pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23492 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-26 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: unknown

The open-Universe signal: A model artifact rather than genuine curvature

Peng-Ju Wu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 05:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords spatial curvatureopen universeDESI DR2baryon acoustic oscillationsType Ia supernovaeΛCDM extensionsmodel selectioncosmic chronometers
0
0 comments X

The pith

Late-universe data prefer an open cosmos only when models stay too simple.

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

The paper tests whether recent observations truly indicate that the universe has negative spatial curvature. Within the standard model it finds a mild preference for an open geometry, yet this signal disappears as soon as the model is allowed extra freedom to describe the expansion history. Model-comparison statistics then favor adding new physics over adding curvature. A sympathetic reader cares because a genuine open universe would require rethinking inflation and the long-term fate of the cosmos.

Core claim

Within the standard ΛCDM model the combined DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation, Type Ia supernova, strong-lensing time-delay, and cosmic-chronometer data prefer Ω_K = 0.049 ± 0.037. This preference vanishes in extensions that allow additional parameters for the expansion history, with the data instead favoring flat geometry. Bayesian evidence shows that introducing new physics is preferred over permitting spatial curvature.

What carries the argument

The limited parameter space of baseline ΛCDM, which forces any mismatch between predicted and observed expansion rates to be absorbed into a nonzero curvature term.

If this is right

  • The universe remains spatially flat, consistent with standard inflation.
  • No revision to the long-term fate of the cosmos is required by these late-universe data.
  • Analyses should prioritize flexible expansion histories rather than curvature to avoid spurious signals.
  • The apparent open-universe preference arises from model mismatch in the assumed expansion rate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar mild anomalies in other cosmological datasets may also disappear once models are given comparable extra freedom.
  • The same modeling strategy could be applied to other tensions, such as the Hubble-constant discrepancy, to test whether they are likewise artifacts of rigidity.
  • Observers could design future surveys to separate curvature from evolving dark energy more cleanly than current data allow.

Load-bearing premise

The specific extensions to ΛCDM that were tested are complete enough to capture any additional physics that could mimic or mask curvature.

What would settle it

High-precision future measurements of the expansion history that still favor nonzero curvature even after the dark-energy equation of state is allowed to vary freely with time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23492 by Peng-Ju Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Constraints on Ω view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Model comparison results for flat and non-flat ΛCDM view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent late-Universe observations suggest an open Universe. If confirmed, such a departure from spatial flatness would carry profound implications for our understanding of cosmic inflation and the ultimate fate of the Universe. Motivated by this intriguing result and the release of new data, we revisit the question using baryon acoustic oscillation measurements from DESI DR2, multiple Type Ia supernova samples, refined strong gravitational lensing time-delay analyses, and the most up-to-date cosmic chronometer data. We find that within the $\Lambda$ cold dark matter ($\Lambda$CDM) paradigm, the combined data still prefer an open Universe with $\Omega_K=0.049\pm0.037$. However, this preference vanishes in extensions to $\Lambda$CDM, where the data instead favor a flat Universe. The model comparison shows that for $\Lambda$CDM, introducing new physics is preferred over merely allowing spatial curvature, and flat $\Lambda$CDM extensions perform better than their curved counterparts. We therefore argue that the mild open-Universe signal is an artifact of limited model flexibility, rather than a genuine feature of late-Universe observations.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes late-Universe data from DESI DR2 BAO, multiple Type Ia supernova samples, strong gravitational lensing time-delay measurements, and cosmic chronometers. Within the standard flat ΛCDM model the combined dataset yields a mild preference for positive spatial curvature (Ω_K = 0.049 ± 0.037). When the model is extended by additional parameters, this preference disappears; model-comparison statistics then favor flat extensions over their curved counterparts. The authors conclude that the apparent open-Universe signal is an artifact of insufficient model flexibility rather than a genuine feature of the observations.

