pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.11936 · v3 · pith:7CDZ5MVKnew · submitted 2026-02-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Probing Dynamical Dark Energy with Late-Time Data: Evidence, Tensions, and the Limits of the w₀w_aCDM Framework

Tengpeng Xu , Suresh Kumar , Yun Chen , Abra\~ao J. S. Capistrano , \"Ozg\"ur Akarsu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 13:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords dynamical dark energyCPL parametrizationHubble tensionBAO measurementsDESI DR2late-time expansiondark energy equation of statecosmological tensions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Support for dynamical dark energy via the CPL model is not universal and depends on which low-redshift BAO data are included.

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

This paper tests the w0waCDM framework, also called CPL, against the standard LambdaCDM model by combining CMB anisotropies and lensing with DESI DR2, SDSS-IV, transverse BAO, and Cepheid-calibrated supernova data. Inferences about dynamical dark energy turn out to be strongly dataset-dependent: CMB plus PantheonPlus and transverse BAO favor a moderately accelerating expansion that eases the Hubble tension, while DESI DR2 BAO instead favors weak present-day acceleration. The root cause is traced to differing BAO distance ratios at redshifts below 0.5, which produce divergent late-time expansion histories even though the sound horizon remains nearly fixed. Bayesian evidence follows the same pattern, favoring CPL only when certain low-redshift sets are added and favoring LambdaCDM for other combinations.

Core claim

Within the CPL framework, where pre-recombination physics is held fixed so that the sound horizon rd stays nearly constant, shifts in the inferred Hubble constant are absorbed entirely by freedom in the late-time expansion history. CMB data alone leave a broad geometric degeneracy, DESI DR2 pulls the reconstruction toward weak acceleration, and CMB plus PP&SH0ES plus BAOtr instead favors moderate acceleration that reduces the Hubble tension. Direct comparison of angular BAO scales, including the shared z=0.51 point and a conservative local interpolation of transverse BAO, shows that the mismatch at low redshift drives these opposite conclusions.

What carries the argument

The CPL parametrization w(a) = w0 + wa(1-a) of the dark-energy equation of state, which supplies two extra degrees of freedom in the late-time expansion while leaving the sound horizon and early-universe physics unchanged.

If this is right

  • Within CPL, changes in H0 are accommodated by adjustments to late-time expansion rather than by any shift in the sound horizon.
  • Bayesian evidence favors CPL mainly when PP&SH0ES or transverse BAO are included, is inconclusive for CMB plus DESI, and moderately favors LambdaCDM for CMB plus SDSS.
  • The apparent ability of CPL to ease the Hubble tension is therefore not a universal feature of the model but an artifact of particular low-redshift data choices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Systematic differences in low-redshift BAO analysis pipelines may be producing spurious signals that mimic dynamical dark energy.
  • Reconciling all current BAO data may require late-time models more flexible than the two-parameter CPL form.
  • Improved control over BAO systematics at z less than 0.5 could eliminate the apparent preference for evolving dark energy without new physics.

Load-bearing premise

Differences in BAO distance ratios at redshifts below 0.5 between transverse BAO and DESI or SDSS reflect genuine cosmological signals rather than unaccounted systematics in the measurements.

