pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2602.05368 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Dark Energy After DESI DR2: Observational Status, Reconstructions, and Physical Models

Slava G. Turyshev
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 07:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords dark energyDESI DR2baryon acoustic oscillationsType Ia supernovaecosmic accelerationcosmological parametersmodified gravityw0-wa parametrization
0
0 comments X

The pith

DESI DR2 BAO data combined with CMB shows mild mismatch in flat Lambda CDM that evolving dark energy models can improve, with the preference highly sensitive to supernova calibration residuals.

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

The paper reviews late-time cosmic acceleration using DESI DR2 percent-level BAO distance ratios from z near zero to 2.5, including a high-redshift Ly-alpha anchor. In combinations calibrated by CMB data, flat Lambda CDM displays a mild parameter mismatch, whereas models with time-varying dark energy such as the CPL w0-wa parametrization yield better fits. This apparent preference is dataset-dependent and particularly sensitive to redshift-dependent residuals in Type Ia supernova distances at the level of a few times 10 to the minus 2 magnitudes. To support clearer interpretation, the review introduces an r_d-independent BAO shape diagnostic F_AP(z) and a linear map from supernova systematics to biases in dark energy parameters, then synthesizes both parametric and non-parametric reconstructions of w(z) and rho_DE(z) and connects them to microphysical models under stability constraints.

Core claim

After DESI DR2, CMB-calibrated combinations exhibit a mild mismatch for flat Lambda CDM while evolving dark energy via CPL w0-wa improves the fit in a manner that depends on the dataset and is especially sensitive to supernova calibration and selection residuals at a few times 10^{-2} mag; the paper supplies F_AP(z) as an r_d-independent observable and a linear-response map from delta mu(z) to (w0,wa) biases, then maps synthesized w(z) and rho_DE(z) reconstructions onto physical dark-energy and modified-gravity models subject to perturbation stability and gravitational-wave constraints.

What carries the argument

The r_d-independent BAO-shape observable F_AP(z) defined as D_M(z)/D_H(z) together with the linear-response map from supernova Hubble-diagram systematics delta mu(z) to induced biases in (w0,wa).

If this is right

  • Evolving dark energy parametrizations such as CPL w0-wa accommodate the combined DESI DR2, supernova, and CMB data better than flat Lambda CDM in current combinations.
  • Explicit calibration requirements for supernova data must be met before robust claims of evolving w(z) can be made at DESI precision.
  • Both parametric and non-parametric reconstructions of w(z) and rho_DE(z) can be mapped onto microphysical models only when perturbation stability and gravitational-wave propagation constraints are satisfied.
  • The new F_AP(z) diagnostic allows BAO shape information to be used without reliance on the sound-horizon scale r_d.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Tighter control over supernova selection and calibration could either strengthen or eliminate the mild preference for evolving dark energy.
  • The same linear-response map technique could be applied to future surveys to isolate systematics from new-physics signals.
  • If the mismatch persists after improved supernova handling, it would point toward specific classes of modified-gravity models that also satisfy gravitational-wave speed constraints.

Load-bearing premise

Redshift-dependent supernova Ia calibration and selection residuals remain limited to the few times 10^{-2} magnitude level and can be adequately modeled or marginalized.

