Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 117 references

Do we really need alternatives to the $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM parameterization after the DESI DR2?

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reparameterizing CPL at a density-level pivot removes its degeneracy, and in that common basis it remains favored over the fafbCDM density expansion and better reproduces quintessence backgrounds.

desk verdict A solid, honest reanalysis showing coordinate effects matter in the DESI dark energy comparison, but the statistical edge for CPL is weak and the 'common pivot basis' is less common than advertised. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01215 v1 pith:7EYF444K submitted 2026-08-02 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Youri Carloni , Orlando Luongo , Marek Biesiada This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords darkenergyCPLparameterizationw0waCDMdensity-levelpivotfafbDESIDR2quintessencemodelselection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether the recent preference for dark-energy models built from a Taylor expansion of the normalized dark energy density, the $f_af_b$CDM model, over the standard $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM (CPL) parameterization reflects a genuine physical advantage or merely a change of parameter coordinates. The authors construct a density-level pivot for CPL, replacing $(\omega_0, \omega_a)$ with $(\omega_p, f_p)$ evaluated at an optimized scale factor $a_p$, and compare CPL with $f_af_b$CDM in this common physical basis using compressed CMB, BAO, cosmic-chronometer, and supernova data with an $H_0$ prior. Once CPL is expressed in the same density-level pivot variables, its parameters decorrelate, its constraints tighten, and it remains statistically favored over $f_af_b$CDM; the pivoted CPL also reproduces quintessence expansion histories more accurately. The authors conclude that a significant part of the density expansion's apparent advantage is a coordinate effect.

What carries the argument

The central object is the density-level pivot pair $(\omega_p,f_p)\equiv(\omega(a_p), f_{\rm DE}(a_p))$, with the pivot scale factor $a_p$ selected by minimizing $|\mathrm{corr}[\omega(a), f(a)]|$ over the MCMC posterior. For CPL, the exact reparameterization is $\omega_a = [\ln f_p + 3(1+\omega_p)\ln a_p]/[3((a_p-1)-a_p\ln a_p)]$ and $\omega_0=\omega_p-(1-a_p)\omega_a$; the same pivot variables are built from $(f_a,f_b)$ for $f_af_b$CDM. Because the transformation leaves the cosmology unchanged, the pivot basis isolates the coordinate contribution to parameter degeneracies, revealing which expansion form the data actually constrain.

What would settle it

Re-run the analysis with the $H_0$ prior removed or with a full CMB likelihood; if the optimal $a_p$ for CPL no longer yields exact decorrelation, or if the AIC/DIC preference reverses, the coordinate-effect conclusion fails. Alternatively, if an independent reanalysis optimizes $f_af_b$CDM's pivot over a wider range and finds $\mathrm{corr}(\omega_p,f_p)=0$ with error contours as compact as CPL's, the claim that CPL is intrinsically the better approximation would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the density-level pivot construction applied to CPL removes the parameter correlation that made the standard $(\omega_0,\omega_a)$ basis look degenerate, and that in this physically motivated basis $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM remains favored over $f_af_b$CDM and reproduces quintessence backgrounds more accurately. The transformation is exact: $(\omega_0,\omega_a)\leftrightarrow(\omega_p,f_p)$ leaves the expansion history and likelihood unchanged, so any statistical difference comes from the coordinate system. For CPL, the optimized pivot scale factor is $a_p\simeq0.76$, giving $\mathrm{corr}(\omega_p,f_p)\simeq0$; for $f_af_b$CDM, the same procedure leaves a resid

