pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25373 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

Generalizing the CPL Parametrization through Dark Sector Interaction

Mikel Artola , Ruth Lazkoz , Vincenzo Salzano
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 15:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords interacting dark energyCPL parametrizationdark sector interactionBayesian model comparisoncosmological constraintsLambdaCDMdark energy equation of state
0
0 comments X

The pith

Interacting dark energy models generalized with a specific coupling kernel and CPL parametrization are not preferred over LambdaCDM by Bayesian evidence despite some frequentist tensions.

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

The paper develops interacting dark energy models by coupling dark matter and dark energy through a kernel that includes both constant and evolving terms, generalizing the standard CPL parametrization for the dark energy equation of state. This setup allows derivation of exact analytical expressions for the densities of both dark components as functions of the scale factor. When tested against combined data from baryon acoustic oscillations, Type Ia supernovae, and cosmic microwave background observations, the models with constant coupling show deviations from the LambdaCDM baseline at 2.7 to 2.9 sigma while those with dynamical coupling show smaller 1.3 to 1.5 sigma deviations. Bayesian model comparison, however, finds that none of these interacting scenarios is statistically favored over the standard LambdaCDM cosmology. The work illustrates why both frequentist and Bayesian methods should be reported when evaluating whether interactions in the dark sector are required by data.

Core claim

The authors assume an interaction rate between dark matter and dark energy given by Q equals 3H times (delta plus eta times a) times rho_de, paired with the CPL dark energy equation of state w_de equals w0 plus wa times (1 minus a). This combination yields closed analytical expressions for the dark matter and dark energy densities. Observational constraints from DESI DR2, Pantheon plus, and Planck plus ACT data sets reveal that constant-coupling models deviate from LambdaCDM at up to 2.9 sigma, while dynamical-coupling models deviate at up to 1.5 sigma. Bayesian evidence calculations show no preference for any of the interacting dark energy models over the concordance LambdaCDM model.

What carries the argument

The background interaction kernel Q = 3H(δ + η a)ρ_de combined with the CPL parametrization for w_de, which together permit closed analytical expressions for the dark sector energy densities.

If this is right

  • Constant-coupling models produce 2.7 sigma to 2.9 sigma deviations from LambdaCDM in parameter constraints.
  • Dynamical-coupling models reduce these deviations to the 1.3 sigma to 1.5 sigma range.
  • Bayesian model comparison shows no statistical preference for any IDE scenario over LambdaCDM.
  • The analytical solutions enable straightforward computation of model predictions for observables.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If future data maintain the current level of mild tension, the distinction between constant and dynamical coupling could become clearer with increased precision.
  • The analytical approach demonstrated here could be used to explore interactions in other dark energy parametrizations.
  • Combining frequentist significance levels with Bayesian evidence provides a more complete picture of model viability in cosmology.

Load-bearing premise

The interaction kernel is assumed to have the specific linear dependence on the scale factor that allows closed analytical solutions for the energy densities.

What would settle it

An independent analysis yielding a Bayes factor greater than one in favor of one of the interacting models over LambdaCDM would contradict the paper's model comparison result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25373 by Mikel Artola, Ruth Lazkoz, Vincenzo Salzano.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of the Bayes factors ln B iCDM ΛCDM = log ZiCDM − log ZΛCDM, considering ΛCDM as the baseline reference, for different dataset combination. iCDM stands for the different constant and dynamical coupling cosmologies, indicated in the horizontal axis. Positive values reveal evidence in favor of iCDM models, whereas negative values favor ΛCDM. The background color reflects the significance of the ev… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: One- and two-dimensional marginalized posterior view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: One- and two-dimensional marginalized posterior view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate a hierarchy of interacting dark energy (IDE) models featuring a non-gravitational coupling between dark matter and dark energy. Specifically, we examine scenarios where the background interaction kernel, $Q = 3H(\delta + \eta a)\rho_\mathrm{de}$, allows for both constant and dynamical coupling parameters. Adopting the CPL parametrization for the dark energy equation of state, $w_\mathrm{de} = w_0 + w_a(1-a)$, we derive closed analytical expressions for the energy densities of dark matter and dark energy. Afterwards, we obtain observational constraints using joint combinations of DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations, Pantheon$+$ Type Ia supernovae, and Planck$+$ACT compressed cosmic microwave background likelihoods. For constant coupling models, we find parametric deviations from $\Lambda$ ranging from $2.7\sigma$ to $2.9\sigma$; however, for interactions with dynamical couplings, these significances are reduced to $1.3\sigma$--$1.5\sigma$. Ultimately, our Bayesian model comparison reveals that no investigated IDE scenario is statistically preferred over the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model. These results highlight the necessity of reporting Bayesian evidence alongside conventional frequentist maximum-likelihood analyses to ensure robust cosmological claims concerning dark energy evolution and 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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates interacting dark energy (IDE) models with the background interaction kernel Q = 3H(δ + η a)ρ_de, combined with the CPL parametrization w_de = w0 + wa(1-a). It derives closed analytical expressions for the dark matter and dark energy energy densities, constrains the parameters (δ, η, w0, wa) using DESI DR2 BAO, Pantheon+ supernovae, and Planck+ACT compressed CMB likelihoods, reports 2.7–2.9σ deviations from ΛCDM for constant-coupling cases (reduced to 1.3–1.5σ for dynamical couplings), and concludes via Bayesian model comparison that no IDE scenario is statistically preferred over ΛCDM.

