Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

DESI results and Dark Energy from QCD topological sectors

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dark energy is the leftover vacuum energy from tunnelling between QCD topological sectors, proportional to the Hubble rate.

desk verdict A self-consistent but conjecture-dependent QCD dark-energy model; the new Friedmann solution is fine, but the central transfer to de Sitter is unproven and the z≥0 'DESI consistency' is driven by an arbitrary activation function. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14182 v3 pith:OF3J7A4Q submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

Ludovic Van Waerbeke , Ariel Zhitnitsky This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th PACS 95.36.+x98.80.-k12.38.-t
keywords darkenergyQCDvacuumtopologicalsectorsequationofstatephantomdividecrossingHubblerateDESIscale
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

The paper argues that the observed dark energy is not a cosmological constant or a new scalar field, but the residual vacuum energy left over when the QCD vacuum of an expanding universe is compared with the QCD vacuum of Minkowski spacetime. Because QCD has topologically distinct vacuum sectors connected by tunnelling, the residual is sensitive to arbitrarily large distances and is linear in the expansion rate: $\rho_{\rm DE} = c_H \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3 H$. With $\Lambda_{\rm QCD} \sim 100$ MeV, this single scale reproduces the observed dark-energy density, explains why dark energy becomes important only at late times, and predicts an equation of state that is $w_{\rm DE} > -1$ today and approaches $-1$ as the universe settles into de Sitter space. The authors show that once an activation function $\beta(t)$ is introduced for $z \ge 0$, $w_{\rm DE}(z)$ can sit above or below $-1$ and cross the phantom divide several times, qualitatively matching the recent DESI results without any new fields or couplings.

What carries the argument

The central object is Eq. (1), the vacuum-energy difference $\Delta E_{\rm vac} \approx c_\kappa\, \kappa\, \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3$ between the hyperbolic spacetime $H^3_\kappa \times S^1_{\kappa-1}$ and Minkowski spacetime, where $\kappa$ is the curvature of the hyperbolic factor. The linear dependence on $\kappa$ is produced by non-perturbative QCD configurations — monopole configurations with nontrivial holonomy (a nonzero gauge phase around a closed loop) — whose energy is sensitive to infrared distances despite the mass gap. The cosmological extension replaces $\kappa$ with the Hubble parameter $H$, giving $\rho_{\rm DE} = c_H \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3 H$; this is a conjecture the authors state explicitly because the analogous computation in de Sitter space is not yet possible. Substituting the linear law into the Friedmann equation yields a quadratic whose solution is $H(a) = (\bar{H}/2)\bigl(1 + \sqrt{1 + B(a_i/a)^3 + C(a_i/a)^4}\bigr)$, with $\bar{H}$ the asymptotic de Sitter Hubble constant, and an activation function $\beta(t) \in (0,1)$ switches the QCD term on as matter dilutes and generates the $z \ge 0$ behaviour, including multiple phantom-divide crossings.