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that a pivot scale factor estimated from the same MCMC posterior gives a fair, stable, and comparable coordinate system for both models; if the optimal $a_p$ shifts when the dataset or priors change, or if comparing CPL at $a_p\simeq0.76$ with $f_af_b$CDM at $a_p\simeq0.71$ is not a meaningful common basis, the conclusion that $f_af_b$CDM's disadvantage is a coordinate effect loses its footing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The apparent DESI-driven preference for dark-energy models built from a density expansion may be a coordinate artifact: once $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM is expressed in $(\omega_p,f_p)$, it is at least as competitive as $f_af_b$CDM.
  • Claims of evolving dark energy should be tested against physically motivated reparameterizations of the same model before interpreting them as evidence for new physics.
  • The density-level pivot gives physically interpretable parameters at the epoch where data are most sensitive, with $\omega_p\simeq-1.03$ and $f_p\simeq1.03$ for CPL, close to a mild phantom behavior.
  • The pivot is more effective for CPL (exact decorrelation) than for $f_af_b$CDM (residual correlation $0.13$), suggesting the density expansion is a less well-aligned coordinate system for the data.
  • Both pivoted parameterizations recover quintessence Hubble histories to better than $0.1\%$ over $0\le z\le4$, with pivoted CPL generally the more accurate of the two.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same coordinate-effect argument should apply to any pair of dark-energy parameterizations related by an exact reparameterization: apparent statistical preferences in the original bases may vanish or reverse when both models are written in a common, data-aligned basis.
  • A prior-independent check, using profile likelihoods or carefully chosen priors under the nonlinear transformation $(\omega_0,\omega_a)\to(\omega_p,f_p)$, could determine how much of the CPL preference is carried by the prior measure rather than by the data.
  • Because $f_af_b$CDM's residual correlation cannot be minimized to zero, expanding the density around the pivot epoch itself rather than around the present epoch might yield a genuinely more physical density-level parameterization worth testing.
  • The pivot scale factor $a_p\simeq0.76$ sits near matter-dark-energy equality and the cosmic transition epoch, hinting that the pivot could be interpreted as the epoch where dark energy begins to dominate, a possibility that independent probes of the expansion history could test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a 'density-level pivot' for the CPL parameterization, replacing (ω0, ωa) by (ωp, fp) with fp ≡ ρDE(ap)/ρDE,0 and ωp = ω(ap), where ap is chosen to minimize |corr(ω(a), f(a))| over the posterior (Eq. 33). The same pivot variables are constructed for the fa fb CDM density expansion (Eqs. 6, 12, 13). Using MontePython with compressed CMB, DESI DR2 BAO, cosmic chronometers, Pantheon+ SNe, and the SH0ES prior, the authors find ΔAIC = 2.31 and ΔDIC = 2.75 in favor of CPL, obtain a nearly decorrelated basis for CPL (ap ≃ 0.76) and only a partially decorrelated basis for fa fb CDM (ap ≃ 0.71, residual correlation 0.13), and compare both against exponential and Ratra-Peebles quintessence backgrounds. They conclude that pivoted CPL reconstructs those backgrounds slightly more accurately and that the apparent advantage of the density-level expansion is mostly a coordinate effect.

