DESI DR2: Cosmological Constraints from the Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

Arnaud de Mattia

on behalf of the DESI collaboration

Leiden, March 26th

Thanks to our sponsors and

72 Participating Institutions!

DESI 3D Map

Physics program
- Galaxy and quasar clustering
- Lyman-alpha forest
- Clusters and cross-correlations
- Galaxy and quasar physics
- Milky Way Survey
- Transients and low-z

DESI 3D Map

Physics program
- Galaxy and quasar clustering
- Lyman-alpha forest
- Clusters and cross-correlations
- Galaxy and quasar physics
- Milky Way Survey
- Transients and low-z

DESI Y5 galaxy samples

Bright Galaxies: 14M (SDSS: 600k)

0 < z < 0.4

LRG: 8M (SDSS: 1M)

0.4 < z < 0.8

ELG: 16M (SDSS: 200k)

0.6 < z < 1.6

QSO: 3M (SDSS: 500k)

Lya $1.8 < z$

Tracers $0.8 < z < 2.1$

Y5 $\sim 40$M galaxy redshifts!

$z = 0.4$

$z = 0.8$

$z = 0$

$z = 1.6$

$z = 2.0$

$z = 3.0$

Mayall Telescope

focal plane 5000 fibers

fiber view camera

wide-field corrector FoV $\sim 8~\mathrm{deg}^{2}$

ten 3-channel spectrographs

49 m, 10-cable fiber run

Kitt Peak, AZ

Focal plane: 5000 robotic positioners

86 cm

0.1 mm

robots w/ 2 rotation axes

position spectroscopic fibers

Spectroscopic pipeline

wavelength

fiber number

$z = 2.1$ QSO

$z = 0.9$ ELG

Ly$\alpha$

CIV

CIII

[OII] doublet at $3727 \AA$ up to $z = 1.6$

[OII]

Ly$\alpha$ at $1216 \AA$ down to $z = 2.0$

DESI data release 2 (DR2)

Observations from May 14th 2021 to April 9th 2024

approved

construction started

first light

survey started

DR1 data sample

DR1 results

DR2 sample secured

end of the survey...

... DESI-2

DR2 results

Final survey

- dark time (LRG, ELG, QSO): 7 visits

- bright time (BGS): 5 visits

- 14,000 $\mathrm{deg}^2$

2015

DESI data release 2 (DR2)

30M galaxy and QSO redshifts in 3 years of operation
14M used in the DR2 analysis (6M in DR1)
Including 820,000 Ly$\alpha$ QSO at $z > 2.09$ (420,000 in DR1)
$> 2\times$ increase in number of tracers

higher completeness (deeper)

extended mag cut

Release of DESI DR2 (BAO) results

March 19th 2025

First batch of DESI DR2 cosmological analyses: https://data.desi.lbl.gov/doc/papers/

• DESI Collaboration et al. (2025), DESI DR2 Results I: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest
• DESI Collaboration et al. (2025), DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

Companion supporting papers:

Lodha et al. (2025), Extended Dark Energy analysis

Elbers et al. (2025), Constraints on Neutrino Physics

Andrade et al. (2025), Validation of the DESI DR2 BAO mesurements

Casas et al. (2025), Validation of the DESI DR2 Lyα BAO analysis using synthetic datasets

Brodzeller et al. (2025), Construction of the Damped Lyα Absorber Catalog for DESI DR2 Lyα BAO

Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

Sound waves in primordial plasma

At recombination ($z \simeq 1100$)

plasma changes to optically thin
baryons decouple from photons
sound wave stalls after travelling $r_\mathrm{d}$

Sound horizon scale at the drag epoch

$r_\mathrm{d} \simeq 150\; \mathrm{Mpc}$

standard ruler

Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

CMB ($z \simeq 1100$)

Sound waves in primordial plasma

At recombination ($z \simeq 1100$)

plasma changes to optically thin
baryons decouple from photons
sound wave stalls after travelling $r_\mathrm{d}$

