Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 128 references

$\Lambda$XCDM: a running vacuum strategy for crossing the phantom divide

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A composite running-vacuum model with a phantom-matter cosmon naturally produces the dark-energy phantom-divide crossing that recent galaxy-survey data suggest near redshift 0.4, and it fits the data better than the standard ΛCDM and CPL pa

desk verdict Careful fit of ΛXCDM to DESI DR2, but the claimed edge over CPL and the crossing 'prediction' are softer than the abstract implies. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26050 v2 pith:JGXDU73Z submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

Joan Solà Peracaula , Adrià Gómez-Valent , Alex González-Fuentes This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph MSC 83F05 PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x98.80.Es
keywords runningvacuummodelphantomdividematterdarkenergycosmoncosmiccoincidenceproblemCPLparameterizationdynamical
topics Dark Energy
open problems 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 argues that the observed dynamical-dark-energy signal, specifically the crossing of the phantom divide (the effective equation-of-state parameter passing through w_eff = −1) at redshift z ≈ 0.4, can be produced by a physically motivated composite model rather than only by phenomenological parameterizations. The model, called ΛXCDM, couples a 'cosmon' component X—whose equation of state lies in the phantom regime (w_X < −1) but with negative energy density and positive pressure, i.e., 'phantom matter'—to a vacuum energy that runs slowly with the Hubble rate. This combination yields an effective dark-energy equation of state that evolves from phantom-like in the past to quintessence-like today, crossing the divide in the redshift range inferred from data. Fits to CMB, BAO, and supernova data give a better fit than ΛCDM and than the w0waCDM (CPL) parameterization, with information-criterion evidence strong enough to compensate for the extra parameters, and the same parameter region keeps the dark-energy-to-matter coincidence ratio bounded at order one, alleviating the cosmic-coincidence problem. The paper's key claim is qualitative as much as statistical: the crossing is generic over a wide range of cosmon equations of state, so no fine-tuning of the cosmon's microphysics is needed.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective equation-of-state parameter of the composite dark-energy fluid, w_eff(z) = −1 + (1+w_X) Ω_X(z)/Ω_D(z), where Ω_X is the cosmon energy density and Ω_D the total dark-energy density; the phantom-divide crossing occurs exactly when Ω_X(z*) = 0. The two load-bearing pieces are the running vacuum law ρ_vac(H) = ρ_vac^0 + (3ν/8π)(H² − H₀²)m_Pl², whose negative ν makes the vacuum grow by absorbing energy from the cosmon, and the assumption that the cosmon has constant w_X < −1 but negative energy density and positive pressure. The model is reparameterized in terms of (ϵ, w_X, δ) with ϵ = ν(1+w_X) and δ = Ω_X^0(1+w_X), which removes degeneracies with the ΛCDM limi

What would settle it

Use future galaxy-survey and CMB-lensing data to reconstruct the effective dark-energy equation of state w_eff(z) at multiple redshifts; if the reconstruction shows no crossing below z ≈ 1 or a crossing in the opposite direction (quintessence-to-phantom toward the present), the ΛXCDM parameter region preferred here would be excluded. On the model side, a detection that the cosmon's energy density is positive today (ρ_X > 0) would contradict the phantom-matter assumption directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the ΛXCDM model the effective equation of state of the composite dark-energy fluid, w_eff = −1 + (1+w_X) Ω_X/Ω_D, necessarily crosses the phantom divide from phantom-like to quintessence-like behavior as Ω_X changes sign, provided the cosmon X behaves as phantom matter (w_X < −1, Ω_X < 0 today) and the vacuum runs with coefficient ν < 0 (equivalently ϵ = ν(1+w_X) > 0). The crossing redshift is given by an explicit formula, and when the model is fitted to Planck PR4 CMB data, DESI DR2 BAO data, and either Pantheon+ or DES-Dovekie supernovae, it yields z* ≈ 0.2–0.9 at 95% CL, consistent with the crossing inferred from model-agnostic analyses of the same data. In th