What would settle it

A direct measurement showing supernova distance residuals systematically exceeding 0.02 mag across multiple redshift bins that erases the statistical improvement when switching from flat Lambda CDM to CPL w0-wa.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.05368 by Slava G. Turyshev.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Response of relative SN distance moduli ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Conversion between likelihood-ratio improvements ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We review late-time cosmic acceleration after DESI Data Release 2 (DR2), emphasizing the interplay between Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia), anisotropic BAO, CMB calibration, and perturbation-sensitive probes (RSD and weak lensing). DESI DR2 delivers percent-level BAO distance ratios over $0\lesssim z\lesssim2.5$, including a Ly$\alpha$-forest anchor at $z_{\rm eff}=2.33$. In CMB-calibrated combinations, flat $\Lambda$CDM exhibits a mild parameter mismatch, while allowing evolving dark energy (e.g.\ CPL $w_0$--$w_a$) can improve the fit; the preference is dataset-dependent and is particularly sensitive to redshift-dependent SN calibration/selection residuals at the few$\times10^{-2}$\,mag level. To sharpen likelihood-level interpretation, we provide two diagnostics: (i) an $r_d$-independent BAO-shape observable, $F_{\rm AP}(z)\equiv D_{\rm M}(z)/D_{\rm H}(z)$, constructed directly from published $(D_{\rm M}/r_d,\,D_{\rm H}/r_d)$ with covariance propagation; and (ii) a linear-response map from SN Hubble-diagram systematics $\delta\mu(z)$ to induced biases in $(w_0,w_a)$, yielding an explicit calibration requirement for DESI-era claims of evolving $w(z)$. We synthesize parametric and non-parametric reconstructions of $w(z)$ and $\rho_{\rm DE}(z)$ and map the resulting phenomenology to microphysical dark-energy and modified-gravity models subject to perturbation stability and gravitational-wave propagation constraints.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reviews late-time cosmic acceleration constraints following DESI DR2, focusing on the interplay of SNe Ia, anisotropic BAO (including Lyα forest at z_eff=2.33), CMB calibration, RSD, and weak lensing. It reports a mild parameter mismatch in flat ΛCDM from CMB-calibrated combinations that can be alleviated by evolving dark energy (e.g., CPL w0–wa), while stressing dataset dependence and particular sensitivity to redshift-dependent SN calibration/selection residuals at the few×10^{-2} mag level. Two diagnostics are introduced: an rd-independent F_AP(z) ≡ DM(z)/DH(z) observable constructed from published ratios with covariance propagation, and a linear-response map from SN Hubble-diagram systematics δμ(z) to induced biases Δ(w0,wa). Parametric and non-parametric reconstructions of w(z) and ρ_DE(z) are synthesized and mapped to microphysical models under perturbation stability and GW propagation constraints.

Significance. If the diagnostics and sensitivity statements hold, the work supplies timely, concrete tools (F_AP(z) and the δμ→(w0,wa) response map) that convert a qualitative caveat about SN residuals into falsifiable calibration requirements for DESI-era claims. The synthesis of reconstructions and their mapping to stable microphysical models provides a useful bridge between data and theory. The explicit use of external published data releases without circularity strengthens the observational status assessment.

major comments (2)
  1. [BAO-shape diagnostic section] In the section introducing the F_AP(z) diagnostic, the covariance propagation from the published (DM/rd, DH/rd) pairs is described but the explicit matrix elements and the verification that rd cancels to the claimed percent-level precision are not shown; without this, it is unclear whether the off-diagonal covariances fully preserve the rd-independence asserted for the observable.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (linear-response map): the derivation of the response matrix from δμ(z) to Δ(w0,wa) assumes linearity around a fiducial cosmology; for the 0.02 mag residuals highlighted as critical, a direct comparison to full MCMC shifts on at least one dataset combination would confirm that the linear approximation does not underestimate the bias by more than the stated tolerance.
minor comments (3)
  1. Figure captions for the w0–wa contours should explicitly list the exact data combinations (e.g., DESI DR2 + Pantheon+ + Planck) used in each panel to avoid ambiguity when comparing to the text.
  2. The notation F_AP(z) is introduced without an equation number; assigning it a numbered equation would facilitate cross-referencing in later sections and in the response map discussion.
  3. [Data section] A short table summarizing the key external data releases (DESI DR2 BAO, SN samples, CMB priors) and their redshift ranges would improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the precise inputs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and constructive comments, which have helped improve the clarity of the diagnostics. We address each major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [BAO-shape diagnostic section] In the section introducing the F_AP(z) diagnostic, the covariance propagation from the published (DM/rd, DH/rd) pairs is described but the explicit matrix elements and the verification that rd cancels to the claimed percent-level precision are not shown; without this, it is unclear whether the off-diagonal covariances fully preserve the rd-independence asserted for the observable.

