The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2607.06147 · v1 · pith:VBPL6ZY7 · submitted 2026-07-07 · astro-ph.CO

Imprint of swampland-inspired coupled early dark energy

Hao Wang , Yun-Song Piao This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel 2026-07-08 15:34 UTCglm-5.2pith:VBPL6ZY7record.jsonopen to challenge →

classification astro-ph.CO
keywords darkenergycosmologicalcouplingdatadesiearlyalter
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dark matter–dark energy coupling shifts what DESI tells us

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

This paper asks whether a coupling between dark matter and early dark energy (EDE) — a scalar field active before recombination that helps resolve the Hubble tension — changes the conclusions cosmologists draw about late-time dark energy from the DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation data. The coupling is motivated by the Swampland Distance Conjecture: as the EDE scalar field rolls across a field distance, it exponentially lightens a fraction of the dark matter mass. The authors examine two distinct EDE potentials — an axion-like model where the field settles at a minimum, and an AdS-EDE model where the field runs down a runaway potential and keeps moving at late times — and fit both against Planck CMB, DESI DR2 BAO, PantheonPlus supernovae, and SH0ES data using a conditional normalizing flow network to sample the 13–14 dimensional parameter space. The central finding is that the two EDE potentials produce qualitatively different effects on the dark energy equation of state: in the axion-like model the coupling slightly enhances the preference for evolving dark energy, while in the AdS-EDE model the sustained field excursion means low-redshift data can constrain the coupling, a preference for evolving dark energy persists, and a non-zero coupled fraction of dark matter is favored at roughly the 1-sigma level. The paper concludes that the specific shape of the EDE potential — not merely the existence of an EDE component — matters for what one concludes about late-time dark energy when a dark-sector coupling is present.

Core claim

The paper's central result is that two different EDE potential constructions — axion-like (field settles at a minimum) versus AdS-EDE (field keeps rolling along a runaway potential) — lead to divergent cosmological constraints on late-time dark energy when a swampland-inspired coupling between EDE and dark matter is included. In the axion-like model, the coupling parameter c is consistent with zero and the preference for evolving dark energy is slightly enhanced. In the AdS-EDE model, the runaway potential allows the field to keep moving at late times, which lets low-redshift observations constrain the coupling; a non-zero coupled dark matter fraction is preferred at roughly 1-sigma, and the

What carries the argument

The coupling mechanism works through the dark matter mass becoming field-dependent: m_cdm(phi) = f* m(phi) + (1-f*) m_i, where m(phi) = m_i * exp(-c(|Delta phi| - phi*)/M_pl) once the field excursion |Delta phi| exceeds a threshold phi*. The fraction f* of dark matter coupled to the EDE field, and the coupling strength c, control how much the dark matter density evolves. The two EDE potentials differ in their late-time field behavior: the axion-like potential V(phi) proportional to (1-cos(phi/f))^3 traps the field at a minimum, while the AdS-EDE potential V(phi) = V_0 (phi/M_p)^4 - V_ads glued to a cosmological constant lets the field keep rolling, producing a sustained excursion that makes低

If this is right

  • Cosmological constraints on dark energy from large-scale structure surveys like DESI cannot be cleanly separated from assumptions about the pre-recombination era when dark-sector couplings are allowed — the physics of the early universe propagates into the late-universe inference.
  • The distinction between axion-like and runaway EDE potentials is observationally consequential: future data could in principle distinguish between EDE models not just through their pre-recombination signatures but through their late-time coupling effects on dark matter.
  • If the AdS-EDE runaway scenario is correct, the coupled dark matter fraction f* and coupling strength c could be constrained more tightly by upcoming low-redshift surveys (Euclid, LSST), turning a theoretical parameter into an observable.
  • The use of normalizing flow networks for high-dimensional cosmological parameter inference, if validated, could become a standard tool for models with parameter spaces too large for traditional MCMC methods.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not provide convergence diagnostics or validation tests for the normalizing flow against MCMC on any subset of the parameter space. If the flow introduces systematic biases in the posterior — particularly in the tails where the coupling parameters live — the qualitative differences between the two EDE models could be partly artifacts of the sampling method rather than genuine physic
  • The preference for c > 0 in the AdS-EDE model is described as mild (roughly 1-sigma) and c = 0 remains consistent within 1-sigma. The claim that potential construction 'alters' constraints on dark energy is therefore a statement about shifts in posterior means and qualitative trends, not a statistically decisive detection of coupling. The practical significance depends on whether future data with
  • The Swampland Distance Conjecture motivation is a theoretical prior on the form of the coupling (exponential in field distance) rather than a constraint derived from data. The cosmological results neither confirm nor refute the swampland origin; they explore what follows if such a coupling exists. The connection to string theory is a motivating ansatz, not a tested prediction.