What would settle it

A computation (for example a lattice simulation) of the QCD vacuum-energy difference in a de Sitter background that yields $\Delta E_{\rm vac} \propto H^2$ instead of $\propto H$ would falsify the central relation $\rho_{\rm DE} = c_H\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3 H$; this is precisely the missing calculation the authors identify.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the difference between the QCD vacuum energy of an expanding universe and the QCD vacuum energy of Minkowski spacetime is dominated by topological sectors and yields a positive dark-energy density $\rho_{\rm DE} = c_H \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3 H$ that is proportional to the Hubble rate rather than a constant. The linear dependence is the load-bearing feature: it turns the Friedmann equation into a quadratic whose late-time attractor is de Sitter with $\bar{H} = c_H (8\pi/3)\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3/M_{\rm Pl}^2$, giving a Hubble time of order 10 Gyr from the QCD scale alone. Away from that limit the equation of state is time dependent, with $w_{\rm DE,0} > -1$, $w_{\rm DE} \to -1$ in the future, and possible multiple crossings of $w_{\rm DE} = -1$ for $z \ge 0$ once the activation function $\beta(t)$ is included. The construction uses only Standard Model physics, with no new fields or couplings, and the authors interpret the behaviour as qualitatively consistent with DESI, emphasizing that any deviation from $\Lambda$CDM must come with a correlated deviation in $H(z)$ since $\rho_{\rm DE} \propto \beta(t) H(t)$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire mechanism depends on the conjecture that the linear vacuum-energy difference computed for a hyperbolic spacetime remains linear when transplanted to an expanding nearly de Sitter universe, with the Hubble parameter playing the role of the curvature parameter; the paper concedes that this de Sitter calculation cannot currently be done.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Today's equation of state must satisfy $w_{\rm DE,0} > -1$ and flow to $w_{\rm DE} = -1$ in the future, because the universe is approaching the de Sitter solution of the modified Friedmann equation.
  • For $z \ge 0$, $w_{\rm DE}(z)$ can cross the $w = -1$ line multiple times without invoking a phantom scalar field, so the usual unitarity and stability objections do not apply.
  • Any deviation from $\Lambda$CDM has to be accompanied by a specific deviation in $H(z)$, because $\rho_{\rm DE} \propto \beta(t) H(t)$; independent measurements of $H(z)$ and $w(z)$ can therefore test the framework.
  • The asymptotic Hubble constant is fixed by $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ and $M_{\rm Pl}$ (up to the coefficient $c_H$), so the dark-energy scale is an output rather than an input of the model.
  • All standard cosmological probes (CMB, BAO, supernovae, large-scale structure) must be reprocessed with the modified Friedmann equation, and a single activation function $\beta(z)$ would have to fit them all.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the linear relation $\rho_{\rm DE} \propto H$ holds locally, then regions of different density experience slightly different effective dark-energy densities, which would mimic clustered or environment-dependent dark energy; the paper gestures at this possibility but does not develop it.
  • For $z \ge 0$ the model's freedom is concentrated in the uncalculated activation function $\beta(t)$, so the currently falsifiable core is the predicted correlation between $H(z)$ and $w(z)$ rather than a specific $w(z)$ curve; reconstructing $\beta(z)$ from data would either pin down a physical shape or show that the model can absorb arbitrary histories.
  • The same topological-tunnelling logic at a higher, unknown strongly coupled gauge-theory scale could generate inflation, which the paper mentions as a hypothetical extension; if developed, both accelerating epochs of the universe would share one mechanism.
  • A positive detection of the proposed topological contribution to the Casimir force in tabletop experiments would provide laboratory evidence, independent of cosmology, that tunnelling between topological sectors deposits real vacuum energy; the paper flags this test but leaves the experimental design open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that dark energy is the leftover vacuum-energy difference between the QCD vacuum in an expanding FRW universe and Minkowski spacetime, generated by transitions between topological sectors. The central relation is ρ_DE = c_H Λ_QCD^3 H (Eq. 6), from which the authors derive a modified Friedmann equation whose solution asymptotes to a de Sitter state, obtain w_DE > -1 near the present epoch under an adiabatic approximation, and introduce an activation function β(t) so that for z≥0 the equation of state can cross w = -1, claimed to be qualitatively consistent with DESI. The framework is intended to use only Standard Model physics, with no new fields or couplings.

