Research family
Individual exclusions and matter priors
Persistence of dynamical-dark-energy preferences when regions are removed separately.
12 execution records · Latest record: 09 Oct 2026
Editorial grouping by research question. Each record preserves its original identifier, priors, method, result and status. Values have not been combined, and a signal in a single run is not a global detection.
Runs and variants
In Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR, with Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007, does the preference for dynamical dark energy persist after the separate exclusion of the red-galaxy group, the emission-line-galaxy group, and the combined quasar and Lyman-alpha-forest group?
The preference for dynamical dark energy retained the same direction in every tested group exclusion. This stability is limited to the analyzed data, priors and groupings; it does not establish a globally significant detection.
In Pantheon+, DES-SN5YR and Union3, with Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007, does the preference for dynamical dark energy persist after the separate exclusion of the red-galaxy group, the emission-line-galaxy group, and the combined quasar and Lyman-alpha-forest group?
The preference for dynamical dark energy retained the same direction in every tested group exclusion. This stability is limited to the analyzed data, priors and groupings; it does not establish a globally significant detection.
In Pantheon+ and Union3, with Ωm = 0.3 ± 0.02, does the preference for dynamical dark energy persist after the separate exclusion of quasars and the Lyman-alpha forest?
The preference for dynamical dark energy retained the same direction in every tested group exclusion. This stability is limited to the analyzed data, priors and groupings; it does not establish a globally significant detection.
In DES-SN5YR and Union3, with Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007, does the preference for dynamical dark energy persist after the separate exclusion of the red-galaxy group, the emission-line-galaxy group, and the combined quasar and Lyman-alpha-forest group?
The preference for dynamical dark energy retained the same direction in every tested group exclusion. This stability is limited to the analyzed data, priors and groupings; it does not establish a globally significant detection.
In DES-SN5YR and Union3, with Ωm = 0.3 ± 0.02, does the preference for dynamical dark energy persist after the separate exclusion of quasars and the Lyman-alpha forest?
The preference for dynamical dark energy retained the same direction in every tested group exclusion. This stability is limited to the analyzed data, priors and groupings; it does not establish a globally significant detection.
In DES-SN5YR and Union3, with Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007, does the preference for dynamical dark energy persist after the separate exclusion of the low- and high-redshift BAO groups?
The group exclusions produced unequal responses in the fit. The comparison established neither independence of the preference from every group nor exclusive dependence on any one group.
In Pantheon+ and Union3, with Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007, does the preference for dynamical dark energy persist after the separate exclusion of the low- and high-redshift BAO groups?
The group exclusions produced unequal responses in the fit. The comparison established neither independence of the preference from every group nor exclusive dependence on any one group.
In Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR, with Ωm = 0.3 ± 0.02, does the preference for dynamical dark energy persist after the separate exclusion of quasars and the Lyman-alpha forest?
The preference for dynamical dark energy retained the same direction in every tested group exclusion. This stability is limited to the analyzed data, priors and groupings; it does not establish a globally significant detection.
In Pantheon+ and Union3, with Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007, does the preference for dynamical dark energy persist after the separate exclusion of the red-galaxy group, the emission-line-galaxy group, and the combined quasar and Lyman-alpha-forest group?
The preference for dynamical dark energy retained the same direction in every tested group exclusion. This stability is limited to the analyzed data, priors and groupings; it does not establish a globally significant detection.
In Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR, with Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007, does the preference for dynamical dark energy persist after the separate exclusion of the low- and high-redshift BAO groups?
The group exclusions produced unequal responses in the fit. The comparison established neither independence of the preference from every group nor exclusive dependence on any one group.
In Pantheon+, DES-SN5YR and Union3, with Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007, does the preference for dynamical dark energy persist after the separate exclusion of the low- and high-redshift BAO groups?
The group exclusions produced unequal responses in the fit. The comparison established neither independence of the preference from every group nor exclusive dependence on any one group.
In Pantheon+, DES-SN5YR and Union3, with Ωm = 0.3 ± 0.02, does the preference for dynamical dark energy persist after the separate exclusion of quasars and the Lyman-alpha forest?
The preference for dynamical dark energy retained the same direction in every tested group exclusion. This stability is limited to the analyzed data, priors and groupings; it does not establish a globally significant detection.