pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.05005 · v1 · pith:XK77WFLBnew · submitted 2026-06-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc· hep-ph· hep-th

Neutrino mass constraints in interacting dark energy models after DESI DR2

Hui Li , Guo-Hong Du , Tian-Nuo Li , Hai-Li Li , Lu Feng , Jing-Fei Zhang , Xin Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 04:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords neutrino massinteracting dark energyDESI DR2cosmological constraintsdark matterbaryon acoustic oscillationscosmic microwave background
0
0 comments X

The pith

The upper bound on total neutrino mass varies from 0.051 eV to 0.129 eV depending on the form of dark energy-dark matter interaction.

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

This paper tests four phenomenological models in which dark energy and dark matter exchange energy at different rates. Using the latest DESI baryon acoustic oscillation measurements together with cosmic microwave background and supernova data, it calculates the resulting cosmological upper limits on the sum of neutrino masses. One interaction form relaxes the bound relative to standard cosmology while another tightens it sharply. The data prefer the tighter models, which then sit in tension with the minimum mass implied by neutrino oscillation experiments. A reader cares because the result shows that the interpretation of the DESI deviation hinges on the precise choice of interaction term.

Core claim

The upper bounds on ∑mν exhibit profound sensitivity to the specific phenomenological formulation of the interaction term. The IΛCDM2 model (Q ∝ H ρc) substantially relaxes the stringent upper limit (∑mν < 0.129 eV at 95% CL), while the IΛCDM3 model (Q ∝ H0 ρde) severely compresses the allowed parameter space, yielding ∑mν < 0.051 eV. Goodness-of-fit evaluations indicate that current data statistically favor these mass-suppressing IDE models, establishing an exacerbated statistical tension with the normal hierarchy lower bound (~0.06 eV) from terrestrial neutrino oscillation experiments.

What carries the argument

Four interacting dark energy models defined by different functional forms of the energy transfer rate Q between dark energy and dark matter densities.

If this is right

  • The IΛCDM2 interaction allows a higher neutrino mass sum while remaining consistent with the combined datasets.
  • The IΛCDM3 interaction produces a tighter neutrino mass limit than the standard non-interacting case.
  • Statistical preference for the mass-suppressing models increases the tension with the 0.06 eV lower bound from oscillation data.
  • Different interaction forms produce observably different neutrino mass constraints when the same datasets are used.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the preferred interaction forms are correct, future neutrino mass experiments could rule out or confirm entire classes of dark sector models.
  • The sensitivity to Q's functional form suggests that other phenomenological choices for the interaction could produce still different neutrino bounds.
  • Resolving the tension may require either ruling out the interaction or finding a dynamical dark energy model without energy exchange that fits the same data.

Load-bearing premise

The deviation from Lambda CDM reported by DESI is caused by a dark energy-dark matter interaction whose functional form can be chosen from the four prescriptions examined.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the sum of neutrino masses that lies outside the range allowed by the statistically preferred interaction models, or new data showing the DESI deviation persists without any interaction term.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.05005 by Guo-Hong Du, Hai-Li Li, Hui Li, Jing-Fei Zhang, Lu Feng, Tian-Nuo Li, Xin Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The 1D marginalized posterior constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. A comparison of the 2D marginalized contours of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The best-fit CMB TT power spectra obtained from the CMB+DESI+DES-Dovekie data. We compare the theoretical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent DESI observations indicate a deviation from the $\Lambda$CDM model, showing a preference for dynamical dark energy and thereby relaxing the upper limit on the neutrino mass within this framework. This deviation can also be explained by the presence of an interaction between dark energy and dark matter. In this work, we investigate the cosmological upper bounds on the total neutrino mass ($\sum m_{\nu}$) across four different interacting dark energy (IDE) models. The present analysis employs the latest DESI baryon acoustic oscillation, cosmic microwave background, and type Ia supernova datasets. These results demonstrate that the upper bounds on $\sum m_{\nu}$ exhibit profound sensitivity to the specific phenomenological formulation of the interaction term. While the I$\Lambda$CDM2 model ($Q \propto H \rho_{\mathrm{c}}$) substantially relaxes the stringent upper limit ($\sum m_{\nu} < 0.129$ eV at 95% confidence level), notably the I$\Lambda$CDM3 model ($Q \propto H_0 \rho_{\mathrm{de}}$), severely compresses the allowed parameter space, yielding a highly restrictive bound of $\sum m_{\nu} < 0.051$ eV. Furthermore, rigorous goodness-of-fit evaluations utilizing the Deviance Information Criterion and $\Delta\chi^2_{\mathrm{MAP}}$ indicate that the current observational data statistically favor these mass-suppressing IDE models. This establishes an exacerbated statistical tension between the observationally preferred IDE scenarios and the normal hierarchy lower bound ($\sim 0.06$ eV) determined by terrestrial neutrino oscillation experiments.

