Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
186,546 studies31 sourcesUpdated 3 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Dark Energy Constraints and Joint Cosmological Inference from Mutually Inconsistent Observations

  • Charles L Steinhardt1,2
  • Preston Phillips1,2,3
  • Radoslaw Wojtak2
  1. 1University of Missouri Department of Physics and Astronomy, , 701 S. College Ave., Columbia, MO 65203
  2. 2Dark Cosmology Centre, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen , Jagtvej 155A, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø
  3. 3University of Texas Department of Physics, Math, and Astronomy, , 2515 Speedway, Austin, TX 78712
Open at sourcePDFDOICite

Abstract

Recent results regarding dark energy are mutually inconsistent under the ΛCDM cosmological model, hinting at the possibility of undiscovered physics. However, the currently accepted cosmological parameters come from a joint inference between observational data sets, a process that is formally invalid for inconsistent observations. We will show that many problems can arise when using joint inference on disagreeing observations such as significantly underestimated margins of error, high dependencies on priors, and sensitivities to boundary constraints. Because we do not know if these inconsistencies arise due to errors in observation, poor statistical techniques, or an improper model, it is difficult to fix these problems. Each scenario in which the analysis method breaks is discussed alternative resampling techniques are explored, demonstrating that ΛCDM should not yet be rejected based on current data.

Related

  1. Cosmological constraints on single-field inflation models from ACT/SPT data and observations at sub-Mpc scales
    Qing-Yang Wang, Jing-Zhi Zhou, Fei-Yu Chen +1
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textCosmologyGravitation & general relativityarXiv
  2. Constraints from big bang nucleosynthesis and cosmological observations on varying Higgs vacuum expectation value
    Hongrui Feng, Yudong Luo, Toshitaka Kajino +2
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textCosmologyHigh-energy & particle physicsarXiv
  3. Updated observational constraints on ϕCDM dynamical dark energy cosmological models
    Chan‐Gyung Park, Bharat Ratra
    International Journal of Modern Physics DPeer-reviewedLicence not statedFull text8 citedCosmologyOpenAlex
  4. The role of anisotropy in f(Q) gravity: insights from cosmological observations
    Ghulam Murtaza, Nandan Roy, Avik De
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textCosmologyarXiv
  5. Dark Energy Survey year 6 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing
    T. M. C. Abbott, T. M. C. Abbott, M. Aguena +97
    Physical review. D/Physical review. D.Peer-reviewedLicence not statedFull text19 citedCosmologyOpenAlex

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{steinhardt2026dark,
  title = {{Dark Energy Constraints and Joint Cosmological Inference from Mutually Inconsistent Observations}},
  author = {Charles L Steinhardt and Preston Phillips and Radoslaw Wojtak},
  journal = {Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1093/mnras/stag1989},
  url = {https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article/doi/10.1093/mnras/stag1989/9004095},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Dark Energy Constraints and Joint Cosmological Inference from Mutually Inconsistent Observations
AU  - Charles L Steinhardt
AU  - Preston Phillips
AU  - Radoslaw Wojtak
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/28
JO  - Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
DO  - 10.1093/mnras/stag1989
UR  - https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article/doi/10.1093/mnras/stag1989/9004095
AB  - Recent results regarding dark energy are mutually inconsistent under the ΛCDM cosmological model, hinting at the possibility of undiscovered physics. However, the currently accepted cosmological parameters come from a joint inference between observational data sets, a process that is formally invalid for inconsistent observations. We will show that many problems can arise when using joint inference on disagreeing observations such as significantly underestimated margins of error, high dependencies on priors, and sensitivities to boundary constraints. Because we do not know if these inconsistencies arise due to errors in observation, poor statistical techniques, or an improper model, it is difficult to fix these problems. Each scenario in which the analysis method breaks is discussed alternative resampling techniques are explored, demonstrating that ΛCDM should not yet be rejected based on current data.
SN  - 0035-8711
SN  - 1365-2966
ER  -