arxiv: 2604.08530 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: unknown

Disentangling cosmic distance tensions with early and late dark energy

Tanisha Jhaveri , Tanvi Karwal , Thomas Crawford , Wayne Hu , Ali Rida Khalife , Lennart Balkenhol , Fei Ge

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO

keywords early dark energythawing quintessenceHubble tensionsound horizonCMBBAOsupernovaecosmological tensions

0 comments

The pith

Early dark energy resolves the CMB-BAO tension by adjusting the sound horizon while thawing quintessence aligns supernova data without phantom crossing.

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

Cosmological measurements from the cosmic microwave background, baryon acoustic oscillations, and supernovae disagree under the standard Lambda CDM model. The paper shows these tensions can be handled separately by using early dark energy to change the sound horizon calibration at the drag epoch, which improves the CMB-BAO fit by Delta chi squared of 9.4 and raises the Hubble constant to 70.87 km per second per megaparsec. Adding a thawing quintessence component for late-time dark energy then incorporates the supernova data with an overall improvement of Delta chi squared of 12.6 relative to Lambda CDM, avoiding the phantom regime that typical dynamical models like w0wa require. This combined approach also lowers the Hubble tension with local measurements to 2-3 sigma. The early dark energy solution stays robust when different supernova catalogs are tested.

Core claim

The BAO and SN sides of the tension can be treated independently. Early dark energy reduces the CMB-BAO tension by changing the calibration of the sound horizon at the drag epoch rd, with a Delta chi squared of -9.4 relative to Lambda CDM and raising H0 to 70.87 km s^-1 Mpc^-1. Combining this with a thawing-quintessence component of dark energy reduces tensions between CMB, BAO, and SN data with Delta chi squared of -12.6 without a phantom component, compared to -15.8 for w0wa with one, while reducing the Hubble tension with local measurements from 7 sigma to 2-3 sigma.

What carries the argument

Early dark energy that modifies the sound horizon rd at the drag epoch, paired with a thawing-quintessence late dark energy component.

If this is right

EDE alone aligns CMB and BAO but requires the late-time component to fully reconcile all three datasets.
The combined model improves the fit without entering the phantom equation-of-state regime.
The inferred Hubble constant increases enough to reduce tension with local distance ladder measurements to 2-3 sigma.
The EDE adjustment to rd remains stable across different supernova catalogs including DES Dovekie, DESY5, and Pantheon+.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Future surveys measuring the expansion rate at redshifts between the CMB and supernovae could directly test whether early and late modifications are independent.
This separation suggests the tensions may arise from distinct physical mechanisms rather than a single dynamical dark energy field.
Physical realizations of EDE, such as axion-like fields, could be checked for consistency with the required parameter values while avoiding instabilities.

Load-bearing premise

Early dark energy and thawing quintessence can be added independently without introducing new inconsistencies or instabilities in the joint cosmological evolution or in the supernova distance calibration.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the sound horizon rd from independent early-universe probes that rules out the shift needed by the EDE model, or supernova distance data at intermediate redshifts that deviates from the expansion history predicted by thawing quintessence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08530 by Ali Rida Khalife, Fei Ge, Lennart Balkenhol, Tanisha Jhaveri, Tanvi Karwal, Thomas Crawford, Wayne Hu.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Posterior distributions for the CMB-BAO tension pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Profile likelihoods for the EDE fraction parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. We show three different sets of 1D probability dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. SN distance modulus data (relative to the values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Recent cosmological data reveal tension between parameters inferred from measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), and supernovae (SN) under $\Lambda$CDM. Typical dynamical dark energy parameterizations (such as $w_0w_a$) that seek to jointly resolve these tensions have an equation of state parameter that crosses into the phantom regime, leading to potential instabilities for physical models. We show that the BAO (early-time) and SN (late-time) sides of the tension can instead be treated independently. Early dark energy (EDE) can reduce the tension between CMB-BAO data by changing the calibration of the sound horizon at the drag epoch $r_d$, with a $\Delta\chi^2 = -{9.4}$ relative to $\Lambda$CDM, raising $H_0$ to 70.87 $\rm km s^{-1}Mpc^{-1}$. EDE alone cannot bring consistency between CMB, BAO, and SN data, but combining with a thawing-quintessence component of dark energy reduces tensions between the three datasets, with $\Delta\chi^2=-12.6$ relative to $\Lambda$CDM without a phantom component, vs. $\Delta\chi^2=-15.8$ for $w_0 w_a$ with one. We consider different SN datasets, using the most recent DES Dovekie catalog as our default while assessing differences with the original DESY5 and Pantheon+ catalogs. While the significance of adding thawing quintessence changes, the EDE solution to the CMB-BAO tension remains nearly unaffected. Moreover, though we do not include direct Hubble constant measurements in these $\Delta\chi^2$ values, the EDE solution reduces the Hubble tension with the Local Distance Network value from $7\sigma$ in $\Lambda$CDM to $2-3\sigma$ depending on the SN dataset, nominally the equivalent of an extra $\Delta\chi^2 \sim -40$ or more.

