arxiv: 2604.21671 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

Saturation Mechanisms in the Interacting Dark Sector

Andronikos Paliathanasis , Kevin J. Duffy

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 14:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

keywords interacting dark energydark mattersaturation mechanismscosmological modelsBayesian analysisphase space analysisDESI observations

0 comments

The pith

Bayesian tests favor a nonzero sparseness scale in two dark-sector interaction models.

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

The paper presents three phenomenological models where the interaction between dark matter and dark energy is modulated by a sparseness scale that acts like a saturation limit. This parameter bounds how much energy can be exchanged at once and influences whether the universe's expansion history avoids phantom behavior. Dynamical systems analysis of the equations shows how different values of the scale change the long-term behavior of the cosmos. Fitting the models to supernova, cosmic chronometer, DESI baryon acoustic oscillation, and redshift-space distortion data indicates that a zero sparseness scale is ruled out at high confidence in two of the models.

Core claim

The authors construct nonlinear interaction terms for the dark sector that incorporate a sparseness scale inspired by saturation in ecology. Phase-space analysis identifies the fixed points and their stability, demonstrating that the scale alters the asymptotic behavior. When confronted with observational datasets including DESI DR2 measurements, the Bayesian inference disfavors the limit where the sparseness scale vanishes for two of the three models at more than 95 percent confidence, supporting the presence of a characteristic saturation scale in the interaction.

What carries the argument

the sparseness scale, introduced as a half-saturation constant in the interaction rate between dark matter and dark energy to bound the energy transfer and control dynamical evolution

If this is right

The sparseness scale can prevent the dark energy equation of state from crossing the phantom divide.
Stationary points in the phase space change stability properties depending on the value of the sparseness scale.
For two models, the data prefer the nonlinear saturated interaction over the linear limit.
The models remain consistent with current acceleration of the universe while fitting growth rate data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Similar saturation mechanisms might apply to other cosmological interactions or modified gravity models.
Future high-precision measurements of the dark energy equation of state could directly test the saturation bound.
The approach opens a way to link ecological concepts of limited resources to cosmic energy densities.

Load-bearing premise

The three specific nonlinear interaction forms chosen are representative of the actual dark sector physics.

