A Tale of Two Couplings: Bayesian Selection in the Interacting Dark Sector

\'Alvaro de la Cruz-Dombriz; Miguel Barroso Varela

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 32 references

A conformally coupled dark sector can resolve the σ8 tension while keeping the ΛCDM expansion history.

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

2026-08-05 04:37 UTC pith:YOTYB4WZ

load-bearing objection Solid extension of an established interacting-dark-sector program with a new strong statistical claim that rests on an unvalidated CMB anchor and post-hoc model-selection choices; worth refereeing, but the 9σ should not be quoted as-is. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.03981 v1 pith:YOTYB4WZ submitted 2026-08-04 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

A Tale of Two Couplings: Bayesian Selection in the Interacting Dark Sector

Miguel Barroso Varela , \'Alvaro de la Cruz-Dombriz This is my paper

classification gr-qc astro-ph.CO

keywords interacting dark energyconformal couplingdisformal couplingquintessenceσ8 tensionstructure growthcosmological model selectionΛCDM background

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 tries to establish that the σ8 tension—the mismatch between the early universe's high clustering amplitude and lower values from late-time surveys—can be resolved by letting a quintessence field interact with dark matter, without changing the expansion history at all. The authors build models whose combined dark matter plus dark energy background is identical to ΛCDM by construction, so modified gravity effects are confined to linear perturbations. Fitting late-time growth data anchored to early-universe CMB constraints, they find the simplest purely conformal coupling is strongly preferred over ΛCDM (ΔAIC = -18.19, ΔBIC = -15.76), with a coupling α ≈ 0.045 roughly 9σ from zero. Disformal couplings, which add kinetic friction and suppress the energy exchange, do not improve the fit and are statistically penalized. A purely disformal model requires a non-zero initial field velocity and cannot relieve the tension.

Core claim

The central discovery is that a specific interacting dark-sector theory—a quintessence field coupled to dark matter by the conformal transformation g̃μν = e^{-2αφ}gμν, with a potential engineered so ρφ = Λ + ρDM - ρc—can simultaneously keep the ΛCDM background and lower late-time structure growth enough to reconcile early-universe CMB measurements with growth data. In the fit, the conformal coupling drains energy from dark matter into the field, reducing the matter density at low redshifts and suppressing clustering, yielding σ8,0 ≈ 0.762 ± 0.010 and Ωm,0 ≈ 0.311 ± 0.007. The same analysis shows that adding a disformal coupling D_m^4 e^{-2(α+β)φ}∂μφ∂νφ acts as friction that damps this exchan

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is a quintessence potential chosen so that the combined dark sector exactly mimics the ΛCDM background (ρφ + ρc = Λ + ρDM), leaving the perturbative sector as the only place modified gravity appears. The coupling is carried by a conformal factor C(φ) = e^{-2αφ} and a disformal factor D(φ) = D_m^4 e^{-2(α+β)φ} in the dark-matter metric, with α controlling the dark-matter-to-field energy transfer and the dimensionless variable σ = D(φ)H²/C(φ) quantifying the disformal friction. The statistical comparison is anchored to early-universe CMB measurements through Eq. (3.2), which rescales the present σ8 by the ratio of ΛCDM to DCQ growth factors to obtain a comparison

Load-bearing premise

The claimed early-universe preference assumes that at z ≈ 1000 the coupled model's clustering amplitude matches ΛCDM's up to a single rescaling by the z = 0 growth ratio—and that the full early-universe information is captured by the two Gaussian constraints on Ωm,0 and σ8,0.

What would settle it

Compute the model's full early-time perturbation evolution and CMB temperature, lensing, and ISW spectra in a Boltzmann code; if the implied σ8 at z ≈ 1000 departs from the early-universe value by more than about 0.006, the anchoring is miscalibrated and the reported 9σ preference is an artifact. Independently, a high-precision late-time measurement of fσ8 or σ8 at z < 0.2 that rules out σ8,0 ≈ 0.762 ± 0.010 would also falsify the conformal resolution.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

