- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Updated constraints on omnipotent dark energy: A comprehensive analysis with CMB and BAO data

Enrico Specogna1,*, Shahnawaz A. Adil2,†, Emre Özülker1,‡, Eleonora Di Valentino1,§, Rafael C. Nunes3,4,∥, Özgür Akarsu5,¶, and Anjan A. Sen6,**

  • *Contact author: especogna1@sheffield.ac.uk
  • †Contact author: shazadil14@gmail.com
  • ‡Contact author: e.ozulker@sheffield.ac.uk
  • §Contact author: e.divalentino@sheffield.ac.uk
  • ∥Contact author: rafadcnunes@gmail.com
  • Contact author: akarsuo@itu.edu.tr
  • **Contact author: aasen@jmi.ac.in
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 113, 103549 – Published 29 May, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/b7ht-lx26

Abstract

In this work, we present updated observational constraints on the parameter space of the DMS20 dark-energy model, a member of the omnipotent dark-energy (ODE) class. Our analysis combines multiple cosmic microwave background datasets—including measurements from the Planck satellite (PL18), the South Pole Telescope (SPT), and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)—with Type Ia supernova data from the Pantheon+catalog (PP), and baryon acoustic oscillation measurements from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument and Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We find that certain data combinations, such as SPT+WMAP+BAO and PL18+BAO, can reduce the significance of the H0 tension below 1σ, but with considerably large uncertainties. However, the inclusion of PP data restores the tension in H0. To provide a comprehensive view of the ODE phenomenology, we also investigate the evolution of its energy density, emphasizing its dynamical behavior at low redshifts. Our results generically exhibit multiple phantom divide line crossings in a single expansion history; if confirmed, this points beyond the simplest minimally coupled canonical single-field quintessence/phantom descriptions and motivates more general dark-sector realizations.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (197)

  1. L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, Challenges for ΛCDM: An update, New Astron. Rev. 95, 101659 (2022).
  2. E. Abdalla et al., Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies, J. High Energy Astrophys. 34, 49 (2022).
  3. E. Di Valentino, Challenges of the standard cosmological model, Universe 8, 399 (2022).
  4. P. J. E. Peebles, Status of the LambdaCDM theory: Supporting evidence and anomalies, arXiv:2405.18307.
  5. E. Di Valentino et al., The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics, Phys. Dark Universe 49, 101965 (2025).
  6. E. Di Valentino et al., Snowmass2021–Letter of interest cosmology intertwined I: Perspectives for the next decade, Astropart. Phys. 131, 102606 (2021).
  7. E. Di Valentino et al., Cosmology intertwined III: fσ8 and S8, Astropart. Phys. 131, 102604 (2021).
  8. E. Di Valentino et al., Snowmass2021–Letter of interest cosmology intertwined IV: The age of the universe and its curvature, Astropart. Phys. 131, 102607 (2021).
  9. E. Di Valentino et al., Snowmass2021–Letter of interest cosmology intertwined II: The Hubble constant tension, Astropart. Phys. 131, 102605 (2021).
  10. O. Akarsu, E. O. Colgáin, A. A. Sen, and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, ΛCDM tensions: Localising missing physics through consistency checks, Universe 10, 305 (2024).
  11. L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Tensions between the early and the late universe, Nat. Astron. 3, 891 (2019).
  12. E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, In the realm of the Hubble tension—A review of solutions, Classical Quantum Gravity 38, 153001 (2021).
  13. P. Shah, P. Lemos, and O. Lahav, A buyer’s guide to the Hubble constant, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 29, 9 (2021).
  14. M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess, The Hubble tension and early dark energy, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 73, 153 (2023).
  15. L. Verde, N. Schöneberg, and H. Gil-Marín, A tale of many H0, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 62, 287 (2024).
  16. E. Di Valentino and D. Brout, eds., The Hubble Constant Tension, Springer Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology (Springer, New York, 2024).
  17. L. Perivolaropoulos, Hubble tension or distance ladder crisis?, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123518 (2024).
  18. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020); 652, C4(E) (2021).
  19. L. Balkenhol et al. (SPT-3G Collaboration), Measurement of the CMB temperature power spectrum and constraints on cosmology from the spt-3G 2018 TT, TE, and EE dataset, Phys. Rev. D 108, 023510 (2023).
  20. T. Louis et al. (ACT Collaboration), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods and ΛCDM parameters, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2025) 062.
