Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 83 references

Revisiting the equation of state of dark energy from DESI BAO with SNe Ia and CMB

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DESI's hint of evolving dark energy does not survive a redshift-cut reanalysis.

desk verdict Worth a careful referee, but the primary BAO table has a ~20-sigma internal inconsistency in exactly the redshift bin the conclusions hinge on; the null result cannot be trusted until that is fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04353 v1 pith:XNN63P2U submitted 2026-08-05 astro-ph.CO

Jie Zheng , Da-Chun Qiang , Zhi-Qiang You , Darshan Kumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords darkenergyequationofstatew0waCDMDESIBAObaryonacousticoscillationsPantheon+supernovaeCMBdistancepriorsmodelselectionredshiftcuts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether the mild preference for dynamical dark energy reported by DESI is stable when the data are systematically divided by redshift. The authors fit the $w_0w_a$CDM model, in which the dark-energy equation of state varies as $w(z)=w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$, to DESI BAO DR2, Pantheon+ supernovae, and Planck 2018 CMB distance priors, then split the BAO and supernova samples into $zz_{\rm cut}$ subsamples. The strongest shifts appear when data in $z\sim0.4$--$0.8$ are included, reaching roughly $2\sigma$, but adding higher-redshift measurements pulls the constraints back toward $\Lambda$CDM. Information criteria show no significant preference for $w_0w_a$CDM, and the Bayesian information criterion consistently favors $\Lambda$CDM. The paper concludes that, within this data framework, the apparent dynamical-dark-energy signal is not statistically compelling and may be a statistical fluctuation or an artifact of redshift selection.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the $w_0w_a$CDM parameterization of dark energy, $w(z)=w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$ with $\Lambda$CDM recovered at $(w_0,w_a)=(-1,0)$, fitted under two complementary redshift-cut strategies: a low-redshift path $z<z_{\rm cut}$ and a high-redshift path $z>z_{\rm cut}$ for $z_{\rm cut}\in\{0.4,0.6,0.8,1.0,1.4,1.6\}$. The CMB distance priors enter every fit unchanged; only the BAO and supernova samples are cut. Two diagnostics do the work: information criteria (AIC and BIC) compare $w_0w_a$CDM with $\Lambda$CDM, and a parameter-shift statistic $\chi_p^2$, built from the difference of posterior means and covariance matrices of complementary subsamples, quantifies consistency through a probability-to-exceed.

What would settle it

Re-run the same six redshift-cut fits with the full Planck 2018 power-spectrum likelihood in place of the compressed distance priors; if any configuration then shows a $>3\sigma$ deviation from $\Lambda$CDM or an information criterion that prefers $w_0w_a$CDM, the paper's central conclusion would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, with DESI BAO DR2, Pantheon+, and compressed Planck 2018 CMB distance priors, the $w_0w_a$CDM model is not favored over $\Lambda$CDM. In every redshift-cut fit, $\Lambda$CDM ($w_0=-1$, $w_a=0$) remains inside the 95% confidence region. The largest deviation, about $2\sigma$, occurs when BAO and SNe Ia in $z\sim0.4$--$0.8$ are included, coinciding with the DESI LRG1 and LRG2 samples; excluding or adding higher-redshift data weakens the shift. AIC values give $|\Delta\mathrm{AIC}|<1$ in the most relevant cuts and at most weak evidence elsewhere, while BIC consistently penalizes the extra parameters of $w_0w_a$CDM. A parameter-shift consistency test between complementary subsamples finds no significant tension, with the smallest probability-to-exceed at $z_{\rm cut}=0.8$ being $\mathrm{PTE}=0.062$.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the compressed CMB distance priors, three numbers summarizing Planck's geometric information, capture what the full Planck 2018 measurement would say about the dark-energy parameters in every redshift-cut fit, and the paper explicitly warns that this compression is not equivalent to the full likelihood.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, the DESI DR2 preference for dynamical dark energy under this data combination is not statistically significant, and the case for new physics beyond $\Lambda$CDM is weaker than the headline DESI significances suggest.
  • The same redshift-cut pipeline applied to future DESI releases can serve as a running check of whether the apparent signal grows or continues to fluctuate as more BAO data accumulate.
  • The $z\sim0.4$--$0.8$ interval, containing the DESI LRG1 and LRG2 BAO samples, is identified as the region responsible for the largest shifts, so those two samples deserve targeted scrutiny.
  • Information criteria that penalize extra parameters, especially BIC, will continue to favor $\Lambda$CDM unless future fits improve substantially.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As a testable extension, the same six redshift-cut fits could be rerun with the full Planck 2018 power-spectrum likelihood instead of the compressed distance priors; the paper itself cautions that the compressed prior is not equivalent, so the null result could change.
  • Applying the same cut diagnostic to the DESY5 and Union3 supernova compilations, which in DESI's own fits produce stronger deviations, would show whether the fading signal is tied to Pantheon+ or is a common feature of redshift selection.
  • If the $\sim2\sigma$ shift at $z\sim0.4$--$0.8$ is genuine physics rather than noise, future DESI data should push the deviation above $3\sigma$ specifically when LRG1 and LRG2 are included; if it does not, statistical fluctuation becomes the more economical explanation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper fits the w0waCDM model to DESI BAO (claimed DR2), Pantheon+ SNe Ia, and compressed Planck CMB distance priors. It defines low-redshift (z<z_cut) and high-redshift (z>z_cut) subsamples for six cut values, reports posterior constraints on (w0, wa), information criteria relative to ΛCDM, and a parameter-shift consistency test between complementary subsamples. The central finding is that no redshift cut produces statistically robust evidence for w0waCDM over ΛCDM; the largest apparent shifts of about 2σ occur when z≈0.4–0.8 BAO and SNe Ia data are included, and the BIC consistently favors ΛCDM.