Significance. If the central result is robust, the work would indicate that recent hints of non-flat geometry in late-Universe probes are largely absorbed by modest extensions to ΛCDM, thereby reducing the need to invoke spatial curvature. This has direct implications for the interpretation of cosmological tensions and for the priors adopted in inflation model-building. The multi-probe data combination is a strength provided the statistical methodology is fully documented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the exact extensions to ΛCDM that are tested (e.g., wCDM, w0waCDM, or other parameterizations), the priors placed on the new parameters, and the model-selection metric (Bayes factor, AIC, BIC, etc.) are not enumerated. These details are load-bearing for the claim that flat extensions outperform curved ones and that new physics is preferred over curvature.
  2. [§3] §3 (Data and Methodology): the joint likelihood construction, covariance handling between DESI BAO, supernova, lensing, and chronometer datasets, and the precise prior on Ω_K are not specified. Without this information the reported Ω_K = 0.049 ± 0.037 and the subsequent model-comparison results cannot be independently verified.
  3. [§5] §5 (Discussion and Conclusions): the assertion that the tested extensions are sufficient to absorb any genuine curvature signal lacks a demonstration that more general models (e.g., curvature allowed simultaneously with early-dark-energy or full late-time freedom) would not revive the Ω_K > 0 preference. This test is required to support the claim that the signal is purely a model-flexibility artifact.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The uncertainty quoted on Ω_K should be explicitly identified as 1σ (or other interval) and cross-checked for consistency with the text and any tables.
  2. [References] Ensure that all references to DESI DR2, recent supernova compilations, and lensing analyses are complete and up to date.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below, providing the requested clarifications and indicating where revisions will be made to improve the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the exact extensions to ΛCDM that are tested (e.g., wCDM, w0waCDM, or other parameterizations), the priors placed on the new parameters, and the model-selection metric (Bayes factor, AIC, BIC, etc.) are not enumerated. These details are load-bearing for the claim that flat extensions outperform curved ones and that new physics is preferred over curvature.

    Authors: We agree these details are essential for the claims. The tested extensions are wCDM (with constant w) and w0waCDM (CPL parameterization). Priors on the new parameters are flat: w ∈ [-2, 0] for wCDM; w0 ∈ [-2, 0] and wa ∈ [-3, 3] for w0waCDM. Model comparison uses AIC, BIC, and Bayes factors via nested sampling. We will revise the abstract to briefly enumerate the extensions and metrics, and add a dedicated paragraph in the methods section of the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (Data and Methodology): the joint likelihood construction, covariance handling between DESI BAO, supernova, lensing, and chronometer datasets, and the precise prior on Ω_K are not specified. Without this information the reported Ω_K = 0.049 ± 0.037 and the subsequent model-comparison results cannot be independently verified.

    Authors: We apologize for the lack of explicit detail. The joint likelihood is the product of the individual probe likelihoods (assuming statistical independence), using the full covariance matrices supplied by each survey: DESI DR2 BAO covariance, supernova covariances (including systematics from Pantheon+ or DES), time-delay lensing covariance, and chronometer covariance. The prior on Ω_K is uniform over [-0.3, 0.3]. We will expand §3 in the revised manuscript with a subsection detailing the likelihood construction, all covariances, and priors to enable independent verification. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§5] §5 (Discussion and Conclusions): the assertion that the tested extensions are sufficient to absorb any genuine curvature signal lacks a demonstration that more general models (e.g., curvature allowed simultaneously with early-dark-energy or full late-time freedom) would not revive the Ω_K > 0 preference. This test is required to support the claim that the signal is purely a model-flexibility artifact.

    Authors: We acknowledge that our conclusions are scoped to the late-time extensions tested (wCDM and w0waCDM). More general models combining curvature with early dark energy lie beyond the scope of this work, which focuses on late-Universe probes that do not directly constrain early-universe physics. We will revise the discussion to explicitly delimit the claim, note this limitation, and suggest such combined models as a direction for future investigation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: model comparisons driven by external data fits

full rationale

The paper reports standard Bayesian fits and evidence ratios on independent late-Universe datasets (DESI DR2 BAO, multiple SNIa samples, time-delay lensing, cosmic chronometers). The stated preference for Ω_K > 0 inside flat ΛCDM, its disappearance inside extensions, and the ranking of flat versus curved extensions are direct outputs of those likelihoods and model-selection metrics; no equation, parameter definition, or self-citation is shown that reduces any of these quantities to the authors' modeling choices by construction. The conclusion that the open-Universe signal is a flexibility artifact therefore rests on the external data and conventional statistics rather than on any of the enumerated circular patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is limited to elements explicitly mentioned; additional free parameters and assumptions in the extensions are not detailed.