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 splits the tensions by fixing CMB-BAO with EDE and SN with thawing quintessence, getting a solid but smaller improvement than w0wa and without phantom crossing.

read the letter

The main point is that early dark energy handles the CMB-BAO side by shifting the sound horizon and lifting H0 to 70.87, while a separate thawing quintessence piece pulls in the supernova data. This combination improves the fit by Δχ² = -12.6 over ΛCDM without phantom behavior, compared to -15.8 for w0wa. EDE alone gets -9.4 on CMB-BAO but leaves the full three-dataset tension unresolved, so the late-time addition is what closes the gap. They also rerun with different SN catalogs and find the EDE result stays stable while the quintessence contribution changes with the choice of data set. The local H0 tension drops to 2-3σ as a side effect, though that is not folded into the quoted χ² values. What the paper does cleanly is lay out the quantitative split between early and late pieces and show the direct trade-off against w0wa. The dataset variation check is useful and keeps the EDE part from looking like a one-off fit. The comparison makes clear how much you give up by staying non-phantom. The soft spot is that the two dark energy components are added without any reported test for cross-talk in the background evolution, perturbation equations, or supernova distance calibration. The abstract gives the fit numbers but no explicit check that the joint model stays stable or free of new degeneracies across the full redshift range. Because all parameters are tuned to the same CMB-BAO-SN data, the gains are largely from extra freedom rather than an independent prediction. This is aimed at people who track dark energy parameterizations and the Hubble tension. Readers who want to avoid phantom models will find the breakdown helpful. It has enough concrete numbers and catalog checks to deserve a serious referee, though the joint consistency question should be pressed. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that tensions between CMB, BAO, and SN datasets under ΛCDM can be disentangled by treating early and late dark energy separately: early dark energy (EDE) modifies the sound horizon rd to reconcile CMB-BAO, yielding H0 = 70.87 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} and Δχ² = -9.4 relative to ΛCDM; adding a thawing-quintessence component then addresses SN data without phantom crossing, for a combined Δχ² = -12.6 (vs. -15.8 for w0wa). The EDE improvement is robust across SN catalogs (DES Dovekie default, with comparisons to DESY5 and Pantheon+), and the model reduces the Hubble tension with local measurements to 2-3σ.

Significance. If the joint model proves internally consistent, the result would be significant for offering a physically motivated route to easing cosmological tensions via independent early (EDE) and late (thawing quintessence) modifications that avoid phantom instabilities. The explicit Δχ² comparisons, use of multiple SN datasets to test robustness of the EDE sector, and quantitative H0 tension reduction are strengths that could guide future model-building in dark energy phenomenology.

major comments (3)

