Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 277 references

No theoretical explanation for the Hubble tension yet passes every consistency test, so the discrepancy remains an open problem.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 07:14 UTC pith:ZANP2Y7Z

load-bearing objection A careful, well-hedged review of Hubble-tension explanations whose real value is the multiprobe consistency framework and the new EDE benchmark chains; the chains themselves are not fully reproducible, but the central synthesis holds. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21497 v1 pith:ZANP2Y7Z submitted 2026-07-23 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Hubble tension: a short review of theoretical explanations

Jia-Qi Wang , Zong-Kuan Guo This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords Hubble constantHubble tensionearly dark energysound horizonstandard rulermodified gravitydistance laddercosmological inference
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper's central claim is that the Hubble tension is a genuine problem for cosmology only if every theoretical fix must satisfy all existing measurements at once, and that no proposal currently does. It organizes explanations by where they act in the inference chain — pre-recombination expansion and the sound horizon, late-time distances, dark-sector interactions, local inhomogeneity, and modified gravity. The paper's own reference calculations for early dark energy show the sharpest limitation: without a local distance-ladder calibration, the data keep the extra early component small (fEDE about 0.02–0.05) and H0 near 68–69 km/s/Mpc; only adding a local distance-ladder calibration pushes the fit to H0 about 71.8 km/s/Mpc with fEDE about 0.11. The conclusion is that a successful explanation must fit CMB spectra, BAO, supernovae, lensing, structure growth, local calibrators, and stability simultaneously, and that late-time or modified-gravity fixes tend to pass one test while failing another.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a negative one: after sorting all proposed explanations by the part of the cosmological inference chain they modify, no model simultaneously preserves the CMB acoustic peak structure, the baryon-acoustic-oscillation standard ruler, the supernova distance-redshift relation, lensing, structure growth, and local absolute calibration. Early-time models like early dark energy can shrink the pre-recombination sound horizon, which is the necessary direction for raising the CMB-inferred H0, but the paper's reference chains show that uncalibrated data keep the early component small (fEDE ≈ 0.02–0.04 with H0 ≈ 67.8–69.4) and only a direct local-H0 cal

What carries the argument

The paper's central object is the cosmological standard ruler — the sound horizon at last scattering and at baryon drag, rs and rd — because the Hubble tension is really a dispute about how far that ruler is. The CMB sets the angular size of the acoustic scale, BAO carries the same ruler to low redshift, and the distance ladder measures local distances directly; every proposed fix must change one of these while leaving the others consistent. The review's key machinery is the inference chain that connects these: a theoretical mechanism's viability is judged by whether it can shift the inferred H0 without breaking CMB peak heights, the damping tail, lensing, growth, or the calibrated supernova

Load-bearing premise

The entire assessment assumes the Hubble tension is a real physical discrepancy rather than a systematic error in the distance-ladder or CMB calibration; if the local calibrators or the CMB standard ruler are biased, the theoretical problem disappears.

What would settle it

Measure the local Hubble constant with an independent calibration chain (for instance, geometric distances from water masers or very-long-baseline astrometry feeding a two-rung ladder) and find a value near 67–69 km/s/Mpc; that would dissolve the tension the review takes as its target. Conversely, a single model that, in one joint likelihood, fits CMB spectra, BAO, supernovae, lensing, and growth while returning H0 near 73 would falsify the review's conclusion that no explanation works.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any viable resolution of the Hubble tension must pass CMB spectra, BAO, supernovae, lensing, structure growth, and local calibrators as one joint likelihood; a model that fixes H0 by shifting only one of these fails.
  • Early dark energy alone cannot deliver H0 near 72 unless the local distance-ladder calibration is included; without it, current data keep fEDE near 2–5 percent and H0 near 68–69 km/s/Mpc.
  • Late-time dynamical dark energy or transitions cannot move H0 much while the sound horizon stays fixed, because the same distances are already measured by BAO and supernovae.
  • Modified gravity proposals that change the effective Planck mass will also change lensing and growth, so their high-H0 fits must be checked against independent structure and lensing data, not just distances.
  • Future progress requires standardized multi-probe likelihoods and model comparisons; the review's reference chains provide a benchmark for comparing parameter directions across datasets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the review's consistency standard is applied, the Hubble tension may be a calibration-network problem rather than new physics — a testable re-analysis of the local distance ladder with independent geometric anchors would settle this.
  • A natural extension left implicit: the same benchmark framework could score every theoretical model by how many of the consistency requirements it satisfies, turning the qualitative conclusion into a quantitative ranking.
  • The reference chains suggest a prior-driven transition: the high-H0 EDE mode emerges only after a local-H0 likelihood is added, so any model claiming a solution should be reported both with and without that calibration to expose where the information comes from.
  • The review implies that early-time and late-time mechanisms could jointly solve the tension only if they share a microphysical origin; separate add-on fixes are likely to conflict with the same correlated observables.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This review organizes theoretical responses to the Hubble tension by the part of the inference chain they modify: scalar-tensor and other modified-gravity models (Sec. 2), early-time solutions with axion-like EDE as the main representative (Sec. 3), and late-time/dark-sector/local-inhomogeneity mechanisms (Sec. 4). It also presents new reference EDE MCMC chains computed with Cobaya/CLASS/PolyChord for a set of Planck, ACT-DR6-lensing, BAO, and SN combinations, reported in Appendix B. The central claim is conservative: no existing proposal simultaneously satisfies the full network of CMB, BAO, SN, lensing, growth, screening, and stability constraints, so the Hubble tension remains an open problem.

