Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 128 references

A composite dark-energy model made of a running vacuum and a negative-energy 'cosmon' reproduces DESI's phantom-divide crossing, fits the data better than the standard parameterization, and alleviates the cosmic coincidence problem.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 00:44 UTC pith:JGXDU73Z

load-bearing objection Competent MCMC fit of an old two-component RVM model; the crossing is a post-fit output, and the 'from first principles' claim rests on cited, not demonstrated, phantom matter. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26050 v1 pith:JGXDU73Z submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

ΛXCDM: a running vacuum strategy for crossing the phantom divide

Joan Sol\`a Peracaula , Adri\`a G\'omez-Valent , Alex Gonz\'alez-Fuentes This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph PACS 95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords dynamical dark energyphantom divide crossingrunning vacuum modelcosmonphantom matterDESIcosmic coincidenceΛXCDM
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to show that the 'phantom-divide crossing' in the dark-energy equation of state reported by DESI near redshift z ≈ 0.4 is not a feature of an arbitrary parameterization but the natural behavior of a composite dark-energy model, ΛXCDM, in which a running vacuum (motivated by quantum field theory) continuously exchanges energy with an extra component, the cosmon X. Solving the model analytically, the authors find that when the cosmon behaves as 'phantom matter'—constant equation of state w_X < −1 but negative energy density and positive pressure—the effective equation of state of the combined fluid crosses from phantom-like (w_eff < −1) in the past to quintessence-like (w_eff > −1) today, at a redshift z_* consistent with DESI. Fitting Planck PR4 CMB, DESI DR2 BAO, and either Pantheon+ or DES-Dovekie supernovae, they report that ΛXCDM improves the fit over ΛCDM by Δχ² ≈ 12–14 and over the CPL w0waCDM parameterization by Δχ² ≈ 3–4, with ΛCDM excluded at about 2.7–3.0σ and strong AIC support. In the same region of parameter space the future dark-energy-to-matter ratio stays bounded at order one, alleviating the cosmic coincidence problem. If right, the observed dynamical dark energy would have a concrete physical mechanism behind it, not just a phenomenological description.

Core claim

Central claim: the observed dark-energy equation of state is the effective equation of state of a composite fluid—a running vacuum (ρ_vac ∝ H²) plus a 'cosmon' X with constant w_X < −1. Energy exchange makes w_eff = −1 + (1+w_X)Ω_X/Ω_D evolve with redshift. When X is phantom matter (negative energy density today, w_X < −1), Ω_X changes sign, forcing w_eff to cross −1 at redshift z_* ≈ 0.4–0.8 where Ω_X = 0—from phantom in the past to quintessence now. The same conditions bound the future dark-energy/matter ratio at O(1), easing cosmic coincidence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective equation of state of the composite dark-energy fluid, w_eff = −1 + (1+w_X)Ω_X/Ω_D, together with the analytic solution for the cosmon density Ω_X(z). Crossing occurs at the redshift z_* where Ω_X vanishes; this requires both w_X ≠ −1 and a nonzero running-vacuum parameter ν (energy exchange), since for ν = 0 or w_X = −1 no crossing exists. The exchange is controlled by ϵ = ν(1+w_X), and the current phantom-matter character by δ = Ω_X^0(1+w_X). The mechanism works without specifying what X is: a field, a dilaton, or a term from the vacuum effective action of modified gravity.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism stands or falls on the physical existence of the 'cosmon' as phantom matter—a fluid with constant w_X < −1 and negative energy density that exchanges energy with the vacuum; the paper cites string-theory realizations but does not derive this component from a UV-complete theory.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the effective dark-energy equation of state that shows no −1 crossing between z ≈ 0.2 and z ≈ 0.9, or a proof that negative-energy fluids with w < −1 cannot exist in a consistent quantum field theory, would falsify the model's core prediction.

