MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392381716 · doi:10.3390/universe10030122

Observational Constraints on Dynamical Dark Energy Models

2024· article· en· W4392381716 on OpenAlexaff
Olga Avsajanishvili, Gennady Y. Chitov, Tina Kahniashvili, Sayan Mandal, Lado Samushia

Bibliographic record

VenueUniverse · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNuclear Safety and Security CommissionNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsDark energyObservational studyDark matterParticle physicsAstrophysicsTheoretical physicsCosmologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scalar field ϕCDM models provide an alternative to the standard ΛCDM paradigm, while being physically better motivated. Dynamical scalar field ϕCDM models are divided into two classes: the quintessence (minimally and non-minimally interacting with gravity) and phantom models. These models explain the phenomenology of late-time dark energy. In these models, energy density and pressure are time-dependent functions under the assumption that the scalar field is described by the ideal barotropic fluid model. As a consequence of this, the equation of state parameter of the ϕCDM models is also a time-dependent function. The interaction between dark energy and dark matter, namely their transformation into each other, is considered in the interacting dark energy models. The evolution of the universe from the inflationary epoch to the present dark energy epoch is investigated in quintessential inflation models, in which a single scalar field plays a role of both the inflaton field at the inflationary epoch and of the quintessence scalar field at the present epoch. We start with an overview of the motivation behind these classes of models, the basic mathematical formalism, and the different classes of models. We then present a compilation of recent results of applying different observational probes to constraining ϕCDM model parameters. Over the last two decades, the precision of observational data has increased immensely, leading to ever tighter constraints. A combination of the recent measurements favors the spatially flat ΛCDM model but a large class of ϕCDM models is still not ruled out.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniverseSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207