Suggestions of decreasing dark energy from supernova and BAO data: an update

TL;DR

This paper updates constraints on dark energy models using recent supernova and BAO data, finding significant evidence against the standard cosmological constant in favor of a scalar field with a declining potential.

Contribution

It provides new constraints on scalar field dark energy models using DES-SN5YR and DESI DR2 data, indicating a preference for a non-zero potential slope over the cosmological constant.

Findings

Scalar potential slope constrained as V1 = 1.49 ± 0.25

Disfavors ΛCDM at >4σ significance with recent data

Improved significance over previous analyses

Abstract

In a previous work 2305.04946, we found that supernova and baryon acoustic oscillation data support the hypothesis that late time cosmic acceleration is caused by the potential energy of a scalar field descending its potential, as suggested by holographically defined models of quantum gravity. In this note, we update our analysis using the Dark Energy Survey 5 year supernova data set (DES-SN5YR) and the baryon acoustic oscillation data from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument Data Release 2 (DESI DR2). Approximating the scalar potential via a first order Taylor series $V \approx V_0 + V_1 \phi$ about the present value, and making use of only recent-time data from DES-SN5YR and DESI DR2, we find that the slope parameter is constrained as $V_1 = 1.49 \pm 0.25$ in a standard likelihood analysis. This is naively a $>5 \sigma$ discrepancy with $\Lambda$CDM (which has $V_1 =0$), though a more detailed analysis not assuming a Gaussian likelihood distribution suggests $4 \sigma$ significance. Based only on the $\Delta \chi^2 = -13.7$ improvement of fit while ignoring parameter space volumes disfavours $\Lambda$CDM at a $3 \sigma$ significance level. These significance measures are substantially improved from our previous analysis using older data sets. We also reproduce the DESI DR2 parameter constraints based on the same combination of data and find that the $\Lambda$CDM is more strongly disfavoured in the context of the linear potential extension (dubbed $V_0V_1$) as compared with the $w_0 w_a$ extension of $\Lambda$CDM. A caveat is that for both $w_0 w_a$ and $V_0 V_1$, much of the significance relies on the historical $z < 0.1$ supernova samples included in the DES-SN5YR data set.