What would settle it

Future observations that force the sparseness parameter to be consistent with zero at high confidence, or detect phantom crossing in the dark energy equation of state without saturation effects, would challenge the models' viability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21671 by Andronikos Paliathanasis, Kevin J. Duffy.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Interaction QA: Behaviour of the right-hand side of equation (21) is shown for wd = −1, α = 1 and various values of ζ on the surface Ωb ≃ 0. We find that the sparsity scale parameter ζ plays a crucial role in determining the sign of the monotonicity of Ωm within various domains. positive values of the right-hand side of equation (21), Ωm is an increasing function, while for negative values, Ωm decreases. T… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Interaction QA: Phase-space portraits on the plane Ωm − Ωd for the two-dimensional dynamical system (21), (22) for wd = −1, α = 1 and different values for the sparsity parameter ζ. The red points correspond to the stationary points A1 and A2, while the green line corresponds to the stable submanifold for the family of points A0. 3.2. Interacting Model QB For the second interacting model, namely QB, the evo… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Interaction QB: Behaviour of the right-hand side of equation (26) is shown for wd = −1, α = 1 and various values of ζ on the surface Ωb ≃ 0. We find that the sparsity scale parameter ζ plays a crucial role in determining the sign of the monotonicity of the Ωm within various domains. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Ωm Ωd wd=-1,α=1,ζ=0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Ωm Ωd w… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Interaction QB: Phase-space portraits on the plane Ωm − Ωd for the two-dimensional dynamical system (26), (27) for wd = −1, α = 1 and different values for the sparsity parameter ζ. The red points correspond to the stationary points B1 and B2. For the values of the free parameters used for the plots, the family of points B0 are always sources view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Interaction QC : Behaviour of the right-hand side of equation (29) is shown for wd = −1, α = 2 and various values of ζ on the surface Ωb ≃ 0. We find that the sparsity scale parameter ζ plays a crucial role in determining the sign of the monotonicity of the Ωm within various domains view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Interaction QC : Phase-space portraits on the plane Ωm − Ωd for the two-dimensional dynamical system (29), (30) for wd = −1, α = 2 and different values for the sparsity parameter ζ. The red points correspond to the stationary points C1 and C2. For the values of the free parameters used for the plots, the family of points C0 are always sources. 4. OBSERVATIONAL CONSTRAINTS For our analysis and the compariso… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Interaction QA: Marginalized posterior contours for the parameters of the interacting model QA for the combined datasets. 4.3. Interacting Model QC We continue our discussion with the analysis of the numerical chains for the model QC . The constraints provide similar values for the background parameters H0, Ωm0 and rdrag , where now they take mean values within the ranges H0 ≃ 67.2 − 68.3 km sMpc , Ωm0 ≃ 0… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Interaction QB: Marginalized posterior contours for the parameters of the interacting model QB for the combined datasets. Furthermore, we employed cosmological data to constrain these models as candidates for the description of dynamical dark energy. We considered combinations of background data with the f and fσ8 measurements of the growth of matter. The background data considered in this work consist of… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Interaction QC : Marginalized posterior contours for the parameters of the interacting model QC for the combined datasets. larger values, closer to those obtained from Planck 2018. The reason for this are the larger values obtained for the Ωm0 for these two models. It is important to note that the dark sector is treated as a single fluid, which we interpret as two distinct components, namely dark matter an… view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Evolution of the growth of index parameter view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We introduce a family of phenomenological cosmological models featuring an interacting dark sector modulated by a sparseness scale parameter, in order to describe the late-time accelerated expansion of the universe. The sparseness scale, inspired by well-established saturation mechanisms in ecology and biology, is introduced in the interaction as a half-saturation constant that bounds the energy exchange between dark matter and dark energy, controls the dynamical behaviour of the physical variables and can prevent the phantom crossing. We consider three nonlinear interacting models, where two of them recover the linear interacting scenarios when the sparsity parameter vanishes. We examine the phase-space of the cosmological field equations by using the Hubble normalization approach. We determine the stationary points and their stability properties in order to reconstruct the asymptotics behaviour of the field equations. Such an analysis allows us to demonstrate the effects of the sparseness scale on the background dynamics. We test the interacting models with observational data. Specifically, we employ Supernovae catalogues, cosmic chronometers, Baryon Acoustic Oscillation measurements from DESI DR2, and redshift-space distortion measurements of the growth of large-scale structure through the $f$ and $f\sigma_8$ observables. The Bayesian analysis suggests that, for two of the three models, a vanishing sparsity parameter is disfavoured at more than the 95\% confidence interval, providing observational support for a nonzero sparseness scale in the dark sector interaction.