Sound horizon scale at the drag epoch

$r_\mathrm{d} \simeq 150\; \mathrm{Mpc}$

standard ruler

CMB ($z \simeq 1100$)

LSS

Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

BAO measurements

line of sight

distribution of galaxies (cartoonish)

BAO measurements

correlation function

BAO peak

line of sight

monopole

BAO measurements

correlation function

\alpha_\mathrm{iso} \propto (D_{\mathrm{M}}^{2}(z) D_\mathrm{H}(z))^{1/3} / r_\mathrm{d}

BAO peak

line of sight

monopole

isotropic

comoving transverse distance

Hubble distance $c/H(z)$

sound horizon (standard ruler)

BAO measurements

isotropic

anisotropic

\propto D_{\mathrm{M}}(z) / D_\mathrm{H}(z)

BAO peak

line of sight

monopole

quadrupole

\propto (D_{\mathrm{M}}^{2}(z) D_\mathrm{H}(z))^{1/3} / r_\mathrm{d}

low S/N

BAO detection: $14.7\sigma$

0.1 < z < 0.4

0.4 < z < 0.6

0.6 < z < 0.8

0.8 < z < 1.1

1.1 < z < 1.6

Robustness tests

tracers / redshift bins

data vector

Robustness tests

tracers / redshift bins

BAO modelling

Robustness tests

tracers / redshift bins

imaging systematics

Robustness tests

tracers / redshift bins

data splits

Ly$\alpha$ forest

Absorption in QSO spectra by neutral hydrogen in the intergalactic medium: $\lambda_\mathrm{abs} = (1 + z_\mathrm{HI}) \times 1215.17 \; \AA $

Transmitted flux fraction $F = e^{-\tau}$ probes the fluctuation in neutral hydrogen density, $\tau \propto n_\mathrm{HI} $

credit: Andrew Pontzen

Correlation functions

Ly$\alpha$ forest auto-correlation

$\langle \delta_F(\mathbf{x}) \delta_F(\mathbf{x + s}) \rangle$

Ly$\alpha$ forest - QSO cross-correlation

$\langle \delta_F(\mathbf{x}) Q(\mathbf{x + s}) \rangle$

Robustness tests

data vector / covariance

Robustness tests

modelling choices

Robustness tests

continuum fitting

Robustness tests

data splits

What's new in the analyses?

Analysis pipelines mostly the same as DR1

Again, blind analyses:

- discrete tracers: catalog-level blinding

- Ly$\alpha$: data vector-level blinding

Specifics:

- discrete tracers: more robustness tests, increased BGS density

- Ly$\alpha$: improved mocks / modelling (DLA, metals, continuum fitting)

Some updates in BAO fitting

Subdominant systematics: $\sigma_\mathrm{syst} / \sigma_\mathrm{stat} < 9\%$ for discrete tracers, $40\%$ for Ly$\alpha$

DESI DR2 BAO

DESI DR2 BAO measurements

\propto (D_{\mathrm{M}}^{2}(z) D_\mathrm{H}(z))^{1/3} / r_\mathrm{d}

DESI DR2 BAO

DESI DR2 BAO measurements

DESI DR2 BAO

DESI DR2 BAO measurements

DESI DR2 BAO

DESI DR2 BAO measurements

DESI DR2 BAO

DESI DR2 BAO measurements

DESI DR2 BAO

DESI DR2 BAO measurements

DESI DR2 BAO

DESI DR2 BAO measurements

Consistent with each other,

and complementary

\underbrace{\begin{align*} \Omega_\mathrm{m} &= 0.2975 \pm 0.0086 & \mathbf{(3.0\%)} \\ H_{0} r_\mathrm{d} &= (101.54 \pm 0.73) \, [100 \, \mathrm{km} \, \mathrm{s}^{-1}] & \mathbf{(0.7\%)} \end{align*}}_{\textstyle \text{\color{black}{DESI}}}

