Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Impact of DESI BAO Data on Inflationary Parameters: stability against late-time new physics

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Swapping SDSS BAO data for DESI Year 1 BAO data leaves the inflationary spectral index $n_s$ and amplitude $A_s$ essentially unchanged, with $n_s$ moving from $0.9653\pm0.0036$ to $0.9673\pm0.0035$ and $A_s$ shifting by less than 1%.

desk verdict Clean robustness check showing DESI BAO barely moves n_s and H0, but the sub-1% A_s claim is not actually in the results table. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14290 v1 pith:BQQCPOLY submitted 2024-12-18 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Simony Santos da Costa This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords inflationaryparametersspectralindexscalarperturbationamplitudeDESIBAObaryonacousticoscillationsdarkenergymatterdensityCMBpowerspectrum
topics Dark Energy
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

This paper asks whether the first year of DESI baryon acoustic oscillation data, which hint at dynamical dark energy, change the inferred parameters of inflation. Comparing fits that use DESI BAO data with fits that use the older SDSS/eBOSS BAO data, at fixed CMB and supernova datasets, it finds that the spectral index $n_s$ and the primordial amplitude $A_s$ barely move. The only notable change is a small reduction of about 2% (less than a standard deviation) in the physical matter density $\omega_m$. The stability holds across flat $\Lambda$CDM, curved $\Lambda$CDM, two dynamical dark energy models, and a sign-switching cosmological constant, so the late-time model choice does not contaminate the inflationary parameter inference.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through the anti-correlation between the matter density parameter $\omega_m$ and the inflationary parameters $n_s$ and $A_s$ set by the shape of the CMB temperature power spectrum. BAO measurements determine $\omega_m$; a lower $\omega_m$ changes the small-scale power, which is compensated by a slightly higher spectral index and a small adjustment in the perturbation amplitude. The standard power-law primordial spectrum $P(k) = A_s(k/k_*)^{n_s-1}$ and the early Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect provide the link, since the first acoustic peak height and the damping tail both depend on the matter content.