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

If this is right

  • If ΛXCDM is correct, the DESI phantom-divide crossing is a real dynamical phenomenon—a signature of energy transfer between vacuum and an extra dark component—not a fitting artifact of the CPL parameterization.
  • The model outperforms the standard parameterization statistically: Δχ² about 3–4 lower than CPL and 12–14 lower than ΛCDM, with ΔAIC ≈ 6–8 for ΛXCDM over ΛCDM and ΛCDM excluded at about 2.7–3.0σ.
  • The cosmic coincidence problem is eased in the same parameter region: the ratio of dark-energy to matter density remains bounded, r_max = O(1), instead of growing without limit.
  • The model predicts a future stopping point where H(z) = 0 followed by recollapse, because the negative-energy cosmon eventually dominates.
  • Because the data cannot distinguish w_X below about −2 (profile likelihood plateau), a large family of microphysical realizations of the cosmon all reproduce the same crossing, a form of universality.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same composite mechanism suggests a bridge to early dark energy: a small (≈1%) negative vacuum contribution at recombination could in principle be tuned to address the Hubble tension, though the paper finds no H0 alleviation with constant w_X.
  • Editorial inference: if phantom matter arises from stringy-vacuum bubbles as cited, the model makes a concrete collateral prediction—enhanced formation of massive structures at z ~ 5–10—that deep high-redshift surveys could test; the paper only floats this as a possibility.
  • Editorial inference: the plateau in the profile likelihood of w_X implies the data are insensitive to microphysics; a natural extension is to let w_X(z) vary, which the authors suggest might relieve the H0 tension. Testing such an extension would separate the crossing mechanism from the assumption of constant w_X.
  • Editorial inference: the crossing mechanism is generic to two-component dark sectors with energy exchange; one could look for the same z_* signature in interacting dark-matter–dark-energy models, though the paper distinguishes its vacuum–cosmon setup from those.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the ΛXCDM composite dark-energy model, in which a running vacuum component exchanges energy with a `cosmon' component X. The authors derive the effective equation of state w_eff, locate the phantom-divide crossing redshift z_* (Eq. 25), and fit the model to Planck PR4 CMB, DESI DR2 BAO, and two SNIa compilations (Pantheon+ and DES-Dovekie). They report a preference for a phantom-matter cosmon (w_X<−1, ρ_X^0<0), a crossing at z_*≈0.4–0.55, an improved fit relative to ΛCDM and CPL, and a bounded coincidence ratio r=ρ_D/ρ_m, which they interpret as alleviating the cosmic coincidence problem. The paper argues that the model provides a first-principles explanation of the DESI crossing because the running-vacuum core is QFT motivated and phantom matter appears in stringy versions of the RVM.

