pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05849 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · hep-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Probing the Evolution of Dark Energy: A Joint Analysis of DESI DR2, Pantheon+, and Cosmic Chronometers

Chanchal Kumari , Dinesh Kumar
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO hep-ph
keywords dark energyequation of statecosmological parametersbaryon acoustic oscillationstype Ia supernovaeHubble parametermodel comparisonLambda CDM
0
0 comments X

The pith

Joint analysis of recent observations indicates that dark energy may evolve over time rather than remaining constant.

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

The paper examines whether dark energy, which drives the universe's accelerated expansion, has a constant or changing nature by combining measurements of the Hubble parameter from cosmic chronometers, baryon acoustic oscillations from DESI DR2, and Type Ia supernovae from Pantheon+. It finds that models allowing the dark energy equation of state to vary with time provide a significantly better match to the combined data than the standard Lambda CDM model with a fixed cosmological constant. This improvement suggests a possible departure from the present-day value of negative one for the equation of state parameter, with hints of negative evolution in more flexible models. While the data cannot yet pinpoint the exact form of any variation, information criteria favor the dynamical models, pointing to the need for more precise future measurements to confirm the trend.

Core claim

A joint analysis using cosmic chronometer Hubble parameter data, DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, and the Pantheon+ Type Ia supernova sample demonstrates that phenomenological parameterizations allowing a time-varying dark energy equation of state yield improved fits compared to the Lambda CDM model. The present-day equation-of-state parameter shows departure from the cosmological constant value of -1, while the evolution parameter in two-parameter models tends toward negative values. Model comparison via information criteria indicates that dynamical dark energy scenarios are preferred, with the simplest one-parameter extension being the most parsimonious among the tested 1

What carries the argument

Phenomenological one- and two-parameter forms for the redshift-dependent dark energy equation of state, constrained via joint likelihood analysis of the three late-time cosmological datasets.

If this is right

  • Dynamical dark energy models provide a better overall fit to the observations than the constant dark energy of Lambda CDM.
  • The present-day equation of state departs from -1, hinting at evolution.
  • Two-parameter models show a negative evolution parameter, though constraints are not tight enough to distinguish forms.
  • Information criteria support the one-parameter dynamical model as the favored scenario over Lambda CDM.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This approach of combining independent late-time probes may help resolve or clarify existing cosmological tensions such as the Hubble constant discrepancy.
  • If the trend holds, it would imply that dark energy is not a simple constant but has dynamics that future surveys could map in detail.
  • Extensions to include early-universe data or alternative parameterizations could test the robustness of the preference for variation.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen one- and two-parameter phenomenological forms sufficiently represent any actual time dependence of dark energy, without unmodeled systematics in the datasets producing a false signal of improvement.

What would settle it

Future high-precision measurements from next-generation surveys showing that the equation of state remains fixed at -1 across redshifts, or that the fit improvement disappears when additional data or systematics are included.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05849 by Chanchal Kumari, Dinesh Kumar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: One-dimensional posterior distributions and two-dimensional confidence contours at 68% and 95% CL for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate several phenomenological dark energy parameterizations using a joint analysis of late-time cosmological observations, including cosmic-chromatometer measurements of the Hubble parameter, DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation data, and the Pantheon+ Type Ia supernova sample. Our results show that allowing for a time-varying dark energy equation of state significantly improves the overall fit compared to $\Lambda$CDM. The present-day equation-of-state parameter departs from the standard cosmological constant value. In contrast, the evolution parameter in two-parameter models tends to be negative, indicating a possible time dependence of dark energy. However, the constraints on the evolution remain moderate, and current data cannot clearly distinguish the specific functional form of dark energy. Model comparison using information criteria suggests that dynamical dark energy models are favored over $\Lambda$CDM, with the most straightforward one-parameter extension emerging as the most parsimonious scenario. These findings indicate a mild preference for dark energy evolution, though future high-precision observations will be required for definitive conclusions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript performs a joint cosmological analysis of DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Pantheon+ Type Ia supernovae, and cosmic chronometer H(z) data to constrain phenomenological dark energy models. It reports that one- and two-parameter extensions allowing time-varying w(a) yield improved fits over ΛCDM according to information criteria, with the present-day w0 departing from -1 and a negative wa in two-parameter cases, although constraints on the evolution parameter remain moderate and the data cannot yet distinguish specific functional forms.