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

The paper adds an ecological half-saturation scale to three phenomenological dark-sector interactions and reports that data favor nonzero values for two of them, but the preference is tied to those exact functional choices.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that two of the three nonlinear interaction forms they introduce show a Bayesian preference for a nonzero sparseness parameter at over 95% confidence when fit to supernovae, cosmic chronometers, DESI DR2 BAO, and redshift-space distortion data. The sparseness scale acts as a half-saturation constant that bounds the energy exchange and can prevent phantom crossing in the equation of state. Two models recover the linear interaction case when the parameter is set to zero, which makes direct comparison straightforward. They also run a Hubble-normalized phase-space analysis to locate the fixed points and determine their stability, showing how the scale alters the late-time asymptotics independently of the data fits. That dynamical-systems part is standard and cleanly executed. The dataset combination is reasonable and includes recent measurements. The soft spot is that the claimed observational support for nonzero sparseness holds only inside the three specific saturating functions they chose by hand. Nothing in the phase-space work or the likelihood constrains whether a different cutoff or functional dependence on the density ratio would still exclude zero at 95% confidence. Because the models remain purely phenomenological, the result does not generalize beyond this family. No load-bearing contradictions appear in the abstract or the described methods, but the model-selection step needs more justification. This is for people already working on interacting dark-energy models who want to see a nonlinear variant with some dynamical-systems treatment. A reader focused on phase-space methods or saturation-inspired extensions would find it useful. It deserves peer review because the techniques are appropriate and the claim is falsifiable with current data, even if revisions on the choice of forms are likely.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces three phenomenological nonlinear interacting dark-sector models modulated by a sparseness scale parameter (inspired by ecological saturation mechanisms) that bounds energy exchange between dark matter and dark energy. Two of the models recover linear interactions when the sparseness parameter vanishes. Phase-space analysis via Hubble normalization identifies stationary points and stability properties to reconstruct asymptotic behavior and demonstrate the scale's dynamical effects. Bayesian fits to SN catalogues, cosmic chronometers, DESI DR2 BAO, and RSD f/fσ8 data indicate that, for two of the three models, a vanishing sparseness parameter is disfavoured at >95% CI.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work supplies a concrete saturation-inspired mechanism for controlling late-time acceleration and avoiding phantom crossing in interacting DE-DM cosmologies, with the phase-space analysis providing model-independent dynamical insight. The inclusion of recent DESI DR2 BAO data alongside growth-rate measurements strengthens the observational constraints on the interaction parameters relative to earlier linear-interaction studies.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that the Bayesian analysis 'provides observational support for a nonzero sparseness scale in the dark sector interaction' is conditional on the specific choice of the three phenomenological Q(ρ_dm, ρ_de, H) forms. The manuscript does not demonstrate that other saturating functions (e.g., exponential cutoffs or alternative density-ratio dependencies) would produce posteriors excluding zero at 95% CI; this model dependence should be explicitly qualified in the abstract and conclusion.
[Bayesian analysis section] Bayesian analysis section: the reported >95% disfavoring of vanishing sparseness for two models is tied to the exact functional shape of the nonlinear interaction terms (two of which reduce to linear at zero sparseness). Without robustness checks against alternative saturating mechanisms, the claim that the data support a nonzero scale in the dark sector does not generalize beyond the selected family.

minor comments (2)

The Hubble-normalization variables and the explicit definitions of the three interaction functions should be collected in a single table or appendix for easier reference during the phase-space discussion.
Clarify whether the priors on the sparseness scale and interaction strengths are chosen independently of the data or informed by the phase-space fixed-point analysis.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and careful assessment of our manuscript. We address the major comments below regarding model dependence and have revised the abstract and relevant sections to qualify our claims accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that the Bayesian analysis 'provides observational support for a nonzero sparseness scale in the dark sector interaction' is conditional on the specific choice of the three phenomenological Q(ρ_dm, ρ_de, H) forms. The manuscript does not demonstrate that other saturating functions (e.g., exponential cutoffs or alternative density-ratio dependencies) would produce posteriors excluding zero at 95% CI; this model dependence should be explicitly qualified in the abstract and conclusion.

Authors: We agree that the observational preference for nonzero sparseness is specific to the three phenomenological interaction forms introduced. These were selected as representative saturating mechanisms (with two recovering linear interactions at vanishing sparseness) inspired by ecological half-saturation. While we did not test alternatives such as exponential cutoffs, the consistency of results across two of the three models provides internal support within this class. We have revised the abstract and conclusion to explicitly qualify that the support applies to the models studied here and does not claim generality beyond this family. revision: yes
Referee: [Bayesian analysis section] Bayesian analysis section: the reported >95% disfavoring of vanishing sparseness for two models is tied to the exact functional shape of the nonlinear interaction terms (two of which reduce to linear at zero sparseness). Without robustness checks against alternative saturating mechanisms, the claim that the data support a nonzero scale in the dark sector does not generalize beyond the selected family.

