pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2602.03110 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc· hep-ph· hep-th

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Evidence for deviation in gravitational light deflection from general relativity at cosmological scales with KiDS-Legacy and CMB lensing

Guo-Hong Du , Tian-Nuo Li , Tonghua Liu , Jing-Fei Zhang , Xin Zhang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 08:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords modified gravityweak lensingCMB lensingKiDS surveygeneral relativity testscosmological scaleslight deflectionmu-Sigma parameterization
0
0 comments X

The pith

KiDS-Legacy weak lensing combined with CMB data shows a 3-sigma deviation in gravitational light deflection from general relativity.

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

The paper tests general relativity at cosmological scales by fitting a two-parameter modified gravity model to weak lensing data from the KiDS-Legacy survey together with CMB lensing, baryon acoustic oscillations, and supernovae. One parameter tracks modifications to matter clustering while the second tracks modifications to light deflection. In a standard Lambda-CDM background the clustering parameter remains consistent with GR expectations, yet the light-deflection parameter reaches 0.149 plus or minus 0.051 and departs from the GR value of zero at 3.0 sigma. The same offset appears at 2.2 sigma when a more flexible dark-energy equation of state is allowed, and the authors trace the signal to excess power in the large-scale CMB lensing measurements. A clean separation between clustering and deflection therefore emerges as a concrete observational clue that either new physics or residual systematics must be present in the combined dataset.

Core claim

In the Lambda-CDM background the analysis yields mu0 = 0.21 plus or minus 0.21, consistent with GR, while Sigma0 = 0.149 plus or minus 0.051 deviates from the GR value of zero at the 3.0-sigma level; the deviation survives at 2.2 sigma inside the observationally preferred w0waCDM background and is attributed to higher amplitudes in the large-scale CMB lensing data.

What carries the argument

The mu-Sigma modified-gravity parameterization, in which mu modifies the Poisson equation governing matter clustering and Sigma modifies the lensing potential governing light deflection.

If this is right

  • KiDS-Legacy improves the precision on mu0 by roughly 60 percent and on Sigma0 by roughly 43 percent relative to CMB data alone.
  • The deviation in light deflection persists when the background is allowed to include dynamical dark energy.
  • High-precision weak-lensing and CMB-lensing data must be combined to isolate potential differences between matter clustering and photon trajectories.
  • Any confirmed separation between the two sectors supplies a direct observational target for new physics or for improved control of large-scale systematics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the offset is not a systematic artifact, gravity may alter photon paths at large scales without altering the clustering of matter in the same way.
  • Independent lensing surveys at comparable depth and sky coverage could test whether the excess large-scale signal is reproducible.
  • Extending the same analysis to other modified-gravity parameterizations would check whether the reported separation is an artifact of the mu-Sigma choice.

Load-bearing premise

The mu-Sigma parameterization captures every relevant deviation from GR and that unaccounted systematics in the KiDS-Legacy or large-scale CMB lensing data do not produce the reported Sigma0 offset.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the Planck-ACT-SPT large-scale CMB lensing maps that lowers their amplitude to the level predicted by GR would eliminate the 3-sigma offset in Sigma0.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.03110 by Guo-Hong Du, Jing-Fei Zhang, Tian-Nuo Li, Tonghua Liu, Xin Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Whisker plots for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The CMB lensing potential power spectrum (upper panel) and fractional residuals relative to the best-fit ΛCDM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