Significance. If the central results prove robust, the work supplies updated late-time constraints on dark energy dynamics that incorporate the newest DESI DR2 release alongside complementary probes. The explicit model-comparison ranking that identifies the simplest one-parameter extension as most parsimonious is a useful contribution, and the moderate preference for evolution could help prioritize follow-up analyses with future surveys.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results and model comparison] The attribution of the reported χ² improvement and w0 shift to genuine dark energy evolution (rather than residual dataset tensions or unmodeled systematics) is load-bearing for the strongest claim. The manuscript does not appear to present explicit consistency tests—such as separate fits to each probe, cross-validation, or full propagation of inter-probe covariances—that would isolate the source of the fit gain. Without these, the flexible w0+wa parameterization can absorb modest calibration biases in any one dataset.
  2. [Model selection and discussion] The information-criteria preference for dynamical models is presented as evidence of mild evolution, yet the abstract and results note only moderate constraints on wa. The manuscript should quantify how sensitive the AIC/BIC rankings are to reasonable variations in data cuts, priors, or the precise treatment of cosmic-chronometer uncertainties, as these directly affect whether the one-parameter model remains the favored scenario.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it quoted the numerical best-fit values and uncertainties for w0 and wa (with 1σ errors) rather than qualitative statements about departure from -1.
  2. [Methods] Notation for the dark-energy equation-of-state parameterizations should be defined once in the methods section and used consistently; any assumed flat priors on w0 and wa should be stated explicitly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis. We agree that additional consistency checks and sensitivity tests are valuable for strengthening the interpretation of our results. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and provide point-by-point responses below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The attribution of the reported χ² improvement and w0 shift to genuine dark energy evolution (rather than residual dataset tensions or unmodeled systematics) is load-bearing for the strongest claim. The manuscript does not appear to present explicit consistency tests—such as separate fits to each probe, cross-validation, or full propagation of inter-probe covariances—that would isolate the source of the fit gain. Without these, the flexible w0+wa parameterization can absorb modest calibration biases in any one dataset.

    Authors: We agree that isolating the source of the fit improvement is important to rule out tensions or systematics. In the revised manuscript we have added individual fits to each probe separately, leave-one-out cross-validation (omitting one dataset at a time), and explicit checks that the full inter-probe covariance is propagated in the joint likelihood. These new results, presented in an expanded Section 4 and a new supplementary figure, show that the χ² gain and w0 shift are not dominated by any single probe and remain present in the joint analysis. We therefore maintain that the preference is not an artifact of unmodeled biases in one dataset, while acknowledging that future data will be needed for definitive confirmation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The information-criteria preference for dynamical models is presented as evidence of mild evolution, yet the abstract and results note only moderate constraints on wa. The manuscript should quantify how sensitive the AIC/BIC rankings are to reasonable variations in data cuts, priors, or the precise treatment of cosmic-chronometer uncertainties, as these directly affect whether the one-parameter model remains the favored scenario.

    Authors: We concur that quantifying the robustness of the AIC/BIC rankings is necessary. We have performed a suite of sensitivity tests by varying data cuts (e.g., redshift ranges for cosmic chronometers), adjusting priors on w0 and wa, and using alternative treatments of chronometer uncertainties (including different covariance assumptions). The results, now summarized in a new table and subsection, show that the one-parameter extension remains the most parsimonious model across these variations, with ΔAIC and ΔBIC values changing by only a few units. This supports the stability of our model-selection conclusions while we continue to emphasize the moderate constraints on wa. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard joint parameter constraints from independent datasets

