Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Pure momentum-exchange dark sector interactions generically lock the dark energy and dark matter velocities as w approaches -1, shifting matter power-spectrum suppression to smaller scales at a rate k_unlock ~ 1/sqrt(1+w), and invalidating

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 16:47 UTC pith:Z3ZTLKQR

load-bearing objection The w-shift in the suppression scale is likely right, but the paper's stated mechanism is off; the drag coefficient, not the pressure term, drives the 1/√(1+w) scaling. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.11639 v2 pith:Z3ZTLKQR submitted 2025-12-12 astro-ph.CO

Dark sector interactions in the w rightarrow -1 limit: velocity locking in pure momentum exchange models

Nathan Cruickshank , Robert Crittenden , Kazuya Koyama , Marco Bruni This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords interacting dark energypure momentum exchangevelocity lockingmatter power spectrumw = -1 limitdark matter-dark energy scatteringcosmological perturbationsS8 tension
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper shows that pure momentum exchange between dark matter and dark energy has a generic, w-dependent behaviour as the dark energy equation of state approaches -1: the dark energy density perturbation becomes strongly suppressed, so its pressure gradient can no longer compete with the interaction drag, and the two fluid velocities lock together over a wider range of scales. As a result, the onset of matter power spectrum suppression shifts to smaller scales (higher wavenumber k), with the unlocking scale following k_unlock ~ 1/sqrt(1+w). This gives a physical explanation for the weaker constraints on the interaction strength found in the literature when w is close to -1. The paper also shows that the common approximation of setting the dark energy density and velocity perturbations to zero erases this mechanism and overestimates the constraining power of cosmological data.

Core claim

In the w approaches -1 limit, the dark energy Euler equation's pressure-gradient term c_s^2 k^2 delta_DE/(1+w) is suppressed because the dark energy density contrast scales as |delta_DE| ~ (1+w), so the interaction drag Gamma(a)(theta_DE - theta_DM)/(1+w) dominates and keeps the dark energy velocity tracking the dark matter velocity. The momentum drag suppresses dark matter perturbation growth only when the velocities differ, so the suppression of the matter power spectrum is delayed until the pressure gradient finally breaks the lock at k_unlock ~ 1/sqrt(c_s^2(1+w)). This generic mechanism, demonstrated for both the dark scattering and late-time interaction parametrisations, shifts the supp

What carries the argument

The velocity-locking mechanism is the competition between the dark energy pressure-gradient force c_s^2 k^2 delta_DE/(1+w) and the interaction drag Gamma(a)(theta_DE - theta_DM)/(1+w) in the dark energy Euler equation. As w approaches -1, the suppressed |delta_DE| proportional to (1+w) reduces the pressure term, allowing the drag to lock theta_DE to theta_DM over an increasingly broad range of scales; the unlocking scale k_unlock ~ 1/sqrt(c_s^2(1+w)) is the wavenumber at which the two forces balance. This balance governs the scale-dependence of the dark matter velocity drag and hence the onset of matter power suppression.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim relies on the dark energy density perturbation becoming smaller in proportion to (1+w) as w approaches -1; if the velocity-divergence and gravitational-potential source terms keep that perturbation roughly constant instead, the pressure gradient in the dark energy Euler equation no longer vanishes and the k_unlock ~ 1/sqrt(1+w) scaling fails.

