Paper detail

A Bayesian comparison between $Λ$CDM and phenomenologically emergent dark energy models

In this work we examine the recently proposed phenomenological emergent dark energy (PEDE) model by \cite{Li:2019yem}, using the latest observational data in both expansion and perturbation levels. Applying the statistical Bayesian evidence as well as the AIC and BIC information criteria, we compare the PEDE model with the concordance $Λ$CDM model in both flat and non-flat universes. We combine the observational datasets as (i) expansion data (except CMB), (ii) expansion data (including CMB) and (iii) expansion data jointed to the growth rate dataset. Our statistical results show that the flat- $Λ$CDM model is still the best model. In the case of expansion data (including CMB), we observe that the flat- PEDE model is well consistent with observations as well as the concordance $Λ$CDM universe. While in the cases of (i) and (iii), the PEDE models in both of the flat and non-flat geometries are not favored. In particular, we see that in the perturbation level the PEDE model can not fit the observations as equally as standard $Λ$CDM cosmology. As the ability of the model, we show that the PEDE models can alleviate the tension of Hubble constant value appearing between the local observations and Planck inferred estimation in standard cosmology.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.