Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Metastable dark energy—a dark-energy component that decays at a constant rate like a radioactive substance—remains a viable explanation of cosmic acceleration, with current data showing only mild, dataset-dependent hints of a nonzero decay

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 ↗

Metastable dark energy, where the vacuum energy decays at a constant rate, fits the data but is not required: some combinations show 2-3 sigma hints of decay, none decisively beats the cosmological constant.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid constraints study; the central viability conclusion holds up, and the first DESI DR1 full-shape constraints are the new contribution, but the FS discrimination claim needs validation before it carries weight. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.01844 v1 pith:3RSIFHXA submitted 2026-08-03 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Revisiting Metastable Dark Energy in Light of DESI DR2 BAO and DESI DR1 Full-Shape Measurements

Purba Mukherjee , Arman Shafieloo , Varun Sahni This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords metastable dark energydark energy decayDESI BAOfull-shape clusteringcosmological perturbationsstructure growthdark matter interactiondark radiation
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.

The reading

This paper tests whether dark energy could be metastable, decaying at a constant rate like a radioactive substance, rather than being an exactly constant cosmological constant. It constrains three decay scenarios—fading dark energy, decay into dark matter, and decay into dark radiation—using DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations, supernovae, CMB data, and, for the first time, DESI DR1 full-shape galaxy clustering. The late-time distance data mildly prefer a positive decay rate, which would make dark energy quintessence-like at low redshift, but including CMB data pulls the decay rate back to zero. The full-shape clustering data discriminate the decay channels: the pure-fading model shows a deviation beyond 2σ in the combined analysis, while the dark-matter and dark-radiation channels remain consistent with ΛCDM within 2σ. The paper concludes metastable dark energy is still viable, but there is no decisive evidence for a nonzero decay rate.

Core claim

The paper establishes that a constant 'radioactive' decay rate Γ for dark energy, measured in units of the Hubble rate H0, is compatible with the full current data set. For distance data alone (DESI DR2 BAO plus supernovae), the posterior for Γ/H0 shifts positive by about 2σ, corresponding to a dark-energy density that decreases with time and an effective equation of state w > -1 at low redshift. Adding CMB data from Planck or Planck+ACT removes this preference, making Γ/H0 consistent with the ΛCDM value of zero. The DESI DR1 full-shape analysis, which is new for these models, breaks the degeneracy between decay channels: decaying into dark matter changes the matter abundance and perturbatio

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimensionless decay rate Γ/H0, defined by the radioactive-like law ρ_DE ∝ exp(-Γt) for the dark-energy density. This single parameter controls three different physical channels: Model 1 lets the dark-energy density fade with an effective equation of state w = -1 + Γ/(3H); Model 2 transfers energy to non-baryonic dark matter, altering both the background matter abundance and the dark-matter perturbation equations; Model 3 creates a dark-radiation component with no primordial abundance. The analysis machinery consists of a modified Boltzmann solver that evolves the linear perturbations for each channel and feeds the power spectra and growth quantities into the DESI DR

Load-bearing premise

The full-shape analysis assumes the galaxy bias and noise model tuned for standard cosmology remains valid when dark-matter or dark-radiation perturbation equations are modified—a caveat the paper itself raises in Section VI, where it notes marginalized full-shape constraints can be sensitive to projection effects from nuisance-parameter marginalisation.

What would settle it

Generate mock DESI-like full-shape data from a known metastable model with a chosen nonzero Γ/H0, then re-analyse with the standard full-shape likelihood; if the recovered Γ/H0 is biased by more than the reported uncertainty, the claimed 2–3σ deviations are pipeline artefacts. Alternatively, a DESI DR2 full-shape measurement with the same modelling that returns Γ/H0 consistent with zero for Model 1 would directly undercut the paper's strongest deviation.