Significance. If the theoretical premise were established, the paper would be significant: it would provide a composite, non-parametric dark-energy construction with analytic background equations, a good fit to current cosmological data, and a natural mechanism for the phantom-divide crossing. The numerical analysis is carefully done with public Boltzmann/MCMC tools, the data choices are standard, and the authors are transparent about non-Gaussian posteriors, prior dependence, and the absence of SH0ES and LSS data. The analytic formulas for w_eff, the component densities, and the coincidence ratio are clearly presented. However, the central claim of a first-principles explanation rests on the ad hoc phantom-matter cosmon, which is not derived in the paper, and the crossing redshift is a post-fit function of the fitted parameters rather than an independent prediction. The paper is best read as a phenomenological study of a motivated composite DE model; that weaker framing is defensible, but the current abstract and conclusions claim more.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. 1–2, Eqs. (4)–(9); Sec. 3] The central theoretical claim that ΛXCDM 'from first principles' explains the DESI crossing rests entirely on the phantom-matter cosmon X (ρ_X<0, w_X<−1). X is introduced phenomenologically in Sec. 2; its stringy-RVM justification is only cited (Mavromatos & Solà Peracaula 2021a,b), not derived. The paper explicitly leaves the nature of X unspecified (Sec. 1; Sec. 5). Since negative-energy-density, w_X<−1 components generically require ghost-like degrees of freedom or unbounded potentials, the reader cannot evaluate whether PM is realizable. In Sec. 3 the perturbation implementation sets c_s^2=1, which is not the adiabatic sound speed of the stated barotropic component (c_s^2=w_X<0), thereby sidestepping the stability question. At minimum, this unverified ingredient must be reframed as a phenomenological assumption, or its derivation from the stringy RVM must be supplied.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (25); Table 1; Fig. 1] The crossing redshift z_* is not an independent prediction. Eq. (25) expresses z_* entirely in terms of the fitted parameters (ν, w_X, Ω_X^0) via ϵ and δ. The signs ν<0, w_X<−1, Ω_X^0<0 that force the phantom-to-quintessence crossing are inferred from the same CMB+BAO+SN data, so 'ΛXCDM naturally performs the crossing as observed by DESI' is a post-fit consistency statement rather than a falsifiable prediction. This is aggravated by the weak constraint on w_X: Table 1 reports only upper bounds w_X<−1.66/−1.96 (95%) with the posterior cut by the prior, and Fig. 1 shows a profile-likelihood plateau for w_X<−2. Consequently z_* has broad 95% ranges (e.g. 0.2–0.9 for one data set), and the match to the DESI crossing redshift should not be presented as a predictive success.
  3. [Sec. 4, Table 1] The statistical evidence for ΛXCDM over CPL is more modest than the text suggests. Table 1 gives ΔAIC(ΛCDM−CPL)=4.25 and 7.08, and ΔAIC(ΛCDM−ΛXCDM)=6.02 and 7.93; the ΔAIC difference between ΛXCDM and CPL is only 1.77 (Pantheon+) and 0.85 (DES-Dovekie), despite ΛXCDM having one extra parameter. In addition, the quoted 2.68σ/2.97σ exclusions of ΛCDM rely on Wilks' theorem, whose applicability is doubtful here because w_X is prior-limited and the posteriors are non-Gaussian (acknowledged in Sec. 3). The fit is good, but statements such as 'outperforms CPL' and the precise Gaussian significance levels should be softened accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Table 1] The abstract states a crossing near z≃0.4, but the central values in Table 1 are 0.38 and 0.55 with broad 95% intervals (roughly 0.2–0.9). Please report the crossing redshift with its full uncertainty in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Table 1] The p-value row appears to contain minus signs (e.g. '−0.0162'), which is impossible for a p-value. This is likely a formatting artifact, but it should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. 3] The text says 'we do not use large-scale structure formation data', but the analysis includes Planck PR4 CMB lensing. Please clarify that no galaxy-clustering or weak-lensing data are used, rather than 'no LSS data'.
  4. [Sec. 3] The MCMC analysis uses Metropolis-Hastings with a relaxed convergence criterion for ΛXCDM (R−1=0.03). Please include chain lengths, convergence diagnostics, and a data/code availability statement to support reproducibility.
  5. [Sec. 2, Eq. (16)] The BBN constraint |r_ϵ|≲1% is said to be 'approximately saturated'. Given the sensitivity of light-element abundances to early DE, please state whether the posterior for r_ϵ was checked against an explicit BBN likelihood or only against the cited analytic bound.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The fit and analytic equations are self-contained; the 'from first principles' status is load-bearing and rests on a self-citation chain (Mavromatos & Solà Peracaula 2021a,b) rather than on a derivation in this paper.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract; Sec. 4 (Discussion); Sec. 5 (Conclusions)]
    "Given that PM appears in stringy versions of the R VM, the ΛXCDM appears to be a composite DDE model with a good chance of explaining the crossing of the phantom divide from first principles. ... there exist theoretical developments in the context of the stringy version of the R VM providing a raison d’être for the notion of PM at a fundamental level (Mavromatos & Solà Peracaula 2021b,a). ... we have left completely unspecified the nature of the cosmon X and we have just assumed that its EoS is constant (wX = const.) and lies somewhere in the deep PM domain."

