Exponentially Coupled Quintessence and the Role of Neutrino-Mass Freedom

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    In the CQ-EXP model, fixed neutrino mass yields >3σ preference for β<0 and phantom crossing; freeing ∑mν,eff erases the distinction from w0waCDM.

  26. Resolving the Hubble Tension in the Early Dark Energy Framework with JWST and DESI Data

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Axion EDE model fitted to Planck/ACT/SPT CMB, DESI BAO, and JWST UV luminosity function data yields H0 = 71.58 ± 1.05 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}, reduces H0 tension to 1.0 sigma, and improves Δχ^{2}_tot = -18.26 over Λ CDM.

  27. Neutrino mass constraints in interacting dark energy models after DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Upper bounds on total neutrino mass in four phenomenological interacting dark energy models are derived from DESI DR2 BAO plus CMB and SNIa data, showing strong dependence on the interaction term form and statistical ...

  28. Constraints on Coupled Dark Energy in the DESI Era

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    New cosmological data mildly favor a small coupling between dark matter and a scalar dark energy field at |β| ≈ 0.03 while allowing an effective phantom-crossing equation of state.

  29. Coupled Dark Energy and Dark Matter for DESI: An Effective Guide to the Phantom Divide

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Coupled quintessence-dark matter models can produce an apparent phantom-crossing effective equation of state matching DESI preferences if the scalar field begins frozen in the radiation era.

  30. Cosmological constraints on the big bang quantum cosmology model

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The JCDM model yields H0 of 66.95 plus or minus 0.51 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m of 0.3419 plus or minus 0.0065 in a flat universe, rising to H0 of 69.13 plus or minus 0.56 with slight positive curvature, fitting late-time d...

  31. Dark Energy in the DESI Era: A Brief Review of Evidence, Beyond-$\Lambda$CDM Interpretations, and Tensions

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 conditional novelty 3.0

    DESI data hint that dark energy evolves (w0>−1, wa<0, phantom crossing) at 2.5–4.2σ, but the same expansion history can also be produced by interacting dark sectors, modified gravity, or non-cold dark matter.

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

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    DESI data favoring time-evolving dark energy may place constant-Λ cosmology in the string swampland and favor string-inspired dynamical dark energy.

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

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A review of string-inspired dynamical dark energy models claiming compatibility with DESI's hints of evolving dark energy under swampland constraints.

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

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A review summarizing advancements over the past two years that link DESI baryon acoustic oscillation data to string-inspired scenarios with dynamic dark energy.

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

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

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

  36. Dark Energy in the DESI Era: A Brief Review of Evidence, Beyond-$\Lambda$CDM Interpretations, and Tensions

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 1.0

    Review of DESI evidence for dynamical dark energy, its dependence on parametrization and datasets, and alternative beyond-LambdaCDM interpretations that may address cosmological tensions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

163 extracted references · 134 linked inside Pith · cited by 30 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  3. [3]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208512

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  4. [4]

    Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys

    K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Popovicet al.(DES), (2025), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-ph.CO]

    B. Popovicet al.(DES), (2025), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), JCAP02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Guet al.(DESI), Nature Astron.9, 1879 (2025), arXiv:2504.06118 [astro-ph.CO]

    G. Guet al.(DESI), Nature Astron.9, 1879 (2025), arXiv:2504.06118 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Cortês and A

    M. Cortês and A. R. Liddle, JCAP12, 007 (2024), arXiv:2404.08056 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Shlivko and P

    D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Lett. B855, 138826 (2024), arXiv:2405.03933 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Luongo and M

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Astron. Astrophys.690, A40 (2024), arXiv:2404.07070 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. Hütsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar, and H. Veermäe, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043540 (2025), arXiv:2406.07533 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Wang and Y.-S

    H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, (2024), arXiv:2404.18579 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, and A. Silvestri, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 181002 (2025), arXiv:2407.15832 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Tada and T

    Y. Tada and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D109, L121305 (2024), arXiv:2404.05722 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys

    K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D111, 023532 (2025), arXiv:2405.13588 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Bhattacharya, G

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, JCAP09, 073 (2024), arXiv:2405.17396 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    O. F. Ramadan, J. Sakstein, and D. Rubin, Phys. Rev. D110, L041303 (2024), arXiv:2405.18747 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Malekjani, Z