Significance. If the central conjecture were established, the framework would be highly significant: it would tie the observed dark-energy scale to a Standard Model parameter, offer a natural resolution of the coincidence problem, and avoid phantom-field instabilities by removing dynamical fields. The paper is transparent about the conjectural nature of the de Sitter extension, and its discussion in Section 3.4 correctly notes that late-time modifications alone cannot resolve the H0 tension. The algebra from the ansatz is internally consistent, and the predicted correlation between H(z) and w(z) is a testable feature. However, because the quantitative core rests on an unverified conjecture and the z≥0 behavior is governed by an arbitrary function, the paper does not currently establish its central claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (1)] The central relation ρ_DE = c_H Λ_QCD^3 H (Eq. 6) is not derived in a Friedmann or de Sitter background. The linear vacuum-energy difference in Eq. (1) is computed for the product geometry H^3_κ × S^1_{κ^{-1}}, where the curvature scale and the compact-cycle circumference are locked together and where conformal equivalence to R^4 makes the Zeldovich subtraction well defined (Appendix B). The manuscript states explicitly that "it is not currently possible to perform analogous computations" for de Sitter and that "one can conjecture" the result follows with κ replaced by H. Euclidean de Sitter is S^4, which has no S^1 cycle for the holonomy and whose curvature enters at order H^2, so the linear scaling is not a small-curvature consequence. Every quantitative estimate in Eqs. (2)-(3), including the claimed DE density and the "why now" explanation, is therefore contingent on an unverified analytic-continuation claim. This is the load-bearing step of the paper, and it is acknowledged by the authors as a conjecture.
  2. [Section 2.3, Eq. (3) and footnote 5] The claim that the DE scale is fixed by a single QCD parameter is not parameter-free. Footnote 5 states that c_H "can always be redefined to absorb all numerical coefficients that arise in the calculations," including the factor m_q/Λ_QCD ≈ 0.05. Because c_H is also the coefficient converting the QCD scale into the Hubble constant in Eq. (3), the numerical agreement with the observed ρ_DE is achieved by choosing the free coefficient to match the very quantity being explained. This undercuts the paper's repeated claim that no ad hoc constants are introduced.
  3. [Section 3.3, Eqs. (19)-(21)] For z≥0, the entire redshift dependence is carried by an arbitrary activation function β(t) with six free parameters (t_1, Δt_1, t_2, Δt_2, t_3, Δt_3 in Eq. 21). The authors state that for z>0, w_DE "can take any form as a function of redshift, depending on the activation function." Consequently, the claimed consistency with DESI, including multiple crossings of w = -1, is a property of an unconstrained function rather than a prediction of the QCD mechanism. No derivation of β(t) from the underlying theory is provided, and the paper does not perform a fit to cosmological data; the z≥0 phenomenology is therefore illustrative rather than evidence for the model.
  4. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (16)-(18)] The prediction w_DE,0 > -1 at the present epoch is derived in the asymptotic regime x(t) ≪ 1, i.e. ρ_M ≪ ρ_DE. The paper's own adiabatic criterion (18) is only "marginally satisfied today at z=0," with the left-hand side ≈ 0.5 compared with the bound 3/2. Since Eq. (16) gives w ≈ -0.7 at x(t_0) ~ 1, the quantitative value at z=0 is outside the regime where the derivation is controlled. The qualitative direction w > -1 may survive, but the specific value quoted in the text is not justified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract lists two items labeled (b); the second data item should be renumbered.
  2. [Equations (2)-(3) and (10)-(11)] The notation for the asymptotic Hubble constant is inconsistent: the abstract uses \bar{H}, while several equations use H for both the asymptotic value and the time-dependent Hubble parameter, making the derivation harder to follow.
  3. [Section 3.3] There is a typo in the sentence "In practice,forz≥0" — a space is missing after the comma.
  4. [Figure 2(d)] The text does not specify the exact expression used to compute w_DE(z) from the numerical solution; since Eq. (13) involves w in the acceleration equation, the plot of w(z) appears to be derived from H(z) and its derivative, but the formula used should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central cosmological predictions reduce to a self-cited conjecture and two free inputs: ρ_DE∝H is imported from H^3_κ×S^1 via an unproven de Sitter conjecture, c_H absorbs all numerical factors, and β(t) is arbitrary, so w_DE(z≥0) can be made to match DESI.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Sec. 2.2, paragraph after Eq. (1)]
    "For de Sitter spacetime, it is not currently possible to perform analogous computations ... However, as argued in A. O. Barvinsky & A. R. Zhitnitsky (2018), one can conjecture that the resulting expression is expected to closely resemble Eq.(1). It means that, in de Sitter spacetime, holonomy is expected to emerge dynamically (as the Universe expands), and the role of κ in Eq.(1) is assumed by the Hubble parameter in the de Sitter Universe, with the replacement c_κ ∼1 by c_H ∼1."

    Eq. (6), the paper's central result, states ρ_DE = c_H Λ^3_QCD H. The only support for this in de Sitter/FRW is the quoted conjecture, taken from Barvinsky & Zhitnitsky (2018), which is prior work by the same authors. Eq. (1) itself was obtained on H^3_κ × S^1_{κ^{-1}}, where an explicit S^1 cycle and conformal equivalence to R^4 make the subtraction well-defined; de Sitter has neither, and the paper admits the relevant monopole saddles are unknown there. Replacing κ by H is therefore an assumed input, not a derivation. Every later prediction (H_0, ρ_DE, w_DE(z)) inherits this imported ansatz, which is load-bearing self-citation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.3, footnote 5 and Eqs. (2)-(3)]
    "We do not lose any generality by fixing Λ_QCD ≈100 MeV. This is because the dimensionless parameter c_H can always be redefined to absorb all numerical coefficients that arise in the calculations. In particular, a small numerical QCD-related factor ∝ m_q/Λ_QCD ≈0.05, which consistently accompanies tunnelling transitions in QCD, is also absorbed into c_H."