    The paper's 'from first principles' claim is the central theoretical payoff. That claim is not earned by a derivation in this paper: phantom matter (w_X < -1, rho_X < 0) is introduced as an assumption in Sec. 2, and the only fundamental justification offered is a citation to Mavromatos & Solà Peracaula (2021a,b), prior works with overlapping authorship. The paper explicitly concedes that X's nature is unspecified. Thus the load-bearing premise of the 'first principles' interpretation reduces to a self-citation chain rather than an independent, demonstrated result. The analytic equations and the numerical fit remain self-contained; what is circular is labeling an assumed, self-cited ingredient as 'from first principles.'

full rationale

The core derivation is not circular in the strict sense. Equations (1)-(25) form a self-contained construction: w_eff is defined from rho_vac and rho_X; Omega_X(z) and Omega_vac(z) are solved from the assumed conservation and running-vacuum form; the crossing redshift z* is obtained by setting Omega_X=0. This chain does not secretly assume the DESI crossing; in other regions of parameter space the model can fail to cross or cross at different redshifts. The MCMC analysis is a genuine comparison against external CMB, BAO, and SNIa data, with honest priors and with explicit caveats about non-Gaussianity, w_X prior dependence, and the unspecified nature of X. The crossing redshift quoted for the model is a post-fit derived quantity rather than an independent prediction, but the paper does not present it as a withheld-data prediction, so I do not flag it as fitted-input-called-prediction. The main circularity is narrower and load-bearing only for the theoretical interpretation: the 'first principles' status of phantom matter is imported from the authors' own earlier stringy-RVM papers and not derived or tested here. This warrants score 4 rather than 0, but not higher, because the fit, the model equations, and the coincidence-alleviation bound are independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central result rests on a model with three fitted parameters (ϵ, w_X, δ), one of which (w_X) is only weakly constrained. The crossing and coincidence behavior are consequences of the fitted signs (ν<0, w_X<−1, Ω_X^0<0), not of a parameter-free derivation. The 'first principles' status depends on an external stringy-RVM claim that is not reproduced here.