Load-bearing premise

The conditional normalizing flow network is assumed to accurately approximate the high-dimensional posterior distributions without the biases or volume effects that affect traditional MCMC methods, but no convergence diagnostics or direct comparison to MCMC results on a subset of the parameter space are provided to verify this assumption.

What would settle it

If a standard MCMC analysis on the same data and model were to recover posteriors that differ qualitatively from the normalizing flow results — for instance, if the preference for c > 0 in the AdS-EDE model or the shift in the w0-wa plane disappears or reverses — the paper's central claim about the distinction between the two EDE potentials would be undermined. Additionally, if future survey data (Euclid, LSST, CMB-S4) with tighter constraining power were to rule out c > 0 in the AdS-EDE model, the mild preference reported here would be revealed as a statistical fluctuation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06147 by Hao Wang, Yun-Song Piao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: A sketch of the EDE potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: A sketch of our conditional normalizing flow network. Red and blue solid arrows represent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Posterior distributions for axion-like EDE with coupling ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Posterior distributions for AdS-EDE with coupling ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Posteriors for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Inspired by the Swampland Distance Conjecture, we investigate the cosmological implications of a fractional coupling between dark matter (DM) and early dark energy (EDE) in light of the recent DESI DR2 BAO data. We use a conditional normalizing flow network to efficiently sample the high-dimensional parameter space, and perform a joint analysis of Planck CMB data, DESI DR2 BAO, PantheonPlus supernovae and SH0ES. We find that the detailed construction of the EDE potential beyond the mere existence of an EDE component possibly alter cosmological constraints on late-time dark energy when the coupling between DM and EDE is considered.

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 / 7 minor

Summary. This paper investigates a swampland-inspired fractional coupling between dark matter and early dark energy (EDE), using DESI DR2 BAO data combined with Planck, PantheonPlus, and SH0ES. Two EDE realizations are considered: axion-like EDE and AdS-EDE. The authors employ a conditional normalizing flow to sample the 13–14 dimensional parameter space and find that c=0 remains consistent within 1σ in both models, with mild differences in coupling preferences between the two EDE constructions. The central qualitative claim is that the detailed form of the EDE potential affects late-time dark energy constraints when DM–EDE coupling is included.

Significance. The paper tackles a timely question at the intersection of swampland conjectures and observational cosmology, and the comparison of two distinct EDE potentials under the same coupling framework is a useful contribution. The use of DESI DR2 data to update earlier SDSS-based constraints provides incremental value. However, the statistical significance of the findings is marginal (c=0 consistent within 1σ; preferences at ≲2σ), and the normalizing flow inference pipeline lacks any validation, which undermines the reliability of all quantitative results. No machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or parameter-free derivations are provided beyond the use of existing public Boltzmann codes.