Significance. If the closed-form derivations are correct and the compressed likelihoods remain valid, the work supplies a concrete analytical framework for testing scale-factor-dependent dark-sector couplings and usefully stresses the need to report Bayesian evidence alongside frequentist results. The absence of preference for any IDE model is consistent with much of the existing literature but adds a specific, analytically tractable example; the significance is reduced by the reliance on compressed CMB data whose validity for models that alter both background evolution and perturbations is not demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (observational constraints and Bayesian comparison): the headline result that no IDE model is preferred over ΛCDM rests on ΔlnZ values computed with Planck+ACT compressed CMB likelihoods. These compressions are calibrated under ΛCDM or minimal extensions and encode assumptions about perturbation evolution and parameter degeneracies; the chosen Q = 3H(δ + η a)ρ_de modifies both background densities and dark-sector perturbations, which can shift the CMB spectra outside the compression’s validity range. If the compressed likelihood misrepresents the true χ² or covariance, the reported evidences and the model-comparison conclusion become unreliable.
  2. [§2] §2 (analytical derivations): the closed expressions for ρ_dm(a) and ρ_de(a) follow directly from the assumed interaction kernel and the CPL form, but the manuscript does not provide an explicit check that the resulting perturbation equations remain consistent with the background solution when the same Q is used at the linear level; this consistency is load-bearing for the applicability of the compressed CMB likelihoods.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the interaction parameters δ and η is introduced without a dedicated table summarizing their physical interpretation and prior ranges; adding this would improve readability.
  2. Figure captions for the posterior plots do not explicitly state whether the contours include the full joint posterior or marginalised subsets; clarify this to avoid ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below, indicating where revisions will be incorporated and providing our reasoning on points of substance.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (observational constraints and Bayesian comparison): the headline result that no IDE model is preferred over ΛCDM rests on ΔlnZ values computed with Planck+ACT compressed CMB likelihoods. These compressions are calibrated under ΛCDM or minimal extensions and encode assumptions about perturbation evolution and parameter degeneracies; the chosen Q = 3H(δ + η a)ρ_de modifies both background densities and dark-sector perturbations, which can shift the CMB spectra outside the compression’s validity range. If the compressed likelihood misrepresents the true χ² or covariance, the reported evidences and the model-comparison conclusion become unreliable.

    Authors: We agree that compressed CMB likelihoods carry assumptions calibrated primarily under ΛCDM and that our interaction kernel affects both background and perturbation sectors. Our analysis relies on these likelihoods as an established approximation in the IDE literature for background-driven constraints. The Bayesian evidences are reported together with frequentist significances (which show the same pattern of reduced tension for dynamical couplings), and the conclusion of no model preference is robust to the specific data combination used. In revision we will add an explicit paragraph in §4 discussing the limitations of the compressed likelihoods for interacting models and noting that a full uncompressed analysis would be desirable in future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§2] §2 (analytical derivations): the closed expressions for ρ_dm(a) and ρ_de(a) follow directly from the assumed interaction kernel and the CPL form, but the manuscript does not provide an explicit check that the resulting perturbation equations remain consistent with the background solution when the same Q is used at the linear level; this consistency is load-bearing for the applicability of the compressed CMB likelihoods.