free parameters (1)
  • Ω_K
    Curvature density parameter whose value is fitted to the combined data within ΛCDM.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption ΛCDM and its extensions provide adequate descriptions of late-universe expansion and structure formation.
    Invoked as the framework for all model comparisons and data fits.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5489 in / 1284 out tokens · 44646 ms · 2026-05-08T05:34:27.500391+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Using the tilted flat-ΛCDM and the untilted non-flat ΛCDM inflation models to measure cosmological parameters from a com- pilation of observational data,

    Chan-Gyung Park and Bharat Ratra, “Using the tilted flat-ΛCDM and the untilted non-flat ΛCDM inflation models to measure cosmological parameters from a com- pilation of observational data,” Astrophys. J.882, 158 (2019), arXiv:1801.00213 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Handley, Curvature tension: evidence for a closed universe, Phys

    Will Handley, “Curvature tension: evidence for a closed universe,” Phys. Rev. D103, L041301 (2021), arXiv:1908.09139 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Di Valentino, A

    Eleonora Di Valentino, Alessandro Melchiorri, and Joseph Silk, “Planck evidence for a closed Universe and a possible crisis for cosmology,” Nature Astron.4, 196–203 (2019), arXiv:1911.02087 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Efstathiou and S

    George Efstathiou and Steven Gratton, “The evidence for a spatially flat Universe,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 496, L91–L95 (2020), arXiv:2002.06892 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Rosenberg, S

    Erik Rosenberg, Steven Gratton, and George Efstathiou, “CMB power spectra and cosmological parameters from Planck PR4 with CamSpec,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517, 4620–4636 (2022), arXiv:2205.10869 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Astrophys

    M. Tristramet al., “Cosmological parameters derived from the final Planck data release (PR4),” Astron. Astro- phys.682, A37 (2024), arXiv:2309.10034 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Microwave background constraints on cosmological pa- rameters,

    Matias Zaldarriaga, David N. Spergel, and Uros Seljak, “Microwave background constraints on cosmological pa- rameters,” Astrophys. J.488, 1–13 (1997), arXiv:astro- ph/9702157

    work page arXiv 1997

  9. [9]

    Cosmic confusion: De- generacies among cosmological parameters derived from measurements of microwave background anisotropies,

    G. Efstathiou and J. R. Bond, “Cosmic confusion: De- generacies among cosmological parameters derived from measurements of microwave background anisotropies,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.304, 75–97 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9807103

    work page arXiv 1999

  10. [10]

    Forecast- ing cosmic parameter errors from microwave background anisotropy experiments,

    J. R. Bond, G. Efstathiou, and M. Tegmark, “Forecast- ing cosmic parameter errors from microwave background anisotropy experiments,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 291, L33–L41 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9702100

    work page arXiv 1997

  11. [11]

    The galaxy power spectrum take on spatial cur- vature and cosmic concordance,

    Sunny Vagnozzi, Eleonora Di Valentino, Stefano Gari- azzo, Alessandro Melchiorri, Olga Mena, and Joseph Silk, “The galaxy power spectrum take on spatial cur- vature and cosmic concordance,” Phys. Dark Univ.33, 100851 (2021), arXiv:2010.02230 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Eppur ` e piatto? The Cosmic Chronometers Take on Spatial Curvature and Cosmic Concordance,

    Sunny Vagnozzi, Abraham Loeb, and Michele Moresco, “Eppur ` e piatto? The Cosmic Chronometers Take on Spatial Curvature and Cosmic Concordance,” Astrophys. J.908, 84 (2021), arXiv:2011.11645 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Non-parametric spatial curvature inference using late- Universe cosmological probes,

