Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

The $H_0$ world cup. II. A comprehensive competition between proposed Hubble tension solutions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fourteen proposed fixes for the Hubble tension, scored on shared CMB, BAO, and supernova data, leave a clear winner — early dark energy and early modified gravity — and no fully successful solution.

desk verdict The definitive H0-tension bake-off: careful and transparent, but the 'clear hierarchy' claim rests on ACT more than the abstract lets on. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13283 v1 pith:DRNT2KLB submitted 2026-07-14 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Nils Schöneberg , Vivian Poulin , Angelo G. Ferrari , Fabio Finelli , Julien Lesgourgues , Luca Morelli , Markus R. Mosbech , Ravi Kumar Sharma
show 1 more author
Théo Simon
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph PACS 98.80.-k98.80.Es
keywords HubbletensionearlydarkenergycosmicmicrowavebackgroundsoundhorizonmodelcomparisonradiationneutrinomassDESIBAO
topics Dark EnergyThe Hubble Tension
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

Cosmology's sharpest anomaly is the Hubble tension: local distance measurements put the expansion rate near 73 km/s/Mpc while the standard cosmological model calibrated on the early universe yields about 67–68, a disagreement now quoted above 7σ. This paper stages a competition among fourteen proposed fixes — late-time expansion changes, altered recombination, extra dark radiation, and early dark-energy injection — run through one shared analysis of current CMB, BAO, and supernova data and scored with both frequentist and Bayesian statistics. Its central claim is that a clear hierarchy emerges: only the early-universe mechanisms that shrink the sound horizon (early dark energy, and gravity modified before recombination) cut the residual tension to roughly 2.5–3σ and are strongly preferred over the standard model, while modified recombination and extra radiation leave 4–5σ tensions and late-time fixes barely help. No model fully resolves the discrepancy. The paper also shows the ranking leans heavily on one data set: remove the ACT measurements and most radiation and recombination models recover to 3–3.5σ.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the comoving sound horizon at recombination: models that shrink it push the CMB-inferred expansion rate upward through the angular-diameter-distance degeneracy, and the whole contest is about which mechanism does this without wrecking the fit to the CMB damping tail and lensing. The scoring apparatus is a single shared pipeline — Planck PR4, ACT DR6, and SPT-3G CMB likelihoods with fixed multipole cuts, DESI DR2 BAO, Pantheon+ supernovae, and a Gaussian prior on the supernova absolute magnitude — evaluated with both a frequentist tension metric (ΔDMAP) and a Bayesian parameter-shift metric, plus two preference criteria (−ΔAIC and the log-Bayes factor). All fourteen

What would settle it

Run the baseline with ACT DR6 replaced by an independent high-multipole CMB dataset, or with ACT and SPT jointly recalibrated: if the radiation and recombination models then recover to 3–3.5σ while early dark energy stays near 2.5–3σ, the headline hierarchy is an ACT artifact; if they remain near 5σ, the hierarchy is physics. A second check: tighten BBN deuterium and helium measurements — the paper finds these worsen the early-dark-energy models by +0.4 to +0.7σ, enough to push them toward the ΛCDM tension level.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's finding is a hierarchy. In the baseline analysis, ΛCDM sits at a 5.4σ (ΔDMAP) tension with the locally calibrated supernova magnitude, and no contender closes the gap completely. The best performers are early-time mechanisms: axion-like early dark energy reaches a residual 2.5σ with −ΔAIC ≈ 23 and log-Bayes ≈ 10.5; early modified gravity, Rock'n'Roll, and NEDE cluster at 2.7–3.1σ. The varying-electron-mass model is the only non-early contender to pass the selection thresholds, at roughly 4σ; radiation and late-time groups stay near or above 4.5σ. Without ACT data, most radiation and recombination models recover to 3–3.5σ, so the preference for early dark energy

Load-bearing premise

The ranking assumes the combined CMB dataset (Planck PR4, ACT DR6, SPT-3G, with the chosen multipole cuts) is internally consistent with no significant double-counting — and the paper's own no-ACT runs show this assumption is load-bearing, since dropping ACT lets most radiation and recombination models recover from ~5σ to 3–3.5σ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the hierarchy holds, the productive path to resolving the Hubble tension runs through pre-recombination physics that shrinks the sound horizon; late-time fixes and weakly interacting extra radiation are observably disfavored.
  • ACT data carry the ranking: the claim that radiation and recombination solutions fail is contingent on ACT's high-multipole measurements, and would weaken if those data were revised.
  • The leading early-dark-energy models are exactly the ones most squeezed by BBN light-element abundances and by the DES Y6 clustering amplitude, so better deuterium and helium measurements and large-scale-structure data are the sharpest independent tests.
  • Allowing a running of the primordial spectrum restores the dark-radiation models to 3–3.5σ tension, so conclusions about radiation mechanisms cannot be separated from assumptions about the initial power spectrum.
  • Models that ease the tension also dilute the DESI preference for dynamical dark energy, linking the two anomalies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A near-term decisive test is an ACT–SPT cross-calibration at high multipoles: if ACT's preference for extra small-scale power turns out to be a calibration artifact, the paper's own no-ACT numbers suggest the early-dark-energy lead would collapse to a near-tie with radiation and recombination models at 3–3.5σ.
  • The running-spectrum rescue of the radiation models hints that one shared modification — a blue-tilted primordial spectrum — could mimic either an early-dark-energy or a dark-radiation solution depending on which model family is fitted; a joint fit of both classes together with running parameters would settle which mechanism is actually needed.
  • If early dark energy is real, it should leave correlated imprints beyond the CMB — a higher matter-clustering amplitude (S8) and signatures in future high-redshift probes such as 21-cm or CMB spectral-distortion measurements — which current data only weakly constrain.
  • Because the paper scores tension through the supernova magnitude and quotes Bayes factors that it flags as prior-dependent, the absolute significance levels are the least transferable numbers in it; a recalibrated distance ladder would rescale all σ values roughly uniformly, and different priors would move the evidence values by several units — the ordering of mechanisms is the more robust conclus
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a systematic, model-by-model reassessment of proposed Hubble tension solutions, updating the 'H0 Olympics' framework. Fourteen models (grouped into late-time, recombination, radiation, and early energy-injection mechanisms, plus an early+late hybrid) are fit to a common baseline of CMB data (Planck PR4 CamSpec with multipole cuts, ACT DR6 and SPT-3G 'lite' primary likelihoods, ACT/SPT lensing), DESI DR2 BAO, Pantheon+, and an SH0ES MB prior, with free neutrino mass. Performance is assessed with Frequentist (DMAP, AIC) and Bayesian (parameter shift, Bayes factor) metrics, with thresholds fixed before inspecting the results. The headline finding is that early dark energy-type models (EDE, NEDE, EMG, RnR) reduce the residual tension to ~2.5-3.1 sigma and are strongly preferred by AIC/BF, while recombination and dark-radiation models fare worse and late-time models fail; no model fully resolves the tension. The robustness section varies CMB likelihoods, SN samples, neutrino-mass priors, S8, baryonic feedback, and BBN, and the authors explicitly show that removing ACT changes the ranking substantially.