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 paper examines constraints on the total neutrino mass ∑m_ν in four phenomenological interacting dark energy (IDE) models (IΛCDM1–4) distinguished by the functional form of the energy transfer rate Q. Using DESI DR2 BAO combined with CMB and SNIa data, it reports that the 95% CL upper bounds on ∑m_ν vary strongly with the choice of Q: IΛCDM2 (Q ∝ H ρ_c) relaxes the limit to <0.129 eV while IΛCDM3 (Q ∝ H_0 ρ_de) tightens it to <0.051 eV. DIC and Δχ²_MAP comparisons are used to argue that the data statistically favor the mass-suppressing IDE models, creating tension with the ~0.06 eV lower bound from neutrino oscillation experiments.

Significance. If the numerical results hold, the work usefully illustrates the strong model dependence of neutrino-mass limits within the IDE framework and the potential for certain interaction prescriptions to exacerbate tension with terrestrial neutrino data. The timely use of DESI DR2 data is a positive feature. The central demonstration—that different Q forms produce qualitatively different bounds from the same dataset—directly supports the paper’s stated goal and does not rely on unstated assumptions about the physical origin of the DESI deviation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods and Results sections] The abstract and results (presumably §4) quote precise 95% CL bounds and DIC/Δχ² values, yet the manuscript supplies no information on DESI DR2 data cuts, covariance-matrix construction, prior ranges for the interaction coupling and ∑m_ν, or MCMC convergence diagnostics. These omissions are load-bearing for the central sensitivity claim and prevent independent verification of the quoted limits.
  2. [§4 (goodness-of-fit discussion)] The statement that the data “statistically favor these mass-suppressing IDE models” rests on DIC and Δχ²_MAP, but the manuscript does not tabulate the numerical DIC differences relative to ΛCDM or report the effective number of parameters, making it impossible to judge whether the preference is decisive or marginal.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] Notation for the four models (IΛCDM1–4) should be defined explicitly at first use, together with the exact proportionality constants in each Q expression.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions should state the exact data combination and parameter priors used for each contour plot.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive report. The comments highlight important issues of reproducibility and clarity in the statistical analysis, which we address below by expanding the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods and Results sections] The abstract and results (presumably §4) quote precise 95% CL bounds and DIC/Δχ² values, yet the manuscript supplies no information on DESI DR2 data cuts, covariance-matrix construction, prior ranges for the interaction coupling and ∑m_ν, or MCMC convergence diagnostics. These omissions are load-bearing for the central sensitivity claim and prevent independent verification of the quoted limits.

    Authors: We agree that these details are necessary for independent verification. In the revised manuscript we have inserted a new subsection (Methods, §2.3) that specifies the DESI DR2 redshift-bin cuts and sample selection, the covariance-matrix construction (following the DESI collaboration release), the uniform prior ranges adopted for the interaction coupling ξ and for ∑m_ν (0–2 eV), and the MCMC convergence criteria (Gelman–Rubin R−1 < 0.01 together with effective sample sizes). These additions directly support the quoted 95 % CL bounds. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4 (goodness-of-fit discussion)] The statement that the data “statistically favor these mass-suppressing IDE models” rests on DIC and Δχ²_MAP, but the manuscript does not tabulate the numerical DIC differences relative to ΛCDM or report the effective number of parameters, making it impossible to judge whether the preference is decisive or marginal.

