Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 9 cited by

Robust Preference for Dark Sector Interactions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read DESI's deviations from standard cosmology can be explained by dark matter–dark energy interactions at 3–5 sigma, matching or beating evolving-dark-energy fits without requiring a time-varying equation of state.

desk verdict CQ is a credible CPL rival; the CF half of the 'robust both-scenarios' claim sits in a corner that structure-growth data would likely reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.07361 v2 pith:JOLIOAJ3 submitted 2026-01-12 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Tian-Nuo Li , William Giarè , Guo-Hong Du , Yun-He Li , Eleonora Di Valentino , Jing-Fei Zhang , Xin Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-phhep-th PACS 95.35.+d95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords interactingdarkenergymatter-darkcouplingDESIBAOdynamicalCPLparametrizationcoupledquintessencefluidcosmologicalperturbations
topics Dark EnergyDark Matter
open problems Dark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

DESI baryon acoustic oscillation measurements deviate from the standard ΛCDM cosmology, and the usual interpretation is that dark energy's equation of state changes over time. This paper tries to establish a different physical explanation: dark matter and dark energy exchange energy and momentum, and that interaction reshapes the expansion history in a way that mimics dynamical dark energy. Using a unified treatment of perturbations for two interacting models (coupled quintessence and coupled fluid), the authors find a 3–5 sigma preference for a nonzero coupling across all data combinations. They claim these models fit the CMB, BAO, and supernova data as well as, or better than, the standard CPL parametrization with the same number of free parameters, even after a supernova recalibration that weakens the evidence for dynamical dark energy. If correct, the DESI results do not require dark energy to evolve; a dark-sector interaction is a statistically competitive physical alternative.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a unified parameterization of IDE perturbations, in which the energy and momentum transfer rates are written as linear combinations of the density and velocity perturbations of the two dark components, with model-specific mapping coefficients. This lets both the coupled-quintessence and coupled-fluid scenarios be evolved with the same treatment. For the coupled fluid, the extended parameterized post-Friedmann (ePPF) framework replaces the ill-defined large-scale pressure condition with a parametrized momentum relation, preventing the instabilities that normally plague constant-equation-of-state interacting fluids. The same number of free parameters as the CPL paramet

What would settle it

Include weak-lensing and galaxy-clustering measurements in the same MCMC analysis. The coupled-fluid model predicts S8≈0.68, while current lensing data cluster near S8≈0.76–0.82; if adding those data pulls the coupled-fluid posterior back toward ΛCDM, or worsens its Δχ² enough to remove the preference, then the paper's claim that both interacting models robustly beat ΛCDM at 3–5 sigma is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the apparent DESI preference for dynamical dark energy is not unique. Two interacting dark-energy (IDE) realizations—coupled quintessence, defined at the Lagrangian level, and a phenomenological coupled fluid with a constant equation of state—both produce a background expansion that departs from ΛCDM in the redshift range probed by BAO and supernovae while fitting the data at least as well as CPL. The authors report that the coupling parameter is constrained away from zero at roughly 3–5 sigma, that the coupled fluid model gives the largest improvement over ΛCDM in both Δχ² and DIC, and that the preference survives the DES-Dovekie recal

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on the perturbation framework being reliable for the coupled-fluid model in the exact region the data prefer (w≈-1.5, Ωm≈0.6, σ8≈0.48), while weak-lensing and galaxy-clustering data that would directly test that region are omitted from the analysis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, the DESI BAO deviations can be explained without introducing a time-dependent dark-energy equation of state; an interaction between dark matter and dark energy is a viable alternative.
  • The coupled-quintessence model achieves its fit while remaining quintessence-like at all redshifts, so a phantom-crossing equation of state is not required by the data.
  • The coupled-fluid model predicts a distinctive structure-formation signature: low σ8 and S8 (about 0.48 and 0.68) with high matter density, meaning future weak-lensing and galaxy-clustering data can directly discriminate it from ΛCDM and CPL.
  • Even after the supernova recalibration that weakens dynamical-dark-energy evidence, the interaction preference persists, so the result is not an artifact of a single supernova compilation.
  • Because the background distances are highly degenerate between IDE and CPL, distinguishing the paradigms requires perturbation-level observations rather than more distance measurements.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I infer that the paper's two-model claim is not symmetric: the coupled-fluid model lives in a corner of parameter space (w≈-1.5, Ωm≈0.6, S8≈0.68) that existing weak-lensing measurements would likely penalize, so its competitive fit may degrade once those data are included.
  • I infer the strongest near-term test is not better BAO or supernova distances but structure growth: measuring S8 and the growth rate at z<1 should separate the coupled-fluid model from ΛCDM and from coupled quintessence.
  • I draw a non-obvious consequence: if future data favor an interacting scenario, coupled quintessence offers a less radical cosmology (H0 and Ωm close to ΛCDM) than the coupled fluid, so the two IDE realizations have very different implications for the Hubble tension and matter clustering.
  • I infer from the parameter correlations that the model rankings are partly driven by the lowest-redshift supernova bin; a systematic shift in that anchor would likely reorder CPL, CQ, and CF.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses CMB (Planck+ACT+SPT), DESI DR2 BAO, and three SN compilations (PantheonPlus, DESY5, DES-Dovekie) to constrain two interacting dark-energy models: coupled quintessence (CQ) and a phenomenological coupled fluid (CF). The authors report a robust preference for non-vanishing dark-sector interactions at the 3–5σ level in both models, with fit quality comparable to or better than the CPL dynamical-dark-energy parametrization for the same number of free parameters. They use profile-likelihood checks to argue that the interaction signal is likelihood-driven, and they emphasize that the preference survives the DES-Dovekie recalibration that weakens the CPL evidence. The CF model achieves its best fits only in an extreme parameter region (Ωm≈0.6, σ8≈0.48, w≈−1.5), a point the authors acknowledge.