major comments (3)
  1. §II, paragraph on normalizing flows: The entire inference pipeline rests on a conditional normalizing flow, yet no validation is provided. The manuscript does not describe (1) how training data is generated (which observables, how many samples, what parameter grid), (2) the network architecture or hyperparameters beyond citing the normflows library, (3) any convergence metric, (4) any comparison to MCMC on even a subset of the parameter space, or (5) any test of posterior coverage or calibration. Every quantitative result in Table I and Figures 3–5 depends on the unverified accuracy of this sampler. At minimum, a direct MCMC comparison on a reduced parameter subset (e.g., the c=0 case) should be shown to demonstrate that the flow reproduces known posteriors. Without this, the reader cannot assess whether the reported 1σ intervals and ~2σ preferences are trustworthy.
  2. §II, paragraph on normalizing flows: The statement that the flow approach 'avoids the explicit construction of complex likelihood functions and potential volume effect' is conceptually unclear. Normalizing flows for posterior inference still require a likelihood to generate training data (or at minimum a simulator-based approach must be specified). 'Volume effects' in MCMC are sampling artifacts, not intrinsic features of the likelihood. The authors should clarify what they mean: what likelihood is used to generate training data, and what specific 'volume effects' they claim to avoid. This is not merely a presentation issue; it bears on whether the method is correctly implemented.
  3. §III, Table I: The SDSS columns appear to reproduce results from Ref. [156] (Wang & Piao 2023). It should be clarified whether these are re-derived with the same normalizing flow pipeline or simply transcribed. If the latter, the comparison between SDSS and DESI columns mixes two different inference methods, which would compromise the central claim that the EDE potential construction 'alters cosmological constraints.' If the former, this should be stated explicitly.
minor comments (7)
  1. §I, first paragraph: The reference list is extremely long (refs [7]–[90]) for the statement about DESI results being 'under active investigation.' Consider trimming to the most directly relevant works.
  2. §II, Eq. (6): The definition of f(ϕ) involves m(ϕ₀) and f(ϕ₀), but ϕ₀ is only defined later in the text. A forward reference or brief note that ϕ₀ is the present-day field value would help.
  3. §II: The statement 'we fixed V_ads by setting V_ads = 0.26 × 10⁴ (ρm(zc) + ρr(zc))' — the factor 10⁴ is unusual; please verify units and clarify whether this is a convention from Ref. [102].
  4. §III: The significance levels are described inconsistently — '≳1σ,' '≲2σ,' '≳2σ' appear without precise definitions (Gelman–Rubin equivalent? Δχ²? credible interval?). The method for computing these should be made precise.
  5. Fig. 2: The schematic of the normalizing flow pipeline is too vague to assess the implementation. Labels like 'f_n' and 'X_n' are not defined in the text. A more detailed caption or a brief description of the architecture would improve clarity.
  6. §IV, Conclusions: The phrase 'possibly alter cosmological constraints' is hedged. Given that c=0 is consistent within 1σ in both models, the conclusions should clearly state the statistical limitations rather than implying a definitive difference between the two EDE constructions.
  7. The paper would benefit from a brief discussion of priors on the coupling parameters (c, ϕ*, f*), as these can significantly affect posterior shapes in high-dimensional spaces. No prior ranges are specified anywhere in the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and constructive comments. The referee raises three major points: (1) the normalizing flow pipeline lacks validation, (2) the statement about avoiding likelihood construction and volume effects is unclear, and (3) the provenance of the SDSS columns in Table I is ambiguous. We agree that all three points require action and will revise the manuscript accordingly. Specifically, we will add a direct MCMC comparison on the c=0 subspace, clarify the likelihood and training-data generation procedure, correct the misleading language about volume effects, and explicitly state that the SDSS columns are transcribed from Ref. [156] (not re-derived with the flow). We also agree that the statistical significance of our findings is marginal and will temper the language accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §II, paragraph on normalizing flows: The entire inference pipeline rests on a conditional normalizing flow, yet no validation is provided. The manuscript does not describe (1) how training data is generated (which observables, how many samples, what parameter grid), (2) the network architecture or hyperparameters beyond citing the normflows library, (3) any convergence metric, (4) any comparison to MCMC on even a subset of the parameter space, or (5) any test of posterior coverage or calibration. Every quantitative result in Table I and Figures 3–5 depends on the unverified accuracy of this sampler. At minimum, a direct MCMC comparison on a reduced parameter subset (e.g., the c=0 case) should be shown to demonstrate that the flow reproduces known posteriors. Without this, the reader cannot assess whether the reported 1σ intervals and ~2σ preferences are trustworthy.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the current manuscript does not provide sufficient validation of the normalizing flow pipeline. We will address this in the revised version as follows. First, we will add a new subsection (or appendix) describing the training data generation in detail: the observables used (CMB Cl spectra, BAO distances, SN magnitudes, SH0ES prior), the number of training samples (~O(10^5) parameter vectors drawn from a broad prior, each evaluated with the Boltzmann code), and the parameter ranges. Second, we will specify the network architecture: we use a conditional spline-based normalizing flow implemented in the normflows library, with N coupling layers, each conditioned on the data summary; the specific hyperparameters (number of layers, spline knots, learning rate, training epochs) will be tabulated. Third, we will add a convergence metric: we monitor the validation loss and report the train/validation loss curves to demonstrate convergence. Fourth, and most importantly, we will perform a direct MCMC comparison on the c=0 case (standard EDE+ΛCDM and EDE+w0waCDM) using Cobaya/MontePython with the same datasets, and overlay the resulting posteriors with the flow-based posteriors to demonstrate agreement. This comparison will be shown in a new figure. We agree that without this validation the quantitative results cannot be independently assessed, and we will ensure the revised manuscript includes it. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §II, paragraph on normalizing flows: The statement that the flow approach 'avoids the explicit construction of complex likelihood functions and potential volume effect' is conceptually unclear. Normalizing flows for posterior inference still require a likelihood to generate training data (or at minimum a simulator-based approach must be specified). 'Volume effects' in MCMC are sampling artifacts, not intrinsic features of the likelihood. The authors should clarify what they mean: what likelihood is used to generate training data, and what specific 'volume effects' they claim to avoid. This is not merely a presentation issue; it bears on whether the method is correctly implemented.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the statement as written is misleading. The normalizing flow does not avoid the use of a likelihood; rather, the training data is generated by evaluating the standard Gaussian likelihood (CMB Cl + BAO + SN + SH0ES) at parameter vectors sampled from a broad prior. The flow then learns to map from the prior to the posterior, conditioned on the data. What we intended to convey is that the flow, once trained, provides direct posterior samples without the need for the Markov chain exploration of the posterior surface, which can be computationally expensive in high-dimensional spaces with complex degeneracies. The phrase 'volume effects' was intended to refer to the practical difficulty of MCMC chains adequately sampling the full volume of the posterior in high dimensions, not to any intrinsic feature of the likelihood. We will rewrite this passage to accurately describe the procedure: the likelihood is the standard chi-squared-based Gaussian likelihood evaluated with the Boltzmann code; training data consists of (parameter, likelihood) pairs; the flow learns the posterior mapping. We will remove the misleading language about 'avoiding' likelihood construction and volume effects. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §III, Table I: The SDSS columns appear to reproduce results from Ref. [156] (Wang & Piao 2023). It should be clarified whether these are re-derived with the same normalizing flow pipeline or simply transcribed. If the latter, the comparison between SDSS and DESI columns mixes two different inference methods, which would compromise the central claim that the EDE potential construction 'alters cosmological constraints.' If the former, this should be stated explicitly.

