pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.00227 · v1 · pith:RRX6YB5Ynew · submitted 2026-05-29 · 🌀 gr-qc

Constraints on the Phenomenology of Dissipative Cosmological Memory from BAO (BOSS + DESI 2024) and Pantheon+ Data

S. M. Ponomarenko This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 21:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords dissipative memoryBAOPantheon+Lambda CDMBayesian analysiscosmological constraintsDebye law
0
0 comments X

The pith

BAO, DESI and Pantheon+ data show dissipative memory correction vanishes, matching Lambda CDM.

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

The paper introduces a model where early quantum gravitational processes could leave a relic 'dissipative memory' in the cosmic expansion, parameterized as an extra fluid that decays with redshift according to a Debye exponential law. A Bayesian fit to baryon acoustic oscillation measurements from BOSS and DESI 2024, combined with Pantheon+ supernova distances and Hubble constant data, finds that the extra parameters are not needed and the best fit is exactly the standard Lambda CDM model. The memory effect is consistent with zero over the redshift range 0.3 to 2.3, leading to an upper limit on its amplitude of 0.05 at 95 percent confidence for decay scales below 2. This matters because it tests whether such memory effects from the early universe can be ruled out by current observations.

Core claim

A global optimization of the joint dataset reveals that the best fit is identical to Lambda CDM, with the memory correction vanishing across z in [0.3, 2.3], Delta chi squared less than 0.01 with three extra parameters, Delta AIC equal to +6.0, and Delta BIC equal to +9.9. This establishes an upper bound on the memory amplitude epsilon less than 0.05 for z star less than 2 at 95 percent CL.

What carries the argument

The additional fluid component with amplitude epsilon, decay scale z star, and steepness beta, whose contribution to the expansion rate follows the Debye decay f(z) equals exp minus (z over z star) to the beta.

If this is right

  • Standard Lambda CDM is preferred by AIC and BIC despite the three extra parameters.
  • The memory correction produces no detectable change to the expansion rate in the observed redshift range.
  • The analysis places an upper bound on the memory amplitude of 0.05 at 95% CL for z_* < 2.
  • Any physical interpretation of dissipative memory must respect this constraint from late-time observations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Independent probes such as the cosmic microwave background or large-scale structure might provide complementary constraints if the memory effect influences them differently.
  • Extending the analysis to higher redshifts with future data could test larger decay scales z_*.
  • Other possible functional forms for the memory decay, beyond the Debye law, remain unconstrained by this work.

Load-bearing premise

The dissipative memory effect, if present, takes the specific functional form of an additional fluid decaying as f(z) = exp[−(z/z_*)^β] and does not produce other observable signatures that would be captured differently by the chosen datasets.

What would settle it

Finding a dataset combination where including the memory parameters yields a substantially better fit than Lambda CDM, such as Delta chi squared greater than 10, would indicate the presence of the effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.00227 by S. M. Ponomarenko.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: H(z) evolution: best fits for ΛCDM (black dashed) and the memory model (blue solid). The curves are virtually identical because the optimizer pushes the form factor out of the observable window (z∗ = 3.71, β = 6). The red dotted line illustrates a model with ε = 0.10, z∗ = 1.5, which is ruled out at the 95% CL by Eq. (11). Data points represent the BAO measurements converted back into H(z). zero. We establ… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose and test a phenomenological model of ``dissipative memory'' in the gravitational field, where early quantum gravitational processes leave a relic signature in the cosmic expansion rate. The model is parameterized by an additional fluid with amplitude $\epsilon$, decay scale $z_*$, and a steepness index $\beta$, decaying according to a Debye law $f(z) = \exp[{-(z/z_*)^\beta}]$. We perform a joint Bayesian analysis using baryon acoustic oscillation data from BOSS DR12 and DESI 2024, photometric distances from Pantheon$+$, and $H_0$ measurements (SHOES and Planck). A global optimization reveals that the best fit is identical to $\Lambda$CDM: the memory correction vanishes across the entire observable range $z \in [0.3,\,2.3]$ ($\Delta\chi^2 < 0.01$ with three extra parameters, $\Delta\mathrm{AIC}=+6.0$, $\Delta\mathrm{BIC}=+9.9$). This establishes an upper bound on the memory amplitude: $\epsilon < 0.05$ for $z_* < 2$ (95% CL). We discuss the physical interpretation of this constraint and point out observational channels where the memory effect could potentially manifest.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a phenomenological model of dissipative cosmological memory as an additional fluid decaying according to the Debye law f(z) = exp[−(z/z_*)^β], with free parameters ε, z_*, β. It conducts a joint Bayesian analysis of BAO data from BOSS DR12 and DESI 2024, Pantheon+ supernova data, and H0 measurements, finding that the best-fit model is indistinguishable from ΛCDM with the memory term vanishing over z ∈ [0.3,2.3], resulting in Δχ² < 0.01, positive ΔAIC and ΔBIC, and an upper bound ε < 0.05 at 95% CL for z_* < 2.