Significance. If correct, this is an important field-level result: it sharpens the case that early-time sound-horizon reduction is the only currently viable mechanism class, and it places quantitative constraints on the viability of other proposals. The analysis has real strengths: metrics and thresholds are pre-registered, both Bayesian and Frequentist rankings agree, the neutrino mass sum is varied, and the robustness tests include alternative CMB likelihoods, extended multipole cuts, DES Dovekie, BBN, and S8. The paper ships public code/chain repositories (with a placeholder for analysis notebooks) and is transparent about the ACT-dependence. The central quantitative exercise is careful and reproducible. However, the robustness of the headline hierarchy hinges on the internal consistency of the ACT+Planck data combination, which is not independently validated, and the knockout round contains one untested finalist (EMG) in the BBN analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV E, VI; Tables VIIIa-VIIIb vs Table VI] The headline 'clear hierarchy' is ACT-dependent. In the baseline, DeltaNeff, SIDR, and WZDR have ln BF = -0.09, -1.42, and 1.77, respectively; without ACT these become 9.33, 9.54, and 9.91, and the residual tensions drop to ~3-3.5 sigma (DRMD Delta_shift = 2.8 sigma, NEDE 2.3 sigma). The paper explicitly states that ACT is 'central to the stronger baseline constraints on groups R and M and to the clearer preference for group E' (Sec. VI). Yet no cross-calibration or consistency test between ACT DR6 and Planck PR4 is performed, despite the known 2-3 sigma ACT-vs-Planck Neff discrepancy cited in Sec. IV E. Because the headline ranking is precisely the difference between the with-ACT baseline and the no-ACT case, this is load-bearing; the claim of a 'clear hierarchy' should be made conditional on the relative calibration of the two experiments or supported by an explicit null test (e.g., AC
  2. [Sec. V G, Table X] The EMG model is excluded from the BBN tests because 'specific modifications of BBN theory codes are required.' This matters because BBN constraints worsen all other tested finalists by +0.4-0.7 sigma in Delta_shift(MB) (for example, EDE from 3.0 to 3.5-3.7, NEDE from 2.7 to 3.2-3.5), and because EMG is a headline member of group E. The authors' statement that Ref. [252] bounds 'likely apply' is not a substitute for running the test. The conclusion that early dark energy injection 'minimally and non-minimally coupled to gravity' currently performs best is therefore not fully supported for EMG. Please either implement the BBN treatment for EMG or explicitly restrict the robustness claim to models for which BBN was computed.
  3. [Sec. II L and Tables V-VI] The 'Agnos. Reion.' case is not compared on the same data vector, because the SROLL2 low-ell EE likelihood is removed. Its Total chi2 = 5575.66 vs LambdaCDM's 5970.34, and Delta chi2 = -394.68, are not measures of model performance but of data removal. Reporting this row in the same model-comparison tables (DeltaAIC, ln BF) is inconsistent with the paper's stated 'common datasets, likelihoods' framework. Mark this row as not comparable, or re-run it against a LambdaCDM baseline that also drops SROLL2, or remove it from the common ranking tables. This does not change the Group E/R/M ordering, but it is a methodological flaw in a competition whose purpose is fair comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs Sec. VI] The abstract says 'four broad mechanisms,' while the conclusions and figures distinguish five categories including 'Group E+L.' Please make the count consistent.
  2. [Acknowledgments] The reproducibility statement contains a placeholder: 'A repository containing the analysis outputs and reproducibility notebooks is available at XXX.' This must be replaced with a working URL before publication.
  3. [Table XI, DRMD row] In the +w0,wa columns, the entries for f_idm and log10(zstop) appear transposed: f_idm is bounded by physics to be < 1, yet is listed as '>2.4', while log10(zstop) is listed as '<0.023'. Check and correct the column ordering.
  4. [Abstract] The name 'Chevallier-Polarski-Lindner' should be 'Chevallier-Polarski-Linder'.
  5. [Sec. IV F] The alpha_s/beta_s extension parameterization is discussed as a robustness test for group R, but the paper notes that full-shape galaxy clustering and Lyman-alpha constraints are not included. This caveat is reported, but it should be repeated in the conclusions where 'Deviations from a pure power-law ... substantially improve' group R models, so readers do not over-interpret the rescue.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: model parameters are fitted to external likelihoods and the headline residual tensions compare the CMB+BAO+SN prediction against the external SH0ES MB calibration, with the pipeline cross-validated against independent published results; the paper's self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: each contender's parameters are fitted to external likelihoods (Planck PR4, ACT DR6, SPT-3G, DESI DR2, Pantheon+), and the tension metrics of Sec. III A (Eqs. 16-20) compare dataset A = CMB+BAO+SN with dataset B = the external SH0ES MB prior, so the reported residual tensions (tables II-IV; the headline 2.2-3.1 sigma for group E) are out-of-sample comparisons rather than quantities defined in terms of themselves. The model-comparison metrics (AIC, Bayes factor, Eqs. 21-24) are standard with explicit complexity penalties, and the thresholds were 'fixed before inspecting the results' (Sec. I, Sec. III C). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: H0 and MB are genuinely inferred from early-Universe data and then confronted with the local calibration. The paper also validates its pipeline against external benchmarks independent of the present authors (e.g., reproducing Ref. [127]'s H0 for modified recombination, Ref. [224]'s alpha_s/beta_s results, and Ref. [111]'s thawing-gravity scaling regime), which per the reviewing rule counts as real independent support. Self-citations do exist -- the framework of Ref. [13] (H0 Olympics), model codes such as [44, 119, 102], and interpretive high-ell spectral-shape claims [92, 123, 153, 223] involve the present authors -- but the competition results are recomputed in-house from public likelihoods, the stated spectral-shape explanations are also referenced to external works (e.g., Refs. [2, 137, 222]) and are consistent with the paper's own fits, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the ranking. The known sensitivity of the headline hierarchy to ACT (Sec. IV E, tables VIIIa-VIIIb; 'ACT data are therefore central to the stronger baseline constraints on groups R and M and to the clearer preference for group E') is explicitly acknowledged by the authors; it is a dataset-robustness/correctness caveat, not internal circularity. The paper also honestly declares its models are 'phenomenological toy models' rather than first-principles theories. Overall the central claim is a standard, self-contained model comparison with external validation; residual minor self-referential framing does not constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities: all 14 contenders (axion EDE, cold NEDE, EMG, RnR, thawing gravity, varying electron mass, modified recombination, ΔNeff, SIDR, WZDR, DRMD, ΛsCDM, iDM-DE, and the reionization-agnostic case) are taken from the cited literature, and 'H0 World Cup' is an analysis framework, not a physical postulate. The ledger's fitted parameters are the models' own parameters (constrained by data, as intended) plus the external MB prior and the extension parameters; the axioms are the data-consistency, code-fidelity, and statistical-interpretation assumptions the ranking rests on.