Significance. The central methodological insight is sound and worth stating: parameter correlations, contour shapes, and apparent stability are coordinate-dependent even when the likelihood is unchanged by an exact reparameterization. The algebraic transformations in Eqs. (10)–(13) are explicit and check out, and the MCMC setup is standard and reproducible, using public codes and data. If the pivot-basis comparison were shown to be fair and stable, the paper would be a useful cautionary note for the DESI dark-energy literature. However, the statistical preference is weak-to-moderate, the 'common basis' claim is not yet established because the pivot epochs differ between models, and the quintessence comparison has no error propagation. The headline conclusion therefore goes beyond what the current analysis rigorously supports.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (33) and Table IV] The pivot scale factor is data-derived and model-dependent: ap ≃ 0.76 for CPL and ap ≃ 0.71 for fa fb CDM. The paper calls this a 'common physical coordinate system' (footnote 3 and Sec. V), but the same symbols (ωp, fp) correspond to different physical epochs in the two models. Each model is therefore presented at its own best-case decorrelation epoch. Since the stability of ap under other dataset combinations is explicitly deferred to future work in Sec. V, the central claim that fa fb CDM's advantage is a coordinate effect is not yet demonstrated. A concrete fix: repeat the comparison at a fixed ap (e.g., 0.73) or show that the ranking is insensitive to the pivot-selection rule.
  2. [Table III and Sec. III.A] The fa fb CDM parameter fb runs to the lower prior boundary; the reported 'fb < −0.24' is an upper limit set by the prior. The fit is therefore prior-dominated in one of its two dark-energy parameters. Because the two models are defined in different coordinates with different flat priors, the ΔAIC/ΔDIC comparison partly compares prior volumes and boundary behavior rather than the physical content of the models. This is particularly relevant for DIC, which depends on the effective number of parameters. The paper acknowledges priors only generally in Sec. V; sensitivity runs with different prior ranges or with priors placed directly on (ωp, fp) are needed to show that the CPL preference is not an artifact of the fa fb CDM prior boundary.
  3. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (39)] The reported ΔAIC = 2.31 and ΔDIC = 2.75 fall in the range that the paper itself labels 'moderate evidence against the model under consideration' (2 < Δ ≤ 6). Yet the Abstract and Conclusions describe the result as 'mildly favor' and 'remains favored,' and the Abstract asserts CPL 'emerges as the most suitable framework.' This is an overstatement: with these values, the correct reading is weak-to-moderate preference, not a decisive model selection. The language should be toned down to match the paper's own evidence scale.
  4. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (56)–(60)] The quintessence comparison is not a statistical model comparison. The differences in EH,min are tiny (e.g., 1.3×10⁻⁴ vs 1.8×10⁻⁴ for λ=0.7; 1.6×10⁻⁴ vs 3.5×10⁻⁴ for n=0.9) and no uncertainties are propagated from the MCMC posteriors. The contour-area ratios are explicitly non-invariant under nonlinear reparameterizations, as the paper acknowledges. These quantities therefore cannot support the strong statement that pivoted CPL 'accurately reproduces ... better than' fa fb CDM. The conclusion should be restricted to the specific optimized points, coordinate choices, and prior domains used here.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption appears to contain a typo: 'f0faCDM' should presumably read 'fa fb CDM'.
  2. [Table III] The fb entry is typeset as 'fb −<−0.24', which is ambiguous. It should be written as 'fb < −0.24 (95% CL)' or similar.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (10)] The inversion formula has denominators involving (ap − 1) − ap ln ap, which vanishes at ap = 1. It would be helpful to state the domain ap ∈ (0,1) and note the limiting behavior.
  4. [Sec. V] Minor typo: 'becaming uncorrelated' should be 'becoming uncorrelated'.
  5. [Abstract vs Table IV] The Abstract claims 'tighter and more stable constraints' after pivoting, but Table IV shows essentially unchanged uncertainties for H0 and Ωm. The improvement is specific to the dark-energy parameters; this should be stated more precisely.
  6. [Sec. IV] The paragraph after Eq. (55) says the upper limit z=4 'approximately covers' the redshift range of current BAO/SN data; DESI DR2 includes Lyman-α at z≈2.33 and Pantheon+ extends to z≈2.26, so a slightly higher cutoff is fine, but the rationale for exactly z=4 could be stated more explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-definitional pivot decorrelation; central model comparison is independent.

  1. self definitional [Sec. III.A, Eqs. (33), (40)-(43); Sec. V]
    "We define the pivot scale factor as the epoch at which ωp and fp are least correlated. Accordingly, ap is determined by the condition |corr [ω(ap), f(ap)]|= min a |corr [ω(a), f(a)]| ... At this scale, the residual correlation is numerically consistent with zero, corr(ωp, fp)≃0."

    Because ap is defined as the minimizer of |corr[ω(a),f(a)]|, reporting that the correlation almost vanishes at the selected epoch, and concluding that the CPL basis is 'effectively decorrelated', is a restatement of the selection rule rather than an independent discovery. The further statement that the pivot construction is 'more effective' for CPL, where an exactly decorrelated basis exists, is likewise determined by whether the correlation function crosses zero under the same criterion. This is not load-bearing for the central model preference, however: the AIC/DIC and χ2 values are identical before and after pivoting (Tables III and IV), so the claimed preference for CPL over fafbCDM rests on the unchanged likelihood, not on the decorrelation itself.