What would settle it

A future DESI BAO release (for example Year 3) with an improved covariance matrix that moves the best-fit $\omega_m$ back to the SDSS value, or an independent high-precision matter-density measurement from weak lensing that disagrees with the DESI-driven value, would break the anti-correlation and shift $n_s$ and $A_s$, directly contradicting the claimed stability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Replacing the SDSS/eBOSS BAO measurements with DESI Year 1 BAO data, in combination with the same CMB and type Ia supernova data, leaves the inflationary parameters essentially untouched: $n_s$ increases from $0.9653\pm0.0036$ to $0.9673\pm0.0035$, $A_s$ shifts by less than 1%, and the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$ stays near its prior bound. The only parameter that responds is the matter density, with $\omega_m$ decreasing by under 2% (a 0.75$\sigma$ shift). The paper attributes this to a slight change in matter clustering driven by the BAO data, and emphasizes that all late-time models considered remain within $1\sigma$ of the flat $\Lambda$CDM baseline, so the $n_s{-}r$ plane is stable.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the DESI Year 1 BAO likelihood faithfully represents the galaxy-clustering measurements, including all covariances and systematics; if it does not, the small decrease in $\omega_m$—and the stability of $n_s$ and $A_s$ that follows from it—could be an artifact of an approximate likelihood.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inflationary parameter constraints from CMB plus supernovae plus BAO do not need revision when the BAO dataset is switched from SDSS to DESI.
  • The small decrease in $\omega_m$ seen with DESI BAO is consistent across flat $\Lambda$CDM, curved $\Lambda$CDM, CPL dark energy with and without the phantom boundary, and the sign-switching $\Lambda_s$ model, indicating the shift is driven by the BAO data rather than by the late-time model.
  • All dataset combinations still prefer $H_0 \approx 66$–$68$ km/s/Mpc, well below local distance-ladder measurements, so DESI BAO data do not resolve the Hubble tension.
  • The $n_s$–$r$ plane, used to discriminate between inflationary models, is stable across the late-time parameterizations tested.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a future DESI BAO release pushes $\omega_m$ further down, the documented anti-correlation would push $n_s$ above roughly 0.97, creating a testable tension with Planck-only constraints.
  • The stability result assumes a single power law for the primordial spectrum; allowing a running spectral index could break the degeneracy between $n_s$ and $\omega_m$ and change the conclusion.
  • The consistency across the Pantheon+, Union3, and DES Year 5 supernova samples suggests the BAO dataset is the dominant driver; an independent BAO measurement from another survey would test whether the small $\omega_m$ shift is physical or a systematic of the DESI likelihood.
  • A lower $\omega_m$ would, by itself, lower the predicted $\sigma_8$ and may deepen the $S_8$ tension, connecting this work to weak-lensing analyses.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper compares cosmological parameter constraints obtained with the pre-DESI BAO sample (6dFGS+MGS+eBOSS) versus the DESI Year 1 BAO sample, always combined with Planck PR4 CMB and a Type Ia supernova sample (Pantheon+ as baseline), and explores robustness across flat LambdaCDM, LambdaCDM+Omega_k, CPL dark energy (with and without the phantom boundary), and sign-switching Lambda_s models. The central claim is that inflationary parameters n_s and A_s remain stable when swapping SDSS/eBOSS BAO for DESI BAO, with n_s shifting from 0.9653 +/- 0.0036 to 0.9673 +/- 0.0035, A_s shifting by less than 1% (0.4 sigma), and omega_m decreasing by less than 2% (0.75 sigma). The paper also discusses qualitative mechanisms, involving the early Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect and correlations between omega_m, H0, A_s, and n_s, and concludes by emphasizing the stability of inflationary parameters across late-time models while highlighting the 'crucial role' of DESI BAO data.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are fully supported, the paper provides a useful cross-check of a topical question: whether the DESI Y1 BAO data, which mildly favor dynamical dark energy, alter inferences about the primordial scalar spectrum. The analysis uses standard, well-tested public tools (CAMB, Cobaya, GetDist) and public likelihoods, with chains requiring R-1 < 0.02, and it explores several late-time extensions, which is a strength. The main value is the clarity of the comparison between the two BAO datasets across multiple models. However, a load-bearing quantitative claim about A_s cannot be verified from the manuscript, because Table II omits A_s and no DESI-based numerical A_s value is reported anywhere; this currently limits the paper to a qualitative posterior-overlap statement rather than the precise '<1% (0.4 sigma)' claim made in the abstract and Section IV.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table II and Section IV] The central quantitative claim that A_s shifts by 'less than 1% (0.4 sigma)' when replacing SDSS BAO with DESI BAO is not verifiable from the manuscript, because Table II, the only results table, contains no A_s or ln(10^10 A_s) column. The only numeric A_s given in the text is in Figure 3, which shows the baseline+SDSS value A_s = (2.115 +/- 0.023) x 10^9; no DESI value is reported. Please add the A_s (or ln(10^10 A_s)) constraints to Table II for every dataset/model combination, or explicitly state the numerical posterior mean and uncertainty for the baseline+DESI case, so the '<1%' claim can be checked. Without this, the abstract's stability claim for A_s rests on unreported numbers.
  2. [Section IV, paragraph 2] The text states that A_s and n_s 'each' exhibit an increment of less than 1% (0.4 sigma). The n_s increment can be checked from Table II (0.9653 -> 0.9673, i.e., about 0.2% and 0.56 sigma when using the quoted errors), but the A_s part of the statement is unsupported as noted above. Please separate the two claims and provide quoted posterior means and uncertainties for A_s for both the baseline+SDSS and baseline+DESI fits, so that the '0.4 sigma' figure is reproducible.
  3. [Conclusions, final paragraph] The sentence 'this study highlights the crucial role of DESI BAO data in refining cosmological parameter estimates' overstates the quantitative findings. The reported shifts are all sub-1-sigma (omega_m by 0.75 sigma, n_s by about 0.5-0.6 sigma, and A_s by an unverifiable 0.4 sigma), so 'crucial' is not supported by the results presented. I recommend rewording to something like 'notable role' or 'complementary role,' unless additional evidence of a crucial role is provided.
  4. [Section II and Figure 4] The interpretive mechanism in Section II (the chain from H0 increases to n_s increases and A_s adjustments, and the statement that the eISW contribution does not change because recombination physics is fixed) is presented qualitatively and is not tested quantitatively in the paper. Since the main quantitative claims do not depend on this mechanism, this is not a blocking issue, but the paper should be clearer that these are heuristic correlations, not demonstrated causal statements derived from the fits.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I] The notation 'omega0omegaaCDM' and 'wzlg-1' is confusing: 'omega' is used both for physical densities (omega_b, omega_c) and for the dark energy equation-of-state parameters w0 and wa in the model names. Please use unambiguous labels such as 'w0waCDM' and 'w> -1 CPL' throughout the text, tables, and figures.
  2. [Figure 4 caption] The caption says 'Effects of allowing only omega_m variations' but the panel labels say 'varying only ns,' and the text describing the figure says 'changing omega_m and fixing all the other parameters.' This inconsistency should be fixed, and the caption should state clearly which parameter is varied in the dotted curves.
  3. [Section IV, last paragraph] The sentence 'This suggests that the primary influence stems from the BAO data, especially since I analyzed all three SNeIa samples in conjunction with the CMB+SDSS data' is grammatically unclear and does not by itself establish that BAO data are the primary influence. Please rephrase and, if intended as a conclusion, provide the supporting comparison (e.g., showing that swapping SNeIa samples produces smaller changes than swapping BAO samples).
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'Underst and' in the Section II title, 'constraint' used as a noun/verb mix in Section IV ('with and without the constraint of w(z) > -1' vs 'wzlg-1'), and the acknowledgments switching between 'I' and 'We.' These should be corrected in a final polish.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the stability claim is an empirical comparison of two independent dataset combinations, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a parameter-estimation exercise using public likelihoods (Planck PR4, Pantheon+, SDSS/eBOSS BAO, DESI Y1 BAO) and standard MCMC sampling. The central claim is that swapping SDSS BAO data for DESI BAO data leaves the inferred inflationary parameters n_s and A_s essentially unchanged, with small shifts in omega_m. There is no first-principles derivation whose output is equivalent to an input by construction: the reported constraints are obtained by fitting a fixed set of model parameters to different data combinations, and the stability is an emergent property of the posterior distributions, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The paper does include self-citations (e.g., Refs. [35] and [48]) that include the present author as a co-author, but those are contextual references for the multidimensional Hubble tension and neutrino-mass constraints; they are not load-bearing for the stability result. No uniqueness theorem is imported, no ansatz is smuggled in via citation, and no known pattern is merely renamed. A minor verifiability concern is that the abstract's 'less than 1%' shift in A_s is not directly tabulated in Table II, which omits A_s, but the plotted marginal distributions in Fig. 3 appear consistent with the claimed shift, and this is a completeness issue rather than evidence of circularity. Overall, the analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks and the circularity score is therefore 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or forces. The free parameters are the standard cosmological and model-extension parameters of the fits, all constrained by public data. The axioms are standard assumptions of cosmological parameter estimation, most importantly the correctness of the public likelihoods and the power-law primordial spectrum.