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

If this is right

  • If the mild positive Γ/H0 preference is real, dark energy behaves like an unstable component with a half-life comparable to the Hubble time, producing a quintessence-like effective equation of state at low redshift.
  • CMB data are the main anchor: any metastable model that noticeably adds dark radiation or changes the early matter density faces strong constraints, so late-time hints must survive CMB+SN combination to matter.
  • Full-shape clustering provides a growth-based discriminator: the dark-matter decay channel (Model 2) leaves the largest imprint on the power-spectrum amplitude and scale dependence, while dark-radiation and pure-fading channels are harder to see.
  • Model 1's >2σ deviation in the combined analysis, if confirmed, would point to a background-level modification of dark energy rather than an interacting dark sector, since Models 2 and 3 stay within 2σ.
  • Metastable dark energy fits the data slightly better than ΛCDM in several combinations (e.g., Δχ² about -12 for BBN+DESI+DES-Dovekie), but the improvement is not decisive after penalizing model complexity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is to apply the same full-shape pipeline to DESI DR2 full-shape data when they become public; if the Model 1 deviation grows or shrinks, it will separate a real background-level decay from the projection effects the paper flags in Section VI.
  • The paper's three scenarios could be embedded in a broader framework where dark energy also couples to baryons or where the decay rate varies in time; those extensions would break the current degeneracy between Γ/H0 and nuisance parameters.
  • The projection-effect caveat could be checked directly with mock catalogs: generate DESI-like clustering data from a known metastable model and see whether the standard nuisance parameterization recovers the input Γ/H0. This is a falsifiable prediction of the analysis pipeline itself.
  • If future data confirm positive Γ/H0 in Model 1, a single constant decay rate would be hard to distinguish from a slowly rolling quintessence field using distances alone; growth and clustering data would then be the primary way to tell the two apart.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constrains three metastable dark-energy scenarios governed by a constant radioactive-like decay rate Γ: an effective exponentially decaying DE component (Model 1), decay of DE into non-baryonic dark matter (Model 2), and decay of DE into dark radiation (Model 3). Using DESI DR2 BAO, three SNIa compilations, Planck or P-ACT CMB data, a BBN prior, and—for the first time—DESI DR1 full-shape clustering, the authors find that BAO+SNIa combinations mildly prefer positive Γ/H0 at the ≳2σ level, while CMB-inclusive combinations are generally consistent with Γ/H0=0. The full-shape analysis is used to argue that the three decay channels have distinct growth signatures, with Model 1 showing the largest residual deviation (Γ/H0=0.163±0.055 for Planck+FS+DES-Dovekie) while Models 2 and 3 are reported as consistent with ΛCDM within 2σ. The overall conclusion is that metastable DE remains phenomenologically viable but not decisively required. The paper includes modified CLASS perturbation equations, extensive tables of marginalized constraints, and Δχ²/DIC model comparisons.

