← Recent

AG-2025.04-150·astro-ph.CO·cross-listed: gr-qchep-phhep-th

Dynamical dark energy with AdS-dS transitions vs. Baryon Acoustic Oscillations at $z =$ 2.3-2.4

Authors

  • Özgür Akarsu
  • Maxim Eingorn
  • Leandros Perivolaropoulos
  • A. Emrah Yükselci
  • Alexander Zhuk

Abstract

In this paper, written in memory of Alexei Starobinsky, we discuss the observational viability of the Ph-$Λ_{\rm s}$CDM model - a dynamical dark energy scenario based on a phantom scalar field undergoing an anti-de Sitter (AdS) to de Sitter (dS) transition - and revisit the Sahni-Shtanov braneworld model in light of updated BAO Ly-$α$ data at $z \sim 2.3$. Both models are able to remain consistent with Planck CMB data while offering potential resolutions to the $H_0$ tension. In both cases, the expansion rate $H(z)$ is suppressed relative to Planck-$Λ$CDM at high redshift and enhanced at low redshift, while remaining consistent with the comoving distance to recombination as estimated by Planck-$Λ$CDM. Comparing model predictions with BAO-inferred values of $H(z)$, we find that SDSS Ly-$α$ data at $z \approx 2.33$ mildly favor such dynamical models, whereas the recent DESI Ly-$α$ measurements agree more closely with $Λ$CDM. Although current high-redshift BAO data do not decisively favor one model over another, our findings illustrate how frameworks originally developed to address earlier anomalies - such as the braneworld scenario - may gain renewed relevance in confronting today's cosmological tensions.

Submitted

9 April 2025

Version

v1

License

CC-BY-4.0

DOI

10.48550/arXiv.2504.07299

Cite this preprint

Imports into BibLaTeX, Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote.

PDF

Open PDF

Opens in a new tab · v1.

Chat with this PDF

Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.

Dynamical dark energy with AdS-dS transitions vs. Baryon Acoustic Oscillations at $z =$ 2.3-2.4 · Antigravity