full rationale

The paper conducts a joint likelihood analysis of three independent late-time probes (DESI DR2 BAO, Pantheon+ SNIa, cosmic-chronometer H(z)) to constrain phenomenological w(z) parameterizations (one- and two-parameter forms) and compares them to ΛCDM via information criteria. All reported results are direct posterior constraints and ΔAIC/ΔBIC values obtained from the data; no derivation chain, first-principles prediction, or self-referential quantity is claimed. No equations reduce fitted parameters to themselves by construction, and no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems are invoked. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard cosmological assumptions plus the choice of specific phenomenological forms for w(z); no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • w0 (present-day equation-of-state)
    Fitted parameter in all models; central claim depends on its departure from -1.
  • wa or equivalent evolution parameter
    Fitted in two-parameter models; sign and magnitude drive the preference for time variation.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Flat FLRW metric and standard Friedmann equations govern the background expansion
    Invoked implicitly when converting BAO, SN, and chronometer data into constraints on dark energy.
  • domain assumption The chosen phenomenological parameterizations (CPL, etc.) are sufficient to capture any true time dependence
    The paper tests several forms but the claim of improved fit assumes these forms are representative.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5478 in / 1376 out tokens · 44442 ms · 2026-05-10T18:55:54.904504+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant

    A. G. Riesset al.[Supernova Search Team], “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant,” Astron. J.116(1998), 1009- 1038 doi:10.1086/300499 [arXiv:astro-ph/9805201 [astro- ph]]

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/300499 1998

  2. [2]

    Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae

    S. Perlmutteret al.[Supernova Cosmology Project], “Mea- surements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae,” Astrophys. J.517(1999), 565-586 doi:10.1086/307221 [arXiv:astro-ph/9812133 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/307221 1999

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    D. J. Eisensteinet al.[SDSS], “Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Func- tion of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies,” Astrophys. J.633(2005), 560-574 doi:10.1086/466512 [arXiv:astro- ph/0501171 [astro-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1086/466512 2005

  4. [4]

    2008 , month = jan, journal =

    W. J. Percival, S. Cole, D. J. Eisenstein, R. C. Nichol, J. A. Peacock, A. C. Pope and A. S. Szalay, “Measur- ing the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation scale using the SDSS and 2dFGRS,” Mon.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 381(2007), 1053-1066 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12268.x [arXiv:0705.3323 [astro-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12268.x 2007

  5. [5]

    D. N. Spergelet al.[WMAP], Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148(2003), 175-194 doi:10.1086/377226 [arXiv:astro- ph/0302209 [astro-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1086/377226 2003

  6. [6]

    C. L. Bennettet al.[WMAP], Astrophys. J. Suppl.148 (2003), 1-27 doi:10.1086/377253 [arXiv:astro-ph/0302207 [astro-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1086/377253 2003

  7. [7]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641 (2020), A6 [erratum: Astron. Astrophys.652(2021), 7 C4] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  8. [8]

    High precision analytical description of the allowed beta spectrum shape

    S. Weinberg, “The Cosmological Constant Problem,” Rev. Mod. Phys.61(1989), 1-23 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys. 61.1

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys 1989

  9. [9]

    A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano, D. O. Jones, Y. Murakami, L. Breuval and T. G. Brink,et al.Astrophys. J. Lett.934(2022) no.1, L7 doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b [arXiv:2112.04510 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b 2022

  10. [10]

    Fern´andez Arenas, E

    D. Fern´andez Arenas, E. Terlevich, R. Terlevich, J. Melnick, R. Ch ´avez, F. Bresolin, E. Telles, M. Plionis and S. Basi- lakos, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.474(2018) no.1, 1250- 1276 doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2710 [arXiv:1710.05951 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2710 2018

  11. [12]

    K. C. Wonget al.[H0LiCOW], Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 498(2020) no.1, 1420-1439 doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3094 [arXiv:1907.04869 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3094 2020

  12. [13]

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, D. Hatt, T. J. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, R. L. Beaton, C. R. Burns, M. G. Lee, A. J. Mon- son and J. R. Neeley,et al.Astrophys. J.882(2019), 34 doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f73 [arXiv:1907.05922 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f73 2019

  13. [16]

    D. W. Pesce, J. A. Braatz, M. J. Reid, A. G. Riess, D. Scolnic, J. J. Condon, F. Gao, C. Henkel, C. M. V . Impellizzeri and C. Y. Kuo,et al.Astrophys. J. Lett.891(2020) no.1, L1 doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f0 [arXiv:2001.09213 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f0 2020