Significance. If the data inputs are correct, the analysis is a useful null check on the DESI dynamical dark energy preference: it shows that the preference is not robust across redshift selections in this data combination and reinforces earlier studies attributing shifts to the LRG1 and LRG2 BAO samples. The use of AIC/BIC and a PTE-based consistency test is standard and clearly described. However, the manuscript's reliability is conditional on the BAO data table being internally consistent and on the data-release identification being correct, and the current presentation does not allow the headline results to be reproduced from the information given.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 1 (LRG1 row)] Table 1 is internally inconsistent for the LRG1 tracer at z_eff=0.510. It lists D_M/r_d = 17.347±0.180, D_H/r_d = 21.863±0.427, and D_M/D_H = 0.622±0.017, but the first two imply D_M/D_H = 17.347/21.863 = 0.793, which disagrees with 0.622 at more than 10σ; equivalently, (D_M/D_H)×(D_H/r_d) ≈ 13.60, not 17.35. The same value 17.347±0.180 appears in the adjacent LRG2 row, strongly suggesting a copy-paste error. Using D_M/r_d = 17.347 also fails to reproduce the tabulated D_V/r_d = 12.720 through Eq. (5), which instead corresponds to D_M/r_d ≈ 13.60. Because the paper's central diagnostic identifies the z≈0.4–0.8 interval containing LRG1 and LRG2 as the source of the largest shifts, this corrupted input directly contaminates the inferences in Tables 3–5 and the quoted ~2σ shifts. The analysis must be rerun with correct DESI data or with publicly released code; as presented, the results are not reproducible from the data table.
  2. [Abstract, Sec. 2.1, Table 1 caption] The manuscript is inconsistent about which DESI release is analyzed. The abstract and Introduction state DESI DR2, but Section 2.1 says the BAO measurements are from 'the Year 1 data release from DESI, listed in Table 1,' and the Table 1 caption says the values are 'reproduced from Ref. [63]', which is the DESI DR1 paper (arXiv:2404.03002). If the table is DR1, then the conclusions cannot be attributed to DR2; if it is DR2, the text and citation are wrong. This must be corrected and the actual release identified consistently, because the paper's claimed comparison with the DESI DR2 preference depends on it.
  3. [Figs. 2–3 and Sec. 3] The paper repeatedly cites significance levels such as 1.7σ, 1.8σ, 1.9σ, and '~2σ' for the deviation from ΛCDM, but the text never defines how this significance is computed. It is not stated whether it is a Δχ² difference, a probability content of the posterior, a crossing of the w0=-1, wa=0 point by a confidence contour, or something else. Since these numbers are the paper's headline metric and are reported in every figure panel, the definition and calculation must be given in Section 2 or 3, and the reported numbers should be tied to that definition.
  4. [Sec. 4 (limitations) and Sec. 2.2] Section 4 explicitly states that the compressed CMB distance-prior framework is not equivalent to the full Planck likelihood and may lead to different model preference and parameter consistency. This is an honest caveat, but it means the paper's null conclusion cannot be read as a statement about the DESI DR2 result as published, which uses the full CMB likelihood. At minimum, a validation run with the full Planck likelihood for the no-cut case should be provided to establish that the redshift-cut conclusions are not an artifact of the prior compression; the current text asks the reader to take the adequacy of the compression on faith.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2 heading] The heading 'Data and methodoloy' contains a typo and should read 'Data and methodology'.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'accleration', 'horzion', 'comving', 'compliation', 'State IV survey', and '1,4200 square degrees'; these should be corrected in a final pass.
  3. [Table 1 header] The column header for r_M,H says 'between D_M/r_d and D_M/r_d'; it should presumably be 'between D_M/r_d and D_H/r_d'.
  4. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (13)] The formula contains 'a=1//(1+z)', which is a typo for 'a=1/(1+z)'.
  5. [Sec. 2] The manuscript does not specify the MCMC sampler, convergence criteria, or priors used for the sampled parameters; adding these details would improve reproducibility.
  6. [Data Availability Statement] The data availability statement says data will be shared on reasonable request, but the datasets are public; what is needed for reproducibility is the analysis code, so the authors should consider releasing the code or providing more detailed software references.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the analysis is a standard likelihood fit to external data, with minor self-citation and data caveats that are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper performs a standard likelihood fit of the w0waCDM parameters to external DESI BAO distance measurements, the Pantheon+ SNe Ia compilation, and compressed Planck CMB distance priors. There is no step in which a quantity is defined in terms of the quantity it is claimed to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the reported quantities are best-fit values of w0, wa, H0, Omega_m, information-criterion differences, and parameter-shift PTE values, all computed from the same likelihoods. The compressed CMB distance priors from Chen et al. are external inputs, and the paper explicitly cautions in Sec. 4 that this compressed framework is not equivalent to the full Planck power-spectrum likelihood and may lead to different model preference and parameter consistency; that is a stated limitation, not a circularity. The citation of the authors' prior work [83] as corroboration for LRG-induced shifts is not load-bearing: the shift is present in the paper's own fits, and the cited paper is not used to define the model, likelihood, or any parameter. The choice of redshift cuts after inspecting the data is a selection-effect concern that could affect the interpretation of the approximately 2-sigma shifts, but it is not an equation-level circular reduction. A separate data-integrity issue is apparent in Table 1, where the LRG1 entry D_M/r_d = 17.347 +/- 0.180 is inconsistent with the product (D_M/D_H)*(D_H/r_d) = 0.622*21.863 = 13.60, and the same D_M/r_d value is repeated for LRG2; however, inconsistency in input data is a correctness and reproducibility problem, not circularity. Under the strict definition of circularity used here, no step in the paper's derivation chain reduces to its own input, and the central claim is an empirical fit rather than a derivation from assumptions that already contain the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard cosmological modeling (flat FRW, w0wa parameterization, distance-redshift relations) and on the adequacy of compressed CMB priors and public covariance matrices. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The main hidden assumptions are the compressed CMB likelihood and the Gaussian/post-hoc treatment of the redshift-cut significance.