What would settle it

Solve the full linearised perturbation equations, retaining the theta_DE and phi' source terms in the dark energy continuity equation, for w = -1+10^-3, -1+10^-5, and -1+10^-7 at fixed coupling. If |delta_DE| does not fall as (1+w) as w approaches -1, or if the ratio of the interacting to the non-interacting matter power spectrum shows a suppression onset whose log-slope with respect to (1+w) differs from -1/2, the velocity-locking mechanism and its scaling are falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • As w approaches -1, the matter power-spectrum suppression in momentum-exchange models moves to smaller scales, so galaxy clustering and weak-lensing surveys see less of the interaction at fixed wavenumber and the coupling becomes harder to constrain.
  • The delta_DE = theta_DE = 0 approximation breaks down near w = -1; it artificially activates the drag at all scales and overestimates the constraining power of CMB and large-scale-structure data on the interaction strength.
  • The unlocking scale depends on c_s^2(1+w), so lowering the dark energy sound speed extends the velocity-locking regime to even higher k and further weakens the observable signal.
  • The mechanism provides a physical explanation, independent of parameter degeneracy, for the weak constraints on dark matter-dark energy momentum exchange reported by recent CMB lensing analyses when w is near -1.
  • In the exact w = -1 limit, pure momentum exchange cannot be sustained without an accompanying background energy transfer, so the velocity-locking picture describes the approach to the vacuum-energy limit but not the limit itself.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the 1/sqrt(1+w) scaling holds, forecasts for cosmological surveys should fit the coupling and w jointly rather than at fixed w: a constraint obtained at one w does not straightforwardly transfer to a neighbouring w because velocity locking moves the observable signal between scales.
  • The same drag-versus-pressure competition should appear in scalar-field momentum-coupling models when the coupling is large and negative and the effective equation of state is driven toward -1; the shift in the power-spectrum transition could then be a universal signature of momentum exchange rather than an artifact of the fluid parametrisation.
  • Because the velocity lock suppresses small-scale dark matter velocities, non-linear structure formation near w = -1 should show weaker small-scale suppression than the delta_DE = theta_DE = 0 approximation predicts; this can be tested in N-body simulations of interacting dark sectors.
  • The w-dependence of the unlocking scale suggests a concrete degeneracy direction between w and the interaction strength: a smaller coupling at w = -0.9 and a larger coupling at w = -0.99 could produce nearly identical power spectra, so external priors on w will shape published constraints.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies pure momentum-exchange interacting dark energy–dark matter models in the limit w→−1. Using two parametrizations (the dark scattering model and the late-time interaction model), the authors integrate the linear perturbation equations with CLASS and show that the scale at which the matter power spectrum is suppressed shifts to higher k as w approaches −1. They interpret this as a velocity-locking mechanism: as w→−1, DE density perturbations are claimed to be suppressed, weakening the pressure-gradient term in the DE Euler equation, and equating the pressure and drag terms yields k_unlock ∝ 1/√(1+w) (and, with a variable sound speed, k_unlock ∝ 1/√(c_s^2(1+w))). They further show that setting δDE=θDE=0 removes this w-dependence and overestimates the interaction's effect for w≈−1.