If the conformal model is right, the σ8 tension need not require new physics in the expansion history: a single coupling constant α in the dark sector reproduces both early-universe and late-time growth within linear perturbation theory.
The model makes a concrete prediction: σ8,0 ≈ 0.762 ± 0.010 and α ≈ 0.045; future precise growth measurements at z ≲ 1 can confirm or contradict this target.
Disformal completions are statistically disfavored even though they can produce similar χ² values, because the extra free parameter D_m, and the effectively unconstrained β, incur AIC/BIC penalties; the simplest interacting model wins.
Purely disformal couplings cannot resolve the tension; without a conformal driver they preserve early over-clustering and their best fit is effectively ΛCDM, so they should not be pursued as σ8 solutions.
Because the background is exactly ΛCDM, the model escapes expansion-history constraints by construction; all discriminating power is concentrated in growth data and the early-universe anchor.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The reported 'Planck preference' rests on the rescaling in Eq. (3.2), which assumes the coupled model and ΛCDM perturbations agree at z ≈ 1000 up to a growth-factor ratio. If one computes the full early-time perturbation evolution, CMB lensing, or ISW effect, the anchor could shift, which is the most direct way the reported 9σ could weaken.
Since α → -α is equivalent to φ → -φ, the model is really sensitive to |α|; a two-sided posterior or an explicit sign-convention discussion would sharpen the 9σ statement.
The near-flatness of β suggests the disformal sector is effectively one-dimensional; a reparametrized model with a single 'friction strength' parameter would be a cleaner comparison and might change the BIC penalties.
A natural next test is non-linear structure formation: if the conformal mechanism suppresses late-time clustering in linear theory, small-scale lensing, cluster counts, and velocity statistics could reveal the same suppression in a regime the model does not yet predict.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

Solid extension of an established interacting-dark-sector program with a new strong statistical claim that rests on an unvalidated CMB anchor and post-hoc model-selection choices; worth refereeing, but the 9σ should not be quoted as-is.

read the letter

Quick take: this is a careful, well-written extension of the conformal/disformal quintessence program, and the new quantitative result—a ~9σ preference for pure conformal coupling with updated growth data plus a Planck anchor—is directionally interesting. But the headline number rests on an approximate CMB anchoring step that the paper never validates, and the model-selection table makes two post-hoc choices that should have been set before looking at the data. I'd send it to a referee, but I'd want that referee to push on Eq. (3.2) before anyone quotes the 9σ.

The genuinely new pieces: the initial-conditions analysis for purely disformal models (they need xi ≠ 0) is solid and useful; the use of 83 growth data points with proper covariances is a real improvement over Ref. [14]; and the AIC/BIC comparison across conformal, disformal, shift-symmetric, and full model classes is a legitimate cataloging exercise. The theoretical setup—engineered potential that reproduces ΛCDM background—is inherited from earlier work, and the paper says so. Credit where due: it is honest about what is inherited and what is new.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, Eq. (3.2) defines the Planck comparison by rescaling σ8,0 by the ratio of final growth factors. That is exact only if DCQ and ΛCDM density contrasts coincide at z~1000. The paper states in Sec. 2.4 that at those redshifts the conformal fifth force is the dominant difference and drives over-clustering, and Fig. 2 shows a nonzero early-time deviation. The magnitude is never quantified. Given Planck's ~0.7% precision on σ8, a 1% mismatch in the recombination-era amplitude shifts the inferred σ8,0 by about 1%—enough to move α by more than its quoted error and to change χ2 by several units. This matters because without the Planck anchor the conformal model improves χ2 by only ~4 and is AIC/BIC-equivalent to ΛCDM (Sec. 5.2). The entire ΔBIC = -15.8 preference is carried by the anchor, so the anchor is load-bearing.

Second, the model-selection table excludes the pure disformal model after the fact, and β is fixed to 0 after seeing flat posteriors. Both choices are defensible and stated, but they are data-informed, so Table 2 should be read as conditional on those choices.

Third, the Planck likelihood is a Gaussian pseudo-likelihood on two parameters rather than a full CMB likelihood. Pragmatic, not fatal, but it reinforces that the 9σ significance is about the simplified anchoring pipeline, not a robust detection.