    Authors: The referee's observation is correct. The SDSS columns in Table I are transcribed from Ref. [156] (Wang & Piao 2023), which used a standard MCMC analysis (Cobaya/MontePython), not the normalizing flow pipeline. The DESI columns are newly derived using the normalizing flow. We agree that this mixes two inference methods, and we will make this explicit in the revised manuscript by adding a note to Table I stating that the SDSS results are taken from Ref. [156] and were obtained with MCMC, while the DESI results are derived with the normalizing flow. Furthermore, to address the concern about methodological consistency, we will re-derive the SDSS constraints using the same normalizing flow pipeline (validated against MCMC as described in our response to the first comment) so that the SDSS–DESI comparison uses a single inference method throughout. If computational constraints prevent a full re-derivation of the SDSS results with the flow within the revision timeframe, we will at minimum restrict the SDSS–DESI comparison to the c=0 case where MCMC validation is available, and we will explicitly flag the methodological caveat for the coupled case. We agree that the central claim about the EDE potential construction altering constraints should rest on a methodologically consistent comparison, and we will ensure the revised manuscript reflects this. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; self-citations are to prior model definitions, not to the target observational result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the detailed construction of the EDE potential alters cosmological constraints on late-time dark energy when DM-EDE coupling is considered—is an observational result derived from fitting a parameterized model to external data (Planck, DESI DR2, PantheonPlus, SH0ES). The model equations (Eqs. 1-8) define the coupling framework and are not defined in terms of the output constraints. The authors heavily self-cite Refs. [155, 156] for the model setup and prior SDSS BAO results, but these citations establish the theoretical framework and provide a baseline for comparison; they do not define or force the new DESI DR2 posterior results. The normalizing flow is used as an inference tool, not as a theoretical input. While the lack of validation for the normalizing flow is a correctness risk, it is not a circularity issue—the flow does not define the model or the data. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, and no step reduces to its inputs by construction. The minor self-citations to prior model definitions are standard and do not make the central claim circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model introduces several fitted parameters (c, f*, phi*) and fixes V_ads by hand. The SDC motivation is a domain assumption. The normalizing flow accuracy is an ad-hoc tooling assumption.