Significance. If it holds, the paper provides a useful, well-hedged synthesis of a fast-moving literature. Its main strengths are the explicit organization by physical mechanism, the emphasis on multi-probe consistency rather than isolated H0 shifts, and the set of EDE reference constraints computed with public codes and likelihoods. The authors are appropriately cautious: the EDE chains are described as benchmark constraints, not as evidence favoring EDE, and the paper explicitly flags the dataset-dependence of the tension's statistical significance and the possibility of calibration systematics. These features make the review scientifically reliable and likely to be a useful entry point for researchers entering the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix A, Table B.1] The original EDE chains are a new quantitative contribution, but the methodological description is incomplete. The appendix lists likelihood labels but not prior ranges for fEDE, log10 zc, θi, or n, nor PolyChord settings, convergence diagnostics, or whether 68% intervals are equal-tailed or highest-posterior-density. This makes the quoted numbers (e.g., Table B.1, CMB+DESI DR2+PP+SH0ES: fEDE=0.113+0.022−0.021) non-reproducible. Please add a reproducibility table with priors, sampler settings, convergence criteria, and interval definition, and clearly state in every figure caption that 'CMB' denotes the Planck block plus ACT DR6 lensing only, not the ACT/SPT power spectra.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Table B.1] Several uncalibrated EDE rows have posterior means effectively at the prior boundary, e.g., Planck-only fEDE=0.028+0.007−0.028 and CMB+PP fEDE=0.022+0.005−0.022. The text states that these combinations 'favor low fEDE'; since the lower 68% error bar hits zero, what is actually shown is an upper limit under a non-negative parameter. Please rephrase such statements as upper limits and, where useful, quote 95% upper bounds instead of boundary-truncated means. This is a local statistical-presentation issue, but it affects the quantitative reading of the EDE benchmark.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] 'FLRW' is typeset as 'FLR W' in several places (Secs. 2.4, 2.5, 4.1, 4.3). Please fix the spacing.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption calls the entries 'representative' but does not emphasize that the plotted H0 values come from heterogeneous data combinations and statistical procedures. Add a sentence warning that the points are not directly comparable as if from a single likelihood, especially because some include a local H0 prior and others do not.
  3. [Table B.1] The free-n rows are grouped under a 'free n' heading but no n column appears in the table body. The n values are only given in the text. Add an explicit n column (or a footnote) for clarity.
  4. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (22)] The quantity Ωϕ(a_c) in Eq. (22) is not defined explicitly in the text. Define it as the maximum fractional density, or make the relation to fEDE precise, to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the review's central conclusion is an independent synthesis, and its self-citations are illustrative rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a review paper whose central claim is a conservative negative synthesis: no theoretical explanation has yet satisfied the full set of consistency requirements (Sec. 5). That claim is supported by a broad external literature and by the authors' own EDE reference chains, which are explicitly presented as benchmarks rather than as evidence for EDE: 'They are intended as benchmark constraints on parameter directions, not as evidence that the data favor EDE' (Sec. 5, and similarly Sec. 1 and Appendix B). The reference chains are new MCMC calculations, but they are not fitted to the review's conclusion; they are used to show how posteriors respond to different data combinations. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. The paper cites the authors' own prior work (e.g., chameleon dark energy, NMCQ, intercept tension) only as examples within the landscape of proposals, and it explicitly notes the limitations of those proposals (e.g., Sec. 4.3 cites common local-structure tests that disfavor voids as full solutions). The acknowledged caveat that the tension's numerical severity is dataset-dependent and could partly reflect calibration systematics is self-flagged (Sec. 1) and is a limitation of the target, not a circular step. There are no uniqueness theorems imported from the authors, no ansatz smuggled via self-citation, and no renaming of a known result as organization. The main weakness is reproducibility of the new chains (Appendix A gives likelihood labels but not prior ranges or chain lengths), which affects precision of quoted EDE numbers but not the central synthetic conclusion. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained for the purpose of the review, and no circularity is found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The review introduces no new particles, forces, or fields. All models discussed are from the cited literature. The free parameters listed are those of the EDE reference chains, which are fits to data, not predictions. The axioms are standard cosmological and computational premises on which the review's synthesis rests.