free parameters (9)
  • n_s (scalar spectral index) = 0.9673 ± 0.0035 (flat ΛCDM, baseline+DESI)
    Central claimed stable parameter; fitted to CMB+SNeIa+BAO data.
  • A_s (scalar amplitude, via ln(10^10 A_s)) = ≈ 2.115 × 10^-9 (implied by Table II and Figure 3)
    Central claimed stable parameter; fitted to CMB data.
  • ω_m (physical matter density, comprising ω_b + ω_c) = 0.3081 ± 0.0046 (flat ΛCDM, baseline+DESI)
    The parameter that shifts by <2% and is tied to the stability interpretation.
  • H0 (Hubble constant) = 67.77 ± 0.35 km/s/Mpc (flat ΛCDM, baseline+DESI)
    Fitted background parameter; slightly increases with DESI data.
  • r (tensor-to-scalar ratio) = < 0.018 (BICEP/Keck prior-dominated)
    Fitted with BICEP/Keck; mostly an upper limit and included in Table II.
  • Ωk (spatial curvature) = 0.0022 ± 0.0015 (ΛCDM+Ωk, baseline+DESI)
    Free parameter in one of the extended models; affects matter density and ns.
  • w0 (dark energy equation of state today) = -0.834 ± 0.062 (CPL, baseline+DESI)
    Free parameter in CPL dark energy models.
  • wa (dark energy equation of state slope) = -0.71 +0.28/-0.24 (CPL, baseline+DESI)
    Free parameter in CPL dark energy models.
  • z† (sign-switching redshift) = 2.68 +0.30/-0.12 (ΛsCDM, baseline+DESI)
    Free parameter in the sign-switching cosmological constant model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Friedmann equations and FRW background metric govern the expansion history.
    Used throughout, e.g., Eq. (2) for H(z) in the ΛCDM background.
  • domain assumption The primordial scalar power spectrum is a power law, P(k) = A_s (k/k*)^(n_s-1).
    Invoked in Eq. (4) and used for all parameter inference; running or features are not considered.
  • domain assumption Standard recombination physics determines the sound horizon r_d and the CMB acoustic scale.
    BAO constraints rely on r_d from the recombination model (Eq. 1); the paper does not modify recombination physics.
  • domain assumption The public likelihoods (Planck PR4, ACT DR6, BICEP/Keck, DESI Y1, Pantheon+/Union3/DESY5) correctly model the data and their uncertainties.
    The entire analysis is a re-fit of these likelihoods; any systematic error in them propagates into the results.
  • domain assumption CAMB accurately computes CMB and matter power spectra for the given parameters.
    Used for all theoretical predictions; its accuracy is standard in the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of DESI BAO Data on Inflationary Parameters: stability against late-time new physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQQCPOLY

@misc{pith2026241214290,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of DESI BAO Data on Inflationary Parameters: stability against late-time new physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQQCPOLY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14290}
}
abstract

In this work, I investigate the impact of Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) data on cosmological parameters, focusing on the inflationary spectral index $n_s$, the amplitude of scalar perturbations $A_s$, and the matter density parameter $\omega_m$. By examining different models of late-time new physics, the inflationary parameters were revealed to be stable when compared with the baseline dataset that used the earlier BAO data from the SDSS collaboration. When combined with Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and type Ia supernovae (SNeIa), DESI BAO data leads to a slight reduction in $\omega_m$ (less than 2\%) and modest changes in $A_s$ and $n_s$, if compared with the same combination but using SDSS BAO data instead, suggesting a subtle shift in matter clustering. These effects may be attributed to a higher expansion rate from dynamical dark energy, changes in the recombination period, or modifications to the matter-radiation equality time. Further analyses of models with dynamical dark energy and free curvature show a consistent trend of reduced $\omega_m$, accompanied by slight increases in both $n_s$ and $H_0$. The results emphasize the importance of the DESI BAO data in refining cosmological parameter estimates and highlight the stability of inflationary parameters across different late-time cosmological models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14290 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Effects of changing the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The one-dimensional marginalized posterior distribution for the most correlated parameters, considering the baseline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The two-dimensional and one-dimensional posterior probability distributions for the most correlated parameters, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Effects of allowing only [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Inflation, Open Universes, and Dark Energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A slightly open universe with Ω_k ≈ 3×10^{-3} pulls n_s down to ~0.969, reconciling plateau inflation models with combined CMB and DESI data.

  2. Forecasting constraints on quintessential inflation from future generation of galaxy and CMB surveys

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Future CMB and galaxy surveys are forecast to constrain the alpha-attractor quintessential inflation parameter to alpha = 2 ± 0.17 and the spectral index to n_s = 0.965 ± 0.0014.