Significance. The qualitative effect is interesting and timely: it offers a physical explanation for why observational constraints on momentum-exchange couplings weaken as w nears −1 (Laguë et al.; ACT DR6), and it warns against the common δDE=θDE=0 approximation. The paper is commendably concrete: it treats two independent parametrisations, uses a modified CLASS implementation, and includes several diagnostic ratios (δDE/δDM, θDE/θDM, fσ8). If the central scaling k_unlock ∝ 1/√(1+w) survives a rigorous derivation or is confirmed by direct numerical extraction, this would be a useful result for the interacting dark energy literature. However, as it stands the analytic derivation in Sec. 3.1 is heuristic and the scaling is not quantitatively verified, so the main claim is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (2.3)–(2.4)] The derivation of k_unlock ∝ 1/√(1+w) is not closed. The text asserts |δDE| ∝ (1+w) from the ε→0 limit of Eq. (2.3), but this requires neglecting the source terms ε θDE and 3ε φ′, and also the term 9ε(c_s^2−c_a^2)H^2 θDE/k^2, none of which is justified. More importantly, the pressure gradient in Eq. (2.4) is −c_s^2 k^2 δDE/(1+w); if δDE=O(ε), this term is O(k^2), not suppressed. The drag term is ΓR(θDM−θDE) with ΓR ∝ 1/ε for both models, so the 1/ε factors cancel in the balance. The claimed scaling therefore depends on the behaviour of the velocity difference Δθ, which is not analysed. Please provide the explicit balance or an asymptotic solution showing k_unlock ∝ 1/√ε.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Figs. 1, 3, 4] The central scaling is never quantitatively tested. The figures show P(k) ratios for several w values but no measured k_unlock(w); the text simply states the proportionality. Since the numeric code is not publicly available, the reader cannot independently check the claim. I request a direct extraction of the onset scale from the computed spectra and a comparison with the 1/√(1+w) prediction, or a closed-form derivation with numerical support. Without this, the abstract's central claim is supported only qualitatively.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (2.3)] The reduction to δ′DE + 3(c_s^2−w)H δDE ≈ 0 drops the term 9(1+w)(c_s^2−c_a^2)H^2 θDE/k^2, which is scale dependent and becomes large for k≲H. Thus the analysis is only valid in the sub-horizon limit, a regime restriction that is not stated. The claim that the velocity-locking mechanism is a 'generic feature' of these models is therefore premature for large scales; please specify the domain of validity and, if the super-horizon regime differs, reconcile with the low-k behaviour in Figures 1 and 4.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 1.1, Eq. (1.1)] The quantities f, V and δV in Eq. (1.1) are not defined, and the equation appears to have a sign/notation issue. Please clarify.
  2. [References] References [42] and [62], [44] and [63], [47] and [64], and [50] and [65] are duplicated entries of the same works. Please consolidate.
  3. [Figure 6, caption] The caption mentions dotted lines for the continuation of the non-interacting models, but the text and legend only discuss solid and dashed lines. Clarify what the dotted curve represents.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The relation k_unlock ∝ 1/√(c_s^2(1+w)) is presented without derivation. If it is a corollary of the balance argument, it inherits the issues in Sec. 3.1; please mark it as heuristic or provide the same level of derivation as the main scaling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the unlocking-scale scaling is derived from the perturbation equations and checked numerically in CLASS; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central prediction, k_unlock ∝ 1/sqrt(1+w), is obtained by equating the pressure and drag terms in the DE Euler equation (Eq. 2.4) after using the continuity equation's suppression of δDE as w→−1. This is an analytic derivation from the input equations, not a fitted relation: no parameter is adjusted to match the numerical power spectra, and the same shift is shown for two independent interaction parametrisations (dark scattering and late-time interaction). The paper's own CLASS computations (Figures 1, 3, 4) provide external, code-level support, and the claim is therefore self-contained rather than circular. Self-citations appear only in contextual roles: [54] is cited as prior forecast work on time-dependent couplings, and [48,60] are cited as related model implementations; none is invoked as an authority that supplies the central mechanism. The statement |δDE| ∝ (1+w) is asserted rather than fully derived in Sec. 3.1, and the cancellation of the 1/(1+w) factors in Eq. (2.4) would deserve more algebra; however, an incomplete or physically misleading explanation is a correctness/rigor concern, not a case of the prediction being equivalent to its inputs. No fitted input is relabeled as a prediction, no self-citation chain forces the conclusion, and no existing result is merely renamed. Consequently, there is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted constants per se; the free parameters are illustrative choices. The main load-bearing assumption is the δDE ∝ (1+w) suppression and the resulting pressure-drag balance.

