2025-11-18T07:37:15.102358

Does DESI DR2 challenge $Λ$CDM paradigm ?

Chaudhary, Capozziello, Sharma et al.
Although debate on DESI DR1 systematics remains, DESI DR2 is consistent with DR1 and strengthens its trends. In our analysis, the LRG1 point at $z_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.510$ and the LRG3+ELG1 point at $z_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.934$ are in tension with the $Λ$CDM-anchored $Ω_m$ inferred from Planck and SNe Ia (Pantheon$^{+}$, Union3, DES-SN5YR): for LRG1 the tensions are $2.42σ$, $1.91σ$, $2.19σ$, and $2.99σ$; for LRG3+ELG1 they are $2.60σ$, $2.24σ$, $2.51σ$, and $2.96σ$. Across redshift bins DR2 shows improved agreement relative to DR1, with the $Ω_m$ tension dropping from $2.20σ$ to $1.84σ$. Nevertheless, DR2 alone is not decisive against $Λ$CDM, and the apparent deviation is driven mainly by LRG1 and LRG2. In a $ω_0ω_a$CDM fit using all tracers we find a posterior mean with $w_0>-1$, consistent with dynamical dark energy and nominally challenging $Λ$CDM. Removing LRG1 and/or LRG2 restores $Λ$CDM concordance ($ω_0\to-1$); moreover, $ω_0^{\mathrm{(LRG2)}}>w_0^{\mathrm{(LRG1)}}$, indicating that LRG2 drives the trend more strongly. Model selection via the natural-log Bayes factor $\ln\mathrm{BF}\equiv\ln(Z_{Λ\mathrm{CDM}}/Z_{ω_0ω_a\mathrm{CDM}})$ yields weak evidence for $Λ$CDM when LRG1, LRG2, or both are removed, and is inconclusive for the full sample. Hence the data do not require the extra $ω_a$ freedom, and the apparent $ω_0>-1$ preference should be interpreted cautiously as a reflection of the $ω_0$$ω_a$ degeneracy with limited per-tracer information.
academic

Does DESI DR2 challenge ΛCDM paradigm ?

Basic Information

  • Paper ID: 2507.21607
  • Title: Does DESI DR2 challenge ΛCDM paradigm ?
  • Authors: Himanshu Chaudhary, Salvatore Capozziello, Vipin Kumar Sharma, Ghulam Mustafa
  • Classification: astro-ph.CO gr-qc hep-th
  • Publication Date: October 15, 2025 (v3)
  • Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21607

Abstract

This paper analyzes the challenges faced by the ΛCDM cosmological model based on DESI DR2 data. The study reveals significant tensions between the LRG1 (z_eff=0.510) and LRG3+ELG1 (z_eff=0.934) data points and the Ωm values inferred from Planck and multiple SNe Ia samples, with tension levels reaching 2-3σ. In ω₀ωₐCDM model fitting, all tracers show preference for ω₀>-1, suggesting the possibility of dynamical dark energy. However, after removing LRG1 and/or LRG2 data, the model returns to ΛCDM consistency. Bayesian factor analysis indicates that the data do not strongly require the additional ωₐ degree of freedom; therefore, the preference for ω₀>-1 should be interpreted cautiously.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

This study addresses the core question of whether DESI DR2 data pose a challenge to the standard cosmological model ΛCDM. The ΛCDM model assumes dark energy as a cosmological constant (ω=-1), yet DESI DR1 data showed evidence for dark energy evolution at the ≥3σ level.

Significance

  1. Theoretical Importance: ΛCDM is the standard model of modern cosmology; any challenge to it carries significant theoretical implications
  2. Observational Verification: Independent high-quality data are needed to verify the findings from DESI DR1
  3. Cosmological Parameters: Relates to understanding the fundamental composition and evolution of the universe

Existing Limitations

  1. Controversy regarding systematic errors in DESI DR1
  2. Single-tracer data are susceptible to parameter degeneracies
  3. Lack of systematic analysis of consistency across different redshift intervals

Research Motivation

Through the DESI DR2 dataset, which is more recent and complete, systematically assess the validity of the ΛCDM model and explore the possibility of dynamical dark energy.