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the existence of a 'cosmon' fluid with w_X < −1 and negative energy density today that feeds energy into a running vacuum; the data cannot determine w_X below about −2, so the reported bounds come from the prior −4 ≤ w_X ≤ −1 rather than from the likelihood, and the crossing redshift is a fitted consequence rather than an independent prediction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the DESI dynamical-dark-energy signal can be realized by a composite running-vacuum model rather than a free parameterization, and the crossing redshift naturally lands in the observed range z ≈ 0.4–0.8 for the preferred parameter region.
  • The model provides a better fit to CMB + BAO + supernova data than both ΛCDM and the CPL parameterization, with ΔAIC ≈ 6–8 over ΛCDM, so the extra parameters are statistically compensated.
  • In the same parameter region, the coincidence ratio remains bounded with a future maximum of order one, offering an alleviation of the cosmic-coincidence problem without additional priors.
  • A wide family of cosmon realizations (any w_X ≲ −1.5) all produce the crossing, making the prediction robust to the microphysical nature of X; the profile likelihood is flat for w_X < −2.
  • With the datasets used, the model does not cure the Hubble tension (H0 ≈ 66.7–67.1 km/s/Mpc), and it slightly increases σ12 and S8 compared to ΛCDM, so its success is specific to the phantom-divide crossing and coincidence problem rather than to all cosmological tensions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the plateau in the profile likelihood for w_X persists with future data, the cosmon's equation of state may remain permanently underdetermined by distance and CMB data alone, pointing to a need for probes sensitive to negative-energy-density fluids, such as growth or lensing anomalies.
  • The paper's string-theory motivation suggests a testable cross-check: if phantom-matter 'bubbles' exist, they could produce anomalous structure formation at z ≈ 5–10, a signature that upcoming high-redshift surveys could confirm or exclude.
  • A natural extension, which the authors note, is to let w_X vary with redshift; such a generalization could alter the predicted H0 and might reconcile the model with local distance-ladder measurements.
  • Because the model predicts one-way crossings only (phantom-to-quintessence toward the present), a future reconstruction showing the opposite direction—or no crossing below z ≈ 1—would directly falsify this mechanism within the preferred parameter region.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the ΛXCDM composite dark-energy model, in which a running vacuum density exchanges energy with a generic component X ('cosmon'). The authors derive analytic expressions for the effective equation of state, the energy densities, the coincidence ratio, and the phantom-crossing redshift z*, and then fit the model with three additional parameters (ϵ, w_X, δ) to Planck PR4 CMB, DESI DR2 BAO, and either Pantheon+ or DES-Dovekie SNIa data using CLASS/Cobaya/GetDist. They report that ΛXCDM improves the fit over ΛCDM by Δχ²≈12–14 and over CPL by Δχ²≈2.9–3.8, gives ΛCDM exclusion significances of 2.68σ/2.97σ, produces a phantom-divide crossing at z*≈0.4–0.8, and alleviates the cosmic coincidence problem. The paper explicitly acknowledges non-Gaussian posteriors, a relaxed convergence criterion, and a flat profile likelihood for w_X.

