Dynamical dark energy in the Bianchi Type-V Universe with DESI DR2 BAO, SNIa compilation and RSD measurements

A. H. A. Alfedeel; \'Alvaro de la Cruz-Dombriz; Amare Abebe; Gonzalo J. Olmo; Shambel Sahlu

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 81 references

Dynamical dark energy in the Bianchi Type-V Universe with DESI DR2 BAO, SNIa compilation and RSD measurements

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Anisotropic Bianchi Type-V models with dynamical dark energy ease both the Hubble and structure-growth tensions when fit to DESI DR2, supernovae, chronometers and RSD data.

desk verdict Solid late-time MCMC of Bianchi-V + DDE with DESI DR2; tension-mitigation claim is real on the reported posteriors but rests on an un-revalidated quasi-static growth approximation and no CMB. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.09718 v1 pith:2BF6ICAO submitted 2026-06-25 physics.gen-ph gr-qc

Shambel Sahlu , Álvaro de la Cruz-Dombriz , A. H. A. Alfedeel , Gonzalo J. Olmo , Amare Abebe This is my paper

classification physics.gen-phgr-qc

keywords BianchiType-VdynamicaldarkenergysheardensityH0tensionS8DESIDR2redshift-spacedistortionsquasi-staticapproximation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The standard cosmological model assumes a perfectly smooth, isotropic universe and a constant dark-energy density. This paper instead embeds dynamical dark energy (constant or evolving equation of state) inside a Bianchi Type-V geometry that allows a small residual shear. Using the 1+3 covariant equations for background expansion and linear growth under the quasi-static approximation, the authors confront the models with DESI DR2 BAO, Union3 and DESY5 supernovae, cosmic chronometers and redshift-space distortions. Joint fits show that the extra shear density and the free dark-energy parameters pull the present Hubble constant and the fluctuation amplitude S8 into intermediate values that reduce both long-standing tensions. Akaike information criteria prefer the extended models for most data combinations, while Bayesian criteria still favour the simpler baseline because of the extra parameters. Tight bounds on the present shear density (order 10^{-4}) and on the dark-energy parameters confirm that such anisotropic extensions remain observationally viable.

What carries the argument

The Bianchi Type-V mean Hubble function that includes an explicit shear term Ω_σ ∝ a^{-6} together with the CPL dark-energy density, reduced under the quasi-static approximation to a single second-order equation for the matter density contrast (Eq. 50).

What would settle it

A joint analysis that includes CMB temperature and polarisation spectra and shows that the same best-fit shear density and (w0, wa) values produce unacceptable residuals in the acoustic peaks or in the lensing potential.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When a dynamical dark-energy fluid is placed in a Bianchi Type-V spacetime, the residual shear density couples to the expansion history and to linear growth in such a way that simultaneous late-time measurements of distances and structure growth are better accommodated, thereby lowering the statistical tension between local and early-universe determinations of both H0 and S8.

Load-bearing premise

That neglecting the time derivatives of the shear-gradient variable remains accurate enough for growth predictions once the best-fit shear and dark-energy parameters are inserted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Present-day shear density is constrained at the few × 10^{-4} level by late-time data alone, remaining compatible with CMB isotropy bounds.
Most joint data combinations prefer a quintessence-like dark-energy evolution (w0 > -1, wa < 0).
The growth factor and fσ8(z) receive a measurable boost at high redshift from the residual shear, offering a clean late-time test.
Akaike criteria favour the anisotropic extensions while Bayesian criteria continue to penalise the extra parameters, so future larger samples will decide model preference.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the shear term is confirmed, early-universe probes that currently assume exact FLRW may need a controlled anisotropic correction when interpreting high-redshift BAO or CMB lensing.
The same quasi-static growth equation can be re-used for other Bianchi classes or for anisotropic dark-energy stresses without rewriting the full perturbation hierarchy.
A next natural check is whether the same (w0, wa, Ω_σ) values that ease H0 and S8 also improve the fit to weak-lensing two-point functions.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The new piece is the first joint DESI DR2 BAO + Union3/DESY5 + CC + RSD analysis of Bianchi Type-V with both constant-w and CPL dark energy, plus a full 1+3 growth calculation. That is a clean, expected extension of earlier Bianchi-V work, not a conceptual leap, but the numbers (especially Ω_σ0 ~ 10^{-4} and the H0/S8 tension tables) are new and useful.