  3. Dark energy and lensing anomaly in Planck CMB data

    astro-ph.CO 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    When the Planck lensing amplitude AL is fitted freely, DESI+CMB+SN data no longer prefer evolving dark energy, and DESI BAO's lower matter density worsens the lensing anomaly in LambdaCDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter et al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), As- trophys

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

    arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    M. A. Troxel et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. D 98, 043528 (2018), arXiv:1708.01538 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Aghanim et al.(Planck), Astron

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

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Bianchini et al.(SPT), Astrophys

    F. Bianchini et al.(SPT), Astrophys. J. 888, 119 (2020), arXiv:1910.07157 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Aiola et al

    S. Aiola et al. (ACT), JCAP 12, 047 (2020), arXiv:2007.07288 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. (eBOSS), Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2007.08991 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Asgari et al

    M. Asgari et al. (KiDS), Astron. Astrophys. 645, A104 (2021), arXiv:2007.15633 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    Mossa et al., Nature 587, 210 (2020)

    V. Mossa et al., Nature 587, 210 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Brout et al

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

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, JETP Lett. 33, 532 (1981)

    1981

  4. [12]

    V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, Sov. Phys. JETP 56, 258 (1982)

    1982

  5. [13]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. B 115, 295 (1982)

    1982

  6. [14]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 117, 175 (1982)

    1982

  7. [15]

    A. H. Guth and S. Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1110 (1982)

    1982

  8. [16]

    J. M. Bardeen, P. J. Steinhardt, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 28, 679 (1983)

    1983

  9. [17]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, Phys. Dark Univ. 5-6, 75 (2014), arXiv:1303.3787 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), (2024), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

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

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Abdalla et al

    E. Abdalla et al. , JHEAp 34, 49 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Akarsu, E

    O. Akarsu, E. O. Colg´ ain, A. A. Sen, and M. M. Sheikh- Jabbari, Universe 10, 305 (2024), arXiv:2402.04767 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J. L. Bernal, L. Verde, and A. G. Riess, JCAP 10, 019 (2016), arXiv:1607.05617 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    G. E. Addison, D. J. Watts, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, and J. L. Weiland, Astrophys. J. 853, 119 (2018), arXiv:1707.06547 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Lemos, E

    P. Lemos, E. Lee, G. Efstathiou, and S. Grat- ton, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 483, 4803 (2019), arXiv:1806.06781 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Aylor, M

    K. Aylor, M. Joy, L. Knox, M. Millea, S. Raghu- nathan, and W. L. K. Wu, Astrophys. J. 874, 4 (2019), arXiv:1811.00537 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Knox and M

    L. Knox and M. Millea, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043533 (2020), arXiv:1908.03663 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Arendse et al., Astron

    N. Arendse et al., Astron. Astrophys. 639, A57 (2020), arXiv:1909.07986 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Efstathiou, Mon

    G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 505, 3866 (2021), arXiv:2103.08723 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cai, Z.-K

    R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, S.-J. Wang, W.-W. Yu, and Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 105, L021301 (2022), arXiv:2107.13286 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    R. E. Keeley and A. Shafieloo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 111002 (2023), arXiv:2206.08440 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Vagnozzi, Universe 9, 393 (2023), arXiv:2308.16628 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Vagnozzi, Universe 9, 393 (2023), arXiv:2308.16628 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    M.-X. Lin, W. Hu, and M. Raveri, Phys. Rev. D 102, 123523 (2020), arXiv:2009.08974 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    McDonough, J

    E. McDonough, J. C. Hill, M. M. Ivanov, A. La Posta, and M. W. Toomey, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 33, 2430003 (2024), arXiv:2310.19899 [astro-ph.CO]. 9 2.10 2.18 As ×10 9 66 68 70 H0 0.30 0.32 m 0.140 0.145 m 0.02 0.04 0.06 r0.05 0.96 0.97 ns As = (2.115 ± 0.023) 10 9 0.957 0.974 ns...