free parameters (10)
  • EDE: f_EDE(zc), log10(zc), Θi = f_EDE<0.090; log10 zc=-3.44±0.10; Θi unconstrained (baseline, Table XI)
    Fitted to CMB+BAO+SN data; these parameters carry the H0 shift that drives the group-E ranking.
  • NEDE: f_NEDE, log10 zc, 3w, Ωφ = f_NEDE=0.135±0.024; log10 zc=3.455±0.044; 3w=2.55±0.26; Ωφ<0.0030
    Fitted model parameters; NEDE sits near the ln BF=3 selection threshold, so its ranking is error-sensitive.
  • EMG: ξσi²/Mpl², σi/Mpl, α_EMG = ξσi²/Mpl²<0.033; σi/Mpl=0.34±0.14; α_EMG=2.54±0.34
    Fitted early-modified-gravity parameters; EMG is a group-E finalist with ln BF≈6.4.
  • Varying electron mass: mearly/melate = 1.0056±0.0048
    Single extra parameter of the best group-M model; residual tension ~4σ and ln BF≈3.5.
  • 4-param recombination: Δz, Agauss, zgauss, σgauss = Δz=2.9±3.4; zgauss=1464±27; Agauss and σgauss unconstrained
    Phenomenological ionization-history parameters; improves fit (Δχ²≈−18) but does not reduce tension.
  • Radiation group: N_ur, N_SIDR_eff, N_wzdr + log10(zt), ΔN_DRMD_eff + f_idm + log10(zstop) = N_ur<0.14; N_SIDR<0.11; N_wzdr<0.25; ΔN_DRMD=0.223±0.096; log10(zt) unconstrained
    Fitted densities/transition redshifts of the group R models, which fail to beat ΛCDM in the baseline.
  • Late-time group: zt (ΛsCDM), ξ_ide (iDM-DE), λTG/σi/ξ (thawing gravity) = zt=6.0±2.4; ξ_ide>−0.10; λTG=1.43±0.32; σi/Mpl=−0.195; ξσi²/Mpl²=−0.040
    Fitted late-time parameters; this group performs worst, with ln BF<0 for most entries.
  • Neutrino mass sum Σmν (free in baseline) = ΛCDM 95% CL <84 meV; up to <123 meV (varying me); <120 meV (Agnos. Reion.)
    Freely varied with a flat prior >0; the model-dependent bounds are a stated deliverable and affect the H0–Σmν degeneracies.
  • MB prior from SH0ES = MB=−19.253±0.027 (gives H0=73.26±0.98 when combined with Pantheon+)
    External tension reference adopted in the baseline; the 'local' pillar against which residual tension is measured.
  • Extension parameters: Ωk, (w0, wa), (αs, βs) = Ωk=0.0012±0.0012; w0=−0.846±0.054, wa=−0.52±0.20 (ΛCDM); αs=0.0122±0.0057, βs=0.0144±0.088
    Fitted late-time and primordial-spectrum extensions tested against each contender in Secs. IV C, IV D, IV F.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption CLASS v3.3 plus the stated model forks (AxiCLASS, TriggerCLASS, ClassIG, DRMD-CLASS, schoeneberg/class_public_versions) computes the background and perturbation observables for all 14 models accurately.
    Sec. II, IV A. The entire ranking rests on these implementations matching the published physics of each proposal; no independent cross-code validation of the modified forks is provided beyond the cited references.
  • domain assumption The combined Planck PR4 + ACT DR6 + SPT-3G CMB dataset is internally consistent under the chosen multipole cuts (CamSpec ℓ<1000 TT, ℓ<600 EE), with ignorable inter-experiment covariance.
    Sec. IV A. Load-bearing: the paper's own no-ACT runs (Sec. IV E) show the ranking changes materially without ACT.
  • domain assumption The adopted MB=−19.253±0.027 prior (SH0ES) and the Pantheon+ catalogue are unbiased calibrations of the supernova distance scale.
    Sec. IV A. All residual-tension numbers are computed against this reference.
  • domain assumption The OLE emulator does not bias the posteriors (accuracy is tested during sampling).
    Sec. II. Speedup from emulation is essential to the many-model many-dataset design.
  • standard math Standard Bayesian and Frequentist model-comparison statistics (AIC, MCEvidence log-evidence, parameter-shift significance via Eqs. 19–20) are valid for these highly non-Gaussian posteriors.
    Sec. III. The metrics are textbook, but their threshold interpretation (finalist selection) is a choice.
  • domain assumption Phenomenological toy implementations represent the physical mechanisms (instantaneous electron-mass transition; 4-parameter ionization parametrization for PMF-induced recombination; NEDE two-field potential).
    Secs. II E, II F. The paper concedes the 4-param recombination model 'can still perform significantly better than this simple approximation'.
  • domain assumption BBN light-element abundances computed with PRyMordial using PArthENoPE or PRIMAT rates correctly bind the models; EMG and thawing gravity are exempted because their BBN is non-trivial.
    Sec. V G. The paper notes tight BBN bounds 'likely apply' to EMG/thawing gravity but does not compute them.
  • domain assumption Flat priors and the stated ranges on model parameters (Table I, Sec. II) are appropriate; Bayes factors inherit these prior choices.
    Secs. II, III B 2. The paper itself states Bayes factors depend on the adopted priors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The $H_0$ world cup. II. A comprehensive competition between proposed Hubble tension solutions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DRNT2KLB

@misc{pith2026260713283,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The $H_0$ world cup. II. A comprehensive competition between proposed Hubble tension solutions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DRNT2KLB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13283}
}
abstract

Cosmology stands at a crossroads. The Hubble tension has reached a nominal significance above $7\sigma$, while analyses combining DESI BAO and Type Ia supernova data show emerging hints of departures from $\Lambda$CDM. Meanwhile, high-precision CMB measurements from ACT and SPT enable a timely and more stringent reassessment of proposed solutions to the tension. In this paper, we revisit the $H_0$ Olympics, a systematic contest comparing proposed alternatives to $\Lambda$CDM using common datasets, likelihoods, and statistical criteria. In this updated edition, the $H_0$ World Cup, we subject fourteen representative solutions to a common analysis of current CMB, BAO, and SN data. The contenders span four broad mechanisms: late-time modifications of the expansion history, modified recombination, additional pre-recombination radiation, and early non-radiative energy injection. Relative to the original analysis, the present competition includes models and mechanisms proposed in the intervening years and evaluates all contenders using both Bayesian and Frequentist tests of tension and model performance, letting the neutrino mass sum vary. We further test if late-time extensions through curvature or the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder (CPL) dark energy parametrization can aid the success of the models. Finally, we subject the leading contenders to dedicated robustness tests involving alternative CMB likelihoods and multipole cuts, supernova samples, large-scale-structure information, and big-bang nucleosynthesis constraints. This framework assesses both the ability of each mechanism to ease the Hubble tension and the robustness of our conclusions to datasets and analysis choices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13283 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Frequentist summary of the group-stage performance for the baseline dataset. The left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Bayesian summary of the group-stage performance for the baseline dataset. The left panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: 68% and 95% credible regions for the models competing in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (28 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Whisker plot of constraints for the CMB+BAO+SN data, as summarized also in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: One dimensional posteriors for the neutrino mass sum parameter for the various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison of the 95% CI for the summed neutrino mass. The dotted colored lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: 68% and 95% credible regions for the models competing in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: 68% and 95% credible regions for the Agnos. Reion., Varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: 68% and 95% credible regions for the models competing in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: 68% and 95% credible regions for the models competing in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Same as fig. 2, without ACT data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: 68% and 95% credible regions for the models competing in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: 68% and 95% credible regions for the models competing in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Summary of the results of section V in terms of the shift metric ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: 68% and 95% parameter constraints for the knockout round models when the extended [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Same as fig. 15, but for the extended [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Same as fig. 15, but with the DES Dovekie SN data instead of Pantheon+. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Same as fig. 15, but with a prior on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19: Same as fig. 15, but with a marginalization over the baryonic feedback parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20: Same as fig. 15, but with an additional prior on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21: Same as fig. 15, but using a BBN likelihood based on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22: Same as fig. 21, but with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23: Same as fig. 3, but for CMB data without BAO or SNeIa. For comparisons between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24: Same as fig. 3, but for CMB+BAO data without SNeIa. For comparisons between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25: Same as fig. 3, but with the impact of an additional prior on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26: 68% and 95% CL contours of the RnR model, when a curved universe parameterized by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27: Impact of varying the initial value of the ratio between the interaction rate and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: FIG. 28: Correlation between cosmological parameters and nuisance parameters in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p058_28.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: FIG. 29: Correlation between cosmological parameters and nuisance parameters in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_29.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: FIG. 30: Correlation between cosmological parameters and nuisance parameters in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p060_30.png]
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: FIG. 31: Correlation between cosmological parameters and nuisance parameters in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p061_31.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Deus ex $H_0$ -- Is evidence for dynamical dark energy conditioned on early cosmology?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Whether the data prefer dynamical dark energy depends on the assumed early-universe values of the sound horizon and matter density; early solutions to the Hubble tension move to a nexus where the preference drops belo...

