Does DESI DR2 challenge $Λ$CDM paradigm ?
Fuente:
arXiv
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2025
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866918161450795008 |
|---|---|
| author | Chaudhary, Himanshu Capozziello, Salvatore Sharma, Vipin Kumar Mustafa, Ghulam |
| author_facet | Chaudhary, Himanshu Capozziello, Salvatore Sharma, Vipin Kumar Mustafa, Ghulam |
| contents | Although debate on DESI DR1 systematics remains, DESI DR2 is consistent with DR1 and strengthens its trends. In our analysis, the LRG1 point at $z_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.510$ and the LRG3+ELG1 point at $z_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.934$ are in tension with the $Λ$CDM-anchored $Ω_m$ inferred from Planck and SNe Ia (Pantheon$^{+}$, Union3, DES-SN5YR): for LRG1 the tensions are $2.42σ$, $1.91σ$, $2.19σ$, and $2.99σ$; for LRG3+ELG1 they are $2.60σ$, $2.24σ$, $2.51σ$, and $2.96σ$. Across redshift bins DR2 shows improved agreement relative to DR1, with the $Ω_m$ tension dropping from $2.20σ$ to $1.84σ$. Nevertheless, DR2 alone is not decisive against $Λ$CDM, and the apparent deviation is driven mainly by LRG1 and LRG2. In a $ω_0ω_a$CDM fit using all tracers we find a posterior mean with $w_0>-1$, consistent with dynamical dark energy and nominally challenging $Λ$CDM. Removing LRG1 and/or LRG2 restores $Λ$CDM concordance ($ω_0\to-1$); moreover, $ω_0^{\mathrm{(LRG2)}}>w_0^{\mathrm{(LRG1)}}$, indicating that LRG2 drives the trend more strongly. Model selection via the natural-log Bayes factor $\ln\mathrm{BF}\equiv\ln(Z_{Λ\mathrm{CDM}}/Z_{ω_0ω_a\mathrm{CDM}})$ yields weak evidence for $Λ$CDM when LRG1, LRG2, or both are removed, and is inconclusive for the full sample. Hence the data do not require the extra $ω_a$ freedom, and the apparent $ω_0>-1$ preference should be interpreted cautiously as a reflection of the $ω_0$$ω_a$ degeneracy with limited per-tracer information. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2507_21607 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Does DESI DR2 challenge $Λ$CDM paradigm ? Chaudhary, Himanshu Capozziello, Salvatore Sharma, Vipin Kumar Mustafa, Ghulam Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology High Energy Physics - Theory Although debate on DESI DR1 systematics remains, DESI DR2 is consistent with DR1 and strengthens its trends. In our analysis, the LRG1 point at $z_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.510$ and the LRG3+ELG1 point at $z_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.934$ are in tension with the $Λ$CDM-anchored $Ω_m$ inferred from Planck and SNe Ia (Pantheon$^{+}$, Union3, DES-SN5YR): for LRG1 the tensions are $2.42σ$, $1.91σ$, $2.19σ$, and $2.99σ$; for LRG3+ELG1 they are $2.60σ$, $2.24σ$, $2.51σ$, and $2.96σ$. Across redshift bins DR2 shows improved agreement relative to DR1, with the $Ω_m$ tension dropping from $2.20σ$ to $1.84σ$. Nevertheless, DR2 alone is not decisive against $Λ$CDM, and the apparent deviation is driven mainly by LRG1 and LRG2. In a $ω_0ω_a$CDM fit using all tracers we find a posterior mean with $w_0>-1$, consistent with dynamical dark energy and nominally challenging $Λ$CDM. Removing LRG1 and/or LRG2 restores $Λ$CDM concordance ($ω_0\to-1$); moreover, $ω_0^{\mathrm{(LRG2)}}>w_0^{\mathrm{(LRG1)}}$, indicating that LRG2 drives the trend more strongly. Model selection via the natural-log Bayes factor $\ln\mathrm{BF}\equiv\ln(Z_{Λ\mathrm{CDM}}/Z_{ω_0ω_a\mathrm{CDM}})$ yields weak evidence for $Λ$CDM when LRG1, LRG2, or both are removed, and is inconclusive for the full sample. Hence the data do not require the extra $ω_a$ freedom, and the apparent $ω_0>-1$ preference should be interpreted cautiously as a reflection of the $ω_0$$ω_a$ degeneracy with limited per-tracer information. |
| title | Does DESI DR2 challenge $Λ$CDM paradigm ? |
| topic | Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology High Energy Physics - Theory |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21607 |