Abstract:We study the performance of the spatially-flat dynamical dark energy (DE) $w_0w_a$CDM parameterization, with redshift-dependent DE fluid equation of state parameter $w(z) = w_0 + w_a z/(1+z)$, with and without a varying CMB lensing consistency parameter $A_L$, against Planck cosmic microwave background (CMB) data (P18 and lensing) and a combination of non-CMB data composed of baryonic acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements that do not include DESI BAO data, Pantheon+ type Ia supernovae (SNIa) observations, Hubble parameter [$H(z)$] measurements, and growth factor ($f\sigma_8$) data points. From our most restrictive data set, P18+lensing+non-CMB, for the $w_0w_a$CDM+$A_L$ parameterization, we obtain $w_0=-0.879\pm 0.060$, $w_a=-0.39^{+0.26}_{-0.22}$, the asymptotic limit $w(z\to\infty) = w_0+w_a=-1.27^{+0.20}_{-0.17}$, and $A_L=1.078^{+0.036}_{-0.040}$ (all $1\sigma$ errors). This joint analysis of CMB and non-CMB data favors DE dynamics over a cosmological constant at $\sim 1\sigma$ and $A_L>1$ at $\sim 2\sigma$, i.e. more smoothing of the Planck CMB anisotropy data than is predicted by the best-fit model. For the $w_0w_a$CDM parameterization with $A_L=1$ the evidence in favor of DE dynamics is larger, $\sim 2\sigma$, suggesting that at least part of the evidence for DE dynamics comes from the excess smoothing of the Planck CMB anisotropy data. For the $w_0w_a$CDM parameterization with $A_L=1$, there is a difference of $2.8\sigma$ between P18 and non-CMB cosmological parameter constraints and $2.7\sigma$ between P18+lensing and non-CMB constraints. When $A_L$ is allowed to vary these tensions reduced to $1.9\sigma$ and $2.1\sigma$ respectively. Our P18+lensing+non-CMB data compilation positively favors the $w_0w_a$CDM parameterization without and with a varying $A_L$ parameter over the flat $\Lambda$CDM model, and $w_0w_a$CDM+$A_L$ is also positively favored over $w_0w_a$CDM.

On the evidence of dynamical dark energy

Cosmological constraints on dark energy models using DESI BAO 2024

Model-agnostic assessment of dark energy after DESI DR1 BAO

Interpreting DESI's evidence for evolving dark energy

Impact of LRG1 and LRG2 in DESI 2024 BAO data on dark energy evolution

Dark energy in light of recent DESI BAO and Hubble tension

Robust Preference for Dynamical Dark Energy in DESI BAO and SN Measurements

Probing Dark Energy Evolution Post-DESI 2024

Investigating Late-Time Dark Energy and Massive Neutrinos in Light of DESI Y1 BAO

A new diagnostic for the null test of dynamical dark energy in light of DESI 2024 and other BAO data

MEET-U Project I: The key drivers of the preference for dynamic dark energy

The Self-Consistency of DESI Analysis and Comment on "Does DESI 2024 Confirm $Λ$CDM?"

DESI 2024: Constraints on Physics-Focused Aspects of Dark Energy using DESI DR1 BAO Data

Revisiting holographic dark energy after DESI 2024

Uncorrelated estimations of $H_0$ redshift evolution from DESI baryon acoustic oscillation observations

Dark energy reconstructions combining BAO data with galaxy clusters and intermediate redshift catalogs

DESI dark energy time evolution is recovered by cosmologically coupled black holes

Is the $w_0w_a$CDM cosmological parameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck CMB anisotropy data?