Significance. The CQ analysis is a potentially significant contribution: it shows that a Lagrangian-based interacting dark-energy model with the same number of parameters as CPL can reproduce the DESI-driven preference for deviations from ΛCDM, with a profile-likelihood minimum away from β=0 and consistent results across several SN compilations. The paper also includes careful methodological choices, such as sampling H0 and computing θ* numerically rather than using the Hu–Sugiyama approximation, and it makes model-comparison tables transparent. However, the headline claim that 'both IDE scenarios' show robust evidence depends critically on the CF model, whose extreme parameter region is supported by an ePPF perturbation treatment that is not cross-validated and whose low S8 prediction is in tension with existing weak-lensing and galaxy-clustering data. As presented, the CF result is not yet on the same evidential footing as the CQ result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplementary Sec. I; Table IV] The ePPF framework is asserted to 'effectively eliminate the instability while preserving accurate small-scale dynamics' (Supplementary Sec. I), but no validation is shown for the CF best-fit region: Table IV gives w≈−1.4 to −1.6, β≈−2.3 to −3.1, Ωm≈0.6, σ8≈0.48. This is far from the ΛCDM-like regime in which such approximate perturbation schemes are normally calibrated. Because CF provides the largest Δχ² and ΔDIC improvements in Table II, the central claim that 'both' IDE models robustly beat ΛCDM rests on the reliability of ePPF in this untested phantom/strong-coupling regime. A cross-check against a full perturbation solver, or at least a demonstration that the conclusions are insensitive to the ePPF closure, is needed.
  2. [Supplementary Sec. III; Table II] The paper explicitly states that a comprehensive assessment against weak-lensing and LSS measurements is beyond its scope, but the CF model predicts S8≈0.68 (σ8≈0.48) with Ωm≈0.6 (Table IV), values that are in strong tension with current galaxy-lensing and clustering data. Since CF is the model that gives the best Δχ² and ΔDIC in Table II, the broad claim that interacting dark energy is statistically competitive with CPL and “robustly” preferred over ΛCDM is conditional on a scenario whose growth predictions appear to conflict with existing probes. Please include representative WL/LSS likelihoods (e.g., DES Y3, KiDS, or an equivalent) or explicitly restrict the robustness claim to the CQ model.
  3. [Fig. 2 (lower panel); text near profile-likelihood discussion] The lower panel of Fig. 2 plots Δχ² only over β∈[−4,−1.5]. This range excludes β=0, the non-interacting ΛCDM limit. The accompanying text states that the CF profile likelihood is 'significantly displaced from the non-interacting limit,' but the plotted curve does not show Δχ² at β=0 and therefore does not directly support a significance claim for CF. Please extend the x-axis to β=0 or explicitly report Δχ²(β=0) for the CF model. Without this, the profile-likelihood argument against prior-volume effects is incomplete for the CF scenario.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Conclusion] The conclusion says the marginalized constraints and profile likelihood reach 'the 5σ level.' Table I shows that 5σ is reached for CQ, but for CF the significance varies by dataset (e.g., β=−2.37±0.82 for CMB+DESI is roughly 3σ). Please be precise about which model and dataset support which significance.
  2. [Fig. 7 caption and Supplementary Sec. III text] The caption states the CQ panel is on the right and the CF panel on the left, but the text in Supplementary Sec. III refers to 'the left panel of Fig. 7' in the CQ discussion. Please correct this cross-reference or the panel ordering.
  3. [Fig. 5] The binned distance-modulus residuals would be easier to interpret if the error bars on the bins were shown explicitly, or if the binning prescription were stated in the caption; currently the visual weight per point is unclear.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The phrase 'robust evidence for non-vanishing interactions at the 3–5σ level' is used before the CF caveats are introduced. Consider stating in the abstract that the CF scenario lives in an extreme corner of parameter space and that its viability depends on perturbation physics and structure-growth data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: fits are likelihood-driven against external public data; self-reliance on IDECAMB/ePPF is a tool-dependence caveat, not a definitional loop.