Authors: We acknowledge that the >95% CI disfavoring of zero sparseness depends on the precise nonlinear functional forms chosen. The analysis is confined to these three cases, and no robustness checks against other saturating mechanisms (e.g., exponential or different density-ratio dependencies) were performed, as the study focused on this specific family. We have added clarifying text in the Bayesian analysis section noting the model-specific character of the results and recommending future exploration of alternative forms for broader applicability. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation and data fit are independent

full rationale

The paper defines three phenomenological interaction forms Q(ρ_dm, ρ_de, H) that incorporate a free sparseness scale parameter, derives the autonomous system and stationary points directly from the Friedmann and continuity equations using Hubble normalization, and then performs a separate Bayesian fit of all free parameters (including the sparseness scale) to external datasets (SN, cosmic chronometers, DESI DR2 BAO, f and fσ8 RSD). No claimed result is obtained by renaming a fitted quantity as a prediction, no load-bearing premise reduces to a self-citation, and the phase-space analysis contains no data-dependent inputs. The reported posterior intervals therefore constitute an ordinary model comparison against independent observations rather than an internal tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The models rest on standard FLRW cosmology plus three phenomenological interaction functions that introduce the sparseness scale as a new free parameter; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (2)

sparseness scale parameter
Half-saturation constant that bounds the energy-exchange rate; fitted to data and central to the claim that zero is disfavoured.
interaction strength parameters
Coupling constants in the three nonlinear interaction forms; required to define the models and recovered in the linear limit.

axioms (2)

standard math The universe is described by a flat FLRW metric with standard matter and radiation components.
Invoked throughout the phase-space analysis and background equations.
domain assumption The interaction between dark matter and dark energy can be written as a phenomenological function of their densities modulated by the sparseness scale.
Core modeling choice that defines the three nonlinear models.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5548 in / 1498 out tokens · 48962 ms · 2026-05-08T14:07:31.219192+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Alleviating the Hubble Tension Using $\Lambda$sCDM Model: A Coupled Dark Energy - Dark Matter Interaction
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

The ΛsCDM model with coupled dark sectors reduces the Hubble tension to 1.2σ via late-time expansion changes while keeping the early-universe sound horizon nearly unchanged.
Alleviating the Hubble Tension Using $\Lambda$sCDM Model: A Coupled Dark Energy - Dark Matter Interaction
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

The ΛsCDM interacting dark sector model reduces the Hubble tension to 1.2σ via late-time energy transfer from dark matter to dark energy while leaving the sound horizon nearly unchanged.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 7 internal anchors

[1]

Saturation Mechanisms in the Interacting Dark Sector

INTRODUCTION Cosmological models that describe energy transfer between the fluids composing the dark sector have attracted considerable interest, since they offer a dynamical framework for dark energy [1–7] which can explain the recent cosmological observations and alleviate cosmological tensions [8–16]. Nonzero Interacting terms can be naturally introduc...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[2]

sparseness scale

INTERACTING DARK SECTOR WITH A SPARSENESS SCALE In the standard cosmological scenario, dark matter and dark energy are assumed to evolve independently and to interact only gravitationally. Within the framework of a spatially flat and FLRW geometry with line element ds2 =−dt 2 +a 2 (t) dx2 +dy 2 +dz 2 ,(1) the cosmological field equations are 1 3H2 =ρ m +ρ...
[3]

PHASE-SPACE ANALYSIS Within the framework of the Hubble normalization we introduce new dimensionless dependent variables Ωm = ρm 3H2 ,Ω d = ρd 3H2 ,Ω b = ρb 3H2 ,(20) and a new independent variableτ= lna. 3.1. Interacting ModelQ A The cosmological field equations for the interacting modelQ A are expressed into the equivalent form dΩm dτ = 3ΩdΩm ζ+ Ω d (α+...
[4]

In order to avoid the appearance of ghosts, we introduce the constraint 0≤ − α wd +ζ ≤1. The pointA 2 is governed by the sparsity parameterζand is the point which describes the change of sign of the evolution equation for Ω m, as described before and demonstrated in Fig. 1. Using the constraint (24), we eliminate Ωb and reduce the system to the two-dimens...
[5]

For the sampling algorithm, we employ the PolyChord nested sampler [92, 93], which makes a direct derivation of the Bayesian evidence lnZ

OBSERVATIONAL CONSTRAINTS For our analysis and the comparison of the theoretical predictions with the cosmological data, we make use of the Bayesian inference framework Cobaya2 [90, 91], with a custom theory for the derivation of the theoretical observables. For the sampling algorithm, we employ the PolyChord nested sampler [92, 93], which makes a direct ...