free parameters (3)
  • ϵ ≡ ν(1+w_X) (running-vacuum coupling combination) = ≈0.024 (Pantheon+), ≈0.026 (DES-Dovekie); implies ν≈−0.013
    Controls the energy exchange between vacuum and cosmon; not fixed by theory in the fit.
  • w_X (cosmon equation of state) = prior −4 ≤ w_X ≤ −1; 95% upper bounds <−1.66 (Pan), <−1.96 (Dov)
    Sets the phantom character of the cosmon; the data only weakly constrain it and the posterior is cut by the prior.
  • δ ≡ Ω_X^0(1+w_X) (normalized cosmon density combination) = ≈0.11 (Pan), ≈0.15 (Dov); implies Ω_X^0≈−0.06/−0.07
    Signs determine current quintessence-like behavior and the crossing; fitted, not predicted.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Flat FLRW background; matter (dust/radiation) is self-conserved
    Used in deriving Eqs. (3)–(11); standard cosmology.
  • domain assumption RVM form ρ_vac(H)=ρ_vac^0+(3ν/8π)(H²−H₀²)m_Pl²
    Eq. (1); the running-vacuum ansatz, with ν a free parameter.
  • domain assumption Canonical vacuum EoS P_vac=−ρ_vac
    Section 2; quantum corrections to the vacuum EoS are explicitly ignored to keep the solution analytic.
  • domain assumption Cosmon X has constant EoS w_X and exchanges energy only with the vacuum
    Section 2; enables the analytic solutions (4)–(7).
  • ad hoc to paper Phantom matter (ρ_X<0, w_X<−1) is physically realizable
    Needed for the crossing; supported only by citations to stringy RVM, not demonstrated in this paper.
  • domain assumption Dark energy does not cluster; sound speed c_s²=1
    Section 3; affects perturbation/CMB outputs, less central to the background crossing.
invented entities (1)
  • Cosmon X as phantom matter (ρ_X<0, w_X<−1) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the energy exchange with the running vacuum that produces the weff crossing from phantom to quintessence.
    Its properties are inferred from the fit; no direct or independent falsifiable handle is given. The stringy-RVM realization is cited, not derived (Mavromatos & Solà Peracaula 2021a,b).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28399 in / 16378 out tokens · 154124 ms · 2026-08-01T00:44:30.968301+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Composite dynamical dark energy (DDE) has recently been explored as an efficient way to help cure cosmological tensions through the so-called $w$XCDM model {Gomez-Valent:2024tdb,Gomez-Valent:2024ejh}, a toy-model version of the $\Lambda$XCDM model {Grande:2006nn}. The latter is a composite running vacuum model (RVM) that involves a DE component $X$ (`cosmon') of generic nature. We compute the effective equation of state of $\Lambda$XCDM and use state-of-the-art techniques to fit this model to two standard sets of cosmological data, one involving SNIa from Pantheon$+$ and the other SNIa from DES-Dovekie, in addition to BAO data from DESI DR2 and the CMB data from Planck PR4. We do not use large scale structure formation data for this analysis nor the SH0ES calibration of $H_0$. We find that $\Lambda$XCDM naturally performs the crossing of the phantom divide as observed by DESI near $z\simeq 0.4$ using the $w_0w_a$CDM parameterization, a feature well favored by existing model-agnostic analyzes of the same data {Gonzalez-Fuentes:2025lei,Gonzalez-Fuentes:2026rgu}. It turns out that the cosmon $X$ behaves as `phantom matter' (PM) near the present, which in contrast to usual phantom DE satisfies the strong energy condition (as ordinary matter) and furnishes positive pressure ($P_X>-\rho_X>0$) at the expense of negative energy density ($\rho_X<0$). $\Lambda$XCDM provides a better fit than $w_0w_a$CDM and, as a bonus, alleviates the cosmic coincidence problem. Given that PM appears in stringy versions of the RVM, the $\Lambda$XCDM appears to be a composite DDE model with a good chance of explaining the crossing of the phantom divide from first principles, therefore providing theoretical support to the DESI observations inferred from generic parameterizations of the DE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26050 by Adri\`a G\'omez-Valent, Alex Gonz\'alez-Fuentes, Joan Sol\`a Peracaula.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Upper: Profile likelihood in wX with respect to the minimum χ 2 point of ΛCDM for each of the 2 datasets. Lower: Crossing redshift of the phantom divide for the pro￾filed values. Note that in the upper plot we display the cen￾tral bin values and in the lower one the real wX that produces the minimum within that bin. to provide tight constraints on the cosmon EoS parame￾ter and a good fit can be achieved by… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Coincidence ratio for the profile values of wX with CMB+BAO+SNIa(Dov) as a function of future cosmic time t − t0 in units of H −1 0 , where t0 is the present cosmic time. rate (see the bottom panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Full triangle plot for the various models studied in this paper. We show the constraints at 68% and 95% CL in all the relevant planes of the parameter spaces, together with the individual one-dimensional posterior distributions. H0 is given in km/s/Mpc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: BAO and SNIa distances using DES-Dovekie. For SNIa distance modulus, we have binned the data as described in (Abdul Karim et al. 2025). We represent the curves obtained for different bins of the profile likelihood in wX to emphasize that different values of wX yield similar observables. 10 1 10 0 z 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 (D V/ rd)/(Dfid V / r fid d ) CDM (fid.) CPL best fit wX = 3.78 wX = … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 973, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f 2024

  2. [2]

    ---. 2026. 2602.10065

    arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    2022, JHEAp, 34, 49, 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002

    Abdalla, E., et al. 2022, JHEAp, 34, 49, 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002

    doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 2022

  4. [4]

    2025, Phys

    Abdul Karim, M., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083515, 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

    doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 2025

  5. [5]

    G., et al

    Adame, A. G., et al. 2025, JCAP, 02, 021, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 2025

  6. [6]

    Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2016, Astron. Astrophys., 594, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 2016

  7. [7]

    A., Mukhopadhyay, U., Sen, A

    Adil, S. A., Mukhopadhyay, U., Sen, A. A., & Vagnozzi, S. 2023, JCAP, 10, 072, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/072

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/072 2023

  8. [8]

    2020, Astron

    Aghanim, N., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  9. [9]

    1974, IEEE Trans

    Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 19, 716, 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    arXiv 1974

  10. [10]

    D., Escamilla, L

    Akarsu, \"O ., Barrow, J. D., Escamilla, L. A., & Vazquez, J. A. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 063528, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063528

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.063528 2020

  11. [11]

    O ., Kumar, S., \

    Akarsu, \"O ., Kumar, S., \"Oz\"ulker, E., & Vazquez, J. A. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 123512, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.123512

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.123512 2021

  12. [12]

