Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 5 cited by

The paper argues that a free neutrino mass spoils the detection of momentum transfer between dark energy and dark matter in coupled quintessence, via a new degeneracy with energy exchange.

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

2026-08-02 18:04 UTC pith:OCIVKZJX

load-bearing objection New claim—freeing m_nu erases the beta detection via an m_nu–Q degeneracy—is plausible but rests on the SZ S8 choice and an untested log-beta prior; deserves review, not acceptance as-is. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.15805 v1 pith:OCIVKZJX submitted 2026-03-16 astro-ph.CO

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

Jose Beltr\'an Jim\'enez , Kiyotomo Ichiki , Xiaolin Liu , Florencia Anabella Teppa Pannia , Shinji Tsujikawa This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords coupled quintessencemomentum transferenergy exchangemassive neutrinosS8 tensiondark sector interactionscosmological constraintsMCMC analysis
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.

Dark energy and dark matter may exchange both energy and momentum. Previous analyses of a quintessence model with an exponential potential reported a 2σ hint of a nonzero momentum-transfer coupling once low-redshift clustering data (S8) were included. This paper argues that the hint is fragile: when the neutrino mass is allowed to vary, the momentum-transfer detection degrades and β = 0 re-enters the 2σ region. The culprit is not a direct neutrino–momentum degeneracy but a new correlation between the neutrino mass and the energy-exchange coupling Q. The conclusion is that any detection of dark-sector interactions must be reassessed model by model, with massive neutrinos included.

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the coupled quintessence model with both energy and momentum transfer (parameters Q and β), the previously reported detection of a nonzero momentum transfer is not robust once the neutrino mass is treated as a free parameter. Using Planck 2018 CMB, Pantheon+ SNe, SDSS DR12 BAO, and the Planck SZ 2013 S8 measurement, the authors find β ≠ 0 at about 2σ when mν is fixed at 0.06 eV, but β = 0 re-enters the 2σ region when mν is free. The degradation is driven by a degeneracy that opens between mν and Q: in the posterior, the tail toward β ≈ 0 comes with non-vanishing Q, while on the Q = 0 slice the β detection closes again at 2σ. The authors also correct a previous a

What carries the argument

The key object is the coupled quintessence action (2.1), in which a scalar field ϕ with exponential potential V0 e^{-λϕ/MPl} interacts with cold dark matter through an energy-exchange coupling Q (the factor e^{Qϕ/MPl} in the action) and a momentum-exchange coupling β (the β Z² term, with Z = ∂_μϕ u^μ_c). The momentum transfer generates an effective pressure on CDM that suppresses structure growth, mimicking massive neutrinos, while the energy transfer alters the background expansion and, crucially, becomes degenerate with the neutrino mass. The statistical machinery is a modified CAMB Boltzmann code embedded in the COBAYA MCMC sampler, with S8 added as a Gaussian likelihood. The central diag

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central result hinges on adopting the Planck SZ 2013 measurement S8 = 0.782 ± 0.010 as a Gaussian likelihood with that exact uncertainty; if that value or its quoted error is not representative, the momentum-transfer detection—and its degradation by a free neutrino mass—does not arise.

What would settle it

A future high-precision S8 measurement (e.g., DES-Y6 or CMB lensing) with central value near the Planck CMB prediction (S8 ≈ 0.81) would remove the low-redshift clustering deficit that drives the β detection; if β is still detected at >2σ with a free neutrino mass under that data, the paper's degeneracy-driven degradation claim is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • Any future detection of dark-sector momentum transfer in a model with energy exchange must include a free neutrino mass; otherwise the significance is likely overstated.
  • The S8 tension cannot simultaneously be used to claim momentum transfer and to infer neutrino mass without disentangling the mν–Q degeneracy.
  • Previous robustness results for pure momentum-transfer models do not transfer to models with energy exchange; each interacting scenario needs its own analysis.
  • The β detection depends on the choice of S8 measurement (Planck SZ vs DES-Y3), raising caution for interpreting low-redshift clustering hints as new physics.
  • A laboratory measurement of the neutrino mass would break this degeneracy and provide a cleaner test of the interaction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's logic implies that a future, more precise S8 measurement with a mean near the Planck CMB prediction would weaken the β detection regardless of neutrino mass, potentially resolving the tension without dark-sector interactions.
  • A natural extension is to combine scale-dependent probes (redshift-space distortions, cluster counts) that distinguish the different scale signatures of neutrino free-streaming and momentum transfer; these could break the degeneracy and sharpen the test.
  • The exposed sampling error in the earlier detection suggests that other published dark-sector hints should be audited for similar artifacts before being interpreted physically.