  14. [17]

    de Jaeger, B

    T. de Jaeger, B. E. Stahl, W. Zheng, A. V . Filippenko, A. G. Riess and L. Galbany, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 496(2020) no.3, 3402-3411 doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1801 [arXiv:2006.03412 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1801 2020

  15. [18]

    Schombert, S

    J. Schombert, S. McGaugh and F. Lelli, Astron. J.160(2020) no.2, 71 doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab9d88 [arXiv:2006.08615 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab9d88 2020

  16. [19]

    J. P . Blakeslee, J. B. Jensen, C. P . Ma, P . A. Milne and J. E. Greene, Astrophys. J.911(2021) no.1, 65 doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe86a [arXiv:2101.02221 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe86a 2021

  17. [20]

    Montani, L

    G. Montani, L. A. Escamilla, N. Carlevaro and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. D113(2026) no.2, 023507 doi:10.1103/mn69-1dn6 [arXiv:2512.20193 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1103/mn69-1dn6 2026

  18. [21]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A1, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880 22 LILA Black Hole Binary Detection Landscape&Science CasesNguyenet al.2026

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641(2020), A1 doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880 [arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880 2020

  19. [23]

    Louiset al.[Atacama Cosmology Telescope], JCAP 11(2025), 062 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062 [arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]]

    T. Louiset al.[Atacama Cosmology Telescope], JCAP 11(2025), 062 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062 [arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062 2025

  20. [24]

    Camphuiset al.[SPT-3G], Phys

    E. Camphuiset al.[SPT-3G], Phys. Rev. D113(2026) no.8, 083504 doi:10.1103/7wt3-9v2y [arXiv:2506.20707 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1103/7wt3-9v2y 2026

  21. [25]

    The Local Distance Network: a community consensus report on the measurement of the Hubble constant at 1% precision

    S. Casertanoet al.[H0DN], [arXiv:2510.23823 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [26]

    Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe

    L. Verde, T. Treu and A. G. Riess, Nature Astron.3(2019), 891 doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0 [arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0 2019

  23. [27]

    A. G. Riess, Nature Rev. Phys.2(2019) no.1, 10-12 doi:10.1038/s42254-019-0137-0 [arXiv:2001.03624 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-019-0137-0 2019

  24. [28]

    The strong coupling constant: state of the art and the decade ahead,

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav.38(2021) no.15, 153001 doi:10.1088/1361- 6382/ac086d [arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1361- 2021

  25. [29]

    2022, NewAR, 95, 101659, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev. 95(2022), 101659 doi:10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659 [arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659 2022

  26. [30]

    Cosmology Intertwined: A Review of the Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology Associated with the Cosmological Tensions and Anomalies

    E. Abdalla, G. Franco Abell ´an, A. Aboubrahim, A. Ag- nello, O. Akarsu, Y. Akrami, G. Alestas, D. Aloni, L. Amen- dola and L. A. Anchordoqui,et al.JHEAp34(2022), 49-211 doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 [arXiv:2203.06142 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 2022

  27. [31]

    Di Valentino, Universe8(2022) no.8, 399 doi:10.3390/universe8080399

    E. Di Valentino, Universe8(2022) no.8, 399 doi:10.3390/universe8080399

    work page doi:10.3390/universe8080399 2022

  28. [32]

    J. P . Hu and F. Y. Wang, Universe9(2023) no.2, 94 doi:10.3390/universe9020094 [arXiv:2302.05709 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.3390/universe9020094 2023

  29. [33]

    Knox and M

    L. Knox and M. Millea, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.4, 043533 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043533 [arXiv:1908.03663 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.043533 2020

  30. [34]

    Di Valentino, L

    E. Di Valentino, L. A. Anchordoqui, O. Akarsu, Y. Ali-Haimoud, L. Amendola, N. Arendse, M. Asgari, M. Ballardini, S. Basilakos and E. Battistelli,et al.Astropart. Phys.131(2021), 102605 doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2021.102605 [arXiv:2008.11284 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2021.102605 2021

  31. [35]

    Kamionkowski and A

    M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73(2023), 153-180 doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-111422- 024107 [arXiv:2211.04492 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-111422- 2023

  32. [36]