    Suhail Dhawan, Justin Alsing, and Sunny Vagnozzi, “Non-parametric spatial curvature inference using late- Universe cosmological probes,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.506, L1–L5 (2021), arXiv:2104.02485 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), “DESI 2024 VI: cosmologi- cal constraints from the measurements of baryon acous- tic oscillations,” JCAP02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Measuring cosmic curva- ture with non-CMB observations,

    Peng-Ju Wu and Xin Zhang, “Measuring cosmic curva- ture with non-CMB observations,” Phys. Rev. D112, 063514 (2025), arXiv:2411.06356 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Jiang, D

    Jun-Qian Jiang, Davide Pedrotti, Simony Santos da Costa, and Sunny Vagnozzi, “Non-parametric late- time expansion history reconstruction and implications for the Hubble tension in light of DESI,” (2024), arXiv:2408.02365 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Model-independent H 0 within FLRW: Joint Constraints from GWTC-3 Standard Sirens and Strong Lensing Time Delays,

    Ji-Yu Song, Jing-Zhao Qi, Jing-Fei Zhang, and Xin Zhang, “Model-independent H 0 within FLRW: Joint Constraints from GWTC-3 Standard Sirens and Strong Lensing Time Delays,” Astrophys. J. Lett.985, L44 (2025), arXiv:2503.10346 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Yadav, A

    Manish Yadav, Archana Dixit, M. S. Barak, and Anirudh Pradhan, “Constraints on spatial curvature and dark energy dynamics in the wCDM model from DESI DR1 and DR2,” JHEAp50, 100514 (2026), arXiv:2512.09486 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Probing departures from $\Lambda$CDM by late-time datasets

    Himanshu Chaudhary, Vipin Kumar Sharma, Salvatore Capozziello, and G. Mustafa, “Probing Departures from ΛCDM by Late-time Datasets,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 283, 73 (2026), arXiv:2510.08339 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Dark energy, spatial curvature, and star formation efficiency from JWST photometric and spectroscopic high-redshift galaxies

    Leonardo Comini, Sunny Vagnozzi, and Abraham Loeb, “Dark energy, spatial curvature, and star formation efficiency from JWST photometric and spectroscopic high-redshift galaxies,” (2026), arXiv:2604.13866 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Du, T.-N

    Guo-Hong Du, Tian-Nuo Li, Jia-Le Ling, Yan-Hong Yao, Jing-Fei Zhang, and Xin Zhang, “Model- independent late-universe measurements ofH 0 and ΩK with the PAge-improved inverse distance ladder,” (2025), arXiv:2510.26355 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Newest Measurements of Cosmic Cur- vature with BOSS/eBOSS and DESI DR1 Baryon Acous- tic Oscillation Observations,

    Tonghua Liu, Shengjia Wang, Hengyu Wu, Shuo Cao, and Jieci Wang, “Newest Measurements of Cosmic Cur- vature with BOSS/eBOSS and DESI DR1 Baryon Acous- tic Oscillation Observations,” Astrophys. J. Lett.981, L24 (2025), arXiv:2411.14154 [astro-ph.CO]. 6

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Probing cosmic curvature with fast radio bursts and DESI DR2 data,

    J´ eferson A. S. Fortunato, Wiliam S. Hip´ olito-Ricaldi, and Gustavo E. Romero, “Probing cosmic curvature with fast radio bursts and DESI DR2 data,” Phys. Rev. D113, 023537 (2026), arXiv:2506.01504 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Quintessence and phantoms in light of DESI 2025,

    Ioannis D. Gialamas, Gert H¨ utsi, Martti Raidal, Juan Urrutia, Martin Vasar, and Hardi Veerm¨ ae, “Quintessence and phantoms in light of DESI 2025,” Phys. Rev. D112, 063551 (2025), arXiv:2506.21542 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Scalar-field dark energy models: Current and forecast constraints,

    Anowar J. Shajib and Joshua A. Frieman, “Scalar-field dark energy models: Current and forecast constraints,” Phys. Rev. D112, 063508 (2025), arXiv:2502.06929 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Giar` e, M