Overall: coherent, clearly explained, and the central mechanism—conformal coupling suppresses late-time growth—is credible. The statistical claim is overstated at the margins; the early-time consistency of the model is the piece that needs real support. The audience is the interacting-dark-energy / modified-gravity community. A serious referee should focus on Secs. 2.4 and 3.2 and ask for a quantitative plot of δ_DCQ(z)/δ_ΛCDM(z) from z=1000 to 0, or a rerun with proper early-time matching. That is a reasonable revision, not a desk reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a quintessence field coupled to dark matter through conformal and disformal transformations, with an engineered potential that makes the background expansion exactly mimic ΛCDM. The authors derive the linear perturbation equations, discuss initial conditions for purely disformal models, and constrain the parameter space using 66 fσ8 points, 12 growth-rate points, isolated σ8 measurements, and a two-parameter Planck 2018 Gaussian anchor. They report that the purely conformal limit is strongly preferred over ΛCDM (ΔAIC = −18.19, ΔBIC = −15.76) with α ≈ 0.045, thereby resolving the σ8 tension, while disformal extensions are statistically penalized.

Significance. If the statistical preference is robust, the paper is a useful contribution: it shows that a theoretically motivated dark-sector interaction can suppress late-time growth while preserving the ΛCDM background, and it provides a careful treatment of the pure-disformal initial-condition problem. Strengths include the explicit derivation of the perturbation equations, the inclusion of covariance matrices for growth data, and the reproducible MCMC setup. However, the headline preference is contingent on a simplified Planck anchoring that is not calibrated at the epoch where Planck actually constrains the model, and on several post-hoc model-selection choices. These issues are load-bearing for the central claim.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.2, Eq. (3.2)] The Planck anchoring assumes δ_DCQ(z_CMB) = δ_ΛCDM(z_CMB) by rescaling with the z=0 growth ratio. Yet Section 2.4 and Fig. 2 explicitly state that at z ≳ 10^3 the conformal fifth force produces the opposite (over-clustering) effect relative to ΛCDM. The magnitude of this early-time deviation is never quantified. Planck determines σ8 to about 0.7% precision, so a ~1% mismatch at recombination changes the inferred σ8,0 by a comparable amount, which can shift α and several units of χ². With ΔBIC = −15.76 only about 5.8 units above the strong-evidence threshold, the headline preference is not robust to this calibration. Please evaluate δ_DCQ/δ_ΛCDM at z ≈ 1100 for the best-fit parameters, or modify Eq. (3.2) to include the early-time ratio explicitly.
[Section 5.3 and Table 2] The full disformal model is presented with β fixed to 0 after the fact, and the pure disformal model is excluded from Table 2. Both are post-hoc model-selection choices. The model definitions in Table 1 list {σ8,0, Ωm,0, α, Dm, β} for the full disformal model and {σ8,0, Ωm,0, Dm, β, xi} for the pure disformal model. Fixing β upon seeing flat posteriors reduces the effective parameter count but is not an a priori restriction; excluding the pure disformal model removes a model that is part of the declared parameter space. As presented, the AIC/BIC comparisons understate the penalty for disformal models and omit a possible alternative. Please report results with β free and include the pure disformal model in the model-comparison table, or clearly frame the analysis as conditional on these restrictions.
[Section 5.2 and Fig. 3] The claim that α ≈ 0.045 is 'approximately 9 standard deviations from ΛCDM' is based on a one-sided prior α ∈ [0, 0.5]. The posterior cannot explore negative α by construction, so treating the distance from zero as a two-sided Gaussian significance is not statistically meaningful. The credible interval α = 0.0446^{+0.0061}_{−0.0051} does not by itself support a 9σ claim. Please report a Bayes factor or a properly defined significance, or at least qualify the '9σ' statement.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.4, Eq. (3.6)] The text writes L_max = −χ²_min/2, but L_max is a likelihood, not a log-likelihood. This should read ln L_max = −χ²_min/2 to make the AIC/BIC formulas consistent.
[Section 5.4] The pure disformal model is dismissed without showing any posterior or quantitative fit statistic. A short summary of χ²_min and constraints on Dm, β, and xi would strengthen the exclusion argument.
[Section 3.2] The statement that 'Planck constrains the value of σ8,0 from the Cosmic Microwave Background at z∼10^3' is imprecise: Planck reports σ8 evaluated at z=0 under ΛCDM assumptions. The wording should clarify that the CMB constrains the primordial amplitude and the subsequent growth, and that Eq. (3.2) is the extrapolation used here.
[Fig. 4 caption] The caption says 'ΛCDM and the conformally and disformally coupled quintessence models' but appears to show only the disformal model in addition to the conformal model. Please make the caption match the panels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the ΛCDM background is imposed by construction and acknowledged as such; the growth equations are derived from the action, and α is fit to external data. The Planck anchor in Eq. (3.2) is a calibration approximation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's background is engineered by Eqs. (2.16)-(2.20) to mimic ΛCDM, so passing background constraints is tautological, but the authors explicitly state this and do not present it as a prediction: they say the models 'satisfy all background constraints while signaling modified gravity effects within the linear perturbation sector.' The statistical claim rests on the growth-sector equations, which are derived from the action (Eq. (2.34), with derivation delegated to Ref. [16]) and on external fσ8, f, σ8 data plus Planck constraints. α is a fitted parameter, so the reported 9σ preference is a fit outcome, not a prediction derived from the input. The only notable concern is the CMB anchoring, Eq. (3.2), which assumes δ_DCQ(z_CMB)=δ_ΛCDM(z_CMB) and is cited from the authors' previous method [22,23]; the paper's Sec. 2.4 itself notes early-time fifth-force deviations. This is a possible miscalibration or systematic error, but it is not a circular reduction of the claimed preference to an input. Self-citations to Refs [14-16] are for derived perturbation equations and previous fits, not for an unverified premise that contains the conclusion.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The model relies on a small set of fitted cosmological parameters and on the assumption that an implicit quintessence potential can realize the ΛCDM background. The perturbation equations are taken from prior work by the same group, so the audit notes the reliance on that derivation.