Significance. If the result holds, it places a tight constraint on the amplitude of this specific form of dissipative memory effect using current cosmological data. The explicit use of information criteria to account for the three extra parameters is a methodological strength. The null result is consistent with the data not requiring the additional component. However, the physical motivation for the Debye-law form and the generality of the constraint to other possible memory phenomenologies remain limited.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] The Bayesian analysis lacks explicit specification of the priors on the memory parameters ε, z_*, and β, as well as details on the construction of the joint covariance matrix from BAO and Pantheon+ datasets. These omissions hinder assessment of the reliability of the reported 95% CL bound on ε.
  2. [Abstract and §4] The upper bound on ε is derived exclusively for the assumed functional form f(z) = exp[−(z/z_*)^β]. No exploration of alternative decay laws is presented, making the constraint specific to this parametrization rather than a general limit on dissipative memory effects.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] The Bayesian analysis lacks explicit specification of the priors on the memory parameters ε, z_*, and β, as well as details on the construction of the joint covariance matrix from BAO and Pantheon+ datasets. These omissions hinder assessment of the reliability of the reported 95% CL bound on ε.

    Authors: We agree that these details should have been included. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly specify the prior distributions and ranges adopted for ε, z_*, and β, and we will describe the construction of the joint covariance matrix from the BOSS DR12, DESI 2024, and Pantheon+ datasets. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and §4] The upper bound on ε is derived exclusively for the assumed functional form f(z) = exp[−(z/z_*)^β]. No exploration of alternative decay laws is presented, making the constraint specific to this parametrization rather than a general limit on dissipative memory effects.

    Authors: The manuscript introduces and constrains a specific phenomenological model that employs the Debye-law form by definition. The reported bound therefore applies to this parametrization. We will revise the abstract and §4 to state this limitation more explicitly and to note that alternative decay laws lie outside the scope of the present work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: bound obtained by direct fit of phenomenological model to external datasets

full rationale

The paper defines a three-parameter phenomenological extension (amplitude ε, scale z*, index β) with an explicit functional form f(z)=exp[−(z/z*)^β] and performs a standard Bayesian fit to independent observational data (BOSS+DESI BAO, Pantheon+, H0). The reported upper limit ε<0.05 follows from the likelihood comparison (Δχ²<0.01, information criteria) showing the extra parameters are not required. No step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, no self-citation chain is load-bearing, and the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on three free parameters whose values are determined by the fit and on the ad-hoc choice of the Debye decay functional form for the memory term.

free parameters (3)
  • ε
    amplitude of the memory fluid
  • z_*
    characteristic decay redshift
  • β
    steepness index of the decay
axioms (2)
  • ad hoc to paper The memory effect can be represented by an additional fluid component whose influence decays according to the Debye law f(z) = exp[−(z/z_*)^β]
    This functional form is introduced as the defining parameterization of the model.
  • domain assumption Standard FLRW background cosmology and the interpretation of BAO and supernova distances remain valid when the extra fluid is added
    Required for the joint likelihood to be constructed from the named datasets.
invented entities (1)
  • dissipative memory fluid no independent evidence
    purpose: to encode a relic signature from early quantum gravitational processes in the expansion rate
    A new phenomenological component introduced to produce the memory effect

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5776 in / 1439 out tokens · 34177 ms · 2026-06-28T21:08:54.835758+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Asz→0:ρ I →ερ cr,0 — a non-vanishing contri- bution to the local expansion rate

  2. [2]

    frozen in

    Forz≫z ∗:ρ I →0 — a return to ΛCDM compat- ible with CMB physics; 3.∇ µT µν = 0 is satisfied, ensuring no violation of covariance. For a flat universe (k= 0), Condition 3 yields the continuity equation: ˙ρI + 3H(1 +w I)ρI = 0,(1) which integrates to: ρI(z) =ρ I,0 exp 3 Z z 0 1 +w I(z′) 1 +z ′ dz′ .(2) We parameterizew I(z) such thatρ I(z) decays accord- i...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    This resolves a critical structural defect present in earlier formula- tions of the model

    We introduced a covariant memory fluid with an equation of state that strictly preserves∇µT µν = 0, utilizing a Debye form factor (3). This resolves a critical structural defect present in earlier formula- tions of the model

  4. [4]

    The latest DESI data unam- biguously favor the standard ΛCDM model

    A joint analysis of BAO (BOSS DR12 + DESI 2024), Pantheon+, and H0 priors demonstrates that: ∆χ2 <0.01,∆AIC = +6.0,∆BIC = +9.9 relative to ΛCDM. The latest DESI data unam- biguously favor the standard ΛCDM model

    2024

  5. [5]

    We established a strict upper bound on the memory amplitude:ε <0.05 (95% CL) for a decay scale z∗ <2

  6. [6]

    The model leaves CMB physics completely unper- turbed (f(1100)<10 −8), ensuring full compatibil- ity with Planck results

  7. [7]

    In summary, background cosmology places tight con- straints on dissipative memory at redshiftsz <2.5

    We identified specific observational channels that remain sensitive to memory effects atz ∗ >2, namely structure growth (f σ8 via Euclid), B-modes (LiteBIRD), and standard sirens (LIGO-India). In summary, background cosmology places tight con- straints on dissipative memory at redshiftsz <2.5. If a memory mechanism operates in our universe, its ob- servat...