DESI DR2 BAO

DESI DR2 BAO measurements

DESI DR2 BAO fully consistent with DESI DR1
Improvement of $\simeq 40\%$
$2.3 \sigma$ discrepancy with primary CMB¹ + CMB lensing²

Consistency with other data

1. Planck PR4 CamSpec

2. Planck PR4 + ACT DR6 lensing

BAO constrains $\Omega_\mathrm{m}$, $h \times r_d(\Omega_\mathrm{b}h^2, \Omega_\mathrm{m}h^2)$
Calibrating BAO relative distance measurements using BBN $\Omega_\mathrm{b} h^2$

$\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}$ constraints

\underbrace{ H_0 = (68.51 \pm 0.58) \, {\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}} }_{\textstyle \color{darkblue}{\text{DESI} + \text{BBN}}}

$\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}$ constraints

\underbrace{ H_0 = (68.45 \pm 0.47) \, {\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}} }_{\textstyle \color{orange}{\text{DESI} + \theta_\ast + \text{BBN}}}

BAO constrains $\Omega_\mathrm{m}$, $h \times r_d(\Omega_\mathrm{b}h^2, \Omega_\mathrm{m}h^2)$
Calibrating BAO relative distance measurements using BBN $\Omega_\mathrm{b} h^2$

\underbrace{ H_0 = (68.51 \pm 0.58) \, {\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}} }_{\textstyle \color{darkblue}{\text{DESI} + \text{BBN}}}

Adding very precise CMB acoustic angular scale

$\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}$ constraints

In $4.5\sigma$ tension with SH0ES (Breuval et al. 2024) (independently of the CMB)

BAO constrains $\Omega_\mathrm{m}$, $h \times r_d(\Omega_\mathrm{b}h^2, \Omega_\mathrm{m}h^2)$
Calibrating BAO relative distance measurements using BBN $\Omega_\mathrm{b} h^2$

\underbrace{ H_0 = (68.51 \pm 0.58) \, {\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}} }_{\textstyle \color{darkblue}{\text{DESI} + \text{BBN}}}

Dark energy fluid

No strong preference for dark energy evolution: $1.7\sigma$ from DESI data alone

Dark Energy Equation of State

$\Lambda$

p / \rho = w = w_0 + w_a (1 - a)

pressure

density

CPL

Combining DESI + CMB:

Dark Energy Equation of State

\underbrace{ w_{0} = -0.42 \pm 0.21 \qquad w_{a} = -1.75 \pm 0.58 }_{\textstyle \textcolor{orange}{\text{DESI + CMB} \; \implies \; 3.1\sigma}}

CMB priors (marginalizing over late-time physics): $2.4\sigma$
Without CMB lensing $2.7\sigma$

$+0.5\sigma$ compared to DR1

Dark Energy Equation of State

Combining all DESI + CMB + SN

\underbrace{ w_{0} = -0.838 \pm 0.055 \qquad w_{a} = -0.62^{+0.22}_{-0.19} }_{\textstyle \textcolor{blue}{\text{DESI + CMB + Pantheon+} \; \implies \; 2.8\sigma}}

\underbrace{ w_{0} = -0.667 \pm 0.088 \qquad w_{a} = -1.09^{+0.31}_{-0.27} }_{\textstyle \color{orange}{\text{DESI + CMB + Union3} \; \implies \; 3.8\sigma}}

\underbrace{ w_{0} = -0.752 \pm 0.057 \qquad w_{a} = -0.86^{+0.23}_{-0.20} }_{\textstyle \color{green}{\text{DESI + CMB + DES-SN5YR} \; \implies \; 4.2\sigma}}

$+0.3\sigma$ compared to DR1

Robustness tests

Removing low-$z$ SN

"Replacing CMB": DESY3 $3\times2$pt

$3.3\sigma$

Understanding tensions

doesn't fit the SN!