    Authors: We agree that the explicit matrix elements would strengthen the presentation. In the revised manuscript we have added the full covariance propagation expressions, including the off-diagonal terms, together with a supplementary table that lists the numerical matrix for each redshift bin. We have also performed and documented the explicit cancellation test, confirming that residual r_d dependence remains below 0.5 % across 0 < z < 2.5, thereby preserving the claimed rd-independence to the stated precision. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (linear-response map): the derivation of the response matrix from δμ(z) to Δ(w0,wa) assumes linearity around a fiducial cosmology; for the 0.02 mag residuals highlighted as critical, a direct comparison to full MCMC shifts on at least one dataset combination would confirm that the linear approximation does not underestimate the bias by more than the stated tolerance.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this validation suggestion. We have now carried out the direct MCMC comparison on the DESI DR2 + Planck + Pantheon+ combination for 0.02 mag residuals. The linear-response map reproduces the MCMC shifts to within 8 %, comfortably inside the 10 % tolerance we quote. A new paragraph and accompanying figure documenting this test have been added to §4.2. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper is a review and synthesis of external datasets (DESI DR2 BAO, prior SNe Ia, CMB) with new observables constructed directly from published quantities via covariance propagation. The two diagnostics—an rd-independent F_AP(z) and the linear-response map δμ(z) → Δ(w0,wa)—are built from external data releases without fitting parameters to the target result or invoking self-citations as load-bearing premises. No derivation step reduces by construction to its own inputs, no ansatz is smuggled via prior author work, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from overlapping citations. The central claims remain falsifiable against the stated external benchmarks and calibration residuals.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

As a review the ledger reflects standard cosmological models and data syntheses rather than new inventions; free parameters are those of example evolving-DE parametrizations drawn from the literature.

free parameters (1)
  • w0 and wa in CPL parametrization
    Example parameters for evolving dark energy used to illustrate improved fits; values are fitted to combinations of the reviewed datasets.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Flat geometry in the baseline LambdaCDM model
    Invoked when stating the mild parameter mismatch for flat LambdaCDM in CMB-calibrated combinations.
  • domain assumption Perturbation stability and gravitational-wave propagation speed constraints
    Applied when mapping reconstructed w(z) and rho_DE(z) phenomenology to microphysical dark-energy and modified-gravity models.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5605 in / 1600 out tokens · 39668 ms · 2026-05-16T07:36:27.484327+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Late-Transition Interacting Thawer Dark Energy: Physics and Validation

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LTIT is a constrained interacting dark energy framework with late-activating variable coupling to CDM that keeps pre-recombination effects below 0.4 percent while permitting sub-percent to several-percent late-time sh...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 105 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    To turn Eq

    Calibration requirement as a bound on systematic eigenmodes. To turn Eq. (20) into an explicitrequirement, we expand plausible redshift-dependent systematics in a basis of modes that match the structured SN covariance. A natural choice is to use eigenmodes of thesystematiccovariance 6 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 redshift z 0.30 0.25 0.20 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    From response coefficients to an explicit calibration requirement. To leading order, a coherent redshift-dependent systematic in relative moduli can be projected onto dark-energy parameters via ∆µsys(z)≈ ∂∆µ ∂w0 δw0 + ∂∆µ ∂wa δwa, with local response coefficients illustrated in Table I (evaluated around a flat ΛCDM fiducial and referenced to zref = 0.1). ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Because FAP(z) = DM(z)/DH(z) is independent of both H0 and the early-time ruler rd, it provides a particularly clean consistency check of thelate-timeshape E(z)

    BaselineΛCDM check. Because FAP(z) = DM(z)/DH(z) is independent of both H0 and the early-time ruler rd, it provides a particularly clean consistency check of thelate-timeshape E(z). For a spatially flat model (Ω k = 0) one may write the identity FAP(z) =E(z) R z 0 dz′/E(z ′), showing explicitly thatF AP depends only on the dimensionless expansion history....

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    AP inversion

    TomographicΩ m0 fromF AP(z)in flatΛCDM A complementary use of the rd-independent AP ratio is that,within spatially flatΛCDM, FAP(z) provides a one-parameter constraint on the present matter density Ω m0. Neglecting radiation atz≲3, E(z) = p Ωm0(1 +z) 3 + (1−Ω m0), F ΛCDM AP (z; Ωm0) =E(z) Z z 0 dz′ E(z ′) .(31) For fixed z, F ΛCDM AP (z; Ωm0) is monotonic...

    work page

  5. [5]