  2. 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.

  3. What could an emerging Big Bang Nucleosynthesis discrepancy be hinting at?

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

    A transient expansion-rate boost during deuterium burning can reconcile the measured deuterium abundance with the high baryon density preferred by early dark energy models, without changing helium-4.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

255 extracted references · 229 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [252]

    Alvey, N

    J. Alvey, N. Sabti, M. Escudero, and M. Fairbairn, arXiv e-prints 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7727-y (2019), arXiv:1910.10730 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [1]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [2]

    Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), J

    T. Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 062 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  4. [3]

    Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), Phys

    E. Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), Phys. Rev. D113, 083504 (2026), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  5. [4]

    Casertanoet al.(H0DN), Astron

    S. Casertanoet al.(H0DN), Astron. Astrophys.708, A166 (2026), arXiv:2510.23823 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  6. [5]

    Fine, Synthese195, pp

    K. Fine, Synthese195, pp. 4031 (2018)

    2018

  7. [6]

    A. G. Riess, G. S. Anand, W. Yuan, S. Casertano, A. Dolphin, L. M. Macri, L. Breuval, D. Scolnic, M. Perrin, and R. I. Anderson, Astrophys. J. Lett.956, L18 (2023), arXiv:2307.15806 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Tristram, M

    M. Tristram, M. Douspis, A. Gorce, S. Henrot-Versill´ e, L. T. Hergt, S. Ilic, L. McBride, M. Mu˜ noz- Echeverr ´ ıa, E. Pointecouteau, and L. Salvati, A&A 710, A165 (2026) 10.1051/0004-6361/202558015 (2025), arXiv:2511.04733 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

Show all 255 references
  1. [8]

    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

  2. [9]

    Abdollahi and A

    M. Abdollahi and A. Javadi, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2606.17008 (2026), arXiv:2606.17008 [astro-ph.SR]

    2026

  3. [10]

    C. L. Bennett, D. Larson, J. L. Weiland, N. Jarosik, G. Hinshaw, N. Odegard, K. M. Smith, R. S. Hill, B. Gold, M. Halpern, E. Komatsu, M. R. Nolta, L. Page, D. N. Spergel, E. Wollack, J. Dunkley, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, G. S. Tucker, and E. L. Wright (WMAP), Astrophys...

    2013 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Verde, N

    L. Verde, N. Sch¨ oneberg, and H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2311.13305 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    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

  6. [13]

    Sch¨ oneberg, G

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, G. Franco Abell´ an, A. P´ erez S´ anchez, S. J. Witte, V. Poulin, and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Rept.984, 1 (2022), arXiv:2107.10291 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [14]

    H. G. Escudero, J.-L. Kuo, R. E. Keeley, and K. N. Abazajian, Phys. Rev. D106, 103517 (2022), arXiv:2208.14435 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    A. R. Khalife, M. B. Zanjani, S. Galli, S. G¨ unther, J. Lesgourgues, and K. Benabed, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2024, 059 (2024), arXiv:2312.09814 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Calabreseet al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), J

    E. Calabreseet al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 063 (2025), arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Lodhaet al.(DESI), arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, R. Calder´ on, and T. Simon, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2505.08051 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [19]

    R. K. Sharma, M. Archidiacono, and J. Lesgourgues, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2605.18716 [astro- ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Sch¨ oneberg, A

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, A. G. Ferrari, F. Finelli, J. Lesgourgues, L. Morelli, M. R. Mosbech, V. Poulin, R. Sharma, T. Simon, and T. L. Smith, TheH 0 world cup. i. summary of the baseline group stage results (2026), letter submitted concurrently

    2026

  14. [21]

    Lesgourgues, arXiv e-prints (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    J. Lesgourgues, arXiv e-prints (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    2011 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Lancaster, F.-Y

    L. Lancaster, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, L. Knox, and Z. Pan, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2017, 033 (2017), arXiv:1704.06657 [astro-ph.CO]. 57 10 20 30 40A143 10 20 30 40A217 10 20 30 40A143×217 1 2 3n143 1 2 3 4n217 1 2 3 4A143×217 0.995 1.000 1.005 calSPT TT 1.00 1.01 1.02 calSPT EE 0...

    2017 arXiv

  16. [23]

    C. D. Kreisch, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, and O. Dor´ e, Phys. Rev. D101, 123505 (2020), arXiv:1902.00534 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Escudero and S

    M. Escudero and S. J. Witte, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 294 (2020), arXiv:1909.04044 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Escudero and S

    M. Escudero and S. J. Witte, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 515 (2021), arXiv:2103.03249 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Camarena, F.-Y

    D. Camarena, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, and J. Houghteling, Phys. Rev. D108, 103535 (2023), arXiv:2309.03941 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Camarena and F.-Y

    D. Camarena and F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, Phys. Rev. D111, 023504 (2025), arXiv:2403.05496 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Poudou, T

    A. Poudou, T. Simon, T. Montandon, E. M. Teixeira, and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. D112, 103535 (2025), arXiv:2503.10485 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Cyr-Racine, F

    F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, F. Ge, and L. Knox, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 201301 (2022), arXiv:2107.13000 [astro- ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Ge, F.-Y

    F. Ge, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, and L. Knox, Phys. Rev. D107, 023517 (2023), arXiv:2210.16335 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [31]

    K. L. Greene and F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2023, 065 (2023), arXiv:2306.06165 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Greene and F.-Y

    K. Greene and F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2403.05619 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    CosmoVerse Network, Title to be announced (2026), in preparation

    2026

  27. [34]

    Lesgourgues, S

    J. Lesgourgues, S. Pastor, and L. Perotto, Phys. Rev. D70, 045016 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0403296

    2004 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Archidiacono, S

    M. Archidiacono, S. Hannestad, and J. Lesgourgues, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2020, 021 (2020), arXiv:2003.03354 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [36]

    G¨ unther, L

    S. G¨ unther, L. Balkenhol, C. Fidler, A. R. Khalife, J. Lesgourgues, M. R. Mosbech, and R. K. Sharma, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 059 (2025), arXiv:2503.13183 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  30. [37]

    Brinckmann and J

    T. Brinckmann and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Dark Univ.24, 100260 (2019), arXiv:1804.07261 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Audren, J

    B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, K. Benabed, and S. Prunet, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2013(02), 001

  32. [39]

    Doran, M

    M. Doran, M. J. Lilley, J. Schwindt, and C. Wetterich, Astrophys. J.559, 501 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0012139

    2001

  33. [40]

    Wetterich, Phys

    C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B594, 17 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0403289

    2004 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Doran and G

    M. Doran and G. Robbers, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2006, 026 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601544

    2006 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Karwal and M

    T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev.D94, 103523 (2016), arXiv:1608.01309

    2016 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 221301 (2019), arXiv:1811.04083

    2019 arXiv

  37. [44]

    T. L. Smith, V. Poulin, and M. A. Amin, Phys. Rev. D101, 063523 (2020), arXiv:1908.06995 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Agrawal, F.-Y

    P. Agrawal, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, D. Pinner, and L. Randall, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101347 (2023), arXiv:1904.01016 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [46]

    M.-X. Lin, G. Benevento, W. Hu, and M. Raveri, Phys. Rev. D100, 063542 (2019), arXiv:1905.12618 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Alexander and E

    S. Alexander and E. McDonough, Phys. Lett. B797, 134830 (2019), arXiv:1904.08912 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Sakstein and M

    J. Sakstein and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 161301 (2020), arXiv:1911.11760 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Gogoi, R

    A. Gogoi, R. Kumar Sharma, P. Chanda, and S. Das, Astrophysical Journal915, 132 (2021), arXiv:2005.11889 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Niedermann and M