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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper performs MCMC fits of a coupled quintessence model with both energy transfer (Q) and momentum transfer (β), using Planck 2018 CMB, BAO (SDSS DR12 or DESI DR2), SNe (Pantheon+ or DES-Y5), and S8 likelihoods (Planck SZ 2013 or DES-Y3). It revisits earlier claims by [55], reports that a β detection appears only when the Planck SZ S8 value is included, and then studies the effect of allowing a varying neutrino mass mν. The central result is that adding mν degrades the β detection, and the authors attribute this to a new degeneracy between mν and the energy-transfer coupling Q rather than to mν alone. The paper also claims to identify a sampling error in [55] and reports AIC comparisons with ΛCDM.

Significance. If the main claim holds, the paper is significant: it demonstrates that the robustness of momentum-transfer detections to massive neutrinos is model-dependent, and it highlights a previously unnoticed mν–Q degeneracy in a well-motivated interacting dark-energy model. The analysis has genuine strengths: two independent MCMC implementations (Cobaya and CosmoMC) show agreement, convergence is checked with the Gelman-Rubin criterion, and the dataset combinations are updated and clearly described. The paper is also transparent about the S8 dependence and about the need to reassess each interacting scenario. However, the central detection and its degradation rest on a specific S8 measurement and on a log-flat prior for β, and the proposed mν–Q mechanism is inferred from a conditional slice of the posterior rather than from a dedicated fit. These issues need to be resolved before the main claim can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (3.1); Sec. III.D, Fig. 6] The central claim that mν degrades the β detection rests on the posterior developing a flat tail to the lower boundary log10 β = -3. With a flat prior on log10 β, the implied prior on β is π(β) ∝ 1/β, which heavily weights the region near β=0. Adding mν opens a parameter-space direction that can populate this prior-heavy boundary, so the tail may be a volume effect of the log prior rather than a physically driven mν–Q degeneracy. The paper asserts that the results are 'not prior-dominated' (Sec. III.A) but reports no prior-robustness test. I request a rerun with a uniform prior on β (or a different lower bound), and ideally a Bayes-factor or evidence comparison for β=0 versus β>0. Without such a test, the reported 'degradation' of the momentum-transfer detection is not convincingly distinguished from a prior artifact.
  2. [Sec. III.D, Fig. 6 (Q–log10 β plane)] The conclusion that the degradation arises from the combined effect of mν and Q, rather than mν alone, is based on inspecting the Q=0 slice of the joint posterior. A slice at Q=0 is conditional on exactly Q=0 and does not account for prior volume or correlations between Q and other parameters; it is not equivalent to fitting the pure momentum-transfer model. To support the 'combined effect' interpretation, the authors should run a full MCMC for the ν-QuintC model with Q fixed to 0 and show that the β posterior closes at the 2σ level in that model. Without this dedicated fit, the Q=0 slice is insufficient evidence for the proposed physical mechanism.
  3. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 3; Abstract] The β detection that is subsequently degraded by mν is obtained only when the Planck SZ 2013 S8 measurement (0.782±0.010) is added as a Gaussian likelihood. With DES-Y3 S8 (0.776±0.017), the β detection is absent even before mν is varied (Fig. 3). Thus the paper's main conclusion—that varying mν spoils the momentum-transfer detection—is conditional on a single S8 measurement. The abstract and conclusions state the result without this caveat. I request that the authors either include DES-Y6 (or another current S8 measurement) in the analysis, or clearly state in the abstract and conclusions that the degradation applies only to the Planck SZ S8 dataset.
  4. [Sec. III.B (discussion of [55])] The paper attributes the discrepancy with [55] to 'an improper sampling of the momentum-transfer parameter' but provides no technical evidence for this claim. No comparison of sampling schemes, chains, or code outputs is shown. Because this is a serious assertion about a published analysis (and one that some of the present authors co-authored), it should be substantiated with a concrete demonstration—for example, reproducing the [55] result with the claimed improper sampling and showing that the correct sampling removes the detection. Without this, the statement is an unsupported accusation rather than a demonstrated correction.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. III (heading)] The title 'CONFRONT A TION WITH DA T A' contains typographical spacing errors; similarly the section heading 'CONFRONT A TION' should be corrected.
  2. [Table II] The column header 'Baseline II+S 8 mean±σ±σ' appears to use '±σ' where '±2σ' is intended. Please check all table headers for consistency.
  3. [Fig. 5] The axis label uses the symbol '∏' where λ is clearly intended. Please fix the font/encoding issue.
  4. [Table I] The mν row for the QuintC columns is confusing, since mν is fixed (not sampled) in that model. Please clarify with a footnote or by placing an em dash.
  5. [Eq. (3.1)] The prior on Q is restricted to [-0.08,0]. The text says this follows Ref. [55], but a brief justification for the hard boundary at Q=0 would be helpful, since positive Q could in principle affect the mν–Q degeneracy claim.
  6. [Sec. III.A] The sentence 'our results are not prior-dominated' appears before any prior-sensitivity analysis is presented. Please either move this statement after such a test or qualify it as an expectation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper is an MCMC fitting exercise whose central claim is a posterior comparison against external data, not a prediction derived from its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper makes no parameter-free forecast; its central result is an empirical MCMC comparison of posterior distributions for log10(beta) with and without a free neutrino mass, conditioned on external datasets (Planck, BAO, SNe, S8). The 'detection' of momentum transfer is a constraint obtained from the S8 likelihood, not a quantity predicted from the fitted beta; hence pattern (2) does not apply. The model equations are presented in the paper itself (Sec. II), and the background/perturbation equations are the same as those in the authors' prior work [52,55], but the results are not justified by citation alone: the paper explicitly re-derives the equations and states that the earlier detection in [55] was a sampling error, which it corrects with independent MCMC implementations (Cobaya and CosmoMC). No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The reviewer-identified risks — dependence of the beta detection on the Planck SZ 2013 S8 value and the potential volume effect of the flat-log prior on beta — are substantive model-comparison/correctness concerns, not circularity: they do not make the output equal to an input by construction. The paper even reports explicit checks (Q=0 slice; 'results are not prior-dominated', though not shown), which weakens any claim of hidden circularity. On the definitions used here, the derivation chain is self-contained: data in, posterior out, with no step where the conclusion is assumed in the priors or likelihood in a way that definitionally forces the result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; it adds a standard massive-neutrino parameter to an existing interacting-quintessence model. All free parameters are model couplings and the neutrino mass, fitted to data. The key assumptions are the validity of the model equations from prior work and the Gaussian approximation of the S8 likelihood.