    Authors: We accept the point. The revised §4 now contains an explicit table (Table 3) listing, for each IDE model and for ΛCDM: the DIC value, ΔDIC relative to ΛCDM, the effective number of parameters p_D, and the corresponding Δχ²_MAP. The tabulated differences allow readers to evaluate whether the preference for the mass-suppressing models is moderate or decisive. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper performs standard Bayesian parameter estimation on four phenomenological IDE models (with different Q forms) against DESI DR2 + CMB + SNIa data, reporting the resulting posterior upper limits on ∑mν. These limits are explicitly the output of the fits under each model choice; the central claim is precisely the demonstrated sensitivity of those limits to the choice of Q, which is shown directly by the differing posteriors and DIC/Δχ² values. No step claims a first-principles derivation, prediction, or uniqueness theorem that reduces by construction to the input data or to a self-citation. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks (the data likelihoods) and does not rename known results or smuggle ansatzes via citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard FLRW cosmology plus four ad-hoc phenomenological interaction terms whose coupling strengths are free parameters fitted to data; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • interaction coupling strength
    Each of the four IDE models introduces at least one free parameter controlling the energy transfer rate Q between dark energy and dark matter; these are fitted to the data.
  • sum m_nu
    The total neutrino mass is treated as a free parameter whose posterior upper limit is reported for each model.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The background expansion and perturbation equations remain valid when a phenomenological interaction term Q is added to the continuity equations of dark energy and dark matter.
    This is the foundational assumption allowing the four IDE models to be solved and fit to data.
  • domain assumption The DESI DR2 BAO measurements, Planck CMB, and Pantheon+ SNIa datasets can be combined without additional systematic covariance terms beyond those already published.
    Standard assumption when jointly analyzing these probes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5844 in / 1612 out tokens · 34227 ms · 2026-06-28T04:50:15.527372+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Are Cosmological Data Excluding Sterile Neutrinos or Only the Fully Thermalized Limit?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Cosmological observations constrain the effective abundance of light sterile neutrinos tightly while allowing non-fully-thermalized realizations to remain viable across LambdaCDM and CPL models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

191 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    relative to ΛCDM. Notably, near the first acoustic peak, the observational data points fit the ΛCDM model extremely well with small relative errors, imposing strin- gent constraints on these interacting models. As previ- ously mentioned, the interaction strength within these coupled models is tightly constrained in this region. Fur- ther examining the mod...

    2000

  2. [2]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), JCAP02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Feng, X.-L

    B. Feng, X.-L. Wang, and X.-M. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 607, 35 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0404224

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Guo, Y.-S

    Z.-K. Guo, Y.-S. Piao, X.-M. Zhang, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B608, 177 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0410654

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    Zhang, Commun

    X. Zhang, Commun. Theor. Phys.44, 762 (2005)

    2005

  7. [7]

    Zhang, Int

    X. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D14, 1597 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0504586

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Zhang, Phys

    X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D74, 103505 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0609699

    arXiv 2006

  9. [9]

    Amendola, Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  10. [10]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon, Rept. Prog. Phys.79, 096901 (2016), arXiv:1603.08299 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    Cortˆ es and A

    M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle, JCAP12, 007 (2024), arXiv:2404.08056 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Shlivko and P

    D. Shlivko and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Lett. B855, 138826 (2024), arXiv:2405.03933 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Luongo and M

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Astron. Astrophys.690, A40 (2024), arXiv:2404.07070 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Wang and Y.-S

    H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Lett. B873, 140180 (2026), arXiv:2404.18579 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Tada and T

    Y. Tada and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D109, L121305 (2024), arXiv:2404.05722 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Bhattacharya, G

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, JCAP09, 073 (2024), arXiv:2405.17396 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    O. F. Ramadan, J. Sakstein, and D. Rubin, Phys. Rev. D110, L041303 (2024), arXiv:2405.18747 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, JCAP10, 035 (2024), arXiv:2407.16689 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Jiang, D

    J.-Q. Jiang, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D110, 123519 (2024), arXiv:2408.02365 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Y. Yang, X. Ren, Q. Wang, Z. Lu, D. Zhang, Y.-F. Cai, and E. N. Saridakis, Sci. Bull.69, 2698 (2024), arXiv:2404.19437 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys

    K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Guet al.(DESI), Nature Astron.9, 1879 (2025), [Erratum: Nature Astron

    G. Guet al.(DESI), Nature Astron.9, 1879 (2025), [Erratum: Nature Astron. 9, 1898 (2025)], arXiv:2504.06118 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    de Cruz P´ erez, A

    J. de Cruz P´ erez, A. G´ omez-Valent, and J. Sol` a Peracaula, Phys. Rev. D113, 083521 (2026), arXiv:2512.20616 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043540 (2025), arXiv:2406.07533 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, and A. Silvestri, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 181002 (2025), arXiv:2407.15832 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys

    K. Lodhaet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D111, 023532 (2025), arXiv:2405.13588 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Malekjani, Z

    M. Malekjani, Z. Davari, and S. Pourojaghi (DESI), Phys. Rev. D111, 083547 (2025), arXiv:2407.09767 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Rebou¸ cas, D

    J. Rebou¸ cas, D. H. F. de Souza, K. Zhong, V. Mi- randa, and R. Rosenfeld, JCAP02, 024 (2025), arXiv:2408.14628 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz P´ erez, and B. Ratra, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D34, 2550058 (2025), arXiv:2410.13627 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Li, Y.-H

    T.-N. Li, Y.-H. Li, G.-H. Du, P.-J. Wu, L. Feng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 608 (2025), arXiv:2411.08639 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [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]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    A. J. Shajib and J. A. Frieman, Phys. Rev. D112, 063508 (2025), arXiv:2502.06929 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Giar` e, T

    W. Giar` e, T. Mahassen, E. Di Valentino, and S. Pan, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101906 (2025), arXiv:2502.10264 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Chaussidonet al., Phys

    E. Chaussidonet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 063548 (2025), arXiv:2503.24343 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Y.-H. Pang, X. Zhang, and Q.-G. Huang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 280410 (2025), arXiv:2503.21600 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Roy Choudhury, Astrophys

    S. Roy Choudhury, Astrophys. J. Lett.986, L31 (2025), arXiv:2504.15340 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Paliathanasis, Phys

    A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101956 (2025), arXiv:2502.16221 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Scherer, M

    M. Scherer, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and A. De Fe- lice, Phys. Rev. D112, 043513 (2025), arXiv:2504.20664 9 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Giar` e, Phys

    W. Giar` e, Phys. Rev. D112, 023508 (2025), arXiv:2409.17074 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    T. Liu, X. Li, and J. Wang, Astrophys. J.988, 243 (2025), arXiv:2504.21373 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    E. M. Teixeira, W. Giar` e, N. B. Hogg, T. Montandon, A. Poudou, and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. D112, 023515 (2025), arXiv:2504.10464 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Specogna, S

    E. Specogna, S. A. Adil, E. Ozulker, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, O. Akarsu, and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 113, 103549 (2026), arXiv:2504.17859 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Cheng, E

    H. Cheng, E. Di Valentino, L. A. Escamilla, A. A. Sen, and L. Visinelli, JCAP09, 031 (2025), arXiv:2505.02932 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Herold and T

    L. Herold and T. Karwal, (2025), arXiv:2506.12004 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    ¨Oz¨ ulker, E

    E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, E. Di Valentino, and W. Giar` e, (2025), arXiv:2506.19053 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    A. N. Ormondroyd, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, (2025), arXiv:2503.17342 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Silva and R

    E. Silva and R. C. Nunes, JCAP11, 078 (2025), arXiv:2507.13989 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Ishak and L

    M. Ishak and L. Medina-Varela, (2025), arXiv:2507.22856 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Zhang, T

    Z. Zhang, T. Xu, and Y. Chen, Astrophys. J.999, 248 (2026), arXiv:2512.07281 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Cheng, E

    H. Cheng, E. Di Valentino, and L. Visinelli, JHEAp 53, 100610 (2026), arXiv:2505.22066 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    Y. Cai, X. Ren, T. Qiu, M. Li, and X. Zhang, (2025), 10.1093/nsr/nwag115, arXiv:2505.24732 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/nsr/nwag115 2025