What they do well: background Friedmann equation (24) is standard and correctly recovered; the scalar perturbation system (48–49) is derived carefully; they check the quasi-static approximation against the full system at an illustrative point and find <3 % difference (Fig. 1); MCMC tables and AIC/BIC are reported transparently; and they correctly note that BIC still prefers ΛCDM while AIC likes the extensions. The tension diagrams (Figs. 8–13) show that the best-fit points sit between Planck and SH0ES/KiDS, which is the actual content of the “mitigation” claim.

Soft spots, in proportion. The stress-test note is right on the main modelling choice: the only QSA validation uses a fixed low-shear point, not the actual MCMC posteriors where Ω_σ0 can reach ~2 imes10^{-3} and |wa|~1. They never re-solve the full second-order system or recompute fσ8 at those points, so the reported S8 posteriors (and therefore the tension numbers) could shift. That is a real but fixable gap, not a load-bearing contradiction. Second, no CMB likelihood means early-universe shear bounds are absent; the authors say so themselves. Third, they deliberately keep Pantheon+SH0ES and DESI separate because of the known distance-duality tension; that is honest, not a dodge. Self-citation of their earlier Bianchi papers is normal and not excessive.

This is for people already working on anisotropic cosmologies or late-time tension diagnostics who want the current DESI numbers. It is not for someone looking for a new mechanism. A serious editor should send it to referees; the math and data handling are solid enough to deserve that time, even if the final claim needs the QSA re-check and a CMB note. I would cite the constraint tables if I am writing on DESI + anisotropy; I would not cite it as a resolution of the tensions.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies dynamical dark energy (constant-w and CPL w0–wa) inside a Bianchi Type-V anisotropic geometry, deriving the background Friedmann equation (24) and the 1+3 covariant linear growth system (48)–(49). Growth is reduced via the quasi-static approximation (50)–(51) and the models are constrained with DESI DR2 BAO, Union3/DESY5/Pantheon+SH0ES SNIa, cosmic chronometers and RSD. MCMC posteriors (Tables 1–3) and H0–S8 diagrams (Figs. 8–13) are used to argue that anisotropy plus DDE can reduce both the Hubble and S8 tensions relative to flat ΛCDM, while AIC/BIC (Table 4) show that AIC often prefers the extended models but BIC still favours ΛCDM.

Significance. If the late-time constraints and the quasi-static growth results hold, the work supplies a concrete, observationally testable anisotropic extension that simultaneously addresses H0 and S8 with current BAO+SN+CC+RSD data. Strengths include a clean derivation of the Bianchi-V background and shear evolution, an explicit (if limited) accuracy check of the quasi-static approximation (Fig. 1), full posterior tables with 68 %/95 % intervals, and transparent model-selection metrics. The absence of CMB likelihoods is acknowledged by the authors and correctly limits the claim to late-time probes.

major comments (2)

The central claim that Bianchi-V + DDE mitigates both H0 and S8 (Abstract; §4.2–4.3; Figs. 8–13) rests on fσ8 computed from the quasi-static growth equation (50)–(51). The only validation of that approximation (Fig. 1, §3) uses a single illustrative point (Ωm0=0.315, Ωk0=0.045, Ωσ0=10^{-4}) and reports <3 % difference up to z=5. The actual MCMC posteriors (Tables 1–3) reach Ωσ0 ~ 2.4 imes10^{-3} and |wa|~1–1.5. The paper never re-solves the full second-order system (48)–(49) at any best-fit point, nor recomputes the RSD likelihood. Without that check it is unknown whether the reported S8 posteriors (and therefore the tension-mitigation numbers) survive once the neglected shear-gradient terms are restored.
All tension reductions are quantified exclusively against late-time data combinations that deliberately exclude CMB (explicitly noted in §5). Because shear decays as a^{-6}, early-universe constraints would tightly bound Ωσ0 and could erase the late-time freedom that currently lowers H0 and S8. The manuscript should either (i) add a simple CMB prior or early-ISW/lensing bound on Ωσ0, or (ii) rephrase the abstract and conclusions to state clearly that the claimed mitigation is provisional on late-time data alone and may not survive once CMB is included.