free parameters (6)
  • c = ~0.13-0.45
    Coupling intensity, fitted to data.
  • f* = ~0.03-0.19
    Fraction of DM coupled to EDE, fitted to data.
  • phi* = ~0.21-0.33
    Insensitivity threshold for DM mass shift, fitted to data.
  • w0, wa = various
    CPL dark energy parameters, fitted to data.
  • fede = ~0.11-0.12
    EDE energy fraction, fitted to data.
  • V_ads = 0.26e4*(rho_m+rho_r)
    AdS depth, fixed by hand as in Ref [102].
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Swampland Distance Conjecture implies exponential couplings
    Invoked in Introduction to motivate the coupling form in Eq. (3).
  • ad hoc to paper Normalizing flow accurately samples posterior
    Assumed without validation in Section II; central to all results.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 18976 in / 1489 out tokens · 2201152 ms · 2026-07-08T15:34:51.641706+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

171 extracted references · 171 canonical work pages · 139 internal anchors

  1. [1]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    A. G. Adameet al.[DESI], [arXiv:2404.03000 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    A. G. Adameet al.[DESI], [arXiv:2404.03001 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

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

    M. Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], [arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10(2001), 213-224 doi:10.1142/S0218271801000822 [arXiv:gr-qc/0009008 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/s0218271801000822 2001

  6. [6]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003), 091301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301 [arXiv:astro-ph/0208512 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.091301 2003

  7. [7]

    Model independent cosmographic constraints from DESI 2024

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, [arXiv:2404.07070 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    Interpreting DESI's evidence for evolving dark energy

    M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle, [arXiv:2404.08056 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Does dark energy really revive using DESI 2024 data?

    Y. Carloni, O. Luongo and M. Muccino, [arXiv:2404.12068 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M. G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and D. Stojkovic, [arXiv:2404.08633 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    Interacting Dark Energy after DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillation measurements

    W. Giar` e, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes and E. Di Valentino, [arXiv:2404.15232 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    Dark energy in light of recent DESI BAO and Hubble tension

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    Wang and Y

    H. Wang and Y. S. Piao, [arXiv:2511.16606 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv

  14. [14]

    Y. Yang, X. Ren, Q. Wang, Z. Lu, D. Zhang, Y. F. Cai and E. N. Saridakis, [arXiv:2404.19437 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    C. G. Park, J. de Cruz Perez and B. Ratra, [arXiv:2405.00502 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Assessing observational constraints on dark energy

    D. Shlivko and P. Steinhardt, [arXiv:2405.03933 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    B. R. Dinda, [arXiv:2405.06618 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    DESI constraints on the varying electron mass model and axion-like early dark energy

    O. Seto and Y. Toda, [arXiv:2405.11869 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Cosmological constraints on curved quintessence