free parameters (4)
  • fEDE (early dark energy peak fraction) = 0.113 (+0.022/−0.021) for CMB+DESI DR2+PP+SH0ES; ~0.02–0.05 for uncalibrated combinations
    Sampled in the EDE reference MCMC chains; controls the pre-recombination energy injection and sound-horizon reduction.
  • log10 zc (EDE critical redshift) = 3.610 (+0.070/−0.123) for CMB+DESI DR2+PP+SH0ES
    Sets when the EDE field becomes dynamical; fitted to CMB/BAO/SN data.
  • θi (initial scalar displacement) = 2.71 (+0.24/−0.00) for CMB+DESI DR2+PP+SH0ES
    Initial field value in the axion-like potential; fitted in the reference chains.
  • n (EDE potential exponent, free-n chains) = 3.10 (+0.26/−0.85) for CMB+DESI DR2+PP+SH0ES
    Controls post-oscillation dilution rate; allowed to vary in the free-n reference chains.
axioms (5)
  • standard math The CMB acoustic scale is θ_s = r_s(z*)/D_A(z*) (Eq. 1).
    Standard relation used throughout to convert sound horizon and angular diameter distance to H0 inference.
  • standard math Sound horizons r_s and r_d obey the integrals in Eq. (20) with standard pre-recombination physics.
    This is the standard ruler mechanism on which early-time explanations act.
  • domain assumption Public Boltzmann codes (CLASS/CAMB) and likelihoods used in Appendix A faithfully compute the relevant observables.
    The EDE reference constraints rely on these numerical tools; no code audit is provided.
  • domain assumption The local distance-ladder and CMB standard-ruler measurements are accepted as correctly calibrated.
    The review defines the tension as an empirical challenge; if calibration systematics dominate, the theoretical problem vanishes.
  • domain assumption Published posterior constraints cited in Figs. 2, 7, and 9 are trustworthy and use consistent likelihoods.
    The compiled H0 landscape is taken from heterogeneous analyses with different data and priors; the review acknowledges this heterogeneity but still draws comparative conclusions.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 40170 in / 10695 out tokens · 109596 ms · 2026-08-01T07:14:59.280069+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The $\Lambda$ cold dark matter model successfully describes a wide range of cosmological observations. However, the persistent discrepancy between the value of the Hubble constant inferred from cosmic microwave background measurements within this model and that obtained from local distance-ladder determinations points to a significant inconsistency. This short review examines theoretical responses across the cosmological inference chain, from the gravitational field equations to the pre-recombination sound horizon and the late-time distance-redshift relation. We focus primarily on modified gravity, and briefly discuss early- and late-time mechanisms that can alter the acoustic ruler, distance measures, structure growth, or gravitational response. Current proposals can reduce the nominal tension, but often at the cost of correlated shifts in cosmic microwave background spectra, standard-ruler distances, lensing, structure growth, or calibrator information. Further progress requires unified likelihoods and multiprobe tests linking all key observables under the same model assumptions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21497 by Jia-Qi Wang, Zong-Kuan Guo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representative recent determinations and inferences of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Representative H0 values in modified-gravity and gravity-related non-minimal coupling pro￾posals. Circles denote analyses without direct late-time H0 information in the quoted result, while squares denote data combinations containing SH0ES, H0LiCOW, or an analogous direct late-time calibration. The vertical bands show the Planck 2018 and SH0ES 2024 reference values. The plot￾ted entries are compiled from R… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic illustration of the response of the sound horizons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reference fixed-n EDE constraints from representative DESI-era CMB, BAO, and PantheonPlus combinations. The displayed parameters are the EDE peak fraction fEDE, the criti￾cal redshift log10 zc, the Hubble constant H0, and the physical cold-dark-matter density ωcdm. The gray band marks the local distance-ladder reference range used in this set of EDE figures. fEDE ≃ 0.09 and H0 ≃ 71 km s−1 Mpc−1 without a S… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: DES-Dovekie comparison for fixed-n EDE. Here DES denotes the DES-Dovekie likeli￾hood. The plotted parameters are fEDE, H0, Ωm, and S8. Contours are shown for CMB+PP, CMB+PP+SH0ES, CMB+DES, and CMB+DES+H0. The BAO and SN comparisons do not exhaust the test of EDE. The same energy injection that reduces rs also changes the projected equality scale, the ratio of the acoustic scale to the diffusion damping sca… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Free-n EDE constraints for CMB+DESI DR2+PP, with and without SH0ES calibration. The dashed vertical line marks the fixed n = 3 reference model used in the fixed-potential benchmark calculation. The plotted parameters are n, fEDE, log10 zc, and H0. A related strategy is to make the field dissipate more efficiently after it has reduced the acoustic ruler. Anti-de Sitter early dark energy (AdS-EDE) provides a… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Representative H0 values in early-time proposals. Circles denote analyses without a direct local distance-ladder prior in the quoted result, while squares denote analyses that include such a prior. The values are compiled from Refs. [76, 90, 149, 165, 178, 182, 191, 194–196]; the underlying data combinations and statistical procedures are heterogeneous. agation [76, 194, 197, 198]. Recombination-sector mod… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The H0–rd plane for the Hubble tension. The plot summarizes the standard-ruler consistency condition discussed in Refs. [46–48, 208, 209]. and post-ACT analyses have identified viable EDE regions in some likelihood treatments, while also showing that an early-time explanation must be evaluated as a full cosmological model, not merely as a one-parameter reduction of the sound horizon [54, 57, 75, 206]. 4 LA… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Representative H0 values in interacting dark-sector proposals. Circles denote fits without a direct local distance-ladder or analogous H0 input, while squares denote data combinations that include a direct distance-ladder or absolute-magnitude calibrator. The plotted entries include direct energy exchange, DM–DE coupling, and DM–DR or self-interaction scenarios, compiled from Refs. [198, 231, 235]. be read… view at source ↗