full rationale

The paper is largely self-contained. The pivot transformation (Eqs. 10-11 and 12-13) is an exact reparameterization that leaves the expansion history, likelihood, and cosmology unchanged, as the authors explicitly state. The statistical comparison between w0waCDM and fafbCDM is performed on the original posteriors, and the AIC/DIC preference for CPL does not depend on the pivoted variables. The quintessence comparison is presented as an optimization/reconstruction (minimizing EH over (ωp,fp)), not as a prediction, so it does not reduce to its inputs. The cited density-expansion model [80] is not by the current authors, so no self-citation chain is load-bearing. The only circular element is the pivot-selection criterion itself: ap is chosen to minimize |corr[ω(a),f(a)]|, and the paper then highlights that the correlation is nearly zero (Eq. 41). This is a self-definitional observation, but it is explicitly framed as a construction and is not used to force the central conclusion. The paper also candidly notes in Sec. V the need to test pivot stability under different datasets and the prior dependence of nonlinear reparameterizations. Overall, circularity is minor and does not undermine the main model-comparison result.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard FLRW background assumptions, an imported compressed CMB likelihood, hand-chosen priors for the fafbCDM coefficients, and a data-derived pivot epoch that differs between models. No new entities are introduced. The pivot scale and the fafbCDM prior boundary are the most consequential choices.

free parameters (10)
  • pivot scale factor ap (CPL) = 0.76 (z_p = 0.31)
    Chosen by minimizing |corr[omega(ap), f(ap)]| from the MCMC posterior; used as the epoch for the pivoted parameters.
  • pivot scale factor ap (fafbCDM) = 0.71 (z_p = 0.42)
    Same minimization for fafbCDM; residual correlation 0.13.
  • omega0 (CPL) = -0.886 +/- 0.101
    CPL equation of state at present epoch, fitted to the combined dataset.
  • omega_a (CPL) = -0.604 +/- 0.452
    CPL time variation, fitted; strongly correlated with omega0.
  • f_a (fafbCDM) = -0.201 +0.177/-0.215
    First Taylor coefficient of dark energy density, fitted.
  • f_b (fafbCDM) = less than -0.24 (95% upper bound)
    Second Taylor coefficient; posterior runs to the prior boundary, indicating weak constraint.
  • H0 = 68.51 (CPL) / 68.61 (fafb)
    Hubble constant with SH0ES prior, fitted.
  • Omega_m = 0.2995 (CPL) / 0.2967 (fafb)
    Matter density, fitted.
  • optimized (wp, fp) for exponential quintessence = E_H,min 0.013% (CPL), 0.018% (fafb)
    Optimized to minimize maximum relative deviation in H(z) over z in [0,4]; used for the reconstruction comparison.
  • optimized (wp, fp) for Ratra-Peebles quintessence = E_H,min 0.016% (CPL), 0.035% (fafb)
    Same optimization for the inverse power-law potential.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The universe is spatially flat FLRW, with a homogeneous dark energy component obeying the conservation equation d ln rho_DE / d ln a = -3(1+w(a)).
    Used in the derivation of Eq. (8) and the transformations (10)-(13); a standard background assumption.
  • domain assumption The compressed CMB likelihood with mean vector (0.0104110, 0.02223, 0.14208) and covariance (17) is a valid summary of Planck-era constraints.
    Imported from Refs. [56,80] without re-derivation; the analysis rests on this Gaussian prior.
  • ad hoc to paper The fafbCDM parameter space is restricted to f(a)>0 for all a in [0,1], with priors f_a in [-1,1], f_b in [-1,2].
    The positivity cut is physically motivated but the prior ranges are chosen by hand and f_b hits the boundary, which affects the model comparison.
  • domain assumption The quintessence models with exponential and inverse power-law potentials, and the selected thawing/tracker branches, are representative of dark energy dynamics.
    Used in Sec. IV to test reconstruction accuracy; the conclusions about relative accuracy may not generalize to other potentials.
  • ad hoc to paper The pivot epoch minimizes |corr[omega(ap), f(ap)]| computed from the MCMC chains, and this is a meaningful epoch for comparing models.
    The pivot is data-derived and differs between models (0.76 vs 0.71); the comparison of the two models in a 'common' coordinate system actually occurs at different epochs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Do we really need alternatives to the $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM parameterization after the DESI DR2?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7EYF444K

@misc{pith2026260801215,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Do we really need alternatives to the $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM parameterization after the DESI DR2?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7EYF444K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01215}
}
abstract