    M. Malekjani, Z. Davari, and S. Pourojaghi (DESI), Phys. Rev. D111, 083547 (2025), arXiv:2407.09767 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Giarè, M

    W. Giarè, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, JCAP10, 035 (2024), arXiv:2407.16689 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Rebouças, D

    J. Rebouças, D. H. F. de Souza, K. Zhong, V. Mi- randa, and R. Rosenfeld, JCAP02, 024 (2025), arXiv:2408.14628 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    C.-G.Park, J.deCruzPérez, andB.Ratra,Int.J.Mod. Phys. D34, 2550058 (2025), arXiv:2410.13627 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Li, Y.-H

    T.-N. Li, Y.-H. Li, G.-H. Du, P.-J. Wu, L. Feng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 608 (2025), arXiv:2411.08639 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Jiang, D

    J.-Q. Jiang, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D110, 123519 (2024), arXiv:2408.02365 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Y. Yang, X. Ren, Q. Wang, Z. Lu, D. Zhang, Y.-F. Cai, and E. N. Saridakis, Sci. Bull.69, 2698 (2024), arXiv:2404.19437 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Li, G.-H

    T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, S.-H. Zhou, Y.-H. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2511.22512 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    W. J. Wolf, C. García-García, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 081001 (2025), arXiv:2504.07679 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    A. J. Shajib and J. A. Frieman, Phys. Rev. D112, 063508 (2025), arXiv:2502.06929 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Giarè, T

    W. Giarè, T. Mahassen, E. Di Valentino, and S. Pan, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101906 (2025), arXiv:2502.10264 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Chaussidonet al., Phys

    E. Chaussidonet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 063548 (2025), arXiv:2503.24343 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Y.-H. Pang, X. Zhang, and Q.-G. Huang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 280410 (2025), arXiv:2503.21600 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Roy Choudhury, Astrophys

    S. Roy Choudhury, Astrophys. J. Lett.986, L31 (2025), arXiv:2504.15340 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Paliathanasis, Phys

    A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101956 (2025), arXiv:2502.16221 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Scherer, M

    M. Scherer, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and A. De Fe- lice, Phys. Rev. D112, 043513 (2025), arXiv:2504.20664 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Giarè, Phys

    W. Giarè, Phys. Rev. D112, 023508 (2025), arXiv:2409.17074 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    T. Liu, X. Li, and J. Wang, Astrophys. J.988, 243 (2025), arXiv:2504.21373 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    E. M. Teixeira, W. Giarè, N. B. Hogg, T. Montandon, A. Poudou, and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. D112, 023515 (2025), arXiv:2504.10464 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Specogna, S

    E. Specogna, S. A. Adil, E. Ozulker, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, O. Akarsu, and A. A. Sen, (2025), arXiv:2504.17859 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Cheng, E

    H. Cheng, E. Di Valentino, L. A. Escamilla, A. A. Sen, andL.Visinelli,JCAP09,031(2025),arXiv:2505.02932 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Herold and T

    L. Herold and T. Karwal, (2025), arXiv:2506.12004 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Özülker, E

    E. Özülker, E. Di Valentino, and W. Giarè, (2025), arXiv:2506.19053 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    A. N. Ormondroyd, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, (2025), arXiv:2503.17342 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Silva and R

    E. Silva and R. C. Nunes, JCAP11, 078 (2025), arXiv:2507.13989 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Ishak and L

    M. Ishak and L. Medina-Varela, (2025), arXiv:2507.22856 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Fazzari, W

    E. Fazzari, W. Giarè, and E. Di Valentino, Astro- phys. J. Lett.996, L5 (2026), arXiv:2509.16196 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    Zhang, T

    Z. Zhang, T. Xu, and Y. Chen, (2025), arXiv:2512.07281 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Cheng, E

    H. Cheng, E. Di Valentino, and L. Visinelli, (2025), arXiv:2505.22066 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Y. Cai, X. Ren, T. Qiu, M. Li, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2505.24732 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Song, G.-H

    J.-Y. Song, G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, L.-F. Wang, J.-Z. Qi, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2511.12017 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Li and S

    J.-X. Li and S. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1308 (2025), arXiv:2506.22953 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    D. H. Lee, W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, S. Pan, and C. van de Bruck, (2025), arXiv:2507.11432 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Wu, T.-N