free parameters (6)

σ8,0 (present-day RMS matter fluctuation) = 0.762±0.010 (conformal best fit); 0.798±0.005 (ΛCDM)
Free amplitude of matter clustering at z=0, fitted to growth and Planck-anchored data.
Ωm,0 (matter density parameter) = 0.311±0.007 (conformal best fit); 0.299±0.006 (ΛCDM)
Free matter density, fitted with a uniform prior [0.1,0.5].
α (conformal coupling strength) = 0.0446^{+0.0061}_{-0.0051}
Exponent in C(φ)=exp(-2αφ); fitted with uniform prior [0,0.5].
Dm (disformal mass scale) = log10 Dm in [-5,0]; posterior L-shaped, no single value quoted
Inverse mass scale of disformal coupling; flat log prior.
β (disformal exponent) = posterior flat, fixed to 0
Exponent in D(φ)=Dm^4 exp(-2(α+β)φ); found unconstrained and set to zero post-hoc.
xi (initial field velocity for pure disformal model) = log10 xi in [-5,-2], discrete set
Nonzero initial kinetic energy required to activate pure disformal dynamics.

axioms (5)

domain assumption The coupled dark matter behaves as pressureless dust in its own (tilde) frame (T̃^(c)ij = 0, P̃_c = 0).
Used to set the coupled-fluid sound speed to zero in Sec. 2.4 and Appendix B; if the dark matter fluid had pressure or anisotropic stress in the coupled frame, Eq. (2.34) would change.
ad hoc to paper Exponential coupling functions C(φ)=exp(-2αφ), D(φ)=Dm^4 exp(-2(α+β)φ) are the relevant leading-order EFT forms.
Motivated by dilaton/DBI constructions, but the specific exponential form with separate α and β is chosen for convenience (Sec. 2.1) and is not derived in this work.
domain assumption A quintessence potential V(φ) exists (implicitly defined by V = φdot^2/2 + Λ) that exactly reproduces the ΛCDM background once the coupling is active.
Eqs. (2.16)-(2.20) assume such a potential can always be engineered; its closed form is never given, and its stability/positivity is not checked. This is the foundation of the 'mimicking' construction.
domain assumption The baryonic sector is exactly decoupled and evolves as in ΛCDM, with Ωb,0 and Ωr,0 fixed to Planck values.
Assumed in Sec. 3.2; allows fixing parameters but may ignore correlated uncertainties.
ad hoc to paper The Planck 2018 constraints on (Ωm,0, σ8,0) can be applied via a Gaussian pseudo-likelihood with the growth-ratio rescaling of Eq. (3.2).
This rescaling assumes the model's early-time σ8 equals ΛCDM's up to the final growth ratio; it is an approximation to the full CMB likelihood.