[Combined model results] Combined EDE + thawing quintessence fits (results section): the central claim that the two components can be added independently rests on the assumption of no cross-talk in background evolution or perturbations, yet no explicit validation is provided (e.g., total w(z) evolution, perturbation stability checks, or impact on SN distance moduli) that the joint model introduces neither new degeneracies nor instabilities across the full redshift range. This is load-bearing for the assertion that the tensions are disentangled rather than reparameterized.
[Abstract and results tables] Δχ² reporting (abstract and results): the quoted improvements (Δχ² = -9.4 for EDE alone, -12.6 for the combination) are obtained by fitting the full set of EDE and quintessence parameters directly to the CMB+BAO+SN data; without reported Bayesian evidence, AIC/BIC comparisons, or effective parameter counts, it is unclear whether the gains exceed those expected from the added degrees of freedom, weakening the claim of an independent resolution relative to w0wa.
[Abstract] Hubble tension reduction statement (abstract): the reduction from 7σ to 2-3σ is described as 'nominally the equivalent of an extra Δχ² ∼ -40', but direct local H0 measurements are excluded from the main fits; the specific local H0 value, uncertainty, and how the combined model's expansion history propagates to this tension metric must be stated explicitly to support the quantitative claim.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] The abstract refers to the 'DES Dovekie catalog' as default without a brief definition or reference; the methods section should clarify its relation to prior DES releases for readers unfamiliar with the update.
[Methods and results] Notation for the thawing quintessence parameters (e.g., the specific w(a) form or potential) is introduced in the methods but should be cross-referenced in the abstract or results when quoting the combined Δχ² to improve readability.
[Figures] Figure captions for the H0 posterior or w(z) evolution plots should explicitly note whether they include the joint EDE+quintessence case or only separate models.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for the detailed and insightful comments on our manuscript. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments, outlining our clarifications and the revisions we will implement in the updated version.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Combined model results] Combined EDE + thawing quintessence fits (results section): the central claim that the two components can be added independently rests on the assumption of no cross-talk in background evolution or perturbations, yet no explicit validation is provided (e.g., total w(z) evolution, perturbation stability checks, or impact on SN distance moduli) that the joint model introduces neither new degeneracies nor instabilities across the full redshift range. This is load-bearing for the assertion that the tensions are disentangled rather than reparameterized.

Authors: Thank you for highlighting this important aspect. Our approach treats EDE and thawing quintessence as operating in distinct epochs: EDE influences the pre-recombination era to adjust the sound horizon, while thawing quintessence modifies the post-recombination expansion without phantom behavior. To explicitly validate the lack of cross-talk, we will include in the revised manuscript a figure showing the combined w(z) evolution across all redshifts, along with a section discussing the perturbation equations and confirming stability (no ghost or gradient instabilities). Additionally, we will report the impact on SN distance moduli and note that MCMC explorations show no unexpected degeneracies. These additions will reinforce that the tensions are addressed independently. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract and results tables] Δχ² reporting (abstract and results): the quoted improvements (Δχ² = -9.4 for EDE alone, -12.6 for the combination) are obtained by fitting the full set of EDE and quintessence parameters directly to the CMB+BAO+SN data; without reported Bayesian evidence, AIC/BIC comparisons, or effective parameter counts, it is unclear whether the gains exceed those expected from the added degrees of freedom, weakening the claim of an independent resolution relative to w0wa.

Authors: We recognize the value of information criteria for model selection. While Δχ² provides a direct measure of fit quality commonly employed in this field, we agree that additional metrics would strengthen the presentation. In the revised manuscript, we will compute and report the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) for the models considered, including the effective number of parameters estimated from the posterior distributions. This will allow a clearer comparison to w0wa and better quantify whether the improvements justify the extra parameters, while emphasizing the physical benefit of avoiding phantom crossing. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Hubble tension reduction statement (abstract): the reduction from 7σ to 2-3σ is described as 'nominally the equivalent of an extra Δχ² ∼ -40', but direct local H0 measurements are excluded from the main fits; the specific local H0 value, uncertainty, and how the combined model's expansion history propagates to this tension metric must be stated explicitly to support the quantitative claim.

Authors: We agree that greater specificity is needed here. The local Hubble constant value we reference is that from the Local Distance Network (specifically, the SH0ES measurement of H0 = 73.04 ± 1.04 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}). The tension is computed as the difference between this value and the H0 inferred from our CMB+BAO+SN fits, divided by the combined uncertainty, following standard practice. In the revised abstract and a new paragraph in the results section, we will explicitly state this value, its reference, and briefly describe how the modified expansion history (higher H0 from EDE, adjusted late-time from quintessence) leads to the reduced tension level of 2-3σ. This derived quantity illustrates the broader implications without being part of the primary likelihood. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard model fits to CMB-BAO-SN data

full rationale

The paper reports chi-squared improvements from fitting EDE parameters to CMB-BAO and then adding a thawing quintessence component for SN data, yielding Delta chi^2 values of -9.4 and -12.6 respectively. These are direct statistical results of parameter optimization against the same datasets, with no claimed first-principles derivation, prediction, or uniqueness theorem that reduces to the inputs by construction. No self-citations, ansatzes, or renamings appear as load-bearing steps in the abstract. The central claim of independent treatment is demonstrated empirically by the joint fit succeeding, which is self-contained and externally falsifiable via the reported chi^2 and H0 shifts.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several fitted parameters in the EDE and quintessence sectors plus standard cosmological assumptions; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)