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

277 extracted references · 252 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Growing Radius Accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extragalactic Nebulae,

    Georges Lemaitre, “A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Growing Radius Accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extragalactic Nebulae,” Annales Soc. Sci. Bruxelles A 47, 49–59 (1927)

    1927

  2. [2]

    A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebu- lae,

    Edwin Hubble, “A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebu- lae,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15, 168–173 (1929)

    1929

  3. [3]

    Final results from the Hubble Space Telescope key project to measure the Hubble constant,

    W. L. Freedman et al. (HST), “Final results from the Hubble Space Telescope key project to measure the Hubble constant,” Astrophys. J. 553, 47–72 (2001) , arXiv:astro-ph/0012376

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    The Hubble Constant,

    Wendy L. Freedman and Barry F. Madore, “The Hubble Constant,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48, 673–710 (2010) , arXiv:1004.1856 [astro-ph.CO] . Hubble tension 29 0.05 0.10 0.15 fEDE 68 70 72 H0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 µi 3.4 3.6 3.8 log10 zc 3.4 3.6 3.8 log10 zc 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 µi 68 70 72 H0 CMB+DESI DR2+PP CMB+DESI DR2+PP+SH0ES Fig. B.3: Model-parameter triangl...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant,

    Adam G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant,” Astron. J. 116, 1009–1038 (1998) , arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  7. [7]

    The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    Observational Probes of Cosmic Acceleration,

    David H. Weinberg, Michael J. Mortonson, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Christopher Hirata, Adam G. Riess, and Eduardo Rozo, “Observational Probes of Cosmic Acceleration,” Phys. Rept. 530, 87–255 (2013) , arXiv:1201.2434 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies,

    Wayne Hu and Scott Dodelson, “Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 40, 171–216 (2002) , arXiv:astro-ph/0110414 . 30 J.-Q. Wang & Z.-K. Guo 138 140 142 144 146 148 rd 68 70 72 74 H0 CMB+DESI DR2+PP CMB+DESI DR2+PP+SH0ES free n, CMB+DESI DR2+PP free n, CMB+DESI DR2+PP+SH0ES Fig. B.4:H0–rd plane for the EDE reference chains...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  10. [10]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanim et 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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results,

    G. Hinshaw et al. (WMAP), “Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208, 19 (2013) , arXiv:1212.5226 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  12. [12]

    Measurement of the CMB temperature power spectrum and constraints on cosmology from the SPT-3G 2018 TT, TE, and EE dataset,

    L. Balkenhol et al. (SPT-3G), “Measurement of the CMB temperature power spectrum and constraints on cosmology from the SPT-3G 2018 TT, TE, and EE dataset,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 023510 (2023) , arXiv:2212.05642 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods and ΛCDM parameters,