full rationale

The claimed results — non-zero coupling β, the CF model's extreme corner (w≈-1.5, Ωm≈0.6, σ8≈0.48), and the Δχ²/DIC comparisons — are all outputs of MCMC fits to external Planck/ACT/SPT/DESI/SN likelihoods, not quantities defined in terms of each other. The CQ and CF perturbation equations and the ePPF mapping are computational frameworks imported from the authors' prior work (refs [115,118]); the CF stability claim and its low-σ8 signature depend on that framework, and the authors explicitly defer weak-lensing/LSS validation: 'A comprehensive assessment of the viability of this scenario in light of WL and LSS measurements is therefore beyond the scope of the present work' (Supplementary Sec. III). This is a validation/robustness limitation, not a circular reduction: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its input by construction (e.g., σ8 is derived from the fitted model, not fitted to σ8 data). The self-citation is real but methodological; the central comparative claim retains independent statistical content. Score 2 reflects the minor self-reliance on IDECAMB/ePPF, not actual circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis is a Bayesian fit, so the central claim rests on the chosen interaction Lagrangians/transfer functions, the perturbation framework used to stabilize CF, and the prior ranges. No new physical entity is introduced; the freedom is in coupling parameters and potential shape.

free parameters (4)
  • β (CQ coupling) = 0.0527 ± 0.0087 (CMB+DESI+DES-Dovekie)
    Dark-sector coupling strength for coupled quintessence; the fitted non-zero value is the main evidence for interaction.
  • α (CQ inverse power-law exponent) = 0.46 ± 0.18 (Dovekie); <0.39 (CMB+DESI only)
    Slope of the inverse power-law quintessence potential; fitted rather than derived.
  • w (CF dark-energy EoS) = -1.52 ± 0.16 (Dovekie)
    Constant equation-of-state parameter for the coupled fluid; fitted to phantom values.
  • β (CF coupling) = -2.59 +0.76/-0.62 (Dovekie)
    Phenomenological coupling Q=βH0ρ_de; negative value drives energy transfer from DE to DM.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math FLRW background and linear scalar perturbations with standard metric potentials.
    Used in Eqs. (1)-(10) and in the IDECAMB perturbation solver.
  • domain assumption Dark sector energy-momentum tensors are not separately conserved; exchange is described by Qμ (Eq. 1).
    Central premise of IDE; physical motivation from scalar-tensor theories is cited, not derived here.
  • domain assumption CQ: DM mass depends on scalar field as m(ϕ)∝e^{-β√κϕ} and potential U(ϕ)=U0(√κϕ)^{-α}.
    Eqs. (4)-(5) and Supp. Eq. (12); chosen from the literature, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption CF: DE is a perfect fluid with constant w and interaction Q=βH0ρ_de.
    Eq. (6); the paper says this is phenomenological, 'lacking a fundamental Lagrangian'.
  • domain assumption The perturbation mappings Eqs. (2)-(3) with the stated C_i, D_i coefficients reproduce the CQ and CF perturbation dynamics.
    Parameterization adopted from ref [115]; load-bearing for the reliability of the inferred constraints.
  • domain assumption The extended parameterized post-Friedmann (ePPF) framework removes large-scale instabilities while preserving small-scale dynamics in CF.
    Supp. Sec. I; the fitted CF region (w≈-1.5, Ωm≈0.6) is exactly where instabilities otherwise appear.
  • ad hoc to paper Flat priors over the ranges in Table III, including β_CQ∈[0,0.15] and α∈[0,1.4], β_CF∈[-5,1], w∈[-3,1].
    Prior choices shape the posteriors; notably the CQ prior excludes negative couplings, so the sign of β in CQ is partly imposed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Preference for Dark Sector Interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JOLIOAJ3

@misc{pith2026260107361,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Preference for Dark Sector Interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JOLIOAJ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.07361}
}
abstract

Recent DESI baryon acoustic oscillation data reveal deviations from $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, conventionally attributed to dynamical dark energy (DE). We demonstrate that these deviations are equally, if not better, explained by interactions between dark matter and dark energy (IDE), without requiring a time-varying DE equation of state. Using a unified framework, we analyze two IDE models - coupled quintessence and coupled fluid - against the latest CMB (Planck, ACT, SPT), DESI BAO, and SN (including DES-Dovekie recalibrated) data. Both IDE scenarios show robust evidence for non-vanishing interactions at the 3-5$\sigma$ level, with marginalized constraints significantly deviating from the $\Lambda$CDM limit. This preference persists even under DES-Dovekie SN recalibration, which weakens dynamical DE evidence. Crucially, for the same number of free parameters, IDE models provide fits to low- and high-redshift data that match or exceed the performance of the CPL dynamical DE parametrization. Our results establish IDE as a physically motivated alternative to dynamical DE, highlighting the necessity of future cosmological perturbation measurements (e.g., weak lensing, galaxy clustering) to distinguish between these paradigms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.07361 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two-dimensional marginalized contours (68.3% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Using the CMB+DESI+DES-Dovekie data, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the temperature power spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Best-fit predictions for (rescaled) distance-redshift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Observables from the best-fit ΛCDM, CPL, CQ, and CF models are compared with the distance modulus µ, normalized to the Planck 2018 best-fit ΛCDM cosmology. The binned distance modulus residuals for DES-Dovekie and DESY5 are shown, represented by black squares and gray …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The marginalized one-dimensional posterior distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Constraints on cosmological parameters from the CMB+DESI, CMB+DESI+PantheonPlus, CMB+DESI+DESY5, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left panel: Evolution of the DM (dashed lines) and the DE (solid lines) density fractions in the ΛCDM, CPL, CQ, and CF models. Right panel: Evolution of the DE EoS (dashed lines) and the effective EoS (solid lines) in the ΛCDM, CPL, CQ, and CF models. For all models, t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Hubble tension: the shape wall