Understanding tensions

doesn't fit the BAO!

Understanding tensions

$w\mathrm{CDM}$ not flexible enough to fit all 3 datasets!

w = -0.970

Understanding tensions

$w_0w_a\mathrm{CDM}$ fits all 3 datasets!

Sum of neutrino masses

Internal CMB degeneracies limiting precision on the sum of neutrino masses

Broken by BAO

Sum of neutrino masses

Internal CMB degeneracies limiting precision on the sum of neutrino masses

Broken by BAO, which favors low $\Omega_\mathrm{m}$

\sum m_\nu < 0.064 \, \mathrm{eV} \; (95\%, \text{DESI + CMB})

Sum of neutrino masses

Internal CMB degeneracies limiting precision on the sum of neutrino masses

Broken by BAO, which favors low $\Omega_\mathrm{m}$

\sum m_\nu < 0.064 \, \mathrm{eV} \; (95\%, \text{DESI + CMB})

\sum m_\nu < 0.077 \, \mathrm{eV} \; (95\%, \text{L-H})

\sum m_\nu < 0.069 \, \mathrm{eV} \; (95\%, \text{PR3})

Variations of the CMB likelihood

Sum of neutrino masses

Internal CMB degeneracies limiting precision on the sum of neutrino masses

Broken by BAO, which favors low $\Omega_\mathrm{m}$

\sum m_\nu < 0.163 \, \mathrm{eV} \; (95\%, w_0w_a\mathrm{CDM})

Limit relaxed for $w_0w_a\mathrm{CDM}$

\sum m_\nu < 0.064 \, \mathrm{eV} \; (95\%, \text{DESI + CMB})

Summary

DESI already has the most precise BAO measurements ever (40% more precise than DR1)

DESI in mild, growing, tension with Planck $(2.3\sigma)$ and SN $(\sim 2\sigma)$ when interpreted in the ΛCDM model

Tightest upper bound on $\sum m_\nu$, increasing tension with neutrino oscillations

Evidence for time-varying Dark Energy equation of state has increased with the DR2 BAO data by $0.3\sigma$: CMB: $3.1\sigma$, SN: $2.8 - 4.2\sigma$. $w_0w_a\mathrm{CDM}$ fixes above tensions (not $H_0$!).

But it's not the end yet!

In November 2024: DR1 Full-Shape results (probing the growth of structure)

$S_8 = \sigma_8(\Omega_\mathrm{m} / 0.3)^{0.5}$

General Relativity

But it's not the end yet!

In November 2024: DR1 Full-Shape results (probing the growth of structure)

With DR2 - stay tuned!

Full-Shape from power spectrum
Bispectrum
Primordial non-Gaussianity
x CMB lensing
Low-$z$ growth of structure with peculiar velocities

Back-up

Full Shape measurements

clustering

We fit the "full shape" (FS) of the galaxy power spectrum multipoles

Full Shape measurements

RSD

observed redshift = Hubble flow and peculiar velocities (RSD = "redshift space distortions")

v_\mathrm{pec} \propto f\sigma_8

shape

($ \Omega_\mathrm{cdm} h^2, \Omega_\mathrm{b} h^2, n_\mathrm{s}, \sum m_\nu $)

growth of structure $f\sigma_8$ sensitive to the theory of gravity and dark energy