    F. Niedermann and M. S. Sloth, Phys. Rev. D103, L041303 (2021), arXiv:1910.10739 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Niedermann and M

    F. Niedermann and M. S. Sloth, Phys. Rev. D102, 063527 (2020), arXiv:2006.06686 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Niedermann and M

    F. Niedermann and M. S. Sloth, Phys. Rev. D105, 063509 (2022), arXiv:2112.00770 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Ye and Y.-S

    G. Ye and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D101, 083507 (2020), arXiv:2001.02451 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Simon, Phys

    T. Simon, Phys. Rev. D110, 023528 (2024), arXiv:2310.16800 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [55]

    K. V. Berghaus and T. Karwal, Phys. Rev. D101, 083537 (2020), arXiv:1911.06281 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Freese and M

    K. Freese and M. W. Winkler, Phys. Rev. D104, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2102.13655 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Braglia, W

    M. Braglia, W. T. Emond, F. Finelli, A. E. Gumrukcuoglu, and K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. D102, 083513 (2020), arXiv:2005.14053 [astro-ph.CO]. 62

    2020 arXiv

  51. [58]

    V. I. Sabla and R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Rev. D103, 103506 (2021), arXiv:2103.04999 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [59]

    V. I. Sabla and R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Rev. D106, 063526 (2022), arXiv:2202.08291 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [60]

    G´ omez-Valent, Z

    A. G´ omez-Valent, Z. Zheng, L. Amendola, V. Pettorino, and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rev. D104, 083536 (2021), arXiv:2107.11065 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [61]

    A. Moss, E. Copeland, S. Bamford, and T. Clarke, arXiv e-prints (2021), arXiv:2109.14848 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Guendelman, R

    E. Guendelman, R. Herrera, and D. Benisty, Phys. Rev. D105, 124035 (2022), arXiv:2201.06470 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Karwal, M

    T. Karwal, M. Raveri, B. Jain, J. Khoury, and M. Trodden, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2106.13290 (2021), arXiv:2106.13290

    2021 arXiv

  57. [64]

    McDonough, M.-X

    E. McDonough, M.-X. Lin, J. C. Hill, W. Hu, and S. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D106, 043525 (2022), arXiv:2112.09128 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Wang and Y.-S

    H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, Phys.Rev.D 108 (2023) 8, 083516 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.083516 (2022), arXiv:2209.09685 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Alexander, H

    S. Alexander, H. Bernardo, and M. W. Toomey, arXiv e-prints 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/03/037 (2022), arXiv:2207.13086 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [67]

    McDonough and M

    E. McDonough and M. Scalisi, JHEP2023(10), 118, arXiv:2209.00011 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  61. [68]

    Nakagawa, F

    S. Nakagawa, F. Takahashi, and W. Yin, arXiv e-prints 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.063016 (2022), arXiv:2209.01107 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  62. [69]

    G´ omez-Valent, Z

    A. G´ omez-Valent, Z. Zheng, L. Amendola, C. Wetterich, and V. Pettorino, arXiv e-prints 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103522 (2022), arXiv:2207.14487 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Mohseni Sadjadi and V

    H. Mohseni Sadjadi and V. Anari, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 84 (2023) 10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-03716-9 (2022), arXiv:2205.15693 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Kojima and Y

    K. Kojima and Y. Okubo, Phys. Rev. D106, 063540 (2022), arXiv:2205.13777 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Rudelius, arXiv e-prints 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/01/014 (2022), arXiv:2203.05575 [hep-th]

    T. Rudelius, arXiv e-prints 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/01/014 (2022), arXiv:2203.05575 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [73]

    V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D103, 044036 (2021), arXiv:2012.00586 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [74]

    S. X. Tian and Z.-H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D103, 043518 (2021), arXiv:2102.06399 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Maziashvili, Astropart

    M. Maziashvili, Astropart. Phys.145, 102792 (2023), arXiv:2111.07288 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Kamionkowski, J

    M. Kamionkowski, J. Pradler, and D. G. E. Walker, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 251302 (2014), arXiv:1409.0549 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, D. Grin, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev.D98, 083525 (2018), arXiv:1806.10608

    2018 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP2006(06), 051, arXiv:hep-th/0605206 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  72. [79]

    M. R. Douglas and S. Kachru, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 733 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0610102

    2007 arXiv

  73. [80]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  74. [81]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rept.643, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.07633

    2016 arXiv

  75. [82]

    Cicoli, M

    M. Cicoli, M. Licheri, R. Mahanta, E. McDonough, F. G. Pedro, and M. Scalisi, JHEP2023(06), 052, arXiv:2303.03414 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  76. [83]

    J. C. Hill, E. McDonough, M. W. Toomey, and S. Alexander, Phys. Rev. D102, 043507 (2020), arXiv:2003.07355 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  77. [84]

    M. M. Ivanov, E. McDonough, J. C. Hill, M. Simonovi´ c, M. W. Toomey, S. Alexander, and M. Zal- darriaga, Phys. Rev. D102, 103502 (2020), arXiv:2006.11235 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  78. [85]

    D’Amico, L

    G. D’Amico, L. Senatore, P. Zhang, and H. Zheng, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2021, 072 (2021), arXiv:2006.12420 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Murgia, G

    R. Murgia, G. F. Abell´ an, and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. D103, 063502 (2021), arXiv:2009.10733 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  80. [87]

    T. L. Smith, V. Poulin, J. L. Bernal, K. K. Boddy, M. Kamionkowski, and R. Murgia, Phys. Rev. D 103, 123542 (2021), arXiv:2009.10740 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  81. [88]

    Simon, P

    T. Simon, P. Zhang, V. Poulin, and T. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. D.In press(2022), arXiv:2208.05930 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  82. [89]

    Chaussidon, M

    E. Chaussidon, M. White, A. de Mattia, R. Gsponer, S. Ahlen, D. Bianchi, D. Brooks, T. Clay- baugh, S. Cole, A. Cuceu, A. de la Macorra, P. Doel, S. Ferraro, A. Font-Ribera, J. E. Forero- 63 Romero, E. Gazta˜ naga, S. G. A. Gontcho, G. Gutierrez, J. Guy, C. Hahn, H. K. Herrera...

    2025 arXiv

  83. [90]

    A. R. Khalifeet al.(SPT-3G), arXiv e-prints 10.1103/8jjr-7hpb (2025), arXiv:2507.23355 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  84. [91]

    Kamionkowski and A

    M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess, arXiv e-prints (2022), arXiv:2211.04492 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  85. [92]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, and T. Karwal, arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2302.09032 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  86. [93]

    McDonough, J

    E. McDonough, J. C. Hill, M. M. Ivanov, A. La Posta, and M. W. Toomey, International Journal of Modern Physics D 0 (2024) 2430003 10.1142/S0218271824300039 (2023), arXiv:2310.19899 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  87. [94]

    Niedermann and M

    F. Niedermann and M. S. Sloth, arXiv e-prints 10.1007/978-981-99-0177-7 23 (2023), arXiv:2307.03481 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  88. [95]

    J. S. Cruz, F. Niedermann, and M. S. Sloth, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2023, 033 (2023), arXiv:2305.08895 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  89. [96]

    Chatrchyan, F

    A. Chatrchyan, F. Niedermann, V. Poulin, and M. S. Sloth, Phys. Rev. D111, 043536 (2025), arXiv:2408.14537 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  90. [97]

    Rossi, M

    M. Rossi, M. Ballardini, M. Braglia, F. Finelli, D. Paoletti, A. A. Starobinsky, and C. Umilt` a, Phys. Rev. D100, 103524 (2019), arXiv:1906.10218 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  91. [98]