    Authors: Section 2 derives the exact background solutions for ρ_dm(a) and ρ_de(a). The linear perturbation equations we employ are the standard IDE continuity and Euler equations with the same Q inserted at the background level and no additional momentum exchange at first order. We will add a short appendix in the revised manuscript that explicitly verifies consistency between the background solution and the linear perturbation equations under this choice of Q, thereby strengthening the justification for using the compressed likelihoods. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation solves assumed equations then fits external data

full rationale

The paper assumes the interaction kernel Q = 3H(δ + η a)ρ_de by construction to obtain closed-form density solutions via the continuity equations; this is explicit mathematical derivation, not a self-referential claim. Parameters (δ, η, w0, wa) are then constrained via standard Bayesian fitting to independent datasets (DESI DR2 BAO, Pantheon+ SNIa, Planck+ACT compressed CMB). Model comparison (no IDE preferred over ΛCDM) follows directly from the resulting evidences and posteriors. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation, fitted input renamed as prediction, or ansatz smuggled via prior work. The central results remain independent of the paper's own inputs once the assumption and data are granted.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an ad-hoc interaction kernel chosen to yield analytic solutions and on the standard CPL parametrization; several parameters are fitted to data with no new physical entities introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • δ
    Constant coupling strength in the interaction kernel Q.
  • η
    Coefficient controlling the scale-factor dependence of the coupling.
  • w0
    Present-day value of the dark-energy equation-of-state parameter.
  • wa
    Evolution parameter in the CPL parametrization.
axioms (1)
  • ad hoc to paper The interaction rate takes the functional form Q = 3H(δ + η a) ρ_de
    This specific kernel is postulated to allow closed analytic integration of the continuity equations for dark matter and dark energy.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5534 in / 1478 out tokens · 84779 ms · 2026-05-07T15:06:09.105636+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · 13 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    It then follows from Eq

    Background viability Regarding DE, we first note that, provided that ra- diation and matter do not exhaust the energy con- tent of the Universe—their current total energy den- sity does not amount to the critical energy densityρ c = 3H2 0 /(8πG)—the current energy density of DE remains positive,ρ de,0 >0. It then follows from Eq. (10) that ρde(a)>0 over a...

  2. [2]

    doom factor

    Perturbative stability (the doom factord) While our study primarily focuses on the background evolution, the physical viability of IDE models is of- ten constrained by the stability of linear perturbations. To perform such analysis, a phenomenological covariant specification ofQ ν is required. Following [60], one can adopt the ansatz that the interaction ...

  3. [3]

    To miti- gate the impact of peculiar velocity uncertainties, which dominate at low redshifts, we restrict our analysis to the subset of SN atz >0.01 [67, 68]

    Type Ia supernovae (Pantheon+) We rely on the Pantheon+ compilation [65, 66], con- sisting on a set of 1701 light curves of 1550 distinct SN covering the redshift range 0.001< z <2.26. To miti- gate the impact of peculiar velocity uncertainties, which dominate at low redshifts, we restrict our analysis to the subset of SN atz >0.01 [67, 68]. The theoretic...

  4. [4]

    Cosmic microwave background (compressed likelihood) To constrain the cosmological parameters at early times, we consider the shift parameters derived from 5 the CMB power spectrum [70]. This approach incorpo- rates the essential geometric information of the CMB into a compact data vector, avoiding the computational ex- pense of evaluating the full Boltzma...

  5. [5]

    real-world

    Baryon acoustic oscillations (DESI DR 2) We utilize the latest BAO measurements from the Data Release 2 (DR2) of the DESI [21]. This dataset pro- vides constraints on the comoving distanceD M(z)/rd, the Hubble distanceD H(z)/rd, and the spherically aver- aged distanceD V(z)/rd across seven redshift bins span- ning 0.295≤z≤2.33. The theoretical prediction ...

    work page doi:10.13039/501100011033 2025

  6. [6]

    Einstein, The Field Equations of Gravitation, Sitzungsber

    A. Einstein, The Field Equations of Gravitation, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) 1915, 844–847 (1915)

    1915

  7. [7]

    Einstein, On the General Theory of Relativity, Sitzungsber

    A. Einstein, On the General Theory of Relativity, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) 1915, 778–786 (1915), [Addendum: Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.)1915,799(1915)]

    1915

  8. [8]

    C. M. Will, The Confrontation between General Rela- tivity and Experiment, Living Rev. Rel.17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2014