    William Giar` e, Miguel A. Sabogal, Rafael C. Nunes, and Eleonora Di Valentino, “Interacting Dark Energy after DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 251003 (2024), arXiv:2404.15232 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Silva, M

    Emanuelly Silva, Miguel A. Sabogal, Mateus Scherer, Rafael C. Nunes, Eleonora Di Valentino, and Suresh Kumar, “New constraints on interacting dark energy from DESI DR2 BAO observations,” Phys. Rev. D111, 123511 (2025), arXiv:2503.23225 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    In- teracting Dark Sectors in light of DESI DR2,

    Rahul Shah, Purba Mukherjee, and Supratik Pal, “In- teracting Dark Sectors in light of DESI DR2,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.542, 2936 (2025), arXiv:2503.21652 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Interacting dark energy after DESI DR2: A challenge for the ΛCDM paradigm?

    Supriya Pan, Sivasish Paul, Emmanuel N. Saridakis, and Weiqiang Yang, “Interacting dark energy after DESI DR2: A challenge for the ΛCDM paradigm?” Phys. Rev. D113, 023515 (2026), arXiv:2504.00994 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Li, P.-J

    Tian-Nuo Li, Peng-Ju Wu, Guo-Hong Du, Shang-Jie Jin, Hai-Li Li, Jing-Fei Zhang, and Xin Zhang, “Con- straints on Interacting Dark Energy Models from the DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillation and DES Supernovae Data,” Astrophys. J.976, 1 (2024), arXiv:2407.14934 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Updated cosmological con- straints on axion dark energy with DESI,

    L. A. Ure˜ na-L´ opezet al., “Updated cosmological con- straints on axion dark energy with DESI,” Phys. Rev. D 112, 103505 (2025), arXiv:2503.20178 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Sta- tus of neutrino cosmology: Standard ΛCDM, exten- sions, and tensions,

    Helena Garc´ ıa Escudero and Kevork N. Abazajian, “Sta- tus of neutrino cosmology: Standard ΛCDM, exten- sions, and tensions,” Phys. Rev. D111, 043520 (2025), arXiv:2412.05451 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Du, P.-J

    Guo-Hong Du, Peng-Ju Wu, Tian-Nuo Li, and Xin Zhang, “Impacts of dark energy on weighing neutri- nos after DESI BAO,” Eur. Phys. J. C85, 392 (2025), arXiv:2407.15640 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Du, T.-N

    Guo-Hong Du, Tian-Nuo Li, Peng-Ju Wu, Jing-Fei Zhang, and Xin Zhang, “Cosmological Preference for a Positive Neutrino Mass at 2.7σ: A Joint Analysis of DESI DR2, DESY5, and DESY1 Data,” (2025), arXiv:2507.16589 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Chen and A

    Xingang Chen and Abraham Loeb, “Evolving dark en- ergy or dark matter with an evolving equation-of-state?” JCAP07, 059 (2025), arXiv:2505.02645 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Evidence for Dynamical Dark Matter,

    Deng Wang, “Evidence for Dynamical Dark Matter,” (2025), arXiv:2504.21481 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Li, P.-J

    Tian-Nuo Li, Peng-Ju Wu, Guo-Hong Du, Yan-Hong Yao, Jing-Fei Zhang, and Xin Zhang, “Exploring non- cold dark matter in the scenario of dynamical dark en- ergy with DESI DR2 data,” Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102068 (2025), arXiv:2507.07798 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Modified Gravity Realiza- tions of Quintom Dark Energy after DESI DR2,

    Yuhang Yang, Qingqing Wang, Xin Ren, Emmanuel N. Saridakis, and Yi-Fu Cai, “Modified Gravity Realiza- tions of Quintom Dark Energy after DESI DR2,” As- trophys. J.988, 123 (2025), arXiv:2504.06784 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Odintsov, D

    Sergei D. Odintsov, Diego S´ aez-Chill´ on G´ omez, and Ger- man S. Sharov, “Modified gravity/dynamical dark energy vs ΛCDM: is the game over?” Eur. Phys. J. C85, 298 (2025), arXiv:2412.09409 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Chudaykin and M

