pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.07344 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · 🌀 gr-qc · hep-th

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

DESI and Dynamical Dark Energy from Extended Pre-geometric Gravity

Andrea Addazi , Yermek Aldabergenov , Daulet Berkimbayev , Yifu Cai , Salvatore Capozziello , Giuseppe Meluccio
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 01:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc hep-th
keywords dynamical dark energypre-geometric gravitygravi-axionDESI dataGauss-Bonnet couplingquadratic gravityMacDowell-Mansourigravitational slip
0
0 comments X

The pith

A quadratic extension of pre-geometric gravity dynamizes the gravitational theta angle into a gravi-axion whose mass sets the dark energy scale to fit DESI data.

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

The paper shows that the simplest quadratic correction to MacDowell-Mansouri pre-geometric gravity, while preserving the topological pre-volume symmetry, breaks to produce (Lovelock) squared gravity that is dual to a Galileon-like Horndeski theory. The gravitational Higgs mechanism then fixes the Gauss-Bonnet coupling inversely to the bare cosmological constant, turning the theta angle into a dynamical gravi-axion whose effective mass automatically matches the observed dark energy density. This construction yields a dynamical dark energy model that fits DESI baryon acoustic oscillation plus full-shape data with a reduced chi-squared of 1.394, while the gravitational slip parameter differs from Lambda CDM by only a few percent and tensor modes remain stable. A reader would care because the approach derives cosmic acceleration directly from the geometry and symmetry breaking of a fundamental gravity theory rather than inserting an ad hoc field by hand.

Core claim

The quadratic term renders the gravitational theta-angle dynamical in the form of a gravi-axion whose effective mass sets the dark energy scale, thus naturally realizing a dynamical dark energy. After symmetry breaking the theory becomes equivalent to squared Lovelock gravity dual to a Galileon-like Horndeski scalar-tensor theory, with the Gauss-Bonnet coupling forced to be inversely proportional to the bare cosmological constant by the gravitational Higgs mechanism. The resulting model fits DESI BAO+FS data with chi-squared reduced equal to 1.394, deviates from Lambda CDM by only a few percent in the slip parameter gamma of z, and maintains stable tensor perturbations.

What carries the argument

The gravi-axion that emerges when the quadratic correction makes the gravitational theta angle dynamical; it carries the dark energy by acquiring a mass fixed through the Higgs mechanism to the inverse bare cosmological constant.

If this is right

  • The model reproduces DESI BAO plus full-shape data with a reduced chi-squared of 1.394.
  • The gravitational slip parameter gamma of z differs from its Lambda CDM value by only a few percent across observable redshifts.
  • Tensor perturbations remain stable throughout the cosmic history.
  • The construction supplies a direct geometric link between pre-geometric symmetry breaking and late-time acceleration without extra scalar fields.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Precision tests of gravitational slip at higher redshift could separate this model from Lambda CDM even if current data are compatible.
  • The duality to Horndeski theories opens the possibility of checking consistency with solar-system or galactic-scale modified gravity constraints.
  • Similar quadratic extensions of other pre-geometric frameworks might address additional cosmological tensions such as the Hubble constant discrepancy.

Load-bearing premise

The quadratic extension must preserve the topological pre-volume form symmetry so the Higgs mechanism can enforce the inverse relation between Gauss-Bonnet coupling and cosmological constant that sets the gravi-axion mass to the observed dark energy scale.

What would settle it

A future measurement of the gravitational slip parameter gamma of z that deviates by more than a few percent from the model's prediction at redshifts probed by DESI or Euclid, or a statistically significant worsening of the chi-squared fit below the reported 1.394 value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.07344 by Andrea Addazi, Daulet Berkimbayev, Giuseppe Meluccio, Salvatore Capozziello, Yermek Aldabergenov, Yifu Cai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Best-fit free-¯α [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Effective modified-gravity functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Accepted-region map from the free-¯α [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We consider the simplest quadratic extension of MacDowell-Mansouri pre-geometric gravity preserving the topological pre-volume form symmetry. After symmetry breaking, it becomes $(\mathrm{Lovelock})^2$ gravity, dual to a Galileon-like Horndeski scalar-tensor theory. The gravitational Higgs mechanism forces the Gauss-Bonnet coupling to be inversely proportional to the bare cosmological constant. The quadratic correction renders the gravitational $\theta$-angle dynamical in the form of a gravi-axion, whose effective mass sets the dark energy scale, thus naturally realizing a dynamical dark energy. The model fits DESI's BAO+FS data exceptionally well ($\chi^2_{\rm red} = 1.394$), deviating from $\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}$ by only a few percent in the gravitational slip parameter $\gamma(z)$ with stable tensor perturbations. This analysis establishes a concrete, testable bridge between pre-geometric gravity and cosmic acceleration.

