Tests of Evolving Dark Energy with Geometric Probes of the Late-Time Universe
Open accessAbstract
Recent results from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) have shown a strong statistical preference for a time-evolving dark energy model over $Λ$CDM when combining BAO, CMB, and supernova (SN) data. We investigate the robustness of this conclusion by isolating geometric information in weak lensing measurements from the DES Year 3 survey and combining it with different datasets. We introduce a hyperparameter, $Ω_{\rm m}^{\rm growth}$, to decouple the growth contribution from the lensing 2-point correlation and thus bypass the possible effect of the $σ_8$ tension in our analysis. We then combine with the late-time geometric probes provided by BAO and SN, along with CMB primary data. The preference for evolving dark energy is consistent with the DESI-DR2 findings: when combining BAO, primary CMB, and weak lensing data, the $w_0w_a$CDM is preferred at about the $3σ$ significance. However, when we add SN, the result is sensitive to the choice of data: if we leave out $z<0.1$ SN data in the analysis, as a test of the effect of inhomogeneous calibration, we obtain a statistical significance below $2σ$ for time evolving dark energy. Indeed, the high-z only SN data \textbf{lowers} the evidence for evolving dark energy in all the data combinations we have examined. This underscores the importance of improved SN samples at low redshift and of alternative data combinations. We show that cosmic shear measurements with LSST Year 1 data will provide comparable power to current SN data. We discuss other low-redshift probes provided by lensing and galaxy clustering to test for evolving dark energy.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 2
- Authors
- Zhong, K., & Jain, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2509.26480
- OpenAlex
- W4414803910
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
- Keywords
- time-varying dark energy, weak gravitational lensing, cosmic shear, baryon acoustic oscillations, supernovae, cosmic microwave background, sigma8 tension, low-redshift supernovae, galaxy clustering, late-time universe
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review