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Late-time modifications to the expansion history can raise H0 by at most about 2% (conservative) to 3.7% (permissive) if the CMB acoustic scale is fixed.

  2. Cosmological Evidence for Dark Axion-Dark Baryon Interactions from Apparent Phantom Crossing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Dark axion–dark baryon interactions improve the fit to CMB+DESI+SNe by Δχ²=-14.5 over ΛCDM, via a non-monotonic dark-matter mass that mimics phantom crossing, while leaving the Hubble tension unresolved.

  3. Realization of quintom dark energy after DESI DR2 in Nieh-Yan modified teleparallel gravity

    gr-qc 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Coupling a single fluid or scalar dark energy to the Nieh-Yan density removes its unstable perturbation, allowing a healthy quintom-B crossing and predicting gravitational-wave velocity birefringence.

  4. Observational constraints on fractional holographic dark energy in the light of DESI DR2

    gr-qc 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The fractional holographic dark energy model with the future event horizon as its length scale survives DESI DR2 plus CMB distance-prior constraints, while the Hubble-horizon and particle-horizon versions are ruled out.

  5. Coupled quintessence from an axion dark sector

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A coupled two-axion dark sector reproduces the apparent phantom-crossing dark energy hinted at by DESI and fits CMB, BAO, and Type Ia supernova data as well as LambdaCDM.

  6. $\Lambda$XCDM: a running vacuum strategy for crossing the phantom divide

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    When fitted to CMB, DESI BAO and supernova data, the ΛXCDM running-vacuum-plus-cosmon model produces an effective dark-energy equation of state that crosses the phantom divide at z≈0.4–0.8 and keeps the coincidence ra...

  7. Signatures of Modified Gravity on Linear Scales in a Dynamical Dark Energy Background

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using Planck, DESI, supernovae, and redshift-space distortions, the authors infer that modified gravity, if present, must act only below ~30 Mpc and cannot modify the large scales previously considered.

  8. Cosmological preference for a positive neutrino mass at 2.7$\sigma$: A joint analysis of DESI DR2, DESY5, and DESY1 data

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A joint fit of DESI DR2, CMB, DESY5 and DESY1 data gives total neutrino mass 0.098 (+0.016, -0.037) eV, a 2.7 sigma preference for positive mass in the w0waCDM model.

  9. Dark Energy in the DESI Era: A Brief Review of Evidence, Beyond-$\Lambda$CDM Interpretations, and Tensions

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    Review of DESI evidence for dynamical dark energy, its dependence on parametrization and datasets, and alternative beyond-LambdaCDM interpretations that may address cosmological tensions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

163 extracted references · 134 linked inside Pith · cited by 9 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    arXiv 2001

  3. [3]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208512

    arXiv 2003

  4. [4]

    Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys

    K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Popovicet al.(DES), (2025), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-ph.CO]

    B. Popovicet al.(DES), (2025), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), JCAP02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Guet al.(DESI), Nature Astron.9, 1879 (2025), arXiv:2504.06118 [astro-ph.CO]

    G. Guet al.(DESI), Nature Astron.9, 1879 (2025), arXiv:2504.06118 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Cortês and A

    M. Cortês and A. R. Liddle, JCAP12, 007 (2024), arXiv:2404.08056 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 163 references
  1. [9]

    Shlivko and P

    D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Lett. B855, 138826 (2024), arXiv:2405.03933 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Luongo and M

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Astron. Astrophys.690, A40 (2024), arXiv:2404.07070 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. Hütsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar, and H. Veermäe, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043540 (2025), arXiv:2406.07533 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Wang and Y.-S

    H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, (2024), arXiv:2404.18579 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, and A. Silvestri, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 181002 (2025), arXiv:2407.15832 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Tada and T

    Y. Tada and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D109, L121305 (2024), arXiv:2404.05722 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys

    K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D111, 023532 (2025), arXiv:2405.13588 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bhattacharya, G