We introduce a density-level pivot construction for the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder (CPL) parameterization by defining the normalized dark energy density $f_p\equiv f_{\rm DE}(a_p)$ and the equation of state $\omega_p\equiv \omega(a_p)$ at an optimized pivot scale factor $a_p$. This reparameterization leaves the underlying CPL cosmology unchanged and allows the two models to be compared using parameters with a direct physical interpretation at the epoch where the data are most sensitive. Accordingly, following the DESI DR2 results, we compare a newly proposed $f_a f_b$CDM parameterization, based on a second-order Taylor expansion of the normalized dark energy density, with the standard $w_0w_a$CDM model. In particular, we constrain the original and pivoted parameterizations using compressed cosmic microwave background (CMB), DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), cosmic chronometers (CC), and Pantheon+ Type Ia supernovae data, with the SH0ES prior imposed on $H_0$. We find that applying the same density-level pivot prescription to the $w_0w_a$CDM model substantially reduces the correlation between its dark energy parameters and provides tighter and more stable constraints. The statistical comparison shows that this model remains favored over the Taylor expansion of the dark energy density, even when both models are analyzed in the optimized parameter basis. Moreover, the pivoted CPL parameterization accurately reproduces the background evolution of quintessence models, providing a reliable phenomenological approximation to the underlying dark energy dynamics, better than the $f_af_b$CDM model. We conclude that changing the parameter basis improves the performance of the $w_0w_a$CDM model, which emerges as the most suitable framework to describe the dark energy sector within the class of models considered here.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01215 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Positivity regions in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Posterior for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Posteriors for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Contours of the maximum relative Hubble rate error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Continuously optimized minimum Hubble rate reconstruction error for the exponential and Ratra-Peebles quintessence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gu et al

    G. Gu et al. (DESI), Nature Astron.9, 1879 (2025), [Erratum: Nature Astron. 9, 1898–1898 (2025)], 2504.06118

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    the second is the choice of coordinates used to repre- sent the same posterior distribution. Indeed, by applying the same pivot logic to both parameterizations, we show that a significant part of the apparent advantage of the density level expansion can be traced to the parameter basis and, therefore, not to the functional form itself. In particular, we f...

    1929

  3. [3]

    [80, 113], al- lowing a direct comparison with previous quintessence reconstructions

    It also coincides with the benchmark used in Refs. [80, 113], al- lowing a direct comparison with previous quintessence reconstructions. Then, we consider the inverse power-law potential in- troduced by Ratra and Peebles [114]. The form used in Eq. (48b) is equivalent to the con- ventional expression VRP(ϕ) = M 4+n ϕn ,(50) provided that V0 = M 4+n M n Pl...

    2023

  4. [4]

    Tada and T

    Y. Tada and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D109, L121305 (2024), 2404.05722

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, M. Vasar, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043540 (2025), 2406.07533

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, JCAP10, 035 (2024), 2407.16689

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Luongo and H

    O. Luongo and H. Quevedo, Phys. Rev. D90, 084032 (2014), 1407.1530

    arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Luongo and H

    O. Luongo and H. Quevedo, in12th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity(2010), pp. 1029–1031, 1005.4532

    arXiv 2010

Show all 117 references
  1. [9]

    A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), astro-ph/9805201

    1998 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), As- trophys. J.517, 565 (1999), astro-ph/9812133

    1999 arXiv

  3. [11]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 1753 (2006), hep-th/0603057

    2006 arXiv

  4. [12]

    S. M. Carroll, Living Rev. Rel.4, 1 (2001), astro- ph/0004075

    2001

  5. [13]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 559 (2003), astro-ph/0207347

    2003 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Frieman, M

    J. Frieman, M. Turner, and D. Huterer, Ann. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys.46, 385 (2008), 0803.0982

    2008 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Sahni, Lect

    V. Sahni, Lect. Notes Phys.653, 141 (2004), astro- ph/0403324

    2004

  8. [16]

    Padmanabhan, AIP Conf

    T. Padmanabhan, AIP Conf. Proc.861, 179 (2006), astro-ph/0603114

    2006 arXiv

  9. [17]

    R. R. Caldwell and M. Kamionkowski, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.59, 397 (2009), 0903.0866

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A. C. Alfano, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, JHEAp46, 100348 (2025), 2411.04878

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Luongo and M

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Astron. Astrophys.693, A187 (2025), 2411.04901