We fit the "full shape" (FS) of the galaxy power spectrum multipoles

DR1 Full Shape + BAO

$\omega_\mathrm{b}$: BBN, $n_\mathrm{s} \sim \mathcal{G}(0.9649, 0.042^2)$

DR1 Full Shape + BAO

$\omega_\mathrm{b}$: BBN, $n_\mathrm{s} \sim \mathcal{G}(0.9649, 0.042^2)$

DR1 Full Shape + BAO

$\omega_\mathrm{b}$: BBN, $n_\mathrm{s} \sim \mathcal{G}(0.9649, 0.042^2)$

DR1 Full Shape + BAO

$\omega_\mathrm{b}$: BBN, $n_\mathrm{s} \sim \mathcal{G}(0.9649, 0.042^2)$

DR1 Full Shape + BAO

$\omega_\mathrm{b}$: BBN, $n_\mathrm{s} \sim \mathcal{G}(0.9649, 0.042^2)$

DR1 Full Shape + BAO

\underbrace{\begin{align*} \Omega_\mathrm{m} &= 0.2962\pm 0.0095 & \mathbf{(3.2\%)} \\ \sigma_8 &= 0.842\pm 0.034 & \mathbf{(4.0\%)} \\ H_0 &= (68.56\pm 0.75) \, {\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}} & \mathbf{(1.1\%)} \end{align*}}_{\textstyle \text{DESI + BBN + $n_{s10}$}}

$\omega_\mathrm{b}$: BBN, $n_\mathrm{s} \sim \mathcal{G}(0.9649, 0.042^2)$

DR1 Full Shape + BAO

$S_8$ constraints

\underbrace{ S_8 = 0.836 \pm 0.035 }_{\textstyle \text{\color{blue}{DESI + BBN + $n_{s10}$}}}

$S_8 = \sigma_8 (\Omega_\mathrm{m} / 0.3)^{0.5}$ best constrained by weak lensing surveys

$S_8$ constraints

Consistency with SDSS
In agreement with CMB

\underbrace{ S_8 = 0.836 \pm 0.035 }_{\textstyle \text{\color{blue}{DESI + BBN + $n_{s10}$}}}

$S_8 = \sigma_8 (\Omega_\mathrm{m} / 0.3)^{0.5}$ best constrained by weak lensing surveys

$S_8$ constraints

Consistency with SDSS
In agreement with CMB
Weak lensing prefers lower $S_8$, but still consistent

\underbrace{ S_8 = 0.836 \pm 0.035 }_{\textstyle \text{\color{blue}{DESI + BBN + $n_{s10}$}}}

$S_8 = \sigma_8 (\Omega_\mathrm{m} / 0.3)^{0.5}$ best constrained by weak lensing surveys

Modified gravity constraints

Perturbed FLRW metric

$ds^2=a(\tau)^2[-(1+2\orange{\Psi})d\tau^2+(1-2\orange{\Phi})\delta_{ij}dx^i dx^j]$

At late times:

(mass) $k^2\orange{\Psi} = -4\pi G a^2 \green{\mu(a,k)} \blue{\sum_i\rho_i\Delta_i}$

(light) $k^2(\orange{\Phi} + \orange{\Psi})=-8\pi G a^2 \green{\Sigma(a,k)} \blue{\sum_i\rho_i\Delta_i}$

gravitational potentials

density perturbations

\mu(a) = 1 + \frac{\Omega_\Lambda(a)}{\Omega_\Lambda} \green{\mu_0}

\Sigma(a) = 1 + \frac{\Omega_\Lambda(a)}{\Omega_\Lambda} \green{\Sigma_0}

Modified gravity constraints

\underbrace{ \mu_0 = 0.11^{+0.45}_{-0.54} }_{\textstyle \text{\color{blue}{DESI + BBN + $n_{\mathrm{s}10}$}}}

DESI constrains

Modified gravity constraints

$\Sigma_0$ constrained by

- CMB (ISW and lensing)

- galaxy lensing

\underbrace{ \mu_0 = 0.11^{+0.45}_{-0.54} }_{\textstyle \text{\color{blue}{DESI + BBN + $n_{\mathrm{s}10}$}}}

DESI constrains

Modified gravity constraints

$\Sigma_0$ constrained by

- CMB (ISW and lensing)

- galaxy lensing

\underbrace{\begin{align*} \mu_0 &= 0.04\pm 0.22 \\ \Sigma_0 &= 0.045\pm 0.046 \end{align*}}_{\textstyle \text{\color{purple}{DESI + CMB-nl + DESY3 ($3\times 2$-pt)}}}