Significance. If the central claim were fully established, the paper would be significant: it would offer a theoretically motivated composite DE model, with analytic control, that reproduces the DESI crossing and simultaneously addresses cosmic coincidence, going beyond the phenomenological CPL parametrization. The use of public likelihoods and standard MCMC tools, together with analytic background expressions and a transparent profile-likelihood analysis, are strengths. However, the statistical evidence for the advertised claims is weaker than the abstract suggests: the improvement over CPL is marginal after parameter counting, the ΛCDM exclusion is computed in a regime where Wilks' theorem is questionable, the key parameter w_X is prior-dominated, and the claimed crossing redshift is an output of the fit to the same data from which the crossing is inferred. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusions, but they are correctable by reframing the claims and adding calibrated model-comparison statistics.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Table 1] The abstract and §4 state that ΛXCDM 'provides a better fit than w0waCDM'. This is not supported after penalizing the extra parameter. From Table 1, Δχ²(ΛXCDM−CPL) = 12381.87−12385.64 = −3.77 for Pantheon+ and 12608.36−12611.22 = −2.86 for DES-Dovekie, but ΛXCDM has one more parameter than CPL. The corresponding ΔAIC values in favor of ΛXCDM are only 1.77 and 0.86, well below the Jeffreys' 'positive evidence' threshold that the paper itself adopts. The 'strong evidence' ΔAIC≈6–8 quoted in §4 is relative to ΛCDM, not to CPL. The claim of outperforming CPL should be softened or supported by a calibrated model-comparison statistic.
  2. [§3, Table 1, §4] The reported exclusion significances for ΛCDM (EΛCDM=2.68σ/2.97σ) are computed via the likelihood-ratio test with Wilks' theorem, but the assumptions are violated. The ΛCDM limit corresponds to w_X=−1, which is the boundary of the prior −4≤w_X≤−1, and the parameter ϵ=ν(1+w_X) is also degenerate along that line. The authors themselves note the 'non-Gaussian features' and relax the convergence criterion for the chains, and the profile likelihood in Fig. 1 is flat for w_X<−2. In such settings Wilks' theorem is not valid, so the quoted p-values and equivalent Gaussian significances are overconfident. I would ask for a simulation-based calibration of the likelihood-ratio statistic, or at least a clear caveat that the 2.68σ/2.97σ numbers are not reliable as evidence against ΛCDM.
  3. [§2, Eq. (25); §4, Fig. 1] The phantom-divide crossing redshift z* is presented as a key success ('naturally performs the crossing... as observed by DESI'), but it is not an independent prediction. Equation (25) expresses z* directly in terms of the fitted parameters (ν, w_X, Ω_X^0), and the lower panel of Fig. 1 plots z* as a function of the profiled w_X. Since the same CMB+BAO+SNIa data are used both to fit the model and to infer the 'observed' crossing from CPL and model-agnostic reconstructions, the agreement is a consistency check rather than a prediction. The manuscript should explicitly label z* as a derived postdiction and, if predictive power is claimed, provide an out-of-sample test or use a dataset split.
  4. [§3, Fig. 1; §4; Conclusions] The central physical ingredient, phantom matter with w_X<−1 and ρ_X<0, is not constrained by the data. The profile likelihood for w_X is flat in the entire range w_X<−2, and the 95% upper limits w_X<−1.66/−1.96 are set by the arbitrary prior boundary at w_X=−4, as the authors acknowledge. The statement in the Conclusions that the fit picks out 'w_X<−1.5' is therefore a prior/methodology effect, not a data-driven result. Relatedly, the abstract's 'from first principles' wording overstates the status of the model: the cosmon is left completely unspecified, and ν and w_X are free parameters. I recommend rewriting the abstract and conclusions to distinguish the model's theoretical motivation from what the data actually establish.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] For the Pantheon+ ΛXCDM column, the δ parameter is printed as '−0.107 +0.047 −0.063' (or similar), which conflicts with the text's claim that δ is positive and quintessence-like at present. Check the sign/formatting of this entry; the Dovekie value appears positive.
  2. [Fig. 1] The upper panel labels 'Δχ²=1 Dov' and 'Δχ²=4 Dov' are useful, but the corresponding horizontal lines are not described in the caption. State explicitly what these thresholds represent (e.g., 1σ and 2σ for one degree of freedom).
  3. [§3] The convergence criterion is relaxed from R−1=0.02 for ΛCDM/CPL to R−1=0.03 for ΛXCDM. This is disclosed, but it would be helpful to report the final R−1 values and chain lengths in the appendix so the reader can judge whether the relaxed criterion is sufficient.
  4. [Eq. (25)] The expression for z* would benefit from a short derivation or cross-reference to the definition of ϵ and δ in terms of the original parameters (ν, w_X, Ω_X^0), because the text jumps from Eq. (22) to the compact formula. This is a clarity issue, not a technical error.
  5. [Abstract and §5] The phrase 'from first principles' appears twice in the abstract and is repeated in the Conclusions. Given the unspecified nature of X and the phenomenological parametrization of the running vacuum, a more cautious phrase such as 'theoretically motivated' would be more accurate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The empirical fit is self-contained, but the advertised 'first-principles' status of ΛXCDM rests on a load-bearing self-citation chain; the crossing redshift is a postdiction, not an independent prediction.