  9. [9]

    Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3, Phys. Rev. D 112, 084080 (2025), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    A. G. Riesset al.(Supernova Search Team), Observa- tional evidence from supernovae for an accelerating uni- verse and a cosmological constant, Astron. J.116, 1009– 1038 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 1998

  11. [11]

    Perlmutter and others (Supernova Cosmology Project), Astrophys

    S. Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Super- novae, Astrophys. J.517, 565–586 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9812133

    work page arXiv 1999

  12. [12]

    D. J. Eisensteinet al.(SDSS), Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies, Astrophys. J.633, 560– 574 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501171

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  13. [13]

    Cole , W

    S. Coleet al.(2dFGRS), The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Sur- vey: Power-spectrum analysis of the final dataset and cosmological implications, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 362, 505–534 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501174

    work page arXiv 2005

  14. [14]

    A. E. Langeet al.(Boomerang), Cosmological parame- ters from the first results of BOOMERANG, Phys. Rev. D63, 042001 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0005004

    work page arXiv 2001

  15. [15]

    M. R. Noltaet al.(WMAP), First year Wilkinson Mi- crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Dark energy induced correlation with radio sources, Astrophys. J.608, 10–15 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0305097

    work page arXiv 2004

  16. [16]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    A. G. Riesset al., A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    E. Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), SPT-3G D1: CMB tem- perature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field (2025), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    S. Casertanoet al.(H0DN), The Local Distance Net- work: a community consensus report on the measure- ment of the Hubble constant at 1% precision (2025), 13 arXiv:2510.23823 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Pantos and L

    I. Pantos and L. Perivolaropoulos, Dissecting the Hubble tension: Insights from a diverse set of Sound Horizon- free H0 measurements (2026), arXiv:2601.00650 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Erbenet al., CFHTLenS: The Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey – Imaging data and catalogue products, Mon

    T. Erbenet al., CFHTLenS: The Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey – Imaging data and catalogue products, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.433, 2545–2563 (2013)

    2013

  22. [22]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(Planck), Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.571, A16 (2014), arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  23. [23]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(Kilo-Degree Survey, DES), DES Y3 + KiDS-1000: Consistent cosmology combining cos- mic shear surveys, Open J. Astrophys.6, 2305.17173 (2023), arXiv:2305.17173 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    A. H. Wrightet al., KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological con- straints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo- Degree Survey, Astron. Astrophys.703, A158 (2025), arXiv:2503.19441 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), DESI 2024 VI: cosmologi- cal constraints from the measurements of baryon acous- tic oscillations, JCAP02, 021, arXiv:2404.03002 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

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

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cos- mological constraints, Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    D. D. Y. Ong, D. Yallup, and W. Handley, A Bayesian Perspective on Evidence for Evolving Dark Energy (2025), arXiv:2511.10631 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    D. D. Y. Ong, D. Yallup, and W. Handley, The Bayesian view of DESI DR2: Evidence and tension in a combined analysis with CMB and supernovae across cosmological models (2026), arXiv:2603.05472 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

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

    E. Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), The Cos- moVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics, Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101965 (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev

    S. Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1–23 (1989)

    1989

  31. [31]

    J. Martin, Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Cosmological Constant Problem (But Were Afraid To Ask), Comptes Rendus Physique13, 566–665 (2012), arXiv:1205.3365 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  32. [32]

    Quintessence, Cosmic Coincidence, and the Cosmological Constant

    I. Zlatev, L.-M. Wang, and P. J. Steinhardt, Quintessence, cosmic coincidence, and the cosmolog- ical constant, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 896–899 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9807002

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

  33. [33]

    Coupled Quintessence

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

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  34. [34]

    Zimdahl and D

    W. Zimdahl and D. Pavon, Interacting quintessence, Phys. Lett. B521, 133–138 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0105479

    work page arXiv 2001

  35. [35]

    Comelli, M

    D. Comelli, M. Pietroni, and A. Riotto, Dark energy and dark matter, Phys. Lett. B571, 115–120 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0302080

    work page arXiv 2003

  36. [36]

    L. P. Chimento, A. S. Jakubi, D. Pavon, and W. Zim- dahl, Interacting quintessence solution to the coincidence problem, Phys. Rev. D67, 083513 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0303145

    work page arXiv 2003

  37. [37]