Significance. If the full-shape pipeline is valid for the modified perturbation equations, the paper makes a useful contribution: it extends metastable-DE constraints beyond background probes and demonstrates that growth/clustering data can in principle discriminate decay channels. The treatment is honest in the important respect that Γ/H0 is fitted rather than predicted, and reconstructed derived quantities such as Om(z), w_DE(z), and fσ8(z) are not presented as independent confirmations; I found no equation-level circularity. The comprehensive Tables II–VII and the inclusion of multiple SNIa and CMB combinations are strengths. The main significance risk is the unvalidated use of standard full-shape EFT kernels for Models 2 and 3, which is load-bearing for the claimed FS discrimination.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI, Eqs. (13) and (17), Tables VI–VII] The FS discrimination claim rests on applying the DESI DR1 full-shape likelihood through velocileptors, whose one-loop EFT kernels assume standard ΛCDM second-order growth. For Model 2, Eq. (13) adds a scale-independent damping term -aΓ(ρ_DE/ρ_DM)δ_DM to the DM density contrast; for Model 3, Eqs. (17)–(18) modify the DR perturbation hierarchy with analogous -aΓ(ρ_DE/ρ_DR) terms. These changes alter the time evolution of δ and θ relative to the standard kernels. The paper notes possible projection effects in Section VI, but it does not validate the pipeline against N-body simulations or an exact perturbation-theory calculation. The reported values such as Γ/H0=0.163±0.055 (Model 1) and 0.21±0.10 (Model 2) in Table VII are therefore not yet shown to be unbiased. Since the central claim that FS discriminates the three decay channels depends on this, the FS-based conclusions are not robust w
  2. [Abstract, Section VIII, Table VII] The abstract and Section VIII state that for CMB+FS+DES-Dovekie, Models 2 and 3 remain consistent with the ΛCDM limit within 2σ. Table VII gives Γ/H0=0.21±0.10 for Model 2, which is 2.1σ from zero if the reported 68% interval is interpreted as Gaussian. This contradicts the summary statement and matters because the paper's model-discrimination narrative highlights Model 1 as the only channel with a >2σ residual. The authors should either correct the wording or derive the significance directly from the posterior (e.g. asymmetric or truncated intervals) and report it explicitly.
  3. [Section VI, 'marginalized FS constraints' caveat] The paragraph acknowledging that 'marginalized FS constraints can be sensitive to projection effects from nuisance-parameter marginalisation' is an important caveat, but it is not turned into a quantitative test. For extended models such as Models 2 and 3, the DESI baseline nuisance parameterization (bias, counterterms, stochastic terms) was developed for standard tracer templates. A concrete robustness check—e.g. analyzing synthetic FS data generated from the modified CLASS power spectra, or comparing the one-loop FS likelihood with a direct perturbation-theory computation—is needed before the claimed Model 1 >2σ deviation and the Model 2/3 discrimination are treated as reliable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (13)] The notation uses H for both the Hubble rate and the conformal Hubble rate (H=aH). This is confusing in the perturbation equations; suggest using \mathcal{H} for the conformal quantity.
  2. [Table II] The entry '<0.701' for Model 3 in the BBN+DESI row carries an unexplained footnote marker '1'. Either define the footnote or remove the marker; similar markers appear in other tables.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase 'a slight deviation from Γ/H0=0 at the ≳2σ level' is internally awkward: a 2.96σ deviation (0.163/0.055) is not 'slight'. Rephrase to 'a deviation at the ~3σ level' or similar.
  4. [Section V, Fig. 8] The DESI full-shape fσ8(z) points are described as 'extracted using the ShapeFit compression', but the figure does not state whether these are measured values with error bars or reconstruction-band inputs. Clarify the provenance and error treatment in the caption.
  5. [Section III] The CLASS modification is described only by reference; no code release or validation against an independent Boltzmann code is indicated. A short validation appendix (e.g. reproducing ΛCDM limits and checking energy conservation) would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the decay parameter Γ/H₀ is a freely fitted model parameter, and reconstructed observables are presented as derived quantities, not as independent predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that metastable dark energy with a constant decay rate remains viable given current data. The parameter Γ/H₀ is an explicit free parameter with stated priors (Table I), varied in MCMC fits to DESI DR2 BAO, SNIa, CMB, and DESI DR1 FS likelihoods. The background and perturbation equations (Eqs. 4–18) define the model rather than being fitted outputs. No step fits a parameter to one data subset and then 'predicts' the same or a closely related quantity: the reconstructed Om(z), q(z), w_DE(z), and fσ₈(z) are derived from the same posterior and are labeled as reconstructions, not as independent confirmations. The FS analysis uses the standard velocileptors pipeline; the acknowledged sensitivity to nuisance-parameter projection effects (Sec. VI) is a robustness caveat, not a circular reduction. Citations to prior work by the same authors introduce the radioactive-decay ansatz, but the equations are fully stated and the constraints come from external data, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper's claims rest on a phenomenological decay law (constant Gamma), a set of standard cosmological parameters fitted simultaneously, and specific perturbation treatments for DM and DR. No microphysical derivation of the decay rate is given, and no code artifacts are released. The key fitted quantity is Gamma/H0; the baseline cosmological and FS nuisance parameters are also fitted but are standard.