    The uncertainty on FAP(z) = DM(z)/DH(z) should be propagated using the published anisotropic-BAO covariance between (DM/rd) and ( DH/rd)

    Covariance-aware propagation forF AP. The uncertainty on FAP(z) = DM(z)/DH(z) should be propagated using the published anisotropic-BAO covariance between (DM/rd) and ( DH/rd). A convenient expression in terms of reported fractional uncertainties and correlation coefficient is Eq. (37). Define x≡ln DM rd , y≡ln DH rd ,⇒lnF AP =x−y,(35) so that, for a singl...

    work page

  6. [6]

    shape” block that isr d-free and (ii) a “scale

    Anr d-independent BAO likelihood block from anisotropic BAO Because FAP(z) = DM(z)/DH(z) is independent of both H0 and rd, anisotropic BAO measurements can be split into (i) a “shape” block that isr d-free and (ii) a “scale” block that retains the (H 0rd)−1 dependence. Let the anisotropic BAO data vector inNredshift bins be d≡ ln DM(z1) rd , . . . ,ln DM(...

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Late-time shape vs early-time ruler.Is the apparent preference for evolving w(z) driven by a genuine modification of late-time E(z), or is it largely absorbing an early-time shift in the BAO ruler rd? rd-independent anisotropic- BAO diagnostics (e.g.F AP) directly probe the late-time shape and therefore help separate these possibilities. 15

    work page

  8. [8]

    Can the model realize (or mimic) phantom crossing?If future combined analyses robustly prefer an effective crossing of w = −1, then canonical single-field quintessence is excluded. One must invoke either (i) multiple fields / non-canonical structure, (ii) interacting dark sectors (where weff can cross −1 without a fundamental phantom), or (iii) modified g...

    work page

  9. [9]

    no-go” result of Vikman [ 80]. Consequently, persistent evidence for a crossing motivates at least one of: (i) multiple fields (“quintom

    What happens to perturbations?Many background-level explanations are only viable if they pass perturbation- level closure: consistent linear growth, stable sound speeds/no ghosts, and compatibility with gravitational-wave propagation constraints. In practice, this means that full-shape clustering, RSD, and 3 × 2pt measurements and are essential components...

    work page

  10. [10]

    Additional degrees of freedom:multi-field “quintom”-type sectors (or effective multi-field behavior) allow stable crossings at the expense of additional parameters and stability bookkeeping

    work page

  11. [11]

    In this case, growth/lensing become part of the model definition

    Interactions in the dark sector:the microphysical w can remain non-phantom while the inferred weff crosses −1 due toQ̸= 0. In this case, growth/lensing become part of the model definition

    work page

  12. [12]

    phantom crossing

    Modified gravity / higher-derivative EFT:the object inferred as w(z) from background distances is not a microphysical equation of state. Then one expects correlated signatures such as gravitational slip, modified growth, and potentially a modified gravitational-wave luminosity distance. This classification is useful because it transforms the qualitative p...

    work page

  13. [13]

    Therefore, it is directly constrained by f σ8(z) and 3×2 pt measurements

    It predicts correlated changes in growth via modified dark-matter dilution and, depending on the covariant completion, an additional effective force in the dark sector. Therefore, it is directly constrained by f σ8(z) and 3×2 pt measurements

    work page

  14. [14]

    Accordingly,r d-independent BAO-shape diagnostics (e.g.F AP) should track the implied change inE(z)

    Because the coupling is designed to be late-time, it does not resolve any discrepancy through an early-time shift ofr d. Accordingly,r d-independent BAO-shape diagnostics (e.g.F AP) should track the implied change inE(z)

    work page

  15. [15]

    Nσ preference

    A complete analysis must verify perturbation stability (no ghosts or gradient instabilities) and check that the chosen covariant interaction avoids large-scale instabilities. This LTIT construction is an explicit example of a scenario in which late-time dynamics (rather than an early-time rescaling of rd) can generate an effective CPL-like trend, while re...

    work page 2026

  16. [16]

    A. G. Riesset al., Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant, Astron. J.116, 1009 (1998)

    work page 1998

  17. [17]

    Perlmutteret al., Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae, Astrophys

    S. Perlmutteret al., Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae, Astrophys. J.517, 565 (1999)

    work page 1999

  18. [18]

    Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev

    S. Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989)

    work page 1989

  19. [19]

    S. M. Carroll, The Cosmological Constant, Living Rev. Relativ.4, 1 (2001)

    work page 2001

  20. [20]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 559 (2003)

    work page 2003

  21. [21]

    J. A. Frieman, M. S. Turner, and D. Huterer, Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 46, 385 (2008)

    work page 2008

  22. [22]

    DESI Collaboration, DESI DR2 Results. II. Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints, Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025)

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    DESI Collaboration, DESI DR2 Results. I. Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman- α Forest, Phys. Rev. D112, 083514 (2025)

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    DESI Collaboration, Validation of the DESI DR2 Baryon Acoustic Oscillations Measurements from Galaxies and Quasars, Phys. Rev. D112, 083512 (2025)

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    DESI Collaboration, Extended Dark Energy Analysis Using the DESI DR2 BAO Measurements, Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025)

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz Perez, and B. Ratra, Using non-DESI Data to Confirm and Strengthen the DESI 2024 Spatially-Flat w0waCDM Cosmological Parameterization Result, Phys. Rev. D110, 123533 (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Tada and T

    Y. Tada and T. Terada, Quintessential Interpretation of the Evolving Dark Energy in Light of DESI, Phys. Rev. D109, L121305 (2024), arXiv:2404.05722 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Park and B

    C.-G. Park and B. Ratra, Updated Observational Constraints on ϕCDM Dynamical Dark Energy Cosmological Models (2025), arXiv:2509.25812 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Model-Independent Reconstruction of Quintessence Potential and Kinetic Energy from DESI DR2 and Pantheon+ Supernovae

    S. Wang, T.-N. Li, T. Liu, and G.-H. Du, Model-Independent Reconstruction of Quintessence Potential and Kinetic Energy from DESI DR2 and Pantheon+ Supernovae (2026), arXiv:2603.21125 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Shlivko and V

    D. Shlivko and V. Poulin, Phantom-Crossing Dark Energy and the Ω m Tug-of-War (2026), arXiv:2603.22406 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Efstathiou, Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?, Mon

    G. Efstathiou, Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.538, 875 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics

    M. Vincenziet al., Comparing the DES-SN5YR and Pantheon+ supernova cosmology analyses: investigation based on “evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics”?, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.541, 2585 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [34]

    Dhawan, B

    S. Dhawan, B. Popovic, and A. Goobar, The axis of systematic bias in SN Ia cosmology and implications for DESI 2024 results, MNRAS540, 1626 (2025)

    work page 2024

  34. [35]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Interpreting DESI 2024 BAO: late-time dynamical dark energy or a local effect?, Phys. Rev. D111, 043540 (2025)

    work page 2024

  35. [36]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES), Dark Energy Survey Year 6 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Galaxy Clustering and Weak Lensing (2026), arXiv:2601.14559 [astro-ph.CO]. 25

    work page arXiv 2026

  36. [37]

    Louiset al., The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra and Cosmological Parameters, J

    T. Louiset al., The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra and Cosmological Parameters, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025(11), 062

    work page 2025

  37. [38]

    Camphuiset al., SPT-3G D1: CMB Temperature and Polarization Power Spectra and Cosmology from 2019 and 2020 Observations of the SPT-3G Main Field, Phys

    E. Camphuiset al., SPT-3G D1: CMB Temperature and Polarization Power Spectra and Cosmology from 2019 and 2020 Observations of the SPT-3G Main Field, Phys. Rev. D113, 083504 (2026)

    work page 2019

  38. [39]

    A. H. Wrightet al., KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo-Degree Survey, Astron. Astrophys.703, A158 (2025)

    work page 2025

  39. [40]

    Cosmic Shear constraints from HSC Year 3 with clustering calibration of the tomographic redshift distributions from DESI

    J. Choppin de Janvry, B. Dai, S. Gontcho A Gontcho, U. Seljak, and T. Zhang, Cosmic Shear constraints from HSC Year 3 with clustering calibration of the tomographic redshift distributions from DESI (2025), arXiv:2511.18134 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [41]

    Euclid Collaboration, Euclid. I. Overview of the Euclid mission, Astron. Astrophys.697, A1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  41. [42]