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Dynamical dark energy in the light of DESI 2024 data

    N. Roy, [arXiv:2406.00634 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    H. Wang, Z. Y. Peng and Y. S. Piao, [arXiv:2406.03395 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    Consistent Theories for the DESI dark energy fit

    A. Notari, M. Redi and A. Tesi, [arXiv:2406.08459 [astro-ph.CO]]. 11

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    J. J. Heckman, O. F. Ramadan and J. Sakstein, [arXiv:2406.04408 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar and H. Veerm¨ ae, [arXiv:2406.07533 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Probing Dark Energy Evolution Post-DESI 2024

    L. Orchard and V. H. C´ ardenas, [arXiv:2407.05579 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    E. ´O. Colg´ ain, S. Pourojaghi and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, [arXiv:2406.06389 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    H. Wang, G. Ye and Y. S. Piao, [arXiv:2407.11263 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    T. N. Li, P. J. Wu, G. H. Du, S. J. Jin, H. L. Li, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, [arXiv:2407.14934 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu and A. Silvestri, [arXiv:2407.15832 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Robust Preference for Dynamical Dark Energy in DESI BAO and SN Measurements

    W. Giar` e, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino and J. T. Firouzjaee, [arXiv:2407.16689 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    B. R. Dinda and R. Maartens, [arXiv:2407.17252 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    J. Q. Jiang, W. Giar` e, S. Gariazzo, M. G. Dainotti, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa and S. Vagnozzi, [arXiv:2407.18047 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    A. C. Alfano, O. Luongo and M. Muccino, [arXiv:2408.02536 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    J. Q. Jiang, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa and S. Vagnozzi, [arXiv:2408.02365 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    M. K. Sharma and M. Sami, [arXiv:2408.04204 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Consistency tests between SDSS and DESI BAO measurements

    B. Ghosh and C. Bengaly, [arXiv:2408.04432 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Investigating Late-Time Dark Energy and Massive Neutrinos in Light of DESI Y1 BAO

    J. Rebou¸ cas, D. H. F. de Souza, K. Zhong, V. Miranda and R. Rosenfeld, [arXiv:2408.14628 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Y. H. Pang, X. Zhang and Q. G. Huang, [arXiv:2408.14787 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, D. J. Bartlett and P. G. Ferreira, [arXiv:2408.17318 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    Updated Cosmological Constraints in Extended Parameter Space with Planck PR4, DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, and Supernovae: Dynamical Dark Energy, Neutrino Masses, Lensing Anomaly, and the Hubble Tension

    S. Roy Choudhury and T. Okumura, [arXiv:2409.13022 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Arjona and S

    R. Arjona and S. Nesseris, [arXiv:2409.14990 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv

  42. [42]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira and C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, [arXiv:2409.17019 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Dynamical Dark Energy Beyond Planck? Constraints from multiple CMB probes, DESI BAO and Type-Ia Supernovae

    W. Giar` e, [arXiv:2409.17074 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    H. Wang, G. Ye, J. Q. Jiang and Y. S. Piao, [arXiv:2409.17879 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    DESI constraints on $\alpha$-attractor inflationary models

    G. Alestas, M. Caldarola, S. Kuroyanagi and S. Nesseris, [arXiv:2410.00827 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    Phase-space analysis of dark energy models in non-minimally coupled theories of gravity

    Y. Carloni and O. Luongo, [arXiv:2410.10935 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Bhattacharya, G

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato and I. Zavala, 12 [arXiv:2410.21243 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv

  48. [48]

    Planck-PR4 anisotropy spectra show (better) consistency with General Relativity

    E. Specogna, W. Giar` e and E. Di Valentino, [arXiv:2411.03896 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    T. N. Li, Y. H. Li, G. H. Du, P. J. Wu, L. Feng, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, [arXiv:2411.08639 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    Bridge the Cosmological Tensions with Thawing Gravity

