PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Physical review. D/Physical review. D.· 2026Q1

Quantifying and testing the evidence for a phantom crossing

Emre Özülker, Eleonora Di Valentino, William Giarè

Short summary

Recent cosmological datasets (CMB, BAO, SNeIa) analyzed with the CPL parametrization exclude the standard ΛCDM model at >3σ, favoring a dark energy equation of state that crosses the phantom divide ($w=-1$).

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Cosmological datasets (CMB, BAO, SNeIa) analyzed with CPL parametrization exclude ΛCDM at >3σ.
  • Data favor a dark energy equation of state crossing the phantom divide ($w=-1$).
  • The probability of no phantom divide crossing is excluded at 3.1σ-5.2σ significance.
  • The crossing indicates a transition from a phantom-like to a quintessence-like phase.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Combinations of the most recent CMB, BAO, and SNeIa datasets, when analyzed using the CPL parametrization, $w(a) = w_0 + (1 - a) w_a$, exclude $Λ$CDM at $\gtrsim\!3σ$ in favor of a dark energy equation of state (EoS) parameter that crosses the phantom divide. We confirm this behavior and show that it persists when DESI BAO data are replaced by SH0ES $H_0$ measurements, despite the known tension between these probes in the presence of CMB data. In both cases, the constraints favor a transition from an early-time phantom-like phase to a late-time quintessence-like phase, with the crossing occurring at different redshifts depending on the dataset combination. The probability that a phantom divide line (PDL) crossing does not occur within the expansion history is excluded at significance levels ranging between $3.1σ$-$5.2σ$. To investigate whether the apparent PDL crossing is a genuine feature preferred by the data or an artifact of the linear form of the CPL parametrization, we isolate the PDL crossing feature by introducing two modified versions of CPL that explicitly forbid it: CPL${}_{>a_\mathrm{c}}$ and CPL${}_{

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Physical review. D/Physical review. D., 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Astronomy and Astrophysics

Astronomy and AstrophysicsPhysics and Astronomy