PreprintCited by 0Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena

Model Predictive Scoring Shows Specific BAO Observations (not SNIa) Drives $w_0w_a$ Tension

Open access
Karim, Tanveer, Speagle, Joshua S., Hložek, Renée·2026·arXiv

Abstract

The recent analyses of DESI DR2 BAO, Planck CMB and various Supernovae datasets have shown preferences for evolving dark energy at various levels of significance, under frequentist model comparison tests. However, the same analysis done with a pure Bayesian model comparison test can lead to the opposite conclusion due to the impact of $w_0w_a$ priors. In contrast to these in-sample model comparison route, we approach the problem along a third axis -- which model better predicts unseen data. We use the Expected Log Predictive Density (ELPD) metric to score the predictiveness of $Λ$CDM and $w_0w_a$CDM models, using the leave-one-redshift-block-out cross-validation estimator. The comparison metric $Δ$ELPD is out-of-sample, unlike $Δχ^2_{\rm MAP}$ and Bayes Factor, and insensitive to prior width, unlike the Bayes factor. Aggregated, we find modest preferences for $w_0 w_a$CDM, primarily driven by the BAO. Decomposing the $Δ$ELPD score by redshift we find that a single BAO block, LRG2 ($z = 0.706$), supplies the entire BAO preference. Interestingly, the biggest outlier point, LRG1, contributes little to the model predictive scoring because both $Λ$CDM and $w_0w_a$CDM fail to predict the observation by equal amount. On the other hand, all SNIa datasets' $Δ$ELPD scores are consistent with $0$, indicating that at an out-of-distribution predictive level, the $w_0w_a$CDM tension is entirely driven by one BAO point, not SNIa.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2609.04334

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Authors
Karim, T., Speagle, J. S., & Hložek, R.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7211875577
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Toronto
  • Alliance de recherche numérique du Canada
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2025-06483, RGPIN-2023, rgpin-2023-04849)
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
dark energy, Hubble tension, baryon acoustic oscillations, Type Ia supernovae, cross-validation, model comparison, DESI DR2, LambdaCDM, cosmological parameter constraints

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