  21. W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, T. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, R. Beaton, M. G. Lee, A. Monson, J. Neeley, and J. Rich, Calibration of the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB), Astrophys. J. 891, 57 (2020).
  22. S. Birrer et al., TDCOSMO—IV. Hierarchical time-delay cosmography—Joint inference of the Hubble constant and galaxy density profiles, Astron. Astrophys. 643, A165 (2020).
  23. Q. Wu, G.-Q. Zhang, and F.-Y. Wang, An 8 per cent determination of the Hubble constant from localized fast radio bursts, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 515, L1 (2022); 531, L8(E) (2024).
  24. R. I. Anderson, N. W. Koblischke, and L. Eyer, Reconciling astronomical distance scales with variable red giant stars, Astrophys. J. Lett. 963, L43 (2024).
  25. D. Scolnic, A. G. Riess, J. Wu, S. Li, G. S. Anand, R. Beaton, S. Casertano, R. Anderson, S. Dhawan, and X. Ke, CATS: The Hubble constant from standardized TRGB and Type Ia supernova measurements, Astrophys. J. Lett. 954, L31 (2023).
  26. D. O. Jones et al., Cosmological results from the RAISIN survey: Using Type Ia supernovae in the near infrared as a novel path to measure the dark energy equation of state, Astrophys. J. 933, 172 (2022).
  27. G. S. Anand, R. B. Tully, L. Rizzi, A. G. Riess, and W. Yuan, Comparing tip of the red giant branch distance scales: An independent reduction of the Carnegie-Chicago Hubble program and the value of the Hubble constant, Astrophys. J. 932, 15 (2022).
  28. W. L. Freedman, Measurements of the Hubble constant: Tensions in perspective, Astrophys. J. 919, 16 (2021).
  29. S. A. Uddin et al., Carnegie Supernova Project I and II: Measurements of H0 using cepheid, tip of the red giant branch, and surface brightness fluctuation distance calibration to Type Ia supernovae*, Astrophys. J. 970, 72 (2024).
  30. C. D. Huang et al., The Mira distance to M101 and a 4% measurement of H0, Astrophys. J. 963, 83 (2024).
  31. D. W. Pesce et al., The Megamaser Cosmology Project. XIII. Combined Hubble constant constraints, Astrophys. J. Lett. 891, L1 (2020).
  32. E. Kourkchi, R. B. Tully, G. S. Anand, H. M. Courtois, A. Dupuy, J. D. Neill, L. Rizzi, and M. Seibert, Cosmicflows-4: The calibration of optical and infrared Tully–Fisher relations, Astrophys. J. 896, 3 (2020).
  33. J. Schombert, S. McGaugh, and F. Lelli, Using the Baryonic Tully–Fisher relation to measure H o, Astron. J. 160, 71 (2020).
  34. J. P. Blakeslee, J. B. Jensen, C.-P. Ma, P. A. Milne, and J. E. Greene, The Hubble constant from infrared surface brightness fluctuation distances, Astrophys. J. 911, 65 (2021).
  35. T. de Jaeger, L. Galbany, A. G. Riess, B. E. Stahl, B. J. Shappee, A. V. Filippenko, and W. Zheng, A 5 per cent measurement of the Hubble–Lemaître constant from Type II supernovae, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 514, 4620 (2022).
  36. Y. S. Murakami, A. G. Riess, B. E. Stahl, W. D. Kenworthy, D.-M. A. Pluck, A. Macoretta, D. Brout, D. O. Jones, D. M. Scolnic, and A. V. Filippenko, Leveraging SN Ia spectroscopic similarity to improve the measurement of H0, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2023) 046.
  37. L. Breuval, A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, M. Romaniello, Y. S. Murakami, D. Scolnic, G. S. Anand, and I. Soszyński, Small magellanic cloud cepheids observed with the Hubble space telescope provide a new anchor for the SH0ES distance ladder, Astrophys. J. 973, 30 (2024).
  38. W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, I. S. Jang, T. J. Hoyt, A. J. Lee, and K. A. Owens, Status report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Three independent astrophysical determinations of the Hubble constant using the James Webb Space Telescope, Astrophys. J. 985, 203 (2025).
  39. A. G. Riess et al., JWST validates HST distance measurements: Selection of supernova subsample explains differences in JWST estimates of local H0, Astrophys. J. 977, 120 (2024).