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A. C. Alfano and O. Luongo, Phys. Dark Univ.51, 102205 (2026), 2501.15233

    2026 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Boshkayev, T

    K. Boshkayev, T. Konysbayev, O. Luongo, M. Muc- cino, and F. Pace, Phys. Rev. D104, 023520 (2021), 2103.07252

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    P. K. S. Dunsby, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, Phys. Rev. D109, 023510 (2024), 2308.15776

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A. C. Alfano, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, JCAP12, 055 (2024), 2408.02536

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Luongo and M

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.518, 2247 (2022), 2207.00440

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A. C. Alfano, S. Capozziello, O. Luongo, and M. Muc- cino, JHEAp42, 178 (2024), 2402.18967

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Carloni and O

    Y. Carloni and O. Luongo, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 075014 (2025), 2410.10935

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    P. K. S. Dunsby, O. Luongo, and L. Reverberi, Phys. Rev. D94, 083525 (2016), 1604.06908

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Muccino, L

    M. Muccino, L. Izzo, O. Luongo, K. Boshkayev, L. Am- ati, M. Della Valle, G. B. Pisani, and E. Zaninoni, As- trophys. J.908, 181 (2021), 2012.03392

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    D. H. Weinberg, M. J. Mortonson, D. J. Eisenstein, C. Hirata, A. G. Riess, and E. Rozo, Phys. Rept.530, 87 (2013), 1201.2434

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], 1807.06209

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. (eBOSS), Phys. Rev. D103, 083533 (2021), 2007.08991

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. D105, 023520 (2022), 2105.13549

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Brout et al., Astrophys

    D. Brout et al., Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), 2202.04077

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Huterer and D

    D. Huterer and D. L. Shafer, Rept. Prog. Phys.81, 016901 (2018), 1709.01091

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    D. N. Spergel et al. (WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl.148, 175 (2003), astro-ph/0302209

    2003 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Tegmark et al

    M. Tegmark et al. (SDSS), Phys. Rev. D69, 103501 (2004), astro-ph/0310723

    2004 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. (BOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, 2617 (2017), 1607.03155

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Sahni and A

    V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 9, 373 (2000), astro-ph/9904398

    2000 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Martin, Comptes Rendus Physique13, 566 (2012), 1205.3365

    J. Martin, Comptes Rendus Physique13, 566 (2012), 1205.3365

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Zlatev, L.-M

    I. Zlatev, L.-M. Wang, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 896 (1999), astro-ph/9807002

    1999 arXiv

  33. [41]

    H. E. S. Velten, R. F. vom Marttens, and W. Zimdahl, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3160 (2014), 1410.2509

    2014 arXiv

  34. [42]

    C. P. Burgess, in100e Ecole d’Ete de Physique: Post- Planck Cosmology(2015), pp. 149–197, 1309.4133

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Nobbenhuis, Found

    S. Nobbenhuis, Found. Phys.36, 613 (2006), gr- qc/0411093

    2006

  36. [44]

    Dalal, K

    N. Dalal, K. Abazajian, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 141302 (2001), astro- ph/0105317

    2001

  37. [45]

    Luongo and H

    O. Luongo and H. Quevedo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D23, 1450012 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Luongo and M

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Phys. Rev. D98, 103520 (2018), 1807.00180

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Belfiglio, Y

    A. Belfiglio, Y. Carloni, and O. Luongo, Phys. Dark Univ.44, 101458 (2024), 2307.04739

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Weinberg, Rev

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

    1989

  41. [49]

    Martel, P

    H. Martel, P. R. Shapiro, and S. Weinberg, Astrophys. J.492, 29 (1998), astro-ph/9701099

    1998 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Weinberg, in4th International Symposium on Sources and Detection of Dark Matter in the Universe (DM 2000)(2000), pp

    S. Weinberg, in4th International Symposium on Sources and Detection of Dark Matter in the Universe (DM 2000)(2000), pp. 18–26, astro-ph/0005265

    2000 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Padmanabhan, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept.380, 235 (2003), hep- th/0212290

    2003

  44. [52]

    Cai and S.-J

    R.-G. Cai and S.-J. Wang, Res. Astron. Astrophys.26, 084011 (2026), 2606.20434

    2026 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Di Valentino, O

    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), 2103.01183

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Carloni, O

    Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, Astron. Astro- phys.707, A383 (2026), 2506.11531