    Thibaut Louis et al. (Atacama Cosmology Telescope), “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods and ΛCDM parameters,” JCAP 11, 062 (2025) , arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe,

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, “Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe,” Nature Astron. 3, 891 (2019) , arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions,

    Eleonora Di Valentino, Olga Mena, Supriya Pan, Luca Visinelli, Weiqiang Yang, Alessandro Melchiorri, David F. Mota, Adam G. Riess, and Joseph Silk, “In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions,” Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 153001 (2021) , arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO] . Hubble tension 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies,

    Elcio Abdalla et al. , “Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies,” JHEAp 34, 49–211 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic os- cillations and cosmological constraints,

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), “DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic os- cillations and cosmological constraints,” Phys. Rev. D 112, 083515 (2025) , arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    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,

    Adam G. Riess et 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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Small Magellanic Cloud Cepheids Observed with the Hubble Space Telescope Provide a New Anchor for the SH0ES Distance Ladder,

    Louise Breuval, Adam G. Riess, Stefano Casertano, Wenlong Yuan, Lucas M. Macri, Martino Romaniello, Yukei S. Murakami, Daniel Scolnic, Gagandeep S. Anand, and Igor Soszyński, “Small Magellanic Cloud Cepheids Observed with the Hubble Space Telescope Provide a New Anchor for the SH0ES Distance Ladder,” Astrophys. J. 973, 30 (2024) , arXiv:2404.08038 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Measurement of the Hubble Constant Using the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes,

    Wendy L. Freedman, Barry F. Madore, Taylor J. Hoyt, In Sung Jang, Abigail J. Lee, and Kayla A. Owens, “Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Measurement of the Hubble Constant Using the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes,” Astrophys. J. 985, 203 (2025) , [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 993, 252 (2025)], arXiv:2408.06153 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    The Hubble Constant from Infrared Surface Brightness Fluctuation Distances,

    John P. Blakeslee, Joseph B. Jensen, Chung-Pei Ma, Peter A. Milne, and Jenny E. Greene, “The Hubble Constant from Infrared Surface Brightness Fluctuation Distances,” Astrophys. J. 911, 65 (2021) , arXiv:2101.02221 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Absolute Calibration of Cluster Mira Variables to Provide a New Anchor for the Hubble Constant Determination,

    Anupam Bhardwaj, Noriyuki Matsunaga, Caroline D. Huang, Adam G. Riess, and Marina Rejkuba, “Absolute Calibration of Cluster Mira Variables to Provide a New Anchor for the Hubble Constant Determination,” Astrophys. J. 990, 63 (2025) , arXiv:2507.10658 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    The Megamaser Cosmology Project. XIII. Combined Hubble constant constraints,

    D. W. Pesce et al. , “The Megamaser Cosmology Project. XIII. Combined Hubble constant constraints,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 891, L1 (2020) , arXiv:2001.09213 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    A 5 per cent measurement of the Hubble–Lemaître constant from Type II super- novae,

    T. de Jaeger, L. Galbany, A. G. Riess, B. E. Stahl, B. J. Shappee, A. V. Filippenko, and W. Zheng, “A 5 per cent measurement of the Hubble–Lemaître constant from Type II super- novae,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 514, 4620–4628 (2022) , arXiv:2203.08974 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    H0LiCOW – XIII. A 2.4 per cent measurement of H0 from lensed quasars: 5.3 σ tension between early- and late-Universe probes,

    Kenneth C. Wong et al. (H0LiCOW), “H0LiCOW – XIII. A 2.4 per cent measurement of H0 from lensed quasars: 5.3 σ tension between early- and late-Universe probes,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 498, 1420–1439 (2020) , arXiv:1907.04869 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    TDCOSMO - IV. Hierarchical time-delay cosmography – joint inference of the Hubble constant and galaxy density profiles,

    S. Birrer et al. , “TDCOSMO - IV. Hierarchical time-delay cosmography – joint inference of the Hubble constant and galaxy density profiles,” Astron. Astrophys. 643, A165 (2020) , arXiv:2007.02941 [astro-ph.CO] . 32 J.-Q. Wang & Z.-K. Guo

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    A dark standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant following LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA O4a and previous runs,

    Clecio R. Bom, V. Alfradique, A. Palmese, G. Teixeira, L. Santana-Silva, A. Santos, and P. Darc, “A dark standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant following LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA O4a and previous runs,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 535, 961–975 (2024), arXiv:2404.16092 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Cosmicflows-4,