    Anton Chudaykin and Martin Kunz, “Modified grav- ity interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI data,” Phys. Rev. D110, 123524 (2024), arXiv:2407.02558 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Quintom cosmology and modified gravity after DESI 2024,

    Yuhang Yang, Xin Ren, Qingqing Wang, Zhiyu Lu, Dongdong Zhang, Yi-Fu Cai, and Emmanuel N. Saridakis, “Quintom cosmology and modified gravity after DESI 2024,” Sci. Bull.69, 2698–2704 (2024), arXiv:2404.19437 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    How Dark Sector Equations of State Govern Interaction Sig- natures,

    Peng-Ju Wu, Ming Zhang, and Shang-Jie Jin, “How dark sector equations of state govern interaction signatures,” Phys. Rev. D113, L081302 (2026), arXiv:2512.05548 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Interactions in Scalar Field Cosmology

    Andrew P. Billyard and Alan A. Coley, “Interactions in scalar field cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D61, 083503 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908224

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  44. [44]

    Scaling solutions in general non-minimal coupling theories

    Luca Amendola, “Scaling solutions in general nonmini- mal coupling theories,” Phys. Rev. D60, 043501 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9904120

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

  45. [45]

    Effective Field Theory, Black Holes, and the Cosmological Constant

    Andrew G. Cohen, David B. Kaplan, and Ann E. Nel- son, “Effective field theory, black holes, and the cosmo- logical constant,” Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4971–4974 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9803132

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

  46. [46]

    A Model of Holographic Dark Energy

    Miao Li, “A Model of holographic dark energy,” Phys. Lett. B603, 1 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0403127

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  47. [47]

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), “DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmo- logical constraints,” Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration

    B. Popovicet al.(DES), “The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Re- sults And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration,” (2025), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

    Dillon Broutet al., “The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cos- mological Constraints,” Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Rubin et al.,Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework,Astrophys

    David Rubinet al., “Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework,” Astrophys. J.986, 231 (2025), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Moresco et al

    Michele Morescoet al., “Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes,” Living Rev. Rel.25, 6 (2022), arXiv:2201.07241 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Measuring the expansion history of the Universe with DESI Cosmic Chronometers,

    S. I. Loubser, “Measuring the expansion history of the Universe with DESI Cosmic Chronometers,” (2025), arXiv:2511.02730 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Collaboration, S

    Simon Birreret al.(TDCOSMO), “TDCOSMO 2025: Cosmological constraints from strong lensing time delays,” Astron. Astrophys.704, A63 (2025), arXiv:2506.03023 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    J., Galan, A., et al

    S. Birreret al., “TDCOSMO - IV. Hierarchical time- delay cosmography – joint inference of the Hubble con- stant and galaxy density profiles,” Astron. Astrophys. 643, A165 (2020), arXiv:2007.02941 [astro-ph.CO]. 7

    work page arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    Constraints on dark energy from TD- COSMO & SLACS lenses,

    Natalie B. Hogg, “Constraints on dark energy from TD- COSMO & SLACS lenses,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters528, L95–L100 (2024), arXiv:2310.11977 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Li, Y.-H

    Tian-Nuo Li, Yun-He Li, Guo-Hong Du, Peng-Ju Wu, Lu Feng, Jing-Fei Zhang, and Xin Zhang, “Revisiting holographic dark energy after DESI 2024,” Eur. Phys. J. C85, 608 (2025), arXiv:2411.08639 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Wu, T.-N

    Peng-Ju Wu, Tian-Nuo Li, Guo-Hong Du, and Xin Zhang, “Observational challenges to holographic and Ricci dark energy paradigms: Insights from ACT DR6 and DESI DR2*,” Chin. Phys.50, 045105 (2026), arXiv:2509.02945 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    Li and S

    Jun-Xian Li and Shuang Wang, “A comprehensive nu- merical study on four categories of holographic dark en- ergy models,” JCAP07, 047 (2025), arXiv:2412.09064 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025