    2026

  47. [55]

    Carloni and O

    Y. Carloni and O. Luongo (2026), 2604.18053

    2026 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Pantos and L

    I. Pantos and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102286 (2026), 2602.12238

    2026

  49. [57]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), JCAP02, 021 (2025), 2404.03002

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), 2503.14738

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodha et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083511 (2025), 2503.14743. 15

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Chudaykin and M

    A. Chudaykin and M. Kunz, Phys. Rev. D110, 123524 (2024), 2407.02558

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, and P. G. Ferreira, JCAP 05, 034 (2025), 2502.04929

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Vincenzi et al

    M. Vincenzi et al. (DES), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 541, 2585 (2025), 2501.06664

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Luongo and M

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, Astron. Astrophys.690, A40 (2024), 2404.07070

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Carloni, O

    Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023512 (2025), 2404.12068

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Efstathiou, Mon

    G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.538, 875 (2025), 2408.07175

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Efstathiou, Mon

    G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.540, 2844 (2025), 2505.02658

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Afroz and S

    S. Afroz and S. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D113, 083514 (2026), 2504.16868

    2026

  60. [68]

    de Souza, A

    R. de Souza, A. Sousa-Neto, J. E. Gonz´ alez, and J. Al- caniz, Phys. Rev. D113, 103531 (2026), 2511.13666

    2026

  61. [69]

    E. ´O. Colg´ ain and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.542, L24 (2025), 2412.12905

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M. G. Dainotti, S. Capozziello, S. Pouro- jaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and D. Stojkovic, JHEAp 49, 100428 (2026), 2404.08633

    2026 arXiv

  63. [71]

    E. ´O. Colg´ ain, S. Pourojaghi, and M. M. Sheikh- Jabbari, Galaxies13, 133 (2025), 2505.19029

    2025

  64. [72]

    E. ´O. Colg´ ain, S. Pourojaghi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and L. Yin, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102268 (2026), 2504.04417

    2026

  65. [73]

    R. E. Keeley, K. N. Abazajian, M. Kaplinghat, and A. Shafieloo, Phys. Rev. D112, 043501 (2025), 2502.12667

    2025 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Sousa-Neto, C

    A. Sousa-Neto, C. Bengaly, J. E. Gonzalez, and J. Al- caniz, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102108 (2025), 2502.10506

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), gr-qc/0009008

    2001 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Huterer and M

    D. Huterer and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D64, 123527 (2001), astro-ph/0012510

    2001 arXiv

  69. [77]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), astro- ph/0208512

    2003

  70. [78]

    Albrecht et al

    A. Albrecht et al. (2006), astro-ph/0609591

    2006 arXiv

  71. [79]

    E. V. Linder, Astropart. Phys.26, 102 (2006), astro- ph/0604280

    2006

  72. [80]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and E. N. Saridakis, Universe5, 219 (2019), 1811.06932

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Cortˆ es and A

    M. Cortˆ es and A. R. Liddle, JCAP12, 007 (2024), 2404.08056

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Montefalcone and R

    G. Montefalcone and R. Stiskalek (2026), 2603.25735

    2026

  75. [83]

    Huterer and A

    D. Huterer and A. Cooray, Phys. Rev. D71, 023506 (2005), astro-ph/0404062

    2005 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Wang and K

    Y. Wang and K. Freese, Phys. Lett. B632, 449 (2006), astro-ph/0402208

    2006 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Zhang, H

    C. Zhang, H. Zhang, S. Yuan, T.-J. Zhang, and Y.- C. Sun, Res. Astron. Astrophys.14, 1221 (2014), 1207.4541

    2014 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Jimenez and A

    R. Jimenez and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J.573, 37 (2002), astro-ph/0106145

    2002 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Simon, L

    J. Simon, L. Verde, and R. Jimenez, Phys. Rev. D71, 123001 (2005), astro-ph/0412269

    2005 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Moresco et al., JCAP08, 006 (2012), 1201.3609

    M. Moresco et al., JCAP08, 006 (2012), 1201.3609

    2012 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Moresco, L

    M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, L. Verde, D. Thomas, A. Citro, R. Tojeiro, and D. Wilkinson, JCAP05, 014 (2016), 1601.01701