  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract; Sec. 5 (Conclusions)]
    "Given that PM appears in stringy versions of the RVM (Mavromatos & Solà Peracaula 2021a,b), the ΛXCDM appears to be a composite DDE model with a good chance of explaining the crossing of the phantom divide from first principles"

    The 'from first principles' claim is not derived in this paper; it is imported from prior works by the same authors (Mavromatos & Solà Peracaula 2021a,b; Solà Peracaula 2022, 2026; Moreno-Pulido & Solà Peracaula 2020, 2022). The model's distinctive ingredient, the cosmon with w_X<-1 and negative energy density, is an assumed input (the paper states 'we have just assumed that its EoS is constant and lies somewhere in the deep PM domain'). Thus the advertised fundamentality reduces to a self-citation chain rather than an independent derivation. The numerical fit to DESI/CMB/SN data is, however, independently computed and does not reduce to these citations.

full rationale

No construction-level circularity is present in the main derivation. Equations (1)-(11) define the ΛXCDM model; weff (Eq. 2) and z* (Eq. 25) are mathematical consequences of those definitions and of the parameter signs returned by the fit. The likelihood is not defined in terms of z*, and the model could in principle return no crossing, so the crossing redshift is a postdiction rather than a fitted input. Calling it a 'prediction' would overstate the case, but that is a framing issue, not a definitional equivalence. The claim that ΛXCDM fits the data better than CPL is assessed through Δχ² and ΔAIC against external DESI DR2, Planck PR4 and SNIa data, independent of self-citations. The flat profile in w_X and the prior-dominated 95% bounds are statistical validity concerns, not circularity. The only circularity-adjacent element is the 'from first principles' conclusion, which leans on self-cited prior RVM/stringy-RVM work rather than on a derivation contained in this paper; hence score 4 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model adds three fitted parameters (ϵ, w_X, δ) and relies on several assumptions (running-vacuum form, canonical vacuum EoS, matter conservation, constant w_X, non-clustering DE). The only invented entity is the cosmon X, which carries negative energy density (phantom matter) and is not independently evidenced. The 'first principles' character of the model is limited because these ingredients are inputs, not outputs.

free parameters (3)
  • ϵ ≡ ν(1 + w_X) = ~0.024-0.026 (best fit, positive)
    Controls the running-vacuum/cosmon interaction; fitted to the data (Table 1). Its positivity and the sign of ν are derived from the fit, not predicted.
  • w_X (cosmon EoS) = only upper bound: < -1.66 (Pan) / < -1.96 (Dov) at 95% CL; profile flat for w_X < -2
    The cosmon equation of state is a free parameter with a broad prior; the data cannot constrain it tightly. The reported bound is prior-dependent.
  • δ ≡ Ω_X^0 (1 + w_X) = ~0.11-0.15 (best fit, positive)
    Sets the current phantom-matter abundance; fitted to the data. Its positivity selects quintessence-like effective behavior at present.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Running vacuum form ρ_vac(H) = ρ0_vac + (3ν/8π)(H² - H0²)m_Pl² (Eq. 1)
    The functional dependence of vacuum energy on H is taken from the authors' previous QFT renormalization work; it is an input, not derived in this paper, and is central to the model.
  • domain assumption Vacuum equation of state is canonical, P_vac = -ρ_vac
    Stated in Sec. 2 as an assumption to keep the solution analytic; quantum corrections to the vacuum EoS are ignored.
  • domain assumption Only vacuum and cosmon exchange energy; matter (dust and radiation) is self-conserved
    This interaction structure is fixed by hand in the model setup (Sec. 2) and determines the analytic solutions.
  • domain assumption Cosmon X has a constant barotropic EoS w_X
    Assumed in Sec. 2 to make the model analytically solvable; extensions with w_X(z) are left for future work.
  • domain assumption Dark energy does not cluster (sound speed c_s = 1)
    Assumed in Sec. 3 following standard practice for DE perturbations; alternative schemes from Grande et al. 2009 are not used.
  • domain assumption Spatially flat ΛCDM background with standard neutrino hierarchy (one massive neutrino, 0.06 eV)
    Standard background assumptions used in the CLASS implementation (Sec. 3).
invented entities (1)
  • Cosmon X (phantom matter)
    purpose: Exchanges energy with the running vacuum, providing the effective crossing of the phantom divide and alleviating the cosmic coincidence problem.
    X is a generic, unspecified component with negative energy density and positive pressure. No direct detection or independent falsifiable prediction is given; its existence is inferred only from the global fit to cosmological data. The 'stringy PM bubbles' mentioned in the Conclusions are speculative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\Lambda$XCDM: a running vacuum strategy for crossing the phantom divide." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JGXDU73Z