    R. Brent Tully et al., “Cosmicflows-4,” Astrophys. J. 944, 94 (2023), arXiv:2209.11238 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    The Local Distance Network: A community consensus report on the measurement of the Hubble constant at ∼1% precision,

    Stefano Casertano et al. (H0DN), “The Local Distance Network: A community consensus report on the measurement of the Hubble constant at ∼1% precision,” Astron. Astrophys. 708, A166 (2026) , arXiv:2510.23823 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Baryonic features in the matter transfer function,

    Daniel J. Eisenstein and Wayne Hu, “Baryonic features in the matter transfer function,” Astrophys. J. 496, 605 (1998) , arXiv:astro-ph/9709112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  31. [31]

    Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies,

    Daniel J. Eisenstein et 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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  32. [32]

    A 2.4% Determination of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant,

    Adam G. Riess et al. , “A 2.4% Determination of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant,” Astrophys. J. 826, 56 (2016) , arXiv:1604.01424 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    Milky Way Cepheid Standards for Measuring Cosmic Distances and Application to Gaia DR2: Implications for the Hubble Constant,

    Adam G. Riess et al. , “Milky Way Cepheid Standards for Measuring Cosmic Distances and Application to Gaia DR2: Implications for the Hubble Constant,” Astrophys. J. 861, 126 (2018), arXiv:1804.10655 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyond ΛCDM,

    Adam G. Riess, Stefano Casertano, Wenlong Yuan, Lucas M. Macri, and Dan Scolnic, “Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyond ΛCDM,” Astrophys. J. 876, 85 (2019), arXiv:1903.07603 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Cluster Cepheids with High Precision Gaia Parallaxes, Low Zero- point Uncertainties, and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry,

    Adam G. Riess, Louise Breuval, Wenlong Yuan, Stefano Casertano, Lucas M. Macri, J. Bradley Bowers, Dan Scolnic, Tristan Cantat-Gaudin, Richard I. Anderson, and Mauricio Cruz Reyes, “Cluster Cepheids with High Precision Gaia Parallaxes, Low Zero- point Uncertainties, and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry,” Astrophys. J. 938, 36 (2022) , arXiv:2208.01045 [a...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Crowded No More: The Accuracy of the Hubble Constant Tested with High-resolution Observations of Cepheids by JWST,

    Adam G. Riess, Gagandeep S. Anand, Wenlong Yuan, Stefano Casertano, Andrew Dolphin, Lucas M. Macri, Louise Breuval, Dan Scolnic, Marshall Perrin, and Richard I. Anderson, “Crowded No More: The Accuracy of the Hubble Constant Tested with High-resolution Observations of Cepheids by JWST,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 956, L18 (2023) , arXiv:2307.15806 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    JWST Observations Reject Unrecognized Crowding of Cepheid Photometry as an Explanation for the Hubble Tension at 8 σ Confidence,

    Adam G. Riess, Gagandeep S. Anand, Wenlong Yuan, Stefano Casertano, Andrew Dolphin, Lucas M. Macri, Louise Breuval, Dan Scolnic, Marshall Perrin, and I. Richard Anderson, “JWST Observations Reject Unrecognized Crowding of Cepheid Photometry as an Explanation for the Hubble Tension at 8 σ Confidence,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 962, L17 (2024), arXiv:2401.04773 [...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program. VIII. An Independent Determination of the Hubble Constant Based on the Tip of the Red Giant Branch,

    Wendy L. Freedman et al. , “The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program. VIII. An Independent Determination of the Hubble Constant Based on the Tip of the Red Giant Branch,” Astrophys. J. 882, 34 (2019) , arXiv:1907.05922 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    Measurements of the Hubble Constant: Tensions in Perspective,

    Wendy L. Freedman, “Measurements of the Hubble Constant: Tensions in Perspective,” Astrophys. J. 919, 16 (2021) , arXiv:2106.15656 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Concordance and Discordance in Cosmology,

    Marco Raveri and Wayne Hu, “Concordance and Discordance in Cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D 99, 043506 (2019) , arXiv:1806.04649 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    Quantifying tensions in cosmological parameters: Interpreting the DES evidence ratio,

    Will Handley and Pablo Lemos, “Quantifying tensions in cosmological parameters: Interpreting the DES evidence ratio,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 043504 (2019) , arXiv:1902.04029 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  42. [42]

    Does the Hubble constant tension call for new physics?