    A. R. Khalife, M. B. Zanjani, S. Galli, S. G ¨unther, J. Lesgourgues and K. Benabed, JCAP04(2024), 059 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/059 [arXiv:2312.09814 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/059 2024

  33. [37]

    Astier,Can luminosity distance measurements probe the equation of state of dark energy, Phys

    P . Astier,Can luminosity distance measurements probe the equation of state of dark energy, Phys. Lett. B500, 8 (2001)

    2001

  34. [38]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski,Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001)

    2001

  35. [39]

    E. V . Linder,Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003)

    2003

  36. [40]

    Weller and A

    J. Weller and A. Albrecht,Future supernovae observations as a probe of dark energy, Phys. Rev. D65, 103512 (2002)

    2002

  37. [41]

    H. K. Jassal, J. S. Bagla and T. Padmanabhan,Observational constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy: How consistent are different observations?, Phys. Rev. D72, 103503 (2005). 8

    2005

  38. [42]

    E. V . Linder and D. Huterer,How many dark energy parame- ters?, Phys. Rev. D72, 043509 (2005)

    2005

  39. [43]

    Y. g. Gong and Y. Z. Zhang,Probing the curvature and dark energy, Phys. Rev. D72, 043518 (2005)

    2005

  40. [44]

    Nesseris and L

    S. Nesseris and L. Perivolaropoulos,Comparison of the legacy and gold SNIA dataset constraints on dark energy mod- els, Phys. Rev. D72, 123519 (2005)

    2005

  41. [45]

    B. Feng, M. Li, Y. S. Piao and X. Zhang,Oscillating quintom and the recurrent universe, Phys. Lett. B634, 101 (2006)

    2006

  42. [46]

    Basilakos and N

    S. Basilakos and N. Voglis,Virialization of cosmological struc- tures in models with time varying equation of state, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.374, 269 (2007)

    2007

  43. [47]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov,The Oscillating dark energy: Future singularity and coincidence problem, Phys. Lett. B637, 139 (2006)

    2006

  44. [48]

    E. N. Saridakis,Theoretical Limits on the Equation-of-State Parameter of Phantom Cosmology, Phys. Lett. B676, 7 (2009)

    2009

  45. [49]

    E. M. Barboza, Jr. and J. S. Alcaniz,A parametric model for dark energy, Phys. Lett. B666, 415 (2008)

    2008

  46. [50]

    E. N. Saridakis,Phantom evolution in power-law potentials, Nucl. Phys. B819, 116 (2009)

    2009

  47. [51]

    Dutta, E

    S. Dutta, E. N. Saridakis and R. J. Scherrer,Dark energy from a quintessence (phantom) field rolling near a potential minimum (maximum), Phys. Rev. D79, 103005 (2009)

    2009

  48. [52]

    E. N. Saridakis,Quintom evolution in power-law potentials, Nucl. Phys. B830, 374 (2010)

    2010

  49. [53]

    J. Z. Ma and X. Zhang,Probing the dynamics of dark energy with novel parametrizations, Phys. Lett. B699, 233 (2011)

    2011

  50. [54]

    Feng and T

    L. Feng and T. Lu,A new equation of state for dark energy model, JCAP1111, 034 (2011)

    2011

  51. [55]

    C. J. Feng, X. Y. Shen, P . Li and X. Z. Li,A New Class of Parametrization for Dark Energy without Divergence, JCAP 1209, 023 (2012)

    2012

  52. [56]

    De Felice, S

    A. De Felice, S. Nesseris and S. Tsujikawa,Observational constraints on dark energy with a fast varying equation of state, JCAP1205, 029 (2012)

    2012

  53. [57]

    X. m. Chen, Y. Gong, E. N. Saridakis and Y. Gong,Time- dependent interacting dark energy and transient acceleration, Int. J. Theor. Phys.53, 469 (2014)

    2014

  54. [58]

    Basilakos and J

    S. Basilakos and J. Sol´a,Effective equation of state for running vacuum: ‘mirage’ quintessence and phantom dark energy, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.437, no. 4, 3331 (2014)

    2014

  55. [59]

    Umilt`a, M

    C. Umilt`a, M. Ballardini, F. Finelli and D. Paoletti,CMB and BAO constraints for an induced gravity dark energy model with a quartic potential,JCAP1508, 017 (2015)