What would settle it

A new high-precision angular BAO measurement at z approximately 0.51 that clearly agrees with either the transverse-BAO or the DESI/SDSS value would decide whether the divergent CPL histories are produced by real cosmology or by inconsistent low-redshift data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.11936 by Abra\~ao J. S. Capistrano, \"Ozg\"ur Akarsu, Suresh Kumar, Tengpeng Xu, Yun Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Two-dimensional marginalized posteriors in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Hubble-constant tension with respect to the H0DN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Correlations among the present-day CPL param [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Late-time expansion history reconstructed from each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Bayesian model comparison between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Reconstructed BAO distance ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Constraints on the CPL parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Consistency of individual probes under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We test the dynamical dark-energy $w_0w_a$CDM (CPL) framework against $\Lambda$CDM using CMB anisotropies and lensing together with DESI DR2, SDSS-IV, transverse/angular BAO (BAOtr), and Cepheid-calibrated PantheonPlus SN~Ia data. CPL inferences are strongly dataset-dependent. CMB data alone leave a broad geometric degeneracy, while DESI DR2 BAO pulls the reconstruction toward weak present-day acceleration. In contrast, CMB combined with PP\&SH0ES and BAOtr favors a moderately accelerating expansion and substantially reduces the Hubble tension. The origin of this behavior can be traced to low-redshift distance information: BAOtr and DESI/SDSS prefer different BAO distance ratios at $z\lesssim0.5$, which drives divergent CPL expansion histories. We quantify this mismatch directly at the data level by comparing angular BAO scales, including the common $z=0.510$ point and a conservative local interpolation of BAOtr with no extrapolation. Within CPL, where pre-recombination physics is fixed, $r_{\rm d}$ remains nearly unchanged, so shifts in $H_0$ are absorbed by late-time expansion freedom rather than by a change in the sound horizon. Bayesian evidence is likewise contingent on the low-redshift data: it favors CPL mainly when PP\&SH0ES and/or BAOtr are included, is inconclusive for CMB-only and CMB+DESI, and moderately favors $\Lambda$CDM for CMB+SDSS. These results show that apparent support for CPL and its ability to ease the Hubble tension are not universal, motivating more flexible late-time models and closer scrutiny of BAO systematics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that inferences within the w0waCDM (CPL) dynamical dark energy model are strongly dataset-dependent when combining CMB data with various late-time probes (DESI DR2, SDSS-IV, transverse BAO denoted BAOtr, and Cepheid-calibrated PantheonPlus SN Ia). Support for CPL over LambdaCDM and its ability to reduce the Hubble tension appear only with certain combinations (e.g., including PP&SH0ES and BAOtr), while other combinations are inconclusive or favor LambdaCDM. The origin is traced to differences in low-redshift BAO distance ratios at z≲0.5 between BAOtr and DESI/SDSS, which within fixed pre-recombination physics produce divergent late-time expansion histories; this is quantified via direct comparison of angular BAO scales at the shared z=0.510 point. Bayesian evidence ratios are likewise shown to be contingent on the low-redshift data included.

Significance. If the low-redshift BAO ratio differences are confirmed as cosmological rather than systematic, the result is significant because it demonstrates that apparent support for CPL and Hubble-tension relief are not robust across public datasets, thereby motivating more flexible late-time dark energy models and systematic scrutiny of BAO measurements. The paper earns credit for performing direct, reproducible comparisons of public datasets at the data level and for reporting Bayesian evidence ratios across multiple combinations rather than relying solely on parameter posteriors.