  8. [8]

    Planck Collaboration, Planck 2018 results. vi. cosmolog- ical parameters, A&A641, A6 (2020)

    2018

  9. [9]

    A. G. Riesset al., A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the hubble constant with 1 km s-1 mpc- 1 uncertainty from the hubble space telescope and the sh0es team, ApJL934, L7 (2022)

    2022

  10. [10]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Tensions between the early and late universe, Nature Astronomy3, 891 (2019)

    2019

  11. [11]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, Early dark energy can resolve the hubble tension, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 221301 (2019)

    2019

  12. [12]

    J. C. Hillet al., Early dark energy does not restore cos- mological concordance, Phys. Rev. D102, 043507 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Di Valentinoet al., Interacting dark energy in the early 2020s: a promising solution to theh 0 and cosmic shear tensions, Phys

    E. Di Valentinoet al., Interacting dark energy in the early 2020s: a promising solution to theh 0 and cosmic shear tensions, Phys. Dark Univ.30, 10.1016/j.dark.2020.100666 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2020.100666 2020

  14. [14]

    Sol` a Peracauts, A

    J. Sol` a Peracauts, A. G´ omez-Valent, and J. de Cruz P´ erez, Running vacuum against theh 0 andσ 8 tensions, EPL134, 19001 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    Debye, Zur theorie der spezifischen w¨ armen, Annalen der Physik344, 789 (1912)

    P. Debye, Zur theorie der spezifischen w¨ armen, Annalen der Physik344, 789 (1912)

    1912

  16. [16]

    K. L. Ngai,Relaxation and Diffusion in Complex Systems (Springer, New York, 2011)

    2011

  17. [17]

    Christodoulou, Nonlinear nature of gravitation and gravitational-wave experiments, Phys

    D. Christodoulou, Nonlinear nature of gravitation and gravitational-wave experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 1486 (1991)

    1991

  18. [18]

    Penrose,Cycles of Time(Bodley Head, London, 2010)

    R. Penrose,Cycles of Time(Bodley Head, London, 2010)

    2010

  19. [19]

    Eckart, The thermodynamics of irreversible processes, Phys

    C. Eckart, The thermodynamics of irreversible processes, Phys. Rev.58, 919 (1940)

    1940

  20. [20]

    Maartens, Causal thermodynamics in relativity (1996), lectures at the H

    R. Maartens, Causal thermodynamics in relativity (1996), lectures at the H. Rund Workshop on Relativ- ity and Thermodynamics, arXiv:astro-ph/9609119

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  21. [21]

    Alamet al., The clustering of galaxies in the completed sdss-iii boss survey: : cosmological analysis of the dr12 galaxy sample, MNRAS470, 2617 (2017)

    S. Alamet al., The clustering of galaxies in the completed sdss-iii boss survey: : cosmological analysis of the dr12 galaxy sample, MNRAS470, 2617 (2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    A. e. a. Adame, Desi 2024 vi: Cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, JCAP

    2024

  23. [23]

    D. J. Eisenstein and W. Hu, Baryonic features in the matter transfer function, ApJ496, 605 (1998)

    1998

  24. [24]

    D. e. a. Brout, The pantheon+ analysis: Cosmological constraints, ApJ938, 110 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Storn and K

    R. Storn and K. Price, Differential evolution – a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over con- tinuous spaces, J. Global Optim.11, 341 (1997)

    1997

  26. [26]

    R. E. Kass and A. E. Raftery, Bayes factors, JASA90, 773 (1995)

    1995

  27. [27]

    Foreman-Mackeyet al., emcee: The mcmc hammer, PASP125, 306 (2013)

    D. Foreman-Mackeyet al., emcee: The mcmc hammer, PASP125, 306 (2013)

    2013

  28. [28]

    Koehn, A

    H. Koehn, A. Just, P. Berczik, and M. Tremmel, Dynam- ics of supermassive black hole triples in the romulus25 cosmological simulation, Astronomy & Astrophysics678, A11 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    LiteBIRD Collaboration, Probing cosmic inflation with the litebird cosmic microwave background polarization survey, PTEP2023, 042F01 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    Simons Observatory Collaboration, The simons observa- tory: Science goals and forecasts, JCAP2019, 056

  31. [31]

    R. A. et al, Constraints on the cosmic expansion history from gwtc–3, The Astrophysical Journal949, 76 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    Saleemet al., The science case for ligo-india, Class

    M. Saleemet al., The science case for ligo-india, Class. Quantum Grav.39, 025004 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    C. R. Harriset al., Array programming with numpy, Na- ture585, 357 (2020)

    2020

  34. [34]

    Virtanenet al., Scipy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python, Nature Methods17, 261 (2020)

    P. Virtanenet al., Scipy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python, Nature Methods17, 261 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    Foreman-Mackey, corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in python, JOSS1, 24 (2016)

    D. Foreman-Mackey, corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in python, JOSS1, 24 (2016)

    2016