free parameters (5)
  • Dark scattering interaction strength A = 15 b/GeV (chosen for illustration)
    Chosen to make suppression visible; not fitted to data. Parameter A = ξ(1+w) is the reparametrized coupling.
  • Late-time interaction rate Γ_LT = 2 H0^3
    Chosen to match the suppression magnitude of the dark scattering model (Sec. 2.1).
  • Interaction turn-on redshift z_i = 10
    Authors state they tested this and it has minimal impact; still a hand-chosen initial condition.
  • DE sound speed c_s^2 = 1 (with 0.1, 0.01 in Fig. 8)
    Fixed to 1 throughout; varies only in the illustrative Fig. 8.
  • Probe values of w = -0.9, -1+10^-3, -1+10^-5, -1+10^-7
    Chosen to demonstrate the limit; the model itself assumes constant w.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The dark-sector fluids are described by the linear perturbation equations (2.1)–(2.4) in conformal Newtonian gauge.
    They adopt the standard fluid approximation for DE and DM and the momentum-transfer interaction terms from [40,41].
  • domain assumption The momentum exchange has the form Γ(a)(θ_DM − θ_DE) with the DS and LT parametrizations.
    This is the model class under study; the paper does not derive it from a Lagrangian.
  • domain assumption The limit w→−1 is probed by constant-w models with w=−1+ε, ε>0, rather than the exactly-−1 constraint equation (1.1).
    The paper explicitly avoids w=−1 where the DE Euler equation breaks down.
  • ad hoc to paper |δDE| ∝ (1+w) in the w→−1 limit, so the pressure-gradient term is suppressed.
    Stated in Sec. 3.1 from the reduced continuity equation; not derived rigorously and central to the k_unlock ∝ 1/√(1+w) scaling.
  • ad hoc to paper Equating the pressure and drag terms in the DE Euler equation determines the unlocking scale.
    Heuristic balance argument; the paper does not provide the full algebra or a quantitative comparison to the numerical spectra.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14128 in / 13775 out tokens · 108741 ms · 2026-08-03T16:47:25.605517+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Models of interacting dark energy (DE) and dark matter (DM) involving pure momentum exchange are a promising avenue for resolving cosmological tensions. However, the behaviour of these interactions in the theoretically challenging limit where the DE equation of state, $w$, approaches $-1$ is not fully understood. We demonstrate that a generic feature of these models is a $w$-dependent velocity-locking mechanism, which systematically shifts the onset of matter power spectrum suppression to smaller scales as $w \rightarrow -1$. The suppression magnitude depends on the difference in fluid velocities. In this limit, however, the interaction's drag dominates over the DE pressure support and causes the DE velocity to track that of the DM fluid at larger scales. This mechanism provides a physical explanation for the weaker constraints found in the literature when $w\approx-1$ in models where the interaction strength does not explicitly depend on $w$. We also demonstrate that the common approximation of neglecting DE perturbations ($\delta_{\mathrm{DE}}=\theta_{\mathrm{DE}}=0$) fails in this limit. By artificially increasing the velocity difference between the fluids, this simplification incorrectly removes the $w$-dependent velocity-locking mechanism and erases the shift in power spectrum suppression to smaller scales. This leads to an overestimation of the constraining power of cosmological data on the interaction strength.

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. Phantom-divide crossing and suppressed structure growth in kinetically braided dark energy with momentum exchange

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A linearly stable kinetic-braiding dark-energy model with CDM momentum exchange realizes upward phantom-divide crossing and weak CDM gravitational clustering, altering matter and CMB spectra.

  2. Revisiting observational constraints on coupled exponential quintessence with energy and momentum transfers: degeneracy with massive neutrinos

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    Allowing the neutrino mass to vary removes the 2σ evidence for momentum transfer between dark energy and dark matter in coupled quintessence, via a degeneracy with the energy-exchange coupling.

  3. Dark matter-baryons elastic coupling

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    A new dark-matter–baryon momentum-transfer interaction suppresses small-scale clustering and is mildly preferred by data when a low-redshift S8 measurement is included.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 53 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Hu and F.-Y

    J.-P. Hu and F.-Y. Wang,Hubble Tension: The Evidence of New Physics,Universe9(2023) 94 [2302.05709]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    E. Abdalla et al.,Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies,JHEAp34(2022) 49 [2203.06142]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Riess et al.,A 2.4% Determination of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant,Astrophys

    A.G. Riess et al.,A 2.4% Determination of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant,Astrophys. J.826(2016) 56 [1604.01424]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Riess et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys

    A.G. Riess et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys. J. Lett.934(2022) L7 [2112.04510]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Stiskalek, H

    R. Stiskalek, H. Desmond, E. Tsaprazi, A. Heavens, G. Lavaux, S. McAlpine et al.,1.8 per cent measurement ofH 0 from Cepheids alone,2509.09665. [6]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [7]