    G. Ye, [arXiv:2411.11743 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    Y. H. Pang, X. Zhang and Q. G. Huang, [arXiv:2411.14189 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    General parametrization for energy density of quintessence field

    S. Akthar and M. W. Hossain, [arXiv:2411.15892 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [53]

    E. ´O. Colg´ ain and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, [arXiv:2412.12905 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    S. S. da Costa, Phys. Dark Univ.47(2025), 101791 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101791 [arXiv:2412.14290 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101791 2025

  55. [55]

    C. G. Park and B. Ratra, [arXiv:2501.03480 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    M. A. Sabogal, E. Silva, R. C. Nunes, S. Kumar and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) no.4, 043531 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.043531 [arXiv:2501.10323 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.043531 2025

  57. [57]

    G. H. Du, T. N. Li, P. J. Wu, L. Feng, S. H. Zhou, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, [arXiv:2501.10785 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv

  58. [58]

    A. G. Ferrari, M. Ballardini, F. Finelli and D. Paoletti, [arXiv:2501.15298 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [59]

    J. Q. Jiang and Y. S. Piao, [arXiv:2501.16883 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [60]

    Z. Y. Peng and Y. S. Piao, [arXiv:2502.04641 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    J. Q. Jiang, [arXiv:2502.15541 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  62. [62]

    M. W. Hossain and A. Maqsood, [arXiv:2502.19274 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv

  63. [63]

    L. Feng, T. N. Li, G. H. Du, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, [arXiv:2503.10423 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  64. [64]

    Chakraborty, P

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

    work page arXiv

  65. [65]

    Bounded Dark Energy

    G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, G. Tasinato and I. Zavala, [arXiv:2503.11628 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  66. [66]

    Non-minimally coupled gravity constraints from DESI DR2 data

    J. Pan and G. Ye, [arXiv:2503.19898 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  67. [67]

    Y. H. Pang, X. Zhang and Q. G. Huang, [arXiv:2503.21600 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  68. [68]

    Wang and Y

    H. Wang and Y. S. Piao, [arXiv:2503.23918 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv

  69. [69]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  70. [70]

    Y. Yang, Q. Wang, X. Ren, E. N. Saridakis and Y. F. Cai, [arXiv:2504.06784 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  71. [71]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, T. Anton and P. G. Ferreira, [arXiv:2504.07679 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  72. [72]

    Roy Choudhury, [arXiv:2504.15340 [astro-ph.CO]]

    S. Roy Choudhury, [arXiv:2504.15340 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv

  73. [73]

    Updated Constraints on Omnipotent Dark Energy: A Comprehensive Analysis with CMB and BAO Data

    E. Specogna, S. A. Adil, E. Ozulker, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, O. Akarsu and A. A. Sen, 13 [arXiv:2504.17859 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  74. [74]

    On the tension between DESI DR2 BAO and CMB

    G. Ye and S. J. Lin, [arXiv:2505.02207 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  75. [75]

    Cheng, E

    H. Cheng, E. Di Valentino, L. A. Escamilla, A. A. Sen and L. Visinelli, [arXiv:2505.02932 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv

  76. [76]

    J. L. Ling, G. H. Du, T. N. Li, J. F. Zhang, S. J. Wang and X. Zhang, [arXiv:2505.22369 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv

  77. [77]

    Can the universe experience an AdS landscape since matter-radiation equality?

    H. Wang and Y. S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.8, 083553 doi:10.1103/pgrx-w8rh [arXiv:2506.04306 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/pgrx-w8rh 2025

  78. [78]

    T. N. Li, Y. M. Zhang, Y. H. Yao, P. J. Wu, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, [arXiv:2506.09819 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv

  79. [79]

    J. M. Cline and V. Muralidharan, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.6, 063539 doi:10.1103/8z2m- nbv6 [arXiv:2506.13047 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/8z2m- 2025

  80. [80]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, M. Vasar and H. Veerm¨ ae, Phys. Rev. D 112(2025) no.6, 063551 doi:10.1103/kdqc-y37v [arXiv:2506.21542 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1103/kdqc-y37v 2025

Showing first 80 references.