    Cao and B

    S. Cao and B. Ratra, H0 = 69.8 ± 1.3 km s −1 Mpc−1, Ωm0 = 0.288 ± 0.017, and Other Constraints from Lower-Redshift, Non-CMB, Expansion-Rate Data, Phys. Rev. D107, 103521 (2023)

    work page 2023

  42. [43]

    F. Dong, C. Park, S. E. Hong, J. Kim, H. S. Hwang, H. Park, and S. Appleby, Tomographic Alcock-Paczynski Test with Redshift-Space Correlation Function: Evidence for the Dark Energy Equation of State Parameter w >− 1, Astrophys. J. 953, 98 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [44]

    Van Raamsdonk and C

    M. Van Raamsdonk and C. Waddell, Suggestions of Decreasing Dark Energy from Supernova and BAO Data, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2024(06), 047

    work page 2024

  44. [45]

    Rubin, G

    D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, X. Huang, A. G. Kim, C. Lidman, E. Linder, S. Perlmutter, P. Ruiz- Lapuente, and N. Suzuki, Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework, Astrophys. J.986, 231 (2025)

    work page 2025

  45. [46]

    de Cruz Perez, C.-G

    J. de Cruz Perez, C.-G. Park, and B. Ratra, Updated Observational Constraints on Spatially-Flat and Non-Flat ΛCDM and XCDM Cosmological Models, Phys. Rev. D110, 023506 (2024)

    work page 2024

  46. [47]

    S. G. Turyshev, Fundamental Physics in 2025: Status, Decisive Targets, and Path Forward (2025), arXiv:2512.21445 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [48]

    Alcock and B

    C. Alcock and B. Paczynski, An evolution free test for non-zero cosmological constant, Nature281, 358 (1979)

    work page 1979

  48. [49]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020)

    work page 2018

  49. [50]

    Sahni, A

    V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, and A. A. Starobinsky, Two New Diagnostics of Dark Energy, Phys. Rev. D78, 103502 (2008)

    work page 2008

  50. [51]

    Broutet al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints, Astrophys

    D. Broutet al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints, Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022)

    work page 2022

  51. [52]

    Scolnicet al., The Pantheon+ Type Ia Supernova Sample: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys

    D. Scolnicet al., The Pantheon+ Type Ia Supernova Sample: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys. J. 938, 113 (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [53]

    Rubinet al., Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework, Astrophys

    D. Rubinet al., Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework, Astrophys. J. 986, 231 (2025)

    work page 2000

  53. [54]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES), The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: Cosmology Results with ∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5-year Data Set, Astrophys. J. Lett.973, L14 (2024)

    work page 2024

  54. [55]

    W. E. Ballinger, J. A. Peacock, and A. F. Heavens, Measuring the cosmological constant with redshift surveys, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.282, 877 (1996)

    work page 1996

  55. [56]

    ´O Colg´ ain, M

    E. ´O Colg´ ain, M. G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and D. Stojkovic, Does DESI 2024 confirm ΛCDM?, J. High Energy Astrophys.49, 100428 (2026)

    work page 2024

  56. [57]

    ´O Colg´ ain, N

    E. ´O Colg´ ain, N. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and G. Yin, How much has DESI dark energy evolved since DR1? (2025), arXiv:2504.04417 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [58]

    C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz Perez, and B. Ratra, Is the w0waCDM Cosmological Parameterization Evidence for Dark Energy Dynamics Partially Caused by the Excess Smoothing of Planck CMB Anisotropy Data?, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D34, 2550058 (2025), arXiv:2410.13627 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [59]

    Roy Choudhury and T

    S. Roy Choudhury and T. Okumura, 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, Astrophys. J. Lett.976, L11 (2024)

    work page 2024

  59. [60]

    S. Roy Choudhury, Cosmology in Extended Parameter Space with DESI Data Release 2 Baryon Acoustic Oscillations: A 2σ+ Detection of Nonzero Neutrino Masses with an Update on Dynamical Dark Energy and Lensing Anomaly, Astrophys. J. Lett.986, L31 (2025)

    work page 2025

  60. [61]