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, JCAP09, 073 (2024), arXiv:2405.17396 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    O. F. Ramadan, J. Sakstein, and D. Rubin, Phys. Rev. D110, L041303 (2024), arXiv:2405.18747 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Malekjani, Z

    M. Malekjani, Z. Davari, and S. Pourojaghi (DESI), Phys. Rev. D111, 083547 (2025), arXiv:2407.09767 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Giarè, M

    W. Giarè, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, JCAP10, 035 (2024), arXiv:2407.16689 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Rebouças, D

    J. Rebouças, D. H. F. de Souza, K. Zhong, V. Mi- randa, and R. Rosenfeld, JCAP02, 024 (2025), arXiv:2408.14628 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    C.-G.Park, J.deCruzPérez, andB.Ratra,Int.J.Mod. Phys. D34, 2550058 (2025), arXiv:2410.13627 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Li, Y.-H

    T.-N. Li, Y.-H. Li, G.-H. Du, P.-J. Wu, L. Feng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 608 (2025), arXiv:2411.08639 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Jiang, D

    J.-Q. Jiang, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D110, 123519 (2024), arXiv:2408.02365 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Y. Yang, X. Ren, Q. Wang, Z. Lu, D. Zhang, Y.-F. Cai, and E. N. Saridakis, Sci. Bull.69, 2698 (2024), arXiv:2404.19437 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Li, G.-H

    T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, S.-H. Zhou, Y.-H. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2511.22512 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  18. [26]

    W. J. Wolf, C. García-García, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 081001 (2025), arXiv:2504.07679 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A. J. Shajib and J. A. Frieman, Phys. Rev. D112, 063508 (2025), arXiv:2502.06929 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Giarè, T

    W. Giarè, T. Mahassen, E. Di Valentino, and S. Pan, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101906 (2025), arXiv:2502.10264 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Chaussidonet al., Phys

    E. Chaussidonet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 063548 (2025), arXiv:2503.24343 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Y.-H. Pang, X. Zhang, and Q.-G. Huang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 280410 (2025), arXiv:2503.21600 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Roy Choudhury, Astrophys

    S. Roy Choudhury, Astrophys. J. Lett.986, L31 (2025), arXiv:2504.15340 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  24. [32]

    Paliathanasis, Phys

    A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101956 (2025), arXiv:2502.16221 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  25. [33]

    Scherer, M

    M. Scherer, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and A. De Fe- lice, Phys. Rev. D112, 043513 (2025), arXiv:2504.20664 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Giarè, Phys

    W. Giarè, Phys. Rev. D112, 023508 (2025), arXiv:2409.17074 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    T. Liu, X. Li, and J. Wang, Astrophys. J.988, 243 (2025), arXiv:2504.21373 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  28. [36]

    E. M. Teixeira, W. Giarè, N. B. Hogg, T. Montandon, A. Poudou, and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. D112, 023515 (2025), arXiv:2504.10464 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Specogna, S

    E. Specogna, S. A. Adil, E. Ozulker, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, O. Akarsu, and A. A. Sen, (2025), arXiv:2504.17859 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Cheng, E

    H. Cheng, E. Di Valentino, L. A. Escamilla, A. A. Sen, andL.Visinelli,JCAP09,031(2025),arXiv:2505.02932 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  31. [39]

    Herold and T

    L. Herold and T. Karwal, (2025), arXiv:2506.12004 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Özülker, E

    E. Özülker, E. Di Valentino, and W. Giarè, (2025), arXiv:2506.19053 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A. N. Ormondroyd, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, (2025), arXiv:2503.17342 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Silva and R

    E. Silva and R. C. Nunes, JCAP11, 078 (2025), arXiv:2507.13989 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  35. [43]

    Ishak and L

    M. Ishak and L. Medina-Varela, (2025), arXiv:2507.22856 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  36. [44]

    Fazzari, W

    E. Fazzari, W. Giarè, and E. Di Valentino, Astro- phys. J. Lett.996, L5 (2026), arXiv:2509.16196 [astro- ph.CO]

    2026

  37. [45]

    Zhang, T

    Z. Zhang, T. Xu, and Y. Chen, (2025), arXiv:2512.07281 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Cheng, E

    H. Cheng, E. Di Valentino, and L. Visinelli, (2025), arXiv:2505.22066 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Y. Cai, X. Ren, T. Qiu, M. Li, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2505.24732 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Song, G.-H

    J.-Y. Song, G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, L.-F. Wang, J.-Z. Qi, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2511.12017 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  41. [49]

    Li and S

    J.-X. Li and S. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1308 (2025), arXiv:2506.22953 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  42. [50]

    D. H. Lee, W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, S. Pan, and C. van de Bruck, (2025), arXiv:2507.11432 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  43. [51]

    Wu, T.-N

    P.-J. Wu, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, and X. Zhang, (2025), 8 arXiv:2509.02945 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  44. [52]