    2016 arXiv

  82. [90]

    A. L. Ratsimbazafy, S. I. Loubser, S. M. Craw- ford, C. M. Cress, B. A. Bassett, R. C. Nichol, and P. V¨ ais¨ anen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.467, 3239 (2017), 1702.00418

    2017 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Stern, R

    D. Stern, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, M. Kamionkowski, and S. A. Stanford, JCAP02, 008 (2010), 0907.3149

    2010 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Borghi, M

    N. Borghi, M. Moresco, and A. Cimatti, Astrophys. J. Lett.928, L4 (2022), 2110.04304

    2022 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Moresco, Mon

    M. Moresco, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.450, L16 (2015), 1503.01116

    2015 arXiv

  86. [94]

    A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), 2112.04510

    2022 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Alestas, D

    G. Alestas, D. Camarena, E. Di Valentino, L. Kazantzidis, V. Marra, S. Nesseris, and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D105, 063538 (2022), 2110.04336

    2022 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Kamionkowski and A

    M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73, 153 (2023), 2211.04492

    2023 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Z. Zhou, Z. Miao, S. Bi, C. Ai, and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D112, 103502 (2025), 2506.23556

    2025

  90. [98]

    Carloni, O

    Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Biesiada, Phys. Rev. D 113, 103525 (2026), 2511.15472

    2026

  91. [99]

    M. Kunz, R. Trotta, and D. Parkinson, Phys. Rev. D 74, 023503 (2006), astro-ph/0602378

    2006 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Sugiura, Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods7, 13 (1978)

    N. Sugiura, Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods7, 13 (1978)

    1978

  93. [101]

    Biesiada, JCAP02, 003 (2007), astro-ph/0701721

    M. Biesiada, JCAP02, 003 (2007), astro-ph/0701721

    2007 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Szydlowski, T

    M. Szydlowski, T. Stachowiak, and R. Wojtak, Phys. Rev. D73, 063516 (2006), astro-ph/0511650

    2006 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Szydlowski and A

    M. Szydlowski and A. Kurek, AIP Conf. Proc.861, 1031 (2006), astro-ph/0603538

    2006 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Melchiorri, L

    A. Melchiorri, L. Pagano, and S. Pandolfi, Phys. Rev. D76, 041301 (2007), 0706.1314

    2007 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Capozziello, P

    S. Capozziello, P. K. S. Dunsby, and O. Luongo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.509, 5399 (2021), 2106.15579

    2021 arXiv

  98. [106]

    A. C. Alfano, C. Cafaro, S. Capozziello, and O. Luongo, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101298 (2023), 2306.08396

    2023 arXiv

  99. [107]

    J. V. Cunha and J. A. S. Lima, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.390, 210 (2008), 0805.1261

    2008 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Farooq and B

    O. Farooq and B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. Lett.766, L7 (2013), 1301.5243

    2013 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Vargas dos Santos, R

    M. Vargas dos Santos, R. R. R. Reis, and I. Waga, JCAP 02, 066 (2016), 1505.03814

    2016 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Muccino, O

    M. Muccino, O. Luongo, and D. Jain, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.523, 4938 (2023), 2208.13700

    2023 arXiv

  103. [111]

    R. R. Caldwell and E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 141301 (2005), astro-ph/0505494

    2005 arXiv

  104. [112]

    R. J. Scherrer and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D77, 083515 (2008), 0712.3450

    2008 arXiv

  105. [113]

    E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle, and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D57, 4686 (1998), gr-qc/9711068

    1998 arXiv

  106. [114]

    O. F. Ramadan, J. Sakstein, and D. Rubin, Phys. Rev. D110, L041303 (2024), 2405.18747

    2024 arXiv

  107. [115]

    M. W. Toomey, G. Montefalcone, E. McDonough, and K. Freese, Phys. Rev. D113, 123532 (2026), 2509.13318

    2026

  108. [116]

    Ratra and P

    B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D37, 3406 (1988)

    1988

  109. [117]

    P. J. Steinhardt, L.-M. Wang, and I. Zlatev, Phys. Rev. D59, 123504 (1999), astro-ph/9812313

    1999 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.