free parameters (5)
  • w0 = -0.87 +/- 0.06 (BAO+CMB+SN, no cut)
    Equation-of-state parameter fitted to the combined dataset; values vary per redshift cut in Tables 3 and 4.
  • wa = -0.51 (+0.22, -0.24) (BAO+CMB+SN, no cut)
    Redshift-slope parameter of the dark energy equation of state, fitted to the data.
  • Omega_m = 0.32 +/- 0.01 (BAO+CMB+SN, no cut)
    Present-day matter density parameter, fitted in the MCMC analysis.
  • H0 = 67.41 (+0.63, -0.61) km/s/Mpc (BAO+CMB+SN, no cut)
    Hubble constant, fitted and reported in Tables 3 and 4.
  • Redshift cut grid = 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.4, 1.6
    Six threshold values chosen by hand to define the low- and high-redshift subsamples; not determined by the data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Flat FRW geometry with Friedmann equation E^2(z) = Omega_m(1+z)^3 + Omega_r(1+z)^4 + Omega_DE(1+z)^(3(1+w0+wa)) e^(-3wa z/(1+z))
    Assumed background cosmology in Sec. 2, Eq. (2).
  • domain assumption The w0wa parameterization w(z) = w0 + wa z/(1+z) adequately describes dark energy
    Chosen model in Sec. 2, Eq. (1); limits the analysis to this two-parameter form.
  • ad hoc to paper Compressed CMB distance priors from Ref. [81] are sufficient for the analysis
    Sec. 2.2; the authors state that this is not equivalent to the full Planck likelihood and may affect results (Sec. 4).
  • domain assumption The Pantheon+ covariance matrix and calibration are correct for the redshift subsamples
    Sec. 2.3; relies on publicly released covariance and removal of z<0.01 data.
  • domain assumption Applying a redshift cut does not introduce selection biases in the SNe subsamples
    Assumed when forming z<zcut and z>zcut subsamples in Sec. 2 and Table 2.
  • domain assumption The parameter-shift statistic follows a chi-square distribution with 2 degrees of freedom
    Assumed Gaussian posterior, Sec. 3 Eqs. (23)-(26); may be inaccurate for small subsamples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the equation of state of dark energy from DESI BAO with SNe Ia and CMB." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XNN63P2U

@misc{pith2026260804353,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the equation of state of dark energy from DESI BAO with SNe Ia and CMB},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XNN63P2U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04353}
}
abstract