    G. R. Farrar and P. J. E. Peebles, Interacting dark mat- ter and dark energy, Astrophys. J.604, 1–11 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0307316

    work page arXiv 2004

  38. [38]

    Wang and X.-H

    P. Wang and X.-H. Meng, Can vacuum decay in our universe?, Class. Quant. Grav.22, 283–294 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0408495

    work page arXiv 2005

  39. [39]

    Olivares, F

    G. Olivares, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon, Matter density perturbations in interacting quintessence models, Phys. Rev. D74, 043521 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0607604

    work page arXiv 2006

  40. [40]

    H. M. Sadjadi and M. Alimohammadi, Cosmological co- incidence problem in interactive dark energy models, Phys. Rev. D74, 103007 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0610080

    work page arXiv 2006

  41. [41]

    Quartin, M

    M. Quartin, M. O. Calvao, S. E. Joras, R. R. R. Reis, and I. Waga, Dark Interactions and Cosmological Fine- Tuning, JCAP05, 007, arXiv:0802.0546 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv

  42. [42]

    del Campo, R

    S. del Campo, R. Herrera, and D. Pavon, Interacting models may be key to solve the cosmic coincidence prob- lem, JCAP01, 020, arXiv:0812.2210 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv

  43. [43]

    Caldera-Cabral, R

    G. Caldera-Cabral, R. Maartens, and L. A. Urena-Lopez, Dynamics of interacting dark energy, Phys. Rev. D79, 063518 (2009), arXiv:0812.1827 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2009

  44. [44]

    J.-H. He, B. Wang, and E. Abdalla, Testing the in- teraction between dark energy and dark matter via latest observations, Phys. Rev. D83, 063515 (2011), arXiv:1012.3904 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2011

  45. [45]

    del Campo, R

    S. del Campo, R. Herrera, and D. Pav´ on, Interaction in the dark sector, Phys. Rev. D91, 123539 (2015), arXiv:1507.00187 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    von Marttens, L

    R. von Marttens, L. Casarini, D. F. Mota, and W. Zim- dahl, Cosmological constraints on parametrized interact- ing dark energy, Phys. Dark Univ.23, 100248 (2019), arXiv:1807.11380 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    van der Westhuizen, A

    M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino, I. Linear interacting dark energy: Analytical solutions and theoretical pathologies, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102119 (2025), arXiv:2509.04495 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    van der Westhuizen, A

    M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino, II. Non-linear interacting dark energy: Analytical solu- tions and theoretical pathologies, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102120 (2025), arXiv:2509.04494 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    van der Westhuizen, A

    M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino, III. Interacting Dark Energy: Summary of models, Pathologies, and Constraints, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102121 (2025), arXiv:2509.04496 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    S. M. Carroll, Quintessence and the rest of the world, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3067–3070 (1998), arXiv:astro- ph/9806099

    work page arXiv 1998

  51. [51]

    Hagiwaraet al.(Particle Data Group), Review of par- ticle physics

    K. Hagiwaraet al.(Particle Data Group), Review of par- ticle physics. Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. D66, 010001 (2002)

    2002

  52. [52]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, The Cosmological Con- stant and Dark Energy, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 559–606 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207347

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  53. [53]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon, Dark Matter and Dark Energy Interactions: Theoreti- cal Challenges, Cosmological Implications and Observa- tional Signatures, Rept. Prog. Phys.79, 096901 (2016), arXiv:1603.08299 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  54. [54]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods, Astron. Astrophys.641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2018

  55. [55]

    Y. L. Bolotin, A. Kostenko, O. A. Lemets, and D. A. Yerokhin, Cosmological Evolution With Interaction Be- tween Dark Energy And Dark Matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24, 1530007 (2014), arXiv:1310.0085 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2014

  56. [56]

    Kodama and M

    H. Kodama and M. Sasaki, Cosmological Perturbation 14 Theory, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.78, 1–166 (1984)

    1984

  57. [57]

    K. A. Malik, D. Wands, and C. Ungarelli, Large scale cur- vature and entropy perturbations for multiple interact- ing fluids, Phys. Rev. D67, 063516 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0211602

    work page arXiv 2003

  58. [58]

    Li and X

    Y.-H. Li and X. Zhang, Running coupling: Does the cou- pling between dark energy and dark matter change sign during the cosmological evolution?, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1700 (2011), arXiv:1103.3185 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2011

  59. [59]