minor comments (5)

Eq. (24) and the surrounding text write the CPL factor as exp(-3wa z/(1+z)), which is correct, but the prose occasionally writes wde = w0 + wa(1+a) instead of the standard (1-a); the inconsistency should be fixed for clarity.
Table 1 contains a duplicated header line for the DESI+CC+DESY5+RSD combination under Bianchi-V; the second block appears to be the PantheonP+SH0ES row and should be labelled correctly.
Several figure captions (Figs. 9–13) mis-state which model’s S8 tensions are being plotted (e.g., Fig. 9 caption refers to “wCDM … 1.94σ …” while the body text for that figure quotes different numbers). Captions should match the body text.
The absolute-magnitude column is labelled both Mabs and Mbs in different tables; a single consistent symbol would help.
A short sentence clarifying that the distance duality relation is assumed to hold for the BAO and SNIa distances (despite the Afroz & Mukherjee remark) would remove a possible ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: standard GR+Bianchi derivation, phenomenological MCMC fits to late-time data, and post-hoc comparison of posteriors to external H0/S8 anchors.

full rationale

The background equations (19)–(24) follow directly from the Bianchi-V metric (1), Einstein equations (2)–(8), and separate conservation (9)/(23) with the standard CPL ansatz for w_DE; the shear scalar (18) and density parameters (21) are kinematic definitions, not fitted inputs re-labeled as predictions. Linear growth is obtained from the 1+3 covariant system (40)–(46) reduced under the quasi-static approximation (50)–(51), whose accuracy is checked only illustratively (Fig. 1) but is not used to define the target observables. MCMC constraints (Tables 1–3) are ordinary likelihood fits of free parameters (H0, Ωm0, Ωσ0, w0, wa, d, S8) to the listed late-time data combinations; the subsequent H0–S8 tension numbers (Figs. 8–13) simply compare those posteriors with independent external anchors (Planck, SH0ES, KiDS). Mild self-citations (Alfedeel et al. 2018; Abebe et al. 2023; Sahlu et al. series) supply intermediate algebraic reductions or prior numerical methods but are not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansätze that force the tension-mitigation claim. AIC/BIC model selection is the usual information-criterion comparison. Nothing reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard GR Bianchi-V metric, the CPL (or constant-w) dark-energy parametrisation, the quasi-static truncation of the shear-gradient equations, and a suite of free cosmological parameters fitted to late-time data. No new particles or forces are invented; the shear fluid is an effective description already present in the geometry.

free parameters (6)

Ω_m0
Present-day matter density; fitted freely in every MCMC chain (Tables 1–3).
Ω_σ0
Present-day shear density; free parameter of order 10^{-4} that controls residual anisotropy (Tables 1–3).
w0, wa (or single w)
CPL or constant dark-energy equation-of-state parameters; fitted and used to claim dynamical dark energy (Tables 2–3).
H0
Hubble constant; free and central to the tension discussion.
rd (or Mabs)
Sound-horizon or absolute SN magnitude; nuisance parameters calibrated by the data combinations.
S8
Derived amplitude of matter fluctuations; reported as a free-derived quantity for tension plots.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Einstein equations hold with a perfect-fluid energy-momentum tensor for matter + isotropic DE + effective shear fluid.
Invoked from the outset to obtain the Bianchi-V field equations (4)–(8).
domain assumption Shear scalar evolves exactly as σ² ∝ a^{-6} (stiff-fluid behaviour).
Derived under the Bianchi-V condition A²=BC (Eq. 18) and used throughout the Friedmann equation.
ad hoc to paper Quasi-static approximation: first and second time derivatives of the shear gradient S may be set to zero.
Introduced in §3 to close the growth system (Eq. 50); validated only by a relative-difference plot at fixed parameter values.
domain assumption Late-time distance indicators (BAO, SNIa, CC) remain valid in a mildly anisotropic background once an average scale factor is defined.
Stated in §2 after Eq. 24; justifies use of standard FLRW distance formulae.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical dark energy in the Bianchi Type-V Universe with DESI DR2 BAO, SNIa compilation and RSD measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2BF6ICAO