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

4 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes the simplest quadratic extension of MacDowell-Mansouri pre-geometric gravity preserving the topological pre-volume form symmetry. After symmetry breaking it reduces to (Lovelock)^2 gravity, dual to a Galileon-like Horndeski scalar-tensor theory. The gravitational Higgs mechanism is stated to force the Gauss-Bonnet coupling to be inversely proportional to the bare cosmological constant. The quadratic term renders the gravitational θ-angle dynamical as a gravi-axion whose effective mass sets the dark-energy scale, realizing dynamical dark energy. The model is reported to fit DESI BAO+FS data with χ²_red = 1.394, deviating from ΛCDM by only a few percent in the gravitational slip parameter γ(z) while maintaining stable tensor perturbations.

Significance. If the derivations of the inverse coupling relation and the gravi-axion mass are shown to be independent of observational input, the work would provide a concrete bridge from pre-geometric gravity to dynamical dark energy with a naturally generated scale and a competitive fit to recent DESI data. The approach uses only the bare cosmological constant as a free parameter and yields falsifiable predictions for modified-gravity observables.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Higgs-mechanism derivation] Abstract and the section deriving the gravitational Higgs mechanism: the statement that this mechanism 'forces' the Gauss-Bonnet coupling to be inversely proportional to the bare cosmological constant is presented without the explicit Lagrangian terms, symmetry-breaking ansatz, or algebraic steps that establish the relation. It is therefore impossible to determine whether the inverse proportionality is a derived consequence or an imposed condition.
  2. [Quadratic correction and gravi-axion] Section introducing the quadratic correction and gravi-axion: the claim that the effective mass of the gravi-axion 'sets the dark energy scale' is not accompanied by the explicit effective potential, the computation of the mass term, or a demonstration that the resulting scale matches the observed value without additional tuning. This leaves open the possibility that the mass is chosen to reproduce the observed dark-energy density rather than predicted independently.
  3. [Observational fit] Data-analysis section: the reported χ²_red = 1.394 for DESI BAO+FS is given without the corresponding χ² for ΛCDM on the same dataset, without tabulated best-fit parameters, covariance matrices, or error budgets. Consequently the assertion of an 'exceptionally well' fit and the quantitative statement of 'only a few percent' deviation in γ(z) cannot be assessed.
  4. [Stability analysis] Perturbation-stability subsection: the claim of stable tensor perturbations is made without the dispersion relation, the eigenvalues of the quadratic action, or the no-ghost/no-gradient-instability conditions. The absence of these quantities prevents verification that the model remains healthy across the relevant redshift range.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Theory mapping] The duality between (Lovelock)^2 gravity and the Galileon-like Horndeski theory is asserted but the explicit field redefinition or action mapping is not supplied; adding the relevant equations would improve traceability.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels for any γ(z) or perturbation plots should explicitly state the redshift range and the precise definition of the slip parameter used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive report. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to supply the requested explicit derivations, comparisons, and stability details. These additions will render the derivations fully transparent while preserving the original results and conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Higgs-mechanism derivation] Abstract and the section deriving the gravitational Higgs mechanism: the statement that this mechanism 'forces' the Gauss-Bonnet coupling to be inversely proportional to the bare cosmological constant is presented without the explicit Lagrangian terms, symmetry-breaking ansatz, or algebraic steps that establish the relation. It is therefore impossible to determine whether the inverse proportionality is a derived consequence or an imposed condition.