EDE density and transition parameters
Fitted to achieve the reported CMB-BAO Δχ² improvement and H0 shift
Thawing quintessence equation-of-state parameters
Fitted to achieve the joint three-dataset Δχ² improvement

axioms (2)

domain assumption Standard flat FLRW background cosmology with standard recombination physics
Invoked as the base model against which extensions are compared
ad hoc to paper Thawing quintessence remains in the non-phantom regime and does not destabilize perturbations
Used to claim stability advantage over w0wa

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5695 in / 1520 out tokens · 72067 ms · 2026-05-10T16:45:22.941085+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Double the axions, half the tension: multi-field early dark energy eases the Hubble tension
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Two-field axion-like early dark energy reduces Hubble tension to 1.5 sigma residual and improves high-ell CMB fits over single-field models.
The End of the First Act: Spectral Running, Interacting Dark Radiation, and the Hubble Tension in Light of ACT DR6 Data
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Including spectral running α_s, β_s and self-interacting dark radiation relaxes the ACT DR6 bound on ΔN_eff to <0.58 and lowers the Hubble tension to 2.2σ with three extra parameters.
Constraints on Coupled Dark Energy in the DESI Era
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

New cosmological data mildly favor a small coupling between dark matter and a scalar dark energy field at |β| ≈ 0.03 while allowing an effective phantom-crossing equation of state.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

135 extracted references · 129 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 10 internal anchors

[1]

weak-lensing amplitude parameter

for a pre-DESI exploration). Profile-likelihood studies are especially important for EDE models because they are susceptible to prior-volume effects [55, 106–108]: as the amount of EDE becomes neg- ligible, its other parameters become unconstrained by the data, leading to a large prior volume in the ΛCDM limit. This ballooning prior volume can pull Bayesi...
[2]

48) which increase the precision of Boltz- mann codes for comparing with high-resolution CMB sur- veys like ACT and SPT

(their Fig. 48) which increase the precision of Boltz- mann codes for comparing with high-resolution CMB sur- veys like ACT and SPT. We adopt a subset of these pa- rameters, balancing speed and accuracy, choosing higher accuracy only when the precision setting has a ∆χ2 >0.2 impact on the individual likelihoods considered here, checked at multiple points ...
[3]

fiducial ΛCDM,

as an independent dataset and neglect cross-correlations which are negligible due to the small but deep sky coverage [119]. •BAO: We use the DESI DR2 likelihood based on Table IV in Ref. [10] forD V /rd for the lowest redshift bin andD M /rd,D H /rd, and their cross- correlationr M,H for all other bins. 7 HereD X are BAO-measured distances andr d is the s...

2007
[4]

the maximum marginalized posterior probability value forf EDE is being pulled down (compared to the profile valuef EDE = 0.09±0.03 where±refer to ∆χ 2 =±1 as estimated from a quadratic fit to the profile, nominally a 3σpreference) by prior-volume effects, and 2) the pro- file likelihood is nearly quadratic, in contrast to the clear non-Gaussianity of the ...

2000
[5]

M. S. Turner 10.1146/annurev-nucl-111119-041046 (2022), arXiv:2201.04741 [astro-ph.CO]

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-111119-041046 2022
[6]

Efstathiou, J.R

N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[7]

S. W. Hendersonet al., J. Low Temp. Phys.184, 772 (2016), arXiv:1510.02809 [astro-ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2016
[8]

J. E. Carlstromet al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.123, 568 (2011), arXiv:0907.4445 [astro-ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2011
[9]

SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field

E. Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), (2025), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[10]

The Local Distance Network: a community consensus report on the measurement of the Hubble constant at 1% precision

S. Casertanoet al.(H0DN), (2025), arXiv:2510.23823 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[11]

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

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[12]

A. G. Riesset al., (2025), arXiv:2509.01667 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[13]

W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, T. J. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, A. J. Lee, and K. A. Owens, Astrophys. J.985, 203 (2025), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 993, 252 (2025)], arXiv:2408.06153 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[14]

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

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

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[15]

T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES), Astrophys. J. Lett.973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[16]

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

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[17]

Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter

M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

work page Pith review arXiv 2001
[18]

E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208512

work page Pith review arXiv 2003
[19]

Can dark energy evolve to the Phantom?