invented entities (2)

Engineered quintessence potential V(φ) = φdot^2/2 + Λ (implicit) no independent evidence
purpose: To force the combined dark matter plus dark energy background to exactly match ΛCDM while allowing modified perturbation growth.
No closed-form expression or independent theoretical constraint is given; the potential is reconstructed to satisfy the background-mimicking condition, and its physical viability (e.g., no ghosts, stability) is not demonstrated.
Fifth force / momentum exchange between quintessence and dark matter independent evidence
purpose: Encodes the modified growth via the Q0 interaction and the gradient coupling δT^(c)0i ∝ D φdot ∂iχ (Eq. B.30).
This is a physical effect that could be probed by structure-growth data, which is the external handle used in the paper, though it is not a new particle or force beyond the coupling.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 25040 in / 15052 out tokens · 151776 ms · 2026-08-05T04:37:27.019415+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Tale of Two Couplings: Bayesian Selection in the Interacting Dark Sector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YOTYB4WZ

@misc{pith2026260803981,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Tale of Two Couplings: Bayesian Selection in the Interacting Dark Sector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YOTYB4WZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03981}
}

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

read the original abstract

$\Lambda$CDM provides a remarkably successful description of the Universe, yet it suffers from persistent discrepancies, with one of the most prominent being the $\sigma_8$ tension between early-Universe Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) measurements and late-time structure growth probes. To address this mismatch, we investigate generalized interacting dark sector models governed by a quintessence field coupled to dark matter via conformal and disformal transformations. By generically engineering a quintessence potential that ensures the combined evolution of dark matter and dark energy exactly mimics $\Lambda$CDM, our models satisfy all background constraints while signaling modified gravity effects within the linear perturbation sector. We perform a statistical analysis using late-time structure growth data anchored to Planck 2018 constraints. Furthermore, we address the initial conditions problem inherent to purely disformal models, demonstrating the necessity of a non-zero initial kinetic energy to initiate dynamical evolution. Our results indicate that purely conformal couplings efficiently transfer energy from dark matter to the quintessence field, suppressing late-time structure formation and successfully accommodating CMB data within late-time modified structure growth. This purely conformal limit yields a strong statistical preference over the $\Lambda$CDM baseline according to both the Akaike and Bayesian Information Criteria. Conversely, while non-zero disformal couplings introduce a kinetic friction that dampens the dark sector energy exchange, their expanded parameter space incurs heavy statistical penalties without providing a decisive improvement over the purely conformal scenario.

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

[2]

A. Pezzotta et al.,The VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS): The growth of structure at0.5< z <1.2from redshift-space distortions in the clustering of the PDR-2 final sample,Astron. Astrophys.604(2017) A33 [1612.05645]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[3]

de la Torre et al.,The VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS)

S. de la Torre et al.,The VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS). Gravity test from the combination of redshift-space distortions and galaxy-galaxy lensing at0.5< z <1.2, Astron. Astrophys.608(2017) A44 [1612.05647]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[4]

Mapping the Real Space Distributions of Galaxies in SDSS DR7: II. Measuring the growth rate, clustering amplitude of matter and biases of galaxies at redshift $0.1$

F. Shi et al.,Mapping the Real Space Distributions of Galaxies in SDSS DR7: II. Measuring the growth rate, clustering amplitude of matter and biases of galaxies at redshift0.1,Astrophys. J.861(2018) 137 [1712.04163]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[5]

W. Yang, S. Pan and A. Paliathanasis,Cosmological constraints on an exponential interaction in the dark sector,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.482(2019) 1007 [1804.08558]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[6]

Probing elastic interactions in the dark sector and the role of $S_8$

J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, D. Bettoni, D. Figueruelo, F.A. Teppa Pannia and S. Tsujikawa,Probing elastic interactions in the dark sector and the role of S8,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 103503 [2106.11222]. – 30 – T able 4.f(z) measurements from Ref. [21] (left) andσ 8 measurements from Refs. [2–4] (right). z f(z) 0.013 0.56±0.07 0.10 0.464±0.04 0.15 0.490±0.145 0.1...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[7]