  40. C. Vogl et al., No rungs attached: A distance-ladder free determination of the Hubble constant through type II supernova spectral modelling, Astron. Astrophys. 702, A41 (2025).
  41. D. H. Gao, Q. Wu, J. P. Hu, S. X. Yi, X. Zhou, and F. Y. Wang, Measuring Hubble constant using localized and unlocalized fast radio bursts, Astron. Astrophys. 698, A215 (2025).
  42. D. Scolnic et al., The Hubble tension in our own backyard: desi and the nearness of the coma cluster, Astrophys. J. Lett. 979, L9 (2025).
  43. K. Said et al., desi peculiar velocity survey—Fundamental plane, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 539, 3627 (2025).
  44. P. Boubel, M. Colless, K. Said, and L. Staveley-Smith, An improved Tully–Fisher estimate of H0, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 533, 1550 (2024).
  45. D. Scolnic, P. Boubel, J. Byrne, A. G. Riess, and G. S. Anand, Calibrating the Tully-Fisher relation to measure the Hubble constant, arXiv:2412.08449.
  46. S. Li, A. G. Riess, D. Scolnic, S. Casertano, and G. S. Anand, JAGB 2.0: Improved constraints on the J-region asymptotic giant branch-based Hubble constant from an expanded sample of JWST observations, Astrophys. J. 988, 97 (2025).
  47. J. B. Jensen, J. P. Blakeslee, M. Cantiello, M. Cowles, G. S. Anand, R. B. Tully, E. Kourkchi, and G. Raimondo, The TRGB-SBF project. III. Refining the HST surface brightness fluctuation distance scale calibration with JWST, arXiv:2502.15935.
  48. A. G. Riess et al., A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1  kms−1 Mpc−1 uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L7 (2022).
  49. G. Efstathiou, A Lockdown Perspective on the Hubble Tension (with comments from the SH0ES team), arXiv:2007.10716.
  50. E. Mortsell, A. Goobar, J. Johansson, and S. Dhawan, Sensitivity of the Hubble constant determination to cepheid calibration, Astrophys. J. 933, 212 (2022).
  51. E. Mortsell, A. Goobar, J. Johansson, and S. Dhawan, The Hubble tension revisited: Additional local distance ladder uncertainties, Astrophys. J. 935, 58 (2022).
  52. A. Sharon, D. Kushnir, W. Yuan, L. Macri, and A. Riess, Reassessing the constraints from SH0ES extragalactic cepheid amplitudes on systematic blending bias, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 528, 6861 (2024).
  53. A. G. Riess, G. S. Anand, W. Yuan, S. Casertano, A. Dolphin, L. M. Macri, L. Breuval, D. Scolnic, M. Perrin, and R. I. Anderson, Crowded no more: The accuracy of the Hubble constant tested with high-resolution observations of cepheids by JWST, Astrophys. J. Lett. 956, L18 (2023).
  54. A. Bhardwaj et al., High-resolution spectroscopic metallicities of Milky Way cepheid standards and their impact on the Leavitt law and the Hubble constant, Astrophys. J. Lett. 955, L13 (2023).
  55. D. Brout and A. Riess, The impact of dust on cepheid and Type Ia supernova distances, arXiv:2311.08253.
  56. A. M. Dwomoh, E. R. Peterson, D. Scolnic, C. Ashall, J. M. DerKacy, A. Do, J. Johansson, D. O. Jones, A. G. Riess, and B. J. Shappee, Evaluating the consistency of cosmological distances using supernova siblings in the near-infrared, Astrophys. J. 965, 90 (2024).
  57. A. G. Riess, G. S. Anand, W. Yuan, S. Casertano, A. Dolphin, L. M. Macri, L. Breuval, D. Scolnic, M. Perrin, and I. R. Anderson, JWST observations reject unrecognized crowding of Cepheid photometry as an explanation for the Hubble tension at 8σ confidence, Astrophys. J. Lett. 962, L17 (2024).
  58. L. Knox and M. Millea, Hubble constant Hunter’s guide, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043533 (2020).
  59. K. Jedamzik, L. Pogosian, and G.-B. Zhao, Why reducing the cosmic sound horizon alone can not fully resolve the Hubble tension, Commun. Phys. 4, 123 (2021).
  60. N. Schöneberg, G. Franco Abellán, A. Pérez Sánchez, S. J. Witte, V. Poulin, and J. Lesgourgues, The H0 olympics: A fair ranking of proposed models, Phys. Rep. 984, 1 (2022).