The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) have recently shown a mild preference for dynamical dark energy over the standard $\rm \Lambda$CDM model. In this paper, we analyze the $w_0w_a$CDM model using DESI BAO DR2, Pantheon+ SNe Ia, and Planck 2018 CMB distance prior data. To examine how different parts of the data affect the apparent deviation from $\rm \Lambda$CDM, we adopt two complementary redshift-cut strategies, dividing the dataset into $z<z_{\rm cut}$ and $z>z_{\rm cut}$ subsamples. We find that the most noticeable shifts occur when BAO and SNe Ia data in the redshift range $z\sim0.4$--$0.8$ are included, reaching a significance of about $\sim2\sigma$. Within this framework, the inclusion of higher-redshift measurements progressively weakens this deviation and brings the constraints closer to the $\rm \Lambda$CDM expectation. Moreover, the information criteria show no statistically significant preference between the $w_0w_a$CDM and $\rm \Lambda$CDM models, while the Bayesian information criterion consistently favors the $\rm \Lambda$CDM model. In addition, a parameter-shift consistency test reveals no statistically significant tension between complementary redshift subsamples. Within the DESI BAO DR2, Pantheon+, and CMB distance prior framework adopted here, these results do not provide statistically robust evidence favoring the $w_0w_a$CDM model over $\rm \Lambda$CDM. They instead indicate that the apparent parameter shifts under different redshift cuts may be affected by statistical fluctuations and by the limited precision and number of datapoints in the current subsamples. Our analysis provides a complementary redshift-dependent diagnostic for assessing how the inferred cosmological constraints vary under different redshift selections.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04353 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The posterior distributions of (w0, wa) from the w0waCDM fits to BAO (black dashed), BAO+CMB (blue), and BAO+CMB+SN (red), respectively. These contours indicate the 68% and 95% confidence levels. The gray dashed lines mark w0 = −1 and wa = 0 corresponding to the ΛCDM model. The deviation from the ΛCDM model is quantified at approximately 1.7σ for BAO, 1.9σ for BAO+CMB, and 1.8σ for BAO+CMB+SN. where DL(z) is the lum… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Posterior distributions of (w0, wa) for the w0waCDM model obtained from DESI BAO (black dashed), BAO+CMB (blue), and BAO+CMB+SN (red) under six high-redshift path, z > 1.6, z > 1.4, z > 1.0, z > 0.8, z > 0.6, and z > 0.4. These contours indicate the 68% and 95% confidence levels. The gray dashed lines mark w0 = −1 and wa = 0 corresponding to the ΛCDM model. For each redshift cut, the significance of the deviation fr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posterior distributions of (w0, wa) for the w0waCDM model obtained from DESI BAO (black dashed), BAO+CMB (blue), and BAO+CMB+SN (red) under six low-redshift path, z < 1.6, z < 1.4, z < 1.0, z < 0.8, z < 0.6, and z < 0.4. These contours indicate the 68% and 95% confidence levels. The gray dashed lines mark w0 = −1 and wa = 0 corresponding to the ΛCDM model. For each redshift cut, the significance of the deviation fro… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [63]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H. Awan, B. Bahr-Kalus, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, A. Bault, J. Behera, S. BenZvi, A. Bera, F. Beutler, D. Bianchi, C. Blake, R. Blum, S. Brieden, A. Brodzeller, D. Brooks, E. Buckley-Geer, E. Burtin, R. ...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.03002 2024

  2. [1]

    Heymans, L

    C. Heymans, L. Van Waerbeke, L. Miller, T. Erben, H. Hildebrandt, H. Hoekstra, T.D. Kitching, Y. Mellier, P. Simon, C. Bonnett, J. Coupon, L. Fu, J. Harnois D´ eraps, M.J. Hudson, M. Kilbinger, K. Kuijken, B. Rowe, T. Schrabback, E. Semboloni, E. van Uitert, S. Vafaei, M. Velander, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.427(1), 146 (2012). DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21952.x

    work page arXiv 2012

  3. [2]

    Potter, J.B

    C. Potter, J.B. Jensen, J. Blakeslee, P. Milne, P.M. Garnavich, P. Brown, inAmerican Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #232,American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, vol. 232 (2018),American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, vol. 232, p. 319.02

    2018

  4. [3]

    Wong, S.H

    K.C. Wong, S.H. Suyu, G.C.F. Chen, C.E. Rusu, M. Millon, D. Sluse, V. Bonvin, C.D. Fassnacht, S. Taubenberger, M.W. Auger, S. Birrer, J.H.H. Chan, F. Courbin, S. Hilbert, O. Tihhonova, T. Treu, A. Agnello, X. Ding, I. Jee, E. Komatsu, A.J. Shajib, A. Sonnenfeld, R.D. Blandford, L.V.E. Koopmans, P.J. Marshall, G. Meylan, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.498(1), 14...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3094 2020

  5. [4]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, J. Silk, Nature Astronomy4, 196 (2020). DOI 10.1038/s41550-019-0906-9

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0906-9 2020

  6. [5]

    Heymans, T

    C. Heymans, T. Tr¨ oster, M. Asgari, C. Blake, H. Hildebrandt, B. Joachimi, K. Kuijken, C.A. Lin, A.G. S´ anchez, J.L. van den Busch, A.H. Wright, A. Amon, M. Bilicki, J. de Jong, M. Crocce, A. Dvornik, T. Erben, M.C. Fortuna, F. Getman, B. Giblin, K. Glazebrook, H. Hoekstra, S. Joudaki, A. Kannawadi, F. K¨ ohlinger, C. Lidman, L. Miller, N.R. Napolitano,...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202 2021

