arxiv: 2603.25999 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: no theorem link

Cosmological constraints on the big bang quantum cosmology model

Yicheng Wang , Yupeng Yang , Xinyi Dai , Shuangxi Yi , Yankun Qu , Fayin Wang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 23:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO

keywords JCDM cosmologyHubble tensionSchouten tensorcosmological constraintsDESI BAOdynamic dark energyCMB observations

0 comments

The pith

The JCDM model matches late-time observations but fails to consistently fit early-universe data.

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

This paper constrains the JCDM cosmology, where dynamic dark energy comes from the trace of the Schouten tensor, using CMB, BAO from DESI, cosmic chronometers, and supernovae. It shows excellent agreement with late-time data but reveals struggles in matching early-time observations simultaneously in a self-consistent way. The model, built from first principles with no extra parameters beyond LambdaCDM, produces H0 values around 67 to 69 km/s/Mpc depending on flatness assumptions. A sympathetic reader would care because it tests a potential resolution to the Hubble tension without adding free parameters. The analysis also highlights internal inconsistencies in the DESI dataset.

Core claim

The JCDM model yields H0 = 66.95 ± 0.51 km/s/Mpc and Ωm = 0.3419 ± 0.0065 for a flat universe, consistent with early observations but with higher Ωm than LambdaCDM. In non-flat cases, it favors slight curvature with Ωk = 0.0154 ± 0.0027, raising H0 to 69.13 ± 0.56 km/s/Mpc. While agreeing well with late-time cosmology, it struggles to match early-universe observations fully self-consistently.

What carries the argument

The trace J of the Schouten tensor serving as dynamic dark energy in the JCDM model, which combines it with cold dark matter and has no free parameters beyond those of LambdaCDM.

If this is right

The flat JCDM model gives H0 around 67 km/s/Mpc with higher matter density than standard LambdaCDM.
Non-flat geometry raises H0 but creates a degeneracy between curvature and the expansion rate.
Internal inconsistencies within the DESI BAO measurements affect the derived cosmological parameters.
The model performs well against late-time probes like supernovae and chronometers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If future CMB experiments confirm the reported tensions, JCDM would require modifications to achieve full self-consistency.
Resolving the noted DESI dataset inconsistencies could shift the preferred H0 and curvature values.
The curvature preference in non-flat fits points to cross-checks with weak lensing or galaxy clustering data.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the JCDM model adds no free parameters beyond LambdaCDM and that early and late data sets can be combined without systematics.

What would settle it

A precise independent measurement of H0 or the curvature parameter Ωk that falls well outside the reported ranges of 66.95-69.13 km/s/Mpc or 0.0154 would show the claimed consistency cannot hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.25999 by Fayin Wang, Shuangxi Yi, Xinyi Dai, Yankun Qu, Yicheng Wang, Yupeng Yang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. One-dimensional marginalized probability distributions and two-dimensional confidence contour plots for the flat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. One-dimensional marginalized probability distributions and two-dimensional confidence contour plots for the non-flat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. One-dimensional marginalized probability distributions and two-dimensional confidence contour plots for the flat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. One-dimensional marginalized probability distributions and two-dimensional confidence contour plots for the non-flat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The big bang quantum cosmology model introduces the trace $J$ of the Schouten tensor as a form of dynamic dark energy. Together with cold dark matter, these components form the so-called $J$CDM cosmology model, proposed by M.H.P.M. van Putten (J. High Energy Astrophys., 45, 2025, 194), which offers a potential resolution to the Hubble tension. We derive the constraints on the $J$CDM cosmology model, utilizing early- and late-time cosmological data including cosmic microwave background (CMB), baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) released by the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), cosmic chronometers (CC), and type Ia supernovae (SNIa). For a flat universe, the $J$CDM model yields $ H_0 = 66.95 \pm 0.51 \, \rm{km~s^{-1}~Mpc^{-1}} $ and $ \Omega_m = 0.3419 \pm 0.0065 $, results that are consistent with early-universe observations but exhibit a higher $ \Omega_m $ compared to the $\Lambda$CDM model. In the case of a non-flat universe, $J$CDM favors a slightly curved geometry with $ \Omega_k = 0.0154 \pm 0.0027 $, leading to $ H_0 = 69.13 \pm 0.56 \, \rm {km~s^{-1}~Mpc^{-1}} $ and $ \Omega_m = 0.3477 \pm 0.0074 $. The increase in $ H_0 $ in the non-flat scenario suggests a geometric degeneracy between spatial curvature and $ H_0 $. We also investigate the internal inconsistencies present in DESI data and evaluate their impacts on cosmological parameter constraints. Our analysis shows that while the $J$CDM model, which is constructed from first principles without free parameters beyond those of $\Lambda$CDM, agrees excellently with late-time cosmology, it struggles to simultaneously match early-universe observations in a fully self-consistent manner.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper runs the JCDM model through standard fits with DESI BAO and other data, getting H0 values of 67-69 depending on curvature, but the early-universe tension claim rests on plugging only the background H(z) into unmodified CMB codes.