Core Contributions

  1. Systematic Analysis of DESI DR2 Data: First comprehensive analysis of all tracers in DR2 constraining ΛCDM
  2. Quantification of Tension Levels: Precise calculation of tension degrees between different tracers and Planck/SNe Ia data
  3. Identification of Key Tracers: Discovery that LRG1 and LRG2 are the primary drivers of the ω₀>-1 preference
  4. Bayesian Model Selection: Assessment of the necessity of additional parameters through Bayes factors
  5. Redshift Evolution Analysis: Investigation of cosmological parameter variations with redshift

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Input: DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurement data, including observations of multiple tracers at different effective redshifts Output: Posterior distributions of ΛCDM and ω₀ωₐCDM model parameters and model comparison results Constraints: Flat FLRW universe assumption, neglecting radiation component (z<<10²)

Cosmological Models

ΛCDM Model

The standard concordance cosmological model, characterized by constant dark energy equation of state ω_de = -1:

E(z)² = Ωm(1+z)³ + (1-Ωm)

ω₀ωₐCDM Model

Dynamical dark energy model using CPL parameterization:

ω(z) = ω₀ + ωₐz/(1+z) = ω₀ + ωₐ(1-a)

Corresponding Hubble function:

E(z)² = Ωm(1+z)³ + Ωx(1+z)^(3(1+ω₀+ωₐ)) exp(-3ωₐz/(1+z))

Distance Measurements

Three key distances are calculated:

  1. Hubble Distance: D_H(z) = c/H(z)
  2. Comoving Angular Diameter Distance: D_M(z) = (c/H₀)∫₀^z dz'/H(z')
  3. Volume-Averaged Distance: D_V(z) = zD_M²(z)D_H(z)^(1/3)

Statistical Methods

Nested Sampling

Bayesian inference implemented using PYPOLYCHORD library:

  • 300 active points
  • Clustering techniques enabled for multimodal distributions
  • Uniform prior distributions

Prior Settings

  • ΛCDM: H₀∈50,100 km/s/Mpc, Ωm₀∈0,1, rd∈100,200 Mpc
  • ω₀ωₐCDM: ω₀∈-3,1, ωₐ∈-3,2, with constraint ω₀+ωₐ<0

Likelihood Function

For DM/DH ratio:

L(θ) = ∏ᵢ exp[-1/2 ((DM/DH)_obs,i - (DM/DH)_model,i(θ))²/σᵢ²]

Experimental Setup

Dataset

DESI DR2 BAO Data: Measurements from over 14 million galaxies and quasars

Comparison Data

  1. Planck 2018: Ωm = 0.315±0.007
  2. SNe Ia Samples:
    • Pantheon+: Ωm = 0.334±0.018
    • Union3: Ωm = 0.356⁺⁰·⁰²⁸₋₀.₀₂₆
    • DES-SN5YR: Ωm = 0.352±0.017

Evaluation Metrics

  1. Tension Level: Deviation degree measured in σ units
  2. Bayes Factor: ln BF ≡ ln(Z_ΛCDM/Z_ω₀ωₐCDM)
  3. Posterior Distribution: Marginalized probability distributions of parameters

Experimental Results

Main Results

Ωm Tension Analysis

LRG1 (z_eff=0.510):

  • DESI DR2 prediction: Ωm = 0.473±0.065
  • Tension with Planck: 2.42σ
  • Tension with SNe Ia: 1.91σ (Pantheon+), 2.19σ (Union3), 2.99σ (DES-SN5YR)

LRG3+ELG1 (z_eff=0.934):

  • DESI DR2 prediction: Ωm = 0.272±0.015
  • Tension with Planck: 2.60σ
  • Tension with SNe Ia: 2.24σ (Pantheon+), 2.51σ (Union3), 2.96σ (DES-SN5YR)

Redshift Evolution Trends

Ωm values across different redshift intervals:

  • 0.1<z<0.6: Ωm = 0.362±0.041
  • 0.6<z<1.1: Ωm = 0.281±0.016
  • 1.1<z<4.16: Ωm = 0.297±0.013

Compared to DESI DR1, tension decreased from 2.20σ to 1.84σ, showing an improving trend.