    Hildebrandt et al.,KiDS+VIKING-450: Cosmic shear tomography with optical and infrared data,Astron

    H. Hildebrandt et al.,KiDS+VIKING-450: Cosmic shear tomography with optical and infrared data,Astron. Astrophys.633(2020) A69 [1812.06076]. [8]KiDScollaboration,KiDS-1000 Cosmology: Cosmic shear constraints and comparison between two point statistics,Astron. Astrophys.645(2021) A104 [2007.15633]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [9]

    Di Valentino et al.,Cosmology Intertwined III:f σ8 andS 8,Astropart

    E. Di Valentino et al.,Cosmology Intertwined III:f σ8 andS 8,Astropart. Phys.131(2021) 102604 [2008.11285]. [10]DEScollaboration,Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 023520 [2105.13549]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [11]

    Wright et al.,KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo-Degree Survey,Astron

    A.H. Wright et al.,KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo-Degree Survey,Astron. Astrophys.703(2025) A158 [2503.19441]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [12]

    Stölzner et al.,KiDS-Legacy: Consistency of cosmic shear measurements and joint cosmological constraints with external probes,Astron

    B. Stölzner et al.,KiDS-Legacy: Consistency of cosmic shear measurements and joint cosmological constraints with external probes,Astron. Astrophys.702(2025) A169 [2503.19442]. [13]CosmoVerse Networkcollaboration,The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics,Phys. Dark Univ.49(2025) 1019...

    arXiv 2025

  10. [14]

    Salvatelli, N

    V. Salvatelli, N. Said, M. Bruni, A. Melchiorri and D. Wands,Indications of a late-time interaction in the dark sector,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 181301 [1406.7297]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [15]

    Bolotin, A

    Y.L. Bolotin, A. Kostenko, O.A. Lemets and D.A. Yerokhin,Cosmological Evolution With Interaction Between Dark Energy And Dark Matter,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24(2014) 1530007 [1310.0085]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  12. [16]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela and D. Pavon,Dark Matter and Dark Energy Interactions: Theoretical Challenges, Cosmological Implications and Observational Signatures, Rept. Prog. Phys.79(2016) 096901 [1603.08299]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [17]

    Tamanini,Phenomenological models of dark energy interacting with dark matter,Phys

    N. Tamanini,Phenomenological models of dark energy interacting with dark matter,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 043524 [1504.07397]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [19]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri and O. Mena,Can interacting dark energy solve theH0 tension?,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 043503 [1704.08342]. – 13 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [20]

    S. Pan, W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, E.N. Saridakis and S. Chakraborty,Interacting scenarios with dynamical dark energy: Observational constraints and alleviation of theH0 tension,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 103520 [1907.07540]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [21]

    S. Pan, W. Yang and A. Paliathanasis,Non-linear interacting cosmological models after Planck 2018 legacy release and theH0 tension,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493(2020) 3114 [2002.03408]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [22]

    Pan, G.S

    S. Pan, G.S. Sharov and W. Yang,Field theoretic interpretations of interacting dark energy scenarios and recent observations,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 103533 [2001.03120]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [23]

    Amendola and S

    L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa,Scaling solutions and weak gravity in dark energy with energy and momentum couplings,JCAP06(2020) 020 [2003.02686]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [24]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena and S. Vagnozzi,Nonminimal dark sector physics and cosmological tensions,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 063502 [1910.09853]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [25]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena and S. Vagnozzi,Interacting dark energy in the early 2020s: A promising solution to theH0 and cosmic shear tensions,Phys. Dark Univ.30(2020) 100666 [1908.04281]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [26]

    Khoury, M.-X

    J. Khoury, M.-X. Lin and M. Trodden,Apparent w<-1 and a Lower S8 from Dark Axion and Dark Baryons Interactions,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 181001 [2503.16415]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [27]

    Wands, J

    D. Wands, J. De-Santiago and Y. Wang,Inhomogeneous vacuum energy,Class. Quant. Grav. 29(2012) 145017 [1203.6776]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  23. [28]