2018
[6]

Specifically, we introduced three nonlinear interacting models, namelyQ A,Q B andQ C which depend on the new sparseness scale parameterζ

CONCLUSIONS In this work we introduced cosmological models which describe an interacting dark sector with a saturation mech- anism, which controls the energy exchange between dark matter and dark energy. Specifically, we introduced three nonlinear interacting models, namelyQ A,Q B andQ C which depend on the new sparseness scale parameterζ. In the limit wh...

2018
[7]

Amendola, Phys

L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D62, 043511 (2000)

2000
[8]

Cai and A

R.-G. Cai and A. Wang, JCAP03, 002 (2005)

2005
[9]

Amendola, G

L. Amendola, G. C. Campos, and R. Rosenfeld, Phys. Rev. D75, 083506 (2007)

2007
[10]

N. Cruz, S. Lepe, and F. Pena, Phys. Lett. B663, 338 (2008)

2008
[11]

M. S. Berger and H. Shojaei, Phys. Rev. D73, 083528 (2006), gr-qc/0601086

work page arXiv 2006
[12]

del Campo, R

S. del Campo, R. Herrera, and D. Pavon, JCAP01, 020 (2009), 0812.2210

work page arXiv 2009
[13]

M. K. Sharma and S. Sur, Phys. Dark Univ.40, 101192 (2023), 2112.14017

work page arXiv 2023
[14]

Gao, S.-S

L.-Y. Gao, S.-S. Xue, and X. Zhang, Chinese Phys. C48, 051001 (2024)

2024
[15]

B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon, Reports on Progress in Physics87, 036901 (2024)

2024
[16]

Giare, Phys

W. Giare, Phys. Rev. D109, 123545 (2024)

2024
[17]

Montani, N

G. Montani, N. Carlevaro, L. A. Escamilla, and E. Di Valentino,Kinetic model for dark energy - dark matter interaction: Scenario for the hubble tension(2024), 2404.15977

work page arXiv 2024
[18]

Pan and W

S. Pan and W. Yang, inThe Hubble Constant Tension, edited by E. Di Valentino and D. Brout (Springer, Singapore, 2024), Springer Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology

2024
[19]

Di Valentino, A

E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D96, 043503 (2017), 1704.08342

work page arXiv 2017
[20]

Di Valentino, A

E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Dark Univ.30, 100666 (2020), 1908.04281

work page arXiv 2020
[21]

Lucca, Phys

M. Lucca, Phys. Dark Univ.34, 100899 (2021), 2105.09249

work page arXiv 2021
[22]

Simon, T

T. Simon, T. Adi, J. L. Bernal, E. D. Kovetz, V. Poulin, and T. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. D111, 023523 (2025), 2410.21459

work page arXiv 2025
[23]

Brans and R

C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.124, 925 (1961)

1961
[24]

C. H. Brans, Phys. Rev.125, 2194 (1962)

1962
[25]

E. E. Flanagan, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 3817 (2004), gr-qc/0403063

work page arXiv 2004
[26]

Kofinas and M

G. Kofinas and M. Tsoukalas, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 686 (2016), 1512.04786

work page arXiv 2016
[27]

Postma and M

M. Postma and M. Volponi, Phys. Rev. D90, 103516 (2014), 1407.6874

work page arXiv 2014
[28]

Gionti S

G. Gionti S. J. and M. Galaverni, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 265 (2024), 2310.09539. 17

work page arXiv 2024
[29]

Tsamparlis, A

M. Tsamparlis, A. Paliathanasis, S. Basilakos, and S. Capozziello, Gen. Rel. Grav.45, 2003 (2013), 1307.6694

work page arXiv 2003
[30]