major comments (1)
  1. The headline conclusion that CPL support is not universal and that the w0waCDM framework has limits rests on the premise that the reported differences in BAO distance ratios at z≲0.5 (BAOtr vs. DESI/SDSS) reflect genuine cosmological signals. The direct comparison of angular BAO scales, including the common z=0.510 point and conservative local interpolation of BAOtr, is presented in the abstract and low-redshift section; however, the manuscript does not supply a quantitative error budget or pipeline-variation test that would rule out unaccounted systematics (e.g., reconstruction, covariance estimation) as the source of the mismatch. This assumption is load-bearing for interpreting the dataset dependence as evidence of framework limitations rather than data inconsistency.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for BAOtr should be defined explicitly on first use in the methods or data section, with a clear reference to the original transverse BAO compilation.
  2. A summary table listing the Bayesian evidence ratios (or log-evidence differences) for every dataset combination discussed would improve clarity and allow readers to assess the strength of the reported preferences directly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading, positive assessment of the direct dataset comparisons, and constructive feedback. We address the single major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the discussion of possible systematics while preserving the focus on reproducible public-data comparisons.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The headline conclusion that CPL support is not universal and that the w0waCDM framework has limits rests on the premise that the reported differences in BAO distance ratios at z≲0.5 (BAOtr vs. DESI/SDSS) reflect genuine cosmological signals. The direct comparison of angular BAO scales, including the common z=0.510 point and conservative local interpolation of BAOtr, is presented in the abstract and low-redshift section; however, the manuscript does not supply a quantitative error budget or pipeline-variation test that would rule out unaccounted systematics (e.g., reconstruction, covariance estimation) as the source of the mismatch. This assumption is load-bearing for interpreting the dataset dependence as evidence of framework limitations rather than data inconsistency.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's identification of this key interpretive caveat. The manuscript's core contribution is the demonstration, via direct and reproducible comparisons of publicly released BAO data products, that low-redshift distance ratios differ between BAOtr and DESI/SDSS at z≲0.5, leading to divergent CPL expansion histories when pre-recombination physics is held fixed. We do not claim these differences are proven cosmological; rather, we show that any interpretation of CPL support or Hubble-tension relief is dataset-contingent. In the revised manuscript we have added a new quantitative error-budget paragraph in the low-redshift section. This paragraph compiles literature estimates for reconstruction and covariance uncertainties, reports the effect of varying the conservative local interpolation scheme for BAOtr, and shows that the ~2–3σ mismatch at the shared z=0.510 point remains stable under these variations. We now explicitly state that our conclusions regarding the limits of the w0waCDM framework are conditional on the reported BAO ratios being robust against unaccounted systematics, thereby clarifying the load-bearing assumption without overstating the evidence. A full end-to-end pipeline-variation test across all surveys would require internal collaboration data not available in public releases; we therefore frame the result as a call for independent verification rather than a definitive claim of new physics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims rest on direct dataset comparisons

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain consists of standard Bayesian model comparisons and explicit data-level contrasts between public BAO measurements (BAOtr vs DESI/SDSS at z≲0.5, including the shared z=0.510 point). Divergent CPL histories are traced to observed differences in angular BAO scales via direct interpolation, without any fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction or any quantity being defined in terms of the target result. No self-definitional steps, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatz smuggling appear; the central evidence ratios and dataset-dependence conclusions remain independent of the fitted values themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on the standard assumption that pre-recombination physics remains fixed within the CPL parametrization and that BAO measurements from different surveys are directly comparable at low redshift. The two free parameters w0 and wa are fitted to the data combinations.

free parameters (2)
  • w0
    Present-day dark energy equation-of-state parameter in the CPL parametrization, fitted to each dataset combination.
  • wa
    Dark energy evolution parameter in the CPL parametrization, fitted to each dataset combination.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Pre-recombination physics is fixed in the CPL model so that rd remains nearly unchanged
    Explicitly stated in the abstract when explaining why shifts in H0 are absorbed by late-time expansion freedom.
  • domain assumption BAO distance ratios from BAOtr and DESI/SDSS at z ≲ 0.5 can be compared directly without dominant unmodeled systematics
    Invoked when the abstract attributes divergent CPL expansion histories to these low-redshift mismatches.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5887 in / 1632 out tokens · 72354 ms · 2026-05-21T13:24:41.530114+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. On the origin of the BAOtr-DESI tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    No CMB-consistent CPL dark energy model can simultaneously fit both the BAOtr and DESI datasets; the 3.7-sigma disagreement at z=0.51 sets an irreducible floor.

  2. Do equation of state parametrizations of dark energy faithfully capture the dynamics of the late universe?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Node-based reconstruction of cosmic expansion prefers stronger deceleration at z≈1.7 than smooth DE EoS parametrizations, isolating z~1.5-2 as a window where the latter may compress localized kinematic features permit...

  3. Exploring the interplay of late-time dynamical dark energy and new physics before recombination

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Model-independent reconstruction finds 96.7-98.5% probability of phantom crossing if recombination is standard, but early new physics to ease Hubble tension weakens this preference while requiring unrealistically high...

  4. No evidence for phantom crossing: local goodness-of-fit improvements do not persist under global Bayesian model comparison

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Local goodness-of-fit gains for w0wa and phantom crossing vanish under global Bayesian evidence, showing no statistically robust evidence for dynamical dark energy across datasets.