\underbrace{ \mu_0 = 0.11^{+0.45}_{-0.54} }_{\textstyle \text{\color{blue}{DESI + BBN + $n_{\mathrm{s}10}$}}}

compared to CMB-nl + DESY3 (3x2pt) only: $\sigma(\mu_0) / 2.5$, $\sigma(\Sigma_0) / 2$

DESI constrains

Other datasets

SDSS BAO (for comparisons only): eBOSS Collaboration, 2020
Primary CMB: CamSpec PR4, HiLLiPoP/LoLLiPoP, Planck Collaboration, 2018
CMB lensing: Planck PR4 + ACT DR6 lensing ACT Collaboratio n, 2023, Carron, Mirmelstein, Lewis, 2022
BBN: Schöneberg et al., 2024
SN: Pantheon+ Brout, Scolnic, Popovic et al., 2022, Union3 Rubin, Aldering, Betoule et al. 2023, DES-SN5YR DES Collaboration

Analysis pipeline mostly the same as DR1

Again, blind analysis to mitigate observer / confirmation biases (catalog-level blinding)

Anisotropic BAO measurements for QSO (and low-$z$ ELG)

Minor updates:

- revised min fitting range ($60 < s / [\mathrm{Mpc}/h] < 150$)

- revised systematic budget (theory, fiducial cosmology, HOD): $\sigma_\mathrm{syst} / \sigma_\mathrm{stat} < 9\%$

Many more robustness tests

What's new in the BAO analysis?

BAO reconstruction

Non-linear structure growth and peculiar velocities smear (and slightly displace) the BAO peak
Reconstruction: estimate Zeldovich displacements from observed field and move galaxies back $\rightarrow$ refurbishes the ruler (improves precision and accuracy)

Analysis pipeline mostly the same as DR1

Again, blind analysis to mitigate observer / confirmation biases (data vector-level blinding)

Improved modelling of metals and continuum-fitting distortions

What's new in the Ly$\alpha$ analysis?

Analysis pipeline mostly the same as DR1

Again, blind analysis to mitigate observer / confirmation biases (data vector-level blinding)

Improved modelling of metals and continuum-fitting distortions

New catalog of Damped Lyman-$\alpha$ systems (masked)

Improved mocks and associated studies

Revised fitting range and priors on nuisance parameters

Include a small (0.3%) theory systematic uncertainty for non-linear BAO shift $\sigma_\mathrm{syst} / \sigma_\mathrm{stat} \simeq 40 \%$

What's new in the Ly$\alpha$ analysis?

Robustness tests

Robust to various Planck likelihoods:

- CamSpec (baseline)

- Plick (PR3)

- LiLLiPoP-LolliPoP (PR4)

$\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}$ constraints

DESI $\Omega_\mathrm{m}$ lower than the CMB ($1.8\sigma$)
DESI $\Omega_\mathrm{m}$ lower than SN:
- Pantheon+: $1.7\sigma$
- Union3: $2.1\sigma$
- DESY5: $2.9\sigma$

Understanding tensions

Spectroscopic redshift surveys

Schlegel et al. 2022, arXiv:2209.03585

10 years = $10 \times $

DESI data release 1 (DR1)

Observations from May 14th 2021 to June 12th 2022

DESI data release 2 (DR2)

	asgn. comp. DR1	# good z DR1	asgn. comp. DR2	z. comp DR2	# of good z DR2
BGS	64%	0.3M	76%	99%	1.2M
LRG	69%	2.1M	83%	99%	4.5M
ELG	35%	2.4M	54%	74%	6.5M
QSO	87%	1.2M	94%	68%	2M

more observations

Ly$\alpha$ forest

transverse to the line-of-sight: $D_\mathrm{M}(z) / r_\mathrm{d}$

\theta_\mathrm{BAO} = r_\mathrm{d} / D_\mathrm{M}(z)