@misc{pith2026260726050,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\Lambda$XCDM: a running vacuum strategy for crossing the phantom divide},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JGXDU73Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26050}
}
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 & Sol\`a Peracaula 2024; 2025), a toy-model version of the $\Lambda$XCDM model (Grande et al., 2006). 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 (Gonz\'alez-Fuentes & G\'omez-Valent:2025; 2026). 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 (Mavromatos & Sol\`a Peracaula 2021 a,b) , 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 the authors.

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 a wide ra… view at source ↗
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. 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 ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
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 si…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith

  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

Show all 128 references
  1. [9]

    1974, IEEE Trans

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

    1974

  2. [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

    2020 doi

  3. [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

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    O ., Perivolaropoulos, L., Y \

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

    2026 arXiv

  5. [13]

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

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    2021, Phys

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

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, Phys

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

    2022 doi

  8. [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

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    2026, Phys

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

    2026 doi

  10. [18]

    2014, Mon

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

    2014 doi

  11. [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

    2010 doi

  12. [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

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    2025, Phys

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

    2025 doi

  14. [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

    2011 doi

  15. [23]

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

    2026 arXiv

  16. [24]

    2022, Astrophys

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

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2026, Res

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

    2026 doi

  18. [26]

    2026, Natl

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

    2026 doi

  19. [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

    2016 doi

  20. [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

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    2011, Phys

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

    2011 doi

  22. [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

    2022 doi

  23. [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

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    2026, Astrophys

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

    2026 doi

  25. [33]

    2001, Int

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

    2001 doi

  26. [34]

    2026, Phys

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

    2026 doi

  27. [35]

    S., & Khoury, J

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

    2006 doi

  28. [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

    2026 doi

  29. [38]

    2021 b , Astropart

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

    2021

  30. [39]

    2019, 10.21105/astro.1910.00483

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

    2019 arXiv

  31. [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

    2026

  32. [41]

    2024, Phys

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

    2024

  33. [42]

    2025, Phys

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

    2025 doi

  34. [43]

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

    1992

  35. [44]

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

    2025 doi

  36. [45]

    2022, Phys

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

    2022 doi

  37. [46]

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

    2024 doi

  38. [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

    2026

  39. [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

    2023 doi

  40. [49]

    2018, Mon

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

    2018 doi

  41. [50]

    2024, Astrophys

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

    2024 doi

  42. [51]

    2025, Phys

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

    2025

  43. [52]

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

    2026 arXiv

  44. [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

    2021 doi

  45. [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

    2025 doi

  46. [55]

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

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

    2026 doi

  47. [56]

    2009, Phys

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

    2009 doi

  48. [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

    2006 doi

  49. [58]

    2007, Phys

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

    2007 doi

  50. [59]

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

    2011 doi

  51. [60]

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

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

    1970 doi

  52. [61]

    2022, Phys

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

    2022 doi

  53. [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

    2024 doi

  54. [63]

    E., & Shafieloo, A

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

    2023 doi

  55. [64]

    2025, Phys

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

    2025 doi

  56. [65]

    2020, Phys

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

    2020 doi

  57. [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

    2021 doi

  58. [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

    2023 doi

  59. [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

    2022 doi

  60. [69]

    Lesgourgues, J. 2011. 1104.2932

    2011 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Lewis, A. 2019. 1910.13970

    2019 arXiv

  62. [71]

    2025, Eur

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

    2025 doi

  63. [72]

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

    2026 arXiv

  64. [73]

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

    2003 doi

  65. [74]

    2025, Phys

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

    2025 doi

  66. [75]

    2021, Phys

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

    2021 doi

  67. [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

    2026

  68. [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

    2021 doi

  69. [78]

    2021 b , Eur

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

    2021 doi

  70. [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

    2024 doi

  71. [80]

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

    1953 doi

  72. [81]

    G., & Nagataki, S

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

    2026 doi

  73. [82]

    2020, Eur

    Moreno-Pulido, C., & Sol\`a Peracaula, J. 2020, Eur. Phys. J. C, 80, 692, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8238-6