  7. [6]

    M.D. Cao, J. Zheng, J.Z. Qi, X. Zhang, Z.H. Zhu, Astrophys. J.934(2), 108 (2022). DOI 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ce4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ce4 2022

  8. [7]

    Handley, Phys

    W. Handley, Phys. Rev. D103(4), L041301 (2021). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L041301

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.l041301 2021

Show all 83 references
  1. [8]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, J. Silk, Astrophys. J. Lett.908(1), L9 (2021). DOI 10.3847/2041-8213/abe1c4

    2021 doi

  2. [9]

    Abbott, M

    T.M.C. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. Annis, S. Avila, D. Bacon, E. Baxter, K. Bechtol, M.R. Becker, G.M. Bernstein, S. Bhargava, S. Birrer, J. Blazek, A. Brandao-Souza, S.L. Bridle, D. Brooks, E. Buckley-Geer, D.L. Burke, H...

    2022

  3. [10]

    Adame, J

    A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H. Awan, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, A. Bault, J. Behera, S. BenZvi, F. Beutler, D. Bianchi, C. Blake, R. Blum, S. Brieden, A. Brodzeller, D. Bro...

    2025

  4. [11]

    Scolnic, D

    D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A.G. Riess, T.M. Davis, A. Dwomoh, D.O. Jones, N. Ali, P. Charvu, R. Chen, E.R. Peterson, B. Popovic, B.M. Rose, C.M. Wood, P.J. Brown, K. Chambers, D.A. Coulter, K.G. Dettman, G. Dimitriadis, A.V. Filippenko, R.J. Foley, S.W. Jha, C.D. Kilpatric...

    2022 doi

  5. [12]

    Brout, D

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A.G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz, R. Kessler, T.M. Davis, S. Hinton, D. Jones, W.D. Kenworthy, E.R. Peterson, K. Said, G. Taylor, N. Ali, P. Armstrong, P. Charvu, A. Dwomoh, C. Meldorf, A. Palmese, H. Qu, B.M. Rose, B. Sanchez, C.W. Stubbs, M. Vi...

    2022

  6. [13]

    Rubin, G

    D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, X. Huang, A.G. Kim, C. Lidman, E. Linder, S. Perlmutter, P. Ruiz-Lapuente, N. Suzuki, Astrophys. J.986(2), 231 (2025). DOI 10.3847/1538-4357/adc0a5

    2025 doi

  7. [14]

    Abbott, M

    DES Collaboration, T.M.C. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. Annis, P. Armstrong, J. Asorey, S. Avila, D. Bacon, B.A. Bassett, K. Bechtol, P.H. Bernardinelli, G.M. Bernstein, E. Bertin, J. Blazek, S. Bocquet, D. Broo...

    2024

  8. [15]

    Vincenzi, D

    M. Vincenzi, D. Brout, P. Armstrong, B. Popovic, G. Taylor, M. Acevedo, R. Camilleri, R. Chen, T.M. Davis, J. Lee, C. Lidman, S.R. Hinton, L. Kelsey, R. Kessler, A. M¨ oller, H. Qu, M. Sako, B. Sanchez, D. Scolnic, M. Smith, M. Sullivan, P. Wiseman, J. Asorey, B.A. Bassett, D....

    2024

  9. [16]

    S´ anchez, D

    B.O. S´ anchez, D. Brout, M. Vincenzi, M. Sako, K. Herner, R. Kessler, T.M. Davis, D. Scolnic, M. Acevedo, J. Lee, A. M¨ oller, H. Qu, L. Kelsey, P. Wiseman, P. Armstrong, B. Rose, R. Camilleri, R. Chen, L. Galbany, E. Kovacs, C. Lidman, B. Popovic, M. Smith, P. Shah, M. Sulli...

    2024

  10. [17]

    Adame, J

    A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H. Awan, B. Bahr-Kalus, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, A. Bault, J. Behera, S. BenZvi, A. Bera, F. Beutler, D. Bianchi, C. Blake, R. Blum, S. Briede...

    2025

  11. [18]

    Abdul Karim, et al., Phys

    M. Abdul Karim, et al., Phys. Rev. D112(8), 083515 (2025). DOI 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

    2025 doi

  12. [19]

    Huang, R.G

    L. Huang, R.G. Cai, S.J. Wang, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2502.04212 (2025). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2502.04212

    2025 doi arXiv

  13. [20]

    Qiang, J.Y

    D.C. Qiang, J.Y. Jia, H. Wei, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2507.09981 (2025). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2507.09981

    2025 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Y.H. Pang, X. Zhang, Q.G. Huang, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025(4), 057 (2025). DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/057

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    Huang, R.G

    L. Huang, R.G. Cai, S.J. Wang, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy68(10), 100413 (2025). DOI 10.1007/s11433- 025-2754-5

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    Efstathiou, Mon

    G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.538(2), 875 (2025). DOI 10.1093/mnras/staf301

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    Cortˆ es, A.R

    M. Cortˆ es, A.R. Liddle, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2024(12), 007 (2024). DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/007