    P.-J. Wu, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, and X. Zhang, (2025), 8 arXiv:2509.02945 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    F. B. M. d. Santos, J. Morais, S. Pan, W. Yang, and E. Di Valentino, (2025), arXiv:2504.04646 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Khoury, M.-X

    J. Khoury, M.-X. Lin, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 181001 (2025), arXiv:2503.16415 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Li and X

    Y.-H. Li and X. Zhang, JCAP12, 018 (2025), arXiv:2506.18477 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    D. A. Kessler, L. A. Escamilla, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, (2025), arXiv:2504.00776 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Smith, E

    A. Smith, E. Özülker, E. Di Valentino, and C. van de Bruck, (2025), arXiv:2510.21931 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D62, 043511 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  58. [58]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon, Rept. Prog. Phys.79, 096901 (2016), arXiv:1603.08299 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  59. [59]

    Bettoni and S

    D. Bettoni and S. Liberati, Phys. Rev. D88, 084020 (2013), arXiv:1306.6724 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  60. [60]

    Zumalacárregui and J

    M. Zumalacárregui and J. García-Bellido, Phys. Rev. D 89, 064046 (2014), arXiv:1308.4685 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  61. [61]

    Gubitosi, F

    G. Gubitosi, F. Piazza, and F. Vernizzi, JCAP02, 032 (2013), arXiv:1210.0201 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  62. [62]

    Frusciante and L

    N. Frusciante and L. Perenon, Phys. Rept.857, 1 (2020), arXiv:1907.03150 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  63. [63]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavón, Rept. Prog. Phys.87, 036901 (2024), arXiv:2402.00819 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Zhang, H

    J. Zhang, H. Liu, and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B659, 26 (2008), arXiv:0705.4145 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  65. [65]

    Salvatelli, A

    V. Salvatelli, A. Marchini, L. Lopez-Honorez, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D88, 023531 (2013), arXiv:1304.7119 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  66. [66]

    Li, J.-F

    Y.-H. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D93, 023002 (2016), arXiv:1506.06349 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    Murgia, S

    R. Murgia, S. Gariazzo, and N. Fornengo, JCAP04, 014 (2016), arXiv:1602.01765 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  68. [68]

    Kumar and R

    S. Kumar and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D96, 103511 (2017), arXiv:1702.02143 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  69. [69]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D96, 043503 (2017), arXiv:1704.08342 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  70. [70]

    Di Valentino, Mon

    E. Di Valentino, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502, 2065 (2021), arXiv:2011.00246 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2065

  71. [71]

    Gao, Z.-W

    L.-Y. Gao, Z.-W. Zhao, S.-S. Xue, and X. Zhang, JCAP 07, 005 (2021), arXiv:2101.10714 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    Pan and W

    S. Pan and W. Yang, (2023), 10.1007/978-981-99-0177- 7_29, arXiv:2310.07260 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    Forconi, W

    M. Forconi, W. Giarè, O. Mena, Ruchika, E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and R. C. Nunes, JCAP05, 097 (2024), arXiv:2312.11074 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Pourtsidou and T

    A. Pourtsidou and T. Tram, Phys. Rev. D94, 043518 (2016), arXiv:1604.04222 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  75. [75]

    R. C. Nunes and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. D104, 063529 (2021), arXiv:2107.09151 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  76. [76]

    Wang, J.-H

    L.-F. Wang, J.-H. Zhang, D.-Z. He, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.514, 1433 (2022), arXiv:2102.09331 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    Lucca and D

    M. Lucca and D. C. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D102, 123502 (2020), arXiv:2002.06127 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  78. [78]

    Y. Zhai, W. Giarè, C. van de Bruck, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, and R. C. Nunes, JCAP07, 032 (2023), arXiv:2303.08201 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  79. [79]

    Becker, D

    N. Becker, D. C. Hooper, F. Kahlhoefer, J. Lesgour- gues, and N. Schöneberg, JCAP02, 019 (2021), arXiv:2010.04074 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  80. [80]

    G. A. Hoerning, R. G. Landim, L. O. Ponte, R. P. Rolim, F. B. Abdalla, and E. Abdalla, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023523 (2025), arXiv:2308.05807 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.