  5. No evidence for phantom crossing: local goodness-of-fit improvements do not persist under global Bayesian model comparison

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Global Bayesian evidence shows no statistically significant support for dynamical dark energy or phantom crossing despite limited local fit improvements in the w0wa parametrization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

232 extracted references · 232 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers · 61 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    CMB data

    Planck+ACT CMB We use thePlanck2018 temperature and polariza- tion power spectra (TT, TE, EE), which provide high- precision measurements of primary CMB anisotropies and serve as the cornerstone of modern cosmological pa- rameter estimation [1]. These spectra are sensitive to a broad range of parameters, including the matter content, baryon density, and t...

    work page

  2. [2]

    To assess implications for the Hubble tension, we in- corporate the Cepheid-based distance calibration from the SH0ES collaboration [24], applied to the Pantheon+ sample

    SN Ia and Cepheids For SN Ia data, we adopt the latest Pantheon+ compi- lation [8], which includes 1701 light curves spanning the redshift rangez∈[0.001,2.26], corresponding to 1550 unique SN Ia events. To assess implications for the Hubble tension, we in- corporate the Cepheid-based distance calibration from the SH0ES collaboration [24], applied to the P...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The BAOtr dataset, compiled by [207], consists of 15 measurements oftheangularBAOscale,θ BAO(z), obtainedfromvarious SDSS data releases (DR7, DR10, DR11, DR12) [5, 215– 218]

    Transversal BAO For BAO data, we adopt a set of angular/transverse BAO measurements, referred to as BAOtr, which pro- vide a complementary distance probe with reduced de- pendence on the fiducial cosmology assumptions used in standard three-dimensional BAO analyses. The BAOtr dataset, compiled by [207], consists of 15 measurements oftheangularBAOscale,θ B...

    work page

  4. [4]

    DESI DR2 BAO The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) has recently released its second data release (DR2) [6], providing the most precise and comprehensive baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements to date. The dataset covers a wide redshift range from 0.295 to 2.33, using three distinct tracers: the Bright Galaxy Sample (BGS), the luminous re...

    work page

  5. [5]

    σtension

    Pre-DESI BAO (completed SDSS-IV/eBOSS consensus) Compilation In addition to the DESI DR2 BAO measurements, we adopt as our pre-DESI benchmark the final BAO 4 consensus results from the completed SDSS-IV pro- gram (BOSS+eBOSS) [5]. This dataset, hereafter de- noted asSDSS, represents the culmination of more than two decades of spectroscopic galaxy surveys ...

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and $\Lambda$CDM Parameters

    T. Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062, arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    E. Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), SPT-3G D1: CMB tem- perature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field (2025), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological Implications from two Decades of Spectroscopic Surveys at the Apache Point observatory

    S. Alamet al.(eBOSS), Phys. Rev. D103, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2007.08991 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Dataset and Light-Curve Release

    D. Scolnicet al., Astrophys. J.938, 113 (2022), arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

    D. Broutet al., Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework

    D. Rubinet al., Astrophys. J.986, 231 (2025), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    B. Popovicet al.(DES), The Dark Energy Survey Su- pernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Re- sults And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration (2025), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989)

    work page 1989

  17. [17]

    The Cosmological Constant Problem and Quintessence

    V. Sahni, Class. Quant. Grav.19, 3435 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0202076

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  18. [18]

    Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astron.3, 891 (2019), arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    Di Valentinoet al., Astropart

    E. Di Valentinoet al., Astropart. Phys.131, 102605 (2021), arXiv:2008.11284 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    In the Realm of the Hubble tension $-$ a Review of Solutions

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Challenges for $\Lambda$CDM: An update

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev.95, 101659 (2022), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Cosmology Intertwined: A Review of the Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology Associated with the Cosmological Tensions and Anomalies

    E. Abdallaet al., JHEAp34, 49 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Di Valentino, Universe8, 399 (2022)

    E. Di Valentino, Universe8, 399 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    A. R. Khalife, M. B. Zanjani, S. Galli, S. Gün- ther, J. Lesgourgues, and K. Benabed, JCAP04, 059, arXiv:2312.09814 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  25. [25]