D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D81, 084044 (2010), 1003.1159

work page arXiv 2010
[31]

J. M. Salim and S. L. Sautu, Classical and Quantum Gravity13, 353 (1996)

1996
[32]

M. Y. Konstantinov and V. N. Melnikov, International Journal of Modern Physics D4, 339 (1995)

1995
[33]

Romero, J

C. Romero, J. B. Fonseca-Neto, and M. L. Pucheu, Classical and Quantum Gravity29, 155015 (2012)

2012
[34]

Novello and H

M. Novello and H. Heintzmann, Physics Letters A98, 10 (1983)

1983
[35]

New insights on the matter-gravity coupling paradigm

T. Delsate and J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 021101 (2012), 1201.4989

work page Pith review arXiv 2012
[36]

Csillag and E

L. Csillag and E. Jensko (2025), 2505.15975

work page arXiv 2025
[37]

Wazny, L

M. Wazny, L. Csillag, M. A. S. Pinto, and T. Harko (2025), 2511.16304

work page arXiv 2025
[38]

Sutiono, A

A. Sutiono, A. Suroso, and F. P. Zen, Int. J. Theor. Phys.63, 187 (2024), 2407.21380

work page arXiv 2024
[39]

Paliathanasis, Annals Phys.468, 169724 (2024), 2407.05042

A. Paliathanasis, Annals Phys.468, 169724 (2024), 2407.05042

work page arXiv 2024
[40]

A. B. Balakin and A. F. Shakirzyanov, Phys. Dark Univ.24, 100283 (2019), 1804.10054

work page arXiv 2019
[41]

Bojowald and E

M. Bojowald and E. I. Duque, Phys. Rev. D109, 084006 (2024), 2311.10693

work page arXiv 2024
[42]

Nozari, M

K. Nozari, M. R. Setare, T. Azizi, and N. Behrouz, Phys. Scripta80, 025901 (2009), 0810.1427

work page arXiv 2009
[43]

Paliathanasis, Class

A. Paliathanasis, Class. Quant. Grav.37, 195014 (2020), 2003.05342

work page arXiv 2020
[44]

I. V. Fomin, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.918, 012009 (2017)

2017
[45]

Ito and S

Y. Ito and S. Nojiri, Phys. Rev. D79, 103008 (2009), 0904.0367

work page arXiv 2009
[46]

Paliathanasis, Gen

A. Paliathanasis, Gen. Rel. Grav.56, 84 (2024)

2024
[47]

M. K. Dutta and B. Modak, Int. J. Theor. Phys.54, 2591 (2015)

2015
[48]

Sheikhahmadi, A

H. Sheikhahmadi, A. Mohammadi, A. Aghamohammadi, T. Harko, R. Herrera, C. Corda, A. Abebe, and K. Saaidi, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 1038 (2019)

2019
[49]

Khoury and A

J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 171104 (2004)

2004
[50]

Khoury and A

J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. D69, 044026 (2004)

2004
[51]

Hees and A

A. Hees and A. Fuzfa, Phys. Rev. D85, 103005 (2012), 1111.4784

work page arXiv 2012
[52]

Yuan, A.-C

G.-W. Yuan, A.-C. Davis, M. Giannotti, S. Vagnozzi, L. Visinelli, and J. K. Vogel (2025), 2511.01655

work page arXiv 2025
[53]

Negrelli, L

C. Negrelli, L. Kraiselburd, S. J. Landau, and M. Salgado, Phys. Rev. D101, 064005 (2020), 2002.12073

work page arXiv 2020
[54]

Burrage and J

C. Burrage and J. Sakstein, Living Reviews in Relativity21, 1 (2018)

2018
[55]

van der Westhuizen, A

M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino,I. Linear Interacting Dark Energy: Analytical Solutions and Theoretical Pathologies(2025), 2509.04495

work page arXiv 2025
[56]

van der Westhuizen, A

M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino,II. Non-Linear Interacting Dark Energy: Analytical Solutions and Theoretical Pathologies(2025), 2509.04494

work page arXiv 2025
[57]

van der Westhuizen, A

M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino,III. Interacting Dark Energy: Summary of Models, Pathologies, and Constraints(2025), 2509.04496

work page arXiv 2025
[58]