  61. A. R. Khalife, M. B. Zanjani, S. Galli, S. Günther, J. Lesgourgues, and K. Benabed, Review of Hubble tension solutions with new SH0ES and spt-3G data, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2024) 059.
  62. W. Giarè, CMB anomalies and the Hubble tension, arXiv:2305.16919.
  63. J.-P. Hu and F.-Y. Wang, Hubble tension: The evidence of new physics, Universe 9, 94 (2023).
  64. R. C. Nunes and S. Vagnozzi, Arbitrating the S8 discrepancy with growth rate measurements from redshift-space distortions, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 505, 5427 (2021).
  65. E. Di Valentino and S. Bridle, Exploring the tension between current cosmic microwave background and cosmic shear data, Symmetry 10, 585 (2018).
  66. S. A. Adil, O. Akarsu, M. Malekjani, E. O. Colgáin, S. Pourojaghi, A. A. Sen, and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, S8 increases with effective redshift in ΛCDM cosmology, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 528, L20 (2023).
  67. Ö. Akarsu, E. Ó. Colgáin, A. A. Sen, and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Further support for S8 increasing with effective redshift, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 542, L36 (2025).
  68. A. Amon et al. (DES Collaboration), Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and robustness to data calibration, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023514 (2022).
  69. L. F. Secco et al. (DES Collaboration), Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and robustness to modeling uncertainty, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023515 (2022).
  70. M. Asgari et al. (KiDS Collaboration), KiDS-1000 cosmology: Cosmic shear constraints and comparison between two point statistics, Astron. Astrophys. 645, A104 (2021).
  71. M. Asgari et al., KiDS+VIKING-450 and DES-Y1 combined: Mitigating baryon feedback uncertainty with COSEBIs, Astron. Astrophys. 634, A127 (2020).
  72. S. Joudaki et al., KiDS+VIKING-450 and DES-Y1 combined: Cosmology with cosmic shear, Astron. Astrophys. 638, L1 (2020).
  73. G. D’Amico, J. Gleyzes, N. Kokron, K. Markovic, L. Senatore, P. Zhang, F. Beutler, and H. Gil-Marín, The cosmological analysis of the SDSS/BOSS data from the effective field theory of large-scale structure, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2020) 005.
  74. T. M. C. Abbott et al. (Kilo-Degree Survey Collaboration and DES Collaboration), DES Y3+KiDS−1000: Consistent cosmology combining cosmic shear surveys, Open J. Astrophys. 6, 2305.17173 (2023).
  75. T. Tröster et al., Cosmology from large-scale structure: Constraining ΛCDM with BOSS, Astron. Astrophys. 633, L10 (2020).
  76. C. Heymans et al., KiDS-1000 cosmology: Multi-probe weak gravitational lensing and spectroscopic galaxy clustering constraints, Astron. Astrophys. 646, A140 (2021).
  77. R. Dalal et al., Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 Results: Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123519 (2023).
  78. S. Chen et al., Not all lensing is low: An analysis of DESI×DES using the Lagrangian effective theory of LSS, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103518 (2024).
  79. J. Kim et al. (ACT Collaboration and DESI Collaboration), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope DR6 and desi: Structure formation over cosmic time with a measurement of the cross-correlation of CMB lensing and luminous red galaxies, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2024) 022.
  80. N. Sailer et al., Cosmological constraints from the cross-correlation of desi luminous red galaxies with CMB lensing from Planck PR4 and ACT DR6, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06 (2025) 008.
  81. J. Harnois-Deraps et al., KiDS-1000 and DES-Y1 combined: Cosmology from peak count statistics, arXiv:2405.10312.
  82. A. Dvornik et al., KiDS-1000: Combined halo-model cosmology constraints from galaxy abundance, galaxy clustering and galaxy-galaxy lensing, Astron. Astrophys. 675, A189 (2023).
  83. T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES Collaboration), Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023520 (2022).
  84. A. H. Wright et al., KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo-Degree Survey, Astron. Astrophys. 703, A158 (2025).
  85. A. G. Adame et al. (DESI Collaboration), desi 2024 VI: Cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2025) 021, 2404.03002.
  86. R. Calderon et al. (DESI Collaboration), desi 2024: Reconstructing dark energy using crossing statistics with DESI DR1 BAO data, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2024) 048.