    Authors: We agree that the current presentation omits the intermediate algebraic steps. The inverse relation is a direct consequence of the symmetry-breaking equations of motion in the pre-geometric action and is independent of any observational input. In the revised manuscript we will insert the explicit Lagrangian before and after breaking, the precise symmetry-breaking ansatz, and the step-by-step derivation from the field equations that yields the Gauss-Bonnet coupling inversely proportional to the bare cosmological constant. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Quadratic correction and gravi-axion] Section introducing the quadratic correction and gravi-axion: the claim that the effective mass of the gravi-axion 'sets the dark energy scale' is not accompanied by the explicit effective potential, the computation of the mass term, or a demonstration that the resulting scale matches the observed value without additional tuning. This leaves open the possibility that the mass is chosen to reproduce the observed dark-energy density rather than predicted independently.

    Authors: The mass is fixed by the quadratic correction coefficient and the bare cosmological constant alone. The revised section will display the explicit effective potential obtained from the quadratic term, the second-derivative evaluation that produces the mass, and the direct matching of this mass to the observed dark-energy scale using only the input bare cosmological constant, thereby confirming the absence of additional tuning. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Observational fit] Data-analysis section: the reported χ²_red = 1.394 for DESI BAO+FS is given without the corresponding χ² for ΛCDM on the same dataset, without tabulated best-fit parameters, covariance matrices, or error budgets. Consequently the assertion of an 'exceptionally well' fit and the quantitative statement of 'only a few percent' deviation in γ(z) cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We will add the χ²_red value obtained for ΛCDM on the identical DESI BAO+FS dataset, a table of best-fit parameters with uncertainties, the relevant covariance information, and an explicit error budget. We will also tabulate the percentage deviations of γ(z) from unity at representative redshifts so that the quantitative statements can be directly verified. revision: yes

  4. Referee: [Stability analysis] Perturbation-stability subsection: the claim of stable tensor perturbations is made without the dispersion relation, the eigenvalues of the quadratic action, or the no-ghost/no-gradient-instability conditions. The absence of these quantities prevents verification that the model remains healthy across the relevant redshift range.

    Authors: The revised perturbation-stability subsection will contain the quadratic action for tensor modes, the resulting dispersion relation, the eigenvalues of the kinetic matrix, and the explicit no-ghost and no-gradient-instability conditions. We will then demonstrate that these conditions hold for the best-fit parameters over the full redshift range of interest. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained against external benchmarks

full rationale

The provided abstract and context describe a quadratic extension of MacDowell-Mansouri gravity that, after symmetry breaking, yields a dual Horndeski theory with a gravi-axion whose mass is stated to set the dark-energy scale. No explicit equations are quoted that reduce the effective mass or the Gauss-Bonnet–cosmological-constant relation to a fitted input or self-citation by construction. The DESI fit is presented as an empirical test rather than a derivation step, and the Higgs mechanism is invoked as an external forcing relation without evidence that it collapses to the target result. The central claims therefore remain independent of the outputs they are said to predict.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the preservation of topological pre-volume form symmetry under the quadratic extension, the occurrence of a gravitational Higgs mechanism after symmetry breaking, and the identification of the gravi-axion mass with the dark-energy scale. These steps are asserted but not derived in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • bare cosmological constant
    Appears as an input whose inverse sets the Gauss-Bonnet coupling; its value is presumably chosen to match observations.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The quadratic extension preserves the topological pre-volume form symmetry.
    Stated as the starting point for the simplest extension.
  • domain assumption Symmetry breaking yields (Lovelock)^2 gravity dual to a Galileon-like Horndeski theory.
    Invoked to connect the pre-geometric action to the scalar-tensor formulation.
invented entities (1)
  • gravi-axion no independent evidence
    purpose: Dynamical realization of the gravitational theta angle whose mass sets the dark-energy scale.
    Introduced as the field made dynamical by the quadratic correction.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5477 in / 1620 out tokens · 47009 ms · 2026-05-11T01:08:26.785357+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We consider the simplest quadratic extension of MacDowell-Mansouri pre-geometric gravity preserving the topological pre-volume form symmetry. After symmetry breaking, it becomes (Lovelock)^2 gravity—dual to a Galileon-like Horndeski scalar-tensor theory. The gravitational Higgs mechanism forces the Gauss-Bonnet coupling to be inversely proportional to the bare cosmological constant. The quadratic correction renders the gravitational θ-angle dynamical in the form of a gravi-axion, whose effective mass sets the dark energy scale.