free parameters (3)
  • Gamma/H0 (decay rate parameter) = 0.29 +/- 0.12 (M1, BBN+DESI+DESDovekie); prior U(-1,2) M1/M2, U(0,2) M3
    Central fitted parameter; drives all claims about metastable DE.
  • Standard cosmological parameters (omega_b, omega_c, H0, and with CMB: tau_reio, n_s, ln(10^10 A_s)) = Vary per dataset; see Tables II-IV, VI-VII
    Simultaneously fitted background and perturbation parameters that shape the Gamma/H0 constraints.
  • DESI DR1 FS nuisance parameters (galaxy bias, counterterms, stochastic terms) = Baseline DESI choices, values not reported
    Marginalized over in FS runs; projection effects flagged as sensitive.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Spatially flat FLRW background with standard Friedmann equations (Eq. 1-2).
    Sets the geometry and background evolution for all models.
  • ad hoc to paper Constant decay rate Gamma with the radioactive decay law rho_DE proportional to exp(-Gamma t) (Eq. 4-5, 11, 15).
    The phenomenological model under test; not derived from microphysics, and the same Gamma is used across all data.
  • domain assumption Model 1: DE decays with no specified daughter product; total dark-sector energy is not conserved (Eq. 7-9).
    Used to derive w_DE = -1 + Gamma/(3H); physically an effective description.
  • domain assumption Model 2: DE remains vacuum-like and does not cluster; energy transfer parallel to DM four-velocity (Eq. 13-14).
    Chooses the perturbation response of DM; other momentum-transfer choices would change growth predictions.
  • domain assumption Model 3: DR has zero primordial abundance and is sourced only by DE decay, with standard relativistic perturbation hierarchy (Eq. 15-18).
    Sets late-time DR contribution and its clustering/free-streaming signature.
  • domain assumption DESI DR1 FS likelihood and nuisance parameterization developed for standard templates remain valid for the modified perturbation equations.
    Needed to interpret FS constraints; the paper itself warns of projection effects in Section VI.
invented entities (1)
  • Dark radiation (DR) daughter component (Model 3) independent evidence
    purpose: Receiver of energy from decaying DE; adds a late-time relativistic component affecting expansion and perturbations.
    Not a new particle in the broader literature, but introduced here as a decay product; has a falsifiable handle through CMB and FS constraints on Omega_DR.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting Metastable Dark Energy in Light of DESI DR2 BAO and DESI DR1 Full-Shape Measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3RSIFHXA

@misc{pith2026260801844,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting Metastable Dark Energy in Light of DESI DR2 BAO and DESI DR1 Full-Shape Measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3RSIFHXA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01844}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We revisit metastable dark energy (DE) models described by a radioactive-like decay law. We consider three scenarios: an effective, exponentially decaying DE component; decay of DE into non-baryonic dark matter (DM); and decay of DE into dark radiation (DR). We constrain the metastable DE models using DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) data, Type Ia supernovae (SNIa), cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations, and, for the first time, the current available DESI DR1 full-shape (FS) clustering measurements. The BAO+SNIa combinations show a mild preference for positive $\Gamma/H_0$, with a deviation from the $\Lambda$CDM limit at the $\gtrsim 2\sigma$ level. This corresponds to a decaying DE density and an effective quintessence-like behaviour at low redshift. Once CMB information from either Planck or P-ACT is included, however, the constraints become statistically consistent with $\Gamma/H_0=0$. The FS measurements probe the growth sector and help distinguish the interacting DM-DE behaviour of Model 2 from the effective decaying-DE response of Model 1 and the weaker DR-induced response of Model 3. For CMB+FS+DES-Dovekie, Model 1 shows a slight deviation from $\Gamma/H_0=0$ at the $\gtrsim 2\sigma$ level, while Models 2 and 3 remain consistent with the $\Lambda$CDM limit within $2\sigma$. Overall, metastable DE remains phenomenologically viable: current data allow late-time dynamics but do not provide decisive evidence for a nonzero decay rate. These results motivate extending our analysis to the upcoming DESI DR2 FS data to obtain tighter constraints on metastable dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01844 by Arman Shafieloo, Purba Mukherjee, Varun Sahni.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Evolution of the fractional density parameters Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Theoretical evolution of angular power spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Marginalized Constraints on Metastable DE Models. The upper row shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Marginalized Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Reconstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Reconstructed evolution of the deceleration parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Reconstructed effective DE equation of state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Reconstructed growth rate of structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. DESI DR1 full-shape power-spectrum multipoles for Model 1. The predictions show the response to different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. DESI DR1 full-shape power-spectrum multipoles for Model 2. The decay of DE into DM directly modifies the matter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. DESI DR1 full-shape power-spectrum multipoles for Model 3. The DR component produces a weaker clustering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Impact of DESI DR1 FS measurements on the metastable DE 1,2 & 3. The upper panels show the Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Marginalized 1D posterior distributions of Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Comparison between DESI DR1 BAO and DESI DR1 FS+BAO constraints in the Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png] view at source ↗