free parameters (4)
  • β (momentum-transfer coupling; sampled as log10 β) = posterior mean log10 β ≈ 0.41 (QuintC Baseline I+S8,SZ); ≈ -0.01 (ν-QuintC Baseline I+S8,SZ)
    Central parameter whose detection is at stake; flat prior log10 β ∈ [−3,3].
  • Q (energy-transfer coupling) = posterior mean Q ≈ -0.02 (QuintC Baseline I+S8,SZ); ≈ -0.029 (ν-QuintC Baseline I+S8,SZ)
    Fitted; prior Q∈[−0.08,0]; the new mν–Q degeneracy is the claimed mechanism.
  • λ (exponential potential slope) = posterior mean ≈0.57 (QuintC Baseline I+S8,SZ); ≈0.54 (ν-QuintC Baseline I+S8,SZ)
    Fitted; prior λ∈[0,1.5].
  • mν (massive neutrino mass) = posterior mean ≈0.126 eV (ν-QuintC Baseline I+S8,SZ)
    Key additional free parameter; prior mν∈[0,5] eV.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The action (2.1) with exponential potential V0 e^(−λφ/MPl) and interaction terms e^(Qφ/MPl)ρc and βZ² is the correct low-energy description of dark-sector interactions.
    Adopted from [52,55]; the results inherit all theoretical priors of that model, including stability conditions (2.28).
  • domain assumption The background and linear perturbation equations of Refs. [52,55] (Eqs. 2.5–2.27) are correctly implemented in the modified CAMB.
    The paper's constraints depend on these equations; no independent derivation is given, and code is not public.
  • domain assumption The S8 likelihood can be approximated as Gaussian with the quoted central values and errors (Eq. 3.2).
    Acknowledged as approximate; the central result is sensitive to the particular S8 value chosen (Sec. III C).
  • domain assumption The prior Q≤0 is sufficient to capture the physics of interest (ϕMDE).
    Imposed following [55]; if positive Q were allowed, degeneracy structure could differ.
  • domain assumption Initial conditions for the CDM velocity perturbation θc do not affect the results.
    Stated in Sec. II B without quantitative demonstration.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21501 in / 12228 out tokens · 109612 ms · 2026-08-02T18:04:28.238351+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the impact of massive neutrinos on cosmological models in which dark energy, described by a quintessence scalar field $\phi$ with an exponential potential, interacts with dark matter through both energy and momentum transfers. Previous analyses have shown that the inclusion of low-redshift data tends to favour the detection of a pure momentum transfer between the dark sectors, consistent with the fact that such a transfer generically suppresses the growth of cosmic structures. Since massive neutrinos also reduce matter clustering, a potential degeneracy between the interaction parameters and the neutrino mass may arise. After updating the observational constraints on the model parameters obtained in earlier studies, we investigate the effect of allowing the neutrino mass to vary. We find that the detection of momentum transfer degrades once massive neutrinos are included. This occurs because a new degeneracy emerges between the neutrino mass and the parameter governing the energy exchange between dark energy and dark matter. Our findings differ from previous results in the literature, where the detection of momentum transfer was reported to be robust against varying neutrino masses. This suggests that the robustness of such detections depends on the underlying model and should therefore be carefully reassessed for each specific interacting scenario.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.15805 by Florencia Anabella Teppa Pannia, Jose Beltr\'an Jim\'enez, Kiyotomo Ichiki, Shinji Tsujikawa, Xiaolin Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Effects of coupled quintessence on the CMB angular power spectrum for temperature anisotropies. In the left panel, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Effects on the matter power spectrum in the coupled quintessence model and in the combined model including massive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Constraints on the QuintC model, together with the ΛCDM model, derived from the combination of several datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Constraints on the QuintC model obtained from the combination of several datasets, including BAO measurements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Constraints on the model parameters log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Constraints on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Constraints on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Constraints on the value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 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. 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.