    2020 doi

  74. [83]

    2022, Eur

    ---. 2022, Eur. Phys. J. C, 82, 551, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10484-w

    2022 doi

  75. [84]

    2022, Eur

    Moreno-Pulido, C., & Sol \` a Peracaula, J. 2022, Eur. Phys. J. C, 82, 1137, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-11117-y

    2022 doi

  76. [85]

    2023, Eur

    Moreno-Pulido, C., Sol\`a Peracaula, J., & Cheraghchi, S. 2023, Eur. Phys. J. C, 83, 637, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11772-9

    2023 doi

  77. [86]

    Neyman, J., & Pearson, E. S. 1933, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 231, 289, 10.1098/rsta.1933.0009

    1933

  78. [87]

    2003, Phys

    Padmanabhan, T. 2003, Phys. Rept., 380, 235, 10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00120-0

    2003 doi

  79. [88]

    D., Sol \` a , J., & Wetterich, C

    Peccei, R. D., Sol \` a , J., & Wetterich, C. 1987, Phys. Lett., B195, 183, 10.1016/0370-2693(87)91191-9

    1987 doi

  80. [89]

    A., Marra, V., Perivolaropoulos, L., & Vagnozzi, S

    Pedrotti, D., Escamilla, L. A., Marra, V., Perivolaropoulos, L., & Vagnozzi, S. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 043507, 10.1103/pn9j-8whx

    2026 doi

  81. [90]

    Peebles, P. J. E., & Ratra, B. 2003, Rev. Mod. Phys., 75, 559, 10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559

    2003 doi

  82. [91]

    2021, Phys

    Perivolaropoulos, L., & Skara, F. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 123511, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.123511

    2021 doi

  83. [92]

    2022 a , Universe, 8, 502, 10.3390/universe8100502

    ---. 2022 a , Universe, 8, 502, 10.3390/universe8100502

    2022 doi

  84. [93]

    2022 b , New Astron

    ---. 2022 b , New Astron. Rev., 95, 101659, 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659

    2022

  85. [94]

    2026, Mon

    Popovic, B., et al. 2026, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 548, stag632, 10.1093/mnras/stag632

    2026 doi

  86. [95]

    G., et al

    Riess, A. G., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 934, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b

    2022 doi

  87. [96]

    2022, Mon

    Rosenberg, E., Gratton, S., & Efstathiou, G. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 517, 4620, 10.1093/mnras/stac2744

    2022 doi

  88. [97]

    A., Escamilla, L

    Sabogal, M. A., Escamilla, L. A., Pedrotti, D., Selimaj, E., & Vagnozzi, S. 2026. 2607.21244

    2026 arXiv

  89. [98]

    S\'anchez, A. G. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 123511, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123511

    2020 doi

  90. [99]

    2022, Mon

    Semenaite, A., et al. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 512, 5657, 10.1093/mnras/stac829

    2022 doi

  91. [100]

    2023, Mon

    ---. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 521, 5013, 10.1093/mnras/stad849

    2023 doi

  92. [101]

    Sol\`a, J. 2011, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 283, 012033, 10.1088/1742-6596/283/1/012033

    2011 doi

  93. [102]

    Sol \` a , J. 2013, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 453, 012015, 10.1088/1742-6596/453/1/012015

    2013 doi

  94. [103]

    2017, Astrophys

    Sol\`a, J., Gómez-Valent, A., & de Cruz Pérez, J. 2017, Astrophys. J., 836, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/43

    2017 doi

  95. [104]

    2015, Astrophys.J.Lett., 811, L14, 10.1088/2041-8205/811/1/L14

    Sol\`a, J., G\'omez-Valent, A., & de Cruz P\'erez, J. 2015, Astrophys.J.Lett., 811, L14, 10.1088/2041-8205/811/1/L14

    2015 doi

  96. [105]

    2005, Phys

    Sol\`a, J., & Stefancic, H. 2005, Phys. Lett. B, 624, 147, 10.1016/j.physletb.2005.08.051

    2005 doi

  97. [106]

    2006, Mod

    ---. 2006, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 21, 479, 10.1142/S0217732306019554

    2006 doi

  98. [107]