Screening Modifications of Gravity through Disformally Coupled Fields

T.S. Koivisto, D.F. Mota and M. Zumalacarregui,Screening Modifications of Gravity through Disformally Coupled Fields,Phys. Rev. Lett.109(2012) 241102 [1205.3167]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[8]

P. Brax, S. Casas, H. Desmond and B. Elder,Testing Screened Modified Gravity,Universe8 (2021) 11 [2201.10817]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[9]

Bauer, S

M. Bauer, S. Chakraborti and G. Rostagni,Axion bounds from quantum technology,JHEP05 (2025) 023 [2408.06412]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[10]

Grossman, B

Y. Grossman, B. Yu and S. Zhou,Axion forces in axion backgrounds,JHEP01(2026) 145 [2504.00104]

arXiv 2026
[11]

Bekenstein,The Relation between physical and gravitational geometry,Phys

J.D. Bekenstein,The Relation between physical and gravitational geometry,Phys. Rev. D48 (1993) 3641 [gr-qc/9211017]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993
[12]

Disformal Theories of Gravity: From the Solar System to Cosmology

J. Sakstein,Disformal Theories of Gravity: From the Solar System to Cosmology,JCAP12 (2014) 012 [1409.1734]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[13]

Disformally coupled inflation

C. van de Bruck, T. Koivisto and C. Longden,Disformally coupled inflation,JCAP03(2016) 006 [1510.01650]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[14]

Barros, L

B.J. Barros, L. Amendola, T. Barreiro and N.J. Nunes,Coupled quintessence with aΛCDM background: removing theσ 8 tension,JCAP01(2019) 007 [1802.09216]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[15]

Disformal couplings in a $\Lambda$CDM background cosmology

A. Dusoye, A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, P. Dunsby and N.J. Nunes,Disformal couplings in a ΛCDM background cosmology,JCAP03(2021) 002 [2006.16962]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[16]

Constraining disformal couplings with Redshift Space Distortion

A. Dusoye, A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, P. Dunsby and N.J. Nunes,Constraining disformal couplings with Redshift Space Distortion,JCAP01(2023) 001 [2112.04736]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[17]

P. Brax, C. van de Bruck and A.-C. Davis,Swampland and screened modified gravity,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 083514 [1911.09169]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[18]

Dark D-brane Cosmology

T. Koivisto, D. Wills and I. Zavala,Dark D-brane Cosmology,JCAP06(2014) 036 [1312.2597]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[19]

Kaloper, A

N. Kaloper, A. Lawrence and L. Sorbo,An Ignoble Approach to Large Field Inflation,JCAP 03(2011) 023 [1101.0026]. – 31 –

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[20]

Skara and L

F. Skara and L. Perivolaropoulos,Tension of theE G statistic and redshift space distortion data with the Planck -ΛCDMmodel and implications for weakening gravity,Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 063521 [1911.10609]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[21]

Sahlu, R.T

S. Sahlu, R.T. Hough, A. Abebe and ´A. de la Cruz-Dombriz,Constraining viscous-fluid models in f(Q) gravity with data,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 746 [2408.02775]

arXiv 2025
[22]

Perenon, J

L. Perenon, J. Bel, R. Maartens and A. de la Cruz-Dombriz,Optimising growth of structure constraints on modified gravity,JCAP06(2019) 020 [1901.11063]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[23]

Barroso Varela and ´A

M. Barroso Varela and ´A. de la Cruz-Dombriz,Implications of f(R) gravity on late-time cosmic structure growth through a complete description of density perturbations,Phys. Dark Univ.51 (2026) 102232 [2510.19569]

work page arXiv 2026
[24]

Sagredo, S

B. Sagredo, S. Nesseris and D. Sapone,Internal Robustness of Growth Rate data,Phys. Rev. D 98(2018) 083543 [1806.10822]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[25]

A Step in Understanding the $S_8$ Tension

M. Joseph, D. Aloni, M. Schmaltz, E.N. Sivarajan and N. Weiner,A Step in understanding the S8 tension,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 023520 [2207.03500]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[26]

E. Abdalla et al.,Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies,JHEAp34(2022) 49 [2203.06142]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[27]

Torrado and A

J. Torrado and A. Lewis,Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models, JCAP05(2021) 057 [2005.05290]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[28]

GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples

A. Lewis, “GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples.” 2019

work page 2019
[29]

Akaike,A new look at the statistical model identification,IEEE Trans

H. Akaike,A new look at the statistical model identification,IEEE Trans. Automatic Control 19(1974) 716

work page 1974
[30]

Schwarz,Estimating the Dimension of a Model,Annals of Statistics6(1978) 461

G. Schwarz,Estimating the Dimension of a Model,Annals of Statistics6(1978) 461

1978
[31]

Trotta,Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology,Contemp

R. Trotta,Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology,Contemp. Phys.49(2008) 71 [0803.4089]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[32]

Peter and J.-P

P. Peter and J.-P. Uzan,Primordial Cosmology, Oxford Graduate Texts, Oxford University Press (2, 2013)

work page 2013
[33]

Ma and E

C.-P. Ma and E. Bertschinger,Cosmological perturbation theory in the synchronous and conformal Newtonian gauges,Astrophys. J.455(1995) 7 [astro-ph/9506072]. – 32 –

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

[1] [2]

A. Pezzotta et al.,The VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS): The growth of structure at0.5< z <1.2from redshift-space distortions in the clustering of the PDR-2 final sample,Astron. Astrophys.604(2017) A33 [1612.05645]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

[2] [3]

de la Torre et al.,The VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS)

S. de la Torre et al.,The VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS). Gravity test from the combination of redshift-space distortions and galaxy-galaxy lensing at0.5< z <1.2, Astron. Astrophys.608(2017) A44 [1612.05647]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

[3] [4]

Mapping the Real Space Distributions of Galaxies in SDSS DR7: II. Measuring the growth rate, clustering amplitude of matter and biases of galaxies at redshift $0.1$

F. Shi et al.,Mapping the Real Space Distributions of Galaxies in SDSS DR7: II. Measuring the growth rate, clustering amplitude of matter and biases of galaxies at redshift0.1,Astrophys. J.861(2018) 137 [1712.04163]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

[4] [5]

W. Yang, S. Pan and A. Paliathanasis,Cosmological constraints on an exponential interaction in the dark sector,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.482(2019) 1007 [1804.08558]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

[5] [6]

Probing elastic interactions in the dark sector and the role of $S_8$

J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, D. Bettoni, D. Figueruelo, F.A. Teppa Pannia and S. Tsujikawa,Probing elastic interactions in the dark sector and the role of S8,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 103503 [2106.11222]. – 30 – T able 4.f(z) measurements from Ref. [21] (left) andσ 8 measurements from Refs. [2–4] (right). z f(z) 0.013 0.56±0.07 0.10 0.464±0.04 0.15 0.490±0.145 0.1...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

[6] [7]

Screening Modifications of Gravity through Disformally Coupled Fields

T.S. Koivisto, D.F. Mota and M. Zumalacarregui,Screening Modifications of Gravity through Disformally Coupled Fields,Phys. Rev. Lett.109(2012) 241102 [1205.3167]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

[7] [8]

P. Brax, S. Casas, H. Desmond and B. Elder,Testing Screened Modified Gravity,Universe8 (2021) 11 [2201.10817]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

[8] [9]

Bauer, S

M. Bauer, S. Chakraborti and G. Rostagni,Axion bounds from quantum technology,JHEP05 (2025) 023 [2408.06412]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[9] [10]

Grossman, B

Y. Grossman, B. Yu and S. Zhou,Axion forces in axion backgrounds,JHEP01(2026) 145 [2504.00104]

arXiv 2026

[10] [11]

Bekenstein,The Relation between physical and gravitational geometry,Phys

J.D. Bekenstein,The Relation between physical and gravitational geometry,Phys. Rev. D48 (1993) 3641 [gr-qc/9211017]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

[11] [12]

Disformal Theories of Gravity: From the Solar System to Cosmology

J. Sakstein,Disformal Theories of Gravity: From the Solar System to Cosmology,JCAP12 (2014) 012 [1409.1734]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

[12] [13]

Disformally coupled inflation

C. van de Bruck, T. Koivisto and C. Longden,Disformally coupled inflation,JCAP03(2016) 006 [1510.01650]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

[13] [14]