General relativity (GR) faces challenges from cosmic acceleration and observational tensions, necessitating stringent tests at cosmological scales. In this work, we probe GR deviations via a $\mu$--$\Sigma$ modified gravity parameterization, integrating KiDS-Legacy weak lensing (WL) data (1347 deg$^2$, $z\leq 2.0$), joint cosmic microwave background (CMB) data from Planck, ACT, and SPT, DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation, and DES-Dovekie supernova data. KiDS-Legacy significantly improves constraint precision: $\mu_0$ (matter clustering) by $\sim 60\%$ and $\Sigma_0$ (gravitational light deflection) by $\sim 43\%$ relative to CMB alone. In the $\Lambda$CDM background, $\mu_0 = 0.21\pm 0.21$ is consistent with GR, while $\Sigma_0 = 0.149\pm 0.051$ deviates from GR at the 3.0$\sigma$ level. Furthermore, within the observationally preferred $w_0w_a$CDM background, this deviation in gravitational light deflection persists at the 2.2$\sigma$ level. This deviation is likely driven by the higher amplitudes in the large-scale CMB lensing measurements. This precise separation of GR-consistent matter clustering and deviant light deflection provides key observational clues for new physics or data systematics. Our work underscores the critical role of synergizing high-precision CMB and WL data in advancing GR tests.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript constrains modified gravity via the μ–Σ parameterization using KiDS-Legacy weak lensing (1347 deg²), CMB lensing from Planck/ACT/SPT, DESI DR2 BAO, and DES-Dovekie supernovae. In a ΛCDM background, μ₀ = 0.21 ± 0.21 is consistent with GR while Σ₀ = 0.149 ± 0.051 deviates at 3.0σ; the deviation persists at 2.2σ in w₀wₐCDM and is driven by higher large-scale CMB lensing amplitudes. KiDS-Legacy improves precision on μ₀ by ~60% and Σ₀ by ~43% relative to CMB alone.

Significance. If the Σ₀ offset holds after systematic checks, the result would be significant because it cleanly separates GR-consistent clustering (μ) from deviant light deflection (Σ) at cosmological scales using public datasets. The precision gains from KiDS-Legacy and the explicit background-dependence test are strengths. However, the drop from 3.0σ to 2.2σ when the background is relaxed and the attribution to large-scale lensing without dedicated nuisance parameters limit the robustness of the central claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and results section] Abstract and results section: the quoted 3.0σ deviation in Σ₀ is specific to the ΛCDM background; the abstract itself notes the significance falls to 2.2σ in w₀wₐCDM. This background sensitivity is load-bearing for the claim of a GR deviation and requires explicit robustness tests (e.g., additional nuisance parameters or alternative expansion histories) before the result can be interpreted as evidence for new physics.
  2. [CMB lensing modeling section (likely §3–4)] CMB lensing modeling section (likely §3–4): the deviation is stated to be driven by higher amplitudes at large scales in the Planck/ACT/SPT lensing data, yet no additional nuisance parameters are introduced for possible reconstruction biases at low multipoles (L < 100). Because the μ–Σ model is assumed scale-independent, the absence of these terms directly affects whether the Σ₀ offset can be attributed to GR violation rather than unmodeled systematics.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions and posterior plots: explicitly mark the GR point (μ₀ = 0, Σ₀ = 0) on all contour plots to aid visual assessment of the offset.
  2. [Methods] Methods: the precise functional form tying the time dependence of μ(a) and Σ(a) to Ω_Λ(a) should be written out explicitly (e.g., as an equation) rather than referenced only in passing.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. Their comments have prompted us to strengthen the robustness checks in the analysis. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will implement.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and results section] Abstract and results section: the quoted 3.0σ deviation in Σ₀ is specific to the ΛCDM background; the abstract itself notes the significance falls to 2.2σ in w₀wₐCDM. This background sensitivity is load-bearing for the claim of a GR deviation and requires explicit robustness tests (e.g., additional nuisance parameters or alternative expansion histories) before the result can be interpreted as evidence for new physics.

    Authors: We thank the referee for emphasizing the background dependence. The abstract already reports both the 3.0σ result in ΛCDM and the 2.2σ persistence in w₀wₐCDM. To further address this, the revised manuscript will include additional explicit robustness tests: we will introduce extra nuisance parameters for the dark energy equation-of-state evolution and test an alternative early-dark-energy expansion history. These will quantify how sensitive the Σ₀ deviation remains under broader background assumptions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [CMB lensing modeling section (likely §3–4)] CMB lensing modeling section (likely §3–4): the deviation is stated to be driven by higher amplitudes at large scales in the Planck/ACT/SPT lensing data, yet no additional nuisance parameters are introduced for possible reconstruction biases at low multipoles (L < 100). Because the μ–Σ model is assumed scale-independent, the absence of these terms directly affects whether the Σ₀ offset can be attributed to GR violation rather than unmodeled systematics.

