Niall Jeffrey

Which is, perhaps, surprising that DESI "looks" consistent with LCDM with this model

Posterior probability from DESI with the wCDM model showing DESI results are consistent with w=-1

I think this might be a difference in what we are calling w0 versus w. Here's the DESI result for "w" (not "w0") from DESI

Dark Energy Survey: DESI-Independent Angular BAO Measurement We present a measurement of the angular Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) scale from the completed Dark Energy Survey (DES) dataset excluding the area of overlap with the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Ins...

"Results last year from DESI suggested a value of w0 different from -1, but DES does not" – I'm not sure about this!

DESI gets w=-1, but with w0-wa (or similar models) things get weird. The DES BAO paper gets the same: arxiv.org/abs/2601.14864

This DES 3x2pt result uses only wCDM (for now)

Not completely true about no evidence for evolving dark energy! One of our papers does repeat the BAO-Supernovae-CMB analysis with the w0-wa model and gets a ~4 sigma result. 🙂

For the weak lensing and clustering analysis ("3x2pt") the results for the w0-wa time varying model is still to come...

Stealing our amazing secret discoveries!

The variance of *what* for each bin? If just the variance in this sense ∫ (z - z̄)² n(z) dz , then there is no covariance you can define (unless you just invent some new q(z1,z2) distribution), right?

Pretty chuffed with this :) Good news for my first post here (after a pretty taxing year!)

My colleagues and collaborators are an extraordinary group of scientists — I’m proud to work with so many of them.

Trying this out... Though, I've had a bit of a buggy start!