    Martinelli, N.B

    M. Martinelli, N.B. Hogg, S. Peirone, M. Bruni and D. Wands,Constraints on the interacting vacuum–geodesic CDM scenario,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.488(2019) 3423 [1902.10694]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [29]

    N.B. Hogg, M. Bruni, R. Crittenden, M. Martinelli and S. Peirone,Latest evidence for a late time vacuum–geodesic CDM interaction,Phys. Dark Univ.29(2020) 100583 [2002.10449]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [30]

    Sebastianutti, N.B

    M. Sebastianutti, N.B. Hogg and M. Bruni,The interacting vacuum and tensions: A comparison of theoretical models,Phys. Dark Univ.46(2024) 101546 [2312.14123]. [31]DESIcollaboration,DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 083515 [2503.14738]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [32]

    Valiviita, E

    J. Valiviita, E. Majerotto and R. Maartens,Instability in interacting dark energy and dark matter fluids,JCAP07(2008) 020 [0804.0232]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  27. [33]

    Jackson, A

    B.M. Jackson, A. Taylor and A. Berera,On the large-scale instability in interacting dark energy and dark matter fluids,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 043526 [0901.3272]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  28. [34]

    Dent and S

    J.B. Dent and S. Dutta,On the dangers of using the growth equation on large scales,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 063516 [0808.2689]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  29. [35]

    Bruni, R

    M. Bruni, R. Crittenden, K. Koyama, R. Maartens, C. Pitrou and D. Wands,Disentangling non-Gaussianity, bias and GR effects in the galaxy distribution,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 041301 [1106.3999]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  30. [36]

    Ma and E

    C.-P. Ma and E. Bertschinger,Cosmological perturbation theory in the synchronous and conformal Newtonian gauges,Astrophys. J.455(1995) 7 [astro-ph/9506072]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  31. [37]

    Pourtsidou, C

    A. Pourtsidou, C. Skordis and E.J. Copeland,Models of dark matter coupled to dark energy, Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 083505 [1307.0458]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [38]

    Skordis, A

    C. Skordis, A. Pourtsidou and E.J. Copeland,Parametrized post-Friedmannian framework for interacting dark energy theories,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 083537 [1502.07297]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  33. [39]

    Palma and G.N

    D. Palma and G.N. Candlish,Cosmological simulations of a momentum coupling between dark matter and quintessence,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.526(2023) 1904 [2309.04530]. – 14 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [40]

    Simpson,Scattering of dark matter and dark energy,Phys

    F. Simpson,Scattering of dark matter and dark energy,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 083505 [1007.1034]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  35. [41]

    Asghari, J

    M. Asghari, J. Beltrán Jiménez, S. Khosravi and D.F. Mota,On structure formation from a small-scales-interacting dark sector,JCAP04(2019) 042 [1902.05532]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [42]

    Baldi and F

    M. Baldi and F. Simpson,Structure formation simulations with momentum exchange: alleviating tensions between high-redshift and low-redshift cosmological probes,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.465(2017) 653 [1605.05623]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [43]

    Kumar and R.C

    S. Kumar and R.C. Nunes,Observational constraints on dark matter–dark energy scattering cross section,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 734 [1709.02384]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [45]

    Asghari, S

    M. Asghari, S. Khosravi and A. Mollazadeh,Perturbation level interacting dark energy model and its consequence on late-time cosmological parameters,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 043503 [2002.03897]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [48]

    Linton, R

    M.S. Linton, R. Crittenden and A. Pourtsidou,Momentum transfer models of interacting dark energy,JCAP08(2022) 075 [2107.03235]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [49]

    Poulin, J.L

    V. Poulin, J.L. Bernal, E.D. Kovetz and M. Kamionkowski,Sigma-8 tension is a drag,Physical Review D107(2023)

    2023

  41. [52]

    Carrion, A

    K. Carrion, A. Spurio Mancini, D. Piras and J.C. Hidalgo,Testing interacting dark energy with Stage IV cosmic shear surveys through differentiable neural emulators,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.539(2025) 3220 [2410.10603]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [53]