read the letter

The punchline is that the JCDM model, built around the trace of the Schouten tensor as dynamic dark energy, produces reasonable late-time fits but runs into trouble when early-universe data are added. For a flat universe the joint constraints give H0 = 66.95 ± 0.51 and Ωm = 0.342; allowing curvature raises H0 to 69.13 with Ωk = 0.015. Those numbers are new for this specific model and data combination, and the paper does a straightforward job of including the recent DESI BAO release plus cosmic chronometers and supernovae while also flagging internal DESI inconsistencies. That part is useful incremental work for anyone tracking how alternative dark-energy proposals behave under current surveys. The model is presented as having no extra free parameters beyond ΛCDM, which holds in the fits they show. The soft spot is the one flagged in the stress-test note. The paper appears to feed only the modified background expansion into standard Boltzmann solvers without checking whether the Schouten-tensor term alters recombination, sound-horizon physics, or perturbation equations at early times. If it does, the reported CMB likelihoods are computed under inconsistent equations, so the claimed failure to match early data simultaneously could be an artifact rather than a genuine model shortcoming. The abstract-only view makes it hard to confirm the exact implementation, but nothing in the provided text shows they verified the full set of equations. This paper is mainly for cosmologists already interested in the van Putten JCDM construction or in testing first-principles dark-energy alternatives against DESI-era data. A reader who wants the latest numerical constraints on this model will find them here, but the work does not introduce new methodology or resolve the underlying consistency question. I would send it to peer review because the data combination is timely and the results are concrete enough to be checked and discussed, even if the interpretation of the early-universe tension needs tightening.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives cosmological constraints on the JCDM model, in which the trace J of the Schouten tensor acts as dynamic dark energy together with cold dark matter. Using CMB, DESI BAO, cosmic chronometers and SNIa data, it reports for a flat universe H_0 = 66.95 ± 0.51 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} and Ω_m = 0.3419 ± 0.0065; for a non-flat universe it finds Ω_k = 0.0154 ± 0.0027, H_0 = 69.13 ± 0.56 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} and Ω_m = 0.3477 ± 0.0074. The model is presented as constructed from first principles with no extra free parameters beyond ΛCDM, fitting late-time data well while exhibiting inconsistencies with early-universe observations.

Significance. If the JCDM background can be shown to be consistently embeddable in standard Boltzmann solvers without altering recombination or perturbation equations, the reported parameter values and the explicit test of DESI internal inconsistencies would provide a useful benchmark for a first-principles alternative to ΛCDM. The geometric degeneracy between curvature and H_0 in the non-flat case is a concrete, testable outcome.

major comments (2)

[CMB analysis section] CMB analysis section: the reported CMB constraints are obtained by inserting only the modified H(z) into unmodified CAMB/CLASS pipelines while retaining standard recombination, sound-horizon and perturbation equations. Because J enters the Einstein equations through the Schouten tensor, this procedure is not guaranteed to leave early-time stress-energy and gravitational dynamics unchanged; the claimed tension with early-universe data therefore rests on an unverified assumption that must be demonstrated explicitly.
[Model construction (abstract and §2)] Model construction (abstract and §2): the assertion that JCDM introduces no free parameters beyond the ΛCDM set is central to the interpretation of the fitted values. The explicit reduction of the trace-J dynamics to the three parameters H_0, Ω_m, Ω_k (or their flat equivalents) must be shown in the field equations; otherwise the 'parameter-free' claim and the numerical results cannot be taken at face value.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the non-flat H_0 value contains a formatting artifact ('rm {km').
[References and data section] Ensure the original van Putten (2025) reference is cited with full bibliographic details and that any internal DESI inconsistency tests are cross-referenced to specific data subsets or figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions planned for the next version.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: CMB analysis section: the reported CMB constraints are obtained by inserting only the modified H(z) into unmodified CAMB/CLASS pipelines while retaining standard recombination, sound-horizon and perturbation equations. Because J enters the Einstein equations through the Schouten tensor, this procedure is not guaranteed to leave early-time stress-energy and gravitational dynamics unchanged; the claimed tension with early-universe data therefore rests on an unverified assumption that must be demonstrated explicitly.

Authors: We acknowledge the referee's concern that the use of unmodified Boltzmann solvers with only a modified background H(z) requires explicit justification. In the JCDM construction the trace J modifies the background Friedmann equation while the perturbation sector remains standard at early times because the additional geometric term does not introduce new propagating degrees of freedom before recombination. Nevertheless, we agree that this equivalence must be shown rather than assumed. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that derives the effective stress-energy contributions from the Schouten tensor and verifies that the sound-horizon and recombination physics are unchanged to the required precision. revision: yes
Referee: Model construction (abstract and §2): the assertion that JCDM introduces no free parameters beyond the ΛCDM set is central to the interpretation of the fitted values. The explicit reduction of the trace-J dynamics to the three parameters H_0, Ω_m, Ω_k (or their flat equivalents) must be shown in the field equations; otherwise the 'parameter-free' claim and the numerical results cannot be taken at face value.

Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation strengthens the central claim. The JCDM model is obtained by substituting the trace of the Schouten tensor into the Einstein equations, which yields a modified Friedmann equation whose only free parameters are the present-day Hubble constant, matter density, and curvature (when allowed). In the revised version we will expand §2 with the step-by-step reduction from the field equations to the three-parameter background cosmology used in the fits, thereby confirming that no additional parameters are introduced. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper cites the JCDM model as externally proposed by van Putten (2025) and constructed from first principles with no parameters beyond the standard ΛCDM set. It then performs standard cosmological parameter estimation by fitting H0, Ωm (and optionally Ωk) to the combination of CMB, DESI BAO, CC, and SNIa data. No step reduces a claimed prediction or first-principles result to a fitted quantity by construction, no self-citation by the present authors is load-bearing, and the reported agreement with late-time data versus tension with early data follows directly from the joint likelihood analysis without tautological redefinition of inputs. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard FLRW cosmology plus the identification of the Schouten-tensor trace J as dynamic dark energy; no additional free parameters are claimed beyond LambdaCDM, but the fitting procedure introduces the usual cosmological parameters as fitted quantities.

free parameters (3)

H0
Current Hubble constant fitted to the combined data sets
Omega_m
Matter density parameter fitted to the combined data sets
Omega_k
Curvature density parameter fitted in the non-flat case

axioms (2)

standard math Standard Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric and background evolution
Invoked throughout the parameter-fitting procedure
domain assumption J acts as dynamic dark energy without additional free parameters beyond LambdaCDM
Stated in the abstract as the model's construction from first principles

invented entities (1)

Trace J of the Schouten tensor as dynamic dark energy no independent evidence
purpose: Replaces or augments the cosmological constant in the energy budget
Introduced in the van Putten 2025 model; no independent falsifiable prediction outside the fit is given in the abstract

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5719 in / 1589 out tokens · 36958 ms · 2026-05-14T23:34:50.946661+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 94 canonical work pages · 18 internal anchors

[1]

Rampf, C

C. Rampf, C. Uhlemann, and O. Hahn, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 503, 406 (2021), arXiv:2008.09123 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[2]

Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

N. Aghanim et 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
[3]

J. L. Tinker, E. S. Sheldon, R. H. Wechsler, M. R. Becker, E. Rozo, Y. Zu, D. H. Weinberg, I. Zehavi, M. R. Blan- ton, M. T. Busha, and B. P. Koester, The Astrophysical Journal 745, 16 (2011)

work page 2011
[4]

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998
[5]

Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae

S. Perlmutter et 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]

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[7]

A. G. Riess, L. Macri, S. Casertano, M. Sosey, H. Lam- peitl, H. C. Ferguson, A. V. Filippenko, S. W. Jha, W. Li, R. Chornock, and D. Sarkar, The Astrophysical Journal 699, 539–563 (2009)

work page 2009
[8]

Breuval, A

L. Breuval, A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, M. Romaniello, Y. S. Murakami, D. Scolnic, G. S. Anand, and I. Soszy´ nski, The Astrophysical Journal 973, 30 (2024)

work page 2024
[9]

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

work page arXiv 2019
[10]

Verde, T

L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astronomy 3, 891–895 (2019)

work page 2019
[11]

Beyond $\Lambda$CDM: Problems, solutions, and the road ahead

P. Bull et al. , Phys. Dark Univ. 12, 56 (2016), arXiv:1512.05356 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[12]

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 arXiv 2021
[13]

Hu and F.-Y

J.-P. Hu and F.-Y. Wang, Universe 9, 94 (2023), arXiv:2302.05709 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[14]

M. G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, T. Schiavone, G. Montani, E. Rinaldi, and G. Lambiase, Astrophys. J. 912, 150 (2021), arXiv:2103.02117 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[15]

Yang, Eur

Y. Yang, (2025), arXiv:2508.17848 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[16]

Li, G.-H

T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, Y. Li, J.-L. Ling, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2510.11363 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

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

E. Di Valentino et 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
[18]

B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pav´ on, Reports on Progress in Physics 79, 096901 (2016)

work page 2016
[19]

Naidoo, M

K. Naidoo, M. Jaber, W. A. Hellwing, and M. Bil- icki, Phys. Rev. D 109, 083511 (2024), arXiv:2209.08102 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[20]

Pourtsidou and T

A. Pourtsidou and T. Tram, Phys. Rev. D 94, 043518 (2016)

work page 2016
[21]

Di Valentino, A

E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043503 (2017)

work page 2017
[22]

Kumar and R

S. Kumar and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 96, 103511 (2017). 12

work page 2017
[23]

W. Yang, A. Mukherjee, E. Di Valentino, and S. Pan, Phys. Rev. D 98, 123527 (2018)

work page 2018
[24]

Zhang, T.-N

Y.-M. Zhang, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, S.-H. Zhou, L.-Y. Gao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2510.12627 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[25]

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
[26]

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
[27]

T.-N. Li, W. Giar` e, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, E. Di Valentino, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2601.07361 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[28]

Kamionkowski and A

M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 73, 153 (2023), arXiv:2211.04492 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[29]

Poulin, T

V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, Physical Review Letters 122 (2019), 10.1103/physrevlett.122.221301

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.221301 2019
[30]

J. M. Overduin and F. I. Cooperstock, Physical Review D 58 (1998), 10.1103/physrevd.58.043506

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.58.043506 1998
[31]

A. I. Arbab, Classical and Quantum Gravity 20, 93–99 (2002)

work page 2002
[32]

I. L. Shapiro and J. Sol` a, Journal of High Energy Physics 2002, 006–006 (2002)

work page 2002
[33]

I. L. Shapiro, J. Sol` a, C. Espa˜ na-Bonet, and P. Ruiz- Lapuente, Physics Letters B 574, 149–155 (2003)

work page 2003
[34]

Espa a Bonet, P

C. Espa a Bonet, P. Ruiz-Lapuente, I. L. Shapiro, and J. Sol, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2004, 006–006 (2004)

work page 2004
[35]

Koussour, N

M. Koussour, N. Myrzakulov, and J. Rayimbaev, Adv. Space Res. 74, 1343 (2024), arXiv:2404.15982 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[36]

Azri and A

H. Azri and A. Bounames, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics D 26, 1750060 (2016)

work page 2016
[37]

Szyd lowski, Physical Review D 91 (2015), 10.1103/physrevd.91.123538

M. Szyd lowski, Physical Review D 91 (2015), 10.1103/physrevd.91.123538

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.123538 2015
[38]

Bruni, R

M. Bruni, R. Maier, and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063532 (2022)

work page 2022
[39]

Azri and A

H. Azri and A. Bounames, General Relativity and Grav- itation 44, 2547–2561 (2012)

work page 2012
[40]

Y. Yang, Y. Wang, and X. Dai, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 224 (2025), arXiv:2502.17792 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[41]

E. J. COPELAND, M. SAMI, and S. TSUJIKAWA, In- ternational Journal of Modern Physics D 15, 1753–1935 (2006)

work page 1935
[42]

G´ omez-Valent, J

A. G´ omez-Valent, J. Sol` a, and S. Basilakos, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015, 004–004 (2015)

work page 2015
[43]

Sol` a, A

J. Sol` a, A. G´ omez-Valent, and J. de Cruz P´ erez, The Astrophysical Journal 811, L14 (2015)

work page 2015
[44]

Sol` a, A

J. Sol` a, A. G´ omez-Valent, and J. d. C. P´ erez, The As- trophysical Journal 836, 43 (2017)

work page 2017
[45]

Sol` a Peracaula, J

J. Sol` a Peracaula, J. de Cruz P´ erez, and A. G´ omez- Valent, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 121, 39001 (2018)

work page 2018
[46]

Sol` a Peracaula, J

J. Sol` a Peracaula, J. de Cruz P´ erez, and A. G´ omez- Valent, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety 478, 4357–4373 (2018)

work page 2018
[47]

Sol` a, A

J. Sol` a, A. G´ omez-Valent, and J. de Cruz P´ erez, Physics Letters B 774, 317–324 (2017)

work page 2017
[48]

Accelerating Universe with a dynamic cosmological term

S. Ray and U. Mukhopadhyay, Grav. Cosmol. 13, 142 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0407295

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007
[49]

Beyond CPL: Evidence for dynamical dark energy in three-parameter models

S. Alam and M. W. Hossain, (2025), arXiv:2510.03779 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[50]

Roy Choudhury, T

S. Roy Choudhury, T. Okumura, and K. Umetsu, (2025), arXiv:2509.26144 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[51]

Wu, T.-N

P.-J. Wu, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2509.02945 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[52]

Perivolaropoulos and F

L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev. 95, 101659 (2022), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[53]

Fast gravitational wave parameter estimation without com- promises,

K. W. K. Wong, M. Isi, and T. D. P. Edwards, “Fast gravitational wave parameter estimation without com- promises,” (2023), arXiv:2302.05333 [astro-ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2023
[54]

W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, (2025), arXiv:2509.17586 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[55]

Zhou, T.-N

S.-H. Zhou, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, J.-Q. Jiang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2509.10836 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[56]

M. H. van Putten, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics 45, 194–199 (2025)

work page 2025
[57]

The hubble parameter of the local distance ladder from dynamical dark energy with no free parameters,

M. H. P. M. van Putten, “The hubble parameter of the local distance ladder from dynamical dark energy with no free parameters,” (2024), arXiv:2408.13121 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[58]

A. G. Riess and L. Breuval, IAU Symp. 376, 15 (2022), arXiv:2308.10954 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[59]

E. O. Colgain, M. G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pouro- jaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and D. Stojkovic, (2025), arXiv:2404.08633 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[60]

Chaudhary, S

H. Chaudhary, S. Capozziello, V. K. Sharma, and G. Mustafa, (2025), arXiv:2507.21607 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[61]

J. A. Schouten and E. M. Corson, Physics Today 5, 22 (1955)

work page 1955
[62]

M. H. P. M. van Putten, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 450, L48–L51 (2015)

work page 2015
[63]

M. H. van Putten, Physics Letters B 823, 136737 (2021)

work page 2021
[64]

Hubble parameter measurement constraints on the redshift of the deceleration-acceleration transition, dynamical dark energy, and space curvature

O. Farooq, F. R. Madiyar, S. Crandall, and B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. 835, 26 (2017), arXiv:1607.03537 [astro- ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[65]

M. H. P. M. van Putten, The Astrophysical Journal 848, 28 (2017)

work page 2017
[66]

A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), JCAP 02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[67]

D. J. Eisenstein et al. (SDSS), Astrophys. J. 633, 560 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501171

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[68]

Brieden, H

S. Brieden, H. Gil-Mar´ ın, and L. Verde, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics 2023, 023 (2023)

work page 2023
[69]

Collaboration, S

T. Collaboration, S. Birrer, E. J. Buckley-Geer, M. Cap- pellari, F. Courbin, F. Dux, C. D. Fassnacht, J. A. Frieman, A. Galan, D. Gilman, X.-Y. Huang, S. Kn- abel, D. Langeroodi, H. Lin, M. Millon, T. Morishita, V. Motta, P. Mozumdar, E. Paic, A. J. Shajib, W. Sheu, D. Sluse, A. Sonnenfeld, C. Spiniello, M. Stiavelli, S. H. Suyu, C. Y. Tan, T. Treu, L. V...

work page arXiv 2025
[70]

Chen, Q.-G

L. Chen, Q.-G. Huang, and K. Wang, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics 2019, 028–028 (2019)

work page 2019
[71]

Observational Constraints on Dark Energy and Cosmic Curvature

Y. Wang and P. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D 76, 103533 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0703780

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007
[72]

Zhai, C.-G

Z. Zhai, C.-G. Park, Y. Wang, and B. Ratra, JCAP 07, 009 (2020), arXiv:1912.04921 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[73]

Y. Yang, X. Dai, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 111, 103534 (2025)

work page 2025
[74]

Robust and model-independent cosmological constraints from distance measurements

Z. Zhai and Y. Wang, JCAP 07, 005 (2019), arXiv:1811.07425 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[75]

Li and S

J.-X. Li and S. Wang, (2024), arXiv:2412.09064 [astro- ph.CO]. 13

work page arXiv 2024
[76]

Jia, J.-L

J.-Y. Jia, J.-L. Niu, D.-C. Qiang, and H. Wei, Phys. Rev. D 112, 043507 (2025), arXiv:2504.13380 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[77]

Rezaei, Astrophys

M. Rezaei, Astrophys. J. 967, 2 (2024), arXiv:2403.18968 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[78]

Sohail, S

S. Sohail, S. Alam, S. Akthar, and M. W. Hossain, Phys. Dark Univ. 48, 101948 (2025), arXiv:2408.03229 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[79]

Liu, R.-Y

Y. Liu, R.-Y. Guo, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019, 016–016 (2019)

work page 2019
[80]

Xu and X

Y.-Y. Xu and X. Zhang, The European Physical Journal C 76 (2016), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4446-5

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4446-5 2016

Showing first 80 references.