    Braglia, M

    M. Braglia, M. Ballardini, W. T. Emond, F. Finelli, A. E. Gumrukcuoglu, K. Koyama, and D. Paoletti, Phys. Rev. D102, 023529 (2020), arXiv:2004.11161 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  92. [99]

    Zumalacarregui, Phys

    M. Zumalacarregui, Phys. Rev. D102, 023523 (2020), arXiv:2003.06396 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  93. [100]

    Ballardini, M

    M. Ballardini, M. Braglia, F. Finelli, D. Paoletti, A. A. Starobinsky, and C. Umilt` a, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2020, 044 (2020), arXiv:2004.14349 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  94. [101]

    Franco Abell´ an, M

    G. Franco Abell´ an, M. Braglia, M. Ballardini, F. Finelli, and V. Poulin, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2023, 017 (2023), arXiv:2308.12345 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  95. [102]

    Umilt` a, M

    C. Umilt` a, M. Ballardini, F. Finelli, and D. Paoletti, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2015, 017 (2015), arXiv:1507.00718 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  96. [103]

    Ballardini, F

    M. Ballardini, F. Finelli, C. Umilt` a, and D. Paoletti, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2016, 067 (2016), arXiv:1601.03387

    2016 arXiv

  97. [104]

    Braglia, M

    M. Braglia, M. Ballardini, F. Finelli, and K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. D103, 043528 (2021), arXiv:2011.12934 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  98. [105]

    Belliniet al., Phys

    E. Belliniet al., Phys. Rev. D97, 023520 (2018), arXiv:1709.09135 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  99. [106]

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

    2025 arXiv

  100. [107]

    Gannouji, D

    R. Gannouji, D. Polarski, A. Ranquet, and A. A. Starobinsky, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2006, 016 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0606287

    2006 arXiv

  101. [108]

    Uzan, Phys

    J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D59, 123510 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9903004

    1999 arXiv

  102. [109]

    A. G. Ferrari, M. Ballardini, F. Finelli, D. Paoletti, and N. Mauri, Phys. Rev. D108, 063520 (2023), arXiv:2307.02987 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  103. [110]

    A. G. Ferrari, M. Ballardini, F. Finelli, and D. Paoletti, Phys. Rev. D111, 083523 (2025), arXiv:2501.15298 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  104. [111]

    Ye, arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2411.11743 [astro-ph.CO]

    G. Ye, arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2411.11743 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  105. [112]

    Hart and J

    L. Hart and J. Chluba, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493, 3255 (2020), arXiv:1912.03986 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  106. [113]

    Sekiguchi and T

    T. Sekiguchi and T. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D103, 083507 (2021), arXiv:2007.03381 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  107. [114]

    Hart and J

    L. Hart and J. Chluba, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.510, 2206 (2022), arXiv:2107.12465 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  108. [115]

    Seto and Y

    O. Seto and Y. Toda, Phys. Rev. D107, 083512 (2023), arXiv:2206.13209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  109. [116]

    Chluba and L

    J. Chluba and L. Hart, arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2309.12083 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  110. [117]

    Seto and Y

    O. Seto and Y. Toda, arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2405.11869 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  111. [118]

    Baryakhtar, O

    M. Baryakhtar, O. Simon, and Z. J. Weiner, Phys.Rev.D 110 (2024) 8, 083505 10.1103/Phys- RevD.110.083505 (2024), arXiv:2405.10358 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  112. [119]

    Sch¨ oneberg and L

    N. Sch¨ oneberg and L. Vacher, arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2407.16845 [astro-ph.CO]. 64

    2024 arXiv

  113. [120]

    Baryakhtar, O

    M. Baryakhtar, O. Simon, and Z. J. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D111, 115026 (2025), arXiv:2502.04432 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  114. [121]

    Smith, P

    A. Smith, P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, C. P. Burgess, and A.-C. Davis, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1062 (2025), arXiv:2505.05450 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  115. [122]

    Garramone, S

    M. Garramone, S. Gariazzo, and N. Fornengo, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2602.05720 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, R. Calder´ on, and T. Simon, arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2407.18292 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Escudero, G

    M. Escudero, G. Jackson, M. Laine, and S. Sandner, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2026, 046 (2026), arXiv:2511.04747 [hep-ph]

    2026

  118. [126]

    G. P. Lynch, L. Knox, and J. Chluba, arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2404.05715 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  119. [127]

    S. H. Mirpoorian, K. Jedamzik, and L. Pogosian, Phys. Rev. D111, 083519 (2025), arXiv:2411.16678 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Jedamzik and L

    K. Jedamzik and L. Pogosian, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 181302 (2020), arXiv:2004.09487 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Jedamzik, T

    K. Jedamzik, T. Abel, and Y. Ali-Haimoud, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 012 (2025), arXiv:2312.11448 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron

    Y. Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  123. [131]

    I. J. Allali, A. Notari, and F. Rompineve, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 023 (2025), arXiv:2404.15220 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  124. [132]

    Gariazzo and O

    S. Gariazzo and O. Mena, arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2306.15067 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  125. [133]

    M. M. Saravanan, T. Brinckmann, M. Loverde, and Z. J. Weiner, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 040 (2025), arXiv:2503.04671 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  126. [134]

    J. L. Bernal, L. Verde, and A. G. Riess, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2016(10), 019

  127. [135]

    Froustey, C

    J. Froustey, C. Pitrou, and M. C. Volpe, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2020, 015 (2020), arXiv:2008.01074 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  128. [136]

    Drewes, Y

    M. Drewes, Y. Georis, M. Klasen, L. P. Wiggering, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2024, 032 (2024), arXiv:2402.18481 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  129. [137]

    Z. Hou, R. Keisler, L. Knox, M. Millea, and C. Reichardt, Phys. Rev. D87, 083008 (2013), arXiv:1104.2333 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  130. [138]

    Lesgourgues, G

    J. Lesgourgues, G. Marques-Tavares, and M. Schmaltz, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2016, 037 (2016), arXiv:1507.04351 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  131. [139]

    Cyr-Racine, K

    F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, K. Sigurdson, J. Zavala, T. Bringmann, M. Vogelsberger, and C. Pfrommer, Phys. Rev. D93, 123527 (2016), arXiv:1512.05344 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  132. [140]

    Archidiacono, S

    M. Archidiacono, S. Bohr, S. Hannestad, J. H. Jørgensen, and J. Lesgourgues, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2017, 010 (2017), arXiv:1706.06870 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  133. [141]

    Archidiacono, D

    M. Archidiacono, D. C. Hooper, R. Murgia, S. Bohr, J. Lesgourgues, and M. Viel, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2019, 055 (2019), arXiv:1907.01496 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  134. [142]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  135. [143]

    Wess and B

    J. Wess and B. Zumino, Nuclear Physics B70, 39 (1974)

    1974

  136. [144]

    Aloni, A

    D. Aloni, A. Berlin, M. Joseph, M. Schmaltz, and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D105, 123516 (2022), arXiv:2111.00014 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  137. [145]

    Sch¨ oneberg and G

    N. Sch¨ oneberg and G. Franco Abell´ an, arXiv e-prints 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/12/001 (2022), arXiv:2206.11276 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  138. [146]

    Joseph, D

    M. Joseph, D. Aloni, M. Schmaltz, E. N. Sivarajan, and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D108, 023520 (2023), arXiv:2207.03500 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  139. [147]

    Cvetko, M

    W. Cvetko, M. Joseph, and G. Marques-Tavares, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2512.19633 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  140. [148]

    Meiers, L

    M. Meiers, L. Knox, and N. Sch¨ oneberg, Phys. Rev. D108, 103527 (2023), arXiv:2307.09522 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  141. [149]