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    C.G. Park, B. Ratra, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2501.03480 (2025). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2501.03480

    2025 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Dhawan, B

    S. Dhawan, B. Popovic, A. Goobar, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.540(2), 1626 (2025). DOI 10.1093/mnras/staf779

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    Roy Choudhury, T

    S. Roy Choudhury, T. Okumura, Astrophys. J. Lett.976(1), L11 (2024). DOI 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8c26

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Allali, A

    I.J. Allali, A. Notari, F. Rompineve, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025(3), 023 (2025). DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/03/023

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    Sakr, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2501.08915 (2025)

    Z. Sakr, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2501.08915 (2025). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2501.08915

    2025 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    Sakr, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2501.14366 (2025)

    Z. Sakr, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2501.14366 (2025). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14366

    2025 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    C.G. Park, J. de Cruz Perez, B. Ratra, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2410.13627 (2024). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2410.13627

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2412.12905 (2024). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2412.12905

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    ´O Colg´ ain, S

    E. ´O Colg´ ain, S. Pourojaghi, M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari, European Physical Journal C85(3), 286 (2025). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052- 025-13995-4

    2025 doi

  27. [36]

    Z. Wang, S. Lin, Z. Ding, B. Hu, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.534(4), 3869 (2024). DOI 10.1093/mnras/stae2309

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    Huang, J

    Z. Huang, J. Liu, J. Mo, Y. Su, J. Wang, Y. Yao, G. Yu, Z. Zhu, Z. Li, Z. Liu, H. Miao, H. Tong, Phys. Rev. D110(12), 123512 (2024). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123512

    2024 doi

  29. [38]

    E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M.G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pourojaghi, M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari, D. Stojkovic, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2404.08633 (2024). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2404.08633 14

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [39]

    Gialamas, G

    I.D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, M. Vasar, H. Veerm¨ ae, Phys. Rev. D112(6), 063551 (2025). DOI 10.1103/kdqc- y37v

    2025 doi

  31. [40]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2506.21010 (2025). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2506.21010

    2025 doi

  32. [41]

    Odintsov, V.K

    S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou, G.S. Sharov, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics50, 100471 (2026). DOI 10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100471

    2026

  33. [42]

    Odintsov, V.K

    S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou, G.S. Sharov, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics47, 100398 (2025). DOI 10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100398

    2025

  34. [43]

    Afroz, S

    S. Afroz, S. Mukherjee, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2504.16868 (2025). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2504.16868

    2025 doi

  35. [44]

    Roy Choudhury, Astrophys

    S. Roy Choudhury, Astrophys. J. Lett.986(2), L31 (2025). DOI 10.3847/2041-8213/ade1cc

    2025 doi

  36. [45]

    T.N. Li, P.J. Wu, G.H. Du, S.J. Jin, H.L. Li, J.F. Zhang, X. Zhang, Astrophys. J.976(1), 1 (2024). DOI 10.3847/1538- 4357/ad87f0

    2024 doi

  37. [46]

    T.N. Li, G.H. Du, Y.H. Li, P.J. Wu, S.J. Jin, J.F. Zhang, X. Zhang, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy69(1), 210413 (2025). DOI 10.1007/s11433-025-2771-5

    2025 doi

  38. [47]

    Jiang, W

    J.Q. Jiang, W. Giar` e, S. Gariazzo, M.G. Dainotti, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, D. Pedrotti, S. Santos da Costa, S. Vagnozzi, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025(1), 153 (2025). DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/153

    2025 doi

  39. [48]

    Jiang, D

    J.Q. Jiang, D. Pedrotti, S.S. da Costa, S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D110(12), 123519 (2024). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123519

    2024 doi

  40. [49]

    W.J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, D.J. Bartlett, P.G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D110(8), 083528 (2024). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083528

    2024 doi

  41. [50]

    Wolf, P.G

    W.J. Wolf, P.G. Ferreira, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, Phys. Rev. D111(4), L041303 (2025). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.L041303

    2025 doi

  42. [51]

    W.J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, P.G. Ferreira, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025(5), 034 (2025). DOI 10.1088/1475- 7516/2025/05/034

    2025 doi

  43. [52]

    Zheng, D.C

    J. Zheng, D.C. Qiang, Z.Q. You, D. Kumar, JCAP10, 029 (2025). DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/029

    2025 doi

  44. [54]

    Giar` e, Phys

    W. Giar` e, Phys. Rev. D112(2), 023508 (2025). DOI 10.1103/ss37-cxhn

    2025 doi

  45. [55]

    Krisciunas, C

    K. Krisciunas, C. Contreras, C.R. Burns, M.M. Phillips, M.D. Stritzinger, N. Morrell, M. Hamuy, J. Anais, L. Boldt, L. Busta, A. Campillay, S. Castell´ on, G. Folatelli, W.L. Freedman, C. Gonz´ alez, E.Y. Hsiao, W. Krzeminski, S.E. Persson, M. Roth, F. Salgado, J. Ser´ on, N.B...