@misc{pith2026260709718,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical dark energy in the Bianchi Type-V Universe with DESI DR2 BAO, SNIa compilation and RSD measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2BF6ICAO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09718}
}

abstract

We investigate the cosmological implications of dynamical dark energy (DDE) models within an anisotropic, spatially homogeneous Bianchi Type-V spacetime framework using a $1+3$ covariant thermodynamics approach. By implementing both constant ($w$) and time-varying ($w_0, w_a$) parameterized equations of state, we evaluate the background expansion history and track linear matter perturbations via the quasi-static approximation. We confront these scenarios with the latest cosmological datasets, including the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) DR2 Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO), the Union3 and Dark Energy Survey 5-year (DESY5) Type Ia Supernovae compilations, Cosmic Chronometers (CC), and Redshift-Space Distortion (RSD) measurements. Our joint statistical analyses reveal that the introduction of spatial anisotropy coupled with DDE efficiently accommodates recent late-time measurements and provides a viable mechanism to mitigate the persistent $H_0$ and $S_8$ cosmological tensions. Model selection metrics show that while Akaike criteria strongly support the extended Bianchi Type-V scenarios across most joint data combinations, Bayesian criteria continue to favor the simpler standard $\Lambda$CDM baseline due to its lower dimensionality. Finally, we establish tight constraints on the current matter density parameter $\Omega_{m,0}$, the shear parameter $\Omega_{\sigma,0}$, and the dark energy evolution parameters, confirming that anisotropic extensions remain viable and testable frameworks for modern precision cosmology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09718 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Density contrasts evolution as per the resolution of the full system Eqs. (48) - (49) and the quasi-static approximation (50). The inner panels represent the evolution of 𝜁 (𝑧) Eq. (52) and 𝜂(𝑧) Eq. (53). For illustrative purposes we use paradigmatic values of Ω𝑚0 = 0.315, Ω𝑘0 = 0.045, Ω𝜎0 = 10−4 . The numerical results of the density contrast for the full system evolution and the quasi-static together with pertinen… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Posterior distributions of the 𝑤CDM model at 68% and 95% C.L. for the four joint datasets. The EoS parameter is 𝑤 > −1, meaning that the model consistently represents a quintessence cosmic phase at 68% C.L., except for the combination PantheonP + SH0ES + CC + RSD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Posterior distributions of the 𝑤0𝑤𝑎CDM model at 68% and 95% C.L for the four joint datasets. Since the EoS parameter satisfies 𝑤0 > −1, the model consistently favors the quintessence phase of the universe at 68% C.L, with the sole exception of the PantheonP + SH0ES + CC + RSD dataset. with Planck-2018 measurement, and 1.98𝜎, 1.96𝜎, 3.83𝜎, 0.98𝜎 with SH0ES. Similarly the values of 𝑆8 have a deviation of 1.26𝜎, 1.42𝜎… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: 𝑆8-𝐻0 diagram for ΛCDM model. 𝐻0 values are provided in km s−1 Mpc−1 units. The 𝐻0 tensions are 0.44𝜎, 0.67𝜎, 2.51𝜎, 2.48𝜎 with Planck 2018 data, and 1.42𝜎, 1.50𝜎, 3.38𝜎, 1.00𝜎 with SH0ES (𝐻0 = 74.03 ± 1.42) measurements. The 𝑆8 tension between the ΛCDM model and Planc…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: EoS parameter diagram for the 𝑤0𝑤𝑎Bianchi Type V model, where the values of the parameters are taken from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: 𝑆8-𝐻0 diagram for the 𝑤Bianchi model. 𝐻0 values are provided in km s−1 Mpc−1 units. The 𝐻0 tensions are 0.01𝜎, 0.36𝜎, 1.91𝜎, 2.52𝜎 with Planck 2018 data, and 1.81𝜎, 1.79𝜎, 3.61𝜎, 0.96𝜎 with SH0ES (𝐻0 = 74.03 ± 1.42) measurements. The 𝑆8 tension between the 𝑤CDM model …