    Authors: We agree that the scale-independent μ–Σ parameterization makes the result sensitive to any unmodeled low-L biases in the CMB lensing reconstruction. The current analysis employs the public Planck/ACT/SPT likelihoods without extra low-multipole nuisance terms. In the revised manuscript we will introduce a single nuisance parameter that marginalizes over a possible amplitude shift at L < 100 and will report the updated posterior on Σ₀. This will directly test whether the deviation survives such a systematic allowance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard parameter estimation from external data

full rationale

The paper performs a Bayesian parameter fit of the μ–Σ modified-gravity parameters to independent external datasets (KiDS-Legacy WL, Planck/ACT/SPT CMB lensing, DESI BAO, DES supernovae). The reported Σ0 = 0.149 ± 0.051 (3.0σ from zero in ΛCDM) is the direct posterior result of that likelihood analysis, not a quantity obtained by algebraic reduction to the inputs or by renaming a fitted quantity as a prediction. No self-definitional steps, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatz smuggling are present in the described methodology. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The result rests on fitting two free parameters inside a standard modified-gravity parameterization to combined cosmological data; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • μ0 = 0.21±0.21
    Fitted amplitude of matter-clustering deviation from GR
  • Σ0 = 0.149±0.051
    Fitted amplitude of light-deflection deviation from GR; central to the reported tension
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The μ–Σ parameterization fully describes linear-regime deviations from GR
    Invoked when mapping data to constraints on μ0 and Σ0
  • domain assumption Background expansion is either ΛCDM or w0waCDM
    Used to quote separate results for each background

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5607 in / 1458 out tokens · 35086 ms · 2026-05-16T08:15:10.404075+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Measuring neutrino mass in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    New ACT and DESI data yield model-dependent upper limits on sum of neutrino masses, with holographic dark energy giving the tightest bounds and a consistent preference for degenerate hierarchy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

144 extracted references · 144 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 40 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Einstein, Sitzungsber

    A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. )1915, 844 (1915)

    work page 1915

  2. [2]

    Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations

    E. Bertiet al., Class. Quant. Grav.32, 243001 (2015), arXiv:1501.07274 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel.17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    A. G. Riesset al.(Supernova Search Team), Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae

    S. Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), As- trophys. J.517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989)

    work page 1989

  7. [7]

    The Case for a Positive Cosmological Lambda-term

    V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 9, 373 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9904398

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  8. [8]

    S. M. Carroll, Living Rev. Rel.4, 1 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0004075

    work page arXiv 2001

  9. [9]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 559 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207347

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  10. [10]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Di Valentinoet al., Astropart

    E. Di Valentinoet al., Astropart. Phys.131, 102604 (2021), arXiv:2008.11285 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Di Valentinoet al., Astropart

    E. Di Valentinoet al., Astropart. Phys.131, 102605 (2021), arXiv:2008.11284 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    In the Realm of the Hubble tension $-$ a Review of Solutions

    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]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Di Valentino, Universe8, 399 (2022)

    E. Di Valentino, Universe8, 399 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astron.3, 891 (2019), arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    A. G. Riess, Nature Rev. Phys.2, 10 (2019), arXiv:2001.03624 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Giar` e, (2023), 10.1007/978-981-99-0177-7 36, arXiv:2305.16919 [astro-ph.CO]

    W. Giar` e, (2023), 10.1007/978-981-99-0177-7 36, arXiv:2305.16919 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-99-0177-7 2023

  19. [19]

    Can the $H_0$ tension be resolved in extensions to $\Lambda$CDM cosmology?