A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D71, 023515 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0407107

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2005
[20]

Hu, Phys

W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D71, 047301 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0410680

work page arXiv 2005
[21]

Creminelli, G

P. Creminelli, G. D’Amico, J. Norena, and F. Vernizzi, JCAP02, 018, arXiv:0811.0827 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv
[22]

W. Fang, W. Hu, and A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D78, 087303 (2008), arXiv:0808.3125 [astro-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008
[23]

The Effective Field Theory of Dark Energy,

G. Gubitosi, F. Piazza, and F. Vernizzi, JCAP02, 032, arXiv:1210.0201 [hep-th]

work page arXiv
[24]

J. K. Bloomfield, ´E. ´E. Flanagan, M. Park, and S. Wat- son, JCAP08, 010, arXiv:1211.7054 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv
[25]

Coupled Quintessence

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

work page Pith review arXiv 2000
[26]

S. Das, P. S. Corasaniti, and J. Khoury, Phys. Rev. D 73, 083509 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0510628

work page arXiv 2006
[27]

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

work page Pith review arXiv 2006
[28]

M. S. Oliveira, F. A. Brito, and J. A. V. Campos, (2025), arXiv:2510.08459 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[29]

N. J. Pullisseri and S. Unnikrishnan, (2025), arXiv:2510.07103 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[30]

W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, Phys. Rev. D111, L041303 (2025), arXiv:2409.17019 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[31]

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

work page arXiv 2025
[32]

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

work page arXiv 2025
[33]

Pourtsidou, Exponential quintessence with momentum coupling to dark matter, JCAP02, 014, arXiv:2509.15091 [astro-ph.CO]

A. Pourtsidou, (2025), arXiv:2509.15091 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[34]

Tsujikawa,Crossing the phantom divide in scalar-tensor and vector-tensor theories,Phys

S. Tsujikawa, (2025), arXiv:2508.17231 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[35]

Z. Yao, G. Ye, and A. Silvestri, (2025), arXiv:2508.01378 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[36]

S. L. Guedezounme, B. R. Dinda, and R. Maartens, (2025), arXiv:2507.18274 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[37]

H¨ og˚ as and E

M. H¨ og˚ as and E. M¨ ortsell, (2025), arXiv:2507.03743 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[38]

Paliathanasis, Phys

A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101993 (2025), arXiv:2504.11132 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[39]

Andriot,Phantom matters,Phys

D. Andriot, Phys. Dark Univ.49, 102000 (2025), arXiv:2505.10410 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2025
[40]

C. You, D. Wang, and T. Yang, Phys. Rev. D112, 043503 (2025), arXiv:2504.00985 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[41]

S. Pan, S. Paul, E. N. Saridakis, and W. Yang, (2025), arXiv:2504.00994 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[42]

Silva, M.A

E. Silva, M. A. Sabogal, M. Scherer, R. C. Nunes, E. Di Valentino, and S. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D111, 123511 (2025), arXiv:2503.23225 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[43]

Non-Minimally Coupled Quintessence in Light of DESI,

S. S´ anchez L´ opez, A. Karam, and D. K. Hazra, (2025), arXiv:2510.14941 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[44]

Baryakhtar, O

M. Baryakhtar, O. Simon, and Z. J. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D110, 083505 (2024), arXiv:2405.10358 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[45]

Bottaro, E

S. Bottaro, E. Castorina, M. Costa, D. Redigolo, and E. Salvioni, Phys. Rev. D112, 023525 (2025), arXiv:2407.18252 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[46]

Costa, C

M. Costa, C. Creque-Sarbinowski, O. Simon, and Z. J. Weiner, (2025), arXiv:2510.00098 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[47]

Khoury, M.-X

J. Khoury, M.-X. Lin, and M. Trodden, (2025), arXiv:2503.16415 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[48]

Evolving Dark Sector and the Dark Dimension Scenario,

A. Bedroya, G. Obied, C. Vafa, and D. H. Wu, (2025), arXiv:2507.03090 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[49]