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

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    the model fits DESI’s BAO+FS data exceptionally well (χ²_red = 1.394), deviating from ΛCDM by only a few percent in the gravitational slip parameter γ(z) with stable tensor perturbations.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    the MacDowell–Mansouri (MM) Lagrangian [1]: OMM =k MM ϵABCDE ϵµνρσ F AB µν F CD ρσ ϕE,(1)

    work page

  2. [2]

    We first examine the low-energy effective theory after the SSB, where the internal direction is fixed by⟨ϕ A⟩= vδ A 5

    the Wilczek (W) Lagrangian [2]: OW =k W ϵABCDE ϵµνρσ F AB µν ∇ρϕC ∇σϕD ϕE,(2) where the gauge-covariant derivative acts as ∇µϕA =∂ µϕA +A A BµϕB, A A Bµ ≡η BC AAC µ .(3) Here uppercase Latin indices run from 1 to 5, Greek in- dices from 1 to 4, and the couplings have dimensions [kMM] = [ϕ] −1, [k W] = [ϕ] −3 (ηBC is the internal space flat metric ofSO(1,4...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The model can simultaneously fit DESI BAO dis- tances and growth-rate data withχ 2 red = 1.394, demonstrating observational viability

    work page

  4. [4]

    The best-fit solution lies close to ΛCDM (µ, γ≈1) at low redshift, with only a mild∼2% deviation in γ(z) atz∼1

    work page

  5. [5]

    The extracted ¯α bf ∼0.0035 corresponds to αGBM2 P ∼10 118, within two orders of magnitude of the theoretical MM prediction for the bare pa- rameter. Such a factor is well within the expected range from quantum radiative corrections, renor- malization group running or the precise matching between the pre-geometric parameterλand the ob- served cosmological...

    work page

  6. [6]

    The scalar field has already settled near its poten- tial minimum today (|u 0| ∼10 −4), ensuring no vi- olations of Solar System constraints

    work page

  7. [7]

    Ad- dressing observational tensions in cosmology with sys- tematics and fundamental physics (CosmoVerse)

    Tensor perturbations are stable with|c T −1|< 10−5, consistently with GW170817 bounds. These results demonstrate that the extended MM pre- geometric gravity framework, while requiring a modest adjustment in the precise value ofα GB relative to the minimal prediction, provides a viable phenomenological description of the late-time cosmology, one that is co...

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    MacDowell, F

    S. MacDowell, F. Mansouri, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 739 (1977)

    work page 1977

  9. [9]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 4851–4854 (1998)

    work page 1998

  10. [10]

    Addazi, S

    A. Addazi, S. Capozziello, A. Marciano and G. Meluc- cio, Class. Quant. Grav.42(2025) no.4, 045012 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ada767 [arXiv:2409.02200 [hep- th]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ada767 2025

  11. [11]

    Hamiltonian Analysis of Pre-geometric Gravity

    A. Addazi, S. Capozziello, A. Marcian` o and G. Meluccio, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.6, 064058 doi:10.1103/v5wg- sy4w [arXiv:2505.01272 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/v5wg- 2025

  12. [12]

    Pre-geometric Einstein-Cartan Field Equations and Emergent Cosmology

    G. Meluccio, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.6, 064057 doi:10.1103/kysy-z41p [arXiv:2505.02925 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/kysy-z41p 2025

  13. [13]

    Emergent Gravity from a Spontaneously Broken Gauge Symmetry: A Pre-geometric Prospective.arXiv2025, arXiv:2512.20681

    A. Addazi, [arXiv:2512.20681 [physics.gen-ph]], ”The Proceedings to the 28 Workshop What Comes Beyond the Standard Models” 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Addazi and G