    R.-Y. Guo, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP02, 054 (2019), arXiv:1809.02340 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Vagnozzi, Phys

    S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D102, 023518 (2020), arXiv:1907.07569 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Song, L.-F

    J.-Y. Song, L.-F. Wang, Y. Li, Z.-W. Zhao, J.-F. Zhang, W. Zhao, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 230411 (2024), arXiv:2212.00531 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Vagnozzi, Universe9, 393 (2023), arXiv:2308.16628 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Vagnozzi, Universe9, 393 (2023), arXiv:2308.16628 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Zhang, Y.-F

    J.-G. Zhang, Y.-F. Jiang, Z.-W. Zhao, J.-Z. Qi, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68, 280406 (2025), arXiv:2411.03126 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Vagnozzi, Phys

    S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D104, 063524 (2021), arXiv:2105.10425 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Gao, Z.-W

    L.-Y. Gao, Z.-W. Zhao, S.-S. Xue, and X. Zhang, JCAP 07, 005 (2021), arXiv:2101.10714 [astro-ph.CO]. 11

    work page arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Jin, Y.-Z

    S.-J. Jin, Y.-Z. Zhang, J.-Y. Song, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67, 220412 (2024), arXiv:2305.19714 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Modified Gravity and Cosmology

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Sko- rdis, Phys. Rept.513, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.2476 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    Cosmological Tests of Modified Gravity

    K. Koyama, Rept. Prog. Phys.79, 046902 (2016), arXiv:1504.04623 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Ishak, Living Rev

    M. Ishak, Living Rev. Rel.22, 1 (2019), arXiv:1806.10122 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    S. M. Carroll, V. Duvvuri, M. Trodden, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D70, 043528 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0306438

    work page arXiv 2004

  31. [31]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. Carloni, and A. Troisi, Recent Res. Dev. Astron. Astrophys.1, 625 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0303041

    work page arXiv 2003

  32. [32]

    Models of f(R) Cosmic Acceleration that Evade Solar-System Tests

    W. Hu and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D76, 064004 (2007), arXiv:0705.1158 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  33. [33]

    G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B484, 112 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0002190

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  34. [34]

    Probing $f(R)$ cosmology with sterile neutrinos via measurements of scale-dependent growth rate of structure

    Y.-H. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 744, 213 (2015), arXiv:1502.01136 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  35. [35]

    Dark Energy and Modified Gravity in Degenerate Higher-Order Scalar-Tensor (DHOST) theories: a review

    D. Langlois, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D28, 1942006 (2019), arXiv:1811.06271 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Alamet al., JCAP11, 050 (2021), arXiv:2011.05771 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Alamet al., JCAP11, 050 (2021), arXiv:2011.05771 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Lemoset al.(DES), Mon

    P. Lemoset al.(DES), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 505, 6179 (2021), arXiv:2012.09554 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D72, 043529 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0507263

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  39. [39]

    Muiret al.(DES), Phys

    J. Muiret al.(DES), Phys. Rev. D103, 023528 (2021), arXiv:2010.05924 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Probing Cosmic Acceleration Beyond the Equation of State: Distinguishing between Dark Energy and Modified Gravity Models

    M. Ishak, A. Upadhye, and D. N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. D74, 043513 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0507184

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  41. [41]

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration

    B. Popovicet al.(DES), (2025), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics

    E. Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101965 (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Li, P.-J

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, S.-J. Jin, H.-L. Li, J.- F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Astrophys. J.976, 1 (2024), arXiv:2407.14934 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Du, P.-J

    G.-H. Du, P.-J. Wu, T.-N. Li, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 392 (2025), arXiv:2407.15640 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Roy Choudhury and T

    S. Roy Choudhury and T. Okumura, Astrophys. J. Lett. 976, L11 (2024), arXiv:2409.13022 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Pedrotti, L

    D. Pedrotti, L. A. Escamilla, V. Marra, L. Perivolaropoulos, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D113, 043507 (2026), arXiv:2510.01974 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    Jiang, W

    J.-Q. Jiang, W. Giar` e, S. Gariazzo, M. G. Dain- otti, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, JCAP01, 153 (2025), arXiv:2407.18047 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Jiang, D