  3. Coupled quintessence with a potential from supergravity exhibits sign-changing interaction

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Coupled SUGRA quintessence is preferred by current data at >4σ over the uncoupled case, with sign-changing interaction producing phantom-crossing behavior statistically similar to the CPL parametrization.

  4. Exponential Quintessence: Analytic Relationship Between the Current Equation of State Parameter and the Potential Parameter

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    For an exponential quintessence potential, an analytic formula links the current equation-of-state w_φ0 to the potential slope λ while enforcing prior radiation and matter domination, yielding the bound λ < 1.94 at Ω_...

  5. Phantom-Divide Crossing in Exponentially Coupled Quintessence and the Role of Neutrino-Mass Freedom

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    In the CQ-EXP model, fixed neutrino mass yields >3σ preference for β<0 and phantom crossing; freeing ∑mν,eff erases the distinction from w0waCDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 68 linked inside Pith · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Sahni and A

    V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D9, 373 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9904398

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  2. [2]

    ERDF A way of making Europe

    This value is at odds with our constraints, while it is within the 1σregion of the results obtained in [65]. Furthermore, by fixing the slope of the potentialλwe do not obtain a detection of the momentum transfer, as it is clear from Fig. 5 where we can see that the noninteracting case is in the 1σregion of any slice of fixedλ. The only difference in our ...

    2024

  3. [3]

    Padmanabhan, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept.380, 235 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0212290

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  4. [4]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  5. [5]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 1753 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    Silvestri and M

    A. Silvestri and M. Trodden, Rept. Prog. Phys.72, 096901 (2009), arXiv:0904.0024 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rept.513, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.2476 [astro-ph.CO]. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Tsujikawa, Class

    S. Tsujikawa, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 214003 (2013), arXiv:1304.1961 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology,

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, “Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology,” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019 (2019)

    1910

  10. [10]

    Koyama, Rept

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    Kase and S

    R. Kase and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D28, 1942005 (2019), arXiv:1809.08735 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [13]

    Broutet al., The Astrophysical Journal938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    D. Broutet al., The Astrophysical Journal938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [14]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal Letters973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [15]

    Alamet al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Alamet al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [16]