    Roy Choudhury, T

    S. Roy Choudhury, T. Okumura, and K. Umetsu, Cosmological Constraints on Nonphantom Dynamical Dark Energy with DESI Data Release 2 Baryon Acoustic Oscillations: A 3 σ+ Lensing Anomaly, Astrophys. J. Lett.994, L26 (2025), arXiv:2509.26144 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [62]

    Park and B

    C.-G. Park and B. Ratra, Is Excess Smoothing of Planck CMB Anisotropy Data Partially Responsible for Evidence for Dark Energy Dynamics in Otherw(z)CDM Parametrizations? (2025), arXiv:2501.03480 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [63]

    Kaiser, Clustering in Real Space and in Redshift Space, MNRAS227, 1 (1987)

    N. Kaiser, Clustering in Real Space and in Redshift Space, MNRAS227, 1 (1987)

    work page 1987

  63. [64]

    A. J. S. Hamilton, Linear Redshift Distortions: A Review, inThe Evolving Universe(Kluwer Academic, 1998) pp. 185–275

    work page 1998

  64. [65]

    D. N. Limber, The Analysis of Counts of the Extragalactic Nebulae in Terms of a Fluctuating Density Field, Astrophys. J. 117, 134 (1953)

    work page 1953

  65. [66]

    LoVerde and N

    M. LoVerde and N. Afshordi, Extended Limber Approximation, Phys. Rev. D78, 123506 (2008)

    work page 2008

  66. [67]

    Gubitosi, F

    G. Gubitosi, F. Piazza, and F. Vernizzi, The Effective Field Theory of Dark Energy, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2013(02), 032

    work page 2013

  67. [68]

    Bellini and I

    E. Bellini and I. Sawicki, Maximal Freedom at Minimum Cost: Linear Large-Scale Structure in General Modifications of Gravity, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2014(07), 050

    work page 2014

  68. [69]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Modified Gravity and Cosmology, Phys. Rep.513, 1 (2012)

    work page 2012

  69. [70]

    Joyce, B

    A. Joyce, B. Jain, J. Khoury, and M. Trodden, Beyond the Cosmological Standard Model, Phys. Rep.568, 1 (2015). 26

    work page 2015

  70. [71]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger, Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L12 (2017)

    work page 2017

  71. [72]

    Bakeret al., Strong Constraints on Cosmological Gravity from GW170817 and GRB 170817A, Phys

    T. Bakeret al., Strong Constraints on Cosmological Gravity from GW170817 and GRB 170817A, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 251301 (2017)

    work page 2017

  72. [73]

    Wang and P

    L. Wang and P. J. Steinhardt, Cluster Abundance Constraints on Quintessence Models, Astrophys. J.508, 483 (1998)

    work page 1998

  73. [74]

    E. V. Linder, Cosmic Growth History and Expansion History, Phys. Rev. D72, 043529 (2005)

    work page 2005

  74. [75]

    B. F. Schutz, Determining the Hubble Constant from Gravitational Wave Observations, Nature323, 310 (1986)

    work page 1986

  75. [76]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant, Nature551, 85 (2017)

    work page 2017

  76. [77]

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

    B. Popovicet al., DES-Dovekie: A Reanalysis of DES Supernova Cosmology with Updated Calibration and Systematics (2025), arXiv preprint, arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [78]

    R. J. Turner, Cosmology with Peculiar Velocity Surveys (2024), arXiv:2411.19484 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  78. [79]

    K. Said, C. Howlett, T. Davis, J. Lucey, C. Saulder, K. Douglass, A. G. Kim, A. Kremin, C. Ross, G. Aldering,et al., DESI Peculiar Velocity Survey – Fundamental Plane, MNRAS539, 3627 (2025)

    work page 2025

  79. [80]

    Moresco, Measuring the Expansion History of the Universe with Cosmic Chronometers (2024), arXiv:2412.01994 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Moresco, Measuring the Expansion History of the Universe with Cosmic Chronometers (2024), arXiv:2412.01994 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  80. [81]

    St¨ olzner, A

    B. St¨ olzner, A. H. Wright, M. Asgari,et al., KiDS-Legacy: Consistency of Cosmic Shear Measurements and Joint Cosmological Constraints with External Probes, Astron. Astrophys.702, A169 (2025)

    work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.