ω₀ωₐCDM Constraint Results

Datasetω₀ωₐln BF
All data-0.41±0.20-1.99±0.690.10
Without LRG1-0.52±0.31-1.66±0.922.41
Without LRG2-0.46±0.29-1.71±0.972.06
Without LRG1&LRG2-0.99±0.37-0.19±1.691.89

Key Findings

  1. Driving Factors: LRG1 and LRG2 are the primary drivers of the ω₀>-1 preference
  2. Model Selection: After removing problematic tracers, Bayes factors support ΛCDM
  3. Parameter Degeneracy: Strong degeneracy between ω₀ and ωₐ limits constraining power

Ablation Studies

Analysis through stepwise removal of different tracers reveals:

  • LRG2 contributes more to the dynamical dark energy signal (ω₀^(LRG2) > ω₀^(LRG1))
  • Removing LRG1 and/or LRG2 completely restores ΛCDM consistency
  • Prior sensitivity tests show ωₐ pushed toward large negative values to accommodate ω₀>-1

Related Work

DESI Collaboration Studies

  • DESI DR1 first reported ≥3σ evidence for dark energy evolution
  • Subsequent studies confirmed similar trends but with disputed systematic errors

Cosmological Tension Research

  1. Hubble Constant Tension: Early-late universe inconsistency in H₀ measurements
  2. S₈ Tension: Structure formation parameter tension in σ₈√(Ωm/0.3)
  3. Parameter Evolution: Multiple studies report cosmological parameter variations with redshift

Dark Energy Parameterization

  • CPL parameterization widely used for describing dark energy evolution
  • Model-independent methods important in understanding dark energy nature

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

  1. DESI DR2 Confirms DR1 Trends: Although improved, significant tensions remain
  2. Specific Tracer-Driven: LRG1 and LRG2 are the primary problem sources
  3. Cautious Interpretation Necessary: The ω₀>-1 preference may reflect parameter degeneracies rather than true physics
  4. Complementary Data Needed: BAO data alone are insufficient to definitively challenge ΛCDM

Limitations

  1. Limited Statistical Power: Individual tracer constraining ability is insufficient
  2. Systematic Errors: Potentially inadequately understood observational systematic errors
  3. Parameter Degeneracy: Strong ω₀-ωₐ degeneracy limits constraint precision
  4. Data Dependence: Results highly dependent on specific tracer data quality

Future Directions

  1. Multi-Wavelength Joint Analysis: Combining complementary observations from CMB, SNe Ia, etc.
  2. Systematic Error Research: Deeper understanding of systematic effects in DESI data
  3. Theoretical Models: Exploration of specific dynamical dark energy models
  4. Larger Samples: Awaiting subsequent DESI data releases

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

  1. Comprehensive Analysis: Systematic assessment of all DESI DR2 tracers' contributions
  2. Rigorous Methodology: Employs standard Bayesian inference and model selection methods
  3. Balanced Results: Reports evidence challenging ΛCDM while pointing out limitations
  4. Technical Details: Thoroughly discusses parameter degeneracies and prior sensitivity
  5. Sufficient Comparisons: Systematic comparison with multiple independent datasets

Weaknesses

  1. Conservative Interpretation: Possibly overly cautious in interpreting dynamical dark energy evidence
  2. Systematic Errors: Discussion of potential systematic errors could be more in-depth
  3. Theoretical Exploration: Lacks discussion of specific dark energy theoretical models
  4. Statistical Tests: Could include more statistical significance tests

Impact

  1. Academic Value: Provides important reference for cosmological interpretation of DESI data
  2. Practical Guidance: Offers methodological guidance for future dark energy research
  3. Controversy Resolution: Helps rationally assess the significance of DESI findings
  4. Field Advancement: Promotes precision cosmological measurements and theoretical development

Applicable Scenarios

  1. Data Analysis: Cosmological analysis of DESI and similar survey data
  2. Model Verification: Observational testing of standard cosmological models
  3. Parameter Estimation: Bayesian inference methods for cosmological parameters
  4. Systematic Errors: Identification and handling of systematic effects in large surveys

References

This paper cites 113 important references, covering:

  • DESI collaboration series papers
  • Planck cosmic microwave background results
  • Major SNe Ia samples (Pantheon+, Union3, DES-SN5YR)
  • Cosmological tension and dark energy theoretical research
  • Bayesian inference and model selection methods

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality cosmological analysis paper that rigorously analyzes the challenge posed by DESI DR2 data to the standard cosmological model using sound statistical methods. The authors present observational evidence for dynamical dark energy while rationally pointing out the limitations of the results, providing a balanced and in-depth analysis for the field. The paper's technical methods are reliable, conclusions appropriately cautious, and it holds important value for advancing dark energy research.