  87. A. G. Adame et al. (DESI Collaboration), desi 2024 V: Full-shape galaxy clustering from galaxies and quasars, arXiv:2411.12021.
  88. M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI Collaboration), desi DR2 results II: Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints, Phys. Rev. D 112, 083515 (2025).
  89. K. Lodha et al. (DESI Collaboration), Extended Dark Energy analysis using desi DR2 BAO measurements, Phys. Rev. D 112, 083511 (2025).
  90. T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES Collaboration), The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology results with ∼1500 new high-redshift Type Ia supernovae using the Full 5 yr Data Set, Astrophys. J. Lett. 973, L14 (2024).
  91. T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES Collaboration), Dark Energy Survey: Implications for cosmological expansion models from the final DES baryon acoustic oscillation and supernova data, Phys. Rev. D 113, 063530 (2026).
  92. M. Cortês and A. R. Liddle, Interpreting desi’s evidence for evolving dark energy, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2024) 007.
  93. D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, Assessing observational constraints on dark energy, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138826 (2024).
  94. O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Model-independent cosmographic constraints from desi 2024, Astron. Astrophys. 690, A40 (2024).
  95. W. Yin, Cosmic clues: desi, dark energy, and the cosmological constant problem, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2024) 327.
  96. I. D. Gialamas, G. Hütsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar, and H. Veermäe, Interpreting desi 2024 BAO: late-time dynamical dark energy or a local effect?, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043540 (2025).
  97. B. R. Dinda, A new diagnostic for the null test of dynamical dark energy in light of desi 2024 and other BAO data, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2024) 062.
  98. M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, Dynamical dark energy confronted with multiple CMB missions, Phys. Dark Universe 45, 101539 (2024).
  99. H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, Dark energy in light of recent desi BAO and Hubble tension, Phys. Lett. B 873, 140180 (2026).
  100. Y. Tada and T. Terada, Quintessential interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of desi observations, Phys. Rev. D 109, L121305 (2024).
  101. Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, Does dark energy really revive using desi 2024 data?, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023512 (2025).
  102. C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz Pérez, and B. Ratra, Using non-desi data to confirm and strengthen the desi 2024 spatially flat w0waCDM cosmological parametrization result, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123533 (2024).
  103. K. Lodha et al. (DESI Collaboration), desi 2024: Constraints on physics-focused aspects of dark energy using desi DR1 BAO data, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023532 (2025).
  104. S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, Cosmological constraints on curved quintessence, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2024) 073.
  105. O. F. Ramadan, J. Sakstein, and D. Rubin, desi constraints on exponential quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 110, L041303 (2024).
  106. S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, Cosmological tests of quintessence in quantum gravity, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2025) 086.
  107. L. Orchard and V. H. Cárdenas, Probing dark energy evolution post-desi 2024, Phys. Dark Universe 46, 101678 (2024).
  108. A. Hernández-Almada, M. L. Mendoza-Martínez, M. A. García-Aspeitia, and V. Motta, Phenomenological emergent dark energy in the light of desi Data Release 1, Phys. Dark Universe 46, 101668 (2024).
  109. S. Pourojaghi, M. Malekjani, and Z. Davari, Cosmological constraints on dark energy parametrizations after desi 2024: Persistent deviation from standard ΛCDM cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 111, 083547 (2025).
  110. W. Giarè, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, Robust preference for dynamical dark energy in desi BAO and SN measurements, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2024) 035.
  111. J. a. Rebouūças, D. H. F. de Souza, K. Zhong, V. Miranda, and R. Rosenfeld, Investigating late-time dark energy and massive neutrinos in light of desi Y1 BAO, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2025) 024.
  112. W. Giarè, Dynamical dark energy beyond Planck? Constraints from multiple CMB probes, desi BAO and Type-Ia Supernovae, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023508 (2025).
  113. 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. D 34, 2550058 (2025).
  114. N. Menci, A. A. Sen, and M. Castellano, The excess of JWST bright galaxies: A possible origin in the ground state of dynamical dark energy in the light of desi 2024 data, Astrophys. J. 976, 227 (2024).
  115. T.-N. Li, Y.-H. Li, G.-H. Du, P.-J. Wu, L. Feng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Revisiting holographic dark energy after DESI 2024, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 608 (2025).
  116. J.-X. Li and S. Wang, A comprehensive numerical study on four categories of holographic dark energy models, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2025) 047.