    A. Addazi and G. Meluccio, [arXiv:2602.16840 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv

  15. [15]

    Addazi, S

    A. Addazi, S. Capozziello, G. Meluccio, Physics 2025, 8,

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/physics8010002

    work page doi:10.3390/physics8010002

  17. [17]

    Addazi, G

    A. Addazi, G. Meluccio, Particles 2026, 9, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/particles9010011

    work page doi:10.3390/particles9010011 2026

  18. [18]

    Addazi, Int

    A. Addazi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29(2020) no.14, 2050084 doi:10.1142/S0218271820500844 [arXiv:2004.08372 [hep- th]]

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271820500844 2020

  19. [19]

    Addazi, Eur

    A. Addazi, Eur. Phys. J. Plus135(2020) no.11, 940 doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00933-4

    work page doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00933-4 2020

  20. [20]

    Addazi, Int

    A. Addazi, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.18 (2021) no.02, 2150030 doi:10.1142/S0219887821500304 [arXiv:2005.02040 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219887821500304 2021

  21. [21]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Phys. Rev. 74 (1948), 817-830 doi:10.1103/PhysRev.74.817

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.74.817 1948

  22. [22]

    T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 14 (1976), 437- 445 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.437

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.14.437 1976

  23. [23]

    Montonen and D

    C. Montonen and D. I. Olive, Phys. Lett. B72(1977), 117-120 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90076-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90076-4 1977

  24. [24]

    Seiberg and E

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B426(1994) 19

    work page 1994

  25. [25]

    De Felice and T

    A. De Felice and T. Tanaka, Prog. Theor. Phys.124 (2010) 503–515,arXiv:1006.4399 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2010

  26. [26]

    Bamba, S

    K. Bamba, S. D. Odintsov, L. Sebastiani, and S. Zerbini, 7 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 z 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0Value (z) and (z) (z) (z) FIG. 2. Effective modified-gravity functionsµ(z) andγ(z) for the best-fit solution.µmodifies the Poisson equation, whileγ describes the slip between the two gravitational potentials. The fit sta...

    work page arXiv 2010

  27. [27]

    Elizalde, R

    E. Elizalde, R. Myrzakulov, V. V. Obukhov, and D. Saez-Gomez, Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 095007, arXiv:1001.3636 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2010

  28. [28]

    Atazadeh and F

    K. Atazadeh and F. Darabi, Gen. Rel. Grav.46(2014) 1664,arXiv:1302.0466 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2014

  29. [29]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, and A. A. Popov, Nucl. Phys. B973(2021) 115617, arXiv:2111.09457 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    G. W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys.10(1974) 363–384

    work page 1974

  31. [31]

    From k-essence to generalised Galileons

    C. Deffayet, X. Gao, D. A. Steer, and G. Zahariade, Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 064039,arXiv:1103.3260 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  32. [32]

    Horndeski theory and beyond: a review

    T. Kobayashi, Rept. Prog. Phys.82no. 8, (2019) 086901, arXiv:1901.07183 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Deffayet and D

    C. Deffayet and D. A. Steer, Class. Quant. Grav.30 (2013) 214006,arXiv:1307.2450 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2013

  34. [34]

    Addazi, Y

    A. Addazi, Y. Aldabergenov and S. V. Ketov, Phys. Lett. B869(2025), 139883 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139883 [arXiv:2505.10305 [gr-qc]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139883 2025

  35. [35]

    Addazi, Y

    A. Addazi, Y. Aldabergenov, D. Berkimbayev and Y. Cai, [arXiv:2512.21167 [gr-qc]]

    work page arXiv

  36. [36]

    Alexander, H

    S. Alexander, H. Bernardo and A. Hui, Phys. Rev. Lett.136(2026) no.15, 151501 doi:10.1103/rzz5-p4f4 [arXiv:2506.14886 [gr-qc]]. 8 FIG. 3. Accepted-region map from the free-¯αscan, showing one- and two-dimensional projections of the four-dimensional parameter space (log 10 ¯M ,log 10 ¯α,Ωm0, u0). Darker regions indicate more strongly preferred parts of the...

    work page doi:10.1103/rzz5-p4f4 2026