    Tsedrik, C

    M. Tsedrik, C. Moretti, P. Carrilho, F. Rizzo and A. Pourtsidou,Interacting dark energy from the joint analysis of the power spectrum and bispectrum multipoles with the EFTofLSS,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.520(2023) 2611 [2207.13011]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [54]

    Cruickshank, R

    N. Cruickshank, R. Crittenden, K. Koyama and M. Bruni,Forecasts for interacting dark energy with time-dependent momentum exchange,JCAP10(2025) 052 [2504.03555]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [55]

    Beltrán Jiménez, D

    J. Beltrán Jiménez, D. Bettoni, D. Figueruelo, F.A. Teppa Pannia and S. Tsujikawa,Probing elastic interactions in the dark sector and the role of S8,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 103503 [2106.11222]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [56]

    Figueruelo et al.,J-PAS: Forecasts for dark matter - dark energy elastic couplings,JCAP07 (2021) 022 [2103.01571]

    D. Figueruelo et al.,J-PAS: Forecasts for dark matter - dark energy elastic couplings,JCAP07 (2021) 022 [2103.01571]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [57]

    Beltrán Jiménez, E

    J. Beltrán Jiménez, E. Di Dio and D. Figueruelo,A smoking gun from the power spectrum dipole for elastic interactions in the dark sector,JCAP11(2023) 088 [2212.08617]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [58]

    Poulin, J.L

    V. Poulin, J.L. Bernal, E.D. Kovetz and M. Kamionkowski,Sigma-8 tension is a drag,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 123538 [2209.06217]. – 15 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [59]

    Beltrán Jiménez, D

    J. Beltrán Jiménez, D. Figueruelo and F.A. Teppa Pannia,Nondegeneracy of massive neutrinos and elastic interactions in the dark sector,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 023527 [2403.03216]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [60]

    Laguë, F

    A. Laguë, F. McCarthy, M. Madhavacheril, J.C. Hill and F.J. Qu,Constraints on dark matter-dark energy scattering from ACT DR6 CMB lensing measurements,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 023536 [2402.08149]. [61]Atacama Cosmology Telescopecollaboration,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 constraints on extended cosmological models,JCAP11(2025) 063 [2503.14454]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [62]

    Baldi and F

    M. Baldi and F. Simpson,Simulating Momentum Exchange in the Dark Sector,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.449(2015) 2239 [1412.1080]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  51. [63]

    B. Bose, M. Baldi and A. Pourtsidou,Modelling Non-Linear Effects of Dark Energy,JCAP04 (2018) 032 [1711.10976]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [64]

    Carrilho, C

    P. Carrilho, C. Moretti, B. Bose, K. Markovič and A. Pourtsidou,Interacting dark energy from redshift-space galaxy clustering,JCAP10(2021) 004 [2106.13163]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [65]

    Carrilho, C

    P. Carrilho, C. Moretti and A. Pourtsidou,Cosmology with the EFTofLSS and BOSS: dark energy constraints and a note on priors,JCAP01(2023) 028 [2207.14784]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [66]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram,The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes,JCAP07(2011) 034 [1104.2933]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  55. [67]

    Beltrán Jiménez, D

    J. Beltrán Jiménez, D. Bettoni, D. Figueruelo, F.A. Teppa Pannia and S. Tsujikawa, Velocity-dependent interacting dark energy and dark matter with a Lagrangian description of perfect fluids,JCAP03(2021) 085 [2012.12204]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [68]

    Chamings, A

    F.N. Chamings, A. Avgoustidis, E.J. Copeland, A.M. Green and A. Pourtsidou,Understanding the suppression of structure formation from dark matter-dark energy momentum coupling, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 043531 [1912.09858]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  57. [69]

    Pourtsidou and T

    A. Pourtsidou and T. Tram,Reconciling CMB and structure growth measurements with dark energy interactions,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 043518 [1604.04222]. – 16 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016