Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Investigating the Hubble Tension and σ₈ Discrepancy in f(Q) Cosmology

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2405.03627 v1 pith:O5QODFHQ submitted 2024-05-06 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Investigating the Hubble Tension and σ₈ Discrepancy in f(Q) Cosmology

classification astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords sigmadiscrepancyhubbleparameterstensionalonebackgroundbeta
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this study, we incorporated a three-parameter family, of the metric incompatible modification of standard general relativity $f(Q)$ models into the Boltzmann code MGCLASS at both the background and perturbation levels, in order to conduct a Bayesian study employing probes that include the cosmic microwave background (CMB), baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), weak lensing (WL), alone or its correlation with galaxy clustering (3$\times$2pt) and growth measurements $f \sigma_8$, for each submodel. Our analysis focused on the impact of the Hubble tension in $H_0$ and the discrepancy in $\sigma_8$ resulting from the inclusion of our model parameters, namely $M$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$. We find that none of the sub models, considered alone or combined, were able of alleviating the Hubble tension with only reducing it to 3 $\sigma$ in the least constraining, highest degree of freedom case while we found that the $\sigma_8$ discrepancy, already strongly mitigated on WL linear scales, especially when we let all our model's parameters as free, appears again when considering the more constraining 3$\times$2pt probe. Among the parameters considered, we found that $\beta$, acting in scaling both the gravitational and the Hubble parameter, had the most impact in reducing the discrepancy, with data preferring far from $\Lambda$CDM alike values, before the combination with $f \sigma_8$ constrain it back to its general relativity values.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Hubble tension: a short review of theoretical explanations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0

    A comprehensive review finds no theoretical Hubble-tension solution yet passes all consistency tests; new early-dark-energy chains reach high H0 only when the SH0ES calibration is added.

  2. Decoupling perturbations from background in $f(Q)$ gravity: the square-root correction and the impact on the $\sigma_8$ tension

    astro-ph.CO 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0

    A sqrt(Q) correction in f(Q) gravity suppresses structure growth without altering the expansion history; fitted to RSD/DESI data it can bring sigma8 into agreement with Planck, at the cost of a sigma8-M degeneracy.

  3. Dynamical Dark Energy or Modified Gravity? Signatures in Gravitational Wave Propagation

    gr-qc 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0

    Reconstructing the dark energy density from DESI BAO and DESyr5 supernovae, then recasting it as f(Q) gravity, predicts a low-redshift gravitational wave damping ν≈0.18 (≳2σ from GR) only for the DESyr5 dataset.