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

79 extracted references · 53 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Adding SN-Ia data tightens the contours and tends to shift the posterior toward Γ/H0 >0, indicating that late-time distance data can accommodate a decaying DE density

    The BBN+DESI constraints are generally broad in the Ω m −H 0 plane. Adding SN-Ia data tightens the contours and tends to shift the posterior toward Γ/H0 >0, indicating that late-time distance data can accommodate a decaying DE density. By contrast, CMB-based combinations give tighter constraints and pull the decay parameter closer to the ΛCDM limit, Γ/H0 ...

  2. [2]

    Γ/H 0 >0 values correspond to faster DE decay, implying a larger DE density in the past for fixed ΩDE today

    For Model 1, where the DE density decays exponen- tially, Γ/H0 modifies the late-time background expan- sion through the effective DE EoS. Γ/H 0 >0 values correspond to faster DE decay, implying a larger DE density in the past for fixed ΩDE today. This produces the correlation seen in the Γ/H 0 −Ω DE plane. Al- though the BBN+DESI+SN-Ia combinations mildl...

  3. [3]

    As a re- sult, the Ωm −H 0 contours are broader and shifted to- ward larger Ω m, especially for the BBN+DESI-based combinations

    For Model 2, where DE decays into non-baryonic DM, the decay affects both the background matter abun- 9 dance and the evolution of DM perturbations. As a re- sult, the Ωm −H 0 contours are broader and shifted to- ward larger Ω m, especially for the BBN+DESI-based combinations. Positive Γ/H 0 transfers energy from DE to DM, increasing the effective matter ...

  4. [4]

    This allows us to test avail- able CMB and SN-Ia data combinations

    CMB + DESI + SN-Ia. This allows us to test avail- able CMB and SN-Ia data combinations. The theoretical predictions are computed using a modified version ofCLASS 2 [55, 56], which implements the background and perturbation equations for the metastable DE models. Figure 1 shows the evolution of the fractional density parameters andH(z)/(1 +z), illustrating...

  5. [5]

    The BBN+DESI-based combina- tions allow positive Γ/H 0 values and hence a nonzero ΩDR

    For Model 3, where DE decays into DR, the pro- duced DR component has no primordial abundance and is sourced only by DE decay, so the model is re- stricted to Γ>0. The BBN+DESI-based combina- tions allow positive Γ/H 0 values and hence a nonzero ΩDR. Adding SN-Ia data tightens the contours while still permitting a nonzero DR abundance at 2σ. The Γ/H0 −Ω D...

  6. [6]

    The marginalized one-dimensional posteriors of Γ/H 0 are shown in Fig. 13. For Model 1, the FS combinations constrain the Γ/H 0 −Ω DE degeneracy. The BBN+FS contours are broad, while adding DES-Dovekie tightens the constraints and shifts the posterior toward positive Γ/H0. Also, Planck+FS extends toward negative Γ/H 0, but Planck+FS+DES-Dovekie again favo...

  7. [7]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062, arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    T. Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062, arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), Phys

    E. Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), Phys. Rev. D113, 083504 (2026), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    Scolnicet al., Astrophys

    D. Scolnicet al., Astrophys. J.938, 113 (2022), arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES), Astrophys. J. Lett.973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Alamet al.(eBOSS), Phys

    S. Alamet al.(eBOSS), Phys. Rev. D103, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2007.08991 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    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

  14. [14]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), JCAP09, 008, [Erratum: JCAP 02, E02 (2026)], arXiv:2411.12021 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Einstein, Sitzungsber

    A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. )1917, 142 (1917)

    1917

  16. [16]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich, A. Krasinski, and Y. B. Zeldovich, Sov. Phys. Usp.11, 381 (1968)

    1968

  17. [17]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  18. [18]

    Padmanabhan, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept.380, 235 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0212290

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  19. [19]