    Adameet al.(DESI Collaboration), Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 012 (2025), arXiv:2404.03000 [astro-ph.CO]

    A. Adameet al.(DESI Collaboration), Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 012 (2025), arXiv:2404.03000 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [17]

    Giblinet al., Astron

    B. Giblinet al., Astron. Astrophys.645, A105 (2021), arXiv:2007.01845 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [19]

    Verde, T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [20]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astronomy Reviews95, 101659 (2022), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [21]

    Di Valentinoet al., Astropart

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [22]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [23]

    Pantos and L

    I. Pantos and L. Perivolaropoulos, (2026), arXiv:2602.12238 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  22. [24]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D105, 023520 (2022), arXiv:2105.13549 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [25]

    Liet al., Phys

    X. Liet al., Phys. Rev. D108, 123518 (2023), arXiv:2304.00702 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [26]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [27]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES Collaboration), (2026), arXiv:2602.10065 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  26. [28]

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

    arXiv 2026

  27. [29]

    Simpson, Phys

    F. Simpson, Phys. Rev. D82, 083505 (2010), arXiv:1007.1034 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  28. [30]

    Asghari, J

    M. Asghari, J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, S. Khosravi, and D. F. Mota, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics04, 042 (2019), arXiv:1902.05532 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [31]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, D

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, D. Bettoni, D. Figueruelo, and F. A. Teppa Pannia, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 08, 020 (2020), arXiv:2004.14661 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  30. [32]

    Figuerueloet al., JCAP07, 022 (2021), arXiv:2103.01571 [astro-ph.CO]

    D. Figuerueloet al., JCAP07, 022 (2021), arXiv:2103.01571 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [33]

    Cardona and D

    W. Cardona and D. Figueruelo, JCAP12, 010 (2022), arXiv:2209.12583 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [34]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, E

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, E. Di Dio, and D. Figueruelo, JCAP11, 088 (2023), arXiv:2212.08617 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [35]

    Figueruelo Hern´ an,Restrictions in the dark sector of the universe and modified gravity with large scale structure and gravitational waves, Ph.D

    D. Figueruelo Hern´ an,Restrictions in the dark sector of the universe and modified gravity with large scale structure and gravitational waves, Ph.D. thesis, Universidad de Salamanca (2023)

    2023

  34. [36]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, D

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, D. Figueruelo, and F. A. Teppa Pannia, Phys. Rev. D110, 023527 (2024), arXiv:2403.03216 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [37]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, D

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, D. Bettoni, D. Figueruelo, and F. A. Teppa Pannia, Phys. Dark Univ.47, 101761 (2025), arXiv:2410.18645 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [38]

    Poulin, J

    V. Poulin, J. L. Bernal, E. D. Kovetz, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D107, 123538 (2023), arXiv:2209.06217 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [39]

    Cruickshank, R

    N. Cruickshank, R. Crittenden, K. Koyama, and M. Bruni, JCAP10, 052 (2025), arXiv:2504.03555 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [40]

    Cruickshank, R

    N. Cruickshank, R. Crittenden, K. Koyama, and M. Bruni, (2025), arXiv:2512.11639 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [41]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, D

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, D. Figueruelo, D. F. Mota, and H. A. Winther, Astron. Astrophys.707, A269 (2026), arXiv:2510.12551 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  40. [42]

    Pourtsidou, C

    A. Pourtsidou, C. Skordis, and E. Copeland, Phys. Rev. D88, 083505 (2013), arXiv:1307.0458 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [43]

    C. G. Boehmer, N. Tamanini, and M. Wright, Phys. Rev. D91, 123003 (2015), arXiv:1502.04030 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [44]

    Skordis, A

    C. Skordis, A. Pourtsidou, and E. Copeland, Phys. Rev. D91, 083537 (2015), arXiv:1502.07297 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [45]

    T. S. Koivisto, E. N. Saridakis, and N. Tamanini, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics09, 047 (2015), arXiv:1505.07556 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [46]

    Pourtsidou and T

    A. Pourtsidou and T. Tram, Phys. Rev. D94, 043518 (2016), arXiv:1604.04222 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [47]

    Dutta, W

    J. Dutta, W. Khyllep, and N. Tamanini, Phys. Rev. D95, 023515 (2017), arXiv:1701.00744 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [48]