    A. C. Sobotka, A. L. Erickcek, and T. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. D109, 063538 (2024), arXiv:2312.13235 [astro-ph.CO]. 65

    2024 arXiv

  142. [150]

    Joseph,Interacting dark sectors and cosmological tensions, Ph.D

    M. Joseph,Interacting dark sectors and cosmological tensions, Ph.D. thesis, Boston U. (2022)

    2022

  143. [151]

    Bagherian, M

    H. Bagherian, M. Joseph, M. Schmaltz, and E. N. Sivarajan, Phys. Rev. D111, 043513 (2025), arXiv:2405.17554 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  144. [152]

    Zhou and N

    Z. Zhou and N. Weiner, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 075 (2025), arXiv:2409.06771 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  145. [153]

    T. L. Smith and N. Sch¨ oneberg, Phys. Rev. D112, 083559 (2025), arXiv:2503.20002 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  146. [154]

    Aloni, M

    D. Aloni, M. Joseph, M. Schmaltz, and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 221001 (2023), arXiv:2301.10792 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  147. [155]

    I. J. Allali, M. P. Hertzberg, and F. Rompineve, Phys. Rev. D104, L081303 (2021), arXiv:2104.12798 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  148. [156]

    Garny, F

    M. Garny, F. Niedermann, H. Rubira, and M. S. Sloth, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2508.03795 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  149. [157]

    Niedermann and M

    F. Niedermann and M. S. Sloth, Phys.Lett.B 835 (2022) 137555 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137555 (2021), arXiv:2112.00759 [hep-ph]

    2022

  150. [158]

    Garny, F

    M. Garny, F. Niedermann, H. Rubira, and M. S. Sloth, Phys. Rev. D110, 023531 (2024), arXiv:2404.07256 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  151. [159]

    P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 508 (1964)

    1964

  152. [160]

    Englert and R

    F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 321 (1964)

    1964

  153. [161]

    G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 585 (1964)

    1964

  154. [162]

    Akarsu, S

    ¨O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, and J. A. Vazquez, Phys. Rev. D104, 123512 (2021), arXiv:2108.09239 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  155. [163]

    Ibarra-Uriondo and M

    B. Ibarra-Uriondo and M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2602.12347 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  156. [164]

    Bouhmadi-L´ opez and B

    M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez and B. Ibarra-Uriondo, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2602.16795 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  157. [165]

    Khandelwal, A

    S. Khandelwal, A. J. S. Capistrano, and S. Kumar, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2603.09270 [astro- ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  158. [166]

    Akarsu, S

    O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, Phys. Rev. D108, 023513 (2023), arXiv:2211.05742 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  159. [167]

    Akarsu, E

    O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2307.10899 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  160. [168]

    E. A. Paraskevas, A. Cam, L. Perivolaropoulos, and O. Akarsu, Phys. Rev. D109, 103522 (2024), arXiv:2402.05908 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  161. [169]

    J. F. Soriano, S. Wohlberg, and L. A. Anchordoqui, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101911 (2025), arXiv:2502.19239 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  162. [170]

    Bouhmadi-L´ opez and B

    M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez and B. Ibarra-Uriondo, Phys. Rev. D112, 063559 (2025), arXiv:2506.12139 [gr- qc]

    2025 arXiv

  163. [171]

    I. J. Allali, P. Singh, J. Fan, and L. Li, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 082 (2025), arXiv:2503.05691 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  164. [172]

    Jhaveri, T

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

    2025 arXiv

  165. [173]

    Sailer, G

    N. Sailer, G. S. Farren, S. Ferraro, and M. White, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 081002 (2026), arXiv:2504.16932 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  166. [174]

    Loverde and Z

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

    2024 arXiv

  167. [175]

    M. B. Gavela, D. Hernandez, L. Lopez Honorez, O. Mena, and S. Rigolin, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2009, 034 (2009), [Erratum: JCAP 05, E01 (2010)], arXiv:0901.1611 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  168. [176]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev.D96, 043503 (2017), arXiv:1704.08342

    2017 arXiv

  169. [177]

    Di Valentino, C

    E. Di Valentino, C. B ˜Aˇ zehm, E. Hivon, and F. R. Bouchet, Phys. Rev.D97, 043513 (2018), arXiv:1710.02559

    2018 arXiv

  170. [178]

    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

  171. [179]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D101, 063502 (2020), arXiv:1910.09853 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  172. [180]

    Raveri and C

    M. Raveri and C. Doux, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2105.03324 (2021), arXiv:2105.03324

    2021 arXiv

  173. [181]

    Leizerovich, S

    M. Leizerovich, S. J. Landau, and C. G. Sc´ occola, Phys. Lett. B855, 138844 (2024), arXiv:2312.08542 [astro-ph.CO]. 66

    2024 arXiv

  174. [182]

    Raveri and W

    M. Raveri and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D99, 043506 (2019), arXiv:1806.04649 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  175. [183]

    Heavens, Y

    A. Heavens, Y. Fantaye, A. Mootoovaloo, H. Eggers, Z. Hosenie, S. Kroon, and E. Sellentin, arXiv e-prints (2017), arXiv:1704.03472 [stat.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  176. [184]

    Trotta, Contemp

    R. Trotta, Contemp. Phys.49, 71 (2008), arXiv:0803.4089 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  177. [185]

    Herold, E

    L. Herold, E. G. M. Ferreira, and L. Heinrich, Phys. Rev. D111, 083504 (2025), arXiv:2408.07700 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  178. [186]

    Sch¨ oneberg, A

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, A. G. Ferrari, F. Finelli, J. Lesgourgues, L. Morelli, M. R. Mosbech, V. Poulin, R. Sharma, T. Simon, and T. L. Smith, TheH 0 world cup repository (2026)

    2026

  179. [187]

    Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron

    Y. Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.643, A42 (2020), arXiv:2007.04997 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  180. [188]

    Efstathiou and S

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, The Open Journal of Astrophysics3, 16 (2019), arXiv:1910.00483 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  181. [189]

    Rosenberg, S

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

    2022 arXiv

  182. [190]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  183. [191]

    J. M. Delouis, L. Pagano, S. Mottet, J. L. Puget, and L. Vibert, Astron. Astrophys.629, A38 (2019), arXiv:1901.11386 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  184. [192]

    Pagano, J

    L. Pagano, J. M. Delouis, S. Mottet, J. L. Puget, and L. Vibert, Astron. Astrophys.635, A99 (2020), arXiv:1908.09856 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  185. [193]

    Balkenhol, C

    L. Balkenhol, C. Trendafilova, K. Benabed, and S. Galli, Astron. Astrophys.686, A10 (2024), arXiv:2401.13433 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  186. [194]

    Geet al.(SPT-3G), Phys

    F. Geet al.(SPT-3G), Phys. Rev. D111, 083534 (2025), arXiv:2411.06000 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  187. [195]

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

    2024 arXiv

  188. [196]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D 112, 083515, 2025 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  189. [197]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083514 (2025), arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  190. [198]

    Broutet al., Astrophys

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

    2022 arXiv

  191. [199]

    A. G. Riesset al., Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  192. [200]

    Camarena and V

    D. Camarena and V. Marra, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.504, 5164 (2021), arXiv:2101.08641 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  193. [201]

    Giovanetti, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2604.05095 [astro-ph.CO]

    C. Giovanetti, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2604.05095 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  194. [202]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES), arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2601.14559 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  195. [203]

    Allison, P

    R. Allison, P. Caucal, E. Calabrese, J. Dunkley, and T. Louis, Phys. Rev. D92, 123535 (2015), arXiv:1509.07471 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  196. [204]

    A. Liu, J. R. Pritchard, R. Allison, A. R. Parsons, U. Seljak, and B. D. Sherwin, Phys. Rev. D93, 043013 (2016), arXiv:1509.08463 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  197. [205]