Valiviita, R

J. Valiviita, R. Maartens, and E. Majerotto, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.402, 2355 (2010), 0907.4987

work page arXiv 2010
[59]

C. G. Boehmer, G. Caldera-Cabral, R. Lazkoz, and R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D78, 023505 (2008), 0801.1565

work page arXiv 2008
[60]

Valiviita, E

J. Valiviita, E. Majerotto, and R. Maartens, JCAP07, 020 (2008), 0804.0232

work page arXiv 2008
[62]

Z. Zhu, Q. Jiang, Y. Liu, P. Wu, and N. Liang (2025), 2511.16032

work page arXiv 2025
[63]

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), 2510.12627

work page arXiv 2025
[64]

Li, G.-H

T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, Y. Li, J.-L. Ling, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang (2025), 2510.11363

work page arXiv 2025
[65]

Petri, V

V. Petri, V. Marra, and R. von Marttens (2025), 2508.17955

work page arXiv 2025
[66]

Z. C. Santana J´ unior, M. O. Costa, R. F. L. Holanda, and R. Silva, Phys. Rev. D109, 123542 (2024), 2405.15726

work page arXiv 2024
[67]

Cosmic sign-reversal: non-parametric reconstruction of interacting dark en- ergy with DESI DR2,

Y.-H. Li and X. Zhang (2025), 2506.18477

work page arXiv 2025
[68]

S. Pan, S. Paul, E. N. Saridakis, and W. Yang (2025), 2504.00994

work page arXiv 2025
[69]

Silva, M.A

E. Silva, M. A. Sabogal, M. Scherer, R. C. Nunes, E. Di Valentino, and S. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D111, 123511 (2025), 2503.23225

work page arXiv 2025
[70]

W. Yang, S. Zhang, O. Mena, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino (2025), 2508.19109

work page arXiv 2025
[71]

Paliathanasis, Phys

A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102306 (2026), 2601.02789

work page arXiv 2026
[72]

Y. Zhai, M. de Cesare, C. van de Bruck, E. Di Valentino, and E. Wilson-Ewing, JCAP11, 010 (2025), 2503.15659

work page arXiv 2025
[73]

van der Westhuizen, D

M. van der Westhuizen, D. Figueruelo, R. Thubisi, S. Sahlu, A. Abebe, and A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102107 (2025), 2505.23306

work page arXiv 2025
[74]

Sahlu, A

S. Sahlu, A. Paliathanasis, G. Leon, and A. Abebe, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102280 (2026), 2603.16533

work page arXiv 2026
[75]

R. Shah, A. Dey, P. Mukherjee, and S. Pal (2026), 2603.24554

work page arXiv 2026
[76]

Benisty, S

D. Benisty, S. Pan, D. Staicova, E. Di Valentino, and R. C. Nunes, Astron. Astrophys.688, A156 (2024), 2403.00056

work page arXiv 2024
[77]

Y. Zhai, W. Giar` e, C. van de Bruck, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, and R. C. Nunes, JCAP07, 032 (2023), 2303.08201

work page arXiv 2023
[78]

Bonilla, S

A. Bonilla, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, and S. Pan, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.512, 4231 (2022), 2102.06149

work page arXiv 2022
[79]

Cosmology of Inelastic Self-Interacting Dark Matter: Linear Evolution and Observational Constraints

X.-C. Duan, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and Z. Wang (2026), 2604.15006

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[80]

Califano, I

M. Califano, I. De Martino, and R. Lazkoz, Phys. Rev. D110, 083519 (2024), 2410.06152

work page arXiv 2024
[81]

Giar` e, Y

W. Giar` e, Y. Zhai, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, and C. van de Bruck, Phys. Rev. D110, 063527 (2024), 2404.02110

work page arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.