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Simon, Phys

    T. Simon, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023528 (2024), arXiv:2310.16800 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Pedrotti, J.-Q

    D. Pedrotti, J.-Q. Jiang, L. A. Escamilla, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, (2024), arXiv:2408.04530 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. (BOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Jiang, G

    J.-Q. Jiang, G. Ye, and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Lett. B 851, 138588 (2024), arXiv:2303.12345 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Jiang, (2024), arXiv:2410.10559 [astro-ph.CO]

    J.-Q. Jiang, (2024), arXiv:2410.10559 [astro-ph.CO]. 10 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 DTT [ K2] LCDM SDSS CDM SDSS varying only ns CDM DESI best-fit 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 DTT [ K2] CDM+ k SDSS varying only ns CDM+ k DESI best-fit 0.010 0.005 0.000 DTT/DTT...

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Wang and Y.-S

    H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, (2024), arXiv:2404.18579 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    G. P. Lynch, L. Knox, and J. Chluba, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083538 (2024), arXiv:2406.10202 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and J. Silk, Phys. Lett. B 761, 242 (2016), arXiv:1606.00634 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Vagnozzi, Phys

    S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 102, 023518 (2020), arXiv:1907.07569 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Tada and T

    Y. Tada and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D 109, L121305 (2024), arXiv:2404.05722 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    O. F. Ramadan, J. Sakstein, and D. Rubin, Phys. Rev. D 110, L041303 (2024), arXiv:2405.18747 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bhattacharya, G

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, JCAP 09, 073 (2024), arXiv:2405.17396 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, and E. Di Valentino, (2024), arXiv:2404.15232 [astro- 11 ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Giar` e, (2024), arXiv:2409.17074 [astro-ph.CO]

    W. Giar` e, (2024), arXiv:2409.17074 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Jiang, W

    J.-Q. Jiang, W. Giar` e, S. Gariazzo, M. G. Dain- otti, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, (2024), arXiv:2407.18047 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Naredo-Tuero, M

    D. Naredo-Tuero, M. Escudero, E. Fern´ andez-Mart ´ ınez, X. Marcano, and V. Poulin, (2024), arXiv:2407.13831 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Chudaykin and M

    A. Chudaykin and M. Kunz, (2024), arXiv:2407.02558 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Beutler, C

    F. Beutler, C. Blake, M. Colless, D. H. Jones, L. Staveley-Smith, L. Campbell, Q. Parker, W. Saun- ders, and F. Watson, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 416, 3017 (2011), arXiv:1106.3366 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A. J. Ross, L. Samushia, C. Howlett, W. J. Percival, A. Burden, and M. Manera, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 449, 835 (2015), arXiv:1409.3242 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Scolnic et al

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

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    E. R. Peterson et al., Astrophys. J. 938, 112 (2022), arXiv:2110.03487 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Rubin et al

    D. Rubin et al. , (2023), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), Astrophys. J. Lett. 973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Akrami et al.(Planck), Astron

    Y. Akrami et al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 643, A42 (2020), arXiv:2007.04997 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Couchot, S

    F. Couchot, S. Henrot-Versill´ e, O. Perdereau, S. Plaszczynski, B. Rouill´ e d’Orfeuil, M. Spinelli, and M. Tristram, Astron. Astrophys. 602, A41 (2017), arXiv:1609.09730 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Tristram et al

    M. Tristram et al. , Astron. Astrophys. 647, A128 (2021), arXiv:2010.01139 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Aghanim et al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanim et al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, JCAP 09, 039 (2022), arXiv:2206.07773 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    M. S. Madhavacheril et al. (ACT), Astrophys. J. 962, 113 (2024), arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (BICEP, Keck), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 151301 (2021), arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021

  56. [64]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and J. Silk, Nature Astron. 4, 196 (2019), arXiv:1911.02087 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Handley, Phys

    W. Handley, Phys. Rev. D 103, L041301 (2021), arXiv:1908.09139 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Efstathiou and S

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 496, L91 (2020), arXiv:2002.06892 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and J. Silk, Astro- phys. J. Lett. 908, L9 (2021), arXiv:2003.04935 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Benisty and D

    D. Benisty and D. Staicova, Astron. Astrophys. 647, A38 (2021), arXiv:2009.10701 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Vagnozzi, E

    S. Vagnozzi, E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and J. Silk, Phys. Dark Univ. 33, 100851 (2021), arXiv:2010.02230 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Vagnozzi, A