    F. B. M. d. Santos, J. Morais, S. Pan, W. Yang, and E. Di Valentino, (2025), arXiv:2504.04646 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Khoury, M.-X

    J. Khoury, M.-X. Lin, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 181001 (2025), arXiv:2503.16415 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  46. [54]

    Li and X

    Y.-H. Li and X. Zhang, JCAP12, 018 (2025), arXiv:2506.18477 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  47. [55]

    D. A. Kessler, L. A. Escamilla, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, (2025), arXiv:2504.00776 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Smith, E

    A. Smith, E. Özülker, E. Di Valentino, and C. van de Bruck, (2025), arXiv:2510.21931 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  49. [57]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D62, 043511 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908023

    2000 arXiv

  50. [58]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon, Rept. Prog. Phys.79, 096901 (2016), arXiv:1603.08299 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bettoni and S

    D. Bettoni and S. Liberati, Phys. Rev. D88, 084020 (2013), arXiv:1306.6724 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Zumalacárregui and J

    M. Zumalacárregui and J. García-Bellido, Phys. Rev. D 89, 064046 (2014), arXiv:1308.4685 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Gubitosi, F

    G. Gubitosi, F. Piazza, and F. Vernizzi, JCAP02, 032 (2013), arXiv:1210.0201 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Frusciante and L

    N. Frusciante and L. Perenon, Phys. Rept.857, 1 (2020), arXiv:1907.03150 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavón, Rept. Prog. Phys.87, 036901 (2024), arXiv:2402.00819 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Zhang, H

    J. Zhang, H. Liu, and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B659, 26 (2008), arXiv:0705.4145 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Salvatelli, A

    V. Salvatelli, A. Marchini, L. Lopez-Honorez, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D88, 023531 (2013), arXiv:1304.7119 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Li, J.-F

    Y.-H. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D93, 023002 (2016), arXiv:1506.06349 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Murgia, S

    R. Murgia, S. Gariazzo, and N. Fornengo, JCAP04, 014 (2016), arXiv:1602.01765 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Kumar and R

    S. Kumar and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D96, 103511 (2017), arXiv:1702.02143 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D96, 043503 (2017), arXiv:1704.08342 [astro- ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Di Valentino, Mon

    E. Di Valentino, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502, 2065 (2021), arXiv:2011.00246 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Gao, Z.-W

    L.-Y. Gao, Z.-W. Zhao, S.-S. Xue, and X. Zhang, JCAP 07, 005 (2021), arXiv:2101.10714 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Pan and W

    S. Pan and W. Yang, (2023), 10.1007/978-981-99-0177- 7_29, arXiv:2310.07260 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Forconi, W

    M. Forconi, W. Giarè, O. Mena, Ruchika, E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and R. C. Nunes, JCAP05, 097 (2024), arXiv:2312.11074 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Pourtsidou and T

    A. Pourtsidou and T. Tram, Phys. Rev. D94, 043518 (2016), arXiv:1604.04222 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  67. [75]

    R. C. Nunes and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. D104, 063529 (2021), arXiv:2107.09151 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Wang, J.-H

    L.-F. Wang, J.-H. Zhang, D.-Z. He, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.514, 1433 (2022), arXiv:2102.09331 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Lucca and D

    M. Lucca and D. C. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D102, 123502 (2020), arXiv:2002.06127 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Y. Zhai, W. Giarè, C. van de Bruck, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, and R. C. Nunes, JCAP07, 032 (2023), arXiv:2303.08201 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Becker, D

    N. Becker, D. C. Hooper, F. Kahlhoefer, J. Lesgour- gues, and N. Schöneberg, JCAP02, 019 (2021), arXiv:2010.04074 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  72. [80]

    G. A. Hoerning, R. G. Landim, L. O. Ponte, R. P. Rolim, F. B. Abdalla, and E. Abdalla, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023523 (2025), arXiv:2308.05807 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  73. [81]

    van de Bruck, Phys

    W.Giarè, Y.Zhai, S.Pan, E.DiValentino, R.C.Nunes, and C. van de Bruck, Phys. Rev. D110, 063527 (2024), arXiv:2404.02110 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    L. A. Escamilla, O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, and J. A. Vazquez, JCAP11, 051 (2023), arXiv:2305.16290 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Dark Univ.30, 100666 (2020), arXiv:1908.04281 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Li, P.-J

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, S.-J. Jin, H.-L. Li, J.- F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Astrophys. J.976, 1 (2024), arXiv:2407.14934 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Halder, J

    S. Halder, J. de Haro, T. Saha, and S. Pan, Phys. Rev. D109, 083522 (2024), arXiv:2403.01397 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Castello, M

    S. Castello, M. Mancarella, N. Grimm, D. Sobral- Blanco, I. Tutusaus, and C. Bonvin, JCAP05, 003 (2024), arXiv:2311.14425 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Yao and X.-H

    Y.-H. Yao and X.-H. Meng, Phys. Dark Univ.39, 101165 (2023), arXiv:2207.05955 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Li, S.-J