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: 𝑆8-𝐻0 diagram for the Bianchi model. 𝐻0 values are provided in km s−1 Mpc−1 units. The 𝐻0 tensions are 0.01𝜎, 0.36𝜎, 1.91𝜎, 2.52𝜎 with Planck 2018 data, and 1.81𝜎, 1.79𝜎, 3.61𝜎, 0.96𝜎 with SH0ES (𝐻0 = 74.03 ± 1.42) measurements. The 𝑆8 tension between the 𝑤CDM model a…

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: The figure shows the Hubble parameter, 𝐻 (𝑧)/(1 + 𝑧), along with the corresponding residuals as per its definition in Eq. (58), for different cosmological models. The Upper panel presents results for the ΛCDM and Bianchi Type V models, the Middle panel for the 𝑤CDM an…

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Fractional density parameters for matter fluid Ω𝑚 (𝑎), curvature fluid Ω𝑘 (𝑎), shear fluid Ω𝜎 (𝑎) and dark energy ΩDE (𝑎) for different cosmological models. The top panel presents results for the ΛCDM and Bianchi Type V models, the middle panel for the 𝑤CDM and 𝑤Bian…

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Growth factor D¯ evolution for different cosmological models. The top panel presents results for the ΛCDM and Bianchi Type V models, the top panel for the 𝑤CDM and 𝑤Bianchi Type V models, and the bottom panel for the 𝑤0𝑤𝑎CDM and 𝑤0𝑤𝑎Bianchi Type V models. All plots us…

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Redshift-space distortion 𝑓 𝜎8 (𝑧) for different cosmological models. The top panel presents results for the ΛCDM and Bianchi Type V models, the middle panel for the 𝑤CDM and 𝑤Bianchi Type V models, and the bottom panel for the 𝑤0𝑤𝑎CDM and 𝑤0𝑤𝑎Bianchi Type V models.…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

M., et al., 2018, Phys

Abbott T. M., et al., 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 043526

2018
[2]

Abdul-Karim M., et al., 2025, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/sz37-d870 , 112, 083515

work page doi:10.1103/sz37-d870 2025
[3]

Abebe A., et al., 2012, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29, 135011

2012
[4]

Abebe A., et al., 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 044050

2013
[5]

H., Sofuo g lu D., Hassan E

Abebe A., Alfedeel A. H., Sofuo g lu D., Hassan E. I., Tiwari R. K., 2023, Universe, 9, 61

2023
[6]

Cosmology Astropart

Adame A., et al., 2025, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2025, 021

2025
[7]

Afroz S., Mukherjee S., 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 083514

2026
[8]

Aghanim N., et al., 2020, A&A, 641, A6

2020

Show all 81 references

[9]

Cosmology Astropart

Aiola S., et al., 2020, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2020, 047

2020
[10]

Akarsu \"O ., Kumar S., Sharma S., Tedesco L., 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 023532

2019
[11]

W., 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.03779

Alam S., Hossain M. W., 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.03779

2025 arXiv
[12]

H., Abebe A., Gubara H

Alfedeel A. H., Abebe A., Gubara H. M., 2018, Universe, 4, 83

2018
[13]

Amirhashchi H., 2013, Ap&SS, 345, 439

2013
[14]

Amirhashchi H., 2014, Ap&SS, 351, 641

2014
[15]

Amirhashchi H., 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 063515

2018
[16]

Amirhashchi H., Amirhashchi S., 2020, Physics of the Dark Universe, 29, 100557

2020
[17]

Amirhashchi H., Pradhan A., 2014, Ap&SS, 351, 59

2014
[18]

Amon A., et al., 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023514

2022
[19]