  117. A. Notari, M. Redi, and A. Tesi, BAO vs SN evidence for evolving dark energy, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2025) 048.
  118. Q. Gao, Z. Peng, S. Gao, and Y. Gong, On the evidence of dynamical dark energy, Universe 11, 10 (2025).
  119. R. Fikri, E. ElKhateeb, E. S. Lashin, and W. El Hanafy, A preference for dynamical phantom dark energy using one-parameter model with Planck, desi DR1 BAO and SN data, Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam) 481, 170190 (2025).
  120. J.-Q. Jiang, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, Non-parametric late-time expansion history reconstruction and implications for the Hubble tension in light of desi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123519 (2024).
  121. J. Zheng, D.-C. Qiang, and Z.-Q. You, Cosmological constraints on dark energy models using desi BAO 2024, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2025) 056.
  122. A. Gómez-Valent and J. Solà Peracaula, Composite dark energy and the cosmological tensions, Phys. Lett. B 864, 139391 (2025).
  123. 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).
  124. S. Roy Choudhury, Cosmology in extended parameter space with desi DR2 BAO: A 2σ+ detection of non-zero neutrino masses with an update on dynamical dark energy and lensing anomaly, Astrophys. J. Lett. 986, L31 (2025).
  125. A. Lewis and E. Chamberlain, Understanding acoustic scale observations: the one-sided fight against Λ, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2025) 065.
  126. W. J. Wolf, C. García-García, and P. G. Ferreira, Robustness of dark energy phenomenology across different parameterizations, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2025) 034.
  127. A. J. Shajib and J. A. Frieman, Evolving dark energy models: Current and forecast constraints, Phys. Rev. D 112, 063508 (2025).
  128. W. Giarè, T. Mahassen, E. Di Valentino, and S. Pan, An overview of what current data can (and cannot yet) say about evolving dark energy, Phys. Dark Universe 48, 101906 (2025).
  129. E. Chaussidon et al., Early time solution as an alternative to the late time evolving dark energy with desi DR2 BAO, Phys. Rev. D 112, 063548 (2025).
  130. D. A. Kessler, L. A. Escamilla, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, One-parameter dynamical dark energy: Hints for oscillations, arXiv:2504.00776.
  131. M. A. C. Alvarez, L. Graef, and R. Brandenberger, Back-reaction of super-Hubble fluctuations late time tracking and recent observational results, Symmetry 17, 1507 (2025).
  132. M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213 (2001).
  133. E. V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003).
  134. E. Ozulker, Is the dark energy equation of state parameter singular?, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063509 (2022).
  135. K. Dutta, Ruchika, A. Roy, A. A. Sen, and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Beyond ΛCDM with low and high redshift data: implications for dark energy, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 52, 15 (2020).
  136. L. Visinelli, S. Vagnozzi, and U. Danielsson, Revisiting a negative cosmological constant from low-redshift data, Symmetry 11, 1035 (2019).
  137. M. Malekjani, R. M. Conville, E. O. Colgáin, S. Pourojaghi, and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, On redshift evolution and negative dark energy density in Pantheon+Supernovae, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 317 (2024).
  138. J. A. Vázquez, D. Tamayo, G. Garcia-Arroyo, I. Gómez-Vargas, I. Quiros, and A. A. Sen, Coupled multi scalar field dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023511 (2024).
  139. S. A. Adil, U. Mukhopadhyay, A. A. Sen, and S. Vagnozzi, Dark energy in light of the early JWST observations: Case for a negative cosmological constant?, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2023) 072.
  140. A. Gómez-Valent, A. Favale, M. Migliaccio, and A. A. Sen, Late-time phenomenology required to solve the H0 tension in view of the cosmic ladders and the anisotropic and angular BAO datasets, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023525 (2024).
  141. O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. Özülker, and J. A. Vazquez, Relaxing cosmological tensions with a sign switching cosmological constant, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123512 (2021).
  142. O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. Özülker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, Relaxing cosmological tensions with a sign switching cosmological constant: Improved results with Planck, BAO, and Pantheon data, Phys. Rev. D 108, 023513 (2023).
  143. Ö. Akarsu, A. De Felice, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, E. Özülker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, ΛsCDM cosmology from a type-II minimally modified gravity, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 546, staf2276 (2026).