    O ., Perivolaropoulos, L., Y \

    Akarsu, \"O ., Perivolaropoulos, L., Y \"u kselci, A. E., & Zhuk, A. 2026. 2606.11062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    Akarsu, \"O ., et al. 2023. 2307.10899

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    2021, Phys

    Alestas, G., Kazantzidis, L., & Perivolaropoulos, L. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 083517, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083517

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.083517 2021

  15. [15]

    2022, Phys

    Alestas, G., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 063538, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.063538

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.063538 2022

  16. [16]

    E., & Saridakis, E

    Asimakis, P., Basilakos, S., Mavromatos, N. E., & Saridakis, E. N. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 084010, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.084010

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.084010 2022

  17. [17]

    2026, Phys

    Bansal, P., & Huterer, D. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 103539, 10.1103/ydnj-myzb

    doi:10.1103/ydnj-myzb 2026

  18. [18]

    2014, Mon

    Basilakos, S., & Sol\`a, J. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 437, 3331, 10.1093/mnras/stt2135

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2135 2014

  19. [19]

    2010, JCAP, 12, 029, 10.1088/1475-7516/2010/12/029

    Bauer, F., Sola, J., & Stefancic, H. 2010, JCAP, 12, 029, 10.1088/1475-7516/2010/12/029

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/12/029 2010

  20. [20]

    2018, Phys

    Beltr \'a n Jim \'e nez, J., Heisenberg, L., & Koivisto, T. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 044048, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.044048

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.044048 2018

  21. [21]

    2025, Phys

    Berti, M., Bellini, E., Bonvin, C., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 023518, 10.1103/dj3k-84v4

    work page doi:10.1103/dj3k-84v4 2025

  22. [22]

    2011, JCAP, 1107, 034, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/07/034

    Blas, D., Lesgourgues, J., & Tram, T. 2011, JCAP, 1107, 034, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/07/034

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/07/034 2011

  23. [23]

    Bouhmadi-L \'o pez, M., Chiang, H.-W., & Ibarra-Uriondo, B. 2026. 2607.05044

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    2022, Astrophys

    Brout, D., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 938, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 2022

  25. [25]

    2026, Res

    Cai, R.-G., & Wang, S.-J. 2026, Res. Astron. Astrophys., 26, 084011, 10.1088/1674-4527/ae842f

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ae842f 2026

  26. [26]

    2026, Natl

    Cai, Y., Ren, X., Qiu, T., Li, M., & Zhang, X. 2026, Natl. Sci. Rev., 13, nwag115, 10.1093/nsr/nwag115

    doi:10.1093/nsr/nwag115 2026

  27. [27]

    Cai, Y.-F., Capozziello, S., De Laurentis, M., & Saridakis, E. N. 2016, Rept. Prog. Phys., 79, 106901, 10.1088/0034-4885/79/10/106901

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/79/10/106901 2016

  28. [28]

    2024, JCAP, 10, 048, 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/048

    Calder\'on, R., et al. 2024, JCAP, 10, 048, 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/048

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/048 2024

  29. [29]

    2011, Phys

    Capozziello, S., & De Laurentis, M. 2011, Phys. Rept., 509, 167, 10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003 2011

  30. [30]

    2022, JCAP, 09, 039, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039

    Carron, J., Mirmelstein, M., & Lewis, A. 2022, JCAP, 09, 039, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039 2022

  31. [31]

    K., Das, S., & Dutta, K

    Chakraborty, A., Chanda, P. K., Das, S., & Dutta, K. 2025, JCAP, 11, 047, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/047

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/047 2025

  32. [32]

    2026, Astrophys

    Chakraborty, A., Ray, T., Das, S., Banerjee, A., & Ganesan, V. 2026, Astrophys. J., 998, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ff8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ff8 2026

  33. [33]

    2001, Int

    Chevallier, M., & Polarski, D. 2001, Int. J. Mod. Phys., D10, 213, 10.1142/S0218271801000822

    doi:10.1142/s0218271801000822 2001

  34. [34]

    2026, Phys

    Cook, C., & Meyers, J. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 043519, 10.1103/hylg-qgmj

    work page doi:10.1103/hylg-qgmj 2026

  35. [35]