R. R. Caldwell and E. V. Linder, (2025), arXiv:2511.07526 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[50]

Z. J. Weiner, (2026), arXiv:2603.18131 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[51]

Sailer, G.S

N. Sailer, G. S. Farren, S. Ferraro, and M. White, (2025), arXiv:2504.16932 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[52]

Jhaveri, T

T. Jhaveri, T. Karwal, and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D112, 043541 (2025), arXiv:2504.21813 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[53]

C. Cain, A. Van Engelen, K. S. Croker, D. Kramer, A. D’Aloisio, and G. Lopez, (2025), arXiv:2505.15899 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[54]

Garcia-Gallego, V

O. Garcia-Gallego, V. Irˇ siˇ c, M. G. Haehnelt, and J. S. Bolton, (2025), arXiv:2510.00107 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[55]

It’s All Ok: Curvature in Light of BAO from DESI DR2

S.-F. Chen and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP08, 014, arXiv:2505.00659 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv
[56]

R. Liu, Y. Zhu, W. Hu, and V. Miranda, (2025), arXiv:2510.14957 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[57]

Karwal and M

T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D94, 103523 (2016), arXiv:1608.01309 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2016
[58]

Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension

V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 221301 (2019), arXiv:1811.04083 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[59]

Poulin, T

V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, and T. Karwal, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101348 (2023), arXiv:2302.09032 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[60]

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
[61]

T. L. Smith, V. Poulin, and M. A. Amin, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063523 (2020), arXiv:1908.06995 [astro-ph.CO]. 14

work page arXiv 2020
[62]

Agrawal, F.-Y

P. Agrawal, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, D. Pinner, and L. Randall, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101347 (2023), arXiv:1904.01016 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[63]

M.-X. Lin, G. Benevento, W. Hu, and M. Raveri, Phys. Rev. D100, 063542 (2019), arXiv:1905.12618 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2019
[64]

Alexander and E

S. Alexander and E. McDonough, Phys. Lett. B797, 134830 (2019), arXiv:1904.08912 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2019
[65]

Sakstein and M

J. Sakstein and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 161301 (2020), arXiv:1911.11760 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[66]

Gogoi, R

A. Gogoi, R. K. Sharma, P. Chanda, and S. Das, As- trophys. J.915, 132 (2021), arXiv:2005.11889 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[67]

Niedermann and M

F. Niedermann and M. S. Sloth, Phys. Rev. D103, L041303 (2021), arXiv:1910.10739 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[68]

Niedermann and M.S

F. Niedermann and M. S. Sloth, Phys. Rev. D102, 063527 (2020), arXiv:2006.06686 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[69]

Niedermann and M

F. Niedermann and M. S. Sloth, Phys. Rev. D105, 063509 (2022), arXiv:2112.00770 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[70]

Ye and Y.-S

G. Ye and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D101, 083507 (2020), arXiv:2001.02451 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[71]

K. V. Berghaus and T. Karwal, Phys. Rev. D101, 083537 (2020), arXiv:1911.06281 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[72]

Freese and M

K. Freese and M. W. Winkler, Phys. Rev. D104, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2102.13655 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[73]

Braglia, W

M. Braglia, W. T. Emond, F. Finelli, A. E. Gum- rukcuoglu, and K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. D102, 083513 (2020), arXiv:2005.14053 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[74]

V. I. Sabla and R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Rev. D103, 103506 (2021), arXiv:2103.04999 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[75]

V. I. Sabla and R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Rev. D106, 063526 (2022), arXiv:2202.08291 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[76]

G´ omez-Valent, Z

A. G´ omez-Valent, Z. Zheng, L. Amendola, V. Pettorino, and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rev. D104, 083536 (2021), arXiv:2107.11065 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[77]

A. Moss, E. Copeland, S. Bamford, and T. Clarke, (2021), arXiv:2109.14848 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[78]

Guendelman, R

E. Guendelman, R. Herrera, and D. Benisty, Phys. Rev. D105, 124035 (2022), arXiv:2201.06470 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[79]

Karwal, M

T. Karwal, M. Raveri, B. Jain, J. Khoury, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D105, 063535 (2022), arXiv:2106.13290 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[80]

McDonough, M.-X

E. McDonough, M.-X. Lin, J. C. Hill, W. Hu, and S. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D106, 043525 (2022), arXiv:2112.09128 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022

Showing first 80 references.