    2015

  56. [60]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri and J. Silk,Reconciling Planck with the local value of H0 in extended parameter space, Phys. Lett. B761, 242 (2016)

    2016

  57. [61]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, E. V . Linder and J. Silk, Constraining Dark Energy Dynamics in Extended Parameter Space, Phys. Rev. D96, 023523 (2017)

    2017

  58. [62]

    Di Valentino,Crack in the cosmological paradigm, Nat

    E. Di Valentino,Crack in the cosmological paradigm, Nat. Astron.1, 569 (2017)

    2017

  59. [63]

    G. B. Zhaoet al.,Dynamical dark energy in light of the latest observations, Nat. Astron.1, 627 (2017)

    2017

  60. [64]

    Di Valentino, E

    E. Di Valentino, E. V . Linder and A. Melchiorri,Vacuum phase transition solves the H0 tension,Phys. Rev. D97, no. 4, 043528 (2018)

    2018

  61. [65]

    R. J. F. Marcondes and S. Pan,Cosmic chronometers con- straints on some fast-varying dark energy equations of state [arXiv:1711.06157 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv

  62. [66]

    W. Yang, S. Pan and A. Paliathanasis,Latest astronomical constraints on some nonlinear parametric dark energy models, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.475, 2605 (2018)

    2018

  63. [67]

    S. Pan, E. N. Saridakis and W. Yang,Observational Con- straints on Oscillating Dark-Energy Parametrizations,Phys. Rev. D98, no. 6, 063510 (2018)

    2018

  64. [68]

    T. N. Li, Y. H. Li, G. H. Du, P . J. Wu, L. Feng, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) no.6, 608 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14279-7 [arXiv:2411.08639 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14279-7 2025

  65. [69]

    A. G. Adameet al.[DESI], JCAP02(2025), 021 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 [arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 2025

  66. [70]

    Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.8, 083515 doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 [arXiv:2503.14738 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 2025

  67. [72]

    Impact of systematics on cosmological parameters from future galaxy cluster surveys,

    L. Salvati, M. Douspis and N. Aghanim, “Impact of systematics on cosmological parameters from future galaxy cluster surveys,” Astron. Astrophys.643(2020), A20 doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038465 [arXiv:2005.10204 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038465 2020

  68. [73]

    Re- search on Carbon Emissions Estimation in Key Industries Based on the Electricity–Energy–Carbon Model: A Case Study of Henan Province,

    Y. Wang, H. Ji, S. Wang, H. Wang, J. Shi and J. Shi, “Re- search on Carbon Emissions Estimation in Key Industries Based on the Electricity–Energy–Carbon Model: A Case Study of Henan Province,” Energies17(2024) no.12, 2933. doi:10.3390/en17122933

    work page doi:10.3390/en17122933 2024

  69. [74]

    Ryden, Introduction to Cosmology; Addison-Wesley: San Francisco, CA, USA (2003)

    B. Ryden, Introduction to Cosmology; Addison-Wesley: San Francisco, CA, USA (2003)

    2003

  70. [75]

    Jimenez and A

    R. Jimenez and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J.573(2002), 37-42 doi:10.1086/340549 [arXiv:astro-ph/0106145 [astro-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1086/340549 2002

  71. [76]

    Mastache, W

    M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maras- ton, L. Verde, D. Thomas, A. Citro, R. Tojeiro and D. Wilkinson, JCAP05(2016), 014 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2016/05/014 [arXiv:1601.01701 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475- 2016

  72. [77]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Bac- cigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. Barreiro, N. Bar- tolo, S. Basak, et al., Planck 2018 results-vi. cosmological parameters, Astronomy & Astrophysics 641 (2020) A6

    2018

  73. [78]

    M., Freire, P

    D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A. G. Riess, T. M. Davis, A. Dwomoh, D. O. Jones, N. Ali, P . Charvu and R. Chen, et al.Astrophys. J.938(2022) no.2, 113 doi:10.3847/1538- 4357/ac8b7a [arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538- 2022

  74. [79]

    and Lang, Dustin and Goodman, Jonathan , title =

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Good- man, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125(2013), 306-312 doi:10.1086/670067 [arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]]

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013