    S., & Khoury, J

    Das, S., Corasaniti, P. S., & Khoury, J. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 083509, 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.083509

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.083509 2006

  36. [36]

    2026, Phys

    de Cruz P \'e rez, J., G \'o mez-Valent, A., & Sol \`a Peracaula, J. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 083521, 10.1103/xchk-xlk1

    work page doi:10.1103/xchk-xlk1 2026

  37. [38]

    2021 b , Astropart

    ---. 2021 b , Astropart. Phys., 131, 102604, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2021.102604

    arXiv 2021

  38. [39]

    2019, 10.21105/astro.1910.00483

    Efstathiou, G., & Gratton, S. 2019, 10.21105/astro.1910.00483

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [40]

    2026, Phys

    Errahmani, A., Magrach, M., Dahmani, S., Bouali, A., & Ouali, T. 2026, Phys. Lett. B, 872, 140040, 10.1016/j.physletb.2025.140040

    arXiv 2026

  40. [41]

    2024, Phys

    Favale, A., G \'o mez-Valent, A., & Migliaccio, M. 2024, Phys. Lett. B, 858, 139027, 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139027

    arXiv 2024

  41. [42]

    2025, Phys

    Forconi, M., Favale, A., & G \'o mez-Valent, A. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 023517, 10.1103/rpf5-ldks

    doi:10.1103/rpf5-ldks 2025

  42. [43]

    Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457, 10.1214/ss/1177011136

    arXiv 1992

  43. [44]

    Goh, L. W. K., & Taylor, A. N. 2025, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 544, 3142, 10.1093/mnras/staf1927

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1927 2025

  44. [45]

    2022, Phys

    G \'o mez-Valent, A. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 063506, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.063506

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.063506 2022

  45. [46]

    G\'omez-Valent, A., Favale, A., Migliaccio, M., & Sen, A. A. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 023525, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.023525

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.023525 2024

  46. [47]

    2026, Phys

    G \'o mez-Valent, A., & Gonz \'a lez-Fuentes, A. 2026, Phys. Lett. B, 872, 140096, 10.1016/j.physletb.2025.140096

    arXiv 2026

  47. [48]

    E., & Sol\`a Peracaula, J

    G\'omez-Valent, A., Mavromatos, N. E., & Sol\`a Peracaula, J. 2023, Class. Quant. Grav., 41, 015026, 10.1088/1361-6382/ad0fb8

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad0fb8 2023

  48. [49]

    2018, Mon

    G \' o mez-Valent, A., & Sol \` a Peracaula, J. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 478, 126, 10.1093/mnras/sty1028

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1028 2018

  49. [50]

    2024, Astrophys

    G\'omez-Valent, A., & Sol \`a Peracaula, J. 2024, Astrophys. J., 975, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a62

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a62 2024

  50. [51]

    2025, Phys

    G \'o mez-Valent, A., & Sol \`a Peracaula, J. 2025, Phys. Lett. B, 864, 139391, 10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139391

    arXiv 2025

  51. [52]

    G \'o mez-Valent, A., Zheng, Z., & Amendola, L. 2026. 2604.12032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  52. [53]

    2021, Phys

    G \'o mez-Valent, A., Zheng, Z., Amendola, L., Pettorino, V., & Wetterich, C. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 083536, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.083536

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.083536 2021

  53. [54]

    2025, JCAP, 12, 049, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/12/049

    Gonz \'a lez-Fuentes, A., & G \'o mez-Valent, A. 2025, JCAP, 12, 049, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/12/049

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/12/049 2025

  54. [55]

    2026, JCAP, 07, 040, 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/07/040

    ---. 2026, JCAP, 07, 040, 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/07/040

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/07/040 2026

  55. [56]

    2009, Phys

    Grande, J., Pelinson, A., & Sol\`a, J. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 043006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.043006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.043006 2009

  56. [57]

    2006, JCAP, 08, 011, 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/08/011

    Grande, J., Sol\`a, J., & Stefancic, H. 2006, JCAP, 08, 011, 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/08/011

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/08/011 2006

  57. [58]

    2007, Phys

    ---. 2007, Phys. Lett. B, 645, 236, 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.12.040