    M. S. Linton, A. Pourtsidou, R. Crittenden, and R. Maartens, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics04, 043 (2018), arXiv:1711.05196 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [49]

    Kase and S

    R. Kase and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D101, 063511 (2020), arXiv:1910.02699 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [50]

    Kase and S

    R. Kase and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Lett. B804, 135400 (2020), arXiv:1911.02179 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [51]

    F. N. Chamings, A. Avgoustidis, E. J. Copeland, A. M. Green, and A. Pourtsidou, Phys. Rev. D101, 043531 (2020), arXiv:1912.09858 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [52]

    Kase and S

    R. Kase and S. Tsujikawa, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics11, 032 (2020), arXiv:2005.13809 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [53]

    Amendola and S

    L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics06, 020 (2020), arXiv:2003.02686 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [54]

    De Felice, S

    A. De Felice, S. Nakamura, and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D102, 063531 (2020), arXiv:2004.09384 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  53. [55]

    M. S. Linton, R. Crittenden, and A. Pourtsidou, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics08, 075 (2022), arXiv:2107.03235 [astro-ph.CO]. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [56]

    X. Liu, S. Tsujikawa, and K. Ichiki, Phys. Rev. D109, 043533 (2024), arXiv:2309.13946 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [57]

    K. Aoki, J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, M. C. Pookkillath, and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D113, 044053 (2026), arXiv:2504.17293 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  56. [58]

    Sahoo, N

    P. Sahoo, N. Roy, and H. S. Mondal, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 200 (2026), arXiv:2506.21295 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  57. [59]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, D

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, D. Bettoni, D. Figueruelo, F. A. Teppa Pannia, and S. Tsujikawa, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics03, 085 (2021), arXiv:2012.12204 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [60]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, D

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, D. Bettoni, D. Figueruelo, F. A. Teppa Pannia, and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D104, 103503 (2021), arXiv:2106.11222 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [61]

    Iosifidis, E

    D. Iosifidis, E. Jensko, and T. S. Koivisto, JCAP11, 043 (2024), arXiv:2406.01412 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [62]

    Jensko, E

    E. Jensko, E. M. Teixeira, and V. Poulin, (2026), arXiv:2603.10622 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  61. [63]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pav´ on, Rept. Prog. Phys.87, 036901 (2024), arXiv:2402.00819 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [64]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D62, 043511 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  63. [65]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  64. [66]

    Pourtsidou, JCAP02, 014 (2026), arXiv:2509.15091 [astro-ph.CO]

    A. Pourtsidou, JCAP02, 014 (2026), arXiv:2509.15091 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  65. [67]

    B. F. Schutz and R. Sorkin, Annals Phys.107, 1 (1977)

    1977

  66. [68]

    Brown, Class

    J. Brown, Class. Quant. Grav.10, 1579 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9304026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  67. [69]

    De Felice, J.-M

    A. De Felice, J.-M. Gerard, and T. Suyama, Phys. Rev. D81, 063527 (2010), arXiv:0908.3439 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  68. [70]

    Ma and E

    C.-P. Ma and E. Bertschinger, Astrophys. J.455, 7 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9506072

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  69. [71]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J.538, 473 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911177 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  70. [72]

    Howlett, A

    C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall, and A. Challinor, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics1204, 027 (2012), arXiv:1201.3654 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  71. [73]

    Pettorino, Phys

    V. Pettorino, Phys. Rev. D88, 063519 (2013), arXiv:1305.7457 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  72. [74]

    G´ omez-Valent, V

    A. G´ omez-Valent, V. Pettorino, and L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D101, 123513 (2020), arXiv:2004.00610 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  73. [75]

    R. L. Workmanet al.(Particle Data Group), PTEP2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  74. [76]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys.571, A20 (2014), arXiv:1303.5080 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  75. [77]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES and SPT Collaborations), Phys. Rev. D107, 023531 (2023), arXiv:2206.10824 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  76. [78]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021, 057 (2021), arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  77. [79]

    Lewis and S

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Phys. Rev. D66, 103511 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0205436 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  78. [80]

    Lewis, Phys

    A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D87, 103529 (2013), arXiv:1304.4473 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  79. [81]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Statistical Science7, 457 (1992)

    1992

  80. [82]

    Lewis, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 025 (2025), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Lewis, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 025 (2025), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.