    J.-Q. Jiang, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D110, 123519 (2024), arXiv:2408.02365 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    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]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 251003 (2024), arXiv:2404.15232 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, JCAP10, 035 (2024), arXiv:2407.16689 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Giar` e, Phys

    W. Giar` e, Phys. Rev. D112, 023508 (2025), arXiv:2409.17074 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Giar` e, T

    W. Giar` e, T. Mahassen, E. Di Valentino, and S. Pan, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101906 (2025), arXiv:2502.10264 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M. G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pouro- jaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and D. Stojkovic, JHEAp 49, 100428 (2026), arXiv:2404.08633 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    E. ´O. Colg´ ain, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and L. Yin, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102268 (2026), arXiv:2504.04417 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    Fazzari, W

    E. Fazzari, W. Giar` e, and E. Di Valentino, Astro- phys. J. Lett.996, L5 (2026), arXiv:2509.16196 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    Li, Y.-H

    T.-N. Li, Y.-H. Li, G.-H. Du, P.-J. Wu, L. Feng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 608 (2025), arXiv:2411.08639 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Li, G.-H

    T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, P.-J. Wu, S.-J. Jin, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 69, 210413 (2026), arXiv:2501.07361 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Joint Constraints on Neutrinos and Dynamical Dark Energy in Minimally Modified Gravity

    A. Ladeira, R. C. Nunes, S. Pan, and W. Yang, Phys. Rev. D113, 083503 (2026), arXiv:2601.02077 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    Cheng, S

    H. Cheng, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, Astrophys. J. 999, 190 (2026), arXiv:2512.09866 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    W. Yang, S. Zhang, O. Mena, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, (2025), arXiv:2508.19109 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    S. Pan, S. Paul, E. N. Saridakis, and W. Yang, Phys. Rev. D113, 023515 (2026), arXiv:2504.00994 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    Du, T.-N

    G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, L. Feng, S.-H. Zhou, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 110 (2026), arXiv:2501.10785 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    Li, Y.-M

    T.-N. Li, Y.-M. Zhang, Y.-H. Yao, G.-H. Du, P.-J. Wu, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP12, 048 (2025), arXiv:2506.09819 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Li, P.-J

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Yao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102068 (2025), arXiv:2507.07798 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Resolving the Planck-DESI tension by nonminimally coupled quintessence

    J.-Q. Wang, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, and S.-J. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2508.01759 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Huang, R.-G

    L. Huang, R.-G. Cai, and S.-J. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 100413 (2025), arXiv:2502.04212 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Wang and Y.-S

    H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, (2026), arXiv:2601.06656 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    Wang and Y.-S

    H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Lett. B873, 140180 (2026), arXiv:2404.18579 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  71. [71]

    Li and S

    J.-X. Li and S. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1308 (2025), arXiv:2506.22953 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    Y.-H. Pang, X. Zhang, and Q.-G. Huang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 280410 (2025), arXiv:2503.21600 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    Yao and J.-Q

    Y.-H. Yao and J.-Q. Liu, Phys. Dark Univ.49, 102052 (2025), arXiv:2507.00478 [astro-ph.CO]. 12

    work page arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    P.-J. Wu, M. Zhang, and S.-J. Jin, (2025), 10.1103/zg3k-k6g1, arXiv:2512.05548 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1103/zg3k-k6g1 2025

  76. [76]

    Examining a new form of non-standard dark matter using DESI DR2 data

    Y.-H. Yao, Y.-H. Shen, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, and Y. Gong, (2025), arXiv:2510.13436 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 081001 (2025), arXiv:2504.07679 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, Phys. Rev. D113, 023551 (2026), arXiv:2509.17586 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    C. Li, X. Ren, Y. Yang, E. N. Saridakis, and Y.-F. Cai, (2025), arXiv:2512.16551 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    Song, G.-H

    J.-Y. Song, G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, L.-F. Wang, J.-Z. Qi, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.69, 240413 (2026), arXiv:2511.12017 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.