    Eq. (3) is presented as the order-of-magnitude prediction of H_0 and ρ_DE, with values 'very close to the observed values today.' But c_H (or \bar c_H) is a free dimensionless coefficient that, by the paper's own statement, can always be redefined to absorb all numerical factors, including the m_q/Λ_QCD≈0.05 factor. Since c_H is not computed from first principles here ('not currently feasible'), the numerical agreement is not an independent prediction; it is a restatement of choosing c_H≈1 to match the observed Hubble/de Sitter scale. The resulting 'why now' timescale t_0=H^{-1} is likewise fixed by the same adjusted constant.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.3, around Eq. (21) and Fig. 2(d)]
    "For z > 0, however, w_DE can take any form as a function of redshift, depending on the activation function of the QCD-induced dark energy, β(t). Although we cannot derive β(t) theoretically, it is likely to be strongly constrained by observational data. ... Although our choice of the β(t) function is entirely arbitrary and not based on any physical model, it is still possible to test the self-consistency of the framework."

    To make predictions for z≥0, Sec. 3.3 introduces β(t)∈(0,1) as a 'switch' whose time dependence is unspecified; the paper says w_DE can take any form depending on the activation function and that the specific β_1, β_2 used are 'entirely arbitrary.' The claimed qualitative DESI consistency — w crossing −1 once or multiple times — is therefore generated by the free choice of β(t), not by QCD topology. Since any observed w(z) can be accommodated by some β(t), this is a fitted input presented as a prediction, not a falsifiable consequence of the framework.

full rationale

The paper contains a genuine, non-circular calculation: the linear-in-κ vacuum-energy difference Eq. (1) on H^3_κ × S^1_{κ^{-1}}, supported by deformed-QCD box computations and a lattice study of particle production proportional to H. Those pieces are external to the fitted values and are not themselves circular. The circularity enters when this special-geometry result is transferred to cosmology: (i) the ρ_DE∝H law is imported from the same authors' unproven conjecture for de Sitter, not computed there; (ii) the numerical amplitude is matched to observations through a freely redefinable coefficient c_H; and (iii) the z≥0 w_DE behavior, including the claimed DESI-compatible crossings, is produced by an arbitrary activation function β(t). Thus the paper's headline cosmological predictions reduce, by its own admissions, to a conjectured analytic continuation plus two adjustable inputs. This warrants a 6 on the circularity scale: partial, because the underlying special-geometry computation is real, but the central DE predictions are not independently derived.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on the conjectured linear vacuum-energy difference from prior work (Eq. 1), the unproved extension of that result from hyperbolic space to de Sitter, and the free parameters c_H and β(t). No new fields or entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • c_H (or c̄_H) = Effectively matched to observed H0; numerical examples use H̄ = 50 km/s/Mpc
    Coefficient in ρ_DE = c_H Λ^3 H. Footnote 5: 'c_H can always be redefined to absorb all numerical coefficients'; value not computed from first principles.
  • β(t) parameters (t1, Δt1, t2, Δt2, t3, Δt3) = (5, 5, 1, 0.5, 3, 1) Gyr in Eq. (21)
    These values 'do not correspond to any specific physical event' and are chosen to illustrate two activation timescales; they control the z≥0 behavior.
  • H̄ asymptotic Hubble constant = 50 km/s/Mpc in the numerical integration
    Input to the numerical solution in Sec 3.3; while nominally determined by c_H, its value is freely set for the illustrations.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The vacuum energy difference between hyperbolic spacetime H^3_κ × S^1_{κ-1} and Minkowski spacetime is linear in κ, ΔE_vac ≈ c_κ κ Λ_QCD^3 (Eq. 1).
    This is the central result of Zhitnitsky (2015), which the present paper imports without re-derivation. All subsequent DE predictions rest on it.
  • domain assumption The same linear behavior holds in de Sitter spacetime with κ replaced by H.
    Section 2.2: 'one can conjecture that the resulting expression is expected to closely resemble Eq.(1)'. No computation exists for de Sitter.
  • domain assumption The adiabatic theorem allows using the constant-H formulas when H(t) varies, as long as condition (18) holds.
    Section 3.2 uses adiabaticity to extend Eq. (6) to the approach to de Sitter; the authors note it is only marginally satisfied today.
  • ad hoc to paper The activation function β(t) parameterizes the onset of QCD-induced DE at z≥0.
    Section 3.3 introduces β(t) with 'entirely arbitrary' functional forms; it is a phenomenological switch, not derived from QCD.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DESI results and Dark Energy from QCD topological sectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OF3J7A4Q