    Archidiacono, T

    M. Archidiacono, T. Brinckmann, J. Lesgourgues, and V. Poulin, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2017, 052 (2017), arXiv:1610.09852 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  198. [206]

    N. Lee, Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, N. Sch¨ oneberg, and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 161003 (2023), arXiv:2212.04494 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  199. [207]

    Pedrotti, J.-Q

    D. Pedrotti, J.-Q. Jiang, L. A. Escamilla, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D111, 023506 (2025), arXiv:2408.04530 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  200. [208]

    G. P. Lynch, L. Knox, and J. Chluba, Phys. Rev. D110, 083538 (2024), arXiv:2406.10202 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  201. [209]

    S. H. Mirpoorian, K. Jedamzik, and L. Pogosian, JCAP 12 (2025) 050 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/12/050 (2025), arXiv:2504.15274 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  202. [210]

    Jhaveri, T

    T. Jhaveri, T. Karwal, T. Crawford, W. Hu, A. R. Khalife, L. Balkenhol, and F. Ge, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2604.08530 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  203. [211]

    de Carvalho, A

    E. de Carvalho, A. Bernui, G. C. Carvalho, C. P. Novaes, and H. S. Xavier, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2018, 064 (2018), arXiv:1709.00113 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  204. [212]

    Pantos and L

    I. Pantos and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102347 (2026), arXiv:2604.11106 [astro- ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  205. [213]

    P. S. Ferreira and C. A. P. Bengaly, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2511.18430 [astro-ph.CO]. 67

    2025

  206. [214]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), JCAP 02 (2025) 021 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 (2024), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  207. [215]

    Calderonet al.(DESI), J

    R. Calderonet al.(DESI), J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2024, 048 (2024), arXiv:2405.04216 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  208. [216]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 028 (2025), arXiv:2411.12022 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  209. [217]

    Forero-S´ anchezet al., arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2606.23936 [astro-ph.CO]

    D. Forero-S´ anchezet al., arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2606.23936 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  210. [218]

    Z. Lu, T. Simon, and P. Zhang, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2503.04602 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  211. [219]

    Shlivko and V

    D. Shlivko and V. Poulin, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2603.22406 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  212. [220]

    Chen and M

    S.-F. Chen and M. Zaldarriaga, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 014 (2025), arXiv:2505.00659 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  213. [221]

    Efstathiou, E

    G. Efstathiou, E. Rosenberg, and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 221002 (2024), arXiv:2311.00524 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  214. [222]

    Lesgourgues, G

    J. Lesgourgues, G. Mangano, G. Miele, and S. Pastor,Neutrino Cosmology(Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  215. [223]

    T. L. Smith and V. Poulin, arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2309.03265 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  216. [224]

    Garny, F

    M. Garny, F. Niedermann, and M. S. Sloth, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2604.26541 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  217. [225]

    Kosowsky and M

    A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D52, R1739 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9504071

    1995 arXiv

  218. [226]

    Easther and H

    R. Easther and H. Peiris, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2006, 010 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0604214

    2006 arXiv

  219. [227]

    Bjorkmo and M

    T. Bjorkmo and M. C. D. Marsh, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2018, 037 (2018), arXiv:1709.10076 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  220. [228]

    Motohashi and W

    H. Motohashi and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D96, 063503 (2017), arXiv:1706.06784 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  221. [229]

    Kobayashi and F

    T. Kobayashi and F. Takahashi, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2011, 026 (2011), arXiv:1011.3988 [astro- ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  222. [230]

    D. K. Hazra, A. Antony, and A. Shafieloo, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2022, 063 (2022), arXiv:2201.12000 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  223. [231]

    Antony, F

    A. Antony, F. Finelli, D. K. Hazra, and A. Shafieloo, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 111001 (2023), arXiv:2202.14028 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  224. [232]

    N. Lee, M. Braglia, and Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, Phys. Rev. D112, 083506 (2025), arXiv:2504.07966 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  225. [233]

    Calderon, T

    R. Calderon, T. Simon, A. Shafieloo, and D. K. Hazra, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2026, 057 (2026), arXiv:2504.06183 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  226. [234]

    M. M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2020, 042 (2020), arXiv:1909.05277 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  227. [235]

    D’Amico, J

    G. D’Amico, J. Gleyzes, N. Kokron, D. Markovic, L. Senatore, P. Zhang, F. Beutler, and H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2020, 005 (2020), arXiv:1909.05271 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  228. [236]

    Palanque-Delabrouille, C

    N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Y` eche, N. Sch¨ oneberg, J. Lesgourgues, M. Walther, S. Chabanier, and E. Armengaud, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2020, 038 (2020), arXiv:1911.09073 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  229. [237]

    Goldstein, J

    S. Goldstein, J. C. Hill, V. Irˇ siˇ c, and B. D. Sherwin, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 201001 (2023), arXiv:2303.00746 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  230. [238]

    K. K. Rogers and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L012018 (2025), arXiv:2311.16377 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  231. [239]

    M. A. Fernandez, S. Bird, and M.-F. Ho, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2024, 029 (2024), arXiv:2309.03943 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  232. [240]

    Waltheret al., J

    M. Waltheret al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 099 (2025), arXiv:2412.05372 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  233. [241]

    Chaves-Monteroet al., J

    J. Chaves-Monteroet al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2026, 040 (2026), arXiv:2601.21432 [astro- ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  234. [242]

    Popovicet al.(DES), Mon

    B. Popovicet al.(DES), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.548, stag632 (2026), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro- ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  235. [243]

    R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini, and C. C. Steidel, Astrophys. J.855, 102 (2018), arXiv:1710.11129 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  236. [244]

    E. Aver, E. D. Skillman, R. W. Pogge, N. S. J. Rogers, M. K. Weller, K. A. Olive, D. A. Berg, J. J. Salzer, J. H. Miller, and J. E. M´ endez-Delgado, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2601.22238 [astro-ph.CO]. 68

    2026

  237. [245]

    Antony, F

    A. Antony, F. Finelli, D. K. Hazra, D. Paoletti, and A. Shafieloo, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2026, 029 (2026), arXiv:2403.19575 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  238. [246]

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

    2024 arXiv

  239. [247]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, JHEP2024(12), 216, arXiv:2410.05380 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  240. [248]

    A. Mead, S. Brieden, T. Tr¨ oster, and C. Heymans, arXiv e-prints 10.1093/mnras/stab082 (2020), arXiv:2009.01858 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  241. [249]

    Trendafilova, A

    C. Trendafilova, A. R. Khalife, and S. Galli, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 094 (2025), arXiv:2502.19383 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  242. [250]

    Herold, E

    L. Herold, E. G. M. Ferreira, and E. Komatsu, Astrophys. J. Lett.929, L16 (2022), arXiv:2112.12140 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  243. [251]

    A. H. Wrightet al., Astron. Astrophys.703, A158 (2025), arXiv:2503.19441 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  244. [253]

    Pisanti, G

    O. Pisanti, G. Mangano, G. Miele, and P. Mazzella, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2021, 020 (2021), arXiv:2011.11537 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  245. [254]

    Gariazzo, P

    S. Gariazzo, P. F. de Salas, O. Pisanti, and R. Consiglio, Comput. Phys. Commun.271, 108205 (2022), arXiv:2103.05027 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  246. [255]

    Pitrou, A

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J.-P. Uzan, and E. Vangioni, Phys. Rept.754, 1 (2018), arXiv:1801.08023 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  247. [256]

    Pitrou, A

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J.-P. Uzan, and E. Vangioni, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502, 2474 (2021), arXiv:2011.11320 [astro-ph.CO]. 69

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.