    2022, Phil

    Sol\`a Peracaula, J. 2022, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 380, 20210182, 10.1098/rsta.2021.0182

    2022

  99. [108]

    2026, Int

    ---. 2026, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 41, 2630009, 10.1142/s0217751x26300097

    2026 doi

  100. [109]

    2018 a , EPL, 121, 39001, 10.1209/0295-5075/121/39001

    Sol\`a Peracaula, J., de Cruz P\'erez, J., & G\'omez-Valent, A. 2018 a , EPL, 121, 39001, 10.1209/0295-5075/121/39001

    2018 doi

  101. [110]

    2018 b , Mon

    ---. 2018 b , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 478, 4357, 10.1093/mnras/sty1253

    2018 doi

  102. [111]

    2017, Phys

    Sol \` a Peracaula, J., G \' o mez-Valent, A., & de Cruz P \' e rez, J. 2017, Phys. Lett., B774, 317, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.073

    2017 doi

  103. [112]

    2019, Phys

    ---. 2019, Phys. Dark Univ., 25, 100311, 10.1016/j.dark.2019.100311

    2019

  104. [113]

    2021, EPL, 134, 19001, 10.1209/0295-5075/134/19001

    Sol\`a Peracaula, J., G\'omez-Valent, A., de Cruz P\'erez, J., & Moreno-Pulido, C. 2021, EPL, 134, 19001, 10.1209/0295-5075/134/19001

    2021 doi

  105. [114]

    2023, Universe, 9, 262, 10.3390/universe9060262

    ---. 2023, Universe, 9, 262, 10.3390/universe9060262

    2023 doi

  106. [115]

    2026, Class

    Sol \`a Peracaula, J., Gonz \'a lez-Fuentes, A., & Moreno-Pulido, C. 2026, Class. Quant. Grav., 10.1088/1361-6382/ae7ba8

    2026 doi

  107. [116]

    2025, Universe, 11, 118, 10.3390/universe11040118

    Sol \`a Peracaula, J., Moreno-Pulido, C., & Gonz \'a lez-Fuentes, A. 2025, Universe, 11, 118, 10.3390/universe11040118

    2025 doi

  108. [117]

    P., & Faraoni, V

    Sotiriou, T. P., & Faraoni, V. 2010, Rev. Mod. Phys., 82, 451, 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.451

    2010 doi

  109. [118]

    2021, JCAP, 05, 057, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057

    Torrado, J., & Lewis, A. 2021, JCAP, 05, 057, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057

    2021 doi

  110. [119]

    S., & White, M

    Turner, M. S., & White, M. J. 1997, Phys. Rev. D, 56, R4439, 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.R4439

    1997 doi

  111. [120]

    2020, Phys

    Vagnozzi, S. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 023518, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023518

    2020 doi

  112. [121]

    2023, Universe, 9, 393, 10.3390/universe9090393

    ---. 2023, Universe, 9, 393, 10.3390/universe9090393

    2023 doi

  113. [122]

    2024, Astrophys

    Vincenzi, M., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 975, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e6c

    2024 doi

  114. [123]

    2026, Phys

    Wang, J.-Q., Cai, R.-G., Guo, Z.-K., & Wang, S.-J. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 083534, 10.1103/r6cx-8ghz

    2026 doi

  115. [124]

    1989, Rev

    Weinberg, S. 1989, Rev. Mod. Phys., 61, 1, 10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

    1989 doi

  116. [125]

    Wilks, S. S. 1938, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 9, 60, 10.1214/aoms/1177732360

    1938

  117. [126]

    J., & Ferreira, P

    Wolf, W. J., & Ferreira, P. G. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 103519, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103519

    2023 doi

  118. [127]

    H., et al

    Wright, A. H., et al. 2025, Astron. Astrophys., 703, A158, 10.1051/0004-6361/202554908

    2025 doi

  119. [128]

    P., Gao, H., Luo, X., & Li, M

    Xu, K., Jing, Y. P., Gao, H., Luo, X., & Li, M. 2024, Astrophys. J., 973, 102, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6156

    2024 doi

  120. [129]

    2017, Nat

    Zhao, G.-B., et al. 2017, Nat. Astron., 1, 627, 10.1038/s41550-017-0216-z

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.