Andrade U., Paillas E., et al., 2025, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/kdys-w8vl , 112, 083512

2025 doi
[20]

Asgari M., et al., 2021, A&A, 645, A104

2021
[21]

Cosmology Astropart

Ballesteros G., Lesgourgues J., 2010, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2010, 014

2010
[22]

L., 2008, Phys

Beltran Jimenez J., Maroto A. L., 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 063005

2008
[23]

Nicola Zanichelli

Bianchi L., 1928, Lezioni sulla teoria dei gruppi continui finiti di transformazioni. Nicola Zanichelli

1928
[24]

Brout D., et al., 2022, ApJ, 938, 110

2022
[25]

F., Dunsby P

Bruni M., Ellis G. F., Dunsby P. K., 1992, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 9, 921

1992
[26]

Chevallier M., Polarski D., 2001, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 10, 213

2001
[27]

Collaboration D., Abbott T., et al., 2024, ApJ, 973, L14

2024
[28]

De Carvalho E., Bernui A., Avila F., 2023, in Journal of Physics: Conference Series. p. 012003

2023
[29]

De Martino I., De Laurentis M., Capozziello S., 2015, Universe, 1, 123

2015
[30]

De Sainte Agathe V., et al., 2019, A&A, 629, A85

2019
[31]

Di Valentino E., et al., 2025, Physics of the Dark Universe, 49, 101965

2025
[32]

Du G.-H., Li T.-N., Wu P.-J., Feng L., Zhou S.-H., Zhang J.-F., Zhang X., 2026, @doi [The European Physical Journal C] 10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-15237-z , 86, 110

2026 doi
[33]

Dunsby P., Bruni M., Ellis G., 1992, ApJ, 395, 34

1992
[34]

Ellis G., 2006, General Relativity and Gravitation, 38, 1003

2006
[35]

F., Bruni M., 1989, Phys

Ellis G. F., Bruni M., 1989, Phys. Rev. D, 40, 1804

1989
[36]

Ellis G., Bruni M., Hwang J., 1990, Phys. Rev. D, 42, 1035

1990
[37]

Foreman-Mackey o., 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306

2013
[38]

F., 1999, Phys

Goliath M., Ellis G. F., 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 60, 023502

1999
[39]

W., 1966, ApJ, 145, 544

Hawking S. W., 1966, ApJ, 145, 544

1966
[40]

Hildebrandt H., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1454

2017
[41]

Hinshaw G., et al., 2013, ApJS, 208, 19

2013
[42]

Hough R., et al., 2020, The European Physical Journal C, 80, 787

2020
[43]

T., Rugg R., Sahlu S., Abebe A., 2026, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08424

Hough R. T., Rugg R., Sahlu S., Abebe A., 2026, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08424

2026
[44]

Huterer D., et al., 2015, Astroparticle Physics, 63, 23

2015
[45]

Jalalzadeh R., Jalalzadeh S., Malekolkalami B., Davari Z., 2024, Physics of the Dark Universe, 46, 101591

2024
[46]

Kazantzidis L., Perivolaropoulos L., 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 103503

2018
[47]

F., 2008, J

Koivisto T., Mota D. F., 2008, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 06, 018

2008
[48]

Lewis A., 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13970

2019 arXiv
[49]

R., 2009, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 59, 95

Liddle A. R., 2009, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 59, 95

2009
[50]

V., 2003, Phys

Linder E. V., 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 091301

2003
[51]

V., Jenkins A., 2003, MNRAS, 346, 573

Linder E. V., Jenkins A., 2003, MNRAS, 346, 573

2003
[52]

Moffat J., Thompson E., 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18900

2025 arXiv
[53]

Moresco M., et al., 2020, ApJ, 898, 82

2020
[54]

Ntahompagaze J., et al., 2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1850033

2018
[55]

Oliveira F., Avila F., Franco C., Bernui A., 2025, Physics of the Dark Universe, p. 101996

2025
[56]

N., Paliathanasis A., 2018, J

Pan S., Saridakis E. N., Paliathanasis A., 2018, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2018, 006

2018
[57]