  144. Ö. Akarsu, A. De Felice, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, E. Özülker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, Cosmological constraints on ΛsCDM scenario in a type II minimally modified gravity, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103527 (2024).
  145. O. Akarsu, J. D. Barrow, L. A. Escamilla, and J. A. Vazquez, Graduated dark energy: Observational hints of a spontaneous sign switch in the cosmological constant, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063528 (2020).
  146. O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, ΛsCDM model: A promising scenario for alleviation of cosmological tensions, arXiv:2307.10899.
  147. A. Yadav, S. Kumar, C. Kibris, and O. Akarsu, ΛsCDM cosmology: Alleviating major cosmological tensions by predicting standard neutrino properties, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2025) 042.
  148. L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, and D. Lust, Anti-de Sitter→de Sitter transition driven by Casimir forces and mitigating tensions in cosmological parameters, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138775 (2024).
  149. N. Menci, S. A. Adil, U. Mukhopadhyay, A. A. Sen, and S. Vagnozzi, Negative cosmological constant in the dark energy sector: Tests from JWST photometric and spectroscopic observations of high-redshift galaxies, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2024) 072.
  150. L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, D. Lust, N. T. Noble, and J. F. Soriano, From infinite to infinitesimal: Using the Universe as a dataset to probe Casimir corrections to the vacuum energy from fields inhabiting the dark dimension, Phys. Dark Universe 46, 101715 (2024).
  151. L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, D. Bielli, A. Chatrabhuti, and H. Isono, Thin-wall vacuum decay in the presence of a compact dimension meets the H0 and S8 tensions, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2025) 021.
  152. J. F. Soriano, S. Wohlberg, and L. A. Anchordoqui, New insights on a sign-switching Λ, Phys. Dark Universe 48, 101911 (2025).
  153. A. De Felice, S. Kumar, S. Mukohyama, and R. C. Nunes, Observational bounds on extended minimal theories of massive gravity: new limits on the graviton mass, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2024) 013.
  154. A. Gomez-Valent and J. Solà Peracaula, Phantom matter: A challenging solution to the cosmological tensions, Astrophys. J. 975, 64 (2024).
  155. L. A. Escamilla, E. Özülker, Ö. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, and J. A. Vázquez, Improved late-time fits with wavelet extensions of ΛCDM, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 544, 836 (2025).
  156. L. A. Escamilla, O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, and J. A. Vazquez, Model-independent reconstruction of the interacting dark energy kernel: Binned and Gaussian process, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2023) 051.
  157. M. A. Sabogal, O. Akarsu, A. Bonilla, E. Di Valentino, and R. C. Nunes, Exploring new physics in the late Universe’s expansion through non-parametric inference, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 703 (2024).
  158. O. Akarsu, B. Bulduk, A. De Felice, N. Kat𝚤rc𝚤, and N. M. Uzun, Unexplored regions in teleparallel f(T) gravity: Sign-changing dark energy density, Phys. Rev. D 112, 083532 (2025).
  159. O. Akarsu, L. Perivolaropoulos, A. Tsikoundoura, A. E. Yükselci, and A. Zhuk, Dynamical dark energy with AdS-to-dS and dS-to-dS transitions: Implications for the H0 tension, arXiv:2502.14667.
  160. S. A. Adil, O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, E. Özülker, A. A. Sen, and E. Specogna, Omnipotent dark energy: A phenomenological answer to the Hubble tension, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023527 (2024).
  161. E. Di Valentino, A. Mukherjee, and A. A. Sen, Dark energy with phantom crossing and the H0 tension, Entropy 23, 404 (2021).
  162. A. Bonilla, S. Kumar, and R. C. Nunes, Measurements of H0 and reconstruction of the dark energy properties from a model-independent joint analysis, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 127 (2021).
  163. V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, and A. A. Starobinsky, Model independent evidence for dark energy evolution from Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, Astrophys. J. Lett. 793, L40 (2014).
  164. E. Aubourg et al., Cosmological implications of baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, Phys. Rev. D 92, 123516 (2015).
  165. Y. Wang, L. Pogosian, G.-B. Zhao, and A. Zucca, Evolution of dark energy reconstructed from the latest observations, Astrophys. J. Lett. 869, L8 (2018).
  166. V. Poulin, K. K. Boddy, S. Bird, and M. Kamionkowski, Implications of an extended dark energy cosmology with massive neutrinos for cosmological tensions, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123504 (2018).