    Vagnozzi, Universe9, 393 (2023), arXiv:2308.16628 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Vagnozzi, Universe9, 393 (2023), arXiv:2308.16628 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Akarsu, E

    Ö. Akarsu, E. Ó. Colgáin, A. A. Sen, and M. M. Sheikh- Jabbari, Universe10, 305 (2024), arXiv:2402.04767 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

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

    L. Breuval, A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, M. Romaniello, Y. S. Murakami, D. Scolnic, G. S. Anand, and I. Soszyński, Astrophys. J.973, 30 (2024), arXiv:2404.08038 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    A. G. Riesset al., Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

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

    S. Casertanoet al.(H0DN), The Local Distance Net- work: a community consensus report on the measure- ment of the Hubble constant at 1% precision (2025), arXiv:2510.23823 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 221301 (2019), arXiv:1811.04083 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Early dark energy, the Hubble-parameter tension, and the string axiverse

    T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D94, 103523 (2016), arXiv:1608.01309 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    J. C. Hill, E. McDonough, M. W. Toomey, and S. Alexander, Phys. Rev. D102, 043507 (2020), arXiv:2003.07355 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy

    M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess, Ann. Rev. Nucl. 14 Part. Sci.73, 153 (2023), arXiv:2211.04492 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    M. M. Ivanov, E. McDonough, J. C. Hill, M. Simonović, M.W.Toomey, S.Alexander,andM.Zaldarriaga,Phys. Rev. D102, 103502 (2020), arXiv:2006.11235 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    Sakstein and M

    J. Sakstein and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 161301 (2020), arXiv:1911.11760 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    New early dark energy,

    F. Niedermann and M. S. Sloth, Phys. Rev. D103, L041303 (2021), arXiv:1910.10739 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Niedermann and M

    F. Niedermann and M. S. Sloth, Phys. Rev. D102, 063527 (2020), arXiv:2006.06686 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, and T. Karwal, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101348 (2023), arXiv:2302.09032 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Smith, P

    A. Smith, P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, C. P. Burgess, and A.-C. Davis, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1062 (2025), arXiv:2505.05450 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, R. Calderón, and T. Simon, Im- pact of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 for Early Dark En- ergy and the Hubble tension (2025), arXiv:2505.08051 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    SPT-3G D1: Axion Early Dark Energy with CMB experiments and DESI

    A. R.Khalifeet al.(SPT-3G),SPT-3G D1: Axion Early Dark Energy with CMB experiments and DESI (2025), arXiv:2507.23355 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Constraining early and interacting dark energy with gravitational wave standard sirens: the potential of the eLISA mission

    C. Caprini and N. Tamanini, JCAP10, 006, arXiv:1607.08755 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    R. C. Nunes, S. Pan, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D 94, 023508 (2016), arXiv:1605.01712 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [45]

    Echo of interactions in the dark sector

    S. Kumar and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D96, 103511 (2017), arXiv:1702.02143 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Can interacting dark energy solve the $H_0$ tension?

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D96, 043503 (2017), arXiv:1704.08342 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, and D. F. Mota, Phys. Rev. D96, 123508 (2017), arXiv:1709.00006 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    A.A.Costa, R.C.G.Landim, B.Wang,andE.Abdalla, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 746 (2018), arXiv:1803.06944 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Cosmological constraints on parametrized interacting dark energy

    R. von Marttens, L. Casarini, D. F. Mota, and W. Zimdahl, Phys. Dark Univ.23, 100248 (2019), arXiv:1807.11380 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi, and D. F. Mota, JCAP09, 019, arXiv:1805.08252 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    W. Yang, A. Mukherjee, E. Di Valentino, and S. Pan, Phys. Rev. D98, 123527 (2018), arXiv:1809.06883 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    S. Pan, W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, E. N. Saridakis, and S. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. D100, 103520 (2019), arXiv:1907.07540 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    Dark sector interaction: a remedy of the tensions between CMB and LSS data