@misc{pith2026250614182,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DESI results and Dark Energy from QCD topological sectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OF3J7A4Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14182}
}
abstract

We present a physically motivated dark-energy (DE) model rooted in the topological structure of the Quantum ChromoDynamic (QCD) vacuum. In this framework, DE arises from the difference between the vacuum energy of an expanding FRW universe and Minkowski spacetime, induced by QCD topological sectors. The resulting DE term in the Friedmann equation scales with the Hubble rate, $\rho_{\rm DE}(t)\propto H(t)$, once DE dominates cosmic expansion, i.e. when the Universe is close to the de Sitter regime with $H\approx$ constant. The QCD scale, $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\sim100~{\rm MeV}$, naturally fixes the DE density and explains why its influence becomes significant only recently. The construction relies solely on the Standard Model of particle physics, introducing no new fields or couplings. The most fundamental change is the possibility of modifying the evolution of the background cosmology in the Friedmann equation. Key predictions include: (a) A present-day equation of state parameter $w_{\rm DE,0}>-1$ that asymptotically approaches the de Sitter limit $w_{\rm DE}=-1$ in the future. (b) A present-day Hubble constant $H_0$ that asymptotically approaches a constant $\overline{H}$ set by $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. (b) For $z\ge 0$, $w_{\rm DE}(z)$ may lie above or below $-1$ and can cross this boundary multiple times at different $z$, behavior qualitatively consistent with the recent DESI findings. (c) In our framework, any deviation from $\Lambda$CDM leads to a corresponding deviation of $H(z)$, which can be tested with existing and future cosmological observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14182 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plot of the two functions β(t) given in Eq.(21). ti = 0.0465 Gyr corresponds to the anchor point with the Friedmann cosmology. it is very close to the Big-Bang so that t − ti = 0 can be considered to be the beginning of the expansion of the Universe. The grey area above t − ti = 13.78 Gyr corresponds to the future. that β(t) is specified. Consequently, our framework will modify the solution to the Friedmann equation… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plots comparing various quantities in our framework to the Planck2018 cosmology as function of redshift. Red and black curves correspond respectively to the activation functions β1(t) and β2(t). When present, the green curve correspond to the Planck 2018 cosmology. Panel (a): fractional difference of the Hubble parameter, panel (b): fractional difference for the DE mass density ρDE, panel (c): DE dimensionless densi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Commoving distance as a function redshift z relative to the Planck cosmology. The red abd black curves correspond to the activation functions β1(t) and β2(t) in Eq.(21). is that it is straightforward to obtain an equation of state parameter that varies with time and can take values both above and below −1 without the need for a new dynamical field. Panel (d) also shows that for z < 0 (i.e., in the future), wDE conve… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Evolving Dark Energy Is Vacuum Energy After All

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A QCD-vacuum dark-energy model with a two-parameter switch reproduces the DESI-preferred late-time expansion and is mildly favoured over ΛCDM by Bayesian evidence (lnB≈2.7).

  2. Phantom crossing from the Standard Model and General Relativity

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

    Fermion-condensate vacuum energy plus Buchert backreaction from nonlinear structure formation yields a low-redshift phantom crossing consistent with DESI+CMB+SNIa data for a chosen backreaction density.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2023, Phys

    Adil, A., Albrecht, A., & Knox, L. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 063521, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.063521

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.063521 2023

  2. [2]

    O., & Zhitnitsky, A

    Barvinsky, A. O., & Zhitnitsky, A. R. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 045008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.045008

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.045008 2018

  3. [3]

    L., Verde, L., & Riess, A

    Bernal, J. L., Verde, L., & Riess, A. G. 2016, JCAP, 2016, 019, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/10/019

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/10/019 2016

  4. [4]

    Biswas, M., Debnath, U., Ghosh, S., & Guha, B. K. 2019, Eur. Phys. J. C, 79, 659, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7147-z

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7147-z 2019

  5. [5]