    Di Valentino, J

    E. Di Valentino, J. Levi Said, and E. N. Saridakis, Nature Astron.10, 180 (2026), arXiv:2509.25288 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), Phys

    E. Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101965 (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astron.3, 891 (2019), arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Casertanoet al.(H0DN), Astron

    S. Casertanoet al.(H0DN), Astron. Astrophys.708, A166 (2026), arXiv:2510.23823 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES), Dark Energy Survey Year 6 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Galaxy Cluster- ing and Weak Lensing (2026), arXiv:2601.14559 [astro- ph.CO]. 17 TABLE IX. Marginalized constraints at 68% CL for the baseline ΛCDM and metastable DE models with BBN+DESI+Union3 and BBN+DESI+PantheonPlus data combinations. The last row reports ∆χ 2...

    arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Labbeet al., Nature616, 266 (2023), arXiv:2207.12446 [astro-ph.GA]

    I. Labbeet al., Nature616, 266 (2023), arXiv:2207.12446 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Boylan-Kolchin, Nature Astron.7, 731 (2023), arXiv:2208.01611 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Boylan-Kolchin, Nature Astron.7, 731 (2023), arXiv:2208.01611 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Chevallier and D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  27. [27]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  28. [28]

    Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Mukherjee and A

    P. Mukherjee and A. A. Sen, Rept. Prog. Phys.88, 098401 (2025), arXiv:2505.19083 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Berti, E

    M. Berti, E. Bellini, C. Bonvin, M. Kunz, M. Viel, and M. Zumalacarregui, Phys. Rev. D112, 023518 (2025), arXiv:2503.13198 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    A. N. Ormondroyd, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.541, 3388 (2025), arXiv:2503.08658 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Popovicet al.(DES), Mon

    B. Popovicet al.(DES), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 548, stag632 (2026), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Lett. B545, 23 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/9908168

    arXiv 2002

  34. [34]

    Ratra and P

    B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D37, 3406 (1988). 18 TABLE XI. Marginalized constraints at 68% CL for the baseline ΛCDM and metastable DE models with P-ACT+DESI+Union3 and P-ACT+DESI+PantheonPlus data combinations. Parameter ΛCDM Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 P-ACT+DESI+Union3 ln(10 10 A s )3.062±0.011 3.066 +0.011 −0.012 3.066±0.012 3.067±0.011 n s 0...

    1988

  35. [35]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1582 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9708069

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  36. [36]

    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

  37. [37]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 251003 (2024), arXiv:2404.15232 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    R. Shah, P. Mukherjee, and S. Pal, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.542, 2936 (2025), arXiv:2503.21652 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Chakraborty, P

    A. Chakraborty, P. K. Chanda, S. Das, and K. Dutta, JCAP11, 047, arXiv:2503.10806 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  40. [40]

    Mukherjee, D

    P. Mukherjee, D. Kumar, and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 113, 063523 (2026), arXiv:2501.18335 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, Phys. Rev. D113, 023551 (2026), arXiv:2509.17586 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Naidoo, J

    K. Naidoo, J. Hallam, T. Baker, and S. Sirera, Con- straints on Horndeski Gravity with Phantom Crossing (2026), arXiv:2606.20794 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    S. S. Mishra, W. L. Matthewson, V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, and Y. Shtanov, JCAP11, 018, arXiv:2507.07193 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  44. [44]

    S. L. Guedezounme, B. R. Dinda, and R. Maartens, JCAP01, 062, arXiv:2507.18274 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  45. [45]

    X. Li, T. Liu, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, A. Shafieloo, and M. Biesiada, Astrophys. J. Lett.1001, L21 (2026), arXiv:2606.05723 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    G´ omez-Valent, Z

    A. G´ omez-Valent, Z. Zheng, and L. Amendola, Con- straints on Coupled Dark Energy in the DESI Era (2026), arXiv:2604.12032 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Parker, Phys

    L. Parker, Phys. Rev. Lett.21, 562 (1968)

    1968

  48. [48]

    R. G. Landim and E. Abdalla, Phys. Lett. B764, 271 (2017), arXiv:1611.00428 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [49]