Barros, L

B.J. Barros, L. Amendola, T. Barreiro and N.J. Nunes,Coupled quintessence with aΛCDM background: removing theσ 8 tension,JCAP01(2019) 007 [1802.09216]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

[14] [15]

Disformal couplings in a $\Lambda$CDM background cosmology

A. Dusoye, A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, P. Dunsby and N.J. Nunes,Disformal couplings in a ΛCDM background cosmology,JCAP03(2021) 002 [2006.16962]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

[15] [16]

Constraining disformal couplings with Redshift Space Distortion

A. Dusoye, A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, P. Dunsby and N.J. Nunes,Constraining disformal couplings with Redshift Space Distortion,JCAP01(2023) 001 [2112.04736]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

[16] [17]

P. Brax, C. van de Bruck and A.-C. Davis,Swampland and screened modified gravity,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 083514 [1911.09169]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

[17] [18]

Dark D-brane Cosmology

T. Koivisto, D. Wills and I. Zavala,Dark D-brane Cosmology,JCAP06(2014) 036 [1312.2597]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

[18] [19]

Kaloper, A

N. Kaloper, A. Lawrence and L. Sorbo,An Ignoble Approach to Large Field Inflation,JCAP 03(2011) 023 [1101.0026]. – 31 –

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

[19] [20]

Skara and L

F. Skara and L. Perivolaropoulos,Tension of theE G statistic and redshift space distortion data with the Planck -ΛCDMmodel and implications for weakening gravity,Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 063521 [1911.10609]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

[20] [21]

Sahlu, R.T

S. Sahlu, R.T. Hough, A. Abebe and ´A. de la Cruz-Dombriz,Constraining viscous-fluid models in f(Q) gravity with data,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 746 [2408.02775]

arXiv 2025

[21] [22]

Perenon, J

L. Perenon, J. Bel, R. Maartens and A. de la Cruz-Dombriz,Optimising growth of structure constraints on modified gravity,JCAP06(2019) 020 [1901.11063]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

[22] [23]

Barroso Varela and ´A

M. Barroso Varela and ´A. de la Cruz-Dombriz,Implications of f(R) gravity on late-time cosmic structure growth through a complete description of density perturbations,Phys. Dark Univ.51 (2026) 102232 [2510.19569]

work page arXiv 2026

[23] [24]

Sagredo, S

B. Sagredo, S. Nesseris and D. Sapone,Internal Robustness of Growth Rate data,Phys. Rev. D 98(2018) 083543 [1806.10822]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

[24] [25]

A Step in Understanding the $S_8$ Tension

M. Joseph, D. Aloni, M. Schmaltz, E.N. Sivarajan and N. Weiner,A Step in understanding the S8 tension,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 023520 [2207.03500]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

[25] [26]

E. Abdalla et al.,Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies,JHEAp34(2022) 49 [2203.06142]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

[26] [27]

Torrado and A

J. Torrado and A. Lewis,Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models, JCAP05(2021) 057 [2005.05290]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

[27] [28]

GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples

A. Lewis, “GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples.” 2019

work page 2019

[28] [29]

Akaike,A new look at the statistical model identification,IEEE Trans

H. Akaike,A new look at the statistical model identification,IEEE Trans. Automatic Control 19(1974) 716

work page 1974

[29] [30]

Schwarz,Estimating the Dimension of a Model,Annals of Statistics6(1978) 461

G. Schwarz,Estimating the Dimension of a Model,Annals of Statistics6(1978) 461

1978

[30] [31]

Trotta,Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology,Contemp

R. Trotta,Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology,Contemp. Phys.49(2008) 71 [0803.4089]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

[31] [32]

Peter and J.-P

P. Peter and J.-P. Uzan,Primordial Cosmology, Oxford Graduate Texts, Oxford University Press (2, 2013)

work page 2013

[32] [33]

Ma and E

C.-P. Ma and E. Bertschinger,Cosmological perturbation theory in the synchronous and conformal Newtonian gauges,Astrophys. J.455(1995) 7 [astro-ph/9506072]. – 32 –

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

A Tale of Two Couplings: Bayesian Selection in the Interacting Dark Sector

Core claim §

What carries the argument

Load-bearing premise §

What would settle it §

If this is right

Where Pith is reading between the lines

discussion (0)

Core claim

Load-bearing premise

What would settle it