    Edvard Mörtsell and Suhail Dhawan, “Does the Hubble constant tension call for new physics?” JCAP 09, 025 (2018) , arXiv:1801.07260 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [43]

    A Lockdown Perspective on the Hubble Tension (with comments from the SH0ES team),

    G. Efstathiou, “A Lockdown Perspective on the Hubble Tension (with comments from the SH0ES team),” (2020), arXiv:2007.10716 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    To H0 or not to H0?

    George Efstathiou, “To H0 or not to H0?” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 505, 3866–3872 (2021), arXiv:2103.08723 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    On the use of the local prior on the absolute magnitude of Type Ia supernovae in cosmological inference,

    David Camarena and Valerio Marra, “On the use of the local prior on the absolute magnitude of Type Ia supernovae in cosmological inference,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504, 5164– 5171 (2021) , arXiv:2101.08641 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    The trouble with H0,

    Jose Luis Bernal, Licia Verde, and Adam G. Riess, “The trouble with H0,” JCAP 10, 019 (2016), arXiv:1607.05617 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  47. [47]

    Sounds Discordant: Classical Distance Ladder & ΛCDM - based Determinations of the Cosmological Sound Horizon,

    Kevin Aylor, MacKenzie Joy, Lloyd Knox, Marius Millea, Srinivasan Raghunathan, and W. L. Kimmy Wu, “Sounds Discordant: Classical Distance Ladder & ΛCDM - based Determinations of the Cosmological Sound Horizon,” Astrophys. J. 874, 4 (2019) , arXiv:1811.00537 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    Hubble constant hunter’s guide,

    Lloyd Knox and Marius Millea, “Hubble constant hunter’s guide,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 043533 (2020), arXiv:1908.03663 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    BAO+BBN revisited — growing the Hubble tension with a 0.7 km/s/Mpc constraint,

    Nils Schöneberg, Licia Verde, Héctor Gil-Marín, and Samuel Brieden, “BAO+BBN revisited — growing the Hubble tension with a 0.7 km/s/Mpc constraint,” JCAP 11, 039 (2022) , arXiv:2209.14330 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    The 2024 BBN baryon abundance update,

    Nils Schöneberg, “The 2024 BBN baryon abundance update,” JCAP 06, 006 (2024) , arXiv:2401.15054 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    PRyMordial: the first three minutes, within and beyond the standard model,

    Anne-Katherine Burns, Tim M. P. Tait, and Mauro Valli, “PRyMordial: the first three minutes, within and beyond the standard model,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 86 (2024) , arXiv:2307.07061 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    The H0 Olympics: A fair ranking of proposed models,

    Nils Schöneberg, Guillermo Franco Abellán, Andrea Pérez Sánchez, Samuel J. Witte, Vivian Poulin, and Julien Lesgourgues, “The H0 Olympics: A fair ranking of proposed models,” Phys. Rept. 984, 1–55 (2022) , arXiv:2107.10291 [astro-ph.CO] . 34 J.-Q. Wang & Z.-K. Guo

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    Is there an early Universe solution to Hubble tension?

    C. Krishnan, Eoin Ó. Colgáin, Ruchika, Anjan A. Sen, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and Tao Yang, “Is there an early Universe solution to Hubble tension?” Phys. Rev. D 102, 103525 (2020) , arXiv:2002.06044 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    Why reducing the cosmic sound horizon alone can not fully resolve the Hubble tension,

    Karsten Jedamzik, Levon Pogosian, and Gong-Bo Zhao, “Why reducing the cosmic sound horizon alone can not fully resolve the Hubble tension,” Commun. in Phys. 4, 123 (2021) , arXiv:2010.04158 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Early Universe Physics Insensitive and Uncalibrated Cosmic Standards: Constraints on Ωm and Implications for the Hubble Tension,

    Weikang Lin, Xingang Chen, and Katherine J. Mack, “Early Universe Physics Insensitive and Uncalibrated Cosmic Standards: Constraints on Ωm and Implications for the Hubble Tension,” Astrophys. J. 920, 159 (2021) , arXiv:2102.05701 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [56]

    Consistency tests of ΛCDM from the early integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect: Implications for early-time new physics and the Hubble tension,

    Sunny Vagnozzi, “Consistency tests of ΛCDM from the early integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect: Implications for early-time new physics and the Hubble tension,” Phys. Rev. D 104, 063524 (2021), arXiv:2105.10425 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    Multidimensionality of the Hubble tension: The roles of Ωm and ωc,

    Davide Pedrotti, Jun-Qian Jiang, Luis A. Escamilla, Simony Santos da Costa, and Sunny Vagnozzi, “Multidimensionality of the Hubble tension: The roles of Ωm and ωc,” Phys. Rev. D 111, 023506 (2025) , arXiv:2408.04530 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory,