    2017 doi

  46. [56]

    Hicken, P

    M. Hicken, P. Challis, S. Jha, R.P. Kirshner, T. Matheson, M. Modjaz, A. Rest, W.M. Wood-Vasey, G. Bakos, E.J. Barton, P. Berlind, A. Bragg, C. Brice˜ no, W.R. Brown, N. Caldwell, M. Calkins, R. Cho, L. Ciupik, M. Contreras, K.C. Dendy, A. Dosaj, N. Durham, K. Eriksen, G. Esqu...

    2009

  47. [57]

    Hicken, P

    M. Hicken, P. Challis, R.P. Kirshner, A. Rest, C.E. Cramer, W.M. Wood-Vasey, G. Bakos, P. Berlind, W.R. Brown, N. Caldwell, M. Calkins, T. Currie, K. de Kleer, G. Esquerdo, M. Everett, E. Falco, J. Fernandez, A.S. Friedman, T. Groner, J. Hartman, M.J. Holman, R. Hutchins, S. K...

    2012

  48. [58]

    Foley, D

    R.J. Foley, D. Scolnic, A. Rest, S.W. Jha, Y.C. Pan, A.G. Riess, P. Challis, K.C. Chambers, D.A. Coulter, K.G. Dettman, M.M. Foley, O.D. Fox, M.E. Huber, D.O. Jones, C.D. Kilpatrick, R.P. Kirshner, A.S.B. Schultz, M.R. Siebert, H.A. Flewelling, B. Gibson, E.A. Magnier, J.A. Mi...

    2018 doi

  49. [59]

    Tang, H.N

    L. Tang, H.N. Lin, L. Liu, X. Li, Chinese Physics C47(12), 125101 (2023). DOI 10.1088/1674-1137/acfaf0

    2023 doi

  50. [60]

    Mc Conville, E

    R. Mc Conville, E. ´O Colg´ ain, Phys. Rev. D108(12), 123533 (2023). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123533

    2023 doi

  51. [61]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A.J. Banday, R.B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, R. Battye, K. Benabed, J.P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, J.J. Bock, J.R. Bond, J. Borrill, F.R. Bouchet, F. Boulanger, ...

    2020

  52. [62]

    Brout, D

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A.G. Riess, J. Zuntz, R. Kessler, A. Carr, T.M. Davis, S. Hinton, D. Jones, W.D. Kenworthy, E.R. Peterson, K. Said, G. Taylor, N. Ali, P. Armstrong, P. Charvu, A. Dwomoh, A. Palmese, H. Qu, B.M. Rose, C.W. Stubbs, M. Vincenzi, C.M. Wood, P.J. ...

    2022 arXiv

  53. [64]

    Eisenstein, W

    D.J. Eisenstein, W. Hu, Astrophys. J.496(2), 605 (1998). DOI 10.1086/305424

    1998 doi

  54. [65]

    Percival, C.M

    W.J. Percival, C.M. Baugh, J. Bland-Hawthorn, T. Bridges, R. Cannon, S. Cole, M. Colless, C. Collins, W. Couch, G. Dalton, R. De Propris, S.P. Driver, G. Efstathiou, R.S. Ellis, C.S. Frenk, K. Glazebrook, C. Jackson, O. Lahav, I. Lewis, S. Lumsden, S. Maddox, S. Moody, P. Norb...

    2001

  55. [66]

    Cole, W.J

    S. Cole, W.J. Percival, J.A. Peacock, P. Norberg, C.M. Baugh, C.S. Frenk, I. Baldry, J. Bland-Hawthorn, T. Bridges, R. Cannon, M. Colless, C. Collins, W. Couch, N.J.G. Cross, G. Dalton, V.R. Eke, R. De Propris, S.P. Driver, G. Efstathiou, R.S. Ellis, K. Glazebrook, C. Jackson,...

    2005

  56. [67]

    Eisenstein, I

    D.J. Eisenstein, I. Zehavi, D.W. Hogg, R. Scoccimarro, M.R. Blanton, R.C. Nichol, R. Scranton, H.J. Seo, M. Tegmark, Z. Zheng, S.F. Anderson, J. Annis, N. Bahcall, J. Brinkmann, S. Burles, F.J. Castander, A. Connolly, I. Csabai, M. Doi, M. Fukugita, J.A. Frieman, K. Glazebrook...

    2005

  57. [68]

    Koyama, Reports on Progress in Physics79(4), 046902 (2016)

    K. Koyama, Reports on Progress in Physics79(4), 046902 (2016). DOI 10.1088/0034-4885/79/4/046902

    2016 doi

  58. [69]

    Joyce, L

    A. Joyce, L. Lombriser, F. Schmidt, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science66(1), 95 (2016). DOI 10.1146/annurev- nucl-102115-044553

    2016 doi

  59. [70]

    Ishak, Living Reviews in Relativity22(1), 1 (2019)

    M. Ishak, Living Reviews in Relativity22(1), 1 (2019). DOI 10.1007/s41114-018-0017-4

    2019 doi

  60. [71]

    S. Alam, C. Arnold, A. Aviles, R. Bean, Y.C. Cai, M. Cautun, J.L. Cervantes-Cota, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, N.C. Devi, A. Eggemeier, S. Fromenteau, A.X. Gonzalez-Morales, V. Halenka, J.h. He, W.A. Hellwing, C. Hern´ andez-Aguayo, M. Ishak, K. Koyama, B. Li, A. de la Macorra, J. Menese...