  167. L. A. Escamilla and J. A. Vazquez, Model selection applied to reconstructions of the dark energy, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 251 (2023).
  168. A. A. Sen, S. A. Adil, and S. Sen, Do cosmological observations allow a negative Λ?, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 518, 1098 (2022).
  169. R. Calderón, R. Gannouji, B. L’Huillier, and D. Polarski, Negative cosmological constant in the dark sector?, Phys. Rev. D 103, 023526 (2021).
  170. O. Akarsu, J. D. Barrow, C. V. R. Board, N. M. Uzun, and J. A. Vazquez, Screening Λ in a new modified gravity model, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 846 (2019).
  171. G. Acquaviva, O. Akarsu, N. Katirci, and J. A. Vazquez, Simple-graduated dark energy and spatial curvature, Phys. Rev. D 104, 023505 (2021).
  172. O. Akarsu, E. O. Colgain, E. Özulker, S. Thakur, and L. Yin, Inevitable manifestation of wiggles in the expansion of the late Universe, Phys. Rev. D 107, 123526 (2023).
  173. R. R. Caldwell, A phantom menace?, Phys. Lett. B 545, 23 (2002).
  174. C. García-García, E. Bellini, P. G. Ferreira, D. Traykova, and M. Zumalacárregui, Theoretical priors in scalar-tensor cosmologies: Thawing quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063508 (2020).
  175. W. J. Wolf and P. G. Ferreira, Underdetermination of dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103519 (2023).
  176. W. J. Wolf, C. García-García, D. J. Bartlett, and P. G. Ferreira, Scant evidence for thawing quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083528 (2024).
  177. E. V. Linder, Interpreting dark energy data away from Λ, arXiv:2410.10981.
  178. A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models, Astrophys. J. 538, 473 (2000).
  179. C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall, and A. Challinor, CMB power spectrum parameter degeneracies in the era of precision cosmology, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2012) 027.
  180. J. Torrado and A. Lewis, cobaya: Code for Bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2021) 057.
  181. A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: A Monte Carlo approach, Phys. Rev. D 66, 103511 (2002).
  182. R. M. Neal, Taking bigger metropolis steps by dragging fast variables, arXiv:math/0502099.
  183. A. Lewis, Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters, Phys. Rev. D 87, 103529 (2013).
  184. D. Dutcher et al. (SPT-3G Collaboration), Measurements of the E-mode polarization and temperature-E-mode correlation of the CMB from spt-3G 2018 data, Phys. Rev. D 104, 022003 (2021).
  185. G. Hinshaw et al., Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Cosmological parameter results, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 208, 19 (2013).
  186. A. G. Adame et al. (DESI Collaboration), desi 2024 III: Baryon acoustic oscillations from galaxies and quasars, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2025) 012.
  187. A. G. Adame et al. (DESI Collaboration), desi 2024 IV: Baryon acoustic oscillations from the lyman alpha forest, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2025) 124.
  188. S. Alam et al. (eBOSS Collaboration), Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021).
  189. D. Brout et al., The Pantheon+Analysis: Cosmological constraints, Astrophys. J. 938, 110 (2022).
  190. A. Lewis, getdist: A python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2025) 025.
  191. W. Handley, fgivenx: Functional posterior plotter, J. Open Source Softwaare 3, 849 (2018).
  192. S. Alam et al. (eBOSS Collaboration), Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021).
  193. Ö. Akarsu, M. Caruana, K. F. Dialektopoulos, L. A. Escamilla, E. O. Kahya, and J. Levi Said, Hints of sign-changing scalar field energy density and a transient acceleration phase at z∼2 from model-agnostic reconstructions, arXiv:2602.08928.
  194. W. J. Wolf, C. García-García, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira, Assessing cosmological evidence for nonminimal coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 081001 (2025).
  195. W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. García-García, Cosmological constraints on Galileon dark energy with broken shift symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 113, 023551 (2026).
  196. S. A. Franchino-Viñas and S. Mignemi, Asymptotic freedom for λϕ⋆4 QFT in Snyder–de Sitter space, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 382 (2020).
  197. S. A. Franchino-Viñas and S. Mignemi, The Snyder-de Sitter scalar φ⋆4 quantum field theory in D=2, Nucl. Phys. B981, 115871 (2022).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 113, 103549– Published 29 May, 2026
  • Received 1 August 2025
  • Accepted 27 April 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation