Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 2 cited by

Information-Geometric Perspective on the Hubble Tension: Eigenmode Rotation and Curvature Suppression in wCDM

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-10 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Hubble tension in wCDM arises from a reconfiguration of the datasets' constraint manifold rather than from new physical agreement.

desk verdict The paper reframes Hubble tension in wCDM as manifold reconfiguration via Fisher curvature suppression, but the Gaussian factorization looks unreliable once the leading eigenvalue drops that far. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.04422 v1 submitted 2026-04-06 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Seokcheon Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords HubbletensionwCDMFisherinformationmatrixeigenmodescosmologicalconstraintsdarkenergygeometry
topics Dark EnergyThe Hubble Tension
checked against Foundation.AbsoluteFloorClosureCost.FunctionalEquation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper separates the Hubble tension into a parameter shift and the directional stiffness of the datasets in the wCDM model. It finds that allowing the dark-energy equation of state to vary mainly reduces the curvature strength of the early-universe data constraint while late-time measurements add stiffness along the expansion rate. This geometric change explains shifts in the apparent tension without requiring new physical agreement between early and late observations. The decomposition gives a transparent way to diagnose how model extensions affect cosmological tensions.

What carries the argument

The shift-curvature decomposition that splits quadratic tension into a squared displacement term and a directional Fisher curvature term.

What would settle it

A calculation of the full tension in wCDM that does not match the sum of the squared shift and the curvature contribution from the reported eigenvalues and rotations would falsify the factorization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the local Gaussian approximation the quadratic tension factorizes into the squared shift between parameter estimates and the combined directional curvature from the Fisher matrices of the datasets. For Planck, DESI DR2 and SH0ES data in wCDM the leading Planck Fisher eigenvalue drops to roughly 2.7 percent of its Lambda-CDM value with only modest rotation of the acoustic eigenmode. The resulting softening of acoustic rigidity is countered by new curvature injected by the late-time data, which limits the possible reduction in tension.

Load-bearing premise

The local Gaussian approximation accurately factorizes the quadratic tension into a squared shift term and a combined directional curvature term contributed by the datasets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The leading curvature of the cosmic microwave background constraint is suppressed when the dark energy equation of state is allowed to vary.
  • Late-time data impose additional stiffness that closes off routes to full tension resolution.
  • Inferred tension values reflect the geometry of the constraint manifold rather than direct physical reconciliation.
  • The method provides a rapid diagnostic for tensions that avoids full likelihood reanalysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same decomposition could diagnose whether other cosmological tensions arise from similar manifold reconfigurations.
  • Increasing the precision of late-time measurements would further stiffen the manifold and reduce opportunities for tension relief through parameter extensions.
  • Applying the factorization to non-Gaussian cases would test its range of applicability beyond the local approximation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the Hubble tension in wCDM is best understood geometrically as a reconfiguration of the constraint manifold rather than new physical agreement. Using Fisher matrices from Planck, DESI DR2, and SH0ES, it factorizes quadratic tension along directions into a squared shift term plus combined directional curvature. Extending to wCDM suppresses the leading Planck eigenmode to ~2.7% of its ΛCDM value with modest rotation of the acoustic-scale mode, while late-time data adds substantial curvature along the expansion-rate direction, acting as a geometric wall that limits tension relief.

Significance. If the local Gaussian approximation and factorization remain valid under strong eigenmode suppression, the shift-curvature decomposition offers a fast, transparent diagnostic for how model extensions reshape tensions without achieving concordance. This could aid interpretation of future datasets by distinguishing weakened constraints from genuine physical resolutions, and the approach is computationally lightweight compared to full MCMC explorations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and results section: the central claim that wCDM reconfigures the manifold (via ~97% suppression of the leading Planck Fisher eigenvalue) rests on the local Gaussian approximation for tension factorization. No validation is shown that this quadratic form remains accurate once the acoustic-scale curvature is reduced to 2.7% of its ΛCDM value; residual non-Gaussianity, prior volume, or higher-order likelihood curvature could then dominate the budget. A concrete test (e.g., comparison of the quadratic approximation against full likelihood evaluations along the suppressed eigenmode) is needed to support the factorization.
  2. [Abstract] The directional curvatures and eigenmodes are constructed directly from Fisher matrices fitted to the same Planck, DESI DR2, and SH0ES datasets whose tension is being diagnosed. This makes the geometric quantities downstream of the parameter fits rather than independent external benchmarks, raising a correctness risk for the reconfiguration interpretation. The manuscript should test the claim on mock data generated from a fiducial model with known tension to confirm the decomposition is not an artifact of the fitting procedure.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions application to Planck, DESI DR2, and SH0ES but provides no error bars, data exclusion criteria, or verification that the Gaussian approximation holds for these posteriors; these details should be added for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful and constructive comments, which have prompted us to strengthen the validation of our geometric framework. We address each major comment in detail below, outlining the specific revisions we will implement to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results section: the central claim that wCDM reconfigures the manifold (via ~97% suppression of the leading Planck Fisher eigenvalue) rests on the local Gaussian approximation for tension factorization. No validation is shown that this quadratic form remains accurate once the acoustic-scale curvature is reduced to 2.7% of its ΛCDM value; residual non-Gaussianity, prior volume, or higher-order likelihood curvature could then dominate the budget. A concrete test (e.g., comparison of the quadratic approximation against full likelihood evaluations along the suppressed eigenmode) is needed to support the factorization.

    Authors: We agree that the validity of the local Gaussian approximation under strong eigenmode suppression requires explicit verification, as higher-order effects could become relevant. In the revised manuscript, we will add a new subsection (likely in Section 3 or 4) that performs a direct numerical test: we will evaluate the full Planck likelihood (or posterior samples) along the direction of the suppressed leading eigenmode and compare the resulting tension measure to the quadratic factorization. This will quantify any deviations due to non-Gaussianity or prior effects and report the fractional error in the decomposition. We anticipate the approximation remains accurate for the relevant parameter displacements, but the test will provide the necessary evidence to support our claims. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The directional curvatures and eigenmodes are constructed directly from Fisher matrices fitted to the same Planck, DESI DR2, and SH0ES datasets whose tension is being diagnosed. This makes the geometric quantities downstream of the parameter fits rather than independent external benchmarks, raising a correctness risk for the reconfiguration interpretation. The manuscript should test the claim on mock data generated from a fiducial model with known tension to confirm the decomposition is not an artifact of the fitting procedure.

    Authors: The referee raises a valid point about potential circularity in deriving the geometric quantities from the same data used to measure the tension. To address this, the revised manuscript will include a dedicated validation using mock datasets. We will generate simulated Planck, DESI-like, and SH0ES-like data from a fiducial wCDM cosmology with a controlled input tension (e.g., by imposing a deliberate H0 shift in the early-time mock while holding late-time mocks fixed to a different value). Applying our Fisher decomposition to these mocks will confirm that the shift-curvature factorization recovers the known geometric reconfiguration without fitting artifacts. This test will be presented as a methodological robustness check, while the main results continue to focus on the real datasets. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; factorization follows from standard Gaussian likelihood

full rationale

The paper applies the local Gaussian approximation to decompose quadratic tension into a squared parameter shift term and a directional curvature term constructed from the Fisher matrices of Planck, DESI DR2, and SH0ES. This decomposition is a direct algebraic consequence of the quadratic expansion of the log-likelihood and does not reduce any claimed result to its inputs by construction; the shifts and curvatures remain independently determined by the external datasets. The central interpretive claim—that wCDM extension reconfigures the constraint manifold rather than producing physical concordance—follows from comparing these computed quantities across models and is not a tautological renaming or self-referential prediction. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatze imported from prior author work are present, and the analysis relies on standard information-geometry tools benchmarked against the same public data releases used in conventional tension studies. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the standard Fisher-matrix formalism of information geometry applied to cosmological parameter constraints; no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Local Gaussian approximation for the posterior distributions of cosmological parameters
    Invoked to factorize quadratic tension into shift squared plus directional curvature product.
  • standard math Fisher information matrix supplies a valid local quadratic approximation to the log-likelihood surface
    Used throughout to define directional curvatures and eigenmodes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Information-Geometric Perspective on the Hubble Tension: Eigenmode Rotation and Curvature Suppression in wCDM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2604.04422

@misc{pith2026260404422,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Information-Geometric Perspective on the Hubble Tension: Eigenmode Rotation and Curvature Suppression in wCDM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2604.04422}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.04422}
}
read the original abstract

The Hubble tension is shaped not only by shifts between early- and late-time parameter estimates, but also by the stiffness of the constraints that define them. In this work, we analyze this geometric structure in the wCDM model by separating the discrepancy into two components: a parameter displacement and a directional Fisher curvature. Within the local Gaussian approximation, the quadratic tension along a given direction factorizes into the squared shift and the combined directional curvature contributed by the datasets. Applying this framework to Planck, DESI DR2, and SH0ES, we show that extending \LambdaCDM to wCDM primarily reshapes the Fisher geometry of the CMB constraint rather than opening a genuinely new route to concordance. Allowing the dark-energy equation-of-state parameter w to vary suppresses the leading Planck Fisher eigenvalue to only \sim 2.7 % of its \LambdaCDM value, while producing only a modest rotation of the dominant acoustic-scale eigenmode. The net effect is a strong softening of the effective acoustic rigidity. At the same time, high-precision late-time data, especially from DESI DR2, inject substantial curvature along the expansion-rate direction. This added stiffness acts as a geometric wall, closing off phantom-like escape routes and sharply limiting tension relief within the extended parameter space. Our results indicate that changes in the inferred H_0 tension under model extension are best understood as a reconfiguration of the constraint manifold rather than as evidence for new physical agreement. The shift-curvature decomposition thus offers a simple, fast, and physically transparent way to diagnose cosmological tensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.04422 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Redistribution of the Planck Fisher eigenvalue spectrum under the ΛCDM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Directional curvature fractions in the rdFREE configuration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Directional curvature fractions in the rdFIX configuration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Illustrative geometric representation of the three–probe constraint structure in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the cumulative curvature fraction Ck of the joint Fisher tensor. In the ln H0 repre￾sentation, the curvature saturates rapidly, reaching unity by the first mode in rdFIX and by the second mode in rdFREE. In the linear H0 basis, the curvature is distributed over a…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    Within the local Gaussian approximation, the quadratic tension along a given direction factorizes into the squared shift and the combined directional curvature contributed by the datasets.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    Allowing the dark-energy equation-of-state parameter w to vary suppresses the leading Planck Fisher eigenvalue to only ∼2.7% of its ΛCDM value

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 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Geometric obstruction to resolving the Hubble tension: orthogonality of scale and shape in distance measurements

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

    A geometric invariance makes the BAO-SN Ω_m gap invariant under sound-horizon rescaling α and requires opposite w(z) deformations for the two datasets, so their combination cannot reach the local H0 value.

  2. From Scalar $H_0$ to $E(z)$: A Reformulation of the Hubble Tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Re-expressing the Hubble tension via posterior-implied E(z) histories yields moderate mismatches (S_hist of 1.65 and 2.55) that correspond to only 1.1-2.1 sigma equivalents, below the usual 4.9 sigma scalar-H0 discrepancy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Consequently, the SH0ES Fisher tensor projects almost entirely onto the pure expansion-rate axis

    Fisher–geometric interpretation BecauseD L ∝H −1 0 at low redshift, variations inH 0 (or equivalently lnH 0) simply rescale predicted luminosity distances without requiring correlated shifts in other cosmological parameters. Consequently, the SH0ES Fisher tensor projects almost entirely onto the pure expansion-rate axis. In the (Ωm0,lnH 0, w) basis, the d...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Numerical construction of the SH0ES Fisher tensor The SH0ES Fisher matrix is constructed directly from the Pantheon+SH0ES likelihood using the publicly released distance-modulus data vector and covariance matrix. Unlike the Planck and DESI Fisher tensors, which are reconstructed from posterior covariances of MCMC chains, the SH0ES Fisher tensor is evaluat...

    work page

  3. [3]

    In the rdFREE configuration, DESI contributes no curvature along the expansion-rate axis (Sec

    Structural role in rdFREE and rdFIX The invariance ofκ S under the rdFREE/rdFIX transformation highlights the structural distinction of SH0ES within the combined Fisher geometry. In the rdFREE configuration, DESI contributes no curvature along the expansion-rate axis (Sec. VI B), and the effective stiffness is supplied entirely by Planck and SH0ES. The ex...

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    In the lnH 0 repre- sentation, the curvature saturates rapidly, reaching unity by the first mode in rdFIX and by the second mode in rdFREE

    Low-dimensional curvature structure Figure 6 shows the cumulative curvature fractionC k of the joint Fisher tensor. In the lnH 0 repre- sentation, the curvature saturates rapidly, reaching unity by the first mode in rdFIX and by the second mode in rdFREE. In the linearH 0 basis, the curvature is distributed over a slightly larger set of leading modes, app...

    work page

  5. [5]

    In the rdFREE configuration, DESI contributes identically zero curvature along the pure expansion-rate axis, and the joint curvature reduces toκ rdFREE joint =κ P +κ S

    Redistribution of stiffness Within this anisotropic Fisher geometry, the treatment of the sound horizon controls how stiffness is redistributed among probes. In the rdFREE configuration, DESI contributes identically zero curvature along the pure expansion-rate axis, and the joint curvature reduces toκ rdFREE joint =κ P +κ S. Numerically, the stiffness par...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Geometric origin of the tension The essential insight is geometric. The Hubble tension is not merely a discrepancy between two central values ofH 0; it is the projection of a physical displacement onto a highly anisotropic Fisher metric whose stiffness is concentrated in a single eigenmode. Sound-horizon calibration determines whether that stiff- ness is ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Connection to observational constraints This geometric structure is reflected in current cosmological parameter constraints. Although allowing the dark energy equation of state to vary slightly shifts the preferred expansion rate, the combined DESI+CMB+Pantheon+ constraints in thewCDM model yield [17] H0 = 67.97±0.57 km s −1 Mpc−1.(72) This value remains ...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Product of three Gaussian likelihoods Before forming the Gaussian product, all probes are first expressed in a common parameter basis θthrough the appropriate Jacobian transformations, as described in Sec. VI. Only after this basis unification do we construct the Gaussian product. 25 Consider three Gaussian likelihoods for a common parameter vectorθ, LP(θ...

    work page

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Explicit expansion of the exponent Using the symmetry ofF i we obtain (θ−θ i)T Fi(θ−θ i) =θ T Fiθ−2θ T Fiθi +θ T i Fiθi.(A7) Summing over the three probes yields Q3(θ) =θ T (FP +F S +F D)θ−2θ T (FPθP +F SθS +F DθD) +θ T P FPθP +θ T S FSθS +θ T DFDθD.(A8)

  2. [10]

    Completing the square Define A3 =F P +F S +F D, b 3 =F PθP +F SθS +F DθD.(A9) Then Q3(θ) =θ T A3θ−2θ T b3 +c 3.(A10) Completing the square yields Q3(θ) = (θ−µ 3)T A3(θ−µ 3) + (c3 −µ T 3 A3µ3) (A11) with µ3 =A −1 3 b3.(A12) Thus, the joint likelihood becomes Gaussian with Fjoin...

  3. [11]

    Early–late regrouping Combining the two late-time probes first, FL =F S +F D, θ L = (FS +F D)−1(FSθS +F DθD).(A15) Combining this block with the early probe gives Fjoint =F P +F L,(A16) which reproduces the full three-probe result. 26

  4. [12]

    Early–late quadratic tension The statistical tension between the early-Universe block (Planck) and the late-Universe block (SH0ES + DESI) is quantified by the residual of the combined quadratic forms evaluated at the joint minimum, θjoint. Defining the individual penalties asQ...

    2018

  5. [13]

    Sandage and G

    A. Sandage and G. A. Tammann, Astrophys. J.196, 313-328 (1975) doi:10.1086/153413

    1975 doi

  6. [14]

    de Vaucouleurs, Nature299, no.5881, 303-307 (1982) doi:10.1038/299303a0 27 TABLE V

    G. de Vaucouleurs, Nature299, no.5881, 303-307 (1982) doi:10.1038/299303a0 27 TABLE V. Numerical configuration of the Fisher reconstructions. Only SH0ES employs finite-difference deriva- tives, while Planck and DESI use posterior covariance inversion. Planck 2018 (base w) DESI...

    1982 doi

  7. [15]

    W. L. Freedmanet al.[HST], Astrophys. J.553, 47-72 (2001) doi:10.1086/320638 [arXiv:astro-ph/0012376 [astro-ph]]

    2001 doi

  8. [16]

    Sandage, G

    A. Sandage, G. A. Tammann, A. Saha, B. Reindl, F. D. Macchetto and N. Panagia, Astrophys. J.653, 843-860 (2006) doi:10.1086/508853 [arXiv:astro-ph/0603647 [astro-ph]]

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    Verde, P

    L. Verde, P. Protopapas and R. Jimenez, Phys. Dark Univ.2, 166-175 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2013.09.002 [arXiv:1306.6766 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    Efstathiou, Mon

    G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.440, no.2, 1138-1152 (2014) doi:10.1093/mnras/stu278 [arXiv:1311.3461 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    J. L. Bernal, L. Verde and A. G. Riess, JCAP10, 019 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/10/019 [arXiv:1607.05617 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Knox and M

    L. Knox and M. Millea, Phys. Rev. D101, no.4, 043533 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043533 [arXiv:1908.03663 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.594, A13 (2016) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 [arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. Astrophys.652, C4 (2021)] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    A. G. Riess, L. Macri, S. Casertano, H. Lampeitl, H. C. Ferguson, A. V. Filippenko, S. W. Jha, W. Li and R. Chornock, Astrophys. J.730, 119 (2011) [erratum: Astrophys. J.732, 129 (2011)] doi:10.1088/0004- 637X/732/2/129 [arXiv:1103.2976 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    A. G. Riess, L. M. Macri, S. L. Hoffmann, D. Scolnic, S. Casertano, A. V. Filippenko, B. E. Tucker, M. J. Reid, D. O. Jones and J. M. Silverman,et al.Astrophys. J.826, no.1, 56 (2016) doi:10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/56 [arXiv:1604.01424 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri and D. Scolnic, Astrophys. J.876, no.1, 85 (2019) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422 [arXiv:1903.07603 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, D. Hatt, T. J. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, R. L. Beaton, C. R. Burns, M. G. Lee, A. J. Monson and J. R. Neeley,et al.Astrophys. J.882, 34 (2019) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f73 [arXiv:1907.05922 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, J. B. Bowers, L. Macri, J. C. Zinn and D. Scolnic, Astrophys. J. Lett. 908, no.1, L6 (2021) doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abdbaf [arXiv:2012.08534 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano, D. O. Jones, Y. Murakami, L. Breuval and T. G. Brink,et al.Astrophys. J. Lett.934, no.1, L7 (2022) doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b [arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys. Rev. D112, no.8, 083515 (2025) doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 [arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    Lin and M

    W. Lin and M. Ishak, Phys. Rev. D96, no.2, 023532 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023532 [arXiv:1705.05303 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Raveri and W

    M. Raveri and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D99, no.4, 043506 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.043506 [arXiv:1806.04649 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Trotta, Contemp

    R. Trotta, Contemp. Phys.49, 71-104 (2008) doi:10.1080/00107510802066753 [arXiv:0803.4089 [astro-ph]]

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    Seehars, A

    S. Seehars, A. Amara, A. Refregier, A. Paranjape and J. Akeret, Phys. Rev. D90, no.2, 023533 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.023533 [arXiv:1402.3593 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Handley and P

    W. Handley and P. Lemos, Phys. Rev. D100, no.4, 043504 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043504 [arXiv:1902.04029 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    D. D. Y. Ong, D. Yallup and W. Handley, [arXiv:2603.05472 [astro-ph.CO]]. 28

  28. [36]

    A. N. Ormondroyd, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, A. N. Lasenby and D. Yallup, [arXiv:2509.13220 [astro- ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    D. D. Y. Ong, D. Yallup and W. Handley, [arXiv:2511.10631 [astro-ph.CO]]

  30. [38]

    Tegmark, A

    M. Tegmark, A. Taylor and A. Heavens, Astrophys. J.480, 22 (1997) doi:10.1086/303939 [arXiv:astro- ph/9603021 [astro-ph]]

    1997 doi

  31. [39]

    Albrecht, G

    A. Albrecht, G. Bernstein, R. Cahn, W. L. Freedman, J. Hewitt, W. Hu, J. Huth, M. Kamionkowski, E. W. Kolb and L. Knox,et al.[arXiv:astro-ph/0609591 [astro-ph]]

  32. [40]

    Raveri, Phys

    M. Raveri, Phys. Rev. D93, no.4, 043522 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.043522 [arXiv:1510.00688 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    G. E. Addison, Y. Huang, D. J. Watts, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw and J. L. Weiland, Astrophys. J.818, no.2, 132 (2016) doi:10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/132 [arXiv:1511.00055 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    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, no.15, 153001 (2021) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d [arXiv:2103.01183 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    Hu and N

    W. Hu and N. Sugiyama, Astrophys. J.471, 542-570 (1996) doi:10.1086/177989 [arXiv:astro-ph/9510117 [astro-ph]]

    1996 doi

  36. [44]

    Hu and M

    W. Hu and M. J. White, Phys. Rev. D56, 596-615 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.596 [arXiv:astro- ph/9702170 [astro-ph]]

    1997 doi

  37. [45]

    Efstathiou and J

    G. Efstathiou and J. R. Bond, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.304, 75-97 (1999) doi:10.1046/j.1365- 8711.1999.02274.x [arXiv:astro-ph/9807103 [astro-ph]]

    1999 doi

  38. [46]

    D. J. Eisenstein, W. Hu and M. Tegmark, Astrophys. J.518, 2-23 (1999) doi:10.1086/307261 [arXiv:astro- ph/9807130 [astro-ph]]

    1999 doi

  39. [47]

    Huterer and M

    D. Huterer and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D60, 081301 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.081301 [arXiv:astro- ph/9808133 [astro-ph]]

    1999 doi

  40. [48]

    I. Maor, R. Brustein and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 6 (2001) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 049901 (2001)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.6 [arXiv:astro-ph/0007297 [astro-ph]]

    2001 doi

  41. [49]

    Astier, Phys

    P. Astier, Phys. Lett. B500, 8-15 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00072-7 [arXiv:astro-ph/0008306 [astro- ph]]

    2001 doi

  42. [50]

    Huterer and M

    D. Huterer and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D64, 123527 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.123527 [arXiv:astro- ph/0012510 [astro-ph]]

    2001 doi

  43. [51]

    Huterer and A

    D. Huterer and A. Cooray, Phys. Rev. D71, 023506 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.023506 [arXiv:astro- ph/0404062 [astro-ph]]

    2005 doi

  44. [52]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D72, 043529 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.043529 [arXiv:astro-ph/0507263 [astro-ph]]

    2005 doi

  45. [53]

    Wang and M

    Y. Wang and M. Tegmark, Phys. Rev. D71, 103513 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.103513 [arXiv:astro- ph/0501351 [astro-ph]]

    2005 doi

  46. [54]

    Amendola, M

    L. Amendola, M. Kunz and D. Sapone, JCAP04, 013 (2008) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/04/013 [arXiv:0704.2421 [astro-ph]]

    2008 doi

  47. [55]

    Lee, Phys

    S. Lee, Phys. Lett. B874, 140237 (2026) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140237 [arXiv:2512.14747 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2026 doi

  48. [56]

    B. A. Bassett, P. S. Corasaniti and M. Kunz, Astrophys. J. Lett.617, L1-L4 (2004) doi:10.1086/427023 [arXiv:astro-ph/0407364 [astro-ph]]

    2004 doi

  49. [57]

    Cortˆ es and A

    M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.531, no.1, L52-L56 (2024) doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slae030 [arXiv:2309.03286 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    Cortˆ es and A

    M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle, JCAP12, 007 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/007 [arXiv:2404.08056 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    Cortˆ es and A

    M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.544, L121-L125 (2025) doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf108 [arXiv:2504.15336 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 doi

  52. [60]

    D. J. Eisenstein and W. Hu, Astrophys. J.496, 605 (1998) doi:10.1086/305424 [arXiv:astro-ph/9709112 [astro-ph]]

    1998 doi

  53. [61]

    Aubourget al.[BOSS], Phys

    ´E. Aubourget al.[BOSS], Phys. Rev. D92, no.12, 123516 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.123516 [arXiv:1411.1074 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2015 doi

  54. [62]

    Brieden, H

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Mar´ ın and L. Verde, JCAP04, 023 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/04/023 [arXiv:2212.04522 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    Lee, Mon

    S. Lee, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.544, no.4, 3388-3393 (2025) doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1890 [arXiv:2506.16022 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 doi

  56. [64]

    Lee, [arXiv:2507.01380 [astro-ph.CO]]

    S. Lee, [arXiv:2507.01380 [astro-ph.CO]]

  57. [65]

    Lee, Eur

    S. Lee, Eur. Phys. J. C86, no.2, 191 (2026) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15431-7 [arXiv:2506.18230 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2026 doi

  58. [66]

    Lee, [arXiv:2511.16703 [astro-ph.CO]]

    S. Lee, [arXiv:2511.16703 [astro-ph.CO]]

  59. [67]

    Lee, [arXiv:2512.04130 [astro-ph.CO]]

    S. Lee, [arXiv:2512.04130 [astro-ph.CO]]

  60. [68]

    Lee, [arXiv:2602.08207 [astro-ph.CO]]

    S. Lee, [arXiv:2602.08207 [astro-ph.CO]]

Pith tools

Reviewed May 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.