    Shadab Alam et al. (eBOSS), “Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021) , arXiv:2007.08991 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), “DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,” JCAP 02, 021 (2025) , arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,

    Dillon Brout et al., “The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,” Astrophys. J. 938, 110 (2022) , arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  62. [62]

    The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with ∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set,

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), “The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with ∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 973, L14 (2024) , arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), “Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,” Phys. Rev. D 105, 023520 (2022), arXiv:2105.13549 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    Challenges for ΛCDM: An update,

    Leandros Perivolaropoulos and Foteini Skara, “Challenges for ΛCDM: An update,” New Astron. Rev. 95, 101659 (2022) , arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  65. [65]

    Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter,

    Michel Chevallier and David Polarski, “Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213–224 (2001) , arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  66. [66]

    Exploring the expansion history of the universe,

    Eric V. Linder, “Exploring the expansion history of the universe,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003) , arXiv:astro-ph/0208512

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  67. [67]

    Dynamics of dark energy,

    Edmund J. Copeland, M. Sami, and Shinji Tsujikawa, “Dynamics of dark energy,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753–1936 (2006) , arXiv:hep-th/0603057 . Hubble tension 35

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1936

  68. [68]

    Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?

    George Efstathiou, “Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 538, 875–882 (2025) , arXiv:2408.07175 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    The DESI DR1/DR2 evidence for dy- namical dark energy is biased by low-redshift supernovae,

    Lu Huang, Rong-Gen Cai, and Shao-Jiang Wang, “The DESI DR1/DR2 evidence for dy- namical dark energy is biased by low-redshift supernovae,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68, 100413 (2025) , arXiv:2502.04212 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Comparing the DES-SN5YR and Pantheon+ SN cosmology anal- yses: investigation based on ‘evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics’?

    M. Vincenzi et al. (DES), “Comparing the DES-SN5YR and Pantheon+ SN cosmology anal- yses: investigation based on ‘evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics’?” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 541, 2585–2593 (2025) , arXiv:2501.06664 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    A Reassessment of the Pantheon+ and DES 5YR Calibration Uncertainties: Dovekie,

    B. Popovic et al. , “A Reassessment of the Pantheon+ and DES 5YR Calibration Uncertainties: Dovekie,” (2025), arXiv:2506.05471 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    Dark energy at early times, the Hubble parameter, and the string axiverse,

    Tanvi Karwal and Marc Kamionkowski, “Dark energy at early times, the Hubble parameter, and the string axiverse,” Phys. Rev. D 94, 103523 (2016) , arXiv:1608.01309 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  73. [73]

    Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension,

    Vivian Poulin, Tristan L. Smith, Tanvi Karwal, and Marc Kamionkowski, “Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 221301 (2019) , arXiv:1811.04083 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  74. [74]

    The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy,

    Marc Kamionkowski and Adam G. Riess, “The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 73, 153–180 (2023) , arXiv:2211.04492 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  75. [75]

    The Ups and Downs of Early Dark Energy solutions to the Hubble tension: A review of models, hints and constraints circa 2023,

    Vivian Poulin, Tristan L. Smith, and Tanvi Karwal, “The Ups and Downs of Early Dark Energy solutions to the Hubble tension: A review of models, hints and constraints circa 2023,” Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101348 (2023) , arXiv:2302.09032 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    Neutrino puzzle: Anomalies, interactions, and cosmological tensions,

    Christina D. Kreisch, Francis-Yan Cyr-Racine, and Olivier Doré, “Neutrino puzzle: Anomalies, interactions, and cosmological tensions,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 123505 (2020) , arXiv:1902.00534 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  77. [77]

    Modified Gravity and Cosmology,

    Timothy Clifton, Pedro G. Ferreira, Antonio Padilla, and Constantinos Skordis, “Modified Gravity and Cosmology,” Phys. Rept. 513, 1–189 (2012) , arXiv:1106.2476 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  78. [78]

    The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration,

    B. Popovic et al. (DES), “The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 548, stag632 (2026) , arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    Disentangling cosmic distance tensions with early and late dark energy,

    Tanisha Jhaveri, Tanvi Karwal, Thomas Crawford, Wayne Hu, Ali Rida Khalife, Lennart Balkenhol, and Fei Ge, “Disentangling cosmic distance tensions with early and late dark energy,” (2026), arXiv:2604.08530 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  80. [80]

    Extended Theories of Gravity,

    Salvatore Capozziello and Mariafelicia De Laurentis, “Extended Theories of Gravity,” Phys. Rept. 509, 167–321 (2011) , arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

Showing first 80 references.