Pradhan A., Amirhashchi H., 2011, Modern Physics Letters A, 26, 2261

2011
[58]

Pradhan A., Saha B., 2015, Physics of Particles and Nuclei, 46, 310

2015
[59]

K., Beesham A., 2021, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 36, 2150044

Prasad R., Singh M., Yadav A. K., Beesham A., 2021, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 36, 2150044

2021
[60]

Qi J.-Z., et al., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 063522

2023
[61]

Rezaei M., Malekjani M., 2021, The European Physical Journal Plus, 136, 219

2021
[62]

F., 2024, J

Rezaei M., Pan S., Yang W., Mota D. F., 2024, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2024, 052

2024
[63]

G., et al., 2011, ApJ, 730, 119

Riess A. G., et al., 2011, ApJ, 730, 119

2011
[64]

G., et al., 2019, ApJ, 876, 85

Riess A. G., et al., 2019, ApJ, 876, 85

2019
[65]

Rubin D., et al., 2025, ApJ, 986, 231

2025
[66]

F., 2020, The European Physical Journal C, 80, 422

Sahlu S., Ntahompagaze J., Abebe A., de la Cruz-Dombriz \'A ., Mota D. F., 2020, The European Physical Journal C, 80, 422

2020
[67]

Sahlu S., et al., 2023, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 32, 2350090

2023
[68]

Sahlu S., et al., 2024, The European Physical Journal C, 84, 982

2024
[69]

T., Abebe A., de la Cruz-Dombriz \'A ., 2025a, The European Physical Journal C, 85, 746

Sahlu S., Hough R. T., Abebe A., de la Cruz-Dombriz \'A ., 2025a, The European Physical Journal C, 85, 746
[70]

Sahlu S., de la Cruz-Dombriz \'A ., Abebe A., 2025b, MNRAS, 539, 690
[71]

R., Abebe A., 2026, MNRAS, 546, staf1921

Sahlu S., Mukhopadhyay U., Mekuria R. R., Abebe A., 2026, MNRAS, 546, staf1921

2026
[72]

D., 2025, Physics of the Dark Universe, 48, 101932

Sarmah P., Goswami U. D., 2025, Physics of the Dark Universe, 48, 101932

2025
[73]

F., 2009, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26, 235020

Sharif M., Shamir M. F., 2009, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26, 235020

2009
[74]

Singh C., Ram S., Zeyauddin M., 2008, Ap&SS, 315, 181

2008
[75]

Skara F., Perivolaropoulos L., 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 063521

2020
[76]

Szyd owski M., et al., 2015, The European Physical Journal C, 75, 5

2015
[77]

K., Mota D

Verma A., Aluri P. K., Mota D. F., 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 083508

2025
[78]

C., et al., 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1420

Wong K. C., et al., 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1420

2020
[79]

K., 2016, Ap&SS, 361, 276

Yadav A. K., 2016, Ap&SS, 361, 276

2016
[80]

K., Saha B., 2012, Ap&SS, 337, 759

Yadav A. K., Saha B., 2012, Ap&SS, 337, 759

2012
[81]

G., Pogosian L., Zhang X., 2012, Phys

Zhao G.-B., Crittenden R. G., Pogosian L., Zhang X., 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 171301

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

M., et al., 2018, Phys

Abbott T. M., et al., 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 043526

2018

[2] [2]

Abdul-Karim M., et al., 2025, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/sz37-d870 , 112, 083515

work page doi:10.1103/sz37-d870 2025

[3] [3]

Abebe A., et al., 2012, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29, 135011

2012

[4] [4]

Abebe A., et al., 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 044050

2013

[5] [5]

H., Sofuo g lu D., Hassan E

Abebe A., Alfedeel A. H., Sofuo g lu D., Hassan E. I., Tiwari R. K., 2023, Universe, 9, 61

2023

[6] [6]

Cosmology Astropart

Adame A., et al., 2025, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2025, 021

2025

[7] [7]

Afroz S., Mukherjee S., 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 083514

2026

[8] [8]

Aghanim N., et al., 2020, A&A, 641, A6

2020