    S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, and S. K. Yadav, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 576 (2019), arXiv:1903.04865 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D101, 063502 (2020), arXiv:1910.09853 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Dark Univ.30, 100666 (2020), arXiv:1908.04281 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  56. [56]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, S. Pan, and W. Yang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502, L23 (2021), arXiv:2011.00283 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    A.Gómez-Valent, V.Pettorino,andL.Amendola,Phys. Rev. D101, 123513 (2020), arXiv:2004.00610 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    Lucca and D

    M. Lucca and D. C. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D102, 123502 (2020), arXiv:2002.06127 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    S. Pan, G. S. Sharov, and W. Yang, Phys. Rev. D101, 103533 (2020), arXiv:2001.03120 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    Gao, Z.-W

    L.-Y. Gao, Z.-W. Zhao, S.-S. Xue, and X. Zhang, JCAP 07, 005, arXiv:2101.10714 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  61. [61]

    Kumar, Phys

    S. Kumar, Phys. Dark Univ.33, 100862 (2021), arXiv:2102.12902 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, and A. Mel- chiorri, JCAP10, 008, arXiv:2101.03129 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  63. [63]

    R. C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi, S. Kumar, E. Di Valentino, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D105, 123506 (2022), arXiv:2203.08093 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    Bernui, E

    A. Bernui, E. Di Valentino, W. Giarè, S. Kumar, and R. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D107, 103531 (2023), arXiv:2301.06097 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    L. A. Escamilla, O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, and J. A. Vazquez, JCAP11, 051, arXiv:2305.16290 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  66. [66]

    Giarè, M

    W. Giarè, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 251003 (2024), arXiv:2404.15232 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Li, P.-J

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, S.-J. Jin, H.-L. Li, J.- F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Astrophys. J.976, 1 (2024), arXiv:2407.14934 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Li, G.-H

    T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, P.-J. Wu, S.-J. Jin, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 69, 210413 (2026), arXiv:2501.07361 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    M. A. Sabogal, E. Silva, R. C. Nunes, S. Kumar, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Rev. D111, 043531 (2025), arXiv:2501.10323 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Silva, M

    E. Silva, M. A. Sabogal, M. Scherer, R. C. Nunes, E. Di Valentino, and S. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D111, 123511 (2025), arXiv:2503.23225 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    W. Yang, S. Zhang, O. Mena, S. Pan, and E. Di Valentino, Dark Energy Is Not That Into You: Variable Couplings after DESI DR2 BAO (2025), arXiv:2508.19109 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    van der Westhuizen, A

    M. van der Westhuizen, A. Abebe, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102121 (2025), arXiv:2509.04496 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    T.-N. Li, W. Giarè, G.-H. Du, Y.-H. Li, E. Di Valentino, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Strong Evidence for Dark Sector Interactions (2026), arXiv:2601.07361 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  74. [74]

    Akarsu, J

    Ö. Akarsu, J. D. Barrow, L. A. Escamilla, and J. A. Vazquez, Phys. Rev. D101, 063528 (2020), arXiv:1912.08751 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  75. [75]

    Akarsu, S

    Ö. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. Özülker, and J. A. Vazquez, Phys. Rev. D104, 123512 (2021), arXiv:2108.09239 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  76. [76]

    Akarsu, S

    O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. Özülker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, Phys. Rev. D108, 023513 (2023), arXiv:2211.05742 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

    Akarsu, E

    O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav,ΛsCDM model: A promis- ing scenario for alleviation of cosmological tensions (2023), arXiv:2307.10899 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    E. A. Paraskevas, A. Cam, L. Perivolaropoulos, and O. Akarsu, Phys. Rev. D109, 103522 (2024), arXiv:2402.05908 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    Yadav, S

    A. Yadav, S. Kumar, C. Kibris, and O. Akarsu, JCAP 01, 042, arXiv:2406.18496 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  80. [80]

    $\Lambda_{\rm s}$CDM cosmology from a type-II minimally modified gravity

    Ö. Akarsu, A. De Felice, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, 15 R. C. Nunes, E. Özülker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, ΛsCDM cosmology from a type-II minimally modified gravity (2024), arXiv:2402.07716 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.