    T.-N. Li, S.-J. Jin, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Astrophys. J.963, 52 (2024), arXiv:2310.15879 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    K. R. Mishra, S. K. J. Pacif, R. Kumar, and K. Bamba, Phys. Dark Univ.40, 101211 (2023), arXiv:2301.08743 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [90]

    R. C. Nunes, S. Pan, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D94, 023508 (2016), arXiv:1605.01712 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Silva, M

    E. Silva, M. A. Sabogal, M. Scherer, R. C. Nunes, E. Di Valentino, and S. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D111, 123511 (2025), arXiv:2503.23225 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  84. [92]

    van der Westhuizen, A

    M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102121 (2025), arXiv:2509.04496 [gr-qc]

    2025

  85. [93]

    Zhang, T.-N

    Y.-M. Zhang, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, S.-H. Zhou, L.- Y. Gao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2510.12627 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Wang, R.-G

    J.-Q. Wang, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, and S.-J. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2508.01759 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Li, G.-H

    T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, Y. Li, J.-L. Ling, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2510.11363 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  88. [96]

    Li, G.-H

    T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, P.-J. Wu, S.-J. Jin, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 69, 210413 (2026), arXiv:2501.07361 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  89. [97]

    Lyu, R.-G

    Z.-H. Lyu, R.-G. Cai, S.-J. Wang, and X.-X. Zeng, (2025), arXiv:2511.16244 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  90. [98]

    W. Yang, S. Zhang, O. Mena, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, (2025), arXiv:2508.19109 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  91. [99]

    S. Pan, S. Paul, E. N. Saridakis, and W. Yang, (2025), arXiv:2504.00994 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  92. [100]

    L. P. Chimento, A. S. Jakubi, D. Pavon, and W. Zim- dahl, Phys. Rev. D67, 083513 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0303145

    2003

  93. [101]

    Zhang, Mod

    X. Zhang, Mod. Phys. Lett. A20, 2575 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0503072

    2005 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Zhang, Phys

    X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B611, 1 (2005), arXiv:astro- 9 ph/0503075

    2005

  95. [103]

    Dutta, W

    J. Dutta, W. Khyllep, and N. Tamanini, Phys. Rev. D 95, 023515 (2017), arXiv:1701.00744 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  96. [104]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi, and D. F. Mota, JCAP09, 019 (2018), arXiv:1805.08252 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Guo, J.-F

    R.-Y. Guo, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP02, 054 (2019), arXiv:1809.02340 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Feng, D.-Z

    L. Feng, D.-Z. He, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.63, 290404 (2020), arXiv:1910.03872 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Li, J.-F

    H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Commun. Theor. Phys.72, 125401 (2020), arXiv:2005.12041 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Gao, S.-S

    L.-Y. Gao, S.-S. Xue, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C48, 051001 (2024), arXiv:2212.13146 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Lucca, Phys

    M. Lucca, Phys. Dark Univ.34, 100899 (2021), arXiv:2105.09249 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Giarè, M

    W. Giarè, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 251003 (2024), arXiv:2404.15232 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Wetterich, Astron

    C. Wetterich, Astron. Astrophys.301, 321 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9408025

    1995 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Pettorino and C

    V. Pettorino and C. Baccigalupi, Phys. Rev. D77, 103003 (2008), arXiv:0802.1086 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Wetterich, Lect

    C. Wetterich, Lect. Notes Phys.892, 57 (2015), arXiv:1402.5031 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Li and X

    Y.-H. Li and X. Zhang, JCAP09, 046 (2023), arXiv:2306.01593 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D60, 043501 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9904120

    1999 arXiv

  109. [117]

    A. P. Billyard and A. A. Coley, Phys. Rev. D61, 083503 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908224

    2000 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Li, J.-F

    Y.-H. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D90, 063005 (2014), arXiv:1404.5220 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J. 538, 473 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911177

    2000 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP05, 057 (2021), arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Efstathiou and S

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, (2019), 10.21105/as- tro.1910.00483, arXiv:1910.00483 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  114. [122]

    E.Rosenberg, S.Gratton, andG.Efstathiou,Mon.Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517, 4620 (2022), arXiv:2205.10869 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    T. Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), (2025), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), (2025), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  117. [125]

    F. J. Quet al.(SPT-3G, ACT), (2025), arXiv:2504.20038 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  118. [126]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, JCAP09, 039 (2022), arXiv:2206.07773 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  119. [127]

    F. J. Quet al.(ACT), Astrophys. J.962, 112 (2024), arXiv:2304.05202 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  120. [128]

    M. S. Madhavacherilet al.(ACT), Astrophys. J.962, 113 (2024), arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Broutet al., Astrophys

    D. Broutet al., Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  122. [130]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES), Astrophys. J. Lett.973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Pettorino, L