    S. Vagnozzi, A. Loeb, and M. Moresco, Astrophys. J. 908, 84 (2021), arXiv:2011.11645 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  63. [71]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, and A. Melchiorri, JCAP 10, 008 (2021), arXiv:2101.03129 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  64. [72]

    S. Cao, J. Ryan, and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504, 300 (2021), arXiv:2101.08817 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    J. E. Gonzalez, M. Benetti, R. von Marttens, and J. Al- caniz, JCAP 11, 060 (2021), arXiv:2104.13455 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    B. R. Dinda, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063524 (2022), arXiv:2106.02963 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Zuckerman and L

    E. Zuckerman and L. A. Anchordoqui, JHEAp 33, 10 (2022), arXiv:2110.05346 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Bargiacchi, M

    G. Bargiacchi, M. Benetti, S. Capozziello, E. Lusso, G. Risaliti, and M. Signorini, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 515, 1795 (2022), arXiv:2111.02420 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Glanville, C

    A. Glanville, C. Howlett, and T. M. Davis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517, 3087 (2022), arXiv:2205.05892 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [78]

    J. Bel, J. Larena, R. Maartens, C. Marinoni, and L. Perenon, JCAP 09, 076 (2022), arXiv:2206.03059 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  71. [79]

    W. Yang, W. Giar` e, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, A. Mel- chiorri, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063509 (2023), arXiv:2210.09865 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Stevens, H

    J. Stevens, H. Khoraminezhad, and S. Saito, JCAP 07, 046 (2023), arXiv:2212.09804 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Favale, A

    A. Favale, A. G´ omez-Valent, and M. Migliaccio, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 523, 3406 (2023), arXiv:2301.09591 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    J.-Z. Qi, P. Meng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 063522 (2023), arXiv:2302.08889 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    2001 arXiv

  76. [84]

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

    2003 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Vagnozzi, S

    S. Vagnozzi, S. Dhawan, M. Gerbino, K. Freese, A. Goo- bar, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083501 (2018), arXiv:1801.08553 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Akarsu, S

    O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, and J. A. Vazquez, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123512 (2021), arXiv:2108.09239 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Akarsu, S

    O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, J. A. Vazquez, and A. Yadav, Phys. Rev. D 108, 023513 (2023), arXiv:2211.05742 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Y. Toda, W. Giar` e, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, E. Di Valentino, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101676 (2024), arXiv:2407.01173 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J. 538, 473 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911177 [astro-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP 05, 057 (2021), arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Statist. Sci. 7, 457 (1992)

    1992

  84. [92]

    Lewis, (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Lewis, (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Z. Hou, R. Keisler, L. Knox, M. Millea, and C. Reichardt, Phys. Rev. D 87, 083008 (2013), arXiv:1104.2333 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  86. [94]

    J. A. Kable, G. E. Addison, and C. L. Bennett, As- trophys. J. 905, 164 (2020), arXiv:2008.01785 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Vagnozzi, Phys

    S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063524 (2021), arXiv:2105.10425 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, R. Calder´ on, and T. Simon, (2024), arXiv:2407.18292 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Wang, (2024), arXiv:2404.13833 [astro-ph.CO]

    D. Wang, (2024), arXiv:2404.13833 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Pogosian, G.-B

    L. Pogosian, G.-B. Zhao, and K. Jedamzik, Astro- phys. J. Lett. 973, L13 (2024), arXiv:2405.20306 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Giar` e, Phys

    W. Giar` e, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123545 (2024), 12 arXiv:2404.12779 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Poulin, T

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

    2023 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Giar` e, F

    W. Giar` e, F. Renzi, O. Mena, E. Di Valentino, and A. Melchiorri, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 521, 2911 (2023), arXiv:2210.09018 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Jiang, G

    J.-Q. Jiang, G. Ye, and Y.-S. Piao, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527, L54 (2023), arXiv:2210.06125 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Ye, J.-Q

    G. Ye, J.-Q. Jiang, and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D 106, 103528 (2022), arXiv:2205.02478 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Jiang and Y.-S

    J.-Q. Jiang and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103514 (2022), arXiv:2202.13379 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.