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.12.040 2007

  58. [59]

    Harko, T., Lobo, F. S. N., Nojiri, S., & Odintsov, S. D. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 024020, 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.024020

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.84.024020 2011

  59. [60]

    1970, Biometrika, 57, 97, 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97

    Hastings, W. 1970, Biometrika, 57, 97, 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97

    doi:10.1093/biomet/57.1.97 1970

  60. [61]

    2022, Phys

    Heisenberg, L., Villarrubia-Rojo, H., & Zosso, J. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 043503, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.043503 2022

  61. [62]

    S., & Vagnozzi, S

    Jiang, J.-Q., Pedrotti, D., da Costa, S. S., & Vagnozzi, S. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 123519, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123519

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.123519 2024

  62. [63]

    E., & Shafieloo, A

    Keeley, R. E., & Shafieloo, A. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 131, 111002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.111002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.111002 2023

  63. [64]

    2025, Phys

    Khoury, J., Lin, M.-X., & Trodden, M. 2025, Phys. Rev. Lett., 135, 181001, 10.1103/w4qb-plk8

    work page doi:10.1103/w4qb-plk8 2025

  64. [65]

    2020, Phys

    Knox, L., & Millea, M. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 043533, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043533

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.043533 2020

  65. [66]

    \'O ., Sheikh-Jabbari, M

    Krishnan, C., Mohayaee, R., Colg \'a in, E. \'O ., Sheikh-Jabbari, M. M., & Yin, L. 2021, Class. Quant. Grav., 38, 184001, 10.1088/1361-6382/ac1a81

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac1a81 2021

  66. [67]

    2023, Nature, 616, 266, 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

    Labb\'e, I., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 266, 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2 2023

  67. [68]

    \'O ., Sheikh-Jabbari, M

    Lee, B.-H., Lee, W., Colg \'a in, E. \'O ., Sheikh-Jabbari, M. M., & Thakur, S. 2022, JCAP, 04, 004, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/04/004

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/04/004 2022

  68. [69]

    Lesgourgues, J. 2011. 1104.2932

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  69. [70]

    Lewis, A. 2019. 1910.13970

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  70. [71]

    2025, Eur

    Li, J.-X., & Wang, S. 2025, Eur. Phys. J. C, 85, 1308, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-15065-1

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-15065-1 2025

  71. [72]

    Li, T.-N., Giar \`e , W., Du, G.-H., et al. 2026. 2601.07361

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  72. [73]

    Linder, E. V. 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 091301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.091301 2003

  73. [74]

    2025, Phys

    Lodha, K., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083511, 10.1103/w4c6-1r5j

    doi:10.1103/w4c6-1r5j 2025

  74. [75]

    2021, Phys

    Marra, V., & Perivolaropoulos, L. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, L021303, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.L021303

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.l021303 2021

  75. [76]

    M., Croitoru, C., & Harko, T

    Matei, T. M., Croitoru, C., & Harko, T. 2026, Phys. Dark Univ., 53, 102362, 10.1016/j.dark.2026.102362

    arXiv 2026

  76. [77]

    E., & Sol\`a Peracaula, J

    Mavromatos, N. E., & Sol\`a Peracaula, J. 2021 a , Eur. Phys. J. ST, 230, 2077, 10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00197-8

    work page doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00197-8 2021

  77. [78]

    2021 b , Eur

    ---. 2021 b , Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 136, 1152, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02149-6

    work page doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02149-6 2021

  78. [79]

    A., Mukhopadhyay, U., Sen, A

    Menci, N., Adil, S. A., Mukhopadhyay, U., Sen, A. A., & Vagnozzi, S. 2024, JCAP, 07, 072, 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/072

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/072 2024

  79. [80]

    Metropolis, N., et al. 1953, J. Chem. Phys., 21, 1087, 10.1063/1.1699114

    doi:10.1063/1.1699114 1953

  80. [81]

    G., & Nagataki, S

    Montani, G., Navone, I., Dainotti, M. G., & Nagataki, S. 2026, 10.1103/xthk-9854

    work page doi:10.1103/xthk-9854 2026

Showing first 80 references.