  52. [52]

    Li and S

    J.-X. Li and S. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1308 (2025), arXiv:2506.22953 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    D. H. Lee, W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, S. Pan, and C. van de Bruck, Phys. Rev. D113, 063554 (2026), arXiv:2507.11432 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    Wu, T.-N

    P.-J. Wu, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C50, 045105 (2026), arXiv:2509.02945 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    F. B. M. d. Santos, J. Morais, S. Pan, W. Yang, and E. Di Valentino, (2025), arXiv:2504.04646 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Li, G.-H

    T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, S.-H. Zhou, Y.-H. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102254 (2026), arXiv:2511.22512 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    Li, P.-J

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Yao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102068 (2025), arXiv:2507.07798 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Khoury, M.-X

    J. Khoury, M.-X. Lin, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 181001 (2025), arXiv:2503.16415 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Li and X

    Y.-H. Li and X. Zhang, JCAP12, 018 (2025), arXiv:2506.18477 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    D. A. Kessler, L. A. Escamilla, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, (2025), arXiv:2504.00776 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Smith, E

    A. Smith, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, E. Di Valentino, and C. van de Bruck, (2025), arXiv:2510.21931 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), Phys

    E. Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101965 (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Fazzari, W

    E. Fazzari, W. Giar` e, and E. Di Valentino, Astro- phys. J. Lett.996, L5 (2026), arXiv:2509.16196 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    Song, G.-H

    J.-Y. Song, G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, L.-F. Wang, J.-Z. Qi, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.69, 240413 (2026), arXiv:2511.12017 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    Bella, V

    M. Bella, V. Poulin, S. Vagnozzi, and L. Knox, (2026), arXiv:2604.13535 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    Comini, S

    L. Comini, S. Vagnozzi, and A. Loeb, JHEAp53, 100626 (2026), arXiv:2604.13866 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Gonz´ alez-Fuentes and A

    A. Gonz´ alez-Fuentes and A. G´ omez-Valent, (2026), arXiv:2603.26560 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Pedrotti, L

    D. Pedrotti, L. A. Escamilla, V. Marra, L. Perivolaropoulos, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D113, 043507 (2026), arXiv:2510.01974 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    Ren, S.-Y

    X. Ren, S.-Y. Li, Y. Liu, Y. Cai, H. Li, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2606.01360 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    X. Li, T. Liu, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, A. Shafieloo, and M. Biesiada, Astrophys. J. Lett.1001, L21 (2026)

    2026

  71. [71]

    Yao, Y.-H

    Y.-H. Yao, Y.-H. Shen, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, and Y. Gong, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102318 (2026), arXiv:2510.13436 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    T.-t. Qiu, Y. Cai, Y. Liu, S.-Y. Li, J. Evslin, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C50, 012001 (2026), arXiv:2511.19994 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  73. [73]

    Wang and Y.-S

    H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, (2026), arXiv:2601.06656 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  74. [74]

    Huang, R.-G

    L. Huang, R.-G. Cai, and S.-J. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 100413 (2025), arXiv:2502.04212 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Efstathiou, Mon

    G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.538, 875 (2025), arXiv:2408.07175 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Popovicet al.(DES), Mon

    B. Popovicet al.(DES), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 548, stag632 (2026), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  77. [77]

    Zhang, M.-M

    J.-F. Zhang, M.-M. Zhao, Y.-H. Li, and X. Zhang, JCAP04, 038 (2015), arXiv:1502.04028 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  78. [78]

    Allison, P

    R. Allison, P. Caucal, E. Calabrese, J. Dunkley, and T. Louis, Phys. Rev. D92, 123535 (2015), arXiv:1509.07471 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  79. [79]

    Geng, C.-C

    C.-Q. Geng, C.-C. Lee, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami, and E. N. Saridakis, JCAP01, 049 (2016), arXiv:1504.08141 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  80. [80]

    Chen and L

    Y. Chen and L. Xu, Phys. Lett. B752, 66 (2016), arXiv:1507.02008 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

Showing first 80 references.