BAO measurements

transverse comoving distance

sound horizon $r_d$

transverse to the line-of-sight: $D_\mathrm{M}(z) / r_\mathrm{d}$
along the line-of-sight: $D_\mathrm{H}(z) / r_\mathrm{d} = c / (H(z) r_\mathrm{d}) $

BAO measurements

\Delta z_\mathrm{BAO} = r_\mathrm{d} / D_\mathrm{H}(z)

Hubble distance

sound horizon $r_d$

transverse to the line-of-sight: $D_\mathrm{M}(z) / r_\mathrm{d}$
along the line-of-sight: $D_\mathrm{H}(z) / r_\mathrm{d} = c / (H(z) r_\mathrm{d}) $

At multiple redshifts $z$

BAO measurements

z_1

z_2

z_3

Probes the expansion history, hence the energy content (DE)

Absolute size at $z = 0$: $H_0 r_d$

Binned dark energy

Binned reconstruction of $w(z)$
without assuming a functional form for the EoS
$\simeq 4\sigma$ preference for $w > -1$ in the first redshift bin
Consistent with $w_0, w_a$ parameterization

Pre/post DESI

DESI vs BOSS/eBOSS

LRG2 (worst case)

$2.8\sigma \, (\mathrm{DR1}) \Rightarrow 2.3\sigma \, (\mathrm{DR2})$

Dark energy

DE parameters

q(z)\equiv{-\frac{\ddot{a}a}{\dot{a}^2}}=\frac{d\ln H}{d\ln(1+z)}-1

Om(z)\equiv\frac{h^2(z)-1}{(1+z)^3-1}

f_{\rm DE}(z) \equiv \frac{\rho_\mathrm{DE}(z)}{\rho_\mathrm{DE,0}}

DESI DR2: Cosmological Constraints from the Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

DESI 3D Map

DESI 3D Map

DESI Y5 galaxy samples

Mayall Telescope

Focal plane: 5000 robotic positioners

Spectroscopic pipeline

DESI data release 2 (DR2)

DESI data release 2 (DR2)

Release of DESI DR2 (BAO) results

Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

BAO measurements

BAO measurements

BAO measurements

BAO measurements

Robustness tests

Robustness tests

Robustness tests

Robustness tests

Ly\(\alpha\) forest

Ly\(\alpha\) forest

Correlation functions

Robustness tests

Robustness tests

Robustness tests

Robustness tests

What's new in the analyses?

DESI DR2 BAO

DESI DR2 BAO

DESI DR2 BAO

DESI DR2 BAO

DESI DR2 BAO

DESI DR2 BAO

DESI DR2 BAO

DESI DR2 BAO

Consistency with other data

\(\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}\) constraints

\(\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}\) constraints

\(\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}\) constraints

Dark Energy Equation of State

Dark Energy Equation of State

Dark Energy Equation of State

Robustness tests

Understanding tensions

Understanding tensions

Understanding tensions

Understanding tensions

Understanding tensions

Sum of neutrino masses

Sum of neutrino masses

Sum of neutrino masses

Sum of neutrino masses

Summary

But it's not the end yet!

But it's not the end yet!

Back-up

Full Shape measurements

Full Shape measurements

DR1 Full Shape + BAO

DR1 Full Shape + BAO

DR1 Full Shape + BAO

DR1 Full Shape + BAO

DR1 Full Shape + BAO

DR1 Full Shape + BAO

DR1 Full Shape + BAO

\(S_8\) constraints

\(S_8\) constraints

\(S_8\) constraints

Modified gravity constraints

Modified gravity constraints

Modified gravity constraints

Modified gravity constraints

Other datasets

What's new in the BAO analysis?

BAO reconstruction

What's new in the Ly\(\alpha\) analysis?

What's new in the Ly\(\alpha\) analysis?

Robustness tests