    2021

  61. [72]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H. Awan, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, A. Bault, J. Behera, S. BenZvi, F. Beutler, D. Bianchi, C. Blake, R. Blum, S. Brieden, A...

    2024 doi arXiv

  62. [73]

    Myers, J

    A.D. Myers, J. Moustakas, S. Bailey, B.A. Weaver, A.P. Cooper, J.E. Forero-Romero, B. Abolfathi, D.M. Alexander, D. Brooks, E. Chaussidon, C.H. Chuang, K. Dawson, A. Dey, B. Dey, G. Dhungana, P. Doel, K. Fanning, E. Gazta˜ naga, S. Gontcho A Gontcho, A.X. Gonzalez-Morales, C. ...

    2023

  63. [74]

    Schlafly, D

    E.F. Schlafly, D. Kirkby, D.J. Schlegel, A.D. Myers, A. Raichoor, K. Dawson, J. Aguilar, C. Allende Prieto, S. Bailey, S. BenZvi, J. Bermejo-Climent, D. Brooks, A. de la Macorra, A. Dey, P. Doel, K. Fanning, A. Font-Ribera, J.E. Forero-Romero, J. Garc ´ ıa- Bellido, S. Gontcho...

    2023

  64. [75]

    Hahn, M.J

    C. Hahn, M.J. Wilson, O. Ruiz-Macias, S. Cole, D.H. Weinberg, J. Moustakas, A. Kremin, J.L. Tinker, A. Smith, R.H. Wechsler, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, S. Bailey, D. Brooks, A.P. Cooper, T.M. Davis, K. Dawson, A. Dey, B. Dey, S. Eftekharzadeh, D.J. Eisenstein, K. Fanning, J.E. Forero-...

    2023

  65. [76]

    R. Zhou, B. Dey, J.A. Newman, D.J. Eisenstein, K. Dawson, S. Bailey, A. Berti, J. Guy, T.W. Lan, H. Zou, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. Brooks, A. de la Macorra, A. Dey, G. Dhungana, K. Fanning, A. Font-Ribera, S.G.A. Gontcho, K. Honscheid, M. Ishak, T. Kisner, A. Kov´ acs,...

    2023

  66. [77]

    Komatsu, K.M

    E. Komatsu, K.M. Smith, J. Dunkley, C.L. Bennett, B. Gold, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, D. Larson, M.R. Nolta, L. Page, D.N. Spergel, M. Halpern, R.S. Hill, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S.S. Meyer, N. Odegard, G.S. Tucker, J.L. Weiland, E. Wollack, E.L. Wright, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.192(...

    2011 doi

  67. [78]

    Hinshaw, D

    G. Hinshaw, D. Larson, E. Komatsu, D.N. Spergel, C.L. Bennett, J. Dunkley, M.R. Nolta, M. Halpern, R.S. Hill, N. Odegard, L. Page, K.M. Smith, J.L. Weiland, B. Gold, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S.S. Meyer, G.S. Tucker, E. Wollack, E.L. Wright, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.208(...

    2013 doi

  68. [79]

    Planck Collaboration, P.A.R. Ade, N. Aghanim, C. Armitage-Caplan, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, F. Atrio-Barandela, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, A.J. Banday, R.B. Barreiro, J.G. Bartlett, E. Battaner, K. Benabed, A. Beno ˆ ıt, A. Benoit-L´ evy, J.P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz...

    2014

  69. [80]

    Y. Wang, P. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D76(10), 103533 (2007). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.103533

    2007 doi

  70. [81]

    Chen, Q.G

    L. Chen, Q.G. Huang, K. Wang, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2019(2), 028 (2019). DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/028

    2019 doi

  71. [82]

    G. Liu, Y. Wang, W. Zhao, arXiv (2024). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04385

    2024 doi arXiv

  72. [83]

    Zheng, D.C

    J. Zheng, D.C. Qiang, Z.Q. You, JCAP08, 056 (2025). DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/056

    2025 doi

  73. [84]

    Y.H. Pang, X. Zhang, Q.G. Huang, arXiv (2024). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2408.14787

    2024 doi arXiv

  74. [85]

    Bousis, L

    D. Bousis, L. Perivolaropoulos, arXiv (2024). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2405.07039

    2024 doi arXiv

  75. [86]

    Huang, R.G

    L. Huang, R.G. Cai, S.J. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68(10), 100413 (2025). DOI 10.1007/s11433-025-2754-5

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.