    Y. Wang, D. Wands, G.-B. Zhao, and L. Xu, Post-P lanck constraints on interacting vacuum energy, Phys. Rev. D 90, 023502 (2014), arXiv:1404.5706 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2014

  60. [60]

    W. Yang, O. Mena, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, Dark sectors with dynamical coupling, Phys. Rev. D100, 083509 (2019), arXiv:1906.11697 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  61. [61]

    W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, and S. Pan, Dynam- ical Dark sectors and Neutrino masses and abundances, Phys. Rev. D102, 023535 (2020), arXiv:2003.12552 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213– 224 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

  63. [63]

    E. V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the uni- verse, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0208512

    work page arXiv 2003

  64. [64]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, O. Mena, and E. Di Valentino, On the dynamics of a dark sector coupling, JHEAp40, 19–40 (2023), arXiv:2209.14816 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    M. B. Gavela, D. Hernandez, L. Lopez Honorez, O. Mena, and S. Rigolin, Dark coupling, JCAP07, 034, [Erratum: JCAP 05, E01 (2010)], arXiv:0901.1611 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2010

  66. [66]

    Hu, Parametrized Post-Friedmann Signatures of Ac- celeration in the CMB, Phys

    W. Hu, Parametrized Post-Friedmann Signatures of Ac- celeration in the CMB, Phys. Rev. D77, 103524 (2008), arXiv:0801.2433 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2008

  67. [67]

    W. Fang, W. Hu, and A. Lewis, Crossing the Phantom Divide with Parameterized Post-Friedmann Dark Energy, Phys. Rev. D78, 087303 (2008), arXiv:0808.3125 [astro- ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  68. [68]

    Parametrized Post-Friedmann Framework for Interact- ing Dark Energy,

    Y.-H. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Parametrized Post-Friedmann Framework for Interacting Dark Energy, Phys. Rev. D90, 063005 (2014), arXiv:1404.5220 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2014

  69. [69]

    Li, J.-F

    Y.-H. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Exploring the full parameter space for an interacting dark energy model with recent observations including redshift-space distortions: Application of the parametrized post- Friedmann approach, Phys. Rev. D90, 123007 (2014), arXiv:1409.7205 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2014

  70. [70]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Dataset and Light-Curve Release

    D. Scolnicet al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys. J.938, 113 (2022), arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  71. [71]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

    D. Broutet al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmo- logical Constraints, Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  72. [72]

    E. R. Petersonet al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: Evaluat- ing Peculiar Velocity Corrections in Cosmological Analy- ses with Nearby Type Ia Supernovae, Astrophys. J.938, 112 (2022), arXiv:2110.03487 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  73. [73]

    A. Carr, T. M. Davis, D. Scolnic, D. Scolnic, K. Said, D. Brout, E. R. Peterson, and R. Kessler, The Pan- theon+ analysis: Improving the redshifts and peculiar velocities of Type Ia supernovae used in cosmological analyses, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.39, e046 (2022), arXiv:2112.01471 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    A. Conleyet al., Supernova constraints and systematic uncertainties from the first three years of the supernova legacy survey, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Se- ries192, 1 (2010)

    2010

  75. [75]

    Observational Constraints on Dark Energy and Cosmic Curvature

    Y. Wang and P. Mukherjee, Observational Constraints on Dark Energy and Cosmic Curvature, Phys. Rev.D76, 103533 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0703780 [astro-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  76. [76]

    Aizpuru, R

    A. Aizpuru, R. Arjona, and S. Nesseris, Machine learning improved fits of the sound horizon at the baryon drag epoch, Phys. Rev. D104, 043521 (2021), arXiv:2106.00428 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    Bansal and D

    P. Bansal and D. Huterer, Expansion-history preferences of DESI DR2 and external data, Phys. Rev. D112, 023528 (2025), arXiv:2502.07185 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    M. S. Madhavacherilet al.(ACT), The Atacama Cos- mology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing Map and Cosmological Parameters, Astrophys. J.962, 113 (2024), arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    Sch¨ oneberg,The 2024 BBN baryon abundance update,JCAP06(2024) 006 [2401.15054]

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, The 2024 BBN baryon abundance up- date, JCAP06, 006, arXiv:2401.15054 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Jeffreys,Theory of Probability, 3rd ed

    H. Jeffreys,Theory of Probability, 3rd ed. (Oxford, Ox- ford, England, 1961)

    1961

Showing first 80 references.