    2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17659

    Brandenberger, R. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17659

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    2011, Phys

    Cai, R.-G., Tuo, Z.-L., Zhang, H.-B., & Su, Q. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 123501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.123501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.84.123501 2011

  7. [7]

    2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.24732

    Cai, Y., Ren, X., Qiu, T., Li, M., & Zhang, X. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.24732

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    N., Setare, M

    Cai, Y.-F., Saridakis, E. N., Setare, M. R., & Xia, J.-Q. 2010, Phys. Rept., 493, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2010.04.001

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2010.04.001 2010

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Cao, C., van Caspel, M., & Zhitnitsky, A. R. 2013, Phys. Rev., D87, 105012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.105012

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    Cao, C., Yao, Y., & Zhitnitsky, A. R. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 065049, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.065049

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    L., Johnson, K., & Thorn, C

    Chodos, A., Jaffe, R. L., Johnson, K., & Thorn, C. B. 1974a, Phys. Rev. D, 10, 2599, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.10.2599

    doi

  4. [12]

    Weisskopf, V. F. 1974b, Phys. Rev. D, 9, 3471, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.9.3471

    doi

  5. [13]

    2021, Grav

    Das, K., & Bharali, J. 2021, Grav. Cosmol., 27, 68, doi: 10.1134/S0202289321010072 DESI Collaboration, Abdul-Karim, M., Aguilar, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14738, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14738

    2021 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    2013, Astron

    Durrer, R., & Neronov, A. 2013, Astron. Astrophys. Rev., 21, 62, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0062-7

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    2011, Int

    Ebrahimi, E., & Sheykhi, A. 2011, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 20, 2369, doi: 10.1142/S021827181102041X

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    2020, PhRvD, 101, 043533, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043533

    Knox, L., & Millea, M. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 043533, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043533

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    1978, Phys

    Luscher, M. 1978, Phys. Lett. B, 78, 465, doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(78)90487-2

    1978 doi

  10. [18]

    1999, ApJ, 517, 565, doi: 10.1086/307221

    Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565, doi: 10.1086/307221

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, PhRvL, 132, 191001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.191001

    Pitrou, C., & Uzan, J.-P. 2024, PhRvL, 132, 191001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.191001

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    L., Calder´ on, R., & Simon, T

    Poulin, V., Smith, T. L., Calder´ on, R., & Simon, T. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.18292, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18292

    2024 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    1989, Phys

    Reznik, B., & Aharonov, Y. 1989, Phys. Rev. D, 40, 4178, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.40.4178

    1989 doi

  14. [22]

    G., Filippenko, A

    Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V., Challis, P., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009, doi: 10.1086/300499 Sch¨ oneberg, N., Abell´ an, G. F., S´ anchez, A. P., et al. 2022, PhR, 984, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.07.001 ’t Hooft, G. 1976, Phys. Rev. D, 14, 3432, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3432

    1998 doi

  15. [23]

    Thomas, E., & Zhitnitsky, A. R. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 065029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.065029

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    R., & Zhitnitsky, A

    Urban, F. R., & Zhitnitsky, A. R. 2010a, Phys. Lett. B, 688, 9, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2010.03.080

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    R., & Zhitnitsky, A

    Urban, F. R., & Zhitnitsky, A. R. 2010b, Nucl. Phys. B, 835, 135, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.04.001

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    2023, Universe, 9, 393, doi: 10.3390/universe9090393

    Vagnozzi, S. 2023, Universe, 9, 393, doi: 10.3390/universe9090393

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    2022, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 36, 27, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2022.07.004

    Vagnozzi, S., Pacucci, F., & Loeb, A. 2022, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 36, 27, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2022.07.004

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    1979, Nucl

    Veneziano, G. 1979, Nucl. Phys. B, 159, 213, doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(79)90332-8

    1979 doi

  21. [29]

    2014, Phys

    Yamamoto, A. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 054510, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.054510

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    Yao, Y., & Zhitnitsky, A. R. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 065018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.065018

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Zeldovich, Y. B. 1967, JETP Lett., 6, 316

    1967

  24. [32]

    Zhitnitsky, A. R. 2013, Annals Phys., 336, 462, doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2013.05.020

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    Zhitnitsky, A. R. 2014, Phys. Rev., D89, 063529, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.063529

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Zhitnitsky, A. R. 2015, Phys. Rev., D92, 043512, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.043512 17

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    Zhitnitsky, A. R. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 103518, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103518

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.