    V. Pettorino, L. Amendola, C. Baccigalupi, and C. Quercellini, Phys. Rev. D86, 103507 (2012), arXiv:1207.3293 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  124. [132]

    Pettorino, Phys

    V. Pettorino, Phys. Rev. D88, 063519 (2013), arXiv:1305.7457 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  125. [133]

    Clemson, K

    T. Clemson, K. Koyama, G.-B. Zhao, R. Maartens, and J. Valiviita, Phys. Rev. D85, 043007 (2012), arXiv:1109.6234 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  126. [134]

    Majerotto, J

    E. Majerotto, J. Valiviita, and R. Maartens, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.194, 260 (2009)

    2009

  127. [135]

    Hu and N

    W. Hu and N. Sugiyama, Astrophys. J.471, 542 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9510117

    1996 arXiv

  128. [136]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astron.3, 891 (2019), arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  129. [137]

    Di Valentinoet al., Astropart

    E. Di Valentinoet al., Astropart. Phys.131, 102605 (2021), arXiv:2008.11284 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  130. [138]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev.95, 101659 (2022), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  131. [139]

    Schöneberg, G

    N. Schöneberg, G. Franco Abellán, A. Pérez Sánchez, S. J. Witte, V. Poulin, and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Rept. 984, 1 (2022), arXiv:2107.10291 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  132. [140]

    P. Shah, P. Lemos, and O. Lahav, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.29, 9 (2021), arXiv:2109.01161 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  133. [141]

    Abdallaet al., JHEAp34, 49 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Abdallaet al., JHEAp34, 49 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  134. [142]

    Di Valentino, Universe8, 399 (2022)

    E. Di Valentino, Universe8, 399 (2022)

    2022

  135. [143]

    Kamionkowski and A

    M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73, 153 (2023), arXiv:2211.04492 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  136. [144]

    Giarè, (2023), 10.1007/978-981-99-0177-7_36, arXiv:2305.16919 [astro-ph.CO]

    W. Giarè, (2023), 10.1007/978-981-99-0177-7_36, arXiv:2305.16919 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  137. [145]

    Hu and F.-Y

    J.-P. Hu and F.-Y. Wang, Universe9, 94 (2023), arXiv:2302.05709 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  138. [146]

    Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), Phys

    E. Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101965 (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  139. [147]

    Vagnozzi, Phys

    S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D102, 023518 (2020), arXiv:1907.07569 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  140. [148]

    Vagnozzi, Universe9, 393 (2023), arXiv:2308.16628 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Vagnozzi, Universe9, 393 (2023), arXiv:2308.16628 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  141. [149]

    Loverde and Z

    M. Loverde and Z. J. Weiner, JCAP12, 048 (2024), arXiv:2410.00090 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  142. [150]

    E. Ó. Colgáin and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.542, L24 (2025), arXiv:2412.12905 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  143. [151]

    Elberset al., Phys

    W. Elberset al., Phys. Rev. D112, 083513 (2025), arXiv:2503.14744 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  144. [152]

    G. P. Lynch and L. Knox, Phys. Rev. D112, 083543 (2025), arXiv:2503.14470 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  145. [153]

    Sailer, G

    N. Sailer, G. S. Farren, S. Ferraro, and M. White, (2025), arXiv:2504.16932 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  146. [154]

    Jhaveri, T

    T. Jhaveri, T. Karwal, and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D112, 043541 (2025), arXiv:2504.21813 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  147. [155]

    Du, P.-J

    G.-H. Du, P.-J. Wu, T.-N. Li, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 392 (2025), arXiv:2407.15640 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  148. [156]

    N.Craig, D.Green, J.Meyers, andS.Rajendran,JHEP 09, 097 (2024), arXiv:2405.00836 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  149. [157]

    Naredo-Tuero, M

    D. Naredo-Tuero, M. Escudero, E. Fernández-Martínez, X. Marcano, and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. D110, 123537 (2024), arXiv:2407.13831 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  150. [158]

    Green and J

    D. Green and J. Meyers, Phys. Rev. D111, 083507 (2025), arXiv:2407.07878 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  151. [159]

    Elbers, C

    W. Elbers, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, B. Li, and S. Pas- coli,Phys.Rev.D111,063534(2025),arXiv:2407.10965 10 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  152. [160]

    Du, T.-N

    G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, L. Feng, S.-H. Zhou, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2501.10785 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  153. [161]

    Giarè, O

    W. Giarè, O. Mena, E. Specogna, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. D112, 103520 (2025), arXiv:2507.01848 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  154. [162]

    Du, T.-N

    G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2507.16589 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  155. [163]

    Zhou, T.-N

    S.-H. Zhou, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, J.-Q. Jiang, J.-F. Zhang, andX.Zhang,Phys.Rev.D112,123532(2025), arXiv:2509.10836 [astro-ph.CO]. 11 Supplementary Material I. THEORETICAL METHOD Here, we describe in detail the calculation methods for the CQ and CF scenarios. At the background l...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.