Paper detail

A Comparison of Thawing and Freezing Dark Energy Parametrizations

Dark energy equation of state $w(z)$ parametrizations with two parameters and given monotonicity are generically either convex or concave functions. This makes them suitable for fitting either freezing or thawing quintessence models but not both simultaneously. Fitting a dataset based on a freezing model with an unsuitable (concave when increasing) $w(z)$ parametrization (like CPL) can lead to significant misleading features like crossing of the phantom divide line, incorrect $w(z=0)$, incorrect slope \etc that are not present in the underlying cosmological model. To demonstrate this fact we generate scattered cosmological data both at the level of $w(z)$ and the luminosity distance $D_L(z)$ based on either thawing or freezing quintessence models and fit them using parametrizations of convex and of concave type. We then compare statistically significant features of the best fit $w(z)$ with actual features of the underlying model. We thus verify that the use of unsuitable parametrizations can lead to misleading conclusions. In order to avoid these problems it is important to either use both convex and concave parametrizations and select the one with the best $χ^2$ or use principal component analysis thus splitting the redshift range into independent bins. In the latter case however, significant information about the slope of $w(z)$ at high redshifts is lost. Finally, we propose a new family of parametrizations (nCPL) $w(z)=w_0+w_a (\frac{z}{1+z})^n$ which generalizes the CPL and interpolates between thawing and freezing parametrizations as the parameter $n$ increases to values larger than 1.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors3 topics

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 map preview

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.