    Jiang, M

    J.-Q. Jiang, M. A. Amin, and A. Shafieloo, Late- Time Oscillating Quintessence in Light of DESI (2026), arXiv:2606.24221 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Shafieloo, D

    A. Shafieloo, D. K. Hazra, V. Sahni, and A. A. Starobin- sky, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.473, 2760 (2018), arXiv:1610.05192 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    X. Li, A. Shafieloo, V. Sahni, and A. A. Starobinsky, Astrophys. J.887, 153 (2019), arXiv:1904.03790 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  52. [52]

    W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, S. Pan, S. Basilakos, and A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Rev. D102, 063503 (2020), arXiv:2001.04307 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    Rubinet al., Astrophys

    D. Rubinet al., Astrophys. J.986, 231 (2025), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Broutet al., Astrophys

    D. Broutet al., Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Sch¨ oneberg, JCAP06, 006, arXiv:2401.15054 [astro- ph.CO]

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, JCAP06, 006, arXiv:2401.15054 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  56. [56]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton, and G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517, 4620 (2022), arXiv:2205.10869 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    Burns, T

    A.-K. Burns, T. M. P. Tait, and M. Valli, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 86 (2024), arXiv:2307.07061 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini, and C. C. Steidel, Astrophys. J. 855, 102 (2018), arXiv:1710.11129 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [60]

    E. Aver, D. A. Berg, A. S. Hirschauer, K. A. Olive, R. W. Pogge, N. S. J. Rogers, J. J. Salzer, and E. D. Skillman, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society510, 373–382 (2021)

    2021

  61. [61]

    Lesgourgues, The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    J. Lesgourgues, The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]. 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  62. [62]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, JCAP07, 034, arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [63]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP05, 057, arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  64. [64]

    James and M

    F. James and M. Roos, Comput. Phys. Commun.10, 343 (1975)

    1975

  65. [65]

    Dembinski and P

    H. Dembinski and P. O. et al., scikit-hep/iminuit (2020)

    2020

  66. [66]

    D. J. Spiegelhalter, N. G. Best, B. P. Carlin, and A. Van Der Linde, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B64, 583 (2002)

    2002

  67. [67]

    A. R. Liddle, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.377, L74 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701113

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  68. [68]

    Grandis, D

    S. Grandis, D. Rapetti, A. Saro, J. J. Mohr, and J. P. Dietrich, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.463, 1416 (2016), arXiv:1604.06463 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  69. [69]

    Sahni, A

    V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D78, 103502 (2008), arXiv:0807.3548 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  70. [70]

    A. R. Sandage, Phys. Today 23: No. 2, 34-41(Feb 1970). 10.1063/1.3021960 (1970)

    doi:10.1063/1.3021960 1970

  71. [71]

    Huterer, Astron

    D. Huterer, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.31, 2 (2023), arXiv:2212.05003 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Brieden, H

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, and L. Verde, JCAP12(12), 054, arXiv:2106.07641 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [73]

    Mauset al., JCAP01, 138, arXiv:2404.07312 [astro- ph.CO]

    M. Mauset al., JCAP01, 138, arXiv:2404.07312 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  74. [74]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  75. [75]

    Sahni and Y

    V. Sahni and Y. Shtanov, JCAP11, 014, arXiv:astro- ph/0202346

    arXiv

  76. [76]

    A. A. Sen, S. A. Adil, and S. Sen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.518, 1098 (2022), arXiv:2112.10641 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    Ca˜ nas-Herreraet al.(Euclid), Euclid prepara- tion

    G. Ca˜ nas-Herreraet al.(Euclid), Euclid prepara- tion. XCVI. Cosmology Likelihood for Observables in Euclid (CLOE). 3. Inference and Forecasts (2025), arXiv:2510.09153 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Abateet al.(LSST Dark Energy Science), Large Syn- optic Survey Telescope: Dark Energy Science Collabora- tion (2012), arXiv:1211.0310 [astro-ph.CO]

    A. Abateet al.(LSST Dark Energy Science), Large Syn- optic Survey Telescope: Dark Energy Science Collabora- tion (2012), arXiv:1211.0310 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  79. [79]

    M. J. Grahamet al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.131, 078001 (2019), arXiv:1902.01945 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.